[Edgewise] US midterms: After the blue tsunami, what is to be done?

U.S. midterm elections occur halfway through a president’s four-year term. They do not select the president, but they can determine which party controls Congress and many state governments. That makes them a major test of the president’s agenda and political support.

Voters choose all seats in the House of Representatives and a portion of Senate seats. They also elect governors, state legislators, and officials in many local governments. The article highlights congressional, state, and local races, including governorships.

The results can change policymaking even though the presidency remains unchanged. In the article’s account, Democrats gained congressional seats, won 28 governorships, and took state and local offices. Those victories could affect immigration enforcement, abortion access, environmental rules, and preparations for future national elections.

The article describes a sweeping Democratic victory across Congress and state governments. It reports that Democrats gained full control of both chambers, with 240 House seats against 147 for Republicans and 54 Senate seats against 44. The numbers show a large advantage in the article’s reported results.

The victory also reached state politics. Democrats won a majority of the 50 governorships, holding 28 for the first time in two decades. They reclaimed Texas, Ohio, Georgia, and Iowa, and led nine of the 10 most populous states, excluding Florida.

This scale matters because state governments help implement federal policies and organize election infrastructure. The article says Democrats’ state and local gains could improve their prospects for 2028. It also reports at least 127 wins for Democratic Socialist or DSA-backed candidates in 294 congressional, state, and local races.

Voters treated the election as a check on President Trump because they were worried about his policies, conduct, and concentration of power. An Associated Press poll cited in the article found a strong desire for Congress to take a more forceful role in checking the presidency.

The article links that concern to rising costs, which it attributes to Trump’s tariffs and the war on Iran. It also points to opposition to his immigration crackdown, alleged self-enrichment, relationship with technology billionaires, and projects such as a ballroom, triumphal arch, and reflecting pool. Trump himself asked voters to pretend he was on the ballot.

The election therefore became a judgment on the administration even without Trump’s name formally appearing as a candidate. Voters elected Democrats and progressives across Congress, statehouses, and local offices. The article says this created a stronger position for challenging or obstructing Trump’s agenda.

When the opposing party controls Congress, it can limit a president’s agenda through legislation, oversight, investigations, and control of federal funding. Congress can also refuse to approve proposals, demand information, and hold hearings about executive actions. These powers make the legislature a practical check on presidential authority.

The article gives several examples of priorities Democrats could pursue: ending the Iran war, restoring Affordable Care premium subsidies, reversing Medicaid cuts, restoring congressional influence over trade, abolishing tariffs, and stopping ICE abuses. Trump could veto legislation, but Democrats could still use the votes and debates to expose Republican positions.

The result is political as well as legal. The article argues that vetoes could become a burden for Republican ambitions in 2028. Congress might not get every reform enacted, but it could obstruct, investigate, and force the president’s party to take responsibility for blocked changes.

State and local governments turn broad national policies into everyday enforcement. Their choices matter because federal agencies often depend on local rules, cooperation, permits, infrastructure, and public services. This gives states and municipalities influence even when the president controls federal agencies.

For immigration, the article asks whether local law enforcement will cooperate with ICE roundups. On abortion, state governments can determine whether access is allowed within their borders. For AI data centers, states and localities can impose strict regulations or ban projects that threaten energy supplies, water, and local environments.

These decisions can produce very different outcomes across the country. The article calls state and local governments key players in implementing federal agendas and important parts of national election machinery. Democratic victories at those levels could therefore shape policy now and strengthen the party’s prospects in 2028.

Under the U.S. constitutional system, a president can veto legislation because lawmaking power is divided among branches. The veto prevents a bill from becoming law without presidential approval, unless Congress reaches the demanding override threshold. It is designed as a check on Congress and the presidency.

After receiving a bill, the president can sign it, allow it to become law without signing it, or reject it with a veto. To override that veto, at least two-thirds of members voting in both the House of Representatives and Senate must support the bill. The chambers vote separately.

The article mentions Trump’s promise to be a “veto President” and says Democrats might not have enough votes to override him. Even so, it argues that Democrats should push reforms because vetoes would publicly link Republicans to blocked priorities and could hurt their ambitions in 2028.

A tariff is a government charge on goods brought in from another country. Importers generally pay the charge when products enter the country. Businesses may then raise wholesale or retail prices to recover that cost, so consumers can end up paying more. The effect depends on the product, suppliers, and market competition.

For example, if an imported component becomes more expensive after a tariff, a manufacturer may raise the price of a finished product. Companies may also switch suppliers or absorb some of the cost, but tariffs still change prices and business decisions. The article describes Trump’s tariffs as irrational and links them to higher costs.

The article specifically says voters were angry about the soaring cost of gas, housing, and consumer goods. It presents tariffs as one cause, alongside the war on Iran. Democrats proposed restoring congressional influence over trade policy and abolishing Trump’s tariffs.