美国民众在周二的中期选举中传递了一个明确的信息。但如果民主党将他们的胜利解读为对社会主义的认可，那将是一个严重的错误。选民并非要求更大的政府。他们想要从可负担性危机中得到缓解。
The American people sent a clear message in Tuesday's midterm elections. But Democrats would be making a serious mistake if they interpreted their victories as an endorsement of socialism. Voters weren't demanding bigger government. They wanted relief from the affordability crisis.
共和党也不应将结果视为典型的中期选举挫折而加以忽视。那个在2024年将唐纳德·特朗普总统送入白宫并让共和党掌控国会的联盟，期待看到成果。
Republicans shouldn't dismiss the results as a typical midterm setback either. The coalition that delivered President Donald Trump the White House and Republican control of Congress in 2024 expected results.
那些雇佣共和党来解决可负担性危机的选民，现在正因共和党未能兑现承诺而追究其责任。
The voters who hired Republicans to fix the affordability crisis are now holding them accountable for failing to deliver.
美国人厌倦了通胀、住房难以负担，以及看着工资单的购买力不断缩水。他们相信共和党会让他们的生活变得更好。
Americans were tired of inflation, unaffordable housing and watching their paychecks buy less. They believed Republicans would make their lives better.
但在从获胜到执政的过程中，共和党不知不觉中失去了对这一信息的掌控。
But somewhere between winning and governing, Republicans lost control of that message.
特朗普对关税有一个正当的理由：重建美国制造业，找回在数十年贸易政策（包括比尔·克林顿总统签署的《北美自由贸易协定》）中流失的工作岗位。但共和党从未充分解释长期利益。选民听到的是关税，担心的是物价上涨。同一场沟通失败也困扰着《一项宏伟美好的法案》。
Trump had a legitimate argument for tariffs: rebuilding American manufacturing and bringing back jobs lost under decades of trade policies, including NAFTA, signed by President Bill Clinton. But Republicans never adequately explained the long-term benefits. Voters heard about tariffs while worrying about higher prices. The same communications failure plagued the One Big Beautiful Bill.
共和党让个人降税措施永久化，恢复了合格企业投资的即时费用扣除，并阻止了数万亿美元的既定增税。然而，有多少美国人能解释该立法实际上为他们做了什么？
Republicans made lower individual tax rates permanent, restored immediate expensing for qualifying business investments and prevented trillions in scheduled tax increases. Yet how many Americans could explain what that legislation actually did for them?
如果你无法解释立法如何让工薪家庭和小企业的生活变得更好，那么通过这项有利于他们的立法又有什么用？医疗保健是另一个错失的良机。
What good is passing legislation that helps working families and small businesses if you can't explain how it makes their lives better? Healthcare was another squandered opportunity.
当新冠疫情时期的《平价医疗法案》增强补贴到期时，共和党本可以围绕价格透明、竞争和消费者选择，提供一个严肃的可负担性替代方案。相反，他们却放弃了这一话语权。
When enhanced COVID-19-era Obamacare subsidies expired, Republicans could have offered a serious affordability alternative built around price transparency, competition and consumer choice. Instead, they surrendered the conversation.
医疗保健是可负担性危机的一部分。家庭不会把房贷、食品杂货、保费和免赔额分到不同的政治类别里。这些钱全都来自同一张工资单。或许最大的警示来自西班牙裔选民。
Healthcare is part of the affordability crisis. Families don't separate their mortgage, groceries, insurance premiums and deductibles into political categories. It all comes from the same paycheck. Perhaps the biggest warning came from Hispanic voters.
特朗普在2024年通过回应他们的经济愿望、创业精神和对安全社区的渴望，赢得了历史性的支持率提升。
Trump made historic gains in 2024 by speaking to their economic aspirations, entrepreneurial spirit and desire for safe communities.
特朗普2024年获胜后，他的民调专家约翰·麦克劳林指出，共和党只是“租用”了西班牙裔选票，并警告他们必须努力留住这些选民。遗憾的是，共和党表现得仿佛自己“拥有”了这些选票。
Following Trump's 2024 victory, his pollster, John McLaughlin, observed that Republicans had rented the Hispanic vote and warned they needed to work to keep it. Unfortunately, they acted as though they owned it.
经济挫败感导致了支持率下滑的很大一部分原因，但移民执法也有责任。特朗普承诺保卫边境、优先抓捕危险罪犯。结果，更广泛的执法行动在西班牙裔社区制造了恐惧，甚至波及那些支持加强边境安全的人。
Economic frustration drove much of the erosion in support, but immigration enforcement contributed. Trump promised to secure the border and prioritize dangerous criminals. Instead, broader enforcement created fear in Hispanic communities, including among those who supported stronger border security.
共和党在2024年努力争取这些选民，随后似乎忘记了是什么把他们带入共和党阵营。他们未能维持这种信任，更别提扩大信任了。我的家乡佛罗里达州应该敲响警钟。
Republicans worked hard to win those voters in 2024 and then seemingly forgot what brought them into the Republican column. They failed to maintain that trust, much less expand it. My home state of Florida should be a wake-up call.
共和党可以庆祝拜伦·唐纳兹当选佛罗里达州首位黑人州长，以及控制主要全州职位。但唐纳兹仅以微弱优势击败戴维·乔利，尽管共和党在选民登记上拥有约150万的优势。
Republicans can celebrate electing Byron Donalds as Florida's first Black governor and holding major statewide offices. But Donalds narrowly defeated David Jolly despite a roughly 1.5-million Republican voter-registration advantage.
这一优势为抵御全国范围的民主党反弹提供了缓冲，而非免疫力。这些差距应让共和党领导人感到担忧。还有与伊朗的战争。
That advantage provided a cushion against the national Democratic swing, not immunity from it. Those margins should concern Republican leaders. Then there's the war with Iran.
无论政府出于何种战略理由，都未能向已经在经济上挣扎的美国人提出令人信服的理由。选民看到汽油价格上涨，却没有听到关于冲突原因的清晰阐述。这一切都不意味着民主党获得授权去推行社会主义政策。
Whatever the administration's strategic justification, it failed to make a compelling case to Americans already struggling financially. Voters saw higher gasoline prices without a clearly articulated reason for the conflict. None of this gives Democrats a mandate to push socialist policies.
反对共和党的表现，并不一定意味着支持增税、增加政府开支或扩大官僚机构。就在两年前，许多同样选民曾支持特朗普，因为他们想要一个不同的经济方向。
A vote against Republican performance isn't necessarily a vote for higher taxes, more government spending or expanded bureaucracy. Many of these same voters supported Trump just two years ago because they wanted a different economic direction.
民主党赢得了一个解决负担能力问题的机会，而非一张推行意识形态议程的空白支票。
Democrats have earned an opportunity to address affordability, not a blank check for an ideological agenda.
与此同时，共和党需要将其政策重新与他们本应服务的民众联系起来。减税、壮大小企业、负担得起的医疗保健和更多的经济机会，依然是一个极具吸引力的议程。但选民需要看得到、感受得到实惠。
Republicans, meanwhile, need to reconnect their policies to the people they're supposed to serve. Lower taxes, stronger small businesses, affordable healthcare and greater economic opportunity remain a compelling agenda. But voters need to see and feel the benefits.
周二的选举并非社会主义的授权。这是对负担能力、问责制和实绩的要求。美国人并没有突然改变想要的东西。他们改变的是信任谁来兑现。
Tuesday's election was not a mandate for socialism. It was a demand for affordability, accountability and results. Americans did not suddenly change what they wanted. They changed whom they trusted to deliver it.
除非两党都理解这一区别，否则他们将面临再次吸取同一教训的风险。
And unless both parties understand that distinction, they risk learning the same lesson all over again.