America has had enough of Trump. But the Democrats have yet to work out why they won

“American voters are well-studied but mysterious,” the New Yorker once wrote. This November, that statement proved true once again: on Tuesday, the electorate delivered its verdict on Donald Trump. On the eve of the vote, the president appeared before the Lincoln Memorial and displayed photographs of the refurbished Reflecting Pool, accompanied by triumphant music. “A huge chunk of… a swimming pool,” he said, referring to “huge problems with algae. Algae are brutal.” The President was pleased that the water could finally provide a proper reflection; a day later, the voters offered theirs.

The Democrats have won control of both houses of Congress, taking at least seven seats in the Senate and gaining at least thirty in the House of Representatives. They secured victories in traditionally Republican strongholds, including Texas, Kansas and South Carolina, achieving a historic win. Ultimately, it became clear that voters were fed up with the President and the constant turmoil within his administration.

“There are many voters who are simply fed up with the way Trump does things,” Hans Noel, a political scientist at Georgetown University, told Il Foglio. “People were frustrated and have grown thoroughly weary of Trump.”

Presidents usually lose seats in Congress in mid-term elections, especially when the economy is weak and approval ratings are low. But there are different kinds of defeat. The last comparable Republican collapse dates back to 1974, after the Watergate scandal forced Richard Nixon to resign. Unlike Nixon, Trump is still in office. But these elections raise a similar question: what political consequences does a president have for his party?

“Part of this depends – quite apart from the state of the economy – on the level of corruption that many voters perceive in the administration, on the war in Iran and the other conflicts in which it has drawn us in, and on the country’s international standing. And all of this, quite simply, adds up,” says Noel. “Rather than having won, the Democrats have benefited from the fact that voters have rejected the president.”

Trump returned to the White House promising a lower cost of living and to end the war in Ukraine in a single day. Two years on, that war continues, whilst the president has found himself fighting another one in Iran. In Venezuela, the successful capture of Maduro was followed by endless talk of the country’s oil. In Iran, the war has at various times been won, on the verge of ending with a deal, or set to resume with a new round of bombing. What was missing was a coherent explanation to the American people of what their country was trying to achieve. Even Melania, according to Trump, once complained that her dancing was ‘so unpresidential’, to which he replied: ‘But I’ve become president’. The issue was certainly not the dancing. Americans were well aware of Trump’s endless ramblings from the Covid years, when they had sent him home in favour of Biden, only to grow weary of the latter’s inflation, advanced age and lack of leadership, and bring Trump back to power. Two years on, it seems they have had enough once again.

But whether Americans have genuinely changed their political allegiance or simply turned out to punish the president remains unclear. “Historically, in cases like this, it’s usually a mix of both,” Anthony Fowler, a political scientist at the University of Chicago, told Il Foglio. “The Democrats aren’t actually that popular in the polls… So, if the Democrats think this result means that people agree with all the policies they favour, that’s probably not quite the case.”

The elections also produced two very different types of Democratic winners. In Texas, the moderate James Talarico defeated Ken Paxton, who was backed by Trump, whilst in Michigan the progressive Abdul El-Sayed became the first Muslim to be elected to the Senate. Fowler warns against viewing these progressive victories as a valid electoral formula at national level: El-Sayed, he argues, achieved lower results than other Democratic candidates. The party will now have to reconcile politicians elected in traditionally conservative states with members of its increasingly assertive left wing.

“The Democrats will have this very broad coalition, which includes Christian moderates from Kansas but also people on the far left, some of whom even describe themselves as communists, and they will all be in the same party,” explained Fowler. “One possibility is that the more left-wing candidates could end up damaging the Democratic Party’s brand. If they say truly extreme things on the floor of Congress, it will be widely shared on social media and cable TV and so on. The Democrats will find themselves in a delicate position: they will have to decide whether to distance themselves and say they do not support those positions. It will be interesting.”

Trump has maintained control over the Republican Party through electoral defeats, legal troubles and four years out of office, demanding personal loyalty from aspiring candidates, whose careers often depended on his endorsement. Challenging him came at a political cost. Following the mid-term elections, the question now is whether Republicans will begin to view loyalty to Trump as a liability.

“The Republicans are realising that they need to do something different, because relying solely on Trump is not enough in itself,” observed Fowler. “Will they make a conscious effort to moderate their stance? Will they realise they’ve got it wrong and need to change course in future? Or will they double down, because the only candidates left in that coalition are the particularly MAGA ones, and so on?”

Vice-President JD Vance has already attributed the defeat to the war in Iran, in an attempt to preserve the MAGA legacy whilst distancing himself from the President’s decisions. But whether this strategy will work is another matter. “He might try to distance himself from Trump. But it will be difficult for him, because he is the Vice-President. Kamala Harris faced some similar difficulties last time,” Anthony Fowler told Il Foglio. “My guess is that JD Vance will stand as a candidate anyway, because the chance to run for the presidency doesn’t come along very often. And being the incumbent vice-president under a president who cannot stand for re-election is obviously an excellent opportunity. But I think it will be a challenge for him.”

In Washington, the Democrats have gained the power to investigate the administration, block presidential appointments and thwart Trump’s legislative ambitions, although it is difficult to identify any major projects the president is pursuing. At the same time, they cannot easily push through their own agenda in the face of his veto, as they lack a filibuster-proof majority, which leaves ample scope for a political deadlock.

After the Republicans had taken control of Congress in 1994, Bill Clinton had to remind them – and the press – in a now-famous phrase that ‘the president matters’. Trump may soon find himself in the same situation. He has spent a decade reshaping the Republican Party in his own image, often setting aside its principles. His first term combined traditional Republican tax cuts and deregulation with protectionism, which became far more aggressive in his second term. Having taken office with isolationist leanings, he blamed Ukraine for the protracted war, praised authoritarian leaders and treated historic European allies with a mistrust he has rarely reserved for America’s adversaries. Despite all this, many Republicans followed him, even when loyalty required them to abandon convictions held for decades. Trump demanded their loyalty, but rarely offered a coherent philosophy of government. What, after all, is Trumpism beyond Trump himself? Now the Republicans must take a long, hard look at themselves. Let us hope they find the answer.