Even if Democrats capture the House or Senate in the midterm elections, the party's most ambitious progressive proposals — Medicare-for-all, the Green New Deal, abolishing ICE, an arms embargo on Israel and a $25 minimum wage — are unlikely to become law, according to a political analysis published by Fox News.
The analysis argues that Democratic victories in battleground districts would come from moderate candidates, not from the progressive insurgents who champion those policies. Candidates like Donavan McKinney in Michigan, Chris Rabb in Pennsylvania, Melat Kiros in Colorado, Claire Valdez and Darializa Avila Chevalier in New York are expected to win in deep-blue strongholds where progressive ideas are popular. But those seats are not the ones that would decide control of Congress.
Instead, the majority would hinge on candidates such as Cait Conley, who is challenging Rep. Mike Lawler, R-N.Y., in Dutchess County north of New York City; Brian Poindexter, running against Rep. Max Miller, R-Ohio, in Wooster; and Christina Bohannan, who is seeking to unseat Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeks, R-Iowa, in Davenport. Those races, the analysis notes, are in swing or moderate districts where support for progressive policies is far from guaranteed.
That math creates a fundamental tension for Democrats. The progressive ideas may energize the party's base, but the moderates who would actually deliver a majority are unlikely to vote for them. Even if a bill reached the floor, procedural votes could become a flashpoint. The analysis points to Rep. Marie Gluesenkamp Perez, D-Wash., who voted for Republican procedural measures earlier this year, sparking an internal Democratic firestorm. A similar vote on a rule to debate Medicare-for-all, for instance, would be politically risky in her battleground district.
The Senate poses an even higher hurdle. Even a slim Democratic majority would still need 60 votes to overcome a filibuster, making passage of sweeping progressive legislation nearly impossible. And if such a bill somehow cleared both chambers, President Trump would likely veto it.
The analysis also notes that House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., is reportedly in discussions with Democratic Socialists of America-backed candidates to secure legislative commitments before some of them would support him in a potential race for Speaker. But political observers would find it hard to believe Democrats would balk at promoting Jeffries, who would become the first Black House Speaker in American history. If he wins the gavel, his role would shift from opposition leader to caucus manager, requiring him to balance the demands of the hard left against the needs of moderates.
History offers a cautionary tale. The analysis recalls that Republicans won the House in 1994 with the «Contract With America,» a 10-point plan to cut spending and reduce Washington's influence, but only a few items were approved and President Clinton vetoed others. In 2006, Democrats campaigned on drawing down the war in Iraq and captured the House, but it took several years to begin defunding the effort, frustrating activists who demanded an immediate pullout. In 2010, Republicans won a record 63 seats with promises to repeal and replace ObamaCare, but that never happened.
The pattern, according to the analysis, is that campaign promises rarely translate directly into legislative reality. The progressive agenda may be effective at exciting the base, but if Democrats win a majority and cannot deliver, their voters are likely to feel let down. As the analysis puts it, parties campaign in poetry but govern in prose — and the poetry of Medicare-for-all and the Green New Deal may not survive the prose of a narrowly divided Congress.