The Voters Have Reached a Verdict. Washington Refuses to Hear It.
Republicans are peeling away from Donald Trump. Democratic voters are peeling away from their own leaders. Prediction markets are pricing in an incumbent slaughter. And through it all, a president who calls affordability a “hoax” keeps signing tax cuts for the wealthy while the country slips deeper into debt.
There is a rare and dangerous moment in a democracy when the governed and the governing no longer speak the same language. That moment is here. The numbers are unambiguous, and every direction they point is away from the two parties that share power in Washington. Rank-and-file Republicans are drifting from a president whose second term they helped deliver. Democratic voters are turning on incumbents they believe have failed to fight. And underneath both movements sits an affordability crisis that neither party has solved — a crisis that a sitting president has now publicly dismissed, on the record, as a “Democrat scam.”
What is unfolding in the summer of 2026 is not the familiar cycle of midterm dissatisfaction. It is something colder: an electorate that has looked at both political parties, rendered its judgment, and begun, methodically, to remove people from office. Nine House incumbents have already lost their primaries — the largest single-year purge in a non-redistricting cycle since 1970, according to figures compiled by NBC News. Six were Democrats. Three were Republicans. Prediction markets say there are more coming.
The tempting frame — the one the White House prefers, the one cable news reaches for reflexively — is that this is a partisan story. It is not. It is a leadership story. And on the question of leadership, an increasingly clear cross-partisan majority of the country has arrived at the same conclusion.
I. The Republican Erosion
Begin with the president’s own base, because that is where the story now begins. When Donald Trump was inaugurated for his second term, his approval among Republican voters stood at 91 percent, per Emerson College polling. As of August 2026, that number is 79 percent. A twelve-point collapse inside a president’s own party, in eighteen months, is not political weather. It is a structural shift.
The August 2026 I&I/TIPP survey put Trump’s Republican approval at 73 percent, down two points from July — with 44 percent of all voters calling his leadership “weak” or “very weak” and only 38 percent calling it “strong” or “very strong.” TIPP’s Leadership Index gave the president an overall score of 43.6 on a scale where 50 is neutral. His overall approval hovers between 38 and 41 percent depending on the survey, with disapproval consistently above 55 percent. Nate Silver, the statistician whose forecasts drove much of the analytic conversation around the 2016 and 2020 cycles, put Trump’s approval at 38.8 percent in late June — a historic low for either of his terms.
In an interview with Punchbowl News last week, the president expressed his own theory of the case: voters, he said, are angry with Republicans, but not with him. The polls indicate otherwise. He is losing ground with the exact constituencies he built his 2024 coalition on — Hispanic voters, whose disapproval has swung from 39 percent to 54 percent, and independents, whose disapproval has climbed to 51 percent, per the same Emerson survey.
Down from 91% at inauguration — a 12-point collapse inside Trump’s own party. Emerson College
Only 34% approve of Trump on inflation. Net rating on prices: minus 43. Brookings
Compared to 71% of Democrats “enthusiastic” about the midterms. A twenty-nine point gap. Emerson
The most striking finding is not the top-line number. It is the composition. A Politico poll published in the spring found that 37 percent of Americans who voted for Trump in 2024 believe the cost of living is the worst they can ever remember, and another 34 percent said it was bad “but can think of other times when it was worse,” per the poll’s crosstabs. That is nearly three-quarters of his own coalition telling pollsters that his central economic promise — bringing prices down — has not been kept.
“The word ‘affordability’ is a con job by the Democrats. The word ‘affordability’ is a Democrat scam.”
— President Donald J. Trump, Cabinet Meeting, December 2025
II. The Democratic Revolt
If the Republican story is a base slowly walking away, the Democratic story is a base ready to shove the door open itself. And here the numbers are, if anything, more damning for the party in question.
Only 28 percent of voters approve of congressional Democratic leadership, according to a CNN/SSRS poll. That is seven points below the approval rating of the Republican leadership those Democrats are supposed to be opposing. Fewer than half of Democrats — 48 percent — approve of their own party’s leaders. In a moment when Democratic voters say two-to-one that they want leaders to fight rather than compromise, per NBC News polling, they see a leadership that has not delivered a fight.
That frustration has translated, this cycle, into political violence of the electoral kind. Reps. Adriano Espaillat and Dan Goldman in New York, and Rep. Diana DeGette in Colorado, have already lost their primaries to progressive challengers. All six of the 2026 Democratic incumbent losses have come from the left, several tied to the Democratic Socialists of America, according to NBC News’s own vote tally. Reps. Ro Khanna and other Democrats have publicly welcomed the pressure. “Voters want change and are fed up with the old guard in American politics,” Khanna told The Hill. “Democracy depends on renewal.”
The prediction markets have absorbed this. On Kalshi, the market pricing how many House Democrats will lose their primary sits at 82 percent odds that seven or more incumbents fall — an extraordinary implied rate of intra-party defeat, per market data reported by Bitcoin News. The parallel market on House Republican primary losses sits at only 45 percent for four seats lost. The gap is not that Democrats face angrier voters in the abstract. It is that Democratic primary voters are actively voting against their own incumbents, in numbers not seen in more than half a century.
The Cycle So Far
Texas primaries open the cycle. James Talarico takes the Democratic Senate nomination. On the Republican side, Sen. John Cornyn and AG Ken Paxton both fall short of 50%, forcing a runoff — the earliest sign of a volatile year.
Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD) introduces legislation establishing a Commission on Presidential Capacity to Discharge the Powers and Duties of Office — the standing body called for by Section 4 of the 25th Amendment.
Household debt hits an all-time record of $18.8 trillion, per the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. Delinquency on more than 10% of student loan balances nears pre-pandemic levels.
Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R-TX) becomes one of nine House incumbents to lose a primary this cycle after a public split with Sen. Ted Cruz. Reps. Espaillat and Goldman fall on the Democratic side to progressive challengers.
Trump dismisses affordability as a Democratic “made-up word” in Michigan — the same week oil prices touched $100 a barrel amid the Iran war, per Fortune.
Trump tells Punchbowl News that voters are angry at Republicans but not at him. His own party’s approval of him has fallen from 91% to 79% since inauguration.
Get Involved Today
Contribute to our mission and turn your concerns into action.
III. The Affordability Vise
To understand what the voters are actually angry about — the ground beneath both parties — one has to look at the ledger. It is not complicated. It is legible on the surface of ordinary household finances.
Total U.S. household debt reached $18.8 trillion in the first quarter of 2026, an all-time high, according to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. Credit card balances sit at $1.252 trillion, with the average balance per adult at roughly $6,580, per LendingTree’s tracking of the Fed data. Ninety-day delinquency rates on credit card debt have climbed to their highest level since 2012. Consumer prices have climbed roughly 24 percent since January 2021, as documented by the Cato Institute — a right-of-center source, which matters, because it establishes that the affordability crisis is not a partisan framing but a bipartisan reality.
Now the other side of the ledger. In 2026, the top 1 percent of American households will receive an estimated $117 billion in tax cuts under the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, per an analysis by the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy. The middle 20 percent of earners will see a net tax increase equal to 1.2 percent of their income. The poorest 20 percent will see a tax hike of 3.1 percent of theirs. The bill will add $4.6 trillion to the federal debt over the decade. Foreign shareholders of U.S. corporations will collect $32 billion in tax cuts in 2026 alone. Every one of these figures is drawn from ITEP’s year-one analysis of the law and cross-checked by the Center for American Progress.
The Fortune report on Trump’s July Michigan speech included one detail that captures the political character of the moment: since the president told voters in February that he had “won” on affordability, his net rating on handling inflation and prices has fallen to minus 43 — the worst score of his second term. That is the entire equation. Prices went up. The president said prices had come down. Voters checked their receipts.
“Most Americans believe that his priorities do not align with theirs, and they want him to focus more on the bread-and-butter challenges they face every day.”
— William A. Galston, Brookings Institution, April 2026
IV. What the Markets — and the Voters — Are Pricing
Prediction markets are not oracles, and their samples are self-selected traders willing to put money down. But they aggregate opinion in ways polls do not, and they are unanimous. On Polymarket, Democrats are priced at 86 percent to win control of the House, with $9 million in volume traded, per platform-level data compiled by KuCoin. Kalshi contracts on Democratic House control trade at $0.78. Republicans are favored to hold the Senate at 56 percent, with a 49–51 split the most likely outcome. Every serious market points to an electorate that has decided the House majority is being replaced.
What voters actually want, when focus-group researchers ask them, is remarkably consistent across party lines. They want candidates who will “fight,” per NBC News focus groups in Michigan and Maine. They want the affordability crisis addressed. They want elected officials who behave as though the country’s economic future — and their own — depends on their showing up to work. Adam Green, co-founder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, told Fortune the country’s voters are “rebelling against a political system they see as rigged and are yearning for candidates willing to fight on their behalf.”
Neither party is currently supplying that candidate at scale. Republican members of Congress cannot publicly contradict the president — the political cost of a Truth Social attack and a primary challenger is total — so they defer, and cover, and hope inflation numbers change. Democratic leadership, as the historian and Washington Monthly editor David Atkins recently noted, has become the object of its own base’s fury for insufficient combat. Both parties are frozen. The affordability crisis is not.
The 25th Amendment Was Written for a Moment Like This One
The mechanism: Section 4 of the 25th Amendment, ratified in February 1967, permits the Vice President and a majority of the Cabinet to jointly declare in writing that the president is “unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office.” Upon that declaration, the vice president immediately assumes the powers of the presidency as acting president. If the president disputes the declaration, Congress must decide within 21 days; a two-thirds vote of both chambers is required to sustain the removal. Section 4 has never been formally invoked in American history.
The framers’ original definition of inability: The amendment’s chief architect, Sen. Birch Bayh, adopted the formulation offered by Sen. Robert F. Kennedy, who defined presidential inability as “physical or mental inability to make or communicate his decision regarding his capacity and physical or mental inability to exercise the powers and duties of his office.” Rep. Richard Poff, one of the amendment’s Republican co-authors, went further: Section 4 was meant to apply when a president “by reason of mental debility, is unable or unwilling to make any rational decision, including particularly the decision to stand aside.” That language, documented by PBS NewsHour, is not a partisan reading. It is the drafters, on the congressional record.
On April 14, 2026, Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD), ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, introduced legislation establishing an independent, nonpartisan Commission on Presidential Capacity — the “such other body as Congress may by law provide” that Section 4 itself contemplates. Raskin has publicly written to the White House physician demanding a cognitive and neurological evaluation of the president.
Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA), Rep. Yassamin Ansari (D-AZ), Rep. Melanie Stansbury (D-NM), Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA), and Rep. Sydney Kamlager-Dove (D-CA) have all publicly called for Section 4 invocation over the past year, as reported by TIME. Their arguments have centered on the president’s statements about seizing Greenland, threats of civilizational destruction against Iran, and public conduct that would, in ordinary corporate governance, trigger a fitness-for-duty review the day it occurred.
The Argument
The constitutional argument is not that unpopular decisions are grounds for removal. They are not. The argument is narrower and sharper: a president who dismisses documented economic suffering as a “hoax,” who governs by grievance while the country carries $18.8 trillion in household debt, who signs tax legislation transferring hundreds of billions to the wealthiest one percent while calling the underlying affordability crisis a “scam,” is not exercising the powers of the office. He is performing them. The distinction matters, because Section 4 was written precisely for the case where the person occupying the office is no longer engaged in the discharge of it.
The Practical Barriers
They are considerable, and honesty about them is not weakness. Section 4 requires the vice president and a majority of the Cabinet — the same Cabinet the president himself appointed. Vice President J.D. Vance is 41 years old and politically dependent on the president’s coalition. No Cabinet in modern history has demonstrated the willingness to move first. Even if the Cabinet acted, a two-thirds supermajority in both chambers to sustain removal is, in a Congress currently held by the president’s party, functionally impossible.
Why the Barriers Do Not Negate the Case
The barriers are political, not constitutional. The mechanism exists. The framers put it in the Constitution precisely because they anticipated that a president might one day be unable, or unwilling, to discharge the office’s duties, and precisely because they knew the political system would resist admitting it. The point of Raskin’s bill is not to remove the president tomorrow. The point is to build the standing body Section 4 explicitly contemplates, so that when the political conditions catch up to the constitutional reality — as they may, if a Democratic House majority materializes in November — the machinery exists. A functioning democracy prepares its safeguards. A failing one lets them rust.
V. What Both Parties Are Actually Doing
The honest answer, on affordability: not much. The Republican strategy, as documented by the Washington Examiner, is to blame Biden-era inflation for cumulative price increases while the president himself insists prices have already come down, a contradiction the party has been unable to reconcile. Vice President Vance has publicly pleaded for “patience.” The One Big Beautiful Bill Act has, in its first year of operation, cut Medicaid, cut food assistance, expanded tax benefits for high earners and corporations, and expanded tariffs that raise consumer costs — a policy package that, taken together, is the near-opposite of what an affordability agenda would look like.
The Democratic strategy is more diffuse. In the November 2025 off-year elections, Democratic candidates who ran hard on affordability won: Zohran Mamdani in New York City, Mikie Sherrill in New Jersey’s gubernatorial race, and Abigail Spanberger in Virginia’s. That formula is being scaled up — Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is reportedly weighing a 2028 primary against Sen. Chuck Schumer, and the intraparty primary wave is being led by candidates running explicitly on cost-of-living platforms. But the party’s Washington leadership has not consolidated behind a single, sharp economic agenda, and the primary-vote-driven purge suggests its own base has noticed.
What voters can expect this fall is a continuation of the pattern already visible in the polling: a president who will not adjust to the numbers, congressional Republicans who cannot publicly diverge from him, and a Democratic Party that has more energy at its base than direction from its leadership. The affordability crisis will not resolve itself in three months. Household debt will not fall by November. Neither will grocery prices. Neither, absent an intervention no one in Washington seems prepared to make, will the tax burden on working households.
VI. What This Says About Leadership
The word for what a president does when 60 percent of the country disapproves of his handling of the economy, when 66 percent of Americans believe his priorities do not align with theirs, when even three-quarters of his own voters describe the cost of living as bad or the worst they can remember — and he responds by calling the very concept of affordability a “hoax” — is not stubbornness. It is not political discipline. It is a refusal to govern.
A functioning presidency is a feedback loop. The country sends a signal. The president adjusts. The country sends a new signal. Signals become policy. That loop has broken. What voters are watching, in real time, is a president who has decided that the signal itself is fraudulent. This is not a political theory. It is what he has said, on camera, at a cabinet meeting, in a Michigan speech, and in a Punchbowl News interview — that voters are wrong about the economy, that affordability is a Democratic invention, and that the anger belongs to somebody else’s party.
The country’s response, as expressed through polls, prediction markets, primary elections, and off-year gubernatorial races, has been to begin removing the people it can reach. It cannot reach the president until January 2029. It can reach members of Congress. It is doing so, in both parties, at the highest rate in more than half a century.
Editorial Conclusion
The voters have said what they think. They have said it in polls. They have said it in primaries. They have said it with their household debt loads and their credit card balances and their receipts from the grocery store. A president who dismisses that verdict as a hoax has decided that the signal from the governed is the problem, not the input.
That is not a policy disagreement. It is a governance failure — the kind the framers wrote Section 4 to address. Congress does not yet have the votes. But Congress has the obligation to build the standing body that would give the country a functioning safeguard when a future majority does. Rep. Raskin’s Commission on Presidential Capacity is the beginning of that work. Every voter who marks a ballot this November should understand what is on it: not simply a House majority, but the machinery a democracy uses to protect itself from a leader who has stopped listening.
America has had enough of being told its own suffering isn’t real. The verdict is in. Washington’s only remaining choice is whether to hear it.
Sources & References
- TIME“Trump Says Voters Are Angry With Republicans — But Not With Him. Here’s What Polls Show.” August 7, 2026.
- Issues & Insights / TIPP Poll“Is Trump’s Flat Voter Favorability In August Bad News For GOP’s Midterm Hopes?” August 3, 2026.
- Emerson College Polling (via AOL)“Donald Trump’s Popularity Falls As Shutdown Drags On.” Trump GOP approval down 12 points from 91% to 79%.
- Next Predict / Silver Bulletin“2026 Midterm Election Results: Prediction Market Odds, Forecasts, and Outcomes.” Nate Silver approval tracking.
- Brookings InstitutionWilliam A. Galston, “Why affordability will be a key issue in the 2026 midterm elections.”
- Fortune“Trump dismissed affordability as a Democratic ‘made-up word’ — then oil hit $100 a barrel.” July 23, 2026.
- AOL / Politico polling“Trump calls affordability a ‘Democrat scam’ — nearly three-quarters of his voters think cost of living is bad or the worst ever.”
- Washington Examiner“Republican frustration over affordability vulnerability boils over.”
- Cato Institute — Handbook on AffordabilityConsumer prices climbed 24% between 2021 and January 2026.
- Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy“Year One of Trump-Republican Tax Policy: The Consequences.” Top 1% receives $117B in tax cuts in 2026.
- Yahoo Finance / ITEP“Trump’s tax cuts give the richest 5% big breaks while everyone else pays more.”
- Center for American Progress“7 Ways the Big Beautiful Bill Cuts Taxes for the Rich.”
- ABC News / New York Fed“US household debt ticks up to new all-time high” — $18.8 trillion.
- LendingTree / Federal Reserve“2026 Credit Card Debt Statistics.” Total revolving debt at $1.252 trillion.
- Bitcoin News (Kalshi/Polymarket data)“Prediction Markets Unleash Wild 2026 Midterm Election Bets.” 82% odds seven-plus House Dems lose primaries.
- KuCoin (Kalshi/Polymarket data)“Prediction Markets Price Democratic House Takeover and GOP Senate Edge.”
- NBC News“Nine House Incumbents Lose Primaries in 2026 — Most Since 1970.”
- NBC News“Democratic Party hits new polling low, while its voters want to fight Trump harder.”
- CNN/SSRS (via Yahoo)CNN poll: 28% approve of congressional Democratic leaders.
- NBC News Focus Groups“Dissatisfied Democratic voters hunt for winners to pull the party forward.”
- Fortune“Democrats decide 2026 midterm elections are the perfect time for a civil war.”
- The Hill“Democrats set themselves up for year of primaries in 2026.” Rep. Ro Khanna quoted.
- Washington Monthly“Democratic Voters Are Boiling Mad at the Democratic Establishment.”
- House Judiciary DemocratsRep. Jamie Raskin introduces Commission on Presidential Capacity legislation, April 14, 2026.
- PBS NewsHour“Could the 25th Amendment be invoked against Trump? Here’s how it works.”
- TIME“What to Know About the 25th Amendment as Lawmakers Call for Trump’s Removal.”
Related News
