Geostrategic Media Political Commentary, Analysis, Security, Defense
Dr. Sanaa Al-Husseini
Foreign policy is not usually the main factor determining how Americans vote in midterm elections. But the 2026 cycle looks different, with the fallout of foreign crises now intersecting with domestic concerns. The issues raised by candidates in both parties, the results of the primaries, and public opinion polling all suggest that Iran and the Palestinian question have become additional factors cutting across domestic competition — the first through its economic cost and the majority of voters’ rejection of military action, and the second through a tangible shift in public attitudes toward Israel and the Palestinians. These developments could shape the outcome of November’s midterms, at a time when assessments of the administration’s foreign policy are declining and Democrats are gaining ground in congressional polling.
The consequences of the Iran war are no longer confined to foreign policy. They have spilled over into the economy and the cost of living — the issues most present in the calculations of the American voter. The fallout of the US-Israeli war on Iran has driven up energy prices, inflation, and interest rates in the United States, and consumer confidence has fallen to its lowest levels. Sixty percent of voters opposed US military action against Iran, according to a Quinnipiac poll last July. Only 29 percent approved of Trump’s handling of the Iran file, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll last June.
Meanwhile, attitudes toward Israel and Gaza have registered a marked shift in American opinion and polling, leaving its fingerprints on the positions of candidates and voters in the midterms. Forty-one percent of Americans now sympathize more with the Palestinians, against 36 percent with the Israelis, according to a Gallup poll conducted last February — a reversal from 2024, when sentiment tilted clearly toward Israel. Forty-eight percent of voters believe the United States provides too much support to Israel, according to a Quinnipiac University poll conducted between June 18 and 22.
These developments can be tracked through an analysis of the 2026 congressional primaries — the issues candidates focused on and the results — in an attempt to anticipate the outcome of the coming midterms. The 2026 congressional primaries saw 2,497 people run for Congress’s 470 seats, including all 435 House seats and 35 Senate seats, of which 33 are Class II and two are special elections in Ohio and Florida. A total of 2,232 candidates competed for House seats and 265 for Senate seats — the largest number of House candidates and the third-highest for the Senate since 2014. The cycle featured 547 competitive primaries: 272 Democratic, 209 Republican, and 66 under the “top-two” system, in which there are no separate party primaries; all candidates enter a single ballot and the top two finishers advance to the general election regardless of party affiliation.
Analysis of the 2026 results focuses on the most competitive House and Senate districts — those most likely to flip between parties — which may reveal indicators of shifting power balances within both parties. In the 2024 Republican House primaries, MAGA candidates made up about 46 percent of the field, against 35 percent for traditional conservatives and 9 percent for moderate Republicans. In the 2026 competitive races, in the most contested districts, traditional conservatives and moderates prevailed, and MAGA candidates won only about 26.7 percent in competitive races. Yet more than 92 percent of candidates endorsed by President Donald Trump won in those districts. These results reflect the continued strength of Trump’s endorsement despite the limited success of MAGA candidates. With these primary results, the Republican Party enters November’s midterms in swing states with a composition reflecting the rise of traditional or moderate candidates — different from the primary results two years ago, which reflected the rise of the MAGA current.
In the 2024 Democratic primaries, the mainstream current won, forming the majority at 67 percent, ahead of 30 percent for progressives, while Democratic socialists remained marginal. In the 2026 competitive races, in the most contested districts, not only did the mainstream current maintain its dominance, but the win rate of progressives also declined — they captured only 17.8 percent in these elections, and democratic socialist candidates remained marginal. These results reflected a pattern of Democratic winners whose rhetoric focused on economic issues, the working class, and the cost of living — not necessarily an ideological shift to the left. The results of both parties in 2026 converge in the most competitive districts and states: the mainstream and less ideological wings within both parties prevailed, on the basis of electability in the general election and the ability to attract voters beyond each party’s hard ideological base.
The issues raised by winning primary candidates in both parties are an important hinge for determining each party’s voters’ priorities and an important guide for anticipating voter priorities in the coming midterms. Republicans were more supportive of Israel than Democrats, while their support for military and economic aid to Ukraine was lower.
In Republican candidates’ rhetoric, issues such as immigration, security, and the border figured more prominently. Only 23.5 percent of Republican candidates in swing or battleground states defended the administration’s performance on the economy and cost of living, and none acknowledged shortcomings in the administration’s handling of this file. On health care, about half of Republicans ignored it, while most of those who addressed it focused on spending restraint. Success in competitive races in swing states was tied to a combination of Trump’s endorsement, electability, and avoiding certain ideological positions that could narrow the base of acceptance.
In Democratic candidates’ rhetoric, themes such as the economy and the cost of living appeared, with the economy forming the top priority — particularly affordability. About 56 percent of Democratic candidates addressed inflation, and most used it to attack the Trump administration’s performance. Ninety-four percent of Democratic candidates addressed health care in their campaigns. In competitive districts, Democratic candidates did not embrace “open borders” and none called for defunding the police, while many avoided the more divisive positions, such as transgender issues. On immigration, the few who took more conservative positions performed well. Progressive candidates backed by Zohran Mamdani, in safe competitive districts, scored wins over other candidates with a more leftist rhetoric addressing economic inequality, immigration, the Palestinian question, and higher taxes on the wealthy. This revealed how the issues capable of deciding party primaries differ according to the electoral nature of the district.
Trump’s endorsement emerged as a strong factor in Republican candidates’ results, while the economy, cost of living, and health care figured prominently in Democratic candidates’ rhetoric. In both parties, candidates in competitive races tried to combine the issues that mobilize the party base with the ability to attract the swing voter.
Pew’s 2026 polls show that illegal immigration, security, and crime clearly distinguish Republican priorities from Democratic ones. In a Reuters/Ipsos poll this month, 79 percent of Republicans approved of Trump’s handling of immigration — revealing a gap between the Republican base’s orientations and the general public; only 36 percent of Americans overall approved of Trump’s immigration policy, against 55 percent who opposed it. Democratic priorities are more concentrated on the cost of living, health care, gun violence, and climate, according to Pew, while only 17 percent of them considered illegal immigration a very big problem. The economy, cost of living, and health care constitute broad concerns for the entire American public, not just the Democratic public. On health care policy, there was a clear Democratic advantage reaching 42 percent against 28 percent for Republicans, as well as on climate, abortion, and education, which overlap with general public support. Meanwhile, American public opinion tilted clearly toward the Republican position on crime, and by a smaller margin on immigration.
This may explain the general electoral mood’s tilt in recent months toward the Democratic Party in the coming midterms. A Reuters/Ipsos poll in mid-month gave Democrats 44 percent against 37 percent for Republicans. In the same poll, Trump’s popularity fell to 32 percent. In 37 swing House districts, a Cook Political Report poll conducted between September 8 and 11 indicated Democrats leading 49 percent to 47 percent in the generic ballot. Trump had won these districts collectively in 2024.
The fiercest Senate contests in the coming elections center on seven seats: Alaska, Iowa, Maine, Michigan, New Hampshire, Ohio, and Texas — Republicans currently hold five of them. The current Senate stands at 53 Republicans to 45 Democrats, alongside two independents who caucus with the Democrats. That puts Republicans in the position of defending the larger number of highly competitive seats, at a time when late-September polls show Democratic gains in a number of swing races. The battle for Senate control has thus become more competitive, though current polling is insufficient to determine which party will end up with the chamber.
Domestic issues still carry more electoral weight; 70 percent of voters considered the cost of living important to their vote in House elections, against 59 percent for health care, 57 percent for immigration, and 41 percent for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, according to a national Quinnipiac University poll released on June 24, 2026. Polls therefore do not indicate that foreign policy has replaced the economy as the main determinant of the elections — but they do reveal that Iran and the Palestinian question have become factors that cannot be ignored or isolated in these elections.
Dr. Sanaa Al-Husseini is a Palestinian writer.
