Abrams Gives Manchin’s Voting Proposals A Thumbs Up: ‘Absolutely’ Supports Compromise

[emiliano4]

On cue, Moscow McConnell plays his Part in this Play.

[bdtex]

Quick response from The Turtle. All Repubs oppose Manchin’s compromise offer.

McConnell shoots down Manchin's voting compromise

[tena]

@pluckyinky

I was struck by just how reasonable his requests were. Some of them are actually pretty smart politically.

Agreed. I was very pleasantly surprised to say the least.

[tena]

@LeeHarveyGriswold

I’m just tired of every attempt to remove partisanship ending up gamed by one party or another.

That to me would appear to be a party’s function - to be partisan. However, banning partisan map drawing addresses that problem.

[emiliano4]

If Joe had asked any of us for McConnell’s response, we would have told him.

[tena]

It’s as if Mitch really really wants us to get rid of the filibuster.

[thunderclapnewman]

Mitch is certainly making it harder for Manchin and Sinema et al to continue to support the filibuster.

[stellermeller]

@emiliano4

But That is what the GOP has descended to.

Because, if Voting Rights were a norm supported by all Americans, we would be having a vigorous debate on very needed Infrastructure, right now.

And that is what the GOP has, itself, lowered the entire country to .

Agree heartily. Explaining what IS can cut out all the lying, but only if the point is made clear to even the most brainwashed. That mega mountain is always used by human politics to enrich and empower the wealthy and keep the peons slaving away against their own best interests. As you have often said, framing is critical to overcome the inherent us-against-them tribalism.

In this most critical case of the human overpopulation and resource devouring in a limited ecosystem, there is no Planet B as some wise word crafter noticed awhile ago.

[thunderclapnewman]

Opinion | Maybe Joe Manchin Knows Exactly What He’s Doing

[darcy]

Thanks for that. Mitch is not equivocating! No “maybe’s”, no “we’ll see”, no “possibly”, no nothing.

Passing any legislation offered by Democrats in dealing with voting rights is in NO WAY a benefit to the Republican Party. Someone will have to tell me why it is in their interest to deal with Democrats.
They don’t give a shit about image and know the only way to regain power will be in stealing votes, overturning state elections - even after the outcomes - if they can.

Sure, they’re nuts, but they have openly stated their plans. Stacey Abrams is indeed a miracle worker, but even after taking all the emotion and frustration out of this potential for ‘negotiation’, there’s nothing to be gained for Republicans.

ETA: What am I missing?

[noonm]

@mickeyg

I’m so old I remember when National Voter ID cards were as toxic to the MAGAts of the day as vaccines are to today’s MAGAt.

I always thought this was a good way to show the GOP bad faith on the voter ID issue. Democrats propose a law that creates these National Voter ID cards, issued for free to any American upon requests and requires States to accept them for voter ID purposes.

We would get to see Republicans twist themselves in knots arguing against these Voter ID cards.

[jackofalltirades]

I have a feeling McConnell always ended up as Judas in the school Easter play…

[john_adams]

Except Moscow Mitch just made it clear the Reich has no interest in reigning in fascist voter suppression laws. Ball’s back in Manchin’s court…

[trnc]

@tena

It’s as if Mitch really really wants us to get rid of the filibuster.

Or knows that it won’t happen. I hope you’re right.

[playitagainrowlf]

@tena

Non partisan gerrymandering means that the maps that do change with population changes are drawn by objective committees, not the parties.

Wouldn’t that be just “redistricting”?

[godwit]

@LeeHarveyGriswold

What is non -partisan gerrymandering? I thought the whole point was to bias for one party.

I believe racial gerrymandering was outlawed under the voting rights act. The new wrinkle is states saying “we’re not racist, we just hate democrats” and the SCOTUS did a pirouette and decided that since democrats are not a protected class under the civil rights act partisan gerrymandering is totally cool.

SB1 closes that loophole

and since part of the logic Roberts used to refuse to outlaw partisan gerrymandering was to declare it “non-justiciable” he doesn’t have much room to turn around and declare it constitutionally protected

[topchap]

Plus, it will ultimately and inevitably lead to federal standards for what kind of ID is necessary and/or sufficient. Buh-bye to Mr. Crow and other effectively-poll-tax discriminatory state laws.

[scottnatlanta]

That was a big thing not allowing University IDs while saying other less secure IDs were ok, and it had an obvious target. I don’t think many people mind showing ID to vote if they allow all picture IDs and make getting one if you don’t have it free.

[theod]

I like the Noisy Caucus… it’s the label of Left Wing or Far Left or Socialist or Commie I don’t like.
Even so, they sometimes do stupid things, such as endorsing the self-defeating term Defund wrt the police, when Reform is such a better word.

[JR_in_Mass]

He needs to tread carefully. As we know, polling support for various public policy positions does not necessarily translate into support on election day.