Bulwark Takes - Democrats Think They Can Flip the Senate in 2026 (w/ Sen. Adam Schiff)

Episode Date: January 17, 2026

Can Democrats flip the Senate in 2026? Lauren Egan is joined by Sen. Adam Schiff (D-CA) about the states that could make it happen, the recruits who are stepping up, and how the DSCC decides when to endorse. From Texas and Florida to Alaska and Maine, Schiff lays out the plan and explains why the midterms may come down to economic pressures and Trump’s chaos.

Hey guys, it's Lauren Egan here at the bulwark. I'm joined today by Senator Adam Schiff of California. He's the vice chair of the DSCC, which is the Democratic Senator, Senator, Senator, a little bit of committee. And he's here today to talk to us a little bit about what the plan is for Democrats to win back the Senate this fall. Senator, thanks for being here. Great to be with you. So it's been a big week for Democrats on the Senate side. Most notably, Mary Paltola announced that she's going to run for Senate in Alaska. She'd obviously been a top recruit of Senator Schumer's. And this week, Senator Schumer has been out there talking about how she's really this last puzzle piece that fits into the Senate map. And now he can

really clearly see Democrats' path to win back the Senate. So talk to me a little bit, as specifically as you can, state by state, what the plan is, what the path is for Democrats to flip the Senate. Sure. And just by way of setting the background, a year ago, I think most people would have said, okay, really tough path for Democrats in the Senate, really hard to see it being possible to foot the Senate. That has completely changed. There is now a very viable path for the Senate to flip. And it's because we've had such success with recruitment, because we've had so many strong people decide to run in these very competitive states, and because our incumbents are doing so well. So let me start with, I think, four of the principal

pick up opportunities. They are North Carolina, where Roy Cooper, the very popular governor, is running for that open seat vacated by, or to be vacated by Tom Tillis. He is as strong a candidate as we could possibly imagine. That very much puts North Carolina in play. In Ohio, Sherrod Brown was encouraged to run for his old seat in the Senate. He's running against the senator who was appointed to the Senate. Sherrod is probably better known than the incumbent and in a year where Donald Trump is not on the ballot and with Sherrod's track record of running well ahead of the top of the ticket, that puts Ohio very much in play. In Maine, where Susan Collins has been a very strong incumbent and a challenging incumbent. We have very strong opportunity with Janet Mills,

the governor of that state running. There is also another candidate, Graham Platte. who's generated a lot of online enthusiasm. And finally, Alaska, where Mary Peltola has just announced, I think she's the most popular politician in that state. So those four states are unquestionably in play. We also are doing really well in Georgia. John Assoff is just a tremendous and strong incumbent and has had one great quarter after another. but also the Republicans have really failed to recruit their top target, who was the Governor Brian Kemp. And so both in the difficult to hold states, but in the states now that we are looking to pick up, we are doing really, really well. So that suddenly puts the Senate in play, and yes, we have to run the table.

But in a midterm where people are recoiling against the president, we saw in the November special election, just how much the pendulum had already swung. It makes a swing like this very doable in the Senate. So very positive news coming out of the Senate. Since you guys put out this list of your top tier states, I've heard from some Texas Democratic officials who unsurprisingly felt like the Texas Senate race should have been in that top tier of states that you listed.

I know it's still on your radar. Similar situation in Iowa. What about the landscape in Texas and in Iowa? but it makes you less confident that the party could flip those seats there right now. I think Texas and Iowa are two more possibilities. And there may be other, I think there are other possibilities that may yet add to the Senate map of competitive races. In Texas, you know, a lot will depend on how this ugly, nasty Republican primary gets

sorted out. There are three Republicans running. They've, I think, spent upwards of $50 million beating each other up. And it won't end, I think, in the primary because no one's likely to get 50% in that primary. It will go to a runoff election, whether they'll spend even more money. So we'll assess things as, you know, those elections play out. We also have a primary of our own in Texas with two very strong candidates. So I think, you know, Texas could very well be in play.

Now, a lot of us, I'll be candid, have a lot of PTSD when it comes to Texas. We've invested a lot of hope and prayer in Texas. But I do think in this kind of electoral climate where there is going to be a strong reaction against the president and his party, we're seeing it already. Then it makes Texas seem suddenly very winnable, very possible. In Iowa, where we have the Senate race up at the same time as the gubernatorial race, and where we have a strong gubernatorial candidate and strong Senate candidates as a primary in Iowa, it's, you know, very likely we'll have a competitive race and a pickup opportunity in Iowa. So, you know, those states also deserve serious mention and consideration. You've mentioned that a lot of the key to the success or a lot of what's changed

over the past year has really been the strength of the recruits that you guys have managed to get to run. What was that process like? And I'm curious when you're talking to these candidates, it's, whether it's Sherrod Brown, Roy Cooper, Janet Mills. Like, there was some reporting that some of these folks were a bit apprehensive or unsure if they wanted to run. Mary Poltola obviously is one of them, too. What was really the selling or convincing message when you were having conversations with them about doing this? You know, I think it was really a sense of duty. It was an acknowledgement of the crisis the country is going through.

and the essential nature of winning these primaries and taking back control of the Congress. Look, we're going through a period like nothing we've ever seen in this country where democratic norms, institutions, laws are being broken every day where it's one outrage after another, one threat to the future of the country after another. We've seen the abuse of the Justice Department. We've seen the censoring of the press. we've seen the militarization of American streets and the terrible loss of life that has accompanied that. And I think these candidates feel a real sense of mission.

Many of them could have either decided to retire from politics, they'd served, they'd perform their public service. But no, they decided that it was too important at time. And their service was called for again. So I think really that was the most powerful appeal and what resonated the most with these candidates. I feel that, you know, they felt it in their bones. And I think that's why we've had such strong recruiting. A number of these candidates were also considering running for governor, but ultimately concluded that this was their calling. And this is where they could make the biggest difference for the country.

The next few months were obviously going to be in primary season. that's what a lot of our focus is going to be about. You mentioned the primary in Maine. I'm curious what the conversations have been like at the DSCC about potentially getting involved in any of these races and what kind of scenario would that look like for you to decide to get involved. Well, at this point, the SEC hasn't made endorsements in any of these races. I think the default is to let the voters of different states decide races for themselves. In Maine, there's obviously a strong degree of independence among the residents of Maine. They like to make their own decisions.

It's only, I think, in situations around the country where you might have a candidate who is unelectable, where the D-Truple-C, in my view, should decide to weigh in, where, you know, there's a strong sense based on data that one candidate is viable, one candidate is not viable. But otherwise, you know, individuals make their decisions. And they're free to and they should. And that includes members of leadership. But as an organization, I think the organization should just only get involved to the maximal degree of endorsements when it's clear that, hey, there's there's one candidate who can win and others who simply can't and we have to get involved.

I want to talk a little bit about Florida. This has been kind of a pet interest of mine. Senator Ashley Moody, the Republican there is up for reelection. And it seems a bit to me like Democrats have kind of. of given up on the state. And I want to get your thoughts about that. Did you guys attempt to recruit a strong candidate to run there? Is that fair of me to say that Democrats just aren't really competing there right now? We have not at all given up on Florida. In fact, I have great hopes for Florida. I spent a lot of time in Florida. I had family living in Florida until recently. And we're going to

win Florida. But Florida like Texas, look, we've put our hand on that stove before and gotten burned. But nevertheless, we are very interested in a strong candidate in Florida in making that competitive and winning that state. I think there is a rising sense of alarm in Florida over the rising costs of everything. Most particularly, I think home insurance, homeowners insurance, because of all the climate-related disasters in Florida, people can't afford to insure their homes. So whether it's the health care crisis or the homeownership and housing insurance, home insurance crisis in Florida,

that state, I think, will be very much in play. But, yeah, no, I totally agree with you. We should not at all right off Florida. We're going to win Florida one day, and I want that day to be this year. Okay, if we were to talk, let's say, nine months from now, it's September or October, what do you think will be the three major issues that will be at the center of the midterm election cycle? I think it will be the cost of health care, the cost of housing and the cost of electricity.

It may also be the cost of child care and other costs as well, but it will be the cost of living. It will be, again, the economy's stupid. And so I think, you know, that's where we need to keep our focus. That's why we perform so well in those elections in November. And if we can continue to make the case that what the administration is doing, what they're failing to do is really adversely affecting people, then we're going to have a powerful result. And there's another thing that we need to emphasize, too, and that is the president is not only doing things that are counterproducing. and harming the economy, things like going after the chair of the Federal Reserve, things like putting tariffs on goods and forcing Americans to pay more for everything.

But he is also not even paying attention. He's focused on other things. You know, we're doing military invasions in other countries to secure oil resources for oil companies. He is building himself a new ballroom at the White House. He's engaged in a lot of things that will simply not help the American people at all. He is really focused on his own personal economy and that of his billionaire buddies. He's not focused on the American people. And I think all the corruption that you see, all of the first families' business ventures in the Gulf and elsewhere,

they're just milking this presidency. And the combination of the president's corruption and the failure to address the economy, the economic needs and the American people, I think is going to propel us to a resounding victory in the midterms. One thing that I've been kind of stuck on over the past few days is I totally see the affordability argument, right? We can all see that. But how do you think about messaging on affordability when major American cities right now are practically under siege from the federal government and Trump's out here saying that he's potentially going to invoke the Insurrection Act? How do you think about balancing that, especially as we get closer to midterm elections?

Well, these two things are not unrelated. I think a big motivation for the president in militarizing our cities and provoking clashes with protesters. All of that prompting of chaos is part of his effort to distract from the problems that he's faced with trying to deal with the economy. He doesn't want people focused on the economy. He doesn't want to focus on their economic hardship. He certainly doesn't want them focused on who's responsible because he's responsible. No, he'd rather say, hey, look at what's happening in Minnesota. Look at what I've been able to create. Look at the chaos in the streets. Let your blood boil over that. So we need to, you know, push back on the abuse of the, you know, federal agents, the danger it's creating in communities.

I expect it's probably only a matter of time before he goes to the next. unlawful and worsening step of invoking the Insurrection Act. The next escalation by him, I think, is just a matter of time. And we're going to have to fight that. But at the same time, we have to keep our focus on why this is happening, and it's an effort to distract and divide people because he's been a total failure on the economy. One last thing I want to ask you about, David Plough, who ran Obama's 2008 campaign, campaign and he was a top advisor on Harris's 2024 presidential bid. He has an op-ed out in the New York

Times this week where he's essentially telling Democrats to, it sounds like run against Chuck Schumer. He says that it's important to, and I'm going to quote from his piece, he says it's important to quote, call for new leadership and say that if elected, they wouldn't support the current crop. I want to get your thoughts on this strategy. Do you agree that he's right that that would be a politically wise way to approach the elections this year? I don't agree with him. I don't agree with him. that that should be the Democrat strategy. We will be successful in this election if it is a referendum on Donald Trump and his policies.

We want to keep the focus there. We want to make sure that, yes, we have our alternative, positive, proactive agenda that's really important. But midterms are a referendum on the party in power, and that is Donald Trump and the Republicans. And anything that takes away our focus on that or divides us as a party,

I think divides us from the relentless focus we need to be going after this incumbent party that is doing so much harm to the country. So that's where I would keep my focus. And that's what I think we need to do to win. All right, Senator Schiff, thank you for being here. We appreciate it. You bet. Thank you.