Reposted by Jaron Abelsohn
Josh’s post is worth reading in its entirety. The points:
1) kill the filibuster
2) court reform
3) DC/PR statehood
4) clean up laws on presidential power
5) outlaw extreme gerrymandering
These strike me as a really good starting point of foundational necessities.
1) kill the filibuster
2) court reform
3) DC/PR statehood
4) clean up laws on presidential power
5) outlaw extreme gerrymandering
These strike me as a really good starting point of foundational necessities.
The Status Interview – Or How To Write Up a Senate Purge List talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/the-s...
The Status Interview – Or How To Write Up a Senate Purge List
Over the last couple days I’ve argued both that the denouement of...
talkingpointsmemo.com
November 12, 2025 at 4:22 AM
Josh’s post is worth reading in its entirety. The points:
1) kill the filibuster
2) court reform
3) DC/PR statehood
4) clean up laws on presidential power
5) outlaw extreme gerrymandering
These strike me as a really good starting point of foundational necessities.
1) kill the filibuster
2) court reform
3) DC/PR statehood
4) clean up laws on presidential power
5) outlaw extreme gerrymandering
These strike me as a really good starting point of foundational necessities.
Reposted by Jaron Abelsohn
there are a lot of Dems out there who are finally drafting their own dog to play basketball after being dunked on over and over again instead of just complaining to the refs
they're just in the states instead of DC
they're just in the states instead of DC
This is really something. Trump/GOP efforts to rig midterms running into serious trouble
November 11, 2025 at 7:44 PM
there are a lot of Dems out there who are finally drafting their own dog to play basketball after being dunked on over and over again instead of just complaining to the refs
they're just in the states instead of DC
they're just in the states instead of DC
Very smart approach. Of course Dems didn’t take it.
Now that Dems have capitulated, at the very least they should now make every future extension of funding contingent on Trump following the law. Any lawbreaking must be met with: No more votes from us, period.
My exchange with @brianbeutler.bsky.social on that point:
newrepublic.com/article/2029...
My exchange with @brianbeutler.bsky.social on that point:
newrepublic.com/article/2029...
November 11, 2025 at 4:56 PM
Very smart approach. Of course Dems didn’t take it.
Excellent thread
Some thoughts on the CR/minibus.
1 The Dems negotiating with Rs were not freelancing. They coordinated with Sen Schumer. A few were ready to give in on day one, others worked to maximize appropriations wins.
Those voting for the 'deal' are the ones furthest away from electoral consequences.
1 The Dems negotiating with Rs were not freelancing. They coordinated with Sen Schumer. A few were ready to give in on day one, others worked to maximize appropriations wins.
Those voting for the 'deal' are the ones furthest away from electoral consequences.
November 11, 2025 at 3:59 AM
Excellent thread
Reposted by Jaron Abelsohn
Some thoughts on the CR/minibus.
1 The Dems negotiating with Rs were not freelancing. They coordinated with Sen Schumer. A few were ready to give in on day one, others worked to maximize appropriations wins.
Those voting for the 'deal' are the ones furthest away from electoral consequences.
1 The Dems negotiating with Rs were not freelancing. They coordinated with Sen Schumer. A few were ready to give in on day one, others worked to maximize appropriations wins.
Those voting for the 'deal' are the ones furthest away from electoral consequences.
November 10, 2025 at 1:45 PM
Some thoughts on the CR/minibus.
1 The Dems negotiating with Rs were not freelancing. They coordinated with Sen Schumer. A few were ready to give in on day one, others worked to maximize appropriations wins.
Those voting for the 'deal' are the ones furthest away from electoral consequences.
1 The Dems negotiating with Rs were not freelancing. They coordinated with Sen Schumer. A few were ready to give in on day one, others worked to maximize appropriations wins.
Those voting for the 'deal' are the ones furthest away from electoral consequences.
Reposted by Jaron Abelsohn
Trump has legalized crime if you’re a prominent Republican or married to one.
November 11, 2025 at 3:43 AM
Trump has legalized crime if you’re a prominent Republican or married to one.
Reposted by Jaron Abelsohn
November 11, 2025 at 3:07 AM
Donating to this. Time for Chuck to go hangout with the Bailey’s.
We just launched the biggest primary program in Indivisible’s history. Help us (literally) send Schumer and the surrender caucus a message. open.substack.com/pub/ezralevi...
Democratic leaders failed us again. Time to get some new leaders.
Indivisible's weekly newsletter with analysis and action
open.substack.com
November 11, 2025 at 3:06 AM
Donating to this. Time for Chuck to go hangout with the Bailey’s.
Reposted by Jaron Abelsohn
Hi, Jean. My friend is a Nigerian prince who needs to urgently retrieve $1,000,000 from an abandoned trust from his father.
If you can wire $5,000 today, you will be entitled to 35% of the trust. Please reply at your earliest convenience.
If you can wire $5,000 today, you will be entitled to 35% of the trust. Please reply at your earliest convenience.
Shaheen: "We've heard from a number of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle that they're willing to come to the table, they're willing to work with us once the govt is open to get this done. We've heard the same thing from the White House. So now we'll see if they're really gonna work w/us"
November 11, 2025 at 2:33 AM
Hi, Jean. My friend is a Nigerian prince who needs to urgently retrieve $1,000,000 from an abandoned trust from his father.
If you can wire $5,000 today, you will be entitled to 35% of the trust. Please reply at your earliest convenience.
If you can wire $5,000 today, you will be entitled to 35% of the trust. Please reply at your earliest convenience.
Reposted by Jaron Abelsohn
If you’ve got a Senate Democrat who is not calling for new leadership, they’re part of the problem.
We should no longer trust Senate Dems who decline to come out against the leadership that led us here. Until proven otherwise, we should assume they were in on the game to fool their own supporters.
We should no longer trust Senate Dems who decline to come out against the leadership that led us here. Until proven otherwise, we should assume they were in on the game to fool their own supporters.
“After a year spent organizing to try to convince the Democratic Party to unify and oppose this regime, here’s where I am: The time for convincing is over. We need new leadership.” - @ezralevin.bsky.social
Demand that your Dem senators call on Schumer to step aside: indivisible.org/resource/cal...
Demand that your Dem senators call on Schumer to step aside: indivisible.org/resource/cal...
November 11, 2025 at 1:58 AM
If you’ve got a Senate Democrat who is not calling for new leadership, they’re part of the problem.
We should no longer trust Senate Dems who decline to come out against the leadership that led us here. Until proven otherwise, we should assume they were in on the game to fool their own supporters.
We should no longer trust Senate Dems who decline to come out against the leadership that led us here. Until proven otherwise, we should assume they were in on the game to fool their own supporters.
Reposted by Jaron Abelsohn
Still processing the inanity of this cave, like, "We're going to make Republicans go on record that they want to destroy the ACA." You mean the motherfuckers who radicalized in opposition to it & voted to repeal it, like, 22 times? You're finally getting them on record? Really impressed over here
“If Schumer really wanted to use his considerable influence and leverage to stop this, he could have done that,” a senior Democratic Senate aide tells Zeteo. “He didn’t.”
Furious Liberals Call for Schumer to Step Aside, Senate Dems Mostly Quiet
After their shutdown surrender, liberal lawmakers are begging their base to unite behind them anyway – as Trumpland celebrates that their opposition is a bunch of 'p*ssies.'
zeteo.com
November 11, 2025 at 1:40 AM
Still processing the inanity of this cave, like, "We're going to make Republicans go on record that they want to destroy the ACA." You mean the motherfuckers who radicalized in opposition to it & voted to repeal it, like, 22 times? You're finally getting them on record? Really impressed over here
Reposted by Jaron Abelsohn
Jrue been a crunch time boss all season but he’s had a few untimely turnovers tonight
November 11, 2025 at 2:38 AM
Jrue been a crunch time boss all season but he’s had a few untimely turnovers tonight
Reposted by Jaron Abelsohn
It’s wild to suggest this is a circular firing squad or something when it’s millions of citizen Democrats who hate it versus 47 elected Democrats who conspired to surrender for nothing.
We’re not fighting “each other,” we’re fighting you. There’s only a few dozen of you, but you hold all the power.
We’re not fighting “each other,” we’re fighting you. There’s only a few dozen of you, but you hold all the power.
But there are real dangers out there that must be fought; and energy spent fighting each other is energy lost to that bigger fight.
November 11, 2025 at 1:27 AM
It’s wild to suggest this is a circular firing squad or something when it’s millions of citizen Democrats who hate it versus 47 elected Democrats who conspired to surrender for nothing.
We’re not fighting “each other,” we’re fighting you. There’s only a few dozen of you, but you hold all the power.
We’re not fighting “each other,” we’re fighting you. There’s only a few dozen of you, but you hold all the power.
That’s not conclusive evidence of a legal block
November 11, 2025 at 2:27 AM
That’s not conclusive evidence of a legal block
Splitter leave Shaedon in while he’s cooking challenge….
November 11, 2025 at 2:05 AM
Splitter leave Shaedon in while he’s cooking challenge….
Reposted by Jaron Abelsohn
At least Dems got a ceremonial vote on the ACA subsidies in the senate so Susan Collins can vote against her party on that knowing it won’t pass but she’ll be able to run on another vote that allows her to pretend to be a moderate. The deal is an in-kind contribution to Collins.
November 11, 2025 at 1:52 AM
At least Dems got a ceremonial vote on the ACA subsidies in the senate so Susan Collins can vote against her party on that knowing it won’t pass but she’ll be able to run on another vote that allows her to pretend to be a moderate. The deal is an in-kind contribution to Collins.
Reposted by Jaron Abelsohn
This is consistent with what we reported on Saturday, though the framing is (preposterously) positive.
-Schumer was getting regular updates from the Cave Caucus
-He didn't want to be seen as pro-caving but was fine with them negotiating to cave
-Shaheen wouldn't say Schumer was working against her
-Schumer was getting regular updates from the Cave Caucus
-He didn't want to be seen as pro-caving but was fine with them negotiating to cave
-Shaheen wouldn't say Schumer was working against her
SCOOP: Schumer privately fought to extend government shutdown
Scoop: Schumer privately fought to extend government shutdown
"We let him know what we were doing," said Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.).
www.axios.com
November 11, 2025 at 12:12 AM
This is consistent with what we reported on Saturday, though the framing is (preposterously) positive.
-Schumer was getting regular updates from the Cave Caucus
-He didn't want to be seen as pro-caving but was fine with them negotiating to cave
-Shaheen wouldn't say Schumer was working against her
-Schumer was getting regular updates from the Cave Caucus
-He didn't want to be seen as pro-caving but was fine with them negotiating to cave
-Shaheen wouldn't say Schumer was working against her
Not a political consultant but I’m not sure “standing up to trump doesn’t work” is the best midterm message, even if if accurately represents senate dems position. Not much point in putting you in power then bsky.app/profile/atru...
Sen. Angus King: "Standing up to Donald Trump didn't work"
November 10, 2025 at 10:13 PM
Reposted by Jaron Abelsohn
Reposted by Jaron Abelsohn
JFC. Does @schumer.senate.gov not get that by caving, Democrats make it *harder,* not easier, to make the ACA subsidies expiring stick politically to Trump/GOP? This effort to shame Republicans in this context risks signaling to low-info voters that Rs are standing on conviction and Dems aren't.
November 10, 2025 at 8:45 PM
JFC. Does @schumer.senate.gov not get that by caving, Democrats make it *harder,* not easier, to make the ACA subsidies expiring stick politically to Trump/GOP? This effort to shame Republicans in this context risks signaling to low-info voters that Rs are standing on conviction and Dems aren't.
Reposted by Jaron Abelsohn
Even the Dem centrists at Third Way are mad about the deal moderate Senate Dems cut with Republicans to end the shutdown:
"We should not have surrendered until we received at least something tangible on lowering health care costs."
"We should not have surrendered until we received at least something tangible on lowering health care costs."
November 10, 2025 at 4:52 PM
Even the Dem centrists at Third Way are mad about the deal moderate Senate Dems cut with Republicans to end the shutdown:
"We should not have surrendered until we received at least something tangible on lowering health care costs."
"We should not have surrendered until we received at least something tangible on lowering health care costs."
Reposted by Jaron Abelsohn
www.thirdway.org/press/statem... when ya lose Third Way …
Third Way
www.thirdway.org
November 10, 2025 at 4:20 PM
www.thirdway.org/press/statem... when ya lose Third Way …
Reposted by Jaron Abelsohn
King’s point is that it didn’t work because Trump was cutting SNAP benefits. But lower courts had required Trump to pay full SNAP, and while Trump *probably* would have won at SCOTUS, that outcome wasn’t guaranteed and would have been known soon anyway.
November 10, 2025 at 1:48 PM
King’s point is that it didn’t work because Trump was cutting SNAP benefits. But lower courts had required Trump to pay full SNAP, and while Trump *probably* would have won at SCOTUS, that outcome wasn’t guaranteed and would have been known soon anyway.
Reposted by Jaron Abelsohn
"Chuck Schumer should go ... he's no longer capable of leading the Democratic Party."
"I am an establishment Democrat and I'm here to say that Bernie Sanders is much more in line with where I and many other Democrats are today than Chuck Schumer is."
"I am an establishment Democrat and I'm here to say that Bernie Sanders is much more in line with where I and many other Democrats are today than Chuck Schumer is."
November 10, 2025 at 5:44 PM
"Chuck Schumer should go ... he's no longer capable of leading the Democratic Party."
"I am an establishment Democrat and I'm here to say that Bernie Sanders is much more in line with where I and many other Democrats are today than Chuck Schumer is."
"I am an establishment Democrat and I'm here to say that Bernie Sanders is much more in line with where I and many other Democrats are today than Chuck Schumer is."