Category: Politics

Latino voters, who swung toward President Donald Trump in 2024, boomeranged back to Democrats last week, signaling the fraying of his coalition less than one year into his second term.

Few places across the country epitomize that swing like New Jersey’s Passaic County, a densely populated, geographically diverse region where Latinos comprise a plurality. Voters there supported Trump by a narrow margin in 2024, only to back Democratic Gov.-elect Mikie Sherrill by double-digits last week. Union City, which is the most Latino city in the state, swung 47 points toward Democrats. And Sherrill seized the Trump-supporting 9th Congressional District, home to a large Latino population, by around 19 points.

In Virginia, the other state with a gubernatorial contest last week, the two most heavily Latino cities swung toward Democratic Gov.-elect Abigail Spanberger by more than 15 points each.

And in California, support for a Democratic-backed ballot measure exceeded Kamala Harris’ share by roughly 12 points in Imperial County, where Latino residents make up 77 percent of the population. That marks the biggest swing of any county in the state.

Just one year after Trump soared to victory with 48 percent of the Latino vote nationally, these results demonstrate that Republicans have yet to cement them into their coalition. Democrats, feeling emboldened after an epic shellacking last year, have been predicting Latinos would turn on the GOP out of dissatisfaction with Trump’s handling of the economy.

Not unlike Trump in 2024, Democrats were able to capitalize on those cost-of-living concerns to lure voters this year, proving correct a series of polls that portended this trend. It is giving the beleaguered party new optimism about their chances of taking back the House in next year’s midterms, as many of the districts up for grabs have substantial Latino populations.

“There was a lot of conversation heading out of the last election about a monolithic realignment, and I think it missed the fact that Trump is a unique beast who was able to persuade Latinos that he has their interests at heart,” said Tory Gavito, president of progressive donor network Way to Win. “In the last 11 months, he’s done everything but think about Latinos’ interests.”

Democrats’ success with Latinos during this off-cycle election may not necessarily translate to races across the country in 2026, when the minority party will fight to retake control of Congress. And Latino voters in Florida and South Texas are likely to vote differently from those in New Jersey or California.

Further muddling the midterm picture is the Trump question. The president successfully turned out low-propensity Latino voters, some of whom may be more likely to participate in a midterm race than an odd-year election, especially if Trump decides to play a role in next year’s showdown.

So Republicans, who have made a big bet on majority-Latino districts in order to keep their majority next year, have some cause for hope amid an otherwise brutal Election Day for them. While GOP candidates underperformed Trump with Latinos last week, they still put up better numbers than the Republicans of a decade ago (in New Jersey in 2017 for example, Republicans won just 17 percent of the Latino vote, compared to roughly a third this time). And Tuesday’s elections also gave the GOP a new foil in New York City Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani, whom they think can further tarnish Democrats’ standing with Latino voters across the country who oppose socialism. (Mamdani won 58 percent of the vote in election districts where Latinos made up the largest share of the population, according to data compiled by The City.)

The day after the election, the National Republican Congressional Committee launched Spanish-language ads in 11 swingy congressional districts decrying the “socialist” soon-to-be New York City mayor as “the future that Democrats want” and warning voters their city could be next.

“Democrats have ignored Hispanic communities over the past nine years while millions of working families rejected their radical, socialist agenda,” Christian Martinez, the NRCC’s national Hispanic press secretary, said in a statement. “Republicans will continue to earn the support of Hispanic voters because we are working to deliver opportunity, security, and a better life.”

Democrats largely credited their messaging on affordability and blaming Trump for not following through on his economic campaign promises for their rebound with Latino voters.

“Latinos are rejecting Republicans’ broken promises of lower costs and a strong economy,” Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee spokesperson Bridget Gonzalez said in a statement last week. “Groceries, utilities, and health care are unaffordable and that’s why Latinos will help Democrats take back control of the House next November.”

In California, the Prop 50 campaign to bolster Gov. Gavin Newsom’s redistricting push leaned heavily on immigration in its messaging, using imagery of ICE and Border Patrol raids to argue Trump’s power must be checked. The campaign’s Spanish-language ads focused predominantly on the immigration crackdown, with cursory mention of Trump’s tariffs.

“The Latino revolt was economic and personal — Trump hit their wallets with tariffs and our communities with raids,” said Juan Rodriguez, a senior strategist for Newsom. “From California to races across the country, the message for 2026 couldn’t be clearer.”

A lot could change with the state of the economy that could either bolster or weaken their message. And some are cautioning Democrats not to get too comfortable with last week’s results — and not to rely strictly on affordability messaging.

“This doesn’t mean that Democrats have it in the bag,” said Vanessa Cárdenas, executive director of America’s Voice, an immigration reform group, who added that she hopes to see Democrats message more on immigration in addition to the economy during the midterms. “We’ve seen it before — there’s a lot of distrust of Democrats on immigration issues because of promises that have been made.”

“They have a lot to vote against,” she continued. “The challenge for Democrats is giving them something to vote for.”

In New Jersey, Sherrill’s victory looms large over the state’s 9th congressional district, a plurality-Latino seat that encompasses parts of Bergen and Passaic counties. Sherrill won both by double digits, a major swing after Trump flipped Passaic and lost Bergen by just 3 points in 2024. Republicans are targeting the district’s first-term representative, Democrat Nellie Pou, largely because Trump won the seat in 2024.

But ticket-splitting in the district’s further down-ballot races may demonstrate that Democrats’ work isn’t done there. In Hawthorne, a borough where Latinos make up around one-quarter of the population, preliminary results show Sherrill won but incumbent Republicans prevailed in mayoral and council races.

Carlos Cruz, a Republican strategist who worked on a super PAC backing Sherrill’s opponent, Jack Ciattarelli, said that last year’s election was a “referendum” on leadership in Washington and the economy, and people cast a ballot this year for the same reasons.

“There were people who voted for the president who wanted to see more,” Cruz said. “For Democrats to overreact and say ‘Nellie is safe now’ is fundamentally misreading this year’s elections.”

Morghan Cyr, Pou’s campaign manager, said that the results “solidified one thing for Democrats above all: Latino communities are key to success across the board.”

“Early, intentional investment in and engagement with these communities is essential to Democrats taking back the House in 2026,” Cyr said in a statement last week. “The progress that was made this week is good, but we have to keep building on it.”

​Politics

The United States was founded on the idea that government exists to serve its people. To do this, government must deliver services that promote the common good. When the government shuts down, it fails to meet its fundamental purpose.

While government shutdowns are not new in the U.S., most have lasted less than a week. At 40 days, the current shutdown may well be on the way to an end this week, as enough Senate Democratic caucus members have voted with Republicans on a measure to reopen the government. But it will remain the longest in the history of the nation.

When the government shuts down for such a long time, it inflicts hardships, anxieties and irritations on its citizens. You might wonder why elected officials allow lengthy disruptions to happen.

It is common to blame the politicians for the shutdown. However, as a philosopher who researches democracy, I think the fault lies also with us, the citizens. In a democracy, we generally get the politics we ask for, and the electorate has developed a taste for political spectacle over competent leadership.

American democracy has grown increasingly tribal, leading us to become more invested in punishing our partisan rivals than in demanding competent government. We are infatuated with the spectacle of our side dominating the other.

Understandably, politicians have embraced obstruction. They have learned that deadlock can pay, because they have the support of their voters in behaving this way. Politics is no longer about representation and policy, it’s now about vanquishing and even humiliating the other side.

More fervent, not better informed

To see this, we must examine polarization. Let’s start by distinguishing two kinds of polarization.

First is political polarization. It measures the divide between the U.S.’s two major parties. When political polarization is severe, the common ground among the parties falls away. This naturally undermines cooperation. That Republicans and Democrats are politically polarized is certainly part of the explanation for the shutdown.

But that’s not the entire story. As I argue in my book “Civic Solitude,” the deeper trouble has to do with belief polarization.

Unlike political polarization, which measures the distance between opposing groups, belief polarization occurs within a single group. In belief polarization, like-minded people transform into more extreme version of themselves: Liberals become more liberal, conservatives become more conservative, Second Amendment advocates become more pro-gun, environmentalists become more green, and so on.

Importantly, this shift is driven by the desire to fit in with one’s peers, not by evidence or reason. Hence, we become more fervent but no better informed.

Additionally, our more extreme selves are also more tribal and conformist. As we shift, we become more antagonistic toward outsiders. We also become more insistent on uniformity within our group, less tolerant of differences.

Animosity and obstruction

The combination of intensifying antagonism toward those on the “other side” and escalating cohesion among those on “your side” turns all aspects of life into politics.

In the U.S. today, liberals and conservatives are heavily socially segregated. They live in different neighborhoods, work in different professions, vacation in different locations, drive different vehicles and shop in different stores. Everyday behavior has become an extension of partisan affiliation.

Ironically, as everyday life becomes politically saturated, politics itself becomes more about lifestyle and less about policy. Research suggests that while animosity across the parties has intensified significantly, citizens’ disagreements over policy have either remained stable or eased. We dislike one another more intensely yet are not more divided.

This paints a grim portrait of U.S. democracy. Note that this condition incentivizes politicians to amplify their contempt for political rivals. Politicians seek to win elections, and stoking negative feelings such as fear and indignation are potent triggers of political behavior, including voting.

Consequently, when citizens are belief polarized, animosity and obstruction become winning electoral strategies. Meanwhile, politicians are released from the task of serving the common good.

Channeling contempt

It is no surprise that discussions of the shutdown have consistently focused on blame.

The Republicans, who hold the congressional majority, have sought to score points by depicting the shutdown as the Democrats’ fault. Several official websites maintained by the federal government included statements denouncing the shutdown as strictly the doing of the Democrats. Their aim has been to channel citizens’ frustration into contempt for the Democratic Party.

At the beginning of the shutdown, House Speaker Mike Johnson claimed that there was “literally nothing to negotiate” with congressional Democrats.

But there’s the rub. Democratic government is fundamentally a matter of negotiation. Neither winning an election nor being a member of the majority party means that you can simply call the shots. The constitutional procedures by which our representatives govern are designed to force cooperation, collaboration and compromise.

Thanks to polarization, however, these noble ideals of political give-and-take have dissolved. Cooperation is now seen as surrender to political enemies. That’s very clear in many Democrats’ outraged reactions to the eight senators from their caucus who have now voted with Republicans to end the shutdown.

Meanwhile, more than 1 million government employees haven’t been paid, many crucial government services have been interrupted, diminished or suspended, and, with the Thanksgiving holiday approaching, travelers are experiencing flight disruptions. While there may be an end to the shutdown on the near horizon, any deal could simply postpone crucial policy debates and could well end in another shutdown in the new year.

The key to avoiding this kind of failure is to become a citizenry that demands competent government over partisan domination.

Robert B. Talisse does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

​Politics + Society – The Conversation

People trying to understand politics in the United States today often turn to history for precedents and perspective. Are our current divisions like the ones that preceded the American Revolution or the Civil War? Did the dramatic events of the 1960s generate the same kind of social and political forces seen today? Are there lessons from the past that show us how eras of intense political turmoil eventually subside?

As a scholar of American politics and the presidency, I believe one American historical period is especially worth revisiting in this turbulent moment in the U.S.: the 20 tumultuous years between the presidencies of Ulysses S. Grant and William McKinley in the second half of the 19th century.

The two decades between 1876 and 1896 are usually remembered as a time when the cities in the East grew rich and the West was wild – a “Gilded Age” in New York City and gunslingers on the frontier.

It was also a time when Americans struggled with immigration issues, racial injustice, tariff levels, technological change, economic volatility and political violence.

There was even a president, Grover Cleveland, who served two nonconsecutive terms in the White House – the only time that happened before Donald Trump.

In the elections between Grant and McKinley, the nation was closely divided. No president in those years – not Rutherford Hayes, James Garfield, Chester Arthur, Cleveland or Benjamin Harrison – served for two consecutive terms. No presidential candidate won more than 50% of the popular vote, except the Democrat Samuel Tilden. And Tilden, after winning 50.1% of the ballots cast in 1876, lost in the Electoral College. That happened again in 1888 when Cleveland, the first time he was seeking a second term, won the popular vote but failed in the Electoral College.

The narrow victories that characterized presidential politics in the 1870s and 1880s were matched by constant shifts on Capitol Hill. In the 20 years between Grant and McKinley, there were only six years of unified government, when one political party controlled the White House, the Senate and the House of Representatives. In the remaining 14 years, presidents encountered opposition in Congress.

The U.S. has the same kind of divided politics today.

Heating up partisanship and raising stakes

President Bill Clinton had two years of unified government; President George W. Bush had less than that. Barack Obama, Donald Trump in his first term and Joe Biden all came into office with party majorities in the House and Senate, and then, like Clinton, their parties lost the House two years later.

Divided politics, with close elections and neither party in power for very long, make partisanship more intense, campaigns harder fought and the stakes sky high whenever voters go to the polls. That’s part of what produced instability in the second half of the 19th century and part of what produces it today.

Divided government is, of course, one of the most powerful “checks” in the constitutional system of checks and balances. Intense competition between political parties can prevent the national government from making rash decisions and serious mistakes. It can sometimes generate compromise.

But there’s a cost. Political division can also allow critical problems to fester for far too long. The dramatic changes brought on by the Industrial Revolution after the Civil War were not seriously addressed in federal legislation until the Progressive Era early in the 20th century.

In the second half of the 19th century, Congress raised or lowered tariffs – depending on which party controlled the White House and Capitol Hill. The nation debated immigration but only once passed meaningful legislation, the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882. A long list of issues connected to railroads, banks, currency, civil service, corruption and the implementation of the post-Civil War constitutional amendments were ignored or only partially addressed.

When major legislation was passed in 1883 to create a merit-based civil service – reforming the spoils system of political appointments – it passed because Garfield’s 1881 assassination by a disgruntled federal job seeker temporarily pushed the issue to the top of the national agenda.

Immigration, fake news and riots

Political violence accompanied the period of closely divided national elections in the 1870s and 1880s.

In the 1880 presidential campaign, both candidates – the Republican, Garfield, and the Democrat, Winfield Hancock – called for restrictions on Chinese immigration to the United States. Neither supported the complete ban that many Westerners wanted.

But just before Americans went to the polls, newspapers across the country printed a letter, allegedly written and signed by Garfield, that endorsed an open border to Chinese immigrants. Before anyone could learn that the letter was a fake, there was public uproar. In Denver, an angry mob burned down all the homes in Chinese neighborhoods.

There were more incidents of political violence: anti-Chinese riots in Los Angeles in 1871, in San Francisco in 1877 and in Seattle in 1886.

Throughout the 1880s, anti-immigrant nativists targeted immigrants from Italy and sometimes vandalized Catholic churches.

Political violence in the South successfully suppressed Black voting rights and reestablished white control of state and local politics.

Realignment

Political division in the second half of the 19th century produced more problems than solutions. How and when did it end, or become less intense?

The simple answer is what political scientists call a “realignment,” a major shift in national electoral patterns.

In 1893, the first year of Cleveland’s second term, the nation suffered a financial crisis followed by a severe economic depression. As a result, McKinley was able to win solid victories in 1896 and 1900 and build a Republican coalition that dominated presidential politics until the election in 1932 of Democrat Franklin Roosevelt.

It’s not hard to imagine how an economic disaster, or a crisis of some kind, could shake the country out of a period of closely divided politics. But that’s a painful way of building a higher level of national unity.

Can it happen when large numbers of voters get thoroughly frustrated by languishing issues, swings back and forth in Washington, nasty elections and rising political violence?

Perhaps.

But either way – responding to crisis or finding a public change of heart – is a reminder that voters are the ultimate arbiters in a functioning democracy. Today, as in late-19th-century America, elections make a difference. They can mark continued division or they can take the nation in a new, and perhaps more unified, direction.

Robert A. Strong does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

​Politics + Society – The Conversation

Democratic Reps. Steny Hoyer and Jamie Raskin are inserting themselves into the state’s redistricting fight, escalating pressure on state lawmakers and the senate president to take up the mid-decade redrawing of congressional lines ahead of the 2026 midterms.

The two prominent Maryland Democrats sent a four-page letter to the entire Maryland General Assembly Monday, where they framed their endorsement of redrawing the state’s maps as a way to rebuff the president’s “authoritarian attack on democratic elections and voting rights” while casting the fight as an “ethical moral and political imperative” to act.

That nationwide effort has been stymied in Maryland, where the state’s Senate president, Bill Ferguson, has rejected the push to change maps in the state.

“We write today to applaud the governor’s redistricting initiative and urge you to move forward to explore what we can do as a state to help prevent the imminent disaster of President Trump determining the results of the 2026 congressional elections through aggressive mid-decade gerrymandering and therefore clinching control of the U.S. House of Representatives before a single vote is even cast,” the lawmakers write.

The letter comes a week after Maryland Gov. Wes Moore (D) announced the creation of a redistricting advisory commission that is expected to solicit feedback from Marylanders on whether the state should move forward with redrawing maps. Democrats dominate the state’s congressional delegation and if the party is successful in redrawing the maps it could only pick up a single seat — currently occupied by Republican Rep. Andy Harris, who chairs the House Freedom Caucus.

While the state’s top Democrats, including Moore and Maryland House Speaker Adrienne Jones, are all on board with exploring redistricting, Ferguson has remained a holdout.

Two weeks ago Ferguson sent his own letter to dozens of state lawmakers bucking his party and outlining why the Maryland Senate would not take up the effort. Part of his rationale was that the Maryland Supreme Court is packed with several justices appointed by Moore’s successor, former Republican Gov. Larry Hogan. He suggests that not only raises the possibility that any new maps that give Democrats an 8-0 advantage could be struck down, but it could trigger a loss of Democratic seats in the state, something he referred to as “the downside risk to Democrats is catastrophic.”

Ferguson’s office acknowledged it had received the letter but did not comment. The Baltimore Sun was the first to report on the letter.

Moore, a potential 2028 presidential hopeful, said in an appearance on CBS “Face the Nation” on Sunday that Maryland should not stand on the sidelines as other states, especially Republican-led states, jump into redistricting.

“If other states are going to have this process and go through this- go through this journey of identifying whether or not they have fair maps in a mid-decade cycle, then so should Maryland,” Moore said. “I’m just not sure why we should be playing by a different set of rules than Texas, or than Florida, or than Ohio or all these other places.”

There’s been pressure mounting on Maryland to move for weeks, and Ferguson is seen as the party’s biggest impediment to moving forward. Democrats’ resounding victories last week in Virginia and New Jersey’s gubernatorial races, as well as the overwhelming passage of a ballot initiative passed by California voters to redraw state lines to pick up five liberal-leaning seats to counteract a similar move in Texas to net five Republican-leaning seats, is ramping up the urgency to act.

Hoyer and Raskin’s letter calls Ferguson out by name and attempts to undercut some of his reasons for hesitating on moving forward.

“While Senator Ferguson is obviously right that there is an element of uncertainty in all litigation, there are some well-established doctrines that courts follow out of deference to the legislature’s constitutional power over redistricting,” the lawmakers write. “Chief among these is the principle that, when a court strikes down a newly enacted map as unlawful, the legislature must be afforded a reasonable opportunity to remedy the violation.”

The letter also appears to be aimed at pressuring Ferguson by energizing some of the state lawmakers that he leads, possibly ramping up the stakes they could move against him.

“We don’t need to remind you that Marylanders have paid a heavy price during the first year of the second Trump Administration,” they write, listing off items including 15,000 federal employees that have been fired since Trump returned to power and thousands more workers and federal contractors that have been furloughed since the shutdown began more than a month ago.

The memo also asks state lawmakers three questions they should answer as to whether they deem the redistricting fight as imminent. “Are we in the fight of our lives to defend American democracy and freedom and our Constitution, Bill of Rights and rule of law?… is it an ethical, moral and political imperative to use every lawful means at our disposal to fight back…: can we successfully and lawfully redistrict to respond to these GOP assaults?”

To all three questions, Raskin and Hoyer write, “We believe the answer is yes.”

​Politics

Senate Democrats’ embrace of a shutdown deal that doesn’t guarantee extended health care subsidies is already an electoral issue.

Nearly every major Democratic Senate candidate panned the deal, from Texas hopeful Colin Allred, a former member of Congress, deriding it as a “joke” to Illinois Lt. Gov. Juliana Stratton condemning it as a “complete betrayal of the American people.” Sen. Jon Ossoff (D-Ga.), the party’s most vulnerable incumbent in 2026, voted against advancing it, as did several senators eyeing a 2028 White House bid.

“Pathetic,” California Gov. Gavin Newsom wrote on X. “This is not a deal — it’s an empty promise,” Gov. JB Pritzker of Illinois said. Former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg called it a “bad deal.”

The Sunday agreement even caused a familial dispute: Stefany Shaheen, who is running in a crowded Democratic primary for an open House seat in New Hampshire, said she couldn’t support a deal that failed to extend the Affordable Care Act tax credits. Her mother, retiring Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, was one of the lead Democratic negotiators of the deal.

Democratic Rep. Chris Pappas, who is running to replace Jeanne Shaheen, creating the very opening her daughter is vying to fill, also rejected it in a statement Monday.

After looking to make soaring health care costs an albatross for Republicans in the midterms, Democrats’ deal to reopen the government after 40 days without language extending the expiring insurance subsidies delivered a blow to their base. The result was so fraught, even Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) opposed it amid intense criticism for allowing eight members of the Democratic caucus to side with Republicans.

Now it’s creating a litmus test for candidates in competitive midterm races next year, as Democrats fight to retake the Senate — a tough task they feel better about after routing Republicans in last week’s off-cycle elections throughout the country. They’d need to net four seats in order to seize control of the upper chamber.

“The infighting over the deal will fade quickly and by the time we get closer to the midterms, it’s very clear that Democrats will aggressively prosecute the case against Republicans on health care,” said Matt Bennett of the centrist think tank Third Way. “They will say Republicans yanked lifesaving money away from millions of Americans to fund tax cuts for the rich. And that will have the benefit of being true.”

Thirty-three Senate seats are up for grabs next year and Democrats are making a serious play for holding or flipping at least a dozen of them. A quartet of candidates vying for open seats — Graham Platner in Maine, Mallory McMorrow in Michigan and Zach Wahls and Nathan Sage in Iowa — reiterated their opposition to Schumer’s leadership as news of the deal spread.

“Chuck Schumer failed in his job yet again,” Platner said in a video on X. “We need to elect leaders who want to fight. … Call your senators and tell them Chuck Schumer can no longer be leader. Call your congressman and tell them that they cannot vote for this when it comes to them.”

In Michigan’s three-way primary, each candidate panned the deal, representing the ideologically vast opposition within a party otherwise mired in internal dispute.

“This is a bad deal,” McMorrow said in a video late Sunday, adding that “the old way of doing things is not working.” Abdul El-Sayed slammed the “shit” agreement and castigated Democrats for giving up their leverage “when we actually can force [Republicans] to the table” after their electoral losses last week. Rep. Haley Stevens said the deal “doesn’t work for Michigan” and that she’s “going to need a whole lot more than empty promises that we’re going to lower costs.” She did not say how she’d vote on the measure in the House. Stevens’ team confirmed she would vote against the measure in the House.

Senate Democrats’ capitulation opened an off-ramp to the record-breaking government shutdown that has snarled air travel and led to missed paychecks and lapsed food assistance. The agreement now advancing through the Senate would fund some agencies and programs for the full fiscal year and extend others until Jan. 30, 2026. It also promises Democrats a December floor vote on extending the expiring Obamacare subsidies, though it’s uncertain to pass the GOP-controlled chamber and Speaker Mike Johnson won’t promise to bring up such a vote in the House.

But in cutting a deal, Senate Democrats infuriated a party reinvigorated by its off-year electoral blowout, sparking accusations that the party again squandered its only leverage in the Republican-led Congress — and ensuring Schumer’s leadership will remain a touchstone in competitive Senate races.

None of the eight Democrats who voted to break the shutdown stalemate are facing voters next year. Two are retiring; the rest are not up for reelection until at least 2028.

They cited the financial pain the prolonged federal funding lapse was inflicting on their constituents. They cast the pending floor vote on the tax credits as a win for Democrats. And they touted other concessions they secured, like the rehiring of federal workers laid off during the shutdown.

“This bill is not perfect, but it takes important steps to reduce their shutdown’s hurt,” Sen. Dick Durbin, the No. 2 Senate Democrat who is retiring next year, said Sunday.

The Democrats vying to replace him disagree. Stratton, who’s previously called for new Senate leadership, cast Democrats’ cave as “a complete betrayal of the American people.” Reps. Raja Krishnamoorthi and Robin Kelly both said the outcome failed to help millions of people whose health care premiums are set to skyrocket.

Across the Senate map, opposition spanned Schumer’s handpicked recruits — who’ve been largely silent about the shutdown — to the insurgents who’ve called for his ouster.

“This is a bad deal for Ohioans,” former Sen. Sherrod Brown said in a statement. Maine Gov. Janet Mills panned “the promise of a vote [on the subsidies] that won’t go anywhere.” Former North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper — Democrats’ best chance for flipping a Senate seat and the last major candidate to weigh in on the deal — said in a statement that “any deal that lets health care costs continue to skyrocket is unacceptable.

Sage slammed the Senate Democrats who “caved and accomplished nothing.” Jordan Wood, another Democrat running in Maine, said “America needs an opposition party willing to fight for them.” Minnesota Lt. Gov. Peggy Flanagan said in a video, “we deserve so much more than this bullshit.” Hours later, she was endorsed by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who voted against the deal.

“If people believe this is a ‘deal,’ I have a bridge to sell you,” said Flanagan’s rival, Rep. Angie Craig (D-Minn.), adding that she’s a “no” when the measure comes up for a vote in the House. “I’m not going to put 24 million Americans at risk of losing their health care.”

Senate Democrats who brokered the spending deal argued Sunday that they had succeeded in hanging rising health care costs on Republicans’ necks heading into the midterms.

“If Republicans want to join us in lowering costs for working families, they have the perfect opportunity,” Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nevada) said Sunday at the Capitol. “If they do choose not to come to the table, they can own the disastrous premium increases.”

Democrats continued to target their own.

Rep. Mikie Sherrill, who was elected the next governor of New Jersey in last week’s blue wave, denounced the deal as “malpractice.” Zohran Mamdani, New York City’s incoming mayor who Schumer declined to endorse, said the compromise and anyone who supports it “should be rejected.”

“That’s not a deal,” Rep. Ritchie Torres (D-N.Y.), who drew a primary challenge last week, said Sunday. “It’s an unconditional surrender.”

Anger toward Senate Democrats also appears to be fueling the party’s recruitment efforts. Run for Something, a progressive candidate recruitment organization, saw double the number of signups over seven hours Sunday night — as the shutdown deal moved through the Senate — than over the same time period last Tuesday night as Democrats won elections across the country, according to co-founder Amanda Litman. The group saw 838 signups Sunday night versus 417 on election night.

The political blast radius is extending to Schumer, who is up for reelection in 2028.

Some progressive Democrats and advocacy groups called for his ouster as leader, blaming him for failing to keep his caucus in line even as he voted against the deal he said didn’t address the “health care crisis” and vowed to “keep fighting.”

Schumer “is no longer effective and should be replaced,” Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), a potential 2028er, blasted out on X. On Monday, Khanna turned that push into a pitch to pad his supporter list.

The Sunrise Movement called for Schumer to step aside. Justice Democrats urged voters to reject the eight Senate Democrats who allowed the funding patch to proceed.

“I don’t think the Democrats leading this surrender effort understand the trust they are shattering in their own voting coalition,” Andrew O’Neill, the national advocacy director for Indivisible, warned Sunday night.

Schumer voted against the bill because it does “nothing” to address a “health care crisis” he called “devastating.” He pledged to “keep fighting.”

As House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, too, vowed to fight on, O’Neill called for his caucus to follow suit. Several said Sunday that they would.

Adam Wren and Elena Schneider contributed to this report.

​Politics

President Donald Trump’s supporters are willing to take a financial hit in order to support his policies, according to a new poll from POLITICO and Public First.

Democrats are also willing to shoulder economic pain to oppose Trump — though they’re not willing to go as far as Republicans.

In a polling experiment, POLITICO and Public First modeled how Trump can shape voters’ opinions of legislation that would cost or save them money. The typical Trump supporter would overlook having to pay about $65 more per month in taxes to back their leader, while anti-Trump voters would forego about $33 in savings if it meant opposing Trump’s agenda.

The findings demonstrate the role of partisanship in shaping public opinion about policy, and they reveal a dynamic that observers have long noted: The loyalty of Trump’s base, and the dedication of his opposition, sometimes seem to overpower voters’ apparent self-interest. Eventually, however, partisans on both sides had their limits.

Questions of economic burden and partisan loyalty were at the forefront of U.S. politics this week, with voters across several states repudiating Trump and his party and electing Democrats by enormous margins. Many of the Democratic winners, including in New Jersey and Virginia, campaigned on voters’ anger about the high cost of essentials such as energy prices, housing and health care.

The POLITICO Poll results are a reminder that — while many of Trump’s supporters have a reputation for intense loyalty — they also have a breaking point. And Tuesday’s election results suggest that despite Republican voters’ willingness to pay a literal price for Trump’s policies, the Trump agenda to date may have pushed voters too far.

The poll sought to measure just how much Trump’s stances on potential legislation affected voters’ views.

The polling experiment was designed to solve a common problem with issue polling: There is often a gap between voters’ views on something when they initially hear about it, and how they feel about that same issue once it becomes politicized. Poll respondents may say they support a particular policy, but feel differently if a politician they like comes out against it.

“One of the main challenges pollsters face is how to poll something after a politician has announced it. By that point, it can be impossible to separate genuine support for the policy, from support for the politician, from support for the arguments being made for and against it,” said Seb Wride, head of polling at Public First. “To counter this, we cut out all the substance of the announcement, and looked just at how quantifiable impacts and statements of partisan support cancel each other out.”

Respondents were given a choice between two hypothetical bills. They were described not in terms of specific policies, but in terms of effects: The impact on their personal income taxes, the number of jobs in their state and the price of a dozen eggs.

Survey respondents were also told whether Trump, Republican lawmakers and Democratic lawmakers supported or opposed each bill.

After giving several variations of bills to thousands of survey respondents, we had tens of thousands of data points on voters’ preferences — enough to model out how respondents’ support for the hypothetical legislation was influenced by the approval of Trump and lawmakers.

The results were clear: There’s a real Trump endorsement effect on support for a bill.

The median Trump voter would choose a bill that would cost them $65 in monthly taxes if Trump also favored it, over a bill that saved them on taxes but did not have Trump’s support.

The trend was similar with other metrics. Trump voters were also willing to back bills that resulted in up to about 2,000 lost jobs in their state or a $1.14 increase in egg prices, provided that Trump was supportive.

For 2024 Trump voters, the president’s support was uniquely powerful. Republican lawmakers’ endorsement also had an impact with those voters, but it had less than half the power of Trump’s. Controlling for Trump’s support, GOP respondents were only willing to accept a $27 monthly tax increase for a bill backed by Republican lawmakers.

And Trump voters did not care what Democratic lawmakers thought of a bill; Democrats’ support for a bill did not move Trump voters’ positions in any statistically significant way.

Voters who had cast their ballots for former Vice President Harris in 2024 had the opposite response.

The median Harris voter would give up tax breaks to oppose Trump’s agenda, only favoring a bill backed by Trump if it decreased their monthly taxes by $33 or more.

Those Democratic voters were also willing to miss out on the creation of more than 1,000 jobs in their states, or a 40-cent cut in the price of a dozen eggs, because of Trump’s support for a bill.

Harris voters, on the other hand, were amenable to Democratic-backed legislation that increased their taxes by $61, compared to an alternative bill that did not have Democratic support. For Trump voters, the effect of Democratic lawmakers supporting a bill was not statistically significant.

​Politics

Adelita Grijalva won a special election in Arizona on Sept. 23, 2025, becoming the newest member of Congress and the state’s first Latina representative.

Yet, despite the Arizona secretary of state’s formal certification of Grijalva, a Democrat, as the winner of that election, Rep.-elect Grijalva has not been sworn into office.

Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson, who by law is responsible for making that happen, claims the government shutdown means Grijalva must wait until the federal government resumes normal operations.

In response, Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes filed a lawsuit on Oct. 21 alleging that Johnson has denied the state its representation in Congress.

No one disputes that Grijalva is the next member of the House of Representatives for the 7th District of Arizona. And the House hasn’t conducted business since Sept. 19, when Johnson gaveled it out of session.

So why does it matter whether Grijalva is sworn in now or later?

The lawsuit filed by Mayes claims Johnson is using his power to “strengthen his hand” in the ongoing budget battle that has shut down the federal government. Additionally, Grijalva has pledged to provide the last necessary signature to force a vote on a bipartisan measure demanding that the Trump administration release government files on convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

But as a law scholar who analyzes government institutions, I recognize that the speaker historically has had power to determine when the oath is administered. And courts have been reluctant to weigh in the speaker’s use of that power.

The speaker’s historical power

The framers of the Constitution were divided on whether to require members of Congress to take an oath of office. Representing a political compromise on the issue, the Constitution requires all Senate and House members to take an oath to support the Constitution before assuming office. But the framers left the substance and administration of the oath up to Congress.

Congress put the speaker of the House in charge of administering the oath to incoming House members and first specified its text in 1789. The Oath Act required members of Congress to “solemnly swear or affirm” support of the Constitution.

Historically, the speaker administered the oath to new House members state by state. This meant that each state’s newly elected representatives stood alone in front of Congress. However, in 1929, House Speaker Nicolas Longworth changed tradition so that all new members were sworn in at the same time.

Longworth did so after Oscar DePriest – the first African American to serve in Congress in the 20th century – won an election in Illinois to replace Rep. Martin B. Madden, who had died of a heart attack. Longworth acted in response to speculation that Southern Democrats would attempt to prevent a Black lawmaker from joining the House. Rather than swearing in members state by state, Longworth swore in all members at once so DePriest was not stopped from taking the oath of office.

Since that time, the speaker has administered the oath of office to all newly elected members of the House as a collective unit.

How things work now

Under current law, the speaker must administer the oath of office to all House members prior to them taking their seats.

Here’s how this has worked over the past few decades:

After the House elects a speaker, the member with the longest continuous service in the House – called the dean of the House – administers the oath to the speaker. Then the speaker administers the oath to the rest of the members all together as a mark of a new Congress.

The idea is that despite partisan differences, every legislator commits in front of the others to uphold the Constitution.

But occasionally, either because of illness, a special election or other circumstances, a newly elected member of Congress can’t take the oath with everyone else. When that happens, that person is sworn in at a later date.

On Sept. 9, 2025, for example, Democrat James Walkinshaw won a special election to succeed the late Gerry Connolly, who died in office while representing Virginia’s 11th congressional district. Johnson swore Walkinshaw in the next day.

While the speaker has the responsibility for administering the oath, the House may adopt a resolution to designate a judge or House member selected by the speaker to do the job for him.

In 1999, for example, Speaker Dennis Hastert designated retired California Judge Ellen Sickles James to administer the oath to Rep.-elect George Miller.

Regardless of who swears into office a member of Congress who could not attend the collective ceremony, the administration of the oath has traditionally occurred on days in which the House is session. But it does not have to be that way.

The law is ambiguous on when the oath is administered.

And House speakers have not always acted swiftly. In spring 2021, for instance, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi waited 25 days before administering the oath to Republican Rep.-elect Julia Letlow. That’s because the House did not have a session scheduled immediately following Letlow’s election.

Johnson has referred to this particular delay as the “Pelosi precedent,” setting a standard practice of the speaker waiting to administer the oath until Congress is in session.

Why does it matter?

The delay in administering Grijalva the oath is the longest in modern history.

While Grijalva waits, she does not have access to the resources typically provided to members of the House to help them perform their jobs, including an operating budget for her offices or even the ability to log in to key databases.

This means Grijalva is limited in her ability to represent her over 800,000 constituents.

She describes her current situation as “having the title but none of the job.”

Grijalva, Arizona Attorney General Mayes and congressional Democrats accuse the speaker of playing politics. But history and the law suggest that may be Johnson’s prerogative until the government reopens.

Jennifer Selin does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

​Politics + Society – The Conversation

In communities across Pennsylvania, local officials are deciding how to spend over US$2 billion dollars from the state’s opioid settlement agreements.

For many, the task is proving promising yet challenging – and raises questions about how to best navigate complex local needs.

Pennsylvania will receive the money over 18 years from lawsuits filed by state attorneys general against opioid manufacturers and distributors. About 70% of these funds will be distributed to county governments, with the remaining funds going to the state legislature and the groups that leveraged the lawsuits.

The amount provided to each county is proportional to the opioid-related harms experienced by the county. Each county government is responsible for developing its own funding strategy for substance use programs, which can focus on things such as prevention, treatment, recovery or harm reduction.

Our research team at Penn State interviewed 72 county officials, health professionals and service providers across six counties in Pennsylvania to understand their early experiences with these funds.

We summarized our findings in a recent article for the peer-reviewed Substance Abuse Treatment, Prevention, and Policy journal. We found that stakeholders view the settlement funds not simply as extra money but as an opportunity to heal – and to test how well local communities can make their own choices about spending.

‘Bags of money’ but limited guidance

Pennsylvania’s distribution strategy was designed to give local governments flexibility. A document called Exhibit E lists the ways that counties can spend the settlement money.

This collaborative document was written as part of the settlement to outline shared guidelines that apply to all the states receiving funds. It lists everything from the types of approved substance use treatments to what qualifies as prevention. In practice, Exhibit E provides diverse opportunities for spending but has also created widespread uncertainty among recipients about which strategies to prioritize.

Some interviewees felt overwhelmed by the logistics of their funding decisions. They understood that the general purpose of the money is to support communities harmed by opioid overprescription. But they lacked clarity on how much time they had to spend it, what the reporting requirements are, and what counts as an eligible activity. For example, some wanted to use the funds to pay administrators for new prevention programs, but administration isn’t included in Exhibit E.

As one local elected official in southeastern Pennsylvania put it, “There’s been a whole lot of stuff that we don’t know – more than we do know. And now we’re running with bags of money through the community and (we’re) not sure how we can spend it, or if we can spend it.”

Many county officials worried about spending the funds too slowly, or on activities that could end up being ineligible or ineffective. Service providers sometimes didn’t know who in their county had the authority to decide where the money went. While they may have wanted to provide recommendations or input, they were unsure how.

A chance to experiment and innovate

Even amid confusion, most of the people we interviewed saw the settlement funding as a unique opportunity.

Exhibit E’s broad guidelines allow for experimentation, and many expressed interest in supporting local needs and implementing projects that they had wanted for a long time. This included things like expanding peer recovery support programs or establishing family support services.

“The guidelines are so varied that it gives those local communities opportunities to look at the menu and find out from community members, ‘How can we help resolve this problem together?’” one local drug and alcohol department employee told us. “It’s a collaborative that really helps the community as a whole get well as a whole. I am a real believer in ‘It takes a village.’”

Several participants emphasized that the flexibility in Exhibit E creates room to revise plans as needs evolve or change. Counties can change their funding priorities each year to adapt.

Several counties have already started issuing small grants to grassroots organizations, recognizing that those closest to people harmed by the opioid crisis often know best what kinds of interventions might work.

One county employee involved in distributing funds in her county shared that her team was “willing to try anything, really, within the bounds.”

“And if it doesn’t work, we can back off,” she added. “But I feel like you don’t know until you try it.”

A moral responsibility to get it right

Although our study focused on policy implementation, participants often framed their responsibilities in moral terms.

Many said they felt a strong obligation to use the funds wisely, given the scale of loss their communities have endured. The Pennsylvania Department of Health reported 4,719 overdose deaths in the state in 2023, and 83% were opioid-related. That number dropped to 3,336 in 2024, mirroring national trends.

One elected official described the funds as “the only hope we can provide families that have lost loved ones to this crisis,” emphasizing that he felt a “real obligation” to make the funds count.

Others echoed that careful, transparent decision-making is part of a broader recovery effort. Beyond abiding by funding guidelines, they felt it was also important to be honest and transparent to community members.

“We don’t want to come out with ‘Pennsylvania wasted its money, or (this) county wasted its money,’” said an addictions researcher.

Still others cautioned that the settlement funds alone cannot repair the full scope of harms caused by the opioid crisis, warning against viewing the settlements as a cure-all.

“There’s not really a monetary value that you can put on these things,” a person who works in the substance use sector told us. “I’m glad that this money’s available, but ultimately for me … it’s a little too late. You know? All my friends are already dead.”

Read more of our stories about Philadelphia and Pennsylvania.

Glenn Sterner receives funding from the Pennsylvania Opioid Misuse and Addiction Abatement Trust, Pennsylvania Department of Drug and Alcohol Programs, Pennsylvania Department of Health, Independence Blue Cross Foundation, Montgomery County Government in Pennsylvania, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, National Institute of Justice, and National Science Foundation.

Brian King, Halie Kampman, Kristina P. Brant, and Maya Weinberg do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

​Politics + Society – The Conversation

The headlines documenting President Donald Trump’s plan to send federal troops to San Francisco followed a familiar arc. “Trump claims ‘unquestioned power’ in vow to send troops to San Francisco,” The Guardian reported on Oct. 20, 2025. The next day, the San Francisco Chronicle blared: “S.F. threatens to sue if Trump brings in National Guard.” Then, on Oct. 23, “Trump reverses his decision to send troops to San Francisco,” as ABC News put it, after Trump posted that conversations with the city’s mayor and tech moguls had swayed him.

It was another example of how Trump’s shifting policy positions, racially inflammatory statements and threats frequently fuel a flurry of headlines, reflecting what some psychologists are calling “media saturation overload” or “Trump stress disorder.”

This barrage of information may seem like overcommunication from a hyperactive administration. But it is much more than that.

Scholars have found that the constant, often conflicting and at times false information coming out of the White House and shared via social media posts and the conventional news media causes members of the public to see truth and fact as relative and makes them more likely to dismiss those who disagree with them as untruthful. This leaves doubt about what’s real and what isn’t.

This citizen paralysis creates what philosopher Hannah Arendt described in “The Origins of Totalitarianism” as a general public “for whom the distinction between fact and fiction … no longer exist.” When lies are truth and truth is derided as lies, Arendt wrote, ordinary people lose their bearings and can be manipulated for totalitarian objectives.

Meanwhile, many journalists have openly acknowledged fatigue with the pace and nature of the Trump administrations’ news cycles, amid frequent newsroom layoffs, mergers and closures.

I am a longtime journalist and now scholar of journalism and race, trained to see the methods and aims behind political leaders’ press operations. And as I show in my forthcoming book, the Trump administration’s rhetorical strategies echo the playbooks of authoritarian and white supremacist organizations such as the Third Reich and some factions of the modern alt-right movement. They are intended to narrow the scope of who belongs as an American.

Headlines at ‘muzzle velocity’

The Trump administration’s rhetorical strategies include claiming victim status while often laying blame on immigrants or other scapegoats in ways that I believe betray racist intent. At the same time it has overwhelmed journalists and the public with breaking news.

This strategy was laid out by Steve Bannon, an influential Trump supporter and strategist in his first administration, during a 2019 PBS “Frontline” interview, when he described the media as “the opposition party.”

“They’re dumb and they’re lazy, they can only focus on one thing at a time,” he said. “All we have to do is flood the zone. … Bang, bang, bang. These guys will never – will never be able to recover. But we’ve got to start with muzzle velocity.”

Bannon has long been associated with the alt-right, a movement known for rhetorical tactics that minimize and obfuscate its true aims.

A strategy forged in Trump’s first term

As I detail in my book, “American Otherness in Journalism: News Media Representations of Identity and Belonging,” Trump and his key advisers have been developing, refining and ramping up their news media manipulation for a long time.

An early example of this is the way the administration used these tactics through Trump’s public responses to the fatal violence at the August 2017 Unite the Right protest in Charlottesville, Virginia.

The two-day rally was organized by a white nationalist blogger and attended by members of neo-Nazi, white supremacist and far-right militias protesting the removal of a statue of Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee from a Charlottesville park. They marched with tiki torches, flew Confederate and Nazi flags and chanted antisemitic and racist slogans.

Amid violent clashes with counterprotesters on the second day, a neo-Nazi sympathizer drove into a crowd, killing a 32-year-old woman and injuring many others.

My study of television news coverage of Unite the Right found that the majority of news reports focused on the contradictory and inflammatory statements that Trump made about the antisemitic and racist protesters. Trump’s Aug. 15, 2017, press conference remark about blame on both sides after what happened garnered the most news media attention: “I think there is blame on both sides,” he said. “You had some very bad people in that group. You also had some very fine people on both sides.”

Exploiting chaos

The uncertainty surrounding what he meant created a cycle of news stories implying and denying that he sympathizes with white supremacists.

This is-he-or-isn’t-he intrigue spurred a surge of what fits the description of Bannon’s “muzzle-velocity” news headlines: “Trump declares ‘racism is evil’ amid pressure over Charlottesville” followed closely by “Trump defends White-nationalist protesters” and “Why Trump can’t get his story straight on Charlottesville.”

With the focus on Trump’s comments and what he might have really meant, the news media ultimately missed covering at the time the long-term threat posed by these white supremacist and other extremist groups.

Echoing a playbook from the past

Scholars have identified the fascist roots of these “post-truth” strategies: strongmen leaders uninterested in establishing leadership through honesty and transparency.

A recent scholarly analysis of Trump’s leadership concludes that the second-term president is overwhelming the public into “organized despair” by pitting races against each other while targeting minority groups as scapegoats, a tactic that hearkens back to 1930s Germany.

A 2019 analysis of Trump’s narrative style describes how he presents himself as a “strongman” fighting invisible forces of censorship and suppression. It also points out that this was part of the appeal of fascist leaders such as Mussolini and Hitler.

Researchers of Nazi propaganda identified key tactics in the German press such as name-calling and lumping together groups seen as opposition – communists, liberals and Jews – until public understanding of those groups blur into phrases like “enemies of Germany.” The messaging was constant and immersive, carried in local and national newspapers, radio, film and posters.

A key part of Trump’s rhetorical strategy is using race without directly referring to it. For example, Trump has described cities with large nonwhite populations such as Washington, D.C., and Chicago as “out of control” or “dirty,” contrary to actual crime statistics. He’s also questioned Kamala Harris’ racial identity, suggesting she “happened to turn Black.” And referring to Black football players who had been protesting systemic racism by kneeling during the national anthem, Trump said, “Get that son of a bitch off the field right now,” which many observers interpreted as racist because he was insulting people of color for the act of protesting racism.

This racial coding has been used by white supremacist groups to mask their true intent. They also use less overt labels such as “alt-right” or “pro-white” as a “rhetorical bridge” to the mainstream public.

In the case of the NFL protesters, the plausible deniability became an actual denial. Trump perfected this move when, during a 2020 debate with Joe Biden, he said, “Proud Boys – stand back and stand by,” referencing another group accused of thinly veiled racism.

Drowning in headlines

I believe that the endgame for this strategy is authoritarian power that greatly narrows the scope of who truly belongs and has rights in this country as an American.

This media saturation – drowning the public with a thousand Trump-generated headlines – allows his administration to keep dominating and controlling national attention.

But the media-consuming public can use the tools they have to encourage news outlets to better inform the public by identifying the media saturation strategy and reporting on why leaders are using it.

Otherwise, if news consumers let the headline overload do what it’s intended to do, and become overwhelmed and paralyzed, they become pawns in what I consider a ploy to make America less egalitarian and less democratic.

Angie Chuang is affiliated with the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication and the Boulder Faculty Assembly.

​Politics + Society – The Conversation