Quo Vadis, Democrats?

[Jacob]

As strategy game players and students of history, I think we can all agree that the best way to win is to give your opponent a series of bad choices.

The essence of this concept is the classic fork in chess - pick your poison, do you want to lose your rook or your bishop? Your queen or be check-mated?

And the art of the game - and of politics - is to put your opponent into places where they only have bad choices to make.

Taking it back to US politics, the Democrats are in that kind of bad choice fork I think. If they oppose the MAGA agenda they (apparently) get stuck with the blame for any negative consequences from MAGA destruction; and if they don't oppose the MAGA agenda then the MAGA agenda advances.

How do they break out of that fork?

At the abstract level I think there are two main strategies:

• Find a lateral move that rearranges the board and makes the fork irrelevant (harder to do in chess, but applicable in complex dynamic environments like politics).
• Pick one fork, eat the negative consequences and push through. The goal here is to introduce enough dynamism to the field of play that it changes the set of choices you have available (ideally including some with consequences that aren't purely negative for you) and giving your opponent unpleasant choices to make.

Obviously option 1 is ideal, but as evidenced by this thread - and by many other discussions and by the actions of Democrats - it's pretty unclear what that option might be.

As for option 2, the question becomes which fork to choose (broadly speaking):

A - do nothing and wait for the (hopefully) inevitable MAGA collapse due to internal contradictions. Accept that the MAGA agenda  will advance basically unobstructed and be considered useless by many who are looking for leadership.

B - fight with all you got (populist rhetoric, political obstruction, etc). Accept you'll be blamed for many if not most of the consequences until you manage to assert some control over the direction of the narrative (and that's an "if", not a "when).

C - take the high ground (appeal to decency, propose good policy, be the adult in the room) to swing popular (and key institutional stakeholders) behind you. Accept that the MAGA agenda will continue unopposed in most areas, and that you'll be blamed for MAGA's failures (because you're more adult than them) until you can assert some control over the narrative (if you can).

Personally I find B more emotionally satisfying, though that obviously shouldn't be the deciding factor. However, I also think B is more likely to change conditions on the board, which is - I think - the best chance to get out of the fork.

[Zanza]

I actually have to revise my statements from yesterday. I somehow thought the problem was that Trump could not get a majority in the House, not in the Senate. In the House, they should let them squirm as I understand you only need a simple majority there. In the Senate, needing 60 votes is the last remaining mechanism for bipartisanship and Congress power, so I guess the Democrats have to compromise if they don't want to remove this sixty votes thing.

[Zoupa]

The Democrats have been begging to compromise. The GOP is trying to ram through the House bill with zero democrat input.

[Tonitrus]

Zanza's revision is right...though the House minority leader met with Trump/GOP as part of the Democratic leadership team, all the drama is really from the Senate side.  The House could pass the CR with a simple majority...it is Senate rules on cloture (not even the actual up/down final vote...which is also only a simple majority in the Senate) that requires some votes to come from the Democrats.

So I don't think it would be strictly true to say that the Democrats are trying to compromise...rather, they are trying to force a compromise.

[Zoupa]

When is the last time a budget passed the 60 votes threshold without any horse trading between the parties?

[Valmy]

When is the last time a budget passed the 60 votes threshold without any horse trading between the parties?

Earlier this year.

[Valmy]

Zanza's revision is right...though the House minority leader met with Trump/GOP as part of the Democratic leadership team, all the drama is really from the Senate side.  The House could pass the CR with a simple majority...it is Senate rules on cloture (not even the actual up/down final vote...which is also only a simple majority in the Senate) that requires some votes to come from the Democrats.

So I don't think it would be strictly true to say that the Democrats are trying to compromise...rather, they are trying to force a compromise.

It wouldn't take much to get a few Senate Dems to fold. But Trump actually kind of wants the shut down. He sees this as a win-win, either the Democrats completely fold or he gets to do shit because of a shut down. Insane but there it is.

[Zoupa]

When is the last time a budget passed the 60 votes threshold without any horse trading between the parties?

Earlier this year.

Really? Forgot about that then. Do you have a budget every 3 months or something? Why isn't it a yearly thing?

[Valmy]

When is the last time a budget passed the 60 votes threshold without any horse trading between the parties?

Earlier this year.

Really? Forgot about that then. Do you have a budget every 3 months or something? Why isn't it a yearly thing?

I think last time it was because of a debt ceiling issue or something.

[Tonitrus]

It is, but it's complicated (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appropriations_bill_(United_States)).

This instance isn't even a budget/appropriation bill.  This is the cloture vote on a continuing resolution to keep the government running in order to give them more time (because it was supposed to be done before 1 Oct) to finish/pass appropriation bills.

[Tonitrus]

When is the last time a budget passed the 60 votes threshold without any horse trading between the parties?

Earlier this year.

Really? Forgot about that then. Do you have a budget every 3 months or something? Why isn't it a yearly thing?

I think last time it was because of a debt ceiling issue or something.

Back in March...where they passed a CR for the remainder of the entire fiscal year (so now).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_United_States_federal_budget#March_2025_full-year_continuing_resolution

[Tonitrus]

Apparently, the last time the Congress passed a budget (all the appropriation bills) on time was...1997.

[Valmy]

Apparently, the last time the Congress passed a budget (all the appropriation bills) on time was...1997.

Makes sense. It was around that time we started to see all these shutdowns that now seem just a regular part of life.