Invite ye felawes and frendes desirous in gold to enter the gates of Shrewd'm, for they will thanke ye later.
- Manlobbi
Stocks A to Z / Stocks G / Alphabet (GOOG)
No. of Recommendations: 0
Democratic senators fear getting ‘hammered’ after ‘No Kings’ for ending shutdown
https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/5561362-libera...Some Democrats skeptical about their leadership’s hard-line stance against reopening the federal government privately acknowledge that they fear getting “hammered” by their liberal base if they vote for a Republican funding bill.Survey in the article:
To what extent do you approve or disapprove of the job congressional Democrats are doing on this issue?
Strongly disapprove: 49%
Based on 806 responses
Listening to a pod yesterday, one gave the idea that Democrats will vote to reopen after getting a promise of a vote on ACA subsidies, which will fail, and then run on the issue in the midterms.
Best we can hope for?
No. of Recommendations: 2
after getting a promise of a vote on ACA subsidies, In my experience, "JC" promises of great things later, if I fall on my sword for them now, are for zukkers, as the promises are lies.
Keep in mind, "now", is the "later", from when the BBB, that included the cuts, was passed.
Remember what #43 said.
Fool me once, shame on youhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hl7FKfl3O2YSteve
No. of Recommendations: 2
Best we can hope for?
Maybe. Depends who gets blamed, ultimately, for this. Albaby has opined that the minority party generally gets the blame.
On the one hand, I see them fighting for the People. That's good, IMO. They shouldn't just roll over, or be seen to be rolling over. But, OTOH, if they were to abstain in a vote (rather than voting FOR it), maybe(?) the Reps would get all the blame when the ACA gets trashed. If that happens, the mid-terms would be very bad for Reps. At least, I think it would be. It would give the Dems a very powerful campaign bat to bludgeon the Reps with.
Not sure which is the better tactical approach.
No. of Recommendations: 5
Albaby has opined that the minority party generally gets the blame.
Not the minority party, necessarily. The party that insists that they be given some substantive win in exchange for funding the government. The shutdowns during Bill Clinton's terms, for example, were blamed on the GOP.
The party that is saying "We won't vote to fund the government unless we get X" has historically been the one that gets blamed, versus the party that supports a continuation of then-current spending levels.
No. of Recommendations: 0
The party that is saying "We won't vote to fund the government unless we get X" has historically been the one that gets blamed, versus the party that supports a continuation of then-current spending levels.
The Democrats, in this case.
Email I received today from House Majority PAC, asking for money:
Republicans’ shutdown continues, and Barack and Michelle Obama speak up!
This is critical:
We’re in the midst of Republicans’ destructive government shutdown.
And one of the most powerful and respected Democratic couples in HISTORY have stood up and called on every American to act before it’s too late!
The Obamas know what’s at stake – and so do we.
It's a destructive government shutdown. I'm not convinced it's the "Republicans’ destructive government shutdown".
I want the ACA subsidies to be retained as much as anyone else on Obamacare. This is not the way.
No. of Recommendations: 1
The party that is saying "We won't vote to fund the government unless we get X" has historically been the one that gets blamed, versus the party that supports a continuation of then-current spending levels.
As suggested before, I think the Dems chose the wrong hill to die on. Fox Noise has convinced the base that only "others" will be hurt, and the base is OK with "others" being thrown under the bus. Instead of invoking a filibuster, all the Dems should vote "present", and give the MAGAs their head. See how the MAGA base likes it.
Steve
No. of Recommendations: 5
As suggested before, I think the Dems chose the wrong hill to die on. Fox Noise has convinced the base that only "others" will be hurt, and the base is OK with "others" being thrown under the bus. Instead of invoking a filibuster, all the Dems should vote "present", and give the MAGAs their head. See how the MAGA base likes it.
This isn't about the MAGA base. It's about the Democrats' base.
The Democratic base wanted the Democrats to fight this fight. They want someone to stand up to Trump. They want their leaders to do something. It doesn't matter that the only effective "do something" when you've lost control of the government entirely is to win the next election. The base wanted the Democrats to do something now.
The only thing the minority party can do now is filibuster must-pass bills. So they're doing that.
Of course, if you're going to filibuster a must-pass bill, you need to have a reason to filibuster the must-pass bill. Which is tough, because must-pass bills are usually tailored to avoid things that will keep them from passing. And even when they're not, it's easy to change them to take the unpalatable bits out.
So the Democrats landed on "health care subsidies" as the "X" for which they were going to refuse to vote for the continuing resolution. Because of all the things that the GOP did as part of the BBB package, that's probably the most popular "X" to undo. But it leaves the Democrats in this weird place, where the thing they're fighting about isn't really top of mind for a lot of voters, and where the smart political play probably would have been to let the GOP stew in their own pot.
No. of Recommendations: 0
What is the way?
No. of Recommendations: 3
What is the way?
What Albaby said:
The Democratic base wanted the Democrats to fight this fight. They want someone to stand up to Trump. They want their leaders to do something. It doesn't matter that the only effective "do something" when you've lost control of the government entirely is to win the next election. The base wanted the Democrats to do something now.
Democrats need to win the next election. What they're doing now, in my opinion, is not working toward that goal. It's hurting people needlessly.
No. of Recommendations: 1
Of course, if you're going to filibuster a must-pass bill, you need to have a reason to filibuster the must-pass bill. Which is tough, because must-pass bills are usually tailored to avoid things that will keep them from passing.
Sticks in my mind that "must pass" bills are the popular choice to carry something that would be poison by itself. In principle, I like a "line item veto", tho, iirc, it was declared unconstitutional, at the Federal level, some years ago.
Back when I had cable, I caught a debate on C-SPAN one evening in November. The House had passed the conference committee's final iteration of an "omnibus spending bill", passed it to the Senate, and gone home for Thanksgiving. The Dems in the Senate expected a land mine in that 1000+ page bill, so divided the printed version up into digestible sections, and had all their combined staffs go through it with a fine tooth comb. They found something. Someone in the conference committee had slipped a provision in that gave the Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee authority to send staff over to the IRS, to go sifting through a person's tax returns, with no warrant or probable cause. The Dems were livid. The Repubs kept saying "we need to pass this bill now. we can't send it back to the House to be changed, because the House recessed. we'll fix this provision later" The Dems weren't buying it. Does that sound a lot like the current situation? I don't recall now how they settled that row. This, of course, was during the Bush junta, which regarded the Constitution as "nothing but a G-D piece of paper"
But it leaves the Democrats in this weird place, where the thing they're fighting about isn't really top of mind for a lot of voters, and where the smart political play probably would have been to let the GOP stew in their own pot.
Well, is that about what I said? The numbers have been posted here before. The subsidies in question only benefit a minority of voters. Don't obstruct the MAGAs getting what they voted for. See how they like it.
Steve
No. of Recommendations: 1
I want the ACA subsidies to be retained as much as anyone else on Obamacare. This is not the way.
What is the way? Serious question. Dems already are seen as being weak. If they rollover, that will just reinforce that perception. On the other hand, I don't think this situation is benefiting them.
My idea was simply to abstain in the votes. Don't vote "yes" in support. Abstain. Then pummel the Reps about the ACA, and other things making their lives more difficult, next summer during the mid-term campaigns. That's the best I can come up with.
No. of Recommendations: 4
My idea was simply to abstain in the votes. Don't vote "yes" in support. Abstain. Then pummel the Reps about the ACA, and other things making their lives more difficult, next summer during the mid-term campaigns.
They can't really do that.
I mean, they could. They don't even need to abstain. The GOP has a majority, after all. They actually could all just vote against the bill in the Senate. As long as no one filibustered, the bill would pass by a simple 52-48 majority (Paul would vote against it, I think).
But that would never happen. There's no way they would ever get every single Democratic senator to agree not to filibuster.
If it's filibustered, then the Republicans need eight affirmative Democratic votes (again, assuming Paul votes against). Which means the Democrats have to affirmatively help them over the line.
The filibuster isn't based on senators present, but 3/5 of the entire membership of the Senate - so it's always 60 affirmative votes, no matter how many are in the chamber.
No. of Recommendations: 3
The Epstein files are keeping the government shutdown.
No. of Recommendations: 1
But that would never happen. There's no way they would ever get every single Democratic senator to agree not to filibuster.
So, if you were Dem leadership, what would you be "whipping" your members to do?
I think this makes the Reps look worse than it does the Dems, but it's not really a "win" for Dems, either. Unless the Reps actually relent, which I don't see them doing (they have always hated the ACA, even though many of their constituents benefit from it).
No. of Recommendations: 3
So, if you were Dem leadership, what would you be "whipping" your members to do?
They're whipping them to not vote for the bill. That's it.
If Schumer wanted to give Thune 8 votes to pass the CR, it would be a simple ask - just like in March. They only need to whip the members to prevent another handful from doing it on their own.
There's not a lot of deep procedural strategy here.
The Democrats are picking this fight because their base wants to see that the leadership will refuse to do something the GOP wants without getting something in return. Sure, they've picked "ACA subsidies" as the thing to ask for; but mostly because that's something that plays to one of the few issues where the Democrats are preferred by voters.
Unless the Reps actually relent, which I don't see them doing (they have always hated the ACA, even though many of their constituents benefit from it).
As was pointed out earlier, the Dems insistence on the subsidies being extended actually solves a problem for the GOP. They don't want to take the hit for the subsidies expiring. But the Freedom Caucus wing of the party is solidly against them. Johnson couldn't pass a bill to extend them through the House without getting help from the Democrats. He wouldn't normally be able to get an extension of the subsidies through the House without giving the Democrats something in exchange for their votes... except now, since the Democrats are so on the record on the subsidies, if Johnson brought a clean extension to the floor there's no way they could ever vote against. They're using up all their leverage on that vote in order to bargain for...just ending the shutdown.
No. of Recommendations: 0
What is the way? Serious question. Dems already are seen as being weak. If they rollover, that will just reinforce that perception. On the other hand, I don't think this situation is benefiting them.
There is no short-term solution. The way is to put up good, popular candidates who can articulate good, popular policies and subsequently win elections.
And seriously, the Democrats are going to war over the expiration of subsidies that they, themselves, SET TO EXPIRE!
I'm upset with them shutting down the government. It upset me when Ted Cruz and co. did it. I'm doubly upset now the Democrats, "my side", "the good guys", are doing it.
