The midterm projections are ominous for Republicans. The consensus is that high fuel prices—attributed to the Iran War launched by President Donald Trump—is the main culprit behind the financial hardships many families face. When the economy sputters, voters tend to blame those in power.
The Silver Bulletin forecast, among the most aggressive against Republicans, gives Democrats a 95 percent chance of taking the House and a 76 percent chance of winning the Senate. Other polls are more conservative but still show Democrats securing the House, with Republicans having only about a 50 percent chance of retaining the Senate. Polling Forecast indicates Democrats could take one Senate seat, while Decision Desk HQ projects Democrats with a 78 percent chance for the House and a 56 percent chance for the Senate.
President Trump and House Speaker Mike Johnson have denounced the polls as “wrong” and “fake.” Yet it’s well known that polls, historically leaning toward Democrats, have missed the mark before—most notably in Trump’s 2016 election. But other factors suggest Democrats are likely to do well, especially the high cost of fuel and groceries. The mantra, “it’s the economy, stupid,” has rarely been defied in elections.
One race Trump is watching closely is Michigan’s Senate contest between former FBI agent and seven-term House Republican Mike Rogers and political newcomer Abdul El-Sayed. El-Sayed was born to Egyptian immigrants in Michigan and raised by his father and stepmother—a “Michigan-born descendant of Abigail Adams,” according to reports. He earned a medical degree from Columbia University but never completed residency and is not licensed to practice medicine.
El-Sayed’s governing philosophy is heavily leftist with pronounced socialist elements. He advocates universal healthcare, primarily as “medicare for all”; he believes the government should nationalize data centers; and he champions taxing billionaires to fund expansive government programs he claims will improve lives. El-Sayed is backed by radical leftists including Georgia’s Raphael Warnock, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, and former President Barack Obama.
El-Sayed narrowly defeated four-term congresswoman Haley Stevens in Michigan’s August Democratic Senate primary—a race he made about Israel. As a Muslim, El-Sayed opposes America’s close relationship with Israel. He wants the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) to cease influencing Democratic elections and does not believe Israel should exist as a Jewish ethnostate.
The belief that America is too closely tied to Israel has grown increasingly common among Democrats but is also gaining traction in conservative circles. In their October 8 debate, El-Sayed stressed the need for America to focus on domestic issues and stop meddling in other countries’ affairs—including supporting foreign wars. Rogers countered that the U.S. should only oppose Israel if it uses nuclear weapons against Iran, which he deemed unlikely.
Rogers and Trump claim connections between El-Sayed and the Muslim Brotherhood—a group seeking to enshrine Sharia law in U.S. statute. Rogers alleged that supporters of the Muslim Brotherhood are funding El-Sayed, while the Democratic candidate denies any ties. A report indicated at least one connection: In 2012, El-Sayed signed an open letter while still in medical school urging Mohamed Morsi, then Egypt’s new president from a Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated party, to “purge the media and police” of supporters of the dictatorship toppled during the Arab Spring.
Michigan is considered a swing state that leans Democratic. Rasmussen polls show El-Sayed with a 45 percent chance of winning over Rogers’ 44 percent—a race among the most expensive in the nation today.
But for Michiganders seeking constitutional-minded candidates, options are scarce. Over his 14 years in the House, Rogers earned a 51 percent score on a Freedom Index. As El-Sayed noted during their first debate, Rogers has a “war solution” for every foreign policy challenge—and his record bears it out: He voted to arm Syrian rebels, opposed ending the Authorization for the Use of Military Force (which grants the president near-unlimited powers to invade nations and overthrow governments), and supported Ukraine aid.
Rogers, as a typical neocon, also backed surveillance bills and most spending proposals.
Maine’s constitutionalist voters face a similar dilemma. The state’s GOP Senate candidate is a five-term incumbent with one of the worst voting records among Republican lawmakers. Susan Collins scores a dismal 38 percent on the Freedom Index. She has voted to reauthorize FISA, supports amnesty, refugee assistance funding, taxpayer-funded abortion, and numerous spending programs. Collins also opposes foreign aid cuts and the war-powers resolution intended to limit Trump’s Iran policy.
Collins faces a socialist named Troy Jackson, a veteran state lawmaker and former logger. Senator Elizabeth Warren, Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and Sanders have rallied behind Jackson.
Like El-Sayed, Jackson supports universal healthcare, wants higher taxes on the wealthy, and abolishes ICE. On Israel, he shares El-Sayed’s view that the U.S. should sever ties with Israel.
Recent polling data shows 29 percent of voters backing Jackson say their vote is for him, while 71 percent see it as a vote against Collins. Her Senate prospects may hinge less on Jackson than on whether she provides confidence in the next six years.
In Iowa’s Senate race, voters face three-term House Republican Ashley Hinson and two-term state representative Josh Turek—described by some as having trouble showing up for votes.
Hinson scores 58 percent on the Freedom Index. She advocates spending taxpayer money, supporting foreign wars, and ensuring government surveillance capabilities. Turek, who earned a 44 percent score in his two terms in the state legislature, has supported abortion and healthcare intrusions but took the correct stance on carbon capture pipelines, while Hinson backed expanding the Department of Energy’s carbon storage program to include carbon sequestration.
This race, like those in Michigan and Maine, is neck-and-neck.
Not every contest lacks constitutionalist options. In Georgia, voters could elect Republican Representative Mike Collins—a candidate with an 86 percent Freedom Index score—to unseat Democratic Senator Jon Ossoff (who scores a mere five percent). Yet Collins faces strong odds of losing.
Texas also features a tight race between Democrat James Talarico and Republican Ken Paxton. If Talarico wins, he would become the first Democrat to win a Texas Senate seat in 32 years.
Paxton, as Texas attorney general, has fought vaccine mandates and sued Pfizer over its marketing practices. He filed numerous immigration-related lawsuits during Biden’s open-border policies and supported claims that the 2020 election was rigged.
Democrats run on promises to improve Americans’ lives and focus on domestic issues—themes central to all three of Trump’s presidential campaigns. But their solutions often involve heavy government intervention without addressing the nation’s debt.
Most American problems stem from too many wars, too much welfare, and insufficient fiscal restraint. The scarcity of constitutional-minded candidates among both major parties fuels Washington’s woes. In many cases, voters are left with only two choices: a socialist Democrat or a neoconservative Republican who champions spending, surveillance, and saber-rattling.
The answer lies in less government and a movement of lawmakers who take their oath to the Constitution seriously. Until that shift occurs, the cycle of choosing “the lesser of two evils” will persist.
Paul Dragu is an award-winning reporter.
