A few 2026 midterm predictions
by Michael McKenna · The Washington TimesOPINION:
We are about six months away from the midterm elections, and it is way too early to make any coherent predictions.
It is not, however, too early to point out a few trends that give us a general sense of the race, as well as make a few predictions about what might be heading our way in 2027.
It is important to note at the outset that the generic congressional ballot question, “Which party’s candidate(s) are you going to vote for in November?” has been tilting in favor of the Democrats by an average of 5 percentage points or so for about the past six months.
This suggests two things. First, the race may be calcifying earlier than usual. As it stands, despite all the mayhem, chaos, inexcusably destructive and ultimately pointless gerrymandering on both sides and the Supreme Court’s tardiness on the Voting Rights Act, the likely range of outcomes is probably plus six or eight seats for the Republicans to plus 10 or 12 seats for Democrats.
Given that we are in the sixth year of a (now) unpopular president’s term of office, that is a testament to the dysfunctional nature of the Democratic Party. In short, the Democrats are having a difficult time closing the deal with the voters.
I suspect this hesitation among voters is, in large measure, because of the Democrats’ inability to recruit, nominate and run normal candidates. Let’s call it the Vice President Kamala Harris syndrome. Some chunk of voters may not have liked President Trump, but they could not in good conscience cast their ballots for Ms. Harris.
That same calculation is no doubt again being made in households across the nation, as voters try to assess whether they can in good conscience vote for candidates who have Nazi tattoos on their chests, or pal around with people who excuse and rationalize murder and theft or who mainly seem to want to fight the oligarchy (whatever that is).
Better Democratic candidates running on even slightly more centrist policies would have wrapped up this campaign cycle by now. If the Democrats had or could discover three dozen or so normal candidates, then they would run the table. They can’t, so they won’t.
Advertisement Advertisement
The party is so dominated by its cohort of White, college-educated liberals who lean way out to the left on every conceivable issue that it is incapable of doing what is necessary to create a blue wave.
Make no mistake: The Democrats likely will have marginal control of the House in January. Still, that control will be much more attenuated than it otherwise would be if the party were composed of those less interested in — to borrow from President Obama — “fundamentally transforming the United States of America” and more interested in expanding the economy, addressing illegal immigration and avoiding foreign adventurism as much as possible.
Finally, and most important for the republic, it probably doesn’t really matter all that much which party has control (however marginal) of the House or the Senate. Congress ceded most of its authority to the executive a long time ago, and the executive (especially this one) has no intention of returning any of it.
Many, if not most, members are now content to be social media influencers rather than exert any real influence through their day jobs.
Last week, the king of England arrived and addressed the assembled Congress. At the speech, the “representatives” of the American people kept interrupting the remarks with applause. No doubt it was professional courtesy; members of Congress who now occupy positions that are mostly ceremonial were applauding a “king” whose role is also now mostly ceremonial.
Advertisement Advertisement
The good news is that unless you are one of those being investigated, overseen or impeached, it probably won’t matter much to you who has the majority in Congress.
For most Americans, it will make little difference who controls Congress. The members’ inability to escape their now mostly ceremonial role precludes them from doing too much damage to the republic. For that, we should be grateful.
• Michael McKenna is a contributing editor at The Washington Times.