Karl Rove and David Axelrod give their predictions for 12 key midterm races

Karl Rove and David Axelrod offered competing judgments about 12 closely watched Senate races in the 2026 midterms. Their predictions matter because the contests could reshape the Senate’s party balance, although the article does not state which party currently controls it.

They agreed Democrats would flip North Carolina and win Texas, though Texas remained a close race. Rove favored Republicans in Iowa, Kansas, Maine, and Nebraska, while Axelrod called Alaska a coin-flip and strongly backed Democratic incumbents in Georgia and Ohio. They disagreed sharply in Michigan: Rove saw Republican Mike Rogers as having a good shot, while Axelrod predicted Abdul El-Sayed would win.

Their comments show how uncertain midterm forecasting can be. Rove worried about Alaska, Ohio, and Texas, while Axelrod stressed candidate quality and political vulnerability. Axelrod also called Iowa a coin-flip, and Rove said Minnesota Republican Michele Tafoya was promising without predicting victory. South Carolina was described by Rove as hopeful for Democrats, but not truly competitive.

A U.S. midterm election is a congressional election held between presidential elections. Voters choose members of the House and some senators, along with various state and local officials. The article focuses on Senate races scheduled for the 2026 midterms.

The election is called a midterm because it occurs about halfway through a president’s four-year term. That timing gives voters an opportunity to respond to the administration’s record before the next presidential election. The article connects the 2026 midterms with competitive Senate contests but does not discuss the president or specific national policies.

Midterms matter because the results can change which party controls Congress. That can affect what legislation advances, how investigations are conducted, and how strongly the president’s agenda is supported. In this article, Rove and Axelrod treated several races as uncertain, suggesting that candidate strength, controversies, and local political conditions could shape the Senate’s future balance.

The article discusses 12 competitive Senate races from the Cook Political Report’s list. They were Alaska, Georgia, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, North Carolina, Ohio, Texas, and South Carolina.

Five races involved sitting senators: Alaska’s Dan Sullivan, Georgia’s Jon Ossoff, Maine’s Susan Collins, Nebraska’s Pete Ricketts, and Ohio’s Jon Husted. The other seven were open-seat races, meaning the article identifies no incumbent running for reelection there. Those states were Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, North Carolina, Texas, and South Carolina.

This mix created different political situations. Incumbents such as Ossoff and Collins were judged differently by the strategists, while open seats created opportunities for party flips. Rove and Axelrod agreed Democrats would flip North Carolina. They also agreed on a Democratic win in Texas, although Axelrod called it a coin-flip and Rove said the race had tightened.

When an analyst calls a race a “coin-flip,” the phrase means the contest appears highly uncertain. Neither candidate or party has a clear advantage, so small changes in turnout, news coverage, campaigning, or public opinion could decide the result. It is a shorthand forecast, not a literal prediction of equal votes.

Axelrod called Alaska a coin-flip and noted that Democrat Mary Peltola had previously finished first under ranked-choice voting. He also used the phrase for Iowa. In Texas, he again called the race a coin-flip, while saying Democrat James Talarico was exceptionally talented and faced Ken Paxton, whom he called perhaps the country’s worst candidate.

The Texas example shows why a coin-flip label can coexist with a personal prediction. Axelrod still said Talarico would win at that point. Rove also predicted Talarico would win if voting occurred then, but warned the race had tightened and said Paxton needed to debate to improve his chances.

Karl Rove and David Axelrod are influential American political strategists with opposing party backgrounds. Rove is described as the “reviled and revered hardball strategist” behind the George W. Bush years. Axelrod is described as the Obama strategist associated with Democrats’ “authentic-and-tenacious” school of thought.

Their earlier campaign roles shaped the way they analyzed the 2026 Senate races. Rove approached contests through a Republican strategic lens, often emphasizing candidate performance and vulnerabilities. Axelrod highlighted Democratic strengths, candidate quality, and the political durability of figures such as Susan Collins. Their exchange included jokes, disagreements, and different judgments about Michigan, Iowa, and Texas.

PBS News’ Lisa Desjardins interviewed them at the Economic Club of Chicago for a nearly hourlong conversation. The discussion covered election security and the upcoming midterms before turning to the Cook Political Report’s list of competitive Senate races. Their forecasts were notable because both have extensive experience interpreting high-stakes American elections.

A party can control the Senate only by holding enough seats to organize the chamber and direct its business. Therefore, multiple victories by the opposing party in competitive races could change Senate control. The article presents enough closely contested races to make that possibility politically important, although it does not identify the Senate’s current majority or calculate a specific outcome.

For example, the strategists agreed Democrats would flip North Carolina and win Texas. Republican-held seats in Alaska, Maine, Nebraska, and Ohio also drew attention, while Michigan’s open Democratic seat produced a direct disagreement. If several of those contests changed party hands together, the overall Senate balance could move significantly.

A changed majority could influence committee leadership, floor priorities, investigations, and consideration of legislation or nominations. Those consequences are general features of Senate control, not specific outcomes stated in the article. The forecasts also remain conditional: Rove said Texas had tightened, and Axelrod described several races as coin-flips.

Senate seats are not all elected at once because senators serve six-year terms. The seats are divided into three groups, called classes. Each class comes up for election every six years, so one class is generally contested during each two-year election cycle, including midterms.

This staggered system means only some senators face voters in any one midterm. It also provides continuity: the Senate does not turn over completely after a single election. The article focuses on 12 competitive races, including contests with incumbents and open seats, but it does not explain the class system itself.

Open seats occur when an incumbent is not running, while incumbent races feature a sitting senator seeking another term. In the article, five of the 12 listed contests involved incumbents and seven were open seats. Because the seats are staggered, competitive races in one cycle may matter greatly even though many other senators are not on that ballot.