 |
| Sen-Elect Annie Andrews (D-SC) |
Last night was, in my personal opinion, the biggest win for the Democratic Party on a collective scale since at least 2008, and possibly even 1974. In all three cases, the country sent a message to a Republican president that he was no longer supported, and they would replace him with someone of the opposite party if they could. In both 1974 & 2008, they did just that (2008 at the time, in 1974 they did so two years later). The Democratic Party won everywhere last night-truly, you'd be hard-pressed to find a state where the Democrats didn't make some gains.
I will not delve too much into the data, which is still being released on the why behind it, but I do want to point out (since JD Vance tweeted about it this morning), I don't think it was because Republicans turned out and rejected Democrats entirely...if you look at turnout differentials in, say, a state like Mississippi (the Vice President used Florida as his example, admittedly one of the few states he might actually have a point), the Harris counties had an 83% retention rate in voters compared to 2024...in Trump counties it was only 73%. This is part of a larger trend last night of Black voters clearly turning out in disproportionate numbers to past midterms which helped throughout the US South, and is one of the contributing factors to, say, the seismic & unexpected win the Democrats achieved in South Carolina (depending on where Mississippi lands, probably the most surprising win of the night). We have seen in the past three midterms that there is a contingency of Donald Trump's supporters who only really care about him, and we saw that show up with Trump being disproportionately stronger than the rest of his ticket in 2024. But never during the MAGA era have the Democrats enjoyed this kind of turnout differential, and boy howdy did it help them out.
The Democrats will now control both the US House, when the cards are settled with probably 255-260 seats, their largest majority since the 111th Congress, and with at least 54 Senate seats, possibly as many as 56 if the Democrats win two outstanding Senate seats (more on that in a second). It's not entirely clear how much of this is a repudiation of Trump and how much is voters signing onto Democrats' vision of the economy (I suspect it's a healthy mix), but this is a gargantuan middle finger to Donald Trump, and in some ways marks the end of the MAGA Era in its current form. As he ominously tweeted from the White House Twitter account in what looked like a temper tantrum this morning, Trump will indeed be president for the next two years, but we are now moving into an era where he will be an asterisk. Trump can't run again (and the Republican leadership wouldn't want him to anyway), and after last night, the GOP will want to move beyond him as quickly as possible, and won't be able to replicate his specific political success again even if they might win in 2028. We now know the MAGA Era will not survive Trump's time in office (unlike, say, the Obama Era which still feels pretty healthy given our reliance on him this past cycle).
Two larger scale facts I want to talk through before we get into the nitty gritty. I wrote a few months ago about whether or not the Democrats will finally get 100 women in their House caucus. As of just a few moments ago, that is officially projected (it will end up being north of it), a huge step forward for gender equality in Congress. I will also point out that one of my more popular articles in terms of clicks through the years about the longest Senate Democratic losing streaks (read here) had some major shake-ups last night. Kansas elected a Democrat to the Senate for the first time since 1932, meaning the longest present streak without a Democratic senator passes to Idaho & Utah, but Maine, Texas, and potentially Mississippi will fall from this list as well after last night. This means we're adding to the list Nebraska, Arkansas, Louisiana, & South Dakota (South Carolina would've been ahead of all four of them were it not for last night).
 |
| Sen-Elect Roy Cooper (D-NC) |
The scale of last night's win is going to take a few days to digest, both because of the scale of it means I haven't caught all of the victories (what do you mean we won the Indiana State Comptroller race?!?) and because there's still dozens of races that are uncalled, including some major ones in Congress. But there a few things that call out to me from last night that I want to discuss, and I want to start out with the Carolinas.
In North & South Carolina, the Democrats went into the night expecting one Senate pickup (for NC Gov. Roy Cooper), but they ended up with two. It's hard to put into words how big of a deal the Andrews win was (I was freaking out and sending it to everyone I know, most of whom I suspect were not getting why I was losing my mind over just one seat), both from a mathematical perspective for the next few years, but also because it's a race pretty much no Democrat actually thought they'd win. It was clearly potentially competitive, but this is as close as you probably get to a truly normal person (Andrews has never held public office, has served her life largely in the private sector, and her only past House race was a blowout loss to Nancy Mace in 2022) winning a seat in the most exclusive club in the world. It should be noted that Andrews will probably be a one-term wonder (there's no total way of knowing, but it's a good guess), but Senate terms are long. Should she serve the full six years, Andrews will outlast the MAGA movement, the Trump presidency, and be a potential ally for a Democratic President throughout their first term if the Dems win in 2028. People like, say, Mark Kirk felt like a weird outlier toward the ends of their terms, but they stay deeply consequential in the process. Were it not for, say, Mark Begich randomly winning in Alaska in 2008, we wouldn't have the Affordable Care Act. Andrews now has that potential influence over her term.
 |
| Rep-Elect Richard Ojeda (D-NC) |
There's too many states to parcel through (something I've never said the morning after an election like this, proof of how big this wave was as normally I'd want to give a moment for every Democratic victory), but I will mention two other ones. First, let's talk a state that's not getting much press today, but is a sign of really strong reaction from voters that kind of encapsulates the total country's mood: Missouri. Missouri a few months ago looked like a death knell for the Democrats. They had been gerrymandered to remove Emanuel Cleaver from office, and there wasn't much outside the courts that Democrats could do. But the State Supreme Court stated that the gerrymander was unconstitutional, and after some ridiculous back-and-forth with Brett Kavanaugh, the old map came back, with Cleaver now in a sapphire-blue seat in the Kansas City metro. The icing on this came last night, though, with not just Cleaver winning, but also the pink district (MO-2) currently held by Ann Wagner becoming a flip (the new map would've shored up Wagner), and the state also passed an amendment ensuring that the current map will stay until the next census. All-in-all, this is a huge win for the Democrats-they get not just a safe blue seat for the next two cycles, but also got a flip in Missouri and fairer maps sanctioned by the voters.
 |
| Sen-Elect James Talarico (D-TX) |
Speaking of, it has to be noted that Attorney General Ken Paxton was one of the worst candidates of the cycle...one who probably wouldn't have won if it weren't for Donald Trump's clear adoration for him & support of him over Sen. John Cornyn in the primary. I'm not saying Cornyn would've won (the chicken and the egg is hard here given Cornyn's loss exacerbated national moods about MAGA Republicans overstepping), but he would've done better than Paxton. But in general, a big reckoning last night was in terms of GOP candidate quality and Trump stepping into races he had no business stepping into. You have people like Darline Graham, Vivek Ramaswamy, & David Flippo all personally vouched for by the president in primaries...and all lost winnable races. Trump has made a habit of this for years, but never before has it been felt quite like this, and I have to assume that the NRSC and the NRCC will put enormous pressure (even publicly rebuking Trump if necessary) after last night if they know what's good for them.
 |
| Sen-Elect Abdul El-Sayed (D-MI) |
I got asked this morning "were there any good signs for Republicans?" and if we're talking in terms of actual wins, not really. There are only two seats that feel like potential red flips right now in Congress: the highly-gerrymandered FL-9 (where Rep. Darren Soto is leading, but close enough we won't know a winner for a few days) and Maine's second congressional district, an open seat pitting two-term former Gov. Paul LePage against the left-leaning State Auditor Matt Dunlap (D). The 2nd district, though, is only competitive because Dunlap beat Joe Baldacci in the primary (Baldacci was more moderate), and the left chased Jared Golden out of Congress (Baldacci & Golden, given how candidates with their profiles fared last night, would've won by now).
This is maybe the biggest silver lining for Republicans-the wave washed over a clear problem for the Democrats, that some of the left-leaning risks they took like Dunlap (another being Abdul El-Sayed) underperformed compared to other candidates. El-Sayed, for example, ran two points behind Jocelyn Benson (who was already attempting a tough push by succeeding a two-term Dem governor), and didn't do as well as some of the more moderate Democrats in redder states relative to their states' presidential performance. As we approach the 2028 presidential race, Republicans will be hoping that the left will think that "El-Sayed can win in Michigan, we can win with a candidate like him nationally"...which isn't true. 2026 was a fluke thing, and like Ojeda & Womack above, El-Sayed will now have an actual congressional tenure to get to relate to his voters; this can matter (someone like, say Al Franken became much more assured in office than he was as a candidate, the gravity of the institution maturing him as a public figure so that his 2014 reelection was relatively easy even as Republicans dwarfed Democrats he entered the Senate with six years earlier), but it's worth noting that the under-performance was real, and should be watched.
I will own that I don't think that Florida was a huge missed opportunity, even if it's where most of the Democratic complaining (how the hell you can complain about last night as a Democrat is beyond me, but they are definitely online & some in public) is centered. Here's my frank take: if you can't win in Florida on the same night that candidates in South Carolina, Kansas, & Texas are winning...you just weren't that good to begin with. Some have said Democrats should go all-in with Angie Nixon in 2028, which I don't have a problem with if she runs, but mostly because I don't think she can win, and I would have a problem wasting money on her (she had her chance, she lost, move on). If there was a seat that got away from us this cycle, it was honestly Louisiana, where a staggeringly strong Black voter turnout nearly ousted Rep. Julie Letlow from her Senate coronation. The party in the state was ringing their bells loudly that this was competitive, and it's clear Schumer (who otherwise had great instincts this cycle with recruitment & spending) should've listened as we left a seat on the table there.
The other seat that I don't think we let on the table this cycle is Montana, but that's because of a dirty trick the Senate Republicans pulled (and the Democrats pulled it in Illinois-I acknowledge both sides were terrible for this one). When Steve Daines declared last minute that he wasn't running, and subbed in US Attorney Kurt Alme at the very last minute, it prevented the Democrats from getting a ringer into the Montana US Senate race. Given Alme is below 50%, and the Democrats were stuck with both an Independent and a Democrat (combined they were about 0.4 points bigger than Alme as of the current count), had we been able to sub in someone like Jon Tester or Steve Bullock (I think Schumer could've talked one of them into doing it) we probably would've won another Senate seat last night.
 |
| Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-TX) |
Lastly, I want to say goodbye to two of the worst Democrats of the cycle, who will leave Congress in January: Haley Stevens & Jasmine Crockett. In both cases, these women purposefully made life harder for their opponent after the primary, and put a win at risk. This was not a universal situation or a left wing/establishment thing (Angie Craig & Francesca Hong both actively campaigned for their opponents after the primary, Janet Mills at least endorsed Troy Jackson), but something specific to these two women valuing their own self-interest over helping the cause they claimed to believe in. Stevens is now done with politics-the bizarre stories about her personal life right now (and questionable public behavior & statements from friends that honestly makes me question some aspects of her mental state) aside, endorsing a Republican is a nonstarter for any Democrat in the Trump Era, and she'd never survive a Republican primary. Crockett might run for office (I wouldn't be shocked if she ran for Mayor of Dallas next year), but it's clear her path in this race was to run for the US Senate, and use the fame & connections of that to translate into a media career after she lost. Now, she's in the position of not just being a sore loser, but the man who beat her in the primary won the Texas US Senate election without her help...as did every other Democrat in Texas. Crockett chose the wrong time to not bet on a healthy Texas Democratic Party, and will probably become an asterisk from that miscalculation.
 |
| Gov-Elect Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) |
Three things I'm looking for in the next few weeks around Congress, and no it's not who will lead the Democrats (it'll be Schumer & Jeffries) or Republicans (okay, I actually am curious here now that Mike Johnson is out...but it won't be as thrilling as all of those Kevin McCarthy votes given you just need a caucus majority to lead the minority party, and it'll probably be someone like Jim Jordan). First is that while we don't know who won every race (more on that in a second), there's two races that are just beginning: who will succeed Marsha Blackburn & Amy Klobuchar to their Senate seats? Both will stay within their party, and both women (their respective states' first female governors) will get to appoint them, but I am curious whom they pick. I suspect that Klobuchar, particularly after the Minnesota statewide ticket honestly underperformed the wave (including Klobuchar herself) will favor a more establishment candidate like Steve Simon, Kelly Morrison, Angie Craig, or someone from the state legislature like Zach Stephenson, rather than a liberal like a Keith Ellison (I don't buy she'll appoint a big-city mayor). Whomever she picks will be up for reelection in an off-cycle special election in 2027 (and serve until they are up again in 2030).
In Tennessee, Blackburn's successor will serve until the 2028 general election, and she has made very clear she wants to pick the successor, which makes me think she'll want someone who will run in 2028 rather than a placeholder. Rep. Tim Burchett has already publicly confirmed he's interested (as a general rule this is a bit like wanting to be Prom Queen...you're supposed to pretend you don't want it even though you do), but Blackburn has sole discretion (a name being floated around is CEO Damon Hininger, who was a top donor to Blackburn's campaign)...provided that Donald Trump doesn't butt in, which he has been wont to do with Senate appointments. There are a lot of rumors that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth is looking for an exit ramp out of the administration, and really, really wants this job. If Trump publicly starts backing Hegseth for it, it'll put a bit of pressure on Blackburn to go along, though given how little he helped her last night (Blackburn only won what was seen as a Safe R race by less than 3-points), she might not care as she's now guaranteed to be in office longer than Trump.
Speaking of Hegseth, I'm curious to see how many retirements we see or attempts to get through administration officials in the next few weeks. With a 54+ seat Senate majority, Republicans will need at least four Democrats to get anyone appointed to the administration, and someone like a Hegseth (who didn't get a single Democrat to back him during his confirmation) would be a nonstarter going forward. There are also a lot of rumors that we could see a Supreme Court retirement from either Samuel Alito or Clarence Thomas given that (with 54+ Senators), it's improbable that Schumer would allow a Supreme Court nominee to get to the floor for Trump should an opening emerge (any Democrat who would back such a maneuver would be primaried), but that's a ticking clock. Sherrod Brown will become a senator pretty quickly (no later than December 15th) and will serve for part of the lame duck, and there are stalling techniques that will make it harder for John Thune to get a candidate through, one who would need the support of (if Brown is in office) at least one of Thom Tillis, Lisa Murkowski, or Susan Collins (side note because I need to say it at least once in this article-can you believe Susan Collins lost...the last bastion of New England moderate Republicanism whose teflon federal electoral record has mystified Democrats is now gone from Congress).
 |
| Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) |
Another surefire retirement is John Fetterman. Fetterman suffered a similar hubris to Kyrsten Sinema in the sense that she guessed wrong on what would happen in an election and paid a price. With Sinema, she clearly thought the Democrats in Arizona would lose overwhelmingly in 2022, and the state party would be forced to back her because "she's the only one who can win," but Katie Hobbs & Mark Kelly stopped that, and it became impossible for her to win a Democratic Primary. In Fetterman's case, he was hoping to be Senator #51, someone who could lord over Chuck Schumer & the Democrats "either back me, or I'll give the Senate back to the Republicans." But with 54+ seats, Chuck Schumer doesn't really need John Fetterman. Fetterman is still powerful (Schumer knows that he could make life harder for him the next two years, especially to hold the seat in 2028, and I do think he'll give him some room for concessions like he did Joe Manchin before him), but he's not powerful like he thought he would be, and he's going to give off the air of someone who largely disappears into being a backbencher again in my opinion. I doubt he switches parties after last night, but I also am really confident that like Sinema he's going to retire after just one term in office, having made a bad bet on the future of his state & party.
 |
| Rep. Mary Peltola (D-AK) |
First, I will point out that the 2028 presidential cycle surely will start before Christmas, but I'm not engaging until next year unless something big happens (like Kamala Harris or JD Vance making a decision). It's too early to care, and there's too many question marks (like the Blackburn/Klobuchar seats) to figure out first. But I will say that the lesson yesterday (for me) was that it matters more if you can get great margins in Congress than if you can have a left-leaning president, and I wish/hope/pray that Democrats realize that. If someone like, say, a Jon Ossoff can carry with him an additional 3 Senate seats and dozen House seats, that's worth FAR more than if Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is more liberal than him in an office she needs Congress to actually do something real, because it means you have more actual legislation. I imagine you'll see why this is my point in the coming months as you see what Jeffries & Schumer can cook in office.
More so, I'm thinking about the seats that are still uncalled. There are several very high-profile Republican members of Congress (specifically Lauren Boebert, Virginia Foxx, & Scott DesJarlais) whose races have not been called by major networks, and would be another stake through the heart of Trump's MAGA if they were to lose (which currently all three are behind in the count). Mary Peltola, it has to be noted, underwhelmed compared to the performances of people like James Talarico & Adam Hamilton, but I have a bit of a maxim the day after an election-at this point no one cares about the margin of an uncalled race, just if you get the checkmark, and I think Peltola will get the checkmark, and we can worry about her reelection prospects at a different time. Scott Colom's race in Mississippi is razor thin, and could honestly go either way depending on what vote is left outstanding, and how much Colom can gain in the provisionals. Like Andrews, Colom would start out as a probable one-term wonder, but he'll also be a vote to help Schumer and Senate Democrats for the next six years.
And he'll help the math in 2028 & 2030. I won't get too far into the Senate math in the same way I won't the presidency, but if Peltola & Colom both win, the math for the Senate Republicans to get a majority in 2028 is insane. In 2028, the Democrats have to defend seats in Georgia, Arizona, Nevada, Ohio, & Pennsylvania, while the GOP needs to hold seats in Wisconsin & North Carolina, but if Republicans still won all of those seats, with Colom & Peltola in office, they still wouldn't have a majority even if they held the White House. It's likely that they'd need a fluke in, say, New Hampshire or Minnesota to get their majority. That is going to be incredibly challenging with Trump still in office. Lest we forget, in 1976 the Senate didn't exchange a single seat between the Dems and the GOP, and in 2008 (following the last two major waves) the Democrats actually gained nine seats. If Trump is still as unpopular as he was today (and he might be...Bush never recovered after 2006), you'd be looking at Republican-held seats in newly minted pink/purple states like Kansas, Alaska, & Iowa as becoming competitive, and the Republicans can only lose so many of these races without making 2030 (which looks like a good cycle for them on paper, much better than the Democrats) too steep to climb.
With that, I'm closing out. I will definitely sneak back onto the blog if something interesting happens with the uncalled races, or if we learn something noteworthy from Blackburn, Klobuchar, or the congressional leadership races, but I will own that after the last month (which I give a lot of my free time to following the election, and writing the very lengthy election guide & recap article) I need a rest from politics. I'll still be here, don't worry (we have Sigourney Weaver month, and I should have two OVP Ballots out before the end of the month), but expect a slowdown as I enjoy the holiday season & recharge for a bit and we gear up for the next presidential cycle.
No comments:
Post a Comment