This was a great unpacking of the split between moderate Dem politicians and moderate pundits, but I’d nudge it a bit further. The real rift may not just be practical vs. ideal, or short-term vs. long-term. It’s structural.
Politicians live in a world warped by asymmetric political conditions, Fox-fueled grievance media, a radicalized GOP base immune to policy consequences, a donor imbalance, gerrymandering, and an electorate that often punishes Democrats for using power while rewarding Republicans for breaking things. Democratic elected officials are maneuvering inside that crooked maze. Pundits aren’t.
And here’s the kicker: many of those pundits are, whether they admit it or not, part of that structural asymmetry. Because acknowledging the trap would mean acknowledging that reasoned analysis alone isn’t enough, that institutional reform, political messaging infrastructure, and democratic hardball are all necessary too. That makes punditry feel less like a referee and more like a passive participant.
It’s not just that the filibuster is undemocratic; it’s that Democrats can’t even sustain a public case against it without a megaphone network of their own. That’s the asymmetry. And that’s the silence that’s hardest to break.
You're right about pundits: they aren't referees, coaches, or even players. They are the nut jobs in the stands that dress in face paint and Road Warrior hand-me-down costumes.
What do you mean about the Democrats not having a megaphone network, though?
The right has built a 24/7 message machine like Fox, talk radio, podcasts, social media influencers, and entire “news” sites all synced up like a choir on amphetamines. They don’t just report; they rally, reinforce, and repeat. Democrats, on the other hand, rely on a fractured ecosystem of mainstream media that still pretends both parties play by the same rules, and that penalizes Democrats for showing the same aggression the GOP is praised for.
It’s not that Democrats don’t speak. It’s that when they do, they’re trying to shout over a stadium sound system blasting “Hunter Biden’s laptop!” on loop.
“When you factor in the legitimate pain a shutdown causes — which seemed to motivate Fetterman…”
Fetterman isn’t motivated by legitimate pain; he is motivated by appeasing his buddy Trump. Fetterman is as useful to his party as a screen door on a submarine.
I’m not a fan of the filibuster, but I think if it were abolished right now, the GOP would go on a legislative orgy (overturning ACA for starters) that would make FDR’s hundred days look like nap time in a coma recovery unit.
I think most anti-filibuster commentators believe they would never actually do this and they the GOP likes the filibuster largely because it gives them an excuse not to do all the crazy shit they claim they want to do.
The filibuster is like a helpful friend at the bar that will pretend to hold them back from picking a fight with a much bigger guy who spilled their drink. If that friend wasn't there, they would have to show the world that actually they were never going to pick that fight, or that if they did, they'd be leaving the bar on a gurney. The existence of the filibuster allows them to save face and pretend they were always right without having to face the consequences of what they actually claim to support.
Is this why Trump announced this weekend that every American is getting a $2,000 rebate check drawn from the "very excellent profits" of the Tariffs? So I will forget his party caused the shutdown?
Jeff, I wonder what you you think about Noah Rothman's take in this piece. https://www.nationalreview.com/2025/11/how-government-shutdowns-contribute-to-political-radicalization/ It's behind a paywall but you should be able to access a couple articles a month. Basically, his point is that this, like all government shutdowns, was nothing but politicians lying to their constituents/the groups/ pundits to score points without any intention or expectation of success.
Moderates in swing states like the filibuster because it provides stability. Incumbents win unless things change and get weird.
The republicans gained six senate seats and 63 house seats in 2010. That was the price of Obamacare.
Maybe your Matt Yglesias and you love Obamacare and you thought other people losing heir jobs was a price worth paying. The people losing their jobs are more skeptical.
The other factor is that moderates are moderate. The filibuster helps either side from doing what they want. And while you think 100% of your ideas are correct, there are certainly ideas to at actually aren’t good. Passing bills 51-50 is often a sign they aren’t great. Republicans would have been doing the democrats a favor if they blocked bidens three party line spending bills that promoted huge inflation.
Moderates want moderate politics. A sixty vote threshold basically assures it.
Yglesias wants radical left politics and is only constrained by what he thinks is necessary to get to 51%. He thinks politicians should lie more to get the left more power. He’s not a moderate, he’s a progressive Machiavellian pragmatist.
"The somewhat-unexpected background noise throughout this episode has been that the public seems to blame Republicans for the shutdown more than Democrats. In retrospect, that makes sense"
No, it really doesn't and never did. As Nate Silver pointed out, those polls also showed that voters didn’t understand why there was a shutdown in the first place, and that the Dem advantage on blame was quickly eroding.
That suggest people were initially mislead about which side was holding the government hostage (87% of news coverage on the matter was favorable to Democrats), but were slowing figuring it out anyway.
I read that column from Nate — he said that he didn’t agree that people were blaming Republicans AT FIRST but came around to that belief. (Also Nate was making an empirical statement about who he thought people were blaming for the shutdown, not who he thought people should blame for the shutdown.)
I didn't mean to imply Nate shared my position here. Just that the polls aren't as rosy for democrats as pundits have been making them sound.
If people understood Dems were filibustering a clean funding bill (regardless of whether to stick it to fascist Trump or make legislative demands from the minority bench) those polls would obviously look very different, but the media did literally everything they could to obscure who was doing what (while breathlessly hyping those polls they helped cook).
Allowing the shutdown was a colossal mistake because Republicans actively enjoy shutting the government down and it gives Trump a pretext to reduce spending on things that Dems like. Somehow this was obvious to people like Schumer back in March but they either forgot or just folded after being scolded by progressives wanting him to "do something" even if that something was completely counterproductive.
Among those I liked Matt’s analysis where he sympathized with those senators who seem to genuinely care about the damage the shutdown does- and I say this as someone who’s luckily well off enough not to be harmed directly but know someone who’s receiving SNAP benefit (including my wife’s students).
That being said, the way they folded once filibuster becomes relevant really really really sucks - and I acknowledge that a lot of this is that it really sucks emotionally.
There's basically no way back to a stable country without some major legislation, and there's no legislation like that without filibuster reform. If the Democratic party as it is today can't stomach that, then the Democratic party as it is today will cease to exist (one way or another.)
Like the fetishization over procedures is like Dem’s pathology ngl - and I am not saying we should abandon all norms or procedures but filibuster feels more and more outdated.
the fact that many moderate Dems are against this is def very telling that it is not really about moderation as an ideology but more about temperament.
And I acknowledge that being moderate ideologically and being risk averse are correlated - so “why can’t we have ideologically moderate fighters?!?!” is a little bit of eating the cake and having it.
But this risk averse is…absolutely not good. I don’t want them to be as reckless as maga but… maybe a bit less risk averse…?
At least I’m glad Durbin is retiring after this - and I think it’s time for Schumer to go tbh. I know minority leader is not a fun position to be in but if you can’t do your job it’s time to go…
The notion that any Democrat in Congress is a "moderate" is absurd.
EVERY LAST ONE OF THEM (plus non-inhaling Democrats Bernie and Angus King) endorses allowing ANY MAN into ANY women-only space, place, event, competition, whatever, at the sole and individual whim of each and every man.
And if any woman complains about it, THAT would be illegal.
That's what the 2025 Equality Act would do, and EVERY Demoturd in Congress is a fucking co-sponsor of it.
First, I'm both drunk and stoned (stunk) Second, I don't understand Jeff (May I call you Jeff?) how you pretty goodly follow all these horseshit goings-on without slamming your head into a wall.
This was a great unpacking of the split between moderate Dem politicians and moderate pundits, but I’d nudge it a bit further. The real rift may not just be practical vs. ideal, or short-term vs. long-term. It’s structural.
Politicians live in a world warped by asymmetric political conditions, Fox-fueled grievance media, a radicalized GOP base immune to policy consequences, a donor imbalance, gerrymandering, and an electorate that often punishes Democrats for using power while rewarding Republicans for breaking things. Democratic elected officials are maneuvering inside that crooked maze. Pundits aren’t.
And here’s the kicker: many of those pundits are, whether they admit it or not, part of that structural asymmetry. Because acknowledging the trap would mean acknowledging that reasoned analysis alone isn’t enough, that institutional reform, political messaging infrastructure, and democratic hardball are all necessary too. That makes punditry feel less like a referee and more like a passive participant.
It’s not just that the filibuster is undemocratic; it’s that Democrats can’t even sustain a public case against it without a megaphone network of their own. That’s the asymmetry. And that’s the silence that’s hardest to break.
More thoughts: https://www.stewonthis.com/p/moderation-vs-centrism
You're right about pundits: they aren't referees, coaches, or even players. They are the nut jobs in the stands that dress in face paint and Road Warrior hand-me-down costumes.
What do you mean about the Democrats not having a megaphone network, though?
The right has built a 24/7 message machine like Fox, talk radio, podcasts, social media influencers, and entire “news” sites all synced up like a choir on amphetamines. They don’t just report; they rally, reinforce, and repeat. Democrats, on the other hand, rely on a fractured ecosystem of mainstream media that still pretends both parties play by the same rules, and that penalizes Democrats for showing the same aggression the GOP is praised for.
It’s not that Democrats don’t speak. It’s that when they do, they’re trying to shout over a stadium sound system blasting “Hunter Biden’s laptop!” on loop.
“When you factor in the legitimate pain a shutdown causes — which seemed to motivate Fetterman…”
Fetterman isn’t motivated by legitimate pain; he is motivated by appeasing his buddy Trump. Fetterman is as useful to his party as a screen door on a submarine.
I’m not a fan of the filibuster, but I think if it were abolished right now, the GOP would go on a legislative orgy (overturning ACA for starters) that would make FDR’s hundred days look like nap time in a coma recovery unit.
I think most anti-filibuster commentators believe they would never actually do this and they the GOP likes the filibuster largely because it gives them an excuse not to do all the crazy shit they claim they want to do.
The filibuster is like a helpful friend at the bar that will pretend to hold them back from picking a fight with a much bigger guy who spilled their drink. If that friend wasn't there, they would have to show the world that actually they were never going to pick that fight, or that if they did, they'd be leaving the bar on a gurney. The existence of the filibuster allows them to save face and pretend they were always right without having to face the consequences of what they actually claim to support.
This
Is this why Trump announced this weekend that every American is getting a $2,000 rebate check drawn from the "very excellent profits" of the Tariffs? So I will forget his party caused the shutdown?
Yes.
Jeff, I wonder what you you think about Noah Rothman's take in this piece. https://www.nationalreview.com/2025/11/how-government-shutdowns-contribute-to-political-radicalization/ It's behind a paywall but you should be able to access a couple articles a month. Basically, his point is that this, like all government shutdowns, was nothing but politicians lying to their constituents/the groups/ pundits to score points without any intention or expectation of success.
Moderates in swing states like the filibuster because it provides stability. Incumbents win unless things change and get weird.
The republicans gained six senate seats and 63 house seats in 2010. That was the price of Obamacare.
Maybe your Matt Yglesias and you love Obamacare and you thought other people losing heir jobs was a price worth paying. The people losing their jobs are more skeptical.
The other factor is that moderates are moderate. The filibuster helps either side from doing what they want. And while you think 100% of your ideas are correct, there are certainly ideas to at actually aren’t good. Passing bills 51-50 is often a sign they aren’t great. Republicans would have been doing the democrats a favor if they blocked bidens three party line spending bills that promoted huge inflation.
Moderates want moderate politics. A sixty vote threshold basically assures it.
Yglesias wants radical left politics and is only constrained by what he thinks is necessary to get to 51%. He thinks politicians should lie more to get the left more power. He’s not a moderate, he’s a progressive Machiavellian pragmatist.
I think the calculus goes that Democrats are probably locked out of the Senate for the next decade and you’d probably want some sort of check.
Yes, the filibuster threat was a big reason the party flipped a few Dems to give in.
It was the likelihood that national voterID and no mail in ballots would pass. And with that Democrats are a dead party.
Except that isn’t true. This myth has been debunked by multiple in -the-weeds analyses
"The somewhat-unexpected background noise throughout this episode has been that the public seems to blame Republicans for the shutdown more than Democrats. In retrospect, that makes sense"
No, it really doesn't and never did. As Nate Silver pointed out, those polls also showed that voters didn’t understand why there was a shutdown in the first place, and that the Dem advantage on blame was quickly eroding.
That suggest people were initially mislead about which side was holding the government hostage (87% of news coverage on the matter was favorable to Democrats), but were slowing figuring it out anyway.
https://newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/bill-dagostino/2025/11/05/study-tv-news-spends-shutdown-playing-defense-democrats
I read that column from Nate — he said that he didn’t agree that people were blaming Republicans AT FIRST but came around to that belief. (Also Nate was making an empirical statement about who he thought people were blaming for the shutdown, not who he thought people should blame for the shutdown.)
I didn't mean to imply Nate shared my position here. Just that the polls aren't as rosy for democrats as pundits have been making them sound.
If people understood Dems were filibustering a clean funding bill (regardless of whether to stick it to fascist Trump or make legislative demands from the minority bench) those polls would obviously look very different, but the media did literally everything they could to obscure who was doing what (while breathlessly hyping those polls they helped cook).
Allowing the shutdown was a colossal mistake because Republicans actively enjoy shutting the government down and it gives Trump a pretext to reduce spending on things that Dems like. Somehow this was obvious to people like Schumer back in March but they either forgot or just folded after being scolded by progressives wanting him to "do something" even if that something was completely counterproductive.
Among those I liked Matt’s analysis where he sympathized with those senators who seem to genuinely care about the damage the shutdown does- and I say this as someone who’s luckily well off enough not to be harmed directly but know someone who’s receiving SNAP benefit (including my wife’s students).
That being said, the way they folded once filibuster becomes relevant really really really sucks - and I acknowledge that a lot of this is that it really sucks emotionally.
I feel very very torn over this
There's basically no way back to a stable country without some major legislation, and there's no legislation like that without filibuster reform. If the Democratic party as it is today can't stomach that, then the Democratic party as it is today will cease to exist (one way or another.)
Yeah…
Like the fetishization over procedures is like Dem’s pathology ngl - and I am not saying we should abandon all norms or procedures but filibuster feels more and more outdated.
the fact that many moderate Dems are against this is def very telling that it is not really about moderation as an ideology but more about temperament.
And I acknowledge that being moderate ideologically and being risk averse are correlated - so “why can’t we have ideologically moderate fighters?!?!” is a little bit of eating the cake and having it.
But this risk averse is…absolutely not good. I don’t want them to be as reckless as maga but… maybe a bit less risk averse…?
At least I’m glad Durbin is retiring after this - and I think it’s time for Schumer to go tbh. I know minority leader is not a fun position to be in but if you can’t do your job it’s time to go…
The notion that any Democrat in Congress is a "moderate" is absurd.
EVERY LAST ONE OF THEM (plus non-inhaling Democrats Bernie and Angus King) endorses allowing ANY MAN into ANY women-only space, place, event, competition, whatever, at the sole and individual whim of each and every man.
And if any woman complains about it, THAT would be illegal.
That's what the 2025 Equality Act would do, and EVERY Demoturd in Congress is a fucking co-sponsor of it.
So fuck them all.
First, I'm both drunk and stoned (stunk) Second, I don't understand Jeff (May I call you Jeff?) how you pretty goodly follow all these horseshit goings-on without slamming your head into a wall.
Who said I don’t slam my head against the wall?
Just don't do it in the
Champagne Room for Winners. Fragile stuff in there.....
Let me see the blood.
I think that pundits oppose the filibuster because they’re like journalists - they want fights and drama, and the filibuster limits that.