| 11/17/2025: Senate Propsects For 2026: Part One, The Flippables [RightDataUSA] | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
We have already examined the outlook for 2026 in the aftermath of the 2025 elections. Most of that commentary focused on the U.S. House and how the results from the last disastrous midterm election (2018) might foreshadow the upcoming potentially disastrous midterm election. We spent little time on the Senate, but noted that although 2018 was a train wreck for Republicans over almost the entire ballot, there was one minor exception: Republicans actually gained 2 Senate seats in 2018 and with some luck could have been as many as 6. Because it was only a net +2, most observers on the right were extremely disappointed. Yet holding onto the Senate at all in 2018 was an important accomplishment and an impressive one under the circumstances. It kept rabid Democrats at least partially at bay. Recall what Democrats did with their total control of the House, and imagine what would have occurred with them in charge of the Senate during the final two years of Trump's first term in the White House.
It is not the same in the Senate, where an entirely different set of Senate seats from 2018 will be contested in 2026, and that makes specific comparisons to 2018 meaningless. Members of the "Class of 2018" completed their six-year terms in 2024; it is the "Class of 2020" which is up next year. Only one incumbent Senator who was elected in 2018 -- Mississippi Republican Cindy Hyde-Smith -- will be on the ballot again in 2026. That's because her 2018 win took place in a special election for a 2-year term. Unlike 2018, 2020 was not a good year at the Senate level for the GOP. They suffered a net loss of 3 seats, turning their 53-47 majority into a 50-50 tie which was broken by the newly-elected Democrat Vice President. The Republican majority was still intact (52-48) in November; GOP control wasn't actually forfeited until January of 2021 when Democrats won two runoff elections in Georgia. Republican incumbents had lost in two other states (Arizona, Colorado) in November but picked up Alabama. Democrats tried to purchase a much better Senate result than merely +3 in 2020, spending ungodly amounts of money in losing efforts in states such as Alaska, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Mississippi, Montana, North Carolina and South Carolina (outspending the victorious GOP candidate in every one of them). That was in addition to the ungodly amounts of money the Democrats spent in their winning efforts. According to OpenSecrets.org, Democrats in the 2020 general election spent over $1.1 BILLION dollars to acquire control of the Senate, an amount of money 60% higher than Republicans could come up with. Campaign finance will be a recurring theme in the 2026 previews below, with Democrats just about 100% guaranteed to obtain more money than their Republican counterparts in every state where there is even the slightest chance that Democrats can compete -- -- unless the Democrats and their "ActBlue" money laundry are finally forced to obey the same campaign finance rules that Republicans have to live by. 
Source: OpenSecrets.org
The current Senate terrain is not as favorable as it was in 2018, when Democrats had to play defense in most of the contested states -- and they did, reasonably well. In 2026 Republicans have 22 seats to defend (including special elections in Florida and Ohio) while Democrats are up in only 14 states. Of those 14, just 3 present any real opportunity for a GOP gain while there are a minimum of 5 juicy targets for Democrats this time around. All things considered, the playing field is clearly tilted towards the left here.
North Carolina Senate results from 2020
1. North Carolina:
Liberal former congressman Wiley Nickel was the first to jump in on the Democrat side, but he was merely a placeholder until phony moderate ex-Governor Roy Cooper made his decision to go for the Senate. To nobody's surprise, Cooper declared his candidacy in late July and within hours received millions of dollars in possibly-legal campaign donations. The latest financial reports from the FEC show Cooper with nearly 8x the amount of cash as Whatley. Cooper will probably eventually raise and spend at least $100 million here; Whatley will never get close in that department. Though out of office for nearly a year now, Cooper is still very popular in the Tarheel State -- at least with the liberal media, who never tire of reporting how popular Cooper is. For all his alleged popularity, Cooper's electoral record isn't very impressive in this closely-divided "purple" state. He was sufficiently well-liked to win 4 terms as state Attorney General, but his percentages as Governor were 49.0% in 2016 and 51.5% when being re-elected in 2020. Cooper's first gubernatorial win was aided by hysteria over the so-called "Bathroom Bill" which was passed by the Republican-controlled North Carolina legislature and signed by Republican Governor Pat McCrory in 2016. A bathroom bill is legislation that protects the safety and privacy of girls and women in public bathrooms against intrusion by boys or men who claim (or pretend) to be transgendered. You can understand why Democrats would be indignant about something like that. The liberal media concocted some figures purporting to show that the bill would cost North Carolina a hillion jillion dollars in lost revenue because woke companies (like PayPal and Adidas) and woke organizations (like the NCAA) would pull out of the state. The 2016 gubernatorial election turned on this single issue, with Cooper supporting the efforts of Organized Deviancy and McCrory supporting common sense. Common sense was defeated that November, 49.0% to 48.8% with a Libertarian spoiler taking enough votes from McCrory to hand the win to the Democrat without a majority. The Republican legislature caved early in 2017 and repealed the bill. Cooper's far-left stance on most issues is well-known to North Carolina voters despite the best efforts of the media. Republican Lt. Governor Dan Forest challenged Cooper in 2020, but lost by 4.5%. Forest was banking on voter disapproval of Cooper's authoritarian tactics during the COVID plandemic, but the voters weren't disapproving enough. Natural (or even laboratory-made) disasters seem to work in favor of Democrats in North Carolina despite that party's inept or ham-fisted approach to the problems; for example, the inept and even criminally negligent response to Hurricane Helene in 2024 -- Joe Biden's FEMA refusing to help people who had "Trump" signs in their yards (they did the same thing in Florida too), and local Democrats' relief efforts discriminating against Whites -- was supposed to be a boon for the GOP in that year's elections; Trump did win the state, but the most-affected areas in Western North Carolina actually moved to the left. Trump's win was a close one, and other Republicans on the ballot received no boost at all from the Democrats' mishandling of the hurricane aftermath. Speaking of disasters, Whatley is likely to help fulfill the media's mission of making Cooper look more popular than ever. The Republican nominee will be grossly underfunded and largely uninspiring to the voters. Early polls are exactly as one might expect: Cooper with a lead but running under 50% for now. At least 10-15% of the electorate is still undecided, which is also what one might expect. This race is, and always has been, Cooper's to lose. Another potential dire consequence is this: if Whatley loses convincingly next November, there are several Republican House incumbents in North Carolina who could go down with him because most GOP districts in the state are either in the tossup range or very close to it. 
Maine Senate results from 2020
2. Maine:
Georgia Senate results from 2020 runoff
3. Georgia:
Michigan Senate results from 2020
4. Michigan:
5. New Hampshire: Seventy-eight-year-old Democrat Senator Jeanne Shaheen is ending her political career in 2026 after 6 years as New Hampshire Governor followed by 18 years in the Senate. After her 3 terms in Concord her string of election wins was interrupted in 2002 when she ran against incumbent Senator Bob Smith. Only it turned out that Smith wasn't her #1 opponent that year after all -- Smith lost in the primary to congressman John E. Sununu who, despite being outspent by both Shaheen and Smith, won just over 50% of the vote in the 2002 Senate election. He was the youngest member of the Senate during his term. Shaheen won the rematch 6 years later and held the Senate seat for two more terms after that. Sununu had been out of politics since his 2008 defeat, but he's back for another go at it. Do not confuse this Sununu with his younger brother Chris, who is the former Governor of New Hampshire (2017-2024). Also do not confuse him with his father John H. Sununu, who was George H.W. Bush's Chief of Staff. That Sununu is the one who gave us John Souter as a Supreme Court justice and who convinced his employer that "read my lips, no new taxes" was somehow not a good idea and shouldn't be taken literally. Sununu's employer's reward for following that advice was a trip to the unemployment line after 1992. 
Photo credit: John H. Sununu
Chris and his father are RINOs, if not outright Democrats; John E. Sununu is the conservative in the family. By "Sununu" standards, anyway. He's one of those oxymoronic "fiscal conservatives" now (i.e. anti-conservative on every other issue). There's no such thing as a fiscal conservative/social liberal. Because "social liberalism" is clearly anything but fiscally conservative when you look at how much those social programs cost.
Just as Sununu had to face an experienced senator (Bob Smith) in the GOP primary during his first run for that office in 2002, he will be facing another one in 2026 -- ex-Massachusetts Senator Scott Brown, who was a fluke winner in 2010 to replace the deceased Teddy Kennedy. Brown won 52% of the vote against Democrat Attorney General Martha Coakley. How repugnant do you have to be to lose to a Republican in Massachusetts? Coakley's done that twice. Brown started off as a moderate in the Senate, but even running hard to the left was not enough to save him in 2012. Brown did run well ahead of Mitt Romney in Massachusetts that year, and in both of his Senate races he showed an ability to run neck-and-neck against Democrats in terms of campaign cash. Brown relocated to the north by 2014 and ran again for Senate in his new home state of New Hampshire. In that year's crowded GOP primary, one of the defeated candidates was good old (age 73) Bob Smith again. Brown came reasonably close to defeating Shaheen, but this time he was conclusively outspent and that was a major factor, as of course were the "carpetbagger" allegations though Brown was actually born in New Hampshire. Bob Smith, by the way, is still around and has endorsed Brown for 2026. Instead of attacking each other too much (yet), both Sununu and Brown are training their artillery mainly on presumptive Democrat nominee Chris Pappas, who is currently the congressman from New Hampshire's 1st District. Pappas is in his fourth term and, like so many other liberal Democrats who seek higher office in states which are not solid "blue", has suddenly pretended to discover moderation after being nearly a 100% party-line liberal vote prior to 2025. Sununu, who only jumped into the race recently, is the current favorite for the GOP nomination and matches up better against Pappas in general election polling. New Hampshire is about as closely divided a state as there is, but Democrats always seem to eke out victories and 2026 isn't likely to be any different. This race is definitely a toss-up, but there's a strong likelihood that the Republican will be the one getting tossed (out), albeit not by a very large amount. 
Ohio Senate results from 2024
6. Ohio:
Brown's luck -- but not his money -- finally ran out in 2024. Brown and the Democrat Money Machine spent over $100 million to repurchase his Senate seat, but Republican Bernie Moreno was able to ride Trump's coattails to a 3.6% win after trailing in all polls until October. Moreno, though outspent 4:1 and overwhelmed by Brown's advertising presence in all types of media, won every Ohio county except the urban ones, one suburban county (Lorain) near Cleveland, and the academic wasteland of Athens County (University of Ohio). Moreno prevailed by over 200,000 votes in all. With Ohio Democrats having nowhere else to turn in 2026 -- ex-congressman Tim Ryan declined and so did a couple of ghetto congresswomen -- Brown was tabbed to try to regain the Senate seat he occupied as recently as a few months ago. Ryan had run for the Senate in 2022 against Vance and suffered a humiliating loss despite having the usual astronomical cash and media advantages which accrue to Democrats even in GOP states. It's not quite accurate to say that Ohio Democrats had nobody else willing and (financially) able to oppose Jon Husted. A Cleveland-area millionaire Democrat named Fred Ode jumped into the Democrat primary back in August and prepared to invest $5 million of his own money to show he was serious. Ode entered the Democrat primary because he feels that "old-school" Democrats like Sherrod Brown are not filled with sufficient hatred of Donald Trump and all other Republicans. For that reason, Ode believed that someone like Brown was unlikely to win against Husted next year. Ode definitely has a point about hatred being the ultimate motivator for Democrat voters (or have we already forgotten the election results from earlier this month?). However just a few days ago Ode suddenly and mysteriously aborted his campaign which was still in its first trimester. Clearly angry (apparently as usual for him), Ode still did not give a reason. Perhaps Ode made his decision after finding a decapitated horse's head in his bed one morning? The Democrat establishment is every bit as capable of hatred and violence as the insurgents from the far left. Radicalism may work well for Democrats in New York City and California and (soon) Maine or even Texas -- and don't forget Virginia now -- but not necessarily in middle-America, apple-pie Ohio. Democrat leaders feel that their chances in Ohio are much better with Brown than with Ode or someone like him. For 2026, early polls showed Husted moderately ahead of Brown but recent Democrat-leaning polls have it pretty much a tie. Ohio, along with Maine and North Carolina, could flip from R to D next year and result in a 50-50 tie for the Republicans in the Senate if those losses are not offset elsewhere. Any additional Republican losses in the Senate would hand control to Democrats. With the Senate almost within their grasp, Democrat billionaires will be tossing around campaign cash like never before, and things like a Republican being outspent only by a margin of 4:1 will seem quaint. 
Texas Senate results from 2020
7. Texas:
On the GOP side in Texas in 2026, we'll have incumbent senator John Cornyn vs. state Attorney General Ken Paxton vs. congressman Wesley Hunt. On the left, we'll have ex-congressman Collin Allred (back for a second try at higher office) vs. state House member Holy James Talarico. A late addition to the tag team could be congresswoman Jasmine Crockett, the self-appointed moral voice of the shrieking, hysterical (but dominant) wing of the Democrat party, and darling of the radical-left media. She believes herself to be the Texas version of AOC, and presumably considers that designation a complement. Crockett already has raised at least $6.5 million (which is more than Talarico or Allred have done), and that's far more money than necessary for her to run in some little House district which is rated at least D+10 and will have no viable GOP alternative. It certainly looks like she's running for the Senate, but we'll have to wait to find out for sure. Queen Latifah Crockett has declared that she will make her solemn pronouncement at the filing deadline, which is December 8. What reason would there be for her to not run for Senate? Aside from avoiding the risk of losing in the Senate primary, Crockett may realize that another easy House win in her district -- combined with the reasonable likelihood of Democrats taking control of the House after 2026 -- would give her a position of greater power and perhaps a juicy committee chairmanship. Worst-case scenario for Crockett is that she loses the Senate primary, is out of Congress starting in 2027, but then is hired by "The View", which obviously can never have enough shrill, unattractive women on its panel. 
Photo credit: splinter.com
Talarico describes himself as a deeply religious Christian, but is a phony who spouts that "Jesus-was-a-liberal" bullshit a la the self-righteous "He Gets Us" television ad campaign, which you may have seen. Picture Talarico as a combination of Bernie Sanders and Jimmy Swaggart (apologies to Swaggart). Talarico the "True Christian" adamantly opposed displaying the Ten Commandments in Texas schools, preferring that those institutions remain atheistic and free from anything which might accidentally encourage good moral values. He represents an ultra-liberal (D+26) Austin district in the state House, so Talarico's views are surely considered to be mainstream by his constituents but most of the rest of the state of Texas would disagree. Talarico is a one-trick pony, wearing his version of far-left Christianity on his sleeve at all times and using it to explain all of his immoral, pro-abortion, pro-crime and other radical votes in the legislature. He surely believes he can "out-liberal" and "out-hate" Crockett and Allred, but he's got his work cut out for him in those departments.
Senator Cornyn is a squish but he is always a well-funded one. The 73-year-old has been in the Senate since 2003. He compiled a conservative voting record during his first two terms, but now has become so unreliable (i.e. "moderate") that he was actually eligible to apply for the job of Senate Majority Leader after Mitch McConnell stepped aside. No true conservatives need apply for that position, which was won by John Thune in a November, 2024 secret ballot of GOP senators. The outcome was said to be close. Cornyn has been in a panic throughout 2025, awkwardly trying to appear conservative (at least through next March's primary), furiously raising money and becoming more popular with the media as he and his allies toss allegations at his closest challenger, Ken Paxton. 
This is nothing new for Ken Paxton. The former state legislator was first elected as Texas Attorney General in 2014, succeeding Greg Abbott in that office as Abbott stepped up to become Governor. The solidly-conservative Paxton quickly showed that he was (and still is) one of the most effective A.G.'s in the entire country. However he is much too effective to suit the RINOs who perpetually have control of the Texas GOP and the Texas state House; Democrats loathe him even more than RINOs do.
Photo credit: Texas Scorecard
As noted above, the GOP primary is not just a 2-way race anymore. In October, congressman Wesley Hunt announced that he would abandon his safe (R+10) district in the suburban Houston area and join the Senate race. The 44-year-old Hunt has a fine military background, graduating from West Point in 2004, serving 8 years in the U.S. Army before earning 3 Masters' Degrees, and then entering politics. Hunt's first bid for Congress came in 2020 in the deteriorating 7th District and was unsuccessful though he made a solid showing (47.5%) under difficult circumstances. When the new 38th District was created in 2022 in approximately the same area, Hunt won a majority in a crowded 10-way Republican primary and then easily sealed the deal in November. Hunt was re-elected in 2024 with only token opposition, and has been a reliable conservative vote in the House. He currently trails his primary opponents in fundraising (and is way behind the wealthy Democrats) but he's only been in the race for about 6 weeks.
Iowa Senate results from 2020
8. Iowa:
Tags:
2026
Senate
North Carolina
Maine
Georgia
Michigan
New Hampshire
Ohio
Texas
Iowa
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 11/13/2025: An Electoral S.A.T. Math Question: "2025 Is To 2017 As 2026 Is To ____ ?" [RightDataUSA] | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The election results from November 4, 2025 bear a striking resemblance to those from November 7th of 2017. In the aftermath of the 2025 Democrat sweeps in Virginia, New Jersey, New York City -- and elsewhere -- most right-wing analysts are trying to appear calm as they whistle past the graveyard in their attempts to dismiss the disaster as "completely expected", "limited to 'blue' states", "unimportant" and, most of all, "meaningless as far as next year's midterms are concerned".
The polls sure were wrong -- but not the way we wanted them to be.
Possibly thinking: "Wow, the voters agreed with me! Republicans (and their children) DO deserve to die!"
Regarding the Republicans' gubernatorial defeats: it's one thing to be expected to lose, it's another thing to be completely obliterated and to have the calamity permeate the entire election ballot to the point where Republicans also hemorrhaged seats in the Virginia House of Delegates and the state Assembly in New Jersey.
In 2025, Democrats cemented their control of the PA Supreme Court for years to come.
Pennsylvania voters had the opportunity to send those judges packing. Instead, all three judges who were up for retention were overwhelmingly returned (by nearly 25-point margins) to the court for another 10-year term. The PA Democrat Supreme Court thus maintains its 5-2 majority, and one of the two Republicans on the court barely qualifies as such; there is only one true Republican out of seven judges on the PA Court.
"Unimportant". . . "Not a big deal": Virginia, like some other solid "blue" states, is considering congressional re-redistricting. Virginia Democrats, soon to be in complete control of state government, would like to imitate California and disenfranchise Republicans via extreme gerrymandering. The results from last Tuesday surely embolden those Democrats. A small minority of New York City voters just elected a radical alien socialist as mayor. Tell the good people of California, Virginia and New York City that these results are "not a big deal". But the tiny, fragile twig that GOP pundits are seriously attempting to hang their hats on is this one: These results mean nothing for the future because "things change", "twelve months is an eternity in politics", blah blah blah. Platitudes, wishful thinking and other drivel are a poor substitute for actual analysis. On this website, we look at data rather than "feels". With the results from 2025 being so uncannily similar to the ones from 2017, it would be idiotic not to examine the results from 2018 and see how they might be pertinent to the upcoming 2026 midterms even if those midterms are "an eternity" away at this moment. The similarity of 2017 to 2025 is parallel to the relationship between 2016 and 2024. In 2016 Donald Trump won the presidency with 304 electoral votes and took 30 states. He won 45.9% of the popular vote. In 2024 Trump won the presidency again, this time with 312 electoral votes and 31 states (adding Nevada). He received 49.7% of the popular vote, the improvement coming not at the expense of his Democrat opponent but from the deterioration of third-party candidates, whose vote share was 4% less in 2024 than it had been in 2016. Kamala Harris actually took a greater percentage of the popular vote (48.2%) than Hillary Clinton had (48.0%). The parallel doesn't quite carry over to the House, where Republicans were in much better shape after 2016 than they are after 2024 (a net loss of 21 seats). But that's mainly because of what happened in 2018 -- which is the whole point here -- with the GOP losing many seats. Those losses were only partially offset in 2020 and 2022. After 2016 Republicans controlled the Senate by 52-48. After 2024 they now have a 53-47 advantage. That's pretty similar. Having compared 2024 to 2016, let's now shift one year and consider 2025 vs. 2017. Because 2021 was a significant factor in the false optimism which accompanied future elections in New Jersey and Virginia, we will show data for that year as well. 2017:
Happier days: 2021 gubernatorial election results in Virginia 2021:
Adding to the false hope in NJ was Trump losing by "only" 5.9% in 2024 and Curtis Bashaw losing by only 9.7% for the Senate. Also there was a voter registration shift to the right, a net change of 100K between 2022 and 2024, but the Rats were still up 900K (13.5%). In 2025 things improved, with the GOP being down 855K and 12.9%. Whoopee. As far as the 2025 elections in New Jersey were concerned, that wasn't false hope -- that was no hope. Turnout helped Republicans overcome some of their disadvantages in NJ in 2021 (registration deficit and state-level gerrymander) but things would return to normal in 2025 despite the indications from some occasionally cheery -- but sadly inaccurate -- pre-election polls. In Virginia there was an actual basis for hope after 2021 -- for a little while. There are no partisan voter registration stats to go by, however the election results were so encouraging that Republicans were expecting further gains in 2023 and 2024. In 2023 they failed to pick up the one state Senate seat they needed to get to 20-20 (GOP Lt. Governor would break the tie), and they lost 3 seats in the state House of Delegates, which was the exact number required to lose the House, giving Democrats full control of the state legislature and derailing any agenda GOP Governor Glenn Youngkin may have had. In 2024 Trump reduced his deficit from 10.1% to 5.7%, but his margin of defeat (260,000 votes) was still the second-worst of any GOP candidate in Virginia history, second only to Trump in 2020. Even in percentage terms it was the worst (aside from 2020) of any GOP nominee since Goldwater in '64. False hope extended to the 2024 senatorial campaign of Republican Hung Cao, whose 2022 showing as a House candidate in CD-10 was considered to be impressive. He lost by merely 6.5% that year in a district which was designed to give the Democrat a 10-12 point win. Whoopee again. Many delusionals thought that Cao could keep it close against Timmy Kaine in 2024, but few polls ever had him within single digits. Cao "overachieved" again. He only lost by 9 points. There was no false hope regarding GOP chances in Virginia in 2025; there was no hope at all aside from perhaps the Attorney General race. Polls showed a tossup but it turned out that a majority of Virginia voters agreed with the Democrat candidate on the pertinent topic of slaughtering Republicans and their children. 2025:
Republicans can be thankful for the lack of state Senate contests in NJ and VA in November, 2025; they couldn't lose more seats there if there weren't any elections. 2025 New Jersey gubernatorial results by region:
The above results for the 2025 Governor election are of course still unofficial (data as of 11/10) but are at least 95% complete in most counties. We defined the regions of New Jersey here: November 2025 Gubernatorial Elections -- New Jersey & Virginia. The Republican percentage of the vote collapsed to pre-2021 levels in all regions, even if not quite (in some areas) as bad as the GOP percentages from 2017 . Only in the Central Coast area did Jack Ciattarelli compare favorably at all to his results from 2021. In every other region of the state he finished well behind not only his surprisingly competitive 2021 performance but also behind Trump's mediocre showing in 2024. GOP results in the critical (and supposedly right-trending) northern part of New Jersey were especially disappointing. South Jersey was also a disaster for Ciattarelli. He had come barely one point away from winning that region in 2021 but lost it by a whopping 15 points last week. As we predicted, turnout in the ghetto areas of New Jersey returned to normal from the 2021 dropoff. That certainly wasn't good news for the Republican, but his problems were hardly confined to the worst areas of the state. Also, slightly-improving voter registration figures apparently aren't a guarantee of electoral success -- especially when those voters decline to participate. 
Artist's conception of the GOP's 2018 election results
Back to 2018:
An ongoing story throughout 2018 was the number of Republican incumbents in the House of Representatives who suddenly decided that they would not seek re-election in November. There were 23 Republicans who declined to run again for any office, and 11 other House Republicans who chose to run for a different office. Many of these 34, such as former House Speaker Paul Ryan, were anti-Trump moderates or liberals in marginal districts who were content with the prospect of potentially being replaced by Democrats. When trying to explain the debacle which resulted that November, with the GOP losing 40 House seats, the voluntary exodus was a convenient excuse albeit a false or at least incomplete one. Of the 34 Republicans who walked away in 2018, only 10 of them were replaced by Democrats. That's a considerable number, but a far cry from 40. The far bigger reason for the Republican party demise was the 30 incumbents who ran for re-election and lost. Seven of the total of 40 GOP losses occurred in California, which had just legalized a new form of Democrat electoral chicanery known as "ballot harvesting". That tactic allows ballots to be collected and counted for weeks after election day. Of the 7 Republican seats which evaporated in CA, at least 5 of them required "extra time" for the Democrat to eventually prevail. In 2018 the Real Clear Politics generic congressional polling final averages were GOP 44.9%, Democrat 53.3%. That polling could hardly have been more accurate -- after all the ballots were finally counted, the House vote share was GOP 44.8% (was 49.1% in 2016), Democrat 53.4% (was 48.0% in 2016). In case you're wondering about 2026 at this point, the current RCP congressional polling averages are GOP 42.0%, Democrats 46.1%. There are still lots of undecideds 12 months out from the election, but that 42.0% mark is abysmal. The whistlers past the graveyard now have another data point to ignore if they intend to remain adamant that 2026 can't possibly be as bad as 2018 was. 
Senate results from 2018
The House went up in flames but Election Night 2018 was a good one for Republicans in the Senate. Good, but not great. The 2017 GOP defeat in Alabama had left the Republicans with a narrow 51-49 majority. In 2018 they picked up 4 Senate seats (FL, IN, MO, ND) but also lost a pair of seats which they had previously held (AZ, NV) for a net +2. For a little while there also seemed a possibility of the GOP losing Thad Cochran's seat in Mississippi.
Here, at last, is how the playing field stands as we head into 2026: Before we look at the prospects for the House in 2026, let's quantify what happened in 2018. In 2018 there were 80 districts (out of 435) across the nation which we would classify as marginal -- being in the range of D+5 to R+5. Those 80 are worth examining because they were the districts most likely to change hands. During any kind of "wave" election, as we saw in 2018, obviously more of them will change hands. Districts which are outside the marginal range are normally considered safe unless there is a wave of unusual intensity or there are other circumstances which make an incumbent vulnerable despite the lean of his district. Some facts about those 80 marginal districts in 2018:
Additionally, Republicans lost 8 House seats which were not in the marginal range and were assumed to be at least moderately safe. Six of those 8 districts saw GOP incumbents bite the dust; only 2 were open seats (one more dagger in the feeble "we lawst just coz of all the re-tyre-mints!" argument). The above data illustrates the impact of the 2018 "blue" wave in the House. Even though the 80 marginal districts tilted slightly to the right on average, Republicans still managed to lose 61 of the 80. And on top of that the 8 others which were supposed to be safe-ish. That's what a massacre looks like, so you'll recognize it if you see one again in 2026. As noted, the "marginal playing field" was tilted towards the Republicans in 2018. If the parties had won every tossup district in which they were favored and then split the 10 even districts, Republicans won have won 53 out of those 80 districts instead of just 19 of 80, a difference of 34 seats. Give the GOP 34 more House seats in 2018 (they would've had control, 234-201) and suddenly the second half of Trump's first term looks a lot different. We have looked at all House districts for 2026, factoring in new maps in Texas, Missouri, Ohio, North Carolina and California and we are assuming they are not overturned in court prior to ever being used. Try to look surprised when the partisan Democrat gerrymander in California passes judicial muster but Republican maps elsewhere do not. A new Democrat gerrymander was just approved on November 11 by a liberal judge in heavily-Republican Utah, which creates two more marginal districts (not being counted here yet) and very well could cause two Republicans to lose in 2026. In Utah. Pending upcoming Democrat gerrymanders which are still on the drawing board in states like Virginia, Maryland, Illinois and Colorado, and pending the much-anticipated Supreme Court ruling which may remove the requirement for certain states to create anti-White districts, here is how the House battleground is taking shape for 2026: There are currently 91 House districts which fall into the D+5 to R+5 range according to our ratings. We count 41 of those districts as having GOP incumbents and 41 with Democrat incumbents. The remaining 9 districts have no incumbent running, and that number will increase over the next few months. Including currently open seats, Republicans must defend 45 districts and Democrats 46. That's about as even a breakdown as can be.
The likely effects of the ongoing redistricting currently are:
We will cover the Senate prospects for 2026 in a commentary which will shortly follow this one. Conclusion: With even more re-redistricting to come, forecasting the outcome of the 2026 U.S. House elections from this far out is just a guessing game. Democrat-controlled states including (but not limited to) Virginia, Maryland, Illinois, Colorado and New York are lining up to disenfranchise Republicans further whether the law permits them to do so at this time or not. Maryland has only one GOP congressman left to be exterminated, but those other states can do much more damage. As we've mentioned, even rock-solid Republican Utah is being forced by a liberal black-robed tyrant to hand over 1 or perhaps even 2 House seats to Democrats (Utah only has 4 altogether). Some Republican states, perhaps including Florida, Kansas, Nebraska and Indiana can do unto Democrats as Democrats in other states will be doing unto Republicans. But deep-"red" Indiana has already chickened out, Kansas (like Indiana and Missouri) could gain only 1 seat at most -- they all count, so don't scoff too much -- and the GOP can't gain any in Nebraska but can save one which otherwise is about to go down the toilet. Only in Florida is there the potential for a Republican state to get some "California-style" revenge on Democrats, but they could overextend themselves and wind up worse off than where they started (as could easily occur in North Carolina). The Supreme Court may come to the rescue. Do not hold your breath waiting for that. A case is pending, brought by a group of White voters in Louisiana who are challenging the racist congressional district map which was demanded by a judge and then used for the 2024 House elections. These disenfranchised voters are suing in an attempt to strike down a map which created a second black-majority district in their state. If the USSC rules in favor of the plaintiffs, professional racists are concerned that all racist Democrat gerrymandering everywhere -- which has been "the law" since at least the early 1990s -- will collapse, thereby eliminating several districts ("19" is the magic number they keep quoting) which are currently held by black Democrats, and those Democrats will all be replaced by White Republicans. As a result, the GOP would firm up its control of the House such that no amount of Democrat gerrymanders in California, Virginia, New York, Illinois or wherever can offset. This is utter nonsense. First the case has to actually be decided and the Supreme Court is in no hurry, especially in an election year; it will surely be 2026 before anything happens. Secondly, the court has to decide the right way. Does anyone really expect there to be 5 votes for doing the right thing here? John Roberts can almost certainly be relied upon to do the wrong thing. Again. Then there has to be sufficient time to draw new maps in the affected states. And sufficient time for the immediate Democrat lawsuits to be heard. And then those suits must be rejected so the new maps can be implemented. Good luck with all that. And then things have to work out the way panicky Democrats fear they will. Let's take a look at how the Democrat crystal ball came up with this cockamamie number of "19" seats which they claim are in jeopardy if the USSC disallows racist (i.e. Democrat) gerrymandering in certain southern states. Remember: this stuff was never about race; it was always about partisan politics. Whenever you see the word "black" or "minority" in some racist court ruling, replace that word with "Democrat" if you want to know the truth. As best we can guess from trying to interpret the feverish nightmares of Democrats, here are the Magic 19:
So there you have it: 19 House seats which are currently held by black Democrats. If the recently created maps in MO and NC hold up in court, then the GOP will be +2. If the Supreme Court does the right thing and does it promptly, there is a good chance for Republicans to reclaim the two seats (AL-2, LA-6) which black-robed leftist dictators stole from them in 2024. There will be no further developments in Missouri or North Carolina. That leaves Florida and Georgia as the only hopes for inflicting some damage on the Rats. That's much easier said than done. No matter what lies Democrats are telling about this upcoming court ruling, Republicans will never get anywhere near +19. Doing so would require them to eliminate most or all of the above districts and then create ones which will elect a Republican. And then have those district maps persist despite Democrat lawsuits. That's completely impossible, and Democrats know it. But they never fail to play the race card or the victim card whenever they can, the media swallows that shit up and then regurgitates it for the purpose of bamboozling low-info, low-intelligence voters into voting (D). The fluctuating re-redistricting landscape is making 2026 a unique year for which to forecast House elections, and that will be true until all maps are final. Even ignoring that factor for the moment, there is already substantial evidence to conclude that the 2026 results will mirror the results from 2018; conversely, at this time there is zero evidence (wishful thinking is not "evidence") that the 2026 results will not mimic 2018, at least as far as the general direction those results will take. To what degree that will happen is something that can't be anticipated with any precision yet. It's very possible that Congress in 2027-28 will look very much like the one from 2019-20, with Democrats -- no matter how slender their majority -- marching in lockstep in full control of the House ("Peach Mints are back on the menu immediately!") while disunited Republicans perhaps cling to nominal Senate control with a lame duck in the White House. Tags:
2025
2026 (uh oh)
Virginia
New Jersey
And just about everywhere else
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||