The midterm election winners were the best communicators

I find democracy frustrating. The person with the most votes wins, but they’re not always the person with the best character or the best ideas. In a democracy like ours, the candidate who wins is the one who is best at communicating.

Communicating in American democracy used to depend on policy papers and the like. Now it depends on clips circulating on social media, memes, televised “debates,” and political ads. The social media clips, memes, and debates are close to free, and the political ads, as expensive as they are, are so relentlessly negative, angry, and distorted that people have learned to tune them out.

So what it comes down to is, can a candidate articulate their message — and who they are — briefly and effectively?

Churchill famously said that democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others that have been tried. As he might have said if he were considering American democracy in 2026, “Choosing a candidate based on sound bites is the worst form of democracy, except for all the others.”

How communication drove the 2026 election

The first thing that must happen for a candidate to have a chance to win is that the electorate must be open to hearing their message.

It’s true that issues like inflation, oil prices, the Iran War, and corruption were influential in this election. But I don’t believe that those issues alone decided the election. What they did is to enable people who voted Republican in past elections to consider the possibility of voting for a Democrat. They were thinking, “Things are very bad. Are they bad enough for me to change who I think would be best to govern right now? Am I, a Republican voter, ready to consider a Democrat?”

This created an opening. For that opening to matter, the Democratic candidates needed to communicate better than the Republicans. In the many states and districts where Democrats prevailed, they did.

Regardless of who was running for particular offices on the Republican side, the primary communicator was Donald Trump. He has been an effective communicator in past elections — his clear and angry communication in 2024 won people over when compared to the feeble Joe Biden and to Kamala Harris who arrived too late to settle on a message.

But the Donald Trump of 2026 was a terrible communicator. He rambled incoherently. He leaned into hate against immigrants and “Dumocrats.” He belittled people’s concerns about “affordability” and equated the success of the country to the stock market when ordinary people were having trouble affording food, fuel, and health care. He bragged about the reflecting pool and the triumphal arch and the ballroom, when people were worried about pocketbook issues. His tariffs and oil prices made life much harder for many of his previously dedicated rural voters. And the inability to defend the out-of-control actions of his ICE deportation force turned many Hispanics who’d voted for him in the past against him.

That said, people in 2026 didn’t vote for Trump, they voted for local politicians. And many of the Republicans running for statewide or local office were unable to connect with voters who were no longer going to reflexively vote Republican.

In this environment, many of the Democrats were articulate and reasoned, while Republicans made unforced errors and had difficulty articulating their positions relative to the big noise made by Trump.

In the Senatorial contest in Michigan, Abdul El-Sayed, a doctor, projected a calm and articulate persona in the face of relentless attacks falsely caricaturing his Muslim faith as support for radical Islamic groups. He communicated about pocketbook issues while his opponent, Mike Rogers, campaigned on fear. He also pointed out the damage done by tariffs to the Michigan auto industry.

In Georgia, Senator John Ossoff, a former documentarian, spoke pointedly about Trump’s corruption and lack of connection with working people’s issues. His ability to sum up these issues in a clever sound-bite-ready form was suited to how people get information about voting in 2026. He won his Senate election by 20 points, an astounding result in a Southern state.

In Mississippi, the incumbent Republican senator, Cindy Hyde-Smith, suggested that citizens who couldn’t afford high prices for beef should “pick another protein.” This was condescending and stupid. Her opponent, Scott Colum, made a devastatingly effective ad in which Mississippians of all races and backgrounds replied, “Pick another protein? I’d rather pick another Senator.” The race shifted from Trump’s 23-point lead in 2024 to basically, dead even in 2026, and as I write this, it seems more likely that Colum will win.

In my home state of Maine, a swing state, Susan Collins, a veteran Senator of 30 years as an “independent” Republican, was unable to articulate in what way she was different from Donald Trump. Her votes for Republican Supreme Court Justices who ended Roe v. Wade were a big issue. I personally found her vote for Robert F. Kennedy Jr., an idiot, as Secretary of Health and Human Services to be disqualifying. Her campaign ads in which a spokesperson suggesting that voters making choices for the Senate weren’t “buying a cord of wood” were perceived by Mainers as condescending. I found her opponent, Troy Jackson, to be inarticulate, but Collins lost because she didn’t appear to stand for anything but bringing pork back to Maine.

In Texas, Ken Paxton, the scandal-plagued and impeached former attorney general of Texas, focused his Senate campaign on attacking his opponent James Talarico’s manhood. Trump claimed Talairico was a vegan (which wasn’t true). Talarico, a minister, focused on connecting values of faith to suffering of ordinary Texans. This was an election in which people were more in the mood for love than hate.

And in the race for governor of Ohio, Vivek Ramaswamy made the incredibly tone-deaf choice to build an ad around his opponent Amy Acton’s estranged mother calling Acton a liar. Acton’s mother had failed to protect her from sexual abuse by her stepfather when she was a child. Regardless of politics, no one has sympathy for child abuse. Ramaswamy’s choice doomed his chances, and Acton won.

In South Carolina, Darline Graham, who had been appointed to her brother Lindsey Graham’s senate seat upon his death, demonstrated a disqualifying lack of knowledge of foreign affairs. Her opponent Annie Andrews took advantage of the opportunity.

Notably, in the Senate election in Florida, Angie Nixon, the Democrat, was unable to overcome her opponent Ashley Moody’s accusations based on her former membership in a socialist organization. Moody communicated better and won.

Donald Trump’s actions as president and his out-of-touch speeches created the opening for these Democrats. Except in Florida, their Republican opponents made poor communications choices. The Democrats were often calm, articulate, in touch with local issues, and adept at making attractive statements that were easily shared on social media. The Republicans were angry, leaned in on prejudice and hate, and were unable to articulate differences with an unpopular president.

Communication will continue to make the difference

One thing is clear: the environment of the 2028 election will be vastly different from this one. Donald Trump will not be on the ballot, and may not even be in office. Given the overwhelming shift in 2026, the Republicans will be on the defensive. But it’s clear to me that messaging will matter most. In the long primary season of 2027-2028, pay close attention to the messages that resonate and the candidates that are best at connecting. I believe this will be another election where calm and logic will prevail over hate and anger. But given the imperfect nature of democracy in the social-media sound-bite era, we’ll have to wait and see.