As most people know, recent polling indicates that things are indeed are looking up for Democrats. But in the words of the prognosticators at Cook Political Report (CPR, behind paywall), Democrats should not to expect the kind of massive “blue wave” election in 2026 that they experienced in 2018. Why?
Because congressional seats continue to become less and less competitive over time, locking in ever-stronger structural advantages for the dominant party. It’s not just all the eager partisan gerrymandering; it’s also the geographic self-sorting of voters by party, and the hardening of partisan tribalism among each side’s hyper-partisans. Here’s what CPR said about the 2026 race (in italics):
“[I]n 2018, Democrats won the popular vote by over 8 points — similar to what the likely voter samples in the [recent]Marquette and Argument polls show — and gained a whopping 40 seats. However, there simply aren’t that many targets left for Democrats to pick off. Only four Republicans sit in House districts won by Vice President Kamala Harris, and just 10 represent districts that Trump carried by five points or less.
Why does this matter? In the last four midterm elections, a majority of the House seats — anywhere from 56% to 74% — gained by the party not holding the White House came from districts that either the president carried by less than five points or had lost in the previous election. …
In 2026, even if Democrats were to win every one of the seats that Trump lost or won by less than five points, it would result in a gain of just 14 seats. That’s enough to win control of the House, but it’s not the kind of tsunami-sized outcome that we think of when we hear the term “wave election.”
When pundits say things like “Don’t tell me that GOP voters don’t understand that Trump is a grifter,” or “Trump’s approval rating will fall when the effects of the tariffs kick in,” they don’t really understand negative partisanship. Support for MAGA candidates is not about their feelings toward those candidates; it’s about their feelings toward Democrats. That sense that Democrat rule represents a threat to their values and way of life has driven their support for GOP candidates. That is partly why CPR believes the next blue wave will be smaller.
This is important because durable policy change requires large congressional majorities supporting the new policy. In Chapter 2 of my book I note that almost every major (and enduring) regulatory program enacted by Congress before this century was supported by more than 75% of members of both chambers. By contrast, the few major statutes that were barely passed by congressional Democrats in the 21st century – the Dodd-Frank Act, the Affordable Care Act, and the Inflation Reduction Act – were all weakened significantly shortly after their enactment.
On the other hand, perhaps CPR is being too pessimistic. The 2025 Cook partisan lean (PVI) ratings for New Jersey and Virginia were D+4 and D+3, respectively; but the Democratic gubernatorial candidates in those states won by 14 and 15 points. If the national vote is more like D+12 in 2026, perhaps more seats will be in play for Democrats in 2026 than CPR believes. The 2026 elections are 10 months away, and the Trump Administration seems disinclined to let voter disapproval slow its assault on traditional democratic norms. Perhaps the blue wave will be a tsunami.
But behind CPR’s pessimism lies awareness of other forces that could reduce the effects of any blue wave, irrespective of voter alienation from the MAGA agenda.
First, voters who are co-partisans of their incumbent member of Congress tend to like their representative in ways that they may not like their party. (The incumbent was not on the ballot in VA and NJ gubernatorial races.)
Second, congressional Republicans are sensing this, and they have almost a year to try to distance themselves (rhetorically) from unpopular MAGA actions. They will develop explanations to try to convince swing voters that they didn’t foresee the Administration’s (entirely foreseeable) assaults on the rule of law and democratic norms when they chose to go along with the MAGA agenda – or in the case of the Senate, when they voted to approve anti-vaccine activist Robert Kennedy, loyalty-before-the-law attorney Pam Bondi, vlogger Kash Patel, TV’s Dr. Oz, professional wrestling executive Linda MacMahon, and other dangerously unqualified officials to run the executive branch. Those narratives will also include attempts to frighten voters about the plans of their Democrat opponents. If the congressional primaries nominate candidates that don’t fit the electorate in those purple jurisdictions, it will be that much easier for GOP candidates and right wing media will try to foment fearamong swing voters.
Third, whatever narratives GOP members of Congress employ will be amplified 24/7 by a right wing media that has proven sophisticated and adept at building GOP party loyalty. Therefore, Democrats’ task is to counter those narratives with messaging that appeals to swing voters in those so-called purple jurisdictions — the ones CPR would label “R or D+ <10. In 2025, that meant pocketbook issues (rather than cultural issues), and Democrats’ appeals to pocketbook issues seemed to resonate.
That is why so many posts in this space focus on persuading existing voters. In the 2025 elections in Virginia and New Jersey, existing voter groups who swung toward Trump in 2024 moved “back” toward Democrats. So if you would like to see a stronger national climate policy, or to return momentum to the clean energy transition, your task is to talk to the voters you know about politics and policy. If you do so kindly, patiently and by asking questions, there is a good chance that you will help your cause. – David Spence
