This is 100% political malpractice and thanks Nate for being so honest about it and saying you were getting ready to eat crow. The Democrats’ approval should plummet after this. If yesterday’s offer was all they needed to keep the government open, then they should have just done that from day one. Now the shutdown IS the Dems fault because they were going to cave for next to nothing but shut it down anyway. The base and the Dem voters are reeling right now.
In a normal GOP administration (if such a thing is still possible) I would agree with you. But here, Trump overplays every hand to such an extreme level of callousness, that extending the shutdown only serves to hurt Trump more than Dems.
Trump opts to bailout Argentina and remodel the East Wing instead of paying SNAP is such a gift to Dems.
Why stop? Why not keep going until Trump is utterly decimated by his own lack of care? The only way that happens, sadly, is people feel Trump's callousness directly. Where it's not abstract / theoretical thing Dems whine about. But it's instead something Trump does to them every day.
Dems need more Realpolitik here to overcome Trump. Not just about the issue at hand (ACA), but fully neuter him politically. You might get to a point where GOP finds ways to "manage" Trump to save their skins and lessen the impact.
You talk about "callous" when the Democrats were willing to scare the hell out of poor people about not getting food. Don't try to tell me about callousness. The Democratic Party couldn't care less about the poor. It is full of rich "progressives" who are just as happy as the wingnuttiest wingnut to use starvation as a political tool. Go to hell.
I have never voted for Trump. By the way, I thought the "progressives" were against "whataboutism." Guess not. My question is this: Do you have a single principle other than wanting power?
I'm not seeing the "happy about Trump" part. This was a battle between two teams who both care about winning and nothing else; for one reason or another, this only counts as callousness on one side.
You are perfectly fine with taking food away from the poor, because you are a rich "progressive" who doesn't give a rat's ass about anyone but your rich friends who run the Democratic Party and hate the poor and the working middle class.
If the GOP had its way, SNAP would simply cease to exist on a permanent basis, no shutdown needed. The more Dems refuse to recognize the fight they’re in, the closer they get to a world where the GOP gets that desired outcome, among many others.
If I’m convinced more people will starve longer term by an empowered Trump than will be saved by this temporary extension. Why are you so willing to starve those people? Why are you taking away their health care? How callous of you!
I agree. I don't like D's but I think they had an extremely strong case to say, "Look a Clean Continuing Resolution means that all of this is going to happen again right before Thanksgiving. Another Clean Continuing Resolution means this is all going to happen again right before the Winter holidays (they can't say Christmas, but it's still a compelling argument). We need Republicans to commit to working with us to build a functioning government so that our public servants know their next paycheck is coming and the neediest among us can know that when they need to go to the doctor they can afford it."
Instead there's all this bizarre messaging that's all over the place that doesn't sound like they even believe it.
R's are no better; I think Mike Johnson had the most disciplined messaging, but MTG can get more press coverage than him and they were all over the place, too. D's completely wasted an opportunity to force a longer-term solution, even if that was dissolution of the filibuster so then they have another year and a half to blame everything on a Republican Congress/White House for the midterms.
Oh, sure. People already were blaming the Dems: the flights shut down? In America?? The air traffic controllers working for over a month without being paid? I call it slavery and I want that changed. I don't think people much cared about the Food Stamps -- I've read the recipients often trade those for drugs anyway, using them as a form of currency -- but the military not getting paid unless Elon gave the pay period money to the soldiers is a bad look. (I'm assuming it was Elon who gave the $125 million: nothing to him, pocket change. He's worth half a trillion right now as we speak.)
There is a trade in EBT cards for drugs. This could be easily quashed by putting a name on the card, and even the name of a caregiver too, and then requiring a photo I.D. to use it.
You'd need a nationally issued ID card that would replace a driver's license for such a scheme to work. Otherwise you're letting most recipients starve because for an edge case.
They should have tried to compromise by offering the GOP something... like reciprocal concealed carry, mandatory e-verify, anything in exchange for more health care funding.
I think the Dems accomplished pretty much everything they could from this shutdown. What else was going to happen if they didn't cave?
Keep a few things in mind. First off, the election last week made it pretty damn clear to everyone that the Dems are very likely to retake the House. Trump and his advisors know this also. So Trump is feeling a time pressure...he basically has until January 2027 to pass his agenda. After that, nothing is getting through the House. Further, he's busy pressuring his own senators to kill the filibuster.
Plus we all know how Trump feels about compromise.
Short answer: Trump would never have given in, not at least until the country was effed. So the Dems basically were looking at killing the economy and making millions suffer...and he still wasn't going to give in and agree.
One can argue that they never should have done the shutdown at all. I think it turned out to be a positive for the party, weakening Trump and the Pubs. But it was time to end it. Sometimes you have to realize that you got what you could get. They scored on a couple of combinations, now it's time to back away before the other guy hits you back.
If they don't cave, Trump continues to make optional moves that causes direct pain to the electorate. Trump continues to damage himself politically overplaying his hands.
Why leave that situation?
Trump won't compromise. But people will feel the pain directly from Trump to such an extreme that they will massively turn on Trump.
Now that they DID cave, the pain becomes yet another abstract thing Dems whine about.
I wouldn't be so sure that the elections the other day are a national Dem bellwether.
Deep blue states voting for Dems is dog bites man.
Light blue states elected normie Dems. Question is, how many normie Dems will be running in 2026? And will the Dems foul their bed between now and then, making things tougher for the normies? It seems no matter what crazy crap the GOP and Trump do, all the Dems seem to do is ask the GOP to hold their beer.
If the Dems run a slate of normies and can avoid the taint of Mamdani, AOC, et al., then they can win. Iff.
The GA PSC election was a perfect storm of a GOP mailing it in, Vogtle cost overruns (mostly not Southern Company/Ga. Power's fault, blame NRC goalpost moving) leading to an oversized SoCo/Ga. Power rate increase, and anti-crony capitalist sentiment.
Every county and major community in NJ moved dramatically toward the D's from 2024 to 2025. Same thing happened in most electorates across red and blue states in local elections. Hopefully, the D's will see that Schumer is incapable of continuing to lead in the Senate. A replacement may well energize the D's and somewhat placate the progressives. It's done now! No time to waste, but move on an get better strategists onside.
The commentary on election night (okay, it was Fox) was that long-time blue states electing blue governors was not exactly all that amazing.
Another point, which I've been thinking about a lot, is the large population losses some Dem areas have had --- which were presumably mostly Republicans. So Americans are now segregating -- the losses of GOP voters in California and New York and other blue states such as indeed New Jersey (a quarter-million this year, they said) means that the Republicans can't ever win there, because they are leaving.
Republicans are leaving blue states and also redistricting battles mean there would BE no Republicans in Maryland or Democrats in Kansas or Utah --- yeah, Americans are segregating by moving to like-minded states, and if this goes on, I'll expect a civil war more than ever. The basic problem with believing in a civil war was always that we're too mixed geographically --- it was possible in the 1860s because people were segregated by geography.
The people leaving California are a slim plurality of Republicans, but they are substantially more Republican than the state at large. And the people coming into California tend to be more Democratic than our state average.
So your guess about the direction shift in California is correct.
The story about where Californians go is more complicated.
Cal Ex-pats definitely make some Red and Blue states redder and bluer, respectively. But there are Reddish and purple states that have had an influx of Dems.
For example, the Californians who moved to Georgia were 17 percent more Democratic than Georgia as a whole.
Still, just look at quality of life and "happiness" measures in blue states vs red states. Blue wins every time - except for the "victimized" Republicans who blame all their issues in Dems!
I don’t think you’re exactly correct on this. This was incredibly badly-timed. The FAA shutdown was going to stop people going to their families for Thanksgiving…and the Democrats would have lost any goodwill for that. The Dems stopping people get food - seen by anyone watching the GOP machine - is another massive loss of PR.
I don’t like Schumer, but there’s a golden rule in strikes: Don’t do them during Thanksgiving or the 2 days before Christmas.
I'm enjoying seeing the differing viewpoints between you and Doug Turnbull and John Garner playing out here.
I don't have the crystal ball here to see who's right and I think only time tells, but the discussion going on here to me encapsulates the different conclusions that informed people, acting in good faith, can come to.
Probably part of what's so hard about keeping a diverse group toeing the line in a situation like this shutdown.
But government workers and SNAP beneficiaries definitely lean Democratic, so I am deeply skeptical about anyone advising that they shouldn't be paid or fed for political gains.
Not strictly true - the R's blow up the deficit because of all the free stuff they support. It is just that they dole out most of their free stuff through corporate and high income tax breaks and subsidies, which aren't tied to the fiscal year budget.
The R's are certainly the party of "Who really needs a government anyway", which is a relaxing position to take when people are working for no money or not eating.
What win? I mean seriously. This isn’t taking the win. It’s holding up a potential win and setting in on fire and then feeding it to a cute kitten on CNN, killing the kitten.
That’s exactly the calculation that D’s should have made BEFORE starting the shutdown. Once the shutdown started, it was obvious that the Trymp strat was cause pain to as many (poor) people as possible. But giving up without winning anything means that people went hungry for nothing. People lost paychecks for nothing. This turns out to be stupid grandstanding that put a lot of people in a worse position than they were before.
There’s no win here. Just another sad ‘Lucy taking the football away from Charlie Brown’ meme.
Agreed that they should never have done the stupid pointless shutdown in the first place, but I don't understand the logic that says they should continue a mistake because they started making it.
And you are a rich Democrat who's just fine with scaring poor people about cutting off their food. Here you think that you're somehow worth a good god damn to anyone.
An ongoing crisis where Trump doesn’t give in is a political gift for Dems. It highlights his incompetency and lack of caring. You have to keep that going as long as possible.
If you believe the upside of a neutered Trump admin is better than a short term govt reopening, you absolutely need short term suffering for the long term benefit.
In that case, these psychopaths need to stop seeking attention!! This is like "demonstrating" on the big city highways and ring roads so people can't get to work. That needs to never happen. All that forced attention seeking needs to be charged and time served.
Yes, it may have been political malpractice, but continuing the shutdown was governance malpractice. The interests of the 300 million people outside the Beltway count for something, even if the Congressional leadership sometimes loses track of that.
It's a continuation of the same problem the Democrats have had going up against Trump since 2016. Not only are the Democrats a big tent party with a bunch of competing coalitions with different long term goals, but they can't even all agree on the rules of the game. Party leadership is stuck in a very 90s political mindset. They don't understand how angry working class voters are at the entire political establishment, including Democratic leadership. Trump is a fool with basic, reptilian political instincts and no real strategy (as you have pointed out in the past), but when the status quo is as unpopular as it is, a lot of voters will flock to anyone they perceive as an outsider or not part of the bureaucracy they hate.
The Democratic Party needs a top to bottom image update with a new, younger generation of leadership with a message that doesn't reek of 60 year old career political consultants. It will be framed as a progressive vs establishment battle, but it really isn't. There are compelling, charismatic, non-status quo Democrats on both sides of that divide (Warnock, Ossoff, Shapiro, etc on the moderate side, AOC, Pritzker, etc on the progressive side).
The ageism argument is honestly so dumb it's not even really worth validating by treating it as a good faith topic to debate. I do think there should be term and age limits for almost all public positions, but even if I didn't, age isn't an excuse for Schumer. Both Bernie Sanders and Trump himself are older than Chuck is but more in tune with the sentiments of the actual working class.
Trump is a liar and a conman and a fool and deep into the decline phase of his mental capacity, but even he had the sense to frame his campaign as something different and a breath of fresh air into Washington that was going to drain the swamp and cut red tape and run it like a business. Sure, people who paid attention knew it was a grift, but at least grifters understand what people want to hear.
Dem leadership does not. They're so deep in this political consultant, Ivy League graduate social circle that they have no idea what messages actually win election. The most high profile, publicized social welfare push of the Biden and Harris campaigns was student debt forgiveness, which exacerbates income inequality and rewards the people already voting D (expensive private college graduates) while doing nothing for the voters they urgently need to do better with (non-college educated working class). The messaging was unbelievably incompetent and did not land with anyone outside the Bluesky crowd. It's no wonder young male voters of color (the demographic group with the highest percentage of non-college graduates) feel left behind by the party. They basically have been!
The Democrats have made it clear that they hate the working middle class. If you don't have a college degree, live between the Appalachians and the Cascades/Sierras, or in the South, they hate you even more. And if you're white, male, and own a gun, you are a "deplorable."
And then they wonder why they've lost Florida, Ohio, Missouri, Arkansas, Iowa, Nebraska, and the Dakotas, and are hanging on for dear life in Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin; and why Arizona and Nevada are slipping away? Hint: It's a little more than "messaging."
I think bluesky liberals were too flippant about the consequences of a prolonged shutdown but I totally understand the frustration and agree about wondering what the point of this all was if they were just gonna fold like this
The ACA subsidies were all about rich liberals making 4x the poverty rate. With Democrats, it's all about the rich, just as much as it is with the Republicans if not more.
An alternative POV is that the shutdown for healthcare made some sense, even if imperfectly executed, but, being part of a process that takes food right off people’s tables today does not seem smart for Dems. Alternatively, both loss of health care, and SNAP is now fully in the R’s court, and they will most certainly fail to fix it. Of course this will require some smart messaging, and there is….Schumer….sigh.
You might be over-blaming Schumer. His options were grossly limited by the R majority. While I hate the caving in, I'm not sure waiting much longer would have produced a much different result....and D's were starting to lose any tiny advantages they had. Plus, depending on what happens in Jan., no one in October '26 will remember a word of this.
Probably another shutdown unless the R’s come to the table with something on health care subsidies (which would be in their interest anyway if they don’t want to get blown out in the midterms next fall.
Curious , why are you more concerned about "authoritarianism" relative to "seizing the means of production" , the bedrock of the Democratic Party, as evidenced by Mamdani, Sanders etal?
What is actually more destructive? And why would you believe that Mamdanism would be no less "authoritarian"?
See Russian and Chinese history over the last 125 years.
My real point is why can't Silver care about that prospect than an administration that has actually restored borders and integrity to an immigration processs.
But it won't be because he establishes a Soviet style government in NYC.
Biden deported more people than Trump. He would have deported even more but the Republicans wouldn't fund the judicial system to process the asylum claims. And those claims were legal be US and international law.
I can hardly wait for those municipally owned grocery stores. Naturally, the legacy media haven't "reported" on the one in Kansas City. This will be hilarious from afar.
Eh.... I think saying Senators are priviledged and fly alot utterly ignores the amout of Americans who are about to fly for Thanksgiving and the strong potential the hand turns heavily against them (every bit as much as it turned against Trump contra your initial read).
Overall the Democrats getting some cover and letting Trump cause more inflation via health insurance isn't probably a bad political deal.
on the other hand Schumer is yes a Muddler and a weak leader so while I don't per se see this as a Dem error (however much Lefty partisans want to fight fight fight resist resist resit), it's certainly objectively true he's not up to the job, a Muddler.
The problem the Dems had is between the SNAP benefits and the flight issues (with Thanksgiving approaching in particular) there was about to be alot of impact and actual people hurt because of the shutdown. Now I think Trump probably gets the blame for that and it would have been good the Dems politically. But it still doesn't lead to getting anything on the ACA subsidies or anything else. The R Senators didn't want to get rid of the filibuster but they would have folded on that before they ever folded on the ACA subsidies. And while Democrats want to get rid of the filibuster when they have power if it happens now there's alot of bad things that could happen from their perspective.
So if you play things out you would have had a scenario where 1) real harms on Americans, 2) political benefits to the Democrats, 3) no deal on ACA subsidies but rollback of the filibuster, and 4) Rs passing bills that are problematic with filibuster gone. And folding now seemed like the least bad option.
In terms of Dems saying Schumer wasn't part of the negotiations to reopen the government my sense is that just cover for Schumer. It's almost certain he was very involved behind the scenes even if they are trying to pretend now that he wasn't.
Yes in theory but then you’re still a situation where there’s been a lot of real life impacts on Americans, you may have gained politically, but you haven’t achieved any of your policy goals.
When was the last time a shutdown worked for the minority party? It’s an unwise tactic/strategy from ANY perspective. Actually let’s say it loud and clear. It’s Stupid.
Do we have another Biden situation on our hands with Schumer? What about the grace Pelosi is showing and has been showing for the last several years, yet managed to remain at the table?
To also be fair, Schumer’s leadership of a perfectly split Senate was unprecedented in US history. Without this organizational win in our partisan times, the Senate chamber would have been paralyzed. Even so, all things must come to an end. It is time to move on.
! I have always liked Pelosi. I know, I know, but I just do. A great woman leader with genius, agreed. My favorite was when AOC and The Squad were trying to unseat her as Speaker and were chanting, "Our strength is in Diversity!" And Pelosi replied, "Yes! But in Unity is our power."
And that was the end of the rebellion. Brilliant, and I've thought about that point through the years.
If the Dems nominate AOC they will be handing the 2028 election over. A socialist winning in NYC is very different from winning in places like Nevada, Wisconsin, Michigan etc, without which they cannot win the White House.
I'm not sure that's so. AOC has charisma, she's the real deal. And charisma is how Donald Trump won. Also how Mamdani won, so what if HE runs for prez? It's possible if America does turn socialist, as it may well as Dems differentiate themselves as much as possible from Republicans and Americans continue to segregate away from each other.
This is 100% political malpractice and thanks Nate for being so honest about it and saying you were getting ready to eat crow. The Democrats’ approval should plummet after this. If yesterday’s offer was all they needed to keep the government open, then they should have just done that from day one. Now the shutdown IS the Dems fault because they were going to cave for next to nothing but shut it down anyway. The base and the Dem voters are reeling right now.
What do you think they should have done?
I am not qualified enough to say, but I feel like the longer this dragged on the more the public might have started to turn on Democrats.
In a normal GOP administration (if such a thing is still possible) I would agree with you. But here, Trump overplays every hand to such an extreme level of callousness, that extending the shutdown only serves to hurt Trump more than Dems.
Trump opts to bailout Argentina and remodel the East Wing instead of paying SNAP is such a gift to Dems.
Why stop? Why not keep going until Trump is utterly decimated by his own lack of care? The only way that happens, sadly, is people feel Trump's callousness directly. Where it's not abstract / theoretical thing Dems whine about. But it's instead something Trump does to them every day.
Dems need more Realpolitik here to overcome Trump. Not just about the issue at hand (ACA), but fully neuter him politically. You might get to a point where GOP finds ways to "manage" Trump to save their skins and lessen the impact.
You talk about "callous" when the Democrats were willing to scare the hell out of poor people about not getting food. Don't try to tell me about callousness. The Democratic Party couldn't care less about the poor. It is full of rich "progressives" who are just as happy as the wingnuttiest wingnut to use starvation as a political tool. Go to hell.
Hahah.
Always good to hear from the people who are happy about Trump because the Dems are bad.
The facts are not on your side.
I have never voted for Trump. By the way, I thought the "progressives" were against "whataboutism." Guess not. My question is this: Do you have a single principle other than wanting power?
There is the principle that Trump is an existential threat that outweighs short term shutdown pain. Do you believe in that?
And apparently the Shutdown is the biggest thing that’s hurt Trump.
Add those together and continuing the shutdown is the most principled thing you could do.
I'm not seeing the "happy about Trump" part. This was a battle between two teams who both care about winning and nothing else; for one reason or another, this only counts as callousness on one side.
The rabid anti-Democratic messaging is intrinsically pro-Trump.
I’d argue more will suffer due to Dems lack of brinksmanship than are spared by reopening the govt till January.
You are perfectly fine with taking food away from the poor, because you are a rich "progressive" who doesn't give a rat's ass about anyone but your rich friends who run the Democratic Party and hate the poor and the working middle class.
If the GOP had its way, SNAP would simply cease to exist on a permanent basis, no shutdown needed. The more Dems refuse to recognize the fight they’re in, the closer they get to a world where the GOP gets that desired outcome, among many others.
This isn’t actually a counter argument.
If I’m convinced more people will starve longer term by an empowered Trump than will be saved by this temporary extension. Why are you so willing to starve those people? Why are you taking away their health care? How callous of you!
Other way around. Dems' brinkmanship would have accomplished nothing whatsoever. It would have hurt people and it would have been the Dems' fault.
They'll just deny that snap was a problem
I agree. I don't like D's but I think they had an extremely strong case to say, "Look a Clean Continuing Resolution means that all of this is going to happen again right before Thanksgiving. Another Clean Continuing Resolution means this is all going to happen again right before the Winter holidays (they can't say Christmas, but it's still a compelling argument). We need Republicans to commit to working with us to build a functioning government so that our public servants know their next paycheck is coming and the neediest among us can know that when they need to go to the doctor they can afford it."
Instead there's all this bizarre messaging that's all over the place that doesn't sound like they even believe it.
R's are no better; I think Mike Johnson had the most disciplined messaging, but MTG can get more press coverage than him and they were all over the place, too. D's completely wasted an opportunity to force a longer-term solution, even if that was dissolution of the filibuster so then they have another year and a half to blame everything on a Republican Congress/White House for the midterms.
Oh, sure. People already were blaming the Dems: the flights shut down? In America?? The air traffic controllers working for over a month without being paid? I call it slavery and I want that changed. I don't think people much cared about the Food Stamps -- I've read the recipients often trade those for drugs anyway, using them as a form of currency -- but the military not getting paid unless Elon gave the pay period money to the soldiers is a bad look. (I'm assuming it was Elon who gave the $125 million: nothing to him, pocket change. He's worth half a trillion right now as we speak.)
There is a trade in EBT cards for drugs. This could be easily quashed by putting a name on the card, and even the name of a caregiver too, and then requiring a photo I.D. to use it.
You'd need a nationally issued ID card that would replace a driver's license for such a scheme to work. Otherwise you're letting most recipients starve because for an edge case.
So you've never heard of a driver's license? LOL
Not everyone who is SNAP-eligible has a license nor can they necessarily afford a car.
Use that brain next time.
The air traffic controllers could have quit easily, and should have.
Elon had nothing to do with this - the military got paid because they shuffled money around.
I read in the media that an anonymous (to the public) billionaire had paid the $129 million. I assume it was Elon. It might have been someone else.
They should have tried to compromise by offering the GOP something... like reciprocal concealed carry, mandatory e-verify, anything in exchange for more health care funding.
Timing this now, right after elections, is such that I don't think it will impact midterms. We will forget about this in a month, if not sooner.
It might only confirm people's dissatisfaction with the spinelessness of the Dem party. I don't think it will increase it.
If you're uniting Nate Silver and Brian Beutler in opposition to your political moves....well its a bad political move.
I disagree here Nate.
I think the Dems accomplished pretty much everything they could from this shutdown. What else was going to happen if they didn't cave?
Keep a few things in mind. First off, the election last week made it pretty damn clear to everyone that the Dems are very likely to retake the House. Trump and his advisors know this also. So Trump is feeling a time pressure...he basically has until January 2027 to pass his agenda. After that, nothing is getting through the House. Further, he's busy pressuring his own senators to kill the filibuster.
Plus we all know how Trump feels about compromise.
Short answer: Trump would never have given in, not at least until the country was effed. So the Dems basically were looking at killing the economy and making millions suffer...and he still wasn't going to give in and agree.
One can argue that they never should have done the shutdown at all. I think it turned out to be a positive for the party, weakening Trump and the Pubs. But it was time to end it. Sometimes you have to realize that you got what you could get. They scored on a couple of combinations, now it's time to back away before the other guy hits you back.
If they don't cave, Trump continues to make optional moves that causes direct pain to the electorate. Trump continues to damage himself politically overplaying his hands.
Why leave that situation?
Trump won't compromise. But people will feel the pain directly from Trump to such an extreme that they will massively turn on Trump.
Now that they DID cave, the pain becomes yet another abstract thing Dems whine about.
The Dems caved because the actual pain of prolonging the shutdown was far worse than the political benefit.
Why leave that situation? Because 1) it hurts people, and 2) the Dems will, correctly, get the blame for it.
I wouldn't be so sure that the elections the other day are a national Dem bellwether.
Deep blue states voting for Dems is dog bites man.
Light blue states elected normie Dems. Question is, how many normie Dems will be running in 2026? And will the Dems foul their bed between now and then, making things tougher for the normies? It seems no matter what crazy crap the GOP and Trump do, all the Dems seem to do is ask the GOP to hold their beer.
If the Dems run a slate of normies and can avoid the taint of Mamdani, AOC, et al., then they can win. Iff.
The GA PSC election was a perfect storm of a GOP mailing it in, Vogtle cost overruns (mostly not Southern Company/Ga. Power's fault, blame NRC goalpost moving) leading to an oversized SoCo/Ga. Power rate increase, and anti-crony capitalist sentiment.
Look at the change from 2021. On 2021, a year into Biden’s term and with his popularity crashing, the Rs won VA by 2 and lost NJ by 3.
This year the Dems won them by 13 and 15, respectively.
Thats a flip of more than 15 points. It’s not insignificant.
Every county and major community in NJ moved dramatically toward the D's from 2024 to 2025. Same thing happened in most electorates across red and blue states in local elections. Hopefully, the D's will see that Schumer is incapable of continuing to lead in the Senate. A replacement may well energize the D's and somewhat placate the progressives. It's done now! No time to waste, but move on an get better strategists onside.
The commentary on election night (okay, it was Fox) was that long-time blue states electing blue governors was not exactly all that amazing.
Another point, which I've been thinking about a lot, is the large population losses some Dem areas have had --- which were presumably mostly Republicans. So Americans are now segregating -- the losses of GOP voters in California and New York and other blue states such as indeed New Jersey (a quarter-million this year, they said) means that the Republicans can't ever win there, because they are leaving.
Republicans are leaving blue states and also redistricting battles mean there would BE no Republicans in Maryland or Democrats in Kansas or Utah --- yeah, Americans are segregating by moving to like-minded states, and if this goes on, I'll expect a civil war more than ever. The basic problem with believing in a civil war was always that we're too mixed geographically --- it was possible in the 1860s because people were segregated by geography.
We're doing it again.
https://www.ppic.org/blog/californias-republican-exodus/
The people leaving California are a slim plurality of Republicans, but they are substantially more Republican than the state at large. And the people coming into California tend to be more Democratic than our state average.
So your guess about the direction shift in California is correct.
The story about where Californians go is more complicated.
https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/california-movers-partisan-impacts-20008871.php
Cal Ex-pats definitely make some Red and Blue states redder and bluer, respectively. But there are Reddish and purple states that have had an influx of Dems.
For example, the Californians who moved to Georgia were 17 percent more Democratic than Georgia as a whole.
California is losing its contributors and gaining its freeloaders. Have fun.
Nope.
We are losing people who can't afford it here and gaining people who can.
US Census ACS data.
But you don't need data when you can read minds, amiright?
Yeah, and I've read Texas people really hate Californians coming in. This will be why, I suppose.
Still, just look at quality of life and "happiness" measures in blue states vs red states. Blue wins every time - except for the "victimized" Republicans who blame all their issues in Dems!
Exactly. Finally some sanity.
I don’t think you’re exactly correct on this. This was incredibly badly-timed. The FAA shutdown was going to stop people going to their families for Thanksgiving…and the Democrats would have lost any goodwill for that. The Dems stopping people get food - seen by anyone watching the GOP machine - is another massive loss of PR.
I don’t like Schumer, but there’s a golden rule in strikes: Don’t do them during Thanksgiving or the 2 days before Christmas.
I think it was perfect.
The headlines about ACA subsidies just before open enrollment made it clear that the R's were at fault.
The SNAP fight was indeed a bonus point.
So the shutdown locked in perceptions of the R's during the election.
Now is the right time to take the win and move on.
I'm enjoying seeing the differing viewpoints between you and Doug Turnbull and John Garner playing out here.
I don't have the crystal ball here to see who's right and I think only time tells, but the discussion going on here to me encapsulates the different conclusions that informed people, acting in good faith, can come to.
Probably part of what's so hard about keeping a diverse group toeing the line in a situation like this shutdown.
Yup. It is all guesswork for now.
But government workers and SNAP beneficiaries definitely lean Democratic, so I am deeply skeptical about anyone advising that they shouldn't be paid or fed for political gains.
The GOP always starts any shutdown with a handicap because they are the party of less "free" stuff.
Not strictly true - the R's blow up the deficit because of all the free stuff they support. It is just that they dole out most of their free stuff through corporate and high income tax breaks and subsidies, which aren't tied to the fiscal year budget.
The R's are certainly the party of "Who really needs a government anyway", which is a relaxing position to take when people are working for no money or not eating.
What win? I mean seriously. This isn’t taking the win. It’s holding up a potential win and setting in on fire and then feeding it to a cute kitten on CNN, killing the kitten.
Tell me how your personal hunger strike is going.
Or are you just in favor of other people going hungry for "the cause"?
That’s exactly the calculation that D’s should have made BEFORE starting the shutdown. Once the shutdown started, it was obvious that the Trymp strat was cause pain to as many (poor) people as possible. But giving up without winning anything means that people went hungry for nothing. People lost paychecks for nothing. This turns out to be stupid grandstanding that put a lot of people in a worse position than they were before.
There’s no win here. Just another sad ‘Lucy taking the football away from Charlie Brown’ meme.
Agreed that they should never have done the stupid pointless shutdown in the first place, but I don't understand the logic that says they should continue a mistake because they started making it.
No one should have gone hungry and the stupid shutdown should never have happened, but I don't see how this is a win. It's stopping the bleeding.
The republican party is getting hammered. Serves them right for electing Epstein's friend. Disgusting
Sure. Once November really got going I assumed the Dems would give up. BAD optics if people couldn't fly or get paid at Thx and Xmas.
I notice that you didn't mention SNAP. Typical rich Democrat. Poor people's food gets endangered? Not even on your suburban liberal city radar screen.
If you’re counting on the GOP to be champions of SNAP I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you
You got that right! [:-)
And you are a rich Democrat who's just fine with scaring poor people about cutting off their food. Here you think that you're somehow worth a good god damn to anyone.
For the record. I have no ill will to you and only wish you well. I hope ACA and SNAP survive this administration in some form, as I’m sure you do to.
Best of luck to you.
Wow. Fuck you, dude.
You're quite the charmer. Good "progressive!"
You got that right!!! Well, except for the "Democrat" part.
An ongoing crisis where Trump doesn’t give in is a political gift for Dems. It highlights his incompetency and lack of caring. You have to keep that going as long as possible.
Some people need to eat and get paid.
You’re right, but tell that to the people who need planes to go home for [everything and including hospital visits and holidays]
Unfortunately, the only way to get attention outside the usual political divides is to disrupt people's lives.
Plenty of lack of caring to go around, it seems.
If you believe the upside of a neutered Trump admin is better than a short term govt reopening, you absolutely need short term suffering for the long term benefit.
I don't see any long-term benefit from this though.
As long as you and your rich Ivy League "progressive" friends aren't doing the suffering.
Do you think that disrupting someone’s life is a good way to get them to support your party?? Come on man.
There’s disrupt, and there’s stopping food payments, get thousands fired, and stop people flying to get life-saving operations.
At least you make it clear that you don't care about anyone's lives. You are the face of the rich Democratic Party.
Bunk.
The Dems just voted to move forward.
The Democrats are run by the rich, and they couldn't care less about poor people who need to eat.
Hmmm? Most did not. Only 8 voted to reopen the government, and the rest, including Dem leaders as well as the base, are upset with them.
Which is a weird role reversal. Usually that's the dynamic we see with the GOP.
In that case, these psychopaths need to stop seeking attention!! This is like "demonstrating" on the big city highways and ring roads so people can't get to work. That needs to never happen. All that forced attention seeking needs to be charged and time served.
Yes, it may have been political malpractice, but continuing the shutdown was governance malpractice. The interests of the 300 million people outside the Beltway count for something, even if the Congressional leadership sometimes loses track of that.
100% This
It's a continuation of the same problem the Democrats have had going up against Trump since 2016. Not only are the Democrats a big tent party with a bunch of competing coalitions with different long term goals, but they can't even all agree on the rules of the game. Party leadership is stuck in a very 90s political mindset. They don't understand how angry working class voters are at the entire political establishment, including Democratic leadership. Trump is a fool with basic, reptilian political instincts and no real strategy (as you have pointed out in the past), but when the status quo is as unpopular as it is, a lot of voters will flock to anyone they perceive as an outsider or not part of the bureaucracy they hate.
The Democratic Party needs a top to bottom image update with a new, younger generation of leadership with a message that doesn't reek of 60 year old career political consultants. It will be framed as a progressive vs establishment battle, but it really isn't. There are compelling, charismatic, non-status quo Democrats on both sides of that divide (Warnock, Ossoff, Shapiro, etc on the moderate side, AOC, Pritzker, etc on the progressive side).
Some would claim ageism about Schumer, but how would we feel if our child’s teacher was 82 would that be ageism?
The ageism argument is honestly so dumb it's not even really worth validating by treating it as a good faith topic to debate. I do think there should be term and age limits for almost all public positions, but even if I didn't, age isn't an excuse for Schumer. Both Bernie Sanders and Trump himself are older than Chuck is but more in tune with the sentiments of the actual working class.
Trump is a liar and a conman and a fool and deep into the decline phase of his mental capacity, but even he had the sense to frame his campaign as something different and a breath of fresh air into Washington that was going to drain the swamp and cut red tape and run it like a business. Sure, people who paid attention knew it was a grift, but at least grifters understand what people want to hear.
Dem leadership does not. They're so deep in this political consultant, Ivy League graduate social circle that they have no idea what messages actually win election. The most high profile, publicized social welfare push of the Biden and Harris campaigns was student debt forgiveness, which exacerbates income inequality and rewards the people already voting D (expensive private college graduates) while doing nothing for the voters they urgently need to do better with (non-college educated working class). The messaging was unbelievably incompetent and did not land with anyone outside the Bluesky crowd. It's no wonder young male voters of color (the demographic group with the highest percentage of non-college graduates) feel left behind by the party. They basically have been!
The Democrats have made it clear that they hate the working middle class. If you don't have a college degree, live between the Appalachians and the Cascades/Sierras, or in the South, they hate you even more. And if you're white, male, and own a gun, you are a "deplorable."
And then they wonder why they've lost Florida, Ohio, Missouri, Arkansas, Iowa, Nebraska, and the Dakotas, and are hanging on for dear life in Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin; and why Arizona and Nevada are slipping away? Hint: It's a little more than "messaging."
I think bluesky liberals were too flippant about the consequences of a prolonged shutdown but I totally understand the frustration and agree about wondering what the point of this all was if they were just gonna fold like this
It is a massive PR win.
The ACA cost increases are now owned by the Republicans.
The refusal to use appropriated emergency funds for SNAP is now owned by the Republicans.
The unwillingness to even participate in governance is owned by the Republicans.
It could have gone better, but it could have gone much worse for the Dems.
The ACA subsidies were all about rich liberals making 4x the poverty rate. With Democrats, it's all about the rich, just as much as it is with the Republicans if not more.
So. 4x the poverty rate is rich.
Interesting.
And you do understand that the actual benefit scaled down as income went up, don't you?
That is a common solution to avoiding penalties against people who work for a living.
Republicans hate it because it actually makes incentives help poor people move up the economic ladder.
You are with the Republicans on more than one issue here, aren't you?
An alternative POV is that the shutdown for healthcare made some sense, even if imperfectly executed, but, being part of a process that takes food right off people’s tables today does not seem smart for Dems. Alternatively, both loss of health care, and SNAP is now fully in the R’s court, and they will most certainly fail to fix it. Of course this will require some smart messaging, and there is….Schumer….sigh.
You might be over-blaming Schumer. His options were grossly limited by the R majority. While I hate the caving in, I'm not sure waiting much longer would have produced a much different result....and D's were starting to lose any tiny advantages they had. Plus, depending on what happens in Jan., no one in October '26 will remember a word of this.
What is going to happen in January??
Forecast for January: political theater, with a lingering aftertaste during primaries.
Potentially another shutdown
Thank you! Yow, let's not do this again.
Probably another shutdown unless the R’s come to the table with something on health care subsidies (which would be in their interest anyway if they don’t want to get blown out in the midterms next fall.
Curious , why are you more concerned about "authoritarianism" relative to "seizing the means of production" , the bedrock of the Democratic Party, as evidenced by Mamdani, Sanders etal?
What is actually more destructive? And why would you believe that Mamdanism would be no less "authoritarian"?
See Russian and Chinese history over the last 125 years.
You are confusing a Mayor with a central government that controls an army.
It's OK - lots of people don't understand the difference.
Many journeys to hell start in unexpected places.
Mamdani as mayor will be hell.
My real point is why can't Silver care about that prospect than an administration that has actually restored borders and integrity to an immigration processs.
Perhaps Mamdani will be a failure.
But it won't be because he establishes a Soviet style government in NYC.
Biden deported more people than Trump. He would have deported even more but the Republicans wouldn't fund the judicial system to process the asylum claims. And those claims were legal be US and international law.
One way or the other, you and your "progressive" San Francisco friends will make excuses for him. America will laugh.
I'm sure you can predict the future as well as you read minds.
Well, I called the '24 presidential on July 5th, and Trump's victory margin in mid-October. All by the numbers.
I can hardly wait for those municipally owned grocery stores. Naturally, the legacy media haven't "reported" on the one in Kansas City. This will be hilarious from afar.
Eh.... I think saying Senators are priviledged and fly alot utterly ignores the amout of Americans who are about to fly for Thanksgiving and the strong potential the hand turns heavily against them (every bit as much as it turned against Trump contra your initial read).
Overall the Democrats getting some cover and letting Trump cause more inflation via health insurance isn't probably a bad political deal.
on the other hand Schumer is yes a Muddler and a weak leader so while I don't per se see this as a Dem error (however much Lefty partisans want to fight fight fight resist resist resit), it's certainly objectively true he's not up to the job, a Muddler.
The problem the Dems had is between the SNAP benefits and the flight issues (with Thanksgiving approaching in particular) there was about to be alot of impact and actual people hurt because of the shutdown. Now I think Trump probably gets the blame for that and it would have been good the Dems politically. But it still doesn't lead to getting anything on the ACA subsidies or anything else. The R Senators didn't want to get rid of the filibuster but they would have folded on that before they ever folded on the ACA subsidies. And while Democrats want to get rid of the filibuster when they have power if it happens now there's alot of bad things that could happen from their perspective.
So if you play things out you would have had a scenario where 1) real harms on Americans, 2) political benefits to the Democrats, 3) no deal on ACA subsidies but rollback of the filibuster, and 4) Rs passing bills that are problematic with filibuster gone. And folding now seemed like the least bad option.
In terms of Dems saying Schumer wasn't part of the negotiations to reopen the government my sense is that just cover for Schumer. It's almost certain he was very involved behind the scenes even if they are trying to pretend now that he wasn't.
I suspect they would have used the nuclear option to create a very, very narrow exception to the filibuster, not destroyed it.
Yes in theory but then you’re still a situation where there’s been a lot of real life impacts on Americans, you may have gained politically, but you haven’t achieved any of your policy goals.
Yes, and I don't even think the Dems would have gained politically.
When was the last time a shutdown worked for the minority party? It’s an unwise tactic/strategy from ANY perspective. Actually let’s say it loud and clear. It’s Stupid.
Do we have another Biden situation on our hands with Schumer? What about the grace Pelosi is showing and has been showing for the last several years, yet managed to remain at the table?
Agreed, that she is!
To also be fair, Schumer’s leadership of a perfectly split Senate was unprecedented in US history. Without this organizational win in our partisan times, the Senate chamber would have been paralyzed. Even so, all things must come to an end. It is time to move on.
To be fair, Pelosi is a freaking genius, and Schumer is a well dressed schlub.
It isn't that he is old and off his game.
! I have always liked Pelosi. I know, I know, but I just do. A great woman leader with genius, agreed. My favorite was when AOC and The Squad were trying to unseat her as Speaker and were chanting, "Our strength is in Diversity!" And Pelosi replied, "Yes! But in Unity is our power."
And that was the end of the rebellion. Brilliant, and I've thought about that point through the years.
cause a small handful of moderate Sentors fear the filibuster actually going away….
The filibuster wasn't at risk.
The moderates were picked intentionally because they are likely immune to the progressive backlash.
This is a win for AOC. She has a chance to take the mantle of the party if she is ready to grab it.
If the Dems nominate AOC they will be handing the 2028 election over. A socialist winning in NYC is very different from winning in places like Nevada, Wisconsin, Michigan etc, without which they cannot win the White House.
I'm not sure that's so. AOC has charisma, she's the real deal. And charisma is how Donald Trump won. Also how Mamdani won, so what if HE runs for prez? It's possible if America does turn socialist, as it may well as Dems differentiate themselves as much as possible from Republicans and Americans continue to segregate away from each other.
That would be a Republican dream come true. LOL