Post New

https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/government-...

Tens of millions of Americans will feel good about the victory centrist democrats won: a promise to vote down health care subsidies, maybe, in a month.

This health thing was political gold for Democrats.

Wow, i am amazed that after all of this, all they did was jerk off to squiggly lines.

King Schumer and his Mini-Me Dem Senate Kings bit off more than they could chew.

There was no plan or strategy to actually accomplish anything.

Blackmailing the people of the United States was a supremely narcissistic act.

When will Democrats ever learn?

King Schumer lost his caucus because he had no strategy and no end game.

He was obstructionist for the sake of being obstructionist.

Now King Schumer has lost his crown, and is a king no more.

It looks like they (the eight) moved on the promise of a vote for the ACA and that employees riffed in October would be recalled. Everyone gets paid. The Bill has to be written, but it seems bi partisan, so there may be some GOP that want to keep the ACA. There will be a vote in the first two weeks of December. We shall see.

There will be a vote in the first two weeks of December. We shall see.

Eight Dems, not including Schumer, just enough to reach 60, voted "aye". They can't possibly, believe that promise to have a vote on the ACA subsidies, or, if a vote is actually held, that they will get the subsidies that Schumer went to the wall for?

Doesn't mean a thing, unless Johnson calls the House back into session, and they approve it.

Meanwhile, when the court ordered SNAP benefits be paid, some states had their SNAP administrative people pay out the money, in a hurry, Friday night.

Now, Lord Trump wants that money back.

Trump administration demands that states ‘undo’ full SNAP benefit payments

https://www.cnbc.com/2025/11/09/snap-trump-states-...


Steve

There will be a vote in the first two weeks of December. - Lapsody

----------------

Holy shit, we can't stay closed until a vote in December. Surely there is something additional cooking that will provide some immediate SNAP funding.

There will be a vote in the first two weeks of December.

-------------

Whew. just saw a report that the Dec date is the promised vote on the ACA.

Eight Dems, not including Schumer, just enough to reach 60, voted "aye". They can't possibly, believe that promise to have a vote on the ACA subsidies, or, if a vote is actually held, that they will get the subsidies that Schumer went to the wall for?

Yes, it's disheartening, because I think we'll get nowhere in December, so Xmas will be bleak for many.

King Schumer and his Mini-Me Dem Senate Kings

There can be only one King. And he’s the guy ruling by fiat.

Kings demolish peoples’ houses and put their own faces on coinage.

Kings instruct their lords to drag their enemies into court on trumped up charges.

Kings send their armies overseas to blow up boats without asking anyone’s permission. Kings send their Praetorian Guard into the streets to grab anyone they want and disappear them.

It is good to be the King…At least for the King and those he favors.

Schumer is but a worm who dared to question the wisdom of the King.

No Kings.

Holy shit, we can't stay closed until a vote in December. Surely there is something additional cooking that will provide some immediate SNAP funding.

SNAP funding is different, looks like that is a go so far. But there will be a vote on an ACA bill in the first two weeks of December. You may now return to your previous program. :)

Good.

Stick to memes Sheeple.

"King"!!!

Look, baaaaaa I can talk about something but as the Leader said, i'll wait to be told what to think about the Shutdown ending.

"Trayvon"!

King Schumer lost his caucus because he had no strategy and no end game.

He was obstructionist for the sake of being obstructionist.

Now King Schumer has lost his crown, and is a king no more.
***

Partially.

Also, it was Tribalism.

The NOrthern Virginia Democrats vs the Progressives vs the Sheeples. Trump played them like a fiddle.

Dems *still* have a chance to club the GOp like seals over the ACA subsidies but I think they are so coastal and so snobby, at least for today they don't get it. If they'd see how in VA and NJ and PA last week, winning Dems stuck to money issues, and not He/Him issues.....maybe they'd learn something.

If you're a Trump supporter, pray that Democrats stay on the he/him and we love illegals stuff.

IF dems ever waved hte white flag on Pronoun bullying and Illegal Immigration ---they'd destroy MAGA over and over again.

But seems like - they dont want that

Surely there is something additional cooking that will provide some immediate SNAP funding.

Don’t cry for me, Argentina!

The ProGlibs are far more powerful than their actual numbers in the Democrat Party because they are so delusional. They never doubt that their delusional world view is absolutely correct despite any evidence to the contrary.

For example: The ProGlibs can't do arithmetic.

The Senate just voted 60-40 to re-open the government.

That means a full 50% of Senators more than not, were in favor of re-opening and stopping King Schumer's shutdown.

Instead of engaging in any self-reflection about what that means, they simply believe that anyone who voted to stop King Schumer's shutdown is stupid, corrupt, venal, a sell-out, a MAGA Trumper Nazi, etc.

They have no ability to self-reflect.

It's pure political narcissism in action.

They don't believe in democracy.

In any other election a 60%-40% margin is a LANDSLIDE.

Not to the ProGlibs, it just reinforces their delusional paranoia.

It looks like they (the eight) moved on the promise of a vote for the ACA and that employees riffed in October would be recalled. Everyone gets paid. The Bill has to be written, but it seems bi partisan, so there may be some GOP that want to keep the ACA. There will be a vote in the first two weeks of December. We shall see.

It's not a lot - but honestly, probably as much as they ever could have gotten. This was always what was likely to happen. From the last time, when the Democrats didn't shut down the government:

So if Schumer had voted down the CR, it wouldn't have been fighting - it would have just been failure. The government would shut down for 5-31 days or so, the GOP would not bargain, and the Democrats would eventually just have to approve the same CR anyway. Mostly because no one ever can use a shutdown as leverage. It never works. It didn't work for Gingrich, it didn't work when Cruz wanted to lever the shutdown into defunding Obamacare, it didn't work for the GOP trying to get border wall funding. Voters don't like it when the government shuts down, they don't want anyone trying to use it to gain leverage on policy matters.

https://www.shrewdm.com/MB?pid=-2&previousPostID=5...

And it ended up exactly as discussed further in that thread:

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.

The Democrats were able to hold out longer than expected because the voters ended up being split on who to blame for the shutdown - but the voters were still deeply unhappy that the government was shut down. The Democrats might have continued to reap some political gains by highlighting how much damage the OBBB did to the ACA structure. But the next election is a year away, the Democrats couldn't keep the government shut down for a year, and Trump doesn't care if he gets unpopular because he never has to run again.

The base wanted a fight, and it was - as expected - a fight the Democrats couldn't win. The suffering got to be too much for too many Democratic Senators to continue. So now the base got the fight, and face a choice whether to consider it a win that they got as much as they did, or be demoralized by the fact that it ended the way it was always going to end. From the OP, it looks like there's a good chance they'll choose the latter...

Kings demolish peoples’ houses and put their own faces on coinage.

Speaking of which....

Naming NFL stadium for Trump would be 'beautiful', White House says

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c8dr8g0r742o

I'm waiting for that gifted 74 to come out of the paint shop. Will it say "United States of America", like every Air Force 1 has, for decades, or will it say "Trump"?

Steve

It was irrational and stupid for King Schumer to initiate the shutdown for exactly all the reasons albaby1 said and every sane person already knew that from the get-go.

The base of the Democrat Party is irrational and stupid. King Schumer was afraid of getting primaried by AOC and pandered to the irrational, stupid left wing radical based of the Democrat party.

Very very VERY short term capital.

King Schumer unnecessarily burned up a LOT of political capital, for absolutely nothing in return.

Agree with your summation. I'm learning me some politics in my old age. I always considered politics a headache and difficult to understand, especially if you aren't up on it. :)

"and Trump doesn't care if he gets unpopular because he never has to run again."

This is true, but it's hard to reconcile with a narcissist. You'd think a narcissist would make moves to be popular, but I guess his sociopathy wins in the end.

"But there will be a vote on an ACA bill in the first two weeks of December. "

Do the Dems that caved think the ACA vote will go their way ?
I do not think it will. Trump needs that money for tax cuts for billionaires.

Bringing it to a vote forces the MAGA's to put their NO vote on public
record. It will be hard for them to spin that, not to MAGA voters, they'll
believe anything Trump's spews. But to the rest of the Country. This
is the big hope for the Dems ????

I guess now we'll see how honest Mike Johnson is about getting Arizona
Rep Adelita Grijalva sworn in. I watched him in an interview swear up and down that
he'll swear her in as soon as the House is back to "work". I'll believe that when
I see it. If so, the Epstein Files are back in the spotlight, and we all know Trump
don't want that.

And SNAP funding will be released ASAP ???

Will it say "United States of America", like every Air Force 1 has, for decades, or will it say "Trump"?

Compromise - United States of Trump

Do the Dems that caved think the ACA vote will go their way ?

If it does, they win. And it might. A lot of Rep congresspeople have a significant number of constituents on the ACA. Even MTG is saying the Reps are making a mistake if they don't support that.

If it doesn't, they also win. Because then they can blame the Reps for sky-high healthcare costs, and people not being able to afford their insurance. In an election year. The Reps will be handing the Dems "Lucille" (ref: The Walking Dead).

albaby1: It's not a lot - but honestly, probably as much as they ever could have gotten.

Gonna have to go all Marge Gunderson on you here: I'm not sure that I agree with you 100 percent on your police work there, Lou.

A plurality of Americans blamed the republicans and Trumpedo for the shutdown, and every week the polling got a little worse for them. And Americans were just beginning to pay attention to this issue and the inability of republicans to govern.

Trumpedo was collapsing and democrats bailed him out.

And democrats got nothing in this bargain. Zip. This "deal" was on offer weeks ago and this vague promise to hold some vote sometime in December is hilarious. Lucy is really going to let Charlie Brown kick the football this time. She really means it.

If it doesn't, they also win. Because then they can blame the Reps for sky-high healthcare costs, and people not being able to afford their insurance. In an election year. The Reps will be handing the Dems "Lucille" (ref: The Walking Dead).

When I retired, at 58, the ACA was not quite a thing yet. I picked up a real bare bones policy from United Health, with a $10K deductible. When the ACA went into effect, the premiums would have been a *lot* higher, but Congress kept passing grandfathering language, each year, that let me keep my bare bones coverage, which did not meet ACA minimums. Each year, United Health would send a letter attesting that I had medical coverage, in compliance with the ACA's individual mandate.

The individual mandate was repealed some years ago.

If the sort of bare bones coverage that I had, ten years ago, could again be offered, that would reduce costs for a lot of people.

(cynical mode) between the repeal of the individual mandate, and the restored availability of bare bones coverage, enough people could be drawn out of the ACA system, so that the remainder could safely be ignored?

For those scoring at home today, Humana is down 3.74%, Elevance Health is down 4.17%, United Health, which has more issues than the loss of the ACA gravy train, is down 1.22%

Steve

The democrats got nothing in exchange for 40 days of taking people's SNAP benefits, long lines in airports and a lot more risk to aviation safety.

They went all in to die on 2 hills:

-Illegal aliens getting federal help for medical treatment
-Extension of COVID-era subsidies for Obamacare

For those who want to push back, we linked the exact legislation and the exact pages.

Now the democrats are in a pickle. They're never getting illegal aliens back on Medicare. That's gone. If they try the next time they win the House and the Senate they're going to have to come out and admit what they're doing.

Since they didn't get to slide the COVID-era subsidies through, now they have to have a conversation about why, in the era of Obamacare, premiums keep rising, health insurance companies are doing well, and literally everything that Obamacare promised hasn't come to fruition.

That's going to be an uncomfortable conversation for them.

Do the Dems that caved think the ACA vote will go their way ?
I do not think it will. Trump needs that money for tax cuts for billionaires.

That's what I think is likely to happen. Sad.

If the sort of bare bones coverage that I had, ten years ago, could again be offered, that would reduce costs for a lot of people.

A Bronze ACA plan is quite bare bones already.

10 Years ago our Bronze plan cost $13,023
Next year $41,015
Deductibles are higher. We are 10 years older.
Max oop $9200/ind, $18,400 fam

Something ain't right...

The Senate just voted to reopen the government 60%-40%.

That's a LANDSLIDE.

Only people who hate Americans want the government to stay shut, anti-democrats.

You hate democracy.

A plurality of Americans blamed the republicans and Trumpedo for the shutdown, and every week the polling got a little worse for them. And Americans were just beginning to pay attention to this issue and the inability of republicans to govern.

I'm not sure why that leads you to disagree with me. Because even if the above were true, there was no reason to think it was going to change the GOP's position. A plurality blamed the GOP and Trump; a plurality also blamed the Democrats. Because the split was (roughly) 1/3 - 1/3 - 1/3 (with the last 1/3 blaming both). Slightly more voters blamed the GOP than the Republicans, but there were not nearly enough who blamed just the GOP for this to put any pressure on the GOP to move.

Plus, whatever movement in the polls was happening was slight. Opinion's barely moved since the beginning - a few points against GOP congresscritters after a month.

A YouGov survey released Friday found 32 percent of respondents blame Democrats for the shutdown, while 35 percent fault Republicans and 28 percent say both parties are equally responsible.

The share of the blame placed on Republicans, though, has dropped by 4 percentage points since YouGov last asked the question in mid-October, while the percentage blaming both sides equally has increased by 4 points.

But over the past month, net approval for how parties are handling the shutdown has worsened for both President Trump (-21 to -27) and congressional Republicans (-23 to -27). Net approval for congressional Democrats has stayed low but mostly unchanged (-25 to -26) since October, according to YouGov.

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/559706...

Opinion's been pretty constant on the point since the beginning of the shutdown, and Democrats were not going to be able to hold out for months.

Trumpedo was collapsing and democrats bailed him out.

How was he collapsing? His approval ratings were taking a hit, to be sure - but still higher than most of his first term. And he showed absolutely no signs of caring one whit about it. He doesn't ever have to run again for election. He doesn't care about getting anything through Congress. He doesn't care whether government services are being provided - that's not his priority, and not what he cares about. The shutdown gave him cover to do some RIF'ing and gives him a ready-made excuse if the economy slows as the tariffs start to bite.

And democrats got nothing in this bargain. Zip. This "deal" was on offer weeks ago and this vague promise to hold some vote sometime in December is hilarious. Lucy is really going to let Charlie Brown kick the football this time. She really means it.

I agree it's very little. It's not nothing - part of the perks of being the majority is that you control the agenda and get to protect your members from difficult votes (and get to deprive the opposing party of votes they want). So even though the vote will almost certainly fail (and even if it succeeded, the proposal would die in the House), the Democrats want to have the vote so they can point to it when they blame the GOP for the ACA subsidy termination during the midterms.

A lot ain't right with Obamacare. In fact, it was intentionally designed that way, to "blow up" after about 10 years (i.e., about now) to provide an on-ramp to single-payer health care system.

Let's start with the fact that it's economically absurd to base someone's insurance premiums on their income level.

If I buy a Happy Meal at McDonald's my income level is not an input into the price of the Happy Meal.

Why should it be?

For those scoring at home today, Humana is down 3.74%, Elevance Health is down 4.17%, United Health, which has more issues than the loss of the ACA gravy train, is down 1.22%

Poor Chuckie…

On the contrary, the Democrats got plenty as a result of this "deal" to end the shutdown.

They got valuable information. That blackmailing the American people is not a good negotiating strategy, especially when your blackmail scheme tends to negatively and immediately impact your own political constituencies more so than the constituencies of the other political party.

While they received valuable information, are they smart enough to actually learn the correct lesson from it?

Judging by many of the absolutely delusional takes on this message board, perhaps not.

The bottom line is that the Senate voted to end the shutdown by a LANDSLIDE. 60%-40%. That's a big WIN for the American people. It is a big loss for King Schumer and all those Democrats who deliberately tried to inflict unnecessary pain on the American people for political "leverage."

Do you believe in Democracy? If so, 60%-40% is telling you something--and it isn't that the 60% are TRUMP MAGA NAZIS

10 Years ago our Bronze plan cost $13,023

The last full year I was buying my own insurance, 2017, I payed $4400. Of course, that was just for me.

Something ain't right...

The "tax cut and jobs act" of 2017, repealed the individual mandate, effective 2019. The consensus was that, as young, healthy, people who seldom use health insurance drop out of the ACA pool, costs for the older, sicker, people will rise.

Steve

A Bronze ACA plan is quite bare bones already.

10 Years ago our Bronze plan cost $13,023
Next year $41,015
Deductibles are higher. We are 10 years older.
Max oop $9200/ind, $18,400 fam

Something ain't right...


Nope. One wonders where the supposed cost savings from Obamacare are and when they're going to materialize.

And maybe...some kind of action needs to be taken to address higher insurance prices...or maybe...let's address the supply and demand of health care itself as insurance costs are just a symptom of the root issues...

I’ve been wondering where you’re getting this 33/33/33 poll data that you have been running with, because it’s the only poll that produced those results. All other polls, including those on November 4th, showed the public moving toward the democrats and away from republicans. Of course the poll you picked is the flawed YouGov poll.

“The poll was conducted among 1,623 U.S. adult citizens. Respondents were selected from YouGov’s opt-in panel to be representative of U.S. adult citizens.”

You have a narrative justifying surrender based on a flawed outlier of a poll (ignoring altogether what voters said about the shutdown). Why?

The desperation of the Dinos to preserve their control over the party and avoid a leftward move is rank, and your doing yeoman’s work carrying their water.

Trump ratcheted up the pain while blaming the dems and in the end the “centrists” took the blame for Trump’s pain. Parlaying that surrender monkey move into a people’s victory is going to be fascinating magic.

I’ve been wondering where you’re getting this 33/33/33 poll data that you have been running with, because it’s the only poll that produced those results. All other polls, including those on November 4th, showed the public moving toward the democrats and away from republicans.

Almost all the polls I ever saw had the two parties within ten points or less of each other in terms of who the voters blamed. Quinnipiac had it 45-39 (with 11 blaming both):

https://poll.qu.edu/poll-release?releaseid=3938

CBS poll finds voters equally dissatisfied with both parties' handling of shutdown:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/cbs-news-poll-shutdow...

NBC had it 52-42 - noting that it's the highest amount of blame the Democrats have ever had for a shutdown:

An NBC News poll of 1,000 registered voters conducted between October 24 and 28, found that 52 percent believe Republicans and the president are more to blame for the government shutdown, while 42 percent say Democrats. The percentage of voters who point fingers at the Democrats is the highest for the party in NBC News polling over the past three decades

https://www.newsweek.com/majority-of-voters-blame-...

You have a narrative justifying surrender based on a flawed outlier of a poll (ignoring altogether what voters said about the shutdown). Why?

Because it's the truth. Voters were blaming the Democrats for the shutdown by far too high of numbers for the GOP to ever change their approach. They weren't losing the battle over public opinion by enough to make them change.

Seriously - what do you think was going to happen over the next month, if the Democrats had not voted to fund the CR? When SNAP benefits and air travel came to a halt, what do you think would have happened?

“ Seriously - what do you think was going to happen over the next month, if the Democrats had not voted to fund the CR? When SNAP benefits and air travel came to a halt, what do you think would have happened?”

With Trump spouting off about able bodied fraudsters snagging some undeserved SNAP, and either Trump brow beating TSA and air traffic controllers into working for free? Gee, I don’t know. Give him enough rope instead of wrapping it around your own neck?

The dems were winning public support, and the one poll that definitively showed that—Nov. 4th—is the one poll missing from your analysis.

With Trump spouting off about able bodied fraudsters snagging some undeserved SNAP, and either Trump brow beating TSA and air traffic controllers into working for free? Gee, I don’t know. Give him enough rope instead of wrapping it around your own neck?

That doesn't answer the question. What does that metaphor actually look like, in the real world? Do you believe that had the shutdown continued, the GOP would have relented and agreed to the ACA subsidy extension? What is the actual path to an end outcome that you think would have happened? Do you think that this gets to a point where 13 Republican Senators were willing to vote for ACA subsidy extensions against the opposition of Trump?

The dems were winning public support, and the one poll that definitively showed that—Nov. 4th—is the one poll missing from your analysis.

The Dems weren't winning public support on this issue. They were able to win elections, but neither Spanberger nor Sherrill (and certainly not Mamdani) ran entirely - or even primarily - on the shutdown. They positioned themselves front and center on affordability, on bread and butter economic issues. And while the Democrats did a fairly decent job of communicating the importance of extending the ACA subsidies, that is not the same thing as getting public support for continuing the shutdown.

So here's the last poll I was able to find on the subject, published by KFF (Kaiser) on November 6th. It directly asked the question of whether respondents supported the tactic of using the shutdown to try to lever an extension of the ACA subsidies. When asked to choose between:


"Democrats in Congress should.... refuse to approve a budget unless it includes extending these tax credits, even if it means the government remains shut down."

and

"Democrats in Congress should.... approve a budget that does not include extending these tax credits in order to quickly end the shutdown, even if it means the cost of health insurance will increase for some people."

...a slight (50-48%) majority said end the shutdown.

https://www.kff.org/public-opinion/kff-health-trac...

Which is why the CR was able to draw enough Democratic votes to pass. There was never enough public blame to get the GOP to change their position. As Angus King put it:

“The position the Republicans have been taking all along is, ‘we’re not going to negotiate about the ACA as long as the government is shut down.’ Maybe in the first week, we weren’t so sure they were for real. In the second week, third, fourth, fifth, sixth week, it became clear that the [Democratic] strategy wasn’t working. They weren’t going to come back and say, ‘We want to do something on the ACA,’” King explained.

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/5599509-democr...

Democrats did very well, in the limited sense that they were able to buck the odds and not be overwhelmingly blamed for the shutdown - as historically the party seeking a policy concession from a shutdown has typically been. But they never got enough of a shift in the public perception of the GOP and the shutdown that would get the GOP to give them what they wanted, and that wasn't going to change as the shutdown went on.

What does that metaphor actually look like, in the real world?

We have known what SNAP looks like, to the GOP, for a very long time.

1976 – Reagan Uses Racist Tropes to Describe Food Stamp Participants During Florida Rally

In a 1976 Fort Lauderdale rally, President Ronald Reagan used racially coded rhetoric to undermine Food Stamps, as he had done in many places in the South. Among other racist untruths, he described white people as workers struggling to afford hamburger meat on meager salaries, yet painted Food Stamp participants as “strapping young buck[s]” who buy luxury items, such as a T-bone steaks, on the taxpayer’s dime.

https://www.floridatimeline.org/timeline/1976-reag...

Racism, and resentment of the poor, tied together, to advance the narrative that able bodied people have no business collecting assistance from the government.

After all, the "JCs" need replacements, for all the Proles they have lost, to immigration enforcement theater. So, starve people into working more hours.

Do you believe that had the shutdown continued, the GOP would have relented and agreed to the ACA subsidy extension?

iirc, the ACA subsidy was killed in the BBB, months ago. This was the attempt to fix that, as now, is the "later" they were banking on when the BBB was passed. Now, the Dems caved again, to pass a CR, with hopes of fixing the ACA subsidy "later'.

The ACA subsidy is dead. Looks like the regime is making it clear, SNAP is the next target, beyond the constraints put on it in the BBB.

Steve

The ACA subsidy is dead. Looks like the regime is making it clear, SNAP is the next target, beyond the constraints put on it in the BBB.


No.

That doesn't answer the question. What does that metaphor actually look like, in the real world? Do you believe that had the shutdown continued, the GOP would have relented and agreed to the ACA subsidy extension? What is the actual path to an end outcome that you think would have happened?

You have a very limited view on what it’s all about. It was never about extending the ACA, although Americans would have been better off if they succeeded. It was about confronting authoritarianism and standing up to the rising threat of fascism. The ACA subsidies offered an opportunity to highlight the cruelty of Republican Party, a cruelty they doubled down on during the shutdown.

The Dems weren't winning public support on this issue. They were able to win elections …

And that, my friend, is what it’s really all about.

The shutdown offered a stark contrast between what each of the parties stand for, and the voters spoke clearly on Nov 4th. The 2026 elections could be the most consequential in American history. They could also be the last. The message I assume the republicans took away from the shutdown and November 4th is that they cannot risk free and fair elections.

The reason the Clintonites collapsed is not because they care too much, it’s because they were afraid. They cling to the chummy belief that the last ten months were an aberration and that their concessions will get us back to politics as usual.

Your questions always lead back to the assumption of politics as usual.

You have a very limited view on what it’s all about. It was never about extending the ACA, although Americans would have been better off if they succeeded. It was about confronting authoritarianism and standing up to the rising threat of fascism. The ACA subsidies offered an opportunity to highlight the cruelty of Republican Party, a cruelty they doubled down on during the shutdown.

Okay - but how long do you do that? Until November 2026? Have the country go without a national government for another year?

At some point, the shutdown has to end. Once you've already highlighted the cruelty of the Republican Party by raising awareness of the issue, you can't keep going with that until the next election. If the Republican party is being cruel, it's one thing to let that be on display for a while. But if you keep it going indefinitely when you have the ability to stop it (even though it's their responsibility), then you run the very real risk of being adjudged cruel yourself.

Or to put it another way, if the GOP is perfectly willing to hurt people, how long are you willing to watch them get hurt without stopping it?

The reason the Clintonites collapsed is not because they care too much, it’s because they were afraid. They cling to the chummy belief that the last ten months were an aberration and that their concessions will get us back to politics as usual.

I don't. I don't assume anything of the sort. I do assume, however, that elections matter and that political power is held by the party who holds the majority of seats. The Democrats weren't going to keep the government shut down for a year, and so they were eventually going to have to vote for the CR. And because public opinion didn't turn against the GOP the way the Democrats hoped it would, the GOP wasn't going to fold - which means that the Democrats were going to have to eventually vote for the CR without an ACA extension.

Which means that if the Democrats were eventually going to vote for the CR without an ACA subsidy extension, there was very little to gain by holding out longer - and a lot of suffering that was lined up that was not going to be laid at just the Republicans' feet going forward. Again, I ask - do you think the Democrats should have held out until next November and just gone a year without a federal government?

It's frustrating, because the folks who wanted a fight got what they asked for. They wanted the Democrats to fight, and the Democrats fought. If they wanted the Democrats to fight and win, that was never going to happen - as I think you acknowledge. So what, then, is the disappointment about?

Do you believe that had the shutdown continued, the GOP would have relented and agreed to the ACA subsidy extension?

No.

What is the actual path to end an outcome…

Same as now, except that more people, particularly Republicans would have gotten the message. It’s the jackass & the 2x4. Sometimes you have to get their attention. ACA recipients with huge increases. Food banks overrun. SNAP participants cut off. And, the flying public (including many upper-middle class Republicans) severely inconvenienced across the holidays.

Add to the smaller irritations of inflation not decreasing, grocery prices continuing to rise, and those unhappy with the demolition of the East Wing, the Constitution, and the Rule of Law (and yes, some Republicans are slowly coming to realize that) and the Democrats have given up one of the most potent (the only!) weapon they have had in years.

It’s a thing about momentum: it takes a big oomph to get it going, all those little things aren’t going to do it. But once the boulders starts rolling, the little things add to it. (See: Watergate, and how long it took to “get going” and how it was unstoppable later.)

Would people be hurt? Yes. Sorry about that, but then I’m sorry about soldiers killed in action, people who don’t like national monuments desecrated, police hurt in the line of duty, people forced out of their jobs for being ethical, and so much more.

The Democrats threw away the chance to make an impression with those who most need to learn the hard way, because making their lives easier means they won’t learn it any other way at all.

The position the Republicans have been taking all along is, ‘we’re not going to negotiate about the ACA as long as the government is shut down.’

Andthey’re not going to now, and they let Republicans off with almost no pain. Not a winning strategy.

Okay - but how long do you do that? Until November 2026? Have the country go without a national government for another year?

You were touting a deadline of November 21st yourself before you embraced the surrender as good politics. Would the democrats have been mortally wounded if they let the republicans trip over themselves for another couple of weeks? Given the increasing petulant venom spewing from Trump I don’t think they would have been.

You keep pointing to the polls while ignoring or downplaying the only poll that mattered. Voters voted for a fighting party. The evidence is plan as day. Prioritizing the message of notoriously bad polling data in the face of concrete evidence to the contrary is puzzling to me.

Andthey’re not going to now, and they let Republicans off with almost no pain. Not a winning strategy.

Doesn't mean the alternative is a winning strategy, either.

"In order to make sure you understand that the GOP is cutting ACA subsidies, we're going to make sure you don't have essential governmental services" is certainly a way of applying the 2x4 to the jackass. But it's not one that endears to the jackass the person applying the 2x4. Or if you don't like that metaphor, it doesn't endear the person who stands by and watches the jackass get beaten without stopping it to the jackass.

The Democrats didn't have a potent weapon. Had the public blamed the GOP for the shutdown significantly more than the Democrats, then they might have. But that didn't happen. The public only slightly favored the Democrats over the GOP. Which is pretty impressive, given prior precedent - but not enough for the Democrats to escape the consequences of really consequential losses of essential government services.

Once you got past the only elections that are happening for a year, you enter a serious problem of diminishing returns. You've already made the political point (people are aware of the ACA subsidy expiration) you wanted to make, without hurting too many people too badly other than federal workers. But now you're in the phase where a ton of people are going to start getting hurt very badly, and you don't have that much more incremental possibility of political gain.

If the end game isn't to get the GOP to agree to something more in the CR, then the Democrats had already gotten most of what they wanted with only a modest amount of hurting people. I don't think it's a winning strategy to signal that the Democrats are very willing to let people get hurt - the "Yes, sorry about that" position - in order to get the same amount of nothing, just a few weeks later.

You were touting a deadline of November 21st yourself before you embraced the surrender as good politics. Would the democrats have been mortally wounded if they let the republicans trip over themselves for another couple of weeks? Given the increasing petulant venom spewing from Trump I don’t think they would have been.

I think they would have been. Again, the public wasn't blaming the GOP for the shutdown the way the Democrats wanted them to. So the Democrats would indeed have been damaged also if they let this go on for another few weeks. Again, to say nothing of the many people who would actually have been very badly hurt by the shutdown as well. Not enough of the blame was landing on the GOP for this to have been a smart play to continue.

You keep pointing to the polls while ignoring or downplaying the only poll that mattered. Voters voted for a fighting party. The evidence is plan as day. Prioritizing the message of notoriously bad polling data in the face of concrete evidence to the contrary is puzzling to me.

It's not bad polling - it's every poll that was taken. None of the polls showed the electorate blaming the GOP for the shutdown by enough to provide pressure on the GOP to change their position. There was never going to be an endgame where the Democrats got significantly more in the CR than they did.

Now I think I get it.

The Democrat Party must have done polling before the shut down and interpreted their polling results as projecting that the blame would be placed on the Republican party for the shut down, and therefore, the Republican party would give the Democrats whatever they wanted.

Maybe yes, maybe no. It's one thing to poll the general public, it's another thing entirely to have polled those people most directly and immediately affected by the shut down.

Sure, all the privileged white ProGlibs that got included in the shut down polling were probably vehemently anti-Trump and anti-GOP--as these folks always are. But that's not the same exact group as people directly and negatively affected by the shut down.

But the main problem with the Democrat strategy is: It was entirely unprincipled. "Give us what we want or we will make the American people suffer." Not a good look, ever. Hakeem Jeffries is STILL saying his caucus should vote against re-opening the government. Extending Covid era ACA subsidies when the Covid era is over with makes no sense. It doesn't address rising health care costs at all--it enables them. Just like the whole student loan fiasco. If the government keeps subsidizing endless money for something it will tend to get more expensive without limit. The Democrats never ever ever presented any valid policy arguments as to why Covid era enhanced ACA subsidies MUST be extended, without even a debate, or they would keep the government in shut down mode.

But I guess their polls were showing them that they could blame Republicans. As Angus King said, they didn't believe the Republicans would stick to their guns until several weeks passed. What Angus didn't explain is WHY the Democrats seemed to believe that the Republicans wouldn't stick to their guns. He didn't explain it because any explanation would not revolve around Republican thinking (i.e. it's a matter of principle), but around Democrat delusion of what they WISHED Republicans would be thinking--but assuming that Republicans were as totally lacking in principles as the Democrats seem to be.

That's why Angus King didn't explain why. The explanation makes the Democrats look like imbeciles.

No.

Care to flesh that out some?

His nibs found $20B to bail out Argentina, during the shut down.

He was interviewed by Laura Ingraham yesterday. She asked where the money will come from to pay all the bonuses he is promising air traffic controllers, if they continue to work without pay. He shrugged, said he would find it somewhere.

You can see the shrug at the 9:30 mark in this piece.

Trump COLLAPSES in worst interview of the year

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_kBDh4t1erg

But money for SNAP? Nope. No money, he says.

Steve

It was never about extending the ACA, although Americans

PhoolishPhil are you American? I think so, but wonder sometimes. :)

“ iirc, the ACA subsidy was killed in the BBB, months ago. This was the attempt to fix that, as now, is the "later" they were banking on when the BBB was passed. Now, the Dems caved again, to pass a CR, with hopes of fixing the ACA subsidy "later'.

The ACA subsidy is dead.”

No!

The BBB simply did not extend the enhanced subsidies that the Democrats set to expire in 2025. Why would it?

The ACA subsidies for 2026 revert to the previous, still pretty darn generous subsidies that were in place before Covid. Problem for folks like me is the subsidy cliff is back - no sub if make more (MAGI is more) than 400% of FPL.

But the shutdown was never about just this issue, of course. As you said, it was the wrong hill. But shutting down the government is almost always going to be the wrong hill. It was stupid.

This foolishfishhead post

is so so characteristic of the outright delusional mode of thinking of ProGlibs.


He says "the shutdown was never about the ACA subsidies," rather, according to PhilipsHeadFishFood, it was really about fighting authoritarianism Trumpism MAGA (whatever).


Schumer EXPRESSLY SAID it was about the ACA subsidies.


You don't like reality so you change it.

That's indicative of a serious personality disorder.

The Democrats didn't have a potent weapon.

YES THEY DID! NOVEMBER 4th! You keep ignoring or downplaying that election.

What Angus didn't explain is WHY the Democrats seemed to believe that the Republicans wouldn't stick to their guns. He didn't explain it because any explanation would not revolve around Republican thinking (i.e. it's a matter of principle),

I saw an interview with King. Don't know if it's the same one you saw. What the Dems missed, in their thinking the mob would force the GOP to cave, was they don't understand the "JC" mindset, and the GOP is run by "JCs". Proles are expendable meat. The GOP doesn't care if Proles have health insurance. The GOP doesn't care if Proles are hungry. To them, a Prole's value is only the work and money that "JCs" can extract from them. If the Proles are sick, or poor, they are useless to the "JCs".

I have told the story before of the guy the pump seal company brought into the department, to replace me. A few years later, Dave developed cancer. Of course, his medical insurance was tied to working for that company. He could not afford his treatment without the insurance. The company would take the insurance away if he stopped working. So he had to keep dragging himself into the office to work, up to within a few days of his death, because the company only cared about extracting work from him.

Steve

It's not bad polling - it's every poll that was taken.

ALL polling is bad. We have several election cycles now proving the utter uselessness of political polling. There is only one poll that matters. Elections.

As American as chocolate pudding pie.

It was never about extending the ACA, although Americans

I'll take that as a no.

I'm not sure what the point is?

Yeah a couple of governors were elected--NJ and VA--mediocre Democrat candidates who beat Republicans who didn't run great campaigns. Plus Mamdani in NYC.

This was an off year election.

What's the point? What's the "weapon" you think these elections were for the Democrat party?

You do realize that one of the Democrat Senators who voted to re-open the government was Tim Kaine--who is from Virginia, don't you?

He doesn't have an election coming up soon but do you really think Kaine would have broken ranks if he thought the Dems had the upper hand on the issue of the government shut down?

What Virginia DOES have is lots and lots of federal employees. And dollars to donuts Kaine was getting heat from his constituents about them not getting their paychecks etc. Federal employees (for the most part) aren't stupid. They know what the Dem party was trying to do, they know it wasn't working, and anyone with a thinking brain wouldn't have needed 40+ days to figure it out.

Yeah and the Senate had a poll and the Dems lost 60-40.

You seem to have overlooked that.

You've already made the political point (people are aware of the ACA subsidy expiration) you wanted to make

Highly doubtful. Lots of people aren’t as plugged in as you are. Some were just finding out that their benefits were about to stop. Benefits “officially” ended November 1, barely a week ago. I out many of them felt any pain at all, and pain is what it will take in the face of the relentless propaganda coming at them from Washington.

But now you're in the phase where a ton of people are going to start getting hurt very badly, and you don't have that much more incremental possibility of political gain.

Sure you do. ore than a third of independents had yet to be convinced. Nearly all Republicans, which means that those in rural areas didn’t feel the sting at all - yet. Those low income, low information voters need more than a couple articles in the New York Times to get the message.

I don't think it's a winning strategy to signal that the Democrats are very willing to let people get hurt - the "Yes, sorry about that" position - in order to get the same amount of nothing, just a few weeks later.

Yet it seems to work astonishingly well for Republicans, even as they plumb the depths of despair. (Saw a piece on CBS Sunday Morning with a farmer on the verge of bankruptcy because - he’s lost his biggest customer for his soybeans. Farm been in the family for 200 years. Sure hopes Trump can “get a good deal” before he loses it all. Sorry dude, it’s 2x4 time, or you’ll never learn.)

Sometimes you need to hear the bear growl to run faster. Sometimes, it’s true, you don’t run fast enough. Democrats just told Republican voters “Hey, it’s OK to walk. We’ll cave, even if they never will.”

None of the polls showed the electorate blaming the GOP for the shutdown by enough to provide pressure on the GOP to change their position

You keep focusing on the wrong thing. The GOP is NEVER going to change its position. You need to change the GOP VOTERS to change their position.

Let go of your prejudice. You’ve got it wrong.

False. The ACA benefits end December 31, 2025.

Where do you clowns get your info from?

Do we need to remind the libs here that

1. The ACA was passed with all democrat votes and no GOP votes
2. The ACA was supposed to make things cheaper, but required subsidies passed by democrats
3. The same democrats that passed the ACA to make things cheaper but needed to put subsidies in also put in a sunset date on those subsidies.

And this is somehow the fault of the Republicans. Yeah. Don't think so.

The Democrats are completely delusional.

Completely.

Post New

US Policy FAQ

---

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