Since the Trump era began ten years ago, one theme has consistently defined election night results: polling inaccuracy. Response rates to telephone surveys have dropped by over 30 percentage points since 1997, and those who do respond are not always truthful. Notable polling misses in 2016 and 2024 seemed to confirm both trends, casting doubt on the accuracy of all pre-election surveys.
With both parties eyeing a “statement victory” that can shift the balance of power and instill confidence heading into 2028, the close battle for the Senate majority has taken center stage. Current polling numbers from FiftyPlusOne suggest Democrats are poised to win back control of the upper chamber, with narrow leads in key races like Texas, Michigan, and Ohio. Yet, if polling inaccuracy is inevitable, it is worth examining the range of potential polling swings on Election Day.
Using FiftyPlusOne’s state-by-state averages as a benchmark, this piece examines three scenarios for how actual election returns might compare to polling predictions: polls systematically underestimate Republicans, polls are largely correct, or polls understate Americans’ anti-Trump sentiment. Each of these scenarios yields a unique electoral map, and a starkly different outlook heading into 2028.
Scenario 1: Polls Underestimate Republicans (R+3 Swing on Election Day)
After the 2024 election, the American Association for Public Opinion Research (AAPOR) found that the last two weeks of that cycle’s polling overestimated Democrats by roughly 2.7 percentage points, a shift pollsters believe may have been more systematic than coincidental.
The “enthusiasm gap” favors the party without a majority, meaning left-leaning respondents are much more likely to opt in to a pollster’s request for opinion, skewing results even when samples are scaled to match existing demographics. G. Elliott Morris, formerly of FiveThirtyEight, has emphasized the impact of this phenomenon in low-density, heavily rural states, where Republicans already tend to thrive.
In Kansas — one of the cycle’s more surprising stories — a recent Washington Post poll gave Democrat Adam Hamilton a nine-point lead. When asked to recall who they voted for in 2024, however, respondents in the same poll favored Trump by six percentage points, much smaller than the president’s actual 16-point winning margin. Similar concerns have arisen in the Senate races in Iowa and Nebraska, two other historically ruby-red states that have trended abnormally blue this cycle. Notable polling misses previously shook the Midwest in 2024, when Ann Selzer incorrectly projected a narrow win for Kamala Harris in the presidential race, and several late Senate polls in Nebraska showed independent Dan Osborn with a lead before his eventual six-percentage-point loss on Election Day. With Osborn again running in 2026, Democrats have to hope history does not repeat itself.
Republicans need a 2.5 percentage point swing in their favor to achieve a 50-50 split of the Senate, allowing them to hold onto control of the upper chamber with the vice president’s tie-breaking vote. Yet, if numbers do skew right in 2026 as much as they did in 2024, expect Republicans to defend key seats in Texas, Maine, Alaska, and Iowa, flip Michigan from the Democrats, and maintain control of the Senate.
Scenario 2: Polls Generally Hold (R+1 Swing)
While some are understandably skeptical of poll numbers, others have observed that the underlying data seems to support the direction in which the polls are pointing. Early voting tallies cannot show which candidate ballots are for, but they can show which parties voters are registered with, which has yielded results that strongly favor the Democrats.
The “enthusiasm gap” has given Democrats a lead in nationwide ballots cast so far, with 43% of early votes cast by registered Democrats, compared to 31% by Republicans. Meanwhile, huge boosts in turnout are already surpassing 2024 numbers. Constituents feeling freshly encouraged to cast a ballot are more often upset than content, which implies that high turnout should benefit the challenger party in any given cycle. What are said voters upset about? Clearly, the economy.
A Guardian poll found cost of living to be far-and-away the most important factor for voters in 2026, a fact that remains true across both Democratic and Republican voters. Pundits and candidates alike have not shied away from pinning high costs on Trump and his administration, citing the war in Iran, the battle over tariffs, and inflation. This strategy seems to be working, as response data shows voters are shifting leftward due to economic concerns.
A handful of key races have become almost exclusively about affordability. Michigan Democrat Abdul El-Sayed’s closing message has been government action and subsidies on affordability, while his opponent, Republican Mike Rogers, has proposed tax cuts for housing developers to encourage cheaper housing. In Maine, working-class spending habits have become a hot-button topic. Nonetheless, polls consistently show Republicans struggling to prove themselves capable of fixing the economy.
With a strong and consistent undercurrent of cost-of-living frustration, Democrats should be optimistic that voters will opt for change, giving them a strong chance to flip seats in the Senate. Even as experts predict in-person votes will skew day-of results to the right, an R+1 shift would still net the Democrats a 52-48 majority in the Senate, highlighted by flips in Texas, Michigan, Maine, and Alaska.
Scenario 3: The “Blue Tsunami” (D+1 Swing)
The most fundamental question to be answered on election night is whether voters will separate Republican candidates from Trump. The president’s approval rating reached an all-time low of 31% on Oct. 19th, and just a week later Democrats hit their peak generic ballot approval of 51.4%, meaning more than half of respondents selected a general preference for the Democratic Party.
Despite his strikingly low approval, Trump’s endorsement remains a central tenet of many candidates’ platforms. Darline Graham, sister of the late South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham, reluctantly ran for the Republican nomination to replace her brother at the suggestion of President Trump, and Kansas Republican Roger Marshall praised the president at his Salina rally on Sunday, having aligned himself as one of the president’s right-hand men for the last five years.
The dream scenario then, for Democrats, is that voters treat their ballot like a generic one. The “blue tsunami” need not be an embrace of Democrats, but merely a rejection of Trumpism. In Nebraska, independent Dan Osborn has struggled to shed the “Democrat” moniker, which has only hurt his campaign. In Texas, where Trump’s approval rating has cratered due to the continued presence of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in the southern region of the state, Republican Senate nominee Ken Paxton privately remarked that he felt Trump’s association was hurting him.
In both states, Democrats may benefit from Trump’s desire to attach himself to Republican candidates, whether those candidates like it or not. With the 2028 election for president just two years away and an opportunity to define the post-Trump era within grasp for both parties, a resounding rejection of the Trump era would not only cause surprising seat flips in Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa, and South Carolina, but also cast serious doubt on Trump’s political power during his remaining years in office.
Putting the Polls in Perspective
In each of the three scenarios presented in this article, leftward and rightward shifts are applied uniformly to each state. For instance, FiftyPlusOne gives Democrats a 2.8-point lead in Michigan and a 2.6-point lead in Texas, so applying an “R+3 swing” to this data gives Republicans wins in both states.
As a result, these maps assume that if the Democrats win Texas, they must also win Michigan, a principle that overlooks state-level circumstances and voting environments. A more complex model might consider shifts of different magnitudes in different places, but this article instead takes a top-level look at national Senate outcomes resulting from national shifts.
Earlier this week, the Harvard Political Review released our Battle for the Senate series, which features races in Alaska, Georgia, Maine, Michigan, Montana, and Texas. These pieces provide in-depth analyses of individual races and the impact of local issues on their outcomes, serving as a valuable complement to the broader trends explored here.
The goal of the above maps is not to craft precise predictions for each race, but rather to highlight the dynamics at play in the relationship between polls and actual election results. Each map is a possibility that may unfold on election night, representing a unique national environment from which state-level differences could emerge. If one of these maps becomes a reality, or if results significantly diverge from the national trends analyzed here, this article can serve as a roadmap on how and why that result took place. With more uncertainty around poll accuracy than ever, though, take these scenarios with a grain of salt, and treat them as a piece of the diagnostic toolkit to understand what happens on election night.
© 2025 Harvard Political Review. All rights reserved.
