The United States is now entering the final 93 days before the November 3 midterm elections, and Democrats face a challenge larger than simply winning additional seats in Congress.
They must convince voters that control of the House and Senate will affect not only taxes, healthcare and the cost of living, but also the strength of the institutions designed to limit presidential power.
That argument has gained urgency following the release of the V-Dem Institute’s Democracy Report 2026. The international research organization concluded that the United States experienced an unprecedented democratic decline during President Donald Trump’s first year back in office.
V-Dem said the country’s score on its Liberal Democracy Index fell by 24% in one year, while its global ranking dropped from 20th to 51st. The report described American democracy as being at its weakest level in 60 years, pointing particularly to declining institutional checks, civil rights and freedom of expression. Electoral measures remained stable through 2025, however, meaning the report did not conclude that the upcoming election had already been compromised.
TRENDING TODAY
The report also highlighted the growing imbalance between the presidency and Congress. According to V-Dem’s count, Trump signed 225 executive orders during 2025, while the Republican-controlled Congress passed 49 laws. The institute presented those numbers as evidence that major policy decisions were increasingly being driven through executive authority rather than ordinary legislation.
Trump and his supporters reject the broader argument that his administration is weakening democracy. They maintain that aggressive executive action is necessary to reverse previous policies, secure the border, reduce government bureaucracy and enforce laws that Congress has failed to address.
A similar dispute surrounds proposed changes to election rules. Republicans argue that proof-of-citizenship and voter-identification requirements would increase confidence in elections. Democrats and voting-rights organizations warn that poorly designed requirements could prevent eligible citizens without immediate access to documents from registering or casting ballots.
Trump has recently pressured Senate Republicans to advance national voter-verification legislation before the midterms, although party leaders have acknowledged that they currently lack the votes needed to overcome a Senate filibuster.
There is no public evidence establishing that the November election has already been “rigged.” Nevertheless, close results in a small number of districts could produce recounts, lawsuits and disputes over ballot eligibility. That makes a decisive result politically valuable to either party, even if the legal rules remain unchanged.
Democrats looking for an international example have pointed to Hungary, where Péter Magyar’s Tisza party defeated Viktor Orbán’s Fidesz government after 16 years in power. Tisza secured a two-thirds parliamentary majority following a disciplined nationwide campaign, opposition coordination, civil-society organizing and election monitoring.
The comparison has limits. Hungary elects a national parliament under a different political system, while American midterms consist of hundreds of separate House, Senate and state contests. Democrats cannot simply produce one nationwide landslide and expect it to translate evenly across heavily Republican, Democratic and competitive districts.
The political environment still offers the opposition a significant opportunity.
A recent national survey found Trump’s approval rating at 37%, while only about one-third of Americans supported the war with Iran. Nearly seven in 10 respondents said the administration had not clearly explained its military objectives. Rising gasoline prices have also connected foreign policy to household finances, potentially creating difficulties for Republican candidates campaigning on affordability.
Democrats, however, cannot rely entirely on voter dissatisfaction with Trump.
House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries has begun promoting an affordability agenda focused on groceries, gasoline, housing and healthcare. That is a practical strategy because the House majority may be determined by fewer than 20 genuinely competitive districts rather than by the national popular vote alone.
The party will also need candidates suited to the communities they hope to represent. A progressive candidate who performs strongly in New York or Seattle may not automatically appeal to swing voters in Pennsylvania, Michigan or Wisconsin. At the same time, selecting only cautious candidates could weaken enthusiasm among younger and more progressive voters.
The strongest approach would combine both priorities: local candidates with enough independence to match their districts, supported by a clear national message on prices, healthcare, government accountability and constitutional limits.
A Democratic House majority would not automatically reverse Trump’s policies. It could, however, use hearings, subpoenas, spending authority and investigations to challenge the administration. Control of the Senate would carry additional power over judges, senior officials and legislation, but the Senate map presents a more difficult path.
For ordinary Americans, the institutional debate may sound distant compared with rent, grocery bills and fuel prices. In practice, the two issues are connected. Congressional oversight affects how taxpayer money is spent, whether military action is scrutinized and whether executive agencies can change policies without meaningful legislative review.
The Democrats’ central problem is therefore not a lack of issues. It is turning widespread concern into a coherent reason to vote.
Trump’s opponents may believe the president is creating their electoral opportunity for them. But anger, negative approval ratings and controversial policies do not automatically produce turnout. Without disciplined campaigns, credible candidates and a simple economic message, an apparent opening can still be missed.
Why It Matters
The November elections will decide whether Republicans continue controlling Congress during the final two years of Trump’s presidency or whether Democrats gain the power to investigate, restrict funding and challenge executive actions.
The outcome could influence immigration enforcement, military spending, healthcare, taxes and the rules governing future elections. It may also determine whether voters believe existing democratic institutions can still limit presidential power through ordinary elections.
What Comes Next
Democrats will concentrate resources on a relatively small group of competitive House districts while attempting to remain viable in closely contested Senate races.
Republicans will campaign on border security, tax policy and election integrity while arguing that Democratic control would block Trump’s agenda.
The decisive question will be whether voters treat the midterms primarily as a judgment on Trump, a referendum on the economy or a broader decision about the balance of power in Washington.
