2726

At this point the goal needs to be get rid of Trump in 2020, making him weak and/or unpopular is the best way to do it.

Looking like the bad guys isn’t going to help. Best to hold the line and that’s a win in my eyes. You’re not going to get any sort of total victories unless you win House and Senate in 2020.

2727

People think the Democrats surrendered here? Really? Trump got a worse deal than he had on the table in December, and a worse deal than he had when he messed with DACA.

Seems like a weird take to me.

2728

They didn’t get much. But neither did trump. At some point Pelosi did say “Not $1 for a wall” and well they gave up a little more than that for some (really expensive) fencing, so in that regard it can look like a surrender. On balance I don’t think either side can claim a win, but depending on how they play it I think the Democrats come out looking better and trump weaker.

Unfortunately, Democrats backed down on a core demand: a cap on Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention beds. Democrats hoped this would force ICE to focus resources on dangerous undocumented immigrants, thus picking up fewer longtime noncriminal residents.

But Democrats instead agreed to fund 45,000 detention beds. To understand this, note that ICE is currently overspending against last year’s budget, by funding around 49,000 beds. So relative to that, Democrats are cutting the number of beds. But as Heidi Altman notes, what Democrats agreed to is higher than the actual number of beds legitimately funded last year. So that’s a hike. And if there is no hard statutory cap on beds, ICE can find money elsewhere to fund extra beds, detaining more people than funding levels suggest. As one advocate told me, the deal “contains no new controls on ICE overspending.”

2729

Yeah, I agree MrGrumpy. Aside from the functionality of any agreement, I suspect some polling was done and the Dems were worried the tide would turn against them if there was a second shutdown. If this was the best deal they could manage and the blowback is still primarily on Trump and the GOP, I guess this is the way to go. Nothing to be excited about (aside from the people who will have secured their income for at least another year), but such is life under the administration of The Orange One.

2730

I don’t really care what Democrats offered Trump previously, because it’s possible that they offered him too much back then as well.

I want to know what Democrats wanted and what they conceded in exchange.

It’s possible, as Timex suggests, that they actually wanted to spend $1 billion on new barriers. In which case they did a great job negotiating, but their goals are shit.

Or maybe they conceded $1 billion in exchange for a reduction in beds, in which case they are bad negotiators and should have insisted on a clean CR.

Or maybe there is something else tucked away in the deal, but I’m not holding my breath.

2731

By this definition, every compromise is a surrender.

People who take this kind of view, don’t belong in government, because they are like the tea party folks. They lack the temperament to rule a country.

The clean CR had even more funding for the wall, right? It had like 1.57B, which was a continuation from funding last year?

That’s the other part of this equation… Trump didn’t even spend the money from last year. He likely won’t spend this money either.

2732

I thought the CR had funds for repair and maintenance only, no new construction. Which is something everyone can agree on.

If Democrats actually reduced the amount of money available for new construction, then I’ll admit their negotiations were highly successful.

2733

Who gives a fuck who “won” and “lost” this compromise. If it works, the government won’t shut down. Maybe both sides “won”, if that happens.

I’m shouting this into the wind and the void, not at any particular one of you.

2734

Yes, ideally both sides won. I just want to know what our side actually won.

2735

Not having a $25 billion racist monument on the border.

2736

Not getting something is not a win. It’s just the status quo.

2737

How about the erosion of ICE’s capacity for kidnapping, then?

2738

That’s some fine zero sum thinking.

2739

I look at it this way. To use a hockey analogy, the Republicans are playing a 5 on 3 power play for the next two years. The Democrats pretty much prevented them from scoring. To me, given the context, that’s a win.

When my team is playing 3 on 5 and prevents the other team from scoring, my reaction isn’t to say “Well, great, but how many goals did we score?”.

2740

Yes, in principle that’s a win. But does a reduction in the number of beds directly lead to that? I admit I don’t know, but I can imagine that it might not have any practical effect.

2741

Isn’t heading off a shutdown a win in itself?

2742

Yes. Especially when a shutdown was averted without a $25 billion ecological disaster of a ego trip at the border.

Trump damaged himself with this, and he didn’t get the deal he was originally offered. He didn’t even get the deal he was offered in December.

2743

I mean obviously ever giving in to Republicans is de facto evil, but until we can round up all the Malathors of the world and put them in camps where they belong, we’ll unfortunately need to do a lot of evil to keep the world spinning.

2744

It’s not zero sum thinking. Negotiation means you get a change to the status quo you want, and your counterparty gets a change to the status quo they want.

I mean, if you negotiate over buying a car, then hopefully you’ll end up with a car and the dealer gets money. If instead of money you offer the dealer “no ugly statue of a duck in their dealership” then that’s a worthless offer because they already have no ugly statue of a duck. They want something they don’t already have.

Likewise, we already have “no $25 billion racist monument”.

2745

It’s a win for both sides. By itself, it’s not worth any concessions from Democrats. That’s precisely what the last shutdown proved.