Democrats outperformed expectations in a series of state and local elections last week, sweeping statewide offices in blue and swing states and regaining ground with key voter groups — independents, young people, Latinos, suburban women — that shifted right in 2024, helping reelect President Donald Trump.
As in last year’s races, the winning message centered on economic issues, the dominant concern across demographics. But this time, roughly two-thirds of voters expressed disappointment with Trump’s handling of the economy and the cost of living, and 63% said his tariffs made inflation worse. Just 38% trusted Republicans to do a better job on the economy, compared with 37% for Democrats — the smallest lead for the party since 2017, when it faced a five-point trust deficit on the issue at a similar moment in Trump’s first term.
Party leaders are framing the results as a comeback for Democrats still grappling with their loss of the White House and Senate majority. Yet the diversity of the winning slate — establishment figures in Virginia and New Jersey, a democratic socialist elected New York City mayor, and moderates in down-ballot races focused on affordability and social issues — underscores the party’s big-tent nature, highlighting the challenge it faces in balancing centrist pragmatism with an energized progressive left.
Voters remain disillusioned with the Democratic brand, with 68% saying the party is out of touch with their needs and concerns, compared with 61% who say the same of Republicans. Working-class voters, once a core Democratic constituency, increasingly see the party as having misplaced priorities, while many Democrats themselves view it as weakand leaderless — despite California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s efforts to position himself at the national forefront of the opposition to Trump.
Whether last week’s results mark the start of a true rebound for the Democrats may depend less on their strengths than on growing frustration with Trump’s performance, historically a key predictor of midterm election outcomes. His net approval now stands at -13 points — the lowest since January — with 45% of Americans strongly disapproving. Polls from late October show Democrats more enthusiastic than Republicans about voting next year, with more voters ruling out supporting a Republican than a Democrat (42% to 35%) and saying their vote will send a message of opposition to Trump rather than support (41% to 21%).
In response, Republican leaders are refocusing their message on specific steps to reduce living costs, including new tax breaks and lower drug prices. Trump himself recently conceded that Americans are paying more for goods because of his tariffs. The question now is whether he can stay on message, rather than continuing to insist that prices have fallen, while Democrats confront yet another internal rift over the Senate vote to end the government shutdown.
With the nation’s longest government shutdown finally over, Senate Democrats are facing anger from the party’s progressive flank after some of them joined Republicans in voting to reopen the government. A resolution they backed will keep most of the government funded through Jan. 31, 2026, with some agencies and programs, including food assistance, extended through September, and prevent further layoffs of federal workers at least until February.
What it won’t do is renew the expiring pandemic-era subsidies under the Affordable Care Act, leaving about 45 million Americans facing steep increases in health insurance costs. The chamber’s Republican leaders have promised a vote on a Democratic proposal to address this, but their counterparts in the House have yet to make a similar commitment — even as 38% of voters say they would blame congressional Republicans for ending the subsidies, and another 37% would blame President Trump.
History suggests that a party seeking concessions during a government shutdown rarely if ever achieves its goals. Yet Democrats’ relative unity and emphasis on protecting constituents have been key to their strong showing in last week’s elections, while Republicans have shouldered most of the blame for the standoff. Trump himself acknowledged the shutdown hurt his party, particularly in Virginia, home to more than 180,000 federal employees. Although health care ranks as a secondary issue nationally, it was a leading concern for voters in Virginia and New Jersey, where 21% and 16%, respectively, named it the top issue facing their states (compared with just 5% nationwide).
Heading into next year’s midterm elections, Democrats — who hold a six-point advantage on handling health care costs — are expected to make the issue central to their broader affordability message, putting Republicans on the defensive over the effects of Trump’s signature legislation, the Working Families Act, which is projected to leave as many as 10 million people without public health insurance over the next decade. Whether Democrats can overcome internal divisions to sustain that message remains to be seen.
Over the next few weeks, the Supreme Court will consider a challenge to President Trump’s use of broad tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), a 1977 law. The tariffs in question include fentanyl-related duties on China, Mexico, and Canada; “reciprocal” levies on most U.S. trading partners aimed at reducing trade deficits; and tariffs on countries such as India and Brazil imposed for political rather than trade-related reasons. The case does not cover Section 232 tariffs on steel, aluminum, and autos, or Section 301 tariffs on Chinese goods tied to unfair trade practices.
The challengers argue that Trump exceeded his authority because Congress never granted presidents the power to impose tariffs under emergency law. Administration lawyers counter that such flexibility is needed to protect the U.S. economy and national security. Most justices appear at least somewhat skeptical that the statute authorizes such sweeping actions, emphasizing that Congress alone has the power to tax Americans, although some have stressed the president’s inherent authority in foreign affairs. Based on early deliberations, some legal analysts expect the Court to strike down or limit use of the IEEPA for tariff purposes, a significant shift for a bench that has generally sided with Trump so far this year. Others foresee a narrower decision that sends the case back to a lower court for further consideration.
In the meantime, the administration is exploring other options to preserve its tariff regime, including Section 122 of the 1974 Trade Act, which permits temporary 15% tariffs for up to 150 days to address trade imbalances; Section 338 of the 1930 Tariff Act, which allows tariffs up to 50% on nations that discriminate against U.S. commerce; and expanded use of Sections 232 and 301 — none of which provide the same breadth or flexibility as the IEEPA. An expedited ruling could come as early as December.
