Daniel Schuman
@americalabs.org
Progressive institutionalist with an interest in modernizing Congress and strengthening our democracy. Bluesky is my penance for working at an org that once encouraged Congress to tweet.
Like what you see? More at https://firstbranchforecast.substack.com/
Like what you see? More at https://firstbranchforecast.substack.com/
Read the second post
November 10, 2025 at 6:14 PM
Read the second post
This would apply not just to Sen. Schumer, but any party leader, such as Sen. Durbin, who serves as democratic whip (the #2).
November 10, 2025 at 5:20 PM
This would apply not just to Sen. Schumer, but any party leader, such as Sen. Durbin, who serves as democratic whip (the #2).
Such an effort, if detailed in a letter and signed by enough senators and shared privately with the leader, could be used to push a leader out while allowing them to save face and the humiliation of a public vote. (I don't know anyone who would go quietly.)
November 10, 2025 at 5:19 PM
Such an effort, if detailed in a letter and signed by enough senators and shared privately with the leader, could be used to push a leader out while allowing them to save face and the humiliation of a public vote. (I don't know anyone who would go quietly.)
Individual members of the conference may recommended changes to the Rules as the need arises... and may bring that proposal directly to the Conference for its consideration w/ 1 week notice. A self-executing rule change could provide for removal and require only a majority of conference vote.
November 10, 2025 at 5:17 PM
Individual members of the conference may recommended changes to the Rules as the need arises... and may bring that proposal directly to the Conference for its consideration w/ 1 week notice. A self-executing rule change could provide for removal and require only a majority of conference vote.
I don't think this was the best they could do. They had leverage and surrendered it for no good reason.
Instead, they played pretend in an effort to play the public.
Instead, they played pretend in an effort to play the public.
November 10, 2025 at 3:18 PM
I don't think this was the best they could do. They had leverage and surrendered it for no good reason.
Instead, they played pretend in an effort to play the public.
Instead, they played pretend in an effort to play the public.
If you got the impression that the cave isn't as bad as it seems, I should go back and revise my posts. Dems had leverage and they gave it up. :/
November 10, 2025 at 3:18 PM
If you got the impression that the cave isn't as bad as it seems, I should go back and revise my posts. Dems had leverage and they gave it up. :/
It is possible this is part of a recursive fight strategy, where Dems get something now and use each approps bill to get more (backed up by a threat to filibuster those bills).
November 10, 2025 at 3:11 PM
It is possible this is part of a recursive fight strategy, where Dems get something now and use each approps bill to get more (backed up by a threat to filibuster those bills).
I totally understand. I'm sorry that you're going through all this.
November 10, 2025 at 3:11 PM
I totally understand. I'm sorry that you're going through all this.
So, if there's a scale of 1-100 of Dem likelihood to fight and achieve something on a shutdown.
The day before the shutdown, R's and pundits would have assigned it a "1".
Now it's a "5".
That's better, but not yet a credible negotiating threat.
The day before the shutdown, R's and pundits would have assigned it a "1".
Now it's a "5".
That's better, but not yet a credible negotiating threat.
November 10, 2025 at 2:51 PM
So, if there's a scale of 1-100 of Dem likelihood to fight and achieve something on a shutdown.
The day before the shutdown, R's and pundits would have assigned it a "1".
Now it's a "5".
That's better, but not yet a credible negotiating threat.
The day before the shutdown, R's and pundits would have assigned it a "1".
Now it's a "5".
That's better, but not yet a credible negotiating threat.
So, pundit and Republicans views of Dems willingness to fight are now stronger than they were before the shutdown. BUT because of the ignominious way they caved, their increase in credibility is minimal compared to what it could have been.
If Dems dump Schumer, credibility may increase further.
If Dems dump Schumer, credibility may increase further.
November 10, 2025 at 2:50 PM
So, pundit and Republicans views of Dems willingness to fight are now stronger than they were before the shutdown. BUT because of the ignominious way they caved, their increase in credibility is minimal compared to what it could have been.
If Dems dump Schumer, credibility may increase further.
If Dems dump Schumer, credibility may increase further.
As it turns out, Dems didn't cave immediately and got some minor policy wins compared to the baseline expectation (i.e. a quick cave and "clean" CR.) I am not arguing what they got is good. But it exceeded expectations.
Should Dems fight again, the expectation they will immediately cave is lessened
Should Dems fight again, the expectation they will immediately cave is lessened
November 10, 2025 at 2:50 PM
As it turns out, Dems didn't cave immediately and got some minor policy wins compared to the baseline expectation (i.e. a quick cave and "clean" CR.) I am not arguing what they got is good. But it exceeded expectations.
Should Dems fight again, the expectation they will immediately cave is lessened
Should Dems fight again, the expectation they will immediately cave is lessened
It doesn't show they have the appetite to do it again.
Pre-shutdown, pundits thought the Dems would cave immediately and that the party triggering a shutdown always loses. That (negatively) shaped the behavior of the Dem senators to do what was necessary on power of the purse.
Pre-shutdown, pundits thought the Dems would cave immediately and that the party triggering a shutdown always loses. That (negatively) shaped the behavior of the Dem senators to do what was necessary on power of the purse.
November 10, 2025 at 2:50 PM
It doesn't show they have the appetite to do it again.
Pre-shutdown, pundits thought the Dems would cave immediately and that the party triggering a shutdown always loses. That (negatively) shaped the behavior of the Dem senators to do what was necessary on power of the purse.
Pre-shutdown, pundits thought the Dems would cave immediately and that the party triggering a shutdown always loses. That (negatively) shaped the behavior of the Dem senators to do what was necessary on power of the purse.
You should look at those who set up the deal, not just those who voted for it, and try to figure out why they gave in now. The eight who voted for it are reflective of a bunch more who would have voted for it but the politics were bad.
November 10, 2025 at 2:39 PM
You should look at those who set up the deal, not just those who voted for it, and try to figure out why they gave in now. The eight who voted for it are reflective of a bunch more who would have voted for it but the politics were bad.
Lol, yes, that's the subtext.
November 10, 2025 at 2:37 PM
Lol, yes, that's the subtext.
It's a game leaders play. Here's a longer discussion of that phenomenon
firstbranchforecast.substack.com/p/master-of-...
firstbranchforecast.substack.com/p/master-of-...
Master of the House: The Pelosi Paradox
How the Strongest Speaker Made Congress Weak
firstbranchforecast.substack.com
November 10, 2025 at 2:37 PM
It's a game leaders play. Here's a longer discussion of that phenomenon
firstbranchforecast.substack.com/p/master-of-...
firstbranchforecast.substack.com/p/master-of-...
I didn't say caving was a good idea. The pundits created a drag on Dem Senators being willing to try for something more. Maybe the pundits will be more modest next time around (if there is a next time).
November 10, 2025 at 2:36 PM
I didn't say caving was a good idea. The pundits created a drag on Dem Senators being willing to try for something more. Maybe the pundits will be more modest next time around (if there is a next time).
It wasn't intended to be comforting.
November 10, 2025 at 2:35 PM
It wasn't intended to be comforting.
For those interested, last night I wrote about what's in the CR deal for Congress. If you want a slightly more coherent take...
firstbranchforecast.substack.com/p/whats-in-t...
firstbranchforecast.substack.com/p/whats-in-t...
What's in the CR Deal for Congress?
With a vote as early as tonight, we quickly ran the numbers
firstbranchforecast.substack.com
November 10, 2025 at 2:29 PM
For those interested, last night I wrote about what's in the CR deal for Congress. If you want a slightly more coherent take...
firstbranchforecast.substack.com/p/whats-in-t...
firstbranchforecast.substack.com/p/whats-in-t...
The question is always: who do you replace him with? But yeah, he's done nothing and is all out of ideas.
November 10, 2025 at 2:28 PM
The question is always: who do you replace him with? But yeah, he's done nothing and is all out of ideas.
I'm not saying it's good! It's not. Caving after 40 days is better than caving immediately, but it's still a cave.
November 10, 2025 at 2:27 PM
I'm not saying it's good! It's not. Caving after 40 days is better than caving immediately, but it's still a cave.
While there are some reasons to think the Senate might not go along with some Trump shenanigans, there's no reason to think the Senate + House would block Trump's unlawful efforts to seize the power of the purse. In other words, this deal doesn't solve the underlying problem.
November 10, 2025 at 2:25 PM
While there are some reasons to think the Senate might not go along with some Trump shenanigans, there's no reason to think the Senate + House would block Trump's unlawful efforts to seize the power of the purse. In other words, this deal doesn't solve the underlying problem.