Candidate recruitment failures may haunt Senate Republicans in 2026
Since 2010, Republicans have kicked away golden opportunities to win Senate races across the country, from Nevada to New Hampshire and from Delaware to Georgia. Republican primaries far too often produced inferior candidates.
Sometimes this is the fault of high-profile Republicans like President Trump making ill-advised endorsements of sub-par candidates. Sometimes it is the fault of Republican primary voters who make stupid choices voting for candidates who have no chance of winning in November.
And sometimes it is simply the refusal of good candidates who can win in November to get into a race and expose themselves and their families to public scrutiny and the sacrifice that running a statewide race entails.
That seems to be a developing narrative for Senate Republicans as we approach the 2026 midterm election. Over the last several weeks, Republicans have failed to recruit A-list candidates in both New Hampshire and Georgia.
Former New Hampshire Gov. Chris Sununu (R) announced that he will pass on the 2026 open seat race, just as he did in 2022 when he was governor. Apparently he has an aversion to Washington, unlike his father, a former White House chief of staff and his older brother, a former U.S. senator.
In Georgia, popular Gov. Brian Kemp (R) has opted out of the Senate race against incumbent Democrat John Ossoff.
As governor, Kemp has aggressively pushed conservative principles and it appears that he is interested in a national future. There will be no shortage of interested Republicans in the Senate seat but none wear the aura of likely winner that Kemp wielded.
Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.), chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee, must be beside himself, as he has been unable to add to the list of endangered Democratic held seats.
At the same time, Republicans' hold on the North Carolina Senate seat is tenuous at best. Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) would have been in a 50-50 fight for reelection. His retirement confuses the party's effort to hold the seat.
The president's daughter-in-law, Lara Trump, has added her name to the list of potentially strong Republican candidates taking a pass in favor of time with her young family and her Fox News television gig.
That moves Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Whatley to the front of the line. Whatley has never held public office and may be vulnerable to the accusation of being excessively partisan. That is the job of a state party chairman and a Republican National Committee chairman, after all.
The North Carolina seat was always going to be tough for Republicans to hold. Now that Democrats have convinced former popular Gov. Roy Cooper (D) to enter the race this one should be marked as lean Democratic.
It is important to understand that while North Carolina leans conservative, it is not part of the Old South. The Research Triangle around Raleigh is a highly educated white-collar hub, and Charlotte has become a major finance center that houses the headquarters of Bank of America and Wells Fargo. Educated professionals define the demographic Republicans have shed in recent years.
And then there is Maine. The Republicans have one opportunity to hold the Maine seat. Her name is Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine).
For all my MAGA friends there is a lesson to be learned here. The Maine Senate seat will either be filled by Collins or by a liberal Democrat. There is no alternative. There is no Republican bench in Maine.
In 2020, Donald Trump lost Maine by eight points. On the same night, Collins was reelected by 9 points. Enough said.
Thus far, the Democrats have failed to recruit a top notch challenger and are pinning their hopes on incumbent Gov. Janet Mills (D).
If the Democrats succeed in Maine where Republicans have failed in New Hampshire and Georgia, the only Republican held Senate seat in New England and the mid-Atlantic will be on very shaky ground.
In the Lone Star State, Texas Republicans have managed to shoot themselves in the most expensive cowboy boots imaginable. Incumbent Republican Sen. John Cornyn and Attorney General Ken Paxton (R) will each spend millions to destroy the other in their race for Senate. A Paxton primary victory will make the eventual Democratic nominee an even bet to become the first Democratic senator from Texas since Lloyd Bentsen retired in 1993.
Republicans can ill afford any surprise retirements. Iowa conservatives who are grumbling about incumbent Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) should stop before she walks away to the peace and quiet of the Iowa countryside.
Recent reports say the Trump White House is encouraging Ernst to run again. That's the smart play. A multi-million-dollar battle in the middle of America for a Senate seat that should be a gimme for Republicans could be the tipping point that makes Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) Senate majority leader again.
And now you know how 53 Republican senators turns into 49.
Kevin Igoe is the former deputy chief of staff of the Republican National Committee and former executive director of Maryland Republican Party. He served as chief of staff of the Maryland Department of Budget and Management and was a Reagan White House appointee.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
10 minutes ago
- Yahoo
How Trump became the new master of the Senate
The most eventful week to date in the midterm battle for the Senate just came to a close. The field in one of the marquee races of 2026 finally took shape in North Carolina, the lead architect of Project 2025 launched a primary challenge against South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham, Rep. Mike Collins joined the Georgia GOP Senate primary, appointed Florida Sen. Ashley Moody continued on her special election glide path when her most serious Democratic challenger dropped out, and we got a little more insight into Nebraska. But don't lose sight of the larger narrative. Whatever else is happening in these races from week to week, the single most important factor determining the outcome of the 2026 Senate election cycle is President Donald Trump. Nothing else is even close. His approval ratings are part of this equation. Trump is famously rangebound in the polls, with a low ceiling and a high floor, but his popularity next year will matter — midterm history shows there is a correlation between a president's ratings and his party's fate. But Trump's unique ability to unleash the forces of electoral chaos is what really makes him the single most influential character. No one — not Mitch McConnell, not the National Republican Senatorial Committee, not Majority Leader John Thune nor anyone else — has done as much as Trump to directly shape the Senate GOP Conference over the past decade. Since taking office in 2017, he's hounded a handful of members out of office, been the proximate cause of lost Senate seats in Georgia and blown opportunities elsewhere (just Google McConnell and 'candidate quality'). By elevating JD Vance and Marco Rubio from their Senate seats into his administration, Trump created two more new Republican senators. Most recently, Trump upended the landscape in North Carolina. The traditional presidential play would have been to cut GOP Sen. Thom Tillis some slack, recognizing the complexity of the terrain and the party's need to maximize Tillis' chances of holding his seat. Instead, Trump became the catalyst for his retirement, enhancing Democratic chances of flipping the seat in one of the most competitive states in the nation. So far, Trump has been unusually disciplined when it comes to the Senate — by his standards, at least. Surrounded by the most capable political team he's ever assembled — and tempered by the bracing experience of two unsuccessful midterm elections — the president has judiciously dished out endorsements to incumbents and strategically withheld them. He's also largely avoided trashing wayward Senate Republicans. Until now. Whether it's the pressure from the Jeffrey Epstein saga or a reversion to the mean, the cracks are beginning to show. The gravitational pull toward chaos is overtaking his strategic imperatives. In the last week alone, Trump has publicly whacked three Senate Republicans — Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), Susan Collins (R-Maine) and 91-year-old Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), the longest-serving member of the Senate — for largely minor political offenses. [Here's a thought exercise: Try imagining Barack Obama lighting up Robert Byrd for respecting an informal Senate practice, or George W. Bush torching Strom Thurmond. The missile aimed at Collins, who has consistently vexed the president, was predictable, though not particularly productive. Dragging one of the most vulnerable GOP incumbents doesn't advance the goal of holding a Senate majority. The dig at Grassley — especially after the Senate Judiciary chair and champion of whistle-blowers fell in line on the Emil Bove nomination — was simply gratuitous. The Iowan's GOP bona fides date back to the Eisenhower era; his ticket's been punched in the Iowa Legislature, the House and nearly a half-century in the Senate. To suggest Grassley lacks political courage, or is a RINO, or that the president carried him to reelection in 2022, is to play cat's paw with him. It also served no discernable purpose, other than to remind Grassley and everyone else of Trump's dominion over the Senate, which isn't really in question anymore. Grassley's meek response was revealing: he said he was 'offended' and 'disappointed' by the insult. Welp. Trump can't seem to help himself: He delights in taking down members of the world's most exclusive club. Counting his Truth Social posts aimed at Chuck Schumer and four other Senate Democrats ('SLEAZEBAGS ALL') Trump leveled public attacks on eight different senators in recent days. The equal-opportunity disparagement helps explain his deep connection with the base of an increasingly populist GOP: The grassroots appreciates the fact that, when it comes to Trump, everyone in a position of power — senators, foreign leaders, former presidents, billionaires and Fortune 500 CEOs — is fair game. The GOP begins with a structural advantage on the 2026 Senate map: Nearly all of the Republican seats up for election are in states Trump carried easily last year, while Democrats must defend at least four seats that are more precariously perched. While the midterm political winds typically blow against the party in power, to win back the majority Democrats have to flip four Republican seats, while not losing any they currently control. It's a daunting task, but Trump looms as the great equalizer. It wouldn't take more than a few impulsive, undisciplined moves — such as endorsing slavishly loyal but unelectable candidates in key races, or creating messy primaries by torpedoing shaky GOP incumbents — to create just enough opportunities for Democrats to compete on what is otherwise an unforgiving Senate map.
The Hill
11 minutes ago
- The Hill
Trump's plan for White House ballroom sparks outrage from his critics
President Trump's plans to add a massive $200 million ballroom to the White House is angering critics, who see him moving forward with the long-sought project as part of his desire to leave a lasting mark not only on the office of the presidency but the first house as well. The construction of the ballroom, the cost of which the White House says will be covered by Trump and other donors, will begin in September. Trump is also paving the White House Rose Garden (though the rose bushes will be saved), which the White House says is necessary so people can walk more easily for events held in the space. And he's added his personal gold touch to the Oval Office. Trump says he sees the ballroom as a way to add to his legacy. And while detractors say his decorative and more substantial changes are out of touch and ostentatious, he says they are necessary. 'I always said I was going to do something about the ballroom because they should have one,' he told reporters Thursday. 'So we'll be leaving it, it will be a great legacy project. And, I think it will be special.' When asked if any government funds will be used to construct the 90,000 square foot facility, Trump replied, 'no government dollars, no.' The White House said the sprawling event space will be built adjacent to the White House where the East Wing sits. The goal is to complete construction before the end of Trump's term in January 2029. Trump's vision is for a space where he and future presidents can host state dinners, large gatherings with business leaders and other ritzy parties or functions. 'We've been planning it for a long time,' Trump said. 'They've wanted a ballroom at the White House for more than 150 years. There's never been a president that was good at ballrooms. I'm really good.' Democrats and regular Trump critics offered a sharp pushback on his plans. 'This is what DOGE was all about, folks,' Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said in a video posted to social media hours after the White House announcement, referring to the president's Department of Government Efficiency. 'Cutting things from you, and giving it not to some place that needed it, giving it to the big shots who run the show, Donald Trump at the top of the list.' Others suggested Trump and his White House were planting an intentional distraction. 'You gotta hand it to MAGAs, for about a week they really did have everyone convinced they cared about kids and The Epstein Files,' journalist and pundit Seth Abramson wrote on social platform X. 'On to more important things! Did you hear Trump is building a $200M ballroom at the White House? Wowee!' The White House pushed back on those criticisms in a Friday statement to The Hill, saying 'as President Trump has said, for over 150 years, many presidents, administrations, and staff have all wanted a ballroom, and now we have a president who will accomplish building it.' 'President Trump is the best builder and developer in the entire world and the American people can rest well knowing that this project is in his hands,' a West Wing spokesperson said. 'Many future presidents and American citizens will enjoy it for generations to come.' The president, a longtime real estate mogul who is known for a hands-on approach in the design and construction of his resorts, golf courses and skyscraper office buildings, has long lamented the lack of sufficient event space at the White House. 'When it rains it's a disaster, and the tent's 100 yards, that's more than a football field away from the main entrance,' Trump said as part of his remarks to the press about the project. 'And people are shlopping down to the tent; it's not a pretty sight. The women with their lovely evening gowns, their hair all done, and they're a mess by the time they get [there].' There is longstanding precedent for presidents and first ladies putting their spin on the White House and its grounds. President Harry Truman oversaw a massive renovation from 1948 to 1952 that required he and his wife to move into the Blair House at the time and saw the White House completely gutted. Former first lady Jackie Kennedy, however, championed the historic preservation of the home and advocated that extreme renovations require oversight from the Committee for the Preservation of the White House. 'Every president and first family does make a mark on the White House — they already are a part of history and that snapshot in time,' said Anita McBride, former chief of staff to then-first lady Laura Bush. 'Since the cornerstone was laid, there have been additions, there have been changes that, at the time those happened, raised concerns.' The White House Historical Association welcomed Trump's planned ballroom. 'The history of the White House has evolved over 233 years since the cornerstone was laid in 1792. The South Portico, the North Portico, the East Wing, the West Wing, and the Truman Balcony all raised concerns at the time — but today, we can't imagine the White House without these iconic elements,' Stewart D. McLaurin, president of the association, told The Hill. He added, 'Since our founding by First Lady Jacqueline Kennedy in 1961, we have supported and partnered with every president and first lady caring for and adding to the White House and its Collection. We work to preserve the history of this remarkable museum, home, and office for generations to come.' Some agree with the president that a bigger events space at the White House is long overdue. 'I can understand why someone who thinks on a grand scale, as obviously President Trump does, would want this ballroom added,' said Barbara Perry, a presidential historian and co-chair of the Presidential Oral History Program at the University of Virginia's Miller Center. 'That being said, the optics for people who disagree with this president, it will probably have an impact on how they view this.' McBride agreed that the tents on the lawn, which have been constructed during more recent administrations, are not ideal. 'That doesn't come without challenges, putting up staging, putting up a covered structure, getting people to the actual location; dealing with inclement weather. And you're not really having your event in the White House,' she said. 'So you can see where that makes sense.' There are lingering questions about what the new ballroom location will mean for the staffers who work in the East Wing, which is where first lady's staff works. The East Wing is also where tours of the White House for the public are conducted. 'Betty Ford always called the East Wing the 'heart' of the White House,' McBride said. 'All the business and policy gets done in the West Wing, that's critically important. But the heart of the White House is the East Wing. And so what, what will be the new East Wing?' Others see the construction of an opulent addition to the president's residence as a matter of bad timing and poor optics given sluggish jobs reports and fears about how global tariffs might hurt the U.S. economy. 'This isn't something that's going to make or break another election, but it does add another page to the catalog of hypocrisy that these people read from when they want to lecture Americans about fiscal responsibility,' said Antjuan Seawright, a Democratic political strategist. 'It's a visible middle finger to working class Americans, many of whom voted for him.'
The Hill
11 minutes ago
- The Hill
The left is trying to use international ‘lawfare' to shut down Musk and X
Elon Musk had three recent posts on X that are worth noting if you are opposed to censorship and cancellation. The first was two cartoon panels with the question, 'How do you tell who's telling the Truth?' The next panel offered the answer: 'The ones trying to silence other people are the ones lying.' Just prior to that, Musk had reposted a post that reads, 'President Trump's State Department has announced it is coming to the defense of Elon Musk's X after France labeled it an organized crime group and opened a criminal investigation. The State Department's DLR [the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor] stated, 'As part of a criminal investigation, an activist French prosecutor is requesting information on X's proprietary algorithm and has classified X as an 'organized crime group.' Democratic governments should allow all voices to be heard, not silence speech they dislike. The United States will defend the free speech of all Americans against acts of foreign censorship.'' And just prior to that, Musk reposted a post from the conservative activist Mark Kern: 'There is a full on attack on the Internet by the UK and EU, disguised as 'for the children.' The ID requirement is affecting even Discord users and X users. It is full on dystopian as they ramp up police to arrest people for speech.' Below that is a link to a Telegraph article with the headline 'Elite Police Squad to Monitor Anti-Migrant Posts on Social Media.' Multiple people I have spoken with in the U.S., the U.K. and the EU believe that Musk and his X platform represent the greatest single threat to the far left and its goal of pushing its narratives unchallenged across the globe. One way the left now seems intent on stopping Musk and X is by mimicking the various 'lawfare' schemes rolled out against then-candidate Donald Trump prior to the 2024 election, which many Trump supporters saw as an unethical attempt to force him out of the race. While that 'lawfare' tactic failed — thanks in large part to Trump taking it head-on, day after day, while exposing it for what it was — activists in Europe and elsewhere believe the strategy can be refined and hardened for use against Musk and X in an attempt to intimidate, censor or silence them. Lest we forget, back in 2023, the European Union opened a probe into X for alleged 'failure to counter illegal content and disinformation.' Ah. The catch-all accusation frequently used by the intelligentsia on the left: 'disinformation.' Recall the draconian COVID-19 dictates from the left enacted to combat 'disinformation'? Here is a January headline from ABC News: 'EU politicians warn against Elon Musk's incursions into European politics.' Of course, Musk might rightfully retort that his 'disinformation' and 'incursions' were not only protected free speech, but simply ways to point out severe double-standards and harmful policies that were having an adverse effect upon the majority of the citizens of those nations. I wrote a piece for this site a year ago titled ' Could Elon Musk actually be arrested and X cancelled?' I highlighted calls for Musk to be arrested for stating his opinions while anticipating that the personal animus directed against him, X and the internet by certain individuals and groups in Europe advocating for censorship and cancellation could grow. It now seems that I was correct. All of which raises an obvious question:Why do so many on the left want to prevent people around the world from gathering as much information as possible on their own, then coming to their own conclusions based on their own research? Do they fear people thinking for themselves? Do they fear their own constituents, customers and neighbors? Open minds open doors. I have always believed it imperative to listen to those I may disagree with. What if I am wrong and they are correct? What if they show me a truth I refused to believe out of ignorance, intolerance or indoctrination? Aren't I the one getting a gift — one I could not receive if their voices were censored or canceled? Alarmingly, many on the left in Europe — as well as in the U.S. — don't seem to share my belief that we need to listen to those we disagree with. Note this April headline from The New York Times: 'E.U. Prepares Major Penalties Against Elon Musk's X.' The opening paragraph of the article spells it out: 'European Union regulators are preparing major penalties against Elon Musk's social media platform, X, for breaking a landmark law to combat illicit content and disinformation, said four people with knowledge of the plans.' Once again, the left rolls out 'illicit content and disinformation' against Musk, X and the internet. Of course, millions around the world who are against censorship and cancellation and strongly in favor of free speech might say this is a transparent attempt by some on the left to intimidate and censor a site and voices that expose their continual failures to billions of people around the world. One person's 'disinformation' is another's 'irrefutable truth.' Don't hide behind censorship. Let the people think for themselves.
