As we recover from the ravages of the most recent shutdown of the U.S. government, a blip you may have noticed between last Saturday morning and the following Monday afternoon, the Democratic Party must confront some political realities. While immigration will favor Democrats over the long term, it will be a nuisance for them in the short term, particularly in 2018 and 2020. The splits within the party are small in comparison to the chasms we see in the G.O.P., which comprises everyone from Lindsey Graham who, on this issue, might as well be Chuck Schumer, to Iowa Congressman Steve King, who might as well be Kim Jong Un. But they are still significant enough to create headaches. The Democratic Party is already to the left of the median voter on immigration, but its rising stars—Cory Booker, Kamala Harris, and Elizabeth Warren, among them—are to the left of their own party. And their thinly-veiled presidential ambitions could be a problem if they want a wave that will flip the balance of power in Congress.

As mentioned, if we’re measuring in decades, time is on the Democratic side. Immigrants to the United States favor Democrats over Republicans by roughly two to one. It is thanks, primarily, to migration, for instance, that California went from reliably Republican to reliably Democratic in the space of 20 years. Similar transformations seem possible, even likely, in Colorado and Nevada and, over a longer span, Texas. Whether the platform of that future Democratic Party will bear much resemblance to that of today is impossible to say, as both parties will re-adjust to the times, but at the very least, a movement to the left from traditional conservative positions on the Second Amendment, health care, and welfare seems likely, and these all favor candidates whose names are followed by (D).

This year, though, we see rather a lot of Democratic senators in red states that didn’t enjoy being forced into brinkmanship over what their opponents could deride as the prioritization of foreign nationals who are in the country illegally. Five sat out the original fight altogether, and 26 more gratefully jumped ship on Monday. Whatever data these senators were viewing, the numbers must have been even more frightening than they’d expected. In politics, a focus on issues can lead people to forget that prioritization is half the battle. It’s one thing to support legalization for DACA recipients; it’s another to say it’s top of the agenda, or the country gets it.

As awkward as the shutdown may have been for Democrats like Missouri’s Claire McCaskill, however, all of the presidency-eyeing stars of the Democratic Party wished, officially at least, to keep it going. While most Democrats voted to end the shutdown, those who didn’t included Booker, Harris, Warren, and Kirsten Gillibrand. This, of course, reflects the blueness of their states (Dianne Feinstein also voted against stopping the shutdown), but it also suggests a belief that taking a hard-line stance on immigration, from the left, is the price of a fighting chance in the next presidential primaries. Such thinking might be valid, but things get trickier when it comes to weighing it against the sentiments of the broader public.

Among Democratic voters, concern over illegal immigration has plummeted, dropping from over 60 percent in 2002 to about half that today. Democratic senators, even those in red states, also feel comfortable voting to grant citizenship to people in the country illegally. Every Democrat in the Senate voted in favor of a sweeping legalization in 2013. As Vox’s Dara Lind notes, it is increasingly immigration activists “who set the agenda for the party.” House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi defers enough to this agenda that she raised minimal protest when, a few months ago, she was shouted down by immigrant-rights protesters during her own press conference.