The Democrats will not fundamentally change the system; a socialist alternative is necessary
“When Trump’s on the ballot, they win,” said the US president to Fox News in August. But the Republicans were routed in the midterms despite Trump’s pleas to remember that he was on the ballot. Or rather, many voted against the Republicans precisely because of Trump, rising prices, the smell of corruption and profiteering around the White House, and the war on Iran.
Preliminary figures indicated that the number of people voting was at least 124 million, 12 million more than in the 2022 midterms, but postal votes are still being counted in some states. The New York Times estimates that the Democrats have recorded their largest increase in the national House popular vote since the Watergate era. An increase in voter registration may mean that this year’s percentage turnout is lower than in 2022 and 2018. Nevertheless, the higher numbers reflect the anti-Trump mood that shook the nation, while it is likely that significant numbers of previous Trump voters did not vote this time.
The day after the elections, while examining and talking about the huge, expensive ballroom he is building, Trump complained that people didn’t realise that the rise in fuel prices caused by the attack on Iran was worth it. This was because, Trump argued, otherwise the Iranians would develop nuclear weapons that could destroy Washington, DC, and all that he was building and restoring in that city.
The Democrats – whom most commentators expected to win the House of Representatives, but not by such a large majority, and possibly not the Senate – flipped seven seats to win the Senate. There are close votes still being counted in Mississippi and Alaska, Republican ‘red’ states for decades, where the Democratic ‘blue wave’ has crashed deep. They flipped five governorships, all in states Trump won in 2024.
But it was not just opposition to Trump and his policies. The voting also reflected, in a small way, the growing support for the idea of socialism, particularly, but not only, among Gen Z. There are now seven self-declared socialists in the House of Representatives who should use their positions to campaign against capitalism, for socialist policies and to help build a genuine socialist movement.
Trump’s defeat is also a major blow to right-wing populism globally. It comes immediately after the defeat of Trump’s allies Belisario in Brazil and Vučić in Serbia, alongside the earlier defeat of Orbán in Hungary. There is a growing popular mood of opposition to the right, to the growing wealth of the rich while living standards stagnate or fall, and to corruption. Many leaders of right-wing populist parties in Europe who rode on the back of Trumpism now seek to distance themselves. In Germany, René Aust, a leading AfD MEP, said, “the anti-business customs policy harms everyone, the Iran war harms everyone” (Table-Briefings, Berlin, 4 November 2026). Another AfD leader, Klemanz, stated, “When Texas turns blue, you have to realise people feel screwed by Trump” (Table-Briefings, Berlin, 4 November 2026).
Many working- and middle-class people and young people, in the US and internationally, will be celebrating. While the CWI welcomes the rejection of right-wing populism and the partial expression of rage that this result represents at the capitalist cost-of-living crisis, corruption, the encroachment of big-tech bosses, and the oppressive and violent divisions fostered by Trumpism, we warn clearly and firmly that there can be no trust in the liberal-capitalist Democratic Party leadership and machine to meet the hopes of the millions who voted. Real transformation for workers and young people can come only through independent mass struggle, not only against Trumpism but also against the corporate Democratic Party leadership, which fundamentally supports the same system.
Democratic Party candidates talked about “dark money” during the campaign, referring to the likes of Elon Musk, who poured hundreds of millions of dollars into losing candidates. An obscene $12 billion was spent on the elections. But the Democrats take money from billionaires and corporations too, such as Bloomberg, who topped up his $80 million in blue donations by another $36 million in the final days. No wonder Wall Street stocks rallied after the results: the capitalists fully trust the Democratic leaders.
Both parties now face potential crises arising from this election and from the fact that campaigning is now beginning to win the presidential nomination and then the presidency itself in 2028. The Republicans will face a battle over who controls the party and its campaign funds, both inside and outside the party, along with the political repercussions of defeat.
Before the results, Steve Bannon, a MAGA architect, spoke of a coming civil war in the GOP (Financial Times, 2 November 2026, Alex Rogers). “monster battles” are about to begin in the “lame duck” season, before Congress is sworn in and before the presidential primaries for 2028 begin, over the debt ceiling, the government spending bill, the war with Iran and AI regulation. Vice President JD Vance was the first to break with his fealty to Trump, with his own rambling post on social media saying that GOP/MAGA coalition voters did turn out but voted for the Democrats. His uneasy acceptance of the war has now become open opposition to the party: “if you like to argue it was worth it, that losing the Senate for the next six years was worth it, then do so”.
Bannon also wants an ‘America First’ defence against other elements in the Republican Party who want an end to MAGA: “The donor class and the apparatchiks, including at the state level, want their party back.” Outgoing Florida Governor Ron DeSantis has come out against the Trump administration again, railing for the release of the Epstein files and a ban on congressional stock trading, and saying that this election was a “close to extinction-level event” for the party. The battle for control could be very sharp, especially as moves to reclaim the party for the mainstream capitalists result in battles with the populists.
Trump has claimed that he can now be “Mr Veto”, blocking new laws with his personal power of veto, which can be overridden only by two-thirds majorities in both houses of Congress. So how are the Democrats going to fulfil the promises made by their corporate leaders, Hakeem Jeffries and Chuck Schumer, who said, “America is back!” – promising to lower prices and make America more affordable? They also claim that they will not approve more funding for the Iran war and the immigration crackdown if Trump wields his presidential executive powers. Plans have been mooted to legally challenge and attempt to regulate industries that have lobbied Trump, including fossil fuels and AI. The Democrats, while now having veto power over presidential nominees and the possibility of investigating the financial dealings of the Trump family and their associates, will be reluctant to use their position to mobilise a genuine popular movement against corruption and Trump’s use of vetoes, for fear that they could not control such a movement.
Partly, this is justified by claiming that the Republicans and MAGA were punished rather than that there was increased support for the Democrats’ actual political platform. But calls for something different were popular. As Talarico, the winning Democratic Senate candidate in Texas, says, “There is something broken in America, people across the political spectrum are hungry for a different kind of politics”. The volatile swings since 2024 show the breakdown of loyalty to the two corporate parties and a desire for independence from big-business politicians. The biggest swings back to the Democrats were among young voters and Hispanics – precisely where Trump had gained in 2024. But there is a big, and growing, desire for change; the struggle will be over which direction it takes, and the Democratic leaders will want to keep it within capitalist limits.
Much media attention was given to the Democrats winning a seat in Kansas for the first time since the 1930s. Of course, the geographical and social bases of the two parties have altered and shifted throughout the course of American capitalism; the Democrats were once much more dominant in Kansas. In a sense, both parties face a crisis of legitimacy among the working class, young people and big sections of the middle class, as the “American dream” no longer delivers. There are also demographic changes and shifts being reflected in election results: the increase in the Hispanic population, the liberalisation of cities and a younger population in states like Texas and Georgia, investment and economic growth, and therefore an increase in voters in the Sun Belt and decline and depopulation in the Rust Belt.
In previously MAGA areas, voters switched from the Republicans because of data centres and the pressures on farmers caused by tariffs and prices. Musk at least does seem to understand the reaction better than Trump, tweeting, “Data centres in space looking pretty appealing right now,” as the results came in.
If the Democrats do not deliver, they may, as they have done historically, claim that their hands are tied by Trump’s vetoes and filibustering. There could then be a backlash and a rout for them, deeper and more visceral than the disappointments after 2018 in Trump’s first term and during the Biden presidency – which may even take place in the 2028 presidential election.
Already, we can see the different wings.
Societal pressure in the US, the ravages of the cost of living faced by the working and middle classes, inflation and the gutting of healthcare coverage and Social Security forced the Democrats to engage in “economic populism”, in many cases of a left-wing variety, in some critical swing contests. Commentators have pointed to a shift away from the approach in the Harris 2024 campaign, which focused on identity-based issues and attacking Trumpism without an economic case.
This time, many Democrats attacked the polarisation of wealth, including the effect of Trump’s tax changes, which mean that the richest 400 US families now have lower tax rates than the bottom 50% of Americans. This is on top of the fact that ordinary workers’ share of US national income has fallen from 30% in the 1960s to 20% now. But the Democratic leaders are careful not to attack the system itself; at best, they are left populists who do not challenge capitalism, despite the growing support for, or openness to, ‘socialism’ within the US.
Abdul El Sayed, in Michigan, successfully faced down racist attacks from Trump and Vance. His campaign has generated the most attention of all the races from radical layers and young people. Days before the poll, he also faced opposition from within the state party, as Congresswoman Haley Stevens endorsed his opponent over El Sayed’s position on Gaza and his programme, which only increased his donations and support. The Michigan campaign slogan was “money out of politics and in your pocket”, with a focus on issues like Medicare for All. However, when asked, “Were you ever a socialist?”, El-Sayed replied, “No. I’m a capitalist.” The same would be true of most of the others who talk ‘left’ but are not socialist.
Interestingly, Troy Jackson, who defeated a moderate Republican in Maine, used his background in union organising in his rhetoric, alongside demands like ‘Medicare for All’. In Texas, Talarico and Hinojosa, who won a Senate seat and the state governorship, respectively, talked about “not left versus right but top versus bottom” and “we must unrig this economic system that only benefits the top 1%” (Common Dreams, Johnson, 4 November 2026).
While left populism is a trend among the Democrats, which some use to win over the disenchanted and angry, even from MAGA, the centrist, corporate party machine is much larger and dominates the apparatus. This election also saw the Blue Dog Coalition of “moderates” increase its numbers in the House by 14 (New York Times, 5 November 2026).
Thus, Hakeem Jeffries, now celebrated in the liberal press as likely to become the “first Black” Speaker of the House, is an out-and-out corporate opponent of any attempt at “democratic socialism” in the party. While the shift in US opinion as a result of the Gaza war meant that many Democratic candidates were falling over themselves to attack or distance themselves from pro-Israel government AIPAC funding, Jeffries himself proudly displayed his support for it.
The contradictions within the Democrats are likely to deepen, especially between the corporate wing, which will work to restrict the more far-reaching demands, and those on the ‘populist’ wing. The Democrats will be judged by what they actually do both in policies and in combating Trump. This squeeze will inevitably pose the question to the populists of whether they will capitulate to the demands of big business or fight. This will also be true for members of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) who ran as Democratic candidates.
These DSA-associated candidates have raised the hopes of many by raising the ideas of universal healthcare, public housing and opposition to the Gaza genocide. A DSA candidate was unable to overcome the Republicans in Florida, but one member won the mayoral contest in Washington, DC. The DSA’s number in Congress is now up to seven, representing seats in New York, Michigan, Colorado and Pennsylvania. DSA may win another seat in California and the Los Angeles mayoral election; all are running, or were elected, on the Democratic Party ballot line. However, the DSA itself is engulfed in battles around the accountability of its candidates and representatives and their relations with the Democrats, something that includes Raman, who has just won the election for LA mayor.
A real “democratic socialist” bloc in Congress could be a major reference point for fighting Trumpism and the pro-capitalist Democratic Party leadership, and for mobilising mass movements of workers and young people in workplaces, colleges and on the streets. The congressional representatives could organise to put bills and resolutions in the interests of the working class and the labour movement into the legislature, igniting discussion and support in society. Imagine fighting to raise the federal minimum wage to $30 an hour, bringing energy into public ownership, fighting for union rights or against data centres, fighting for rent controls and public housing, and opposing war. Such a bloc could also lead a struggle to abolish ICE, to set up committees of workers and unions to control prices, and to fight against the divisive attacks on democratic rights and the oppression of the Trump administration, nationally and internationally.
However, such necessary steps would immediately open up a confrontation not just with Trump but with elements like the pro-capitalist Jeffries and the Democratic Party machine. Are these DSA representatives prepared to do that? In the past, there were socialists who were prepared to stand up. The Socialist Party, then an independent force with a base in the working class, had leaders of both its right and left wings who were jailed for opposing the First World War. One of those convicted, himself on the right of the Party, was elected twice to the House, but the House twice voted that he should not be allowed to take his seat.
But these DSA elements seem to be firmly rooted in the strategy of working in the Democrats at a time when nearly half of registered voters are either ‘independent’ or ‘non-party’, something that shows the potential for a new party that challenges the system. The labour movement and young people should mobilise to demand that the DSA follows the opposite course to the ‘Squad’ of DSA House members, including AOC, under Trump 1.0 and Biden, who worked with the then Pelosi-led Democratic Party and, for example, assisted Biden in shutting down the 2022 national railroad strike and failed to oppose funding for Israel’s ‘Iron Dome’.
The weakness of DSA’s public representatives and their current position of trying to reform the Democratic Party was shown by the statement of New York Mayor Mamdani as the results came in, saying, “We have begun the work of transforming our party and making it belong to the working people once again… for too long in this country politics has been treated like a game we track who’s up who’s down we pour over palace intrigue and relegate the issues that affect the working class to the margins”. This was made while Mamdani was standing at New York Governor corporate Democrat Kathy Hochul’s victory party, the same politician who organised the undermining of a nurses’ strike in 2026. Given that the Democrats are not a truly democratically run political party, hopes that the working class can take it over are utopian, to say the least.
Notwithstanding this ‘blue wave’, the key issues facing the US working class and sections of its middle class will not be resolved even if a Democrat wins the presidency in 2028, as increasing numbers in the US are understanding that the fundamental issue is capitalism itself. By breaking with the Democrats, a party that has been pro-capitalist since its birth, DSA members could play a central part in pulling together opponents of both established parties and those who are looking towards socialism, thereby establishing a strong basis for an organised socialist workers’ movement that can work to fundamentally change society.
This is why the CWI and our co-thinkers in the US, the Independent Socialist Group, supported independent candidates in the midterms who stood for the interests of the working class. The votes of these candidates were squeezed but credible. We agree with Rhode Island DSA, whose candidate, Kubicek, stood as a “independent socialist” against the Democrats, won 23% of the vote in a State House district, and said in the post-election statement from the DSA chapter, “the struggle for a worker’s party continues”. Andrea James, a left independent, also got 85,000 votes across the state of Massachusetts against the Democratic machine: 3.3%. This provides a basis on which to build further support by campaigning and standing in future elections.
These campaigns can be steps towards fighting for a mass workers’ party, one that builds support within the potentially powerful labour unions, which is needed across the United States and can organise and fight for the interests of workers and young people, independently of the corporate parties.
The midterms were clearly a rejection of, and an expression of rage against, Trumpism and MAGA, but only a partial one. Anger was also seen in the mass movement in Minnesota against ICE early in the year and in some major strikes. As the results came in, nurses in Boston were preparing indefinite strike action. Socialist ideas and traditions are also being enthusiastically taken up by a new generation. The only way out of the cost-of-living nightmare is through a socialist transformation led by the working class, bringing wealth, resources and technology into public ownership to be democratically planned, nationally and internationally, for the needs of all.