A muddled war and rising prices are boosting Democrats’ midterm hopes

“CASKETS DEMAND explanations,” says Matt Cavanaugh, running for Congress in Colorado. The Iraq war veteran and first-time Democratic candidate says anxiety about the conflict with Iran looms large among voters. His district contains five military bases, and one of the 13 Americans killed in the war was stationed there. Mr Cavanaugh argues the administration owes the public a clearer sense of purpose. Donald Trump “hasn’t provided an explanation worth fighting for”.

Mr Cavanaugh’s district may be especially attuned to the war. Yet as the conflict fuels anxiety about rising prices and a slowing economy, it is becoming an increasingly important issue for voters across America. That is to the Democrats’ advantage. On Kalshi, a prediction market, the odds of the party winning back the House of Representatives in the midterm elections this November have risen from 81.5% before the war to 83.3% today. The odds of Democrats taking the Senate—once seen as a remote prospect—have jumped from 40.6% to 49.8%.

In many ways Mr Trump has made the Democrats’ job easy. The president’s net approval rating was minus 18 percentage points in mid-February. Then he launched a war that less than a third of Americans wanted. A mere 36% approve of his handling of Iran, according to the latest Economist/YouGov poll. The administration’s muddled messaging, ever-shifting war aims and lack of a clear timeline have given Democrats an inviting target.

Yet early on congressional Democrats seemed inclined to hold their fire. Nearly all opposed the war on the grounds that it was unnecessary and possibly illegal. But no one wanted to be seen as an apologist for the ayatollahs. There was also the possibility that Mr Trump might pull off another quick Venezuela-style success. As a result, the party’s initial response looked like finger-wagging, focusing on lawyerly questions of process and the president’s refusal to consult Congress. In a statement released on the first day of the air strikes, Hakeem Jeffries, the top Democrat in the House, sounded angrier about being bypassed than about the war itself.

But after three weeks of bombing, America and its partner Israel have yet to achieve their political goals. Democratic critics are sounding more assertive. Surging petrol prices—a result of Iran’s attempt to close the Strait of Hormuz—have given them fodder for their attacks. Ten days after his initial statement Mr Jeffries wrote on X: “Republicans are crashing the economy, gas prices are out of control and the extremists are spending billions dropping bombs in the Middle East.”

Democrats have pounced on a growing sense that Mr Trump has no strategy. “It is so much worse than you thought,” said Elizabeth Warren after a classified Senate briefing by administration officials on March 3rd. Her colleague, Chris Murphy, went further: “This is the most incompetent, incoherent war America has fought in the last 100 years, and that’s saying a lot.” Reports that Mr Trump may have underestimated Iran’s ability to use the Strait of Hormuz as leverage have raised fresh questions about his strategy. “A college student with a basic understanding of geopolitics could tell you that Iran’s greatest leverage is this narrow passage,” said Chuck Schumer, the top Democrat in the Senate.

Democrats have also criticised the influence Israel appears to wield over the Trump administration—an argument echoed by some conservative pundits. “So Netanyahu now decides when we go to war?” wrote Senator Ruben Gallego on X, referring to Binyamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister. Jeff Merkley, another Democratic senator, has called the American government a “little pet puppy” of Israel. Their views are representative. A Quinnipiac University poll conducted from March 6th to 8th found that 62% of Democratic voters believe America is too supportive of Israel, compared with 17% of Republicans. Overall, 44% of voters say the same—the highest share since Quinnipiac first asked the question in 2017.

For all their criticism, Democrats have little power to end the war in the near term. An early effort to force Mr Trump to seek formal approval before continuing military action failed in both the House and Senate despite overwhelming Democratic support. Now the Pentagon is preparing a request to fund the war and restock its munitions, potentially worth tens of billions of dollars—a cost that will give Democrats a new line of attack. It may pass the House but its fate in the Senate is much less certain. Still, the Pentagon has enough money to continue the war even without a top-up.

The vote on funding may expose divisions within the Democratic Party. The question lawmakers face, says a Democratic aide, is “do we give our soldiers what they need, or do we try to choke this off?” It is a dilemma Republicans might be happy to force. Some moderate Democrats are likely to back the effort. Progressives, though, say choking off the war is the right move as a matter of both principle and politics. That is “a lesson that we should have frickin’ learned already”, says Adam Smith, the top Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, referring to America’s experience in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya.

Looking ahead to the midterms, some Republicans argue that petrol prices will decline once the war ends—and that eight months are an eternity in politics. “Voters will have fully moved on by November” if the conflict ends soon, says Jim Hobart, a Republican strategist.

But recent evidence suggests a surge of enthusiasm among Democrats that is not related to the war. High turnout propelled the party to victory in the Virginia and New Jersey governors’ races last autumn. In Texas primaries last month turnout among Democrats jumped by 120% compared with 2018. Their anger is organic, says Anna Greenberg, a Democratic pollster. “It’s not being driven by Democrats in Washington.” In a sense, then, Democratic politicians need only let Mr Trump do their work for them. ■