“Fundraising is a critical part of winning reelection, but sometimes incumbents have political problems that money can’t fix, Nathan Gonzales writes in “House: Money Isn’t Enough to Save Incumbents in Wave Elections” at Inside Elections. “When voter sentiment is against you, outspending your opponent isn’t sufficient to survive an electoral wave. This is important context when analyzing campaign fundraising reports…While there can be confusion over what constitutes a wave election, 2010 certainly qualifies. Republicans gained a net of 63 House seats in President Barack Obama’s first midterm election, with health care at the top of people’s minds. And 2006 fits the description as well, considering Democrats gained 31 House seats during George W. Bush’s second midterm when the president had lost much of his credibility after the war in Iraq and the administration’s response to Hurricane Katrina…Under adverse political conditions, smart members gird themselves for the storm by raising money and leveraging that financial advantage most incumbents enjoy. But sometimes it doesn’t matter… Of the combined 74 House incumbents who didn’t win reelection in 2006 and 2010, 84 percent of them (62 members) outspent their challenger and still lost… Southeast Pennsylvania offers one of the best examples of this dynamic, which can plague both parties. In 2006, Democrat Patrick Murphy knocked off GOP Rep. Mike Fitzpatrick, even though he spent only three-quarters of what the incumbent did ($2.4 million to $3.2 million) in a suburban Philadelphia seat. Four years later, Fitzpatrick toppled Murphy while spending less than half of his opponent’s outlays ($2.1 million to $4.3 million)…This year’s financial dynamic in House races might look closer to 2006 or 2010 than to 2018… Yes, there’s mounting evidence that a Democratic House majority is within reach due to historical midterm trends. Trump’s job approval rating stands at 41 percent, according to Nate Silver’s latest average. And Democrats have been consistently overperforming in races across the country over the past 10 months… But there are signs of fatigue among Democratic donors. Losing yet another race to Trump isn’t great for morale… Still, as history tells us, underfunded challengers can defeat incumbents under the right political conditions. And, maybe most importantly, Democrats don’t need an electoral wave to win the House majority. They don’t need to gain 63 seats, 41 seats or 31 seats or topple dozens of incumbents as we saw in previous cycles… They need a net gain of three seats.”

In “Is Trump Losing Rural America? Jess Piper foretells the growing blue wave across the country,” The Contrarian’s Jennifer Rubin interviews Jess Piper, Executive Director for Blue Missouri, a grassroots fundraising organization that supports Democratic nominees for Missouri state legislature.  In the introiduction to the interview, The Contrarian writes that “Trump’s policies seem to have done nothing but negatively impact the people that voted him into power—especially in rural America. From farmers in Iowa to small business owners, people across the nation are feeling the effects of the Trump administration’s broken promises and inaction. In response, a growing number of Democratic candidates across traditionally Republican held areas are running for election…Jess Piper, Executive Director of Blue Missouri, joins Jen to give us an update on the growing blue wave forming in the South and the Midwest. The pair also discuss the National Rifle Association’s (NRA) pushback against Trump’s claim that Alex Pretti’s murder was justified because he was carrying a gun, and how Democrats need to run for office in uncontested districts. Video and transcript link  here.

U.S. Senator Chris Coons (D-DE) explains “What My Party needs to Do” at Democracy: A journal of Ideas: “Democrats need to stop telling Americans how to be and what to feel and believe. Instead, we need to listen. Then we need to solve the problems they’ve shared with us. In the last few years, it’s not just our message that was wrong—it was some of our policies, too. People didn’t recognize the impacts of the bills we wrote and the votes we took. That’s why Americans don’t believe us when we preach at them from auditorium stages, cable news desks, and social media posts…We have to get back to the values and ideas that draw people to be Democrats to begin with…Ever since the shattering loss of the White House and the Senate majority in 2024, Americans have been asking about the direction of the party. What do we stand for? Where will we take the country if voters give us the chance to lead again? We should have run better campaigns in 2024, but more than a year later, we also need better answers to those questions than what we offered on Election Day…Democrats did very well in the off-year 2025 elections, but success in larger elections in 2026 and especially 2028 will require a more affirmative vision. If we want to win again, we need to offer voters a concise, accessible framework that rests on the ideas that drew me and so many others to the party in the first place: opportunity, security, justice…The Democratic Party has to build things again, and we need to make sure that Americans are trained for the future that these technologies will bring. It’s a perspective that would reestablish us as a pro-growth party, not solely a pro-regulation party. We are a party that sees exciting and positive opportunities ahead for all of us—and will work to make them come true…We should fight for the right of all Americans to be secure in their homes, their communities, and their bodies—safe from violence, supported by effective policing that partners with communities, surrounded by secure borders and immigration policies that respect humanity, and assured of responsible gun ownership and safe schools…”

Coons continues, “Security also means financial security. Democrats should help Americans keep more of what they earn and save for the future. That means making our economy a fair playing field, so that a day’s work lets you provide for your family, put some money aside for a rainy day, and build wealth…We should ensure the government is fair and free of corruption. Americans should be confident that they’re playing by the same rules as everyone else, no matter how wealthy or well connected…Security also has global dimensions. It means we partner with allies, lead with our values, and defend liberty to secure our place in the world. We should build a foreign policy that keeps Americans safe—and understands that diplomacy, development, and aid, along with a strong military, are key parts of that equation…Democrats must speak to and act on legitimate concerns starting with opportunity and followed by security before they can be heard on justice. Focusing principally on security leads to a velvet prison—a nanny state where you can get by but never have the incentive or ability to thrive, where you will always be safe so long as you never step out of your proverbial front door. If we focus on justice when folks don’t feel they have security and opportunity, they will think we are out of touch and tone-deaf. But if we see justice as the means by which we work on opportunity and security, then we can pursue a pro-growth agenda and a pro-security agenda…Another source of opportunity are the immigrants who do work Americans can’t or won’t do in sectors like agriculture and construction. There simply aren’t enough Americans to do these jobs without making our homes and groceries so expensive that they would be out of reach. If immigrants don’t fill these roles, food rots in fields, prices go up, jobs disappear—and everyone suffers. So, if we apply the principle of opportunity, we end up with an immigration policy that brings in highly skilled immigrants and immigrants willing to work in sectors that desperately need them even as it ensures that our borders are secure, so we don’t let in more people than our economy can absorb…Americans feel our borders are endlessly porous, and that our broken system makes it easy for people to cut the line, skirt vetting, and dodge supervision. We need to ensure they know our goal is their safety, a secure border, and laws that apply equally to everyone…We keep Americans safe by deporting the violent criminals who are most likely to commit crimes again. When deporting everyone is your priority, you don’t actually have priorities. It is not possible to humanely deport the more than 14 million people in this country without legal status or documentation. So, we should focus on those who have committed serious crimes…A just immigration policy ensures due process, including the opportunity to plead your case before a judge, so that we don’t accidentally deport American citizens or those legally allowed to live in this country. A just policy doesn’t force undocumented immigrants who have been here almost their entire lives to remain in the shadows, nor does it ignore international law on issues such as asylum. None of these principles detract from Americans’ security and opportunity. Instead, they add to them, ensuring the systems we put in place protect Americans and immigrants alike, reflect our values, and drive us toward a future of growth and freedom.”