The Democratic Socialists Who May Yet Save Trump and the GOP

The all-important 2026 midterm elections are now less than a week away, and with them hangs the fate of Donald Trump’s second term. The challenge in addressing these elections, however, is the ease with which one can fall into cliché. These include the following trite comments that will doubtless be repeated over the course of the coming week, up to, and including, the night of the election, as pundits quickly run out of things to say:

“It’s all about turnout”

“The opposition party is expected to do well”

“It’s a referendum on the presidency”

“The next presidential election begins the day after the polls close”

“It’s all about pocketbook issues”

“All politics are local.”

Only two years ago, Donald Trump secured an historic, second non-consecutive term in the White House, defeating the Democratic candidate Kamala Harris. At that time, he promised a golden era in American life. He pledged to end the seemingly endless stream of illegal immigrants pouring across the southern border, to reduce inflation, to get a grip on out-of-control government spending, to end the conflict in Ukraine, and to continue his longstanding policy of avoiding involvement in what he termed the “forever wars” associated with his Republican and Democratic predecessors.

Clearly, several of Donald Trump’s policy ambitions have been achieved. Immigration has fallen to historic lows, in part due to the deployment of ICE agents. Those already in the United States illegally are being removed as they were under previous administrations, including that of Barack Obama, who well earned his title of The Deporter in Chief. Trump’s initial efforts to address inflation also appeared successful as price increases slowed during 2025. By choosing to engage in a war in the Middle East, however, and target Iran directly, Donald Trump has placed his presidency and possibly his entire political legacy on the line as both supporters and opponents lament what appears to be a war of choice.

With increased costs, rising inflation, and a heightened sense of national security concerns, a war that the president promised would be over in a matter of weeks has now dragged on for 10 months, with no apparent end in sight, casting an ominous shadow over the midterm elections

In such circumstances, it would be expected that the Democratic Party would secure historic victories in the midterm elections, and this may occur. There is, however, a vital factor that needs to be considered which may mitigate such a result: What may save Republican blushes will have little to do with Republican politics and more to do with the candidates that the Democratic Party has nominated this November.

It became clear during the 2026 primary campaign season that a highly motivated, younger constituency within the Democratic Party, tired of its elderly, ailing leadership was prepared to turn to a new generation of candidates who proposed a new series of solutions, very different from those that had been advanced by its leaders of the past. Democratic presidents from Bill Clinton through to Joe Biden had, to one extent or another, put forward mainstream compromise solutions. This new generation rejected such a stance, favoring policies designed to address what they saw as the increasing inequities in American political, social and economic life.

Their inspiration was Zohran Mamdani, the New York mayor who overcame great odds to secure a remarkable victory. He appeared to be a case study of what was possible in a series of high-profile primaries conducted throughout 2026, most notably in Michigan, but also in a series of less high-profile cases in congressional districts across the nation.

These radical candidates secured victory based on relatively low party turnout, and by the slenderest of majorities. Their elections were achieved by predominantly young activist who went door-to-door to secure their victory. These were not candidates who secured their nomination with the backing of the party elders or the party machines. While the young radical activists took great pleasure in this, and reveled in their victory, it could prove to be premature.

The very demographic group whose hard work secured the nomination for these Democratic Socialist is also the one that is least likely to vote in a general election. When Election Day arrives, will mainstream, moderate Democrats vote for these Democratic Socialists, will they abstain, or cross the party line to vote for a mainstream, moderate Republican candidate?

The polling appears to be too close to call, but as we have seen over the last decade, polling in the United States leaves much to be desired. Are we witnessing yet another case of the ‘Shy Conservative’ poll, which routinely underrepresents Republican voting intent? Are we seeing a classic example of the media attempting to bolster Democratic support and demoralize Republican voters? Are we seeing a flawed polling pattern which traditionally makes it far easier to gain polling data from urban centers, predominantly populated by younger Democratic voters, than from an elderly population in more rural settings, less inclined to share their political views with an anonymous pollster?

Either way, the enthusiasm that many younger Democrats share for their Democratic Socialist nominees could very well be tempered by a lack of support for these candidates amongst older, more moderate Democratic voters who will determine the outcome of this election and of the political fate that awaits President Trump in his remaining time in office.

The Flawed Drive for 25

Events in the Middle East always make for strange bedfellows, but few have been more diverse than those hankering for President Donald J. Trump’s removal from office via the 25^th Amendment. Democratic members of congress, academics, casual observers, celebrities, and members of the #NeverTrump coalition who have yet to come to terms with his first, yet alone second victory, have suddenly emerged as experts in an amendment designed to address presidential incapacity in office. 

But how viable is such a move and what does the amendment stipulate?

Throughout most of the United States’ history there was no constitutional remedy to replace a stricken, but still living, president. The vice president, an all-too-often overlooked figure in political life, could assume control only once a sitting president expired. Until then, they remained out of power, out of sight, and usually, out of favour. Only in the past several decades has the vice presidency achieved its more vaunted status. This ensured that on several occasions over the past 250 years, the United States has been effectively leaderless or led in an unofficial capacity by an unelected person or persons claiming to act in the name of the president.

Between 1865 and 1901 three presidents were assassinated: Lincoln, Garfield, and McKinley. In all three instances, death did not occur immediately, resulting in three awkward moments, measured in days and even months, during which the president hovered between life and death with no way of replacing him until he finally succumbed to his wounds.

In October 1919, President Woodrow Wilson suffered a debilitating stroke as he campaigned seeking support for the League of Nations.  With over a year left of his second term in office, and unwilling to resign, he remained in power, but increasingly unable to govern, ensuring that his wife, Edith Wilson, assumed effective control of the country.

Constitutional amendments have tended to be instigated in direct result to events and the 25^th was no exception, coming as it did in the wake of President Kennedy’s assassination in November 1963. In that instance, confusion existed as to when executive authority passed to Lyndon Johnson. Was it when the president’s death was confirmed by doctors at the Dallas hospital, or when LBJ finally took the oath of office aboard Air Force One. As over two hours elapsed between the shooting and the swearing in, questions naturally arose as to who was in charge of the country during that time.

The 25^th amendment, ratified in February 1967, was designed to address these issues of presidential succession and the continuity of government, a vital concept especially during the Cold War. Of the four sections within the amendment, 3 relate directly to the straightforward transfer of power to the vice-president following either the death, resignation, or declared incapacity of the president. Those hankering for President Trump’s removal from office via a constitutional coup d'état pin their hopes on Section 4. They will be disappointed.

The Section notes that a Vice President and a majority of the Cabinet officers may write to the President Pro Tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives, informing them that the President can no longer discharge his powers and duties, whereupon the Vice President immediately becomes Acting President. If the President disagrees, however, he can re-assume his office simply by informing the same congressional leadership of his ability and intent to do so. If the Vice President (as Acting President) and a majority of the Cabinet officers challenge this, Congress would be forced to determine who would lead the country. It would, however, take a two-thirds majority in both Houses to remove a sitting president and replace him with the vice president who would continue as Acting President.

Of course, none of this has ever been implemented, and it is clear that if any effort were made to enact the amendment based on political disagreements, rather than any medical incapacity, it would place the country in a complete crisis. The amendment was designed to address presidential incapacity, NOT to remove him from office over political disagreements.

The current debate over the amendment is occurring due to President Trump’s statements and actions regarding Iran. But his position has remained unchanged for several decades, having repeatedly called Iran an existential threat to the United States. In so doing, he has echoed calls from successive presidents and presidential candidates over the years, including Hillary Clinton. Yet Donald Trump, we are told by his critics, is somehow different: he is a madman. Or is he perhaps, adopting the Madman Theory whereby a sane president feigns madness and threatens seemingly irrational acts to achieve a stated ambition. If so, his strategy of deception may be working a little too well.    

Regardless of the president’s state of mind, it is one thing for celebrities, faded athletes, and academics from other fields of expertise to talk of ‘invoking’ the 25th amendment, but it really is quite another when members of both houses of congress do so, for it reveals their total ignorance on the laws that govern the land. There is simply no role for Congress to play in ‘invoking’ the 25^th amendment. Those seeking to suggest otherwise are playing the public for fools, whilst simultaneously revealing their own foolishness.

Trump's Deadline Draws Near

As Donald Trump’s self-imposed deadline for Iranian acquiescence approaches on April 7, Iranian state media has reported that explosions have rocked Kharg Island, Tehran has rejected a ceasefire proposal, and Vice President Vance has been spelling out what a deal would mean for Iran. Are we witnessing the Madman Theory in action? Actually, what the world is seeing is the continuation of a strategy and an approach that Donald Trump has long embraced. If you look back over his career, he has said for years that the United States negotiates poorly, that its diplomats give the game away, and that Iran has posed an existential threat to the United States. In so doing, he has reiterated what successive American presidents, and presidential candidates, including Hillary Clinton, have said. It is, therefore, remarkable that he is receiving so much pushback considering that he is merely advocating what has been a bipartisan approach to dealing with Iran, albeit one that to date, presidents had talked about, but never actually initiated.

The important thing to remember about Donald Trump is that his approach to negotiation, as addressed in US Grand Strategy and the Madman Theory, is relatively straightforward. He begins with what would be thought of as an extreme position, which creates the room for compromise, and then makes a series of attention-grabbing statements to try and control the narrative. This has happened time and time again; last year it was tariffs, now it is Iran. His approach allows for deliberate, strategic pullbacks at the last-minute to enable more negotiations. There is clearly something going on behind the scenes with regard to Pakistan trying to agree to a two-week delay that is likely to be unveiled shortly.

However, the challenge Iran has is, where does it go now? Its leadership has been decapitated and knows that the White House wants a Western-friendly nation installed in Tehran, as do the population of Iran. It is, therefore, backed up against the wall and Donald Trump, has them cornered. It is, however, difficult to get an accurate impression of what is going on within the country because there is no reporting coming from within Iran. The internet is down, so at this point all one can go on is the bombardment that is taking place. Ultimately, the Iranians would be well-placed to try and find some sort of last-minute, face-saving deal, if they possibly can.

From an Iranian perspective, the Strait of Hormuz is almost the last card they have on the table, not least because it is a source of income for them. The Americans, however, are not the major purchaser of Iranian oil through the Straits of Hormuz. The greatest challenge that may emerge in terms of people suddenly realizing that they are running low on supplies comes from China and it will be interesting to see the approach that China takes if this does continue unabated. There have been reports of several vessels being able to transit the Strait of Hormuz in the last day or two, so it will be interesting to see to where they are headed and the extent to which China gets brought into this if its own oil supplies begin to dwindle, as is increasingly likely.

Whilst the United States is not directly affected by the oil supplies coming through the Strait of Hormuz, it is directly affected by the price of crude oil, and that has a knock-on effect on the price of petrol in the United States. It has gone up over a dollar a gallon in the last month, rising to a price point it was under the Biden administration, so it is quite amusing to hear Democrats lament the cost of petrol when it was perfectly okay when their president was in office. Indeed, many Democrats were indeed saying they would pay $12 a gallon if it helped improve the environment. Donald Trump is clearly suffering in the polls because of this foreign policy escapade, and I am sure everybody in the White House would like to see this rectified just as quickly as possible. But at this point, they really do have to go for broke, otherwise many people will be asking, “Why have you gone in and not gained the regime change that American presidents have been seeking for the last 40 years?”