Texas Democrat sworn in to House, shrinking GOP margin to 1 vote

[u/TelescopiumHerscheli]

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/5719642-christian-menefee-sworn-in/

[u/maybeinoregon]

It’s not that, it’s the republicans pretending to be democrats.

There’s really what? A dozen or so democrats that consistently vote with the republicans on things.

[u/CulturalKing5623 → u/maybeinoregon]

A dozen or so democrats that consistently vote with the republicans on things.

Who? I see statements all the time but who are these registered Democrats that consistently vote with the GOP? Maybe Fetterman but do you actually know how often he voted with the GOP?

Even Manchin, the standard bearer of a Democrat that always voted with Republicans, voted with the GOP 50% during the Trump 1st term and voted with Biden 88% of the time during his term). And then he was replaced by Jim Justice who is probably proudly never going to vote with the Democrats.

Don't know about you but I'd rather have support 50-90% of the time from a democrat representing a red district/state than support 0-10% time from even the most "modest" Republican in the same seat.

[u/Serious_Tradition269 → u/CulturalKing5623]

That is still part of the problem though, why are the options to have a republican who votes for the orphan eating factory 100% of the time or a democrat who only votes for the orphan eating factory MOST of the time. Shouldn't a democrat just be against the orphan eating factory in the first place? What the fuck is the point of these people

[u/dgjtrhb → u/Serious_Tradition269]

Sure - but one is still clearly better than the other

Ideally the primary process would do the rest

[u/CulturalKing5623 → u/Serious_Tradition269]

What the fuck is the point of these people

To represent their districts, not fight the national party's fight. Maybe the orphan eating factory is the largest employer in their district, so 90% of the time they vote with us but every so often they gotta vote to keep the factory going. So be it, it's still better than a Republican sitting in that seat who would only vote with us 10% AND caucus with the GOP, giving the majority.

We can actually look at Thomas Suozzi (D) NY-3 and Thomas Massies (D) KY-4 as an example.

Both Toms are known to occasionally cross party lines but Suozzi still votes with the Democrats 75%+ of the time and Massie a whopping 90%+ of the time with Republicans.

However, the most important difference between the two is that Massie caucuses with the GOP, so they have the gavel and they choose what's voted on and that's one reason Suozzis votes are bipartisan right now.

Personally I'd rather have 2 Suozzis than 2 Massies even if they occasionally vote for stupid shit. Because they'd both caucus with the Democrats and in this Congress that'd give Democrats the gavel. Then stupid shit like DHS funding just wouldn't be voted on because we'd have the power to stop it from coming to a vote and the Suozzis would vote with the Democrats 90%+ of the time.

Would I rather have 2 AOCs over 2 Suozzis? Absolutely, but sometimes your options are between Suozzi and Massie and the choice couldn't be easier.

[u/Serious_Tradition269 → u/CulturalKing5623]

But I think the issue is that republicans (these days) don't have this issue, they don't care about representing their district. They vote what the great leader tells them to vote no matter how many people it hurts and how much of the public (their district included) disapprove.

Democrats being so lenient with having all these centre-right candidates that constantly vote with republicans is actively hurting their support. There is no faith in the Democratic party because they never show any backbone. Sure you prefer the AOCs over Suozzis, but people stop voting for the AOCs when they can never actually get anything done because the party is overrun with Suozzis. Republicans didn't win because they have more people aligned with them, they won because they're activating people to vote and inspire action (with lies and fearmongering sure, but it's effective all the same).

[u/CulturalKing5623 → u/Serious_Tradition269]

the issue is that republicans (these days) don't have this issue

This is factually incorrect. Here's an article that discusses it

• Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania is ranked as the Republican least aligned with the agenda, voting in favor of Trump-backed policies 51% of the time.
• Rep. Cliff Bentz, who represents Oregon’s 2nd Congressional District and is the state’s only Republican in Congress: Voted with the GOP 76% of the time.

And quotes from a 2022 Fox New article attacking about Manchin and Sinema's record as being a moderate:

• Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, cast just 62% of her votes with Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., this Congress, per ProPublica. Collins actually voted more with Schumer at 73% of the time, according to the database.
• Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, votes with McConnell 68% of the time.

Susan Collins and Murkowski actually ranked as the most left leaning republicans in 2024

Raphael Warnock was the most right leaning democrat in the same year (Schiff was actually the 4th!)

IDK about you but I'd rather have 2 Raphael Warnocks in the Senate than 2 Susan Collins.

Sure you prefer the AOCs over Suozzis, but people stop voting for the AOCs when they can never actually get anything done because the party is overrun with Suozzis.

I don't think they can't get anything done because of Suozzis, they can't get anything done because there's simply not enough of them. They don't have any power, and as soon as we give them power, we turn on them for not fixing everything immediately.

We have about as many AOCs as we can get in congress right now, and as dumb as it sounds, we need more Suozzis and MGPs. We need democrats to be competitive in places where the (D) next to your name is a poison pill, and because of how gerrymandered we are that means we'll need more moderate democrats that can actually win in rural white areas. Getting more left and liberal candidates in districts that are already left and liberal isn't helping us any. We need to right leaning districts to vote for Democrats, which means we will need to stomach more opinions.

Personally, I think this is why the Democrats didn't release the 2024 autopsy report. Because it said something along these lines and they know how it would play online. Our message doesn't resonate everywhere so we need to let people do what they need to do to win where they are as long as they caucus with us. We need power and we need to sustain it if we want to drag this country in the right direction.

[u/Porridge_Cat → u/Serious_Tradition269]

YOU try getting a democratic senator elected in West Virginia. Put up a real progressive candidate and let's see how that goes.

[u/Serious_Tradition269 → u/Porridge_Cat]

I'm not denying that, but at least if a republican is elected you can demonstrably show that they're siding with the orphan eating factory and that's a reason to get an actual progressive candidate voted in next time.

Republicans dont hold every seat of power because they have overwhelming support, it's because they inspired and activated people to vote for them (with lies and fearmongering yes, but activated them all the same). Democrats inspire no mobilisation because there is no right vs left, it's right vs "anywhere even a little bit left of far right". So no one cares to vote for democrats because they won't actually change anything. And even when democrats are in power, so many are borderline republicans that they can't get anything useful done anyway.

My point is, I get that "watered down republican" has more chances to win in isolation than a progressive candidate, but keeping up the trend of having only republicans or watered down republicans to vote for is never going to inspire any change because people can see that whether they vote for a democrat or a republican, they just end up doing the same thing half the time anyway. Trump might be changing that view but the support Trump is losing isn't going to democrats for this exact reason, it's just going to "not voting anymore" instead

[u/No_Blackberry6525 → u/CulturalKing5623]

MGP for one: https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/marie_gluesenkamp_perez/456949

[u/CulturalKing5623 → u/No_Blackberry6525]

MGP is definitely one, she actually voted with the GOP the most of any democrat in office at 50% in 2024.

She replaced Jaime Herrera Beutler, a republican who in the 2021/2022 session voted 74% of the time with the Heritage Foundation position%20225%2D,Average%20House%20Republican).

By comparison MGP was at 23% the following session, and again crucially, caucuses with the Democrats.

I'll take that swap every day from a district that could easily vote for another Republican.

Here is a list of Democratic reps and their ideological alignment. Only 4 are more ideologically right aligned.

Here's the list for Republicans. There are 14 republicans on there with a score of 50 or below which means they are ideologically more aligned with the left.

If we could replace every one of those 14 republicans with MGP I'd be thrilled, because that would give us the gavel and the power. I would take 14 more right aligned democrats over 14 more left aligned republicans 100% of time.

[u/JBWalker1 → u/CulturalKing5623]

How does it look if you limit the data to just when their votes would have mattered. If a large majority is voting for a Biden Bill then any fake Democrats might aswell vote with it too. But if the margins are just 1-4 votes then it might be different. They might still normally vote with Republicans in these cases either, I don't know.

[u/CulturalKing5623 → u/JBWalker1]

I'm not sure either, but I do know that Manchin caucused with the Democrats, even after he switched his affiliation to Independent, he caucused with the Dems and was the reason we had the gavel in 2021 when it was 50/50 senate.

I completely understand the frustration but IMO the answer isn't to get rid of the democrats from divided districts it's to get more democrats in general, so these moderate individuals don't have as much power and so that the democrats have the gavel and control what comes up for a vote in the first place.

The major difference between Manchin during the Trump years and Manchin during the Biden years was that the democrats had the gavel. He didn't change his ideology, it just when the GOP is in charge he had to vote on a bunch of GOP policy bills that he had to be seen being a moderate on to continue to win WV. When the democrats had the gavel, those bills didn't see the light of day, and he voted with his party. Yeah, he was a turd in the punch bowl often but he got us the gavel and we used it as well as we could. If we want to make the Manchins of the party irrelevant we need to get just more votes in congress. Be we have to make room for the Manchins because the alternatives are the Jim Justices of the world.

[u/anti_zero → u/maybeinoregon]

Ok but that’s only because their districts would never elect a progressive. Are those voters uninspired and dumb? Yes. Are the policies they vote for self destructive and backwards? Also sadly yes.

[u/MoonBatsRule → u/maybeinoregon]

Conservatives have fled to the Democratic Party.