10
Loading video...
By Steven Frank
0
Share
Newsweek is a Trust Project member
See more of our trusted coverage when you search.Prefer Newsweek on Googleto see more of our trusted coverage when you search.
Democrats entered the 2026 midterm elections needing to defend familiar political territory while searching for opportunities to expand the map.
Some of their most important tests came in the South.
And on Tuesday, Democrats broke through.
Read More on Politics
Democrat James Talarico won a U.S. Senate seat in Texas, giving Democrats a statewide federal victory in a state that had frustrated them for decades. Former North Carolina Governor Roy Cooper flipped another Republican-held Senate seat, while Senator Jon Ossoff won reelection decisively in Georgia. Democrats also scored a stunning Senate upset in South Carolina.
How Far Did the Democratic Wave Reach?
And the Democratic surge reached considerably deeper into Republican territory. In Mississippi, Democrat Scott Colom was leading Republican Senator Cindy Hyde-Smith by fewer than 2,000 votes Thursday evening, with the race still too close to call. If Colom wins, he would become Mississippi's first Democratic senator since 1982 and its first Black U.S. senator since Reconstruction.
Democrats even came within striking distance in Louisiana. Republican Julia Letlow defeated Democrat Jamie Davis in the Senate race, but by only about 1.8 percentage points, 50.9 percent to 49.1 percent, according to results reported by NBC News. Trump carried Louisiana by roughly 22 points just two years earlier.
The Southern victories formed part of a broader Democratic wave that handed the party control of both chambers of Congress. By early Wednesday afternoon, Democrats had flipped seven Republican-held Senate seats and more than two dozen House seats without losing a Democratic seat in either chamber.
Taken together, the results offered a test of an idea Democrats have pursued with uneven success for years: that fast-growing Southern states can become genuine battlegrounds rather than expensive political mirages.
This time, the results provided significant evidence that the strategy could work.
...
That does not necessarily mean the South is turning blue. Nor would one midterm election amount to a political realignment. But Democrats do not need to dominate the region to transform their political prospects. Making Republicans seriously defend states and congressional districts they once could take for granted would itself change the electoral map.
M.V. (Trey) Hood III, a professor of political science at the University of Georgia, cautioned against interpreting one election as proof of a lasting transformation.
"No way to tell if this is durable," Hood told Newsweek. "One data point (election) is not a trend. I certainly wouldn't be using the term realignment."
Instead, Hood pointed to an overwhelmingly favorable national environment for Democrats and what he characterized as a "complete repudiation of Trump." He said affordability was particularly potent for Democrats, who could directly connect economic anxieties to the Iran war and tariffs.
And it could matter far beyond 2026.
A Southern Battleground
Democrats went into Election Day with several opportunities to test the theory.
Republicans entered the election holding a 53-47 Senate majority. Democrats therefore needed a net gain of four seats for control, and Texas and North Carolina became two of the states that helped put them over the top.
In North Carolina, Cooper defeated Republican Michael Whatley, flipping the seat being vacated by Republican Senator Thom Tillis. It converted years of Democratic near-misses in the state into a major statewide victory.
Georgia delivered a different message. Ossoff successfully defended the Democratic seat Republicans hoped to capture, leading Republican Mike Collins roughly 59 percent to 41 percent with nearly all votes counted in results reported Wednesday.
Democrat Keisha Lance Bottoms also won the Georgia governor’s race, defeating Republican Rick Jackson 54.3 percent to 45.7 percent, another significant Democratic victory in the state.
Hood said Georgia's results showed how powerful the Democratic wave was further down the ballot as well.
"In Georgia, voters were checking the boxes all the way down the ballot for Democratic candidates. There was hardly any roll-off," he told Newsweek. "I doubt voters knew much of anything at all about the (D) candidate for labor commissioner, but it didn't matter. If you were a (D), you got elected."
Texas represented perhaps the more dramatic test.
Democrat Talarico defeated Republican Attorney General Ken Paxton in the Senate race, producing the statewide breakthrough Democrats had pursued unsuccessfully for years. Talarico's victory also helped secure the party's new Senate majority.
The importance of that result goes beyond one Senate seat. Texas has repeatedly tempted Democrats with changing demographics and narrowing margins only to remain in Republican hands statewide. In 2026, Democrats finally converted that promise into a major federal victory.
The battle stretched to the House.
Democratic gains also reached into Republican-held House territory across the South. In South Carolina's 1st Congressional District, retired Navy Admiral Nancy Lacore was projected to defeat Republican Jenny Costa Honeycutt for the seat being vacated by Republican Representative Nancy Mace. Honeycutt conceded Wednesday.
But perhaps the clearest illustration of how far Democrats penetrated normally Republican territory came from Mississippi. As of Thursday evening, Colom held an extraordinarily narrow lead over Hyde-Smith, with more than 95 percent of the estimated vote counted. The Associated Press had not called the race, and a final result may not be known until next week as additional ballots are processed.
That contest carries particular historical resonance. Mississippi has not elected a Democrat to the Senate since 1982. A Colom victory would also make him the state's first Black U.S. senator since the Reconstruction Era.
Louisiana provided another measure of the Democratic wave even in defeat. Davis came within roughly 26,000 votes of Letlow, losing by 1.8 points in a state where Democratic presidential nominees have struggled badly in recent elections.
The important question after Election Day is therefore less whether Democrats suddenly "won the South" than where they became meaningfully more competitive and whether those gains appear transferable.
What's Changing in the South?
The phrase "Southern Democrat" itself carries a vastly different meaning than it did for much of American political history.
For generations after Reconstruction, the "Solid South" formed a central part of the Democratic Party's electoral base. But much of that political order was built around white supremacy, Black disenfranchisement, and resistance to civil rights. In 1948, segregationist Southern Democrats broke with the national party over its emerging civil rights platform and formed the States' Rights Democratic Party, commonly known as the Dixiecrats. South Carolina Governor Strom Thurmond became its presidential nominee.
That political alignment fractured over subsequent decades as the National Democratic Party increasingly embraced civil rights. Democratic President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, while large numbers of white Southern voters progressively moved toward the Republican Party.
Today's Southern Democrats therefore bear little political resemblance to the segregationist Democrats who once dominated the region. Their modern coalition relies heavily on Black voters, metropolitan areas and increasingly competitive suburbs, while Republicans have become the dominant party across much of the rural white South.
The election will inevitably produce competing explanations.
One is geography. Much of Democrats' potential in the region is concentrated around large and growing metropolitan areas and their suburbs, including Atlanta, Charlotte, Raleigh and major Texas cities.
Another possibility is that the Democratic coalition itself is changing.
But the results alone cannot establish that Democrats have built a durable new Southern coalition. Determining that will require a closer look at county-level returns and voter data, particularly among Black voters, younger voters, college-educated suburbanites and Latino voters in Texas.
The distinction is important.
A Democrat winning because of an unusually unpopular Republican opponent is very different from Democrats becoming structurally competitive in a state. The same is true of winning heavily in urban centers while continuing to struggle in rural areas.
There is also a powerful national explanation that Democrats cannot ignore. This was a midterm election under a Republican president, and dissatisfaction with the country's direction was widespread. About three-quarters of respondents in the AP Voter Poll said they were angry or dissatisfied with the direction of the country.
That makes it difficult to determine immediately how much of Tuesday's Southern breakthrough was structural and how much resulted from an unusually favorable environment for the opposition party.
Hood offered a recent warning against drawing sweeping conclusions from a single election: Latino voters in Texas. The group's movement toward Republicans in 2024 prompted considerable discussion of a lasting political realignment, an interpretation he said looks much less certain after the 2026 results.
"Looking at voting patterns from a single election can't tell us a lot," Hood said.
The New Southern Political Map
Three states provided the clearest victories for the party's Southern ambitions, while Mississippi and Louisiana demonstrated that Democratic competitiveness reached even further into the region.
Georgia has already demonstrated that Democrats can win statewide federal races. Ossoff's defense of his Senate seat provided another sign that the state's competitiveness is durable rather than a temporary product of one or two election cycles. His decisive margin is particularly notable given that Democrats were defending rather than trying to capture the seat.
North Carolina poses a different question: whether Democrats can translate years of close contests into sustained statewide success.
Cooper's victory finally gave Democrats the kind of statewide breakthrough they had repeatedly approached but struggled to secure. The next question is whether the party can reproduce it without a candidate who had already twice won statewide as governor.
And then there is Texas.
Democrats have chased the possibility of a blue, or at least purple, Texas for election cycle after election cycle. Talarico's victory does not demonstrate that Texas has suddenly become a Democratic state, but it makes the argument that the state is becoming genuinely competitive substantially harder to dismiss.
After years of pointing to demographic projections, metropolitan growth and competitive margins as evidence that Texas could eventually move, Democrats can now point to an actual statewide federal victory.
Mississippi and Louisiana complicate the picture further. They are not states Democrats ordinarily need to carry to win national elections. Yet a Democrat was running virtually even with a Republican incumbent in Mississippi on Thursday, while Davis came within 1.8 points in Louisiana. Even without a Democratic victory in both states, forcing Republicans into serious statewide contests that recently would have appeared forbidding is itself evidence of the breadth of the 2026 wave.
The states may ultimately tell different stories. Georgia suggests recent Democratic success there may be more durable. North Carolina showed that repeated close calls can translate into statewide victory. And Texas provided the breakthrough Democrats had long predicted but repeatedly failed to deliver.
Mississippi could provide an even more startling breakthrough if Colom ultimately prevails, while Louisiana demonstrates the distinction Hood cautioned about: becoming competitive in one extraordinary Democratic year does not necessarily establish a lasting realignment.
Are Southern Democrats Really Back?
There are obvious reasons for caution.
Midterm elections can produce political conditions that are difficult to replicate in a presidential year. Democratic gains in Republican territory could therefore reflect the national environment rather than a lasting regional shift.
Candidate quality could further complicate the picture.
A collection of unusually strong Democratic candidates, unusually vulnerable Republican nominees or unusually favorable political circumstances would not necessarily create a formula Democrats could reproduce in a presidential election.
Cooper, for example, entered the North Carolina race with statewide recognition from two terms as governor. In Texas, Democrats faced Paxton rather than a generic Republican nominee. Those candidate-specific circumstances will matter when Democrats decide how much of Tuesday's performance can be replicated.
There is another potential warning sign for Democrats: gains concentrated overwhelmingly in metropolitan areas could disguise continued weakness across much of the rest of the South.
And Hood's warning is particularly relevant here: "One data point (election) is not a trend."
Rather than a realignment, the results may demonstrate how far Democratic candidates can penetrate into Republican territory when national conditions turn overwhelmingly in their favor.
The question, then, is not whether Democrats have suddenly reclaimed a region that Republicans have dominated in recent presidential elections.
It is whether Southern Democrats are becoming competitive enough to matter.
Tuesday's results strongly suggest that, at least under favorable political conditions, they are.
What It Could Mean for 2028
That distinction has potentially enormous implications for the next presidential election.
Democrats have spent recent presidential cycles fighting intensely over a relatively small collection of battleground states. Sustained competitiveness in Georgia and North Carolina, combined with a Democratic Senate victory in Texas, could complicate that calculation.
The strategic benefit would not depend entirely on winning every state.
Forcing Republicans to devote candidates' time, advertising dollars, and campaign infrastructure to defending Southern territory would itself broaden the battlefield.
Texas would present the biggest potential disruption. A single Democratic Senate victory does not establish that its electoral votes will be genuinely competitive in 2028. But Talarico's win gives Democrats a much stronger argument for investing there than another close defeat would have.
Georgia now presents almost the opposite question. After repeated competitive statewide elections, Ossoff's emphatic reelection provides further evidence that Democrats already possess a constituency capable of winning there.
And Cooper's victory ensures North Carolina will remain difficult for either presidential party to ignore.
Hood said the results would probably encourage "a more sustained effort" by Democrats to expand the number of offices they seriously contest, rather than limiting their ambitions to a handful of marquee statewide races.
Mississippi and Louisiana help explain why. Even if Democrats ultimately fall short in Mississippi, and despite their defeat in Louisiana, the margins suggest Republicans may have to pay attention to contests they once could have treated as safely out of reach.
It could also raise a larger strategic question for Democrats: whether a more competitive South could eventually make the party less dependent on winning the same Midwestern battlegrounds that have played an outsized role in recent presidential elections.
That may ultimately be the most consequential test of Tuesday's Southern results.
The 2026 results provided significant evidence that the change Democrats have spent years pursuing is producing tangible results.
Not necessarily because Democrats have won the South.
And certainly not, as Hood cautioned, because one election proves a political realignment.
But because after victories in Texas and North Carolina, another commanding Democratic performance in Georgia, a Democratic upset in South Carolina, an extraordinary cliffhanger in Mississippi and even a near-miss in Louisiana, Republicans may no longer be able to take as much of it for granted.
Newsweek’s reporters and editors used Martyn, our AI assistant, to produce this story. Learn more about Martyn here. Contact Newsweek editors on this story: Edward T. Cummins
View 0 Comments
Submit Correction
View Editorial & AI Guidelines