Election

Former President Barack Obama is back on the campaign trail as Americans prepare to vote on November 3, bringing renewed attention to his administration's record on Iran, immigration enforcement, and national security. Meanwhile, political controversies involving Congresswoman Ilhan Omar and congressional candidate Brad Lander are fueling broader questions about government transparency, media accountability, and America's relationship with Israel.

With elections approaching in both the United States and Israel, the consequences of political leadership extend beyond domestic policy. Decisions made in Washington affect American families, international security, and the lives of people facing threats across the Middle East.

On The Daniel Cohen Show, available through Real Life Network, these developments raise a central question: Are political leaders and the media giving Americans the full picture, or are important facts being lost in partisan narratives?

Obama's Iran Deal Returns to the Spotlight

As Obama campaigns for Democratic candidates, his defense of the 2015 Iran nuclear agreement has reignited debate over one of his presidency's most consequential foreign policy decisions.

The agreement, formally known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), was designed to restrict Iran's nuclear activities in exchange for sanctions relief. Obama has defended the arrangement as an example of diplomacy preventing a nuclear-armed Iran without military intervention.

Critics, however, argue that the agreement failed to address the broader threat posed by the Iranian regime.

One enduring controversy involves a $1.7 billion settlement paid to Iran in 2016, including an initial $400 million payment delivered in foreign currency. The Obama administration described the settlement as the resolution of a longstanding dispute over military equipment purchased before Iran's 1979 revolution.

Critics questioned the timing of the payment, which coincided with the release of American detainees, and raised concerns that money reaching Tehran could strengthen a government accused of financing terrorist organizations.

The distinction matters. The settlement itself is documented, but claims that specific payments directly financed particular terrorist attacks require evidence beyond the fact that Iran received the funds.

Nevertheless, the underlying concern remains significant.

Iran has supported militant organizations throughout the Middle East, including Hezbollah and Hamas, while continuing to pose security challenges for Israel and American interests.

The nuclear agreement also contained provisions under which certain restrictions would expire over time, prompting critics to question whether it offered a lasting solution.

The debate over Iran is ultimately about whether diplomatic agreements can effectively restrain a hostile regime while protecting Israel and America's national security interests.

For Israelis who have experienced missile attacks and repeated security alerts, these questions are not theoretical.

They affect families who must prepare for emergencies, communities living under the threat of violence, and military personnel responsible for protecting civilians.

Obama's return to the political spotlight has also renewed scrutiny of other controversies from his presidency, including the administration's initial public explanations following the 2012 Benghazi attack and his promises about Americans retaining their health insurance plans under the Affordable Care Act.

These episodes remain subjects of political debate, but they also underscore a broader principle: Public officials should be evaluated according to their records, not merely their ability to deliver persuasive speeches.

Immigration Enforcement, Ilhan Omar, and Media Accountability

Immigration enforcement has emerged as another major dividing line between the parties.

The Trump administration has emphasized deportations and border security as central components of its national security strategy. Supporters argue that enforcing immigration law is necessary to protect American communities and maintain confidence in the country's legal system.

Critics have raised concerns about due process, family separation, and the treatment of immigrants during enforcement operations.

The political debate becomes more complicated when considering the record of previous administrations.

During Obama's presidency, Immigration and Customs Enforcement conducted removal operations involving individuals who had entered the country unlawfully. His administration faced criticism from immigrant advocacy organizations for the scale of deportations.

That history complicates claims that immigration enforcement itself is a uniquely recent development.

Policies, priorities, and enforcement methods can differ substantially between administrations, but the federal government's responsibility to administer immigration law has remained.

The discussion also extends to Minnesota Congresswoman Ilhan Omar, whose personal background and immigration history have been the subject of longstanding political allegations.

Recent claims discussed on the program concern her identity, family relationships, and purported federal investigative activity. Such allegations are serious, but the transcript does not independently establish their accuracy.

Claims involving searches, seized documents, or possible criminal violations require confirmation through reliable court records or official statements before being reported as fact.

Public officials should be accountable for their conduct, but allegations must be distinguished from proven wrongdoing.

The same standard applies to the media.

Journalists have a responsibility to investigate legitimate questions involving elected officials without assuming guilt or dismissing allegations solely because of political affiliation.

A trustworthy press should apply consistent standards of evidence and scrutiny, regardless of whether the subject is a Republican or a Democrat.

That principle extends beyond immigration.

Cohen also raised concerns about social media moderation after describing restrictions on his own accounts while reporting on Israel and Hezbollah.

The broader debate over online speech involves competing concerns about misinformation, platform policies, public safety, and freedom of expression.

Private platforms have their own moderation rules, while government restrictions on speech raise distinct constitutional questions.

For Americans, understanding those distinctions is essential to evaluating claims about censorship and protecting meaningful public debate.

Israel, Political Activism, and the Responsibility to Tell the Truth

The final major issue concerns Israel and the growing political tensions surrounding its military operations and security policies.

New York congressional candidate Brad Lander traveled to the West Bank, where he participated in an olive harvest and was detained by Israeli authorities.

Lander described the incident as an example of the restrictions faced by Palestinians and those supporting them.

Israeli officials, according to the program, offered a different explanation, saying the group entered a restricted security area without the necessary coordination.

These competing accounts illustrate how quickly events in Israel become part of American political campaigns.

For some activists, visits to the West Bank provide opportunities to draw attention to Palestinian experiences and Israeli policies. Critics question whether certain high-profile visits are designed primarily to generate political publicity.

Determining what happened requires examining the circumstances of the detention, the applicable restrictions, and the accounts of those involved.

But political disagreements over Israel should not overshadow the continuing threat of violence.

The program also addressed a shooting attack near Hebron and criticized news coverage that Cohen believed failed to adequately identify the perpetrators or recognize the Israeli soldiers affected.

Reporting on such incidents requires precision. The identities of victims, the circumstances of an attack, and the evidence identifying those responsible should be verified rather than assumed.

The larger concern is how media coverage can shape public understanding of a conflict in which the language used to describe violence often becomes controversial.

For families mourning loved ones, the consequences are immediate and personal.

Israel's soldiers and veterans also face lasting physical and psychological challenges, particularly after prolonged military operations.

Organizations such as Friends of the Israel Defense Forces provide support for soldiers, veterans, wounded personnel, and bereaved families, including assistance related to rehabilitation and mental health.

These needs highlight the human costs of conflict that can be overlooked when public attention centers entirely on political arguments.

For Christians, the debate over Israel also invites reflection on the responsibility to pursue truth and justice.

Proverbs 26:24-26 warns about deception concealed beneath persuasive words, reminding readers that outward appearances do not always reveal a person's true intentions.

The passage should not become a license to assume hidden motives without evidence. Instead, it encourages discernment and a serious commitment to honesty.

That commitment applies equally to politicians, journalists, activists, and voters.

Biblical discernment requires Christians to examine competing claims carefully, reject deception, and refuse to let political loyalty determine what they accept as true.

As Americans prepare for November 3, questions about Iran, immigration, free speech, and Israel remain central to the national conversation.

The challenge is not simply deciding which political leaders are most persuasive. It is determining which claims are supported by evidence, which policies deserve scrutiny, and which principles should guide decisions affecting the nation.

Christians have an opportunity to participate thoughtfully, pray for those in authority, and evaluate public affairs through the lens of Scripture without confusing partisan allegiance with biblical faithfulness.

For continuing coverage of national security, Israel, and the issues shaping America's future, watch The Daniel Cohen Show on Real Life Network.

Real Life Network will also present America Speaks '26: Election Night Live on Tuesday, November 3, beginning at 8 p.m. Eastern / 5 p.m. Pacific, featuring election results, guests, and analysis from across the United States and Israel.

With the November 3 midterm elections approaching, Minnesota is drawing attention as a potentially consequential battleground in the fight for control of the United States Senate. Questions about government accountability, immigration, national security, and voter turnout are shaping the political debate as candidates make their final appeals.

Former Minnesota congresswoman Michele Bachmann believes the state could deliver one of the election's biggest surprises. During a conversation on The Daniel Cohen Show, available on Real Life Network, Bachmann discussed Minnesota's political future, the growing appeal of socialism, America's relationship with Israel, and the responsibility of Christians to participate in elections.

The conversation highlighted a broader question facing American voters: How should concerns about government leadership, national security, and biblical convictions influence civic engagement?

Minnesota's Senate Race and the Debate Over Government Accountability

Minnesota has traditionally favored Democrats in statewide elections, but Bachmann believes growing dissatisfaction with state leadership could create an opportunity for Republicans in 2026.

The Senate contest between Republican Michele Tafoya and Democrat Peggy Flanagan has become a focal point of that discussion.

Bachmann pointed to allegations of widespread fraud involving publicly funded programs in Minnesota as a major source of voter frustration. High-profile investigations have raised serious questions about financial oversight, the administration of public assistance programs, and whether government officials responded adequately to warning signs.

These investigations have also become politically contentious, with Republicans questioning Democratic leadership and Democrats defending their records while addressing failures in oversight.

The existence of fraud cases does not establish wrongdoing by an entire immigrant community or prove that particular candidates participated in criminal activity. Determining responsibility requires evidence, investigations, and appropriate legal proceedings.

Nevertheless, the political consequences of government oversight failures can extend well beyond the individuals directly involved.

Voters want to know whether public resources are being used responsibly, whether elected officials are accountable, and whether state agencies can identify misconduct before it becomes widespread.

Government accountability depends on protecting taxpayer resources, investigating wrongdoing fairly, and holding responsible individuals accountable regardless of political affiliation.

Bachmann also expressed concern about election administration and mail-in voting. Although she raised questions about the possibility of improper ballot handling, the interview did not provide evidence establishing that such misconduct would occur.

Election integrity is a legitimate public concern, but allegations of fraud should be supported by verifiable facts rather than speculation.

For Minnesota voters, the Senate election ultimately presents competing visions of government leadership, public spending, economic policy, and national priorities.

Bachmann believes turnout will be decisive.

Even a competitive race can produce an unexpected outcome when participation differs from polling expectations. But polling uncertainty alone cannot establish which candidate will win.

The same principle applies nationwide as Americans prepare to elect representatives who will shape federal policy over the next two years.

National Security, Israel, and the Future of American Leadership

Beyond Minnesota's political landscape, the discussion turned to national security and the United States' relationship with Israel.

From immigration enforcement to international terrorism, security concerns have become prominent issues in the closing weeks of the midterm campaign.

Bachmann criticized Representative Ilhan Omar and raised allegations concerning her family history and immigration background. These are serious accusations that require independent verification and should not be presented as established facts without substantiating evidence.

The discussion also addressed the broader question of how immigration policy intersects with national security.

Effective immigration enforcement requires appropriate screening, lawful procedures, and the ability to identify genuine security threats. At the same time, individual wrongdoing should not be attributed to entire national, ethnic, or religious communities.

The conversation then shifted to the Middle East, where Bachmann emphasized the importance of the relationship between President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

She described their political partnership as a significant opportunity to confront the Iranian regime and its support for militant organizations throughout the region.

Iran's relationship with groups such as Hezbollah and Hamas has long complicated regional security and contributed to tensions involving Israel and its neighbors.

For the United States, decisions concerning Iran involve military readiness, diplomatic strategy, economic sanctions, intelligence cooperation, and the protection of American allies.

But Bachmann sees the relationship between America and Israel as more than a matter of international politics.

She believes Scripture establishes an enduring covenant between God and the Jewish people, one that remains relevant to how Christians understand Israel today.

This conviction shaped the interview's discussion of replacement theology, the belief, in some theological formulations, that the church has superseded Israel in God's covenantal purposes.

Bachmann rejected that interpretation, arguing that God's promises to Israel have not been revoked.

She pointed to biblical passages concerning God's covenant with Abraham and the prophetic significance of Israel, including Joel 3.

Within the Christian church, interpretations of these passages differ. Some traditions emphasize a continuing national role for Israel in biblical prophecy, while others understand the covenant promises through their fulfillment in Jesus Christ and His church.

These differences have significant implications for Christian eschatology and the interpretation of biblical prophecy.

The question of Israel's future is not merely political for many Christians; it is closely connected to how they understand God's covenant promises and the fulfillment of Scripture.

At the same time, biblical convictions and contemporary foreign policy require careful consideration. Supporting Israel's security does not mean every action of its government is beyond scrutiny.

Christians can affirm the importance of Israel, oppose antisemitism, and seek the protection of innocent people while thoughtfully evaluating the decisions of political leaders.

Why Christian Voter Turnout Matters in the 2026 Midterms

The conversation concluded with an appeal for Christians to recognize the significance of their participation in American civic life.

Bachmann expressed concern that many believers have become disengaged from politics, even as debates over education, religious freedom, economic systems, and national identity continue to shape the country.

She specifically criticized the growing appeal of socialism among younger Americans, arguing that public education has contributed to changing attitudes toward free-market economics.

The relationship between education and political ideology is complex, however, and broad claims about what schools teach require supporting evidence.

Nevertheless, the growing debate over socialism reflects genuine disagreements about the role of government, economic opportunity, taxation, and individual responsibility.

These disagreements deserve careful examination rather than automatic dismissal.

For Christians, political engagement also raises questions about how biblical principles should inform decisions at the ballot box.

Bachmann argued that voting is an opportunity Americans should not take for granted. She encouraged churches to help believers recognize the importance of participating in elections and evaluating candidates according to their convictions.

Scripture provides principles that can inform those decisions.

Micah 6:8 emphasizes justice, mercy, and humility. Proverbs 12:22 underscores the importance of truthfulness. First Timothy 2:1-2 instructs believers to pray for those in authority.

These passages do not supply a party platform, but they establish moral responsibilities that extend beyond election season.

Christians should consider whether candidates demonstrate integrity, how proposed policies affect their neighbors, and whether political leaders exercise authority responsibly.

Biblical faithfulness in public life requires more than casting a ballot; it calls for truthfulness, discernment, prayer, and a commitment to justice.

That responsibility also includes recognizing that Christians may disagree about the best policies for achieving legitimate moral goals.

A shared commitment to protecting human life, supporting families, and promoting religious freedom does not necessarily produce identical conclusions about every candidate or legislative proposal.

Political participation should therefore be informed by conviction without allowing partisan identity to replace allegiance to Christ.

With Election Day approaching, voter turnout remains one of the most important factors in determining the makeup of Congress.

Minnesota's Senate contest may attract national attention, but the larger election will influence decisions affecting the economy, national security, foreign policy, and the direction of federal government.

For Christians, the challenge is to participate thoughtfully while remembering that political outcomes are not the ultimate measure of God's faithfulness.

Elections matter. Leadership matters. The responsibility to pursue truth, seek justice, and love one's neighbor remains unchanged regardless of which party controls Washington.

For more election coverage, discussions about Israel, and biblical perspectives on the issues shaping America's future, watch The Daniel Cohen Show on Real Life Network.

Election Day 2026 is less than two weeks away.

By now, campaigns are entering their final stretch, political advertising is intensifying, and attention is beginning to shift from what might happen on November 3 to what Americans will actually see when 2026 election results begin coming in.

There is still time to prepare.

Before Election Day arrives, finish researching the candidates and measures on your ballot, make sure you understand the issues at stake, and know where to find authoritative election information for your jurisdiction.

Then think ahead to Election Night itself.

Results will begin arriving from across the country at different times, major races may develop quickly, and some contests may remain unresolved well after Election Night ends. Knowing what to expect can help you follow the results without getting lost in the constant stream of numbers, projections, reactions, and commentary.

Finish Researching What’s on Your Ballot

If there are still names or measures on your ballot that you know little about, now is the time to research them.

National headlines may be dominated by control of Congress and prominent statewide races, but your ballot may also include state legislators, judges, county or city officials, school boards, and ballot initiatives.

Return to the questions that matter:

• What authority does this office have?
• What has each candidate actually said or done?
• What policies are being proposed?
• What would a ballot measure change?
• Which claims come from campaigns or advocacy organizations, and which can be independently verified?

By this point in the election cycle, voters are surrounded by persuasive messaging. Going back to original sources, public records, full interviews, policy proposals, and reliable reporting can help separate useful information from the final rush of campaign rhetoric.

Review the Issues That Matter in Your Races

The national political conversation includes the economy, immigration, healthcare, education, abortion, public safety, foreign policy, government spending, technology, and many other concerns.

But not every office has authority over every issue.

Before November 3, connect the issues you care about with the candidates and offices that can actually influence them.

A congressional candidate and a school board candidate may both talk about education, but their responsibilities are very different. A governor, state legislator, mayor, and U.S. senator can each affect public policy in different ways.

That context can make the difference between simply following political debate and understanding the choices in front of you.

Use Reliable Sources as Election Day Approaches

The final days before an election can generate a remarkable amount of information, and not all of it deserves equal trust.

Old videos may resurface without context. Unverified claims can spread quickly on social media. Campaigns may make last-minute accusations against opponents. Commentary can sometimes be mistaken for reporting.

Slow down before accepting or sharing something simply because it confirms what you already believe.

Look for original statements. Read beyond headlines. Compare reporting from credible sources. Pay attention to when information was published and whether new facts have emerged since then.

Christians in particular should value truth more than partisan advantage. Proverbs 12:22 says, “Lying lips are an abomination to the LORD, but those who deal truthfully are His delight” (NKJV). Election season does not make accuracy less important.

What Happens When Election Night Results Begin Coming In?

Once voting concludes around the country, election reporting shifts rapidly from campaigns to results.

You will begin seeing vote totals, percentage reporting figures, maps, and race calls. But those numbers require context.

An early lead does not necessarily determine who will ultimately win a race. Different jurisdictions report results at different speeds, and the portions of the vote reported first may not resemble those reported later.

That is one reason reputable election-news organizations do not simply call a race because one candidate happens to be ahead.

The Associated Press, for example, says it declares a winner only when its analysts determine that the trailing candidate no longer has a path to victory. Some races can be called relatively quickly; closely contested races may take days or, occasionally, longer.

So on Election Night 2026, pay attention to more than the percentage of votes counted. Listen for explanations of where reported votes are coming from, how much remains outstanding, and why a race has or has not been called.

Not Every 2026 Election Result Will Be Known That Night

Election Night creates an expectation of instant answers, but elections do not always cooperate with television schedules.

Some races will become clear early in the evening. Others may remain uncertain as additional results are reported. Particularly close contests can require more time before a reliable winner can be identified.

That does not necessarily mean anything unusual has happened.

The United States does not have one centralized national vote-counting system. Elections are administered at the state and local level, and reporting practices differ across jurisdictions.

That means patience is sometimes part of following election results responsibly.

A responsible news source should be willing to say “too early to call” rather than turn uncertainty into speculation.

Watch the Larger Election Night Picture

Individual races matter, but Election Night 2026 will also tell a broader story.

• Which issues appeared to motivate voters?
• How are congressional races changing the makeup of Washington?
• What happened in major governor’s contests?
• Which state and local results could affect policy in the years ahead?
• Did ballot measures reveal important differences between states or regions?

As results accumulate, the evening gradually moves from individual contests toward a national picture.

That broader context is one reason thoughtful election coverage matters. Numbers tell you who is ahead. Good reporting also helps explain what those results mean.

Christians Can Follow Election Night Without Losing Perspective

Political outcomes matter because government decisions affect real people, families, churches, communities, and institutions.

But Christians can care deeply about elections without treating politics as the source of their hope.

Whatever happens on November 3, God remains sovereign. The Gospel remains true. The responsibility to love your neighbor, speak truth, pray for leaders, serve your community, and faithfully follow Christ does not change when political control changes.

That perspective can be especially valuable on Election Night, when political coverage often encourages viewers to treat every development as an emergency or every victory and defeat as permanent.

Stay informed. Pay attention. Care about what happens. But keep politics in its proper place.

Follow Election Night 2026 With Real Life Network

When the results begin coming in on Tuesday, November 3, Real Life Network will bring viewers America Speaks ’26: Election Night Live.

Coverage begins at 8 PM ET / 5 PM PT and will include live election results, updates, commentary, conversation, and biblical perspective as major races unfold across the country.

Pastor Jack Hibbs, Daniel Cohen, and other Real Life Network voices will help viewers follow the evening’s developments and consider the larger issues behind the results.

RLN is free to watch, and creating an account ahead of Election Night means you can simply sign in and follow the coverage when November 3 arrives.

The campaigns will soon end. Then America will begin hearing from the voters.

Sign up for America Speaks ’26 updates and join Real Life Network live on November 3 for Election Night coverage beginning at 8 PM ET / 5 PM PT.

With Election Day approaching on November 3, Americans are facing decisions that extend far beyond which political party controls Congress. Immigration enforcement, national security, religious freedom, education, and the cost of living are all shaping the national conversation. Yet the growing focus on polling numbers and campaign predictions can distract from the policies that will ultimately affect American families.

Recent early-voting trends and voter-registration changes have raised questions about conventional expectations for the midterm elections. But political momentum is difficult to measure, and no polling advantage guarantees an election result.

The significance of the 2026 midterms lies not simply in which party gains seats, but in the policies that elected officials will have the authority to advance or challenge.

For continued coverage of the issues shaping America's future, watch The Daniel Cohen Show on Real Life Network.

Early Voting, Political Momentum, and the Limits of Polling

Political commentators frequently turn to historical patterns when predicting congressional elections. Traditionally, the president's party has faced challenges during midterm elections, often losing seats as voters express dissatisfaction with the administration.

But historical trends do not determine individual elections.

Early-voting activity in states such as Michigan, Nevada, Arizona, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania has become a focus of political analysis. Changes in registration figures, ballot returns, and participation across different counties may offer clues about voter engagement.

Michigan presents an especially interesting example because the state does not register voters by political party. Analysts therefore examine geographic voting patterns, previous election results, and other indicators to estimate which groups are participating.

Those estimates have limitations. A county's historical voting preferences do not establish how every resident voted, and a higher share of early ballots does not necessarily translate into additional votes for a particular candidate.

National polling presents similar challenges.

CNN political analyst Harry Enten has discussed historical instances in which congressional polling underestimated Republican support. Such patterns are worth examining, but they cannot establish that the same errors will occur in 2026.

Campaigns must also account for changes in voter behavior. Americans increasingly have different options for casting ballots, including early in-person voting and voting by mail, depending on their state.

A shift in when voters cast their ballots does not always mean a shift in whom they support.

Rather than treating every new poll or early-voting report as a prediction, voters should recognize the distinction between participation data and actual election results.

The more important question is what candidates intend to do if elected.

Immigration, Religious Liberty, and the Responsibility of Public Officials

Some of the most consequential debates in the 2026 elections concern the federal government's responsibility to enforce immigration laws, protect national security, and preserve constitutional freedoms.

Congress has substantial influence over immigration policy through legislation, federal appropriations, and oversight of executive agencies. Decisions about border security, deportation priorities, asylum procedures, and pathways to legal status can affect communities throughout the country.

Candidates offer different approaches to those responsibilities.

Some emphasize stronger enforcement and expanded removal of individuals who violate immigration laws. Others support broader legalization measures, changes to enforcement practices, or additional protections for undocumented immigrants.

These differences deserve careful examination because campaign slogans rarely explain how a proposal would operate in practice.

National security questions have also entered several prominent Senate campaigns.

In Michigan, the contest involving Republican Mike Rogers and Democrat Abdul El-Sayed has generated debate over foreign policy, Israel, terrorism, and the responsibilities of elected officials.

Questions concerning a candidate's statements, political associations, and policy positions are legitimate subjects of public scrutiny. However, allegations involving family members or past organizational relationships must be distinguished from evidence of personal wrongdoing.

That distinction is particularly important when discussions involve religion.

A candidate's Muslim or Christian identity does not establish that person's national security positions, political loyalties, or commitment to constitutional government. Those judgments require examination of actual statements, decisions, and evidence.

Political accountability depends on documented facts and consistent standards, not assumptions about someone's faith, family, or political affiliation.

Religious liberty and questions surrounding human identity are also shaping state and local races.

A high school cross-country controversy in Washington has renewed debate over transgender participation in girls' athletics. Supporters of sex-based athletic categories emphasize competitive fairness and opportunities for female athletes. Supporters of inclusive participation policies emphasize access and protection from discrimination.

The disagreement raises broader questions about school governance, parental involvement, student rights, and the authority of state athletic associations.

These decisions are often made outside Washington, reminding voters that local and state elections can be just as consequential as congressional contests.

For Christians, evaluating these issues requires more than adopting the language of a political party.

Scripture establishes principles of truthfulness, justice, respect for human dignity, and responsible stewardship. Applying those principles to public policy requires examining what a proposed law actually does and whom it affects.

Energy Costs, Government Spending, and Biblical Stewardship

For millions of Americans, political debates eventually return to the household budget.

Fuel prices, groceries, rent, utilities, and transportation expenses directly influence financial stability. These concerns are particularly significant for families living on fixed incomes and workers whose livelihoods depend on transportation.

California's fuel prices have become a recurring example in debates about energy policy.

State taxes, environmental regulations, refinery capacity, distribution requirements, and broader oil-market conditions all contribute to the prices consumers pay. Political leaders disagree about how much emphasis should be placed on domestic production, environmental protection, infrastructure, and tax relief.

Those competing approaches involve real tradeoffs.

Policies designed to reduce emissions or encourage alternative energy sources may impose costs on certain industries and consumers. Measures intended to expand conventional fuel production may raise different environmental and economic concerns.

The appropriate response is to evaluate the evidence behind each proposal rather than assume that a single political decision explains every change in fuel prices.

Energy policy also intersects with national security.

Reliable fuel supplies support commercial transportation, military readiness, agriculture, and emergency services. Disruptions to domestic refining or international energy markets can create consequences far beyond the gas pump.

Congress influences these questions through taxation, spending, regulation, and oversight. State governments also exercise significant authority, particularly over transportation, environmental standards, and energy infrastructure.

That makes understanding the responsibilities of each elected office essential.

Biblical stewardship offers a helpful framework for considering these decisions.

Deuteronomy 30:19 records Moses calling Israel to choose life and blessing. That passage addressed Israel's covenant responsibilities and should not be treated as a direct endorsement of a modern political party. Nevertheless, Scripture consistently teaches that choices have consequences and that people bear responsibility for how they exercise authority.

Public officials are entrusted with decisions that affect families, communities, and future generations. Voters likewise have an opportunity to examine those decisions carefully.

Responsible civic participation begins with understanding the issues, testing political claims against the evidence, and recognizing the long-term consequences of public policy.

The 2026 midterms will determine who holds important positions of authority in Congress and in state and local governments. Those officials will make decisions involving national security, immigration, energy, education, and public spending.

Polls will continue to change. Campaigns will continue making competing claims. But the responsibilities of citizenship remain.

Christians can approach those responsibilities with prayer, discernment, and a commitment to truth, recognizing that political allegiance must never replace biblical conviction.

Follow the issues shaping the 2026 midterm elections, including national security, public policy, and the intersection of faith and culture, through The Daniel Cohen Show, streaming free on Real Life Network.

Election Day 2026 is less than a month away, and the political conversation is intensifying.

Campaign ads are multiplying. Candidates are making their closing arguments. Social media is filling with clips, claims, endorsements, and reactions. But understanding the 2026 midterm elections requires looking beyond the daily campaign noise to the issues voters are actually being asked to consider.

Recent polling shows economic concerns, particularly affordability and the cost of living, remain especially prominent. But the November 3 election also comes amid ongoing debates about immigration, healthcare, public safety, education, abortion, foreign policy, government spending, artificial intelligence, and other questions that affect Americans differently depending on where they live.

The challenge is not simply identifying which issues are receiving attention. It is understanding how those issues connect to the candidates, offices, and measures on your own ballot.

Here are some of the major conversations to follow as Election Day 2026 approaches.

Stay informed as November 3 approaches. Sign up for America Speaks ’26 updates from Real Life Network and follow RLN for news and coverage leading into Election Day 2026.

The Economy and Cost of Living

For many Americans, the economy remains the most immediate political concern.

Housing costs, grocery prices, energy expenses, healthcare, interest rates, taxes, and job opportunities all affect household budgets. Recent national polling has found that economic issues are among the topics voters most want congressional candidates to address, with affordability receiving particular attention.

But “the economy” can mean many things during an election campaign.

One candidate may emphasize taxes. Another may focus on government spending, tariffs, housing, wages, energy policy, or regulation. State and local candidates may have authority over different economic questions than members of Congress.

As you hear competing claims, ask what specific policy is being proposed, which level of government controls it, what evidence supports the argument, and what tradeoffs may be involved.

Immigration and Border Policy

Immigration remains an important issue in the 2026 elections, even as voter attention has shifted toward affordability and other economic concerns.

The debate includes border security, deportation and enforcement policies, asylum, legal immigration, the workforce, federal-state responsibilities, and the treatment of people already living in the United States.

Republican and Democratic candidates often approach these questions differently, but positions can also vary considerably within the same party.

Instead of relying only on campaign language, look at what candidates specifically support. Are they addressing border enforcement, legal immigration, employment rules, asylum policy, or some combination? What authority would the office they are seeking actually have over those questions?

Broad slogans can conceal important policy differences.

Healthcare and the Cost of Care

Healthcare continues to be both a national and household issue.

Voters may hear debates involving insurance premiums, the Affordable Care Act, Medicare and Medicaid, prescription drugs, hospital costs, federal subsidies, and the role of government in healthcare.

Candidates may agree that medical care costs too much while offering very different explanations for why and very different proposals for addressing it.

Healthcare can also intersect with state elections because states make significant decisions involving Medicaid, insurance regulation, public health, and medical policy.

When evaluating campaign claims, look beyond promises to lower costs and ask how a proposed change would work, who would be affected, and how it would be funded.

Public Safety, Crime, and the Role of Government

Public safety is another issue that can look very different depending on the race.

Federal candidates may discuss immigration enforcement, gun laws, federal law enforcement, drug trafficking, or national crime policy. State and local candidates may focus on policing, prosecution, sentencing, homelessness, drug policy, or funding for first responders.

Those distinctions matter. A city council member, county prosecutor, governor, and U.S. senator do not have the same responsibilities. Before evaluating a candidate’s promises about crime or public safety, determine what the office can realistically influence.

Local crime statistics and policies may also provide a more useful picture of conditions in your community than national political rhetoric.

Education and Questions Facing Families

Education remains a significant issue in many state and local elections. Debates can involve academic standards, school funding, parental involvement, curriculum, school choice, teacher recruitment, student achievement, sports policies, religious expression, and the role of state and federal government in education.

For Christian families, these questions can carry particular significance because they touch on parental responsibility, religious liberty, the formation of children, and competing understandings of human identity.

But education policy is highly decentralized. A position debated nationally may actually be decided by a state legislature, governor, local school board, or district administrator. Before assuming a national talking point applies directly to your community, identify who makes the relevant decision.

Abortion and State Policy

Abortion remains a significant issue in American elections, particularly because much of the legal and policy debate now takes place at the state level.

Voters may encounter candidates with sharply different positions on abortion restrictions, exceptions, funding, access, parental involvement, and related healthcare questions. Some states may also have ballot measures addressing abortion policy directly.

For Christian voters, questions surrounding unborn life carry deep moral significance. Other voters approach the issue through different legal, medical, or individual-rights frameworks.

Research what candidates and ballot measures would actually change under existing law rather than relying solely on campaign descriptions from either side.

Foreign Policy and National Security

International events are also influencing the 2026 political conversation.

Wars and conflicts abroad, relations with China and other global powers, U.S. military involvement, defense spending, trade, alliances, Israel and the Middle East, and America’s role overseas are all subjects candidates may address.

Foreign policy can also connect directly to domestic concerns. International conflicts may affect energy prices, trade, government spending, military families, and the broader economy.

Members of Congress have meaningful responsibilities involving military authorization, funding, sanctions, and foreign policy oversight, while presidents retain substantial executive authority.

As candidates discuss international events, consider not only the desired outcome but also what powers the office actually possesses.

Technology, Artificial Intelligence, and Energy

Artificial intelligence has become a more visible political issue in 2026. Questions include job displacement, privacy, misinformation, data-center construction, energy consumption, regulation, national security, and America’s competitiveness in emerging technologies.

Some communities are encountering these debates locally as new data centers and infrastructure projects raise questions about electricity use, water, zoning, and development.

AI may not rank as highly as the economy or immigration for many voters, but it illustrates why election research should extend beyond the most familiar political topics. New technologies can quickly create policy questions at the federal, state, and local levels.

Go Beyond the Campaign Headline

The issues receiving the most attention nationally will not necessarily be the most important issues on every ballot.

A congressional candidate may be debating foreign policy while your state is considering a major tax measure. A governor’s race may center on education or housing. Your local races may involve public safety, development, school policy, or government spending.

That is why the most useful question as Election Day 2026 approaches is not simply, What issues are dominating the news?

Ask: What decisions will the people and measures on my ballot actually affect?

Then research accordingly.

Read candidates’ own positions, but compare them with voting records, public statements, primary documents, and reliable reporting. Look at arguments from more than one perspective. Distinguish facts from predictions and campaign claims from independent evidence.

For Christians, this is also an opportunity to consider public issues through a biblical worldview while recognizing that applying broad biblical principles to specific policy choices often requires careful thought.

Follow Election News with Real Life Network

The final weeks before November 3 will bring more campaign claims, breaking news, debates, and political commentary.

Real Life Network offers news and current-events programming designed to help viewers follow important developments through a biblical worldview, including RLN News, The Daniel Cohen Show, Rose Unplugged, Cure America, and other programs addressing faith, culture, and public life.

As Election Day approaches, RLN will also be preparing for America Speaks ’26: Election Night Live, bringing together live election results, updates, and conversation from races across the country.

The goal is not simply to follow who wins and loses. It is to understand the issues shaping those results and why they matter.

‍

Stay informed as November 3 approaches. Sign up for America Speaks ’26 updates from Real Life Network and follow RLN for news and coverage leading into Election Day 2026.

National races dominate election coverage, but some of the decisions that affect your daily life may appear much farther down the ballot.

The 2026 midterm elections on November 3 will determine control of the U.S. House and affect the makeup of the Senate, but voters across the country will also encounter state legislative races, governors’ contests, county and city offices, judges, school boards, and ballot measures.

That is why researching the 2026 ballot should involve more than recognizing a few names from national television.

If you are beginning to ask, “What’s on my ballot in 2026?”, the next step is to understand the different kinds of races and measures you may encounter and know what questions to ask about each one.

Start With the Full Ballot, Not Just the Headline Races

Most voters hear far more about Congress than they do about county government, school boards, judges, or local ballot initiatives.

That imbalance can make the bottom half of a ballot feel unfamiliar.

Before Election Day, take time to review the ballot information published for your jurisdiction and identify every race and measure that will require a decision. Instead of trying to research everything at once, make a list and work through it category by category.

Depending on where you live, that list may include:

• U.S. House and Senate races
• Governor or other statewide offices
• State legislative races
• County and municipal offices
• Judges or judicial retention questions
• School board races
• State constitutional amendments
• Local tax, bond, or policy measures

Some may receive extensive news coverage. Others may receive almost none. Lack of national attention does not make a race unimportant.

Understand What Each Office Actually Does

Candidate research becomes much more useful when you understand the responsibilities of the position being sought.

A candidate for Congress will deal with very different questions from a city council member. A governor has different authority from a state legislator. School board members, county officials, judges, and local prosecutors each operate within their own responsibilities.

Before comparing candidates, ask:

What authority does this office actually have?

That simple question can cut through a surprising amount of campaign rhetoric.

Candidates sometimes make promises involving issues their office has little power to change. Understanding the role itself helps voters evaluate whether campaign claims are realistic and whether the issues being emphasized actually belong within that office’s responsibilities.

Research Candidates Beyond Their Campaign Ads

Campaign websites are useful because they tell you what candidates want voters to know about them. They should not be your only source, however.

Compare campaign statements with interviews, public records, reliable local reporting, debate appearances, previous votes when applicable, and other primary-source material.

Useful questions include:

• What issues does the candidate identify as priorities?
• What specific policies does the candidate support?
• Has the candidate previously held public office?
• If so, what does that record show?
• What experience does the candidate bring to the position?
• Does the candidate explain how proposed policies would work?
• Are major claims about an opponent supported by evidence?

Party affiliation can provide some information about a candidate’s general political alignment, whether Republican, Democrat, independent, or another affiliation. But it does not substitute for researching the individual candidate.

Two candidates from the same party can differ substantially on priorities, policies, governing style, or experience.

Pay Particular Attention to State and Local Races

Local elections often receive less attention than congressional races, even though state and local officials can make decisions that affect people directly.

State legislators may vote on taxes, education, criminal law, business regulation, healthcare policy, and state spending. Local officials can influence public safety, development, transportation, housing, budgets, and other community priorities.

School boards may make decisions involving curriculum, district policies, budgets, and administration.

That makes local elections in 2026 worth researching with the same seriousness as races that generate national headlines.

Local journalism can be particularly valuable here because local reporters often cover candidate forums, controversies, voting records, and community concerns that never reach national media.

Don’t Skip the Ballot Measures

Candidates are not the only part of the November 3 election.

Many voters will also be asked to decide ballot measures involving state or local law. These could include constitutional amendments, taxes, bonds, public spending, criminal justice questions, government structure, education, or other policy matters.

Ballot-measure campaigns often reduce complicated proposals to memorable slogans.

Go deeper.

Read the actual proposal or an official summary. Understand what changes if it passes and what remains in place if it does not. Look at arguments from both supporters and opponents, but also distinguish campaign claims from what the measure itself would legally do.

A useful research checklist is:

What does the measure change?
Who or what would be affected?
What would it cost?
How would it be implemented?
Am I willing to pay increased taxes for this measure?
What are supporters arguing?
What are opponents arguing?
Which claims can be independently verified?

The wording may take a little more time to understand, but that time can be well spent.

Separate News Reporting from Political Persuasion

By the final weeks of an election, voters can be surrounded by campaign ads, fundraising emails, social posts, endorsements, commentary, and viral videos.

Those sources may contain useful information, but they also have a purpose.

A campaign ad exists to persuade you. So does a political action committee advertisement. An endorsement tells you what another person or organization wants you to conclude.

That does not make those materials worthless. It simply means they should be recognized for what they are.

Whenever possible, compare persuasive claims against original documents, direct quotations, voting records, full interviews, official reports, and reporting from multiple sources.

Proverbs 18:17 says, “The first one to plead his cause seems right, until his neighbor comes and examines him” (NKJV). That principle is especially useful during an election season.

Ask How the Issues Affect Your Community

National political conversations can sometimes obscure what an election means closer to home.

A question about education, public safety, taxation, housing, religious liberty, healthcare, or economic policy may look different depending on the state, district, or community involved.

As you research state and local elections, ask how the major issues being discussed connect to the actual offices and measures on your ballot. Which decisions are made federally? Which belong to your state? Which are controlled locally?

Understanding that distinction makes political research more useful and helps prevent national rhetoric from overshadowing the decisions voters are actually being asked to consider.

Christians Can Approach Election Research with Discernment

For Christian voters, becoming informed is part of taking civic responsibility seriously.

That does not require assuming that every believer will make identical political choices. It does mean approaching candidates and policies thoughtfully rather than allowing a party label, celebrity endorsement, social media clip, or campaign advertisement to make the decision for you.

Research what candidates actually believe and have done. Examine policy proposals carefully. Consider how the issues intersect with biblical convictions about human dignity, justice, truth, freedom, family, stewardship, and care for others.

And recognize the difference between biblical principles and political messaging that simply borrows Christian terminology.

Discernment requires more than hearing what you already agree with.

Know Your Ballot Before November 3

The closer Election Day gets, the louder the political conversation will become.

Researching early gives you time to move at a different pace.

Start with the races and measures that will affect your own community. Understand what each office does. Compare candidates. Examine ballot measures. Check campaign claims against reliable information. Then continue following the larger national stories shaping the 2026 midterms.

Local knowledge and national awareness belong together.

Stay Informed with Real Life Network

Real Life Network will continue following the news, cultural conversations, and major issues shaping the 2026 elections as November 3 approaches.

Then on Election Night, America Speaks ’26: Election Night Live will bring viewers live results, updates, conversation, and biblical perspective on races and issues from across the country.

Stay informed locally and nationally. Sign up for America Speaks ’26 updates from Real Life Network as Election Day 2026 approaches.

‍

The economy matters. Groceries, gas prices, housing costs, and the pressure on American families deserve serious attention. But national security belongs in that conversation, too. The decisions made in Washington affect more than household budgets. They shape the country's ability to confront terrorism, protect religious communities, secure its borders, and respond to threats abroad.

Those connections deserve closer examination. Through The Daniel Cohen Show on Real Life Network, the intersection of faith, national security, Israel, and American politics remains central to understanding the headlines.

The approaching November 3 midterms raise questions that go well beyond which party controls Congress. Who sets national security priorities? How should America respond to Iran and its terrorist proxies? What responsibilities do elected officials have when antisemitism and political violence reach American communities?

National security is not an abstract debate reserved for Washington. Its consequences can reach neighborhoods, schools, houses of worship, and ordinary families.

Iran, Israel, and the Responsibility to Confront Terrorism

Iran remains central to the discussion about American national security and the Middle East. Its support for armed groups, including Hezbollah and Hamas, has made its regional influence a continuing concern for the United States and Israel.

Yet political disagreements over Iran and Israel often become tangled in arguments about military assistance, international law, and America's responsibilities overseas.

Michigan's Senate contest illustrates those competing priorities.

Abdul El-Sayed has argued against unconditional American military assistance to foreign governments, including Israel. In interviews, his position has emphasized applying international law consistently and restricting weapons transfers to governments accused of violating it.

That approach raises legitimate questions about American foreign policy. Military assistance is not an unlimited obligation, and elected officials have a responsibility to scrutinize how taxpayer money is spent.

But the discussion cannot stop there.

Israel faces rocket and missile threats from hostile armed groups and regional adversaries. Defensive systems such as Iron Dome exist to intercept incoming projectiles and protect civilian populations. Any proposal to restrict military assistance therefore deserves careful examination of its potential consequences for defensive capabilities as well as offensive operations.

There is also an important distinction between criticizing a government's military decisions and excusing terrorism directed against its citizens.

The March attack against Temple Israel in West Bloomfield, Michigan, brought that distinction much closer to home. A vehicle carrying incendiary materials was driven into a synagogue complex that also serves children and families. The incident prompted renewed concerns about antisemitic violence and the reach of conflicts originating thousands of miles away.

Political leaders can disagree about Israel's government, military operations, and American foreign assistance. Those disagreements do not diminish the obligation to condemn attacks against Jewish civilians and religious institutions.

No disagreement over foreign policy can justify threatening Jewish families or treating American religious communities as extensions of a foreign government.

The same principle must apply to every community. A synagogue, church, mosque, or school should never become a target because of anger over events elsewhere.

Why National Security Belongs in Congressional Debates

The connection between national security and congressional elections is more substantial than campaign rhetoric might suggest.

Congress controls federal appropriations, establishes statutory authorities, conducts oversight, and plays a central role in shaping the agencies responsible for national defense and domestic security. The Senate also exercises its constitutional responsibility to provide advice and consent on presidential nominations requiring confirmation.

Those responsibilities make congressional debates over homeland security, intelligence gathering, immigration enforcement, and counterterrorism consequential.

An alleged ISIS-inspired plot involving the Mall of America in Minnesota offers an example of the threats federal investigators seek to identify before violence occurs.

According to the account presented by federal authorities, an 18-year-old suspect had communicated about supporting ISIS and allegedly considered carrying out an attack in the United States after plans to travel overseas did not materialize. The allegations require the usual distinction between prosecutors' claims and facts established in court.

But the broader issue remains significant: preventing terrorism requires investigative resources, intelligence cooperation, appropriate legal authorities, and effective oversight.

Protecting the public also requires precision.

Terrorist organizations are responsible for their own violence. Their actions must not become an excuse to assign collective guilt to immigrants, Muslims, or particular ethnic communities. Effective counterterrorism depends upon identifying actual threats rather than confusing religious identity or national origin with criminal conduct.

That is why national security policy requires more than slogans about being tough or compassionate.

The public deserves to understand how candidates would approach terrorism investigations, border security, intelligence oversight, civil liberties, and the constitutional limits of government authority.

Those questions belong alongside debates about inflation, healthcare, education, and taxation.

Antisemitism, Political Rhetoric, and the Limits of Party Loyalty

Three years after the Hamas-led October 7 attack, the anniversary remains a painful occasion for Jewish communities around the world.

Approximately 1,200 people were killed in the attack, and 251 were taken hostage. The consequences have extended far beyond Israel, including heightened security concerns and incidents of antisemitism in the United States.

New York City's response to the anniversary illustrates how difficult the public conversation has become.

Mayor Zohran Mamdani's remarks acknowledging the suffering caused by October 7 while criticizing Israel's subsequent military actions became a point of contention among activists with sharply different expectations.

The controversy reflects a larger problem in contemporary politics: expressions of sympathy, criticism, and disagreement are increasingly measured against demands for complete ideological agreement.

Recognizing the suffering of Israeli victims does not require ignoring Palestinian civilian suffering. Likewise, expressing concern for Palestinians does not require minimizing the October 7 atrocities or excusing antisemitism.

Both truths can be maintained without contradiction.

Political movements become less capable of honest debate when every disagreement is treated as betrayal. Acknowledging suffering should not depend upon whether the victims belong to a preferred political or religious community.

For Christians, Scripture establishes a higher standard than political loyalty. Human beings bear God's image, and the obligation to speak truthfully does not disappear when truth becomes inconvenient to a favored party or cause.

Proverbs 18:17 reminds readers that the first account of a dispute may sound persuasive until it is examined. That principle applies to viral videos, campaign statements, accusations of extremism, and claims about political opponents.

Christian discernment requires consistency: condemn terrorism without qualification, reject antisemitism without hesitation, and examine political claims without surrendering judgment to party loyalty.

The approaching midterms will generate enormous attention around polling, turnout, and campaign strategies. Those subjects are part of the political process, but they should not obscure the governing responsibilities attached to the offices being contested.

A Senate vote can affect national security appointments. A congressional appropriation can determine resources available to federal agencies. Legislative oversight can expose failures or strengthen accountability.

Understanding those responsibilities provides a more useful framework than treating every political development as a contest between personalities.

The same seriousness belongs in discussions about Israel, Iran, and religious freedom. American foreign policy involves real tradeoffs, and domestic security decisions can affect both public safety and constitutional liberties.

No political party possesses a monopoly on wisdom, and no candidate should be exempt from difficult questions.

The standard should remain consistent: evidence before accusations, clarity before slogans, and responsibility before political convenience.

‍

Follow the intersection of biblical truth, Israel, national security, and American current events through The Daniel Cohen Show, streaming free on Real Life Network

After months of flooding the zone with glum predictions for Republicans, there’s been a quiet but meaningful shift in major media headlines. Left-leaning outlets desperate to make the GOP’s demise a self-fulfilling prophecy seem to be subtly hedging their bets against another polling embarrassment. In the last handful of days, even the big dogs — The New York Times, Washington Post, and Newsweek — are conceding that maybe the election forecasts aren’t as lopsided as they’ve been leading voters to believe.

Suddenly, readers are clicking on stories that paint a very different picture of the apocalyptic landscape for Republicans they’d come to expect. Articles like “Democratic Optimism in Six Senate Races May Be a Mirage,” “3 Bright Spots for the G.O.P.,” and “How Much Can Republicans Outrun Trump’s Approval?” are popping up in the same pages that have urged Americans to don galoshes for the Blue Tsunami. And while there certainly are very troubling signs for Speaker Mike Johnson’s (R-La.) party, one lesson everyone should have learned by now is that polls are an incredibly flawed measure of public opinion.

In the modern age, Republicans have consistently outperformed the industry’s numbers in presidential and midterm elections. Pollsters have frantically tried to solve this puzzle, especially after a string of national humiliations. After a lot of head-scratching, two theories for this unpredictability revolve around the GOP. “First, Republicans are becoming more distrustful of institutions and society, and that may be extending to how they feel about pollsters. Second, suburban Republican college graduates are more likely to fear professional sanction for their views and are therefore self-censoring more, including in surveys,” FiveThirtyEight’s Emily Ekins suggests. Most experts estimate that conservatives underpoll somewhere between 3-5% — a massive swing for anyone trying to prophecy close races.

Over the last handful of days, the media seems to be making an intentional effort to temper their excitement, noting that as optimistic as Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) may be, “history offers a warning to Democrats, as polls in recent elections underestimated Republicans in key states. Control of the Senate could come down to just a handful of races where polls show razor-thin margins.” In places like Alaska, Iowa, Maine, Michigan, Ohio, and Texas, Newsweek warns, Democrats appear to have a polling edge. “But Republicans have outperformed polling averages in many of those same states over the past few elections. Polling errors are not necessarily repeated from cycle to cycle. But a similar pro-Republican polling error this cycle would not bode well for Democrats’ chances of flipping the Senate.”

Watch live coverage of election night on Real Life Network.

Frankly, it’s “impossible to know for sure” what the polling error could look like this year, Syracuse Political Science Professor Grant Davis Reeher acknowledged. “There are some pretty big known unknowns in this election, which could throw off polls,” he said. “A primary one is turnout. Polls must make educated guesses about who is most likely to vote. It’s a little trickier in midterms.”

National Review’s Jim Geraghty, who hasn’t exactly been a glass-is-half-full prognosticator, offered what he called “the cheeriest midterm take for Republicans you’re going to find,” urging readers to second-guess the excitement surrounding Democrats in cherry-red Kansas, South Carolina, South Dakota, Nebraska, and Florida. Despite the media’s insistence that GOP candidates are in trouble, the polling doesn’t necessarily bear that out. “There’s good reason to not believe the hype; we’ve seen this sort of narrative before.”

He ticks off the numbers for each key race, along with historical trends, dismantling the idea that conservatives are in trouble. “The lesson of this is not that all the polls are always wrong, or that every prediction of an upset Democratic win is always wrong,” Geraghty cautions. “But there’s an extremely familiar narrative of ‘this Democrat really has a shot in a deep red state!’ that rarely pans out; when it does, it’s usually because of a spectacularly flawed Republican candidate.” Americans should be wary of a blue wave, he writes, if only because “certain left-of-center media voices always tell them there will be a blue wave every November.”

An unlikely source echoes NR’s guardedness: The New York Times. Despite what pundits say, “there is also quite a bit of good news for Republicans,” Ruth Igielnik wrote late last month. For starters, “Republican Senate candidates are running ahead of the party. … Each of [them] is outrunning President Trump’s popularity in their states, sometimes by double digits. … And in each of the races, Republican candidates are winning some voters who otherwise say they want Democrats to control the Senate. Taken together, these are signs that in these competitive, Democratic-leaning states, Republicans have nominated strong candidates who appeal beyond their base.”

Then, of course, there’s the Left’s ugly infighting. “As Democrats are divided,” the Times points out, “Republicans are united. … We asked Democrats across the country if they felt the party was united or divided. About half said the party was united, and half said divided. Those numbers are nearly identical to a survey we ran in 2016. Republicans, on the other hand, are feeling very unified. In our most recent national survey, 70 percent of Republicans said they felt the party was united. That is a dramatic departure from 10 years ago. In 2016, more than 80 percent of Republicans said they thought the party was divided.”

Over at The Washington Post, Scott Clement reiterates that a “poll of two key House districts shows good signs for Democrats, but no tsunami.”

As for the bluster that even Hispanics are abandoning the GOP, Rasmussen Reports soundly beats back that narrative. In results released Monday, Hispanic voters favor Republicans by a 50 to 42% margin over Democrats. “The poll also indicates a tightening battle for control of Congress, as the Democrats’ lead over Republicans decreased for the second week in a row, according to the company. Overall, voters said if the election was held today 47 percent of likely voters would vote for the Democrat candidate, while 44 percent would vote for the Republican. Four percent of voters said another party’s candidate and just 4 percent were undecided.” In other words, Republicans have slashed the Democrats’ lead in half since just mid-September, “particularly with independent voters.”

But as encouraging as those signs are, leadership is clear-eyed about the hill they have to climb this November. “Now listen, this is going to be a very close election,” Speaker Johnson underscored Tuesday. His Senate counterpart, Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.), has been cautiously optimistic about his side of the Capitol. “I think we can keep the majority,” he told Politico this week. “I think all of these races are margin of error, at least the ones that we have to win. And historically, at least if you look at polls, we tend to outperform them.”

House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-La.) made that same point in a conversation with Family Research Council President Tony Perkins on “This Week on Capitol Hill.” When Cook Political Report, a widely respected organization, moved more seats to the toss-up or Democratic-leaning column, the House’s second-in-command wasn’t worried. In his mind, there’s more to the story. “You know, the polling really is interesting when you dig into it. You’re seeing an undersampling of Republicans, and we’re digging into some of these. Let’s be clear too. There are a lot of close races, not just Republican races.” He pointed to a few states like New Hampshire where GOP candidates are making a dent in Democratic areas too. “There [are] about 35 seats across the country that are truly swing districts,” Scalise observed. “Twenty of them are held by Republicans that are close right now, but 15 are held by Democrats that are also close, that we have a real chance to flip. And so, turnout is going to be a big factor. Who really does show up?”

The GOP has another secret weapon this election — in large part thanks to President Trump and Speaker Johnson — and that’s campaign cash. As Perkins highlighted, conservatives “have a strong edge on the fundraising to get their message through in these final days.” Scalise nodded. “We really do. You know, it’s rare that we outraise Democrats in a lot of these seats. We have now. And again, I think people are seeing what’s at stake, and they’re donating money.”

The media, he thinks, “[is] counting on Republicans, especially traditional conservative voters, to just stay home. And I don’t think that’s going to happen, because I think more and more people are seeing this sharp contrast [between the two parties].” With the rise of the Democratic Socialists, Scalise warns, “This isn’t like two candidates [who] are similar. This is common sense versus crazy. And some of these candidates … [don’t just want] to defund the police — they want to disarm the police. They actually advocate for taking guns away from police officers. You were a police officer. Could you imagine approaching a criminal who’s got a gun and saying, ‘Hey, let’s have a conversation and try to talk this out?’ He shoots you, and it’s over. This is insanity. And that’s beyond crazy. But if people stay home ... [these radicals win]. And that’s why people can’t stay home.”

At the end of the day, Scalise insisted, Democrats are trotting out polls “to make it look like they’re doing better than they are, because they want to depress conservative voters. Because if conservative voters stay home, guess what? Socialists will actually win. They can’t win if you show up and vote on November 3rd.”

That’s right, Perkins stressed. “The only poll that really counts is Election Day when people turn out and vote.”

‍

Watch live coverage of election night on Real Life Network.

‍

This article was written by Suzanne Bowdey and originally published on The Washington Stand. For more content like this, visit Real Life Network.