Democrats Don't Have to Change Much to Win in 2026 and 2028

Despite what people may be saying

Photo by Clemens van Lay on Unsplash

After any electoral defeat, it is inevitable that partisans of the defeated party will engage in a spirited debate about what their party must do differently in the next election in order to avoid a repeat of their recent failure. Typically, the activists, pundits, political professionals and elected officials engaging in these debates will urge the party to move in a direction that largely conforms to whatever direction that person had already been saying the party should be taking.

In the case of the post-2024 debate among Democrats, progressives say that Democrats should be more progressive. Moderates say that Democrats should be more moderate. People who don't like consultants will say that Democrats should dump their current consultants. People from outside of swing states will say the party should stop ignoring non-swing states. People who watch a lot of news will argue that Democrats don't do a good job on messaging. People who love social media will say Dems need to use new mediums to reach new audiences. You get the idea.

I have a slightly different viewpoint, at least when it comes to Democrats taking back the House of Representatives in 2026 and the White House in 2028 (the Senate is a harder nut to crack that I don't see a clear path to retaking in the short term, but I will keep thinking on it). As far as I can tell, Democrats don't really have to do all that much different than they have been doing in order to win back the House and the White House. They could act pretty much as they have been and probably win anyway.

Here are four reasons why I think Democrats will be fine in 2026 and 2028—outside of the Senate, at least—even if they don't change much at all:

1. 2024 was really close in both the race for the White House and the House of Representatives

Kamala Harris lost the national popular vote by only 1.47%, and the tipping point state of Pennsylvania by 1.70% (Source: Dave Leips's Atlas of U..S. Presidential Elections). In the House of Representatives, the tipping point election was Pennsylvania's 7th congressional district, which Democrat Susan Wild lost by 1.0% (Source: Cook Political Report).

That's just really close. A uniform national swing of 1.8% results in Democratic control of both the White House and the House of Representatives. It is almost a certainty that there will be a swing of at least that amount, one way or the other, between now and 2028. The last time there wasn't a swing of that size was from 1920 to 1924. So, it's been a while.

2. The growing Democratic edge among college educated, high propensity voters will have a big impact on 2026

One of the few demographics where Kamala Harris actually improved on Joe Biden's performance was among voters with a college degree. She scored a 56-42% victory among that group, compared to Biden's 55%-43% win (see 2020 and 2024 exit polls). This is despite performing almost 6% worse than Biden's overall national margin.

While their increasing strength among college educated voters has led to a lot of hand wringing about how Democrats, traditionally the party of the working class, could be performing so poorly among the working class, it also means that the Democratic turnout advantage in special elections, off year elections, and midterm elections is likely to grow even further. In fact, as I discussed on January 16, the first special elections of 2025 implied that Democrats have already gained enough from this turnout advantage alone that they are back ahead of Republicans nationally.

If you lost by 1.0%, as Democrats did in the House, and more of your opponent's voters are likely to drop out of the electorate than will your voters—which they are—then you are well positioned to win the next election without doing much of anything different.

3. Parties out of power in the White House do really well in congressional midterm elections

The party out of power in the White House has gained seats in the House in 13 of the last 15 midterm elections (see Wikipedia). Given this tendency, and that Democrats are only three seats shy of a majority in the House of Representatives, the table certainly seems set for Speaker Hakeem Jeffries on January 3, 2027.

The only two times when the party in control of the White House netted seats were 1998 and 2002. The 1998 election was fueled by national resentment against the impeachment of President Clinton—something that won’t repeat itself between now and 2026. It should also be noted that while Democrats netted a small number of seats in the House that year, Republicans still retained overall control.

The second example, 2002, was fueled by the bellicose national response to the attacks on 9/11. For a number of reasons, let's hope that nothing like that happens over the next two years, although even if it does there is no real way to predict it beforehand.

4. Numerous Democratic candidates for statewide office in 2024 outperformed Kamala Harris 

We don't have to look very far to find Democrats who are capable of pulling off a uniform national swing of 1.71%, and thus flipping the electoral college.

• In Minnesota, Sen. Amy Klobuchar outperformed Harris's margin by over 10%

• In Arizona, Sen. Ruben Gallego outperformed Harris's margin by a whopping 8.5%

• In Nevada, Sen. Jacky Rosen outperformed Harris's margin by 4.7%

• In Michigan, Sen. Elissa Slotkin outperformed Harris's margin by 1.74%

• In Wisconsin, Sen. Tammy Baldwin outperformed Harris's margin by 1.71%

• Sherrod Brown and Colin Allred also both outperformed Harris by over 5%, but did so in defeat.

These were all hotly contested campaigns, and this is only a partial list. Clearly, there are already a heck of a lot of statewide elected Democratic officials—including many from swing states—who outperformed Harris by an amount that, if there had been a uniform national swing equal to the size of their overperformance, would have resulted in victory in the presidential election in 2024.

My point here is that it doesn't seem like it will be very hard to find Democratic candidates in 2028 with clear potential to win a national election.

---

I point all of this out not to argue that Democrats shouldn't change all that much in terms of policy, message or organization between now and 2028. The truth is, I am neutral on that subject, and I am more focused on what I can do, not on what Democrats should do. Instead, I point this out mainly because it is factual. The 2024 election was really close, and both 2026 and 2028 look favorable to Democrats. That's just true.

Also, I think it is important to argue against the idea that Democrats are in some kind of deep dark wilderness from which emergence is nigh impossible short of a complete party overhaul. That just isn't the case, and is an example of the sort of exaggeration and fear mongering that I want to leave behind me as my political career continues to evolve and mature.