The double standard about who should have conceded to the other.
Why not … if ACA subsidies were that important to have a 40 day shut down.
Only to those living on Mars under a rock with their eyes closed. Everyone else knew from the beginning the Pubs would never negotiate.
The stand showed clearly that the GOP was the cause of the shut down, and that the GOP was clearly (althlo initially sneakily) trying to kill Obamacare.
I disagree. Negotiation was possible. The GOP giving the DMs everything they wanted- that wasnt going to happen, but the GOP has compromised before.
Add this to things everyone already knew. And was that stand worth the furloughs? The loss of SNAP?
Not on ACA subsidies and especially not if there was no quid pro quo. Besides reopening the government, what would the Pubs get out of the deal?
No one outside Capitol Hill knew that until the shutdown. The shutdown publized the extent the GOp was willing to go to kill the ACA,
I disagree. And the Pubs would get “No bad publicity” which hurt them in the 2025 elections, and will hurt then in 2026.
You couldn’t make this up.
House Republicans and Democrats alike slammed a provision in the shutdown-ending funding measure that would give senators the opportunity to earn significant amounts of money from litigation challenging the seizure of their phone records as part of former special counsel Jack Smith’s Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol attack probe.
The provision, which is retroactive to 2022, allows members of the Senate to sue for $500,000 if their data was sought or obtained without them being notified. Smith sought the phone records of eight senators as well as one member of the House during his investigation.
I’m a proponent of the Democrats fighting dirty and I thought it was good that they were willing to go for brinkmanship like this. It’s pretty clear they’re in way over their skis and they need to be way better prepared if they ever want to fight this dirty again.
That part was 100% a choice of this administration. The shutdown gave Trump the excuse to take food safety from Americans, but he didn’t have to do it – there were emergency funds he specifically chose not to use.
I wasn’t offering an opinion, I was simply posting a relevant video. Stewart delivered a bitterly sarcastic flamethrower of a monologue, and I was actually hoping to hear other Dopers’ thoughts on it. But it sounds like you’re just knee-jerk reacting to my post without having watched the video.
Personally, I thought Stewart made some good points on how disappointing it was that the Dems caved right on the heels of their election momentum. But I was wondering whether he was actually a little bit too hard on Schumer, as this article maintains:
Did you mean to say ‘The majority of the public was still blaming the Democrats for the shutdown’? The second part of that sentence seems to support your ‘what would be the point’ argument, but not the first part.
Not only did they choose not to, they were ordered to do so by the courts and fought it.
Yep, and the Courts said so.
So- what was Stewarts solution?
No, the public was still blaming the GOP for the shut down. But the Public is fickle, they could start thinking it was the Dems fault. The Dems gave up to end the shut down at the right time- the pubic was now clearly aware that the GOP was just trying to kill “Obamacare” by a sneaky move. The best solution would be to get the GOP to agree to what the Dems wanted- that was unlikely. The next best was to get a compromise, and that was hoped for- but it became clear the MAGAs were not going to even negotiate. So, the Dems settled for the third best- make sure the public blamed the GOP for the shut down (which helped in the 2025 elections, which the Dems did great in) and will realize that next year, when their ACA premiums get so high they cant afford healthcare- that the GOP did that. This was really a win.
It’s not a win for those whose ACA premiums get so high they can’t afford healthcare.
Which now is clearly the fault of the GOP, which tried to slip that by quietly. Look, the GOP wasnt gonna give in, so what were the Dems to do?
Have a solid message targeting Trump. He was always the only one who could get this done. Trump almost did, but Republican Congress quickly folded him back in to their message.
Didn’t work. There will be more opportunities. However, Schumer is not good at public messaging. It’s not authentic.
I know I’ve expressed my opinion previously, and many of you disagree for various legitimate reasons. But I could imagine crafting a persuasive message around:
We wanted to maintain access to health care. Premiums increased x%, and Repubs were fine with that. They offered no alternatives to the ACA subsidies. You are feeling the pain of the increased subsidies.
Instead of negotiating on this, we saw the cruelty, in eliminating SNAP - despite haveing acess to funds and seeking SCt review when ordered to, hamstringing air travel, firing federal employees…
In the meantime, they caused unrest in major cities, using the military to go after immigrants who are clearly not the most dangerous lawbreakers. ICE has a greater budgett than the combined police departments in every city and state. Does that reflect your priorities? Even if you wish something done about immigration, do these proportions make sense to you?
And look at who is getting tax breaks.
Sure, that is too wordy for any 1 message. But hammering a combination of those? If the electorate rejects that message, we deserve what we get.
Look, I’m not saying I have any better answers for what the Dems could or should have done. But your bold, confident declaration that “this was really a win” I just can’t understand. A lot of people are going to suffer. This was a win for nobody. Except, maybe trump, who once again gets exactly what he wants.
As an aside - nice to get paid today after a month without paychecks. Very confusing, as it is only part of the back pay, deductions and all, but seems to be th elion’s share of what I was owed.
Think I’ll go buy some golf clubs. Stimulate the economy!
Show of hands among federal employees - how many of you have become more energized and dedicated to your jobs as a result of all this? 
Congratulations, sincerely. One of my best friends works for SSA and has been working without a paycheck for a while, and it was very hard to see him struggling. Regardless of everything else, I’m glad to know he’s finally going to be getting money again.
I’m a state employee, not federal, but from what my friend expressed to me, he was already pretty pissed off from all the BS that DOGE was trying to pull, and how paranoid and hostile it made his work. And the constant budget cuts forcing people to cram into hallways on tiny makeshift desks using WiFi because they closed so many offices but wouldn’t let people work from home. And then having people work without pay. Not to mention the months where every day he wasn’t sure if he might suddenly lose his job arbitrarily (and he’s still not 100% confident that won’t happen). You can bet he’s absolutely thrilled with everything.
Funny little thing, but I got fitted for golf clubs this morning (early 65th birthday present.) I just mentioned that I was happy to have gotten paid this morning, and as a govt employee, he gave me the “Heroes” discount which is specifically mentions the military, first responders, teachers…. No, I’m not a hero. But I do feel that many people overlook that there is some element of public service in government employment.
I recall back in the 80s-90s, people were telling me that I ought to go into private employ, as it paid better. Then, in the 00s, plenty of those private employees got laid off, and businesses closed. Now some of those same people are saying things suggesting they feel I ought not be getting the pension I’ve earned. Peoples’ perspectives are funny things.
I’ve been with SSA for 39 years now. Intend to retire w/ 41 years. Every workplace has its issues. And the bureaucracy has always had its share of - well - bureaucracy. But the vast majority of feds I’ve known are just wanting to do a decent job for their pay. And most feel they are doing something somewhat worthwhile - providing some worthwhile service, rather than just making some owner/shareholders more money.
The factors you describe - and just in general being portrayed as a “bad guy” for simply doing your job, sure makes it hard to convince yourself to go over and above the bare minimum. I keep waiting for people to realize that they miss the services they no longer are getting…
Did the Dems not sweep the 2025 by-elections? Isn’t that a win? And cant we hope that the 2026 elections will be just as good for the Dems?
Sure, I think we can agree that ideally the MAGAs would have given in on the ACA- but that was unlikely.
Yeah - we can HOPE. But I HOPED Kerry would beat W, Hillary would beat Trump, Kamala would beat Trump…
11/26 is a long way away. And the House/Senate races a quite different animal than these last ones. The recent elections were a good sign, and hopefully a sign of trending opinion. But SO FAR from a guarantee.
First of all, most voters are either not going to know or care about what happened with the shutdown, and those who do are mostly partisan democrats or republicans. 2026 is probably going to be a good election for dems for similar reasons 2025 was, which in my opinion are going to be Trump’s botched handling of the economy and minority voters waking up to how racist his administration is.
For another thing during the by-elections, the shutdown was ongoing so voters still might have thought that Democrats would actually pull off a pretty amazing feat and get them savings on their health insurance. Now they didn’t deliver anything. And of course it was ambitious of the Democrats to try to deliver those healthcare savings but if they had simply not tried they wouldn’t have to explain how they didn’t succeed.