Reporters answer listener questions on 2026 midterms

NPR political correspondents have released answers to listener questions regarding the 2026 midterm elections, covering topics from polling accuracy to specific race dynamics. The responses come from the network's senior political editor, Domenico Montanaro, congressional reporter Sam Gringlas, and senior political correspondent Tamara Keith. They also include insights from political correspondent Ashley Lopez.

Montanaro addresses skepticism about recent polling errors by distinguishing between high-profile state-level misses and national trends. He notes that national polls have generally tracked the horse race well, though they slightly underestimated Republican turnout. He explains that margins of error in polls typically range from 3 to 4 percentage points, creating a total spread of 6 to 8 points. He argues that this fuzzy range is often lost in public perception, which expects greater precision in closely contested races.

The senior political editor attributes state polling failures to a decline in local journalism funding, which has reduced the capacity for rigorous and frequent surveys. He notes that some state surveys have included junk or even fake polls. He advises focusing on pollster quality and using data to identify trends in public opinion on specific issues rather than just candidate margins.

Gringlas describes his experience covering down-ballot races as more intimate than presidential cycles. He cites recent stops at an antique shop, a farmer's market, a UAW picnic, a family farm, and a smokejumper-themed brewery. He states that these settings allow for closer interaction with voters and candidates compared to the stadium-sized venues and security perimeters of presidential rallies.

Keith, who calls herself a fan of all election types, highlights the Nevada 2nd Congressional District as a personal interest. She describes the race as messy, noting that President Trump won the district by 14 points and it has not been represented by a Democrat in over 40 years. The Republican nominee, backed by Trump, moved to the district to run and blamed his grandchildren for a campaign misstep. The Democratic nominee is a former Miss Nevada and state legislator, while the retiring Republican congressman has publicly criticized his party's nominee.

Lopez details several redistricting ballot measures facing voters. In Maryland, a constitutional amendment that would allow Democrats to add a seat appears unlikely to pass. In Colorado, voters will consider a measure making mid-decade redistricting more difficult. Missouri voters will weigh a proposal to help Republicans flip a congressional seat. Alaska voters will revisit their top-four nonpartisan primary system and ranked choice voting, which has remained close in past cycles.

Montanaro watches Michigan and Texas for Senate signals and monitors Latino voting patterns in South Florida and South Texas. He also tracks the Nevada governor's race between incumbent Joe Lombardo and Attorney General Aaron Ford. Ford has discussed past legal issues from college, forcing a debate on whether voters will prioritize that history or the national political climate. In California, Montanaro follows a wealth tax initiative where tens of millions of dollars have been spent on campaigning.

If Democrats take control of one or both houses of Congress, Montanaro predicts a legislative standstill unless compromise occurs. He notes that only about 10% of congressional districts are competitive, reducing the incentive for parties to meet in the middle. He suggests that bipartisan issues like AI guardrails could progress, but the president opposes AI restrictions. He identifies investigations and oversight as the primary effects of a Democratic congressional majority.

Historical context shows that the president's party has gained seats in a midterm only twice since World War II, occurring in 1998 and 2002. Montanaro notes that the 2002 gain followed the 9/11 attacks. Regarding impeachment, he warns that Democrats must consider the political costs, citing the price Republicans paid for their investigations of former President Clinton in the late 1990s.