IN SUMMARY

by Alfredo Cuéllar

The elections of November 4 and 5, 2025, produced results that, at first glance, could be interpreted as a Democratic triumph and a Republican defeat. But that reading would be far too superficial. In a two-party system such as that of the United States, what matters is not merely whether Democrats win or Republicans lose. What we are witnessing is a deeper political reaction — a micropolitics of change — rather than a simple partisan strategy.

The Main Facts

In New York City, Zohran Mamdani, a 34-year-old democratic socialist, became mayor — the city’s first Muslim mayor, its youngest in more than a century, and the first of South Asian descent.

In Virginia, Abigail Spanberger won the governorship, marking another milestone.

In New Jersey, Mikie Sherrill scored a broader-than-expected victory against an opponent backed by Donald Trump.

In California, approval of a redistricting measure clearly favored Democrats and could translate into as many as five additional seats for the party in the U.S. House of Representatives next year.

In Maine, voters rejected a restrictive voting proposal and approved another allowing families to remove firearms from relatives in crisis, while in Pennsylvania, voters extended the terms of three Democratic justices on the state Supreme Court for another ten years.

And in Georgia, Democrats managed to unseat two Republican commissioners from the state’s public utilities board — a body that had not seen a Democrat elected since 2007.

Not Simply a “Democratic Victory / Republican Defeat”

The first thing to understand is that this was not a simple partisan zero-sum game.

In a two-party system, interpreting the outcome as “Democratic victory, Republican defeat” lacks analytical depth.

Voters did not so much vote for the Democratic Party as they voted against a figure, a power dynamic, and a narrative that now feels exhausted.

In many cases, the Republican losses had less to do with their platform and more to do with rejection of Donald Trump and the style of leadership he represents.

What we witnessed, in large measure, was a mandate of disapproval rather than an enthusiastic endorsement of the alternative.

The Micropolitical Angle: The Invisible Power in Motion

From a micropolitical perspective — one we have often explored — these results can be read more finely:

• It’s not just about who governs, but how power is exercised and who controls it.
• What we saw was the cumulative effect of everyday dissatisfaction: rising costs, insecurity, immigration pressures, lack of mobility — a collective search for genuine change.
• Trump presents no coherent program, no clear path or goal; voters perceive him as erratic and increasingly unreliable as a leader.
• These elections show that power is not transferred only at the ballot box, but also through gestures, identities, and perceptions of exclusion or belonging.

For example, Mamdani’s victory came from working-class neighborhoods, immigrant communities, and urban spaces where “traditional” power was no longer seen as representative.

In California, the redistricting initiative is not mere institutional engineering; it is an attempt to reconfigure the map of power, to displace entrenched influences, to open new political spaces, and, of course, to project the governor as a future presidential contender.

Migration, “Domestic War,” and the Trump Factor

One of the most decisive themes was immigration — and the so-called “domestic war against migrants.”

In many states, candidates with more open, plural, and globally minded visions prevailed over those tied to closed, monocultural, or reactionary stances.

In that context, Trump is no longer merely a presidential actor; he is a symbol — of resistance for some, of rejection for others.

Thus, when voters choose the other side, it is often less out of enthusiasm than out of repudiation of what he represents.

In that context, Trump is no longer merely a presidential actor; he is a symbol — of resistance for some, of rejection for others.

Thus, when voters choose the other side, it is often less out of enthusiasm than out of repudiation of what he represents.

But this could change quickly.

If Trump were to provoke a “small war” or if the U.S. became involved in a foreign conflict, that domestic backlash could flip overnight — accelerating polarization instead of dampening it.

Trump has been signaling this possibility since the start of his second administration.

Micropolitics pays attention to these turning points — when external crises (war, economic shocks, or international tensions) suddenly reorganize loyalties, reshaping who holds power inside the community, who matters, and who is left out.

The recent government shutdown also played a decisive role in shaping voter sentiment. What many Americans experienced was not a partisan disagreement but a collapse of governance itself — airports halted, federal workers unpaid, services frozen. In micropolitical terms, it was the everyday evidence of power misused: authority turned into hostage-taking. For countless citizens, that paralysis symbolized the essence of Trump’s leadership — a government that performs outrage instead of providing order.

Conclusion

Yesterday’s results should not be seen as a mere Democratic victory.

They are evidence that every day, microstructured power is changing its rules.

People did not say “yes” to the Democratic Party — they said “no” to a style of power that had become obsolete, abusive, and extreme.

That is the micropolitical gesture that must be read: from below, in neighborhoods, in communities, in the quiet decisions that turn into votes.

What remains to be seen is whether this change will become institutionalized or whether traditional power will find new ways to reassert itself.

Because in the realm of micropolitics, power endures only when it is visible, recognized, and connected to those who exercise it.

And in that sense, yesterday marked a symbolic advance — but not yet a definitive victory.