I think we’re looking at two different mindsets. Political strategist looks at winning elections. Then you have democrats like Pramila Jayapal who’s more than willing to lose elections if it means getting a piece of legislation passed.
“Jayapal was asked early Friday ahead of an expected vote on the legislation if it's worth the party passing the legislation if it could help the GOP take back the House next year, just as Republicans did in 2010 following passage of the Affordable Care Act.
“Of course, it's worth it if we're making people's lives better,” Jayapal said.https://thehill.com/homenews/house/...ng-spending-plan-even-if-dems-lose-house
There’s a downside to this type of thinking and an upside. The ACA was passed, which promptly made Obama a lame duck president for his last six years. He was unable to accomplish anything else outside of the use of executive orders. Who knows what would have happened if Obama and the Democrats back off the ACA then, perhaps more legislation passed on other things like immigration reform, campaign finance reform, a host of other things that never happened due to losing the House in 2010. The upside is the ACA is still with us. The ACA being saved by the filibuster during Trump’s first year when the GOP controlled congress. It was one shot and done.
In early 2010 the Democrats had every reason to believe they would retain control of congress. So why not pass the ACA. The 63-seat loss in the house was totally unexpected and unseen during the first 3 or so months of 2010. Today is different, whether the BBB is passed or not, if the present trend continues along with inflation, the Democrats will lose the house next year. Perhaps Jayapal is correct. If you’re going to lose the next election anyway, you might as well pass it. I don’t think the fate of the BBB will have any effect at all on next years midterms.
Jayapal mindset is different from mine or any political strategist who places winning elections as the top priority.