The finger-pointing within the Democrat party following the end of the 43-day government shutdown last week has highlighted the criticism by many progressive and some moderate Democrats of the ineffective leadership strategy of Senator Chuck Schumer. Senate Democrats have also yet to decide whether they will shut down much of the federal government again when spending authority under the newly passed Continuing Resolution expires in two months, on January 30, 2026.
The struggle between progressive and moderate Democrats on Capitol Hill over the future direction of the party is also taking place in several states around the country, such as Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Iowa and Texas, where progressive candidates are now campaigning against more mainstream Democrat candidates for the party’s nomination to run for a Senate seat in next November’s midterm elections, in which many Democrats are expecting to regain the majority in the narrowly divided House, and possibly in the Senate as well.
The progressive candidates include Graham Platner in Maine and Abdul El-Sayed in Michigan, as well as Minnesota Lieutenant Governor Peggy Flanagan, who is running for the open seat of retiring Democrat Senator Tina Smith. All three progressive candidates have said that Schumer “failed in his job” and should step down as the leader of Senate Democrats. Meanwhile, their moderate opponents for the Democrat Senate nominations in next November’s midterm election, Maine Governor Janet Mills, Michigan Congresswoman Haley Stevens, and Minnesota Congresswoman Angie Craig, are more interested in pushing the issue of affordability for working-class families rather than precipitating a messy internal fight between progressives and moderates over the party’s leadership.
Another key difference is that the progressives want to confront President Trump more aggressively, while the more moderate candidates are de-emphasizing their opposition to Trump, and focusing instead on the affordability issue, which is widely credited for the success of moderates Abigail Spanberger in Virginia and Miki Sherrill in New Jersey in the November 4 gubernatorial elections.
Perhaps the sharpest contrast between the moderate and progressive Democrat candidates for the Senate can be found in the contest for the Maine Senatorial nomination between sitting governor Mills, who is considered to be a centrist, and Graham Platner, an oyster farmer. Platner’s progressive candidacy has been compared to the novice, conservative grassroots candidates who were supported by the GOP’s Tea Party movement in the 2010 midterm election, which was a reaction to the Obamacare health care reforms that congressional Democrats passed despite unanimous Republican opposition.
RELEARNING THE POLITICAL BENEFITS OF APPEALING TO MODERATE VOTERS
Jim Kessler is the executive vice president for policy at Third Way, a centrist Democrat think tank and policy group that is pushing for the party to adopt more moderate policies. “There’s a lesson we need to relearn over and over again, which is we only win nationally and [in] red and purple places when we are seen as less extreme than Republicans,” he said, fearing that Democrats may be tempted to shift too far to the left, in light of the victory by New York City’s Mayor-elect, Zohran Mamdani, a self-declared socialist.
On the other side of the battle over the future direction of the party is Bernie Sanders, who is pushing for Democrats to adopt his socialist economic agenda, including his proposal for the expansion of Medicare health care to all Americans, to be paid for by higher taxes on the rich.
But many moderate Democrats around the country have also joined Sanders in criticizing the seven Senate Democrats and independent Angus King of Maine, who broke the filibuster that was preventing a vote on the GOP-sponsored Continuing Resolution. Those eight Senate votes enabled the government to be reopened without an extension of the Obamacare subsidies which are set to expire at the end of December, which would lead to huge increases in the monthly health insurance premiums for millions of American families.
According to Sanders, the failure to obtain an extension of those subsidies proves that “parts of the Democratic establishment” are “way, way out of touch with where the American people are or where we have got to go.”
SANDERS SEEKING TO REPLICATE MAMDANI’S VICTORY NATIONWIDE
“Our job is to build a political movement,’ Sanders said in a YouTube interview with Brian Tyler Cohen. “We’re going to build a grassroots movement, to do what Mamdani did in New York City all over this country.”
Meanwhile, Kessler said that a poll of Democrat primary voters conducted by the Third Way organization found that those voters who engage more frequently with politics through the internet are younger and more liberal than other Democrat voters.
“We did a poll in August of 1,400 Democratic primary voters,” Kessler said, and the “20 percent of those voters [who] are online every day [are] about [two paces] to the left of the 80 percent that are not” online daily.
That increased political engagement by more progressive Democrat voters increased the pressure on the more moderate Senate Democrats to vote to support the Schumer shutdown, because they feared that if they broke ranks with their progressive Senate colleagues, much of their online fundraising from the progressive Democrat voter base would dry up.
WILL DEMOCRATS SHUT DOWN THE GOVERNMENT AGAIN IN JANUARY?
The next test of political strength between the progressive and moderate wings of the Democrat party will be the decision on whether or not to shut down the federal government again when the spending authorization in the newly passed continuing resolution expires on January 30. If there is a shutdown at that time, it will be limited to the departments of Defense, Health and Human Services, Education, Transportation, and Commerce, because funding for the other departments of the federal government for the rest of fiscal year 2026 was approved last week at the same time as the continuing resolution.
Progressive Democrats and online donors and activists are particularly angry at the eight Senators because they gave up too soon and permitted the government to reopen without extending the Obamacare subsidies, even though polls showed that the progressives were “winning” the public relations war, and, by a small margin, were mostly blaming Trump and the Republicans for the shutdown. That is why those progressive activists and donors are now putting pressure on Schumer and House Democrat Leader Hakeem Jeffries to use the January 30 funding cutoff date as another opportunity to show their willingness to “fight back” against Trump by shutting down parts of the government again.
Connecticut’s Democrat Senator Chris Murphy argues that Democrats in Congress need to set a stronger example of resisting Trump because otherwise, “My worry … is that if we don’t show in the Democratic caucus a willingness to engage in risk-tolerant behavior, how do we ask a university or a law firm to do the same thing?”
DEMOCRATS INFLICT HIGH PAIN FOR NO GAIN
But other political analysts disagree. They argue that the Democrats who supported the shutdown never had a plausible strategy to get what they said they wanted most from Trump and the Republicans, an extension of the expiring Obamacare subsidies. Even though they may have been winning on the politics of the shutdown, 40 days in they still failed to get Trump and the Republicans to agree to the extension, despite the pain that the shutdown was inflicting on more than 40 million Americans who depend on the federal food stamp (SNAP) program, and millions more whose travel plans were disrupted due to the shutdown-aggravated shortage of air traffic controllers, and the resulting chaos at the country’s busiest airports.
In a rare moment of political candor, House Democratic whip, Representative Katherine Clark, admitted to Fox News in October that, “shutdowns are terrible, and of course there will be… families that are going to suffer. We take that responsibility very seriously. But [the shutdown] is one of the few times we [Democrats] have leverage [against the Republican White House and congressional majority].”
This raises the serious question about the priorities of the Democrats who wanted the shutdown to continue until the Republicans gave in to their demands, when they knew that few federal workers had enough cash on hand or in their bank accounts to cover their living expenses after going six weeks without a paycheck, and how long poor families with children could withstand the loss of their food stamp benefits?
DEMOCRATS LOST THEIR LABOR UNION SUPPORT ON THE SHUTDOWN
Because of these concerns, the Democrats risked the support of one of their main constituencies, the labor unions representing the government employees who bore the brunt of the pain from the shutdowns. One month into the shutdown, that pain prompted Everett Kelley, the president of the American Federation of Government Employees, to declare that his union would no longer permit the Democrats, whom it usually supports, to use his members as sacrificial lambs in their political war against President Trump.
At the same time, instead of agreeing to start negotiating with the Democrats, Trump had started to pressure Senate Republicans and their leader, John Thune, to abolish the filibuster rule that enabled the minority of Democrat senators to keep the government shut down. While Thune and the other Senate Republicans initially rejected Trump’s call to do away with the filibuster, the longer the shutdown continued, the more pressure there was to end the filibuster. That, in turn, convinced the more moderate Democrats to cut a deal with the Republicans for a Senate vote on the extension of the Obamacare subsidies in order to bring the shutdown to an end, even though the deal did not guarantee that the subsidy extension would be approved.
In fact, the Democrat shutdown strategy was always unlikely to succeed because they were in the minority, and if Republicans did cave in to the Democrat demands, they would be seen as weak and vulnerable to future Democrat attempts at shutdown political blackmail. Even if congressional Republicans did cave in, it was highly unlikely that Trump would go along and that he would veto any such deal, in order to protect his reputation as a tough leader and master negotiator.
WHY SHUTDOWNS USUALLY FAIL
Liberal columnist Jonathan Chait, writing in the Atlantic, argues that “shutdowns always fail [because] the public eventually turns against the party responsible, applying more and more heat until its most vulnerable members feel compelled to give in.” Chait observes that presidents also “have little reason to give concessions to end shutdowns, because the bulk of the political pain is typically felt by their congressional adversaries.”
However, that did not happen during the latest shutdown, in which the polls indicated that the public mostly blamed Trump and the Republicans rather than the Democrats, probably because of the strongly pro-Democrat spin in most mainstream news reporting on the shutdown. It also appears, based upon the exit polls from this year’s November 4 elections, that many working-class voters who supported Trump in last year’s presidential election switched back to voting for Democrats because they are disappointed with Trump’s failure so far to keep his promise to bring down the high cost of living that he inherited from the Biden administration.
The problems with their strategy were obvious to Democrat leaders even before the shutdown started on October 1. But because of the pressure from the frustrated and angry Democrat voter base, Schumer decided that he had no other choice but to pick a political fight with Trump by forcing a shutdown, rather than risk being criticized again for approving the continuing resolution, as he did in March.
ARGUMENTS FOR AND AGAINST DOING AWAY WITH THE FILIBUSTER
Some progressive Democrats argued that provoking Senate Republicans to do away with the filibuster would be beneficial to them in the future, by enabling them, for example, to pack the Supreme Court bench with additional liberal justices when they eventually regain majority control of the Senate. Some liberal Democrat strategists have also called for the elimination of the Senate’s filibuster rule to enable them to implement more sweeping structural changes to the federal government to make Democrats more competitive in national elections. For example, doing away with the Electoral College so that future presidents will be chosen based on which candidate wins the nationwide popular vote, or granting statehood to Puerto Rico and Washington, D.C., where Democrat candidates always win, would change the balance of power in the Senate.
On the other hand, doing away with the filibuster rule would weaken the unique role of the Senate, which was designed by the authors of the U.S. Constitution as a check on the legislative power of the majority party and a safeguard protecting the vital interests of minorities.
The progressives also contend that the shutdown was beneficial because it highlights the health care issue and the need for an extension of the expiring Obamacare subsidies, about which the Democrats expect to have a political advantage over the Republicans in next year’s midterm election. But other Democrats have argued that maintaining the Senate’s filibuster rule, requiring a minimum majority of at least 60 votes to pass major legislation, is vital because it has been one of the most powerful constraints on what Trump can do using the powers of the presidency alone. The filibuster also limits the kind of legislation that Republicans can pass with a bare 51-vote Senate majority under the strict limitations of the budget reconciliation process.
President Trump has also made it clear that he wants the Senate to do away with the filibuster rule because, without its restrictions, there are “so many things” he wants that he could get the small current Republican majorities in the House and Senate to pass without the need for any Democrat votes.
WHY DISAPPOINTED TRUMP VOTERS RETURNED TO VOTE FOR DEMOCRATS
President Trump won the election last November, in part, because he promised relief to voters impacted by the runaway inflation during the Biden presidency, which significantly reduced the purchasing power of most working-class and middle-class families. While Trump has implemented bold plans to stimulate the American economy, so far, they have had little impact on the high cost of living. This has prompted disappointed Trump voters to return their support to Democrat candidates who ran in elections across the country earlier this month on platforms promising to increase affordability. Their victories, in turn, have forced the president and senior officials in the Trump administration to recognize the problem and adjust their economic policies in an effort to bring down prices across the board much faster, and in time for voters to notice before next November’s midterm elections.
Even though the overall rate of inflation has been reduced since Trump took office by more than half to less than 3%, prices for many of the essentials of living, such as apartment rental, electricity, home and car insurance as well as basic foods, including meat, coffee, chocolate and fresh produce are still rising, often due to international supply and demand factors which are beyond the power of the Trump administration to control.
The increase in interest rates, which the Federal Reserve implemented to fight the Biden-era inflation, also drove up mortgage rates, which put the American dream of home ownership even further out of reach for millions of young American families. More recently, the Federal Reserve has been slow to respond to repeated calls by President Trump to bring interest rates back down to pre-inflation levels in order to boost the rate of growth of the economy, while lowering the cost of home ownership.
Together, these factors created what is now called the affordability crisis. It became the deciding issue in the November 4 election of moderate Democrat candidates for the governorships of Virginia and New Jersey, as well as the shocking victory of Democrat Socialist candidate Zohran Mamdani in New York City.
Meanwhile, a recent CNN poll confirms that a growing number of Americans are fed up with the high cost of living. It showed that 72% of Americans believe that the economy is in poor shape, and 61% say that Trump’s economic policies, especially his tariff increases, are making the affordability problem worse. The poll results confirm the message that former Trump voters sent earlier this month when they cast their ballots for Democrats rather than Republican candidates. After an initial period of denial, Trump and his economic officials have now acknowledged the reality of the problem. They have announced various targeted economic measures to halt the rise in these prices and start bringing them down, including the exemption on some imported products from Trump’s recently announced increases in tariffs.
TRUMP IS NOW TAKING THE AFFORDABILITY PROBLEM MORE SERIOUSLY
While Trump’s campaign promise to cut consumer prices on Day One of his second term was always unrealistic, except, perhaps, for the cost of gasoline at the pump, his administration has now begun to take more seriously the concerns of tens of millions of lower-income Americans who are living from paycheck to paycheck, while struggling to keep pace with the still rising cost of living.
In response to the recent Democrat electoral victories, the White House has announced that Trump is getting more frequent economic briefings and plans to spend more time on domestic policies and travel across the country to meet face-to-face with voters. The change in emphasis is also reflected in the recent announcement by Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent of a new Trump economic initiative called “Make America Affordable Again.”
Trump’s original economic plan for his second term was based on three bold assumptions:
First, Trump was expecting to generate hundreds of billions of dollars of income for the Treasury by raising tariffs on imports from America’s largest trading partners, hopefully without the resulting one-time price increases having much of an impact on the overall rate of inflation.
Second, the Trump administration was planning on large cuts in government spending, reductions in regulations, and layoffs of surplus government employees that potentially could save the government up to $1 trillion or more each year.
Third, the administration is hoping that its announced spending cuts and anticipated increases in tariff revenue can pay for a gigantic tax cut that would help lower-income American taxpayers deal with the cost of living.
But while the rate of growth of the American economy has gotten a significant boost from Trump’s policies, the main beneficiary of that growth so far has gone to investors in the stock market. But since Trump took office, even though the rate of inflation remains relatively low, many consumers are annoyed that the prices they are paying for life’s essentials have continued to increase beyond their already unaffordable levels.
In addition, the rate of job creation in the American economy has temporarily stalled, mostly because American businesses have failed to increase their level of investment as much as expected, largely because of lingering uncertainty about interest rates and the impact of Trump’s tariff policies. However, job creation is expected to rebound strongly in the coming months as a result of the increases in foreign investment in the American economy that Trump has been negotiating with his tariff and trade agreements.
TRUMP WEIGHING NEW AFFORDABILITY SOLUTIONS
Some of Trump’s other recent proposals to address the affordability problem include:
Tariff dividends: White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt has announced that Trump’s idea of sending a $2,000 rebate check to every taxpayer, financed by income from increased tariffs, is under active consideration. The expenditure would need congressional approval and may need to be phased in gradually to avoid triggering a spike in the rate of inflation.
50-year mortgages: The Trump administration is considering the introduction of 50-year mortgage loans, which would make home ownership affordable to lower-income buyers by substantially reducing monthly mortgage payments. The downside of such mortgages is that by extending the duration of monthly payments, the total interest cost of the loan would be greatly increased compared to a conventional 30-year mortgage, and it will take homeowners much longer to accumulate a significant amount of equity in their home.
Portable mortgages: To deal with the problem that many homeowners are reluctant to trade up to another home because the interest rate on the new home’s mortgage will be much higher than their current mortgage, the Trump administration is considering allowing homeowners to transfer their existing, lower-rate home loan to the purchase of their new home. The problem with that idea is that it would require the homeowner to cover the current cost difference between the new home and the old one, and that such a transfer may not be possible if the original mortgage has already been sold by the lender to a company that combines mortgages into financial securities.
Lowering tariffs: Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has said that the administration will soon announce lower tariffs on produce items whose prices have been increasing and that are not grown in the United States, including bananas, coffee, and cocoa, in the expectation that most of the reductions will be passed on to consumers in the form of lower retail prices. The problem is that many of these price increases, such as with coffee and cocoa, are due to normal market conditions when supply fails to keep up with worldwide demand. Also, in some cases, the businesses supplying these items have chosen to keep consumer prices affordable by absorbing up to 80% of current tariff costs, so that they, rather than consumers, would be the chief beneficiaries from any tariff reductions.
Reducing interest rates: While the Federal Reserve has recently implemented two one-quarter point interest rate reductions, they have not fallen enough to make a major difference in the affordability of monthly mortgage or car loan payments, which remain much higher than they were four years ago. Mortgage rates currently remain above 6%, roughly double the typical rate before the Federal Reserve began raising interest rates to fight inflation at the end of 2021. In addition, the number of borrowers with relatively low credit ratings defaulting on their auto loans has doubled over the past four years, which is forcing many lenders to charge higher interest rates in order to make up for these losses.
LOOKING FORWARD TO HELP FROM A RISING ECONOMY
However, according to James Freemen, who writes on economic issues for the Wall Street Journal, the Trump administration will soon be getting help with its affordability problem because Trump’s initiatives designed to stimulate the economy are starting to take full effect.
Freeman reports that, “The Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta has just upgraded its estimate for real U.S. economic growth in the third quarter to a robust 4.1%. This follows a second quarter in which the U.S. economy grew 3.8%, a strong rebound from a first quarter in which the economy shrank by 0.6%.”
In addition, if Trump is successful in continuing to negotiate deals for lower tariffs with America’s largest trading partners, avoiding more price increases for imports, then the administration expects that the rest of Trump’s tax cut and regulation reducing policies will increase the overall level of American prosperity, which will hopefully result in many working class and minority consumers being given new opportunities to earn the additional income they need to meet the sharp increase in the cost of living which was the legacy of Joe Biden’s presidency.
As a Trump White House official explained to Axios reporter Mike Allen this week, “The Biden administration started the affordability crisis, but President Trump will end it so all Americans can achieve economic prosperity.”
