2026-10-13T04:00:44.826Z / https://www.cnn.com/2026/10/13/politics/democrats-midterms-affordability-messaging
民主党或许能通过揭露不受欢迎的总统所宣扬的经济“黄金时代”不过是假象，从而赢得中期选举。
但这并不会让食品杂货和汽油价格下跌。
在竞选活动中，民主党候选人有效地表达了深陷经济负担危机的普通家庭的痛苦。但他们却不太擅长具体说明计划如何降低生活成本。
如今众议院越来越有可能由民主党掌控，而共和党则在参议院选举中如坐针毡，因此，民主党能否采取切实、快速的行动来缓解美国人的经济负担，这个问题值得更多审视。
唐纳德·特朗普总统抱怨民主党只是将“经济负担”这个流行词拿来攻击他，这并非毫无道理——尤其是在拜登政府任内，通胀飙升至上世纪80年代以来的最高水平，之后才有所回落。特朗普在共和党中期选举大会上表示：“这是假的。他们太虚伪了，因为正是他们造成了他们口中所说的经济负担危机。”
对于在任总统来说，尤其是那些在2024年竞选期间曾指责食品价格高企，随后却未能平抑物价的总统而言，这就是他们要面临的处境。特朗普本人就是自己最大的敌人：他一边提出限制小费税、采取措施降低部分处方药价格等缓解经济负担的举措，一边又发动针对伊朗的战争和关税战，推高了各类成本。
但如果民主党在11月3日的选举中赢得华盛顿的部分权力，他们也将承担起行动的责任——不过他们重塑经济的能力会受到限制，部分原因在于总统有权动用否决权。
这意味着，新一届民主党国会或许更有能力阻挠这位现代史上最激进的总统行使权力，而非推出自己的解决方案。
这可能会成为一个陷阱。美国及其他民主国家近期的选举表明，选民很快就会对那些当选后承诺变革却未能兑现的政党失去耐心。
因此，民主党的蜜月期可能很快就会结束。
距离中期选举仅剩最后三周，有望在国会夺回多数席位的民主党人面临三个问题：
- 他们提出了哪些缓解美国人经济负担的提案？
- 他们有哪些提案能够通过成为法律？
- 他们能否将阻挠特朗普的行动转化为2028年大选的竞选筹码？
在这场被特朗普的喧嚣和争议主导的中期选举对决中，外界对民主党针对第120届国会可能出现的参众两院多数席位所提出的详细政策提案关注不足。
并非没有计划——相关提案数量众多。候选人、利益集团和智库纷纷提出各种方案，旨在降低住房成本、提高工资、恢复福利、改革医疗保健、保护劳动者免受人工智能冲击、推行全民育儿政策、掀起住房建设热潮，并降低食品杂货和汽油价格。
北卡罗来纳州民主党参议院候选人罗伊·库珀大力宣传他的“降低物品成本”计划。得克萨斯州参议院候选人詹姆斯·塔莱里科将出席周三的CNN与禧年市政厅活动，他提出了“新美国梦”议程。参议员鲁文·加列戈公布了一项全面计划，其中包括类似新政的公共服务就业项目。如果民主党夺回参议院多数席位，参议院多数党领袖查克·舒默或许会重新启用他今年1月在共和党掌控参议院时徒劳推出的一份极其详尽的政策蓝图。
但如果选民在下月投票时决定谴责特朗普，那么在分裂的华盛顿，即便有再好的想法，若没有可行的路线图，也无济于事。
美国民众已经隐约意识到，仅仅依靠民主党，无法解决已持续数年的经济负担危机。在9月的CNN/SSRS民调中，民主党以7个百分点的优势领先，成为美国人眼中在经济问题上最贴合他们观点的政党。但仅有35%的受访者认为民主党对生活成本的影响主要是积极的，仅有寥寥27%的人认为民主党对他们的个人财务状况会产生积极作用。
民主党需要迅速行动。他们认为有两件事可以做。
“如果我们不停止这场战争，现在就不停止，我们将继续目睹伊朗政权封锁霍尔木兹海峡，推高我们的能源价格，”密歇根州民主党参议院候选人阿卜杜勒·赛义德在本月的一场辩论中表示，“你将在加油站和食品杂货店为此买单。”
库珀在7月告诉选民：“我们需要取消这些混乱的关税，国会需要收回在关税问题上的宪法权力——因为这最终让普通民众和小企业付出了代价。”
理论上，新一届国会可以结束这场战争，并推翻特朗普的关税政策。但这几乎不可能实现。
民主党可以尝试否决针对伊朗军事行动的新追加拨款，并通过法律限制 broader 军事资金的使用方式。但这是高风险举措，因为特朗普可能会指责他们在战区抛弃美军，并动用否决权阻挠相关法案。2006年中期选举获胜后，民主党众议院未能阻止伊拉克战争，这一前车之鉴令人望而生畏。而围绕这场战争存疑的合法性与特朗普展开的战争权对决，似乎不仅可能引发宪法僵局，也未必能结束冲突。
国会可以推翻特朗普关税政策中残留的部分，这些关税在最高法院废除基于紧急状态权力征收的关税后得以保留。但即便民主党掌控参议院，要获得推翻总统否决所需的三分之二多数票，也并非易事。
如果民主党无法立即改变国家的发展方向，他们的政治宣传将变得更为关键。众议院民主党领袖哈基姆·杰弗里斯在6月对记者表示，如果民主党赢得多数席位，众议院第1号法案将聚焦经济负担问题。他说：“该法案将高度专注于降低高昂的生活成本，当然还会改革我们支离破碎的医疗体系。”
鉴于今年初选期间凸显出的民主社会主义者、进步派和温和派之间的意识形态分歧，他面临的挑战将是如何团结民主党党团支持相关立法。杰弗里斯只能寄希望于民主党能获得比困扰共和党众议院议长迈克·约翰逊的微弱多数更多的席位。
但即便民主党在众议院获得可观的多数席位，参议院的胜利也不太可能带来除微弱分裂之外的局面。如果民主党无法凑齐60票，共和党几乎肯定仍有能力阻挠立法。民主党的优先政策可以打包成类似共和党常用的、能规避阻挠议事的和解法案。但总统保留否决权——例如，2016年1月奥巴马总统就曾否决过一份旨在推翻《平价医疗法案》的共和党和解法案。
这是一个老派的想法，但美国的联邦分权制度确实旨在实现妥协。民主党或许可以在住房负担能力、处方药价格、儿童税收抵免或基础设施等过去曾引起总统兴趣的议题上与特朗普达成和解。
但民主党承诺对特朗普白宫展开的大规模调查，肯定会引发政治冷战，使合作变得遥不可及。
民主党最雄心勃勃的优先事项，比如恢复《平价医疗法案》的补贴，可能只有在预算谈判或潜在的政府停摆中展现实力后才能推进。此类对抗对两党而言都是冒险之举。
选举总能唤起希望、承诺和期待。然而，分裂的政府通常只会导致痛苦的停滞。
因此，一个不可避免的续集或许已经 looming：2028年又一场围绕经济负担问题的选举，选民们将日复一日地等待答案。
Democrats are feeling America’s pain. Whether they can fix it is another question
2026-10-13T04:00:44.826Z / https://www.cnn.com/2026/10/13/politics/democrats-midterms-affordability-messaging
Democrats may win the midterm election simply by exposing an unpopular president’s mirage of an economic “golden age.”
But that won’t bring the price of groceries and gasoline down.
On the campaign trail, Democratic candidates have effectively voiced the pain of families in the grip of the affordability crisis. They’re less good at nailing down specifics on how they plan to make life cheaper.
And with the House looking increasingly likely to go blue and with Republicans sweating on the Senate, the question of whether Democrats could take tangible, fast action to ease Americans’ financial burden deserves more scrutiny.
There’s some truth to President Donald Trump’s complaint that Democrats just turned the buzzword of “affordability” against him — especially since the Biden presidency saw inflation spike to its highest levels since the 1980s before falling back. “It’s fake,” Trump said at the GOP midterm convention. “They are so fake, because it was them that caused the affordability, to use their word, crisis.”
Those are the breaks for an incumbent president — particularly one who called out the high price of groceries when he was running in 2024 and then failed to bring them down. Trump has been his own worst enemy, drowning out his own affordability plays — such as limiting taxes on tips and taking action to lower the prices of some prescription drugs—by choosing to wage Iran and tariff wars that sent costs soaring.
But if Democrats were to win a share of Washington power on November 3, they’d also assume the burden of action — though their ability to reshape the economy would be constrained, in part by a president willing to wield his veto.
That means a new Democratic Congress would have a greater capacity to thwart the most aggressive wielder of presidential power in modern history than to enact its own solutions.
This could be a trap. Recent elections in the US and elsewhere in the democratic world show that voters quickly lose patience with parties that are elected to forge change but fail to deliver it.
A Democratic honeymoon could therefore quickly fade.
As the midterms race into the final three weeks, Democrats contemplating the possibility of a restoration in Congress face three questions:
- What are they proposing to alleviate the cost burden on Americans?
- What would they be able to pass into law?
- And could they turn any Trump-blocking moves into fuel for the 2028 campaign?
In a midterm showdown dominated by Trump’s cacophony and controversy, there’s been less attention on detailed Democratic proposals for a potential House or Senate majority in the 120th Congress.
It’s not that there are no plans — there are scores of them. Candidates, interest groups and think tanks are churning out ways to bring down the cost of housing, raise wages, restore benefits, overhaul healthcare, protect workers from AI, introduce universal child care, launch a house-building boom, and slash the cost of groceries and gasoline.
Roy Cooper, the Democratic Senate nominee in North Carolina, touts his “Make Stuff Cost Less” plan. Texas Senate candidate James Talarico, who will appear at a CNN & Jubilee Town Hall on Wednesday, has a New American Dream agenda. Sen. Ruben Gallego has unveiled an expansive plan that includes a New Deal-style public service jobs program. Sen. Chuck Schumer could dust off a deeply detailed policy blueprint he futilely rolled out in a GOP Senate in January if Democrats win back the majority.
But ideas won’t count for much without an actionable roadmap in what will be a fractured Washington if voters decide to deliver a rebuke to Trump next month.
The country already intuits that turning to the Democrats won’t alone end an affordability crisis years in the making. In a CNN/SSRS poll in September, Democrats had a 7-point lead as the party Americans saw as closest to their views on the economy. But only 35% thought the party would have a mainly positive effect on the cost of living and a meager 27% said the same regarding their personal financial situation.
Democrats would need to move fast. There’s two things they think they could do.
“If we don’t stop this war, if we don’t stop it now, we are going to continue to watch as the Iranian regime chokeholds the Strait of Hormuz, making our energy prices higher,” Michigan Democratic Senate nominee Abdul El-Sayed said at a debate this month. “And you are going to pay for it both at the gas tank and at the grocery store.”
And Cooper told voters in July that “we need to roll back these chaotic tariffs, and Congress needs to take back its constitutional authority on that — because that’s ending up costing everyday people and small businesses.”
In theory, a new Congress could end the war and overturn Trump’s tariffs. But it would be almost impossibly difficult.
Democrats could try to block new supplemental spending for military operations in Iran and pass laws to restrict how broader military funds are spent. But it would be a high-risk move since Trump could accuse them of deserting American troops in a war zone and could use his veto to block legislation. The failure of a Democratic House to stop the Iraq war after the party’s 2006 midterm victory is a daunting omen. And a war powers showdown with Trump over the dubious legality of the war seems as likely to produce a constitutional morass as to end the conflict.
Congress could overturn the remnants of Trump’s tariffs that survived the Supreme Court’s rescinding of duties built on emergency powers. But a veto-proof two-thirds majority against the president might be a stretch in the Senate even if Democrats had overall control.
If Democrats can’t immediately change the nation’s course, their political messaging will be even more critical. House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries told reporters in June that the first bill if the party wins the majority, HR.1, would be on affordability. “It will be hyper-focused on driving down the high cost of living and of course fixing our broken health care system as a part of that,” he said.
His challenge would be in unifying the Democratic caucus behind proposed legislation given the ideological chasms between democratic socialists, progressives and moderates that were highlighted during this year’s primaries. Jeffries must hope for a larger majority than the minuscule one that has plagued GOP House Speaker Mike Johnson.
But even if Democrats gain a healthy majority in the House, a Senate victory is unlikely to deliver anything but a narrowly divided chamber. Republicans will almost certainly still enjoy the capacity to block legislation if Democrats can’t amass 60 votes. Democratic priorities could be packaged into the kind of filibuster-proof reconciliation bills often used by the GOP. But presidents retain the veto — a power used, for example, by President Barack Obama to send back a GOP reconciliation bill in January 2016 that aimed to overturn the Affordable Care Act.
It’s a quaint thought, but the US system of divided federal power does envisage compromise. Maybe Democrats could find an accommodation with Trump on housing affordability, prescription drug prices, child tax credits or infrastructure — issues that have interested the president in the past.
But a promised Democratic onslaught of investigation targeting the Trump White House would surely precipitate a political cold war, making cooperation elusive.
The most ambitious Democratic priorities — such as restoring Affordable Care Act subsidies — might only emerge from a show of strength in budget negotiations or potential government shutdowns. Such clashes are gambles for both parties.
Elections perpetually conjure hope, promises and expectation. Divided government, however, usually results in bitter inertia.
So an inevitable sequel may already be looming: yet another election, in 2028, on the same issue of affordability, as voters wait and wait for answers.