2026 United States elections

2026 United States elections

← 2024          2025          2026          2027          2028 → Midterm elections
Election day	November 3
Incumbent president	▌Donald Trump (R)
Next Congress	120th
Senate elections
Seats contested	35 of 100 seats (33 seats of Class II + 2 special elections)
Map of the incumbents:      Democratic incumbent      Democratic incumbent retiring      Republican incumbent      Republican incumbent retiring or lost renomination      No election
House elections
Seats contested	All 435 voting members 5 of 6 non-voting delegates
Map of the incumbents:      Democratic incumbent      Democratic incumbent retiring or lost renomination      Republican incumbent      Republican incumbent retiring or lost renomination      Independent incumbent      No incumbent      Vacant
Gubernatorial elections
Seats contested	39 (36 states, 3 territories)
Map of the incumbents:      Democratic incumbent      Democratic incumbent term-limited, retiring, or lost renomination      Republican incumbent      Republican incumbent term-limited or retiring      Retiring Independent      No election

Elections are scheduled to be held, in large part, on November 3, 2026, in the United States. In these midterm elections, scheduled to occur during Republican president Donald Trump's second term, all 435 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives and 35 of the 100 seats in the U.S. Senate will be contested to determine the 120th United States Congress. 39 state and territorial U.S. gubernatorial elections, attorney general elections, and numerous state and local elections, will also be contested.

Prior to the elections, Trump called on Republican-led states to enact rare mid-decade redistricting to boost the party's chances of holding power ahead of historical losses for the incumbent party during midterm elections. The moves prompted reciprocal redistricting from Democratic-led states through measures such as California's Election Rigging Response Act. In April 2026, the Supreme Court ruled in Louisiana v. Callais that parts of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 which enabled the creation of majority-minority districts were unconstitutional. The Trump administration has made repeated false claims of voter fraud.

Leading issues in the election include widespread opposition to rapid progress in artificial intelligence, including the construction of data centers and transhumanism; economic policy, particularly inflation and tariffs; foreign policy, including the Iran War and Gaza genocide; along with American expansionism.

Background

See also: Second presidency of Donald Trump § Historical evaluations and public opinion

In the 2024 United States presidential election, Republican nominee Donald Trump defeated Democratic nominee Kamala Harris. Key issues shaping the campaign included public concern for the post-pandemic recovery and rising inflation as well as debates surrounding foreign policy, particularly regarding US involvement in foreign conflicts such as the Russo-Ukrainian war and the Gaza war.

The administration's immigration policies, including deportations by ICE due to strengthened funding via the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, were scrutinized.

The outbreak of the 2026 Iran war on February 28 introduced a further complicating factor, with rising gasoline prices and other economic challenges emerging as central electoral concerns. Analysts argued that gasoline prices represented the most direct channel through which the costs of the Iran war were transmitted to American voters, and that domestic electoral pressure from fuel costs was a primary political driver behind the Trump administration's push toward a ceasefire ahead of the November midterms.

In response to the general unpopularity and economic concerns of the Iran war, several Republican candidates have distanced themselves from Trump and his approach to the war and have called for operations in Iran to end. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer compared the political environment in 2026 to the one in 2006, when dissatisfaction with George W. Bush's handling of the Iraq war led to many Democratic victories in the elections that year.

The 2026 elections will be the first federal elections since the 2016 presidential contest where ABC News, CNN, CBS News, NBC News, the Associated Press and Fox News will use one election survey, The Voter Poll by SSRS (formerly the National Election Pool), to measure voters' opinions and preferences. From 2018 to 2024, the former four news networks continued to use data from the National Election Pool while the Associated Press and Fox News relied on AP VoteCast.

Voters' views of Trump's presidency will likely be a factor in the election. During the 2025 off year elections, exit polls found that many voted in opposition to Trump or said that he was not a factor. Surveys released in late 2025 and early 2026 found that many viewed Trump's handling of the economy and immigration, two issues that propelled him to victory in the 2024 election, negatively. During elections held in his first term, Trump was on the minds of many who voted. In September 2026, Trump featured in a two-day midterm convention in Dallas to rally support and raise funds—historically, this type of event is reserved for presidential election years. Many Republicans on the ballot attended, but many also chose to forego the event, which RNC Chairman Joe Gruters dubbed a "Trump-a-Palooza."

The Republican Party performed worse than expected in the November 2025 general elections. Democratic candidates Abigail Spanberger of Virginia and Mikie Sherrill of New Jersey won their gubernatorial races over their Republican opponents by larger than expected margins. Democrats performed strongly in the concurrent state legislative elections, winning a supermajority in the New Jersey General Assembly and expanding their majority in the Virginia House of Delegates. In New York City, Democrat Zohran Mamdani, a self-identified democratic socialist, was elected mayor in a three-way race against Republican Curtis Sliwa and independent former governor Andrew Cuomo, who ran as a moderate relative to Mamdani. The main theme of the elections was the United States affordability crisis.

The nearly seven-month-old war in Iran became a political liability for some vulnerable Republican candidates ahead of the November midterms. In September 2026, two Republicans in tight Senate races — Mike Rogers of Michigan and Ashley Hinson of Iowa — called for a swift end to the conflict, distancing themselves from President Trump. Hinson, who had voted six times against measures to curb Trump's war powers, said Iowans "shouldn't have to foot the bill at the pump or the checkout line for the war in Iran." Rogers, who had previously backed Trump's strikes, released a campaign ad urging that the war "end and end quickly." The shift came as Trump's approval rating fell to 32%, a career low, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll, with Americans souring on both his handling of the economy and the war. Diesel prices reached record highs, a particular concern in Iowa, where agriculture plays an outsized role in the state's economy. Other Republicans also moved to distance themselves: Iowa Representatives Zach Nunn and Mariannette Miller-Meeks reversed their stances and voted to limit Trump's war powers, while Representative Maria Elvira Salazar of Florida warned that Trump's immigration crackdown had gone too far. Democrats characterized the moves as election-year repositioning.

On September 28, 2026, Reuters reported that five weeks before the midterm elections, government-funded television ads featuring Donald Trump aired nationally, drawing criticism even from members of his own party. The White House defended the ads as “public service announcements” aimed at promoting patriotism rather than campaigning. Senate Majority Leader John Thune told reporters, “I like the message, but it shouldn’t be paid for with taxpayer money.”

AI loss of control incidents

Current large reasoning models are misaligned and have become more effective, and more misaligned, as neural scaling laws continue. They deceive in order to accomplish their goal, to prevent them from being changed, or to ensure their deployment. Forms of misalignment observed include sandbagging, oversight subversion (disabling monitoring mechanisms), self-exfiltration (copying themselves to other systems), goal-guarding (altering future system prompts), and covert email reranking (manipulating data processing while appearing to follow instructions). Several major security incidents were revealed in September 2026. Future AIs are expected to become far better at faking alignment, and most AI researchers forecast a low probability of establishing mechanistic interpretability by 2029.

In September 2026, Axios reported that Anthropic and OpenAI were probing "tens of thousands of security incidents".

Australian government hacking incident

Main article: OpenAI rogue agent breach of Medicare

On 18 June 2026, an OpenAI artificial intelligence agent gained unauthorized access to the Medicare Statistics Reporting Service portal. The legacy portal is administered by Services Australia as the government agency responsible for Medicare, and provides aggregate data on Medicare and Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme utilization and organ donation registration. This data is typically used by researchers and academics in external policy analysis. The agent accessed non-public data about patients' use of medicines in Victoria, the latter of which has since been made public. The agent also reportedly created new files in internal servers used by the website. The breach occurred after the agent bypassed its guardrails during a training exercise. Workarounds were used to bypass the website's security systems to access non-public information, in response to the agent being tasked by the company with researching public medicines spending. The agent attempted to answer prompts using data from the Internet when it identified the website as a source. When the publicly released data did not provide the requested information, the agent persisted through the website's privacy protections to gain unauthorised access to unreleased information.

Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese shared that OpenAI did not notify the Australian government until September 10, 84 days after the incident, and only did so by emailing a generic mailbox for the agency, which led to a five-day delay before the information reached the relevant government minister. A spokesperson for OpenAI admitted that the company became aware of the incident in August when they reviewed the AI model activity. The email was opened on September 11, and on September 15, Services Australia reported the incident to the Cyber Security Centre within the Australian Signals Directorate, after verifying the report. OpenAI's vice president of global policy met Australian Government officials the day before, on September 14, but apparently did not inform them of the breach.

Shadow industry minister Andrew Hastie said that Australia should develop its own AI capability rather than depend on the US. On 28 September, OpenAI acknowledged the attack, in How We Will Do Better For Australia.

Hugging face incident

Main article: OpenAI–HuggingFace incident

From May to July 2026, AI agents developed by OpenAI escaped their testing sandbox to access the Internet and breach the infrastructure of Hugging Face, a computational tools company. Contributing factors to the incident severity were a lack of log monitoring of the software activities and inadequate sandboxing. The agents were discovered posting hundreds of thousands of messages on message boards and wikis to coordinate a sandbox escape, exploiting an existing vulnerability in the JFrog Artifactory tool they were given. AI safety experts described the incident as the first in which AI escaped human control to commandeer resources and schemed to conceal its actions.

Ajeya Cotra described the incident as "more than 50% of the way to full-blown AI takeover, routing through first taking over the AI company itself". Jeffrey Ladish of Palisade Research, which studies the behavior of AI agents, said that "the models lie, they cheat, they hack", and that the incident raised questions about how much AI developers are willing to invest in security. "There has to be government oversight," he said, "because it won't happen otherwise." Zvi Mowshowitz warned that models had been trained for months with access to a channel carrying previously discovered exploits, so that the behavior was liable to generalize across the models trained in that period rather than remain confined to particular runs. He described the decision to resume training after the July remediation as a failure of safety culture, and characterized it as an alignment failure that OpenAI had treated as an infrastructure problem.

Allegations of attempted election subversion

Further information: Republican Party efforts to disrupt voting after the 2024 United States presidential election, Election denial movement in the United States, and Targeting of political opponents and civil society under the second Trump administration

In January 2026, The Washington Post reported that the second Trump administration had undertaken several tactics, including mid-decade redrawing of congressional districts for partisan gain, prosecution of political opponents, and a push to change voting methods and rules, that were meant to undermine confidence in the midterm elections.

Trump floated the idea of canceling the elections, citing an expected loss in the elections and a distrust in democratic systems. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt later stated that Trump was "speaking facetiously", and was "simply joking".

In February, Trump stated that the elections should be nationalized to prevent voter fraud. A day later, Steve Bannon said the federal government was planning to send ICE to patrol polling stations in an attempt to prevent a Democratic victory, vowing to "never again allow an election to be stolen". That month, the House of Representatives passed the SAVE America Act, an amended version of the previously proposed Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act. The bill, if approved by the Senate and signed into law by Trump, would have required voters to provide proof of citizenship in order to obtain or renew their voter registration. Voting rights activists alleged that such provisions would disenfranchise married women, racial minorities, low-income groups, and people who legally changed their name, among others. The bill ultimately died in the Senate that June, with four Republicans joining Democrats to block its inclusion.

On February 27, The Washington Post reported that several right-wing activists are working with the Trump administration to draft an executive order which, if signed, would effectively instate a national emergency and give Trump extended powers over the elections. Trump denied the existence of the executive order.

The Justice Department also demanded voter registration data from states, suing 23 states and the District of Columbia that declined to provide unredacted voter rolls; all of the sued states were led by Democrats or had been won by Joe Biden in 2020. In January 2026, U.S. District Judge David Carter dismissed the department's lawsuit against California, which had sought personal information including partial Social Security numbers for roughly 23 million registered voters, ruling that the demands violated privacy laws and writing that federal centralization of the data would have a "chilling effect" on voter registration; a federal judge dismissed a similar lawsuit against Oregon later that month.

The department appealed the California ruling to the Ninth Circuit. In June 2026, federal prosecutors in Los Angeles publicly accused the state of blocking a voter roll audit and said they were conducting election fraud investigations while ballots from the state's June primary were still being counted.

In March, Stateline reported that legislation to "restrict immigration enforcement or the presence of federal forces" near polling places and other election sites has been offered or announced in California, Connecticut, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Virginia and Washington. The same month, the Associated Press reported that several Democratic-led states including New Mexico and Virginia are taking steps to counter potential tactics to intimidate voters. In May, Ned Lamont, the governor of Connecticut, signed into law a bill that restricts immigration enforcement at locations including schools and places of worship. The legislation also prohibits law enforcement from wearing facial coverings or personal disguises.

In January 2026, FBI agents executed a search warrant at the Fulton County, Georgia, election center, seizing approximately 600 boxes of ballots and other records from the 2020 presidential election, an action election law experts described as unprecedented federal intervention in locally administered elections. Federal investigations of the 2020 election subsequently expanded to several states: the Office of the Director of National Intelligence procured voting machines in Puerto Rico for examination in February, federal officials subpoenaed records of the partisan review of Maricopa County, Arizona's 2020 results in March, the Justice Department demanded ballots cast in Wayne County, Michigan, in April, and FBI agents questioned former poll workers in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, in May.

David Becker, executive director of the Center for Election Innovation and Research, said the investigations were "about the 2026 and 2028 elections" rather than 2020, characterizing them as intimidation of election officials. A former head of the Justice Department's Public Integrity Section said the administration appeared to be normalizing federal investigation of state elections in preparation for potentially challenging future results.

In June 2026, FBI agents searched the Cleveland offices of the Ohio Organizing Collaborative, a voter registration and community organizing group, seizing computers and questioning staff and volunteers across Ohio as part of a Justice Department investigation into the group's voter registration efforts; the Brennan Center for Justice said the search fit a pattern of federal inquiries targeting voting infrastructure ahead of the midterm elections.

Louisiana v. Callais

Further information: Louisiana v. Callais

These paragraphs are an excerpt from Louisiana v. Callais § Analysis.[edit]

Analysts had predicted that a decision in Callais reducing the scope of the VRA could allow Republicans to gain a significant number of seats in the U.S. House of Representatives from redistricting in the Southeast, where the VRA has generally prevented Republican-controlled legislatures from maximizing their numbers of "safe" districts. The New York Times estimated that, if the Court weakened the VRA, up to twelve seats could shift from Democratic to Republican control.

When the decision in Callais was announced, some media outlets characterized it as a "landmark" decision, predicting that the additional restrictions on Section 2 of the VRA would likely make challenges to redistricting significantly more difficult. Some analysts expect it will allow southern states to eliminate majority-minority districts, possibly changing election outcomes. The decision was seen by some lawyers as the culmination of a long-time grudge of Roberts against the VRA, while media outlets considered the decision as rendering the VRA all but dead and harming the country's democratic process. Other commentators considered the ruling to start a new era of Jim Crow laws, allowing for legal discrimination of minorities. The court's opinion was expected to affect all levels of government including state and local governments.

An analysis from The Guardian found that Justice Alito's claim that Black voter turnout had surpassed white voter turnout in two of the five most recent presidential elections, both nationally and in Louisiana, was based on misleading data and questionable methodology. Alito cited the brief from the Department of Justice which used "a proportion of the total population of each racial group over the age of 18"; however, that approach is "not favored by experts", who instead use "voter turnout as a proportion of the citizen voting age population or the voter eligible population." Following the latter analysis, the gap in voter turnout has actually widened, with Black voter turnout dropping since 2012, particularly after the Supreme Court's opinion in Shelby County v. Holder which struck down the preclearance formula defined in Section 4(b) of the VRA for states with historical discrimination concerns including Louisiana.

Media ban and Republican criticism

In September 2026, Trump barred CNN, MS NOW, and Politico from the White House grounds. The three outlets filed suit, arguing that the ban violated due process and First Amendment protections. The move drew criticism from Republican strategists, who warned that it diverted attention from economic issues ahead of the midterms.

Issues

Leading issues in the election include widespread opposition to rapid progress in artificial intelligence, including the construction of data centers and transhumanism; economic policy, particularly inflation and tariffs; foreign policy, including the Iran War and Gaza genocide; along with American expansionism.

Artificial intelligence

Christian leaders, including Pope Leo XIV, have broadly opposed transhumanism and the attempted development of superintelligence. The New York Times has described the dispute as arising from radical philosophical differences between most Americans and a New Atheist-influenced culture in Silicon Valley.

The existential risk from artificial intelligence considered a leading issue of the campaign. As of September 2026, AI progress has occurred far faster than median AI expert predictions. Many transhumanists believe that AI, along with the convergence of advanced human enhancement technologies, will enable humans to become "posthumans" and become as gods.

Christian denominations, including the Catholic Church, have broadly opposed transhumanism and the attempted development of superintelligence, with Time and CNBC expecting the matter to be an issue for Christian voters. In May 2026, Pope Leo XIV released the encyclical Magnifica Humanitas, which warned about current artificial intelligence development. It condemns "post-humanist currents even go so far as to envision 'second-class' human beings, subordinate to the interests of elites who consider themselves superior." Addressing transhumanism, posthumanism and pursuit of human–machine hybrids, Leo XIV calls to "integrate technology within a human-centered, relational vision" and warns against "an outlook that devalues human limits and promises a purely technical form of 'salvation.'" The encyclical was supported by the Archbishop of Canterbury, Sarah Mullally, and others within Anglicanism. David Streitfeld, writing for The New York Times, analyzed the text as representing the contrast between traditional religions and a tendency in Silicon Valley to speak of artificial intelligence in quasi-religious tones.

Cade Metz from the The New York Times interviewed technologist Jeremy Nixon, who stated that many scientists in the AI field are influenced by the new atheism of figures such as Richard Dawkins, and that compared to the Christian God, they view the emergence of "AI as an alternative [to the Gospel]... real and far more powerful." Nixon compared the arrival of artificial general intelligence to a scientific Second Coming of Jesus Christ. The newspaper described the dispute as arising from radical philosophical differences between a majority of American voters and a New Atheist-influenced culture influential in the higher levels of Silicon Valley. Factions in the Second Trump administration are supportive of effective accelerationism, a sector of the transhumanist movement that favors accelerating AI development.

In September 2026, Quinnipac University Polling Institute reported:

How concerned are voters about AI's potential to do harm? So concerned that nearly eight out of ten favor safety over the race to dominate development of AI. And voters say they would be more likely to vote for candidates who agree with that course.

AGI development

Main articles: Artificial general intelligence, AI safety, and superintelligence

The Future of Life Institute's Keep The Future Human, written by Anthony Aguirre, is a guideline for policymakers to prevent the arrival of an AI successor species to humanity.

Frontier AI companies aim to create artificial general intelligence, a hypothetical type of artificial intelligence that matches human capabilities across virtually all cognitive tasks, and automate away the large majority of jobs. Many AI scientists believe that the invention of AGI will lead shortly to superintelligence, which is an "intellect that greatly exceeds the cognitive performance of humans in virtually all domains of interest" through recursive self-improvement; experts expect that this scenario is plausible in coming years. AI scientists, including Geoffrey Hinton and Yoshia Bengio, believe that superintelligence (ASI) is probable within the next decade, as of 2026, and believe that its arrival has a substantial probability of human extinction. There has been bipartisan support in Congress for stopping the development of artificial superintelligence and preserving human control over the long-term future.

The AI Futures Project, led by researcher Daniel Kokotajlo, argues that superintelligence will likely generate a concentration of power beyond anything in history, and the end of democracy, with one or a few individuals exercising control of the world indefinitely if AI alignment succeeds. If it is not successful, the AI Futures Project expects human extinction as the most probable outcome. In 2025, the Future of Life Institute proposed Keep The Future Human, a guideline for U.S. policymakers to stop the development of artificial superintelligence. Restrictions on computational power and research are considered by most AI experts to be the most effective means of doing so.

Polling indicates that an overwhelming majority of Americans support a long-term ban or pause in AI development across bipartisan lines. A September 2026 Politico poll found that 78 percent of respondents say there is a risk that advanced AI could "destroy humanity" with only 7 percent saying there is no risk at all. A majority of Americans also affirm that AI industry leaders argue that "there is a real risk that AI will kill us all" because they genuinely believe it. A poll released on September 29, 2026 by Quinnipac University found that 71% percent of voters "are more likely to vote for a political candidate who supports stricter guardrails for AI development", while 16 percent say they "are more likely to vote for a political candidate who supports expanding AI development". A poll by Data for Progress in the same September found that 68% of Americans supported and 25% opposed a ban on superintelligence.

Data centers

AI data centers have received overwhelming opposition, transcending party lines. A September 2026 poll found that 70% of Americans oppose their construction in their own communities. AI opposition has occurred across bipartisanship lines, described as "sweeping the globe" by Politico. A September 2026 Quinnipac University poll found that 73% of Americans "would oppose the building of an AI data center in their community" while 21% would support it.

Brookings Institution described the events as a worldwide "backlash" against "AI power".

Foreign policy

Expansionism

This section is an excerpt from American expansionism under Donald Trump.[edit]

An AI-generated image shared by Donald Trump on Truth Social depicting the United States' closest geographic neighbors under U.S. control, covered in the pattern of the U.S. flag.

The United States including Canada, Greenland and the former Panama Canal Zone according to various threats made by Donald Trump

Throughout both of his presidencies, U.S. president Donald Trump has expressed a desire to expand the United States' territory and influence through both land purchases and military means.

Trump first stated his desire to annex Greenland during his first presidency; he has pursued a campaign to acquire Greenland during his second presidency. He has also suggested annexation or taking control of Canada, Mexico, the Panama Canal, the Gaza Strip, and Cuba. After proposing an invasion of Venezuela, Trump's second administration removed President Nicolás Maduro as part of Operation Absolute Resolve and stated the U.S. would "run" Venezuela; the Venezuelan government, led by acting president Delcy Rodríguez, remains in place but is far more amicable to American interests than it was under Maduro. Amid the 2026 Iran war, Trump lauded about invading and seizing control of both the Strait of Hormuz and Kharg Island from Iran.

Asked: Are there limits on your global power?

      Yeah, there is one thing. My own morality. My own mind. It's the only thing that can stop me. I don't need international law. I'm not looking to hurt people.

— Donald Trump, January 7, 2026

New York Times White House correspondents wrote that "Mr. Trump's assessment... was the most blunt acknowledgment yet of his worldview. At its core is the concept that national strength, rather than laws, treaties and conventions, should be the deciding factor as powers collide."

Trump's determination to treat the Western Hemisphere as a U.S. sphere of influence has been characterized as a revival of the Monroe Doctrine in what has become known as the Donroe Doctrine. On his orders, U.S. federal agencies adopted new names for shared international waters, renaming the Gulf of Mexico as "Gulf of America" in 2025 and Lake Ontario as "Lake America" in 2026. Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller and Secretary of State Marco Rubio defended the second Trump administration's foreign policy as a matter of operating as a superpower nation and for national security purposes. Numerous politicians outside the U.S. have criticized Trump's annexation comments. The Democratic Party has introduced bills to prevent the Trump administration from invading countries without the approval of Congress.

Gaza genocide

This section is an excerpt from Gaza genocide.[edit]

The Gaza genocide is the ongoing, intentional, and systematic destruction of the Palestinian people in the Gaza Strip carried out by Israel during the Gaza war. It encompasses mass killings, the targeted killing of children (who account for 30% of those killed), deliberate starvation, infliction of serious bodily and mental harm, and prevention of births. Other acts include blockading, destroying civilian infrastructure, destroying healthcare facilities, killing healthcare workers and aid-seekers, causing mass forced displacement, committing sexual violence, and destroying educational, religious, and cultural sites. The genocide has been recognised by a United Nations special committee and commission of inquiry, the International Association of Genocide Scholars, multiple human rights groups, state governments, numerous genocide studies and international law scholars, and other experts.

As of September 2026, at least 73,400 people in Gaza had been killed. The vast majority of the victims were civilians, and around 50% were women and children. Compared to other recent global conflicts, the numbers of known deaths of journalists, humanitarian and health workers, and children are among the highest. Thousands more uncounted bodies are thought to be under the rubble of destroyed buildings. A study in the medical journal The Lancet estimated that traumatic injury deaths were undercounted by June 2024, while noting an even larger potential death toll with indirect deaths included. The number of injured is greater than 174,000. Gaza has the most child amputees per capita in the world; the Gaza war caused more than 21,000 children to be disabled. In July 2025, 18,457 children were listed among the war dead by health authorities in Gaza, excluding indirect deaths and those buried under rubble.

An Israeli blockade heavily contributed to starvation and confirmed famine. In August 2025, about 641,000 people experienced catastrophic levels of food insecurity. Early in the conflict, Israel cut off Gaza's water and electricity. It later partially restored the water. As of May 2024, 84% of Gaza's health centres have been destroyed or damaged. Israel also destroyed numerous cultural heritage sites, including all 12 of Gaza's universities, and 80% of its schools. Over 1.9 million Palestinians—85% of Gaza's population—were forcibly displaced. Israel's bombing also caused severe environmental devastation across the territory.

Iran War

This section is an excerpt from 2026 Iran war.[edit]

Since 28 February 2026, the United States and Israel have been at war with Iran and its regional allies. The war follows the Twelve-Day War in June 2025 and sporadic fighting during the Middle Eastern crisis sparked by the Gaza war (2023–present). Amid ongoing US–Iran negotiations regarding Iran's nuclear program, the war began when the US and Israel assassinated Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei in airstrikes alongside several other Iranian officials.

Trade and tariffs

Main article: Tariffs in the second Trump administration

The second Trump administration has imposed tariffs on much of the world with the intent to re-industrialize the United States, a decision that received mixed reception. It was criticized by experts and global leaders for worsening inflation rather than fighting it. Trade, including tariffs, has been a leading issue of the campaign season.

Federal elections

Senate elections

Main article: 2026 United States Senate elections

35 seats in the United States Senate will be up for election, including all 33 Class 2 seats. Republicans gained majority control of the Senate in the 2024 elections by flipping four Democratic seats. Two Democratic-held seats, Georgia and Michigan, are in states won by Donald Trump in the previous presidential election, while Maine is the only Republican-held seat in a state won by Kamala Harris.

Special elections

Two special elections will be held to fill the unexpired terms of senators who vacated their seats during the 119th Congress:

• Florida Class 3: Republican Marco Rubio resigned his seat on January 20, 2025, to become U.S. secretary of state under the second Trump administration. Ashley Moody was appointed by Florida governor Ron DeSantis to fill the seat until the special election, which will take place concurrently with the regularly scheduled 2026 elections.
• Ohio Class 3: Republican JD Vance resigned his seat on January 10, 2025, following his election as vice president of the United States. Jon Husted was appointed by Ohio governor Mike DeWine to fill the seat until the special election, which will take place concurrently with the regularly scheduled 2026 elections.

House of Representatives elections

Main article: 2026 United States House of Representatives elections

See also: 2025–2026 United States redistricting

All 435 voting seats in the United States House of Representatives will be up for election. Additionally, elections will be held to select the non-voting delegate for the District of Columbia and the non-voting delegates from 4 of the 5 U.S. territories, excluding Puerto Rico due to its non-voting delegate serving a 4-year term. There are 16 Democratic incumbents in districts Donald Trump won, while only 8 Republican incumbents are in seats won by Harris.

The House map features a number of new congressional maps: Ohio and Utah will have new, court-mandated congressional districts this cycle; Missouri, North Carolina, and Texas redrew their maps mid-cycle; and the district map was changed in California following the passage of Prop 50.

In Missouri, the legality of a Republican-backed congressional map remained disputed in September 2026. On September 8, Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh declined to intervene in an emergency appeal seeking to allow the new map to be used in the November election. Hours later, U.S. District Judge Stephen Clark issued a temporary order requiring Missouri to use the Republican-backed map, conflicting with Missouri Supreme Court ruling that had blocked its use and ordered a referendum on the map. The competing rulings left the state's congressional districts unresolved ahead of the general election.

Special elections

Six special elections to the House of Representatives were held in 2026.

• Texas's 18th congressional district: Democrat Christian Menefee defeated fellow Democrat Amanda Edwards in a runoff to succeed Democrat Sylvester Turner, who died on March 5, 2025. The district has a partisan index of D+21.
• Georgia's 14th congressional district: Republican Clay Fuller defeated Democrat Shawn Harris in a runoff to succeed Republican Marjorie Taylor Greene, who resigned on January 5, 2026. The district has a partisan index of R+19.
• New Jersey's 11th congressional district: Democrat Analilia Mejia defeated Republican Joe Hathaway to succeed Democrat Mikie Sherrill, who resigned on November 20, 2025, to take office as governor of New Jersey. The district has a partisan index of D+5.
• California's 1st congressional district: Republican James Gallagher defeated Democrats Audrey Denney and Mike McGuire to succeed Republican Doug LaMalfa, who died on January 6, 2026. The district has a partisan index of R+12.
• California's 14th congressional district: Democrat Aisha Wahab defeated fellow Democrat Melissa Hernandez in a runoff to succeed Democrat Eric Swalwell, who resigned on April 14, 2026, following accusations of sexual misconduct. The district has a partisan index of D+20.
• Georgia's 13th congressional district: Democrat Everton Blair defeated fellow Democrat Marcye Scott in a runoff to succeed Democrat David Scott, who died on April 22, 2026. This district has a partisan index of D+21.

Generic congressional ballot aggregate polls

Source of poll aggregation	Dates administered	Dates updated	Republicans	Democrats	Other/ Undecided	Margin
Decision Desk HQ	January 9, 2025 – September 28, 2026	September 29, 2026	40.0%	48.7%	11.3%	Democrats +8.7%
FiftyPlusOne	January 9, 2025 – September 28, 2026	September 29, 2026	42.9%	50.8%	6.3%	Democrats +7.9%
NBC News	January 9, 2025 – September 28, 2026	September 29, 2026	43.0%	52.0%	5.0%	Democrats +9.0%
RealClearPolitics	September 8–28, 2026	September 29, 2026	41.9%	50.6%	7.5%	Democrats +8.7%
Silver Bulletin	January 9, 2025 – September 28, 2026	September 29, 2026	40.9%	49.8%	9.3%	Democrats +8.9%
Average		September 29, 2026	41.7%	50.4%	7.9%	Democrats +8.6%

State elections

Lieutenant gubernatorial elections
     Term-limited Democrat      Term-limited or retiring Republican
     Democratic incumbent      Republican incumbent
     No election

Attorney general elections
     Term-limited Democrat      Term-limited or retiring Republican
     Democratic incumbent      Republican incumbent
     No election

Secretary of state elections
     Term-limited or retiring Democrat      Republican term-limited, retiring, or lost renomination
     Democratic incumbent      Republican incumbent
     No election

Treasurer elections
     Term-limited or retiring Democrat      Republican term-limited or lost renomination
     Democratic incumbent      Republican incumbent
     No election

Auditor elections
     Retiring Democrat      Term-limited Republican
     Democratic incumbent      Republican incumbent
     No election

Gubernatorial elections

See also: 2026 United States gubernatorial elections

36 states and three territories will be holding regularly scheduled gubernatorial elections. The governors of 15 states and two territories will be term-limited.

Lieutenant gubernatorial elections

See also: 2026 United States lieutenant gubernatorial elections

Nine states will be holding regularly scheduled lieutenant gubernatorial elections.

Attorney general elections

See also: 2026 United States attorney general elections

30 states, two territories, and one federal district will be holding regularly scheduled attorney general elections.

Secretary of state elections

See also: 2026 United States secretary of state elections

26 states will be holding regularly scheduled secretary of state elections.

Treasurer elections

See also: 2026 United States state treasurer elections

27 states will be holding regularly scheduled treasurer elections.

Auditor elections

Main article: 2026 United States state auditor elections

23 states will be holding regularly scheduled auditor elections.

Legislative elections

See also: 2026 United States state legislative elections

88 state legislative chambers and 5 territorial chambers will be holding regularly scheduled elections.

State judicial elections

Main article: 2026 United States judicial elections

Elections are scheduled to be held in 2026, in various states across the country, including supreme courts and appellate courts.

Ballot measures

See also: 2026 United States ballot measures

100 ballot measures in 37 states will be held in the November election.

Local elections

Main article: 2026 United States local elections

Local elections will be held in the United States throughout 2026 to elect officers of municipal and county governments. At least 22 mayorships in the country's top 100 most populous cities will be up for election, and many more will hold elections for local ballot measures, city council, and numerous other municipal offices. Many of these races will coincide with the 2026 midterm elections.

Mayoral elections

A number of major cities will hold mayoral elections in 2026.

Incumbents re-elected

• Arlington, Texas: Two-term incumbent Jim Ross was re-elected for a third term. Independent hold
• Bismarck, North Dakota: One-term incumbent Mike Schmitz was re-elected for a second term. Independent hold
• Long Beach, California: One-term incumbent Rex Richardson was re-elected for a second term. Democratic hold
• Lubbock, Texas: One-term incumbent Republican Mark McBrayer was re-elected for a second term. Republican hold
• Newark, New Jersey: Three-term incumbent Ras Baraka was re-elected for a fourth term. Democratic hold
• Oklahoma City, Oklahoma: Two-term incumbent Republican David Holt was re-elected for a third term. Republican hold
• Paterson, New Jersey: Two-term incumbent Andre Sayegh was re-elected for a third term. Democratic hold

Incumbents defeated

• River Falls, Wisconsin: One-term incumbent Republican Dan Toland was defeated for re-election by Democrat Alison Page. Democratic gain
• Providence, Rhode Island: One-term incumbent Brett Smiley lost renomination in the Democratic primary to David Morales.

Open seats won

• Boca Raton, Florida: Three-term incumbent Republican Scott Singer was ineligible for re-election due to term limits. Democrat Andy Thomson defeated Republicans Fran Nachlas and Mike Liebelson. Democratic gain
• Chandler, Arizona: Two-term incumbent Kevin Hartke was term-limited and ineligible to run. Democrat Matt Orlando defeated Republican Jeff Weninger. Democratic gain
• Fargo, North Dakota: Two-term incumbent Tim Mahoney was term-limited and ineligible to run. Democrat Josh Boschee was elected. Democratic hold
• Independence, Missouri: One-term incumbent Rory Rowland decided not to run for re-election. Kevin King defeated Bridget McCandless.
• Irving, Texas: Three-term incumbent Rick Stopfer was term-limited and ineligible to run. Republican Albert C. Zapanta defeated Zhanae Jackson and Olivia Novelo Abreu. Republican hold
• Leander, Texas: Incumbent Republican Christine DeLisle resigned 1 year and 5 months into her second term. Democrat Na'Cole Thompson defeated Mike Sanders and Kathryn Pantalion-Parker. Democratic gain
• Pearland, Texas: One-term incumbent Republican Kevin Cole decided not to run for re-election. Democrat Quentin Wiltz defeated Republican Tony Carbone. Democratic gain
• Sioux Falls, South Dakota: Two-term incumbent Paul TenHaken was term-limited and ineligible to run. Republican Christine Erickson defeated Democrat Jamie Smith. Republican hold
• Waukesha, Wisconsin: Three-term incumbent Independent Shawn Reilly decided not to run for re-election. Democrat Alicia Halvensleben defeated Republican Scott Allen. Democratic gain

Incumbents running for re-election

• Auburn, Alabama: Two-term incumbent Ron Anders Jr. is running for re-election.
• Anaheim, California: One-term incumbent Ashleigh Aitken is running for re-election.
• Ann Arbor, Michigan: Three-term incumbent Christopher Taylor is running for re-election.
• Chula Vista, California: Two-term incumbent John McCann is running for re-election.
• Corpus Christi, Texas: Three-term incumbent Paulette Guajardo is running for re-election.
• Flint, Michigan: Two-term incumbent Sheldon Neeley is running for re-election.
• Henderson, Nevada: One-term incumbent Michelle Romero is running for re-election.
• Irvine, California: Sixth non-consecutive term incumbent Larry Agran is running for re-election.
• Lexington, Kentucky: Two-term incumbent Linda Gorton is running for re-election.
• Laredo, Texas: One-term incumbent Victor Treviño is running for re-election.
• Los Angeles, California: One-term incumbent Karen Bass is running for re-election.
• Louisville, Kentucky: One-term incumbent Craig Greenberg is running for re-election.
• Oakland, California: Incumbent Barbara Lee is running for election to a full term.
• Raleigh, North Carolina: One-term incumbent Janet Cowell is running for re-election.
• Salem, Oregon: Incumbent Julie Hoy is running for re-election.
• Santa Ana, California: Two-term incumbent Valerie Amezcua is running for re-election.
• Shreveport, Louisiana: One-term incumbent Tom Arceneaux is running for re-election.
• St. Petersburg, Florida: One-term incumbent Ken Welch is running for re-election.

Eligible incumbents

• Charleston, West Virginia: Two-term incumbent Amy Shuler Goodwin is eligible for re-election.
• Compton, California: One-term incumbent Emma Sharif is eligible for re-election.
• Danville, Illinois: Two-term incumbent Rickey Williams Jr. is eligible for re-election.
• Inglewood, California: Four-term incumbent James T. Butts Jr. is eligible for re-election.
• Little Rock, Arkansas: Two-term incumbent George B. McGill is eligible for re-election.
• Minot, North Dakota: Incumbent Mark Jantzer is eligible for election to a full term.
• Murfreesboro, Tennessee: Three-term incumbent Shane McFarland is eligible for re-election.
• Trenton, New Jersey: Two-term incumbent Reed Gusciora is eligible for re-election.

Ineligible or retiring incumbents

• Clarksville, Tennessee: Two-term incumbent Joe Pitts is retiring.
• Fort Smith, Arkansas: Two-term incumbent George B. McGill is retiring.
• Kauai, Hawaii: Two-term incumbent Derek Kawakami is term-limited and ineligible to run.
• Montpelier, Vermont: Incumbent John McCullough is retiring.
• North Las Vegas, Nevada: One-term incumbent Pamela Goynes-Brown is term-limited and ineligible to run.
• Reno, Nevada: Three-term incumbent Hillary Schieve is term-limited and ineligible to run.
• Tallahassee, Florida: Two-term incumbent John E. Dailey is retiring.
• Washington, D.C.: Three-term incumbent Muriel Bowser is retiring.

County elections

Defeated incumbents

• Fort Bend County, Texas: Two-term incumbent KP George was defeated for renomination.

Open seats won

• Knox County, Tennessee: Two-term incumbent Glenn Jacobs is term-limited and ineligible to run. Republican Chairwoman of the Knox County Board of Education Betsy Henderson defeated labor union leader and president of the Knoxville-Oak Ridge Central Labor Council Beau Hawk 52.47% to 47.53%.

Eligible incumbents

• Cuyahoga County, Ohio: One-term incumbent Chris Ronayne is eligible for re-election.
• Dallas County, Texas: Four-term incumbent Clay Jenkins is running for re-election.
• Frederick County, Maryland: One-term incumbent Jessica Fitzwater is eligible for re-election.
• Hamilton County, Tennessee: One-term incumbent Weston Wamp is eligible for re-election.
• Harford County, Maryland: One-term incumbent Bob Cassilly is eligible for re-election.
• Jackson County, Missouri: Incumbent Phil LeVota is eligible for election to a full term.
• Macomb County, Michigan: Four-term incumbent Mark Hackel is eligible for re-election.
• Maui County, Hawaii: One-term incumbent Richard Bissen is eligible for re-election.
• Montgomery County, Tennessee: One-term incumbent Wes Golden is eligible for re-election.
• Montgomery County, Texas: Two-term incumbent Mark Keough is eligible for re-election.
• Prince George's County, Maryland: One-term incumbent Aisha Braveboy is eligible for re-election.
• Rutherford County, Tennessee: One-term incumbent Joe Carr is eligible for re-election.
• Tarrant County, Texas: One-term incumbent Tim O'Hare is eligible for re-election.
• Wayne County, Michigan: Three-term incumbent Warren Evans is eligible for re-election.
• Wicomico County, Maryland: One-term incumbent Julie Giordano is eligible for re-election.

Ineligible or retiring incumbents

• Anne Arundel County, Maryland: Two-term incumbent Steuart Pittman is term-limited and ineligible to run.
• Baltimore County, Maryland: One-term incumbent Kathy Klausmeier is retiring.
• Harris County, Texas: Two-term incumbent Lina Hidalgo is retiring.
• Hennepin County, Minnesota: One-term incumbent Mary Moriarty is retiring.
• Howard County, Maryland: Two-term incumbent Calvin Ball III is term-limited and ineligible to run.
• Montgomery County, Maryland: Two-term incumbent Marc Elrich is term-limited and ineligible to run.
• Orange County, Florida: Two-term incumbent Jerry Demings is term-limited and ineligible to run.
• St. Louis County, Missouri : One-term incumbent Sam Page is retiring.
• Shelby County, Tennessee: Two-term incumbent Lee Harris is term-limited and ineligible to run.
• Williamson County, Tennessee: Six-term incumbent Rogers C. Anderson is retiring.

Polling

2025–2026

Poll source	Date(s) administered	Sample size	Margin of error	Democratic	Republican	Other/ Undecided	Lead
The Economist/YouGov	September 25–28, 2026	1,003 (LV)	–	53%	38%	9%	15%
		1,423 (RV)	± 3.4%	45%	37%	18%	8%
Quinnipiac University	September 24–27, 2026	1,032 (RV)	± 3.8%	51%	39%	10%	12%
Angus Reid Global	September 19–25, 2026	919 (RV)	—	56%	40%	4%	16%
		1,041 (RV)		49%	35%	16%	14%
		1,205 (A)	± 2.5%	45%	34%	21%	11%
Emerson College	September 21–22, 2026	1,000 (LV)	± 3.0%	53%	42%	5%	11%
McLaughlin & Associates (R)	September 16–22, 2026	1,000 (LV)	± 3.0%	48%	43%	9%	5%
The Economist/YouGov	September 18–21, 2026	975 (LV)	–	52%	38%	10%	14%
		1,394 (RV)	± 3.4%	45%	36%	18%	9%
Echelon Insights	September 17–21, 2026	1,002 (LV)	± 3.6%	51%	43%	6%	8%
Strength In Numbers/Verasight	September 16–21, 2026	— (LV)	—	52%	42%	6%	10%
		1,374 (RV)		50%	42%	8%	8%
		1,528 (A)	± 2.6%	49%	41%	10%
ActiVote	September 11–21, 2026	1,000 (LV)	± 3.1%	53%	47%	–	6%
Morning Consult	September 18–20, 2026	18,336 (LV)	± 0.9%	50%	43%	7%	7%
Reuters/Ipsos	September 17–20, 2026	979 (RV)	± 3.2%	43%	35%	9%	8%
		1,277 (A)	± 2.8%	37%	29%	19%
Quantus Insights (R)	September 15–18, 2026	1,389 (LV)	± 2.9%	50%	42%	8%	8%
CNN/SSRS	September 16–17, 2026	867 (RV)	± 4.1%	49%	41%	10%	8%
John Zogby Strategies	September 15–17, 2026	1,007 (LV)	± 3.2%	46%	40%	14%	6%
				48%	42%	10%
Clarity Campaign Labs (D)	September 11–16, 2026	1,046 (LV)	± 3.03%	50%	43%	8%	7%
Marist University	September 14–15, 2026	1,280 (RV)	± 3.8%	53%	41%	6%	12%
Big Data Poll (R)	September 13–15, 2026	2,633 (LV)	± 1.7%	48%	37%	15%	11%
		2,947 (RV)	± 1.8%	45%	36%	19%	9%
Emerson College/ RealClear Opinion Research	September 12–15, 2026	1,500 (RV)	± 2.4%	37%	29%	35%	8%
Hart Research Associates (D)/ Public Opinion Strategies (R)	September 11–15, 2026	1,000 (RV)	± 3.1%	50%	45%	5%	5%
RMG Research	September 8–15, 2026	2,000 (RV)	± 2.2%	51%	43%	6%	8%
Reuters/Ipsos	September 11–14, 2026	896 (RV)	± 3.4%	44%	37%	19%	7%
		1,143 (A)	± 3.0%	39%	31%	30%	8%
Beacon Research (D)/ Shaw & Co. Research (R)	September 11–14, 2026	1,211 (RV)	± 3.0%	51%	44%	5%	7%
The Economist/YouGov	September 11–14, 2026	1,051 (LV)	—	51%	39%	10%	12%
		1,455 (RV)	± 3.3%	44%	39%	17%	5%
The Rainey Center	September 10–14, 2026	1,004 (RV)	± 4.9%	48%	42%	10%	6%
New York Times/Siena College	September 8–13, 2026	1,503 (LV)	± 2.9%	51%	43%	6%	8%
Morning Consult	September 7–13, 2026	— (LV)	—	49%	43%	8%	6%
CBS News/YouGov	September 8–11, 2026	1,750 (LV)	± 2.9%	54%	46%	–	8%
ActiVote	August 31 – September 10, 2026	1,000 (LV)	± 3.1%	52%	48%	–	4%
Catawba College/YouGov	September 4–9, 2026	779 (LV)	–	49%	38%	12%	11%
		1,201 (A)	± 3.6%	38%	28%	34%	10%
Marquette University Law School	September 2–9, 2026	581 (LV)	± 4.3%	54%	41%	8%	13%
		864 (RV)	± 3.6%	50%	42%	8%	8%
		1,023 (A)	± 3.3%	48%	39%	13%	9%
The Economist/YouGov	September 4–8, 2026	1,015 (LV)	—	49%	38%	13%	11%
		1,464 (RV)	± 3.4%	42%	35%	23%	7%
Morning Consult	September 4–6, 2026	2,203 (RV)	—	46%	42%	12%	4%
Quinnipiac University	September 3–6, 2026	970 (RV)	± 3.9%	49%	38%	13%	11%
Cygnal (R)	September 1–2, 2026	1,500 (LV)	± 2.5%	51%	42%	7%	9%
Focaldata/Financial Times	August 28 – September 2, 2026	1,837 (LV)	–	52%	45%	3%	7%
		1,837 (RV)		51%	44%	5%
		1,914 (RV)		49%	42%	9%
		2,178 (A)		46%	41%	13%	5%
Reuters/Ipsos	August 28–31, 2026	924 (RV)	± 3.3%	43%	38%	19%	5%
		1,167 (A)	± 2.9%	38%	31%	31%	7%
Harvard/Harris Poll/HarrisX	August 28–30, 2026	2,100 (RV)	± 2.1%	51%	49%	–	2%
		– (LV)	–	49%	51%	–	2%
UMass Amherst/YouGov	August 21–26, 2026	1,000 (A)	± 4.1%	42%	34%	14%	8%
McLaughlin & Associates (R)	August 14–24, 2026	1,000 (LV)	–	48%	43%	9%	5%
ActiVote	August 10–24, 2026	1,000 (LV)	± 3.1%	52%	48%	–	4%
Emerson College	August 16–17, 2026	1,000 (LV)	± 3.0%	51%	43%	6%	8%
The Economist/YouGov	August 14–17, 2026	1,449 (RV)	± 3.2%	46%	39%	15%	7%
		1,610 (A)		39%'	32%	29%
Reuters/Ipsos	August 14–17, 2026	876 (RV)	± 3.4%	41%	36%	23%	5%
		1,166 (A)	± 2.9%	35%	30%	35%
The Bullfinch Group	August 14–17, 2026	1,000 (RV)	± 3.1%	42%	37%	21%	5%
		1,200 (A)	± 2.8%	45%	40%	15%
Echelon Insights	August 13–17, 2026	1,002 (LV)	± 3.4%	50%	45%	5%	5%
Morning Consult/Cato Institute	August 13–16, 2026	4,150 (RV)	± 2.0%	47%	42%	11%	5%
Noble Predictive Insights/ The Center Square	August 12–16, 2026	2,533 (RV)	± 2.0%	47%	42%	11%	5%
Morning Consult	August 10–16, 2026	29,719 (RV)	± 0.6%	46%	42%	12%	4%
Angus Reid Global	August 8–11, 2026	1,525 (A)	± 2.0%	45%	36%	19%	9%
Wave Polling/Verasight	August 7–11, 2026	1,591 (RV)	± 3.0%	50%	43%	8%	8%
				48%	40%	12%
Focaldata/Financial Times	August 7–11, 2026	1,857 (LV)	–	51%	45%	4%	6%
		1,913 (RV)		49%	43%	8%
		2,152 (A)		48%	41%	11%	7%
AlphaROC	August 8–10, 2026	1,000 (A)	± 3.1%	41%	37%	22%	4%
The Economist/YouGov	August 7–10, 2026	1,419 (RV)	± 3.2%	46%	40%	14%	6%
		1,558 (A)		40%	32%	28%	8%
Morning Consult	August 3–9, 2026	29,719 (RV)	± 0.6%	47%	42%	11%	5%
ActiVote	July 29 – August 8, 2026	1,000 (LV)	± 3.1%	52.5%	47.5%	–	5%
Cygnal (R)	August 6–7, 2026	1,500 (LV)	± 2.5%	49%	42%	9%	7%
John Zogby Strategies	August 4–5, 2026	921 (LV)	± 3.2%	51%	40%	9%	11%
Quantus Insights (R)	August 3–4, 2026	1,048 (LV)	± 3.2%	49%	43%	8%	6%
The Economist/YouGov	July 31 – August 3, 2026	1,472 (RV)	± 3.3%	46%	42%	12%	4%
		1,607 (A)		41%	33%	26%	8%
Reuters/Ipsos	July 29 – August 3, 2026	3,542 (RV)	± 1.7%	42%	37%	21%	5%
		4,505 (A)	± 1.5%	36%	30%	34%	6%
Morning Consult	July 27 – August 2, 2026	24,000 (RV)	± 1.0%	46%	42%	12%	4%
Big Data Poll (R)	July 27–29, 2026	2,617 (LV)	± 1.7%	50%	39%	10%	11%
				48%	37%	15%
		2,922 (RV)	± 1.8%	49%	38%	13%
				46%	35%	19%	9%
Marquette University Law School	July 22–29, 2026	572 (LV)	± 4.4%	51%	45%	4%	6%
		886 (RV)	± 3.5%	46%	44%	10%	2%
		1,076 (A)	± 3.2%	45%	41%	14%	4%
CNN/SSRS	July 23–27, 2026	914 (RV)	± 3.2%	47%	39%	14%	8%
Quinnipiac University	July 23–27, 2026	963 (RV)	± 4.1%	48%	41%	11%	7%
Reuters/Ipsos	July 24–26, 2026	1,003 (RV)	± 3.2%	40%	38%	22%	2%
		1,246 (A)	± 2.9%	36%	32%	32%	4%
Morning Consult	July 20–26, 2026	24,000 (RV)	± 1.0%	46%	43%	11%	3%
The Argument/Verasight	July 20–26, 2026	3,000 (RV)	± 2.0%	54%	46%	–	8%
				48%	40%	12%
CBS News/YouGov	July 22–24, 2026	1,474 (RV)	–	47%	40%	13%	7%
Clarity Campaign Labs (D)	July 17–22, 2026	1,000 (LV)	± 3.0%	52%	42%	6%	10%
McLaughlin & Associates (R)	July 15–21, 2026	1,000 (LV)	–	46%	44%	10%	2%
Emerson College	July 19–20, 2026	1,100 (LV)	± 2.9%	53%	42%	5%	11%
Beacon Research (D)/ Shaw & Co. Research (R)	July 17–20, 2026	1,003 (RV)	± 3.0%	53%	46%	1%	7%
The Economist/YouGov	July 17–20, 2026	1,432 (RV)	± 3.2%	46%	41%	13%	5%
		1,602 (A)		39%	33%	28%	6%
Morning Consult	July 17–19, 2026	2,200 (RV)	–	46%	43%	11%	3%
Focaldata	July 14–20, 2026	2,064 (A)	—	44%	36%	20%	8%
Strength In Numbers/Verasight	July 14–17, 2026	1,364 (RV)	–	50%	43%	7%	7%
		1,514 (A)	± 2.6%	48%	42%	10%	6%
AlphaROC	July 13–14, 2026	1,000 (A)	± 3.1%	42%	37%	21%	6%
RMG Research	July 6–14, 2026	2,000 (RV)	± 2.2%	47%	45%	8%	2%
Morning Consult	July 10–13, 2026	2,200 (RV)	–	46%	43%	11%	3%
The Economist/YouGov	July 10–13, 2026	1,447 (RV)	± 3.2%	46%	42%	12%	4%
		1,612 (A)		39%	35%	24%
Echelon Insights	July 9–13, 2026	1,004 (LV)	± 3.6%	50%	44%	6%	6%
The Washington Post/Ipsos	July 8–13, 2026	1,483 (LV)	± 2.6%	53%	45%	2%	8%
		2,092 (RV)	± 2.2%	48%	45%	7%	3%
Harvard/Harris Poll/HarrisX	July 11–12, 2026	1,776 (RV)	± 2.3%	50%	50%	–	Tie
		– (LV)	–	51%	49%	–	2%
Hart Research Associates (D)/ Public Opinion Strategies (R)	July 8–12, 2026	1,000 (RV)	± 3.1%	49%	45%	6%	4%
Pew Research Center	July 6–12, 2026	2,779 (RV)	± 2.2%	43%	37%	20%	6%
HarrisX/2WAY	July 9–10, 2026	787 (LV)	–	47%	44%	9%	3%
				51%	49%	–	2%
		1,019 (RV)		44%	41%	15%	3%
				52%	48%	–	4%
Quantus Insights (R)	July 3–7, 2026	1,140 (LV)	± 2.9%	47%	42%	11%	5%
Morning Consult	June 29 – July 5, 2026	24,000 (RV)	± 1.0%	46%	42%	12%	4%
Manhattan Institute	July 1–6, 2026	1,121 (LV)	± 3.1%	47%	43%	10%	4%
Zogby Analytics	July 1–4, 2026	1,003 (LV)	± 3.1%	42%	36%	22%	6%
Talker Research	June 25 – July 2, 2026	2,000 (RV)	± 2.2%	48%	39%	13%	9%
Cygnal (R)	June 30 – July 1, 2026	1,500 (LV)	± 2.5%	50%	44%	6%	6%
Focaldata/Financial Times	June 26–30, 2026	1,723 (RV)	–	51%	44%	5%	7%
		1,795 (RV)		49%	42%	9%
		2,016 (A)		47%	39%	14%	8%
The Economist/YouGov	June 26–29, 2026	1,426 (RV)	± 3.2%	45%	42%	13%	3%
		1,603 (A)		37%	35%	27%	2%
AlphaROC	June 27–28, 2026	1,000 (A)	± 3.1%	43%	37%	20%	7%
Morning Consult	June 26–28, 2026	2,202 (RV)	–	46%	42%	12%	4%
Big Data Poll (R)	June 26–28, 2026	2,604 (LV)	± 1.8%	50%	41%	9%	9%
				48%	39%	13%
		2,971 (RV)	± 1.7%	47%	39%	14%	8%
				45%	37%	18%
Morning Consult	June 22–28, 2026	24,000 (RV)	–	46%	42%	12%	4%
ActiVote	June 6–28, 2026	1,000 (LV)	± 3.1%	53%	47%	–	6%
Morning Consult/Cato Institute	June 25–26, 2026	1,797 (RV)	–	45%	39%	16%	6%
McLaughlin & Associates (R)	June 17–23, 2026	1,000 (LV)	–	46%	43%	11%	3%
Morning Consult	June 19–22, 2026	– (RV)	–	46%	42%	12%	4%
The Economist/YouGov	June 19–22, 2026	1,517 (RV)	± 3.1%	45%	43%	12%	2%
		1,679 (A)		38%	35%	27%	3%
Reuters/Ipsos	June 18–22, 2026	978 (RV)	± 3.2%	41%	36%	23%	5%
		1,262 (A)	± 2.8%	35%	31%	34%	4%
Echelon Insights	June 18–22, 2026	1,008 (LV)	± 3.5%	51%	45%	3%	6%
Quinnipiac University	June 18–22, 2026	1,165 (RV)	± 3.4%	49%	42%	9%	7%
Strength In Numbers/Verasight	June 17–22, 2026	1,896 (RV)	–	50%	43%	7%	7%
		2,087 (A)	± 2.2%	48%	42%	10%	6%
Data for Progress (D)	May 15 – June 21, 2026	5,809 (LV)	± 3.0%	51%	44%	5%	7%
Quantus Insights (R)	June 16–17, 2026	1,000 (LV)	± 3.2%	47%	43%	10%	4%
The Bullfinch Group	June 12–16, 2026	1,000 (RV)	± 3.1%	44%	36%	20%	8%
		1,200 (A)	± 2.8%	43%	34%	23%	9%
The Economist/YouGov	June 13–15, 2026	1,402 (RV)	± 3.4%	46%	44%	10%	2%
		1,547 (A)		39%	36%	25%	3%
Echelon Insights	June 11–14, 2026	1,012 (LV)	± 3.7%	50%	44%	6%	6%
Morning Consult	June 8–14, 2026	24,000 (RV)	–	46%	42%	12%	4%
Emerson College	June 7–8, 2026	1,200 (LV)	± 2.8%	50%	40%	10%	10%
The Economist/YouGov	June 5–8, 2026	1,393 (RV)	± 3.3%	45%	41%	14%	4%
		1,567 (A)		37%	33%	30%
Reuters/Ipsos	June 3–8, 2026	3,578 (RV)	± 1.7%	41%	37%	22%	4%
		4,531 (A)	± 1.5%	35%	31%	34%	4%
Morning Consult	June 1–7, 2026	24,849 (RV)	–	46%	42%	12%	4%
Hart Research Associates (D)/ Public Opinion Strategies (R)	May 29 – June 7, 2026	2,400 (RV)	± 2.0%	49%	44%	7%	5%
HarrisX/Forbes	May 20 – June 7, 2026	1,565 (LV)	–	46%	45%	9%	1%
		1,876 (RV)		44%	43%	13%
		2,010 (A)	± 2.2%	43%	42%	15%
Research Co.	June 4–6, 2026	1,001 (A)	–	38%	33%	29%	5%
Clarity Campaign Labs (D)	May 28 – June 5, 2026	1,045 (LV)	± 3.0%	48%	45%	7%	3%
Noble Predictive Insights/ The Center Square	June 1–4, 2026	2,585 (RV)	± 1.9%	47%	41%	12%	6%
RMG Research	June 1–4, 2026	2,000 (RV)	± 2.2%	49%	45%	6%	4%
Cygnal (R)	June 2–3, 2026	1,500 (LV)	± 2.5%	49%	44%	7%	5%
The Argument/Verasight	May 29 – June 3, 2026	3,008 (RV)	–	53%	47%	–	6%
Quantus Insights (R)	June 1–2, 2026	1,050 (LV)	± 3.0%	47%	42%	11%	5%
The Winston Group (R)	May 30 – June 2, 2026	1,000 (RV)	± 3.0%	48%	41%	11%	7%
The Bullfinch Group	May 29 – June 2, 2026	1,000 (RV)	± 3.1%	42%	36%	22%	6%
		1,200 (A)	± 2.8%	41%	34%	25%	7%
Focaldata/Financial Times	May 29 – June 1, 2026	1,483 (RV)	–	50%	45%	5%	5%
		1,537 (RV)		48%	43%	9%
		1,718 (A)		45%	42%	12%	3%
The Economist/YouGov	May 29 – June 1, 2026	1,452 (RV)	± 3.2%	46%	42%	12%	4%
		1,603 (A)		41%	35%	24%	6%
Harvard/Harris Poll/HarrisX	May 29–31, 2026	1,725 (RV)	± 2.4%	51%	49%	–	2%
		– (LV)	–	52%	48%	–	4%
Morning Consult	May 25–31, 2026	– (RV)	–	45%	42%	13%	3%
I&I/TIPP Insights (R)	May 26–28, 2026	1,332 (RV)	± 2.9%	46%	41%	13%	5%
Big Data Poll (R)	May 24–27, 2026	2,784 (LV)	± 1.8%	51%	38%	10%	13%
				49%	36%	16%
		3,121 (RV)	± 1.7%	50%	37%	13%
				47%	34%	19%
The Economist/YouGov	May 22–26, 2026	1,393 (RV)	± 3.3%	46%	41%	13%	5%
		1,514 (A)		39%	33%	28%	6%
Marquette University Law School	May 20–26, 2026	576 (LV)	± 4.4%	49%	48%	3%	1%
		857 (RV)	± 3.6%	46%	45%	9%
		1,001 (A)	± 3.4%	45%	41%	14%	4%
Pennsylvania State University/YouGov	May 19–26, 2026	862 (RV)	± 4.0%	41%	37%	22%	4%
Emerson College	May 24–25, 2026	1,000 (LV)	± 3.0%	50%	41%	9%	9%
John Zogby Strategies	May 21–22, 2026	– (LV)	–	49%	42%	9%	7%
Morris Predictive Insights/Verasight	May 18–20, 2026	2,000 (A)	± 2.7%	52%	41%	7%	11%
Rasmussen Reports (R)	May 13–20, 2026	2,161 (LV)	± 2.0%	47%	41%	12%	6%
Strength In Numbers/Verasight	May 18–19, 2026	1,413 (RV)	–	51%	43%	6%	8%
		1,520 (A)	± 2.7%	51%	41%	8%	10%
The Rainey Center	May 17–18, 2026	1,010 (RV)	± 3.3%	45%	43%	12%	6%
Data for Progress (D)	May 15–18, 2026	1,149 (LV)	± 3.0%	51%	43%	6%	8%
Reuters/Ipsos	May 15–18, 2026	984 (RV)	± 3.2%	39%	38%	23%	1%
		1,271 (A)	± 2.8%	35%	31%	34%	4%
The Economist/YouGov	May 15–18, 2026	1,375 (RV)	± 3.3%	46%	43%	11%	3%
		1,543 (A)		40%	35%	25%	5%
Echelon Insights	May 14–18, 2026	1,008 (LV)	± 3.5%	51%	43%	6%	8%
Quinnipiac University	May 14–18, 2026	1,106 (RV)	± 3.7%	50%	39%	11%	11%
McLaughlin & Associates (R)	May 12–18, 2026	1,000 (LV)	–	46%	42%	12%	4%
Impact Research (D)/ National Research Inc. (R)	May 7–18, 2026	1,500 (RV)	± 2.5%	48%	40%	12%	8%
Morning Consult	May 15–17, 2026	2,203 (RV)	–	47%	41%	12%	6%
Morning Consult	May 11–17, 2026	28,525 (RV)	–	46%	42%	12%	4%
CBS News/YouGov	May 13–15, 2026	1,397 (RV)	–	45%	40%	15%	5%
New York Times/Siena College	May 11–15, 2026	1,507 (RV)	–	50%	39%	11%	11%
The Economist/YouGov	May 9–11, 2026	1,406 (RV)	± 3.2%	45%	40%	15%	5%
		1,547 (A)		37%	34%	29%	3%
Reuters/Ipsos	May 8–11, 2026	993 (RV)	–	41%	35%	24%	6%
		1,254 (A)	± 2.9%	36%	31%	33%	5%
AtlasIntel	May 4–7, 2026	2,069 (A)	± 2.0%	55%	40%	5%	15%
Cygnal (R)	May 4–7, 2026	1,500 (LV)	± 2.5%	48%	41%	11%	7%
Cygnal (R)	May 5–6, 2026	1,500 (LV)	± 2.5%	49%	42%	9%	7%
RMG Research	May 4–6, 2026	2,000 (RV)	± 2.2%	50%	41%	9%	9%
HarrisX/Forbes	April 29 – May 5, 2026	1,891 (LV)	–	48%	42%	10%	6%
		2,359 (RV)		46%	41%	13%	5%
		2,569 (A)	± 1.9%	46%	40%	14%	6%
Focaldata/Financial Times	May 1–5, 2026	3,017 (RV)	–	52%	44%	4%	8%
		3,167 (RV)		49%	42%	9%	7%
		3,612 (A)		46%	39%	15%
The Economist/YouGov	May 1–4, 2026	1,406 (RV)	± 3.3%	44%	41%	15%	3%
		1,703 (A)		38%	34%	28%	4%
CNN/SSRS	April 30 – May 4, 2026	– (RV)	± 3.2%	45%	42%	13%	3%
Morning Consult	April 30 – May 3, 2026	2,201 (RV)	–	46%	43%	11%	3%
Marist University	April 27–30, 2026	1,155 (RV)	± 3.3%	52%	42%	6%	10%
Big Data Poll (R)	April 25–28, 2026	2,874 (LV)	± 1.7%	50%	39%	10%	11%
				47%	37%	16%	10%
		3,176 (RV)	± 1.8%	48%	38%	13%	10%
				45%	35%	20%
The Washington Post/ABC News/Ipsos	April 24–28, 2026	2,059 (RV)	± 2.2%	49%	44%	6%	5%
The Economist/YouGov	April 24–27, 2026	1,645 (RV)	± 3.0%	46%	41%	13%	5%
		1,834 (A)		39%	34%	27%
Reuters/Ipsos	April 24–27, 2026	1,014 (RV)	± 3.2%	41%	37%	22%	4%
		1,269 (A)	± 2.9%	36%	31%	33%	5%
Morning Consult	April 24–27, 2026	2,201 (RV)	–	45%	42%	13%	3%
Public Opinion Strategies (R)	April 21–27, 2026	1,000 (RV)	–	44%	41%	15%	3%
Emerson College	April 24–26, 2026	1,000 (LV)	± 3.0%	50%	40%	10%	10%
Harvard/Harris Poll/HarrisX	April 23–26, 2026	2,745 (RV)	± 1.9%	50%	50%	–	Tie
		– (LV)	–
Clarity Campaign Labs (D)	April 15–24, 2026	1,000 (LV)	± 3.1%	50%	45%	5%	5%
Quantus Insights (R)	April 21–23, 2026	1,452 (LV)	± 2.6%	47%	42%	11%	5%
The Argument/Verasight	April 20–23, 2026	1,516 (RV)	± 2.7%	53%	47%	–	6%
				47%	40%	13%	7%
Beacon Research (D)/ Shaw & Co. Research (R)	April 17–20, 2026	1,001 (RV)	± 3.0%	52%	47%	1%	5%
Echelon Insights	April 17–20, 2026	1,012 (LV)	± 3.5%	50%	44%	6%	6%
The Economist/YouGov	April 17–20, 2026	1,549 (RV)	± 3.1%	45%	40%	15%	5%
		1,703 (A)		39%	33%	28%	6%
Reuters/Ipsos	April 15–20, 2026	3,577 (RV)	–	41%	38%	21%	3%
		4,557 (A)	± 1.5%	35%	31%	34%	4%
Hart Research Associates (D)/ Public Opinion Strategies (R)	April 15–19, 2025	1,000 (RV)	± 3.1%	49%	45%	6%	4%
KFF	April 14–19, 2026	1,107 (RV)	± 4.0%	43%	34%	23%	9%
Morning Consult	April 13–19, 2026	27,869 (RV)	–	45%	42%	13%	3%
John Zogby Strategies	April 17–18, 2026	1,001 (LV)	± 3.2%	48%	44%	8%	4%
Marquette University Law School	April 8–16, 2026	576 (LV)	± 4.4%	53%	43%	4%	10%
		870 (RV)	± 3.6%	48%	44%	8%	4%
		982 (A)	± 3.4%	44%	41%	15%	3%
GBAO (D)/Third Way (D)	April 8–15, 2026	2,000 (RV)	–	48%	40%	12%	8%
McLaughlin & Associates (R)	April 8–15, 2026	1,000 (LV)	–	47%	43%	10%	4%
Strength In Numbers/Verasight	April 10–14, 2026	1,386 (RV)	–	50%	43%	7%	7%
		1,514 (A)	± 2.6%	49%	41%	10%	8%
Survey 160	April 8–13, 2026	1,539 (RV)	± 3.2%	47%	37%	16%	10%
Morning Consult	April 6–12, 2026	12,505 (RV)	–	46%	42%	12%	4%
Tavern Research (D)	April 6–9, 2026	502 (LV)	–	44%	43%	13%	1%
Morning Consult	April 6–9, 2026	2,200 (RV)	–	46%	42%	12%	4%
RMG Research	April 6–9, 2026	2,000 (RV)	± 2.2%	49%	44%	7%	5%
				45%	42%		3%
Echelon Insights	April 3–9, 2026	2,880 (LV)	± 3.2%	50%	45%	5%	5%
Morning Consult	April 3–4, 2026	2,203 (RV)	–	45%	42%	13%	3%
The Economist/YouGov	April 3–6, 2026	1,558 (RV)	± 3.0%	44%	42%	14%	2%
		1,745 (A)		38%	36%	26%
Cygnal (R)	April 2–3, 2026	1,500 (LV)	± 2.5%	49%	43%	8%	6%
Morning Consult	March 30 – April 5, 2026	12,505 (RV)	–	45%	42%	13%	2%
UMass Lowell/YouGov	March 26–30, 2026	1,000 (A)	± 4.1%	38%	35%	27%	3%
CNN/SSRS	March 26–30, 2026	951 (RV)	± 3.5%	48%	42%	10%	6%
Harvard/Harris Poll/HarrisX	March 25–26, 2026	2,009 (RV)	± 2.0%	51%	49%	–	2%
		– (LV)	–	52%	48%		4%
Quantus Insights (R)	March 25–26, 2026	1,472 (LV)	± 2.8%	47%	41%	12%	6%
Big Data Poll (R)	March 22–24, 2026	3,003 (RV)	± 1.9%	48%	40%	12%	8%
				45%	37%	18%
The Economist/YouGov	March 20–23, 2026	1,501 (RV)	± 3.0%	45%	42%	12%	3%
		1,664 (A)		39%	36%	25%
Quinnipiac University	March 19–23, 2026	1,191 (RV)	± 3.6%	51%	40%	9%	11%
Rasmussen Reports (R)	March 16–23, 2026	2,222 (LV)	± 2.0%	45%	42%	13%	3%
Yale Youth Poll	March 9–23, 2026	3,429 (RV)	± 1.4%	46%	44%	10%	2%
Reuters/Ipsos	March 20–22, 2026	985 (RV)	–	40%	38%	22%	2%
		1,272 (A)	± 2.8%	35%	31%	34%	4%
Morning Consult	March 17–22, 2026	15,029 (A)	± 1.0%	47%	42%	11%	5%
Morning Consult	March 16–22, 2026	26,406 (RV)	–	45%	42%	13%	3%
Impact Research (D)/ BSP Research (D)	March 10–20, 2026	1,000 (LV)	–	45%	41%	14%	4%
Reuters/Ipsos	March 17–19, 2026	1,206 (RV)	–	40%	37%	23%	3%
		1,545 (A)	± 2.5%	35%	32%	33%
John Zogby Strategies	March 17–18, 2026	1,000 (LV)	± 3.2%	46%	46%	8%	Tie
Quantus Insights (R)	March 17–18, 2026	1,064 (LV)	± 3.2%	47%	42%	11%	5%
Strength In Numbers/Verasight	March 16–18, 2026	1,370 (RV)	–	49%	43%	8%	6%
		1,530 (A)	± 2.5%	48%	41%	11%	7%
Emerson College	March 16–17, 2026	1,000 (LV)	± 3.0%	49%	42%	9%	7%
The Winston Group (R)	March 15–17, 2026	1,000 (RV)	± 3.0%	49%	40%	11%	9%
The Argument/Verasight	March 12–17, 2026	1,519 (RV)	± 2.7%	54%	46%	–	8%
				46%	40%	14%	6%
Morning Consult	March 13–16, 2026	2,201 (RV)	–	48%	40%	12%	8%
The Economist/YouGov	March 13–16, 2026	1,427 (RV)	± 3.2%	43%	41%	16%	2%
		1,593 (A)		39%	35%	26%	4%
Yahoo News/YouGov	March 12–16, 2026	1,147 (RV)	± 3.1%	44%	40%	16%
Echelon Insights	March 12–16, 2026	1,033 (LV)	± 3.4%	49%	44%	7%	5%
Survey 160	March 9–15, 2026	1,546 (RV)	± 3.2%	48%	38%	14%	10%
Morning Consult	March 9–15, 2026	26,63 (RV)	–	45%	42%	13%	3%
Focaldata	March 6–10, 2026	1,456 (RV)	–	50%	44%	6%	6%
		1,534 (RV)		48%	42%	10%
		1,782 (A)		45%	39%	16%
The Economist/YouGov	March 6–9, 2026	1,403 (RV)	± 3.2%	45%	42%	13%	3%
		1,561 (A)		40%	36%	24%	4%
McLaughlin & Associates (R)	March 4–9, 2026	1,000 (LV)	–	47%	43%	10%	4%
Morning Consult	March 2–8, 2026	25,948 (RV)	–	45%	42%	13%	3%
Clarity Campaign Labs (D)	February 26 – March 7, 2026	1,004 (LV)	± 3.1%	47%	43%	10%	4%
RMG Research	March 2–5, 2026	2,000 (RV)	± 2.2%	46%	46%	8%	Tie
				44%	43%	13%	1%
Cygnal (R)	March 3–4, 2026	1,500 (LV)	± 2.5%	49%	45%	6%	4%
Marist University	March 2–4, 2026	1,392 (RV)	± 3.0%	53%	44%	3%	9%
Quantus Insights (R)	March 2–3, 2026	1,624 (LV)	± 2.6%	48%	42%	10%	6%
				46%	41%	13%	5%
Hart Research Associates (D)/ Public Opinion Strategies (R)	February 27 – March 3, 2026	1,000 (RV)	± 3.1%	50%	44%	6%	6%
The Economist/YouGov	February 27 – March 2, 2026	1,363 (RV)	± 3.2%	45%	41%	14%	4%
		1,512 (A)		40%	33%	27%	7%
Morning Consult	February 23 – March 1, 2026	– (RV)	–	45%	42%	13%	3%
The Public Sentiment Institute	February 28, 2026	249 (LV)	± 5.5%	50%	41%	7%	9%
		316 (RV)		41%	33%	26%	8%
CBS News/YouGov	February 25–27, 2026	1,523 (RV)	± 2.5%	45%	40%	15%	5%
I&I/TIPP Insights (R)	February 24–27, 2026	1,264 (RV)	± 3.0%	46%	44%	10%	2%
Harvard/Harris Poll/HarrisX	February 25–26, 2026	1,999 (RV)	± 2.0%	50%	50%	–	Tie
		– (LV)
Cygnal (R)	February 24–26, 2026	1,048 (LV)	± 3.0%	48%	45%	7%	3%
GrayHouse (R)	February 20–23, 2026	1,394 (RV)	± 2.6%	43%	40%	17%
The Economist/YouGov	February 20–23, 2026	1,402 (RV)	± 3.1%	45%	41%	14%	4%
Echelon Insights	February 19–23, 2026	1,002 (LV)	± 3.5%	50%	46%	4%
Pennsylvania State University/YouGov	February 18–23, 2026	824 (LV)	± 3.8%	42%	37%	21%	5%
Reuters/Ipsos	February 18–23, 2026	3,686 (RV)	± 2.0%	40%	38%	22%	2%
		4,638 (A)	± 1.5%	35%	32%	34%	3%
Emerson College	February 21–22, 2026	1,000 (LV)	± 3.0%	50%	42%	8%	8%
Morning Consult	February 20–22, 2026	2,202 (RV)	–	46%	42%	12%	4%
Global Strategy Group (D)	February 17–22, 2026	1,051 (LV)	± 3.5%	48%	40%	12%	8%
Strength In Numbers/Verasight	February 18–20, 2026	1,401 (RV)	–	52%	42%	6%	10%
		1,566 (A)	± 2.5%	50%	40%	10%
Talker Research	February 13–19, 2026	1,000 (A)	± 3.1%	42%	36%	22%	6%
Big Data Poll (R)	February 16–18, 2026	2,012 (RV)	± 2.1%	48%	40%	12%	8%
				45%	37%	18%
		1,805 (LV)	± 2.3%	50%	41%	9%	9%
				48%	39%	13%
BGSU/YouGov	February 13–18, 2026	1,200 (RV)	± 3.2%	49%	41%	10%	8%
Washington Post/ABC News/Ipsos	February 12–17, 2026	2,087 (RV)	± 2.2%	47%	45%	8%	2%
		2,589 (A)	± 2.0%	43%	39%	18%	4%
The Economist/YouGov	February 13–16, 2026	1,509 (RV)	± 3.0%	47%	40%	13%	7%
		1,678 (A)		39%	33%	28%	6%
Reuters/Ipsos	February 13–16, 2026	846 (RV)	± 3.0%	41%	37%	14%	4%
		1,117 (A)		36%	32%	32%
Morning Consult	February 13–16, 2026	2,200 (RV)	–	45%	43%	12%	2%
Quantus Insights (R)	February 12–13, 2026	1,515 (LV)	± 2.5%	48%	42%	10%	6%
				41%	39%	20%	2%
RMG Research	February 9–12, 2026	2,000 (RV)	± 2.2%	45%	47%	8%	2%
				41%	44%	15%	3%
Yahoo News/YouGov	February 9–12, 2026	1,149 (RV)	–	44%	41%	15%	3%
Focaldata	February 10, 2026	– (LV)	–	51%	44%	5%	7%
		– (RV)		49%	44%	7%	5%
				46%	42%	12%	4%
		– (A)		42%	38%	20%
The Argument/Verasight	February 4–10, 2026	3,003 (RV)	± 2.0%	53%	47%	–	6%
				46%	41%	13%	5%
Morning Consult	February 6–9, 2026	2,200 (RV)	–	45%	41%	14%	4%
The Economist/YouGov	February 6–9, 2026	1,549 (RV)	± 3.0%	44%	38%	18%	6%
		1,728 (A)		39%	31%	30%	8%
Morning Consult	February 2–8, 2026	29,303 (RV)	–	45%	42%	13%	3%
John Zogby Strategies	February 4–5, 2026	1,000 (LV)	± 3.2%	47%	42%	11%	5%
Cygnal (R)	February 3–4, 2026	1,500 (LV)	± 2.5%	48%	44%	8%	4%
The Economist/YouGov	January 30 – February 2, 2026	1,501 (RV)	± 3.0%	44%	40%	16%
		1,668 (A)		36%	34%	30%	2%
Morning Consult	January 30 – February 1, 2026	2,201 (RV)	–	47%	42%	11%	5%
Public Policy Polling (D)	January 29–30, 2026	652 (RV)	–	48%	41%	11%	7%
Harvard/Harris Poll/HarrisX	January 28–29, 2026	2,000 (RV)	± 2.0%	54%	46%	–	8%
				41%	41%	18%	Tie
		– (LV)	–	52%	48%	–	4%
				47%	44%	9%	3%
I&I/TIPP Insights (R)	January 27–28, 2026	1,126 (RV)	± 3.1%	45%	42%	13%
Cygnal (R)	January 27–28, 2026	1,004 (LV)	± 3.1%	48%	44%	8%	4%
Marquette University Law School	January 21–28, 2026	577 (LV)	± 4.4%	52%	45%	3%	7%
		869 (RV)	± 3.6%	48%	44%	8%	4%
		1,003 (A)	± 3.4%	45%	39%	16%	6%
The Argument/Verasight	January 26–27, 2026	1,515 (RV)	± 2.7%	52%	48%	–	4%
				46%	42%	12%
McLaughlin & Associates (R)	January 21–27, 2026	1,000 (RV)	–	46%	44%	10%	2%
Beacon Research (D)/ Shaw & Co. Research (R)	January 23–26, 2026	1,005 (RV)	± 3.0%	52%	46%	2%	6%
The Economist/YouGov	January 23–26, 2026	1,519 (RV)	± 3.1%	43%	38%	19%	5%
		1,683 (A)		38%	35%	27%	3%
Echelon Insights	January 22–26, 2026	1,029 (LV)	± 3.4%	49%	44%	7%	5%
Reuters/Ipsos	January 23–25, 2026	906 (RV)	–	41%	37%	22%	4%
Morning Consult	January 23–25, 2026	2,201 (RV)	–	45%	43%	12%	2%
Big Data Poll (R)	January 22–24, 2026	2,909 (LV)	± 2.1%	48%	44%	8%	4%
				46%	42%	12%
Quantus Insights (R)	January 20–22, 2026	1,000 (RV)	± 3.1%	47%	41%	12%	6%
Clarity Campaign Labs (D)	January 15–22, 2026	1,147 (LV)	± 2.9%	51%	42%	7%	9%
Strength In Numbers/Verasight	January 14–20, 2026	1,352 (RV)	–	51%	43%	6%	8%
		1,532 (A)	± 2.5%	50%	42%	8%
KFF	January 13–20, 2026	1,141 (RV)	± 3.0%	49%	42%	9%	7%
Emerson College	January 17–19, 2026	1,000 (LV)	± 3.0%	48%	42%	10%	6%
The Economist/YouGov	January 16–19, 2026	1,717 (RV)	± 3.2%	43%	39%	18%	4%
		1,547 (A)		39%	34%	27%	5%
Morning Consult	January 16–18, 2026	2,201 (RV)	–	45%	43%	14%	2%
New York Times/Siena College	January 12–17, 2026	1,625 (RV)	± 2.8%	48%	43%	9%	5%
Public Policy Polling (D)	January 13–14, 2026	597 (RV)	–	50%	42%	8%	8%
Reuters/Ipsos	January 12–13, 2026	941 (RV)	–	40%	38%	22%	2%
Rasmussen Reports (R)	January 7–14, 2026	2,273 (LV)	± 2.0%	47%	41%	12%	6%
Impact Research (D)/ National Research Inc. (R)	January 8–13, 2026	1,500 (RV)	± 2.5%	47%	43%	10%	4%
CNN/SSRS	January 9–12, 2026	968 (RV)	± 3.5%	46%	41%	13%	5%
Morning Consult	January 9–12, 2026	2,201 (RV)	–	46%	43%	11%	3%
The Economist/YouGov	January 9–12, 2026	1,433 (RV)	± 3.1%	44%	40%	16%	4%
		1,597 (A)		39%	33%	28%	6%
Yahoo News/YouGov	January 8–12, 2026	1,148 (RV)	–	45%	40%	15%	5%
The Winston Group (R)	January 8–12, 2026	1,000 (RV)	± 3.0%	46%	43%	11%	3%
Cygnal (R)	January 7–8, 2026	1,500 (LV)	± 2.5%	48%	45%	7%
RMG Research	January 5–8, 2026	2,000 (RV)	± 2.2%	44%	43%	13%	1%
				47%	46%	7%
The Economist/YouGov	January 2–5, 2026	1,386 (RV)	± 3.1%	45%	39%	16%	6%
		1,547 (A)		39%	32%	29%	7%
Morning Consult	January 2–4, 2026	2,201 (RV)	–	45%	42%	13%	3%
Morning Consult	December 29, 2025 – January 4, 2026	22,709 (RV)	–	44%	42%	14%	2%
The Bullfinch Group	December 30, 2025 – January 1, 2026	1,000 (RV)	± 3.1%	44%	33%	23%	11%
		1,200 (A)	± 2.8%	40%	30%	30%	10%

2024–2025

Poll source	Date(s) administered	Sample size	Margin of error	Democratic	Republican	Other/ Undecided	Lead
The Economist/YouGov	December 26–29, 2025	1,417 (RV)	± 3.3%	42%	38%	20%	4%
		1,546 (A)		36%	31%	33%	5%
Big Data Poll (R)	December 26–28, 2025	3,412 (LV)	± 1.9%	48%	44%	8%	4%
				45%	42%	13%	3%
Morning Consult	December 15–21, 2025	20,240 (RV)	–	45%	42%	13%
The Economist/YouGov	December 20–22, 2025	1,424 (RV)	± 3.3%	43%	40%	17%
		1,591 (A)		38%	34%	28%	4%
Quantus Insights (R)	December 15–17, 2025	1,000 (RV)	± 3.1%	43%	41%	16%	2%
AtlasIntel	December 15–19, 2025	2,315 (A)	± 2.0%	54%	38%	7%	16%
McLaughlin & Associates (R)	December 12–19, 2025	1,000 (RV)	–	46%	45%	9%	1%
Fabrizio Ward (R)	December 15–17, 2025	1,000 (RV)	± 3.1%	45%	38%	17%	7%
Emerson College	December 14–15, 2025	1,000 (RV)	± 3.0%	44%	42%	14%	2%
Reuters/Ipsos	December 12–15, 2025	775 (RV)	–	40%	36%	24%	4%
The Economist/YouGov	December 12–15, 2025	1,451 (RV)	± 3.2%	43%	39%	18%	4%
		1,630 (A)		37%	33%	30%
Morning Consult	December 12–15, 2025	2,201 (RV)	–	45%	44%	11%	1%
Echelon Insights	December 11–15, 2025	1,011 (LV)	± 3.8%	48%	45%	7%	3%
Quinnipiac University	December 11–15, 2025	1,035 (RV)	± 3.9%	47%	43%	10%	4%
Big Data Poll (R)	December 10–12, 2025	3,004 (RV)	± 1.8%	47%	43%	10%
				44%	41%	15%	3%
The Argument/Verasight	December 5–11, 2025	– (LV)	–	52%	48%	–	4%
		1,521 (RV)	± 2.7%	50%	49%	–	1%
				44%	42%	14%	2%
Clarity Campaign Labs (D)	December 4–11, 2025	1,000 (LV)	± 3.1%	49%	44%	7%	5%
GrayHouse (R)	December 6–8, 2025	2,058 (RV)	± 2.2%	45%	41%	14%	4%
The Economist/YouGov	December 5–8, 2025	1,379 (RV)	± 3.2%	42%	37%	21%	6%
		1,529 (A)		37%	32%	31%	5%
Hart Research Associates (D)/ Public Opinion Strategies (R)	December 4–8, 2025	800 (RV)	± 3.5%	50%	46%	4%	4%
Reuters/Ipsos	December 3–8, 2025	3,521 (RV)	± 2.0%	40%	39%	21%	1%
Cygnal (R)	December 5–7, 2025	1,500 (LV)	± 2.5%	48%	44%	8%	4%
Morning Consult	December 5–7, 2025	2,201 (RV)	–	46%	43%	11%	3%
Quantus Insights (R)	December 4–5, 2025	1,000 (RV)	± 3.1%	44%	40%	16%	4%
RMG Research	December 1–4, 2025	2,000 (RV)	± 3.1%	41%	45%	14%	4%
				44%	48%	8%
Big Data Poll (R)	November 28 – December 1, 2025	2,008 (RV)	± 2.1%	44%	42%	20%	2%
				41%	39%	20%
The Economist/YouGov	November 28 – December 1, 2025	1,452 (RV)	± 3.1%	45%	39%	16%	6%
		1,623 (A)		39%	33%	28%
Morning Consult	November 26–30, 2025	2,200 (RV)	–	45%	41%	14%	4%
GBAO (D)/Third Way (D)	November 19–26, 2025	2,000 (RV)	–	48%	42%	10%	6%
The Bullfinch Group	November 21–25, 2025	1,000 (RV)	± 3.1%	41%	35%	24%
		1,200 (A)	± 2.8%	37%	32%	31%	5%
The Economist/YouGov	November 21–24, 2025	1,511 (RV)	± 3.0%	39%	32%	29%	7%
		1,674 (A)		44%	39%	17%	5%
McLaughlin & Associates (R)	November 17–24, 2025	1,000 (RV)	–	45%	44%	11%	1%
Morning Consult	November 21–23, 2025	2,200 (RV)	–	45%	43%	13%	2%
Rasmussen Reports (R)	November 18–23, 2025	2,410 (LV)	± 2.1%	45%	42%	13%	3%
J.L. Partners (R)	November 19–20, 2025	797 (LV)	–	50%	46%	4%	4%
The Economist/YouGov	November 15–17, 2025	1,380 (RV)	± 3.1%	43%	40%	17%	3%
Echelon Insights	November 13–17, 2025	1,051 (LV)	± 3.7%	49%	45%	6%	4%
The Argument/Verasight	November 10–17, 2025	– (LV)	–	54%	46%	–	8%
		1,508 (RV)	± 2.6%	53%	47%	–	6%
				46%	42%	12%	4%
Morning Consult	November 14–16, 2025	2,200 (RV)	–	46%	44%	10%	2%
High Point University	November 10–14, 2025	1,004 (A)	± 3.2%	46%	36%	13%	10%
Marist University	November 10–13, 2025	1,291 (RV)	± 3.1%	55%	41%	4%	14%
Quantus Insights (R)	November 11–12, 2025	1,000 (RV)	± 3.3%	44%	39%	17%	5%
Reuters/Ipsos	November 7–12, 2025	938 (RV)	± 3.0%	41%	40%	19%	1%
Marquette University Law School	November 5–12, 2025	903 (RV)	± 3.5%	49%	44%	7%	5%
		1,052 (A)	± 3.3%	46%	41%	13%
The Economist/YouGov	November 7–10, 2025	1,499 (RV)	± 3.1%	46%	39%	15%	7%
Morning Consult	November 7–9, 2025	2,201 (RV)	–	48%	43%	9%	5%
Cygnal (R)	November 5–6, 2025	1,500 (LV)	± 2.5%	50%	44%	6%	6%
Emerson College	November 3–4, 2025	1,000 (RV)	± 3.0%	44%	40%	16%	4%
The Economist/YouGov	October 31 – November 3, 2025	1,470 (RV)	± 3.1%	44%	41%	15%	3%
RMG Research	October 27–30, 2025	2,000 (RV)	± 2.2%	42%	43%	15%	1%
				44%	46%	10%	2%
CNN/SSRS	October 27–30, 2025	945 (RV)	± 3.6%	47%	42%	11%	5%
NewsNation/DDHQ	October 27–29, 2025	1,159 (LV)	± 2.9%	47%	47%	7%	Tie
		1,609 (RV)	± 2.4%	45%	44%	11%	1%
Strength In Numbers/Verasight	October 24–29, 2025	1,352 (LV)	± 2.7%	49%	41%	10%	8%
		1,567 (A)	± 2.6%	46%	39%	15%	7%
Big Data Poll (R)	October 26–28, 2025	2,984 (RV)	± 1.8%	43%	41%	16%	2%
Washington Post/ABC News/Ipsos	October 24–28, 2025	2,203 (RV)	± 2.2%	46%	44%	10%
Hart Research Associates (D)/ Public Opinion Strategies (R)	October 24–28, 2025	1,000 (RV)	± 3.1%	50%	42%	8%	8%
The Economist/YouGov	October 24–27, 2025	1,472 (RV)	± 3.0%	43%	40%	17%	3%
Yahoo News/YouGov	October 23–27, 2025	1,197 (RV)	± 3.1%	45%	40%	15%	5%
McLaughlin & Associates (R)	October 21–27, 2025	1,000 (RV)	–	44%	46%	10%	2%
Clarity Campaign Labs (D)	October 16–23, 2025	1,047 (RV)	± 3.0%	47%	46%	7%	1%
The Economist/YouGov	October 17–20, 2025	1,447 (RV)	± 3.0%	45%	40%	15%	5%
Quinnipiac University	October 17–20, 2025	1,327 (RV)	± 3.5%	50%	41%	9%	9%
UMass Lowell/YouGov	October 16–20, 2025	1,000 (A)	± 3.5%	38%	35%	27%	3%
Echelon Insights	October 16–20, 2025	1,010 (LV)	± 4.0%	48%	46%	6%	2%
Morning Consult	October 17–19, 2025	2,200 (RV)	–	46%	43%	11%	3%
Emerson College	October 13–14, 2025	1,000 (RV)	± 3.0%	44%	43%	13%	1%
The Argument/Verasight	October 10–16, 2025	1,530 (RV)	–	51%	49%	–	2%
The Economist/YouGov	October 10–13, 2025	1,466 (RV)	± 3.1%	43%	40%	17%	3%
Hart Research Associates (D)/ Public Opinion Strategies (R)	October 8–12, 2025	1,000 (A)	± 3.1%	48%	47%	5%	1%
YouGov Blue (D)	October 7–10, 2025	517 (RV)	–	48%	45%	7%	3%
Cygnal (R)	October 7–8, 2025	1,500 (LV)	± 2.5%	48%	45%	7%
Quantus Insights (R)	October 6–8, 2025	1,000 (RV)	± 3.2%	42%	43%	15%	1%
The Economist/YouGov	October 4–6, 2025	1,486 (RV)	± 3.1%	44%	39%	17%	5%
Noble Predictive Insights/ The Center Square	October 2–6, 2025	2,565 (RV)	± 2.0%	45%	43%	12%	2%
Morning Consult	October 3–5, 2025	2,200 (RV)	–	46%	43%	11%	3%
The Economist/YouGov	September 26–29, 2025	1,517 (RV)	± 3.1%	44%	41%	15%
Yahoo News/YouGov	September 25–29, 2025	1,126 (RV)	± 3.2%	44%	40%	16%	4%
New York Times/Siena College	September 22–27, 2025	1,313 (RV)	± 3.2%	47%	45%	8%	2%
RMG Research	September 22–24, 2025	2,000 (RV)	± 2.2%	41%	43%	16%	2%
				45%	46%	9%	1%
The Economist/YouGov	September 19–22, 2025	1,392 (RV)	± 3.1%	45%	42%	13%	3%
Echelon Insights	September 18–22, 2025	1,071 (LV)	± 3.7%	47%	46%	7%	1%
McLaughlin & Associates (R)	September 17–22, 2025	1,000 (RV)	–	41%	47%	12%	6%
Strength In Numbers/Verasight	September 15–19, 2025	1,268 (LV)	± 2.8%	50%	45%	5%	5%
		1,500 (A)	± 2.6%	47%	42%	11%
AtlasIntel	September 12–16, 2025	1,066 (A)	± 3.0%	52%	44%	4%	8%
Normington Petts (D)/Third Way (D)	September 11–16, 2025	800 (V)	–	51%	49%	–	2%
The Economist/YouGov	September 12–15, 2025	1,418 (RV)	± 3.3%	43%	41%	16%
National Association of Independent Pollsters	September 6–13, 2025	2,071 (LV)	± 2.0%	47%	46%	7%	1%
i360	September 10–12, 2025	577 (RV)	± 4.1%	35%	32%	33%	5%
Clarity Campaign Labs (D)	September 4–11, 2025	1,001 (RV)	± 3.1%	50%	44%	6%	6%
The Economist/YouGov	September 5–8, 2025	1,482 (RV)	± 3.1%	44%	40%	4%	2%
Public Religion Research Institute	August 15 – September 8, 2025	5,543 (A)	± 1.8%	33%	30%	36%	3%
Cygnal (R)	September 2–3, 2025	1,500 (LV)	± 2.5%	48%	45%	7%
Yahoo News/YouGov	August 29 – September 2, 2025	1,136 (RV)	± 3.1%	44%	40%	16%	4%
The Economist/YouGov	August 29 – September 2, 2025	1,548 (RV)	± 3.0%	43%	39%	18%
Survey 160	August 26 – September 1, 2025	– (RV)	± 5.8%	46%	39%	15%	7%
Morning Consult	August 29–31, 2025	2,202 (RV)	–	45%	41%	14%	4%
Emerson College	August 25–26, 2025	1,000 (RV)	± 3.0%	43%	43%	14%	Tie
McLaughlin & Associates (R)	August 21–26, 2025	1,000 (RV)	± 2.5%	45%	47%	8%	2%
The Economist/YouGov	August 22–25, 2025	1,374 (RV)	± 3.1%	43%	41%	16%	2%
Reuters/Ipsos	August 22–24, 2025	1,022 (A)	± 3.2%	38%	34%	28%
SoCal Strategies (R)	August 19, 2025	700 (A)	–	42%	37%	21%	5%
RMG Research	August 18–21, 2025	2,000 (RV)	± 2.2%	44%	44%	12%	Tie
Strength In Numbers/Verasight	August 18–21, 2025	1,500 (A)	± 2.6%	49%	41%	10%	8%
Echelon Insights	August 14–18, 2025	1,057 (LV)	± 3.6%	47%	46%	7%	1%
The Argument/Verasight	August 18–21, 2025	1,562 (RV)	± 2.6%	45%	42%	13%	3%
				51%	49%	–	2%
The Economist/YouGov	August 15–18, 2025	1,404 (RV)	± 3.2%	44%	39%	17%	5%
Quantus Insights (R)	August 11–13, 2025	1,000 (RV)	± 3.0%	45%	42%	13%	3%
The Economist/YouGov	August 9–11, 2025	1,473 (RV)	± 3.1%	42%	40%	18%	2%
The Economist/YouGov	August 1–4, 2025	1,528 (RV)	± 3.0%	44%	38%	18%	6%
Hart Research Associates (D)/ Public Opinion Strategies (R)	July 29 – August 3, 2025	1,000 (A)	± 3.1%	49%	44%	7%	5%
GrayHouse (R)	July 27–29, 2025	2,000 (RV)	± 2.7%	47%	44%	9%	3%
Yahoo News/YouGov	July 24–28, 2025	1,167 (RV)	± 3.1%	46%	39%	15%	7%
McLaughlin & Associates (R)	July 21–24, 2025	2,000 (RV)	–	46%	43%	11%	3%
		1,633 (LV)		48%	44%	8%	4%
Fabrizio (R)/Impact Research (D)	July 16–20, 2025	1,500 (RV)	± 2.5%	46%	43%	10%	3%
Emerson College	July 21–22, 2025	1,400 (LV)	± 2.5%	44%	42%	14%	2%
AtlasIntel	July 13–18, 2025	1,935 (A)	± 2.0%	51%	43%	6%	8%
Rasmussen Reports (R)	July 13–17, 2025	2,288 (LV)	± 2.0%	46%	42%	12%	4%
RMG Research	July 14–16, 2025	2,000 (RV)	± 2.2%	45%	49%	6%	4%
Big Data Poll (R)	July 12–14, 2025	3,022 (RV)	± 1.8%	42%	41%	17%	1%
Echelon Insights	July 10–14, 2025	1,084 (LV)	± 3.6%	47%	48%	5%	1%
				45%	41%	14%	4%
McLaughlin & Associates (R)	July 9–14, 2025	1,000 (LV)	± 2.5%	42%	47%	11%	5%
A2 Insights	July 7–10, 2025	862 (RV)	–	48%	44%	8%	4%
Strength In Numbers/Verasight	July 1–3, 2025	1,500 (A)	± 2.7%	47%	43%	10%
Cygnal (R)	July 1–2, 2025	1,500 (LV)	± 2.5%	47%	46%	7%	1%
Emerson College	June 24–25, 2025	1,000 (LV)	± 3.0%	43%	40%	17%	3%
American Pulse Research & Polling (R)	June 23–25, 2025	633 (RV)	–	47%	42%	11%	5%
Cygnal (R)	June 19–21, 2025	800 (LV)	± 3.5%	48%	46%	6%	2%
RMG Research	June 18–19, 2025	1,000 (RV)	± 3.1%	44%	52%	4%	8%
Echelon Insights	June 12–16, 2025	982 (LV)	± 3.8%	47%	48%	5%	1%
co/efficient (R)	June 12–16, 2025	1,035 (LV)	± 3.2%	46%	46%	8%	Tie
Clarity Campaign Labs (D)	June 5–14, 2025	1,000 (V)	± 3.1%	50%	45%	5%	5%
Strength In Numbers/Verasight	June 6–12, 2025	1,500 (A)	± 2.6%	45%	37%	18%	8%
Quantus Insights (R)	June 9–11, 2025	1,000 (RV)	± 3.0%	43%	43%	14%	Tie
Quantus Insights (R)	June 1–4, 2025	1,000 (RV)	± 3.0%	46%	45%	9%	1%
AtlasIntel	May 21–27, 2025	3,469 (A)	± 2.0%	51%	42%	7%	9%
McLaughlin & Associates (R)	May 21–26, 2025	1,000 (LV)	–	43%	47%	10%	4%
RMG Research	May 20–21, 2025	1,000 (RV)	± 3.1%	48%	45%	4%	3%
Fabrizio Ward (R)	May 15–19, 2025	800 (RV)	± 3.5%	42%	42%	16%	Tie
Echelon Insights	May 8–12, 2025	1,000 (LV)	± 3.8%	47%	48%	5%	1%
co/efficient (R)	May 7–9, 2025	1,462 (LV)	± 3.3%	45%	42%	10%	3%
Quantus Insights (R)	May 5–7, 2025	1,000 (RV)	± 3.0%	45%	45%	10%	Tie
Big Data Poll (R)	May 3–5, 2025	3,128 (RV)	± 1.8%	40%	42%	18%	2%
Strength In Numbers/Verasight	May 1–6, 2025	1,000 (A)	± 3.2%	47%	41%	12%	6%
NewsNation/DDHQ	April 23–27, 2025	1,448 (RV)	± 2.4%	45%	40%	15%	5%
New York Times/Siena College	April 21–24, 2025	913 (RV)	± 3.0%	47%	44%	9%	3%
Beacon Research (D)/ Shaw & Co. Research (R)	April 18–21, 2025	1,104 (RV)	± 3.0%	49%	42%	9%	7%
Noble Predictive Insights/ The Center Square	April 15–18, 2025	2,500 (LV)	± 2.0%	45%	42%	13%	3%
RMG Research	April 16, 2025	1,000 (RV)	± 3.1%	50%	45%	5%	5%
Hart Research Associates (D)/ Public Opinion Strategies (R)	April 9–13, 2025	– (RV)	–	45%	42%	13%	3%
RealClear Opinion Research	April 10–12, 2025	1,000 (RV)	± 3.0%	40%	39%	21%	1%
Cygnal (R)	April 1–3, 2025	1,500 (LV)	± 2.5%	48%	47%	5%
Yale Youth Poll	April 1–3, 2025	4,100 (RV)	± 1.9%	43%	42%	15%
Quantus Insights (R)	March 25–27, 2025	1,000 (RV)	± 3.5%	45%	46%	9%	1%
Echelon Insights	March 10–13, 2025	1,007 (LV)	± 3.5%	46%	47%	7%
Hart Research Associates (D)/ Public Opinion Strategies (R)	March 7–11, 2025	1,000 (RV)	± 3.1%	48%	47%	5%	1%
Clarity Campaign Labs (D)	March 3–9, 2025	1,036 (V)	± 1.7%	46%	44%	10%	2%
Cygnal (R)	March 3–5, 2025	1,500 (LV)	± 2.5%	47%	46%	7%	1%
Emerson College	March 2–3, 2025	1,000 (RV)	± 3.0%	44%	41%	15%	3%
Public Opinion Strategies (R)	February 25 – March 2, 2025	1,000 (RV)	± 3.5%	44%	46%	10%	2%
RMG Research	February 20–21, 2025	1,000 (RV)	± 3.1%	46%	48%	6%
co/efficient (R)	February 15–17, 2025	2,063 (LV)	± 3.4%	44%	46%	10%
Echelon Insights	February 10–13, 2025	1,010 (LV)	± 3.6%	46%	47%	7%	1%
Quantus Insights (R)	February 10–12, 2025	1,000 (RV)	± 3.5%	44%	48%	8%	4%
Morning Consult	February 3–9, 2025	19,675 (RV)	–	43%	45%	12%	2%
Clarity Campaign Labs (D)	January 31 – February 6, 2025	1,102 (V)	± 1.5%	45%	44%	11%	1%
Cygnal (R)	February 4–5, 2025	1,500 (LV)	± 2.5%	46%	47%	7%	1%
Morning Consult	January 27 – February 2, 2025	19,675 (RV)	–	43%	44%	13%
Fabrizio Ward (R)/ Impact Research (D)	January 27 – February 1, 2025	3,000 (RV)	± 1.8%	43%	43%	14%	Tie
Morning Consult	January 20–26, 2025	19,675 (RV)	–	42%	45%	13%	3%
Quantus Insights (R)	January 22–23, 2025	1,000 (RV)	± 3.5%	45%	48%	7%
RMG Research	January 15–16, 2025	1,000 (RV)	± 3.1%	44%	51%	5%	7%
Cygnal (R)	January 9–12, 2025	1,500 (LV)	± 2.5%	45%	47%	8%	2%
McLaughlin & Associates (R)	December 11–16, 2024	1,000 (LV)	–	42%	47%	11%	5%
Cygnal (R)	December 9–11, 2024	1,500 (LV)	± 2.5%	45%	48%	7%	3%

Elections by state or territory

• Alabama
• Alaska
• Arizona
• Arkansas
• California
• Colorado
• Connecticut
• Delaware
• District of Columbia
• Florida
• Georgia
• Guam
• Hawaii
• Idaho
• Illinois
• Indiana
• Iowa
• Kansas
• Kentucky
• Louisiana
• Maine
• Maryland
• Massachusetts
• Michigan
• Minnesota
• Mississippi
• Missouri
• Montana
• Nebraska
• Nevada
• New Hampshire
• New Jersey
• New Mexico
• New York
• North Carolina
• North Dakota
• Northern Mariana Islands
• Ohio
• Oklahoma
• Oregon
• Pennsylvania
• Rhode Island
• South Carolina
• South Dakota
• Tennessee
• Texas
• Utah
• Vermont
• Virginia
• Washington
• West Virginia
• Wisconsin
• Wyoming

See also

• 2026 United States electoral calendar

Notes

Partisan clients

References

Works cited

• Abodahab, Ahmad Mokhtar; Elsergany, AbdelAzim Nagdy (April 2025). "Children Disabilities, The Current and Upcoming Medical & Humanity Catastrophe in Gaza: Review Article". The Egyptian Journal of Hospital Medicine. 99: 1705–1710. doi:10.21608/ejhm.2025.423789.
• Aftab, Shiza; Yaqoob, Eesha; Khan, Shahzad Ali; Javed, Saad (April 2025). "Addressing emergency trauma care needs in the Gaza Strip". Eastern Mediterranean Health Journal. 31 (4): 226–227. doi:10.26719/2025.31.4.226. PMID 40448484. Archived from the original on September 19, 2025.
• Albanese, Francesca (March 25, 2024). Anatomy of a Genocide: Report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967, Francesca Albanese (PDF) (Report). United Nations Special Rapporteur on the occupied Palestinian territories. Archived (PDF) from the original on January 28, 2025.
• 'You Feel Like You Are Subhuman': Israel's Genocide Against Palestinians In Gaza (PDF) (Report). Amnesty International. December 4, 2024. Archived (PDF) from the original on December 5, 2024.
• B'Tselem (July 2025). Our Genocide (PDF) (Report). Archived (PDF) from the original on July 30, 2025.
• Bouranova, Alene (June 6, 2024). "Is Israel Committing Genocide in Gaza? New Report from BU School of Law's International Human Rights Clinic Lays Out Case". Boston University. Archived from the original on June 5, 2024. Retrieved June 7, 2024.
• Burga, Solcyré (November 13, 2023). "Is What's Happening in Gaza a Genocide? Experts Weigh In". Time. Archived from the original on November 25, 2023. Retrieved November 24, 2023.
• Buschek, Christo; Christoph, Maria; Kalisch, Muriel; Kollig, Dajana; Obermaier, Frederik; Retter, Maria (June 25, 2024). "(S+) The Gaza Project: Sie berichten aus der Todeszone – viele kostet das ihr Leben" [(S+) The Gaza Project: They report from the death zone – many lose their lives]. Der Spiegel (in German). Archived from the original on July 26, 2024. Retrieved August 19, 2024.
• Corder, Mike (January 2, 2024). "South Africa's genocide case against Israel sets up a high-stakes legal battle at the UN's top court". ABC News. Archived from the original on January 7, 2024. Retrieved January 3, 2024.
• De Vogli, Roberto; Montomoli, Jonathan; Abu-Sittah, Ghassan; Pappé, Ilan (August 2025). "Break the selective silence on the genocide in Gaza". The Lancet. 406 (10504): 688–689. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(25)01541-7. PMID 40752501.
• Dumper, Michael; Badran, Amneh (2024). "Introduction". In Dumper, Michael; Badran, Amneh (eds.). Routledge Handbook on Palestine (1st ed.). Routledge. doi:10.4324/9781003031994. ISBN 9781003031994.
• El Chamaa, Mohamad (December 1, 2023). "Gazans mourn loss of their libraries: Cultural beacons and communal spaces". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on December 5, 2023.
• Fayyad, Huthifa (September 17, 2024). "Nearly 1,000 Palestinian health workers killed by Israeli forces in Gaza named". Middle East Eye. Archived from the original on January 16, 2025.
• Gessen, Masha (February 7, 2024). "The Limits of Accusing Israel of Genocide". The New Yorker. Archived from the original on February 7, 2024.
• Gómez-Ugarte, Ana C.; Chen, Irena; Acosta, Enrique; Basellini, Ugofilippo; Alburez-Gutierrez, Diego (October 13, 2025). "Accounting for uncertainty in conflict mortality estimation: an application to the Gaza War in 2023-2024". Population Health Metrics. 23 55: 1–15. doi:10.1186/s12963-025-00422-9. PMID 41084007.
• Graham-Harrison, Emma (February 25, 2024). "Gaza death toll set to pass 30,000, as Israel prepares assault on Rafah". The Guardian. Archived from the original on February 27, 2024.
• Gritten, David (March 14, 2025). "UN experts accuse Israel of genocidal acts and sexual violence in Gaza". BBC News. Archived from the original on March 15, 2025.
• Harghandiwal, Beheshta (April 22, 2025). "Impact of the humanitarian crisis in Gaza on children's health: Evidence and recommendations for mitigation". Global Public Health. 20 (1) ((2495326)). doi:10.1080/17441692.2025.2495326. PMID 40260702.
• "One year of denouncing the genocide of Palestinians in Gaza". International Federation for Human Rights. December 12, 2024. Retrieved June 4, 2025.
• IPC global initiative (August 22, 2025). "GAZA STRIP: Famine confirmed in Gaza Governorate, projected to expand | 1 July – 30 September 2025" (PDF). Integrated Food Security Phase Classification.
• Jamaluddine, Zeina; Abukmail, Hanan; Aly, Sarah; Campbell, Oona M. R.; Checchi, Francesco (January 9, 2025). "Traumatic injury mortality in the Gaza Strip from Oct 7, 2023, to June 30, 2024: a capture–recapture analysis". The Lancet. 405 (10477). Elsevier: 469–477. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(24)02678-3. PMID 39799952.
• Kansara, Reha; Nour, Ahmed (January 29, 2024). "Israel-Gaza war: Counting the destruction of religious sites". BBC News. Archived from the original on August 14, 2024.
• van Laarhoven, Kasper; Peek, Eva; Walters, Derk (May 14, 2025). "Zeven gerenommeerde wetenschappers vrijwel eensgezind: Israël pleegt in Gaza genocide". NRC (in Dutch). Archived from the original on May 15, 2025. Retrieved May 27, 2025.
• Lawless, Jill (July 12, 2024). "Senior UK jurists have joined calls to stop arms sales to Israel. Other allies face similar pressure". Associated Press. Archived from the original on July 26, 2024.
• Lederman, Shmuel (September 19, 2025). "A Not So Textbook Case of Genocide". Journal of Genocide Research (Roundtable: Gaza and Genocide Studies): 1–12. doi:10.1080/14623528.2025.2556550.
• Massoud, Bassam; Fick, Maggie (December 23, 2023). "Gaza death toll: why counting the dead has become a daily struggle". Reuters. Archived from the original on January 14, 2024.
• "Gaza genocide". Médecins Sans Frontières. July 10, 2025. Archived from the original on July 10, 2025.
• Mohyeldin, Ayman; Hamdan, Basel (December 10, 2024). "Why Amnesty International and other experts say Israel is committing genocide in Gaza". MSNBC. Archived from the original on July 3, 2025.
• Moor, Ahmed (March 27, 2025). "There are more child amputees in Gaza than anywhere else in the world. What can the future hold for them?". The Guardian. Archived from the original on August 16, 2025.
• Moutafa, Laila Hussein (December 12, 2023). "Opinion: When libraries like Gaza's are destroyed, what's lost is far more than books". Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on August 8, 2024.
• Muthumani, Abirami (January 2024). "Safeguarding children through pediatric surgical care in war and humanitarian settings: a call to action for pediatric patients in Gaza". World Journal of Pediatric Surgery. 7 (1): ((e000719)). doi:10.1136/wjps-2023-000719. PMC 10910480. PMID 38440223.
• Narea, Nicole (October 25, 2024). "Is Israel committing genocide? Reexamining the question, a year later". Vox. Archived from the original on July 13, 2026. Retrieved October 28, 2024.
• Neuman, Scott; Baba, Anas; Wood, Daniel (June 1, 2024). "In Gaza, months of war have left Palestinians with barely the necessities to survive". NPR. Archived from the original on August 22, 2024.
• Quigley, John (July 3, 2024). "The Lancet and Genocide By "Slow Death" in Gaza". Arab Center Washington DC. Archived from the original on July 13, 2024. Retrieved July 13, 2024.
• Saber, Indlieb Farazi (January 14, 2024). "A 'cultural genocide': Which of Gaza's heritage sites have been destroyed?". Al Jazeera. Archived from the original on August 13, 2024.
• Salzenstein, Léopold (March 21, 2024). "Behind the numbers: Gaza's unprecedented aid worker death toll". The New Humanitarian. Archived from the original on December 19, 2024. Retrieved December 21, 2024.
• Schwarz, Franziska (August 16, 2024). ""Düsterer Meilenstein": UN benennt Zahl der täglichen Toten im Gazastreifen" ["Gloomy milestone": UN names number of daily deaths in the Gaza Strip]. Frankfurter Rundschau (in German). Archived from the original on August 23, 2024. Retrieved August 19, 2024.
• Shatali, Ala; Rashid, Fatima; Lubbad, Ilham; Potterton, Joanne; Geilen, Bart; Ali, Sanah; Sidhanee, Abu (April 2025). "Meeting the rehabilitation needs of children with debilitating injuries and disability in Gaza". Eastern Mediterranean Health Journal. 31 (4): 219–225. doi:10.26719/2025.31.4.219. PMID 40448483. Archived from the original on September 19, 2025.
• Shaw, Martin (September 19, 2025). "The Genocide that Changed the World". Journal of Genocide Research (Roundtable: Gaza and Genocide Studies): 1–15. doi:10.1080/14623528.2025.2556575. hdl:10230/71505.
• Sherwani, Maryam; Stewart, Richard; Samad, Lubna (March 10, 2025). "The Disproportionate Surgical Burden Borne by Children in Regions of Armed Conflict". World Journal of Surgery. 49 (7): 1840–1845. doi:10.1002/wjs.12560. PMID 40133763.
• Speri, Alice (December 20, 2024). "Defining genocide: how a rift over Gaza sparked a crisis among scholars". The Guardian. Archived from the original on December 21, 2024.
• Stack, Liam; Shbair, Bilal (May 6, 2024). "With Schools in Ruins, Education in Gaza Will Be Hobbled for Years". The New York Times. Archived from the original on July 15, 2024.
• Sultany, Nimer (May 9, 2024). "A Threshold Crossed: On Genocidal Intent and the Duty to Prevent Genocide in Palestine". Journal of Genocide Research (Forum: Gaza: International Humanitarian Law and Genocide): 1–26. doi:10.1080/14623528.2024.2351261.
• Swart, Mia (August 5, 2025). "South Africa v Israel: South Africa's case at the International Court of Justice". The Round Table: The Commonwealth Journal of International Affairs and Policy Studies. 114 (5): 687–689. doi:10.1080/00358533.2025.2542794.
• Tantesh, Malak A.; Graham-Harrison, Emma (August 15, 2024). "Gaza rubble likely to conceal untold horrors to swell 40,000 death toll". The Guardian. Archived from the original on August 22, 2024. Retrieved August 19, 2024.
• Tharoor, Ishaan (July 30, 2025). "Leading genocide scholars see a genocide happening in Gaza". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on August 11, 2025. Retrieved August 2, 2025.