This is Democracy – Episode 332: Midterm Elections, 2026

[00:00:20] Zachary Suri: Hello everyone, and welcome to our latest episode of “This is Democracy.” it’s been quite a week in the political world, and we’re here to discuss as always.

Joining us, as always, is of course, Professor Jeremi Suri. Good morning.

[00:00:33] Jeremi Suri: Good morning, Zachary

[00:00:35] Zachary Suri: Hello, hello. And joining us, is one of our favorite, recurring guests, Professor Julian Zelizer. Professor Zelizer, good morning.

[00:00:44] Julian Zelizer: Thank you for having me

[00:00:45] Zachary Suri: Thank you for joining us. Zelizer is one of the leading experts on modern American political history, specifically the United States Congress, and as I think will prove especially relevant for our discussion today, the political career of Lyndon Johnson.

He is the Malcolm Stevenson Forbes Class of 1941 Professor of History and Public Affairs at Princeton. He’s the author and editor of 19 books on American political history, including “Taxing America,” “The Fierce Urgency of Now: Lyndon Johnson, Congress, and the Battle for the Great Society,” and “Fault Lines: A History of the United States Since 1974.”

and most recently, Zelizer published “Burning Down the House: Newt Gingrich, the Fall of a Speaker, and the Rise of the New Republican Party.” thank you both for joining us today. I wanna start by just asking Professor Zelizer, were you surprised by the results on Tuesday? As someone who studies Congress, and midterm elections like this regularly, is this unusual?

Is this a strange moment for you as a scholar?

[00:01:42] Julian Zelizer: Well, it’s not a strange moment in terms of, control of one or two chambers flipping. That’s the norm. and there’s a long history of midterms, where this happens. only a handful does the party, that is the party of the president do well. The surprise for me, was the depth of the victory, both numerically in terms of how big the Democratic majorities are.

I certainly didn’t expect that. But most important was the breadth of the victory and how Democrats in these midterms didn’t just tap into states that had really been, pretty red for a long time, but just dominated them. and so I think that really, might change the electoral landscape, and that’s a big deal, both in the short term and the long term.

[00:02:39] Zachary Suri: That makes sense. how co- d- would you describe this? I mean, one of the terms that I think is often thrown around in these big electoral moments, where you see a lot of partisan change and change in control of different chambers of Congress or the presidency is the idea of a realignment election.

obviously it’s probably a little early to speak to that right now, but do you see this as potentially a realigning moment in the American electorate?

[00:03:06] Julian Zelizer: No, I’m hesitant. I mean, people said that after 2024 too, and so look where we are. the, the reason it can be enduring is just the numbers. Meaning, if you have a House majority, that, that will be over 250 seats, possibly a Senate with a 56 majority, it’s hard to undo those numbers. And so some of that will stick, meaning you won’t, likely have a easy return to a Republican Congress or even a Republican House or Senate in, in the next election cycle.

But is it a realignment? I, would be, skeptical. We haven’t really seen a major realignment in decades in the United States. That’s part of the, kind of rigid, polarized map that we have. so part of it will depend on what Democrats make of this, meaning if they look at a state like Texas or even Kansas, some of these red states, can they set up the infrastructure and recruit the kind of candidates, even at the presidential level, who could keep doing well?

Then you could be looking at a realignment. Otherwise, it might be more like President Trump’s experience with, you know, Latino voters. They, went his way, and then they didn’t

[00:04:23] Jeremi Suri: So, so Julian, as you look at these numbers, which are extraordinary as you said, and you know, we think about prior elections where you had one side winning big, 1964, 1974, 1994. you know, what what do you think drove this? If partisanship is still significant and rigid, as you just said, what drove 41 districts at least to flip from one direction to the other?

[00:04:48] Julian Zelizer: Well, well part of it is just staring us all in the face. It was the, really, extremely low levels of popularity for President Trump and President Trump’s policies, from tariffs to Iran to even the deportation measures. So I think, part of it is a reaction. That’s what we see in midterms, and I think that was at play, and we’re seeing someone historically both controversial and, at really low approval ratings.

Part of it is, look, Democrats did a good job. I know there’s a lot of controversy and, and many Democrats don’t like Senator Schumer. They don’t– Or Senator Majori- Senate Majority Leader, Pro- probably Schumer, and probably Speaker Hakeem Jeffries. But in terms of recruiting candidates that were, reflective of the different constituencies in which they ran, I think it was partly successful partisan strategy and cl- as well as a very disciplined message.

Everything came back to affordability. and so you put those two together, I think, you know, they were able to break through some of the partisan divide

[00:05:59] Jeremi Suri: That makes a lot of sense. It, sounds from what you’re saying like it’s a combination of candidates and issues. that, that said, when they, are sworn in in early January, w- will those issues move Congress to act in ways it hasn’t acted before? Will we see different legislation? I’m not even asking about whether the president will veto it or not, but will we see different legislation at least passing the House and the Senate?

[00:06:25] Julian Zelizer: I think they’ll try. I mean, I, I don’t think they’re gonna go f- Democrats for everything. but I think they understand even if President Trump, and his chief of staff, are likely to move to veto what they send their way, they can put issues on the agenda. I mean, that’s what we see. If you think of 2006, Democrats take over, President George W.

Bush is in office, unpopular. The war in Iraq is controversial. Part of what happens in the next two years, other than the financial, you know, rescue, a lot of legislation doesn’t pass, it doesn’t get signed, but they put the issues on the agenda. So I would expect at least two or three kind of signature bills that the basic point is to let voters see what would it look like if Democrats had total control after 2028 in the presidential election.

and if they don’t do that, I think they certainly might diminish some of the enthusiasm that came out the other day

[00:07:26] Jeremi Suri: And, and what do you think, or what would you advise as a scholar of Congress that those two or three signature bills should be?

[00:07:32] Julian Zelizer: Well, I actually think tariffs should certainly be one of them, and, Congress has power to, take back some of the authority that the president has amassed, whether through using emergency powers or just expanded executive powers on tariffs. And tariffs are very unpopular. They’re really a tangible element of what’s gone wrong in places like rural America.

Second, AI. I mean, that’s the big issue. So there’s different kinds of measures, certainly, you know, regulatory measures over the development of AI models, some kind of, you know, legislation, dealing with the effects of these data centers on communities. Something with the AI bucket would be, very important for Democrats rather than just campaigning on, on the issue.

And then finally, healthcare. we are seeing, and we’re gonna see even more clearly in the next few months, dramatic escalation of healthcare costs for Americans, not just Medicaid recipients, but ACA recipients and even those on private health insurance. And I think there’s an appetite to see what will Democrats do about that, and how does that contrast with what we’re seeing from the Republicans?

[00:08:48] Zachary Suri: how do you think, regardless of how the legislative, priorities of the next two years shape up, how does this change the picture or the strategy for both Democrats and Republicans going into the 2028 elections? It seems to me at least that the regional shift in Democratic support might have a big impact on as the primaries for, for the presidential election, heat up.

No?

[00:09:12] Julian Zelizer: Well, well first I would say just political success can be infectious, and I think it was very important, not just that Democrats did well, but they did so well, because I think it will reverse the energy, so to speak, of, possible candidates, of grassroots organizers going into twenty twenty-eight anywhere in the country, going into the primaries.

I just think this was really important. There was a sense of inevitability about Trump two point O that in the first year, made many Democrats just feel, you know, politically broken, and they don’t feel that way anymore, and I don’t think that will be insignificant. And the second, yes, they are not going, the Democrats, to turn away from the potential of having a candidate and a, a primary strategy that, takes Texas, for example, very seriously.

they’re not gonna go back to just a coastal kind of program. So, that will now be a factor, as they put together who, who– as primary voters really put together who the winner could be

[00:10:21] Zachary Suri: Talk, talk to us a little bit about Texas. I mean, this is probably for most people the most surprising or the most shocking result, of Tuesday night, to see Texas turn blue so dramatically. ooh, I mean, I think we’ve gestured at what this might mean for politics more broadly. but is– do you see this as someone who’s studied the Johnson administration and LBJ’s political career, do you see this as maybe a return to a model of, of Texas dem- democratic politics or is this something different?

[00:10:50] Julian Zelizer: No, it, it could be. I mean, one of the differences, just the, intensity of a post-1965 immigration, which has really, I think, sunk into many communities and changed the demographics of the state. I think the economy of Texas has changed and, you have, you know, pretty big cities, Dallas, Houston, and Austin, with pretty, urban cosmopolitan populations.

And those changes, I think, have been there, and, and people have been waiting to see how Democrats can break into them. and not necessarily return to an LBJ Texas or even an Ann Richards Texas, but certainly return to a state where Democrats are serious, statewide and play into those two new factors to, to build a, a much more robust presence.

I don’t think, you know, Texas looked as blue as a lot of, you know, east, northeast states after the election, but I don’t think that means the forces of conservatism and, and Republican politics are gone. but certainly now it’s, it’s competitive, and that means everything for the Democrats

[00:12:01] Jeremi Suri: So in, in presidential politics, Julian, coming back to that, do you see this Congress impeaching Donald Trump? Is that, is that a, a route that they, that they should take? Will they spend time on that?

[00:12:15] Julian Zelizer: Well, if they should take it, that’s up to them. it doesn’t sound now that there’s a huge appetite for that, and it was, after the 1986 midterms, there was talk about impeachment with Reagan because of Iran-Contra and, and, and Democratic leaders, including the speaker, Jim Wright, backed away from it.

I- in part, they thought doing that would only give more attention to the president and less to the party in, in power on Capitol Hill. And, and second, back then, like today, the president was a lame duck, so there is an incentive to just let this go, investigate in other ways, to achieve accountability, but not go with impeachment.

And with President Trump, even more than Reagan, he thrives on something like that. So my guess is Democrat… But I say my guess is Democrats won’t do it, but he can test them, and that’s what we… We don’t know what he is gonna do. The announcement that Stephen Miller will be chief of staff is obviously big news and a sign he’s not simply gonna back down right now.

so let’s see kind of where he pushes things in the next year.

[00:13:23] Jeremi Suri: One of the reasons I think that’s such an interesting question, and, and your answer is, is really thoughtful on this, is that it is connected to the Texas question too. one of the issues here in Texas that showed up as one of the biggest winning issues for Gina Hinojosa, for James Talarico, for Vicky Goodwin, all the way up and down the ballot, was the corruption issue.

the, the argument that was made very effectively that Republicans have misused power, and not just misused it for the wrong ideological purposes, but to vainly enrich themselves. And Elon Musk giving all this money to, candidate Paxton certainly became a kind of symbolic element of that. But you see that in the way Trump is viewed in the polls in Texas.

So if corruption is a big issue, to some extent impeachment hearings and investigations are a way of highlighting corruption. So that, that to me– Yeah, go ahead, J- Julian

[00:14:14] Julian Zelizer: it’s one way. They can also investigate many elements of what’s happened in the White House and in the executive branch, whether they’re looking at, decisions in, in, in the sphere of regulating, crypto, or, or other parts of the economy, whether they look into kind of the AI boom and the treatment of, AI executives.

There’s lots of ways to, use that investigative spotlight, not only to look at what’s happened, but even to propose kind of Watergate-era style reforms on campaign finance, on war power, without making it about Trump, even if Trump is the vehicle through which they’re exposing the problems in the political system

[00:15:00] Jeremi Suri: That makes sense. That’s a good historical analogy, the sort of Watergate Congress. Yeah, Zachary, go

[00:15:04] Zachary Suri: Yeah, I’m curious, I’m curious, what you think from your scholarship, particularly looking at parties whose, who, who, who get, as President Obama I think put it in 2010, a shellacking at the polls in midterm elections. w- what, what do you think this does to the Republican Party?

Does it loosen Trump’s grip on Republican primary voters and Republican members of Congress? or is it possible that this will only solidify, his support within the party in some way?

[00:15:35] Julian Zelizer: No, I think it’s gonna hurt him. I mean, in a ver– certainly with the officials, with, elected officials, in a very partisan period, the one thing that can hurt you is not performing for your party, and he just did that. and he did it in a big way. And so, not only have the numbers shrunk, but those who have survived this are going to think twice about just being totally loyal to every policy, that, that he puts their way and that he wants to keep in place.

I, I think that the challenge the remaining Republicans have is that he’s still strong. He’s not gone. He’s weaker, and he will not be shy about exercising his influence within the GOP. So they’re gonna have to calculate Republicans on the Hill, in the Senate or the House, how much do you kind of cave into that sort of fear about him trying to mobilize a primary against you?

Or how much do you look at the results and say, “That’s gonna be me in 2028 or, or, or after”? And, and that’s the tension. I think this is the kind of, loss, shellacking, thump, and whatever word you wanna use, that’s gonna scare some Republicans away from just being totally loyal, in the near future.

[00:16:53] Zachary Suri: That makes sense. do you, I mean, one of the, one of the most remarkable breaks that we’ve already seen within the party was to see President, Vice President Vance, on social media criticize and blame the president’s war in Iran for the loss. I’m curious how you think that issue in particular, the question of foreign policy interventionism and American engagement in, in this war with Iran and with Israel might, change, within the Republican Party in the next few, few years.

[00:17:23] Julian Zelizer: Well, there’s certainly gonna be with Iran a lot of pressure to get out and to stop this. I mean, it was remarkable, even though this isn’t the ground war of like Iraq or Vietnam, the way it’s so directly connected to the economic issues, makes it really a big political liability. The fact that the vice president, who is probably desperate to distance himself from a policy he’ll never be able to distance himself from, comes out with those statements is a signal, I think, of where you’re gonna see Republicans moving.

And the question is, you know, does President Trump really wanna double down, or is there part of him who would be happy to be forced to get out of this, because it’s become such a kind of messy and costly entanglement? So I suspect that will be a big issue, and it’s not just a foreign policy issue.

It’s actually also a domestic one, which is why, you’ll hear more about it

[00:18:18] Jeremi Suri: Yeah. Julian, it, it, that’s such a good comment. It, it, it really brings to mind the Vietnam War for me. we have a lot of parallels here, and, and one of the problems, of course, Trump has, which Lyndon Johnson had, is he’s not the only actor here. And the Iranians, in a certain way, have him trapped with the Strait of Hormuz and, now with Houthi support and elsewhere.

So it, it’s actually hard to even go back to the status quo. It’s hard to just leave and claim victory. So, you know, from the Vietnam War’s history and the way it destroyed Lyndon Johnson’s presidency, what, what lessons would you take if, if you were advising the current Congress on how to address this, the war issue now?

[00:18:59] Julian Zelizer: Well, certainly the Congress should use, either as a threat or, an actuality its budgetary power to keep threatening the funds and, and putting a lot of pressure on the administration and on their co- their Republican colleagues, to, to draw this down. I mean, we saw this in the late ’60s through the early ’70s.

Congress just kept going after the money. and even though they didn’t get it for a while, it was a big kind of element in, in building pressure against the president. And it… this is an area investigations I think could be very, fruitful for the nation and fruitful for the Democratic Party, to kind of shine a light on what’s happened, why it happened, how it’s unfolding.

We don’t really know that much. there’s a lot of news stories, but I think there could be like a William Fulbright kind of hearings from 1966. so hearings and the budget, and then again, using the legislative power to focus public attention on the issues that matter. The more Democrats can do that, like if we weren’t, spending the money, on, on these, on, on the foreign issues, we’d be spending the money on X, Y, or Z.

I just think that is a way to shape the agenda, all of which would, make it harder to just sustain the, the status quo with the war

[00:20:19] Jeremi Suri: W- what about the War Powers issue itself? Do you foresee another War Powers Resolution, an effort to make the War Powers Resolution, more, more limiting on the president? Do you see a Supreme Court case coming on this? It’s never actually been affirmed as constitutional, and there’s controversy over that.

I mean, where do you see that going?

[00:20:37] Julian Zelizer: I, I don’t know. I mean, the, the, the picking and choosing is a key part of what, certainly the Democrats are gonna have to do right now. And, and I think that, Jeremy, is the obvious, area to really tackle what’s gone on. And it’s not unique to Trump. This is a, a multi-decade process of expanding executive power on war, and even the war power, resolution for what it did has eroded over time.

I’m just not sure… they can’t do everything in two years, especially without the presidency, and I don’t know if that’s too esoteric a way to get at, what has been at the heart of this. But, but maybe. It, it would be the right way to think about this. How can presidential power be constrained in the area of war-making so putting aside Iran, the same problem is not recreated down the road?

[00:21:29] Zachary Suri: I, I’m curious, you mentioned the, the power of the purse that Congress holds and, and their, their ability to cut off funds for certain presidential, adventures. I’m curious how you think, the budget cycle is going to look in the next two years. I mean, obviously i- in both cases, the Congress needs the president’s approval for whatever bill they s- they pass, and, and the president needs Congress to pass a bill in the first place.

I mean, i- i– are we headed for two years of, of, of, fiscal deadlock again?

[00:22:01] Julian Zelizer: A- again, the predictions are very hard, not just because predictions are hard, because he is such an unpredictable president. So, you know, there is part of me that can see the reconciliation process becomes, you know, the tool Democrats are using and, President Trump keeps standing in their way and we have two years of contentious budget politics which might not necessarily work out poorly for the Democrats.

It might highlight how little, Republicans are willing to do, on, on all the things that were central in the campaign. But there’s also a transactional side of President Trump. I mean, that is his foreign policy approach and, you could imagine him being tired of all this. I mean, literally his closing argument was about design and rebuilding and decoration and there could be part of him that doesn’t wanna…

That he’ll sign more than Democrats are thinking right now, just to get it out of the way in some ways and, and move on to the, the building projects he’s more interested in

[00:23:06] Zachary Suri: No, that, that makes sense. And it strikes me too that he’s in a unusual situation for his, it, for his political career in that since he’s term limited the next two years, he doesn’t necessarily have a political incentive to go as, ballistic against the Democrats that he’s, as he might otherwise, as might otherwise be his instinct.

Although, of course, at the same time, he doesn’t have the incentive to work with them that he might otherwise have either

[00:23:32] Julian Zelizer: A- and nor, nor does he really care very much about the Republican Party, and I think that’s a, a es- essential part. I mean, there’s, look, a history of presidents who have tense relations with their own party, but he just doesn’t care about it. So he’s not thinking about the legacy of the GOP. He’s not thinking about a coalition that will outlive him.

I don’t think he thinks that way. and so, you know, then the question is, does the instinct to fight overwhelm a more transactional, I’m done approach, to dealing with the realities of Capitol Hill? Look, you’ve seen in, i-in New York, you can see how he has the capacity to interact, in this case with Mayor Mamdani, someone who represents the antithesis of a lot of what he has, put forward as president.

And so he has the capacity to do that. It could be as random, you know, as someone in Capitol Hill angering him because of a statement that turns this in a more hostile direction, as opposed to a Jeffries and Schumer, assuming they are leaders, understanding the way to court him, the way, again, Mamdani has.

And so we will see

[00:24:42] Zachary Suri: That makes sense. you know, what, what do you think the biggest lessons from this, election itself are? you know, there was a lot of, I think, uncertainty going into the election, probably more than is typical given the political circumstances about whether the polling, polling was off, whether Democrats would actually be able to pull off the victories that they were able to pull off.

you know, as a scholar of these kinds of elections, as we head into future election cycles, you know, what are you taking away from this moment and from the perhaps surprising results that we saw on Tuesday?

[00:25:19] Julian Zelizer: Well, one is the election itself. I mean, that was really for me the day it unfolded a really big story that it worked. There were very few problems. I don’t attribute that to the election system being, much stronger than we thought automatically against the many efforts that the administration made to undermine the election.

But it showed what all these pro-democracy organizations, what local canvassers and election officials, and what voters can do, to, to make this work even when it’s under strain. So, so one lesson is, is our system is not broken. Our system, our election system needs a lot of care and attention, but it’s still there, and it’s still very strong.

And, and I think that was an important takeaway for me. A second is there’s a political scientist, Suzanne Mettler, who wrote a book last year about rural America and about the divisions in politics over place. And part of her argument with her co-author was that Democrats had not invested enough in non-blue areas, not money for campaigns, but literally being there, having officials in states and localities, having a party apparatus that normalizes the presence of the party in areas they were absent.

And I think you saw some of that, and you saw some of the payoff if you were a Democrat, and I think they’re gonna need to do a lot of that in the next two years if they wanna pull off a presidential victory. Finally, look, I’m not one to think that the progressive center, all these divisions in the Democratic Party are as debilitating as everyone thinks.

I think, to their credit, Jeffries and Schumer found a way to think of this as a coalitional midterm, and they found different candidates in different regions, and they all won from progressives in Michigan to, you know, preachers in Kansas. And even though the presidential race is about a person, I think that coalitional approach is actually gonna be very important.

And they should now see as, as I think we learned, that that could really change a map that doesn’t change very much in the past few years.

[00:27:34] Jeremi Suri: So I wanted to, put a fourth one in front of you, fourth lesson, Julian, and see how you react to it. I mean, i- is part of the lesson from this election also that Democrats should not try to run as Republican-lite? you know, despite the differences that you, highlighted very well between progressives and moderates, th- there was a clear message on affordability, which, was a bread and butter message about economic change.

It was not a, “Let’s just do more of the same. Let’s, let’s grow the economy even better than the other side grows the economy,” or John Kerry, “Let’s fight the war in Iraq,” or, “Better than they fought the r- war in Iraq.” I mean, there was a clear difference between the two parties on many of these issues. Do you, do you th- see that as a future campaign strategy for the Democratic Party?

[00:28:22] Julian Zelizer: Yeah, I mean, I heard an interview, and I don’t re- I, I can’t remember where it was at this point. I’ve been listening to so many things. But, I s- I believe a strategist talked to the Democrats and said, “You know, in every, any given week, most people only pay attention to politics I think it’s, like, four minutes for the whole week.”

And they said President Trump dominates about three minutes and 30 seconds. And I think Jeffries took from that, that we have 30 seconds to get a message across and it has to be disciplined, consistent, and very focused. And that was something he told candidates all over the country, and they did it. And so I think you have a big issue.

It’s, it’s not going away. Even if inflation is tame, the cost of living, affordability, whatever you wanna call it, it’s an old issue, but it’s, it’s gotten more extreme because of costs going up from healthcare to housing to education. And I think the more Democrats can focus on this, even while articulating differences over Israel and the Middle East or, you know, pick any divisive issue, if they keep coming back to that, I think that could be a powerful platform, an old pocketbook politics kind of agenda for 2028 that will be very hard for Republicans in the aftermath of, in the aftermath of, of Trump and all the problems to just escape from.

[00:29:49] Zachary Suri: That makes a lot of sense. those are some very helpful lessons, I think, for all of us to consider moving forward here, and a lot of things to look out for in the next two years, as, you know, the real consequences of this election, moving forward will become clear, or at least more clear.

[00:30:06] Jeremi Suri: Zachary, before we close, can I ask you a question? and I’m sure Julian will be interested along with our many listeners in your answer. How have students responded to this election? What have you seen on campus and the reactions in the last few days?

[00:30:19] Zachary Suri: I mean, I, I think the reaction on campus here has been certainly, I, I would say it– there’s been a lot more attention paid to politics than I think there normally is. certainly a lot of excitement from young voters. I think most young voters here are probably Democratic-leaning. It would come as no surprise to most people.

but more than that, I think there’s a real interest in politics again and a little more hope associated with it, than I think we’ve seen, that certainly I haven’t seen in the last three years that, that I’ve, I’ve been on campus.

[00:30:48] Jeremi Suri: That’s a, that’s a wonderful note to close on, Zachary. I’ll let you, I’ll let you continue to close our episode. Sorry.

[00:30:54] Zachary Suri: Well, thank you. Thank you both for joining us. Thank you, Professor Zelizer, for, for your insights today

[00:30:59] Julian Zelizer: Thank you. A pleasure to be with both of you

[00:31:02] Zachary Suri: Thank you. And thank you, of course, to Jeremi for joining us as well

[00:31:05] Jeremi Suri: And well, well done, Zachary. This was a really, thoughtful discussion. Thank you, to our listeners as well for joining us

[00:31:11] Zachary Suri: Thank you all for joining us for this episode of This Is Democracy

[00:31:16] Jeremi Suri: Fantastic. Now