Josh Huder

(It's not that they're always off-point, but the tone has noticeably deteriorated.)

Substack has reinvigorated long-form blogging, which has been great.

On the other hand, I think it's really hurt opinion writing. It's been discouraging to watch writers I really respected post borderline-derogatory slop about people, parties, ideologies, etc.

Mike Johnson is the elected leader of the House of Representatives but he wouldn't have the job nor can he pass significant bills without Trump's help swaying HFC-types.

It's not a recipe for tight constitutional constraints when the leader of a rival institution is too weak to perform his job.

The GOP could do either - though I think nuking the filibuster isn't in the cards.

It's obvious because Republicans have the votes to open the government but Democrats are blocking the vote. But I agree, what the public understands about this situation is another question entirely.

Quick Thoughts on the Shutdown so far Apologies for typos of half-baked thoughts.

Some quick thoughts on Democrats' surprising early-polling advantage.

open.substack.com/pub/joshhude...

Jane Goodall, primatologist and friend to chimpanzees, dies at 91 She used her global fame to draw attention to the plight of dwindling chimpanzee populations and, more broadly, to the perils of environmental destruction.

What an icon. I was going take my daughter to her talk next week. Very sad news. www.washingtonpost.com/obituaries/2...

As a reminder, doing the work necessary to conduct RIFs during a shutdown is illegal

I agree. Also, is that a minority position now? It's been true of every shutdown ever, right?

Are Democrats Doomed to Lose the Shutdown? Congressional leaders aren’t built to win public opinion.

Are Democrats doomed to lose the shutdown? Probably. They want a bold public argument to justify their shutdown but their leaders struggle to deliver that leadership.

This is a feature of congressional leadership. open.substack.com/pub/joshhude...

The irony is Democrats could make an unpopular President more popular by shutting down the government in an effort to highlight his unpopular policies.

*elected D in Congress.

Put simply: they aren't the right people for this kind of fight. It's possible no elected Democrat is. And that begs the question, there might just be a structural disadvantage because the goals of the shutdown are in tension with the goals of their leaders.

I agree with your post but also wonder if it's asking too much of Schumer and Jeffries. Congressional leaders are internal politics savants, not public opinion gurus. Leading the party into public, high-stakes shutdowns undermines their ability to lead behind the scenes.

White House begins plan for mass firings if there’s a government shutdown The Office of Management and Budget sent a memo to federal agencies Wednesday night instructing them to plan for staff reductions, including firings.

Threatening a very unpopular thing to scare Democrats off a shutdown may backfire. The biggest shutdown downside (of many) is potentially galvanizing Republicans behind Trump. But that could be blunted if the admin decides on executing very unpopular things.
www.washingtonpost.com/business/202...

Massie: Republican leaders threatened supporters of push to release Epstein files The Kentucky congressman said Republican leaders are in ‘full panic’ over the issue.

For majority members, discharge petitions signal the intensity of their support. It's not unusual for them to face (often immense) pressure from leaders. It is unusual when petitions succeed in the face of that pressure.

In this case, leadership looks beat.
www.semafor.com/article/09/2...

Chuck Schumer Has a Lot in Common with John Boehner Josh Huder: "Chuck Schumer is facing the problems well known to House Republican leaders. Internal divisions have placed him in a losing position. As a result, coalition management becomes the priorit...

A gov't shutdown is below the fold news today and for good reason after Kimmel was pulled from the air.

Nonetheless, internal Democratic politics looks like it may force their leaders into a shutdown. politicalwire.com/2025/09/17/c...

I'm not surprised. I agree with you - if a shutdown is symbolic because there is very little to win, then they should plan an exit that fuels their symbolic politics.

Unfortunately, I think many misread Senate Ds' leverage and mistakenly believe something tangible can be won.

They are backing themselves into a shutdown on a policy entirely disconnected from their voter's anger and frustration. It's the worst of both worlds.

They should either commit to a symbolic shutdown and accept losing or capitulate. Their current half-hearted "stand" loses on both fronts.

Funny you mention that. I'm writing a post on why Republicans won't nuke the filibuster for a CR.

That aside, leaders know they will lose and are (understandably) reluctant to do so. The base wants things it cannot get thru a shutdown. So leaders compromised but in the worst way.

The base has an ambitious wish list of impossible policies. Democratic leaders want to avoid an embarrassing (and inevitable) defeat. So they've proposed ACA tax credits to satiate the hunger for rabid political opposition.

This is the "let them eat cake" version of legislative politics.

Dem voters want shutdown fight, poll shows A new survey shows seven in 10 Democrats support their party’s representatives in Washington withholding votes unless Republicans make changes — even if it risks a shutdown.

Democratic leaders are at a point where they need a shutdown just to avoid rebellion. No party that forced a shutdown ever won. But they may need to shoot themselves in the foot just so they can keep fighting.

www.semafor.com/article/09/1...

This preceded Reed's rules of 1890 but was a harbinger of the majority tactics that took over the House in later decades.

This is a critical insight. The manner in which Republicans went nuclear involved reducing cloture on a resolution. A resolution in a bill. It's not law. Regardless, it is a bill that governs procedure.

The House also used procedural resolutions to circumvent filibusters in the 1880s.

To shutdown, or not to shutdown? Chuck Schumer is finding he has an awful lot in common John Boehner.

A shutdown makes almost no sense. Democrats won't win policy. They will lose in the polls. Yet, it's probably going to happen regardless because coalition management demands it.

Why Chuck Schumer may need to channel John Boehner.
open.substack.com/pub/joshhude...

I 100% agree. I also think that's why it WILL happen. But I think everyone should be prepared for the fact that this bold defense of democracy may result in a worse public image, particularly if it is done half-heartedly or incompletely. The right exit strategy is both critical and elusive.

Point being, that's a very bold endgame. It is arguably out of reach. In reality, it will probably land somewhere closer to capitulation when polling takes a dive, which will come if previous shutdowns are a guide.

It's a self-inflicted wound, though arguably a necessary one at this point.

This is the most brave way to lose. It's plausibility is debatable though. The number of Senate Democrats who prefer to retain the filibuster is larger than publicly acknowledged. Additionally, killing the filibuster opens the door to more risky legislation.

To what end? There's no winning a shutdown. They can lose in varying degrees from worst to less worse, but they will always lose. It's just a matter of how.

Replies to this piece are predictable and a good example of why a shutdown makes rational sense. Democrats need a shutdown for basic coalition management at this point.

But the fact remains: they will ultimately lose.

The ICA and OMB points are spot on. The rest are popular policy requests.

There's now a lot of punditing on finding "the" argument but most of these fall under a general anti-tyranny banner that could motivate congressional Dems. Any electoral reluctance among them really misreads shutdown history.