1905

Looks like a bunch of direct both-sidism quotes to me.

1906

It would to me, too, if she ever mentioned the shutdown. She doesn’t – they fill that part in around general quotes that ‘both sides have hardened their positions’ on… something (which could just as easily be the immigration issue).

Politico is mostly clickbait, and I walk into any article the publish on Dems as a search for the “Disarray” narrative. Maybe I’m being too harsh on them and too easy on Gabbard. But I just don’t see them as honest brokers of information.

1907

Pretty sure she was taking about the shutdown.

1908

I hope the Democrats keep making McConnell block a clean vote to fund the government. Keep that up.

1909

We’ve covered this though. No one gives a shit about Gabbard. Who cares what she says or thinks? She won’t even be in the top 10 of candidates, will she?

1910

She shouldn’t be, but then as a nation we elected Trump.

1911

I think Gabbard is badly misreading current political sentiment if she thinks the path to a nomination victory is triangulating a centrist position.

1912

Give Trump nothing, not a thing. He won’t keep his word. He’s a liar. And they’ll just agree to something they’ll find a way out of later to prove what a master deal maker he is because… that’s all he has. If he can’t get them what they want, he is worthless to them.

1913

Which is exactly why it should be covered.

1914

I’m with magnet here. Look, even if the numbers say there will be less and less Republicans, the numbers also say that those increased Democratic majority numbers will be only in Cities, not in States with big rural areas. Which also means that the Republicans are destined to control the Senate going forward in the future as those demographic changes happen. So the equivalent of Mitch McConnell will always be in charge in the Senate going forward. Which means you have to find a way to make deals with the increasingly shrinking Republican party, right? Of course, that’s barring some kind of Democratic candidates that can speak to rural voters, which could also happen. But we’re talking generalities here, and demographic shifts, so for the purposes of this particular conversation, that’s where we’re headed.

1915

I am pragmatic. I don’t think it makes sense for the Democrats to refuse to negotiate just because Trump is an ass. He’s always going to be an ass!

I would be perfectly willing to give up stuff I don’t care about… Like a couple billion for a wall that will never get built, in exchange for real changes, like citizenship for the Dreamers, or HR1. Since the Democrats control things they should just say pass this bill we sent you and sign it into law, and then we will take up the matter of funding your wall. Then, in a couple years, when there is a Democratic president, we just get rid of that funding!

1916

He can be an ass. That’s not the problem. There is no point in negotiating with someone who won’t actually uphold their end of the bargain.

1917

It’s easy to be a hardliner when your job isn’t on the line. I don’t think Trump’s offering enough, but I think Pelosi needs to put out a concrete proposal, though one that is popular and Republicans won’t accept.

1918

She’s done that several times. McConnell won’t let the House proposals come up for a vote in the Senate.

1919

I don’t think she has sent any wall+DREAM legislation to McConnell yet. Which is fine, there is no point in sending it until it has a decent chance of passing.

She has sent multiple clean funding bills to McConnell, which I’m sure he would be happy to pass if only Trump would let him.

1920

Yeah it was the clean CRs to which I was referring. Basically “you get nothing until the government is reopened”. I don’t know why she would ask for any less. Trump will do this every single fucking time if she negotiates at the point of a gun.

1921

I don’t think this is how it works. Or at least, isn’t how it is supposed to.

1922

McConnell wants the shutdown to end, but Trump has threatened to veto any bill that doesn’t fund his wall.

So even though McConnell passed a clean bill a few weeks ago, Trump’s veto threat is a new problem. McConnell is not going to send a bill to Trump if Trump is going to veto it. That would accomplish nothing besides making Republicans look bad. McConnell may be evil, but he’s not stupid.

For now, he also doesn’t seem to be interested in trying to override a veto. He thinks that overriding Trump will hurt him more than the shutdown will hurt him. That calculus might change in the future, but for now he is probably correct.

So currently, his goal truly is to find something that Trump will sign, so he can vote on it. And honestly, this task is hardly unusual for congressional leaders.

1923

The big problem is that Trump is terrible at making deals, and he’s also dumb.

1924

Of course, his calculus is limited to the costs and benefits to current GOP office holders. The good of the nation of the whole, its citizens and future aren’t even peripherally relevant to McConnell.

I doubt those things even occur to him.