87 Comments
User's avatar
Nana Booboo's avatar

Here's how we know the DSAers and Bernie Bros leading the attacks on Schumer over the shutdown deal are actually using it as pretext for an internal hostile takeover attempt: not only are they attacking Schumer even though he voted against the deal, they're rabidly attacking Hakeem Jeffries, who is whipping his caucus against the deal.

The deal, by the way, is a lot better than the lefty coup plotters (and the covert MAGA bot accounts amplifying their attacks) make it out to be

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/shutdown-congress-republicans-democrats-deal-b2861825.html

Expand full comment
Michael G Baer's avatar

What deal? It was a capitulation... a cave. Senate Democrats traded away their one point of leverage for the promise of a vote on ACA, aka they got nothing.

Expand full comment
Nana Booboo's avatar

Wrong, Michael. It was actually a win that the Bernie Bro wreckers are trying to turn into a loss to serve their goal of hijacking the party they hate.

If your DSA and Bernie Bro friends really were upset about the shutdown deal, why are they attacking Schumer AND JEFFRIES, who oppose the deal? It's a hostile takeover attempt as they've been trying since 2015

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/shutdown-congress-republicans-democrats-deal-b2861825.html

Expand full comment
Lauren's avatar

Because putin is working BOTH sides of the aisle. Putin wants to divide the left and the left. The right and the righhhhht. Etc.

Expand full comment
Thomas's avatar

(Like) -- After the rush of resounding victories on Tuesday, the decisions made late Sunday opened up a vulnerability. One that the enemies of Democrats are trying to exploit.

Expand full comment
<PowerOfOne>'s avatar

Hi Nana Booboo

I don't see anything in the linked article that supports your accusation of DSAers and Bernie Bros leading attacks on Schumer. Personally, I would say we don't know Schumer's true feelings about the deal but if he was truly against it but couldn't keep 8 senators from voting for it then it seems he has lost control of the caucus at minimum. I would also note that with 8 voting for it, there was cover for Schumer if he was for it but voted against it to keep from angering the rest of the caucus and most of the base.

The article seems to put out the idea that some Republican senators might vote to retain the ACA subsidies. If that proves to be the case, then "the deal" will have more merit. I don't hold out much hope for that but it might happen.

One thing is for certain, the fight I want for the next CR/shutdown battle at the end of January is full throated we worn't fund the Trump regime's effort to destroy the rule of law, our democratic republic form of government. We have to make it bigger than a one point policy battle.

Expand full comment
Catherine Giovannoni's avatar

Thanks, Simon! Happy Veterans Day to all the Hopium veterans.

This morning, Trump is rage posting about Obama -- another clear sign of Alzheimer's. Obama gave Trump the worst narcissistic injury of Trump's life and Trump's addled brain keeps taking Trump back to those painful moments at the press dinner. He's so clearly unhinged.

I'm writing postcards for Aftyn Behn this morning and baking cookies to send a care package to my grandson. We're in a marathon, not a sprint.

Expand full comment
Thomas's avatar
3hEdited

Thank you, Catherine. (US Navy -- 71~78) Am sending a small donation today to Behn's campaign.

Will add a comment about vets too.

(on edit > donation sent) ... 60 years ago today -- on the Detroit music charts -- a single by James Brown called "I Got You." appeared. I feel good.

Expand full comment
SteveG's avatar

Simon, Your Hopium is contagious. One thing, imo, you fail to note - in comprehensively cataloging the electoral (polling) weaknesses of the GOP and the absolute disgrace of the Red Wave polling outfits - is the polling weakness of the Congressional Dems. Their approval rating is in the gutter just a few points ahead of the GOP and behind Trump. Stunts like the other night don’t help and only increase cynicism.

Expand full comment
Simon Rosenberg's avatar

Steve, we've addressed this here and what you write here is not correct. In the polls that matter for both the 2025 and 2026 elections - Party ID, generic ballot, who is more trusted on the economy - the Dems now hold sturdy leads. This talking point about the weakness of the Democratic Party brand absent this other context is in essence misinformation. For we just won a blow out election; have been overperforming all across the country in election after election; and yes while what has happened is not good for our family and our enthusiasm we don't yet know how this will all play out; and as I've been saying for many years the most powerful force in our politics today is fear and opposition to MAGA. It has proven to be more powerful than any residual reservations or disappointment in Democrats in election after election (not 2024).

Expand full comment
Simon Rosenberg's avatar

The people in the family who have been spreading the data about our depressed brand without also sharing this broader context are doing MAGA's work for them.

Expand full comment
SteveG's avatar

Simon, I was referring to this specifically:

You Gov:

Dem Congressional Approval

9/25/25

Approval 34%

Disapproval 60.9%

You are certainly right in regard to issues and generic ballot.

Expand full comment
Ted N's avatar

I’d like to add I like what Stu said in the interview, about how measures of party approval may not matter. It’s about the candidates and the positions and, more importantly, how they rate against the alternative, which right now is maga (no thanks)

Expand full comment
SteveG's avatar

I certainly agree with that. Thx

Expand full comment
Barbara Greer's avatar

Thanks, this is what I wanted to say.

Expand full comment
Lisa Iannucci's avatar

I posted this yesterday in the comments after the discussion w Stuart S., repeating it here. I think the "Dems caved" meme oversimplifies what was in reality a complex series of events. Lawrence O'Donnell laid it out pretty well in his A block last night. And as Simon points out, Sen. Baldwin forced them to vote down the ACA extension and Sen. Kaine got them on record re tariffs. And now they have to expose the Epstein horror show.

Whatever got "agreed to" is not final yet, and even if/when Senate passes it, House has to vote on it, and they are 100% not going to go for it. So as Simon says above, stay tuned. We still have the filibuster, that's huge. And we now have Grijalva sworn in, and her constituents have representation at last.

Take the wins when you get them. Yes, we are not happy about how things went down on Sunday night, but sometimes you take the lesser of 2 evils. Normally that's the president's job to make those decisions, but since we don't really have one, the Senate Dems - most of whom are still in strong opposition - are making it for all of us, and the moderates fell on the proverbial sword of caving in a situation they were most likely not going to come out on top of.

This is all just my opinion, and I respect those who disagree, and who are frustrated/"done" w Dems. This is a big tent and still a free country, and we come into this space to share ideas and bat them around.

I really enjoy Dr. Ben-Ghiat's weekly discussions for the same reasons - we toss ideas around and think about them. Often there are not "good" answers, only a bunch of bad alternatives.

Keep going!

Expand full comment
Simon Rosenberg's avatar

I think the Senate Dems 8 had a reasonable case to make for why did what they did. But 1) they didn't make it until after the deal got done 2) they should not have done it so close to the election 3) no one heard them. So while there was a scenario where they came out of this in much better shape the execution of the deal was amateurish and did damage to their case and our broader family. In other words there was a way for them to have pulled this off but they didn't get it done, and we are left with a huge ugly mess.

My basic point here is that it happened, and now we must focus on what comes next, what we do. That is where I am trying to spend my time. What do we do now.....

Expand full comment
Rex Farley's avatar

I agree with Simon. If these 8 had a justification for changing their vote they should've put it out there for their constituents to respond to, not forced it down ALL our throats in the middle of the night!!

Expand full comment
Susan Dieterlen's avatar

Seems to me that getting communications out ahead of time and framing an inevitable loss as a win is the very essence of politics. The whole "Dems have to do better at messaging" point could not be illustrated better. Seriously, a delay of 48 hours, if well spent, could have made all the difference!

Expand full comment
Madam Geoffrin's avatar

Simon - I think you summarized my outrage over how the shutdown ended better than I could have done myself. Also I very much appreciated the tone of your post today: staying focused on the goal, which is paramount, yet giving license to those who feel betrayed to take the requisite time to heal. True leadership and I thank you.

Whatever steps the Democrats take next, they must do better in media than Angus King’s disastrous statement yesterday that standing up to Trump doesn’t work. I’m still working through that one.

Expand full comment
Anne Bear's avatar

He said that????

Expand full comment
Lisa Iannucci's avatar

Not disagreeing w anything you said. You said it a lot better than I did!

Expand full comment
Meg Voorhes's avatar

Yes, Simon. The optics and messaging of the Caving 8 + Schumer were just terrible. Could they not have waited even 1 week after the elections for us to enjoy our victories and for Rs to sweat some more? They may have been acting on heartfelt principles but they didn't act or sound that way: the vote late on a Sunday night, the Angus King statement that the Dems' strategy wasnt working, and then not having a strong press statement ready. I recognize that the Caving 8 + Schumer are older and therefore not "digital natives," but they didn't even practice proper old school PR and messaging. Most galling and really unforgivable to me was the way Schumer tried to pretend that the 8 acted without his approval, when the group included the minority whip! I left messages for both my Senators (Alsobrooks and Van Hollen) thanking them for their no votes and encouraging them to vote for a new minority leader and whip.

Expand full comment
kitkatmia's avatar

very interesting tv last nite, rachel against the cave/compromise, lawrence all in. so the inside beltway crowd just thinks different than us. and it is all very nuanced/complex. there are pros and cons to both. i wonder if the 8 negotiating by themselves caused the repubs spines to stiffen, smelling a cave. and also the bigger issue to me is messaging. there should have been rip roaring speeches targeting satan/repubs for starving americans on purpose, letting the airline travel disintegrate, and not caring one whit about americans losing health care because they can not afford it. sen shaheen actually said

"i hope the republicans hear us". how pathetic is that? we are not in kansas anymore dorothy. in any case, we need to move on and not let this divide us. and who knows what will happen in the house. when rachel gave bernie the chance to diss schumer, he did not. also interesting.

Expand full comment
MrsCQ's avatar

I believe when you have to explain by getting into the weeds of a deal, you've lost the narrative. Also, there are those who truly believe this was a mistake, even knowing what the deal gave us and/or promised. In addition, I believe the way Chuck Schumer handled this appeared, surprisingly, amateurish. He was against the deal but it passed? Nonetheless, here we are now. I believe respectful debate and airing of opinions is healthy. Thank you for always sharing your thoughts and opinions in a respectful manner. Most of us all want the same thing; we just disagree on how to get there. Of course, we are Democrats after all. 💙

Expand full comment
Fisher's avatar

josh marshall, lawrence o donnel and dan rather all seem to think this was not at all a catastrophe, with lawrence holding that getting federal workers their back pay is not small potatoes, and the unions were thanking tim kaine yesterday. this was a battle in a long war. we have others to wage, and we need to stay focused.

Expand full comment
SW's avatar

yes, long war

Expand full comment
Carla Poole's avatar

Hello Hopium

I sure need some hope right now. The way this was handled by the break away Senators fuels the belief that there are greater non democratic forces influencing the heart of our political system. Why no lead up explanations? Why in the middle of the night? I do not believe it was lack of skill but fear that drove their decision. I know this may be an outlier position but I believe more will come out about why this happened the way that it did.

Expand full comment
Lianne Riebow's avatar

Still upset about the betrayal, but carrying on. I thanked Senators Smith and Klobuchar for their votes. I also asked them to work to replace Schumer. We need someone to meet this critical moment. I have recently donated to the audacious expansion fund and am working to get a batch of voter reg postcards out to AK before Thanksgiving.

Expand full comment
Moishe Swift's avatar

I've also sent the same message (written and phone) to Senators Booker and Kim.

Expand full comment
Susan Dieterlen's avatar

Same message from me to my two senators, Slotkin and Peters. I cannot grasp that Peters, who is retiring, was not one of the 8! Probably wasn't all my phone calls and emails, but I'm taking the win anyway. :)

Expand full comment
Carol R's avatar

Simon: I believe that someone has set up a rogue Simon Rosenberg Substack. It is coming up under SimonRosenberg @simonrosenberg156970

Expand full comment
Jerome Weiss's avatar

Heads up Simon. Your title should read Indefensible….not ….Defensible. .

Or am I missing something.?

Expand full comment
Simon Rosenberg's avatar

Ug. Fixed it. Thank you.

Expand full comment
Kate O'Shea's avatar

I’m guessing early this morning you were another victim of Autocorrect =:o

Happens to me all the time :)

Expand full comment
Stu Weiss's avatar

Leaving the debate over “caving” behind….I’m headed out for a Veterans Day protest on a bike overpass over Highway 101 in Palo Alto. Over the two hours, there will be >10,000 vehicles going by in both directions.

Also, I was the naturalist on a hike organized by Bay Nature magazine, and one of the hikers asked me if I was the Stu Weiss who posts on Hopium! We had a great discussion about how this forum is a way to inject our thinking into the political sphere since Simon is so well connected with the Democratic establishment who read “us.” Among many other topics among the oaks and pines and nature lovers…….

Expand full comment
Susan Dieterlen's avatar

How fun! A Hopium follower spotted in the wild!

Expand full comment
Bobbie's avatar

Yes, that was me! I’m going to claim the wild title. It’s the first chuckle I’ve had since Sunday. 😀

Expand full comment
janinsanfran's avatar

I say anyone running in a Senate primary must be asked whether they will vote for Schumer's continued leadership if elected. He has failed as a leader. I don't care about his individual vote. His job was to bring along his caucus in line with his voters. He flunked. And then, we have to elect the best Dems we can get on the ballot.

Expand full comment
Simon Rosenberg's avatar

So are folks not going to support Democratic candidates for the Senate who could win races for they refuse to come out against Schumer? That is going to be a litmus test? So if Mary Peltola leads in Alaska and can win but refuses to condemn Schumer we should withhold support?

Expand full comment
janinsanfran's avatar

I would support whoever wins a Dem primary. But I would not support any Dem pol in a primary who is on board with Schumer. He apparently can't lead.

Is the Alaska ranked choice thing such that this is impossible? Obviously, not any Alaskan.

Expand full comment
Simon Rosenberg's avatar

I don't understand the logic of this. So if the candidate who wins the primary doesn't condemn Schumer we only don't help them in the primary? But if they win the primary then everything is OK? We have Senate primaries in Maine, Iowa, Texas, critical states, and also in Michigan. If candidates who still support Schumer win in all four do we not support them in this scenario? If so we cannot win the Senate.

Expand full comment
Simon Rosenberg's avatar

I thought we weren't supposed to get involved in primaries......

Expand full comment
janinsanfran's avatar

I'm talking about primaries in our individual home states. Refusing to support candidates who support surrender is simply being responsible. At home. I've always stayed out of other peoples' primaries. For example, Michiganders are going to have to fight it out for themselves. Going to be interesting. But that's up to Michiganders.

Expand full comment
Wyatt R's avatar

Near as I can tell, that only applies when it's to the benefit of the "establishment."

Expand full comment
Veronica's avatar

To bring up a well-known quote, they're letting perfect be the enemy of good. That's part of what lost us the presidency and control of Congress last year. I don't mean to catastrophize, but I'm afraid people will be making the same mistake again, and we can't afford that.

Expand full comment
Thomas's avatar

My MAGA-rep posted today on social media thanking all veterans. One constituent replied about Trump's cuts to vets. Another denied there were any cuts.

Some data posted to challenge that second comment:

- 1.2 million veterans receive aid through the federally funded supplemental nutritional access program, or SNAP. Working-age veterans face an elevated risk of experiencing food insecurity compared to their nonveteran peers. Veterans' families also receive assistance through Medicaid. Trump's deep cuts to those programs hit veterans hard.

- Trump has made a near 20% cut in VA staffing. Staff shortages have led to long wait times for care. These wait times vary from days to months, with some VA clinics still so understaffed that they are unable to take new patients for primary care or mental health needs.

Trump is no friend of those he once referred to as "suckers and losers."

Expand full comment
Thomas's avatar

I listened to a podcaster say that, when applying for a job at WalMart, the company also includes an application for SNAP ("food stamps") for convenience -- as many of the working poor depend on SNAP.

He went on to say that the failure of SNAP benefits going out has really hit WalMart's bottom line. It makes sense since so many spend their SNAP benefits there.

Expand full comment
Cynthia Erb's avatar

I thought I’d share this piece from Josh Marshall of TPM. He went hard on Schumer last March but credited the Democrats for upping their game in the shutdown, with a “fumble” at the end. Actually similar to what Simon is saying. I saw a similar post from Tim Miller. The shutdown really was worth it, and there’s an argument to be made that it was at least a partial win for Democrats, perhaps more than that.

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/a-quick-take-on-team-caves-big-win/sharetoken/90f20333-0fec-4bdc-ae5c-056dc91fb380

Expand full comment
Simon Rosenberg's avatar

The Shutdown was a huge win for us, not a loss. I still think we should have kept fighting.

Expand full comment
Simon Rosenberg's avatar

I almost used the fumble analogy today in my own piece. It's a fumble and they scored but the game is far from over.

Expand full comment
Barbara Greer's avatar

Also, the shutdown pierced the wall of oblivion that surrounds most voters, the ones who don't follow politics the way we do which is the vast majority. Points went up on the board for the fighting Dems as evidenced in the election. Now "they", these voters, will be happy the shutdown ended and they can go home for Thanksgiving. Believe me, they aren't following every nuance of the Dems actions, just the top of the toplines.

Unfortunately for them, but ultimately fortunate for us, is that the agony to come will make them hate this regime even more. Sadly, many people (voters) don't understand what's happening until they really feel it personally. The Dems had little to no chance of getting anything. The "leverage" is all in our heads. These fascists don't care who they hurt and they are not going to budge. Yet.

Expand full comment
Steven Klebe's avatar

Experiments are messy. We have to dig in and remain hopeful that we can get the train back on track. Most of us are not happy with this latest move but today is another day. Mid terms are right around the bend.

Expand full comment
Dorrie Meckes's avatar

MSNBC did a segment on judges that have been confirmed this year. They are having to prove their loyalty by denying Jan. 6 happened. Why are Democrats voting for them? 15 Democrats voted to confirt these unqualified judges for lifetime appointments. WHY? Who are they? They need to be voted out. No democrat should be voting for any trump judges.

Expand full comment
Moishe Swift's avatar

Look, the 8 Senate Dems had a defensible position here (I've flown in the past week and it was hell, people need their SNAP benefits, etc.). But they (i) waited until after the deal closed to explain themselves, (ii) did it after a resounding win for Dems on Tuesday when they had the most power, and (iii) had horrible messaging. And Tim Kaine saying "Oh, well, there were others who wanted to do this, so don't blame just us" is tone deaf and really missing the point.

(Like, even Fetterman has said that his position is "I don't agree with shutdowns." That's better than Kaine's!)

Just looks like amateur hour, not a well-orchestrated outcome.

Expand full comment
Moishe Swift's avatar

Senate Dems should've just been honest: "Look, Republicans were literally going to let people starve to death. We're not going to play chicken with people's lives because we're not sociopaths. We backed down on this one, but we're not done fighting. And maybe stop electing monsters who weaponize hunger?"

Expand full comment
Barbara Greer's avatar

I like the cut of your jib, and your verbiage.

Expand full comment
Deborah Hemenway's avatar

I think you mean they have to defend the indefensible! I would not want to face voters having risked snap benefits, taken away health care and closing eyes to the obvious war crimes being committed. Good luck. As Gavin said in Texas, they poked the bear and I believe all of us are bears not just the California bear!

Expand full comment
Mark Hemenway's avatar

Don’t you mean the indefensible, Simon!

Expand full comment