“Why don’t they own up to it?” No, I don’t have an answer. Truthfully, it wouldn’t surprise me in the least if they already have, but I have zero interest in trying to track down quotes to that effect only to have them parsed to death (not by you, but I suspect others would).
I don’t think it’s the ONLY way. If Dems made other concessions on chain migration, funding the wall, ending the diversity lottery, etc, I suspect they’d get DACA.
Given that most Americans want DACA, and most Americans don’t want the United States to build a wall between the US and Mexico (let alone fund it), don’t they act as better servants of US citizens not to concede to a minority on these issues? If a small minority seizes control of the government through parliamentary maneuvers, what should people aiming to represent the majority of US citizens do?
Between Graham-Durbin and Schumer’s offer for the wall, I can’t imagine what more Dems could give. I think what you are suggesting isn’t more compromise, it’s capitulation except on one issue.
Besides which, I don’t think there’s any confidence that Trump knows what he wants. He doesn’t seem to have any grasp on the issues beyond “I want a wall.” I don’t actually think he knows what DACA is. And Mitch McConnell said as plain as day that he doesn’t understand what the President wants in a bill.
Yeah, I don’t think there’s any chance Dems would consider it a good trade, just that there’s another way to get DACA, aside from shutting down the government. I’m not the least bit surprised it’s too unpalatable for the Dems to accept.
I agree, the self-proclaimed dealmaker appears to have thoroughly muddied the waters, which makes any negotiation difficult.
OK, but if you’re going to get hyper-technical like that, just because DACA ends, it doesn’t mean that all those kids (and most of them are actually adults) get sent back “home”. But still, the idea that this is the only way to get DACA approved is a hypothetical that may or may not be true. And if you expect the American electorate to play that sort of 3-Dimensional Chess, I think you’ll be disappointed. 
Anyway, I don’t think this will have any influence on the midterms. It’ll be done, gone and forgotten by then. And who knows what crisis or crises will ensue between now and then. Mostly, though, it’ll probably be a referendum on Trump, which bodes well for the Democrats.
So, you’re not actually saying that they did, just maybe sorta kinda they did, “wouldn’t surprise you”. But you won’t back up that half-assed assertion because its too much trouble and no one would take you seriously anyway?
That’s three inches of armor plate protecting a vacuum. You got nothin’, but its our fault?
Now that the white house is pushing for the nuclear option, I actually change my mind a bit. I didn’t really think that was on the table, but getting the republicans to eliminate the filibuster in order to avoid addressing DACA actually sounds like a political win to me.
Then the filibuster is officially dead, the republicans killed it. Lets them play a bit for the next few months, but this being an election year, they can’t do too much controversial stuff. Then, when the dems take over, they don’t need 60 votes to fix the stuff the republicans have been doing. Trump will, of course, threaten the veto pen, but if starts vetoing legislation that the majority of america wants, if it is he who shuts down the govt over a refusal to sign a spending bill, then it is only his political capital to lose.
I would personally, suggest one or both of two ideas to replace the procedural filibuster. The first is to make the filibuster back into what it used to be, something that required a senator or senators to actually stand and debate and refuse to yield the floor without a vote of cloture. The second would be to make repealing or replacing bills require the same proportion of legislators to vote for the change as originally voted for the bill.
That’s not really a filibuster or replacement at all. And I don’t see how raising additional hurdles to repealing or replacing legislation is a good thing.
Wouldn’t they just eliminate the filibuster for passing these types of resolutions and not for everything?
Something similar to what Harry Reid did for non-SCOTUS nominations? I suspect that’d last about as long as Reid’s arrangement did.
No, something similar to what McConnell did for SCOTUS nominees.
Does this really matter? If they put a DACA/CHIP/everything-but-the-wall bill in front of Trump, is he going to veto it?
AFAICT, the only difference between a minority party using the filibuster to shut down the government over Obamacare in 2013 and a minority party using the filibuster to shut down the government in 2018 is:
-
there was zero chance that shutting down the government would result in the DCemocrats caving and repealing Obamacare. ZERO! In theory everyone thinks DACA should be handled, including the Republican leadership but they seem to keep finding reasons not to do it. So in 2013 it was a pointless meaningless shutdown that threw red meat to their base and hurt the country. In 2018 it mightget something accomplished and throw red meat to the base.
-
Democrats have pretty much given Trump everything they think he wants in exchange for doing something he said he would be OK with doing and he said no.
-
Shutting down the government isn’t that big a deal, it was the resistance to raising the debt limit that was really “party before country” stuff. If Democrats try to prevent an increase in the debt ceiling limit then I think we can say “Both sides do it”
But yes the Democrats own this shut down.
Republicans shut down the government in a pointless attempt to repeal Obamacare. Democrats shut down government in an attempt to resolve DACA.
But I think it will make a huge difference in the lead-up. Enthusiasm of bases, donations, and primary challenges: On the D side in particular, the unified resistance (even if they back down in the end) could substantially quell the internecine warfare between progressives and moderates.
My gut feeling is the longer this lasts, the more it hurts the Democrats. Trump’s and the R’s spin is much easier to digest, I think, by the general public. We shall see.
Heh I haven’t heard that term since the Clinton administration.
“The Trump Shutdown”is easy to digest.
Yeah, but since the Clinton administration (one of my favorite phrases :D) we’ve had:
[ul]
[li]Bush won, twice[/li][li]Obama spoiled the original campaign for first female President[/li][li]Trump spoiled the retry[/li][/ul]
There hasn’t exactly been a lot for feminists to crow about. They had a march last year, so there’s that.
“They don’t want to pay the military because they want illegals here” is easier to digest, in my opinion.
Look, I’m a solid liberal Democrat. I just don’t trust the general public to view it the same way we do, no matter what the polls about DACA say.