How so?
Schumer’s DACA compromise, btw, increases the number of DREAM-eligibles from the current 700,000 to 1.7 million.
No filibusters in the House, so no complaints about needing 60 votes. A House vote would take a simple majority, and if Ryan doesn’t bring it to a vote, or brings it to a vote that fails, that’s a much easier messaging job for Democrats than what they currently had going.
But my understanding of the deal is that the immigration bill is (ostensibly) separate from the budget/CR vote. The vote can fail in the House without shutting down the government. And McConnell will have held up his end of the deal if he opens debate, regardless of what happens to it, so the Dems will have no (DACA related) grounds to block the spending bill.
What if McConnell only allows standalone DACA to the Senate floor, not tied to CR or budget? Would that violate the agreement?
Yep. Though one other way to look at it: the CHIP chip (sorry) has now been played.
That was a big piece of Republican messaging on Democrats being to blame for the shutdown. Take that off the table, and Democrats may (not will, just “maybe”) have some more leverage.
A dissenting view:
(I think their messaging was way off…but the outcome can still work for them if they make the next three weeks a referendum over whether Republicans are willing to deport 700,000 DREAMers; that’s when I think that may tip things over whether the the public sees this as a noble measure worth shutting down government over. We’ll see.)
Spoiler: They are.
I can’t say I’m convinced by a dissenting view based on the idea that getting CHIP funding is a win for the Dems. CHIP funding is massively popular, and it’s something that the Republicans, using electoral logic at least, would be happy to concede. You don’t win in a negotiation by “securing” something the other side also professes to want.
It’s arguably a small win for the country, in that something that should never have been in question no longer is (at least not for another election cycle), but I can’t see it as a win for the Democrats.
I have to say, I didn’t see this coming. Basically nothing happened and we are where we were before. Sooooo, yeah. I guess we’ll see in a few weeks.
I think this might be politically accurate, but personally think it miscalculates the sentiments of the Democratic base. They’re tired of Dem leadership not going to war for core issues. Democratic enthusiasm is sky high and the people want to see real resistance.
It is yet to be seen if this impacts November elections (probably not) - but the thing that will carry the Dems in the near future is enthusiasm - I wouldn’t be tamping down on that.
Yep, 3-week CR, but now the next fight is all DACA with a very public promise to vote on it in the Senate.
In another thread I asked why the Dems are playing brinksmanship politics for this round of funding vs saving it for Feb and was told that this was because if we start the convo around DACA then it’ll be too late to actually prevent deportations.
I suppose in theory getting this concession ensures that there’s enough time to hash out the details prior to the next shutdown?
I’m pessimistic that an actual solution is going to found though.
I also think this deal is good for Democrats.
A long shutdown makes the ruling party look weak, makes Trump angry, but makes voters angry. Multiple shorter shutdowns makes the ruling party look really weak, makes Trump really angry (if they occur on Fridays), but doesn’t affect voters as much.
The biggest leverage that the GOP holds to prevent shutdowns 2 through 5 is CHIP. That’s going away.
I think the first sentence of the OP is prescient. This is just the first shutdown.
But why would the Dems come off any better in the next budget/CR standoff? At least this time they could say the GOP was holding CHIP and DACA, things they either claimed to support or had promised to bring to a vote, hostage to a shitty budget bill that didn’t even have a majority of the senate on board. Next time round the GOP can say “You got CHIP, you got your DACA vote, why are you harming Americans by threatening to shut down the government?”.
Because a senate DACA agreement likely passes with Collins, Flake, and Graham leading the way.
And here’s the key issue: the Senate agreement likely would pass in the House. Which is why Paul Ryan can’t/won’t put it up for a vote.
And his failure to put it up for a vote can/should be the messaging strong point for Democrats in that potential next shutdown.