Post New

Senate dems should all vote against the House CR, shutdown be damned. But they need to publicly explain why much more coherently than they currently are. If not, the public narrative will be "see, the dems shut down the gov't!", and the GOP will be spouting that refrain until the mid-terms.

But Schumer has already doubled down in a speech on the Senate floor this morning. He still believes a shutdown will do more damage by allowing Musk/Trump to accelerate the destruction of gov't. Any validity to that view?

Nancy agrees:

Sahil Kapur ‪@sahilkapur.bsky.social‬

Extraordinary moment — Nancy Pelosi issues a statement calling on Democratic senators to reject the House funding bill, i.e. to defy Chuck Schumer.

"Democratic senators should listen to the women," she says, referring to Murray/DeLauro who want a 1-month stopgap bill instead.

https://bsky.app/profile/sahilkapur.bsky.social/po...

<sigh> I meant of course that Nancy agrees with me - and Goofy - to vote no, not with Schumer!

I would listen to Pelosi. She was much smarter than Schumer, even if I didn't agree with her about some things.

I do agree the Dems should get in front of this in terms of the media, and also should not expect to come out of a shutdown unscathed. There will be no "good" from a shutdown, just "less bad". They can't be afraid of that, or the Felon wins. His modus operandi is fear and intimidation.

Senate dems should all vote against the House CR, shutdown be damned.

And then what?

That's the question. How does this end? Senate Dems vote against the House CR and say they won't change their mind unless something's changed about it....and then what?

The GOP will say no, the government will shutdown, and the American people will experience the massive disruption that comes with government shutdown. This is a boon for the Administration. Firstly, it becomes impossible to separate out what chaos is caused by DOGE's depredations and what was caused by the shutdown. Second, it lets them place everyone they want to stop working on furlough (rather than having to resort to administrative leave), and raises the possibility that they can fire them outright if the shutdown goes on too long. And finally, this causes a massive amount of pain for government workers, who won't be getting paid - so they're going to be pleading with the Democrats to relent and end the shutdown.

Meanwhile, the GOP isn't going to budge. They can't. The House can't pass anything much different than what they passed, and they won't agree to anything that reins in Musk.

So we're basically replaying the 2013 shutdown, but with the parties reversed. Back then, the GOP base was itching for their party to "fight" against the horrors of Obamacare and try to leverage the shutdown into getting it repealed. Since that ask was never ever going to happen, the GOP found themselves in a no-win situation - they Democrats would never give them what they wanted, and they couldn't keep the government closed forever. Once you shut down the government, you know it has to open up again eventually - so the Democrats just waited them out. And they had to fold.

Given that, play this out - after the Democrats reject the CR, what do you think happens?

Good ol' Club 401K.

Never wants to play chess, plan, think -- fight the fights worth truly winning - with the endgame being ability to govern.

I knew what you meant.

<<Given that, play this out - after the Democrats reject the CR, what do you think happens?>>

One thing that I'm pretty sure will happen: A lot of the Democratic base will never again believe that pols like Schumer et al. have their backs.

The argument that "This would have been even worse if we hadn't caved in to the bully" won't get much political traction--even if it's probably true.

One thing that I'm pretty sure will happen: A lot of the Democratic base will never again believe that pols like Schumer et al. have their backs.

The argument that "This would have been even worse if we hadn't caved in to the bully" won't get much political traction--even if it's probably true.

Which is silly, but not something that leadership can control. Causing damage in a pointless gesture that only makes things worse might make a portion of the Democratic base feel like leadership "has their backs," but ends up being worse for both the country and the party.

It's not "caving in to the bully" if the bully is actually in charge. The GOP won control of both chambers and the Presidency, so the Democrats can't stop them by using a shutdown as leverage. The GOP was never able to do it to the Democrats, and the Democrats won't be able to do it to them.

The Democrats already made their best stand - they forced the GOP to try to get a bill through the House with their own votes. The GOP succeeded in doing that, so they've won the day. The Democrats can't stop it now, and fighting it only makes it worse for a lot of people they care about (recipients of government services, federal workers) and for the party as a whole.

I am inclined to agree with Matt Yglesias on his take on the CR in general, and this in particular:

The fact is, Democrats lost the election in November. They lost the White House. The lost the House. They lost the Senate.

It drives me crazy that the very same progressives who shit on Democrats for not being able to stop bad things Republicans do after they lose elections spend all the time before elections shitting on the idea of being more pragmatic and moderate and winning more seats. If there were four more House Democrats, none of whom supported any policy changes in a progressive direction whatsoever, that would still give Democrats a majority and the ability to block all kinds of GOP fuckery. That’s true on DOGE, it’s true on Medicaid and SNAP for billions of poor kids. It’s actually a really big deal. If you want to stop Republicans from doing bad things, you need to win races. You need to back moderates in red-leaning districts and encourage party leaders to take popular positions and win.

https://www.slowboring.com/p/sixteen-thoughts-on-a...

If that "lot of the Democratic base" would grow up and stop being butthurt about the Democrats "not having their back" in futile gestures, and instead would be more concerned about winning swing seats, then they wouldn't be in this situation.

Given that, play this out - after the Democrats reject the CR, what do you think happens?

More chaos.

But if they acquiesce, more bad things will happen. At least the Dems can show they have a backbone to their constituents. Right now, they're like overcooked noodles. Most of their complaints are delivered pathetically (like weird songs and chants at protests, and wishy-washy words in speeches).

They only argument I see in favor is that the Reps might actually want a shutdown. That's what Musk and DOGE is all about: ending government. My contention is that people will realize faster that this is a bad thing if there is a general shutdown. Speed-up the slow-motion train wreck we're already experiencing.

...instead would be more concerned about winning swing seats, then they wouldn't be in this situation.

Easier said than done. But I agree. They need to get more swing seats. How to do that if you can't show people you try to fight for them? Then they go for the nationalist candidate, as they did. They apparently will only learn it was a bad idea after the fact, and vote the other way in four years (hopefully). But if Dems don't fight for them, why would they vote for them?

Given that, play this out - after the Democrats reject the CR, what do you think happens?

I might think that with enough "clear messaging" from the dems about why they chose to shut the gov't down, perhaps there would be enough public outrage at the GOP that they would be forced to make concessions to the dems.

But perhaps that's a pure pipe dream on my part, and who knows how long it could take. I have to wonder what Pelosi et. al. thought the end game would be.

In the end, I'm glad I'm not a politician.

PS - one thing I don't understand is how the dems can say the GOP has the power to do pass whatever they wany with no dem support at all. That's true in the House, but if the GOP Senate doesn't have the pure number of votes needed to prevent the filibuster, how can they pass a bill at least some dems don't vote for it? Is the filibuster removable by less than 60 Senators?

Given that, play this out - after the Democrats reject the CR, what do you think happens?

Let me play it the other way. When the economy goes toes up, or Social Security checks stop arriving, or whatever it is that works now that doesn’t work later happens - and it is *bound* to happen, because when you “move fast, break things” you (by definition) “break things.”

When that happens the Republicans will point and say “Hey, the Democrats voted for it too!”

In the Mafia, once you submit to the Don once, you’re his forever. He will never believe you’re going to stand up to him again, and neither will anyone else.

If you think this budget is a bad idea, you have to stand up and say so. I assume the Democrats think what’s going on is a bad idea (either that or we need a real opposition party), then it’s time to stand for what you believe in, even if you lose.

I remember that Hillary voted for Bush Jrs war in Iraq, even though I am sure she thought it was a bad idea. But she “triangulated” so as not to be criticized for her “unAmerican” vote, and it came back to bite here when the actual bad idea turned out to be a REALLY BAD IDEA. I submit that she lost 2016 because of Bernie’s voters, and she would have won had so many of them not held their nose because of her failure to take a stand on a bad idea when she knew it was a bad idea.

The Democrats just did it again, and will pay for it in the loss of trust of their most ardent core of voters.

They need to get more swing seats. How to do that if you can't show people you try to fight for them?

By not forcing leadership to take unpopular positions. By not engaging in futile gestures that please your base but alienate the center.

Shutdowns are unpopular. They cause a lot of pain for people who need government services. They cause pain for furloughed government employees. They disrupt private businesses that depend on government contracts or employees to function. And they never work.

You don't win elections by showing people you're willing to fight for the unpopular position. You lose elections by doing that. It's a common tactic by the base in both parties to try to force candidates to publicly agree with them, to irrevocably demonstrate that the candidate is with them, will fight for them - because that increases the power of the base within the party. But it ends up forcing your national candidates and important party figures to publicly take unpopular positions which hurt every Democrat when they're out there trying to win swing seats.

This is exactly what Yglesias was talking about. The base wants Schumer to fight for the base, and the base wants a meaningless performative gesture of in-group signaling as a talisman of fealty. Meanwhile, the majority of the voters don't want the government to be shut down - so Schumer would be showing that he won't fight for the majority of voters against the base. It's dumb, it loses elections, and accomplishes nothing except to make the people who are mad feel a little more in control of something.

BTW, of course the GOP would love for the government to shut down. I mean, obviously at this point. The Democrats would be blamed enough so that they wouldn't get too much damage, and the benefits are utterly enormous compared to that. All the bad stuff that's going to happen to the economy, the stock market, to government services....all the FAFO consequences from the tariffs and destruction of government? The GOP would be able to blame a ton of that on Democrats for shutting down the government for a month. And it would be a month, because after 30 days the Administration gets a ton of additional powers in managing a shutdown that would allow it to fire tons of workers, not pay them back their salaries for furlough time, etc.

Yeah, one can retreat from folly without backing into cowardice. Schumer showed far more spine facing down the wrath of the progressive left than he would have if he had indulged their self-destructive impulse to engage in a massively unpopular protest.

<<If that "lot of the Democratic base" would grow up and stop being butthurt about the Democrats "not having their back" in futile gestures, and instead would be more concerned about winning swing seats, then they wouldn't be in this situation.>>

I disagree.

The 2024 election was a simple (i.e., simple-minded) rejection of the incumbent party because "inflation." It doesn't matter that inflation was a global phenomenon. It doesn't matter that the US economy was doing fine comparatively. It doesn't matter that Kamala Harris was the candidate. The economic-based election models that have predicted Presidential election outcomes quite accurately going back to 1952 show that, if anything, Harris-Walz outperformed the forecast slightly--probably not because they were so terrific but because Trump-Vance was so awful.

Heck, I thought this was pretty much your view, also.

Therefore, a winning electoral strategy going into the 2026 midterms and beyond is to rally the base, not desert them, and win over swing voters when (not if) the Trump economy implodes as a result of massive cutbacks in government spending and employment, tax breaks to the 0.1%, tariffs, and sheer incompetence.

Trump will, of course, blame anything and everything bad on the Democrats. But (1) he'd do that regardless of whether or not Dems let the CR pass, and (2) it's kinda hard to shift the blame credibly when you're The King and control everything.

<<Causing damage in a pointless gesture that only makes things worse might make a portion of the Democratic base feel like leadership "has their backs," but ends up being worse for both the country and the party.>>

The word "causing" is doing an awful lot of work in that sentence. Dems didn't "cause" any of this.

Let me play it the other way. When the economy goes toes up, or Social Security checks stop arriving, or whatever it is that works now that doesn’t work later happens - and it is *bound* to happen, because when you “move fast, break things” you (by definition) “break things.”

When that happens the Republicans will point and say “Hey, the Democrats voted for it too!”

Yeah, and that won't work. Voters know who's in charge of the government, and they know that the GOP wrote this bill and forced the Democrats to choose between a shutdown or letting them shape the bill. They own the consequences far more in this scenario, and no escape from the tariff policy or DOGE cuts, if the Democrats don't shut down the government.

If you think this budget is a bad idea, you have to stand up and say so. I assume the Democrats think what’s going on is a bad idea (either that or we need a real opposition party), then it’s time to stand for what you believe in, even if you lose.

Sure. Which is why the vote in the House made sense. All the Democrats opposed it. And that was the smart play, because of what would happen if they had succeeded in stopping the bill from passing. The GOP would have taken most of the blame, since they had the ability to pass the bill without Democratic votes, and they would have owned the shut down and wouldn't be able to stop it without the Democrats. Which translates into the GOP leadership having to sue for Democratic votes, and some policy wins.

In the Senate, though, you can't be concerned about what happens if you lose (ie. the bill passes over all your fighting). Because you can't lose - you absolutely have enough votes to stop the bill. You have to be concerned about what happens when you win, when you stop the CR and the shutdown happens. You piss off the majority of the country, they become convinced that you're willing to take a stand against them, even though you lost the election. The majority can't claim Democrats are responsible for what happens when a bill fails in the House, when they have the ability to pass things on their own - but they can claim that Democrats are responsible if they filibuster a bill to death in the Senate, because the minority does have power in that chamber. So Democrats have to live with the consequences of how they choose to exercise the power they have in the Senate (and not the House), and using that power in an unpopular way that hurts people is typically not a way to win the next election cycle.

If their most ardent core of voters lose trust in them because of this, then that can't be helped. The base can always cause their party to lose by insisting on punishing them if they don't do unpopular things.

The 2024 election was a simple (i.e., simple-minded) rejection of the incumbent party because "inflation." It doesn't matter that inflation was a global phenomenon. It doesn't matter that the US economy was doing fine comparatively. It doesn't matter that Kamala Harris was the candidate. The economic-based election models that have predicted Presidential election outcomes quite accurately going back to 1952 show that, if anything, Harris-Walz outperformed the forecast slightly--probably not because they were so terrific but because Trump-Vance was so awful.

Heck, I thought this was pretty much your view, also.

Not entirely. In every election, economics is always the most important issue. But the Democratic brand overall is in the toilet, which is a big part of why the Democrats lost so much ground underneath that topline figure. Trump-Vance outperformed in a lot of areas that they shouldn't, and a big part of that was not just the Democratic base feeling unloved, but also because a lot of voters have negative associations with the Democrats.

One can't have it both ways. One can't believe that the Republicans are going to alienate moderates and independents if they cave into their base and stake out positions the base likes but that are unpopular overall (abortion, for example) and simultaneously believe that catering to the Democratic base on issues that progressives want but that are unpopular overall won't have the same effect. One can't argue that the American people will reject the minority party "taking the government hostage" by effectuating a shutdown because they don't like what the majority wants when it's the GOP doing it, but then claim that it won't damage the Democrats when they're the ones holding the hostage.

Trump won, in part, because he was able to tell so much of his base to eff off when they wanted him to prove he "had their back" in the election on issues that were political losers. He told the anti-abortion right to basically pound sand - he knew what they wanted was political poison in the general election, and so they had to suck it up and deal with the fact that he wasn't going to "have their back" in those fights. Same thing with the anti-entitlement small-government wing (kiss off, Chip Roy, we're not cutting Social Security).

The base can always cause their party to lose by insisting on punishing them if they don't do unpopular things.

You mean exactly as they did in 2016 because the candidate didn’t energize the base and so many fled to a more progressive candidate or just sat out? Like that? How many of the “de-energized” Dems either sat out or wrote in a protest vote for Bernie? Enough to change the outcome, I bet.

Yeah, not a convincing argument, I think.

The word "causing" is doing an awful lot of work in that sentence. Dems didn't "cause" any of this.

They would have "caused" a shutdown if they voted against the CR.

Democrats have no control in the House. They are the minority party. The majority party can pass any bill it wants, and the minority cannot stop them.

The Democrats do have some measure of control in the Senate. The Senate rules allow the minority party to stop virtually all legislation, other than reconciliation bills (or if the majority has a supermajority). The Democrats do have some power in that chamber.

With power, comes responsibility for how you exercise that power. The Democrats in the House could freely vote against the CR without much responsibility for what happens if it fails, because they have very little power - and therefore virtually no responsibility - in that chamber. But that's not true of the Senate. There, the Democrats would have had primary responsibility for a shutdown - because they have the power to force that outcome, and it would happen because of their choices.

There was a play to stop the CR - hold the line in the House and hope that the internal tensions in the GOP prevented them from getting to 216. The GOP would have borne the primary responsibility for the bill failing in the first place. But once that failed, the Democrats no longer had an option where the CR could falter and the resulting shutdown would not be due to their choice.

Letting the CR pass does very little to alter the course of action.

From the NYT:

<<What most concerns Democrats is that the stopgap measure does not contain the specific congressional instructions to allocate money for programs usually included in spending bills. Top Democrats, including Senator Patty Murray of Washington, the party’s lead appropriator, have warned that the lack of explicit directions would essentially create slush funds for the Trump administration at a time when it has already disregarded spending directives set by Congress.

“We have already seen how far President Trump, Elon Musk, and Russ Vought are willing to twist — and outright break — our laws to suit their will,” Ms. Murray said, referring to Russell Vought, Mr. Trump’s budget director. “But House Republicans are setting them up to make everything so far look like child’s play.”>>


Sen. Patty Murray and Speaker Emerita Pelosi (among many others) are neither political naifs nor flame-throwing left-wingers. They disagree vigorously with Schumer et al. So do I.

If their most ardent core of voters lose trust in them because of this, then that can't be helped. The base can always cause their party to lose by insisting on punishing them if they don't do unpopular things.

Honestly, I don't have confidence in either party. And I don't regard myself as the base for either. At this point in history, and since at least 2000, my opinions have aligned more with Dems than Reps. It frustrates me to no end that the Dems seem incapable of making their case to the people. A great example is the ACA. It was the folks at TMF (including you) that convinced me it was a good idea. I was against "government healthcare" prior to the election of Obama. It was ordinary non-politicians like yourself that made me realize my position was wrong, and I ended up voting for Obama**. The ACA came later, and there were things I didn't like. But, again, it wasn't Dem messaging that convinced me. It was smart people on the TMF AF board.

So what chance do they have with Joe Sixpack who isn't on boards such as that, and likely is consuming some right-wing propaganda full of lies and distortions? If they can't even make their case against this bill, and capitulate without a fight, then what good are they? I thought the whole point of the 60 vote thing was that the minority party has some say in a bill. But they weren't even consulted, and rolled like the Felon is rolling for Putin. That does not instill confidence, and, if there was a third party, I'd probably register for it.




**That wasn't the only reason. McCain had become an excrement show with all the bogus claims surrounding his nomination (which, to his credit, he spent air-time refuting himself), and the nomination of that total loss Palin.

What most concerns Democrats is that the stopgap measure does not contain the specific congressional instructions to allocate money for programs usually included in spending bills. Top Democrats, including Senator Patty Murray of Washington, the party’s lead appropriator, have warned that the lack of explicit directions would essentially create slush funds for the Trump administration at a time when it has already disregarded spending directives set by Congress.

Yes. I read that, also.

I would think the senate Dems could have opposed on that basis. "Tell us what we're voting on". Seems like a simple, and reasonable, objection. Handing the Felon a blank check is probably a bad idea.

You mean exactly as they did in 2016 because the candidate didn’t energize the base and so many fled to a more progressive candidate or just sat out? Like that? How many of the “de-energized” Dems either sat out or wrote in a protest vote for Bernie? Enough to change the outcome, I bet.

Yeah, not a convincing argument, I think.

Exactly that. I think Bernie would have lost by a lot more than Hillary. He would have gotten a lot more of the progressive vote...and a lot less of the "everyone else" vote. The path to winning the 2016 election was by running a more centrist candidate and then not punishing her for being centrist. If the "de-energized" Democrats had decided that they weren't going to flee to a more progressive candidate or sat out the election, then Clinton could have beaten Trump - and the world would have been a lot better for progressives.

That's Yglesias' point, and I agree with it. It's completely self-defeating for progressive groups to insist that candidates show their fealty to the base (like, say, an issues questionnaire showing support for taxpayer funded transition surgeries) and punish moderate leaders who don't toe the line. I can understand why progressives do it - it makes them more powerful within the party if they can force more and more of them to publicly align with the progressive wing. But it then makes it nearly impossible for the national brand of the party to be something other than "progressive," and most voters aren't progressive.

So while I 100% wanted the CR to fail in the House, I 100% agree with Schumer's decision to pass it in the Senate. Don't be the one holding the bag on a government shut down, even if that 'de-energizes' your base.

<<They would have "caused" a shutdown if they voted against the CR.>>

That's an argument, not a fact. The Republicans knew they'd need Dem votes in the Senate to pass the CR but refused to sit down to negotiate with them. So I'd say they're complicit, at a minimum.

If management refuses to sit down with labor to negotiate a contract and then labor strikes, I wouldn't say that labor "caused" the strike, even if that's the way management would like to spin it.

Letting the CR pass does very little to alter the course of action.

Defeating the CR does even less to alter the current course of action. In fact, it makes it even worse. It further weakens all of the government agencies at a time they're under attack, it muddies which party is responsible for loss of government services or negative economic outcomes, and it gives the Administration vastly larger powers to attack the civil service if the shut down goes beyond 30 days.

Sen. Patty Murray and Speaker Emerita Pelosi (among many others) are neither political naifs nor flame-throwing left-wingers.

Neither are they disinterested apolitical observers. They both have constituencies, they both face political incentives and pressures, and they both have the luxury of being able to cast "no" votes against the CR without having to bear responsibility if the CR actually fails and the government shuts down. It is 100% in the best political interests of those coming from the more progressive part of the party (even if not flame-throwing) to attack Schumer over this....which is why Schumer agreed to take the heat. He knew that the heat would have to come - that all the folks like AOC (and Murray) would have to attack the decision, because their voters are going to be bitterly disappointed.

But it's still smart politics to pass the CR rather than step into the horrible trap of precipitating a government shutdown.

It's fait accompli at this point, but after some consideration, I'm going to agree with Schumer.

If the Democrats don't vote for the bill and cause a shutdown, the shutdown and ensuing chaos will be rightfully laid at their feet. Passing the bill allows the government to keep running. Any chaos at that point belongs to the Republicans.

The talking point is this: "Look, we passed the bill they wanted. If things aren't working out, it's because of the Republican's bill. We didn't create it. This is all on the Republicans in the White House, the Senate, and the House of Representatives. It's their bill and their votes that passed it."

I'd also invoke a bit of Sun Tzu. Don't interrupt your enemy when he is making mistakes.

--Peter

That's an argument, not a fact. The Republicans knew they'd need Dem votes in the Senate to pass the CR but refused to sit down to negotiate with them. So I'd say they're complicit, at a minimum.

If you like, although the Democrats have a history of insisting that they're not going to negotiate with the Republicans over a shutdown. Didn't want to reward them for taking the government hostage, IIRC - demanded that the GOP pass exactly what the Democrats insisted on. The GOP claimed that the Democrats were acting in bad faith by not trying to woo their votes through negotiation....but that argument got no traction.

GOP responsibility doesn't absolve the Democrats of their own responsibility. Schumer knew - correctly - that the Democrats would get vastly more blame for not providing needed votes in the Senate than they would have for failing to bail out the majority in the House, where the the GOP had the power to pass whatever they wanted. So the Democrats were going to own a lot of this shutdown. And the shutdown was going to hurt Democratic positions against the Administration far more than the reverse.

Their chance to stop the CR was in the House. They failed. Once it went to the Senate, they could either pass it or end up holding the bag on the ensuing shutdown. Believing that the GOP would negotiate during the shutdown is magical thinking - the Administration would have loved every single day of furlough and weeping federal employees and the ability to blame the economic catastrophe of tariffs on the shutdown instead. It would have ended the same way - with the House refusing to take up anything else, and the Senate insisting that it was the House bill or nothing. And eventually the Democrats would have passed the House bill....and be in a far, far worse position.

And they never work.

You don't win elections by showing people you're willing to fight for the unpopular position

I'm not in favor of shutting down the government. The idea of furloughing people on government shutdown makes me shudder. I have friends there. I'm retired, but I don't wish that uncertainty without pay on anyone. And I agree with you that it doesn't work. The two times the government was shut down while I was there, it was such a huge waste. It accomplished nothing and they paid me anyway.

I would rather wait and take a shot that would actually damage Trump and the Republicans. I think trump is making moves that will hurt him and hopefully bring him down. If he keeps firing people and wielding tariffs as attention grabbing displays of hurtful power so many people will get hurt that everyone will know someone who got hurt.

ptheland: "Look, we passed the bill they wanted. If things aren't working out, it's because of the Republican's bill. We didn't create it. This is all on the Republicans in the White House, the Senate, and the House of Representatives. It's their bill and their votes that passed it."

Umm, can't be both. The democrat's votes passed the CR. Without their votes, it would not have passed. As a result, it is bipartisan and when shit goes sideways republicans in the House, Senate, and White House can accurately say that the democrats agreed with the budget and everything that happened as a result of it.

At least the Dems can show they have a backbone to their constituents. Right now, they're like overcooked noodles.

The entire House delegation (perhaps save one - I seem to recall the each party had one that went against their party) voted against the bill.

The majority of democrats in the Senate voted against it.

There was plenty of opposition to the bill. It’s not like the entire party rolled over. Far from it.

Technically, I suspect all of the democrats in the Senate voted against the bill. But 10 of them voted to close debate and allow the bill to come to a vote so they could vote against it.

—Peter

I'm pretty much just thinking out loud here. I'm thinking that I (and others) might have felt more charitably toward Schumer and the Senate Dem leadership if he had explained his position somewhat differently than he did. Maybe it's just words, but words can matter. I'm thinking it might have gone better had he said something along the lines of:

"I, along with virtually all of the Democratic caucus, think this CR is awful. And therefore we will NOT vote for it. If Republicans in the Senate want to support this terrible resolution, they can do so. That's their prerogative. But then they will own it: lock, stock, and barrel. So when voters get hurt by this Republican bill--and it pains me deeply that they will--they should make no mistake about whom to hold accountable. This is a Republican bill enacted by Republicans and signed by a Republican President, period."

"So while I 100% wanted the CR to fail in the House, I 100% agree with Schumer's decision to pass it in the Senate. Don't be the one holding the bag on a government shut down, even if that 'de-energizes' your base."

I think that is a terrible take.

The Democrats shouldn't be voting for any Republican bill unless they either get something for their votes or at least only vote to continue the status quo. Now the next time the Republicans know that they can try and pass and even worse bill and at least a few wishy washy Democrats will go along with it out of fear. There is literally no reason for Republicans to ever negotiate with Democrats because they know a few of them will be weak and surrender the country out of fear.

The next CR will cut even more domestic spending. Maybe even throw in a few Republican dream objectives like drastically defunding the Dept of Education. Then Chuck Schumer will go along and vote for it because he is afraid of being blamed for shutting down the country. That is utterly stupid. The Senate Democrats have totally surrendered and allowed the Republicans to frame the debate.

Every Democrat should be on TV, Twitter, Facebook, etc. telling voters that they want to vote to keep the government open as it is. They would gladly vote for a CR that keeps the status quo. In that case, they wouldn't be blamed for shutting down the country, the Republicans would because they are the one's trying to make the drastic changes and holding the CR hostage to do it.

I very much consider myself a centrist. I very rarely ever consider myself agreeing with AoC, Sanders, or Warren, over Chuck Schumer. However, I think Chuck Schumer is so worried about looking like the adult in the room that he has totally lost touch with right and wrong. At some point Schumer has to take a stand and stop being a patsy for not wanting to be a roadblock.

The Democrats shouldn't be voting for any Republican bill unless they either get something for their votes or at least only vote to continue the status quo.

Ah, but that's why they had to vote for this - because it was so close to the status quo. It was a CR, not the GOP's budget package. So it did, in fact, almost entirely continue the status quo.

But wait - "almost entirely"?!? That means it wasn't continuing the status quo. True, but the GOP was clever enough to keep the spending levels nearly unchanged. They didn't use the CR as a back door for their substantive budget priorities. The major difference was in the technical language that normally gets inserted into these bills that directs the Administration to spend the way Congress has directed - super important, but good luck conveying that to the average voter.

So what the Democrats got for their votes was the government didn't shut down in a situation where they would have taken most of the blame. That isn't anything awesome, but it ain't nuthin'.

Again, this is the frustration that Yglesias was channeling. Democrats are put in this position because they lost all the elections. Which means the GOP holds the pen in drafting everything in both chambers, which means they can do things the Democrats can't stop - or at least, they can't stop without blowing up the government, which is far worse. What Democrats ought to do is let their national figures do the things that need to be done to win the next election, so that this doesn't happen again. What Democrats are doing instead is getting mad at their leaders for not taking politically unpopular positions that don't actually stop what's happening but then make it harder to win the next election cycle.

Vote no when it doesn't destroy things if you succeed in killing the bill. Don't vote no if killing the bill shuts down the government and you don't have anything in the bill you can point to that the voters will understand and believe is worth shutting down the government for. This CR was crafted to not be different enough from the status quo to allow that argument.

<<Technically, I suspect all of the democrats in the Senate voted against the bill.>>

The only Democratic Senator who voted for the C.R. was Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), who previously announced she is retiring at the end of her term. Sen. Angus King of Maine also voted for it; he caucuses with the Dems but is officially and Independent.

All of the other Dem Senators, including Schumer and Fetterman, voted against it. Which is why I wish they had emphasized that fact rather than that they were not going to going to filibuster the bill. Thus, in the end the Dems in the Senate did the same thing that their colleagues in the House did.

i dont see much support for schumer's meek message that a gov shutdown would also affect the courts, which is the only institution going against trump in many rulings.

on the other hand, i dont see much repercussion for trump ignoring the rulings, even scotus if need be.

knowing delays on any opposing action is always a major part of trump's plan, i wonder if there is really any mechanism to enforce compliance at any level.

Post New

Berkshire Hathaway FAQ

---

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.