dialogue

WASHINGTON — Democratic upsets in this year’s midterms, which stretched from the suburbs of Atlanta to rural Kansas, could reshape the electoral map that governs presidential politics — and, with it, the calculus for each party in the fight for the nation’s top office in 2028.

Democrats were already cautioning against overconfidence, discussing how to translate their midterm success into more lasting power and to draw back Tuesday’s voters in 2028.

For Republicans, the defeat set off something close to an existential crisis, with would-be contenders for the party’s presidential nomination openly debating what had gone wrong and how the party should regroup after voters rebuked President Trump’s agenda.

And members of both parties were taking stock of the deep reach Democrats demonstrated Tuesday, with Senate, House and state legislative seats flipped in red strongholds that have not been up for grabs in a presidential race in years.

The midterm results have “enlarged the competitive map” for 2028, said Alex Keyssar, a professor at the Harvard Kennedy School, who has written books about voting rights and the electoral college. States such as Texas and Georgia may no longer be considered long-safe GOP territory, he said, leaving Republicans with fewer states they can count on and more ground they will have to spend money to defend.

“The number of states that the Republicans can feel secure that they have has diminished,” he said. “And the flip side of that is that there are more states that the Democrats can compete in. And that’s a shift.”

Presidential hopefuls typically begin putting together exploratory committees soon after the midterms, announce their candidacies after the new year and begin fundraising by midyear. Potential candidates began putting down markers swiftly this week.

On Thursday, allies of Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Fremont) launched a fundraising committee for his potential candidacy. Gov. Gavin Newsom, who is considering a run, commuted the death sentences of all California’s death row prisoners. Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker this week released a road map with recommendations for the new Congress.

And party leaders in Washington were nodding to 2028 as they outlined broad plans for their House and Senate majorities.

“As we look to 2028 and beyond, we need to start identifying now, in 2027, to solidify our position in the states we won and build our party infrastructure in those areas,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer told an audience Wednesday at the think tank Center for American Progress, “and continue to expand the map into new states.”

Meanwhile, Republican leaders moved swiftly to assert authority within their party with analyses and prescriptions after Tuesday’s battering. Vice President JD Vance, long seen as a potential Trump heir, on Wednesday rushed to blame the sweeping losses on the president’s war in Iran.

Sen. Ted Cruz, whose state of Texas saw a historic blue wave, faulted his party for ignoring the economic pain many voters face. And Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida, one of the few states where Republicans held the line, called the midterms an “extinction level event for Republicans” that will last beyond 2028.

“Once you have the [midterm] election results, that’s when like the real literal politicking begins, and you have to move quick,” said Matt Gorman, a Republican strategist who worked for the National Republican Congressional Committee and the presidential campaigns of Jeb Bush and Mitt Romney.

For the GOP, Tuesday’s results will mean spending more money in places such as Texas that the party has traditionally counted on to get their candidates to 270 electoral votes, Keyssar said.

“When the map shifts, the strategies have to shift, and that includes the allocation of money,” he said.

For Democrats, the midterms demonstrated that the party should be “investing heavily in the coastal South,” said Keneshia Grant, a Howard University political scientist. The party needs to “recognize the moment and meet it,” she said, pointing to the unexpectedly close Senate races in Florida and Mississippi.

“If you’re the Democratic Party at the national level, you now have to ask yourself different questions about the calculus,” Grant said.

It is generally difficult to predict the next presidential election outcome based on the results of the preceding midterms, said Justin Grimmer, a political scientist at Stanford University.

“Right now there’s this incentive or dream of Democrats to think, like, ‘Well, what if this were 2028? Then it’s a landslide.’ And then Republicans are fearful that if this map were to carry forward, that they would get ransacked in ‘28,” Grimmer said.

But “it’s hard to know what the major issues are gonna be in 2028, who the candidates are, and what sort of world we’ll be in.”

‘No silver lining’

President Trump has so far declined to endorse a successor, saying it is “too early” to make the call, though he has praised both Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio.

“We’ll see what happens,” Trump said Wednesday. “You can have maybe a lot of people running, maybe nobody is going to run. … I don’t know who is going to run.”

Trump cast doubt on whether Vance would eventually run. But Vance appeared to be signaling 2028 aspiration with a post that pinned the GOP defeats on the Iran conflict launched by Trump this year.

The scale of the midterm losses may be the most useful thing for Republicans moving toward 2028, Gorman argued.

“The silver lining is that there’s no silver lining,” Gorman said.

That’s because there is nothing to cling to. “It’s a bottoming-out,” he said, which frees the party to begin “rebuilding conversations.”

The larger danger for whoever leads the party next is assuming that Trump’s voters come with the nomination, he argued, saying the 2028 nominee will have to create their own voter coalition. The same applies to Democrats, Gorman said, pointing to Latino voters who swung toward Trump in 2024 and back toward Democrats this year.

Such groups of swing voters, said California Republican consultant Mike Madrid, care about economic and quality-of-life-issues, not culture-war and partisan issues.

Madrid said that if he were advising a 2028 presidential contender, he would tell them, “Quit talking about these differences, or at least set these differences in the construct of a class-based, top down model — not a right left model.”

Time to ‘deliver’

With Democrats set for a wide-open presidential primary with a large array of candidates, the sweeping success on Tuesday of the party’s populist platform could influence how 2028 contenders run their campaigns.

Democratic leaders in Congress have said they intend to make affordability a centerpiece of their legislative agenda as soon as they take control of both chambers next year. But any measure will still need Trump’s signature, setting up an early test of whether Democrats can hand voters tangible results before 2028 — or end up with a stack of vetoes to campaign on instead.

“We have won immense amounts of political power, and now it’s the most important time in which to deliver,” Rep. Maxwell Frost (D-Fla.) told reporters Wednesday, “so we can keep that political power.”

Now that voters expect Democrats to clean up the nation’s problems in the next session, the party has to ensure that is “backed up by real results” — something anyone who is preparing a 2028 run will need to have in mind, strategist Rob Flaherty said at the Center for American Progress event Thursday.

“That is a huge thing that whoever we nominate has to be thinking about: quick delivery, quick change that people can substantively feel in their lives,” Flaherty said.

Sen. Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.), who has not ruled out a presidential run, told reporters Thursday that some states may now be more “swing-ish” and that the Democrats will need to “take in” and analyze Tuesday’s data.

But, he said, voters’ top issues will remain the same.

“The candidates … that can answer those things authentically and well for the voter,” he said, are “going to be the more successful” ones.

North Korea has said it plans to resume broadcasting anti-South Korea propaganda along the armed border between the two countries, as Seoul urged Pyongyang to discuss easing tensions.

Kim Yo Jong, a senior North Korean official and the sister of leader Kim Jong Un, said on Wednesday that North Korea will place loudspeakers along the entire border, following a visit with top military officials to fortifications along the contested frontier.

Kim warned Seoul of “the most horrible and distressing situation” if South Korea continued what Pyongyang calls interference in the North’s internal affairs.

She added in a follow-up statement on Thursday that North Korea would place “new counter means” on alert along the border, without elaborating, and have its loudspeakers on “standby” within days.

A landmine blast last month that wounded three South Korean soldiers in the Demilitarized Zone (DMZ) between the two countries has ratcheted up tensions. Seoul accused North Korean troops of deliberately laying mines in the border zone as part of the North’s fortification work.

Kim had denied the allegation, calling the incident a South Korean fabrication. She said North Korean tactical units had taken up new positions, and accused South Korean troops of conducting warning broadcasts and firing warning shots at multiple locations near the border.

Seoul said the warning shots were fired as “legitimate and defensive measures”.

North Korea has been adding mines, barbed wire fences, anti-tank barriers and other fortifications to what is already one of the world’s most heavily armed borders.

South Korea’s Ministry of National Defence urged North Korea on Thursday to discuss measures to ease tension at the border and prevent any accidental military clash, its spokesperson said.

Pyongyang had cut off a military hotline with the South after declaring it would no longer seek dialogue or unification with what it called its “foe”.

Loudspeaker propaganda

Both North and South Korea have historically used loudspeakers to broadcast propaganda across the border, with South Korean broadcasts featuring K-pop music and news that have long irked Pyongyang and prompted tit-for-tat responses.

The two Koreas are separated by the DMZ, established after the 1950-53 Korean War ended in an armistice.

North Korea has been reinforcing its side of the DMZ with mines, barriers and fencing since 2024 as it seeks to establish what it calls a permanent border with South Korea.

More than three years into the war between the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), Sudan is desperately in need of a political settlement. The fighting has caused immense suffering, and a military solution alone cannot rebuild the state or reunify its fractured society. Under such circumstances, any effort aimed at encouraging Sudanese-Sudanese dialogue deserves serious consideration rather than outright rejection.

In August, a self-appointed committee of 19 Sudanese public figures, chaired by Ahfad University President Qasim Badri, launched an initiative to prepare the ground for national dialogue inside Sudan. Its members had earlier met SAF chief General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan and called for legal restrictions on opposition politicians to be lifted. The authorities subsequently issued a decree to drop certain politically motivated charges against Sudanese abroad returning for dialogue and grant participants temporary legal protections. These are limited but important confidence-building measures.

The initiative has nevertheless faced strong opposition. The civilian coalition Sumoud, led by former Prime Minister Abdalla Hamdok, and Ta’sis, an alliance that includes the RSF, have opposed the proposed internal dialogue. They question its independence and warn that holding talks in army-controlled areas could legitimise al-Burhan’s authority and entrench the country’s divisions. These concerns are legitimate and deserve serious attention. But the committee says it is not seeking to negotiate Sudan’s future or determine the agenda of a national dialogue. Its role is to help create the conditions for Sudanese political actors to engage one another directly. The question is whether it can fulfil that role without allowing one side of the conflict to dominate the process. Dismissing the initiative before it has had an opportunity to demonstrate its value would be premature.

The country’s political actors and civil society organisations remain deeply divided, previous mediation efforts have faltered, and the war continues to make comprehensive political engagement increasingly difficult. The committee’s initiative is an attempt to break the deadlock. Efforts to prepare for political dialogue should not be postponed until the fighting stops. Securing a ceasefire and ensuring humanitarian access are urgent priorities, but preparations for political dialogue can proceed alongside efforts to achieve them.

The committee’s members were not elected, and they do not represent every political constituency. Yet the committee’s legitimacy cannot be judged solely by how it was created. It must also be judged by whether it can help bring a broader range of political actors into a national dialogue.

Good intentions alone cannot resolve concerns about credibility. Political dialogue can succeed only if participants believe the process is fair and independent. The legitimacy required to facilitate a political opening is not necessarily the same as that required to negotiate a national settlement. But even a preparatory initiative must earn the trust of those it seeks to bring together.

The committee’s meeting with al-Burhan was a practical necessity. As army chief and head of the Sovereignty Council, he was in a position to respond to the committee’s demands for legal protections. Engaging with al-Burhan does not in itself amount to an endorsement of his authority. But if the initiative becomes too closely associated with the army, other political actors may view it as an extension of al-Burhan’s political agenda rather than an independent facilitator. The committee must therefore demonstrate that its engagement extends beyond the military authorities and that it is prepared to work with political forces that oppose them.

The initiative was launched in Khartoum, which is under army control. This raises a genuine concern about whether a process beginning in territory controlled by one side of the war can attract the confidence of political forces across the country. A national dialogue cannot be confined to one geographical or political constituency. Entire regions have experienced different realities of war, governance, displacement and insecurity. The committee must find ways to reach those living outside army-controlled areas, including Sudanese displaced by the fighting, and ensure they can participate freely and without intimidation.

Sumoud and Ta’sis’s decision to reject the initiative does not automatically invalidate the process. Their concerns deserve consideration, but outright rejection at this early stage risks closing off an opportunity for political engagement. At the same time, their absence matters. Sudan’s crisis is too deep and complex to be addressed by any single political current. The committee cannot expect every stakeholder to endorse its initiative immediately, but it must create conditions that persuade reluctant actors to participate. If it fails to do so, the initiative itself will have failed.

The African Union Commission and the Arab League have also welcomed the initiative, providing an important measure of regional support. Their endorsement lends weight to the effort to revive Sudanese-led political dialogue, although external backing cannot substitute for the confidence of Sudan’s own political forces.

The committee’s initiative should therefore be judged without excessive optimism or automatic suspicion. The legal measures announced following its engagement with al-Burhan are an encouraging first step, but the real test lies ahead. Does it help remove legal and political obstacles facing opposition actors in practice, not just on paper? Can it win the confidence of those who have rejected it? Can it ensure that Sudanese across the country’s political and geographical divides have an opportunity to participate freely?

What is clear, however, is that Sudan’s crisis will ultimately require Sudanese actors with profoundly different visions of the country’s future to sit together and engage one another politically. No committee can do that on their behalf. No external actor can do it for them. At best, a preparatory initiative can help create the conditions under which such engagement becomes possible. The concerns raised by its critics should not be dismissed, but neither should they be grounds for rejecting the initiative before it has had an opportunity to address them. Those who have rejected it should remain open to reconsidering their position if the committee demonstrates that it can build an independent and inclusive process. If it succeeds, it will have rendered an important national service.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial stance.

Caracas, October 12, 2026 (venezuelanalysis.com) – US Secretary of State Marco Rubio hosted Venezuelan opposition lead negotiator Dinorah Figuera on Friday at the State Department in Washington, DC, to express support for ongoing dialogue with the Venezuelan government.

“This is the best opportunity Venezuela has had in almost a generation,” Rubio told reporters, adding that the talks headed by Figuera are “a difficult process” but enjoy “100 percent support from the highest levels” of Donald Trump’s administration.

Rubio stressed that Washington’s goal goes beyond holding elections. “Our desire is not simply for Venezuela to have an election, but also to have a democracy with the institutions necessary to sustain long-term stability, prosperity, and freedom.” The Trump official has insisted on a three-phase plan culminating in a “political transition.”

For her part, Figuera, the president of the defunct 2015 Venezuelan National Assembly, praised the United States for opening a “path of hope for Venezuela” on January 3, when US forces bombed Caracas and abducted President Nicolás Maduro.

“We are committed to restoring the institutional framework of the public powers, the Supreme Court of Justice (TSJ), and the National Electoral Council (CNE). We want to bring the country toward a process that guarantees political and civil rights and creates space for reunion and reconciliation,” she said.

The opposition leader also thanked Washington for its investments in the oil sector. “The restoration of institutions and the country’s economic progress will be two fundamental pillars for building institutions and democracy,” she added. Despite its term running out in January 2021, the opposition majority parliament elected in 2015 retained US “recognition” as Venezuela’s legitimate authority.

Both officials announced that the next round of talks is scheduled to begin on October 14. Rubio explicitly called for opposition unity: “We ask all elements of the opposition, and all sectors of society, to participate in and support this process.”

Neither Rubio nor Figuera fielded questions from reporters as they left the room, including about opposition leader María Corina Machado, who continues to insist that presidential elections must be held “as soon as possible.”

This was the first time Rubio received Figuera in Washington. Since August, she has led an opposition bloc engaged in dialogue with the acting government headed by Delcy Rodríguez, a process promoted by the United States in which the far-right Machado is not participating.

So far, government and opposition delegations have completed two rounds of negotiations in Caracas. Rubio claimed that the talks thus far have resulted in the release of hundreds of people allegedly detained for political reasons, the unblocking of several pro-opposition news websites, and progress toward amending the 2017 Law Against Hatred. The agenda for this third round includes continuing the process to renew the Supreme Court.

In this regard, opposition delegation member Juan Miguel Matheus said his team is “working to ensure that the members of the Judicial Nominations Committee are appointed and sworn in by October 15.” The committee will be responsible for evaluating candidates for the 32 Supreme Court justice positions.

Following an amendment to the Organic Law of the Supreme Court of Justice negotiated at the dialogue table, it was agreed that the Judicial Nominations Committee would have a majority of 12 civil society representatives, compared with 11 lawmakers. A total of 127 citizens applied to join the body.

Once the committee has been appointed, the process of receiving applications from candidates for the Supreme Court will begin. “We invite the best men and women in Venezuelan law to apply for positions in the TSJ’s six chambers. Venezuela needs independent, competent justices of recognized integrity,” Matheus stressed.

While some opposition sectors are demanding that a date be set for presidential elections, the delegation participating in the negotiations argues that progress in transforming the justice system is a necessary prior step.

In his press statement, Rubio added that future rounds of discussions “will address reform of the National Electoral Council.”

The Venezuelan government’s delegation has not commented on the Trump administration’s express backing for the opposition negotiators. 

The two sides agreed to demand the release of 31 tonnes of gold held by the Bank of England since 2019 to address post-earthquake reconstruction needs. The gold, worth more than US $4 billion, will reportedly be moved to the New York Federal Reserve, with its spending subject to US approval and international auditing.

Edited by Ricardo Vaz in Caracas.