The Democrats swept three major races (NY, NJ, VA) and won the re-districting proposition in California. Californian re-districting could give the Democrats a further five seats in the House.

But the lens by which to understand these events perhaps is better that of the last British general election: The governing party was both discredited and widely disliked. The British electorate wanted to deliver to it a resounding slap – which they duly did. The problem was that electors did not like the alternative parties so much either. But to send the message, they had to vote for something. The Labour Party won a thumping majority, but no real mandate. The new Prime Minister, and his party (as it turns out), is as widely disliked as his predecessor.

Politics in the UK are broken for now. It is largely the same in France.

So, when the headlines say the Democrats "swept" the races in the US, it likely reflects the same double-dislike that is evident in Europe. American Populists do not care for either Party's ruling Establishment, seeing them as Tweedle Dum and Tweedle Dee – a plague on both your houses is their riposte. (The Democrats have their Populists too.)

This impasse is not susceptible to a quick fix. The ruling stratum is deeply embedded and owned by mega-donors precisely to keep it that way.

Nonetheless, the populist dynamic in the US is irrefutable, and may soon evolve beyond the reach of donor speech repression structures.

The primary reasons for this impasse are deeply structural, as well as ideological.

Structurally, there is a crisis affecting all but the top 10% or so of households. The US stock market has entered a fantasy euphoria: Fundamentals do not matter; data does not matter; only the meme of the day and how to trade it matters. (The top 10% of households owns 87% of all stocks).

The bottom tier of society however, is further "punished" by price rises (inflation) that have resulted in a crisis of consumer confidence not seen in decades. Even regular staples are being left unsold on supermarket shelves.

But criticism of Trump policies and especially tariffs (for their effect on prices) has been notably muted since this summer – the Financial Times writes – when Trump called for Goldman Sachs to fire its Chief Economist, who had penned a level-headed note on trade tariffs that drew the President's ire. Cold water. Only two gurus seem licensed to speak their mind – Bridgewater's Ray Dalio and JPMorgan's Jamie Dimon, the FT opines.