Republicans will likely lose control of the House of Representatives in the coming weeks. The big question on a lot of minds is whether the Senate will shift to Democratic control as well. Here’s how this match up looks right now.

Republicans hold 53 seats, the Democrats have 45 and there are 2 Independents, who mostly lean Democrat. When there is a tie vote, the Vice President casts a deciding vote, so the Democrats actually need a net gain of 4 to secure control.

Unlike the House of Representatives, not all Senate seats are contested at the same time. This year, 35 seats are being contested: 22 Republican held and 13 Democrats.

To shift control, the Democrats need to hold all their own seats and pick up 4 others. Polling shows a fairly wide “generic ballot” advantage for the Democrats (around 8 points), which means that the Democrat held seats are likely fairly safe. Midterms generally don’t favour the White House incumbent’s party, and Trump is pretty far underwater. Independent voters are unhappy, and Republican voters are less motivated to turn out, compared to Democrats.

The cost of living, and in particular, the cost of gasoline and diesel are the factors that have shifted a challenging election for the Republicans to something that looks more like a potential wave for the Democrats. The chart below illustrates the strong relationship between gas prices and Trump favourability since the Iran war was launched.

So let’s turn back to the Senate.

Of the 35 seats being contested, there are 10 that may matter the most.

Democrats must retain: Georgia, Michigan and New Hampshire

The Democrats need Jon Ossoff to hold Georgia, Abdul El-Sayed to win in Michigan, and Chris Pappas to win in New Hampshire. Ossoff looks solid, the other two races will confirm whether a blue wave is happening, but both Democrats have shown modest leads in polling.

Democrats need to pick up 4 of: Maine, Texas, North Carolina, Alaska, Ohio, Iowa and Nebraska.

Based on the most recent polling, Maine, North Carolina, Ohio, Texas, and Alaska look like the most plausible pick ups for the Democrats. Iowa is competitive, with Josh Turek holding a slight lead. Nebraska is a race between an incumbent Republican Pete Ricketts versus Dan Osborn, who is running as an Independent. Osborne has been harshly critical of the Republicans, but has said that if he wins, he won’t caucus with either party.

Some observers now believe Kansas is in play, with Republican incumbent Roger Marshall facing a strong challenge from Adam Hamilton. Democrats haven’t won a Senate seat in Kansas in 94 years. Hamilton is well liked, Marshall isn’t, and Kansas has been unhappy about fuel, fertilizer, and Trump’s attack on Bombardier, which manufactures in Wichita.

Finally, there’s more conversation about whether late South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham’s sister Darline will be able to hold onto that seat for the Republicans. She remains the favourite in a state Trump carried by almost 18 points in 2024, but the fact that it is part of the conversation underscores how much the Republicans are playing defense this fall.

One of the reasons I’m so focused on these mid terms is the potential to create a reset in how America approaches the conversation about tariffs and Canada. To understand the potential, it’s useful to look at the positions some of the most important Democratic candidates have taken.

• Abdul El-Sayed (Michigan) has been harshly critical of Trump’s tariffs and said that to start a trade war with Canada you have to be an “asshole”. Al Sayed is not completely against tariffs but says the recent application of tariffs to Canada has been “ham-fisted, chaotic and self serving”.

• Chris Pappas (New Hampshire) has been a persistent critic of tariffs, arguing that they are costing consumers more and harming an important long term relationship with Canada. “Tourism is one of the biggest sectors in New Hampshire, and so this is collateral damage from Donald Trump’s reckless trade war with what should be our closest trading partner and our closest ally, Canada.”

• Jon Ossoff (Georgia) calls the tariffs a self enriching “clown policy”, which is driving up prices for consumers. “This tariff chaos driving prices higher for families and consumers putting so much pressure on small businesses.”

• Troy Jackson (Maine) says he spent most of his life working along the Canadian border and so understands how much the relationship matters to Maine's economy. He attacks incumbent Susan Collins for not standing up to Trump on tariffs. He points out that Collins voted against efforts to rein in the tariffs in April 2025.“These idiotic tariffs have been hurting Mainers since they went into effect last year.”

• Mary Peltola (Alaska) has run on the tariff issue but without specifically discussing the Canada angle. Her campaign highlighted six times in 2025 that her opponent voted to support Trump's tariffs. “The tariffs drove costs up.” She has argued that Congress needs to reassert more authority.

• Roy Cooper (North Carolina) has made tariffs part of his affordability message His “Make Stuff Cost Less” platform includes ending tariffs that drive up costs for farmers. “We know these tariffs are erratic and reckless and folks are getting crushed by skyrocketing costs…along with a reduction of export markets.” “Number one, we need to roll back these tariffs.”

• Josh Turek (Iowa) has made tariff impact on farmers a core issue. He says that on his first day in the Senate he would vote to end Trump’s tariff policy, arguing that other countries’ retaliatory tariffs have hurt American farm exports. He says the word he hears most from farmers who supported Trump is “betrayal.” He attacks his opponent as a rubber stamp who repeatedly voted for the tariffs. He also ties tariffs to the Iran war, which he says is raising farmers’ fuel and fertilizer costs. “I know it’s families like mine who pay the price for Trump’s health care cuts, his tariffs, and his overseas wars.”

• Sherrod Brown (Ohio) has been a protectionist his whole career, but says Trump’s tariffs have clearly not worked. He argues it’s one thing to get tough with an adversarial economic power like China and another to impose erratic, unpredictable tariffs on neighbouring countries. He has also put a price on the tariffs: he cites estimates that they cost Ohio $6.5 billion, about $1,336 per family over the past year. “I’ve supported tariffs to help steel in Ohio…I’ve seen tariffs can work if they are well thought through…You don’t need tariffs on Canada, or France or Germany…you go after countries that cheat.”

• James Talarico (Texas) has a cost-of-living plan that includes ending tariffs. He talks about tariffs mainly as part of what he sees as widespread corruption, referring to “corrupt tariffs” and tax breaks for billionaires, and countered with food drives for “neighbors who have been screwed over.” His economic plan rests on the line that Texas has an affordability crisis because it has a corruption crisis. “Repeal the Trump tariffs that are making everything from groceries to cars to clothing more expensive”. “Keep more jobs in Texas with fair trade policies, not counterproductive tariffs.”

• Dan Osborn (Nebraska) supports a targeted, strategic, America-first tariff policy, not a blanket approach that hurts farmers and working families. He said targeted tariffs can work and "tariff doesn't have to be a bad name." He also argued that tariff authority should go back to Congress.

• Annie Andrews (South Carolina) “We need to stop the on-again, off again trade wars that are really devastating South Carolina’s economy.”

To fully develop the context for a post mid term reset, it’s useful to look at how the Republican opponents of these candidates are approaching the topic of tariffs. In short, 2 oppose tariffs, 3 are pretty quiet; 5 are mixed/qualified in their support for tariffs and just 1 backs Trump’s approach unequivocally (Mike Collins in Georgia).

In other words, the Republican campaign to hold on to the Senate is mostly trying to avoid harm from the tariff war that Trump started.

In border states like Maine and New Hampshire (e.g. Republican Senate Candidate John Sununu: “This is not China we’re dealing with; it’s Canada - our best friend, a country with whom our economy is completely intertwined”, Republicans are particularly unhappy with Trump’s attacks on Canada.

Since September 1, 159 Senators, Governors and Representatives have posted on X about tariffs. There’ve been a total of 358 posts. 339 of those posts have been against tariffs.

A poll released by the CATO Institute this week shows that 74% of Americans think tariffs have driven up their cost of living, and 75% say tariffs will play a role in how they vote in November. Among the 75% who say tariffs will be important to their vote, the Democrats have an 18 point advantage.

To sum it up, Trump’s tariffs are adding weight, not lift, to the US economy and to Republican election prospects. Democrats are ready to recalibrate if they win more power, but there will be a few different starting points, including:

• Asserting that Congress should regain control over trade and tariffs
• Addressing tariffs that have driven up consumer costs
• Focusing on the problems tariffs have caused small businesses
• Unwinding the tariff risks for farmers and agriculture
• Restoring a trusted and respectful relationship with Canada

The relative importance of these will vary by the regional and other sensitivities of the individual politicians, but in the aggregate the patterns suggest there would be room to create a new and better conversation within Congress, if in fact the Democrats enter December with more power than they have today.