“I am in shock at the stupidity of [Newsom] inviting Steve Bannon on his podcast,” Kinzinger said Wednesday. “Many of us on the right sacrificed careers to fight Bannon, and Newsom is trying to make a career and a presidential run by building him up.”
They say that a bar which hosts Nazis is a Nazi bar. I am also shocked and appalled by Newsom's desperation to become President. He missed his shot to challenge Biden in 2024. His position is simply untenable outside of California and no matter how many far right hosts he chats with; he will not be able to become Democrats' Mitt Romney and distance himself from his liberal past.
Kinzinger is right, trying to appeal less scary to conservative voters by associating with someone like Bannon isn't going to work if you've been governor of California.
It's okay! It's a longstanding policy of ours, but we know there are a lot of new folks around here (which is delightful to see). I need to get around to posting a "rules of the road" guide!
He's got 4 years so probably assumes this won't amount to much. Hope he retires but he looks like one of those lifers who can't retire and being in congress is his whole life.
On the topic of Schumer and his poor leadership, has anyone noticed that there's no real successor for him in the wings?
Schumer has been caucus leader for almost a decade now. Second in charge is Durbin, who is older than him and should seriously retire — he's also even more ineffectual than Schumer, somehow. No one else with a leadership title in the caucus (of which there are a lot) has seemingly been positioned to be ready to be the next caucus leader.
When Reid was nearing the end of his tenure it was well understood that Schumer was going to succeed him. As far as I can tell there is nobody to do that now.
Schatz and Murphy are two that I would like to see move up into leadership. I've gotten the sense that they both want it. They act like they understand that we need to treat republicans differently than democrats did in the early 00s and before.
But like you say, there's no indication that Schatz or Murphy are an heir-apparent or anything of the sort. Only that they could go for the job.
From what I hear, the same thing is happening in Canada as in Norway. Namely that the election prospects of the left-of-center parties Labor / Liberals, which had been considered doomed, is rising, while that of the Conservatives / Tories is sinking – all of it collateral damage of the insane policies of the American Mad King.
In Norway, polls are now indicating a far-closer autumn election, with Labor and their potential coalition allied centrist and leftist parties having a fighting chance.
Not if that Leger poll out the other day is correct. And it’s a small quibble but the days of the Tories are over. It had a proud tradition when the Progressive Conservatives were around. But the new version of right of center should be nicknamed, the Republicans.
Better an Evertonian than a Manc. I'm a Kopite because of the Beatles and the Red Sox. And yes, I'm well aware that Sir Paul is an Evertonian, but this proud Bostonian couldn't resist Liverpool.
RIP to Alan Simpson, the most recent moderate conservative to serve in the top level of GOP leadership (GOP whip from 1985 to 1995). Would be delighted today to have somebody like him representing Wyoming. He was one of a shrinking number of former senators who experienced a competent senate, and we're now down to 19 who were there in the 1970s.
Team Mallory McMorrow all the way. Young, vibrant, camera-friendly. Exactly the demographic we need to phase out Schumer-itis, whether the candidate is a man or a woman.
For decades, Republicans have held every state-wide office in Texas. And because they were the same Republicans, ambitious Republicans faced a bottleneck at the top. That has now loosened a bit with the announcement that Comptroller Glenn Hegar is stepping down to become chancellor of the Texas A&M University system. Two Republicans have so far announced their intentions to succeed him - Chris Craddick, chair of the Texas Railroad Commission (a misnomer, since it regulates oil and gas, not railroads), and Don Huffines, a former state senator. No Democrats have yet announced.
The Texas RR Commish began in the 1890s regulating railroads, and over time its portfolio shifted towards energy industry regulation (or, often, nonregulation). In 1984 the federal government took over most transportation regulation, and in 2005 the Texas RRC gave up the last of its railroad oversight duties to the state Transportation Commission, but for whatever reasons hasn't changed its name.
Christi Craddick is the daughter of state Rep. and former speaker Tom Craddick, in office continuously since 1969 and thus presumably one of the longest serving state legislators in the US.
I have a friend working on a campaign up in Wisconsin and he said one of the labor unions conducted a survey last week and released all the polling details to everyone who came to a certain rally and it has Crawford up 48 to 45. There are a lot of other details in the poll and it was cause I public, but I can’t get a hold of the numbers right now.
I do know that musk is absolutely hated with unfavorables like -15. Tying Schim to him has been a brilliant piece of work.
HOUSE DEMS URGE SENATE DEMS TO defy Schumer and STOP THE CR
House Democrats from across the party's ideological spectrum are engaged in a campaign to get Senate Democrats to defy their leader. House lawmakers feel that there is a glimmer of hope, however faint, that they can actually persuade their Senate counterparts to reject a Republican-led government spending bill.
Also, House Democrats are circulating a strong draft letter to Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer that is well worth reading. In part, it reads:
"The American people sent Democrats to Congress to fight against Republican chaos. Instead of capitulating to their obstruction, we must fight ... we urge you to reject the partisan continuing resolution."
Don't know what it will be worth but I'm on hold for my senators' offices to tell them to vote against the CR. Since both of NH's senators were on the list expected to vote for it, it might matter. It's a long hold, so it might be that many other people are doing similar.
Last night, Jen Rubin at The Contrarian sent out a special alert asking her readers to please call or write Chuck Schumer to implore him to vote NO. Her 96-second video is well worth watching.
(This is not simple. As Schumer and others have pointed out, a government shutdown hands Trump very dangerous powers. For instance, Trump alone gets to decide which federal workers and which government services are "essential". And as far as I can tell there is no easy off-ramp.)
I suspect he and others are worried about what Elon is going to be able to get away with while everyone is furloughed. That's my only concern with a shutdown right now, and I suspect others on Congress are worried about the same thing. Don't know if that's Schumer's concern, but Wall Street is already fucked, so that would be a rather pointless reason.
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.
Definitely primary Schumer, Schatz, and Gillibrand. As wretched as Fetterman, Masto, and Hassan are, those states aren't safe and a primary challenge could result in a Republican winning, so we may be stuck with their worthless cowardly asses for the foreseeable future. Good riddance to King, Shaheen, Durbin, and Peters.
Careful what you wish for. Even at their worst and most frustrating, Sinema and Manchin were far better than any Republican; what mattered most is that they – like Bernie and Angus King – caucused with the Democrats. (Likewise Jared Golden in the House.)
If someone can beat Fetterman, CCM, or Hassan in a primary in then they're probably going to be a capable general election candidate.
The democratic primary electorate of NH isn't full of die hard progressives, nor have I gotten the sense that this is true in PA or NV either. Someone who can make it through those primaries successfully should be in a good position to win the actual election too. We're not going to get a successful challenge by someone who bases their campaign off of being ideologically extreme — they won't alienate the electorate right off the bat. And if those senators are unable to win a primary, it would indicate huge weaknesses with them with the base that would mean they're weak in the general election.
Unless they're challenged by our equivalent of Christine O'Donnell, we'll be fine.
Hassan is dead to me now. I'll do a write in against her in the primary if she doesn't attract a challenger. I'm not a fan of Goodlander but I'd wholeheartedly endorse her if she challenged Hassan. Shaheen is already retiring so I cannot support an effort to primary her, but I will transfer her sins to her family if any of them run for something.
I was telling a friend I'm starting to become convinced that Fetterman might not run in 2028. It's a closed primary in Pennsylvania. It's one thing to have to take some tough votes that the base may hate but he's been acting like a huge jackass since Trump's return and has been kissing the ring. My guess is Fetterman ends up cashing out and goes to work for AIPAC.
I'd like it if that were true, but I get the impression that Fetterman has something in common with Manchin. He thrives off of being hated by the democratic base. He will want to stick around because he can keep provoking that disdain that he enjoys.
Agreed. We need to stop being scared of our own shadow and afraid of primary challengers. Does it have a chance to backfire? Maybe. But the quality of Dems we'll have in office will be significantly better than the spineless cowards we have now.
Reid would have gotten the caucus on board with opposing this. He was always a fighter. He's rolling in his grave at Schumer leading the caucus into capitulation.
Good luck with that. Here’s hoping the Democratic nominee if not Cortez-Masto ends up pulling it off with At or more than her % margin of victory in 2028.
Rosen had a nailbiter in the same state, even more recently. She didn't make this mistake.
Ossoff has possibly the toughest senate reelection campaign on our side for 2026. He didn't make this mistake. Warnock shares a state with him, also didn't make this mistake.
Gallego and Kelly also represent one of our toughest senate states, they voted against it too.
Marie Gluesenkamp Perez represents a house seat that is outright red instead of being a purple state that Trump won while winning nationally. She voted against it in the house.
Being from a tough state isn't justification or defense.
Truthfully we need to primary every Democrat in the Senate because there are others who might be hiding behind these 10 who wanted to vote yes but were given a pass. Clean slate.
If we successfully primary the ones that do dumb things, it will scare the others to continue their actions of not doing dumb things.
We need to reward being not dumb. Even if it's reluctantly so, the others still did the right thing. If we primary them for potentially wanting to be dumb even though they ultimately weren't, we'll fail to make any headway.
Agree. I'm all for finding good primary challenges but not against the ones that did the right thing today and voted No on cloture. Whether they were sincere or not about voting No on cloture, they got the message that this is what the base wants.
Schatz, CCM and Peters are the most disappointing ones on that list. Peters' staff told folks he was voting No on cloture. Schatz at least proves that just having a younger Senator as a deputy in the leadership position doesn't mean they aren't going to buckle under pressure.
Senators that are probably on their last term, but not known: King, Durbin
Senators from safe states: Gillibrand, Schumer, Schatz
Senators from swing states: Fetterman, Hassan, CCM
Schatz is the most disappointing of the bunch. I thought he had his head on right. Guess not. Otherwise it's about what I'd expect. Wouldn't have guessed CCM but not surprised either. Impressed that Warner didn't join the group.
All three of Fetterman, Hassan, and CCM are all up in 2028. As are Schumer and Schatz.
Conclusion: I don’t see why Peters or Shaheen, who are both retiring, felt obliged to vote Yes. Likewise Gillibrand and especially Schatz. If three of those four had voted No, then Cloture would have failed.
I doubt it's a coincidence that of the three of them up in 2026, two are known to be retiring and the third (Durbin) is hoped for/suspected to retire.
This stinks of being planned out in advance: they're betting that the base will move on and forget by 2028. They're probably right. I won't forget. But enough people probably will. I'd hazard a guess that there were a few more yes votes in the wings if needed. But I can only focus my ire on those that did vote yes.
Andy Beshear hits Newsom for hosting Bannon on his new podcast: https://www.politico.com/news/2025/03/13/beshear-newsom-bannon-podcast-00230516
“I am in shock at the stupidity of [Newsom] inviting Steve Bannon on his podcast,” Kinzinger said Wednesday. “Many of us on the right sacrificed careers to fight Bannon, and Newsom is trying to make a career and a presidential run by building him up.”
They say that a bar which hosts Nazis is a Nazi bar. I am also shocked and appalled by Newsom's desperation to become President. He missed his shot to challenge Biden in 2024. His position is simply untenable outside of California and no matter how many far right hosts he chats with; he will not be able to become Democrats' Mitt Romney and distance himself from his liberal past.
Kinzinger is right, trying to appeal less scary to conservative voters by associating with someone like Bannon isn't going to work if you've been governor of California.
Exactly!
Just a reminder that Democratic presidential primary talk is off-limits here. Thanks.
Ohh, I didn't know that.
It's okay! It's a longstanding policy of ours, but we know there are a lot of new folks around here (which is delightful to see). I need to get around to posting a "rules of the road" guide!
Democratic House reps incl. Centrists are looking to primary Schumer with either AOC or Dan Goldman. https://www.axios.com/2025/03/14/house-democrats-angry-chuck-schumer-shutdown
https://www.cnn.com/2025/03/13/politics/ocasio-cortez-schumer-democratic-shutdown-plan/index.html
The entire house Democratic caucus wanted to fight Schumer yesterday.
He's got 4 years so probably assumes this won't amount to much. Hope he retires but he looks like one of those lifers who can't retire and being in congress is his whole life.
On the topic of Schumer and his poor leadership, has anyone noticed that there's no real successor for him in the wings?
Schumer has been caucus leader for almost a decade now. Second in charge is Durbin, who is older than him and should seriously retire — he's also even more ineffectual than Schumer, somehow. No one else with a leadership title in the caucus (of which there are a lot) has seemingly been positioned to be ready to be the next caucus leader.
When Reid was nearing the end of his tenure it was well understood that Schumer was going to succeed him. As far as I can tell there is nobody to do that now.
Schatz has been angling for it. He has risen pretty high and will probably take Durbin’s place if he retires. But definitely not the inevitable heir.
Schatz and Murphy are two that I would like to see move up into leadership. I've gotten the sense that they both want it. They act like they understand that we need to treat republicans differently than democrats did in the early 00s and before.
But like you say, there's no indication that Schatz or Murphy are an heir-apparent or anything of the sort. Only that they could go for the job.
EDIT: Well, scratch the Schatz part of this.
Would love Schatz or Murphy to replace Durbin as Democratic whip!! 💙🇺🇲
Speaking of Durbin, Lt. Gov. Juliana Stratton has all but said she's running if he retires, which is good!!
She should announce and put on the pressure
For those of you who wish to see Mark Carney getting sworn in as Prime Minister of Canada: https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/carney-swearing-in-pm-cabinet-1.7482871
Any thoughts on the cabinet that PM Mark Carney is selecting?
We shall see what happens. Keep in mind that the Tories are still favoured to win the most seats in the next election.
From what I hear, the same thing is happening in Canada as in Norway. Namely that the election prospects of the left-of-center parties Labor / Liberals, which had been considered doomed, is rising, while that of the Conservatives / Tories is sinking – all of it collateral damage of the insane policies of the American Mad King.
In Norway, polls are now indicating a far-closer autumn election, with Labor and their potential coalition allied centrist and leftist parties having a fighting chance.
Not if that Leger poll out the other day is correct. And it’s a small quibble but the days of the Tories are over. It had a proud tradition when the Progressive Conservatives were around. But the new version of right of center should be nicknamed, the Republicans.
Maybe. Though it’s likeliest in a minority now, not the Mulroney-sized landslide PP seemed to be lining up a few months back
He's an Evertonian, which thrills me to no end. The Canadia is just the best.
Better an Evertonian than a Manc. I'm a Kopite because of the Beatles and the Red Sox. And yes, I'm well aware that Sir Paul is an Evertonian, but this proud Bostonian couldn't resist Liverpool.
YNWA
COYG!
RIP to Alan Simpson, the most recent moderate conservative to serve in the top level of GOP leadership (GOP whip from 1985 to 1995). Would be delighted today to have somebody like him representing Wyoming. He was one of a shrinking number of former senators who experienced a competent senate, and we're now down to 19 who were there in the 1970s.
https://wyofile.com/towering-wyoming-statesman-alan-simpson-dies-at-93/
He could be a nasty piece of work. See the Clarence Thomas hearings.
While, as you say he had a notable Senate career, the main thing I remember him for is talking about "snoopy snoopy poop dog and the enema man."
https://newrepublic.com/article/84879/snoopy-snoopy-poop-dog
Team Mallory McMorrow all the way. Young, vibrant, camera-friendly. Exactly the demographic we need to phase out Schumer-itis, whether the candidate is a man or a woman.
She's a fighter. We need more of them right now. If I had any disposable income I'd donate to her right now.
For decades, Republicans have held every state-wide office in Texas. And because they were the same Republicans, ambitious Republicans faced a bottleneck at the top. That has now loosened a bit with the announcement that Comptroller Glenn Hegar is stepping down to become chancellor of the Texas A&M University system. Two Republicans have so far announced their intentions to succeed him - Chris Craddick, chair of the Texas Railroad Commission (a misnomer, since it regulates oil and gas, not railroads), and Don Huffines, a former state senator. No Democrats have yet announced.
The Texas RR Commish began in the 1890s regulating railroads, and over time its portfolio shifted towards energy industry regulation (or, often, nonregulation). In 1984 the federal government took over most transportation regulation, and in 2005 the Texas RRC gave up the last of its railroad oversight duties to the state Transportation Commission, but for whatever reasons hasn't changed its name.
Christi Craddick is the daughter of state Rep. and former speaker Tom Craddick, in office continuously since 1969 and thus presumably one of the longest serving state legislators in the US.
Wisconsin Supreme Court race-
I have a friend working on a campaign up in Wisconsin and he said one of the labor unions conducted a survey last week and released all the polling details to everyone who came to a certain rally and it has Crawford up 48 to 45. There are a lot of other details in the poll and it was cause I public, but I can’t get a hold of the numbers right now.
I do know that musk is absolutely hated with unfavorables like -15. Tying Schim to him has been a brilliant piece of work.
HOUSE DEMS URGE SENATE DEMS TO defy Schumer and STOP THE CR
House Democrats from across the party's ideological spectrum are engaged in a campaign to get Senate Democrats to defy their leader. House lawmakers feel that there is a glimmer of hope, however faint, that they can actually persuade their Senate counterparts to reject a Republican-led government spending bill.
https://www.axios.com/2025/03/14/house-democrats-chuck-schumer-shutdown
Also, House Democrats are circulating a strong draft letter to Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer that is well worth reading. In part, it reads:
"The American people sent Democrats to Congress to fight against Republican chaos. Instead of capitulating to their obstruction, we must fight ... we urge you to reject the partisan continuing resolution."
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/25561901-house-dems-letter-schumer-cr/
Trump has praised Schumer's "courage" in backing the spending bill.
https://www.axios.com/2025/03/14/trump-praises-schumer-cr-government-shutdown
Don't know what it will be worth but I'm on hold for my senators' offices to tell them to vote against the CR. Since both of NH's senators were on the list expected to vote for it, it might matter. It's a long hold, so it might be that many other people are doing similar.
Last night, Jen Rubin at The Contrarian sent out a special alert asking her readers to please call or write Chuck Schumer to implore him to vote NO. Her 96-second video is well worth watching.
https://contrarian.substack.com/p/jen-asks-for-your-help
(This is not simple. As Schumer and others have pointed out, a government shutdown hands Trump very dangerous powers. For instance, Trump alone gets to decide which federal workers and which government services are "essential". And as far as I can tell there is no easy off-ramp.)
That discretion on who is and isn’t essential is a good point. There were really no good options, just various bad ones.
Still, Schumer shouldn’t have intimated he was a No and then be a Yea a day later
What do we think Schumer is worried about? Stock market? Fortune 500 companies and their profits in New York?
I suspect he and others are worried about what Elon is going to be able to get away with while everyone is furloughed. That's my only concern with a shutdown right now, and I suspect others on Congress are worried about the same thing. Don't know if that's Schumer's concern, but Wall Street is already fucked, so that would be a rather pointless reason.
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.
Senate roll call vote on the CR happening now. Video window shows tally and live fed.
https://www.dailypress.senate.gov/
CR passes 62–38. (Three more Dem NO votes were required to stop Cloture.)
YES:
– Chuck Schumer, NY
– Brian Schatz, Hawaii
– John Fetterman, Pennsylvania
– Dick Durbin, Illinois
– Hassan, NH
– Cortez Masto, Nevada
– Gary Peters, Michigan
– Gillibrand, NY
– Shaheen, NH
– Angus King, Maine
NO (GOP):
– Rand Paul, Kentucky
Definitely primary Schumer, Schatz, and Gillibrand. As wretched as Fetterman, Masto, and Hassan are, those states aren't safe and a primary challenge could result in a Republican winning, so we may be stuck with their worthless cowardly asses for the foreseeable future. Good riddance to King, Shaheen, Durbin, and Peters.
I'm sick of Fetterman, i don't care if he's replaced by a repuglican.
He sucks, but any Republican would be infinitely worse.
He may end up being one.
Careful what you wish for. Even at their worst and most frustrating, Sinema and Manchin were far better than any Republican; what mattered most is that they – like Bernie and Angus King – caucused with the Democrats. (Likewise Jared Golden in the House.)
Schatz is generally very good. I’ll give him a pass on this one.
He's dead to me now.
For just this issue?
This was the one vote that mattered.
why? seems like a biggie
If someone can beat Fetterman, CCM, or Hassan in a primary in then they're probably going to be a capable general election candidate.
The democratic primary electorate of NH isn't full of die hard progressives, nor have I gotten the sense that this is true in PA or NV either. Someone who can make it through those primaries successfully should be in a good position to win the actual election too. We're not going to get a successful challenge by someone who bases their campaign off of being ideologically extreme — they won't alienate the electorate right off the bat. And if those senators are unable to win a primary, it would indicate huge weaknesses with them with the base that would mean they're weak in the general election.
Unless they're challenged by our equivalent of Christine O'Donnell, we'll be fine.
Hassan is dead to me now. I'll do a write in against her in the primary if she doesn't attract a challenger. I'm not a fan of Goodlander but I'd wholeheartedly endorse her if she challenged Hassan. Shaheen is already retiring so I cannot support an effort to primary her, but I will transfer her sins to her family if any of them run for something.
I was telling a friend I'm starting to become convinced that Fetterman might not run in 2028. It's a closed primary in Pennsylvania. It's one thing to have to take some tough votes that the base may hate but he's been acting like a huge jackass since Trump's return and has been kissing the ring. My guess is Fetterman ends up cashing out and goes to work for AIPAC.
I'd like it if that were true, but I get the impression that Fetterman has something in common with Manchin. He thrives off of being hated by the democratic base. He will want to stick around because he can keep provoking that disdain that he enjoys.
Well he'd have to win a primary
Agreed. We need to stop being scared of our own shadow and afraid of primary challengers. Does it have a chance to backfire? Maybe. But the quality of Dems we'll have in office will be significantly better than the spineless cowards we have now.
Cortez-Masto disappointed me the most. Last remnant of the Harry Reid machine? Should have fought.
Reid would have gotten the caucus on board with opposing this. He was always a fighter. He's rolling in his grave at Schumer leading the caucus into capitulation.
Cortez-Masto won re-election to the Senate in a mail biter NV has moved towards the right.
I’m cutting her some slack. She’s also up for re-election in a presidential election year anyway.
No better time to primary her and replace her with someone better.
Good luck with that. Here’s hoping the Democratic nominee if not Cortez-Masto ends up pulling it off with At or more than her % margin of victory in 2028.
Rosen had a nailbiter in the same state, even more recently. She didn't make this mistake.
Ossoff has possibly the toughest senate reelection campaign on our side for 2026. He didn't make this mistake. Warnock shares a state with him, also didn't make this mistake.
Gallego and Kelly also represent one of our toughest senate states, they voted against it too.
Marie Gluesenkamp Perez represents a house seat that is outright red instead of being a purple state that Trump won while winning nationally. She voted against it in the house.
Being from a tough state isn't justification or defense.
Truthfully we need to primary every Democrat in the Senate because there are others who might be hiding behind these 10 who wanted to vote yes but were given a pass. Clean slate.
If we successfully primary the ones that do dumb things, it will scare the others to continue their actions of not doing dumb things.
We need to reward being not dumb. Even if it's reluctantly so, the others still did the right thing. If we primary them for potentially wanting to be dumb even though they ultimately weren't, we'll fail to make any headway.
Agree. I'm all for finding good primary challenges but not against the ones that did the right thing today and voted No on cloture. Whether they were sincere or not about voting No on cloture, they got the message that this is what the base wants.
Schatz, CCM and Peters are the most disappointing ones on that list. Peters' staff told folks he was voting No on cloture. Schatz at least proves that just having a younger Senator as a deputy in the leadership position doesn't mean they aren't going to buckle under pressure.
Breaking the list down.
Senators retiring: Peters, Shaheen
Senators that are probably on their last term, but not known: King, Durbin
Senators from safe states: Gillibrand, Schumer, Schatz
Senators from swing states: Fetterman, Hassan, CCM
Schatz is the most disappointing of the bunch. I thought he had his head on right. Guess not. Otherwise it's about what I'd expect. Wouldn't have guessed CCM but not surprised either. Impressed that Warner didn't join the group.
All three of Fetterman, Hassan, and CCM are all up in 2028. As are Schumer and Schatz.
Conclusion: I don’t see why Peters or Shaheen, who are both retiring, felt obliged to vote Yes. Likewise Gillibrand and especially Schatz. If three of those four had voted No, then Cloture would have failed.
I doubt it's a coincidence that of the three of them up in 2026, two are known to be retiring and the third (Durbin) is hoped for/suspected to retire.
This stinks of being planned out in advance: they're betting that the base will move on and forget by 2028. They're probably right. I won't forget. But enough people probably will. I'd hazard a guess that there were a few more yes votes in the wings if needed. But I can only focus my ire on those that did vote yes.