🍺 What’s on tap 🚰

Today’s newsletter features:

Opening Bell: Must-read items about elections and politics.

The Frontrunner: Democrats’ chances of winning control of the Senate in 2026 have definitely improved, but the vibes have outrun the data supporting the actual likelihood of that outcome.

Around the Corner: Upcoming elections we’re tracking at DDHQ.

Subscribe now

🔔 Opening Bell 🐏

Must-read items about elections and politics.

• On Monday morning, the Supreme Court of Virginia will hear oral arguments in three lawsuits challenging the redistricting constitutional amendment passed by voters last Tuesday. The outlook for how the court might rule is murky. But if it ruled against the vote, that would prevent the implementation of a new Democratic gerrymander of Virginia’s congressional map.

• Late last week, Axios reported on Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis’s strategy to redistrict Florida’s congressional map such that will make it difficult for legal challenges to stymie its implementation. With Virginia’s potential redraw, Republicans are looking to Florida to create opportunities to win more U.S. House seats in November. The Florida legislature meets on Tuesday to consider maps drawn by DeSantis’s team, which have yet to be revealed.

☑️ Introducing DDHQ Votes ☑️

Check out Votes, Decision Desk HQ’s new election data portal!

Dive into the world of election data with DDHQ Votes:

• Up-to-date polling on the key issues and races

• Track how prediction markets are moving

• 25 years of election results at your fingertips

• Track election results as they come in

• From local to federal, find every race

• Coming Soon: DDHQ Forecast

Click here to learn more about Votes and sign up now! Now is the perfect time to join, with the 2026 primary election season about to restart in earnest on May 5.

📈 The Frontrunner 🥇

Democrats could win the Senate in 2026, but they aren’t even money — yet

Quick summary:

• National trends, news reports, and swings in prediction markets suggest Democrats are catching up to Republicans in the race to win the Senate in 2026. Some sources, particularly prediction markets, even make Democrats about even money to control the chamber after November’s elections.

• But the vibes have run ahead of the data. Democrats face a daunting map that will require them to flip at least one seat that leans at least 10 points to the right of the country — and really two, if we round Ohio’s (R+9.7) lean in the presidential election. Thing is, no opposition party has flipped a seat that unfavorable in a midterm since 2010 — and just twice since 1994.

• Democrats do lead in early polls in five of the 11 key Senate contests, while most of the other races look very competitive. But they will need pretty much everything to go right to gain a Senate majority.

Republicans are increasingly worried that they could lose control of the U.S. Senate in November. This is understandable: President Donald Trump’s approval rating is around 40% and polls find Democrats are leading or are competitive in states they must or likely need to flip to capture Congress’s upper chamber.

However, the growing “Democrats can win the Senate” vibe has outrun the data supporting the actual likelihood of that outcome. The fact is, Republicans remain at least somewhat favored to retain their Senate majority. Democrats must win a net gain of four seats to flip the chamber, and they need at least one seat that leans more than 10 points toward the president’s party. Yet the opposition party has not flipped a Senate seat that unfavorable in a midterm since 2010. And looking at current polls, Democrats can reasonably be called favorites in two races they must win, but the remaining key contests are highly competitive or lack enough data to say much with confidence.

Prediction markets and vibes

Every day, a major news outlet seems to publish an article highlighting GOP fears about 2026 — and with good reason. Many data points augur poorly for the party in power. The president’s job approval rating has ticked down since the start of the year. Economic confidence is in the doldrums: The University of Michigan’s long-running Index of Consumer Sentiment Index just hit an all-time low. The country is engaged in an unpopular conflict with Iran that has precipitated higher gas prices and could continue for many more months.

Correspondingly, prediction markets regarding which party will win the Senate have moved toward Democrats. That in turn has led to more news coverage about the possibility of a Democratic takeover. At the start of the year, Kalshi and Polymarket each gave Republicans about a 2 in 3 shot of retaining their majority in the Senate. But now both Kalshi and Polymarket gives the parties about an equal chance of controlling the Senate.

Similarly, if you take the aggregate probabilities across the markets for all individual Senate races, the numbers in both Kalshi and Polymarket add up to about 51 seats for Democrats and 49 seats for Republicans. Bettors on each prediction market made Democrats the favorites in Maine and North Carolina back in 2025. Yet recently, the markets also made the party slight favorites in both Ohio and Alaska, states that Trump carried in 2024 by 11 points and 13 points, respectively.

Reality check

National trends have made Democrats strong favorites to capture the U.S. House of Representatives. But they do not signal that Democrats are at even odds to win the Senate. Whereas every House seat is up in November, only about one-third of the Senate’s 100 seats will be on the ballot because of its staggered six-year terms. And it so happens that the group of seats up in 2026 are particularly favorable for the GOP. Senate Democrats need a net gain of four seats to overcome the Republicans’ 53-47 majority. A three-seat gain would be insufficient because Vice President JD Vance can break 50-50 ties for the GOP.

Now, Democrats are best positioned to capture Republican-held seats in Maine and North Carolina. In Maine, Sen. Susan Collins is the only GOP senator who holds a seat that Trump lost in 2024. In North Carolina, former Gov. Roy Cooper has given Democrats a top-tier candidate in a key open seat. The race ratings from The Cook Political Report, Inside Elections, and Sabato’s Crystal Ball generally view both contests as toss-ups. But prediction markets are more confident in Democrats; for instance, Kalshi’s probabilities in the table below give them about a 3 in 4 shot or better of winning each. Either way, to have a shot at the majority, Democrats must flip those two seats while also holding onto their three most vulnerable seats — Georgia, Michigan, and New Hampshire.

If Democrats can manage to win those five races — far from a given — they still need to find two more seats among a second tier of seats that Trump carried by at least 11 points in 2024. Of those, early polling suggests Democrats may be best positioned to be competitive in Alaska and Ohio. After those two, similarly red seats in Iowa and Texas are also high-stakes Democratic targets. An additional seat, Florida, could also become competitive, although it’s not currently viewed as on the same level. Plus, independent Dan Osborn’s bid in Nebraska against Republican Sen. Pete Ricketts is an additional race to monitor, as an Osborn win would help Democrats’ chances of control even if he nominally avoids caucusing with a party.

This second tier is where we get a reality check on Democrats’ odds of winning the Senate. Let’s consider these seats based on their lean relative to the country in the 2024 presidential race. This will help us better explain why past electoral results suggest that this situation still favors Republicans. In 2024, Trump carried the national popular vote by about 1.5 points. So, if we gauge each state by how it compares to the nation as a whole, we find that just three of the Democrats’ top GOP targets are fewer than 10 points to the right of the country as a whole.

So, to win a majority, Democrats must flip at least one seat that leaned 10 points or more to the right of the country in 2024. But in the past eight midterms, only twice has the opposition flipped a seat that leaned more than 10 points toward the president’s party. The chart below presents every Senate seat the president’s party has defended in midterms dating back to 1994. Each is positioned by how much the state leaned toward or against the president’s party, and whether that party lost. I have also included the partisan lean of the GOP-held seats up in 2026.

The chart notes the two cases in which the president’s party lost a seat that leaned more than 10 points toward it. In 2006, Democrat Jon Tester narrowly won a race in Montana over Republican Sen. Conrad Burns. Four years later, in 2010, Republican Rep. Mark Kirk won a close open-seat race in Illinois that had previously been held by Barack Obama. (Both seats had leaned about 18 points toward the president’s party in the last presidential contest).

The rarity of the opposition party winning seats this unfavorable illustrates the difficult task that Democrats face in 2026. Only three GOP-held seats up in November — Maine, North Carolina, and Ohio — leaned fewer than 10 points to the right of the country in 2024. Democrats will have to win all three and one more seat among a group of four that are all about R+12 in lean: Florida, Alaska, Iowa, and Texas. Lastly, they could have Osborn’s quasi-independent bid in R+19 Nebraska work out in their favor, though Ricketts appears to be taking Osborn more seriously than GOP Sen. Deb Fischer did in 2024.

The thing is, Ohio’s lean (R+9.7) is actually closer to the quartet of states that are slightly redder than R+10 than it is to Maine and North Carolina. So, practically speaking, Democrats need to win two seats in that upper range because Ohio’s partisan lean rounds to R+10. That means they need to accomplish this feat twice in one election cycle even though it has happened just two times in the past eight midterms. And they need to do so without losing any seats that they control, which includes two seats in states that Trump narrowly carried in 2024 (Georgia and Michigan).

Is this possible? Yes. Could it become more likely than not by November? Yes. But clearly Democrats need a lot to go right to achieve this result. Think of it as an open-ended straight draw after the flop in a game of Texas hold’em. Democrats could absolutely draw one of the cards they to complete their straight, but they could also hit nothing and lose to the GOP’s pair of 9s — or Republicans could even improve its hand to three-of-a-kind, if you will, by flipping a Democratic-held seat.

What polls say right now

Now, past midterm results from 1994 to 2022 are not absolutely indicative of future results in 2026. However, polls from these 11 major races also suggest that Democrats are not necessarily running at even odds to capture the Senate — though they do have a real chance at a majority. Decision Desk HQ has polling averages for the established or likely general election matchups in Maine, North Carolina, and Ohio. The other races have a mixed amount of polling, and in some cases it remains unclear whom one or both parties will nominate.

Taking the averages we have and more limited polling data in the other states, Democrats may have at least a small edge in five of the 11 key races. But in the end, they must win seven — the three they already control and four GOP-held seats — to capture a majority.

In the three states where we have averages, Democrats appear ahead in two of them. In Maine, Collins appears most likely to face progressive Graham Platner. Despite some controversy, Platner leads Collins by about 6 points in our polling average testing the two candidates against each other. In North Carolina, Cooper is ahead by about 7 points in our average over former Republican National Committee Chair Michael Whatley. But in Ohio, appointed GOP Sen. Jon Husted leads former Sen. Sherrod Brown by about 3 points.

From there, more limited polling suggests that Democratic Sen. Jon Ossoff leads his potential GOP rivals in Georgia, and Democratic Rep. Chris Pappas has at least a small edge over the two Republican possibilities in New Hampshire. Both Georgia and New Hampshire are must-hold seats for Democrats. Additionally, Democrats might have a real shot at winning Alaska. For instance, recent surveys from Alaska Survey Research have found former Rep. Mary Peltola leading Republican Sen. Dan Sullivan.

But from there, things get murkier for Democrats. Polls in Iowa and Texas generally show close contests that will depend in part on whom each party nominates. In Iowa, Republican Rep. Ashley Hinson will face whomever Democrats pick between state Rep. Josh Turek and state Sen. Zach Wahls. And in Texas, Democratic state Rep. James Talarico awaits the outcome in the GOP primary runoff between Sen. John Cornyn and state Attorney General Ken Paxton.

In Michigan, a competitive three-way Democratic primary has Republicans hopeful that they could compete for the state’s open seat. The Michigan seat is also a must-hold for Democrats. But early polls suggest that Republican Mike Rogers would be competitive against any of former Wayne County health director Abdul El-Sayed, state Sen. Mallory McMorrow, and Rep. Haley Stevens. In particular, surveys do show El-Sayed, the most progressive Democratic contender, performing slightly worse against Rogers than Stevens or McMorrow.

Lastly, we don’t have much to go on in Nebraska, where Osborn and Ricketts might meet in a (mostly) head-to-head race. Osborn’s internal polls show a very tight race, but we don’t have any polls from unaligned sources seconding this finding. And in Florida, appointed Republican Sen. Ashley Moody leads early surveys against the likeliest Democratic candidate, Alex Vindman.

***

Democrats could definitely win the Senate in 2026. But to say that, right now, they are an even money bet with Republicans seems at odds with the partisan makeup of the seats up this year, historical election patterns, and early polling.

📆 Around the Corner 📌

On DDHQ Votes, make sure to add these upcoming races to your watchlist:

• May 5:

  • Indiana primary (including a number of pivotal state Senate primaries)

  • Ohio primary (including U.S. Senate and Governor)

• May 12:

  • Nebraska primary (including the 2nd Congressional District)

  • West Virginia primary (including U.S. Senate)

• May 19

  • Alabama primary (including U.S. Senate and Governor)

  • Georgia primary (including U.S. Senate and Governor)

  • Idaho primary (including U.S. Senate and Governor)

  • Kentucky primary (including U.S. Senate)

  • Oregon primary (including U.S. Senate and Governor)

  • Pennsylvania primary (including Governor)

• May 26

  • Texas primary runoffs (including the GOP race for U.S. Senate)

Check out our 2026 Primary Primer for more information about the regular primaries happening in 2026.

The day after is here. Yesterday, Virginia voted on a constitutional amendment to temporarily allow the state legislature to redistrict the state’s congressional lines instead of Virginia’s bipartisan redistricting commission. The amendment passed, albeit by a narrow margin. As of 12 p.m. Eastern today, the Yes side leads No by about 3 percentage points, 51.5%-48.5%.

This outcome sets the stage for Virginia to implement a new Democratic congressional gerrymander that could elect 10 Democrats from the state’s 11 U.S. House seats. However, the Virginia Supreme Court still must rule on a set of legal challenges to the amendment process, which could scuttle redistricting.

The result

Virginia’s polls close at 7 p.m. Eastern, so it wasn’t too long before we saw some positive signs for the Yes campaign. Specifically, the results in Loudoun County, one of the larger localities in the state that usually reports most of its vote by 8 p.m. Yes led by about 21 points in Loudoun, which put it ahead of Yes’s Vote Goal margin of 14 points (our Votes portal has county-level Vote Goals). The result in Loudoun was echoed by neighboring Fairfax County and Prince William County, two of the state’s other big counties — both of which voted even more strongly for Yes.

Still, it was a close election. In much of the state, No outran the Republican performance in recent competitive statewide races in Virginia. Overall, No did better than President Donald Trump in 2024 (Trump lost by about 6 points) and Republican Attorney General Jason Miyares in 2025 (Miyares lost reelection to Democrat Jay Jones by a bit less than 7 points).

In fact, compared with last November’s attorney general race, No performed better nearly everywhere except in parts of Northern Virginia. These shifts hint at a stronger showing for No when it came to persuading some independent voters, who may have backed Democrats recently, to vote against the measure.

However, the other reason why No came closer to winning was that more Republican-leaning areas generally turned out at better rates than Democratic-leaning places. We can see this by comparing the number of votes cast in the redistricting election to the votes cast in the 2025 gubernatorial race in the map below. The western part of the state, the most Republican-leaning area, mostly saw the highest turnout relative to 2025. A handful of places even cast more votes in this race than in 2025!

Meanwhile, most heavily Democratic places saw the steepest drop in turnout from the 2025 gubernatorial race. Take Fairfax County, the state’s most populous locality: It constituted a little more than 12% of the vote, down from its typical share of 13%. That may not sound like much, but when the county in question is casting around 378,000 votes instead of 446,000 — a decline of around 68,000 votes — that’s meaningful in a race decided by not quite 100,000 votes statewide!

It’s also worth noting that turnout dropped sharpest in some college-town communities, which also tend to be quite blue. Turnout in the city of Harrisonburg (home to James Madison University) in the Shenandoah Valley declined by 22% compared with the 2025 gubernatorial race. Similarly, the city of Charlottesville (home to the University of Virginia), experienced a 19% decline. On the map above, Montgomery County is conspicuous in Southwest Virginia for its darker shade of orange, indicating lower turnout. Home to Virginia Tech (in the town of Blacksburg), turnout was clearly down in Montgomery among the student population.

Polls and money

While we didn’t have many surveys measuring support in this race, the ones we did have came pretty close to capturing the final result. The last four polls of likely voters all showed a close race, with three of them giving Yes an edge of about 4 to 5 points. The same three also found Yes at 51-52%, right about where it ended up.

The fact that this race did prove to be so competitive is already a source of frustration for many Republicans. The No side lost while getting outraised about two-to-one by the Yes campaign and outspent on TV by around $50 million to $20 million. This occurred even as national Republican groups seemingly have more money than their Democratic rivals. Consider some recent campaign finance reports:

• National party committees: Republican National Committee ended March with about $117 million in the bank, compared with the Democratic National Committee’s $14 million.

• Super PACs: MAGA Inc. ended March with $348 million in the bank, while CLF (the main outside spending vehicle for the House GOP) had $91 million. House Democrats’ main outside group, HMP, had $64 million, and the party does not currently have anything on par with MAGA Inc.

This is far from an exhaustive list, but it speaks to the financial edge the GOP has nationally. In terms of potential return on investment, spending more to defeat No and potentially salvage three-to-four U.S. House seats may have been worth dishing out some dough. Granted, court cases over the amendment still loom, so opponents to the new map might still get what they want. But that’s leaving a lot of up to the courts when your side easily had the resources to make a bigger impact.

The new map?

Earlier this year, we did a deep dive into the possible ramifications of Virginia’s proposed congressional map. But here are a few things to consider as the new lines potentially take effect.

First, it’s worth reminding folks that the map passed by the legislature and signed by Democratic Gov. Abigail Spanberger would create 10 seats that then-Vice President Kamala Harris would have carried in 2024. Visually, the impact of this change is pretty stark when you just consider the seats and their presidential margin:

Democrats presently control six of Virginia’s seats, so this new map could produce a net gain of four for the party in the upcoming midterm elections. In the overall national redistricting conflict, this is a big deal. However, the two parties still look more likely than not to mostly cancel each other out with their various new redistricting plans, especially if Florida Republicans respond to the Virginia vote with their own new gerrymander.

In terms of the campaigns to come, Democratic candidates have already been making plans for the new map, though there is still time before the May 26 candidate filing deadline for new contenders to jump in. Nevertheless, frontrunners have already emerged in most of the four seats that Democrats are hoping to pick up in November. Here’s a not-exhaustive list of where incumbent members and high-profile non-incumbents will or could run under the new lines:

The new 7th District will have the most-watched primary race, should the new map take effect. The open seat went for Harris by about 8 points, and many high-profile Democrats are already running there. This list includes state Del. Elizabeth Guzman, state Del. Dan Helmer, former Virginia First Lady Dorothy McAuliffe, state Del. Adele McClure, and state Sen. Saddam Salim, just to name a few. It remains to be seen who Republicans might nominate in the new 7th. Democratic Rep. Eugene Vindman, who represents the current 7th District, will run in the new 1st District, where much of his present turf landed under the new lines.

In the new, light-blue 6th District that links college towns through central and western Virginia, Democrats look likely to choose between former Rep. Tom Perriello and author Beth Macy. On the other side of the aisle, Republican Rep. Ben Cline will have to decide if he wants to run in the 6th — which has a plurality of the population of his current seat (also numbered the 6th), or go for a long-shot primary challenge in the deep-red 9th District against fellow GOP Rep. Morgan Griffith.

Elsewhere, Democrats have coalesced around candidates in the new 2nd and 5th districts. Former Rep. Elaine Luria looks like the party’s pick to face Republican Rep. Jen Kiggans in the 2nd, in what would be a rematch of their close 2022 race, which Kiggans won to oust Luria. Meanwhile, Henrico County Commonwealth’s Attorney Shannon Taylor is the Democrats’ choice for the new 5th District. She was previously running in the current 1st District against Republican Rep. Rob Wittman. More of Republican Rep. John McGuire’s current 5th District ended up in the new 6th, but he will probably run in the new 5th.

Speaking of Wittman, he faces the prospect of running in the redrawn 8th District against Democratic Rep. Don Beyer. The seat is almost certainly too blue for any Republican to win, but that’s where Wittman’s home and a good chunk of his current seat ended up on the new map. As for the other Democratic incumbents, they will also run in the same-numbered seats they currently hold.

But again, we still don’t know if this map will actually come to fruition for Democrats. The Virginia Supreme Court must rule on legal challenges to the amendment, including potentially biased ballot language and possible violations of the state’s constitutional amendment process. As always, it ain’t over ‘til it’s over.

🍺 What’s on tap 🚰

Today’s newsletter features:

Opening Bell: Must-read items about elections and politics.

The Frontrunner: Virginia votes on a constitutional amendment that could allow Democrats to implement a congressional gerrymander that might hand them 10 of the state’s 11 U.S. House seats.

Around the Corner: Upcoming elections we’re tracking at DDHQ.

Subscribe now

🔔 Opening Bell 🐏

Must-read items about elections and politics.

• In the face of scandals and potential expulsion from Congress, Democratic Rep. Eric Swalwell of California and Republican Rep. Tony Gonzales of Texas each submitted their resignations last week. California Gov. Gavin Newsom has set the special election primary for Swalwell’s 14th District to take place on June 16, with a general election to occur on August 18 if no candidate wins a majority in the initial vote. Texas Gov. Greg Abbott has yet to announce a special election date for Gonzales’s 23rd District.

• Last Wednesday, Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis delayed the beginning of Florida’s redistricting special session until April 28. As a result, the state legislature will begin to consider a possible redraw of Florida’s congressional map after Virginia holds its vote on a constitutional amendment regarding redistricting.

☑️ Introducing DDHQ Votes ☑️

Check out Votes, Decision Desk HQ’s new election data portal!

Dive into the world of election data with DDHQ Votes:

• Up-to-date polling on the key issues and races

• Track how prediction markets are moving

• 25 years of election results at your fingertips

• Track election results as they come in

• From local to federal, find every race

• Coming Soon: DDHQ Forecast

Click here to learn more about Votes and sign up now! On Tuesday, April 21, you can follow the results from Virginia’s redistricting vote.

📈 The Frontrunner 🥇

Virginia’s redistricting vote is not a done deal

Quick summary:

• Polls largely agree that the race is competitive. Three surveys have put the Yes side ahead by 4-to-5 percentage points, while one survey found close to an even divide among likely voters. Surveys also agree that this vote is going to mostly break down along party lines, with Democrats strongly supportive and Republicans overwhelmingly opposed.

• Yet even as the polls suggest this race could be close, the Yes side has enjoyed a huge advantage in ad spending and fundraising. As of April 16, AdImpact reported that the Yes campaign had spent $50.5 million on advertising, compared with just $19.6 million by the No side.

• More Democrats are casting votes early than Republicans, but the overall party breakdown is a somewhat redder than early votes cast in last November’s gubernatorial election. If Election Day turnout is strong and independents break solidly against the amendment, No will likely win.

For decades, Virginia politicos spoke reverently of “the Virginia Way,” a governing approach that prioritized civility and restraint. Regardless of whether such a genteel idyll ever truly existed, increased partisan rancor has affected contemporary politics in Virginia much like it has elsewhere in the U.S.

The latest example is the unusual — and controversial — redistricting vote occurring on April 21. Part of the larger national conflict over district lines, Virginia voters will weigh in on a constitutional amendment backed by Democrats that, if successful, could implement a gerrymander that aims to hand Democrats 10 of Virginia’s 11 U.S. House seats — up from six under the current lines.

The “Yes” side appears slightly favored heading into tomorrow’s vote. Still, polls point to a competitive race that the “No” camp could still win. Millions of dollars have poured into Virginia to influence the contest, reflecting the stakes involved. Understandably, voters appear split along partisan lines,

Below, I preview the election and offer a set of county-level electoral benchmarks to help readers gauge which way the race is going on Election Night. Still, even if the amendment passes, there could still be another twist in Virginia’s redistricting tale. That’s because the Virginia Supreme Court still has to consider legal challenges to the measure that could block a new map from taking effect.

Yes looks ahead — but more so in money than in polls

Despite the ramifications of the redistricting vote, only a few pollsters have surveyed the electorate’s views. And just four polls have measured the attitudes of likely voters about the ballot question without asking a number of initial questions that could affect — that is, prime — voters’ responses about their support or opposition.

All told, those polls largely agree that the race is competitive. Three of the surveys have put the Yes side ahead by 4-to-5 percentage points, while one survey has found close to even divide among likely voters. Across the four polls, Yes leads by an average of about 50%-46% — a lead, but one that is far from secure.

The surveys also agree that this vote is going to mostly break down along party lines. In the three polls with larger sample sizes — all of which had Yes slightly ahead — 90% or more of Democrats expressed support for the constitutional amendment, while 10% or fewer of Republicans did the same (these figures include independent voters who lean toward a party). The fourth poll, from Neighborhood Research and Media, found a bit more leakage in terms of the expected partisan direction of voters’ support or opposition. Still, the broad story was similar: Democrats mostly said yes, Republicans mostly said no.

However, the polls disagree about preferences among voters who identified as independent (with no lean) or identified with a third party. Two of the surveys found a slight majority supported the measure, while the other two found a majority opposed it. Now, most voters identify or lean toward a party, so this is not a huge portion of the electorate. But in a race that is largely about each party turning out its base supporters, the unaligned voters who do show up could be very influential if they firmly vote one way or the other.

One reason for the paucity of polling is the unusual timing of this election. It has been exceedingly rare for Virginia to hold a statewide special election on a non-November date, including for ballot measures like a constitutional amendment. In fact, Virginia has not held a vote on a statewide ballot measure outside of November since 1956. And the last time it held such a vote for a constitutional amendment was 1928.

However, Democrats in control of the state legislature needed to hold this vote well before November if they wanted to implement a new map in time for the 2026 election. And with President Donald Trump’s approval rating in the low 40s, Democrats also stood to benefit from a favorable electoral environment — perhaps even more so in a lower-turnout, non-November special election that might disproportionately attract upset Democratic voters.

Yet even as the polls suggest this race could be close, the Yes side has enjoyed a surprisingly large advantage in ad spending and fundraising. As of April 16, AdImpact reported that the Yes campaign had spent $50.5 million on advertising, compared with just $19.6 million by the No side. The only good spending news for the No campaign appears to be that it had spent a little more reserving ads in the final days ($3.7 million) than the Yes side ($3.0 million).

As illustrated by AdImpact’s chart, the Yes campaign got an earlier start in making its case to voters. Yes has especially focused on Trump’s call for Republican-run states to redistrict as a principal reason for Virginians to back the amendment, arguing Trump wants to “rig” the 2026 midterms. They have turned to former President Barack Obama and Gov. Abigail Spanberger as high-profile messengers supporting the measure — though, as the No side has pointed out, both had previously opposed gerrymandering. Additionally, Yes ads have stressed the temporary nature of the amendment, which returns Virginia’s redistricting process to the state’s bipartisan redistricting commission after the 2030 census.

The No campaign has portrayed the measure as a “power grab” by Democrats that seeks to undermine Virginia’s bipartisan redistricting process, which voters overwhelmingly backed in a 2020 constitutional amendment vote. More recently, the No side targeted Spanberger’s support for the amendment in an AI-generated ad. This move came in the wake of polling that shows Spanberger has become a polarizing figure, with about an equal approval and disapproval rating. Not coincidentally, the Yes campaign stopped running ads featuring Spanberger.

Still, the overall ad spending disparity reflects the fact that the Yes campaign has outraised the consortium of groups backing No nearly two-to-one. Virginians for Fair Elections, the principal committee supporting the amendment, had reported $64.3 million in contributions as of April 19, whereas groups opposing the measure reported raising $33.8 million.

Democratic-aligned groups have played a conspicuous role in funding the Yes campaign. More than half of the money raised by Virginians for Fair Elections ($38.1 million) originated from House Majority Forward, a nonprofit organization tied to House Democratic leadership. Additionally, the Democratic Party of Virginia has contributed close to $1 million, while influential groups on the left like the SEIU ($500,000) and the League of Conservation Voters ($300,000) have also donated.

By comparison, none of the fundraising by groups opposing the amendment — including the main committee, the similarly-named Virginians for Fair Maps — has a clear connection to national- or state-level Republican committees. I say “clear” because most of the outside money in this campaign (for both sides) has come from “dark money” sources. That is, donations from politically active non-profits — usually 501(c)(4) organizations — that do not have to disclose their funding sources. These groups have become commonplace since the Supreme Court’s 2010 decision in Citizens United v. FEC removed federal limitations on such activities.

The leading funder for the Yes campaign, House Majority Forward, is an example of such a committee. On the No side, most of the money contributed to Virginians for Fair Maps comes from an identically-named committee that does not have to report its funding sources. Additionally, the Virginia-based Justice for Democracy PAC has received more than $9 million, mostly from Per Aspera Policy, a conservative non-profit once linked to tech billionaire Peter Thiel. Justice for Democracy garnered controversy over its mailers aimed largely at Black voters, which used imagery from the civil rights movement to argue for No.

What to watch as votes are counted

Heading into the election, Democrats hold a sizable edge in the early vote. Based on data from Decision Desk HQ’s Votes portal, voters who identify as Democratic make up about 48% of all votes cast early by mail or in-person, compared with 39% who are Republican. The rest did not identify with a party.

However, these figures come with a caveat: Virginia does not have party registration, so party identification is inferred from voting history. Still, the figures do not differ dramatically from the 49% Democratic and 37% Republican split we saw at the same point ahead of Virginia’s 2025 gubernatorial election — a race Spanberger won by 15 points. Nevertheless, the party breakdown is a bit redder than last November, so if Election Day turnout is decent and independents break sharply against the amendment, a No win is very possible.

Now, it’s no surprise that Democrats have an edge in the early vote. Since the 2020 election, Democrats have been more likely to vote early in-person or by mail than Republicans, who have been more likely to vote on Election Day. On the other hand, the Democrats’ edge could matter a great deal. As I recently discussed on our podcast with State Navigate Executive Director Chaz Nuttycombe, Election Day turnout for this contest could be lower than it was for the high-profile November gubernatorial election. After all, this is an unusual April special election, which may attract fewer lower-propensity voters (who are also more likely to be independent).

Case in point, a survey from State Navigate released last week suggested that fewer than half of voters would cast a vote on Election Day. By comparison, 57% of voters in the 2025 gubernatorial race cast their ballots on Election Day.

So, the Yes campaign almost certainly has a lead among early voters. The question is, how much of a lead? As localities report their initial vote total on Election Night (which will mostly be votes cast before Election Day), watch to see if Yes’s early lead is above or below 10 points (55%-45%). If it’s above that mark, No may have too much ground to make up on Election Day, unless day-of turnout is gangbusters. But if the lead is below 10 points, No has a real chance to win once all votes are tallied.

To close, let’s take a look at some places to watch on Election Night and a set of county-level electoral benchmarks — or vote goals — that you can use to see which side is ahead as localities report their vote returns.

Virginia has 95 counties and 38 independent cities,1 and the votes in every locality will be at least somewhat important to the overall outcome. But if we are looking for signs about how the race is playing out, here are three localities to keep an eye on:

• Loudoun County: This Democratic-leaning county in Northern Virginia casts around 5% of the statewide vote in each Virginia election. Pivotally, it also tends to be one of the quickest places to report most of its votes, so results there tend to signal what’s happening more broadly. If Yes is garnering only around 55% in Loudoun, that would be good news for No.

• Virginia Beach City: The largest city in Virginia sits in the state’s southeast corner and also provides around 5% of the statewide vote. The swingy constituency usually leans a little to the right of the statewide vote, so if No is only barely carrying it (or Yes is ahead), that’s a good sign for Yes.

• Montgomery County: This is really the only swingy place in Southwest Virginia. Home to Virginia Tech, the county is split between the blue areas around the university and red areas elsewhere. The result here might be telling not just for the statewide result, but also for turnout — the county’s large student population could disproportionately vote at a lower rate (the same goes for Virginia’s many other college communities), which would likely benefit No.

To aid your overall understanding of the race, here are a set of benchmarks I constructed using data from the 2024 presidential race and the lieutenant governor elections in 2021 and 2025. These figures reflect a 50%-50% statewide tie. If one side is winning, it will likely run ahead of its vote goal in most localities. You can download the benchmarks by clicking “get the data” in the Datawrapper table below.

This race is the latest front in the ongoing national redistricting conflict, but it’s worth remembering that the vote may not settle Virginia’s congressional map. The Virginia Supreme Court will have an opportunity to rule on multiple challenges to the redistricting constitutional amendment following the election. Those cases include claims that the ballot language is biased toward the Yes side and that the legislature did not fully comply with requirements to amend the constitution.

There is at least one precedent from 1958 in which the Virginia Supreme Court invalidated an election result after the fact, according to Cardinal News. The case involved a local referendum over eligibility to vote on local bond issues, so comparably lower profile. It remains to be seen if the state’s high court will face the prospect of invalidating a statewide election in the coming weeks.

📆 Around the Corner 📌

On DDHQ Votes, make sure to add these upcoming races to your watchlist:

• April 21, 2026

  • Virginia redistricting referendum

Check out our 2026 Primary Primer for more information about the regular primaries happening in 2026.

🍺 What’s on tap 🚰

Today’s newsletter features:

Opening Bell: Must-read items about elections and politics.

The Frontrunner (GUEST POST): Veteran politics reporter Patrick Svitek looks at Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton’s past success in primary runoffs and what it can tell us about his 2026 runoff against Sen. John Cornyn.

Around the Corner: Upcoming elections we’re tracking at DDHQ.

Subscribe now

🔔 Opening Bell 🐏

Must-read items about elections and politics.

• On Sunday, Democratic Rep. Eric Swalwell suspended his campaign for California governor in the face of multiple allegations of sexual misconduct. Swalwell had been polling ahead of other Democratic contenders in California’s crowded top-two primary for governor. But on Friday, the San Francisco Chronicle reported that a woman who had worked for Swalwell alleged that he had sexually assaulted her. His standing quickly collapsed after that. CNN reported allegations against Swalwell by the same former staffer and three other women, some of Swalwell’s top campaign aides quit, and many of his endorsers withdrew their support and called for him to drop out. The U.S. House of Representatives is now considering expelling Swalwell and the state of New York has opened an investigation into him over sexual assault allegations.

• With House Republicans pushing a measure to expel Swalwell, House Democrats are also moving to force a vote to expel Republican Rep. Tony Gonzales of Texas. Gonzales faces a sexual misconduct investigation by the House Ethics Committee, and he recently abandoned his reelection bid in the wake of reports about explicit texts he had sent to an aide who later committed suicide. Two other scandal-tarred members from Florida, Democratic Rep. Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick and GOP Rep. Cory Mills, could also face expulsion votes.

• In international election news, Prime Minister Viktor Orbán’s right-wing, nationalist Fidesz Party lost its majority in Hungary’s parliamentary election on Sunday. The Tisza Party, a center-right and pro-European group led by Péter Magyar, decisively won the election. The contest was seen as a referendum on Hungary’s future and Orbán’s authoritarian approach during his 16 years as his nation’s leader. The final seat count has not been determined, but Tisza may have garnered two-thirds of all seats, which would allow it to amend the national constitution.

☑️ Introducing DDHQ Votes ☑️

Decision Desk HQ is excited to announce the release of Votes, our new election data portal!

Dive into the world of election data with DDHQ Votes:

• Up-to-date polling on the key issues and races

• Track how prediction markets are moving

• 25 years of election results at your fingertips

• Track election results as they come in

• From local to federal, find every race

• Coming Soon: DDHQ Forecast

Click here to learn more about Votes and sign up now! This Thursday, you can use votes to follow the results from the special election for New Jersey’s 11th Congressional District.

📈 The Frontrunner 🥇

Ken Paxton’s runoff history and what it can tell us about his 2026 Senate campaign

By Patrick Svitek

Quick summary:

• Longtime Texas politics reporter Patrick Svitek explores Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton’s history of success in runoffs. He won by sizable margins in both 2014 and 2022, and can use some of the same strategies against Sen. John Cornyn in Texas’s May 26 runoff for U.S. Senate.

As Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton looks to defeat Sen. John Cornyn for the Republican nomination in Texas’s U.S. Senate race, Paxton is drawing a lot of inspiration from the last two times he was in a primary runoff.

“I’ve never won by less than 30 points, and I don’t plan on starting now,” Paxton said in his March 3 primary night speech after neither he nor Cornyn won a majority to clinch the nomination. “The victory we’re going to secure in this runoff will be even sweeter than the last ones.”

The first runoff Paxton was referring to was in 2014, when he initially ran for attorney general — it was an open seat — and defeated state Rep. Dan Branch of Dallas by 27 percentage points. And the second runoff was in 2022, when Paxton sought a third term against Land Commissioner George P. Bush and triumphed by a wider margin — 36 points.

Those past runoffs are full of both similarities and differences that could help us better understand the current election.

Texas GOP runoffs tend to feature lower turnout that benefits candidates whom voters see as more conservative, a danger sign to incumbents challenged from their right. But not every runoff is the same, and Cornyn, for example, is hoping for unusually high turnout in this one and a more intense focus on Paxton’s history of scandals.

This is the first time, as a statewide officeholder, that Paxton finished second in a primary — albeit narrowly — on his way to a runoff, and it is the first time he did so as a challenger. On primary night, he compared himself to Sen. Ted Cruz, who came in second in his first primary for Senate back in 2012 before defeating the establishment favorite, Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst, in a runoff.

Of course, the biggest difference between then and now is the political dominance of President Donald Trump, whose endorsement could scramble all conventional wisdom in an election. He said the morning after the primary that he would make an endorsement “soon” but still has not decided between Cornyn and Paxton.

The prospect of a Trump endorsement has appeared to dim further as Republicans increasingly attack the Democratic nominee, James Talarico, as decisively too liberal for the state, undercutting Cornyn’s argument that he is uniquely positioned to defeat Talarico. Trump said in a social media post on March 22 that he believed “any human being running against” Talarico “would win.”

Let’s take a trip down memory lane and revisit those past runoffs that are giving Paxton so much optimism.

The 2014 runoff

In 2014, the attorney general’s office was open for the first time in a dozen years because the incumbent, Greg Abbott, was running for governor. The Republican primary drew three candidates: Paxton, a state senator from McKinney; Dan Branch, a state representative from Dallas; and Barry Smitherman, chairman of the Texas Railroad Commission, which regulates the state’s oil and gas industry (and no longer oversees railroads).

Paxton was considered a serious candidate out of the gate. He was a star of the ascendant tea party movement and vowed to build on Abbott’s legacy of filing copious lawsuits against the federal government. Paxton’s campaign also emphasized a quasi-endorsement from Cruz, who was an increasingly hot commodity after his own runoff upset two years earlier.

Cruz offered praise for Paxton during a January speech in North Texas before the primary — remarks that Cruz’s aides said were not an endorsement but nonetheless found their way into multiple Paxton ads. One spot replayed Cruz’s remarks after a narrator said, “In the race for attorney general, there’s only one constitutional conservative like Ted Cruz.”

Paxton finished first in the primary, 11 points ahead of Branch.

About two months into the runoff, Paxton got his first taste of legal trouble amid a hotly contested race. The Texas State Securities Board issued a reprimand of Paxton and fined him $1,000 for soliciting investment clients two years earlier without registering with the state. Paxton waived his right to appeal, and his campaign said it was “pleased” to reach a resolution.

Branch ran an ad exclusively about the incident, extensively excerpting a local TV segment on it and asking whether Texans could “trust” Paxton to be the state’s top lawyer. Paxton’s commercials were more focused on painting an ideological contrast, criticizing Branch as a “liberal Republican” and reiterating Cruz’s preference for Paxton.

Paxton cruised past Branch in the runoff, 63% to 37% — just short of the 30-point margin Paxton claims to have always won by in runoffs.

Paxton had not only overcome the ethics controversy but also Branch’s fundraising advantage. Branch reported raising $2.8 million on a pre-runoff report; Paxton raised $1.9 million. Branch disclosed spending $3.5 million; Paxton spent $2.3 million.

Paxton won all but a handful of counties. The notable exceptions were Dallas County, Branch’s home base, which he narrowly carried, and bright-blue Travis County, home to Austin, which Branch won by 5 points.

The turnout rate in the primary was 9.4% of all registered voters. It dropped to 5.4% in the runoff.

The 2022 runoff

Paxton dodged any primary opposition in 2018, but four years later, his personal scandals had taken enough of a toll that three serious challengers stepped forward. They were Bush, Texas Supreme Court Justice Eva Guzman, and Rep. Louie Gohmert.

The race initially centered on whether Bush, the last remaining member of his famous family in elected office, could refashion himself as a Trump-era Republican and maybe even get Trump’s endorsement. But Trump ended the speculation within weeks of Bush’s launch, endorsing Paxton in July 2021.

Gohmert made a late entrance as a far-right alternative to Paxton, but it was Guzman who gained traction toward the end, backed by big donations from the tort reform lobby. Paxton’s campaign launched an 11th-hour ad blitz against Guzman — less than a week before the primary — and successfully boxed her out, effectively picking Bush as a runoff opponent.

In the primary, Paxton got 43% of the vote, while Bush ran 20 points behind him. Guzman and Gohmert finished with about 18% and 17%, respectively.

Bush was exactly who Paxton’s campaign wanted. The contrast, to them, could not have been clearer: a Trump-endorsed conservative versus a challenger who embodied the last vestiges of the Texas GOP old guard. “Help me end the Bush dynasty,” Paxton said from the outset of the runoff.

The runoff opened with hype that Bush would savage Paxton over his legal problems. Paxton remained under indictment for state securities fraud charges and the FBI was reportedly investigating Paxton over claims by former aides that he abused his power to help a donor.

While some of Bush’s messaging took aim at Paxton, Bush had to balance it against his efforts to continue introducing himself to a skeptical GOP base. An April 2022 poll from the University of Texas found that 26% of Texas GOP voters had an unfavorable view of Bush, while just 7% said the same of Paxton.

The runoff was ultimately not that competitive. With minimal campaigning, Paxton crushed Bush, 68%-32%.

Paxton won just about every county. Travis County was again an outlier, giving Bush its vote by 7 points.

Again, Paxton romped despite being at a financial disadvantage. He raised $2 million on a pre-runoff report filed with the Texas Ethics Commission, while Bush collected $2.3 million and also spent a little more than Paxton did.

The turnout dropoff was also similar to what happened in 2014. The turnout rate in the primary was 11.2% of registered voters, while it slumped to 5.4% in the runoff.

What Paxton’s past runoffs could mean for 2026

The 2014 and 2022 runoffs show that Paxton can win when turnout is lower than it was in the primary and when he is at a financial disadvantage. But they also carry some deeper lessons that remain relevant today.

For starters, Paxton understands the power of high-profile endorsers who can help voters look past his vulnerabilities. It was Cruz in 2014 and Trump in 2022 — and Trump again this time, if Paxton has his way. (Interestingly, Cruz has kept more distance from Paxton in recent years, declining to get involved in his 2022 runoff as well as the current one.)

Paxton and his advisers also recognize the importance of having a runoff opponent who provides a strong contrast. They showed that in 2022 when they schemed to ensure Bush, not Guzman, advanced to the runoff. They showed it again in this year’s primary, when they unleashed a wave of negative ads against Rep. Wesley Hunt as it looked like he had a chance to make a runoff. Hunt, who ultimately finished a distant third, would have been a more complicated rival to face in a runoff given his pro-Trump credentials.

One big bet that Cornyn has made in the current race is that the Texas Republican primary runoff electorate has yet to see a well-funded advertising blitz highlighting all of Paxton’s scandals. “Judgment day is coming,” Cornyn said on primary night.

In a way, Cornyn is right. Paxton’s scandals had barely begun in the 2014 runoff, with the State Securities Board reprimand amounting to a slap on the wrist. And while Paxton’s problems had mounted by the time he faced Bush in 2022, Bush struggled to capitalize on them because he was a flawed messenger — disliked by 1 in 4 Republican voters — and therefore had to focus simultaneously on making a positive case for himself.

In other elections, such as the general elections after those runoffs, Paxton’s opponents were either too underfunded or unknown — or both — to fully execute the kind of all-out offensive that Cornyn has been promising. Only in 2018, amid a Democratic wave, did Paxton have a close general election result, winning 51%-47%.

The flip side, of course, is that Cornyn has already had nearly a year — and tens of millions of dollars at his disposal — to turn Paxton’s scandals into a political death sentence. Cornyn’s ads attacking Paxton over alleged infidelity were enough to prompt Paxton to counter with positive commercials featuring his daughter. But otherwise, Paxton’s standing with the GOP has proven durable. In University of Texas polling, the percentage of Republican voters who viewed him unfavorably actually decreased from December 2025 to February 2026, dipping from 22% to 18%.

Cornyn is also banking on higher turnout than usual in the runoff, boosted by the presence of other primaries that are in overtime. Other statewide primaries are in runoffs, which also happened in 2014 and 2022, but the key difference could be the quantity of congressional primary runoffs — nine on the Republican side. (The number was set to be even higher — 11 — before Rep. Tony Gonzales of San Antonio bowed out of his runoff after admitting to an extramarital affair and pastor Ryan Binkley conceded his runoff for an open seat in the Dallas area.)

“There’s simply just too much at stake for Texas voters to stay home, and I don’t expect them to stay home,” Cornyn said on primary night. “I expect a robust turnout. We’ll certainly be encouraging that.”

***

Patrick Svitek is a political reporter who has covered Texas politics extensively. He will soon begin working at CNN; previously, he worked at The Washington Post. Before that, he spent nine years at The Texas Tribune, most recently serving as its primary political correspondent. Before that, he was a reporter in the Houston Chronicle’s Austin bureau.

📆 Around the Corner 📌

On DDHQ Votes, make sure to add these upcoming races to your watchlist:

• April 16, 2026

  • NJ-11 Special Election

• April 21, 2026

  • Virginia redistricting referendum

Check out our 2026 Primary Primer for more information about the regular primaries happening in 2026.

🍺 What’s on tap 🚰

Today’s newsletter features:

Opening Bell: Must-read items about elections and politics.

The Frontrunner: Why losses in 2016 and 2024 don’t mean a woman couldn’t win in 2028.

Around the Corner: Upcoming elections we’re tracking at DDHQ.

Subscribe now

🔔 Opening Bell 🐏

Must-read items about elections and politics.

• On Monday morning, President Donald Trump endorsed former Fox News host Steve Hilton in California’s gubernatorial election. Trump’s backing for Hilton could reduce the chances of a top-two primary “lockout” for Democrats, which has loomed as a possibility. Hilton and Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco are running first and second in Decision Desk HQ’s polling average of the California primary. But now some Republican voters could shift toward Hilton and away from Bianco, increasing the likelihood that a Democratic contender finishes in one of the two general elections slots with Hilton.

• A report from The New York Times details how ActBlue may have violated federal law by failing to stop foreign donors from using it to donate to candidates. ActBlue is the main online fundraising tool used by Democratic candidates. But the organization may have misled Congress about its vetting process to prevent donations from foreign nationals, which are not allowed under federal election law.

• A new CNN/SSRS poll found that “double haters” favor Democrats by 31 points in the 2026 midterms. These are respondents who hold a negative view of both parties. In 2016 and 2024, they preferred Trump, which helped him win the White House.

☑️ Introducing DDHQ Votes ☑️

Decision Desk HQ is excited to announce the release of Votes, our new election data portal!

Dive into the world of election data with DDHQ Votes:

• Up-to-date polling on the key issues and races

• Track how prediction markets are moving

• 25 years of election results at your fingertips

• Track election results as they come in

• From local to federal, find every race

• Coming Soon: DDHQ Forecast

Click here to learn more about Votes and sign up now! On Tuesday, April 7, you can follow the results for Wisconsin’s Supreme Court and Georgia’s 14th Congressional District.

📈 The Frontrunner 🥇

Democrats could win in 2028 with a woman leading the party’s ticket

Quick summary:

• Democratic bigwigs are discussing whether the party needs to nominate a man in 2028 in order to win. The defeats in 2016 and 2024 of woman nominees have led some Democrats to wonder if a woman can actually win the presidency.

• But it’s hyperbolic to take two narrow electoral defeats in 2016 and 2024 as cut-and-dry evidence that Democrats (or Republicans, for that matter) can’t win with a woman nominee. The results of those close races could have changed under somewhat different circumstances, either due to slight shifts in national conditions and individual candidates qualities. Moreover, research suggests that a woman candidate is unlikely to markedly underperform a man.

Following President Donald Trump’s victory in 2024, Democrats sought to understand how Trump had won. Some turned to a seemingly simple answer: Democrats had nominated a woman, then-Vice President Kamala Harris, which made them less likely to win. This view spread quickly after Harris’s defeat: A December 2024 poll from AP/NORC found that about 2 in 5 Democrats said it was “not very likely” or “not at all likely” that a woman would be elected president in their lifetime, compared with about 1 in 4 Republicans.

Fast forward to last week, when an Axios story examined how many leading Democrats are discussing — mostly behind the scenes — whether the party needs to nominate a white, Christian man to win the presidency in 2028. After all, the party failed to defeat Trump with a woman as the party’s nominee in 2016 (Hillary Clinton) and 2024 (Harris), but did oust him in 2020 with a man as a standard-bearer (Joe Biden).

The thing is, the conversation about whether Democrats would be better off nominating a man over a woman is far too simplistic. Yes, there is evidence that voters harbor more reticence about electing a woman as president than a man. But taking that finding, plus a sample size of only two elections, as proof positive is to ignore important candidate-related and environmental factors that help determine electoral outcomes. In particular, they gloss over the roles that larger forces, like the economy and presidential approval, play in moving voters.

Never rely on a sample size of two

Presidential elections have major consequences, so conventional wisdom can quickly evolve in response to their outcomes. This may be especially true for contemporary Democrats, considering they lost both elections with women nominees against Trump — opposition to whom has been one of the party’s main organizing principals over the last decade.

But it’s hyperbolic to take two relatively narrow electoral defeats in 2016 and 2024 as cut-and-dry evidence that Democrats can’t win with a woman nominee. Or, more broadly, that a woman from either party can’t win. Fact is, Clinton and Harris lost in two of the closest elections the country has seen. Clinton even led in the popular vote in 2016, resulting in Trump having the second-largest deficit of any winning candidate in the Electoral College that year.1

The national popular vote is helpful for understanding the broad competitiveness of a presidential election, and both of these presidential races fell among the 10 closest in margin dating back to 1864. Other factors contributed to the tightness of these races, particularly the high degree of political polarization in our current political era, which has produced many close contests dating back to 2000. But the late 19th century also saw very high levels of polarization. Not coincidentally, races from that period also occupy many of the other top 15 spots in the table above.

But the Electoral College elects presidents, not the national popular vote. So let’s consider a measure that takes the Electoral College into account: the number of votes needed to change the Electoral College outcome as a share of all votes cast. For instance, in 2016, Clinton lost three states that would have handed her the presidency by only about 78,000 votes combined. That represented about 0.06% of the 137 million votes cast in the election, the fifth-smallest percentage from 1864 through 2024. Harris, who would have needed a shift of 230,000 votes (0.15% of all cast), is also on the low end of this historical table.

Again, these close defeats loom large for Democrats because Harris and Clinton lost to Trump in particular. Part of this is down to a misbegotten belief on the left that Trump should be a uniquely weak candidate. That is a topic for another article (or forty). However, Trump is best understood as an atypical politician who still must navigate many typical political realities. For instance, Trump has an approval rating of about 40%, so it’s no coincidence that Democrats are favored to take back the U.S. House of Representatives this fall.

Individual qualities mattered to some extent not only for Trump but also Clinton and Harris. In 2016, Clinton and Trump ranked as the two most disliked major party nominees in modern times. Even if Trump had his weaknesses and rubbed many people the wrong way, Clinton proved to be a less-than-compelling alternative for an electorate looking for change. And in 2024, Harris somewhat infamously didn’t take opportunities to separate herself from an unpopular Biden administration, and she had to deal with perceptions that she was especially liberal in the wake of positions she took during her failed 2020 bid for the Democratic nomination. These are just short summaries of the shortcomings Clinton and Harris had, but they did matter.

But another thing that mattered was the timing of their presidential bids, which featured larger forces that made it more difficult for them to overcome some of their deficiencies — and probably made it easier for Trump to survive some of his.

Don’t forget about the “fundamentals”

Candidates, issues, and campaigns are vital to presidential election outcomes, but all of these components function within the larger electoral environment. That environment is heavily influenced by the “fundamentals” — factors like the state of the economy, opinions about the incumbent president and party, and how long that party has been in power.

These fundamentals are usually not absolutely decisive, although they can be when conditions are extreme. In woeful economic times, the incumbent party is unlikely to succeed even with a sterling candidate and campaign. An unpopular president does not usually win reelection, and a contender from the same party as an unpopular outgoing president will also face difficulties. And in modern times, the same party has rarely won more than two consecutive terms in the White Office. This has happened just once since the 1950s: In 1988, Vice President George H.W. Bush won the presidency to succeed outgoing two-term President Ronald Reagan, giving Republicans their third-straight term in the White House (Bush then lost in 1992).

Looking back at the 2016 and 2024 races, at least one of these challenges popped up for Democrats in each. Using historical data from FiveThirtyEight and the Silver Bulletin going back to 1948, the table below compiles data on presidential approval and a Nate Silver-authored index of economic conditions as of Election Day in each year. The number of terms a party had held the White House is also included.

Unsurprisingly, the more often you see orange or brown (bad), the more often you see an “L” in the result column for the incumbent presidential party. The only exception is 1948, when President Harry Truman surprisingly won reelection. Truman had acceded to the presidency from the vice presidency after the death of Franklin Roosevelt, and his poor approval rating, the state of the economy, and the number of terms Democrats had held the presidency (four) all worked against him. (The ultimate reminder that fundamentals are not absolutely predictive.)

Turning to the two recent women candidates, let’s start with Harris. In 2024, she was running to succeed Biden, an unpopular president, after just one term. But as Biden’s vice president, Harris was inextricably linked with the administration. Again, she might have done a better job of attempting to create some separation, but it would not have been easy. And while the 2024 economic index was slightly net positive, Biden had also scored poorly on handling inflation during his tenure, which sullied many Americans’ views of the economy.

In 2016, Clinton aimed to follow Obama into the White House. He was a reasonably popular president leaving office, which helped Clinton as a candidate from the same party. The economy was nothing special but also was not bad. But Obama had held office for two terms, meaning Clinton had to win a third-straight Democratic term.

Considering how close the elections proved to be, these factors did not absolutely doom Harris and Clinton. But the weak fundamentals they had to overcome also may have also been particularly problematic ones for their particular candidacies. As one of the most well-known figures in politics, Clinton was never going to be much of a “change” candidate after two Democratic terms. And Harris, Biden’s second-in-command, struggled to separate herself from the incumbent’s administration and low approval.

Another way to think about the impact of fundamentals is to consider a quite realistic counterfactual: What if Clinton had won the Democratic nomination in 2008? In reality, she very narrowly lost that race to Barack Obama. But had Clinton been the Democratic nominee, she almost certainly would have won the presidency. After all, incumbent Republican President George W. Bush had an approval rating in the 20s, the economy was entering the Great Recession, and the GOP had held the office for two terms. Most any major Democratic candidate was going to win that election. But obviously, Obama made history as the first Black president; Clinton would have been a near-certain bet to be the first woman in this alternate scenario.

Are presidential elections different?

None of this discussion of candidate qualities and fundamentals seeks to gloss over the challenges that women do face. Broadly, women are less likely to run for office in the first place, which can limit the potential pool of women who might seek higher office in the future. Women are less likely to get encouragement to run and less likely than men to think they have the necessary qualifications to run.

But research has found that when they do run, women tend to perform similarly to men. To this point, a post-2024 analysis by Split Ticket even found that most of the strongest Democratic candidates in competitive House seats were women. And, importantly, other studies have found evidence that partisanship tends to override would-be electoral difficulties stemming from gender stereotypes.

Still, there is a question as to how different presidential elections are from contests for, say, the U.S. House of Representatives, which are a type of contest that political scientists often use because they are far more numerous. A 2025 study by two political scientists at the University of Toronto found that 16% of the U.S. population exhibited discomfort about having a woman president. This does suggest potential differences in how American voters think about electing a president versus other offices.

Despite finding that these negative attitudes appeared across most demographic groups, the study also found that Democrats were far less likely than Republicans to exhibit them. Combined with the knowledge that partisanship tends to override most things, this suggests that a Democratic woman nominee for president is going to receive most of the support from their party.

In our highly polarized era, in which most voters align with or lean toward one party, this gives a candidate a very high floor of potential support. From there, a better electoral environment and/or a different set of candidate qualities — such as a better ideological fit than Harris and a less polarizing notoriety than Clinton — could result in victory for a woman candidate. And these realities are not just true for a woman nominated by the Democrats, even if that party — which contributes more women officeholders and is majority woman in its makeup — looks more likely to nominate a woman than the GOP.

Don’t let two elections fool you — a woman can definitely win the presidency.

📆 Around the Corner 📌

On DDHQ Votes, make sure to add these upcoming races to your watchlist:

• April 7, 2026

  • GA-14 Special Election Runoff

  • Wisconsin Supreme Court General Election

• April 16, 2026

  • NJ-11 Special Election

• April 21, 2026

  • Virginia redistricting referendum

Check out our 2026 Primary Primer for more information about the regular primaries happening in 2026.

🍺 What’s on tap 🚰

Today’s newsletter features:

Opening Bell: Must-read items about elections and politics.

The Frontrunner: How Democrats could get locked out California’s general election for governor.

Around the Corner: Upcoming elections we’re tracking at DDHQ.

Subscribe now

🔔 Opening Bell 🐏

Must-read items about elections and politics.

• President Donald Trump appears unlikely to endorse incumbent Sen. John Cornyn in the GOP primary runoff for Texas’s U.S. Senate seat. Right after the March 3 primary, reports suggested that Trump would back Cornyn, potentially giving the incumbent a critical lifeline in his race against Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton. But in the days since the primary, Trump has held off on endorsing, even saying in mid-March that he likes both candidates “very much.” Pushback from Paxton supporters and MAGA elements of the GOP appears to have stifled what had seemed like a probable Cornyn endorsement.

• The potential 2028 Republican presidential candidate field continues to take shape. Some Trump-aligned conservatives seem increasingly open to backing Secretary of State Marco Rubio rather than Vice President JD Vance: At the Conservative Political Action Conference, Vance only defeated Rubio 53%-35% in a straw poll of attendees. Additionally, Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul is considering a run, hoping to bring together a coalition of libertarian- and business-minded elements to counter the GOP’s populist turn.

☑️ Introducing DDHQ Votes ☑️

Decision Desk HQ is excited to announce the release of Votes, our new election data portal!

Dive into the world of election data with DDHQ Votes:

• Up-to-date polling on the key issues and races

• Track how prediction markets are moving

• 25 years of election results at your fingertips

• Track election results as they come in

• From local to federal, find every race

• Coming Soon: DDHQ Forecast

Click here to learn more about Votes and sign up now! You can use the portal to follow results for Arkansas’s March 31 primary runoffs, and the April 7 elections for Wisconsin’s Supreme Court and Georgia’s 14th Congressional District.

📈 The Frontrunner 🥇

The perfect electoral storm that could lock Democrats out of California’s race for governor

Quick summary:

• A combination of factors has created an opening for two Republicans to advance to California’s general election for governor. Democrats might find themselves locked out due to state’s use of a top-two primary system, a crowded field of middle-tier Democratic contenders, and two prominent and evenly-matched Republican candidates.

• While a Democrat will more likely than not advance to the general election, internal party conflicts and an inability to winnow the field have endangered the party’s prospects about two months out from the June primary.

Thinking about writing a politically-focused story entitled The Perfect Storm? Boy, do we have a great narrative twist for you. Instead of spotlighting a group of wayward Gloucestermen tragically caught in a terrible nor’easter in 1991, this tale would center on the very real chance that two Republicans — and zero Democrats — advance to the general election in California’s 2026 gubernatorial race.

To mix metaphors and put this in terms that Californians better understand, this 9.0 earthquake of a result would ensure the election of a Republican in one of the nation’s bluest states. Now, one Democrat will, more likely than not, make it out of the primary and be favored to win in November. Yet with two months until the June 2 primary, the race remains as murky as the La Brea Tar Pits, thanks to the state’s use of a top-two primary system, the crowded field of middle-tier Democratic contenders, and two prominent and evenly-matched Republican candidates.

Three storm systems converge

The polls readily demonstrate the danger Democrats face in California. In Decision Desk HQ’s polling average of the gubernatorial primary, two Republicans — former Fox News host Steve Hilton and Riverside County Sheriff-Coroner Chad Bianco — sit in first and second, with about 17% and 14%, respectively. Although Bianco is effectively running about even with Democratic Rep. Eric Swalwell for second place, the average makes it clear that very fine margins could determine which two contenders advance out of the primary.

Let’s return to the weather analogy to lay out how this situation arose. Simply put, three storm systems are converging to create the conditions whereby a Democrat could fail to advance to the general election.

Fundamentally, the first storm front is California’s “top-two” primary system. California is one of only a handful of states that does not use partisan primaries to nominate candidates for general elections. Instead, it is one of two (along with Washington) that uses a top-two primary in which all candidates regardless of party run together on the same ballot, and the leading two vote-getters advance to the general election. This allows for the possibility that two candidates from the same major party will move forward, “locking out” the other major party from a spot on the November ballot.

In practice, lockouts usually occur in congressional or state legislative districts that are safe for one party. In those seats, the dominant party has a large vote share, which makes it more likely that two candidates from the same party will garner enough support to finish first and second ahead of the leading candidate from the minority party.

Because California is heavily Democratic, its statewide primaries function in much the same way. Since the state began using the top-two system in 2012, voters have weighed in on 26 statewide primaries. On average, Democratic candidates have combined to win 57% in those contests, compared with 36% across all Republican candidates. With such a Democratic edge, it’s understandable that no statewide top-two primary in California has yet advanced two Republicans to a general election. Across those 26 races, 22 have resulted in Democrat-versus-Republican general elections, three in all-Democratic contests, and one in a Democrat-versus-independent race.1

The second, less predictable contributor to this perfect storm is the crowded field of Democratic candidates, who are significantly fragmenting their party’s primary vote. All told, a whopping 61 candidates qualified for the gubernatorial primary, of which 10 can be realistically called “major” due to their polling position and/or history of elected office. Eight of those leading contenders are Democrats, while just two are Republicans.

Seven of the eight major Democratic candidates are current or former officeholders capable of raising money and attracting support. Three hold or previously held statewide posts: former state Attorney General Xavier Becerra, state Superintendent of Education Tony Thurmond, and former state Controller Betty Yee. Two are current or former mayors of two of the state’s largest cities: San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan and former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa. Two are current or former members of the U.S. House of Representatives: former Rep. Katie Porter and Rep. Eric Swalwell.

The eighth Democrat, billionaire hedge fund founder Tom Steyer, has never held office. Yet he mounted a notable presidential campaign in 2020, and he has far more personal wealth to invest in this race than any other candidate — which he has done aggressively. As of Friday, AdImpact reported that Steyer’s campaign had spent or reserved nearly $90 million worth of ads, more than seven times the $12 million booked by pro-Mahan forces and around 20 times more than the $4-to-$5 million reserved by committees supporting Swalwell and Villaraigosa. Not coincidentally, Steyer’s support in the polls has grown from the low-to-mid single digits at the start of 2026 to north of 10% — a meaningful shift in such a crowded race.

But Steyer’s spending has only served to reinforce the Democrats’ lack of an out-and-out frontrunner. Instead, the eight candidates constitute a group of B- and C-tier aspirants who appear incapable of clearing the field and reducing the chances that the party’s primary vote will be sufficiently divided to allow two Republicans to finish first and second. One such field-clearing candidate might have been former Vice President Kamala Harris, but last summer she decided against a gubernatorial bid.

And because a Democrat in a California general election all but guaranteed to win, the muddled situation has helped disincentivize candidate withdrawal. After all, a breakthrough for a lower-profile candidate does not need to move the polls that much to give that person a real chance of becoming California’s next governor.

Lastly, the third electoral storm front converging on California involves the presence of two noteworthy Republican candidates who are dividing most of the GOP primary vote. Although the GOP will win a clear minority of the primary vote, Bianco and Hilton could produce a lockout because they are attracting nearly all of the Republican primary vote and splitting it fairly evenly.

That either Republican could become governor is remarkable considering neither would have a shot at defeating a Democrat in the general election. Bianco leads law enforcement in the state’s fourth-most populous county and has attracted notice with his appearances on Fox News and podcasts hosted by conservative pastors. Bianco has also played to Trump-driven conspiracies about voter fraud, recently impounding more than 600,000 ballots cast in last November’s redistricting election due to alleged “irregularities.” Hilton, meanwhile, is originally from the United Kingdom and spent years working for former Prime Minister David Cameron and the Conservative Party. In the mid-2010s, he became more involved in U.S. politics, hosting a show on Fox News and developing a public policy organization focused on California’s housing shortage.

Cloudy with a chance of lockout

Democrats have understandably become increasingly worried about the chances of a gubernatorial lockout. In early March, the chair of the state Democratic Party called for candidates who lacked a “viable path” to end their campaigns. But this call was met with derision from some lower-polling contenders, and not just because no Democrat is vastly outrunning the field. The trailing candidates have also raised questions about the representativeness of the three leading contenders, all of whom are white, and their relative qualifications compared to those of the four candidates of color.

Swalwell, Steyer, and Porter are all polling just above 10%, but all are white and none has held a major executive office. Conversely, four of the other five notable Democratic contenders are people of color who have each served in statewide office or as mayor of the state’s largest city. Becerra and Villaraigosa are Latino (Becerra is the son of Mexican immigrants, Villaraigosa a grandson), Thurmond is Black, and Yee is Asian (the daughter of Chinese immigrants).

Moreover, a sizable majority of California Democrats are voters of color. In 2025, the Public Policy Institute of California found that 41% of Democratic likely voters identified as white, 35% as Latino, 12% as Asian, 6% as Black, and 6% as multiracial or something else. All told, a party that’s about three-fifths nonwhite faces the possibility of choosing mainly among a trio of contenders who are white.

Concerns about representation have vexed Democrats ahead of the primary. In late March, a planned debate was canceled amid blowback over which candidates had qualified. The organizers used polling and fundraising criteria to determine the participants, which resulted in invitations for the six major white candidates — the three leading Democrats, the two Republicans, and Mahan, the low-polling mayor of San Jose who has quickly raised millions from Silicon Valley donors following his late entry into the race. This sparked outrage in many corners of the Democratic Party and among the four candidates of color, eventually prompting the debate organizers to cancel the event.

Given the crowded candidate field and this turmoil, just how likely is a Democratic lockout in the gubernatorial race? In February, Democratic strategist Paul Mitchell — who drew the state’s new Democratic gerrymander — released a primary simulator in an attempt to estimate the chances of a lockout. Including the 10 major candidates in his forecast and altering no other base inputs, Mitchell’s simulator currently gives the GOP about a 1 in 5 shot of pulling it off. (You can tweak many aspects of the race, such as campaign finance, polling, and more, so go have fun playing with it.)

This suggests that, more likely than not, at least one Democrat will find a way to advance to the general election. However, it would not be unusual for an event to occur that is assigned about a 20% chance of happening. In fact, that’s marginally higher than the chances of rolling a seven when you roll two six-sided dice (6/36 or about 17%, the most likely outcome). Plus, unlike rolling dice or flipping coins, estimating the probability of a single electoral event involves far more uncertainty.

Even if it is somewhat unlikely, a Democratic lockout in California’s gubernatorial election would be the most significant failure by a major party in a top-two primary. Although Democrats have never been locked out of a statewide race in California, they have suffered this fate once in Washington, which has used the top-two system since 2008. In Washington’s 2016 primary, two Republicans advanced to the general election in the race for treasurer, even as three Democratic candidates combined for around 52% of the vote and the two Republican contenders garnered about 48%.

That result ranks as the worst lockout a major party has suffered in a statewide or congressional top-two primary on turf that leaned toward that party or was at least somewhat competitive. In the 2012 presidential election, Washington state had voted about 11 points to the left of the nation. So, ahead of the 2016 general election, the Democrats’ lockout in Washington’s state treasurer contest was a poor result. But based on the 2024 presidential race, California is now about twice as Democratic-leaning as Washington was then, which would make a lockout in the 2026 governor’s race a dramatically worse outcome.

In 2012, the first year California used the top-two primary, Democrats also suffered an embarrassing lockout in a U.S. House seat that many expected them to win. The newly-drawn 31st District had leaned about 9 points to the left of the country in the 2008 presidential election, but Republican Rep. Gary Miller still sought reelection. And in the top-two primary, Miller and fellow Republican Bob Dutton led the way over four Democratic opponents, with Dutton edging out Democrat Pete Aguilar by about 2 points for the second-place spot. Miller then won the all-GOP general election. Aguilar later flipped this seat in 2014, though he once again almost failed to advance out of the primary.

Less embarrassingly, the other two races in the table above were lockouts for a party that was at least a slight underdog in a potentially competitive seat. In 2014, Democrats failed to advance a candidate in California’s light-red 25th District. And in 2020, Republicans came up short in Washington’s blue-leaning 10th District, where two Democrats advanced.

***

We will obviously keep a close eye on California polls in the weeks to come. A Democratic lockout in the gubernatorial race would have all sorts of consequences, potentially hurting Democratic turnout in the 2026 midterms and having at least short-term governing consequences for the Golden State. Undoubtedly, Democrats would quickly pursue a recall election that might well succeed. But a Republican governor elected in a blue-leaning midterm electoral environment would be a remarkable turn of events — borne of a perfect electoral storm.

📆 Around the Corner 📌

On DDHQ Votes, make sure to add these upcoming races to your watchlist:

• April 7, 2026

  • GA-14 Special Election Runoff

  • Wisconsin Supreme Court General Election

• April 16, 2026

  • NJ-11 Special Election

• April 21, 2026

  • Virginia redistricting referendum

Check out our 2026 Primary Primer for more information about the regular primaries happening in 2026.

🍺 What’s on tap 🚰

Today’s newsletter features:

Opening Bell: Must-read items about elections and politics.

The Frontrunner: We finish up DDHQ’s initial overview of the 2026 House map by looking at potentially vulnerable Democratic-held seats and more Republican-leaning seats that could go Democratic in a blue wave.

Around the Corner: Upcoming elections we’re tracking at DDHQ.

Subscribe now

🔔 Opening Bell 🐏

Must-read items about elections and politics.

• In Nebraska, Republican Secretary of State Bob Evnen removed Democrat Cindy Burbank from the U.S. Senate race on the state’s May 12 primary ballot. Evnen ruled that, under state law, Burbank was not a “good faith” candidate because, if nominated, she plans to support independent Dan Osborn against Republican Sen. Pete Ricketts. On Thursday, a state district court dismissed Burbank’s suit challenging the decision; she has appealed that ruling to the state Supreme Court. Should Burbank not make the primary ballot, the other Democrat in the race, an anti-abortion candidate named William Forbes, would become the party’s nominee. That would remove the possibility that Osborn could have a head-to-head shot at defeating Ricketts, potentially splitting the anti-Ricketts vote.

• With Sen. Markwayne Mullin likely to become the next DHS secretary, NOTUS reported on Saturday that Republican Gov. Kevin Stitt wants to appoint oil and gas executive Alan Armstrong to fill Oklahoma’s looming Senate vacancy. Stitt and Armstrong met with President Donald Trump on Sunday to finalize the choice, and reports suggest the meeting went well. The Oklahoma Senate seat was already up in November, but now it’s an open-seat race. Under Oklahoma state law, an appointed candidate has to sign a statement promising not to run. While that provision likely cannot be enforced, Armstrong appears set to just serve out Mullin’s term as Rep. Kevin Hern has consolidated support from leading Republicans (including Trump) in the GOP primary for the seat.

☑️ Introducing DDHQ Votes ☑️

Decision Desk HQ is excited to announce the release of Votes, our new election data portal!

Dive into the world of election data with DDHQ Votes:

• Up-to-date polling on the key issues and races

• Track how prediction markets are moving

• 25 years of election results at your fingertips

• Track election results as they come in

• From local to federal, find every race

• Coming Soon: DDHQ Forecast

Click here to learn more about Votes and sign up now!

📈 The Frontrunner 🥇

Which seats could the GOP flip to keep the House? Which seats could Democrats flip to make a blue wave happen?

Quick summary:

• If Republicans are going to have a chance of maintaining their slim House majority, they will need to make a play for many of the 20 most vulnerable Democratic-held seats on the map. Of these, 12 voted at least narrowly for President Donald Trump in 2024, and some of them — thanks in part to redistricting — backed Trump much more substantially.

• Democrats can look at 19 medium-red seats to potentially flip if the 2026 environment ends up being particularly favorable for them. These districts will not determine if Democrats win a majority, but they could determine whether this midterm ends up being called a “wave” election.

• Editor’s note: This is Part Three of a three-part series. Check out Part One and Part Two to see our previous analysis.

With the March 17 primary now in the books, we can return to examining the overall electoral picture in the 2026 race to control the U.S. House of Representatives. In Part One of this series, we painted in broad strokes by categorizing the chamber’s 435 seats that are very likely to go for one party — which describes most districts — or will potentially be in-play in November. In Part Two, we zoomed in on 26 Republican-held seats that could be highly competitive. That group of districts, along with a cohort of 20 Democratic-held seats, is most likely to play a key role in determining which party wins a majority.

Here in Part 3, we will take a look at the 20 Democratic-held seats that Republicans could target in 2026. We will also examine a group of 19 peripherally competitive Republican-held or fairly-red open seats that Democrats might have a shot at flipping if the 2026 cycle turns into an especially strong year for the out-of-power party.

The Democratic seats the GOP can target

Currently, Democrats are favored to take control of the House. However, if Republicans are going to have a chance of holding onto their slim 220-215 majority,1 they will need to make a play for many of the 20 most vulnerable Democratic-held seats on the map. Of these, 12 voted at least narrowly for President Donald Trump in 2024, and some of them — thanks in part to redistricting — backed Trump much more substantially.

The most vulnerable incumbent House Democrat is Rep. Don Davis of North Carolina. Last fall, the Republican-dominated legislature redrew Davis’s 1st District in eastern North Carolina, shifting it from a seat that Trump carried by about 2 percentage points to one he would have won by almost 12 points. In 2024, Davis managed to narrowly win reelection over Republican Laurie Buckhout while Trump led in his seat. But now that the seat is this red, Davis will struggle to hold onto it even with a blue-leaning midterm environment. Buckhout won the GOP primary on March 3, so she’s back for another try in a seat that election ratings outlets generally view as Lean Republican.

Redistricting has also increased the peril for two Ohio Democrats, although one faces a much harder reelection path. Rep. Marcy Kaptur first won a House seat in 1982, making her the longest-serving woman in congressional history. But the new Buckeye State map makes her already-red 9th District even redder, taking it from Trump +7 to Trump +11. In 2024, Kaptur won by less than 1 point under the old lines against state Rep. Derek Merrin, so she may be an underdog in an even more unfavorable seat. Still, her opponent won’t be known until Ohio’s May 5 primary. The crowded GOP candidate field includes Merrin again, but he’s not a sure bet to win the nomination.

The other endangered Ohio Democrat is Rep. Greg Landsman, whose Cincinnati-area 1st District shifted about 9 points to the right, from a seat Trump lost by more than 6 points to one he would have carried by roughly 3 points. On our list of 20 vulnerable Democratic-held seats, five districts where the incumbent is seeking reelection became redder under their new lines. Landsman’s district moved farther to the right than any other.

However, of that group, Landsman is seeking reelection in the least Trump-leaning seat. So, while his seat looks highly competitive, he has a decent chance of winning reelection in a favorable environment for Democrats. And helpfully for Landsman, some strong potential Republican candidates stayed out of the race.

In South Texas, Democratic Reps. Vicente Gonzalez and Henry Cuellar won reelection in 2024 even as Trump carried their majority-Latino districts by 4 points and 7 points, respectively. On paper, though, their districts became even redder when the GOP’s new Texas map made each a Trump +10 seat. Yet Cuellar and Gonzalez might survive in 2026. For one thing, both incumbents ran ahead of former Vice President Kamala Harris in 2024. Cuellar won by about 6 points, 13 points in margin better than Harris, while Gonzalez prevailed by roughly 3 points, 7 points better than Harris. Cuellar’s new seat actually became slightly bluer by its 2024 U.S. House vote, though Gonzalez’s reddened further. Additionally, Democrats are hoping that Latino voters shift somewhat back to the left in 2026, which special election results and national polling suggests is quite possible.

Meanwhile, Maine’s 2nd District ranks as the most endangered Democratic-held seat that did not change due to redistricting. Rep. Jared Golden won the seat for a fourth time in 2024, even as Trump carried it by 9 points. But Golden announced his retirement, opening up the seat. Former Gov. Paul LePage looks favored to win this seat back for Republicans, though Democrats have a contested primary featuring state Auditor Matt Dunlap and state Sen. Joe Baldacci.

Democrats are somewhat favored in the other four seats in this group that leaned at least somewhat to the right of Trump’s 1.5-point national popular vote margin in 2024. In Washington’s 3rd District, Rep. Marie Gluesenkamp Perez won reelection by about 4 points even as Trump carried her seat by about 3 points. Rep. Tom Suozzi outran the Democratic presidential ticket by more in New York’s 3rd District, winning by roughly 4 points as Trump carried the seat by more than 4 points. Trump also led by about 2 points in both New Mexico’s 2nd District and Michigan’s 8th District, but Democratic Reps. Gabe Vasquez and Kristen McDonald Rivet won by about 4 points and 7 points, respectively.

The other 10 Democratic-held seats that could be in play are longer shots for the GOP. Each seat sat at least slightly to the left of the 2024 national popular vote margin of Trump +1.5, even the two seats that Trump narrowly led in (New Jersey’s 9th District and Nevada’s 3rd District). Historically, it has been very difficult for the president’s party to flip a seat that leaned even a tad toward the other party in the last presidential election. In fact, it’s happened just three times across six midterms in the 21st century — twice in 2014 and once in 2022, when Gluesenkamp Perez won her seat.

Now, that doesn’t mean Republicans won’t closely contest many of these Democratic-held seats. GOP candidates in two of the 10 seats that leaned somewhat left in 2024 — California’s 13th District (Rep. Adam Gray) and New York’s 19th District (Rep. Josh Riley) — are on the National Republican Congressional Committee’s new “MAGA Majority” list of seats that mostly includes seats that the GOP hopes to capture. (The NRCC also included Republican contenders in the seats held by Cuellar, Davis, Golden, Gonzalez, and Suozzi).

Peripherally competitive GOP seats

Democrats are favored to win back the House in 2026. But if they do accomplish that feat, the extent of the Democrats’ majority will depend in part on the inroads they make — or don’t make — into medium-red turf. Below is a list of 19 Trump-won seats that Democrats could potentially flip if the 2026 environment ends up being particularly favorable for them. These seats will not determine if Democrats win a majority — the 26 GOP-held seats covered in Part 2 of this series will do that — but they could determine whether this midterm ends up being called a “wave” election.

To be clear, Republicans remain favored in all of these seats. This is especially true in the 12 seats below the line in the table, all of which leaned at least 10 points to the right of the country in the 2024 presidential election. In midterms from 2006 to 2022, the out party only won 11% of all seats that leaned 10 to 20 points toward the president’s party. That suggests that Democrats could flip a handful of these seats, but that it would be unusual for them to flip many.

Three of the seats that did lean fewer than 10 points to the right in 2024 are in Ohio, but all are currently viewed as solidly Republican. The least red one is the Dayton-area 10th District held by longtime Rep. Mike Turner, who, helpfully for the GOP, is seeking reelection. The other two are the 7th and 15th districts. But to win seats like these, the Democrats will have to overcome a consistent red lean up and down the ballot in these districts. Only one Democrat has carried these three seats in any statewide election in Ohio between 2016 and 2024: then-Sen. Sherrod Brown in his 2018 reelection victory. Admittedly, Brown is running for Senate this year after losing a close race in 2024, which might help the Democratic ticket.

Another three seats are majority-Latino districts in Texas that Trump won by between 10 and 18 points in 2024. However, each may be more competitive than the 2024 numbers would suggest. Looming over each is the possibility that Latino voters swing back toward Democrats to a significant degree.

This is most apparent in the 15th and 35th districts. Texas’s 15th District, held by Republican Rep. Monica De La Cruz, would have backed Trump by 18 points in 2024. However, the seat would only have voted for Trump by about 2 points in 2020, and has backed Democratic candidates in around one-third of statewide elections since 2016. Democrats are also hoping that Tejano musician Bobby Pulido will give them a strong nominee against De La Cruz. Meanwhile, the open 35th District is a vastly redrawn seat that is among the five the GOP hopes to flip on Texas’s new map. But while Trump would have carried it by 10 points in 2024, the seat went just about 50-50 in Texas’s 2018 Senate race, suggesting it could be quite close in a blue-leaning midterm.

Candidate weakness may factor into Texas’s other seat in this group, the Trump +15 23rd District. After being forced into a primary runoff on March 3, scandal-ridden Republican Rep. Tony Gonzales abandoned his reelection campaign. That leaves gun influencer Brandon Herrera as the GOP nominee, pitting him against Democrat Katy Stout. While Herrera is favored, his history of controversial statements and actions could make this a winnable seat for Democrats.

Republicans also have to defend Montana’s 1st District, a Trump +12 seat left open by Rep. Ryan Zinke’s retirement. While red-leaning, this seat does have a sizable Democratic voting base centered mostly around the college towns of Missoula and Bozeman. And while Trump comfortably carried the district in 2024, Democratic Sen. Jon Tester simultaneously won it by about 1 point, even as he lost reelection. Still, Democrats’ chances may have actually been better if Zinke sought reelection: He had faced a number of negative stories in recent years and ran behind Trump in 2024.

Florida is home to three GOP-held seats worth watching, two of which ratings outlets view as not quite solidly Republican. Rep. Anna Paulina Luna holds the Trump +12 13th District around Tampa Bay, while Rep. Cory Mills is defending the slightly redder 7th District between Orlando and Daytona Beach. Mills in particular might have some vulnerability due to scandal. Last year, his ex-girlfriend received a protective order after Mills allegedly threatened her, and he faces an ethics investigation in Congress over alleged campaign finance violations, sexual misconduct, and misuse of his office. Additionally, Rep. Laurel Lee holds a similarly red seat east of Tampa that Democrats hope to contest.

However, the degree to which any of these Republicans incumbents has trouble will also depend on Florida’s possible redistricting. The GOP-led state legislature plans to hold a special session in April, but it’s unclear if it will actually redraw amid the larger national redistricting conflict.

Two other GOP-held seats in Arizona and Tennessee are viewed as “Likely Republican” rather than “Solid Republican” by ratings outlets. In Arizona’s 2nd District, Rep. Eli Crane is a member of the hard-right Freedom Caucus who ran notably behind Trump in 2024, (he won reelection by about 9 points, Trump carried the seat by 15 points). After losing to Crane in 2024, former Navajo Nation President Jonathan Nez is seeking a rematch in a seat that has an electorate that’s about one-fifth American Indian. Meanwhile, Rep. Andy Ogles has various problems in Tennessee’s 5th District around Nashville, a seat Trump carried by 18 points in 2024. He faces questions over a fake loan to his 2022 campaign, and his combative profile — he recently called for the deportation of all Muslims — has made him a source of consistent controversy.

Lastly, we will note a couple of Republican-held seats in the Carolinas that are both solidly Republican but could come into play. Held by Rep. Chuck Edwards, the 11th District in western North Carolina went for Trump by about 10 points in 2024. But this seat could get interesting in a Democratic-leaning midterm, especially if turnout in the dark-blue Asheville area is disproportionately high. South Carolina’s open 1st District around parts of Charleston is somewhat redder, having voted for Trump by 13 points. That gives it about an R+11.5 lean relative to the country, but that is actually a tad less right-leaning than the R+15 lean of the previous iteration of the 1st District when Democrats flipped it in 2018.

***

Republicans have some clear Democratic-held House seats to target in November. The extent to which the GOP can make inroads in those districts will help determine whether the party can manage to retain its slim House majority. Meanwhile, Democrats are dreaming about winning some redder seats that don’t yet look to be in serious danger, but that a blue wave might inundate. Fewer than eight months to go until we see how this election pans out.

📆 Around the Corner 📌

On DDHQ Votes, make sure to add these upcoming races to your watchlist:

• April 7, 2026

  • GA-14 Special Election Runoff

  • Wisconsin Supreme Court General Election

• April 16, 2026

  • NJ-11 Special Election

• April 21, 2026

  • Virginia redistricting referendum

Check out our 2026 Primary Primer for more information about the regular primaries happening in 2026.

Feel the Illinoise! The Land of Lincoln’s March 17 primary is (mostly) in the books as of 2 a.m. Eastern. Here are the major results and takeaways.

Stratton wins Democratic primary for Senate

In a race that cost at least $57 million in advertising, Lt. Gov. Juliana Stratton is the projected winner in Illinois’s Democratic primary for U.S. Senate. In a sense, the primary was a contest between (literally) the “F*** Trump” candidate in Stratton and the “Trump Accountability Plan” candidate in Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi. Reflecting the mood of an angry Democratic primary electorate, the former approach won on Tuesday: With 86% of the expected vote reporting at 1:30 a.m. Eastern, Stratton leads Krishnamoorthi by about 7 percentage points, 40%-33%, with Rep. Robin Kelly in third with 18%.

Although Krishnamoorthi enjoyed an overall spending advantage, Stratton’s support from Democratic Gov. JB Pritzker, among others, aided her in negating her monetary deficit. Pritzker’s outside spending group splashed nearly $13 million to support Stratton or oppose Krishnamoorthi. And Stratton also had endorsements from major figures like Sen. Tammy Duckworth, likely her future Senate partner.

Looking at the incomplete results, Stratton’s victory was fueled by her strong showing in Chicago and the rest of Cook County. About 30% of the statewide vote came from Chicago proper, which Stratton won with 44%, a 19-point margin over Kelly (25%) and 21-point edge over Krishnamoorthi (23%). But perhaps more importantly, she also ran just ahead of Krishnamoorthi in the Cook Suburbs (about 36%-35%), which provided 25% of the state vote and where much of Krishnamoorthi’s 8th Congressional District lies. As the count progressed, Krishnamoorthi’s lack of a lead in the Cook Suburbs was a bright, flashing warning sign for his chances.

Stratton also managed to hold down Krishnamoorthi’s margins in the collar counties surrounding Cook County. For instance, Krishnamoorthi leads by fewer than 6 points in populous DuPage and Lake counties. And while less important in terms of overall votes, Stratton cleaned up in many small to mid-sized cities in parts of Downstate. This was likely a combination of her progressive stances winning over voters in college communities like Urbana-Champaign, but also likely a result of Pritzker’s assistance in keeping Krishnamoorthi from solely dominating the airwaves outside Chicago.

AIPAC goes two for four

Coming into Illinois’s primary, a major story was the role of outside money in the four Democratic primaries for four open and solidly Democratic U.S. House seats. Money from groups linked with AIPAC, crypto, and artificial intelligence spent around $38 million across these primaries.

The Democrats’ internal debates over the United State’s relationship with Israel and the influence of AIPAC have especially stood out in this election cycle, and the Illinois primaries were no exception. All told, four groups connected with AIPAC spent around $21 million in these four races. In the end, that appears to have gotten the party two of the four candidates it preferred.

In Illinois’s 2nd District, Cook County Commissioner Donna Miller is projected to win. With 86% of the expected vote reporting, she leads former Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. 40%-29%. Miller benefited from $4.4 million in spending from Affordable Chicago Now, a group linked to AIPAC donors. In Krishnamoorthi’s 8th District, former Rep. Melissa Bean also looks to have won. With 72% expected vote reporting, she leads progressive tech entrepreneur Junaid Ahmed, 32%-27%. Bean enjoyed $4.7 million in outside support from Elect Chicago Women and Chicago Progressive Partnership, two other groups with ties to AIPAC.

But AIPAC appears to have struck out in the two other high-profile primaries. In the 9th District, progressive Evanston Mayor Daniel Biss is the projected winner with 29%, just ahead of progressive content creator Kat Abughazaleh’s 26%. AIPAC’s preferred candidate was state Sen. Laura Fine, who finished third with 20%. Fine’s failure was especially costly, as Elect Chicago Women and Chicago Progressive Partnership spent a combined $7.1 million supporting Fine or opposing Biss and Abughazaleh.

The Democratic primary in the 7th District remains technically up in the air as of 1:30 a.m., but AIPAC’s preferred candidate, Chicago City Treasurer Melissa Conyears-Evers, also appears to have lost. In that contest, state Rep. La Shawn Ford leads Conyears-Evers 24%-20% with 83% of the expected vote reporting. DDHQ has not projected this race, but Conyears-Evers conceded defeat despite having benefited from $5.0 million in spending from United Democracy Project, AIPAC’s designated super PAC.

The other groups that spent heavily had ties to crypto and artificial intelligence, to the tune of about $17 million. But those organizations also found only some degree of success across two of the four districts they invested in.

The biggest spender was Fairshake, a pro-crypto vehicle financed by crypto companies and the venture capital group Andreesen Horowitz. Across the Senate primary and two House primaries, the group spent more than $13 million. However, it only batted one for three, having unsuccessfully opposed Stratton’s Senate bid and Ford’s 7th District bid (though the latter has not been formally projected) Still, the group did successfully back Bean in Illinois’s 8th District. Protect Progress, a related group, also spent close to $1 million, striking out in the Senate race but succeeding with Bean.

Think Big, a group affiliated with AI investors connected to OpenAI and Palantir, spent $2.5 million in two House primaries. Part of the larger pro-AI super PAC Leading the Future, Think Big unsuccessfully supported Jesse Jackson Jr. in the 2nd District, but also got a win with Bean in the 8th.

***

There will be plenty more to dig into once we have final results. Make sure to check out all the results on Votes, DDHQ’s election data portal. You can see maps, prediction market odds, and tons of other information about contests both big and small. It will be an invaluable resource as the primary season continues in the months ahead!

🍺 What’s on tap 🚰

Today’s newsletter features:

Opening Bell: Must-read items about elections and politics.

The Frontrunner: Previewing five primaries to watch on March 17 in Illinois.

Blake Burman on Prediction Markets: Blake Burman, Chief Washington Correspondent for NewsNation, runs a Substack where he tracks political prediction markets. This week, he looks at the 2026 race to control the U.S. Senate, Texas’s GOP primary runoff for Senate, and the 2028 presidential candidate field.

Around the Corner: Upcoming elections we’re tracking at DDHQ.

Subscribe now

🔔 Opening Bell 🐏

Must-read items about elections and politics.

• Last week, a state circuit court rejected a request to block Missouri’s new congressional map. Drawn by Republicans to defeat Democratic Rep. Emanuel Cleaver of Kansas City, the map would almost certainly expand the GOP’s edge in Missouri’s House delegation from 6-2 to 7-1. The map’s final status for 2026 remains up in the air, however, due to other litigation and an ongoing effort by opponents to get a “citizen veto” referendum on the ballot to prevent its implementation.

• Republican Rep. Kevin Hern announced a bid for U.S. Senate in Oklahoma, where a seat looks set to open up following President Donald Trump’s nomination of Sen. Markwayne Mullin as his next Secretary of Homeland Security. Trump quickly endorsed Hern, who appears unlikely to have serious GOP primary opposition in the dark red state.

• Despite rumblings that he might retire, longtime Democratic Rep. Jim Clyburn announced that he would seek reelection to an 18th term in the U.S. House of Representatives. Perhaps the most influential Democrat in South Carolina, Clyburn has come to be viewed as a kingmaker in the state’s early presidential primary.

☑️ Introducing DDHQ Votes ☑️

Decision Desk HQ is excited to announce the release of Votes, our new election data portal!

Dive into the world of election data with DDHQ Votes:

• Up-to-date polling on the key issues and races

• Track how prediction markets are moving

• 25 years of election results at your fingertips

• Track election results as they come in

• From local to federal, find every race

• Coming Soon: DDHQ Forecast

Click here to learn more about Votes and sign up now! Use our new tool to follow all the primary election results in Illinois on Tuesday night!

📈 The Frontrunner 🥇

Five primaries to watch in Illinois on March 17

Quick summary:

• An open-seat race for Senate is the most notable contest on the Illinois primary ballot. Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin is retiring, and three major candidates are tussling in the Democratic primary to succeed him: Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi, Lt. Gov. Juliana Stratton, and Rep. Robin Kelly. Krishnamoorthi holds a narrow lead in the polls over Stratton in a contest that has featured large amounts of outside spending targeting the two leading contenders.

• Democratic primaries in four open and solidly blue U.S. House seats also feature on March 17. The contests in the 2nd, 7th, 8th, and 9th congressional districts feature ample outside spending, arguments over the influence of AIPAC, and skirmishes between progressive and more moderate Democrats.

Welcome to the second big primary election week of 2026. The votes happening in Illinois on March 17 are the next significant batch of nomination contests following the March 3 primaries in Texas, North Carolina, and Arkansas. (With apologies to Mississippi, which had a few uncompetitive primaries on March 10.)

Whereas both parties had must-watch contests on March 3, Democrats host all of the major primaries on the March 17 slate. Five stand out: The races for Illinois’s open U.S. Senate seat and four open U.S. House seats in solidly Democratic districts. Democratic Gov. JB Pritzker is unopposed for renomination and will be a heavy favorite to win reelection. But the potential 2028 presidential contender is closely involved in his party’s Senate primary.

Illinois

Polls close: 8:00 p.m. Eastern

Top races to watch: U.S. Senate; 2nd, 7th, 8th, and 9th congressional districts

A three-cornered Senate primary

After five terms, Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin is retiring, which has opened up a Senate seat in a state that former Vice President Kamala Harris carried by 11 percentage points in 2024. Given the state’s blue hue, Durbin’s successor will almost certainly be chosen by the Democratic primary. That race has attracted a trio of high-profile contenders: Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi, Lt. Gov. Juliana Stratton, and Rep. Robin Kelly. All three hail from Chicagoland — the heavily Democratic city of Chicago and its fairly blue surroundings.

Krishnamoorthi held an early lead in Democratic primary polls, but Stratton has closed the gap. In Decision Desk HQ’s polling average, Krishnamoorthi holds about a 4-point edge over Stratton, 34%-30%, with Kelly running in third with 14%.

Krishnamoorthi and Stratton look like the main contenders. But the polling is tough to gauge because nearly every public survey has come from a pollster polling on behalf of Krishnamoorthi’s campaign or a group allied with either Krishnamoorthi or Stratton. Unsurprisingly, the relative performance of each candidate has depended on which side of the Krishnamoorthi-Stratton line the pollster hails from. To add to the unpredictability of this race, remember that polling error in primary surveys is far higher than in general elections. In a general election, most voters default to the party they support or lean toward. But in a party primary, voters might like multiple candidates and could switch who they support.

Wherever the race stands now, Krishnamoorthi’s initial lead likely had much to do with his significant fundraising advantage. As of Feb. 25, he had collected $30.5 million for this race, many times the amounts raised by Stratton ($4.1 million) and Kelly ($3.3 million). Krishnamoorthi used his monetary edge to dominate advertising for much of the campaign, getting out his message early to introduce himself to voters across the state. As of mid-January, he had made about 97% of the ad buys in this primary — $21.7 million of $22.4 million — according to data from AdImpact.

But Krishnamoorthi’s has had a smaller financial advantage in the closing weeks of the campaign. AdImpact’s data as of March 12 found that Krishnamoorthi’s ad support had increased about $16 million since mid-January, while Stratton’s total had increased by about $14 million. Kelly, meanwhile, had $1.3 million in ad spending support.

In a common theme across Illinois’s major Democratic primaries, outside groups have played a huge role in this race. In particular, they have helped Stratton close that ad spending gap. Pritzker, the billionaire governor, is backing her, and he has provided much of the funding for Illinois Future PAC, a pro-Stratton group that has spent about $12 million supporting her or opposing Krishnamoorthi. But the pro-crypto super PAC Fairshake has spent close to $10 million opposing Stratton, so Krishnamoorthi has also benefited from outside intervention.

Both campaigns and their allies have sought to portrary their candidate as the best person to oppose President Donald Trump. Krishnamoorthi was up on air early with ads touting his “Trump Accountability Plan” to counter potential presidential abuses of power. By comparison, Stratton’s opening TV ad raised eyebrows: The spot featured a number of people, including Democratic Sen. Tammy Duckworth and Pritzker, saying “f*** Trump” and “vote Juliana.” In the ad, Stratton promised to abolish the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency while holding Trump “accountable for the crimes he’s committed.”

ICE began a controversial immigration enforcement operation around Chicago last fall, and the agency has become a major sticking point in this campaign. In a late January debate, Stratton attacked Krishnamoorthi over donations his campaign took from an ICE contractor and his vote to “thank” ICE (which was part of a larger resolution condemning anti-semitism). Pritzker’s pro-Stratton Illinois Future PAC has taken up the ICE attacks against Krishnamoorthi, hitting the congressman for voting to fund the agency (the spot cites a 2019 vote). Another spot from the group emphasizes that pro-crypto groups and “MAGA donors” are attacking Stratton and highlights her endorsements from Pritzker and Duckworth.

While crypto-backed Fairshake has not expressly supported Krishnamoorthi, the group has run ads against Stratton. It recently portrayed her as a hypocrite by citing her support from a group — the Democratic Lieutenant Governors Association — that has also accepted money from an ICE contractor. Fairshake’s ads also accuse her of being an ally of former state House Speaker Mike Madigan, who was convicted of federal corruption crimes last year. For his part, Krishnamoorthi has responded to ICE-related attacks against him by running an ad highlighting his immigrant background, which makes stopping Trump and ICE “deeply personal” for him.

Although Kelly appears unlikely to win, her share of the vote could be consequential. Both Kelly and Stratton are Black women, so three groups have spent money late in the campaign to boost Kelly clearly in the hope that she will take votes from Stratton. This includes around $800,000 in outlays by The Impact Fund, an arm of the pro-Krishnamoorthi group Indian American Impact; around $300,000 from Protect Progress, which is affiliated with crypto-aligned Fairshake; and about $200,000 in mailers from Progressive Values Illinois, which has also spent another $400,000 supporting Krishnamoorthi and opposing Stratton.

Kelly has attempted to make a late push by arguing that her opponents just want to attack each other while Illinoisans “struggle to survive.” In the same ad, Kelly promises to focus on what really matters: “You.” The congresswoman made headlines earlier this year by filing articles of impeachment against then-Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem, whose Cabinet department oversees ICE.

This primary also has a 2028 angle. Pritzker’s big spending on behalf of Stratton has upset the Congressional Black Caucus, which is backing its member, Kelly. Democratic Rep. Yvette Clarke of New York, chair of the CBC, said earlier this month that a governor should not be “heavy-handing” a primary and that Pritzker’s behavior “won’t soon be forgotten.” Such frustration from the influential CBC could be a complication for Pritzker’s presidential ambitions. Plus, Kelly has the backing of powerful CBC member Rep. Jim Clyburn, who has a reputation as a kingmaker in South Carolina’s early presidential primary.

Four House primaries

Beyond the Senate race, busy and expensive primaries are taking place in four solidly Democratic U.S. House seats in and around Chicago. As part of the state’s aggressive Democratic gerrymander, the 9th District extends from northern Chicago, through Evanston, and curves north and west into Lake and McHenry counties. Longtime Rep. Jan Schakowsky’s retirement has precipitated a 15-candidate scrum in the Democratic primary, very likely the decisive election in a seat that Harris won by 37 points in 2024.

The race’s three leading candidates appear to be Evanston Mayor Daniel Biss, progressive content creator Kat Abughazaleh, and state Sen. Laura Fine. This primary has centered especially on the United States’ relationship with Israel and the influence of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). Abughazaleh, whose father is Palestinian, has run as an outspoken critic of Israel, and she has support from the uber-progressive Justice Democrats. Biss, who is Jewish, is also an Israel critic, and he may be positioned as the more broadly acceptable progressive choice, having earned the Congressional Progressive Caucus’s endorsement. Fine is also Jewish, but she supports the close U.S.-Israel relationship and has come under fire for her support from donors and groups that have ties to AIPAC.

Biss and Fine have some built-in advantages as elected officials. Biss leads Evanston and Fine represents the city, which is the largest municipality located entirely within the 9th District (about 10% of the district’s population). The hometown of Northwestern University is also the bluest part, leaving it full of Democratic primary voters. Both are also familiar to many voters beyond Evanston: Fine represents about 25% of the 9th District in the legislature, and Biss finished second behind Pritzker in the 2018 Democratic primary for governor. Biss also enjoys Schakowsky’s endorsement.

Although the 26-year old Abughazaleh has no elected experience, she has overcome her lack of deep ties to this district to become one of the frontrunners. Her strong online presence has helped her attract many small-dollar donors and raise $3.4 million as of Feb. 25, more than Fine ($2.6 million) and Biss ($2.5 million). Abughazaleh has only narrowly trailed Biss in recent polls. Most recently, an early March survey by Public Policy Polling for local publication Evanston RoundTable found Biss ahead of Abughazaleh 24%-20%, with Fine in third at 14%. Another candidate, state Sen. Mike Simmons, lurked in fourth with 10%, but he seems unlikely to win.

Given the strength shown by Biss and Abughazaleh, outside groups with pro-Israel ties have spent heavily against them while working to boost Fine. Because AIPAC is increasingly viewed as toxic in Democratic primaries, the group has not directly intervened. But two groups that have spent big in the 9th District, Elect Chicago Women and Chicago Progressive Partnership, have financial backing from many of the same donors and groups that support AIPAC. The two groups have spent a combined $7.1 million here, with most ($4.4 million) going to support Fine. But the groups have spent $2.6 million against Biss and Abughazaleh, and Chicago Progressive Partnership even ran ads to boost another young progressive contender, Skokie school board member Bushra Amiwala, in an attempt to shift some potential Abughazaleh support elsewhere.

Next door, the 8th District is also an open seat due to Krishnamoorthi’s Senate bid. This is a much lighter-blue seat than the 9th (Harris won the 8th by 7 points in 2024), but the Democratic primary’s eight-candidate field is perhaps even more wide-open. Former Rep. Melissa Bean is running as the most moderate option, but she is also most closely associated with AIPAC. Tech entrepreneur Junaid Ahmed is the race’s leading progressive, having earned endorsements from the Congressional Progressive Caucus and Justice Democrats. Meanwhile, tech businessman Neil Khot leads the money race thanks to ample self-funding, and Cook County Commissioner Kevin Morrison is the most prominent current elected official in the field.

The outside money here is almost entirely behind Bean, who represented a swingy suburban Chicago seat in the 2000s before losing reelection in 2010. Four groups have spent $6.6 million to aid her, including the AIPAC-aligned Elect Chicago Women ($4.0 million), the OpenAI-connected Think Big ($1.1 million), a super PAC associated with Congress’s center-left New Democrat Coalition ($935,000), and the pro-crypto Protect Progress ($557,000). Having worked in finance, Bean has also self-funded $323,000 of the $1.6 million she’s raised.

By comparison, Ahmed has raised $1.4 million, but he has received little outside backing from the groups in his corner. Khot has self-funded $1.5 million of the $2.0 million he’s raised, enabling him to spend the second most on advertising after Bean and her allies. For his part, Morrison has raised only $626,000 and has no outside help, but he represents about a quarter of this congressional district in his Cook County commission seat. The hope for Ahmed, Bean’s most serious opponent, may be that candidates like Khot and Morrison attract enough support to open the door for the progressive to win with a relatively small plurality of the vote.

Left open by the retirement of longtime progressive Rep. Danny Davis, the plurality-Black 7th District is Illinois’s bluest House seat (Harris won it by 65 points). Of the 13 candidates on the ballot, two leading contenders are state Rep. La Shawn Ford, who has Davis’s endorsement, and Chicago City Treasurer Melissa Conyears-Ervin, who finished second to Davis in the 2024 primary for this seat. Other contenders include real estate magnate Jason Friedman, who has lapped the field in fundraising with $2.5 million raised, $500,000 from his own pocket. Emergency room physician Thomas Fisher has raised the second-largest haul with $800,000, and labor organizer Anthony Driver has also received notable outside support. Plus, community organizer Kina Collins is mounting her fourth campaign for this seat; she won 46% in a near-upset against Davis in 2022.

Unlike the other House primaries in Illinois, AIPAC’s super PAC, United Democracy Project, has spent millions here, investing $5 million to assist Conyears-Ervin. The group’s standard approach is to focus on issues besides Israel. As such, its ads backing Conyears-Ervin have played up her biography and defended her against a Friedman attack ad that highlighted a fine she received from the Chicago Board of Ethics.

For his part, Ford has enjoyed little air support, but outside spending indicates that he is a top-tier candidate. After all, crypto-aligned Fairshake has spent $2.5 million opposing Ford’s candidacy, likely because he supported new regulations for crypto as a state legislator. After the spending by UDP and Fairshake, the next-largest amount of ad support has aimed to help Friedman, either via his campaign or Stronger Illinois PAC. Meanwhile, Driver and Fisher have received notable aid from the SEIU’s United We Can super PAC and the science-focused 314 Action Fund, respectively.

Lastly, Kelly’s Senate candidacy has left the 2nd District open, precipitating a 10-candidate Democratic primary to succeed her. The seat, which has a population that is about 50% Black, stretches from Chicago’s South Side all the way south to Vermilion County, east of the college community of Champaign-Urbana. Three contenders appear to be leading the field: Cook County Commissioner Donna Miller, former Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr., and state Sen. Robert Peters.

Jackson has the most name recognition, having represented a previous version of this district from 1995 to 2012. His father, Jesse Jackson Sr., who passed away in February, had deep connections to Chicago, and his brother, Rep. Jonathan Jackson, holds the 1st District next door. However, Jesse Jackson Jr. is mounting a comeback in the face of a controversial past. He resigned from Congress late in 2012 as federal campaign finance violations came to light, for which he later served jail time. Jackson has struggled to raise money, but he has received $1.4 million in outside spending support from the AI-financed group Think Big.

Jackson’s main opponents look to be Miller and Peters. Miller leads the fundraising race, having pulled in nearly $2.0 million. She also has also benefited from $4.4 million in outside spending support from Affordable Chicago Now, another group with ties to AIPAC. The group’s ads have promoted her background as Planned Parenthood leader and her efforts to fight ICE. Meanwhile, crypto-backed Fairshake has invested $817,000 to oppose Peters, who, like Ford in the 7th District race, backed new regulations on crypto in Illinois. Peters is the leading progressive in this race, with endorsements from the Congressional Progressive Caucus and the Working Families Party. He is formidable, too, having raised $1.1 million — more than half of which has come from small-dollar donors. Progressive groups have invested around $450,000 to boost his candidacy.

***

On Tuesday night, make sure to follow the returns on Votes, DDHQ’s new election data platform. And watch for further info about DDHQ’s livestream coverage of the Illinois primary, which will be live on our YouTube page and X account.

🟢 No Red Or Blue, Just Green 📗

Blake Burman on prediction markets:

D.C. Divided?

We know President Trump will be in the Oval Office the next few years. Now the prediction markets are asking a new question: could he be dealing with both a Democratic-controlled House AND Senate for the back half of this term? Democrats have long felt incredibly optimistic about the House, but look at what just happened with the market when it comes to the Senate:

As you see here, on Friday morning the money officially flipped to Democrats taking control of the Senate. There’s 35 Senate seats up for grabs in November, but here’s a better breakdown from the Cook Political Report:

• Republicans have 16 seats and Democrats have 9 seats solidly in their corner

• Republicans have four more tilting their way, while Democrats have two

• Four seats are considered right now as true tossups (two each side)

With the current makeup, Democrats would need to hold all their seats and flip four seats to gain full control.

That’s the zoomed out view, which you can see shows how a flip had long been viewed as a long shot. For example, one year ago today, Republicans were at an 81% chance in the prediction markets of regaining the Senate. Now the markets are calling this a true coin flip.

You can read the rest of Blake’s post on his Substack!

📆 Around the Corner 📌

Notable upcoming elections:

• April 7, 2026

  • GA-14 Special Election Runoff

  • Wisconsin Supreme Court General Election

• April 16, 2026

  • NJ-11 Special Election

Check out our 2026 Primary Primer for more information about the regular primaries happening in 2026!

🍺 What’s on tap 🚰

Today’s newsletter features:

Opening Bell: Must-read items about elections and politics.

The Frontrunner: A look at 26 pivotal Republican-held seats that will help decide the House majority in 2026.

Around the Corner: Upcoming elections we’re tracking at DDHQ.

Subscribe now

🔔 Opening Bell 🐏

Must-read items about elections and politics.

• President Donald Trump is expected to endorse incumbent Sen. John Cornyn in Texas’s Republican primary runoff for U.S. Senate. But Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton suggested that he might only withdraw from the race if Congress passed the SAVE Act; while highly unlikely to happen, the move put Paxton even more clearly on the record as a supporter of this legislation, which is a top priority for Trump.

• The president ousted Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem and nominated Oklahoma Sen. Markwayne Mullin to fill the Cabinet post. Mullin’s Senate seat was already up for election this November, but the prospect of Mullin’s appointment has opened up a seat that multiple U.S. House members are already eyeing.

☑️ Introducing DDHQ Votes ☑️

Decision Desk HQ is excited to announce the release of Votes, our new election data portal!

Dive into the world of election data with DDHQ Votes:

• Up-to-date polling on the key issues and races

• Track how prediction markets are moving

• 25 years of election results at your fingertips

• Track election results as they come in

• From local to federal, find every race

• Coming Soon: DDHQ Forecast

Click here to learn more about Votes and sign up now! Use our new tool to follow the special election results in Georgia’s 14th District on Tuesday night!

📈 The Frontrunner 🥇

26 Republican seats that are in play in 2026

Quick summary:

• Republicans are defending 26 U.S. House seats that could be highly vulnerable in the 2026 midterms. Five are seats that President Donald Trump failed to carry in 2024, which will be the Democrats’ foremost targets. Eight others voted marginally for Trump, but have demographic factors (especially highly educated populations) that could play into Democratic hands in a midterm election. The other 13 seats mostly went for Trump by somewhat larger margins, but many have had close House races in recent years and could be in play.

• Editor’s note: This is Part Two of a three-part series. Check out Part One and Part Three to get the full picture.

Two weeks ago, I took a 30,000-foot view of the U.S. House playing field in the 2026 midterms. Although the election remains more than eight months in the future, most seats will not be competitive in November. After taking a break to preview the March 3 primaries, I am back with Part Two of this planned three-part series on the House battlefield. This week, we will dig into the 26 Republican-held seats most under threat of capture by Democrats in 2026.

That figure was 25 in Part One, but it increased by one at the end of last week when Republican Rep. Kevin Kiley announced he will run in California’s 6th District. Kiley decided on this course rather than run against a fellow Republican in the state’s 5th District (more on Kiley below, including his choice to run as an independent). The move adds one more imperiled GOP seat to this group, moving it from the “very likely Democratic” column in the chart below outlining the overall House picture.

Kiley’s decision was one of three events to occur since we published Part One that led to some small adjustments to seat categorizations. On March 2, an intervention by the U.S. Supreme Court removed the possibility that New York will redraw the state’s firmly red 11th District before the 2026 election. That development moved one seat from the “Redistricting TBD” category — districts that are clearly in limbo due to potential redraws — into the “very likely Republican” column. But late last week, another very likely GOP district moved into the “Peripheral GOP” category of redder seats that could be competitive in November. In Texas’s 23rd District, scandal-tarred Rep. Tony Gonzales abandoned his reelection campaign, clearing the way for controversial gun influencer Brandon Herrera to win the GOP nomination in the district’s primary runoff.

In the third part of this series, we will talk about those peripherally competitive seats and, more importantly, the 20 in-play seats held by Democrats that will play a major role in determining the House majority. Here, though, we will tour the 26 seats held by Republicans that are most in danger of flipping to the Democrats in 2026.

26 for ’2026

As is the case in most midterms, the president’s party appears in danger of suffering a net loss of U.S. House seats. President Donald Trump’s job approval rating is mired in the low 40s, and Democrats have held around a 5-point lead in generic ballot polling since November — both signs of a blue-leaning midterm electoral environment. Republicans hold just a 220-215 majority in the House (including three vacant seats with their former party), meaning Democrats need just a net gain of three seats to win 218. Although redistricting complicates the seat arithmetic, Democrats look to have the upper hand in the House right now.

But if Democrats win a majority, where they flip seats and how many they gain remains to be seen. Currently, 26 Republican-held districts look most in danger of changing hands in November. Former Vice President Kamala Harris carried five of these seats in 2024, while 11 others went for Trump by fewer than 5 percentage points in margin. Trump carried the other 10 districts by between 5 and 13 points, but seven of those seats had closer margins in their House races than the presidential contest.

In this analysis, I also considered the median rating from experts at The Cook Political Report, Inside Elections, and Sabato’s Crystal Ball. They give Democrats at least a slight edge in two seats and view another 14 as toss-ups. The remaining 10 districts are split, with four leaning toward the GOP and six still likely to go Republican. Recall that Democrats only need a net gain of three seats, and swing seats tend to mostly shift to one party, which in a midterm is more likely to be the party outside the White House.

Nonetheless, Democrats have to win more seats on Trump-won turf to win back the House in 2026 than they did in 2018. Eight years ago, Democrats’ 40-seat gain involved flipping 22 GOP-held seats that Trump had lost to Hillary Clinton in 2016. This time around, Democrats could realistically flip about nine seats that Harris carried — the five above and four via obvious redistricting changes (three in California and one in Utah). Even if Virginia passes a pro-Democratic redistricting referendum that could net the party four seats, that would still only total 13 Harris-won seats — and Republicans will make their own gains from redistricting.

The five Harris-won seats

On Friday, Republican Rep. Kevin Kiley announced that he would seek reelection in California’s 6th District as an independent after redistricting tore up his old seat. Kiley undoubtedly starts out as an underdog, as evidenced by the “Likely Democratic” rating outlets have assigned to this seat. He will have a tough time sharply separating himself from his traditional party label in a seat that Harris carried by 8 points in 2024. Even downballot, this seat is relatively unfavorable for the GOP, especially in a blue-leaning midterm year. In 2024, Democratic House candidates won 53% of the vote in this seat to the Republican candidates’ 47%, according to Dave’s Redistricting App.

Still, Kiley does stand a good chance of facing a Democrat head-to-head in November, which marginally improves his chances. In states with typical party primaries, Kiley would run the risk of campaigning against both a Democrat and a Republican in the general election, which would split the right-leaning vote across two candidates. But in California’s top-two primary, all candidates regardless of party appear on the ballot and the two leading vote-getters advance to the general. Four notable Democrats are running but only one minor Republican, so Kiley has a decent chance of advancing, even if he will likely be an underdog in November.

Democrats will also have a good shot of flipping Nebraska’s 2nd District around Omaha, where GOP Rep. Don Bacon is retiring. Bacon won five highly competitive elections despite the seat’s light-blue tint at the presidential level. With Bacon, this was a top Democratic target; without him, it’s already somewhat favored to flip. Moreover, suburban and highly-educated districts are where Democrats have been on the march as of late. Overall, 43% of the district’s population that is age 25 or older has at least a bachelor’s degree, compared to 37% nationally. Republicans have coalesced around Omaha City Councilman Brinker Harding, who has said he would likely be similar to Bacon in “many ways.” But he may begin the general election campaign as an underdog against whomever Democrats nominate out of a crowded primary field.

California’s 48th District, which now runs from outside San Diego to Palm Springs, is another top Democratic target. Along with Kiley’s 6th District, the 48th is among the five redrawn seats that Democrats aim to flip in California. And it just became more difficult for the GOP to defend: On Friday, wealthy Republican Rep. Darrell Issa announced that he would not seek reelection just ahead of the candidate filing deadline. Although another Republican, San Diego County Supervisor Jim Desmond, filed here, Issa’s about-face is telling about the difficulties many Republicans expect to face in November. One Democrat is likely to advance among Naval Reservist Ammar Campa-Najjar (who lost to Issa in 2020), businessman Brandon Riker, and San Diego City Councilmember Marni von Wilpert.

The other two Harris-won seats could be harder for Democrats to flip. In New York’s Hudson Valley-based 17th District, GOP Rep. Mike Lawler has a strong electoral track record that could help him survive a toss-up race. In 2024, he won 52%, running ahead of Trump’s 49%; and in 2022, he defeated Democratic Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney, the then-chair of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. Democrats have a potentially messy primary that has seen a fair bit of acrimony.

Republican Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick has an even more formidable history of winning on purple turf around Philadelphia. He won 56% in 2024, running far ahead of Trump’s 49% in Pennsylvania’s 1st District. Just once, in the 2018 blue wave, has Fitzpatrick won by fewer than 8 points since he first won his Bucks County-based seat in 2016. (He was preceded by his brother, Republican Rep. Mike Fitzpatrick, in the same seat.) Bucks County Commissioner Bob Harvie is likely the leading Democratic contender, although a number of Democrats are running.

The eight most endangered Trump-won seats

The most well-educated swing seat in the country is New Jersey’s 7th District, where 56% of the population has at least a bachelor’s degree. Republican Rep. Tom Kean Jr. has won two close races here, but he faces a tough fight in a blue-leaning midterm year in a seat Trump only carried by 1 point in 2024. Regardless of whom Democrats nominate from a busy primary field, this race will be wildly expensive. After all, the North Jersey seat sits entirely within the ultra-expensive New York City media market.

Two highly-educated suburban seats in Arizona are also up for grabs. In the 1st District around Scottsdale in the Phoenix area, 55% of the population has at least a bachelor’s degree. And the Trump +3 seat is open after Republican Rep. David Schweikert decided to mount an underdog campaign for governor. Both parties have competitive primaries. Conversely, the 6th District around Tucson (40% bachelor’s or more) already has its matchup more or less set: GOP Rep. Juan Ciscomani, who won close races in both 2022 and 2024, will face Democrat JoAnna Mendoza, a retired Marine Corps drill instructor. Trump carried this seat by a hair less than 1 point in 2024.

Michigan’s 7th District around Lansing is another roughly Trump +1 seat that the GOP must defend in 2026. In 2024, Republican Rep. Tom Barrett flipped this district in an open-seat race following Democratic Rep. Elissa Slotkin’s decision to run for Senate (a contest she narrowly won). Former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Bridget Brink leads the fundraising battle among Democrats, but she likely faces a competitive primary against Navy SEAL veteran Matt Maasdam and progressive activist William Lawrence, who co-founded the Sunrise Movement.

Running north from the Denver suburbs, Colorado’s 8th District will also be highly competitive. Republican Rep. Gabe Evans flipped this Trump+2 seat in 2024 by less than 1 point, making him a top target for Democrats. A number of Democrats have lined up to take on Evans, led by strong fundraisers state Rep. Manny Rutinel ($2.5 million raised) and former state Rep. Shannon Bird ($1.2 million). They’ll need every dollar, as Evans had raised $3.0 million at the end of 2025.

Of the five GOP-held seats that California Democrats targeted in redistricting, they may have the most trouble defeating GOP Rep. David Valadao in the heavily Latino 22nd District. The new lines made this a Trump +2 seat, down from +6 under the old lines. But Democrats may regret not making this seat bluer in redistricting. Outside of a razor-thin 2018 defeat, Valadao regularly won even when Latino voters in this region had a clearer Democratic lean in presidential races — which is not necessarily the case after 2024. In the top-two primary, moderate Democratic state Assemblymember Jasmeet Bains or her more progressive challenger, college professor Randy Villegas, will likely advance to face Valadao in November.

Two Republicans are also defending seats in Virginia that Trump carried by fewer than 5 points in 2024: Reps. Jen Kiggans in the 2nd District and Rob Wittman in the 1st District. Both seats will be highly competitive under the current lines. However, if voters back Virginia’s April 21 redistricting referendum — and the Virginia Supreme Court doesn’t rule against its legality — then both will be in much greater danger. Under the proposed lines, Kiggans’ seat would become a Harris +5 seat, while Wittman’s district would be ripped up and leave him with no good options.

The other 13 vulnerable seats

We will quickly cover the remaining 13 contests, all of which are Trump-won districts spread across six states. These seats are whiter than the country as a whole and some are not as highly-educated — factors that could make it somewhat more difficult for Democrats to win these seats. Still, many of these seats have had very competitive House elections under their current lines.

All three of Pennsylvania’s seats in this section were decided by fewer than 2 points in margin in 2024. The closest winner was freshman Republican Rep. Ryan Mackenzie, who carried the 7th District by 1 point. But while the Democratic primary to face Mackenzie looks competitive, the general election matchups are pretty much set in the state’s other two highly competitive seats. In the 10th District around Harrisburg, Republican Rep. Scott Perry faces a rematch with Democrat Janelle Stelson, whom Perry only defeated by barely more than 1 point in 2024. And in the 8th District in northeast Pennsylvania, freshman GOP Rep. Robert Bresnahan looks likely to face Scranton Mayor Paige Cognetti.

In Iowa, the most endangered House incumbent is Republican Rep. Zach Nunn in the Des Moines-based 3rd District. He is set to face state Sen. Sarah Trone Garriott in a toss-up contest. Meanwhile, GOP Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeks faces a third battle with Democrat Christina Bohannan, whom Miller-Meeks barely beat in 2024 in this Iowa City-based seat. Lastly, Iowa’s open 2nd District around Cedar Rapids could be competitive if some of the trends we’ve seen in recent special elections in eastern Iowa move the seat toward Democrats.

In Wisconsin, the seat that Trump carried by a little over 7 points looks more competitive than the district he won by 4.5 points. In Wisconsin’s 3rd District, which covers much of the Driftless Area, Republican Rep. Derrick Van Orden has come under fire for some of his behavior in Congress, and he faces a rematch with Democrat Rebecca Cooke, who lost to the incumbent by about 3 points in 2024. But in the 1st District south of Milwaukee, Republican Rep. Bryan Steil has had little trouble winning even though his seat has seemed potentially competitive. Still, the partisan baseline of that seat could make this Steil’s toughest cycle yet.

Michigan has two additional competitive seats. Most notably, the 10th District in the Detroit suburbs around Macomb County is open due to the gubernatorial run of GOP Rep. John James. This seat is interesting because, based on back-of-the-envelope math, it’s right around the tipping point of the national environment, at least based on its 2024 presidential vote. Trump carried it by 6.5 points while leading the national popular vote by 1.5 points. That puts the seat 5 points to the right of the country — which is about where the Democrats’ current generic ballot margin sits. Additionally, Rep. Bill Huizenga could find himself in a competitive race against Democratic state Sen. Sean McCann in the 4th District in western Michigan.

We will end with three western districts. In Colorado, Democrats came close to flipping the 3rd District in the western half of the state in 2022, and they might have a shot at competing here again if Republicans nominate a more extreme candidate. Trump un-endorsed Republican Rep. Jeff Hurd following his vote against Trump’s tariffs and endorsed Hurd’s primary opponent, Hope Scheppelman. In Colorado’s 5th District around Colorado Springs, the highly-educated seat has held out promise for Democrats, who aim to give Rep. Jeff Crank a serious challenge. Lastly, in Alaska’s at-large seat, Republican Rep. Nick Begich III only narrowly ousted Democratic Rep. Mary Peltola in 2024; while Peltola is running for Senate in 2026, Begich could still have trouble in the idiosyncratic state.

***

We will finish up this series in the near future by outlining the key Democratic-held seats in the House as well as some peripherally competitive GOP-held seats that could come into play in a blue wave-type environment. However, we will preview the March 17 primaries before we get to that!

📆 Around the Corner 📌

Notable upcoming elections:

• March 10, 2026

  • GA-14 Special Election (runoff possible)

• April 7, 2026

  • Wisconsin Supreme Court General Election

  • GA-14 Special Election Runoff (if necessary)

• April 16, 2026

  • NJ-11 Special Election

Check out our 2026 Primary Primer for more information about the regular primaries happening in 2026!

Primary season kicked off with a bang on March 3. As the year progresses, we will offer a rundown of notable results after major primary elections. Here’s what happened last night. (Data is as of 4 a.m. Eastern on March 4, 2026).

Marquee races

In Texas’s Republican primary for U.S. Senate, it turned out reports of incumbent Sen. John Cornyn’s political demise had been at least somewhat exaggerated. With 93% of the expected vote reporting, Cornyn holds a tiny 42%-41% lead over state Attorney General Ken Paxton. The two candidates now advance to a May 26 runoff, which means there will be nearly three more months of campaigning ahead. That will surely include millions of dollars in advertising from Cornyn and his allies aimed at Paxton.

The big question is, will President Donald Trump endorse now that the runoff is set? Asked just before the primary if he knew who he would endorse, Trump said “pretty much, yeah,” but did not reveal his preferred candidate. One tea leaf: Trump senior adviser Chris LaCivita issued a veiled warning about the impending runoff to Paxton and Jeff Roe, the founder of Axiom Strategies, which is running Paxton’s campaign. That might suggest an opening for a Cornyn endorsement, which would thrill D.C. Republicans desperate to avoid Paxton.

Paxton still starts out as at least a slight favorite in the runoff, even with all the money Cornyn will have behind him. Texas runoffs have tended to favor more conservative candidates, such as the 2012 GOP Senate race that saw now-Sen. Ted Cruz handily dispatch then-Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst 57%-43%. And fact is, Cornyn is an incumbent who won about 42% in his own party’s primary — fundamentally a weak performance, even if it went somewhat better than expected for him.

While the Republican race will continue, Democrats look to have their nominee. A little after 2 a.m. Eastern, DDHQ projected that state Rep. James Talarico will defeat Rep. Jasmine Crockett in the Democratic primary for Senate. With 90% of the expected vote reporting, Talarico leads 53%-46%.

Talarico can now start his general election campaign. But while he has clearly energized many Democratic voters, Talarico remains an underdog in a state that Trump carried by almost 14 percentage points.

Tough night for other incumbents

Cornyn was far from the only incumbent member of Congress potentially on the ropes last night. As of 4 a.m. Eastern, one incumbent has lost renomination, four look to be headed to primary runoffs they could lose, and just one looks to have potentially won in an unprojected race.

Republican Rep. Dan Crenshaw will forever be the answer to the extremely niche trivia question that only I will ever ask: “Who was the first member of Congress to lose renomination in the 2026 election cycle?” In Texas’s 2nd District, Crenshaw faced a challenge from the right by state Rep. Toth, who leads the incumbent by 16 points, 56%-40%, with 88% of the expected vote reporting.

Four other incumbents are either projected to go to a runoff or look to be on course for that outcome:

• Texas’s 23rd District (projected): Although under a cloud of scandal, Rep. Tony Gonzales avoided defeat — for now at least. But with most of the expected vote reporting, gun influencer Brandon Herrera leads Gonzales 43%-42%. Herrera looks like he could get the better of Gonzales after the incumbent narrowly fended off Herrera in 2024.

• Texas’s 33rd District (projected): Rep. Julie Johnson and former Rep. Colin Allred are headed to a runoff. With around 80% of the expected vote reporting, Allred leads 45%-34% in a race between a current member (Johnson) and her predecessor on the same turf (Allred).

• Texas’s 18th District (unprojected): We do not have a projection yet in the incumbent-versus-incumbent Democratic primary between Reps. Al Green and Christian Menefee. But with most of the expected vote reporting, both candidates are under 50%, with Menefee ahead just 46%-45%.

The other House incumbent does look to have a shot at winning outright in the primary. While we don’t yet have a projection in North Carolina’s 4th District, Rep. Valerie Foushee leads Durham County Commissioner Nida Allam 49%-48% with most of the expected vote reporting. Unlike Texas, where a majority is required to avoid a runoff, North Carolina’s threshold is only 30%,

Beyond Congress, a couple of notable incumbents have lost or could lose renomination. First, in Texas’s GOP primary for Agriculture Commissioner, incumbent Sid Miller lost to challenger Nate Sheets. With 88% of the expected vote in, Sheets leads 53%-47%.

Meanwhile, North Carolina state Senate President Phil Berger has not lost yet, but his race stands all-too-metaphorically on a knife’s edge: He trails Rockingham County Sheriff Sam Page by two votes in the 26th State Senate District GOP primary. Provisional ballots still need to be counted, so it’s anyone’s guess who will end up on top. But Gerry Cohen, a member of the Wake County election board, noted an unusual provision in North Carolina’s electoral law could come into play here that he’s not sure has ever been triggered. If a race in a district that includes more than one county (the 26th has two) is tied after the full canvass of returns, no recount occurs and an automatic second primary occurs. Who says your vote doesn’t count?

Other notable races

A handful of other races had notable results. We’ll quickly run through them.

Republican primaries to face an endangered Democratic incumbent:

• North Carolina’s 1st District: Former Trump administration official Laurie Buckhout won the GOP nomination race to face Democratic Rep. Don Davis in a redrawn seat that Trump would have carried by close to 12 points. Buckhout narrowly lost to Davis in 2024 in this seat under the old lines.

• Texas’s 34th District: In the Battle of Floreses, former federal prosecutor Eric Flores comfortably defeated former Rep. Mayra Flores in the Republican primary for this South Texas seat, 57%-26%. Eric Flores will now face Democratic Rep. Vicente Gonzalez in a Trump +10 seat.

Additional open seats of note:

• Texas’s 35th District: The Republican primary for this redrawn seat, which Trump would have also carried by around 10 points, is headed to a runoff between state Rep. John Lujan and Air Force veteran Carlos De La Cruz. Democrats are also advancing to a runoff between systems therapist Maureen Galindo and Bexar County Sheriff’s Deputy Johnny Garcia.

• Texas Attorney General: State Rep. Mayes Middleton and Rep. Chip Roy are headed to a runoff in the GOP nomination race to succeed Ken Paxton.

In Arkansas, which also voted Tuesday, Democrats easily flipped a state House seat just north of Little Rock. The vacant formerly Republican-held seat, which former Vice President Kamala Harris very narrowly carried in 2024, swung quite sharply to the left. Democrat Alex Holladay defeated Republican Bryan Renshaw, 69%-31%.

***

OK, it’s bed time. But make sure to check out all the results on Votes, DDHQ’s new election data portal. You can see maps, prediction market odds, and tons of other information about contests both big and small.

🍺 What’s on tap 🚰

Today’s newsletter features:

Introducing DDHQ Votes: Learn about the launch of Decision Desk HQ’s new election data portal.

The Frontrunner: Previewing 10 primaries to watch on March 3 in Texas and North Carolina.

Around the Corner: Upcoming elections we’re tracking at DDHQ.

Subscribe now

☑️ Introducing DDHQ Votes ☑️

Decision Desk HQ is excited to formally announce the release of Votes, our new election data portal!

Dive into the world of election data with DDHQ Votes:

• Up-to-date polling on the key issues and races

• Track how prediction markets are moving

• 25 years of election results at your fingertips

• Track election results as they come in

• From local to federal, find every race

• Coming Soon: DDHQ Forecast

Click here to learn more about Votes and sign up now! On Tuesday, it will the best place to get March 3 primary results from states like Texas and North Carolina, so don’t miss out.

📈 The Frontrunner 🥇

10 races to watch closely on March 3

Quick summary:

• North Carolina: The U.S. Senate primaries in North Carolina won’t be all that competitive, so the main action is in two U.S. House primaries. One will select the Republican nominee to face Rep. Don Davis, one of the most endangered Democrats in the House, while the other is a much-watched Democratic primary clash between more progressive and establishment forces that could see Rep. Valerie Foushee lose renomination. Additionally, long-time Republican state Senate President Phil Berger could lose in his primary

• Texas: Out of a huge number of interesting primaries, the biggest ones to watch will be each party’s nomination race for Senate. Democrats will choose between Rep. Jasmine Crockett and state Rep. James Talarico, while Republicans appear headed for a runoff on May 26, most likely between incumbent Sen. John Cornyn and state Attorney General Ken Paxton. We also dive into six other House primaries, including four in which an incumbent may or will lose.

And we’re off! The 2026 primary season begins on Tuesday with elections in Arkansas, North Carolina, and Texas. Of those states, the biggest contests are found in Texas and North Carolina. Voting on March 3 will include primaries for the top-tier U.S. Senate contests in both states, as well as U.S. House primaries that could see the ouster of as many as five incumbents.

We can’t get into every race here, so make sure to check out Decision Desk HQ’s new Votes platform, where we have a more extended list of featured races to monitor as returns come in on Tuesday night.

North Carolina

Polls close: 7:30 p.m. Eastern

Top races to watch: 1st and 4th congressional districts; 26th State Senate District

North Carolina will have one of the most closely watched Senate races in the country this fall. But former Gov. Roy Cooper and former Republican National Committee Chair Michael Whatley are expected to easily win their party primaries on Tuesday. As a result, the biggest races to watch in the Tar Heel State will be two contests in the U.S. House and an unusually high-profile state Senate race involving a longtime state GOP leader.

In the 1st District in eastern North Carolina, Rep. Don Davis is of the most endangered House Democrats. Last November, the GOP-led state legislature redrew the state’s congressional map to make the 1st much redder, shifting it from a seat that President Donald Trump carried by about 3 percentage points in 2024 to one where he led by nearly 12. Retired Army Col. Laurie Buckhout, who lost to Davis by about 2 points in 2024, is one of the five Republicans seeking the GOP nomination here. Her main primary opponents look to be Carteret County Sheriff Asa Buck and state Sen. Bobby Hanig.

Buckhout certainly has a financial edge. She loaned her campaign $2 million, most of the nearly $2.2 million she had raised as of Feb. 11, dwarfing the $345,000 and $315,000 raised by Hanig and Buck, respectively. Buckhout has also benefited from close to $1 million in outside spending support. This includes more than $500,000 from American Mission, a super PAC associated with AI, which has run ads touting Buckhout as “the Trump conservative North Carolina needs.”

Still, the only public poll of this race suggests Buckhout does not have the nomination locked up. An early February survey from Emerson College/WNCT/CBS17 found Buckhout leading Buck just 26%-22%, with Hanig back at 11%. North Carolina election rules only require a candidate to win more than 30% to avoid a runoff, so a second round of voting is unlikely here.

To the west, the dark-blue 4th District around The Research Triangle plays host to an establishment-progressive Democratic primary clash. Rep. Valerie Foushee faces a stern challenge from Durham County Commissioner Nida Allam, who lost to Foushee in the 2022 primary for a previous version of this district. With the Democratic Party’s ongoing debate over support for Israel, Allam has targeted Foushee’s past backing from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, a major bogeyman in progressive circles. Allam, who is 32 years old, is also making a generational case in her progressive challenge against the 69-year old Foushee that could resonate amid the Democrats’ post-2024 debates over candidate age.

Foushee and Allam have raised similar amounts — a bit less than $600,000 — but have both benefited from ample outside spending. As of March 1, groups had spent $2.4 million supporting Foushee and $2.1 million backing Allam or opposing the incumbent. Jobs and Democracy, a super PAC backed by AI company Anthropic that promotes an appropriately regulated AI, has spent $1.6 million supporting Foushee. Allam’s biggest proponent ($1.1 million spent) has been American Priorities, a super PAC that aims to counter the influence of pro-Israel groups in Democratic primaries. We haven’t seen any public polling of this race, but all signs point to a highly competitive race.

Lastly, the other race to watch in North Carolina is the Republican primary in the state Senate’s 26th District. The seat, which sits mostly north of Greensboro, is home to state Senate President Phil Berger, who has led that body since 2011. Berger’s opponent is longtime Rockingham County Sheriff Sam Page, who has criticized Berger’s previous support for a now-abandoned casino project in the area and Berger’s support for repealing much of the controversial 2017 “bathroom law.” Berger has not taken this lying down. He has touted his support for more immediate tax cuts, while his allies have spent millions attacking Page’s record on jail safety and immigration.

Interestingly, Trump endorsed Berger’s reelection bid late last year. The Washington Post recently reported that Berger’s team angled for an endorsement in exchange for the state Senate leader’s support for redistricting the state’s congressional map — a quid pro quo charge that Berger denies. Either way, it remains to be seen if Trump’s support will be enough to help Berger stave off a primary defeat on Tuesday.

Texas

Polls close: 8:00 p.m. Eastern in most of the state (9 p.m. around El Paso in far western corner)

Top races to watch: U.S. Senate; 2nd, 18th, 23rd, 33rd, 34th, 35th congressional districts

In modern times, Texas has not had a U.S. Senate election in which both parties had highly competitive nomination races. Until this year.

On the Republican side of the aisle, incumbent Sen. John Cornyn finds himself fighting for his political life in a three-way contest with Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton and Rep. Wesley Hunt. A significant portion of the GOP base appears inclined to discard Cornyn after four terms. In Decision Desk HQ’s polling average, he’s garnering only 35%, placing him behind Paxton’s 39% and ahead of Hunt’s 17%. Texas requires a candidate to win an outright majority for the nomination, so a May 26 primary runoff between the top-two vote-getters looks like a given.

The resources poured into this primary have been astounding. Cornyn and his allies had spent or reserved $69 million in ads as of Feb. 27, according to data from AdImpact. That amounted to more than two-thirds of the $95.1 million in bookings for the GOP primary. Combined with the $27.5 million in ad spending and bookings in the Democratic primary, Texas now has the most expensive Senate primary on record.

Worryingly for the Cornyn camp, the huge spending advantage over Paxton has not dramatically altered the contours of the race. Still, the attacks continue apace because many Republicans fear that Paxton would be a weaker general election candidate due to a lengthy list of personal and professional scandals. To aid Cornyn, his allies have lobbied Trump to endorse the incumbent, but the president opted to stay out of the race ahead of the primary.

The pro-Cornyn forces have truly gone scorched earth in the closing days of the campaign. An ad run jointly by the National Republican Senatorial Committee and Cornyn accused “crooked Ken” of “sleeping around with a married mother of seven” right after his wife filed for divorce on “Biblical grounds.” The spot also claimed that Paxton had enriched himself while in office and had given millions of tax dollars to “left-wing organizations.”

Paxton has responded to these attacks by turning to his family. In an op-ed and a campaign ad, one of his four children defended him as a family man who “loves God” and “loves his country.” As for Hunt, he seemed to be on the rise just a few weeks ago, in part because he had attracted millions in opposition spending. At this point, though, it would be a surprise if he made the likely runoff. Still, we shouldn’t write him off entirely: Pro-Hunt forces have spent more money than pro-Paxton forces, and primary polling error is much higher than general election polling error.

For Democrats, a Paxton victory could create an opening in the general election. It’s been 84 years — ahem, sorry, 32 years since the party won a statewide race in Texas, and 38 years since it won a Senate contest. But the Democratic primary between Rep. Jasmine Crockett and state Rep. James Talarico has clearly energized the party’s voters. Turnout is far higher than in recent non-presidential primaries, to the point that this could be the first midterm election since 2002 in which more Texas voters participate in the Democratic primary than the GOP primary.

And the much-watched Democratic race looks to be on a knife’s edge. As of Sunday evening, Decision Desk HQ’s polling average has Crockett (46.5%) and Talarico (46.0)% running just about even.

Crockett entered the race as the better-known figure, but Talarico has led the way on traditional campaign metrics, like fundraising and ad spending. Talarico has outraised Crockett $20.7 million to $8.6 million, and pro-Talarico forces had invested $22.1 million in advertising as of Feb. 27, per AdImpact’s data, almost five times more than the pro-Crockett side. Still, Crockett has attracted ample free earned media and has benefited from some high-profile endorsements. This includes a robocall recorded by former Vice President Kamala Harris that encourages voters to support Crockett.

With the prospect of a competitive general election, “electability” has become a much-discussed feature of this race. As a white, scripture-quoting man, Talarico and his allies argue that he can make inroads with some Texas voters who would not traditionally consider voting for a Democrat, very likely a necessity to build a winning coalition in a state Trump carried by nearly 14 points in 2024. Crockett, a Black woman known for her combative style, contends that she can appeal to disengaged Texans who typically don’t vote in a state with one of the lowest turnout rates in the country.

For their part, Republicans would prefer to face Crockett. Republican Gov. Greg Abbott’s political operation has spent more than $3 million on ads ostensibly attacking Crockett, but with the real aim of promoting her among Democrats — an approach often used in the past by Democrats to boost more problematic Republicans in GOP nominating contests.

Polls suggest Crockett will dominate among Black voters, while white voters will likely prefer Talarico to some extent. So, as Gabby Birenbaum of The Texas Tribune pointed out on the most recent DDHQ Podcast, Latino voters could prove decisive in this contest. This helps explain the efforts made by Talarico and Crockett to engage with Latino Democratic candidates and with the Latino community more broadly.

Considering Texas has 38 U.S. House seats and just redrew its district map, there are enough interesting congressional primaries to more than fill a 10-gallon hat. (Not to mention the primaries for Texas’s many other statewide offices). We will dig into races in six districts: two with Democratic primaries and two with Republican primaries in which an incumbent could lose renomination, a red-leaning seat held by a Democrat with a competitive GOP primary, and a newly-drawn open seat that could be competitive.

To start, Republican Rep. Tony Gonzales in the 23rd District is probably the incumbent most vulnerable to a primary challenge this Tuesday. In his southwest Texas seat, Gonzales faces gun influencer Brandon Herrera in a rematch of the 2024 GOP primary — a race that went to a runoff that Gonzales only won by about 1 point. Given that result, another close race always seemed likely. However, this time around Gonzales had Trump’s endorsement, providing the incumbent with a helpful boost.

But recent news has placed Gonzales under extreme political duress. Last year, a former Gonzales staffer committed suicide. The married Gonzales, who has six children, denied allegations that he had been romantically involved with the late staffer. But in February, evidence surfaced that the staffer had told a colleague that she and Gonzales had an affair. Then correspondence came to light that showed Gonzales had sent explicit text messages to the staffer, which prompted some Republicans in Congress to call for him to resign. Gonzales has continued to deny the allegations of an affair.

All of this could doom Gonzales to defeat. Perhaps tellingly, Trump reposted on Friday every endorsement he had made of a congressional contender in Texas, except for Gonzales.

Another at-risk GOP incumbent is Rep. Dan Crenshaw of the 2nd District in the Houston area. He faces a primary challenge from state Rep. Steve Toth, who has attacked Crenshaw for not being sufficiently conservative. Crenshaw has upset some on the right with his more hawkish foreign policy views, including his support for Ukraine in its ongoing conflict with Russia. Toth has put a scare into a Republican incumbent before, too: In 2016, he held then-Rep. Kevin Brady, chairman of the powerful Ways and Means Committee, to 53% in the 8th District primary.

Crenshaw does have a sizable financial edge. He has outraised Toth, $2.1 million to $589,000, and as of March 1, outside groups had invested $2.9 million supporting Crenshaw or attacking Toth, compared with $857,000 in similar spending on behalf of Toth. But Toth has real money behind him and some notable endorsements, too, including from Sen. Ted Cruz. Crenshaw, meanwhile, is the only incumbent House Republican from Texas whom Trump did not endorse.

In redistricting, Republicans aimed to win as many five seats currently held by Democrats. Among them was the 34th District in South Texas, held by Democratic Rep. Vicente Gonzalez, which the new lines swung from Trump +4 to Trump +10. The Republican primary looks to be a contest between two candidates named Flores who are not related: former Rep. Mayra Flores, who lost to Gonzalez in the 2022 and 2024 general elections after winning a special election earlier in 2022, and former federal prosecutor Eric Flores.

The former congresswoman has shown strong fundraising chops, raising $1.4 million without any self-funding. While Eric Flores has raised a similar amount ($1.3 million) in a shorter period of active campaigning, a bit more than one-third of his haul came out of his own pocket. Still, the former prosecutor may have a Trump card: the president’s endorsement. Having lost twice, Mayra Flores may have worn out her welcome as the GOP looks to flip this seat.

South and east of San Antonio, the newly-drawn 35th District is another seat that Trump carried by about 10 points in 2024. After the lines changed substantially, Democratic Rep. Greg Casar opted to run in the new 37th District around Austin, leaving this seat open. A whopping 11 Republicans are seeking this seat, with perhaps four or so realistically having a shot. With that many candidates, a runoff is a distinct possibility.

The candidate with the best chance of winning is Carlos De La Cruz, an Air Force veteran and brother of GOP Rep. Monica De La Cruz of Texas’s 15th District. He has Trump’s endorsement, which could be the ticket to victory on Tuesday or in a runoff. However, De La Cruz has not raised a huge amount of money ($294,000 as of Feb. 11), which may have precipitated the more than $700,000 he’s received in outside spending support. His main opponents are state Rep. John Lujan, Navy veteran Jay Furman, and former congressional aide Josh Cortez.

Democrats have not written off this seat, though they start out as underdogs. The party’s primary voters will choose between Bexar County Sheriff’s Deputy Johnny Garcia and Marine veteran John Lira. While the two Democrats have raised similar amounts in the low-to-mid $100,000 range, Garcia may have the upper hand thanks to $300,000 in outside spending by BDA Action, a group connected to the moderate Blue Dog Democrats.

In the newly-drawn 18th District in Houston, one of Democratic Reps. Al Green or Christian Menefee will lose in an incumbent-versus-incumbent primary in a safe blue seat. Redistricting threw longtime member Green in with the newly-elected Menefee, who won a Jan. 31 special election for the old 18th District that had been vacant since Rep. Sylvester Turner died in March 2025. With redistricting, Republicans combined around two-thirds of Green’s current 9th District with about one-quarter of the old 18th District that Menefee just won, ultimately creating a heavily Democratic seat that narrowly has a citizen voting-age population with a Black majority.

Green might seem like the favorite, considering he already represents much of the population in this seat and has been in Congress for more than two decades. However, Green has not faced a competitive primary in years, and Menefee has been actively campaigning for nearly a year, between his special election bid for the old 18th and the regular primary for the new 18th. Although Green entered the home stretch of the race with far more money in the bank ($539,000 to $130,000), Menefee has received $1.7 million in outside spending assistance. Menefee’s main benefactor is Protect Progress, a pro-crypto group that has targeted Green because he voted against recent legislation dealing with crypto currency.

Lastly, Democratic Rep. Julie Johnson could lose renomination to her predecessor, former Rep. Colin Allred, who is challenging Johnson in the new version of the solidly blue 33rd District in the Dallas-Forth Worth area. When Allred ran for Senate against Cruz in 2024, he left behind the old and firmly blue 32nd District, which Johnson won. But then the GOP’s redistricting plan turned the 32nd into a safe Republican seat, and Johnson decided to run in the new 33rd, which contains about one-third of her current, expiring seat. Allred had been running for Senate again, but with Crockett about to enter the race, he switched to run for this congressional seat.

Allred outraised Johnson in the last pre-primary fundraising period before Feb. 11, $609,000 to $288,000. But Johnson has enjoyed a surge in outside spending support to shore up her position. All told, outside groups have spent about $711,000 supporting her or opposing Allred, compared with $339,000 on Allred’s behalf. And while Allred’s campaign released a December poll showing him up 58%-30%, Johnson may have closed that gap thanks to support from major figures like Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who endorsed Johnson.

***

There are many more races of interest happening on March 3, including a number of state office primaries in Texas. Make sure to follow the returns on Votes, our new election platform. And watch for further info about DDHQ’s livestream coverage of the results on Tuesday evening, which will be live on our YouTube page and X account.

📆 Around the Corner 📌

Notable upcoming elections:

• March 10, 2026

  • GA-14 Special Election (runoff possible)

• April 7, 2026

  • Wisconsin Supreme Court General Election

  • GA-14 Special Election Runoff (if necessary)

• April 16, 2026

  • NJ-11 Special Election

Check out our 2026 Primary Primer for more information about the regular primaries happening in 2026!

🍺 What’s on tap 🚰

Today’s newsletter features:

Opening Bell: Must-read items about elections and politics.

The Frontrunner: An initial look at the U.S. House map in 2026.

Blake Burman on Prediction Markets: Blake Burman, Chief Washington Correspondent for NewsNation, runs a Substack where he tracks political prediction markets. This week, he looks at tariff refunds, State of the Union guests, and…aliens!

Around the Corner: Upcoming elections we’re tracking at DDHQ.

Subscribe now

🔔 Opening Bell 🐏

Must-read items about elections and politics.

• Under-fire Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem could be looking for an offramp: a run for office in her home state. The Atlantic reported last week that Noem might mount a primary challenge against Sen. Mike Rounds, a fellow Republican, in South Dakota’s 2026 Senate race. She could also run for the state’s open at-large House seat, which she previously held from 2011 to 2019.

• Wisconsin state House speaker Robin Vos announced he would not seek reelection in 2026. Wisconsin’s longest-serving speaker, Vos played an influential role in passing many conservative measures, particularly during Republican Gov. Scott Walker’s tenure from 2011 to 2019. But he came into conflict with President Donald Trump over certification of the state’s 2020 election results. Trump endorsed Vos’s primary opponent in 2022, and Vos only narrowly won renomination.

• Redistricting nuggets:

  • A New York state appeals court refused to block a ruling ordering the state’s redistricting commission to redraw New York’s 11th District, a solidly red Staten Island-based seat held by Republican Rep. Nicole Malliotakis. Unless the U.S. Supreme Court steps in, Malliotakis is likely to find herself running in a far more competitive seat this year.

  • Utah’s Supreme Court rejected an appeal by the Republican-led legislature to overturn a new congressional map drawn by a state district court — lines that are all but certain to move one GOP-held seat into Democratic hands. The last hope for Utah Republicans is a federal lawsuit. However, that case rests on the “independent state legislature theory,” which the U.S. Supreme Court mostly rejected in a 2023 decision regarding redistricting in North Carolina.

  • Virginia Democrats’ redistricting effort hit a snag when a state circuit court judge ordered state officials to halt preparation for the state’s April 21 redistricting referendum. Among the arguments offered by the GOP plaintiffs was a claim that the ballot question’s wording is misleading and designed to favor a pro-redistricting outcome. The decision will likely be appealed and end up in front of the state Supreme Court.

  • Want more redistricting? Last week, the Decision Desk HQ Podcast did a redistricting refresher with Nathaniel Rakich from Votebeat. We dug into some of the latest developments in the national clash over congressional lines.

☑️ Introducing DDHQ Votes ☑️

Decision Desk HQ is excited to announce that it will soon release Votes, our new election data portal. Dive into the world of election data with DDHQ Votes:

• Up-to-date polling on the key issues and races

• Track how prediction markets are moving

• 25 years of election results at your fingertips

• Track election results as they come in

• From local to federal, find every race

• Coming Soon: DDHQ Forecast

Please join the waiting list for Votes now! Those on the waiting list will receive early access to Votes when it launches in the very near future.

📈 The Frontrunner 🥇

A first look at the House playing field

Quick summary:

• The main U.S. House seats to watch are 25 Republican-held and 20 Democratic-controlled districts. The good news for the GOP is that only four of their 25 seats voted for former Vice President Kamala Harris in the 2024 election. Still, the 2026 electoral environment looks like it will be at least somewhat blue-leaning, which could be enough for Democrats to win back the House.

• Editor’s note: This is Part One of a three-part series. Check out Part Two and Part Three for a deeper dive into the 2026 House picture.

The 2026 midterm elections are about eight months away. A lot can and will happen in that time. More states might redistrict; attitudes about President Donald Trump’s job performance and the GOP-controlled federal government could shift; and the parties will pick their nominees in key races in which a stronger or weaker contender could affect the margins just enough to matter to the outcome.

Despite that timeline, we already have a decent idea about which congressional districts will most likely determine control of the U.S. House of Representatives. Republicans hold a razor-thin 220-215 majority, if we include the three (relatively) uncompetitive vacant seats with the party that held them previously. That means Democrats only need a net gain of three seats to gain control. The mid-decade redistricting clash has scrambled the seat-by-seat math to some extent, but it’s clear that a group of around 45 competitive seats will probably decide control of the House in 2026.

Here then is a first look at the state of the House playing field. I will refresh this analysis multiple times between now and November. The numbers could and almost certainly will change some as we get new information. And the second and third parts of this series will focus on the most vulnerable Republican- and Democratic-held seats. Still, many aspects of this analysis will remain relevant even eight months from now. Using a mixture of qualitative and quantitative measures, including district-level electoral data, race ratings by election handicappers, and party target lists, I have broken down the House into some broad categories. Let’s take a look.

The marquee contests

At this point, the 2026 electoral environment looks like it will be at least somewhat Democratic-leaning. After all, the president’s party usually loses ground in the House in midterms, and voters’ attitudes toward Trump do not look likely to ameliorate that presidential penalty. As of Sunday, the president’s approval rating was just shy of 43% in Decision Desk HQ’s average, a position historically associated with roughly a 30-seat loss.

All in all, Democrats appear fairly likely to win the House. They have held a consistent (but not large) lead in the generic ballot, a measure that tends to trend in the direction of the party out of power as the election nears. And prediction markets give Democrats slightly better than a 4 in 5 chance of taking control. None of this means Democrats are on track to win a large majority. But they are favored to claim more seats.

Knowing this information, we can begin to sort the House’s 435 seats into broad categories of competitiveness. Here are my groupings and the number of districts that fall into each one.

The core seats of interest are 25 Republican-held and 20 Democratic-controlled districts that we describe as most clearly “in play.” Suffice it to say, if Democrats win around half of these GOP-held seats and hold onto most of their seats, they will win a narrow majority. Still, if Republicans make inroads into some of the key Democratic-held seats and hold onto many of their own, they might just barely lose control of the chamber — or even find a path to keep it.

The good news for Republicans is that only four of their 25 seats voted for former Vice President Kamala Harris in the 2024 election. Fact is, Democrats have only a few Republicans to target in competitive seats that Harris carried. That’s a very different reality from the 2018 midterms, when the Democrats could pursue a large number of light-blue or purple seats held by Republicans that had moved toward Democrats in the 2016 presidential election.

Still, 17 of these seats voted for Harris or backed Trump by 5.5 percentage points or fewer. That figure is a back-of-the-envelope threshold that points to the potential vulnerability of these seats. Trump led the national popular vote by about 1.5 points in 2024, but Democrats have slightly better than a 4-point edge in our generic ballot polling average — all told, that would amount to about a 5.5-point swing to the left from 2024.

We will go into more detail about these seats in the next part of this series, but here are a couple of potential wrinkles to monitor. First, redistricting could change district lines in Virginia, home to two seats on this list. Should Democrats convince voters to support an April 21 referendum temporarily allowing the legislature to redistrict, the Democrats’ proposed map would likely leave Rep. Rob Wittman with no good options for his reelection bid. An amended version of the map would also make Rep. Jen Kiggans’ seat somewhat bluer, hurting her chances.

Additionally, Republicans could have more trouble defending Colorado’s 3rd District thanks to a recent Trump intervention. On Saturday, Trump withdrew his endorsement of Rep. Jeff Hurd after Hurd backed a resolution disapproving of Trump’s declaration of a national emergency to raise tariffs on Canada. Trump endorsed Hurd’s primary opponent, former state party vice chair Hope Scheppelman. Although Trump carried this seat by nearly 10 points in 2024, it almost flipped to the Democrats in 2022. In that race, controversial Rep. Lauren Boebert barely won reelection; she ran in the far-redder 4th District in 2024 and Hurd won the open 3rd by about 5 points. Should Hurd lose renomination, Scheppelman might prove to be a weaker general election candidate.

Democrats do have 20 vulnerable districts to defend, some of which could prove especially tough to retain thanks to redistricting and retirements. Trump carried 12 of these districts in 2024, five by more than that 5.5-point threshold mentioned above. New Republican-drawn maps in North Carolina, Ohio, and Texas made four Trump-won seats redder, with each having a margin of at least Trump +10. And the retirement of Rep. Jared Golden opened up a Trump +9 seat in Maine, which the GOP could very well flip in November.

Reflecting the blue-tinged electoral environment, ratings outlets mostly view the other seats in this category as leaning toward the Democrats. Still, circumstances in some of these districts could change in ways that might more clearly open the door to a GOP flip. For instance, in New York’s 4th District on Long Island, Democratic Rep. Laura Gillen recently attracted a primary challenge on her left from former state Assemblymember Taylor Darling, who is attacking Gillen for voting in January to increase funding for the Department of Homeland Security. A more left-leaning candidate could have trouble in this swingy seat, especially against the GOP’s potential candidate, former Rep. Anthony D’Esposito (whom Gillen defeated in 2024).

The rest of the map

Beyond these core districts of interest, 18 other GOP-held seats are more peripheral targets for the Democrats. In other words, these are not the seats that will decide the majority, but if Democrats were to flip some of them, that would indicate a potential blue-wave type of election.

All of these are seats that Democrats are definitely pursuing, even if it might take a sizable swing for the party to flip any of them. In some cases, the GOP incumbent might have a history of underperforming the district’s lean (e.g. Eli Crane in Arizona’s 2nd) or have scandals that could endanger the seat (like Cory Mills in Florida’s 7th and Andy Ogles in Tennessee’s 5th). Other seats could be vulnerable if Latino voters swing back toward Democrats after Trump’s big gains in 2024 (Florida’s 27th, Texas’s 15th and 35th). Some are seats that might shift more if the turnout and Democratic swing among college-educated voters are especially high (Missouri’s 2nd, where close to half the population has at least a bachelor’s degree).

Redistricting uncertainty continues to hang over some races, so the analysis places a group of eight seats in limbo. Two are Republican-held seats in Virginia that could be endangered if Democrats manage to implement their proposed gerrymander. Another five are Democratic-held seats in Florida, where the GOP-led legislature may redistrict in an April special session. It remains to be seen how aggressive Sunshine State Republicans might be, but a 25-3 GOP map that nets them five seats seems like a safe upper bound. Lastly, a series of state court decisions in New York could lead to a redraw of the state’s solidly red 11th District, making it a highly competitive seat.

Lastly, 364 seats — more than 4 in 5 in the chamber — appear very likely to vote for one party or the other. Of those, 190 fall into the Democratic column. Those seats are either solidly blue seats or districts that are unlikely to be competitive in a blue-leaning midterm year. Plus, four of the seats in this group — three in California and one in Utah — are likely to flip to the Democrats thanks to redistricting. Conversely, 174 seats are sufficiently red to likely fall into the Republican basket. Of those, two are redistricted seats in Texas that are all but certain to flip to the GOP.

***

We will publish a more in-depth look at the key Republican-held seats in Part Two of this series. However, we first plan to preview the March 3 primaries in our next newsletter, so look out later in March for our next piece on the House playing field.

🟢 No Red Or Blue, Just Green 📗

Blake Burman on prediction markets:

💸 Show Me the Money?

One of the first things I said on air Friday after the Supreme Court’s ruling was to remind people that tariffs aren’t going away. Back in 2018 and 2019 during the “Trade War” between the U.S. and China, the main tariffs being used then involved what are known as Section 232 and 301. Well, they are still in play, and President Trump reminded Americans (and the world) of that once he hit the podium, adding as well he has other tools at his disposal to continue his tariffs policy.

Key Democratic leaders immediately began laying out their own argument: refund the money to Americans now.

That prediction market shows the belief right now in a court order potentially by this summer, with a roughly 8-in-10 shot by the end of the year. Of course, a court order and an actual refund of some kind are two totally different things.

As you might remember, President Trump last year also talked up the idea of a “tariff dividend” for this year. He was saying one of the benefits, as he saw it, of tariffs is that he would be able to send payments out to Americans.

Prediction markets are now bearish on that happening at all, as its down to a 21% chance of happening this year. At its height, markets had that priced in at a 68% chance of happening.

Here’s the fascinating political dynamic: President Trump had been laying out the case to return money to the people. Well, now you have Democrats saying the same thing, except for different reasons. California Governor, and likely 2028 Democratic presidential frontrunner, Gavin Newsom is calling for tariff refunds to be paid back… with interest.

Talk about a role reversal.

You can read the rest of Blake’s post on his Substack!

📆 Around the Corner 📌

Notable upcoming elections:

• March 10, 2026

  • GA-14 Special Election (runoff possible)

• April 7, 2026

  • Wisconsin Supreme Court General Election

  • GA-14 Special Election Runoff (if necessary)

• April 16, 2026

  • NJ-11 Special Election

Check out our 2026 Primary Primer for more information about the regular primaries happening in 2026!

🍺 What’s on tap 🚰

Today’s newsletter features:

Opening Bell: Must-read items about elections and politics.

The Frontrunner: A look at Gallup’s departure from presidential approval polling, including how it could affect political analysis and why it’s a big, if unsurprising, development in the history of polling.

Around the Corner: Upcoming elections we’re tracking at DDHQ.

Subscribe now

🔔 Opening Bell 🐏

Must-read items about elections and politics.

• Last week, Maine Sen. Susan Collins formally announced that she will seek a sixth term. Collins is the only Republican senator from a state that former Vice President Kamala Harris carried in 2024, making her one of the Democrats’ top targets in the 2026 midterms. If reelected, Collins would be on course to become the longest-serving senator in Maine’s history.

• On Friday, the Virginia Supreme Court allowed the state’s redistricting referendum to proceed after a lower state court had ruled that the Democratic-backed effort ran afoul of state law. However, the state’s high court will consider the case, which leaves the door open to a ruling against the redistricting campaign even after the state holds a vote.

• In Arizona’s GOP primary for governor, 2022 gubernatorial contender Karrin Taylor Robson announced her withdrawal from the race. After narrowly losing the 2022 Republican primary for governor, Taylor Robson quickly announced a 2026 campaign and earned President Donald Trump’s endorsement. But she struggled to win over more conservative, MAGA-aligned elements in her party. Taylor Robson’s campaign took an additional hit when Trump issued a co-endorsement of her main GOP rival, Rep. Andy Biggs, who is the favorite in the Republican nomination race.

☑️ Introducing DDHQ Votes ☑️

Decision Desk HQ is excited to announce that it will soon release Votes, our new election data portal. Dive into the world of election data with DDHQ Votes:

• Up-to-date polling on the key issues and races

• Track how prediction markets are moving

• 25 years of election results at your fingertips

• Track election results as they come in

• From local to federal, find every race

• Coming Soon: DDHQ Forecast

Please join the waiting list for Votes now! Those on the waiting list will receive early access to Votes when it launches in the very near future.

📈 The Frontrunner 🥇

The end of the Gallup Poll as we know it

Quick summary:

• Gallup announced that it would no longer track presidential approval. Quantitatively, removing Gallup’s monthly approval poll will not greatly alter the polling averages that track President Donald Trump’s standing with the public. Still, Gallup’s move could subtly produce a higher approval rating for Trump because the pollster had regularly released numbers on the lower end of Trump’s approval spectrum.

• After decades of leading the political polling field, Gallup has shifted away from some of its more polarizing survey questions over the past dozen or so years. After struggling in the 2012 presidential election, the firm ceased polling elections ahead of the 2016 race. And after increasing its approval polling during President Barack Obama’s tenure, the pollster began dialing back its output, releasing approval data monthly at the time of its termination.

It’s the end of the world as we know it. Well, the end of a polling era, that is. Last Wednesday, Gallup announced it would cease measuring presidential approval ratings — ending an 88-year run of tracking how the American public views its chief executive.

In some ways, this was only the latest step in the slow demise of Gallup’s traditional political polling. The pollster stopped surveying presidential elections after the 2012 contest. Similarly, the firm had dialed back its approval polling, offering fewer data points about public attitudes in recent years than it had in the past. Still, it’s striking that the gold standard name in polling will no longer release numbers regarding the president’s standing, one of the most commonly polled questions in U.S. politics.

Gallup’s move will have some consequences for contemporary political analysis, as a long-running and well-regarded poll will no longer appear in polling averages. More broadly, the decision to stop surveying this important question will curtail a nine-decade long time series of approval data that has served as one of the cornerstones of understanding American politics. And, this latest step back from political polling could also portend further erosion in Gallup’s public-facing political information.

You won’t have Gallup to kick around anymore

The immediate effects of Gallup ending its presidential approval polling won’t be earth-shattering. This is one of the most-polled questions asked by pollsters, and one that most major firms regularly include in their surveys. Quantitatively then, removing Gallup’s monthly approval poll will not greatly alter the polling averages that track President Donald Trump’s standing with the public.

Still, Gallup’s exit could subtly produce a higher approval rating for Trump. During his second term, Trump has regularly polled worse in Gallup’s surveys than his average approval in five trackers: Decision Desk HQ, FiftyPlusOne, The New York Times, RealClearPolitics, and Silver Bulletin. In Gallup’s polling in 2025, with just one exception, Trump’s net approval was lower than his average net approval in each of these trackers on the same date. The only exception was November 2025, when Gallup’s net rating equaled the -13 net average in FiftyPlusOne’s tracker.

Now, some of these trackers adjust a pollster’s results to account for “house effects” when calculating an average. That is, the tracker’s model accounts for the tendency of some firms to consistently produce more favorable or unfavorable approval numbers — not because of a particular bias (in most cases), but more due to aspects of a pollster’s methodological choices. Considering Gallup tended to find Trump doing worse than most other pollsters, a house effects adjustment would generally increase Gallup’s raw approval numbers before affecting an average, at least slightly. Even then, Gallup’s adjusted approval would remain on the low side. Take Silver Bulletin’s calculations: In 10 of 12 surveys conducted in 2025, Silver Bulletin’s adjusted approval figures for Gallup still fell below Silver Bulletin’s overall average.

Gallup’s absence will also remove a pollster whose polls often held somewhat more influence in many averages. For instance, Gallup is one of about 20 pollsters marked as “select” by The New York Times that has released approval data during Trump’s second term. The Times identifies a pollster as “select” if it meets two of three criteria: accuracy in recent elections, membership in a professional polling organization, and/or use of probability-based sampling in its polling. The Times’s tracker gives surveys from select firms somewhat more weight in their average.

As a side effect, this also means that Gallup’s polls will no longer influence election forecasts. Historically, presidential approval is a fairly predictive indicator of the overall electoral environment, particularly in a midterm election. For that reason, average presidential approval is often an input in election forecasting models as a “fundamental;” that is, one of the underlying factors that helps tilt the overall electoral landscape in one direction or the other before even going through the circumstances surrounding each race on the ballot.

Not with a bang but a whimper

While Gallup’s departure perhaps registers as a 5.0 earthquake from a quantitative standpoint, historically it amounts to a much larger convulsion. Dr. George Gallup, the firm’s founder, helped pioneer public opinion research. In the 1936 presidential election, Gallup’s scientific survey famously proved more accurate than the Literary Digest’s straw poll, which foresaw President Franklin Roosevelt losing reelection (he won in a landslide).1

In 1937, Gallup began asking respondents if they were “for or against” Roosevelt, the firm’s initial attempt to gauge approval and disapproval for the president.

In 1938, the pollster tweaked the question to more directly ask if respondents approved or disapproved of the president.

And by 1941, the wording looked much like how pollsters have asked it for nearly nine decades: Do you “approve or disapprove” of how the president is handling his job?

Gallup established a deep well of polling on presidential approval, elections, issues, and most everything under the sun.2 In the age of the internet, the Gallup Presidential Job Approval Center has served as an incredibly helpful portal for comparing public attitudes toward presidents over time. Having built up such a lengthy record, it is hard not to feel sad (as an analyst) that a nine-decade time series of public opinion data is coming to an end.

Still, this news is not all that stunning when we put it in the context of Gallup’s shift away from political and electoral polling — and the financial realities of the survey business.

The first major hit came in the 2012 presidential election. In the final weeks of the campaign, Gallup regularly found Republican Mitt Romney ahead of President Barack Obama, sometimes by sizable margins. This looked bad for Gallup when Obama went on to win 51%-47%, though Gallup’s final survey had Romney only nominally ahead 49%-48% among likely voters and actually had Obama up 49%-46% among registered voters.

All together, though, Gallup had just about the worst showing of any major pollster in that election. In response, Gallup reviewed what happened and tested various approaches that would enable it to better identify likely voters — one of the main problems the firm had run into in the Obama-Romney matchup. But by the time 2015 rolled around, Gallup decided it would not survey the presidential race, making the 2016 contest the first since 1932 to not feature a Gallup horserace poll.

Yet Gallup did continue to invest in its presidential approval polling. Throughout Obama’s presidency and the first year of Trump’s first term, Gallup released daily updates for presidential approval. But in 2018, it reduced its output to a weekly approval figure — still quite often, to be sure. The downshift happened at least partly due to methodological realities. The pollster had used phone surveys to produce its approval polling, but it began shifting to mail surveys, which made a daily figure impossible. By 2019, Gallup had returned to periodic surveys rather than the daily or weekly approval surveys it used for a time.

But during President Joe Biden’s tenure, Gallup shifted to releasing its approval polling on a monthly basis, a practice it continued into the first year of Trump’s second term in office. While Gallup’s polls usually had relatively large sample sizes — about 1,000 or more respondents — they were conducted over an unusually long period of around two to three weeks. This gave the firm more time to acquire a larger sample without costing as much as a three- or four-day survey of the same size. The long survey period was not necessarily a huge negative when it came to measuring presidential approval, which is often quite stable. But it did make Gallup’s approval polling somewhat less responsive to major events that could affect the president’s standing in a short period of time.

In the wake of last week’s announcement, observers have wondered if Gallup’s routinely poor numbers for Trump may have contributed to its decision to drop the approval question. If that played into Gallup’s choice, it would not be the first company to make a business decision aimed at avoiding Trump’s potential wrath. As Chris Stirewalt noted at The Hill last week, Trump has filed lawsuits against pollsters before, such as one aimed at Ann Selzer and the Des Moines Register over their final survey of Iowa in the 2024 presidential race.3

The firm explained its decision as “an evolution in how Gallup focuses its public research and thought leadership.” Gallup pointed out (not incorrectly) that approval ratings are “widely produced, aggregated, and interpreted,” so the pollster felt it no longer could “make its most distinctive contribution” by polling that question. Regardless of what went into the decision, polling is more costly and difficult these days, which may have made it easier to forsake asking a polarizing question that, from the firm’s statement, it viewed as having limited upside for differentiation.

Nonetheless, having cut election and presidential approval polling, it’s easy to wonder what might be next on Gallup’s chopping block. For instance, media outlets and analysts often look to the firm’s long-running data on party identification as an indicator of how the political winds are shifting. Will the firm continue releasing that data? And what of the public-facing presidential approval data? Will that portal cease to exist in the near future because it is no longer adding new data?

In his own response to the Gallup news, Charles Franklin, director of the Marquette Law School Poll, pointed out with chagrin that there just is not much of a financial interest in providing public opinion data to the public these days. Gallup’s withdrawal from the approval scene is just the latest sign. That’s a big change from when George Gallup started polling: Back then, newspapers subscribed to Gallup’s polls and distributed the results to readers across the country. But not anymore; news media is increasingly fragmented and short on money to pay for surveys; as Franklin noted, it’s easier to just report on someone else’s poll.

📆 Around the Corner 📌

Notable upcoming elections:

• March 10, 2026

  • GA-14 Special Election (runoff likely)

• April 7, 2026

  • Wisconsin Supreme Court General Election

  • GA-14 Special Election Runoff (if necessary)

• April 16, 2026

  • NJ-11 Special Election

Check out our 2026 Primary Primer for more information about the regular primaries happening in 2026!

🍺 What’s on tap 🚰

Today’s newsletter features:

Opening Bell: Must-read items about elections and politics.

The Frontrunner: An analysis of the congressional map proposals put forward by Democrats in Virginia and Maryland.

Around the Corner: Upcoming elections we’re tracking at DDHQ.

Subscribe now

🔔 Opening Bell 🐏

Must-read items about elections and politics.

• As of Sunday, progressive Analilia Mejía led former Rep. Tom Malinowski by 868 votes in the Feb. 5 Democratic primary for New Jersey’s 11th District, which remains unprojected. Early on Election Night, former Rep. Tom Malinowski seemed to have a big enough advantage (mainly from mail ballots) to win. But a very strong Election Day showing by Mejía gave her an edge that could very well hold up once all votes are counted. A victory for Mejía would amount to a potentially prescient win for progressives over more establishment-aligned candidates ahead of the regular primaries for the 2026 midterms.

• On Sunday, Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski told reporters that she would not run for governor. She had previously left the door open to a campaign for Alaska’s open-seat governorship. As it is, four sitting senators are running for governor, the most in any election cycle since 1913.

• Please subscribe to our Polling Memo! The weekly writeup, which now comes out on Tuesdays, features key trends based on DDHQ’s polling averages. If you’re already a subscriber to The Bellwether, you can receive the memo in your inbox by clicking on your account settings and opt to receive the Poll Memo (see the image below).

  

📈 The Frontrunner 🥇

Democrats aim to gerrymander Virginia and Maryland

Quick summary:

• Virginia Democrats have proposed a congressional map that could elect 10 Democrats and one Republican in 2026. The map would establish eight solid or likely Democratic seats and two swingy seats that former Vice President Kamala Harris would have only narrowly carried in 2024. Still, Republicans have some hope of blocking the map, either through legal channels or at the ballot box.

• Democrats in Maryland are at an impasse after the state House passed a new congressional map that would likely elect eight Democrats and zero Republicans. Maryland state courts could rule against such a map as an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander, which has led some Democrats to oppose pursuing a new map amid the ongoing national redistricting fight.

The national redistricting conflict has shifted to the Mid-Atlantic theater. In Virginia and Maryland, Democratic-controlled state governments are pushing ahead with new maps that, if implemented, would very likely oust most of the Republicans who represent those two states in the U.S. House of Representatives.

On Thursday, Democratic leaders in Virginia’s state legislature proposed an aggressive gerrymander that aims to flip four GOP-held seats. The lines would potentially give Democrats a 10-1 advantage in the state congressional delegation, up from their current 6-5 edge. Two days earlier, Democrats in Maryland’s House of Delegates passed a map that targets Republican Rep. Andy Harris for defeat. Such a result would give Democrats all eight of Maryland’s U.S. House seats. However, both plans face political and legal hurdles that could prevent them from ever taking effect.

Let’s take a look at the new maps and where things stand in each state.

Virginia

Democratic state Senate President Pro Tempore Louise Lucas spent months promising a 10-1 map if Virginia redistricted its congressional map. Late last week, she and state House Speaker Don Scott released the Democrats’ plan to accomplish this goal. Under these lines, former Vice President Kamala Harris would have carried 10 of the state’s 11 districts against President Donald Trump in the 2024 presidential election.

The proposal uses classic gerrymandering moves to achieve this end. It “packs” even more GOP voters into the dark-red 9th District and “cracks” other red areas across multiple seats to reduce their influence. Five Democratic-leaning seats include parts of blue, vote-rich Northern Virginia — four of which stretch far beyond the Washington, D.C. metro area. The blue Richmond metro is mainly split between the 4th and 5th districts while taking in rural, redder areas to the south and west. Additionally, the light-blue 6th District snakes around to grab blue-leaning localities in western Virginia, including the homes of three large universities: Charlottesville (University of Virginia), Harrisonburg (James Madison University), and Blacksburg (Virginia Tech). Only the swingy 2nd District and plurality-Black 3rd District would change little under this plan.

The result would be a map with eight solid or likely Democratic seats, five that Harris would have carried by at least 10 points and three that she would have won by seven to nine points. The other two Democratic targets, the 2nd and 6th districts, would narrowly have gone for Harris by about 1 and 3 points, respectively.

Under the plan, three of the state’s five Republican House members would face reelection battles in far bluer seats than they currently hold. First of all, Rep. Rob Wittman’s seat (the current 1st) would be split across four districts. Most notably, Wittman’s Northern Neck home would sit in the solidly blue 8th District, which would extend all the way from Arlington County by the nation’s capital to Hampton Roads in Virginia’s southeast corner. Rep. John McGuire’s seat in the middle of the state (the current 5th) would mostly be spread across four seats, too. He would likely consider running in the new 5th — home to more of his political base — or in the new 6th — home to a plurality (43%) of his current constituents. Meanwhile, GOP Rep. Ben Cline would likely end up in the new 6th, which contains nearly 40% of his current seat (also numbered the 6th).

The other two Republican incumbents would face reelection bids on mostly the same turf they already represent. Rep. Jen Kiggans holds the swingy 2nd District in and around Virginia Beach, and the proposal only makes the seat 1.5 points bluer by its 2024 vote. Lastly, the only secure Republican would be Rep. Morgan Griffith, who already represents most of the current 9th District in Southwest Virginia (though Cline could perhaps run against him in a primary).

For some of the state’s six Democratic incumbents, a primary challenge would likely be a greater risk than a general election threat. For instance, only 44% of the population in Rep. Don Beyer’s current seat would end up in the new 8th District, forcing him to better acquaint himself with many new voters. Rep. James Walkinshaw also represents less than half of the new 11th District, while Rep. Eugene Vindman has almost 60% of his current 7th District’s population in the new 1st District, where he would almost certainly run.

Because the proposal could elect many new Democrats, high-profile contenders have already positioned themselves to run. In the mostly unchanged 2nd District, former Rep. Elaine Luria announced in November that she would mount a comeback bid against Kiggans, who beat Luria in 2022. In the new 6th District, former Rep. Tom Perriello might be the Democratic frontrunner, although it’s been 15 years since he represented part of it in a previous incarnation of the 5th District. In September, Henrico County Commonwealth’s Attorney Shannon Taylor announced a bid against Wittman in the current 1st District, but has said she would run in the new 5th District.

The other wrinkle would be the open-seat race in the new 7th District. (Recall that Vindman would run in the new 1st). Shaped like an upside-down “Y,” the seat runs south from Arlington all the way into the upper reaches of Central Virginia, where it forks to go west into the Shenandoah Valley and east into the western Richmond exurbs. The arms of the “Y” wrap around the new 6th District to take in heavily Republican areas, combining them with much bluer areas nearer to D.C. One Democratic contender for the seat could be state Del. Dan Helmer, who previously lost primaries for the 10th District in 2018 and 2024.

Despite Democrats like Lucas calling this a “10-1” map, it might only achieve such a result in a blue-leaning year (which 2026 does appear likely to be). Fact is, many districts would be far from secure in a more neutral year or, especially, in a good year for Republicans. All in all, a red wave midterm could conceivably result in six Republican-held seats! Now-former Gov. Glenn Youngkin carried four of the 11 seats in his 2021 gubernatorial victory and very nearly carried two others in what was the best recent electoral cycle for the GOP in Virginia.

To be sure, Democrats should win most of the seats most of the time, at least in the three elections in which this map would be used (2026, 2028, 2030). Democratic nominees for governor in 2025 and president in 2024 carried 10 of the 11 districts, and Democrats running for the U.S. House in 2022 carried nine of 11. Still, the Youngkin example is obviously very recent, and it’s not even necessarily a worst-case scenario for Democrats — Youngkin won statewide by about 2 points. And 2030 could be a red-leaning midterm under a Democratic president.

That the Democratic mapmakers did not draw a stronger gerrymander speaks to three factors. First, attempting to win 10 of 11 seats in a purplish-blue battleground state made it difficult to keep Democratic vote share higher in many districts to make them more secure. Second, Democrats were constrained by parochial concerns, particularly making sure that incumbent Democrats had obvious places to run based on their current seats. Third, Democrats clearly wanted to avoid giving Republicans a legal avenue to block the map in federal court by diluting the plurality-Black 3rd District. As a result, they largely maintained the current form of the 2nd and 3rd districts rather than make the 2nd notably bluer by trading blue (and more racially diverse) areas in the 3rd for redder (and whiter) areas in the 2nd.

Still, Republicans have some hope of blocking the map, first through legal channels. In late January, a state circuit court ruled that Democrats in the legislature did not follow state law while pursuing a constitutional amendment to allow redistricting. Democrats appealed the ruling, which will now go before the state Supreme Court after the state appeals court motioned to have the case expedited to the Old Dominion’s final legal arbiter. It is unclear just how Virginia’s high court might rule.

In the meantime, Democrats advanced legislation to call an April 21 special election for voters to decide on the constitutional amendment that would allow the legislature to redistrict. New Gov. Abigail Spanberger signed it into law on Friday. A non-November referendum would be highly unusual in Virginia: The state last held such a vote in 1956, and the last time it did so for a constitutional amendment was 1928.

If a referendum does happen, a Democratic victory would not be preordained. It’s true that Virginia Democrats just had a great 2025 election, and the 2026 political environment looks good for them, too. A late January poll from the Wason Center at Christopher Newport University found the amendment succeeding 51%-43%. But Democrats have far less room for error in Virginia than in California, where in November voters voted 64%-36% to implement a Democratic gerrymander as part of the ongoing national redistricting fight. Virginia Democrats are counting on anti-Trump sentiment to achieve the same end, but the proposed map is ugly enough that it might turn off some voters who otherwise dislike Trump.

Maryland

Whereas the Democratic majority Virginia’s legislature agreed on a redistricting proposal, Democrats in Maryland are presently at an impasse. There, the state House of Delegates passed a new gerrymander that, if implemented, would very likely elect eight Democrats and zero Republicans.

But Democrats in the state Senate mostly oppose the legislation, and state Senate President Bill Ferguson said last week that “we are not prioritizing that piece of legislation.” Ferguson is worried that mid-decade redistricting could open the door to a court ruling against not only a new 8-0 gerrymander, but also the state’s current map, which gives Democrats a 7-1 edge.

He may have good reason to be concerned. In March 2022, a state court struck down a Democratic-drawn map that might have handed Democrats eight seats, ruling it was an illegal partisan gerrymander under the state constitution. Instead of pursuing the case before the state supreme court, Democrats in the legislature came to an agreement with then-Gov. Larry Hogan, a Republican, to establish a less-aggressive gerrymander. (Democrats also held veto-proof legislative supermajorities, so they maintained a strong bargaining position). But if the state’s high court had to rule on this proposal, it might be amenable to the GOP’s arguments considering Hogan appointed five of the panel’s seven justices. (Though it’s worth remembering that the Democratic-held state Senate still had to confirm those nominees.)

Despite the new map’s stalled status, it’s worth considering how the proposal could affect Maryland’s congressional delegation. After all, pressure from other Democrats, including Gov. Wes Moore, might push Senate Democrats to reconsider their opposition. And the map legislation passed by the state House includes elements meant to reduce the chances that state courts rule against it, including specifying that requirements of compactness and contiguity apply only to state legislative districts, not congressional ones.

First and foremost, the new map would very likely shut out Maryland Republicans by ousting Rep. Andy Harris, the state’s only GOP House member. The map proposal shifts the Eastern Shore-based 1st from a seat Trump carried by 17 points to one he would have lost by 14. It mainly accomplishes this by removing red turf in the northern part of the district and replacing it with an arm that reaches west across the Chesapeake Bay to take in Annapolis and parts of dark-blue Howard County.

The map also helps the Democrats’ chances at achieving an 8-0 result by making the 6th District in western Maryland a bit bluer, going from a seat Kamala Harris carried by 6 points to one she carried by 11. It does this by shifting heavily Republican areas in the northeastern part of the seat into the solidly blue, Montgomery County-based 8th District, held by Rep. Jamie Raskin. As a result, every seat would have voted for Harris by at least 8 points.

However, the Democrats’ effort to turn the 1st into a blue-leaning seat would not just affect Harris but also Democratic Reps. Johnny Olszewski and Sarah Elfreth. Both would find themselves with a plurality of their current constituents (both around 40%) in a seat with a different number from their current one.

Olszewski would potentially have two options: the 2nd or 3rd districts. The new 3rd would be more likely, as the seat would contain 39% of his current constituents and include much of the northern swath of Baltimore County that he already represents (he served as county executive before winning a seat in Congress in 2024). Still, the new 2nd could appeal to Olszewski, too, even though it would have about 22% of his current constituents. For one thing, his hometown of Sparrows Point (per the House Clerk) would be in the new 2nd, and that seat would also be somewhat bluer (Harris +12) than the new 3rd (Harris +9). (Olszewski would not run in the majority-Black 7th District, home to Democratic Rep. Kweisi Mfume, or Raskin’s 8th District.)

Elfreth’s choice would probably be more straightforward. Because Elfreth’s home base is in the Annapolis area, she would most likely run in the new 1st District, which would also contain 42% of her current constituents. Under that arrangement, though, she would find herself potentially representing much of the Eastern Shore, which would be new to her. She could consider running in the new 2nd District, which would have about one-third of her seat. However, the majority of that district’s Democratic voters live in Baltimore City or Baltimore County, areas she does not currently represent — making her potentially vulnerable in a primary.

Harris, the lone Republican, would also face a choice if he decided to seek reelection. The new 1st would have a plurality of his current seat’s population (about 46%) and much of the Eastern Shore. However, it would be a bit bluer (Kamala Harris +14) than the new 3rd, which would contain 33% of his present constituents. Harris lives in Dorchester County on the Eastern Shore, but he previously lived in Baltimore County, so his residency would not necessarily stop him. (The Constitution does not require representatives to live in their district, just their state.) If anything, though, Harris would probably not run under these lines in a blue-leaning midterm.

***

The fates of Rep. Andy Harris and most of Virginia’s Republicans remain up in the air. But if one of these states (especially Virginia) succeeds in implementing the Democrats’ proposed gerrymander, it probably makes redistricting in a GOP-led state like Florida more likely. All in all, more redistricting fights are probably on the way.

📆 Around the Corner 📌

Notable upcoming elections:

• March 10, 2026

  • GA-14 Special Election (runoff likely)

• April 7, 2026

  • Wisconsin Supreme Court General Election

  • GA-14 Special Election Runoff (if necessary)

• April 16, 2026

  • NJ-11 Special Election

Check out our 2026 Primary Primer for more information about the regular primaries happening in 2026!

🍺 What’s on tap 🚰

Today’s newsletter features:

Opening Bell: Must-read items about elections and politics.

The Frontrunner: Population projections based on new 2025 state-level estimates show blue states will lose seats in the 2030 apportionment, which will cost Democrats electoral votes in the Electoral College.

Blake Burman on Prediction Markets: Blake Burman, Chief Washington Correspondent for NewsNation, runs a Substack where he tracks political prediction markets. This week, he looks at how long the partial federal government shutdown will last, who Republicans will nominate in Texas’s U.S. Senate race, and whether Punxsutawney Phil will see his shadow on Groundhog Day.

Around the Corner: Upcoming elections we’re tracking at DDHQ.

Subscribe now

🔔 Opening Bell 🐏

Must-read items about elections and politics.

• In Saturday’s special election runoff between two Democrats, former Harris County Attorney Christian Menefee defeated former Houston City Council member to fill a vacancy in Texas’s 18th Congressional District. After he is sworn in, Menefee will cut the House Republican majority to 218-214, with three remaining vacancies. Menefee will now have to turn around and seek a full term in the redrawn 18th District, where he will face Democratic Rep. Al Green and Edwards in the March 3 Democratic primary.

• In a rare Thursday election, New Jersey will hold a Democratic primary on Feb. 5 in the special election for the state’s 11th Congressional District, left vacant by newly-inaugurated Democratic Gov. Mikie Sherrill. The race features 11 active candidates (and 13 on the ballot), including former Rep. Tom Malinowski and Essex County Commissioner Brendan Gill. However, sizable outside spending by AIPAC against Malinowski could hurt his chances. Other major Democratic contenders are Lt. Gov. Tahesha Way; Passaic County Commissioner John Bartlett; and Analilia Mejía, the former political director of Bernie Sanders 2020 presidential campaign. The winner will face Randolph Mayor Joe Hathaway, the only Republican candidate to file, in the April 16 general election.

• Last Thursday, Democratic Sen. Amy Klobuchar formally entered Minnesota’s gubernatorial contest. The longtime senator had already hinted at a possible campaign for governor after Democratic Gov. Tim Walz abandoned his bid for a third term in early January. She is all but guaranteed to become the Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party’s nominee for governor. And, in what could be a blue-leaning midterm year, she will likely be favored in the general election against the eventual GOP nominee.

• Also on Thursday, San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan announced a campaign for California governor. A Democrat, Mahan joins an already-crowded race with at least eight high-profile Democratic contenders. Although the June primary is still some months away, there is at least some danger that the party’s large field could sufficiently fragment the Democratic vote to make it possible for two Republicans to finish first and second in California’s top-two primary system. If that happened, Democrats would be locked out of the general election, which would hand Republicans the governorship of the country’s largest blue state.

• Please subscribe to our Polling Memo! The weekly writeup, which now comes out on Tuesdays, features key trends based on DDHQ’s polling averages. If you’re already a subscriber to The Bellwether, you can receive the memo in your inbox by clicking on your account settings and opt to receive the Poll Memo (see the image below).

  

📈 The Frontrunner 🥇

Why the 2030 apportionment could help Republicans more than Democrats

Quick summary:

• New projections for the 2030 apportionment suggest that red states will likely gain U.S. House seats and blue states will probably lose ground. In the projections, Texas gains four seats, Florida gains two to four, and Arizona, Georgia, and North Carolina each gain one. Conversely, California is on pace to lose four seats, while New York and Illinois might lose one to two.

• The projected seat changes will affect the Electoral College, too. They would increase Donald Trump’s 2024 electoral vote haul to 322, up 10 votes from his actual result. While political conditions could change quite a bit by 2032, this would lower the bar for what the GOP needs to win. In 2024, Republicans needed to win at least four of the seven key swing states to win the presidency, including the tipping-point state of Pennsylvania. But under these projections, Republicans would only have needed the Sun Belt trio of Arizona, Georgia, and North Carolina.

Last week, the Census Bureau released new estimates for the population of the United States and its individual states. While overall growth slowed, state-level trends remained largely similar: The fastest-growing states are in the Sun Belt and Interior West, while slower-growing (or shrinking) states are mainly found along the West Coast and across the Frost Belt.

Naturally, these trends will have political ramifications. Different organizations and experts quickly took the updated population estimates and made projections about the apportionment of seats in the U.S. House of Representatives after the 2030 census. Using somewhat different approaches, redistricting expert Jonathan Cervas of Carnegie Mellon University, the Brennan Center for Justice, and the American Redistricting Project all released projections detailing the potential gains and losses each state might experience in the next round of reapportionment. And on the whole, states that President Donald Trump carried in 2024 are in line to gain ground, while states that then-Vice President Kamala Harris won look set to lose it.

The projections differed in small ways, but broadly agreed about the likely state gainers and losers. Taking the median change of these projections, Texas (four seats) and Florida (three seats) appear on their way to the biggest gains, while Georgia and North Carolina could each add one seat. Three states in the Interior West — Arizona, Idaho, and Utah — are also on course to gain one apiece. Conversely, the biggest loser is likely to be California, which is trending toward a four-seat decline, and New York, which could lose two. Six other states — Illinois, Minnesota, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Wisconsin — are projected to each subtract one seat.

Should these projections come to pass, the 2030 gains for Texas and Florida would rank among the largest in the past few decades. Dating back to 1970, Texas’s four-seat gain would equal the third-largest raw increase in seats in a single reapportionment, trailing only California in 1990 (seven) and 1970 (five).

Meanwhile, California and New York would sit among the largest losers in the same period. In fact, a four-seat decrease for California would rank as the second-largest decline in reapportionment cycles since 1970, trailing only the five that New York lost following the 1980 census.

These projected seat swings would not only affect each state’s representation in the House of Representatives, but they would also influence the outcome of presidential elections. A state’s total number of electoral votes in the Electoral College, which determines the presidential winner, is the sum of its House seats plus its two senators in the U.S. Senate. For instance, California presently has 52 House seats and 54 electoral votes. In all, the Electoral College has 538 electoral votes based on the states’ 435 representatives and 100 senators, plus three electoral votes assigned to the District of Columbia in accordance with the 23rd Amendment.

And the electoral vote news is better for Republicans than Democrats. Looking at the 2024 presidential election, Trump defeated Harris 312-226 in the Electoral College, reaching (and surpassing) the 270 needed for a majority and victory. The projected seat changes would have increased Trump’s electoral vote haul to 322, a 10-vote increase. Just to put that in perspective, that would be akin to adding a medium-sized blue state to the GOP’s total — say Minnesota, which currently has 10 electoral votes (but is projected to lose one in 2030).

These shifts in electoral votes would take away the Democrats’ most common path to victory in recent years: the fabled “Blue Wall” battleground states across the Frost Belt. Democrats have long had a path to 270 electoral votes if they carried blue-leaning states and the swing states of Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. Trump narrowly carried all of those states in 2024, but had Harris won them (on top of the states she did carry), she would have garnered exactly the 270 electoral votes needed to win. However, the projected electoral vote change would have made it so that Harris only reached 258 electoral votes.

As a result, Pennsylvania, which Trump carried by 1.7 percentage points, would no longer have been the “tipping-point” state in the 2024 election. That is, if you lined up all the states (and congressional district-level results in Maine and Nebraska) from most Republican to most Democratic by margin, Pennsylvania delivered the 270th electoral vote to whomever won it. Yet these apportionment projections would move the tipping-point state farther to the right, making Georgia (Trump +2.1) the decisive state based on the 2024 results.

In a way, these trends only make it more necessary for Democrats to compete in the states that they narrowly won in 2020. With the Blue Wall’s reduced clout, Democrats would likely have to more consistently win Arizona and Georgia to get to 270, or also flip North Carolina, which has often been a “close, but no cigar” state for Democrats. But given the shifts in recent elections, the necessity of competing in those places is not really a huge change for Democrats. After all, Democrats lost the Blue Wall states in 2016 and 2024, and Trump’s margin of victory in Georgia and North Carolina in the latter was not that different from his edge in Pennsylvania.

On the other side of the aisle, Republicans are in line to gain significant ground in red-leaning places like Texas and Florida, as well as make small gains in solidly red states like Idaho and Utah. This contrasts with the sizable projected Democratic losses in California and New York, two of that party’s largest safe states. As long as the GOP retains the upper hand in Texas and Florida, they will not need to carry quite as many highly-competitive states as Democrats to win presidential races. In 2024, Democrats had to win three of the seven main swing states — the three in the Blue Wall — to reach 270. Under these projections, Republicans would only need the three competitive but light-red states that we could call their Red Wall — the Sun Belt trio of Arizona, Georgia, and North Carolina — to reach 270. (Nevada was the other state among the core seven swing states in 2020-24.)

However, while these projections could be deleterious for Democrats, we should not overstate how determinative they will be in future presidential elections. Even though our political situation is quite polarized, we can expect shifts in the party coalitions and changes in the electorate to alter the political status quo as we know it. So, while the GOP stands to gain among the states it carried in 2024 and has tended to win in recent years, hypothetical Democratic gains in Sun Belt states could quickly alter the political calculus. For instance, if Texas became consistently competitive, the GOP would risk the loss of the bedrock of the party’s Electoral College foundation.

Additionally, the projections are just that — projections. They certainly suggest some states are likely to gain or lose seats in reapportionment, but the finer details of one seat here or there is difficult to predict. Moreover, these projections are extrapolated from population estimates that cover the first half of the 2020s. Population estimates unsurprisingly run closest to the final census figures in the years closest to the actual census, whereas ones produced in the middle of the decade are not quite as on target. Additionally, the decennial census itself is an imperfect exercise — the enumeration process tends to undercount or overcount the population in different states, which in turn can affect the final apportionment figures.

Lastly, political efforts and judicial rulings could change how apportionment works by 2030. Trump and other Republicans have pushed for apportionment to be based only on the citizen population rather than the population as a whole. Trump has even called for a mid-decade census that excludes anyone not in the country legally. Any legislation or executive action to these ends will go through lengthy legal challenges, but it is unclear how this could play out by the next time the nation reapportions the House. On that score, we will just have to wait and see. The same goes for finding out how many people live where in 2030.

🟢 No Red Or Blue, Just Green 📗

Blake Burman on prediction markets:

Trump’s Texas Decision

I wrote last week how Trump has yet to endorse in the Texas Senate primary, but that could soon be changing. He told reporters Sunday that he is “giving it a serious look.” That comment seemingly lead to some market movement, with Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton ticking down and Senator John Cornyn rising:

The polling shows a tight race here, but the prediction markets see it differently. IF President Trump decides to endorse here, that would likely shake things up.

“They say whoever I endorse wins. That’s probably right,” Trump said Sunday.

Texas saw a renewed focus over the weekend as a Democrat won a Texas state Senate seat that’s normally gone red. President Trump distanced himself from that race, but it clearly got his attention. So what’s the overall picture like?:

There’s been movement in which party will win the Senate race there. Yes, the belief is that the seat (currently occupied by Cornyn) will remain in Republican control. However, the margin there is as close as its been with it ticking to a 65-35 at this point in the predictions markets.

You can read the rest of Blake’s post on his Substack!

📆 Around the Corner 📌

Notable upcoming elections:

• February 5, 2026

  • NJ-11 Special Election Primary

• March 10, 2026

  • GA-14 Special Election (runoff likely)

• April 7, 2026

  • Wisconsin Supreme Court General Election

  • GA-14 Special Election Runoff (if necessary)

• April 16, 2026

  • NJ-11 Special Election

Check out our 2026 Primary Primer for more information about the regular primaries happening in 2026!v

🍺 What’s on tap 🚰

Today’s newsletter features:

Opening Bell: Must-read items about elections and politics.

The Frontrunner: Republican Sen. Bill Cassidy of Louisiana faces a difficult primary challenge from Rep. Julia Letlow. The past primary performances of Republicans who supported Trump’s impeachment in 2021 bode poorly for Cassidy.

Blake Burman on Prediction Markets: Blake Burman, Chief Washington Correspondent for NewsNation, runs a Substack where he tracks political prediction markets. This week, he looks at the markets regarding the possibility of a government shutdown, the identity of the next Federal Reserve chair, and who the Democrats and Republicans will nominate in Texas’s U.S. Senate race.

Around the Corner: Upcoming elections we’re tracking at DDHQ.

Subscribe now

🔔 Opening Bell 🐏

Must-read items about elections and politics.

• In the wake of a Minneapolis shooting death involving ICE officers, Senate Democrats have called for a government funding package to exclude funding for the Department of Homeland Security. Should the Senate fail to act on the legislation by the end of the week, a government shutdown will ensue.

• New York has entered the 2026 redistricting chat. Last week, a New York state judge ruled that New York’s 11th Congressional District was drawn in an unconstitutional manner because it dilutes Black and Latino voting power. While the decision will be appealed, it opens the door to a potential redraw of the 11th District, which contains Staten Island and part of southern Brooklyn. Held by Republican Rep. Nicole Malliotakis, it is the only GOP-controlled seat in New York City. However, redistricting could make it winnable for Democrats in November.

• Please subscribe to our Polling Memo! The weekly writeup, which now comes out on Tuesdays, features key trends based on DDHQ’s polling averages. If you’re already a subscriber to The Bellwether, you can receive the memo in your inbox by clicking on your account settings and opt to receive the Poll Memo (see the image below).

  

📈 The Frontrunner 🥇

Louisiana Sen. Bill Cassidy is in big trouble down on the Bayou

Quick summary:

• President Trump endorsed Republican Rep. Julia Letlow in Louisiana’s 2026 U.S. Senate race. Letlow’s candidacy could doom the reelection chances of incumbent Republican Sen. Bill Cassidy, who voted to convict Trump in the president’s 2021 impeachment trial.

• Cassidy must win a majority of the GOP primary vote to win renomination. But pro-impeachment Republicans have won a majority in just two of nine primary elections across 2022 and 2024. Cassidy also faces the difficult task of running in a partisan primary. The three pro-impeachment Republicans who have run in party primaries all lost renomination.

• Cassidy’s potential defeat could play a part in reducing the remaining Republicans in Congress who backed Trump’s impeachment to just one — Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski. Cassidy and the other pro-impeachment Republicans who are up in 2026 all face difficult electoral circumstances or have retired.

Go to a seafood boil in Louisiana and you’ll see pounds of shrimp cooking in a huge pot with many other delectable ingredients. Yet despite his affinity for Bayou-based fare, Republican Sen. Bill Cassidy has probably lost his appetite after President Donald Trump endorsed Rep. Julia Letlow in Louisiana’s 2026 Senate race. By backing Letlow over Cassidy in the state’s GOP primary, Trump aims to boil the incumbent’s political career, much as he has other Republicans who supported impeaching him at the conclusion of the president’s first term.

Trump’s endorsement of Letlow came despite Cassidy’s efforts to get back into Trump’s good graces after he voted to convict in Trump’s 2021 impeachment trial. Most notably, Cassidy decided to support Robert F. Kennedy Jr. as Trump’s secretary of Health and Human Services. Cassidy, a physician who sits on the Senate Finance Committee, had deep misgivings about Kennedy’s views, especially his vaccine skepticism, but opted to vote in favor of Kennedy’s nomination in committee and on the Senate floor.

To win the GOP nomination — a near-guarantee of election in dark red Louisiana — Cassidy must win a majority of the primary vote, which few pro-impeachment Republicans have done. While Cassidy holds a decent approval rating among Republicans, his standing is worse than that of Trump or other high-profile GOP officeholders. Losing GOP support would doom Cassidy because Louisiana has implemented partly-closed primaries for federal elections, meaning that only Republicans and unaffiliated voters can vote in the GOP primary.

For Cassidy, the most likely outcome is defeat, which would add him to the list of ousted pro-impeachment Republican members of Congress. In turn, it’s possible that just one of the 17 Republicans across both the Senate and House who voted to impeach Trump in 2021 might still be in Congress come 2027.

Where Cassidy stands with Louisiana Republicans

Until Trump blasted out a social media message supporting Letlow on Jan. 17, Cassidy had reason to be at least cautiously optimistic about his reelection chances. In late November, he told Punchbowl News that the White House had communicated to him that “the president’s staying neutral” in the GOP primary. Considering Cassidy’s impeachment vote in 2021, which prompted the Louisiana GOP to censure the senator, a neutral Trump was probably the best-case scenario for Cassidy.

Importantly, the incumbent also lacked a top-tier primary opponent who could rally conservative opposition to Cassidy. Letlow was reportedly considering a run, but with the Feb. 13 candidate filing deadline less than a month away, her lack of movement probably gave Cassidy hope that she would not run. As it stood, Cassidy’s main opposition looked to be the mostly self-funded campaign of state Treasurer John Fleming. The very conservative Fleming could potentially defeat Cassidy — an October poll for Fleming’s campaign found him running just ahead of Cassidy, 25%-23% — but the challenger trailed Cassidy in fundraising.

Moreover, Republican attitudes toward Cassidy had recovered a fair bit since he backed Trump’s impeachment in 2021. Morning Consult found Cassidy had a 66% approval rating among Louisiana Republicans in the third quarter of 2025 (the firm’s most recent data), far higher than where he stood throughout much of 2021 and 2022. During that period, he largely hovered around 50% approval in Morning Consult’s polling.

This largely represented a return to Cassidy’s pre-impeachment standing. For instance, in the first quarter of 2019, Morning Consult found Cassidy had a 69% approval rating among Louisiana Republicans. The share of Republicans who said they strongly approved of Cassidy also ticked up, going from the low teens in 2021-22 to as high as 28% early in 2025 (though that figure receded to 20% by the third quarter of last year).

Despite their improvement, Cassidy’s numbers among Republicans stood notably lower than those of Trump, other high-profile Louisiana GOP officeholders, and most Republican senators. In Morning Consult’s polling during the same period, Trump’s approval rating was about 90% among Louisiana Republicans. Sen. John Kennedy, Cassidy’s counterpart, held an 82% approval rating, while Gov. Jeff Landry came in at 76%. Among all GOP senators, only four had markedly worse ratings among Republicans in their states: Sens. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky (41%), Susan Collins of Maine (48%), Lisa Murkowski of Alaska (52%), and Thom Tillis of North Carolina (56%) — not exactly a who’s who of GOP politicians beloved by conservatives.

Cassidy’s majority problem

Letlow’s candidacy, accompanied by Trump’s endorsement, provides an alternative around which to coalesce when it comes to Cassidy’s GOP opponents and those who hold lukewarm views toward the incumbent. Letlow’s announcement video emphasized her support for Trump and, in a clear shot at Cassidy’s record, stressed that “we shouldn’t have to wonder how our senator will vote” in a state as conservative as Louisiana.

Beyond her own fundraising, Letlow will likely benefit from the largesse of MAGA-associated super PACs to get this message out to voters. Even though he has the nominal support of Republican leaders in D.C., Cassidy cannot count on outside help from big-spending outfits like the Senate Leadership Fund, which will focus on races that could be competitive in November — definitely not the case in Louisiana.

All of this adds to a challenge Cassidy faced even before Letlow’s entry: He must garner a majority in the primary to win renomination. And, in a new twist, the voters in the primary will mostly be registered Republicans, although unaffiliated voters can participate as well. For much of the past 50 years, Louisiana employed a “jungle primary” whereby all voters regardless of party registration voted for the same set of candidates from all parties. If one candidate garnered a majority, that candidate won; if no one claimed a majority, a runoff would occur. But in 2024, Louisiana’s GOP-led state government established partisan primaries for select offices, including the U.S. Senate and House, with a majority required to avoid a primary runoff.

We have yet to see public polling testing Cassidy against Letlow, but the electoral history of pro-impeachment Republicans bodes poorly for the incumbent. In 2022 and 2024, in just two of nine elections did a Republican who backed Trump’s impeachment in 2021 win a majority among Republican primary voters or, in states that do not use partisan primaries, voters who cast a vote for a Republican candidate. Although five still advanced to the general election, all of them hailed from a state with a top-two or top-four primary system, which both permit all voters regardless of party affiliation to participate. On the other hand, all three who ran in partisan primaries lost, as did one other who ran in a top-two system.

The 2022 cycle saw four House members lose renomination after voting for impeachment in 2021. The most high-profile loser was Wyoming Rep. Liz Cheney, who formerly held a leadership position in the House Republican Conference but lost badly to now-Rep. Harriet Hageman. By comparison, Michigan Rep. Peter Meijer only narrowly lost in a head-to-head race. Meanwhile, Rep. Jaime Herrera Beutler finished third in her top-two primary, leaving her out of the general election.

Last and least, in terms of support, was South Carolina Rep. Tom Rice, who only earned about 25% in his defeat against now-Rep. Russell Fry. Of these nine cases, Rice is the only pro-impeachment Republican to seek reelection in a state that requires a majority in a primary and to come from the South, a more conservative and pro-Trump region of the country. Cassidy, of course, also has to run under similar conditions, which is not a great sign for him.

The success stories all come from states that do not use partisan primaries. The most successful is undoubtedly California Rep. David Valadao. He won about 47% of the votes cast for the three GOP candidates in his 2022 race, enough to finish second in the top-two primary and advance to the general election, which he won. Valadao then more easily advanced in 2024 and again won reelection. Contrastingly, Washington Rep. Dan Newhouse won reelection in 2022 and 2024 while winning fewer than 35% of the votes cast for GOP candidates in his top-two races. In 2022, he advanced out of a crowded field along with a Democrat, whom he easily beat in November in his red seat; in 2024, he finished second in the primary to Jerrod Sessler, a Trump-endorsed Republican, but managed to defeat Sessler in November.

Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski is the only pro-impeachment Republican besides Valadao to earn a majority of GOP votes. However, while she won 51% of votes cast in 2022 in Alaska’s top-four primary for GOP candidates, Murkowski almost certainly did not win a majority among registered Republicans. In that race, Murkowski and Trump-endorsed Republican Kelly Tshibaka finished first and second. But polls found Tshibaka was far more popular than Murkowski among Republicans, while Murkowski attracted substantial support from Democrats and independents, who could participate in the top-four system established in 2020. A 2024 study confirmed that Murkowski likely would have lost a closed partisan primary. In fact, she did exactly that in 2010, losing the GOP nomination to Joe Miller under Alaska’s old partisan primary rules, before she won reelection as a write-in candidate in November.

A species on the verge of extinction

In the larger 2026 election picture, Cassidy’s potential defeat could play a part in reducing the remaining Republicans in Congress who backed Trump’s impeachment to just one. In 2021, 10 House Republicans voted to impeach Trump, while seven Senate Republicans voted to convict him. Of those 17, just five remain in Congress: Cassidy, Collins, and Murkowski in the Senate, and Newhouse and Valadao in the House. All but Murkowski are up for reelection this year, and Newhouse announced his retirement in December, so losses by Cassidy, Collins, and Valadao would leave Murkowski all alone.

While Cassidy’s primary election will decide his future, the November 2026 general election will most likely decide the fate of Collins and Valadao. Collins has not formally announced her reelection bid, but she is expected to run for a sixth term. However, Collins is the only GOP senator up in 2026 who hails from a state that Trump lost in 2024, which has made her a top target for Democrats. Meanwhile, Valadao is seeking reelection in a competitive seat made more so by California’s redistricting proposition last November (Trump would have carried it by about 2 points in 2024). California Democrats included Valadao’s seat as one of the five they have targeted for capture in November.

The dwindling number of Republicans who backed impeachment is just another sign of Trump’s preeminent influence over his party. Faced with anger from Trump and the party base over their votes — as well as new district lines after the 2020 census — many pro-impeachment members did not seek reelection in 2022. Many who did run again lost their primary races because they had crossed Trump. Two more — Sens. Ben Sasse of Nebraska (resigned) and Mitt Romney of Utah (retired) — left office in the 2024 election cycle rather than continue butting heads with the party’s MAGA wing.

Now in 2026, Cassidy’s primary race against Letlow will once again test Trump’s dominance in GOP politics. The incumbent is going to have a tough uphill battle.

🟢 No Red Or Blue, Just Green 📗

Blake Burman on prediction markets:

🏦 Shutdown Next?

One of the prominent political battles of 2025 was the record government shutdown, which lasted 43 days. The fight involved expiring Obamacare subsidies and by the time the shutdown ended there still wasn’t any sort of long term fix. One result was the next funding deadline was punted to January 30, 2026. Well, here we are, and now there is a completely different set of circumstances around a potential shutdown:

First off, let me say this: I’m not going to weigh in here on the latest ICE involved shooting death in Minnesota. The video is all over the internet, and you can judge for yourself how you feel.

With that said… Senate Democrats are now saying they aren’t going to provide votes to fund DHS (ICE is a part of DHS). The House of Representatives last week passed several spending bills, including DHS funding, and sent it over to the Senate. The bills account for roughly $1.2 trillion in spending. That’s why you see the prediction markets at a roughly 8-in-10 shot of a shutdown.

Here’s a couple things to keep in mind: the Senate is not in session Monday due to this storm, and any changes that Senate Democrats might want to force upon DHS/ICE in exchange for their support would mean that the bill would then be sent back to the House. Tick tock.

You can read the rest of Blake’s post on his Substack!

📆 Around the Corner 📌

Notable upcoming elections:

• January 31, 2026

  • TX-18 Special Election Runoff

• February 5, 2026

  • NJ-11 Special Election Primary

• March 10, 2026

  • GA-14 Special Election (runoff likely)

• April 7, 2026

  • Wisconsin Supreme Court General Election

  • GA-14 Special Election Runoff (if necessary)

• April 16, 2026

  • NJ-11 Special Election

Check out our 2026 Primary Primer for more information about the regular primaries happening in 2026!

🍺 What’s on tap 🚰

Today’s newsletter features:

Opening Bell: Must-read items about elections and politics.

The Frontrunner: We run through 10 major elections happening in the first three months of 2026.

Blake Burman on Prediction Markets: Blake Burman, Chief Washington Correspondent for NewsNation, runs a Substack where he tracks political prediction markets. This week, he looks at Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s chances of being the Republican presidential nominee in 2028, whether the Supreme Court will rule on President Trump’s tariffs, and whether credit card rates will be capped this year.

Around the Corner: Upcoming elections we’re tracking at DDHQ.

Subscribe now

🔔 Opening Bell 🐏

Must-read items about elections and politics.

• On Saturday, President Donald Trump publicly encouraged Republican Rep. Julia Letlow to mount a campaign for U.S. Senate in Louisiana, where incumbent Republican Sen. Bill Cassidy is seeking reelection. Trump pre-endorsed Letlow and urged her to jump into the race. Following Trump’s statement, Letlow did not officially announce a Senate bid, but Politico reported on Sunday that she is likely to enter the race shortly, perhaps as soon as later today (Monday, Jan. 19). Cassidy, who voted to convict Trump in the president’s 2021 impeachment trial, had worked to regain Trump’s backing or at least keep the president from endorsing a primary opponent — including by supporting Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Trump’s controversial pick to lead the Department of Health and Human Services

• Last week, Virginia Democrats in both chambers of the state legislature passed a constitutional amendment to open the door to a Democratic congressional gerrymander. The amendment temporarily shifts control of congressional redistricting from the state’s bipartisan commission to the state legislature. Part of the ongoing national redistricting conflict, this development sets the stage for a special election in April for voters to ratify or reject the amendment. Should the amendment succeed, the Democratic-controlled state legislature would then pass a new congressional map that would all but guarantee gains for Democrats, who currently hold six of the state’s 11 seats. It seems likely that newly-elected Democratic Gov. Abigail Spanberger would then sign off on a Democratic-drawn gerrymander.

• Please subscribe to our Polling Memo! The weekly writeup, which will now come out on Tuesdays, features key trends based on DDHQ’s polling averages. If you’re already a subscriber to The Bellwether, you can receive the memo in your inbox by clicking on your account settings and opt to receive the Poll Memo (see the image below).

  

📈 The Frontrunner 🥇

10 high-profile elections happening in the first quarter of 2026

Quick summary:

• In the first three months of 2026, five states will hold their regular primaries, while primaries or general elections will take place in three congressional special elections.

• The two biggest states with elections in this period — Texas and Illinois — have most of the most high-profile contests, including primaries for U.S. Senate in both states.

While it’s easy to focus on the potential consequences of the 2026 midterms, a bunch of votes will take place well before we get to the regular November general election. In the first three months of 2026 alone, five states will hold their regular primaries and one will also hold its primary runoff elections (Arkansas). Additionally, three congressional districts will hold special general or primary elections as part of filling vacancies brought about by resignation or death. Nomination races, intraparty battles, and interesting candidates abound in these contests — some with major national implications.

To help our readers get ready for Q1 of the 2026 election year, we will run through 10 elections to watch in this window. These all happen to be U.S. Senate or U.S. House races, but future previews for later periods of the election cycle will definitely include other types of races. Without further adieu, let’s begin!

Jan. 31, 2026

Texas: 18th District special election runoff

On the last day of January, voters in Texas’s 18th District will go to the polls to fill the vacancy left behind by the death of Democratic Rep. Sylvester Turner last March. Considering Texas just redistricted its congressional map, it’s important to emphasize that this election is for the current 18th District and not the new one that will be used in the November 2026 midterms.

The special election is a head-to-head contest between two Democrats, former Harris County Attorney Christian Menefee and former Houston City Council member Amanda Edwards. Under Texas’s special election rules, an initial election took place in November that featured all candidates regardless of party. As no contender won a majority, Menefee and Edwards advanced to a runoff as the top-two vote getters from the field of 16 candidates.

The runoff’s outcome is uncertain, but so is the eventual winner’s political future. Ahead of the March primary for the regular 2026 election, both Menefee and Edwards both filed in the new 18th District. However, Democratic Rep. Al Green is also running there after redistricting put much of his current seat in the new 18th. Green’s long track record may make him the favorite in the Democratic primary for the new seat, although Menefee released a poll conducted for his campaign in late December that found him ahead of both Green and Edwards.

Feb. 5, 2026

New Jersey: 11th District special election primary

Just days after Texas’s 18th District elects a new representative, voters in New Jersey’s 11th District will likely choose the successor to former Rep. Mikie Sherrill, now the Garden State’s governor. While the special general election for this seat will take place on April 16, the blue-leaning constituency — President Donald Trump lost it 53%-45% in 2024 — will probably vote for whomever Democrats nominate in their Feb. 5 primary.

A whopping 14 candidates filed for the Democratic primary in this North Jersey seat, of whom 11 are still active (all filed candidates’ names will be on the ballot). Of those, former Rep. Tom Malinowski and Essex County Commissioner Brendan Gill appear most likely to win. However, we should not entirely discount three other candidates: Lt. Gov. Tahesha Way; Passaic County Commissioner John Bartlett; and Analilia Mejía, the former political director of Bernie Sanders 2020 presidential campaign who also sports an endorsement from progressive Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

Malinowski looks to be the best-funded contender: His campaign announced earlier this month that it had raised more than $1 million. He is using that money to run ads promising to defend democracy and fight Trump’s corruption. He also enjoys Democratic Sen. Andy Kim’s endorsement. However, Malinowski only represented about 5% of the population in the current 11th District in his old 7th District from 2019 to 2023.

Gill appears most likely to compete with Malinowski. While he has not announced his fundraising totals, Gill has the money to run anti-Malinowski ads highlighting stock trades Malinowski made during his time in Congress that prompted an ethics investigation. Gill also hails from Essex County, which has more registered Democrats in the 11th District than Morris or Passaic counties. For good measure, he has Democratic Gov. Phil Murphy’s endorsement.

The Democratic primary winner will face Randolph Mayor Joe Hathaway, the only Republican to file for the special election. But considering the easy victory Sherrill just enjoyed in New Jersey, it’s hard to imagine her old blue-leaning turf backing a Republican right now.

March 3, 2026

North Carolina: 1st District primary

Democratic Rep. Don Davis is one of the most endangered Democrats in the House. Following mid-decade redistricting, the 1st District in eastern North Carolina is now a seat that Trump would have carried by nearly 12 percentage points in 2024, up from Trump +3 under the old lines. Understandably then, the Republican primary contest to face Davis is one to watch on March 3.

The GOP primary had some last-minute drama before the Dec. 19 candidate filing deadline. About a week out, Rocky Mount Mayor Sandy Roberson announced his withdrawal, removing a candidate who had loaned his campaign $3 million. But then retired Army Col. Laurie Buckhout jumped into the Republican nomination race. Buckhout is a familiar name: Under the 1st District’s old lines, she lost to Davis by about 2 points in the 2024 general election.

Buckhout’s last-minute entry upset at least one other notable candidate in the race. Republican state Sen. Bobby Hanig argued Buckhout had “decided to go back on her word” to run for the GOP nomination after having said in May 2025 that she would not run due to health concerns. Hanig also claimed that Buckhout had asked him to step aside and become her chief of staff, which Buckhout denied. Trump has not endorsed in this primary, though he endorsed Buckhout in the 2024 general election.

Under North Carolina’s primary rules, the leading candidate need only clear 30% of the vote to avoid a runoff. But with five candidates campaigning, including Carteret County Sheriff Asa Buck and attorney Ashley-Nicole Russell, a runoff is theoretically possible.

Texas: U.S. Senate primary

They say everything is bigger in Texas. And when it comes to the first three months of elections in 2026, it’s true: Texas’s Democratic and Republican nomination races for U.S. Senate are definitely the top-drawer events on the calendar. The three-way GOP primary could go to a runoff if no candidate wins an outright majority, while the Democratic primary is largely a head-to-head clash between rising stars.

In the Republican primary, incumbent Sen. John Cornyn faces state Attorney General Ken Paxton and Rep. Wesley Hunt, along with five other minor candidates. The contest has largely been defined by the campaign spending of Cornyn and his allies. In early January, an analysis from AdImpact found that ads supporting Cornyn made up 75% of all ad spending in the Texas race — more than $44 million in total. Early spending by pro-Cornyn forces did appear to successfully ding Paxton last summer, when Paxton’s lead shrank in head-to-head polling against Cornyn. But Hunt’s entry into the race in October further scrambled this contest.

The National Republican Senatorial Committee and the Senate Leadership Fund, the GOP’s main super PAC for Senate race, have gone all in to assist Cornyn. That’s partly because many Republicans fear that a nomination victory for Paxton, bearer of many professional and personal scandals, would give Democrats a better shot at flipping the Texas seat. Yet their worst nightmare is in play: Spend $100 million or so to help Cornyn, only for Paxton (or Hunt) to win the nomination.

Hunt, for his part, is trying to position himself as a more palatable candidate than Paxton, but a fresher face than Cornyn that also happens to be more conservative. The congressman sits in third in Decision Desk HQ’s polling average with around 20%, but neither Paxton nor Cornyn is polling north of 40%, making a runoff quite likely — especially because Trump is not inclined to endorse and potentially push voters toward one candidate.

Across the aisle, U.S. Rep. Jasmine Crockett faces state Rep. James Talarico in a contest between up-and-coming Democrats. In her second term, Crockett has gained national notoriety for her combative style and social media presence, all of which has helped make her a fundraising dynamo. Talarico has garnered notice as a scripture-quoting Democrat, making himself a figure of the religious left — all while building his own ample social media following.

Texas has not elected a Democrat to statewide office since 1994, but the party is hoping that a bad midterm environment for Republicans — and Paxton winning the GOP nod — could create a pickup opportunity. Already, Democrats are having 2020-style conversations about “electability,” as Talarico’s theory of the case involves making some inroads in red territory, while Crockett argues that she can expand the electorate to help Democrats’ chances of winning. Potential issues of race and gender are also intertwined with the electability discussion, as Crockett is a Black woman and Talarico is a white man.

In the primary campaign, Talarico has gotten the jump on Crockett when it comes to ad spending. That might help explain Talarico’s 47%-38 edge in an Emerson College/Nexstar Media survey released last week. Still, the only other poll for the primary conducted since Crockett got in the race was a December survey from Texas Southern University that found her ahead 51%-43%.

Texas: 33rd District primary

Until just before the candidate filing deadline, former Rep. Colin Allred had been running in the Democratic primary for U.S. Senate. But with Crockett set to announce a bid, Allred withdrew and announced instead that he would run in the newly-drawn, solidly blue 33rd District in and around Dallas. However, that put Allred in conflict with Democratic Rep. Julie Johnson, who is also running in the 33rd. This is a fascinating matchup in part because Johnson succeeded Allred in the House (in the outgoing 32nd District) when Allred ran for Senate in 2024.

The race has already featured some sharp words. Johnson castigated Allred for his last-minute switcheroo, and LGBTQ groups also criticized the decision (Johnson is the first openly LGBTQ member of Congress from Texas). Allred has attacked Johnson for accepting money from corporate PACs, while Johnson has hit Allred for supporting more conservative immigration legislation when he was in Congress.

As for who has the upper hand, it’s hard to know at this point. We haven’t yet seen their end-of-year fundraising numbers, but Allred had more than twice as much money in the bank as Johnson at the end of September.

Texas: 23rd District primary

In the 2024 election cycle, two House Republicans lost renomination. But Texas Rep. Tony Gonzales was nearly the third: Forced into a primary runoff against gun rights activist and YouTuber Brandon Herrera, Gonzales just eked out renomination, 50.6%-49.4%, before easily winning reelection that November. Gonzales was vulnerable to a challenge from his right in part because he supported bipartisan gun safety legislation following the school shooting in Uvalde, Texas — which sits in Gonzales’s 23rd District.

But in March, Gonzales will take on Herrera in a GOP primary rematch. Helpfully for Gonzales, Trump endorsed him in December, which could shore up the incumbent’s support among some Republicans who opposed him in 2024. At the same time, Gonzales will not enjoy a cakewalk. In late November, Herrera announced that his candidate committee and related political action committees had raised $1.1 million, giving him serious resources to take on Gonzales. Another complication for Gonzales is the campaign of former Rep. Quico Canseco, who represented a previous version of this seat and serves on the state GOP’s executive committee. At the very least, Canseco’s candidacy could attract enough support to push Gonzales into a runoff.

Lastly, Gonzales may continue to face scrutiny over the death of a staffer last September. Some media outlets reported that she had died from self-immolation following an extramarital affair with Gonzales. While Gonzales denied rumors of an affair as “completely untruthful,” Herrera has used the allegation against the incumbent on the campaign trail.

Texas: 34th District primary

When Texas Republicans redistricted the state’s congressional map last year, one of their principal targets was Democratic Rep. Vicente Gonzalez. The new map made Gonzales’ red-leaning 34th District in South Texas even redder, shifting its 2024 presidential vote from Trump +4 to Trump +10. Now, Gonzalez could hold on thanks in part to a favorable midterm environment for Democrats. Yet eight Republicans entered the race to face him, most notably former Rep. Mayra Flores and Army veteran Eric Flores (the two are not related).

The Flores-on-Flores contest features a familiar face. Elected in a 2022 special election in the 34th District used in general elections from 2012 to 2020, Mayra Flores then lost back-to-back general elections to Gonzalez in the 34th District used in the 2022 and 2024 general elections — losing by fewer than 3 points the second time around. After the latest redraw, she decided to challenge Gonzalez again in 2026.

However, Eric Flores may have the upper hand in the GOP nomination race. In December, Trump endorsed him, much to the chagrin of the former congresswoman. In a sign of potential consolidation behind Trump’s endorsee, two other Republican contenders in the 34th District withdrew from the race.

Still, with eight names on the primary ballot, an all-Flores runoff could be in the cards here. And it would be unwise to write off ex-Rep. Flores because she didn’t get Trump’s backing. She has challenged Eric Flores’s conservative bona fides, attacking him for having served as an attorney in the Department of Justice during the Biden administration (though he was not a political appointee). She has also tried to cast him as a “RINO” (Republican in name only) by connecting him to the misdeeds of his father, former Democratic state Rep. Kino Flores, who was found guilty in 2010 of record tampering and perjury.

March 10, 2026

Georgia: 14th District special election blanket primary

When Republican Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene unexpectedly announced that she would resign from Congress in early January, she fired the starting gun on a special election campaign for Georgia’s dark red 14th District. Remarkably, 22 candidates have made the ballot for the March 10 contest, which will be a blanket primary race involving all candidates regardless of party. Unless one candidate wins a majority that day — an unlikely outcome with so many contenders — a runoff between the two leading vote-getters will occur on April 7.

Most attention is understandably focused on the 17 Republicans who are running. One of the most prominent contenders is now-former state Sen. Colton Moore, who resigned on Jan. 13 to run in the congressional special election. In 2023, state Senate Republicans kicked Moore out of the party caucus for making false statements and violating caucus rules. In early 2025, Moore again made headlines when he was arrested while attempting to enter the state House of Representatives despite having been banned from the chamber in 2024.

Moore is far from the only noteworthy Republican contender, though. Lookout Mountain District Attorney Clay Fuller is running after finishing a distant fourth in the 2020 GOP primary for this seat. Two other current or former elected officials — Dalton City Councilman Nicky Lama and former Paulding County Commissioner Brian Stover — are in the mix, as are former Greene aide Jim Tully and former Fulton County GOP chair Trey Kelly.

Considering Trump carried this seat 68%-31% in 2024, two Republican candidates could attract enough votes to advance to the likely runoff. However, the more likely outcome may be that one Democrat and one Republican move forward. That’s because the larger Republican vote will be spread across a multitude of GOP candidates, while the smaller Democratic vote may mostly line up behind retired Army Brig. Gen. Shawn Harris, who was his party’s nominee versus Greene in the district’s 2024 race.

March 17, 2026

Illinois: U.S. Senate primary

Longtime Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin announced his retirement in April 2025, opening up a much-desired spot in the U.S. Senate. And in fairly blue Illinois, that has made for a competitive — and expensive — Democratic primary race. The principal three contenders for the party’s nod are Lt. Gov. Juliana Stratton and Reps. Robin Kelly and Raja Krishnamoorthi.

Right now, this race looks to be Krishnamoorthi’s to lose. First elected to the House in 2016, Krishnamoorthi built a massive war chest — he had $19 million when he announced in May 2025 — to boost his chances in a statewide bid. That has enabled him to gain an overwhelming edge in primary campaign advertising: As of mid-January, AdImpact reported that he had spent or reserved $21.7 million in ads, about 97% of ad buys in the primary. Tellingly, a recent Emerson College/WGN-TV survey of the Democratic primary found Krishnamoorthi at 31%, well ahead of Stratton (10%) and Kelly (8%), though with nearly half of respondents undecided. Similarly, a new poll on behalf of Krishnamoorthi’s campaign found him earning 41%, while Stratton and Kelly were in the mid-teens.

That said, we shouldn’t write off Stratton or Kelly just yet. Stratton has the backing of Gov. JB Pritzker, a billionaire with ample resources and connections that could come to Stratton’s aid in the roughly two months before the vote. The first wave of support may be a new $460,000 ad buy from Illinois Future PAC, a pro-Stratton super PAC with ties to Pritzker. Kelly, meanwhile, may attract ample attention in the coming weeks for introducing articles of impeachment against Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem. That department oversees Immigration and Customs Enforcement, which has come under ever-increasing scrutiny, most recently following the shooting death of a protester in Minneapolis by an ICE agent.

This race will mostly be decided by voters in Chicagoland — Chicago’s metropolitan area will cast around 4 in 5 votes in the Democratic primary. All three major contenders hail from the region, too. Krishnamoorthi represents turf centered in the Cook County suburbs, while Kelly’s district includes parts of Chicago’s South Side and the suburbs in southern Cook. Before becoming lieutenant governor, Stratton represented a state House seat in South Side.

Still, the candidates will not ignore the rest of the state. Should Krishnamoorthi maintain his massive advertising edge, he may be the candidate whom Downstate voters mainly hear from, which could help him win over a substantial chunk of the roughly 1 in 5 votes that will be cast outside of Chicagoland.

Illinois: 9th District primary

Democratic Rep. Jan Schakowsky announced her retirement in early May 2025, opening up a dark-blue seat stretching north from Chicago’s North Side, through Evanston, and up into the northern suburbs of Chicagoland. With a Democratic win all but assured in November, a huge field of 16 Democrats has piled into this open-seat race hoping to win the party’s nomination.

If there’s a frontrunner in this primary, it’s probably Evanston Mayor Daniel Biss. He has notable electoral experience, having finished second in the 2018 Democratic primary for governor with 27%, losing to Pritzker. He has a bevy of notable endorsements, including support from the retiring Schakowsky and the Congressional Progressive Caucus. And he had raised $1.3 million as of the end of September, second-most in the primary field.

Still, Biss is far from a lock to win. Twenty-six year old progressive political content creator Kat Abughazaleh has raised $1.5 million and has attracted significant attention via her large internet presence, though she lacks strong local ties. Also in the young progressive lane is Bushra Amiwala, a school board member from Skokie, who has raised $642,000. State Sen. Laura Fine, who represents the Evanston area, has raised $661,000, some of which comes from donors with ties to AIPAC. Former FBI Agent Phil Andrew and state Sen. Mike Simmons are also in the race.

🟢 No Red Or Blue, Just Green 📗

Blake Burman on prediction markets:

📈 Rubio Rising

As President Trump was being sworn into office last January, markets already were pricing in Vice President JD Vance as the clear leader to carry the MAGA mantle into 2028. Look at where I’ve put my cursor on the left hand side and you’ll see that Vance was running a roughly 44% chance of being the Republican nominee next go-around:

But look at where it stands now. While Vance has ticked up to roughly 50%, check out what’s happened with Secretary of State Marco Rubio. He’s made a much bigger jump from Inauguration Day until now, as he’s up to 17%, more than tripling his probability.

Rubio has consistently been at the president’s side, as Venezuela, Iran, Greenland, Russia/Ukraine, and the Middle East have dominated much of the attention in the president’s second term so far.

So what will Rubio eventually decide to do? Well, Rubio said last summer he believed Vance would be a “great nominee,” adding of a potential Vance presidential run “I hope he intends to do it.” Then in December, Rubio suggested he would defer to Vance, if Vance runs.

However, here’s what I keep coming back to: Rubio pledged during his 2016 presidential run that if he didn’t win then he wouldn’t run for Senate again. He doubled down after he bowed out of the primary as well… but not long after he backed off his pledge, and announced he was running for Senate again.

Here’s the point: right now, there’s both a short and long way until 2028, no matter who says what in the coming months. And Rubio is currently rising in the markets.

You can read the rest of Blake’s post on his Substack!

📆 Around the Corner 📌

• January 31, 2026

  • TX-18 Special Election Runoff

• February 5, 2026

  • NJ-11 Special Election Primary

• March 10, 2026

  • GA-14 Special Election (runoff likely)

• April 7, 2026

  • Wisconsin Supreme Court General Election

  • GA-14 Special Election Runoff (if necessary)

• April 16, 2026

  • NJ-11 Special Election

🍺 What’s on tap 🚰

Today’s newsletter features:

Opening Bell: Must-read items about elections and politics.

The Frontrunner: Four sitting senators could run for governor, the most in a single election cycle since the 17th Amendment established direct popular elections for U.S. Senate nationally in 1913.

Blake Burman on Prediction Markets: Blake Burman, Chief Washington Correspondent for NewsNation, has started a Substack tracking prediction markets. This week, he looks at which world leader might get pushed out after Nicolás Maduro, the chances that the U.S. will acquire Greenland, and markets surrounding Minnesota’s reconfigured 2026 gubernatorial election.

Around the Corner: Upcoming elections we’re tracking at DDHQ.

Subscribe now

🔔 Opening Bell 🐏

Must-read items about elections and politics.

• Republican Rep. Doug LaMalfa of California died unexpectedly last Tuesday at the age of 65. His tragic death leaves California’s 1st District vacant; Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom has two weeks to set a special election date to fill the seat. LaMalfa’s passing reduces the GOP’s majority in the U.S. House of Representatives to 218-213, with four vacancies. To pass a measure, Speaker Mike Johnson can lose no more than two Republican votes if Democrats are unified in opposition. During some votes this past Thursday, the House GOP effectively lacked a majority due to absences, as each party had 213 voting members present.

• Also last week, Democratic Rep. Steny Hoyer of Maryland announced his retirement. Having taken office after winning a May 1981 special election, Hoyer is the longest-serving Democrat currently in the U.S. House. Only two active Republicans — Reps. Hal Rogers of Kentucky and Chris Smith of New Jersey — have served longer. For much of the past two decades, Hoyer and California Rep. Nancy Pelosi rivaled one another for Democratic Party leadership in the House. However, Pelosi won out, which resulted in Hoyer serving as majority leader four times under Pelosi’s speakership. Since the mid-2000s, Pelosi, Hoyer, and South Carolina Rep. Jim Clyburn dominated leadership positions within the House Democratic caucus. But Pelosi and Hoyer are both retiring, so only Clyburn might serve beyond this Congress — and he has not yet clarified his reelection plans.

• Please subscribe to our Polling Memo! The weekly writeup, which will now come out on Tuesdays, features key trends based on DDHQ’s polling averages. If you’re already a subscriber to The Bellwether, you can receive the memo in your inbox by clicking on your account settings and opt to receive the Poll Memo (see the image below).

  

📈 The Frontrunner 🥇

A record surge in the number of sitting senators who are running for governor

UPDATE: On Jan. 29, Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar formally announced her campaign for governor. As we noted in below, that makes her the record fourth sitting senator to launch a gubernatorial campaign in the 2026 cycle.

***

Quick summary:

• If Sen. Amy Klobuchar runs for governor in Minnesota, she would be the fourth sitting senator to seek a governorship in the 2026 election cycle. That would be the most in any single election since the 17th Amendment established popular elections for U.S. Senate nationally in 1913.

• Dissatisfaction with the dysfunction in Washington and the potential to pursue more aggressive policymaking with full party control of state government is likely driving sitting senators toward running for governor. They are making this choice despite the fact that it involves giving up the Senate’s lengthier electoral term of office and the seniority they have built up in Congress.

The office of U.S. senator is arguably the most high-profile and prestigious position an elected official can attain, short of becoming president. One of 100 total members, a senator has national notoriety and attracts ample attention — and scrutiny — for their votes, media appearances, and most aspects of their public (and sometimes private) lives. Moreover, with a six-year term, senators have more electoral security than officeholders in other high-profile posts, such as governor (most states have four-year terms) or U.S. representative (two-year term). It’s no wonder then that some senators seek to spend decades in the office.

However, being a senator does not seem to be quite the plum post it once was. As a sign of job dissatisfaction, just consider that three incumbent senators are running to become governor of the states they represent in Congress. That is, they are looking to leave Washington and continue their political careers back home. What’s more, a fourth senator — Democrat Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota — is “seriously considering” a gubernatorial bid herself. If Klobuchar does run, the 2026 midterms will have more sitting senators running for governor (four) than any election cycle dating back to the advent of the 17th Amendment, which established direct popular elections for Senate in 1913.

Last April, Colorado’s 2026 gubernatorial race got a major shakeup when Sen. Michael Bennet announced he would seek the Democratic nomination. Now a fairly blue state, Colorado has a sizable bench of major Democratic officeholders who had been eyeing a campaign to succeed term-limited Democratic Gov. Jared Polis. But Bennet’s entry prompted most aspirants to stand aside. The only viable Democratic alternative to Bennet is state Attorney General Phil Weiser, who announced his own gubernatorial bid at the start of 2025.

But Bennet was just the first domino in what may be a record-setting election year for sitting senators running for governor. In late May last year, Republican Sen. Tommy Tuberville announced his own bid for Alabama governor, leading other high-profile would-be candidates to look elsewhere to fulfill their political ambitions — including Tuberville’s now-open Senate seat, which is also on the ballot in 2026. Then in August, Republican Sen. Marsha Blackburn formally launched her own campaign for Tennessee governor, making official a long-anticipated bid. She faces Republican Rep. John Rose in the GOP primary for governor. (Unlike Tuberville’s Senate seat, Bennet’s is not up for regular election again until 2028 and Blackburn’s is not up until 2030.)

Last week, Minnesota gave us the latest twist in the 2026 tale when Democratic Gov. Tim Walz announced that he was dropping his bid for a third term. Soon after, news broke that Democratic Sen. Amy Klobuchar was now eyeing a gubernatorial run since her party-mate Walz was no longer running. It’s unclear when Klobuchar will announce her final decision, but were she to run, she would be the fourth sitting senator to run for governor in 2026. The relatively popular Klobuchar would also likely clear the Democratic primary field, much like Walz had until he abandoned his reelection campaign.

A Klobuchar bid would set an under-the-radar record: Since the 17th Amendment established popular elections for U.S. Senate nationally in 1913, never before have four sitting senators run for governor in a single election cycle. The current total of three ties the previous high, set in 1942.

As the chart above shows, it’s been far more common for office-seeking to occur in the opposite direction, whereby governors run for Senate. Since 1913, only 24 sitting senators (including the three actively running in 2026) have run for governor, while more than 140 sitting governors have run for Senate. This pattern is confirmed by the current slate of senators and governors. Of the 100 senators in office, 12 are former governors. Among those, four ran for the Senate as sitting governors: Republican Sens. John Hoeven of North Dakota, Jim Justice of West Virginia, and Rick Scott of Florida, as well as Democratic Sen. Maggie Hassan of New Hampshire. By contrast, only three of the nation’s 50 governors once held Senate seats, of whom just one, Indiana Gov. Mike Braun, ran for governor as a sitting senator.

What might explain the 2026 spike in senators seeking governorships? As always, contingency plays at least some part. Each senator is running for an open gubernatorial seat; were there incumbent governors seeking reelection in those states, these senators would be far less likely to run because their campaigns would involve a messy primary challenge. Take Klobuchar: The fact she is pondering a gubernatorial bid is entirely down to Walz’s unexpected departure from Minnesota’s race.

On the whole, it’s been rare for a sitting senator to run for governor, but even rarer to run against an incumbent governor. Texas’s 2010 gubernatorial race featured the only primary battle between an incumbent senator and governor, when Republican Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison mounted a failed challenge against Republican Gov. Rick Perry. Of the sitting senators who won their party’s gubernatorial nomination, only once has that resulted in a general election matchup against an incumbent governor from the other party: Democratic Sen. Monrad Wallgren’s victory over Republican Gov. Arthur Langlie in Washington state’s 1944 gubernatorial contest.

Still, dissatisfaction with service in the Senate and the general dysfunction in Washington must play at least some role in the choice to run for governor among this current crop of sitting senators. For instance, after announcing, Bennet said he could do more as governor to “build a positive vision for the future” for Coloradans than as a senator. This frustration exists beyond the confines of the Senate chamber: Not coincidentally, more U.S. House members had announced their retirement or candidacy for another office by early January of a federal election year than in any cycle dating back to 1974.

In particular, it’s striking that senators like Bennet and Klobuchar who have established a great deal of seniority are looking to run for governor. Of the 24 sitting senators to run for governor in the past 110-plus years, Bennet is one of just four to run for governor in the midst of their third full term in the Senate. A run by Klobuchar would be even more remarkable as she would be only the second senator serving in their fourth term to make a gubernatorial bid: In 2002, Alaska Sen. Frank Murkowski sought and won the Last Frontier’s governorship after winning his Senate seat four times. (Murkowski then appointed his daughter, current Sen. Lisa Murkowski, to fill his Senate seat. The elder Murkowski later became very unpopular and badly lost renomination to Sarah Palin in Alaska’s 2006 GOP primary.)

But in terms of policymaking, these senators may feel they have a better chance of accomplishing more at home than in gridlock-laden Washington. In each state, the sitting senator seeking (or possibly seeking) the governorship hails from the party that tends to have the upper hand in the state’s elections. As a result, there is a very strong chance that Bennet, Blackburn, and Tuberville will lead “trifecta” state governments in which their party has full control of lawmaking. Klobuchar, should she run, might also have a good shot at leading a Democratic trifecta in light-blue Minnesota thanks to a potentially pro-Democratic midterm electoral environment in 2026. However, the party makeup in the state legislature is extremely competitive: Democrats hold a 34-33 edge in the state Senate, and the parties have a power-sharing arrangement in the state House, where they each hold 67 seats.

That same attitude — and skepticism toward entering the D.C. morass — may also help explain why the gap between the number of sitting governors running for Senate and sitting senators running for governor has shrunk in recent years. For instance, Republicans struck out in candidate recruitment when it came to enticing popular Gov. Brian Kemp of Georgia and now-former Gov. Chris Sununu of New Hampshire to mount Senate bids in 2026. Now, the potential backlash to President Donald Trump in a midterm year likely contributed to these decisions, too. Still, Sununu also turned down a run in 2022 during a more favorable GOP year when he was still governor.

Yet this pattern has actually been around for a longer time. Since 1995, almost the same number of sitting senators have run for governor (10) as sitting governors have run for Senate (11). This pattern contrasts sharply with earlier years, when far more sitting governors sought to become senators than vice versa.

To be sure, changes in how elections work likely played a part in that change. Many states once had only two-year terms or allowed governors to serve just one four-year term. That made it less likely that ambitious politicians would be able to retain the governorship for as long as they can today, prompting them to more often look to the Senate for advancement. Today, by contrast, just two states have two-year gubernatorial terms (New Hampshire and Vermont) and only one does not permit an elected governor to seek immediate reelection at least once (Virginia).

Nonetheless, in an era rich in dour views about what’s going on in D.C., it’s telling that senators who could likely remain in office for years to come are instead running for governor. Alabama, Colorado, and Tennessee each allow governors to serve just two consecutive four-year terms, whereas senators have six-year terms and no term limits. But the prospect of feeling as if you are really governing — as well as leaving the frustrating environs of Capitol Hill — is compelling enough to draw senators home.

🟢 No Red Or Blue, Just Green 📗

Blake Burman on prediction markets:

Who Might Be Next?

After Nicolás Maduro’s capture, I kept reminding that major changes for Cuba could be next. When might Cuba be liberated from communist rule? One Senator suggested to me that Miguel Diaz-Canel could be out by the end of this year.

President Trump this morning issued this stern warning for Cuba:

THERE WILL BE NO MORE OIL OR MONEY GOING TO CUBA - ZERO! I strongly suggest they make a deal, BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE.

I will be closely watching what happens in Cuba going forward. Secretary of State Marco Rubio is from Miami, and the future of Cuba is meaningful to many in South Florida and beyond. Look at this statement Rubio wrote last year for a window into his thinking.

And then in Iran, we continue to witness social media accounts of the growing protests against that oppressive regime. The president said the administration is watching closely and Iran is in “big trouble.” President Trump is scheduled to be briefed in the coming days on possible options, according to the Wall Street Journal.

In muchhhh different circumstances, the president also seems intent on expanding the United States’ presence in Greenland. I’ve been told, as the administration keeps reiterating, that all options are on the table when it comes to Greenland. It’s a standard Trump line for most foreign affairs, but it’s not just lip service.

The prediction markets believe there’s a roughly 1-in-6 shot that some sort of acquisition will take place. This Greenland idea, which was scoffed at in the first term, is now being framed as a national security and geopolitical issue here in term two, a pushback against Russia and China.

You can read the rest of Blake’s post on his new Substack!

📆 Around the Corner 📌

• January 31, 2026

  • TX-18 Special Election Runoff

• February 5, 2026

  • NJ-11 Special Election Primary

• March 10, 2026

  • GA-14 Special Election (runoff likely)

• April 7, 2026

  • GA-14 Special Election Runoff (if necessary)

• April 16, 2026

  • NJ-11 Special Election

🍺 What’s on tap 🚰

Today’s newsletter features:

Opening Bell: Must-read items about elections and politics.

The Frontrunner: Compared to early January in election cycles dating back to 1974, a record number of U.S. House members are retiring or seeking another office.

Blake Burman on Prediction Markets: Blake Burman, Chief Washington Correspondent for NewsNation, has started a Substack tracking prediction markets. This week, he looks at the outlook for Venezuela, President Trump’s tariffs, and control of Congress in the 2026 midterms.

Around the Corner: Upcoming elections we’re tracking at DDHQ.

Subscribe now

🔔 Opening Bell 🐏

Must-read items about elections and politics.

• Marjorie Taylor Greene’s resignation from the U.S. House of Representatives becomes official today. Greene announced her early departure from Congress in November, but Jan. 5 is the effective date of her resignation as the representative for Georgia’s 14th Congressional District. Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp will have 10 days to set a special election date, likely sometime in March or April. A number of candidates have already announced bids for the solidly red seat.

• In case you missed the news right before Christmas, Wyoming Sen. Cynthia Lummis announced that she will not seek reelection in 2026. The Republican incumbent is the ninth senator to retire ahead of this year’s midterm elections. Republican Rep. Harriet Hageman quickly announced her candidacy for the seat and immediately earned President Donald Trump’s endorsement.

• Please subscribe to our Polling Memo! The weekly writeup, which will now come out on Tuesdays, features key trends based on DDHQ’s polling averages. If you’re already a subscriber to The Bellwether, you can receive the memo in your inbox by clicking on your account settings and opt to receive the Poll Memo (see the image below).

  

📈 The Frontrunner 🥇

A record number of House members are retiring

Quick summary:

• A whopping 44 U.S. House members have announced they are retiring or running for another office, a larger total than at this same point in any federal election cycle dating back to 1974. This record-setting figure likely connects at least in part to the dissatisfaction commonly heard from sitting members about their experiences serving in the House.

• And there could be more retirements on the way. The candidate filing deadline has passed in only five states, and 42 states have deadlines in February or later. That leaves plenty of time for incumbents to gauge where the 2026 electoral environment stands and to decide not to run again.

As you may have heard, members of the U.S. House of Representatives are saying “bye, bye, bye” in droves. Fact is, many are “leaving on a jet plane” and happily don’t know when they will be back again. Whatever your song reference might be, it is clear that few of these outgoing members would say that they “had the time of [their] life” serving in Congress’s lower chamber.

Just how remarkable is the ongoing exodus? A whopping 44 House members have announced they are retiring or running for another office, a larger total than at this same point in any federal election cycle dating back to 1974. And that figure does not include members who are leaving before their terms are up, such as Georgia Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene. That’s because many who resign early will be replaced by special elections before the end of Congress, whereas retirees and seekers of other offices will mostly have regularly-timed open-seat races to succeed them.

In terms of party, more Republicans are heading for the exits than Democrats — but not that many more. At this point, 25 GOP House members have announced their departures, compared with 19 Democrats. Still, this does fit a common pattern: In midterm cycles, members from the president’s party tend to be somewhat more likely to exit in the face of the electoral headwinds that party often faces. That might include an incumbent from a highly competitive district who faces a difficult reelection fight, or a long-tenured member in a safe seat who decides it’s no longer worth hanging around if there is a good chance the party will lose its House majority.

Perhaps not coincidentally, the previous record holder for departures by early January was the 2018 election cycle, back in President Donald Trump’s first term in office. By Jan. 4 of that year, 41 members had announced retirements or bids for other office. The party split was notably larger, though, as almost twice as many Republicans (27) were leaving the House as Democrats (14). Tellingly, in November 2018, Democrats made major gains and recaptured a House majority.

More broadly, the number of members who announce their retirements or bids for other offices by early January has generally been higher in the Trump Era than before. At least for the GOP, the changing nature of the party has precipitated some sizable turnover. For instance, following Trump’s election in 2016, many old school Republicans decided they no longer wanted to stick around. And members from both parties have made it clear that serving in the House or on Capitol Hill these days does not often correspond to high levels of job satisfaction.

Now, growing dissatisfaction could help explain the recent uptick in departures by early January of an election year, but it’s worth noting other factors that may play a role. On average, states hold primaries earlier than they used to, which means states generally have earlier candidate filing deadlines. As a result, House members have a shorter timeline to decide on their plans for the next campaign. As a simple comparison, just consider how congressional primary dates have shifted every 10 years over the past half century. In 1976 and 1986, the median primary date across the 50 states was in early August. After that, the median date moved forward to hover in mid-to-late June in the 1996, 2006, and 2016 cycles. And as it stands, the median primary date for the 2026 cycle is June 9, an even earlier point in the calendar.

Increased candidate fundraising pressure has also compelled earlier candidacy decisions. For those seeking a higher (and often more expensive) office, they need to start their campaigns earlier to give themselves more time to raise money ahead of the primary and/or general elections. For those who are retiring, an earlier departure announcement hands their potential successors more time to raise money for the ensuing House campaign.

Looking at the list of 44 departing members, somewhat more (26) are running for another office rather than hanging up their electoral spurs (18). Overall, eight hail from seats that neither party’s presidential nominee carried by more than 10 percentage points in 2024, a group of seats most likely to be sternly contested by both parties this November. Still, most of these members are leaving behind seats that are safe for one party or the other, which will make primaries the main decision point in most of them.

While the total number of departures in 2018 and 2026 showed broad similarities, a big difference between them is the ratio of Republican incumbents retiring versus seeking another office. In 2018, 17 of the 27 Republicans who had announced their exits by early January were retiring. This time around, though, almost 3 in 4 departing Republicans are seeking a different office — 18 of 25. (In both cycles, Democrats saw a more even mix of retirements and bids for other posts).

One contributing factor could be somewhat greater resistance to retirement among Republicans sitting in competitive seats. Back in 2018, six Republicans in seats that Trump carried by 10 points or fewer in 2016 had announced their retirements by early January. This included four in seats that Trump carried by fewer than 5 points (or that Hillary Clinton carried). This time around, four in comparable seats are retiring or running elsewhere. Of those, just one (Arizona Rep. David Schweikert) holds a seat with under a 5-point presidential margin in 2024.

This is at least partly a result of Trump successfully pushing GOP incumbents in competitive seats to seek reelection instead of running for other offices. Notable examples include New York Rep. Mike Lawler and Iowa Rep. Zach Nunn, each of whom were seriously considering gubernatorial bids in 2026 before backing away after hearing from Trump. That Trump has urged incumbents to stay put makes sense: Although the incumbency advantage in House elections has shrunk significantly, sitting members still give their party a slightly better chance of retaining a seat compared with an open-seat race.

Fact is, we are still a long way from knowing the full retirement picture in the House. At this point, the candidate filing deadline has passed in only five states, and 42 states have deadlines in February or later. So while candidate filing deadlines tend to be earlier than in the past, plenty of time remains for incumbents to gauge where the 2026 electoral environment stands and, perhaps, to decide against running again.

And when it comes to retirement watch, the full effect of mid-decade redistricting has not necessarily struck yet. Take California. The Democratic-drawn congressional map targeted five GOP incumbents, including Rep. Kevin Kiley, who has not revealed his plans for 2026. Most of Kiley’s former district ended up in clearly blue-leaning seats where he will have a difficult time winning, so a retirement decision is plausible. Conversely, in Missouri, should the Republican-drawn congressional map take effect for November 2026, Democratic Rep. Emanuel Cleaver would have to mount a reelection campaign in a Trump +18 seat, which might prompt him to reconsider running again. And should Utah’s new court-ordered map with three solidly Republican seats remain in effect, one of the state’s four GOP incumbents might retire rather than run in a primary against a fellow incumbent.

Just how many retirements might the 2026 cycle end up with? We obviously cannot know for sure, but the figure could end up well north of 44. It also could be debatable because counting retirements can sometimes be a moving target. For instance, a House member running for another office might resign to focus on their campaign. In the time between the resignation and the regular 2026 election, a special election could fill the outgoing member’s seat such that a new member gets elected and then runs in November as the seat’s new incumbent. How to count that resigning member — is it someone running for another office or someone resigning — is admittedly somewhat esoteric, but slightly different methodologies can affect how we compare retirement figures across elections.

Still, looking at the current numbers and the common refrain of “#congresssucks” among sitting members, this cycle could get within spitting distance of the 66 or so retirements in the entirety of the 1992 election cycle, which holds the modern record for total departing members (no matter how you define the categories). The next couple of months will likely determine how near the 2026 election comes to that mark.

🟢 No Red Or Blue, Just Green 📗

Blake Burman on prediction markets:

The “Donroe Doctrine?”

One question we are likely to continue to hear over the coming days into weeks is who exactly is running Venezuela. President Trump said over the weekend the U.S. will temporarily run the country.

“We can’t take a chance that somebody else takes over Venezuela that doesn’t have the good of the Venezuelan people in mind,” the Commander in Chief said.

Right now there isn’t much conviction in the prediction markets as to who will be leading Venezuela in the long term.

Delcy Rodriguez is the current head according to Venezuelan law, but she is pushing back on U.S. actions and that won’t sit well with the Trump administration. Edmundo Gonzalez, who rightfully won the 2024 election, and Maria Corina Machado, the 2025 Nobel Peace Prize winner, are viewed as other frontrunners.

I didn’t get a straight answer about who is running the country when I asked a key D.C. lawmaker who had recently spoken with Secretaries Marco Rubio and Pete Hegseth.

You can read the rest of Blake’s post on his new Substack!

📆 Around the Corner 📌

• January 31, 2026

  • TX-18 Special Election Runoff

• February 5, 2026

  • NJ-11 Special Election Primary

• April 16, 2026

  • NJ-11 Special Election