Democrats are feeling America’s pain. Whether they can fix it is another question

Mark Felix/Bloomberg/Getty Images

Democrats may win the midterm election simply by exposing an unpopular president’s mirage of an economic “golden age.”

But that won’t bring the price of groceries and gasoline down.

On the campaign trail, Democratic candidates have effectively voiced the pain of families in the grip of the affordability crisis. They’re less good at nailing down specifics on how they plan to make life cheaper.

And with the House looking increasingly likely to go blue and with Republicans sweating on the Senate, the question of whether Democrats could take tangible, fast action to ease Americans’ financial burden deserves more scrutiny.

There’s some truth to President Donald Trump’s complaint that Democrats just turned the buzzword of “affordability” against him — especially since the Biden presidency saw inflation spike to its highest levels since the 1980s before falling back. “It’s fake,” Trump said at the GOP midterm convention. “They are so fake, because it was them that caused the affordability, to use their word, crisis.”

Those are the breaks for an incumbent president — particularly one who called out the high price of groceries when he was running in 2024 and then failed to bring them down. Trump has been his own worst enemy, drowning out his own affordability plays — such as limiting taxes on tips and taking action to lower the prices of some prescription drugs — by choosing to wage Iran and tariff wars that sent costs soaring.

Kent Nishimura/AFP/Getty Images

Voters are connecting the dots — and it’s bad news for Republicans

But if Democrats were to win a share of Washington power on November 3, they’d also assume the burden of action — though their ability to reshape the economy would be constrained, in part by a president willing to wield his veto.

That means a new Democratic Congress would have a greater capacity to thwart the most aggressive wielder of presidential power in modern history than to enact its own solutions.

This could be a trap. Recent elections in the US and elsewhere in the democratic world show that voters quickly lose patience with parties that are elected to forge change but fail to deliver it.

A Democratic honeymoon could therefore quickly fade.

Al Drago/Getty Images/File

As the midterms race into the final three weeks, Democrats contemplating the possibility of a restoration in Congress face three questions:

What are they proposing to alleviate the cost burden on Americans?

What would they be able to pass into law?

And could they turn any Trump-blocking moves into fuel for the 2028 campaign?

In a midterm showdown dominated by Trump’s cacophony and controversy, there’s been less attention on detailed Democratic proposals for a potential House or Senate majority in the 120th Congress.

It’s not that there are no plans — there are scores of them. Candidates, interest groups and think tanks are churning out ways to bring down the cost of housing, raise wages, restore benefits, overhaul healthcare, protect workers from AI, introduce universal child care, launch a house-building boom, and slash the cost of groceries and gasoline.

Roy Cooper, the Democratic Senate nominee in North Carolina, touts his “Make Stuff Cost Less” plan. Texas Senate candidate James Talarico, who will appear at a CNN & Jubilee Town Hall on Wednesday, has a “ New American Dream ” agenda. Sen. Ruben Gallego has unveiled an expansive plan that includes a New Deal-style public service jobs program. Sen. Chuck Schumer could dust off a deeply detailed policy blueprint he futilely rolled out in a GOP Senate in January if Democrats win back the majority.

But ideas won’t count for much without an actionable roadmap in what will be a fractured Washington if voters decide to deliver a rebuke to Trump next month.

The country already intuits that turning to the Democrats won’t alone end an affordability crisis years in the making. In a CNN/SSRS poll in September , Democrats had a 7-point lead as the party Americans saw as closest to their views on the economy. But only 35% thought the party would have a mainly positive effect on the cost of living and a meager 27% said the same regarding their personal financial situation.

Democrats would need to move fast. There’s two things they think they could do.

“If we don’t stop this war, if we don’t stop it now, we are going to continue to watch as the Iranian regime chokeholds the Strait of Hormuz, making our energy prices higher,” Michigan Democratic Senate nominee Abdul El-Sayed said at a debate this month. “And you are going to pay for it both at the gas tank and at the grocery store.”

And Cooper told voters in July that “we need to roll back these chaotic tariffs, and Congress needs to take back its constitutional authority on that — because that’s ending up costing everyday people and small businesses.”

In theory, a new Congress could end the war and overturn Trump’s tariffs. But it would be almost impossibly difficult.

Democrats could try to block new supplemental spending for military operations in Iran and pass laws to restrict how broader military funds are spent. But it would be a high-risk move since Trump could accuse them of deserting American troops in a war zone and could use his veto to block legislation. The failure of a Democratic House to stop the Iraq war after the party’s 2006 midterm victory is a daunting omen. And a war powers showdown with Trump over the dubious legality of the war seems as likely to produce a constitutional morass as to end the conflict.

Congress could overturn the remnants of Trump’s tariffs that survived the Supreme Court’s rescinding of duties built on emergency powers. But a veto-proof two-thirds majority against the president might be a stretch in the Senate even if Democrats had overall control.

If Democrats can’t immediately change the nation’s course, their political messaging will be even more critical. House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries told reporters in June that the first bill if the party wins the majority, HR.1, would be on affordability. “It will be hyper-focused on driving down the high cost of living and of course fixing our broken health care system as a part of that,” he said.

Kylie Cooper/Reuters

His challenge would be in unifying the Democratic caucus behind proposed legislation given the ideological chasms between democratic socialists, progressives and moderates that were highlighted during this year’s primaries. Jeffries must hope for a larger majority than the minuscule one that has plagued GOP House Speaker Mike Johnson.

But even if Democrats gain a healthy majority in the House, a Senate victory is unlikely to deliver anything but a narrowly divided chamber. Republicans will almost certainly still enjoy the capacity to block legislation if Democrats can’t amass 60 votes. Democratic priorities could be packaged into the kind of filibuster-proof reconciliation bills often used by the GOP. But presidents retain the veto — a power used, for example, by President Barack Obama to send back a GOP reconciliation bill in January 2016 that aimed to overturn the Affordable Care Act.

It’s a quaint thought, but the US system of divided federal power does envisage compromise. Maybe Democrats could find an accommodation with Trump on housing affordability, prescription drug prices, child tax credits or infrastructure — issues that have interested the president in the past.

But a promised Democratic onslaught of investigation targeting the Trump White House would surely precipitate a political cold war, making cooperation elusive.

The most ambitious Democratic priorities — such as restoring Affordable Care Act subsidies — might only emerge from a show of strength in budget negotiations or potential government shutdowns. Such clashes are gambles for both parties.

Elections perpetually conjure hope, promises and expectation. Divided government, however, usually results in bitter inertia.

So an inevitable sequel may already be looming: yet another election, in 2028, on the same issue of affordability, as voters wait and wait for answers.

Mark Felix/Bloomberg/Getty Images

民主党人或许只需揭穿一位不受欢迎的总统所营造的经济“黄金时代”的幻象，就能赢得中期选举。

但这并不会降低食品杂货和汽油的价格。

在竞选过程中，民主党候选人有效地表达了受住房负担能力危机困扰的家庭的痛苦。但他们不太擅长具体阐述如何降低生活成本。

随着众议院越来越有可能被民主党掌控，共和党人也对参议院感到焦虑，民主党人能否采取切实、迅速的行动来减轻美国人的经济负担，这个问题值得更仔细地审视。

特朗普总统抱怨民主党人利用“可负担性”这个流行词攻击他，这并非毫无道理——尤其是在拜登执政期间，通货膨胀率飙升至上世纪80年代以来的最高水平，之后才有所回落。“这都是假的，”特朗普在共和党中期选举大会上说道，“他们太虚伪了，因为正是他们造成了这场用他们自己的话说的‘可负担性危机’。”

对于一位现任总统来说，这就是他面临的困境——尤其是一位在2024年竞选总统时曾公开批评食品价格高企，却最终未能降低物价的总统。特朗普搬起石头砸了自己的脚，他发动伊朗战争和关税战，导致物价飙升，掩盖了他自己为降低物价所做的努力——例如限制小费税和采取措施降低部分处方药的价格。

Kent Nishimura/AFP/Getty Images

选民们正在把这些线索联系起来——这对共和党人来说是个坏消息。

但如果民主党在 11 月 3 日赢得华盛顿的部分权力，他们也将承担起行动的重任——尽管他们重塑经济的能力将受到限制，部分原因是总统愿意行使否决权。

这意味着，新一届民主党控制的国会，与其说是有能力制定自己的解决方案，不如说是更有能力阻挠现代史上最咄咄逼人的总统权力行使者。

这可能是一个陷阱。美国以及其他民主国家最近的选举表明，选民很快就会对那些当选后承诺带来变革却未能兑现承诺的政党失去耐心。

因此，民主党的蜜月期可能很快就会过去。

Al Drago/Getty Images/文件

随着中期选举进入最后三周，民主党人正在考虑能否重掌国会，他们面临三个问题：

他们提出了哪些减轻美国人经济负担的方案？

他们能够通过哪些法律？

他们能否将任何阻挠特朗普的举动转化为2028年竞选的动力？

在特朗普的喧嚣和争议主导的中期选举对决中，人们对民主党为在第120届国会中赢得众议院或参议院多数席位而提出的详细方案关注较少。

并非没有计划——实际上有很多计划。候选人、利益集团和智库正在绞尽脑汁地提出各种方案，以降低住房成本、提高工资、恢复福利、改革医疗保健、保护工人免受人工智能的影响、推行全民儿童保育、启动房屋建设热潮，以及大幅削减食品杂货和汽油的价格。

北卡罗来纳州民主党参议员候选人罗伊·库珀大力宣传他的“降低物价”计划。德克萨斯州参议员候选人詹姆斯·塔拉里科将于周三出席CNN和Jubilee联合举办的市政厅会议，他提出的是“新美国梦”纲领。参议员鲁本·加列戈公布了一项涵盖广泛议题的计划，其中包括一项类似罗斯福新政的公共服务就业计划。如果民主党重新赢得参议院多数席位，参议员查克·舒默可能会重新启用他今年1月在共和党控制的参议院中提出的、但最终未能实现的详细政策蓝图。

但如果下个月选民决定对特朗普予以回击，华盛顿将陷入分裂，那么如果没有切实可行的路线图，光有想法是没有意义的。

美国民众已经意识到，仅仅转向民主党并不能解决酝酿多年的生活成本危机。CNN/SSRS 9月份的一项民调显示，在经济问题上，民主党领先7个百分点，成为美国民众认为最符合他们观点的政党。但只有35%的受访者认为民主党会对生活成本产生积极影响，而只有区区27%的受访者认为民主党会对他们的个人财务状况产生积极影响。

民主党人需要迅速行动。他们认为自己可以做两件事。

“如果我们不停止这场战争，如果我们现在不停止它，我们将继续眼睁睁地看着伊朗政权扼住霍尔木兹海峡的咽喉，推高我们的能源价格，”密歇根州民主党参议员候选人阿卜杜勒·埃尔-赛义德本月在一次辩论中说道。“而你们最终将在汽油和超市购物中为此付出代价。”

库珀在 7 月份告诉选民，“我们需要取消这些混乱的关税，国会需要收回其在这方面的宪法权力——因为这最终会损害普通民众和小企业的利益。”

理论上，新一届国会可以结束战争并推翻特朗普的关税政策。但这几乎是不可能实现的。

民主党人可能会试图阻止为伊朗军事行动追加新的拨款，并立法限制更广泛的军事资金的使用。但这将是一个高风险的举动，因为特朗普可能会指责他们抛弃了身处战区的美国军队，并可能动用否决权阻止相关立法。民主党在2006年中期选举中获胜后，未能阻止伊拉克战争，这是一个令人担忧的预兆。与特朗普就这场战争合法性问题展开的战争权力较量，似乎更有可能造成宪法上的混乱，而不是结束这场冲突。

国会可以推翻特朗普关税政策中那些在最高法院撤销基于紧急权力制定的关税后仍然有效的残余部分。但即便民主党掌控参议院，要获得足以推翻总统否决权的三分之二多数票也并非易事。

如果民主党人无法立即改变国家的发展方向，那么他们的政治宣传就显得尤为重要。众议院民主党领袖哈基姆·杰弗里斯（Hakeem Jeffries）在六月份告诉记者，如果该党赢得多数席位，首项法案HR.1将聚焦于降低生活成本。“该法案将重点降低高昂的生活成本，当然，修复我们支离破碎的医疗保健体系也是其中的一部分，”他说道。

凯莉·库珀/路透社

鉴于今年初选凸显的民主社会主义者、进步派和温和派之间的意识形态分歧，杰弗里斯面临的挑战在于如何团结民主党党团支持他提出的法案。他必须寄希望于获得比共和党众议院议长迈克·约翰逊所面临的微弱多数更大的支持率。

但即便民主党在众议院赢得绝对多数席位，参议院的胜利也极有可能导致两党势均力敌的局面。如果民主党无法获得60票，共和党几乎肯定仍能阻止立法进程。民主党的优先事项可能会被打包成共和党常用的那种能够抵御冗长辩论的预算协调法案。但总统仍然拥有否决权——例如，奥巴马总统就曾在2016年1月动用否决权，退回了共和党提出的旨在推翻《平价医疗法案》的预算协调法案。

这想法或许有些奇特，但美国联邦权力分立的体制确实为妥协留出了空间。或许民主党人可以在住房可负担性、处方药价格、儿童税收抵免或基础设施建设等问题上与特朗普达成妥协——这些都是总统过去关注过的议题。

但民主党承诺对特朗普白宫展开猛烈调查，这肯定会引发政治冷战，使合作变得遥不可及。

民主党最雄心勃勃的优先事项——例如恢复《平价医疗法案》补贴——或许只有在预算谈判中展现实力或导致政府停摆的情况下才能实现。此类冲突对双方而言都是一场赌博。

选举总是能唤起人们的希望、承诺和期待。然而，分裂的政府通常会导致令人沮丧的停滞不前。

因此，不可避免的续集可能已经迫在眉睫：2028 年，又一次选举，围绕着同样的住房负担能力问题，选民们仍在等待答案。