COLUMN | Trump Is Going to Lose the Midterms.

Before we talk about Trump.

I’d like to share some news with everyone—with all of you who have been reading our posts for nearly two years now.

On October 5, 2026, at 1:27 p.m., Jacques Provost passed away.

He passed away surrounded by his loved ones.

I’d like to take a few moments—just a little of your time—to pay him one last tribute.

PJ had a unique intelligence.

He was quick-witted.

The kind of exceptional man who always had good advice, a good idea, or a well-placed pun.

We used to debate politics. Often.

PJake was deeply anti-Trump. Not just a little. Not just a little, but deeply.

I’ve always said that PJake was always right—just like his daughter.

The following piece is for him.

A column he could have written himself.

Hi, PJake. Rest in peace.

And thank you for always considering me one of your own.

On November 3, 2026, Donald Trump will lose the midterm elections. Unless there’s a major shift in the next three weeks, the House of Representatives will slip through his fingers. Not because I want it to. Because the numbers say so, and history has been repeating itself for nearly a century.

The floor is crumbling

Three out of ten Americans

On October 8, the Pew Research Center released its latest poll, conducted from September 28 to October 4. Trump’s approval rating stands at 30%. Sixty-eight percent of Americans disapprove.

Look at the downward trend. 47% in February 2025. 40% in September 2025. 37% in January 2026. 34% in April. 34% in July. And 30% today. According to Pew, that’s just a hair’s breadth away from his worst approval rating during his first term, 29%.

But the real number—the one that should be keeping him up at night—is this: only 67% of the people who voted for Trump in 2024 still approve of his job performance. That figure was 95% at the start of 2025. One in three Trump voters has turned away from him. It’s not the left that’s abandoning him. It’s his own base.

On the economy, approval has dropped to 35%. It was at 59% in November 2024. When you won an election by promising to lower grocery prices, and then you lose 24 points on the economy, you’ve got a problem that stock market rallies won’t fix.

Eight-point lead

The generic ballot speaks volumes

In the United States, the mood of a midterm election is gauged with a simple question: Which party will you vote for in Congress? This is the “generic ballot.”

The RealClearPolitics average, from September 21 to October 11, puts the Democrats at 50.2% versus 41.9% for the Republicans. Eight points and three-tenths. Nate Silver’s average, as of October 12, puts them 8.8 points ahead, and the Democratic surge that began in early September “still hasn’t stopped,” he writes.

Even the pollsters the right likes to cite show this. Rasmussen: Democrats +5. Cygnal, a Republican firm: +9. Only Harvard-Harris comes in at +2. Out of thirteen recent polls, not a single one gives the Republicans the lead.

History is against him

Three exceptions in 92 years

I consulted the table from the American Presidency Project at the University of California, Santa Barbara. All midterm elections since 1934. Twenty-three.

The president’s party has gained seats in the House three times. Three. Roosevelt in 1934, in the midst of the Great Depression, with the New Deal. Clinton in 1998, while the Republicans were hounding Monica Lewinsky. Bush Jr. in 2002, a year after 9/11.

The other twenty times, the party in power lost. On average, according to my calculations based on the table, 27 seats in the House.

Even Trump himself knows the formula. In 2018, his first midterm election, he was at 44% in the Gallup poll at the end of October. He lost 41 seats. Today, Pew puts him at 30%. These are two different pollsters, so the numbers aren’t exactly comparable. But the trend is very much the same.

The Democrats need a net gain of four seats to retake the House. Four. The House currently has 218 Republicans, 214 Democrats, one independent, and two vacant seats.

The wall he built

Redrawing the map before losing

I’ll be honest, because a prediction that hides its weaknesses is just propaganda.

Trump saw this coming. In 2025, Texas redrew its electoral map to create five more Republican districts. Florida followed suit in May 2026. Ohio, North Carolina, Louisiana, Tennessee, and Alabama did as well. California responded with Proposition 50, and a court mandated a Democratic district in Utah.

On balance, according to the table compiled on Wikipedia, the redistricting adds about twelve Republican-leaning districts and removes thirteen from the pool of close races. That raises the bar—but it doesn’t raise it by eight points.

A party that wins the national vote by eight points goes beyond the scope of tailor-made maps. That’s exactly why we redraw the districts: because we’re afraid of losing fair and square.

The Senate is a different story

The Senate is tougher. The Republicans have 53 seats. The Democrats and their two independents have 47. The Democrats need four more, on a map where the Republicans are defending 22 seats.

Predictors are split. As of September 23, Cook sees 46 Democratic seats, 47 Republican seats, and seven toss-ups. Nate Silver, as of the same date, predicts 52 Democratic seats. The key races: Sherrod Brown vs. Jon Husted in Ohio; Roy Cooper in North Carolina; Susan Collins in Maine; and Texas, where Ken Paxton faces off against James Talarico.

My prediction is for the House. As for the Senate, I’m calling it a fifty-fifty split—and I’m saying it.

Why he’s losing

Gas prices are a factor, too

On October 3, Trump was in Vandalia, Ohio. He promised Republicans a “big surprise.” “Just get out and vote,” he said. “If you do that, we’re going to win, and we’re going to win big.”

The same Al Jazeera report notes that gas prices have risen 35% in a year in Ohio, to $4.16 per gallon according to the AAA, amid the conflict between the United States, Israel, and Iran. A state that Trump won with over 55% of the vote in 2024. And now, his Senate candidate is fighting for his political life.

Add to that a trade war that’s hitting us hard as well. Since September 29, Washington has been blocking nearly $967 million worth of Canadian goods at the border—mostly alcohol, whey, and BRP’s Can-Am Spyder and Canyon models. Trump is waiting for Ottawa to come and say, “Sir, we are sorry.” Mark Carney, for his part, responded that there is now “a price to be paid for access to the U.S. market.” And it’s the Americans themselves who are paying that price, at the checkout counter.

What Could Save It

Profound change

An honest prophecy states what could prove it wrong.

A shock. A national security crisis that rallies the country around the flag, as in 2002. A sharp drop in gas prices. A collapse in Democratic voter turnout. A redistricting that yields more than expected in close races.

Each of these things is possible. None of them is reflected in today’s numbers. And Trump, in three weeks, won’t become a different man. That’s the profound change he would need. He won’t do it.

On November 3, we’ll find out

Maybe I’m wrong. Pollsters have been wrong before, and they’ve been wrong most often by underestimating Trump. I know that.

But when a president drops to 30%, when a third of his own voters abandon him, when he trails by eight points in the generic ballot—and history shows only three exceptions in 92 years—I’ll put my name on the line for this prediction.

Trump loses the House on November 3.

This one, PJake, is for you.

Maxime Marquette, columnist

Columnist’s Transparency Box

Editorial Stance

I am not a journalist, but a columnist, expert, and analyst. My expertise lies in observing and analyzing the geopolitical, economic, and strategic dynamics that shape our world. My work consists of dissecting political strategies, understanding global economic trends, contextualizing the decisions of international actors, and offering analytical perspectives on the transformations that are redefining our societies.

I do not claim to possess the cold objectivity of traditional journalism, which is limited to factual reporting. I strive for analytical clarity, rigorous interpretation, and a deep understanding of the complex issues that affect us all. My role is to make sense of the facts, place them within their historical and strategic context, and offer a critical interpretation of events.

Methodology and Sources

This text respects the fundamental distinction between verified facts and interpretive analyses. The methodological rule is consistent: factual information is published only if it is supported by a verifiable source, and the sources actually used in this article are listed under “Sources,” never here.

Categories of primary sources used by the publication, when applicable: official press releases from governments and international institutions, public statements by political leaders, reports from intergovernmental organizations, and dispatches from recognized international news agencies.

Types of secondary sources: specialized publications, internationally recognized news media, analyses from established research institutions, and reports from sector-specific organizations.

When an article cites statistical, economic, or geopolitical data, it comes from data-producing institutions (intergovernmental organizations, central banks, national statistical institutes), and the specific institution is listed under “Sources.”

Nature of the Analysis

The analyses, interpretations, and perspectives presented in the analytical sections of this article constitute a critical and contextual synthesis based on available information, observed trends, and expert commentary cited in the sources consulted.

My role is to interpret these facts, contextualize them within the framework of contemporary geopolitical and economic dynamics, and give them coherent meaning within the broader narrative of the transformations shaping our era. These analyses reflect expertise developed through continuous observation of international affairs and an understanding of the strategic mechanisms that drive global actors.

This article describes a situation documented as of its publication date, not a prediction: subsequent developments may alter these perspectives. No updates are promised in advance; when an article is corrected or supplemented, the change is dated within the text.

For any correction requests, please send an email to [email protected].

COLUMN | Trump Is Going to Lose the Midterms.