Democrats are in what chess players call zugzwang, where there aren't necessarily any winning moves. But focusing on tariffs and inflation would be a better approach than Schumer's plan.
There actually IS a winning move (or in this case, a non-move which the game of chess does not permit) and it is for Democrats to abstain and let the Republican majority truly own it with no help. Let Thune and Johnson herd the cats.
First of all, abstaining is, without a doubt, a distinct action, for which Senators will be held accountable. It is not, in any way, a "non-move."
And abstaining on the bill is a lose-lose - either the GOP gets the shutdown they want, and can correctly blame it on the Dems, or they get to get rid of the filibuster and they get the budget they want.
I'm not 100% certain of this, but I believe if every Democrat abstained or voted present then any bill that could get a majority of Republicans would pass. I believe its a majority of the voting representatives that is required for passage.
While I agree that would be satisfying to watch, I also selfishly don’t want a complete lack of good governing and policy for the next year and a half.
I also would like to see Congress claw back power from the president, if only for them to exercise those legislating muscles again so that maybe after 2026 and 2028 they can begin to maybe make really needed changes happen.
Only if Democrats get a majority in the House will Congress claw back power. I have a suggestion for that Congress, too, should it become empowered: Refuse to allocate money to the most authoritarian programs.
That’s fair. I just also worry about leaving everything until later, especially with the executive unconstitutionally grabbing the power of the purse, arguably THE most important power. If they could grab some of those powers back with shutdown negotiations, I would support that. Getting rid of DOGE, tariffs, restoring mandated funding.
I have to disagree about the tariffs being the focus. The ACA subsidies meet the criteria you laid out in that they’re salient and are something people understand. Their expiration is also imminent and healthcare is an issue where Democrats have the advantage.
If the subsidies are extended, the Republicans will be spared some pain, but so what? The end goal of politics, in my view, is to enact good policies that make peoples’ lives better. If extending the subsidies denies Democrats a political talking point so be it. That logic applies to tariffs, too. If they are eliminated it will save Republicans from arguably a lot more pain.
I don’t know what will happen and I think the desire to fight for its own sake is dumb. It never worked for Republicans and it won’t work for Democrats. That said, if this leads to the end of the filibuster I’m all for it. That thing has been abused beyond recognition and is the only reason we’re doing this in the first place.
I agree the goal of politics is (or should be) to make people's lives better.
The question is "on what time horizon". So, sure, say Democrats manage to get the subsidies into the bill. That makes people's lives meaningfully better. But it also removes a powerful campaign talking point, which might make the difference between Rs keeping or losing their trifecta after the midterms. That'd give Rs two more years to run amok on the government, at the end of which... Do you expect that people will be better off than if they'd lost the subsidies but Ds took the House, thereby stopping the bleeding in every other arena?
And as for "that logic applies to tarrifs too", no, it doesn't. Simply because Trump doesn't really care about the ACA. Or, rather, he'd like to cut it to spite Obama, but if not, meh. But there's no way in hell he'll allow Rs to easily remove the tariffs. So by focusing on tariffs, Rs would be put between a rock and a hard place: a long-lasting shutdown, or going against Trump's signature policy. And that would force tariffs back to the fore of the news.
Also, tariffs impact everyone, while the ACA subsidies "only" affect the millions of people using them.
I feel tariffs are a lot more salient than healthcare. On one hand, my employer pays for care and it is deducted before I see my paycheck. I’m not sure how much they take out, and I’m not sure how whatever subsidies they’re talking about expiring will affect me.
On the other hand, tariffs causing higher prices is something I can easily grasp. I don’t think I’m that’s much more different than the average American.
Shutting down the government is naturally blamed on the party refusing to pass the bill. The only way to not be saddled with it is to highlight to voters that your demands for passing the bill were reasonable, popular, and would benefit everyone. Like you said, the time and issue to do it with was last extension over the power of tariffs.
If we’re gonna shut it down now the messaging needs to be uniform, simple, and easy to understand. Not sure that I’ve seen as clear a case as last time made.
Tariffs are a muddy issue - much better to do it over health care.
It's clear that health care funding is reasonable, popular, and would benefit everyone.
Whereas there are solid arguments that tariffs are pro-worker.
What is more, if the Democrats demand the TRA for passing the bill, that doesn't actually benefit anyone **even if the Dems are right about tariffs being harmful** !!
Why? Because the TRA would require Congress to oppose the tariffs, which they don't and wouldn't since the GOP controls Congress. So the TRA doesn't actually do anything.
It doesn't actually stop the tariffs! It just lets Congress stop them if they want to, which they don't.
There are some theories that tariffs as part of a concerted economic plan can provide limited benefits. There are many studies that demonstrate the contrary. Also, this is not what Trump is doing.
As a general point of economic analysis, it is an extreme minority fringe view that there are benefits to tariffs.
Q for SBSQ: at the start of Trump's 2nd term you posted your best guess odds at various things that might happen over the course of the term. Would love an update on which may have already occurred in your view, and more interestingly on which of the remaining, if any, you think the odds have changed dramatically in the few months since you posted your original story.
I agree with Richard. Shutting down the government is a trap that Trump is setting for the Dems. The key quote in Nate’s piece was, “One risk is that Republicans might actually take the deal, which would take a good midterms issue off the table.”
This is a major understatement. The 24 million Americans who get their health insurance via the ACA exchanges are about to see a 75% increase in their premiums (https://www.newsweek.com/health-insurance-premiums-rising-80-percent-2026-2132062). This is the best possible political gift the Dems could ever receive. Don’t ruin it!
If they shut down the government the GOP will say “the radical Democrats are holding us hostage and forcing us to re-instate the subsidies.” And then they will jettison their biggest political liability.
If you believe our country is at stake, then the single most important thing is winning the midterms, which you do by letting the Rs become unpopular via their own policies.
Disagree. To win the midterms, you have to inspire voters. The Democrats getting back Obamacare funding would do that. It would show voters they really are serious and really can do something.
Just sitting back and letting them cut funding would not inspire voters. And voters, quite correctly, would give some of the blame to the Dems, who could have done something but didn't.
Winning this battle by restoring health care funding is the best political gift the Dems could ever receive!
If the median swing voter was well informed, you would be correct. However, I am afraid they are not (as evidenced by their lack of knowledge in 2024 exit polling), and won’t make the connection between a continuation of their existing benefit and Dems securing that for them. However, if the price does go up 75%, that will certainly get their attention.
Wait, the Dems are supposed to rescue Obamacare for people and then immediately the premiums for it go up almost double?? Sounds like a poisoned gift to me; might not work well for the Dems in the midterms.
Glassman has an NYT piece also - I think he gets it mostly right that a shutdown is bad politics and will end up splitting the party and losing support.
He's wrong, though, when he says the Dems can end the filibuster on their own when they take power - they simply do not have the votes to do so. If they want to end the filibuster, they have to make the GOP do it, and this is as good a chance as any!
Democrats should use the only power they have -- a Senate filibuster -- to oppose the GOP budget. And they should oppose it on all the key principles that Dems believe in and really practiced before Clinton's term: workers should earn more and have the right to form unions, all Americans have equal rights; the amendments to the Constitution mean what they say. E.g., the fourth amendment prevents ICE from grabbing people off the street; birthright citizenship is enshrined by the 14th amendment "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States ..."; the right to vote "shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color"; the Foreign Emoluments Clause which bars the president from accepting "any present, Emolument, … from any King, Prince, or foreign State"; Trump & the MAGA GOP are completely corrupt and dishonest, which Democrats should repeat over and over.
And Bernie must lead the filibuster -- Schumer should have retired long ago.
Wow, I really disagree with a lot of this. Tying support for the budget to the TRA is a terrible idea.
First, it's not very practical. Say you "win" and get the TRA - well, Congress still is controlled by the GOP and will still defer to Trump on tariffs, so it makes no difference.
Second, it's not good politics. Tariffs are not very legible to voters and Trump has some good arguments on tariffs. (I personally think he's right, both procedurally and substantively - procedurally, the president should be able to issue tariffs, and substantively, these particular tariffs are good policy.) This is a very abstract issue - voters are not going to be moved by tariffs, whereas they do care about health care, where Trump is actually wrong substantively.
Finally, you write that this communicates the message that these are not normal times - that's exactly the problem. Voters, correctly, resoundingly rejected and did not respond to the bizarre message that Trump is some kind of unique threat to democracy, because it's obviously not true. No one without TDS thinks that. Treating Trump as a normal GOP president and arguing against him on those grounds fares much better.
Schumer’s posture is pathetically weak. The Democrats should raise no specific issue. They should say, loudly, the Republicans control the Presidency and both houses of Congress. It is their responsibility to keep the government operating, they own it so to speak. If they cannot do it on their own, and need help from us to do so, then we’re open to hearing some suggestions in that regard. We are very willing to respond with ideas of our own, but since they are in the majority, the ball is in their court. And they should be saying this in every venue, over and over,
This is backwards. Raising no issue is guaranteed to make the Dems the losers.
Instead, they need to stand up on a very specific issue, such as health care, in order to justify causing the shutdown, or they will get blamed for it.
I know nothing about political chess matches, but there is a certain irony in using the Trade Review Act as a bargaining chip in shutdown negotiations. The TRA is an effort for Congress to reclaim some of its Constitutional authority it delegated away, whereas the existence of periodic shutdown crises is a strong argument Congress cannot handle the authority it has retained. What if the TRA passes and in the next TRA deadlock, the budget is the bargaining chip?
That said, the TRA is at least a principled good idea, while extending the Inflation Reduction Act extra subsidies is neither principled nor a good idea. It's certainly possible, and many people believe, that the federal government should pick up more of the tab for healthcare--perhaps all of it.
But the IRA premium subsidies were not a rational way to do that, mainly because they wrote bigger checks and reduced individual incentives to keep costs down, without taking any action to replace individual cost pressures. The only principle they embody is giving money to voters to hope to win votes, with more money needed each time.
Democrats might reasonably feel that the help to individuals of extending the enhanced subsidies is worth accepting the bad economics of the subsidies, but that's an argument for elevating short-term consequences over long-term principle. Such choices come back to haunt you.
So there are a lot of other issues with the health care cuts. The Dems should give in on the IRA premium subsidies, while insisting on no OTHER changes to health care funding.
For instance, the new bill shortens the open enrollment period so that it closes too early for people to know they need to renew, and it reduces health care funding, including Medicaid and Medicare, far BELOW what it was before the IRA premium subsidies.
Although Nate is right that the biggest approval mover in Trump's second term is tariffs, I was surprised to see no mention of Trump's lowest net approval in his first term. It was at the end of the summer of 2017, when he was trying to repeal the ACA, and McCain gave the (in)famous thumbs down. About as bad as after January 6th. Healthcare was such a big flop for the GOP in 2017 that Trump didn't run on "repealing Obamacare" the 2nd time (remember when Vance said they saved Obamacare in a debate?). Tariffs and healthcare both seem like issues that have the salience to hurt Trump's approval. The timing on when people will get informed about their new, much higher rates (October) also aligns.
I'm dubious that a shutdown strategy will work, but if you're going to do it, it seems to me that healthcare is a pretty good issue to pick. And picking one issue rather than everything also seems smart (and generally difficult for Dems). Choosing tariffs instead of healthcare is an option, but not a slam dunk better idea.
As a German, I'd just like to add that "Zugzwang" only refers to the fact of being forced to act on ones turn, i.e. it's your turn and you might rather want to skip this turn because you think it would be beneficial for the other party to move, but you are not allowed to. However Zugzwang does not refer to a choice between equally bad options. Though we do have a word for that in German, too. It's called a "Zwickmühle".
Joe Biden cost the Democrats the 2024 election. He was arrogant, out of touch, deaf, lacked charisma and energy, with clear signs of debility. Jill and Biden's advisers failed us all.
BUT, some of his policies were also failures: DEI, Identity Politics, Creating massive inflation by economic bungling, aided by Janet Y. I won't mention immigration.
Democrats need to move to Democratic open primaries to invite more independents into the Democratic tent. Currently, in many states, the number of registered Independents or unaffiliated voters is approaching 30%. The two party system has failed. Democratic leadership owns a huge chunk of the failure. MAGGOTS will never tolerate open primaries or RCV.
I agree that inflation should have been one of two areas of Democratic resistance, with the other looming issue of health care insurance subsidies. MAGGOTS and Trump just want to get through the November 4 election in VA, NJ, NYC and PA, without too much damage.
If you're talking about the ACA subsidies, those were implemented as emergency measures during Covid. Now that the pandemic has been forgotten and the government is going bankrupt, they are expiring.
There actually IS a winning move (or in this case, a non-move which the game of chess does not permit) and it is for Democrats to abstain and let the Republican majority truly own it with no help. Let Thune and Johnson herd the cats.
Sounds like a losing move to me.
First of all, abstaining is, without a doubt, a distinct action, for which Senators will be held accountable. It is not, in any way, a "non-move."
And abstaining on the bill is a lose-lose - either the GOP gets the shutdown they want, and can correctly blame it on the Dems, or they get to get rid of the filibuster and they get the budget they want.
I'm not 100% certain of this, but I believe if every Democrat abstained or voted present then any bill that could get a majority of Republicans would pass. I believe its a majority of the voting representatives that is required for passage.
While I agree that would be satisfying to watch, I also selfishly don’t want a complete lack of good governing and policy for the next year and a half.
I also would like to see Congress claw back power from the president, if only for them to exercise those legislating muscles again so that maybe after 2026 and 2028 they can begin to maybe make really needed changes happen.
Only if Democrats get a majority in the House will Congress claw back power. I have a suggestion for that Congress, too, should it become empowered: Refuse to allocate money to the most authoritarian programs.
That’s fair. I just also worry about leaving everything until later, especially with the executive unconstitutionally grabbing the power of the purse, arguably THE most important power. If they could grab some of those powers back with shutdown negotiations, I would support that. Getting rid of DOGE, tariffs, restoring mandated funding.
Didn’t DOGE sort of get rid of itself already?
It did, sort of, but the cuts to agencies still remain. Cuts which prevent them from fulfilling their congressionally mandated function.
I have to disagree about the tariffs being the focus. The ACA subsidies meet the criteria you laid out in that they’re salient and are something people understand. Their expiration is also imminent and healthcare is an issue where Democrats have the advantage.
If the subsidies are extended, the Republicans will be spared some pain, but so what? The end goal of politics, in my view, is to enact good policies that make peoples’ lives better. If extending the subsidies denies Democrats a political talking point so be it. That logic applies to tariffs, too. If they are eliminated it will save Republicans from arguably a lot more pain.
I don’t know what will happen and I think the desire to fight for its own sake is dumb. It never worked for Republicans and it won’t work for Democrats. That said, if this leads to the end of the filibuster I’m all for it. That thing has been abused beyond recognition and is the only reason we’re doing this in the first place.
I agree the goal of politics is (or should be) to make people's lives better.
The question is "on what time horizon". So, sure, say Democrats manage to get the subsidies into the bill. That makes people's lives meaningfully better. But it also removes a powerful campaign talking point, which might make the difference between Rs keeping or losing their trifecta after the midterms. That'd give Rs two more years to run amok on the government, at the end of which... Do you expect that people will be better off than if they'd lost the subsidies but Ds took the House, thereby stopping the bleeding in every other arena?
And as for "that logic applies to tarrifs too", no, it doesn't. Simply because Trump doesn't really care about the ACA. Or, rather, he'd like to cut it to spite Obama, but if not, meh. But there's no way in hell he'll allow Rs to easily remove the tariffs. So by focusing on tariffs, Rs would be put between a rock and a hard place: a long-lasting shutdown, or going against Trump's signature policy. And that would force tariffs back to the fore of the news.
Also, tariffs impact everyone, while the ACA subsidies "only" affect the millions of people using them.
The end goal of politics is surely to get your faction elected again? It's a mistake, I think, to be naive.
What’s the point of getting elected if you’re not going to anything with it?
Money, power, fame, attention, all the usual motivations.
Extending the subsidies gives Democrats a great talking point - they can tell the voters they actually did something!
Tariffs as inflation
Tariffs as tariffs are not well-understood. Tariffs as making grociers and toys more expensive etc.
I feel tariffs are a lot more salient than healthcare. On one hand, my employer pays for care and it is deducted before I see my paycheck. I’m not sure how much they take out, and I’m not sure how whatever subsidies they’re talking about expiring will affect me.
On the other hand, tariffs causing higher prices is something I can easily grasp. I don’t think I’m that’s much more different than the average American.
I agree with this analysis.
Shutting down the government is naturally blamed on the party refusing to pass the bill. The only way to not be saddled with it is to highlight to voters that your demands for passing the bill were reasonable, popular, and would benefit everyone. Like you said, the time and issue to do it with was last extension over the power of tariffs.
If we’re gonna shut it down now the messaging needs to be uniform, simple, and easy to understand. Not sure that I’ve seen as clear a case as last time made.
Tariffs are a muddy issue - much better to do it over health care.
It's clear that health care funding is reasonable, popular, and would benefit everyone.
Whereas there are solid arguments that tariffs are pro-worker.
What is more, if the Democrats demand the TRA for passing the bill, that doesn't actually benefit anyone **even if the Dems are right about tariffs being harmful** !!
Why? Because the TRA would require Congress to oppose the tariffs, which they don't and wouldn't since the GOP controls Congress. So the TRA doesn't actually do anything.
It doesn't actually stop the tariffs! It just lets Congress stop them if they want to, which they don't.
There are many CLAIMS that tariffs are pro-worker.
There is no evidence.
There is definitely SOME evidence. It is a heavily disputed point amongst economists.
Nope.
There are some theories that tariffs as part of a concerted economic plan can provide limited benefits. There are many studies that demonstrate the contrary. Also, this is not what Trump is doing.
As a general point of economic analysis, it is an extreme minority fringe view that there are benefits to tariffs.
Even Paul Krugman admits there are advantages to them under some circumstances... https://archive.nytimes.com/krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/17/how-much-of-the-world-is-in-a-liquidity-trap/
Thank you for the link. I need to think PK's point through to fully understand it, but he does make it clear it is a very abnormal situation.
Q for SBSQ: at the start of Trump's 2nd term you posted your best guess odds at various things that might happen over the course of the term. Would love an update on which may have already occurred in your view, and more interestingly on which of the remaining, if any, you think the odds have changed dramatically in the few months since you posted your original story.
I agree with Richard. Shutting down the government is a trap that Trump is setting for the Dems. The key quote in Nate’s piece was, “One risk is that Republicans might actually take the deal, which would take a good midterms issue off the table.”
This is a major understatement. The 24 million Americans who get their health insurance via the ACA exchanges are about to see a 75% increase in their premiums (https://www.newsweek.com/health-insurance-premiums-rising-80-percent-2026-2132062). This is the best possible political gift the Dems could ever receive. Don’t ruin it!
If they shut down the government the GOP will say “the radical Democrats are holding us hostage and forcing us to re-instate the subsidies.” And then they will jettison their biggest political liability.
If you believe our country is at stake, then the single most important thing is winning the midterms, which you do by letting the Rs become unpopular via their own policies.
Stay focused!!
Disagree. To win the midterms, you have to inspire voters. The Democrats getting back Obamacare funding would do that. It would show voters they really are serious and really can do something.
Just sitting back and letting them cut funding would not inspire voters. And voters, quite correctly, would give some of the blame to the Dems, who could have done something but didn't.
Winning this battle by restoring health care funding is the best political gift the Dems could ever receive!
If the median swing voter was well informed, you would be correct. However, I am afraid they are not (as evidenced by their lack of knowledge in 2024 exit polling), and won’t make the connection between a continuation of their existing benefit and Dems securing that for them. However, if the price does go up 75%, that will certainly get their attention.
Wait, the Dems are supposed to rescue Obamacare for people and then immediately the premiums for it go up almost double?? Sounds like a poisoned gift to me; might not work well for the Dems in the midterms.
The premiums will only go up by 75% if it is not rescued. My point is that the Dems should let that happen.
Okay, I see your point.
Glassman has an NYT piece also - I think he gets it mostly right that a shutdown is bad politics and will end up splitting the party and losing support.
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/17/opinion/shutdown-democrats-senate-trump.html?unlocked_article_code=1.oE8.T-iu.4g2Oh7YMf9cv&smid=url-share
He's wrong, though, when he says the Dems can end the filibuster on their own when they take power - they simply do not have the votes to do so. If they want to end the filibuster, they have to make the GOP do it, and this is as good a chance as any!
Democrats should use the only power they have -- a Senate filibuster -- to oppose the GOP budget. And they should oppose it on all the key principles that Dems believe in and really practiced before Clinton's term: workers should earn more and have the right to form unions, all Americans have equal rights; the amendments to the Constitution mean what they say. E.g., the fourth amendment prevents ICE from grabbing people off the street; birthright citizenship is enshrined by the 14th amendment "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States ..."; the right to vote "shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color"; the Foreign Emoluments Clause which bars the president from accepting "any present, Emolument, … from any King, Prince, or foreign State"; Trump & the MAGA GOP are completely corrupt and dishonest, which Democrats should repeat over and over.
And Bernie must lead the filibuster -- Schumer should have retired long ago.
Great idea.
Lol, are you replying "great idea" to your own comment?
Wow, I really disagree with a lot of this. Tying support for the budget to the TRA is a terrible idea.
First, it's not very practical. Say you "win" and get the TRA - well, Congress still is controlled by the GOP and will still defer to Trump on tariffs, so it makes no difference.
Second, it's not good politics. Tariffs are not very legible to voters and Trump has some good arguments on tariffs. (I personally think he's right, both procedurally and substantively - procedurally, the president should be able to issue tariffs, and substantively, these particular tariffs are good policy.) This is a very abstract issue - voters are not going to be moved by tariffs, whereas they do care about health care, where Trump is actually wrong substantively.
Finally, you write that this communicates the message that these are not normal times - that's exactly the problem. Voters, correctly, resoundingly rejected and did not respond to the bizarre message that Trump is some kind of unique threat to democracy, because it's obviously not true. No one without TDS thinks that. Treating Trump as a normal GOP president and arguing against him on those grounds fares much better.
Schumer’s posture is pathetically weak. The Democrats should raise no specific issue. They should say, loudly, the Republicans control the Presidency and both houses of Congress. It is their responsibility to keep the government operating, they own it so to speak. If they cannot do it on their own, and need help from us to do so, then we’re open to hearing some suggestions in that regard. We are very willing to respond with ideas of our own, but since they are in the majority, the ball is in their court. And they should be saying this in every venue, over and over,
This is backwards. Raising no issue is guaranteed to make the Dems the losers.
Instead, they need to stand up on a very specific issue, such as health care, in order to justify causing the shutdown, or they will get blamed for it.
I know nothing about political chess matches, but there is a certain irony in using the Trade Review Act as a bargaining chip in shutdown negotiations. The TRA is an effort for Congress to reclaim some of its Constitutional authority it delegated away, whereas the existence of periodic shutdown crises is a strong argument Congress cannot handle the authority it has retained. What if the TRA passes and in the next TRA deadlock, the budget is the bargaining chip?
That said, the TRA is at least a principled good idea, while extending the Inflation Reduction Act extra subsidies is neither principled nor a good idea. It's certainly possible, and many people believe, that the federal government should pick up more of the tab for healthcare--perhaps all of it.
But the IRA premium subsidies were not a rational way to do that, mainly because they wrote bigger checks and reduced individual incentives to keep costs down, without taking any action to replace individual cost pressures. The only principle they embody is giving money to voters to hope to win votes, with more money needed each time.
Democrats might reasonably feel that the help to individuals of extending the enhanced subsidies is worth accepting the bad economics of the subsidies, but that's an argument for elevating short-term consequences over long-term principle. Such choices come back to haunt you.
So there are a lot of other issues with the health care cuts. The Dems should give in on the IRA premium subsidies, while insisting on no OTHER changes to health care funding.
For instance, the new bill shortens the open enrollment period so that it closes too early for people to know they need to renew, and it reduces health care funding, including Medicaid and Medicare, far BELOW what it was before the IRA premium subsidies.
Although Nate is right that the biggest approval mover in Trump's second term is tariffs, I was surprised to see no mention of Trump's lowest net approval in his first term. It was at the end of the summer of 2017, when he was trying to repeal the ACA, and McCain gave the (in)famous thumbs down. About as bad as after January 6th. Healthcare was such a big flop for the GOP in 2017 that Trump didn't run on "repealing Obamacare" the 2nd time (remember when Vance said they saved Obamacare in a debate?). Tariffs and healthcare both seem like issues that have the salience to hurt Trump's approval. The timing on when people will get informed about their new, much higher rates (October) also aligns.
I'm dubious that a shutdown strategy will work, but if you're going to do it, it seems to me that healthcare is a pretty good issue to pick. And picking one issue rather than everything also seems smart (and generally difficult for Dems). Choosing tariffs instead of healthcare is an option, but not a slam dunk better idea.
Finally getting to the campaign autopsy part 3!
As a German, I'd just like to add that "Zugzwang" only refers to the fact of being forced to act on ones turn, i.e. it's your turn and you might rather want to skip this turn because you think it would be beneficial for the other party to move, but you are not allowed to. However Zugzwang does not refer to a choice between equally bad options. Though we do have a word for that in German, too. It's called a "Zwickmühle".
Joe Biden cost the Democrats the 2024 election. He was arrogant, out of touch, deaf, lacked charisma and energy, with clear signs of debility. Jill and Biden's advisers failed us all.
BUT, some of his policies were also failures: DEI, Identity Politics, Creating massive inflation by economic bungling, aided by Janet Y. I won't mention immigration.
Democrats need to move to Democratic open primaries to invite more independents into the Democratic tent. Currently, in many states, the number of registered Independents or unaffiliated voters is approaching 30%. The two party system has failed. Democratic leadership owns a huge chunk of the failure. MAGGOTS will never tolerate open primaries or RCV.
I agree that inflation should have been one of two areas of Democratic resistance, with the other looming issue of health care insurance subsidies. MAGGOTS and Trump just want to get through the November 4 election in VA, NJ, NYC and PA, without too much damage.
Most Democratic primaries are at least "semi-open", meaning independents are allowed to vote a D ballot.
https://ballotpedia.org/Primary_election_types_by_state
Only 16 states are closed for the Ds, and about a third of the total delegates.
That is how Bernie got so many delegates in 2016.
Trump believes tariffs and $100,000 H1B visas are the way to win American workers to his side.
The Democrats have been hemorrhaging blue-collar votes for years now. Note that Biden did not reverse Trump's tariffs on China after 2020.
The danger with opposing tariffs is that it will send a signal to voters that Democrats are anti-union and anti-labor.
Exactly. Tariffs are at least arguably pro-worker. The health care cuts are without doubt pro-donor.
Why attack Trump on a pro-worker issue when you could attack him on a pro-donor issue?
If you're talking about the ACA subsidies, those were implemented as emergency measures during Covid. Now that the pandemic has been forgotten and the government is going bankrupt, they are expiring.
The health care cuts that Congress passed are a lot more than just the Covid ACA subsidies, Slaw.
For the purposes of this discussion they don't kick in until after the midterms. How does that help Schumer today?
Explain. How do they not kick in until after the midterms? The ACA changes take effect this year. Not sure about the Medicaid / Medicare ones.
The cuts from the big beautiful bill are post dated until after 2026. Widely reported in the popular press.
Cannot wait for the Nate silver campaign bio hate read!
Just as long as Nate reads that woman's bio and I don't have to ----