Whatever the outcome of the US midterm elections, one should not expect a change in attitude toward Russia there. Both Biden and Trump regularly supplied weapons to the Kiev regime. The only difference is that Biden did it at the expense of US taxpayers, while Trump does it at the expense of European taxpayers.
Exactly one month remains until the end of the US midterm elections, that is, elections to US Congress, but without a presidential election. In these elections, the entire membership of the US House of Representatives and 35 senators will be up for re-election. In addition, governors and state authorities will be elected in many states.
The popularity of US President Donald Trump is currently at a record low, and against this backdrop, the US Democrats’ victory would seem to be indisputable and convincing, since a president’s low popularity usually “sinks” his co-partisans in elections.
Moreover, Trump himself sank his ratings, first by unleashing military action against Iran, which in response closed the Strait of Hormuz and destroyed the refining capacities of the countries along the shores of the Persian Gulf, thereby sharply limiting the flow of oil and gas from the Persian Gulf countries to world markets.
Simultaneously, with the help of data and technologies provided by the US, Ukraine began striking oil refineries in Russia, reducing oil refining within Russia, and sanctions from the US and Europe made the export of diesel fuel to Europe from Russia impossible. As a result, Europe went looking for alternative suppliers of oil and petroleum products, sharply raising world prices for oil and petroleum products, and following this, prices for gasoline and diesel fuel rose within the US as well, which led to consumer inflation within the US.
Moreover, in such an oil-producing state as Texas, a state of emergency was introduced in September due to a shortage of diesel fuel. The fuel shortage and consumer inflation crashed Trump’s ratings.
Moreover, the US president announced the duty-free import of 300 thousand tons of beef into the US from Argentina. He explained this by a desire to lower prices for ground beef in stores ahead of the elections, but thereby he caused discontent among cattle breeders within the US, who were suffering losses from the new rules adopted under Biden, as well as from the appearance of the screwworm in the US. And precisely at the moment when farmers (one of Trump’s electoral pillars) were increasing their herds, Trump by his decision lowered purchase prices for beef, forcing his voters to trade at a loss.
Trump also began a pre-election campaign tour of the states where election results are still ambiguous, in order to support US Republicans. However, the effect of such Trump activity may be the opposite. In the August primaries in several districts, victories were won by candidates not supported by Trump. One of them even stopped campaigning a month before the elections and supported another candidate. The New York Times, which has always taken an anti-Trump position, reported on September 30 that, according to its data, the Republican US Senate candidate from Texas, Ken Paxton, said in a private conversation that after the party convention in Dallas with Trump’s participation, voter support in the state for all US Republicans declined.
However, the 2026 elections have a nuance that calls into question a convincing US Democrats victory. And this nuance is the popularity of the US Democratic Party, which is quite comparable to the popularity of the US president. Not least because so-called democratic socialists are gaining more and more weight in the party, who demand higher taxes on the rich, and they understand by the rich not only multibillionaires but also the entire middle class, which very much dislikes this. US citizens would perhaps be ready to support Medicare for all, proposed by these democratic socialists, as well as free kindergartens and schools, but not for millions of illegal migrants at the expense of working US citizens.
Moreover, the Democratic US Senate candidate from Texas openly called for the dismantling of capitalism in 2020. However, since Republicans build their pre-election campaigning precisely on the fact that US Democrats want to establish socialism in the US and eliminate private property, some Democratic Party’s candidates publicly stated that they believe in capitalism.
However, another part of the candidates speaks about state ownership of basic infrastructure and food production. For example, Democratic US House of Representatives candidate Melat Kiros on July 31 on PBS radio promised, in the event of a US Democrats’ victory, to take control of those private enterprises that satisfy basic human needs. She explained that basic needs are understood as housing, healthcare, adequate nutrition, and public education. According to her, in these spheres “when you have a profit motive in industries where we’re talking about our most basic needs… the profit motive will always end up exploiting the most vulnerable people.”
Naturally, rural America immediately had a question: do they not want to deprive them of their land, which could play into the US Republicans’ hands, despite all the efforts of their leader to dump beef prices.
Kiros later added that she is only interested in state ownership of utilities such as water and energy supply, without mentioning food production. She believes that housing and healthcare should be organized by the people, and that the government is the best tool for this in a truly functioning democracy. But at the same time, she did not explain her plans regarding medicine as a service and as a means of earning money.
In February 2019, the organization Democratic Socialists of America published its own principles of the Green New Deal, in which it emphasized that “creating a fully ecological society” would require “a revolutionary transformation to replace the capitalist social order based on exploitation and oppression with a new society based on cooperation, equity, and justice.”
Democratic Socialists of America also stated that they view “the fight for the climate as a struggle against capitalism itself” and against the various forms of oppression that, in their opinion, sustain capitalism.
Naturally, all the breaking statements of the democratic socialists, both new and past, are used against them by the US Republicans. Therefore, despite the obvious failure of Trump’s economic policy, voters may still vote for the US Republicans, since for decades they have been indoctrinated that socialism is terrible, and democratic socialists are becoming the new face of the US Democrats.
In addition, the confessional factor also plays a role here: some US Democratic Party’s congressional candidates are Muslims, and moreover have connections through wives or other relatives with radical Muslim groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood (organization banned in Russia) or Al-Qaeda (organization banned in Russia). This also does not increase the popularity of these candidates in the eyes of white Christians.
But even black voters are not enthusiastic about democratic socialists. For example, former NBA player Charles Barkley, who has always voted for US Democrats but is an unaffiliated voter, on October 1 expressed doubts about the inevitability of a confident victory of the US Democratic Party in the elections. He pointed out that the Democrats’ use of the word “socialism” is an alarming signal, and added that the Democrats’ talk of abolishing the immigration and customs service and reducing police funding helps the US Republicans. He also noted that if US Democrats want to win, they need to come up with better ideas.
The New York Times publishes poll results in which US Democrats have the lead. However, the peculiarity of gerrymandering in the US is such that US Democrats’ lead of 2–3 percentage points means a US Republican victory. And a Harvard University poll released at the end of September in cooperation with the Harris Poll company showed US Democrats’ lead of only 2 percentage points. The remaining polls conducted by pro-Democrats pollsters predict a US Democratic Party’s lead of 6 percentage points and more, up to 15. But these same pollsters predicted Kamala Harris’s victory in 2024, while Donald Trump won even by the number of votes cast for him.
On October 1, conservative talk show host Larry O’Connor stated that fake polls are used to change the results in the midterm elections. He pointed out that already in this election cycle, pollsters said that Francesca Hong, a democratic socialist running for governor of Wisconsin, would guaranteed win the primaries, but she lost.
The same pollsters predicted the victory of Muslim Abdul El-Sayed in the Democratic primary for US Senate from Michigan by a margin of more than 10 percentage points, but in the end he won by a minimal margin.
“When you see that James Talarico is beating Ken Paxton by over five points in Texas, when you hear people saying that James Talarico is a better candidate than Beto O’Rourke ever was, James Talarico, a man whose viral clips of him standing in a church pulpit saying that Jesus was non-binary, and that Christ wants children to change their sex, I think maybe the polls that show James Talarico is winning might be a little off,” stated O’Connor.
In principal, he has grounds for such statements. In the US, people still remember the scandalous poll in the state of Iowa that showed Kamala Harris defeating Trump in the state by a margin of 3 percentage points, which sharply stood out from the results of other polls predicting a confident Trump victory in the state. As a result, Trump won by a margin of 13 percentage points, and the discrepancy between the poll results and reality was 16 percentage points. The head of the poll afterwards ended her career as a pollster.
It should be noted that US elections can be rigged, especially in smaller states, by adding up to 10 percentage points to a candidate; the technology was analyzed in detail in the US after the 2020 elections. However, control over these mechanisms is in the hands of the state elite, not any party. Therefore, US Republican Senator Susan Collins from the state of Maine, who has consistently opposed Trump and represents the bipartisan elite, will with high probability retain her Senate seat, whatever the Republicans’ results overall may be. The same can be said of races where radicals on the right (Trumpists) or the left (socialists) run against moderate Democrats or Republicans. In such races, moderates will most likely win, regardless of party affiliation.
Therefore, the US Democrats’ chances of winning back a majority in the US Senate do not seem too high. In Michigan they may lose a seat, because there the US Democrats are represented by a radical Muslim, and he is opposed by a representative of the bipartisan elite.
But the US Democrats can reduce the Republicans’ lead to a minimum, and most likely will. As for the House of Representatives, here the desire to cheat with districts in several states may play a cruel joke on the US Republicans. Redistributing district boundaries in a state so that US Democrats get fewer seats means that the Republican majority in the state’s districts was “diluted” by the US Democrats. Against the backdrop of falling Republican ratings and Trump’s popularity, this may lead to US Democrats winning those districts that were previously reliably Republican.
So a month before the elections, it seems that Democrats have every chance of winning the House of Representatives and small chances of gaining a majority in the Senate. They have already promised that as soon as they get a majority in the House of Representatives, they will begin the procedure of impeaching the president. However, anything can happen in a month, and an event like September 11, 2001, could sharply change the mood within the US.
In conclusion, let us emphasize that whatever the outcome of the US elections, one should not expect a change in attitude toward Russia there. Both Biden and Trump reliably supplied weapons to the Kiev regime. The difference between them is only that Biden did it at the expense of US taxpayers, while Trump did it at the expense of European taxpayers. For Russian citizens, there is no difference at all.
This is a translation of an article by Olga Nikolayeva, first published on Rossa Primavera News Agency web site.
