More than $11.6 billion has been committed to political advertising, making this the costliest election cycle for ads in U.S. history.
You might expect that much money to produce a solution to one of voters’ most immediate concerns: the cost of groceries. Instead, they’ve spent months hearing attack ads, dire predictions and claims that the future of civilization is at stake. Again.
As a researcher, I’ve spent much of the year looking at what Americans believe, what bothers them and what might persuade them to vote. I keep coming back to five words that seem to capture this election: affordability, socialism, corruption, Trump and turnout.
Together, they point to something neither party should find especially reassuring. Many voters may be less focused on choosing a candidate than on stopping something they fear.
Affordability
Washington can be very good at telling people the economy is doing well while they’re trying to figure out how to cover the bills.
Inflation is easing. The stock market is up. Growth is strong. That may all be true, but it doesn’t explain why a family can feel squeezed at the grocery store or have to put off a vacation.
People don’t experience the economy as a set of national figures. They feel it in small, frustrating moments: putting something back at the checkout, turning down dinner plans, or telling a child that a trip will have to wait.
The economy, for most voters, is less about what officials say is happening than what they can afford to do.
Republicans have spent much of the campaign arguing that things are improving. Democrats have focused on how expensive daily life still is. That gives Democrats a straightforward argument, though there’s a catch: persuading voters that Republicans haven’t helped them is not the same as persuading them that Democrats will.
An attack ad can make the first case. The second takes a plan.
Socialism
Republicans have warned for years that Democrats are leading the country toward socialism. The charge has been repeated so often it can sound like a familiar campaign refrain. Democrats tend to wave it off as fearmongering. They may want to think twice.
In polling I’ve reviewed, the share of Republicans motivated to vote against socialism rose from 50% to 59% in just one month.
That matters because people can be disappointed in their candidates, unhappy with the economy and frustrated with their party, yet still feel strongly motivated to vote. They may believe the other side would be worse.
Disappointment gets people talking. Fear can get them moving.
Democrats may regard socialism as an old Republican talking point. Many Republicans, though, see it as a genuine threat to the country. That doesn’t necessarily mean they’re pleased with their own party. They may simply be prepared to vote for a party they don’t much like to prevent one they fear even more.
That could be a powerful turnout message, whether Republicans intended it or not.
Corruption
“Drain the swamp” was once a campaign promise. These days, suspicion of political corruption seems to cross party lines.
Research from the Brennan Center and Wesleyan Media Project found that nearly one in three congressional television ads this cycle mentioned government ethics or campaign finance. Many Americans appear to believe that politicians and people close to power play by different rules.
Democrats have made corruption a major line of attack against Republicans. But it’s risky to make that argument as if your own side is beyond reproach.
In Alaska, reports that operatives aligned with Democrats helped recruit a second candidate named Dan Sullivan have prompted allegations of election manipulation. Democrat Mary Peltola has said she didn’t know about the effort. Whatever the investigation ultimately finds, the episode is a reminder that hardball politics isn’t confined to one party.
There’s a broader problem, too. When people work harder and feel they’re getting less, while politicians and insiders seem to keep prospering, everyday economic frustration can start to look like proof that the system is rigged.
Groceries aren’t just expensive; someone must be benefiting. Health care isn’t just costly; someone must be gaming the system.
Voters may believe an opponent is corrupt without being convinced that you’re honest. And if they think everyone is playing dirty, the eventual winner could take office with little public trust to spare.
Trump
Donald Trump isn’t running for Congress, but you wouldn’t know it from his campaign schedule. He’s traveling the country, commanding attention and rallying supporters as if his name were on every ballot.
Maybe he sees something the usual election analysis misses. His national approval numbers are weak, but his core supporters remain intensely loyal. Those things can both be true. In fact, that tension is central to his political appeal.
Since September 1, Democrats have spent more than $163 million on ads that mention Trump, compared with about $11 million from Republicans. It’s striking: the president may be the Democrats’ most valuable campaign surrogate.
Trump has an advantage of his own. Some of his supporters aren’t Republicans who happen to like him; they’re Trump supporters who happen to vote Republican. And they may not turn out as reliably when he isn’t on the ballot. That could help explain why he’s campaigning as though he were.
His supporters might not feel a strong urge to rescue the Republican Party. They could, however, be motivated by the idea of protecting Trump from a Democratic Congress.
Democrats want the election to be a judgment on Trump. Trump wants it to be a test of whether his supporters will stand by him. Both sides have put the same person at the center of the campaign, while hoping voters react in opposite ways.
Turnout
That brings us to the word that may decide the outcome: turnout.
The polls tell a fairly consistent story. Democrats have an advantage, economic frustration is widespread and the president is unpopular. But elections don’t simply measure opinion. They measure who actually votes.
I believe polling can tell us a great deal. It can show attitudes, motivations and which voters are likely to participate. Still, they’re called likely voters for a reason.
The most important divide may not be between Republicans and Democrats. It may be between people angry enough to vote and people so worn down that they stay home.
Democrats are angry about what Republicans have done. Republicans may be worried about what they think Democrats will do. Independents, meanwhile, may be fed up with both. Which feeling will get people out the door?
Gallup recently found that 56% of Americans had given considerable thought to this election, a record for this stage of a midterm cycle. Paying attention, though, isn’t the same as taking part.
More Democratic enthusiasm in districts that are already safely blue may not change control of Congress. A smaller Republican surge across a handful of competitive races could. And a relatively small shift in whether independents vote might change the story entirely.
Polls show where voters stand. Election Day shows who stands up. That difference could decide the result.
I suspect both parties may misread the outcome afterward. If Democrats win decisively, they could say the country has rejected Trumpism and embraced their agenda. If Republicans do better than expected, they may claim voters have endorsed the president’s program.
Either side could mistake a win for a ringing endorsement. Voters can reject one party without falling for the other. They can also stick with a party they don’t particularly like because they fear its opponents more.
That’s the contradiction in American politics in 2026: two parties are fighting hard for power in a country that increasingly doubts either one deserves it.
After billions in advertising, countless polls and a flood of campaign promises, voters may be sending a fairly simple message. They don’t need another political argument. They want someone to make life better.
Election Day will show who takes power. What comes next will show whether they earned it.
