Matt Yglesias came out with a piece on the dynamics happening here and I largely agree with it. Dems were banking on the House being unable to pass a CR themselves, and once they did, they boxed Dems into a corner. All of the options suck but I increasingly think eating this shit sandwich is likely the best outcome.
Matt Yglesias came out with a piece on the dynamics happening here and I largely agree with it. Dems were banking on the House being unable to pass a CR themselves, and once they did, they boxed Dems into a corner. All of the options suck but I increasingly think eating this shit sandwich is likely the best outcome.
Yes having a bipartisan funding bill with clear allocation instructions would be far preferable, but while it contains a spattering of shitty inserts (including a particularly onerous one for the DC budget) the CR passed lacks anything that could be categorized as politically red-line poison pills. In addition, the impoundment debate is ultimately have to be settled by the Supremes, and that was always going to be the case. The Dem base is fooling themselves into believing they could shutdown-their way into forcing the bill to tie Trump's hands re: RIFs and spending decisions. Maybe in retrospect the House should've held their cards close to the chest until the vote, but I'm not sure if that was actually feasible.
I'm still confident the Court is not going to rule in the Administration's favor regarding impoundments, but if they do, then the floodgates are open when the next Dem President enters office. Half of ICE funding? . . .now it's going to environmental justice. Space force contracts? Now it'll be used for expanding healthcare, thank you very much. Don't think they want to open those floodgates.
But they've had no skin in the game since 2019, and Trump wasn't pushing for/initiating on his own draconian cuts/totally captured by Heritage folks back in 2017-18.
They've adhered to every one so far outside of the US AID funding (which they've tried to weasel out of while "pretending" to adhere to the Court directives in a very convuluted and illogical fashion). I think if the Admin ignores a decision of that magnitude re: impoundments the economic and congressional pushback is going to be immense.
Which is why Dems of all stripes (including me as an uber-establushment-y centre left type), and even the centre right Bulwark types are as angry as the Very Online left!
The fight going on in the Democratic Party right now is not between hard left, left and moderate. It's between those who want to fight and those who want to cave. And Team Fight stretches across all ideological aspects of the Party.
Democrats have all of two opportunities to have any real influence in DC before Jan 2027 when the next congress is sworn in. (1) Budget to fund the government and (2) raising the debt limit. That's it. For two years those are the only times we have any levers to influence government policy.
Not just unilaterally surrendering those opportunities but actually letting republicans use those opportunities against us is a fundamental strategic mistake. We have an actual opportunity to influence government and it's being tossed aside.
The logic for supporting it makes no sense to me. The argument is that if the government is shutdown, republicans will be able to implement everything they're doing with DOGE. So the solution to that is to surrender our only opportunity to oppose DOGE, and let them do it anyway, except this time with our active support? It makes no sense.
Maybe it's time to acknowledge that the same old gameplan that has failed for an entire generation is actually a failure. The arguments in favor of capitulation are ones that focus on the immediate news cycle for the next week and lose track of the long term investment in building a case for the party.
I bet if you polled random people all over the country that one of the most common attributes they would assign to democrats is "wimps", "republican-lite" or variations on the two. They are critiques I see constantly, from within and outside my bubble. How are we going to motivate voters to support us if our officials signal that they are not interested in fighting, ever? If you only surrender to the other party, there's no point in being in office in the first place.
Fighting republicans helps us win elections. We should do that.
The sad fact is you aren't working with a good hand when the other side are literal arsonists and nihilists. Fighting for the sake of fighting is the definition of wanting the short-term high over long-term strategy. I find it ironic that the same folks who wanted the filibuster scrapped a couple of years ago because of 'democracy' now want Senate Dems to play hardball with 47 members.
The latter position isn't hypocritical or ironic. You use the tools you have. I support removing the filibuster, but if it exists we should fucking use it. Unilateral disarmament is a stupid approach to politics. It has a consistent losing record. Mocking others for not supporting it is certainly a take. Right now we have the worst of both worlds: we do not use the filibuster to our advantage, but republicans do use the filibuster to their advantage. And we're supposed to see this as a smart play? Make it make sense.
Republicans are going to be arsonists and nihilists even if we surrender and play along with them. What do we gain by surrendering? We get to be associated with their misdeeds. Great job.
Voters don't see Trump and the GOP as extreme because Dems have essentially bailed them out of their worse instincts ever since 2016. The smart move is to dare him to enact his fucking agenda, which is incredibly unpopular sans increased immigration enforcement. Let them hang themselves with their own rope.
We lose the ability to benefit from that if we're seen as enabling that behavior. Then we're co-conspirators.
Take a look around and notice how pissed off people are. Look at how pissed the house dem caucus is! People are most angry at democrats right now. This isn't going the way you're suggesting it is.
This will be forgotten by the end of the FY. People continually over-rate how XYZ political decision will have lasting impacts over a year from now. Remember when the 2013 shutdown was going to doom Republicans in 2014?
Look, I'm not saying Dems should just roll over on everything, but when you're in the minority you have to pick and choose your battles wisely, and this was not the time for the Mel Gibson "they'll never take our freedom" rallying of the troops. Trump has overplayed his hand but it's still mostly the very politically tuned in who are realizing how bad it's gotten. His approval is still around 46-47%. Let him get down to 40ish% or below and THEN you make your move.
I cannot follow how your argument is supposed to convince me.
(1) Yes, the 2013 shutdown didn't spell disaster for republicans. If anything it energized their base and showed they were willing to fight against us.
So why is that, of all the examples in the world, being used to support democrats surrendering immediately to avoid a shutdown? It's evidence of the exact opposite of the conclusion you're making!
(2) We have fuck-all battles to pick in the first place. The only times we hold any cards at the table are when the filibuster is at play. That only matters for legislation, which we can block. There are only two must-pass bills remaining, three if we assume this song and dance will play out next year as well. The full budget (& 2026?) and raising the debt ceiling.
Do you think democrats are going to stand strong on the debt ceiling if they didn't now? Obviously not. That leaves us the full budget(s) as our last battle where we actually hold any influence for the next two years. And since we allowed the CR to go through *with only republican amendments*, we're setting the playing field for the budget as one where the expectation is that we play along like nice puppies and do what we're told.
You cannot claim we need to be careful at picking our battles, and then leave us with no battles left to pick in the first place.
Look, I'm sorry but I cannot see any logical coherence in the argument being made to me. It doesn't make sense. I do not buy it, in the slightest, and to be convinced I need something that does make sense to me.
2014 was a low-turnout mini-wave; there's little to no evidence the 2013 shutdown boosted GOP turnout given GOP turnout wasn't even good; Dems were just worse.
The logic is you wait to use limited leverage when your opponent is in a weakened state. Trump has fallen from his inauguration sugar-high but he still has a dollop of 1st term political capital that needs to peter out.
... Our leverage is not finite between instances. It's not ammo in a gun. We have a finite number of instances to use it, not finite leverage spread out across them all.
I don't care what Barro thinks. I don't even know who he is. I'm not discussing this with him. If he wants to come here and discuss it with me, then I might read his very long post about it. I'm discussing this with you. The title of his piece already comes across as bad faith. I don't want Schumer to fight for my emotional benefit. I want him to fight so we can use that one of the limited instances we have leverage to actually do something.
You keep ignoring this point. Again, we have two or three (depending on how you define it) instances left for the next two years where we have leverage.
Tell me, truthfully, do you think democrats will use their leverage with the debt ceiling? Do you want them to? When, exactly, do you think we not only should use the limited opportunities to express power we have in DC right now, but think we will use it?
And another point I made that was ignored: everybody is mad at *democrats* right now. There's no anger pointed at republicans. If the whole point of this exercise was to keep the heat on republicans, how can any rational human being argue that it was a success? It's a complete and utter failure, because now we're subject to infighting within our party.
Matt Yglesias came out with a piece on the dynamics happening here and I largely agree with it. Dems were banking on the House being unable to pass a CR themselves, and once they did, they boxed Dems into a corner. All of the options suck but I increasingly think eating this shit sandwich is likely the best outcome.
Yes having a bipartisan funding bill with clear allocation instructions would be far preferable, but while it contains a spattering of shitty inserts (including a particularly onerous one for the DC budget) the CR passed lacks anything that could be categorized as politically red-line poison pills. In addition, the impoundment debate is ultimately have to be settled by the Supremes, and that was always going to be the case. The Dem base is fooling themselves into believing they could shutdown-their way into forcing the bill to tie Trump's hands re: RIFs and spending decisions. Maybe in retrospect the House should've held their cards close to the chest until the vote, but I'm not sure if that was actually feasible.
I'm still confident the Court is not going to rule in the Administration's favor regarding impoundments, but if they do, then the floodgates are open when the next Dem President enters office. Half of ICE funding? . . .now it's going to environmental justice. Space force contracts? Now it'll be used for expanding healthcare, thank you very much. Don't think they want to open those floodgates.
In fairness, betting against the Freedom Caucus getting onboard with a CR in the past has traditionally been a bet you would take
But they've had no skin in the game since 2019, and Trump wasn't pushing for/initiating on his own draconian cuts/totally captured by Heritage folks back in 2017-18.
Sweet summer child...Trump respecting a court decision?
The Mad King respects the "Yes, Your Majesty" decision of his Court of Acolytes & Sycophants.
/s
They've adhered to every one so far outside of the US AID funding (which they've tried to weasel out of while "pretending" to adhere to the Court directives in a very convuluted and illogical fashion). I think if the Admin ignores a decision of that magnitude re: impoundments the economic and congressional pushback is going to be immense.
the republican congress? Ok sure, are you feeling ok?
Toiler, is this the Matt Yglesias piece you mean?
https://www.slowboring.com/p/sixteen-thoughts-on-an-averted-shutdown
Schumer: “We've tried nothing and we're all out of ideas.”
https://bsky.app/profile/sundaedivine.bsky.social/post/3lkdjyof6672o
Which is why Dems of all stripes (including me as an uber-establushment-y centre left type), and even the centre right Bulwark types are as angry as the Very Online left!
The fight going on in the Democratic Party right now is not between hard left, left and moderate. It's between those who want to fight and those who want to cave. And Team Fight stretches across all ideological aspects of the Party.
https://bsky.app/profile/mehdirhasan.bsky.social/post/3lkdugyssn22b
Which is very good news, means this uprising does NOT threaten to split the coalition.
I'm tired of laying down for these jackinapes.
Hidden post – "Sign-in required". Discouraging to see that BlueSky is pulling Xitter-like stuff to make you sign up for their platform.
That's applied by the poster, not by bluesky itself. I don't have an account either but I'll take Paleo's summary as sufficient.
Thanks for clarifying!
Democrats have all of two opportunities to have any real influence in DC before Jan 2027 when the next congress is sworn in. (1) Budget to fund the government and (2) raising the debt limit. That's it. For two years those are the only times we have any levers to influence government policy.
Not just unilaterally surrendering those opportunities but actually letting republicans use those opportunities against us is a fundamental strategic mistake. We have an actual opportunity to influence government and it's being tossed aside.
The logic for supporting it makes no sense to me. The argument is that if the government is shutdown, republicans will be able to implement everything they're doing with DOGE. So the solution to that is to surrender our only opportunity to oppose DOGE, and let them do it anyway, except this time with our active support? It makes no sense.
Maybe it's time to acknowledge that the same old gameplan that has failed for an entire generation is actually a failure. The arguments in favor of capitulation are ones that focus on the immediate news cycle for the next week and lose track of the long term investment in building a case for the party.
I bet if you polled random people all over the country that one of the most common attributes they would assign to democrats is "wimps", "republican-lite" or variations on the two. They are critiques I see constantly, from within and outside my bubble. How are we going to motivate voters to support us if our officials signal that they are not interested in fighting, ever? If you only surrender to the other party, there's no point in being in office in the first place.
Fighting republicans helps us win elections. We should do that.
The sad fact is you aren't working with a good hand when the other side are literal arsonists and nihilists. Fighting for the sake of fighting is the definition of wanting the short-term high over long-term strategy. I find it ironic that the same folks who wanted the filibuster scrapped a couple of years ago because of 'democracy' now want Senate Dems to play hardball with 47 members.
The latter position isn't hypocritical or ironic. You use the tools you have. I support removing the filibuster, but if it exists we should fucking use it. Unilateral disarmament is a stupid approach to politics. It has a consistent losing record. Mocking others for not supporting it is certainly a take. Right now we have the worst of both worlds: we do not use the filibuster to our advantage, but republicans do use the filibuster to their advantage. And we're supposed to see this as a smart play? Make it make sense.
Republicans are going to be arsonists and nihilists even if we surrender and play along with them. What do we gain by surrendering? We get to be associated with their misdeeds. Great job.
Voters don't see Trump and the GOP as extreme because Dems have essentially bailed them out of their worse instincts ever since 2016. The smart move is to dare him to enact his fucking agenda, which is incredibly unpopular sans increased immigration enforcement. Let them hang themselves with their own rope.
We lose the ability to benefit from that if we're seen as enabling that behavior. Then we're co-conspirators.
Take a look around and notice how pissed off people are. Look at how pissed the house dem caucus is! People are most angry at democrats right now. This isn't going the way you're suggesting it is.
This will be forgotten by the end of the FY. People continually over-rate how XYZ political decision will have lasting impacts over a year from now. Remember when the 2013 shutdown was going to doom Republicans in 2014?
Look, I'm not saying Dems should just roll over on everything, but when you're in the minority you have to pick and choose your battles wisely, and this was not the time for the Mel Gibson "they'll never take our freedom" rallying of the troops. Trump has overplayed his hand but it's still mostly the very politically tuned in who are realizing how bad it's gotten. His approval is still around 46-47%. Let him get down to 40ish% or below and THEN you make your move.
I cannot follow how your argument is supposed to convince me.
(1) Yes, the 2013 shutdown didn't spell disaster for republicans. If anything it energized their base and showed they were willing to fight against us.
So why is that, of all the examples in the world, being used to support democrats surrendering immediately to avoid a shutdown? It's evidence of the exact opposite of the conclusion you're making!
(2) We have fuck-all battles to pick in the first place. The only times we hold any cards at the table are when the filibuster is at play. That only matters for legislation, which we can block. There are only two must-pass bills remaining, three if we assume this song and dance will play out next year as well. The full budget (& 2026?) and raising the debt ceiling.
Do you think democrats are going to stand strong on the debt ceiling if they didn't now? Obviously not. That leaves us the full budget(s) as our last battle where we actually hold any influence for the next two years. And since we allowed the CR to go through *with only republican amendments*, we're setting the playing field for the budget as one where the expectation is that we play along like nice puppies and do what we're told.
You cannot claim we need to be careful at picking our battles, and then leave us with no battles left to pick in the first place.
Look, I'm sorry but I cannot see any logical coherence in the argument being made to me. It doesn't make sense. I do not buy it, in the slightest, and to be convinced I need something that does make sense to me.
2014 was a low-turnout mini-wave; there's little to no evidence the 2013 shutdown boosted GOP turnout given GOP turnout wasn't even good; Dems were just worse.
The logic is you wait to use limited leverage when your opponent is in a weakened state. Trump has fallen from his inauguration sugar-high but he still has a dollop of 1st term political capital that needs to peter out.
I don't always agree with Barro but I think he also put out a well-reasoned post here: https://open.substack.com/pub/joshbarro/p/it-is-not-chuck-schumers-job-to-satisfy?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=4akp7p
... Our leverage is not finite between instances. It's not ammo in a gun. We have a finite number of instances to use it, not finite leverage spread out across them all.
I don't care what Barro thinks. I don't even know who he is. I'm not discussing this with him. If he wants to come here and discuss it with me, then I might read his very long post about it. I'm discussing this with you. The title of his piece already comes across as bad faith. I don't want Schumer to fight for my emotional benefit. I want him to fight so we can use that one of the limited instances we have leverage to actually do something.
You keep ignoring this point. Again, we have two or three (depending on how you define it) instances left for the next two years where we have leverage.
Tell me, truthfully, do you think democrats will use their leverage with the debt ceiling? Do you want them to? When, exactly, do you think we not only should use the limited opportunities to express power we have in DC right now, but think we will use it?
And another point I made that was ignored: everybody is mad at *democrats* right now. There's no anger pointed at republicans. If the whole point of this exercise was to keep the heat on republicans, how can any rational human being argue that it was a success? It's a complete and utter failure, because now we're subject to infighting within our party.