Matt Glassman

Maybe Johnson and the freedmen? (I'm just guessing, no source).

I’m perfectly willing to concede that my analysis is offering some terrible reasoning if your assessment of the ‘26 election is correct.

But I also don’t see how shutting down the government accomplishes anything of value in your scenario.

Assume your assessment is correct. How does shutdown now help anything? Wouldn’t a better time for drastic action be after you’ve won the election and reveal the regime to be illegitimately holding power? And in the interim do all you can to win that election?

Like, what’s success under a shutdown?

This is all meant to be optimistic, Tom. I'm sorry you are so down on the state of the country and our politics.

What probability do you assign to your theory being wrong? Seems like there might be some sort of Pascal's Wager to be had here strategically.

Fully admitting I'm no normie Dem, I'm not convinced you've correctly identified their current demeanor and/or possible electoral reaction to (non)events.

Well, that's certainly fair. If there's no point in contesting '26 because it literally can't be won by the opposition, the calculus definitely changes and strategic analysis based on winning it is moot/bad.

On the upside, if the Dems *do* win the '26 elections, we can falsify your assessment.

Six, I think.

Also, you aren’t trying to “not pay a heavy price.” You are trying to win. No one ever has.

Absent the shutdown fight, decent chance Clinton loses in ‘96. He was absolutely spiraling in 1995.

But I don't want to misconstrue your arg, because maybe you just think a shutdown isn't a worse option than not a shutdown, and the point is that a shutdown is actually the best policy/electoral move because it energizes people rather than depresses them. Also not obviously wrong! (tho I disagree).

But your argument seems to be that avoiding a shutdown might be the "least-worst option" but it's still bad because...it's "surrender?"

That doesn't make any sense to me, and seems like a pride argument of the form "the things that win feel bad so I'll feel good rather than win." 2/

I'm not sure I'm following your argument here. My view is that a shutdown right now will result in no policy gains and make the Dems worse off WRT the '26 election. If you disagree, totally reasonable. I could be wrong! 1/

Wait, what's the alternative to winning the next election?

My whole point is that shutting down the government is counterproductive to that end.

Here's me today on shutdown politics goodpoliticsbadpolitics.substack.com/p/shutdown-p...

And here's @mattglassman312.bsky.social mattglassman.substack.com/p/a-strategi...

We agree on almost everything, including that a shutdown is mostly a "do something" idea, except our final position...

A Strategic Shutdown is a Terrible Idea It's bad policy. It's worse politics. But a lot of liberal Dems are pushing for it.

My view on strategic shutdowns: bad policy, bad politics.

open.substack.com/pub/mattglas...

Well, this restaurant just opened in DC. OMFG.

Well, this restaurant just opened in DC. OMFG.

Is that a rescission in your pocket? I-C-A looming problem for congressional spending supremacy.

I wrote about pocket rescissions, PTA meetings, and the problem of treating plainly absurd actions as technical legalistic questions.

open.substack.com/pub/mattglas...

Thanks!

Today has always been one of my sneaky favorite sports days: Little League World Series American Championship game, followed directly by the Travers from Saratoga. Great side-sports double.

P(A|B) = (P(B|A)*P(A))/P(B)

That's not to say they won't bring things down---temporarily or for real. They might!

But the Kicking and Screaming was/is coming in either case, so it doesn't give you a lot of predictive info.

The Kicking and Screaming *is* the message.

Obviously, we can't *know* how this will go but it's worth remembering that, for the HFC (and often others), this pseudo-drama *itself* is a necessary component of the side-payment in exchange for their vote, not something you could have avoided had you taken a different path.

And that's the rub. If the bill *does* get changed---for any reason---and necessarily will have to go back to the Senate, then making a change to kill this becomes a *lot* easier. But again, that seems unlikely.

So, unfortunately, I think the gambling tax provisions are staying in and becoming law. They don't go into effect until next year, so there's time. But that's a different lobbying fight, and a lot tougher one than preventing this from getting in in the first place.

But again, my guess is that they get there. Even a lot of the the Big Mad people are probably just angling to get to vote no even as they hope it passes. With only 3 hall passes to hand out, screaming a bit now can reward you with one of them.

Now, they are *saying* they want to go to the floor tomorrow. And if they have the votes, they 100% will. But they may not have the votes. So that's the first thing to watch---does the schedule slip as they try to buy-up some missing votes.

Especially if more members found little provisions like the gambling one that set them off. But...I still don't see it. Most likely path tonight is Rules approves a closed rule for the bill (no amendments allowed on the floor), and the leadership aims to make no changes.

Now, the margins in the House are small, and plenty of people are (at least feigning) Big Mad. The moderates over SALT. The moderates over Medicaid. The conservative budget hawks. Massie is a now. Roy is flailing his arms at Rules. So you could get to a tipping point.