Joe Manchin will not run for WVA Governor in 2020

[kaelleria]

This is good news for anyone that wants a slim outside chance of Democrats retaking the Senate. Despite what the less pragmatic among us believe, Manchin is one of few democrats who can currently win in a state where Trump has a +18 approval rating. Losing him to governorship would basically be giving up that seat.

[Breccia]

This is good news for Gov. Justice, at least. He is not doing fantastic in the polls. With coal continuing to die out, the trade war possibly costing the state billions, and the poorest state in the country likely to be hit hardest by the tax cut for the rich/tariff swap of the tax burden, being a WV Trump supporter and therefore by proxy Justice supporter isn't all that easy.

Manchin would have crushed him, we saw that already, but another strong candidate with Manchin's direct support could still pull it off.

[Xeones]

And it's sad because Manchin actually deserves to be in prison with his family for what they pulled with epipens.

[cubby]

This is good news for anyone that wants a slim outside chance of Democrats retaking the Senate. Despite what the less pragmatic among us believe, Manchin is one of few democrats who can currently win in a state where Trump has a +18 approval rating. Losing him to governorship would basically be giving up that seat.

Agreed about his D status. But the governorship run would have been interesting. I read a write up that said it was a win-win for the Dems because if he won, he could appoint his own successor (hopefully another Dem) and if he lost, he'd still have his Senate seat (and the D would stay in the Senate).

[kaelleria]

And it's sad because Manchin actually deserves to be in prison with his family for what they pulled with epipens.

He didn't pull anything. He defended his daughter, which is something any sane parent would do...

In fact, during interviews at the time, Manchin said that the incident brought attention to the rising drug price problem.

- - - Updated - - -

Agreed about his D status. But the governorship run would have been interesting. I read a write up that said it was a win-win for the Dems because if he won, he could appoint his own successor (hopefully another Dem) and if he lost, he'd still have his Senate seat (and the D would stay in the Senate).

That seat would need to be filled in 2022, which is actually the best shot at Democrats retaking the Senate.

[Paranoid Android]

The Republican Party told Manchin they need him in the Senate.

/snark

[kaelleria]

The Republican Party told Manchin they need him in the Senate.

Find me a WVA Democrat that can win a statewide election and we can get rid of Manchin. Until you can in a +18 Trump state, Manchin is a necessity unless you want Putin's Mitch dictating Senate policy for the next decade+.

[Paranoid Android]

Find me a WVA Democrat that can win a statewide election and we can get rid of Manchin. Until you can in a +18 Trump state, Manchin is a necessity unless you want Putin's Mitch dictating Senate policy for the next decade+.

Okay I admit I should have added my <snark> emote to my post. I wanted it to hang there.

Yes, only credit I give Manchin is beside him that state would likely never vote for someone with a (D) in front of it.

Since I'm a Woke Independent being a Democrat or Republican does not mean you are the superior candidate. It just seems many will vote against their interest if they do not belong to a particular political party.

[Breccia]

West Virginia is typically one of the highest, if not the highest, Trump-approving states. Even as what Trump's economy does to them what I did to Graham's wife in the shower.

But even as formidable as +18 is, it used to be much higher, +37 when he just started and had lots of promises about coal jobs.

That hasn't happened.

Trump should be worried about WV, not because he'll lose it, but because it's the canary in the coal mine. If it starts wheezing, it's time to bail.

[Slybak]

West Virginia is typically one of the highest, if not the highest, Trump-approving states. Even as what Trump's economy does to them what I did to Graham's wife in the shower.

West Virginia is also the second-lowest turnout state in the country; in 2016 only 50.2% of the voting-eligible population (VEP) of the state cast a ballot.

This is significant because it's actually pretty easy to get double-digit wins when (a) the other party is at best incompetent and poorly managed or at worst actively disinterested in competing and instead fully governed by the Iron Law of Institutions (the people who control institutions care first and foremost about their power within the institution rather than the power of the institution itself), and (b) turnout barely meets half of VEP. The WV Democratic Party is basically a money and patronage funnel for well-connected people in leadership, who get what they want whether the party wins or loses so there really isn't much of a point spending time and money getting the vote out.

The same basic principle applies, with inverted results, in local elections in places like NYC and San Francisco, or in Hawaii, where the Republican Party is essentially dead and the practical question of who is going to get elected is decided in the Democratic Primary.

[Wyrt]

West Virginia is also the second-lowest turnout state in the country; in 2016 only 50.2% of the voting-eligible population (VEP) of the state cast a ballot.

This is significant because it's actually pretty easy to get double-digit wins when (a) the other party is at best incompetent and poorly managed or at worst actively disinterested in competing and instead fully governed by the Iron Law of Institutions (the people who control institutions care first and foremost about their power within the institution rather than the power of the institution itself), and (b) turnout barely meets half of VEP. The WV Democratic Party is basically a money and patronage funnel for well-connected people in leadership, who get what they want whether the party wins or loses so there really isn't much of a point spending time and money getting the vote out.

The same basic principle applies, with inverted results, in local elections in places like NYC and San Francisco, or in Hawaii, where the Republican Party is essentially dead and the practical question of who is going to get elected is decided in the Democratic Primary.

Maybe the reason turnout is so low is because their usually choices are Republican or Republican with a D by their name?

[Slybak]

Maybe the reason turnout is so low is because their usually choices are Republican or Republican with a D by their name?

Possibly. McDowell Country, which is almost entirely working class and one of the poorest counties in the country, only had 36% turnout in 2016. Trump won it by 50 points. The 3rd Congressional District of WV, of which McDowell County is a part, also went for Trump by similar margins and had nearly as low turnout. In 2018, Richard Ojeda (D) ran against Carol Miller (R) for the 3rd District and lost to her by 10 points. Turnout had increased by a quarter (42%, up from 32% in 2014). Ojeda is far from a socialist, but he certainly ran a pro-worker campaign.

However, its hard to discern the reason why non-voters don't vote at the granular level, as with a congressional or county municipal election. Pew does national non-voter surveys every year and the reasons people give for not voting are some variation of either "I couldn't physically vote," "I didn't see any reason to vote," and "I forgot to vote/register" Almost always in that order, with inability to vote getting a pretty substantial plurality, but it could be different for places more defined by poverty and neglect compared to the country as a whole.

[Flarelaine]

Pew does national non-voter surveys every year and the reasons people give for not voting are some variation of either "I couldn't physically vote," "I didn't see any reason to vote," and "I forgot to vote/register" Almost always in that order, with inability to vote getting a pretty substantial plurality, but it could be different for places more defined by poverty and neglect compared to the country as a whole.

So what is to be understood when they talk of "couldn't physically vote"? Are there that many people in wheelchairs in WV?

[Wyrt]

So what is to be understood when they talk of "couldn't physically vote"? Are there that many people in wheelchairs in WV?

Likely transportation and/or time issues. One of the tricks Republicans like to pull is limiting the number of polling places in poor areas where people are less likely to own cars. So getting to/from the polling place via public transportation only is a huge nightmare for them. Especially if they have to work.

[Flarelaine]

Likely transportation and/or time issues. One of the tricks Republicans like to pull is limiting the number of polling places in poor areas where people are less likely to own cars. So getting to/from the polling place via public transportation only is a huge nightmare for them. Especially if they have to work.

I think the last part is the real problem. Because the rest - I'm sure the GOP can make voting and registration really painful if they want, but hardly impossible. Not if people are determined.

Y'all really need to make that Tuesday a holiday.

[Wyrt]

I think the last part is the real problem. Because the rest - I'm sure the GOP can make voting and registration really painful if they want, but hardly impossible. Not if people are determined.

Y'all really need to make that Tuesday a holiday.

People are supposed to get time off to vote(in 30 states at least), but only if you're working full time. The assumption is if it's a part time job you can go before or after work. The problem with that is a lot of poor people work 2 or more part time jobs. So both jobs can be all "you had time to vote before/after work so you get no time off."

A ton of voter suppression is aimed at poor people.

[Skroe]

I think some of ya'll would rather have zero chance retaking the Senate anytime before the year 2035 but having your entire Democratic Senator Action Figure Set all wearing matching uniforms, in pristine condition and looking as cohesive as a team of Power Rangers.

This is why Republicans are two heart attacks away from having a 7-2 Supreme Court majority for decades to come. Because Democrats rather feel right than be strategic.

I'll say again, I do wonder if we had some kind of Multiversal Viewer, and you could peer into a parallel world where all Democrats are of the Elizabeth Warren mold... all 36 of them in the Senate... how you'd feel when you see every major Democratic achievement going back to the New Deal getting undone by the court.

But hey, at least the Mighty Morphin Progressive Rangers all wear matching pants, right?

If I sound ridiculous, it's because the idea of a Democratic Majority without Manchin or people like him is intrinsically ridiculous. It's a progressive fantasy. No. Worse.

Delusion.

[Draco-Onis]

I think some of ya'll would rather have zero chance retaking the Senate anytime before the year 2035 but having your entire Democratic Senator Action Figure Set all wearing matching uniforms, in pristine condition and looking as cohesive as a team of Power Rangers.

This is why Republicans are two heart attacks away from having a 7-2 Supreme Court majority for decades to come. Because Democrats rather feel right than be strategic.

I'll say again, I do wonder if we had some kind of Multiversal Viewer, and you could peer into a parallel world where all Democrats are of the Elizabeth Warren mold... all 36 of them in the Senate... how you'd feel when you see every major Democratic achievement going back to the New Deal getting undone by the court.

But hey, at least the Mighty Morphin Progressive Rangers all wear matching pants, right?

If I sound ridiculous, it's because the idea of a Democratic Majority without Manchin or people like him is intrinsically ridiculous. It's a progressive fantasy. No. Worse.

Delusion.

Let me ask you this where's is the Manchin of the republican party? spoiler alert there isn't any it's go go power rangers. You may have a point for lower courts but the supreme court is lost either way, all of the sitting conservatives are different flavors of crazy there are no moderates that's just a media line. If this was decades ago I would agree with you but people like Manchin are a dinosaurs of a bygone era.

[Skroe]

Let me ask you this where's is the Manchin of the republican party? spoiler alert there isn't any it's go go power rangers. You may have a point for lower courts but the supreme court is lost either way, all of the sitting conservatives are different flavors of crazy there are no moderates that's just a media line. If this was decades ago I would agree with you but people like Manchin are a dinosaurs of a bygone era.

There absolutely is. You are incorrect. Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski are exactly that. Pat Toomey (PA) is moving in that direction to survive what is going to be a tough re-election, and on select issues, Corey Gardener has drifted as well.

Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowsi, barely two years ago, voted with John McCain to save Obamacare from repeal. Mitch McConnell didn't really care. He would have liked to win, but he let them do as they wanted. He knows the game: Obamacare repeal was something to fundraise off of, not an actual policy. And as soon as it was defeated, he said the issue was dead. He has no issue revisiting that.

But then it comes to Judges... the thing Moscow Mitch very much does care about. And in that, Collins and Murkowsi play ball with the party in full.

And that's the point. McConnell doesn't care if they drift on peripheral issues (even ones that seem like they aren't peripheral), so long as they vote on the core Republican agenda item, which is shifting the courts to the right for the next generation. And thats why despite being crossed by them on some high profile votes, he vigorously protects their right flank from a primary threat.

Part of the problem isn't even the Republicans. It's the Democratic Majority leader. Harry Reid was terrible at his job and had a dysfunctional relationship with McConnell, and half his own caucus. He couldn't control and couldn't protect his caucus, when it came to meaningful votes. Chuck Schumer is a far better fund raiser and campainger than Harry Reid is. He runs his caucus generally better. But he hasn't built the infrastructure that McConnell has to protect centrist Democrats the way McConnell protects centrist Republicans.

What Democrats are really frustrated about is this disparity. McConnell is the most powerful Senate Majority leader in probably the last 120 years. Even will Bill Frist was Majority Leader, McConnell was the power behind the throne. He diligently built up... in a word... infrastructure... that holds a caucus with such different people as Tom Cotton, Lamar Alexander, Jim Inhofe,Mike Lee, Pat Roberts, Lisa Murkoswki and Ben Sasse together. And yes. They are all very, very different. They are not cartoon supervillians. This infrastructure allows McConnell to control the Senate in a way that is new in modern times.

Democrats have nothing like this and they have lost to it for years. They even lost to it in the Bush era, when McConnell was just the whip, and the infrastructure less developed.

Want an example of this infrastructure?

McConnell has decreed that any outside Republican group or consultancy that ATTEMPTS to primary one of the Senators in his caucus will be blacklisted. That means that if some hard right or libertarian group goes after Lisa Murkowsi to try and oust her, and gets assistance by some political consultancy firm, bot the group, the people in it and the consultancy are black listed from all Senate campaigns, fundraising, donor lists and Republican Senate infrastructure. Permanently.

He's already blacklisted groups and consultancies too. He's been challenged. And he's ruined careers off of it.

So in Mitch McConnell's Republican Party, there would be no analog of the thing brewing in Massachusetts where the progressives want to primary Senator Ed Markey, one of the two most progressive senators in the Senate, for not being progressive enough. Everyone involved in the challenge would be gone.

That buys loyalty. That buys control. And that's what McConnell what he is.

This is how Democrats lose in the Senate. Because they seriously analyze the Senator they have in place and ask "is he progressive enough?" rather than thanking god he's in your column and doing everything in your power to keep him there.

Or I'll put it this way. McConnell's "Manchin's" let Obamacare survive, but are team players when it comes to the courts. To him, small price to pay. The former matters a little to him, the latter a lot. Joe Manchin voted against the Democratic party line on a couple of judges who were going to be confirmed anyway. But when a vote come around on something historically important to Democrats, like Medicare for all, or gun control, or healthcare... or just getting the majority... you'll want Manchin that day, rather than have a Republican in his seat.

So the question is, how do you intend to build infrastructure to protect him?

[Draco-Onis]

There absolutely is. You are incorrect. Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski are exactly that. Pat Toomey (PA) is moving in that direction to survive what is going to be a tough re-election, and on select issues, Corey Gardener has drifted as well.

Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowsi, barely two years ago, voted with John McCain to save Obamacare from repeal. Mitch McConnell didn't really care. He would have liked to win, but he let them do as they wanted. He knows the game: Obamacare repeal was something to fundraise off of, not an actual policy. And as soon as it was defeated, he said the issue was dead. He has no issue revisiting that.

But then it comes to Judges... the thing Moscow Mitch very much does care about. And in that, Collins and Murkowsi play ball with the party in full.

And that's the point. McConnell doesn't care if they drift on peripheral issues (even ones that seem like they aren't peripheral), so long as they vote on the core Republican agenda item, which is shifting the courts to the right for the next generation. And thats why despite being crossed by them on some high profile votes, he vigorously protects their right flank from a primary threat.

Part of the problem isn't even the Republicans. It's the Democratic Majority leader. Harry Reid was terrible at his job and had a dysfunctional relationship with McConnell, and half his own caucus. He couldn't control and couldn't protect his caucus, when it came to meaningful votes. Chuck Schumer is a far better fund raiser and campainger than Harry Reid is. He runs his caucus generally better. But he hasn't built the infrastructure that McConnell has to protect centrist Democrats the way McConnell protects centrist Republicans.

What Democrats are really frustrated about is this disparity. McConnell is the most powerful Senate Majority leader in probably the last 120 years. Even will Bill Frist was Majority Leader, McConnell was the power behind the throne. He diligently built up... in a word... infrastructure... that holds a caucus with such different people as Tom Cotton, Lamar Alexander, Jim Inhofe,Mike Lee, Pat Roberts, Lisa Murkoswki and Ben Sasse together. And yes. They are all very, very different. They are not cartoon supervillians. This infrastructure allows McConnell to control the Senate in a way that is new in modern times.

Democrats have nothing like this and they have lost to it for years. They even lost to it in the Bush era, when McConnell was just the whip, and the infrastructure less developed.

Want an example of this infrastructure?

McConnell has decreed that any outside Republican group or consultancy that ATTEMPTS to primary one of the Senators in his caucus will be blacklisted. That means that if some hard right or libertarian group goes after Lisa Murkowsi to try and oust her, and gets assistance by some political consultancy firm, bot the group, the people in it and the consultancy are black listed from all Senate campaigns, fundraising, donor lists and Republican Senate infrastructure. Permanently.

He's already blacklisted groups and consultancies too. He's been challenged. And he's ruined careers off of it.

So in Mitch McConnell's Republican Party, there would be no analog of the thing brewing in Massachusetts where the progressives want to primary Senator Ed Markey, one of the two most progressive senators in the Senate, for not being progressive enough. Everyone involved in the challenge would be gone.

That buys loyalty. That buys control. And that's what McConnell what he is.

This is how Democrats lose in the Senate. Because they seriously analyze the Senator they have in place and ask "is he progressive enough?" rather than thanking god he's in your column and doing everything in your power to keep him there.

Or I'll put it this way. McConnell's "Manchin's" let Obamacare survive, but are team players when it comes to the courts. To him, small price to pay. The former matters a little to him, the latter a lot. Joe Manchin voted against the Democratic party line on a couple of judges who were going to be confirmed anyway. But when a vote come around on something historically important to Democrats, like Medicare for all, or gun control, or healthcare... or just getting the majority... you'll want Manchin that day, rather than have a Republican in his seat.

So the question is, how do you intend to build infrastructure to protect him?

Neither of those senators you listed have the kind of voting record Manchin has nor has worked with democrats the same way they vote for something to keep that label of moderate once in a blue moon but they aren't Manchin. Their vote for Obamacare was frankly irrelevant at most a symbolic gesture to save their seat, Obamacare is a republican plan if they had these things called principles anymore they would have voted to pass it when it was up for a vote. My point was that the republican party has changed and bipartisanship is no longer needed.

I do agree with you on some points though Harry Reid was a horrible leader but Obama also shares a lot of the blame he was too busy building his "legacy" and left the party twisting in the wind. They failed to do what was needed to confirm the lower courts and let the state houses go red without much of a fight, there's this amazing level of incompetence and impotence on the left that is the main source of our frustration. There's zero evidence that the perfect senate majority will do anything other than to get things back to the status quo which to me is an empty victory the country will still be stuck decades behind other Western countries when it comes to domestic policy.

I know you don't agree with this point of view but I think perhaps it is better to have the extremist burn the house if it means 20 years from now they are out permanently because the country will be so reviled by what they have done to this country. Trumpism doesn't go away with Donald Trump it's not a passive thing for the right it's a growing cancer that's taken over and you kill cancer with radiation and that means healthy cells die along with the bad ones.