Chuck Schumer Doesn’t Know What Time It Is
from the an-absolute-failure dept
After forty days. Forty days of the longest government shutdown in American history. Forty days of Democrats saying this is the line—healthcare for twenty-two million Americans. Forty days of holding firm while Republicans bet Democrats would break first.
Chuck Schumer just taught Donald Trump that hostage-taking works.
Not because he had to. Because the framework he operates within cannot imagine doing what this moment requires: actually fighting power instead of managing accommodation to it.
Eight Democratic senators voted to end the shutdown last night. The deal they cut? A “guaranteed vote” next month on ACA subsidies that everyone—including Chuck Schumer—knows won’t pass. They traded their only leverage for a promise they know is worthless. They held the line for forty days, then surrendered for nothing.
The base is in open revolt. Gavin Newsom’s response was one word: “Pathetic.” JB Pritzker called it “an empty promise.” AOC reminded everyone that “working people want leaders whose word means something.” Chris Murphy admitted plainly: “There’s no way to sugarcoat what happened tonight.”
And Ro Khanna did what needed doing: he called for Schumer’s removal as Senate minority leader.
This isn’t just fury at a bad deal. This is recognition that the Democratic establishment is operating within a dead framework that keeps producing the same result: managed decline wrapped in sophisticated justifications.
Schumer’s calculation was pure technocratic management. The shutdown polls badly. Healthcare polls well. Get a vote scheduled, minimize political damage, trust that Republicans will take the blame when premiums skyrocket. Classic establishment thinking: read the focus groups, calculate the risk, optimize for damage control.
What he cannot see—what the framework literally prevents him from seeing—is that the fight itself mattered more than any deal. That people weren’t asking for better negotiating tactics. They were asking for proof that Democrats would hold the line on something. Anything. After Chicago. After ICE raids. After warrantless mass detentions. After watching Trump systematically dismantle constitutional constraints.
This was the test. Forty days to prove Democrats could fight power instead of accommodating it. And Schumer folded.
Symone Sanders got it immediately: “The hostage taking worked.” That’s the lesson Trump learned last night. That’s why Chris Murphy is right to fear Trump gets stronger, not weaker. When you teach authoritarians that threatening to hurt people produces Democratic capitulation, you haven’t minimized damage—you’ve guaranteed more hostage situations.
The establishment will produce sophisticated analysis explaining why this was actually strategic. They’ll point to the guaranteed vote, the federal worker protections, the political positioning for next month. They’ll treat this as a temporary setback in normal political competition.
But this isn’t normal political competition. This is one side attempting regime change while the other pretends it’s just another negotiation requiring careful positioning.
The base understands what Schumer cannot: you cannot manage your way out of authoritarian consolidation. You cannot focus-group your way to resistance. You cannot optimize yourself into fighting power when your entire framework is built on accommodating it.
The governors get it. Newsom fighting homeowner cartels in California. Pritzker calling out empty promises. They’re not waiting for Senate leadership to figure out what time it is. They’re building the alternative: liberal populism that actually fights concentrated power instead of explaining why fighting is unstrategic.
The progressive caucus gets it. AOC reminding everyone that people’s lives depend on Democrats keeping their word. Khanna calling for new leadership. James Talarico declaring “this moment demands fighters, not folders.”
Even establishment voices like Murphy understand something fundamental broke last night. When your own senator has to record a video saying “there’s no way to sugarcoat this” and “I’m angry—like you”—that’s not spin control. That’s recognition that the base has decided the framework is dead.
Forty days was long enough to prove Democrats could fight. Long enough to make Trump pay a political price for hostage-taking. Long enough to show working people that their leaders’ word means something.
Chuck Schumer surrendered all of that for a vote next month that won’t pass.
He doesn’t know what time it is. But the base does. The governors do. The progressive caucus does. And they’re done waiting for him to figure it out.
The dead framework just folded. Time to storm the castle.
Mike Brock is a former tech exec who was on the leadership team at Block. Originally published at his Notes From the Circus.
Filed Under: capitulation, chris murphy, chuck schumer, democrats, donald trump, gavin newsom, government shutdown, healthcare, jb pritzker, leverage


Comments on “Chuck Schumer Doesn’t Know What Time It Is”
Not as hard as he’s fighting the homeless.
The Dems held the country and SNAP benefits plus the airwaves hostage rather than trust the ballot box.
It’s worse. We have no guarantee that the Republicans in the Senate will keep their word and hold the vote as promised.
Even if they do, it’s likely to fail in the Senate.
Even if it somehow passes in the Senate, it won’t do anything unless it also passes in Congress. Which first requires Johnson to let Congress vote on it.
The only upside is that Johnson is going to need to find another excuse to keep Congress closed.
Re:
Psst.
The other chamber is called the House of Representatives.
Re: Re:
Representative of what, fascism? They sure dont represent the American people with all the gerrymandering and rich donors around.
Re: Re: Re:
I wonder what answers they would give if someone went to each of them and asked what they had done for their district.
Not their state. Not the people in general. Things that specifically helped their district.
How many of them would be able to list anything ?
Re: Re: Re:
I’d like to think that fascism is not what the American people want. There are some early encouraging signs to support that view; see the “broken simulation” story of a few days ago. But I’m surprised you can be “sure” about it, because I certainly can’t.
Played right into republican hands
If there’s one thing you can trust career democrats to do it’s snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
Right after a wave of democrats wins across the nation, right after the public showed that they were done with republican rule and were on the side of the democrats they decided that it was time to fold and show that they were bluffing the entire time and that all it would take it is for republicans to wait long enough and the democrats would fold like rotted cardboard.
They not only gave up their only bit of leverage in exchange for nothing they ensured that the next time they think they have any leverage the republicans will just laugh in their face, safe in the knowledge that all it will take is waiting the democrats out.
They can lie to themselves all they want about how this was a ‘strategic move’ and the result of careful calculation but they just did more to damage the chances for a blue wave come the next year than anything the republicans have done to date. Not only did they just devastate the trust people might have had in the party to hold the line and defend them but they also provided all the fuel republicans need to turn the whole shutdown on the democrats by pointing out that after enough democrats turned the shutdown ended, meaning the democrats were responsible for the government being shut down, not the republicans. It will be a lie, sure, but plenty of people will buy it nonetheless because that’s what it’ll look like.
it is clear shumer is not working for us.
it is time to get 2/3 of the senate to kick his ass out! we can’t wait until 2028.
We will not negotiate with terrorists– we will capitulate to them!
Schumer absolutely sent those eight Senators to make the deal because they’re not up for reëlection next year and he didn’t want the blowback from caving. But from what I’ve seen, he’s getting the blame anyway. Congrats, Chuck—now you’re Donald Trump’s latest bitch. Hope you get primaried out of a job, dumbass.
Re:
He was banking on people seeing that (from what I’ve heard) he voted ‘no’ on the re-open and therefore thinking that he had nothing to do with the capitulation, unfortunately for him it would seem people aren’t quite as stupid as he was hoping.
Re: Re:
Ken Klippenstein said as much. Schumer helped craft the deal every step of the way. The fact he voted no on a deal he shepherded at every step is just an attempt to keep his hands clean.
No one’s buying it. He owns this horseshit deal except calling it a deal is too generous because they caved for the promise of a vote on ACA subsidies which will not pass and even if by some miracle it did Johnson has stated before he won’t accept it.
Re:
but he’s not up for reelection next year either
Re: Re:
He can still be primaried when he is up for reëlection. And he can be pushed out of his job as Senate Minority Leader.
Re: Re: Re:
Yes, but as you point out the point of choosing 8 Democrats who aren’t up for reelection in 2026 is that they’re hoping the blowback dies down by the time they are up for reelection.
And honestly I don’t think that’s a bad bet. If voters could remember what they were mad about four years ago Trump wouldn’t be in office right now.
As far as being minority leader, he’s there until 2027 unless he resigns. I definitely support putting pressure on him to resign but it sure hasn’t succeeded up to this point, and I hope there are more progressive senators thinking about challenging him when the next Congress starts.
Re: Re: Re:2
I think it’s likely people will forget the specifics. But I think people are underestimating more general incoherent backlash. I don’t think people getting Zohran’d or AOC’d is out of the picture. (And it’s worth noting how close Bernie got last time, too). Voters are fucking stupid and have the attention of goldfish, but things are volatile and there’s definitely some anti-incumbency in the air.
And there’s also a bigger problem- this sort of stuff is going to keep happening for the next ~1-3ish years. This isn’t going to be a one off. Chronic folders aren’t suddenly going to step up to the moment.
(Also worth remembering, it only takes a few scalps to knock people in line)
Eh, yes and no. As a practical matter, he is hard to push out. But if you want to push your Senators, now is a good time to be asking any that are up in 2026 to call for him to step down as minority leader, or commit to their primary opponent. The ones who took the vote aren’t up, but ~1/3 of them are, and that’s leverage. There’s no formal law that locks him in as minority leader.
Re: Re: Re:3
Could be. Happened with the Republicans 15 years ago and it was less specific than just generally anti-incumbent.
Say, what’s another word for “step down”?
Re:
Trump and the GOP assumed they could simply wait out the dems, like they have in evey other shutdown in my lifetime.
They assumed that because Senate dems always find a sacrifical lamb to take the bullet and capitulate. Unfortunately for Schumer , they’ve used this line way too many times at this point.
Schumer bases his policies on what his OCs want, and they vote republican.
I wish I kidding.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=VJAIChXYQVk
Re: (edit)
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=VJAIChXYQVk
The full segment
Re: (edit 2, damnit)
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dijMKwZMU2Q
Sorry, this is the full segment
Re: Re:
JFC.
Re: Re:
Bloody hell, Schumer isn’t just a coward that dude is literally mentally ill and has been for years.
Imaginary friends are one thing to see in a child but when a grown adult not only believes he has them but bases his political career on what they think… that dude needs extensive psychological help.
Re:
I had a low opinion of him before I watched that. It does confirm that moderate Democrats are really just Republican Light.
Re: Re:
I mean this motherfucker wouldn’t even back the Democratic nominee for mayor in his own city.
Re: Re: Re:
But I guarantee he’ll fundraise off the big wins Democrats had in last week’s elections. Fucker wants the reward without the work, and I hope he gets primaried so bad that even Republicans won’t want him.
Re: Re: Re:2
Well, he’ll try anyway, but somehow I suspect that he might find it a little tricky to convince the general public to send any money his way after this last disgusting bit of cowardice.
Re: Re: Re:3
The reason this happened is that the donors these Democrats are most concerned about keeping are not the general public.
Re: Re: No wonder he sucks at understanding actual democrats, his fictional ones aren't
As someone aptly pointed out in the comments it’s all sorts of telling and explains so much when you find out that apparently Schumer’s mental image of the ‘average democrat’ is a republican.
Oh no!
It’s yet again time for democrats to cave just enough to still play pr that they tried their best.
The only major difference between d and r at this point is one pretends alot harder that they are at all meaningful different.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Obviously you all didn’t vote hard enough to inspire the DNC.
Because there aren’t any alternative measures to take, otherwise you would be worse than the fascists.
Schumer and co. are actively a wing of the republican party and need to be treated internally by Democrats as such.
Difficulty with this take
My issue is that once air travel stops, thats basically it. There is some min staffing point where the whole thing falls apart. You cant replace ATC like trump thinks he can. Its 2 years to get a small class of new staff in the tower and thats noobs.
This is an economic collapse greater then the teriffs. These guys were being told “go to woek” while landlords foreclosed or gave eviction notices. I assume this is under the radar, but it feels like a big deal.
Re:
Nah, plenty of entities (airlines, shipping companies, cities) can pay them to keep coming. Or if nobody chooses to, that just proves airport operations weren’t economically important to anyone after all.
If you’re going to use that argument, you need to use someting actually reliant on th Feds as a matter of practical ability, not just as a matter of convention.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
You guys caused this shutdown for no reason, STARVED people, caused massive chaos, for no reason. YOU took the hostages, not Trump.
It’s easy to see it was dumb and evil in hindsight, but it was easy to see it at the beginning and middle, too.
Good job, liberals. All that pain and suffering for nothing.
Re:
Quick question: Which party holds the majority in both chambers of Congress? Which party refused to negotiate on passing an extension of the ACA subsidies? Which party could have nuked the filibuster and passed their own bill to either prevent or end the shutdown? Which party has a leader who went to the Supreme Court and demanded that the court stop the government from finding a way to fund SNAP?
For all the problems that the Democrats have—and trust me, they have a lot of problems—Republicans have to answer for its role here, too. Looking like the party that is willing to let millions starve so they can price millions more out of healthcare doesn’t really do much to dispel the notion that the GOP is a death cult.
Re: Re:
It’s just a variation of Murc’s law, Republicans are totally impotent and powerless, the only way they can get something done is if the Democrats allow them which means no matter what it is always the Democrats fault.
Re: Re:
The Republicans could have done that, yes, but… I mean… “They should have steamrolled over our objections” doesn’t seem like a winning argument.
I’m just going to guess without looking that the subsidies only expire in the first place because the Democrats were playing budget games when they created these subsidies. Both sides play this game. Pretend that a particular spending program or tax cut will expire in a few years so the effect on the budget seems not so bad, then scream when they’re about to expire and get them extended forever, and screw the budget.
Re: Re: Re:
Oh, like how the Republicans fought tooth and nail to preserve their tax cuts that were going to expire, and cost the country far more money and for a far less noble cause?
Re:
Clanker detected.
Re:
Trying to stop tens of millions of people’s healthcare doubling in cost is not “no reason”. You can make an argument about whether or not it was smart or effective, but saying it was for no reason is just dumb.
What time is it?
Adventure Time (For a New Senate Minority Leadership Because JFC-)!
the gloves are off
Immediately start recall petitions and proceedings on the Traitorous Eight plus Schumer. Primary any of them still standing in a few months.
Support Indivisible and Move On working on this.
Re:
You want to recall Senators? Great, all you have to do is get 3/4 of the states to approve a constitutional amendment allowing that, then we can get right on it.
While I’m with everyone else in how outrageous and disappointing it is, Lawrence O’Donnell, who worked in the senate before, had a different take.
5 Democrats changed their position to cause 200+ Republicans to change theirs.
Trump said no negotiation, but they are. SNAP was extended and increased.
When has a minority party ever won in a government shutdown? Never.
Also, we either get the discharge petition on the Epstein files now, or we see what other excuses Johnson can come up with to delay it.
Sadly, this was expected. 40 days for nearly nothing, and certainly none of the original asks they had.
Primary all corporate/AIPAC backed establishment democrats! It’s the only way to fix this.
Democrats are controlled opposition, beholden by corporate/billionaire donors, not the people.
Re:
Trump was already obligated to release SNAP funds and was fighting in court to starve poor Americans. Democrats saved him from that predicament.
What was the actual progressive/Dem outcome supposed to be?
Sorry/Not Sorry, I don’t see how the Democrats were supposed to extract the ACA subsidies from the Republicans after any amount of time.
Trump was threatening Republicans to get them to usher in the end of the filibuster in order to pass this CR, with no ACA subsidies, and then to use the simple majority to pass other toxic laws on a simple majority. A national abortion ban. An end to trans and overall LGBTQ+ rights. National Voter ID requirements and more antidemocratic election stuff.
You may want to point to the articles about Thune & more saying they’d hold strong and keep the filibuster. But I just wanna check: How did Greg Abbott and his pushback against Trump’s redistricting plan pan out? Oh, that’s right, Abbott caved to Trump. All the Republicans lose their spine and eventually do.
I didn’t want to wake up one day next week to find out that the GOP caved and gutted the filibuster so they could pass their CR with no subsidies, and then get a bunch of other horrid laws that would get people disenfranchised, arrested, or worse, all lined up to pass on a simple majority with no ability for Democrats to counteract it aside from trying (and failing) to get it all tied up in courts.
Re:
They weren’t. The minority party can’t force the majority party to do something unless the majority is willing to care. What it can do, and was doing, was driving bad sentiment towards Trump/GOP for both the shutdowns and the ACA subsidies lapsing.
The reason healthcare was picked, rather than a million and one other issues like impoundment, is because it a) made the GOP look (correctly) heartless and b) hopefully was one of the few things that moderates could not fall over themselves to immediately shoot themselves in the dick over.
And separately, it was important to show that they wouldn’t immediately fold the moment Trump/GOP took a hostage. Since that just shows them they should grab another hostage.
If the GOP thought abolishing the filibuster was to their advantage, they’d have done it. There’s a reason it still exists.
Yes, there are downsides. But they’re going to need to be faced, because any way out of this situation longterm is going to require killing it anyway.
Re: Re:
How much longer was this supposed to go on after the hostage taking started, and the metaphorical “We will do away with these hostages every hour until you comply” began?
The way it looked, to me, was that Trump was also using the shutdown to agitate and peel away pro-filibuster Republicans, getting them to flip their script. And it felt like it was going to work if it kept going, and then we’d have 1) No ACA subsidies and 2) The GOP trifecta post-filibuster passing Project 2025 laws left and right, meaning very likely no ACA in any form at all alongside every marginalized group in this country having their basic rights on the chopping block.
And please spare me the “If the GOP passes all these bad laws post-filibuster, there’ll be a blue wave in 2026”. They would pass every law they can and tie election law up in the courts for long enough to keep us from having any sort of free & fair election next year, or likely in 2028.
And the downsides of the filibuster being fully abolished during a GOP trifecta are that a whole lot of people will lose their rights, suffer, and likely die or be intentionally killed. More than what’s been happening this year. And a lot of them prolly the same people who showed up last week to deliver Democrat wins.
Re: Re: Re:
That’s going to be subjective- how much are you willing to sacrifice, and how much does that sacrifice need to buy? There’s no easy answer there, even if you ignore the uncertainty. On one extreme, if you fold immediately you may as well just pass an Enabling Act and go home. On the other extreme, you’re hurting people needlessly.
After the election results in 2024, a whole lot of people are going to suffer and die. The only thing we can do is try to minimize how many that happens to. And there’s no nice easy formula for how to do that. If you’re fully confident one way or the other, you’re lying to yourself.
We did this exact same song and dance over stuff like the covid stimulus checks. They saved a lot of people. They also gave Trump a huge boost (despite being a Dem policy), and directly partially led to his re-election. Was it worth it? It’s not so straightforward. And now- how many lives is legitimizing stealing the power of the purse worth? Because that will also kill people.
That all said, I do think there is a reasonable argument to be made about folding on SNAP. I don’t think it’s right, and it’s certainly not obvious, but it’s not insane. However, a big part of the problem is it’s not actually the argument the moderates made. You’re steelmanning them. They aren’t even blaming SNAP, Angus King is running around saying ““Standing up to Donald Trump didn’t work. It actually gave him more power,”, which is bullshit. Cortez Masto is waxing on about bipartisanship. Regardless of where you stand, bullshitting the base and stabbing them in the back overnight is not helping. (And again, part of why this is a problem is because they already caved once in March, and SNAP wasn’t on the line.)
Re: Re: Re:
It’s up to the public how long it goes on. They’ll eventually turn against one party or the other. As long as someone has the job title of “representative”, they should stick to that: do whatever they think the people being represented want them to do, asking for feedback when necessary.
Everybody know what time it is? Fool Time!!!
These enhanced subsidies for the PPACA were Covid-19 related subsidies. So, it would be nice to have some Covid-19 related reasons to continue them, and the best reason comes from President Trump:
“A lab-related incident involving gain-of-function research is the most likely origin of COVID-19.”
Why not agree with him? If there was a lab accident, that would mean we’ve all been made a part of a scientific or medical experiment. And if that is true, there is no returning to the status quo.
There is no better reason than Trump’s finding to continue the Covid-19 related subsidies. It doesn’t hurt that the lab was circulating a proposal in 2018, Project Defuse, which, according to the New York Times explains the virus.
But the Dems first priority is to protect the lab. And so, while they wanted the subsidies continued, they decline to make a case for it, other than it would be nice.
These are the same Dems that are behind this.
https://decidingtowin.org/
“Advocate for popular economic policies (e.g., expanding prescription drug price negotiation, making the wealthy pay their fair share in taxes, raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour) rather than unpopular economic policies (e.g., student loan forgiveness, electric vehicle subsidies, Medicare for All).”
When we’re confined to two political choices, it winds up being a false choice. Even China gives Hong Kong 4 or 5 choices.
Re:
So the Democrats were only asking to keep the enhanced subsidies from the ARPA and nothing else? Here’s the thing, since the Republicans refused to negotiate for at least 6 weeks there was zero reasons for the Democrats to make any changes to their initial proposal.
If you trust what Trump says you are fool because he says a lot of shit that has no relation to reality. Also, that argument is just one big fat non sequitur.
This again. Anyone can take a loose set of selected information and “explain” anything without factually proving it. Are you familiar with the saying Correlation does not imply causation?
As proven again and again, Democrats can on a good day agree on how to tie their shoelaces without infighting but that you think there is an internal consensus of “protecting the lab” can only be described as one big drug-fueled fantasy with no basis in reality what so ever.
Which would those Democrats be? Are they different from other Democrats or are they Democrats, or perhaps they are Democrats?
If you don’t understand what I’m getting at you don’t even have a basic understanding what the Democrats are at all.
Hahahahaha!! They keyword here is “gives”! Hong Kong doesn’t have choice, they get whatever China says they get which means those supposedly 4 or 5 choices is just a semblance of choice – ie, it’s pure theatre and everyone knows it. That anyone can seriously say what you just said shows a distinct lack of understanding of how things work.
And it’s not a false choice, both parties are authoritarian but in their own little ways. Republicans are scumbags that will fuck you over because they will get rich or power out of it, Democrats are limpdicks that will try fuck you over while keeping their “donors” happy – all because they think they are helping you.
What did we get?
I’m really pissed!
But, the gang of 8 approached Schumer 3 weeks in and told him they were going to do this. He persuaded them to wait until November. It still shows he can’t keep the Democratic caucus on track.
Let’s look at what we got from this. NOT what the gang of 8 got, but US.
SNAP benefits will be paid. Donnie was fighting tooth and nail to block it.
Air traffic controllers will be paid.
Military will be paid.
All federal employees made to work without pay will get their checks, including TSA.
Maybe/mabe not furloughed feds will be called back.
ACA not getting the extension is bad for the people on ACA, but it remains in play as a 2026 campaign issue.
That’s not nothing.
Re:
Yes, the American people gets to have Republicans piss on them to keep them warm. That’s not going to last very long now that the GOP knows that hostage-taking works.
Re:
Yeah, that list of things we got? It’s a list of things the Trump Administration was already obligated to do and was breaking the law by not doing.
You’ve definitely made a good point, but it’s not the one you thought you were.
If you are going to fold, fold early...
Once the shutdown started and reasonable demands were set, it should have been the end of it. Republicans agree or they ruin the 2025 holiday season worse than the Grinch could even imagine.
There are not currently two parties in the US. There are the horrible Republicans and slightly less horrible Republicans.
duuuuuuude … you’re about to get a STRONGLY worded message from the Democratic Party!