Ask Us Anything

1. For months Matt has been “betting on” a blue wave this fall, but in Monday’s excerpt from his new book, he documented the many shenanigans Republicans have used for decades to stay in power. Is this a way of hedging your bet on November? (Please tell me it isn’t so.)

(Matt) It isn’t so. My new book, Democracy on the Edge, takes a historical look at how the two political parties arrived at where they are today. Part of this discussion traces the origins of today’s Republican party to what you aptly call shenanigans—albeit of a milder variety than what we’re dealing with now. My sense of the midterms is unaffected by this. Every metric points to a strong Democratic year with the potential for a generational election.

2. In which states do Democrats have the best chance of flipping control of a branch of government (i.e. governor, or one of the two legislative branches)

(Chris) Looking at the Cook Political Report’s 2026 governor race ratings, it seems there are four states where Democrats have a good chance to flip control of the governor’s mansion: Georgia, Iowa, Nevada and Ohio. All four as listed as toss-ups. The Democratic nominees in these four states are:

• Georgia: Keisha Lance Bottoms

• Iowa: Rob Sand

• Nevada: Aaron Ford

• Ohio: Amy Acton

As of this writing, FfityPlusOne has Bottoms ahead by 3.2 points in Georgia, Sand ahead by 5.7 points in Iowa, Ford down by 5.4 points in Nevada, and Acton ahead of Vivek Ramaswamy by 0.3 points in Ohio.

When it comes to state legislative chambers, a news organization called Stateline lists the following 11 chambers as possible Democratic flips:

• Alaska House and Senate

• Arizona House and Senate

• Michigan House

• Minnesota House (currently tied 67-67)

• New Hampshire House and Senate

• Pennsylvania Senate

• Wisconsin House and Senate

Notably, this list seems to precisely match the Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee’s (DLCC) target list. So, these are probably the only state legislative chambers that Democrats can reasonably flip.

If Democrats do flip all four of the governor’s mansions listed here, as well as all 11 state legislative bodies, that would create Democratic trifecta state governors in seven states: Alaska, Arizona, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. This would actually bring Democratic state trifectas to 23, equal to the current number of states with Republican trifectas. However, Iowa, New Hampshire and Ohio are three of the states with Republican trifectas, so a clean sweep here would give Democrats full control of more states than Republicans for the first time since 2010.

3. I see Donald Trump declining before our very eyes. Who will take over when Trump is gone?

(Matt) You’re wise to ask this question. Donald Trump has dominated our politics for a decade and it can be difficult to imagine a time when he is gone, but that time will come. When it does, I don’t expect us to experience the usual passing of the baton to another leader like we typically see with political parties. Trumpism is a cult of personality, and as such it is difficult to imagine anyone stepping into the cult leader’s role—by design. Strongman leaders are careful to keep potential threats to their authority at bay by surrounding themselves with people who do not threaten their attachment to their followers. Additionally, you’ve heard Trump muse about running for a third term, and that “joke” is indicative of someone who is not interested in finding a successor. If anyone could step into Trump’s role it would be one of his sons—a kind of imperial changing of the guard more befitting the kind of royal figure Trump’s wishes he was.

4. If the Democrats win a majority in both Houses of the Congress, how do you think it might impact environmental policy, most especially around policies that impact global warming.

(Chris) I am not an expert in this policy area, butI have been following the congressional negotiations on permitting reform, which Politico called “Washington’s elusive bipartisan dream,” as well as Trump’s cancellation of energy grants to blue states. Here’s my take. These two issues are actually linked, as Trump’s cancellation of green energy projects is the main Democratic demand for agreeing to a permitting reform deal with Republicans.

Permitting reform is not a very descriptive term. What it effectively means is a reduction in regulations that have slowed the construction of infrastructure projects of all types, including those passed under President Biden. A permitting reform deal would be for infrastructure projects, primarily related to energy, that the landmark housing bill was for home affordability. If we make it easier to build new homes and new energy projects by scaling back the regulations and other barriers that prevent their construction, then the cost of homes, and the cost of energy, will go down. (I know that may sound all “neoliberal,” but keep in mind that Elizabeth Warren was the co-author of the housing bill.)

The best case scenario would be if Democratic control of Congress resulted in a bipartisan permitting reform agreement that put a stop to the Trump administration’s war on green energy projects in blue states and districts (Trump has largely left such projects in red states and districts alone), while making it easier to build infrastructure and energy projects of all types.

I know that reading such an idea might make some of you nervous, as you worry that these new projects will be for fossil fuel extraction and use. However, according to the climate-focused news service Canary Media, 93% of all new planning for U.S. power plant construction in 2026 will be for renewable energy. Right now, making it easier to build infrastructure projects of any sort effectively means making it easier to build out renewable energy projects. This will be good for the planet, good for our pocketbooks, good for jobs, and good for overall American strength all at the same time.

5. Can you give us any stats on the success of the Act Blue pages you create for various causes and candidates?

(Chris) Sure! Altogether, as of this writing, we have directly raised a total of $1,027,687.37 for Democratic candidates and party committees, from roughly 132,000 individual donations.

That total is likely higher, because we link to ActBlue pages controlled by other candidates and campaigns, so we do not have insight into those. For example, back in May, I discovered that we raised more money for three Democratic candidates for the U.S. House of Representatives in Virginia on ActBlue pages controlled by the candidates than on pages sponsored by us.

In 2025-2026, AdImpact estimates that there will be $11.6 billion in electoral advertising alone, so our contribution is relatively small. Where we have the most impact, in percentage terms, comes in off-cycle special elections that few other media outlets or advocacy organizations are paying attention to. For example, I think that we may have raised over 10% of all the money Catelin Drey raised in her successful run for the first state Senate district of Iowa last August.

6. I heard a commentator, referring to the upcoming midterm elections, say something like, “If Democrats make the election about defeating Donald Trump, they’ll win. But if they make it about fighting each other over who owns the Democratic vision, they’ll lose.” What do you think of that assessment?

(Matt) I don’t see Democrats making the midterm election about an internal party vision. There has been a lot of coverage of establishment Democrats expressing concerns about the success of some left-leaning primary candidates, but that discussion is taking place internally. I expect it to break out into the open next year, when the party looks for a presidential nominee. But this year’s election, like every midterm, is clearly about the party in power.