As Napoleon allegedly said, "Why interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake?" The Republicans are busy digging themselves a hole and a government shutdown would just distract from that.
This is my take exactly. We'll see how the tariffs work out, but for now it looks like Trump may be shooting himself in the foot and he is getting a good amount of blame for the stock market decline. If the Dems blocked the budget when more than 50 Republicans supported it, it changes the narrative from Trump's handling of the tariffs/economy and gives people someone else to blame.
On reflection I think this is correct- initially I personally wanted "fight back" however the risks outlined by Ygliasias and Schumer are probitive
A. as Trump and Musk desire to wreck the government, giving them more space and leverage under cover of Democrats being the source would be a tactical mistake
B. the idea of this as leverage as such on the Republicans does seem Underpants Gnome - and the thinking of the Progressives etc remarkably similar to the magical thinking of the Tea Party (we shut it down and we make our point, gain influence) when track record to date says that's never worked
C. a shut down would have given Trump and Musk more cover and excuses for the delays and cancellations of grants, and other fundings, of which the US domestic ones that are most upsetting to the Trump voting center of the country. Giving them extra plausible excuses while also probably giving more space for cancellation and delay wouldn't give Democrats real leverage, only Underpants Gnome leverage
Generally I think indeed the quote "Never interrupt the enemy while he's making an error"(the attributed original is not even a question, it is an imperative: N'interrompez jamais un ennemi qui est en train de faire une erreur.
I think this analysis points both ways. If Republicans refuse to cooperate with Democrats to pass a clean CR, that is ALSO a mistake that Dems should arguably not interrupt.
That's an odd way of looking at it. The House passed the budget. The Senate could pass it without any Democrats, unless the Democrats filibustered it. It's not the GOP refusing to cooperate. It's the Dems choosing to filibuster rather than go along with the majority party.
It's not a hole, surely, if people like what Trump is doing? And they seem to. And his timing is exquisite --- suddenly he's shooting up the Houthis, the world's villains, and Americans always pull together with a prez in time of war ------ Is pinging away at the Houthis war? Maybe close enough for politics.
Exactly, they’re digging the whole, had months to get a clean CR or a budget ready, got no Democrat input and now magically ask for Democrat votes. Democrats should not have dug them out and given them the lifeline of passing the CR. We’re on the brink of a shutdown in the first place because republicans are failing to do their jobs and legislate.
I see where you're going and agree in the general direction; however, I'm not sure that the Dems just standing by will be sufficient to offer for a Trump screw-up.
I would have voted with Schumer. Things are not going well for Trump — tariff back and forth, picking a fight with Canada, not supporting Ukraine and being nice to Putin, stock market down, inflation worries, eggs are still expensive, Elon is less popular each day and more — all bad for Trump. A government shutdown would distract from that, and instead we would be debating whose fault it was. Let’s keep the light on Trump and Musk and see how long it takes before they worry about whether Peter Navarro has sold them a bill of goods or a sound economic policy. Maybe Lutnick has some idiotic explanation for it . . .
An interesting take. Speaking as a big supporter of DOGE and Trump's policy promises which you have helpfully copied in above, I would not have expected this take from you. I guess because I think the more the "normies" (which you and I are certainly not) pay attention to politics, the more I think it HELPS the DOGE effort. Have you seen the list of spending BS they have uncovered? Have you seen the reporting that something like 25% of all jobs added last year were government jobs? Do you have any concept of how people feel about the richest zip codes in America being those around the DC Swamp? Normies who engage are more likely to cheer Trump and Elon on their quest to lower federal spending and hold the employees accountable. Given that is my opinion, I was much MORE shocked when Schumer came out saying that Dems would shut down the government, and not at all surprised when his bluff was called and he quickly caved. Trump and Elon would have loved a shutdown, and would have had far more control over what was paid for and what was shut down than anyone else. That is a winning hand for team "Shrink the Government", as Schumer is clearly well aware. My question for you is: why aren't you aware? I can only assume you believe that the things the majority of citizens want from the federal government cannot be done in a materially cheaper/more efficient way. I have spent decades working in the finance departments of mid-sized corporations, and I can assure you there is ALWAYS 10% to 20% to cut. For the feds, I would assume 20% is the baseline, and much more can be wrung out. Time will tell!
I disagree with most of what you said, but I appreciate you taking the time to acknowledge when you make a mistake. Your opinion is valid, I just disagree and far too many folks don’t accept new input nor admit when mistaken. Thank you very much.
When you cut staff, did you take the approach that has been followed by DOGE? Or did you have target numbers and then look at individuals, making sure that you did not axe the best performers and valuable contributors?
I did both at different times, it really depends on the situation. If you have plenty of time performing a zero-based analysis to determine what to cut, then ranking employees and taking from the worst performers is always best practice. There are always targets, though, and if you don't have enough poor performers then you have to take out people you wouldn't like to get rid of.
However, in an acquisition scenario, which frankly this DOGE situation is much more akin to, the targets are communicated and the action has to happen fast. And you don't know the relative performance of the employees you are acquiring, so you have to trust their HR dept judgement (which is a crap shoot) and/or their management (which is usually on the way out the door anyway, so how much can you trust them?) or simply whack them all (especially in cases where there is duplicative functions).
Never have I done it in a union/government setting, where it is much more complicated. In that setting, I believe DOGE is doing the right thing, cutting those with the least protections (recent hires on probation, in this case) and waiting for the signals that some of them need to be kept (like has happened already in a few cases). The next step after all the court cases are won by Trump (which is inevitable), will be to take on the government employee unions. I guarantee that the preferred union method of taking out the lowest tenured is NOT going to be the best way to go, and I hope that Trump will simply eliminate the unions completely like he did at the TSA. By probably the middle of 2026 it should all be over and it will be a great time to buy a house in the DC area. Then we'll see what the American people think at the midterms.
Meaning my assertion that Trump will win all the lawsuits? Time will tell, but I'm pretty confidant. After all, if we don't live in a country where the President can fire executive branch employees, then are we really living in a representative republic?
Maybe meaning your hope that Trump will eliminate unions. My hope, too: the sooner the better! The Teachers Union owns the Education Department, and since it was formed, American students have done nothing but get worse and worse and worse. There's unions for you.
And we are going to find out how much protection they really offer. Let me know when Trump reinstates the probationary workers the district judge ordered him to, was it yesterday? I won't be holding my breath. But the real fights will be the non-probationary people coming next. Time will tell, as I said.
"ranking employees and taking from the worst performers is always best practice."
Having been through many layoffs on both sides of the table, this is inaccurate, except as a facile statement that non-performers should be managed out as soon as possible.
Taking the lowest ranked performers from every team misses strong teams that are working on critical projects.
If the workload is not trimmed to match, the result is that critical projects are understaffed and fail, and the company goes into a death spiral.
If you are doing headcount reductions in a M&A situation and not just nuking redundant teams, you need to fire the M&A team as part of the RIF.
Doing a large scale layoff poorly is an excellent way to ensure that you get to do it again and again.
You ignored the first part of that sentence "performing a zero-based analysis to determine what to cut," which would imply to discerning person that some groups you don't touch (which is true), some groups you take everyone - with the high performers in the defunct groups moving into other groups (and then cut worse performers from those groups). I'm currently on an M&A team and just closed (in 4Q) an acquisition that included workforce reductions in anticipation of closing. And I just received a better than average bonus and equity grant. Guess which one of us knows better?
I am in my early 50's now, and already tried retirement once, and got bored. I doubt I'll try it again, at least not anytime soon. You may be right, we might have a lot in common!
Neither of the options are what's happening, and comparing the change of to positions as a purchase of another company is ridiculous. Remember, we elected the President and his VP only. The rest are changes he's electing to make.
But here's a real question: at what point will you admit the DOGE is doing catesriogic damage to the economy? How far lower does NASDAQ or Dow need to go?
Probably a lot lower. You can't unwind decades of government overspending and re-orient the economy back to manufacturing without market volatility. And that's ok!! We'll be much better off on the other side. Well, maybe not those who own property around D.C., but most of the rest of the country will be better off.
On your first point, we elect the president to execute laws. How he executes them is up to him. There is no law saying he has to have this many employees in a particular department. His cabinet secretaries appointed by him and confirmed by the Senate exercise his executive powers on his behalf (and at his pleasure). He and they, with consulting by DOGE, have decided to terminate a lot of employees with a lot more to come after these district judge rulings all get slapped down, I expect. Congress has for decades ceded the details around the laws it passed to the administrative state, apparently not expecting us to elect a president who ran on reigning it in like Trump is. Too bad as they work for him, not Congress. When the 2026 budget bill gets passed via reconciliation, with a LOT less money appropriated for these agencies, there won't really be any arguments left for the statists at all.
Time will tell on the current court cases, but I have seen a lot more winning than losing.
As far as Trump's promises, he promised tariffs, he promised lower inflation, and he promised accountability for the deep state. Your strongest argument is that tariffs will lead to more inflation (which I think they will, in the short-term), but in fact gas and egg prices are down, at least so far. If Trump can keep energy prices down, that will tame a lot of the inflation - again, as he said many times during his campaign.
As a 2024 Trump voter, I am very happy so far, and even though there will be some rough patches as the economy adjusts to a superior trajectory, I am more optimistic than ever before that our nation will survive the horrendous decisions of the past 3 or so decades, by both parties.
The evidence on the ground points to chances of manufacturing increasing under Trump being near zero. For one, nobody is going to make multi-decade capital investments to build domestic factories based on tariffs that come and go every 48 hours depending on what mood the POTUS is in. What seems way more likely is that international corporations will reduce capital investments into the USA to near-zero because they perceive the administration to be too erratic or hostile to rely on.
Tariffs, of course, hurt domestic manufacturing as much as they help, because American factories require raw material inputs from other countries. Tariffing Canadian steel merely gives American steelmakers license to raise their prices.
Lastly, the one recent successful mechanism that has been driving new manufacturing starts in the U.S. is the CHIPS Act, a program that Trump wants to kill for basically no reason other than the fact it's associated with Joe Biden.
The next six months are going to be fascinating -- my industry (venture capital and technology), which last year had come around to the idea that Trump might be a good thing for American competitiveness, is realizing with horror that we bought a lemon.
So in your opinion there is nothing to be done about the fact that every other country on Earth charges us more in tariffs than we charge them? We just have to accept that, as our manufacturing base continues to erode as it has been for 30+ years now? Really?
The good news is that you are ignorant. Several companies have announced new investment in the United States recently, and some flat our said it was because of tariffs. Over time that attitude will grow, or deals will be struck country by country to eliminate tariffs (which is what reciprocal tariffs is all about) but it isn't going to happen overnight. First the other countries have to learn that they won't be exploiting America any longer, then they have to strike a deal with Trump to end the madness. Might take a few years. In the meantime, more goods will be made in America, and indeed more raw materials will be produced in America.
None of this change will happen fast, or be painless. But the financial community is already starting to get on board, and your firm will as well in time. Any sort of change will have winners and loser, that is the way of the world - but overall we will be in a better place and heading in a better direction than we have been in decades.
Well that makes sense - they're easier to hire, and they just got hired by the previous administration. They have no experience and are liabilities. It's just common sense to fire them all.
There is a lot to be said for zero-based accounting. Starting from scratch is necessary sometimes.
They call themselves conservatives or Libertarians (the second of which I take personally) while they proselytize for Crony Corporate Socialism and the Government picking winners and losers.
If they can make that type of jump without batting an eye, that jump is akin to playing hopscotch.
Why be selective? The government is WAAAAAAAAAY too big and wasteful: just shut as much of it down as possible and sort things out later. Hooray for Elon! "Move fast and break things" is not just for Silicon Valley.
I appreciate this comment. As a self-described big supporter of DOGE, are you concerned at all about how such a high percentage of their claimed savings have proven to be fabricated or exaggerated? There are plenty of us out there who would welcome government streamlining, but are very uncomfortable with how incompetently Elon et al are going about this.
Ironically the DOGE effort is starting to convince me that government is way less wasteful than I thought it was, because if it was truly as bloated as they say then they would have no need to fabricate their results (e.g. claim $8b in savings from killing an $8m program, triple-counting certain cuts, claiming savings from programs that were fully paid out years ago, etc).
It also disquiets me how often the DOGE leaders talk about how this is all going to balance the budget. We are obviously not going to be able to close a $1.8T deficit by doing layoffs of Federal employees of any size (the entire non-Defense federal payroll is ~$300B), certainly not when the just-passed House budget expands the deficit by trillions rather than contracts it. It's fine and well that they're canceling Iraqi puppet shows or whatever but I find it disturbing that anybody thinks these minuscule cuts are going to lead to a balanced budget. Again- when they make these financially illiterate comments, it discredits their entire program. Maybe not to the normies but definitely to me.
My guess is firing furloughed employees is harder. It also disrupts the legal challenges doge want. Better to get a budget without spending requirements and take that to court.
While that may be true, it still misses that it just isn’t clear what democrats stand for, they have an inability to say no when it’s needed and are risk averse. This might work in their favor now but is a terrible trait when picking a leader, saying no to groups and picking winning policies. I’d have liked to have seen them be more risky as a sign of growth but fear that they’re stuck in this cycle. They’ll need new leadership to get there.
Clarification: some might say they said no to progressives but in this instance progressives don’t hold the cards which they did in Bidens term.
You won't get any argument out of me that Democrats don't stand for anything. Nor can I deny that they need new leadership. If they don't shake things up substantially they are facing many cycles on the outside looking in. I don't see where their new leaders might come from, though. Gavin? Cuomo? Who else?
I can not see Vance being the nominee. I think the country will want a break and it’ll be a good strategy for republicans to have someone else. It’s also too early to tell. The winning side always thinks the other side won’t win again. Been through too many of these already to know that won’t be the case. Give it a matter of time and we’ll all be saying republicans are toast but that also won’t be the case.
Presumably Rubio, since SecState is a traditional gateway to the presidency (didn't work for Hillary or some others, though!) Something is wrong with Rubio, however, he's wearing a long face constantly these days.
So you make strong statements about job growth in the federal government and then immediately take it back when your fake news is exposed. Those people working for the government pay taxes that support the programs. Unlike filth like Musk who suck money from the public coffers. Do your own research next time.
And THIS BS response is why people don't admit when they have made a mistake. Feel better now? Your comments are simply wrong and your bias is ridiculous. Go away.
Interesting take, but not convincing that in a shutdown, by and large, Trump and Republicans would take the blame as the normies start noticing that things aren't so normal.
Look - who is the more effective communicator here - Schumer or Trump and the right wing twitterX-mob? Not even a close call, is it?
A Democratic vote that shut down the government would have effectively muddied the waters on who is responsible for the collapse of government services and a recession that seems more and more likely. Is you tax refund late? Blame the Dems - they shut it down. Missed your social security payment and can't get through to talk to anyone to fix it? Blame the Dems - they shut it down. Egg prices up and Trump unable to tame inflation? Blame the Dems, they shut government down
Schumer had two bad choices. At least this way, there is no question who will own the looming disasters soon to come.
What’s weird is the dems have had weeks and months to decide how to respond to the dirty CR. Their firm line could and should have been a clean CR or republicans need to pass a full budget using reconciliation with zero dem votes. You want Dem votes then ask what Dems want. I am beyond livid at Schumer and I consider myself a more moderate center left. (Aka economy economy economy and stand for equal values for all but don’t be distracted by culture wars on standing for equal and fair treatment of everyone).
I take a different view. I think Trump clearly won the two shutdowns during his first term, especially the second one--the longest shutdown in US history. I don't think shutdowns under Democratic Presidents and centrists are comparable to Trump shutdowns.
A shutdown would give Trump justification for even more radical executive actions. Moreover, I think Democrats would have to give in before Trump, if for no other reason than they are divided while Trump is not. Causing a shutdown and not getting anything in the settlement negotiations is a bad look.
Another problem is shutting down the government, blocking the majority will, would reinforce the message that Democrats are protecting the bureaucracy, cronies and waste in government, and willing to endanger everyone to do it.
I don't think the Democrats need a riskier strategy, they need a better strategy. A positive strategy with a chance of winning can be worth taking risks for, simple obstructionism after losing an election and not having a coherent opposition policy seems like a bad idea.
> shutting down the government, blocking the majority will, would reinforce the message that Democrats are protecting the bureaucracy, cronies and waste in government, and willing to endanger everyone to do it.
Really good point. I think this is exactly right.
> I don't think the Democrats need a riskier strategy, they need a better strategy.
The right approach for them is to moderate hard on social and culture war issues, attack DEI, while being very populist and left-wing on economic issues and framing the right as fake populists who only want to help the rich, in order to try to get the working class back.
They need a lot of Sister Soljah moments. Newsom had the right idea by defending female sports teams.
The American people really did not like the crisis at the border under Biden and want illegals gone, and the Dems' abortion extremism turns off a lot of voters.
Dems vote against bills that protect babies born alive. Dems don't allow any pro-lifers in the party, yet they are fine with antisemites like Omar and Tlaib in Congress.
Dems need to support more deportations and moderate on abortion.
And the Dem position on abortion is far more popular than the GOP one.
Believe it or not Dems can and do get some stuff right. There’s a reason they won in 2020, had a very good midterm in 2022, and even picked up some House seats in 2024.
Nobody touches the abortion issue: it's the new Third Rail. For both parties. Mass deportations are WILDLY popular, however. My own county had one of those women recently killed and raped by an illegal while jogging. Also, several years ago, an illegal (well, they never caught him but he was obviously Mexican or something of that sort) leaped on top of a shop girl on a green strip right in a big open mall and raped her right there in front of people driving by ------- a crime so atrocious I can only assume he was insane.
And these gang men tattooed all over who take over whole areas and apartment complexes and extort everyone in them: you really want them as neighbors? I simply cannot understand how any judge could try to get a planeload of them turned around to come back here!! Whatever we are paying El Salvador to warehouse them in those big prisons, it's too little.
I just can't think what cultural issues you suppose are winning for Democrats, besides abortions, which in any case, Trump is not interfering with, of course.
I tend to agree, but I know a lot of Democrats who think the reverse--that the party should focus on a clear, strong progressive message that can energize voters.
With luck we'll see a robust debate and the best side will win.
well, if he said he loved DEI that would change my mind! Or if he said he loved the Palestinians and called Israel apartheid or occupying!
or if the democrats came out against wokeness, said that Snowden and Manning were heroes and came out hard against government spying, repealed FOSTA/SESTA, kicked any pro-Palestinian people out of the party, took a strong stance against antisemitism, moderated on social issues, came out in favor of gun rights, and supported economic populism.
There's considerable disagreement about that among progressives I know, but I'd say something along the lines of Elizabeth Warren's views in more of a Gavin Newsom package would satisfy many. Warren is too old and scoldy and lacks executive experience, Newsom is moving to the center and hampered by California baggage, so the progressives I know are looking elsewhere.
Progressives I know think winning positions are Medicare-for-All, rein in Wall Street, soak billionaires, amnesty for long-term undocumented residents with good records, strong climate and environmental action, federal protection and funding for safe, convenient abortions at least out to 26 weeks or longer, $25 federal minimum wage, strong union protections, federal support for DEI and affirmative action, assault weapons ban and other gun control.
Well, I don't like ANY of those positions, except of course for the abortion one, since I'm a woman. (It's not an accident that Trump kept well clear of that, as all winning Republicans have had to since Roe v. Wade.) Your suggestions look to me exactly like what Harris lost on, so I'd say keep it up, and we'll see you in 2040, maybe.
Kamala Harris made an unconvincing pivot to the center and failed to distance herself from the Biden administration. She got bogged down in issues that offended a lot of voters--anti-Israel, trans women in women's sports, gender therapy for prisoners, open borders. She not only got tagged with these issues, she failed to win any votes by defending them boldly.
While I don't agree with progressives who think a better candidate with executive experience and no baggage could win on a bold progressive vision, I think such a candidate would do better than Harris did.
It is rare that I disagree with Nate. At least as completely as I disagree with this take. Trump and GOP are getting less popular by day. Keep the government running and stay out of the way of the self destruction train. They were always going to overreach. This fast, far and haphazardly is having an impact on public opinion/support. To go all Tom Friedman on everyone..when people are talking about tariffs and Elon in line at the grocery store with strangers.....
Yea I’ve been impressed with how quickly they have gotten themselves underwater. My pre-inauguration guess was that it would taken at least 6 months, but it looks like they got there in under 2.
Not to me people don't talk about tariffs and Elon at the store ---- and I shop at Wegmans. However, a woman I didn't know did call me over to look at the eggs: she was right, it was quite a sight, a dollar an egg at least! That wasn't at Wegman's, I'd better say quickly. But the poultry industry will quickly replace those egg-layers they slaughtered, and unless the Bird Flu goes around again, eggs will go down by ------ sometime this summer. I've raised a lot of chickens. AND Trump will take all the credit for that!! The egg thing is an easy win.
The President isn’t always blamed. People mostly blamed Republicans in Congress when they shutdown the government in 2013 (to try and get concessions on Obamacare) and Obama’s approval rating basically stayed stagnant throughout it because he (rightly) pointed out that Republicans *wanted* the shutdown….
Thanks, Nate, I agree in general. In the midst of a big-C Crisis, risk aversion is a strategic hinderence. First Biden, now Schumer.
Unlike Wall Street, I did believe Trump meant it on tariffs. I didn't quite get how DOGE would arrive like a tyro with muddy boots to screw stuff up even further, but the tariff effect alone was likely to impact the economy negatively, and set the GOP up for a mid-term reaction. I don't think much that the Dems do today will affect that.
The real damage of the Schumer move, I think, is obvious in the reaction. The Dem brand is poor and sinking with younger Americans. They've positioned themselves as the champions of the old order, which is not working well for Millenials and whatever we're going to end up calling those entering adulthood now. Those driven by conservative ideologies or outright racism have moved to the GOP. Those with more progressive values want the Democratic Party to be their home, but it keeps failing them. I think the odds of an outright split among the Dems is increasing markedly. It is noteworthy that it is Ocasio-Cortez who is getting the most attention in the immediate aftermath. As perhaps the youngest Dem with a national profile, she gets the mood.
Trump and the GOP are eliminating the old rules. The contest isn't in preventing this - that, I think, is a foregone conclusion. It's in the writing of the new rules.
AOC will be president, in my opinion. I know charisma when I see it, and wow, does she ever have it. Maybe in a decade or two. She needs some age on her.
The Democrats biggest challenge is they are largely centrists and many believe they will benefit as much from these damages as Trump's wealthy supporters. They just aren't motivated in a way that connects with people who wonder if they will ever be able to afford a house or college education.
Normally when there is a shutdown there is a “playbook” of what will actually shut down and what won’t. But my understanding is that this shutdown has no guiding document. Isn’t the argument for Schumer against a shutdown that in a shutdown of this kind Trump and Musk are unfettered and can simply fire, furlough, close anything they please? I guess one can make the Pottery Barn argument ghat they would own the breakage, I think that’s Nate’s argument. I think this needs more discussion and more detailed gaming of actions and outcomes.
I'd go so far as to so that your description is more accurate than a purely technical description because there are rules that Trump is supposed to follow but wouldn't, which would in effect give Trump that power until there was a guiding document that could be brought of specifically in court.
Why no commentary on Schumer's recent NYT Op Ed on why the CR is a lesser evil than a shutdown. He argued that trump/musk would have had even more unbridled power to shut things down they don't like. Do you agree or disagree with that? Why or why not? That was the only reason I read this post and it was unfulfilling.
I don't agree - first, if they substantively think that it would be better for the country not to shut it down, that should be an important consideration for them.
But politically - which is really what this post is about - shutting it down would have hurt them. Because the GOP already had a budget plan, and they'd be the ones filibustering it, they would own the shutdown, and they'd get blamed for it.
But more importantly, the GOP **wants** a shutdown! If they shut it down they'd be playing right into the GOP's hands. That would give Trump a lot of power to keep trimming the fat from our bloated government, and it would also be giving the other side what they want while the Dems take the blame. So shutting it down makes no sense politically.
I'll put my 2 cents in (before the pennies are discontinued).
I don't think a shutdown would help the Ds. The pain of a shutdown would mask the pain of the hack and slash that is being executed.
The D's would get blamed at least in part, and the discussion would be about why it was the right thing to do instead of about the various services and side effects of cutting them.
In the end, the forces of good governance will not win by joining the "burn it all down" team.
Probably the ideal is something like getting rid of the nickel and dime also, and turning the 1, 2, 5, and 10 bills into coins.
That would leave us with six denominations of coins and four of bills. I’d probably add in one higher bill too, maybe a 250 or 500.
What do you think the ideal is? What would you do?
I’m very impressed with the Trump administration for realizing how they could get rid of the penny. No one had realized this until a NY Times writer researched this question and wrote a brilliant, witty article on the subject last year. Clearly someone at the Trump administration read the article!
"No one had realized this until" - um, nope. It has been talked about for a very long time, with legislation introduced in 1990. You really need to stop assuming that everything right wing media says is accurate.
I think you misunderstood what I meant. I said that the Trump administration realized HOW they could get rid of the penny, which is by instructing the Secretary of the Treasury to determine that the number necessary is zero. Thus there is no need for legislation, which isn't an option anymore, because everything takes 60 votes so no legislation can ever pass.
This idea originated in the NY Times article last year. I did not read any "right-wing media" about this.
> Higher denomination notes become targets for crime, and with the move to cashless payment they are probably not worth the effort.
Cash is important for privacy and anonymity reasons. That's worth the additional crime risks.
Previous attempts were actually plans, not willy nilly edicts. As I mentioned, if it were purely fiscal, Trump would have dropped the dollar bill also.
Your point about large bills and anonymity is valid, but the powers in charge don't care.
As for your 60 vote statement, you might glance again at the article at the top of this page.
The Democrats proper strategy would have been to ABSTAIN as a bloc, which communicates that the Republicans who are in charge broke it and it is up to them to fix it.
It's difficult for me to see what Democrats get out of blowing up the government. In my lifetime it was always the out of power Republicans forcing a shutdown (except when Trump stupidly forced one AS PRESIDENT during his 1st term), so I don't buy that a shutdown favors them. There is always a temptation to think the one card you have to play must be played. But this card the Democrats had didn't help them much at all.
As for why 'Biden failed to return normalcy' I think it's unfair to blame him, and in fact in many ways he DID bring back normalcy. It was under Biden that the country left Covid, Biden when bipartisan legislating returned, and Biden who brought normal foreign policy back to the White House. Biden didn't wake up every day trying to throw a wrench in the system because he could: he had a very normal presidency. The ABNORMAL parts of his Presidency all stem from Trump, and the blame for THAT lies at Republicans feet.
Who refused to hold Trump accountable for January 6th? Republicans. Who groveled to the insurrectionist and felon? Republicans. Who renominated him despite his patently unfitness for the Presidency? Republicans. Biden can't force the Republican Party to be normal, Obama couldn't either. The other side has agency.
Yeah but Biden was hella senile. Everybody knew it and it just sucked. Like 70% of the country thought we were on the long track. And you are blaming Trump for this? Really? I thought "the other side has agency"?
The "he's a felon" card isn't that valuable when the last president issued blanket pardons for all, including members of his family, for anything they did, might have done, or were doing.
Plus "he did something like fudging his campaign funds accounts" isn't that striking as distinct from "murder, arson", it's the "jaywalking" part of the list. Oh no he lied about where he took the hush money payment for the hooker from, how awful! I don't approve of people having affairs or paying off extortionists, but it's hard to make me care terribly that this was the Crime of the Century.
Nowhere did I claim Trump’s crimes are the ‘crime of the century’ but he also raped several women, and one of those was largely proven in court.
As for Biden’s pardons: this ain’t even what if, it’s just avoiding the argument. I was against all of the blanket pardons. But let’s not pretend this came out of nowhere. Trump campaigned openly on weaponizing the Justice Department including prosecuting people who have not committed crimes. I am quite confident that had Trump not ran for re-election Biden wouldn’t have issued the pardons (I’m also of the belief he would not have ran for re-election but that is neither here nor there).
"he also raped several women, and one of those was largely proven in court"
This annoys me when I see others do it, but this time I'm going to have to ask "citation please". If you mean E. Jean Carroll, that was the exemplar of "he said/she said" and I do not believe it was largely proven in court; he was convicted of sexual assault (not rape) and the judge later put forward his view that in fact yeah this was rape. I tend not to believe Carroll because the story has a lot of holes in it, but we'll never know for sure one way or the other.
Who then are the other alleged rape victims? I see, by the way, that 'Katie Johnson' (or whoever is playing her this year) is still shopping her story around, despite the fact that it has never gotten anywhere. If we're talking about Stormy Daniels, for one, she got her hush money, blew through it, shopped her story around, got swindled by Avenatti, and pops up every now and again to try and squeeze more blood out of the turnip.
Here's a handy recap from 2016 and I have to say some of them are very flimsy, to say the least: "he kissed me uninvited", "I was in a bar and a guy felt me up and when I turned around it was Trump"?
Time to stop waiting 30 years to ruin some guy, ladies. #MeToo was all very well at first when it needed to get started as a public movement, but now we need new rules. The way the Dems are playing it is to identify their enemies and then fish around for women they can bribe to say the guy raped them way back in the 1990s. No. No more. My new rule would be, go to the police right away. Don't wait. Tell EVERYone who will listen. Insist on rape charges, right now. Ruin the cad's life now, don't wait till someone appoints him CEO or Secretary of Something and then trot it out. Be timely or it didn't happen.
He was civilly judged liable of sexual assault which is an insanely high bar. He has numerous other accusations the one I find most believable is Ivana Trump, whose account of what Donald did to her seems quite like rape to me.
“I don’t believe her” fine but she won a court case with a jury of his peers. That’s good enough for me. And if you want to go with ‘well technically sexual assault isn’t rape’ fine. But rape and sexual assault are VERY similar offenses and if Trump did the latter I personally see little moral difference between that and the former.
I object to Nate’s framing. “Democrats” are not a monolith. Different Democrats have different incentives.
Regarding Schumer, the budget seems like a really strange line to draw. Republicans are offering to more or less fully fund the government for a year. Filibustering a bill that would fund the government and allow civil servants to vindicate their rights in the courts is off brand. Democrats need to make government work. You don’t shut down something you claim is really important. Treating politics as cynically as poker is bad politics.
From my personal perspective, Trump hasn’t taken many political prisoners yet. Best to keep things collegial in the Senate in case he gets out of control.
IMO, and I'm a conservative, if you peruse the 10 "big, bold-faced promises they probably won't keep," I count about 3 they've either already delivered on, or have made some progress on, and the rest I would say to be seen. Don't really see any they've totally failed on or forgotten about. Those sure were cute auction paddles, though.
As Napoleon allegedly said, "Why interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake?" The Republicans are busy digging themselves a hole and a government shutdown would just distract from that.
This is my take exactly. We'll see how the tariffs work out, but for now it looks like Trump may be shooting himself in the foot and he is getting a good amount of blame for the stock market decline. If the Dems blocked the budget when more than 50 Republicans supported it, it changes the narrative from Trump's handling of the tariffs/economy and gives people someone else to blame.
On reflection I think this is correct- initially I personally wanted "fight back" however the risks outlined by Ygliasias and Schumer are probitive
A. as Trump and Musk desire to wreck the government, giving them more space and leverage under cover of Democrats being the source would be a tactical mistake
B. the idea of this as leverage as such on the Republicans does seem Underpants Gnome - and the thinking of the Progressives etc remarkably similar to the magical thinking of the Tea Party (we shut it down and we make our point, gain influence) when track record to date says that's never worked
C. a shut down would have given Trump and Musk more cover and excuses for the delays and cancellations of grants, and other fundings, of which the US domestic ones that are most upsetting to the Trump voting center of the country. Giving them extra plausible excuses while also probably giving more space for cancellation and delay wouldn't give Democrats real leverage, only Underpants Gnome leverage
Generally I think indeed the quote "Never interrupt the enemy while he's making an error"(the attributed original is not even a question, it is an imperative: N'interrompez jamais un ennemi qui est en train de faire une erreur.
Voir sur https://citations.ouest-france.fr/citation-napoleon-bonaparte/interrompez-jamais-ennemi-train-faire-28857.html)
I always read it in American as "Don't stand between your opponent and that cliff he's trying to run over."
What is the supposed "mistake" the GOP is making?
Did Trump promise to lower prices at ten supermarkets or the stock market?
Huh? Ten supermarkets?
Winning; they hate that.
I think this analysis points both ways. If Republicans refuse to cooperate with Democrats to pass a clean CR, that is ALSO a mistake that Dems should arguably not interrupt.
That's an odd way of looking at it. The House passed the budget. The Senate could pass it without any Democrats, unless the Democrats filibustered it. It's not the GOP refusing to cooperate. It's the Dems choosing to filibuster rather than go along with the majority party.
It was a spending bill, not a budget. Perhaps a nit in practice. We will see.
The Dems get to represent their constituents. If they think that is best done by voting no, then it is up to the Republicans to respond.
It's not a hole, surely, if people like what Trump is doing? And they seem to. And his timing is exquisite --- suddenly he's shooting up the Houthis, the world's villains, and Americans always pull together with a prez in time of war ------ Is pinging away at the Houthis war? Maybe close enough for politics.
Exactly, they’re digging the whole, had months to get a clean CR or a budget ready, got no Democrat input and now magically ask for Democrat votes. Democrats should not have dug them out and given them the lifeline of passing the CR. We’re on the brink of a shutdown in the first place because republicans are failing to do their jobs and legislate.
I see where you're going and agree in the general direction; however, I'm not sure that the Dems just standing by will be sufficient to offer for a Trump screw-up.
I would have voted with Schumer. Things are not going well for Trump — tariff back and forth, picking a fight with Canada, not supporting Ukraine and being nice to Putin, stock market down, inflation worries, eggs are still expensive, Elon is less popular each day and more — all bad for Trump. A government shutdown would distract from that, and instead we would be debating whose fault it was. Let’s keep the light on Trump and Musk and see how long it takes before they worry about whether Peter Navarro has sold them a bill of goods or a sound economic policy. Maybe Lutnick has some idiotic explanation for it . . .
It's actually incredible how quickly Lutnick has lost the investor / finance / CNBC watching crowd (which is a GOP-leaning constituency).
An interesting take. Speaking as a big supporter of DOGE and Trump's policy promises which you have helpfully copied in above, I would not have expected this take from you. I guess because I think the more the "normies" (which you and I are certainly not) pay attention to politics, the more I think it HELPS the DOGE effort. Have you seen the list of spending BS they have uncovered? Have you seen the reporting that something like 25% of all jobs added last year were government jobs? Do you have any concept of how people feel about the richest zip codes in America being those around the DC Swamp? Normies who engage are more likely to cheer Trump and Elon on their quest to lower federal spending and hold the employees accountable. Given that is my opinion, I was much MORE shocked when Schumer came out saying that Dems would shut down the government, and not at all surprised when his bluff was called and he quickly caved. Trump and Elon would have loved a shutdown, and would have had far more control over what was paid for and what was shut down than anyone else. That is a winning hand for team "Shrink the Government", as Schumer is clearly well aware. My question for you is: why aren't you aware? I can only assume you believe that the things the majority of citizens want from the federal government cannot be done in a materially cheaper/more efficient way. I have spent decades working in the finance departments of mid-sized corporations, and I can assure you there is ALWAYS 10% to 20% to cut. For the feds, I would assume 20% is the baseline, and much more can be wrung out. Time will tell!
"something like 25% of all jobs added last year were government jobs?"
Nope.
https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t17.htm
And to the extent you are "close", it is because of Post Office and school staffing.
I had not done my own research on this, I see that you are right.
I disagree with most of what you said, but I appreciate you taking the time to acknowledge when you make a mistake. Your opinion is valid, I just disagree and far too many folks don’t accept new input nor admit when mistaken. Thank you very much.
When you cut staff, did you take the approach that has been followed by DOGE? Or did you have target numbers and then look at individuals, making sure that you did not axe the best performers and valuable contributors?
I did both at different times, it really depends on the situation. If you have plenty of time performing a zero-based analysis to determine what to cut, then ranking employees and taking from the worst performers is always best practice. There are always targets, though, and if you don't have enough poor performers then you have to take out people you wouldn't like to get rid of.
However, in an acquisition scenario, which frankly this DOGE situation is much more akin to, the targets are communicated and the action has to happen fast. And you don't know the relative performance of the employees you are acquiring, so you have to trust their HR dept judgement (which is a crap shoot) and/or their management (which is usually on the way out the door anyway, so how much can you trust them?) or simply whack them all (especially in cases where there is duplicative functions).
Never have I done it in a union/government setting, where it is much more complicated. In that setting, I believe DOGE is doing the right thing, cutting those with the least protections (recent hires on probation, in this case) and waiting for the signals that some of them need to be kept (like has happened already in a few cases). The next step after all the court cases are won by Trump (which is inevitable), will be to take on the government employee unions. I guarantee that the preferred union method of taking out the lowest tenured is NOT going to be the best way to go, and I hope that Trump will simply eliminate the unions completely like he did at the TSA. By probably the middle of 2026 it should all be over and it will be a great time to buy a house in the DC area. Then we'll see what the American people think at the midterms.
The amount of wishcasting in this comment is unbelievable.
Meaning my assertion that Trump will win all the lawsuits? Time will tell, but I'm pretty confidant. After all, if we don't live in a country where the President can fire executive branch employees, then are we really living in a representative republic?
Yes, thank you! This exactly. For us to be a democracy the President has to be in charge.
Maybe meaning your hope that Trump will eliminate unions. My hope, too: the sooner the better! The Teachers Union owns the Education Department, and since it was formed, American students have done nothing but get worse and worse and worse. There's unions for you.
I mean legal and union protections exist for exactly this reason.
And we are going to find out how much protection they really offer. Let me know when Trump reinstates the probationary workers the district judge ordered him to, was it yesterday? I won't be holding my breath. But the real fights will be the non-probationary people coming next. Time will tell, as I said.
"ranking employees and taking from the worst performers is always best practice."
Having been through many layoffs on both sides of the table, this is inaccurate, except as a facile statement that non-performers should be managed out as soon as possible.
Taking the lowest ranked performers from every team misses strong teams that are working on critical projects.
If the workload is not trimmed to match, the result is that critical projects are understaffed and fail, and the company goes into a death spiral.
If you are doing headcount reductions in a M&A situation and not just nuking redundant teams, you need to fire the M&A team as part of the RIF.
Doing a large scale layoff poorly is an excellent way to ensure that you get to do it again and again.
You ignored the first part of that sentence "performing a zero-based analysis to determine what to cut," which would imply to discerning person that some groups you don't touch (which is true), some groups you take everyone - with the high performers in the defunct groups moving into other groups (and then cut worse performers from those groups). I'm currently on an M&A team and just closed (in 4Q) an acquisition that included workforce reductions in anticipation of closing. And I just received a better than average bonus and equity grant. Guess which one of us knows better?
If it is part of the M&A plan, that is under the umbrella of redundant in my note - see the UK definition.
If it is "oops", then the M&A plan was flawed
Based on what you have written, I expect we are closer than our political opinions might imply.
As for who knows better, I retired in my 50's because of my equity grants. You appear to still be working.
Yawn.
I am in my early 50's now, and already tried retirement once, and got bored. I doubt I'll try it again, at least not anytime soon. You may be right, we might have a lot in common!
Your last three paragraphs sound very good to me! Death spiral: that's what we want for a lot of these agencies.
Neither of the options are what's happening, and comparing the change of to positions as a purchase of another company is ridiculous. Remember, we elected the President and his VP only. The rest are changes he's electing to make.
But here's a real question: at what point will you admit the DOGE is doing catesriogic damage to the economy? How far lower does NASDAQ or Dow need to go?
Probably a lot lower. You can't unwind decades of government overspending and re-orient the economy back to manufacturing without market volatility. And that's ok!! We'll be much better off on the other side. Well, maybe not those who own property around D.C., but most of the rest of the country will be better off.
On your first point, we elect the president to execute laws. How he executes them is up to him. There is no law saying he has to have this many employees in a particular department. His cabinet secretaries appointed by him and confirmed by the Senate exercise his executive powers on his behalf (and at his pleasure). He and they, with consulting by DOGE, have decided to terminate a lot of employees with a lot more to come after these district judge rulings all get slapped down, I expect. Congress has for decades ceded the details around the laws it passed to the administrative state, apparently not expecting us to elect a president who ran on reigning it in like Trump is. Too bad as they work for him, not Congress. When the 2026 budget bill gets passed via reconciliation, with a LOT less money appropriated for these agencies, there won't really be any arguments left for the statists at all.
None of that is what Trump promised during his campaign. In fact, he promised he would lower prices on day one.
Trump has a long history of losing court cases, so your confidence seesm misplaced.
Time will tell on the current court cases, but I have seen a lot more winning than losing.
As far as Trump's promises, he promised tariffs, he promised lower inflation, and he promised accountability for the deep state. Your strongest argument is that tariffs will lead to more inflation (which I think they will, in the short-term), but in fact gas and egg prices are down, at least so far. If Trump can keep energy prices down, that will tame a lot of the inflation - again, as he said many times during his campaign.
As a 2024 Trump voter, I am very happy so far, and even though there will be some rough patches as the economy adjusts to a superior trajectory, I am more optimistic than ever before that our nation will survive the horrendous decisions of the past 3 or so decades, by both parties.
The evidence on the ground points to chances of manufacturing increasing under Trump being near zero. For one, nobody is going to make multi-decade capital investments to build domestic factories based on tariffs that come and go every 48 hours depending on what mood the POTUS is in. What seems way more likely is that international corporations will reduce capital investments into the USA to near-zero because they perceive the administration to be too erratic or hostile to rely on.
Tariffs, of course, hurt domestic manufacturing as much as they help, because American factories require raw material inputs from other countries. Tariffing Canadian steel merely gives American steelmakers license to raise their prices.
Lastly, the one recent successful mechanism that has been driving new manufacturing starts in the U.S. is the CHIPS Act, a program that Trump wants to kill for basically no reason other than the fact it's associated with Joe Biden.
The next six months are going to be fascinating -- my industry (venture capital and technology), which last year had come around to the idea that Trump might be a good thing for American competitiveness, is realizing with horror that we bought a lemon.
So in your opinion there is nothing to be done about the fact that every other country on Earth charges us more in tariffs than we charge them? We just have to accept that, as our manufacturing base continues to erode as it has been for 30+ years now? Really?
The good news is that you are ignorant. Several companies have announced new investment in the United States recently, and some flat our said it was because of tariffs. Over time that attitude will grow, or deals will be struck country by country to eliminate tariffs (which is what reciprocal tariffs is all about) but it isn't going to happen overnight. First the other countries have to learn that they won't be exploiting America any longer, then they have to strike a deal with Trump to end the madness. Might take a few years. In the meantime, more goods will be made in America, and indeed more raw materials will be produced in America.
None of this change will happen fast, or be painless. But the financial community is already starting to get on board, and your firm will as well in time. Any sort of change will have winners and loser, that is the way of the world - but overall we will be in a better place and heading in a better direction than we have been in decades.
That is what DOGE is doing!!
"Fire all probationary workers (recent hires)!" THAT is what DOGE is doing, not being selective or analytical at all.
Well that makes sense - they're easier to hire, and they just got hired by the previous administration. They have no experience and are liabilities. It's just common sense to fire them all.
There is a lot to be said for zero-based accounting. Starting from scratch is necessary sometimes.
You don't even blush at how fast you move the goalposts, do you?
His kind never do.
They call themselves conservatives or Libertarians (the second of which I take personally) while they proselytize for Crony Corporate Socialism and the Government picking winners and losers.
If they can make that type of jump without batting an eye, that jump is akin to playing hopscotch.
Probationary hires aren’t all new grads with no experience, come on.
If they got promoted into a new position for the first year they are on probation. It doesn't just mean new employees
Why be selective? The government is WAAAAAAAAAY too big and wasteful: just shut as much of it down as possible and sort things out later. Hooray for Elon! "Move fast and break things" is not just for Silicon Valley.
Isn't "last in, first out" the general rule when it comes to layoffs?
I appreciate this comment. As a self-described big supporter of DOGE, are you concerned at all about how such a high percentage of their claimed savings have proven to be fabricated or exaggerated? There are plenty of us out there who would welcome government streamlining, but are very uncomfortable with how incompetently Elon et al are going about this.
Ironically the DOGE effort is starting to convince me that government is way less wasteful than I thought it was, because if it was truly as bloated as they say then they would have no need to fabricate their results (e.g. claim $8b in savings from killing an $8m program, triple-counting certain cuts, claiming savings from programs that were fully paid out years ago, etc).
It also disquiets me how often the DOGE leaders talk about how this is all going to balance the budget. We are obviously not going to be able to close a $1.8T deficit by doing layoffs of Federal employees of any size (the entire non-Defense federal payroll is ~$300B), certainly not when the just-passed House budget expands the deficit by trillions rather than contracts it. It's fine and well that they're canceling Iraqi puppet shows or whatever but I find it disturbing that anybody thinks these minuscule cuts are going to lead to a balanced budget. Again- when they make these financially illiterate comments, it discredits their entire program. Maybe not to the normies but definitely to me.
Yes! This exactly!
Drain the swamp and fire them all!
The real question is why Trump and the GOP didn't go for a shutdown. That would have helped.
They practically dared Schumer to shut it down. He was wise enough not to.
GEOTUS could just veto the spending bill and get a shutdown though
My guess is firing furloughed employees is harder. It also disrupts the legal challenges doge want. Better to get a budget without spending requirements and take that to court.
Oh, interesting. Are they considered furloughed during a shutdown?
Yes. Without pay. Although the law mandates they can get back pay when reinstated. It’s potentially legally litigious on that front.
While that may be true, it still misses that it just isn’t clear what democrats stand for, they have an inability to say no when it’s needed and are risk averse. This might work in their favor now but is a terrible trait when picking a leader, saying no to groups and picking winning policies. I’d have liked to have seen them be more risky as a sign of growth but fear that they’re stuck in this cycle. They’ll need new leadership to get there.
Clarification: some might say they said no to progressives but in this instance progressives don’t hold the cards which they did in Bidens term.
You won't get any argument out of me that Democrats don't stand for anything. Nor can I deny that they need new leadership. If they don't shake things up substantially they are facing many cycles on the outside looking in. I don't see where their new leaders might come from, though. Gavin? Cuomo? Who else?
They need to see where things head. Is there a governance issue? Is it the economy? So too early to tell.
Let me know when you pick your horse. I'm very curious to see who will emerge to get trounced by Vance in 2028.
I can not see Vance being the nominee. I think the country will want a break and it’ll be a good strategy for republicans to have someone else. It’s also too early to tell. The winning side always thinks the other side won’t win again. Been through too many of these already to know that won’t be the case. Give it a matter of time and we’ll all be saying republicans are toast but that also won’t be the case.
Presumably Rubio, since SecState is a traditional gateway to the presidency (didn't work for Hillary or some others, though!) Something is wrong with Rubio, however, he's wearing a long face constantly these days.
So you make strong statements about job growth in the federal government and then immediately take it back when your fake news is exposed. Those people working for the government pay taxes that support the programs. Unlike filth like Musk who suck money from the public coffers. Do your own research next time.
And THIS BS response is why people don't admit when they have made a mistake. Feel better now? Your comments are simply wrong and your bias is ridiculous. Go away.
Interesting take, but not convincing that in a shutdown, by and large, Trump and Republicans would take the blame as the normies start noticing that things aren't so normal.
Look - who is the more effective communicator here - Schumer or Trump and the right wing twitterX-mob? Not even a close call, is it?
A Democratic vote that shut down the government would have effectively muddied the waters on who is responsible for the collapse of government services and a recession that seems more and more likely. Is you tax refund late? Blame the Dems - they shut it down. Missed your social security payment and can't get through to talk to anyone to fix it? Blame the Dems - they shut it down. Egg prices up and Trump unable to tame inflation? Blame the Dems, they shut government down
Schumer had two bad choices. At least this way, there is no question who will own the looming disasters soon to come.
Exactly... if the Dems had filibustered and shut it down, it would have been very easy for the GOP to blame them for anything and everything.
They’ll be blamed one way or the other. It’s just not clear what they stand for.
What’s weird is the dems have had weeks and months to decide how to respond to the dirty CR. Their firm line could and should have been a clean CR or republicans need to pass a full budget using reconciliation with zero dem votes. You want Dem votes then ask what Dems want. I am beyond livid at Schumer and I consider myself a more moderate center left. (Aka economy economy economy and stand for equal values for all but don’t be distracted by culture wars on standing for equal and fair treatment of everyone).
I take a different view. I think Trump clearly won the two shutdowns during his first term, especially the second one--the longest shutdown in US history. I don't think shutdowns under Democratic Presidents and centrists are comparable to Trump shutdowns.
A shutdown would give Trump justification for even more radical executive actions. Moreover, I think Democrats would have to give in before Trump, if for no other reason than they are divided while Trump is not. Causing a shutdown and not getting anything in the settlement negotiations is a bad look.
Another problem is shutting down the government, blocking the majority will, would reinforce the message that Democrats are protecting the bureaucracy, cronies and waste in government, and willing to endanger everyone to do it.
I don't think the Democrats need a riskier strategy, they need a better strategy. A positive strategy with a chance of winning can be worth taking risks for, simple obstructionism after losing an election and not having a coherent opposition policy seems like a bad idea.
> shutting down the government, blocking the majority will, would reinforce the message that Democrats are protecting the bureaucracy, cronies and waste in government, and willing to endanger everyone to do it.
Really good point. I think this is exactly right.
> I don't think the Democrats need a riskier strategy, they need a better strategy.
The right approach for them is to moderate hard on social and culture war issues, attack DEI, while being very populist and left-wing on economic issues and framing the right as fake populists who only want to help the rich, in order to try to get the working class back.
They need a lot of Sister Soljah moments. Newsom had the right idea by defending female sports teams.
Moderate on culture war issues like abortion or mass deportations? Come on, there are clearly many winning culture war issues for Dems.
Yes, exactly like those.
The American people really did not like the crisis at the border under Biden and want illegals gone, and the Dems' abortion extremism turns off a lot of voters.
Dems vote against bills that protect babies born alive. Dems don't allow any pro-lifers in the party, yet they are fine with antisemites like Omar and Tlaib in Congress.
Dems need to support more deportations and moderate on abortion.
Yes people did not like the border crisis but very few want 11M people deported. See here for example: https://www.dataforprogress.org/blog/2024/10/25/mass-deportation-is-actually-very-unpopular
And the Dem position on abortion is far more popular than the GOP one.
Believe it or not Dems can and do get some stuff right. There’s a reason they won in 2020, had a very good midterm in 2022, and even picked up some House seats in 2024.
Nobody touches the abortion issue: it's the new Third Rail. For both parties. Mass deportations are WILDLY popular, however. My own county had one of those women recently killed and raped by an illegal while jogging. Also, several years ago, an illegal (well, they never caught him but he was obviously Mexican or something of that sort) leaped on top of a shop girl on a green strip right in a big open mall and raped her right there in front of people driving by ------- a crime so atrocious I can only assume he was insane.
And these gang men tattooed all over who take over whole areas and apartment complexes and extort everyone in them: you really want them as neighbors? I simply cannot understand how any judge could try to get a planeload of them turned around to come back here!! Whatever we are paying El Salvador to warehouse them in those big prisons, it's too little.
I just can't think what cultural issues you suppose are winning for Democrats, besides abortions, which in any case, Trump is not interfering with, of course.
I tend to agree, but I know a lot of Democrats who think the reverse--that the party should focus on a clear, strong progressive message that can energize voters.
With luck we'll see a robust debate and the best side will win.
economically progressive, AKA populist, yes!
and the best side already won and is in the White House!
I’d be interested to know what would ever change your mind about that.
well, if he said he loved DEI that would change my mind! Or if he said he loved the Palestinians and called Israel apartheid or occupying!
or if the democrats came out against wokeness, said that Snowden and Manning were heroes and came out hard against government spying, repealed FOSTA/SESTA, kicked any pro-Palestinian people out of the party, took a strong stance against antisemitism, moderated on social issues, came out in favor of gun rights, and supported economic populism.
Thanks for that. Appreciate it’s an unusual question.
WHAT clear, strong progressive message that energizes voters? WHAT, exactly?
There's considerable disagreement about that among progressives I know, but I'd say something along the lines of Elizabeth Warren's views in more of a Gavin Newsom package would satisfy many. Warren is too old and scoldy and lacks executive experience, Newsom is moving to the center and hampered by California baggage, so the progressives I know are looking elsewhere.
Progressives I know think winning positions are Medicare-for-All, rein in Wall Street, soak billionaires, amnesty for long-term undocumented residents with good records, strong climate and environmental action, federal protection and funding for safe, convenient abortions at least out to 26 weeks or longer, $25 federal minimum wage, strong union protections, federal support for DEI and affirmative action, assault weapons ban and other gun control.
Well, I don't like ANY of those positions, except of course for the abortion one, since I'm a woman. (It's not an accident that Trump kept well clear of that, as all winning Republicans have had to since Roe v. Wade.) Your suggestions look to me exactly like what Harris lost on, so I'd say keep it up, and we'll see you in 2040, maybe.
Kamala Harris made an unconvincing pivot to the center and failed to distance herself from the Biden administration. She got bogged down in issues that offended a lot of voters--anti-Israel, trans women in women's sports, gender therapy for prisoners, open borders. She not only got tagged with these issues, she failed to win any votes by defending them boldly.
While I don't agree with progressives who think a better candidate with executive experience and no baggage could win on a bold progressive vision, I think such a candidate would do better than Harris did.
It is rare that I disagree with Nate. At least as completely as I disagree with this take. Trump and GOP are getting less popular by day. Keep the government running and stay out of the way of the self destruction train. They were always going to overreach. This fast, far and haphazardly is having an impact on public opinion/support. To go all Tom Friedman on everyone..when people are talking about tariffs and Elon in line at the grocery store with strangers.....
Yea I’ve been impressed with how quickly they have gotten themselves underwater. My pre-inauguration guess was that it would taken at least 6 months, but it looks like they got there in under 2.
Not to me people don't talk about tariffs and Elon at the store ---- and I shop at Wegmans. However, a woman I didn't know did call me over to look at the eggs: she was right, it was quite a sight, a dollar an egg at least! That wasn't at Wegman's, I'd better say quickly. But the poultry industry will quickly replace those egg-layers they slaughtered, and unless the Bird Flu goes around again, eggs will go down by ------ sometime this summer. I've raised a lot of chickens. AND Trump will take all the credit for that!! The egg thing is an easy win.
The President isn’t always blamed. People mostly blamed Republicans in Congress when they shutdown the government in 2013 (to try and get concessions on Obamacare) and Obama’s approval rating basically stayed stagnant throughout it because he (rightly) pointed out that Republicans *wanted* the shutdown….
https://www.politico.com/story/2013/10/congress-approval-rating-government-shutdown-098657
Thanks, Nate, I agree in general. In the midst of a big-C Crisis, risk aversion is a strategic hinderence. First Biden, now Schumer.
Unlike Wall Street, I did believe Trump meant it on tariffs. I didn't quite get how DOGE would arrive like a tyro with muddy boots to screw stuff up even further, but the tariff effect alone was likely to impact the economy negatively, and set the GOP up for a mid-term reaction. I don't think much that the Dems do today will affect that.
The real damage of the Schumer move, I think, is obvious in the reaction. The Dem brand is poor and sinking with younger Americans. They've positioned themselves as the champions of the old order, which is not working well for Millenials and whatever we're going to end up calling those entering adulthood now. Those driven by conservative ideologies or outright racism have moved to the GOP. Those with more progressive values want the Democratic Party to be their home, but it keeps failing them. I think the odds of an outright split among the Dems is increasing markedly. It is noteworthy that it is Ocasio-Cortez who is getting the most attention in the immediate aftermath. As perhaps the youngest Dem with a national profile, she gets the mood.
Trump and the GOP are eliminating the old rules. The contest isn't in preventing this - that, I think, is a foregone conclusion. It's in the writing of the new rules.
AOC will be president, in my opinion. I know charisma when I see it, and wow, does she ever have it. Maybe in a decade or two. She needs some age on her.
The Democrats biggest challenge is they are largely centrists and many believe they will benefit as much from these damages as Trump's wealthy supporters. They just aren't motivated in a way that connects with people who wonder if they will ever be able to afford a house or college education.
Normally when there is a shutdown there is a “playbook” of what will actually shut down and what won’t. But my understanding is that this shutdown has no guiding document. Isn’t the argument for Schumer against a shutdown that in a shutdown of this kind Trump and Musk are unfettered and can simply fire, furlough, close anything they please? I guess one can make the Pottery Barn argument ghat they would own the breakage, I think that’s Nate’s argument. I think this needs more discussion and more detailed gaming of actions and outcomes.
You are, in the general scope of things, correct.
I'd go so far as to so that your description is more accurate than a purely technical description because there are rules that Trump is supposed to follow but wouldn't, which would in effect give Trump that power until there was a guiding document that could be brought of specifically in court.
Why no commentary on Schumer's recent NYT Op Ed on why the CR is a lesser evil than a shutdown. He argued that trump/musk would have had even more unbridled power to shut things down they don't like. Do you agree or disagree with that? Why or why not? That was the only reason I read this post and it was unfulfilling.
Yeah Schumer was correct about that.
I don't agree - first, if they substantively think that it would be better for the country not to shut it down, that should be an important consideration for them.
But politically - which is really what this post is about - shutting it down would have hurt them. Because the GOP already had a budget plan, and they'd be the ones filibustering it, they would own the shutdown, and they'd get blamed for it.
But more importantly, the GOP **wants** a shutdown! If they shut it down they'd be playing right into the GOP's hands. That would give Trump a lot of power to keep trimming the fat from our bloated government, and it would also be giving the other side what they want while the Dems take the blame. So shutting it down makes no sense politically.
I'll put my 2 cents in (before the pennies are discontinued).
I don't think a shutdown would help the Ds. The pain of a shutdown would mask the pain of the hack and slash that is being executed.
The D's would get blamed at least in part, and the discussion would be about why it was the right thing to do instead of about the various services and side effects of cutting them.
In the end, the forces of good governance will not win by joining the "burn it all down" team.
Whatever you think about Trump, you have to admit that he did good getting rid of the penny.
They should nuke the dollar bill also. About 2 cents per year of use.
The dollar coin is about 12 cents to make, but lasts forever.
But it isn't about fiscal consistency. It is just a weird list of pet peeves.
Probably the ideal is something like getting rid of the nickel and dime also, and turning the 1, 2, 5, and 10 bills into coins.
That would leave us with six denominations of coins and four of bills. I’d probably add in one higher bill too, maybe a 250 or 500.
What do you think the ideal is? What would you do?
I’m very impressed with the Trump administration for realizing how they could get rid of the penny. No one had realized this until a NY Times writer researched this question and wrote a brilliant, witty article on the subject last year. Clearly someone at the Trump administration read the article!
"No one had realized this until" - um, nope. It has been talked about for a very long time, with legislation introduced in 1990. You really need to stop assuming that everything right wing media says is accurate.
https://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/how-long-is-the-life-span-of-us-paper-money.htm
Looks like everything below a $20 should be metal, but a modern redesign creates more options.
See : https://www.bankofcanada.ca/banknotes/bank-note-series/frontiers/lifespan-bank-note/
Plastic notes mean we could keep the $10 as folding.
Higher denomination notes become targets for crime, and with the move to cashless payment they are probably not worth the effort.
I just said my source was the NY Times.
Are you calling the NY Times "right-wing media"?
I think you misunderstood what I meant. I said that the Trump administration realized HOW they could get rid of the penny, which is by instructing the Secretary of the Treasury to determine that the number necessary is zero. Thus there is no need for legislation, which isn't an option anymore, because everything takes 60 votes so no legislation can ever pass.
This idea originated in the NY Times article last year. I did not read any "right-wing media" about this.
> Higher denomination notes become targets for crime, and with the move to cashless payment they are probably not worth the effort.
Cash is important for privacy and anonymity reasons. That's worth the additional crime risks.
Previous attempts were actually plans, not willy nilly edicts. As I mentioned, if it were purely fiscal, Trump would have dropped the dollar bill also.
Your point about large bills and anonymity is valid, but the powers in charge don't care.
As for your 60 vote statement, you might glance again at the article at the top of this page.
The Democrats proper strategy would have been to ABSTAIN as a bloc, which communicates that the Republicans who are in charge broke it and it is up to them to fix it.
looked to me the GOP pushed a rules package that required a yes or no. Or so it seemed from what I watched.
they could still have abstained though. How could they be forced to vote?
Once present in the quorum a cloture vote requires a yes or no I believe.
It's difficult for me to see what Democrats get out of blowing up the government. In my lifetime it was always the out of power Republicans forcing a shutdown (except when Trump stupidly forced one AS PRESIDENT during his 1st term), so I don't buy that a shutdown favors them. There is always a temptation to think the one card you have to play must be played. But this card the Democrats had didn't help them much at all.
As for why 'Biden failed to return normalcy' I think it's unfair to blame him, and in fact in many ways he DID bring back normalcy. It was under Biden that the country left Covid, Biden when bipartisan legislating returned, and Biden who brought normal foreign policy back to the White House. Biden didn't wake up every day trying to throw a wrench in the system because he could: he had a very normal presidency. The ABNORMAL parts of his Presidency all stem from Trump, and the blame for THAT lies at Republicans feet.
Who refused to hold Trump accountable for January 6th? Republicans. Who groveled to the insurrectionist and felon? Republicans. Who renominated him despite his patently unfitness for the Presidency? Republicans. Biden can't force the Republican Party to be normal, Obama couldn't either. The other side has agency.
Yeah but Biden was hella senile. Everybody knew it and it just sucked. Like 70% of the country thought we were on the long track. And you are blaming Trump for this? Really? I thought "the other side has agency"?
If Biden is senile he’s way more cogent as a senile man than Trump
Trump is no more intellectually competent Biden, and that's what makes this argument moot.
Wait... You think, watching the two men perform in office and interact in public, that they are both equally senile?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
Based on your comment, I can tell you were a big believer in the Russia hoax.
No, I think Trump is significantly more senile than Biden.
Your TDS is strong. No doubt about it.
We've got an Orange Man Bad there. [:-)
The "he's a felon" card isn't that valuable when the last president issued blanket pardons for all, including members of his family, for anything they did, might have done, or were doing.
Plus "he did something like fudging his campaign funds accounts" isn't that striking as distinct from "murder, arson", it's the "jaywalking" part of the list. Oh no he lied about where he took the hush money payment for the hooker from, how awful! I don't approve of people having affairs or paying off extortionists, but it's hard to make me care terribly that this was the Crime of the Century.
Nowhere did I claim Trump’s crimes are the ‘crime of the century’ but he also raped several women, and one of those was largely proven in court.
As for Biden’s pardons: this ain’t even what if, it’s just avoiding the argument. I was against all of the blanket pardons. But let’s not pretend this came out of nowhere. Trump campaigned openly on weaponizing the Justice Department including prosecuting people who have not committed crimes. I am quite confident that had Trump not ran for re-election Biden wouldn’t have issued the pardons (I’m also of the belief he would not have ran for re-election but that is neither here nor there).
"he also raped several women, and one of those was largely proven in court"
This annoys me when I see others do it, but this time I'm going to have to ask "citation please". If you mean E. Jean Carroll, that was the exemplar of "he said/she said" and I do not believe it was largely proven in court; he was convicted of sexual assault (not rape) and the judge later put forward his view that in fact yeah this was rape. I tend not to believe Carroll because the story has a lot of holes in it, but we'll never know for sure one way or the other.
Who then are the other alleged rape victims? I see, by the way, that 'Katie Johnson' (or whoever is playing her this year) is still shopping her story around, despite the fact that it has never gotten anywhere. If we're talking about Stormy Daniels, for one, she got her hush money, blew through it, shopped her story around, got swindled by Avenatti, and pops up every now and again to try and squeeze more blood out of the turnip.
Here's a handy recap from 2016 and I have to say some of them are very flimsy, to say the least: "he kissed me uninvited", "I was in a bar and a guy felt me up and when I turned around it was Trump"?
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/assault-allegations-donald-trump-recapped
But throw enough mud and it'll stick, I guess?
Time to stop waiting 30 years to ruin some guy, ladies. #MeToo was all very well at first when it needed to get started as a public movement, but now we need new rules. The way the Dems are playing it is to identify their enemies and then fish around for women they can bribe to say the guy raped them way back in the 1990s. No. No more. My new rule would be, go to the police right away. Don't wait. Tell EVERYone who will listen. Insist on rape charges, right now. Ruin the cad's life now, don't wait till someone appoints him CEO or Secretary of Something and then trot it out. Be timely or it didn't happen.
He was civilly judged liable of sexual assault which is an insanely high bar. He has numerous other accusations the one I find most believable is Ivana Trump, whose account of what Donald did to her seems quite like rape to me.
“I don’t believe her” fine but she won a court case with a jury of his peers. That’s good enough for me. And if you want to go with ‘well technically sexual assault isn’t rape’ fine. But rape and sexual assault are VERY similar offenses and if Trump did the latter I personally see little moral difference between that and the former.
https://www.brill-legal.com/our-services/criminal-defense/criminal-defense-faq/what-is-the-difference-between-rape-and-sexual-assault/
Of all the putrid scumbags who have become President Trump is clearly the most easily proven.
I object to Nate’s framing. “Democrats” are not a monolith. Different Democrats have different incentives.
Regarding Schumer, the budget seems like a really strange line to draw. Republicans are offering to more or less fully fund the government for a year. Filibustering a bill that would fund the government and allow civil servants to vindicate their rights in the courts is off brand. Democrats need to make government work. You don’t shut down something you claim is really important. Treating politics as cynically as poker is bad politics.
From my personal perspective, Trump hasn’t taken many political prisoners yet. Best to keep things collegial in the Senate in case he gets out of control.
IMO, and I'm a conservative, if you peruse the 10 "big, bold-faced promises they probably won't keep," I count about 3 they've either already delivered on, or have made some progress on, and the rest I would say to be seen. Don't really see any they've totally failed on or forgotten about. Those sure were cute auction paddles, though.