Constitutionalists Win. What’s Next?

Americans who believe in the Constitution and rule of law proved again that our passion for democracy runs deep. So too does the stubborn resentment of abuses of power and privilege.

Given the chance, when faced with an autocratic president who has so flagrantly betrayed the country and his oath of office, as well as many campaign promises, voters turned out to deliver the big and sweeping wins in federal and state races needed to deflect potential attacks on the election results and to overcome the many ways Republicans attempted to tilt the election in their favor.

Despite the election results and at least one Republican declaring the Republican Party under Trump to be “morally and intellectually bankrupt”, the political battle is not yet over. The culture war is not yet won. After two days of shocking acceptance and uncharacteristic quiet from Donald Trump, the president has once again doubled down, naming Stephen Miller, architect of the immigration crackdown and a known white nationalist, as his chief of staff. As long as Trump, Miller, Director of the Office of Management and Budget Russell Vought, and others control the executive branch, Trump can use his veto power and continue to make policy by issuing executive orders at will. Given Trump’s demonstrated disregard for congressional authority and legal precedent, the incoming Congress and the voters who chose them will face significant hurdles to achieving any impactful victories.

Furthermore, the Republicans and their backers who paved the way for Trump’s election in 2016 remain and are unlikely, at this point, to abandon their decades-long investment to change the politics and culture of the country. For 40 years, they pushed for a unitary executive, promoted a fascist-like narrative that demonized Democrats and liberals as un-American, and sought to dismantle the federal government’s role in Americans’ lives (e.g., Social Security, Medicare, food and nutritional support, medical research and public health guidance, block grants for infrastructure improvements, development of new technologies and markets). With so many of their goals achieved or made close at hand by this second Trump presidency, it would be unwise to assume the Constitutionalists’ midterm victories are anything but a change in the dynamics of an ongoing struggle for the country.

To their credit, many on the winning side have already turned their attention to what comes next. How well that constituency — Democrats, RINOs, Independents, and former Trump believers — can come together and put forward an achievable and impactful agenda remains to be seen. Much of that agenda will be decided by the Democratic leadership in Congress, where a struggle for power is already brewing. At issue is the question of how bold the party should be in envisioning its agenda over the next two years.

The presumptive Senate Majority Leader, Chuck Schumer, is already being challenged with calls for an open vote on who should next lead the Senate. Schumer did not endorse winning candidates Abdul El-Sayed (MI) and Peggy Flanagan (MN) in their primary campaigns and, in a controversial decision, chose not to fund the general election campaign of Angie Nixon, who narrowly lost a special election in Florida for the Senate seat vacated when Marco Rubio became Secretary of State last year. All three candidates are viewed as part of the more progressive wing of the Democratic Party.

Chris Van Hollen, the Maryland senator who broke with party leadership to endorse El-Sayed and Flanagan and campaign for Nixon, was the first senator to call for open deliberations. Indivisible, the organizer of the No Kings rallies over the last 18 months, is promoting a “no coronations” campaign that echoes Van Hollen’s call for open deliberations rather than the default crowning of Schumer as majority leader. The organizers are encouraging voters to contact their current Democratic senators to urge them to publicly support public deliberations for the leadership.

Schumer has taken a lot of heat for being too cautious and meek in defending the country against Trump. In particular, many thought his decision to fund the campaign of Scott Colom for a Senate seat in Mississippi, rather than Nixon’s, was misguided at best, as the race in Mississippi was seen by many as less winnable than Nixon’s in Florida. Yet, since Election Day a week ago, with the winner not yet determined and 97% of the vote counted, Colom has steadily increased his lead over his opponent, incumbent Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith, to more than 2,500 votes.

Should Colom prevail, he will begin a six-year term in January. With just two years left in Rubio’s term, Nixon will have another chance at the same Senate seat in 2028.

Interviewed on The Daily two days after the election, Schumer identified his key priorities: keeping Democrats unified and focused on his three C’s — costs, chaos, and corruption. Those priorities translate to affordability of housing, food, gas, and healthcare; getting ICE off our streets and ending the mismanaged war with Iran; and holding Trump and members of his administration and his family accountable for their failures in office and any crimes they have committed.

When asked if he expects to face a challenge for the leadership position, Schumer replied with great confidence, “No.” This despite the challenge from Van Hollen for open deliberations and not a coronation. It raises the question whether Schumer is out of touch, as some in his party seem to think, or is he sticking to his message of party unity.

Van Hollen, who has been public about making a possible run for president in 2028, asserted in a post-election interview with Baltimore radio station WBAL that the direction of the Democratic Party was his primary concern as the party considers who will fill its leadership positions. As for the party’s agenda over the next two years, he places ending the war in Iran as the first priority, both because, in his view, it is an illegal war and because the war is directly related to high energy prices and higher prices on other goods and services. He also wants to investigate “the rampant corruption” of the Trump administration and to pass legislation that ensures the economy works for working people and not just the very rich.

Whatever the future may hold for the election winners, the results proved that our democracy is not broken, as some had believed. For a moment, the big tent of Democrats, exiled Republican “RINOs” and never-Trumpers, former MAGA, and independents spoke with one voice that benefited Democratic candidates. The blue tsunami exceeded even former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s goal of picking up 30 seats in the House for her party. As of this writing, Democrats have picked up 40 seats, with 17 still to be called. The victory was so overwhelming that a giddy nation celebrated, with some literally dancing in the streets, while the rest of the world sighed in relief.

It didn’t take long, though, for the reality to set in: winning the election was just the first step to winning back our democracy. Whoever is chosen to lead the Senate (and the House), their path forward will be hard. Even in normal times, navigating the many problems before Congress in a way that makes enough substantive progress on key issues to satisfy a watchful if skeptical electorate would be a challenge. With Trump, backed by Miller and Vought, still in the White House, the stakes are magnified.

As Schumer told The Daily, “If we don’t deliver, we’re going to be screwed.”