Federal candidates running in competitive congressional races have raised much more money than in previous midterm election cycles, but not all candidates entered the 2022 general election season on even financial footing.
Black women and Latina candidates reported far less cash on hand than other federal candidates at the end of their primary season, a new OpenSecrets analysis of campaign fundraising data found. Incumbent women and incumbents of color also face tougher competition during the 2022 general election than their white, male colleagues seeking reelection.
Women currently make up 28% of Congress, and people of color make up 23%. The current Congress is the oldest in history – 23% of senators and representatives are over age 70, up from 16% in 2012 and 8% in 2002, an Insider investigation found. The candidates running in competitive federal races typically resemble the current gender and racial demographic landscape of Congress, although they are much younger.
The new OpenSecrets dataset comprises the most recent campaign finance reports filed by U.S. House and Senate candidates – ranging from late June to mid-September – who won their primaries and are headed into what OpenSecrets projects will be a record-setting midterm election.
Most third-quarter filings are not due to the Federal Election Commission until Oct. 15, just over three weeks before the general election on Nov. 8. The upcoming filings will detail how much money these federal candidates have raised since their primaries and provide new insight into the intersection of race, gender and fundraising in general races.
Most of the outcomes of these congressional midterms can be predicted with relative certainty – only four of the 35 U.S. Senate seats currently up for reelection and 30 of the 435 U.S. House seats are considered toss-ups, according to the Cook Political Report. While these competitive races provide the greatest opportunity to shift the demographic makeup of Congress, OpenSecrets found candidates running in these races are not particularly different from incumbents who currently serve the districts.
Incumbents continue to hold significant advantages
Women incumbents and incumbents of color appear more likely to either run in competitive races or attract viable challengers this election cycle, according to OpenSecrets data. Typically, incumbents win their reelection campaigns, and this cycle is unlikely to upend that historical trend despite early indications that Republicans would see significant gains in both chambers of Congress.
Currently, 390 incumbents seek reelection. Of those, nearly 90% face either no or limited competition. Some candidates have no opponent at all, and some are running in districts so safe for one party that an upset would be unprecedented.
An incumbent faces competition if they are running for a seat identified by the Cook Political Report in September 2022 as anything other than solidly in favor of the incumbent party, or if the incumbent is facing off against a member of their party who is raising significant funding. If neither of these is the case, the candidate is identified as “safe.”
One example of an incumbent facing a challenger from their own party is in Alaska, where Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) is defending her Senate seat against Republican challenger Kelly Tshibaka, who is endorsed by former President Donald Trump. While the seat will almost certainly remain in Republican control, Murkowski is not necessarily the “likely winner” because she has a Republican challenger in Alaska’s top-four election system. Similar cases can be found in California.
Congress is currently a predominantly white and male institution, and incumbents tend to reflect those demographic characteristics. Twenty-five percent of incumbents who are “safe” are women, a percentage just slightly below the percent serving in Congress, which is just under 28%.
Seventy-five percent of safe incumbents are white, roughly on par with the 77% of Congress that is currently white. These percentages are different from the challengers who face them – 68% of challengers are white, 34% are women and all are unlikely to win.
The 40 non-incumbent candidates who are likely to win share demographic characteristics with the other safe candidates. Twenty percent are women, and 65% are white, which means new members are slightly more likely to be male but less likely to be white.
These 40 candidates are also younger than the safe incumbents – 71% of safe non-incumbents were born after 1965 compared to only 40% of safe incumbents. The 118th Congress will also likely see the first member of Congress from Generation Z, Maxwell Frost, the Democratic nominee from Florida’s 10th Congressional District.
In races where a new member is likely to enter Congress, the demographic characteristics of the likely new member are similar to the outgoing member. The one exception to this general rule is age – new members are, on average, much younger than outgoing members.
Competitive districts unlikely to spur greater diversity in Congress
Around 20% of all federal races this cycle will be competitive, and these races provide the greatest opportunity to increase diversity in Congress. But the makeup of candidates running in these races is not particularly different from incumbents who currently serve the districts. This is the continuation of a trend OpenSecrets first noted in 2020.
Candidates running in competitive races this election cycle are slightly less likely to be white but much more likely to be young than safe candidates, the new OpenSecrets analysis found.
Notably, 38% of candidates running in competitive races are women, a higher percentage than those who currently serve as candidates. And 40% of the members representing these districts in the 117th are women. This suggests that women in Congress are more likely to run in competitive districts or likely to attract viable challengers, or both.
While 26% of women incumbents are running in competitive races this cycle, just 13% of male incumbents face viable challengers. Similarly, but less pronounced, 19% of incumbents of color are running in competitive races compared to 15% of white incumbents.
Incumbents who are women and incumbents of color are both more likely to be running in competitive federal elections, OpenSecrets found. This trend is more pronounced when looking at gender alone, with women incumbents being twice as likely to run in competitive races than men.
This could be explained by a number of causes – women may be more likely to run in swing districts, they might be more likely to attract challengers with serious fundraising skills or they could also be newer incumbents with less experience in Congress.
Cash on hand varies on racial and gender lines
The financial health of these candidates as they enter the general election period could be a significant predictor of their ultimate likelihood of victory, according to OpenSecrets’ analysis. Incumbents tend to substantially outraise challengers, and the 37 incumbents facing serious challengers in 2022 elections carry sizable cash-on-hand advantages going into the general election.
On average, “safe” incumbent senators hold over $10.7 million cash on hand while their challengers hold over $2.3 million. Safe U.S. House incumbents on average bring over $2.8 million in competitive races while their opponents only have an average of $599,672.
Among non-incumbents, the cash-on-hand totals vary significantly along racial and gender lines. While white women and white men running in competitive House races carry similar cash on hand going into the general election, Black women carry significantly less than either white women and Black men. Latinas carry less than all other racial and gender groups.
This is true even in cases where the candidate of color is raising significant amounts of money overall. For example, Catalina Lauf, a Republican Latina candidate challenging Rep. Bill Foster (D-Ill.), has raised over $1.4 million but only has $25,000 on hand — a pittance compared to Foster’s $4.9 million on hand.
As OpenSecrets has demonstrated in past research, increasing diversity in Congress is a slow and incremental process, and Black women typically face more challenges in fundraising compared to other candidates. Both of these trends continue this election cycle with an additional wrinkle: incumbent women and incumbents of color both face tougher competition in the general election.
Money-in-Politics Reporter Taylor Giorno contributed to this report.
Methodological Note:
Gender identification was collected by OpenSecrets researchers based on publicly available information. Racial identification was collected by OpenSecrets staff through a survey sent to all federal candidates. Candidates who did not reply were manually racially identified by OpenSecrets research staff based on public statements, group memberships and campaign websites. If the candidate did not reply to the survey, did not mention any racial or ethnic identification in their public statements or websites and appeared white to OpenSecrets researchers they were coded as white. Otherwise, they were left uncoded. Generation was collected via survey and publicly available information. Generational cutoffs were based on Pew Research cutoffs.
This article was researched and reported by OpenSecrets.




















A golden tray sits on the Resolute Desk as President Donald Trump speaks during an announcement on American nuclear innovation in the Oval Office at the White House on July 24, 2026, in Washington, D.C. Trump is signing multiple executive orders targeting the nuclear energy sector and easing rules for new reactors and nuclear fuel supply chains.
Trump’s hubris rivals the fallen heroes of ancient Greek mythology
In January, the New York Times asked President Donald Trump if there were any limits on his global powers.
“Yeah,” the president responded, “there is one thing. My own morality. My own mind. It’s the only thing that can stop me.”
That was eight months ago, but fortunately Christopher Nolan’s blockbuster adaptation of “The Odyssey” has made ancient Greek literature newly relevant. Before that window closes, I’d like to talk about hubris.
Today, the term mostly means excessive pride or arrogance. That’s part of what the Greeks meant by it too, but the meaning was a bit richer and more specific. Hubris was an insolent or outrageous act that offended the gods, often because the transgressor was claiming abilities or authorities that solely belonged to supreme beings.
Nolan renamed and slightly modified the concept of xenia for the film, calling it “Zeus’ law.” In the director’s telling, mortals should follow the rules laid out by the gods, specifically the requirement to treat strangers with respect lest they be gods in disguise.
In a sense, hubris is the opposite, or at least the rejection, of xenia. The hubris of the suitors, and at times Odysseus himself, invites punishment by the gods and their mortal instruments.
Which brings me back to Donald Trump. His claim that there are no constraints on his personal power to dictate events on the global stage was one of the greatest expressions of hubris ever uttered by a political leader.
Trump’s claim was obviously false when he made it.
He vowed that he could end the Russia-Ukraine war in 24 hours. He’s proved powerless to make that happen. If he had divine powers to work his will, why would he have balked at implementing his tariffs so often that Wall Street adopted the “TACO trade” term for his deals? “TACO” stands for “Trump always chickens out.”
And why would Trump have made so many embarrassing concessions to China — from rescinding tariffs on Chinese goods to allowing them to buy crucial and incredibly valuable computer chips?
But Trump saw his success at capturing Venezuelan strongman Nicolas Maduro as proof of his ability to launch missiles to the same effect as Zeus’ lightning bolts. Trump believed he was the most powerful man who ever lived.
This is no exaggeration. In March, when the Iran invasion seemed successful, Trump gave a document penned by“Presidential Historian David King” to New York Times reporters Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan purporting to prove that Trump was “the most powerful person to have EVER walked this planet.” King was, in fact, a businessman and occasional caddy for legendary golfer Gary Player.
King compared Trump favorably to many of history’s most powerful, and often heinous, figures: Alexander the Great, Attila the Hun, William the Conqueror, Napoleon Bonaparte, Joseph Stalin, Genghis Khan, Mao Tse Tung, Adolf Hitler and Vladimir Lenin. Many of these men thought they were the most powerful person in the world, too. And many were defeated precisely because they believed it.
At least Napoleon and Hitler had a string of truly impressive victories before they learned the folly of hubris. The limits on Trump’s power have been exposed by far less august forces than the combined might of the allies in World War II or the fearsome Russian winter.
Iran is a comparatively middling power. But the regime’s ability to absorb punishment while imposing its will on the Strait of Hormuz has proved to be a greater constraint on Trump’s power than his morality or mind. We should note that, at least rhetorically, his morality has not proved much of a constraint. He has repeatedly promised to destroy Iranian “civilization” if the regime refuses to capitulate.
But they haven’t — and won’t anytime soon — because the regime’s tolerance for pain far outstrips Trump’s. The combined fear of skyrocketing oil prices, outrage of Gulf state potentates, diminishing weapon supplies and domestic unpopularity is doing the work that international law, congressional oversight and the collective opinion of foreign policy experts can’t or won’t do.
If I considered Trump more heroic than reason and facts could allow, I would say his Sisyphean predicament has the whiff of Greek tragedy to it. Trump is vexed by the fact that the Iranians won’t honor deals or ratify his countless premature claims of victory — giving new meaning to his vow that his presidency would make people tired of winning. It’s almost like they’re out-Trumping Trump.
Things might have gone better if he’d heeded that great Greek tragedian Sophocles: “For Zeus utterly abhors the boasts of a proud tongue.”
____
Jonah Goldberg is editor-in-chief of The Dispatch and the host of The Remnant podcast. His Twitter handle is @JonahDispatch.