Historically, the sitting president’s political party loses congressional seats in a midterm election. That trend has held in 17 of 19 midterm elections since World War II. On average, the president’s party has lost 25-30 seats. The worst loss was in 2010 when the Democrats lost 63 seats. In Donald Trump’s first term, the Republicans lost 40 seats.
The current polling strongly indicates that pattern will likely repeat itself in 2026. Trump’s approval rating has been steadily trending down since his reelection and turned sharply lower during the government shutdown. Still, he is about 5 points above where he was at this time in his first term.
RealClearPolitics
However, on the critical issues that swung voters his way in 2024, the numbers are even worse. On his handling of inflation, he currently stands at negative 27%. And on his historically strong suit, immigration, his approval has fallen from a positive double-digit rating at the beginning of his term to a negative 3% currently.
The polling on the generic congressional ballot began to favor Democrats within a few months of Trump’s inauguration and has since hovered in the mid-single digits. The latest RCP polling average shows Democrats favored by about 4 points. The prediction markets currently have the Democrats as a 77% favorite to win back control of the House.
At my Readers Conference last week, I asked my two political science professors, Mark Jones from Rice and Andy Teas from Houston Community College, their estimate of the likelihood that Democrats would regain control of the House. Jones said 70-80%, and Teas said at least 60%.
While Americans appear to be leaning toward returning control of the House to the Democrats, it is not out of any love for the Democratic Party or what it stands for. At a minus 23%, the Democratic Party is even more unpopular than the Republican Party at a minus 13%.
So, how can we explain voters’ apparent willingness to return the control of the House to a party they hold in such low regard? In his book “Unstable Majorities,” Stanford University political scientist Morris Fiorina suggests that modern elections are rarely expressions of broad mandates but are instead typically reactions against the party in power at the time. Voters aren’t embracing the opposition when they switch control – they’re just trying to rein in the side currently in charge.
Even though most recent election wins are very close, politicians often misinterpret the results as an endorsement of their entire agenda. That prompts them to focus on their activist base and, in the process, alienate the broad, discontented middle of voters. The inevitable result is a backlash in the next election. The midterm swings, including the one we will likely see in 2026, will not represent ideological realignment embracing the Democrats’ incoherent agenda but rather an expression of voter frustration with the Republicans’ failure to show restraint.
Think of it this way: Imagine the broad middle of the American electorate as a weary traveler trying to sleep in the backseat of a car. In the front seat sit the two major parties, both drunk – not on alcohol, but on power, grievance, and hyper-partisanship. The passenger has given one of them the keys, who then weaves all over the road, convinced that being given the keys is a mandate to drive however they want. Eventually, the party plows the car into a ditch. The startled passenger wakes up, grabs the keys, and pulls the driver out. But the only alternative up front is the other party, just as intoxicated and just as convinced it alone deserves to be at the wheel.
This is the cycle we repeat every few years: The middle swaps one drunk driver for another, hoping for a steadier ride. Maybe it’s time for a different response – take the keys from both of them, put them both in the back seat, and let the sober middle drive the car for a change.
