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.
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.
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.