Question for Mustachians:

[Jrr85]

(1) Do you want Senate Democrats to vote against the CR funding government in order to "shut down" gov't in an attempt to force a resolution on DACA?
(2) DO you think it's a good strategy for Senate Democrats to vote against the CR funding?

Just curious to hear thoughts because Democrats strategy seems so inexplicable to me here.  Generally, I think democrats are right to believe they will do well in these type situations because all of the media that reaches lightly interested voters will frame it as Republicans being recalcitrant, and the more invested voters are likely to already be on one ideological side or the other, and very few will be swayed by who is actively shutting down the government.

But shutting down to government to try to force a compromise on DACA? That's such a simple message for republicans to communicate I'm not sure it's going to matter that much how the media spins it.  And whatever the constituency is wanting amnesty or citizenship for beneficiaries of DACA, I wouldn't think there is a large one wanting to "shutdown" the government over it. 

Also, if democrats actually shutdown government (which doesn't really shut down government), a lot of people won't actually notice a difference between the government being shutdown and not being shut down, which I would not think is good for the party of big government.

Am I off the mark here?  Or is this a suboptimal (to say the least) strategy by democrats? 

 

[koshtra]

I'm on one side of this, and my wife is on the other :-)

I'm with you: I believe the wider American public, and in particular the moderate-or-mushy-or-choose-your-adjective independents, REALLY want a responsible congress whose first aim is to keep the government running in a stable predictable way. I hate the way we're treating immigrants & dreamers right now but I think it's crucial to be able to distinguish ourselves from the Republicans by looking more mature and responsible, more "country-over-party" -ish.

My wife just can't handle the stories about people who've been here thirty years being deported. And I get that too. And what she looks for is a Democratic Party that says -- no, we stand for something BESIDES trying to get ourselves elected.

I get that.

[Kris]

The thing is, the Dems have been doing country over party for the last decade and more. And that has landed us here.

The Republicans have no such compunctions.

So, I get the conclusion that refusing to work with Republicans is the way to go.

[Aelias]

Here's my understanding of the strategy:

-putting in a DACA fix has broad bipartisan support.  Nearly everyone who matters in both parties has, at one point or another, come out in favor of a DACA fix at least in principle (Republicans generally want it tied to border security funding and/or the wall; Democrats want a "clean" bill).  Even Paul Ryan urged Trump not to cancel DACA in the first place.  But he did, and here we are.

-DACA specifically, and immigration more generally, are white hot issues for the Democratic base right now.  As the party out of power, Democrats do not have a lot of leverage.  This is pretty much it for them for the foreseeable future.  They have decided that they want to use that leverage on DACA because maintaining enthusiasm among their constituency is critical to the upcoming midterms.

-The Democrats are willing to bet that because Republicans hold the White House and both houses of Congress, everyone but the die hard Republican base will lay the political blame on the Republicans.  In general, the party of the President gets blamed when this stuff happens.  Apparently Trump himself said during the 2013 shutdown that "The president, in all fairness, he's the leader, he's the one that has to get everybody in the room and get it done. So he does have a lot of pressure to get this problem solved. He's got a big problem."  The last time there were shutdowns and unified control of WH and Congress was during the Carter administration.

It's a gamble--and the Republicans are out in force messaging that Democrats are to blame--but that's the gamble the Democrats are making.

[bacchi]

Yes, the Dems need to hold the line.

There's little long term fallout from these types of actions and, as Kris noted, being "the nice guy" gets the Dems nothing. The Dems are also riding an election wave and possibly a flood. They have political capital to spare and gambling a little is worth it.

Unlike the ACA and the "Party of No," the Dems actually have a plan -- extend DACA (and CHIP).

[Jrr85]

Here's my understanding of the strategy:

-putting in a DACA fix has broad bipartisan support.  Nearly everyone who matters in both parties has, at one point or another, come out in favor of a DACA fix at least in principle (Republicans generally want it tied to border security funding and/or the wall; Democrats want a "clean" bill).  Even Paul Ryan urged Trump not to cancel DACA in the first place.  But he did, and here we are.

  I think the ideas on what the "fix" is are so far apart for this to not really be true.  Anti-illegal (and anti-legal) immigration people want DACA "fixed" such that people don't need DACA like protections in the future.  Pro-illegal (and some pro-legal) immigration people want to provide some certainty to current beneficiaries of DACA and for it to implicitly be an ongoing "program."   

-DACA specifically, and immigration more generally, are white hot issues for the Democratic base right now.  As the party out of power, Democrats do not have a lot of leverage.  This is pretty much it for them for the foreseeable future.  They have decided that they want to use that leverage on DACA because maintaining enthusiasm among their constituency is critical to the upcoming midterms.

  This makes a lot of sense to me and seems likely to be the driving force behind the democrats strategy. 

-The Democrats are willing to bet that because Republicans hold the White House and both houses of Congress, everyone but the die hard Republican base will lay the political blame on the Republicans.  In general, the party of the President gets blamed when this stuff happens.  Apparently Trump himself said during the 2013 shutdown that "The president, in all fairness, he's the leader, he's the one that has to get everybody in the room and get it done. So he does have a lot of pressure to get this problem solved. He's got a big problem."  The last time there were shutdowns and unified control of WH and Congress was during the Carter administration.

  This makes less sense to me and seems like wishful thinking.  I think even the average voter will be able to understand that it is democrats voting against funding the government, even if they don't quite understand how the filibuster works.  How will democrats and media be able to frame it to counteract the simple and true message of "Democrats voted against continuing to fund the government"? 

But maybe I'm overestimating the general public.  I obviously did when we got Obama as president and then Hillary and Trump as major party nominees.   

It's a gamble--and the Republicans are out in force messaging that Democrats are to blame--but that's the gamble the Democrats are making.

Thanks for the explanation.  The gamble on keeping the base revved up for midterms makes the strategy a lot more explicable, and knowing the importance of the base in midterm elections, that actually seems like a good strategy for driving voter turnout for them. 

It does seem like it will be pretty effective at driving turnout for Trump's base too, though, so I'm still not sure the gamble is worth it other than for safe incumbents that are guaranteeing their continued election.   

[koshtra]

As a hill to die on, I've certainly seen the Dems choose worse :-)

[bacchi]

Thanks for the explanation.  The gamble on keeping the base revved up for midterms makes the strategy a lot more explicable, and knowing the importance of the base in midterm elections, that actually seems like a good strategy for driving voter turnout for them. 

It does seem like it will be pretty effective at driving turnout for Trump's base too, though, so I'm still not sure the gamble is worth it other than for safe incumbents that are guaranteeing their continued election.   

The Dems perceive that Trump support has flattened. That is, it won't go any lower and it won't rise either. In other words, the Dems think there are no more voters to be swayed.

[Mississippi Mudstache]

(1) Do you want Senate Democrats to vote against the CR funding government in order to "shut down" gov't in an attempt to force a resolution on DACA?

No, but I didn't want Trump pull the rug out from under a million people in the first place. I didn't want Trump to kill the deal that Senate Democrats and Republicans were making to patch us his festering mess, after stating that he would sign any bill that made it to his desk a few days earlier. I don't want politicians to fuck up people's lives for a goddamn border wall. Closing the government down for a few days sucks, but the events that led to this point are far worse.

(2) DO you think it's a good strategy for Senate Democrats to vote against the CR funding?

I don't care. I'm not a political strategist. I don't hold Democrats accountable for what happens either way, but people will see it how they want to.

[Kris]

If the Republican Senate and the Republican House and the Republican White House shut down the Republican government, it will be the Democrats’ fault.

So say Republicans.

But apparently, not Americans.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/americans-blame-trump-republicans-government-shuts-poll/story?id=52465107&cid=clicksource_4380645_1_hero_headlines_bsq_hed