A plurality of voters approve of the deal to end the government shutdown. Democrats have an opportunity to claim they saved SNAP & other government programs, which could help repair the party's image
Sometimes it is best to retreat from a political battle in order to win the political war. There will be many political battles against the Trump administration, with the possibility of another in January. We need to stay in the present and stop vilifying Democrats who did not give us a single resounding victory, because with the present make-up of Congress, that is not going to happen. Republicans are fine with air traffic being disrupted, since the Republican House members were all sitting at home being paid. They were also fine with their constituents on SNAP going hungry because they despise them for being in need. They are fine with millions of people being hit with horribly high Affordable Care Act subsidies because, hey, they have their wonderful health insurance and can keep it when they retire.
I find using references like Joe the Plumber is demeaning and reinforces the stereotype that Democrats are elitist and out of touch with working people.
Keeping ones head in the game, and as often as possible, ferreting ouy the truth is a good game plan. Humans that read Elliott are a different breed and value data journalism. It’s not that we are Democrats, but that we are pro-democracy..
I'm not sure that looking at the overall results regarding public reaction to the budget deal is right. The overall plurality was affected by very strong support by Republicans - 56 to 11. Democrats opposed it 47 to 31 and even Independents opposed it 30 to 25. The strong disapprove vs strong approve were also striking - 29 to 14 for Dems and 17 to 10 for Independents. This suggests to me that Democrats still have a lot of work to do to convince their base and Independents that this was an acceptable deal. The fact that Republicans liked the deal doesn't really matter - because they will never give Democrats any credit for this.
That poll on the popularity of the deal was also in the field on Monday, when the left was at its angriest and people hadn't thought this through yet. Also before it became clear that the shutdown ending would lead to the Epstein email dump AND before the Senate payouts would turn the deal into a huge own goal for the GOP senators that has split their congressional caucus. We'll see, but I bet the deal is more popular now than it was on Monday.
Another good, thoughtful piece. Some Democrats I otherwise admire seem to be trying to get political capital out of a somewhat clumsy end to the shutdown. But the hunger posed by the pause on SNAP was never a metaphor. People were actually going hungry.
I had, and have, really mixed feelings about it ending the way it did. But it's hard to see how else it could've ended. It's not like Democrats are in a position to call a general strike or something.
Thank you for acknowledging the likely error in your initial post on the deal. I hope those on the left who reacted the same show the same reflection. I’m honestly disgusted with how the left has treated the eight senators who chose to keep people fed over sustaining a filibuster they had no chance of winning. And they claim to represent the politics of compassion? Not only were people likel Bernie Sanders and Robert Reich shown to be out of touch but hypocrites to boot.
I appreciate this take, but one thing that wasn’t addressed is the fact that only 8 member of the caucus voted to re-open the government and the rest didn’t. More over, it’s hard to say the Democrats can call this a win when so many of them spoke against it on the floor, including Schumer (whether he was sincere or not is another question), and many House Democrats have decried the vote and said that those who voted for it caved and betrayed voters. How can the Democrats claim this as their win when most of them were against the vote? If they shift to saying “they” re-opening the government, that would be pretty hypocritical and not well-received.
The Democrats were always going to have to yield, since they simply had scarcely any leverage over the Republicans. It's well to remember that they have superior access to polling information since they pay heavily for high-quality polling services.* I expect that the leadership assessed that the time had come and chose and/or encouraged 8 low-vulnerability members of the caucus to take one for the team. In this way "the Democrats" get credit for ending the pain while everyone else in the caucus can say, "I stood strong!" All in all a good strategy well executed.
* The Republicans do too, of course, but their ideology more frequently impairs their ability to make effective use of poling data.
Good points. I only wish that they had given it a few more days so that the Supreme Court would have had to rule--on shadow docket, of course--whether the Trump administration had to pay SNAP benefits during the shutdown. Ketanji Brown-Jackson had them on a tight deadline.
Yes: at least an ad a day on rs denying food aid and health care access to Ms of Americans. This is medieval England when the Benedictine monasteries -- the only infirmaries available -- were forcibly shuttered and people literally left to die in the streets. This is what rs -- in Congress, WH, and Roberts court -- choose and want.
The ad should also point out that after 2026, SNAP benefits will be drastically cut, with recipients forced to prove through paperwork that they are worthy.
I believe the Rs were never going to agree to extend the subsidies during the shutdown. Period. The ending wan't perfect it turned out more positive than negative for Dems. But now they gotta bare their teeth.
We don't know that, as once the deal was announced, the Supreme Court considered the question of whether Trump's administration could deny funding SNAP moot. Ketanji Brown-Jackson had them on a tight schedule, and her judicial moves were brilliant.
You have to *really* squint to see an increase in democrats being blamed for the shutdown. I would also note the question you chose to visualize did not include Trump; polls with Trump consistently showed a large proportion of voters also blamed him
If you consider both percentages (D minus R) there is a clear, if small, trend away from the Democrats. I am speculating, but when people were suddenly at high risk of losing SNAP, I wouldn’t want those numbers to flip on me if I were a Democratic Senator.
Sometimes it is best to retreat from a political battle in order to win the political war. There will be many political battles against the Trump administration, with the possibility of another in January. We need to stay in the present and stop vilifying Democrats who did not give us a single resounding victory, because with the present make-up of Congress, that is not going to happen. Republicans are fine with air traffic being disrupted, since the Republican House members were all sitting at home being paid. They were also fine with their constituents on SNAP going hungry because they despise them for being in need. They are fine with millions of people being hit with horribly high Affordable Care Act subsidies because, hey, they have their wonderful health insurance and can keep it when they retire.
I find using references like Joe the Plumber is demeaning and reinforces the stereotype that Democrats are elitist and out of touch with working people.
Why can’t we replace Party leadership who people who can message?
Keeping ones head in the game, and as often as possible, ferreting ouy the truth is a good game plan. Humans that read Elliott are a different breed and value data journalism. It’s not that we are Democrats, but that we are pro-democracy..
I'm not sure that looking at the overall results regarding public reaction to the budget deal is right. The overall plurality was affected by very strong support by Republicans - 56 to 11. Democrats opposed it 47 to 31 and even Independents opposed it 30 to 25. The strong disapprove vs strong approve were also striking - 29 to 14 for Dems and 17 to 10 for Independents. This suggests to me that Democrats still have a lot of work to do to convince their base and Independents that this was an acceptable deal. The fact that Republicans liked the deal doesn't really matter - because they will never give Democrats any credit for this.
Which is why the Democrats need to end the circular firing squad and TAKE credit for it.
That poll on the popularity of the deal was also in the field on Monday, when the left was at its angriest and people hadn't thought this through yet. Also before it became clear that the shutdown ending would lead to the Epstein email dump AND before the Senate payouts would turn the deal into a huge own goal for the GOP senators that has split their congressional caucus. We'll see, but I bet the deal is more popular now than it was on Monday.
Another good, thoughtful piece. Some Democrats I otherwise admire seem to be trying to get political capital out of a somewhat clumsy end to the shutdown. But the hunger posed by the pause on SNAP was never a metaphor. People were actually going hungry.
"Republicans: The Party That Enjoys Taking Food Money Away From The Hungry So They Can Triple The Cost Of Your ACA Coverage."
Extended shutdown or no, if they end the tax credits that's what will be hanging around their necks.
We need to get this message down enough to go on a bumper sticker. Here is one attempt:
Republicans Take Food Away from the Hungry & Triple ACA Coverage Costs. Vote Democrats.
I had, and have, really mixed feelings about it ending the way it did. But it's hard to see how else it could've ended. It's not like Democrats are in a position to call a general strike or something.
And a general strike would not work in such a large and diverse country as ours, a point made by Heather Cox Richardson.
Thank you for acknowledging the likely error in your initial post on the deal. I hope those on the left who reacted the same show the same reflection. I’m honestly disgusted with how the left has treated the eight senators who chose to keep people fed over sustaining a filibuster they had no chance of winning. And they claim to represent the politics of compassion? Not only were people likel Bernie Sanders and Robert Reich shown to be out of touch but hypocrites to boot.
I appreciate this take, but one thing that wasn’t addressed is the fact that only 8 member of the caucus voted to re-open the government and the rest didn’t. More over, it’s hard to say the Democrats can call this a win when so many of them spoke against it on the floor, including Schumer (whether he was sincere or not is another question), and many House Democrats have decried the vote and said that those who voted for it caved and betrayed voters. How can the Democrats claim this as their win when most of them were against the vote? If they shift to saying “they” re-opening the government, that would be pretty hypocritical and not well-received.
Hi Jenny. You make a fair point about characterizing the eight members as “the Democrats.”
The Democrats were always going to have to yield, since they simply had scarcely any leverage over the Republicans. It's well to remember that they have superior access to polling information since they pay heavily for high-quality polling services.* I expect that the leadership assessed that the time had come and chose and/or encouraged 8 low-vulnerability members of the caucus to take one for the team. In this way "the Democrats" get credit for ending the pain while everyone else in the caucus can say, "I stood strong!" All in all a good strategy well executed.
* The Republicans do too, of course, but their ideology more frequently impairs their ability to make effective use of poling data.
Good points. I only wish that they had given it a few more days so that the Supreme Court would have had to rule--on shadow docket, of course--whether the Trump administration had to pay SNAP benefits during the shutdown. Ketanji Brown-Jackson had them on a tight deadline.
Yes: at least an ad a day on rs denying food aid and health care access to Ms of Americans. This is medieval England when the Benedictine monasteries -- the only infirmaries available -- were forcibly shuttered and people literally left to die in the streets. This is what rs -- in Congress, WH, and Roberts court -- choose and want.
The ad should also point out that after 2026, SNAP benefits will be drastically cut, with recipients forced to prove through paperwork that they are worthy.
I believe the Rs were never going to agree to extend the subsidies during the shutdown. Period. The ending wan't perfect it turned out more positive than negative for Dems. But now they gotta bare their teeth.
With the Roberts court at A-OK with knowingly denying food aid to otherwise starving Americans.
We don't know that, as once the deal was announced, the Supreme Court considered the question of whether Trump's administration could deny funding SNAP moot. Ketanji Brown-Jackson had them on a tight schedule, and her judicial moves were brilliant.
You have to *really* squint to see an increase in democrats being blamed for the shutdown. I would also note the question you chose to visualize did not include Trump; polls with Trump consistently showed a large proportion of voters also blamed him
If you consider both percentages (D minus R) there is a clear, if small, trend away from the Democrats. I am speculating, but when people were suddenly at high risk of losing SNAP, I wouldn’t want those numbers to flip on me if I were a Democratic Senator.