The U.S. federal government’s electoral system calls for presidential elections every four years and, every two years, elections for the entire House of Representatives and for one-third of the senators. Thus, representatives serve only two years, and senators serve six years. Midterm elections are those held halfway through the presidential term. The next ones will be held in early November.
Midterm
These midterm elections have always been a headache for the sitting president. In fact, since 1946, there have been 20 midterm elections, and in 18 of them, the president’s party lost seats in the House. The data can be examined here:
The heaviest losses were suffered by Obama in 2010, when he lost 63 seats in the House; Clinton in 1994 (52 seats); and Eisenhower and Ford (48 seats). As with any rule, there are exceptions: for example, in 1998, after the heavy defeat in the midterm elections of 1994, Clinton stopped heeding the radical suggestions of his wife Hillary and managed to gain a few seats thanks to centrist triangulation, while also benefiting from the excellent state of the national economy. Those were the years when public opinion was optimistic and intellectuals even spoke of the “end of history”—that is, a world characterized by the triumph of liberal capitalism over its enemies and by the conviction that globalization and technological progress would open the doors to democracy and prosperity for all.
These were illusions, mirages. The attack on the towers in New York in 2001 swept these illusions away, and the 21st century now reveals itself as a dangerous laboratory of economic crises, unsustainable growth in public debt, hysterical environmental alarmism and health-related alarmism, uncontrolled migration, the loss of national and civic identities, dangerous fractures in liberal democracies, and—above all—reckless and risky Islamization of neighborhoods, cities, and regions.
Control of the House
Historically, midterm election losses by the president’s party have often resulted in the loss of a majority in the House or the Senate (or both). Today, the Republicans hold a razor-thin majority in the House (218 to 212), so in November, just a few seats will be enough to flip control.
A Democratic-controlled House, in today’s tense climate, will create a dangerous legislative stalemate and even open the door to new impeachment proceedings against President Trump—proceedings devoid of substance, since it is nearly impossible to secure the two-thirds majority required in the Senate to remove the president. Nevertheless, these would be highly propagandistic maneuvers.
The House’s most important power is its control over spending and its oversight of government agencies that manage federal programs and spend public funds. A Democratic-majority House could make life very difficult for President Trump during his final two years in office.
Control of the Senate
The Senate currently has a Republican majority of 53 seats to 45 Democrats and 2 independents
(who, however, vote in line with the Democrats). Only 35 seats, however, are up for election in November (one-third of the total). It should be very difficult for the Democrats to flip the Senate. In particular, to do so, they would need to win seats in two key states, Texas and Alaska, which are traditionally Republican.
It should be noted that, while House seats are fairly proportional to population density, the Senate has only two seats per state. The historical reason for this apparent lack of proportionality lies in the fact that, since the founding of the United States, smaller states have feared being swallowed up by more populous states and, therefore, have demanded and obtained a Senate large enough to protect their interests.
The Senate’s most important power, after its legislative authority, is to confirm or reject the president’s nominations for positions such as federal judges, cabinet secretaries, and ambassadors. Control of the Senate is essential—indeed, vital—for the incumbent president.
The Showdown
How are the two parties preparing for the November showdown? The Republicans, unlike in the past, seem capable of raising more funds than the Democrats. It should be noted, however, that television networks, academia, the entertainment industry, and the internet produce political messages daily—more or less explicit—that heavily favor the propaganda of the Democrats and the Left in general. It is difficult to assess the effects of this reality, but they are certainly massive.
The showdown is unfolding according to the traditional norms of American politics, but there are three relatively new developments: the redistricting of congressional districts, the political boom of the DSA (Democratic Socialists of America), and restrictions on voting by mail.
The redistricting of congressional maps
Every ten years, following the release of the decennial census data, states review and redraw their electoral districts for the election of both members of the U.S. House of Representatives and their state legislators. In 2025, however, many states initiated an unusual mid-decade redistricting process. Since the summer of 2025, 10 states have modified their electoral maps: Alabama, California, Florida, Louisiana, Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio, Tennessee, Texas, and Utah.
Many of these redistricting efforts were designed to favor the Democratic Party (for example, in California) or the Republican Party (for example, in Texas). The case of California is the most glaring example of this dishonesty. California had long ago, in 2008, established a standard for fair redistricting, complete with an independent commission appointed by voters. But in 2025, through a constitutional amendment, the Democrats stripped the commission of its authority, temporarily granting lawmakers control over the redistricting of congressional districts for the 2026, 2028, and 2030 elections.
It should be noted that in California, 45.3% of registered voters identify as Democrats. Yet thanks to their electoral maneuvering, they secure 84.3% of the representatives they send to the U.S. House of Representatives. That should be enough, right?
Instead, they’ve carried out another redistricting to secure even more representatives. Those familiar with them aren’t surprised by these under-the-table maneuvers.
It’s difficult to predict the effects of all these political games. But many citizens are outraged by these underhanded power plays.
The DSA
Anyone who has voted in America remembers very long ballots that included everything—candidates for the House, the Senate, police chiefs, school and library board members, judges, and others. Voters cast ballots for many offices, both political and non-political. Essentially, they vote for the person rather than the party. Those who have voted in America, especially in major cities, recall ballots featuring the Democratic candidate, the Republican candidate, plus a long list of minor candidates—including numerous socialists, communists, and anarchists—who would end up getting less than 1% of the vote but still managed to secure a few thousand votes. It was a divided, lackluster, self-centered Left, incapable of making unifying compromises. Well, things have changed now. The DSA (Democratic Socialists of America) has emerged from among the various small factions and become a movement of some significance, especially in major urban centers.
But the European reader should be warned. “Democratic Socialists” does not mean our Saragat, nor German Chancellor Helmut Schmidt, nor François Maurice Adrien Marie Mitterrand. No, the DSA is made up of people who advocate: no prisons, no police, no borders, drag shows permitted and celebrated in elementary schools, men in women’s restrooms and sports, the requisitioning of vacant homes, the abolition of the Senate, voting rights for non-citizens, and so on wokando.
DSA representatives usually do not present themselves as members of their party, knowing they cannot secure a majority in single-member districts, but they fight to win the Democratic Party primaries. They are often successful, as with the recent election of New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani, but in recent months they have won by landslide in many primaries and seem capable of completely changing the future of the Democratic Party. (Incidentally, the single-member district system is the lifeline for the U.S. It prevents extremists from gaining representation. Cases like that of Italy’s Cicciolina—elected in 1987 with just a few votes through the “remnants” of proportional representation—simply cannot happen in America.)
Perhaps the DSA base, which has managed to oust many moderate candidates in the Democratic Party primaries, will be the very factor that could lead the Republican Party to victory in November (or at least prevent it from losing too badly). Even the pasionaria Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who was one of the first politicians to champion a woke agenda, is now backtracking. She’s not stupid. She rode the woke tiger to establish herself, but now she understands the danger and the possible counterproductive effects that could hand victory to her opponents in November. She’s shrewd: she’s labeled her past activism as “Woke 1.0,” calling it “crazy” and proposing a future “Woke 2.0” that’s still left-wing but more reasonable and moderate. She plans to run for president in 2028 with this strategy. We’ll see.
Voting by Mail
Let’s talk about absentee voting and vote-by-mail. Although most states allow absentee voting, the deadlines and rules regarding who can participate vary.
Some states require voters to provide a reason to vote by mail. Others do not. In most states, you must request a mail-in ballot for each election in order to vote. But in some states, you can qualify to automatically receive ballots for every election.
Instead of absentee voting programs, some states offer vote-by-mail programs. These states automatically mail ballots to all registered voters in the state before Election Day. This second type of voting involves mailing millions of envelopes to an electorate that includes half or more of citizens who are not interested in voting, hundreds of thousands of people who have moved to other cities or states, and thousands of deceased individuals—all amid duplicates, errors, and mailing lists that are not always up to date.
Unfortunately, given the U.S. system—where the country is conceived as a union of independent states—elections are administered by individual states, and federal oversight is limited. Therefore, each state has its own rules.
It is clear that mail-in voting is an incentive for electoral fraud. And it is clear that it favors the more active, more ideological party, with more activists and less moral rigor.
For two years, Trump has fought to prevent or reduce the number of mail-in ballots. He is convinced that he lost the 2020 election precisely because of mail-in voting, which was imposed under the pretext of COVID. It is a no-holds-barred legal battle. The Democrats are doing everything they can to maintain and expand it. Just today, Trump scored a major victory: the Supreme Court has allowed President Trump’s “election integrity” executive order to be enforced, which limits mail-in voting ahead of the November midterm elections. The U.S. Postal Service and the Department of Justice have stated that they would immediately implement the revised restrictions on mail-in ballots following the ruling. Perhaps we will have more transparent elections than usual in November.
