I’ve seen a few comments over the last couple days to the effect that our system turned out to be more robust, stronger than some of us feared. Trump tried to tamper with and rig the 2026 election. But he mostly failed. I would put it a little differently. We turned out to be — the American people — stronger, more robust than many of us feared. This may seem mawkish or merely semantic. But it’s more than that and the difference speaks directly to the current debates about accountability and how it should shape the next Congress and the next two years.

The singular lesson of the Trump Era has been that no system can be stronger than its participants’ willingness to follow and enforce the rules that govern it. It’s worth sitting with that for a moment. No constitution or system of laws and protections can be stronger than its participants’ willingness to follow the rules that govern it. Trump was faced with the big challenge that states control the administration of elections. But the White House came up with numerous quite ingenious angles to overcome those obstacles. It took an immense amount of work by voters, elected officials, judges, lawyers, countless Americans in myriad positions and professions to stop it. A governmental system provides a framework, a playing field. But as the authors of the federal Constitution debated and largely decided: there is no machine that runs of itself. It lives or dies, degenerates or perseveres, based on the people, the citizens who make it up.

The clearest signal from Donald Trump at the moment is the lack of any signal. His public comments have ranged from resigned to cooperative to boasting. His affect is disorganized, enervated, sometimes light. It’s one of the few times we’ve seen Trump seemingly unable to figure out how to react. This appears to apply to the whole White House.

We’re seeing Republicans wrestle their way toward a first reaction to Tuesday’s genuinely historic electoral collapse. We saw it most clearly, with a heavily “nationalist” tinge, in JD Vance’s Tuesday sleight of hand about Trump’s Iran War. Vance’s argument is that Trump Two was basically going great, both substantively and politically, until Trump launched his war on Iran back in February. So the problem isn’t Trumpism but not sticking to Trumpism with enough resolve. They only went wrong with the Iran War and even more Israel.

Let’s start by noting that Vance’s gambit is just warmed over TuckerCarlsonism, or TuckCarlsonism without all the charisma. That is, racial/religious nationalism which has a specific beef with both Jews and Israel as part of a broader argument that America is a white and Christian country where non-whites and non-Christians are at best guests. You see this in Vance’s frequent references to “heritage Americans” and attacks on “ungrateful” Blacks and non-white immigrants who should be kicked out of the country if they don’t express gratitude clearly enough. This is a reality that deserves a lot of attention from Jews who are rightly concerned about antisemitism of various sorts on the left. Vance is not only clearly an antisemite personally but he is signaling that he plans to use that animus as a central lever of his drive to power.

There’s a point of diminishing returns on non-definitive updates on the still outstanding Mississippi Senate race. But I’ve kept looking at the mix of outstanding votes, where they are, historical precedents, etc., and I’m pretty confident that Scott Colom is going to win this race and be the next senator from Mississippi. If it were callable it would be called. And it may take days or even a week to get a final verdict. But I just can’t find any argument that the remaining ballots don’t heavily favor Colom and he’s already up by almost 2,000 votes. (The AP numbers which most sites use are out of date.)

Assuming that is true we’re likely looking at a 56-seat majority for the Democrats — technically 54 seats plus the two independents who caucus with the Democrats, if you want to be picky. That’s not only good news on its own for Democrats. It puts them in a good position to hold the Senate majority through the remainder of this decade.

A number of you have written in to ask how the polls ended up doing in the 2026 midterms. I think we know that they underestimated Democratic strength. But how much? How consistently? What I’ve assembled below is just a provisional, back-of-the-envelope read. Others will do this more comprehensively, looking across all polls, comparing them with the final certified results and then adding additional fancy numbers stuff. But I wanted to come up with a provisional read.

I took 12 Senate races that by the widest measure appeared to be contested. I took the final poll average in each from Nate Silver’s Silver Bulletin and I compared them to the current posted results on The New York Times results page. Votes are still being counted, but margins won’t change much. With the poll average and the final result I rounded to the closest whole number before comparing them to find the amount of error or miss.

Here’s what I came up with.

As I mentioned last night, the data analysts I trust think Scott Colom is more likely than not to win the Mississippi Senate race. A short time ago I noticed that DecisionDeskHQ has more votes reported than most reporting sites which mostly use the data feed provided by the AP. DDHQ is a several year old upstart elections service which has aimed to compete with AP’s data service. They’re legit. They provide data to RCP and many other sites, but not as many as the AP. I’d still like to see these numbers confirmed by another source. But I’m pretty sure they’re real. They now show Colom opening up a lead of 1,864 votes. Add to this that the remaining votes appear to be in Colom-friendly areas. We can’t be sure of the outcome yet. But his odds look good.

NBC News currently projects that Democrats will hold 258 seats in the House in the next Congress — an 81-seat margin. Let’s assume that’s accurate; in any case, it won’t be far off. If that holds, that will be the largest majority either party has held since 1990 — 36 years ago. It’s important to note that this was in the pre-1994 U.S. political system in which Democrats still held large majorities based in part on incumbency in southern districts that were already strongly Republican. That changed decisively in 1994, and U.S. politics has never been the same. The last time Republicans won a majority that large was, I believe, in 1928.

I want to again thank everyone who joined us for last night’s election night video-cast. We had a great time (with an assist from the American electorate) and we hope you did too. It’s not quite as exciting as a rerun. But if you’d like to catch a few minutes of it just to see what it was like you can check it out here. We plan to do more of these. The written word remains our primary medium. But there’s a lot more that even a small organization can do with live coverage of events through video. If you joined us, we’d love to hear your feedback.

Just before 2 a.m., I’m trying to make sense of the Senate results. If I’m making sense of this right, Democrats have clearly won 54 senate seats, appear likely to win 55 and could still win 56.

The final uncertain seat is in Mississippi. The Times calls it a toss-up with a 61% chance of Republicans winning it. But election watchers I trust seem to think it’s just a bit more likely that Colom will win. To be clear, they’re only talking about likelihoods, and it’s a bit more likely, in their view, that Colom will win. To be fair to the Times, these are models that are fully devised in advance. And this is extremely close. When it’s that down to the wire, it’s down to picayune details, idiosyncrasies of particular counties that may just be hard for a model to fully capture. The people I’m following suggest that in the key counties where votes remain the last ballots tend to lean Democratic.

Thank you to everyone who joined us for tonight’s livecast. We had about a thousand people watching through most of the evening from 8 PM to around 12:30 or so. We really enjoyed it and we hope you did too. We’re going to be doing more of these.

As I’ve noted a few times, polling is just a predictive artifact. None of all those polling questions matter now. But one thing is worth observing simply to think clearly about the unpredictability of polling error. It will take a while for numbers folks to crunch all the numbers. But simply look at the Senate races it’s clear that while some polls were accurate quite a number of them significantly underestimated Democratic strength – South Carolina, Texas, Iowa and a number of others. This isn’t an exhaustive list. I’ve been on our video-cast for almost five hours. I’m a bit fried. But again, polling error doesn’t just underestimate Republicans. It goes both ways. It’s unpredictable.

7:45 PM: Okay, we still only have a few states reporting. But there are some important ones. And this is looking like it’s going to be a very long night for Republicans and perhaps not that long a night for reporting results. I don’t want to get ahead of ourselves but the details are looking that way. Buckle up.

7:06 PM: If you’re watching individual races don’t put much stock in any results unless you have a good handle on what’s early vote and what’s election day vote. We know that the early vote was landslide margins for Dems. And they’re often counted first. This is why you start to be able to understand what’s happening when you start seeing total results even in small counties. Then you get a real sense of swings.

7:03 PM: We’re about to get a bunch of results. But one thing to keep in mind is that we might see a somewhat different story in battlegrounds and non-battleground states. The general take about 2024 was that even though Harris lost, her campaign pushed the battleground further in her direction than the locked down parts of the country. So another possible dynamic to keep in mind. It might be rougher for the GOP outside the battlegrounds. But that can play out in unpredictable ways. You can have a big Dem swing. But in a very Red state most Republicans might still hold on.

6:36 PM: Another thing to keep an eye on is when races in what should be safe Republican seats don’t get called right when polls close. They’ll probably win most of those. But you get a read of what’s happening just by when some of these races can’t be called right away even if the Republican likely will end up winning it.

6:30 PM: As noted below, join us at 8 PM for our live videocast. For now, we only have reporting from a couple states. But we’re seeing some Republicans in pretty Red districts with real races on their hands. They may win those. But those seats being in contention point toward something bigger than your average wave. We’re seeing substantial swings in Indiana. Keep an eye on Indiana 5, Victoria Spartz’s district. That’s a R+8 Cook PVI district. Trump won it by 17 points in 2024. And she may have a race on her hands. (Remember that midterms can be weird. Different states can have different dynamics.)

We hope you will join us tonight starting at 8 p.m. eastern for our live videocast as we bring you live election results and commentary. It’ll be me and TPM Publisher Joe Ragazzo and pretty much the whole TPM cycling through to discuss different races over the course of the evening. We’ll also be answering your questions in real time over the course of the evening. You can either watch on our TPM YouTube page or right here at the website where the live feed will be embedded on the front page. Can’t wait to see you this evening.

We’re now down to nothing to do but wait (and, obviously, pore over day-of indicators that mostly won’t mean anything). So with that in mind, a couple quick observations.

Two years on from Donald Trump’s 2024 second election to the presidency we can identify clear patterns separating Term One and Term Two. I’ve noted at other times that for all the norm-busting, outrages and crimes of Term One, if you were a regular person who didn’t pay much attention to politics, very little of it intruded into your life. And the economy remained buoyant. The fact that Trump inherited a strong economy doesn’t matter in terms of public tolerance.

Of course, Trump still got quite unpopular. But to the extent that the Trump opposition kept up that resigned refrain “Nothing matters” there was a reason: If you simply didn’t pay attention to politics, most people could say, ‘Yeah, he’s weird but how is it affecting me?’ And at least before COVID there was much less — in terms of things that are materially affecting your life today — that many Trump foes allowed.

If you’re here for our amazing election and post-election coverage don’t forget to subscribe and support our team’s work, as well as get access to extra cool stuff.

It is a given of the 2026 midterms that a wave of still-uncertain magnitude is likely because of Donald Trump’s historic unpopularity. What gets less attention is how much the Senate races themselves — like who is running and whether an election is even being held — have been shaped very directly by his actions. Ohio, South Carolina, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, Texas and Iowa all, amazingly, fall into this bucket.

With the pro-fascist wing of Senate Republicans threatening not to seat Mary Peltola if she’s elected to the Senate, I wanted to give you a short primer of how all this works, not just in Peltola’s case but in the larger terrain of GOP denialism.

First, the House and Senate are fundamentally different. The senate is a “continuing body”; so Republicans are in some position to refuse to seat Peltola. The House on the other hand reverts to what we might call a parliamentary state of nature every two years. When the House reconvenes in January, there won’t be a Republican majority and Mike Johnson will not be Speaker. Everyone shows up with their state certifications in hand and it’s the clerk of the House who examines those credentials on a ministerial basis. Then everyone votes on who the Speaker will be. That’s why we had that drama with Kevin McCarthy a few years ago.

I think we’ve seen all that can happen in the bizarre continuation of the Michigan Democratic Senate primary, which of course actually ended a few months ago. But given what’s happened over the last 72 hours, I guess, who am I kidding? Stevens did a new round of interviews last night, including one on CNN with Anderson Cooper. It was a further train wreck in the weeklong run of pile-ups. It was a classic case of why, in a high-stress news environment, you shouldn’t go on TV if you don’t know what you want to say. Stevens appeared to be figuring out or trying to come up with an explanation for her actions in real time on live TV. At one point she seemed to suggest she might end up voting for Abdul El-Sayed after all, though it was so disjointed that it’s hard to know just what she was trying to say. It’s for this reason that both her erstwhile friends and her current friends have been begging her to just stop talking.

First, let me remind you: be sure to join us tomorrow night starting at 8:00 p.m. ET for our TPM’s YouTube livestream coverage of the election night results. It’ll be me, TPM Publisher Joe Ragazzo and different members of the TPM team will cycle through over the course of the evening, discussing different races, sharing color commentary, answering your questions in real time, etc.

As you’ve likely seen, a final round of NYT/Siena polls came out last night and they point to the bottom falling out for the GOP in key Senate races across the country. As Kate Riga and I have discussed in numerous TPM Show episodes, the NYT/Siena poll is a high quality poll which for a variety of not terribly good reasons (largely the Times’ megaphone, but also getting closer than others in a few key cycles) has influence and impact far greater than any other poll. I saw an apt comment from Nate Silver this morning, essentially, the polls no longer say this is close. The polls, collectively, say Democrats will win the senate. They could be wrong. But what they’re saying is no longer ambiguous or too close to call.

From what I can tell, the details on Haley Stevens’s last 36 hours, which I reported earlier this afternoon, have now been confirmed, re-reported by the Post and other publications. Appreciate the congrats. I think the best bet is that we, political obsessives, are overestimating how much this whole drama will affect the outcome in either direction. But if it has any effect, I think there’s a decent chance it will actually redound to Abdul El-Sayed’s benefit. One of the things that’s been hard to miss over the course of the day is the sheer intensity of the denunciations of Stevens from the highest ranks of the Democratic Party, including many of her one-time supporters. That has many sources — but one of the biggest is that, as I reported earlier, she told many of these people, person to person, last night that she was absolutely still going to vote for El-Sayed. So they feel personally very burned.