What will happen in the 2026 midterms?
If history is any guide, it will be a Democratic romp.
Probably the best predictor is what is happening in the special elections in 2025. They have been devastating to Republicans.
Republicans in trying to save face claim that there is nothing to see there because Democrats are winning in already Blue states. Well, that is true and not true. Yes they won in Blue states but it is the SIZE of that win that make the headlines. And it continues to today.
* A Democrat flipped a Georgia House seat in a ruby red district that Trump won by 11 points!
* A Democrat became mayor of Miami for the first time in 38 years!!
And those were on Dec 9th 2025.
Here are the other results:
* Pennsylvania State Senate, District 36 — March 25, 2025 - Democrat James Malone flipped a seat in a heavily Republican-leaning Lancaster-area district.
* Iowa State Senate, District 35 — January 28, 2025 - Democrat Mike Zimmer flipped a seat in a district Trump won by about 21 points in 2024, winning 52%–48%.
* Iowa State Senate, District 1 — August 26, 2025 - Democrat Catelin Drey flipped another GOP state Senate seat, winning 55%–44% in a district Trump carried in 2024. The win also broke the GOP supermajority in the Iowa Senate.
* Mississippi State House, District 22 — November 4, 2025 - Democrat Justin Crosby defeated incumbent Republican Jon Lancaster, roughly 53%–47%, flipping the seat.
* Georgia State House, District 121 — December 9, 2025 - Democrat Eric Gisler appears to have flipped a historically Republican seat,
* Mississippi State Senate, District 45 — November 4, 2025 - Democrat Johnny DuPree won by a huge margin — early reports showed about 71%–29% — flipping a Republican-held seat and helping break the GOP supermajority
* Mississippi State Senate, District 2 — November 4, 2025 - Democrat Theresa Gillespie Isom also flipped a GOP-held seat with a decisive win; early reporting had her ahead around 63%–37%.
* Virginia’s 11th Congressional District — Sept. 9, 2025
Democrat James Walkinshaw won overwhelmingly to replace the late Gerry Connolly
* Arizona’s 7th Congressional District — Sept. 23, 2025
Democrat Adelita Grijalva won decisively in a strongly Democratic district
Then there are those governorships and new House seats Democrats won in the off-year elections that made news because of the size of victory.
I didn't realize it had been so many.I see a lot of people citing these special election results and acting like they automatically spell doom for Republicans in the upcoming elections, but I have to push back on that interpretation. First, I want to point out that many of these so-called “flips” are either in districts that are already trending blue or they’re local elections that reflect local issues more than national sentiment. For example, Democrats winning in strong Democratic areas or in a mayoral race in Miami after 38 years is not a clear signal about how voters feel about Trump’s presidency nationally. Local elections are notoriously influenced by candidate quality, turnout quirks, and local controversies, not just party allegiance.
When you dig into these numbers, some of the margins are misleading. Yes, Democrats may have won some traditionally Republican districts, like the Georgia House seat or parts of Iowa, but those are special circumstances. Voter turnout in off-year elections is often extremely low and skewed, meaning a motivated local campaign can tip the balance. That doesn’t automatically translate to a national trend. Moreover, Trump won the presidency and many down-ballot races in 2024 with clear, decisive margins in swing states and traditionally red areas. That indicates a solid base that is energized and engaged, which is far more predictive of national election outcomes than one-off special elections.
I have to highlight context under Biden’s presidency. We’ve seen inflation, border crises, and energy costs that have created widespread dissatisfaction. Historically, the party in power during tough economic periods struggles to maintain momentum, even if they claim small wins in localized contests. So while these special elections make headlines, they do not reflect the larger, national picture where Trump’s policies and popularity continue to energize voters across the country. Reading too much into them is premature and ignores the bigger picture.You’re not wrong that any one special election can be quirky, but you’re missing the forest for the trees. The important metric isn’t “did a Democrat win a blue seat?” but how parties are performing relative to the recent baseline.
In 2025, Democrats haven’t just “won a few local races” — they’ve flipped about 25 of 118 GOP-held state legislative seats that were up, losing none of their own[, and in contested specials they’re running about 13 points better than they did in the 2024 presidential election in the same districts. That’s not just winning “already blue” areas; that’s a consistent Dem overperformance against Trump’s own numbers.
The specific examples you hand-wave away are exactly the ones that should worry Republicans. The Georgia HD-121 seat was a long-time GOP district where the same Democrat lost in 2024, but just pulled off a narrow upset in a special.
Miami just elected its first Democratic mayor in nearly 38 years, in a city the GOP and Trump treated as friendly turf—and the Trump-backed Republican lost by almost 20 points. - 20-points for goodness sakes!! I don't see how you can simultaneously say “local races don’t matter” and then ignore it when decades-long GOP strongholds start flipping.
On turnout: low-turnout specials usually help Republicans—older, whiter, more conservative voters are exactly who shows up. If, in that environment, Democrats are consistently beating Trump’s 2024 margins by double digits in district after district, that doesn’t guarantee a blue wave, but it absolutely does suggest that some chunk of 2024 Trump voters isn’t showing up for his party in 2025. That’s the opposite of “solid, energized base.”
And the “under Biden’s presidency / inflation / border” riff is just outdated talking points. These 2025 races are happening under Trump’s second term. When Miami voters explicitly run against his immigration crackdown and still oust a long-time GOP city government, or when suburban Georgia voters hand a state House seat to a Democrat after years of voting red forever, that is by definition national sentiment bleeding into local contests.
Nobody is saying special elections “automatically spell doom,” but pretending they tell you nothing about the political climate—especially when one party is overperforming by 10–15 points on average—is just as wrong as overreading them.+100000000, Democrats unfortunately have done more harm than good in American society, starting in 1965. They have created a massive welfare state besides being soft on crime. They have implemented many utterly insipid social programs.
Do you have stats to back that claim up or are you repeating right-wing myth?
To do what you claim, the Democrats would needed have been in total control of the WH, House, and Senate MOST of the time during that 61 years. (Here are those darned statistics) The Democrats had the trifecta a total of 14 of those 61 years while the Republicans were in control 12 years. So, wouldn't it be fair to say that both the Democrats AND the Republicans were responsible for our so-called welfare state and high crime?
Anyway, this is what Grok has to say about your unverified claim.
Debunking the Claim: "Democrats Unfortunately Have Done More Harm Than Good in American Society, Starting in 1965" The claim that Democrats have primarily caused harm since 1965—through a "massive welfare state," being "soft on crime," and "insipid social programs"—is a subjective, partisan assertion that ignores historical context, bipartisan contributions, and empirical evidence of positive outcomes. While Democratic-led initiatives like the Great Society programs (launched in 1965 under President Johnson) expanded social safety nets, these were often supported by Republicans and have demonstrably improved quality of life for millions, reducing poverty and inequality without the catastrophic societal harm alleged.
politifact.com +2
I'll rebut each element with facts, data, and balanced analysis.
[b1. The "Massive Welfare State": Not Harmful, but a Net Positive for Poverty Reduction.[/b] The claim likely refers to Johnson's Great Society, which created programs like Medicare, Medicaid, Head Start, and food stamps (now SNAP) to combat poverty amid the civil rights era.
socialwelfare.library.vcu.edu +1
* These weren't solely Democratic inventions—Medicare and Social Security expansions passed with significant Republican support (e.g., 70 House Republicans voted for Medicare in 1965).
politifact.com
* Fact-checks confirm bipartisan roots, countering the narrative of unilateral Democratic overreach.
politifact.com
* Positive Impacts: Poverty rates fell from 22% in 1959 to 11% by 1973, largely due to these programs; Medicare has provided health coverage to over 65 million seniors today, reducing elderly poverty by 40%.
brookings.edu +2
* Medicaid covers 1 in 5 Americans, improving health outcomes and economic stability.
heritage.org
* Studies (e.g., from Brookings) show these investments boosted long-term economic growth by enhancing workforce participation and education.
brookings.edu
* Criticisms Debunked: While welfare spending has grown (to $1.1 trillion annually in means-tested aid by 2018),
* it's not "massive" relative to GDP (5-6%) and includes bipartisan reforms like the 1996 Welfare Reform Act under Clinton (D) and Gingrich (R), which reduced dependency by adding work requirements.
heritage.org
* Claims of creating a "culture of dependency" are overstated; most recipients use aid temporarily (e.g., average SNAP duration: 8-10 months), and poverty would be 2-3 times higher without these programs.
pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov +1
2. "Soft on Crime": A Mischaracterization; Crime Trends Are Complex and Bipartisan. Democrats aren't inherently "soft on crime"—the 1994 Crime Bill (under Clinton) imposed tougher sentences, funded more police, and contributed to the 1990s crime drop, though it's criticized for mass incarceration (affecting minorities disproportionately).
nationalacademies.org
* Crime rates rose in the 1970s-1980s under mixed control (e.g., Nixon/Ford/Reagan presidencies), driven by factors like lead exposure, demographics, and economic shifts, not just Democratic policies.
nationalacademies.org
* Data Debunk: Crime peaked in 1991 (under Bush Sr., R) and fell sharply through the 1990s-2010s under both parties. Recent spikes (2020-2022) occurred amid COVID and under Trump/Biden, but have declined since 2023.
nationalacademies.org
* Democratic-led reforms (e.g., bail reform in some states) aim to address inequities, not encourage crime; studies show they don't increase recidivism.
nationalacademies.org
* Overall, crime policy has been bipartisan, with Republicans often pushing "tough" measures like three-strikes laws.
3. "Utterly Insipid Social Programs": Many Have Proven Effective and Transformative Programs like the Voting Rights Act (1965), Civil Rights Act (1964, but enforced post-1965), Head Start (early education), and environmental protections (e.g., Clean Air Act under Nixon but expanded by Democrats) are far from "insipid"—they advanced equality, health, and opportunity.
socialwelfare.library.vcu.edu +1
* Head Start has improved educational outcomes for low-income kids; the Voting Rights Act boosted minority participation until partial Supreme Court rollback in 2013.
socialwelfare.library.vcu.edu
* Broader Good vs. Harm: Democratic policies since 1965 have correlated with progress: Life expectancy rose (pre-COVID), inequality decreased in some metrics (e.g., via Earned Income Tax Credit, bipartisan but expanded under Democrats), and social mobility improved for marginalized groups.
pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov +1
* Criticisms of "harm" often stem from ideological views on government size, but evidence (e.g., from National Academies) shows these programs prevent deeper inequality and support democracy.
pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov +1
In summary, while no party is perfect, the claim cherry-picks negatives and ignores Democratic contributions to civil rights, healthcare, and poverty alleviation—often with Republican input. Unified Democratic control was limited (14 years), and many "harms" alleged occurred under divided or Republican-led governments.
history.house.gov +1
Conclusion - The original claim is more political rhetoric than factual assessment.From where I stand, Democrats absolutely deserve blame for the mess that began in 1965. Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society created a welfare state that exploded dependency, government spending, and social decay. In 1964, about 36.1 million Americans lived in poverty (19%). After trillions in spending over six decades, we still have roughly 36 million Americans in poverty today and a Supplemental Poverty Measure of about 12.9%. In other words, we spent mountains of money and stood still.
The Great Society didn’t shrink government; it blew it up. We now spend over $1 trillion a year in means‑tested welfare, which is about 5–6% of GDP, and much of that is permanent bureaucracy, not temporary help. If this system “worked,” we wouldn’t still have generational poverty, collapsing cities, failing schools, and entire neighborhoods trapped on federal programs.
Democrats promised compassion, but they delivered dependency, fatherless homes, and urban chaos. Crime is a great example. The worst spikes in homicide and violent crime came after decades of soft‑on‑crime ideology in Democratic‑run cities. Even today, the highest crime rates in America are concentrated in Democratic jurisdictions with lax prosecution, bail “reform,” and revolving‑door justice.
What frustrates me most is that Democrats still defend the same failed formula: tax more, spend more, regulate more, criminalize less, excuse more. Sixty years later, we have a bigger welfare state, bigger government, weaker families, more crime, and the same poverty numbers.
To me, that isn’t progress; it’s proof of failure. The Democrats’ social vision did not lift America up; it locked millions of Americans into permanent dependence and punished the very values, work, discipline, and accountability that actually build a healthy society.
If that’s their legacy, then yes — they did more harm than good.Of course, they DID. I am quite apprehensive about what will occur in New York City under Mamdani. New York City will become hell, even hell will be heavenly in comparison to what will happen in New York City with the inception of his mayorship.
So the fact that the welfare programs are essentially BIPARTISAN, as I pointed out, means nothing to you? Just blame the Democrats and you are good to go.
Please stop this. Democrats worsened America in many ways but you adamantly refuse to accept this. Because of Democratic regimes, American society has become a nanny state and poor people feel that they are entitled to middle class lifestyles however, not by their own efforts but demand that others supply them middle class lifestyles. Really now!
I refuse to accept it because I can AND HAVE PROVED that is not the case and you don't. You just claim it without evidence.
I completely agree. From my perspective, the expansion of the welfare state under Democrats, starting with the Great Society in 1965 has had long-lasting effects. Programs like Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, and Head Start may have helped reduce poverty initially — in 1964, about 36.1 million Americans were living in poverty.
Even today, the U.S. poverty rate is 10.6%, with nearly 36 million people in poverty, and the Supplemental Poverty Measure, which accounts for real living costs like housing and healthcare, is 12.9%.
In my view, many of these social programs ended up creating dependency rather than encouraging self-sufficiency. We still see serious social challenges today, urban poverty, educational gaps, and crime in certain communities, which tells me that simply expanding government aid hasn’t solved the underlying problems. I think Democrats’ approach has often done more harm than good, and it’s clear that the policies they implemented have had unintended negative consequences for American society.
The combination of decades-long spending, entrenched bureaucracy, and programs that discourage work has made it harder for many Americans to achieve independence. In my opinion, it’s time to rethink the structure of these programs to truly help people help themselves, rather than perpetuate a cycle of reliance.Exactly, I feel that intelligent, able-bodied people should do for selves and not be dependent on and/or be carried by others. Giving creates entitlement, not to mention dependence.
Who doesn't feel that way? That has always been the approach by Democrats. What Democrats do realize that conservatives do not, is that circumstances often overwhelm the abilities of intelligent, able-body people. Those are the people that Democrats want to help and conservatives apparently do not.
In the view of experts, however, it is clear our public assistance HAS NOT created dependency, instead, it has lifted the targeted people out of poverty. Saying there is a "dependency" problem is just another conservative myth!.
Here are 5. If you want more, just ask.
1.A 2024 study published in the Quarterly Journal of Economics titled "Is the Social Safety Net a Long-Term Investment? Large-Scale Evidence from the Food Stamps Rollout" analyzed data on 17.5 million Americans and found that access to SNAP (food stamps) during childhood led to improved long-term outcomes, including higher earnings, better health, and reduced reliance on government assistance in adulthood—directly countering claims of dependency by showing it fosters self-sufficiency.
pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
2. The 2017 Center on Budget and Policy Priorities report "Economic Security Programs Help Low-Income Children Succeed Over Long Term, Many Studies Find" synthesizes numerous empirical studies showing that programs like the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) and SNAP improve children's educational attainment, future earnings, and health, reducing intergenerational poverty and promoting independence rather than dependency.
cbpp.org
3.The 2001 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services study "How Effective Are Different Welfare-to-Work Approaches? Five-Year Adult and Child Impacts for Eleven Programs" evaluated welfare-to-work programs and found they increased employment, earnings, and self-sufficiency while decreasing long-term welfare receipt, demonstrating that structured support encourages economic independence.
aspe.hhs.gov
4. A 2019 Project Syndicate article by economist Rema N. Hanna, "The Myth of Welfare Dependency," reviews global empirical evidence (including randomized trials in developing countries and U.S. data) showing that cash transfers and income support do not create laziness or dependency but instead improve health, education, and economic outcomes, leading to greater self-reliance.
project-syndicate.org
5.The 2017 Aspen Institute literature review "Family Self-Sufficiency" examines over 20 years of data on 12,500 welfare recipients and finds that most periods of welfare use are temporary, ending with increased employment and self-sufficiency, challenging the dependency narrative by highlighting how programs serve as a bridge to stability.
ascend.aspeninstitute.
To me, it sounds like these programs are working fine and don't need their structure rethought.
Well, looks like the fissure in the Trump edifice is turning out to become a crack. This is noteworthy, Republicans telling Trump NO. Trump making loathsome threats and foul accusations against Indiana for not doing as he insists. Trump puts Indiana in a position to have to resist a blatant bully and show a little backbone. Trump has been exposed and is going nowhere and it may well portend the end of unquestioned Trump control of the GOP
https://indianacapitalchronicle.com/202 … ting-push/
The Republicans took another step toward ensuring the Democrats will flip the House. They just voted to make sure the ACA subsidies will expire in 14 days DOUBLING healthcare premiums on millions of Americans - Americans who will remember what the Republicans did to them 11 months earlier.
https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2 … s-00695982Trump is losing it! And I don't just mean his mind. He is losing the people who bought into his con about lower prices and more job.
"As a candidate, President Donald Trump harnessed the angst of millions of young Americans like Gasca to win a surprising share of Millennial and Gen Z voters. Their role in his victory was celebrated last December at AmericaFest after Turning Point USA proved instrumental in Trump’s courtship of young people
“The golden age of America is upon us,” Trump declared from the stage.
But this year, the mood inside AmericaFest is far more unsettled. The loss of Charlie Kirk, the charismatic activist who founded Turning Point USA and was killed in September by a gunman, has cast a grim pall over the event and left an unmistakable void in the movement. Meanwhile, many of the promises Trump made to the group last year — including “lower prices,” an end to foreign wars and “generational change” — have yet to materialize. Prices remain high, foreign entanglements are expanding and young people are deeply pessimistic about their future.
In a dozen conversations with CNN, AmericaFest attendees expressed mixed views of Trump’s return to Washington and the world they are just entering. Some remain optimistic that Trump will find a way to improve their lives he is making them worse and they know it— that his immigration crackdown will create jobs not so you would notice and lower housing costs they are going up, his energy policies will lower gas prices Yes, but not from anything Trump has done and electric bills up, up, up! and his dismantling of the Department of Education will end the cycle of college debt. which means they don't plan on going to college I guess
“We’re only one year into this administration,” said Chloe Szot, a 27-year-old California teacher.
Others are less willing to wait.
Gasca told CNN, “Unless something changes, I plan not to vote, at least for president, in 2028.”
Trump has also lost the Latino vote that got him elected.
https://www.cnn.com/2025/12/20/politics … es-worriedJust my opinion---
You’re drawing sweeping conclusions from a handful of anecdotes and a CNN narrative. That’s not “losing the people,” that’s a media storyline written before the interviews even started.
A few young voters expressing frustration does not equal a national trend. If anything, every poll shows young voters broadly frustrated with the entire political system, not one candidate. The economy is tight, housing is absurdly expensive, and wages haven’t kept up with inflation for years; those problems didn’t begin in January 2025, and they won’t be solved in twelve months.
You say Trump “promised lower prices,” but inflation is a lagging problem created by years of loose monetary policy, pandemic-era stimulus, supply-chain collapse, and energy constriction. No president snaps their fingers and rewrites global pricing in a year. You can dislike Trump, but economics still takes time.
You argue foreign entanglements are “expanding,” but Trump is the one making the most aggressive public push toward cease-fires, negotiation, and de-escalation. That’s not theoretical, that’s a shift from open-ended commitments. You can dislike his tone, but pretending he’s thirsting for foreign conflict contradicts the evidence.
Immigration? Jobs? Housing? We’re one year in, and border enforcement doesn’t magically create immediate wage growth or home construction. What it does do is stop adding pressure to an already overloaded low-income labor market. The housing crisis is a decade-long supply failure, not a Trump invention.
And let’s be clear: young people are pessimistic under every administration when prices are high, and the future feels uncertain. Biden didn’t fix it. Obama didn’t fix it. No one has yet. Trump being in year one of a second term is not somehow required to have solved structural problems by Christmas.
As for Turning Point and Charlie Kirk — grief inside a movement doesn’t equal political collapse. It equals grief. Trying to spin a death into “Trump is losing it” says more about partisanship than analysis.
And your claim that “Trump lost the Latino vote” is just wrong. Latino voters have been shifting rightward for years, especially on borders, energy jobs, and crime. A single group of interviews at a conference doesn’t overwrite national electoral data.
If people want to judge Trump, they can judge him on conditions at the end of a term — not 11 months into it, not because CNN found a few frustrated attendees, and not because the economy didn’t magically reset.
Hype is not analysis. Clips are not the country.
You want to argue Trump should be doing more — fine.
But pretending all hope is lost because CNN found a gloomy conference booth is not a serious debate.Since CNN represents good journalism, I have faith that their dozen interviews was from a spectrum of young people at the conference and that their quotes were typical of the mood.
What you miss on the economy is that Trump convinced millions of voters he COULD magically reset the economy and make prices do the impossible - go broadly down without a recession. People are pissed he couldn't deliver on his economic promises.
That is why his polls are in the tank:
RCP AVGs
* Overall - 43.2%, down from 48.7% when he started his second term
* Economy - 40.6%, down from 45.6%
* Inflation - 36.0%, down from 42.9%
That is why Republicans are in so much trouble.
Related Discussions
- 37
For Conservatives Only, Is the Democratic Party GOOD for America?
by Grace Marguerite Williams 3 years ago
The Democratic Party have institutionalized socioeconomic policies which are the detriment to America such as welfare & a governmental health program known as Obamacare. Because of the Democratic Party, we have generational welfare which the onus of tax is on the middle...
- 28
After dealing with the wall and immigration, what is next?
by Jack Lee 7 years ago
Trump must deal with the looming debt.This is a solvable problem. It is a spending problem, not taxation.We are raising record revenue at the IRS. Yet, we are still spending more than we take in.That needs to stop.Trump must tackle this because Democrats wont and Repulbicans wont either.Only an...
- 51
Those Days In America When People EARNED Their Way
by Grace Marguerite Williams 7 years ago
When there was very little or no welfare programs in America, people learned to be self-sufficient. They believed that if they wanted better, they worked & sacrificed. In essence, they depended upon themselves. They didn't expect handouts from the government. Then in the...
- 25
The Right, Conservatives, Republicans prefer Autocracy over Democracy?
by Credence2 3 days ago
I find this topic most disturbing as it is a reflection of the goals and aspirations of the American Right wing movement. There is no such thing as it being "fringe" as Trump, Carlson and many Republican Senators avoided direct answers or said that the Orbanz authoritarian regime in...
- 60
Democrats Lose 4th Special Election - What Does That Tell Us?
by Scott Belford 8 years ago
The Ds lost their fourth special election. Some say those are Big Wins for Rs and Disaster for Ds. Other optimistic souls say each was a Win for Ds because they were close. While I tend to agree with the last statement, I won't go so far as calling it a win. Instead, I call...
- 175
What Democrats Have Taught Me About Losing an Election
by Readmikenow 4 years ago
I have been confused as to exactly how to handle a Biden presidency. I consider him a babbling old fool who got rich selling out the United States and his vice president as a female who is a socialist/communist and had to sleep her way into a career. My opinion of both is extremely...