wellnessfitpro
Key events
That’s all for now!
Thank you all for participating in our US midterm elections results reader Q&A – and for joining us over the last month as we tackled a series of conversations on topics including immigration, the US economy and political campaign spending.
We hope this conversation provided more context on the “blue wave” in the 2026 midterms, what the Democrats’ win means for Congress and the election results we’re still awaiting from key Senate races.
Stick with our midterms coverage by bookmarking our US midterm elections page, and sign up for the Stakes newsletter for weekly updates.
Looking for more updates? Our politics live blog has the latest.
What did turnout look like?
Tasha Le Mel in Los Angeles asked in a reader callout: What were turnout numbers as compared to previous years? And roughly how many voters switched from voting Republican to Democrat?
Lauren Gambino, senior political correspondent: Hello from a fellow Angeleno! As you will know all too well being from California, ballots are still be counted. But across the major battleground states – where Senate contests were being held – we saw high election day turnout. We saw strong turnout among young voters, the second-highest in the past 30 years, according to Circle’s early estimate. Latino voters also turned out in high numbers and were credited with powering Democratic wins, particularly in Texas, but also in Georgia and Nevada and other states with key Senate, House and governor’s races. Among that cohort, we know anecdotally and in the data that many voters who backed Trump in 2024 switched to Democrats. And simply based on the results in states such as South Carolina, Kansas, Iowa and Ohio, we know that Republicans or Republican-leaning voters who backed Trump in 2024 voted for a Democrat on the Senate ballot.
How are Democrats debating and deciding party direction?
Mark Greiner in Maryland asked in a reader callout: How are Democratic leaders, from local to state to congressional level, meeting debating and setting direction for the party? In particular, how are democratic socialists making inroads and how are establishment Dems responding?
Lauren Gambino, senior political correspondent: In some ways there are two overlapping debates playing out. In the immediate term, congressional Democrats will need to pick and choose their legislative priorities – the issues they want to fight for, the investigations they want to launch, what fronts they think they might actually be able to make progress, even with Trump still wielding the veto pen.
But a lot of the bigger picture, ideological debates will come as the candidates start announcing runs for president. Presidential campaigns are always a contest of ideas – a real test of the vision for the party. There I’ll be watching for how candidates position themselves, particularly those who try to blur the previously rigid ideological lines. You’ve heard terms such as “post-partisan” used to describe Iowa’s newly elected governor, Rob Sand, and Gina Hinojsa, Texas’ new governor-elect, was once a pretty liberal member of the state legislature from Austin, but since running for governor has argued that she will practice a populist, not progressive, politics as governor. I don’t expect either to run for president (at least not yet!) but their views will definitely be bouncing around and deeply influential as the contest gets under way.
Will Medicare for All happen now?
David from the US asked in a reader callout: What can Democrats do to advance universal healthcare?
Jessica Glenza, health reporter writes: Ambitious healthcare proposals are very unlikely to become law before 2028 for one single and obvious reason: Donald J Trump. But even without that roadblock, Democrats have a lot of work to do to hammer out a health proposal everyone can get behind. Voters elected a lot of different flavors of Democrats, from progressives such as senator-elect Abdul El-Sayed of Michigan to centrists including Senator-elect James Talarico of Texas. The party needs to use the coming months to hammer out ideas a big-tent coalition can get behind. That work is going to be done in formal congressional proposals, symbolic votes and in the presidential primaries themselves. However, as your question suggests, nearly every Democrat I talk to agrees that all Americans need more accessible and affordable healthcare. In other words, between single-payer style Medicare for All, El-Sayed’s proposal, and the more moderate public option-based Medicare for “Y’all”, backed by Talarico, there is room to negotiate.
How big of a deal is Texas in 2028?
Joel in Australia asked in a reader callout: If Dems can replicate a Texas win in the 2028 electoral college, do Republicans have any reasonable path to winning the presidency?
David Smith, Washington bureau chief writes: Yes, but the path will certainly be narrower and probably require a different type of candidate.
In 2024, Donald Trump beat Kamala Harris by 312 electoral college votes to 226. If Texas – with 40 votes – had gone the other way, Trump would still have won with 272 votes against Harris’s 266.
So it is not necessarily a case of, “as Texas goes, so goes the nation” but it will certainly be one of the biggest prizes on election night. Florida Governor Ron DeSantis wrote on Wednesday: “Texas has been the most significant Republican state this century. A Democrat sweep of statewide races – and possible capture of the Legislature – takes away one of the anchors of the modern GOP.”
David continues: If a Democratic presidential candidate can win it, combined with the traditional battlegrounds of Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Georgia and Arizona, the electoral arithmetic would be extremely difficult for Republicans.
If a Republican presidential candidate wants to win it, they will probably have to rebuild the Trump 2024 coalition of working-class voters, rural communities, suburban conservatives and culturally conservative Latino voters. Trump’s draconian ICE raids certainly seemed to alienate the last of these groups in Texas.
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 its $4bn 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 and 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: “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 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 chair 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, Senator 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 18 November – to ensure that all absentee ballots are counted – and intends to certify the results of its elections by 25 November. 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 or 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 January, when Congress is sworn in, but as of now, there’s no indication that’s happening.
Clarence Thomas hasn’t made any public statement indicating he is 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’ wins.
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 re-election 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.
#blue #wave #questions #midterm #election #results #answered #midterm #elections
