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.



Both parties were losing the shutdown in different ways.
But, critically, this was before the shutdown consequences actually started.
The different perceptions of the shutdown are correlated with changing voter patterns.
Highly engaged higher income voters didn’t care about the shutdown. This is the new Democratic base, the one that mostly calls the shots in the party (mostly higher income whites).
Cancellation of flights before Thanksgiving would have hit lower engagement voters.
Suspension of SNAP payments would have hit lower engagement voters. They would have hit the other Democrat base of lower income voters, many of whom have recently become swing voters (including Blacks and Hispanics).
The ACA subsidies that are in question are the ones for higher income groups, but this group is a lot smaller than the one affected by SNAP payments.
Whether the shutdown discussions will be the same things that frame an actually representative election is still to be known.
Trump is trying out several economic ideas that could be influential (50 year mortgages, interest rate cuts, tariff reductions coupled with cash checks, the “Trump pharmacy”) either in 2026 or 2028.
It sickens me how Trump makes efforts to seem like he is thinking outside the box while Democrats double down on more of the same. It should have been Democrats the ones to come up with these ideas (we are seeing a continuation of Kamala’s blunder with the delayed proposal to also exempt tips from income taxes).
Partisan Democrats still want to minimize the importance of the 2016 election and the lessons from 2020’s narrow win and 2024’s first popular vote win for Trump.
When ongoing inflation is basically the only structural factor going in favor of Democrats, this is a risky/reckless stance.
Congress presented the ACA subsidies as temporary. Now the Democrats want to make them permanent. Switcheroos like this–“If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan”–inevitably make the electorate skeptical of anything the ruling class says or does because the latter is so predictably the opposite of the former.
Still waiting for your side to explain why your “death panels” and “Obamacare is collapsing” predictions throughout the 2010s didn’t pan out.
There are different types of ACA subsidies.
There is no switcheroo involved.
All of that would have been the case regardless. Polls showed the Republicans losing the blame game, remember?