And HOR Dems may try to add ACA protectionsback in, in the HOR, via amendments.

(the above should have been 14). This misread gave them (they seem to think) cover for "giving up again." Is this a definitive explanation? No...but it explains their willingness to give up after the elections rather than continuing to fight. 15/15

They were (mostly) based in candidates running on local issues, mostly affordability/economic issues against bad Republican candidates and worse GOP economic policies. 12/

Do I think this is likely? No. My best guess is that the preemptive surrender, by Democrats, was based on their misreading the recent election results. Recent Dem victories were not based in a massive swing towards the Dems in general. 13/

There is, therefore, a remote chance that the GOP could end up losing on the CR AND also losing on the Epstein files (meaning they will be released.) It's worth noting, at this time, that Speaker Johnson is not known for his ability to rally and count votes. 12/

It is important to note, also, that reconvening the HOR means Rep Grijalva will be sworn in...and privileged motions (on the Epstein files) must be heard (and voted on) first. 11/

There is also the consideration that the current CR has to be approved by the HOR (more on that later) and it is possible that the consensus is that Speaker Johnson simply doesn't have the votes to pass it. 10/

Best guess, on the number of people harmed by changes to the ACA and medicaid, is about 32 million. A simplistic analysis would indicate that this decision (while bad) harms fewer people and, therefore, (again simplistically) may be considered a form of triage. 9/

There is also the question of how long SNAP recipients, federal employees, and federal contractors can continue under the status quo. As an aggregate this number appears to hover around 53 million people. 8/

The question, then, was whether this was another example of, Democratic, preemptive surrender or not.
Others have observed, correctly IMHO, that economic interests (primarily for the wealthy and corporations) were involved in this decision. 7/

NH is an outlier, with neither a heavy reliance on SNAP nor a significant population of federal employees and contractors. 6/

Me, Nv, and Pa are also states that rely, heavily on SNAP (although they are not singular in this regard). Va has a lower rate of SNAP usage, but has a large number of federal employees and contractors. 5/

This "coincidence" appears to point to Senators falling on their, metaphorical, swords to protect other, more vulnerable, colleagues from having to do so. 4/

Let's start with the easy stuff: The 8 Senators, undoubtedly, had permission to break ranks and vote with the Republicans. With the exception of Dick Durbin, who is retiring, the rest were not at risk until 2028 (AFAIK). 3/

I have read, and heard, many (differing) opinions on whether this was a failure of Chuck Schumer's leadership, a fracturing of the caucus, a four dimensional chess strategy, or responsible governance. 2/

Sigh...the GOP has long believed in a bastardized Puritan model in which the wealthy are the elect (and therefore virtuous) while the sick, unlucky, and poor must be punished (because these things are a sign of bad character.)

Haven't Washington fans suffered enough?