There is no great mystery with Senators Manchin and Sinema - they are Democrats in name only,
elected in red states only because they promised to oppose much of the Democratic program. They could of course be offered something of value for themselves and their states, but likewise, Pelosi could be offered something of value too, say from the likes of the US Chamber of Commerce (officially opposed to the 3.5 tril package). Having Manchin and Sinema to blame gives Pelosi an out. This is, sadly, the likely outcome. The realistic worst-case is that the shutdown is used as a hostage to force progressives to cave on allowing a vote for the standalone infrastructure bill, after which, as everyone can correctly guess, the rest of the package goes nowhere. The upside is a 1-2 tril compromise, IMO.
The phrase 'failure is not an option' has been repeated to the point of losing all meaning. Failure is absolutely an option, and a likely one for the Democratic party. People veer away from the abyss, but I see little to reassure me that Democrematic leadership will clear the iceberg. I would also disagree with the parallels to Germany, which has a strong democracy and social safety net. The US is a failed state with pretensions to the democracy we once took for granted. I would also clarify the obvious, neither Manchin nor Sinema are centrists. Sinema ran as a progressive, but now has no discernible ideology or consistency to her positions. Manchin has nothing to lose but country club friendships with conservatives, but he's yet to make a coherent argument that would begin to explain his obstinance. Clearly there isn't one. McConnell told us all clearly, before allowing Schumer to take the lead in the Senate, that he had reached agreements with Manchin and Sinema. I've yet to hear a reporter ask either about the nature and substance of such agreements, but therein lies the answer to my pessimism.
I might be misunderstanding something, but it looks like you might have missed a sentence clarifying one of the six factions?
There is no great mystery with Senators Manchin and Sinema - they are Democrats in name only,
elected in red states only because they promised to oppose much of the Democratic program. They could of course be offered something of value for themselves and their states, but likewise, Pelosi could be offered something of value too, say from the likes of the US Chamber of Commerce (officially opposed to the 3.5 tril package). Having Manchin and Sinema to blame gives Pelosi an out. This is, sadly, the likely outcome. The realistic worst-case is that the shutdown is used as a hostage to force progressives to cave on allowing a vote for the standalone infrastructure bill, after which, as everyone can correctly guess, the rest of the package goes nowhere. The upside is a 1-2 tril compromise, IMO.
The phrase 'failure is not an option' has been repeated to the point of losing all meaning. Failure is absolutely an option, and a likely one for the Democratic party. People veer away from the abyss, but I see little to reassure me that Democrematic leadership will clear the iceberg. I would also disagree with the parallels to Germany, which has a strong democracy and social safety net. The US is a failed state with pretensions to the democracy we once took for granted. I would also clarify the obvious, neither Manchin nor Sinema are centrists. Sinema ran as a progressive, but now has no discernible ideology or consistency to her positions. Manchin has nothing to lose but country club friendships with conservatives, but he's yet to make a coherent argument that would begin to explain his obstinance. Clearly there isn't one. McConnell told us all clearly, before allowing Schumer to take the lead in the Senate, that he had reached agreements with Manchin and Sinema. I've yet to hear a reporter ask either about the nature and substance of such agreements, but therein lies the answer to my pessimism.