What did Democrats do wrong?

[dirtywick]

that's a couple hoops too many for me to jump through tbh

 

[dann]

Stop patronizing republican voters, they knew what they were going to get and chose it. They are just like the farmers who knew trumps trade war would sink them, but they could depend on bailouts. They are getting exactly what they wanted and voted for.

Nobody ever gets "exactly what they wanted and voted for" - except the politicians who vote for themselves. Americans are probably even more ignorant about what they can expect from the politicians and parties they vote for than voters in other countries. More than voters in most other democratic elections, the personality cult of presidential campaigns enable Americans to ignore any and all reality.

Schumer seems to be getting a lot of criticism over this, with accusations that he somehow masterminded the capitulation.
Now, I am not necessarily a fan of Schumer. I think he is a black hole of charisma, and in the past he seems to have had this bizarre fantasy that somehow the MAGAchud will magically break from Trump. And in the beginning I thought it was plausible that he might have been behind things.
However, it should be noted that there is no concrete proof of his involvement... (much of the accusations seem to be based on "none of the senators who capitulated were facing election next year", but given the fact that senators only face election every 3 election cycles, its not that far fetched to think it might have happened by chance.) Furthermore, there are reports that some senators wanted to give up earlier, and Schumer actually convinced them to hold out longer, until insurance enrollment started.

Well, so much for that imaginary scenario:

Democrat Who Caved on Shutdown Says Chuck Schumer Knew All Along (The New Republic, Nov 10, 2025)
Senator Jeanne Shaheen revealed that Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer knew the entire time about the plan for a few Democrats to capitulate to Republicans on the government shutdown.

And what difference does it make?

Aside from serving as further proof that the Democrats are failing to act as an opposition party in any meaningful way, Shaheen’s comments also reveal one of two possible scenarios. Either Schumer was scheming to end the shutdown behind the scenes, only pretending to be against it while pinning the blame on the eight people who aren’t up for reelection anytime soon, or he has no control over his party. Either way, it proves the need for Democrats to jettison the minority leader.

 

[dann]

Maddow asks Dems: 'Why cave now?' YouTube short, 2:45 min.)
Nothing says winning. Nothing says confidence or swagger quite like a California Democrat going to Texas and doing it like this:
"How we doing, Harris County? How ya feeling? Oh, it's good to be in Texas. It is good to be in Texas. Eat your heart out, Greg Abbott."

 

[Beelzebuddy]

As for the 8 democrats, we need to consider the possibility that their motives are a bit more... rational.

Do we, though? Do we really? Frankly I'm tired of considering that possibility. How many more examples of Senate Democrats putting up all the fight of a sleeping capybara do you need to conclude that they are exactly the spineless ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ cowards they appear to be?

I would like to propose a counter-possibility. I think this was always the plan.

I think they wanted to cave on day 1, or even sooner. The way they did during the last shutdown negotiations. Remember that? When the rational thing was also to give the Republicans everything they wanted in return for unfulfilled promises? I don't think this caving was a splinter faction of Senate Dems, I think they represented most of them and it was a splinter faction getting them to fight in the first place. I think this faction has been amazingly successful in carrying the rest of their team to this point, mostly by getting their colleagues to hold out to the election last week.

An election which I think they expected to lose. And lose badly, and show once and for all that civilized dealmaking with their colleagues across the aisle, even handshaking literal Nazis as Vichy Dems, was the best approach. That the American public really truly wanted the status quo and any disruption of that, even in pursuit of the better, would reflect badly on them. ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ Schumer voted for goddamn Cuomo over his own party, to give you a sense of their surety. Recall all the many, many, many centrist arguments we've had even here that say it's better to be content with nothing than to strive for anything. They have been so out of touch for so long that they can no longer even conceive of rocking the boat.

So. Most of the Senate has been ready to surrender and agree to whatever the Rs want. They're just waiting for the election results. And... they win. In a landslide. It's the first honest to gosh ray of hope for democracy in goddamn years and not only did they do nothing to aid it, they were caught actively betting against it! A nimbler set of septuagenarians might have been able to pivot with the obvious change in the political tide, but not this set of hidebound dinosaurs, gosh no. They had decided to fold like a used kleenex and by god they're going to! But because they're not too dim to realize they're blowing it, in real time, they are actively screwing the pooch yet are making no move to stop, they can at least partially limit the damage by exposing the least vulnerable of their colleagues to the well-deserved ire of their constituents because they're useless ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊.

 

[dirtywick]

right after there's a little rash of progressives winning some elections, with the holiday season shopping and travel in peril of being slow due to the shutdown, not when people lost healthcare or paychecks but private flights being grounded, 8 "safe" moderate/centrist dems swoop in and blow the whole thing up while getting nothing in return. it's so transparent they're only slightly less owned than the republicans imo

 

[Segnosaur]

Schumer seems to be getting a lot of criticism over this, with accusations that he somehow masterminded the capitulation.
Now, I am not necessarily a fan of Schumer. I think he is a black hole of charisma, and in the past he seems to have had this bizarre fantasy that somehow the MAGAchud will magically break from Trump. And in the beginning I thought it was plausible that he might have been behind things.
However, it should be noted that there is no concrete proof of his involvement... (much of the accusations seem to be based on "none of the senators who capitulated were facing election next year", but given the fact that senators only face election every 3 election cycles, its not that far fetched to think it might have happened by chance.) Furthermore, there are reports that some senators wanted to give up earlier, and Schumer actually convinced them to hold out longer, until insurance enrollment started.

Well, so much for that imaginary scenario:
Democrat Who Caved on Shutdown Says Chuck Schumer Knew All Along (The New Republic, Nov 10, 2025)

I am not really sure what exactly that is supposed to mean or show.

The reference I gave earlier said that Schumer got democrats to delay capitulation for a few weeks. If he's doing that, he would have known what they were planning, although it doesn't necessarily mean he agreed with them. You posting a reference saying "schumer knew" is less of a "gotcha" and more of a "umm, ok, we already knew that".

And what difference does it make?
Aside from serving as further proof that the Democrats are failing to act as an opposition party in any meaningful way, Shaheen’s comments also reveal one of two possible scenarios. Either Schumer was scheming to end the shutdown behind the scenes, only pretending to be against it while pinning the blame on the eight people who aren’t up for reelection anytime soon, or he has no control over his party.

Like I said, the whole "schumer planned things" seems to go against the reference I provided earlier, that suggested he actually got them to delay capitulation. (Maybe that report was wrong, but it was coming from a reputable source.)

As for the accusation that he has "no control over his party"... That's the nature of the US senate/house, where congress critters can vote according to what they think benefits their own constituents. We are condemning it here because it ended the shutdown that people think should continue. But, I am sure others here were happy about that type of independence back in Trump's first term when a small number of republican senators voted against the republican health care "plan".

(ETA: I want to stress that I am not a fan of schumer and think he should be removed. I just don't think he should necessarily be blamed over the shutdown ending.)

 

[Random]

I am not really sure what exactly that is supposed to mean or show.

The reference I gave earlier said that Schumer got democrats to delay capitulation for a few weeks. If he's doing that, he would have known what they were planning, although it doesn't necessarily mean he agreed with them. You posting a reference saying "schumer knew" is less of a "gotcha" and more of a "umm, ok, we already knew that".

Like I said, the whole "schumer planned things" seems to go against the reference I provided earlier, that suggested he actually got them to delay capitulation. (Maybe that report was wrong, but it was coming from a reputable source.)

As for the accusation that he has "no control over his party"... That's the nature of the US senate/house, where congress critters can vote according to what they think benefits their own constituents. We are condemning it here because it ended the shutdown that people think should continue. But, I am sure others here were happy about that type of independence back in Trump's first term when a small number of republican senators voted against the republican health care "plan".

(ETA: I want to stress that I am not a fan of schumer and think he should be removed. I just don't think he should necessarily be blamed over the shutdown ending.)

I think it was more like a bunch of moderates wanted to cave right away, and Schumer said "Obviously we should cave, but can we put it off until after the election? It's not that far away, and caving just before the election might just possibly hurt us politically."

 

[Segnosaur]

As for the 8 democrats, we need to consider the possibility that their motives are a bit more... rational.

Do we, though? Do we really?

Well, lets consider...

I suspect most people here were relatively unaffected by the shutdown. But imagine being a single mom who depends on "food stamps" to feed her children. Or an air traffic controller who has a mortgage and is about to potentially go months without a paycheck. The shutdown was hurting plenty of people. I think its rational to try to want them to, you know, not starve and/or lose their homes.

And yes, plenty of people are going to be harmed by the ending of health care subsidies. But what people don't seem to understand.... REPUBLICANS DO NOT CARE ABOUT PEOPLE. They seemed to be quite happy letting the shutdown continue, regardless of who was hurt. (Heck, I suspect many of them LIKED the shutdown because it would help speed up the process of wrecking the government.) And the republicans had no interest at all in negotiating anything regarding health care subsidies.

Did you ever see the movie "Ruthless People"? The premise of the movie is that a shady businessman wants to get rid of his wife. By chance, the wife gets kidnapped, but whenever the kidnappers try to negotiate a ransom, the husband basically says "go ahead and kill her". The shutdown reminds me of that movie, but instead of the shady businessman you have the republicans, and instead of the wife you have the American people.

The moral of the story, you cannot really threaten or negotiate people when they have no interest in what you are holding.

If you are a democratic senator, you might think "the shutdown is hurting people. People are losing food and jobs." End the shutdown and people get food and jobs (but get screwed over health care). Let the shutdown continue, and you could get a case where people get no food, no jobs, but STILL end up getting screwed over health care because, once again, REPUBLICANS DO NOT CARE ABOUT PEOPLE and would just let those subsidies end as the shutdown continues. Under those circumstances, "food and no health care" sucks, but it sucks less than "no food and no health care".

Its easy to say "keep the war going" when you're safe in the back, and it is other people on the front lines.

Seriously, what exactly do you think the end game would be? That Stubby McBonespurs and MAGA mike would somehow "see their hearts grown 3 times" after seeing people suffering and change their minds?

Now, the LONG term goal for the democrats is to win future elections. That's the only way to really "fix" the problems. Capitulating DOES hurt them in that regard. Hopefully the shutdown that did occur (even if it was abbreviated) did enough damage to the republican's reputation to help in that regard, and that other factors (such as swearing in a new Democratic house member who will support the release of the epstien files) will further boost the democrats.

 

[Segnosaur]

I think it was more like a bunch of moderates wanted to cave right away, and Schumer said "Obviously we should cave, but can we put it off until after the election? It's not that far away, and caving just before the election might just possibly hurt us politically."

Maybe. Or maybe you have such a hatred for Schumer that you are willing to create scenarios in order to blame him for things that he wasn't responsible for.

Look, I get it. Schumer sucks big time. I think he should have been removed from his leadership role years ago. But there is no evidence at all that he favored "caving in".

 

[theprestige]

[Republicans] seemed to be quite happy letting the shutdown continue, regardless of who was hurt.

So did a lot of Democrats. In fact I'm pretty sure every hardcore progressive on this forum is currently outraged that the Dems in the Senate caved, and took action to end the shutdown.

I see you vilifying the GOP, but I don't see you celebrating Schumer's bravely compassionate attempt to care about people, and put an end to their hurting.

 

[Segnosaur]

Republicans seemed to be quite happy letting the shutdown continue, regardless of who was hurt.

So did a lot of Democrats. In fact I'm pretty sure every hardcore progressive on this forum is currently outraged that the Dems in the Senate caved, and took action to end the shutdown.

I see you vilifying the GOP, but I don't see you celebrating Schumer's bravely compassionate attempt to care about people, and put an end to their hurting.

Context matters.

Democrats wanted the shutdown to continue (despite harm to some people) because they felt that eliminating health care subsidies would harm millions of people, and that they could somehow force the republicans to reverse their stance on health care. In other words, some short term pain for a few people in order to prevent greater harm to more people from losing health care.

Republicans wanted the shutdown to continue because they want 1) to destroy government, and 2) wanted to see their benefactors become wealthier. Nowhere in there is an intent to help people, either in the short term OR the long term.

 

[theprestige]

Context matters.

Democrats wanted the shutdown to continue (despite harm to some people) because they felt that eliminating health care subsidies would harm millions of people, and that they could somehow force the republicans to reverse their stance on health care. In other words, some short term pain for a few people in order to prevent greater harm to more people from losing health care.

Translation: Some people had to suffer, to further your political agenda, and that's okay with you.

And not your political enemies, either. We take it for granted that you welcome the suffering of anyone who voted against your agenda. No; what we're talking about here is the people you're supposedly committed to protecting, but who you're willing to leave out in the cold, if it means leverage for your agenda.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

Now, the LONG term goal for the democrats is to win future elections. That's the only way to really "fix" the problems. Capitulating DOES hurt them in that regard. Hopefully the shutdown that did occur (even if it was abbreviated) did enough damage to the republican's reputation to help in that regard,

How do you expect that to happen if they capitulate on everything? People want to vote for someone who's willing to fight for them, not someone who surrenders every time. This thread is called "what did Democrats do wrong?" This is what they did and are doing wrong. Yes, the Republicans are going to hold the welfare of the American public hostage to retain power. They will see innocent people die before they give an inch. At some point you have to swallow that in order to fight them, because otherwise they're going to kill those people anyway. It's literally on their agenda.

 

[dirtywick]

i think there's a point where slowly compromising america away one piece at a time becomes untenable.

 

[bruto]

Translation: Some people had to suffer, to further your political agenda, and that's okay with you.

And not your political enemies, either. We take it for granted that you welcome the suffering of anyone who voted against your agenda. No; what we're talking about here is the people you're supposedly committed to protecting, but who you're willing to leave out in the cold, if it means leverage for your agenda.

But it's just as easy to say the true author of the suffering, and of the political agenda so called was the Republican party with its insistence on hinging the entire budget of the country, including the jobs of thousands and the welfare of millions, on deleting health benefits, all or nothing. This is reminiscent of some philosophy 101 exercise where the bad behavior of one party puts the other in the moral hotseat, where there's no truly right thing you can do. If you don't let me burden the poor with higher medical costs, I'll starve them too and it will be your fault for not letting me do it.

Though I'm not happy about the Democrats' compliance here, I'm not convinced they had much choice in the face of a Republican administration that is content to see government wrecked and democracy diminished. But to dismiss it as a mere clash of political agendas is a kind of bothsideism. that I think inapplicable. If you think your opponent is actually wrong and causing harm, your conflict is not just a game of chess.

 

[dann]

I see you vilifying the GOP, but I don't see you celebrating Schumer's bravely compassionate attempt to care about people, and put an end to their hurting.

Because putting an end to people's hurting is what the GOP is all about, right?

As an example of the ever expanding preventive requirements... the shingles vaccine shouldn't be *free*. Available, yes, absolutely. But shingles is not contagious and is also not lethal. It's painful and super duper sucks, but it's not a public health risk nor life threatening. I'm happy that the vaccines are available, and I've got an appointment for mine coming up... but it shouldn't be mandated to be provided free of cost to the consumer.

Right?! (As it's also not as if that post is chockfull of lies, is it?)

 

[dann]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1988307653773455513

Airlines’ Favorite Democrats Just Voted To End The Shutdown (The Lever, Nov 11, 2025)
The Senate Dems who voted to end the shutdown without extending ACA subsidies have taken in significant airline PAC spending.

Amy Mitchelll on X, Nov 12, 2025
There it is. Exactly as I suspected. The minute the airlines and flight schedules were impacted by the shutdown, the Dems caved. Our health insurance for their convenience, just as COVID precautions were sacrificed for Delta's comfort.

Fiona Hendriks on X, Nov 12, 2025
In 2020 and 2021 it was also the airline industry that forced everyone back to normal. Stop testing. Stop isolating. Go flying. Bad for the planet. Bad for people.

 

[wareyin]

How do you expect that to happen if they capitulate on everything? People want to vote for someone who's willing to fight for them, not someone who surrenders every time. This thread is called "what did Democrats do wrong?" This is what they did and are doing wrong. Yes, the Republicans are going to hold the welfare of the American public hostage to retain power. They will see innocent people die before they give an inch. At some point you have to swallow that in order to fight them, because otherwise they're going to kill those people anyway. It's literally on their agenda.

What I am not getting here is why, in a choice between a party that is "going to kill those people" because "it's literally on their agenda" and the other party who doesn't have an agenda of killing people, the people you are talking about go 'meh, I can't be bothered to stop the folks who will be killing people. Screw it, Dems didn't do enough for me so let the Reps kill people.'
That's so short sighted and self centered that they might as well be on team "agenda to kill people"

 

[Pixel42]

Holding someone for ransom only works if the person with the money cares about the person you're holding. Trump and his sycophants don't give a toss about the people who were being harmed by the shutdown, so they were never going to pay the ransom necessary to end it. Having no functioning government suits them fine.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Holding someone for ransom only works if the person with the money cares about the person you're holding. Trump and his sycophants don't give a toss about the people who were being harmed by the shutdown, so they were never going to pay the ransom necessary to end it. Having no functioning government suits them fine.

And what most don't pay attention to is that had the demands been met, it would have come up again in another year with another shutdown to be used as leverage for mid-term elections. It's the same reason the tax cuts from Trumps first term were passed with an expiration date. Policies with expirations are juicy political leverage tools. Mind you, if the subsidies were made permanent or not at all from the get go this wouldn't have even been a point of contention. I'm on board with the idea that Republicans took this opportunity to LET the subsidies expire, sure. But they're not the ones that gave it the expiration date to begin with. So the left essentially made their own problem with it and not only used that but also payment to government employees as their leverage.