Politics

Dems are trying everything in battlegrounds. Republicans are sticking with Trump.

Published

4 months ago

June 28, 2026

Republicans are betting their path to victory in 2026 runs through MAGA. Democrats are still figuring out how to win.

Two-thirds of the way through primary season, results from dozens of hotly contested battlegrounds across the country reveal a Republican Party that remains fully captured by President Donald Trump, even in swing districts that have at times rejected his brand, and a Democratic Party that is still consumed by factional infighting over how to win.

The implications are huge: If Republicans can win even competitive seats with MAGA candidates, that can further entrench the populist far right’s hold on the party. But if they suffer sweeping losses, that could bolster the more moderate GOP wing’s push for a return to power.

Democrats, meanwhile, will have plenty to study in November as they search for clues to winning back the White House in 2028. They’ve nominated an array of candidates, from far-left progressives to traditional centrists.

“The proof is going to be in the pudding,” said Larry Ceisler, a Democratic-aligned Pennsylvania-based public affairs executive. “Can these people win competitive general elections? And that’s going to be a lesson that’s going to go into ‘28.”

Republican voters have rallied behind candidates who closely align themselves with Trump and the MAGA brand, from Rep. Mike Collins and billionaire Rick Jackson in Georgia, to Bobby Charles and Marty O’Donnell in Nevada’s 3rd District. Trump-endorsed candidates have largely won their primaries this year, with a few high-profile exceptions in Iowa, Georgia and South Carolina, where Trump ended up endorsing both Republicans in the gubernatorial runoff at the last minute.

Democrats are being pulled by competing visions for their party’s future. For Texas Senate, Democrats chose buttoned-up James Talarico, but for Maine Senate they picked scandal-plagued Graham Platner. For New York’s 17th District on Tuesday, Democrats nominated no-nonsense and establishment-aligned veteran Cait Conley, but in California’s 22nd District, voters bucked party leadership and chose a firebrand progressive in Randy Villegas.

The results could turn Trump into a lame duck the last two years of his term, test the power of his brand a decade after he first ascended, and set in motion the direction of both parties ahead of the next presidential election.

Republicans bet on MAGA

The question of whether MAGA can win in battlegrounds has dogged the GOP in recent years, with loyalists like Kari Lake losing key races in 2022 and down-ballot Republicans trailing Trump in 2024.

They’re not changing tack.

Even as the president’s popularity sags, driven by dissatisfaction with the economy, his aggressive deportations and an unpopular war in Iran, the Republican base voters who drive the primaries are continuing to nominate MAGA candidates, not moderates.

That bucks conventional wisdom, which holds that a general election victory, especially in competitive races, requires assembling a broader coalition — one where Trump’s endorsement may not always help. A recent POLITICO Poll found that receiving Trump’s backing provoked a stronger negative reaction from voters who are opposed to the president than a positive one from those who support him, making it a net negative for a hypothetical candidate.

That is a dynamic Republican candidates will need to navigate in the months ahead — a particularly delicate balancing act for those who embraced the president’s agenda during the primary, but now must try to win over a more diverse segment of the electorate.

In Georgia, the Trump-backed Collins prevailed in last week’s GOP Senate runoff after leaning into his MAGA credentials. Now, he transitions to a match-up against incumbent Democratic Sen. Jon Ossoff, where appealing to a broader coalition of voters could prove equally as important as energizing the Republican base.

MAGA-aligned candidates also triumphed in Maine, with Charles gunning for the governor’s mansion and former Republican Gov. Paul LePage seeking to flip moderate Democrat Rep. Jared Golden’s now-open House seat. And in Nevada’s 2nd District, Trump-endorsed McDonnell, who just recently came under fire for hosting a Nazi on his podcast, is trying to pick off Democratic Rep. Susie Lee — one of the Republican Party’s top targets.

Even candidates who didn’t gain the president’s endorsement have ridden his brand to victory. Jackson won the GOP nomination for Georgia governor over a Trump-backed candidate, vowing to be “Trump’s favorite governor” and touting his support for the president’s agenda.

Still, Jason Roe, a Michigan-based GOP strategist, said MAGA is “baked into the Republican brand at this point,” so there’s “very little risk” for candidates to embrace Trump during a primary before pivoting to the general election.

The Democratic party throws everything at the wall

Democrats have one point of unity: They’re messaging against the party in power.

Most of their candidates push back against Trump and argue they would do a far better job addressing the nation’s cost of living, repeatedly the top issue for voters, than Republicans have.

But the party’s clashes over identity and charged issues like Israel and the war in Gaza have been on full display across some of the most-high profile matchups.

Voters “are looking for, ‘Hey, who is the right candidate that can actually win and represent me best in where I live?’” said Andres Ramirez, a Nevada-based Democratic consultant. “Where progressives can do well, they’re going to do well, where moderates can do well, they’re going to do well, and the full spectrum in between.”

Progressives have seen a slate of victories, including Villegas in California’s 22nd District and Matt Dunlap in Maine’s 2nd District. And Platner, despite being mired in controversy, crushed Maine Gov. Janet Mills even before the primary officially took place. All three defeated establishment choices backed by Democrats’ official campaign arms, a sign the party lacks the kind of total control that Trump enjoys over the GOP.

But moderates haven’t been far behind, with veterans like Conley winning in New York and Rebecca Bennett in New Jersey’s 7th District. In some of this year’s top battlegrounds, establishment-backed candidates have advanced, including Aaron Ford in Nevada and Josh Turek in Iowa.

Then there’s the faceoff next week in Colorado between Manny Rutinel, a progressive, and establishment-backed Shannon Bird and the brutal showdown later this summer in Michigan’s Democratic Senate primary, where progressive Abdul El-Sayed is leading two more moderate challengers, Rep. Haley Stevens and state Sen. Mallory McMorrow.

The midterms will help give the party clues about what kind of Democrats are best poised to win ahead of 2028 — but it has also turbocharged an ideological civil war between the different wings of the party, especially as progressives have gained ground in both deep-blue and battleground districts.

Jesse Ferguson, a longtime Democratic strategist, said that in some of the nation’s swingiest districts, “the most electable candidates” are largely prevailing.

“There will be lots of debate about winning primaries in places like NYC and what that means for 2028, but the most important races — the ones in the swing districts — are being won by the candidates who give us the best chance to win the majority in 2026,” said Ferguson. “That’s what matters.”

Politics

‘A warning sign for polling’: Why one GOP pollster thinks a blue wave may fall short

Published

9 hours ago

October 19, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Democrats are salivating over, and Republicans are bracing for, a potentially massive blue wave. One GOP pollster is urging everyone to calm down.

Patrick Ruffini, a founding partner at Echelon Insights, has been loudly throwing cold water on Democrats’ hopes of sweeping the red state Senate seats that have become battlegrounds in a worsening national environment for Republicans.

“The polls are, I think, intentionally inflating the size of the battleground,” Ruffini told Blue Light News.

Democrats are pushing to flip Senate seats in Iowa, Texas, Ohio and Alaska — all states that President Donald Trump won by at least 11 points in 2024 — with dreams of going even deeper into the map Kansas, South Carolina and even Mississippi. Sensing a potential disaster, Republicans have significantly curtailed their investments in North Carolina and Georgia to direct resources elsewhere.

Ruffini, who isn’t polling for candidates or party committees in any federal races, said he’s skeptical of Democrats flipping some of those seats, particularly in the Midwest, and gives the GOP a coin flip’s chance at keeping control of the Senate.

If a blue wave were to come, he said it would defy the ingrained partisanship in deep-red states that has mirrored growing political polarization around the country.

“I think it would be somewhat of a historic shift if that were to happen,” he said.

Here’s more from Blue Light News’s chat with Ruffini, edited for length and clarity. A more condensed version of this interview ran in Blue Light News’s Morning Score campaign newsletter.

You’ve been pretty publicly skeptical of polling that indicates a big tsunami for Democrats in November. Why is that?

I think we can read the environment right, but the map wrong.

The pretty large shift towards Democrats that we’re seeing on the generic ballot and in a lot of individual races, I’m not saying that’s not going to materialize. What I am more skeptical of is… the ability of any major party in this polarized era that we’re in to rack up significant gains in states that went double digits for the other side.

I’m not ruling out — I think there will be some [examples]. I think Alaska is one where it’s both an idiosyncratic state, and [Democratic nominee Mary] Peltola has shown some specific candidate-centered strength. Nor would it shock me if [Democrat] James Talarico wins, despite the history in Texas. That would not surprise me, just given the candidate quality disparity, particularly on the Ken Paxton side.

Where I get more skeptical is when you move into the Midwest, where there has historically been pretty large polling errors [overstating Democrats’ chances] in states like Iowa, Ohio. And I think you can extend that to the Democratic enthusiasm around Kansas.

Is your skepticism coming more from the quality of the individual polls that you’re seeing that are showing massive Democratic surges in the Midwest, or is it the history of these states that you’re betting will ultimately win out?

I think fundamentals are going to play an important role, particularly in states where there was a solid Trump advantage. We’re not talking about a state like North Carolina or Georgia that’s only for Trump narrowly, where Democrats, at least in the Senate races, are clearly favored.

Historically the presumption is that states tend to converge on their base partisanship in the closing days of an election, but especially that’s been the pattern in the Midwest.

Specifically as it relates to the polls this year, I think any pollster you would talk to, including myself, is experiencing significant non-response bias favoring Democrats.

When you’re seeing high-propensity Democrats [responding to polls] at twice the rate of high-propensity Republicans, when we know that the turnout on both sides would be roughly evenly paired, that’s a warning sign for polling in this cycle.

It seems like there’s some GOP internal polling saying that Republicans are worried about these states, because they are moving money around to triage certain races. I’m curious if you feel like they’re wrong to be making those decisions?

Absolutely not. They’re not wrong. You do have to take the polls somewhat seriously in the sense of, if you do get a poll that’s within the margin of error, I think you’re duty-bound to spend money in those places and not to ignore what could be a potential signal.

I think that control of the Senate comes down to Texas, so they’re right to be spending money there. If you just look at the amount of money being spent in Texas versus Kansas, obviously it’s a much, much bigger state, and you need to spend much more money.

But it’s not something along the lines of ‘the battleground has shifted. It’s a foregone conclusion. Democrats are going to win the Senate,’ and then the battleground entirely shifts to a state like Kansas or to Iowa, right? I don’t think we’re seeing that.

It sounds like the issue you have is how the broader public is interpreting these polls rather than the polls themselves?

The polls are, I think, intentionally inflating the size of the battleground. And to some extent it’s happening both ways. The polls showing a margin-of- error race in Minnesota is possible, right? I’m not as concerned about a polling error in Minnesota as I am in Kansas.

But because of the number of Democratic internals and because of the incentive of Democratic internals to show close races across the battleground, what you generally tend to see is more of an inflated sense of how big the battleground actually is. A lot of these races just break a certain way.

We’ve reported that Republicans are privately conceding that the House is lost. Is that your reading of the data too?

That’s the best reading of the data. That said, if there’s a three-point polling error or something, then I think it gets very, very tight and anything can happen. But I think that’s the most likely outcome.

What is your prediction for the number of Senate seats Republicans will have?

My prediction for both the probability and the seat count is 50-50. There’s a 50-50 chance Republicans hold the Senate. I think if they do, it’s with 50 seats, probably. But obviously, that can tilt very easily.

Which of these states do you think are going to flip for Democrats?

Alaska is clearly favored. I mean, I don’t know if it’s clearly favored, but I think it’s at least still Democrat. I think Texas is going to be very, very close. I just think the partisanship of the state is — people forget it’s a little bit more Republican than it was back in 2018. I think Republicans are probably being underestimated in Ohio because of the past Midwestern polling error.

At the same time, I would say it’s still uphill in Maine and Michigan to some degree. I think Susan Collins has really been the lone bright spot, at least in terms of the conventional wisdom, the narrative in the Senate for Republicans. I think she has a fighting chance, but I think Republicans are still probably under a 50% chance in both Michigan and Maine, just due to the nature of their partisan lean.

If at the end of all of this it is a real blue wave in the Senate, what will have happened to have made you wrong?

If that happens, we will have seen a level of depolarization in the electorate that we haven’t seen since around 2012. You really have to go back in history for a state like Kansas to flip.That would be pretty unique historically, where it’s a flip where you have an incumbent losing.

That’s the kind of thing that used to happen in Senate races a lot, and then things, starting with Trump, got a lot more polarized. So what that would mean is, maybe this is the start of a new political era. But I think it would be somewhat of a historic shift if that were to happen.

Politics

Ohio returns as a bellwether

Published

12 hours ago

October 19, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Ohio returns as a bellwether

lead image

Politics

Inside the quiet money pullback — for both parties — in Georgia’s Senate race

Published

13 hours ago

October 19, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

The money spigot is sputtering in Georgia’s Senate race amid growing expectations that Democratic Sen. Jon Ossoff will win reelection.

The Senate Leadership Fund, Republicans’ top Senate super PAC, did not spend on broadcast television in the state last week — the first week they were off air in the race, according to tracking firm AdImpact. Neither did Democrats’ Senate Majority PAC.

Senate Majority PAC will also be dark again this week, the Chuck Schumer-aligned group shared first with Blue Light News. It was not immediately clear whether SLF would follow suit. The group declined to comment on their future spending plans in the state.

The spending slowdown underscores how dramatically Georgia’s place on the Senate map has shifted, as Ossoff maintains wide margins over Republican Rep. Mike Collins in public polling and fundraising. Georgia was expected to be one of the cycle’s most expensive and preeminent battlegrounds — now some of the biggest outside spenders are pulling back and turning their attention to more competitive races in redder territory.

The two major Senate super PACs have closely mirrored each other’s spending decisions in recent weeks, with neither fully retreating from the state. They still both technically have future ad reservations booked past this week, but those are not binding, leaving both sides with the flexibility to redirect money as they assess the Senate map. And with two weeks until Election Day and early voting already underway in Georgia, it’s unclear whether either will spend any more in the state.

“National Republicans are abandoning Mike Collins as he continues to show Georgians why he’s unelectable and unfit for office. We are committed to seeing Jon Ossoff through to victory as we come to the final days of this campaign,” SMP spokesperson Lauren French said in a statement.

Collins’ campaign, in a statement, said they were “grateful to every group that’s standing with Rep. Collins and welcome their continued support.”

“With early voting underway, he’s working every day to earn the vote of every Georgian, because Jon Ossoff is a radical leftist who wants to raise their taxes and make their families less safe. Rep. Collins will keep making that case until Ossoff is held accountable on Election Day,” Collins spokesperson Meyer Siegfried said in a statement.

Ossoff’s campaign didn’t respond to a request for comment.

SMP had pledged in the spring to spend $20 million on television for the race, but as of Friday had only spent or reserved $11.5 million, per AdImpact. SLF had announced an initial $44 million investment, but has so far only spent or reserved roughly $20 million.

No Going Back PAC, which is affiliated with President Donald Trump’s MAGA Inc. super PAC, has also dramatically scaled back its own spending on the race over the last two weeks, according to AdImpact.

Republican operatives are still monitoring Georgia’s governor’s race, where recent public polling shows GOP nominee Rick Jackson slightly ahead of Democratic nominee Keisha Lance Bottoms. Republicans believe Jackson’s strength could keep the Senate race closer than currently expected.

But they have grown increasingly pessimistic about their prospects of flipping Georgia’s Senate seat, as Collins trails Ossoff in the polls and the overall environment for the GOP continues to grow more difficult. SLF’s decision to go dark last week — so close to the election — raises questions about how much more the group will ultimately invest in the state.

“Every dollar Schumer spends in Georgia is one not spent on offense in red states. Republicans’ financial advantage doesn’t just show up in more ads, it keeps Dems on defense,” a person familiar with SLF’s spending plans told Blue Light News.

Ossoff also holds a massive fundraising advantage over Collins, who had just over $1 million cash on hand as of Oct. 1, giving Ossoff a major financial cushion in the final stretch even before the major Senate super PACs pulled back their spending.

The GOP has been triaging races across the map: SLF shifted money out of North Carolina, another perennial battleground, while moving resources toward defending GOP-held seats in states like Kansas and South Carolina, where the Senate contests have become increasingly competitive.

Still, even as the money going into Georgia has continued to slow, Trump appears to be prioritizing the longtime battleground.

At a rally in Dalton on Friday, he urged voters to “pretend” he’s on the ballot, while praising Collins and the state’s GOP governor’s nominee, Rick Jackson.

Meredith Lee Hill and Andrew Howard contributed.