While we have been focused on shithole-gate,* there is something of more substantive importance going on, but it is actually related to the whole-shithole/house thing. Appropriations are about to run out again. When federal agencies run out of money, they can't pay their employees, who get furloughed, starting with the least-essential employees. The longer it goes on, the worse it gets. And we've got through the week to see how another one of these stupid fights shakes out.
No, this isn't normal for unified government. It is semi-normal for divided government, which tells you something. Specifically, the Republican Party is a mess. Paul Ryan can't manage the Freedom Caucus, just as John Boehner couldn't, so the GOP is often dependent on Nancy Pelosi to provide Democratic votes for must-pass legislation. In the Senate, the GOP isn't using budget reconciliation, so their bills can be filibustered, which means they need to peel off at least nine Democrats, presuming they keep all GOPers in line, but that includes "the Drama Club" (Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, Mike Lee and Ron Johnson). Frankly, they'll probably have an easier time winning Doug Jones's vote than they would have with Roy Moore, although I suppose they could have offered him a Senate page to seal the deal...
Shutdown fights in divided government have historically been "won" by the president. Bill Clinton forced Newt Gingrich to cave in 1995 and 1996, and Barack Obama forced John Boehner and Mitch McConnell to cave in 2013, although Boehner and McConnell both knew it would happen, and neither wanted to fight that fight. After that shutdown, McConnell said, "there is no education in the second kick of the mule. The first kick was in 1995." Why did they do it? They felt their hands were forced by assholes like Ted Cruz, as part of a stunt building towards his presidential campaign. See what that got him...
Anyway, though, we don't have any data on extended shutdown fights during unified government. 'Cuz they don't fucking happen. Shutdown fights are blame games. Whoever takes the blame publicly, by looking more unreasonable, caves. In 1995, Gingrich looked like an asshole, because he is an asshole, and the position of the GOP came across as more unreasonable, so they had to cave. That was the main dynamic in 2013 too. It is all about public perception. Whichever side takes the public relations hit caves.
So, in unified government, what happens? First, it is really hard to avoid the perception that the GOP isn't "responsible." Not impossible, just hard. After all, if a shutdown happens, which chamber of Congress fails to pass appropriations? If the problem is that the House can't pass anything, blaming Nancy Pelosi is pretty fucking ludicrous. When Pelosi was Speaker, she never needed Boehner for must-pass legislation. If the Freedom Caucus and the Opposable Thumb caucus can't agree, and that's what causes a shutdown, the Democrats don't get blamed.
What about the Senate? There it gets trickier. It is highly unlikely that a bipartisan bill passes the House, but fails in the Senate. But, what if the GOP holds together in the House, and passes something with no Democratic support there, and the bill can't get through a Democratic filibuster in the Senate? Does a shutdown get blamed on the GOP just 'cuz they're the majority, or on the Democrats for filibustering? Now we're in public relations territory.
You win this public relations fight by looking reasonable. The problem for the GOP is that their most visible figure is... Donald Trump, who goes out of his way to be Donald Trump. The Senate was negotiating DACA, and after first telling the group that he would sign anything, Trump shut down the bipartisan compromise framework, then opened his shithole, and finally told his flunkies to lie on his behalf, and claim that he never said, "shithole." Personally, I don't give a flying fuck whether it was "shithole" or "shithouse," and neither do any of the Democrats. Trump's behavior had two effects. First, it undercut anything like good faith negotiation. Second, it undercut his party's attempt to look like the reasonable party.
The Democrats' original plan was to demand a DACA deal in exchange for avoiding a shutdown. As I keep writing, there won't be a DACA deal. That was never in the cards. What happens, though, if Democrats force a shutdown over it?
They can, because Republicans aren't using reconciliation in the Senate. I don't know what happens then. There is no obvious connection between DACA and the continued operation of government, so it winds up looking a lot like hostage-taking. The GOP did that a lot during Obama's administration, and it didn't go over well for them. They lost the 2013 shutdown. Badly.
Of course, Trump isn't Obama. Obama was calm and composed. Not much of a tactical or strategic brain in his head, but he was calm. Trump is...
Well, let's remember what the Montreal Cognitive Assessment does and does not assess. If a shutdown happens, he'll open his shithole, and even if his party has a structural advantage, he'll undercut it by being Trump.
That said, Democrats don't have much of a hand to play here, and they don't have a history of playing their hand aggressively. At PredictIt right now, they're putting the odds of a shutdown at right around 1 in 4. Sounds about right to me, but hey... with Trump, who knows? Shit happens. In houses and holes, whatever Tom Cotton and David Perdue say...
*While I obviously detest Trump, as a George Carlin fan, I revel in the fact that he forces the political world to confront some of its more stupid linguistic rules. Some of my "profanity" might be considered gratuitous by small-minded people, but when I write, "shithole,"... nope! I actually need to write, "shithole!" Or possibly, "shithouse," but same difference...