The Midterm Election Won’t Fix US Politics

David W. Brady/Michael Spence, 02/11/26

US voters may well embrace the Democratic Party in this year’s midterm elections. But neither that outcome nor the 2028 election is likely to lead to a realignment of US politics that delivers a government capable of sustaining policies long enough to address the problems the country faces.

STANFORD/MILAN – With political turmoil roiling the United States, talk about this year’s midterm congressional elections in November is already picking up steam. In last year’s key elections, the Democrats racked up a string of victories, including in gubernatorial votes in New Jersey and Virginia, special elections to Virginia’s General Assembly, and mayoral races in Miami and New York City. While this bodes well for the Democrats in the coming midterms, US politics is likely to remain dysfunctional for a long time to come.

In the 2024 presidential election, Donald Trump and his opponent, former Vice President Kamala Harris, each won over 90% of their respective parties’ votes. But an expansive YouGov survey project showed that among the votes Harris lost to Trump were those of Democrats who identified inflation as the most important issue (12%). Among Independents who felt that inflation, the economy, and immigration were the three most important issues (20%, 15%, and 12%, respectively), Trump beat Harris by more than 40 points.

Last year’s Democratic victories reflect the same economic concerns, but with different results. As of the end of 2025, US voters viewed inflation (24%) and jobs and the economy (16%), together with health care (11%), as the most important issues, according to an Economist/YouGov poll. But, unlike in 2024, Democrats were viewed as better equipped to address them. Even Republicans who list these among their high-priority issues are 10-15% less likely to say they will vote for the party in the 2026 midterms than Republicans who do not cite these issues.

The bigger problem for Republicans are Independents, more than two-thirds of whom now disapprove of Trump’s handling of the economy and inflation. When asked whether they would vote Democrat or Republican in the midterms, they gave Democrats a 16% lead. Since the Democrats have to flip only five seats to gain a majority in the House of Representatives, their chances of success appear strong.

But while Democratic control of the House would put a damper on some of the Trump administration’s policies, it would not herald a significant shift in the US political landscape. Instead, America’s two main political parties will continue to hand power back and forth, as has been the case for the last few decades.

To be sure, the Democrats enjoyed 48 years of dominance beginning in 1932, at the peak of the Great Depression. But since Republican candidate Ronald Reagan won the 1980 presidential election, leadership has constantly changed hands. Reagan secured a second term in 1984, but Republicans lost the Senate two years later. The GOP’s George H.W. Bush won the presidency in 1988, but Democrat Bill Clinton denied him a second term in 1992.

In the 1994 midterms, Republicans won the House for the first time in 40 years. While Clinton secured re-election in 1996, he was succeeded by Republican President George W. Bush, who not only served two consecutive terms but also benefited from six years of GOP control of Congress.

Democratic President Barack Obama was elected in 2008, but in the 2010 midterms, Republicans picked up a whopping 64 House seats. While Obama won again in 2012, he was succeeded by Trump. Again, however, Republicans lost control of the House in the 2018 midterms. In the 2020 election, Trump was defeated by Obama’s former vice president, Joe Biden.

Whatever elation the Democrats felt was tempered in the 2022 midterms, when they lost the House, and snuffed out when Trump won a second presidency in 2024. The impending midterms are likely again to shift the balance – but only just. America’s political pendulum will continue to oscillate.

A key reason for this is that governments and leaders often lose their shine once they are in office – and not just in the US. France’s government has an approval rating of just 16%, according to a December 2025 YouGov poll. The British government is not doing much better, at 17%. Approval ratings are slightly higher in Germany (25%), and in Denmark, Italy, and Spain – all above 30% – but even in these countries, majorities disapprove of their leaders.

Citizens complain that their leaders have failed to address major challenges, such as slow growth, inflation, a lack of affordable housing, inequality, and climate change. More than half of people in the US and Europe consider public pensions to be too low, and a significant share of young people believe that the pension system will not be working or solvent when they are ready to retire.

But many of these problems are very hard to solve, especially before the next election arrives, and the public rarely trusts their leaders enough to give them more time. So, when an incumbent fails to deliver results, voters often decide to give the opposition a chance. These constant reversals make it difficult to sustain policies long enough to make a difference, and the resulting policy uncertainty can discourage long-term investment. Meanwhile, the lack of progress reinforces mistrust in elected officials, potentially leading voters to turn on the “establishment” altogether and embrace populist “disruptors” who compound the uncertainty.

In the US, frustration with powerful elites is one of the few sentiments that spans the political spectrum. The last Economist/YouGov poll of 2025 showed that 91% of Democrats, 75% of Republicans, and 83% of Independents think political institutions have been “captured by the rich and powerful.” Moreover, 80% of Democrats, 70% of Republicans, and 80% of Independents agree that important political decisions are largely made behind closed doors, without public accountability.

US voters may well embrace the Democratic Party in this year’s midterms. But neither this year’s midterm election nor the presidential election in 2028 is likely to lead to a significant realignment of US politics or deliver a government capable of sustaining policies long enough to address the problems the country faces. In the coming years, we can expect more political paralysis than policy progress.


David W. Brady is Professor of Political Science and Leadership Values at Stanford University and Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution.

Michael Spence has been writing for PS since 2008. He is a Nobel laureate in economics, is Professor Emeritus of Economics and a former dean of the Graduate School of Business at Stanford University. He is Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, Senior Adviser to General Atlantic, and Chairman of the firm’s Global Growth Institute. He is Chair of the Advisory Board of the Asia Global Institute and serves on the Academic Committee at Luohan Academy. He is a former chair of the Commission on Growth and Development and a co-author (with Mohamed A. El-Erian, Gordon Brown, and Reid Lidow) of Permacrisis: A Plan to Fix a Fractured World (Simon & Schuster, 2023).

PS Quarterly: The Year Ahead 2026 has arrived, and you have exclusive access.

請參考：

Trump’s Greenland ‘Deal’ Appears To Exist Only In His Head
Wall Street is openly talking about whether Trump’s Greenland plan will end U.S. ‘primacy’
World Leader Reveals Bonkers Details of Dealing With Trump After Nobel TantrumTrump strikes Greenland deal
How Much TACO Trump Crumbled on Greenland Deal Revealed

川普在「格林蘭事件」的表演，充分顯示：至少在給川普取「川痞」和「川瘋」這兩個外號上，區區、老夫、在下、我，即使稱不上天才，也可說是觀察入微。上面第4個「超連結」所說的「(長期)協議」，不過是歐洲各國領袖幫他搭的一個台階而已。等他下台以後，這個「協議」自然不了了之。

Trump steps back from the brink on Greenland. But the damage has been done.

The president’s effort to acquire Greenland, even with the threat of force off the table, has changed the way allies see the U.S.

Eli Stokols/Diana Nerozzi, 01/21/2026

After two weeks of escalating threats toward Europe, President Donald Trump blinked on Wednesday, backing away from the unthinkable brink of a potential war against a NATO ally during a speech at the World Economic Forum in Davos.

Trump’s vow not to use military force to seize Greenland from Denmark eased European fears about a worst-case scenario and prompted a rebound on Wall Street. And his declaration hours later after meeting with NATO’s leader that he may back off of his tariff threat having secured the “framework” of an agreement over Greenland continued a day of backpedaling on one of the most daring gambits of his presidency to date.

But his continued heckling of allies as “ungrateful” for not simply giving the U.S. “ownership and title” of what he said was just “a piece of ice” did little to reverse a deepening sentiment among NATO leaders and other longtime allies that they can no longer consider the United States — for 80 years the linchpin of the transatlantic alliance — a reliable ally.

“The takeaway for Europe is that standing up to him can work. There is relief, of course, that he’s taking military force off the table, but there is also an awareness that he could reverse himself,” said a European official who attended Trump’s speech and, like others interviewed for this report, was granted anonymity to speak candidly. “Trump’s promises and statements are unreliable but his scorn for Europe is consistent. We will have to continue to show resolve and more independence because we can no longer cling to this illusion that America is still what we thought it was.”

Trump’s abrupt about-face after weeks of refusing to take military intervention off the table comes a day after Greenland shock waves sent global markets plunging, wiping out over $1.2 trillion in value on the S&P 500 alone. The president’s policy shift mirrored a similar moment in April, when he quickly reversed sweeping tariffs after a market downfall tied to his policies.

If Trump’s refusal to use the military to threaten Greenland and the U.S.’s NATO allies holds, it would represent a win for administration officials such as Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, who on Tuesday counseled the Davos set not to overreact or escalate the fight with Trump, assuring concerned Europeans that things would work out soon.

The threat of force appeared to have the strong backing of deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller, who offered the most forceful articulation of those desires in an interview this month where he claimed that America was the rightful owner of Greenland and insisted the “real world” was one “that is governed by force, that is governed by power.”

But Miller aside, most saw the threat of force as an attempt to create leverage for an eventual negotiation. If Trump were to have pursued using military force, there could have been pushback from his closest allies like Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Vice President JD Vance, said a person close to the administration and granted anonymity to describe the private dynamics.

“Do some senior administration people talk to their best friends in conservative world and media and basically say, ‘Yeah, I don’t know why we’re doing this?’ Sure, but I think those are all in confidence,” the person said.

Increasingly, Europeans have been voicing their growing fears aloud. When Trump arrived in the snowy Swiss Alps Wednesday afternoon for this annual confab of business and political titans, the West remained on edge after the president announced last weekend that he intended to increase tariffs on several European countries that had sent troops to Greenland for military exercises. As they contemplated the fact that an American president was threatening the territorial sovereignty of one ally and turning to economic coercion tactics against others, European leaders strategized openly about retaliating in kind.

That posture marked a major shift from Trump’s first year back in office, when European leaders put up a fight but ultimately and largely accepted his terms — NATO begrudgingly agreeing to spend more on defense, taking on all of the financial burden for Ukraine aid and the European Union accepting a 15 percent tariff on all exports to the U.S. — in order to keep the president from breaking with the alliance and abandoning Ukraine.

But the president’s brazen challenge to Denmark over Greenland and shocking disregard for Europe’s territorial sovereignty amounted to a disruption that is orders of magnitude more concerning. Demanding that Denmark, a steadfast NATO ally, allow him to purchase Greenland — and, until Wednesday, holding out the prospect of using military force to seize it — threatened to cross a red line for Europe and effectively shatter 80 years of cooperation, upending an alliance structure that America largely built to avoid the very kind of imperialistic conquest Trump suddenly seems fixated on pursuing.

“We’ve gone from uncharted territory to outer space,” said Charles Kupchan, the director of European studies at the Council on Foreign Relations and a former adviser to President Barack Obama. “This is not just strange and hard to understand. It borders on the unthinkable, and that’s why you’re seeing a different response from Europe than before Greenland was center stage.”

Trump’s social media posts last weekend announcing that he intended to increase tariffs on the European countries that had sent troops to Greenland for training exercises drew harsh public responses from heads of state across Europe and prompted a flurry of private phone calls and even text messages — some of which the president shared on social media — urging him to work with them more constructively to address security in the Arctic.

That didn’t stop Trump on Wednesday from continuing to assert an intention to acquire Greenland through negotiations, despite an overwhelming majority of Greenlanders being opposed to living under U.S. control.

“Let’s not be too cheerful on him excluding violence, as that was outrageous in the first place,” said a second European official in Davos. “And his narrative on Greenland is BS. It should be called out.”

Trump, who met with European leaders to discuss Greenland on Wednesday afternoon, suggested in his remarks that the U.S. acquiring the massive island between the Arctic and North Atlantic was in the best interests of Europe as well as America’s. “It’s the United States alone that can protect this giant, massive land, this giant piece of ice, develop it and make it so that it’s good for Europe and safe for Europe,” he said.

“You can say yes, and we will be very appreciative, or you can say no and we will remember,” Trump continued.

Those words did not appear to fully allay the growing anxieties of democratic leaders that the world is spinning in a new and frightening direction, away from decades of relative peace and stability and back to a prewar era of global conquest.

Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney, addressing Davos on Tuesday ahead of Trump’s arrival, was emphatic in declaring that there is no going back. “Every day we are reminded that we live in an era of great power rivalry,” Carney said. “That the rules-based order is fading. That the strong do what they can, and the weak suffer what they must.”

Calling for democratic nations to take steps to lessen their reliance on the U.S. and their vulnerability to pressure from this White House, Carney urged other leaders to accept a new reality that, in his view, the longstanding postwar order was already gone. “Let me be direct: We are in the midst of a rupture, not a transition.”

Trump made it clear on Wednesday that he saw Carney’s remarks, alluding to Canada’s reliance on the U.S. and going as far to suggest that its safety continues to depend on American defense technology. “They should be grateful to us,” he said. “Canada lives because of the United States. Remember that, Mark, next time you make your statement.” The implied threat, in a way, may have underscored the Canadian leader’s point.

With persistent threats of higher tariffs from the White House even after Trump backed off his saber rattling over annexing the country, Canada has looked to rebalance its trade relationships with other countries, including China, to reduce its economic dependence on the U.S.

In Europe, leaders may be following suit. Just last week, Brussels approved a landmark free trade agreement with the Mercosur bloc of South American countries, a long-sought deal that took on greater urgency in recent months to provide Europe with a bulwark against Trump’s protectionism and coercive economic measures.

There is still hope in Europe that Trump will eventually accept something less than U.S. ownership of Greenland, especially after his apparent walkbacks Wednesday on the threats of tariffs and military force. That could include accepting a standing offer from Denmark to boost America’s military presence on the island, not to mention economic cooperation agreements to develop natural resources there as climate change makes mineral deposits more accessible.

But European leaders increasingly seem to accept that there are limits to their ability to control Trump — and are looking to hedge their reliance on the U.S. as urgently as possible.

Anders Fogh Rasmussen, the former Danish prime minister and secretary general of NATO, wrote this week that it’s time for Europe to shift its posture toward the U.S. from one of close allies to a more self-protective stance defined by a stronger military and reciprocal tariffs.

“Mr. Trump, like Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping, believes in power and power only,” he wrote, likening the U.S. president to the leaders of Russia and China. “Europe must be prepared to play by those same rules.”

Trump’s threats against Denmark have obliterated the long-held view about the U.S., that after 80 years of standing up to imperialist conquerors from Adolf Hitler’s Germany to Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, Washington would always be the tip of the spear when it came to enforcing a world order founded on shared democratic ideals.

Suddenly, that spear is being turned against its longtime allies.

“The jewel in the crown of our power and of our role in the world has always been our alliance system,” said Jeremy Shapiro, a veteran of the State Department under the President Barack Obama administration who is now a fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations in Washington.

Shapiro noted that the U.S. has at times still employed hard power since the end of World War II, especially in its own hemisphere. But overall, American foreign policy has largely been defined by its reliance on soft power, which he said “ is much less expensive, it is much less coercive, it is much more moral and ethical, and it’s more durable.”

Returning to the law of the jungle and a world where larger powers gobble up smaller ones, Shapiro continued, will make the U.S. more like Russia and China — the two countries he claims threaten U.S. interests in Greenland — and weaker over the long term.

“Moving from our trusted methods to Putin’s methods is worse than a crime,” he said. “It’s an idiocy.”


相關新聞

Watch: The Conversation
Share The top 5 interview moments of 2025 | The Conversation