Eight Senate Dems Caved, and Caved Too Early

I agree with those who complain that the eight Democrats who voted for a deal to reopen the government caved, and they caved too early. Catherine Cortez Masto, Dick Durbin, John Fetterman, Maggie Hassan, Angus King, Tim Kaine, Jackie Rosen, and Jeanne Shaheen voted for cloture (Shaheen was the leader of the capitulating Democrats).

Jon Ossoff (who is the most vulnerable incumbent in next year’s election) and Chuck Schumer did not.

Start with the timing part. The shutdown was just entering a phase where two things were beginning to cause a lot more pain: airport slowdowns and food stamp cuts.

On the flights, Katie Porter had just cornered Sean Duffy on letting private jets fly while commercial flights were being canceled. He claimed that he had not done that. But at least per WSJ, he has now imposed flight restrictions for private flights.

The Federal Aviation Administration is slated to limit business jets and other private flights to some of the country’s largest airports to ease strains on air-traffic personnel during the government shutdown.

The restrictions are due to begin Monday and will affect private jet flights at a dozen airports, including Atlanta, Dallas-Fort Worth, Denver and Chicago’s O’Hare, according to the National Business Aviation Association trade group.

The FAA’s plan effectively halts business aviation operations at those airports, the trade group said.

“Safety is the cornerstone of business aviation, and NBAA is fully committed to ensuring the safety of the NAS,” Ed Bolen, the trade group’s chief executive, said in a statement Sunday. He added that the group will ensure that business aviation operators understand the restrictions and their implications.

The FAA didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

U.S. transportation officials have said that efforts to curb air traffic are designed to alleviate workload on controllers who are increasingly stressed and fatigued after going weeks without pay. Controllers are calling in sick while working second jobs, prompting sharp reductions in air travel with fewer FAA employees to oversee air traffic.

One way or another Porter’s success at magnifying this issue would have shifted (and will, if the deal takes a week to pass, as is predicted) the responsibility for this pain solidly onto Trump. Either Trump’s rich buddies will be prioritized, which will be a pitchfork moment. Or they won’t, which will create the kind of political pressure that works on Trump.

All that said, Duffy says it’ll be some time before flights are back to normal; the shutdown led to increased Air Traffic Controller retirements, so this problem will linger even if government reopens.

Then there’s the matter of SNAP. Trump and courts gave conflicting instructions over the last two weeks about what will happen to SNAP funding for November. It would be provided, then only half would, two judges ruled it had to be delivered, but then Trump appealed, ultimately to the Supreme Court (see Steve Vladeck for an explanation of what Ketanji Brown Jackson was likely thinking when she grated Trump a stay to allow that appeal).

SNAP payments went out to some Dem states — including at least Oregon and Wisconsin — and those states got them out the door right away.

I think far too many people complaining about the cave aren’t considering how SNAP funding offsets the healthcare cave. Millions of Americans were and are going to really struggle to feed their families.

But with a few more days, the fact that Trump chose to do — the fact that Trump is bullying states for sending out food stamp benefits that Trump’s own administration sent out — that would have become more clear.

If you were going to cave, you should have waited a week for all this to play out.

But cave they did.

On the primary asks for this shutdown — health insurance subsidies — they got nothing that hasn’t been on the table for weeks, an agreed on vote at a 60-vote margin, which will fail.

That said, several details about the cave provide means for Dems to regain some leverage about how this cave happened.

If John Thune honors his end of the deal, this cave does add a minibus appropriation funding Ag, DOD, and Congress. The Ag bill fully funds SNAP. Congressional funding restores all the reductions in force that Russ Vought unlawfully imposed during this shutdown. It also fully funds GAO. It does not, however, reverse Vought’s rescissions, thereby effectively ceding the power of the purse to Vought and inviting him to do more of it.

Some of those details — the fully funded SNAP and GAO — are things House Republicans hate. So there’s a non-zero chance they’ll kill the CR based on the inclusion of the minibus, in which case the eight Dems’ attempt to cave will have failed and the onus for the shutdown would shift even more onto the House Republicans than it currently is.

Then there’s the question of ACA subsidies. One thing the eight capitulators did do with the timing of their cave was wait until after all ACA subsidy recipients got their new rates, which will double costs, that start in January. The promised unsuccessful vote for ACA subsidies will happen between those rate hikes and the imposition of those new rates in January. While the vote for ACA is virtually certain to fail, the timing of it will make it more clear to ACA recipients that Republicans are responsible for the pain — either in the form of giving up health insurance, or crippling price increases — they’ll be feeling in January.

And that will happen just before this CR expires at the end of January.

There’s a non-zero chance that the government will be back in shutdown then, though with a few of the hostages — most notably, 40 million SNAP recipients — now protected by these minibus appropriations.

And that will happen in the wake of one and possibly two more politically fraught developments.

When Mike Johnson brings back the House — after their two month paid vacation — to vote on this, he will presumably finally swear Adelita Grijalva in, meaning we’ll also finally see a vote on the Epstein files (which, rumor has it, are worse than we imagine).

It’s also likely that Trump will be dealing with the aftermath of the SCOTUS decision on his tariffs, which is likely to rule that Trump unlawfully and unilaterally taxed importers. The revenue from tariffs that John Sauer falsely argued weren’t about generating revenue has served as cover for the tax cuts right wingers gave billionaires last summer, and if they’re overturned it’ll make the fiscal recklessness of the Big Ugly Bill (also the source of the cut ACA subsidies) more apparent. Still worse for Trump, if he loses, he’ll be faced with the prospect of paying back around $200 billion in revenues raised, starting with the five named plaintiffs in the lawsuit, and then likely moving onto those who sued in advance of any SCOTUS decision. Last week, Neal Katyal suggested that maybe Congress could help Trump out of the problem he caused, which is laughable — but if he tried it, it would change leverage calculations around the next CR expiration in less than 60 days.

And that’s all before any crash in AI stocks, which some are predicting. That could cause a major financial catastrophe.

image_print
Share this entry
105 replies
  1. scroogemcduck says:

    It’s hard to know if this is a smart move, but it’s definitely on its face a weak and cowardly one.

    There is a good argument to reopen the Government and make the GOP own its refusal to negotiate at all on healthcare costs, and its decision to use food support as a bargaining chip. This is a key message to voters – give us the House in 2026 and we will put a stop to this.

    On tariffs, assuming the Court strikes down the tariffs, Dems should be loudly blaming Trump for driving up the cost of living, and using this as Exhibit A of the Trump Criminal Presidency. The key feature of the Trump second term is corruption and lawlessness. It’s about time this became a drumbeat in Democratic messaging. Give us the House and we will put a stop to this.

    • harold hecuba says:

      I don’t know that it’s a weak and cowardly move as there are millions more affected by the shutdown than just the ACA recipients, some of whom are already bearing the brunt of this shutdown. I agree with Dr Wheeler’s take on it that maybe should’ve held out for another week…but this was always going to be about a Democrat capitulation, in some form or another.

      I’ve already seen posts re: progressives are furious about moving forward, but, per Dr Wheeler’s take, I think the full brunt of the shutdown and the effects/causes are still in GOP sweaty hands.

      As soon as the House gets back into session, Dems should hammer the GOP mercilessly re: Epstein files. If there’s any weight to those files, the shutdown and any Dem capitulation will be forgotten. Then work overtime on the mid-terms.

      • scroogemcduck says:

        I don’t know that it’s a weak and cowardly move either. But I do know that it will be perceived that way.

        • Grain of Sand says:

          Maybe it was a cave. But people need paychecks and food. The Dems can say they promised to negotiate and they did. Let’s see how the dust settles.

        • earlofhuntingdon says:

          FFS. Caving with this framework doesn’t mean anyone gets anything except Republicans. Will Thune do as promised. It’s unlikely Trump or Johnson will. When Democrats cave, it just makes the Demented Don hungry for more.

        • Harry Eagar says:

          The weak organization of the party prevented it from (apparently even thinking about) organizing a nationwide food drive.

          I would have called it the Harry Hopkins Movement. Hopkins uttered what I consider the most profound statement ever made about American politics: People don’t eat in the long run. They eat every day.

        • Cheez Whiz says:

          Well, you’re doing your part.

          The only scenario in which the Democrats don’t “cave” is where the Senate Republicans vote to nuke the filibuster, maybe another exception as for votes on judges. Trump even ordered the Senate to nuke the filibuster and they refused., which tells you how much they love the filibuster.

          There is no way Republicans cave to Democratic pressure on anything at this point. There’s an argument they caved too soon. Its so Democratic to find a wildly successful messaging strategy and abandon it too soon, but the chaos is no fun when you’re the one hoping the food bank has a little extra for you, or your family is in an airport 3000 miles from home and no flights even scheduled there.

        • Thequickbrownfox says:

          There is a difference. People without health care are going to die, either because they don’t go to a Dr. because they cannot afford to, or because hospitals and clinics will either close or cut back services.

          This isn’t hyperbole.

      • xxbronxx says:

        Unless the cowardly capitulation of the 8 Dem Senators results in the reopening of Congress AND the release of the unredacted and unaltered Epstein Files which then results in the utter public humiliation, disgrace and possible resignation of Trump and others it will simply be another example of the Dems folding while holding a winning hand.

  2. Mike Stone says:

    I have a hard time accepting the explanation for why the Dems caved. Josh Marshall is calling them “Team Cave”and I think that is appropriate.

    I think there is a non-zero chance that Johnson (and Trump) think they have leverage and do not call the House back for a vote. Instead, Johnson will tell the Dems that they need to concede completely and bow and kiss his ring before Govt reopens.

    Part of the reason is that Trump wants the other party to be humiliated but the reason is that Trump does not want the Epstein files to come out.

    The longer this thing is prolonged, the better for Trump (I recall seeing something about another House representative opening to be filled with a member of the GOP that could nullify Adelita Grijala).

    • Atriana Smith says:

      There’s a special election on 12/2 in TN that could cancel out any hope of a vote on the Epstein files.

      • BRUCE F COLE says:

        Here’s a rundown of that SE’s primary results:
        https://tennesseelookout.com/2025/11/10/turnout-was-down-75-in-middle-tn-u-s-house-special-election-particularly-in-gop-strongholds/
        In this political environment, the startling fact that the Dem primary turnout, which put forward a genuinely progressive Ashtyn Behn, was withing striking distance of the self-styled “MAGA warrior” Matt Van Epps. Ms Behn would do well in these next few weeks to make “Release the Epstein Files” her mantra. In today’s environment, especially if Johnson refuses to allow the House to convene (his comment WRT the Dems caving over Thune’s “pinky-swear” to hold an ACA vote was “I didn’t promise anything in that deal’), Epstein is a GOP death-shroud. It should be employed as such, and this SE would be a good test case of it.

        Oh, and Nashville is in that district. Could be interesting.

        • BRUCE F COLE says:

          The edit function didn’t kick in again.

          The TN-7 primary election scant voting numbers were 31k for the Dems and 36k for the Gaurdians Of Pedophiles, not for the individuals Behn and Das Boot. The point is that the GOP turnout was dismal, which could be for several reasons, but it’s certain that Epstein is one of the drags on them, so jumping on that seems a no-brainer to me because it would resonate across lines, and across time zones. Maybe she’s already been doing it, but I haven’t heard.

    • P-villain says:

      218 is 218; there’s no way to nullify Grijalva’s vote absent a newly vacant D seat or a (quite possible) “change of heart” from one of the few R votes.

      The much more likely scenario, in my opinion, is the DOJ ignoring or slow-walking the resolution’s mandate, once passed.

      • subtropolis says:

        Even likelier, imho, is that their efforts to chide, plead, and/or threaten some of their cohort will eventually pay off and Grijalva will no longer be a threat. It seems that many people are assuming that all of the Republican votes are a shoo-in.

        • JR_in_Mass says:

          Or, some sensible Republicans might decide it is a good idea to sign on to the release now, before everything comes out sooner or later anyway.

          It would not be good to be seen as having participated in the cover-up of something that might be even worse than we already know.

      • BrrGrrDelux says:

        No-walking is more like it. Nearly everyone seems to be laboring under the delusion that Pam Bondi’s unredacted “truckloads of evidence” will somehow be allowed to fall into Democratic hands while Donald Trump still draws breath.

        • BRUCE F COLE says:

          And as my wife said to me this morning: “How likely is it that they haven’t permanently deep-sixed everything pertaining to Trump and his allies anyhow?”

          Well, much of the current pushback is from survivors, so you can’t delete that — unless we are further down the Fascism path than we think we are. Nonetheless, everything Epstein-related isn’t under the control of the DOJ.

          What I can’t believe is that there isn’t a powerful and ubiquitous din around Maxwell’s Club Fed deal, and the likelihood she’ll also be pardoned, not to mention the lie-fest she conducted with Blanche. That’s a bullseye as fat as Trump’s own self-image. She should be in a super max, considering her foreign intel and military connections.

        • Trish_11NOV2025_0833h says:

          On MSNBC yesterday (not sure, but I think it was Maddow): The Epstein files were housed at DOJ on a server open to any DOJ agent.

          I wouldn’t be surprised if the entire file could be reconstituted by ex-agents, if necessary.

          [Welcome to emptywheel. Please choose and use a unique username with a minimum of 8 letters. We adopted this minimum standard to support community security. Because your username is too short and common, your username will be temporarily changed to match the date/time of your first known comment until you have a new compliant username. /~Rayne]

        • misnomer bjet says:

          “unredacted” being the key weasel word.

          Republicans who vote to release will be counting on redactions.

          #te

    • Eschscholzia says:

      The only reason there is a non-zero chance that Johnson doesn’t call the House back for votes is that Trump can issue stupid, foot-shooting edicts and Johnson will meekly go along.

      If Johnson doesn’t bring the House back, even if the Senate then completely capitulates and passes the original House CR, that only lasts until Nov 21. At that point, whether the Senate had capitulated or not, any new CR would have to originate in the House, so the government shutdown would be explicitly due to Johnson not bringing the House to vote appropriations. Instead, my fear is that the House will take whatever the Senate passes and extend the CR through Sept 30 or Dec 31 2026, removing any leverage from the Jan 30 deadline to hold votes on something for the ACA.

      In my ignorance I would have preferred the Senate Ds to wait one more week, because I want SCOTUS to have to commit themselves on the SNAP funding orders. Maybe they would stay the district and circuit court rulings to disburse SNAP funds, maybe they wouldn’t. They either rule against Trump, or they show their colors to a much larger part of the citizenry on SNAP, something that most people can grasp. But that might be too big of a risk, or come with additional consequences if they side with Trump, so getting reopening in motion ASAP so that SCOTUS can duck the request for a SNAP stay might be wiser than my wish.

      • Reader 21 says:

        The House can’t extend the deadline on its own—it has to pass the Senate-passed bill, in identical form (or go to conference, which they won’t)—otherwise the Senate would have to take up (and pass) the House version. Very unlikely, to say the least. The Senate has in all likelihood jammed the House. Stop me if you’ve heard that before.

  3. alkali_04JUN2024_0940h says:

    The thing is, none of the senators saying they oppose this deal can really be trusted on that point. It is not an odd coincidence that only the retiring Democratic senators (or senators who might plausibly be retiring a few years from now) voted for it and no one else did. There was a deal in the caucus and votes were traded and now no one really knows where any of the Democratic senators stand. This deal is too clever by half.

    [Welcome to emptywheel. SECOND REQUEST: Please choose and use a unique username with a minimum of 8 letters. We have adopted this minimum standard to support community security. Because your username is far too short it will be temporarily changed to match the date/time of your first known comment until you have a new compliant username. Thanks. /~Rayne]

    • emptywheel says:

      So you’re saying that trading Gary Peters (who is retiring and voted for cloture in March) for either Tim Kaine or Jackie Rosen, is about using retirees to protect people?

      Did you bother to check the actual facts before you spouted off?

      • wetzel-rhymes-with says:

        Durbin is Minority Whip. He is Schumer’s right-hand-man. His job is to ensure fellow party members vote according to official policy. But there he is.

      • Error Prone says:

        Kaine’s district is full of unpaid fed employees, where Kaine feels their hurt. It is an unusual pressure point, but Kaine was the 60th vote.

        Would there have been a different 60th had any of the caving ones not done so? Wtf knows? That the deal got 60 took the heat off any others who were in negotiations, or not. Both MN Senators voted no, and with Tina Smith retiring, Angie Craig and Lt. Guv Peggy Fleming seek the seat. How Craig would have voted if in today, not guessed. If Fleming in she’d have been a solid NO! She just picked up Bernie’s endorsement and she had Liz Warren in state campaigning at the State Fair. Craig is more a corporatist – New Dem, with prior work in med device HR mgt level.

        • Georgia Virginia says:

          Thanks for saying this. Tim Kaine gave in because so many of his constituents are federal employees and are suffering. Governor elect Spanberger agreed with him for the same reason. (On the other hand, Mark Warner very pointedly disagreed and voted no, for all the reasons people are giving.) Kaine said he didn’t think waiting another week would make any difference; he had thought the disastrous election results for the GOP would make them open to negotiating, but it didn’t, and Trump keeps getting crueler and crueler (viz. his message to airport workers who stayed off work ).

          . I initially disagreed with him, but reading the comments here, I now think he was right. There just wasn’t enough (if anything) to be gained by waiting longer – no one is going to change their mind and people affected, especially Virginians, will just be hurt further. Once Thune said no to even a one year extension of the ACA subsidies, the chance that the Democrats could get more if they held out longer basically vanished. I wish things could have gone differently.

    • Wild Bill 99 says:

      When I was in the military (1960s) there was an expression “fygmo”, (meaning “F*** you, got my own”) to indicate that someone was in it for their own benefit, not the group’s. I rather suspect a bit of fygmo on the part of the cavers, let alone the Republicans.

  4. allan_in_upstate says:

    “the timing of it will make it more clear to ACA recipients that Republicans are responsible for the pain”

    … or that the Dems’ talk about `fighting fiercely’ for healthcare is all about fundraising and list building.
    The cast of rotating villains will soon ride into the sunset, but be quickly replaced by fresher faces.

    I see absolutely nothing good coming out of this, either politically or policywise.

  5. Rugger_9 says:

    Convict-1 wasted no time in demanding a clawback of SNAP benefit allocations to the states, which to me says that Thune was either lying to Shaheen, et al, ahead of his skis, or undermined by Vought, et al to get the Ds into the ‘bipartisan’ trap. Or all of these.

  6. Peterr says:

    I am really curious to see how this plays out in the House. I have real doubts that Mike Johnson will be able to get 218 GOP votes for John Thune’s bill.

    Oh, and there’s also the little matter of swearing in a certain new representative and that pesky discharge petition . . .

    But the real kicker is Trump. Will *he* accept this — and not just sign the bill as passed, but agree to fund what Congress says to fund, at the level Congress says to fund it? He hasn’t been doing that since he took office again last January, so why should he start now?

    We are nowhere near done with this mess.

    • Rugger_9 says:

      I’ll agree about the downstream prospects but note that every one of those scenarios means the GOP owns the chaos completely. After all, the Ds ‘tried’. However IIRC the only bill Pharisee Speaker Mike wanted was the House version and Thune’s bill isn’t that. There are plenty of reasons for the House maniacs to say no. Convict-1 will pay lip service before letting Russell Vought loose anyway. All of these events are owned by the GOP.

      The change of bills means Mike Johnson will have an excuse to not call the House back (after all it isn’t his bill but Thune’s) in order to avoid seating Grijalva. Let us remember the whole purpose for Convict-1 is to prevent release of the Epstein Files at any cost.

      Will the courtier press report these upcoming events accurately or will it be bothsides reporting as usual?

    • earlofhuntingdon says:

      What I want to know is does this cave bill include anything about not releasing the Epstein files.

      • Reader 21 says:

        I haven’t seen any reports about that one way or the other (and would have to think that it’d make news if it did mention Epstein or something related). Thune doesn’t want to go anywhere near that unless he’s forced to. IMO

      • AL Resister says:

        You made me laugh out loud EAH. Epstein is Trump’s Kryptonite.
        Presently however, Republicans are not only the party that denies food benefits to the poor, disabled, and elderly; cuts Medicaid, and denies health care subsidies to middle class voters, but also the party that protects pedophiles; the most obvious, Pedophile in Chief, besties with Epstein for ten years, Donald J. Trump.

        Once Ghislaine gets her pardon, I wonder how she will feel about Democratic investigations into Epstein’s so-called suicide or has the statute of limitations run out on that?

  7. harpie says:

    Marcy reposted a comment from this informative THREAD by Daniel Schuman.
    [I’ll post part of that THREAD here]:
    https://bsky.app/profile/americalabs.org/post/3m5bqzsbz322v
    November 10, 2025 at 8:45 AM

    […] 5) Dems showed (a) it’s possible to get something out of “shutting down the government” despite what the pundits said, and (b) that they could hold together for 40 days. It’s not a policy win, but it changes expectations for what they can do in the future, strengthening their negotiating position.

    6) When will that matter? In January, when the short term CR runs out.
    Will Dems vote to keep the government running if other full-year CR bills aren’t enacted? That’s a big question. Another one: what do they negotiate inside the full year bills?

    7) If it were me, I wouldn’t agree to fund the FSGG approps bill that funds the WH/OMB without policy riders that take away the administration’s funding to pursue things like impoundment, etc. Why should Russ Vought have any staff? Saying “no” here is a policy win. If they do it. […]

    DEFANG VOUGHT!

      • wa_rickf says:

        @Savage Librarian

        There is actually a civil war of words going on right now between America Firsters like Roberts (Tucker Carlson, Candice Owens, MTG and Nick Fuentes) vs MAGA.

        Basically it boils down to supporting the genocide in Gaza or not. The American Firsters do not, MAGA do because Evangelical support Israel no matter what Israel does. But the American Firsters also encompass anti-Semites like Fuentes and MTG who are using the genocide as a guise to hate on Israel – which folks like Fruentes and MTG would do anyway.

  8. zscoreUSA says:

    The article about predicting the fall of AI stocks, is largely based around Michael Burry placing put options on Palantir and Nvidia. Burry being the guy from The Big Short who first recognized the house of cards investments.

    The article then describes that Burry also has call options on Halliburton, expecting that stock to rise. The article was published November 4, close in proximity to the death of Dick Cheney. A small world.

      • Harry Eagar says:

        The losers in the struggle for supremacy are. An awful lot of capital is going to be stranded, but there is so much excess capital sloshing around (only a smallish fraction having been siphoned into crypto) that it might not matter very much.

        The winners may or may not be overvalued for whatever is going to be happening in 10-15 years. I am hanging on to my Nvidia shares.

        The economists have not caught up with the Kuhnian revolution they are living through, and neither have the investment advisers. There has never been so much capital with so little to invest it in. And there has never been an economy so large that if a trillion-dollar sector is disappeared overnight, it doesn’t make a blip in the aggregates.

  9. OldTulsaDude says:

    Democrats did what Democrats have been doing too often: conceding. Did this cowardly eight not see the election results of Tuesday, in the midst of the shutdown? Or did they decide to turn into pussies in hopes that some Trump voters might decide to grab them?

  10. John Wolfe says:

    What a week! To go from the great wins on Tuesday to a capitulation on Sunday . . . I get the need to help those who are suffering; however, IMHO, there is no assurance that Convict1 will actually release or not claw back funding. This is, to me, another example of Ds not being willing or skillful at using power, coupled with Convict1 and MAGAs not caring who gets hurt in their exercise of power.

    The coming midterms are the most significant opportunity to restrain Convict1, keep him from running again, and start on the road back to a decent government and country.

    But, by November, voters will forget that the Ds fought for them, and Convict1 will issue a Trump Tariff Rebate check with his picture and signature. There will be enough relief to rural health systems and farmers to buy those votes. Convict1 will find some issues that can be used to stoke fear and hatred.

    Let us work to have candidates who are as vibrant, relentless, and capable as those who won landslides last week.

    Many hope a discharge petition will inflict a cost; well, I would be pleased to be wrong, but the Epstein files will likely be another Mueller event.

    • Wild Bill 99 says:

      As an earlier commenter pointed out, the Republicans in Congress can only be trusted to lie and act in their own self-interests. (And the Democrats seldom do better.) There is little likelihood that Congress is going to do anything that does not help their wealthy donors and friends. Representative democracy, my a**. Of the rich, by the (slave-owning) rich and for the rich.

  11. Old Rapier says:

    I keep harping on the fact that Bessent said on TV that the Treasury will only pay back half of the tariffs if payback is required. When? Who knows. That Bessent announced the US Treasury would default on payments was met with nothing. Nada, zilch, crickets. The foundation of the financial system is washing out.
    The deficit exploded in October, despite the shutdown. Imagine that. Despite all that tariff revenue except corporate tax receipts are falling nearly as fast. The tsunami of Treasury issues since the Big Dump, $1.3Tn if I recall, has been funded by artificial liquidity ultimately funded by Fed Repos. A great system when it works.
    The Fed is going to start QE again the question is if it will be forced to by market dislocations or if the abundance (of money/credit) boys take charge before that happens.

    • Harry Eagar says:

      The tariff takings are being wildly overstated by everyone. $89 billion for the ones imposed using IEEPA. A trivial amount so far.

  12. bawiggans says:

    What is facing Democrats is so much larger than a piece of noxious legislation. They are confronted with a blitzkrieg of Republican misrule, corruption and autocratic ambitions. Holding up a CR to make that point was always going to be a bank shot at best. The adoption of specific demands around health care issues was an excellent strategic move that nonetheless was never going to see those demands met. It was the shrewd application of the only tool available to congressional Democrats, and they got as much out of it as anyone ever has. Eventual capitulation was inevitable because of the pain a shutdown would inflict on innocent people. Weak links were always part of the equation. The reasons individual senators will give for caving are bound to sound pathetic and craven in the absence of some strategic party message that would give them cover. Such a message was not possible without seeming to implicate the party in a cynical play for power at the expense of the people whose support they desperately need.

    It remains to be seen, but it appears that the overall message conveyed was that nearly every Democrat went to the mat for the people on an issue that really matters and Republicans refused to even talk about it. If the media are not completely suborned or distracted, the cruelties of Republican policy activated by passage of the CR should be squarely in the spotlight in the coming months. That is a good result in a political environment with more future potential than present opportunity.

  13. earlofhuntingdon says:

    As for Schumer and others not voting for the cave, that doesn’t mean they didn’t support it. It means that Republicans only needed eight or so votes to pass it. Still doesn’t tell us what Trump and his Mini-me, Mike Johson, will do.

    Republicans do something similar, in reverse, when they have enough votes to pass a shit bill in the Senate to allow a Collins or Murkowski to vote no without changing the outcome.

    • bawiggans says:

      Raise your hand if you think there was a way for Democrats to compel Congress and Trump to accede to their demands that would not have cost more than it gained. This was always going to end with those demands mostly or completely unmet. There needed to be concrete, budgetary demands, but the benefits to be won by forcing a government shutdown were never budgetary. This had to be fought as a strategic defeat that maneuvers Republicans into a weakened position for a fight on more favorable ground later. Democrats did that. The existence in the Democratic caucus of members who would eventually cave was a given. Holding discipline for this long – the longest shutdown in history – is pretty impressive from a group that appeared overwhelmed by shock and awe.

      • Ithaqua0 says:

        Joe Perticone over at the Bulwark has pointed out that there has never – not once – been a shutdown in which the minority party walked away with anything at all. Gingrich? no. Cruz on the ACA? no… and so forth. This actually appears to be the best that anybody has ever done. (Came as a minor surprise to me, I must admit.)

      • lastoneawake says:

        Marcy said waiting A WEEK would have made a difference, but caving the same week as the Tuesday blow out sends a bad message. Your argument ignores this.

        • Troutwaxer says:

          The bad thing is less caving than refusing to read the room. (And whoever above said the Democrats should have gone big for food collections as spot on. In non-violent circles that’s called a constructive program, and having one is super-important.)

    • earlofhuntingdon says:

      When you nest a reply, it’s supposed to have something to do with the top-level comment. These two are stand-alone comments.

      • Ithaqua0 says:

        Which would, of course, mean there’s no point to nesting a comment. My comment was directly responsive to the comment that Bawiggens posted, supporting the first two sentences and adding some historical context, and therefore should have been made as a reply to that comment (as it was.)

  14. LaMissy! says:

    Two family members, parents to a young child, have been hit by the shutdown as State Department employees. One is working without pay and the other is furloughed without pay and expects to be RIFed after the shutdown ends. I’m certain it’s of little comfort to them that this shutdown will likely be followed by another in January, especially as they are assigned overseas to a quite expensive city.

    They’ll be okay financially, eventually, but that certainly is not the case for federal employees who keep the Capitol clean or who prepare meals in the Congressional lunchroom. Perhaps there’s some truth to the idea that the most vulnerable people are those who are most hurt and the Democrats felt the shutdown needed to end so as not to inflict more damage. If that’s so, what’s the difference between 40 days and 47? The democratic senators could have waited another week.

  15. Spencer Dawkins says:

    One minor point, on how many people see pain coming from SNAP. Wikipedia thinks that only 32 states (plus DC) call SNAP “SNAP”. Other states have other names (which kinda makes sense, because the states are the ones who actually distribute the money to SNAP recipients).

    I don’t know whether anyone is saying “thank God I’m on CalFresh, and not on SNAP”, but I can see how that could happen.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supplemental_Nutrition_Assistance_Program#:~:text=Among%20the%2050%20states%20plus,its%20program%20%22Nutrition%20Assistance%22.

    Early 2026 might be even more interesting, because the One Big Beautiful Bill cut SNAP by nearly $200 billion. I’ve honestly been sickened by MAGA saying “it’s the Dems’ fault SNAP isn’t going out”, as if they hadn’t been delighted to make those cuts.

    https://www.urban.org/urban-wire/snap-cuts-one-big-beautiful-bill-act-leave-almost-3-million-young-adults-vulnerable

  16. punaise says:

    Found this in my inbox. Jonathon V. Last at The Bulwark:

    Give Chuck a Break. It Could Have Been Worse.
    Even though Democrats didn’t get the biggest possible win, they still won the shutdown.

    […] yes, Democrats could have done better. They probably should have done better. But they exit this event in a stronger position than they entered. And also: They could have done much worse.

    We’re going to rank the shutdown endgames from best to worst and then I’m going to make the case simultaneously that (a) Democrats played their hand poorly from the start, but that (b) they were ultimately bailed out by Trump’s obsession with dominance, and (c) we ought to appreciate the bad stuff that didn’t happen here.

      • RitaRita says:

        I agree.

        I’ll add this. The Democrats fail on messaging. They could have framed the acquiescence more forcefully. Trump could have backed off challenging the court’s SNAP decision. But his aggressiveness makes it easy for Democrats to say they acquiesced because, unlike Trump, they didn’t want citizens to go hungry.

        • Dark Phoenix says:

          The Dems fail on messaging because pretty much every outlet they have for getting a message out is swarmed either by Trumpers who want their message lost, progressives who want their message lost, or media assholes who prefer the easy “the Dems can’t message!” angle.

          “What about social media?” they always say. I’ve seen the Dems posting messages on social media; they’re ALWAYS overwhelmed by a two pronged attack on both sides.

    • earlofhuntingdon says:

      If Dems “won” the shutdown, why is it that so few people agree they did? Their messaging, perhaps?

      • Dark Phoenix says:

        Because the Republican/MAGA side claim they win every time, and the progressive side wants an excuse to blame Schumer for everything (and apparently they dreamed of Donald Trump caving instead, which wasn’t ever going to happen; Trump would only care if HE were the one being hurt, and the shutdown wasn’t hurting him physically).

        [Welcome back to emptywheel. Please use the SAME EMAIL ADDRESS and username each time you comment so that the site recognizes you and community members get to know you. Your use of a different email address on this comment triggered auto-moderation; please check your browser’s cache and autofill as future comments may not publish if your email address does not match the one you used on your first comment. We don’t even ask for a working/valid email address, only that you use the same one each time you comment. /~Rayne]

  17. xyxyxyxy says:

    It doesn’t appear that this administration cares about people and businesses.
    As far as businesses, they’re willing to throw airlines (with reduction of flights thus revenues), farmers (tariffs), grocers and other retailers (taking away SNAP from those that spend money at these operations and tariffs), hospitality (keeping foreign tourists away and furloughing hundreds of thousands of federal employees) and other businesses under the bus.
    Yet the markets keep rising, not to say they’re the barometers of anything; feels like the ball players who rigged their injuries, etc for some quick bucks for themselves and gamblers on the take.
    I’m not sure why, but is this somehow the end of economic capitalism as we’ve known it?
    And of course projection of Mamdani being the Communist?

  18. BRUCE F COLE says:

    This should become known as the Thune/Durbin Compromise. If we make it through this time with our democracy somehow restored, this will be seen as a feckless capitulation at a critical juncture:

    “And the Minority Whip gave it his blessing and his vote, as the Minority Leader looked on, baffled.”

    And “feckless” isn’t scatological enough.

    • grizebard says:

      Alas the n-dimensional chess of DC politics is well beyond me, but the shorter-term analysis will surely await this coming Jan., when hostilities will likely break out anew, and the mid-terms next year (which is where it counts most).

      I sense that much current frustration with Dems is more a projection of a deeper frustration that the usual means of acting “by the book” appears painfully inadequate to deal with a vicious assault on many people’s lives by a greedy self-centred autocrat who doesn’t give a damn about social and legal norms. With an accessory-after-the-fact Supreme Court that is evidently held in increasingly horrified contempt by many judges of lower courts, as in:

      https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/2025/11/federal-judge-resignation-trump/684845/ ?gift=SCYx-5scVta3-cr_IlgTyV4t0KZrTO7Uiq3wqPipQB4

      • Dark Phoenix says:

        The Democrats have NO power in Washington right now. None.

        For them to get what they wanted, they would need Republican votes. Republicans refused to bring back the ACA subsidies, and they also showed they’re 100% willing to hurt anybody they could to get what they wanted.

        This is what the ones who keep screaming “DO SOMETHING!” fail to understand; there is nothing they CAN do. As seen here, they can shut the government down, but they can’t make the Repubs vote how they want and it’s clear the Repubs no longer care what their voters think.

  19. wa_rickf says:

    How can the “leaders” go 40 days holding the line for people losing their healthcare and/or increases in healthcare, only to capitulate at the very last minute? These cowards that capitulated need to be primaried.

    • Ithaqua0 says:

      What about all the people losing their SNAP benefits? Or their jobs due to government layoffs? Shouldn’t we care about them too? There are a lot more of them than people on the ACA (roughly 24 million vs roughly 40 million on SNAP). And hunger today is a lot more important to many than higher insurance premiums in January – premiums which many Republicans don’t want to see go up either.

      • wa_rickf says:

        In my state, SNAP recipients were fully funded last week. Having worked in two USDA NSLP CN programs for 12 years, I’m fully sensitive to food insecurity.

        As America slips into autocracy, what we Americans need and the Democratic party needs, is STRONG leadership. Representative Ro Khanna said it best: If you can’t stop lead the fight to keep health premiums from sky rocketing, what will you fight for?

        Bernie Sanders said this vote will double, triple or quadruple healthcare premiums for 20 million Americans. This votes paves the way for 15 million to be thrown off Medicaid and ACA. This means 50,000 Americans will die every year unnecessarily according to studies. All of this was done to give a $1T tax break to the 1%.

        What is it going to take for Dem Leadership to take a stand?

        Chris Murphy: Bullies gain power when their misconduct succeeds in causing righteous people to yield in the face of wrong doing.

        Poll after poll showed Americans understand the Rs were responsible for this shutdown. Poll after poll shows health challenged #CanklesTrump to be underwater in every category in polling numbers. Americans want the 1% tax break to be reversed.

  20. allan_in_upstate says:

    Shutdown Deal Would Let Senators Sue for Jack Smith Searches [Bloomberg, paywalled]

    Senators whose phone records were sought by Special Counsel Jack Smith would gain authority to sue for millions in damages under a provision buried in the Senate-advanced deal to reopen the government.

    The spending measure, which cleared a Senate procedural hurdle Sunday night, would create a private right of action allowing senators who’ve been searched—without their knowledge—for their communications data to bring civil lawsuits against the US government and potentially individual federal employees.

    Each time criminal investigators attempted to access a senator’s data without informing them, the court would be able to award at least $500,000, provided that the lawmaker …

    Meanwhile, Schiff is threatened with bogus real estate fraud charges but will have no such remedy.
    I’m sure the Gang of Eight (nine, when you include maestro Schumer) has a perfectly sensible explanation.

    https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/shutdown-deal-would-let-senators-sue-over-jack-smith-searches

  21. punaise says:

    Ed Kilgore at New York Magazine:

    Shutdown Cave May Be End of Schumer As Senate Leader

    For the record, Chuck Schumer voted against the motion to proceed on a government-reopening measure that is likely to bring his eight-plus years as Senate democratic leader to an end, probably sooner rather than later. But that doesn’t seem to matter. Democrats angry over the abrupt abandonment of a Senate filibuster that seemed to be working in the party’s favor are blaming Schumer, either because they believe he quietly encouraged the eight Democrats who defected, or because he couldn’t keep them in line.

    • Dark Phoenix says:

      So what happens when they replace Schumer with a more progressive leader and the progressive leader ends up being equally ineffective and having the same problems?

    • Ithaqua0 says:

      JVL over at the Bulwark said on a podcast that he knows for a fact that a lot more than 8 Dems wanted out from the shutdown, and Schumer arranged it so that the ones who actually voted “yea” are all largely immune to retribution – retiring or not up for election in the next cycle. Given his background and contacts, I believe him. In that case, Schumer was protecting his senators as much as he could from blowback for something that was going to happen anyway. Kind of his job, actually, although only a part of it.

      I’m going to go with the “20-20 hindsight is best” not-an-opinion, wait until the end of January and see what’s happened.

      • P J Evans says:

        I wonder how many of the people screaming about “Dems caving again” understand that this bill is DOA in the House.

  22. Bears7485 says:

    I agree, in theory, that this was too early but was the inevitable outcome. I’m also relieved that food assistance will be protected during the next shutdown.

    However, It’s becoming ever clearer that the Democrats are simply controlled opposition. Sure, they’re not feckless, soulless pieces of shit wrapped in a cloak of religion, but they’re every bit as complicit for the oligarch-controlled government we have today.

    And further to your point that voters will see who’s responsible for their insurance premiums skyrocketing; Maybe you’re right, but Americans in general base their opinions off of facts and not ‘vibes’ and memes they see on social media, which are dominated by GQP mis/dis information.

  23. RitaRita says:

    What did Democrats hope to achieve when they voted against the Republican government funding measures? Was it just a protest vote? Did they hope to pressure enough Republicans to extend the health care subsidies? Was there some other unspoken goal?

    The government and its employees can limp a while but there was always going to come a time when the pain became noticeable. That happened in the last week with commercial aviation suffering cancellations, food banks running low on food because government workers were forced to scrounge for food, and Trump fighting to stop SNAP payments.

    It appears that the Republicans had a plan: stonewall Democrats until the pain of the shutdown became obvious and make sure the media understood that the Democrats were at fault.

    When Trump not only defended its decision to cut off SNAP payments in court but appealed the court’s decision asking for the Supreme Court to vacate the court’s order, the Democratic messaging ought to have been clear and consistent: Trump and the Republicans are forcing Americans to choose between starvation and health care. The message should have been accompanied by photos of long food bank lines and American soldiers in those lines. This was an unforced error on Trump’s part and Democrats should have spoken with unanimity against it. “Trump and the Republicans may not care that American families are going hungry. But Democrats do.”

  24. allan_in_upstate says:

    Democrats see backlash to Trump ripple through WA races [Seattle Times]

    Democrats in Washington state saw signs of a backlash to President Donald Trump last week that extended far beyond the nation’s capital, reaching even rural counties and small city council races.

    In Longview, two Democratic-backed city council candidates defeated more conservative opponents, including ousting the town’s incumbent mayor. In Sunnyside, progressive and Democratic-aligned candidates flipped city council seats. And in Camas, a former Republican “America First” congressional candidate lost her city council seat to a Democratic-endorsed challenger. …

    How these victorious local candidates and the voters who elected them must feel when they
    see the national Dems doing rotating retiring villains kabuki.

    https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/democrats-see-backlash-to-trump-ripple-through-wa-races/

  25. ToldainDarkwater says:

    The CR that the Senate passed and handed to the House contained no anti-trans riders.

    I’m happy about that.

Comments are closed.