Democrats Will Need More Than One Blue Wave to Solve Their Regional Woes

The party needs numerous upsets in "Trump Country" to rebuild their coalition ahead of 2028.

In a matter of weeks there has been a sea change in Democrats’ expectations for the 2026 midterms. Throughout 2025, a series of lousy polls suggested Democrats had to scramble in order to capitalize on voters’ dimming view of the economy. No longer. Polls show that independents have recoiled at ICE’s pattern of lawlessness and the White House’s callous response to the deaths of Renee Good and Alex Pretti, a sign Trump’s 2024 coalition is quickly unraveling; while the backlash may ebb if the administration scales down and reconfigures DHS’s operations—something that is highly improbable as long as Stephen Miller oversees immigration policy—Republicans are now on the defensive on multiple fronts. Accordingly, with Trump underwater on most issues, Democrats are at last beginning to act like an opposition party that is determined to triumph.

It is indeed tempting to think Democrats have momentum on their side. They are nevertheless burdened by the fact that they could win control of the House without dramatically changing the state of play in states they must win in 2028 to regain the presidency. In fact, even if a so-called wave election occurs, it may do little to solve Democrats’ persistent regional woes in the Midwest and Southeast. Several special election victories in state legislatures have buoyed Democratic hopes that they can compete in some unlikely places, fueling fantasies of massive thirty-point swings like the one obtained by machinist Taylor Rehmet in North Texas. But the party’s infrastructure is still seriously impaired in the Lone Star State as well as former purple states such as Iowa, Ohio, Florida, and North Carolina—to say nothing of Tennessee, Montana, Missouri, and Indiana, where the terrain is somewhere between daunting and impossible, even for “Blue Dog”-style candidates.

The discrepancy between the Democrats’ solid lead in the generic ballot and the actual districts they have a shot at flipping crystallizes the severity of the problem. So far, the Cook Political Report ranks only 14 Republican-held seats as genuine toss-ups; of these, six are in solid blue states. A significant fraction of Democratic pickups will hinge, conspicuously, on maximizing the party’s opportunities in deep blue California and Virginia, which will be partly achieved through redistricting. Furthermore, much of the support Trump has hemorrhaged seems to be concentrated in blue states in which Kamala Harris underperformed relative to Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton. Evidently, waging a campaign of brazen partisan retribution through a variety of federal funding cuts and ICE raids is a surefire way to repel less ideological voters and reinforce Democratic support in states liberals and progressives are already favored to dominate.

It’s possible fast-changing circumstances allow Democrats to overcome these structural weaknesses. Trump’s alarming threats to “nationalize” federal elections, followed by Steve Bannon’s call to deploy ICE agents at polling stations, actions that would violate the Constitution, have given Democrats reasonable cause to campaign again on “defending democracy,” despite that strategy’s dismal utility in 2024. Trump’s increasingly vile statements, surpassing past offenses, coupled with congressional Republicans’ tone-deaf view of the economy, could also foment a revolt at the ballot box in the name of common decency that enables Democrats to hold him “accountable” once more come January 2027.

Yet this path to victory, contingent as ever on popular revulsion toward MAGA’s excesses, won’t drastically change the Democratic Party’s image in regions that have switched, in the span of a decade, from competitive to forbidding. And if Democrats fail to fix it, they won’t be in any position to forge a genuine big tent and avert the debilitating losses the 2030 apportionment process promises to inflict. Indeed, without impressive upsets in Trump country, Democrats will remain a party of the highly educated Northeastern seaboard and West Coast, with all that implies in terms of its sociocultural outlook and understanding of rural and Rust Belt issues.

---

On the upside, there are signs Democrats finally grasp it is crucial to run relatable candidates in swing districts who are focused, above all, on strong communities and effective governance. Most Democratic insurgents are wisely targeting vulnerable or scandal-plagued incumbents by talking tough about special interests and corruption without making everything about Trump. Key candidates such as firefighter Bob Brooks (for PA-07), Scranton mayor Paige Cognetti (for PA-08), former newscaster Janelle Stelson (for PA-10), pastor Sarah Trone Garriott (for IA-03), law professor Christina Bohannan (for IA-01), and small business owner Rebecca Cooke (for WI-03) are plain-spoken about the ways in which local prosperity and opportunity have been decimated by corporate consolidation, anticompetitive practices, declining union membership, and ever-shifting trade policies. Although these candidates still need to win their primaries, their races, along with those in MI-07 and MI-10, are bound to determine whether Democrats, should they prevail in November, secure a majority greater than 10 seats.

One thing that is especially encouraging about these candidates—as well as their compatriots in key Senate and gubernatorial races—is that they appear to be deeply familiar with their communities. All highlight the plight of small farms and local mom-and-pops, know prospective constituents who are exposed to the intensifying contraction in manufacturing employment, and decry soaring health care costs that are vacuuming up whatever savings working families have. Their analogues among better-known Democrats include Representative Chris Deluzio (PA-17), Arizona Senator Ruben Gallego, Wisconsin Senator Tammy Baldwin, and former Ohio Senator Sherrod Brown—Democrats who stand firm on core liberal values but strive to connect with working-class Trump voters.

Another asset these contenders share is that they show conviction but eschew ideological rigidity. Some, like Brooks and Cognetti, seem poised to be anticorruption firebrands armed with developmental goals that can appeal to a cross section of voters. Others, like Garriott, James Talarico, the Christian progressive vying for his party’s nomination in the Texas Senate race, and Rob Sand, the presumptive Democratic nominee for governor of Iowa, lean into an almost-spiritual message about the importance of rebuilding civic life. But none can be really classified as an AOC-style progressive or a “centrist” in the vein of Joe Manchin. That alone is refreshing, but it wouldn’t count for much if the central message wasn’t both muscular and hopeful. Past red state challengers, in a bid to sound “post-partisan,” sometimes spoke too cautiously about “kitchen table” issues. This cohort is much more willing to name what is broken in 21st-century America while emphasizing the great potential of ordinary citizens to renew the country’s promise.

Granted, it remains difficult to judge how much Trump’s troubles spell doom for embattled Republicans. The midterm cycle has yet to enter full swing, and individual polls for most of these candidates vis-à-vis their Republican opponents are limited. Nevertheless, a good indicator of Democratic momentum will be whether Cooke, Stelson, and Bohannan, who all fought close races in 2024, can carve out consistent leads of three points or more by early summer. Another barometer will be whether Democrats quickly boost their lead in the generic ballot, which so far lags their polling average from the 2018 cycle. Perhaps the most promising sign of a wave election would be if underdogs in districts Republicans are currently favored to hold can move the needle to the toss-up category. Other credible insurgents who are attempting to expand the map include Sam Forstag (for MT-01), a smokejumper with a populist message comparable to Dan Osborn’s, and Jamie Ager (for NC-11), a 4th-generation farmer who may just exploit local dissatisfaction with North Carolina’s radicalized state GOP and Trump’s disruptive agricultural policies. Should a few long-shot challengers close the polling gap in districts Trump won by fifteen to twenty points, Mike Johnson’s Republicans will be headed for a stinging defeat.

Still, the limited spread of truly vulnerable Republicans is a reminder that Democrats, despite raised hopes, have no room for error. And they only have a brief window to lay the groundwork to make more elusive seats competitive. Leading insurgents are concentrated in the Electoral College’s most fiercely contested battlegrounds and Iowa, a state that had been virtually abandoned by national Democrats following Barack Obama’s standout victories there. That underlines an uncomfortable truth about today’s Democratic establishment: after years of running on “defending democracy,” the party has only belatedly accepted that it must field authentic candidates who speak candidly to the same frustrations and hardships Trump successfully exploited in 2016 and again in 2024.

There is a lesson here for a national party inclined to merely hoist the banner of “affordability” and “No Kings.” Across much of the heartland, there are profound challenges that have festered and permutated over generations, from the 1980s farm crisis to NAFTA to the double punch of the China shock and opioid epidemic. Candidates who recognize that the problems facing working families run much deeper than being able to occasionally dine out or take a family vacation—that what’s at stake is nothing less than a way of life—will be best equipped to amplify the contrast with Republicans who have little to show but fealty to Trump and their donors. But the insurgents who are willing to be forthright about what ails America should prepare to get uncomfortable, too. As much as powerful rhetoric and clear proposals to take on special interests will be at the heart of any Democratic breakthrough, insurgents aren’t going to be able to wish away every cultural and policy landmine. To assemble a winning coalition that includes independents and Republicans who feel betrayed by their leadership, they will inevitably have to distinguish themselves from the Brahmin left and Biden’s record, particularly on immigration.

That might prove enormously fraught, given that an overwhelming majority of the Democratic base, as well as a growing number of party leaders, support either overhauling or eliminating ICE entirely. By contrast, independents, while believing ICE’s actions have gone “too far,” remain leery of where Democrats truly stand on border enforcement. Democrats, accordingly, cannot afford to confuse rising opposition to Trump’s deportation regime with a vote of confidence in their vague promises to not repeat the mistakes of the Biden era. While immigration is less salient for independents relative to 2024, this is primarily because, up until the upheaval and terror of the last several weeks, they were essentially satisfied with the halt in immigration that followed Trump’s return to office.

On such a volatile issue, then, the middle ground in districts that are conflicted about both parties’ approaches isn’t necessarily obvious. Many Americans recoil from the cruel practice of family separation, the inhumane conditions frequently endured by detained migrants, and the prospect of “Amazon”-scale detention centers. They also don’t want an anarchic system that overwhelms local services and floods the labor market in neighborhoods and cities already contending with stagnant wages and inflated housing and health care costs. And insurgents, though they may be tempted to harness legitimate outrage over ICE’s abuses, won’t want to come across as remotely sympathetic to open borders.

Yet establishing a stance that strikes ordinary voters as nuanced but principled—one that could feasibly defuse one of the key issues driving political polarization—is easier said than done. The matter is complicated by the astronomical cost of running a congressional campaign, the imperative to amass a war chest to counter bare-knuckle right-wing PACs, and the kingmaker role played by advocacy groups and donor networks who remain wedded to identity politics. The paradox is that, deprived of strong local party branches, the next generation of red state Democrats are hemmed in by the very party structures they need to reform. Underdogs by definition need outside financial support, and insurgents, no matter how “independent,” may find themselves under pressure to simply avoid discussing their party’s chief liabilities.

---

The challenge of how to simultaneously be a “good Democrat” and a “different kind of Democrat” in a tough race captures the larger dynamic troubling the national party as it tries to regain working-class voters. Lately, a host of vocal party strategists have gamely hyped the notion that the Democratic coalition is already a big tent that spans from progressive populists like Zohran Mamdani to pragmatic governors like Kathy Hochul and Josh Shapiro to “Blue Dog” voices like Representative Marie Gluesenkamp Perez. Their argument is that each party faction has gotten better at accommodating the others and identifying the goals and themes that might appeal to independents, irregular voters, and soft Trump supporters.

It’s a seductive narrative meant to boost morale and make the most of Trump’s falling approval rating. But this sudden effort to coexist ahead of the midterms and muffle internal debates is not the same thing as a project to fearlessly expand the Democratic coalition—to add, in effect, some 8-10 percent of disappointed Trump voters and convert at least another 5-10 percent of low-propensity ones. Democrats say they want to, but then indulge in the kind of petty purity politics that just resurfaced in the Texas Senate race and which turn off potential supporters. They should know better, considering they want to cease relitigating the disappointments and defeats of the last decade. A genuine big tent will only be brought about if the national party, in no uncertain terms, ditches the litmus tests that have repeatedly penalized purple and red state Democrats and driven away the very voters it claims to champion.

With just nine months to go, determined insurgents are ready to put everything on the line. It is high time the rest of the Democratic Party acted like more than another midterm victory is at stake.