this post was submitted on 10 Nov 2025
119 points (99.2% liked)

politics

26335 readers
2536 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News

• World News

• Business News

• Political Discussion

• Ask Politics

• Military News

• Global Politics

• Moderate Politics

• Progressive Politics

• UK Politics

• Canadian Politics

• Australian Politics

• New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
outrageousmatter@lemmy.world
aidan@lemmy.world
jordanlund@lemmy.world
little_cow@lemmy.world
Theonetheycall1845@lemmy.world
JuBe@lemmy.world
Lasherz12@lemmy.world
119
Senate Democrats blink on the shutdown after 40 days of pain (www.msnbc.com)
submitted 2 days ago by floofloof@lemmy.ca to c/politics@lemmy.world
20 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] fedupwithbureaucracy@lemmy.world 38 points 2 days ago (1 children)

No, schumer planned this. Why do you think all Dem defectors are not up during 2026? Very much planned that way so they can’t be punished

[–] shawn1122@sh.itjust.works 6 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

This was certainly centrally planned. There's no way they would be able to coordinate having it be 8 that are not up for re-election without that.

Here’s what occurred. It has been widely assumed that the group of eight mostly centrist Senate Democrats, who have been looking to broker a hollow deal on Republican terms, were freelancing. In fact, they were acting with the express approval of Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and were reporting to him daily.

At Thursday’s meeting, they told their caucus colleagues that they now had ten votes to reopen the government in exchange for no real Republican concessions. At that, much of the rest of the caucus went ballistic, and some of the supposed ten said that, in fact, they were not willing to vote for any such deal.

The leaders of the proposed Democratic cave-in, Sens. Maggie Hassan and Jeanne Shaheen, both of New Hampshire, and Catherine Cortez Masto of Nevada, then backed down. Only after that did Schumer go public with his proposal to reopen the government in exchange for a one-year extension of the ACA subsidies, along with a bipartisan commission to figure out a long-term solution.

Informed observers tell me that the obvious compromise deal, which would allow each side to claim a partial victory, is either a shorter extension of the ACA subsidies for less than a year, or an extention with a partial cut at higher incomes. It remains to be seen whether both sides can get to yes.

The mystery is why Schumer keeps flirting with capitulation in exchange for nothing. Democrats have the political momentum, Republicans are divided, and a majority of voters blame Republicans for the shutdown. Schumer himself faces a likely primary challenge for his own Senate seat. He is even more vulnerable if he presides over a Democratic capitulation.

https://prospect.org/2025/11/08/why-does-schumer-keep-trying-to-cave-government-shutdown/

This was reporting from last Thursday. Of course today after following through with the capitulation we find they secured no concessions, just a promise of a vote on the issue on December.