Between keeping a clear path for potential Supreme Court confirmations and the mayhem that a Democrat-controlled Senate would cause for President Trump’s final two years, keeping control of the Senate is the top priority for Republicans during the midterm elections.
There are 11 races that are worth looking at and we’re going to break them all down today on the Wendy Bell Radio Program.
The Math Is Brutal and the Left Can Count
Republicans hold the Senate 53 to 47. Democrats need a net gain of four seats to take the gavel, and they have spent two years building a map to get there. That is the entire story of the 2026 midterms in one sentence. Everything else, every ad buy, every manufactured controversy, every carefully packaged “moderate” nominee, flows from that arithmetic. The party that spent the last decade calling the Senate an undemocratic relic has suddenly rediscovered its enthusiasm for the institution, because the institution is the last thing standing between the administrative state and total restoration.
Consider what a Democrat majority actually does with the gavel. It buries the President’s judicial nominees in committee. It blockades any Supreme Court vacancy that arises in the final two years of Trump’s term, a maneuver Democrats have condemned for a decade and would execute without blinking. It converts every confirmation hearing into a show trial and every appropriations fight into a hostage negotiation. The filibuster survives only as long as it is useful to them; the moment it is not, the same senators who wrote op-eds defending it will vote to torch it. None of this is speculation. It is the stated ambition of the people running these campaigns.
So the question for the next eighty-odd days is not abstract. Eleven races will decide whether the Senate remains a constitutional firewall or becomes a partner in dismantling one. They sort into three tiers, seats Republicans must defend under heavy fire, red-state seats that should be safe and are not, and Democrat-held seats where the party’s leftward lurch has cracked the door open. Walk through them in order and a pattern emerges that ought to alarm anyone paying attention. The races are closer than the fundamentals say they should be, and in nearly every one of them, the Democrats’ strategy depends on voters not noticing who their nominee actually is.
Tier One: The Firewall Seats Under Fire
Alaska and the Curious Case of Two Dan Sullivans
Start with the strangest story on the map, because it may also be the most revealing. Senator Dan Sullivan is seeking a third term in a state Trump carried by 13 points. His Democrat opponent is former Representative Mary Peltola, who has won statewide before and knows how to work Alaska’s ranked-choice voting system. That alone would make this a race to watch. Then a retired Forest Service employee from Petersburg named Dan Sullivan filed to run. As a Republican.
The Division of Elections tried to disqualify the namesake challenger. The courts put him back on, and the Alaska Supreme Court affirmed at the end of June that both men must appear on the ballot for the August 18 primary, which is now just days away. Election officials settled on listing the incumbent as “Sullivan, Dan S.” with the notations “Registered Republican” and “Incumbent,” while the challenger appears as “Daniel J. Sullivan Jr.” with no party label displayed. Whether that is enough to prevent confusion in a top-four primary feeding into a ranked-choice general election is anyone’s guess, and that is precisely the problem.
Senator Sullivan has accused Democrats of being “complicit in trying to trick Alaskans,” and the Alaska Republican Party alleges national Democrats recruited the namesake to muddy the waters for Peltola’s benefit. Peltola’s campaign denies any involvement, and the Petersburg Sullivan insists his candidacy is sincere.
Perhaps it is. But step back and ask the obvious question. In a state where the margin between holding and losing a Senate seat may come down to second-choice votes and voter confusion, who benefits from two Dan Sullivans on the same ballot? Not the incumbent. The episode is also a standing indictment of ranked-choice voting itself, a system sold as empowering voters that instead keeps producing scenarios where the outcome turns on ballot mechanics rather than ballots. Alaskans will have a chance to repeal it this fall. The Sullivan mess is Exhibit A for why they should.
If Republicans lose Alaska, the path to 51 gets dramatically steeper. Job one is turnout. Job two is making sure every Alaskan knows which Dan Sullivan has actually been representing them.
Maine’s Bait and Switch
Susan Collins is the only Republican defending a seat in a state that has not backed a Republican for president in decades, and the race Democrats built to beat her has already collapsed once. Their primary voters chose Graham Platner, an oyster farmer and Bernie Sanders protégé whose candidacy disintegrated under a sexual assault allegation, which he denied, after months of accumulating controversies that included explaining away a tattoo associated with Nazi imagery.
Rather than face voters again, the party swapped in former state Senate President Troy Jackson at a hastily convened convention. No primary, no vetting by the electorate, just a slate-vote coronation in a Bangor hockey arena.
Collins wasted no time defining her new opponent, telling interviewers that Jackson “seems to be firmly aligned with the democratic socialists” and calling him a “Bernie bro.” She is not wrong. Jackson backed Sanders in 2016, carries his endorsement now, and runs on Medicare for all, a program Collins notes would land squarely on the backs of low- and middle-income Mainers.
Polling shows the race inside the margin of error, and national Democrat money is pouring in behind Jackson’s logger-populist branding. That branding is the tell. Maine Democrats have concluded they cannot win with an honest label, so they are running a democratic socialist platform under a flannel shirt. Collins has survived every blue wave thrown at her, but there is no margin for error here. A loss in Maine is a self-inflicted wound the party cannot afford.
North Carolina, Where the Narrative Is Hardening
The open seat left by Thom Tillis’s retirement is the Democrats’ cleanest path to a pickup, and they know it. Former Governor Roy Cooper enters with eight years of statewide name recognition and a fundraising machine. Former RNC Chairman Michael Whatley, though endorsed by President Trump, started the general election largely unknown outside party circles.
The most recent Fox News poll has Cooper ahead 53 to 44, powered by an enthusiasm gap, with more Democrats than Republicans describing themselves as extremely motivated to vote. Other surveys have shown the race as close as four points, so the spread is real but not fixed.
Here is the uncomfortable truth. North Carolina votes Republican for president and then routinely elects Democrats statewide, and Cooper is the reason that pattern exists. Whatley’s only viable play is to make the race about Cooper’s actual record, on crime, on school policy, on energy, rather than the genial-moderate image the former governor has spent decades polishing.
Every week that passes without that definition taking hold is a week Cooper banks. Inflation is the top issue for North Carolina voters, and the party of trillion-dollar spending sprees should not be allowed to run a frontrunner campaign on vibes.
Ohio Is a Test of Whether Elections Mean Anything
Ohio voters fired Sherrod Brown in 2024. Fifteen months later he launched a comeback bid for the state’s other seat, the one Jon Husted was appointed to fill when JD Vance became Vice President. The special election winner serves out the remainder of Vance’s term and must run again in 2028, which means Ohioans are being asked to hand Brown a two-year audition for a job they just took away from him.
The polling is stubbornly, maddeningly close. An AARP survey in June put Brown at 48 and Husted at 45. Other surveys have shown Husted narrowly ahead. Brown retains a personal brand with working-class voters that has always run ahead of his party, and Husted, despite decades in state government, is still introducing himself to a large share of the electorate. But Brown’s record is the record of the party Ohio has been rejecting for a decade, and Husted’s task is to make him own it. Republicans cannot lose a Senate seat in a state Trump carried by double digits and expect to hold the chamber. It is that simple.
Tier Two: The Red-State Stress Tests
Texas, the Seismic Scenario
Ken Paxton did something no one had ever done. He defeated a sitting Republican senator from Texas for the nomination, dispatching John Cornyn by roughly 28 points in the May runoff after President Trump’s endorsement broke the race open. The primary was the most expensive in American history, and it left scars. Some Cornyn voters have told pollsters they will sit out November or worse, and Democrats nominated the candidate built to exploit exactly that opening.
James Talarico is a 37-year-old state representative and seminary student who beat Jasmine Crockett for the nomination and immediately branded the general election “The People vs. Ken Paxton.” He is young, telegenic, fluent in religious language, and sitting on a mountain of national money. Paxton, for his part, calls Talarico “the most extreme radical the Democrats have ever nominated,” and the voting record backs the charge, on border security, on energy, on parental rights.
Strip away the seminary polish and Talarico is a progressive running in a state that rejects progressivism every two years.
Texas should be a Republican hold, and the fundamentals say it will be. But early polling has been closer than comfortable, and a Democrat winning a Texas Senate seat would not merely cost Republicans one vote. It would detonate the entire map and almost certainly deliver the chamber to Chuck Schumer. Paxton’s assignment is to reunify a bruised party and keep the spotlight fixed on Talarico’s record rather than his own controversies. There is no room for a grudge-nursing Republican in Texas this fall.
Iowa Is Not Safe, and Pretending Otherwise Is Malpractice
Joni Ernst’s retirement opened a seat that should stay red without drama. Instead, Iowa is a legitimate toss-up. Representative Ashley Hinson carries Trump’s endorsement and a fundraising edge, but Democrat Josh Turek, a state legislator and two-time Paralympic gold medalist, has assembled the kind of profile that gives red-state Democrats their occasional breakthroughs. He won his primary over a progressive rival by running to the middle, he represents a district Trump carried three times, and Barack Obama endorsed him the moment the nomination was secure.
The numbers should end any complacency. A Fox News poll in early summer showed Turek ahead 50 to 46, while the latest Emerson College survey has Hinson up three, inside the margin of error. The polling average is a functional tie.
Democrat enthusiasm in the state is outrunning Republican enthusiasm, and Turek’s favorability sits well above Hinson’s. Iowa has not elected a Democrat senator since 2008, and the way to keep that streak alive is to treat Turek as the serious threat he is, tie him to the national party whose money is funding him, and force him to answer for the tax hikes and spending his caucus would demand of him in Washington.
Nebraska and the Independent Costume
Dan Osborn nearly toppled Deb Fischer in 2024 by running as an independent while Democrats conveniently declined to compete. He is back, this time against Senator Pete Ricketts, and the choreography is identical. The Democrat who won that party’s primary has pledged to drop out and clear the lane, leaving Osborn a one-on-one shot at Ricketts with the entire anti-Republican vote consolidated behind him. Recent polling shows the race tied or Osborn slightly ahead in a state Trump won by 20 points.
Let that sink in. No poll shows the Republican pulling away. Osborn’s fundraising has matched the Ricketts operation, and his union-hall populism plays well with voters exhausted by both parties. But the independent label is a costume. On energy, on regulation, on the border, on the judges he would confirm, Osborn caucusing with Democrats functions exactly like a Democrat, and the national party’s eagerness to clear his path tells you everything about who expects to benefit.
Ricketts has the resources and the state’s fundamentals on his side. He needs to win cleanly and early, and remind Nebraskans that a vote for the man with no party label is a vote for Schumer’s math.
Kansas and the Pastor Problem
Kansas has not sent a Democrat to the Senate since the Great Depression, and Senator Roger Marshall remains a heavy favorite. But something happened in the August 4 primary that ought to register. Adam Hamilton, founding pastor of the largest United Methodist congregation in the country, won an eleven-way Democrat primary after raising a state-record $3.7 million in his first 62 days as a candidate. National forecasters promptly moved the race out of the safe column for the first time in recent memory.
Marshall’s response was characteristically blunt, telling Fox News Digital that Hamilton is “too woke for Kansas” and that sharing the pastor’s own sermons with voters would settle the question. He is probably right about the outcome.
Hamilton lost Wichita and nearly every rural county even in his own primary. But the money is real, the national attention is real, and a Republican Party that has to spend resources defending Kansas is a party being stretched thin by design. Marshall’s job is to run a disciplined campaign, keep the focus on farm-country economics, and close this out without drama.
Tier Three: Where Republicans Play Offense
Michigan Handed Republicans a Gift
If one race can decide the chamber, it is Michigan, and Democrats just made it winnable. In the August 4 primary, progressive Abdul El-Sayed defeated Representative Haley Stevens, the establishment favorite, despite being outspent more than eight to one. The national progressive movement is celebrating. Republicans should be celebrating harder. El-Sayed has called for abolishing ICE, championed Medicare for all and the Green New Deal, and proposed public ownership and strict regulation of AI infrastructure in a state desperate for investment.
He once described Michigan manufacturing in terms his own primary opponent used against him as writing off the state’s dying industries.
Against him stands Mike Rogers, a former FBI agent and House Intelligence Committee chairman who came within a whisker of winning this seat in 2024 and has run statewide before. Early general-election surveys give Rogers a modest edge, and independents appear far more open to him than to his opponent. Trump carried Michigan in 2024.
No Republican has won a Senate race there in three decades, but no Democrat nominee in three decades has handed Republicans a contrast this stark on crime, energy, the border, and parental rights. Flip Michigan and the Democrats’ path to a majority all but evaporates.
Georgia Is Uphill but Not Unwinnable
Jon Ossoff is the most vulnerable Democrat incumbent on paper, defending a seat in a state Trump carried in 2024. In practice, he has built a fundraising fortress approaching $80 million raised, and the early numbers favor him. A Fox News poll taken just after the primary showed Ossoff leading Republican nominee Mike Collins 56 to 43, and an AARP survey in July had the margin at nine.
Collins, a trucking company owner and congressman, won the nomination by beating Kemp-backed Derek Dooley in a June runoff after President Trump’s late endorsement, proving once again that Trump’s word is decisive in Republican primaries.
The general election is a different animal. Collins’s combative style energizes the base and repels exactly the suburban Atlanta voters who decide Georgia elections, and Ossoff will spend nine figures reminding them of it.
The Republican path exists, but it requires making the race a referendum on Ossoff’s votes rather than a personality contest, and it requires the national environment to improve. Win Georgia and the entire Senate math flips overnight. Lose it narrowly while leaving votes on the table, and the party will have no one to blame but itself.
New Hampshire, the Stretch That Still Matters
Jeanne Shaheen’s retirement opened a seat in a state that has not elected a Republican senator since 2010, and Representative Chris Pappas begins with the structural edge. But the Republican field is unusually credible. Former Senator John E. Sununu, who held this seat two decades ago, leads former Massachusetts Senator Scott Brown decisively ahead of the September 8 primary, and President Trump has now endorsed Sununu, consolidating the party early.
Polling shows Sununu running within a few points of Pappas, with one survey showing a dead heat.
Call it what it is, a stretch race rather than a must-win. But stretch races serve a purpose. Every dollar the Democrat machine spends holding New Hampshire is a dollar unavailable for Michigan or Georgia, and if a wave develops against the party in power in Concord and Washington, Sununu is positioned to ride it. Republicans should contest this seriously and without illusions.
The Firewall Holds or It Doesn’t
Add it up. Democrats need four seats. Their most realistic path runs through North Carolina, Maine, Ohio, and then one more from the Alaska, Iowa, Nebraska, Texas cluster, while holding Michigan and Georgia. Every link in that chain is contestable, and Republicans hold offensive weapons the forecasters were not predicting a year ago, chief among them a Michigan nominee the Democrat establishment spent millions trying to stop.
But the pattern across all eleven races deserves a name. In Maine, a democratic socialist wears a logger’s flannel. In Nebraska, a Democrat-blessed candidate wears no label at all. In Texas, a progressive wears a seminarian’s collar. In Alaska, the confusion is literal, two men with the same name on the same ballot, and the party that benefits shrugs and calls it democracy.
The left has apparently concluded that its agenda cannot win these states honestly presented, so it will not honestly present it. That is not a conspiracy theory. It is the observable architecture of the 2026 map.
The counter-strategy is not complicated. Define every one of these candidates by their actual records before the branding sets. Turn out the voters who already agree. And treat no seat, not Kansas, not Nebraska, not Texas, as automatic.
The Senate is the last institutional check on a movement that has told us exactly what it intends to do with unified power. Eleven states get to decide whether that check survives. The votes will be counted in November. The work happens now.
Two Storms, One Harvest
Every food crisis in living memory has been a one-shock event. The 2008 price spike was a commodity bubble. The 2020 shortages were a logistics failure. The 2022 grain scare was a war on one exporter’s ports. Each time, the system bent, adjusted, and recovered, and each time the experts assured us afterward that global markets are simply too big and too diversified to fail.
What nobody in Washington seems eager to discuss is that 2026 is shaping up to be something the modern food system has never actually faced. Two independent shocks, one climatic and one geopolitical, are converging on the same harvest cycle at the same time. Not sequentially. Simultaneously.
Start with the weather. The Pacific Ocean is currently building toward what forecasters now openly call a record event. NOAA’s Climate Prediction Center puts the odds of at least a strong El Niño near 88 percent, with roughly two in three odds it reaches “very strong” status, the tier reserved for perhaps three or four events in the entire satellite era. Every major global model now projects a median peak in Super El Niño territory, and most of them project it exceeding the 2015-16 event, which until now held the modern record. Sea surface anomalies were already brushing the super threshold in mid-July, months before these events normally peak. The atmosphere has already shifted into El Niño mode, and the event is forecast to crest in late fall and early winter.
This is not about “climate change.” It’s about the standard cycles of weather, and the cycle we’re currently in is one that has likely devastated societies in the past. We’re better prepared as a society today, but not all Americans are equally prepared.
Serious households have started doing the quiet math on their own. Grocery bills tell part of the story, and the forecast maps tell the rest, which is why long-term food storage has moved from fringe hobby to mainstream line item in the family budget, with established suppliers like Heaven’s Harvest seeing demand from people who five years ago would have rolled their eyes at the idea. That instinct is not paranoia. It is pattern recognition, and the pattern is worth walking through carefully.
Editor’s Note: Heaven’s Harvest IS a sponsor, but the warnings of this article are real and would be written even if we didn’t have a survival food sponsor. With that said, those who take advantage of what they offer can use promo code “Patriot” for 15% off.
The Fertilizer Clock Is Already Running
While the Pacific warms, the second shock has been unfolding in the Strait of Hormuz. The conflict with Iran turned the world’s most important energy chokepoint into a contested waterway, and the consequences reach far beyond the gas pump. Roughly a third of global fertilizer trade moves through Hormuz, and the disruption sent urea prices up 86 percent year over year by March, with a 53 percent jump in a single month.
The World Bank projects energy prices rising about 24 percent in 2026 and fertilizer about 31 percent. By its own accounting, fertilizer prices ran 35 percent higher in the first five months of this year than the same period last year.
Here is the mechanism the nightly news will not explain. Fertilizer is not a grocery item. It is a time-delayed input. The nitrogen a farmer in Iowa or Punjab could not afford to apply this spring does not show up as a problem this spring. It shows up as a thinner harvest six to twelve months later.
The World Bank’s own food security brief concedes that the effects of reduced applications earlier this season “are likely to become visible only later in harvest outcomes.” Translate that from institutional language into plain English and it means this. The damage is already done, it is already in the ground, and we are simply waiting for it to arrive on the shelf.
Now check the calendar. Six to twelve months from the spring planting season lands us squarely in late 2026 and early 2027. Which is precisely when the strongest El Niño in the instrumental record is forecast to peak, bringing its signature droughts to Southeast Asia, Australia, southern Africa, northern Brazil, and South Asia, the very regions that grow the world’s rice, sugar, and oilseeds.
The World Bank warns openly that a strong El Niño “could disrupt multiple crop belts simultaneously” on top of the conflict-driven input costs. Their baseline projection assumes the Middle East disruptions ease by autumn. What in the last two years of Middle East history suggests that assumption is safe?
The System Has No Slack Left
The comfortable answer is that global markets always adjust. But adjustment requires slack, and the slack is gone. Global cereal production is expected to decline from last year’s records even before El Niño does its work. The UN World Food Programme, hardly a den of right-wing preppers, is calling this the most significant disruption to its supply chains since Covid and the invasion of Ukraine, and its supply chain director put the stakes bluntly.
Today’s supply chain challenges are tomorrow’s hunger crisis.
There is also a political dimension that markets cannot price. When food gets scarce, governments do not behave like economists. They behave like politicians. Export bans, hoarding mandates, and panic buying at the national level turned the modest rice shortfall of 2008 into a global crisis, and analysts are already warning that import-dependent nations are the first dominoes.
The 2015-16 Super El Niño, a far weaker event than what is now forecast, threw tens of millions into food stress across Africa and Asia. This one is projected to be stronger, and it arrives with fertilizer already rationed by price and shipping lanes already contested by missiles.
What Joseph Knew
Scripture does not treat preparation for lean years as faithlessness. It treats it as wisdom delivered in advance to those willing to act on it.
Behold, there come seven years of great plenty throughout all the land of Egypt: And there shall arise after them seven years of famine; and all the plenty shall be forgotten in the land of Egypt.
Joseph did not respond to that warning with a hashtag or a committee. He stored grain during the years of abundance, and when the famine came, Egypt stood while its neighbors begged. The lesson is not that famine is certain. It is that the time to prepare is precisely when preparation still looks optional.
Nobody who filled a pantry in a year of plenty has ever regretted it, and nobody standing in an empty aisle has ever been glad he waited for certainty.
None of this calls for panic, and panic is the enemy of sound judgment anyway. It calls for the same unglamorous prudence our grandparents considered ordinary. Keep some cash margin, know your local growers, and put real food in deep storage while it is cheap and available, because the entire arc of this story is that cheap and available is a closing window.
Families looking for a straightforward place to start can visit Heaven’s Harvest and use promo code Patriot for 15 percent off long-term storable food. The forecasts may yet soften, the strait may yet reopen, and we should pray they do. But hope is a fine thing to hold and a foolish thing to eat.
