Economic factors and party alignment are major influences in Iowa’s U.S. Senate race. A recent survey shows Democrat Josh Turek holds a slight two-point lead over Republican Ashley Hinson, with 49% to 47%, which falls within the margin of error. When considering registered voters, Turek’s lead widens to four points, at 50% to 46%, but this remains consistent since June.
The findings highlight that Democrats are backing Turek much more robustly than Republicans are supporting Hinson, with 96% of Democrats compared to 87% of Republicans aligning with their respective candidates. Turek also commands significant support from independents, showing a two-to-one preference, which includes 10% of Republicans supporting him. The overall partisan environment in Iowa contributes to the competitive nature of the race, as more voters identify with the Republican Party.
When it comes to opinions on Senate control, Iowa voters are evenly divided: 49% prefer a Democratic Senate while 48% favor Republican control, reflecting a close contest that mirrors the candidates’ polling. Turek leads significantly among women (by 11 points), in suburban areas (16 points), among college-educated voters (17 points), and with independents (32 points). In contrast, Hinson holds a 7-point advantage among men and a 6-point lead among voters without college degrees. She also leads by 14 points among rural voters and 41 points among White evangelical Christians.
The economic landscape has a tangible impact on voter preferences. A notable rise in the number of Iowans feeling financially strained has shifted from 30% to 40% in recent years, and this group favors Turek by a considerable 38-point margin. Conversely, those who feel financially stable lean towards Hinson, with margins of 14 and 53 points, respectively, for those maintaining their status or improving financially.
Additionally, 60% of voters identify the cost of living as a critical factor in their Senate voting decision, surpassing other issues such as opinions on Trump (43%), immigration (39%), and AI technology (27%). Turek benefits from this sentiment among voters ranking the cost of living, Trump, and AI technology as top concerns, while supporters prioritizing immigration tend to favor Hinson.
Notably, Trump secured nearly 56% of the vote in Iowa during the 2024 election. Yet, his approval ratings have significantly declined, with 57% of Iowa voters disapproving of his presidency compared to only 42% who approve.
The challenge for Hinson is compounded by her mixed approval ratings—42% favorable and 50% unfavorable, with almost 40% expressing strong disapproval. In comparison, Turek’s ratings show a net positive stance of 48% favorable against 40% unfavorable. More voters express concern about Hinson’s closeness to Trump than about Turek’s perceived liberal views, with a 9-point difference (52% vs. 43%). This concern deepens among those “extremely” worried, where the gap widens to 14 points.
Supporters of Turek appear more certain in their choice, with 88% committed compared to 77% for Hinson. It’s interesting to note that nearly double the number of Hinson supporters (20%) express potential for changing their minds compared to those of Turek (10%).
“Looking at historical trends and the partisan dynamics, there’s still a chance for Hinson,” remarks GOP pollster Daron Shaw, involved in producing the Fox News Poll. However, there’s a clear warning: Iowa Republicans seem uncertain, independents are leaning towards Turek, and even Hinson’s own supporters exhibit hesitance.
Iowa hasn’t elected a Democrat to the Senate for 18 years, and hasn’t seen a Democrat govern for two decades. In the governor’s race, Democrat Rob Sand leads Republican Zach Lahn among likely voters, 53% to 44%, with Sand’s support coming largely from nearly all Democrats (97%), alongside 14% of Republicans and 66% of independents.
This poll, conducted from September 24-28, 2026, involved 1,204 randomly selected registered voters in Iowa, showcasing the dynamics of the current political landscape. Given the nature of polling, results can vary based on question phrasing and respondent demographics, and sampling error should be taken into account for accurate interpretation of the findings.
