by Dr. Jack Rasmus
November 1, 2026
The French have a saying: “Plus ca change; rien ca change”. Translated it means ‘everything changes, nothing changes’; or, depending on your French, ‘everything changes but everything remains the same’.
That likely describes the current midterm 2026 US elections.
Whichever party takes the House or the Senate, the policies of recent years will not change much. US foreign policy under Trump’s last two years will remain on its current disaster trajectory. And the domestic policy excesses of the past two years will remain mostly intact.
Trump Will Simply Ignore the House
Should the Democrats retake the House, Trump will continue his imperialist wars and regime change operations. That includes ignoring any renewed impeachment proceedings or House tepid War Powers resolutions. He will simply ignore them, should they even occur. For reasons explained shortly, don’t hold your breath for anything significant coming out of a Democrat House in either regard the next two years. Moreover, a Democrat House will continue as it has in the past supporting Israel and may even increase US support for the Ukraine war. And it will grant Trump much of his requests for increasing Pentagon spending in 2027-28. So ‘rien ca change’ here in foreign policy, folks.
So far as domestic US policy is concerned, he doesn’t need US House support for any new major initiatives. Trump has already achieved his main domestic policy objectives in 2025-26—i.e. getting his $5 trillion corporate-investor tax cuts passed; $191 billion for thousands of more immigration police, ICE agents, and ‘detention’ centers; cuts of more than a trillion dollars in Medicaid, ACA and other health care spending; and 426,000 US federal workers laid off or driven from their jobs in the past eighteen months.
Nor does Trump need Democrat House support to continue to pursue his tariffs policy. He may have been forced by the Supreme Court to return some of the $288 billion in tariffs revenue but he can easily find a legal workaround by relying on other past legislation. Congress has been, and will remain, a non-player in tariff policy.
Not least, a Democrat House (and Senate) will go along with funding most of Trump’s requested $400 billion increase in Pentagon spending, which is already at $1.1 trillion and rising. And there’s more for other defense spending categories like Veterans benefits, CIA, Homeland Security, Nuclear Weapons development, secret weapons projects, and defense spending’s share of interest on the national debt. The Democrats will more than go along to refund the US military’s current seriously depleted stock of missiles inventory, loss of equipment in the Iran conflict, new offshore military base development, and a program of crash funding to develop next generation AI enabled autonomous weapons, drones and hypersonic missiles—in all of which categories the US now lags behind Russia and China.
In short, Trump does not need a Democrat controlled US House to pass new legislation for him in 2027-28. And he knows the Dems will give him most of what he wants in new defense spending.
Impeachment as Political Marketing
Then there’s the hot issue of a Democrat controlled US House impeaching him. Will they or won’t they? Trump doesn’t care. As the saying goes: ‘Been there, done that’. He weathered two prior impeachment efforts. It’s doubtful he cares about a third. Here’s why:
First, it’s only 50-50 the Democrats will even bother to impeach him. They’ll act like they are going to. Lots of talk. Committee hearings. But bringing a vote will be drag and delay until late in 2027. And by late 2027, with only a year left in Trump’s term, the US House Dem leadership—Hakeem Jeffries and the oligarchs who run the party’s central committee—will argue to their party ranks in the House that he’ll be gone in twelve months anyway, so it’s a waste of time to impeach. They’ll point to the Senate where the Dems—who at best may have no more than a two seat majority—will argue they don’t have the votes to convict Trump and that he’ll be gone in a year.
The Democrats will use the threat of impeachment to keep the issues justifying it before the public the next two years—i.e. his illegal wars, his personal financial corruption, violations of the US Constitution, abuse of executive authority, destruction of democratic norms, etc. The talk of impeaching is politically more useful than the act, Dem leaders will argue.
In recent decades impeachment has become a political marketing tool of the parties and not really a constitutional means for removing a president. In that latter regard it has clearly failed as a provision of the US Constitution. James Madison and Thomas Jefferson would no doubt agree. They warned about it, and how what they called ‘factions’—aka parties—controlled by a small group or one person like Trump would undermine the US Constitution’s idea of institutional ‘checks and balances’.
More likely than pushing to impeach Trump, Jeffries & Company will throw a bone to their Democrat party rank and file and instead impeach Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. That would help put a Trump impeachment on a back burner and create the delay to put off impeaching Trump in his last months in office. Trump might even favor a Hegseth impeachment and removal. It would give him cover to extricate from the Iran conflict. Blame Hegseth for the fiasco as the architect who lied to him (Trump) and throw him ‘under the political bus’. In Trump typical fashion, he’ll then blame the Democrats for the Hegseth removal.
In summary, there are good reasons to argue Trump will just not care all that much if the Democrats take the House. It won’t have any appreciable impact on his policies domestic or foreign, regardless of the Democrat vote margin. And an impeachment vote by the House won’t get very far in the Senate, he’ll conclude. So let ‘em rant and rave about impeachment. It’s just political theater.
He might care more if the Democrats achieve a significant majority of 60 seats in the Senate. But a one or two seat Democrat Senate majority—which is the best case outcome for the Democrats in the election—will never result in an impeachment trial, let alone a conviction, and Trump knows it.
There’ll be no ‘blue wave’ in the Senate election. The numbers and polls just don’t support it. The mainstream media—CNN in this case—predicts a 52-48 Democrat majority in the Senate. In other words, a barely significant political pendulum swing… once again.
If Trump was all that concerned about losing Congress, he would have campaigned more aggressively on behalf of Republican candidates in recent weeks. He campaigned very little for Republican House candidates. And only occasionally went out and campaigned for Senate members of his party. He just doesn’t care about the party either.
Trump may not even care that if the Senate held a trial following the unlikely event of House impeachment. Holding a trial in the Senate is one thing; voting to convict is another thing. It is extremely unlikely there will ever be either in the Senate, especially with a 52-48 Democrat majority. He knows that too.
In short, the odds of the House impeaching Trump are low; of the Senate taking it to trial even lower; and voting a conviction virtually nil!
So Trump may not care all that much what happens on November 3, 2026. He’ll just stonewall away after the election pursuing his disastrous foreign wars and policies. And blame everyone else for the failures. And should the AI boom implode and the real economy contract—which is beginning to appear increasingly likely in recent weeks—he’ll just find someone else to blame as well. Probably Scott Bessent, whose departure would be no great intellectual loss for the country in any event.
Notwithstanding all this, what’s the likely actual outcome of the midterm elections in the US House and Senate on November 3?
The mainstream media-CNN forecast is optimistic for the Democrats. Mainstream media polling has historically in recent years over-estimated outcomes in favor of the Democrats. And it will likely repeat that error shortly.
Likely US House of Representatives Election Outcomes
If one were to believe mainstream media, it’s going to be a ‘blue wave’ in the House on November 3. CNN’s latest polling predicts the current 218 to 214 margin favoring Republicans will result in a final 237 Democrats to 198 Republicans seat distribution. But that’s a Democrat gain of only 23 net seats over their current 214! Hardly a blue wave.
Moreover, 23 net seats may be the best case scenario not the most likely. CNN polling shows only 224 seats now ‘leaning Democrat’. That’s only 10 more than they now have.
Most pundits agree only 40-45 seats in the House are ‘in play’, as they say. It is a sad state of American Democracy today that no more than 10% of the 435 House seats are ever up for change. That’s because of the recent decades of gerrymandering of the US House of Representatives by BOTH parties. Republicans and Democrats alike have ensconced themselves into safe seats by cleverly redefining House districts. They then financially and legally gang up on anyone who dares to run as an independent or from any other party. Ballot denial of all challengers is a game both play. The American voting public has been institutionally disenfranchised by the extreme gerrymandering in recent years—all of which has been endorsed and legitimized by the US Supreme Court.
Likely US Senate 2026 Election
As difficult as it is for a large majority shift to occur in the US House, it’s even more difficult in the US Senate. Party majority swings in the Senate are typically no more than 2 or 3 seats at most. That’s likely to be the case in 2026 as well. With such small majorities, it doesn’t take more than a couple party crossovers to thwart a meaningful policy change when the ‘out’ party regains a temporary small majority in the Senate.
A good example of how a few crossover votes thwart change in the Senate is what occurred under the Biden administration when just two Democrat Senators, Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema, blocked all attempts to reverse Trump’s $4 trillion 2018 tax cut handout to corporations and investors.
Biden and Democrat party leadership in the Senate did little to pressure them to back off from blocking tax reform at the time. Trump’s 2018 tax cuts were left in place and thereafter expanded and made permanent in 2025. That cost the US Treasury another $5 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Office.
Here’s why little will change in the Senate election, apart from maybe a couple seat Democrat majority at best:
The 2026 Senate election involves 35 of its 100 seats. No more than 9 seats are actually competitive and flippable. These include the 7 Republican Senate seats in the following states: Alaska, Texas, Ohio, Kansas, Iowa, North Carolina, Maine. Competitive races where Democrats hold seats that they may lose involve Michigan and Georgia. So only 9 of the 35 seats are competitive. Once again, only about 10% of the Senate’s 100 seats are up for change in the election, much like the House’s 40-45.
To get a majority in the Senate, Democrats must hold onto seats in Michigan and Georgia which are ‘in play’ and competitive, according to polls, and must win a net of four of the seven contested Republican Senate seats. A net of four seats would give them a total 51 seat majority in the Senate.
Polling shows a solid Democrat lead for in Georgia and a narrower lead in Michigan as challenger Abdul El-Sayed, a progressive, contends with a Republican opponent. The outcome of the Michigan race race is less certain than Georgia but both are a must ‘hold’ for the Democrats.
El-Sayed has faced significant Democrat party, corporate oligarch and Zionist opposition as well as unfriendly mainstream media propaganda. Trump has also gone public strongly opposing El-Sayed. Even El-Sayed’s defeated Democrat party primary competitor has jumped the Dem party ship and endorsed El-Sayed’s Republican opponent. More than $400 million reportedly has been spent thus far on the Michigan race—much of it from business and Zionist sources, domestic and foreign, and much spent against El-Sayed. The final spending will likely be closer to $1 billion than to $500 million once all the campaign Ad spending is counted. While El-Sayed has a small lead in the polls, the mountain of money committed against him by Zionist and business interests leaves the race too close to call. But the Democrats must win Michigan (and Georgia) or their numbers for taking back the Senate collapse.
In Georgia, incumbent Democrat Ossof appears to have a commanding lead for re-election. So that’s one definite Democrat and one uncertain in Michigan. However, the Democrats must win both.
That leaves the remaining seven Republican held seats in play. To achieve a net four seat margin in these seven races, the Democrats must win at least six of the seven seats. That will give them CNN’s predicted 52 seat majority in the Senate. That’s six of the following seven seats: Alaska, Texas, Ohio, Kansas, North Carolina, Iowa and Maine.
The most likely Democrat wins are Maine, North Carolina, Kansas and maybe Ohio. That’s an optimistic four. They need two more from the remaining three: Texas, Alaska and Iowa. That’s a daunting task.
Iowa is highly unlikely given its decades long history and the latest tight polling.
That means the Democrats must take both Alaska and Texas. That’s an uphill battle for the following reasons:
Alaska is interesting in that the Trump administration is already preparing to intervene and overturn the election there should the Democrat Senate candidate, Mary Peltola, win against Republican incumbent Dan Sullivan. Another third party candidate also named Dan Sullivan is apparently on the ballot. Trump administration argues it was a tactical ploy by the Democrats to put the second Dan Sullivan on the ballot. Should Republican Sullivan lose, Trump forces will argue it was interference and campaign fraud. Courts have already ruled Sullivan #2 has as much right as a citizen to run as Republican Sullivan. But this won’t stop legal action by Trump to negate the Alaska election and demand a re-run.
The second must win is Texas, which has not elected a Democrat Senator since 1988. Apart from the El-Sayed Michigan race, mountains of oligarch money has poured into the Texas race as well. More than $500 million has been spent to date. That’s more than $1 billion in just two states: Michigan and Texas. (And another $450 million in Ohio).
Can anyone imagine this happening without the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizen United case that ruled corporations were people and that their spending money on elections was a form of ‘free speech’ under the US Constitution!
In short, the Democrats must also take both Texas and Alaska in order to win even a narrow 52 majority in the Senate. And if by chance Democrat Talarico wins in Texas, then one can be sure the outcome of who controls the Senate will be determined by a long drawn-out court fight over the ‘two Sullivan’s’ issue in the Alaska race. And no seating of an Alaskan Senator means one less seat for the Democrats’ pursuit of a Senate majority.
What this all means is that Trump has little to fear from the Senate in the highly unlikely event of a House impeachment vote—i.e. a trial or conviction—with a mere 51 or even 52 seat majority. One suspects, therefore, he probably cares little about what happens in the 2026 midterm election in either House of Congress.
Conclusions
So the immediate post election scenario is not some kind of severe constitutional crisis of the system a la January 2021, as some commentaries and pundits are predicting. There’s little chance of impeachment, and no chance of trial in the Senate. Therefore there’ll be more of the same Trump foreign policies of wars, more budget deficit busting war spending, more regime change operations (especially against weak countries like Cuba in the western hemisphere), and more aggressive action toward Canada and Greenland.
Trump will not try to overturn or generally subvert the midterm elections process, impound ballots or engage in other constitutionally challenging tactics, except possibly in Alaska. He doesn’t need to. He’ll just ignore the US House election outcome and, worst case, tie up the Senate election results in the courts. He doesn’t care about getting House support to introduce new domestic legislation. And he’ll just ignore any Congressional attempts to interfere with his war mongering foreign policies.
2026 is therefore just another ‘Ho-Hum’ US election that will change little of any real consequence for the American public. It will prove just another example of the bi-annual ‘shell game’ where one wing of the Corporate Party of America—the Democrats—takes over from the other Republican wing. Followed by another similar token switch back to Republicans in 2028 when more Democrat Senate seats are up for re-election than Republican and another couple dozen gerrymandered House seats flip flop again.
Election 2026 is just Déjà vu. Another ‘rien ca change’. Just as it has been for the past three decades at least. And mainstream media dares call it American Democracy?
Dr. Jack Rasmus @drjackrasmus
