Assessing the role of candidate quality in the 2026 midterms

History suggests Democrats could benefit in the 2026 midterms. As William Galston explained in one of the first pieces in Brookings’ coverage, incumbent presidents almost always lose seats in midterm elections. Trump’s approval ratings are low, and Democrats have often performed better when he is not on the ballot.

Still, Democrats face no shortage of risks. While national trends play a major role in midterm outcomes, individual candidates can matter just as much—sometimes more so. In some parliamentary systems, party leaders select candidates. In the United States, parties may try to recruit strong contenders, but primary voters ultimately decide—and sometimes the strongest candidates do not advance to the general election.

One of the most cited examples of primary voters favoring a weaker candidate came in 2010, when Christine O’Donnell won the Republican Senate primary in Delaware. In a year generally favorable to Republicans, she defeated a former governor widely regarded as the stronger contender. O’Donnell drew national attention when she released an ad declaring, “I am not a witch.” The unusual line was a response to comments she had made years earlier on Bill Maher’s show “Politically Incorrect.” Here’s a quote from the show:

“I dabbled in witchcraft—I never joined a coven. But I did, I did. I dabbled in witchcraft. I hung around people who were doing these things. I’m not making this stuff up. I know what they told me they do.”

O’Donnell went on to lose her Senate race. Few candidates have been as unusual, but flawed contenders appear often enough that party leaders devote considerable effort to recruiting what political scientists call “quality candidates.” Defining “quality,” however, is less straightforward. Years ago, political scientists Gary Jacobson and Samuel Kernell suggested measuring quality by prior officeholding experience. That remains the simplest standard, since incumbency signals political skill and familiarity with government and the district they serve.

It is no surprise that party leaders focus first on protecting incumbents, as reelection rates are high in both primaries and general elections. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has already identified 26 “frontliners,” including Rep. Josh Harder of California’s 9th District, who won re-election in a district Trump carried. Republicans are targeting similar districts across the country, including 13 where Trump won but Democrats hold the House seat.

Another strategy for protecting incumbents is discouraging House members from pursuing Senate races. The National Republican Senatorial Committee has told potential candidates it will urge major donors to withhold support from incumbents who make the jump.

Protecting incumbents and limiting retirements in competitive districts is one of the most important ways party leaders can improve the chances of “quality candidates” reaching the general election. The harder task is encouraging strong contenders to enter races while discouraging weaker ones. Recently, Scranton Mayor Paige Cognetti announced she would run for Pennsylvania’s 8th congressional district, which leans narrowly Republican. Cognetti fits the bill—she has built local ties through her role as mayor. Another candidate viewed as strong is Bob Brooks, president of the state firefighters union and a labor leader with longstanding roots in Pennsylvania’s 7th congressional district. Recruitment of candidates in those two closely divided districts prompted ABC News to note:

“The ranks of Democrats now running for Congress in Pennsylvania include a prominent mayor and a state labor leader and give the party the kind of candidate-recruitment buzz it needs ahead of next year’s congressional elections. At stake is a controlling majority in the U.S. House.”

In addition to prominent elected officials, party leaders often look for candidates with personal qualities that resonate with voters. This year, that has often meant military veterans. Two of the most popular candidates in the gubernatorial races in Virginia and New Jersey are women with national security backgrounds. Abigail Spanberger, the Democratic nominee in Virginia, is a former intelligence officer, and Mikie Sherill, the Democratic nominee in New Jersey, served as a Navy helicopter pilot. Both are considered strong contenders. Democratic leaders in particular have emphasized recruiting veterans to counter perceptions that the party is too far to the left. In an interview with the New York Times, Travis Tazelaar, political director of VoteVets, said, “The average voter looks at a veteran and doesn’t see them as a hard conservative right or a hard liberal left.” Polling consistently show veterans are viewed favorably by most Americans.

Finally, party leaders aim to nominate candidates seen as “authentic” and a good “fit” for their districts—qualities that are highly subjective. Prominent business executives or nonprofit leaders, for instance, may have the resources to mount a campaign. In other cases, a candidate with a personality that resonates locally can succeed largely on that basis.

What appeals to voters can shift from one election cycle to the next. In recent years, Democrats have struggled with working-class male voters. Some 2026 candidates are adopting the approach of Sen. John Fetterman of Pennsylvania, who campaigned in sweatshirts and athletic shorts and leaned into a working-class image distinct from the party’s college-educated base. This year, Fight Agency, a political consulting firm, is producing ads for a group of Democrats it calls the “Rugged Guys”—veterans with blue-collar backgrounds. One Senate candidate in Maine is an oyster farmer, another in Iowa is a former mechanic, and a third in Nebraska is a steamfitter. “Every cycle, there is a different hot candidate profile that everybody’s trying to be,” Democratic strategist Chuck Rocha said. “This year, it seems like it’s these blue-collar workers.”

No matter how effectively a party recruits strong candidates, primary voters ultimately decide who advances, and sometimes the winner is weaker for the general election. In many districts, this has little impact—of the 435 congressional districts, only about 40 are rated as “toss-up” or leaning toward one party. But control of the House can hinge on these contests, making candidate quality crucial. A candidate who draws national attention for unusual reasons can lose a winnable race, while a relatable working-class contender can prevail in a district that might otherwise have favored the other party. Recruiting candidates turns out to be both an art and a science.