Photo by Anthony Garand

Euphoria mixed with skepticism

“It’s morning again in America,” he said, mirroring the 1984 Reagan Campaign ad proclaiming the triumph of a new conservative reign in the U.S. Mamdani was clearly signaling the 2026 election proclaimed a new wave of progressive reform in the U.S.

Across the country Democratic candidates advocated for reforms such as universal health care and wealth taxes. Through the campaign economic populism rang like a bell announcing a new order of things. A presidential administration that began with three of the world’s richest techlords, Musk, Bezos and Zuckerberg, on the inaugural stage eventuated in a humiliation of Musk and a blowout against data centers. Of 48 data centers measures on ballots, 45 went against them with 2 more leaning that way. Meanwhile, the world’s richest man made the biggest midterm election political donations in history, totaling at least $474 million, to come up short. It will likely have implications for operations at his Texas-based SpaceX.

Democrats will now possess majorities in both houses of congress that they haven’t had in years, probably around 56 of 100 senators and 261 of 435 House members. These numbers still fall short of the 2/3rds vote needed to overcome Trump’s promised vetos. The question is whether the Democrats will use the next two years to set an agenda, to send bills to Trump on universal health care, affordable housing, just taxation, clean energy and other progressive measures, daring him to veto them while setting up the 2028 campaign. A deeper question which I will delve into below is whether the kind of structural changes needed to deal with the deep crises facing our nation and planet can get a hearing.

This Democratic election wave, while generating euphoria among many, is also greeted by a healthy skepticism. We’ve been here before. We recall how Obama swept in on a platform of hope and change and proceeded to govern with a largely business-as-usual administration, bringing the architects of the 2008 financial meltdown in to manage the mess they made, and putting those who supported and ran the Iraq War in charge of foreign policy. At the same time, he excluded progressive measures such as Medicare For All from his signature health care reform, which provided subsidies to insurance companies to offer high deductible plans. Those of us who are a little older recall Clinton’s 1993 entry into the White House after 12 Republican years. Anticipation of a fundamental change in direction was crushed under a pro-business administration that enshrined Reaganism in the Democratic Party and passed measures gutting welfare, expanding media monopolies and increasing prison populations, Clinton forwarded free trade measures that undermined the working class, setting the stage for Trump, and enacted financial deregulation that led to the 2008 meltdown.

Even the election of Biden, a great relief after 4 years of Trump, stirred high hopes only to see them dashed by support for the Gaza genocide. Then Trump’s re-election eviscerated much of the progressive agenda passed during his administration. Currently, there is much fear that anointing Hakeem Jeffries to be House speaker and Chuck Schumer as Senate majority leader will signal continuation of policies rejected by voters, such as continued support for Israel’s wars. Over the years there’s been too much of “meet the new boss, same as the old boss.” Many of us swear “we won’t get fooled again.” That’s a sound starting point.

Rainbow nation prevails

All that said, there can be no doubt that the 2026 elections heralded a rejection of the white nationalism that propelled so much of the Trump victories, and in the most powerful way. Groups most under the Trump gun, Blacks, Latinos and women, all won stunning victories.

Across the South, Black voters turned out in huge numbers to say we aren’t going back to Jim Crow. It was a response to the Supreme Court gutting of the Voting Rights Act after which Southern state legislators eliminated Congressional districts mandated by the act. Mobilization efforts by Black organizations even won victories in some of those districts. Meanwhile, Georgia stunned the nation electing Black women to 7 of 8 statewide posts, including Keisha Lance Bottoms as the first Black woman governor in U.S. history. Mississippi stunned the nation with the apparent election of Scott Colum, the first time it has elected a Black senator since 1880.

Latinos came out in force, with many returning to the Democratic fold repelled by how ICE has treated their neighbors. Texas legislators who assumed they would retain Latinos that voted for Trump in 2024, and redistricted on that basis, only fooled themselves. All 5 districts they designed for Republican victories were won by Democrats. The most stunning Texas result was the Democratic sweep of statewide offices by overwhelming margins. James Talarico beat Ken Paxton 5.4 million votes to 4.5 million. Latina Gina Hinojosa creamed Gov. Greg Abbott with 5.2 million votes to 4.5 million to win the governor’s mansion. Texas appears to have gone blue or at least a strongly blue-tinted purple.

One recalls how Proposition 187 to restrict undocumented immigrant access to public services passed in California in 1994 to become a pyrrhic victory for Republicans. From 1952-88 the state voted for Republicans in all but one election. Since 1992 it has been a reliable Democratic state. The shift in Latino vote as a result of Prop 187 is regarded as a primary reason. (The measure was later thrown out as unconstitutional.) Could 2026 signal a similar shift in Texas where Latinos make up 40% of the population?

The election was marked by a number of firsts. Pueblo of Laguna member Deb Halland became the first native woman elected to govern a state, winning in New Mexico. White Earth Band of Ojibwe member Peggy Flanagan became the first native senator with her election in Minnesota. Of course, the Michigan senate victory of Abu El Sayed to become the first Muslim senator, despite a virulently Islamophobic campaign, was a singular victory. Chris Pappas, elected New Hampshire senator, will be the first openly gay member of that body. Overall, the Stephen Miller myth of a monochrome nation was soundly defeated by the real rainbow nation emerging across an increasingly diverse U.S. As Trump’s new chief of staff he can only fight a rearguard action. The strength of the rainbow nation is the most hopeful message coming out of the 2026 elections. If there is hope for a progressive U.S. future it centers here.

The election also helped settle an issue rising out of the 2024 elections when it was charged that the Harris defeat was largely the result of racism and misogyny. Others cited polls saying it was economic issues that tipped the balance. No doubt racial and sexual bigotry played a role in Trump’s victory. But the loss of groups that swung to Trump, ethnic minorities and young men, was largely reversed this election, and the cost of living had much to do with it. As the old saying goes, it’s the economy stupid. And for this reason, Democrats should not make the mistake Republicans did after 2024, assume that this election represents a permanent realignment. Voters are deeply dissatisfied with both parties, and can swing quickly as this election proves.

Energy costs and climate action

The role of energy cost increases in this election has implications that ramifications to the absolutely critical need for climate action. November 3 was not only election day. It tied for the highest global temperature in recorded history, 2.04C above levels before humanity began mass burning of fossil fuels. It is one of only 7 days where measured temperatures exceeded 2C, which has been the marker for the maximum global heating allowable to stem climate catastrophe. Those same fossil fuels are at the center of two of the most potent issues this campaign.

One is fuel costs. The most powerful campaign ads this election season were not the candidate spots appearing on media. They were the gas and diesel prices appearing on filling station signs. Average U.S. gas prices as of Nov. 7 are $4.03/gallon compared to $3.08 a year ago. Diesel is $6.20, skyrocketing from $3.71 the same day last year. Opposition to the Iran War, a foreground issue in the campaign, is inextricably bound with the fuel price issue. But pump prices are not the only energy cost issue. Widespread opposition to data centers is driven by how they are driving up utility bills.

The message for climate advocates is that the more economically pressed people are, the less willing they are to absorb higher energy costs either at the pump or the plug. This is why it has been difficult to impossible to enact market-based climate policies in the U.S. The goal of such policies, whether through carbon taxes or carbon cap-and-trade, is to increase the cost of fossil fuels to reduce use and drive demand to clean energy sources. So far only a few states including California and Washington have put comprehensive climate policies in place. Some carbon tax advocate argue that return of revenues to consumers overcomes the cost objection, favoring those who use less energy. But that assumes energy use is flexible. Many people are locked in by the lack of alternatives to auto use where they live, live in poorly insulated rentals where energy investments are under landlord control, or own homes where the upfront costs of efficiency retrofits and solar are beyond their reach.

No doubt for long-term climate action, a Democratic-controlled congress holds great promise, assuming a Democratic president is elected in 2028. But a congress elected on affordability issues is not going to pass measures that increase energy costs. With an overwhelming majority in 2009, Democrats shied away from passing cap-and-trade legislation that would have done this. When they finally did pass the most significant piece of climate action, the Inflation Reduction Act, in 2022, it did not set carbon limits but promoted investment in renewables, EVs, heat pumps and batteries. The results of the 2026 election tell us that when climate legislation returns to the fore, it will be on this supply-side of the equation, putting in place alternatives to fossil fuels, rather than the demand side of hiking fuel prices to promote growth of alternatives. Fortunately, due to public policies, solar and wind are now the cheapest energy sources, and EVs are becoming competitive with internal combustion vehicles. So affordability and climate action mesh well.

The U.S. and world in general is far behind the curve on climate. As I have been writing recently here and here, as the world edges past the 1.5C global heating target set at the 2015 Paris Climate Summit, the danger of triggering climate tipping points radically increases. Those include shutdown of North Atlantic currents that shape the world climate, irreversible loss of Greenland and Antarctic ice packs, and shifting the Amazon rainforest from carbon soaker to carbon emitter. Humanity risks climate runaways beyond any hope of control. Nothing short of dramatic cuts in fossil fuel pollution is needed to reduce those risks. We still need a massive mobilization of resources on the order of at least a Green New Deal, more like a World War II, to reshape infrastructures and energy use. The climate community needs to get back to this level of advocacy, setting the stage for what must be accomplished beginning in 2029.

This gets to the overall question of whether the political system as it exists is capable of dealing with the deep structural issues that have the world on the track to catastrophe. It is not just climate, but the whole range of ways in which humanity is overshooting the capability of our planetary home to support us and the other species with which we share it. I cannot repeat often enough the findings of the Stockholm Resilience Program that we have exceeded 7 of 9 planetary boundaries defining a safe operating space for humanity. All aspects of the biosphere are under stress from human activity and being permeated with human-made substances. The cause is in how we define economic success, as aggregate growth rather than meeting basic social needs. Only a vast movement pushing for fundamental change can alter that course. Electoral success creates a groundwork to make such changes, since they will ultimately require public policy changes. But the prime energy for transformative change has to come from people power movements that, frankly, get in the faces of electeds and make inaction unacceptable.

What it means for the U.S. future

The sense of doors opening at the national level should not divert from the state and local policy pathways people have been pursuing while locked out of D.C. This election opened many new doors there too. Twelve state legislative houses flipped to Democrat, as well as five governorships. Besides Georgia and Texas, Democrats won statehouses in Iowa, Ohio and Nevada. They now possess 30 governorships, holding a majority for the first time in 20 years. They will now govern states representing three quarters of the U.S. population. Democrats increased their number of trifectas, controlling governorships and both legislative houses, from 14 to 20 while Republicans shrank from 21 to 16. Innovative, edgy ideas will take root in state and local governments before they reach the national level. In looking ahead to 2029, progressives must leverage their increased strength in states to float and pass advanced policies.

Overall, when looking to the future, let us recognize that no matter who wins an election, the U.S. still has a deeply flawed system that promotes minority rule. The Senate and electoral college give disproportionate weight to smaller states. The ability of the Supreme Court to override congressional legislation, with no recourse for reversal but a constitutional amendment, is another glaring deficiency. The way judges appointed to a lifetime bench have gutted the Voting Rights Act and campaign financing limits are posters for judicial dictatorship. Meanwhile, the executive power of the presidency has grown to make the abuses of a Trump possible. The balance of powers envisioned in the Constitution is skewed far toward the presidency, as Trump’s unilateral war on Iran demonstrates. It is likely that some form of constitutional convention will be needed to correct at least some of these flaws, but the political groundwork is not there at the moment. Any convention could easily be hijacked by corporate forces. Preparing for one is a long-term progressive organizing project.

And I have to say that even on the winning side, I am uncomfortable with winner-take-all systems that provide victory with a few percentage points. Even in these victories, it still leaves out large minorities. Systems of proportional representation should be part of any political reform agenda.

Prior to the 2026 election, despair and doubt about the future of the U.S. were widespread. People wondered if the country could even stay together, riven by irreconcilable differences between blue and red states. On the right, Marjorie Taylor Green called for a national divorce. On the left, people have advocated separation ranging from “soft secession” in which states align to set their own direction but still in a federal framework, to outright leaving the union. In California and Cascadia those sentiments have been particularly strong.

The election reshuffles that deck to some degree. The strongest movement for secession from the right has been in Texas, but it seems unlikely an increasingly Democratic state is going to go for Texit. Victories in states such as Texas, Mississippi and Kansas that have been regarded as blood red are even bringing into question the concept of pure red states. They are proving that strong organizing efforts on the ground can break through the reddest of barriers. The election of Adam Hamilton as the first Democratic senator from Kansas since 1932 is a bold underscore. The willingness of candidates such as Hamilton, a Methodist pastor, and Talarico, a Presbyterian seminarian, to bring their faith into their campaigns shows they are not conceding that ground to Christian nationalism. Appealing to the basic social values inherent in the Christian gospel breaks through culture war barriers. Those divisions between people and regions do not seem so intractable after all.

So is there hope for the U.S.? The centrifugal tendencies that have flared under Trump might reverse with the emergence of a new majority that crystallizes a genuine progressive reform agenda. The power shown by Blacks, Latinos and women in this election, the shift across the map to basic economic issues, the rise of economic populism as a counterpoint to billionaire rule – all are genuine sources of hope. But the structural issues promoting minority rule are deep. The power of donors and political insiders to control agendas is still strong. The ability of the political system to grapple with the fundamental issues facing our planet is uncertain. And it took the flagrant abuses and incompetence of Trump to cause this blue tsunami. If the Democrats do not begin delivering in the next two years by setting agendas, and enacting them in the next presidential term, a frustrated electorate could swing back. Unstable systems warble between extremes, and instability marks the current situation. A competent demagogue could emerge to make Trump look tame.

So it is a time of opportunity in the political system, and a time of danger. If the Democrats blow it, and do not forward fundamental change that really addresses the situations people face, the future could look far worse. This is too important to leave to the politicians. Electoral success will mean little if people do not organize to keep up steady pressure on them. In the end, it really is up to we the people.

This first appeared on Patrick Mazza’s Substack page, The Raven.