E25: Has Fear Beaten Hope? – The 2026 Midterms' Anti-Trump Wave Seen Through Quantum Cognition

From Superposed · 00:32:19

Show by Aidan Lewis

On election night 2026, Democrats took both chambers of Congress and won in states that hadn't gone blue in decades, all while polling as the less popular party. The data points to one driver: voters weren't voting for Democrats so much as against President Trump. So which force moves a decision more, what you hope to gain or what you're trying to escape?=================================Links: 📖Substack: https://superposeddecisions.substack.com/ 📺YouTube: @Superposed_Decisions 🤝LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/aidan-m-lewis/=================================Going into the midterms, 43% of voters said their ballot was meant to oppose the president, up from 38% in 2018, while support-driven votes fell from 26% to 16%. Democrats trailed the GOP in favorability as late as March, yet voters who disliked both parties broke Democratic by 31 points. The result was a Senate majority, a House flip reaching deep into Trump-won districts, a slate of historic firsts, and a repeat of a pattern seen in all but three midterms since 1878: voters checking the party in power. We trace how negative partisanship grew from 2000, when most Gore and Bush voters said they were voting for their candidate, into an era where voting against is the default.=================================We run the 2026 electorate's decision through the four pillars of quantum cognition. Superposition: every voter holds the beliefs of both parties at once, which is how a faith-forward candidate like James Talarico could carry Texas. Interference: fear of the other side and hope for your own act as competing forces, and since 2016 fear has been winning. Contextuality: the Iran war, inflation, and cost of living framed every ballot. Stacked across national, state, and local levels, these forces explain why a 30-year incumbent like Susan Collins lost to a challenger who campaigned for under three months, and why opposition can win an election but can't govern for you.=================================What you'll take away:Why voting against someone has overtaken voting for someone since 2000, and what that asymmetry does to election outcomesHow fear and hope act as interfering forces that stack across national, state, and local levels of a single decisionA pre-decision exercise for any big choice: name what you hope to gain and what you're trying to avoid before you commitThis is not a debate about Trump or either party. It's a decision-science breakdown of why opposition has become a stronger voting motive than support.=================================Primary Sources:Kernell https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/apsrev/v71y1977i01p44-66_25.html Abramowitz & Webster https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electstud.2015.11.001 Bankert https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-020-09599-1 Siev, Rovenpor & Petty https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2023.104538 Soroka & McAdams https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2014.881942 Bafumi, Erikson & Wlezien https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022381610000113 Weber https://doi.org/10.1017/S1537592721001171 =================================Secondary Sources:Pew Research Center — partisan antipathy / reasons for party affiliation (2018)Pew Research Center — "vote for" vs. "vote against" candidate, 2000–2016CNN/SSRS poll — midterm vote as opposition to/support for TrumpNBC News poll — September 2026Gallup — party favorability, March 2026CNBC — 2026 midterm results / spendingFox News — 2026 midterm results / voter analysisNPR — 2026 midterm resultsAl Jazeera — House seat projectionsNYT – Election Spending

More episodes of Superposed

More episodes

PodSearch is a free, independent podcast search engine. Read about PodSearch, the privacy policy or contact us.