The remaining primary risks for Democrats
Upcoming nominating contests could put must-win seats in play for Republicans if progressives prevail.
It wouldn’t seem to be that complicated. The November 2026 midterm election presents great danger for Republicans and huge opportunity for Democrats.
Midterm elections are usually very dangerous for a party holding the White House, particularly when that occupant has very low job-approval numbers, and that party also controls both the U.S. Senate and the House.
The Senate is currently divided between 53 Republicans and 47 Democrats; the House is effectively 220 Republicans to 215 Democrats. State elections are also disproportionately on the midterm election cycle. This November ballot, 36 states (72 percent) have governorships on the ballot; the overall split of Republican to Democrat governors is 26 to 24. Also, 6,123 state legislative seats (83 percent) are up. The stakes could hardly be higher.
Given how much is on the line, one might assume that a top-of-mind concern for both parties is nominating candidates with the best chance of winning in November. Keeping in mind that the best predictor of general-election outcomes in states and districts is the result of the most recent presidential election, consider this:
In the 24 states that are most commonly considered to be “red” Republican states:
President Trump won each of these 24 states in all of the last three presidential elections.
All 48 U.S. Senate seats in these 24 states are held by Republicans.
In 22 of the 24 red states, the governorship is currently held by a Republican. Kansas (Gov. Laura Kelly) and Kentucky (Gov. Andy Beshear) are the exceptions.
In the 19 states that are most commonly considered to be “blue” Democratic states:
All 19 voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016, Joe Biden in 2020, and Kamala Harris in 2024.
Democrats currently hold 37 of the 38 U.S. Senate seats in the 19 blue states (counting both independent members, Sens. Angus King of Maine and Bernie Sanders of Vermont, as Democrats), with Sen. Susan Collins of Maine the lone GOP exception.
Of those 19 blue states, 17 have Democratic governors, the sole exceptions being New Hampshire (Gov. Kelly Ayotte) and Vermont (Gov. Phil Scott). As a region, New England, more than any other, has frequently elected governors and, in the case of New Hampshire, even state legislative control of a hue opposite to the presidential pattern.
In statewide elections, the action is overwhelmingly in the seven states that make up purple America. Three are in the Frost Belt (Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin), with four across the Sun Belt (Nevada, Arizona, Georgia, and North Carolina).
Trump carried all but Nevada of these seven purple states in 2016; four years later, Biden won all but North Carolina; in 2024, Trump swept all seven.
Ten of the 14 Senate seats are held by Democrats; Democrats have three pairs, in Arizona (Sens. Mark Kelly and Ruben Gallego), Georgia (Sens. Jon Ossoff and Raphael Warnock), Michigan (retiring Sen. Gary Peters and Sen. Elissa Slotkin), and Nevada (Sens. Catherine Cortez Masto and Jacky Rosen). Republicans hold a pair in North Carolina (retiring Sen. Thom Tillis and Sen. Ted Budd). Pennsylvania has one from each party (Democratic Sen. John Fetterman and Republican Sen. Dave McCormick), as does Wisconsin (Democratic Sen. Tammy Baldwin and Republican Sen. Ron Johnson).
Five of the seven states have Democratic governors: Arizona (Gov. Katie Hobbs), Michigan (Gov. Gretchen Whitmer), North Carolina (Gov. Josh Stein), Pennsylvania (Gov. Josh Shapiro), and Wisconsin (Gov. Tony Evers). The remaining two states have GOP governors: Georgia (term-limited Gov. Brian Kemp) and Nevada (Gov. Joe Lombardo).
Together, these seven constitute the “fair fight” states, with outcomes driven by the relative quality of the candidates and campaigns, as well as the political environment at the time of an election.
This has been the partisan architecture over the last dozen years: a pair of almost impenetrable walls, one dividing Red and Purple America, the other dividing Purple and Blue America.
The political realities for candidates in purple states and districts are very different from those for candidates running in deeply red or blue constituencies. When winning a primary is tantamount to victory and few, if any, true independent votes are needed to win a general election, parties and primary voters have the luxury of picking almost any candidate and still be confident of holding the seat.
A MAGA-aligned or Freedom Caucus-like candidate, an election denier or highly ideological candidate can usually do fine in very red states and districts, but not so well in purple or light blue, and occasionally may even be problematic in light red ones. Similarly, Democratic Socialists, Justice Democrats, and other very progressive Democrats can be expected to do well in deeply blue constituencies but would be problematic nominees in purple or light-red ones, sometimes even in very light-blue areas.
In the elections since Trump was first sworn into office, Republicans developed a bad habit of nominating statewide red candidates in purple states, particularly in 2022, which is one reason the GOP has lost 17 of the 21 Senate races and 10 of the 14 gubernatorial races since 2017.
This year, that habit seems to have afflicted Democrats, who could potentially nominate very blue candidates in light blue, purple, and light red states. Over the next three weeks, primaries are being held in a dozen states, with particularly critical ones in Michigan (Aug. 4) and in Minnesota and Wisconsin on Aug. 11.
The Democratic primary in Michigan’s Senate race is particularly consequential in the fight for control of that chamber. Former Wayne County health director Abdul El-Sayed, backed by Sens. Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, and Chris Van Hollen, as well as Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib, and Ro Khanna, among others, is a staunch progressive. His rival, Rep. Haley Stevens, is a less-than-scintillating candidate but is backed by less ideological Democrats and widely considered to be more electable in a general election.
When those in the most progressive wing of the Democratic Party get all puffed up about some of their most publicized wins, few bother to consider the context. For example, in Zohran Mamdani’s celebrated win in last year’s New York City mayoral race, he pulled 51.1 percent of the vote; it looks pretty puny compared with Kamala Harris’ citywide 68.1 percent in 2024. Four years earlier, Biden pulled 76.2 percent.
The ideological recipe that has worked for Sanders in Vermont (which Harris won with 63.8 percent), for Warren in Massachusetts (where Harris won 61.2 percent), or Van Hollen in Maryland (where Harris won 62.6 percent) might not work so well for their endorsed Senate candidate in Michigan, where Harris won 48.2 percent of the vote.
The same is true for El-Sayed endorsers in the House: Ocasio-Cortez in New York-14 (Harris won 64.9 percent), Omar in Minnesota-05 (Harris won 79.6 percent), Tlaib in Michigan-12 (Harris won 66.6 percent), and Khanna in California-17 (Harris won 67.3 percent). In many of those constituencies, a Democrat would have to work very hard to lose a general election and still might not succeed. In a swing state like Michigan, a Democrat running statewide can be a great candidate with a terrific organization and still come up short.
Given the stakes of the 2026 election in swing states and districts, this would hardly seem to be the time to prioritize symbolism, message-sending, or self-indulgence over maximizing chances of winning. That may be fine in other years or in safe states and districts, but not in swing areas this year. Picking candidates who are appropriate for the given constituency should be of paramount importance.