One big thing – We can learn from ‘off year’ elections, but we cannot predict

Democrats had a big night on November 4, winning two high-profile governor’s races in New Jersey and Virginia, a proposition to redistrict US House seats in California, three Pennsylvania Supreme Court reelections and the New York City Mayor’s race.

In the wake of these sweeping results, it is tempting for politicians to make claims that support their political goals or for pundits to draw sweeping conclusions in order to predict next year’s midterm elections.

Indeed, the messaging wars have already started on both sides of the aisle. Republicans have characterized the Democratic party as extreme due to the election of the Democratic Socialist candidate in New York City. President Trump has urged Republicans to take action by ending the filibuster and questioned the party’s viability without him on the ballot.  Democrats have argued that the vote was a rebuke of the President, particularly on the cost of living. And Democrats have suggested that voters signaled support for their shutdown strategy.

If history is a guide, it is worth exercising caution before drawing sweeping generalizations. But would-be candidates may draw some lessons from this and previous ‘off-year’ election cycles.

• ‘Off-year’ state and local elections tend to favor the party that lost the last race for the White House, but the midterms that follow have resulted in only a partial victory for that party.  
• The cost of living was a top issue in 2025. It may (or may not) remain the top issue in the 2026 midterms, and, at that point, may (or may not) favor Democrats.   
• Candidate quality and message matters, but it can be a highly localized factor.   
• Redistricting remains the greatest unknown for House control in 2026 and beyond.  

Midterms haven’t awarded complete victories to the opposition party

President Trump and President Biden have at least two things in common. They both delivered control of the House and Senate to their party as they entered the White House. Their parties also lost ground in the Virginia and New Jersey statewide elections that were held the year after their White House victory. This was true in 2017 for President Trump, in 2021 for President Biden, and again in 2025 for President Trump.  

Nevertheless, in the midterms that followed, both President’s parties were able to maintain their Senate majority, losing control of only the House of Representatives. If this pattern holds in 2026, President Trump would be unable to pass legislation along party lines in the last two years of his term but would continue to be able to confirm Senate-approved nominees. 

Issues in ‘off-year’ elections often persist in the next midterm, but not always

In 2017, taxes were a central issue in New Jersey elections, and this favored Democrats as a Republican-controlled Congress was on course to introduce a cap on the popular state and local tax (SALT) deduction. Healthcare also dominated the 2017 elections in Virginia and New Jersey. Both of these issues remained top of mind for voters in the 2018 midterms, helping Democrats gain 41 seats in the House elections that year.

Education was the top issue in Virginia in 2021 and was one among many top concerns for  New Jersey voters. Education favored Republicans in that cycle, and they won the Governorship in Virginia and got close to ousting the Democratic Governor in New Jersey. However, by 2022 historically high inflation dominated the headlines, putting Democrats at a disadvantage in those midterms, helping Republicans pick up nine seats and House control.  These midterms serve as a lesson that things can always get worse for a political party if they are not on top of new issues that emerge.

In 2025, the cost of living and the economy were top issues for voters and this benefited Democrats. But these very same issues had helped Republicans secure the White House and Congress just a year prior. This election serves as a reminder that a party can lose their advantage on an issue if voters remain dissatisfied.

Candidate quality matters, but perceptions can be highly localized

After the November 5 election, pundits are seeking to pin down national Democrats on the direction of their party. The election provided a split screen as New Yorkers elected a Democratic Socialist, Zohran Mandami, Mayor of New York City, while moderate candidates Mikie Sherrill and Abigail Spanberger won the New Jersey and Virginia gubernatorial races.

Republican strategists are seizing on the New York results, labeling the party as immoderate and extremely left of center, a message they are likely to carry into 2026. Democrats have responded suggesting that locally distinct candidates can carry the same message with different solutions. This strategy has limits, however, as the party will need to have a national candidate and platform in 2028. Only time and a 2027 primary season will tell which path the party takes.

On the other hand, Democrats have labeled the 2025 results as a rebuke of Trump. They have plenty of evidence to do so, but its applicability to 2026 may be overestimated due to localized factors. Spanberger gained ground in every single Viriginia county over former Vice President Kamala Harris, but this comes after significant government layoffs and furloughs in a state that is home to nearly 150,000 civilian government workers. And, Virginia itself is a state that has continued to trend bluer, voting for Democratic Presidential candidates in the last five election cycles and Republicans in the five elections that preceded that.

New Jersey has been trending blue at least as long as Virginia. But the demographic shifts between 2024 and 2025 send mixed messages. In 2024, Trump flipped several Democratic counties and made inroads with Latino voters, but this trend was completely reversed in 2025. Yet, the reason for the shift isn’t clear. It could be, as the President claims, because he wasn’t on the ballot. Or it could be that these voters are disappointed by his performance and are trending back toward historical voting patterns. Either way, Republicans will have to grapple with the same challenge afflicting Democrats in 2028, that the head of their party and their platform is not yet determined.

Redistricting is a Huge Unknown Factor for 2026

In California, Governor Gavin Newsom campaigned in favor of, and succeeded in, passing a voter referendum to redistrict the state’s map, potentially netting Democrats five additional house seats. This effort was messaged as a way to level the playing field after Republicans in Texas redrew their map giving them an advantage in five additional seats as well.  Several other blue and red states are working on their own redistricting, though many of these efforts are bogged down in process.

Until all state maps are final, it will not be clear which party stands to benefit from the sum total of new maps.  Even if one party manages to gain a small advantage, neither side is likely to gain a huge majority in the House unless there is a wave election. This is, of course, dependent on the issues and candidates that dominate in 2026. In the event of a wave election, no amount of redistricting will prevent either party from winning.

In other news

• The federal government has undergone the longest shutdown in history. Before reopening, Democrats are pushing for an agreement from Republicans to continue funding expiring healthcare-related tax credits beyond their expiration on December 31, while Republicans have suggested that they can’t agree to take a vote on these until the government reopens. As the shutdown drags on the impact on food aid programs and at airports is beginning to draw attention outside of Washington. It is not yet clear what it will take to reopen the government but the tension will undoubtedly continue to mount and it seems unlikely that lawmakers would not reopen before Thanksgiving when travel delays could snarl holiday travel.  
• The Supreme Court heard a case brought against the Trump Administration for it’s use of the International Economic Emergency Powers Act to deploy tariffs. The case may be decided on an expedited timescale given its importance, or it could take months. In the meantime, ongoing questions remain on whether the President will use another authority to substantially implement the same tariffs and whether or not tariff revenue must be repaid. 
• The US and China deescalated, but did not end, their trade war. China agreed to stop export controls on semi-conductors and rare earth minerals, combat opioid trafficking and resume purchases of US agriculture, while the US agreed to lower tariffs and remove export controls. Both agreed to remove port fees. They will continue to negotiate terms yearly.