>

If only voters elected more democrats and allowed the Dems to not have to be in this situation in the first place :(
The Democrats, who have caved on so many things, MUST NOT cave on this matter, not even a little. They must not negotiate, they must not accept anything less than a clean raising of the debt ceiling, just as they did during the Trump administration. >

The GQP has tried this a couple of times and the Dems have never caved.
Even McConnell knows this is a losing strategy. >

Someone explain all of this to Joe Manchin

“We have to work together. It has to be bipartisan and it has always been bipartisan as far as the debt ceiling,” Manchin said. “I think what we have to do is realize we have a problem, we have a debt problem.” >

Good god, if only we had gotten one more senator... >

GG sucks, but I can understand that it wasn't as obvious back then as it is now.
Democrats aren't a monolith. Pretending the absurd "rotating villain" idea holds water, rather than that Democrats are individuals who have different perspectives and different constituencies, only serves to demoralize Democratic voters, which, in turn, only serves to help elect Republicans. Which is GG's general objective these days.
The theory is simply false. Senate Democrats are more liberal than they were in 2010. They wouldn't have gotten 48 votes to abolish the legislative filibuster back then, like they did a year ago. Hell, Tester wouldn't have voted for it 12 years ago, either.
When they passed the ACA, the Senate had:
1. Max Baucus (D-MT)
2. Evan Bayh (D-IN)
3. Robert Byrd (D-WV)
4. Kent Conrad (D-ND)
5. Byron Dorgan (D-ND)
6. Kay Hagan (D-NC)
7. Tim Johnson (D-SD)
8. Mary Landrieu (D-LA)
9. Joe Lieberman (D-CT)
10. Blanche Lincoln (D-AR)
11. Claire McCaskill (D-MO)
12. Ben Nelson (D-NE)
13. Mark Pryor (D-AR)
14. John Rockefeller (D-WV)
15. Jon Tester (D-MT)
16. Jim Webb (D-WV)
For practical purposes, that's 16 Joe Manchins. We're now down to two (Manchin, and Sinema). Of those listed, only Tester is still in office (and he's willing to vote for things now he wouldn't have voted for then), and only two other seats are still held by Democrats (Byrd's & Lieberman's). The remaining 13 seats have all flipped to Republicans. Arkansas, Indiana, Louisiana, Missouri, North Carolina, North Dakota, and South Dakota all have two Republican Senators now.
The truth of the matter is, we just need more Democrats in office. Not that they're all equally good or bad, but even a bad Democrat is better than the best Republican. Manchin and Sinema have both voted for bills and nominees that every, or nearly every, Republican has voted against. Each additional seat means additional paths to passage. It's just math. Assuming partisan votes, with 50 Senators, there's only one way to get to 50 votes. But with 51 Senators, there are now 51 ways to get to 50 votes. With 52, there are 1,326(!) ways to get 50 votes. At 53, it's 23,426, and so forth. >

You say that the Rotating Villain scenario is bullshit while mentioning Manchin. 
What's the party's plan to vet candidates to keep more Sinemas from lying their way in? 
Lmao. >

Elsewhere on this very thread, you're complaining that the democrats pick their candidates by fiat. In your own words, "We learned in 2016 that the party claims the legal right to overturn the will of voters and choose nominees in smoke filled back rooms". And now you're here claiming that the party has no plan to vet candidates and keeping more sinemas from weaseling in. Do you really not see how those are contradictory ideas? 
The party don't vet their candidates because their candidates are picked by the voters in a primary. To claim otherwise is as naive and stupid as the rotating villain bull shit. They're both just conspiracies for people who don't understand how politics work. >

How about a 1-part plan, do not negotiate with terrorists. >

Yup. The second part is just a bonus.  What the gop screw itself over and write campaign ads for them >

Maybe just point out that its them who are demanding something in return for not wrecking the global economy?
I may as well ask my employer "what will you give me for not selling customer's social security numbers?" >

If their constituents weren't morons and actually understood the debt ceiling issue then that would work. But these jackasses keep doing this, and their moron constituents keep voting them into office. >

You miss the point - to win the Dems have to do nothing and say nothing until the Reps have forwarded a plan. It’s the cuts they must propose to meet their goal, not an understanding of debt that will make the day. Now, let’s see if they can keep their egotistical mouths shut and win for a change. >

That's the gist of the article, yes. And I agree it's a good approach. 
I was actually more just venting about the fact we're in the situation in the first place. Playing politics with the debt ceiling is just utter weapons grade stupidity, and a better educated electorate would punish politicians who did it by never voting for them. But here we are, like 10 to 15 years after Republicans started playing these games and they haven't learned the lesson, because many voters don't understand.
I like your analogy about negotiating and not selling social security information. But I think a better one would be a person with a hand grenade threatening to pull the pin an blow everyone in the room up, including himself,  if they didn't give the jackass what he wanted. 
Pretty sure we're in agreement here, I just don't hold my frustration well. :-) >

Rewatch Clevon Little in "Blazing Saddles" to vent.  It will help. >

The hilarity of of Republican wringing their hands over debt after what Trump added to the national debt is astounding. >

It's not funny. It's calculated. One set of rules for Democrats. A completely different set of rules for Republicans who'll weaponize their advantage. >

It is an interesting question. Would you endure a worldwide recession/depression in order to end the Republican Party forever? >

That's a hell of a question >

Seriously. Tough choice. >

For those of us without a sub... what're the 2 parts? >


Part 1: Lay out the simple argument that Republicans are recklessly inviting an economic meltdown even by talking about a possible default.
Part 2: Force House Republicans to put forward a plan on the table and watch as they struggle with the fallout. >

Sounds benign compared to what's at stake. How about someone in the House file a bill for a clean increase, wait legislative 30 days, get all the Dems and 5-6 Republicans on board, and force the bill through the House before the June deadline? >

McCarthy won’t want to do that bc he allowed the nuts to be able to revoke his speakership easily. Doing anything that all the dems and only a few republicans get behind would be the last leadership decision he ever makes. >

I'm just describing a Discharge Petition, which was left intact in the House Rules. And if Dems play their cards right (which they probably won't - prove me wrong), there's nothing McCarthy could do to stop it. >

Thank you. >

You’re welcome >

I'll just say if you think McCarthy and the Freedom Caucus have some brilliant game plan then you might be worrying too much. It's empty threats and nothing more. They will cave just before everything goes to shit. >


Democrats have a two-part plan to use the debt ceiling against Republicans

It should be one part: just say no to republicans. >

It is actually two: lay out the consequences of inaction, and then force republicans to go through with a clean bill. Technically there’s actually three parts, with preparation of popcorn being the third part, here. >

I would believe that Democrats aren’t interested in negotiating cuts as part of the debt ceiling bill if they only acted like it.
They could have voided this issue if they passed a debt ceiling repeal or raise as part of the budget last year. They didn’t do it. They chose to leave this loaded gun on the floor of the House, even when they knew they’d lost the majority.
Now, the main alternative to going through McCarthy is a discharge petition. In order for that to work, they need to get the petition before the relevant committee now. They’re not doing that. They’re not even talking about doing that. So they’re letting that option sail off, too. 
This makes me think that there is a consensus among Democrats where (i) some want to take the opportunity to do some cutting but don’t want to take the blame for it and (ii) others see a debt ceiling fight followed by a cave on cuts as politically advantageous for the Democrats. 
I hope they prove me wrong. But this all stinks of Manchinism. >


They could have voided this issue if they passed a debt ceiling repeal or raise as part of the budget last year. They didn’t do it.

They didn't have the votes to do it. That's the sad truth. Blame Manchin and Sinema for it. It also wasn't obvious Democrats would lose the House and/or Senate. This wouldn't even be an issue had Democrats held onto half a dozen more seats. It's also possible that doing it last year would've caused a worse outcome. Had they raised, or abolished, the debt limit prior to the midterms, Republicans would've run wild with it, calling Democrats wasteful, irresponsible, spenders, and instead of barely losing the House and actually making a gain(!) in the Senate, it might've been that Democrats would've lost both, which would mean no only a debt limit showdown like we're in now, but also an end to confirmations of Biden's nominees to the federal courts. I'd have loved to see them do it during the lame duck period, maybe after the Georgia runoff, to avoid that potential downside, but, again, they didn't have the votes for it.

This makes me think that there is a consensus among Democrats where (i) some want to take the opportunity to do some cutting but don’t want to take the blame for it and (ii) others see a debt ceiling fight followed by a cave on cuts as politically advantageous for the Democrats.

I don't think this is supported by any evidence. Biden and Democrats have said they don't negotiate on the debt limit. AFAIK, Manchin is the only one to even gesture towards any sort of negotiation or compromise. And, with 51 seats, they don't actually need Manchin's vote in order to pass a debt limit increase under reconciliation.
I don't have any special information, but it's also possible they're just counting on Republicans to blink, because corporate donors don't want a global economic depression. Or they may be planning to just continue servicing our debt, in accordance with the 14th Amendment. Or to mint (a) trillion dollar coin(s). And, in either case, to leave it to Republicans to challenge that action in court, and then put the ball in the Supreme Court's...court, basically saying we won't default unless the Supreme Court orders it, knowing that the Supreme Court will take the blame for it, just like they have regarding abortion, post-Dobbs. Or, as a final option, to just defy the Supreme Court even if it says the 14th doesn't say what it plainly says, or that Treasury can't mint trillion dollar coins, effectively pulling an Andrew Jackson and saying, "Now let them enforce it." >

My “evidence” for my theory is precisely as you put it - they didn’t have the votes last year or during the lame duck. They had the numbers to pass a bill repealing or lifting the debt limit, but they chose not to. 
You’re going out of your way to defend the Democrats here. You say they couldn’t lift the cap during the campaign because it would just hand the Republicans a talking point… like ARPA, IRA, and the infrastructure bill didn’t. Like inflation wasn’t soaking up the oxygen already. You’re also overlooking that they passed an appropriations bill in the last days of 2022, which means they had a bill, and the political opportunity (Warnock was secured by then), to deal with this issue. 
I think Manchin is a stalking horse for a more quiet set of Democrats. I think there are Democrats who think we should negotiate spending cuts now (and the WaPo is running that line). If Democrats were unified behind a clean debt limit bill they’d have that discharge petition out there. But Jeffries isn’t talking about it. You do the legislative math, you know you need to get that started now. But he’s looking forward to the fight in May/June. By then it’ll be too late for Democrats to team up with reasonable Republicans. 
I know that the message right now is - no negotiation with hostage takers. They’re trying to repeat what Obama achieved in the 2014 fights. But that just means that Plan A is “Republicans blink”, with Plan B being, “Democrats cave,” and I think that enough Democrats are fine with that that they don’t see any problem letting Biden swing for the fences initially. >


they didn’t have the votes last year or during the lame duck. They had the numbers to pass a bill repealing or lifting the debt limit, but they chose not to. 

If they didn't have the votes, then it wasn't a choice not to do anything about it. Choosing implies they could've done it, which would mean having the votes to do it.

You say they couldn’t lift the cap during the campaign because it would just hand the Republicans a talking point… like ARPA, IRA, and the infrastructure bill didn’t. . . . You’re also overlooking that they passed an appropriations bill in the last days of 2022, which means they had a bill, and the political opportunity (Warnock was secured by then), to deal with this issue. 

Maybe, just maybe, it's possible they thought they could take the heat for three bills, but not four. Or prioritized bills they knew there was no chance of passing in a divided Congress, whereas a debt limit is something they think Republicans are bluffing over.

If Democrats were unified behind a clean debt limit bill they’d have that discharge petition out there. But Jeffries isn’t talking about it. You do the legislative math, you know you need to get that started now. But he’s looking forward to the fight in May/June. By then it’ll be too late for Democrats to team up with reasonable Republicans.

You forget, the rules McCarthy agreed to allow any single Representative to move to vacate the chair. They could do a discharge petition, but they don't need to. If McCarthy won't put it to a vote, they can oust him, make someone else, like Jeffries, Speaker, he can put it to a vote, and then whatever happens, happens. >

You’re lecturing me over them not having the votes during the lame duck, while floating this fantasy scenario where Jeffries becomes speaker? >

Not having the votes in the Senate to raise or abolish the debt limit isn't the same as not having the votes in the House to oust McCarthy as Speaker.
I'm sorry if that's difficult for you to understand. >

Cave then fold or we going to switch it up by folding THEN caving?