And THAT IS what Democrats (Senate Dem. leader Schumer) should be focused on says Silver in realtion to a possible Government shutdown showdown ….
Trump’s first-term approval numbers didn’t move much either, other than when he fired FBI Director James Comey early in his term, and then at the very end after January 6. Head-to-head polls between Trump and Kamala Harris were also extremely steady in last year’s campaign.
You can find one exception to this, however. Apart from Trump’s honeymoon period wearing off very early in his term, the sharpest decline came in April, when he went from a -3 at the start of the month to bottoming out at a -10. We’ve examined the timing of this before, and it seems very likely to be related to tariffs (“Liberation Day” was April 2) and the anxiety they caused for voters about higher prices. Some further evidence for this comes if you look at Trump’s issue-by-issue numbers. His ratings on trade and inflation very sharply declined in April, before rebounding in May as Trump backed off from some of his tariff threats. But plenty of tariffs have been implemented, and he’s now at basically an all-time low on inflation — even worse than April — which is creeping higher.
Why tariffs are the best point of leverage
In the Times story, I argue that Democrats should tie their support for any government funding bill to tariffs — more specifically, to passage of the Trade Review Act, which would allow Congress to reassert its constitutional role in levying tariffs. I see several advantages here: it highlights an issue where Trump is behaving abnormally and violating the separation of powers, but which is still highly legible to voters and indeed perhaps the only thing that has proven to dent his popularity so far. And it could drive a wedge between the various factions of the GOP.
To be clear, I don’t think Trump would ultimately relent. I argue in the story that Democrats shouldn’t be afraid to force Republicans to blow up what’s left of the filibuster, which is already on life support, and which Democrats might want to get rid of anyway should they win back a trifecta (almost certainly by a narrow margin) in 2028.
But I like this approach better than Chuck Schumer’s current plan, which is to tie support for the continuing resolution to health-care-related issues instead, such as an extension of Obamacare subsidies. Health care is generally a good issue for Democrats — but that’s the sort of thing that Democrats might do with a more normal Republican like Nikki Haley or Mitt Romney in the White House. I don’t see how it conveys the message that we’re in unprecedented and/or dangerous times.
I’m also not sure what Schumer’s endgame is supposed to be. One risk is that Republicans might actually take the deal, which would take a good midterms issue off the table for Democrats….
…
In March, I argued that Democrats should shut the government down over DOGE-related spending cuts just because I thought that was a cleaner play. DOGE was both germane to government spending and focusing on it would highlight the potential unconstitutionality of DOGE’s role and it would be hard for Republicans to argue to reopen the government at the same time that Elon & Co. were trying to starve the beast.
There’s nothing that represents quite the same opportunity this time, I don’t think. Some of the things that might understandably upset constitutional scholars or people like me the aren’t likely to resonate with the public or aren’t related to funding government operations. A free-for-all might be even worse, with every Democrat (many of whom are jockeying for a very open 2028 nomination) highlighting their pet issue to base voters. But Schumer also probably can’t get away with just doing nothing and providing votes for cloture again; his leadership role might not survive it….