midterms

It has been more than a week since voters in the United States cast ballots in the midterm elections.

But the size of Democrats’ majorities in the House of Representatives and Senate remained undetermined. More than a dozen congressional races are still waiting to be called.

Democrats have already won 54 Senate seats in the incoming Congress in January, but they could pick up one or two more as votes are counted in Alaska and Mississippi.

Meanwhile, in the House of Representatives, Democrats have notched their largest elected majority since 2008, with 255 seats in the 435-member chamber. But they have the potential to add to their lead with several more seats as the remaining races are decided.

Here’s a look at where things stand in some of the uncalled races:

Mississippi’s Senate seat remains too early to call

Late on Tuesday, Democrat Scott Colom was about 2,600 votes ahead of Republican incumbent Cindy Hyde-Smith in the race for the US Senate in Mississippi.

There are two key deadlines in the vote-counting process in Mississippi this week: Mail-in absentee ballots must be received by Tuesday, and counties are required to submit their certified election results — including tallies of provisional ballots — to the state by Friday.

It is unclear exactly how many ballots are left to count.

Unlike in some other states, there is no central vote reporting system for Mississippi, and few counties release election results online. Instead, journalists from The Associated Press and analysts communicate with each of the state’s 82 counties directly for the latest available information on vote counts.

The state will certify its results on December 3.

On Monday, Mississippi Secretary of State Michael Watson said about 14,200 provisional ballots had been processed, of which about 80 percent were accepted, and about 2,700 mail-in absentee ballots had not yet been returned.

Mississippi does not have automatic recounts or permit candidates to request a recount. Recounts in the state are held only in the event of a court order. The Associated Press may declare a winner in a race that is eligible for a recount if it can determine the lead is too large for a recount or legal challenge to change the outcome.

The vote count is ongoing in Alaska’s Senate race

Democrat Mary Peltola led Republican Senator Dan Sullivan by about 2,500 votes in Alaska’s US Senate race as of Tuesday, with an estimated 76 percent of the vote counted.

Absentee ballots are among those that continue to be counted. The final absentee ballots mailed from outside the US are accepted as late as November 18, which is 15 days after Election Day.

Ranked-choice voting could also affect the timeline. Peltola is just over one percentage point short of the majority needed to win outright. If neither candidate wins a majority, the race will proceed to ranked-choice tabulation on November 18.

The state’s “target date” for certifying the election results is November 25.

Recounts in Alaska are automatic only in the event of a tie vote. Candidates may also request a recount within five days of the state’s certification.

A dozen House races are still up in the air

In most of the US House races that have not been called, the margin between the leading candidates was less than one percentage point among votes counted, as of late Tuesday afternoon.

In North Carolina, four races remain undecided, the most of any state, and Republican incumbents were being challenged in each one. There are no automatic recounts in North Carolina, but candidates may request a recount if the margin between candidates is one percent or less of the total votes.

The state must receive the recount request by noon Eastern Time (17:00 GMT) on November 17, two business days after the county canvass in the state. The state is scheduled to certify its results on November 24.

In California, only one of the remaining House races, in the 23rd District, will affect the chamber’s balance of power. The other uncalled race is between two Democrats. Mail-in ballots must be received by Tuesday, and counties must certify their results by December 3. The state will certify its results on December 11.

In South Carolina’s 2nd District, a recount is ongoing in the race between Republican incumbent Joe Wilson and Democrat Zyon Khalifa. Wilson led Khalifa by only about 3,000 votes in the original tally by late Tuesday afternoon, when 99 percent of the votes had been counted.

In Minnesota’s 1st District, the race was still undecided late by Tuesday, with about 300 votes separating the top two candidates and an estimated 99 percent of votes counted. Recounts are not automatic in Minnesota, but a candidate can request a publicly funded recount if the margin between the winning and losing candidates is less than 0.25 percent of the vote.

In Tennessee’s 4th District, about 300 votes lay between Democrat Victoria Broderick and Republican incumbent Scott DesJarlais as of Tuesday. In that state, recounts are held only as part of a legal challenge in the courts. There are no automatic recounts, and losing candidates may not request recounts.

Two governorships remain undecided

In the race to be Kansas’s next governor, Democratic state Senator Cindy Holscher led state Republican Senate President Ty Masterson by less than one percentage point on Tuesday.

On November 4, the state announced that a close-race audit had been triggered in six close Kansas races, including the gubernatorial race.

That process requires a hand count of selected ballots, and it must be completed before November 16, the day by which counties must certify their results.

In the race for governor of Alaska, only about 76 percent of votes were estimated to have been counted by Tuesday.

The Democratic gubernatorial candidate, Jonathan Kreiss‑Tomkins, was leading Bernadette Wilson by about 45,000 votes, 49.6 percent to 28.9 percent. The race will advance to ranked-choice tabulation if no candidate receives more than 50 percent of the vote.

The midterms are over, and Democrats have scored a decisive victory, exceeding even their most optimistic expectations. But does this result signal a country turning blue – or a country simply fed up with the status quo? And how much of this was a rejection of a system, rather than an endorsement of the Democratic Party?

Josh Rushing is joined by Emma Vigeland, cohost of The Majority Report, and Olivia Troye, who served as a national security adviser to former Vice President Mike Pence, to unpack the results and what they reveal about the state of American politics.

Contributors:
Emma Vigeland – Cohost, The Majority Report
Olivia Troye – Former national security adviser to Mike Pence

Democrats’ midterm sweep is poised to give scientists, disaster officials and weather forecasters new allies in Washington after nearly two years of upheaval under President Trump.

For the weather and climate world, which has flipped between grief and rage over Trump’s science policies, the results reopen fights over funding, staffing and federal oversight. Democratic control of Congress beginning in January will give lawmakers greater power over federal spending and oversight, setting up new fights over science funding, the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the National Weather Service.

The political shift hit close to home at a Vaisala Xweather conference in South Carolina, where physician Annie Andrews had just won a Senate seat.

“We can be optimistic,” meteorologist Jeff Freedman, who leads a University at Albany renewable energy lab, said during the conference’s cocktail hour. He added: “Hey — you can say ‘climate change’ again!”

The most immediate fight is likely to be over money, especially for scientific research. Trump’s attempts to slash funding for climate-change research have had a big effect on science labs in the U.S., which have stalled hiring for postdoctoral researchers and other personnel as they scramble to find new grants.

Experts say Democratic majorities in the House and Senate are likely to zero in on the National Science Foundation. The NSF has long supported basic science research that the private sector can build on. Trump has tried to cut NSF budgets, shrink its staff and redirect resources to American researchers, versus scientists from outside the U.S.

Freedman said grantmaking has slowed dramatically, but Congress still has “the power of the purse” and oversight powers that lawmakers can use to push for changes.

Democratic control will also give lawmakers more power to investigate how the administration has handled disasters and federal agencies.

Expect far more scrutiny of FEMA, including hearings and demands for information from lawmakers representing disaster-stricken districts, according to former FEMA Deputy Administrator for Resilience Daniel Kaniewski, who served during Trump’s first term.

Under federal law, the president ultimately decides whether to unlock FEMA recovery funds after a disaster strikes. Trump has denied requests from blue-state governors. Lawmakers who opposed FEMA job cuts, program cancellations and proposals to dismantle the agency will have far more leverage once Democrats take control of Congress in January.

“I would argue that it would be incumbent upon members of Congress to question a decision like a disaster not being declared in their district,” Kaniewski said, but Trump won’t be legally obligated to provide an answer.

Despite new oversight, the Trump administration may choose to press ahead with big restructuring plans that were already in the works. Staff from the National Park Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service were expected to meet this week to discuss a “realignment” effort, according to the Washington Post.

At the National Weather Service, attention is likely to turn to staffing and funding after two years of cuts and departures.

The weather service has bipartisan support in Congress. But Ronald Morales, a former agency meteorologist in Charleston, S.C., said its budget of $1.46 billion barely kept pace with inflation during his 33-year career, which ended in the last winter.

Hundreds of weather service employees left in 2025 through layoffs, retirements and exit incentives aimed at shrinking the federal workforce. The losses ran so deep that the agency later began hiring again to rebuild depleted offices. Budgets remain severely squeezed.

With Democrats leading Congress, the weather service is more likely to get a cash infusion. “We are very much a political animal,” Morales said last week. “We shouldn’t be, but we are.”

Rosenthal writes for Bloomberg.

On Tuesday, the United States held midterm elections. Every one of the 435 seats in the US House of Representatives was up for election and 35 of the 100 US Senate seats were on the ballot.

The result of the elections was overwhelmingly in favour of the Democratic Party, or the blue team, as the US media has taken to referring to them. It was a blue wave. A blue tsunami. Democrats flipped at least 40 House seats and seven Senate seats. It was a clear message to Washington that much of the US is unhappy with the direction the country is headed.

Texas had not elected a Democrat in a statewide race for more than 30 years. Democrats dominated in Texas. Kansas hadn’t sent a Democrat to the Senate since 1932. Come the first week of January, there will be one representing it. Susan Collins, the powerful Republican chair of the Senate Committee on Appropriations and the most bipartisan voting Republican in the US Senate had been Maine’s senator for 30 years. She was voted out. The depth and breadth of the Democratic victory stunned many.

The war with Iran clearly had an impact. It wasn’t the conflict itself nearly as much as the economic impact it has had on the average American. Virtually every American uses an automobile and the price of petrol has skyrocketed during the war. The high fuel prices have impacted every other segment of the economy because nearly every product, especially food and grocery items, is delivered using the roadway system, which, of course, means petrol and diesel prices add to their cost.

The Democrats taking control of both the House and the Senate will dramatically change the next two years in Washington. They will restore the oversight functions of Congress and will investigate Trump and his team for countless violations, real or imagined. Congressional priorities will change. Impeachment will be a word that is commonly used again. If a vacancy occurs on the Supreme Court, the president will have a much more difficult time filling it. The impact of the elections is very real.

Is it historic though? In a word, no.

Losing seats to the opposition party is actually quite common in the midterms. Dozens of House races are still being counted, so the final tally may yet grow, but since World War II there have been at least seven midterm elections with seat losses comparable to or larger than what the Republicans have experienced so far in 2026: 1946, 1958, 1966, 1974, 1994, 2010 and 2018 when President Donald Trump’s party lost about 40 House seats in his first midterm.

The largest midterm loss belongs to President Barack Obama’s party in 2010. The Democrats lost 63 House seats and six seats in the Senate. The Democrats would then lose nine seats in the US Senate in the midterm elections held during Obama’s second term.

The Democrats under President Bill Clinton also took a beating in 1994 when the opposition Republicans gained 54 seats in the House, taking a majority for the first time in a generation, and flipping eight seats in the Senate.

The pundits at the time wondered aloud if it was the end of the Democratic Party. The losses were staggering. Both presidents, however, went on to govern effectively and find ways to work with the opposition. In fact, Clinton worked with the Republican Congress to pass the first balanced budget in memory. In that case, the split in government forced them to work together and produced a benefit to the American people.

None of this is new. President Harry Truman’s Democrats lost 55 House seats and 12 Senate seats in 1946. President Dwight Eisenhower’s Republicans took it on the chin in 1958, losing 48 House seats and 13 Senate seats. Presidents Lyndon Johnson, Gerald Ford and George HW Bush all took big losses. Even Ronald Reagan lost 26 House seats in his first midterm elections.

The point is the American public has always demanded accountability from Washington. No one should be surprised that at a time when only 14 percent of Americans think Congress is doing a good job and the prices for basic necessities are increasing, Americans demand change. They have done it over and over, regardless of the party in power.

The next logical question is where do we go from here? Is Trump’s reign as leader of the GOP over? Has he lost his influence?

There will not be a great deal of time spent trying to decipher what went wrong. Both Trump and Vice President JD Vance have already acknowledged the war in Iran and its economic effects are the primary reasons for the loss. This acknowledgement will hasten the healing process within the party, as will the need to push through a number of agenda items together in the remaining weeks the Republicans have control of Congress.

Because the US Constitution limits a president to two terms, any time any president enters his final two years, he is known as a lame duck. His influence, while still enormous simply by the reality of the office, begins to wane. The closer it gets to the end of his final term the less influence he has, particularly on the domestic agenda. Many presidents spend the majority of their time near the end of their term on foreign policy.

As of January 3, Democrats will set the agenda on Capitol Hill. They will control every committee. They will control virtually every vote. Congress controls the purse strings, so their impact is large, but don’t count Trump out yet.

His personality and his outward embrace of even the most difficult conflicts are unique. Whether in business, in election wins and losses, in courtroom clashes or in international affairs, Trump doesn’t back down. Admittedly this sometimes works to his detriment, but it is a trait that will likely serve him well as he battles with a Democratic-controlled Congress.

The president has veto authority over any legislation Congress passes. Rather than sign the legislation, he can reject it. If he rejects it, two-thirds of both the House and the Senate must vote to override his veto or else the legislation does not become law.

If Trump feels the Democrats are pushing an agenda too radical or too far left, he will wield the veto pen with great regularity.

Ideally the two sides understand the power each holds, and they will work together, as did a Republican-dominated Congress and Democratic President Clinton. If they do work together, all Americans will benefit. If each side digs in and refuses to compromise, it will be a long, unproductive two years.

Speaking of two years, 2028 is the next presidential election, and the question of who will be the nominee for each party is already being kicked around – and, in particular, how these midterm elections will impact the potential Republican candidates like Vance or Secretary of State Marco Rubio.

The stark reality is that two years is an eternity in politics. Anything can happen, despite the Republican defeat on Tuesday. The biggest question is whether the American public will be feeling “Trump fatigue” during the 2028 presidential election season.

If the public has grown weary of team Trump, anyone affiliated with his administration may be tainted goods and face a bigger challenge getting the party’s nomination. Vance, Rubio and others directly tied to him have the greatest name recognition right now, but that may prove to be baggage rather than an advantage.

Outsiders such as a state governor or a past political figure may generate public enthusiasm for a different direction. The list is long. Even Trump has said his party has a deep bench, and it’s true.

Trying to predict the 2028 nominee now, in such a volatile political time and with two years to go, while entertaining, is a fool’s errand.

Some in the media have begun to write the Republican Party’s obituary after Tuesday’s losses. The final numbers are not yet in, and in the Senate, the seven seats already lost exceed the six Obama’s party gave up in 2010.

Still, history shows that parties and presidents have come back from setbacks of this scale before, as Obama and Clinton both did. Trump and the Republicans can do the same.

A version of this piece was first published by Al Jazeera Arabic.

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

The “blue tsunami” in the 2026 midterm elections flipped control of both the House and the Senate last week, bringing a wave of Democrats, some with backgrounds in the arts.

The influx of newly elected officials — artists, musicians, dancers and even a former Prada model among them — comes just weeks before Congress will take another look at the Trump administration’s proposed 2027 budget, which requests $1.5 trillion in defense spending and, once again, seeks to nix funding for the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities, as well as the Institute of Museum and Library Services.

Last year, Congress intervened against some of the arts cuts, but that didn’t stop the administration from terminating hundreds of NEA grants worth more than $27 million nationwide.

Next year’s massive reconfiguration of power, however, brings with it a number of elected officials with creative backgrounds, some of whom even incorporated music, dance and art into their campaigns and promises to constituents.

U.S. Representative-elect Claire Valdez, says art is the first language she knew. “It is a language that crosses all kinds of divides and gives voice to something that is otherwise inexpressible and has tremendous power to change,” she said. “I think that transformation is needed now more than ever.”

Here’s a look at some of the elected officials who have a little razzle-dazzle on their resumes.

Iowa Governor-elect Rob Sand

Then-model Rob Sand walks the runway in the Prada menswear spring 2003 ready to wear runway show in Milan, Italy.

(Davide Maestri / Penske Media via Getty Images)

It’s been 20 years since Iowa chose a Democrat to govern the state, but Iowans just elected a former Prada model to strut into office next year. The New York Times profiled Sand in 2019, noting that the Brown University and University of Iowa College of Law graduate doesn’t like to talk about his days modeling in Paris and Milan. Back then, he worked his way through college and ultimately earned a J.D. degree.

The cat’s out of the bag, though, and Sand seems to have surrendered to the social media attention and even leaned in. “I’m disappointed to learn images of me modeling for Prada are circulating,” he wrote alongside a grayscale fashion editorial. “Because this shot from Italian Vogue is much better.” He also launched a “My Model Governor” tee, featuring a chic twenty-something Sand showing off his sought-after bone structure.

It’s been about two decades since Sand, repped by IMG Models at the time, graced the catwalk for Giuliano Fujiwara and other high fashion designers. After college, he traded the runway for a courtroom, and in 2018, was elected state auditor as a Democrat, serving two terms. The now 44-year-old governor-elect appealed to Iowan voters using a campaign centered on public education, affordable living, anti-corruption and bipartisanship. His campaign slogan is: “Not redder or bluer, but better and truer.” He’s a Jesus-loving hunting enthusiast whose first job was catching chickens, and he insists that he’s more interested in public service than two-party politics.

Texas’ new Attorney General-elect Nathan Johnson

Texas state Sen. Nathan Johnson speaks against a bill that would add new abortion restrictions in Austin, Texas.

(Eric Gay / Associated Press)

From the top of the ballot to the bottom, Republicans lost their long-held grip on Texas last week. Democrat Nathan Johnson was elected Texas attorney general, an office held by Republicans for 28 years. This isn’t the first time Johnson flipped Texas either. Back in 2018, he was elected to the Texas state Senate, and while he’s impressed Texans with promises to root out corruption, restore traditional consumer protection and shift away from the high-profile culture wars of prior officeholders, he claims glory for something else:

“In the 2000s, I wrote the musical scores wall-to-wall of 67 episodes of ‘Dragon Ball Z’ and five of the movies,” he told Texas Sen. Taylor Rehmet in a video posted to Facebook. “It was a lot of fun … And even then, it got me street cred with my kids’ friends, and it gave me a creative outlet and a cultural connection that very few people had the opportunity to have.”

The Texas Attorney General-elect worked on “Dragon Ball Z: The World’s Strongest,” “Dragon Ball Z: The Tree of Might,” “Dragon Ball Z: Broly — Second Coming,” “Dragon Ball Z: Fusion Reborn” and “Dragon Ball Z: Wrath of the Dragon.” He also ran a music production company and composed classical stage music.

Speaking to Texas Standard after the midterm results were in, Johnson chalked up the blue wave to a “national revolt against meanness, against hateful speech and divisiveness.”

“People indulge in those sorts of things when everything else is feeling great,” he said. “But at a time when corruption is confronting us in the face and people are super anxious about their economic future, there was a whole-scale rejection of Republican leadership.”

U.S. Representative-elect Bobby Pulido

Bobby Pulido, a Latin Grammy winner, sings during his last concert, La Última Desvelada, at the Bert Ogden Arena.

(Gabriel V. Cardenas/For The Times)

Another Democrat elected in the Lone Star state is the Latin Grammy-winning Tejano music star Bobby Pulido, who will represent Texas’ 15th Congressional District. Pulido said he’s willing to trade his three-decade stage career and take a hefty pay cut to step into public service. He won 62% of the total vote of Texans across the Rio Grande Valley and central Texas on a platform of affordability, healthcare access, immigration reform and reconnecting with working-class Latino voters.

“I give you my word tonight that I will never forget where I came from,” Pulido recently said during an Oct. concert, “La Última Desvelada” (The Last Restless Night), in his hometown of Edinburg, Texas, per TejanoNation. “I did music for me, but I’m running for Congress for you … Because I’m not going to Washington to serve a political party, I’m going to serve you.”

Pulido defeated Republican incumbent Monica De La Cruz, who took jabs at his showbiz background during her campaign. “This election isn’t about who you want performing at your niece’s quinceañera,” she said earlier this year, according to the Texas Tribune.

The Tejano star responded by performing at quinceañeras across the congressional district, which only boosted his popularity in the region. “In south Texas, a quinceañera isn’t just a pachanga. It’s a rite of passage that brings family and neighbors together,” said Pulido in a TikTok clip in March. “And honestly, that’s exactly what this campaign is about. We want to bring people together, not tear them apart.”

U.S. Representative-elect Claire Valdez

Congressional candidate Claire Valdez won her race against Brooklyn borough President Antonio Reynoso in the New York 7th District to succeed retiring Rep. Nydia Velazquez (D-N.Y.).

(Michael M. Santiago / Getty Images)

Valdez, a visual artist and union organizer, was elected to represent New York’s 7th Congressional District with a campaign message that espoused the need for artists to “change our political, our economic, and our social order.” Valdez’s political aspirations are personal: She moved to New York to pursue a career as an artist and quickly realized the financial realities of making art under capitalism. Art should never be a luxury for the rich, she argues, but a necessity for all.

“This district represents more artists than almost any other district in the country, and yet we live in a city where it’s almost impossible to have the studio space, the time off, the money, the resources, the healthcare to make the art that we need in our society to shine,” Valdez said in a campaign speech earlier this year.

“I did not come to politics through electoral ambitions … I came to this place via my union. My union taught me that when people come together, we can organize for incredible things. We can move literal mountains, and we can beat back all the other people who make our lives a living hell, who have made this city unaffordable and impossible to thrive in, impossible to be an artist in. We deserve and demand a life of dignity, beauty for every single person, no matter where you are from. That’s what’s on the table, my friends.”

Valdez worked as a program assistant in the visual arts department at Columbia University, where she became a union leader. In 2024, she was elected to the New York State Assembly to represent the 37th District in Queens. Last week, New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani backed the candidate, who won 83% of the vote.

Los Angeles Mayor-elect Nithya Raman

Los Angeles Mayor-elect Nithya Raman arrives with supporters standing nearby to claim victory in the Los Angeles mayoral race.

(Mario Tama / Getty Images)

Los Angeles Mayor-elect Nithya Raman was first elected to the L.A. City Council in 2020, and last week, she became the first challenger to defeat an incumbent Los Angeles mayor in more than two decades. While Raman didn’t turn L.A. blue, the democratic socialist did beat Mayor Karen Bass, a more moderate Democrat, turning the city a deeper, more progressive shade of blue.

Raman campaigned on a platform centered on housing affordability, public transit expansion, street safety, and a major overhaul of how the city approaches homelessness, but she also has a unique inside perspective on issues that plague Angelenos who work in entertainment. Her husband, Vali Chandrasekaran, is a television writer and producer, with a resume stacked with popular shows including “Modern Family” and “30 Rock.” The two met as undergrads at Harvard, where Raman was active in the university’s arts scene, and contributed to student productions as a designer and choreographer. The two broke up but reconnected on the picket line during the 2007-08 Writers Guild Strike.

According to a profile in the Harvard Crimson, Raman studied classical dance with renowned Bharatanatyam dancer Leela Samson in Chennai, India, and toured with her dance company after she graduated in the early aughts. The mayor-elect told the outlet that she still follows dance when her schedule allows.

“I don’t just watch Indian classical dance, I watch all kinds of dance,” Raman said. “I’m a dance aficionado, and when I’m not busy on the campaign trail, I try and attend dance programs and performances.”

Raman took the stage late on election night during her party on the plaza outside the Greek Theatre, and asked the crowd: “Will you all get on the dance floor with me?” In response to the applause, she said, “Yes, we will dance. We will dance!”

It was the most expensive election in American history: nearly $12bn spent, much of it on advertisements, with the majority of that money going to Republican candidates. But most voters weren’t buying it. The result: a Democratic sweep on a scale not seen in half a century.

In the aftermath of the vote, United States President Donald Trump – who has long revelled in his ability to turn controversy and crisis into spectacle – appeared to lose control of the narrative. The scale of the Republican defeat amounts to a repudiation of Trump’s politics and the US-Israel war on Iran. Meenakshi Ravi and Richard Gizbert examine the political and media fallout.

Contributors: 
Alex Shephard – Senior editor, The New Republic
Rob Arlett – former Trump state campaign chair & Republican strategist
Maya Berry – Executive director, Arab American Institute

On our radar

Serbia’s new political leadership has yet to form a government, but the country’s media institutions are already being purged of voices who gave former president, Aleksandar Vucic, years of favourable coverage. Tariq Nafi looks at the news outlets being held to account.

Equator: a magazine for a post-American world

Equator magazine is the brainchild of a group of writers and editors – some of them ex-mainstream media – who came together during a “moment of moral despair” as they witnessed Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza unfold. One year after its launch, Equator has produced some quality stories and essays on global politics, culture and art – all presented with an eye for design. We speak to cofounder and former Guardian editor, Jonathan Shainin, about the magazine’s vision and how it’s going.

Featuring:
Jonathan Shainin – Founding Editor, Equator magazine

Hours after results confirmed that the Republican Party had lost control of both the Senate and the House of Representatives in the United States Congress in the midterm elections this week, senior Republicans were hand-wringing over what had gone so badly wrong and whether a major course correction would now be required.

As once-Republican strongholds like Texas fell to the enemy, US Vice President JD Vance took to X to declare that the “real reason we lost is obvious to almost everyone”.

“The reason we lost is the war. The president himself said so last night. If you’d like to argue it was worth it, that losing the Senate for the next 6 years was worth it, then do so. Argue it was a worthwhile cost to pay. Agree or disagree, that’s at least honest,” Vance said.

Former Trump voters had switched sides, he said, over the Iran war and the US ties to Israel.

The elephant in the room was no more.

“I remain hopeful about our country. To the people who are pissed off and want to say, ‘I told you so’: you’re right, you did tell us so. Take that energy into electing Republicans who share your worldview,” he wrote.

A poisoned chalice

Just days after the US and Israel launched strikes across Iran on February 28, Tehran effectively closed the critical Strait of Hormuz, which once transited roughly 25 percent of the world’s seaborne oil trade, triggering a massive spike in oil prices and a major global energy crisis. The price of Brent crude – the global benchmark – hit $120 in March and April and has hovered around $115 in recent weeks.

On Thursday morning, oil prices dropped to $93.82 a barrel on expectations that Republican Party losses would reduce the likelihood of US President Donald Trump renewing strikes on Iran following weeks of speculation.

But as consumers in the US struggle with sky-high petrol and diesel prices – not to mention the soaring cost of food, which has also been impacted by Trump’s trade tariffs – the midterms have forced a leadership rethink as the Trump brand appears increasingly toxic.

While no Republicans have declared their intention to run for the 2028 presidential election, some in the party are believed to be eyeing it now.

Andrew Payne, from the Chatham House think tank, told Al Jazeera that any Republican wanting to take on the 2028 election will now need to “distance themselves from the more unpopular aspects of Trump’s record”. That means the Iran war, the greatest poisoned chalice of them all.

“That, I think, is why Vance came out so clearly in blaming the war. It is evident to those who have been watching closely that he has always been the voice of scepticism behind the scenes, and he now needs to make that difference of opinion clear to the average voter. But doing so will be really hard while Trump is still in office and, presumably, wants to play an active role as kingmaker,” Payne said.

Unpopular, but not as unpopular as Trump

The most obvious pick and frontrunner for the Republican 2028 nomination is currently Vance, who is known to have ambitions to take over from Trump.

Regarded as an anti-US interventionist, Vance, while publicly supporting Trump’s Iran war, has also been privately urging him and others to end the conflict, according to the US news outlet Axios.

Last week, Vance sent a letter to the secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, Mohsen Rezaei, proposing a meeting between US and Iranian officials soon in a bid to prevent further escalation. By contrast, this week Trump said the war would only come to an end “when I want it to”.

This move, coupled with his post on X on Wednesday night, is increasingly being seen as Vance putting as much distance as he can between himself and the war.

Throwing off the Trump touch may be trickier than he thinks, however, according to one Vance ally close to the White House who spoke to Politico on Wednesday. While it is “possible for him [Vance] to modestly differentiate himself” from Trump, the source said, there is no way to completely delink himself.

“He’s still Trump’s vice president. This is still a Trump administration war. They’re still both unpopular. He’s not as unpopular as Trump but he’s unpopular,” the anonymous source said.

According to Tuesday polling from The New York Times on who is ahead in a theoretical Republican presidential primary, Vance is at 40 percent. US Secretary of State Marco Rubio follows at 21 percent, alongside Donald Trump Jr, also at 21 percent.

Rubio has yet to comment on the Republican wipeout. Still, like Vance, he is allied with Trump’s administration, which may make a presidential bid challenging.

Any potential candidate now faces a choice between two routes, Payne said. One is to “re-energise the [Make America Great Again or MAGA] movement, which I expect will be difficult, because Trump did it through sheer force of personality that is hard to replicate”.

“The second route is to keep as much of the base on board as possible while appealing to the traditional conservative groups who have drifted from the party over the past decade, thereby expanding the coalition. If he runs, I would think Marco Rubio has a better shot at doing that,” Payne said.

‘Blue tsunami’

There are other potential candidates to consider.

A former frontrunner for the 2016 presidential election, which saw Trump secure his first administration, Ted Cruz is now Texas’s only statewide Republican lawmaker.

In a post on X after the results, Cruz wrote: “2026 was not simply a blue wave; it was a blue tsunami. It was an a** kicking”.

“Food is too high, gas is too high, diesel is too high, insurance is too high, life is too high. Tariffs have made everything too expensive, and the Iran war has dragged on too long. It should have been brief, decisive, and over,” Cruz wrote.

“Understandably, people were pissed off, and elected Republicans didn’t do enough to address their very real pain. So, what do we do now? We need to listen and respond. We need to champion economic policies that make a real difference in working people’s lives, and we need to deal with the consequences.”

In September, the Wall Street Journal reported that Cruz was testing the waters for the 2028 nomination. But as one of the early cheerleaders for the Iran war, Cruz will struggle to disassociate himself from it, other than to criticise the manner of its execution.

As the blame game continues, the Republican Florida governor, Ron DeSantis, described the results of the midterms as “close to an extinction-level event” for the party.

“If the Republican Party doesn’t have Texas as an anchor, then we are not going to be viable nationally going forward,” he said.

“We’re in a very volatile political era, things shift quickly, and the leaders just got to recognise that.”

DeSantis’s time as governor ends in January after two terms, but speculation has grown about whether he also wants to throw his hat into the ring for the US presidential nomination as the playing field remains wide open.

Alaska is still waiting for the winners of its Senate, House and gubernatorial elections.

A Democratic romp in the midterms has rocked the US political landscape, but several closely contested races remain too close to call.

• Alaska Senate: Republican Senator Dan Sullivan is seeking to retain his seat against Democratic challenger Mary Peltola, who has a 626-vote lead. If neither candidate gets more than 50 percent of the vote, then it will go to ranked-choice voting under Alaska law.
• Alaska governor: Democrat Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins is facing off against Republican Bernadette Wilson. Kreiss-Tomkins’s share of the vote is 49.2 percent with an estimated 74 percent of ballots counted.
• Kansas governor: Democrat Cindy Holscher has a lead of less than a percentage point over Republican Ty Masterson. Holscher’s lead is 5,557, with an estimated 98 percent of the votes counted.
• Mississippi Senate: Democratic candidate Scott Colom leads Republican incumbent Senator Cindy Hyde-Smith by 43 votes with an estimated 96 percent of votes counted.
• Los Angeles mayor: Incumbent Mayor Karen Bass is locked in a tight contest with Nithya Raman, who is backed by the Democratic Socialists of America. Bass has 48.9 percent of the vote, compared with Raman’s 51.1 percent, with an estimated one-third of the ballots uncounted.
  

  

The Democrats have wrested control of the United States Congress from Republicans by winning majorities in both the House of Representatives and the Senate in a stunning blow to US President Donald Trump.

Democratic Senate candidates have shattered decades-old electoral records across traditional Republican strongholds, in particular flipping key seats in Kansas, Texas and South Carolina.

How big is the Republican midterms loss? Is there any silver lining for the political party?

Here’s what we know:

How big is the Republican Party’s loss?

The Republican Party has suffered a historic, worse-than-expected rout, losing control of both the House of Representatives and the Senate to the Democratic Party.

According to the results, in the House of Representatives, Democrats have so far won 228 seats, while the Republicans have won 139.

Democrats are also leading in 34 other seats which have yet to be called. If they win all of those, they could end up with more than 260 seats in the House, the party’s biggest majority since 1990, when the Democrats won 267 seats in the lower chamber.

Democrats also had a large majority in the House in 2008, with 257 seats, while the Republicans had 178 seats.

In the Senate, the upper chamber of Congress, Democrats have won with a majority of 54 seats while the Republicans have won 44 seats. They have not had such a clear majority in the Senate since 2008, when the party won 56 seats in the slipstream of Barack Obama’s historic first presidential election.

While President Donald Trump told voters to imagine he was on the ballot for this election, many of the Republican candidates he endorsed in key battleground states have been defeated by the Democrats.

In South Carolina, which had not elected a Democratic senator since 1998, Trump backed Darline Graham. But Democrat Annie Andrews won the seat.

In North Carolina, Trump had endorsed former national Republican campaign official Michael Whatley, who was beaten by Democratic Governor Roy Cooper.

In Texas, Trump promoted Attorney General Ken Paxton. But Democrat Talarico won the race.

Then in Michigan, Former US Representative Mike Rogers, Trump’s choice in Michigan, was defeated by Democrat Abdul El-Sayed.

How significant are these losses for the Republican Party?

It is usual for the governing party to lose some seats in the US midterms, but not on this scale.

A Republican Party member told Al Jazeera’s Alan Fisher in Washington, DC that the results have been much worse than expected.

“Certainly their internal polling was telling them that they might hold on to the Senate. That obviously was so far off,” Fisher reported.

Chris Featherstone, a political scientist at the University of York in the United Kingdom, said the midterm results represent a “seismic loss” for the Republicans.

He noted that many Trump-backed Republican candidates have lost throughout the country, and to both progressive and centrist Democratic candidates.

“Texas is a great example of the extent of the loss, where [James] Talarico won [the Senate seat] by almost 10 points. Texas has long been a Republican stronghold, and has been close to the heart of the intellectual and emotional heart of the party,” he said. He added that Democrat Gina Hinojosa’s win over Texas governor Greg Abbott has “come as a huge shock”, especially after redistricting which took place ahead of the midterms and through which the Republicans had hoped to win five additional seats.

“The results will change the relationship between Congress and the White House, with a huge likelihood of significant investigations and potentially impeachments for several members of the administration,” Featherstone said. “They will also change the makeup of the Democrats in Congress, increasing the appetite for aggressive opposition to Trump.”

Sudha David-Wilp, vice president of external relations at the German Marshall Fund of the United States, said that the midterm elections are usually viewed as a referendum on the party in power. She said, “a blue wave was not out of the realm of possibility”.

She told Al Jazeera that the Democrats have not just flipped seats in places like Texas, Iowa and South Carolina, where Trump is highly popular, but may have also “ushered in a new political epoch”, following these elections.

“President Trump still has a loyal following but MAGA [his voter base] has splintered and it will be hard for the GOP [Grand Old Party, a nickname for the Republican Party] to run on his brand in 2028,” she added.

Are there any silver linings for the Republicans?

All is not doom and gloom for the Republicans who have had some wins in these elections.

In Florida, a state where Trump is very popular, Republican Senator Ashley Moody defeated Democratic state Representative Angie Nixon. Republican Byron Donalds also defeated Democrat David Jolly to win the Florida election for governor. Donalds will be Florida’s first Black governor.

In Wyoming, Republican Harriet Hageman won a Senate seat and, in Alabama, Tommy Tuberville won the race for governor of the state, defeating Democrat Doug Jones.

Republicans have also had victories in Idaho, Arkansas, Louisiana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kentucky and West Virginia, among others.

The party has experienced similar scenarios in US election history.

In 1992, for example, when George HW Bush was president, the Republicans won only 176 seats in the Congress, compared with the Democrats who built on their majority by winning 258 seats.

Even in 2008, when George W Bush was president but Barack Obama was elected as the country’s next president, the Republicans won only 178 seats compared with the Democrats who won 257 seats.

In both those cases, however, the Republicans were able to turn things around within two years.

In 1994, while Bill Clinton was president, the Republicans won back majorities in both houses of Congress. In 2010, while the Democrats held on to control of the Senate under Obama after the midterms, they lost control of the House of Representatives.

This year could be different, for one main reason. Laurel Rapp, director of the US and North America Programme at Chatham House, said that midterms are rarely a referendum on a US president’s foreign policy, but this year, amid the US and Israel’s war on Iran, Trump’s foreign policy agenda has been a major source of ire among American voters.

She said voters have increasingly connected the Trump administration’s international affairs with rising fuel and food costs.

“And they delivered a pretty resounding verdict to the president that they would like to see a change,” she told Al Jazeera.

Rapp said that while Trump may face some constraints when it comes to navigating the global affairs landscape in the next two years, he will still have a lot of authority.

“The president still retains wide latitude to approach relations with foreign countries unilaterally, to continue to send US troops where he desires and to continue to wage wars,” she said.

As Election Day arrives, Seeking Alpha analysts looking at the political landscape largely agree that the bigger market drivers are likely to remain interest rates, inflation, AI spending and geopolitics.

A specific post-midterms trade remains predictably elusive.

But beneath that

On November 3, as Americans vote in the midterm elections, the United States faces a defining test of presidential power, constitutional accountability and democratic resilience. The election will determine control of Congress, but its stakes extend far beyond partisan fortunes. At issue is whether constitutional checks and balances can constrain President Donald Trump, whether election officials can withstand political pressure, and whether the government will respect the voters’ verdict when the outcome threatens its interests.

The battle for control of elections

The administration’s efforts to reshape election procedures have encountered substantial judicial resistance. According to an October 20 review by the Brennan Center for Justice, at least 34 federal district court decisions had temporarily or permanently blocked administration initiatives involving election procedures and demands for voter registration records. The rulings included decisions by judges appointed by presidents of both parties, including Trump himself.

These decisions demonstrate that judicial oversight remains an important constitutional safeguard. Yet repeated litigation exposes a vulnerability: courts often intervene only after disputed measures have been introduced, leaving states to challenge policies that can generate uncertainty close to Election Day.

The controversy intensified on October 26, when a federal appeals court declined to order California to set aside ballots from approximately 20,000 registered voters whom the Justice Department alleges may be noncitizens. The court ruled that the lower court had not been given adequate opportunity to consider the government’s request. The underlying dispute remained unresolved.

The administration maintains that its actions protect electoral integrity. But investigating credible allegations of wrongdoing is fundamentally different from restricting eligible voters on the basis of unverified suspicions. Election security requires accurate voter rolls, but it equally requires protecting citizens from erroneous challenges.

Repeated allegations of fraud can undermine confidence even when evidence fails to establish that an election has been compromised. The danger is that routine election administration becomes suspect in the public mind, regardless of the facts.

Congress as a constitutional check

Republicans hold narrow majorities in both chambers of Congress, placing control of the House and potentially the Senate within reach of Democrats.

A Democratic House majority would strengthen the opposition’s ability to investigate administration policies, subpoena officials and scrutinise executive decisions. Immigration enforcement, election procedures, federal spending and the implementation of executive orders could face intensified oversight.

Such scrutiny could expose misconduct where evidence supports it and compel officials to explain decisions otherwise shielded from meaningful examination. Yet investigations do not automatically produce accountability. Subpoenas can trigger prolonged legal battles, and congressional hearings alone cannot force policy changes.

Control of the Senate would give Democrats greater influence over presidential nominations and judicial appointments. Nevertheless, Trump would retain his veto power and substantial executive authority. Even unified Democratic control of Congress would not automatically reverse his agenda.

The deeper question is whether Congress will exercise its constitutional responsibilities independently or allow partisan loyalty to take precedence over institutional accountability. Checks and balances cannot function effectively if one branch declines to challenge another when circumstances demand it.

The test after election day

Perhaps the most consequential confrontation will come after the ballots are cast.

Trump’s response to his 2020 presidential defeat remains a critical precedent. He challenged the result, made unsubstantiated allegations of fraud, and pressured Georgia officials to find enough votes to reverse his loss. On January 6, 2021, a mob attacked the Capitol as Congress met to certify the presidential election.

That history does not establish that similar events will recur in 2026. It does, however, make scrutiny of potential election disputes essential.

The danger may lie not in a single intervention capable of changing the result, but in successive confrontations: challenges to ballot counting, pressure on state officials, demands for investigations and attempts to portray ordinary procedures as evidence of fraud. Even unsuccessful efforts can delay resolution and weaken public confidence.

Candidates have every right to pursue legitimate legal challenges. Courts must consider credible evidence, and election officials must correct documented irregularities. But allegations are not proof, and no president can simply declare an unfavourable result invalid.

An election can also be damaged without a single vote being changed. Intimidation of election workers, unfounded accusations and efforts to discredit established procedures can erode public acceptance of legitimate outcomes.

The distinction between lawful scrutiny and political interference is therefore fundamental. Electoral integrity depends on evidence, consistent procedures and respect for the law – not on whether the outcome favours the governing party.

Courts cannot defend democracy alone

Judicial intervention demonstrates that constitutional safeguards remain operational. Courts can invalidate unlawful executive actions, but they cannot independently administer elections across thousands of jurisdictions or guarantee that political leaders will respect every ruling.

Nor can judicial decisions alone restore public confidence after sustained efforts to discredit electoral institutions. Democracy depends on Congress exercising oversight, election officials counting ballots accurately, courts acting impartially and political leaders respecting lawful outcomes.

The willingness of judges appointed by presidents of both parties to rule against administration initiatives reinforces a fundamental principle: constitutional protections cannot depend on partisan alignment. Their effectiveness rests on whether institutions apply the same rules regardless of who benefits.

The broader danger is institutional erosion. Repeated confrontations can weaken public confidence, discourage election workers and normalise the idea that constitutional constraints are obstacles to political power rather than obligations governing its exercise.

A verdict beyond the ballots

The November 3 midterms will not resolve the struggle over presidential power. If Republicans retain Congress, Trump will continue to benefit from congressional majorities, although judicial and state-level checks will remain. If Democrats gain one or both chambers, the administration will face greater scrutiny, but substantial executive authority will persist.

Neither outcome guarantees effective constitutional government. The decisive issue is whether institutions exercise their lawful responsibilities and whether political leaders accept that presidential power is neither unlimited nor permanent.

American democracy has survived profound crises, but resilience should not be confused with invulnerability. Checks and balances work only when institutions enforce them and political leaders respect their limits.

The midterms are therefore about more than congressional arithmetic. They will test whether votes are counted according to law, disputes are resolved through established procedures and electoral outcomes are respected regardless of partisan consequences.

The ballots will determine who controls Congress. What follows will reveal whether American institutions can still uphold a principle fundamental to democratic government: no president stands above the law, no party owns the electoral process, and no exercise of political power is beyond accountability.

On November 3, Americans will vote to determine the composition of Congress. The aftermath will test something more enduring: whether the constitutional restraints that have sustained American democracy remain binding when their enforcement carries the highest political stakes.

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

Congress is made up of two parts – the lower chamber, the House of Representatives and the upper chamber, the Senate.

To win a majority in the House, a party needs 218 seats. In the Senate, a party needs 51 seats for an outright majority. But if the upper chamber is split 50-50, the vice-president has a tie-breaking vote, which gives their party control of it.

First results will start to come in after 18:00 EST (23:00 GMT). They won’t tell us much about the overall result because these races are in places considered safe bets for Republicans (Kentucky and Indiana) or Democrats (Vermont).

Throughout the night, BBC analysts will focus on the competitive races which will give an indication of how well things are going for Trump.

There are several tight Senate contests in the Eastern Time zone – like Ohio, where polls close at 19:30 EST (00:30 GMT) and Maine, where they shut at 20:00 EST (01:00 GMT). These could provide early indications of the electorate’s mood.

Some key contests might start to be “called” by US media outlets. They use models to project which way a state has voted, even before the full vote count has been completed.

This happens when they believe a party or a candidate has gained a lead that cannot be beaten. But in some closely-fought states, outlets could take a long time to make their projections.

The overall timing of the result will depend on how tight the races are and which races end up being decisive.

Houston, Texas – The gospel music from Mount Hebron Missionary Baptist Church spills into the streets of Sunnyside, a predominantly Black neighbourhood in southern Houston.

It is a familiar scene on any given Sunday: hands in the air, immaculate bow ties on starched shirts, fabric flowers adorning perfectly pastel hats. But with the US midterm elections just two days away, the service held a special significance on the front line of a US redistricting battle.

Mt Hebron had long been located in the ninth congressional district, its politically engaged Black voters for two decades helping to elect Democrat Al Green, a flamboyant presence in Congress known for his cane-waving opposition to US President Donald Trump.

But following an appeal from Trump, the Republican state legislature last year conducted rare mid-decade redistricting, redrawing the church and its Black community into the Black-majority 18th district.

Critics call the process “cracking and packing”, diminishing the representation in Congress of minority groups, particularly heavily Democratic Black communities, by consolidating their voting power into fewer districts.

“It’s kind of one and the same when we talk about the voting and the civil rights,” said Pastor Max Miller, who has served at the church for 18 years.

“They are trying to manipulate and monopolise the vote and minimise the people who are in those districts,” said Miller. “We see so much rolling backwards that it looks like they’re trying to take a script from an old song and turn back the hands of time.”

As a result of the redistricting, Green was forced to run in a primary against 18th district incumbent Christian Menefee, another Black Democrat. He lost, and Houston lost one of its Black representatives in Congress.

The ninth district, meanwhile, was redrawn to favour Republicans, one of at least five US congressional seats the party hopes to pick up in the midterm vote.

The machinations have resonated with worshippers at Mt Hebron.

“I don’t like the redistricting at all because Al Green was moved out,” said 97-year-old Alice Jefferson, who had followed the congressman throughout his political career. “He always had good advice for the people.”

Janice Ray, a 61-year-old home health aide and entrepreneur, said state lawmakers were “trying to move people out of the district that they’re familiar with”.

“To me, it was all a bunch of BS,” she said. “There was no reason for it.”

“But we’ll stand firm, regardless of what they try to do,” Ray added. “Because just like it was changed, it can always be changed back.”

‘Voices have been weakened’

The redistricting process has undergone a generational transformation this election season, one that, experts say, has degraded longstanding guardrails protecting minority voting power.

“In political science, we have what we call descriptive representation,” Michael Adams, a professor at Texas Southern University in Houston, told Al Jazeera. “In terms of descriptive representation, minorities and others feel that if they can elect someone who reflects their values, for example, and who may look like them, their voting can be defined as one voice.”

“And certainly with not having an additional Black member of Congress representing Houston, a significant segment of Black voters may feel that their voices have been weakened,” he said.

Texas was only the beginning.

This year Republican and Democratic state legislatures across the country joined the spree: Republicans successfully redistricted in Missouri, North Carolina, Tennessee, Louisiana, Alabama, Florida and Ohio; Democrats did so in California, while a court-ordered map in Utah handed Democrats a favourable seat. A Democratic push in Virginia was subsequently invalidated.

Redrawing maps mid-decade, and not waiting for the latest demographic numbers from the US census, was already atypical. But many of the maps drawn this year would have been deemed illegal in previous cycles.

Section 2 of the landmark Voting Rights Act of 1965, initially passed to counter blatantly racist voting practices in the US, had long prohibited redrawing congressional maps to dilute the electoral power of minority voters.

In April, the conservative-dominated US Supreme Court ruled that anyone challenging such a map must prove “racist intent”. Critics have said the ruling effectively allows for racial gerrymandering, with proving such an intent an unreasonably high bar.

But critics of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act have said drawing maps to protect minority voting power is in itself discriminatory.

Defenders in Texas, meanwhile, have said the redistricting was based on the shifting political makeup of the state, and not racial gerrymandering.

“This plan includes political considerations, public testimony, recognition of population growth and recent changes in voter trends,” State Representative Todd Hunter, a Republican, said shortly after the new map’s passage last year.

“Each of these newly drawn districts now trend Republican in political performance. While there’s no guarantee of electoral success, Republicans will now have an opportunity to potentially win these districts,” he said.

A political test

There are no guarantees that a party’s redistricting plans will actually work.

Following the tit-for-tat map redrawings, Republicans hoped to net at least 13 seats nationally. Polling has suggested their gains may be much more muted.

All told, about 35 million US voters will be casting ballots in newly redistricted seats this election.

“Redistricting can change the political boundaries, but it can’t guarantee how voters will behave,” Brandon Rottinghaus, a professor at the University of Houston, told Al Jazeera.

In Texas, the Republican map was drawn largely based on recent Latino voting trends. The demographic swung heavily for Trump in the state in 2024, despite once being considered a reliable Democratic voting bloc.

Beyond the ninth congressional district in Houston, Republicans hoped to pick up four other districts, most based in South Texas, with an eye on shifting Latino sentiment.

But the political tides have again turned. Trump’s popularity has tanked among Latino voters, fuelled in part by unrest over the economy and the administration’s aggressive deportation campaign.

It remains to be seen how that will reflect at the ballot box when Texas voters pick a senator, governor, members of Congress and a slate of state and local officials.

“These districts are a test of whether political dissatisfaction can overcome an aggressively partisan map,” Rottinghaus said.

‘Trying to mobilise’

With new boundaries come new opportunities.

The ninth district is now considered Republican-favoured, but its large population of low-propensity Latino voters creates a pathway for a Democratic victory, according to Dayana Iza, Texas state director of Mi Familia Vota, a Latino voting organisation that has focused resources on the congressional race.

The state legislature “kept a big portion of Latino voters there, but the reality is that the Latino percentage in that district that votes is very, very low,” Iza told Al Jazeera. “So that then became a district that we are trying to mobilise in terms of turnout.”

On the Saturday ahead of the November 3 vote, Democratic candidate Leticia Gutierrez and State Senator Molly Cook zigzagged through a neighbourhood of single-family homes in eastern Houston.

Any path to victory, Gutierrez assessed, would be based on face time and a chance to connect with disillusioned voters.

“This community here has an average annual income of $63,000 a year. I make a little over that, and it’s difficult,” Gutierrez told Al Jazeera. “At this point, it’s not a left or a right thing anymore. This is an affordability crisis.”

“You’ve heard some of the voters out here say this is the first time someone actually came to my door,” she added. “That means a lot, and so we want to continue to do that.”

Among the residents was Christian Garcia, a 53-year-old who works at a local chemical plant and has not voted since moving to Texas from Puerto Rico in 2014. He said he is focused on his family, saving enough for retirement and eventually leaving some money behind for his adult children.

In the past, Garcia said, he felt voting was “wasting my time”.

“You know, it’s a lot of corruption and things,” said Garcia. “I just don’t believe in anybody anymore.”

Down the block, Esmeralda Gil, a 39-year-old teacher, said she hoped for a Democratic surge.

Gil questioned why taxes, particularly on housing, seemed so high, while so many struggled to access healthcare.

“We need affordable healthcare and affordable housing,” she said.

Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia – Across the Asia-Pacific region, governments and businesses reeling from the energy shock of the United States and Israel’s war on Iran are watching Tuesday’s US midterm elections closely.

Many want to see “enormous changes” during the rest of President Donald Trump’s term, analysts say, from the war on Iran to his policies on trade and tariffs. But few expect that to happen, even with the Democrats poised to take the House of Representatives, and potentially the Senate, from Trump’s Republican Party.

“Of course, everybody is watching,” said Steven Okun, a trade specialist and the chief executive of APAC Advisors, a Singapore-based consulting firm. “It’s great political theatre.”

Outside the Middle East, no region has been hit harder by the war on Iran than the Asia-Pacific. Before the start of the conflict in January, the region took in most of the Gulf oil and gas that passed through the Strait of Hormuz.

When Iran closed the chokepoint in response to the US and Israel’s strikes, much of the region was left facing shortages.

The Philippines, which relies on the Gulf for more than 90 percent of its crude oil imports, has been under a national energy emergency since March. Soaring fuel costs have drained the foreign exchange reserves of the region’s poorest economies – Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar and East Timor, according to the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies (ISEAS)-Yusof Ishak Institute in Singapore. Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand and Vietnam have also spent heavily on fuel subsidies to shield consumers, it said.

Public opinion in the Asia-Pacific region remains firmly opposed to the war, but Okun said a Democratic-controlled US Congress was unlikely to force Trump to end the eight-month conflict.

“With Iran, I don’t see [a Democrat-controlled Congress] having much change at all, other than the fact that the war will be investigated and there will be oversight hearings,” Okun told Al Jazeera. “We might even see an impeachment of the secretary of defence, but it doesn’t change the overall impact of the war.”

Under the US Constitution, Congress holds the power to formally declare war, but Trump has claimed the attacks on Iran were in self-defence and has so far ignored congressional resolutions directing him to withdraw US forces from hostilities. If a Democrat-controlled Congress passes legislation restricting military operations or cutting funding for them, Trump can veto it. Overriding a veto requires a two-thirds majority in both chambers, which Democrats are almost certain to fall short of.

‘Tariffs don’t change’

On trade and tariffs, too, analysts see little room for Congress to rein in Trump.

The US president rattled global markets last year when he imposed “reciprocal” tariffs of 10 percent to 50 percent on some 90 countries, with the aim of shrinking the US trade deficit. Asia was again hit harder than most. Cambodia faced a 49 percent tariff and Laos 48 percent. Vietnam was slapped with 46 percent and Myanmar 45 percent.

After the Supreme Court struck down those tariffs in February, the Trump administration turned to other tools. In July, it imposed tariffs of 10 percent and 12.5 percent on goods from 60 trading partners, accusing them of failing to stop imports made with forced labour. In Asia, the list includes China, Japan, South Korea and seven Southeast Asian nations – Cambodia, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam.

“In some ways, the new Congress is not going to matter to the Asia Pacific because it’s not going to affect trade policy,” Okun said. “Congress cannot change that … Tariffs don’t change. The war doesn’t change.”

Still, some analysts see a narrow opening.

Stephen Olson, a visiting fellow at the ISEAS-Yusof Ishak Institute, argued in a recent essay that a “strong rebuke of ‘Trumpism’” at the polls could embolden a pro-free-trade wing of the Republican Party that has been “intimidated into standing down during the Trump presidency”.

That, Olson wrote, offers “a glimmer of hope” for Southeast Asian countries that depend on the US market. A Democratic-controlled Congress, he said, could also push for carve-outs and exceptions that would give the region’s exporters “a modicum of relief”. But any deeper shift in US trade policy, he added, will have to wait for the 2028 presidential election.

Joshua Kurlantzick, a senior fellow for Southeast Asia and South Asia at the Council on Foreign Relations, said the region’s wish list goes beyond trade to security.

“I think nearly all of Asia would like to see enormous changes, across many domains, during the rest of Trump’s term,” he told Al Jazeera. “But I think much of the region believes this will not happen.”

Besides “more stability” in trade and tariff policy, Asia-Pacific countries “would like to feel more stable in security guarantees from the US,” he said. They would also like a “more clear, obvious US presence” in the South China Sea, where China’s claims overlap with those of five Southeast Asian nations, and in the Taiwan Strait, which separates China from Taiwan, the self-governed island Beijing claims as its territory.

Businesses will also be watching whether a major Republican loss leads to “greater GOP willingness in Congress to stand up to Trump, along with Democrats, on issues important to companies in Asia,” Kurlantzick said, including tariffs, trade policy, arms sales and “overall economic unpredictability”.

US-China ties

One area where analysts do expect some change is US policy on Chinese technology.

The new Congress, whichever party controls it, will pass tougher restrictions on China, said Okun at APAC Advisors.

These include the Remote Access Security Act, which would extend export controls to remote access of US goods, software or technology and the Chip Security Act, which would require companies to verify that advanced artificial intelligence (AI) chips remain in authorised locations, to prevent diversion to foreign adversaries. It also includes the Multilateral Alignment of Technology Controls on Hardware Act, known as the MATCH Act, which would press allies to bring their controls on chipmaking equipment in line with Washington’s, to keep advanced chipmaking technology out of China’s hands.

“The next Congress is going to pass them regardless of midterms because both parties agree on them,” Okun said. “The person who is least restrictive now on China is the US president,” he added, referring to Trump’s courting of China’s President Xi Jinping.

The two men have met twice this year as ties have warmed after a bitter and costly trade war last year. To preserve the fragile trade truce, Trump has also held off approving a $14bn package of arms sales to Taiwan, which would be the largest ever for Taipei.

Some analysts meanwhile worry that a lame-duck Trump, hemmed in at home by a Democratic Congress, could turn more forcefully to foreign policy.

“We should not be surprised by continued erratic foreign policy,” said James Guild, an assistant professor at the Indonesian International Islamic University.

“The Democrats have a poor record of effectively opposing and holding Trump accountable using conventional tools of congressional oversight,” Guild said. “We will have to wait and see if they rise to the moment this time.”

Americans will vote in the US midterm elections on Tuesday, with the economy, the cost of living, and immigration among the top issues. While Democrats and Republicans share concerns about the rising cost of living, recent surveys suggest differences in how they view the economy, President Donald Trump, and other key issues.

In an NBC poll released on Sunday, 75 percent of respondents said they were dissatisfied with the state of the US economy, and 51 percent said they were dissatisfied with their personal financial situation.

Other surveys conducted in October also offer a look into how voters from both parties felt about their finances and which issues mattered most.

Here is what we know:

What issues matter most to Democrats and Republicans?

The economy is the main concern for US voters, but Democrats and Republicans vary on the importance of issues like healthcare, immigration, and crime.

A Pew Research Centre survey, conducted between September 28 and October 4, suggested that 84 percent of registered voters considered the economy very important to their midterm vote. It was the top issue for 82 percent of respondents who prefer Republican candidates, and 88 percent for those who back Democrats.

However, the two groups differed on other issues.

About 85 percent of Democratic Party supporters considered the future of democracy very important, compared with 69 percent of Republicans. Healthcare was a priority for 82 percent of Democrats, compared with 53 percent of Republicans.

Republican supporters were more concerned about immigration, with 72 percent saying it was very important, compared with 53 percent of Democrats.

Violent crime was also more important to Republican supporters, at 64 percent, compared with 37 percent Democrats.

A KFF survey, conducted by the Kaiser Family Foundation, an independent nonprofit, from September 16 to 21, suggested 42 percent of registered voter respondents trusted Democrats more to handle healthcare costs, compared with 22 percent who trusted Republicans.

On the cost of living, 39 percent trusted Democrats more, while 25 percent preferred Republicans.

What grade do Democrats and Republicans give Trump’s second term?

Views of President Trump and his economic policies remain divided along party lines.

In the Pew Research Centre survey, 91 percent of Democratic respondents and those who leaned Democratic believed Trump’s economic policies had made things worse.

Among Republican supporters, 39 percent said his policies had improved the economy, 35 percent said they made conditions worse, and 25 percent said they had little effect.

In the November 1 NBC News poll, 40 percent of registered-voter respondents approved of Trump’s overall job performance, compared with 60 percent who disapproved.

How do Democrats and Republicans feel about the economy?

Americans are concerned about rising costs, but Democrats are more likely than Republicans to express negative feelings about economic conditions.

In an October Pew Research survey, 36 percent of Republicans rated the US economy as excellent or good, compared with just 9 percent of Democrats or Democrat-leaning voters.

However, the majority in both groups expressed concern about the cost of essential goods and services.

According to PEW, 82 percent of Democrats and Democratic leaners were concerned about food and consumer prices, compared with 62 percent of Republicans and Republican leaners.

Healthcare costs concerned 80 percent of Democrats and 57 percent of Republicans, while petrol and energy prices worried 81 percent of Democrats and 65 percent of Republicans.

A Fox News poll released on October 14 also had 74 percent of registered voter respondents rating the economy negatively, and 60 percent identified the cost of living as their biggest economic concern.

The November 1 NBC News poll found that 53 percent of Republican respondents were dissatisfied with the state of the economy.

The Pew Research Center also found that abortion and gun policy were less central to Democratic respondents in comparison with 2022. Among Republican voters, education policy and energy policy were less important than they were four years ago.

Are Americans satisfied with their financial situation?

In the NBC poll, 51 percent of registered voters were dissatisfied with their personal financial situation, compared with 49 percent who were satisfied.

It was the first time in 30 years of NBC polling that dissatisfaction with personal finances outweighed satisfaction.

In an NPR/PBS News/Marist poll on October 19-20, 38 percent of likely voters said their finances had gotten worse over the past year, 44 percent said they had remained about the same, and 15 percent said they had improved.

A total of 51 percent of Democratic likely voters said their finances had deteriorated, compared with 21 percent of Republicans.

In a Reuters/Ipsos survey conducted from September 30 to October 5, 71 percent of Democrats and 57 percent of Republicans said their incomes had not kept pace with rising prices.

Eric Ham, a former Democratic congressional staffer and Senate national security adviser, said that Trump’s global tariffs and the US-Israel war on Iran had added to the financial pressure on American households.

“Americans are paying more not just in terms of self-inflicted wounds that President Donald Trump implemented through tariffs, but also if you look at this war of choice,” Ham told Al Jazeera.

Are Democrats or Republicans more enthusiastic about voting?

Democratic voters reported higher enthusiasm about participating in the elections.

In the Marist poll, 91 percent of likely Democratic voters were enthusiastic or very enthusiastic, compared with 86 percent of Republicans and 76 percent of Independents.

John Fury, a former Republican congressional staffer, said the final days of campaigning were focused on turnout.

“This is not a persuasion election. This is a get-out-the base election,” Fury said.

In a KFF survey, Democratic candidate supporters were 25 percentage points more likely than Republican supporters to describe themselves as “more motivated” than usual to vote (63 percent versus 38 percent).

The November 1 NBC News poll also reported high interest in the elections, with 70 percent of registered voters rating their interest at nine or 10 on a 10-point scale.

Who are Americans planning to vote for?

Surveys conducted in the final weeks before the election suggested voters preferred Democratic candidates or Democratic control of Congress over Republicans.

An NBC poll conducted on October 28-30 and published on November 1 suggested that 52 percent of registered voters preferred Democratic control of Congress compared with 45 percent who preferred Republican control.

Similarly, the Reuters/Ipsos poll conducted from October 22 to October 26 suggested that 53 percent of likely voters would vote for or lean towards the Democratic candidates in their district, compared with 44 percent who supported Republicans.

These surveys measure voting sentiment, but they do not reflect the results of the individual races.

California says the move to block ballots from suspected noncitizens could disenfranchise eligible voters.

The administration of United States President Donald Trump has asked the Supreme Court to stop California from counting mail-in ballots from more than 20,000 voters it claims are not US citizens.

The emergency request, filed on Monday, just one day before the midterm elections, is the latest development in a legal battle between the administration and California, a Democratic stronghold and the most populous US state.

California says the move could disenfranchise thousands of eligible voters.

The Department of Justice wants California to set aside ballots from voters on a list compiled by the Department of Homeland Security until after their citizenship status is confirmed.

But California says the list is unreliable and could include thousands of US citizens.

Voting has been under way since early October, and state officials say it would be nearly impossible to separate the ballots in question.

Last week, a federal judge rejected the administration’s request, raising concerns about the reliability of the data on the list.

“If the executive can discount votes and threaten an ongoing election due to unproven allegations, then our democracy is in danger,” Judge David Carter wrote.

The administration has turned to the Supreme Court after a federal appeals court also rejected the request on Friday.

The dispute comes as Republicans fight to retain control of Congress in Tuesday’s elections.

Trump has repeatedly made false claims about widespread voter fraud, but studies and state audits have shown that ineligible voting, including by noncitizens, is rare.

WASHINGTON — An acutely contentious and historically expensive midterm campaign barrels to a finish Monday, on the eve of elections that will set the nation’s course for the remaining half of President Trump’s second term.

Republicans are bracing for a backlash from voters as Democrats prepare for gains — but the magnitude of any “blue wave,” and whether it could sweep not only the U.S. House but also the Senate into Democratic control, will be the key question as Americans finish casting ballots Tuesday.

Early voting had already seen strong turnout, including among influence blocs such as Latino and Black voters. Candidates spent the weekend crisscrossing their states and pulling in surrogates to make a final push for voters still on the fence.

Capping a turbulent first half of Trump’s second term, the campaign has been defined by affordability and economic issues that have created headwinds for Republicans and spurred a possible turn toward Democrats by voters. And as Trump has pushed the limits of executive power, the midterms could act as a consequential check on his presidential reach.

In recent polls, voters have consistently put Democrats several points ahead on the generic ballot and given a historically low approval rating to Trump.

Eyes are now on Senate control, as an unexpected competitiveness by Democrats in a handful of red states has put the majority into play. It would require a “massive” wave for Democrats, but the fact that it is a possibility at all reflects an “extraordinary situation,” said Thaddeus Kousser, a UC San Diego political science professor.

With seven toss-up seats, tough math for Democrats and tough polling for Republicans, the outcome is far from certain. There may not be a large difference between the Democrats eking out enough seats for the majority or Republicans succeeding at holding it, said Charles Franklin, director of the Marquette Law School Poll.

“Just a little bit better night for the Democrats, and they pick up quite a number of these very close seats,” Franklin said. “Just a little bit better night for the Republicans, and Democrats fall slightly short in several of these competitive seats.”

The outcome in competitive races will not only set the dynamic between Trump and Congress for the next two years, but also hold signs for the 2028 presidential campaign. Both parties are closely watching how well Democrats can do in red states, how Republicans perform in Michigan and how far to the left Trump-voting districts swing.

The party out of power typically wins House control in midterm elections. This year, fatigue with Trump — fueled by the war in Iran, immigration policy, tariffs and other issues — merged with concern about prices, housing and AI issues to drive that movement toward the minority party, analysts said.

“This is an opportunity for the American people to try to put some brakes on the government,” said Todd Belt, a professor of political management at George Washington University.

The midterms are designed to function as a potential check on every presidency, said Christopher Warshaw, a Georgetown University public policy professor.

“The reason we have a democracy is in part because the out party does well in midterm elections,” Warshaw said. “That function of midterms is really important regardless of who’s in power.”

In many races, the quality of individual candidates also is poised to be a deciding factor, including in Texas, where Republican Atty. Gen. Ken Paxton has struggled to gain traction, and in Maine, where Democrat Troy Jackson has labored to confront Republican Sen. Susan Collins’ staying power.

The campaign has held significant twists, among them the unexpected death of Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina; the dropping out of Democrat Graham Platner from Maine’s Senate race; and the questions about the alleged involvement of operatives aligned with Democrat Mary Peltola’s campaign in the presence of a spoiler candidate on the Alaska ballot.

And Trump gambled on a largely dismissive approach toward voters’ affordability concerns; in recent days, he has also drawn attention with off-script comments at his rallies about Republican candidates’ rear ends and for lashing out at a reporter who questioned why he had canceled his final two rallies, which Trump later rescheduled.

Voter turnout could also have a significant effect on results; both parties have worked to reach independent voters while turning out their bases.

Across the country, nonpartisan groups are holding last-minute voting events, encouraging people to fill out their ballots. A hotline run by a nonprofit coalition organized by the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law is receiving hundreds of calls a day about how to vote.

Brandon Waithe, 42, an Air Force veteran who has organized get-out-the-vote events through Project HALO, a voting initiative, said he hoped to help raise turnout.

He hosted a line dancing event in a Cleveland public plaza last month aimed at reminding people to vote — and to “tie some positive emotion to the act of voting,” he said.

“It’s like, ‘Ah, cool, all right, voting’s not so bad,’” Waithe said. “There’s no pressure. … We’re not telling you which party to vote for or which candidate. We’re just like, ‘Thank you for participating in voting.’”

The speed with which results are known Tuesday will partly depend on how large a blue wave might occur. The House majority could become clear Tuesday night, but the margin could take a little more time with swing races in slower-counting states such as California and Pennsylvania.

If the Senate majority comes down to Maine or Alaska and if those races are very close, the outcome will probably take some days to verify, Kousser said.

“What I’ve been telling people is you’re going to have to buckle up and wait,” he said.

And, of course, one of the few certainties of an election is that no one knows exactly what will happen. The electorate is volatile, said Sonoma State University political science professor David McCuan, and there are always wild cards.

“There will be a surprise on election night,” McCuan said.

With one day to go before the United States midterm elections, campaigning has reached a fever pitch with Democratic and Republican leaders pulling out all the stops to mobilise voters.

Democrats are hoping to flip control of both chambers of Congress, which is currently controlled by US President Donald Trump’s Republican Party.

All 435 seats in the House of Representatives and 35 of the Senate’s 100 seats are up for grabs on Tuesday. Voting will also be held to elect governors in 36 of the 50 US states.

With the cost-of-living crisis, exacerbated by the US-Israel war on Iran, becoming one of the key talking points of these elections, here’s where things stand as of Monday:

What’s happened on the campaign trail in the past 24 hours?

In a dramatic political development on Sunday, Democratic Congresswoman Haley Stevens threw her support behind Republican Senate candidate Mike Rogers over her own party’s nominee, Abdul El-Sayed, in Michigan – one of the most closely watched races of the US midterm elections. Stevens had lost Michigan’s Democratic Senate primary in August to El-Sayed.

Her announcement followed weeks of tension with El-Sayed over US support to Israel, which has been accused of committing genocide in Gaza. El-Sayed has opposed military support to Israel, arguing that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu pushed the US into the Iran war. Stevens has accused El-Sayed of anti-Semitism for his criticism of Israeli actions in Gaza.

El-Sayed said a vote for his rival Rogers “is going to be a vote for Donald Trump” as his campaign reportedly saw a fundraising surge after Stevens crossed party lines.

Democratic leaders have rallied behind El-Sayed, who has faced Islamophobic attacks during the campaign.

The chairman of the Democratic Party in Michigan criticised Stevens. “She does not speak for that larger community,” Curtis Hertel said in an interview with CNN.

The leader of the Democrats in the Senate, Chuck Schumer, slammed Stevens over her endorsement of the Republican candidate.

“This is a despicable betrayal from Representative Stevens,” he posted on X.

“Senate Democrats are united in our support for Abdul El-Sayed, because we know he will fight for the economic interests of working families in Michigan, unlike Mike Rogers, who is a tool of Donald Trump and billionaire donors.”

Meanwhile, the advocacy group Michigan Jews for Democracy has backed El-Sayed.

“Haley Stevens does not speak for Michigan’s Jewish community,” it said in a statement, which rejected her “attempt to divide our community” two days before the election.

While Democrats have been angered by Stevens’s action, Trump celebrated her decision.

During a rally in Iowa later on Sunday, the US president said he would “love” it if Stevens joined the Republican Party. “Haley said what few people are willing to say,” Trump added. “It’s a thing called bravery.”

The question now is whether Stevens’s endorsement could persuade some of her supporters to back Rogers or discourage them from voting altogether.

Polling suggested El-Sayed has largely consolidated Democratic support, according to the Reuters news agency.

Judge dismisses Trump’s Alaska election lawsuit

Meanwhile, a ⁠federal ⁠judge has thrown out a Trump administration ⁠lawsuit seeking to block Alaska from ⁠certifying a loss by Republican Senator Dan Sullivan. The administration has argued that a rival on the ballot with the same name could change the outcome.

Sullivan pledged to accept the election outcome, days after the US Department of Justice filed a lawsuit seeking to decertify the results of the Senate race if he loses.

“I’m going to accept the election results,” Sullivan, an ally of Trump, told CNN on Sunday.

Alaska’s Senate race is one of seven key toss-up races that will likely decide whether Republicans keep their majority in the upper chamber of the US Congress.

How many Americans have already voted?

This year, out of about 210 million registered voters, 54.5 million had voted early as of 10am US East Coast time (15:00 GMT) on Sunday, according to a University of Florida analysis. This includes 30 million in-person votes and 24 million mail-in ballots.

In the 2022 midterm elections, 46 million people voted early.

Early voting enthusiasm has been higher among Democrats this year with more than 11 million registered Democrats having voted early, compared with about 8 million registered Republicans, according to the university’s analysis.

Early voting has particularly surged in the state of Texas, a key battleground, where more than 7.7 million people have voted early.

According to an Associated Press polling analysis, in South Carolina, where Trump won by nearly 18 percentage points in 2024, early voting has surged 83 percent compared with the same point in 2022. The state has open races for governor and US Senate this year.

Kansas, Michigan and Maine have also seen a surge in early voting.

Early turnout figures, however, don’t show which candidates voters have chosen or what the final results will be.