I’m not entirely clear why this would be a damning criticism.
I think it is damning because if a bunch of other senators in vulnerable seats are going to these 8, they are admitting that public opinion wants them to fight and they can't acknowledge it.
From https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CyrapyXZfsA
Shane Goldmacher..there's one no vote that I found especially interesting.
Michael Babaro.: Who?
Goldmacher: John Ossoff. He is the most vulnerable senator up for election next year. So, he will face the voters and he's running in Georgia and really focused on his general election, right? No one's running against him in the primary right now. And what the no vote here says is that he doesn't want to risk backlash from inside his own party in this campaign. Whether that's from a potential primary challenger who could get recruited from one of these angry groups or whether it's the small donors who are fueling his campaign deciding, you know what, maybe we're not so into John Ossoff. He doesn't want to risk backlash.
Babaro; That's fascinating because as you're suggesting, John Ossoff could reasonably be most focused on a Republican opponent in a general election saying you should have voted to reopen the government. That's what matters in this race. And instead, what you're saying is he's more worried about upsetting Democrats in a potential primary. And that's what animated his vote on the shutdown. And in the end, he votes to keep the government shut down because he wants to look like he's on the side of the Democratic base. That's what we think happened here.
Goldmacher:Yeah. And I have not talked to Senator Ossoff here, but what you can see is that there are two choices. Choice one is vote to reopen the government and say, "I'm going to buck my party and I'm going to reopen the government even if people in my left attack me for it." Right? That's a selling point in a lot of places, right? And so here's a Democrat saying, you know, that's not the right calculus here to the extent he's making a politically motivated choice. The right calculus is to make sure that your own party likes you and supports you and sees you as a fighter because you want that energy behind you in a coming midterm election.
If they were voting to give their colleagues cover, it means that their colleagues don't see what is happening as a 4 alarm fire.
The GOP probably thinks that their demand for abortion restrictions in return for extending the subsidies is a clever move - making it so that they can say the Dems were the ones to sink the ACA because of their refusal (and they had best refuse). I think, however, that this ploy is going to backfire. The abortion stuff will play well to their base, but there is no reason to tie these two things together other than to poison pill it for the Dems, so I don't know how this lets the GOP off the hook when people's health insurance suddenly becomes unaffordable. It just demonstrates their lack of good faith.
Let's hope the Democratic leadership have enough sense to hit back hard on this and make voters see that the GOP is treating this like a game and not taking people's healthcare access seriously. It's simple messaging, or at least it would be for anyone not allergic to confrontation and sharp elbows.
I did read something along the lines that nous laid out, that maybe the 8 senators, all of whom were not running again, were providing cover for other senators. This to me is an even more damning criticism of the move.
I'm not entirely clear why this would be a damning criticism. It feels more like a rational response to the entirely predictable howls of outrage. The point of the exercise, after all, is to:
1) Get SNAP money flowing for the next year, get Federal workers paid again, etc.
2) Either get the ACA subsidies restored or, more likely, make it starkly, unmistakably clear who is responsible for the price hikes.
3) Avoid wasting time and money on primary battles, since the goal is to win general election battles.
Now if you think that the Republicans would cave on ACA subsidies, and do so fast enough to avoid the disasters for real people flowing from the lack addressed by the first point? Sure, there's lots to criticize. Just start by explaining why you think the Republicans would cave any time soon. Because, unless you can do that, criticism is nonsense.
I haven't read a lot about this, the whole thing makes me sick to my stomach. I did read something along the lines that nous laid out, that maybe the 8 senators, all of whom were not running again, were providing cover for other senators. This to me is an even more damning criticism of the move.
The only silver lining I can see is that Trump will feel emboldened by this and the whole shit show could really explode in their faces. I suppose that the second is that Schumer might get voted out and they get someone who has a spine.
wj - I understand what you are saying about not interrupting the enemy when they are in the midst of making a mistake. What I do not understand is why you think Kaine saying something like what wonkie outlines would in any way tip off the GOP that they were being set up.
And, assuming that they did recognize the mousetrap, I really don't see how the GOP could ever avoid that trap. Even if they see it sitting there, The Ancient Orange One Who Slumbers will not let them back down from tearing down a big shiny thing with Obama's name on it.
So where is the downside for Kaine blasting the GOP?
And I really don't believe that this is all Schumer calculus, and that the drama between caucuses has been scripted. If I had to pick anyone out of that group who was doing it for cover, I'd say it was Durbin giving cover to Gillibrand, but I don't think that was engineered by Schumer.
And I think Schumer should lose his leadership spot because he is such a soft target for people like Stewart, and even his attempts at sounding feisty look and sound squishy to anyone not starting to worry about retirement. The Dems need a scrappy wartime leader, not someone who talks about the sympathetic conversations that they have with their colleagues across the aisle while working out at the Senate gym.
Pull him from his leadership position and put someone else in front of those cameras who knows how to talk a good fight.
But not indefinitely. I think the time is soon to spell it all out.
I agree. I would say immediately after a) the House concurs to the Senate bill and b) Trump signs it.
Until then, the Republicans have, or might think they have, a chance to perhaps wriggle out of the trap. But once that happens? They're toast.
No doubt they will be endlessly inventive trying to recover. But their only real escape would be to restore the subsidies. Which their fanatics wouldn't countenance. And Trump would veto if it somehow got thru Congress.
Suppose the thinking in the Democratic Caucus in the Senate was just what wonkie lays out above as what Senator Kaine should have said. Might there have been a reason not to say it out loud just now?"
wjca has a point. I saw a headline just today that said the Dems had mousetrapped the Rs. And they are mouse-trapped. Either there will be a vote on the ACA and they will have to put themselves on record or there won't be and they will be the bad guys that way too.
It is clear that certain Senators were chosen to fall on their swords.
It is entirely possible that Dems in the Senate thought, "Those sociopaths in the R party aren't going to be the first to blink, no matter what and we believe in public service and are aware of the suffering, so we have to blink. So let's strategize how to do it to lessen the blow back to us and save some people and put the Rs on the spot with the ACA."
And yes they would have to keep this quiet,
But not indefinitely. I think the time is soon to spell it all out.
I generally have little time for those who see conspiracies everywhere. But it occurs to me to wonder...
Suppose the thinking in the Democratic Caucus in the Senate was just what wonkie lays out above as what Senator Kaine should have said. Might there have been a reason not to say it out loud just now?
Start with the fairly safe assumption that the Republicans in Congress aren't the sharpest knives in the drawer. If the Democrats don't stand up and announce that they've neatly mousetrapped the Republicans here, the idea that it might be happening is unlikely to occur to them. Especially if there are loud complaints about "caving in" and "betrayal" from Democratic activists -- which we are hearing.
So the Republicans cheerfully pass the continuing resolution that just passed the Senate. And loudly declare victory (which Trump is incapable of not doing). Then, February rolls around. The government shuts down again. The differences being that this time SNAP keeps going (per this bill), critical Federal workers get paid, etc. Of course, health insurance premiums continue to skyrocket. And elections come ever closer, close enough that voters may even remember whose fault that is.
Did the Democrats saw all this coming? I don't know, and certainly don't expect an announcement. But, as politics goes, this ain't rocket science. I note that Schumer only had votes for cloture from Senators who are retiring or otherwise not subject to primary battles next year. Which avoids wasting resources on those. Spend the money on those districts that the Republicans gerrymandered into smaller (supposed) Republican majorities.
What I find infuriating is less (much less) the cave in, and more the absolute refusal of the (R)'s to entertain an extension of the ACA subsidies.
Health care in this country is FUBAR beyond what I think folks living in any other developed country can fathom. The ACA, which was actually not original to Obama but was, in its fundamentals, a plan pioneered by Romney when he was governor of MA, was an attempt to get people insured. It is a half-assed program in many ways, because it tries to address the wishes of too many different constituencies, most definitely not to exclude private insurers. The requirements for what would be considered an acceptable plan were definitely ambitious for the US context, but would be mediocre pretty much anywhere else.
It's a weird convoluted complicated mess, but it's better than what we had. Believe it or not. And it cut the number of uninsured people in half.
We pay twice as much on average than any similar nation. We do not have twice the level of coverage, or twice the quality of outcomes. On the contrary.
People literally die here, literally go bankrupt here, as a result of the general shittiness of how we go about things.
Trump has an extreme personal animus toward Obama, so anything Obama did must be destroyed. Whether Obama actually did it or not, just the association of his name with the program is enough to make Trump determined to destroy it.
And Trump has nothing to replace it with. The stupid $2000 cash benefit he is talking about is (a) not gonna happen in anything like a form that will actually result in a $2000 check being cut to anybody, see also Bessent's comments about "no taxes on tips", and (b) would be laughably inadequate even if it were to materialize. $2000 is basically one ambulance ride and a couple of lab tests. For people in the private insurance market, it's something like one month of premiums.
We're extending the tax cuts, but ending the premium subsidies. And if anyone thinks the (R)'s are going to suddenly decide to extend them in December, I have a bridge I would like to sell you.
Yes to tax cuts, no to ACA subsidies, tells you everything you need to know about the state of this country right now.
russell, the cave-in was so infuriating and upsetting, because of all the inevitable results you list, that I was just relieved to see that Josh Marshall nonetheless saw some positives in what had happened:
But don’t tell me nothing has changed or that this is some cataclysmic disaster. It’s not. This accomplished a lot. It demonstrated that Democrats can go to the mat when the public is behind them and not pay a political price. It dramatically damaged Donald Trump. It cued up the central arguments of the 2026 campaign. It just didn’t go far enough. The ball was fumbled at the end. So we need to demand more.
Note that Pritzker was speaking in front of a union crowd there (my compatriots in the IFT). This is what I've been saying for well over an election cycle - there are a whole lot of reachable voters who would respond to union-style messaging: "When we fight, we win." And in the face of a (temporary) loss, shift the message to one of building strength and solidarity for the longer campaign, and get out and organize.
And when I say "organize," I don't mean "fundraise." The idea is to mobilize as many people as you can - get them coming out and doing things, and meeting others who are doing the same. Fundraising doesn't build community. Direct messaging doesn't build community. Email lists don't build community. Shared struggle builds community.
Also, I don't know how many of the people who complain about the progressives woeful messaging have taken the time to watch one of the videos that AOC puts out on her various social media platforms. She's really good, especially at speaking to voters under 45. And if you look at the demographics of the Blue Wave, those were the voters that carried the show.
wonkie, I very much like your alternative script for Kaine. If only some of them were capable of talking like this - it's clearly necessary. It seems like Pritzker may be capable of it:
“Books are being banned. History is being erased. Republicans want to take billions away from public schools and pump it into private institutions. They want to punish teachers for telling the truth. They want to criminalize educators for supporting LGBTQ students. They want to turn classrooms into cultural war battlegrounds,” Pritzker began. “I’m sorry to be vulgar, but Donald Trump and his cronies can f*** all the way off,” Pritzker said, causing a standing ovation from the audience at the Illinois Federation of Teachers gathered in Rosemont on October 19th.
Se what I mean? Mumbling curated professional word choices just doesn't work. Never has, never will. Dear God, you'd think professional politicians would know how to communicate. Now even the people the Dems were trying to protect will believe that the Dems screwed them for nothing. Honestly, Democrats. What was the point of your government shutdown? | Opinion
I've had two criticisms of Dem pols for many, many years: 1. the lack of fight and 2. the mushy, wishy-washy "respectable" way of speaking that fails to communicate anything.
I think the Dems have improved on both fronts but there is a ways to go. For example, Kaine said why he voted to end the shutdown. He said something about how there didn't seem to be any other way forward mumble mumble blah blah.
What he meant and what he should have said is this: "The Republicans don't care about anything except power for power's sake and they are willing, indeed committed to, harming millions of Americans just so they can feel powerful. They are willing to spin out the shut down until federal workers go bankrupt, children are malnourished and millions lose their health insurance. Democrats aren't ruthlessly willing to sacrifice our neighbors for power. We decided to cut a deal to save as many people as possible. This shameful episode shows that Republicans genuinely do not care about people and only care about power."
But because of the mumble mumble blah blah we have headlines saying that the shutdown was for nothing.
I think it would be helpful if the Democrats could figure out how to be moderate enough to allow more moderates to support them. These favorability ratings in the face of a fascist take over of government reflect how out of touch the Dems are at the other extreme. I keep looking for that party that isn't a sinking ship and don't see one.
As for the millions of Americans fucked by the ACA subsidies being cut, that was the plan put forward from the beginning. They were to last 5 years then phase out. That was never feasible but it was the plan bullied through Congress and part of the crowning achievement. Tough to have to live with it now. But both parties have not made them permanent for all these years so they both suck. As has the ACA structure from the beginning. It was an attempt to force employer insurance to go away and force full government controlled health care. It failed to accomplish that so its just a shitty half baked solution that is essential. Next Congress should just make the subsidies permanent and take the budget heat.
While I appreciate the analysis of the possible / likely tactical scenarios leading up to the "deal", the bottom line (to me) is that a lot of people are basically fucked.
The cost of private health insurance is probably going to double, or worse, for most folks that have it.
What I personally take away from all of this - and by "all of this" I mean the last decade if not longer - is that the (R) party and the conservative movement in general no longer serves the interests of the people of this country. What I see from them is cruelty and greed.
I understand that politics is the art of the possible, and that professional politicians need to do what they can in the particular circumstances they operate in.
And I'm glad that federal employees are gonna get paid.
But in the immortal words of Jerry Garcia, one way or another this darkness has got to give.
To say that people being outraged at the prospect of millions of their neighbors facing the choice of extreme financial distress or going without health insurance is "wailing and rending of garments" is dismissive and, frankly, kind of rude. People *should* be outraged.
To address GFTNC's cite of Marshall's piece, the thrust of what he was saying as far as I can tell is that yes, this totally sucks, but it's nice to see the (D)'s at least try to use the limited levers of power available to them.
And I don't disagree with that.
And like him, I'd like to see them do even more.
The (R)'s seriously deserve to be driven from the public space. They've become a dysfunctional, toxic cancer on the body public.
I suggest you moderate conservatives being the process of building an alternative. That, or go down with the sinking ship that is the (R) party.
without having any idea which approach is more correct.
Not going to be possible to tell soon, if ever, what the actual outcomes of the various possible scenarios would have been. Lots of speculation (including mine), mostly dressed up as certainty. The most we can hope for is some 20/20 hindsight on how what was done played out.
I'm glad of these slightly more positive interpretations (inc Josh Marshall, who hilzoy seems to respect), without having any idea which approach is more correct.
On “Spelunking for fun and profit”
There might be multiple petards to hoist them. Epstein emails are less than helpful. Remember when Epstein was the GOP's hobby horse?
"
I, for one, look forward to Trump and his MAGA co-conspirators being hoist by their own petard*.
Just hope it happens.
(*and yes, I really love that phrase)
"
I’m not entirely clear why this would be a damning criticism.
I think it is damning because if a bunch of other senators in vulnerable seats are going to these 8, they are admitting that public opinion wants them to fight and they can't acknowledge it.
From https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CyrapyXZfsA
Shane Goldmacher..there's one no vote that I found especially interesting.
Michael Babaro.: Who?
Goldmacher: John Ossoff. He is the most vulnerable senator up for election next year. So, he will face the voters and he's running in Georgia and really focused on his general election, right? No one's running against him in the primary right now. And what the no vote here says is that he doesn't want to risk backlash from inside his own party in this campaign. Whether that's from a potential primary challenger who could get recruited from one of these angry groups or whether it's the small donors who are fueling his campaign deciding, you know what, maybe we're not so into John Ossoff. He doesn't want to risk backlash.
Babaro; That's fascinating because as you're suggesting, John Ossoff could reasonably be most focused on a Republican opponent in a general election saying you should have voted to reopen the government. That's what matters in this race. And instead, what you're saying is he's more worried about upsetting Democrats in a potential primary. And that's what animated his vote on the shutdown. And in the end, he votes to keep the government shut down because he wants to look like he's on the side of the Democratic base. That's what we think happened here.
Goldmacher:Yeah. And I have not talked to Senator Ossoff here, but what you can see is that there are two choices. Choice one is vote to reopen the government and say, "I'm going to buck my party and I'm going to reopen the government even if people in my left attack me for it." Right? That's a selling point in a lot of places, right? And so here's a Democrat saying, you know, that's not the right calculus here to the extent he's making a politically motivated choice. The right calculus is to make sure that your own party likes you and supports you and sees you as a fighter because you want that energy behind you in a coming midterm election.
If they were voting to give their colleagues cover, it means that their colleagues don't see what is happening as a 4 alarm fire.
"
The GOP probably thinks that their demand for abortion restrictions in return for extending the subsidies is a clever move - making it so that they can say the Dems were the ones to sink the ACA because of their refusal (and they had best refuse). I think, however, that this ploy is going to backfire. The abortion stuff will play well to their base, but there is no reason to tie these two things together other than to poison pill it for the Dems, so I don't know how this lets the GOP off the hook when people's health insurance suddenly becomes unaffordable. It just demonstrates their lack of good faith.
Let's hope the Democratic leadership have enough sense to hit back hard on this and make voters see that the GOP is treating this like a game and not taking people's healthcare access seriously. It's simple messaging, or at least it would be for anyone not allergic to confrontation and sharp elbows.
"
Republicans demand tougher abortion restrictions to extend Obamacare funds
"
I did read something along the lines that nous laid out, that maybe the 8 senators, all of whom were not running again, were providing cover for other senators. This to me is an even more damning criticism of the move.
I'm not entirely clear why this would be a damning criticism. It feels more like a rational response to the entirely predictable howls of outrage. The point of the exercise, after all, is to:
1) Get SNAP money flowing for the next year, get Federal workers paid again, etc.
2) Either get the ACA subsidies restored or, more likely, make it starkly, unmistakably clear who is responsible for the price hikes.
3) Avoid wasting time and money on primary battles, since the goal is to win general election battles.
Now if you think that the Republicans would cave on ACA subsidies, and do so fast enough to avoid the disasters for real people flowing from the lack addressed by the first point? Sure, there's lots to criticize. Just start by explaining why you think the Republicans would cave any time soon. Because, unless you can do that, criticism is nonsense.
"
I haven't read a lot about this, the whole thing makes me sick to my stomach. I did read something along the lines that nous laid out, that maybe the 8 senators, all of whom were not running again, were providing cover for other senators. This to me is an even more damning criticism of the move.
The only silver lining I can see is that Trump will feel emboldened by this and the whole shit show could really explode in their faces. I suppose that the second is that Schumer might get voted out and they get someone who has a spine.
"
wj - I understand what you are saying about not interrupting the enemy when they are in the midst of making a mistake. What I do not understand is why you think Kaine saying something like what wonkie outlines would in any way tip off the GOP that they were being set up.
And, assuming that they did recognize the mousetrap, I really don't see how the GOP could ever avoid that trap. Even if they see it sitting there, The Ancient Orange One Who Slumbers will not let them back down from tearing down a big shiny thing with Obama's name on it.
So where is the downside for Kaine blasting the GOP?
And I really don't believe that this is all Schumer calculus, and that the drama between caucuses has been scripted. If I had to pick anyone out of that group who was doing it for cover, I'd say it was Durbin giving cover to Gillibrand, but I don't think that was engineered by Schumer.
And I think Schumer should lose his leadership spot because he is such a soft target for people like Stewart, and even his attempts at sounding feisty look and sound squishy to anyone not starting to worry about retirement. The Dems need a scrappy wartime leader, not someone who talks about the sympathetic conversations that they have with their colleagues across the aisle while working out at the Senate gym.
Pull him from his leadership position and put someone else in front of those cameras who knows how to talk a good fight.
"
And yes they would have to keep this quiet,
But not indefinitely. I think the time is soon to spell it all out.
I agree. I would say immediately after a) the House concurs to the Senate bill and b) Trump signs it.
Until then, the Republicans have, or might think they have, a chance to perhaps wriggle out of the trap. But once that happens? They're toast.
No doubt they will be endlessly inventive trying to recover. But their only real escape would be to restore the subsidies. Which their fanatics wouldn't countenance. And Trump would veto if it somehow got thru Congress.
"
Jon Stewart on top form. Sigh.
"
Suppose the thinking in the Democratic Caucus in the Senate was just what wonkie lays out above as what Senator Kaine should have said. Might there have been a reason not to say it out loud just now?"
wjca has a point. I saw a headline just today that said the Dems had mousetrapped the Rs. And they are mouse-trapped. Either there will be a vote on the ACA and they will have to put themselves on record or there won't be and they will be the bad guys that way too.
It is clear that certain Senators were chosen to fall on their swords.
It is entirely possible that Dems in the Senate thought, "Those sociopaths in the R party aren't going to be the first to blink, no matter what and we believe in public service and are aware of the suffering, so we have to blink. So let's strategize how to do it to lessen the blow back to us and save some people and put the Rs on the spot with the ACA."
And yes they would have to keep this quiet,
But not indefinitely. I think the time is soon to spell it all out.
"
I generally have little time for those who see conspiracies everywhere. But it occurs to me to wonder...
Suppose the thinking in the Democratic Caucus in the Senate was just what wonkie lays out above as what Senator Kaine should have said. Might there have been a reason not to say it out loud just now?
Start with the fairly safe assumption that the Republicans in Congress aren't the sharpest knives in the drawer. If the Democrats don't stand up and announce that they've neatly mousetrapped the Republicans here, the idea that it might be happening is unlikely to occur to them. Especially if there are loud complaints about "caving in" and "betrayal" from Democratic activists -- which we are hearing.
So the Republicans cheerfully pass the continuing resolution that just passed the Senate. And loudly declare victory (which Trump is incapable of not doing). Then, February rolls around. The government shuts down again. The differences being that this time SNAP keeps going (per this bill), critical Federal workers get paid, etc. Of course, health insurance premiums continue to skyrocket. And elections come ever closer, close enough that voters may even remember whose fault that is.
Did the Democrats saw all this coming? I don't know, and certainly don't expect an announcement. But, as politics goes, this ain't rocket science. I note that Schumer only had votes for cloture from Senators who are retiring or otherwise not subject to primary battles next year. Which avoids wasting resources on those. Spend the money on those districts that the Republicans gerrymandered into smaller (supposed) Republican majorities.
Hmmmm
On “When virtues become vices”
the cave-in was so infuriating and upsetting
What I find infuriating is less (much less) the cave in, and more the absolute refusal of the (R)'s to entertain an extension of the ACA subsidies.
Health care in this country is FUBAR beyond what I think folks living in any other developed country can fathom. The ACA, which was actually not original to Obama but was, in its fundamentals, a plan pioneered by Romney when he was governor of MA, was an attempt to get people insured. It is a half-assed program in many ways, because it tries to address the wishes of too many different constituencies, most definitely not to exclude private insurers. The requirements for what would be considered an acceptable plan were definitely ambitious for the US context, but would be mediocre pretty much anywhere else.
It's a weird convoluted complicated mess, but it's better than what we had. Believe it or not. And it cut the number of uninsured people in half.
We pay twice as much on average than any similar nation. We do not have twice the level of coverage, or twice the quality of outcomes. On the contrary.
People literally die here, literally go bankrupt here, as a result of the general shittiness of how we go about things.
Trump has an extreme personal animus toward Obama, so anything Obama did must be destroyed. Whether Obama actually did it or not, just the association of his name with the program is enough to make Trump determined to destroy it.
And Trump has nothing to replace it with. The stupid $2000 cash benefit he is talking about is (a) not gonna happen in anything like a form that will actually result in a $2000 check being cut to anybody, see also Bessent's comments about "no taxes on tips", and (b) would be laughably inadequate even if it were to materialize. $2000 is basically one ambulance ride and a couple of lab tests. For people in the private insurance market, it's something like one month of premiums.
We're extending the tax cuts, but ending the premium subsidies. And if anyone thinks the (R)'s are going to suddenly decide to extend them in December, I have a bridge I would like to sell you.
Yes to tax cuts, no to ACA subsidies, tells you everything you need to know about the state of this country right now.
Choices reveal character.
"
russell, the cave-in was so infuriating and upsetting, because of all the inevitable results you list, that I was just relieved to see that Josh Marshall nonetheless saw some positives in what had happened:
But don’t tell me nothing has changed or that this is some cataclysmic disaster. It’s not. This accomplished a lot. It demonstrated that Democrats can go to the mat when the public is behind them and not pay a political price. It dramatically damaged Donald Trump. It cued up the central arguments of the 2026 campaign. It just didn’t go far enough. The ball was fumbled at the end. So we need to demand more.
On “Spelunking for fun and profit”
Note that Pritzker was speaking in front of a union crowd there (my compatriots in the IFT). This is what I've been saying for well over an election cycle - there are a whole lot of reachable voters who would respond to union-style messaging: "When we fight, we win." And in the face of a (temporary) loss, shift the message to one of building strength and solidarity for the longer campaign, and get out and organize.
And when I say "organize," I don't mean "fundraise." The idea is to mobilize as many people as you can - get them coming out and doing things, and meeting others who are doing the same. Fundraising doesn't build community. Direct messaging doesn't build community. Email lists don't build community. Shared struggle builds community.
Also, I don't know how many of the people who complain about the progressives woeful messaging have taken the time to watch one of the videos that AOC puts out on her various social media platforms. She's really good, especially at speaking to voters under 45. And if you look at the demographics of the Blue Wave, those were the voters that carried the show.
"
wonkie, I very much like your alternative script for Kaine. If only some of them were capable of talking like this - it's clearly necessary. It seems like Pritzker may be capable of it:
“Books are being banned. History is being erased. Republicans want to take billions away from public schools and pump it into private institutions. They want to punish teachers for telling the truth. They want to criminalize educators for supporting LGBTQ students. They want to turn classrooms into cultural war battlegrounds,” Pritzker began.
“I’m sorry to be vulgar, but Donald Trump and his cronies can f*** all the way off,” Pritzker said, causing a standing ovation from the audience at the Illinois Federation of Teachers gathered in Rosemont on October 19th.
On “When virtues become vices”
that was the plan put forward from the beginning.
Trump tax cuts were supposed to expire this year, too. At least, that was the plan from the beginning.
But, they did not. And that will add ~$4.6T to the national debt over the next 10 years.
Choices reveal character.
On “Spelunking for fun and profit”
Se what I mean? Mumbling curated professional word choices just doesn't work. Never has, never will. Dear God, you'd think professional politicians would know how to communicate. Now even the people the Dems were trying to protect will believe that the Dems screwed them for nothing. Honestly, Democrats. What was the point of your government shutdown? | Opinion
"
I've had two criticisms of Dem pols for many, many years: 1. the lack of fight and 2. the mushy, wishy-washy "respectable" way of speaking that fails to communicate anything.
I think the Dems have improved on both fronts but there is a ways to go. For example, Kaine said why he voted to end the shutdown. He said something about how there didn't seem to be any other way forward mumble mumble blah blah.
What he meant and what he should have said is this: "The Republicans don't care about anything except power for power's sake and they are willing, indeed committed to, harming millions of Americans just so they can feel powerful. They are willing to spin out the shut down until federal workers go bankrupt, children are malnourished and millions lose their health insurance. Democrats aren't ruthlessly willing to sacrifice our neighbors for power. We decided to cut a deal to save as many people as possible. This shameful episode shows that Republicans genuinely do not care about people and only care about power."
But because of the mumble mumble blah blah we have headlines saying that the shutdown was for nothing.
On “When virtues become vices”
I think it would be helpful if the Democrats could figure out how to be moderate enough to allow more moderates to support them. These favorability ratings in the face of a fascist take over of government reflect how out of touch the Dems are at the other extreme. I keep looking for that party that isn't a sinking ship and don't see one.
As for the millions of Americans fucked by the ACA subsidies being cut, that was the plan put forward from the beginning. They were to last 5 years then phase out. That was never feasible but it was the plan bullied through Congress and part of the crowning achievement. Tough to have to live with it now. But both parties have not made them permanent for all these years so they both suck. As has the ACA structure from the beginning. It was an attempt to force employer insurance to go away and force full government controlled health care. It failed to accomplish that so its just a shitty half baked solution that is essential. Next Congress should just make the subsidies permanent and take the budget heat.
On “Spelunking for fun and profit”
Hey, look at the bright side. At least the Senators who were investigated for their possible involvement in J6 can sue the DOJ for up to $500K.
Silver linings, everyone.
On “When virtues become vices”
While I appreciate the analysis of the possible / likely tactical scenarios leading up to the "deal", the bottom line (to me) is that a lot of people are basically fucked.
The cost of private health insurance is probably going to double, or worse, for most folks that have it.
What I personally take away from all of this - and by "all of this" I mean the last decade if not longer - is that the (R) party and the conservative movement in general no longer serves the interests of the people of this country. What I see from them is cruelty and greed.
I understand that politics is the art of the possible, and that professional politicians need to do what they can in the particular circumstances they operate in.
And I'm glad that federal employees are gonna get paid.
But in the immortal words of Jerry Garcia, one way or another this darkness has got to give.
To say that people being outraged at the prospect of millions of their neighbors facing the choice of extreme financial distress or going without health insurance is "wailing and rending of garments" is dismissive and, frankly, kind of rude. People *should* be outraged.
To address GFTNC's cite of Marshall's piece, the thrust of what he was saying as far as I can tell is that yes, this totally sucks, but it's nice to see the (D)'s at least try to use the limited levers of power available to them.
And I don't disagree with that.
And like him, I'd like to see them do even more.
The (R)'s seriously deserve to be driven from the public space. They've become a dysfunctional, toxic cancer on the body public.
I suggest you moderate conservatives being the process of building an alternative. That, or go down with the sinking ship that is the (R) party.
It deserves to sink.
"
without having any idea which approach is more correct.
Not going to be possible to tell soon, if ever, what the actual outcomes of the various possible scenarios would have been. Lots of speculation (including mine), mostly dressed up as certainty. The most we can hope for is some 20/20 hindsight on how what was done played out.
"
I'm glad of these slightly more positive interpretations (inc Josh Marshall, who hilzoy seems to respect), without having any idea which approach is more correct.
"
Well said, Marty.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.