This paper wraps up the 2026 midterm coverage, which enables a return to more writing on personal finance and economic policy. Can I get some sleep on election night, or will House control keep me up all night? My final midterm guide identifies early clues and races that could decide the majority. It also asks what comes next. If Democrats win, will progressives or centrists have greater influence? Results across swing districts and rural America will help answer that question.
The final countdown to the midterms is here. The paramount questions are what party will control the House and what party will control the Senate. But other questions will resolve the direction of the country over the next few years.
I have created five questions to guide us through the night. Here is what I will be watching on election night.
Question One: What will early east coast House results tell us about the size of Democratic gains and the likelihood of a narrow fight for control?
Question Two: If there is no large blue wave, which battleground races are most likely to decide control of the House?
Question Three: Are democratic socialist and highly progressive candidates viable in competitive House districts?
Question Four: Can Democrats compete successfully in rural districts and rural portions of mixed districts?
Question Five: To what extent does partisan loyalty protect Senate candidates whose character, judgment, or positions should give voters pause?
The results will shape what follows: if Democrats win a House majority, can Hakeem Jeffries become speaker and reconcile progressive and centrist demands? How those factions perform in competitive districts will influence their leverage in the next Congress.
Beyond that immediate struggle lies the need to rebuild the political center through pragmatic economic reforms, a workable foreign policy, and an electoral alternative for voters dissatisfied with both MAGA and democratic socialism, especially in districts dominated by one party.
Election Questions and Answers
Question One: What will early east coast House results tell us about the size of Democratic gains and the likelihood of a narrow fight for control? In other words, do I have to stay up all night to get a sense of which party is going to control the House of Representatives next term?
I answer this question with a three-pronged test.
Are Democrats winning the seats they are expected to win?
The stay or sleep decision is based on three questions involving east-coast races – (1) are Democrats winning the relatively easy pick-up opportunities, (2) are Democrats winning contested races against established incumbents, and (3) are Democrats winning the toss-up seats? The answer to each question is based on four races.
The relatively easy pick-up indicator will be determined by the outcome of four races which appear to be leaning toward the Democrats.
VA-02 — Elaine Luria (D) versus Jen Kiggans (R)
PA-08 — Paige Cognetti (D) versus Rob Bresnahan (R)
NJ-07 — Rebecca Bennett (D) versus Tom Kean Jr. (R)
NC-11 — Jamie Ager (D) versus Jennifer Balkcom (R)
I expect Democrats to win three of these four seats. Fewer than two victories is a sign that the wave is not materializing.
Are Democrats overcoming established Republican incumbents?
Four races with potentially vulnerable established Republicans on the east coast are:
NY-17 — Cait Conley (D) versus Mike Lawler (R)
PA-01 — Bob Harvie (D) versus Brian Fitzpatrick (R)
VA-01 — Shannon Taylor (D) versus Rob Wittman (R)
NJ-02 — Zack Mullock (D) versus Jeff Van Drew (R)
More than one Republican loss would strengthen the case that a blue wave is developing.
Are Democrats winning closely contested seats and preventing Republican pickups?
This category includes two Republican-held seats and two Democratic-held seats.
PA-07 — Bob Brooks (D) versus incumbent Ryan Mackenzie (R)
PA-10 — Janelle Stelson (D) versus incumbent Scott Perry (R)
ME-02 — Matt Dunlap (D) versus Paul LePage (R)
FL-14 — Incumbent Kathy Castor (D) versus Mike Beltran (R)
A two-two split would leave the parties’ combined holdings in these four seats unchanged and suggest that the broader national contest could remain close.
Taken together, the three tests should help distinguish a broad Democratic advance from a narrow contest in which gains and losses offset one another. They may also help you decide whether to keep watching television or get some sleep.
Question Two: If there is no large blue wave, which battleground races are most likely to decide control of the House?
These 15 races provide a watchlist for a narrow fight for the majority. They include Democratic pickup opportunities and Democratic defenses where Republican gains could offset losses elsewhere. They include several of the previously discussed east-coast races.
PA-07: Bob Brooks (D) versus incumbent Ryan Mackenzie (R).
PA-10: Janelle Stelson (D) versus incumbent Scott Perry (R).
ME-02: Matt Dunlap (D) versus Paul LePage (R), an open Democratic-held seat.
FL-14: Incumbent Kathy Castor (D) versus Mike Beltran (R).
FL-22: Pia Dandiya (D) versus Casey Askar (R), an open seat substantially reshaped by redistricting.
FL-25: Jared Moskowitz (D) versus Scott Singer (R).
NC-01: Incumbent Don Davis (D) versus Laurie Buckhout (R).
MI-07: William Lawrence (D) versus incumbent Tom Barrett (R).
WI-03: Rebecca Cooke (D) versus incumbent Derrick Van Orden (R).
IA-02: Lindsay James (D) versus Joe Mitchell (R), an open Republican-held seat.
IA-03: Sarah Trone Garriott (D) versus incumbent Zach Nunn (R).
TX-15: Bobby Pulido (D) versus incumbent Monica De La Cruz (R).
CO-08: Manny Rutinel (D) versus incumbent Gabe Evans (R).
AZ-01: Amish Shah (D) versus Jay Feely (R), an open Republican-held seat.
CA-22: Randy Villegas (D) versus incumbent David Valadao (R).
My published assessment of 35 marquee races projected a narrow Democratic victory in the race for control of the House, a much closer contest than anticipated by most forecasters. I did not rule out the possibility the Republicans would retain control; however, more House races seem to be breaking towards the Democrats.
Question Three: Are democratic socialist and highly progressive candidates viable in competitive House districts?
My concern is that Democrats have nominated candidates whose politics fit their primary electorates better than the districts they seek to represent. A favorable national environment may overcome that disadvantage, but I expect candidate selection to cost Democrats opportunities.
My test of the impact of progressive House candidates in swing districts involves these five races where each candidate appears left of the median voter in their district.
CO-08 — Manny Rutinel versus Gabe Evans
MI-07 — William Lawrence versus Tom Barrett
MN-02 — Matt Little versus Eric Pratt
PA-07 — Bob Brooks versus Ryan Mackenzie
MT-01 — Sam Forstag versus Aaron Flint
Question Four: Can Democrats compete successfully in rural districts and rural portions of mixed districts?
Democrats do not have to win every rural county to become competitive. They need enough rural support to keep losses manageable while assembling winning coalitions elsewhere. The question is whether they are rebuilding that support or merely relying on suburban and urban gains.
These are some of the rural districts that I am focused on:
WI-03 — Rebecca Cooke versus Derrick Van Orden
WA-03 — Marie Gluesenkamp Perez versus John Braun
ME-02 — Matt Dunlap versus Paul LePage
CO-03 — Dwayne Romero versus Jeff Hurd
IA-01 — Christina Bohannan versus Mariannette Miller-Meeks
IA-02 — Lindsay James versus Joe Mitchell
IA-03 — Sarah Trone Garriott versus Zach Nunn
NC-01 — Don Davis versus Laurie Buckhout
Question Five: To what extent does partisan loyalty protect Senate candidates whose character, judgment, or positions should give voters pause?
Senate elections offer a different test because statewide electorates are broader and several of the candidates, I find most troubling are running in competitive races. The question is whether voters will cross party lines when they believe their own nominee falls below an acceptable standard.
In God, Country, Family—and Party Last, I identified six Senate choices where I believe conscience should outweigh partisan loyalty:
Texas: James Talarico over Ken Paxton.
Michigan: Mike Rogers over Abdul El-Sayed.
Kansas: Adam Hamilton over Roger Marshall.
Maine: Susan Collins over Troy Jackson.
Minnesota: Michele Tafoya over Peggy Flanagan.
Georgia: Jon Ossoff over Mike Collins.
These choices reflect my political and moral perspective. For my reasons for putting conscience above partisan loyalty in these races, see God, Country, Family—and Party Last. I am also reasonably optimistic that candidate quality will be the defining factor in several of these states.
My initial predictions for 14 Senate races can be found here. Texas and Kansas now appear to be breaking towards the Democrats. I now expect Democrats to lose in Maine and Michigan, a result which is not currently supported by the polls. I am especially impressed with Adam Hamilton in Kansas. Minnesota, Iowa, and Alaska are going to be very close.
Concluding Thoughts:
As in clinical trials and investment analysis, benchmarks need to be established prior to the experiment. Recording expectations now should make it harder—for me or anyone else—to claim afterward that every outcome proved us right.
This election tests the Democratic Party in two different ways. First, can its progressives and Democratic Socialists win in swing districts, places where they might have a chance in a blue wave but places where most voters gravitate towards the center? Second, can Democrats make a comeback in rural America, the region where Republicans now dominate? In many of the rural districts, the Democrats have nominated a solid centrist, but the good nominee may not be enough in a district where most voters are conservative and Republican. The relative success of Democratic Socialists and Centrist Democratic candidates on November 3 will determine the direction of the new Congress if Democrats take control.