Democrats are right to celebrate historic midterm election victories. Alongside flipping both chambers of Congress, Democrats broke barriers in electing women, African Americans and Latinos.
Yet the party demonstrated it has not learned lessons about investing in the South and supporting diverse candidates. Again, Black voters, particularly Black women, carried the party on Election Night.
Black and Latino candidates struggled to secure campaign resources.
Several White “electable” candidates, including U.S. Sen. Jon Ossoff of Georgia, North Carolina Sen.-elect Roy Cooper, South Carolina Sen.-elect Dr. Annie Andrews and Texas Sen.-elect James Talarico, received all the resources they needed. Yet Black and Brown candidates were not given the same consideration, even on the same ticket.
In Georgia, former Atlanta Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms became the first Black woman elected governor in American history. She was heavily outspent by an opponent who invested more than $200 million of his fortune. Despite strong polling and primary results, Lance Bottoms was largely left to fend for herself.
In Texas, Gina Hinojosa struggled to compete with Republican Gov. Greg Abbott’s financial advantage. National Democrats only invested in her campaign after being publicly shamed by Latino leaders. Abbott outspent Hinojosa.
Yet she won anyway.
In Mississippi, Scott Colom challenged Republican Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith. Yet Mississippi was initially excluded from a $40 million Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee investment covering 10 battleground states. National spending arrived later, after millions went to White moderates. Colom was not given the same benefit of the doubt that he could win. Yet he, too, won anyway.
Even campaigns where Southern Democrats fell short raise questions about what meaningful investment might have accomplished.
In Florida, state Rep. Angie Nixon lost to Republican Sen. Ashley Moody by fewer than three points.
Nixon raised millions from individual donors and attracted support from progressive organizations. But major national Democratic Senate campaign organizations did not make comparable investments.
Yet Nixon’s campaign drove turnout that helped Democrats secure victories in gerrymandered congressional districts and end the Republican supermajority in the Legislature.
In Louisiana, Jamie Davis, a Black farmer from Tensas Parish without a major statewide political profile, came remarkably within two percentage points of defeating Republican Julia Letlow.
Louisiana had voted overwhelmingly for Donald Trump in 2024. Yet Davis built a competitive campaign.
According to Davis’ campaign and Louisiana Democratic Party leadership, neither the Democratic National Committee nor the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee contributed to his campaign.
When candidates lose narrowly after receiving limited national support, it is reasonable to examine whether earlier investment might have changed the outcome. It’s also reasonable to question why Black and Brown candidates were not given comparable consideration as White counterparts facing similarly tough headwinds.
There is a difference between relying on communities of color to deliver victories and investing in political infrastructure that allows those communities to build lasting governing power and elect candidates from their own communities.
Southern leaders have repeatedly criticized national Democrats’ inadequate investment in their states and minority candidates.
A serious post-election review should examine early national funding decisions, whether Southern organizing was adequately supported and how candidates of color were evaluated for resources.
Electoral investment in the South cannot begin and end with a single campaign cycle. Democrats should build durable political infrastructure through year-round engagement that extends beyond a wave election.
Kevin Harris is a Democratic strategist who has advised more than 100 campaigns and served in the Obama administration.