Trump won in large part because Americans were angry about inflation, immigration, and what they perceived as the failures of the Biden administration. He seems to have interpreted that victory as permission to launch an economic experiment, pursue foreign military adventures, and exercise federal power with remarkably little restraint. Two years later, the electorate delivered its verdict. Democrats should be very careful not to make the same mistake.
Senator-elect James Talarico (D-TX) speaking at a rally in San Antonio in 2025. Photo: H. Michael Karshis / Wikimedia Commons (CC BY 4.0)
For the first time in my life, every single candidate I voted for won their election.
I don’t think this means I’ve developed some extraordinary political insight. It mostly means that a lot of other Americans were feeling similarly to how I felt. And judging by the results of Tuesday’s elections, that includes quite a few Americans who voted very differently just two years ago.
The Democratic Party has won control of both houses of Congress, including Senate seats in states that voted overwhelmingly for Donald Trump in 2024. Republicans have suffered a historic defeat, and Democrats have good reason to celebrate. But they should be careful about exactly what they’re celebrating.
In early 2025, I wrote an essay for The Vital Center titled “Party Foul: How Kamala's Loss Reflects Her Party's Failures.” In it, I argued that the Democratic Party had a serious problem. Americans had rejected the party's rhetoric, its association with progressive extremism, and its inability to demonstrate competent government.
I proposed three steps Democrats could take to rebuild their appeal:
Abandon high-octane progressive rhetoric
Become the party of sane economics
Demonstrate competent government at the local level
I also suggested that, if they took those steps seriously, they would have a real opportunity to win back Congress in 2026 and the presidency in 2028. Well, here we are. Democrats have won Congress, and they’re in an excellent position to contest the presidency two years from now if they play their cards right.
What Democrats Did Right
To be fair, Democrats have made some progress toward each of the three things I suggested. But the degree to which those improvements have actually changed the party is a more complicated question.
First, there has been a noticeable retreat from some of the more extreme progressive rhetoric that characterized the party in 2020. Even Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, perhaps the most prominent member of the party's progressive wing, recently acknowledged that “Woke 1 was crazy” and that the rhetoric of that period wasn’t something Democrats would use today.
Pete Buttigieg has made similar observations, criticizing Democrats for becoming so focused on identity that they lost the ability to speak to Americans as a whole. These are encouraging admissions from prominent figures in the party, particularly because they acknowledge that the problem wasn’t simply that Republicans successfully distorted what Democrats were saying. Some Democrats really did go too far.
“If Democrats want to pursue universal healthcare or any other major policy proposal, they’re welcome to make that case. They should explain how it would work, what it would cost, and why Americans should support it. They shouldn’t pretend that this election has already settled those questions.”
Of course, acknowledging a problem and actually correcting it are two different things. AOC remains a democratic socialist, and the party hasn’t exactly abandoned its progressive wing. But there has at least been a recognition that the rhetoric that seemed so popular in certain circles five years ago was doing the party real political damage.
Second, Democrats have benefited enormously from appearing to be the party of sane economics. Not that this represents any transformation of Democratic economic thinking. Some politicians have made serious efforts to address affordability, housing, and the cost of living. But the biggest development has been the Republican Party’s embrace of Donald Trump’s economic agenda.
It turns out that becoming the party of sane economics is considerably easier when your opponents abandon economic sanity altogether.
When Republicans are imposing enormous tariffs, disrupting markets, and insisting that raising the cost of imported goods will somehow make Americans more prosperous, Democrats don’t have to become free-market economists to look comparatively reasonable. They just have to recognize that tariffs are taxes paid largely by Americans and that economic uncertainty is bad for business.
That’s an improvement in the political choices available to voters, but it isn’t necessarily evidence that Democrats have learned everything they need to about economic policy.
Finally, there is now a figurehead for competent local government.
Zohran Mamdani, the democratic socialist mayor of New York City, has become one of the most popular politicians in the country. Much of his economic agenda is dangerous, and I think it’s far too early to declare his administration a success. But there’s no denying that Mamdani has been extraordinarily effective at presenting himself as a capable, energetic, and approachable public servant.
New Yorkers have responded positively. A September poll found that 61 percent of voters thought he was doing better than expected. Even Donald Trump, who previously denounced Mamdani as a communist, has repeatedly praised him, including during a joint press conference in September.
That doesn’t mean Mamdani’s policies are working. Public approval and effective government aren't the same thing. But Mamdani has demonstrated what I specifically called for two years ago: the importance of local Democratic officials building public confidence through visible, apparently competent government.
I was probably too categorical about how much ideological moderation Democrats needed before they could win again. Mamdani’s popularity certainly complicates my earlier argument that Democrats couldn’t succeed while embracing self-described socialists. But it also illustrates something important: Voters may be more willing to overlook ideological disagreements when they believe a politician understands their problems and is genuinely trying to solve them.
So yes, Democrats have made some of the changes I suggested. Others remain more rhetorical than substantive. And the Republican Party’s spectacular failures have made those shortcomings considerably less politically costly.
What changed most dramatically wasn’t the Democratic Party. It was the Republican Party’s ability to govern. And that brings me to the real question: What exactly did Americans vote against?
The Republicans’ Four Failures
There will be millions of think pieces in the coming weeks trying to explain the 2026 midterms. Analysts will examine the changing attitudes of Latino voters, the turnout among young people, and the political fortunes of individual candidates. Those deep dives are worthwhile.
But I think there are four major reasons Republicans lost this election, and understanding them is essential to understanding what Democrats actually have a mandate to do.
The first and undoubtedly the most important is the economy.
In 2024, I pointed out that Donald Trump and his allies had abandoned fiscal conservatism in favor of what I called “Peronist populism.” I was particularly worried about the tariffs, runaway deficits, and the growing influence of economic nationalists who seemed more interested in managing the economy than allowing markets to function.
At the time, I acknowledged that it was possible Trump might moderate his rhetoric once in office. Perhaps he would abandon the most extreme tariff proposals. Perhaps the remaining free-market Republicans would exert some influence over his administration. Well, that didn’t happen.
Instead, Trump launched an enormous tariff agenda he called “Liberation Day,” repeatedly assuring Americans that foreign countries would pay for the privilege of selling us goods. Economists warned that the costs would fall substantially on American consumers and businesses. Trump insisted otherwise.
The Federal Reserve of New York has documented what economists predicted: tariffs raised consumer prices, including prices for goods made in America. Some of the effects took months to work their way through the economy.
Trump promised to fix the economy. He promised to make Americans prosperous again. And he instead pursued policies that made many of the things Americans buy more expensive, while offering precious little evidence that the promised manufacturing renaissance would make up for it.
In 2024, I observed that Americans don’t particularly care if economists believed the economy was performing well. Inflation makes people feel poorer, and Kamala Harris inherited the blame. Two years later, Trump has discovered that the same rules apply to him. (Or at least, he should have—attempts at deflecting blame notwithstanding.)
Americans don’t care how many times the president announces that the economy is the greatest in history. They care whether they can afford groceries, gasoline, housing, and the other necessities of everyday life. It really is “the economy, stupid.”
The second major failure is foreign policy.
Donald Trump successfully portrayed himself as the peace candidate in 2024. He promised to end wars, not start them. Kamala Harris, he insisted, would drag Americans into new foreign conflicts.
It was a powerful message, especially among voters who had grown weary of American military adventurism. We have spent decades getting involved in foreign wars that cost extraordinary amounts of money and American lives, frequently without accomplishing anything resembling the objectives our leaders originally announced. And then Trump went to war with Iran.
I'm not a pacifist. I believe America has legitimate interests abroad and that our military should be capable of defending them. I believe we have obligations to our allies, and that maintaining a strong military is essential to preserving peace. But those beliefs don’t oblige me to support every war an American president decides to fight. Especially not if it’s fought poorly.
The Iran war has been expensive, disruptive, and extraordinarily unpopular. Its economic effects have contributed to the very affordability problems Trump promised to solve. And the administration has done precious little to persuade Americans that the war is accomplishing objectives worth the cost.
If we’re going to use military force, we should do so with clear objectives, overwhelming strength, and a serious plan for what happens afterward. We should not stumble from one confrontation into another and pretend everything is going well. The American electorate saw through Trump’s attempts to pretend the Iran war has been a success. The emperor turns out to have no clothes.
The third failure is immigration enforcement.
Democrats need to be particularly careful about the lesson they take on immigration. Americans want border security. They wanted it in 2024, and they still want it today. Trump successfully exploited the Biden administration’s failure to maintain public confidence in immigration enforcement. That concern wasn’t invented by Republican propagandists, even if they frequently exaggerated it.
Believing the border should be secure doesn’t mean Americans want federal agents behaving like a gang of thugs. Masked agents refusing to identify themselves, people being detained on questionable grounds, enforcement operations involving schools and churches, and American citizens being caught up in immigration raids have steadily eroded public confidence in ICE.
ProPublica has documented 519 American citizens detained by immigration agents. Not all were mistaken for illegal immigrants; many were accused of interfering with enforcement operations. But that hardly makes the broader problem disappear, especially when many of those accusations never resulted in criminal charges.
The federal government has enormous authority to enforce immigration law. That authority is necessary. But it must be exercised within the limits of the Constitution, with respect for due process and the rights of the people subject to it. We should not have to choose between border security and civil liberties.
If Democrats overextend by assuming that they have carte blanche to ignore border issues or, worse, simply refuse to fund border and immigration enforcement, they will be handing Republicans a lot of ammunition for 2028. Comprehensive immigration reform is necessary, but that reform will need to have clear stipulations for border security. The American people do not want to go back to the Biden days of ignoring the problem.
Last but certainly not least, there is corruption.
I’ve written elsewhere about how corruption isn’t exactly a new phenomenon in American politics. We’ve had corrupt Democrats, corrupt Republicans, and plenty of politicians who have managed to enrich themselves while carefully avoiding anything that might technically qualify as a crime.
But the Trump administration has taken official self-enrichment to an extraordinary level. The president’s family’s cryptocurrency ventures alone have generated enormous profits, presenting precisely the sort of conflicts of interest that ought to alarm anyone who believes public office is a public trust.
And that’s just the outright self-enrichment. The GOP is now widely accused of protecting Epstein and his associates. Elon Musk’s massive and unsuccessful campaign spending has everyone who sees politics as rich vs. poor in an uproar. Morally, this administration has backed a slew of candidates ranging from the cruel, like Vivek Ramaswamy’s disastrous use of Amy Acton’s abusive mother in a campaign ad, to the reprehensible—see, for example, Ken Paxton’s entire career.
A friend of mine put his decision to vote against Republicans rather simply: he couldn’t support a party willing to tolerate that level of corruption. I suspect quite a few other Americans reached similar conclusions.
None of these four issues can explain the election entirely. Americans vote for all sorts of reasons, and it’s difficult to say exactly which grievances were most important. But the exit polling makes clear that economic dissatisfaction, concerns about corruption, and disapproval of the Iran war all contributed to the Republican defeat. While immigration enforcement is still a major issue for those who voted for Republicans this time, it wasn’t a major issue for Democratic voters—meaning that the Trump administration’s methods have made immigration enforcement an unreliable way to capture independents like they did in 2024.
And that brings us back to what the Democrats do next.
A Mandate Is Not a Blank Check
In 2024, Republicans took a sweeping electoral victory as evidence that Americans had embraced the MAGA agenda. Trump won the presidency, Republicans controlled Congress, and the party's supporters celebrated what they believed was a fundamental realignment of American politics.
They weren't entirely wrong. Trump had built a remarkable political coalition, and the Democratic Party had alienated millions of voters who might otherwise have supported it. But winning an election doesn't mean voters have endorsed every element of your political philosophy.
Trump won in large part because Americans were angry about inflation, immigration, and what they perceived as the failures of the Biden administration. He seems to have interpreted that victory as permission to launch an economic experiment, pursue foreign military adventures, and exercise federal power with remarkably little restraint. Two years later, the electorate delivered its verdict.
Democrats should be very careful not to make the same mistake. Plenty of progressives will look at this election and conclude that Americans are finally ready for the policies they've advocated for years. Some will see a mandate for universal healthcare. Others will want dramatic expansions of federal spending, aggressive redistribution, or any number of other policies that have long occupied the Democratic Party's wish list. But that's not what this election demonstrated.
Americans didn't suddenly become socialists. They didn't suddenly decide that every progressive economic proposal was a good idea. And they certainly didn't vote to replace one group of politicians who believe the rules don't apply to them with another.
If Democrats want to pursue universal healthcare or any other major policy proposal, they're welcome to make that case. They should explain how it would work, what it would cost, and why Americans should support it. They shouldn't pretend that this election has already settled those questions.
Two years ago, I argued that Democrats needed to become a party that moderates could feel good about voting for, rather than merely the fallback when Republicans became too crazy. Their victory in 2026 gives them the chance to accomplish exactly that. It does not prove they’ve accomplished it already.
What Democrats Should Actually Do
The good news for Democrats is that the issues that brought them back into power are also excellent opportunities to demonstrate that they can govern.
In economics, they should begin by rolling back the remaining elements of Trump’s tariff agenda. The Supreme Court has already struck down much of his emergency tariff program, but Congress should go further. It should reassert its constitutional authority over trade policy and prevent future presidents from imposing enormous tariffs on little more than their own authority. Congressional Democrats should resist the temptation to replace Trump's economic populism with their own.
I called for a Democratic Party that embraces fiscal responsibility, cuts unnecessary regulation, and focuses on practical improvements to the economy. I haven’t changed my mind. America needs more housing, greater economic opportunity, and a government that makes it easier rather than harder for people to build businesses and improve their lives. Democrats should make a point of finding regulations they can eliminate, government programs they can streamline, and ways to reduce the cost of living without simply throwing more money at every problem. Elon Musk’s haphazard DOGE measures should not be the only serious efficiency efforts we ever see again. Democrats could take the legs out from under a major Republican rhetorical pillar by engaging seriously with government efficiency on the Congressional side—where it should have never left.
On immigration, they should do something that both parties have promised for decades without actually delivering: pass comprehensive reform.
That means genuine border security, a functional asylum process, sensible legal immigration rules, and some reasonable solution for the millions of people who have lived in the United States for years without legal status.
It also means establishing clear rules for federal immigration agents. Officers should be identifiable and accountable. The rights of American citizens and immigrants alike should be respected. And the government should not treat constitutional limitations as inconvenient obstacles to effective enforcement.
Importantly, Democrats should make a very public demonstration of their commitment to border security. Americans need to know that protecting civil liberties doesn’t mean opening the border. There is already a bipartisan starting point in the DIGNITY Act, which combines border enforcement, asylum reform, and a proposed legal framework for long-established undocumented immigrants. Democrats could build on it rather than starting the debate from scratch.
On corruption, Democrats have an opportunity to accomplish something even more important.
They should stop treating corruption as primarily a problem of prosecuting the other party’s politicians and start treating it as a problem of institutional design. I shouldn’t have to prove that Nancy Pelosi engaged in insider trading before arguing that members of Congress and their families shouldn’t be trading individual stocks. I shouldn’t have to prove that Joe Biden personally profited from Hunter Biden’s business dealings before recognizing the danger of politically connected relatives trading on their family names.
And I certainly shouldn't have to wait for Donald Trump to be convicted of a particular crime before recognizing that a president shouldn’t be allowed to profit from private businesses affected by his own administration’s decisions.
There are obvious reforms available. Ban congressional stock trading. (Democrats have a chance for a bipartisan win here, since politicians as far afield as Governor Ron DeSantis of Florida have already called for this.) Require presidents and vice presidents to divest from conflicting business interests. Strengthen financial disclosure requirements. Establish meaningful safeguards against family members using political connections for private enrichment. Then apply them to everybody.
Prosecution is necessary when crimes are committed. But prosecution alone cannot solve corruption. Our system already has laws against bribery and fraud, and we have seen how easily politicians can enrich themselves without violating those laws. Good institutions should be designed to prevent misconduct, not simply punish it afterward.
Finally, on foreign policy, Democrats should reject both the isolationist tendencies of the MAGA movement and the military adventurism that has characterized Trump's second term.
America should stand by its allies. It should maintain the military strength necessary to deter aggression. And when military action is necessary, it should be decisive, directed toward clear objectives, and subject to appropriate congressional oversight.
The Iran war shouldn’t simply become another partisan talking point. It should be an opportunity to restore the constitutional balance between Congress and the presidency over the use of military force.
All of these proposals have something in common: they would place meaningful limits on the exercise of federal power while making the government more competent and accountable.
That’s a pretty good governing agenda, whether you’re a Democrat or a Republican.
The President Still Has a Veto
Of course, there’s one rather significant problem with this plan: Donald Trump is still president.
Even with control of both houses of Congress, Democrats can’t simply order ICE to change its practices or direct the president to abandon his foreign policy. Trump can veto legislation, and Republicans will retain considerable power to obstruct bills in the Senate. Yet Democrats should not simply resign themselves to two years of investigations and political theater.
Imagine that Congress passes a comprehensive immigration reform bill, with genuine border security, serious protections for civil liberties, and a reasonable plan for the people already living here. Suppose the bill attracts bipartisan support. Suppose most Americans look at it and conclude that it’s a sensible compromise, even if it doesn’t contain everything they personally want. And then Donald Trump vetoes it.
What exactly have Democrats lost?
They’ve demonstrated that they have a plan to address a problem Americans have wanted solved for decades. They’ve shown that they’re willing to make compromises and take governing seriously. And they’ve given voters a very clear reason to elect a Democratic president in 2028.
The same could be true of legislation addressing corruption, tariffs, and the powers of the presidency.
Of course, none of this works if Democrats simply write bills designed to embarrass Trump. The proposals have to be serious. They need to address real problems, and they need to be the sort of legislation Democrats would actually be willing to pass under a president of their own party.
It would require something we haven’t seen from either party in recent years: political courage.
They Need to Listen
My 2024 postmortem ended with an argument that Democrats needed to stop blaming the American people for rejecting them.
I think that lesson is just as important today.
Americans weren’t wrong to be angry about inflation in 2024, even when the underlying economic indicators were improving. They weren’t wrong to be concerned about border security. And they weren’t wrong to be skeptical of a Democratic Party that often seemed more interested in progressive ideological battles than in competent government.
In 2026, Americans weren’t wrong to be angry about Trump's tariffs, his foreign adventures, his administration’s approach to immigration enforcement, or the corruption that his allies have been so eager to excuse.
The voters haven’t necessarily changed their principles in two years. They’ve changed which party they believe is failing them.
That should be a sobering lesson to Republicans, who have just suffered the consequences of mistaking an election victory for unlimited public support. It should be an equally important warning to Democrats.
The Democrats have an extraordinary opportunity. They can spend the next two years demonstrating that they’re capable of governing seriously, responsibly, and with respect for the limits of their authority. They can build a record of practical proposals, institutional reform, and a willingness to put the public interest ahead of partisan advantage. Or they can spend the next two years celebrating their victory, pursuing ideological wish lists, and assuring themselves that the American people have finally seen the light.
I know which approach I would prefer.
I want a healthy Democratic Party. I want a healthy Republican Party, too, although I suspect the GOP has a long road ahead of it. Our republic depends on political competition between parties that are capable of exercising power responsibly, respecting constitutional limitations, and accepting the legitimacy of their opponents.
The Democrats have won an election. That’s an important accomplishment, and one they should enjoy. Winning an election, however, doesn’t prove that Americans have embraced everything you believe. It means that, for now, they’ve decided to put their trust in you. The real test starts now: what you do with it.
