Donald Trump lies so much that it’s easy to get lulled into complacency about him. But it’s important to call him out on some made-up “facts,” as I argued at New York:

President Trump says all sorts of wild things on his infamous Truth Social account. But this week in his fury at Fox News for not becoming even more lavishly sycophantic toward him than it already is, he said something so hallucinatory that it really must be called out (emphasis mine):

“Fox should either get on board, or get off board, NOW, but at this point, it just doesn’t make any difference to me. They suck up the Ratings because of us, and then spin them in the Democrats’ direction. They refuse to put up Polls that correctly show me at 65% in Popularity, a Republican RECORD, but if I have a fake bad “Poll,” many of which are done by Fox (One of the worst “Pollsters” out there is the FoxNews Poll), they put them up immediately, and with gusto. Republicans are so tired of this fight with Fox always trying to be so ‘politically correct!’ Thank you for your attention to this matter.”

I have no idea where Trump came up with that 65 percent number, but it wasn’t from any publicly available poll measuring his job-approval rating, past or present. The highest second-term job-approval number I can find in RealClearPolitics’s vast database is from the extremely Trump-friendly outlet Insider Advantage, which showed him at 56 percent approval on the day of his second inauguration (January 20). His all-time-highest job-approval rating in either term was from the equally Trump-friendly Rasmussen Reports, which put him at 57 percent a couple of days after his first inauguration. Neither of those peak numbers, of course, is anything like 65 percent. For context, his net job approval has been underwater every day since March 13 this year according to RCP’s averages, which are generally better for Trump than others. And during his first term, according to the same outlet’s averages, Trump’s net approval rating went underwater, too, a week after he took office and stayed that way until he finally vacated the White House.

As for that “Republican RECORD” Trump cited … well, not really. George W. Bush hit 90 percent and his father, Poppy Bush, hit 89 percent job approval per Gallup (the pollster with the most historical data) immediately after their respective wars with Iraq. Ronald Reagan hit 68 percent job approval twice (in 1981 and in 1986). Gerald Ford managed a 71 percent job-approval rating from Gallup in 1974. Richard Nixon got to 67 percent job approval in 1969 and again in 1973. And Dwight D. Eisenhower got to 79 percent just after his reelection in 1956. Trump is actually the only post–World War II Republican president never to have reached the 65 percent he claims, and he hasn’t even gotten close, not once, ever.

Now it’s entirely possible Trump pays somebody to tell him what he wants to hear about his popularity, much as he apparently hired a failed historian to tell him his narrow 2024 presidential victory was a historic landslide that gave him a mandate to do as he wishes. But if he’s mad a Fox News — or Insider Advantage, or Raz — for not showing him to be the most popular president of them all, he should probably keep it to himself. Better yet, someone he respects should let him in on the not-so-secret reality that even if he believes he’s saved or is saving America, Americans don’t much like him.

With the government shutdown now underway, Democrats need a strategy to fight and win. But first they need to define what victory looks like, as I explained at New York:

2025 has been excruciating for Democrats as they have been playing defense perpetually against a rapacious Trump administration and its lapdog Congress. So now they’re using the one legislative weapon at their disposal by denying Republicans the Senate votes to keep the federal government operating. The move is partially a reaction to grassroots Democratic fury over their unwillingness to take just this step in March when a previous stopgap spending bill expired. Polls currently show a plurality of rank-and-file Democrats favoring a shutdown. And that doesn’t take into account the particular zest for combativeness that is so evident among the donors and activists who tend to dominate intraparty politics, which is mirrored in the incessantly pugilistic language of Democratic politicians these days. I would be rich if I had a dollar for every Democratic public figure who has deplored “bringing a knife/pen/words to a gunfight” recently or has accused the party as a whole of lacking spine.

But now that they have taken on a high-stakes fight with a GOP that controls everything, led by a president who loves conflict and destruction, congressional Democrats and their supporters need to develop a clear understanding of what they can reasonably hope to accomplish. There are three basic outcomes on the table:

Democrats get everything they want

Democrats’ demands for keeping the government open — or, presumably, for reopening it — are clear. They united behind a counterproposal to the GOP’s “clean CR” measure to extend current spending authority until November 21. Democrats called for three major concessions: (1) extension of the enhanced Obamacare premium subsidies enacted in 2021, which are due to expire at year’s end, affecting approximately 22 million policyholders who will otherwise face very large premium spikes; (2) repeal of major Medicaid cuts in the recently enacted One Big Beautiful Act; and (3) reversal of and future curbs on Office of Management and Budget director Russell Vought’s efforts to rescind or cancel previously appropriated funds and to abolish congressionally authorized programs. Presumably they will also demand that Vought’s new threat to lay off huge numbers of furloughed federal employees be canceled or reversed.

To be clear, there is almost no chance Republicans will bend on the Medicaid cuts or Vought’s spending clawbacks. So total victory for Democrats is a chimera, and political leaders should find ways to let “the base” know that.

Democrats score a partial win, brokered by Trump

The policy concession Democrats might realistically hope to win, in part if not in whole, is the Obamacare-subsidy extension. The GOP left this extension out of the One Big Beautiful Act because hardcore conservatives hate Obamacare. However, many Republicans, including some in Donald Trump’s circle, fear the midterm repercussions of a premium spike that would hit a lot of middle-class voters in their own coalition. Owing to GOP divisions on the subject, this concession would almost certainly have to be imposed by Trump himself — and he won’t admit it’s a concession at all but simply a reflection of his own policy preferences. On the other hand, even if Trump goes in this direction, conservatives will fight hard to restrict eligibility for the premium subsidy, forcing Democrats to choose between half a loaf and none. Either way, Democrats could rightly claim to be doing whatever they could to protect the popular health-care benefits that Republicans continuously seek to deny or cut.

Since Vought’s threatened mass layoffs are contingent on a closed federal government, it’s also possible Democrats could secure their reversal as part of a deal to reopen the government along with the traditional provision that furloughed employees receive back pay. Altogether, such an outcome really would represent a rare Democratic legislative victory.

Democrats walk away with only a messaging victory

If Trump and Republicans simply refuse to make concessions, pleasing the government-haters in their ranks and risking economic repercussions, Democratic resistance will likely melt away with time. All it would take is eight Senate Democrats to reopen the government. What the party could claim as a prize in any event is the opportunity to preview its midterm messaging with a major focus on health care and Trump’s contempt for laws and norms. Depending on the length of the shutdown and how it plays with the public, Democrats might also satisfy some of the incessant craving for “fighting Trump” while educating the rank and file on the limits of their powers of obstruction.

Ultimately, the most effective weapon Democrats possess is the opportunity to flip control of one or both congressional chambers in 2026. Having done what they could in 2025, they could essentially tell their base it’s its turn to take up the fight by mobilizing and persuading every vote possible. But if the rifts between Democratic politicians and their supporters are to be healed in anticipation of the midterms, leaders would be wise to keep rank-and-file expectations of what “winning the shutdown” looks like quite low. It’s one battle in a long war, and not an ounce of Democratic passion should be wasted in recriminations over how much “fight” and “spine” House and Senate Democrats exhibited.

After watching the messaging coming out of Washington on the brink of the government shutdown, I offered a dissent to its narrowness at New York:

There is a well-worn point of view in progressive politics that ultimately the material interests of voters are all that matters. Cultural issues are “distractions,” would-be opiates of the masses. Concerns about the Constitution and the laws or the functioning of democracy are pointy-headed insider elitist hobbyhorses. What many “economic populists” took away from the 2024 elections is that Americans were happy to restore to power a convicted felon who contemptuously rejected any limitations on his power because they vaguely remembered the economy doing well during his first term and Democrats failed to offer them more money in their pockets. The lesson going forward was that a majority of voters were okay with a little fascism if it meant lower grocery and gasoline prices.

Donald Trump is now well on his way to breaking his campaign promises about living costs, and his party will likely pay a price for that in next year’s midterms. But he’s breaking a lot of other things as well, and Democrats are fundamentally divided as to whether their alarm over his wild power grabs and generally authoritarian demeanor is something they should prominently share with voters. It is not a theoretical issue, as it happens — it’s at the center of how Democrats should explain their position on the federal-government shutdown that began at midnight on September 30.

Democrats clearly do understand the need for unity during the shutdown crisis. Their divisions last time stopgap-spending authority ran out in March left them looking weak and completely ineffectual. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, whose caucus had the rare power to deny Republicans a stopgap bill via a filibuster, talked tough and then folded when a shutdown grew nigh, enraging Democratic activists and creating the appearance that Schumer and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries weren’t on the same page.

This time around they’re united going into the shutdown, with their position on what it would take to earn their votes to reopen the government contained in legislation that covers the waterfront of Democratic concerns. They are demanding an extension of Obamacare premium subsidies that expire at the end of the year (left out of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act because a critical mass of Republicans hate anything associated with Obamacare); the repeal of key Medicare cuts enacted in the OBBBA; the cancellation of arguably illegal clawbacks of already-appropriated federal funds via rescissions; and restraints on future executive-branch encroachment of congressional spending authority. So Democrats are in theory placing equal weight on popular government benefits Republicans are seeking to cut, and on the administration’s authoritarian conduct.

But if you look at the issues Democratic voices are emphasizing, it’s all about money, money, money. The Democratic National Committee’s talking points on the shutdown are 100 percent focused on health-care provisions:

“At midnight tonight, Donald Trump and Republicans will be solely responsible for the government shutdown because they are hellbent on making health care more expensive for working families. Trump would rather raise health care costs for more than 22 million Americans and keep disastrous Medicaid cuts as part of his billionaire-first budget than work with Democrats on a common-sense proposal that safeguards health care for working families.”

One reason for this focus is the knowledge that there is some congressional Republican support for extending the Obamacare subsidies to avoid big premium spikes as early as November for millions of largely middle-class beneficiaries. The clearest way to a deal to reopen the government would be a Trump-imposed compromise on the subsidies that Democrats could claim as a victory. A repeal of OBBBA-enacted Medicaid cuts, however, is not happening in a million years. But if (a) this is really all about the Obamacare subsidies, and (b) Republicans have their own incentives for a deal on them, and an emperor-king who might force them to swallow them, then why do Democrats need a government shutdown to make that happen? Why not just keep the government open and negotiate with Trump on their one realizable goal, knowing that if a deal doesn’t happen the president and his party will totally get blamed for the premium spikes?

The reason is pretty simple: The shutdown is not simply about health care. It’s about a congressional minority seizing on the one bit of leverage they have to address the issue that has it in an absolute panic: the complicity of congressional Republicans in Trump’s authoritarian power grabs. The radical position of the Trump administration is that the president’s 2024 “mandate” should give him plenary authority over the executive branch of the federal government, including funding levels for federal programs and the number and deployment of all federal employees. The chaotic DOGE raids on the “deep state,” Russell Vought’s spending freezes and clawbacks, and Vought’s future threats to conduct mass layoffs of federal employees in case of a government shutdown are all part of the plan to give Trump quasi-dictatorial powers. His allies in Congress may privately grumble about being reduced to a choir singing his everlasting praises, but they aren’t doing anything about it.

Democrats can and should point out the material costs to Americans of the GOP’s reverse–Robin Hood economic agenda, which is a tale as old as time. But they shouldn’t fool themselves into thinking voters are too stupid or narrow-minded to understand the threat being posed to their own right of self-government by a trifecta regime bent on consolidating all power in a corrupt, hateful, and egomaniacal old man. One reason parties controlling the White House generally do poorly in midterm elections is that a significant segment of the electorate instinctively wants to place a curb on power-hungry presidents. If there was ever an opportunity to evoke this healthy impulse, Democrats have it right now, and they should be loud and proud about it.

Watching the evolution of the slowly approaching government shutdown crisis in Congress, it’s reasonably clear congressional Democrats are traumatized by what happened in March, and I wrote about how they’re dealing with that at New York:

Congressional Democrats are understandably unhappy with what happened last time they faced a government-shutdown crisis. In March, Republicans forced them into a trap where they either had to vote for another GOP-sponsored stopgap-spending measure, which offered Democrats zero concessions, or obstruct it and trigger a shutdown, punishing the government employees who were already being besieged by Elon Musk’s DOGE and other Trump administration attacks. In the House, where Democrats had no power at all, it was an easy choice: They all voted against the GOP measure. But in the Senate, where a filibuster could have very definitely stopped the bill, Democratic leader Chuck Schumer did a lot of saber-rattling but then caved, rounding up enough votes to end the filibuster and ensure the government stayed open.

Democratic activists were infuriated, and House Democrats suggested Senate Democrats were gutless. The whole episode accomplished nothing other than underlining Democratic Party fecklessness, the lack of unified party leadership, and the whip hand held by the bully Donald Trump and his subalterns in Congress.

Now they’re back to a near-identical point as the spending authority approved in March runs out on September 30. Republicans are again offering an extension of current spending levels — this one a short-term measure until November 20 — with zero concessions to the Democrats whose votes are necessary to keep the government open. To their credit, Schumer and House leader Hakeem Jeffries are moving in lockstep this time around, agreeing to a common strategy and message. But even those gestures reflect an atmosphere of mistrust and an underlying fear of once again angering the Democratic “base.”

In recognition of their leverage, Democrats began talking weeks ago about conditions that needed to be met to earn their votes to head off a shutdown. Some wanted the Trump administration to rein in budget director Russell Vought’s highly provocative and probably unconstitutional spending clawbacks; why agree to spending levels if the people running the country felt free to ignore them? Others were interested in getting a grip on Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s ravaging of U.S. science, medicine, and public-health infrastructure. But the main focus among Democrats was the issue they’ve long considered their strongest heading toward the 2026 midterms: the damage being done to Americans’ access to health insurance. That meant demanding at a minimum the continuation of Obamacare premium subsidies due to expire at the end of the year, which were omitted from Trump’s megabill because of their cost and the hatred of many Republicans of the president’s signature policy accomplishment. This seemed potentially achievable because at least some Republicans feared blowback from a spike in premiums affecting many millions of middle-class Americans as early as November if the subsidies are allowed to die. And other Democrats wanted to demand the cancellation of some of the Medicaid cuts already enacted in the bill — a sure poison pill for the GOP.

The “counterproposal” unveiled by Schumer and Jeffries late Wednesday includes all the above and more, as the New York Times reports:

“Congressional Democrats on Wednesday proposed adding well over $1 trillion for Medicaid and other health programs to a stopgap spending plan needed to fund the government past Sept. 30, laying out steep demands in a showdown with Republicans that is threatening a shutdown within weeks.

“Democrats put forward a bill that would fund the government through Oct. 31 and permanently extend Obamacare subsidies that are set to expire at the end of the year. It would reverse cuts to Medicaid and other health programs enacted this year as part of Republicans’ marquee tax and spending cut legislation.

“The measure would also restrict the Trump administration’s ability to unilaterally claw back funding Congress previously approved, a power that President Trump has repeatedly invoked.”

In addition, the proposal would restore public broadcasting funds and vastly increase the amount of money Republicans have endorsed for boosting security for government officials in the wake of the Charlie Kirk assassination. Overall, the idea appears to be to maximize and publicize the distance between the two parties on ground Democrats think they can defend.

To put it mildly, Republicans are certain to give this “plan” a frosty reception, and that seems to be fine with Democrats. As Punchbowl News reports, the GOP has formed an iron consensus in support of a “clean” stopgap bill (or to use the technical jargon, “continuing resolution” or CR) until November, delaying any concessions at all, and at the same time keeping their own fractious members from issuing their own demands for keeping the government open (mostly involving deeper spending cuts):

“[N]early every provision in this package is a non-starter for Republicans. …

“To be clear, Republicans simply have no interest in negotiating. They feel like Democrats felt in the past: Negotiating under these circumstances is validating the Democrats’ position. Republicans are comfortable saying that they’ve proposed a clean CR, which is what Democrats usually ask for, to buy time for bipartisan full-year FY2026 funding talks.”

So Democrats are complaining that Republicans won’t negotiate with them over their demands, while Republicans are complaining that Democrats won’t keep the government open and negotiate over policies later. They are talking past each other in a way that seems to make at least some sort of shutdown very likely.

But from the Democratic perspective, the big fear is another display of weakness and disunity. Right on the brink of the confrontation in Congress, there were clear signs of what “the base” wants to happen, as Semafor reports:

“A new survey from the progressive firm Data for Progress and research firm Grow Progress, shared first with Semafor, shows seven in 10 Democrats support their party withholding votes unless Republicans make changes even if it risks a shutdown, while a similar share backs their party taking a ‘firmer stand’ than they did in March.

“What’s more, Democrats are arguing voters will blame the Republicans who control government for a shutdown, and the poll shows their voters share that view, 82-14. Large majorities of Democrats also think the party should fight President Donald Trump harder — even if they don’t win.”

So after emphatically rejecting the “clean CR,” Jeffries and Schumer appear to be steeling themselves for an inevitable shutdown and taking the opportunity to do some partisan “messaging” on health care and other Democratic priorities. Its primary purpose is to ensure nobody breaks rank and repeats what happened in March. In effect, Democrats are tying their own hands so that none of them can wave a white flag. This will be a fine tonic for the troops around the country, but it’s unclear where that leaves the federal government. We’re now at the point in every game of “chicken” where someone will have to blink.

Some news from the strange world of Donald Trump took me way down memory lane to the 1970s, as I explained at New York:

There had been vague talk for a while in both major-party circles about holding a pre-midterms national convention (or as it was once known, a “mini-convention”). For Democrats to do something like this would be like turning around a battleship. For Republicans, all it took was one Truth Social post:

“The Republicans are going to do a Midterm Convention in order to show the great things we have done since the Presidential Election of 2024. Time and place to be determined. Stay tuned, it will be quite the Event, and very exciting! President DJT.”

President Trump could change his mind, of course, but it makes some sense from his point of view. He knows preserving Republicans’ governing trifecta is going to be an uphill climb in 2026, given the historical pattern of the White House party almost always losing House seats in the midterms. His iron control of the GOP means it won’t be hard to impose discipline on hand-picked delegates to an event like this, essentially making it a big paid ad for the party and its messages. And let’s face it, this could be the last Trump event, perhaps in conjunction with the Semiquincentennial (250th) celebration of the nation’s founding in July, at which he won’t have to share the spotlight with anyone (presumably the 2028 RNC will have to give a fair amount of stage time to his successor).

On the other hand, the historical precedent for this sort of spectacle isn’t great. Democrats held mini-conventions in 1974 and 1978, and as far as I can remember, nobody much regretted the subsequent decision to stop having them.

The 1974 confab in Kansas City actually took place in December, after the midterm elections; it was basically held to adopt a party “charter” and overcome divisions that threatened to divide the party before the midterms. After more factional skirmishing, the delegates came together over a document consolidating party reforms, and the event was mainly known for introducing the so-called “Watergate class” of newly elected Democrats.

In 1978, Democrats held another post-midterms mini-convention, this one in Memphis. Its main purpose was to unify the party behind a beleaguered President Jimmy Carter. But it was widely shunned by Democratic elected officials, and its overall lack of success was reflected in 1980 when Carter had to overcome a tough renomination challenge from Ted Kennedy, before losing a landslide general election to Ronald Reagan.

We’ll see if Democrats feel compelled to follow suit with their own midterm gathering, presumably before the elections this time, despite their own unhappy precedents. They’d be well advised to think this through carefully before moving ahead. Unlike Republicans, they have no dictatorial leader to make them sing together harmoniously, and a midterm convention could easily become the venue for factional and generational bloodletting, along with a very crowded stage for a potentially vast number of 2028 proto-presidential candidates jostling for attention. Unless Democrats think voters will excitedly greet any sign of free speech and party vitality before they vote in 2026, they might want to spend their limited time on the campaign trail rather than staging an event. But there’s no guarantee the Republican clambake will be a success, either. Given how stale and artificial national political conventions have become, one every four years is probably enough.