Where We Go from Here
Don’t go to war with army you have, find and cultivate the army you want
Many Democrats have expressed nothing short of fury at 8 Senate Democrats (and probably a few more who would have voted the same way had their votes been needed to give away the store) over the mind-boggling capitulation to MAGA Republicans. The deal is destructive and foolish, largely the handiwork work of senators who have overstayed their welcome and refuse to comprehend the times in which we find ourselves.
As Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Cal.) so brilliantly put it, this surrender is no different than law firms, universities, and media outlets caving to Donald Trump. If no democracy fighter should make excuses for those institutions, none should downplay the moral blindness of these senators. But the problem for many Democrats and all democracy defenders extends well past the 8 (or 10 or 12 might have gone along) and past the feckless Senate leadership (or the lack thereof).
Democratic office holders, activists, donors, and candidates as well as ordinary Democratic voters are left with two main questions: What consequences can there be for this debacle? How does the pro-democracy movement continue the fight against the existential threat of authoritarianism?
It is not an option to let bygones be bygones, shrug at the fecklessness of the band of Senate capitulators, and make no attempt to address the serious fault line between the Senate as a whole and the activated Democratic base. That is a recipe for future disappointment and capitulation.
We learned last Tuesday that an engaged base confident in the party’s willingness to fight is essential to electoral wins and ultimately to the triumph of democracy over autocracy. Expecting the base to simply shrug off what they rightly see as a betrayal is neither feasible nor wise. A democracy movement with a deep division between the politicians and the base cannot prevail.
Fortunately, since the colossal collapse, we have witnessed a ferocious backlash throughout the base and among House Democrats, and 2028 contenders. All but the 8 Senate Democrats suggest the party is rallying around non-capitulation. It is simply not acceptable in the Democratic Party to be seen as excusing or condoning—let alone joining the surrender squad. That is proof of the party’s ability to unify and express its preferences as fighters.
As for the ramifications within the party and the Senate, it goes without saying that no one who voted for this catastrophe should be reelected when next on the ballot. Judging from the initial reaction, that seems to be extremely likely. Democrats should make clear now that none of them can expect support. These senators’ fundraising and influence will dry up; challengers will emerge.
Moreover, it seems utterly untenable for the whip, of all people, in charge of enforcing unity and cohesion, should lead a rump group that at least 40 senators openly oppose. Since Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) has already collected enough votes to succeed Durbin in that post, Durbin should be compelled to step down from it. (Frankly, if Durbin had any regard for the party, he would retire now, allowing Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker to put in an interim replacement who will never pull a stunt like this.)
In that same vein, it is evident that Minority Leader Chuck Schumer does not have the fortitude or skills to lead the caucus through an existential crisis in democracy. Senators currently in office appear utterly disinclined to switch leaders now. However, for all Senate candidates on the 2026 ballot, Democratic primary voters should demand a pledge to elect new Senate leadership. That would be one key indication of whether a Democrat is in the fight or flee camp, albeit not the only one.
That seems to already be in motion. Politico reports that the capitulation is so uniformly unpopular the pledge to dump Schumer has become “a litmus test for candidates in competitive midterm races next year.”
[I]n cutting a deal, Senate Democrats infuriated a party reinvigorated by its off-year electoral blowout, sparking accusations that the party again squandered its only leverage in the Republican-led Congress — and ensuring Schumer’s leadership will remain a touchstone in competitive Senate races.
Politico reports that Senate candidates Graham Platner in Maine, Mallory McMorrow in Michigan, and Zach Wahls and Nathan Sage in Iowa already have vowed not to vote for Schumer. More are likely to follow, in part because Indivisible has announced an historic primary effort aimed to make sure Senate nominees pledge not to vote for Schumer. In addition to a pledge to swap leaders, Indivisible will demand all Democratic candidates give “a clear commitment to abandon the status quo of feckless leadership, and use every tool available to fight MAGA attacks on our communities, our health, and our democracy.” As Indivisible co-founder Ezra Levin told me, at the end of the primaries, democracy advocates should back whichever Democrat wins, as that is essential to defeat the MAGA threat.
To be clear, this is not about ideology, but about determination to enlist the strongest leaders to carry on the anti-MAGA fight. (Remember Harry Reid?) They would be smart to abide by a simple rule: Don’t go to war with the army you have, but rather go to the war with the best army you can recruit.
As for the pro-democracy movement going forward, this horrific blunder cannot become a permanent impediment to defeating the MAGA movement and disabling its agenda. That ongoing struggle, which showed such strength in the Hands Off! And No Kings rallies and delivered an overwhelming victory last Tuesday, must continue to hold Republicans responsible for the enormous increase in healthcare insurance premiums if they do not vote to extend the subsidies. Pro-democracy advocates must also demand a swift vote on the release of the Epstein files after Rep. Adelita Grijalva (D-Ariz.) is seated; continued efforts to fight redistricting fire with fire (in Virginia, Maryland, and Illinois); and a pledge from all Democrats on the 2026 ballot to pursue accountability for Trump regime officials for any corruption, self-dealing, human rights violations, abuse of power, and illegality undertaken (including impeachment, oversight hearings, suits to recover ill-gotten gains, and sanctions for private actors who engaged in the gross pay-to-play extravaganza.
In short, Democrats will need to find the best possible fighters in 2026. The 8 sellouts have at least clarified what is unacceptable in today’s party, thereby increasing the chances that incoming senators in 2027 will find new leaders. In the meantime, warriors for democracy must double down on the fight to hold Republicans up to scrutiny for abject cruelty and lawlessness of MAGA Republicans. If they prevail decisively in 2026 as they did in 2025, they can, with new leaders at the helm, begin the hard work of undoing Trump’s serial horrors.
Addendum: I found the original post! It’s by Stephanie Jones. Here it is. Go give her some love and follows! https://open.substack.com/pub/stephaniejones2/p/the-aca-deal-may-be-smarter-than?r=mrvx1&utm_medium=ios
I don’t get why the following isn’t a good argument for the effort to re-open the government. I don’t know who wrote this. But Please both comment but also let me know if you know who authored this.
"It looks like a key group of Senate Democrats are closing a deal to end the shutdown in return for an agreement from Majority Leader Thune to hold a vote on extending the ACA expanded subsidies in December.
At first glance, this may provoke a "Hunh? What are they thinking?"
But whenever the House or Senate Democrats do anything that doesn't look quite right to me, I dig deeper to figure out the reason for it. Because I don't automatically assume that the Dems are weak or complicit or stupid. I figure there's something deeper at play - and more often than not, I'm right.
And it looks like they could be the case here
Some folks are already melting down and accusing the Dems of caving because they say they get nothing out of a deal that includes
"Everyone knows the vote will fail, so they get nothing!!! Dems caved again!"
But wait - let's do a deeper dive. You will see that that getting that agreement is a brilliant strategic move, even if the vote fails.
Consider:
1. The ACA enhanced subsidies are set to automatically sunset in December if no Congressional action is taken to extend them. If there is no deal before then, they just go away on their own.
2. There was no way in hell the Republicans were going to agree to extend the subsidies, no matter how firmly the Democrats held their ground.
3. If the Democrats insisted on keeping the government closed in order to protect the subsidies, at the end of December, the subsidies would have gone away, the Dems would have gotten nothing, and people would have suffered an extended shutdown without getting anything in return.
And this would have happened without the Republicans having to do anything and bearing no responsibility for the subdidies' disappearance.
4. When the subsidies disappeared in December, people who are affected would have blamed the Democrats, not the Republicans.
5. By exacting an agreement from Thune for a vote to extend the subsidies, the Democrats are now forcing the Republicans to AFFIRMATIVELY end the subsidies rather than just letting them die a natural death. Every Republican will have to go on record, while every Democrat can be on record voting "YES."
6. While it is possible that every Republican will vote no, it is possible that the Dems could peel off enough Republicans to vote to extend the subsidies. It would only take a couple and if they put the pressure on over the next few weeks, that could actually happen.
7. If the Democrats can get enough Republicans votes to save the subsidies, that will be a huge win.
8. If the Republicans stand firm and vote no, THEY will own the expiration of the subsidies, not the Democrats.
The bottom line is that the subsidies were going to end in December, no matter what the Dems did. But now, if this deal goes through, if they do end, it will be because the Republicans voted not to extend them, not because they quietly went away.
And if they can get enough Republicans on board - which is more possible than it was even just a week ago - they will save the subsidies
The vote will ensure that either the subsidies are extended or the Republicans' fingerprints are all over the expiration - neither of which could happen without holding a vote.
So, I think we need to back off of the condemnation and attacks and shift our focus toward what we can do to help the Democrats get the Republican votes they need to extend the ACA enhanced subsidies.
Of course, I could be completely wrong in my analysis. I don't yet know what the underlying reasons are or the ramifications will be.
But drawing the conclusion that the Democrats are operating with a smart strategy is far more logical than assuming they are clueless traitors.
I have more than enough reason to give them the benefit of the doubt.
I think we all should."
Before going ballistic about the reopening you may want to consider this. Remember ... deeeeeeeeeeep breaths..
Schumer had the best proposal for ACA and the republicans turned it down. Schumer gave them an off ramp. The legislature needs to fix ACA and stop making it a way for insurance companies to profit. But they can't do that while people are suffering. Extend and fix should be what is going to happen.
While they are at it. Fix medicare and stop paying the amount of money they are giving to insurance companies for Advantage. Yes, you the tax payer are paying $13,000 per Advantage enrollees. That is why Advantage gives you free dental, free eye, free hearing aids and in some cases even send you a check monthly. Money could be saved here or extend these benefits to all medicare enrollees not just for Advantage.