Throughout the 2026 primaries, progressive candidates have made headlines across the country, with little-known challengers toppling 30-year incumbents, deep-pocketed House members, and powerful congressional chairs. Elsewhere, notable progressives won highly competitive open primaries in swing districts and deep-blue seats alike, all but guaranteeing that they will expand their numbers in Congress next year.
So, what types of races were these progressives running in and winning? Are democratic socialists poised to be the new face of the Democratic Party? To find out, we tracked how progressives fared in hundreds of Democratic primaries across the country and crunched the numbers to get a better sense of where progressive candidates have excelled and where they are falling short.
The sheer number of primary contests can make an analysis like this tricky, but we did the hard work for you! Since January, we’ve been tracking every primary candidate and every endorsement from a range of major figures and organizations across the political spectrum for each U.S. House, Senate, and governor race. Our work builds on years of past primary election projects at FiveThirtyEight, which tracked candidate endorsements and outcomes to build a comprehensive dataset of who voters nominated and which politicians and organizations have exerted the most influence in party primaries.
In Democratic primaries this cycle, we tracked endorsements from Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Sen. Bernie Sanders, the Congressional Progressive Caucus, the Democratic Socialists of America, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, Indivisible, Justice Democrats, the Sunrise Movement, and the Working Families Party to determine how progressive candidates fared. That means our dataset includes pretty much every progressive candidate who received at least some institutional support — without getting lost in the weeds of candidates who garnered only a few hundred votes in their primary.
We previewed some of our preliminary findings in July, and we’ll be sharing more in the coming weeks, starting today with our deep-dive into the surging progressive movement and where it stands within the Democratic Party.
The winners and losers of the progressive primary endorsement game
In 2024, progressive groups circled the wagons, choosing to focus mostly on protecting the gains they had already made rather than staking out new ground. But in 2026, these groups came out swinging, endorsing roughly four times as many candidates as they did in 2024. And underscoring just how many progressives ran this year, around a third of those who lost their primaries were actually beaten out by other progressive-backed candidates.
Overall, 127 of the 162 candidates endorsed by a progressive group in our dataset won their primaries this year, for a 78 percent win rate1. Looking at just the non-incumbent candidates, 38 of 68 won, for a 56 percent win rate. As we detailed back in July, those rates are comparable to how progressives have fared in recent election cycles dating back to their banner year in 2018 — but what stood out this year was the sheer number of progressives running, especially after a slower cycle in 2024.
Based on win rates alone, the biggest progressive winners of the 2026 primaries were endorsees of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. AOC was selective in her choices this year, endorsing only eight non-incumbents. But seven of those candidates won their primaries, giving her an 88 percent win rate, by far the highest of the groups we tracked.
The Working Families Party is another winner here. While their success rate was over 15 points lower than AOC’s, they took far more swings, endorsing 33 non-incumbent candidates, 23 of whom made it to the general election. That represents a much broader reach than in 2024, when they endorsed just 17 non-incumbent candidates, 10 of whom won their primaries.
At the other end of the spectrum, the Democratic Socialists of America and the Sunrise Movement had lower shares of their non-incumbent endorsees win, at 60 percent each — though the DSA’s rate is based on a pretty small sample size: just five non-incumbent endorsees. And the Congressional Progressive Caucus had the lowest average win rate among its 22 non-incumbent endorsees, at just 59 percent.
While progressive incumbents largely won their primaries, the CPC also faced some high-profile losses as it struggled to protect four of its incumbents. All of those incumbents (Diana DeGette, Shri Thanedar, Dan Goldman, and Adriano Espaillat) lost to challengers further to their left, meaning their solidly blue districts will likely be represented by progressives of a different flavor2.
That said, CPC incumbents weren’t the only ones who struggled this year: 2026 saw the most incumbent primary losses outside of a redistricting year since 19703, with 14 members of Congress failing to make it through to the general election, and even more falling short in their bids for higher office.
Progressive candidates of all stripes performed well
Ultimately, each of the progressive groups and politicians we tracked saw roughly three in five or more of their non-incumbent endorsees win their primaries. That’s an indication that while progressives as a whole had a pretty good year, the kinds of progressives who won ran the gamut ideologically.
For example, just as many progressives backed by more establishment-oriented groups like the Congressional Progressive Caucus and Sen. Elizabeth Warren won as those supported by insurgent groups like Justice Democrats and Indivisible. So while some of the cycle’s biggest headlines focused on intraparty rifts over support for Israel and incumbent upsets by insurgent democratic socialist candidates like Darializa Avila Chevalier in New York City and Melat Kiros in Denver, they aren’t necessarily representative of all progressive candidates who saw success this year.
Not all progressive candidates who ran or won this year were staunchly anti-Israel. Twelve non-incumbent candidates in our dataset were endorsed by both the pro-Israel group J Street and at least one progressive organization, and seven of them won their primaries (in addition to 53 of 56 incumbent progressives who were also endorsed by J Street).
Over a dozen primaries also featured multiple progressive candidates running in the same race while occupying different lanes within the “progressive” umbrella. In Illinois’ 9th District, for example, Daniel Biss — who was endorsed by J Street as well as the Congressional Progressive Caucus and Warren — beat out a crowded field, including his leading opponent Kat Abughazaleh, a self-identified democratic socialist who was heavily critical of Israel and was endorsed by activist progressive groups like Justice Democrats and the Sunrise Movement.
Elsewhere, at least a couple progressives running in battleground House districts — Pennsylvania’s Bob Brooks and Wisconsin’s Rebecca Cooke — exemplified how progressive candidates found broad bases of support, as they scored an unusual trifecta of endorsements from Bernie Sanders, the moderate Blue Dog Coalition, and the DCCC, the campaign arm of the party establishment.
Races like these are a great reminder to be careful of drawing sweeping conclusions about how the progressive movement performed this year … mostly because there is no clearly defined “progressive movement.”
Accordingly, there was also significant variation in how decisively progressive candidates won, which could have bearing on their ability to consolidate support heading into the general election. While her endorsees had the highest rates of success overall, AOC’s non-incumbent winners also had some of the lowest average margins of victory of any of the groups we tracked, with only DSA-endorsed candidates having a smaller average margin of victory. That indicates that many of those candidates won while facing greater headwinds.
Elizabeth Warren’s winners, on the other hand, had the most-decisive victories, winning their primaries by an average margin of 26 points. That’s particularly notable because these candidates also faced more than four other candidates on average, the highest of any group we tracked — partly due to a couple successful endorsements in Illinois races with ten or more candidates.
November looks promising for progressive nominees, despite some warning signs
Winning primaries can give certain factions of a party greater influence over the party’s direction and help shape its priorities — but the next test for those candidates comes in November. Luckily for progressives, it looks like most of their picks will also win their general election races. About half of the 37 non-incumbent progressive nominees4 in our dataset are running in safely Democratic districts that they’re all but guaranteed to win, and six candidates are running in districts that they’re likely to win, according to FiftyPlusOne’s 2026 congressional forecast. Meanwhile, seven candidates are running in seats rated likely or safe Republican, which means that for most of these candidates, their fates are all but decided.
That leaves just six progressives running in the most highly competitive seats this November — and how they fare will give us valuable data points on the seemingly evergreen question of whether progressives are in fact “electable” in purple territory.
For those who still have a fighting chance to change their fortunes (or who maybe shouldn’t rest too easily on their laurels), money will be key. Outside spending by super PACs and party committees are huge factors in any race, but money raised and spent by candidates themselves can stretch further — in the weeks immediately preceding both primary and general elections, for example, campaigns are entitled to discounted rates on TV ads, which means they have to spend just a fraction of what outside groups would on the same airtime. So where do progressive nominees stand in the fundraising race?
Predictably, progressives enjoyed a healthy fundraising advantage in districts that favor them, as of the FEC’s mid-year fundraising data, while they trailed in seats that are more favorable to Republicans — many of which feature GOP incumbents who have built up large war chests during their time in Congress. (For most candidates, this data includes campaign finance reporting through the first half of the year; for those with later primary dates, it reflects a reporting period ending 20 days before their primary election.)
Zooming in on the most competitive races, though, there are some warning signs for progressives. Across the 16 races rated as Lean, Likely, or Toss-Up, progressive candidates trailed their Republican opponents by an average of around $690,000 — and that was especially true of those facing GOP incumbents. In OH-7’s critical Lean Democratic race, for example, GOP Rep. Max Miller had outraised Democrat Brian Poindexter by $1.5 million as of June 30, while a quartet of progressives running for Likely Democratic seats in the House against GOP incumbents lagged by an average of $2.6 million.
Other progressives, particularly those in open races, were in a slightly better position. For example, in the toss-up race for Montana’s 1st Congressional District, Democrat Sam Forstag had raised $80,000 more than his GOP rival Aaron Flint. Meanwhile, Michigan Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed was up by over $3 million against his Republican opponent as of mid-July.
An early money disadvantage could make it harder for progressives in close races to compete in November, and these numbers show that many had their work cut out for them as they emerged from their primaries and headed into the final few months of campaigning. Late and outside spending will also play a huge role in shaping the trajectory of these races, and these Democrats will be hoping to either raise a lot of money in a very short amount of time, or rely on allied PACs and the party apparatus to spend heavily in their stead.
That could certainly be the case for Poindexter, who’s seen an influx of favorable spending as the Democratic Party targets his vulnerable opponent, whose seat is considered to be in play in part due to the domestic violence allegations against him. One aggregator shows the latest outside spending supporting Poindexter or opposing Miller exceeding spending on the other side by more than $3 million. The same could be true of Bob Brooks, who leads his opponent by a similar amount in a race that’s drawn huge outside spending. Brooks saw an upswing in second-quarter fundraising, and has also banded together with Poindexter, Forstag, and other candidates on joint fundraising efforts.
Other progressive candidates have gotten the short end of the outside-spending stick — in Michigan’s U.S. Senate race, for example, Republican-aligned groups have spent nearly $50 million more than Democratic-aligned groups. That dwarfs El-Sayed’s comparatively paltry $3.7 million fundraising advantage.
Of course, money is critical, but it’s not always decisive — William Lawrence emerged from a contentious primary contest and entered the general election millions of dollars behind his Republican opponent and still slightly lags in outside spending, for example. But he’s since consolidated support from the Democratic establishment and his moderate opponents, and has a 9 in 10 chance of winning in our forecast.
Regardless of the uphill battles many face on the money front, progressives have a lot to be happy about right now. They scored both quiet and raucous wins this year, besting incumbents and winning out over crowded primary fields across the country. All in all, almost 30 new progressives are favored to join Congress in January, expanding the influence of the left flank of the Democratic Party and almost certainly playing a major role in shaping whatever bills the likely Democratic majority prioritizes.
We’ll have more analysis of the 2026 primaries for you soon, including deep dives into how women fared in primaries this cycle, as well as the influence and success of Trump and the GOP party committees in races across the country. In the meantime, if you’re interested in downloading our complete Democratic primary endorsements dataset, you can access it here.
Meredith Conroy contributed research.
Methodology
Endorsement data for this article and the accompanying dataset was sourced from the official websites of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, Justice Democrats, the Working Families Party, the Sunrise Movement, Indivisible, EMILYs List, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, Democratic Majority for Israel, J Street, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. We also sourced endorsements from Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, and Chuck Schumer on X, Instagram, and from news reports.
For this project, we considered an endorsement to be any statement made by Election Day supporting a candidate’s campaign and/or urging people to vote for them in the primary election. We included, with a note, endorsements made after an initial primary but before a runoff election. We did not include any endorsements made after primaries (i.e., general election endorsements).
Additionally, we considered spending in support of a candidate by the United Democracy Project as an endorsement of that candidate by AIPAC, since the UDP explicitly bills itself as the super PAC of AIPAC, and AIPAC rarely, if ever, formally endorses non-incumbent primary candidates.
Candidate information and certified election results were sourced from official state election websites and AP-certified election results. In Massachusetts and New Hampshire, results were not yet certified, and the dataset includes pre-certified results as of Oct. 3, 2026. When calculating primary success rates, we included candidates who won their partisan primary or advanced to the November general election. In California and Washington, the top two primary finishers, regardless of party, advance to the general election. In Alaska, the top four finishers, regardless of party, advance. Primary percentages in Maine reflect the results of the first round of ranked-choice voting.
Race ratings for individual U.S. House and Senate seats reflect FiftyPlusOne’s forecast ratings, while gubernatorial race ratings were sourced from the Cook Political Report, both as of Oct. 1, 2026. Gender for candidates was sourced from the Center for American Women in Politics at Rutgers University.
Fundraising data from the Federal Election Commission was accessed on Sept. 13, 2026, and reflects campaign finance reports covering the later of June 30, 2026, or the period ending 20 days before the candidate’s primary election.
Historical endorsement data was sourced from FiveThirtyEight’s public datasets.
We define winning as any candidate who won their partisan primary or advanced to the general election. In California and Washington state, the top two vote-getters regardless of party move on to the general election. In Alaska, the top four vote-getters move on, regardless of party.
A fifth CPC loss was a bit of a unique case, with former Rep. Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick losing to Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (a more centrist lawmaker) after being redistricted together by Florida Republicans. Cherfilus-McCormick was technically not an incumbent, as ethics scandals prompted her to resign back in April 2026, but she remained on the Congressional Progressive Caucus’s incumbent list throughout the primary season, and the group did not respond to a request for comment on whether it endorsed her in the August primary as a non-incumbent candidate.
Whether or not this year can truly be classified as a “non-redistricting year” may be up for debate, as nine states redrew their maps — though only one incumbent loss this year came in a faceoff between two incumbents (Rep. Al Green lost to Rep. Christian Menefee in TX-18).
This number does not include former Maine candidate for U.S. Senate, Graham Platner, who was included in our primary results dataset but withdrew before the general election, or his replacement, Troy Jackson, who has also received progressive backing but is not included in the dataset.