According to the electoral projections published on 7 November, the Democrats have won control of both chambers of Congress. The midterms of November 3, 2026 turned the discontent with Donald Trump into a sanction for his camp. The central explanation lies in the past economic record, the responsibility attributed to the President and the desire to counter-power him. The surveys carried out before the vote document these three jurisdictions. They also describe a decisive limit for the Democrats: to reject the Republicans does not mean to adhere to their opponent for a long time.
Midterms: The Economic Promise Against Trump
The cost of living is the first point of break. In a national survey published on 15 October by an American university research centre, 85% of the voters surveyed rated the economy as a major issue. The cost of living was 84 per cent. Several responses were possible. These proportions therefore do not represent exclusive shares of the electorate.
The political result is explained by the meeting between this priority and a negative judgment on the presidential action. In the same survey, 74% disapproved of Trump’s economic management, and 79% of Trump’s cost-of-living management. A candidate can retain his or her supporters while losing the confidence needed to win voters less attached to his or her party. This is particularly dangerous when the subject of mistrust affects almost every home.
Economic data give consistency to this judgment. The Bureau of Labor Statistics measures a 0.7% decrease in the average real hourly wage between September 2025 and September 2026. Longer working hours amortize the weekly loss. It doesn’t completely erase it. In other words, working an hour earned on average less purchasing power than a year earlier.
This average does not describe each household. However, it makes it possible to rule out a convenient explanation: malaise is not only a matter of poor perception. A nominal wage increase may coexist with a real loss. For the elector, the additional amount on the payroll is less important if the necessary expenses are absorbed.
Voters assigned responsibility to the president
Economic difficulty alone is not enough to explain an electoral sanction. The power must also appear responsible or incapable of correcting the situation. A national survey of 2,140 adults from 24 to 28 September sheds light on this stage. Some 65% attributed high prices to Trump’s policies. In addition, 69% felt that their cost of living management was below their expectations.
This disappointment was 52% of the Republicans surveyed. This figure does not mean that half of the Republicans voted Democratic. It shows a crack in the satisfaction of the presidential camp. A disappointed partisan can keep their vote, abstain, less participate in the campaign or choose another candidate in a local race. These behaviours do not have the same effects, but all may weaken a majority.
Customs duties have complicated presidential defence. In this survey, 64% felt that the new levies went too far. The promise to charge foreign partners runs counter to the operation of imports. The American company pays the right to the border. It must then allocate its cost between its margin, suppliers and customers. The consumer does not need to know this tax system to see a higher price.
However, political responsibility is not confused with an exhaustive accounting of inflation. The president does not set each rent or oil price. But he claims an economic strategy. Electors can therefore sanction its results and its instruments without assigning materially the origin of each increase.
A vote against Trump, not just for the Democrats
A survey by the Marist Institute, conducted on 19 and 20 October among 1,289 registered voters, measures this dimension directly. Of those considered likely to vote, 44% said they wanted to vote mainly against Trump. Only 21 per cent intended to vote for him. For 35%, the president weighed little in their choice.
The imbalance is political. Trump did not appear on Congressional ballots, but his action structured part of the vote. A legislative election then becomes a means of limiting a Speaker whom electors cannot replace immediately. Republican candidates face two judgments: one on their own work and one on the national leadership of their party.
In the same survey, 34% cited the cost of living as the first issue, compared with 33% for the preservation of democracy. These responses do not justify mechanically opposing the portfolio and the institutions. An elector may want to pay less and refuse the concentration of power. Both motivations can converge to the same newsletter.
The vote is therefore not limited to a technical demand for lower prices. It also expresses a request for review. When the President’s party has a strong influence on federal action, voting for its opponent can be used to restore a capacity for inquiry, debate and fiscal negotiation. This does not imply a complete conversion to the Democratic Programme.
Foreign policy no longer separate from everyday life
The war with Iran added a dimension to this sanction. In the September survey, 71% disagreed with Trump’s handling of this case. Some 69 per cent felt that this war was not worth it. These are pre-election opinions, not a measure of the number of seats lost due to the conflict.
The political mechanism remains clear. An intervention can weaken a president in several ways: disagreement over its purpose, concern for soldiers, financial cost or economic effects. It becomes particularly difficult to defend when households simultaneously experience an increase in their spending. The international priority of power then comes into competition with a demand for domestic protection.
This reading must be distinguished from an excessive statement. The available data do not allow the defeat to be distributed between a percentage linked to Iran, another at tariffs and a third at institutions. These causes overlap. To add them would be to count the same voters several times.
The desire for change goes beyond partisan lines
NORC’s national study, published after the election and conducted during the previous week, reinforces this finding. It covers more than 110,000 registered persons in the fifty States, including those who have not voted. Of those eligible to participate, 80% called for substantial change or profound transformation. Some 72% disagreed with Congress.
The rejection therefore exceeds Trump alone. It also aims at the functioning of power. This distinction is important for the Democrats: they can benefit from an alternating need without immediately becoming popular. In the October national survey, only 40% had a favourable opinion of the Democratic Party, compared with 36% of the Republican Party. Electoral victory and political accession remain two different realities.
The Democrats thus have an opportunity, not an unlimited patent of trust. In order to transform punishment into a lasting majority, they will have to link their concrete powers to the concerns of voters. Hearings may establish responsibilities. They do not automatically reduce the price of races. An effective opposition must show what it blocks, what it negotiates and what it proposes.
A majority to rebuild on results
The answer to the political question is nevertheless solid. Trump and the Republicans faced a sanction vote fed by expensive life, disappointment with their response and the desire to limit presidential power. The detailed results and participation studies will then make it possible to distinguish between camp changes and new State-by-State abstentions and mobilizations.
Comments