U.S. Senator Joe Manchin, a maverick Democrat who has often bucked party leadership, told a radio station in his home state of West Virginia on Thursday that he is "thinking seriously" about leaving the party.
"I'm not a Washington Democrat," Manchin said in the interview on Talkline with Hoppy Kercheval, a West Virginia Metro News show. "I've been thinking seriously about that (becoming an independent) for quite some time."
Manchin and Democratic-turned-independent colleague Senator Kyrsten Sinema have been thorns in top Senate Democrat Chuck Schumer's side since the party won its majority in 2020. Democrats hold a 51-49 majority, including three independents who caucus with them.
Last month Manchin further stirred Democratic concerns with an appearance in the early-voting state of New Hampshire with the "No Labels" group, where he mulled starting a third-party presidential campaign in 2024, challenging Democratic President Joe Biden. Having a third-party candidate would "threaten" the two major political parties, Manchin said.
Manchin has used his influence to block legislation that he opposes - including expanding voting rights protections and child tax credits - and to ensure passage of bills he supports, such as a major tax and climate law that passed last summer.
He faces a tough re-election bid next year in Republican-leaning West Virginia, which former President Donald Trump won by almost 39 percentage points in 2020. Manchin has not yet said if he will seek re-election, but he would face an even steeper road if he spurned his party and the fundraising support it can provide.
West Virginia Governor Jim Justice, a former Democrat-turned Republican, began his campaign in April for the Republican nomination to seek Manchin's seat.
Manchin, a popular former governor who was first elected to the U.S. Senate in 2010, has kept his seat in part by maintaining a reputation as a rare conservative Democrat in Washington.
If Manchin didn't exist, not a single piece of Biden's agenda over the past two years would have passed, including things like Justice Jackson joining the Supreme Court.
Yes, he's incredibly annoying, but he's also representing the people of West Virginia, of all places. Would you really prefer a 6-2 Supreme Court? I wouldn't.
Assuming you're a wage earner, none of it matters. The Democrats had a supermajority under Obama and all we got for it was more expensive health care, another 500 billion for war every year and a Republican SCOTUS nominee that he didn't even have the balls to fight for.
We have bipartisanship, and it's always there for the worst things. The US spending a trillion-plus dollars a year on war is a permanent thing because of bipartisanship. Abortion is no longer a right because of bipartisanship. You can legally be paid $7 an hour for whatever job you do every day because of bipartisanship.
But they'll make three trillion appear overnight to prop up your investment portfolio, or another trillion appear overnight for a so-called tax cut.
You can pretend someone's better because they're in a blue suit, but 40 years of that thinking is why things are never going to get better in this country.
https://www.cbpp.org/research/health/medicaid-expansion-has-saved-at-least-19000-lives-new-research-finds
I imagine the several thousand people who are not dead might disagree with the assessment that the ACA (which wasn't a particularly bipartisan endeavor, if you care to check the vote count) did nothing but increase insurance costs.
I don't care enough to respond to the rest of that drivel, and I know you have no interest in facts anyway, but for any readers passing by, there are actual facts that you should look up.
Yeah as a type 1 diabetic you can fuck off with that all we got is more expensive healthcare. I never have to be denied because of pre existing conditions thanks to Obama and the democrats. Also we had a super majority for all of 72 days.
Perhaps, but unless you can absorb being price-gouged, that same system will literally just let you die. You only have access if you can pay for it.
Also, it's not a secret that many American diabetics are being charged the equivalent of a mortgage payment for their medicine every month, effectively paying rent to occupy their own bodies. Obama could have changed that. The Dems could have changed that.
Guess what. The same thing happened before Obama too. Except then it was happening without insurance because we could get denied for having pre existing health conditions that would prevent us from obtaining insurance in the first place. Seeing as you aren't a diabetic and don't have to live this reality, And I am, please kindly take this bull you are spewing and shove it. Because you do not know what it is like at all.
I mean, I pay rent to own my condo every month. I can therefore imagine what it may be like to be charged a mortgage payment to occupy my own body every month, and I find it absolutely infuriating.
It's surprising to me that you, as a diabetic, apparently don't. Democrats had the power to change that under Obama and didn't.
You can keep saying that but no they couldn't. They held a slim super majority for only 72 working days and that required independents caucusing with them. Lieberman was not on board with those changes and the democrats cut the deal they could with the votes they had. That deal saves fucking lives. Diabetics can get insurance without being tied to a job now. Its expensive now. It was literally impossible to get then. So fuck off with your anti democratic party bullshit and if you think it's so easy to get these votes to enact this change to get a bunch of progressives elected. Because all you are doing is disuading voters from voting for the only party that has done a fucking thing for the poor and working class. That only helps conservatives who are trying to kill us. You won't bring about revolution by shit talking the democrats on the Internet and convincing people to not vote. Stop actively harming people with your rhetoric and try actually organizing for a fucking change.
Democrats had a supermajority for only ten months, and in that time they managed to pass a major piece of legislation on a highly controversial topic.
If you expected more than one in that time frame, then you really don't understand how American politics works.
It was less than 2 months. Franken wasn’t sworn in until July and Kennedy died in August.
EDIT: it’s actually somewhere in the middle. Kennedy’s seat was held by Kirk, a Democratic appointee, from September through February 2010. However, I am fairly certain that Kennedy was basically unable to serve from March until his death in August.
Democrats basically had late September through early February to get anything done without a filibuster.
You're right about Franken. But Kennedy's death didn't immediately end the supermajority, since his temporary replacement was also a Democrat.
That would Democrats' campaign slogan if they were honest: We're not going to do shit. It's a shame that people can't eat excuses.
Democrats do plenty, especially at the local level.
The problem is that some voters have barely the attention span necessary to watch an entire TikTok video. They start complaining unless they see something new in their feed every day so they can click "like".
But that's not how democracy works, in fact that's never been how it worked. To take just one example, abortion opponents developed a long term strategy that only came to fruition after several decades.
That's who you're up against: people who know how to play the long game. So if you are frustrated by a lack of short term gains, then you aren't cut out for American politics.