On Nov. 10, after 41 days of the federal government being shut down, a funding bill was passed in the Senate with a margin of 60–40. The biggest controversy of this bill’s passage was eight Democratic senators voting with the Republican majority to end the shutdown while simultaneously ending the hope of keeping Affordable Care Act premiums down. Many on the left see this as both a demonstration of weakness in the Democratic Party and a waste of time. Many in the Oberlin community see this as a loss for the Democratic Party. However, I view this as the best outcome that the Democrats could achieve at the time.
In the long term, the solution to the shutdown will harm many American citizens, but the immediate effects were more dire and had to be dealt with. If SNAP loses any funding, around 42 million Americans would have continued to go without aid — nearly twice the amount of people whose healthcare costs are going to rise due to the increase in ACA premiums. In short, pressure was too severe for the Democrats to hold out, and this outcome was the most desirable one.
Another immediate impact that was already being felt was the lack of payment to air traffic controllers and TSA agents. Had the shutdown continued, there is a very real chance many people would not be able to make it home for Thanksgiving. While some may argue that the shutdown could have served as political ammunition for the Democrats, I simply don’t think this would have moved voters, who have shown time and time again that they are for the same Republican Party that’s actively against them.
To build on this, Democrats are the minority and couldn’t change the effects of this bill even if they wanted to. The assumption that Democrats could have held out longer assumes that the Republican Party, which enforced the SNAP defunding, would care about the damage it is causing to its constituents. Likewise, this perspective assumes that Democrats, who hold no majority in any branch of the federal government, could make the Republicans shift toward their side. Even if this unlikely change had happened, one would also need to assume that Donald Trump would sign such a bill and not veto it, which is an even more unlikely scenario in my mind.
So, how have the Democrats “won” this shutdown? A crucial part of this agreement to a vote for ACA Premiums was that said vote would happen by mid December. With the vagueness around scheduling this vote, it most likely will not happen. If the vote does take place, it would not be filibuster-proof. Tthe Democrats can hold out until another likely shutdown at the end of January. In a more simple breakdown, because neither party has enough members in the Senate and no Senators want to suffer the wrath of their fellow party members, the chances for another government shutdown as a continuation of the previous shutdown’s issues are extremely heightened.
The second success is that the Democrats have shown they can hold out. As evidenced by the shutdown lasting over a month and only ending because of external factors, if a second shutdown happens, the Democrats will be able to hold out for as long as possible. With SNAP funding now confirmed for the next year, unless the Republican Party finds new unlawful ways of defunding programs, the Democrats could theoretically hold out until the funding ends later next year. If this holdout did happen, it would certainly prove those pessimistic about the party’s resilience wrong and thus continue to help them “win” the shutdown.
The third and final aspect of my argument is the impact on elections in 2026. With all House of Representatives elections happening, and 33 Senate seats up for grabs — including in Ohio — the Democrats will use anything they have to try to regain the House majority, with even a majority in the Senate being possible. Recent successful elections in Virginia, New Jersey, New York, and California show voters prefer Democratic candidates and candidates in today’s political climate, whether they are running for governor, mayor, or considering a proposition on redistricting. It would be foolish for Democrats to not seize the moment. The opportunity for another shutdown that could be completely blamed on the Republicans could produce the potential for a shift in voting toward the Democratic Party. This trend can be seen in New Jersey, which voted for Democratic Governor-elect Mikie Sherrill by a margin of nearly 14 points. This was a huge shift from the 2024 election, which saw New Jersey move toward the right by about 10 points compared to the 2020 election.
The Democratic hope is to shift these numbers in many more states. Ohio presents a great example, with Sherrod Brown and Amy Acton — the Democratic front-runners for senator and governor, respectively — hoping to turn Ohio back into the purple state it used to be. While I would like to mention the possibility of Oberlin’s congressional district flipping, it is very unlikely any challenger will beat incumbent Republican Congressman Jim Jordan, who won Ohio’s 4 congressional district by more than double the votes of his challenger, Democrat Tamie Wilson, in 2024.
Overall, the shutdown and its resolution have no doubt hurt millions of people in this country. In the end, I believe the solution was a double-edged sword, where only one party could “win” while the other had to suffer some sort of blowback. While I hope my predictions are right and that Democrats win back the House and Ohio chooses Democratic leaders next year, there’s the very real possibility that will not happen. A lot of my political theories about the future depend on the assumption that voters care about what has impacted them and who will help them going forward. I, for one, do believe people are smart enough to remember and vote in their best interest, and I hope that by this time next year, the political landscape looks very different.
