Meanwhile, Senate just confirmed Tulsi "Russia's girlfriend" Gabbard as Director of National Intelligence. Mitch was the only Republican to vote against her.
"[The] Biden [administration] still made substantive changes in absolute terms on the areas they prioritized, including prescription drug affordability for senior citizens and clean energy deployment. Much of that seems likely to be kept in place by the new GOP trifecta."
Ackshually, much of the clean energy deployment was hurdling regulatory barriers, not putting shovels into dirt, and Trump has halted federal approvals for clean energy, which is necessary to connect any of it to the grid. So, no, I don't think the GOP trifecta will keep that.
1) I am with other commentators who don't see much benefit at all in being the "responsible" party in debt-ceiling or government-funding votes. I'm not aware of any shutdown or debt-ceiling in which one party held a trifecta but the party *out of power* got the blame.
I believe Democrats have both a perfectly-valid reason - "why should we cut deals to make sure our programs will be funded, when Elon is going to cut them anyway" and an easy-to-digest public message: "you literally control every branch of government... so fund it."
I have not always taken this side - I think the problem with conservative budgetary hostage-taking is that it's pretty effective, and it relies on norms like "hostage taking is bad" which have proven pretty thin. So for example, when Biden was president and Democrats had the Senate, I thought it made sense to make deals with Johnson to make sure that government stayed open and programs got funded. Now, I see absolutely no benefit to the Democrats doing this, and lots of benefit to them letting the Republicans either shut down the government or pass terrible policies we can run against. Am I missing something? Is CNN going to gravely decry the abandonment of duty by Dems if they all vote no on a debt-ceiling bill? Or are there actual filibuster-applicable steps that Dems could take to stop these bills if they want to, and that's what we're debating?
2) I think the debate about how to resist Trump has foundered on the question of whether we have to "save our bullets" and resist overreacting to everything. But Trump's 24-hour-media circus has shown that there's no such thing as saving your bullets - if there's an issue people care about and that you're "winning" on, there's no amount of attention to it that's too much. What people are trying to do though is avoid getting energized on areas that people don't actually care about. That's why folks like Pod Save are worrying about how to defend USAID - because it's an area where popular sentiment is more on the GOP side. So you really have to find the angles where you have the popular advantage - Elon is shutting down the CFPB, Elon is putting special education at risk, Elon is cutting veteran's benefits with his govt spending freeze. And then you hammer them - again, and again, and again. AOC is good at doing this, but most Democrats are really bad, and they've shot themselves in the foot with a geriatric congressional leadership who seems awful at communication.
I also liked what Matt said on the Politix podcast last week - Dems really suffer from not having many "low-trust" media consumers or producers. The kind of stuff Trump + Elon are doing should be generating constant conspiracy theories and viral moments, but it's not. Trump took a $25 billion Chinese shitcoin bribe! Elon is shutting down the government but giving himself fat contracts! Trump is downing the planes! I think some Bluesky types are trying, but they don't have the right ecosystem to spread it. The point is to focus attention on bad things that the population agrees with us more on, and make right-wingers play the role of "well ackshually, the veteran's healthcare benefits aren't being stopped, there's a robust waiver process in place for valid programs, blah blah blah." Basically the "they're eating cats and dogs" playbook.
Hold up, don’t Progressives not have the desire to match taxation levels to their desired expenditures? The idea that there’s some magic pot of “waste” that can be recouped to balance the budget while giving everybody more stuff is only slightly more insane than the way progressives think about taxing the rich.
While Matt is pointing out valid problems with the Republican coalition, let’s not pretend these are somehow unique to them.
I don't think Slow Boring lacks for articles attacking progressives. But yes, you're right -- as always, moderate Democrats are the only people interested in responsibly governing the country
I don't think Republicans even want to change anything. I think they just want the performance, and the feeling of being in control. And they'll sacrifice democracy to get it! It's wild.
A thought about the Trump campaign's infamous pronouns ad -- I would appreciate a parody, "Harris is for them, Trump is for (strike out "you") himself."
With the recent rise in inflation it seems pretty obvious how this is going to go. The fed will have to hike rates which will trigger a recession and we’ll get a dual chamber sweep in 2026.
If the Democrats were politically savvy, truly embraced a big-tent approach, and Trump became sufficiently unpopular, then many seats could potentially become competitive (Alaska, Iowa, Kansas, Montana, Florida, Ohio, Texas or a state like Kentucky if Republicans were to nominate a Roy Moore-like candidate there) and the dam could break.
Of course, I'm skeptical. My pessimistic view is that Democrats will concede the Senate and focus entirely on NC and Maine in 2026 and try to eke out a 50-50 Senate in 2029 by winning by flipping Ron Johnson's seat in WI in 2028.
I think most of those are out of reach for cultural reasons at a national level. Could a Democrat win a state election - yes. Federal election - doubtful at best.
Those "cultural reasons" will only be a factor if Democrats continue to prioritize appeasing progressive activists over winning elections, which is probably the direction Democrats will go, unfortunately.
My point is that it doesn't have to be that way. Those states are only out of reach if Democrats choose to keep them out of reach.
Sure, you could say the same thing about Republicans in the NE. If only they changed foundational parts of their politics, they would be more successful. But that's really hard to do!
Well, Republicans do have one Senator from NE, so by that logic it's not unreasonable to expect at least one Democratic Senator from the states I listed!
The idea that winning any of these states requires changing foundational parts of the Democratic Party doesn't really stand up to scrutiny. Many of these states elected Dems statewide as recently as 2018 and 2022. Obama won 3 of them twice. Democrats would only need to win 2 out of the 7 for a Senate majority if they flip NC and Maine and hold Georgia and Michigan.
Trump is not many things. He's one thing, which is a master showman. He *represents* many things, but the man himself is actually not very complicated or interesting.
If Democrats provide votes for the budget, especially in the House (where there is no issue of a filibuster), then they’ll look like chumps. All of this DOGE/Impoundment stuff means that promises made to Democrats to get their votes on government funding aren’t credible.
Ironically the best thing that could happen for Trump is a recession, that would neuter inflation and reduce the trade offs of spending more and cutting taxes.
During a recession unemployment rises and inflation falls, this will also result in the Fed dramatically cutting interest rates. In short: it will partially bring back some of the economic conditions Trump inherited when he was last President. Low inflation and low interest rates allows you to borrow more cheaply than you did in the past, which will reduce interest payments, and crowd out less spending.
I'll happily sit through the taunting from the chuckleheads about "I told you Trump was a genius" if we somehow get out of this without higher interest rates, higher inflation, or regressive spending cuts, but I'm not holding my breath. I'll probably just have to settle for being vindicated... as I pay even more for eggs. Yeah, not a good trade-off.
You're assuming that what Congress does is actually important. What happens if Congress can't either pass a budget/CR or raise the debt ceiling, the country faces default, & Trump misquotes Lincoln, ignores the debt ceiling, & spends as much as he wants on what he wants?
"On the other hand, in recent political history, whichever party is seen as “wanting” a shutdown ends up taking the political blame and “losing” the battle. Democrats have to be somewhat careful about how they approach things."
Citation needed that this harmed GOP electorally. I'm well aware that in previous "shutdown" showdowns, polls showed that public blaming Republicans given they were the ones (or in some cases one person, see Ted Cruz) were responsible for the shutdown. But those polls? Honestly, how long lasting were they? Is there any indication one swing voter changed their vote a year later because of shutdown showdown?
Matt alludes to this but don't be fooled by Trump's "high" approval rating. Compared to most presidents 3 weeks into their presidency, his approval rating is actually pretty mediocre. And yet, based on punditry, you'd think his approval rating is at like 70%.
I'm sorry Matt, but you're podcast partner has this correct and has had this correct for basically two years now. I'm actually with you that "pocketbook" issues are more likely to sway swing voters. But you need to force the goddamn issue. Being passive and just saying "don't worry, voters will see eventually how bad things are for their bottom line" is not going to cut it. You need to recognize the reality of the media environment we're in.
Hard disagree. Picking losing fights isn't going to help voters view of Dems.
Instead they need to be proving they can be trusted to govern. Pushing legislation that cracks down on illegal immigration would be a great first start.
You mean like the legislation they created, and that Trump and a bunch of republicans blocked? I do not think the median voter is going to notice.
Voters are going to get mad if their lives get worse, and if that happens, they will blame [Current president's party], and they will not give two shits about whether [Current president's party] is the cause of it or not.
If democrats help Republicans make the border better, Republicans will get all the credit for it. That doesn't mean that they shouldn't vote for it, but let's not have any illusions about how the typical uninformed voter will perceive this.
I think the Democrats should negotiate to improve bills and should vote for good ones both because they're good bills and, for those democrats in competitive races, to be able to point to bipartisanship.
But that's different than going out on a limb and _proposing_ the bills, where I agree they won't, as a whole, get the credit.
(EDIT: When I was mad at McConnell for his "let's make Obama a one-term president" by obstructing everything, I didn't care that he wasn't _proposing_ bills to fix things, I cared that he was obstructing improving anything. Similarly I don't know that I need the Democrats to _propose_ bills, but I don't want them to obstruct good things)
"Trump is many things, but he is most of all a showman."
Right now, Trump is riding elephants, taming cobras and blowing smoke, and the crowd is watching with rapt attention. But how many times can he repeat these sleights-of-hand before the crowd gets bored and leaves? Eventually, a showman needs to put on an actual show.
In the same way, a snake oil salesman is revealed when people buy the snake oil and see first hand it didn't actually cure their maladies.
As a longtime marketer, I've always respected how well Trump is able to accurately assess what the masses are asking for and create a sales pitch that speaks right to it. But crafting a promise-filled commercial is the easy part (which is why it baffles me how bad Democrats are at it). But to get people to keep buying requires a legitimately good product, and this is where Trump will always fail.
It was easy to promise investors that Theranos could quickly analyze your blood with a single pinprick - Building a product that could actually deliver on that was impossible. It takes time, but the reality always bubbles up, and the public learns truth one way or the other.
What would have happened, though, if Theranos was in a position to shut down their rivals and use public funds to subsidize themselves? We don't choose our government on a competitive market -- the barriers and moats around them are not just a metaphor.
Meanwhile, Senate just confirmed Tulsi "Russia's girlfriend" Gabbard as Director of National Intelligence. Mitch was the only Republican to vote against her.
What a fustercluck.
"[The] Biden [administration] still made substantive changes in absolute terms on the areas they prioritized, including prescription drug affordability for senior citizens and clean energy deployment. Much of that seems likely to be kept in place by the new GOP trifecta."
Ackshually, much of the clean energy deployment was hurdling regulatory barriers, not putting shovels into dirt, and Trump has halted federal approvals for clean energy, which is necessary to connect any of it to the grid. So, no, I don't think the GOP trifecta will keep that.
In times of crisis, we look back to the classics for wisdom.
In this case, the ancient wisdom of the Animaniacs: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FrgF1S0iKSA
1) I am with other commentators who don't see much benefit at all in being the "responsible" party in debt-ceiling or government-funding votes. I'm not aware of any shutdown or debt-ceiling in which one party held a trifecta but the party *out of power* got the blame.
I believe Democrats have both a perfectly-valid reason - "why should we cut deals to make sure our programs will be funded, when Elon is going to cut them anyway" and an easy-to-digest public message: "you literally control every branch of government... so fund it."
I have not always taken this side - I think the problem with conservative budgetary hostage-taking is that it's pretty effective, and it relies on norms like "hostage taking is bad" which have proven pretty thin. So for example, when Biden was president and Democrats had the Senate, I thought it made sense to make deals with Johnson to make sure that government stayed open and programs got funded. Now, I see absolutely no benefit to the Democrats doing this, and lots of benefit to them letting the Republicans either shut down the government or pass terrible policies we can run against. Am I missing something? Is CNN going to gravely decry the abandonment of duty by Dems if they all vote no on a debt-ceiling bill? Or are there actual filibuster-applicable steps that Dems could take to stop these bills if they want to, and that's what we're debating?
2) I think the debate about how to resist Trump has foundered on the question of whether we have to "save our bullets" and resist overreacting to everything. But Trump's 24-hour-media circus has shown that there's no such thing as saving your bullets - if there's an issue people care about and that you're "winning" on, there's no amount of attention to it that's too much. What people are trying to do though is avoid getting energized on areas that people don't actually care about. That's why folks like Pod Save are worrying about how to defend USAID - because it's an area where popular sentiment is more on the GOP side. So you really have to find the angles where you have the popular advantage - Elon is shutting down the CFPB, Elon is putting special education at risk, Elon is cutting veteran's benefits with his govt spending freeze. And then you hammer them - again, and again, and again. AOC is good at doing this, but most Democrats are really bad, and they've shot themselves in the foot with a geriatric congressional leadership who seems awful at communication.
I also liked what Matt said on the Politix podcast last week - Dems really suffer from not having many "low-trust" media consumers or producers. The kind of stuff Trump + Elon are doing should be generating constant conspiracy theories and viral moments, but it's not. Trump took a $25 billion Chinese shitcoin bribe! Elon is shutting down the government but giving himself fat contracts! Trump is downing the planes! I think some Bluesky types are trying, but they don't have the right ecosystem to spread it. The point is to focus attention on bad things that the population agrees with us more on, and make right-wingers play the role of "well ackshually, the veteran's healthcare benefits aren't being stopped, there's a robust waiver process in place for valid programs, blah blah blah." Basically the "they're eating cats and dogs" playbook.
Hold up, don’t Progressives not have the desire to match taxation levels to their desired expenditures? The idea that there’s some magic pot of “waste” that can be recouped to balance the budget while giving everybody more stuff is only slightly more insane than the way progressives think about taxing the rich.
While Matt is pointing out valid problems with the Republican coalition, let’s not pretend these are somehow unique to them.
I don't think Slow Boring lacks for articles attacking progressives. But yes, you're right -- as always, moderate Democrats are the only people interested in responsibly governing the country
It’s important context that both sides are prioritizing coalitional politics and wishcasting over executive priority-setting
I don't think Republicans even want to change anything. I think they just want the performance, and the feeling of being in control. And they'll sacrifice democracy to get it! It's wild.
Maybe a piece on how many S&P 500 pay the effective tax rate?
A thought about the Trump campaign's infamous pronouns ad -- I would appreciate a parody, "Harris is for them, Trump is for (strike out "you") himself."
Accurate, but would it be persuasive?
With the recent rise in inflation it seems pretty obvious how this is going to go. The fed will have to hike rates which will trigger a recession and we’ll get a dual chamber sweep in 2026.
I see two reasonable pickups in the Senate. Beyond that seems increasingly difficult.
Yeah, Maine and NC.
If the Democrats were politically savvy, truly embraced a big-tent approach, and Trump became sufficiently unpopular, then many seats could potentially become competitive (Alaska, Iowa, Kansas, Montana, Florida, Ohio, Texas or a state like Kentucky if Republicans were to nominate a Roy Moore-like candidate there) and the dam could break.
Of course, I'm skeptical. My pessimistic view is that Democrats will concede the Senate and focus entirely on NC and Maine in 2026 and try to eke out a 50-50 Senate in 2029 by winning by flipping Ron Johnson's seat in WI in 2028.
I think most of those are out of reach for cultural reasons at a national level. Could a Democrat win a state election - yes. Federal election - doubtful at best.
Those "cultural reasons" will only be a factor if Democrats continue to prioritize appeasing progressive activists over winning elections, which is probably the direction Democrats will go, unfortunately.
My point is that it doesn't have to be that way. Those states are only out of reach if Democrats choose to keep them out of reach.
Sure, you could say the same thing about Republicans in the NE. If only they changed foundational parts of their politics, they would be more successful. But that's really hard to do!
Well, Republicans do have one Senator from NE, so by that logic it's not unreasonable to expect at least one Democratic Senator from the states I listed!
The idea that winning any of these states requires changing foundational parts of the Democratic Party doesn't really stand up to scrutiny. Many of these states elected Dems statewide as recently as 2018 and 2022. Obama won 3 of them twice. Democrats would only need to win 2 out of the 7 for a Senate majority if they flip NC and Maine and hold Georgia and Michigan.
Not to mention a possible loss in GA.
Maine and NC? Or Ohio?
The first two. Ohio seems to have moved out of the swing state category.
Trump is not many things. He's one thing, which is a master showman. He *represents* many things, but the man himself is actually not very complicated or interesting.
If Democrats provide votes for the budget, especially in the House (where there is no issue of a filibuster), then they’ll look like chumps. All of this DOGE/Impoundment stuff means that promises made to Democrats to get their votes on government funding aren’t credible.
Ironically the best thing that could happen for Trump is a recession, that would neuter inflation and reduce the trade offs of spending more and cutting taxes.
Huh?
During a recession unemployment rises and inflation falls, this will also result in the Fed dramatically cutting interest rates. In short: it will partially bring back some of the economic conditions Trump inherited when he was last President. Low inflation and low interest rates allows you to borrow more cheaply than you did in the past, which will reduce interest payments, and crowd out less spending.
The fed would be the one causing the recession to bring down the now spiking inflation.
That is one possibility
What timeframe are you looking at for him to reap those benefits? He realistically would need this help before the 2026 midterms.
Agreed it would have to happen soon, but I think Trump’s economics work best in that environment
I'll happily sit through the taunting from the chuckleheads about "I told you Trump was a genius" if we somehow get out of this without higher interest rates, higher inflation, or regressive spending cuts, but I'm not holding my breath. I'll probably just have to settle for being vindicated... as I pay even more for eggs. Yeah, not a good trade-off.
You're assuming that what Congress does is actually important. What happens if Congress can't either pass a budget/CR or raise the debt ceiling, the country faces default, & Trump misquotes Lincoln, ignores the debt ceiling, & spends as much as he wants on what he wants?
It would be hilarious if Trump’s administration decided to mint the trillion dollar coin
Indeed it would. That would leave the budget/CR.
"On the other hand, in recent political history, whichever party is seen as “wanting” a shutdown ends up taking the political blame and “losing” the battle. Democrats have to be somewhat careful about how they approach things."
Citation needed that this harmed GOP electorally. I'm well aware that in previous "shutdown" showdowns, polls showed that public blaming Republicans given they were the ones (or in some cases one person, see Ted Cruz) were responsible for the shutdown. But those polls? Honestly, how long lasting were they? Is there any indication one swing voter changed their vote a year later because of shutdown showdown?
Matt alludes to this but don't be fooled by Trump's "high" approval rating. Compared to most presidents 3 weeks into their presidency, his approval rating is actually pretty mediocre. And yet, based on punditry, you'd think his approval rating is at like 70%.
I'm sorry Matt, but you're podcast partner has this correct and has had this correct for basically two years now. I'm actually with you that "pocketbook" issues are more likely to sway swing voters. But you need to force the goddamn issue. Being passive and just saying "don't worry, voters will see eventually how bad things are for their bottom line" is not going to cut it. You need to recognize the reality of the media environment we're in.
Hard disagree. Picking losing fights isn't going to help voters view of Dems.
Instead they need to be proving they can be trusted to govern. Pushing legislation that cracks down on illegal immigration would be a great first start.
You mean like the legislation they created, and that Trump and a bunch of republicans blocked? I do not think the median voter is going to notice.
Voters are going to get mad if their lives get worse, and if that happens, they will blame [Current president's party], and they will not give two shits about whether [Current president's party] is the cause of it or not.
If democrats help Republicans make the border better, Republicans will get all the credit for it. That doesn't mean that they shouldn't vote for it, but let's not have any illusions about how the typical uninformed voter will perceive this.
While I agree that the senate bill was better than the status quo and I would have supported it.
It was NOT a good bill. It didn't actually fix the problem.
A good bill would have the following components
A lot more immigration judges
a lot more border patrol
a lot more detention centers
and this is the important part that was missing. If the detention centers are full then shut down the border. Stop ALL catch and release.
Any bill that allows catch and release is a poor one, even if it's better than the status quo.
I think the Democrats should negotiate to improve bills and should vote for good ones both because they're good bills and, for those democrats in competitive races, to be able to point to bipartisanship.
But that's different than going out on a limb and _proposing_ the bills, where I agree they won't, as a whole, get the credit.
(EDIT: When I was mad at McConnell for his "let's make Obama a one-term president" by obstructing everything, I didn't care that he wasn't _proposing_ bills to fix things, I cared that he was obstructing improving anything. Similarly I don't know that I need the Democrats to _propose_ bills, but I don't want them to obstruct good things)
"Trump is many things, but he is most of all a showman."
Right now, Trump is riding elephants, taming cobras and blowing smoke, and the crowd is watching with rapt attention. But how many times can he repeat these sleights-of-hand before the crowd gets bored and leaves? Eventually, a showman needs to put on an actual show.
In the same way, a snake oil salesman is revealed when people buy the snake oil and see first hand it didn't actually cure their maladies.
As a longtime marketer, I've always respected how well Trump is able to accurately assess what the masses are asking for and create a sales pitch that speaks right to it. But crafting a promise-filled commercial is the easy part (which is why it baffles me how bad Democrats are at it). But to get people to keep buying requires a legitimately good product, and this is where Trump will always fail.
It was easy to promise investors that Theranos could quickly analyze your blood with a single pinprick - Building a product that could actually deliver on that was impossible. It takes time, but the reality always bubbles up, and the public learns truth one way or the other.
It was also easy to promise investors that the Trump Taj Mahal would turn Atlantic City into a global destination.
What would have happened, though, if Theranos was in a position to shut down their rivals and use public funds to subsidize themselves? We don't choose our government on a competitive market -- the barriers and moats around them are not just a metaphor.