OMITTED

What the news leaves out.

← Omitted front page

Polls Show Democrats Leading in Key Senate Battleground Races

12 sources · updated 2026-11-03
Left 42% Center 8% Right 50%
5 left · 1 center · 6 right

What happened

On November 2, 2026, The New York Times first reported New York Times/Siena University polls of likely voters, conducted from October 23 through November 1, showing Democratic Senate candidates ahead in seven battleground races. The Washington Examiner credited the Times as the origin of the story; Don Levy, executive director of the Siena Research Institute, was the first on-record source, quoted by Fox News the same day. The surveys found Democrat Abdul El-Sayed leading Republican Mike Rogers 53 percent to 42 percent in Michigan, with Democrats also ahead in Texas, Kansas, Maine, and Ohio, a two-point edge in Alaska, and a one-point edge in Iowa; state-level margins of sampling error ranged from plus or minus 3.4 percentage points in Texas to 5 points in Alaska. Levy said that while “a blue wave and Democratic control of the Senate is, according to our polls, a distinct possibility,” “a Senate majority for either party remains possible.” The same polls found that voters who decided only in the last month favored Republicans by nine points, and that registered white Democrats were about 30 percent likelier to complete a Times/Siena interview than registered white Republicans.
Sourcing check · Partly on the record · 12 articles

2 of 9 articles cite a named source for the story. It was on the record from the first report.

What these terms mean and how they're counted
On the record · names a source 2 of 9
On the record means the article cites a source by name for the story's main claim: a person, or an institution speaking officially, such as a company statement or a named agency's spokesperson. The opposite is an unnamed source. The count is how many of the counted articles cite at least one such source; the names are everyone named across them, each once however the articles spell it. Here: Don Levy and Geoffrey Skelley
Primary evidence · cites a document or data 4 of 9
Primary evidence means the article cites a record you could check yourself: a court filing or ruling, a dataset or report, a recording or transcript, an official statement or press release, market data. A quote is not a document. The count is how many articles cite one. Here: polling data, poll, early voting data
Credits another outlet 2 of 9
The article says the story comes from another outlet's reporting (“first reported by Reuters”). Those articles relay the story; they are not independent confirmation. Here: New York Times
Unnamed sources 0 of 9
The main claim is attributed to people who are not identified: “people familiar with the matter”, “officials said”. The count is how many articles do this.
How it developed
When the first report landed and whether it named anyone; when the first named source and the first document appeared. Here: First report Nov 2, 03:03 UTC by The Hill, naming its source. First document in the first report, from The Hill (polling data).
Not counted 3
Opinion, analysis and video pieces, and articles too short to assess. Every count above is out of the counted articles. An article republished under a new headline is one article.
This is about who is cited, not whether the story is true. Each source below says what it names. How we count
Omitted — what each side leaves out

Unpacked

The same Times/Siena Senate polls that left-leaning coverage casts as Democrats ahead also found late-deciding voters breaking toward Republicans, a result those write-ups leave out. That omitted split changes whether the leads look locked or still moving. Left-leaning coverage at The Hill described Democrats as edging their rivals and a Michigan lead, with no mention of the late break. Right-leaning coverage at the Washington Examiner led instead on a nine-point Republican advantage among voters who decided only in the last month. Left-leaning coverage, including The New York Times, leads with Democratic strength in the closing days and treats the horse race as the news. The Examiner leads with late deciders favoring Republicans and treats the Democratic advantage as backdrop. How many voters in each of those races actually decided in the last month?
Bottom line

A Hill reader of the Times/Siena Senate poll would never learn that last-month deciders favored Republicans by nine points, which is how the Examiner opened the same survey.

The receipts — 2 facts one side's coverage lacks
  • Voters who decided only in the last month favored Republicans by a nine-point margin numberin Washington Examiner, Fox News · absent from left-leaning coverage
  • Registered white Democrats were about 30 percent likelier to take the Times/Siena poll than registered white Republicans numberin Breitbart · absent from left-leaning coverage
The Left View
Left-leaning outlets presented the Times/Siena findings as evidence of late-campaign Democratic strength. The New York Times reported that “Democrats Show Strength in Final Days of Race for the Senate,” describing the party as up in Michigan, Texas, Kansas, Maine, and Ohio, with an edge in Alaska and effectively tied in Iowa. The Hill said Democrats were “edging out” Republicans in the seven races while noting that “the majority of them show statistical ties,” and highlighted the 11-point Michigan lead. A separate Reuters/Ipsos survey cited by The Hill found 46 percent of registered voters backing Democrats in congressional races versus 38 percent for Republicans, a lead that had narrowed from an 11-point Democratic advantage in an earlier poll.
The Right View
Right-leaning outlets stressed uncertainty around the same numbers and questioned whether they would hold. The Washington Examiner highlighted that “voters who decided only in the last month favored Republicans by a nine-point margin” despite the overall Democratic advantage. Fox News framed the results as “warning signs for Republicans” in longtime GOP strongholds, including that just 38 percent of likely voters in the seven states approved of President Donald Trump’s job performance despite his having carried five of those states by double-digit margins in the 2024 presidential election; it also noted Democratic leads among independents and on cost of living, and that polling had underestimated Sen. Susan Collins in 2020. Breitbart’s John Nolte argued the Times and Washington Post were “stressing over their own results because Republicans are refusing to cooperate with their pollsters at higher rates than ever,” citing the Times’ response-rate gap and a Washington Post Kansas survey in which registered Democrats were more than twice as likely as Republicans to complete the interview; he wrote that “Polls suck. There’s no reason to trust them” and that most “are politically motivated by leftist news outlets to suppress the vote.”
Our Take (balanced)
The left’s strongest argument is the breadth of Democratic leads—including in Texas and Kansas, which have not elected a Democratic senator since 1988 and 1932, respectively—backed by Democratic advantages among independents and on the cost of living, and by gains versus September Times/Siena surveys in six of the seven states. The right’s strongest argument is that the same pollsters documented a large partisan nonresponse gap, that late deciders broke toward Republicans by nine points, that several races sit inside the margin of error, and that similar polling missed Collins in 2020. The central unresolved tension is whether those Democratic leads are a genuine pre-election snapshot or an artifact of who still answers pollsters—something only the counted vote can settle.

12 sources

More stories

The week's bottom lines, in your inbox

One email a week: the five stories that mattered and what they actually mean. Free.