即便民主党拿下众议院或参议院，摇摆选区的温和派“多数缔造者”也不太可能支持该议程
2026年10月20日 美国东部夏令时下午4:25 / 福克斯新闻频道
作者：查德·珀格拉姆
福克斯新闻首席国会通讯员查德·珀格拉姆报道国会山最新动态，目前多个州已开启提前投票，两党都在为争夺国会控制权做最后冲刺。
NEW 你现在可以收听福克斯新闻的文章播报！
**“你曾对我许下承诺。承诺。
以为我会相信。
承诺。承诺。
我就知道你永远不会兑现。”**
>
——Naked Eyes乐队《Promises, Promises》
“我是全民医保的支持者，”明尼苏达州民主党联邦参议员候选人、副州长佩吉·弗拉纳根（民主党）宣称，“我将和我的朋友佛蒙特州独立参议员伯尼·桑德斯一起实现这个目标。我们要彻底拿下美国参议院，为我们理应拥有、亟需拥有的事物打造权力版图。”
以弗拉纳根为代表的极左翼进步派参众两院候选人正在兜售全民医保、废除移民海关执法局（ICE）、绿色新政、对以色列实施武器禁运以及每小时25美元的最低工资标准。
弗拉纳根正在与共和党联邦参议员候选人米歇尔·塔福亚角逐退休的明尼苏达州民主党参议员蒂娜·史密斯的席位。该选区目前有利于弗拉纳根，但她的胜选并非板上钉钉。不过密歇根州的多诺万·麦金尼、宾夕法尼亚州的克里斯·拉布、科罗拉多州的梅兰妮·阿里奥拉，以及纽约州的亚历山大·奥卡西奥-科特茨（注：原文重复两次，应为笔误）等民主党社会主义者候选人很可能会胜出。明年1月，他们将代表那些进步理念广受欢迎的民主党传统票仓选区。
2026年8月11日，明尼苏达州副州长、民主党联邦参议员候选人佩吉·弗拉纳根在明尼阿波利斯第一大道酒吧的初选之夜派对上发表讲话。（斯蒂芬·马图伦/盖蒂图片社）
但如果民主党拿下众议院或参议院，这并非因为选民将票投给了丹佛的阿里奥拉或哈莱姆的奥卡西奥-科特茨。他们能获胜，是因为民主党候选人帕特·瑞安在纽约市以北的达奇斯县击败了共和党现任议员约翰·法索，或是因为宾夕法尼亚州选民将票投给了民主党候选人康纳·兰姆，而非共和党现任议员基思·罗斯富斯。如果民主党候选人阿比盖尔·斯潘伯格能比共和党现任议员戴夫·布拉特更吸引弗吉尼亚州中部的选民，民主党就能翻转众议院。
这又回到了进步议程本身。
民主党或许能拿下众议院或参议院。但奥卡西奥-科特茨和阿里奥拉并非“多数缔造者”，兰姆和瑞安这样的候选人才是。如果他们当选众议员，来自摇摆选区的温和派议员不太可能支持绿色新政或全民医保这类进步理念。这关乎选举数学。民主党要推动这些政策，很可能需要来自战场选区的温和派“多数缔造者”的选民支持。
更不用说，即便民主党在参议院仅占微弱多数，也需要60票才能打破阻挠议事程序。而如果某项激进法案真的通过了民主党控制的参众两院，特朗普总统很可能会予以否决。
https://www.foxnews.com/video/6403518811112
人们常说，竞选时要充满诗意，执政时则要脚踏实地。
近来左翼在其议程中推出了诸多“进步诗意”的主张。他们会宣扬，如果民主党赢得国会多数席位，就有机会落实其中部分政策。
但要将这些主张转化为立法现实，可能性微乎其微。进步理念或许能激励选民基础，但如果民主党无法兑现部分竞选承诺，其支持者势必会感到失望。
我们曾见过这种情况：某一政党在中期选举中向选民许下种种美好承诺，最终却难以兑现。
1994年，共和党四十年来首次拿下众议院，当时他们推出了十项要点的《与美国契约》。这份文件承诺削减开支、减少华盛顿的影响力。但最终，参众两院仅通过了其中几项条款，其他条款均被克林顿总统否决。
2006年，众议院民主党以从伊拉克撤军为竞选纲领，成功拿下众议院。国会开始削减战争拨款，但这花了数年时间，这让要求立即撤军的党内活动人士大为不满。
2010年，共和党重新夺回众议院控制权，斩获创纪录的63个席位。他们的目标是削减开支、废除并取代奥巴马医改，但这一目标从未实现。事实上，如今仍有部分共和党人试图推翻奥巴马医改。
2025年11月3日，美国众议院少数党领袖哈基姆·杰弗里斯在华盛顿特区国会山的新闻发布会上发表讲话。（罗伯托·施密特/盖蒂图片社）
这一切都关乎激励选民基础，然后再思考如何执政。候选人在竞选活动中许下的承诺，很少能真正转化为立法现实。
据报道，众议院少数党领袖、纽约州民主党人哈基姆·杰弗里斯正在与民主社会主义者背书的候选人进行磋商，争取在部分候选人支持他竞选议长前获得立法承诺。不过，政治观察人士很难相信民主党会反对推举杰弗里斯，使其成为美国历史上首位黑人众议院议长。
如果民主党在温和派和进步派之间出现分裂，民主党就有可能陷入内斗。
不妨设想一下：如果民主党掌控众议院，并打算将全民医保法案提交全院表决。众议院首先必须通过一项规则，规范该法案在全院的辩论流程。像弗吉尼亚州民主党众议员阿比盖尔·斯潘伯格这样的温和派议员，会反对这项规则吗（前提是她能连任）？毕竟斯潘伯格今年早些时候曾投票支持共和党程序性举措，引发了民主党内部的强烈抗议。但那些投票或许符合她所在战场选区的利益。但就一项颇具争议的进步政治倡议的程序性计划投赞成票，在斯潘伯格的选区是行不通的。这就是为什么进步议程可能已经注定失败。
如果民主党拿下众议院，杰弗里斯当选议长，他的角色将有所不同。他需要管理整个党团会议，因此仅讨好极左翼行不通，他还必须听取温和派议员的意见，当然还有“多数缔造者”的声音。
例如，杰弗里斯并未推动全民医保计划。
[image_4]
众议院民主党领袖哈基姆·杰弗里斯面临越来越大的压力，民主社会主义者背书的候选人在纽约的影响力不断增强，这引发了人们对民主党意识形态方向的新质疑。（汤姆·威廉姆斯/CQ-罗尔Call公司通过盖蒂图片社）
“过去几年出台的全民医保法案，我都没有联名赞助。我认为我们需要先修复我们支离破碎的医疗体系，在修复了造成的损害之后，再着手打造更好的制度，”杰弗里斯说道。
这是一位全国性政治领袖的自然立场。贸然卷入如此棘手的问题，在政治上或许并非明智之举，尤其是你还必须兼顾温和派“多数缔造者”的担忧。
但杰弗里斯或许有一个所有民主党人都能团结起来的突破口：调查特朗普政府。自特朗普总统就职以来，杰弗里斯就承诺要追究其官员的责任。他曾抨击国防部长马克·埃斯珀，嘲笑司法部长威廉·巴尔，指责副总统迈克·彭斯，还谈及特朗普家族所谓的腐败行为。
民主党也将自身定位为特朗普政府的制衡力量。他们的支持者也会要求通过调查采取行动。这不仅能引起进步派基础的共鸣，对那些温和派“多数缔造者”也同样具有吸引力。
但这并非每小时25美元的最低工资，不是废除ICE，也不是绿色新政。民主党即便拿下国会多数席位，也可能无法在立法上实现这些目标。这些只是政治现实。但他们或许能通过调查获得一些政治得分，这同样符合政治现实。
查德·珀格拉姆目前担任福克斯新闻频道（FNC）首席国会通讯员。他于2007年9月加入该电视台，总部位于华盛顿特区。
Reporter’s Notebook: A Democratic majority could expose the limits of the progressive agenda
Even if Democrats win the House or Senate, moderate majority makers from swing districts are unlikely to back the agenda
October 20, 2026 4:25pm EDT / Fox News
By Chad Pergram
Chief congressional correspondent Chad Pergram reports the latest from Capitol Hill as early voting kicks off in several states with both parties making their final push for control of Congress.
NEW You can now listen to Fox News articles!
_”You made me promises. Promises.
_Knowing I’d believe.
_Promises. Promises.
_I knew you’d never keep.”
—Promises, Promises by Naked Eyes
“I am a supporter of Medicare-for-all,” declared Minnesota’s Democratic nominee for Senate, Lt. Gov. Peggy Flanagan, D. “I’m going to get there with my friend Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt. And we are going to power map the s–t out of the U.S. Senate and figure out how to build power for the things that we know that we deserve and the things that we need.”
Hard-left progressive House and Senate candidates like Flanagan are pitching Medicare-for-all. The abolition of ICE. The Green New Deal. An arms embargo for Israel. And a $25 an hour minimum wage.
Flanagan is in a race with Republican Senate nominee Michelle Tafoya to succeed retiring Sen. Tina Smith, D-Minn. The race favors Flanagan. However, it’s not a done deal that she wins. But Democratic Socialist candidates for the House like Donavan McKinney in Michigan, Chris Rabb in Pennsylvania, Melanie Arriola in Colorado, along with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in New York probably will. Come January, they will prospectively represent Democratic strongholds where progressive ideas are popular.
Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate, Minnesota Lt. Gov. Peggy Flanagan, speaks during a primary election night party at First Avenue on August 11, 2026 in Minneapolis, Minn.(Stephen Maturen/Getty Images)
But if Democrats win either the House or Senate, it won’t be because voters pulled the lever for Arriola in Denver or Ocasio-Cortez in Harlem. They’ll win because Democrat Pat Ryan defeated Rep. John Faso, R-N.Y., in Dutchess County, north of New York City. Maybe because voters cast their ballots for Democrat Conor Lamb in Pennsylvania, rather than Rep. Keith Rothfus, R-Pa. Democrats could flip the House if Democratic nominee Abigail Spanberger appeals more to voters in central Virginia than Rep. Dave Brat, R-Va.
This brings us back to the progressive agenda.
Democrats might win the House and or the Senate. But Ocasio-Cortez and Arriola aren’t the “majority makers.” Candidates like Lamb and Ryan are. And if they’re elected to the House, it’s doubtful that moderates from swing districts can support progressive ideas like the Green New Deal or Medicare-for-all. It’s about the math. And it’s more than likely that Democrats will need the voters of those moderate “majority makers” from battleground districts to enact those policies.
That’s to say nothing about needing 60 yeas in the Senate to crack a filibuster – even if Democrats do marshal a slim majority there. And, if something extreme did get through both bodies of a potentially Democratically-controlled Congress, President Trump would likely veto it.
https://www.foxnews.com/video/6403518811112
It is said that you campaign in poetry but you govern in prose.
The left has pushed a lot of progressive poetry with their agenda items of late. They’ll tout the opportunity to enact some of those policies if Democrats win the majority.
However, the reality of advancing any of that into a legislative reality is slim. The progressive ideas may energize the base. But the Democratic base is sure to feel let down if Democrats can’t make good on some of their campaign promises.
We’ve seen this before. A party promises voters the moon in the midterm elections. Then struggles to make good on those promises.
Republicans won the House in 1994 for the first time in four decades with the 10-point “Contract With America.” The document promised to cut spending and reduce influence in Washington. But in the end, the House and Senate only approved a few of the items. President Clinton vetoed others.
In 2006, House Democrats campaigned on drawing down the war in Iraq. They captured the House. Congress began defunding the war effort. But it took several years, much to the dismay of party activists who demanded an immediate pullout.
In 2010, Republicans won back control of the House, gaining a record 63 seats. The goal was to reduce spending and repeal and replace ObamaCare. It never happened. In fact, some Republicans are still trying to unwind ObamaCare today.
U.S. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries speaks during a press conference on Capitol Hill on November 3, 2025 in Washington, D.C.(Roberto Schmidt/Getty Images)
This is all about exciting the base. And then figuring out how to govern. What candidates promise on the campaign trail rarely morphs into a legislative reality.
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., is reportedly in discussions with DSA-backed candidates to secure legislative commitments before some of their candidates will back him in a potential race for Speaker. That said, political observers would find it hard to believe that Democrats would balk at promoting Jeffries, making him the first Black House Speaker in American history.
There’s a chance Democrats could face infighting if the party fractures between moderates and progressives.
Imagine for a moment that Democrats do have the House and intend to bring a Medicare-for-all bill to the floor. The House must first adopt a rule which governs how the House debates that measure on the floor. Would a moderate Democrat like Rep. Abigail Spanberger, D-Va., oppose the rule (provided she wins reelection)? After all, Spanberger voted for GOP procedural measures earlier this year, igniting an internal Democratic firestorm. However, those votes may have been good matches for her battleground district. But voting aye on a procedural plan for a controversial, progressive political initiative won’t work in Spanberger’s district. That’s why the progressive agenda may already be dead in the water.
If Democrats do win the House and Jeffries clasps the Speaker’s gavel, his role will be different. He needs to manage his entire caucus. So appealing to the hard left doesn’t work. He must also hear out the moderates. And certainly the majority makers.
For instance, Jeffries isn’t pushing the Medicare for all scheme.
[image_4]
House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries faces growing pressure as democratic socialist-backed candidates gain influence in New York, raising new questions about the party’s ideological direction.(Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images)
“I haven’t co-sponsored the Medicare for all legislation that has been introduced over the last several years. I do think we need to figure out how to fix our broken healthcare system and then build something better once we repair the damage that has been done,” said Jeffries.
That’s a natural stance for a national political leader. Jumping feet first into such a nettlesome issue might not be sound politics. Especially since you must also address the concerns of the moderate majority makers.
But Jeffries may have an out that all Democrats can unify around: investigations of the Trump administration. Since President Trump began his term, Jeffries has promised to hold its officials to account. Jeffries has called out Pentagon chief Mark Esper. Ridiculed Attorney General William Barr. Blasted Vice President Mike Pence. Spoken about alleged corruption by the Trump family.
Democrats are also campaigning as a foil to the Trump Administration. Their base will demand action via investigations, too. That certainly resonates with the progressive base. And, even moderates who may be the majority makers.
But it isn’t a $25 an hour minimum wage. It’s not the abolition of ICE. It’s not the Green New Deal. Democrats probably won’t get what they want legislatively if they attain the majority. Those are just the political realities. But they may be able to rack some points with investigations. Those would reflect the political realities as well.
Chad Pergram currently serves as Chief Congressional Correspondent for FOX News Channel (FNC). He joined the network in September 2007 and is based out of Washington, D.C.
发表回复