As though there weren't millions of people currently being actively fucked by the closed government.

And also as though the Republicans would agree to anything regarding the ACA. That battle was lost last November. Not last week.

I'm not sure there will be one in Jan. If there is, the current deal ensures continued pay for fed wkers and I think it continues SNAP.

I don't think the Dems lost. That preception is based on the assumption that if they had held out longer, the Rethugs would have caved--and they weren't going to. The Dems won pay for the fed wkers, SNAP, and a vote on the ACA--which will make the Rethugs look bad whether the vote happens or not.

I don't think anyone is fighting to protect Clinton.

Well fine, I have no problem with good intentioned-people getting elected. However, they will have to deal with the same realities as the previous admin which means their actions won't be significantly different.

And I am sick of people stereotyping Dems as somehow the reincarnation of the Clintons or magically influenced by them etc. They are history and irrelevant,

The REthugs were not going to blink. Given that reality, the Dems offered a way to end the shut down that does nothing except benefit people: restored Fed pay and SNAP and forces the Rethugs to vote on the ACA and take full responsibility for cost increases. It's a win.

I think Johnson has found enough no's to prevent passage.

I don't think they had the authority. A judge had sealed them because of on-going litigation.

Well they are making assholes of themselves in public but I get your point. I haven't experienced anything as bad as you. I deal with rude people by saying something rude back and blocking them.

do that is another matter but they lose either way. They lose if there is no vote and they lose if there is one and they vote against the subsidies. The argument that the Dems shouldve held out for more is based on the assumption that at some point the rethugs would be reasonable.

Actually you did in your initial post. I just pointed out your incorrect assumption. Don't dish it out if you aren't prepared to take it. As for your argument--it was the Rethugs who put the squeeze on. It isn't an agreement to discuss. It is an agreement to have a vote. (Whether or not the Rethugs

The belief that holding out longer wouldve gotten a better deal is based on the assumption that the Rethugs AREN"T a bunch of sociopathic assholes incapable of human decency and incapable of being seen to back down first. But they are. They were benefiting from the shutdown and would not blink first

I think the Dems won the shutdown because now fed workers will get paid and the Rethugs will be forced in Jan to either support funding the ACA or accept the blame for rising costs. The idea that Dems caved is based on the mistaken assumption that holding out longer wouldve gotten a better deal.

I think so. They will do whatever they can think of to avoid a vote in Jan but no matter what they do THEY will be blamed for increased insurance costs--which affect red states more than blue.

I don't think we should assume that Dems would have gained anything by keeping the shut down going longer. That assumes that Rethugs would at some point be moved by the suffering caused by the shutdown or moved by their negative numbers and there is no basis for that assumption.

Well the ACA may have been saved and if it isn't the blame will be entirely on the Rethugs. Federal workers are going to be paid which relieves significant hardship. The problem is this: the Rethugs weren't going to end the shutdown. Ever. They are sociopathic and didn't care who they were hurting.