Mediaboss Marketing

Photo: Kent Nishimura/Los Angeles Times via Getty Images

The Democratic Party is finally trying to make Joe Manchin an offer he cant refuse. According to NBC News, the partys Senate leadership and committee chairs are working on a new scaled-back version of the Build Back Better Act Joe Bidens signature climate and social spending bill aimed at satisfying all of the West Virginia Democrats long-standing demands.

For six months, the party leadership has tried to shift Manchins redlines instead of toeing them. Last July, the senator laid out his conditions for supporting the centerpiece of Bidens domestic agenda in a written document co-signed by Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer. Manchin promised to vote for the legislation if it authorized no more than $1.5 trillion in spending, dedicated any revenue exceeding $1.5 trillion to deficit reduction, and included no additional handouts or transfer payments, among other things.

Throughout September and October 2021, Manchin repeatedly emphasized that his demands on the deficit could not be satisfied through budget gimmicks. Specifically, he told Politico that he believed starting new programs that shut off a few years from now is akin to making them permanent since Congress will never be able to shut them off. During that same period, the senator reiterated his opposition to handouts, demanding that Bidens refundable child tax credit include a work requirement.

House Democrats proceeded to pass a version of Build Back Better that (1) authorized $1.8 trillion in spending, (2) achieved deficit neutrality only because it phased out programs that Democrats insist will actually become permanent, and (3) included an extension of Bidens child benefit that was free of any work requirement.

This was a worthwhile exercise in many respects. Over the course of his Senate career, Manchin has proven ideologically malleable, the substantive content of his centrism shifting with the political winds. If Democrats could establish $1.8 trillion as the mainstream Democratic position on Build Back Betters top-line cost, perhaps they could get Manchin to come up from $1.5 trillion. Meanwhile, Manchins position on the child tax credit that the government should condemn the nations most vulnerable children to poverty so as to punish their parents for being unemployed is so morally odious and sociologically ignorant that it was well worth trying to force him off of it.

Nevertheless, when Manchin came out in opposition to the bill, no one should have been surprised. Yet many Democrats took his opposition as a shocking betrayal. From their perspective, a large majority of congressional Democrats had favored a $3.5 trillion package and had generously chosen to meet Manchin more than halfway. Whats more, they had allowed the West Virginian to veto the Clean Electricity Performance Program (CEPP), a core pillar of Bidens climate agenda. And although Manchin had pointedly refused to endorse the House bills framework publicly, Biden had led congressional progressives to believe that the senator had done so privately during his efforts to end their blockade of the bipartisan infrastructure bill.

Much Democratic consternation was rooted in a denial of the fundamental asymmetry in negotiations between Manchin and his partys mainstream. As the senator told his colleagues in October, he is comfortable with a $0 Build Back Better bill which is to say, he would rather see the legislation die than add substantially to the deficit, as inflation is now his primary economic concern. Meanwhile, Manchin is all but invulnerable to progressive, grassroots pressure. He represents a state that backed Donald Trump over Joe Biden by 40 points. As of November, his approval rating among West Virginia voters was 60 percent, while Bidens was 32 percent.

Put simply, in a negotiation between a group of lawmakers who all strongly prefer $1.5 trillion in new spending to $0 and one lawmaker who could live with either and is immune to their pressure, the latter gets to dictate terms.

Even after Manchin refused to back the House bill, the Biden administration refused to internalize this reality. In December, Manchin reportedly presented the White House with a $1.8 trillion proposal that included more than $500 billion in climate funding (enough to fund virtually all of Bidens green agenda), prekindergarten, and a permanent expansion of Affordable Care Act subsidies, among other things. The administration rejected this offer because it did not include a one-year extension of the enhanced child tax credit. After that, negotiations between Manchin and the White House broke down, and the former went on Fox News to declare his opposition to Build Back Better.

In the months since, many in blue America have given up on passing Bidens top legislative priority. As Politico reported Wednesday morning: Some Democrats on the Hill say its time to cut their losses and move on. But such fatalism is indefensible.

It is entirely possible that Manchin is acting in bad faith. As Ive written, the most plausible theory for why the West Virginians vote is unwinnable is that he does not want Bidens climate agenda to pass. Since the president proposed more social programs than $1.8 trillion can finance, almost every individual provision of Build Back Better is up for negotiation except for its investment in the green transition. A spending bill that did not include hundreds of billions in climate funding would cease to be a version of Build Back Better. Given Manchins political and personal ties to the coal industry whose decline would be accelerated by Build Back Betters passage it is conceivable that the senators myriad demands are mere pretexts for sabotage.

But there are many reasons to doubt this theory. First, if Manchins overriding priority was to maximize coals market share (by mendacious means, if necessary), then it would have been extremely weird for him to include $500 billion in climate funding in his December offer to the White House. I guess one could posit that Manchin presumed his proposal would be turned down and that offering it would therefore provide him with an alibi for blocking the broader bill. But that seems like an awfully elaborate scheme. If Manchin wants to oppose climate spending so as to defend the coal industry, why wouldnt he just say so? West Virginia politicians do not generally go out of their way to conceal their efforts to aid Big Coal.

It is true that the precise details of Manchins climate proposal are unknown. But if the senators green spending departed wildly from Bidens, the White House chose not to leak that fact, even as it derided Manchins offer for its deficient social provisions. Given that Manchin chairs the Senate Energy Committee, which has released a draft version of Build Back Betters climate section that is broadly consistent with Bidens vision, it seems overwhelmingly likely that Manchin really did offer to support the White Houses green agenda in December.

For another thing, Manchin co-authored two of the most significant pieces of climate legislation in American history. The Energy Act of 2020, written by Manchin and Alaska senator Lisa Murkowski, included $35 billion for zero-emission energy-technology research and development (including wind, solar, nuclear, and carbon capture and storage); an extension of tax credits for wind and solar investment, which were expected to expire; funding for low-income families to reduce their energy bills (and consumption) through home weatherization; and a plan to gradually eliminate the use of climate-warming hydrofluorocarbons in air conditioners and refrigerators. Last years bipartisan infrastructure bill, meanwhile, allocated $65 billion for clean energy and electrical grids along with a $7.5 billion downpayment on a national network of electric vehicle charging stations.

Both of these measures were grossly inadequate to the scale of the climate crisis. And both included provisions friendly to fossil fuels. Nevertheless, each delivered historically large subsidies to Big Coals clean competitors. If Manchins overriding priority were to maximize coals market share, it would be odd for him to have championed those laws.

Finally, and most significantly, Manchin has recently signaled that he is interested in moving forward with Bidens climate agenda. The climate thing is one that we probably can come to an agreement much easier than anything else, Manchin told reporters in early January. Last week, Manchins office leaked word that the senator wants to expand one of Build Back Betters climate provisions: Whereas the current legislation establishes a six-year tax credit for nuclear energy production, Manchin wants it to create a ten-year one.

So at the very least, the theory that Manchins demands are alibis for doing Big Coals bidding isnt obviously correct.

And if climate isnt the stumbling block, its hard to see why Manchin wouldnt support a version of Build Back Better that met all of his avowed demands. Theres little reason to doubt the sincerity of Manchins support for universal prekindergarten. West Virginia already has a pre-K program, so Bidens plan would merely enable Manchins state to offload some of its existing budget burdens onto Uncle Sam. Manchin has also been a consistent supporter of expanding the Affordable Care Act and unwinding much of the Trump tax cuts.

True, the Washington Post reported in early January that Manchins $1.8 trillion offer was no longer on the table. Yet even as administration officials complained that Manchin would not take yes for an answer, they tacitly admitted that the White House had not actually tried to accept the senators terms. As the Post wrote, Senior Democrats say they do not believe Manchin would support his offer even if [my emphasis] the White House tried adopting it in full.

Again, its possible that Manchin really is a bad-faith actor. He has shifted some of his positions over the course of negotiations. But as of this writing, Democrats have yet to try simply meeting the senators demands from last July even though a version of Build Back Better that was complaint with them would still do a lot of good.

As Slates Jordan Weissmann has noted, if Democrats pursued only those revenue-raising measures that Manchin has personally endorsed, they could finance virtually all of Bidens climate agenda, his Obamacare improvements, prekindergarten, $209 billion in funding for at-home eldercare, and reduce the deficit by $220 billion over a decade. Such legislation would meet or exceed all of Manchins stated demands.

According to NBC News, Schumer is quietly considering precisely this sort of deal: To lure Manchin back to the table, Senate Democrats are mulling reserving a portion of the plans revenue for deficit reduction. No Senate Democrats want to publicly endorse this act of surrender, however, until Manchin signs off on it. For his part, Biden signaled openness to such a bitter compromise Wednesday afternoon, when he told reporters that the enhanced child tax credit probably would not make it into the final version of Build Back Better.

There are stumbling blocks in the way of such a deal. Persuading progressives to swallow their child care programs demise will be easier if dropping that measure enables a larger investment in prekindergarten than the House bill currently makes. But for that to be the case, any deficit reduction would likely need to derive from larger tax increases on the rich and/or more savings from prescription drug negotiations instead of cutbacks in the bills overall level of social spending. Manchin, for his part, has endorsed strong price controls on prescription drugs and raising the corporate tax rate. The obstacle to those provisions has been Arizona senator Kyrsten Sinema.

But Sinema is more vulnerable to progressive pressure than Manchin is in that she represents a (light) blue state and will likely face a strong primary challenge in 2024.The Arizona senator has refused to abolish the filibuster in order to facilitate the passage of voting rights legislation. But in defying her party on that issue, she has had Manchin at her side and Senate tradition as her shield. Sinema may prove to be enough of a wild card to single-handedly kill Bidens agenda in the name of preventing a tax hike on corporations. But it seems quite possible that if Democrats appease Manchin, Sinema will feel too isolated to maintain her intransigence.

In any case, giving Manchin what he wants is preferable to leaving Bidens agenda for dead. Perhaps there is some other strategy that could credibly move Manchin without awarding him further substantive concessions. Given that caving to Manchin involves acquiescing to a large increase in Americas child poverty rate, such a gambit would surely be worth pursing. But the partys quixotic effort to strong-arm the senator on the filibuster does not inspire confidence.

A version of Build Back Better that included nothing except for its climate provisions would be worth fighting for, let alone one that also made prekindergarten nearly universal. If the U.S. invests $500 billion into a green transition this year, it will likely hit its emissions target for 2030 and help catalyze cost reductions and innovations that will help developing countries industrialize sustainably. Before Democrats cut their losses and move on from averting catastrophic climate change, they should at least see if Manchin is willing to accept what hes been asking for.

Daily news about the politics, business, and technology shaping our world.

The rest is here:
Give Manchin What He Wants Already - New York Magazine

Democrats in Wisconsin think they have the perfect chance to take out one of Donald Trumps closest allies in the Senate. But to do it, theyll have to find a candidate who can balance knocking back a conspiracy theorist without alienating voters in an intensely polarized state.

Four Democrats are considered the candidates most likely to win the nomination and go up against Republican Sen. Ron Johnson, who announced he would run for reelection this month despite his long-held promise to only serve two terms. Democrats see him as more vulnerable than other Republicans in an election cycle broadly viewed as favorable to the GOP.

The state, which President Joe Biden won in 2020 after it went to Donald Trump in 2016, offers a spread of the dynamics happening on the national level: extreme polarization, a Trumpian foil for Democrats, and a competitive electorate exhausted by the pandemic. The August primary offers Democrats one of their first high-profile tests of just how forcefully they should counter conspiracy theories around the election and COVID-19 that have quickly spread among Trumps base and that have been mirrored by a number of politicians whove received endorsements from the former president.

Wisconsin has a lot of kind of microcosms of national dynamics. Theres a pretty deep partisan division here, but also a very pragmatic streak, state party Chair Ben Wikler told BuzzFeed News. Making the case that youre running as sort of an outcast and being a kind of a practical problem solver is a winning formula in Wisconsin.

Democrats are banking on Johnson no longer being able to make that case. Early messaging from the left is that Johnson, a onetime political pariah who unexpectedly beat out a longtime establishment Democrat and then held him off in his next election, has become deeply entrenched in Washington politics. An ad released by the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, Senate Democrats campaign arm, accuses Johnson of looking out for himself and his megadonors rather than his constituents.

But there are additional arguments to be made against him, including his rampant use of conspiracy theories.

Here are just a few examples: In late 2020, Johnson, as chair of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, held a hearing that invited witnesses who approached the COVID-19 pandemic in an unscientific way and spread misinformation. After the Jan. 6 Capitol riot, he also falsely claimed that provocateurs caused the violence at the Capitol rather than Trump supporters. Its been a long but not lonely arch for Johnson, from the tea party breakthrough candidate who had never held political office prior to a far-right and high-profile conspiracy theorist during Trumps presidency. Months before Johnson announced he would run for reelection, he received an endorsement from former president Donald Trump, who encouraged him to go for it: Run, Ron, Run!

Still months out from the August primary, Democratic candidates are making themselves known to the electorate. The top tier is made up of state Treasurer Sarah Godlewski, Lt. Gov. Mandela Barnes, the Milwaukee Bucks senior vice president Alex Lasry, and Outagamie County Executive Tom Nelson.

I think it is pretty early for them to be trying to distinguish themselves [from each other], and I do think that Democrats in the state of Wisconsin would like to defeat Ron Johnson, Lilly Goren, a professor of political science at Carroll University in Waukesha, told BuzzFeed News. Theyre maybe not necessarily flinging mud at each other, so much as trying to even at this point before the primary is over be sort of attacking Johnson.

Two of the candidates Godlewski, a former defense contractor, and Barnes, the first Black lieutenant governor in the state and a former state assemblymember have previously won statewide races for their current positions. Lasry, whose rsum is speckled with past involvement in politics including advising in the Obama administration, is running as a progressive businessperson. And Nelson touts serving as a Bernie Sanders delegate in the 2020 Democratic National Convention.

Several national figures have already weighed in on the primary: Barnes has notched endorsements that include Democratic Sens. Elizabeth Warren and Cory Booker, as well as House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn. A November poll of Wisconsin likely voters conducted by the progressive think tank Data for Progress showed Barnes leading over the closest competitor by 23 points. (Although 29% of those surveyed also said they werent sure who they would vote for if the primary were held the next day.) The Barnes campaign also released an internal poll at the start of the year showing a similar advantage.

On the national level, Democrats are looking to make heavy investments in Wisconsin. The DSCC has not made an endorsement (an aide at the DSCC said that they are assessing challenger campaigns and have not made endorsements in any of them), but already made an ad buy pegged around Johnsons announcement that he would run. The state is also part of the DSCCs Defend the Majority program, a $30 million investment targeting nine states and aimed at ground field organizing, which the DSCC has boasted as the biggest investment of its kind made this early in a campaign cycle.

It will not be easy for whoever ends up the Democratic nominee. The Cook Political Report has the race listed as a toss-up, and it will undoubtedly be an expensive and exhausting one. But neither party will want to leave anything to chance: According to statewide race data compiled by Joe Zepecki, a Democratic consultant in the state, 4 of the last 11 statewide races with more than one candidate have been within 30,000 votes, including the presidential race between Biden and Trump.

There are benefits to polarization, Zepecki told BuzzFeed News. Both sides have gotten so good at knowing where their base is and how to turn them out, and [thats] why you see so many close elections.

Democrats have had a good recent streak in getting their candidates elected to statewide office. Currently, Tony Evers, who is up for reelection this year, holds the governors office, and Tammy Baldwin, reelected in 2018, has the states other Senate seat. Prior to Johnson, a Republican hadnt held a Senate seat in the state since 1993.

But they dont need to look any further than Johnsons presence in the Senate, Trumps victory over Hillary Clinton, and Scott Walker defeating his recall election in 2012 for evidence of the strong Republican presence.

I think this could easily swing to the Democrats. I think Ron Johnson will also be a tough opponent, Ben Nuckels, a Democratic consultant in Wisconsin, told BuzzFeed News. The US Senate race is going to be very close, and the reason Democrats want Ron Johnson as the GOP nominee is because he is far easier to beat than some of the other candidates who were considering running.

The national trends could dramatically affect the race here.

Read more:
Democrats In Wisconsin Are Figuring Out How They Should Campaign Against One Of The Senates Biggest Conspiracy Theorists - BuzzFeed News

Senate Majority Leader Charles SchumerChuck SchumerDemocrats calls on Biden administration to ease entry to US for at-risk Afghans Predictions of disaster for Democrats aren't guarantees of midterm failure Voting rights and Senate wrongs MORE (D-N.Y.)is calling on theBiden administration to address significant barriersthat are blocking tens of thousands of at-risk Afghansfrom finding safe havenin the U.S.

In a letter sent to Secretary of State Antony BlinkenAntony BlinkenDemocrats calls on Biden administration to ease entry to US for at-risk Afghans Biden clarifies any Russian movement into Ukraine 'is an invasion' Blinken calls for 'global action' against Russia amid Ukraine tensions MORE andSecretary of Homeland Security (DHS) Alejandro MayorkasAlejandro MayorkasDemocrats calls on Biden administration to ease entry to US for at-risk Afghans A review of President Biden's first year on border policy Rift grows between Biden and immigration advocates MORE on Thursday, the majority leader and 14Senate Democratscalled for the top officials to addressreports of high denial rates for Afghans seeking humanitarian parole, totaling an estimated35,000 people.

The senators single outDHS's U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) as putting in place an untenably high standard of proof at-risk Afghans must provide toqualify for humanitarian parole, a status that allows vulnerable people to enter the U.S. inanemergencysituationor for an urgent humanitarian reason.

The Los Angeles Times in December reported that USCIS had so far approved only 135 humanitarian parole applications out ofnearly 30,000submissions, and cited immigration lawyers beginning to receive denials for their clients.

The senators criticize DHS as putting in place unrealistic requirements such that at-risk Afghans need to provide documentation from a third-party source specifically naming the applicant and outlining the harms they face.

These standards mean that the majority of potentially eligible Afghan applicants will likely be denied parole, as given the chaos surrounding the U.S. exit from Afghanistan in August, many have fled to third countries or do not have written documentation of threats from the Taliban, the senators wrote.

About 74,000 Afghans were evacuated to the U.S. amid the American exit from Afghanistan but an estimated 35,000 have fled to other countries out of fear of violent reprisal from the Taliban over their work in a host of fields viewed as antithetical to the groups strict interpretation of Islam.

This includes oppression of women in general, who arelargely barredfrom working, attending school, or going out in public without a male escort; and those who worked with Western governments and organizations in the fields of law enforcement and justice; activists, journalists; and former government workers.

The senators raise in their letter that many Afghans fled Taliban rule on the advice of the U.S. to apply for humanitarian parole and that the Biden administration hasa national security imperative tofulfillits commitments.

We strongly believe that the United States must remain true to its commitments to protect vulnerable Afghans through advancing a fair, transparent, andexpeditioushumanitarian parole process, through which Afghans both in and outside of Afghanistan will have the opportunity to seeksafe havenin the United States, the senators wrote.

This is not only a moral imperative, but critical for our interests in being seen as a credible, honest, and loyal international partner, and essential for our national security. We urge your prompt attention to this critical issue.

In addition to Schumer, the letter was signed bySen.Bob MenendezRobert (Bob) MenendezDems block Cruz's Nord Stream 2 sanctions bill Overnight Defense & National Security Differences remain between NATO, Russia Senate Democrats unveil bill sanctioning Russia over Ukraine MORE (D-N.J.), the chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Other signatories included Sens. Tim KaineTimothy (Tim) Michael KaineDemocrats calls on Biden administration to ease entry to US for at-risk Afghans Manchin, Sinema join GOP to sink filibuster change for voting bill Desperate Dems signal support for cutting Biden bill down in size MORE (D-Va.), Chris Van HollenChristopher (Chris) Van HollenDemocrats calls on Biden administration to ease entry to US for at-risk Afghans Former Maryland rep announces bid for old House seat Hogan won't say if he will file to run for Senate by Feb. 22 deadline MORE (D-Md.), Jeff MerkleyJeff MerkleyDemocrats calls on Biden administration to ease entry to US for at-risk Afghans Manchin, Sinema join GOP to sink filibuster change for voting bill Senate GOP blocks election bill, setting up filibuster face-off MORE (D-Ore.), Cory BookerCory BookerDemocrats calls on Biden administration to ease entry to US for at-risk Afghans Bass raises nearly million since launching LA mayor campaign CNN legal analyst knocks GOP senator over remark on Biden nominee MORE (D-N.J.), Elizabeth WarrenElizabeth WarrenDemocrats calls on Biden administration to ease entry to US for at-risk Afghans Biden stiff arms progressives on the Postal Service Trump by the numbers: 2024 isn't simple MORE (D-Mass.), Bernie SandersBernie SandersDemocrats calls on Biden administration to ease entry to US for at-risk Afghans Briahna Joy Gray: Last-minute push for voting legislation felt 'perfomative' Biden stiff arms progressives on the Postal Service MORE (I-Vt.), Sheldon WhitehouseSheldon WhitehouseDemocrats calls on Biden administration to ease entry to US for at-risk Afghans Eight senators ask Biden to reverse course on Trump-era solar tariffs Infrastructure spending should not facilitate sawing down our National Forests MORE (D-R.I.), Tom CarperThomas (Tom) Richard CarperDemocrats calls on Biden administration to ease entry to US for at-risk Afghans Overnight Energy & Environment Lummis holds up Biden EPA picks GOP senator blocks Biden EPA nominees over coal plant decision MORE (D-Del.), Ron WydenRonald (Ron) Lee WydenDemocrats calls on Biden administration to ease entry to US for at-risk Afghans Schumer opted for modest rules reform after pushback from moderates Sanders, 50 Democrats unveil bill to send N95 masks to all Americans MORE (D-Ore.), Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Tina SmithTina Flint SmithDemocrats calls on Biden administration to ease entry to US for at-risk Afghans Climate advocates hopeful after Manchin spending comments Overnight Energy & Environment Manchin raises hopes on climate spending MORE (D-Minn.), Mazie K. Hirono (D-Hawaii), and Tammy DuckworthLadda (Tammy) Tammy DuckworthDemocrats calls on Biden administration to ease entry to US for at-risk Afghans We must learn from the Afghanistan experience starting with the withdrawal As democracy withers, Bob Dole and other American soldiers must be remembered MORE (D-Ill.).

Read the original:
Democrats calls on Biden administration to ease entry to US for at-risk Afghans | TheHill - The Hill

CLEVELAND, Ohio The Ohio Democratic Party said Tuesday that it was granting access to some of its internal voter files to candidates who arent necessarily endorsed by county parties.

Candidates vying for office typically had to receive a county party endorsement to gain access to VoteBuilder, which includes the valuable voter file that candidates can use to build more targeted campaigns. ODP spokesman Matt Keyes said the move was meant to give more Democratic candidates a chance.

By increasing access to VoteBuilder, we are making sure that Democratic candidates across the state have the best technology possible to engage with Ohioans and show them were on their side, he said. The policy change will also allow us to invest more in county parties, which will help us meet voters where they are, organize at a grassroots level and compete in every county in Ohio.

The Democratic Party has long faced criticism over its treatment of more outsider candidates, particularly in the liberal wing of the party. That included a lack of access to resources and having to build a campaign from the ground up while party-endorsed candidates received benefits that detractors described as backroom deals.

Now, all candidates for office will generally be able to access the voter file, though will still need to pay for its access. Pricing ranges depending on the office the candidate is seeking.

Candidates will, generally, need to be in good standing with their county party for access. A party member can be considered not in good standing if it violates any of the bylaws, or for actions ranging from endorsing Republicans to criminal activity.

If someone is denied access because they are not in good standing with their county party for any reason, ODP will review the designation and possibly grant them access.

The move is mostly meant for open seats with two Democrats running. Previously, only the endorsed candidate had access to the file.

However, primary challengers to incumbents may also qualify to use the voter file if they are in good standing with the party.

The money collected from charging access to the voter file will be used to fund county party operations, though methodology for disbursement has not been figured as of yet.

Read more here:
Ohio Democrats opening voter file to candidates who havent received endorsements - cleveland.com

For more than a decade, congressional Democrats have been a notably unified and functional bunch.

They responded forcefully to both the financial crisis that began in 2007 and the Covid-19 pandemic. They passed Barack Obamas signature health care law, succeeding on an issue that had bedeviled Washington for decades. And they remained almost completely united against Donald Trumps legislative agenda and attacks on democracy.

But the era of productive Democratic unity is now in doubt as is President Bidens domestic agenda.

This morning, Ill explain last nights developments on Capitol Hill and look at where things may go from here.

Shortly before 11 p.m., Steny Hoyer of Maryland the second-ranking Democrat in the House announced that no further votes are expected tonight, an acknowledgment that the party did not have the votes to pass a $1 trillion infrastructure bill.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi had been insisting throughout the day that the vote would happen. It was one of the few times in her almost two decades as the leader of House Democrats that she did not appear to be in control of her caucus, reminiscent of the chaos that has instead tended to surround House Republicans this century.

Its a serious setback, Carl Hulse, The Timess chief Washington correspondent, told me, but I dont think its the end of the effort.

Perhaps the most surprising part of last nights developments is that many analysts believe that congressional Democrats have made progress toward a deal over the past 24 hours even if they are not there yet, and the talks could still collapse.

The Senate has already passed the infrastructure bill, and Democrats overwhelmingly favor it. But House progressives have refused to vote for it without assurances that moderate Democrats also support the other major piece of Bidens agenda a larger bill (sometimes called a safety net bill) that would expand health care access and education, fight climate change and reduce poverty, among other measures.

Progressives are worried that if they pass the infrastructure bill, moderates will abandon the safety-net bill, which is a higher priority for many Democrats.

These are precisely the sort of disagreements that Democrats managed to surmount in recent years. During the debate over Obamas health law, for example, moderates were worried about its size and ambition, while progressives were deeply disappointed about what it lacked (including an option for anybody to buy into Medicare). Yet nearly all congressional Democrats ultimately voted for the bill, seeing it as far preferable to failure.

This time, moderates and progressives are having a harder time coming to an agreement. The left, unhappy about the compromises it needs to make, has decided to use tougher negotiating tactics than in the past thus the lack of an infrastructure vote last night. And the moderates, like Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Senator Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona, have been publicly vague about what they are willing to support in the safety-net bill.

Encouragingly for Democrats, Manchins stance did become clearer yesterday, potentially allowing the party to come to a deal on both major bills. It is not out of the question that a deal could come together quickly and the House might vote on the infrastructure bill today or next week.

Manchin said yesterday that he favored a safety-net bill that cost about $1.5 trillion, rather than the $3.5 trillion many other Democrats, including Biden, favor. He also listed several policies that he could support in the bill, including higher taxes on the rich; a reduction in drug prices; and expansions of pre-K, home health care, clean energy and child tax credits.

These are many of the same priorities that progressives have, even if Manchins proposed cost means that the party will need to make hard choices about what to exclude from the bill. But the terms of the negotiations now seem clearer than they have been.

Manchin himself suggested as much. We need a little bit more time, he said yesterday, according to Chad Pergram of Fox News. Were going to come to an agreement.

Several political analysts echoed that confidence:

Matt Glassman of Georgetown: Oddly, now that the progressives have done their flex, I think the prospects for a deal increased a bit.

Russell Berman, The Atlantic: These setbacks are not final or fatal, and time is still on their side. The deadlines Democrats missed this week were largely artificial, and House leaders said a vote on the infrastructure bill could still happen as early as Friday.

Karen Tumulty, Washington Post: My theory: We are moving toward a deal. What everyone is waiting for at this point is an announcement by Biden of a deal, and a call from the president for Democrats to rally around it.

The Democrats have enormous incentives to come to agreement. If they fail, Bidens domestic agenda is largely sunk, and the party will have forfeited a chance to pass major legislation while controlling the White House, the Senate and House a combination that does not come along often. Democrats will also have to face voters in next years midterms looking divided if not incompetent.

All of that suggests they will find a path to an agreement. But its far from assured. The tensions within the party are more serious than they have been in years.

An unroyal wedding: Princess Mako of Japan is getting married. Its no fairy tale.

Advice from Wirecutter: Charge all your devices in one place.

Modern Love: Four years into their marriage, her husband matched with her on OkCupid.

Lives Lived: Carlisle Floyd composed operas that explored the passions and prejudices of the South, drawing on the Great Depression and the aftermath of the Civil War. He died at 95.

After 15 years of playing James Bond longer than any other actor Daniel Craig will make his final appearance as 007 in the franchises latest entry, No Time to Die. (Read A.O. Scotts review). Craig spoke with The Times about his send-off. Some highlights:

Craig never thought hed land the part: I was just amongst the mix someone to dismiss, he said, adding that, at best, he figured hed get a one-off villain role: Here you go, have a baddie.

You wont have to wait long to see him again: Craig has already filmed a sequel to the popular 2019 whodunit Knives Out, reprising his role as a gentleman sleuth. Next year, hell also star in a new Broadway production of Macbeth, alongside Ruth Negga as Lady Macbeth.

Who might the next Bond be? He has no idea. Whoever does it, good luck to them. I hope they have just as great a time as Ive had, he said. Frequently mentioned possibilities include Idris Elba, Lashana Lynch and Tom Hardy.

On becoming a meme: Theres a clip of Craig on Saturday Night Live, where he introduces the singer The Weeknd with relish, that many people like to post at the end of the week. They do? Its amazing. I dont know what that is, but thank you. Thats lovely. I suppose Id have to have social media to know what that was all about. Sanam Yar, a Morning writer

PLAY, WATCH, EATWhat to Cook

Go here to read the rest:
Democrats, Divided - The New York Times