WASHINGTON — Democrats who once saw retaking the U.S. Senate as a long shot in 2026 have newfound hope thanks to an unpopular president and a California donor machine that has snapped into action.

Californians provided the most out-of-state cash to Democrats in nearly every hotly contested race, and in several cases gave more than in-state donors, according to a Times analysis of campaign finance filings covering the first three months of 2026.

Sen. Jon Ossoff of Georgia, who took in more than $14 million overall, received nearly as much from California backers as from supporters in his home state among donors who contributed at least $200 and whose identities were disclosed.

James Talarico, a Democratic Senate candidate in Texas, has raised a staggering $27 million so far this year, with California donors contributing just under $1.2 million to back his campaign — second only to Texas supporters among those donors whose names were disclosed.

Donors who give less than $200 are not required to be identified in campaign finance reports and made up a significant share of the donors to Ossoff’s and Talarico’s campaigns.

Republicans currently have control of the Senate with 53 of the chamber’s 100 seats. This year 35 seats are at play, including special elections in Florida and Ohio.

GOP still winning a key cash race

While more of the seats up for grabs are in Republican hands, polling showing the potential for tight races in several of them has given Democrats hope that they might be able to shrink or reverse their deficit in November.

Top Democratic candidates have out-raised their GOP rivals in the most competitive Senate races, but Republicans are winning the cash race among big-money committees that can accept checks far larger than the $7,000 cap on donations to candidate committees.

Those Democratic candidates have continued a tradition of relying on donors in the country’s most populous state to bankroll their campaigns.

“California has been a rich gold mine for many a candidate and continues to be that,” said Michael Beckel, director of money in politics reform at Issue One, a bipartisan advocacy group.

Democratic Senate candidates in a few races raised more from California donors than from donors in their home states, according to campaign finance reports filed Wednesday.

Democratic former Rep. Mary Peltola of Alaska, who is challenging incumbent Republican Sen. Dan Sullivan, brought in nearly $900,000 from California donors who had contributed at least $200. Alaska donors contributed just over $520,000 to Peltola in the same time period.

Two of the three leading Democratic hopefuls in Michigan’s open Senate race, Rep. Haley Stevens and physician Abdul El-Sayed, reported taking in more from California donors than from donors in Michigan. California was the second biggest bank of support for the other top Democratic contender, state Sen. Mallory McMorrow.

And in Nebraska, independent Dan Osborn, who is challenging incumbent Republican Sen. Pete Ricketts, took in $80,000 more from disclosed California donors than from Nebraskans.

Dozens of California donors gave to at least five Senate candidates across the country, according to The Times’ analysis of the filing data.

Burbank playwright and screenwriter Winnie Holzman has donated to Democratic candidates in nine key races and said she has been inspired to give to them — and other candidates and political groups — because of concerns about the policies of President Trump’s administration and what she sees as its violation of the law.

“This isn’t just about who is in the Senate,” said Holzman, who wrote the script for the play “Wicked” and co-wrote its movie adaptations. “But if enough Democrats were in the Senate right now, there would be a lot more ability to push back on this.”

The impressive fundraising hauls by Democrats come with a significant caveat.

The two most prominent political committees that support Republican Senate candidates — the party-affiliated National Republican Senatorial Committee and the Senate Leadership Fund super PAC, have both outraised rival Democratic groups by a significant margin this cycle.

For the NRSC, an $11.5-million fundraising advantage since the start of 2025 has translated to a modest $2-million advantage in cash in the bank through the end of February compared with the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.

But the Senate Leadership Fund, which can accept unlimited amounts of cash from donors, had $91.6 million more to spend at the end of March than the Democratic rival Senate Majority PAC.

And the pro-Trump super PAC MAGA Inc. had a stunning $312 million in the bank at the end of February.

Money raised by candidate campaign committees does, however, bring some advantages over money raised by other committees. Most significantly, candidates are able to buy advertising at cheaper rates than other political committees.

That is an important distinction in a year when advertising spending in Senate races is expected to top $2.8 billion.

The Senate map

While political analysts expect that Democrats will likely perform well in congressional races — with early signs pointing to a strong possibility that the party regains control of the House — winning control of the Senate would be a much taller order.

“The Senate is going to be won or lost in red states,” said Kyle Kondik, managing editor of Sabato’s Crystal Ball at the University of Virginia’s Center for Politics.

Even in the best-case scenario for Democrats, to retake control of the chamber they would probably need to win in at least two states such as Iowa, Alaska, Ohio or Texas, all of which went to Trump in the 2024 presidential election by double-digit margins.

With the vast sums likely to be raised — and spent — by both sides, Kondik said that fundraising can reach a point of diminishing returns.

“You’d rather have more than less, obviously, but the actual effect is pretty debatable,” he said.

And history shows that fundraising prowess doesn’t necessarily translate to electoral success in November.

Take the example of Texas Democrat Beto O’Rourke.

In his 2018 challenge of incumbent Republican Ted Cruz, O’Rourke brought in more than $80 million, more than double Cruz’s fundraising haul of $35 million.

But it wasn’t enough to put the then-congressman from El Paso over the top.

O’Rourke lost the race by about 2.5 percentage points.

Republican strategists and lawmakers are hoping that when voters head to the polls in November to elect the next U.S. Senator of Minnesota, they’ll be forced to choose between either a Republican candidate — or Minnesota Lt. Gov. Peggy Flanagan.

In a Democratic primary that has yet to play out, House Majority Whip Tom Emmer, R-Minn., believes Flanagan would give Republicans better odds than her opponent, Rep. Angie Craig, D-Minn.

“You’ve got the radical Left that is really upending the party. It’s that crazy Marxist anarchist group that is in Minneapolis, especially with a primary,” Emmer said in an interview with local media.

“Think about this. You’ve got Angie Craig, who will have all the money. But she knows that her numbers are in the tank against this radical, wild, wild-eyed Peggy Flanagan, the current lieutenant governor. So, guess who shows up [to the primary]? All the crazies from Minneapolis.”

EX-NFL REPORTER LAUNCHES GOP SENATE BID, REVEALS HOW SHE WILL FLIP SCRIPT ON STATE’S ‘CRISIS OF LEADERSHIP”

“Peggy Flanagan is likely going to be their candidate, and that is good for us,” Emmer said.

The assessment isn’t unique to Emmer.

The Democratic race began in February of last year when Sen. Tina Smith, D-Minn., sparked a four-way Democratic primary with news that she would not pursue reelection in 2026.

In addition to Craig and Flanagan, Billy Nord, an anti-establishment activist, and Melisa López Franzen, a former minority leader of the Minnesota Senate, announced bids for the seat. But it didn’t take long for Craig and Flanagan to emerge as the clear-cut frontrunners.

Craig, a former journalist, businesswoman and a current four-term U.S. congresswoman, has $4.8 million in cash on hand, according to FEC records.

Flanagan, Minnesota’s lieutenant governor for the past seven years, has $1.1 million cash on hand.

Nord has not reported contributions with the FEC and López dropped out of the race in May of last year.

DEMOCRAT IN KEY SENATE PRIMARY SAYS SHE ‘REGRETS’ VOTE ON LAKEN RILEY ACT, DRAWS GOP BACKLASH

While Republican onlookers believe both frontrunners can be described as “far-left,” many have pointed out Flanagan shares platform similarities with more polarizing, high-profile Democrats — such as New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani and has shared the same platform as Gov. Tim Walz, who she has called an “incredible partner.” Walz was hammered during his failed 2024 vice presidential bid for all of his far-left proposals.

In the view of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, that makes for a Republican advantage.

“She, too, supports Medicare for All, wants to ‘re-imagine’ policing and attended anti-ICE protests where she called on people to “put their bodies on the line” to defend illegal immigrants from ICE,” the NRSC said in a press release.

More notably, Republicans believe Flanagan’s greatest liability is a tenure that overlaps with recent revelations of up to $9 billion in fraud through government benefit programs.

Through scores of schemes, fraudsters in Minnesota allegedly siphoned funding from government programs like daycare centers and health clinics while returning no benefits, greatly exaggerating their services and pocketing government funding.

The fraud revelations made national news last year, raising questions about how state leadership could have missed the sheer size of the losses.

DFL party Chair Mike Erlandson told the Minnesota Star Tribune he believes fraud will remain front-and-center in the minds of voters.

“I don’t think there’s any way that this issue isn’t still being talked about in November. And anybody that was a party to it, whether you’re a legislator or Lt. Gov. Flanagan, if she’s the nominee, is going to have to answer questions around it,” Erlandson said.

NRSC Chairman Sen. Tim Scott, R-S.C., echoed that sentiment.

“From allowing billions of dollars in fraud to vilifying law enforcement, the Walz-Flanagan administration has failed Minnesotans,” Scott wrote in a post to X.

For her own part, Flanagan’s campaign told Fox News Digital she likes her chances to win in a general election, pointing to Minnesota’s solidly-blue track record of sending Democrats to the U.S. Senate.

“Minnesota hasn’t voted for a Republican statewide in over 20 years – with Trump in the White House and the chaos ICE inflicted on Minnesotans, this is not going to be Craig’s or the GOP’s year,” Alexandra Fetissoff, a Flanagan campaign spokeswoman, said.

“Peggy Flanagan is the only candidate in this race who has won statewide, the only candidate not taking corporate money and the only candidate that hasn’t enabled Trump’s ICE. Minnesotans know Peggy and trust her leadership and that’s why she’ll be the next Senator from Minnesota.”

MICHELE TAFOYA SAYS MINNESOTA NEEDS POLITICAL OUTSIDER ‘WITH A SPINE’ IN REPUBLICAN SENATE BID

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

When asked if he stood by his comments on the Minnesota primary, Emmer said he believes Republicans will run a competitive race, regardless of the Democratic nominee.

“Minnesotans will reject both of these far-left, fraud-enabling radicals who would only dig our state into an even deeper hole than it’s already in. Good luck to Flanagan and Craig as they continue fighting tooth and nail to win over the cop hating, open-border extremist base while alienating commonsense Minnesotans,” Emmer said.

Craig and Flanagan will face off in the primary on Aug. 11. Fox News Digital reached out to Craig for comment.

Until recently, President Trump always found a way to fail forward, through a combination of spin, threats, payoffs and bluster.

OK, that’s the simplistic interpretation. The fine print tells a less-glamorous story: a man born on third base who spent decades insisting he’d hit a triple.

Still, it’s hard to argue with success. When Trump entered politics, he redefined the rules of the game. Rivals who tried to outflank him on policy detail, ideological consistency and institutional norms found themselves either vanquished or assimilated by the Borg.

By my lights, only once during Trump’s admittedly chaotic first term did he run into something that his playbook couldn’t at least mitigate or parry: the COVID-19 pandemic. For the final year of his presidency, reality refused to negotiate, and political gravity reasserted itself. It turns out, viruses aren’t susceptible to the Art of The Deal.

But then, miraculously, Trump wriggled through legal jeopardy, bulldozed his way past more conventional Republicans and Democrats, and re-emerged victorious in 2024.

If anything, that comeback reinforced the idea that Trump could survive anything by virtue of his playbook.

By the start of his second term, he’d made impressive headway in co-opting not only individuals but also major institutions within big tech, the media and academia.

Even in foreign affairs, Trump’s sense that any problem could be solved via force, intimidation or money was confirmed when he captured Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and installed Maduro’s vice president, Delcy Rodríguez, as a sort of puppet leader. Everyone has a price, right?

Unfortunately for Trump, no. Not everyone does.

Lately, the president has encountered a different kind of resistance — adversaries motivated by something bigger and more transcendent than money, power or the avoidance of pain.

In dealing with Iran, for instance, Trump has confronted people operating under a wholly different set of incentives. It’s a regime guided by a mix of ideology, radical religious doctrine and long-term strategic interests that don’t always align with short-term material gain.

(Now perhaps, having punished Trump enough already, Iran will finally come to the negotiating table. But even if that happens, it will have occurred after exacting a steep price — so steep, in fact, that it may already be too late for Trump to plausibly claim a win.)

It turns out, you can’t easily intimidate or pay off a true believer who isn’t afraid to die and believes they have God on their side.

A similar (though obviously not morally equivalent) dynamic is now also on display in the form of Trump’s skirmish with Pope Leo XIV, a man who commands moral authority. He opposes the war in Iran (“Blessed are the peacemakers”) and has demonstrated a stubborn refusal to back down to Trump’s attempts at bullying.

“Woe to those who manipulate religion and the very name of God for their own military, economic and political gain, dragging that which is sacred into darkness and filth,” Leo said during a tour of Africa. It’s a remark that the American pope seemed to implicitly be aiming at the American president.

Here’s what Trump doesn’t understand: There are still pockets of the world where concepts like faith and national identity outweigh tangible incentives. Where sacrifice and suffering are an accepted part of the plan.

When facing these sorts of foes, Trump’s usual operating system starts to look less like a cheat code and more like a category error.

But he can’t see this because Trump is always prone to a sort of cynical projection — of assuming everyone views the world in the same base, carnal, corrupt way he sees it.

Whether it was his incredulity that Denmark wouldn’t sell Greenland, rhetoric that seemed to discount the motivations of those who serve and sacrifice in the military, or his affinity for nakedly transactional gulf states, the pattern is familiar: a tendency to view decisions through a cost-benefit lens that not everyone shares.

To be fair, that lens has often served him well. In arenas where power, money and leverage dominate, Trump’s approach is eerily effective.

But after years of taming secular, “rational” opponents, he is fighting a two-front war against people who see their struggles as moral and spiritual.

They aren’t stronger in a conventional sense. But they are, in a very real sense, less susceptible to Trump’s methods.

For perhaps the first time in his life, Donald Trump finds himself facing adversaries who aren’t just immune to his usual Trumpian playbook but are playing a different game altogether.

Matt K. Lewis is the author of “Filthy Rich Politicians” and “Too Dumb to Fail.”