Analysis by CNN's Stephen Collinson
(CNN)--Democrats may win the midterm elections simply because they expose the illusion of a “golden age” of economics promoted by an unpopular president; But this alone will not reduce the prices of food commodities and gasoline.
During the election campaigns, Democratic candidates succeeded in effectively expressing the suffering of families suffering under the burden of the high-cost of living crisis. But they were not as good at detailing their plans to make life less expensive.
As the prospects for Democratic control of the House of Representatives increase, while Republicans are concerned about their position in the Senate, the question of Democrats' ability to take concrete and rapid steps to ease the financial burdens on Americans deserves further scrutiny.
There is some truth to Trump's complaint that Democrats have used the term "affordability of living" against him, especially since the era of former President Joe Biden saw inflation rise to its highest levels since the 1980s, before it later declined. “They're fake, they're very fake, because they're the ones who caused the affordability crisis, as they call it,” Trump said during the Republican Party's midterm election convention.
But these are the consequences of assuming the presidency, especially for a president who previously criticized high food commodity prices during his 2024 election campaign, and then failed to reduce them after coming to power. Trump has been his own worst enemy; His wars over Iran and tariffs, which have driven up costs, have overshadowed his initiatives to ease the burden of living, such as his proposals to exempt tips from taxes and take measures to reduce the prices of some prescription drugs.
But if Democrats win a share of power in Washington on November 3, they will find themselves with a responsibility to act as well, although their ability to reshape the economy will be limited, in part because of a president willing to use his veto power.
This means that the new Congress, led by Democrats, will have a greater ability to obstruct the actions of the president, who is making the most use of his presidential powers in modern history, compared to his ability to approve his own solutions.
This may involve a political trap; Recent elections in the United States and other democracies show that voters quickly lose patience with the parties they elect to bring about change but fail to achieve it. Thus, the political "honeymoon" period that Democrats may enjoy may quickly fade.
What will the Democrats do?
As the midterm election race enters its final three weeks, Democrats, weighing the possibility of regaining control of Congress, face three questions:
What measures do they suggest to ease the cost burden on Americans?
What legislation will they be able to pass?
Can they turn any moves to obstruct Trump's policies into a trump card in the 2028 election campaign?
In an electoral confrontation dominated by Trump's controversial statements and the controversies surrounding him, interest has declined in the detailed proposals put forward by Democrats in anticipation of the possibility of them obtaining a majority in the House of Representatives or the Senate during the next legislative session of Congress.
This does not mean that there are no plans; There are dozens of them. Candidates, interest groups, and think tanks are constantly putting forward ideas to lower housing costs, raise wages, restore social benefits, reform the health care system, protect workers from the effects of artificial intelligence, provide universal child care, spark a homebuilding boom, and lower food and fuel prices.
Roy Cooper, the Democratic Senate candidate for North Carolina, is promoting a plan with the slogan "Making things less expensive." James Talarico, the Texas Senate candidate, who will participate in an open dialogue session organized by CNN and the Jubilee Foundation on Wednesday, also adopts an agenda entitled “The New American Dream.”
Senator Ruben Gallego revealed a comprehensive economic plan that includes a program to create jobs in public services similar to the "New Deal." Also, Senator Chuck Schumer may reintroduce a very detailed policy draft, which he unsuccessfully submitted in January when Republicans controlled the Senate, if Democrats regain the majority.
But these ideas will be of little value unless they are coupled with an implementable roadmap, given the divided political landscape in Washington, if voters decide to send a punitive message to Trump next month.
Americans already realize that becoming a Democrat will not alone end the cost of living crisis that has accumulated over years. In a poll conducted by CNN and SSRS in September, Democrats led by 7 percentage points as the party closest to Americans' views on the economy.
However, only 35% believed that the party would have a mostly positive impact on the cost of living, while only 27% believed that it would have a positive impact on their personal financial situation.
Brainstorming ideas alone is not equivalent to developing actionable plans.
Fast action...but the obstacles are great
Democrats need to act quickly, and there are two things they believe they can do.
“If we don’t stop this war, and if we don’t stop it now, we will continue to watch the Iranian regime impose a stranglehold on the Strait of Hormuz, sending our energy prices soaring,” Abdul Sayed, the Michigan Democratic Senate candidate, said during a debate this month. “And ordinary citizens will pay the price at gas stations and in grocery stores.”
As Cooper told voters in July: “We must roll back these disruptive tariffs, and Congress must restore its constitutional authority, because these tariffs are costing ordinary people and small businesses more.”
Theoretically, the new Congress can end the war and cancel the tariffs imposed by Trump, but achieving this will be extremely difficult, to the point of making it almost impossible.
Democrats may try to block the approval of additional financial appropriations for military operations in Iran, and enact laws that restrict how funds allocated for broader military operations are spent. But this step entails great risks; Trump can accuse them of abandoning American forces in a war zone, and he can use his veto power to block legislation.
The failure of the House of Representatives, which was controlled by Democrats, to stop the Iraq war following the party's victory in the 2006 midterm elections, is a worrying indication of the difficulty of repeating such an attempt. Moreover, any confrontation with Trump over war powers, given the debate over the legality of the war on Iran, could lead to a constitutional impasse as complex as it might lead to an end to the conflict.
Congress could repeal the remainder of Trump's tariffs, which survived the Supreme Court's decision to strike down tariffs based on emergency powers. However, securing the two-thirds majority needed to override a presidential veto may be difficult to achieve in the Senate, even if Democrats regain control of the chamber.
If Democrats cannot change the country's course immediately, their political message will matter. House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries told reporters in June that the first bill the party would introduce if it won a majority, known as H.R. 1, would focus on affordability.
“There will be an intense focus on reducing the high cost of living and, of course, reforming our ailing health care system in this effort,” Jeffries added.
The challenge for Jeffries is to unify the ranks of the Democratic Caucus behind the proposed legislation, given the deep ideological gaps between democratic socialists, progressives and moderates - divisions that were clearly evident during this year's primaries. Therefore, he will have to hope to obtain a larger majority than the very narrow majority that caused so much trouble for Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson.
But even if Democrats achieve a comfortable majority in the House, their victory in the Senate elections is unlikely to result in more than a narrow majority in the chamber. Republicans are likely to retain their ability to block legislation unless Democrats can muster 60 votes.
Democrats may try to include their priorities in financial settlement bills, a mechanism that is not usually subject to minority obstruction in the usual way in the Senate, and is often used by Republicans as well. But the president still retains veto power; This is a power that former President Barack Obama used, for example, in January 2016 to reject a financial settlement bill presented by Republicans that aimed to repeal the Affordable Care Act.
How might high hopes be dashed?
It may seem strange, but the American system based on the distribution of federal powers allows, in principle, the possibility of reaching compromise solutions.
Perhaps Democrats can reach an understanding with Trump on housing costs, prescription drug prices, child tax credits, or infrastructure, all of which the president has shown interest in in the past.
But the Democrats' pledge to launch a broad campaign of investigations targeting the Trump White House would ignite a political cold war, making cooperation between the two parties unattainable.
Democrats' top priorities, such as restoring subsidies under the Affordable Care Act, may only find their way to implementation through a show of force during budget negotiations or in the context of confrontations that could lead to a shutdown of the federal government.
Such confrontations are a gamble for both parties.
Elections have always raised hopes, promises and expectations, but divided governance usually leads to bitter political stalemate.
