Alan Zendell, November 8, 2026
When Barack Obama experienced a “shellacking” in the 2010 midterms, he acknowledged that the demands of the presidency had caused him to lose touch with what voters wanted, and pledged to work cooperatively with the Republican House majority. But the Democrats still had a majority on the Senate, so the loss was less devastating than the one Donald Trump just suffered.
When George W. Bush absorbed a “thumping” in the 2006 midterms he accepted full responsibility for the defeat and his misguided handling of the Iraq War. He then fired Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, who was almost as unpopular with 2006 voters as Pete Hegseth is today.
In 1994, when Bill Clinton lost both the House and the Senate, Clinton said the voters had held him accountable for not delivering on his promises fast enough. In 1984, Ronald Reagan suffered a midterm defeat that had far less impact. Reagan’s reaction was, “They ain’t seen nothing yet,” and he stuck to his conservative policies forging a bipartisan alliance with Democratic House Speaker, Tip O’Neill.
Two Democratic and two Republican presidents reacted in their own ways to defeat, but there was a consistency in all four responses. There was no rancor, no hate speak, no accusing the opposition of cheating or committing treason. Each of those four presidents understood that in defeat, they had to put the country first ahead of their pride and party affiliation.
The Trump administration took a different approach, this week. Senate Majority Leader John Thune said Republican Senators would not stand idly by as Democrats try to raise taxes and reverse Donald Trump’s accomplishments, encouraging Trump to veto everything they pass. Failed House Speaker Mike Johnson was defiant, asserting that Republicans would regain control of the House, though he declined to compete for Minority Leader. Some people are only willing to play on winning teams.
Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth vowed to fight expulsion or impeachment, spouting the same vile combative rhetoric he has used for two years. Both Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Vice President JD Vance were more concerned with their own futures in the 2028 presidential election. Neither expressed contrition or regret over their roles in the Trump 2.0 administration, but Rubio was careful not to blow up his bridges to Trump, while Vance took a calculated leap into the camp that blamed Trump’s policies, especially the Iran War for the defeat.
And Trump? After an impulsive quip to a reporter the morning after the election that he would work with Democrats, he immediately reversed course. By appointing White Supremacist Stephen Miller as his new Chief of Staff, he threw down the gauntlet of no compromise with Democrats, instead doubling down on his deportation policy, his use of ICE, and the racist treatment of immigrants, including those who have been American citizens for decades. He aggressively supported Pete Hegseth’s handling of the war and military preparedness and followed that up by instructing his Attorney General, Todd Blanche, to threaten any Democrat who participates in their constitutionally mandated oversight role with prosecution for unnamed crimes.
Anyone who has been paying attention understands that those threats will be accompanied by personal threats against their families, which have already begun. Trump sounded very much like a president who has violated every law and behavioral norm associated with his office. No doubt, the Epstein Files are on his mind in addition to the open corruption he, his family, and his billionaire sycophants have engaged in.
What about the winners? Both House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer took moderate approaches. Jeffries’ speech the day after the election stressed the need for Democrats to heed the message sent by the voters: end the war in Iran, reverse the cuts to Medicaid, Medicare, and the Obamacare subsidies due to go into effect in January, and make life affordable for average Americans.
Schumer was generally upbeat, praising Democrats but avoiding divisive rhetoric. But other Democrats revealed the behind the scenes role Schumer played in finding the candidates who took back the Senate majority. He began by convincing Roy Cooper to run for North Carolina’s open Senate seat and followed that up by convincing Sherrod Brown in Ohio, Mary Peltola in Alaska, Adam Hamilton in Kansas, and Scott Colom to take on the virtually impossible race in Mississippi. In Michigan, he initially supported Haley Stevens, but when Abdul El-Sayed defeated her in the primary, Schumer did not let that stop him from pouring a ton of money into El-Sayed’s campaign. He did a little crowing about his invisible role in winning the Senate, but he earned the bragging rights.
Despite the relatively positive reactions by the winners, the incoming Committee chairs who are responsible for holding the White House accountable were very clear. Without insults and wild accusations, they were consistent in assuring Americans that they will investigate Trump 2.0 thoroughly, delivering justice to the voters who demanded it.
Trump has signaled that there will be no letup in his divisiveness and self-serving approach to governing in 2027, but as long as the Democrats stay on the high road, that will only drive his approval rating even lower, and that will make him even more combative. If he continues down that path history will rate him the worst, most destructive president we’ve ever had.
