This was Carville, in February, telling Dems to do nothing, basically.
It’s a wiser approach than we pursued in the first Trump administration, when Democrats tried and failed at the art of resistance politics. We voiced outrage on social issue after social issue. We spun ourselves up in a tizzy over an investigation into Russia. We fought Mr. Trump at every corner, on every issue imaginable and muddied up our message in an unwinnable war. We were saved only by his lousy governing and a lot of effort on our side finding good candidates to run for the House and Senate in 2018. Sometimes the most powerful thing we can do is retreat on the immediate battlefield — and advance in another direction.
It won’t take long. Public support for this administration will fall through the floorboard. It’s already happening. Just over a month in, the president’s approval has already sunk underwater in two new polls. The people did not vote for the Department of Education to be obliterated; they voted for lower prices for eggs and milk. Democrats, let the Republicans’ own undertow drag them away.
At this rate, the Trump honeymoon will be over, best case, by Memorial Day but more likely in the next 30 days. And in November 2025, we start turning the tide with what will be remembered as one of the most important elections in recent years: the Virginia governor’s race. From tax enforcers to rocket scientists, bank regulators and essential workers — the Trump administration is hellbent on drastically firing the federal work force, despite the fact that federal civilian employees account for just 3 percent of the federal budget. These workers are highly concentrated in Virginia, home to around 144,000 civilian federal employees. It looks set to be a resounding Republican defeat. This will be the first moment when we can take the offensive back and begin our crusade again.
It seems the plan was/is:
1) Do nothing
2) Trump gets unpopular
3) Continue doing nothing
4) Win VA governor's race
5) Continue doing nothing
6) Win 2026
"Doing nothing" is shorthand for "avoid any big confrontation" which includes, at the moment, not demanding anything serious - or perhaps anything at all - in exchange for preventing a government shut down.
This question is mainly an extension of the “collaborate or fight” decision Democrats weighed in March. Fighting does mean fighting for something, and Democrats appear to have landed on that something being short-term relief on health care.
But, as noted above, it is quite likely that there won’t be sufficient Republican votes in Congress, or support from Trump, to preserve ACA subsidies. The real issue, therefore, is whether Democrats are willing to see a shutdown battle through to its conclusion. I think at some level Democrats know that Trump isn’t very likely to come to the table around a bipartisan negotiation; it has not been his posture whatsoever in the second term.
So this really comes down to whether Democrats actually believe they can win a shutdown fight politically—or have the stomach for it. That’s a little curious, since Democrats have won every shutdown fight of the past 30 years, whether they were the party in power or out of power. Under Clinton, Republicans were blamed; under Obama, Republicans were blamed; under Trump, in his first term, Trump was blamed. And Democrats got favorable outcomes in the aftermath.
But Democrats have this burning desire to be the responsible party, and in their minds, shutdowns are irresponsible. There are also a lot of theories of how Trump could run roughshod over the bureaucracy if funding is cut off, though I don’t know how you could even entertain such a threat given his trampling of federal agencies since January 20. What would be any more punitive toward the civil service after a shutdown, relative to before?
Is this a good plan?