Knowledge Beat Money: What the 2026 Midterms Actually Proved
By Mike Maher Quraan, PhD
On the November 3, 2026 elections. Results cited here reflect the way they stood as of November 7, 2026, with a few races not yet called; official certification follows later.
The old rule of American politics was simple enough to fit on a cheque: the candidate with the most money wins. On November 3, 2026, voters in some of the most expensive races in American history tested that rule — and, in race after race, broke it.
This was not a narrow or regional verdict. Democrats took control of both chambers of Congress. But the most instructive results were not in the safest blue states. They were in the South, in Texas, in Georgia, in Kansas — places where money, incumbency and habit were supposed to be decisive, and where voters chose something else.
1. The South moved first
Start with the three governorships that, taken together, answer the question of whether the South can change.
In Georgia, former Atlanta mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms, a Democrat, defeated Republican businessman Rick Jackson and became the first Black woman ever elected governor of any U.S. state — also Georgia’s first woman governor, its first Black governor, and its first Democratic governor since 1998. The Associated Press count put her at about 54.3% to 45.7%.
In Texas, state representative Gina Hinojosa, a Democrat, defeated three-term Republican Governor Greg Abbott, who had been in office since January 2015 and was seeking a record fourth term. She becomes Texas’s first Latina governor and its first Democratic governor since Ann Richards left office in 1995; no Democrat had won statewide office in Texas since 1994, the longest such drought in the nation.
In New Mexico, in the broader South and Southwest, former Interior Secretary Deb Haaland, a Democrat and a member of the Pueblo of Laguna, became the first Native American woman elected governor of a U.S. state.
Black, Latina and Native women, in other words, did not merely run in the South. They won its governorships.
The Senate map told the same story in a different register. In Texas, state representative James Talarico, a Democrat, defeated Republican Attorney General Ken Paxton — the first Democratic Senate election victory in Texas since 1988. In Kansas, Democrat Adam Hamilton defeated Republican incumbent Roger Marshall, 50.9% to 46.1%, the first Democratic Senate win in Kansas since 1932. Democrats also flipped Senate seats in Iowa, North Carolina, Ohio and South Carolina.
Florida did not flip, but it moved sharply blue: the governor’s race narrowed from a 19.4-point Republican win in 2022 (59.4–40.0) to 50.0–48.7, and the Senate special from a 16.4-point win (57.7–41.3) to 50.9–48.0 — shifts of about 18 and 13.5 points toward the Democrats. Oklahoma did not flip either, but its Senate race narrowed from a 32-point Republican win in 2022 (64.3–32.1) to 57.3–39.2 — a shift of about 14 points toward the Democrats.
2. The ads stopped working
The second lesson is about the instrument money buys most directly: advertising.
Voters arrived at this election already sceptical of the medium. A 2026 survey analysis reported that 51% of potential voters named social media as the top source of fake or misleading information, while a mid-year trends report found 87% of likely voters questioning the credibility of campaign messaging. Those are attitudes, not proof that any particular ad failed — but they describe an electorate primed to discount a paid message, especially one that arrives in saturation.
That is what saturation looked like in 2026. OpenSecrets projected total spending for the midterms at a record $11.9 billion, against $8.9 billion in 2022. Outside spending alone was projected at $3.9 billion, up 85% from $2 billion in 2022, and dark-money contributions had already reached a record $1.47 billion, above the $1.35 billion record set in 2024 — a presidential year. Elon Musk had given about $445 million to federal committees, including $215 million to his own America PAC.
And yet, in the races where the spending was heaviest, it did not buy the result.
3. The money races, one by one
Georgia. Jackson, founder of the healthcare staffing firm Jackson Healthcare, put more than $200 million of his own fortune into his campaign — the largest self-funding figure ever seen in a Georgia governor’s race — and lost by roughly eight to nine points. One pre-election accounting put pro-Jackson airtime at nearly $76 million in the general election against about $8 million for Bottoms and her allies. The money did not merely fail to persuade; at that scale, it became the story, and the story was a billionaire trying to buy a statehouse.
Get Mike Maher Quraan, PhD’s stories in your inbox
Join Medium for free to get updates from this writer.
Texas, governor. Abbott spent $100 million defending his governorship. He lost it.
Texas, Senate. OpenSecrets, analysing Federal Election Commission data through October 13, found that outside groups had spent $130.4 million opposing Talarico — the largest amount spent for or against any single candidate — against only about $14.1 million supporting him. The Senate Leadership Fund alone, through its Texas PAC affiliate, had spent $181 million on the contest since September 11, with Musk’s money flowing into that effort. Talarico won anyway, and made the spending itself an issue, running an ad accusing Musk of trying to buy his own senator.
Michigan, Senate. Outside groups spent $92.4 million opposing Abdul El-Sayed. In the primary, groups aligned with the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and others poured more than $60 million into advertising supporting his rival, Representative Haley Stevens, or opposing him. El-Sayed beat Stevens by about a point, 48.5% to 47.5%, and then beat Republican Mike Rogers in the general election, about 53.6% to 46.4% in the Associated Press count.
Ohio, Senate. The third name on OpenSecrets’ list, Sherrod Brown, faced $110 million in outside opposition. He won too. Together, the three Democrats — Talarico, Brown and El-Sayed — absorbed more than $330 million in outside opposition, nearly 14% of all outside spending in federal races to that point, and all three won.
New York City, a year earlier. The pattern did not start in 2026. In the 2025 Democratic mayoral primary, super PACs spent $26.7 million supporting Andrew Cuomo or opposing Zohran Mamdani — $18.4 million in direct support and $8.2 million in opposition — while pro-Mamdani PACs spent just over $1 million supporting him. Mamdani won the primary by 12.8 points after ranked-choice tabulation, and then won the general election despite more than $40 million in super PAC support for Cuomo.
This is the sense in which the spending “failed.” It did not fail to be spent, and it did not fail to be heard. It failed to do the one thing it was bought to do: stop these candidates. In Georgia, Texas and Michigan, the heaviest-spent races produced the opposite of the spender’s intention.
4. When the spender becomes the story
That resentment is the fourth lesson, and it concerns the groups doing the spending.
Special-interest money has always been defended as speech. In 2026 it increasingly functioned as evidence — evidence about the candidate it was spent for. When a single donor gives $445 million in one cycle, when a Senate leadership fund spends $489 million, when a billionaire puts $200 million of his own money into a governor’s race, the spending stops being background and becomes a character in the campaign. Opponents no longer have to argue that the money is corrupting; they can simply name it, show the cheque, and let voters draw the inference.
5. Who actually got elected
How many progressives were elected, and what is the total now?
Progressives, House: The Congressional Progressive Caucus had 101 members as of September 25, 2026–99 voting House members, one non-voting delegate, and one senator, Bernie Sanders of Vermont — making it the second-largest Democratic caucus in the House. Pre-election analysis projected that, if all 23 progressive primary winners won the general election and joined the caucus, it would grow by eight, offsetting fifteen departures through retirement, defeat or runs for other office. That is a bloc, not a majority — and in a closely divided House, a bloc that votes together can matter out of proportion to its size, as the House Freedom Caucus has long demonstrated on the other side.
6. Hard-core grassroots beat hundreds of millions
This next claim is one the numbers can support only indirectly, and it should be stated as what it is: an inference from the pattern, not a line item in a filing.
None of the winning campaigns above won on advertising. They won on the thing advertising is supposed to substitute for: people, organised, in a place, over time. Mamdani’s campaign was built on small donors averaging $88 and on volunteers who turned each escalation of billionaire spending into a fundraising clip within hours. Talarico turned Musk’s $445 million cycle into a one-minute ad about a billionaire buying a senator. El-Sayed survived $60 million in primary opposition by naming it directly and daring the spender to “come for me.”
That is why the prescription that follows from this election is not “spend more, better.” It is: start the grassroots networking for 2028 now. Not in 2027, not after the next fundraising quarter, but now, while the volunteers from 2026 are still organised and before the next cycle’s money has had time to define the race. The advantage of a grassroots network is that it compounds; the disadvantage of a television buy is that it evaporates the day after it airs. The 2026 results suggest voters can now tell the difference.
7. The way forward: pass the bills, take the veto, make the case
Congress, now under Democratic control of both chambers, should pass bills on the subjects the electorate actually cares about: affordability and the cost of living, healthcare coverage, and the economic security that dominated the 2026 campaign. It should pass them without regard to whether President Donald Trump will sign them, because he will not. He will veto them.
That is the point. A veto is not a failure of the strategy; it is the strategy’s second act. Each veto should be publicised — which bill, what it would have done, who voted for it, and whose signature stopped it — so that, over the two years to the 2028 election, the pattern becomes impossible to miss: Congress delivered, the presidency blocked. By the end of that period, the argument for the presidency is no longer abstract. It is a list.
This requires one piece of candour. A veto override needs two-thirds of both chambers, which Democrats do not have. These bills will not become law in 2027. Their value is as a public record and as a campaign: proof of what a Democratic presidency would sign, demonstrated bill by bill rather than promised in the abstract. Anyone who sells this as a legislative programme is misleading the reader; as a political programme, it is coherent, and it is the only one that turns a midterm majority into a presidential argument without pretending the veto does not exist.
Conclusion: the first clear sign
Perhaps this is the first clear sign that the amount spent on elections did not scale with votes — quite the contrary. The myth — that American politics cannot change because of money — has, for the first time in a form voters can see and count, been tested against the evidence and found wanting. Knowledge, organisation and a candidate voters trust beat a chequebook. The task now is to build the organisation before the chequebook gets its next chance.
