A group of Democrats and one Democratic-aligned independent have helped clinch an agreement to end the government shutdown, saying they had secured a vote on the Affordable Care Act subsidies at the center of the standoff.
The other explanation is that they are from states harder hit from the shutdown, and this essentially gets everyone paid right now and sets up this vote from two weeks from now where they can just shut it down again if the GOP doesn’t pony up.
I would assume that yes. The more progressive wing of democrats have been fed up with Chuck for a long time and so have a lot of the voters. Allowing riskier seats to have plausible deniability is the whole purpose of having the least risky seats be the ones to break. What worries me is Chuck is more than likely not the only one voting no now that there’s enough yes votes but secretly in favor of it. How are we going to find those other people?
Here’s what occurred. It has been widely assumed that the group of eight mostly centrist Senate Democrats, who have been looking to broker a hollow deal on Republican terms, were freelancing. In fact, they were acting with the express approval of Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and were reporting to him daily.
Seth Moulton (D-Mass.) accused Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer of being ineffective and called for his removal.
In this article Seth Moulton calls for Schumers removal putting the blame on him, because he knows what Chuck was doing. He’s far from the only Democrat calling our Schumer specifically for this.
In fact, they were acting with the express approval of Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and were reporting to him daily.
Uh…
That first link definitely says that, but it doesn’t actually back it up with anything…
The second link is a politician accusing Schumer of being ineffective, which is 100% true…
The third is fucking Faux News and just says Schumer was “informed”…
Like, not only do none of those three links back up what you’re saying, if anything they paint the picture that Schumer is ineffective and couldn’t have done anything if he wanted. Which is the most likely explanation.
Well that’s…a bit conspiracy heavy I suppose.
The other explanation is that they are from states harder hit from the shutdown, and this essentially gets everyone paid right now and sets up this vote from two weeks from now where they can just shut it down again if the GOP doesn’t pony up.
We have confirmation from other articles that Schumer organized this, so why did he vote no himself? Don’t fall for it.
Why did he vote no? For appearences.
I would assume that yes. The more progressive wing of democrats have been fed up with Chuck for a long time and so have a lot of the voters. Allowing riskier seats to have plausible deniability is the whole purpose of having the least risky seats be the ones to break. What worries me is Chuck is more than likely not the only one voting no now that there’s enough yes votes but secretly in favor of it. How are we going to find those other people?
I haven’t seen those. Where should be looking?
https://prospect.org/2025/11/08/why-does-schumer-keep-trying-to-cave-government-shutdown/
https://www.politico.com/news/2025/11/10/schumer-is-no-longer-effective-dems-outraged-over-shutdown-deal-00644253
In this article Seth Moulton calls for Schumers removal putting the blame on him, because he knows what Chuck was doing. He’s far from the only Democrat calling our Schumer specifically for this.
https://bsky.app/profile/atrupar.com/post/3m5bpyndmlp2u
Clip from faux news
KILMEADE: Schumer says he’s voting no. Did you do this outside leadership?
SHAHEEN: No. We kept leadership informed throughout.
Uh…
That first link definitely says that, but it doesn’t actually back it up with anything…
The second link is a politician accusing Schumer of being ineffective, which is 100% true…
The third is fucking Faux News and just says Schumer was “informed”…
Like, not only do none of those three links back up what you’re saying, if anything they paint the picture that Schumer is ineffective and couldn’t have done anything if he wanted. Which is the most likely explanation.
Thanks
We do? I haven’t seen those. Link me.
It’s been reported since last week