Nov.12

electoral-vote.com

Dem 47

   

GOP 53

More on the (Imminent?) End of the Shutdown

The federal government shutdown is still ongoing, of course. At 43 days and counting, it's left the past record of 35 days, also set under Donald Trump, in the dust. The House is back in session, and Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) apparently thinks he has the votes for passage of the bill that was already approved by the Senate. And Trump has implied that he will sign when the measure reaches his desk. So, we might not cross the 50-day mark. Time will tell.

Even if the final words of this particular chapter have not been written, however, there is still much to discuss. We would be remiss if we did not start by pointing out that a lot of people are really, really angry at the Democrats right now—either the Party in general, or the eight Democratic caucus members who crossed the aisle to vote for the bill. The angry folks include much of the House and Senate Democratic caucuses, many Democrats who are not currently serving in Congress, like Zohran Mamdani and Pete Buttigieg, and a veritable constellation of stars from the pundit class, including Jon Stewart, Ezra Klein, Jonathan Chait and Rachel Maddow.

After our write-up, we also heard from plenty of readers who are incensed. For example, here's M.O. in Metamora, MI:

Democrats caved declaring a "win" because they got a messaging vote. They don't get it. Millions of people turned out in protests and elections and demanded they take a stand because we were willing to stand together against the horrors of an administration that said "give up your medicine or we'll take away your food."

Time and time again the lesson of civics is to stand together. We were all willing to go to the mat for people to continue to get medical treatment. Now, because the Democrats lack the spine to take a stand, many of those people will go bankrupt and topple into homelessness. Many others will die for lack of access to medical care.

You can't buy insurance with a messaging vote. Democrats just don't get it. You don't position yourself for 2026 this way. Everyone who is paying attention already knows that Republicans don't care. A messaging vote isn't going to move the needle for anyone. What the American people are literally dying for is political substance. For politicians that are going to care about the day to day struggle to survive that many Americans feel themselves losing. By caving here the Democrats just showed they don't have substance, and they don't get it.

This was the last straw for me. I know I, for one, am done with them.

And here is R.M. in Gresham, OR:

So, performative-centrist Democrats get to: (1) sell my liberal family out for nothing while (2) giving themselves an excuse to e-mail me a dozen times per day on how critically they need donations to win their next elections? Yup, unfortunately I think those eight aisle-crossers got EXACTLY what they wanted. As far as hardships "getting real," after this was announced I went ahead and renewed the health insurance through the marketplace for my wife and daughter. The $210 LESS in subsidies now on top of the usual increase means my family now needs to find an extra $300 next year to keep our junk insurance plan with $18,000 deductibles. Things got real for us when we were left high-and-dry for an election strategy.

Maybe instead of "The Gambler," you should have a different Kenny Rogers' song. I would suggest "Coward of the County" dedicated to Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) et al., except, you know, in that one the guy finally stands up and fights. Maybe the Charlie Brown theme song in honor of this latest attempt to kick the football. Maybe "We suck!" by The Flaming Little Sh**s, which the Internet tells me is an actual song.

We could easily have presented another couple dozen messages along these lines, but we think this conveys the general tone and tenor well enough.

There are also some folks out there who think that all this talk of the Democrats losing/caving is off the mark. Not too many politicians are willing to say that right now, but plenty of pundits wrote pieces arguing, in so many words, that the blue team came out ahead here. That list includes Jon Allsop, The New York Times' Annie Karni, NPR's Domenico Montanaro, Josh Marshall and Jonathan V. Last.

We also heard from readers who disagree with the "Democrats caved" point of view. For example, here is J.S. in West Hartford, CT:

Bravo! You succinctly explained the benefits of the Democratic Senators "caving" and supporting a bill to stop the insanity of the government shutdown—and the suffering of millions of people affected. You were the first (in my reading list) to look beyond the many headlines that are screaming that the Democrats caved.

They did not. The Democrats have made their point. They stood their ground next to the brick wall regarding ACA subsidies that Trump and House Speaker Mike Johnson put up. The Democrats' cries to tear down that wall have gone unheeded. The Republicans used the shutdown to show their lack of concern for millions of Americans who rely on government support, directly (SNAP) and indirectly (Air Traffic Controllers).

An exclamation point was put on the situation when voters shifted towards the Democrats at the elections held on November 4. Does that mean this is the time to show strength by continuing to hold the line ... or the time to show strength by finding a path forward, despite the wall? After all, the Republicans hold the trifecta.

I believe this is now the time to show voters that Democratic leaders do have empathy for the good of all people, and they have offered a path forward to re-open the government and protect vulnerable people next year—no matter what happens past January 30th (the day the funding runs out again). The Republicans have offered no plausible solution to the issues that caused the shutdown, and the administration seems to relish finding more ways to hurt people as it continues.

In addition to showing they care about the funding issues, the Democrats get two huge bonuses: (1) A very public statement regarding ACA subsidies in the form of a (supposed to happen) vote in Congress; and (2) the seating of the Arizona representative who would be the 218th signature on the discharge petition for the Epstein files bill.

You have provided the only assessment I have seen this Monday morning to explain why now could be a good time to "Know When to Fold 'Em." I thought so last night, and I was heartened this morning to read that you thought so as well—and could provide meaningful explanations as to why.

And A.R. in Los Angeles, CA:

The Democrats did the right thing. Donald Trump absolutely does not care if anything works or if people starve. He just wants money and power for himself. Frankly, I'm amazed they got as much as they did. You're absolutely correct that a promise to hold a vote in a month is sufficient because of the blowback if Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) then reneged.

And funding SNAP for 10 months was critical now that we know Trump will use the poor as pawns. The fact that only the Democrats care whether working people can eat tells you pretty much all you need to know about the politics here.

Now it's on us—the voters who just delivered this stinging rebuke to Trump—to support the Democrats as they do the best they can against a heartless and cruel Republican party. This was not "caving," this was making the best of a bad situation. I want Ezra Levin, the biggest cheerleader for the shutdown, to acknowledge that people are suffering and that this was the right thing to do. Though perhaps he should wait until after Trump signs off on the agreement, since he'll only agree to something if he thinks he's pissing off the people he hates. That's the calculus for this president that the Democrats can't ignore: "Am I making money and does it hurt people I hate or the people they care about?" Such a tragic realization but there it is.

We could have run many more messages like these, too. The mail ran about 50-50, or maybe 60-40 in the "angry" direction.

For our part, we've now had a couple of days to ponder and read, and we have 10 thoughts for readers' consideration. We tried to put these in as logical an order as is possible, but... this goes in a number of different directions, so the organization is pretty loose:

1. Messaging: We wanted to start with the things the Democrats definitely got out of the shutdown (which, again, isn't actually over yet). The Party was certainly able to send a message that it cares about the ACA and SNAP and other such social support programs. It was certainly able to show voters that it is capable of standing on principle.
   
   We recognize well that, at least in the short term, these "lessons" might be drowned out by counter-messages. Most obviously, two very Democratic-negative narratives have re-surfaced: (1) that the Democrats have no courage/spine, and (2) that the Democrats are divided. However, in the short term, no voter is going to be able to actually act on those sentiments. Notice that the deal was reached in a manner that puts maximum time between Democratic voters' disappointment and the casting of actual ballots in 2026. And there is still time for the Democrats to shift the narrative back to the positive stuff, particularly depending on how they play their hand when the ACA vote comes up, and then how they play their hand when the budget runs out again on January 30.
   
   
2. Trump in the Hot Seat: We wanted to write more about this, but time is scarce, and it's basically now or never, so we'll have to content ourselves with a briefer version. There is no question, in our minds, that Trump botched the shutdown very badly. His handling of SNAP was particularly noteworthy, and particularly bad. From where we sit, the White House had two viable options. The first was to completely withhold SNAP, with the argument that the messy payment system just isn't set up for these kinds of events, and that making adjustments will take some unspecified amount of time. This would have given plausible deniability for Trump's real motivations, namely to withhold SNAP to save money, to own the libs, and to put pressure on the Democrats.
   
   The other viable option, in our view, was for Trump to keep SNAP payments flowing, and to take credit for it, as a "defender" of the people. This would have required using funding in illegal ways, most likely, but this administration has no problem with that. And who, exactly, is going to step in and file a lawsuit or otherwise put a stop to it? Helping people is not his first instinct, but if he transformed himself into Superdon, the defender of truth, justice, the American way, and SNAP benefits, he could have gotten some P.R. out of it.
   
   What Trump actually did, however, was flop around like a fish. Sometimes he would say no SNAP benefits would be paid at all, and his staff would have to walk that back. He'd promise partial benefits, then file another lawsuit to try to stop from paying anything. He also made callous remarks about the people who need the assistance. He pretty much could not have done a better job of conveying: (1) It's basically the administration's fault that people don't have food, and (2) the administration is actually pretty happy about that.
   
   At the same time, Trump performed a dazzling array of tone-deaf acts. Tearing down the East Wing of the White House was not a great look under any circumstances, but to do it in the middle of a shutdown makes it look like Trump has money for remodeling, but not to provide food to hungry people. It's not that simple, of course, but that's still how it looks. Similarly, he got by with the Lincoln bathroom, as it was, for 48 months of his first presidency, and 10 months of this one. He couldn't wait one more month for that garish, all-marble refurbishing?
   
   Maybe worst of all is the Great Gatsby-themed party that was held at Mar-a-Lago on Halloween. Yes, presidents have a right to relax and let their hair down, on occasion. But it's just so tone-deaf, politically, to have a huge bash like that the day before some people are going to have to start going without food. And, of all the possible themes... Great Gatsby? Really? We know Trump doesn't read, but is there nobody around him who knows that the book is about corrupt, decadent rich people flaunting their wealth, and rubbing it in the faces of those who are less fortunate? It's hard to think of a book that would have been a worse choice at this particular time. Maybe Lord of the Flies? The Hunger Games? Snowpiercer? And even if Trump doesn't read, the 1974 movie starring Robert Redford and Mia Farrow is classic and makes the point even more powerfully than the book. The contrast between Gatsby (who made his fortune illegally, as a bootlegger) and George Wilson, who owned a humble gas station, couldn't be plainer.
   
   It is possible that Trump would have continued to shoot himself in the foot, and to do the Democrats' PR work for them. But it's possible he would have course-corrected. After all, the White House has only two wings, and one of them is now rubble.
   
   Instead, with the shutdown likely winding down, Trump's flailing around in a different way. As we wrote yesterday, he's got an economic problem, namely that the economy is not performing well, and he's failed to live up to his grandiose (and totally unrealistic) promises to solve everyone's economic woes. To try to address this, he's shilling for "simple" solutions that are so bad that you only need two semesters two months two weeks two minutes of Econ 101 to see right through them. We cannot begin to count how many op-eds, videos, position papers, tweets, etc. we saw yesterday that ripped apart either the $2,000 "tariff dividend," or the Health Savings Accounts, or the 50-year mortgages. It was certainly in the hundreds.
   
   And here is the thing. With the shutdown, Trump could flail his arms around and scream "It's the Democrats' fault!" This was empty spin, but spin that some voters might buy. Now, that line of attack has been taken away, and we are back to a situation where the Republicans have all the power and hold all the cards. So, Trump gets to own his current woes 100%.
   
   
3. Johnson in the Hot Seat: In addition to putting a very harsh spotlight on Trump, the Democrats also did the same for Mike Johnson. Again, we wrote about this yesterday. His life is about to get a lot harder, and it's difficult to see a path forward that does not weaken his position, or that of the Republican Party, or both.
   
   We will also make brief mention of an unforced error for the Speaker that is small, and yet meaningful. He was appearing on one of the many Fox shows, and was asked about Republicans' plans for health care. As with every Republican speaker for the last 30 years, Johnson insisted that his party does have a plan (even if they never seem to get around to sharing it). He added that the GOP has "notebooks full of ideas."
   
   Just about anyone who has been following politics for any amount of time immediately perceived the echoes of one of the biggest gaffes of the Mitt Romney presidential campaign, when he declared that he and his team were committed to gender equality, and had "binders full of women" at hand. For Johnson to make the same basic mistake, knowing the scorn that was heaped on Romney, just adds to our ongoing impression that his political instincts aren't that great. And this is the kind of thing that could linger for a long, long time.
   
   
4. Health Care: So, the Democrats got some messaging they might conceivably build on, and they have put the screws to Trump and Johnson in various ways. Now, let's turn to what they did NOT get, namely any meaningful concessions on health care (other than the yet-to-be-scheduled Senate vote on the ACA subsidies). This is probably the most important entry on this list, so we'll start with the short version and then explain ourselves. On this matter, the Democrats were very likely going to lose, and they were definitely going to lose.
   
   Obviously, the policy goal that was bandied about was extending the ACA subsidies for another year. Quite a few members, including some who voted against the Senate bill, said that was not going to happen. We obviously weren't in the room, but with time to reflect, we think they were very likely correct. The Republicans want to preserve their tax cuts and, on top of that, many of them (e.g., the Freedom Caucus) hate giving government money to people who are not rich. Perhaps more importantly, Donald Trump hates, hates, hates the ACA because it is the signature accomplishment of Barack Obama. It is nearly inconceivable that he would sign a bill appropriating tens of billions of dollars (or more) that would go toward strengthening the program. So, this is the part where they were likely going to lose.
   
   Now on to the part where they were definitely going to lose. Even if the Democrats had gotten (or still get) the ACA subsidies for another year, they still lose, and so too do tens of millions of Americans. Extending the ACA subsidies for a year only helps ACA users, and it only helps them for 12 months. It does nothing for the people who are not on ACA insurance, and whose premiums are skyrocketing. After October or November or December of next year, it also does nothing for the people who ARE on Obamacare. And it certainly does nothing to fix the underlying flaws in the system, a system where Americans famously expend twice as much money per citizen as the average industrialized democracy, and yet get substantially inferior outcomes.
   
   In other words, the ACA subsidies would have been a band-aid, one that might have been replaced (or might be replaced) by a second band-aid in a year... or maybe not. A lot of people would not have been helped, and certainly nothing would have been done to fix a deeply flawed system. This is not a fun thing to write, but if there's going to be anything more than a band-aid, then people have to make clear, with their votes, that they want real change. And, unfortunately, there is no way that happens unless people are no longer insulated from the problems in the system. JVL at The Bulwark often puts that more colorfully: They have to touch the stove.
   
   And, if you want to know a dirty secret, the Democrats in Congress know this. What they were really fighting for was limits on authoritarianism. Health care was just a more compelling issue to voters than things more abstract, like recissions, or unlawful tariffs, or transparently corrupt DoJ officials. So the blue team rode the health care issue as far as they could, knowing they could not actually "win." Not every Democrat in Congress thought that was the right strategy and, eventually, some of the skeptics could not support it any longer.
   
   
5. The Filibuster: While the Democrats were not going to change the calculus on American health care, the one thing they might have gotten is the death (or the effective death) of the filibuster. With the shutdown dragging on, and with Trump ratcheting up the pressure, then maaaaybe the Republicans in the Senate might have eventually gone nuclear, and slain the beast. That would be a good outcome for the Democrats, in our view, and a good outcome for democracy.
   
   Allow us to note, at this time, that the filibuster is certainly a partisan issue, but we do not regard our opposition to it as being partisan. Instead, we would say our position is informed by civics. That is to say, it is abundantly clear that the filibuster makes it nearly impossible for the legislature to do anything. And since nature abhors a vacuum, this has caused power to flow from the legislature to the executive. The folks who wrote the Constitution might have been OK with an often-paralyzed legislature, maybe. But they most certainly would not have been OK with a president who gets more king-like by the day, as he absorbs more and more of the power that should belong to Congress. From this we conclude that eliminating the filibuster, or seriously limiting it, is essential to getting the system working the way it was designed to work.
   
   Anyhow, if the Democrats could have killed the filibuster without getting the blame, it might have been worth it to hold on. But, while this was (and still is) a more possible outcome than fixing health care beyond just a band-aid, it's not especially plausible. The Republicans really, really, really don't want to kill the filibuster for two reasons. First, because the Democrats would go to town the next time they had the trifecta. Second, because the filibuster protects the majority party from having to take votes on divisive issues. For example, "Oh, we would really love to bring up a bill banning abortion nationwide, for all time, but there's just no point, because we don't have 60 votes."
   
   We would add that it's certainly a little mercenary, and maybe even immoral, to let people go without food, and to ruin their holidays with screwed-up travel, just so your party can avoid blood on its hands. If the Democrats think that killing the filibuster is the way forward, they really should just suck it up and wield the ax themselves the next time they are in power.
   
   
6. When Sh** Gets Real: If you look at the list of pundits above, the ones who excoriated the Democrats, we doubt you will see the names of anyone who has to worry about where their next meal is coming from. It is obviously much easier to play armchair political chess when you're dealing with abstractions.
   
   It gets way, way harder when those abstractions become real people. To take an example, Jon Stewart does not need SNAP. The people who work on his show don't need it. His family doesn't need it. There's a good chance that he doesn't personally know anyone who needs it. By contrast, (Z) has students for whom SNAP benefits make the difference between eating three meals a day and not. It is way harder to say "keep the shutdown going forever, if that is what it takes!" when you don't have to look folks like that in the face, as politicians have to do. Especially when it's also the holiday season.
   
   
7. The Punditry: We're now well into the "some random observations" part of this item. And here, we will add that we have been very disappointed in the pundits listed at the top, particularly Jon Stewart and Rachel Maddow.
   
   This is a very, very tricky subject. Many people feel the Democrats blew it. There is a valid argument for that. Others feel the Democrats did well, or at least did the best they could. There is a valid argument for that, too. However, Stewart, Maddow, and many of the others reduced the whole thing to very simplistic terms, and did very little to provide much in the way of nuance, or to make clear that often in politics, and certainly in this case, you are choosing between problematic option #1 and problematic option #2.
   
   We most certainly do not object to people who reach conclusions different from the ones we have reached (so far). But we do object to people who make it seem simple, and who make it seem like there was only one correct approach, and who don't seem to have any appreciation for why those five new aisle-crossers (Democratic Sens. Tim Kaine of Virginia, Maggie Hassan and Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire, Jacky Rosen of Nevada and Dick Durbin of Illinois) might have chosen the road they did.
   
   Maybe it's because Stewart, Maddow, et al. are, first and foremost, entertainers. Maybe it is because they are being driven by emotion. Whatever is going on, they did not do credit to themselves as folks who are ostensibly supposed to be level-headed analysts of politics.
   
   
8. Pork: There's an angle to all this that is flying a little bit under the radar, but not THAT much under the radar. As it turns out, some GOP senators inserted some language into the continuing resolution that will allow them to sue the FBI, under certain circumstances, if the FBI acquired the senators' phone records. The law would/will mostly apply going forward, but it also gives special dispensation for past acts that would allow 8 GOP senators to sue if they so desire, to the tune of $500,000 each.
   
   This is pretty sleazy, obviously, though we'll point a few things out. First, it is improbable that the senators will sue and win. The legislation is based on a conspiratorial fantasy that the FBI tapped the senators' phones, and got sensitive or personal information. In fact, all the FBI got was records of incoming and outgoing calls—basically, copies of the phone bills. It will be difficult for an attorney to make the case that the FBI not only did something unlawful here, but that the unlawful act(s) damaged the senators to the tune of six figures.
   
   Second, this being the case, we suspect there's actually something else going on here. It could be a grift, wherein the senators sue, and the Department of Justice decides to "settle" rather than pursue the case. That would be very bad optics, but... maybe. The more likely explanation, in our view, is that it's an effort to intimidate the FBI, and to not-so-subtly warn them not to investigate United States Senators.
   
   Third, and finally, it is clear that whatever their motivations, the Republican senators who have been pushing this legislation were GOING to jam it into some omnibus bill, sooner or later. This just happened to be the one that presented itself. So, while it stinks to high heaven, it's also something of a sidebar, and not as important as the other elements of what's going on here.
   
   
9. Schumer: Among Democrats, the guy who is taking an absolute thrashing is Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), who is being assigned primary blame for pretty much everything. Many Democrats, particularly those who are young and progressive, say that the New Yorker is no longer an effective leader. David Axelrod, who is neither young nor progressive, declared that Schumer is "cooked," and that he won't be his party's leader in the Senate much longer.
   
   It is a bit unfair that Schumer is being targeted like this. First, there were many Senate Democrats who did not like (and do not like) the blue team's shutdown strategy, and he showed Pelosi-like cat-herding skills keeping everyone except John Fetterman (D-PA), Catherine Cortez Masto (D-NV) and Angus King (I-ME) behind the shutdown and on message for 7 weeks. Then, when the deal was reached, he publicly blasted it and he voted against it. Not much more he could have done.
   
   That said, the anger being directed at Schumer surely has little to do with the shutdown deal, per se. There has been much unhappiness about the state of the Democratic Party, and about his leadership of his caucus, for a long time. The current situation is just an opportunity for people to vent those longstanding feelings. If Schumer wants to hold on to his job until January 2027, he can certainly do it, as it's not easy to get rid of a party leader in the Senate. Once people have cooled down, he might even be able to hold on beyond January 2027. That said, our guess is that sometime before next year's elections, he will fall on his sword in the name of the youth movement that many Democratic voters clearly want.
   
   
10. Retrenchment: Last thing, after nearly 6,000 words on this subject. When we wrote our initial response to the shutdown deal, we used poker as a metaphor. What we have been thinking about since then, however, is a battle. Actually, more like a campaign. Specifically, the Vicksburg Campaign. When Ulysses S. Grant set his sights on Vicksburg in early 1863, he knew he had to have it, because that would mean Union control of the Mississippi River. He also knew that it was a brutally difficult objective, because it sits on a high bluff, protected by swampy land on three sides, and by a steep drop-off and a river on the other side.
    
    Grant spent many months trying different things as he endeavored to lay siege to the town. He'd approach from one direction, and would make progress, but then would conclude that route was not going to get the job done. So, he and his men would fall back, surrender the progress they had made, and retrench and prepare for the next attempt.
    
    We wish that, rather than poker, we had gone with retrenchment as our metaphor of choice on Monday. That's really a better characterization of what happened. The Democrats made some progress, concluded they would not be able to achieve their ultimate goal or goals, and fell back, presumably to fight another day.
    
    We do not know what will happen next, of course. Certainly, in falling back, the Democrats had to give up some momentum and some goodwill from their base. And that could have been the wrong choice. However, if they so choose, they can resume the exact same fight at the end of January, when the budget is likely to run out again. In that case, they will likely or definitely have the following things going for them:
    
    
    • They will likely have a couple more months of Donald Trump showing fecklessness or callousness.
    • They will be considerably closer to election season.
    • They won't have to worry about SNAP recipients going hungry.
    • They won't have to worry about ruining people's holidays.
    • They will have lots of feedback from constituents, which will serve as both advice and motivation.
    • They will have time to come to a stronger consensus, among members in Congress, of the best way forward.
    • They will likely have, in their pockets, strong evidence of Republican indifference to people's health insurance costs.
    
    If General Grant were here, we suspect he'd rather have a fight with these advantages than without.

We entirely understand why so many people are angry and disappointed and, again, we note that is an entirely valid point of view. If we may, as longtime advocates of civic participation, presume to offer some advice, it is this: NOW is the time for voters to contact your representative and your senators. If you are a Democrat and they are a Democrat, it doesn't actually do all that much to tell them to vote against, say, Pete Hegseth for Secretary of Defense, since they're already going to do that. But if you call them, or send them a letter, making clear where you stand on the (next) shutdown, and on what tactics you would like to see used, that might actually move the needle. This page will let you figure out who you should be contacting, and how you can contact them. (Z)