News Releases

ANN ARBOR—University of Michigan political expert Michael Traugott discusses what the 2026 midterm election results reveal about the American electorate, how Democrats may use their new congressional majority, and the challenges facing both parties as they look toward the 2028 presidential election.

From your perspective, what did the midterms tell us? Was the outcome surprising?

I think the message of the midterms is a significant repudiation of the Trump administration and, to some extent, Donald Trump personally. The turnout was very high. There were groups that supported Donald Trump in 2024 that swung back to the Democrats in Tuesday’s election, and there were interesting segments of the electorate, like young people, who turned out in greater numbers than they have historically.

The capture of seats in the House by the Democrats was expected in the sense that just about every president has lost seats to the other party in the midterm elections. In fact, in 2018, Donald Trump lost 40 seats in his first midterm. This time, it could be up to 50 seats by the time all the votes are counted and all the seats are decided.

There are what we call “cohort effects” in the Senate. Only one-third is elected every two years. This particular cohort of states with seats up for election was thought to favor Republicans. So the fact that Democrats may capture seven seats, maybe one more, is very significant as well.

What was unique about this year compared with prior midterm elections?

In one sense, the part that wasn’t unique is that since the 1930s, the president’s party in every election except three has lost seats. We expected Democrats to gain seats, and various models that political scientists have suggested indicated that Democrats would take the House, but they weren’t so sure about the Senate.

If you think about Tuesday’s results from a historical perspective, the election that seems closest to me would be 1974. If Tuesday was a repudiation of Donald Trump, then the 1974 election after Watergate was a repudiation of Richard Nixon. There weren’t quite as many seats gained by the Democrats then, I think around 40, but it was a very personalized response to the incumbent administration.

What election result surprised you the most?

In terms of what we know today, I would say the results in Texas were the most surprising, given the fact that the Democrats won almost every major office in the state. But there’s an election that hasn’t been decided yet in Mississippi. If they elect the Black Democrat as their senator, that would really be historically significant.

What issues will Democrats tackle, knowing that the president has veto power? Where do you see them going now that they’ll have more control in Congress?

I think they’ll have a two-pronged approach. One will be legislative and policy-oriented, and they’ll look at bills that address affordability. For example, they’ll try to pass a bill to raise the minimum wage. They’ll try to pass a bill to block cuts to Medicare and Medicaid that will take effect early next year.

But when they get control of both chambers of Congress, they’re also going to initiate a series of hearings and investigations. They’ll call in members of the Trump administration who are in various government agencies to explain and try to justify actions they’ve taken, with the goal of either embarrassing them or proposing legislation to remedy these actions and turn them back.

Does it make sense for Democrats to devote time to holding hearings and trying to right the wrongs, or should they focus on issues such as gas and food prices and the cost of living that may have helped them get elected?

I think the answer is that Democrats will have to show that they can both walk and chew gum at the same time. They have to demonstrate that they’re serious about policy and that they can pass legislation, even if the president vetoes it or threatens to veto it. It’s a kind of direct charge to him.

But corruption and malfeasance in government were central issues in the campaign. The hearings they hold will also be central to highlighting specific problems in government and trying to remedy them.

What do the election results mean for each party as we look ahead to the 2028 presidential election and the process of selecting candidates?

The elections will obviously have something to do with nominations in each party for the presidency. The Democrats should have a pretty wide-open field, with a lot of candidates vying for the nomination. That’s important to the party because I think one problem former vice president Kamala Harris had in 2024, coming in late, was that she wasn’t really battle-tested in primaries.

It’ll be significant for the Republicans, as well, because many people think JD Vance is the current favorite, but he’s going to be tied to the Trump administration. The Republicans will have to figure out how to get out from under Donald Trump’s spell and see whether they can return to the issues and foundational principles they stood for in the past.

For the Democrats, I think the election shows the beginning of a generational shift in party leadership. It’s not going to happen overnight, but there are a lot of young candidates, including the first Gen Z candidate elected to Congress. They’re going to sort out the issue of a generation that’s quite experienced in managing, for example, congressional institutions, but whom many people feel are out of touch with the concerns of another generation of Americans.

People like Abdul El-Sayed, who are at the forefront of this generational change, will play a key role in this. Thinking about the 2028 elections and the presidential race, each party has a different set of issues related to selecting a nominee.

Contact: Jared Wadley, 734-834-7719, [email protected]