Key events
Is prioritizing Israel no longer popular?
An anonymous reader in Florida asked in a reader callout: Is siding with Israel over America a thing of the past? A lot of “Israel first” candidates seemed to do terrible on Tuesday.
Alice Speri, civil liberties reporter writes: I think so. President Trump’s last minute suggestion on Election Day that the US would cut off it’s $4 bn in annual aid to Israel (and substitute it with arms sales) was a pretty telling sign even he realizes that reflexive support for Israel that for decades was standard in US politics has now become a political liability. Critics dismissed it as a “desperate” and “unserious” move, but it certainly says something about Israel’s standing among US voters right now. Last month, AIPAC said it would stop directly endorsing and funding candidates — they’ll still seek to influence elections in other ways, but that, too, was viewed as a striking recognition of how toxic their brand has become. In his first post-midterms statement, JD Vance said the US relationship with Israel needs to “change”.
Alice continues: For the public, at least, it already has. Come January, the US House will include an army doctor who went on a medical mission in Gaza, a lawyer who was fired by her firm over a blogpost criticizing Israel’s war, a Jewish lawmaker who was recently detained by Israeli forces while helping Palestinians harvest olives in the occupied West Bank, and a community organizer who participated in a pro-Palestine student encampment and scored one of the primary season’s most stunning upsets under the banner “babies, not bombs”. Pro-Palestinian candidates won across the country up and down the ballot.
I think it remains to be seen what Democrats will do with this mandate — support for Israel has always been bipartisan, but so is voters’ frustration with it. If you’re interested in reading more on this, my analysis is linked below, as is our columnist Peter Beinart on the same question.
Will this help fix America’s global standing?
R. Rich King in Washington state asked in a reader callout: Will this at all redeem our loss of standing as a part of a global social order?
David Smith, Washington bureau chief: Yes, up to a point. Just look at some of the international reaction.
Pedro Sánchez, the prime minister of Spain, posted on social media: “American society voted against policies that only make people poorer. Against hate. Against sexism. Against climate denial and against elite privilege.”
Cyril Ramaphosa, the president of South Africa a frequent Trump target, said he he believes that Democratic control of Washington will “introduce a new era in world relations”.
And Bronwen Maddox, director and chief executive of Britain’s Chatham House thinktank, suggested that “the elections may change how the world looks at America. They go some way to answering the big questions raised by Trump’s second presidency: Have Americans changed? Are his actions what they really want, given they have voted for him twice? And is US democracy robust and capable of securing peaceful changes of power? To that extent, some will find the results reassuring.” Her article is here.
Indeed, people around the world who worry that America has taken leave of its senses and tilted to authoritarianism over the past decade found solace that, once again, the system had self-corrected and Trumpism is not irreversible. Historian Simon Schama tweeted: “contrary to rumours democracy is alive and very much kicking.”
Still, many of the same things were said after Trump’s defeat in 2020 and look what happened four years later. Rightwing populism is a fever that comes and goes and one election cannot instantly restore trust. European governments have been forced to contemplate greater strategic independence because they can no longer assume that Washington will remain committed to collective security. A Democratic victory in 2028 would not automatically reverse that process.
This week was the beginning of rehabilitation, not redemption.
What leadership options do Democrats have?
An instagram user and sgdrew asked in a comment: What are the other congressional leadership options besides Schumer and Jefferies? Have any other senators or representatives names come up? I’m hearing plenty of dissatisfaction that those two seem to be a foregone conclusion.
George Chidi, politics and democracy reporter: Theoretically, House Democrats could choose anyone to be its speaker, including someone who is not a member of the house itself. (Republicans had at times suggested naming Donald Trump as speaker in a Republican-controlled congress, post-presidency). As a practical matter, the speaker has always been a member, and generally must be serving in a seat that is safe for his party so that the speaker does not have to spend a lot of time defending their own re-election. People think of the speaker’s office as one that is meant to articulate the arguments of the majority’s legislators to the public, but that’s only one consideration.
The speaker appoints members to committees and serves as a traffic cop guiding legislation to the floor for votes … or keeping it off the floor preventing votes. For rank-and-file legislators that might matter much more than ideological alignment, which is why challenges to leadership are rare.
Ro Khanna of California and Jamie Raskin of Maryland, two firebrands on the progressive left, have been floated informally as alternatives to the leadership of Hakeem Jeffries of New York as the next speaker. Those suggestions must contend with a fundamental political reality revealed by the midterms: Black voters surging in turnout across the country just protected many Black representatives from racially-gerrymandered redistricting, Jeffries emerged as minority leader as part of longstanding dealmaking within the party by Black lawmakers looking to provide a roadmap to authority for its members. Sidelining what would be the first Black speaker in American history after this effort would be viewed as a massive political betrayal.
George continues: The US senate has somewhat different considerations, because its majority leader wields less formal power. The majority leader also makes appointments to legislative committees, but only for their own party and only in consultation with the party committee. The leader has a strategic role in setting the party’s legislative agenda, which has some members of the public screaming: the election results suggest priorities that Sen. Chuck Schumer has not pursued. The majority leader will also lead the party’s fundraising efforts to defend Democratic senators in election years that are unlikely to be as friendly as this one was. For lawmakers, the cat-wrangling job of managing internal relationships and the re-election interests of 50+ US senators who do not actually have to do what the majority leader suggests may take priority over other considerations.
No strong contender to replace Schumer has emerged in public discussion, even though elected Democrats in Kansas, Illinois and Maine have said they won’t back Schumer. Minnesota’s Peggy Flanagan has called for new leadership. Illinois’s Juliana Stratton said she would oppose him.
Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, a former chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, has been floated as an alternative to Schumer. The activist group 50501 has his endorsement in the role, and Michigan Senator-elect Abdul El-Sayed has reiterated his call for Van Hollen to become Senate majority leader. The fundraising prowess of Jon Ossoff of Georgia also suggests that he would make an adept majority leader, and the current chair of the DSSC, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, would likely make the short list.
What is happening with the Alaska Senate race?
GuruJohn asks in the comments: What will happen with the Alaskan Senate vote?
Chris Stein, senior politics reporter: The outcome of that race may still take more than a week to arrive. Alaska uses ranked-choice voting in Senate races, and the state division of elections says it will run tabulations on November 18 — to ensure that all absentee ballots are counted — and intends to certify the results of its elections by November 25. This extended timeline is not too much of a surprise — due to the state’s massive size, complicated logistics and policies it has adopted to ensure every ballot is counted despite those challenges, elections results in Alaska often take a while. It’s also red state, so it’s not too surprising that the Democrat Mary Peltola’s lead over the incumbent Republican senator Dan Sullivan so far is small, and every ballot will likely need to be counted to determine who wins.
How did abortion measures fare on ballots?
An anonymous reader in Germany asked in a reader callout: In some states there were referendums on the ballot about abortion rights. How did those do?
Guardian staff: Thanks for your question! Reporter Marina Dunbar covered the results of several ballot measures related to reproductive rights. Below is an excerpt from that story, and you can read the full report here.
In Nevada, voters approved an amendment enshrining abortion rights in the state constitution, permanently protecting access to abortion through the second trimester after a second referendum on the measure.
Question 6, which establishes a “fundamental right to abortion”, was leading 62.3% to 37.7% with 86% of Nevada votes counted when the Associated Press called the race. The amendment allows the state to regulate abortion after viability, except when medically necessary to “protect the life or health of the pregnant patient”.
Virginia voters also approved a constitutional amendment establishing a “fundamental right to reproductive freedom”.
This measure also protects access to abortion during the first two trimesters of pregnancy. It permits government regulation in the third trimester while preserving access to abortion when necessary to protect the life or health of the pregnant woman. The amendment also establishes rights to contraception and fertility care, among other protections.
In Missouri, voters rejected an effort to overturn the constitutional right to reproductive freedom they had approved in 2024. Amendment 3, which would have repealed those protections, restricted abortion, and prohibited gender transition surgeries and certain other procedures for minors, failed by a margin of 55% to 45%.
The proposal, placed on the ballot by the Republican-led legislature, would have banned abortion except in cases of rape and incest during the first 12 weeks of pregnancy, or later in cases involving fetal anomalies.
Is Maga dead?
Margaret in Switzerland asked in a reader callout: Will more Republicans go back to the party’s earlier policies and values? Do Trump and all his allies need to be purged for that to happen? In short, is the Republican party now broken?
Shrai Popat, political reporter and blogger: This midterms show the groundswell of antipathy for this administration among so many parts of the electorate — most notably from voters who were happy to send Trump back to the White House in 2024. It really feels that his agenda, rhetoric and style of governing have been called into question this cycle. I think for many, Trump had been immune from this kind of backlash, but these results suggest that blind faith in him is evaporating quickly. Democrats were really successful in essentially saying that any Republican on the ballot this election would be/has been deferential to Trump, regardless of how moderate they seemed. I think that means for the next two years, many GOP politicians are going to have to walk the tightrope of still appealing to the Maga base (that still exists) but also really thinking about how to win over the old-school conservative/more independent voter you mentioned (in Republican strongholds) who have completely turned off this president and policies that have affected their bottom line. These voters might have really liked Trump’s messaging as recently as 2024 (particularly on issues like immigration), but since culture war talking points weren’t winning strategies this midterm cycle, it’s going to require a re-evaluation of what resonates with voters. I think it was particularly telling that so many Republicans, from JD Vance to Ted Cruz to Newt Gingrich, all pointed out how the war and affordability really sunk the GOP in these elections.
Is Trump done appointing Supreme Court justices?
An anonymous reader in France asked in a reader callout: Does this mean we won’t having any more Trump-appointed Supreme Court judges? I’m a bit worried that Alito and Thomas might suddenly retire before the new congress is seated, allowing Trump to pull a fast one!
Ariana Baio, US breaking news politics reporter: Nothing is for certain – there’s always a chance Donald Trump could nominate a new Supreme Court justice and the Senate could approve it even while Democrats hold the majority.
But Senate Democrats could easily block Trump’s judicial nominations and Chuck Schumer, the future Senate majority leader, said that is their plan.
It’s also possible that Trump tries to push through a new Supreme Court nomination before Congress is sworn-in in January, but as of now, there’s no indication that’s happening.
Clarence Thomas hasn’t made any public statement indicating he’s planning to retire.
While there were rumors Samuel Alito was planning to retire earlier this year, he told Fox News on Thursday he would stay on the bench for the remainder of the term, regardless of Democrats win.
Which senior Congress members lost reelection?
An anonymous reader in Seattle asked in a reader callout: Who are the top five most senior representatives who lost reelection?
Shrai Popat, political reporter and live blogger: One of the biggest lawmakers to lose re-election this cycle was Senator Susan Collins of Maine. She is the five-term Republican incumbent who lost to the progressive Democrat Troy Jackson. It was a stunning end to Collins’ career — she’s spent nearly 30 years in the Senate and really touted her seniority and independence on the trail. Throughout Trump’s time in office, she’s been happy to break with the president and has painted her self as a moderate. She’s also directed millions of dollars back to Maine in her position as appropriations committee chair. In all my conversations with voters, strategists and elected officials in Maine over the last year everyone was genuinely unsure whether Jackson would be able to beat Collins, given how comfortably she’s defied political gravity in the past. She was also the only Republican running for election in a state that Trump lost in 2024, which is further proof that even self-styled independents weren’t immune from the anti-Trump animus that blew Republicans out of the water this cycle.
Shrai continues: Other big names who lost reelection were Roger Marshall — the incumbent Republican senator from Kansas — who lost to Democrat Adam Hamilton, the pastor of a mega-church, who pulled off an astonishing upset and is now the first Democrat to win a Senate seat in that state in almost a century. Then we have Governor Greg Abbott in Texas, who was vying for a fourth term, but lost to Democratic state rep. Gina Hinojosa — poised to be the first Latina governor of the state. Another big re-election loss happened in Nevada, where Republican governor Joe Lombardo lost to Democrat Aaron Ford, the state’s attorney general. And then there are dozens of House Republicans who lost their re-election races (some of these are reps who managed to win in states that Kamala Harris carried in 2024). Some of the the most striking ones are Tom Kean Jr in New Jersey, Mike Lawler in New York and David Valadao in California.
How do the midterms impact the future of the electoral college?
Bgdxc1 asks in the comments: How will this election impact the implementation of NPVIC? How plausible is it that the bills would impact 2028?
Sam Levine, voting rights reporter: The mid-term results give the The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC) a serious chance of going into effect. For anyone unfamiliar, the (NPVIC) is an agreement among states in which they agree to award their electoral college votes to the winner of the national popular vote. It would only go into effect if states with at least 270 electoral college votes – enough to win the presidency) agree. Currently, states with 222 electoral votes have agreed to the pact. Democrats won trifectas on Tuesday in states that have 61 electoral votes. Enough states would have to agree to the compact by July 20, 2028 in order for it to go into effect for the next presidential election. Even though Democrats now have enough legislatures to enact the pact, it doesn’t mean it will necessarily go into effect. For one, the states where Democrats have new majorities are the presidential battlegrounds Arizona, Wisconsin, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Michigan. Those states may not be interested in giving up the attention and focus they get in presidential election years and the federal resources that come with it. There are likely to be a slew of legal challenges to the agreement should enough states join and I would expect the US supreme court to have final say on whether such an agreement is constitutional.
How important was youth turnout?
Stephen Zunes from Santa Cruz, California asked in a reader callout: How important a factor was youth turnout?
Lex McMenamin, movement building reporter: For context, I’ve been closely covering the youth vote since 2018, and it was my main beat up until this January. I’ve been back on it this week, and what an exciting one to return! I feel safe saying it as of right now: Based on exit polling, young people were absolutely a decisive voting bloc this cycle — as they have been in the last two midterm cycles. According to Tufts University’s Center for Information & Research on Civic Learning and Engagement (CIRCLE), which monitors youth civic engagement, 2026 youth turnout was the second-highest midterms turnout in 30 years, second only to the 2018 midterms that brought us the Squad during Trump’s first term. Every youth population that went for Trump in 2024, including both Latino and white men, flipped Democratic by several points. They voted blue on average by +30 in battleground states like Florida and Michigan. These numbers may shift slightly by the spring, when CIRCLE will release full voter data — which, as my colleague Will Craft notes below, are not yet available — but are nonetheless historically notable. Young people are a part of a backlash we’re seeing across generations against Republicans, but it’s absolutely about the issues, too: It was over the economy, corruption, U.S. war-making, and civil rights. They also won a number of seats in state legislatures, continuing to build a presence in government. I’ll dig into the details, and talk to some of those youth voters, in a story coming this weekend.
Will Craft, data editor: Before I dig into my answer, I want to flag that all the numbers on turnout and vote shifts are estimates right now. Unfortunately we aren’t going to know exactly how different groups voted with a high degree of specificity for a few weeks or months, because as votes are counted and all the election data nerd’s models shift to get more precise. So bear in mind that we don’t know exactly how different groups voted, but we have a decently idea on how they voted. Some places like certain New York city based large news organizations have extremely detailed statistical models telling them how people in different demographics voted, but here at the Guardian we used census data to group counties together based on how many young people there are in the county. Now, not all the young people voted in those counties, but its a decent proxy. What I found was that counties where more than a quarter of the population is under the age of 30, there was a 16 point swing to the Dems.
But this wasn’t your question! You asked how important the youth turnout was. Here’s my honest answer. There isn’t a single demographic that did not shift to the Dems, and every single one of those demographics shifting is important. The election wasn’t a blue tsunami (bluenami?) because the youth voted Democrat. Or because Hispanic voters went for the Democrats. Or because black voters swung even further to the Democrats. The important factor in this election is that there was a societal wide, top to bottom swing away from the GOP at all levels of government.
What changes can actually be implemented regarding ICE, gerrymandering and wars?
Joyce San Pedro in New York asked in a reader callout: What changes can actually be implemented? Can we undo the Republican gerrymandering? Defund certain wars? Abolish ICE? Impeach Hegseth and Kennedy?
José Olivares, immigration reporter: The road to Abolish ICE would be a long and difficult one for Democrats.
It is also not clear whether the push to abolish the agency is a position that all Democrats are united on. For example, Illinois representative Delia Ramirez — one of the most vocal anti-ICE progressive Democrats — has introduced the “Reimagining Safety Act,” which would dismantle the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and abolish ICE. In its place, Ramirez proposes creating the “Department of Community Safety.”
José continues: On the other hand, the more mainstream Democrats and leadership of the party have not explicitly called for abolishing the agency and instead have called for reforms. On Thursday, after the midterms, the House Judiciary Democrats posted on X — to much criticism — that it’s “time for ICE to take the masks off, turn the body cameras on, and start answering to the American people.” Essentially: ICE operations can continue, just without masks and with body cameras.
If Democrats were united in abolishing ICE, they could galvanize around Ramirez’s legislation. Even then, it would be a big task. DHS, despite it being a young department, carries out a tremendous amount of work and is significantly entrenched in border issues, disaster response, and an increasing role in the federal criminal justice system. Republicans and DHS supporters would put up a ferocious fight to preserve it, and likely accuse Democrats of being “weak on crime” and desiring “open borders.” Would mainstream Democrats and party leadership be able to push through those political accusations to eventually abolish ICE? It’s unknown, but unlikely.
What are the impacts of Democrats flipping state legislatures?
Jim Garrett in Massachusetts asked in a reader callout: Where have Democrats flipped state legislatures, and what could be the impact of that? Also, what consequential ballot measures have passed?
Lex McMenamin, movement building reporter: This week in New Hampshire — an important presidential primary battleground state, regardless of its small size — saw a seismic Democratic conquering in both its federal and its state races. More surprising than its congressional outcome for Chris Pappas, whose race was leaning his way before Tuesday, or the Dems winning both US house seats, state Dems flipped the whole state legislature, some 420 seats. New Hampshire’s unique five person statewide executive council, which makes budget and spending decisions, is going from 4-1 conservative control to, for the first time ever, Democrats in all five seats. State Dems were hoping to maybe win the State House; this outcome is one they were totally unprepared for, and will change the state’s agenda over the next two years, laying the groundwork to potentially reverse some anti-LBGTQ laws passed in the last few years of a Republican majority; and finally legalize marijuana, a bipartisan goal.
Who is likely to run for president in 2028?
Steven Williams from Kentucky asked in a reader callout: Who do you see as front runners, from both parties, for 2028?
Lauren Gambino, senior political correspondent: Any Democrat with ambitions of running for president in 2028 could make a case based on the results of 2028. Progressives won, populists won, moderates won, conservative Democrats won – all across the country.
The names still being discussed are Jon Ossoff, who easily won re-election on Tuesday to his Georgia Senate seat, AOC, who campaigned for many progressives, as well as more moderate figures like NY governor Kathy Hochul. There is already an effort to draft congressman Ro Khanna into the race (though I don’t think that will be very hard!) Kamala Harris campaigned in swing states around the country – and Mississippi, which looks like an incredible move given the nail-biting Senate race there. Gavin Newsom, of course whose bet to redistrict his state is paying off.
On the Republican side, all this maneuvering away from Trump and speaking out about the war can be read as potential 2028 hopefuls thinking about a potential candidacy. JD Vance will likely be considered a contender, but I think Tuesday’s results shattered his frontrunner status a bit. As Kamala Harris knows, its very hard to put distance between an unpopular president having served as their vice president. Ron DeSantis will likely run, Marco Rubio, possibly someone from the Never Trump movement or a Trump detractor like Chris Christie or Nikki Haley.
What can Democrats do to stop the Iran war?
Sid in California asked in a reader callout: How can Democrats help stop the Iran war and what are their options to do it? How much time would it take to for Democrats to stop the Iran war and would Trump veto any legislation they pass?
Chris Stein, senior politics reporter: The first tool Democrats have to force an end to the war with Iran is a war powers resolution. If they don’t try to force one through Congress before this year ends, they may do so next year, when they will officially take control of the House and Senate. But such resolutions don’t have much of a track record of working, at least not under Trump — the president has ignored the one that Democrats passed earlier this year with a handful of Republican votes. And so it’s likely that Democrats will take more forceful action, such as holding up funding for the defense department to force Trump into ending the war. There are a few different avenues to do that, potentially even before the new Congress begins in January. We’ll see how it turns out.
What does impeachment look like in the Senate with Democratic majority?
Grauniad9999 asks in the comments: With the Democrat Senate majority and the likelihood of Maga / Republican splintering, what is the odds of achieving impeachment numbers in the Senate?
Lauren Gambino, senior political correspondent: I think it would very much depend on who was being impeached. There is a lot of anger at the defense Sec. Hegseth. And we could have an early test of who might be willing to side with Democrats on an impeachment if Congressman Massie, the Kentucky Republican who lost his primary to a Trump-backed rival, does move forward with impeachment articles against Hegseth, as he’s said he’ll do. Massie will leave office in January, so this would be brought in final days of the outgoing Congress. He’d just need 218 votes and then it’d get sent to the Senate. As for impeachment against Trump, that is a trickier question that Democrats are wrestling with, particularly in the House where impeachment articles are brought. Voters made clear on Tuesday they wanted to punish Trump and put a check on his agenda. And of course many Democrats, and a few Republicans, feel he’s committed high crimes and misdemeanors. The opposing view is that impeachment is all-consuming and would distract from their legislative efforts
Will the midterm results affect food and gas prices?
Dee Kee in California asked in a reader callout: How does it affect me? Will anything affect the cost of food and cost of gas?
Dominic Rushe, US business editor: Democrats are keen to end the war in Iran and some Republicans – most notably JD Vance – are blaming their losses on the war’s impact on the price of oil. So a resolution to that conflict now looks more likely and traders are already predicting oil prices will come down. That will filter through to prices at the pumps. But it wont be immediate. Food prices are another matter. Inflation is now 3.7% and is rising faster than wages. Trump’s tariffs continue to filter through to consumers. With Trump threatening to veto any bills he does not like, it seems unlikely that Democrats will be able to pass legislation that will meaningfully bring down prices.
Why hasn’t Mississippi been called yet?
In the comments, reader Heavycola asks: Why is the count in Mississippi taking so long?
Adria R. Walker, a reporter on the race and equity team: As of Thursday, according to Mississippi Secretary of State Michael Watson, there are between 12,000 and 20,000 affidavit ballots that are still uncounted in Mississippi’s Senate race. Because thousands of voters were inaccurately marked inactive, due to the Secretary of State’s office using unverified Experian data, Mississippi received a historic number of affidavit ballots. Voters who cast an affidavit ballot because they didn’t have a photo ID have five days (until 10 November) to cure their ballots. Additionally, there are outstanding mail-in ballots that have until 10 November to reach precincts to be counted. Because the race remains so close, it’s necessary to wait to receive all votes before calling it.
Welcome to the conversation
The 2026 US midterm elections were a forceful rebuke of Donald Trump and the Republicans as Democrats captured control of Congress.
Democrats hoping for a “blue wave” saw a blue tsunami as they triumphed in deep-red states such as Texas, Kansas and South Carolina to build comfortable majorities in both the Senate and House of Representatives. Voters also elected Democratic governors in Texas, Georgia, Iowa, Wisconsin and Ohio, all states Trump won in 2024.
Over the last month, we’ve been answering your questions in a series of reader conversations from how immigration and the economy’s impact on voters, to who is spending the most on campaigns.
So how did Democrats pull off the win for Congress, and what’s next for them and for Trump? Join us at noon ET on Friday November 6, when the Guardian’s political reporters will answer all your questions on the midterms results.
Sign in or sign up to join the conversation.
