This is not diversity in the caucus; this is an outright betrayal.

from elites within our party and podcasters?...I don't hear average citizens shouting "traitors"...they want government open for business...they want to get paid, travel, feed their families..

we were never going to get MAGA to move on Obamacare...that is in the hands of idiots like MTG, terrified of losing her job because somewhere in her hairball brain, she understands her middle class/aging constituency relies heavily on Obamacare and SNAP...

I marched against the Vietnam War, for a woman's right to choose.. knocked on doors, and put my money where my mouth is...

I despise Trump/Trump voters but my old brain understands we do not control any branch of government and we are limited as to what we can and cannot do...Tuesday's election was a big fuck you to Trump and his revenge insanity but real change will come in 2026 if both the House and Senate flip...

So railing against our guys gets us absolutely nothing...we've made our point: Republicans are drowning in their inhumanity/their callous disregard for human life...good

we have to keep moving forward...

I am not demeaning you. I'm pushing back against your statement ". I don't hear average citizens shouting "traitors"."

If you go to less controlled discussion boards where people are allowed to express themselves openly without behind held back by the party-supporting rules we have at DU, 9the majority of the posts are "average citizens shouting "traitors"." And even worse things you could never post here.

I agree we need to keep moving forward, but there we shouldn't be surprised that many voters, especially younger ones, will push forward without the centrist brakes. Time will tell.

Thanks for all you've done and continue to do.

what was the point of the shutdown?

Most like the indivisable primary suggestion. We want leaders who work with us not those who betray us.

50 years ago when my husband was in law school, we lived in a one bedroom apartment in what was then referred to as “the projects” ..during the day I took care of our very sick baby and cleaned offices at night while my husband watched our child..the only insurance we had was through the university..insurance that covered almost nothing.. what little money my job, my husband’s summer jobs, and his army reserve paycheck afforded us went to paying my daughter’s doctors and law school tuition..we relied on and survived on “food stamps”.. SNAP

In principle, the Democrats holding out for a better deal would have been noble if children weren’t starving, people had jobs, and families weren’t standing in Depression era “bread lines”..

Again, we do not control any branch of government.. Obamacare was never on the table..

And now they demand for us to change the abortion law. Republicans lie. We got no guarantee. Now we are good and screwed.

the fact is, we have no power. They will do as they please, because ultimately, none of them actually care what we (the little people) think.

Now, if you are a person who is a mega donor, you have a voice.

The rest of us? Worth less than nothing.

To deserving progressive Democrats

representation in congress.

None of them care about people who they don't actually represent.

The plus side is that I always expect the absolute worst of all of my congresscritters so I'm never disappointed, since they always deliver on the very worst possible decisions. The one thing the Iowa congressional delegation always delivers on is being inhuman monsters.

I agree with everything else you wrote, but not that. It's time for us to take our power back, just like NY voters did. Screw what they want! We each have a voice and we need to use it wisely by backing candidates who represent US. Representing US is the whole point and shouldn't be forgotten. We can't keep rolling over and forgiving bad behavior.

and I'll be voting for the most progressive voices I can access here in Iowa.

It feels hopeless today, what with the supposedly most powerful Democrats saying "Nah, it's cool, we don't need the ACA, we'll just give up, yeah, capitulation feels right."

Give me a week or two and I'll be ready to fight again....right now, at this moment it feels....futile.

I understand feeling hopelessness and anger. I got over my hopelessness this morning talking to classmates. Everyone around me is united in fighting to replace every single Dem who is not representing us. If they think NY was bad, they ain't seen nothing yet.

to get to where we even have reps who seem human.

I wish we still lived in Illinois or Wisconsin. There is hope there. Here? Not so much (and I'm the secretary for our county party, I go to all the meetings, I am active, but right now, I'm kind of short on hope.

but it was our own people who ensured that we do feel that way.

Knowing that our own party is eager to sell us ordinary people out is not super motivating.

…with actual data that what emerges from congress has little or no relation to what the vast majority of people actually want. So, nothing new here.

We need new leaders. Always vote Democratic of course. I like the new DNC person also. He favors a 50 state primary strategy also. Surrender is not an option.

You said in your post that its "Worth less than nothing" If it really is "Worth less than nothing" then there's really no point in voting is there?

I agree that we can't afford to lose them, but I haven't seen a workable realistic plan to keep them. My post is not about that. It's about way more than that.

average American. I can't get the money to get elected. Berne released a plan. Medicare for All, cheaper and better than what we have and would save the government money. We were told "it will never ever happen."

Bernie has a plan. He didn't have the votes then. He doesn't have them now. So, we don't have Medicare for All. We're not likely to. We barely have Medicare for retirees and ACA for the rest of us. If we fight to get Medicare for All and lose, we might have nothing.

I hear you. I want socialized universal healthcare for everyone. I have wanted that for decades. We do not have it, nor are we likely to get it, though. In the meantime, I want to make sure that what we do have doesn't go away, though.

You are not going to get Medicare for All now. Maybe never. We're going to have something different than that, because there simply aren't enough votest to get Medicare for All. So, what do you think we can get?

Bernie never wanted "Socialized Universal Healthcare" for all. Bernie wanted Single payer healthcare, there is a big difference.

Universal healthcare the government owns the hospitals and controls the doctors, Bernie never wanted that.

Have you read the Big Ugly Death Bill? Medicare, Medicaid, the VA are being gutted. The worst of the cuts will happen Dec. 1, 2026, after the election. You aren't going to keep what you have, it's already a law. Chuck Schumer orchestrated voting for the CR back in March, that's when Democrats should have voted no to the CR before the Big Ugly Death Bill became law.

If subsidies to Obamacare are not renewed, the Kaiser Family Foundation says that 50,000 Americans will die per year.

You haven't seen the worst that is coming to our healthcare, Project 2025 wants to kill unwashed Americans, including Magats, only the rich will have healthcare.

Do I understand healthcare? Not completely. I understand it pretty well, though. We do not have a tenable healthcare system. It is unfair in the extremen and omits far too many people.

Do I think we will get what I want? I do not. That, however, remains what I want.

Not for me, though. I'm 80 years old. I'll die soon, within a few years. That's OK. I've lived a nice long life. The shame is that so many who have not lived a long life will die. Too many will die before they should. That's what I want to fix. And there's only one real way to do that. If you get sick; you get care. We all pay for that. That's how healthcare should work. It currently does not work that way at all. That's what I want to change.

I want a United States of America where if you get sick, you get the care you need. Period.

So, I can only hope to continue as we have been recently, and that will require a restoration of the subsidize ACA. Personally, I'm on Medicare and in an Advantage program that is affordable. Before that, I was on ACA with the subsidy. Before that, I paid for individual healthcare insurance. Before that, I did without insurance and, fortunately, did not have any serious medical needs. Even now, at 80, I see my doctor once a year. That's not going to last much longer, I expect.

So, I will do as I think best, to preserve some sort of subsidized healthcare for my fellow Americans. It's not optimal, but it is also not nothing. Whatever we have, it comes through legislation. So, we need to restore a Congress with a majority of Democrats in 2026, along with a Democratic return to the White House in 2028. So, that's what I'm supporting. I hope we succeed in getting those two things, but it will take all of us and all of our dedication to get that.

If you think we can do otherwise, I suggest studying more history.

I see myself in you. We're a little too pessimistic.

Try any of that with a chronic illness you've had since childhood.

I've been fortunate not to have any serious health problems. I'm aware of my privilege. So, I'm afraid I can't try being someone else.

so they could learn about single payer? The Democrats want the status quo because they are beholden to corporations. Otherwise they's be more courageous, There was a time when everybody thought the ACA wouldn't pass, but when people learned what it was, the goalpost was moved. Never putting the legislation up for a vote is cowardly.

Recent polling shows 55% of Americans support Medicare for All, while 45% oppose it. And 60% believe that government is responsible for ensuring health coverage for all Americans.

Among Democrats 85% support Medicare for All, while 15% oppose it. This is a winning issue for Democrats because at 85% support it can bring out the vote. We should be loud and clear about support for Medicare for All. We won't get it if we don't try.

Medicare is something that has always been for people above retirement age, it's something they've (we've) paid into our whole lives so it's there when we retire and private insurance doesn't want to cover us anymore (for the most part). Ergo, that name is a misnomer, if Medicare is "for all" then it's NOT MEDICARE.

And it will never be popular enough to be enacted because older people will feel like they're getting fucked over, with all the money they paid into NOT going to their health care, instead it's now 'for all'? That's not an idea I want Democrats to put their name behind.

I love Bernie just fine but his choice of a name sucks. A "Public Option" is a much better idea, and a much better name.

I understand as well as anyone universal health care isn't easy. One of Harry Truman's biggest regrets was he couldn't get universal health care, he couldn't even get a vote on it but he felt it would have been an extension of the New Deal so I understand how long it has been tried and how long it may take to succeed.

Why can't congress come together and agree on a universal health care plan? It is most likely due to the lobbyists or their donors. Blue Cross/Blue Shield advertised heavily during the 2020 Democratic debates. There are a lot of monied interests that are working against plans that help the average American.

I think the best strategy is to vote for candidates that have medicare for all in their platform. We start the negotiating from there and compromise elsewhere. There is little evidence a moderate/centrist plan on health care will get enough Republican votes or is even an effective electoral strategy to try to win by a landslide to have enough votes to pass whatever you think we can get if we can't have universal health care.

A large number of US workers are insured through their work. They pay part of the insurance cost, but don't really know how much it actually costs. Then, we have another large group that is on Medicare. They, too, don't understand what the real cost is. Finally, we have a smaller group that is on Medicaid. Again, same lack of knowledge. Of course there are other groups, including the military.

So, we have a nation that doesn't really know what healthcare actually costs. That interferes with attempts to socialize healthcare.

That's more or less why, I think. How to change that? I do not know.

like a public option, instead of reacting.

a majority of democrats in vote houses of Congress. And a Democratic President. Worth a try, I think.

That some people are here are such Establishment bootlickers that they expect the voters to do the jobs of the political establishment. Regardless of whether you think the 8 Vichy Democrats caving is good or bad, the fact of the matter is that Schumer and the Democratic Senate FAILED. And the time for giving Senate Democrats participation trophies has long since passed.

The deal calls for a vote in the Senate with a bill chosen by Democrats.

Republicans will fully own the consequences of failing to renew the subsidies.

In the meantime, millions of federal workers will get paid again, countless will be able to catch up on late mortgage and credit card payments, and SNAP families will no longer be at risk of starving.

Not acting on this deal harms a lot of people.

Americans by letting them die with no healtcare.


Yeah that's a fucking reason to vote isn't it?

A continued shutdown pummels federal workers, leaves SNAP families vulnerable, and does nothing to create a path toward ACA subsidy renewal.

You bet there won't be. Whatever.

Last edited Mon Nov 10, 2025, 11:32 AM - Edit history (1)

or months for that matter, isn’t going to change their minds. Cruelty is the point with these people.

I just don’t understand the point insisting on the continuation of this shutdown.

At least with this deal we protect federal workers and SNAP families, and draw a bright line in the sand on health coverage. Republicans will own the consequences.

But they were working their way through the courts where they would have been upheld.

This is giving cover for something that was always legally going to happen anyway, as some kind of “win”.

Rs will not “own the consequences”. Seriously?! Dems are the ones who caved. The GOP cult/base actually believes the ACA should be trashed and a new plan is “two weeks away”.

Should have just caved immediately and not make people suffer for 5 weeks? Isn't that logically what you are saying? You comment makes democrats look kind of stupid for holding out at all.

In fact, banning private jets to relieve stress on the ATC would have ended it on Saturday morning

They knew it was hardship to go without pay, but also knew caving now was just plain stupid.

These people haven’t been paid in more than a month, many have late mortgage/rent/car/credit card payments.

Keeping the government shutdown wasn’t forcing concessions from Republicans, it’s just starting to hurt people.

Or didn't you see he again is pushing SCOTUS to stop it?

Ending the government shutdown ensures SNAP stays on.

except it's going to be a meaningless vote because A. it will not pass in the Senate and B. even if, by some miracle, it did, the House would NEVER take it up. Little Johnson has already said so.

They chose an illusion. Not a chance in hell that it gets even a single GOP vote, that is if they even put it on the schedule, because promises get broken every single day and Republicans don't do anything in good faith....ever.

The sad thing is that Dems caved knowing all of that, eagerly, happily, proudly.

The ACA will be gone entirely when the next funding crisis comes along, because now Republicans know for a fact that the Democrats will never, ever fight for anything, enough will always join them in voting for whatever fuckery they want and now they have eight who they know are eager to do so!

BUT, we'll get to be denied care for preexisting conditions again! And remember folks, just being female is a preexisting condition!

Because the Dems are HORRIBLE at messaging. Here's what I predict the GOP will say: "The Democrats are the ones responsible for healthcare costs going up because Obamacare was awful to start. The rising costs of coverage are proof of how disastrous Obamacare was. It wasn't sustainable without the tax subsidies that cost American taxpayers billions of dollars every year. We, the GOP, have "saved" the taxpayer billions by getting rid of Obamacare, which couldn't have existed without ripping off the taxpayer." (NOTE: I don't believe any of that, I'm simply predicting what the GOP will say.)

Doesn't matter that none of that is true. The public will buy it. The Dems can shout to the hilt about how it was the GOP who insisted on an expiration of the tax subsidies to get the ACA passed in the first place, but no one will hear it because the GOP will shout louder, more frequently, and in absolute lockstep unison. The Dems will be mealy-mouthed and over-complicated with their messaging (as always).

I mean, hell, if the GOP can get an absolute moron who started an insurrection re-elected, then selling the American voter on the loss of ACA subsidies being the Dems' fault will be a walk in the park.

I hope I'm wrong, but if history serves....

Add some air travel disruption to the mix and they would have had to concede.

But at least we put in 40 days to get absolutely nothing out of it. That will motivate people to come to the polls and vote Dem for more getting nothing.

Singing Kumbayah with them hasn't worked in the last 40 years. We need to elect people serious about standing united. Those who betrayed us last night need to be primaried. We need to replace the current leadership with people willing to meet the moment.

Dick Durbin (R-IL) Retiring
Catherine Cortez Masto (D-NV) Purple state; has voted for all the funding bills
John Fetterman (D-PA) Purple state; has voted for all the funding bills
Maggie Hassan (D-NH) Purple state
Tim Kaine (D-VA) Purple state; represents many federal workers
Angus King (I-ME) Purple state; has voted for all the funding bills
Jacky Rosen (D-NV) Purple state
Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) Purple state; retiring

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10143562675

Read more: https://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2025/Items/Nov10-1.html

That pattern strongly suggests that party leadership worked out who could safely get away with supporting the Republicans, while the rest of the Democrats could appear to be opposed to the surrender. Cynical, manipulative politics, in other words. It is the Democratic party base that is being cynically manipulated, but we aren't supposed to say that because that would be a "circular firing squad."

When Progressives are attacked, we don't hear about a "circular firing squad" nor do we hear lectures and scolding about how we need to "stand united against tyranny and work together." Strange how that works.

Feel free to use it.

It happens all of the time.

Your argument is undermined by that statement.

1. The shutdown was NEVER going to save the ACA subsidies, but making a stand for 40 days will pin rising insurance premiums and loss of healthcare entirely on Republicans.

2. Ending the shutdown supports hungry families deprived of SNAP benefits and federal workers not getting paid, vulnerable to mass layoffs as Project 2025 continues to dismantle our government.

Yes, those are the talking points being used to justify the abject surrender, and they are being repeated over and over again now.

Yes, voting with Republicans means "supporting Republicans." Of course.

Did Democrats not know that SNAP recipients and federal workers would be impacted when they started this?

Project 2025 dismantling our government is a reason to stand firm, not a reason to back down.

It isn't a "stand" no matter how long it goes on when in the end you settle for nothing. That is at best performative.

Ending the shutdown supported families going hungry and federal employees working for no pay, vulnerable to mass layoffs that this deal prevents. The goal of Project 2025 is to dismantle federal agencies which actually help people. Prolonging the shutdown would give them more opportunity to do that.

The BIGGEST QUESTION is the likelihood that continuing the shutdown would eventially result in 3 things happening:

1. Senate Republicans would pass legislation restoring ACA subsidies.
2. House Republicans would take up the measure, and pass it.
3. The Orange Felon would sign it, conceding victory to Democrats.

Do you honestly think those 3 things would happen? I would have bet my retirement savings the shutdown would not achieve that goal shared by every Democrat in Congress, including those who voted to end the shutdown.

Simply rubber-stamping the CR at the end of September would have been to "support the Republicans."

We are in a POLITICAL WAR fought largely on the field of narratives and public perception. Given that Republicans could not be forced to restore ACA, the purpose of the shutdown was to put them on the wrong side of the healthcare issue -- making sure the public knows that skyrocketing health insurance costs and people dying for lack of care is ENTIRELY on the Republicans. The Senate vote on restoring ACA from Sunday's deal has no chance of passing, but it will put Republicans on record yet again doing real harm to the American people.

Polls show by a significant margin the public wants ACA restored, and people blame Republicans for the shutdown due to their intransigence on this issue.

The point was made. Continuing the shutdown would cause more needless pain to vulnerable people, with no more political advantage or benefits to be gained.

Do you really think the 8 senators who voted to end the shutdown are actually opposed to ACA, are secret Republicans, or were bribed or coerced?

If so, there's no use continuing this discussion.

If there is any negative polical fallout from this, it will mostly be from fellow Democrats excoriating our Senators who did what had to be done, and casting aspersions on the Democratic Party as a whole.

I've been a member of DU for nearly 24 years. I've followed politics since the 1968 election, and first voted in 1976. I protested the war in Iraq, and have been to 9 protests against this fascist regime. Winning the midterms in 2026 and the presidency in 2028 is crucial to the survival of our Constitutional democracy.

I believe continuing the shutdown would accomplish nothing, except more pain to hungry families and public servants. Let's not tear down the Democratic Party, which is the only viable option to win elections.

We all want the same thing, and have been on outrage overload far too long. Venting our fury at Senate Democrats is misplaced, possibly hurting our cause.

"...making sure the public knows that skyrocketing health insurance costs and people dying for lack of care is ENTIRELY on the Republicans."

So long as people suffering and dying is blamed on the Republicans - if that even happens - then we win.

"Let's not tear down the Democratic Party," you say. The majority of Democrats, voters and politicians, do not support the surrender. Disagreeing with the minority of Democrats who do think surrender was a good idea is not "tearing down the Democratic Party."

I surmise you avoided that because doing so would reinforce the points I was making.

Can you answer just this one question:

Do you think prolonging the shutdown would have resulted in Republicans passing legislation in the Senate to restore ACA subsidies, then the House, then signed into law by the Orange Sociopath?

I await your answer to that question before engaging with you further.

Absolutely. Narrowing it to asking if "prolonging the shutdown would have resulted in Republicans passing legislation" is deceptive. I don't think Republicans will ever pass legislation we support, so that is not really what this is about. You frame the question in such a way that there is no answer.

But, yes. I do think that think prolonging the shutdown would have resulted in Republicans losing. No question. Exactly where, when, and how, no one can now. The only way to stop bullies is to stand up to them, always and everywhere. Kicking the can down the road, which is what happened, merely prolongs the agony and delays the inevitable showdown.

You stated:
"I don't think Republicans will ever pass legislation we support"

Therefore, your answer to that specific question is NO, which is my answer as well. We agree on that.

I think we can also agree the shutdown caused some economic pain, and hunger pain when SNAP benefits stopped. I think it's reasonable to conclude that prolonging the shutdown would prolong the pain -- without getting Republicans to restore the ACA subsidies.

1. Should Democrats have simply rubber-stamped the cuts to ACA subsidies at the end of September to avoid the shutdown altogether?

2. Should they have let the shutdown go on till the end of this year, despite the escalating pain and suffering of the most vulnerable?

3. Should they have proceeded with the shutdown, then ended it at some point? (which is what they did)

Of course, Republicans could have ended the shutdown at any point by agreeing to restore the ACA subsidies, but we agree they would never do that. I'm sure Democratic leadership knew that as well.

There was nothing Democrats could do to restore the ACA subsidies, as long as Republicans control both houses of Congress and answer to Donald Trump.

So the objective here -- THE OVERRIDING PRIORITY -- is to win back the House and possibly the Senate in the 2026 midterms.

Elections are won, in large part, by convincing voters. Regarding this shutdown, the strategy was to make it absolutely clear that Democrats insist on restoring the ACA subsidies, and if Republicans refuse, the skyrocking health insurance costs and the pain of losing healthcare is ENTIRELY on the Republicans.

We do not have the power to get ACA legislation passed. The Democratic Party has to do everthing it can to win the midterms in 2026.

Regarding the shutdown, we had the 3 options I noted above. I believe #3 was the correct option. Reasonable people can disagree on the options, or the duration of #3.

However, I don't think it is reasonable to criticize those 8 Senate Democrats as cowards or turncoats. I'm fairly certain our Senate leadership decided that after last week's election, the delay in SNAP benefits, and federal employees working for no pay, prolonging the Shutdown at this point had very little to gain but would unnecessarily result in more pain. I'm pretty sure the 8 Senators were selected because their seats were least vulnerable to being flipped to Republicans.

This was not cowardice or betrayal. Democratic strategists knew the anger and frustration we're all feeling would result in the kind of backlash among Democrats we are seeing around the country and here in DU.

They ended the shutdown because they believed doing so now was the correct thing to do. And I agree with them, for reasons I have repeatedly stated.

Hardly. It's a loaded "gotcha" question if ever there was one.

Whether or not the shutdown could succeed in getting Republicans to restore ACA subsidies is PRECISELY the question that needs to be asked to understand what happened and why.

We both agree there was no way Republicans would do that.

So, PLEASE EXPLAIN to me how the Democratic leadership "crapped all over the base" in this matter.

In other words, WHAT, exactly, SHOULD THEY HAVE DONE?

Should they have rubber-stamped the Republican CR at the end of September?

If not that, should they let the shutdown keep going to the end of this year and beyond?

If not that, then what?

If winning the 2026 midterms IS NOT the highest priority, then what is? Remember, there was zero chance of making Republicans pass any legislation that Democrats (including the base) want.

Also, please remember all the prolonged pain to people (including the Democratic base) and damage to our government that would be inflicted by Project 2025 if the shutdown kept going on indefinitely.

"Whether or not the shutdown could succeed in getting Republicans to restore ACA subsidies is PRECISELY the question that needs to be asked to understand what happened and why."

That's the very reason that the Democratic Senators gave us for why they were filibustering, including the ones who just voted with the Republicans. That is not my idea, it is what they said - unambiguously, undeniably. Do they (or you) think we forgot that?

..........even though WE KNOW it would NEVER SUCCEED in getting Republicans to restore ACA subsidies.

You still have not stated what you think Senate Democrats SHOULD HAVE DONE.

Rubber stamp the CR by Sept 30, preventing the shutdown?

Keep the filibuster going indefinitely, despite all the pain and hunger and destruction to our government?

Something else altogether?

PLEASE DO TELL.

I think Senate Democrats SHOULD HAVE DONE what they said they were doing. Pretty simple.

Regardless of how many people go hungry

Regardless of federal enmployees working with no pay, and facing mass layoffs

Regardless of how much damage is done to government agencies people depend on

Sorry, but I just can't condone that. It's callous, heartless, cruel, and would have zero chance to restore ACA subsidies.


Good night. I'm done here.

Why not take what I mean to be exactly what I said? You asked, I answered. You don't like the answer because you have no rebuttal.

What, exactly, do you think they said they would do?

I guess you are hoping that others haven't. At this point I think you are just trying to provoke a reaction. It isn't a good faith discussion.

Probably along the lines of they would not vote for the CR unless it restored the ACA subsidies.

If I'm mistaken about that, let me know.

In regards to "good faith" all I can say is I have pursued this discussion using logic and my honest understanding of this matter with nearly 60 years of following national politics.

I understand that many Democrats are very upset right now that our Senate leadership insisted that restoration of ACA subsidies be included in the CR, then 8 votes in our caucus ended the filibuster even though ACA was not restored.

In good faith, I do not think you have applied critical thought to the limited options available, and the consequences.

Set your emotions aside if you can, and consider the options our Democratic senators faced.

They could have declined to filibuster, effectively rubber-stamping the the Republican CR. I have no doubt our voting base, myself included, would have been angry as hell for their lack of fight.

They could have filibustered, citing an issue in the CR that was unacceptable. I believe the ACA subsidies were the most important issue.

I also believe there was no chance Republicans would ever pass legislation to restore ACA, and you have acknowledged as much yourself.

This put Senate Democrats in a very difficult position, knowing there was no chance of achieving that goal and the government shutdown would start to cause real pain to real people as it dragged on.

People going hungry. Federal workers losing pay, then their jobs. Dismantling government agencies people depend on.

Republicans don't care about that pain, and their objective has been to dismantle federal agencies.

Senate Democrats knew their voting base would be furious if they ended the filibuster without restoration of ACA.

What did they personally have to gain by doing that? Why did they end the filibuster?

Is it possible they actually care about their constituents -- about people going hungry, losing their jobs, government agencies being decimated?

Keep in mind there was no chance that Republicans would pass legislation to restore the ACA, or that Trump would sign it.

Given all that, what did they have to gain by the filibuster in the first place?

I explained all that in an earlier post, but will do so again if necessary.

but it's hard not to when the people we elected keep caving to the repigs, but, after my drunken rant last night, I'm going to tone it down and get back to work electing Dems.

It always is.

There, fixed it.

The "moderates" keep fucking us as they high five each other.

I assume that you do as well. All three in my state are working to save the country and work toward our mutual goals.

I can't vote in your state or district. What I can donate won't help in any sort of nationwide way. So, I work locally, and have for decades.

Who represents your vote?

Like many of us, maybe most of us, I'm tired of one step forward two steps back. Sure we are going to disagree from time to time, but when a small group of Democrats takes it upon themselves to take action on something that doesn't represent the mood of their larger coalition, it's infuriating.

Many of us are not currently in the mood to hold hands and sing kumbaya.

But instead, progressives are told to "shut up" and "vote blue no matter who" (funny how we didn't hear that phrase in NY this time. . .) and then get told to just take what we can get because republicons say "no".

Only works in one direction. When the blue in question is the progressive instead of the centrist, it’s sometimes “vote blue if you feel like it.” Most recent example is Mamdani, but research how many Dems in the Senate defected and supported Lieberman as the “Independent” when he lost the Dem primary to Ned Lamont in 2006. Your head will explode. New Yorkers will have to correct me if I am wrong but it also seems that Bloomberg could not have been elected mayor of NYC three times unless some large portion of Democrats forgot to “vote blue no matter who.”

I love our new Mayor in New York. But I also love our new governors in Virginia and NewJersey. Both are already starting redistricting. We want the same thing...more Democrats, more winning races and better policy. That won't happen with our current leaders.

.

I hate the wild accusations of nefarious motives when they don’t exist.

Nobody.

There are many personal insults of Democrats on this board

You replied to my OP.

Is she bashing Democrats?

“Make no mistake, if this bill passes, it will lead to New Jerseyans paying far more for their healthcare, when they are already paying more and more for everything,” “Making this deal is malpractice.”

She pretty much accused 8 Senate Democrats of malpractice, where is my fainting couch?

I'm done. I've been a democrat all my voting life. I'm not giving them anymore money. And of course none of these wimps are running again. Easy for them, bad for the party. To actually think you can trust any of the magats is stupid. But there we are. Wonder
how Moses Mike is going to get out of swearing in Grijalva. I'm sure he'll think of a way.

beyond frustrating. Dems can't fight their way out of a wet paper bag. I too have been a dem my entire life and they will not get a dollar from me.