Eight Democrats Break Ranks to End Filibuster
A lot of pain for . . . not much.
WaPo (“Senate takes key vote toward ending government shutdown“):
A key group of Senate Democrats joined Republicans on Sunday night to advance an agreement to end the longest government shutdown in U.S. history.
After bipartisan negotiators struck a deal during a rare weekend session, seven Democratic senators and Sen. Angus King (I-Maine) voted with almost all of the chamber’s Republicans to take the first step toward reopening the government. Sunday’s vote, which needed 60 votes to pass, is the first of many that will be necessary to pass the agreement in the upper chamber.
[…]
The bipartisan compromise combines three full-year funding measures into one package with a stopgap funding bill that would reopen the government through Jan. 30.
But the deal would not extend Affordable Care Act subsidies set to expire at the end of the year, which Democrats have warned will cause health insurance premiums to skyrocket for millions of Americans.
Instead, Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-South Dakota) committed to holding a separate vote on legislation to extend the subsidies by the second week of December, after the government reopens.
So, the federal government has been shut down for a month and a half, hundreds of thousands of civil servants have been working without pay, SNAP benefits have been cut off, and untold Americans have had to cancel trips at the last minute in a standoff over extending ACA subsidies. And Democrats extracted a promise that the Senate will vote on ACA subsidies in a few weeks? A promise that was on the table pretty much from the outset?
At HuffPo, Igor Bobic and Jennifer Bendery (“Senate Reaches Deal To Reopen Government After Moderate Democrats Cave“) offer a reasonable assessment:
For weeks, Democrats have been insisting that any vote to reopen the government also be tied to a vote to extend Affordable Care Act tax credits expiring at the end of the year, something they repeatedly called a “health care crisis.” Millions of people rely on these subsidies to afford health care, and since ACA open enrollment began on Nov. 1, many have already seen the costs of their health care skyrocket.
The deal that moderate Democrats cut with Republicans doesn’t extend those health care subsidies, but sets up a future vote to extend them – a vote that will almost certainly fail, as Republicans have no interest in doing this.
Proponents of the deal argue it’s still a win for them, as Republicans previously weren’t willing to hold any votes on restoring ACA subsidies.
“This deal guarantees a vote to extend Affordable Care Act premium tax credits, which Republicans weren’t willing to do,” said Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.), a liberal Democrat who supported the deal primarily because it includes protections for federal workers, many of whom live in his state. “Lawmakers know their constituents expect them to vote for it, and if they don’t, they could very well be replaced at the ballot box by someone who will.”
But Republicans did offer Democrats a vote on the ACA subsidies weeks earlier, in mid-October, and Democrats simply refused to cave to their demands.
The reality is that moderate Democrats in particular were looking for an off-ramp from the shutdown, as the expiration of federal food assistance for tens of millions of people, and the compounding travel nightmare at airports across the country, increasingly weighed on them.
There was also a sense among some that Democrats couldn’t win the fight in the long term. Over the weekend, Trump was digging in more by urging Republicans to repeal the ACA subsidies entirely. He’s also pushed GOP senators to go so far as to eliminate the filibuster to get what he wants.
“The question was, as the shutdown progresses, is a solution on the ACA becoming any more likely? It appears not,” Sen. Angus King (I-Maine) told HuffPost after a two-hour closed-door meeting with Democrats on Sunday.
“I think people are saying we’re not going to get what we want, although we still have a chance, because part of the deal is a vote on the ACA subsidies,” King said. “But in the meantime, a lot of people are being hurt.”
[…]
Their agreement includes a reversal of all the firings of federal workers that have taken place since the shutdown began, as well as protections against more firings happening again – until January 30, 2026. And it funds federal food assistance at a higher level than before.
But progressive lawmakers and groups are fuming about this deal, with some calling it a “betrayal” to the millions of Americans about to be priced out of their health care coverage.
Not surprisingly, most are not pleased. Back to the WaPo report:
[T]he deal split the party. Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-New York) and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-New York) came out against it.
“This health care crisis is so severe, so urgent, so devastating for families back home that I cannot in good faith support this CR,” Schumer said on the Senate floor, referring to the bill, known as a continuing resolution.
Most rank-and-file Democrats also opposed the deal.
“I think it’s a terrible mistake,” Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Massachusetts) told reporters as she left a closed-door meeting of Senate Democrats that lasted more than two hours Sunday evening. “The American people want us to stand and fight for health care, and that’s what I believe we should do.”
The Atlantic‘s Jonathan Chait (“Senate Democrats Just Made a Huge Mistake“) agrees:
The conventional wisdom about government shutdowns is that they always fail. Senate Democrats probably assumed as much when they shut down the government. Perhaps they thought they were giving partisan activists something to root for, even fleetingly, before eventually caving.
That was a reasonable, if somewhat cynical, calculation. The odd thing is that the shutdown was actually working for Democrats, but in a way that some Democratic senators did not fully internalize, and which makes their ultimate capitulation tonight much harder to understand.
The reason shutdowns always fail is that the public eventually turns against the party responsible, applying more and more heat until its most vulnerable members feel compelled to give in. Presidents have little reason to give concessions to end shutdowns, because the bulk of the political pain is typically felt by their congressional adversaries.
That did not happen this time. Polls found that the public narrowly but consistently placed the blame on Donald Trump and his allies, not congressional Democrats.
[…]
What’s more, Democrats’ goal during the shutdown was to draw more public attention to health care, one of their strongest issues, and one where Republicans are engineering a social catastrophe. Democrats are demanding an extension of tax credits for people purchasing health insurance on the individual market. That is an issue where they command massive public support.
Republicans were unlikely ever to give in on the tax credits, because their ideological opposition to universal health care is so overwhelming that they would rather suffer defeat than surrender. But that is just the thing: They were taking the hit. Democrats succeeded in drawing news coverage to health care, and even baited Republicans into floating more of their toxic and radical ideas for changing the system.
The likeliest way out of the impasse wasn’t that Republicans would make concessions on Obamacare, but rather, that they would decide to end the filibuster, changing Senate rules to block minority parties from shutting down the government. Trump has demanded Republican senators do this, and his ask is completely reasonable. It makes no sense for Congress to require a supermajority vote merely to allow the government to stay open.
This outcome would ultimately have been a win for Democrats. The Senate would get fairer and more reasonable rules. Democrats would not find themselves in the unfair position of being asked to supply votes for a government-spending deal Trump feels free to violate at will. And the next time Democrats get full control of government but fewer than 60 Senate votes, they would have an easier time passing their own agenda.
[…]
Democrats could have held the line on the shutdown, and spent weeks watching Trump’s approval ratings fall while war breaks out between the pro-filibuster Republican senators and the president and his loyalists. This would have produced a better and more democratic ultimate outcome.
The degree to which playing with millions of people’s livelihoods is a fucking game to people in Washington never ceases to amaze me. All that matters is who gets the blame!
Holding out would have caused serious pain in the short run. “I think people were saying ‘We’re not going to get what we want,’ although we still have a chance,” Senator Angus King, a Maine independent who caucuses with Democrats, said. “But in the meantime, a lot of people are being hurt.” If you truly believe that Trump poses an existential threat to the republic, however, this is the kind of ruthless maneuver you would undertake. Trump has already caused, and will continue causing, horrific outcomes for vulnerable Americans.
I mean, all the pain it caused millions of people would have all been worth it!
Ultimately, Democrats fought and lost. The Trump administration figured out how to minimize the pain of the shutdown for its own supporters early on by shifting funds to keep paying military personnel and federal law enforcement. And refused to do the same for SNAP recipients when existing funds dried up. That, and leveraging the crisis at airports caused by unpaid TSA agents and, especially, air traffic controllers calling out sick to order flights canceled upped the pressure.
There was no end in sight. There are enough institutionalists left in the Senate that totally ending the filibuster was just out of the question. Having the shutdown extend into Thanksgiving would have been devastating for all concerned.
Regardless, Chait’s conventional wisdom turned out to be right. Nobody won this shutdown. But a whole lot of people lost.
Democratic leaders proved, once again, that they are incapable of true leadership when faced with an opponent like Trump.
You don’t capitulate to a bully – they’ll just take your lunch money again tomorrow. You shine a bright light on their conduct and hold firm, even when they try to harm others.
Going into the Thanksgiving holiday without compassion for so many travelers, the hungry, people in need of a paycheck, those in need of shelter, and the sick seeking care would have been an untenable situation for just enough Democrats. Meanwhile, the Grand Orange Party was happy to crash the government regardless of who got hurt or worse. The GOP played their psycho card in a no win situation for 99% of Americans. And, the GOP’s seemingly endless war on the poor and middle class results in yet one more hollow victory for the billionaire elites and their bootlicking minions. Now, on to the next political affront…
Pathetic.
So, are we to be treated to multiple articles about how the Democrats are the fools/villains in this? Just a reminder that the Trump administration actively fought to prevent SNAP benefits from being disbursed when they didn’t have to, and even demanded that states stop helping aid recipients. Are they going to get away with being the actual villains?
I don’t know that this won’t backfire on the GOP.
I actually agree with Dr Joyner that this isn’t the way to govern a country.
I think of it as splitting Solomon’s baby. You know who really cared for the child in the end, don’t you?
The GOP is always prepared to shoot the hostage. They are cruel and uncaring by nature, as they distill down into blatant greed and corruption. They will renege on any deal or promise and when they do, that’s the time to pounce.
This shutdown was stupid, and Chait is totally wrong. If Democrats want to end the filibuster, they can try to wrangle the votes to end the filibuster when they are in power. Being complicit in the starvation of children and the potential death of airline passengers is not the way to end the filibuster.
Chait is the epitome of the privileged, out-of-touch, miseducated liberal media bro. He himself has never been elected to anything. Elected Dems need to grow a pair and trust their own instincts, and stop listening to keyboard warrior fake strategiests. Chait basing his argument on filibuster 3D Chess pretzel logic shows his argument is weak. His argument is weak because his pro-shutdown premise was always wrong.
You can’t win a shutdown battle with political sociopaths who are willing to go to court to starve people unless you’re also willing to do the same, which Democrats are not, thank God. Again: Democrats are morally opposed to shutdowns. Rightly so.
So now Democrats get back to campaigning on their superior political, cultural, and policy argument and stop looking for a magical dues ex machina to assague the guilty conscience of the “Genocide Joe” “FJB!” “Do Something!” ninnies on the left.
I’m not that much of an optimist that I even tried to find a positive side to this.
So, think of it as the Super Bowl: the game cannot go on forever, and eventually one team will lose. It’s inevitable.
It is my understanding – based on what I’ve read in this forum – that the Dems only needed to hold out for another 11 days, and the current continuing resolution would have expired, forcing the house to draft a bill that could pass the senate. Once again, Dems proved weak and unable to lead.
Oh, but now they get to vote on a separate healthcare package that has already been voted down twice by republicans. Stupid fools.
@reid: No need to keep the government shut down to find that out. We’ll have another election in a year.
@HelloWorld: Another 11 days of people missing SNAP benefits, havoc in our air travel system, and federal workers not being paid. In order to . . . what, exactly? Get the House to pass another clean CR with a different expiration date? And then what?
@James Joyner: I’m referring to how this will be handled by the media and pundits, of course. Bring on the slew of “Dems in disarray”, “Dems polling lowest in history” articles….
Elections. Have. Consequences.
Democrats do not hold the power here. Their ability to bargain was always predicated on how much pain the Republicans are willing to inflict on voters, and by now it should be abundantly clear that Republicans DNGAF about people, their sole focus is power.
While I am annoyed that the Democrats caved for pretty much nothing, I am also not one of the many, many Americans facing missing a second mortgage payment because of this sh!tshow.
This is no way to run a country.
@James Joyner:
Exactly.
@Jen: Agreed all around.
Schumer and the horse he rode in on. It was a surprise when they went for the shutdown. It looked like they were willing to fight and maybe they had a plan. Neither seems to have been true.
The big, big problem is that voters see Democrats as weak and Republicans as strong. Heck, I see Dems as weak. But this is ridiculous.
@reid:
They have been since around 1880.
@gVOR10: Seven Dems and one Dem-in-all-but-name voted with Republicans over Schumer’s objection. He has very little power to punish them.
I guess we can now put a bow on Republicans’ unwillingness to actually negotiate on the healthcare subsidy extensions since the Democrats will now remove their last excuse for failing to do so.
So, for about 40 days Schumer-led Democrats held the line for …
wait for it … an up-or-down on ACA tax credits! … Oh, never ‘fricken mind.
Democrats come off a great Tuesday, then Schumer goes Vichy and all the energy goes out of the room. Chuck Schumer is NOT the leadership Democrats need going into the 2026 mid term elections.
The contrast between Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer could not be more clear. There is not a chance that Pelosi would have moved ahead with a shutdown plan that ends in THIS outcome, a meager outcome that could have been negotiated 35 days ago.
@al Ameda: Schumer didn’t surrender. He doesn’t control Fetterman, King, et. al.
@James Joyner:
If Schumer is powerless he should hand the leadership over to someone else.
Democrats should just go home.
What a bunch of idiots.
A month and a half of this crap, for nothing.
@James Joyner:
“Never Hillary!
“Schumer surrendered!”
“Genocide Joe!”
“Fk Joe Biden!”
“Do something!11!!”
It’s always the same…people. We have a lot of irrational, undisciplined, and selfish people on the center-left, too. They have no direction besides fury. It’s antisocial. Does not bode well for the country.
But still we’re much better off than Trump’s Republicans.
@Michael Reynolds: Or at least not go along with the shutdown in the first place. As Leader, he’s suppose to plan and, you know, lead.
@Michael Reynolds: Or at least not go along with the shutdown in the first place. As Leader, he’s suppose to plan and, you know, lead.
Everyone needs to pay attention to what Republicans are currently doing.
They are reframing the health insurance fight as them against insurance companies. No, I am not kidding.
On X, Sen. Roger Marshall, who takes the cake for disingenuous and intentionally misleading content, posted “up to 40% of Obamacare enrollees never file a claim. That’s billions in taxpayer dollars flowing to insurance companies for people who don’t even use the system.”
This, of course, is HOW INSURANCE WORKS. Oh, and Sen. Marshall? He’s a physician. So, either this doctor doesn’t understand how insurance pools work, or he’s LYING.
Welcome, all, to the Affordable Care Act discussion, Republican talking points/lying edition.
@James Joyner: And then some of the moderate Republicans in the house support a bill that gets the 60 votes it needs in the Senate. All it takes is a little backbone. Dems should have been on all the Sunday morning talk shows this weekend talking about how if they don’t address healthcare now, they will have to when it goes back to the house. They should have been prepping the national discussion on a house bill that can pass. #Schumermustgo, #Jeffriesnobetter
@Joe: And this is another problem with the Democratic party. They don’t have the conviction to fight for their actual causes, all they really want is their campaign punch line so they can say the Republicans voted down healthcare again at their re-election rallies.
Now, where my $2,000 tariff dividend check?
@Daryl:
Same place as the Epstein files and the “lower prices on day one” we were promised.
@HelloWorld:
I understand the sentiment. But it honestly does not work that way. I have far more gripes with the Dems than are evident in my writings, I suspect, but please hear me when I say that this is simply not how legislative politics works in the US, especially not in the current era.
A minority party cannot will the opposition to capitulate.
The House is absolutely a chamber run by the majority. There is no such thing as the minority party being able to craft legislation that the majority will bring to the floor for a vote if the majority leadership doesn’t want to do so.
This is not about backbone.
And look, I am not a fan of either Schumer or Jeffries, but the Ghost of LBJ couldn’t do what you are asking for from the position of Minority Leader.
@HelloWorld:
And who are these people of whom you speak, assuming you have a plan to get the bill you want to the floor? Who are the magic moderates who are willing to buck leadership and have no fears of their primary voters? Because you know what goes over big in GOP primaries? Being the members of the House who betrayed the party, that’s who.
@Steven L. Taylor: Are you familiar with the Problem Solvers Caucus or the Republican Governance Group? Lets not forget that the National Governors Association is lobbying hard to get healthcare covered THIS YEAR. I’ll never be able to provide specific names because the wimps in the senate made damn sure we will never know what the house would have done. There is so much organization on the R side of the isle, and when I compare what I’ve seen with what I experience from the Dems, its a wonder we have any representation at all.
@HelloWorld: Ask your partner about how bills gets scheduled for votes in the House.
Ask them about the Hastert Rule.
And ask the last time any significant piece of legislation (or, really, any legislation) passed the House because the minority party peeled off a handful of votes from the majority, but the majority leadership opposed it.
Maybe I am missing something.
If the Democrats are “morally opposed” to shutdowns, as stated by someone above, then they never should have started this in the first place, and could have had this deal less than a week into it.
The surrender caucus surrendered to the bullies again, and thereby ensured they will be bullied again in the future.
@Steven L. Taylor: “The Hastert rule” – haha, thats a rep I want to stay away from. Keep in mind that there is no official “Hastert rule”, but it is a good example of why the republicans are so strong in their ability to move things forward.
IF these people wouldn’t have caved I bet the Dems would have gotten what they wanted. IF a new continuing resolution would have been introduced, the Dems would have gotten what they wanted. For republicans to vote for healthcare they need other priorities to hide behind. If they do a single vote for extending ACA subsidies – mark my words – it either fails or the republicans sweep in with a grand new plan to save the day.
I want to remind everyone that when the republicans opposed Merik Garland on the supreme court, they were the minority.
@HelloWorld: Basically you are ignoring all of the substantive points I am making and asserting that IF the future you imagine had happened, it would have happened.
That’s not an argument. That’s just playing pretend.
@Steven L. Taylor: I’m sorry, what am I ignoring? The Hastert rule is not an official rule, and there are all kinds of caucuses that could have influenced this particular argument. In Fact, the conditions for this particular fight are perfect for bypassing the hastert rule. I feel like I’ve answered your question and its OK if we both think the outcome would have been different. Again, we will never know.
@HelloWorld:
They were not. Republicans won the Senate majority in 2014.
@HelloWorld: Recognizing that the Hastert “Rule” was a practice and not an official rule, the point is about how the GOP majority has actually behaved (almost certainly during the time that your partner would have been involved). All the other things I noted are known behaviors and based on recorded history.
You want to play the card that your partner worked for a GOP Speaker. That’s cool and all, but the point of my list of questions was to point out how things have worked, and I suspect your partner could confirm them. Ask about the Rules Committee and the way the calendar works. Ask how likely a discharge petition would be as a general matter, but especially when the matter is something that the minority wants and only a few members of the majority are on board.
I would love for you to provide even a singular example of a piece of legislation of any significance that the majority party in charge of a governing trifecta opposed, that nonetheless the minority was able to force through the process.
I am pointing to the realities of how the House (and the broader system) works; you are countering with hopes about what could happen if we ignore that reality.
@Just Another Ex-Republican:
Hi, I’m Someone.
And, yes, I argued against the shutdown from the beginning. But there are such things as diminishing returns and sunk costs. “It already started” and “The other party might bully us in the future” are not compelling reasons for Democrats to commit to indefinite complicity in the starvation of American families. People on the left and right both are nutty and amoral to argue this.
@DK: I missed that part of the comment. You are correct, Majority Leader McConnell blocked the Garland nomination.
And Majority Leader McConnell rammed through the Coney-Barrett nomination when RGB died.
@HelloWorld:
It is true that a hypothetical future is unknowable.
But some futures are far more likely than others.
@Steven L. Taylor: I did as you asked and he provided the 21st Century Cures Act. It passed with bipartisan support. Getting back to the pedophile rule, I am also told that had the democrats held out, that rule would have begun to crumble because there are soooo many republicans being bullied into legislation they don’t support. Many others who want to make change not just for their party but for the country, are hopelessly stuck and unsatisfied with how their party is handling things. Also, I’m in a little trouble for playing that card (nothing I can’t handle).
@HelloWorld: The bill in question passed the House 392-26 and the Senate by 94-5.
I am at a loss as to how this fits what we are talking about.
A quick review of the legislative history suggests it proceeded through the Congress in a normal process.
Why do you think this is an example of what I am talking about?
@HelloWorld: BTW, I am super-confused now, as the bill in question was passed by a Republican controlled House and Senate, and the bill was introduced by a GOP Rep. Obama did sign it into law.
Again, I am asking for an example of the following:
1. House, Senate, and Presidency controlled by the same party.
2. Leadership in all three oppose a given legislative initiative.
3. The minority party manages to peel away a handful of votes in both chambers to nonetheless force the initiative through both chambers.
This is what you are claiming above could have been done if there had been more backbone.
I am saying with some level of confidence that it has never been done, certainly not in the last several decades.
@Steven L. Taylor: You asked for an example of significant legislation passed despite opposition from the majority party during a governing trifecta. I gave it to you. I’m not commenting on this topic again, but your stance seems to be that the Democrats shouldn’t fight for anything, unless there is an example of fighting for it under the current conditions that have worked before. Thats a strategy for change!
@HelloWorld:
No. You didn’t. A trifecta means House, Senate, and Presidency under the same party. The bill in question was passed, as noted above, by wide margins, I would note, under a Republican House and Senate but with Obama in the White House.
And the vote on the bill does not indicate majority party opposition, not even close.
You may not read this or comment further, but you are proving to me that you do not understand what I am asking for, and that leads me to believe that you do not understand what you think you are arguing for, nor do you understand how Congress works.
@HelloWorld:
No. My stance is that you can’t score 24 points with 30 seconds on the clock in the 4th quarter of a football game under anything approaching normal conditions. Trying may sound heroic, and rooting may be the emotional response of the fans, but reailty is reality.
@Steven L. Taylor: I’m not here to argue with you, or tell you that “you don’t understand”, etc. Fact is your opinion is just like mine. An opinion. I’m educated; you’re educated. No insults from me.
Republicans controlled the House, Senate, and were about to assume the presidency (post-2016 election). Many in the GOP opposed provisions tied to mental health and Medicaid reforms. It would not have passed without bipartisan support. Despite resistance from conservative Republicans, Democrats and moderate Republicans pushed it through with overwhelming bipartisan support. Yes, it is relevant in this current situation because there are republican caucuses that want to expand ACA. My opinion – Democratic unity could have made it happen. Just an opinion that we will never know the truth about.
@HelloWorld: You are 100% entitled to you views. No argument there.
I definitely suffer from an educator’s desire to correct errors, and I have a very sincere desire that citizens understand how our government really works and what real options exist. I think that unless we have a real understanding of how things work, we can never come together to fix them.
Yes, you are educated, and I am educated. But you have to admit that I am educated in the topic at hand. No doubt there are areas about which you are educated that I have profound misconceptions about and that you would seek to correct me about, especially if you wrote a blog about that area that I frequently visit.
Who’s sponsoring today’s circular firing squad?
Really, I don’t think voting for the GQ proposal was the right thing to do*, but I’m surprised at the level of anger directed at the Dem senators who did. Here and on Bluesky.
*I don’t think they’d have extracted any substantial concessions, certainly not the ACA premium credits, but perhaps they could have given a last try. Perhaps to gain a bit more in return.
There’s a point when you’ve done all you can and still don’t get what you want. I don’t think we were there quite yet.
@DK: It’s also immoral to let health care premiums rise out of control. It’s immoral to let Trump ignore Congress whenever he feels like it. The amount of immorality in American politics today is unmeasurable, and hyperfocusing on one piece and calling everyone who disagrees with you nutty and immoral is offensive and beneath you. You chose to allow the immorality of lost health care over the immorality of SNAP–that doesn’t make you as superior as you seem to think you are (nor does it make me superior either).
My point is there was no moral answer, and in the end, you can’t do anything in politics without power. The D’s had a political “gift” here–Republican control of every element of government, the public blaming R’s more than D’s for the shutdown, resounding victories in elections a week ago, a thoroughly unexpected opportunity to force the filibuster towards the dustbin of history it deserves…it goes on and on. Instead they got nothing valuable whatsoever (politically speaking–I completely agree getting government open again has real world value but it also has real world costs you are ignoring), let the R’s get away with bypassing the filibuster for nominees after the shutdown started without making media hay over it, hell, pretty much completely blew the messaging from day 1, and validated every narrative and became complicit in proving the right wing talking point that the D’s were forcing the shutdown and it was all their fault, proved to the R’s once again that the D’s will always cave to bullies becoming complicit in encouraging the R’s to continue to be insane because they never pay a cost for it, and managed all that while also emotionally gutting their most passionate followers.
There were no good or completely moral answers out there unless you ignore everything other than SNAP which I find completely short-sided. I’m not trying to say there were good answers. But in the end the story is the D’s put the whole country, and SNAP recipients, and travelers, and every other negative of the shutdown through this, for jack shit. And even then they only kicked the can down the road to January where, what, you think the R’s will be more compassionate or rational?!?! That the party that always caves will be able to negotiate something then?
The D’s are a hopeless political party.
@Steven L. Taylor: Half the stuff you say “does not work that way” are matters of opinion, not political process and that’s why I find some of your replies unproductive. That’s not to say you do not make some good points. Yes, you probably do understand how government works better than I, but let’s not gray the lines on your opinions.
@HelloWorld:
Except, no, when I state that “it doesn’t work that way” it is because it doesn’t work that way. I am open to being wrong and having someone demonstrate that, in fact, it does work that way, but these are not opinions.
If I am in error, feel free to point it out. Simply putting up the “that’s your opinion, man” is a dodge.
When I note above about how bills reach (or don’t reach) the floor of the House, that’s not my opinion.
In fairness, you seemed not to understand what a governing trifecta is in the interchange above, and clearly either ignored what my question was about a bill passing that the majority opposed, or you don’t understand what I am asking for.
There is no shame in not understanding–I am not, despite the way it may appear, trying to verbally beat you into submission.
I am not trying to get you to agree with me about the strategy the Democrats should have taken. That is truly a matter of opinion.
But I am telling you that some of the foundational assumptions you are making about how Congress works, and therefore what the likelihood is of the success of your point of view, is likely to be.
A fan and a coach can have different opinions about whether a certain trick play will work, but it is far more likely that the coach understands what the probabilities are that the play will work.
And the coach is going to get understandably frustrated when the fan insists that certain illegal formations can be used, or by assertions that players can do certain physical actions that are impossible to accomplish the goal of the trick play.
@Steven L. Taylor: Well, when I say “the Dems only needed to hold out for another 11 days, and the current continuing resolution would have expired, forcing the house to draft a bill that could pass the senate.” – and then you say “It doesn’t work that way”, you are not addressing the structure of congress. It’s your opinion. What I said is feasible, and I cited various caucuses. It makes it seem like you are either passing a lot of shade to a weak party or badgering and baiting me for my opinion without providing any actual evidence for yours yourself. I could have easily asked you “Name one time in history where a shutdown went back to the house and the house didn’t change the bill that was in debate so it could get passed”. It’s a straw man and offers nothing of fact about the structure of the process.