The US mid term elections - the most consequential in US History
The Importance of the 2026 US Mid-term Elections
Professor Michael Ondaatje is currently Dean (Research) in the Arts, Education and Law Group at Griffith University. He has been a Senior Visiting Research Fellow at the University of Oxford and was selected by the US Department of State for the International Visitor Leadership Program, the premier professional exchange program of the US government. He is also a recipient of the Max Crawford Medal – Australia’s most prestigious award for achievement and promise in the humanities – and a Fellow of the Queensland Academy of Arts and Sciences. In 2026 the US Consulate General in Sydney formally recognized Michael for his “extraordinary and enduring contribution to fostering understanding of the United States and its history among Australian students and scholars”. Michael is a prizewinning researcher and teacher and a regular commentator on American history and politics in the media. Tuesday Dialogues would like to thank Michael for sharing his insights on what will be one of the most important elections of this new century.
Overview
The discussion centered around Trumpism and the judgement the forthcoming 2026 mid-term elections will deliver on the Trump presidency and the political projects it has represented.
Key points
The 2026 mid-terms are shaping up as the most consequential election of the 21st century. They will do more than determine who governs, they will test entire political projects.
At its core is a test of Trumpism as a governing project. It has been successful in challenging institutions but governing requires other skills. That is, can a movement that can identify problems prove effective in solving them, can it move from protest to government.
Trump did not create America’s crisis he emerged from it - the lack of confidence in elites, lack of confidence in fairness, the belief that those in charge are not effective, the loss of faith in the promise of upward mobility.
The genius of Trump was that he recognized the shift. Voters do not want leaders that defended the institutions, but leaders that challenged the institutions. He confronted a system that was not working for ordinary citizens.
Trumpism is bigger than Trump.
The forces that produced Trump did not disappear when he entered the White House and it is not known whether they will disappear when he leaves. The mid-terms are a test of Trump, whether MAGA will endure and are a measure of the extent to which there has been a Democratic party recovery.
At the mid-terms all 435 seats of the House of Representatives are being contested and one third of the Senate seats. The Republicans have a narrow majority so the Democrats only need modest gains. This will be decided across the swing states of, for example, Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. The Senate has been probably generally more favourable to Republicans, but now it is probably 50:50 – a toss of a coin.
If the Republicans lose control of the House, then the legislative phase of the Trump agenda will end. There will be more Congressional oversight. Any nominations will be more difficult.
There are generally 3 or 4 central issues in an election and every election has a central theme.
The central theme of this election is affordability. Immigration may be discussed but most voters care more about the cost of living, the cost of healthcare, the cost of housing. In 2024 the Republicans promised lower prices, low inflation, cheaper housing, rising living standards. Now these promises will impact on the current ballot. Americans believed that hard work gave a better life. Home ownership was once the cornerstone of the American dream, a measure of prosperity. So the question is, has Trump delivered?
The second issue is foreign politics, in particular the approach to Iran. Iran is treated as a strategic issue but in fact it is more a question of credibility. Trump opposed the foreign policy consensus, he criticised the intervention in Iraq, he criticised interventionist thinking, he criticised the sacrifice of American domestic policy to foreign policy. It appears that his decision on Iran is contrary to his central promise, leading to an accusation of contradiction. It is not a question of whether he is entering into a Bush “forever war” but whether he is consistent with his earlier view.
The third issue is immigration. Trump enjoys substantial advantages here. The previous administration failed to control immigration. But the issue has become more complicated. Polling is suggesting that Americans are making a distinction between control of the borders and issues like family separations and aggressive enforcement. Most voters want dignity, proportionality and a bit more balance.
Since 1938 there have been 22 mid-term elections and the President’s party has lost seats in the House in 20 of them.
All of the Presidents since Truman whose job approval was below 50% in the month before the mid-terms lost seats in the House. Trump’s approval rating was 47% at the start of his Presidency. Now he has declined to 36-37%. He is the second most unpopular President in the history of polling, going back to the ‘40s, (the most being Richard Nixon days before resigning his office.) Only Bush, and maybe Truman entered midterms with approval ratings this low.
In the latter part of the term voters vote more on grievances than aspirations. This is more pronounced in a second term. The party is judged not by its promises but by its record.
When approval ratings are put alongside broken promises and a broken system, this points to a Democratic win.
There is a great political re-alignment whose central divide is education, culture and trust in institutions. Republicans are more working class people. The non college, Hispanics and black people all have similar concerns, that elite corruption is in the way of opportunity. But many of these people are less likely to take part in the mid-terms. The key question is whether the Republicans can turn this working class coalition into a mid-term bloc. The challenge for the Republicans is to retain its highly educated voters but also to gather the working class voter. Democrats are more college educated privileged people. These people are more likely to take part in the mid-terms. If the traditional turn-out pattern occurs then the Democrats will benefit.
In the Democratic party, the biggest challenge is around identity. There is the growing influence of the DSA (Democratic Socialists of America) whose platform not only deals with equality, healthcare, housing but also with defunding of the police, amnesty for all immigrants, reparation for slavery, a green deal, defunding the Pentagon, unrestricted gender affirmation, etc. The suggestion was that it is hard to find a radical impractical unpopular idea that has been left out of their platform. This is a party that is desperately looking to 2028 but is letting itself be defined by the DSA.
The point was made that there must be a spectrum of ideas within the Democratic Party, not just DSA supporters. And that there is also a spectrum within MAGA.
The question was asked whether political movements are built around charismatic figures. Reagan was cited as an example. JD Vance combines populist politics with domestic issues. Mark Rubio is more conservative and foreign policy oriented. The question is, who will be able to make connections with the working class.
The decline in Trump’s polling happened about the same time as the independents deserted him. Trump has been hated by the liberals and he has been divisive for the conservatives. Many conservatives have expressed regret in supporting him.
One should never discount a “game-changing” issue emerging, for example the overturning of Roe v Wade galvanised the Democrats.
It was suggested that if Trump loses the House he will become a “lame duck” President but it was also noted that he has managed to date and even if he loses the House and the Senate he will still be able to do much through executive orders. Obama in his last days used executive orders very liberally. Trump will also do this.
MAGA base is disaffected. They will stay away, they will not vote Democrat. They will not vote for Trump if they feel he has betrayed them.
Who will get the Democratic nomination for President. Newsom was suggested but it was felt that he was too close to Pelosi. Mamdani was suggested but it was believed that he is the wrong direction for the Democrats. (In any event, was not born in the US so is ineligible).
Wherever you look you see growing inequality and anxieties around culture. The Democratic Party has lost sight of the importance of economic considerations.
Liberal democracy is becoming more illiberal. Need more balance in politics.
It was queried whether Trump’s offer of $5000 to everyone would be vote winner. The response was that this was unlikely.
Globally people have lost confidence in the political system. The question was raised, is the two party system breaking down? We are seeing a general move towards more independents and more parties – see Australia for example. The direct support for the Labor Party in Australia is the lowest it has ever been. It was noted however that the US is different, it is a two party system and voting is voluntary.
The question was raised whether Trump is really a shrewd politician. It was suggested that Trump is a good political operator. Though you might think it is easy to write him off and think he is an idiot but the fact is, he keeps winning. Is that luck or it is good campaigning skills.
In Australia there is a lot of support for One Nation from people thinking the system is broken. They want to tear the system down.
The question was raised, is this all about immigration? A response was that Reagan was a huge supporter of immigration but this was at a time when people did not feel so disrupted. Reagon brought in cheap labour. Clinton sent manufacturing over the border. But these happened at a time when the economic issue was not to the fore. It was the GFC that brought the economic issue to the fore. People saw kids who didn’t have prospects, who were overrun by drugs.
A surprising current statistic is that the only demographic where life expectancy has gone down is white working class men.
On the same point of immigration, the surprising thing about the White Australia Policy is not that Australia had a White Australia Policy but the fact that it changed overnight. But the economic settings are different now, they are sub-optimal so immigration becomes more important.
Australia has no guard rails against what is happening now in the world. Whatever happens in the US will happen in Australia five years later.
Will Trump just disappear? He cannot run again.
People are seeing corruption everywhere in politics. This is not good to produce stable institutions. How do we pull back? It was suggested that Trump has made a virtue of corruption. He says I am not corrupt, you can see what I am doing.
There has been a change in America’s approach to its status in the world. It was overwhelmingly a force for good. If it steps away another country will fill the void. Which one? Would this be a good thing? Trump has weakened the US in the world.
It was suggested that in fact Trump has done good things. He has made Europe wake up and look to its own defence. He produced the Abraham Accords which has been fantastic for world peace.
It was suggested that for the leader of the free world to intervene in another country without a plan is shocking. There has never been a President who has less regard for the nuances of international affairs. He needed a plan and for that plan to be executed.
Afghanistan was mentioned, American intervention did not create a successful country, unlike Japan and Germany after World War II. A response was that those countries were annihilated before they were repaired. Trump is now referring to annihilation when talking about Iran.