Politics
The primaries testing Democratic 2028ers
Top Democrats are using 2026 as a launching pad for potential 2028 presidential runs.
From progressive Reps. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) to the more moderate Pete Buttigieg and Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro, Democrats have sought to shape their party by endorsing in contested primaries this year. They’ve traveled the country to raise their own profiles and elevate candidates they see as the future of the party.
Their strategies have not always been successful — but they have been revealing: Some endorsed against incumbents based on generational or ideological differences. Some weighed in early to give candidates credence, while others waited until the last minute to help them close out the race. And some have focused on purple districts and other competitive races that could determine control of Congress in the fall.
“If you’re thinking about running for president, you need allies,” said Mike Nellis, a Democratic strategist whose firm works with House and Senate campaigns across the country. “The more that you’re out there, trying to get people elected and making a meaningful difference, voters are going to remember that.”
Appearing with candidates on the campaign trail is an opportunity for potential 2028 candidates to create social media buzz, Nellis noted. Traveling gives them opportunities to connect with donors and elected officials across the country who might be helpful for a future presidential run and pressure test how messages work in various parts of the country. For those not up for an election of their own this year, it’s also a way to stay relevant.
Some potential presidential candidates have been particularly prolific, while others have been more cautious or stuck to their home states, according to a Blue Light News review of endorsements in House, Senate and gubernatorial races. And a handful mostly stayed out of this year’s primaries.
The most prolific endorsers
Few members of Congress threw out as many endorsements as Khanna.
The California representative, who has said he is “seriously considering” running for president in 2028, endorsed in more than a dozen races, often serving as one of the earliest national backers of progressive candidates such as Kat Abughazaleh in Illinois’ 9th District and Analilia Mejia in New Jersey’s 11th District. Abughazaleh lost her race, while Mejia won.
Khanna also backed left-wing candidates that other national progressives shied away from, most notably democratic socialist state Rep. Francesca Hong in the Wisconsin gubernatorial race.
His record is mixed. Hong lost and former Maine Senate Democratic nominee Graham Platner, who Khanna stood by despite a series of controversies, had to drop out after winning a primary but facing an allegation of sexual assault, which he denies — at which point Khanna, like many others, withdrew his endorsement.
Khanna told Blue Light News he likes “endorsing early when an insurgent candidate is a bit of a longshot because that is when they need the endorsement most.” He looks for candidates who support Medicare for All and taxing billionaires and are opposed to foreign wars.
“My philosophy is to give those who are outsiders and have to scrape their way in — like I had to — a fair shot,” he said in a text message.
Ocasio-Cortez also endorsed a large slate of progressive candidates, but she’s been more selective than Khanna — a difference in approach that’s sparked some infighting within the Bernie Sanders wing of the progressive movement.
Critics have argued she’s played it too safe. But her selectivity has also meant she avoided high-profile stumbles.
Ocasio-Cortez has positioned herself as more of a closer this cycle. In California’s 22nd District, a battleground in the Central Valley, Khanna endorsed progressive professor Randy Villegas last September, while Ocasio-Cortez dropped her endorsement in May — about a month before the primary. Villegas ultimately defeated a moderate lawmaker backed by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and is among the progressives who will now try to knock off an incumbent Republican in November.
Ocasio-Cortez actively campaigned for progressives in several contested battleground primaries, rallying with Sam Forstag in Montana and alongside Sanders with Abdul El-Sayed, who narrowly won the Democratic Senate nomination in Michigan.
She recently threw her support behind Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), who faces a primary challenge from Rep. Seth Moulton next week.
The other most frequent endorser among potential Democratic 2028ers this cycle played in a different lane. Former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg, a moderate, has been active on the campaign trail, visiting most presidential battleground states and endorsing in key Senate primaries, including Rep. Angie Craig in Minnesota’s Democratic Senate primary — which she lost to progressive Peggy Flanagan — and state Rep. Josh Turek in Iowa’s Democratic Senate primary, which he won.
Buttigieg, who has said he is “more inclined than not” to run for president again in 2028, has also notched endorsement wins with Rebecca Cooke in Wisconsin’s battleground 3rd District and former Hartford Mayor Luke Bronin in Connecticut, who defeated incumbent Rep. John Larson earlier this month.
Most governors stuck close to home
Governors eyeing White House runs kept their endorsements closer to home, largely trying to play kingmaker within state lines as they face their own reelection fights.
The local focus allows them to flex their influence while avoiding criticism for nationalizing their own states’ politics. And they’ve campaigned aggressively for their chosen candidates — political power plays that not only strengthen their standing on home turf but could also serve as springboards for national bids.
Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker pumped $10 million into a super PAC supporting his lieutenant governor, Juliana Stratton, in the contentious Senate primary to replace retiring Sen. Dick Durbin, and appeared alongside her on the campaign trail. He described the race as “personal” to him; Stratton won by 7 points.
Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro expended significant political capital in one of Democrats’ top House targets in his state, helping recruit longtime ally and firefighter union chief Bob Brooks into the race against GOP Rep. Ryan Mackenzie in the state’s swingy 7th District and then working to elevate him out of a four-way primary. Shapiro fundraised for Brooks, cut an ad for him and joined him on the stump ahead of Election Day; Brooks won by nearly 20 points.
Shapiro was also one of a handful of Democratic attorneys-general-turned-governors who backed Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser in his gubernatorial primary against Sen. Michael Bennet. Weiser won by 14 points.
In Maryland, Gov. Wes Moore backed state Del. Adrian Boafo in the crowded race to replace retiring Rep. Steny Hoyer and boosted Rep. April McClain Delaney in her bruising primary against former Rep. David Trone — including recording a robocall on her behalf. An adviser to Moore said the governor had preexisting relationships with both candidates he endorsed, and that he prioritizes local and in-state races as he seeks to make endorsement decisions that will benefit his constituents.
Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer also stuck to her state, only really playing in Michigan’s high-profile Senate race. She endorsed Rep. Haley Stevens in the final stretch of the race, although she wasn’t active on the campaign trail in the same way Pritzker was for Stratton or Shapiro for Brooks.
Disagreements among moderates
Even among candidates occupying a more centrist lane heading into 2028, there was room for disagreement.
Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.), a former national security official, endorsed retired Navy SEAL Matt Maasdam, a moderate in Michigan’s 7th district, which she previously represented. Several Democrats had hoped she’d back former foreign service officer Bridget Brink, a fellow moderate — and as they split the centrist vote, progressive William Lawrence ascended to the nomination in the toss-up district instead.
A person familiar with Slotkin’s thinking, granted anonymity to speak candidly about internal deliberations, said that she connected better with Maasdam and saw him as a stronger general election candidate.
The person also acknowledged that Slotkin’s decision to wait to issue her endorsement until three weeks before the primary didn’t leave enough time for voters and party leaders to coalesce around Maasdam.
Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.) rolled out a slate of endorsements of veteran candidates, mostly for the general election, but has backed a range of other Democrats in primaries. That includes DCCC-backed political novice Marlene Galan-Woods in his home state, only for her to lose the primary in Arizona’s 1st District.
“As Navy combat veteran and former NASA astronaut, Mark Kelly knows the country is best served by leaders who represent their communities and bring a range of different backgrounds and experiences to the job. It’s why he’s endorsed candidates in competitive primaries and campaigned for Democrats up and down the ballot,” Kelly spokesperson Marisol Samayoa said.
In next week’s primary in New Hampshire’s 1st District, Kelly is supporting Stefany Shaheen, the daughter of his Senate colleague Jeanne Shaheen, praising her as a “fearless leader” who would stand up to President Donald Trump.
New Jersey Gov. Mikie Sherrill also went on a recent endorsement spree focused on military veterans. But she’s backing Maura Sullivan in the race against Shaheen next week, along with Rep. Seth Moulton in his primary against Sen. Ed Markey, who has gotten backing from progressives including Ocasio-Cortez.
“The fight isn’t moderates versus DSA candidates,” Sherrill told POLITICO earlier this month. “The fight is if we are going to have strong people in the Democratic Party that are going to actually make change to make people’s lives better, or people who you can just expect more of the same.”
The ones who (mostly) sat it out
Not every potential presidential candidate was eager to endorse this cycle.
Even after working to redraw boundaries in his home state to create more safely blue seats, California Gov. Gavin Newsom stayed out of the federal races — and the contest to succeed him. Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear endorsed after primaries in his home state were complete. Former White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, who is considering his own White House bid, also eschewed endorsements.
And Kamala Harris declined to weigh in on the majority of competitive primaries because of her high profile, according to a person familiar with her thinking who was granted anonymity to speak candidly. The exceptions were “based on the closeness” of the former vice president’s relationships with the people she did endorse.
Harris recorded a robocall for Rep. Jasmine Crockett in the Texas Senate primary before Crockett eventually lost to James Talarico. She backed Del. Stacey Plaskett ahead of her U.S. Virgin Islands’ gubernatorial primary victory earlier this month. She has also endorsed Dan Koh in next week’s primary for Massachusetts’ 6th District.
All three candidates have close ties to Harris. Crockett served as co-chair of Harris’ 2024 presidential campaign, Plaskett endorsed Harris when she first ran for president in the 2020 primary, and Koh is a former Biden administration official.
Kevin Stitt, the outgoing Republican governor of Oklahoma, has a message for President Donald Trump: Try being nice.
“People are just kind of tired,” Stitt told Blue Light News in an interview Friday morning, three days after the Republican Party suffered devastating election losses across the country and a few hours before Trump elevated Stephen Miller to be his chief of staff.
“They are just ready for something new and a change … President Trump’s policies are amazing, and he does a really good job on a lot of fronts, but the civility and then just trying to be nice to people, I think would go a long way.”
Stitt, who was until this summer chair of the National Governors Association, has been in Trump’s crosshairs before. In February, Trump lashed out at Stitt in a dispute over the annual NGA gathering at the White House, calling the Oklahoma governor a “RINO” and a “wiseguy.” The two later appeared to patch things up, after a White House sit-down in March.
Stitt is now one of several prominent Republicans calling on the president and congressional leaders to take stock of the party’s midterm losses and change course heading into 2028.
Asked on Friday if Trump had been nice to him, Stitt laughed, before replying: “I’ve always gotten along with President Trump. He’s always been good to me.”
But the term-limited governor, who has said he intends to return to the private sector next year, did not shy away from calling out the president. Stitt urged Trump to stop directing the Department of Justice to go after his political opponents — tactics the governor described as “Third World country stuff” — and use his final two years in the White House to seriously pursue bipartisan immigration reform.
This transcript has been edited for length and clarity.
You called last year’s election results a “butt whipping” for the party. If 2025 was a butt whipping, what was 2026?
Oh man! I don’t swear, but it’s probably worse than a butt whipping. It was pretty bad. But here’s the deal: I think it didn’t go the way that we had hoped, but I just want everybody to know, it’s not the end of the world. We’re all Americans, and it really shows you that we’re not as partisan as we think. In other words, the American people can swing both directions, right? That’s a positive.
Our leadership matters, the way we conduct ourselves matters. The American people wanted something different, and I think in two years we’ll see what happens.
I think [Texas Gov. Greg] Abbott’s loss was really the most shocking to me because he’s such a good guy and has been a great governor for Texas, and I don’t think anybody saw that coming.
What happened? Why do you think the results went the way they did?
People are tired of the self-dealing that they see in politicians. They see people going to Congress and getting rich, and government contracts to big business. I think people are just really, really cranky right now. Obviously, the kitchen table issues like diesel prices are super hard on the average American, and things are costing more, and I think people are frustrated.
We’ve got to get back to talking about spending. The national debt [is] out of control. We’re spending $2 trillion. It doesn’t matter if Republicans or Democrats are in office. People don’t even talk about tax policy anymore because they think they can spend whatever they want, regardless of income, and that is driving things up.
We have got to have permitting reform done. If you think about why are gas prices so expensive, part of that you could blame on the war in Iran, but a lot of it is the lack of development of new gas processing pipelines. It takes us eight years to build things anymore, and we have so squashed the private sector from meeting the needs of Americans through over-regulation.
Do Republicans need to do a better job of messaging?
They need to do a better job of messaging. But they also need to do a better job of leading when we get there.
I think the American people are so tired of weaponizing the Department of Justice. When President [Joe] Biden, his party was raiding Mar-a-Lago, they were suing President Trump, and then Trump wins big. I wish that we wouldn’t have flipped the script and started weaponizing and going after political opponents. This is Third World country stuff. We have got to stop that.
Now, when the Democrats are in power, if they try to start impeaching Trump again and try weaponizing and investigating instead of leading, I think the American people are going to be frustrated in two years again.
How much blame do you place on President Trump for the midterm results?
President Trump is what he is… I think just over 10 years, people are just kind of tired. They’re just ready for something new and a change. President Trump’s policies are amazing, and he does a really good job on a lot of fronts. But the civility and just kind of being nice to people, I think would go a long way.
Has Trump been nice to you?
I have always gotten along with President Trump. He has always been good to me. But you know … we all know that the president, he’s a fighter, and it’s so tough to be the president because everybody’s always attacking him. But I think that just a little more decorum, and people would give him more of the benefit of the doubt.
He is talking now about potentially working across the aisle. I know you brought up permitting reform. Are there other areas where you would like to see him and the administration working with Democrats on Capitol Hill?
Immigration reform is something where I think there’s a really good opportunity. President Trump is the president that has the credibility because he secured the borders after Biden’s disaster, and literally he could be the one that could really give us some immigration policy that allows the workforce that we need.
Do you see the midterm results as a response to the administration’s immigration enforcement tactics? Was this a rejection of the way that immigration has been handled?
That may be just one part of it, but it is certainly more nuanced than that. I think it is just an overall frustration with the party that’s in charge right now, and the people are wanting something different.
If there’s violent criminals, we need them out. But there was a case in Oklahoma where the guy had been here since he was eight years old from Vietnam, and he worked for a company, the company was vouching for him … but he had a marijuana charge from 20 years ago that was expunged by the state when he was in college. But yet he’s been deported, has a wife and two kids.
That’s the kind of thing that doesn’t make sense to the average person. And that’s where people are like, “Hey, we’re all for getting violent criminals out, but this guy is chasing the American dream, contributing. He is one that we should give a workforce permit to.
Where do you think the Republican Party needs to go from here?
The American people are looking for civility. They are looking for a statesman. They are looking for someone that is not as partisan that is saying, “Hey, we’re all Americans. Well, we can disagree better. We can disagree with one another on policy, but let’s start debating the policy, like our founders talked about.”
President Donald Trump’s decision to name hard-line loyalist Stephen Miller as his top aide cemented what many Republicans were already privately fearing: There will be no party-wide GOP reckoning with this week’s midterm bloodbath.
Instead, with Trump still in office for another two years, most have grown resigned to the reality that the president is going to lean in on a confrontational approach with Congress — and is not willing to change course.
Republicans on Capitol Hill and inside the Trump administration are questioning how and whether they can break with the president now after having green-lit much of his agenda, according to more than a dozen GOP lawmakers, senior aides and Trump officials interviewed for this story, some of whom were granted anonymity to speak candidly about the party’s future.
Trump’s decision Friday to elevate Miller, the architect of his unpopular mass deportation policy and an advocate of fierce partisan confrontation, crystallized the frustration.
“There needs to be some self-reflection for Republicans,” Rep. Marlin Stutzman (R-Ind.) said in an interview about the midterm losses Friday morning. “There should be some heads rolling at the White House because we lost badly.”
Hours later, heads did roll. Trump announced Miller would replace Susie Wiles as his new chief of staff.
“Horrible decision,” Stutzman said in response.
One House Republican, when informed that Trump had named Miller his chief of staff, replied: “Please tell me you’re lying to me right now, just to get a reaction.”
The immediate aftermath of the election has sharpened the GOP’s core issue for the past decade: They are struggling to navigate the man who they reshaped their entire identity around, and whose record low approval with voters helped to fuel generational losses within the party.
The Iran war is another area where some Republicans are having regrets. Vice President JD Vance identified it as the main reason for the party’s defeat in his election post-mortem.
The problem with Vance’s assessment, one senior Hill Republican said, is, “we’ve been fucking voting for the war since March — because they told us to.”
Republicans and Trump advisers expect the president to wield massive influence in the 2028 GOP primaries, another reason many are staying quiet.
“Everyone is staring at each other and wondering who will speak up and blame Trump first,” said one GOP operative who worked on a battleground race Democrats won. They, like others in this article, were granted anonymity to speak candidly. “But we’ve been here before. I’m not holding my breath. He still controls the party and its primaries, at least for now.”
The White House responded to Blue Light News’s request for comment by referring to Trump’s praise for Miller on Friday. The RNC declined to comment.
Miller wrote on social media that he is “honored beyond words to serve as [Trump’s] White House Chief of Staff” and “the mission now is more clear than ever: Fight with all of our soul to support our President.”
How much lawmakers will distance themselves will be put to the test quickly: House Republicans will have an immediate opportunity to break with Trump and the war next week, when Rep. Thomas Massie said in an interview with Blue Light News he will trigger his articles of impeachment against Secretary Pete Hegseth. “There are a lot of questions about Hegseth,” House Oversight Chair James Comer (R-Ky.) said Friday.
Some senior Republicans are privately nudging Trump officials to ditch Hegseth before the vote, according to two people with direct knowledge of the conversations. The White House is sticking by Hegseth so far, however.
House Republicans will also have a chance to elect new leadership next week, including a new chair of the National Republican Congressional Committee. But in a sign of what’s to come, none of the candidates — including Reps. Brian Jack (R-Ga.) and Rudy Yakym (R-Ind.) — nor any other GOP leadership candidates have publicly suggested doing more to break with Trump.
A small group of Republicans on Capitol Hill have privately declared, as of Tuesday night, that “MAGA is over,” and it’s time for a “reset,” as one House GOP aide put it — and yet it’s a sentiment no prominent Republican is willing to say publicly.
Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.), one of the longest-serving members of the House, said he wasn’t going to “blame” others for Tuesday’s losses, which left him as the sole GOP incumbent survivor in his home state. Asked if Republicans were dragged down by the president, Smith replied: “I don’t want to answer that.”
Rep. Warren Davidson (R-Ohio) went a step further. He declined to name Trump, but he said in an interview that he was tired of GOP leaders “ignoring” voters — a remarkable position for a party that Trump transformed into a working-class coalition.
“We had a lot of Republican leaders out there saying ‘everything’s fine.’ And you kind of had the boomer generation saying, ‘Well, yeah, back in my day, interest rates were 15%, so everything’s good,’” said Davidson, a 56-year-old former Army Ranger. “Well, you had a lot of hardworking young people who felt really ignored, and they they went to the polls and said, ‘Stop ignoring us.'”
Davidson said Republicans need to start discussing their problems quickly, or suffer the electoral consequences again.
“Bad news doesn’t get better with time. So avoiding talking about something doesn’t solve the problem,” he said. He said Vance “walked a pretty good line” by being “candid” in his election post-mortem Wednesday.
Vance and other potential 2028 presidential contenders like Sen. Ted Cruz don’t have much time to waste if they want to chart a new path away from Trump. Cruz issued his own post-mortem that included a call to focus more on voters’ economic concerns. Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis said “this midterm was a rebuke of the president and Congress.”
French Hill, the powerful Financial Services Committee Chair who narrowly survived a strong Democratic challenge in his own deep-red Arkansas seat Tuesday night, pointed to “President Trump’s unfavorability” which hit “races across the country.” Hill added: “He will be considered a lame duck, and that often has members of both political parties looking out at who will be the standard-bearers in the 2028 presidential election.”
Most others have remained silent in public.
One thing is certain: The utter devastation in deep-red seats is stirring deep anger among many Hill Republicans, who believe something needs to change.
It’s fueling private recriminations at Trump’s political operation that his advisers didn’t take early warnings seriously about the extent of the damage in states like North Carolina. Trump’s now-former chief of staff Susie Wiles will join his political operation, the president announced Friday.
Trump’s team has blamed “candidate quality” for the losses, instead of the president himself.
“Candidate quality matters. Unless you’re running for the U.S. Senate. They apparently don’t care if you would lose to a pinecone,” said a House Republican, referring to Trump’s hand-picked North Carolina Senate nominee Michael Whatley.
The National Republican Senatorial Committee declined to comment.
Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.), who leads the Senate campaign arm and saw Democrats flip a Senate seat in his own state, did not answer reporters’ questions on Thursday. The South Carolina Republican has a policy of not talking to reporters in the halls — and he didn’t start when Blue Light News and others asked why Republicans lost so badly.
Back in August, some Republicans in seats Trump won by double digits were already telling the White House to keep the president away from their districts. Others publicly broke from the White House on mass deportations and the Iran war.
NRCC Chair Richard Hudson had largely dismissed those concerns when Blue Light News asked him in a hallway interview on Sept. 1.
“Based on our polling, the president’s a net positive in every district. And I’ve been encouraging him to get out and do events and do rallies. I’m going to continue to do that,” Hudson said. “I think the more he talks about his record and incredible achievements he’s made over the last Congress, I think the better.”
Then, Hudson lost his own reelection bid. He is the first ever NRCC chair in history to be defeated in a general election.
Mia McCarthy, Andrew Howard and Samuel Benson contributed reporting.
Even the head of House Democrats’ top super PAC didn’t fully anticipate the size of their massive midterm wave.
Heading into Election Day, House Majority PAC president Mike Smith told Blue Light News Tuesday’s results, which have netted them a whopping 252 House seats with more yet to be called, was “on the very high end” of the group’s expectations.
The group spent at least $283 million on ads this cycle, per ad-tracking firm AdImpact, making them the largest Democratic spender in House races this cycle and a significant force behind the party’s big night.
As Democrats turn their attention to 2028, Smith remains optimistic the party can hold on to its majority.
His confidence stems in part from a projection that Democrats will respond to the affordability concerns that were the core of the party’s promise to voters.
If Democrats don’t make efforts to address the rising cost of living, “then it’s a totally different story,” Smith said.
Q: How were you feeling in the final days before Tuesday?
Obviously this would have been on the very high end of what we expected. Over the last three months, overall our polling has been pretty consistent. Our whole thought was, with the right environment, if we have the right message and the right types of candidates in, not just the 50-50 districts, but like deeper in the map, that we could put those seats in play and we could potentially win.
Going into Election Day, our whole feeling was there’s a clear path to like 235-plus [seats]. We were playing in districts that, if you were to rank them from like one to 435, some of those districts were like 250, 255, right? And I would throw IN-05, CO-03, KY-06, SC-01, some of the Florida races. SC-01 wasn’t ever going to be seat 225. That was always in the 240s and maybe even 250s. But we took a chance because we saw what the national environment looked like. We saw what the data was coming back in within these individual races. So I think we were optimistic. But to be totally honest, in our heads, you have to play in seat 255 to get to seat 240. You have to spread out the map. You have to force Republicans on their heels, and then you start piecing together how you get to the 240-245 range. Once the numbers started coming back, that was the best case scenario for us. Everything came together.
You guys cut reservations in some reach districts, only to go back up in the final few days. On the outside, it appeared like cutting spending in those reach districts was a bad sign. What went into those last-minute spending decisions?
A lot of the places we made reservations back in April, and then continued to add on to that over the course of the summer. Partners and allies in a bunch of different places took over our reservations. We tried to be smart by locking in the lowest possible rates in very expensive markets, [so that] even if HMP wasn’t the entity spending, we still had partners and allies that were taking over their reservations. In doing all that we saved about $130 million that we could reinvest.
The challenge with some of the races was by a week out, our money was spent. And in some of those districts, there weren’t any partners willing to step up and do it. Florida is a good example of that.
That’s where we just had to make a decision that there weren’t the resources there, and we had to leave the reservations on the table. Around that time, Mayor Bloomberg was like, “We can’t let these races get away from us. We need to do everything we can,” and that’s where we went back into some of those places.
Did you feel the need to adjust your messaging at all once MAGA Inc. and Elon Musk’s PAC joined CLF on the airwaves?
The short answer is no. The messaging was fairly consistent. Early on, our whole feeling was we need to reframe how voters perceive Democrats. When voters think about what Democrats are fighting for, the first thing we want them to think about is cost of living, the economy. At the same time, bringing to light Republican policies that are increasing the cost of living, or focus on things that are anything but that.
Over several months, we did a bunch of battleground research looking at ‘how does corruption tie into that,’ which culminated in what we would describe as the cost of Republican corruption, and how that is impacting your day to day and your cost of living. That’s what we went into Election Day with.
Overall, we ran, I don’t know, 1300 different types of ads, whether TV, digital, direct mail, or whatnot. 76% of those ads talked about the economy. 60% of those ads focused on corruption, because in so many of them, those two things were interlinked in voters’ minds.
Republicans continued to focus on the same thing. It was trying to paint Democrats as out of touch or extremists. And again, the theory of the case from the beginning was us focusing on economic concerns, especially when we figured out we could tie that corruption lens into it. That’s going to be more important to voters than folks talking about socialism or anything else.
Democrats were able to prevent Republicans from capitalizing on their redistricting gains. Are you worried about those gains bearing fruit in a less favorable environment, maybe as soon as 2028?
In a different environment, these races are going to come together in a much different way. So I do think it’s something that we need to be hyper-focused on. That said, I don’t think redistricting is going to go away.
I’m actually pretty hopeful that these huge shifts across every demographic group that we just saw, as long as Democrats continue to focus on the issue that matters most to voters.
If we don’t, then it’s a totally different story.
Are you saying the fate of Democrats’ House chances in 2028 to keep these seats is predicated on Congress passing something, even with the current president still in the White House, that addresses affordability issues?
I wouldn’t say passing. Soon-to-be Speaker Hakeem Jeffries, since we won, his message is that Democrats are focused on three things: costs, care and corruption.
When we come into power, we are going to be hyper-focused on fighting to bring down the cost of living for voters. I think Donald Trump is still this outsized X-factor in everything. He’s still the sitting president in the White House. So I wouldn’t say it’s like, “Oh we have to pass 300 bills. That’s the only way we’re going to be successful.” I think we just need to show voters that we are willing to get stuff done, and in instances where we need to, work across the aisle to pass stuff that’s going to be helpful to voters. I think if we do that, then I think we’re setting ourselves up for success going into ‘28, both with the White House and the House and the Senate. Donald Trump is still going to be this huge factor in all of this, and I don’t think voters are going to be like, “Democrats weren’t able to accomplish this,” and think that that was us. They’re going to continue blaming Donald Trump going into Election Day 2028.
To go back to redistricting, do you want Democrats in these states where they have newly-won trifectas to take up redistricting even if Republicans don’t push for it again?
I think Democrats need to do everything that it will take to win, and if that means that in states where we control the state house, the state senate, a governor’s race, we have an opportunity to redraw the map, I think we need to do it.
What were the seats Democrats flipped that surprised you the most?
I would say NJ-02 [Rep. Jeff Van Drew’s seat], It was a district where we had looked at it — we did not think that it was credibly possible, to be totally honest.
I’d say North Carolina as a whole, probably. We felt good about NC-01, NC-11 for a while…. [NRCC Chair and North Carolina Rep.] Richard Hudson, we looked at that district. There was a clear path to winning it. There just wasn’t money, at the end of the day. NC-13, NC-14, same thing. The makeup of the districts, they’re not bad targets for Democrats. It was just, how much can we spread resources out? But the total implosion in North Carolina by Republicans at the federal level, at the state level — that was probably one of the biggest surprises.
A version of this article first appeared in Blue Light News Pro’s Morning Score. Want to receive the newsletter every weekday? Subscribe to Blue Light News Pro. You’ll also receive daily policy news and other intelligence you need to act on the day’s biggest stories.
-
Politics1 year agoJohn Legend advises Trump to drop the ‘dictator s‑‑‑’ if he wants Nobel Peace Prize
-
Politics2 years agoFormer ‘Squad’ members launching ‘Bowman and Bush’ YouTube show
-
Uncategorized2 years ago
Bob Good to step down as Freedom Caucus chair this week
-
The Josh Fourrier Show2 years agoDOOMSDAY: Trump won, now what?
-
The Dictatorship2 years agoPete Hegseth’s tenure at the Pentagon goes from bad to worse
-
Politics2 years agoFormer Kentucky AG Daniel Cameron launches Senate bid
-
The Dictatorship2 years agoLuigi Mangione acknowledges public support in first official statement since arrest
-
Politics2 years agoBlue Light News’s Editorial Director Ryan Hutchins speaks at Blue Light News’s 2025 Governors Summit