But Democrats have some problems of their own. There's still a lot of anger among the Democratic base — we saw that play out in some of the primaries, where voters are still very upset over how things went down in 2024 with President Biden's re-election, and they're still having to deal with a lot of that fallout. We've seen some very divisive and expensive primaries on the House side as well.
The question is, can they heal from that? Can they move on? Or are some of these issues going to linger and continue to dog them as we head into November?
Andrew Menezes: Very good — and again, we'll get back to some of those divisive primaries later. Nathan, we are about to enter the fall sprint, and Republicans, as Daniela mentioned, are defending a very narrow majority in the House and a more comfortable, but still narrow, majority in the Senate. As things stand right now, how would you summarize the current landscape for both the House and Senate battlegrounds?
Nathan Gonzales: Democrats have the advantage in the fight to hold — or take — the House, both based on historical context and where things are, part of what Daniela was laying out. Our current range is that we expect Democrats to gain between two and ten seats. Two seats would be an extremely narrow Republican majority; three to ten seats would be a Democratic majority. That range would be higher if it weren't for redistricting, which on net gave Republicans the advantage in more newly drawn seats compared to Democrats.
In the Senate, Republicans have a very narrow advantage to holding the majority. Our range right now is plus two to four for Democrats — two or three would be Republican control, four would be a Democratic majority. But these are very fluid.
There are a lot of soft Republican races — seats or states Republicans currently hold that are very soft right now, where the Republican coalition hasn't gelled quite yet. But there aren't a lot of sure bets for Democrats either. On the House side, if you take away redistricting, there are enough opportunities for Democrats to win majorities in both chambers, but not a lot of seats that are already off the table. It's really a race-by-race slog.
Andrew Menezes: Okay, well, that should keep things very interesting for us over the next few months. Nathan, you brought up redistricting — that was a major theme in our last webinar, so Mary Ellen, I want to come back to you on that. I think the consensus is Republicans had an edge overall when you go state by state, but that doesn't mean Democrats are out of it in some of these newly redrawn seats. In states like Florida, for example, seats were drawn to favor Republicans, but Democrats still have a chance.
Mary Ellen McIntire: Definitely, and I think that really comes down to a district-by-district fight. In several of these states — Alabama, for example — Shamari Figures is a freshman who was just elected in the second district two years ago, in a district that had been drawn specifically to give Black voters in Alabama another option. His new redrawn version of the second district is around 14 points more favorable to Trump. Democrats feel about as strongly as they could about his re-election chances in that redrawn district — not to say it won't be a fight, it'll be a tough re-election — but I think in some of these states Democrats are looking to turn out Black voters who are upset about how this worked, and use that as a way to get them to the polls.
You mentioned Florida, where we just had primaries earlier this week. Darren Soto in the ninth district and Kathy Castor in the 14th district — well, Darren Soto still doesn't have his Republican nominee, that race is still too close to call — but they'll both be facing fairly classic Republicans. These are lawmakers who have been in Congress for a while and are known in their communities, and Democrats feel that with the Iran conflict driving up costs, and President Trump's approval ratings generally pretty low for much of the summer, some of these districts that Trump would have carried by double digits two years ago still have as good a chance of keeping them as they arguably could, given the situation. So I don't think you can totally rule out a lot of these seats. Redistricting seems pretty set for this year, but there's still a lot of talk about more redistricting going into 2028, so I don't think this is an issue that's resolved nationwide by any means.
Andrew Menezes: Definitely — we'll have more of this next cycle. Talking about the president — you mentioned these are districts that were carried by the president, and his job approval ratings at the moment aren't the best. Coming off just this week, candidates he's endorsed in some cases didn't win their primaries. That's still a fairly rare occurrence, but it feels like we're seeing a bit more of it happening in primaries. So I'd like to talk about the president's role now with the midterms — what can we say about the role he's expected to play, and how is his own party, especially those in battleground districts, seeing it? Daniela, do you want to take a stab at the president's standing and what influence he could have on the midterms?
Daniela Altimari: If we were talking a few months back, we would have said Trump's endorsement is certainly the golden ticket to victory. He took out a sitting senator in Bill Cassidy, and probably John Cornyn as well. He took out Thomas Massie. These are name brands who've held their seats for a long time and are pretty powerful people in their respective chambers, and Trump, kind of single-handedly, knocked them all out.
But I think the picture is changing a little. We even saw this past week, on Tuesday, that some of Trump's endorsees did not win, could not get over the finish line — and those are in red districts and red states. It'll be very interesting to see how that plays out in swing districts where Trump has endorsed — that could potentially be heavy baggage for some of these folks, like Brinker Harding running in the Blue Dot in Nebraska, where having Trump's endorsement doesn't hit the same as it would in some other places.
South Carolina is going to be really interesting to watch — that's coming right up on Tuesday. Darline Graham, Lindsey Graham's sister — you can't even say she was Trump-endorsed, she was kind of Trump-picked. She wasn't really in the mix for any kind of long-term role in that seat until Trump said, "Hey, you should get in." He did a similar thing with Julia Letlow in Louisiana. So I think that's going to be a crucial test for whether that Trump endorsement still works its magic as we go forward.
Andrew Menezes: Very good. Nathan, do you have anything to add here? I think historically, midterms are not very kind to a president's party, right?
Nathan Gonzales: Correct. They're usually brutal for the president's party, particularly on the House side. Republicans are caught in a bind right now, because they need the president to boost Republican turnout — they need him to re-form the coalition that got him elected in 2024, and turn out what I call Trump-first Republicans, voters who don't really care about other Republican candidates as much as they care about the president. But if the president takes to the trail — and he's been in some battleground areas — he could generate Republican turnout, but he's also going to boost Democratic turnout, and remind independent voters that they don't like the current state of the economy, the state of the country, or the war with Iran. Republicans need him to be a net positive, and I'm not sure that's possible.
What I'm also thinking about — and I should write this, I'm brainstorming live on a webinar, which is always dangerous — is that it's not just about these primaries, or some of Trump's endorsed candidates losing. It's about the margins, even for the ones who won. Congressman Byron Donalds in the Florida governor's race — he won, but with 48%, I think, against a very underwhelming field, and that tells me President Trump is having trouble motivating Republican voters to do what he wants them to do. We're supposed to believe that just two and a half months from now, he's going to be able to motivate Republican voters to come out en masse at normal levels and help Republican candidates. I think there should be alarm bells on the Republican side, because if Republican turnout is low, that's when normally Republican states and districts start to become in play, and we just have to wait a little longer to see what dynamic plays out.
Andrew Menezes: Yep, that's true. Getting back to something both Mary Ellen and Daniela mentioned earlier — there have been divisive primaries on the Democratic side, usually shaping up to be a clash between a more moderate, establishment-aligned candidate and a more progressive one, in some cases a member of the Democratic Socialists of America. Mary Ellen, when you think about places like Michigan — the Michigan Senate race, or Michigan's 7th district in Lansing, where the more progressive candidate got through — are national Democrats embracing these new, very progressive nominees, especially in battleground races, and saying, "Okay, these are our nominees, we're all in"?
Mary Ellen McIntire: For the most part, yes. In the two races you just mentioned — the Michigan Senate race, for example — the DSCC and Chuck Schumer had originally backed Haley Stevens, but quickly got behind Abdul El-Sayed once he won, saying, "This is our candidate, we're going to hold Michigan," and staying on the party line. Same thing in the 7th district, that Lansing battleground district — two moderate candidates split the vote fairly evenly, which opened the way for a progressive, Will Lawrence, to win the nomination. Again, the DCCC came right out and said, "This is our guy, he's going to beat Tom Barrett," the Republican incumbent, "Tom Barrett is beatable," and got behind him.
How the party as a whole gels behind these candidates, I think we're still trying to see. Publicly, it's been a lot of kumbaya — for all the criticism, or cringe attention, Haley Stevens got on social media throughout that primary, I've since seen her get a lot of kudos for how she's handled the post-primary period. But there are very real questions about how voters respond to these dynamics. Specifically, Jewish voters in that Michigan Senate race are going to be a real question mark — you've seen Mike Rogers, the Republican nominee, make a really concerted play in these last couple of weeks, coming out and saying Democrats who don't agree with Abdul El-Sayed have a place in his campaign, and really trying to make that an offer.
So we'll have to see, in the months ahead, how these Democrats and these campaigns shake out. The Michigan Senate race and the Wisconsin gubernatorial race, where the more moderate candidate won against the more progressive one, were both very close, so I don't think you can really say one way or another how this goes. A lot of people in the party are going to be looking at Michigan specifically in terms of 2028, in terms of how a progressive fares in a swing district.
But you've seen this all over — from New York and Colorado, where, maybe more expectedly, progressives fared really well and we saw two different House incumbents in New York ousted by more progressive challengers earlier this summer. But also in Florida, where I don't think people expected the far left to be very successful this week — State Rep. Angie Nixon had an upset in the Senate nomination. The only other thing I'll say is that Republicans are having a field day with some of these races, really leaning into the idea that they can now tie all Democratic candidates to these far-left, socialist candidates. That's something else to watch — how those attacks land throughout this campaign, when you do have people who truly say, "I consider myself a member of the Democratic Socialists of America."
Andrew Menezes: Yes, exactly. On a completely separate note — Daniela, we've been seeing, in red territory where Democrats haven't been successful in federal races, on the Senate side, this push to maybe get their candidates out of the race and get behind an independent instead. Could you tell us more about that, and what are the chances in some of these states?
Daniela Altimari: I think some of this is rooted in what happened in 2024. You had a guy named Dan Osborn in Nebraska who came out of nowhere and made a lot of waves — a former union organizer at the Kellogg's plant in Omaha — and suddenly Nebraska was being talked about. He wound up losing, but it was pretty significant that an independent candidate could make that kind of inroad in such a red state. We're seeing that being replicated, or trying to be replicated. Osborne himself is running again, this time against Pete Ricketts, and he's also sort of spawned these mini-independents, because — partly for the reasons Mary Ellen laid out — the Democratic brand, even before the Democratic Socialist talk came up this cycle, is really badly tarnished in a lot of these deeply red states. So you're seeing folks think about how they can do battle with Republicans in places where the Democratic brand just won't do it — so they're going with independents.
Andrew Menezes: Okay. We're coming close to the half-hour mark, but Nathan, I want to go back quickly to a column you wrote recently about the top of the ticket and what effect that could have on down-ballot races. As the saying goes, a rising tide lifts all boats, but there are a couple of gubernatorial candidates or incumbents so strong that we could see an effect on some of these congressional races down the ballot. Could you describe some of those states and where we can expect to see that happen?
Nathan Gonzales: One key place to watch is Pennsylvania. Four years ago, Republicans were complaining about the drag that Doug Mastriano was on the ticket when he ran and lost to Josh Shapiro. This time around, Stacy Garrity, the Republican nominee, is a better candidate running an actual credible campaign, but she may lose by as much or more to Shapiro in his re-election bid than Mastriano did. That could make it more difficult for a handful of races — Rob Bresnahan, Ryan Mackenzie, Brian Fitzpatrick, and I'm missing one — Scott Perry. There's a whole host of important House races in Pennsylvania.
Then you look at Colorado, where Republicans nominated Victor Marx, who gave one of the most — I'll say infamous — interviews in the 20-plus years I've been following this, where he wouldn't, or couldn't, admit to a reporter how many people he had killed before. That was interesting. But in Colorado, there's not only Gabe Evans in the 7th district, one of the most important House races, but a whole group of others — Jeff Crank, Jeff Hurd and Lauren Boebert — who are in Republican districts, but under different circumstances, maybe those become more competitive too. These races are individual, but they don't take place in a vacuum. It's about the president's popularity, and about what other races are on the ticket that affect turnout — some of these races can be very close, and everything could matter.
Andrew Menezes: Very good. And one of the other states you wrote about was Iowa —
Nathan Gonzales: There is something to Iowa. We know these aren't normal political conditions, because we wouldn't be talking this much about Iowa. Right now, Democrats have an opportunity to win the governor's race, a Senate seat, and maybe three out of four House races. Iowa is a problem for Republicans right now.
Andrew Menezes: Okay. As we get toward the closing of this webinar, there are plenty of interesting races and states holding competitive elections this year, but I want to ask each of you: if you had to pick one district or one state you'll be following closely — whether it's bellwether territory or it just has some interesting candidates — what would be your pick? I'll start with you, Mary Ellen, since you're the one we haven't heard from yet.
Mary Ellen McIntire: All right, well, I already talked about Michigan, and Nathan mentioned Pennsylvania, so I've got to go to my third choice. And somehow I talked about the Senate field and didn't mention the mess that was Maine this summer, so I'll say Maine. You have a competitive Senate race — Susan Collins running for a sixth term against Troy Jackson, the replacement Democratic nominee after Graham Platner, who initially won the nomination, ended his campaign earlier this summer. It's going to be a dogfight through November — you had about a 100-day fight for the Senate nomination alone. And then in the second district, the biggest part of the state, you have Jared Golden, who is retiring, and you have former Governor Paul LePage running against Matt Dunlap, the state auditor. This race has been interesting from the jump — Dunlap won the nomination earlier this summer over a candidate backed by the DCCC, and there seemed to be a bit of tension there that everybody seems to be moving forward from now. But with both of those races, Maine is one I'm really watching from now until November.
Andrew Menezes: Yes. Daniela, what about you?
Daniela Altimari: We've discussed Iowa, for sure — that's a key one. Also Texas, obviously, hugely important. But I'd say Ohio. A similar dynamic in some ways to Iowa — used to be much more of a mixed state, turned deep red in the Trump era. There are a handful of House seats there, and of course the Senate race, with Sherrod Brown trying to make a comeback. I think that one is going to be worth watching, and that state could determine, as Nathan said, how good a night Republicans have on election night.
Andrew Menezes: No, for sure. In fact, as Nathan talked about soft territory, soft targets — there were some soft targets on the Democrats' target list recently. Nathan, you have the last word.
Nathan Gonzales: Going back to Michigan — specifically that 7th district. It's already been mentioned, but it's a place where Democrats nominated a legitimate, recently former DSA candidate, Will Lawrence, against Republican Congressman Tom Barrett. It's been a toss-up for the entire cycle, one of the most competitive districts in the country. On one hand, Republicans are extremely excited that Will Lawrence was nominated. But I remember some past cycles, particularly 2006, for example, where there was a Democratic wave, and I remember talking to Republicans after the fact who said, "We thought we had the opposition research, we thought we had everything we needed, but voters just weren't in the mood to listen." Voters were so set on making a change that the faults of the challenger didn't matter.
I'm wondering if this race will be a good test of whether voters are in the mood to listen to what the challenger — Will Lawrence, his resume, his background — has to say. But there's a chance voters are just so set on, and so upset with, the status quo, and set on voting for change, that Barrett gets swept out with a number of his colleagues.
Andrew Menezes: We'll be watching closely for that. Anyway, I think with that, we've come to the end of our webinar. I'd like to thank our panelists, Mary Ellen, Daniela and Nathan, for joining us, and especially all of you, our listeners, for joining us today. Please follow RollCall.com for all the latest in campaigns and elections coverage, subscribe to our "At the Races" newsletter, and follow Nathan and his team's coverage on InsideElections.com and their podcast for all their race ratings over the course of this exciting 2026 campaign season. Thank you again, and we'll see you next time.
Track the Races. Follow the Fallout. Know What's Coming Before It Moves.
Track the campaigns that matter to your organization alongside the reporting that puts them in context. CQ content is integrated directly into PolicyNote — giving you access to trusted analysis from CQ's award-winning journalism team, nearly 50,000 unique reports, and every Congressional Research Service report since 1993. It's your policy tracker with a layer of expert congressional intelligence built in. Get a demo today.
