November 13: In the Long Run, the Shutdown May Benefit Democrats
The CW has it that the government shutdown, at least the way it ended, was a setback for Democrats. I suggested otherwise at New York.
There’s a lot of ill-suppressed glee among Republicans right now, along with recriminations among Democrats, about the end of the longest government shutdown ever. Eight Democratic senators were able to undercut a few hundred of their colleagues by ending a filibuster against a bill to reopen government, exhibiting both weakness and disunity. (Though there’s no telling how many holdouts privately agreed with the “cave.”) Worse, Democrats failed to secure an extension of Obamacare premium subsidies they repeatedly demanded.
So were Republicans the “winners” and Democrats the “losers” in the shutdown saga? Maybe now, but maybe not later. As the New York Times’ Annie Karni observes, the short-term stakes of the shutdown fight may soon be overshadowed by more enduring public perceptions of what the two parties displayed:
“[Some Democrats] assert that in hammering away at the extension of health care subsidies that are slated to expire at the end of next month, they managed to thrust Mr. Trump and Republicans onto the defensive, elevating a political issue that has long been a major weakness for them.
“And in holding out for weeks while Republicans refused to extend the health tax credits and Mr. Trump went to court to deny low-income Americans SNAP food benefits, Democrats also honed their main message going into 2026: that Republicans who control all of government have done nothing to address voters’ concerns that the cost of living is too high”.
Trump’s clumsy and insensitive handling of the SNAP benefit cutoff was an unforced error and a gift to Democrats. But just as importantly, by “losing” the Obamacare subsidy–extension fight, Democrats may have dodged a bullet. A deal on that issue would have cushioned or even eliminated an Obamacare premium price hike that will now be a real problem for Trump and the GOP. Republicans appear to have no health-care plan other than the same tired panaceas involving individual savings plans that allow health insurers to discriminate against poorer and sicker Americans — precisely the problem that led to passage of the Affordable Care Act and has made Obamacare popular.
The big takeaway from Democrats’ election sweep this month is that “affordability” is a message that accommodates candidates ranging from democratic socialist Zohran Mamdani to centrist Abigail Spanberger and that plays on tangible public unhappiness with Trump’s broken promises to reduce the cost of living. That Republicans emerged from the government shutdown having abundantly displayed their lack of interest in soaring health-care costs and persistently high grocery costs positions Democrats exactly where they hope to be next November.
In addition, the election wins showed that rank-and-file Democratic voters and the activists who helped turn them out were not particularly bothered by the year’s many ideological and generational collisions over anti-Trump strategy and tactics. The Democratic “struggle for the soul of the party” that Republicans and Beltway pundits love more than life itself may manifest itself more visibly during 2026 primaries. But when general-election season arrives, there’s every reason to believe Democrats will stop fighting each other and focus on flipping the House — and in a big-wave election, maybe even the Senate — and destroying the governing trifecta that has enabled so many Trump outrages this year. It’s one thing to debate endlessly how to “fight” and “stop” Trump. It’s another thing to be given a clear opportunity to do just that at the ballot box.
The expiration of the shutdown deal on January 30 could in theory produce another government shutdown and another set of expectations to be met or missed. But “winning” the current shutdown won’t in itself improve Trump’s lagging job-approval ratings, or the incoherence of his economic policies, or the fears his authoritarian conduct instills. That’s the GOP’s problem and Democrats’ opportunity.
My original thought was the same as AdamH’s: that Obama’s call was an honest attempt to do something post-partisan for the good for the country.
But my cynical, strategic side took over. Two benefits of a joint statement would be 1) that Obama could get a gauge on how much McCain was willing to publicly commit to in order to address the problem, and 2) to actually get him to commit to it, so if there is a later voter revolt about some aspect of it, McCain would not be able to position himself as having been opposed to it.
As it turned out, the answer to 1) was: not much at all, so the answer to 2) was moot.
Incidentally, Obama’s response to McCain’s “campaign suspension,” that presidents should be able to handle more than one thing at a time, was good. I would suggest he also play up the hardship the debate cancellation will cause the University of Mississippi (reports say $5.5 million). That, combined with YouTube videos of Letterman’s fury at McCain’s last-minute cancellation, can help establish today’s storyline.
I hope Obama’s response to McCain’s stunt is to ask why he feels the debate must be cancelled and say that he thinks it’s a great opportunity to talk to the American people about what they plan to do and show leadership on this crisis. The capper would be Obama recommending that the subject of the debate be changed from foreign policy to the economy and the crisis. What’s McCain’s response then?
Maybe I’m just a starry-eyed liberal but I don’t believe that the morning Obama move was a gambit at all. It sounded like a good faith attempt by an adult politician to do something for the good of the country. It is a sad commentary on the current state of affairs that everything must be seen as a gambit first.
Judging by the media behavior in the Palin mess, is will help. Just as soon as Obama was starting to lead in the polls, this thing comes and blows it.