As with every election, it becomes easier to assess the results with clear eyes after the initial response wears off. Still, what was true on Tuesday night is just as true now: Democrats had a historic night, winning control of the House and Senate, picking up five governorships, and securing majorities in state legislatures across the country. 

Now, as we look ahead to a new Congress and the back half of the second Trump administration, questions abound about what the new government will look like, the issues it will prioritize, and what the election results tell us about American voters. Today, we’ll answer a range of those questions from the Tangle community. Let’s dive in.

Is this election a win for the polling industry?

— Meredith from Minneapolis, MN

Executive Editor Isaac Saul: I think anything that wasn’t “seriously underestimating Trump/Republican support” would have been a win for the polling industry. Obviously, representing the right’s perspective has been the problem plaguing polls for years now — so most pollsters were preparing for the possibility they were (again) missing MAGA voters in their surveys.

It turns out, this year, they may have over-corrected. As I wrote earlier in the week, it looks like the polls underestimated Democrats’ support and enthusiasm by just over four points. In sheer magnitude, 2026 polls undercounted Democrats by more than 2016 and 2024 polls undercounted Republicans. If the error had been toward Republicans, a lot of races would have been extremely tight, the GOP likely would have kept the Senate, and we’d probably be reading some very negative polling postmortems. But since it was away from Republicans, the blue tsunami was even more shocking.

Polls, on average, showed a +9 Democratic generic ballot. That painted the picture of an electorate very, very mad at Republicans, and smart forecasters noted that even if they undercounted Democratic support, the tsunami would come. Well: They did, and it did. As long as we interpret them with that caveat in mind, the polls were a useful tool for predicting the outcome and did a good job representing the directional mood of the country. I’d count that as a win. 

Can you explain how the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact works, and how the Electoral College can be removed without a constitutional amendment?

— Natalie from North Canton, OH

Managing Editor Ari Weitzman: This is an interesting, somewhat wonkish initiative that might enter mainstream discussion very soon. The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC) is an agreement between states to pledge presidential electors to the winner of the national popular vote instead of the winner of each state’s vote, if — and only if — states with a combined 270 electoral votes between them adopt the agreement. Until that point, presidential elections continue operating as they always have; but if the compact ever reaches 270 votes, the Electoral College would (theoretically) be rendered meaningless. 

As of now, the interstate compact has support from states with a combined 222 electoral votes. 18 predominantly Democratic states and Washington, D.C. have signed on, with some backers arguing the Electoral College is anti-democratic because it makes some voters matter more than others. As the argument goes, the current system encourages candidates to overly focus on wedge issues in contentious battleground states, ignoring larger issues that matter to a larger number of people. Even though the NPVIC is led by members of both parties, the popular vote initiative is more popular among Democrats than Republicans; therefore, states with Republican-led legislatures are less likely to support it. 

But following the midterms, Democrats now have governing trifectas in five states that aren’t party to the compact: Pennsylvania, Michigan, Nevada, Wisconsin, and Arizona. If Pennsylvania, Michigan, and any two of the other three states sign on, the NPVIC will reach 270.

However, that doesn’t guarantee that these states will join the compact ahead of the 2028 election. Some of these state governments have already considered and rejected the NPVIC: Then-Nevada Gov. Steve Sisolak (D) vetoed a measure to join the coalition in 2019, and Michigan Democrats failed to pass their own measure during their recent governing trifecta from 2023–2024. Lastly, the strategy may be unconstitutional — Supreme Court Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh have argued separately that states cannot enter compacts without congressional consent. (In 2024, Isaac interviewed the Republican and Democratic leaders of the NPVIC initiative, and they argued the initiative is constitutional. You can check it out here.)

[On Tuesday] we saw a true blue wave — but here in Colorado there were a number of propositions/state constitutional amendments pushed by right-wing groups that managed to pass (like banning trans kids from playing on sports teams that match their gender identity). How many other states had propositions like these, and what were the results? 

— Connor from Denver, CO

Editor Audrey Moorehead: This question has inconvenient answers for a lot of invested parties. Several states whose Senate and House races flipped blue still approved conservative ballot measures, while some progressive measures failed in sapphire-blue states and some conservative measures failed in ruby-red states.

Six ballot questions across five states addressed transgender issues in 2026. Measures restricting transgender participation in girls’ sports passed in Arizona, Nebraska, Colorado, and Washington. Measures restricting transition surgeries for minors were on the ballot in Colorado and Missouri. Missouri’s ballot measure — which also included provisions for strict abortion limits — failed, while Colorado’s passed.

More broadly, voters approved several traditionally right-coded policy ideas on ballots across the country and rejected some progressive measures. Oklahoma, Nevada, North Carolina, and Ohio approved measures strengthening voter ID requirements; similar measures in Arizona, California, and Colorado failed.

Nine ballot measures across six states addressed income and wealth tax policy, including popular progressive policies like wealth taxes and popular conservative policies like property tax elimination. In California, Proposition 3 (increasing income taxes on higher incomes) passed, but Proposition 40 (one-time billionaire tax) is likely to fail, and Proposition 42 (limiting taxes on certain assets) is likely to pass. In Iowa and North Carolina, measures restricting income taxes passed, but similar measures in Washington and Missouri failed. Separately, Florida’s Amendment 3, which in simple terms reduces state property taxes, passed.

I’d love to hear where the Tangle team stands on what Dems should actually prioritize in terms of hearings, oversight investigations, prosecutions, impeachments, etc. — specifically separating the strategic perspectives from their ethical ones.

​I feel like the prevailing consensus right now across mainstream commentary that the Tangle team seems to align heavily with is that Dems shouldn't “waste time” or risk political capital on aggressive investigations, prosecutions, or impeachments.

At the same time, Isaac’s recent corruption deep dive refresh would seemingly be at odds with that perspective. How do you reconcile?

— u/IB_Yolked on r/TangleNews

Executive Editor Isaac Saul: To be honest, there’s so much to choose from; I think it’s less about what they prosecute than how they prosecute it. The messaging needs to be simple, clear, and effective. The hearings need to be airtight; one Eric Schmitt-type moment could sink the whole thing. At the same time (and this will be controversial), they need to be careful going after the president.