I wonder why a bipartisan bill is defined as one acceptable to most democrats? As was noted, no house member is obligated to vote for a bill that they disagree with. I guess that doesn’t apply to house democrats.
The following also caught my attention.
“ This is a bare-minimum demand, something any decent person concerned about ICE's campaign of terror against Latinos should support. There is no reason - none - to leave in place a dangerous rule that allows masked men to brutalize innocent workers for the crime of
being brown.’
Is law enforcement supposed to function by stopping every tenth person using no criteria or judgment? But that would be akin to stop-and-frisk, which also is abhorrent.
What tops it all is his identification of anyone questioning his position is not a decent person. In that I’m a white male of Northern European descent, I shouldn’t be surprised. I’ve been categorized as a racist, patriarchal (hear my wife laugh in the background), misogynistic, idiotic (no college degree), anti-science prole desperately in need of his and his ilks compulsory guidance (and contempt). Somehow, I am not persuaded.
The best reason to force GOP to abandon the filibuster is that it really puts the focus on the senate and the importance of Dems winning 4 seats and control in 2026. “The GOP just killed the filibuster which means we need to win the Senate, where without a filibuster we will be able to pass meaningful legislation along with a Dem-controlled House.”
Even if Republicans were to abolish the filibuster (big if IMO) why would they abolish it in general instead of a narrowly targeted case to avoid a shutdown?
Why not make it about the Epstein files and nothing else? Democrats will only benefit from drawing more attention to this, whatever the outcome may be, and it gives them cover to not vote for the budget they don’t like.
Didn’t Carter’s DoJ make up the concept of a government shutdown, via an advisory opinion, as a way to prod Congress to do something? Presumably, Trump could simply disavow that opinion. No more shutdowns!
Don’t the democrats have the option to vote party line and then just not *use* a filibuster? I thought the issue was not that you needed 60 votes to pass anything, just that you needed 60 votes to overrule a filibuster. But a 50 vote plus VP tiebreaker still passes the senate if the opposing party chooses not to filibuster — right?
Yes that is technically possible. It's just unrealistic because Dems will come under immense pressure from their base to fIgHt. Just letting the bill pass without an attempt at a filibuster doesn't count as fIgHtInG
If I'm 100% honest, I can sort of imagine a scenario where the Republicans end the Filibuster, then in 2028 the Democrats retake the Presidency, House, and Senate - and then re-establish the Filibuster because of their deep love of proceduralism and just to fuck themselves over a bit because it's obvious to me that most Democrats are simply masochists that despise the idea of actually getting anything done!
To make a Star Trek reference, the Democrats are like reverse Jem'Hadar, "Failure is life!"
"A bill could pass the House on a party-line vote and all the Republican senators could be prepared to vote for it, but it still wouldn’t pass the Senate unless a bunch of Democrats vote for it. "
That's not really how the filibuster works. It's not on a dead man's switch, it has to be invoked. If the Dems in the Senate don't invoke it, there's no reason that the Republicans can't pass a horrible bill in both chambers, if they can get enough of their own people to vote for it.
The real fight will be in the House, because that's where the Democrats have the most leverage. Nothing can pass there without some Democratic votes, so they should maximize their demands, including the ACA subsidies, the Medicaid walkbacks, children's health care and nutrition, anything else that is polling as popular with the electorate across the board, and ironclad anti-recision language. By the time a finance bill gets to the Senate, resistance is strictly a rearguard action. Regardless of his title, Schumer should accept the role of copilot on this one, and not expect to lead Jeffries. Democratic Senators should participate in putting the House plan together, then limit their comments (hard as this is for Senators!) to "We stand behind the plan of the Democrats in the House."
In the unlikely event that the Republicans in the House are able to cobble together a bill that they can pass on their own, the Democratic Senators should speak against it during debate, but they should not do anything to help their Republican colleagues make it more palatable, they should hang solid, and they absolutely should NOT filibuster it. They should finally vote against it, which may require Vance to cast a tiebreaking vote.
In this way whatever the bad outcome is, whether a horrendous bill or a government shutdown, it will only have Republican fingerprints on it, and a detailed critique by the Democrats on the record.
Of course, the filibuster should be ended: it exists through an error that Aaron Burr made in reforming the Senate rules during the Jefferson Administration, and it's mostly been used for mischief since it was finally discovered, which took several decades. But that's a discussion for another day. For now, let the Republicans touch the stove good and hard, if they can manage it.
I think overall, Democrats have to take this shutdown fight because even those of us who worry about whether they should take it or not are worried about them screwing it up. To restore confidence in the party, they really need to take the fight and NOT screw it up. If they don't take the fight, confidence in the party will continue to flag and Democratic voters will remain demoralized and negative about the party. If they take the fight and screw it up, that will also be true. If they take the fight and either win or lose by taking out the filibuster, at least Democratic voters should be happy that they fought and tried.
In this environment, "not screwing it up" means coming up with a plan, sticking to it together, and convincing a majority of the voting public that their plan has moral justification. It's pretty hard, but I have trouble seeing any alternative.
On the filibuster and other arcane Senate procedures, more than anything else it has been obvious for many years now that Democrats are "paid to lose", Republicans are "paid to win".
Every single Dem Senator who still talks favorably about non-majoritarian Senate procedures needs to be given a wedgie!
> If Democrats really pull it together and deliver a focused, coherent message, I think they can maybe navigate this situation. But I’m not sure they can do that. And I’m concerned that we would be plunging the country even deeper into a weird “state of exception” with no endgame. On the other hand, I’m deeply sympathetic to any senator who looks me in the eye and says, “I don’t want to vote for a temporary budget that just keeps current spending levels in place that the president then violates at will.”
These both seem really bad! Why can't these senators vote for cloture but vote against the bill itself? Alternatively, why can't the party be selective about what it filibusters?
"why can't the party be selective about what it filibusters?"
Because if it is something the GOP actually values, they will change the Senate rules and the filibuster is just an optional Senate rule not worth the paper it is written on.
The GOP will only entertain a Dem filibuster if the issue is something they do not care about or feel it hurts Dems politically. The GOP does not care about Federal government workers being furloughed.
Tbh I have no idea what the right thing to do in this situation is. I’m against the filibuster when Dems are in power, of course. I’m against all constraints on the power of people I agree with. But is this the time?
Most people I agree with say the same. Hard for me to agree to give up the one tiny bit of leverage the good side has at this time, though in a saner country I’d agree. I really don’t know
That the filibuster is "leverage" is a mirage. The GOP already shreds the filibuster on everything they actually care about.
Especially on appropriations, the filibuster is the opposite of leverage. The appropriations filibuster is simply a humiliating ritual for any Senator who has to vote for it when the other party is in total control.
No one has ever successfully used the government shutdown as a hostage to get something they otherwise would not have gotten. The debt ceiling is the only real hostage and its not on the table.
I wonder why a bipartisan bill is defined as one acceptable to most democrats? As was noted, no house member is obligated to vote for a bill that they disagree with. I guess that doesn’t apply to house democrats.
The following also caught my attention.
“ This is a bare-minimum demand, something any decent person concerned about ICE's campaign of terror against Latinos should support. There is no reason - none - to leave in place a dangerous rule that allows masked men to brutalize innocent workers for the crime of
being brown.’
Is law enforcement supposed to function by stopping every tenth person using no criteria or judgment? But that would be akin to stop-and-frisk, which also is abhorrent.
What tops it all is his identification of anyone questioning his position is not a decent person. In that I’m a white male of Northern European descent, I shouldn’t be surprised. I’ve been categorized as a racist, patriarchal (hear my wife laugh in the background), misogynistic, idiotic (no college degree), anti-science prole desperately in need of his and his ilks compulsory guidance (and contempt). Somehow, I am not persuaded.
Rant concludes.
What law has The Rump obeyed, to give anyone reason to believe any shutdown would change a thing?
His whole existence is defined by just illegally doing whatever TF he wants.
A D who votes for any R bill is going to be primaried. Not saying that’s a good thing but it’s a reality.
The best reason to force GOP to abandon the filibuster is that it really puts the focus on the senate and the importance of Dems winning 4 seats and control in 2026. “The GOP just killed the filibuster which means we need to win the Senate, where without a filibuster we will be able to pass meaningful legislation along with a Dem-controlled House.”
Even if Republicans were to abolish the filibuster (big if IMO) why would they abolish it in general instead of a narrowly targeted case to avoid a shutdown?
At least we'll get the chance to bypass them to avoid shutdowns in the future, then.
Why not make it about the Epstein files and nothing else? Democrats will only benefit from drawing more attention to this, whatever the outcome may be, and it gives them cover to not vote for the budget they don’t like.
Didn’t Carter’s DoJ make up the concept of a government shutdown, via an advisory opinion, as a way to prod Congress to do something? Presumably, Trump could simply disavow that opinion. No more shutdowns!
Anyone listen to JD hosting the Charlie Kirk Show? Seems bad. See you in the Slow Gulag
Pardons for right wing violence and promising a crackdown on left wing violence seems bad.
Don’t the democrats have the option to vote party line and then just not *use* a filibuster? I thought the issue was not that you needed 60 votes to pass anything, just that you needed 60 votes to overrule a filibuster. But a 50 vote plus VP tiebreaker still passes the senate if the opposing party chooses not to filibuster — right?
Yes that is technically possible. It's just unrealistic because Dems will come under immense pressure from their base to fIgHt. Just letting the bill pass without an attempt at a filibuster doesn't count as fIgHtInG
If I'm 100% honest, I can sort of imagine a scenario where the Republicans end the Filibuster, then in 2028 the Democrats retake the Presidency, House, and Senate - and then re-establish the Filibuster because of their deep love of proceduralism and just to fuck themselves over a bit because it's obvious to me that most Democrats are simply masochists that despise the idea of actually getting anything done!
To make a Star Trek reference, the Democrats are like reverse Jem'Hadar, "Failure is life!"
"A bill could pass the House on a party-line vote and all the Republican senators could be prepared to vote for it, but it still wouldn’t pass the Senate unless a bunch of Democrats vote for it. "
That's not really how the filibuster works. It's not on a dead man's switch, it has to be invoked. If the Dems in the Senate don't invoke it, there's no reason that the Republicans can't pass a horrible bill in both chambers, if they can get enough of their own people to vote for it.
The real fight will be in the House, because that's where the Democrats have the most leverage. Nothing can pass there without some Democratic votes, so they should maximize their demands, including the ACA subsidies, the Medicaid walkbacks, children's health care and nutrition, anything else that is polling as popular with the electorate across the board, and ironclad anti-recision language. By the time a finance bill gets to the Senate, resistance is strictly a rearguard action. Regardless of his title, Schumer should accept the role of copilot on this one, and not expect to lead Jeffries. Democratic Senators should participate in putting the House plan together, then limit their comments (hard as this is for Senators!) to "We stand behind the plan of the Democrats in the House."
In the unlikely event that the Republicans in the House are able to cobble together a bill that they can pass on their own, the Democratic Senators should speak against it during debate, but they should not do anything to help their Republican colleagues make it more palatable, they should hang solid, and they absolutely should NOT filibuster it. They should finally vote against it, which may require Vance to cast a tiebreaking vote.
In this way whatever the bad outcome is, whether a horrendous bill or a government shutdown, it will only have Republican fingerprints on it, and a detailed critique by the Democrats on the record.
Of course, the filibuster should be ended: it exists through an error that Aaron Burr made in reforming the Senate rules during the Jefferson Administration, and it's mostly been used for mischief since it was finally discovered, which took several decades. But that's a discussion for another day. For now, let the Republicans touch the stove good and hard, if they can manage it.
Situation in Darfur continues to deteriorate. No consequences for the RSF and the UAE. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/15/world/africa/sudan-starving-children.html
I think overall, Democrats have to take this shutdown fight because even those of us who worry about whether they should take it or not are worried about them screwing it up. To restore confidence in the party, they really need to take the fight and NOT screw it up. If they don't take the fight, confidence in the party will continue to flag and Democratic voters will remain demoralized and negative about the party. If they take the fight and screw it up, that will also be true. If they take the fight and either win or lose by taking out the filibuster, at least Democratic voters should be happy that they fought and tried.
What does “not screwing it up” look like in this environment?
In this environment, "not screwing it up" means coming up with a plan, sticking to it together, and convincing a majority of the voting public that their plan has moral justification. It's pretty hard, but I have trouble seeing any alternative.
On the filibuster and other arcane Senate procedures, more than anything else it has been obvious for many years now that Democrats are "paid to lose", Republicans are "paid to win".
Every single Dem Senator who still talks favorably about non-majoritarian Senate procedures needs to be given a wedgie!
> If Democrats really pull it together and deliver a focused, coherent message, I think they can maybe navigate this situation. But I’m not sure they can do that. And I’m concerned that we would be plunging the country even deeper into a weird “state of exception” with no endgame. On the other hand, I’m deeply sympathetic to any senator who looks me in the eye and says, “I don’t want to vote for a temporary budget that just keeps current spending levels in place that the president then violates at will.”
These both seem really bad! Why can't these senators vote for cloture but vote against the bill itself? Alternatively, why can't the party be selective about what it filibusters?
"why can't the party be selective about what it filibusters?"
Because if it is something the GOP actually values, they will change the Senate rules and the filibuster is just an optional Senate rule not worth the paper it is written on.
The GOP will only entertain a Dem filibuster if the issue is something they do not care about or feel it hurts Dems politically. The GOP does not care about Federal government workers being furloughed.
Tbh I have no idea what the right thing to do in this situation is. I’m against the filibuster when Dems are in power, of course. I’m against all constraints on the power of people I agree with. But is this the time?
Come out openly and dare the GOP to ditch the filibuster. End it for good. That is unambiguously the right thing.
Most people I agree with say the same. Hard for me to agree to give up the one tiny bit of leverage the good side has at this time, though in a saner country I’d agree. I really don’t know
That the filibuster is "leverage" is a mirage. The GOP already shreds the filibuster on everything they actually care about.
Especially on appropriations, the filibuster is the opposite of leverage. The appropriations filibuster is simply a humiliating ritual for any Senator who has to vote for it when the other party is in total control.
No one has ever successfully used the government shutdown as a hostage to get something they otherwise would not have gotten. The debt ceiling is the only real hostage and its not on the table.
Ok