2026-11-06T17:23:50.708Z / 美国有线电视新闻网（CNN）
2026年中期选举显示，在合适的条件下，像密歇根州当选参议员阿卜杜勒·埃尔-赛义德这样的左翼人士——甚至是与美国民主社会主义者（DSA）有关联的候选人——都能在美国有竞争力的选区获胜。
但这也暴露了提名这类候选人的风险。
他们中许多人确实赢了，但整体表现往往不如其他民主党人，甚至落后于党内一些最温和派的候选人。
选举结果清楚表明，提名更温和的候选人仍是赢得摇摆席位和摇摆州最有效的途径。这也意味着，在不出现“蓝色浪潮”的选举中，像埃尔-赛义德这样的候选人可能会让民主党付出代价。
尽管民主党此前仅在深蓝选区提名这类候选人，但此次却提名埃尔-赛义德角逐密歇根州参议员席位，还在该州一个摇摆国会选区提名了一名美国民主社会主义者成员。此外，民主党还在佛罗里达州、明尼苏达州以及2024年支持总统唐纳德·特朗普的多个众议院选区提名了左翼参议员候选人，包括加利福尼亚州、缅因州、蒙大拿州、宾夕法尼亚州和田纳西州。
伯尼·桑德斯支持的参议员候选人表现最差
这一趋势在参议院选举结果中最为明显。
事实上，在关键竞选中，与党内左翼阵营最紧密的四名候选人——以及佛蒙特州颇具影响力的民主社会主义者参议员伯尼·桑德斯背书的四名候选人——与2024年相比，表现是最差的四个。
他们分别是：缅因州当选参议员特洛伊·杰克逊（截至目前比卡玛拉·哈里斯的得票率低0.5个百分点）；明尼苏达州当选参议员佩吉·弗拉纳根（比哈里斯高5.9个百分点）；埃尔-赛义德（比哈里斯高8.4个百分点）；佛罗里达州参议院候选人安吉·尼克松（比哈里斯高10.2个百分点）。
关键竞选中民主党参议员候选人的平均得票率比哈里斯2024年的表现高出16个百分点。
当然，这些候选人属于不同类型的左翼人士。尼克松今年6月刚加入美国民主社会主义者，是该组织的正式成员。埃尔-赛义德并非民主社会主义者，他自称是资本家，但显然来自党内左翼阵营，许多知名民主党人担心，即使在民主党占优势的环境下，提名他也可能让该党失去席位。杰克逊和弗拉纳根也相当自由派，弗拉纳根在初选中击败了更为温和的时任众议员安吉·克雷格。
这四名候选人的得票率均低于同票选举中的民主党州长候选人。
桑德斯背书的候选人共有五名，其中这四人的表现最差。第五名是马萨诸塞州参议员埃德·马基，他在深蓝州马萨诸塞州轻松获胜，但其表现与该州哈里斯的得票率相比，也是党内最差之一，仅比哈里斯2024年的得票差距高出5.8个百分点。
与这些候选人的表现形成对比的是，我们看到许多更为温和的民主党候选人取得了一些最亮眼的超预期表现。
北卡罗来纳州当选参议员罗伊·库珀的得票率比哈里斯高出23.2个百分点。主张执法立场温和的密西西比州参议院候选人斯科特·科洛姆目前得票率比哈里斯高出23.1个百分点，有望在选举周期中爆冷击败共和党籍现任参议员辛迪·海德-史密斯。堪萨斯州当选参议员亚当·汉密尔顿、佐治亚州参议员乔恩·奥索夫以及爱荷华州当选参议员乔什·图雷克的得票率分别比哈里斯高出21.1、20.2和17.2个百分点。
其他一些超预期表现最为亮眼的候选人，其过往立场并不温和（甚至相当“觉醒”），但此次竞选明显以温和派形象示人。其中包括得克萨斯州当选参议员詹姆斯·塔拉里科（得票率比哈里斯高25.7个百分点）和南卡罗来纳州当选参议员安妮·安德鲁斯博士（得票率比哈里斯高21.9个百分点）。
诚然，无论如何，民主党几乎赢得了所有这些竞选。但从这些结果来看，不禁要问，如果佛罗里达州的候选人不是一名与美国民主社会主义者有关联的提名者，他们是否也能赢得尼克松以约3个百分点差距输掉的那场竞选。
众议院席位争夺的结果也呈现类似情况，尽管差异没有那么显著。
数据研究机构“数字力量”的民调专家G·埃利奥特·莫里斯分析了所有竞选数据后发现，进步派人士和国会进步党团成员的得票率平均比哈里斯高出12.2个百分点。相比之下，更为温和的新民主党联盟成员平均高出14.1个百分点，温和至保守派的蓝狗民主党成员平均高出15.4个百分点。
值得注意的是，莫里斯发现，美国民主社会主义者候选人的超预期表现实际上更高——平均高出16.5个百分点。
不过这一结果基于的样本量非常小，仅有七名候选人，而且他们大多参选的是深蓝选区，在这些选区，持极左立场确实可能是一项优势。
竞争更为激烈的选区的情况表明，极左候选人可能已经——而且很可能确实——让民主党付出了代价。
或许左翼最大的胜利来自密歇根州第7选区，民主党现任当选众议员威廉·劳伦斯赢得了一个摇摆席位。劳伦斯在初选中是美国民主社会主义者成员，不过大选期间脱离了该组织。和埃尔-赛义德的胜选一样，劳伦斯的胜选可能被解读为证明极左候选人能够赢得摇摆选区。
但劳伦斯的胜选仅以微弱优势，而且他的得票率仅比哈里斯高出微不足道的4.3个百分点，这是众议院竞选中超预期表现最小的幅度之一。
同样值得关注的是：缅因州第2选区，桑德斯支持的州审计长马特·邓拉普仅比哈里斯高出8.1个百分点，最终败选。
这一结果格外引人注目，因为退休的温和派民主党现任众议员贾里德·戈尔登近年在远不利的环境下，都能保住这个支持特朗普的选区的民主党席位。邓拉普在初选中击败了一位得到全国民主党支持的更温和候选人。
显然，这个选区现在将成为民主党无法在众议院占据代表的最蓝选区——而该党要怪罪的对象就是桑德斯支持的候选人。
在科罗拉多州第8选区、蒙大拿州第1选区和宾夕法尼亚州第7选区等选区，左翼民主党人的表现似乎与其他民主党人不相上下。当选众议员兰迪·比利亚雷亚尔也赢得了加利福尼亚州第22选区的一个摇摆席位，但目前将他的得票差距与2024年对比还为时过早（截至周五上午，超过40%的选票尚未统计）。
有一名左翼候选人确实大幅超预期，但在一个相当红的选区功亏一篑。那就是民主党人贾斯汀·J·皮尔逊，你可能还记得他在2023年被逐出田纳西州众议院的事情。尽管在纽约州众议员亚历山德里娅·奥卡西奥-科尔特斯的帮助下竞选，他仍在一个特朗普以21个百分点优势获胜的选区仅以1个百分点之差落败。
不过那只是例外情况。
从这些选举结果中，民主党得到了一个明确的教训：在战场地区，最好提名温和派候选人——避免极左候选人。毕竟，像此次如此庞大的蓝色浪潮往往是例外，而非常态。
Midterm returns show bad news for progressive Democrats
2026-11-06T17:23:50.708Z / CNN
The 2026 midterm election showed that leftists like Michigan Senator-elect Abdul El-Sayed — and even candidates who have been affiliated with the Democratic Socialists of America — can win in competitive areas of the country, under the right circumstances.
But it also showed the danger of nominating candidates like them.
Many of them won, but they also often ran worse than other Democrats — and even further behind some of the party’s most moderate candidates.
The results clearly illustrate that nominating more moderate candidates remains the most fruitful path to winning swing seats and states. And they suggest candidates like El-Sayed could cost Democrats in less-wavey elections.
While the party previously nominated these kinds of candidates in dark-blue districts, it nominated El-Sayed in the Michigan Senate race and a DSA member in a swing congressional district in that state. It also nominated left-wing candidates for Senate in Florida and Minnesota, and in several House districts that had voted for President Donald Trump in 2024 — including in California, Maine, Montana, Pennsylvania and Tennessee.
Bernie Sanders-backed Senate candidates were the worst performers
This trend was most evident in the Senate results.
In fact, in key races, the four candidates most aligned with the party’s left flank — and endorsed by influential democratic socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont — accounted for the four worst performances, compared to 2024.
They were Maine Senator-elect Troy Jackson (half a point worse than Kamala Harris, as things stand), Minnesota Senator-elect Peggy Flanagan (5.9 points better), El-Sayed (8.4 ponts better) and Florida Senate candidate Angie Nixon (10.2 points better).
The average Democratic Senate candidate in key races ran sixteen points better than Harris did in 2024.
These candidates are different flavors of leftists, for sure. Nixon is an actual DSA member who joined in June. El-Sayed is not a democratic socialist and has called himself a capitalist, but he clearly comes from the left wing of the party, and many prominent Democrats feared that nominating him would cost them the seat even in a strong Democratic environment. Both Jackson and Flanagan are also pretty liberal, with Flanagan having defeated a more moderate primary opponent in Rep. Angie Craig.
All four of these candidates also ran worse than the Democratic gubernatorial candidates running on the same ballots.
These candidates account for 4 of the 5 candidates that Sanders endorsed. The fifth, Sen. Ed Markey of Massachusetts, won easily in blue Massachusetts. But he also notched one of the party’s worst performances compared to Harris’ numbers in his state, beating her 2024 margin by just 5.8 points.
In contrast to how these candidates performed, we saw many of the more moderate Democratic candidates notch some of the biggest over-performances.
North Carolina Senator-elect Roy Cooper over-performed Harris by 23.2 points. Mississippi Senate candidate Scott Colom, who ran as a pro-law enforcement moderate, is currently over-performing by 23.1 points and could pull the upset of the election cycle over GOP Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith. Senator-elect Adam Hamilton in Kansas, Sen. Jon Ossoff in Georgia and Senator-elect Josh Turek in Iowa ran 21.1, 20.2 and 17.2 points better than Harris, respectively.
Some of the other biggest over-performances came from candidates with less moderate (and even rather “woke”) pasts — but who clearly ran as moderates this time. That includes Senator-elect James Talarico in Texas (25.7 points better than Harris) and Senator-elect Dr. Annie Andrews in South Carolina (21.9 points better).
It’s true that Democrats won nearly all of these races, regardless. But given these results, it’s valid to wonder if they could have also won the Florida race — which Nixon lost by about three points — if they didn’t have a nominee affiliated with the DSA.
The results in the battle for the House told a similar tale, though the differences are less stark.
Pollster G. Elliott Morris of Strength In Numbers ran the numbers in all races and found that progressives and members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus over-performed Harris by an average of 12.2 points. That was compared to 14.1 points for members of the more-moderate New Democrat Coalition, and 15.4 points for moderate-to-conservative Blue Dog Democrats.
Curiously, Morris found that DSA candidates actually over-performed by even more — an average of 16.5 points.
But that’s from a very small sample size of just seven candidates. And they were generally running in very blue districts where, yes, being far to the left might be an asset.
The picture in more-competitive districts suggests far-left candidates could have — and likely did — cost Democrats.
Perhaps the biggest win for the left was in Michigan’s 7th District, where Democratic Rep.-elect William Lawrence won a swing seat. Lawrence was a member of the DSA when he won his primary, though he left the group in the general election. His win, like El-Sayed’s, could be read to prove that far-left candidates can win swing districts.
But Lawrence only narrowly won, and he only over-performed Harris by a relatively meager 4.3 points. That’s one of the smallest over-performances in the House.
Also telling: In Maine’s 2nd District, Sanders-backed state Auditor Matt Dunlap over-performed Harris by just 8.1 points and lost.
The result was particularly striking because retiring moderate Democratic Rep. Jared Golden had managed to keep the Trump-supporting district in Democratic hands in far-less-favorable environments in recent years. Dunlap defeated a more-moderate candidate backed by the national Democratic Party in the primary.
The district apparently will now be the bluest one that Democrats won’t represent in the House — and the party can blame a Sanders-backed candidate.
Left-wing Democrats appear to have performed about on-par with other Democrats in districts like Colorado’s 8th, Montana’s 1st and Pennsylvania’s 7th. Rep.-elect Randy Villegas also won a swing district in California’s 22nd district, but it’s too early to compare his margin to 2024 (more than 40% of the vote is yet to be counted as of Friday morning).
There was one left-wing candidate who significantly over-performed but came up short in a pretty red district. It was Democrat Justin J. Pearson, whom you might remember from when he was expelled from the Tennessee state House in 2023. He lost by just one point in a district Trump had carried by 21, even after campaigning with New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
Still, that was the exception to the rule.
There’s a clear lesson for Democrats looking at these election results: It’s preferable to run moderates — and avoid far-left candidates — in battleground areas. After all, huge blue waves like this also tend to be the exception, not the rule.