← Newsroom

Donors beat dollars

Since 2016, 45 sitting House Democrats have faced a credible challenger measurably to their left, on a measure built from federal spending filings. Nine of them lost. The challengers who beat them were outspent roughly 2.5 to 1, the same as the challengers who lost. The winning challengers had three and a half times as many donors as the losing ones.

Winning challengers had three and a half times as many donors

Challengers who won raised more than those who lost. The incumbents they beat raised four times what an incumbent who won their primary raised. Whether the challenge won or lost, the challenger was outspent by roughly 2.5 to 1. Every figure is a median, comparing the 9 challengers who won against the 36 who lost, counting only money raised before the primary from FEC filings.

Winning challengers had a median of 905 individual donors, against 258 for the challengers who lost.

Our study of 17,284 general-election candidates over four decades found the same pattern: doubling a challenger’s donor count, with dollars held flat, was worth a point of vote share.

Most winners ran in a midterm year and in a safe Democratic seat

Eight of the nine winners ran in a midterm year, and six ran in a safe Democratic seat, where the primary decides who holds the seat. Each row gives two separate rates: the share of winning challenges with the trait, and the share of losing challenges with it.

Four of six cycles had one winning challenge or none

Each column is one election cycle. The full height is how many progressive challenges were mounted. The solid tiles at the bottom are the ones that beat the incumbent. Results are from OpenElections and published election boxes. One in five of these challenges won, against roughly one in twenty-five for primary challenges generally.

New York had four of the nine wins

Nine wins came from six states. New York had four, and Colorado, Oregon, Michigan, Massachusetts and California had one each. Twelve states mounted 23 challenges between them and won none.

All 45 challenges and all 9 wins. The nine other states are Nevada, Pennsylvania and New Jersey with two challenges each, and Georgia, Maryland, Ohio, Florida, Missouri and North Carolina with one.

The donor gap holds inside safe seats

Winners ran in far safer Democratic seats than losers: 78.0% Democratic at the last general against 63.9%. Safe seats have more donors to begin with, so the gap could reflect the district. Inside safe seats alone, winning challengers still had 2.2 times as many donors, and inside New York alone they had 1,318 against 174.

Safe seats are the only cut that can be tested this way, because among the 34 challenges with a last-general result, the competitive seats had one win.

Every challenge that won

Vote shares are from the primary. Eight of the nine came in a midterm year. The exception is Jamaal Bowman in 2020.

Texas’s 28th in 2022 is counted as a challenge that lost. Henry Cuellar won the March primary 48.7% to 46.9% and the May runoff 50.3% to 49.7%, according to the certified count.

How this was built

The election results

6,948 result files from OpenElections, a volunteer archive covering 47 states, plus published election boxes for recent cycles the archive does not yet cover.

Deciding who counts as progressive

Progressive scores come from independent expenditure filings since 2014. When one committee pays to defeat a Democrat in a Democratic primary and another committee pays to defend that Democrat, the two committees are scored on opposite sides, and so are the candidates. Applied to every filing, the method places Working Families and Justice Democrats at one end and AIPAC’s political arm and DMFI at the other. No committee or candidate is labeled by hand.

Filling the gaps

The spending method scores only candidates that outside groups spent money against, which leaves out Ocasio-Cortez in 2018, a race with almost no outside spending. A second model places the rest from donor patterns, trained on the candidates the spending method already scored. It is right about two-thirds of the time. Every figure on this page was also computed for the candidates scored from spending alone.

Who was the incumbent

From FEC candidate filings, matched within a single seat in a single year. Names that could belong to two people are left unmatched.

The money window

Only what a candidate raised between the start of the election cycle and the day of the primary. Money raised after the primary is excluded because it arrived after the result was known.

Stephen Lynch beat the one September challenger with the winners’ profile

Massachusetts voted on September 1 and New Hampshire on September 8, after this analysis was compiled. Rhode Island and Delaware had no contested Democratic primary against a sitting member. Eight seats had an incumbent facing a challenger. In two of them, Seth Moulton and Chris Pappas were running for the Senate and had raised nothing for their House seats, so those races were open.

Of the other six, one had all three traits common among the nine past winners: a midterm year (2026 qualifies), a safe Democratic seat, and a challenger with several times the incumbent’s donors.

Donor counts are individual contributors since the cycle opened in January 2025, from FEC filings. The nine challengers who won had a median of 905 donors.

---