IIRC, some months ago, no less than Tony Fabrizio,Trump's chief pollster, was part of a group who went to the Hill and gave Rs a dire warning about what ending the ACA premium subsidies could do to them in the mid-terms. Nevertheless, they seem determined to do just that.
So, maybe if the Democrats fight on that hill, they'll win either way. If Rs cave, win. If Ds have to cave, ACA premiums will rise sharply, and we'll find out just how good a pollster Fabrizio is. Afaik, he's very good.
I've been thinking about the shutdown in the context of Democrats' net favorability. Currently, it is at historic lows in absolute terms. It's also around 17 points more negative than Republicans, per YouGov. (Last month it was 13 points more negative. The most recent poll was taken a few days after the Kirk killing, so I suspect Republicans got sympathy bump that won't prove durable. But we'll see.)
What's interesting about Democrats' favorability problems, as Elliott has written previously, is that they're driven largely by base dissatisfaction. That trend materialized right after the election -- no one likes a loser -- but it became more pronounced after Senate Democrats voted to keep the government open back in March. They've yet to really recover in any significant way. Many Democrats continue to see the party as ineffectual.
The most obvious way Democrats could restore some confidence would be to retire at least some of the current leadership. They're apparently not willing to countenance that option. They need some other way to show that they're willing to fight. Maybe their approach to the shutdown will do that, maybe not, but it's at least not obviously wrong.
And yeah, maybe Dem favorability would recover gradually as we enter the campaign season and people hear more from Dem candidates. Or maybe favorability just won't matter, and the base will turn out anyway. But after being assured by many analysts that people would eventually come around to Dems in 2024, I'm not so sure.
This is where fox news steps in. Most Americans are in the scenario where they believe the dems are shutting down the govt to ask for free transgender operations for kids who then pee in literboxes and play in girls volleyball. Yes we really really are that hateful and stupid
Elliott, read the OMB memo. It doesn't command agencies to do RIFs if there's a shutdown. It says that they are "directed to consider RIFs" and tells them to do what they should be doing anyway as standard procedure. Vought knows better than tontry and order RIFs
"But the Trump administration coupled its formal notification with an additional directive to agencies, telling them “to use this opportunity to consider Reduction in Force” notices to lay off federal employees. Since taking office, President Trump has invoked this process repeatedly in a campaign that began with the Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, though some affected workers were later rehired or contested their firing in court.
In the new memo, the White House told agency leaders to focus on eliminating positions where funding has expired, or could not be sourced under other laws, and had been deemed to be “not consistent” with President Trump’s political agenda.
I work as a Fed. If this was an actual order to RIF people, it wouldn't say "consider". It would say "You will institute RIFs".
Vought wants to make this look like an order but he knows it's illegal to order RIFs in a shutdown.
Go talk to any Feds you may know. Ask them if they've heard from their HR people about shutdown preparations and if RIFs are planned during a shutdown.
Interesting point, but the Trump appointees have a history of using language such as "consider" that their subordinates take as an implicit command, especially if they want to impress the current president by showing that they can go above and beyond.
IIRC, some months ago, no less than Tony Fabrizio,Trump's chief pollster, was part of a group who went to the Hill and gave Rs a dire warning about what ending the ACA premium subsidies could do to them in the mid-terms. Nevertheless, they seem determined to do just that.
So, maybe if the Democrats fight on that hill, they'll win either way. If Rs cave, win. If Ds have to cave, ACA premiums will rise sharply, and we'll find out just how good a pollster Fabrizio is. Afaik, he's very good.
I've been thinking about the shutdown in the context of Democrats' net favorability. Currently, it is at historic lows in absolute terms. It's also around 17 points more negative than Republicans, per YouGov. (Last month it was 13 points more negative. The most recent poll was taken a few days after the Kirk killing, so I suspect Republicans got sympathy bump that won't prove durable. But we'll see.)
What's interesting about Democrats' favorability problems, as Elliott has written previously, is that they're driven largely by base dissatisfaction. That trend materialized right after the election -- no one likes a loser -- but it became more pronounced after Senate Democrats voted to keep the government open back in March. They've yet to really recover in any significant way. Many Democrats continue to see the party as ineffectual.
The most obvious way Democrats could restore some confidence would be to retire at least some of the current leadership. They're apparently not willing to countenance that option. They need some other way to show that they're willing to fight. Maybe their approach to the shutdown will do that, maybe not, but it's at least not obviously wrong.
And yeah, maybe Dem favorability would recover gradually as we enter the campaign season and people hear more from Dem candidates. Or maybe favorability just won't matter, and the base will turn out anyway. But after being assured by many analysts that people would eventually come around to Dems in 2024, I'm not so sure.
This is where fox news steps in. Most Americans are in the scenario where they believe the dems are shutting down the govt to ask for free transgender operations for kids who then pee in literboxes and play in girls volleyball. Yes we really really are that hateful and stupid
Elliott, read the OMB memo. It doesn't command agencies to do RIFs if there's a shutdown. It says that they are "directed to consider RIFs" and tells them to do what they should be doing anyway as standard procedure. Vought knows better than tontry and order RIFs
From the Times story:
"But the Trump administration coupled its formal notification with an additional directive to agencies, telling them “to use this opportunity to consider Reduction in Force” notices to lay off federal employees. Since taking office, President Trump has invoked this process repeatedly in a campaign that began with the Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, though some affected workers were later rehired or contested their firing in court.
In the new memo, the White House told agency leaders to focus on eliminating positions where funding has expired, or could not be sourced under other laws, and had been deemed to be “not consistent” with President Trump’s political agenda.
"
"Consider" isn't "You must do this".
I work as a Fed. If this was an actual order to RIF people, it wouldn't say "consider". It would say "You will institute RIFs".
Vought wants to make this look like an order but he knows it's illegal to order RIFs in a shutdown.
Go talk to any Feds you may know. Ask them if they've heard from their HR people about shutdown preparations and if RIFs are planned during a shutdown.
Interesting point, but the Trump appointees have a history of using language such as "consider" that their subordinates take as an implicit command, especially if they want to impress the current president by showing that they can go above and beyond.
Does Vought really care about how anything has been done in the past.