Sam Stein, Lis Smith, and Tim Miller Discuss the 2026 Midterm Elections

On October 6th, the Rockefeller Center hosted Sam Stein, Lis Smith, and Tim Miller to discuss their strategies and opinions on the 2026 midterm elections. The conversation started by discussing how the macro political picture is bad, causing traditional assumptions about party behavior to no longer hold. It was also discussed that the pandemic era wiped out millions of jobs, reshaping voter psychology and accelerating factionalism within the country and within the parties. The panel also mentioned that both the Republican and Democratic parties experienced internal fractures, but the nature of those fractures differs vastly between the two parties. I would say the main point taken away from this discussion would be that the next political era we define will be shaped not only by mobilization but by persuasion, authenticity, and how each party’s leaders manage internal disagreements.
One of the big ideas was the myth of party unity and the rise of authenticity. Stein noted that Democrats have a “great capacity to fight amongst themselves” and some have only marginal differences. He used the example of AOC versus Gavin Newsom and how they argue the same thing for 97% of all issues, but the voters see AOC as more authentic because she was a bartender, whereas Gavin Newsom owns vineyards. Stein also argued that Republican factionalism is actually more dangerous, stating that the GOP will never return to the pre-Trump era. He used many examples of people staying loyal even if they disagree behind closed doors. One large example of this was Bill Cassidy of Louisiana; however, this, in my mind is not a valid example of a Trump loyalist. As someone from Louisiana, one of the main reasons Cassidy lost his seat was because he spoke openly against Trump and even voted to convict him during his second impeachment trial. I disagree with this example because I think Cassidy is one of the most notable members of Congress to speak out against his own party. This was also mentioned by other members of the panel, but the Republican Party is ever so defined by nationalism and not classical conservatism. Stein really pushed the point of authenticity and how voters can sense which candidate is genuine. He stated that this is a decisive factor in determining elections, especially for people in the middle. Ending his discussion, Stein stated he believes that politics will eventually calm down, but that will only be after the current identity-driven era of politics is ended. His best example of identity politics would be the discussion of who is the strongest Democratic candidate for 2028 and the potential answer of Pete Buttigieg. Stein questions whether with regard to identity politics, we made it too simple, since Buttigieg is “young and gay,” tying this to the woke progressive politics. His argument is that with identity politics, it becomes more about checking boxes and putting people into categories instead of policy and actually persuading voters, which he stated both sides were doing.
In her arguments, Lis Smith argued that mobilization is a dangerous myth, that itself alone will not win elections. She warned that many Democrats will generalize voters and end up losing because they did not persuade all the groups inside that party. Smith’s main argument was that if Democrats want to return to the majority, like in 2009, in which they held 60 Senate seats, persuasion has to be the key strategy used. She stated “there is no one way to be a Democrat” and that majority parties must embrace ideological diversity if they want to regain voters. An agreement was that the current stance driving the Democratic Party is the anti-Trump sentiment. Smith went on to say that the current party is dominated by six to eight politicians who are “not that good,” and outside this group, strong candidates exist, using the example of Abdul El-Sayed, the Democratic nominee for U.S. Senate from Michigan, as someone who can build broader coalitions. I would argue El-Sayed is very progressive, but he is authentically persuasive towards the independents and Democrats who strayed away from the party establishment to vote for him.
Miller’s main argument was that candidate quality still matters, yet the environment is unfavorable, and that matters more. Miller argues that some Democrats are running bad races but will win simply because the environment for the Republican candidates is just so unfavorable; he argues that Trump’s mistakes have created an optimistic environment for Democrats. Miller backed up Smith’s argument on persuasion, stating that it “really matters.” Miller also agreed with Stein that Republican voters want nationalism, not the idea of classical liberalism, which includes free trade, free markets, and free movement.
Overall, this event served as a robust bipartisan discussion on the future of both parties and what we might expect to see in the 2026 midterm elections. The three main takeaways that I gathered are that persuasion and authenticity of candidates are the future, and whatever party can successfully master that will have an edge. Second, the GOP is being reshaped by nationalism, meaning the Republican Party is moving away from classical conservatism and toward identity-based politics. Lastly, the political environment drives the outcomes more than a strategy alone. The US is currently in a political era that is being defined by fractured coalitions, battles of who is more authentic to voters, and complexity across demographic groups. Democrats must embrace persuasion politics, whereas Republicans need to broaden beyond just nationalist identity politics. In my opinion, whichever party can manage disagreements from within and persuade voters who do not necessarily fit one single box will succeed and win the elections.