Midterms 2026, the recap: will the Republican war chest be enough to reverse the trend?

• Money, the last weapon of the Republicans?

Imagine. You’re a voter in Ohio, Maine, or Michigan, and you turn on the TV or scroll through social media after putting your kids to bed. Until November 3, the date of the midterm elections in the United States, expect to be bombarded every day with advertising spots for your local candidates. More to the point, don’t be surprised if Republican campaigns flood the airwaves. The explanation can be summed up in one word: money.

The Republicans hold an undeniable advantage over their Democratic rivals this election season: their coffers are better filled. This financial advantage is perhaps their last hope – along with that of a drop in gasoline prices – to see the current trend reversed. Indeed, the Democrats have dominated the polls for several weeks, first in the House of Representatives where they are the winner, and more recently in the Senate where they could narrowly capture the majority.

However, there are a little more than five weeks of campaigning left and the Republicans are counting on their millions to catch up. Since the start of August and through Election Day, they have spent or reserved $820 million on ads to support their Senate candidates, compared to $556 million for Democrats, according to data from the AdImpact organization analyzed by Politico. For House candidates, ad reservations totaled 454 million for Republicans compared to 381 million for Democrats.

Also readBo French, or when Maga excesses risk handing over the keys to Texas oil to the Democrats

In the most contested states, the gap is even more dramatic, according to Politico’s calculations. In Texas, $106 million in advertising has already been spent or reserved since August for Republican Ken Paxton, Senate candidate, compared to $40 million for Democrat James Talarico. In Ohio, the most expensive race of these Midterms, the figures are $190 million for Republican Jon Husted versus $120 million for Democrat Sherrod Brown. “If we have a bad result in the Midterms, we cannot blame money,” summarized Louisiana Senator John Kennedy.

As a result, the Democrats are increasing their appeals to donors. “We want to win the majority, but it costs money,” argued Lauren French, spokesperson for the Senate Majority PAC, a political action committee aimed at electing Democrats to the Senate. Brian Derrick, head of the fundraising platform Oath, warns: “In an election cycle where Republicans have a record amount of money to spend, we know we are going to lose some races that could have been won if they had enough funding.”

Much of this money comes from outside groups, the famous Super PACs which can raise unlimited funds. With its 416 million dollars in cash at the beginning of September, Donald Trump’s company, Maga Inc, began to distribute considerable sums in view of certain close elections. Republicans hope the president will open the floodgates even further in the days to come.

Also readMidterm elections in the United States: when Russian disinformation gets involved

Therefore, the Democrats have a problem of priorities: which horses to bet their money on? To win the Senate, they need four more seats. Among the nine most contested states, Georgia, Michigan and New Hampshire are already theirs. They must therefore be preserved. The other six – Maine, North Carolina, Alaska, Iowa, Ohio and Texas – are up for grabs. To win on November 3, is it better to maintain pressure on coastal states, like Georgia or North Carolina, where they already have a reassuring lead? Or venture into red territory – Texas, Iowa or even Kansas – where certain signals suggest that there might be a card to play?

Texas is a particularly interesting case. Despite much less financial support from his party and outside groups, James Talarico (France 24 told you about it here two weeks ago) is narrowly ahead of Republican Ken Paxton in the polls. His own campaign managed to raise far more money than his rival, particularly from small individual donors. This is a strength of Democratic candidates, all races combined, linked to the enthusiasm of their voters. According to Federal Election Commission data, Republican Senate candidates raised some $133 million compared to $329 million – more than double – for Democratic candidates.

However, according to the law, advertising spots cost candidates less than Super PACs. So, depending on who spends it, the same dollar does not buy the same amount of advertising. In other words, with less money, you can do almost as well. For some analysts, this is proof that the quality of the candidates and their message can sometimes prevail over the size of their party’s war chest.

Especially when the president’s popularity drops below 40% positive opinions, a gallon of gasoline costs $4.48 ($1.18 per liter), and real estate interest rates exceed 7%. A Republican elected official summed up the situation to Politico: “We have money like never before, but they have all the strategic advantages, and the president is making it complicated – no one in my district cares about the Kennedy Center, the triumphal arches or the Reflecting Pool, all that bullshit.” Will the influx of Republican cash break the Democratic dam? Party strategists are eagerly awaiting their internal polls in October to get a first idea.

• Focus on a hotly contested state: in Maine, is Republican Senator Susan Collins undisplaceable?

This week, a New York Times-Siena poll cooled Democrats who already saw themselves in the majority in the Senate. Republican Senator Susan Collins is declared victorious with a three-point lead in Maine, contrary to other polls which place her neck-and-neck or even losing against her Democratic rival Troy Jackson. She was considered until now to be the most vulnerable candidate among the states that the left must recover to win. If Maine, rather moderate, remains to the right on November 3, the path to the majority will be more difficult because it will pass through states which largely voted for Donald Trump in 2024.

Is this an isolated survey or the start of a trend reversal? In any case, Susan Collins, in office since 1996, has given the left a hard time in each election. Its strong points? First, he is a known face, unlike Troy Jackson who entered the battle late, replacing a candidate who threw in the towel due to rape accusations. Susan Collins also benefits, as in other states, from more generous advertising spending.

But above all, his moderate profile appeals to independent voters who trust him to defend their state in Washington. Far from being a MAGA elected official, she does not hesitate to distance herself from Donald Trump, particularly on his customs tariffs applied to Canada which penalize the border state of Maine. Given the current popularity of the American president, this is a welcome stance.

Aware that the cost of living is voters’ number one concern, she hits where it hurts, accusing her rival, a former local elected official, of having increased the tax burden on residents. “I don’t know if there’s a tax that Troy doesn’t like,” she quipped in early September.

One of its weak points? She voted to nominate conservative Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court in 2018. She was re-elected in 2020, less than two years before the justices overturned Roe v. Wade, who protected the right to abortion at the federal level. Will voters forgive him?

• In the news: pressure on polling stations

The Trump administration has warned that we should expect, between now and November 3, a wave of new arrests and indictments of non-American citizens who try to vote in the Midterms. However, according to the Heritage Foundation, a pro-Trump organization which campaigns against “electoral fraud”, 1,620 cases of fraud between 1982 and 2025, including 100 cases of voting by people without citizenship, have been recorded.

For their part, Democrats took legal action in federal court to prevent the government from positioning armed agents in polling stations. “Deploying armed federal agents to polling stations, or even threatening to do so, is prohibited by federal law,” the plaintiffs insist. “For many legal American voters, the sight of armed and masked federal agents in the parking lot of a polling station is enough to make them go home or think twice before putting their ballot in the box,” they add.

Also readMidterms 2026: how Donald Trump prepares to challenge the results

Finally, for the first time since 2002, there will be no OSCE (Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe) observers in the polling stations. The president of the institution’s Parliamentary Assembly said he “deeply regrets” this decision “which marks a significant departure from a well-established democratic practice.”

• Ad of the week: when American taxpayers finance the Trump campaign

Donald Trump had promised to enter the battle of the Midterms which he wants to transform into a referendum on his person. On Wednesday, his administration released a 30-second ad showing photos and videos of the American president: “Together, we will defeat communism, socialism and Marxism in the United States,” he promised in voiceover, the song “Love Me” by JMSN playing in the background. The artist claims not to have given his authorization.

What’s special about this spot? At the very end, at the bottom of the screen, it says: “Paid for by the US Government”. Politicians from both parties criticized the ad, with some pointing out that U.S. law prohibits the use of public funds for “propaganda” and limits partisan activities by government agencies.

Democratic Senator Maggie Hassan rushed to write a letter to the White House: “The ad raises deep questions about the Trump administration’s use of taxpayer dollars and its legality.”

The White House assumes and defends a “public service announcement”, “educational and proudly patriotic”. “We should be proud of our country.”