A democratic landslide is not a blank cheque, By Osmund Agbo

The 2018 United States Senate election in Texas, held on 6 November, was quite remarkable. For the first time in several years, the race did not look like a straightforward Republican victory. Incumbent Senator Ted Cruz faced a formidable challenge from a Democratic congressman representing Texas’s 16th Congressional District. His name was Robert Francis O’Rourke, popularly known as Beto O’Rourke. In the end, Cruz prevailed, but by just 215,000 votes, or 2.6 percentage points. Beto’s performance was extraordinary for a Democrat challenging an incumbent in a deeply Republican state like Texas.

Yet, despite Beto’s spectacular performance, the outcome was deeply disappointing to many Democrats who believed that nobody else stood a better chance of turning such a reliably red state blue. Beto was the ideal candidate, and if anyone stood a chance, it had to be him. Young, charismatic and bilingual, he ran a campaign built around a statewide strategy and a message of inclusion. Though of Irish-American ancestry, he was born and raised in El Paso, Texas, a predominantly Hispanic border city. In other words, he was a white man with considerable appeal to Hispanic voters, one of the most important voting demographics in Texas. Yet he still lost.

Fast-forward to 2026, and we have another Senate race. This time, the contest was between Republican candidate Ken Paxton, the former Texas attorney general, and Democrat James Talarico, a relatively lesser-known politician serving in the Texas House of Representatives. Paxton was a deeply controversial candidate, dogged by considerable personal and political baggage, including his highly publicised marital infidelity and legal troubles. Even some Republicans considered Talarico the stronger candidate. But then, this is Texas, and Democrats were understandably reluctant to get their hopes up. That was until the midterm election results began trickling in.

American politics has just witnessed an extraordinary electoral earthquake. The 2026 midterm elections will be remembered as one of the most consequential political reversals in recent American history. Democrats have not only reclaimed control of both chambers of Congress but have also made remarkable inroads into territories that, until recently, appeared safely beyond their reach.

James Talarico in Texas, Adam Hamilton in Kansas, and Annie Andrews in South Carolina are three Democratic candidates who prevailed in states long associated with Republican political dominance. Their victories, alongside four other Republican-held Senate seats that Democrats flipped, represent a stunning repudiation of the Republican establishment. In the House, according to CBS News, Democrats have flipped 43 congressional districts, with several victories coming in territory that Donald Trump carried comfortably in 2024. Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, hardly an admirer of the Democratic Party, described the Republican losses as close to an extinction-level event for his party.

The scale of this victory deserves acknowledgment. It is historic and, in several respects, extraordinary. Democrats made these gains against the backdrop of contentious battles over voting rights and access to the ballot, including Republican-led efforts to tighten election rules that critics argue disproportionately burden minority voters.

In the years that followed, thousands of polling places closed in jurisdictions previously subject to federal oversight, raising concerns about access to the ballot, particularly in some Black and Latino communities. Yet, as remarkable as this Democratic victory is, the party must not mistake an electoral repudiation of its opponents for an unconditional endorsement of its own agenda. The challenge now is to govern wisely, remain focused on the concerns of ordinary Americans and resist the temptation to overplay its hand.

An electoral victory is not necessarily an endorsement of every policy position, ideological conviction or political ambition of the winning party. Sometimes, voters are not voting enthusiastically for one party so much as they are voting decisively against another. There is an important distinction here, and Democrats would be wise not to lose sight of it.

The immediate temptation, particularly among the more enthusiastic elements of the party, will be to turn this victory into an opportunity for political retribution. Already, there are renewed calls for the impeachment of Donald Trump. I understand the sentiment. There is certainly no shortage of reasons his political opponents might want to hold him accountable. However, at some point, political emotions must give way to realpolitik.

The question is not simply whether Trump deserves impeachment. It is whether pursuing impeachment is the most consequential use of the political capital Democrats have just acquired.

The House can impeach a president with a simple majority. Removal, however, requires conviction by a two-thirds majority of senators present. With all 100 senators voting, that means 67 votes. Even with control of the Senate, Democrats are nowhere near that threshold. I would wager that very few, if any, Republican senators would be willing to cross party lines to vote for Trump’s conviction.

There is another complication Democrats should not underestimate. Their congressional majority will not necessarily translate into a unified voting bloc. Some of the Democrats who have just won in deeply conservative states and Republican-leaning districts will have little appetite for participating in what their constituents might perceive as a partisan crusade against Trump. They know that Trump retains considerable loyalty among his political base, and they will be reluctant to jeopardise their own political futures by taking positions that could alienate the very voters who sent them to Washington.

This is the uncomfortable reality of American politics. A Democratic representative from a deeply conservative district does not suddenly become a progressive crusader simply because the Democratic Party has won control of Congress. These lawmakers have their own political survival to consider. They may agree with their party on oversight, healthcare, infrastructure and economic policy while disagreeing on impeachment or other highly polarizing questions.

Democrats should therefore resist the temptation to spend their newly acquired political capital on symbolic battles that have little prospect of producing meaningful outcomes. We have seen this movie before, not once but twice. Impeachment proceedings that culminate in acquittal may satisfy the party’s most ardent supporters, but they risk becoming another expensive political spectacle that distracts from more consequential fights. There are far more pressing matters demanding attention.

Americans are struggling with the cost of living. Inflation has significantly eroded household purchasing power. Grocery bills remain painfully high, and fuel prices have become another source of economic anxiety, further aggravated by the war involving Iran. For millions of ordinary Americans, the question of whether they can afford groceries, pay their mortgages, maintain their health insurance and put something aside for retirement is considerably more immediate than the political fate of Donald Trump.

Democrats must understand that their victory is an opportunity to reconnect with these ordinary economic anxieties, not an invitation to lose themselves in Washington’s familiar political theatrics.

Indeed, the party needs an honest postmortem of its own. How did Democrats lose the confidence of enough Americans to allow a politician with Trump’s baggage to return to the White House? That question deserves more than convenient explanations about misinformation, racism or the gullibility of voters. Democrats must be willing to examine their own failures.

Immigration is a particularly important example. The party handled the issue poorly, and pretending otherwise would be a mistake. While many Americans are deeply uncomfortable with the manner in which some immigration enforcement operations are conducted by ICE, that discomfort should not be mistaken for opposition to immigration enforcement itself.

Americans want an orderly and secure border. They want immigration laws enforced. They do not want a return to the perception, during the Biden administration, that the southern border was overwhelmed and that the federal government had lost control of the situation. At the same time, they expect immigration enforcement to be conducted humanely, lawfully and with respect for due process.

These positions are not mutually exclusive. A country can enforce its immigration laws without abandoning its humanitarian obligations. Democrats must learn to articulate that distinction convincingly rather than allow Republicans to monopolise the language of border security.

There is also a broader question about the party’s political priorities. Democrats have sometimes given the impression that their most visible political preoccupations revolve around cultural and identity issues, including LGBTQ rights, while the economic struggles of ordinary working families receive comparatively less attention.

To be clear, protecting minority rights, defending individual liberties and ensuring equal treatment under the law are legitimate responsibilities of government. They should never be abandoned for political convenience. But there is a difference between defending fundamental rights and allowing cultural controversies to dominate the party’s political identity.

The economic circumstances of ordinary Americans must be at the centre of a Democratic legislative agenda. People want affordable healthcare, decent-paying jobs, lower housing costs, affordable education and an economy in which hard work offers a reasonable prospect of upward mobility. These are the issues that should define the party’s priorities.

Then there is the judiciary, perhaps the most formidable obstacle to the Democrats’ ability to exercise meaningful oversight of the Trump administration.

The United States Supreme Court currently has a 6–3 conservative majority. This is not an inconsequential detail. The Court has become an increasingly consequential player in the country’s political and constitutional disputes, and its ideological composition will matter enormously as the legislative and executive branches collide over the next two years. Ideally, the Court should have a more balanced ideological composition, one that encourages deliberation and makes it necessary to persuade members across ideological lines.

Unfortunately, that is not the case, and it will undoubtedly work against Democrats in certain disputes. The principle of checks and balances is weakened when one institution becomes so ideologically predictable that litigants can reasonably anticipate how a substantial category of politically consequential cases will be decided.

I fully expect significant litigation between the Trump administration and the Democratic-controlled Congress. Questions surrounding executive authority, immigration, presidential powers, federal spending and congressional oversight will almost certainly find their way into the courts. Ultimately, many of these disputes could end up before a Supreme Court whose conservative majority may be more receptive to the administration’s legal arguments.

That does not mean every conservative justice will automatically side with Trump. The Court has its own institutional interests and constitutional responsibilities. But Democrats should be under no illusion that winning Congress automatically gives them control over the broader machinery of government. This is precisely why strategic thinking matters.

Democrats have a historic opportunity to demonstrate that they can govern differently. They can use congressional oversight to expose wrongdoing, insist on accountability, scrutinise executive actions and challenge policies they consider unlawful. They can legislate on matters that directly improve the lives of Americans. They can also demonstrate that responsible government is not synonymous with political vengeance.

Most importantly, they must recognise that the voters who made this victory possible are not necessarily signing up for an ideological revolution. Many are simply exhausted by the chaos, economic uncertainty and political dysfunction that have characterised recent years.

The 2026 midterms were a powerful rebuke of Trump and the Republican Party. But they were not a blank cheque for Democrats to pursue every item on their ideological wish list. Nor should the party mistake the temporary collapse of Republican electoral fortunes for a permanent realignment of American political loyalties.

Republicans have been given a serious warning. Democrats have been handed an extraordinary opportunity. What they do with it will determine whether this election becomes the beginning of a durable political realignment or merely another temporary swing of the American political pendulum.

The Democrats have won the battle. Now comes the harder task of governing wisely enough to deserve the victory.

Osmund Agbo is a medical doctor, author, and the 2026 recipient of the Thabo Mbeki Prize for Scholarship and Public Service.