Alex Henderson, AlterNet

After more than a month, the partial shutdown of the United States' federal government drags on. President Donald Trump is calling for Senate Republicans to "get rid of the filibuster" in order to get a spending bill passed and end the shutdown, but many conservatives are uncomfortable with that idea.

Frustrated Americans were hoping that Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-South Dakota) had found enough votes to get a bill passed in the Senate. But Punchbowl News' Andrew Desiderio, in a November 5 post on X, formerly Twitter, reported, "Thune on the filibuster post-Trump breakfast: 'I know where the votes are. The answer is, there aren't the votes.'"

Reporting from CBS News' Caitlin Huey-Burns is consistent with Desiderio's.

Huey-Burns tweeted, "Thune after meeting with Trump at the [White House] just told us there is still no appetite to get rid of the filibuster. The votes are not there. He said Trump may be able to sway some senators on that but not enough."

Semafor's Burgess Everett, formerly of Twitter, tweeted, "Thune says Trump may be able to move some GOP senators on the filibuster but adds: 'I know where math is on this issue in the Senate. It's just not happening.'"

On Wednesday, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump — a case that challenges President Donald Trump's right to unilaterally impose steep new tariffs using the Emergency Powers Act of 1977.

The plaintiff in the case argues that Trump, without Congress's input, is imposing a policy that is harmful to his business. Trump, however, argues that his tariffs are vital to the country's economic well-being.

Trump, Axios' Courtenay Brown reported Tuesday that the tariffs are a "life or death" matter for the United States.

"President Trump claimed on Tuesday that the U.S. would be 'virtually defenseless' against other nations if the Supreme Court strikes down a slew of tariffs," Brown reports. "Why it matters: Trump's comments come just one day before the highest court will hear oral arguments challenging the legality of a key part of his economic agenda. Trump officials have played down the effects of a potential loss, saying the administration would step in to reimpose any tariffs overturned by the Supreme Court using other trade authorities."

Brown adds, "Still, Trump for months has been warning that a loss would be economically devastating for the country — even though the U.S. had long survived without the highest tariffs in nearly a century."

On his Truth Social platform, Trump posted, "Tomorrow's United States Supreme Court case is, literally, LIFE OR DEATH for our Country. With a Victory, we have tremendous, but fair, Financial and National Security. Without it, we are virtually defenseless against other Countries who have, for years, taken advantage of us. Our Stock Market is consistently hitting Record Highs, and our Country has never been more respected than it is right now. A big part of this is the Economic Security created by Tariffs, and the Deals that we have negotiated because of them."

Brown notes that what the High Court ultimately decides "could curb Trump's powers — or open the door for Trump and future presidents to use the emergency powers to bypass Congress."

Read Courtenay Brown's full article for Axios at this link.

On Wednesday, November 5 — the day after the United States' 2025 off-year elections — the U.S. Supreme Court will be hearing oral arguments in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, a case involving President Donald Trump's ability to unilaterally impose tariffs via executive order under the Emergency Powers Act of 1977.

Many Democrats are hoping that the High Court will rule against Trump in the case, but opposition is coming from the right as well — including a group called the Liberty Justice Institute.

According to Washington Post reporter Kat Zakrzewski, the Institute is generously funding the anti-tariffs argument from the right.

"President Donald Trump is used to battles at the Supreme Court against liberal advocacy groups," Zakrzewski explains in an article published on November 4. "But Wednesday's high-stakes argument over his tariff policy features a very different foe — a legal center funded without public disclosure by some of the country's wealthiest conservatives. The cases on which the Supreme Court is scheduled to hear oral arguments were brought by small businesses, which argue that Trump's tariffs have harmed them by raising their costs."

Zakrzewski adds, "Standing behind them, however — and paying for some of the high-priced legal talent — is the Liberty Justice Center, a nonprofit group with a libertarian-leaning agenda that has previously challenged public-sector unions and sued to prevent the ban on TikTok from taking effect."

According to Zakrzewski, prominent conservatives are funding the Liberty Justice Center.

"Liberty Justice Center does not disclose the names of its donors," the reporter notes, "but a Washington Post analysis of tax filings found that since 2020, it has received money from Donors Trust, the Walton Family Foundation and the Bradley Foundation, all of which have been prominent conservative donors. Donors Trust is a fund that receives money from wealthy donors whose identities are not disclosed and steers it toward conservative causes."

Zakrzewski continues, "The group has frequently backed organizations associated with Federalist Society co-Chairman Leonard Leo, who counseled Trump on judicial picks during his first presidential term, but whom Trump denounced in May, in part because of the tariff case. Liberty Justice Center is also listed as a national partner of the State Policy Network, a network of conservative nonprofit organizations with links to Charles and David Koch that also receives funding from Donors Trust."

Read Kat Zakrzewski's full Washington Post article at this link (subscription required).

On Halloween Night 2025, President Donald Trump held a Great Gatsby-themed party at Mar-a-Lago, complete with 1920s dresses, headbands, dancers and Prohibition-era nostalgia.

F. Scott Fitzgerald's famous novel "The Great Gatsby," published 100 years ago in 1925, captured the hedonism of The Jazz Age and, in 1974, was adapted into a movie starring Robert Redford as Long Island millionaire Jay Gatsby and Mia Farrow as his ex-lover Daisy Buchanan. But while Fitzgerald's novel and the Redford film took a critical look at the excesses of the 1920s, Trump's Halloween bash is being attacked as "tone-deaf" for celebrating them at a time when millions of Americans are losing Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits.

Liberal economist Paul Krugman, in a November 4 column for his Substack page, strongly disagrees with Trump's Gatsby party being called "tone-deaf" — as he believes that the president and his MAGA allies flaunt their indifference to the suffering of others.

"There's been plenty of scathing commentary about the lavish, Great Gatsby-themed Halloween party Donald Trump threw at Mar a Lago — a party complete with sequined, feathered dancers and, yes, a scantily-clad woman in a giant martini glass," Krugman argues. "The party, held just hours before 42 million Americans were about to lose federal food assistance, as 1.4 million federal workers are going without pay, was grotesque. It was also, like everything Trump, unspeakably vulgar. But many commenters described the festivities as 'tone-deaf,' as if Trump didn't realize how it would look to be holding such a party as tens of millions of Americans are facing severe hardship."

Krugman continues, "C'mon. Of course he realized how it would look. He understood perfectly well that he was partying while ordinary Americans were suffering. And that understanding — combined with the belief that he can get away with it — was a big reason he enjoyed the event."

The former New York Times columnist notes that in 2018, The Atlantic's Adam Serwer wrote an anti-Trump article that was headlined "The Cruelty Is the Point." Serwer's arguments, Krugman stresses, still apply to Trump seven years later.

"Serwer was thinking of working-class and middle-class Trump supporters, many of whom are voting against their own economic interests," Krugman writes. "But you can see the same joy in cruelty, not just in Trump, but in most of his top minions — from Stephen Miller and JD Vance to Tom Homans, Kristi Noem, Pam Bondi and Pete Hegseth. All of them clearly take a smirking satisfaction in their ability to stick it to the poor and powerless."

Krugman continues, "What about the guests at the party? What about the oligarchs abasing themselves at Trump's feet? Some of them may share in the cruelty of Trump's inner circle. Most probably just don't care about other people's suffering, certainly not enough to risk Trump's wrath by protesting or even failing to show up. So, to repeat, the party at Mar-a-Lago wasn't a case of tone deafness, living it up despite others' suffering. It was in large part a party held to celebrate others' suffering."

Paul Krugman's full Substack column is available at this link.

Although House Democrats did a lot to save Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) when Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) was trying to oust him from that position in 2024, he isn't shy about demonizing the party. Johnson is claiming that Democratic lawmakers fighting to fund Obamacare subsidies are trying to give health insurance to undocumented immigrants — a claim that has been repeatedly debunked.

The speaker also described No Kings Day protesters as a "hate America" combination of communists and Hamas supporters though, in reality, the protesters included everything from middle-of-the-road Democrats to liberals and progressives to right-wing Never Trump conservatives.

But in an article published by the conservative website The Bulwark Monday, journalist Will Saletan stresses that when it comes to being mean-spirited, Rep. Tom Emmer (R-MN) is much worse than Johnson.

"Republicans in Congress claim to be innocent in the government shutdown," Saletan observes. "Unlike Donald Trump — who has used layoffs, termination of construction projects, and additional threats to bully Democrats during the impasse — House Speaker Mike Johnson and Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-NC) say they just want to work constructively across the aisle, not score political points. Johnson and Thune insist that they're helpless in the standoff because they need 60 votes in the Senate to break a Democratic filibuster. But the third-ranking House Republican, Majority Whip Tom Emmer, has abandoned this pretense."

Saletan argues that Emmer is decidedly more unhinged than Johnson in his attacks on Democrats.

"Like Trump, Emmer is vilifying Democrats, hurling gratuitous insults, and urging Republican senators to exempt appropriations bills from the filibuster," Saletan explains. "Johnson often accuses Democrats of kowtowing to American Marxists. But Emmer goes further. In the past month, by my count, he has called Democrats, their political base, or No Kings protesters 'communist' (seven times), 'Marxist' (14 times), 'violent' (nine times), 'almost jihadist' (once), and 'terrorist' or 'pro-terrorist' (24 times)."

Saletan continues, "In a radio interview on October 9, Emmer accused Democrats of having changed completely from the days when they merely disagreed with Republicans 'over the size and scope of government.' Nowadays, he professed, 'They want Venezuela. They want Cuba. These are not constitutional republic-loving Democrats. These are Marxists, communists'…. If there's anything about you that a demagogue could use to turn people against you — if you're old, for example, or if you're fat, or if you came from another country — Emmer will find it."

Will Saletan's full article for The Bulwark is available at this link.

As much as President Donald Trump demonizes the mainstream media, he loves the spotlight. And on Sunday night, Trump's interview with Norah O'Donnell for CBS News' "60 Minutes" was aired.

The interview is generating a variety of reactions on X.

Trump's MAGA loyalists are reflexively praising Trump's interview performance.

Eric Daugherty, chief content creator for the right-wing Florida's Voice News, tweeted, "BREAKING: The White House just released the FULL uncut version of President Trump's 60 Minutes interview - which CBS SPLICED into just 27 minutes. The original is 73 minutes long. 47 held up VERY well through the entire thing. The fake news doesn't stand a chance!"

But other X users were highly critical of Trump's responses to O'Donnell's questions.

The Bulwark's Tim Miller — a Never Trump conservative, former GOP strategist and frequent guest on MSNBC — tweeted, "60 Minutes did not air the part where Trump discusses his success in extorting the network and calls them Fake News. This edit is harmful to me and I'm considering suing."

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-New York) sarcastically wrote, "Maybe I should file a complaint with the FCC against the Trump White House for editing his unhinged 60 Minutes interview. It will use the exact same language Trump lodged against Vice President Harris."

Max Flugrath, communications director for Fair Fight Action, posted, "So, Trump knows who Bari Weiss is, but not Changpeng Zhao, whose company helped the Trump family make $550 million and he just pardoned less than 2 weeks ago?"

Liberal Gen-Z influencer Harry Sisson commented, "This Trump 60 Minutes interview has been a total disaster. He can't answer questions on his blatant corruption, he sounds clueless on foreign policy, and he continues to defend his tariffs which are hurting Americans. Trump is a complete failure."

Sisson, in a separate tweet, remarked, "This is Trump on 60 Minutes right now. He looks absolutely awful. He’s incoherent, rambling, and looks like he’s dripping in sweat. This man is not well!"

Like attorney George Conway, retired federal Judge J. Michael Luttig is a prominent figure in the conservative legal movement who became a blistering critic of President Donald Trump and considers him a dangerous threat to U.S. democracy.

Luttig rooted for Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris in 2024, as did Conway. Now, nine and one-half months into Trump's second presidency, Luttig is still sounding the alarm.

During a Sunday morning, November 2 appearance on MSNBC, Luttig argued that because the U.S. Supreme Court is failing to discourage Trump's attacks on democracy and the rule of law, it's up to the lower federal courts to fight back.

Noting recent anti-Trump pleas from U.S. Circuit Court Judge Susan Graber and others, Luttig told host Ali Velshi, "These pleas would never have to occur if the Supreme Court of the United States had reassured America that it sits in order to prevent this kind of tyranny in the United States of America. But as you know, the Supreme Court has done anything but reassure America. That's why, for the first time to my knowledge — in all of American history — the federal judges and also the state judges now have no choice but to speak directly to the American people through their opinions, I must add, rather than speak only to the Supreme Court of the United States."

Luttig continued, "There has never been a time in our history like this, Ali, for the federal judiciary. Never before has the federal judiciary and even individual judges — individual judges of the federal courts — been savagely attacked by the president of the United States of America. His aim is clear: It's to delegitimize the federal courts in the eyes of the American people and to intimidate the federal courts into ruling in his favor."

The conservative jurist was also highly critical of U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi.

Luttig told Velshi, "But as I said…. the lower federal courts of the United States — by which I mean the federal district courts and the U.S. courts of appeals — will not be intimidated by this president and his attorney general. They will, to the person and to the court, honor their oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic."

When Velshi asked Luttig if he had a message for Chief Justice John Roberts and others on the High Court, he responded, "The Supreme Court and the chief justice of the United States have no higher obligation to the country or to the Constitution than to condemn the vicious attacks on the federal courts and even on individual judges of those courts."

- YouTube youtu.be

When Donald Trump was running against Democrats in the United States' 2024 presidential race he focused on the economy relentlessly, especially inflation, and promised to lower prices "on Day 1."

But Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman, during that race, repeatedly warned that Trump was not sincere about helping the working class. Now, in a Friday column published on his Substack page, Krugman argued that the current partial shutdown of the United States' federal government is inspiring Republicans to show their "cruel intensions" much sooner than planned.

"Federal funding for SNAP, the nutritional aid program still often referred to as food stamps, ends tonight," Krugman said. "This will have catastrophic impacts on 42 million Americans, the great majority of them children, elderly or disabled. Millions more Americans are about to discover that health insurance has become vastly more expensive, in many cases unaffordable. Why are these terrible things happening? At a basic level, they're happening because Republicans want them to happen."

The former New York Times columnist continued, "Drastic cuts in food stamps and health care programs were central planks in Project 2025, which is indeed the Trump Administration’s policy platform, and were written into legislation in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act that passed last summer. But the consequences of these cruel intentions weren't supposed to be this obvious this early."

Harris and other Democrats were vehement critics of the Heritage Foundation's far-right Project 2025 proposals, and Krugman believes that Trump was being totally disingenuous when he claimed to know nothing about Project 2025.

However the GOP, according to Krugman, didn't want its attacks on safety-net programs to become obvious before the 2026 midterms.

"Why the backloading?" Krugman argues. "Presumably, Republicans believed that by the time Americans woke up to what was happening, the GOP would have effectively consolidated one-party rule, making future elections irrelevant. Instead, however, the mask is being ripped off right now, well ahead of schedule."

Nine months into Donald Trump's second presidency, The Roosevelt Institute is releasing a report on Joe Biden's presidency that, according to The New Republic's Greg Sargent, "seeks to diagnose" his administration's "governing mistakes and failures" and includes input from "nearly four dozen" ex-Biden officials.

Sargent, in an article published on October 28, offers some takeaways on its findings.

"In the report," Sargent explains, "Biden officials extensively identify big failings in governing and in the execution of the politics around big decisions — but with an eye toward creating the beginnings of a Project 2029 agenda. The result is a kind of proto-blueprint for Democratic governance to show that it can work the next time the party has power…. One of its most compelling conclusions is that the Biden Administration seemed reluctant to engage in 'picking the fights worth having' and sometimes took refuge in incremental policy gains due to a self-limiting 'risk aversion.'"

One of the ex-Biden officials quoted in the report is ex-secretary of labor Julie Su, who discussed the findings with Sargent and believes that the Biden Administration didn't do enough to win the confidence of working-class Americans.

Su told Sargent, "We were facing 40 or 50 years of backsliding for working people. What we needed was to meet that moment with boldness. There was too much hesitation…. The moment demanded that we unleash the full powers of our investigative resources to go after companies for exploitation of workers in every way. It didn't happen to the extent that it could and should have."

A recurring theme in the report, according to Sargent, is that the Biden Administration played it too safe. And when liberals appear weak or indecisive, Sargent warns, that can result in "fascists stepping in."

"Biden officials who contributed to the report also include many well-known senior staffers from agencies like the Commerce, Agriculture, and Health and Human Services departments — making the range of contributors very ideologically diverse within the Democratic coalition," Sargent notes. "All this is a partial list of the proposed reforms. The report will not please everyone: It doesn't discuss Biden's age or enfeeblement, or the internal failure to take it seriously enough, and perhaps due to the Roosevelt Institute's economic focus, the report says nothing about immigration or cultural liberalism. That will irritate those who want Democrats to moderate on immigration and cultural issues to avoid inflaming right-wing reaction and those who want Democrats to engage on both forcefully to activate low-info voters' broad small-L liberal sympathies."

Sargent adds, "All this will also stir up the debate between 'abundance' liberals, who want to reform government to facilitate production of essential social goods, and those who are skeptical of them, fearing that this could sideline egalitarian and redistributive goals in favor of growth."

Read Greg Sargent's full article for The New Republic at this link.

Conservative Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) went from being a close ally of the late Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) — who is remembered for his scathing criticism of President Donald Trump — to being a staunch defender of Trump and the MAGA movement. Graham himself had plenty of negative things to say about Trump during the 2016 presidential election, but after Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton was defeated, Graham took an aggressively pro-Trump turn.

Yet in deep red South Carolina, some MAGA Republicans believe that Graham should be voted out of office in 2026 for not being pro-Trump enough.

The State's Lucy Valeski, in an article published on Monday, grapples with the question of whether or not any GOP primary challengers in South Carolina's 2026 U.S. Senate race stand a chance against him.

"What do many Democrats, the Clemson College Republicans and South Carolina's Freedom Caucus have in common?" Valeski reports. "As Democrats and South Carolina's far right look for someone to unseat longtime Sen. Lindsey Graham, challengers have struggled to pick up the money and endorsements to do so…. Ahead of the Republican primary, Graham has raised $11 million more than the closest GOP candidate this election cycle, according to recent campaign finance filings. Graham has been fundraising longer than any other candidates. While Democrat Annie Andrews raised $1 million more than Graham in the third quarter, her war chest (was) still $1.2 million to his $14.5 million at the end of September."

Graham has two Republican primary challenges: Greenville businessman Mark Lynch and Project 2025's Paul Dans. But South Carolina Republican Party Chairman Drew McKissick isn't bullish on either of them and notes that Graham has Trump's endorsement.

McKissick told The State, "For Senate seats and congressional seats, they're looking for someone who's conservative and…. supports President Trump and his agenda. And you've seen that make a difference in races at that level where his endorsement has come into play."

Read Lucy Valeski's full article for The State at this link.

On May 1, roughly 4,000 employees of defense manufacturers — including Lockheed Martin — went on strike. And in another strike, around 3,000 employees of Pratt & Whitney (which manufactures essential components of Lockheed Martin’s F-35 fighter jet) walked off the job in Hartford, Connecticut.

In an article published by Politico on Monday, reporter Christopher Leonard warns that dissatisfaction among employees of defense manufacturers is problematic for the United States from a national defense standpoint.

"Something is going wrong on the assembly lines of America's arsenal of democracy, and it's happening at a moment of crisis," Leonard explains. "The White House, Pentagon and America's overseas allies are all demanding that defense companies ramp up production to meet the needs of a dangerous geopolitical moment. America is running short of missiles, munitions and battleships. Allies are waiting years for deliveries. Even the Pentagon has to stand in line and wait for delayed shipments of major weapons, like Hellfire missiles, Javelin rocket launchers and sophisticated air defense interceptors."

Leonard continues, "America is trying to surge its military capacity to produce more munitions, missiles and ships, but to do so, it must rely almost entirely on a group of five Fortune 500 defense companies. And none of these companies seem to be on war footing."

According to Leonard, Lockheed Martin and others are paying too much attention to Wall Street and not enough attention to their employees.

"Instead of hiring more workers and paying workers more in an effort to retain them," Leonard reports, "these companies are far more focused on meeting the demands of Wall Street, trying to entice investors and boost their stock price by cutting costs, as well as using billions of dollars in revenue to pay handsome dividends and buy back shares of stock. Last year, for example, Lockheed Martin gave $6.8 billion in buybacks and dividends directly to its shareholders, which amounted to nearly 10 percent of the company's total revenue and was larger than the $5.3 billion it kept in profits."

Leonard adds, "The same year, RTX, formerly called Raytheon, paid $3.7 billion to shareholders, General Dynamics paid $3 billion and Northrop Grumman paid $3.7 billion. The billions of dollars they send back shareholders each year means that there is less money to go toward paying, hiring or retaining their employees. As a result, jobs in defense manufacturing are becoming less and less attractive at a time when they need to be getting far more attractive."

In 2022, Billy Masters, a missile machinist and former union president, warned, "We cannot keep people. They bring them in on the low end of the pay scale.… They want cheaper wages. They want to keep the wage down. We're up against profit over anything else."

Three years later, Randy Tejada — a U.S. Army veteran and one of the Lockheed Martin workers who went on strike — has a similar warning.

Tejada told Politico, "I’m definitely looking for other options, since I see this company doesn’t take people that serious."

Read Christopher Leonard's full article for Politico at this link.

On Tuesday, November 4, a wide variety of elections will be held in the United States —from gubernatorial races in Virginia and New Jersey to a mayoral race in New York City to three Pennsylvania State Supreme Court elections to a Philadelphia district attorney race. GOP and Democratic strategists will be paying close attention to the outcomes, looking for signs of what could lie ahead in the 2026 midterms.

In Geneva in Upstate New York, Republican Paul F. D'Amico and Democrat Ben Gummoe are competing in a Geneva City Council race. And he is now, according to the Finger Lakes Times (FLT), facing a controversy over an endorsement that never happened.

The Finger Lakes Times won't be making an endorsement in that race or any others, as the publication has discontinued political endorsements in its opinion section. But according to Times reporter Steve Buchiere, a D'Amico mailer implied that the Times endorsed him and used an older Times quote that, Democrats in Upstate New York argue, was used out of context.

In an article published on October 25, Buchiere quotes Mike Cutillo, the publication's publisher/executive editor, as saying, "While Mr. D'Amico may not have been intending to deceive, using words that were printed in the Finger Lakes Times years ago with no attribution of the date, it makes it seem like they were printed recently and also gives the appearance that we are endorsing him in his race for City Council in 2025. We are not. We stopped the practice of endorsing candidates years ago, and so, we don't think that those sentences should have been used in campaign literature for this year's race."

D'Amico is insisting that he never meant for the mailer to be misleading.

"I have been using the statement in question on my printed campaign materials for (Geneva) City Council races in 2011 and 2015," D'Amico told the Times. "I also used the same statement on printed material for my supervisor race in 2013. I realize the FLT is not doing any endorsements for the 2025 City Council elections. If that is the perception of some on the Democratic side, I can't help that. It was not ever intended to represent an endorsement."

The Republican added, "The quote used was an opinion at the time of the FLT assessment on how I approached governing on City Council. It was accurate then, and there is no reason to think it changed."

But Todd Beeton, who chairs the Geneva Democratic Party, maintains that the older Times quote used in D'Amico's mailer lacked context.

Beeton told the Times, "It is telling that Paul D’Amico would use an old quote from more than a decade ago to try to trick voters into thinking the Finger Lakes Times had endorsed him in his race. This is just the latest in a string of dirty political tricks by D’Amico meant to mislead people, and Geneva voters are tired of it. Such deceptive tactics are one of the reasons we are seeing such enthusiasm for Ben Gummoe in his run to serve as Ward 2 councilor."

After almost a month, the partial shutdown of the United States' federal government drags on. And the issue that, more than anything else, is fueling the standoff between GOP and Democratic lawmakers is subsidies for the Affordable Care Act of 2010, a.k.a. Obamacare.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-New York), House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-New York) and many other Democrats are warning that unless subsides for the ACA exchanges on healthcare.gov are funded, millions of Americans won't be able to afford health insurance in 2026.

In an article published on October 25, New York Times reporter Patricia Mazzei focuses on an area that will be hit especially hard without ACA subsidies: South Florida.

Once a volatile swing state, Florida has become increasingly Republican in the last few years. Former President Barack Obama won Florida's electoral votes in both 2008 and 2012, but in 2024, Donald Trump defeated Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris by roughly 14 percent in the Sunshine State.

"If the extra subsidies that help Americans pay for Obamacare insurance plans expire at the end of the year as expected," Mazzei reports, "the most intense reverberations will be felt in South Florida, the country's top market for the coverage. As many as a third of the 4.7 million Floridians on Affordable Care Act plans could drop them next year because of the higher costs, according to some estimates."

The Times reporter cites specific examples of Floridians who could be feeling a lot of pain in 2026.

"Françoise Cham, who is 63 and self-employed in the Miami suburbs, hopes she will be able to afford coverage until she can sign up for Medicare at 65," Mazzei notes. "Heather Slivko-Bathurst, 37, expects to have to switch her family in Key West to the skimpier coverage offered through her job at a boating company. Lorraine Avila, a 46-year-old housekeeper in Miami, thinks she is likely to give up coverage altogether, which terrifies her."

Avila told the Times, "I take care of my kids and my grandkids. If I don’t have insurance, how can I take care of myself?"

Florida, according to Mazzei, has an especially "high demand for Obamacare" because it is "full of low-wage service and gig workers who cannot get insurance through their jobs, self-employed people and early retirees who are not yet eligible for Medicare." Mazzei reports that in Rep. Frederica S. Wilson's (D-Florida) district, roughly 35 percent residents are on an ACA plan.

"In Florida," Mazzei observes, "the uncertainty has resulted in a political throwback of sorts. Suddenly, the state's politicians are talking about the Affordable Care Act again, often in urgent terms, 15 years after President Barack Obama signed it into law and several election cycles after it faded as a campaign issue."

Read Patricia Mazzei's full New York Times article at this link (subscription required).

Both times he was inaugurated — January 20, 2017 and January 20, 2025 — President Donald Trump entered the White House with Republican majorities in the U.S. Senate as well as the U.S. House of Representatives. But Democratic strategists are hoping that the 2026 midterms will play out like the 2018 midterms, which found Democrats flipping the House with a net gain of 40 seats. And some Democrats argued that the 2018 blue wave in Congress' lower chamber would have been even larger if House districts hadn't been so badly gerrymandered.

It remains to be seen, however, what will happen in 2026, and Trump is hoping that next year's midterms won't be a replay of 2018.

In an op-ed published by MSNBC on October 23, Symone D. Sanders Townsend — who co-hosts MSNBC's "The Weeknight" with Alicia Menendez and former Republican National Committee (RNC) Chairman Michael Steele — argues that although Trump is going into the 2026 midterms with some major disadvantages, he has a comprehensive game plan for stealing the election.

"As part of a broad, multi-state effort by allies of President Donald Trump," Townsend warns, "(North Carolina's) Republicans have taken the dramatic step to try to redraw their already gerrymandered congressional districts five years before the normal end-of-decade cycle. The goal is to secure one more Republican U.S. House seat in a desperate attempt to hang onto the House majority and protect Trump from political consequences. Keep in mind, this map was already unfairly drawn up."

The MSNBC host continues, "The Princeton Gerrymandering Project gave it an 'F,' with only one competitive district, ten safe Republican seats and three safe Democratic seats. The new map would be even worse. This is happening all over the country. From Texas, where lawmakers passed a new map at Trump's behest, to Missouri, where organizers are trying to put an initiative on the ballot to overturn a recent gerrymander, to Indiana, where party leaders admitted this week they may not have the votes."

Republicans, Townsend emphasizes, "wouldn't be trying this if they were confident they could win in 2026."

"But rather than trying to persuade the American people that they have better ideas," Townsend laments, "they are trying to rig it so that they can win anyway…. The representative ideal is under siege, but not defeated. The people still hold the power. They always have. And the fight now is to make sure they can still exercise it freely."

Townsend adds, "As Republicans attempt to redraw the lines of power, we should listen for the echoes of our ancestors. Times have changed, but the struggle has not."

Symone D. Sanders Townsend's full op-ed for MSNBC is available at this link.