A Democrat is probably about to lose. Democrats should be happy.
As hard as it may be to imagine, the 2026 primary season, which began over six months ago, has not yet ended. Three admirably stubborn states — New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Delaware — remain, with the first two heading to the polls next Tuesday. One race in particular stands out: the Democratic primary for Rhode Island governor, where incumbent Dan McKee’s quest for re-election looks likely to be cut short by businesswoman Helena Foulkes.
The background
McKee ascended to the governorship in 2021, when then-governor Gina Raimondo became Secretary of Commerce in the Biden administration. He initially enjoyed a bit of a honeymoon with voters, clocking a 60% approval rating during his first year, before seeing his ratings drop sharply throughout 2022. He barely won the nomination that year, garnering a 33% plurality in a crowded field, but seemed to find vindication in the general election results: despite polls showing Republicans with momentum in the state, including a lead in a Democratic-leaning House seat, McKee won a full term by 20 points, carrying the rest of the ticket along with him. In fact, Democrats’ success in Rhode Island, where polls closed relatively early, was one of the first big signs that night that the 2022 cycle would end up far short of Republicans’ hopes.
McKee’s honeymoon ended there. For the past four years, he has regularly polled as one of, if not the, most unpopular governors in the country. That enticed Foulkes, a former corporate executive who placed a narrow second in the 2022 primary, to try a rematch this cycle. There’s been little suspense; all year, polls have found her leading widely, with the only real variation coming in the margin. If McKee does indeed go down next Tuesday, he would be the first elected governor in twelve years to lose re-nomination, capping an uncommonly rebellious primary season in which two senators and an unusually high number of House members lost re-nomination.
Data excludes those who became governor through succession and did not subsequently win a full term.
The zoom out
The contest doesn’t fit neatly into the usual 2026 Democratic binary: neither the incumbent nor the challenger, who is a niece and granddaughter of former U.S. senators, can be categorized as a progressive insurgent. Nor can either be totally slotted into the “establishment” lane; both are backed by major unions and statewide officials.
Instead, the contrast harkens back to a deeper split. In McKee, one can see an older type of Democrat — the quintessential machine politician of the 20th century, complete with a heavy Rhode Island drawl. Foulkes, by contrast, is a Harvard-educated veteran of corporate America, in line with the business-friendly Democratic reformers who emerged in the 1990s. Interestingly, both candidates have leaned into that contrast, albeit in different ways.
McKee has portrayed Foulkes as a rapacious corporatist who’s “earned enough money to not have to worry.” Those attacks, which were at the center of the governor’s television ads, have been his most effective approach, according to one person I talked to who’s seen private polling. There’s reason to think they may have particular resonance this cycle: per polling from Gallup, Americans have a more negative view of big business than at any time in decades.
Foulkes, for her part, has made the corresponding argument: She’s labeled McKee an ineffectual relic of the good old boys’ network, a perpetrator of a culture in which you “gotta know a guy to get things done.” She has also, notably, sought to avoid being slotted into the moderate lane, pledging to use a “millionaire’s tax” for an aggressive housing program and, unlike McKee, promising to sign a $20 minimum wage.
The “poster child for mismanagement”
Foulkes’ approach has, if polls are to be believed, clearly resonated more with voters. But part of what’s intriguing about the race is that both candidates are partly right about the other’s limitations, just as the different wings of the party have always been partly right about the other. McKee is clearly more fluent in the language of populism than Foulkes, and Foulkes possesses more of a sense of managerial urgency than McKee. After a 2024 cycle in which Democrats lost because of a failure on both measures — perceived as both McKee-like defenders of the status quo and Foulkes-like elites — it’s been fascinating to watch both iterations of Democratic identity come into conflict. In a state dealing with high costs, population stagnation, and aging infrastructure, it’s McKee’s vulnerabilities that have clearly carried more weight.
And it's those vulnerabilities that, more than anything else, have been the centerpiece of Foulkes’ campaign. Labeling the governor the “poster child for mismanagement,” she has zeroed in on his handling of a 2023 bridge closure, which became a fiasco in the state. While the bridge saga has become shorthand for McKee’s broader unpopularity — some outlets have even gone as far as to label it the primary reason for his likely defeat — it’s always been more of an encapsulation of existing frustrations.
That a Democratic governor now stands to lose his seat over those kinds of quality-of-life concerns is, in many ways, a genuine marker of progress for the party. After years of turning a blind eye to the growing affordability crisis and general malaise with blue state governance, Democrats should see McKee’s defeat as a potentially proud moment: Democratic voters are on the brink of ousting their state’s chief executive for a failure to bring necessary urgency to problem-solving.
That’s all the more notable given Rhode Island was chock full of warning signs for Democrats in 2024. Two years ago, the state swung the seventh most to Trump out of all fifty. Its 7-point shift right also made it one of only thirteen states that shifted further to Trump than the nation as a whole (5.9%). And while the state is not in danger of flipping red anytime soon (Harris still won it by almost 15%), it was, according to the New York Times’ tracker, the only state in the country in which every precinct moved away from Democrats.
While it’s unlikely McKee’s unpopularity had a direct “trickle up” effect, it’s also hard to separate it completely. If Foulkes does win, and can even partly deliver on her promises, her victory could be a model for Democrats to begin to turn the page.
Worthy reads
In the Washington Monthly, David Masciotra argues that the term “establishment” has begun to lose meaning in the modern Democratic Party.
The New York Times’ David Wallace-Wells gives an optimistic view of the growing tech backlash, arguing it’s far exceeding what many tech pessimists expected.
The American Prospect’s Harold Meyerson provides a sobering look at the gargantuan wealth inequality in New York City.
In Roll Call, David Winston pushes back on the idea that big money can provide automatic victories, noting Democrats in particular have taken to spurning well-heeled candidates in primaries.
And the Cook Political Report’s Erin Covey zeroes in on Republicans’ ongoing meltdown among Latino voters, which could end up being the biggest stories of this cycle.
Got feedback on today’s newsletter? Email me [email protected]