Democrats delivered a generational shellacking to Republicans in the midterm elections, flipping House and Senate majorities by winning in even some of the most conservative-leaning regions of the nation.
Riding a wave against President Donald Trump’s handling of the economy and the Iran war, Democrats won well beyond their coastal strongholds. They defeated GOP candidates and incumbents with diverse candidates in Midwest battlegrounds like Michigan and Ohio, and they made historic gains in deeply conservative states like Kansas, South Carolina and Texas.
Their congressional margins are projected to far exceed what they reached in the 2006 and 2018 elections, the last two times they bounced back from grueling presidential losses to gain big in the following midterm elections. Their stunning victories served as an immediate rebalancing of power in a Washington that had grown accustomed to the Republican-led Congress rolling over to Trump’s wishes.
“In the north, in the south, in the east, in the west, in the midwest, from sea to shining sea, the American people have spoken and made clear they’ve had enough of the extremism, enough of the corruption. They want a Congress that’s going to deliver for the American people,” House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries told a Democratic crowd late Tuesday on Capitol Hill.
Trending
Jeffries is on track to make history as the first Black House speaker in early January when the 120th Congress is sworn in.
In those previous midterm victories, 2006 and 2018, Democrats governed on Capitol Hill with a deft hand that kept their liberal base energized and helped coax middle-of-the-road voters to trust their party’s next presidential nominee.
Ahead of Tuesday’s sweeping victories, Democrats started angling to determine how much credit various factions of their coalition deserve and how aggressively to pursue an investigative agenda focused on Trump.
Veterans of those past victories want their party to tailor its agenda toward centrist voters with highly focused legislation to combat inflation and corruption, believing that will set them up for another so-called trifecta victory such as they claimed in 2008 and 2020.
“Republicans will lose this election, but what Democrats do in 2027 will determine if we truly win,” Rahm Emanuel, who chaired the House Democratic political committee in 2006, told The Washington Sun. The former Chicago mayor, who might run for the 2028 presidential nomination, suggested that Democratic victories in significantly Trump-leaning states served as the most significant markers for the party’s future, not wins by candidates aligned with democratic socialists.
But in an election eve memo, the political arm of the Congressional Progressive Caucus argued that the party’s far-left energy in the primary season in safe liberal districts and swing states translated to wins across the country. These lawmakers want a full-combat approach against Trump, even a potential third impeachment, to reward party activists who supported their preferred candidates.
“The significance of blue-seat primaries should not be ignored, particularly when candidates overcome enormous odds. Democrats disregard their base at their own peril,” Evan Brown, the top aide for the CPC PAC, wrote in the memo.
Democrats expect to hold the largest House majority in a decade and help Jeffries avoid the perils of the last three speakers, who governed with such narrow margins that small ideological factions could hold their agenda hostage.
This result marks just the third time in 70 years that the president’s party lost control of both the House and Senate in the same election. In a particularly embarrassing moment, the House Republican campaign chief, Rep. Richard Hudson, was trailing his little-known challenger in his rural North Carolina seat after spending much of his time in recent weeks campaigning and fundraising for other GOP candidates across the nation.
And Democrats were on the verge of securing a majority of the nation’s 50 governorships for the first since 2010, while flipping control of state legislatures in key states such as Michigan and Texas.
Trump’s political record has been mixed, going two for three in his own presidential campaigns, but his party has performed terribly in midterm elections when he is not on the ballot. Ahead of the 2016 elections, Republicans held 247 seats in the House — a figure that went mostly downhill during his decade of dominance. They are likely to fall below 200 House seats for the first time since 2010.
In early 2025, Democrats looked back to their 2018 victorious midterm for insight, when the Republican tax cut plan proved unpopular and their attempt to repeal the Affordable Care Act backfired. That helped energize an exodus of Republican support in dozens of suburban districts, with the well-educated, professional classes moving sharply toward Democrats and powering a 41-seat gain to win the House majority.
Sure enough, by July 4, 2025, the Republicans had passed their lone legislative achievement of the 119th Congress: a massive policy bill that extended tax breaks to corporations and the wealthy, while eliminating health benefits for millions who rely on Medicaid.
Then Democrats rolled the dice in the fall and forced a six-week shutdown of the government in an attempt to extend tax breaks for working families to get ACA benefits. They eventually surrendered but had won a clear political victory pinning the loss of tax credits on Republicans.
But by early this year the climate shifted into something more similar to the 2006 midterms, when voters recoiled against the Bush administration’s handling of the Iraq war.
Trump’s tariffs and his decision to launch a war against Iran sent everyday expenses like gasoline and groceries soaring, while also crippling the farm economy.
“It’s very much a change election,” New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, chair of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, told The Sun.
Gillibrand learned all about those types of elections 20 years ago, when Emanuel recruited her to run in a Republican-dominated district around Albany, leading to being part of a 30-seat wave that handed Democrats the majority that year. Sen. Charles E. Schumer, now the minority leader who found himself under steady criticism this year from liberal activists who considered him a relic of the past, sat at the helm of the DSCC back in 2006.
Health care access got folded into the broader “affordability” matrix this cycle, while Gillibrand and Schumer set out to recruit unique candidates that fit culturally conservative states like Iowa and Kansas.
“They were the best candidate for their state, and they were great,” Schumer told reporters late Tuesday, adding that Republicans stuck close to Trump on politically toxic positions. “Republicans made a choice and followed Trump over the cliff.”
Trump continued making decisions and comments that insulted voters, particularly his own supporters when he called the affordability issue “a hoax.”
“He’s laughing at them,” Gillibrand said.
Emanuel, who left Congress after the 2008 elections to become Barack Obama’s first White House chief of staff, said that voter attitudes toward George W. Bush in 2006 and Trump in 2026 had a key difference.
In reelecting Bush in 2004, barely two years after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, voters knew they were supporting a president focused on foreign policy, they just ended up upset with his handling of the war. In sending Trump back to the Oval Office, voters wanted no more wars and a laser focus on fighting inflation.
“In 2006, people were tired and upset. In 2026, people are angry,” Emanuel said.
Some Democrats are already calling for the most dramatic showdowns possible with Trump. Maryland Sen. Chris Van Hollen, for example, wants to extend funding for federal agencies into early next year instead of the full fiscal year.
This would allow Democrats to hold funding for the Iran war hostage, Van Hollen told The Sun’s Igor Bobic last week. “My view is we should not appropriate one penny for this illegal war in Iran, and we should not retroactively fund the illegal war in Iran.”
That would risk a federal government shutdown, the type of tactic that, in 2007 and 2008, then House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid avoided in trying to end the Iraq war.
And in 2019 Pelosi brushed back liberal demands to impeach Trump over accusations related to the 2016 campaign, only to agree to those proceedings when her moderate, swing-district Democrats called for hearings over his pressure campaign against Ukraine.
Even then, Pelosi managed to cut deals with Trump on North American trade, the federal budget and several bills in 2020 that pumped trillions of dollars into the pandemic-crippled economy.
Gillibrand believes Democratic candidates, from centrists like Adam Hamilton in Kansas to far-left liberals like Abdul El-Sayed in Michigan, support cost-of-living issues like trying to end tariffs and the Iran war, and reducing the cost of prescription drugs — and they can avoid bitter fights that divide the party.
“I think there’s enough common ground,” she said.
Emanuel suggested threading the needle by moving quickly with legislation to raise the minimum wage, fight government corruption and affordability items in the first few weeks of the new Congress.
A fast-moving agenda would appeal to the activist base and put Republicans in a jam over supporting the popular items.
Schumer echoed that sentiment.
“Our number one focus has to be producing for the American people in terms of their number one need, the high costs that Trump has imposed on them, and second, to go after the corruption. This is the most corrupt administration in American history,” he told reporters.
Author
