Election Wins Are No License for Shutdown Stubbornness

In my previous column, “A Warning to Democrats on the Government Shutdown and ACA Subsidies,” I cautioned the Democrat Party against the seductive trap of overreach during the ongoing government shutdown-now entering its 38th day. Drawing on historical precedents like the 1995-1996 and 2013 shutdowns, I argued that leveraging public blame against Republicans to demand permanent extensions of Affordable Care Act (ACA) subsidies risks transforming a tactical advantage into a strategic disaster. The ACA’s enhanced premium tax credits, set to expire at year’s end due to Democrats’ own sunset clauses in the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), represent a self-inflicted crisis. Prolonging the shutdown to secure uncapped, trillion-dollar entitlements not only ignores the ACA’s foundational flaws-such as doubled premiums since 2014 and fraudulent enrollments-but invites unforeseen “events,” like the impending Thanksgiving travel chaos, to flip public opinion and erode their position. As Harold Macmillan wisely noted, “events, dear boy, events” have a way of derailing even the most calculated political maneuvers.

Tuesday’s Blue Wave in Shallow Water

The ink had barely dried on that piece when the results of the November 5, 2025, off-year elections rolled in, delivering what many Democrats hailed as a resounding validation of their resistance to President Trump and the GOP. Victories in Virginia, New Jersey, and New York City-Abigail Spanberger’s 15-point gubernatorial win, Mikie Sherrill’s historic triumph as New Jersey’s governor, and Zohran Mamdani’s ascension as New York City’s first Muslim mayor-sparked jubilant headlines and a surge of optimism within the party. Pundits on MSNBC and CNN proclaimed a “blue wave” in these blue states, suggesting that voters had rebuked Trump’s unpopularity and endorsed Democrat defiance, including their hardline stance on the shutdown. Yet, as a follow-on to my earlier warning, I must emphasize: these election outcomes, while impressive on the surface, are no mandate for escalating overreach. If anything, a closer examination reveals persistent vulnerabilities that Democrats ignore at their peril. Celebrating too much now could blind them to the very pitfalls I outlined, setting the stage for regret in the 2026 midterms and beyond.

What the Analysts Actually Said

To understand why these wins should temper rather than embolden Democrat strategies, let’s first dissect the results through the lens of sober analysis, as provided by commentators across the ideological spectrum. Ruy Teixeira, in The Free Press, captured the essence of this caution in his piece “Are Democrats Celebrating a Little Too Much?” He acknowledged the Democrats’ “very good night”-sweeping executive races in Virginia and New Jersey, and Mamdani’s 9-point victory over Andrew Cuomo in New York-but warned against overinterpreting them as predictive of future success. Teixeira pointed to historical precedents: Republicans’ strong showing in Virginia’s 2021 gubernatorial race was followed by Democrat overperformance in the 2022 midterms, only for Democrats to dominate 2023 off-years and then suffer a disastrous 2024 presidential loss. These patterns underscore that off-year elections, decided by highly engaged, lower-turnout electorates tilted toward educated voters, are poor guides for high-stakes national contests.

Nate Cohn of The New York Times echoed this in “Can Tuesday’s Success Carry Democrats to the Midterms?” While noting Democrats’ double-digit margins and outperformance relative to Kamala Harris’s 2024 benchmarks, Cohn highlighted the electorate’s composition: “highly engaged, lower-turnout” voters who disproportionately favor Democrats in non-presidential races. Preliminary data from New Jersey showed a more Democrat-leaning turnout than in recent cycles, with rebounds in Hispanic areas likely driven by differential participation rather than genuine persuasion. Cohn also flagged Mamdani’s win as “extraordinary” due to unprecedented youth turnout but cautioned that the three-way race (with Cuomo running independent) obscures its broader implications. Polls underestimated Democrats by 5-10 points here, continuing a trend in off-years, yet generic midterm surveys show only a slim 3-4 point Democrat lead-enough perhaps to retake the House, but far from the 2018 landslide.

This chorus of caution extends beyond these flagship outlets. Eric Levitz in Vox celebrated the results as a “nightmare scenario for the GOP” but explicitly advised Democrats against repeating the 2023 mistake of assuming off-year dominance foretold presidential victory. Ana Radelat in MinnPost noted “potential coalition cracks remain,” with Mamdani’s progressive triumph clashing against moderates like Spanberger and Sherrill, failing to resolve working-class voter alienation from 2024. David Weigel in The Iola Register framed the celebrations as necessarily “cautious,” emphasizing that these successes hinge on Trump’s base sitting out while Democrats’ engaged core mobilizes-a dynamic unlikely to persist in higher-turnout midterms. Ronald Brownstein at CNN and analyses in USA Today and Politico similarly warned of “mixed messages,” unresolved ideological divides, and the risk of overreliance on anti-Trump energy without innovative appeals to swing voters.

The Hidden Weakness Beneath the Victory

Synthesizing these insights, a clear picture emerges: the 2025 wins stem from Democrats’ strengths in low-turnout environments-educated, suburban voters energized by opposition to Trump-but mask deeper frailties. Teixeira’s data on class gaps is particularly damning: Democrats performed stronger among college-educated voters than Harris in 2024, with a larger share of such voters in the electorate, yet remained anemic among working-class (noncollege) ones. Mamdani, for instance, carried college-educated voters by 19 points but lost working-class ones by 5. This polarization, especially pronounced among white college-educated women, suggests the party’s appeal is increasingly niche, potentially alienating broader demographics in a populist era.

How Tuesday’s Wins Feed the Shutdown Delusion

How does this relate to the shutdown and ACA subsidies? Directly and perilously. The election euphoria risks convincing Democrats that their shutdown stance-refusing clean CRs without “ironclad guarantees” for ACA extensions-is vindicated by voters. But these blue-state triumphs in low-engagement races offer no such endorsement. If anything, they highlight the fragility of Democrat support: the disengaged, disaffected voters who propelled Trump’s 2024 victory “probably sat this one out,” as Cohn noted. Prolonging the shutdown to demand permanent subsidies-potentially adding $2-3 trillion to deficits without reforms-exemplifies the overreach I warned against. It’s a tactic born of the same hubris that led to the IRA’s trade-offs: prioritizing climate spending over sustainable healthcare, only to cry foul when sunsets arrive.

The Coming Thanksgiving Reckoning

Consider the risks amplified by these election dynamics. As I detailed previously, the ACA’s flaws-rooted in its original design of taxing for a decade to fund six years of benefits, exacerbated by temporary COVID-era expansions-make uncapped extensions a fiscal time bomb. Republicans, emboldened by their unified control, are poised to counter with demands for income caps at 400% FPL, national insurance markets for competition, and mandate eliminations. If Democrats dig in, banking on post-election momentum, they invite a backlash akin to 2013, when shutdowns over ACA funding backfired amid implementation glitches. Today, with Trump’s approval hovering at 42-43% and economic discontent festering, the shutdown’s disruptions-already hitting SNAP, WIC, and IRS refunds-could culminate in Thanksgiving turmoil. Over 80 million travelers facing airport chaos, flight cancellations, and billions in losses might swiftly shift blame, especially among independents and moderates who swung the 2024 election.

The Progressive-Moderate Fracture Is Widening

Moreover, the intra-party tensions illuminated by the elections compound these dangers. Mamdani’s socialist victory fuels progressives’ calls for bold, uncompromising policies, while Spanberger and Sherrill’s moderate-couched campaign successes suggest a mandate for pragmatism. Teixeira rightly sides with the latter, arguing neither faction has cracked rebuilding working-class support. As Politico‘s Elena Schneider and Liz Crampton noted, even strong wins could devolve into “internal recriminations” without a clear path forward.

After much deliberation, I’ve decided not to seek reelection in 2026.

I’m confident that were I to run again, I would win. But recent events have made me reconsider whether the good I can do in Congress still outweighs the cost to my family.

I’m proud of what I’ve accomplished…

— Jared Golden for Congress (@golden4congress) November 5, 2025

In the shutdown context, this divide could fracture Democrat unity: progressives pushing for expansive subsidies risk alienating moderates wary of deficits, while a prolonged stalemate exposes the party to GOP attacks on “obstructionism and cruelty.” Maine Rep. Jared Golden represents Maine CD-02, which President Trump carried all three elections. In the Democrat caucus he’s practically conservative. He is the only House Democrat to vote for the clean CR in September. Now he’s leaving Congress.

The Path Democrats Should Take Instead

Democrats would be wise to heed these cautions and pivot toward compromise. Rather than holding the government hostage, they could negotiate bipartisan ACA reforms: capping subsidies to prevent fraud (e.g., over 5 million improper enrollments reported), fostering cross-state competition to lower premiums, and tying extensions to deficit-neutral measures. This approach aligns with the humility Teixeira advocates-treating election wins as a “down payment” on fixing 2024 woes, not permission to memory-hole them. By avoiding overreach, Democrats can mitigate the “events” that historically doom such tactics, positioning themselves for genuine midterm gains in 2026.

Conclusion: Choose Pragmatism or Face Reversal

In conclusion, the 2025 off-year elections, while a morale boost, reinforce rather than refute my shutdown warning. They expose a coalition strong in engagement but weak in breadth, vulnerable to turnout surges and populist appeals. Celebrating too much now, as media analysts uniformly caution, risks blinding Democrats to the perils of prolonging pain for ideological gains. History shows overreach invites reversal; the ACA subsidy fight is no exception. For the sake of sustainable governance and electoral viability, Democrats must choose pragmatism over stubbornness. The alternative? A self-inflicted wound that could echo through 2028 and beyond.