Nate Cohn

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

RT @jbarro: There is a way a legislative effort looks when it’s intended to result in an enacted law. Like the effort behind the ACA or the… — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

RT @billscher: JAKE TAPPER: Do you support the [For the People Act] as written? SEN. ANGUS KING: No, I think there are things that can be… — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

@stevemorris__ this is a case where democrats, if they could stomach it--and i don't think they can--could theoretically offer the gop something it actually seems to want, and indeed acts on at the state level — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

@stevemorris__ yup, it's not an era of grand bargains, though i think the fundamental reason all of those failed is that the democrats were the only interested party. the key is offering the gop something it wants, not merely watering something down that they still don't want — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

@stevemorris__ absolutely. dems would have to give on the reform policies that alleviate GOP concerns, like mail voting or photo ID. they won't do so, but the data suggests they could and that's the theoretical opportunity on the merits — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

@stevemorris__ that the gop thinks the election is stolen is the reason a deal could be possible — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

@stevemorris__ the gop thinks the election is stolen is the reason a deal could be possible — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

None of this is terribly likely, of course, but it does seem more viable than the current progressive strategy of hoping Manchin does something he keeps saying he doesn't want to do — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

At that point, progressives might try and craft a bill designed around tempting Manchin et al, like a bill that could be earnestly framed as the 'bipartisan election act of 2021,' that imposed preclearance when state's pass laws or decertify races without bipartisan support — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

Progressives would also hope that there's some small chance that the failure of any of these initiatives--particularly the consensus driven one--might prod Manchin to reconsider his position on the filibuster, once other options have really been exhausted — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

A second model is a very narrow, consensus driven bill that might still establish some baseline guardrails against subversion and maybe suppression. Progressives would say it doesn't go anywhere near far enough, but they wouldn't have to sacrifice anything — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

The GOP has few incentives to say yes to a deal, so the Democrats would probably need to give more than they get, at least in GOP eyes. The opportunity, theoretically, is if Dems recognized they weren't really giving much on something like mail voting--as most analysis suggests — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

It would require both sides to swallow things they don't like, ofc. On the progressive side, they'd probably need to be thinking about how to give ground on mail absentee or photo identification requirements. — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

One model is something like a grand bargain, where both sides get something they want out of a deal. Today's politics are not remotely conducive to grand bargains, but on the merits there's obviously an opening. — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

It's probably 5 months too late for something to have a chance of passage, but it's interesting to mull what a bipartisan election bill might have looked like (or perhaps might still). I can think of two models (and no, don't take any to be likely) https://t.co/Nmjqd47B8q — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

RT @mkraju: Manchin: “I believe that partisan voting legislation will destroy the already weakening binds of our democracy, and for that re… — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

RT @kittypurrzog: I interviewed a New York psychiatrist on the problem of the “white mind” and it was very illuminating https://t.co/0ZsvN… — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

RT @katieglueck: . @ericadamsfornyc statement on the @AOC - @mayawiley endorsement. This race is wild! https://t.co/IZyT3gc3nd — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

@MappingFL Love those Yankees still coming through in tioga — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

@ProfNickStephan it is like that in one respect: 2 > 1; hr1 > nyt. it is unlike it in all other respects — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

@ProfGuyCharles i haven't either, though i do think the scope of congressional power in this area is such that i'm willing to assume that there are remedies, given how little thought has been given to it until two months ago — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

@ProfGuyCharles you're right--tailored, targeted, focused would all be better than 'narrower.' but I do think it's more than different, it's also smaller and more responsive to the argument for its passage — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

@trumwill HR1 advocates have no problem with amending the bill to do more, so I don't think it's the most significant point of contest — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

Or put differently, the bill that kills the filibuster probably also looks a lot like the bill that could get 60 votes in the Senate — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

Voting rights could conceivable be the *must* pass condition, but nothing about HR1 is tailored to pulling off the rest — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

Instead, the only bill that could kill the filibuster is one that Manchin, etc., believes serious *ought* to have 60 votes--given both the process and the merits--and *must* pass, given the stakes. In failing, the bill proves to Manchin etc that the filibuster must go. — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

This is part of a larger misperception, that the filibuster will be killed so progressives can enact progressive bills. That may be the ultimate effect of axing the filibuster. But that's not how the filibuster will die, if it can be killed — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

I should note that this is true under *any* scenario--even the one where Manchin gives up the filibuster. In my replies, there seems to be a belief that if the Dems axe the filibuster that HR1 can just pass. And that's not so. — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

As painful as reformists will find it, the narrower bill suggested by the NYT--limit subversion, suppression, and gerrymandering, plus preclearence--is more like the $2 trillion dollar starting point. Even from that starting point, most elements would wind up compromised away. — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

HR1, in other words, doesn't merely lack support. Right now, it's DOA and going to be tossed to the side. If that's not true, as the NYT oped says, then ok nvm. But it sure seems true. And if analysts/activists don't put forward a bill that can be a starting pt, someone else will — PolitiTweet.org