“你许给我承诺。承诺。明知我会相信。承诺。承诺。我早知你不会兑现。”
"You made me promises. Promises. Knowing I'd believe.
—— Naked Eyes乐队《Promises, Promises》“我是‘全民医保’的支持者，”明尼苏达州民主党参议员提名人、副州长佩吉·弗拉纳根（Peggy Flanagan，民主党）宣称。“我将和我的朋友、参议员伯尼·桑德斯（Bernie Sanders，无党派-佛蒙特州）一道达成这一目标。我们将对美国参议院进行彻底的权力分析，弄清如何为我们理应得到、也急需的事物构建力量。”
Promises. Promises. I knew you'd never keep." — Promises, Promises by Naked Eyes "I am a supporter of Medicare-for-all," declared Minnesota’s Democratic nominee for Senate, Lt. Gov. Peggy Flanagan, D. "I'm going to get there with my friend Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt.
像弗拉纳根这样激进的进步派众参两院候选人正在推销“全民医保”、废除移民及海关执法局（ICE）、《绿色新政》、对以色列实施武器禁运，以及每小时25美元的最低工资。
And we are going to power map the s--t out of the U.S. Senate and figure out how to build power for the things that we know that we deserve and the things that we need."
弗拉纳根正与共和党参议员提名人米歇尔·塔福亚（Michelle Tafoya）竞争，以接替即将退休的参议员蒂娜·史密斯（Tina Smith，民主党-明尼苏达州）。这场竞选对弗拉纳根有利。然而，她获胜并非板上钉钉。但民主党社会主义派众议院候选人——密歇根州的多诺万·麦金尼（Donavan McKinney）、宾夕法尼亚州的克里斯·拉布（Chris Rabb）、科罗拉多州的梅拉特·基罗斯（Melat Kiros），以及纽约州的克莱尔·瓦尔德兹（Claire Valdez）和达里亚利扎·阿维拉·舍瓦利耶（Darializa Avila Chevalier）——大概率会赢。明年1月，他们有望代表进步理念流行的民主党大本营选区。
Hard-left progressive House and Senate candidates like Flanagan are pitching Medicare-for-all. The abolition of ICE. The Green New Deal. An arms embargo for Israel. And a $25 an hour minimum wage. Flanagan is in a race with Republican Senate nominee Michelle Tafoya to succeed retiring Sen. Tina Smith, D-Minn. The race favors Flanagan. However, it’s not a done deal that she wins.
但如果民主党赢得众议院或参议院任何一院的控制权，不会是因为选民在丹佛为基罗斯拉杠杆，也不会是因为在哈莱姆为阿维拉·舍瓦利耶投票。他们会赢，是因为民主党提名人凯特·康利（Cait Conley）在纽约市以北的达奇斯县击败了众议员迈克·劳勒（Mike Lawler，共和党-纽约州）。也许是因为俄亥俄州伍斯特的选民把票投给了民主党人布赖恩·波因德克斯特（Brian Poindexter），而不是众议员马克斯·米勒（Max Miller，共和党-俄亥俄州）。
But Democratic Socialist candidates for the House like Donavan McKinney in Michigan, Chris Rabb in Pennsylvania, Melat Kiros in Colorado, along with Claire Valdez and Darializa Avila Chevalier in New York probably will. Come January, they will prospectively represent Democratic strongholds where progressive ideas are popular. But if Democrats win either the House or Senate, it won’t be because voters pulled the lever for Kiros in Denver or Avila Chevalier in Harlem. They’ll win because Democrat Cait Conley defeated Rep. Mike Lawler, R-N.Y., in Dutchess County, north of New York City. Maybe because voters cast their ballots for Democrat Brian Poindexter in Wooster, Ohio, rather than Rep. Max Miller, R-Ohio.
如果民主党提名人克里斯蒂娜·博汉南（Christina Bohannan）比众议员玛丽安内特·米勒-米克斯（Mariannette Miller-Meeks，共和党-爱荷华州）更能赢得爱荷华州达文波特选民的青睐，民主党就有可能翻转众议院。这把话题带回了进步派议程。
Democrats could flip the House if Democratic nominee Christina Bohannan appeals more to voters in Davenport, IA than Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeks, R-Iowa. This brings us back to the progressive agenda. Democrats might win the House and or the Senate.
民主党有可能赢得众议院或参议院的控制权。不过，瓦尔德兹（Valdez）和基罗斯（Kiros）并不能决定最终的选举结果；真正具有决定性影响力的是波因德克斯特（Poindexter）和康利（Conley）这样的候选人。如果这些候选人当选为众议院议员，来自摇摆选区的温和派议员很可能不会支持诸如“绿色新政”（Green New Deal）或“全民医保”（Medicare-for-all）之类的进步政策。归根结底，这取决于选举结果的具体情况；民主党要想推行这些政策，确实需要这些温和派议员的支持。
But Valdez and Kiros aren’t the "majority makers." Candidates like Poindexter and Conley are. And if they’re elected to the House, it’s doubtful that moderates from swing districts can support progressive ideas like the Green New Deal or Medicare-for-all. It’s about the math. And it’s more than likely that Democrats will need the voters of those moderate "majority makers" from battleground districts to enact those policies. That’s to say nothing about needing 60 yeas in the Senate to crack a filibuster – even if Democrats do marshal a slim majority there.
更现实的问题是：即使在参议院中民主党获得微弱多数，也需要60票才能突破阻挠议事程序（即“ filibuster”）。此外，如果民主党控制的国会通过了某些极端性的法案，特朗普总统很可能会行使否决权。
And, if something extreme did get through both bodies of a potentially Democratically-controlled Congress, President Trump would like veto it. It is said that you campaign in poetry but you govern in prose.
据说民主党人在竞选时喜欢使用诗歌来表达他们的理念，但在执政时却更倾向于使用平实的、理性的语言来制定政策。
The left has pushed a lot of progressive poetry with their agenda items of late.
近年来，左翼势力一直在推动许多进步性的政策主张。如果民主党赢得多数席位，他们肯定会强调这些政策得以实施的机会。然而，将这些政策转化为现实的可能性其实非常渺茫。虽然这些进步理念可能会激发民主党基层选民的热情，但如果民主党无法兑现他们的竞选承诺，基层选民肯定会感到失望。
They’ll tout the opportunity to enact some of those policies if Democrats win the majority. However, the reality of advancing any of that into a legislative reality is slim. The progressive ideas may energize the base. But the Democratic base is sure to feel let down if Democrats can’t make good on some of their campaign promises. We’ve seen this before.
我们之前就经历过这种情况：政党在中期选举中向选民承诺了许多宏伟的目标，但随后却难以实现这些承诺。
A party promises voters the moon in the midterm elections. Then struggles to make good on those promises.
1994年，共和党凭借《与美国订立契约》（Contract With America）这一竞选纲领首次在四十年来赢得众议院控制权。该纲领承诺削减开支并减少政府在华盛顿的政治影响力，但实际上众议院和参议院只通过了其中的一部分内容，克林顿总统还对这些法案行使了否决权。
Republicans won the House in 1994 for the first time in four decades with the 10-point "Contract With America." The document promised to cut spending and reduce influence in Washington. But in the end, the House and Senate only approved a few of the items. President Clinton vetoed others.
2006年，众议院的民主党人以“结束伊拉克战争”作为竞选口号并成功赢得了选举。国会随后开始削减对伊拉克战争的资金支持，但这一过程耗时数年，这让那些要求立即撤军的激进派人士感到非常失望。
In 2006, House Democrats campaigned on drawing down the war in Iraq. They captured the House. Congress began defunding the war effort. But it took several years, much to the dismay of party activists who demanded an immediate pullout.
2010年，共和党人重新掌控了众议院，赢得了创纪录的63个席位。他们的目标是削减开支，并废除并取代奥巴马医改政策（ObamaCare）。然而这一目标始终未能实现；事实上，至今仍有一些共和党人试图废除奥巴马医改政策。
In 2010, Republicans won back control of the House, gaining a record 63 seats. The goal was to reduce spending and repeal and replace ObamaCare. It never happened. In fact, some Republicans are still trying to unwind ObamaCare today.
这一切其实都是为了激起党内基层选民的热情，然后再考虑如何执政。候选人在竞选期间所承诺的内容，很少能真正转化为立法成果。
This is all about exciting the base. And then figuring out how to govern. What candidates promise on the campaign trail rarely morphs into a legislative reality.
据报道，众议院少数党领袖、来自纽约州的民主党人哈基姆·杰弗里斯（Hakeem Jeffries）正在与得到民主社会行动联盟（DSA）支持的候选人进行讨论，以争取他们的立法支持；这些候选人可能会在未来的议长选举中支持他。不过，政治观察家们很难相信民主党人会拒绝推举杰弗里斯成为美国历史上首位黑人众议院议长。
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., is reportedly in discussions with DSA-backed candidates to secure legislative commitments before some of their candidates will back him in a potential race for Speaker. That said, political observers would find it hard to believe that Democrats would balk at promoting Jeffries, making him the first Black House Speaker in American history. There’s a chance Democrats could face infighting if the party fractures between moderates and progressives.
如果民主党内部出现温和派与进步派之间的分歧，党内可能会出现内斗。
Imagine for a moment that Democrats do have the House and intend to bring a Medicare-for-all bill to the floor.
假设民主党真的掌控了众议院，并打算提出“全民医保”（Medicare-for-all）法案，那么众议院首先需要通过一项规范相关辩论程序的规则。像华盛顿州的民主党议员玛丽·格卢森坎普·佩雷斯（Marie Gluesenkamp Perez）这样的温和派民主党人，会反对这项规则吗？毕竟，她今年早些时候曾投票支持共和党的程序性提案，引发了党内风波。
The House must first adopt a rule which governs how the House debates that measure on the floor. Would a moderate Democrat like Rep. Marie Gluesenkamp Perez, D-Wash., oppose the rule (provided she wins reelection)? After all, Gluesenkamp Perez voted for GOP procedural measures earlier this year, igniting an internal Democratic firestorm. However, those votes may have been good matches for her battleground district.
不过，这些投票可能对她所在的选区有利；但在她所在的选区，投票支持一项具有争议性的进步派政策显然行不通。因此，这个进步派议程很可能已经夭折了。
But voting aye on a procedural plan for a controversial, progressive political initiative won’t work in Gluesenkamp Perez’s district. That’s why the progressive agenda may already be dead in the water.
如果民主党真的赢得众议院控制权，而杰弗里斯成为议长，他的角色将会发生变化——他需要管理整个民主党阵营。因此，仅仅迎合极左翼选民是行不通的；他必须同时听取温和派以及那些掌握多数票的议员的意见。例如，杰弗里斯本人并不支持“全民医保”计划。
If Democrats do win the House and Jeffries clasps the Speaker’s gavel, his role will be different. He needs to manage his entire caucus. So appealing to the hard left doesn’t work. He must also hear out the moderates. And certainly the majority makers. For instance, Jeffries isn’t pushing the Medicare for all scheme.
“在过去几年中，我并没有参与任何关于‘全民医保’的立法提案的联合发起工作。我认为我们确实需要先解决现有的医疗体系问题，待问题得到解决后，才能着手构建一个更完善的医疗体系，”杰弗里斯说道。
"I haven't co-sponsored the Medicare for all legislation that has been introduced over the last several years. I do think we need to figure out how to fix our broken healthcare system and then build something better once we repair the damage that has been done," said Jeffries.
对于一位国家政治领袖来说，这种立场是再自然不过的了。贸然介入这样一个棘手的问题可能并不符合政治策略——毕竟，他们还必须考虑那些持温和观点的多数选民的诉求。
That’s a natural stance for a national political leader. Jumping feet first into such a nettlesome issue might not be sound politics. Especially since you must also address the concerns of the moderate majority makers.
不过，杰弗里斯提出了一个所有民主党人都可以共同支持的议题：对特朗普政府的调查。自特朗普总统上任以来，杰弗里斯就一直承诺要追究其政府官员的责任。他曾公开批评过五角大楼负责人皮特·赫格塞斯（Pete Hegseth），嘲讽过司法部长托德·布兰奇（Todd Blanche），严厉指责过副总统杰森·万斯（JD Vance），并揭露了特朗普家族涉嫌存在的腐败行为。
But Jeffries may have an out that all Democrats can unify around: investigations of the Trump administration. Since President Trump began his term, Jeffries has promised to hold its officials to account. Jeffries has called out Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth. Ridiculed Attorney General Todd Blanche. Blasted Vice President JD Vance.
民主党人将自身的竞选活动定位为对抗特朗普政府的工具；他们的选民也会要求通过调查来推动问题的解决。这种立场无疑能够赢得进步派选民的支持，甚至也能吸引那些持温和观点的选民。不过，这些诉求与“每小时25美元的最低工资标准”、“废除移民与海关执法局（ICE）”或“绿色新政”等激进主张有所不同。事实上，即使民主党人在立法上取得多数席位，他们也可能无法实现这些目标——这些就是政治现实。
Spoken about alleged corruption by the Trump family. Democrats are also campaigning as a foil to the Trump Administration. Their base will demand action via investigations, too. That certainly resonates with the progressive base. And, even moderates who may be the majority makers. But it isn’t a $25 an hour minimum wage. It’s not the abolition of ICE. It’s not the Green New Deal. Democrats probably won’t get what they want legislatively if they attain the majority.
不过，通过推动对特朗普政府的调查，他们或许仍能在选民中赢得一些支持。而这，同样反映了当前的政治现实。
Those are just the political realities. But they may be able to rack some points with investigations. Those would reflect the political realities as well.