This article was written before Election Day on Nov. 3, 2026.
The 2026 midterm elections have put economic anxiety, political polarization, and questions of local identity at the center of American politics. Ahead of voters hitting the polls on Election Day, Nov. 3, the conversations arising offer an opportunity to consider not only the balance of power in Washington, but also what is motivating voters and how political participation is changing.
Professor Vivian Ferrillo, an assistant professor in the Government Department, described the political climate heading into the election as “characterized by economic anxiety and anger.” In an interview, she pointed to growing frustration within both political parties, as well as uncertainty about whether voters have become more engaged. “We’re going to see, I think, whether voters have tuned back in this election,” she said.
Ferrillo also emphasized the influence of increasingly divided media environments. She described how “both parties have tried to master information control over social media,” leaving many Americans in partisan “filter bubbles.” However, she sees the growth of independent media as a possible shift, with more people encountering perspectives outside the traditional political spectrum. She noted that the gap between conventional newspapers and the opinions circulating on platforms such as TikTok and podcasts is particularly pronounced among younger audiences.
That generational divide could have consequences at the ballot box. Ferrillo said Gen Z voters may be especially critical of political candidates and institutions, but their influence depends on whether engagement translates into turnout. She identified inflation, housing affordability, corruption, and foreign policy as issues that younger voters are watching closely. “These are all things that Gen Z is very concerned about,” she said.
Professor Nicholas Jacobs, Goldfarb Family Distinguished Associate Professor of American Government, similarly cautioned against assuming that dissatisfaction automatically changes voting behavior. In emailed responses, he wrote that “the central question is whether dissatisfaction with the economy and the Trump administration can overcome the tendency of voters to stick with their political team.” He added that midterms provide one of the few opportunities for Americans to vote against a president without the president appearing on the ballot. Yet, as politics becomes increasingly nationalized, congressional candidates are judged by what happens in Washington rather than solely by their local records.
That tension is particularly visible in Maine’s Senate race between Republican Susan Collins and Democrat Troy Jackson. At the government department’s Oct. 30 Politics and Pizza event, Jacobs presented preliminary survey research distinguishing between “localists,” who prioritize Maine identity and local concerns, and “loyalists,” who are more closely attuned to national politics. He described the distinction as one that cuts across age, geography, and party affiliation. In his preliminary findings, local identity was a particularly strong predictor of support for Collins, while loyalists were more likely to support Jackson.
Ferrillo identified artificial intelligence and data center development as another issue that could shape Maine’s political future. Concerns about electricity costs, water use, environmental effects, and corporate influence have made the issue increasingly contentious. Presenting polling at the event, she noted that 66 percent of Mainers surveyed opposed large-scale data center construction, compared with 30 percent who supported it. She argued that the issue could create difficulties for Collins, given President Trump’s support for data center expansion and the financial backing of technology-aligned political groups.
Nationally, the event’s other speakers considered what the election might reveal about the future of both parties. Carrie LeVan, the Montgoris Associate Professor of Government, discussed research challenging the longstanding assumption that moderate candidates consistently perform better in general elections. As partisan polarization increases, she explained, ideological moderation may matter less than national economic conditions and a candidate’s ability to mobilize supporters. Dan Shea, the Marson-Moller-McNulty Professor of Government, raised a related concern, describing a “mobilization trap”: parties can win by turning out frustrated supporters without persuading voters beyond their existing base. “Have we persuaded voters or simply mobilized them?” he asked.
For students, these questions extend beyond the election itself. Jacobs warned that “we routinely confuse political expression with political participation, especially among younger Americans.” Online engagement can signal interest, but it does not guarantee that students will vote or remain involved in civic life. Through Colby Votes, students can participate in nonpartisan voter education, registration outreach, and efforts to encourage their peers to make informed voting plans.
Ultimately, the midterms are about more than congressional control. They offer a measure of how Americans understand representation, respond to economic pressures, and navigate an increasingly nationalized political landscape. As Jacobs put it, the question is whether Americans still see Congress “as an independent institution with responsibilities of its own, or simply as another arena for supporting or opposing the president.” For students at the College, following that question means looking beyond election results: examining candidates’ records, understanding local issues, and realizing that civic participation continues long after Election Day.
~ Mia Dinunzio `28
Be First to Comment