If Dems weren’t substantially blamed for the shutdown before, they will be now.
They got essentially nothing.
Loved the Dem lawmaker who posted on Twitter about how Republicans will have to come to the negotiating table on health care subsidies now.
Or what? You going to lay a heap of indignation on them?
Pitiful.
Might have been pointed out since I’m skipping the 52 posts subsequent to this one … but it’s not on Schumer. Seven Democrats plus Independent Angus King defected without the Democratic Senate Caucus’ blessing.
Unless the point is that Schumer has been too ineffectual to keep the caucus steering in one direction. That could be a fair statement.
You’re right. It’s Durbin who is the whip and supposed to keep the caucus in line. Not that he’s anything other than a capitulating piece of crap.
Whether they got nothing may depend on whether the Democrat knows someone on SNAP.
Next shutdown deadline is January 30, if bills are not passed. But some will be passed, again with a few GOP concessions.
Some of this sounds like how Republicans, on the internet, used to post when the Democrats had congressional majorities. All we have to do is stop being wusses, and then being in the minority won’t matter! I do not find it plausible. Being in the minority does matter.
No one knows for sure what is the best strategy here. But I endorse the eight senators who voted to end the shutdown. They stood up against an angry Democratic Party base, knowing it will hurt their ability to raise campaign contributions, to do what they thought was best for America.
The senate has basically always been steered by the swing senators more than party leaders imposing discipline.
What can Durbin really threaten the senators with? Most of them aren’t even up for reelection so there’s really nothing.
If Schumer really wanted to go scorched earth he could remove/demote them from committees. I mean on some level if he really thought the shutdown was worth it than that should be worth it too but the caucus went into this knowing this wouldn’t be a consequence.
The democrats now have no credibility to oppose a clean cr. Why would the Republicans give them anything more than they’ve given now to a party that’s shown it isn’t united enough to commit to this brinksmanship.
He can fail to herd the cats. He shouldn’t be one of the ones capitulating if only because he’s the whip. Another geriatric politician that never had a real job in the last fifty years.
Good point. Trump and his servant Johnson would rather the government shutdown continue than risk the Epstein files being released.
Oh sure I agree with that. I just think this is an issue with the actual caucus membership, not the leaders.
Everyone is welcome to their opinions. I only offer my opinion/experience, as noted above, that I have long perceived Durbin as consistently representing my quite liberal views on pretty much every topic and at every turn. (I’m sure there may have been a disagreement over the years, but they do not immediately come to mind. Also, I thought he should have retired at least 1 - if not 2 - elections ago.)
Think and say whatever you wish. But if you wish to consider him a spineless flip-flopper, you might wish to look a little further into his record.
Even worse: hope you don’t get sick in 2026.
Unless a new law to extend the subsidies also opens up a “special enrollment period” for everyone, anyone who opts to not buy an Individual policy by 1/15/26 due to the price will not legally (under the current law) be allowed to buy coverage until next year’s Open Enrollment Period, and would not be covered by it until 1/1/27, unless they experience a “qualifying life event” (e.g., getting married, having a baby, changing jobs or leaving a job, moving, turning 26 years old).
People contain multitudes. For most of his career, Durbin has been a good “mainstream” Democrat. Recently he’s entirely failed to meet the moment in which the most important thing every day is to fight encroaching fascism and tyranny. Every decision, until this threat is no longer immediate, needs to be framed in terms of this fight. The stakes are much, much too high to prioritize literally anything else at more important.
How is it the leader and whip are on different pages with this? That smacks of terrible and ineffectual leadership first and foremost. If this was Schumer’s way of opening the government (looking like he’s opposed, but having Senators who are either retiring or not up for re-election be the “bad guys”), I don’t understand why he had his whip be one of the “bad guys” and vote in opposition to him. I mean, why not whip Gary Peters to vote yes; he’s retiring too, but his yes vote wouldn’t make Schumer look like a pathetic turd. Having his whip vote against him makes him look like a complete weak-ass ineffectual tool with no ability to control his own leadership, let alone run a party caucus. (How often does a whip vote in opposition to the party leader? I can’t imagine this EVER happens, and if it does, the leadership needs a complete overhaul.)
Now on the topic of the ACA subsidies, the Republicans negotiating on this next month, let alone passing an extension, is slim-to-none. But that might be a good thing longer term, because if they don’t, that’s going to stick on them and could absolutely fuck them with the electorate. 75% of the country wanted these subsidies extended permanently, even Republican voters, but now going into an midterm election, the Republicans in Congress will be the ones blamed for letting them expire. But on the slim chance they do negotiate with the Dems and pass an extension, well, that’s just good news for everyone who’s relying on health insurance staying somewhat affordable. So, either way, the Dems could come out of this ahead no matter what the Pubs end up doing in December.
Schumer just ends up looking like a piece of shit loser who has no ability to lead.
It’s actually worse than that, structurally. Durbin himself isn’t running for reelection. I really don’t understand how the Democratic caucus would put someone into leadership that is basically out the door.
But either way, Democratic party leadership in the Senate is in a bad spot, and Schumer probably has to go as minority leader after the midterms.
And the reality is that there are for more moderate Democratic Senators than there are moderate GOP ones.
I don’t think they need to. Historically it’s been the GOP that opposed clean CRs because they want to cut spending, not keep it at existing levels. There is also the fact that this compromise includes full-year funding for FDA and Ag Dept, so things like SNAP won’t be on the table in January.
Specifics would help. I’ve been impressed at what I’ve heard/seen from him this past year. Not sure what else could be done. Sincere question - what D Sens have done more?
Yeah, but he was in that leadership position before he decided not to run for re-election.
Yet another reason that people in their 70s should not be given leadership positions.
Especially something like the whip which is really just assistant caucus leader. The old people in congress aren’t going to be there forever and someone who is going to be around for a while needs to have a leadership role at some point.
Remember guys, It’s about the filibuster much more than health care.
Every day senate Democrats continued voting against ending the shutdown, Trump’s case for ending the filibuster got stronger. That’s how the shutdown would have ended if senate Democrats remained united.
I earlier endorsed the eight moderate senators on profiles in courage grounds. But I also like getting rid of the filibuster on grounds set out in my link, and as I have posted in another thread.
The 8 have the issue of not being able to make up their minds. Everything negative that happened was predictable from the start.
If these things were so important to any democrat they should have never supported this filibuster.
What House?