What I don't understand is that regardless of the Democratic Cave Caucus, it is admitted that this shutdown had to end somehow. The Republicans were showing how tough UNCARING they were about the consequences and people/voters were getting it. Republicans are/were demonstrably in lock step for fear of breaking ranks more than causing serious harm to their constituents. That was and is still clear. In the end how was this going to end- even given the Schumer Compromise ( which seemed inadequate, kicking the can)? Voters are still going to have their vote in 2026. The battle is much bigger. The D's to inflict their own pain was going to come to diminishing returns at some point. Now the blame for the consequences of what is going to happen is squarely on the Republicans, where it belongs. Since this shutdown was always about people feeling pain, now *ultimately*, the pain inflicted by Republicans will continue until we vote them out.
I'm a federal employee. I haven't worked or gotten paid in over a month. I supported the shutdown despite it causing me financial pain (and lots of bordom 😂) because Schumer crewed up and capitulated in March and didn't get anything to help millions of my fellow Americans.
Democrats *still* got nothing tangable! Even if the ACA vote occurs, there is *zero* way it passes. The House GOP will do what they always do, call it Obamacare and their constiuents will fall in line. The polling on the ACA in many red states changes depending on whether it's called the ACA or Obamacare. Democrats *know* this and they're still stupid enough to fall for it.
Democrats had two points of major leverage in 2025, and they screwed up both of them. Schumer had tax filing season, which would have placed pressure on Republicans to end a shutdown. The Thanksgiving travel season was the second point of major leverage, and they just gave it away for a promise of a Senate vote, nothing more. They got *nothing* from Johnson, and he was the problem all along. Even a few GOP Senators didn't like what the House sent them.
Honestly, the only people who won here are federal employees. We're going to get to go back to work, receive backpay and the layoffs Trump and OPM made during the shutdown will be reversed. The rest of my fellow Americans? They get nothing.
Lastly, every shutdown costs the government money. So, just why did we do this in the first place?!?!
I understand your POV. I understand the bitterness and wanting to teach them a lesson.. for longer. Me too. That is deliciously vindictive while using the leverage Dems had and at the same time contributing to the public confusion about who is really to blame. I'm into reality, not wishing. Some folks were feeling a point of diminishing returns. Did you read my TPM link?
"The Democrats" were on board with the shutdown until the 8 in the caucus were not, with 1 independent. I understand their support was just so strong for so long ( and amazing) and then not. We celebrated that. Yeah it cost money- it's not only about money Democrats are spending- hardly. And this is existential.
What did they get? They kept the government shutdown for a record period. That showed that they were doing something after so much complaining that they were not... wishing for different leadership we don't have. What if they held out longer? And isn't that a wish, not reality, that they could continue to keep it together.. through the holidays?.. with the blame shifting?
Republicans play hard ball. We have to continue to gear up to play hardball. There are other opportunities coming up especially now with the Republicans doubling down and the consequences. Democrats could not prevent that.
Despair is a killer in battle. What we have more now is the people. We cannot lose that because of spreading disappointment and despair. The essence of the Democratic Party is that it is democratic, we are multitudes. We are not in lock step. We have to deal with that... and win. The battle is still in front of us and we can change our soldiers and our generals.. but it comes from the bottom up.
And now, let's address a couple things the Democrats got that they cannot necessarily announce publicly. The vote on the subsidies is known, and it certainly seems like a loss, since a vote on the subsidies is not the same thing as restoring the subsidies. However, for those who would call it a loss, consider that maybe the blue team (the five new aisle-crossers, at least, and very possibly other Democratic members like Hickenlooper) are actually playing the long game. Well, not exactly long, but maybe the short-to-medium game. There are only three outcomes when it comes to the promised vote: (1) The subsidies are restored, or (2) The Republicans vote down the subsidies (again), either in the Senate or the House or (3) Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) refuses to hold the vote.
In the first case, the Democrats get what they want. In the second and third cases, they get crystal-clear proof that the Republicans are the ones who don't want poor people to have health insurance, which the blue team can then wield as a club in the 2026 elections. Oh, and if things don't work out to their satisfaction, the Democrats can resume their resistance on January 30, when the government will shut down again if there is no bill. In that scenario, the blue team will have even more political cover AND they won't have to worry about people who need SNAP going hungry, or veterans going without their pensions. In short, the Democrats got some pretty good stuff from a politics perspective without actually giving all that much up.
The second thing the Democrats got is pressure on Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) to reopen the House. If he does it, then Rep.-elect Adelita Grijalva (D-AZ) will have to be sworn in, and then Rep. Thomas Massie's (R-KY) Epstein files bill would have the necessary signatures to be brought to the floor of the House. If Johnson doesn't re-open, then he will open the Republicans up to withering criticism that they care more about protecting sexual predators than they do about hungry children. That is not a political winner.
Ultimately, many Democrats, including some who voted to hold the line (like Hickenlooper) concluded that the White House was never, ever going to give in on the subsidies. Shaheen, for example, concurred that "this was the only deal on the table." If that is true, then the blue team got about as much as they could have hoped to get, and they made the correct tactical decision—to cash out. If it is not true, and there was a real possibility of Trump caving, then the Democrats should have pushed all-in. That's really the crux of the matter; readers can decide for themselves if Hickenlooper, Shaheen, et al., assessed the situation correctly when they decided this was the best deal possible. (Z)
Anyway.. A "tactical decision" I doubt it was given the reaction. It was a break it seems with the rest holding tight. And I believe that they will have repercussions themselves. I am looking at the bright side and the fact that Democrats do not stay in lock step. This is a feature not a bug. In a time of battle this is of course not great... some of the soldiers have to go home and face-- but then again the apres the fact-reasoning is right. How long could this have lasted? Through the holidays- with the media's stories, people traveling, people scraping by, businesses suffering. And there was going to be blame shifting b/c most people are not that informed about the particulars of who is at fault *ongoing* though the blame was mostly on the R's at the moment. (R messaging would take over!) I think ultimately it will turn out to be the right thing that happened ( ending the shutdown) even though many great warriors here are apoplectic about this. But it was not in consultation and agreement- obviously. It was a sort of dissident caucus movement while the rest, especially the unaffected out here were rooting for the showdown in hopes to see the Republicans take all the blame.... *also at the expense of the rest* while the Republicans amoral, in lock step, fearful, took their orders from this shameless administration relying on this failing president for however long ( how long?).
Now whatever the Republicans in charge of the government do, they have to answer for. And it will be clear to all who would know and don't even want to know.. who is doing this.
An excellent post. Thank you. As I have posted before, the problem with trying to blame Democrats for the shutdown is that the Trump and the GOP have let everyone know that THEY control Washington (POTUS, Congress, SCOTUS). It always seems to be "HaHaHa You lost" (from the Trump on down).
So, no matter how you slice or dice it, this is on the GOP... and the American people know it.
And now, let's address a couple things the Democrats got that they cannot necessarily announce publicly. The vote on the subsidies is known, and it certainly seems like a loss, since a vote on the subsidies is not the same thing as restoring the subsidies. However, for those who would call it a loss, consider that maybe the blue team (the five new aisle-crossers, at least, and very possibly other Democratic members like Hickenlooper) are actually playing the long game. Well, not exactly long, but maybe the short-to-medium game. There are only three outcomes when it comes to the promised vote: (1) The subsidies are restored, or (2) The Republicans vote down the subsidies (again), either in the Senate or the House or (3) Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) refuses to hold the vote.
In the first case, the Democrats get what they want. In the second and third cases, they get crystal-clear proof that the Republicans are the ones who don't want poor people to have health insurance, which the blue team can then wield as a club in the 2026 elections. Oh, and if things don't work out to their satisfaction, the Democrats can resume their resistance on January 30, when the government will shut down again if there is no bill. In that scenario, the blue team will have even more political cover AND they won't have to worry about people who need SNAP going hungry, or veterans going without their pensions. In short, the Democrats got some pretty good stuff from a politics perspective without actually giving all that much up.
The second thing the Democrats got is pressure on Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) to reopen the House. If he does it, then Rep.-elect Adelita Grijalva (D-AZ) will have to be sworn in, and then Rep. Thomas Massie's (R-KY) Epstein files bill would have the necessary signatures to be brought to the floor of the House. If Johnson doesn't re-open, then he will open the Republicans up to withering criticism that they care more about protecting sexual predators than they do about hungry children. That is not a political winner.
Ultimately, many Democrats, including some who voted to hold the line (like Hickenlooper) concluded that the White House was never, ever going to give in on the subsidies. Shaheen, for example, concurred that "this was the only deal on the table." If that is true, then the blue team got about as much as they could have hoped to get, and they made the correct tactical decision—to cash out. If it is not true, and there was a real possibility of Trump caving, then the Democrats should have pushed all-in. That's really the crux of the matter; readers can decide for themselves if Hickenlooper, Shaheen, et al., assessed the situation correctly when they decided this was the best deal possible. (Z)
And now, let's address a couple things the Democrats got that they cannot necessarily announce publicly. The vote on the subsidies is known, and it certainly seems like a loss, since a vote on the subsidies is not the same thing as restoring the subsidies. However, for those who would call it a loss, consider that maybe the blue team (the five new aisle-crossers, at least, and very possibly other Democratic members like Hickenlooper) are actually playing the long game. Well, not exactly long, but maybe the short-to-medium game. There are only three outcomes when it comes to the promised vote: (1) The subsidies are restored, or (2) The Republicans vote down the subsidies (again), either in the Senate or the House or (3) Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) refuses to hold the vote.
In the first case, the Democrats get what they want. In the second and third cases, they get crystal-clear proof that the Republicans are the ones who don't want poor people to have health insurance, which the blue team can then wield as a club in the 2026 elections. Oh, and if things don't work out to their satisfaction, the Democrats can resume their resistance on January 30, when the government will shut down again if there is no bill. In that scenario, the blue team will have even more political cover AND they won't have to worry about people who need SNAP going hungry, or veterans going without their pensions. In short, the Democrats got some pretty good stuff from a politics perspective without actually giving all that much up.
The second thing the Democrats got is pressure on Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) to reopen the House. If he does it, then Rep.-elect Adelita Grijalva (D-AZ) will have to be sworn in, and then Rep. Thomas Massie's (R-KY) Epstein files bill would have the necessary signatures to be brought to the floor of the House. If Johnson doesn't re-open, then he will open the Republicans up to withering criticism that they care more about protecting sexual predators than they do about hungry children. That is not a political winner.
Ultimately, many Democrats, including some who voted to hold the line (like Hickenlooper) concluded that the White House was never, ever going to give in on the subsidies. Shaheen, for example, concurred that "this was the only deal on the table." If that is true, then the blue team got about as much as they could have hoped to get, and they made the correct tactical decision—to cash out. If it is not true, and there was a real possibility of Trump caving, then the Democrats should have pushed all-in. That's really the crux of the matter; readers can decide for themselves if Hickenlooper, Shaheen, et al., assessed the situation correctly when they decided this was the best deal possible. (Z)
I would like to clarify that those of us who read Project 2025 know that SNAP benefits are on the chopping block anyway. I believe Jay alluded to this as he says more pain down the road. It is not just with health care, but everything else they plan to cut, and food benefits are on that chopping block too. In fact, there is a plan to get rid of Health and Human Services and turn it into the Department of Life, a dept that would force a Christian Nationalist life on all of us.
It looks to me like aviation was the straw that broke the camels back as this is the piece that the wealthy donors are likely to have complained about. I do not believe that the SNAP constituents were at the forefront of this decision or even the government workers, who legally should get back pay once the shutdown is over.
I am glad that my mayor Johnson in Chicago has told the UN that the actions of ICE in Chicago and elsewhere under Trump is a sign that his regime violates human rights. I think the murders in Venezuela do too. We need to be naming Trump's crimes for the world, because he is not only doing harm in the US, but is very actively supporting authoritarian rule elsewhere in the world with our money, and that raised by wealthy right wing think tanks. We need to make it hard to allow the more democratic governments to pretend that Trump is okay or overlook his bad behavior just as protests in their countries have forced them to assess their relationship with arming Israel. People should be protesting their country's dealings with the US as long as Trump is violating human rights.
Hi Linda- Project 2025 is a *proposal*. Words. Not going to happen unless we allow it. It's useful to know what we are possibly going to face, what, if left with no resistance , we will have, if we don't keep battling. There will be resistance and consequences among Republicans as well when they understand this. We are in the process now.
The Ultimate goal is to turn the US into a Christian Nationalist Theocracy. Perhaps pentecostal, where we must follow the rules of their interpretation of Christianity, and if we do there will be rewards, and if we don't there will be punishments, and banishments. I do not believe they will realize their goals, because I don't see the American people going along with this as it is revealed. Look at how people are standing up to ICE, at least in my Blue city, but elsewhere too, like in Red areas, where people are now seeing what we understood to be Trump's plan actually in action. People who lacked the information or imagination to understand that this is what Trump's plans enacted would look like.
I agree. It’s good to know what they want and what they are trying to do. “They” are not all that together either. Hardly is it a fait accompli nor will it be. No way.! But it cannot be waved away. Awareness is essential and then keeping positive- fighting despair. I have to keep saying despair is a killer. I notice that HCR’s lettesr lately consistently get some discussions that worry me. She is not giving a pep talk and often not countering the bad news- it’s often just that “news” which precipitates reaction/outrage and then some despair. I fight that..But I am not under any illusions. this is a critical moment in our historry and we need masses on board… unfortunately pain is part of this..ours and moreso of those who are not fortunate. thanks,,,
There may be a silver lining to this. The cr provides funding only through January, at which time (and after the busy holiday travel season), we can look forward to another shutdown. At that point, Republicans will have certainly betrayed their promise to address the ACA subsidies, people will actually be paying the higher premiums or going without health insurance, and we can more convincingly - and closer to the midterms - pin the blame and the pain on the GOP. Interested in your thoughts on this.
There will be a chance to apply pressure again in Jan. But I doubt these 8 senators are up to a shutdown fight again. We’ll have to see how angry the electorate is by then…
I’ve already warned Tim Kaine (who represents my state) that if he doesn’t change his vote on this, he’ll lose my vote. Flooding their inboxes might get the message across. I’m pessimistic personally, but I suppose anything’s worth a try at this point.
And now, let's address a couple things the Democrats got that they cannot necessarily announce publicly. The vote on the subsidies is known, and it certainly seems like a loss, since a vote on the subsidies is not the same thing as restoring the subsidies. However, for those who would call it a loss, consider that maybe the blue team (the five new aisle-crossers, at least, and very possibly other Democratic members like Hickenlooper) are actually playing the long game. Well, not exactly long, but maybe the short-to-medium game. There are only three outcomes when it comes to the promised vote: (1) The subsidies are restored, or (2) The Republicans vote down the subsidies (again), either in the Senate or the House or (3) Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) refuses to hold the vote.
In the first case, the Democrats get what they want. In the second and third cases, they get crystal-clear proof that the Republicans are the ones who don't want poor people to have health insurance, which the blue team can then wield as a club in the 2026 elections. Oh, and if things don't work out to their satisfaction, the Democrats can resume their resistance on January 30, when the government will shut down again if there is no bill. In that scenario, the blue team will have even more political cover AND they won't have to worry about people who need SNAP going hungry, or veterans going without their pensions. In short, the Democrats got some pretty good stuff from a politics perspective without actually giving all that much up.
The second thing the Democrats got is pressure on Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) to reopen the House. If he does it, then Rep.-elect Adelita Grijalva (D-AZ) will have to be sworn in, and then Rep. Thomas Massie's (R-KY) Epstein files bill would have the necessary signatures to be brought to the floor of the House. If Johnson doesn't re-open, then he will open the Republicans up to withering criticism that they care more about protecting sexual predators than they do about hungry children. That is not a political winner.
Ultimately, many Democrats, including some who voted to hold the line (like Hickenlooper) concluded that the White House was never, ever going to give in on the subsidies. Shaheen, for example, concurred that "this was the only deal on the table." If that is true, then the blue team got about as much as they could have hoped to get, and they made the correct tactical decision—to cash out. If it is not true, and there was a real possibility of Trump caving, then the Democrats should have pushed all-in. That's really the crux of the matter; readers can decide for themselves if Hickenlooper, Shaheen, et al., assessed the situation correctly when they decided this was the best deal possible. (Z)
Sorry. Late to the game on The Status Kuo. My bad (but thanks to Robert Hubbell for providing the link). So this is my first time reading this post, which I found thoughtful and illuminating. Not sure I'm convinced, but I'm happy to have read Hans Meyer's post. Being brand new here, I have now idea if Hans is a spammer, but I appreciated the read.
Through the years of MAGA and the Trump, the GOPyer avalanche of mis- and dis-information has been relentless. And it seems to always be the exact same lies every single time.
Half of Substack (and most of the top influencers here) JUMPED on what they called the "the cave" by the Senate Democrats. Left and right you see how people who are supposed to be fighting together against MAGA and the Trump, start demeaning the only viable alternative to MAGA and the Trump: The Democratic Party.
Just above, for example, a writer says that they are not going to vote for their Democratic senator again. Another writer devoted a Substack video to his leaving the Democratic Party because of "the cave." It is like they are doing the work for MAGA and the Trump all by themselves.
My "spamming" was an attempt to try to stop that by providing a positive point of view directly to as many people as possible. Unfortunately, facts alone are often insufficient to change a person's mind due to deep-seated cognitive biases like confirmation bias and belief perseverance. I always thought that was the problem with MAGA, but a few of the responses I've received has led me to believe that the exact same thing afflicts our ostensible allies.
Thank you again, Paul. I've Subscribed to you so I can follow the insights you post here.
While that makes a bit of sense, it also sounds like the defense Schumer gave the last time he voted for the CR. He said that if the government shut down then Musk would turbocharge DOGE’s efforts to tear down agencies.
But this completely deflates the momentum that was building. As regards SNAP, from what I gather, communities and states were organizing to make sure no one went hungry. And the longer it went on, the more the GOP looked like the unfeeling monsters they are.
Now we are going to go through Thanksgiving and Christmas, happily buying our $22 dinners from Walmart and thinking everything is just hunky-dory.
I totally agree that caving was awful, as was the messaging, but I’m trying to take the long view and see how this could possibly work in our favor before too long. And things aren’t hunky-dory and will be even less so once those premiums actually come due starting in January. If I have confidence in anything, it’s that the GOP will continue to look like and be the unfeeling monsters they are!
I see your point but I feel that the negative ramifications of losing healthcare insurance will not be felt in time for the 2026 elections, if at all. And the cause and effects of reducing supplements for the ACA is probably too subtle a relationship for most people to see and understand.
Denying food benefits is enormous, straightforward, and immediate.
I agree with you about the impact of SNAP cuts, but as a former recipient of ACA subsidies, I can assure you that the pain will be noticed immediately. People have already received notices about their increased premiums, many of which will be two or three times higher. The bills will come due starting in January, many months before the midterms. Republicans have been trying to get rid of the ACA for 16 years, so there's little question about who's responsible.
BUT....the Rethugs have already proved that their messaging is far superior to that of the Dems. I have zero confidence that many of those whose premiums are skyrocketing will understand that Rump is to blame.
Good point! I worry that the Republicans will just blame Obama for "his expensive healthcare system." I've heard the same folks whining about having to pay insurance companies -- meanwhile, they never acknowledge that the original ACA included a public option until the Republicans had a fit about it and refused to let that be included in the program.
Denying the food benefits seemed to be the pivotal point for better and for worse. For better because it showed how monstrous the GOP really is and is going to continue to be - especially under 47. For worse because it ended too soon after that play was made by the White House and the complicit GOP.
Like you said, that was the far greater issue that had more people blaming Republicans. When the shutdown began plenty of people saw it as just as much the fault of Dems as the GOP. The longer it dragged on the more people blamed the GOP and the SNAP benefits issue solidified things further.
The Surrender Caucus did all of us a greater disservice than they realize, and Jay is right that they're playing catch up with the messaging which hurts the movement and cause.
Yes. It was an extremely bad look, especially when they sued to continue denying the benefits. I think they realized how bad they looked. Still, they did not give up anything in the negotiations as far as I can tell.
Now it will be a case of waiting to see how great an impact the loss of the ACA supplements will be - not a question of whether it will be horrible for many people, but a question of for how many people it will seem as unconscionable as starving people.
But ultimately people *will* understand that doing without healthcare can be every bit as devastating as doing without SNAP benefits. As you mentioned above, state and local agencies and organizations were gearing up with plans to keep people fed. On the other hand, I didn't hear of even one idea for keeping people insured. And as too many people have found out, all it takes is one medical emergency without insurance to ruin a family financially. They lose everything they have of any value.
In the end, it was pure Republican cruelty that brought us to the point where the people's own government was using them as expendable pawns in a political game. They were willing to watch people die rather than reduce (not even eliminate) the billionaires' tax break. And we're supposed to just move on now; forgive and forget? Nothing personal, just business? I don't think you move on from something like this. Republicans have earned my undying contempt. I know they don't care about that, either.
But pick any random ACA recipient and ask whose fault it is that costs are doubling or tripling. How many will correctly place the blame where it belongs?
"About four in ten (39%) adults who want to see the tax credits extended say that if Congress does not extend these enhanced tax credits, President Trump deserves most of the blame, while another four in ten (37%) say the same about Republicans in Congress."
So, not even a majority. Another 20% blame Dems, and the rest....?
And now, let's address a couple things the Democrats got that they cannot necessarily announce publicly. The vote on the subsidies is known, and it certainly seems like a loss, since a vote on the subsidies is not the same thing as restoring the subsidies. However, for those who would call it a loss, consider that maybe the blue team (the five new aisle-crossers, at least, and very possibly other Democratic members like Hickenlooper) are actually playing the long game. Well, not exactly long, but maybe the short-to-medium game. There are only three outcomes when it comes to the promised vote: (1) The subsidies are restored, or (2) The Republicans vote down the subsidies (again), either in the Senate or the House or (3) Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) refuses to hold the vote.
In the first case, the Democrats get what they want. In the second and third cases, they get crystal-clear proof that the Republicans are the ones who don't want poor people to have health insurance, which the blue team can then wield as a club in the 2026 elections. Oh, and if things don't work out to their satisfaction, the Democrats can resume their resistance on January 30, when the government will shut down again if there is no bill. In that scenario, the blue team will have even more political cover AND they won't have to worry about people who need SNAP going hungry, or veterans going without their pensions. In short, the Democrats got some pretty good stuff from a politics perspective without actually giving all that much up.
The second thing the Democrats got is pressure on Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) to reopen the House. If he does it, then Rep.-elect Adelita Grijalva (D-AZ) will have to be sworn in, and then Rep. Thomas Massie's (R-KY) Epstein files bill would have the necessary signatures to be brought to the floor of the House. If Johnson doesn't re-open, then he will open the Republicans up to withering criticism that they care more about protecting sexual predators than they do about hungry children. That is not a political winner.
Ultimately, many Democrats, including some who voted to hold the line (like Hickenlooper) concluded that the White House was never, ever going to give in on the subsidies. Shaheen, for example, concurred that "this was the only deal on the table." If that is true, then the blue team got about as much as they could have hoped to get, and they made the correct tactical decision—to cash out. If it is not true, and there was a real possibility of Trump caving, then the Democrats should have pushed all-in. That's really the crux of the matter; readers can decide for themselves if Hickenlooper, Shaheen, et al., assessed the situation correctly when they decided this was the best deal possible. (Z)
Also, despite the caving of 8 senators, Rump still went to court today to continue to deny SNAP benefits. These Dems have taught the bully that they WILL give in to extortion.
As for the midterms, we have no idea what will happen between now and then. Does anyone believe that the MAGAs will allow free, fair elections?
You don’t have to imagine anything. Trump is doing it now. He has no intention of releasing funds to states for SNAP as long as he has a legal maneuver in his pocket. The month is half over already. And the 8 who caved didn’t do it on their own. You can be sure they are Schumer’s flunkies.
THANK YOU!! I've tried saying exactly what you're saying, and I always get slammed for it. And usually, I get snarked on for throwing in the towel. I think I'm just being realistic, preparing for the worst.
SNAP is in crisis mode, especially since more appeals were in order by tRump to contest lower-court orders to fund the program immediately...Scotus may well have ducked and let the stay(s) be lifted and SNAP funding to proceed. Or not, who knows with this crowd.
Millions are hurting — which was the tRump regime's plan all along — so rather than continue starving the hostages, Senate Dems did what they had to do under the onerous and extortionate circumstances.
They didn't have to cave. They choose that path because "the Republicans weren't going to budge." The whole point of not caving was to illustrate the point that the GOP wasn't going to budge and was willing to allow people to starve. As has been noted by another commenter, the insurance issue is too subtle compared to the SNAP benefits crisis.
Were millions really hurting? Occasionally on the news you would see people waiting online at a food bank, but we were only one week into SNAP benefits being withheld.
I realize a lot of people live hand to mouth, but there was plenty of warning this would happen. I know at least in my state (CA), my county, my city, everyone was geared up to help anyone that needed it.
I realize that California is somewhat of an exception, but I find it hard to believe that churches and other organizations in red states, particularly the Bible belt and the rust belt, were not equally prepared to help people.
My state is also CA and I heard the same things not just in Los Angeles County, but in Northern California as well. Also, I heard on the news and read on Substack that communities in other states were gearing up. Plenty of people had decided to weather the storm that was brewing.
I agree that week one of the SNAP benefits crisis was too soon to decide anything, and this was really the pivotal point in the shutdown that got even more people blaming the GOP for the shutdown.
I live in a small town (4000) in the Bay Area and we already had a couple dozen people donating non-perishable food items to one organizer, people turning their free libraries into free food cupboards, a local chapter of a national organization storing up food, people offering to cook for other people and bring them meals...
If nothing else, it was heartening to see the community come together with such force and determination. Screw those GOP bastards
The shutdown was nearly a month old and November food stamps were due to be cut off. This is a terrific additional load of stress for folks already stressed out. Then, despite the law and positive court decisions, Trump promised to punish states that distributed food stamps before He gave His approval. (This is what Trump excels at: creating tension and fear.) We still don't know when food stamps will be distributed, but there is now hope among recipients that it will be sooner, rather than later. The handwriting is on the wall for MAGA, if the recent elections are harbingers. The Democratic gambit failed this time, but the struggle isn't over until Nov. 2026.
Yes. Millions *are* hurting. Many red states, including Tennessee where I am, still haven’t paid out a single cent in SNAP benefits. And red states have the least safety nets to help those affected. My family is fed, (we’re both disabled and can’t skip meals with our conditions) but we had to spend a huge chunk of the rent money to do that. Now we’re having to beg for rent money before we get evicted. And, no, there aren't any churches in this part of the Bible belt willing to help an old queer couple. (Or, for a lot of churches, many (any) minority groups.)
Amen! I share your concern. Trump will do all in his power to minimize turnout in his favor -- plus dirty tricks galore. The Founders embraced federalism for just such a situation, putting elections in state hands where the citizenry can observe, kvetch, and go to court if necessary -- from start to finish. (There is also the titillating electoral prospect of unexpected consequences stemming from gerrymandering House districts.)
I'm one of those people faced with that awful healthcare calculation. This is no consolation to me, whatsoever. My insurance without subsidy will cost $22k next year. I can't commit to that and just hope for the best.
Eve, I'm sorry you're facing that. If I weren't on Medicare now, I would be too. Believe me, I'm not trying to justify what the traitorous 8 did, just noticing how volatile things are and seeing the possibility that the subsidies could yet be restored, especially if Republicans can finally be made to fear their constituents and losing their seats more than they fear Trump. Fingers crossed for you.
I'm on Medicare and pay a pretty high price for my supplemental, but it seems sad every year it has more than paid off. Just a routine colonoscopy costs a fortune.
I'm sorry to hear of your situation and I hope it works out for you. One thing I recommend is using a health savings account. There are two types and I'm not sure what the difference is but it's worth looking into.
I agree with you. This may be a way to relieve some current pain before the holidays and pick up the pressure in January. But I also agree that the messaging should have been better.
What isn't being mentioned is that the budget reconciliation bill itself cuts funding for supplemental nutrition programs. SNAP will have lower benefits, plus a work requirement; and the Department of Agriculture is cutting school lunches. Maybe people forgot about that.
It’s really difficult to see any silver lining in this surrender debacle for those of us who WILL 100% lose our health insurance at the end of this year.
Would you like to go without any health insurance for a year until the midterms and hope voters do the right thing when they’ve failed us so many times before? Anyone who thinks this capitulation is ok is clearly very privileged or on Medicare. Hate to say it, but in a way it’s too bad Medicare wasn’t on the chopping block. I doubt those cowards would’ve caved under those circumstances.
I'm a federal employee. I supported a potential shutdown in March, and I supported this one until this captulation. The ACA rates don't directly impact me, but I was willing to sacrifice to help my fellow Americans.
No more. Why? Democrats managed to get *nothing* on both occasions. Even if the ACA votes happen, we've seen this "movie" before. The GOP will do better at messaging, (most notably by calling it Obamacare; the poll numbers change depending on whether it's called the ACA or Obamacare) and it won't pass. Never mind get signed by Trump. Anything else is wishful thinking.
Now, I'm angry and I expect millions of federal employees are angry too. You can bet that I'll be telling my Senators (Democrats Mark Warner and Tim Kaine) as well as my House Rep., Democrat Don Beyer, to oppose a shutdown in January. I have *zero* faith Democrats won't screw it up again, and a shutdown negatively impacts me.
I also highly suspect that Maryland Senators Angela Alsobrooks and Chris Van Hollen, as well as the seven Democratic Reps. from Maryland will oppose a shutdown in January too.
Lastly, even if there is a shutdown in January, I highly suspect it won't include DOD. The FY26 National Defense Authorization Act passed the Senate on October 9. The House version had already passed. The two bills went into conference committee, came out, and Democrats withheld support so it didn't pass.
That'll now happen. So, a shutdown in January won't include 34% of federal government civilian employees. A shutdown in March would have had tax season as leverage. This shutdown had the holiday travel season as leverage. A shutdown in January that doesn't include the largest employer in the federal government (DOD) has no leverage.
You’re assuming that Senate Democrats will miraculously find their backbones by January, or that Congressional Republicans will suddenly remember that 2026 will be a (hopefully) an introduction to Karma!
I agree with you that it’s no bad thing politically for Dems/our precious country that this whole debacle will repeat in mere months. In practice however, that millions now face even more pain, is heart wrenching no matter who they voted for. I take no delight in watching MAGA children suffer.
And now, let's address a couple things the Democrats got that they cannot necessarily announce publicly. The vote on the subsidies is known, and it certainly seems like a loss, since a vote on the subsidies is not the same thing as restoring the subsidies. However, for those who would call it a loss, consider that maybe the blue team (the five new aisle-crossers, at least, and very possibly other Democratic members like Hickenlooper) are actually playing the long game. Well, not exactly long, but maybe the short-to-medium game. There are only three outcomes when it comes to the promised vote: (1) The subsidies are restored, or (2) The Republicans vote down the subsidies (again), either in the Senate or the House or (3) Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) refuses to hold the vote.
In the first case, the Democrats get what they want. In the second and third cases, they get crystal-clear proof that the Republicans are the ones who don't want poor people to have health insurance, which the blue team can then wield as a club in the 2026 elections. Oh, and if things don't work out to their satisfaction, the Democrats can resume their resistance on January 30, when the government will shut down again if there is no bill. In that scenario, the blue team will have even more political cover AND they won't have to worry about people who need SNAP going hungry, or veterans going without their pensions. In short, the Democrats got some pretty good stuff from a politics perspective without actually giving all that much up.
The second thing the Democrats got is pressure on Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) to reopen the House. If he does it, then Rep.-elect Adelita Grijalva (D-AZ) will have to be sworn in, and then Rep. Thomas Massie's (R-KY) Epstein files bill would have the necessary signatures to be brought to the floor of the House. If Johnson doesn't re-open, then he will open the Republicans up to withering criticism that they care more about protecting sexual predators than they do about hungry children. That is not a political winner.
Ultimately, many Democrats, including some who voted to hold the line (like Hickenlooper) concluded that the White House was never, ever going to give in on the subsidies. Shaheen, for example, concurred that "this was the only deal on the table." If that is true, then the blue team got about as much as they could have hoped to get, and they made the correct tactical decision—to cash out. If it is not true, and there was a real possibility of Trump caving, then the Democrats should have pushed all-in. That's really the crux of the matter; readers can decide for themselves if Hickenlooper, Shaheen, et al., assessed the situation correctly when they decided this was the best deal possible. (Z)
If it all turns out to just be a very effective way to avoid the Epstein Files issue (and effective it is being!), then all the marbles are now in the ring and something (anything) will bring the scandal back onto Center Stage. Then the need will be to redirect the energy away from the scandal and ‘fixing health care’ will do nicely. A “concept of a plan” could actually be Obamacare with a new MAGA name and put tRumpf back in his sought after heroic role.
Sure! That sketch of an idea for the prospect of perhaps maybe considering a new healthcare system will be ready in two weeks!! Haven’t you heard this numerous times now?
You’re particularly right about the messaging. If you’re a centrist and you think this is actually a good idea, come out and explain yourself. Have the argument and win it. Instead, the wing of the party that has lost to Donald Trump AND Zohran Mamdani in the space of a year is arrogantly telling us they all know best, and that we should “grow up” and find the bright side of losing. Again.
Also, the “this is Trump’s shutdown he could end it tomorrow” message just went out the window too. Way to go!
Not a centrist, and you'll probably skewer me for this as being "heartless" but... Why do Dems always think they have to save the GOP from themselves? The shutdown put the spotlight on the ACA subsidies. If the GOP doesn't extend them now, they will get the blame. If all of this happens behind the scenes and they get extended, Trump gets the credit. I think (hope?) we've learned by now that a large part of the electorate doesn't pay attention - at all - to politics. They blame whoever is in charge. So, let the subsidies expire, let SNAP and Medicaid get cut, and let the electorate actually feel what happens when the GOP is in charge. It's horrible, people will be hurt, yes, but we can't continue to save people from themselves (since a lot of this will hurt GOP voters), and hopefully the result is the GOP being put out to pasture for the next 40 years. Pain appears to be the only way to break the cult and get the country back together. It took a deep depression last time, let's try to do it a little more quickly this time. It's hard to see right now, but in the long run this may be part of the recovery of the nation, allowing more FDR-type programs to be started and accepted by the public. Yes, it's hopefully short term pain for long term gain, but doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result has been the definition of madness for the Dems and it has gotten us exactly nowhere. We are starting to crawl out of the hole now that things are getting bad - housing unaffordable, groceries unaffordable, all while the rich feast on piles of lobster and giant shrimp. People are finally starting to wake up, but it's going to take more to get warnings of "socialism - gasp!" to be ignored completely.
Dems will have to message this well, which is a risk because we're kind of awful at that, but honestly, given the lawlessness of this regime it's not clear Trump wouldn't have just told Russell Vought not to send the subsidy money anyway. The legal fight on that would have taken 6 months to restore them, and he's also come dangerously close to refusing to follow court orders.
The initial reaction is yes, this is a cave on the Dem side, but the somewhat horrible silver lining is that it might actually work for us in the long run provided we message well.
I wholeheartedly agree. While the shutdown started out because of the ACA subsidies it grew into something more - the actual cruelty of 47 and the GOP. It would have helped if the Surrender Caucus had done the proper messaging beforehand and/or the shutdown had lasted longer with the SNAP benefits crisis in play.
The SNAP benefits crisis brought the blame more squarely upon 47 and the GOP and it helped build pressure on the GOP. Yes, 47 would've weathered the storm more because he doesn't have an ounce of empathy since he's narcissistic psychopath. The rest of the GOP couldn't have weathered the storm as much since some in the House face heavily contested districts.
I'm depressed and disgusted, feeling betrayed and by my own Senator Kaine of Virginia! I just wrote him a very angry email. I know he did this because northern VA is hurting badly from all the firings but I agree with Jay's excellent analysis that he threw our advantage right out the window, and I hope you all are correct about a silver lining in January and another shutdown, etc.
The problem is Schumer. He needs to go if he can't keep the Senate Dems in line. I realize that getting ALL Democrats to agree on anything is like herding cats but Schumer has proven over and over again that he is far too soft for this job. He is far from the dynamic leader we need to counter the Trump machine.
Allegedly, Schumer's term is up and he's retiring. I stress allegedly because Pelosi stayed in her position a bit longer than was good for the country. If he does retire, we need AOC or someone with her fire to run for his seat. She hasn't wavered or shrugged off her duties.
While I admire AOC, I doubt she'd have much luck uniting the more conservative members of the party. Anyone with an actual personality would be better than Schumer.
Jay, even you can't put lipstick on this pig, and it's reassuring to my sanity that you're not trying to. This is a disaster for Dems, even those who didn't cave - how can we ever trust that they will stand up for our rights when they fold like cheap tents under pressure? What is even the point of voting for them if they are just going to sell out the country the first chance they get?
They have learned nothing from history or even their own dealings with Trump: all you get from appeasing a tyrant is more demands and more tyranny. And now they have shown Trump exactly what to do to get them to bend over. We are going to see a lot more of this tactic, where Trump inflicts suffering on Americans and the Dems cave for short-term relief. Whatever leverage the Dems had is gone, sold for nothing.
The staring contest was working - I can’t believe those 8 not only blinked, they squeezed their eyes shut, put their fingers in their ears and went, “lalalalala…!”
I hear that they’re all either not running for reelection or are retiring. Shame on them.
ETA: I have deleted the part of this message that said I'd heard the 8 dems had gotten money from the airlines - I say below that I heard it on another forum (true), but I don't want to further a rumor I can't for sure back up. I apologize for the possible error. And, if they indeed did take donations from the airlines, that just puts them further in the betrayal hole in my eyes.
If they received money from the airlines, then this is really disgraceful because of the message that sends to the people about where their loyalties and priorities lie.
Yeah; that they blinked is reason enough for me to not support them. I heard about the airline payoffs on another forum, so that’s why I said that I “heard” it, not that I know it for sure. So I can’t own that bit of knowledge - people were pretty adamant about it, though.
Any "Democrat" that believes the GOP will behave in an honorable or truthful way going forward is a fool. I think we have pretty compelling evidence that there there are least eight utter fools in the Senate. Maybe they can go have coffee with Murkowski or Collins and talk with them about how much GOP promises are worth.
I am enraged, as we all are, at how incompetent and weak the beltway Democrats seem to be, but that being said I see, perhaps something to be salvaged here. In order for all of this to come to pass, Johnson has to bring the House back into session. At that point, Adelita Grijalva must be seated. If Johnson won't do it, a judge can force the issue. And then, the Epstein vote. I am not hanging everything on what is in those files but I do believe there will be severe reputational and political damage. Whether that damage is fatal to R's remains to be seen.
Another big but...we must begin to make the change in leadership for the Senate and some of these institutional Democrats need to be replaced. We will get through this hard time and the current regime will eventually fail. There is hard work ahead to rebuild, repair and take the steps to ensure we don't have guardrails made up of "norms" and tacit agreements, but guardrails made of steel and law.
The Epstein Pedofiles should help unless Blondi, Patel, and company done as much as possible to "scrub" them which remains to be seen. Hopefully, the combination of House Dems who want to continue the fight and the eventual release of the files works the magic we need. Yes, we have a lot of work ahead after this regime falls and it's going to fall.
I'm waiting for people to see the photo Michael Wolf described of iDJT with half naked teens pointing and laughing at the little cum stain on his pants. 😆 He hates when we laugh at him!
This whole debacle feels like a perfect example of Democrats falling into a trap, not just politically, but philosophically. They’re not practicing moderation in the strategic sense, like civil rights leaders who once held back on certain demands to build long-term power. They’re performing centrism, chasing optics of reasonableness, even if it means surrendering leverage and getting nothing real in return.
I wrote a piece this week digging into that exact distinction, how historical moderation was about movement-building and survival, while today’s centrism is too often just capitulation dressed up as bipartisanship. That’s what made this moment feel like a deeper betrayal: it wasn’t just the wrong deal, it was the wrong instinct.
Now, like you said, the only path forward is relentless pressure and clear messaging. But we can’t build from this if we don’t name what just failed, not just politically, but tactically.
I I used to give Schumer et al the benefit of the doubt, thinking there were behind the scenes considerations. But after Trump won the election, they ALL KNEW PROJECT 2025 was in play. And the overwhelming majority ignored it, refused to pivot to offense, get on board with the fight. They probably believe history will show they made the right decisions; totaling ignoring that the R’s are erasing history and changed the game years ago. At this point I believe they are still listening to the established Dem strategists, who fucked up the 2024 campaign, and refuse to pull their heads out of their asses.
Schumer has the charisma of a hand made cemetery head stone and his leadership resides under it! Every time I see him as our advocate I want to grab a bag. We need someone with real values who can honestly sell birth control to 90 year olds. He doesn't get a "get out of jail" card for voting no this time.
Thanks, Jay, you reflect very accurately the level of appalled disgust at the d’s who caved that millions of us feel. And thank you for the look forward, and urging that we not give up OUR fight and resistance, anyway.
I may not be able to afford healthcare now. I’m not eligible age-wise for Medicare and my premiums are already more than the rent on my first house. I cannot afford to pay twice that. I don’t know what to do.
Jay, your commentary is the best analysis on this subject, and I am including my own newsletter in that assessment. Keep up the good work!
Thank you! Looking forward to meeting you in person on the 18th!
Robert Hubbell is a class act.
We demand a photo of the two of you Brilliant Men together!🥰
Agreed.
Question: Since we have to choose our insurance plans in November, how will the Congress December vote change 2026 prices?
My editor whose rates are going sky high pointed this out to me
Right!
What I don't understand is that regardless of the Democratic Cave Caucus, it is admitted that this shutdown had to end somehow. The Republicans were showing how tough UNCARING they were about the consequences and people/voters were getting it. Republicans are/were demonstrably in lock step for fear of breaking ranks more than causing serious harm to their constituents. That was and is still clear. In the end how was this going to end- even given the Schumer Compromise ( which seemed inadequate, kicking the can)? Voters are still going to have their vote in 2026. The battle is much bigger. The D's to inflict their own pain was going to come to diminishing returns at some point. Now the blame for the consequences of what is going to happen is squarely on the Republicans, where it belongs. Since this shutdown was always about people feeling pain, now *ultimately*, the pain inflicted by Republicans will continue until we vote them out.
This makes sense to me given reality of where the Democrats are now. https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/a-quick-take-on-team-caves-big-win?
I'm a federal employee. I haven't worked or gotten paid in over a month. I supported the shutdown despite it causing me financial pain (and lots of bordom 😂) because Schumer crewed up and capitulated in March and didn't get anything to help millions of my fellow Americans.
Democrats *still* got nothing tangable! Even if the ACA vote occurs, there is *zero* way it passes. The House GOP will do what they always do, call it Obamacare and their constiuents will fall in line. The polling on the ACA in many red states changes depending on whether it's called the ACA or Obamacare. Democrats *know* this and they're still stupid enough to fall for it.
Democrats had two points of major leverage in 2025, and they screwed up both of them. Schumer had tax filing season, which would have placed pressure on Republicans to end a shutdown. The Thanksgiving travel season was the second point of major leverage, and they just gave it away for a promise of a Senate vote, nothing more. They got *nothing* from Johnson, and he was the problem all along. Even a few GOP Senators didn't like what the House sent them.
Honestly, the only people who won here are federal employees. We're going to get to go back to work, receive backpay and the layoffs Trump and OPM made during the shutdown will be reversed. The rest of my fellow Americans? They get nothing.
Lastly, every shutdown costs the government money. So, just why did we do this in the first place?!?!
I understand your POV. I understand the bitterness and wanting to teach them a lesson.. for longer. Me too. That is deliciously vindictive while using the leverage Dems had and at the same time contributing to the public confusion about who is really to blame. I'm into reality, not wishing. Some folks were feeling a point of diminishing returns. Did you read my TPM link?
"The Democrats" were on board with the shutdown until the 8 in the caucus were not, with 1 independent. I understand their support was just so strong for so long ( and amazing) and then not. We celebrated that. Yeah it cost money- it's not only about money Democrats are spending- hardly. And this is existential.
What did they get? They kept the government shutdown for a record period. That showed that they were doing something after so much complaining that they were not... wishing for different leadership we don't have. What if they held out longer? And isn't that a wish, not reality, that they could continue to keep it together.. through the holidays?.. with the blame shifting?
Republicans play hard ball. We have to continue to gear up to play hardball. There are other opportunities coming up especially now with the Republicans doubling down and the consequences. Democrats could not prevent that.
Despair is a killer in battle. What we have more now is the people. We cannot lose that because of spreading disappointment and despair. The essence of the Democratic Party is that it is democratic, we are multitudes. We are not in lock step. We have to deal with that... and win. The battle is still in front of us and we can change our soldiers and our generals.. but it comes from the bottom up.
This from Josh Marshall today https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/with-a-day-to-think-about-it
I think this analysis is fair as well.. (i.e. it's not the end of the the battle)
https://www.cnn.com/2025/11/10/politics/democratic-unity-fractures-government-reopen?
And now, let's address a couple things the Democrats got that they cannot necessarily announce publicly. The vote on the subsidies is known, and it certainly seems like a loss, since a vote on the subsidies is not the same thing as restoring the subsidies. However, for those who would call it a loss, consider that maybe the blue team (the five new aisle-crossers, at least, and very possibly other Democratic members like Hickenlooper) are actually playing the long game. Well, not exactly long, but maybe the short-to-medium game. There are only three outcomes when it comes to the promised vote: (1) The subsidies are restored, or (2) The Republicans vote down the subsidies (again), either in the Senate or the House or (3) Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) refuses to hold the vote.
In the first case, the Democrats get what they want. In the second and third cases, they get crystal-clear proof that the Republicans are the ones who don't want poor people to have health insurance, which the blue team can then wield as a club in the 2026 elections. Oh, and if things don't work out to their satisfaction, the Democrats can resume their resistance on January 30, when the government will shut down again if there is no bill. In that scenario, the blue team will have even more political cover AND they won't have to worry about people who need SNAP going hungry, or veterans going without their pensions. In short, the Democrats got some pretty good stuff from a politics perspective without actually giving all that much up.
The second thing the Democrats got is pressure on Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) to reopen the House. If he does it, then Rep.-elect Adelita Grijalva (D-AZ) will have to be sworn in, and then Rep. Thomas Massie's (R-KY) Epstein files bill would have the necessary signatures to be brought to the floor of the House. If Johnson doesn't re-open, then he will open the Republicans up to withering criticism that they care more about protecting sexual predators than they do about hungry children. That is not a political winner.
Ultimately, many Democrats, including some who voted to hold the line (like Hickenlooper) concluded that the White House was never, ever going to give in on the subsidies. Shaheen, for example, concurred that "this was the only deal on the table." If that is true, then the blue team got about as much as they could have hoped to get, and they made the correct tactical decision—to cash out. If it is not true, and there was a real possibility of Trump caving, then the Democrats should have pushed all-in. That's really the crux of the matter; readers can decide for themselves if Hickenlooper, Shaheen, et al., assessed the situation correctly when they decided this was the best deal possible. (Z)
BTW you posted this same thing 3 times.
Anyway.. A "tactical decision" I doubt it was given the reaction. It was a break it seems with the rest holding tight. And I believe that they will have repercussions themselves. I am looking at the bright side and the fact that Democrats do not stay in lock step. This is a feature not a bug. In a time of battle this is of course not great... some of the soldiers have to go home and face-- but then again the apres the fact-reasoning is right. How long could this have lasted? Through the holidays- with the media's stories, people traveling, people scraping by, businesses suffering. And there was going to be blame shifting b/c most people are not that informed about the particulars of who is at fault *ongoing* though the blame was mostly on the R's at the moment. (R messaging would take over!) I think ultimately it will turn out to be the right thing that happened ( ending the shutdown) even though many great warriors here are apoplectic about this. But it was not in consultation and agreement- obviously. It was a sort of dissident caucus movement while the rest, especially the unaffected out here were rooting for the showdown in hopes to see the Republicans take all the blame.... *also at the expense of the rest* while the Republicans amoral, in lock step, fearful, took their orders from this shameless administration relying on this failing president for however long ( how long?).
Now whatever the Republicans in charge of the government do, they have to answer for. And it will be clear to all who would know and don't even want to know.. who is doing this.
An excellent post. Thank you. As I have posted before, the problem with trying to blame Democrats for the shutdown is that the Trump and the GOP have let everyone know that THEY control Washington (POTUS, Congress, SCOTUS). It always seems to be "HaHaHa You lost" (from the Trump on down).
So, no matter how you slice or dice it, this is on the GOP... and the American people know it.
And now, let's address a couple things the Democrats got that they cannot necessarily announce publicly. The vote on the subsidies is known, and it certainly seems like a loss, since a vote on the subsidies is not the same thing as restoring the subsidies. However, for those who would call it a loss, consider that maybe the blue team (the five new aisle-crossers, at least, and very possibly other Democratic members like Hickenlooper) are actually playing the long game. Well, not exactly long, but maybe the short-to-medium game. There are only three outcomes when it comes to the promised vote: (1) The subsidies are restored, or (2) The Republicans vote down the subsidies (again), either in the Senate or the House or (3) Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) refuses to hold the vote.
In the first case, the Democrats get what they want. In the second and third cases, they get crystal-clear proof that the Republicans are the ones who don't want poor people to have health insurance, which the blue team can then wield as a club in the 2026 elections. Oh, and if things don't work out to their satisfaction, the Democrats can resume their resistance on January 30, when the government will shut down again if there is no bill. In that scenario, the blue team will have even more political cover AND they won't have to worry about people who need SNAP going hungry, or veterans going without their pensions. In short, the Democrats got some pretty good stuff from a politics perspective without actually giving all that much up.
The second thing the Democrats got is pressure on Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) to reopen the House. If he does it, then Rep.-elect Adelita Grijalva (D-AZ) will have to be sworn in, and then Rep. Thomas Massie's (R-KY) Epstein files bill would have the necessary signatures to be brought to the floor of the House. If Johnson doesn't re-open, then he will open the Republicans up to withering criticism that they care more about protecting sexual predators than they do about hungry children. That is not a political winner.
Ultimately, many Democrats, including some who voted to hold the line (like Hickenlooper) concluded that the White House was never, ever going to give in on the subsidies. Shaheen, for example, concurred that "this was the only deal on the table." If that is true, then the blue team got about as much as they could have hoped to get, and they made the correct tactical decision—to cash out. If it is not true, and there was a real possibility of Trump caving, then the Democrats should have pushed all-in. That's really the crux of the matter; readers can decide for themselves if Hickenlooper, Shaheen, et al., assessed the situation correctly when they decided this was the best deal possible. (Z)
CHACO TACO
And now, let's address a couple things the Democrats got that they cannot necessarily announce publicly. The vote on the subsidies is known, and it certainly seems like a loss, since a vote on the subsidies is not the same thing as restoring the subsidies. However, for those who would call it a loss, consider that maybe the blue team (the five new aisle-crossers, at least, and very possibly other Democratic members like Hickenlooper) are actually playing the long game. Well, not exactly long, but maybe the short-to-medium game. There are only three outcomes when it comes to the promised vote: (1) The subsidies are restored, or (2) The Republicans vote down the subsidies (again), either in the Senate or the House or (3) Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) refuses to hold the vote.
In the first case, the Democrats get what they want. In the second and third cases, they get crystal-clear proof that the Republicans are the ones who don't want poor people to have health insurance, which the blue team can then wield as a club in the 2026 elections. Oh, and if things don't work out to their satisfaction, the Democrats can resume their resistance on January 30, when the government will shut down again if there is no bill. In that scenario, the blue team will have even more political cover AND they won't have to worry about people who need SNAP going hungry, or veterans going without their pensions. In short, the Democrats got some pretty good stuff from a politics perspective without actually giving all that much up.
The second thing the Democrats got is pressure on Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) to reopen the House. If he does it, then Rep.-elect Adelita Grijalva (D-AZ) will have to be sworn in, and then Rep. Thomas Massie's (R-KY) Epstein files bill would have the necessary signatures to be brought to the floor of the House. If Johnson doesn't re-open, then he will open the Republicans up to withering criticism that they care more about protecting sexual predators than they do about hungry children. That is not a political winner.
Ultimately, many Democrats, including some who voted to hold the line (like Hickenlooper) concluded that the White House was never, ever going to give in on the subsidies. Shaheen, for example, concurred that "this was the only deal on the table." If that is true, then the blue team got about as much as they could have hoped to get, and they made the correct tactical decision—to cash out. If it is not true, and there was a real possibility of Trump caving, then the Democrats should have pushed all-in. That's really the crux of the matter; readers can decide for themselves if Hickenlooper, Shaheen, et al., assessed the situation correctly when they decided this was the best deal possible. (Z)
Great fan here Robert!! Is there national abortion ban type wording in the bill that is getting overlooked?????
I would like to clarify that those of us who read Project 2025 know that SNAP benefits are on the chopping block anyway. I believe Jay alluded to this as he says more pain down the road. It is not just with health care, but everything else they plan to cut, and food benefits are on that chopping block too. In fact, there is a plan to get rid of Health and Human Services and turn it into the Department of Life, a dept that would force a Christian Nationalist life on all of us.
It looks to me like aviation was the straw that broke the camels back as this is the piece that the wealthy donors are likely to have complained about. I do not believe that the SNAP constituents were at the forefront of this decision or even the government workers, who legally should get back pay once the shutdown is over.
I am glad that my mayor Johnson in Chicago has told the UN that the actions of ICE in Chicago and elsewhere under Trump is a sign that his regime violates human rights. I think the murders in Venezuela do too. We need to be naming Trump's crimes for the world, because he is not only doing harm in the US, but is very actively supporting authoritarian rule elsewhere in the world with our money, and that raised by wealthy right wing think tanks. We need to make it hard to allow the more democratic governments to pretend that Trump is okay or overlook his bad behavior just as protests in their countries have forced them to assess their relationship with arming Israel. People should be protesting their country's dealings with the US as long as Trump is violating human rights.
Hi Linda- Project 2025 is a *proposal*. Words. Not going to happen unless we allow it. It's useful to know what we are possibly going to face, what, if left with no resistance , we will have, if we don't keep battling. There will be resistance and consequences among Republicans as well when they understand this. We are in the process now.
I understand some of P2025 is already in process.
https://www.aclu.org/project-2025-explained
Potter, if you had read it, you would see that it is being enacted.
https://www.project2025.observer/en
What is the ultimate goal? What are they going to do with most of us? Can they?
The Ultimate goal is to turn the US into a Christian Nationalist Theocracy. Perhaps pentecostal, where we must follow the rules of their interpretation of Christianity, and if we do there will be rewards, and if we don't there will be punishments, and banishments. I do not believe they will realize their goals, because I don't see the American people going along with this as it is revealed. Look at how people are standing up to ICE, at least in my Blue city, but elsewhere too, like in Red areas, where people are now seeing what we understood to be Trump's plan actually in action. People who lacked the information or imagination to understand that this is what Trump's plans enacted would look like.
I agree. It’s good to know what they want and what they are trying to do. “They” are not all that together either. Hardly is it a fait accompli nor will it be. No way.! But it cannot be waved away. Awareness is essential and then keeping positive- fighting despair. I have to keep saying despair is a killer. I notice that HCR’s lettesr lately consistently get some discussions that worry me. She is not giving a pep talk and often not countering the bad news- it’s often just that “news” which precipitates reaction/outrage and then some despair. I fight that..But I am not under any illusions. this is a critical moment in our historry and we need masses on board… unfortunately pain is part of this..ours and moreso of those who are not fortunate. thanks,,,
There may be a silver lining to this. The cr provides funding only through January, at which time (and after the busy holiday travel season), we can look forward to another shutdown. At that point, Republicans will have certainly betrayed their promise to address the ACA subsidies, people will actually be paying the higher premiums or going without health insurance, and we can more convincingly - and closer to the midterms - pin the blame and the pain on the GOP. Interested in your thoughts on this.
There will be a chance to apply pressure again in Jan. But I doubt these 8 senators are up to a shutdown fight again. We’ll have to see how angry the electorate is by then…
BRING IT. It's up to US.
I’ve already warned Tim Kaine (who represents my state) that if he doesn’t change his vote on this, he’ll lose my vote. Flooding their inboxes might get the message across. I’m pessimistic personally, but I suppose anything’s worth a try at this point.
And now, let's address a couple things the Democrats got that they cannot necessarily announce publicly. The vote on the subsidies is known, and it certainly seems like a loss, since a vote on the subsidies is not the same thing as restoring the subsidies. However, for those who would call it a loss, consider that maybe the blue team (the five new aisle-crossers, at least, and very possibly other Democratic members like Hickenlooper) are actually playing the long game. Well, not exactly long, but maybe the short-to-medium game. There are only three outcomes when it comes to the promised vote: (1) The subsidies are restored, or (2) The Republicans vote down the subsidies (again), either in the Senate or the House or (3) Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) refuses to hold the vote.
In the first case, the Democrats get what they want. In the second and third cases, they get crystal-clear proof that the Republicans are the ones who don't want poor people to have health insurance, which the blue team can then wield as a club in the 2026 elections. Oh, and if things don't work out to their satisfaction, the Democrats can resume their resistance on January 30, when the government will shut down again if there is no bill. In that scenario, the blue team will have even more political cover AND they won't have to worry about people who need SNAP going hungry, or veterans going without their pensions. In short, the Democrats got some pretty good stuff from a politics perspective without actually giving all that much up.
The second thing the Democrats got is pressure on Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) to reopen the House. If he does it, then Rep.-elect Adelita Grijalva (D-AZ) will have to be sworn in, and then Rep. Thomas Massie's (R-KY) Epstein files bill would have the necessary signatures to be brought to the floor of the House. If Johnson doesn't re-open, then he will open the Republicans up to withering criticism that they care more about protecting sexual predators than they do about hungry children. That is not a political winner.
Ultimately, many Democrats, including some who voted to hold the line (like Hickenlooper) concluded that the White House was never, ever going to give in on the subsidies. Shaheen, for example, concurred that "this was the only deal on the table." If that is true, then the blue team got about as much as they could have hoped to get, and they made the correct tactical decision—to cash out. If it is not true, and there was a real possibility of Trump caving, then the Democrats should have pushed all-in. That's really the crux of the matter; readers can decide for themselves if Hickenlooper, Shaheen, et al., assessed the situation correctly when they decided this was the best deal possible. (Z)
You've posted the same comment numerous times. Get your own Substack and please stop spamming this one.
Sorry. Late to the game on The Status Kuo. My bad (but thanks to Robert Hubbell for providing the link). So this is my first time reading this post, which I found thoughtful and illuminating. Not sure I'm convinced, but I'm happy to have read Hans Meyer's post. Being brand new here, I have now idea if Hans is a spammer, but I appreciated the read.
Oh, I'm not Hans shouldn't have posted his comment. I'm saying he shouldn't have posted it six times.
Thank you for that very kind comment, Paul.
Through the years of MAGA and the Trump, the GOPyer avalanche of mis- and dis-information has been relentless. And it seems to always be the exact same lies every single time.
Half of Substack (and most of the top influencers here) JUMPED on what they called the "the cave" by the Senate Democrats. Left and right you see how people who are supposed to be fighting together against MAGA and the Trump, start demeaning the only viable alternative to MAGA and the Trump: The Democratic Party.
Just above, for example, a writer says that they are not going to vote for their Democratic senator again. Another writer devoted a Substack video to his leaving the Democratic Party because of "the cave." It is like they are doing the work for MAGA and the Trump all by themselves.
My "spamming" was an attempt to try to stop that by providing a positive point of view directly to as many people as possible. Unfortunately, facts alone are often insufficient to change a person's mind due to deep-seated cognitive biases like confirmation bias and belief perseverance. I always thought that was the problem with MAGA, but a few of the responses I've received has led me to believe that the exact same thing afflicts our ostensible allies.
Thank you again, Paul. I've Subscribed to you so I can follow the insights you post here.
Truth hurts, doesn’t it?
No, but bad etiquette does.
This has nothing to do with truth. You expressed opinions. I may agree with some of them. Or I may not. It's not about the content.
While that makes a bit of sense, it also sounds like the defense Schumer gave the last time he voted for the CR. He said that if the government shut down then Musk would turbocharge DOGE’s efforts to tear down agencies.
But this completely deflates the momentum that was building. As regards SNAP, from what I gather, communities and states were organizing to make sure no one went hungry. And the longer it went on, the more the GOP looked like the unfeeling monsters they are.
Now we are going to go through Thanksgiving and Christmas, happily buying our $22 dinners from Walmart and thinking everything is just hunky-dory.
It is nothing less than a giant loss
I totally agree that caving was awful, as was the messaging, but I’m trying to take the long view and see how this could possibly work in our favor before too long. And things aren’t hunky-dory and will be even less so once those premiums actually come due starting in January. If I have confidence in anything, it’s that the GOP will continue to look like and be the unfeeling monsters they are!
I see your point but I feel that the negative ramifications of losing healthcare insurance will not be felt in time for the 2026 elections, if at all. And the cause and effects of reducing supplements for the ACA is probably too subtle a relationship for most people to see and understand.
Denying food benefits is enormous, straightforward, and immediate.
I agree with you about the impact of SNAP cuts, but as a former recipient of ACA subsidies, I can assure you that the pain will be noticed immediately. People have already received notices about their increased premiums, many of which will be two or three times higher. The bills will come due starting in January, many months before the midterms. Republicans have been trying to get rid of the ACA for 16 years, so there's little question about who's responsible.
BUT....the Rethugs have already proved that their messaging is far superior to that of the Dems. I have zero confidence that many of those whose premiums are skyrocketing will understand that Rump is to blame.
Good point! I worry that the Republicans will just blame Obama for "his expensive healthcare system." I've heard the same folks whining about having to pay insurance companies -- meanwhile, they never acknowledge that the original ACA included a public option until the Republicans had a fit about it and refused to let that be included in the program.
Denying the food benefits seemed to be the pivotal point for better and for worse. For better because it showed how monstrous the GOP really is and is going to continue to be - especially under 47. For worse because it ended too soon after that play was made by the White House and the complicit GOP.
Like you said, that was the far greater issue that had more people blaming Republicans. When the shutdown began plenty of people saw it as just as much the fault of Dems as the GOP. The longer it dragged on the more people blamed the GOP and the SNAP benefits issue solidified things further.
The Surrender Caucus did all of us a greater disservice than they realize, and Jay is right that they're playing catch up with the messaging which hurts the movement and cause.
Yes. It was an extremely bad look, especially when they sued to continue denying the benefits. I think they realized how bad they looked. Still, they did not give up anything in the negotiations as far as I can tell.
Now it will be a case of waiting to see how great an impact the loss of the ACA supplements will be - not a question of whether it will be horrible for many people, but a question of for how many people it will seem as unconscionable as starving people.
But ultimately people *will* understand that doing without healthcare can be every bit as devastating as doing without SNAP benefits. As you mentioned above, state and local agencies and organizations were gearing up with plans to keep people fed. On the other hand, I didn't hear of even one idea for keeping people insured. And as too many people have found out, all it takes is one medical emergency without insurance to ruin a family financially. They lose everything they have of any value.
In the end, it was pure Republican cruelty that brought us to the point where the people's own government was using them as expendable pawns in a political game. They were willing to watch people die rather than reduce (not even eliminate) the billionaires' tax break. And we're supposed to just move on now; forgive and forget? Nothing personal, just business? I don't think you move on from something like this. Republicans have earned my undying contempt. I know they don't care about that, either.
The GOP will still own Healthcare costs. That's on them now.
But pick any random ACA recipient and ask whose fault it is that costs are doubling or tripling. How many will correctly place the blame where it belongs?
https://www.kff.org/affordable-care-act/kff-health-tracking-poll-public-weighs-political-consequences-of-health-policy-legislation/
"About four in ten (39%) adults who want to see the tax credits extended say that if Congress does not extend these enhanced tax credits, President Trump deserves most of the blame, while another four in ten (37%) say the same about Republicans in Congress."
So, not even a majority. Another 20% blame Dems, and the rest....?
Those aren't good odds.
They'll blame Obama for that.
And now, let's address a couple things the Democrats got that they cannot necessarily announce publicly. The vote on the subsidies is known, and it certainly seems like a loss, since a vote on the subsidies is not the same thing as restoring the subsidies. However, for those who would call it a loss, consider that maybe the blue team (the five new aisle-crossers, at least, and very possibly other Democratic members like Hickenlooper) are actually playing the long game. Well, not exactly long, but maybe the short-to-medium game. There are only three outcomes when it comes to the promised vote: (1) The subsidies are restored, or (2) The Republicans vote down the subsidies (again), either in the Senate or the House or (3) Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) refuses to hold the vote.
In the first case, the Democrats get what they want. In the second and third cases, they get crystal-clear proof that the Republicans are the ones who don't want poor people to have health insurance, which the blue team can then wield as a club in the 2026 elections. Oh, and if things don't work out to their satisfaction, the Democrats can resume their resistance on January 30, when the government will shut down again if there is no bill. In that scenario, the blue team will have even more political cover AND they won't have to worry about people who need SNAP going hungry, or veterans going without their pensions. In short, the Democrats got some pretty good stuff from a politics perspective without actually giving all that much up.
The second thing the Democrats got is pressure on Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) to reopen the House. If he does it, then Rep.-elect Adelita Grijalva (D-AZ) will have to be sworn in, and then Rep. Thomas Massie's (R-KY) Epstein files bill would have the necessary signatures to be brought to the floor of the House. If Johnson doesn't re-open, then he will open the Republicans up to withering criticism that they care more about protecting sexual predators than they do about hungry children. That is not a political winner.
Ultimately, many Democrats, including some who voted to hold the line (like Hickenlooper) concluded that the White House was never, ever going to give in on the subsidies. Shaheen, for example, concurred that "this was the only deal on the table." If that is true, then the blue team got about as much as they could have hoped to get, and they made the correct tactical decision—to cash out. If it is not true, and there was a real possibility of Trump caving, then the Democrats should have pushed all-in. That's really the crux of the matter; readers can decide for themselves if Hickenlooper, Shaheen, et al., assessed the situation correctly when they decided this was the best deal possible. (Z)
Also, despite the caving of 8 senators, Rump still went to court today to continue to deny SNAP benefits. These Dems have taught the bully that they WILL give in to extortion.
As for the midterms, we have no idea what will happen between now and then. Does anyone believe that the MAGAs will allow free, fair elections?
I can't even imagine on what basis they continue to try to deny SNAP benefits. I'm sure his sycophants in Congress are not pleased by this
The sycophants may not be pleased, but will they break with him? Bet not.
Of course not. They will just keep soldiering along doing whatever they can to keep the dyke from breaking.
Actually, I don't think they even care if the dyke breaks, as long as they get theirs.
You don’t have to imagine anything. Trump is doing it now. He has no intention of releasing funds to states for SNAP as long as he has a legal maneuver in his pocket. The month is half over already. And the 8 who caved didn’t do it on their own. You can be sure they are Schumer’s flunkies.
If they allow an election at all. Remember, Dumpy's always got a "national emergency" up his sleeve.
THANK YOU!! I've tried saying exactly what you're saying, and I always get slammed for it. And usually, I get snarked on for throwing in the towel. I think I'm just being realistic, preparing for the worst.
SNAP is in crisis mode, especially since more appeals were in order by tRump to contest lower-court orders to fund the program immediately...Scotus may well have ducked and let the stay(s) be lifted and SNAP funding to proceed. Or not, who knows with this crowd.
Millions are hurting — which was the tRump regime's plan all along — so rather than continue starving the hostages, Senate Dems did what they had to do under the onerous and extortionate circumstances.
They didn't have to cave. They choose that path because "the Republicans weren't going to budge." The whole point of not caving was to illustrate the point that the GOP wasn't going to budge and was willing to allow people to starve. As has been noted by another commenter, the insurance issue is too subtle compared to the SNAP benefits crisis.
Yeah, it was a real Susan Collins moment
Were millions really hurting? Occasionally on the news you would see people waiting online at a food bank, but we were only one week into SNAP benefits being withheld.
I realize a lot of people live hand to mouth, but there was plenty of warning this would happen. I know at least in my state (CA), my county, my city, everyone was geared up to help anyone that needed it.
I realize that California is somewhat of an exception, but I find it hard to believe that churches and other organizations in red states, particularly the Bible belt and the rust belt, were not equally prepared to help people.
My state is also CA and I heard the same things not just in Los Angeles County, but in Northern California as well. Also, I heard on the news and read on Substack that communities in other states were gearing up. Plenty of people had decided to weather the storm that was brewing.
I agree that week one of the SNAP benefits crisis was too soon to decide anything, and this was really the pivotal point in the shutdown that got even more people blaming the GOP for the shutdown.
I live in a small town (4000) in the Bay Area and we already had a couple dozen people donating non-perishable food items to one organizer, people turning their free libraries into free food cupboards, a local chapter of a national organization storing up food, people offering to cook for other people and bring them meals...
If nothing else, it was heartening to see the community come together with such force and determination. Screw those GOP bastards
The shutdown was nearly a month old and November food stamps were due to be cut off. This is a terrific additional load of stress for folks already stressed out. Then, despite the law and positive court decisions, Trump promised to punish states that distributed food stamps before He gave His approval. (This is what Trump excels at: creating tension and fear.) We still don't know when food stamps will be distributed, but there is now hope among recipients that it will be sooner, rather than later. The handwriting is on the wall for MAGA, if the recent elections are harbingers. The Democratic gambit failed this time, but the struggle isn't over until Nov. 2026.
Yes. Millions *are* hurting. Many red states, including Tennessee where I am, still haven’t paid out a single cent in SNAP benefits. And red states have the least safety nets to help those affected. My family is fed, (we’re both disabled and can’t skip meals with our conditions) but we had to spend a huge chunk of the rent money to do that. Now we’re having to beg for rent money before we get evicted. And, no, there aren't any churches in this part of the Bible belt willing to help an old queer couple. (Or, for a lot of churches, many (any) minority groups.)
I'm truly sorry to hear of your difficulties. There are many organizations that link people to resources.
Here's just one
https://www.feedingamerica.org/need-help-find-food
Thanks, but they don't help with rent, and that's what we're short on right now. (As I noted in my previous post.)
I'm so sorry to hear that. GoFundMe might help Don't rollover and allow them to victimize you Never give up friend.
People were/are really hurting, especially those not getting paid.
But Rump went to court today to try to keep denying SNAP benefits. We have zero guarantee that the Dems' capitulation will change that.
Worth remembering in Nov. 2026: Trump hosted a Roaring 20s/Great Gatsby party at Mar-a-Lago just before cutting off SNAP.
Assuming there's even a prayer of reasonably fair elections next year. I personally don't have that prayer.
Amen! I share your concern. Trump will do all in his power to minimize turnout in his favor -- plus dirty tricks galore. The Founders embraced federalism for just such a situation, putting elections in state hands where the citizenry can observe, kvetch, and go to court if necessary -- from start to finish. (There is also the titillating electoral prospect of unexpected consequences stemming from gerrymandering House districts.)
Not yet - there's still time for them to flip!
Who flip what?
DW: time for the 8 senators to change their votes to a NO.
Maybe they will get a fair share of blowback
Buy local if you can Walmart doesn't care about anyone but themselves
I'm one of those people faced with that awful healthcare calculation. This is no consolation to me, whatsoever. My insurance without subsidy will cost $22k next year. I can't commit to that and just hope for the best.
Same here, Eve. The MAGAs aren't going to have a change of heart until they see the torches and pitchforks.
Eve, I'm sorry you're facing that. If I weren't on Medicare now, I would be too. Believe me, I'm not trying to justify what the traitorous 8 did, just noticing how volatile things are and seeing the possibility that the subsidies could yet be restored, especially if Republicans can finally be made to fear their constituents and losing their seats more than they fear Trump. Fingers crossed for you.
Well, let's just hope that 2026 is not the year I really need to be insured.
Same!
I'm on Medicare and pay a pretty high price for my supplemental, but it seems sad every year it has more than paid off. Just a routine colonoscopy costs a fortune.
I'm sorry to hear of your situation and I hope it works out for you. One thing I recommend is using a health savings account. There are two types and I'm not sure what the difference is but it's worth looking into.
I agree with you. This may be a way to relieve some current pain before the holidays and pick up the pressure in January. But I also agree that the messaging should have been better.
What isn't being mentioned is that the budget reconciliation bill itself cuts funding for supplemental nutrition programs. SNAP will have lower benefits, plus a work requirement; and the Department of Agriculture is cutting school lunches. Maybe people forgot about that.
Excellent point, MB. No one is mentioning that.
It’s really difficult to see any silver lining in this surrender debacle for those of us who WILL 100% lose our health insurance at the end of this year.
Would you like to go without any health insurance for a year until the midterms and hope voters do the right thing when they’ve failed us so many times before? Anyone who thinks this capitulation is ok is clearly very privileged or on Medicare. Hate to say it, but in a way it’s too bad Medicare wasn’t on the chopping block. I doubt those cowards would’ve caved under those circumstances.
I'm a federal employee. I supported a potential shutdown in March, and I supported this one until this captulation. The ACA rates don't directly impact me, but I was willing to sacrifice to help my fellow Americans.
No more. Why? Democrats managed to get *nothing* on both occasions. Even if the ACA votes happen, we've seen this "movie" before. The GOP will do better at messaging, (most notably by calling it Obamacare; the poll numbers change depending on whether it's called the ACA or Obamacare) and it won't pass. Never mind get signed by Trump. Anything else is wishful thinking.
Now, I'm angry and I expect millions of federal employees are angry too. You can bet that I'll be telling my Senators (Democrats Mark Warner and Tim Kaine) as well as my House Rep., Democrat Don Beyer, to oppose a shutdown in January. I have *zero* faith Democrats won't screw it up again, and a shutdown negatively impacts me.
I also highly suspect that Maryland Senators Angela Alsobrooks and Chris Van Hollen, as well as the seven Democratic Reps. from Maryland will oppose a shutdown in January too.
Lastly, even if there is a shutdown in January, I highly suspect it won't include DOD. The FY26 National Defense Authorization Act passed the Senate on October 9. The House version had already passed. The two bills went into conference committee, came out, and Democrats withheld support so it didn't pass.
That'll now happen. So, a shutdown in January won't include 34% of federal government civilian employees. A shutdown in March would have had tax season as leverage. This shutdown had the holiday travel season as leverage. A shutdown in January that doesn't include the largest employer in the federal government (DOD) has no leverage.
You’re assuming that Senate Democrats will miraculously find their backbones by January, or that Congressional Republicans will suddenly remember that 2026 will be a (hopefully) an introduction to Karma!
I agree with you that it’s no bad thing politically for Dems/our precious country that this whole debacle will repeat in mere months. In practice however, that millions now face even more pain, is heart wrenching no matter who they voted for. I take no delight in watching MAGA children suffer.
And now at least we know who we need to pressure come January.
And now, let's address a couple things the Democrats got that they cannot necessarily announce publicly. The vote on the subsidies is known, and it certainly seems like a loss, since a vote on the subsidies is not the same thing as restoring the subsidies. However, for those who would call it a loss, consider that maybe the blue team (the five new aisle-crossers, at least, and very possibly other Democratic members like Hickenlooper) are actually playing the long game. Well, not exactly long, but maybe the short-to-medium game. There are only three outcomes when it comes to the promised vote: (1) The subsidies are restored, or (2) The Republicans vote down the subsidies (again), either in the Senate or the House or (3) Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) refuses to hold the vote.
In the first case, the Democrats get what they want. In the second and third cases, they get crystal-clear proof that the Republicans are the ones who don't want poor people to have health insurance, which the blue team can then wield as a club in the 2026 elections. Oh, and if things don't work out to their satisfaction, the Democrats can resume their resistance on January 30, when the government will shut down again if there is no bill. In that scenario, the blue team will have even more political cover AND they won't have to worry about people who need SNAP going hungry, or veterans going without their pensions. In short, the Democrats got some pretty good stuff from a politics perspective without actually giving all that much up.
The second thing the Democrats got is pressure on Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) to reopen the House. If he does it, then Rep.-elect Adelita Grijalva (D-AZ) will have to be sworn in, and then Rep. Thomas Massie's (R-KY) Epstein files bill would have the necessary signatures to be brought to the floor of the House. If Johnson doesn't re-open, then he will open the Republicans up to withering criticism that they care more about protecting sexual predators than they do about hungry children. That is not a political winner.
Ultimately, many Democrats, including some who voted to hold the line (like Hickenlooper) concluded that the White House was never, ever going to give in on the subsidies. Shaheen, for example, concurred that "this was the only deal on the table." If that is true, then the blue team got about as much as they could have hoped to get, and they made the correct tactical decision—to cash out. If it is not true, and there was a real possibility of Trump caving, then the Democrats should have pushed all-in. That's really the crux of the matter; readers can decide for themselves if Hickenlooper, Shaheen, et al., assessed the situation correctly when they decided this was the best deal possible. (Z)
Nice. Capitulate during the holidays when you have all of the cards, then negotiate with paying your heating bills and annual tax bills?
If it all turns out to just be a very effective way to avoid the Epstein Files issue (and effective it is being!), then all the marbles are now in the ring and something (anything) will bring the scandal back onto Center Stage. Then the need will be to redirect the energy away from the scandal and ‘fixing health care’ will do nicely. A “concept of a plan” could actually be Obamacare with a new MAGA name and put tRumpf back in his sought after heroic role.
Sure! That sketch of an idea for the prospect of perhaps maybe considering a new healthcare system will be ready in two weeks!! Haven’t you heard this numerous times now?
not talking ‘ace in the hole’! talking ‘ace up the sleeve’.
Excellent point!
This is my thought as well, and I think Josh Marshall’s also (he said much the same this am). Jay?
All I can think of is Charlie Brown and Lucy with the football…
Jeff Tiedrich agrees.
https://www.jefftiedrich.com/p/what-the-hell-senate-democrats
That was my first thought too.
Yup-- my analogy as well.
Great analogy!
You’re particularly right about the messaging. If you’re a centrist and you think this is actually a good idea, come out and explain yourself. Have the argument and win it. Instead, the wing of the party that has lost to Donald Trump AND Zohran Mamdani in the space of a year is arrogantly telling us they all know best, and that we should “grow up” and find the bright side of losing. Again.
Also, the “this is Trump’s shutdown he could end it tomorrow” message just went out the window too. Way to go!
Not a centrist, and you'll probably skewer me for this as being "heartless" but... Why do Dems always think they have to save the GOP from themselves? The shutdown put the spotlight on the ACA subsidies. If the GOP doesn't extend them now, they will get the blame. If all of this happens behind the scenes and they get extended, Trump gets the credit. I think (hope?) we've learned by now that a large part of the electorate doesn't pay attention - at all - to politics. They blame whoever is in charge. So, let the subsidies expire, let SNAP and Medicaid get cut, and let the electorate actually feel what happens when the GOP is in charge. It's horrible, people will be hurt, yes, but we can't continue to save people from themselves (since a lot of this will hurt GOP voters), and hopefully the result is the GOP being put out to pasture for the next 40 years. Pain appears to be the only way to break the cult and get the country back together. It took a deep depression last time, let's try to do it a little more quickly this time. It's hard to see right now, but in the long run this may be part of the recovery of the nation, allowing more FDR-type programs to be started and accepted by the public. Yes, it's hopefully short term pain for long term gain, but doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result has been the definition of madness for the Dems and it has gotten us exactly nowhere. We are starting to crawl out of the hole now that things are getting bad - housing unaffordable, groceries unaffordable, all while the rich feast on piles of lobster and giant shrimp. People are finally starting to wake up, but it's going to take more to get warnings of "socialism - gasp!" to be ignored completely.
Dems will have to message this well, which is a risk because we're kind of awful at that, but honestly, given the lawlessness of this regime it's not clear Trump wouldn't have just told Russell Vought not to send the subsidy money anyway. The legal fight on that would have taken 6 months to restore them, and he's also come dangerously close to refusing to follow court orders.
The initial reaction is yes, this is a cave on the Dem side, but the somewhat horrible silver lining is that it might actually work for us in the long run provided we message well.
I agree with you but, as you said, “Democrats will have to message this well.” Therein lies the rub.
I wholeheartedly agree. While the shutdown started out because of the ACA subsidies it grew into something more - the actual cruelty of 47 and the GOP. It would have helped if the Surrender Caucus had done the proper messaging beforehand and/or the shutdown had lasted longer with the SNAP benefits crisis in play.
The SNAP benefits crisis brought the blame more squarely upon 47 and the GOP and it helped build pressure on the GOP. Yes, 47 would've weathered the storm more because he doesn't have an ounce of empathy since he's narcissistic psychopath. The rest of the GOP couldn't have weathered the storm as much since some in the House face heavily contested districts.
But the Rump regime is still fighting disbursement of SNAP benefits. This caving by the Dems doesn't in any way ensure a pay-out.
Neither Jay nor I make the claim that it ensures a payout. That question remains in limbo and 47 is more than willing to continue to cause starvation.
And continue to keep the propaganda machine ratcheted up 24/7, blaming Dems, while the Dems just....blither a lot.
My sentiments exactly!
Can only hope you’re right.
Many centrists won.
I'm depressed and disgusted, feeling betrayed and by my own Senator Kaine of Virginia! I just wrote him a very angry email. I know he did this because northern VA is hurting badly from all the firings but I agree with Jay's excellent analysis that he threw our advantage right out the window, and I hope you all are correct about a silver lining in January and another shutdown, etc.
Victoria, I wrote a message very similar to yours. I have supported Tim Kaine since he ran for governor. And now this.
The problem is Schumer. He needs to go if he can't keep the Senate Dems in line. I realize that getting ALL Democrats to agree on anything is like herding cats but Schumer has proven over and over again that he is far too soft for this job. He is far from the dynamic leader we need to counter the Trump machine.
Allegedly, Schumer's term is up and he's retiring. I stress allegedly because Pelosi stayed in her position a bit longer than was good for the country. If he does retire, we need AOC or someone with her fire to run for his seat. She hasn't wavered or shrugged off her duties.
While I admire AOC, I doubt she'd have much luck uniting the more conservative members of the party. Anyone with an actual personality would be better than Schumer.
Dems moved from incredible victory last week to snatching defeat from the Jaws of victory this week. Sounds about right.
I hate to admit it, but I agree with you.
Exactly!!!
Jay, even you can't put lipstick on this pig, and it's reassuring to my sanity that you're not trying to. This is a disaster for Dems, even those who didn't cave - how can we ever trust that they will stand up for our rights when they fold like cheap tents under pressure? What is even the point of voting for them if they are just going to sell out the country the first chance they get?
They have learned nothing from history or even their own dealings with Trump: all you get from appeasing a tyrant is more demands and more tyranny. And now they have shown Trump exactly what to do to get them to bend over. We are going to see a lot more of this tactic, where Trump inflicts suffering on Americans and the Dems cave for short-term relief. Whatever leverage the Dems had is gone, sold for nothing.
I am beyond disgusted with them.
I too am disgusted with the democrats! Have they not learned anything from 2 terms of trump? This news is very hard to take.
Why blame ALL the Democrats?
The staring contest was working - I can’t believe those 8 not only blinked, they squeezed their eyes shut, put their fingers in their ears and went, “lalalalala…!”
I hear that they’re all either not running for reelection or are retiring. Shame on them.
ETA: I have deleted the part of this message that said I'd heard the 8 dems had gotten money from the airlines - I say below that I heard it on another forum (true), but I don't want to further a rumor I can't for sure back up. I apologize for the possible error. And, if they indeed did take donations from the airlines, that just puts them further in the betrayal hole in my eyes.
If they received money from the airlines, then this is really disgraceful because of the message that sends to the people about where their loyalties and priorities lie.
Yeah; that they blinked is reason enough for me to not support them. I heard about the airline payoffs on another forum, so that’s why I said that I “heard” it, not that I know it for sure. So I can’t own that bit of knowledge - people were pretty adamant about it, though.
See: The Left Hook, from last night.
https://thelefthook.substack.com/p/centrist-dems-cave-for-a-maga-inshallah
Those that blinked get none of my support.
They received what, now?? 😳
Any "Democrat" that believes the GOP will behave in an honorable or truthful way going forward is a fool. I think we have pretty compelling evidence that there there are least eight utter fools in the Senate. Maybe they can go have coffee with Murkowski or Collins and talk with them about how much GOP promises are worth.
I am enraged, as we all are, at how incompetent and weak the beltway Democrats seem to be, but that being said I see, perhaps something to be salvaged here. In order for all of this to come to pass, Johnson has to bring the House back into session. At that point, Adelita Grijalva must be seated. If Johnson won't do it, a judge can force the issue. And then, the Epstein vote. I am not hanging everything on what is in those files but I do believe there will be severe reputational and political damage. Whether that damage is fatal to R's remains to be seen.
Another big but...we must begin to make the change in leadership for the Senate and some of these institutional Democrats need to be replaced. We will get through this hard time and the current regime will eventually fail. There is hard work ahead to rebuild, repair and take the steps to ensure we don't have guardrails made up of "norms" and tacit agreements, but guardrails made of steel and law.
The Epstein Pedofiles should help unless Blondi, Patel, and company done as much as possible to "scrub" them which remains to be seen. Hopefully, the combination of House Dems who want to continue the fight and the eventual release of the files works the magic we need. Yes, we have a lot of work ahead after this regime falls and it's going to fall.
I'm waiting for people to see the photo Michael Wolf described of iDJT with half naked teens pointing and laughing at the little cum stain on his pants. 😆 He hates when we laugh at him!
This whole debacle feels like a perfect example of Democrats falling into a trap, not just politically, but philosophically. They’re not practicing moderation in the strategic sense, like civil rights leaders who once held back on certain demands to build long-term power. They’re performing centrism, chasing optics of reasonableness, even if it means surrendering leverage and getting nothing real in return.
I wrote a piece this week digging into that exact distinction, how historical moderation was about movement-building and survival, while today’s centrism is too often just capitulation dressed up as bipartisanship. That’s what made this moment feel like a deeper betrayal: it wasn’t just the wrong deal, it was the wrong instinct.
Now, like you said, the only path forward is relentless pressure and clear messaging. But we can’t build from this if we don’t name what just failed, not just politically, but tactically.
https://www.stewonthis.com/p/moderation-vs-centrism
Most of us didn’t know that women’s reproductive rights were in snuck into this bill by the Republicans.
What else did they sneak in?
Messaging by Democrats had better be ramped up and concise and non stop.
Yes, getting nothing in return. We are hardly in a position to criticize Trump's visit to China…
I I used to give Schumer et al the benefit of the doubt, thinking there were behind the scenes considerations. But after Trump won the election, they ALL KNEW PROJECT 2025 was in play. And the overwhelming majority ignored it, refused to pivot to offense, get on board with the fight. They probably believe history will show they made the right decisions; totaling ignoring that the R’s are erasing history and changed the game years ago. At this point I believe they are still listening to the established Dem strategists, who fucked up the 2024 campaign, and refuse to pull their heads out of their asses.
Schumer has the charisma of a hand made cemetery head stone and his leadership resides under it! Every time I see him as our advocate I want to grab a bag. We need someone with real values who can honestly sell birth control to 90 year olds. He doesn't get a "get out of jail" card for voting no this time.
Well, in all fairness, those established Dem “strategists” fucked up the 2016 campaign too.
Safe travels, Jay.
Republicans will do what trump tells them to do and he hates ACA. Pisses me off that they folded like a cheap suit.
Thanks, Jay, you reflect very accurately the level of appalled disgust at the d’s who caved that millions of us feel. And thank you for the look forward, and urging that we not give up OUR fight and resistance, anyway.
I may not be able to afford healthcare now. I’m not eligible age-wise for Medicare and my premiums are already more than the rent on my first house. I cannot afford to pay twice that. I don’t know what to do.