Photo via New York Post

Don’t count Trump out despite the midterms rout — he’s got plenty of power to flex

Read the original at New York Post ↗
Cite

Hanson, V. D. (2026, November 13). Don’t count Trump out despite the midterms rout — he’s got plenty of power to flex. New York Post. https://nypost.com/2026/11/12/opinion/dont-count-trump-out-despite-the-midterms-rout-hes-got-plenty-of-power-to-flex/

Dated from the outlet's own feed. Check the original for its byline.

New York Post · collected 2026-11-13 · by Victor Davis Hanson

Quick Summary

The article discusses the significant losses the Republican Party faced in the recent midterm elections, which align with historical trends where the president's party typically loses seats. Despite these losses, the piece argues that former President Trump still holds considerable power, particularly in terms of executive actions and judicial appointments. It suggests that Trump could leverage his influence to maintain control over Republican lawmakers and potentially pursue aggressive executive actions similar to those taken by former Presidents Clinton and Obama in their final years in office.
Written by AI on 2026-11-14, from this article's own text only (the story summary below draws on all the coverage).

AI analysis

Story summary

In the 2026 midterm elections, Democrats made significant gains, surpassing expectations and mirroring historic losses for Bill Clinton in 1994 and Barack Obama in 2010. Donald Trump, facing a weakened Republican Party, now confronts a likely divided Congress where Democrats may be able to override vetoes with bipartisan support. This scenario could hinder Trump's ability to confirm federal judges and Cabinet members in his final two years in office. Trump will need to work to maintain party unity and prevent defections among Republican senators and representatives.

Written for “Trump's Midterm Aftermath Influence” on 2026-11-15, grounded in this article and the 0 other(s) covering the same event.

Compared with similar articles

This article reads leans strongly right and hedges 25% of its claims. Each row says how that neighbour differs.
The Bulwark
Leans left further left than this Hedges 1 of 4 claims
“The articles discuss different aspects of the same election results; Article A focuses on immediate reactions and interpretations by Nate Silver, while Article B provides a broader historical context and outlook for the future impact of the results.”
Washington Examiner
Leans right further left than this Hedges 1 of 3 claims Outlet record 67/100
“The articles discuss different aspects of the same general event (the 2026 midterm elections), but they do not describe the same specific incident or outcome.”
Washington Examiner
Leans left further left than this Hedges 2 of 4 claims Outlet record 67/100
“Article A discusses the aftermath of the election and the start of the 2028 presidential race, while Article B focuses specifically on the implications of the midterm election results for President Trump.”
Al Jazeera
Leans right further left than this Hedges 0 of 4 claims Outlet record 60/100
“The articles discuss different aspects of the 2026 midterm election results and their implications, rather than the same specific incident.”
Washington Examiner
Leans left further left than this Hedges 1 of 2 claims Outlet record 67/100
“The articles discuss different aspects of the midterm elections' outcomes and their implications for different political parties and figures.”
Our Recovery Starts Here Different event
Persuasion
Leans strongly left further left than this Hedges 3 of 69 claims
“The articles discuss different perspectives on the same midterm election results, but do not describe the same specific incident or occurrence.”
Zeteo
Leans strongly left further left than this Hedges 1 of 15 claims
“The articles discuss the aftermath of the 2026 midterm elections but describe different aspects and outcomes related to the election results and their implications.”
CBS News
Leans right further left than this Hedges 18 of 393 claims Outlet record 68/100
“The articles discuss the same general topic, the 2026 midterm election results, but describe different specific events and perspectives (an interview with Trump vs. analysis of the election results and their implications).”
Al Jazeera
Leans strongly left further left than this Hedges 3 of 63 claims Outlet record 60/100
“The articles discuss the same general topic (Republican Party's performance in the 2026 midterms), but describe different aspects and interpretations of the event.”
Zeteo
Leans strongly left further left than this Hedges 1 of 19 claims
“Article A discusses the historical context and implications of the 2026 midterm election results, while Article B reports on a specific announcement by Senator Chris Van Hollen about a power struggle within the Democratic party following the election. These are different but related events.”

Story

Trump's Midterm Aftermath Influence
Politics · 1 article(s) covering the same event.
How this article was measured signals, leaning charts, publisher record, byline, topics and claims

Signals How these are calculated →

Claims extracted
28
sentences that state something as happening or true
Uncertain
25%
7 of 28 hedged ("reportedly", "may", "according to")
Leaning
Leans strongly right
of the writing, not the subject · beta estimate
Publisher signals
66/100
New York Post's corrections and hedging, across everything collected from it. Not a measure of accuracy.
Outlets on this story
1
Politics
Same framing elsewhere
1
articles that frame the event the way this one does
Analyzed 2026-11-14 · how these are computed

How this is being covered How these are calculated →

Article leaning vs. publisher reliability
Source leaning vs. consistency

Publisher

New York Post · 20059 article(s) · 40 correction(s) detected
Running correction rate · 40 correction(s)

Who wrote this

Victor Davis Hanson
6 article(s) here · 1 carrying a prediction
When all the votes are tabulated, the current blue wave may match the massive midterm losses that buried Bill Clinton in 1994 and Barack Obama in 2010.
Yet Trump’s midterm losses may rival the cataclysmic losses of Clinton in 1994 and Obama in 2010 (both of whom ironically left office with the highest ratings of their presidencies).
He approached the famous Gordian knot — a tangled mass of bark tying an ox cart to a pole, so intricate and tight that no one could unravel it.
Pundits point to President Donald Trump’s under-40% approval rating, the persistently high price of gas and public uncertainty over the Iran war. But the choice goes much further: Voters face a “deep” midterm election that will help determine the nation’s very existence.
Yet these prominent American accusers have remained silent about whether their lurid charges might far better reflect the sordid histories of their own homelands.
When the story of the past decade in American public life is written, it will, for better or worse, center on one man.
Also by Victor Davis Hanson
Nothing else under this byline is closely related to this article, so these are simply their most recent.
All 6 articles by Victor Davis Hanson →

Topics

Congress Democrats House Republican Senate

Subjects

Trump PERSON · 7× Congress ORG · 4× Obama PERSON · 4× Clinton ORG · 3× Democrats NORP · 3× Republican NORP · 3× House ORG · 2× Iran GPE · 2× Republicans NORP · 2× Senate ORG · 2×

Narrative

The Tea Party, enthusiastic about its spectacular surge, nominated poor Senate candidates who had little chance of winning. And during the Clinton administration, Republicans failed to build upon their control of Congress: They went wild with endless cul-de-sac investigations and a foolish impeachment inquiry into Bill Clinton’s sexual imbroglios — in the midst of a booming economy.
framing: mixed · carried by 1 article(s) · first seen 2026-11-14
When all the votes are tabulated, the current blue wave may match the massive midterm losses that buried Bill Clinton in 1994 and Barack Obama in 2010.

Claims (28 extracted, 7 hedged)

In the 126 years since 1900, nearly 90% of midterm elections have seen the party in the Oval Office lose House seats, and two-thirds of them have resulted in the president’s party losing Senate seats. asserted
party → see → seats
Given this history, midterm losses of some sort in 2026 were almost a sure bet. asserted
losses → give → 2026
But what ensued last week went well beyond normal expectations. asserted
ensued → ensue → expectations
When all the votes are tabulated, the current blue wave may match the massive midterm losses that buried Bill Clinton in 1994 and Barack Obama in 2010. uncertain
that → tabulate → 2010
What does this massive 2026 slapdown now portend? asserted
slapdown → portend → What
A second-term president in his final two years, facing a euphoric and frenzied opposition Congress emboldened by a landslide, will have difficulty confirming federal judges or Cabinet members. asserted
president → face → judges
Come next year, Trump will still not have to face a veto-proof Congress — unless renegade Republican senators and representatives join Democrats on key legislation to provide them with the necessary 67-Senate-vote/290-House-vote override. asserted
senators → have → override
It is critical for Trump, then, to shore up potentially apostate congressional Republicans and keep them in line. asserted
Trump → shore → line
Even though the Democrats cannot hope to override the veto, some, like Elizabeth Warren, have recklessly called for ending the filibuster. But that’s a huge mistake when they don’t yet have the White House: Why end this time-honored institution just to pass legislation that will be vetoed by an opposition president anyway? asserted
that → hope → president
Bipartisan initiatives with the new socialist Democratic Party could be explored, but they would likely be untenable in the eyes of Trump’s base. uncertain
they → explore → base
Otherwise, Democrats will vote against anything and everything Trump proposes — in the fashion of what Harry Truman once called his oppositional Republican legislators: “The Do-Nothing Congress.” asserted
Truman → vote → what
Nevertheless, presidents in their last two years in office, even in the wake of bruising congressional losses, sometimes find ways to stay dynamic and gain popularity. asserted
presidents → bruise → popularity
Clinton successfully went to war in Serbia against Slobodan Milosevic without congressional authority, and worked domestically with the Republican majority to ensure two years of balanced budgets. asserted
Clinton → go → budgets
Obama was more confrontational: Even before his midterm losses in 2010 and 2014, he had boasted that he had a pen and a phone and would govern domestically by executive orders and vetoes. asserted
he → boast → orders
And so he did — to an even greater degree after losing both houses of Congress in 2014. asserted
he → do → 2014
Abroad, Obama entered the most contentious and radical two years of his administration. asserted
Obama → enter → administration
He continued his targeted assassination campaign in Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia, restored relations with communist Cuba without congressional assent, and signed on to the disastrous Paris Climate Accord and the equally damaging Iran deal. At home, Obama helped weaponize the FBI and CIA, ordering them to seek (nonexistent) evidence of Trump/Putin “collusion.” Trump could very well follow some of these lame-duck precedents. uncertain
Trump → continue → precedents
Even now, he could stop radical Democratic legislation, quickly finish the Iran war, and continue to reset regions in the manner of Latin America, which now bears little resemblance to its anti-American socialist character before 2025. uncertain
which → stop → 2025
Twenty-seven months of his remaining tenure is a long time. asserted
months → remain → tenure
If there were an end to the Ukraine war, if the Iranian theocracy becomes denuclearized or even implodes, or if the strong economy goes into hyperdrive in 2027, then Trump could enjoy popularity on the level achieved by Clinton and Obama as they left office. uncertain
they → be → office
Historically, there’s a problem with opposition-party midterm waves: The bomb-throwers, drunk on success, go overboard. asserted
throwers → ’ → success
The Tea Party, enthusiastic about its spectacular surge, nominated poor Senate candidates who had little chance of winning. And during the Clinton administration, Republicans failed to build upon their control of Congress: They went wild with endless cul-de-sac investigations and a foolish impeachment inquiry into Bill Clinton’s sexual imbroglios — in the midst of a booming economy. asserted
They → nominate → economy
Will a weak speaker like Hakeem Jeffries and a fossilized Senate majority leader like Chuck Schumer be able to rein in some 25 new avowed progressives and six new avowed socialists in Congress? asserted
speaker → rein → Congress
Democrats learned in 2024 that their agendas — whether on the trans issue, DEI, the border, immigration, energy or crime — poll at under 40% favorability. asserted
agendas → learn → favorability
Yet it’s likely the zealots will keep trying to ram through radical legislation that the public has long been on record opposing. asserted
public → ’ → record
Historically, waves as huge as this one can sometimes take two or three election cycles to correct themselves — and that gives the socialist Democrats an advantage in the 2028 presidential elections. But Republicans should not panic or despair: Trump could still accomplish quite a bit, both domestically and internationally, even without a congressional majority. uncertain
Trump → take → majority
And they should ignore hubristic leftist claims that the election results prove widespread American support for the boutique neo-socialist agenda. uncertain
results → ignore → agenda
If Democrats fail to rein in their radicals, Republican success in 2028 is practically guaranteed. asserted
success → fail → 2028
Give feedback · no sign-in needed

No sign-in needed for now. Your note is sent without a name, so it cannot be answered.

History Support