U.S. Politics: 5.7 Billion Problems But The House Ain't One

[Maithanet]

27 minutes ago, sperry said:

On 1, seems like political suicide to do so. Challenging Trump has not been a winning strategy for conservatives. They've backed themselves into a corner, and I doubt enough of them have the conscience to just do what's right. They wouldn't be in politics if they did.

Political suicide?  I don't see it.  There's a dozen republican senators that were just elected that will never be on the ballot until 2024 when Trump is either 4 years gone or about to leave the political stage.  You think that this vote, in January 2019, is going to be the key factor in the 2024 races?  That's hard to believe.  The 2022 class is slightly less insulated, but even still it is still unlikely that people are going to be campaigning on this vote in particular in 3 and 1/2 years. 

And I'm not talking about politicians doing "whats good for the country" and just accepting the political hit.  There is definitely an argument to be made that it benefits Republicans to get out of this shutdown.  Trump has led them into a trap, and the popularity of both Trump and the Republican brand is suffering.  I'm sure plenty of them want to just get this damn shutdown over with and move on to a different fight on more favorable ground.  This allows them to do that.  Whereas if they continue to hold fast, things just get worse, and they're faced with the same decision next week.

[Jace, Extat]

4 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

Political suicide?  I don't see it.  There's a dozen republican senators that were just elected that will never be on the ballot until 2024 when Trump is either 4 years gone or about to leave the political stage.  You think that this vote, in January 2019, is going to be the key factor in the 2024 races?  That's hard to believe.  The 2022 class is slightly less insulated, but even still it is still unlikely that people are going to be campaigning on this vote in particular in 3 and 1/2 years. 

And I'm not talking about politicians doing "whats good for the country" and just accepting the political hit.  There is definitely an argument to be made that it benefits Republicans to get out of this shutdown.  Trump has led them into a trap, and the popularity of both Trump and the Republican brand is suffering.  I'm sure plenty of them want to just get this damn shutdown over with and move on to a different fight on more favorable ground.  This allows them to do that.  Whereas if they continue to hold fast, things just get worse, and they're faced with the same decision next week.

This is why I and some others freaked the fuck out at the idea of Pelosi trading vague DACA promises for a wall. Democrats have a nigh unassailable position for the first time in recent memory. 'We will negotiate border security after the government is reopened' is a pretty simple line to continuously repeat when we have Donnie on record taking credit for the shutdown. Opportunities like this don't come around fucking ever for Democrats, you can't cede this tactical advantage for anything less than a definitive victory.

It doesn't necessarily have to be overwhelming. Dems don't need to start adding conditions to a clean funding bill (although Republicans probably could manage that if situations were reversed), but simply letting Trump's popularity disintegrate around him by making him look weak is worth a lot. If they wanna string this shit out until March, Pelosi should let them.

As for the unpaid workers, that's the cherry on top for Democrats if the weakest among us can suture up those bleeding hearts for a goddamn second and say the following 10 easy words "We will negotiate border security after the government is reopened."

I know that's cold and repellent, but this is what winning looks like. Republicans didn't get the deck stacked so absurdly in their favor by playing nice, and 'they go low, we go high' is a great way to get punched in the dick.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, sperry said:

My problem is I don't see a deal where everyone saves face, which is what needs to happen here. I really just feel like both sides feel like they can't back down. If Trump gets his wall, no matter how many other concessions he gives, it's a win for him because that's what his dipshit base cares about. Likewise, anything that doesn't involve the wall is a total loss for him because he took such a hardline stance about it.

First, good to see you back. You've been gone for a while.

Second, there is a way to save face for everyone. Dems can give Trump the dollar amount he wants ($5.7b) and Democrats can make sure none is earmarked for the wall. That's probably the best both sides can get.

At this point the dollar amount doesn't matter. Hell, giving in on a bit of wall spending doesn't even matter that much. The problem right now is one of process. If Trump gets a clear win, that will signal to him that he can shut the government down when ever he wants to get his way. That cannot be allowed. 

[James Arryn]

29 minutes ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

This is why I and some others freaked the fuck out at the idea of Pelosi trading vague DACA promises for a wall. Democrats have a nigh unassailable position for the first time in recent memory. 'We will negotiate border security after the government is reopened' is a pretty simple line to continuously repeat when we have Donnie on record taking credit for the shutdown. Opportunities like this don't come around fucking ever for Democrats, you can't cede this tactical advantage for anything less than a definitive victory.

It doesn't necessarily have to be overwhelming. Dems don't need to start adding conditions to a clean funding bill (although Republicans probably could manage that if situations were reversed), but simply letting Trump's popularity disintegrate around him by making him look weak is worth a lot. If they wanna string this shit out until March, Pelosi should let them.

As for the unpaid workers, that's the cherry on top for Democrats if the weakest among us can suture up those bleeding hearts for a goddamn second and say the following 10 easy words "We will negotiate border security after the government is reopened."

I know that's cold and repellent, but this is what winning looks like. Republicans didn't get the deck stacked so absurdly in their favor by playing nice, and 'they go low, we go high' is a great way to get punched in the dick.

They’re assailable.

[sperry]

Just now, Tywin et al. said:

First, good to see you back. You've been gone for a while.

Second, there is a way to save face for everyone. Dems can give Trump the dollar amount he wants ($5.7b) and Democrats can make sure none is earmarked for the wall. That's probably the best both sides can get.

At this point the dollar amount doesn't matter. Hell, giving in on a bit of wall spending doesn't even matter that much. The problem right now is one of process. If Trump gets a clear win, that will signal to him that he can shut the government down when ever he wants to get his way. That cannot be allowed. 

 

Your last point is the problem. Trump has never been negotiating in good faith. He's made his whole career on nebulous claims of "winning", and I think he's finally backed himself into a corner where there's no solution that will be acceptable to the Dems that he can spin to his base as a "win." He doesn't care about what's good for America, so he's going to be willing to burn things down.

[Maithanet]

5 minutes ago, sperry said:

Your last point is the problem. Trump has never been negotiating in good faith. He's made his whole career on nebulous claims of "winning", and I think he's finally backed himself into a corner where there's no solution that will be acceptable to the Dems that he can spin to his base as a "win." He doesn't care about what's good for America, so he's going to be willing to burn things down. 

But remember that Trump has spun defeat as a victory before, it's actually a classic move of his.  His businesses don't go bankrupt, he "moves on to other projects".  Yes, Trump would have to take a short term hit with his base, but given his laser focus on doing what they want all the time, I've little doubt that they'll come back to the fold by 2020.  In contrast, sticking to his guns and potentially harming the economy is a potential disaster for Trump.

[James Arryn]

14 minutes ago, sperry said:

 

Your last point is the problem. Trump has never been negotiating in good faith. He's made his whole career on nebulous claims of "winning", and I think he's finally backed himself into a corner where there's no solution that will be acceptable to the Dems that he can spin to his base as a "win." He doesn't care about what's good for America, so he's going to be willing to burn things down.

Exactly. His narcissism is actually a strength here. Unlike Pelosi, Shumer or even the Turtle, he doesn’t actually care one bit about who this affects and how it affects them. He’s probably not fielding or even dodging angry calls all day long. He’s still getting a ton of attention, and that’s more important that what kind of attention it is.

Our hopes rest imo on 3 things:

1) McConnell et al finally deciding the juice isn’t worth the squeeze and either bailing on him or coming up with some face-saving non-surrender surrender.

2) His poll numbers tank so low Fox jumps ship.

3) He’s lazy.

 

Other than those, he had virtually no (Trumpverse) reason to capitulate, and yuge (Trumpverse) reasons to ‘stay strong’, not the least of which is the fact that many Americans do historically confuse stubbornness with strength. Pelosi et al do have lots of reasons to capitulate set against a few very big reasons not to. At some point for them, though, it will come down solely to optics and precedent, because at some point the lockout will cost them more than the Wall. And while the Turtle also pays, conservative philosophy on government makes a non-government an easier idealogical sell to the base.

 

edit: to be clear, I know the Dems are winning big-time at the moment, and I admit they are already handling this much, much better than I expected. But I don’t think it’s all that sustainable, whereas Trump’s neuroses are.

[sperry]

7 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

Exactly. His narcissism is actually a strength here. Unlike Pelosi, Shumer or even the Turtle, he doesn’t actually care one bit about who this affects and how it affects them. He’s probably not fielding or even dodging angry calls all day long. He’s still getting a ton of attention, and that’s more important that what kind of attention it is.

Our hopes rest imo on 3 things:

1) McConnell et al finally deciding the juice isn’t worth the squeeze and either bailing on him or coming up with some face-saving non-surrender surrender.

2) His poll numbers tank so low Fox jumps ship.

3) He’s lazy.

 

Other than those, he had virtually no (Trumpverse) reason to capitulate, and yuge (Trumpverse) reasons to ‘stay strong’, not the least of which is the fact that many Americans do historically confuse stubbornness with strength. Pelosi et al do have lots of reasons to capitulate set against a few very big reasons not to. At some point for them, though, it will come down solely to optics and precedent, because at some point the lockout will cost them more than the Wall. And while the Turtle also pays, conservative philosophy on government makes a non-government an easier idealogical sell to the base.

 

Yep. I'm sure government employees are overwhelmingly democratic voters. The people who rely on government assistance payments are overwhelmingly democratic voters and in democratic districts. The people who are going to feel the short term pain the hardest are the democratic base.

 

Trump's base hates the government. Obviously that is a stupid and illogical opinion, but it's one they all share. The government shutdown really doesn't affect blue-collar white America at all in the short term, and they actively hate the entity itself. I'm sure they are eating this stuff up.

[Maithanet]

5 minutes ago, sperry said:

Yep. I'm sure government employees are overwhelmingly democratic voters. The people who rely on government assistance payments are overwhelmingly democratic voters and in democratic districts. The people who are going to feel the short term pain the hardest are the democratic base.

Government workers may be overwhelmingly democratic voters, but those who receive govt assistance definitely cuts across the aisle.  A great many govt workers in red states are suffering, and that impacts the local economies as well.  Not to mention that things like safe food, working airports, prisons with actual guards, etc have bipartisan support. 

 

Quote

I'm sure they are eating this stuff up.

Then why has Trump's approval been steadily trending downward since this shutdown started?  I mean, I'm sure there's a die hard segment of Trump supporters that love this, but didn't they already love Trump?  Pissing off 70% of the country to please a group that already loves you is really bad politics.  Which is why this shutdown was a stupid play for Trump to make, and the more he doubles down, the stupider it gets.

[Jace, Extat]

47 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

They’re assailable.

They were assailable, and any defense can be undermined (hence 'nigh unassailable'), but Donnie has dug tunnels under his own camp instead of ours. The position is strong, the optics are delicate, but the resolve of Democrats -proving we can get a victory- is of primary consideration.

It's not about his 5.7 billion, or DACA, or even the folks on the government payroll. It's about standing up to the bully for once.

[Kalbear]

51 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

They’re assailable.

How? So far, Democrats have not had this turned on them in any real way, despite a lot of efforts. They have the position of status quo and wanting to reopen the government before negotiations, and this appears to resonate pretty well. 

[Larry of the Lawn]

41 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

Exactly. His narcissism is actually a strength here. Unlike Pelosi, Shumer or even the Turtle, he doesn’t actually care one bit about who this affects and how it affects them. He’s probably not fielding or even dodging angry calls all day long. He’s still getting a ton of attention, and that’s more important that what kind of attention it is.

Our hopes rest imo on 3 things:

1) McConnell et al finally deciding the juice isn’t worth the squeeze and either bailing on him or coming up with some face-saving non-surrender surrender.

2) His poll numbers tank so low Fox jumps ship.

3) He’s lazy.

 

Other than those, he had virtually no (Trumpverse) reason to capitulate, and yuge (Trumpverse) reasons to ‘stay strong’, not the least of which is the fact that many Americans do historically confuse stubbornness with strength. Pelosi et al do have lots of reasons to capitulate set against a few very big reasons not to. At some point for them, though, it will come down solely to optics and precedent, because at some point the lockout will cost them more than the Wall. And while the Turtle also pays, conservative philosophy on government makes a non-government an easier idealogical sell to the base.

 

edit: to be clear, I know the Dems are winning big-time at the moment, and I admit they are already handling this much, much better than I expected. But I don’t think it’s all that sustainable, whereas Trump’s neuroses are.

Nope.  The Dems have zero reason to negotiate without a clean CR.  What do you think THEIR base will do if they give Trump a wall or anything like it?  How do thry go back to their constituents affected by the wall shit with any kind of respect?  

Caving on his demands to solve a problem that he's made worse, all the while he's created a humanitarian crisis that no one seems to give a shit about... Dems will get primaried for this shit in 2020.  Hold the line.  It's absolutely insane how many liberals and left wing people are quaking and nervous about somehow looking bad for doing the decent thing.  This is elected Dems opportunity to be leaders and do their fucking job and not cave to the ridiculous tantrums a fucking lunatic.  

Pull yourselves together and hold the line.

[Larry of the Lawn]

30 minutes ago, sperry said:

 

Yep. I'm sure government employees are overwhelmingly democratic voters. The people who rely on government assistance payments are overwhelmingly democratic voters and in democratic districts. The people who are going to feel the short term pain the hardest are the democratic base.

 

Trump's base hates the government. Obviously that is a stupid and illogical opinion, but it's one they all share. The government shutdown really doesn't affect blue-collar white America at all in the short term, and they actively hate the entity itself. I'm sure they are eating this stuff up.

If they're Democrats they know this is a situation Trump and McConnell created on their own.  In fact there are clips of Trump bragging about this to Pelosi and Schumer!

This won't look bad for anyone but Trump.  

And I think you'd be surprised about how the shutdown affects blue collar white america. 

[Jace, Extat]

2 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

Nope.  The Dems have zero reason to negotiate without a clean CR.  What do you think THEIR base will do if they give Trump a wall or anything like it?  How do thry go back to their constituents affected by the wall shit with any kind of respect?  

Caving on his demands to solve a problem that he's made worse, all the while he's created a humanitarian crisis that no one seems to give a shit about... Dems will get primaried for this shit in 2020.  Hold the line.  It's absolutely insane how many liberals and left wing people are quaking and nervous about somehow looking bad for doing the decent thing.  This is elected Dems opportunity to be leaders and do their fucking job and not cave to the ridiculous tantrums a fucking lunatic.  

Pull yourselves together and hold the line.

You're a modern Captain Kirahe. 2 thumbs up.

[mormont]

42 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

Other than those, he had virtually no (Trumpverse) reason to capitulate, and yuge (Trumpverse) reasons to ‘stay strong’, not the least of which is the fact that many Americans do historically confuse stubbornness with strength

Here's the thing, though: Trump actually isn't that good at being stubborn.

He loses interest in things. More importantly, he detests bad headlines and being unpopular for any length of time. The longer that goes on, the more willing he'll be to end this. He needs two things: someone (else) to blame and something to distract him. He's still trying to blame the Democrats, but it isn't taking. A stubborn man would keep doing that. Trump's ego won't allow it. He just has to find a way out where this isn't his fault. Difficult, but not impossible for a man who's spent his life blaming other people.

[Kalbear]

This is a good read on the current, weird state of US politics. Specifically, given that the most important thing to do as a minority party is to cause as much disruption possible to the majority, and there are very few reasons to work with the other party, the best way to get your policy done is to take as little credit possible for it. 

[Gorn]

35 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

 What do you think THEIR base will do if they give Trump a wall or anything like it?  How do thry go back to their constituents affected by the wall shit with any kind of respect?  

I don't get this part. Which constituents are affected by the wall, and in what way? I mean, sure, it's a stupid waste of taxpayer money, but the same could be said of at least half of each Pentagon budget since 1991.

When you remember the Muslim ban, and ending the DACA protections, and child separations, and rejection of refugees, and mass refusal of asylum for spurious reasons, the wall isn't even among the top 5 most awful Trump immigration policies.

[Kalbear]

6 minutes ago, Gorn said:

I don't get this part. Which constituents are affected by the wall, and in what way? I mean, sure, it's a stupid waste of taxpayer money, but the same could be said of at least half of each Pentagon budget since 1991.

There's environmental damage, there's eminent domain and taking a large swath of property along the wall, there's ecological damage, there's the political garbage, there's the debt that it will incur in maintenance and manning, and the social implications. 

 

[Zorral]

Too long, don't read my rant following   but he made me do it!

Imagine oneself Cuban, reading Nicholas Kristof's latest excrescence in the NY Times. The colonial, imperialist, white supremacist mindset permeates him, and he doesn't even know it. He actually thinks he's being nice and progressive about Cuba.

This is why the United States (and England too) is a lurching, dysfunctional, chaotic, violent monster of gigantic destruction to itself and everything else. 

"I'm Not An Expert (nor do I even speak Spanish) BUT Listen to ME!!!!!!!! Tell Everybody All About Cuba." Bloviates Nicolas Kristof: 

 

Quote

"....It’s simply a tired little country ..."

This, right at the top of his blowharding in the prestigous New York Times, reveal Kristof's profound ignorance of what is going on in Cuba -- he's never have written that if he ever saw Cubans, of any and all ages, dancing, making music, getting up every day to dress their kids as nicely as possible, figure out how to solve yet more shortage or invent yet another work-around, exchange tech expertise for pay, providing goods and services, doing a cattle round-up, make chocolate -- organic chocolate on organic, diversified beautiful farms, by hand, as well as raising, organically, the other two crops that naturally occur together, coffee and coconuts, as well as poultry, pigs, cattle, horses -- and, further run by a consortium of women, of all ages and colors, who love their machetes -- they give their machetes names -- and use them with great expertise -- and they don't look in the least like a cliche of what a farm woman or agriculture worker looks like.

If Kristof had any real contact with Cuba beyond a service situation he would NEVER have called Cuba "a tired little country." Cubans have more energy than anybody in the USA, other than immigrants like the Haitians, and certainly a lot more than anybody currently in the White House or trying to be POTUS. 

It's not merely an ignorant observation, it's insulting, in the way one would expect from a privileged, comfortable old white guy who isn't an expert but is gonna tell people anyway -- even when the people he's telling know profoundly more about it than he does. 

Quote

 

"Let’s make room for nuance: Cuba impoverishes its citizens and denies them political rights, but it does a good job providing basic education and keeping people healthy. As I noted in my last column, on Cuba’s health care system, Cuba’s official infant mortality rate is lower than America’s (its real rate may or may not be). 

I’m not a Cuba expert, but ... "

 

However, Kristof is a privileged white male in very comfortable circumstances so he's gonna tell the USA what is what about what he doesn't know anything about, and all will read  his awesome brilliance and be in awe of of his awesomeness who went to Havana that one time -- and he shall be well paid. Don't bother looking out for somebody who does know and could tell us what we might want or even need to know. And who speaks Spanish. 

Moreover, Kristof proves to have never met a cliche he won't seize on without thinking about it or investigating what is behind the cliche -- one that everybody invokes who is not an expert either, the cliche that everybody includes in every repetitive same-samey piece they all write about the subject of Cuba. (Who will bet against me that when Kristof writes or talks about New Orleans, he uses the dreaded hoary 'gumbo' cliche?) 

Quote

"Plus, extra credit goes to a country that so lovingly preserves old American cars. I rode in from the airport in a pink 1954 Cadillac."

He has no idea that this pink Cadillac's body (all the rest of it was pillaged to get something else running for a little while) has rusted for decades without an engine, but is now running because the state fairly recently imported a large number of diesel fuel burning engines that those with these useless cars rushed to install in order to drive around ignorant old white guys who boast of riding in a pink Cadillac and further pollute beautiful Havana. It wasn't lovingly preserved, but created, with parts and paint the owner somehow managed to wangle recently from outside of Cuba.  People visiting their Cuban friends and family commonly bring in shock absorbers, fuel pumps and all sorts of parts even for vehicles much more recently manufactured than a 1954 pink Cadillac,such as Toyotas.  But he doesn't know that?  Why?  If he'd asked, you know, he would have known. Responsible journalism much?

The following is the most infuriating bit, the most insulting bit. Kristof literally cannot imagine Cuba and Cubans existing in any way in the future except as in its previous relationship to the US when the US corporations and the mafia owned the whole damned island -- as a servant class to rich white old white Americans. Caregivers. Servants. Cooks, Cleaners. Gads, this is disgusting. He hasn't met any of the dynamic, innovative Cuban professionals. Just for one example of what he can't imagine is just at the end of this last year, we took a Hollywood production team to Havana where they met with all sorts of agencies and people who work in television and film there.  The Hollywood people were really impressed with their knowledge, experience, record and creativity.  No, we can't have a great film and tv facility in Cuba, just Cubans cleaning up the vomit and shyte of tourists and elderly retired people. Who are rich.

Quote

 

".... Some American seniors who now winter in Florida could become snowbirds in Cuba instead, relying on its health care, low prices, great beaches and cheap labor. You can hire a home health care aide for a month in Havana for the cost of one for a day in Florida...."

 

Cheap labor yay!  And since we're keeping the immigrants out who traditionally are supposed to be doing this work, we can outsource our rich elderly family without the voting crisis of letting in to the USA people, who aren't, you know, white --people  who work hard to improve their families' futures and become US citizens -- and voters! which is the ruling class of the USA's worst nightmare. Total win-win!

You know? Cubans are not thrilled about returning to their historic status as servant class to clean up the incontinent messes of rich old white guys of the USA. Additionally, they are already doing this for the elderly members of their families -- who live with them, not in retirement homes, where US prosperous ilks foist off the care for their elderly upon immigrants and others they assume are too stupid to do anything else, and should be GRATEFUL for this really low-paying, really difficult and exhausting work, while facing imprisonment and deportation any old time. But he, as an old white guy of privilege, demonstrates he literally cannot think of Cubans as deserving anything more than  'servant' and 'service.'  Or doing anything else.

Has he noticed how much of the island's population is not white? Who does he think made the Cuban Revolution? Who does he think the Revolution served? Does he believe they have put up with everything the Cubans have had to put up with throughout their history and struggled to overcome throughout their history in order to -- raise their kids for the opportunity of cleaning his white bottom when he's old and drooling? What does he know about the great Cuban Revolutionary leaders such as Lt. General José Antonio de la Caridad Maceo y Grajales in Cuba's history of fighting for the abolition of slavery and independence, and the position of the US in those struggles? Clue, here: the US was NOT in favor of the abolition of slavery in Cuba -- and opposed over the 19th century to various of Cuba's struggles for independence from Spain, because independent from Spain, Cuba would abolish slavery -- so the USAS intervened with its big stick. Can't have free black people by golly. Our slaves would run away to Cuba instead of us being able to sell our overpopulation of slaves to Cuba where the sugar industry would kill them in 10 years -- very profitable for us, that, yessirree bob! 

In the meantime, while Kristof mourns that the orange nazi (and the mummies of Florida like Rubio) want to roll back the baseball deal, he hasn't noticed that the orange nazi and his mafia have sold Cuba to Putin and his mafia. The Russians are everywhere in Cuba again, providing building materals, industrial products from elevators to tractors, while the Russian oligarchs anchor their yachts in Cuba's Caribbean ports. Orange nazi feels right at home with yachts of course (or does he get seasick?) while giving not a ripe fart for baseball. 

My gawd, everything clown Kistof did not notice, that was right in front of his face, but he didn't see, blissing out on pink Cadillacs and cheap servants. 

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/23/opinion/cuba-embargo.html?
 

[James Arryn]

I get what you’re all saying, but let me remind you: seemingly imminent victory is a necessary ingredient to the ‘snatch defeat from the jaws of victory’ Democrat special. So when you’re thinking ‘this time is different because______’, remember all those specials were different too. Until they weren’t.

Now here’s a point FOR not caving even slightly I rarely see brought up: if the Dems ever trade off wall funding for anything impermanent, they’re fucked. Because the current ‘we’re not going to waste money on a ridiculous idealogical gesture’ flips around once the money’s allocated. Even if Trump openly and shamelessly renegs...which is basically his g to move...the Dems will be the bad guys if they try and tie up or redirect funds already allocated to the Wall. Because at that point they become the party willing to sacrifice taxpayer money for some idealogical gesture. So imo it’s not ‘don’t give in’, but rather ‘don’t give an inch’ or the whole thing goes pear shaped. 

mormont: weird, almost didn’t notice autocorrect had typed ‘more mom’...yeah, I pretty much agree up to a point, that’s what I meant by lazy, but I am not confident that side of his personality will win out over the narcissism when he’s piled that stakes this high.

That said, for the first time in his life he can’t just light a dumpster fire and move on to another block letting his lawyers and investors worry about putting it out, so he’s probably experiencing some form of crisis. What that will mean is hard to predict...his weirdly gracious surrender over the speech is ringing all kinds of alarm bells but I literally have no idea what they mean.

Kal/pony: the problem is it’s been about other, bigger things before and the Dems caved. The historical problem the Dems have is they ultimately believe doing the right/mature/moral thing will be short term loss/long term voter gain, but the American voters often just see a strong winner and a weak loser. Now I agree they seem more resolved much further in than I’ve ever seen before, and Pelosi et al have so far played this about as well as could be imagined, but these things can change quickly and often without apparent cause. Not saying I think this is it, but something as mundane as Trump behaving like a normal human being backing down over the speech might cause a ripple.

Larry: imo the point is that the Dems aren’t really committed to the Negation of Wall...some are, but many are just opposed to wasting that much money on something pointless. But once the lockout starts costing their base more than the Wall would, those people will start to wonder what the point is now. Commitment to a positive is easier to articulate than commitment to a negative in a negative-rich environment.