Democrats Sweep Red States in 2026 Midterms
Left 67%
Center 0%
Right 33%
2 left · 0 center · 1 right
What happened
In the 2026 United States midterm elections, Democrats were projected to win majorities in both the House of Representatives and the Senate, flipping Republican-held Senate seats in North Carolina, South Carolina, Texas, Ohio, and Kansas. On election night, networks called Democrat Annie Andrews over appointed Republican incumbent Darline Graham in South Carolina (51 percent to 47 percent with nearly 90 percent of the vote counted), James Talarico over Ken Paxton in Texas, former governor Roy Cooper in North Carolina, Sherrod Brown over Jon Husted in Ohio, and Adam Hamilton over Roger Marshall in Kansas—the first Democratic senator from that state in nearly a century. Incumbent Democrat Jon Ossoff was projected to win reelection in Georgia, and Chris Pappas was projected to hold New Hampshire’s Senate seat. Democrats had needed a net gain of four Senate seats to retake the chamber; after the North Carolina, South Carolina, and Texas calls they had three, with additional flips following. Some races remained uncalled in the reports cited.
Omitted — what each side leaves out
Unpacked
Left-leaning coverage treats the red-state Senate flips as a Democratic breakthrough, while right-leaning coverage treats them as a Republican collapse over policy rather than a vote for Democrats. Fox News points to the war in Iran and high gas prices as what voters punished. Slate never mentions Iran or gas prices. It instead presents South Carolina's weak nominee as why a long-safe Republican Senate seat was even in play.
Slate's headline announces a "Democratic Rout." Fox News names a "collapse of the Republican Party." One credits a Democratic advance through red territory. The other credits a Republican failure.
Did voters in Texas and Kansas reject Republican incumbents for the same reasons South Carolina rejected an appointed newcomer?
Bottom line
Fox News blamed the red-state Senate losses on the Iran war and gas prices, a cause Slate never names. Slate's account of why South Carolina flipped never appears in that Fox News column.
The Left View
Left-leaning outlets framed the night as a historic Democratic wave. Slate titled its coverage “The Democratic Rout Is On” and treated the South Carolina result as “the big flashing sign” and a “shocker”; the Atlantic called it “The Unlikeliest Democratic Win of All,” writing that “few thought South Carolina was really in play until it had already flipped.” Slate argued Graham was “a tremendously poor candidate” who declared “I’m not that informed on national security,” that she held the seat via “nepotism” after Trump backed her because of her late brother Lindsey Graham, and that intra-GOP resentment was real—citing primary rival Ralph Norman’s text that he was “Not surprised AT ALL!” It noted Democrats spent over $100 million against Lindsey Graham in 2020 and lost by 10 points, so a win in a state no Democratic presidential candidate has carried since Jimmy Carter signaled “a historic night.” Slate said Democrats “strolled to victory” in other seats Republicans had once targeted, and that Talarico succeeded in Texas after “a decade of near misses” because, unlike predecessors, he “consistently led in the polls.” It closed: “If South Carolina isn’t a safe space for Republicans, where is?”
The Right View
Doug Schoen, writing for Fox News, said “the big winner” was the Democratic Party and “the big loser” was President Donald Trump, calling the night a “blowout” that produced “solid majorities,” including in formerly “deep-red” seats that had been “virtually unachievable.” He argued “this is more of a collapse of the Republican Party than it is an affirmative vote for the Democrats”—a vote “against the war in Iran as it’s being conducted, against high gas prices—which are seen as a direct result of that war—and against the overall perception among voters that there are two sets of rules” for elites versus “ordinary working people.” He asked whether Democrats who elected progressives such as Talarico and Troy Jackson in Maine could “govern coherently and consistently” with an agenda “sympathetic to or actually aligned with the democratic socialists,” warning they might “paper over these profound differences… not with policy but with investigations,” making congressional “paralysis” “a more stark reality.” He said Trump’s “approach of simply demonizing the opposition is not an acceptable or appropriate way to govern,” that both parties must “govern constructively” or face “the same swing” in two years, and that Americans “are less concerned with partisan labels than with getting things done.”
Our Take (balanced)
Left-leaning coverage’s strongest argument is that the breadth of the map—especially a Democratic Senate victory in South Carolina, which no Democratic presidential candidate has won since Jimmy Carter—shows a historic partisan shift rather than a cluster of weak GOP nominees; the best support is the early network calls, Andrews’s counted-vote lead, Talarico converting a polling advantage into a Texas statewide win after years of near misses, and Slate’s line that if South Carolina is not safe for Republicans, nowhere is. Right-leaning commentary’s strongest argument is that the night was “more of a collapse of the Republican Party than it is an affirmative vote for the Democrats,” a backlash against the Iran war, gas prices, and two-tier rules, with Trump the “biggest loser” for “demonizing the opposition”; Schoen points to losses in seats once called unachievable and to progressive winners whose ability to “govern coherently” he treats as unproven. The central unresolved tension is whether 2026 is a durable, affirmative realignment toward Democrats or a negative referendum on Republican and Trump stewardship whose policy meaning—and the new majority’s capacity to govern across establishment–progressive lines—has not been tested.
3 sources
More stories
The week's bottom lines, in your inbox
One email a week: the five stories that mattered and what they actually mean. Free.