the election where the president is not on the ballot, but the president’s ability to govern can still change overnight.
on november 3, americans will elect all 435 members of the house and roughly one third of the senate. control of either chamber can completely change what gets passed, blocked, investigated, or confirmed for the next two years.
that is why americans call them the midterms.
halfway through a presidency, the country basically gets another chance to rearrange the power structure in washington.
top: all
|
today
search in topic
-
-
the easiest way to read a midterm is as a national progress report on the government already in power.
the president is not on the ballot, but presidential approval, the economy, cost of living, wars, immigration, and general frustration with washington usually show up in congressional races anyway.
this is also where the word “wave” matters.
a wave is not simply one party winning congress. it is when the same national mood moves dozens of unrelated races in the same direction, including districts that normally would not be competitive.
as of september, there are signs of a difficult national environment for republicans, but calling it a wave already would be premature. a september reuters ipsos poll had democrats ahead 44 to 37 on the generic congressional ballot, while trump’s approval stood at 35 percent. cook’s polling of competitive house districts had democrats ahead 49 to 47, and its current ratings still show 21 house races and seven senate races as toss ups.
the other huge variable this year is the map itself. midcycle redistricting has moved nearly 35 million americans into newly drawn house districts, meaning some of the battlefield changed before anyone even voted.
so on election night, do not just look at who wins congress.
look at margins.
look at turnout.
look at normally safe districts becoming close.
look at which issues actually moved independents.
that is how you tell whether voters simply changed a few seats or whether the country sent washington a much bigger message. -
one thing worth checking for every congressional candidate this year is where they actually stand on israel and gaza, and who is spending money to help elect them.
that includes aipac.
but there is an important distinction. aipac pac can contribute directly to candidates, while united democracy project, the super pac associated with aipac, can spend independently supporting or opposing candidates. federal law requires that independent spending to be disclosed, and it cannot legally be coordinated with the candidate.
why do people care so much?
because congress votes on billions of dollars in military assistance, weapons sales, foreign policy, and oversight involving israel. at the same time, american opinion on the conflict has changed significantly. in 2026, only 16 percent of democrats had a favorable view of the israeli government, while younger americans were increasingly sympathetic toward palestinians. more than half of americans still said the israel and gaza conflict was personally important to them.
so when looking at a candidate, i think there are two separate questions worth asking.
what do they actually believe about israel and gaza?
and who is spending money to make sure they get elected?
you do not have to assume the money bought their position.
but voters should at least know the relationship exists before deciding what to make of it. -
this is a state by state look at the republican and democratic candidates in every state holding a u.s. senate election in 2026, including the special elections in florida and ohio.
positions are based on candidates' own statements, congressional records, campaign platforms, interviews and reliable reporting available as of september 21, 2026. when a candidate has not publicly taken a clear position, it says that rather than assuming one based on party affiliation.
three states currently do not have a democratic senate nominee on the november ballot: idaho, nebraska and south dakota. in those cases, that is noted instead of incorrectly labeling an independent candidate as a democrat.
alabama
republican: barry moore
stance: supports a close u.s. israel alliance and has publicly described himself as pro israel. his clearest published statement says the united states should support israel against threats from hamas, hezbollah, iran and other armed groups. i could not find a detailed current 2026 position from him on a gaza ceasefire or humanitarian aid.
quote: “my short answer is, i’m pro israel.”
democrat: everett wess
stance: no specific public position on israel or gaza was located. a 2026 candidate guide noted that his campaign website did not provide a foreign policy platform.
alaska
republican: dan sullivan
stance: supports israel's security and its campaign to defeat hamas. he has also said humanitarian assistance should reach civilians in gaza. more recently, he backed a senate resolution supporting israel's continued survival, release of the hostages and preventing hamas from rebuilding its military capacity.
democrat: mary peltola
stance: while serving in the house, peltola supported u.s. funding for israeli defensive systems while also supporting humanitarian assistance for civilians in gaza. i did not find a newer 2026 campaign statement substantially changing that position.
arkansas
republican: tom cotton
stance: supports israel's military campaign against hamas and argues that hamas bears primary responsibility for civilian suffering in gaza. he has also pushed to eliminate u.s. funding for unrwa and supports preventing hamas from governing or rebuilding militarily in gaza.
quote: “hamas is to blame for suffering in gaza.”
democrat: hallie shoffner
stance: no specific public position on israel or gaza was located. the american jewish congress candidate guide lists no position on record for her.
colorado
republican: mark baisley
stance: no specific public israel or gaza policy was located in the campaign material and candidate records reviewed.
democrat: john hickenlooper
stance: supports israel's security but has also supported restricting some offensive weapons transfers. he has called for an end to the fighting in gaza, humanitarian assistance, release of the hostages, disarming hamas and ultimately a two state solution.
quote: “netanyahu has gone too far.”
delaware
republican: michael katz
stance: no detailed public israel or gaza position was located in the candidate interviews and campaign material reviewed.
democrat: chris coons
stance: supports israel's security and continued u.s. assistance, but has also supported a ceasefire, humanitarian assistance for gaza and a two state solution. he has criticized actions by the netanyahu government, including restrictions on humanitarian aid.
florida
republican: ashley moody
stance: supports israel's long term security, release of the hostages and preventing hamas from rebuilding. she has also backed legislation intended to defend israel from what supporters describe as discriminatory treatment within international organizations.
democrat: angie nixon
stance: describes israel's actions against palestinians as genocide and opposes continued u.s. support for those actions. she has also explicitly rejected support from aipac.
quote: “the genocide happening in palestine.”
georgia
republican: mike collins
stance: supports israel and continued u.s. security assistance. he has defended israel's decision to go to war against hamas following october 7 and opposed efforts to block israel security funding.
democrat: jon ossoff
stance: supports israel's security and defensive capabilities but has supported blocking some weapons transfers over israel's conduct in gaza. he calls for a ceasefire, release of the hostages, large scale humanitarian assistance and a postwar gaza not governed by hamas.
idaho
republican: jim risch
stance: supports continued u.s. security assistance to israel and has opposed efforts to block arms transfers that he argues are necessary for israel's defense. he has also backed legislation responding to actions against israel at international organizations.
quote: “america will always stand with israel.”
democrat: no democratic nominee
david roth won the democratic nomination but ended his campaign in july and formally withdrew from the november ballot on august 28. the ballot therefore does not currently contain a democratic senate nominee. independent todd achilles is among the remaining candidates.
illinois
republican: don tracy
stance: supports israel and its defense and describes israel as the united states' most important ally in the middle east. he says hamas initiated the current conflict.
quote: “i do believe in supporting israel and its defense.”
democrat: juliana stratton
stance: supports a two state solution. her campaign told the american prospect that she had not accepted money from the aipac pac. the reporting reviewed did not identify a comparably detailed public 2026 position from her on weapons transfers or the gaza war.
iowa
republican: ashley hinson
stance: supports israel and continued u.s. assistance for its defense. she has argued that hamas bears responsibility for the suffering caused by the war in gaza.
quote: “i stand with israel.”
democrat: josh turek
stance: says israel remains a u.s. ally but argues there should be limits on american assistance. he has said u.s. support should not contribute to civilian casualties or the obstruction of humanitarian aid in gaza.
quote: “the response at this point has been disproportionate.”
kansas
republican: roger marshall
stance: supports military assistance to israel, release of the hostages and preventing hamas from rebuilding. he has also criticized foreign aid packages that simultaneously provided money for humanitarian assistance in gaza.
democrat: adam hamilton
stance: says israel should be defended if it is attacked, but opposes american tax dollars paying for weapons that kill civilians in gaza. he has also questioned whether israel still needs the current level of u.s. assistance.
quote: “i would not want my tax money going to weapons” used against civilians in gaza.
kentucky
republican: andy barr
stance: supports a close u.s. israel defense relationship and continued cooperation against iran, hamas and other iran aligned groups.
democrat: charles booker
stance: describes israel's campaign in gaza as genocide. he supports palestinian freedom, release of the hostages and an end to the violence, and says he will not accept aipac funding.
quote: “not take a cent of aipac money.”
louisiana
republican: julia letlow
stance: supports a strong u.s. israel relationship and has described israel as one of america's most important allies. no detailed current position on a gaza ceasefire or conditions on military assistance was located.
democrat: jamie davis
stance: no specific public israel or gaza position was located in the current candidate material reviewed.
maine
republican: susan collins
stance: supports israel's security and u.s. military assistance while also supporting humanitarian assistance for gaza, release of the hostages and a political outcome in which israelis and palestinians can live in peace and security.
democrat: troy jackson
stance: describes israel's military campaign in gaza as genocide and supports ending u.s. military assistance that enables it. he also calls for release of all hostages, a permanent ceasefire and unrestricted humanitarian access.
quote: “end the genocide in gaza. no u.s. tax dollars to israel's military.”
massachusetts
republican: john deaton
stance: says he would not automatically support additional aid to israel or other foreign countries and would require foreign assistance to be shown to serve u.s. interests. he has also said criticism of the netanyahu government should not automatically be treated as antisemitism.
democrat: ed markey
stance: supports israel's right to exist, self defense and defensive systems such as iron dome, but has supported blocking some offensive weapons. he calls for ending the war in gaza, humanitarian assistance and release of the hostages.
michigan
republican: mike rogers
stance: supports israel and the u.s. israel security relationship. current reporting describes him as supportive of continued assistance to israel. aipac planned outside spending supporting rogers in the general election, although a planned advertisement was later shelved after his allies asked the group not to run it.
democrat: abdul el sayed
stance: describes israel's campaign in gaza as genocide and supports ending u.s. military assistance to israel, including offensive and defensive military aid.
minnesota
republican: michele tafoya
stance: has publicly expressed support for israel. however, no comparably detailed public position was located on restricting weapons, humanitarian assistance or the future governance of gaza.
democrat: peggy flanagan
stance: describes israel's actions in gaza as genocide, supports a two state solution and has called for ending unconditional u.s. military assistance to israel. she also says she will not accept aipac money.
mississippi
republican: cindy hyde smith
stance: supports military and security assistance to israel, release of the hostages and preventing hamas from rebuilding its military capabilities. she has previously backed legislation aimed at ensuring delayed weapons are delivered to israel.
democrat: scott colom
stance: no specific public israel or gaza position was located in the campaign materials and candidate profiles reviewed.
montana
republican: kurt alme
stance: no specific public israel or gaza position was located in his detailed candidate questionnaire or campaign materials.
democrat: alani bankhead
stance: says the united states should stop “underwriting the suffering in gaza.” her campaign platform cites the u.n. commission's genocide finding and argues against continued american involvement in the conflict.
quote: “stop underwriting the suffering in gaza.”
nebraska
republican: pete ricketts
stance: supports israel's security, release of the hostages and preventing hamas from rebuilding its military capacity. he welcomed the israel hamas ceasefire and hostage agreement while arguing that gaza must not again become a base for attacks on israel.
democrat: no democratic nominee
democratic nominee cindy burbank formally withdrew from the race in july. nebraska's secretary of state confirmed that her name will not appear on the november ballot as the democratic nominee.
major independent candidate: dan osborn
stance: says u.s. assistance to israel should be cut off until israel ends what he describes as aggression against gaza and neighboring countries.
new hampshire
republican: john e. sununu
stance: has not laid out a detailed current position on restricting u.s. assistance to israel or the war in gaza. when previously asked about limiting aid, he declined to give a simple answer and described the situation as complex. he has separately supported regional security efforts involving israel and lebanon.
democrat: chris pappas
stance: supports security assistance for israel, humanitarian assistance for gaza, release of the hostages and a ceasefire. his platform says hamas should be disarmed and should not govern gaza, while also supporting a two state solution.
new jersey
republican: justin murphy
stance: no specific public israel or gaza policy was located in the campaign materials and current candidate coverage reviewed.
democrat: cory booker
stance: supports israel's security and a two state solution while also calling for an end to the gaza war, release of the hostages and a major increase in humanitarian assistance. he says hamas should no longer govern gaza and palestinians should have self determination.
new mexico
republican: larry marker
stance: no specific public israel or gaza policy was located in the current campaign interview and materials reviewed.
democrat: ben ray lujan
stance: supports israel's security and defeating hamas while also calling for civilian protection, humanitarian assistance for gaza, release of the hostages and a two state solution.
north carolina
republican: michael whatley
stance: supports israel and continued u.s. military assistance. he describes israel as the united states' leading ally in the middle east.
quote: “israel has been and will be our no. 1 ally in the middle east.”
democrat: roy cooper
stance: has condemned the october 7 hamas attack and supports israel's security, while also saying the united states should press israel to reduce civilian casualties and pursue a two state outcome. i did not find a substantially more detailed 2026 campaign position on weapons transfers.
quote: “continue pressing israel to limit the loss of civilian life.”
ohio
republican: jon husted
stance: supports israel's security, release of the hostages and preventing hamas from rebuilding. he cosponsored a 2026 senate resolution setting out those positions.
democrat: sherrod brown
stance: his established senate position supports israel's right to defend itself and u.s. security assistance while also supporting a ceasefire, humanitarian assistance for gaza and release of the hostages.
oklahoma
republican: kevin hern
stance: supports israel's military campaign against hamas and has opposed u.s. efforts to withhold weapons from israel. he has said israel has his support in its effort to destroy hamas.
quote: “my full support as they continue the mission to destroy hamas.”
democrat: n'kiyla jasmine thomas
stance: describes the netanyahu government's actions in gaza as genocide, opposes continued u.s. funding for the war and supports a two state solution. she also says she does not accept aipac or corporate pac money.
quote: “we have to stop providing funding for these wars.”
oregon
republican: david brock smith
stance: no specific public israel or gaza position was located. coverage of his 2026 campaign launch noted that he did not provide specific policy positions, and the american jewish congress candidate guide lists no position on record.
democrat: jeff merkley
stance: supports israel's security but has sharply criticized the netanyahu government's conduct in gaza. he supports a ceasefire, humanitarian assistance, a two state solution and restrictions on some offensive weapons when he believes u.s. arms are contributing to civilian harm.
rhode island
republican: raymond mckay
stance: no specific public israel or gaza position was located. the american jewish congress candidate guide currently lists no position on record.
democrat: jack reed
stance: supports israel's security but has called for a major change in the netanyahu government's approach to gaza, substantially greater humanitarian assistance and a political path toward two states.
south carolina
republican: darline graham
stance: supports a close u.s. israel security partnership and describes israel as a major american ally. her public position emphasizes confronting iran and organizations that threaten israel.
quote: “i stand with israel.”
democrat: annie andrews
stance: supports israel's right to defend itself and a two state solution, while saying the netanyahu government's recent actions have gone too far.
south dakota
republican: mike rounds
stance: supports israel's security, release of the hostages and preventing hamas from rebuilding. he has supported continued u.s. assistance to israel and efforts to change or eliminate u.s. support for unrwa.
democrat: no democratic nominee
democratic nominee julian beaudion withdrew on august 4. south dakota's official general election candidate list shows republican mike rounds and independent brian bengs as active senate candidates, with beaudion listed as withdrawn.
tennessee
republican: bill hagerty
stance: supports israel's campaign against hamas. he says the humanitarian crisis in gaza should end but places primary responsibility for it on hamas and has said he trusts israel to determine how to conclude the war.
democrat: marquita bradshaw
stance: no specific current public israel or gaza position was located. the american jewish congress candidate guide lists no position on record.
texas
republican: ken paxton
stance: has a longstanding record of supporting israel and condemning hamas as texas attorney general. during the 2026 senate campaign, however, he has also emphasized an “america first” approach that questions foreign assistance more broadly. current reporting therefore suggests a more conditional approach to foreign aid than a simple promise of continued funding.
democrat: james talarico
stance: supports israel's right to defend itself and continued support for defensive systems such as iron dome, but says he would stop offensive weapons sales to the netanyahu government. he supports a two state solution, disarming hamas and palestinian sovereignty, and says he will not accept aipac support.
quote: “stop offensive weapons sales” while continuing support for defensive systems.
virginia
republican: bert mizusawa
stance: no specific public position could be established from the clearest current comparison available. when vpm directly asked the 2026 senate candidates about israel and u.s. policy, mizusawa did not provide an answer.
democrat: mark warner
stance: supports israel's right to exist and its security but says that does not require supporting every action of the netanyahu government. he has criticized civilian suffering in gaza, supported restrictions connected to settlement activity and continues to support a two state solution.
quote: “we can stand firmly with israel's security while also speaking out” against actions that undermine peace.
west virginia
republican: shelley moore capito
stance: supports israel's security and preventing hamas from rebuilding while also supporting hostage release and ceasefire efforts intended to produce a longer term peace arrangement.
democrat: rachel fetty anderson
stance: supports a two state solution and says both israel and palestine have a right to exist. she says she would support sending or selling weapons only when they are strictly for self defense.
wyoming
republican: harriet hageman
stance: supports israel and has backed congressional resolutions and funding supporting israel's response to hamas. no detailed current 2026 position was located on a ceasefire, gaza humanitarian assistance or conditions on future weapons transfers.
democrat: james byrd
stance: no specific public position on israel or gaza was located in his detailed 2026 candidate questionnaire or campaign material reviewed.
