Time to Win the Shutdown

On Friday, there were two votes to pass a Continuing Resolution.

A vote to pass the House-passed clean funding (which added security for members of Congress) failed 44-47. John Fetterman voted with Republicans, Lisa Murkowski and Rand Paul voted with Dems, and eight Republicans — including some rabid Trump loyalists — did not vote. A vote to pass a Democratic alternative, which restored funding for healthcare cut in the Big Ugly bill, added measures to prohibit illegal rescissions, and added more funding than the House bill for security also failed, 45-47, on a strictly party line vote, with the same eight Republicans not voting.

As a result, in nine days, there’s a good chance that the government will shut down, the thing many lefty voices say they wanted because, they claimed, it will be a good way to fight Trump’s fascism.

It’s time everyone on the left starts working to win a shutdown.

To be sure, there are still multiple routes via which a shutdown might not happen. It’s definitely possible Schumer will disappoint us and cave. It’s possible that enough Democrats will join Fetterman in supporting the GOP clean resolution, against Schumer’s whipping, to allow Republicans to fund government. There’s some talk of using concessions on health spending in a follow-up to convince Schumer to cave.

Betting markets are putting a 71% chance on a shutdown.

Even if you distrust Schumer, messaging now about the import of a shutdown to rein in Trump’s authoritarianism can only serve to buck up Democrats, making a shutdown more likely, making the likelihood a shutdown will make a difference more likely.

Thus far, many lefty voices who’ve been insisting a shutdown will fight fascism are doing little to prepare the groundwork for one. Indeed, there was some griping that Hakeem Jeffries and Chuck Schumer made a show of asking Trump for a meeting to avoid the shutdown.

Top congressional Democrats are asking President Trump for a meeting before an impending government shutdown.

“We write to demand a meeting in connection with your decision to shut down the federal government,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries, both of New York, wrote in a Saturday morning letter.

The pair say that GOP leaders have “repeatedly and publicly refused to engage in bipartisan negotiations to keep the government open.”

This was a fairly obvious ploy, an attempt to blame Trump for the shutdown, possibly even to provoke Trump into saying something really inflammatory that would make it easier to do so. Even Thune has made clear he can’t move on anything until Trump agrees.

Republican sources familiar with the Senate’s internal dynamics say that Thune doesn’t want to begin negotiating with Schumer until he’s clear what Trump is willing to accept, and Trump himself has yet to give the GOP leader clear guidance about what he would sign into law.

Thune says the White House needs to weigh in before any deal is reached and explained that while his staff has been in contact with White House staff, he has yet to speak directly to Trump on the matter.

[snip]

Thune may be trying to avoid a repeat of what happened in late July and early August, when he tried to negotiate a deal with Schumer to speed up the confirmation of more than 140 stalled executive branch nominees that Democrats had slow-walked through the Senate.

After days of negotiations, Trump blew up the emerging deal when it was presented to him, according to a person familiar with the negotiations.

One Republican senator who requested anonymity to comment on Thune’s relationship with Trump said the GOP leader wants to be careful of not getting too far in front of the president in any negotiation with Schumer.

The lawmaker said the impasse between Thune and Schumer over the looming expiration of the Affordable Care Act premium subsidies is “solvable” but not without Trump giving GOP leaders on Capitol Hill the green light.

Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries’ job and audience is different from yours. Their audience includes caucus members, the DC press, even Republicans. Thus the posturing. Their audience also includes the rest of the country, who will lose services under the shutdown and decide who to blame, who’ll figure that out largely based on what friends and family tell them, but will be influenced by what they see on TV and hear on their favorite podcast.

With the exception of holding the caucus in line, making sure your Democratic Senator doesn’t cave, your audience is just the latter group and, especially if you’re from anyplace outside of New York Metro area, there are multiple ways you can influence that latter group more effectively than Jeffries and Schumer can.

Yet the same people who’ve claimed a shutdown would be an effective tool continue to focus on Schumer and Jeffries, even as the Democratic leaders attempt do things to make it easier to blame Republicans for the shutdown. Even as the right has already started accusing Dems of only trying to fund undocumented people (repeating their excuse for cutting healthcare), lefty pundits remain focused on Democrats.

Much of the griping about Jeffries and Schumer focuses on their choice to ask for healthcare funding, and not something focusing on ICE. Some of the shutdown coverage makes the political logic of that ask clear. It’s something Dems in both houses could agree on; they wouldn’t have on ICE. The ObamaCare subsidies are something even some Republicans would like to fund. The Big Ugly bill that cut healthcare is something that individual Republicans, as distinct from Trump, bear personal responsibility for, and so can be politically pressured for. Healthcare will affect — already is affecting, in areas where rural hospitals are shutting down — people who otherwise pay no attention to politics.

Disagree with that all you want. It doesn’t stop you from using Democrats’ alternative CR to message about Republican responsibility for the shutdown, to tie that to Trump’s authoritarianism. As noted, Schumer and Jeffries also included efforts to reverse Trump’s usurpation of the power of the purse. That part of the bill is being conveniently ignored by sloppy both-sides political journalists, who want this to be as partisan and frivolous as they can bother. But that part of the bill can be used to tie Trump to specifics — like taking steps that will lead to millions of deaths and shutting down rural broadcast stations. It can also be used to hold right wing members of Congress responsible for abdicating their job under the Constitution.

If you were sure the shutdown was necessary to break Trump’s momentum, now is the time to work relentlessly, to speak relentlessly, on tying funding government to all the things that threaten democracy and threaten the health, safety, and livelihood of your neighbors. Now is the time to explain how the right wing capitulation to Trump has started destroying the lives of all Americans not on the take.

image_print
Share this entry
79 replies
  1. P J Evans says:

    The people who complain about Schumer and Jeffries seem to be burn-it-all-down lefties. I can’t see where they’ve even thought past step 1 – and stpe 2 (“then a miracle occurs”) isn’t happening.

  2. pH unbalanced says:

    I don’t feel competent to game things out and tell the Democrats in Congress what they *should* do in this situation.

    I’m just left with this vague feeling that shutting down the government at large is a thing that authoritarians work hard at doing themselves — since they will never actually shut down the parts of the government that give them power, whatever the law says.

  3. Old Rapier says:

    If Trump’s maximalists were really sharp they wouldn’t shut down the government. Simply carry on, without messy congressional approval. The Treasury had $740bn in the bank last Wednesday, enough to pay all the bills for a couple of months if the economy completely collapsed, which wouldn’t happen, since nothing is shut down.

    Why mess around with pseudo post Constitutional government when you can have the real thing?

    • Lostinmesa says:

      I normally agree. In this case, Trump is shutting down which ever parts or people he wants to anyway, so I think they should go with a shut down for visibility. However, I think ACA subsidies is the wrong hill to die on. Rates are going to rise, regardless of subsidies, and are already unaffordable to much of the middle class.

      So, if they shut down for subsidies and the result (if they win) is that your bill only goes up $200 a month vs $400 a month- you haven’t won over anyone.

      A better reason for a shut down is Trumps usurpation of congressional authority/ constitutional powers. Firing people unlawfully appointed by Congress, closing Departments created by congress, fake emergencies (energy, immigration, Fetanyl) to avoid Congressional authority. “No Kings” premise, that you can get support for from the Right wing and use against Republicans in office.

      A simple ask would be that any Presidential ‘emergency’ needs to be confirmed by a majority in the Senate with in 2 weeks of being enacted, or it is no longer in effect and no funding can be allocated towards it, and no additional powers used.

      “We aren’t going to authorize additional funding for Trump to just spend as he likes, ignoring the law and Congress.” Make it so Republicans have to actively agree with whatever Trump does, and that they are fine with any President declaring emergencies and usurping Congress.

      As Bernie says “no one loves their insurance company “. I don’t see where ACA subsidies are going to win over voters. Politically, Republicans destroying healthcare is a better win in the long term. Yes, people will suffer, but people already are suffering with our convoluted and unaffordable system- let Republicans take the responsibility for that. “We shut down the government so your bill increased less” is a stupid move, imo.

      If you do a shut down, you need a real win/ message to run on. Everyone who cares already know Republicans are killing funding for Medicaid, ACA, etc. Those who don’t know, won’t care until it affects them. As is, with increased grocery prices, rent, etc, it will just be one part of the economic policies of the right that hurt people. Let them take full responsibility for it.

      “We aren’t signing an increase in debt for Trump to just spend however he wants, while Republicans refuse to rein him in.” Done. Easy.

  4. DrRickTx says:

    The only thing certain about a shutdown is that it will not be played by the old rules…planning out a strategy based on the rules as written is a fools errand

    [Welcome back to emptywheel. Please use the SAME USERNAME and email address each time you comment so that community members get to know you. You attempted to publish this comment as “TxDr Rick” triggering auto-moderation; it has been edited to reflect your established username. Please check your browser’s cache and autofill; future comments may not publish if username does not match. /~Rayne]

  5. Peterr says:

    Rep. Sharice Davids (D, KS-03) has been hammering home the health care issues fairly relentlessly since July. Sometimes it is the ACA subsidies, other times the threats to rural hospitals in KS, and still other times the cuts to medical research (KU Med Center is a huge research hospital). The GOP has targeted her seat for 2026, and she is going after them on something they are very vulnerable on.

    • emptywheel says:

      There’s a great many pundits who HATE that Dems have maintained discipline on this point.

      But it has worked to make the Big Ugly unpopular, and that’s even before the cuts really start to hit.

    • Lostinmesa says:

      So, why do Democrats want to take on any responsibility for it? People will still lose benefits and pay higher premiums- even if they win, the win will be ‘not as bad as it could have been’. That doesn’t win anybody over.

      Shut down over Trumps use of emergency powers. “We can’t vote for continuing to hand Trump a blank check, that he spends however he wants regardless of what Congress votes for”. Make Republicans have to agree or not agree to limit the President’s emergency powers.

      That feeds the ‘no kings’ protests, and can be sold to the majority of the country. It would allow Democrats to talk continuously about Trumps authoritarian overreach- tariffs, immigration, energy… And next year, you get to argue against every GOP Congress person running that there is no point in giving them a paycheck when all they do is kneel for Trump.

      • CitizenSane77 says:

        Because democrats want to save rural Trump voters in need of healthcare from Trump, in a vain attempt to do what’s right in the short term while not strategizing for the long-term, a problem all too common with democrats. They also don’t realize that if they save rural hospitals, Trump will just create a narrative of lies either taking credit for it or denying that rural hospital funding was ever at risk.

        Democratic state governors are wrestling with this issue also – whether to use state funds to revive rural hospital funds after Trump’s federal cuts affecting state services. I’m at the point where I believe Democrats need to show the world the consequences of Trump rather than covering for him and losing the long game, and long-term health of the country.

        • Rayne says:

          First, you tip your personal sentiments about “democrats” by repeatedly using lower case d instead of D.

          Second, are you seriously okay with Americans regardless of their political identity dying because of Trump’s Project 2025 bullshit? Did you not feel outraged when that happened under Trump 1.0?

          This is exactly when we’re called to save Bluebeard’s idiotic last wife. They married him and his policies by voting for him. They are already dying because of their bad choices. Democrats don’t need to prove to Bluebeard’s wife that every bit of toxic fallacious propaganda about Democrats is instead accurate. We need to build a way to publicize the rescue so they know who it was that showed up when their Bluebeardian Orangeskin shat on them.

        • CitizenSane77 says:

          Replying to myself since Rayne disabled the reply function. I simply respectfully disagree to the comment below and see it differently. No, I’m not OK with anyone not receiving healthcare, but I view the long-term approach and Democrats hopefully gaining power over republicans (satisfied?) as providing more more healthcare to all, whereas short term coverage may assist citizens in the short term, but continue to screw over more people in the long term if Republicans remain in power.

          And I don’t think trying to build narratives to “publicize the rescue” is a winning strategy when the right has a stronghold on the media. Democrats need to let him own his policies fully so America can see their failure, while Democrats should focus on pro-Democratic policies rather than always trying to counter Maga. Give us something to vote FOR, not just against.

          Just my opinion. Sorry.

        • Rayne says:

          Reply to CitizenSane77
          September 24, 2025 at 6:47 pm

          I did not disable the reply function. Pay attention to how comments work here: they only go four wide – an original comment and three replies wide. This was changed a few years ago because comments ziggurated so far out they were impossible to read. Address your comment if it’s the fourth reply with the commenter’s name and time of the comment to which you’re replying.

          As for “Democrats should focus on pro-Democratic policies rather than always trying to counter Maga” — there’s no good reason why Democrats can’t both hold the line to prevent Americans’ deaths while working toward a better health care system. You seem to think only MAGA live in red states and red districts, that Democrats who live there aren’t worth saving. Pro-Democratic and pro-democratic policies don’t cherry pick blue states and blue districts, nor do they forget that Democrats live nearly everywhere.

  6. Ginevra diBenci says:

    I will sound stupid now. Our best friends recently triggered an argument by announcing they had switched their party affiliation from Democrat to Independent. Their reason? “That idiot Chuck Schumer caved to Trump” the last time a shutdown loomed. Spouse diBenci, incensed, tried to tell them Schumer was out of options and this was the better one. I said at least the courts stayed open, citing Judge Boasberg’s ability to try to keep deportation flights from going out. (Plus, here in closed-primary Connecticut, if you relinquish your chance to vote in Democratic primaries, the choice is often out of your hands.)

    Stupid me can’t figure out whether EW’s post is counseling us to pressure lawmakers to hold firm FOR a shutdown, or negotiate (somehow?) with, I guess, Thune to get healthcare coverage. I too have sampled some of the anti-Schumer ‘n’ Jeffries invective, and found it knee-jerk and unenlightening. But I can’t figure out how to play this one.

    • emptywheel says:

      I think it’s inevitable, in large point because Trump won’t negotiate (when I get video posted on this I think there’ll be Schumer language to that effect). Schumer is effectively saying TRUMP wants a shutdown and he’s probably right.

      • harpie says:

        I think this is right. Dems can’t negotiate by themselves.

        Would there be an increased risk of
        TRUMP doing Presidential Emergency Powers Things?

      • Brad Cole says:

        Which makes the 8 Not Voting notable. They must feel vulnerable because none of them have any principle to protect.
        Banks, Blackburn, Cassidy, Johnson, Lee, Mullet, Scott, Sullivan.

      • Ginevra diBenci says:

        Trump now (apparently) ducking that meeting with Dem leaders certainly does add to the impression that he is the one cruising for a shutdown.

        I figured that his typical short-term-gain petulance might result in this meeting not happening. But I wondered if folks like Susie Wiles would counsel against Trump’s petulant impulses, for this very reason–that behavior like this makes it more likely that blame for the shutdown will stick to him. Maybe he thinks he can tweet/Truth it back on the Dems.

        So this is where we step up and do our part.

        • Bugboy321 says:

          That’s because Trump’s MO is to *LOOK* like he’s doing something and convince the press to go along with that, because it’s too damned hard to actually, you know, do the job of presidenting.

          Pretty damned sad the press hasn’t picked up on his greatest hits.

      • Molly Pitcher says:

        Yes, we felt that one here in Silicon Valley this morning, it must have been quite an awakening for you in Berkeley !!

        Hope Memorial Stadium hasn’t split more. But considering the way the Bears played Saturday it might not matter.

        • punaise says:

          Well, it certainly got our attention! Definitely the strongest one I’ve felt in some years because it was so close. (1 km away according to USGS). Significant jolts followed by really loud rattling of our old double-hung windows, No damage to report. 
          Not looking forward to the Big One… 

          What the heck happened to Cal? Finally ran into a non-patsy opponent?

      • wa_rickf says:

        Meh…measly 4.3

        Loma Prieta was 6.9 (7.1 downgraded to 6.9 – prolly by some size queen: Not big enough!)

        THAT was an earthquake. 8 )

        • P J Evans says:

          Landers/Big Bear (1992) and Searles Lake/Ridgecrest (2019), where the second was larger than the first…and neither was small. Landers really was a rude awakening – I remember being braced in the doorframe (back to hinges), wondering if it was safe to dash across the room and shut off the alarm clock.

        • wa_rickf says:

          I was actually still in El Lay at the time writing a paper for a college class. There was a radio station at the time called The Wave (94.7 FM). “New Age” music. The station didn’t play commercials hardly, and they NEVER read the news. The station said there had been an earthquake in SF. Then they announced it again a few minutes later. It occurred to me the station never read the news, so I turned on the TV. Welp, I didn’t get the paper done. I was mesmerized by homes spilling over the INTO the street in the Marina district.

          I moved to SF 14 months later to finish college. I watched the Embarcadero freeway being torn down from my Scotts Seafood job.

        • pH unbalanced says:

          Yeah, that was quite an earthquake. I was in college out there during the Loma Prieta earthquake — a lot of student housing had to be closed, and I ended up homeless for 4 weeks. (Because I didn’t have housing *before* the earthquake, I’d been sleeping on the floor of one of my friends dorm rooms, and then their dorm got shut down, but the university didn’t have to make arrangements for me since I didn’t have a housing contract.)

          Wasn’t fun but it turned out okay and I sure learned some things.

        • punaise says:

          ” a few more good earthquakes”

          Good in the sense of the minor to moderate seismic events that release tectonic pressure without much damage and (maybe) push out the Big One.

          Growing up in CA I experienced plenty of shakes but was living abroad and missed the Loma Prieta.

        • P J Evans says:

          Ah, Loma Prieta. I was listening to KNX, as they were carrying the World Series, so I heard about it fast. One of their people was talking to his GF in SF at the time it hit. My sis was just leaving work in Richmond when it hit, and said she thought as first it was flat tires, then heard the car alarms and knew what it was. (She was also glad she wasn’t working down by Oakland airport, as she’d have been on the lower deck of the Cypress structure.)

    • gmokegmoke says:

      My reading between the lines is that Indivisible and No Kings are organizing small groups as preparation for a general strike. They are preparing the foundation for the large effort that a general strike would require. Indivisible has Zoom conversations every Thursday I believe: https://indivisible.org

      Next No Kings event is October 18.

      • wa_rickf says:

        I would support a general strike, but it has to be 2 or 3 days in a row. EVERYONE has to do it too. Put the fear into Trump is only way it will work – show him WE are the boss and he and his SCOTUS better shape up.

  7. harold hecuba says:

    I think a shutdown is inevitable and it’s painfully apparent that Dems need to hammer home EW’s points and then some:
    – Trump/GOP refused to negotiate/come to the table
    – if Dems do vote to avert a shutdown, as Trump/GOP have shown the last time, they have no qualms about defunding whatever they want to defund, DESPITE the funding being in any spending bill
    – which means that it’s quite possible that any funding cuts scheduled in 2028 may happen a LOT sooner as the economy continues to nose dive

    I also don’t understand why more Dems aren’t hitting the stock market upswing a lot harder. All indicators are that the economy is going to tank, yet stocks are doing fine. And that’s only good for one group of people and they’re most likely not the average American’s neighbors. (and let’s not forget how this administration is putting the kibosh on economic reports, refusing to even present any data they don’t like)

    • Amateur Lawyer at Work says:

      The market has priced-in all of that, nominally. They prices in the 25 base point cut in interest rates, if not for the rationale cited by Powell. They’ve priced-in a short shutdown followed by Democrats caving. They’ve priced in a gigantic bailout of industries hit by tariffs and that the tariffs will be ruled unconstitutional. Etc., etc., etc.
      Now, their analyses are not the same. Their model has Powell saying, “The economy needs a little juicing” rather than “Inflation is horribly persistent but unemployment is ballooning too fast unless we act.” They’re pricing in Republicans marginally propping up rural communities through future supplementals rather than what will probably happen: a prolonged shutdown that accelerates rural collapse starting with health care.

      • Allagashed says:

        Collapse of rural societal infrastructure is already well under way up here. Where once the parking lots in border towns were filled with Canadian cars, they are now silent and empty. Rural healthcare is falling apart. The loss of doctors and programs, the closing of satellite clinics, the nursing layoffs… One more little push and the whole thing goes off the cliff.

      • pH unbalanced says:

        The Fed is also currently working off of the theory that tariffs are a one-time price shock that won’t lead to systemic inflation.

        Which is formally true, but so much of inflation involves psychology that it really depends on whether or not companies can make price increases stick, and all of this primes their ability to do that.

    • P J Evans says:

      The Felon Guy wants to take the money he rescinded from CA high-speed rail and put it into Something Else. He also rescinded 500 million for an offshore wind turbine project.

      • wa_rickf says:

        I know a guy in France that manages the construction of these off-shore wind farms.

        He said when Trump cancelled the U.S. contracts, billions were wasted because of impending fabrication and construction.

        • P J Evans says:

          The Felon Guy may not realize just how much damage he’s doing to the US economy – but people around him do, and some of them are looking forward to it.

  8. John B.*^ says:

    A shutdown isn’t good for any normal constituency but the authoritarians won’t mind it as they will just do what they want anyway regardless if is legal or not…there is no upside to any of this for normal Americans, independents, and liberals, like me.

    • xyxyxyxy says:

      In PA, it’s almost like a government shutdown.
      Budget is almost 3 months past deadline to be passed.
      School districts have had to borrow about $2 billion to keep schools open meaning tens of millions of taxpayer dollars being spent on interest and fees on those loans.
      Social, health and other government services have been suspended.
      These budget impasses lasting months have been going on every year for quite a few years with the last longest impasse lasting nine months.

      • HonestyPolicyCraig says:

        The School District of Philadelphia just settled a 3 year contract with us. It’s what you would call a “same old same old” contract, nothing for anyone.

        What is insane is the district did not have enough money to pay the teachers for a full year based upon the old contract. The district will be forced to spend 30 million in debt interest. That’s money that should be going to programs for children and it will be going into the hands of banks.

        I am watching a sinking ship. Harrisburg is obviously putting money into the pockets of rich people at the expense of poor people.

        Government shut down? We peasants don’t care. It is already shut down for us. Republican, Democrat, or Independent? Who gives a shit. They are all in government positions to serve the super rich. We have a peasant class now. And it is going to get enormous.

        https://www.chalkbeat.org/philadelphia/2025/09/11/school-board-approves-teachers-union-contract-amid-budget-uncertainty/

        • Magnet48 says:

          Good news for MD : low-income who applied for fuel assistance got emails/texts asking if they wanted to reapply for same. I replied yes & got $400 credit divided between oil & electric.

    • Thequickbrownfox says:

      Exactly. The administration just “upped the ante”. They are going to FIRE federal workers, not lay them off temporarily. Only essential workers will be retained, Everybody else will be RIF’d, with the intention of not re-hiring them when the shutdown ends. They don’t give a shit about federal regulations, because the Supremes have shown that they won’t intervene, even if the Executive violates procedure.

      https://www.politico.com/news/2025/09/24/white-house-firings-shutdown-00579909

      I’ve been saying that these fuckers have gamed everything out, but nobody seems to believe it. And nobody has found a way to stop them.

      Any suggestions? Anyone?

  9. Matt Foley says:

    Off topic good news: Jimmy Kimmel show is back on Tuesday but Trump’s apprentice game show is still cancelled forever.

    Trump was very grabby with Erika Kirk at the memorial service, er, Trump rally. Maybe that’s his way to keep himself from crying.

      • Knowatall says:

        Like Lady Demerzel (Foundation). Lady Melania’s programming prohibits her from speaking against her inhuman overlord(s). She’ll go down with he ship, just like in The Foundation.

        • Matt___B says:

          Did you know that Foundation was produced by Skydance? Yeah, the folks who bought Paramount and got Colbert cancelled (on the heels of Trump getting CBS to pay $16 million in knee-bending fees for the 60 Minutes “editing” debacle. Bully-hIt them again while they’re still lying prone on the ground, huh?)

          It was a good series though!

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demerzel

  10. Amateur Lawyer at Work says:

    I’ve seen it cast that Schumer and Jefferies’ strategy is to get as alone with Trump as possible, flatter him as much as their stomachs can handle in return for hard policy concessions, and then leave to talk to cameras before Johnson, Thune, and more importantly, Stephen Miller can tell Trump what he (and his possible dementia) has done.
    Trump’s blamed for shutdown AND it’s because his senility prevents him from remembering deals he made an hour ago. Some pipe-dreaming but it is a layered strategy.

    • Error Prone says:

      What Schumer has, he compromised last time, did the bipartisan thing, and here they go again. If he can get heard making that “I already gave in for the good of the country” stance and indicate that from that point the Repubs are going more and more against the people to where a firm “No more, your turn to move” stance is needed, and this is the time the Repubs should show bipartisan compromise; then he can get a better package (if heard and reported as already having given ground). That could get a better package but not a good one. The Repubs after all hold the three branches and none of them in the Senate, alone, will break from Trump. The donors likely will be okay if a shutdown happens, but they’d want it to be a short one.

    • Ginevra diBenci says:

      Or maybe their strategy was to SAY that was their strategy, then wait for Trump to cancel on them–as he seems to have just done–and smear the blame for the shutdown all over him. Which I hope they proceed to do.

      • Amateur Lawyer at Work says:

        Either way, they forced Trump to react rather than push the action. Status quo ante was a shutdown; Trump’s reaction increases the likelihood that ante becomes post.

  11. Zinsky123 says:

    Don’t surrender in advance. I believe Democrats can and should use government funding to break the fascistic machine and make Americans aware of how badly Republicans are mismanaging the American economy. Interest rates are headed up, regardless of what the Fed does because Trump and his minions are going to borrow BIGLY to fund the massive deficit between what we take in from taxation and what we spend on the most pernicious and expensive aspects of governance like immigration control, prisons and the War Department. Fascists always undertax the wealthy and overspend on the military. I agree with Marcy and Dems should use this as an opportunity to highlight how economically irresponsible and criminal the modern Republican Party is!

  12. Error Prone says:

    Schumer is the problem. We will have Schumer-Clinton warmed over Repub lite forever if there is not a reform into two parties that actually differ. The deep pocket donors own Schumer. It will require not going to the very brink of a shutdown, but to a shutdown. There is not enough spine to do that, and Trump will win.

    If it goes to a shutdown, let the mass public get its message from MSM as it’s been, but the donors will be the ones to force Trump or others on the Dem side to cave in and accept something. But the donors will draw a line. The Dems will most likely be the ones to cave in and give up principle to donor paid propaganda and fear of losing seats rather than gaining. But if the Dems hold tight, away from Schumer – Gottheimer and wait, the donors would soon enough want a resolution and lean on Trump.

    JD does not want his future lost in a shutdown. Play the hand or fold.

    And expect a Dem fold, Schumer led. Schumer is happy enough with the Repub position, but practically must huff and puff a little, then go with Trump. Trump and Schumer can meet, change a detail or two, and each say, “We won.” But it will be Trump winning, Schumer posing.

    • ernesto1581 says:

      I’m afraid you may be right. Bresnahan and Levine (in Politico) put it succinctly a few years ago:
      “The Schumer of today is a far cry from the Reagan-era liberal who won election to the House in 1980 and then embraced the mantle of a ‘law-and-order Democrat’ when he ran for the Senate in 1998. The self-described ‘angry centrist’ is no more.”
      At the same time he’s playing footsie with Trump he has to continue dangling a possible Mamdani endorsement, for a couple more weeks yet.
      Is that AOC in the wings, chafing for a primary challenge in 2028? he might well wonder. And will I end up spending my 79th birthday at home in Brooklyn?

    • P J Evans says:

      I’m sure that Schumer knows that The Felon Guy is not trustworthy. But if he can get a public commitment, that’s better than private promises.

  13. Peterr says:

    From CNBC, on Trump backing out of the meeting with Jeffries and Schumer:

    “After reviewing the details of the unserious and ridiculous demands being made by the Minority Radical Left Democrats in return for their Votes to keep our thriving Country open, I have decided that no meeting with their Congressional Leaders could possibly be productive,” Trump wrote in a Truth Social post Tuesday.

    Jeffries later tweeted, “Trump Always Chickens Out.”

    “Donald Trump just cancelled a high stakes meeting in the Oval Office with myself and Leader Schumer. The extremists want to shut down the government because they are unwilling to address the Republican healthcare crisis that is devastating America,” the Democratic leader wrote.

    Internal links omitted.

    Note, please, Jeffries’ framing: “Republican health care crisis.” The TACO tweet was a nice poke at the bear, but it’s the framing that is more important. Whatever happens to resolve the shutdown, Dems need to make the GOP own the healthcare mess.

      • Error Prone says:

        Reply to Harpie. A good link, following the thread helps. Last time, the House took a stand and Schumer undercut it. Jeffries is not the problem. Jeffires is keeping it simple. That link ended, “Hold the line.” That’s necessary because Trump’s people are forcing the issue. It’s not the time or position to push for more than holding the line. I’d like universal care, but now hold the line. Build from there when next having the chance. Don’t forget pushing our way, when back in the saddle.

        But for now, hold the line. Jeffries has the approach Schumer could again undermine.

  14. Savage Librarian says:

    Leaving MAGA

    Nothing like a fundie or a fund,
    Especially for the rich with golden-tongue
    who’ve made democracy so moribund,
    and exploited all our nation’s young.

    The GOP just loves to slash,
    cut and stomp and dish out trash,
    bash and smash and cause a crash,
    So we have to give them our backlash.

    It’s time to call a halt to slush,
    Let’s speak the facts, no more airbrush,
    Pull back the curtains, no hush-hush,
    We love free speech and we won’t shush.

    We don’t want farms to foreclose
    because of tariffs or Putin’s pose,
    We know where all this arose:
    The GOP where cons are pros.

    Who’s behind that Windsor “not”
    Selfish in a posed mugshot,
    Doesn’t give a diddly squat,
    Except to get more than he’s got.

    Uppity up our every cost
    by Republicans who’ve double crossed
    all of us because they’re bossed
    by lack of courage and ethics tossed.

    Groceries, healthcare, Epstein, hate,
    Republicans screwed us; that ain’t great,
    Leaving MAGA, some can’t wait,
    The best of them won’t hesitate.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=86tcoDjJWbk

    ‘There is going to be a cannibalization of itself’: Former Trump supporter (Rich Logis) on MAGA breakdown

  15. harpie says:

    Schumer posted this on Bluesky:

    https://bsky.app/profile/schumer.senate.gov/post/3lzjfvqm4g22o
    September 23, 2025 at 1:07 PM

    Trump in 2013 on how to avoid a shutdown:
    “You have to get everyone in a room. You have to be a leader.”

    Trump today: Cancels meeting with Democratic Leaders. [VIDEO]

    TRANSCRIPT:

    10/7/2013
    Q: First question, Don, we’re having a hell of a time trying to negotiate here in Washington. So, tell me, if you were President, what would you do?
    TRUMP: Well, very simply, you have to get everybody in a room. You have to be a leader. The President has to lead.

    4/7/2011
    TRUMP: I hear the Democrats are gonna be blamed and the Republicans are gonna be blamed. I actually think the President would be blamed.

    4/7/2011
    TRUMP: If there is a shutdown, I think it would be a
    treMENdously negative mark on the President of the United States.
    He’s the one that has to get people toGETHer.

    9/30/2013
    TRUMP: They’re not gonna be talking who the head of the House was, the head of the Senate. Who’s running things in Washington. []
    So, I really think the pressure is on the President.

    • Error Prone says:

      Last time Elon was chainsawing. That’s gone. My guess is then Schumer worried of a shutdown which was bad but not too bad, and Trump/Elon saying, “See we don’t need all the fluff, essential services – the war machine – my contracts – are enough.” Now Trump has pushed the “Independent” agencies to his will, and is not chopping rank and file heads. Schumer can be bolder if he wishes. But Jeffries focusing on healthcare cuts is not saying the needed solution is universal care, he is saying the system we have is being ruined. It may resonate but the problem of healthcare costing too much and delivering too little will remain, shutdown or not. But if Trump wants to push over the brink, let him, let the back and forth finger pointing ensue, and see where that goes. Caving in incrementally each time can only lead to bad things.

      You have to suffer to sing the blues. So suffer a shutdown, for the chance to sing “told you so, the man is a danger,” to the public.

      • P J Evans says:

        It hurts rural areas most – they’re already losing hospitals because so many people get Medicaid and without that money, they can’t afford to stay open.

  16. flyingfish says:

    If I recall during the last shutdown threat you pointed out that it would cause serious delays to the justice system because courts would suspend many cases against Trump. I assume the situation is the same this time but it didn’t slow Trump down with racking up more cases. It’s like he’s figured out a way for a denial of service attack on the court system by clogging it up and appealing everything which has worked. I wonder if you have a feeling for how this will affect the outstanding caseload this time? I see the litigation tracker on justsecurity is huge. https://www.justsecurity.org/107087/tracker-litigation-legal-challenges-trump-administration/

  17. Error Prone says:

    flyingfish – That site was not known to me before the link to it. TY! The Advisory Board there is an interesting mix of White Shoe law firm international law practitioners, mainly, and former high level govt. folks. The Guest Author roster is clearly globalist, not America First. I need to study the site more. Again, TY.

Comments are closed.