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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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,
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.
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".
I wouldn't call this "zugzwang". In chess, "zugzwang" means that any move makes your situation worse. This is a situation where there probably IS a right move, but the trouble is, it's not clear what that move is.
First, the Dems are going to cave eventually. They care about the people who would be held hostage by a shutdown and they care about the cost that happen because of stopping and restarting programs.
The Republicans don't care. They are the party of "Congress shall make no law".
So if this is a noise effort, what is the best noise to make.
Tariffs are a ticking time bomb, but they haven't exploded yet, and Trump can eliminate them with a stroke of the pen if he wants. There is no long term leverage.
Health care is also an issue for down the road, but it is an issue in the D's wheelhouse, and the mess is built into the Trump spending plan, so it will happen.
A couple of weeks of headlines about health care will reinforce voters beliefs, and lock in the blame for the R's.
When tariffs fully explode, the D's can make hay about that.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
Cannot wait for the Nate silver campaign bio hate read!
By 2028 tariffs will either have worked or not. We know healthcare cuts are coming post 26 and in a narrow election it's a potentially winning issue.
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.
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.
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,
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.
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".
I wouldn't call this "zugzwang". In chess, "zugzwang" means that any move makes your situation worse. This is a situation where there probably IS a right move, but the trouble is, it's not clear what that move is.
Really hoping you write about Yudkowsky's book! I just bought it. Really hope it makes a difference in stopping AI from killing us all.
First, the Dems are going to cave eventually. They care about the people who would be held hostage by a shutdown and they care about the cost that happen because of stopping and restarting programs.
The Republicans don't care. They are the party of "Congress shall make no law".
So if this is a noise effort, what is the best noise to make.
Tariffs are a ticking time bomb, but they haven't exploded yet, and Trump can eliminate them with a stroke of the pen if he wants. There is no long term leverage.
Health care is also an issue for down the road, but it is an issue in the D's wheelhouse, and the mess is built into the Trump spending plan, so it will happen.
A couple of weeks of headlines about health care will reinforce voters beliefs, and lock in the blame for the R's.
When tariffs fully explode, the D's can make hay about that.