Mother, mother, mother - there's too many of you crying.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Adder

Yes, holding on for a longer shutdown and using that either to get to a vote or win more elections is exactly as little a plan as giving away the only leverage you had.



Especially if you're as spineless as the Senate Dems who aren't running for president.

A protracted shutdown probably increases enthusiasm in parts of the base but loses a significant number of swing voters.

The fact that you enjoy watching it burn doesn't mean others will.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Adder

Yes, holding on for a longer shutdown and using that either to get to a vote or win more elections is exactly as little a plan as giving away the only leverage you had.

1. Holding on for a longer shutdown
2. ?????
3. Success!

Agree completely with winning elections, but I think there are pretty good reasons to think that Senate Democrats feel the same way and have the right incentives to do their best.

Especially if you're as spineless as the Senate Dems who aren't running for president.

1. Show spine!
2. ?????
3. Success!

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

A protracted shutdown probably increases enthusiasm in parts of the base but loses a significant number of swing voters.

The fact that you enjoy watching it burn doesn't mean others will.

I agree that there is such a point, sort of, especially if you're taking the bulk of the blame. I do not think that point is 48 hours or before the next work week even began.

Sort of, because, aside from Hank, there's really no such thing as a swing voter. Really, to the degree that none of our strategizing should be based on them. The game is getting your side to the polls.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Agree completely with winning elections, but I think there are pretty good reasons to think that Senate Democrats feel the same way and have the right incentives to do their best.

Which is why none of them who are believed to be running for president voted to end debate...

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Adder

I agree that there is such a point, sort of, especially if you're taking the bulk of the blame. I do not think that point is 48 hours or before the next work week even began.

Sort of, because, aside from Hank, there's really no such thing as a swing voter. Really, to the degree that none of our strategizing should be based on them. The game is getting your side to the polls.

If you want to find swing voters, look at swing districts. It's surprising, but that's where they tend to congregate. Look at some of the reports put together by Third Way and you'll see some pretty good analysis on how to win a lot of swing districts. Yes, there are other swing districts you can win through enthusiasm, but you get a true wave when you're able to do both.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Apropos of our recent conversation about going after police misconduct, I want a "get out of jail" card.

[Adder]

McConnell promised an immigration vote. It's going to be on Stephen Miller's "compromise." The Dems will rightly vote no. They lost on policy and politics.

Yes, Ty, there may have been no realistic win on policy.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Adder

McConnell promised an immigration vote. It's going to be on Stephen Miller's "compromise." The Dems will rightly vote no. They lost on policy and politics.

Yes, Ty, there may have been no realistic win on policy.

Josh Marshall:

Here’s one structural/political point to keep in mind about President Trump’s proposed “four pillars” immigration deal. We know from hard experience that almost no piece of immigration legislation on the 2006/2013 model can make its way through the House. Even though a clear majority would likely vote for some version of 2013-era “comprehensive immigration reform”, the right-wing faction in the GOP caucus simply won’t allow such a bill to get a vote. But it’s a very different matter for the House GOP right to pass its own preferred legislation. And that’s what Trump’s “four pillars” proposal amounts to, even with Dreamer protections thrown in – which they’re allegedly up in arms over. Point being, we’re talking about a minority of the House. A bunch of different reasons make it much easier to block something than to pass something.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Josh Marshall:

Right. Although a minority in the House can't block anything unless the Speaker lets them. Thus far, Paul Ryan has. I'm sure Denny Hastert is proud.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Adder

McConnell promised an immigration vote. It's going to be on Stephen Miller's "compromise." The Dems will rightly vote no. They lost on policy and politics.

Yes, Ty, there may have been no realistic win on policy.

Winning is (i) doing our best to delay the day when ICE starts showing up at dreamers homes (more than they already are) deporting people; (ii) blocking their legislation; and (iii) winning the house back so we can do something good. A Hail Mary in there is getting acceptable but not great bipartisan immigration legislation in the mean time.

That's what winning is when you're in the minority. We've actually done a lot of winning the last year - they failed to get Obamacare repeal through, they didn't get any major bill through a legislature they controlled until the tax legislation, we've kept Mueller in the field, and we've had a series of court cases go our way on key issues, especially immigration and redistricting. These are pretty significant wins.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Winning is (i) doing our best to delay the day when ICE starts showing up at dreamers homes (more than they already are) deporting people; (ii) blocking their legislation; and (iii) winning the house back so we can do something good. A Hail Mary in there is getting acceptable but not great bipartisan immigration legislation in the mean time.

Yes, and voting for a shutdown on Friday and then to lift it on Monday while the GOP was all over the map on what it could agree to was no better than the fourth best outcome from that conflict. Best outcome: GOP caves and you get the Dream Act. Second Best Outcome: GOP doesn't cave but you've demonstrated resolve by fighting (helping your (iii)). Third best: don't shut down because you know you don't have the votes to hold it.

The fourth best outcome pisses off all sides and tips your lack of resolve and unity to the GOP.

Basically, the Pod Save America guys have my proxy here.

[Adder]

The head of the RNC finance committee (or whatever), a casino magnate, has an alleged history of sexual predation.

Remember when the RNC was calling for the Dems to return all of Weinstein's money?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Adder

Right. Although a minority in the House can't block anything unless the Speaker lets them. Thus far, Paul Ryan has. I'm sure Denny Hastert is proud.

Ryan seems to want to keep his job. Perversely, he accomplishes this in part by signaling that he doesn't want his job. Democrats might take a tip from this, in that the more they signal that DACA is a huge priority, the higher the price they say they're willing to pay to fix it, in terms on concessions on other immigration-related policy issues.

No doubt the base thinks the Dreamers are a huge priority (as do I). Is there a reason to think it's a winner with more marginal voters?

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Winning is (i) doing our best to delay the day when ICE starts showing up at dreamers homes (more than they already are) deporting people; (ii) blocking their legislation; and (iii) winning the house back so we can do something good.

What if before you get to (iii), you have to choose between (i) and (ii)? Because it seems like that is where we are.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Adder

Yes, and voting for a shutdown on Friday and then to lift it on Monday while the GOP was all over the map on what it could agree to was no better than the fourth best outcome from that conflict. Best outcome: GOP caves and you get the Dream Act.

Hail! Mary!

Second Best Outcome: GOP doesn't cave but you've demonstrated resolve by fighting.

In other words, you've got squat.

Third best: don't shut down because you know you don't have the votes to hold it.

You don't think its worth playing through to see if they go through with the shut-down? Clearly, people like you need at least this much drama, I know you want more.

The fourth best outcome pisses off all sides and tips your lack of resolve and unity to the GOP.

I ready what you write and understand how we could have a society that enjoys watching the hunger games.

Basically, the Pod Save America guys have my proxy here.

Great! What are you doing posting?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Adder

The head of the RNC finance committee (or whatever), a casino magnate, has an alleged history of sexual predation.

Remember when the RNC was calling for the Dems to return all of Weinstein's money?

Your second sentence has the unfortunate effect of suggesting that you said the first thing only because you find self-serving hypocrisy on the part of a political party to be somehow noteworthy.