On the #FraudSquad stuff and #FTV / #ForceTheVote
I really do feel there is arrogance in deciding this matter provided a lot of evidence that "The Squad" are either
too dumb to see an obviously good path,
too corrupt to want to take that path,
or
too weak to stick to that path

And I believe anyone who is actually disappointed in them, or think they should be criticized, called out, abandoned, primaried etc. because of it can only really do that by asserting/believing at least one of those explanations for them opting not to "Force The Vote".

A few facts we need to agree on.
1 - There was no alternative, better, Speaker of the House option they could have helped win.
2 - Yes, they could have voted for other people and denied Pelosi the vote without letting Republicans win it*

*it seems like many who agree with me on this issue think this isn't true, but I'm pretty sure it is.

3 - Forcing the Vote would not have resulted in passing M4A now, or indeed almost certainly any time in the next 2 years.
4 - The Squad DID get things in return for their vote

5 - Refusing to vote for Pelosi would have caused there to be no Speaker, meaning the House couldn't conduct any business until it was decided, which includes certifying the election, so there was a hard limit on how long they could hold out.

Given those facts it comes down to these questions
1- How much leverage could the Squad exert to get their vote for Pelosi
2- How much exerting that leverage would cost
3- How much good could be done by getting a floor vote on M4A
4- How much, if any, damage could be done by it.

I'll start with 1.
I personally don't think they had much leverage, since they didn't have an alternative, and weren't going to help Trump's coup by leaving the House incapable of certifying the election if the Senate decided to object, in any case surely they know best?

Unless you think you personally, or the people who championed this like Jimmy Dore and BJG, have a better grasp on how willing Pelosi was to play chicken with them over her speakership vs whatever they demanded.

2.
This has several dimensions. First is opportunity cost, if you accept that the leverage is limited, then there is some things technically within Pelosi's power to grant that she would not grant in exchange for their votes. Again, who would know better than the Squad?

Given that, there was a limit to what they could ask for and get, and so if they asked for and go a floor vote, then something else they COULD have gotten must, by definition, be traded away. So if you think they could have gotten the floor vote AND everything they got

Then you are deciding that they must be either stupid, corrupt, or weak to have not gotten both. If you think what they got wasn't worth as much as the floor vote and they should have traded it away for the floor vote, then it's a matter of relative value, which I'll get to.

Another major cost to consider would be public perception. Is it really hard to imagine the public, including a whole lot of Dem voters who think Pelosi is a fine, or even great, speaker, getting pretty pissed at the Squad for preventing what seems to them like an easy vote?

During a pandemic, and a recession, and as we drew closer to the 6th, the pressing question of Biden's election being certified would heighten anger. Some might blame Pelosi(as well) for not giving in, but even that just means both the center and left of the Dem party is hurt.

Who is helped when both major factions of the Democratic party are viewed more negatively, as squabbling over silly things during a crisis, by the electorate? That's right, Republicans. We have a two party system, when Dems fall, Pubs rise. So that's a cost to consider.

Obviously the quicker Pelosi gives in, the lower that cost, but that means the cost rises with the demands. Not only is their leverage limited, it has real potential costs to using, and the more you try to force it, the higher the costs EVEN IF YOU WIN.

Even if The Squad stayed solid, no members broke ranks AND no moderate Republicans decided to "stick it to the Squad" for some pittance from Pelosi and risk the ire of their primary electorate for having "voted for Pelosi" just to get the negotiations over with so they could go.

Even if they did that, and Pelosi finally blinked, and gave them the floor vote, their committee assignments, and sure, throw in some other demands they didn't get. Even if they get all that, they've probably hurt themselves with a BUNCH of Dem voters by playing that game.

Obviously the win would get them some extra support from the left, but frankly, we've seen a candidate for the Presidential nomination twice in a row fall short of winning by appealing mostly to the left flank, and I'd suggest Sanders lost this time in part because of 2016 anger.

Bad feelings among the Dem electorate are a cost. Sometimes that cost is worth paying, but so long as we need to win primaries, it is a cost that can't be ignored or dismissed as sunk. There are Dem voters who don't like Sanders but like AOC and other Squad members.

Beyond that, there could very well be Dem voters who have no bad feelings towards Sanders/the left for 2016, or for whom those bad feelings have faded partly because Biden won (with a lot of obviously committed help from Sanders/the left) who WOULD be mad about this.

The larger their demands, and the less worthy those demands are judged by the public/Dem electorate, and the longer these negotiations went on while stalling everything else, the more people would get mad, and the madder they'd get. That's pretty hard to deny.

To rest on that point for a while, anyone who's confident in their analysis of the cost of this tactic must be confident in their read of how the electorate would respond to both this action AND how it would be filtered through the media, you don't get to just ignore the media.

Just because you think it's unfair, pro-corporatist, whatever, you don't get to pretend it doesn't factor into the cost of a tactic, when many people are GOING to have their view of that tactic colored by that media, you have to account for that. The Squad clearly did and does.

The final cost I'll mention is the relationship with their co-workers, which clearly does matter. Personal appeals can bring people to your side, and they work better when based on mutual respect and affection. Drawing out this process would piss off a lot of lawmakers.

You can think this is unimportant, but again, the people who are actually there have more insight than you or me, and it shouldn't be discounted. They certainly considered it as part of their internal calculus.

3-
The amount of good that could be done by forcing a vote seems to mostly, according to proponents, come from the opportunity to show both how close to passing it already is (they hope) and showing who is the barrier to passing it in a way that voters can recognize and punish.

This rests on a couple assumptions I think are fairly wrong. The most important of these is that voters would care, and furthermore punish, the Dems (and potentially Pubs) that vote against it. They point to the popularity of M4A and assume that means opposing it is dangerous.

The problem here is that while M4A is popular, a public option is even more popular, particularly among moderate Dem and Pub voters in moderate districts, which is where the "gettable" votes that go "no" on a floor vote like this would come from.

All those Representatives have to say is that they support passing a realistic public option plan that the Senate might pass and Biden would sign, rather than a half baked M4A stunt given in exchange for a foregone vote fore Pelosi as speaker.

So the good that could be done is, to my mind, extremely limited. Which takes us to 4, the harm.
This isn't the cost, this is after you've paid the cost and gotten your floor vote. What if it fails badly, and then no/few Reps who voted against it lose to M4A supporters?

Might that not make it seem, perhaps unfairly, that M4A is actually not very popular, a belief already (IMO) held more widely and strongly than the evidence supports? I know proponents don't this would happen, but it absolutely could. It goes like this...

They force the vote, already some Dems are angry at them because they think this is pointless since it won't pass the Senate, and they like Pelosi and didn't like seeing the process drawn out and having their own time wasted during negotiations and now for this pointless vote.

They are confident they can explain their reasoning to their constituents, and besides incumbency advantage is very hard to overcome, and they support the Public Option, which is even more popular in their district, so they vote no en masse.

If fails miserably in the House, only getting 100-130 votes. In a year there's a big negotiation over a Public Option added to the ACA and it passes. Maybe it gets hung up in the Senate, maybe it passes there too, but either way that completely overshadows the M4A floor vote.

Then, in 2022, incumbent Dems either beat any left flank primary challengers (as they usually do) or those challengers lose in the general (mid term election with Dem trifecta, might be a tough year) meaning none of those no votes are punished from the left.

What is the messaging about M4A going to be in 2023 during the runup to the 2024 presidential primary? That it got crushed in a Democratic controlled House and nearly none of those members paid for voting against it, and maybe that Dems paid for trying it/the Public Option in '22

So that's the potential downside, to be added in to the cost, and weight against the upside, which I think is quite low. Those who call them #FraudSquad are saying they did all that calculus and concluded the only source of a different result is weakness, stupidity, or corruption

And that is profoundly arrogant, because there's just so much uncertainty in the answer to those questions, it's easy to get different results, and if anything the commentators have LESS good data to work with, and probably less good political judgement (they've not won seats.)

And instead of entertaining the possibility that a smart, strong progressive would come to a different conclusion on the sum of those questions, they've decided they must be so obviously right only a stupid person would disagree, or a weak/corrupt person not follow through.

That is arrogance of staggering proportions.
To be clear, it's not arrogant to think they should have done it, it's arrogant to assume you're so obviously right the best explanation for them not doing it is stupidity, corruption, or weakness.

It's fine to advocate strategy and critique strategy, but when you go from that to questioning their intelligence, character, or fortitude, you'd better be extremely confidence in the rightness, and clearly evident rightness, of the position you're taking.

And this situation does not have anything LIKE enough evidence to have that level of confidence on.