Democrats’ populist, anti-D.C. rage is reaching a fever pitch. And it's putting governors in an odd position.
On Tuesday, Colorado Sen. Michael Bennet saw his bid for governor go down in flames, losing the Democratic primary by more than 10 points. The result was not entirely surprising (polls had shown a narrowing race for months) but still remarkable: Bennet is only the second sitting U.S. senator to lose a primary for governor since World War II.
His sole companion in that category is former Texas Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, who unsuccessfully challenged then-Gov. Rick Perry in 2010. The parallels to that year are growing: both cycles saw multiple sitting senators lose their primaries (three in 2010, two in 2026 so far) amid a broader anti-establishment revolt. Two years later, that energy dominated the 2012 Republican primary, propelling the insurgent candidacies of Michele Bachmann, Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich, and Rick Santorum in rapid succession before Mitt Romney ultimately secured the nomination. The 2026 cycle could be setting the stage for something similar — and a clash between the two currents that could define the 2028 Democratic primary.
The two forces at play
What’s most interesting about Bennet’s loss is that it comes as two overlapping, but distinct forces are roiling Democratic primaries: a surge in progressive energy and the emergence of a genuine anti-D.C. rebellion. The former has gotten the bulk of the coverage in recent weeks, as democratic socialists notched major wins in New York, Washington, D.C., and, also on Tuesday, in Denver. It’s also more straightforward: a story of ideological insurgents vs. the moderate establishment is well-trodden territory for the political press.
But the rebellion against D.C. may be what the 2026 cycle is remembered for. Across the country, being an incumbent Washingtonian is proving to be toxic for candidates this cycle. This year, 26 members of the House of Representatives chose to leave the chamber to seek promotions to the Senate or governorships. So far, 9/14 who have faced primary voters have lost — including all of the Democrats. Incumbent senators running for reelection are also regularly drawing a smaller share of the primary vote; of the 10 incumbent senators who have faced partisan primaries so far and were also incumbents in 2020, seven have received smaller shares of the primary vote than last time (An eleventh, Bill Cassidy, is excluded from this tally because Louisiana had a jungle primary system in 2020 before transitioning to a party primary system this year, making direct comparison impossible).
Incumbent House members running for reelection are also struggling more than usual. Generally speaking, 75% is considered the benchmark for a normal performance for a congressmember in a primary. So far, 50 House members have performed at or worse than that line. That comes out to 21% of all House seats that have held partisan primaries — up from 15% in 2024.
Taken together, the data points to a growing disillusionment with the Washington establishment, which goes a long way to explain Bennet’s loss. His opponent, state Attorney General Phil Weiser, was far from a lefty and is certainly not in the vein of the socialist victors in the New York or Denver House districts. He did, however, clearly benefit from Democratic voters’ mounting frustration with D.C. If that frustration continues into the 2028 primary, it ought to, in theory, cut in favor of those Democrats hailing from outside the city.
At the same time, the 2028ers most obviously angling for or suited to the populist mantle hail almost entirely from D.C., including Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Rep. Ro Khanna, and Sen. Jon Ossoff. Even as governors offer a clean break from the unpopularity of Washington, it’s unclear how many of those in the 2028 mix — from billionaire JB Pritzker to moderate-coded Andy Beshear to pro-Israel Josh Shapiro — are positioned to capitalize on the burgeoning progressive, populist energy.
The field’s recent moves indicate the potential candidates are at least aware of the emerging challenge. Appearing on MSNow’s Morning Joe on Wednesday, Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro endorsed “radical reform” to the Supreme Court — echoing Pete Buttigieg, who called for “thinking big” on reforms to the court last month. This week, Axios reported that Kamala Harris was attempting to make inroads with NYC Mayor Zohran Mamdani. Hours later, ABC News reported Gavin Newsom was doing the same.
The Newsom factor
If governors do stand to benefit from anti-Washington sentiment, Newsom appears unusually well-positioned among them. He is now in a completely different echelon than the rest of the governors — a Wednesday survey of the New Hampshire primary, for example, found his vote share equal to all the others combined — and has shown the most ability to channel populist, anti-Trump anger over the past year; a fact even his detractors, like a source of mine involved in a progressive insurgent group, begrudgingly acknowledge.
That helps explain why Newsom has become the primary alternative to Harris in primary polling — and may be better positioned than conventional wisdom suggests. An interestingly under-discussed aspect of the 2028 primary discourse is that, so far, the delta between Newsom and Harris in polling largely correlates to the quality of the pollster. Generally speaking, the higher quality the poll, the narrower the Harris lead.
Data is compiled from the most recent 2026 national surveys of the 2028 Democratic primary from pollsters rated B/C or higher by Silver Bulletin.
In fact, the only surveys in which Newsom has led this year have come from pollsters with the highest ratings from Nate Silver’s Silver Bulletin (to be fair, the third survey from an A-rated pollster this year found Harris leading by a wide margin). High-quality national polls remain relatively rare, so it’s too soon to know whether this correlation will continue. For now, it’s a worthy data point.
Worthy reads
Amy Walter at the Cook Political Report breaks down the implications of the Supreme Court’s Tuesday decision in NRSC v. FEC, which tossed out fifty-year-old limits on some coordinated campaign spending. The upshot: some potentially big benefits for Republicans.
Vox’s Eric Levitz has a fascinating piece exploring the deeper challenges facing the left as Americans warm to core conservative philosophical tenets, like lower taxes.
Jack Healy at the New York Times reports that Colorado Gov. Jared Polis fired two members of the state’s clemency board after they broke with tradition and revealed the board had unanimously recommended against commuting the sentence of Tina Peters, a former county clerk convicted of a pro-Trump scheme to tamper with voting machines.
In related news, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz pardoned Tou Lue Vang, a Laotian national who was in the country legally but had his legal status revoked after being convicted of sexually abusing a 10-year-old child. Walz’s move, which notably came after the victim endorsed a pardon, provides Vang some avenue to fight the Trump administration’s effort to deport him.
And Julian Mark at the Washington Post writes about the “sobering message” being circulated among LGBTQ advocates after the Supreme Court’s transgender sports participation ruling this week.
Got feedback on today’s newsletter? Email me [email protected]