1 hour ago
5
Guardian US reporters (clockwise from left) Alice Speri, Joseph Gedeon, David Smith, Rachel Leingang and Shrai Popat Illustration: Guardian Design
Key events
That’s all for now!
Thank you for joining us and for the thoughtful questions! We’ll be hosting these types of conversations covering a range of topics, now until the midterm elections on November 3.
We’ll keep asking party leaders, elected officials and candidates these same kinds of questions as we cover this year’s midterms. And we’re all over the country this year hearing from voters like you to understand what matters to them.
To keep up with our coverage of the midterms sign up to the Stakes newsletter here and bookmark our US midterm elections page.
Are Democrats taking advantage of growing momentum following Trump's polling numbers?
Anonymous123456 asks: Do you think that the Democrats have risen to the occasion following Trump’s historic low polling numbers, and have they truly capitalised on the growing momentum of anti-establishment sentiments, with more people feeling politically homeless and disenfranchised?
Alice: I don’t think they have and one of the things I hear most often from people is how deflated they feel about their Democratic representatives. Who has seized on the anti-establishment sentiment and both anger at Trump but also deep frustration with Democrats’ timidity however are the many leftist candidates, including several young political newcomers, who have swept primary races this summer.
The Democratic Socialists of America, who have backed some but not all of them, have in a way become a “shorthand” for that momentum. DSA membership has soared to 120,000 in recent months. Within a day of the New York primaries – where they won nine out of 10 races in which they fielded candidates – more than 900 people joined the NYC chapter. Of course it remains to be seen how leftist candidates across the country will fare in the midterms, and more importantly how they will navigate their new position when they get to Congress. DSA’s swift rise has not always been smooth and there are plenty of major debates happening within the organization. But I think their momentum sends a clear signal to Democrats that they have fallen far short of voters’ calls for big, bold change.
What is the relationship with Israel and Democratic Party?
Puttyinhishand asks: How will the US relationship with Israel play out for the Democrats in the campaign?
Alice: I think the monumental shift in US public opinion on Israel that followed the latest war in Gaza is transforming electoral politics in ways that we’re only beginning to see. Israel played an outsize role in the New York City mayoral race last year — a municipal race for an office that has very little to do with foreign policy. Reflexive support for Israel which was once viewed as a prerequisite for political viability is not only no longer a safe bet, but increasingly an actual liability. AIPAC funding has become deeply toxic.
Democrats have already been dealing with a reckoning over Israel’s plunging popularity and many of the progressive wins of this primary season are explained at least in part by that; in some races support for Israel was the only clear difference between competing progressive candidates. In New York, Darializa Avila Chevalier, a young political newcomer, scored one of the greatest upsets of the primary season with a campaign - “babies not bombs” - that was originally launched in protest of the incumbent’s positions on Israel.
I think it remains to be seen how much this will play a role in the midterms – there are too many other issues on the table for any one of them to be the decisive one – but even Republicans are increasingly split on Israel, and many favor candidates prioritizing the US economy over military aid abroad.
David: I don’t think it will matter as much as Trump or the economy, and it will matter in some districts more than others. Still, it’s become a divisive and potentially damaging issue for Democrats. It’s amazing how quickly public opinion has shifted: six in 10 US adults, and eight in 10 Democrats, have an unfavorable view of Israel, according to Pew Research in April. The party is moving too: in July more than a hundred House Democrats voted to slash military aid to the country, which would once have been unthinkable.
The debate has turned rancorous online, especially around figures such as Hasan Piker, whom Republicans are working hard to tie to Abdul El-Sayed in Michigan. That’s a state where this whole issue could blow up for Democrats. But I suspect it will come to a head in the 2028 presidential primary: every candidate will be asked if the situation in Gaza constitutes a genocide.
Why are the Democrats not guaranteed a Senate win?
A user on Instagram asks: Why can’t the dems win the Senate after all these years and failed policies? / With things so bad, how are the Dems not guaranteed a win?
Shrai: This is really the multimillion dollar (or maybe $5,000) question. Obviously it’s all still to play for, and Democrats need to pick up four seats to reclaim the chamber. But these are key battlegrounds, and some of them are states that Trump flipped in 2024 (North Carolina and Michigan). As we’ve discussed, the anti-Trump animus is a really strong force that could propel Dems across the line in November (his approval rating is at a new low). But, despite his insistence, the president isn’t actually on the ballot, and some of the Republican nominees for Senate have, perhaps tactically, made less of a song and dance about Trump’s support. Swing voters in places like Alaska, Maine and Michigan aren’t a monolith and they’re really weighing whether the Republicans on the ballot might be able to actually do enough to curb Trump or if they take the plunge and vote for the Democrat, who might feel like a real risk in their mind.
David: I get the sentiment of this question. Many political commentators have ranked Trump, twice impeached and the first convicted criminal to serve in the White House, as the worst president in US history. It’s astonishing that these elections are still potentially even close. (There are of course lots of reasons around perceived self-interest, the influence of money in politics, the rightwing media machine and Democrats’ various inadequacies.)
Why should American voters continue to vote for Democrats?
Blueowl2677 asks: I have been greatly disappointed with the way the Dems ignore what their constituents want when it comes to choosing who is running. And then our wants and needs are ignored to keep playing this back and forth game with the GOP and they are beholden to their donors, not we the people. Why should I continue to vote Dem when none of this is discussed to do better within the party? What are they going to actually do differently and start passing actual common sense legislation to protect consumers more from the waste and destruction of our earth for the almighty dollar?
Rachel: This year’s midterm primaries showcased some of the points you’re touching on – there has long been a sense that Democrats were deciding who should run and clearing the field to help them do so. But we’ve seen some of these party schisms playing out directly in these contested primaries, where insurgent candidates have challenged incumbents or anointed successors and, in some instances, won their races. I don’t know yet the extent that this will carry into other years, but I will say I have seen a sense of energy on the ground that I haven’t in cycles past because people actually feel like they’re making the choice, and their options feel more well-rounded. And we’ve seen, too, a strong backlash against money in politics – this cycle, having big money from pro-Israel groups, for instance, often backfired on a candidate and became a liability for them among voters and a key talking point for their opponents. How this translates into governing, assuming broader Dem victories this year, will be critical to harnessing the anti-establishment energy among voters to show that there are still ways to make meaningful changes to the status quo.
Shrai: To Rachel’s point I’m really curious to see how the results of the midterms for Democrats ultimately create more of a reckoning for the party’s leadership. A number of candidates this cycle for both the House and Senate have been asked whether they would support Chuck Schumer or Hakeem Jeffries as leaders of their respective chambers if Dems flip Congress, and a number of the progressive candidates we’ve mentioned in this Q&A say it’s essentially time for “out with the old and in with the new” come January. There’s a real sense, with voters like yourself, that the establishment has done little to address the antipathy towards big money in politics (whether its AIPAC or other corporate donors) and what they see as mealy-mouthed promises and talking points. Earlier this year I used the Maine Senate race as kind of a case study for this. The party’s early bet on the septuagenarian Janet Mills was a clear miscalculation (she dropped out before the June primary) that ultimately led to the unvetted Graham Platner to rise and fall within months. Now, if Troy Jackson wins or loses, party leaders like Schumer will likely have to answer for their misplaced instincts.
Joseph: That’s a fair fight to pick, and the party hasn’t won it yet. There’s a real insurgency… El-Sayed running against millions on millions of corporate money, Mamdani forcing leadership to back a nominee they didn’t want, and close to 30 more progressive primary wins behind them, from Melat Kiros unseating a 15-term incumbent in Colorado, similar to Justice Dems backed Donavan McKinney in Michigan.
But the people who actually run the DNC and decide who gets funded are still the same donor-class operators who’ve stalled real cost of living and climate fights for a decade, and still are resistant to budging on Israel and Palestine.
Nobody’s owed your vote. Watch what they fund, not what they say, and remember that you don’t owe anyone your loyalty.
But don’t just walk away either: keep pushing the insurgents, back candidates willing to buck the party line, or if nobody’s speaking for you, consider running yourself. And if you back more moderate candidates, give them your support too. That’s how the party actually reflects the people!
Do the Democrats have a clear plan in facing Republicans?
Citizen_Squared writes: After the disaster of the Trump years, the Democrats still do not have a clear message/vision/plan for ending the destruction Maga has done. Talking endlessly about affordability is not a governing vision. The polls may have the Democrats ahead for the House and Senate but thanks to extreme gerrymandering, voter restrictions and a big assist from the corrupt Supreme Court in striking out the Voting Rights Act, don’t be surprised if the gains by the Democrats are limited on election day. If that happens, the party will collapse into civil war.
David: Yes, if Democrats underperform, there are sure to be recriminations and huge pressure on Senate leader Chuck Schumer and House leader Hakeem Jeffries (it’s been notable how many candidates are unwilling to endorse Schumer). But the day after the midterms will also fire the starting gun for the 2028 presidential primary, which will probably galvanising and energising. Candidates will come forward with their visions and that will take up a lot of oxygen.
What will be the Democratic theory of the case after this year's elections?
DashAkol asks: Following the 2018 midterms, we saw the Democratic theory of the case crystallize, generally tracking the 2026 Sanders campaign: voters will choose the Democratic party with a bold progressive agenda. (This didn’t carry through to Biden but captured the imaginations of many voters and of many 2020 campaign platforms more or less.) Now, following the 2026 midterms, what do we foresee as the new Democratic theory of the case?
Shrai: For Democrats, these midterms live in the wake of Kamala Harris’s loss in 2024. The party is still undergoing an identity crisis which these races seem to highlight. We’re seeing battleground states choose insurgent nominees who really buck the party’s establishment (see Abdul El-Sayed in Michigan, Troy Jackson in Maine, Angie Nixon in Florida and several other progressives in House races in New York and Colorado). But there is also a sense that this wave isn’t applicable across the board, particularly in states where we have Democrats running on more centrist platforms (see Roy Cooper in North Carolina, Chris Pappas in New Hampshire and James Talarico in Texas).
If progressive candidates aren’t successful in November it could be the cudgel that the establishment uses to advocate for moderate candidates (particularly looking ahead to 2028). If they win, however, it could be the exact proof-of-concept for the party’s direction forward, and running politicians who are pushing for ideas that might have once been considered radical (thinking about Medicare for All and higher taxes on the ultra-wealthy).
David: Affordability worked for both moderate and progressive Democrats in last year’s elections in New Jersey, New York and Virginia. I have to believe some flavor of that will be central in 2028: an understanding that the elites and the system have failed, that voters are struggling to make ends meet, that they fear their children will be worse off than they are. We’ve gone from an age of aspiration to an age of anxiety. Senator Jon Ossoff of Georgia has been good at tying this to Trump and “the Epstein class”. But how will Democrats fix it? It will also be fascinating to see how Democrats handle the issues of AI/datacenters and Israel.
Will name-calling by the Republicans ever stop?
Eonphyre asks: Will the pervasive indoctrination against “socialist ideas” cease? Especially considering that so much considered “basic human rights and needs” is now called “leftist/socialist/communist” by this hate-mongering administration.
Alice: I’m not sure the labels and name-calling will stop – Republicans have responded to the recent wave of leftist candidates’ wins with apocalyptic warnings like “the commie caucus is coming to Congress”. Republicans – joined by eight Democrats – have even adopted a resolution condemning “socialism” and specifically naming the DSA. What’s fundamentally changed is how effective that kind of language is. Growing sections of the US electorate are responding to the “Red Scare” rhetoric with essentially a shrug. A recent poll pointed to as many as one third of Democrats openly identifying as “socialist”, a term which not too long ago was viewed as a slur.
Still, some candidates, particularly in swing states like Michigan and Florida, are making an effort to distance themselves from the labels and try to shift attention onto the issues. Abdul El-Sayed in Michigan stressed he’s “not a socialist”, Angie Nixon in Florida said she’s a “more of a social democrat”. It’s harder to attack calls for tangible things like universal healthcare, affordability, and labor rights than to scaremonger about an ideology.
David: It’s the obvious political play for Republicans. They don’t have many accomplishments of their own to brag about. Trump’s approval rating is at a historic low amid anger over rising prices and the Iran war. So their best bet is to switch the midterms from a referendum on Trump (even though he said to pretend he’s on the ballot!) to a choice, contrasting with the opposition. That’s where the fear mongering comes in.
Will it work? No, not with millions of people. But maybe it will have some impact with older Fox News viewers, Latino voters with recent experience of communist regimes and other people who buy the Republican message that the so-called “communists” are “godless”. It was notable at last week’s Republican midterm convention how the red scare was tied to threats to Christianity and the notion that this red menace is being imported from abroad. Senator Ted Cruz explicitly tied communism to Islamism.
What can Democrats accomplish in the remaining two years of Trump’s term?
DJE123 asks: The Democrats will have a long and challenging agenda if they win the House and/or the Senate. Where do they begin? Do they agree on priorities? What can they accomplish in the remaining two years of Trump’s term?
Shrai: There are a number of hurdles facing Dems even if they do reclaim control of both chambers. First, they won’t have 60 votes in the Senate, so for key pieces of legislation that they’d want to pass they’ll still be subject to the filibuster, and as we’ve seen time and time again it’s hard to get Republicans to cross party lines to help pass bills. But one of the areas they’re certainly keen to double down on is investigations into the White House and many of Trump’s policies (from the ballroom project to alleged financial crimes to more oversight into the handling of the Epstein files). As David noted earlier though, just trying to be a check on the president isn’t enough though. They need to outline their key priorities if they are to control Congress, with a legislative agenda that actually pushes forward plans for bringing down costs across the board or reining in the administration when it comes to its ongoing immigration crackdown.
If Dems are in control, the one thing they will certainly be able to push back on is the power of the purse — which Trump has tried to test with Republicans in power.
Will the Democratic voters still ‘vote blue’ regardless of the candidate?
Puttyinhishand asks: Will the “campaign/vote blue regardless of the candidate” mantra – which the Democrat left has been bludgeoned with for years – be actively honoured by the DNC and other party centrists if DSA candidates have won primaries?
Rachel: So far, we have largely seen Democratic officials band together after primaries when a progressive or DSA candidate won. In Michigan, for instance, nearly all of the Democrats quickly endorsed Abdul El-Sayed. Most voters are not strongly ideological. When I’ve talked to political scientists and pollsters, they often will note that these debates over internal party labelling are high level, and that most voters don’t really care if a Democrat is a progressive, DSA, moderate in a general election. Where we’ve seen the most detraction from a sense of moderates embracing the left is from the pundit and consultant class, and I don’t know if that’s all that influential on voter behavior – though it certainly takes up a lot of media airtime.
What should the primary focus be for Democrats if they win?
KafkasDog asks: Trumpism has substantially distressed your democracy. If the Dems are in control of the House and Senate after November should their primary focus be on addressing and repairing the damage or bringing Trumpism to heel?
David: It has to be both. Democrats should try to stop the rot, blocking funding for ICE and the Iran war, launching investigations into corruption (including Trump’s makeover of Washington), trying to protect the independence of the justice department and so on. We may see another debate over to impeach or to not impeach. But they also need to offer a positive agenda as an antidote to Trumpism. It’s not enough to say “We’re not Trump” or to promise “We’ll turn back the clock to 2015”.
Can being too united be a bad thing?
Lauramax100 asks: Could being too united be a bad thing? It was a real turn-off when party elders tried so hard to interfere in the NYC mayoral election even after primary voters made their choice. Could celebrating a broad coalition and letting local people choose be a better approach? The Republicans weren’t totally united pre-Trump, and arguably his attempt to have an iron grip on all GOP politicians may be one part of that party’s undoing.
Joseph: Unity can easily tip into groupthink, and the reluctance of leaders like Schumer and Jeffries to back Mamdani after he clearly (resoundingly?) won the primary looked to many like exactly that … the elite and old guard second-guessing where the voters have moved, which is why even allies like AOC called it a bad look.
Trump’s “iron grip” model has won elections, but I’d argue it’s brittle: it depends on near-total deference to one man, punishes dissent that might otherwise catch mistakes early, and leaves the party with little to correct course once he’s gone. The Democrats’ instinct to litigate every nominee’s ideological purity risks the opposite type of failure. It’s a party so busy relitigating primaries that it struggles to actually fight the other side. They must come to terms with what the voters are not asking for, but now demanding of their elected officials.
David: I agree with Joseph that the Trump cult is brittle: like an authoritarian regime, investing so much in one leader means a lack of flexibility and diversity of thought. And, like an authoritarian regime, Republicans will now have to wrestle with the succession question of who comes next.
Democrats holding feisty debates of ideas is a healthier way to go. But as we’ve seen, especially in the social media era, that can easily become corrosive and turn into a circular firing squad. Some have observed that Democratic moderates are more venomous towards progressives than they are towards Republicans! They have to get the balance right and unite around their nominee in 2028.
What are the races to watch to understand the state of the Democrats?
nycreader2 asks: Abdul El-Sayed has become a major symbol of the debate over the party’s direction. Are there other races or candidates we should be watching if we want to understand where Democrats are heading?
Rachel Leingang: There are so many interesting races this year – and I don’t think there will be one clean narrative about who wins. El-Sayed’s race remains one of the most interesting, though Democrats (and a couple independents) in typically redder places could win running economic populist campaigns that largely avoid cultural issues, and there will likely be more progressives in Congress based on who won the primaries. I’m based in the Midwest, so I’m paying close attention to:
– David Crowley vs Tom Tiffany in the Wisconsin governor’s race
– Rebecca Cooke’s third attempt to unseat Derrick Van Orden in Wisconsin’s third congressional district
– Basically every federal and statewide race in Iowa: Rob Sand for governor, Josh Turek for Senate, three of the four congressional races
– Dan Osborn’s run as an independent for US Senate in Nebraska, as well as a couple congressional campaigns there
– Adam Hamilton, a Democratic pastor, is making a case he could win in Kansas
– Sherrod Brown’s attempt to return to the US Senate in Ohio, along with a few congressional races there that could flip seats
– In Michigan, Will Lawrence’s progressive campaign in a split district
Shrai Popat: Just to piggyback off Rachel here, a few that I’ve been covering and fascinated by across the country:
– Troy Jackson in Maine. He’s the replacement Democratic nominee after the truly wild primary race blew up when Graham Platner was accused of sexual assault (which he denies) and ended his campaign. Jackson, who is a logger and former state lawmaker, is trying to unseat Susan Collins – a moderate Republican who is hoping to secure a sixth term in office.
– Chris Pappas in New Hampshire. He’s a moderate congressman who has kept his once purple district blue. He’s hoping to keep the open Senate seat in Democratic control, but facing a tough contest against John E Sununu – a former senator from a political dynasty who has been comfortable criticizing Trump in the past (even though he bagged the president’s endorsement this cycle). Notably, Pappas beat his progressive challenger in the primary. New Hampshire really is emblematic of what a purple state looks like. Fully Democratic congressional delegation but Republican control of the legislature. Harris won in 2024, but the state still elected a GOP governor.
What’s interesting to me in both of these New England Senate races is how Trump’s support could easily be an albatross for both of these Republicans as opposed to an asset. They’ll have to navigate unpopular opinions about the administration among moderates/swing voters, but also satisfy the Maga base.
Another race that continues to be a prime example of picking a Democratic nominee with huge momentum is the Texas Senate race. Here, James Talarico, a polished state lawmaker, is facing a Trump loyalist – Ken Paxton, the state’s attorney general. Talarico has touted his religious beliefs, and walked back some of his more socially progressive comments. He’s also praised the incumbent senator John Cornyn, who lost the GOP primary to Paxton this year.
Will the Democrats consolidate the way Republicans did around Trump?
NorthLondonIsRed asks: Since Zohran Mamdani’s election as NYC Mayor some Democratic leaders (Schumer, Jeffries) have kept their distance from him and the DSA, while others (Hochul, Harris, AOC, Sanders) have pushed for unity. As the party’s left wing gains national visibility ahead of the 2026 midterms will Democrats consolidate the way the GOP did under Trump — or will the centrist/progressive divide deepen into a functional three-party split?
David Smith says: I think they’ll be fine before the midterms. They will have progressives running in some districts and moderates in others, with anti-Trump sentiment as the glue holding them together. One exception might be Michigan, where many Democrats have got on board with progressive Abdul El-Sayed but some have not. After the midterms, however, there is potential for a split. If El-Sayed loses, there will be lots of finger pointing and claims that a progressive can’t win in 2028. But if El-Sayed and democratic socialists do well, it could be game on for Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez 2028.
Alice Speri: I don’t think this is going to be as much of an issue in the midterms. I think even Democrats who are unhappy about the DSA wins will prioritize defeating Republicans. I do think these tensions will be dominating the presidential primaries though and many are already gearing up for that. Third Way, a centrist Democratic group, announced a $15m effort to go to “war” against DSA. I don’t think that whatever unity Democrats manage to find in November will last.
Welcome to the Conversation
We’re less than two months from the midterm elections that could have an outsized impact on the future of the United States.
With the primaries wrapped, our reporting team is fanned out across the country to tell the stories behind the horse race, from Washington to the Midwest and along the West Coast.
One of the key questions is, with the Democrats poised to take the House and perhaps even the Senate, what the rise of the party’s progressive left means for the broader Democrat coalition. How will candidates such as Michigan’s Abdul El-Sayed co-exist with the party’s more established centrists – and will the growing influence of democratic socialists push the party in a new direction?
Political breaking news correspondent Joseph Gedeon, Midwest political correspondent, Rachel Leingang, US politics live blogger Shrai Popat; Washington bureau chief David Smith and reporter, Alice Speri are here live answering your questions.
Sign up or sign in to join the discussion.
Explore more on these topics
