India, Nov. 8 -- The US midterm results are in,save those for a very small number of electoral districts. Prior to the elections, many analysts had expected the Democrats to take control of the House of Representatives; they have, with a clear majority. Their prospects in the Senate seemed less certain. However, they have also managed to take the Senate with a comfortable majority. Now in control of both chambers of the legislature, they will be able to place significant curbs on Donald Trump's presidency, even though the President can still use his veto to block any legislation that they propose and is not to his liking. In the absence of a two-thirds majority and party cohesion, they will not be able to override a presidential veto. What do these results reveal about the views of the American electorate and what are likely policy implications for the remainder of Trump's second presidential term? At the outset, the election results underscored that a key theme of most Democratic campaigns - the issue of affordability - resonated with a large swath of the electorate. Otherwise, Democratic candidates could not have made significant headway in historically Republican strongholds such as Kansas and Texas. The question of affordability, of course, was closely linked to Trump's highly unpopular war against Iran. His repeated claims that the rising prices of everything, from groceries to petrol, were a small cost that Americans must pay to keep Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons simply did not ring true for the bulk of the citizenry. Only his true believers, whose numbers are now steadily shrinking, still fell for that ploy. Apart from persistent and widespread inflation, some of Trump's other policies also took a toll on his party. Substantial numbers of the country's Hispanic population, who constitute nearly 15% of the eligible electorate, had voted for Trump in the 2024 general election. This time, they moved away from the Republican Party in droves; the President and his draconian immigration policies were to blame. When Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents swooped down on their communities with utter disregard for their civil rights and personal liberties, America's Hispanics had second thoughts about supporting Trump. Another community, African Americans, historically a Democratic stronghold, returned to the fold this midterm after having briefly split along partisan lines. Trump's blatant hostility towards diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) programmes had hurt significant portions of the community as they saw the government, private firms, and even universities abandon even a token commitment to these efforts. More to the point, the shedding of thousands of jobs in government thanks to the ruthless purge by Trump's department of government efficiency (DOGE) had disproportionately hurt the community. Additionally, barring some rare exceptions, the Democrats had carefully vetted and chosen their candidates. For example, James Talarico, now a Senator-elect from Texas, was a seminarian, a schoolteacher and a member of the Texas House of Representatives. Talarico drew attention to his faith, avoided any form of hate-mongering and focused on bread-and-butter issues that have buffeted most of the voting population in Texas. His campaign provided a stark contrast to that of the Republican candidate, Ken Paxton, the former attorney-general of the state, who was dogged by allegations of marital infidelity and personal corruption. Similarly, in the midwestern state ofOhio, which has increasingly leaned toward Republicans in recent elections, the state's health commissioner, Amy Acton, was pitted against an Indian American billionaire, Vivek Ramaswamy. As the campaign drew to a close, Ramaswamy's campaign ran a repugnant television advertisement that featured Acton's estranged mother, who was well-known for her erratic behaviour. Simply stated, candidate selection played an important role in ensuring the Democrats' electoral success. In the few instances where the Democrats chose a candidate poorly, theystill managed to prevail owing to other factors. In Maine, where Senator Susan Collins had held sway for three decades, the Democratsinitially picked Graham Plattner, anoyster farmer, as their candidate. Then, some disturbing allegations of sexual misconduct on his part came to light, and he was forced to withdraw from the race. With about 100 days left to the elections, the party nominated Troy Jackson, a former timber industry worker. He deftly highlighted the costs that Trump's tariffs had imposed on the industry in Maine. Collins, who had long been ensconced in office and had expected to sail to victory, ran a television advertisement that seemed to disparage Jackson's working-class roots. Jackson trounced her at the ballot box. Trump, in characteristic fashion, has sought to blame the Republicans for their losses. During the campaign, he had urged his followers to vote as if he were still on the ballot. Following the electoral debacle, he claimed that the Republicans would have won if he had actually been on the ballot. His blame-shifting aside, he is now a lame-duck president. With the Democrats now in firm control of both houses of the legislature, barring any internecine conflicts, they will now significantly constrain any White House effort to ram through Trump's agenda. He may still maintain his public bravado but, for all practical purposes, his Make America Great Again (MAGA) agenda has now hit a cul-de-sac. Given this unprecedented Democratic victory and a significantly weakened Trumppresidency, what should a Democratic majority in Congress do? At the outset, they need to introduce suitable legislation that addresses the concerns of everyday Americans. To that end, they need to focus on reining in inflation, deal with escalating medical costs, and try to pull back the brutal cuts made to education and welfare spending. None of these tasks will be easy, as they will face much intransigence from their Republican colleagues in Congress, not to mention the ever-present threat of Trump's wanton use of his veto powers. Also, they will need to highlight how Trump's tax cuts, as well as his unauthorised war on Iran, have dramatically contributed to the country's $40-trillion deficit. Above all, they will need to eschew the temptation to return to debates about gender identity. Also, it would be best if they would avoid the use of political terminology that doesn't sell in the American political context. Repeatedly invoking an interest in promoting democratic socialism, which may appealto a sliver of the electorate, amounts to handing over a cudgel to those Republicans whose stock-in-trade is fear-mongering. The veryinvocation of the concept of socialism,democratic or otherwise, is a fraught term in the American political context. Avoiding these two distractions and instead focusing on practical demands of governance should enable Democrats to solidify the significant gains that they have made in this midterm election. Failing to do so could prove costly for the party in another two years....