Will they do it? Will congressional Democrats actually force a shutdown of the federal government at the end of this month? While plenty of other political stories are currently swirling around, this is the big question that wonks who still pay attention to Congress are asking right now. So far, it seems like Democrats actually are preparing for a shutdown strategy, mostly because they got so much pushback from their own rank-and-file voters when they refused to do so earlier this year. So let's take a look at what's in play, heading into the next few weeks.

Where things stand

Where things currently stand in Congress is that the Republicans are offering up a continuing resolution that would essentially put the government on autopilot for a few more weeks. It would kick the shutdown deadline from the first of October to late in November (right before Thanksgiving). Donald Trump has apparently blessed this plan, and most Republicans seem to be on board.

House Republicans have offered up a "clean" resolution -- or one that is "clean enough," at any rate. This means they didn't stick in any poison pills designed to make it impossible for Democrats to vote for it -- instead government funding would just continue as it is now without any big changes. Republicans have included a few minor things to tinker around the edges, but none of them are particularly objectionable -- and one is even something Democrats have been fighting for (the restoration of $1 billion to Washington D.C.'s budget).

If these were normal times, Democrats would almost certainly support such a clean continuing resolution, since offering one up is usually taken as a sign of good faith by the other party. But, of course, these are not normal times.

Democrats' big ask

Democrats, for once, seem to have settled on a strategy. Instead of attempting things which would be impossible -- such as some sort of language that would strip Trump of any of the powers he's been claiming (which would never pass and also never be signed into law by him) -- Democrats are instead focusing on one particular issue where Republicans are the most vulnerable: healthcare.

Republicans are vulnerable on healthcare in two big ways right now -- because of something they did, and because of something they haven't done yet. The "something they did" was the big, ugly Trump budget bill they passed this year, which will cut Medicaid by over $1 trillion. The "something they haven't done yet" is to continue expanded Obamacare subsidies that were initially passed due to the COVID pandemic, but which will expire on New Year's Day if Congress doesn't act.

Democrats haven't released the actual text of what they are asking for yet, so it remains unclear exactly how much of this they'll be fighting for. They may decide to focus solely on the Obamacare subsidies, since this is a much more immediate problem. As mentioned, these subsidies will turn into a pumpkin at the end of this calendar year, and insurance companies are already sending out letters warning people that their premiums are about to go through the roof. If Congress does nothing, a whole lot of people are either going to have to pay a whole lot more for health insurance, or they will become uninsured.

The big leverage Democrats have here is that "a whole lot of people" also includes "a whole lot of Republican voters." In fact, there are already a number of Republicans in Congress (moderates from swing districts, mostly) who are worried about the subsidies disappearing, and they've been working towards passing a bill to continue them before the year-end deadline arrives. Working together with Democrats, such a bill would likely pass. If it gets a vote, that is.

This is an immediate problem, and it will have severe consequences if not fixed:

Without the enhanced tax credits in place, ACA marketplace consumers' out-of-pocket premium payments will rise by more than 75 percent on average, according to an analysis from KFF, a health policy research organization. A separate KFF analysis found that insurers' median proposed increase for 2026 is 18 percent -- more than double last year's 7 percent median proposed increase. About 4 million people are expected to lose insurance over the next decade if Congress does not extend the subsidies, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.

The other problem is the gutting of Medicaid (and Obamacare) contained within the GOP's big, ugly budget. The question now is whether Democrats will stick to just demanding the Obamacare subsidies be extended or whether they will also insist on rolling back some of the devastating cuts contained in the big, ugly GOP budget. Most of these are far less immediate, however, as they won't begin next January. Also, this will be a much bigger ask from Republicans. So it remains to be seen whether Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries will include such demands (or if they do, whether they will be treated as bargaining chips that can be addressed later or solid red lines that will spur a shutdown).

The politics of the subsidies

Assuming, just for the sake of conversation, that Democrats only draw a bright red line on the Obamacare subsidies, the politics of doing so are actually kind of murky. Democrats want to do the right thing and pass a bill to extend the subsidies, but the political Catch-22 in that is that by doing so they might lessen the chances of retaking the House of Representatives in the midterms. Of course, it's too early to tell for certain, but one bit of polling advice from a Republican pollster is certainly interesting:

Tony Fabrizio, Trump's pollster during the 2024 campaign, published a memo in July that said Republicans could overcome a deficit with voters by extending the subsidies. The memo stated that a generic Republican was down 7 percentage points against a generic Democrat among those most motivated to vote. That deficit would grow to 15 points if the subsidies expire, Fabrizio wrote, noting that voters on the individual marketplace voted for Trump by 4 points.

If Republicans extend the tax credits, the memo stated, then a generic Republican would lead by 4 points among those most motivated to vote. "The incentive is to act on extending the tax credit soon," Fabrizio wrote.

Again, it is more than a year until the midterms, but even so you can see the conundrum for Democrats. If Democrats do nothing and allow the subsidies to expire, then the political blowback will hit Republicans hard. A 15-point gap in the generic polling would almost guarantee that Democrats retake the House next year. Which means that pushing the issue now and saving the subsidies could likely be a huge political gift to the Republicans. That's if you believe Fabrizio's numbers and predictions, however.

Even so, Democrats (unlike Republicans these days) obviously want to do the right thing and not make millions of people's lives worse just to score a political advantage. But even if they do somehow succeed in restoring the subsidies before the deadline, they'll still have a number of very potent healthcare issues to run on where Republicans are still extremely vulnerable (such as the closure of rural hospitals, which several Democratic candidates for office are already using in a big way to hammer their Republican opponents). So it's not like the healthcare issue will just suddenly disappear altogether.

The politics of a shutdown

The bigger political question is whether Democrats should force a shutdown or not. The politics are equally as murky on this question too. Let's start with a negative view, from Matthew Glassman, a political scientist at Georgetown University. The New York Times interviewed him recently, and the whole thing is worth reading as Glassman has a good grasp of the nuances involved and makes several good points. Here's how the interview started, after Glassman was asked why shutdowns are generally bad politics:

They don't work. There have been a handful of shutdowns longer than a day in the modern era. In none of them did the party trying to leverage the shutdown win the concessions they were seeking and, in each case, they also lost the public opinion battle.

Their opponents simply demanded a reopening of the government while pointing out all the ways the shutdown was hurting federal workers and American citizens. Eventually, the shutdown coalition cracked, the government reopened, they didn't win their policy major objectives, and they were worse off politically going forward.

So what is the argument in favor of a shutdown? Well, mostly that Democrats desperately need to be seen as doing something. Anything! Fight back! Don't roll over!

Earlier this year, the House Democrats stuck together and voted on party lines against a bill to keep the government open. Chuck Schumer and the Senate Democrats, however, decided not to risk a shutdown and provided Republicans with the votes they needed to overcome a filibuster.

They were roundly excoriated for doing so, by both the House Democrats and millions of Democratic base voters. Not fighting back in any way a second time would likely provoke an even more incensed and frustrated reaction.

But while the base voters are salivating over a fight, there's still the problem of not having an endgame. This is the problem that besets all those who shut the government down: what do you do when the government actually does shut down and the other side still won't budge? Republicans have paid a political price time and again over this problem, as Glassman pointed out. Democrats would be stuck painted into the same corner, while the news each night highlights federal employees who aren't being paid, national parks which are closed, and the fear that Social Security checks will suddenly halt.

Speaker Mike Johnson's position is that Republicans have offered up a clean bill, therefore there really is no valid reason for Democrats not to support it. He says the Obamacare subsidies should be fixed by a separate bill, which Congress will have plenty of time to address before the deadline.

That's not exactly a guarantee that they will address it, however. The best possible endgame for Democrats if they do force a shutdown might be an agreement from both Johnson and John Thune in the Senate that such a bill will get floor votes before the end of the year. That way both sides can save face and claim that they have won.

Conclusion

At this point, a shutdown looks more likely than not. In fact, it might even happen in the House, not in a filibuster in the Senate. Johnson can only lose two Republicans and still pass a bill on a party-line vote in the House. One House Republican has already said he won't vote for it, and a handful of others are expressing disapproval of the bill (for their own reasons). If three Republicans vote against the bill, then Johnson will lose his vote (which is said to be scheduled for this Friday). If he does so, then Democrats can claim that "Republicans can't even pass a bill on their own, even though they have the majority -- this is totally on them, not us" and just wash their hands of the whole matter.

But just because a handful of GOP House members are making negative noises against the bill doesn't mean they won't cave in the end. Donald Trump knows how to apply pressure, as evidenced by the other bills he's forced reluctant House Republicans to hold their noses and vote for. If he does so successfully again, then the bill will pass the House and move to the Senate next week.

So far, in the Senate, one Republican (Rand Paul) has indicated he'll vote against the continuing resolution, while one Democrat (John Fetterman) has indicated he'll vote for it. This would leave the Republicans still seven Democratic votes short of passing any bill.

The best-case scenario for Democrats, as I see it, would be for them to play hardball and shut the government down. Meanwhile, Democrats should be actively working with the moderate Republicans on legislative language to extend the Obamacare subsidies. This will be tricky, as Democrats will want the subsidies to be made permanent while Republicans are going to argue for merely extending them for a short period of time -- perhaps one year (which would conveniently kick the issue past the midterm elections). There's room for haggling, obviously, but that haggling should begin now, not later. Ideally, by the end of this month (before the shutdown would actually begin, in other words), some sort of bipartisan plan to extend the subsidies should be written down and introduced as a House bill.

Democrats should begin their shutdown negotiations by demanding that this bill be attached to the continuing resolution. When Republicans balk, Democrats should follow through and shut the government down. This will toss some red meat to the base voters and prove that Democrats aren't just going to roll over again. But they should only shut the government down for a short period of time (ideally just a few days, at the most), to limit the real-world impact on federal workers and all the rest of the usual shutdown chaos.

Democrats could then (reluctantly, to be sure) allow the Republican leaders to talk them down and accept a promise from both Johnson and Thune to hold a vote on a standalone subsidy-extension bill.

This could work for one good reason: the continuing resolution is only a few weeks long. It will only fund the government until just before Thanksgiving. This will allow Democrats a second bite of the shutdown apple in a very short time, if Republicans do not follow through on their promises to hold floor votes. It should be made explicit in any handshake deal Democrats cut with the Republican leaders, in fact -- "hold a vote on the new bill before the Thanksgiving deadline arrives."

This would limit the negative reaction the public always has from government shutdowns, it would allow Democrats to show some fight and then claim a partial victory, and it would tee up an effort to actually fix the subsidy problem -- with the threat of a second shutdown as leverage to make sure it gets voted on.

It's not exactly "win-win" all around. And it doesn't address all kinds of other issues Democrats have with how Donald Trump is running the government. But it would at least show the public that Democrats are still capable of fighting -- which is something the base voters are sorely wishing to see right now.

-- Chris Weigant

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant