Manchin Is Open to Making the Filibuster More Painful

Yesterday, Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) appeared on both NBC and Fox News. He made it clear that he still believes in bipartisanship and does not want to abolish the filibuster. He is talking to Republicans and hopes to get 10 of them to agree to proposals that he can sell to the Democrats. If he somehow manages to get 10 Republican senators to agree to something, it is certain to be something that Democrats won't be able to stomach (e.g., cut the COVID-19 relief bill by two-thirds). Manchin has been around for a while and surely knows that, but feels he has to give the appearance of trying to work with the Republicans. The folks back home just eat that stuff up.

But he also said a couple of things that are signals of what he is really thinking. In answer to a question on "Meet the Press" about the filibuster, he said that "if you want to make it a little bit more painful, make them stand there and talk, I'm willing to look at any way we can." On Fox News he said: "We've made it more comfortable over the years."

Manchin has been in politics his whole life. That was not a slip of the tongue. He knew exactly what he was saying, both to Democrats (NBC) and Republicans (Fox). The message to Republicans is clear: "If all you are going to do is oppose and make it impossible to make a deal, then Jimmy Stewart, here we come." The message to Democrats is also clear: "I really want you to try to work with the Republicans, but if it completely fails, the fall-back position is letting them read the Alabama phone book and when they finish it, then the Kentucky phone book." Will he stick with that when push comes to shove? We'll see, but the Republicans can't say they weren't warned.

To make the filibuster even more painful, former senator Chris Dodd has proposed that during a filibuster, three-fifths of the Senate would have to be present. He didn't say what would happen if that threshold were not met. More realistically, the rules could be changed to say that at least 40 senators have to be present day and night in order to keep debate going. If fewer are present, then cloture would be automatically invoked. Since members of the majority wouldn't show up, most of the minority would be forced to sit in their chairs, day and night, playing video games on their phones and taking turns leaving to eat pizza in their offices or go to the bathroom. How long would a filibuster last then? Probably not even a week. (V)

How Badly Is Cuomo Wounded?

Until recently, it was a given that Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D-NY) would run for and get a fourth term in 2022. That is far less sure now. Actually, it is not even certain he will finish out his third term. This weekend, yet another woman accused him of inappropriate behavior. That's five so far. Although none of the women have accused Cuomo of more than hugging them and kissing them on the hand or cheek, that's more than enough to create a hostile workplace environment, and so some people are already calling for his resignation. These include the speaker of the state House, Carl Heastie (D), and the state Senate Majority Leader, Andrea Stewart-Cousins (D). In addition, Cuomo may have cooked the books on the number of nursing home deaths to make his administration look better. Of course, a decision to resign is up to him, but if even more women come forward with accusations, he will be severely wounded and might well retire in 2022 rather than face a nasty primary and potential defeat. Thus far, Cuomo has ruled out resigning in no uncertain terms. He doesn't want to be forever paired with Eliot Spitzer, another New York governor forced out due to a sexual misconduct scandal.

There is a long list of potential challengers if Cuomo looks vulnerable—and an even longer list if he decides that three terms is enough. Here are some of the better known ones:

• Lt. Gov. Kathy Hochul: As the lieutenant governor, she's next in line. If Cuomo resigns, she would have the advantage of incumbency. Since she has nothing to do unless the governor's mansion suddenly becomes empty, she can spend her time on the road meeting people statewide and letting them get to know who she is. She used to be a lobbyist for a bank, which won't play well with the progressive wing of the party, but might be all right with moderates and people in the suburbs. Not to mention people who want to see New York finally have a female governor.
  
  
• Attorney General Letitia James: She can also pitch herself to people who want a female governor, not to mention people who want to elect a Black governor. David Paterson, who is Black, became governor when Eliot Spitzer resigned in a scandal, but he never won election on his own. James is currently overseeing an investigation into the allegations against Cuomo, which ensures her plenty of publicity. She is also investigating Donald Trump. If she determines that Trump violated state laws and indicts him, that will raise her profile sky high. She is popular enough that her entry into the race would force out almost everyone else (with one exception—see below).
  
  
• NYC Public Advocate Jumaane Williams: He is very progressive and would do well in New York City unless another popular progressive was also in the race. He challenged Hochul in a primary in 2018 and got 47% of the vote, so he is definitely viable statewide. Williams is Black, which is a plus in New York. On the other hand, nobody cared much about who was elected lieutenant governor in 2018, because it was assumed that Cuomo would be governor for another 10 years. If Williams were running for governor, a lot of moderates and business groups would spend a fortune to stop him.
  
  
• Comptroller Tom DiNapoli: He is the state's top financial officer and is generally quite popular. He has few enemies and no scandals in his past. If people decide they have had enough of a governor who is a bully, DiNapoli could do well. He actually ran way ahead of Cuomo in 2018, so the voters definitely like him. But New York politics ain't beanbag, and he'd have to give up a job he seems to like and get a bit nasty, which is not his style.
  
  
• Suffolk County Executive Steve Bellone: Bellone is from a bellwether suburb and an excellent fundraiser. Also, he is something of a moderate, which will go over big in the suburbs. No county executive has ever been elected governor, but if he manages the vaccine distribution well, he could be the first one.
  
  
• Nassau County Executive Laura Curran: See Bellone, except Curran is also a woman, which probably gives her an edge over him.
  
  
• Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: Boy would the spotlight be on her. She would suck up all the oxygen. She would get more air time and small donor support than all the other candidates combined. On the downside, she has no executive experience at all. Representatives and senators just talk all day. Governors have to get stuff done. Her opponents would say she doesn't know a thing about running a big, complex state like New York (or even running a small, not-so-complex state like Vermont). She probably realizes this and might be eyeing a race against Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) instead.
  
  
• Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand: Gillibrand is the exception to the "James" rule. She would be the instant frontrunner if she jumped in against anyone else, and with James in the race, the two would be close to even money. Gillibrand got 72% of the vote in 2012—the highest of anyone in any statewide race in over 100 years. But does she want the job? Generally speaking, being a governor from a big state is a better gig than being a senator from a big state, whereas being senator from a small state is considered a better job than being governor of a small state. However, Gillibrand has never faced a tough primary except the 2020 presidential primary, where she failed miserably. If she ran for governor and failed miserably again in the primary, she would face serious opposition in her 2024 Senate primary. If she doesn't run for governor in 2022, she will cruise to reelection to the Senate in 2024.
  
  
• State Senate Deputy Majority Leader Mike Gianaris: He is the ultimate insider and has $2.3 million in his campaign account, which is more than Hochul, DiNapoli, and James have. Also, he has been in charge of redistricting for the Democrats, so it is a safe bet he has thought about how to win votes in suburban Syracuse. Still, as a white man who is not well known, he would really need to hope that no high-profile women or minorities enter the race.
  
  
• NYC Mayor Bill de Blasio: He ran for president and it was a disaster. Democrats didn't like him at all. That's not a great start. His support in NYC isn't even that strong, so he would need a big win upstate, where his name is toxic. He has shown that he is willing to get into races where he has almost no chance, so he might jump in, but is unlikely to win.
  

Much depends on how Cuomo's term plays out. If he gives up, which seems unlikely unless more dirt comes out, then the Democratic primary will be a free-for-all. That will also be the case if he just finishes his term and retires. The only difference is that if he resigns, Hochul will be the incumbent and thus have an advantage, but she will be by no means home free. If Hochul is governor in 2022, that will scare off the weaker candidates in the list, but it might actually encourage James to run. If Cuomo runs again, he will get some opposition in the primary, but mostly from the top candidates. No county executive will dare take on a well-known sitting governor, but James might try, especially if she can get Trump convicted on some state charge. That would likely make her the favorite. (V)

Bipartisanship Is Dead

Not a single Republican in either the House or Senate voted for a COVID-19 relief bill that is wildly popular with the public and which doesn't deal with any of the right's bêtes noire (or should that be bêtes Noire?), like abortion or gay rights. If a bill that shouldn't be controversial at all can't attract a single Republican vote, we are forced to draw three conclusions: (1) Joe Biden's honeymoon period is already over, (2) none of the Democrats' other top priorities (H.R. 1, $15/hr minimum wage, racial justice) will get more than a handful of GOP votes at most and probably none at all, and (3) bipartisanship is completely dead. The Republicans are with Randolph Churchill (Winston's father): "The job of the opposition is to oppose." Some Democrats may not have gotten the message yet, but it is clear to everyone else that unless the Democrats change the rules in the Senate, the only things they will get passed are things Senate Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough thinks belong in reconciliation bills, plus getting some judges confirmed.

Democrats can use reconciliation up to three times in a year, and there is one other bill they can probably pass using it: a major infrastructure bill. In theory, a bill to fix dilapidated roads, bridges, tunnels, harbors, and airports shouldn't be the slightest bit controversial, since many of these things are in red states that regard spending their own money on public infrastructure as a waste of money. A multi-trillion-dollar spending bill will certainly affect the federal budget in a big way, so MacDonough will presumably be pleased to bless it. If the bill includes expanding broadband Internet to rural areas, Republicans should be falling all over each other to sign up as sponsors, but that is not going to happen.

The Republicans' game plan is already clear: They will oppose everything the Democrats try to do and then run their 2022 campaigns based on the Democrats' inability to get anything done. This is a repeat of what they did after Barack Obama took office in 2009. That worked spectacularly well for them. They gained six seats in the Senate and 63 seats in the House in 2010. Even if they do 20% as well in 2022, they will gain control of both chambers of Congress.

Part of the strategy is to convince the voters that getting nothing done is the Democrats' fault. It has already started. Minority Whip John Thune (R-SD) said: "It is really unfortunate that at a time when a president who came into office suggesting that he wanted to work with Republicans and create solutions in a bipartisan way and try to bring the country together and unify, the first the thing out of the gate is a piece of legislation that simply is done with one-party rule." Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) is also concerned: "I don't understand the approach the White House has taken. I really don't. There is a compromise to be had here." Sen Lindsey Graham (R-SC) is also upset with the Democrats. He said: "This is an opportunity to spend money on things not related to COVID because they have the power do so." In other words, Republicans are going to block everything and then complain that nothing is getting done except what the Democrats can ram though on their own. We are definitely in the territory of the man who murders his parents and then begs the court for mercy because he is an orphan.

Dealing with this situation is going to be tricky for the Democrats because they are not united. Some moderate Democratic senators don't want to abolish the filibuster and then be forced to vote on a bunch of items on the progressives' wish list. How Chuck Schumer deals with this situation, once all the reconciliation bills have passed, will determine the Democrats' fate in 2022. Realistically, his only option is going to be to talk to Joe Manchin, Kyrsten Sinema (D-AZ), and a few others, find out what they want, and then use parliamentary tricks (like adding to the list of bills that can't be filibustered or requiring actual talking filibusters) to pass them. Of course, he will also have to sell this approach to progressive Democrats who don't see why they should settle for half a loaf when they are in the majority and can (in principle) have the whole loaf. Schumer wanted to be majority leader for a long time. He may soon regret getting the job. (V)

Biden Issues Executive Order on Voting

Yesterday was the anniversary of "Bloody Sunday" (the American one, not the Turkish or English or Polish or Russian or Canadian one, or any of the half-dozen Irish ones). That was the occasion in 1965 when civil rights activists tried to march from Selma to Montgomery, and were met with deadly force at the Edmund Pettus Bridge by Alabama state troopers. The behavior of the Alabama authorities ended up backfiring on them, as the incident served to rally public support for the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which was signed into law by Lyndon B. Johnson in August of that year.

In honor of the anniversary, yesterday Joe Biden issued an executive order designed to protect voting rights, particularly for minority voters. It instructs the heads of all federal agencies to develop proposals for promoting voter registration and participation and to help states with their voter registration efforts. The order also requires that the government voting portal vote.gov, which has languished since 2017, be overhauled and updated.

Because executive orders can only instruct federal agencies on how to implement existing laws, yesterday's order is ultimately of limited consequence. In the end, most of Biden's (and the Democrats') eggs are in the H.R. 1 basket. And so, the President will do what he can on the margins, while trying to get that bill through Congress by any means possible. And that, as we note above, and as we've noted many times before, will require changes to the filibuster. Since the Republicans are persuaded that limiting the vote (particularly the minority vote) is key to their survival, they will do whatever they can to resist H.R. 1, just like those Alabamians were determined to stop the Voting Rights Act from becoming law all those years ago. (Z)

Allen Weisselberg Is in the Crosshairs

During a 2019 House Committee hearing, Donald Trump's former fixer Michael Cohen said he could not confirm a report that Trump inflated his properties' values to get loans and deflated them to get lower taxes. When AOC asked who would know, Cohen said: Allen Weisselberg. As Manhattan D.A. Cyrus Vance Jr. continues his probe into Trump's finances, Weisselberg is going to be on the spot. He has worked for the Trumps since 1973, initially for Fred, later for Donald, and knows exactly where the skeletons are buried, how big each one is, and what it weighed.

In the past, when Trump was asked who set the values on his property, he said it was Weisselberg, in order to save his own neck. That means if fraud was committed, it was Weisselberg who did it. He could soon be in the hot seat on account of Trump's strategy of attempting to shift the blame to his executive VP and accountant.

It is a well-known strategy for prosecutors to (threaten to) indict smaller fish in the hopes they will flip and incriminate bigger fish. As we noted briefly last week, Vance is certainly going to try that with Weisselberg. This puts Weisselberg on the spot. Will he dump Trump to save his own skin? Only he knows that, but if the D.A. makes him an offer he can't refuse, he might just, well, not refuse. Suppose Vance discovers major differences in the values the Trump organization put on the same building when talking to the tax assessor and when talking to the loan officer at a bank? And that sort of stuff tends to have a paper trail. If Vance asks Trump who came up with the figures and he names Weisselberg, then Vance could move to indict Weisselberg for tax fraud or bank fraud. At that point Weisselberg might just decide to accept an offer of immunity in return for singing like a canary. That could be Trump's worst nightmare.

A source close to the investigation says that Weisselberg has even more to worry about. His son, Jack Weisselberg, is a director at Ladder Capital, one of Trump's creditors. Another son, Barry Weisselberg, managed the skating rinks under Trump's contracts with New York City. If there was any monkey business involving his sons and Vance threatens to indict them as well, Weisselberg is certainly going to have to think long and hard about defending Trump and potentially going to prison along with his sons. Vance understands exactly how the game is played and Weisselberg is about to learn. (V)

Willis Hires a Lawyer

Cyrus Vance is not the only D.A. with more than a passing interest in Donald Trump. Fulton County (Georgia) D.A. Fani Willis is looking into the matter of whether Trump tried to strongarm Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger (R) into "finding" 12,000 new votes for him. On the face of it, it looks like a mobster tactic. So what has Willis done? She just hired John Floyd, who wrote a guide on how to prosecute mobsters. Willis has said she is examining "soliciting election fraud," "making false statements to state officials," and "racketeering," among other charges. Racketeering includes things like extortion.

The choice of Floyd to help Willis suggests that racketeering could be a key part of her case. Willis herself also has experience in this area, where she won convictions of 11 public educators who helped falsely inflate standardized test scores. Floyd helped her in that case, so she has experience working with him. But adding Floyd to her team strengthens it. A key issue here is that a conviction for racketeering generally requires showing that multiple people worked together to break the law or that one person showed a pattern of corruption. It may be that this is the area where she wants help.

Cathy Cox, dean of Mercer University's law school in Macon, GA, said that if Trump engaged in two or more acts involving false statements to a government official, then a case can be made for racketeering under state law. Penalties for it include up to 20 years in prison and a big fine.

Where might Willis find a pattern? Well, on Dec. 5, Trump called Gov. Brian Kemp (R-GA), asking him to help overturn the election results. Then, on Dec. 8, he called Georgia's attorney general, Chris Carr, warning him not to interfere with a Texas lawsuit challenging the election results. Then there was the call to Raffensperger. Oh and also, in early January, the U.S. attorney for Northern Georgia, Byung Pak, abruptly resigned without giving any explanation and Trump didn't replace him by his well-regarded deputy who has 20 years' experience as a prosecutor. Are you beginning to see a pattern of corruption here? Willis apparently does. She just needs to make sure it fits how Georgia law defines "racketeering," hence the need for an expert in the area like Floyd. (V)

Trump Threatens the RNC, NRCC, and NRSC

Talk about a pattern of threatening people (especially Republicans). Now Donald Trump and his lawyers have sent threatening letters to the RNC, NRCC, and NRSC. No, we don't mean the DNC, DCCC, and DSCC. We got it right the first time. He is threatening all the Republican committees and telling them to stop using his name and image in fundraising emails.

It goes without saying that the political committees commonly use the name and image of former presidents of their party for fundraising. Why doesn't Trump want this? Has he left the Republican Party? No, but he is not exactly what you might call a team player. He wants all of his supporters to donate exclusively to his super PAC and leadership PAC, so he has control over how the money is spent. If funding to the RNC, NRCC, and NRSC dries up, then the national GOP will have to come begging to Trump for money to support candidates. And he will then have the power to determine who lives and who dies, at least politically.

In case you weren't glued to the TV when Trump spoke at CPAC, at one point he said: "There's only one way to contribute to our efforts to elect America First Republican conservatives, and in turn to make America great again, and that's through Save America PAC and DonaldJTrump.com" (our emphasis). In other words, Trump not only ordered his supporters to give to his PACs, he forbade them from giving to other PACs, not even the official Republican Party ones! The committees are not likely to give in to Trump since he is a big attraction for donors. Of course, if they continue to use his name and image, he could sue the Republican Party. How would that look? We might find out. (V)

Special Election in Texas Will Be a Test of Trumpism

Former representative Ron Wright (R) died of COVID-19 in February, creating a vacancy in TX-06 that will be filled by a special election. The district has two chunks, a big one south of Dallas and a small one west of Dallas. It is R+9, so Republicans are favored, but it is not out of the question that a bloody brawl on the Republican side could lead to a Democratic win in the general election. Such a brawl may be in the cards.

Just moments before the filing deadline, Dan Rodimer, a former pro wrestler, filed to run. He said that Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) and the Trump family asked him to run. He won't be alone in the race though. Eleven other Republicans and 10 Democrats have also filed for the special election. Some local politicians favor the late congressman's widow, Susan Wright, but if Trump endorses Rodimer, that changes everything instantly. Then we get to see how powerful Trump's endorsement is. If Rodimer gets the nomination, every Republican up in 2022 (except Lisa Murkowski) is going to hug him tightly. If he loses, there will be a big sigh of relief.

One issue that will work against Rodimer, Trump support or not, is that he is a carpetbagger. He has run for Congress before—in Nevada. He claims he has a connection to Texas because he has worked as a homebuilder in Houston and once owned a house in Galveston. Both of them are hundreds of miles from the district.

What makes the race especially interesting is that it is largely suburban, although it also includes the city of Arlington. It will show what happens in the suburbs in the post-Trump world. The all-party primary is May 1, with a runoff yet to be scheduled a couple of months later. (V)

Ohio Could Be a Key Senate Battleground Next Year

The unexpected retirement of Sen. Rob Portman (R-OH) has given the Democrats a shot at winning a Senate seat in a state that was once a bellwether. Yes, it has drifted to the right recently, but the other senator, Sherrod Brown, is a Democrat who won by a 7-point margin in 2018. With Donald Trump not on the ballot in 2022, all bets are off. If the rightward shift of working-class white men was simply due to Trump rather than a new-found love of the Republican Party, the Democrats might stand a chance, if they can find the right candidate.

Nan Whaley, the mayor of Dayton, who is planning to run for governor next year, said Democrats should look at how they have won senatorial and gubernatorial elections in Montana and Kansas, respectively. She also noted that messages from the national Democrats don't work well in red states, but local candidates who have their own message can win.

On the Republican side, things are likely to get bloody. Former state treasurer Josh Mandel (R) twice ran against Brown. He lost the first time and withdrew the second time. He has reemerged as MAGA-man. He might run for the Senate again. Jane Timken, a wealthy executive who was until recently chair of the Ohio Republican Party, is considering a run as well. She was somewhat moderate but is now an all-out Trumpkin. She recently criticized Rep. Anthony Gonzalez (R-OH) for voting to impeach Trump. Clearly she is running in the Trump lane. In contrast, Rep. Steve Stivers (R-OH) is very likely going to run in the non-Trump lane. If Mandel, Timken, and Stivers are the main candidates, the Trump vote may be split and the non-Trumpy candidate could get the GOP nomination.

The Democrats might also have their share of drama. Rep. Tim Ryan (D-OH) is definitely running, He represents a poor, white district. However, he is not the only Democrat eyeing the race. Amy Acton, the former director of the state health department, might run. Her COVID-19 presentations made her a household name. Also considering running is the state House minority leader, Emilia Strong Sykes. She said that to win, "we're going to have to find a candidate who's exciting and can appeal to women and people of color." Turns out she is a woman and a person of color. Sounds like she has a plan. Of course, if the Democrats have a bloody brawl themselves, it will negate any gain from the Republicans having a bloody brawl. (V)

People Have Had It with Political News

After 4 years of politics for breakfast, politics for lunch, and politics for dinner, people have finally had their fill. Traffic to just about every news site was down in February compared to a tumultuous January. Without Donald Trump in the White House, things are boring. There were only one-third as many stories about Joe Biden in Feb. 2021, compared to stories about Donald Trump in Feb. 2017. Biden was discussed on cable news for 1,836 minutes last month, compared to 4,669 minutes for Trump in Feb. 2017.

Interest in politics has taken the biggest hit. Interest in finance and business is also down, but not nearly as much as politics, which is down 28%. This drop in political news made it possible for other stories, like the GameStop stock story, to emerge. If Trump had been bellowing every day, that would not have happened.

However, politics, especially far-right politics, is far from dead. Some of the pro-Trump sites are hanging onto their newly huge audiences. Newsmax is up 179% compared to its average of the past 3 years. OANN is up 157% and Gateway Pundit is up 70%. These gains are not likely to disappear. (V)

---

If you wish to contact us, please use one of these addresses. For the first two, please include your initials and city.

• questions@electoral-vote.com    For questions about politics, civics, history, etc. to be answered on a Saturday
• comments@electoral-vote.com   For "letters to the editor" for possible publication on a Sunday
• corrections@electoral-vote.com To tell us about typos or factual errors we should fix
• items@electoral-vote.com            For general suggestions, ideas, etc.

To download a poster about the site to hang up, please click here.

---

Email a link to a friend or share:

---The Votemaster and Zenger