Kansas? Montana? Mississippi? Where Will the Blue Wave Crest?

Both parties know that Democrats are heading into the final weeks of the midterm election campaign with momentum, as Republican political action committees have all but given up defending their Senate seat in North Carolina, and their House seats in Iowa’s 1st, New Jersey’s 7th, and Nebraska’s 2nd districts. Meanwhile, Democratic operations are spreading into deep red territory, including Senate races in Kansas, Mississippi, and South Carolina and House races in Kentucky, Montana, and Alaska. 

Is this crazy? Are Democrats spending money quixotically and stretching themselves too thin? Is there any chance Democrats can win in places that Donald Trump has consistently won by double digits? Especially in Senate races that could seal control of the upper chamber? 

Yes, there is a chance. Probable, no. A chance, yes. 

Looking at the 2018 midterm election, the last Blue Wave, we have reason for skepticism at first blush. With a House popular vote margin of 8.6 percentage points, Democrats net gained 41 House seats for a total of 235 versus 200 for the Republicans. Yet Democrats had a net loss of two Senate seats. Democratic incumbents couldn’t hold onto seats in four Trump-won states. And while Democratic challengers flipped two Republican-held seats, only one of those was in a state that Trump won two years prior (Arizona), and he only won it by 3.5 percentage points. 

The prior Blue Wave election, in 2006, gives Democrats a bit more hope. The House popular vote margin was 7.9 percentage points, and Democrats net gained 30 House seats for a total of 233—similar to 2018. Dissimilar was the Democratic performance in the Senate: They flipped six seats and coughed up zero. Three flips were in states that, in the 2004 presidential election, Democrats either won or lost narrowly. But two were in states that Democrats lost by seven or eight points (Virginia and Missouri), and one was in a state that Democrats lost by more than 20 points (Montana).  

Since September, Democrats have been holding a steady eight-point lead in the Real Clear Politics generic congressional ballot poll average, similar to the final outcomes in 2006 and 2018. Over the past 20 years, we have seen the actual aggregate House popular vote margin deviate from the RCP average as much as about 3.5 points in either partisan direction. We could still see the Republican base rally by Election Day and limit Democratic gains, or see Republican turnout completely crater, allowing Democrats to overperform polls and ride a full-blown Blue Tsunami. As I’ve noted before, Trump average job approval is among the worst ever recorded in a midterm year, and real disposable income has declined since last year, which has historically correlated with a terrible midterm performance for the president’s party.  

So we have the political weather conditions for a Blue Tsunami. But let’s proceed assuming the House popular vote will be similar to 2006 and 2018. 

To assess how steep a climb each state and district is, we can look at the Cook Political Report’s Partisan Voter Index. That metric assesses the partisan lean of a state or congressional district based on presidential voting performance from the last two elections. As I noted in a column last month, in the 2018 midterm, Democrats flipped 33 of 43 districts with PVIs of R+4 (meaning the district can be expected to vote four percentage points more Republican than the national average) and bluer, plus 10 districts ranging from R+5 to R+13.  

Democrats in the 2026 midterm are targeting 26 Republican-held House districts at R+4 or bluer. If we assume an eight-point House popular vote margin will translate into the same win rate as in 2018 for districts up to R+4, that would yield 20 flips and (after accounting for three expected Republican flips due to redistricting) bring Democrats to 232 total seats—similar to 2006 and 2018. If 2026 also brings Democrats a smattering of flips on turf R+5 and redder—four such districts are now deemed “Tossups” and eight “Lean Republican”—then Democrats have an outside shot at reaching at least 240 seats for the first time in midterm year since 1990.  

What about the Senate? For the 2018 midterm, the only red PVI state Democrats flipped was Arizona, which was R+5. But Democratic incumbents held on in Ohio (R+3), Montana (R+11), and West Virginia (R+20). I couldn’t get my hands on Cook’s PVI data from the 2006 midterms, but based on my own calculations of the vote share from the prior two presidential elections, Democrats flipped states with PVIs of R+2.3 (Missouri), R+3.3 (Virginia), and R+10.5 (Montana). 

Envelope-pushing examples usually stem from candidate-quality mismatches and, in multi-candidate races, splintered electorates. Montana’s Jon Tester, for example, won his first two Senate races with less than 50 percent support thanks to a Libertarian candidate taking a slice of the conservative electorate away from the Republican. Candidate quality tends to play a bigger role in Senate races than House races since they receive far more media attention.  

All year, polling has indicated competitive Senate races in Alaska, Iowa, Ohio, and Texas. These are all states with PVIs either R+5 or R+6. With the generic congressional ballot average at eight points, no one should be surprised that the poll averages in each of these states are statistical dead heats.  

We have a handful of Senate races in redder states with Democratic or independent candidates, in polls sampled since the last week of September, averaging a slight lead or behind by less than five points: Kansas, Montana, Mississippi, Nebraska, South Carolina, and South Dakota. These states have been infrequently polled, and when they are polled, it’s by outfits lacking long histories of credible results. So how serious should we take Democratic chances in these states? 

Kansas and South Carolina have PVIs of R+8. Montana and Nebraska have R+10. Mississippi is R+11 and South Dakota is R+15. All steep climbs, but not unprecedented climbs, and arguably all cases with candidate quality mismatches.  

Perhaps the biggest candidate quality mismatch is in Kansas, where Democrat Adam Hamilton has deftly leveraged his 36 years of experience leading one of the state’s biggest churches, and incumbent Senator Roger Marshall has been pummeled by the revelation that his obstetrician practice had 81 people arrested for outstanding medical debts and sometimes garnished wages. Kansas also has a history of electing moderate Democrats for governor. Hamilton has actually led in most polls over the past month, though not by much.  

Pediatrician Annie Andrews has a puncher’s chance in South Carolina largely because the Republican nominee, the recently appointed incumbent Senator Darlene Graham, has appeared out of her depth in debates. She trails in recent polls by about three points.  

The potential for a turnout mismatch is stoking Democratic optimism in Mississippi. The Deep South state has the highest percentage of Black residents in the country at 37 percent, but Black voter turnout sometimes goes as low as 30 percent in a state with restrictive voting laws. The Democratic nominee, District Attorney Scott Colom, is African-American, and his campaign is trying to boost Black turnout with campaign appearances by former Vice President Kamala Harris and Senator Raphael Warnock.  

Back in 2018, incumbent Republican Cindy Hyde-Smith was elected in a special election, beating another African-American Democrat, former Agriculture Secretary Mike Espy, by a relatively narrow seven points, with Black turnout at just 32.5 percent. A recent analysis by The Center for Politics suggests that if white turnout tanks and Black turnout spikes, Colom can pull off an upset: “A certain “X-factor” at play here might be the fact that, as one of our contacts familiar with the state put it, because Mississippi lacks state-level races this year and has boring House races, the Senate race has a ‘special election’ feel.” Independent polling in the past month has been scant, with the only one coming from an untested newcomer, Wedgewood, showing Colom behind by 4.  

The primary challengers in Montana, Nebraska and South Dakota are independents and military veterans who have pledged not to caucus with either party. The latter two races have no Democratic nominee.  

Many political observers presumed Montana’s Seth Bodnar would be undercut by Democrat Alania Bankhead, who remains in the race, but the most recent poll shows Bodnar leading the Republican nominee  Trump-appointed U.S. Attorney Kurt Alme by two points. Bankhead, who has barely any campaign cash and no chance of winning, may be helping Bodnar avoid being seen by right-leaning swing voters as a closet Democrat. Bodnar outraised Alme in the third quarter and is only slightly behind in cash on hand. Alme has not distanced himself from Trump on Canadian tariffs, which have been painful for Montana farmers and ranchers, giving Bodnar an opening which he is taking. Plus, a Libertarian candidate is in the race, which has helped Montana Democrats before.  

Nebraska’s Dan Osborn, a union leader who led a strike against the Kellogg’s cereal company in 2021, entered the homestretch with more cash on hand than the incumbent Republican Pete Ricketts, and outside groups spent more in the third quarter than did Republicans. In turn, Ricketts has faced searing attack ads accusing him of pardoning a rapist and loving data centers, though Republicans appear prepared to spend big in the final weeks. Osborn led by a single point in one poll mostly sampled in late September, but has trailed two others sampled more recently. 

In little-noticed South Dakota, the independent Brian Bengs led by one point in the most recent poll, albeit with just 44 percent support. Bengs nearly doubled the incumbent Republican Senator Mike Rounds in third-quarter fundraising but quickly spent it down. 

What this tells us is that a lot has to break toward Democrats and independents for the Blue Wave to reach tsunami levels. But a lot already is breaking the Democrats’ way. Trump’s job approval is stuck below 40 percent. Inflation, already bad, has gotten worse. Many Republican incumbents have done little to distance themselves from an unpopular president. Many Democratic and independent challengers are strong recruits running savvy campaigns. At the same time, the Democratic Senate nominees in Maine, Michigan, and Minnesota—states with PVIs ranging from D+0 to D+4—have been underperforming in polls, with steady but small leads. Democrats have every reason to spread the field to the South, the Plains, and the West to hedge against any possible Republican upset in the North.  

The post Kansas? Montana? Mississippi? Where Will the Blue Wave Crest? appeared first on Washington Monthly.