Strong Candidates, Weak Incumbents, Unhappy Voters

Why is the "out-party" so strong in midterm elections?

Following their defeat in the 2014 midterms and losing their grip on Congress, the Democratic Party was left in a state of disarray. In the House, Republicans increased their margin over the Democrats. In the Senate, Republicans seized control of the chamber from their political counterparts. By the time that the results were finalized, one thing was glaringly obvious: Democrats did not just lose—they lost handily.

The GOP had won 247 seats in the House, gained 13 seats over the Democrats, and achieved their largest majority in the lower chamber since 1928. The bounties in the Senate were even more dramatic, with Republicans winning nine races and claiming 54 seats in total—an unthinkable change by today’s standards, where only a handful of seats tend to flip each election cycle.

This outcome becomes even more jarring when comparing it to the makeup of Congress in 2009, just a mere five years prior. When Barack Obama first assumed the presidency, he was welcomed by Democratic majorities in both chambers of the Legislative Branch, with a filibuster-proof 60 members in the Senate, and 247 members in the House.

So, what changed between 2009 and 2014? How did Obama, whose feats included steering the nation through the Great Recession and signing the Affordable Care Act into law, end up with a Congress that had overwhelming Republican influence? Don’t incumbents typically have an advantage in elections?

Not necessarily.

While incumbents do share some inherent advantages in elections, such as increased name recognition and deeper coffers for funding campaigns, the party that controls the levers of power in the government at the time—the “in-party”—usually faces strong headwinds during midterm elections. This, in turn, provides the opportunity for the minority party—the “out-party”—to usurp control.

But what exactly causes the in-party to be in jeopardy in the first place? For the out-party to win elections, a few key factors are usually present, with them often overlapping:

1. Strong Challengers: High-profile individuals that have broad name recognition to match their incumbent opponents, such as governors, state representatives, and community leaders.
2. Weak Incumbents: Candidates that are either already unpopular or becoming unpopular within their own state or district. Perhaps they were caught in a scandal or they voted "wrongly" on a critical piece of legislation.
3. Dissatisfaction with the Status Quo: Voters often engage with politics like a thermostat. When the government moves too far in one direction, the public wants to "dial" it back the other way.

In the case of the 2014 midterms, these criteria can be readily applied.

President Obama’s approval rating was consistently poor at that time, with some polls showing it as low as 40% in the weeks leading up to the election. Upon closer inspection, voters were particularly disgruntled with the state of the economy, the administration's handling of immigration , and the failed rollout of the Obamacare website.

The GOP took advantage of this national sentiment by offering voters a strong slate of candidates while tying the Democratic incumbents to the unpopular administration in the White House. In Colorado, for example, Democratic incumbent Mark Udall was ousted by then-Representative Cory Gardner, who won by almost two points. In Iowa, then-state Senator Joni Ernst swiftly beat the Democratic nominee, Representative Bruce Braley, by just over eight points in a contest to replace Democratic Senator Tom Harkin. While Ernst entered the race strongly by showing up to NRSC training sessions and focused messaging about her service in Iraq, Braley’s campaign was marred by controversies such as airing a sexist ad and deriding Republican Senator Chuck Grassley as “a farmer from Iowa who never went to law school.” In this instance, Ernst demonstrated to an upset electorate that she was a sensible choice over an irresponsible candidate from the lackluster party that was already in control.

Revisiting the 2014 midterms is not just a trip down memory lane—it is meant to be both a cautionary tale for Republicans and a sign of hope for Democrats by highlighting one thing: that the same forces that put Republicans on the map in 2014 are the same forces that can wipe them from it in 2026.

Key Senate Races in 2026

While the Democratic Party, currently considered the “out-party,” is widely considered to have a strong chance of reclaiming the House, there are a lot of hurdles for them to clear if they want to extend their victory into the Senate. The stars are aligning, however, for them to take back Congress despite those challenges.

First and foremost, voters widely disapprove of Donald Trump and his handling of important policy issues. As of January 24, 2026, the Silver Bulletin has President Trump at the lowest approval rating of his second term: 41.3%. Moreover, they disapprove of his approach to issues ranging from immigration (-11.7%), the economy (-18.1%), and inflation (-28.7%)—all of which were fundamental issues that he campaigned on in 2024. It is this type of national environment that leaves voters desiring a change in leadership, with hints of that being demonstrated in the 2025 election cycle, where Democrats won elections across the nation with significant margins.

In addition to voters’ dissatisfaction bubbling to the surface, the Democratic Party is making otherwise noncompetitive races attainable by supporting powerful candidates:

• North Carolina: Republican incumbent Thom Tillis is retiring, leaving Mark Whatley, the former chair of the Republican National Committee, to run in his stead. However, former Governor Roy Cooper has stepped up on behalf of the Democrats. Cooper, who has widespread name recognition within the state, has consistently led Whatley in the polls, with the Carolina Journal reporting his most recent lead being eight points.

• Ohio: When J.D. Vance became vice president, then-Lieutenant Governor Jon Husted was appointed to replace him until a special election is held to determine who will fill the remainder of his term. Democrats are poised to make this race competitive, with former Senator Sherrod Brown looking to reclaim the seat he previously held for 18 years before he lost it to Republican Bernie Moreno in 2024 by about 3.6 points. Recent polling shows Husted ahead of Brown by anywhere from 3 to 6 points, but given Brown’s broad popularity and name recognition, this race is sure to tighten.

• Alaska: Democratic challenger and moderate Mary Peltola is hoping to remove Republican incumbent Dan Sullivan. Prior to her bid for the Senate, she won a special election to represent Alaska’s sole seat in the House by a 55% - 45% margin over Sarah Palin, John McCain’s pick for vice president during his 2008 presidential campaign. While Peltola lost her campaign for reelection to the House in 2024, her ability any race in Alaska—a solid Republican state—in combination with polls showing that she leads Sullivan by two points, gives Democrats a reason to believe that the seat can be claimed.

• Maine: While the Democratic front-runner, Janet Mills, is a solid candidate due to her name recognition as governor of the state, she has struggled to take a definitive lead over her opponent in the primary, Graham Platner, who faced several controversies surrounding questionable comments online and having a tattoo depicting a Nazi symbol. In fact, some polls show Platner ahead of Mills by considerable margins. The reason that Maine is more competitive than usual, however, is less about the quality of the Democratic candidates and more about the vulnerability of the Republican candidate, Susan Collins. Collin's popularity has waned, with some polls showing only 38% of voters showing support for her. However, if she can manage to keep Trump at arm's distance and the Democratic primary gets messy, her 29 year run could very eassily continue.

These races are still in their early stages (there are still plenty of primaries to get through), but there they all hint at the same factors that led to the Democrats losing control in 2014. President Trump and his policies are overwhelmingly unpopular, and with a Republican Party that moves in lockstep with him, it will be nearly impossible for voters to view the Republican incumbents as anything but an extension of the president.

That opposing current, in combination with the fact that Democratic Party is laying the foundation for candidates with strong name recognition, popularity, and moderate platforms, might just cause the GOP to suffer the same fate as their Democratic colleagues did just over a decade ago.