Overview of The Washington Roundtable Live: The Backlash Midterms
In this live New Yorker panel at 92NY, Evan Osnos, Susan Glasser, Jane Mayer, and later David Remnick examine the political mood ahead of the midterms. On paper, the environment looks ideal for Democrats: Donald Trump’s approval is low, the economy is unpopular, and voters are broadly dissatisfied. But the conversation focuses on why this still feels like an unstable, high-risk moment for American democracy—because of redistricting, election distrust, institutional damage, and Trump’s willingness to push norms even further.
Main Themes and Takeaways
A potentially strong midterm environment for Democrats
- The hosts say Democrats should be positioned for a backlash election.
- Trump’s approval is historically weak, and public opinion is unfavorable on:
- his overall job performance
- the economy
- his foreign policy and wartime decisions
- Despite that, there is far less confidence than the numbers would suggest.
Why this election feels unusually dangerous
- The panel describes the moment as “off the map” and full of uncertainty.
- Key sources of anxiety include:
- redistricting
- voting access and district maps
- election integrity fears
- the possibility of administrative interference
- Jane Mayer emphasizes that this is not a normal political environment; it is a sustained stress test on democratic institutions.
Trump is still the central variable
- Trump is described as the X factor: unpredictable, destructive, and politically talented.
- The panel argues that Trump’s second iteration is different from his first:
- more normalized damage
- more institutional erosion
- more open hostility to democratic processes
- David Remnick says the country may be focused too narrowly on the election itself when the bigger question is what Trump has already broken and how hard it will be to undo.
Institutions Under Pressure
The press is fragile, but still essential
- The discussion turns to attacks on news organizations and whether major outlets can survive political and corporate pressure.
- Remnick argues that strong journalism still exists, but it requires:
- independence
- institutional support
- editorial courage
- constant maintenance
- He contrasts The New Yorker’s relative independence with troubling examples of pressure at CBS/60 Minutes and other outlets.
Courts and judges are feeling the heat
- Jane Mayer says judges are experiencing real fear:
- public attacks from Trump
- harassment from his supporters
- intimidation tactics like pizzas sent to judges’ homes
- The Supreme Court and lower courts are portrayed as operating in a more threatened climate than before.
Corruption, Accountability, and Democratic Strategy
Corruption is real, but Democrats struggle to message it
- The panel agrees there is extensive corruption and self-dealing around Trump and his orbit.
- But corruption scandals can be hard to translate into public urgency unless tied to something tangible—especially affordability.
- A key strategic point: Democrats should connect corruption to everyday economic pain.
Investigative reporting still matters
- Remnick defends accountability journalism:
- “sunshine is the best disinfectant”
- reporting exposes wrongdoing even if institutions fail to act immediately
- He notes, however, that exposure alone no longer guarantees consequences, because Congress and the courts often fail to respond.
Impeachment is seen as limited or “dead letter”
- Susan Glasser argues that impeachment no longer functions as the founders intended.
- Even if Democrats win the House or Senate, there likely wouldn’t be enough votes to convict.
- That said, the panel thinks hearings and investigations would likely follow, which could trigger a constitutional standoff if the White House stonewalls.
Candidates, Talent, and the Future of the Democratic Party
The talent problem
- The panel repeatedly asks where the next generation of Democratic leadership is coming from.
- They argue that politics is not just about ideology; it is also about:
- charisma
- communication
- authenticity
- energy
- modern political instincts
- Remnick says some current candidates feel thin, but talent can emerge unexpectedly, as it did with Barack Obama.
Grassroots energy may be more important than Washington insiders
- Susan Glasser argues the real energy in politics may come from civil society and grassroots frustration, not from Capitol Hill.
- She points to a broader generational anger:
- economic inequality
- housing and job insecurity
- the sense that the ladder is being pulled up
- That anger may eventually be organized into a more coherent left or center-left politics.
The “Obama problem”
- The panel agrees that Democrats long for an Obama-like figure, but Obama nostalgia is not a strategy.
- What people miss is not just Obama himself, but his:
- composure
- integrity
- communication style
- sense of national scale
- Still, the group says a new leader will need to emerge who can speak to today’s conditions, not 2008’s.
Closing Takeaways
- The midterms look favorable for Democrats in theory, but the panel is far from relaxed.
- The deeper concern is that American democracy has already been damaged in ways that are hard to reverse.
- The conversation ends on a mix of caution and faint optimism:
- the numbers are bad for Trump
- turnout and backlash are possible
- but institutions, norms, and accountability remain under serious strain
Notable Insights
- “This is a stress test for democracy.”
- “Culture is fragile.”
- “Trump is the X factor.”
- “Nostalgia is not a politics.”
- “Corruption has to be tied to affordability.”
Bottom Line
This live roundtable is less a prediction show than a warning label: Democrats may have the advantage in the midterms, but the panel argues that democratic legitimacy, institutional trust, and the future of political accountability are all under pressure. The most important question is not simply who wins, but what kind of political system remains afterward.