Photograph Source: U.S. House of Representatives – Public Domain
The much-anticipated United States midterm elections for 2026 have now come and gone, and the results have been described as a ‘blue tsunami’, blasting away much of the Republican flotsam and jetsam that has cluttered the halls of Congress for the last many years. There is no end to the finger-pointing by such luminaries as President Donald Trump and his equally illustrious vice-president, JD Vance, and Democrats crow about their new mandate, one that this writer desperately hopes they will use to the advantage of the people, rather than corporate interests. That, of course, remains to be seen. But this writer sees some merit in commenting on those politicians who lost, despite the absence of their names on any ballot. He will start with the least significant, and progress from there.
+ Haley Stevens. The three-term Democratic member of Congress from Michigan has, in one fell swoop, destroyed any chance she has of ever obtaining elective office as a Democrat again, and any thought she has of switching parties will also not bode well for her. After losing a bitter battle for the Democratic nomination for senate to Senator-elect Abdul El-Sayed, she gave him her half-hearted endorsement, only to withdraw it and support his Republican opponent, Mike Rogers, two days before the election. This was stunning for a variety of reasons. First, this is the man she had hoped to run against, and whom she had several major, and key, disagreements with, including reproductive rights, unions, election denial, health care and Trump’s overall agenda. Suddenly, it seemed, she was willing to overlook all those fundamental differences and vote for him. Second, just the day before she switched her endorsement, she had spoken to Michigan Congress member Debbie Dingell, and New York Congress member Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and assured them that her endorsement of El-Sayed was firm and unshakeable. Third, when she appeared with Rogers on Sunday at a church service, her own staff was waiting for her across town at another church service, where she was scheduled to appear with El-Sayed. She has been called a traitor, removed from the rolls of the Michigan Democratic Party, and basically surrendered any chance she had of elective office again. It’s unlikely that even the Republican Party would welcome someone so inconsistent and, even if it did, Michiganders will not soon forget her flip-flop at such an important time. But all is not lost for the hapless Ms. Stevens; she can always get a job with FOX News, or become a lobbyist for one of the industries she was cozy with during her three terms in office.
+ Pete Hegseth. The current Secretary of Defense (or War, to use his boss’s term), now appears to have his head on the chopping block. The man who decimated the ranks of upper-echelon military leaders and who is seen as the architect of the U.S.’s most recent immoral, unjust and completely unnecessary war, that against Iran, may have finally reached the end of the road. He may be the current, best personification of the Peter Principle, which states that “individuals working in a hierarchical structure tend to be promoted based on their performance in their current roles rather than their competence for the intended promotion”. That, of course, would assume that FOX News is part of the hierarchy of the U.S. government, but under the Trump Administration, that’s possibly not too far a stretch. Hegseth performed well, by Trump’s standards, in his role of news commentator on FOX News and that was enough for Trump. Hegseth is currently seen as the scapegoat for the GOP’s disastrous showing in the midterms, with the war against Iran and its brutal economic consequences having been on the minds of people entering the ballot box. There is talk that he may be impeached as early as next week.
+ Marco Rubio. Moving up the food chain, we have the U.S. Secretary of State; rarely has there been a person in that role less qualified for it. It is no secret that Rubio sees himself as a possible successor to Trump, and in terms of ability, intelligence and overall competence, he may not be wrong. But following the midterms, his star has dimmed, for the same reason that Hegseth’s has: he is a cheerleader and co-architect of a potentially forever war, the exact kind that candidate Trump said would be a thing of the past in his administration. And like Stevens, Rubio is apparently willing to crawl into bed with those he previously disdained. Prior to becoming an acolyte of Trump, he called him a “con artist”, “lunatic” and accused him of encouraging violence. Well, what’s a little hypocrisy among friends anyway?
+ JD Vance. Here we have the man who may have the most to lose, and is arguably in the most difficult position. Vance, like Rubio, had an uncomfortable past with Trump, previously comparing him to Hitler and referring to him as an “idiot” and “reprehensible”. From the start of the Iran war, it was said that Vance was not completely onboard, but like a good little sycophant, he supported it publicly. The day after the ‘blue tsunami’, he said that “The reason we lost is the war”. He now walks a difficult tightrope: endearing himself to the millions who on Tuesday rejected all things Trump, and remaining in the good graces of Trump, a man not known for his forgiving nature. For Vance’s sake, one hopes there’s a net beneath that tightrope.
+ Donald Trump. Throughout U.S. history, there have been many lame-duck presidents, those whose hands were tied by the Constitutionally-assured Congressional checks and balances. As of January, the Democrats will overwhelmingly control both houses of Congress, but it’s likely that the world may see some progress even before the new Congress is sworn in. One can be certain that senators who were not up for re-election this year are now considering their past, blind allegiance to Trump and, if they happen to have the brains they were born with, will begin to challenge him in ways that will be noted by their constituents. The astounding victories the Democrats had in Texas, Kansas, North Carolina, South Carolina and several other states should give those current incumbents pause. This will impact Trump’s ability to pass legislation, wage war and appoint judges to lifetime roles.
Will the results of the current election usher in a brave new world? Is the Democratic Party the savior that the U.S. citizenry and much of the world needs? Hardly! But the electorate has sent a strong message to its government officials, and time will tell if they were listening. The possibility for some significant change exists; we must all hope that that possibility becomes a reality.
