US midterm elections have long served as a referendum on the party in power and, more fundamentally, on the material conditions of daily life. The 2026 results fit this established pattern. Republican Party members have scrambled to explain their losses, while the White House has searched for a scapegoat.

Vice President J.D. Vance’s assertion that “the reason we lost is the war” oversimplifies a more immediate electoral reality. Multiple polls, including a CNN survey in which 88 percent of voters identified the rising cost of living as decisive, show economic pressure as the dominant factor. By election day, President Donald Trump’s approval rating had fallen to its lowest level in nearly two decades, driven by complaints over food, fuel, housing, and insurance costs rather than foreign policy alone.

Average voters do not primarily cast ballots for abstract strategic outcomes or distant conflicts; they vote to keep the lights on and the rent paid. This article examines the economic drivers of the 2026 outcome, situates them within historical midterm patterns, notes parallel grievances among young Europeans, and considers the implications for the enduring Saudi-US strategic partnership.

The evidence points consistently to household finances. The end of key Affordable Care Act protections produced sharply higher premiums, leaving more than a million Americans without coverage and projecting further losses in the months ahead. Cuts to student aid, school funding in low-income areas, and university budgets further eroded confidence among working families who depend on accessible education and training. Housing, a necessity, now absorbs entire paychecks in many markets as rents continue to rise faster than wages. These developments occurred against a background of elevated prices for food and fuel, compounding the squeeze in purchasing power.

The Iran conflict raised fuel prices, adding to the strain, yet it remained secondary to the broader depletion of household budgets. Democrats won in swing states amid what the Associated Press described as voter “anger” and “resentment” — a reaction to these hardships more than a sudden conversion to Democratic ideology. Restoring purchasing power, not reassigning blame for one war, is therefore likely to shape the next electoral cycle.

Reports that Secretary of State Marco Rubio is considering resigning and positioning himself for a 2028 presidential run against Vance illustrate the political scramble inside the administration. The irony is plain: Individuals who helped carry the administration’s political baggage now seek to distance themselves from it. Jumping from a sinking ship does not erase participation in the decisions that steered it. Such maneuvers, however, do not alter the underlying economic calculus that voters applied.

The 2026 outcome is consistent with earlier midterms in which economic distress or perceived governmental failure produced large shifts in control of Congress.

Average voters do not primarily cast ballots for abstract strategic outcomes or distant conflicts; they vote to keep the lights on and the rent paid

Dr. Turki Faisal Al-Rasheed

In 1946, Republicans secured majorities in both the House and the Senate for the first time since 1928, ending 14 years of Democratic control that began under Franklin Roosevelt. These were the first elections after the Second World War. The country struggled with the transition from a wartime to a peacetime economy; inflation soared to record levels and shortages of essential goods, including meat, were severe. About 5 million workers participated in the largest wave of labor strikes in American history, across the automotive, mining, and railroad sectors, paralyzing key parts of the economy and weakening President Harry Truman’s position. Republicans adopted the simple yet effective slogan “Had Enough?” The voters’ answer was a resounding yes.

In 1994, Republicans seized control of both chambers in what became known as the “Republican Revolution,” the first time they had done so in 40 years. They achieved a net gain of 54 seats in the House and eight in the Senate. Newt Gingrich spearheaded a unified national strategy in which candidates signed the “Contract with America,” pledging fiscal reform, tax cuts, and a reduction in the size of government. The campaign successfully turned the election into a referendum on the first two years of President Bill Clinton’s administration, focusing on the failed attempt to reform the healthcare system and framing it as a return to “big government” policies. After decades of controlling the House since 1955, Democrats had grown politically complacent; voters perceived Washington as disconnected from their own realities.

In 2006, Democrats wrested majorities in both chambers from the Republicans for the first time in 12 years, gaining 31 seats in the House, with Nancy Pelosi becoming the first woman to serve as speaker, and six in the Senate. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were central; American voters had grown weary of human and material losses, and support for President George W. Bush’s handling of the conflict had declined. The evident administrative failure in responding to Hurricane Katrina dealt a further blow to the image of governmental competence. Corruption scandals in the Republican-controlled Congress and the historical “six-year itch” — the tendency for voters to punish the president’s party during a second term — reinforced the shift. Bush himself described the results as a “thumping” for his party.

These cases demonstrate that midterms punish the party in power when living standards fall or competence is called into question. Foreign wars can matter, as in 2006, but economic conditions have repeatedly proven decisive when they directly affect household budgets. The 2026 election marks the fourth occasion on which the party opposing Trump has gained control of both chambers of Congress, underscoring the durability of this pattern.

Similar economic pressures have fueled widespread protests among young people — Generation Z in France, Spain, Italy, Portugal, Germany, and Belgium. Rising inflation has eroded purchasing power and driven up the prices of essential goods and fuel, placing a heavy burden on young people and their families. An acute housing crisis has made living independently an impossibility for a large segment of the youth, as rents soar and affordable options remain scarce. Deterioration in educational services budget cuts, teacher shortages, declining quality, and limited job opportunities for graduates has intensified discontent. A pervasive sense of economic uncertainty, rising unemployment among graduates, and a widening generational gap have produced anxiety about the future. Protesters have also rejected government policies that prioritize military spending at the expense of public services.

These European developments do not determine US electoral outcomes, but they illustrate a broader phenomenon: When the cost of living rises sharply and public services weaken, younger cohorts mobilize against the status quo regardless of national context. The American midterm results and the European protests thus reflect parallel responses to the same underlying pressures of eroded purchasing power and constrained opportunity.

Democratic gains produced several notable firsts that reflect the coalition’s demographic reach. In Georgia, Keisha Lance Bottoms was elected, becoming the first Black woman to hold the relevant statewide office. In New Mexico, Deb Haaland, a member of the Laguna Pueblo tribe, became the first Native American woman to hold a high-ranking executive position in the state. In Minnesota, Peggy Flanagan achieved a milestone by becoming the first Native American woman to serve in the state senate; she had previously held the position of lieutenant governor. In Michigan, Abdul El-Sayed, associated with the progressive wing of the Democratic Party, declared victory, while Representative Ilhan Omar secured a resounding win, ensuring her continued representation of the state’s fifth congressional district.

The scale of the blue wave extended beyond Congress and state offices. Democratic-socialist mayors are set to run the two largest US cities and the nation’s capital following Tuesday’s results. These municipal victories in New York, Los Angeles, and Washington underscore the breadth of Democratic gains in urban centers where cost-of-living pressures, particularly housing and affordability, have been especially acute. While the results highlight progressive strength in major cities, they remain consistent with the broader pattern: Voters responded primarily to economic strain rather than to a wholesale ideological realignment.

A Democratic majority in Congress, and the prospect of Democratic control of the executive branch in future cycles, is unlikely to dismantle the core pillars of the Saudi-US partnership. The relationship is anchored in long-term interests: the protection of regional security, the exchange of expertise in training and intelligence, and the strengthening of economic ties particularly in the energy and investment sectors. Defense and security arrangements, including training programs, intelligence sharing, and collaboration against cross-border threats, are expected to continue. Energy, investments, and technical partnerships remain key areas for cooperation. While political approaches may vary between administrations, the fundamental drivers of the relationship appear enduring.

At the same time, a Democratic-led Congress or administration can be expected to place greater emphasis on political and human rights considerations, potentially conditioning certain aspects of cooperation on specific, stated criteria. There may be increased scrutiny regarding certain operational aspects, with greater focus on adherence to standards concerning human rights and the field application of military equipment. Regional issues are likely to be approached with a stronger preference for diplomatic de-escalation and the management of escalation through political channels, accompanied by heightened attention to governance and the protection of civilians. In the economic sphere, existing deals need not be canceled, but monitoring mechanisms may incorporate additional environmental, social, and governance standards in project design and implementation.

The most anticipated shift therefore lies in the approach to managing conditions and obligations, rather than a fundamental change in the nature of the partnership itself. To maintain a stable relationship and mitigate the impact of any political differences, several steps are advisable. Operational channels for defense and security cooperation should be secured and insulated from the fluctuations of political rhetoric. Monitoring mechanisms for any conditions linked to political or human rights issues should be clear, with well-defined temporal and practical scopes. Institutional communication between relevant authorities should be strengthened to ensure a shared understanding of priorities and implementation outcomes.

Saudi Arabia’s prudent course is to avoid unnecessary escalation while remaining firm and clear in its positions. Establishing a specialized body focused on international law to manage all legal cases brought against the Kingdom on the international stage would provide a consistent, professional mechanism for addressing legal challenges without subordinating core interests to transient political cycles.

The 2026 midterm elections reaffirm a durable lesson of American politics: When household budgets are strained by rising costs for food, fuel, housing, healthcare, and education, voters punish the party in power. Historical precedents from 1946, 1994, and 2006 demonstrate that economic distress and perceptions of governmental failure repeatedly outweigh other considerations, even when foreign conflicts are salient. Parallel protests among European youth underscore that these pressures are not unique to the US.

For Saudi Arabia, the practical implication is continuity of the strategic partnership in its core pillars defense, energy, and the economy accompanied by a likely increase in US attention to political and human rights standards under Democratic majorities. Managing this relationship requires insulating operational cooperation from political cycles, clarifying the scope of any conditions, and institutionalizing legal capacity to address international cases. Voters on both sides of the Atlantic ultimately prioritize the conditions of daily life; policymakers who recognize this reality will be better positioned to sustain long-term partnerships grounded in shared interests rather than shifting political rhetoric.

• Dr. Turki Faisal Al-Rasheed is an adjunct professor at the University of Arizona’s College of Agriculture, Life & Environmental Sciences, in the Department of Biosystems Engineering. He is the author of ‘Agricultural Development Strategies: The Saudi Experience.’

X: @TurkiFRasheed