Peter Dragon @peterdragon.bsky.social

The Wave Wasn’t Bernie’s. The Power Grab Is. Democrats’ historic 2026 midterm wave delivered control of both chambers, but the results undercut claims that Bernie Sanders-aligned progressives drove the outcome—and the immediate aftermath has seen the left press for leadership changes against Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries.⁠ Democrats flipped seven Republican Senate seats (Texas, Kansas, Ohio, South Carolina, Iowa, Maine, and North Carolina) for a projected 54-44 majority and gained roughly 40-plus House seats for a majority in the mid-250s. This was the largest House popular-vote margin for the party in decades in a midterm and included wins in long-Republican territory. Republicans flipped zero Democratic-held seats. The results reflected broad dissatisfaction with the Trump administration amid economic pressures and other issues.⁠ Analyses of relative performance, however, show that more left-aligned candidates—particularly those endorsed by Sanders—ran behind the party average and behind moderates and center-left candidates who delivered the decisive red-state flips. A CNN analysis found that the four candidates most aligned with the left flank and endorsed by Sanders accounted for the four weakest performances relative to Kamala Harris’s 2024 margins among key Senate races. Average Democratic Senate candidates in competitive races ran about 16 points better than Harris; Sanders-backed figures such as Maine’s Troy Jackson, Minnesota’s Peggy Flanagan, and Michigan’s Abdul El-Sayed ran well short of that (Jackson near or below Harris in some measures, El-Sayed +8.4 points). Florida’s Sanders-backed Angie Nixon lost. Ed Markey in Massachusetts also underperformed relative to the wave. Third Way’s post-election memo reached a similar conclusion: center-left Democrats in red states (Iowa’s Josh Turek, Kansas’s Adam Hamilton, North Carolina’s Roy Cooper, Ohio’s Sherrod Brown, South Carolina’s Annie Andrews, and Texas’s James Talarico) overperformed Harris by large margins (often 16-26 points) and delivered the Senate majority. Leftier nominees in bluer states underperformed relative to their states’ House Democratic vote.⁠ Jackson, a progressive economic populist and former state Senate president who entered after Graham Platner’s exit, defeated Susan Collins by roughly 6-7 points (about 53-47). El-Sayed, who defeated a more moderate primary opponent and ran on Medicare for All and reducing corporate influence, won Michigan by about 7 points (roughly 52.5-45.5). Both were solid victories in a wave environment, but narrower relative to the overperformance elsewhere. Sanders celebrated these and various House wins as progressive breakthroughs; several House candidates he backed (including some with progressive or DSA ties) did win seats.⁠ Establishment resources and broader coalition dynamics mattered. National Democrats, DSCC/DCCC infrastructure, and moderates helped close races. The Senate flips that secured the majority came disproportionately from candidates who ran as mainstream or center-left figures in places Democrats had not won in generations (Kansas since the 1930s; Texas Senate in decades). House gains similarly included many suburban and formerly red districts won by candidates outside the furthest left. Despite the landslide, Sanders-aligned progressives and outside groups moved quickly against Schumer and Jeffries. Incoming senators including El-Sayed, Flanagan, and Jackson publicly declined to back Schumer or called for new leadership; El-Sayed has floated Chris Van Hollen. Progressive organizations such as Indivisible and Our Revolution criticized the pair, arguing they lack the urgency or priorities (Medicare for All, money in politics, filibuster reform) demanded by the moment. Online petitions against both leaders drew hundreds of thousands of signatures within days. Sanders’s own post-election commentary emphasized the need for “real change” beyond simply holding Trump accountable. Most reporting indicates the push is unlikely to succeed in the short term. Schumer has stated he will be reelected as majority leader; Jeffries is positioned to become Speaker. Caucus support, fundraising records, and the absence of a clear alternative make a successful challenge difficult before the new Congress. Some of the criticism spans ideological lines, including from non-progressives frustrated with past tactics, but the most vocal organized opposition has come from the left.⁠ The data shows a broad Democratic coalition—moderates and center-left candidates in red and purple territory, plus independents and some right-leaning voters rejecting the status quo—produced the scale of the win. Progressive candidates contributed seats and energy, particularly in certain primaries and bluer areas, but relative underperformance undercuts narratives that the hard left alone delivered or should now control the credit and the leadership. The post-election push against Schumer and Jeffries highlights not just the ongoing internal tension over who sets the agenda for the new majority but the complete lack of reality Bernie Sanders and his DSA minions live in. They still aren't willing to be team players. The Establishment delivered the win and now they want them fired. -RWII