Nate Cohn

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

There is not. And not only is there no legislation, there's not even a white paper, a journal article, a think tank policy brief, or anything else https://t.co/fpQCcmMy11 — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

The third path: push HR1 and hope Manchin suddenly wants to go nuclear, without having tested the limits of GOP intransigence, for a progressive wish list that's not narrowly tailored to the imminent threat, seems least likely of all. It's just one dude, so who knows. But really? — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

It's hard to imagine even the most palatable bill getting passed, esp including redistricting. I think the likeliest scenario--however unlikely--is a switch in time saves 9 kind of thing, where a credible threat to eliminate the filibuster leads to bare bone compromise — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

The second, more plausible path is a narrowly tailored, unimpeachable bill of essential protections for democracy. It would protect against subversion and suppression (but think minimum standards that don't really expand access) along with limits on redistricting — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

There are two plausible if unlikely paths. The least likely, even unthinkable one is a bipartisan compromise. HR1 gets slimmed down a lot and the the GOP gets voter ID and limitations on mail. Hard to imagine, but if democracy's really under threat... — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

So while Manchin-ology is that would get Manchin to even *think* about ditching the filibuster and a bill that might attract limited Republican support probably have a lot of the same characteristics. That's not the way most progressives seem to imagine it, based on my replies — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

@SentientPotato6 re-read the elections clause, you're in for a surprise — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

@eitanhersh that's somewhat different than what i thought you meant, and i don't have any great take on it — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

My own view of Manchin: there's no way he budges without... --an unimpeachable, plausibly bipartisan bill, without frivolity and with great urgency --serious bipartisan process, which in failing proves to his satisfaction that the Senate can no longer fulfill its responsibilities — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

To state the obvious, but there are two ways to pass a bill: get Manchin to abandon the filibuster, or get 60 votes. It's hard to know how to do either nowadays, but that doesn't mean a bill doesn't need to be tailored around at least a plausible story for how it might get there — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

There's plenty of room for debate about what kind of bill might have a chance at passage, especially given how hard it is to pass anything nowadays. Wherever you come down, I don't see a case that HR1 represents a best or even serious effort toward that goal — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

This is all separate from another serious but more salvageable issue: the law doesn't really deal with election subversion, which has plainly emerged as a more serious threat than suppression — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

HR1 reflects the hopes of a coalition of reformist interest groups. That doesn't mean it's bad. But it was crafted to satisfy the coalition, not the demands of passing Congress. And most reporting--and common sense--suggests it's very far away from something that could pass — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

More generally, there's this weird thing that's going on with the HR1 push: there's not really much evidence of an effort to craft a proposal with a real chance of success, despite advocates insisting on the urgency of doing something https://t.co/sdbFNhQVK6 — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

As an aside, the registered Democratic turnout rate also beat GOP turnout in the recent PA state senate special election in Scranton, which would have received quite a bit of attention if the result had better for the GOP — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

(registered GOP turnout almost always beats Democratic turnout in regularly scheduled elections, including in the 2020 general. There's more variability in special elections, but the GOP could have hoped that would yield a particularly favorable turnout edge) — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

Democratic turnout rate on track to eclipse the Republican turnout rate in the NM-1 special election, based on these figures Looks like we're on track for something like a 33% turnout among Democrats, v. 31% among registered Republicans https://t.co/axdtKrKj0b — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

@eitanhersh I think a lot of the media covers business in the spirit of accountability journalism, like government, but without any equiv coverage of legislative debate or elections that winds up covering business on its own terms — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

RT @AllMattNYT: Mike Flynn is again talking coups - and Trump is again listening. Wondering how we got here? Re-upping a deep dive from ea… — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

RT @rickhasen: And here's @Nate_Cohn's earlier column noting this danger of election subversion (where partisans met with the vote counts)… — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

RT @rickhasen: Made this point back in March: https://t.co/nxBElfzdcH https://t.co/rjl173A3J0 — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

Some people think election subversion would be very easy to address. Others think it's hard. The truth is that there's just not a lot of serious thinking on it, so it's hard to say. There's no proposal. There's no white paper. There's no journal article. https://t.co/MqTiNpD5Pn — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

@ProfNickStephan that's especially so if you agree--and i'm not sure that you do--that the likeliest element of this hypothetical proposal to actually be enacted is the subversion stuff that's not really in HR1 today — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

@ProfNickStephan to me, a bill that contained those three central aims--minimum standards for voting access; an end to gerrymandering; election subversion--would not be recognizable as HR1, either in terms of its provisions or the central thinking behind the law — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

@ProfNickStephan well we're largely on the same page about what a narrower bill would contain, but we disagree on the arguably semantic distinction of whether that's tantamount to abandoning HR1/designing a new bill or just amending it — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

@ProfNickStephan if HR1 wasn't DOA, that would be another way to go about it: make it even bigger. but as it is, HR1 is basically DOA and prioritization will be necessary for its viability. and if the thing to prioritize isn't really in HR1, then you're just talking about a different bill — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

@richardmskinner (i think progressives would probably be disappointed to learn that minimum standards for ballot access would probably be ok with texas and georgia, for ex) — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

And part of the problem here is that HR1 doesn't include a lot of what you'd want for protecting democracy, and so you can't just trim the fat off of HR1 and end at a workable product. They kind of need to start over if they want something effective and viable — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

@richardmskinner a broader bill could require nonpartisan redistricting and minimum standards for ballot access (though i find it harder to think about to craft that if the goal is to protect against current 'suppression' laws, unless it's through a ban on retrogression in some way) — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

@richardmskinner others would know better than me, but i'd think the major goals would be to protect the integrity of federal election administration, tabulation and certification; means range from comprehensive fed regulations to requiring nonpartisan admin (or else submit to preclearence idk) — PolitiTweet.org