Democrats: Do you support forcibly removing Manchin from the democratic caucus?

[Virginiá]

I'd prefer someone other than Manchin, but that's too risky in West Virginia. With the way things are going in that state for Democrats, we are lucky to have him at all.

We can't have staunch progressives in every state/district. We need to know when not to push the envelope and know our limits in various regions of the country. America is not some liberal bastion (yet?), and to field candidates as if it were is strategically inept. Ideological sorting and the nationalization of politics is already hurting us enough as it is.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

^ For whatever reason, Abortion has become the democrats signature cause. Even more so than Climate Change - Tester, Donnelly, and Heitkamp are pro-coal (I'll address Manchin below), and no one important cares. No one important cared about the group of dems who supported/were open to the idea of Keystone either.  Even more so than Gun Control - I didn't see anyone complaining about Pro-Gun Rep. Ann Kirkpatrick being the nominee against McCain, for instance. But for some reason, when it comes to Abortion, it is suddenly unforgivable to oppose it. There are two pro-life dems left in the senate. One is Bob Casey, who is quite low-profile. The other is Manchin, who is consistently criticized for not being liberal enough. And I honestly think it's over Abortion. Yes, Manchin is pro-coal, bit so is Tester, and no one claims he's not a real democrat. It's not guns, because Manchin did Manchin-Toomey. This started before Trump, so it's not just the cabinet stuff. The only difference left between Manchin and other romney state senators is Abortion.

And it's honestly sad that this is the case, that a major political party has as its Signature Issue destruction of our own species. And this gets into part of why I am not a single issue abortion voter - I believe that Democrats are basically forced to be pro-choice, whether they like it or not. I believe there are dems in congress right now, although I'm not exactly sure who, who want to advocate pro-life policies, or at least things like an outright 24 week ban, but are forced into silence by the Democratic base. I don't know why the base has destruction as their signature issue, but it's the way it is, and it's one of the worst things about our political system. And I don't know how to begin changing it. I don't want a 535-0 R Congress.

Aside from his deranged wording in parts, Wulfric is ... right? My theory is the Dems took the wrong lesson from the defeat of Akin and Mourdock, by assuming that the collapse of those two repugnant individuals meant that they should rely on the abortion issue as a crux all the time, to the extent that if you were to advocate any sort of restriction on abortion (as exists in my country and most of Europe) you get thrown under a bridge.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

As for Manchin, (who gets autocorrected to manchild lol) he's a tedious hack who has always had a particularly ugly career. But the way the Senate works (I.e. majoritarian) it is very illogical to care much about anything other than partisan affiliation, and Manchin is a useful tool. Certainly more useful for the left than the likes of Heller, Flake, McCain, Collins, Rubio, Toomey, Grassley, Ernst, Johnson, Portman, Tillis, Burr etc. who all bow to the extreme right agenda dispute squatting in swing states.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I think you're all missing the bigger picture. Yes, it's pretty likely that enforcing party discipline the way Republicans did will cost us seats in the short term, but guess what, Republicans did that, and now they hold majorities in both houses and do basically what they want with it. In the short term, they sacrificed seats they could have easily kept (Chafee, Jeffords, Specter, Castle etc.), but in the long term, this created a chilling effect for current Republicans in Congress, who are terrified of breaking from the party line in any circumstance. And sure, this cost them the Senate in the short term, but eventually you get a wave big enough to regain control. Democrats need to start playing the long game.

[Tartarus Sauce]

I think you're all missing the bigger picture. Yes, it's pretty likely that enforcing party discipline the way Republicans did will cost us seats in the short term, but guess what, Republicans did that, and now they hold majorities in both houses and do basically what they want with it. In the short term, they sacrificed seats they could have easily kept (Chafee, Jeffords, Specter, Castle etc.), but in the long term, this created a chilling effect for current Republicans in Congress, who are terrified of breaking from the party line in any circumstance. And sure, this cost them the Senate in the short term, but eventually you get a wave big enough to regain control. Democrats need to start playing the long game.

Yes, the rise of Trump made that abundantly clear.

Would you like to go down the route of "party before country" as well? Because insisting ideological purity has the counterproductive effect of not actually producing ideological purity but instead generating a cycle of increasingly bellicose and strident behavior that emphasizes rhetorical tone over policy substance.

You see the Republicans in power and think that ideological purity has served them well, not realizing that such power has come at a great cost. Far from being ideological pure, they've been overtaken by a man who possesses none of their ideological trappings, only their belligerency and opportunism. Their soul has become rotten to the core. Is that what you want for the Democrats as well? Power without integrity? Power simply for the sake of power?

[Antonio the Sixth]

No, Republicans have been overtaken by T***p because T***p represents the culmination of everything the GOP has stood for over the past 30 years. Of course strong party discipline will make bad parties worse. But for the same reason, it can make decent parties better (ie parties that actually stand for something instead of being empty shells whose individual members can easily be bought off by this or that lobby).

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

He's better then a republican. So no.

If we could replace him with a liberal, however...

No, just primary him in 2018.

If there were ever a time democrats needed to give republicans a free senate seat, it would be 2018, where doing so wipes out even the slightest sliver of hope of a majority.

No, Republicans have been overtaken by T***p because T***p represents the culmination of everything the GOP has stood for over the past 30 years. Of course strong party discipline will make bad parties worse. But for the same reason, it can make decent parties better (ie parties that actually stand for something instead of being empty shells whose individual members can easily be bought off by this or that lobby).

Forcing the entire party to follow an ideology book rigidly often results in the party going off the deep end.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Almost all countries throughout the Western world have rigid party discipline. And yet only in America do we see parties "going off the deep end". How strange.

[TJ in Oregon]

Almost all countries throughout the Western world have rigid party discipline. And yet only in America do we see parties "going off the deep end". How strange.

I would argue that the going-off-the-deep-end-ness of American politics, comes in part from the fact that the parties are powerless over their members. If the parties had control, they'd simply kick out whoever failed to toe their ideological lines, whether more "moderate" or more "radical".  When I was in Australia, everyone kept asking why the Republicans couldn't just kick out Trump or pick whomever they wanted. That's just not the way the US works.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

Almost all countries throughout the Western world have rigid party discipline. And yet only in America do we see parties "going off the deep end". How strange.

Most countries have the party elite enforcing discipline, not the base. Most countries have more then two parties and/or have you voting for a party instead of a candidate. You aren't going to replace Manchin with a (more) party line democrat, you're going to get a particularly unpleasant republican. Someone who only votes with the party 90% of the time and talks the party rhetoric 20% of the time is vastly preferable to someone who votes with the party 0% of the time. Your thinking reminds me of the tea party dogmatism that has thrown the republicans into chaos.

[DC Al Fine]

I think you're all missing the bigger picture. Yes, it's pretty likely that enforcing party discipline the way Republicans did will cost us seats in the short term, but guess what, Republicans did that, and now they hold majorities in both houses and do basically what they want with it.

I think you're overstating the effects of what the GOP's discipline The party in power tends to do poorly in secondary elections, whether it's midterms, provincial elections, or the European parliament. The GOP was always going to do well in 2010 and 2014, given the maps they faced, the economic situation in 2010, the 2nd term incumbent in 2014 etc. Likewise, the Democrats ought to do very well in 2018.

The question then becomes, how did the GOP (or any party out of power) relative to expectations? The effects of discipline and the Tea Party are far more ambiguous when viewed through this framework. In the House, it looks quite effective. In the Senate, not so much. Betsy DeVos for example, wouldn't have required Mike Pence's vote if the GOP hadn't choked in Indiana and Missouri in 2012.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I think you're all missing the bigger picture. Yes, it's pretty likely that enforcing party discipline the way Republicans did will cost us seats in the short term, but guess what, Republicans did that, and now they hold majorities in both houses and do basically what they want with it.

I think you're overstating the effects of what the GOP's discipline The party in power tends to do poorly in secondary elections, whether it's midterms, provincial elections, or the European parliament. The GOP was always going to do well in 2010 and 2014, given the maps they faced, the economic situation in 2010, the 2nd term incumbent in 2014 etc. Likewise, the Democrats ought to do very well in 2018.

The question then becomes, how did the GOP (or any party out of power) relative to expectations? The effects of discipline and the Tea Party are far more ambiguous when viewed through this framework. In the House, it looks quite effective. In the Senate, not so much. Betsy DeVos for example, wouldn't have required Mike Pence's vote if the GOP hadn't choked in Indiana and Missouri in 2012.

Party discipline is what allowed the GOP to filibuster most of Obama's agenda when they had only 41 seats in the Senate. With just one Republican defection, you could have gotten a public option through, a much bolder stimulus plan, an immigration reform, etc. After 2011, Republican discipline turned Obama into a 6-year lame-duck President despite winning reelection. Republican discipline denied him the constitutional right to appoint a justice to replace Scalia. If Republicans had acted like Democrats do, this entire Presidency would have been something completely different. Now Republican discipline (and Democratic indiscipline) allowed T***p to fill his cabinet despite some highly controversial picks, it's likely to ram through an Obamacare repeal that most Americans don't support, and I'm willing to bet that it will rubber-stamp most if not all of T***p's initiatives, even when wildly unpopular.

You think that wasn't worth losing a couple of seats in 2010 and 2012?

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

I think you're all missing the bigger picture. Yes, it's pretty likely that enforcing party discipline the way Republicans did will cost us seats in the short term, but guess what, Republicans did that, and now they hold majorities in both houses and do basically what they want with it.

I think you're overstating the effects of what the GOP's discipline The party in power tends to do poorly in secondary elections, whether it's midterms, provincial elections, or the European parliament. The GOP was always going to do well in 2010 and 2014, given the maps they faced, the economic situation in 2010, the 2nd term incumbent in 2014 etc. Likewise, the Democrats ought to do very well in 2018.

The question then becomes, how did the GOP (or any party out of power) relative to expectations? The effects of discipline and the Tea Party are far more ambiguous when viewed through this framework. In the House, it looks quite effective. In the Senate, not so much. Betsy DeVos for example, wouldn't have required Mike Pence's vote if the GOP hadn't choked in Indiana and Missouri in 2012.

Party discipline is what allowed the GOP to filibuster most of Obama's agenda when they had only 41 seats in the Senate. With just one Republican defection, you could have gotten a public option through, a much bolder stimulus plan, an immigration reform, etc. After 2011, Republican discipline turned Obama into a 6-year lame-duck President despite winning reelection. Republican discipline denied him the constitutional right to appoint a justice to replace Scalia. If Republicans had acted like Democrats do, this entire Presidency would have been something completely different. Now Republican discipline (and Democratic indiscipline) allowed T***p to fill his cabinet despite some highly controversial picks, it's likely to ram through an Obamacare repeal that most Americans don't support, and I'm willing to bet that it will rubber-stamp most if not all of T***p's initiatives, even when wildly unpopular.

You think that wasn't worth losing a couple of seats in 2010 and 2012?

Thats more ideological unity and extreme partisanship then simple discipline. Your proposal would ensure that our political system remains completely dysfunctional. How about putting country before party. Making presidents lame ducks because you don't like them isn't acceptable. Blocking everything that isn't exactly what you want with only 41 senate seats and under 200 house seats isn't acceptable. Our nations partisanship is a toxic problem. We need to do what we can to alleviate it, not double down on it. Learn to accept that sometimes what you want isn't what you get. Learn to accept that legitimate debate means you sometimes lose. Or at least change your avatar to the party that you seem to seem to consider more important then your country.

[Anna Komnene]

No obviously.  For everyone who's very seriously concern trolling about a primary challenger, Manchin has had a primary challenger each year that he ran for Senate, and it hasn't stopped him so far.  If democrats in WV want a different candidate, that's their choice.