The Democrats' victory in Tuesday's elections to the US Congress exceeded most pre-election forecasts in scale. Democrats succeeded even in Texas, where they last won a Senate seat in 1988. The new balance of power in the Senate also gives them a chance of holding their majority beyond 2028.
Most attention on Tuesday was focused on the Senate. Thirty-five of the 100 seats were at stake, so, as every two years, roughly a third of senators were being elected. The Republicans went into the election with a majority of 53 seats but lost at least seven of them. The Democrats will therefore have at least 54 seats and take control of the Senate. The final balance is still being decided in Alaska and Mississippi, where, according to the results so far, the Democratic candidates are narrowly ahead.
Particularly surprising were the Democrats' victories in traditionally Republican states. In the most expensive Senate race in US history, the Democratic candidate James Talarico defeated Attorney General Ken Paxton, who was strongly backed by Trump and Elon Musk. He thus became the first Democrat elected to the Senate for Texas since 1988. In Kansas, where Trump won by 16 per cent two years ago, the pastor Adam Hamilton defeated the sitting senator Roger Marshall. It is the first time since 1932 that a Democratic candidate has won a Senate seat there.
The contest in Michigan was also closely watched. The Democratic candidate Abdul El-Sayed defeated the Republican Mike Rogers by roughly seven percentage points and will become the first muslim senator in US history. He won despite repeated attacks on his faith. Trump, for instance, called him a 'jihadist' during the campaign and claimed that he wanted to introduce Sharia law in the US.
In the House of Representatives, a stronger showing for the Democrats was to be expected. The president's party usually loses ground in midterm elections, with 2002 the only exception. Forecasts did favour the Democrats, but the scale of the victory is surprising. To win a majority, the Democrats needed to take just three previously Republican seats; in the end they took dozens, and they will have their largest majority in the chamber for twenty years. Unlike the Republicans, who had a lead of four seats before the election, the Democrats will have a cushion of several dozen votes in the coming years, and no faction of dissatisfied members will be able to dictate terms to them so easily.
Why did the Republicans lose so heavily? According to Republicans themselves, the defeat is down mainly to the war with Iran. On the day after the election, Vice President JD Vance wrote on X: 'The reason we lost is the war.' He then ironically told the war's supporters to feel free to argue that it was worth losing the Senate for the next six years. Trump called his assessment 'largely true' and blamed higher fuel prices. He continues to defend the war itself, however. 'I did the right thing,' he told The Wall Street Journal.
For Trump, the result means that he will govern for the last two years with an opposition-controlled Congress. No law or budget will pass without the Democrats, and the House will be able to open investigations into his own administration. The Senate also confirms nominees for cabinet posts and judgeships. Trump promises cooperation, but also threatens to use his veto.
Vance's warning of another six years of a Democratic Senate may well be justified. In 2028, 34 seats are up for election, most of them held by Republicans. To win the Senate back, they would have to take at least four seats from the Democrats, even though they will be defending more seats themselves. The seats the Democrats won this year in Texas, Kansas or Iowa will not be contested again until 2032. Republicans could therefore defend the White House in 2028 and still remain in the minority in the Senate. The next president could begin his or her term facing the same obstacles that now await Trump.
Another Monday, another film night – this time with a theme of intelligence services and espionage. On the evening of 2 November, we screened Bridge of Spies, followed, of course, by a discussion with Professor Miroslav Mareš.
Another week has passed, and once again I am reporting from Lille in northern France. Little happened last week because of the academic break, i.e. the school holidays, but on 31 October protests were held again in all the larger French cities. Moreover, the government led by Prime Minister Lecornu has accepted some of the protesters' demands, and the effects that the tear gas used by police to disperse crowds (lacrymogène) can have on women's health are gradually coming to light.
