By Ashok Nilakantan Ayers
WASHINGTON: The final week of America’s 2026 midterm election campaign has become a high-stakes confrontation between President Donald Trump and a Democratic opposition seeking to turn voter dissatisfaction over the economy into control of Congress.
Neither Trump nor former president Barack Obama is on the ballot. Yet both are criss-crossing the country, campaigning for candidates whose victories or defeats could determine the legislative direction of Washington during the final two years of Trump’s second term.
The election on November 3 will decide control of the House of Representatives and could reshape the Senate, where Republicans currently hold a 53–47 majority. With the White House and both chambers of Congress under Republican control, Democrats are attempting to persuade voters that the midterms offer an opportunity to impose greater congressional scrutiny on the administration.
The central question is whether economic dissatisfaction will translate into votes for Democrats, or whether Trump can mobilise his supporters sufficiently to preserve Republican control.
Early voting has emerged as one of the most closely watched indicators of voter engagement. More than 30 million Americans had already cast ballots by October 26, according to reporting by The Associated Press, although the number varies as states update their figures.
An earlier AP analysis found that more than 13 million ballots had been cast by October 20, compared with approximately nine million at a comparable stage in the 2022 midterm cycle. The increase was particularly pronounced in several states with competitive Senate contests. Texas reported a substantial rise, while early voting in Kansas had more than doubled at the stage covered by the analysis.
Ohio, Maine and North Carolina also recorded increases of more than 30 per cent. These comparisons are based on available state data and are affected by differences in voting schedules and reporting practices.
The surge is significant, but it does not automatically establish which party is benefiting. Early voting figures measure participation, not the eventual distribution of votes. Mail ballots and in-person early voting also differ across states, while party registration, where available, does not necessarily reveal how an individual voted.
Nevertheless, the numbers suggest that the campaign is generating considerable interest for an election traditionally associated with lower participation than presidential contests.
In 2024, more than 155 million votes were cast in the presidential election. If turnout in November approaches the levels of the 2022 midterms, more than 100 million Americans could participate this year.
For Democrats, early mobilisation offers an opportunity to convert dissatisfaction into participation. Republicans, meanwhile, are concentrating on ensuring that their supporters turn out, particularly in states where the Senate majority could be threatened.
The cost of living has become a defining issue in the closing stages of the campaign. Grocery bills, housing, fuel, heating costs and the price of everyday necessities are featuring prominently in Democratic attacks on the administration.
Democrats argue that voters should judge Trump by their household budgets rather than by his promises of economic revival. They have also criticised tariffs imposed by his administration, arguing that import duties can increase costs for American businesses and consumers.
For Trump, the challenge is to convince voters that his economic programme is producing longer-term benefits and that his opponents would not offer a better alternative. Republicans have sought to emphasise their policy priorities and argue that Democrats are offering criticism without credible solutions.
The distinction between inflation and the price level is important. Even when the rate of inflation slows, prices do not necessarily return to their earlier levels. Households may therefore continue to feel financial pressure despite improvements in some economic indicators.
That gap between official economic performance and everyday experience could prove politically consequential. A September Reuters/Ipsos poll reported by Reuters placed Trump’s approval rating at 32 per cent, a measure that underlines the political difficulties facing the administration. Approval ratings, however, are not election forecasts: congressional contests are determined by individual candidates, local issues, turnout and the distribution of competitive seats.
Obama has returned to the campaign trail to help Democrats in two important Midwestern battlegrounds. On October 24, he campaigned in Cleveland, Ohio, alongside Democratic Senate candidate Sherrod Brown and gubernatorial candidate Amy Acton. He subsequently travelled to Detroit to support Michigan Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed and Democratic gubernatorial nominee Jocelyn Benson.
Both states have consequential races, and the Senate contests are attracting national attention. Ohio’s race pits Brown, a former senator seeking a return to Washington, against Republican Senator Jon Husted. In Michigan, El-Sayed faces Republican Mike Rogers.
Obama’s intervention is intended to energise Democratic voters, attract attention to down-ballot candidates and reinforce the party’s economic message. His campaign appearances have criticised the administration’s handling of consumer costs and tariffs, while seeking to present Democratic candidates as alternatives to the Republican-controlled government.
His presence also brings a familiar national political figure into contests where local candidates must build their own coalitions. In Michigan, El-Sayed won a divisive Democratic primary, making the task of uniting different elements of the party particularly important.
Trump, meanwhile, has stepped up his campaigning, including a visit to Mississippi on October 26 to support Republican Senator Cindy Hyde-Smith. Mississippi is traditionally a Republican stronghold, making the heightened attention to its Senate contest noteworthy. Hyde-Smith faces Democrat Scott Colom, whose campaign has drawn national Democratic support and attention over the cost of living.
Colom has criticised the handling of rising beef prices, while Democrats have argued that the election should be a referendum on the economic consequences of the administration’s policies. The Republican incumbent retains advantages associated with the state’s voting history, but the contest has attracted more attention than might ordinarily be expected.
Trump has defended his rallies as a means of energising the Republican electorate. His strategy includes appearances in states that supported him decisively in 2024, alongside visits to more competitive territory.
The decision to campaign in Mississippi can be interpreted in two ways. Republicans can argue that a presidential appearance strengthens turnout and protects a Senate seat. Democrats can contend that the visit demonstrates their ability to force Republicans to devote time and resources to a contest they would normally expect to win comfortably. Neither interpretation, by itself, establishes the eventual outcome.
The wider Republican campaign also includes Vice-President JD Vance, who has been campaigning in support of Republican candidates. The administration’s closing message seeks to consolidate its base and persuade voters that the president needs congressional support to pursue his programme.
Money has become another measure of the intensity of the 2026 midterms. But several figures circulating in campaign coverage require careful distinction. The Federal Election Commission reported on October 1 that congressional candidates had raised approximately $2.8 billion and spent about $2.04 billion between January 1, 2025, and June 30, 2026. These are figures for candidates’ combined financial activity, not the final amount spent by both parties across the entire election campaign.
Over the same period, political party committees reported approximately $1.38 billion in receipts and $1.01 billion in disbursements. Political action committees reported substantially larger combined totals, including $8.3 billion raised and $6.5 billion spent. Those figures cover a broader category of political activity and should not simply be added to candidate spending without accounting for transfers and overlapping financial flows.
Advertising expenditure provides another measure. Media reported on October 19 that approximately $3.8 billion had already been spent on political advertisements aired during the 2026 cycle, according to AdImpact.
Consequently, the claim that Democrats have spent $1.6 billion and Republicans $1.2 billion cannot be treated as a verified, comprehensive comparison without a source specifying the period, the organisations included and whether the figures measure fundraising, expenditure or advertising.
The larger picture is unmistakable: American congressional elections have become enormously expensive. Candidates, party committees, super PACs and other political organisations are competing for attention through television advertising, digital campaigns, field operations and voter mobilisation.
The concentration of money in competitive Senate races is particularly striking. The contest for control of the chamber is being fought not only through candidate appearances and televised debates but also through expensive advertising campaigns designed to influence a relatively small number of decisive states.
The final days will test both arguments. Rising participation could indicate renewed engagement with politics, but only the ballots counted on November 3 will reveal which coalition has been more successful.
With inflation concerns, tariffs, energy costs and control of Congress converging, the election has consequences extending beyond individual candidates. Its outcome will influence legislative priorities, oversight of the administration and the balance of political power as the country approaches the 2028 presidential election.
For now, both parties are projecting confidence. Neither the campaign rhetoric nor the early-voting totals settle the question. The decisive evidence will come from the voters who turn out—and from the choices they make when the polls close. (IPA Service)
