Half of eligible voters participated in the 2018 midterm – the highest turnout rate in a century. And early indicators show Americans are
on pace to match those numbers this year.
Highly contested races in Arizona, Georgia, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and other states will determine control of the U.S Senate, as voters weigh in on the federal government’s performance on the economy, the state of democracy, abortion rights and other issues.
The abortion fight is also a critical factor in state contests, with gubernatorial and legislative races in the spotlight. Following the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization ruling, in which the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade and gave states the authority to decide whether to permit abortions, voters are motivated to cast ballots on or before Nov. 8.
With so many issues in play, selecting a candidate to support can be exceedingly difficult, especially as a voter moves further down the ballot. Never fear – The Fulcrum has some suggestions.
Separating the candidates on the issues
Political advertising is designed to influence. Social media is full of mis- and disinformation. So you need an unbiased source of information about the candidates. One place to turn is Guides.vote, which produced nonpartisan information about races in every state as well as a national voter guide that distinguishes the Democratic and Republican positions on polarizing issues.
The guides provide insights into the candidates in state and federal races and describe their stances on numerous issues like education, the economy and the environment, making it easier for voters to decide which candidates best support the issues that matter most to them.
For example, the national guide for the U.S. House of Representatives details how Democrats and Republicans voted on various issues over the past six years. On the topic of abortion, the guide states that “Democrats voted to keep abortion legal” and “oppose making it a federal crime to perform an abortion after 20 weeks,” whereas Republicans “voted to ban or mostly ban abortion” by “let[ting] states ban abortion as they choose.”
The guide also covers the economy and taxes, noting that “Democrats voted to raise corporate and top-bracket taxes and raise federal investment in social programs and the economy”, while House Republicans opposed that proposal. The Republicans “opposed the infrastructure bill” and “pass[ed] $1.5 trillion 2017 tax cuts.” The guide provides several links for context of these and other issues spanning from gun laws to immigration.
Guides.vote has also provided a breakdown of the Supreme Court justices and the political leaning of the president who appointed them. It reviews several divisive cases, the court’s decisions and how the justices split on them.
With some states hosting more competitive races than others, certain “featured” guides (New Hampshire, Florida and Arizona for example) dive deeper into some races.
Additional reading:
- Part 1: Understand the process
- Part 2: Voter registration
- Part 3: Voting by mail
- Part 4: Do your research
New Hampshire is home to a Senate race between Republican Don Bolduc and the Democratic incumbent, Maggie Hassan. On the issue of the economy, the guide reveals that Hassan aims to increase government investment in that sector, previously supporting and drafting parts of the American Rescue Plan during the Covid-19 pandemic. Conversely, Bolduc opposes increasing government investment without offsets, stating: “No more bailouts, no more government handouts, no more spending packages without corresponding cuts.”
The guide for Florida highlights the races for Senate and governor. Republican Sen. Marco Rubio is defending his seat against Democratic Rep. Val Demings. Rubio has been very vocal about his stance on abortion, calling the “abortion epidemic” an “atrocity” and voting against codifying the right to an abortion. Demings is in favor of making abortion legal, expressing, “We must work relentlessly to preseve our right to choose and our right to privacy.”
In the race for governor, Democrat Charlie Crist is challenging Republican incumbent Ron DeSantis. The guide highlights DeSantis’ opposition to LGBTQ rights; largely aiming to limit provisions like health care for gender dysphoria treatments while also signing legislation banning “transgender females from participating in women’s sports and an anti-discrimination order for state employees that excluded LGBTQ people.” His rival, Crist, has a history of supporting expanded rights for LGBTQ people, including his position as vice chair of the House LGBTQ+ Equality Caucus.
The Arizona guide, which includes information on the race for secretary of state between Republican Mark Finchem and Democrat Adrian Fontes, largely focuses on election and voting issues like ballot verification and the validity of the 2020 presidential election. Finchem has expressed his support of hand-counting ballots instead of using electronic instruments to verify results while Fontes has opposed the proposal, stating: “Nobody who is serious about election administration believes that hand-counting is better [than technology].”
Other tools, like Vote 411, allow candidates to define their positions themselves. Produced by the League of Women Voters, the site invites candidates for races up and down the ballot to answer a series of questions regarding their stance on various issues of importance to constituents.
Users simply enter their address on the site and get a list of races that will appear on their ballot. They can then select a race and compare candidates’ responses to the posed questions. Not every candidate participates, which can make it difficult in some cases to get a complete picture of who is running.
Another resource, Ballotpedia, offers biographical information on candidates for office.
Who is funding candidates?
Voters may also want to consider where candidates get their financial support, either through direct campaign contributions or through political committees. Luckily, there are tools for that as well.
The federal government requires campaign fundraising and spending to be disclosed, and that data is available to the public on the Federal Election Commission website. Anyone can dive into campaign data to see which individuals have donated to a candidate, with the option to search by name, location, employer and occupation.
And then there’s the nonprofit OpenSecrets, which provides robust, expansive data on money in politics. The OpenSecets database, which is also free to use, goes beyond individual contributions to examine the funding role of super PACs, nonprofits, independent spending, lobbying and more.
With just a little bit of work, voters can get a strong understanding of who is funding campaigns. That, combined with a better understanding of candidates’ position on key issues, should help voters make informed decisions.
A golden tray sits on the Resolute Desk as President Donald Trump speaks during an announcement on American nuclear innovation in the Oval Office at the White House on July 24, 2026, in Washington, D.C. Trump is signing multiple executive orders targeting the nuclear energy sector and easing rules for new reactors and nuclear fuel supply chains.
Trump’s hubris rivals the fallen heroes of ancient Greek mythology
In January, the New York Times asked President Donald Trump if there were any limits on his global powers.
“Yeah,” the president responded, “there is one thing. My own morality. My own mind. It’s the only thing that can stop me.”
That was eight months ago, but fortunately Christopher Nolan’s blockbuster adaptation of “The Odyssey” has made ancient Greek literature newly relevant. Before that window closes, I’d like to talk about hubris.
Today, the term mostly means excessive pride or arrogance. That’s part of what the Greeks meant by it too, but the meaning was a bit richer and more specific. Hubris was an insolent or outrageous act that offended the gods, often because the transgressor was claiming abilities or authorities that solely belonged to supreme beings.
Nolan renamed and slightly modified the concept of xenia for the film, calling it “Zeus’ law.” In the director’s telling, mortals should follow the rules laid out by the gods, specifically the requirement to treat strangers with respect lest they be gods in disguise.
In a sense, hubris is the opposite, or at least the rejection, of xenia. The hubris of the suitors, and at times Odysseus himself, invites punishment by the gods and their mortal instruments.
Which brings me back to Donald Trump. His claim that there are no constraints on his personal power to dictate events on the global stage was one of the greatest expressions of hubris ever uttered by a political leader.
Trump’s claim was obviously false when he made it.
He vowed that he could end the Russia-Ukraine war in 24 hours. He’s proved powerless to make that happen. If he had divine powers to work his will, why would he have balked at implementing his tariffs so often that Wall Street adopted the “TACO trade” term for his deals? “TACO” stands for “Trump always chickens out.”
And why would Trump have made so many embarrassing concessions to China — from rescinding tariffs on Chinese goods to allowing them to buy crucial and incredibly valuable computer chips?
But Trump saw his success at capturing Venezuelan strongman Nicolas Maduro as proof of his ability to launch missiles to the same effect as Zeus’ lightning bolts. Trump believed he was the most powerful man who ever lived.
This is no exaggeration. In March, when the Iran invasion seemed successful, Trump gave a document penned by“Presidential Historian David King” to New York Times reporters Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan purporting to prove that Trump was “the most powerful person to have EVER walked this planet.” King was, in fact, a businessman and occasional caddy for legendary golfer Gary Player.
King compared Trump favorably to many of history’s most powerful, and often heinous, figures: Alexander the Great, Attila the Hun, William the Conqueror, Napoleon Bonaparte, Joseph Stalin, Genghis Khan, Mao Tse Tung, Adolf Hitler and Vladimir Lenin. Many of these men thought they were the most powerful person in the world, too. And many were defeated precisely because they believed it.
At least Napoleon and Hitler had a string of truly impressive victories before they learned the folly of hubris. The limits on Trump’s power have been exposed by far less august forces than the combined might of the allies in World War II or the fearsome Russian winter.
Iran is a comparatively middling power. But the regime’s ability to absorb punishment while imposing its will on the Strait of Hormuz has proved to be a greater constraint on Trump’s power than his morality or mind. We should note that, at least rhetorically, his morality has not proved much of a constraint. He has repeatedly promised to destroy Iranian “civilization” if the regime refuses to capitulate.
But they haven’t — and won’t anytime soon — because the regime’s tolerance for pain far outstrips Trump’s. The combined fear of skyrocketing oil prices, outrage of Gulf state potentates, diminishing weapon supplies and domestic unpopularity is doing the work that international law, congressional oversight and the collective opinion of foreign policy experts can’t or won’t do.
If I considered Trump more heroic than reason and facts could allow, I would say his Sisyphean predicament has the whiff of Greek tragedy to it. Trump is vexed by the fact that the Iranians won’t honor deals or ratify his countless premature claims of victory — giving new meaning to his vow that his presidency would make people tired of winning. It’s almost like they’re out-Trumping Trump.
Things might have gone better if he’d heeded that great Greek tragedian Sophocles: “For Zeus utterly abhors the boasts of a proud tongue.”
____
Jonah Goldberg is editor-in-chief of The Dispatch and the host of The Remnant podcast. His Twitter handle is @JonahDispatch.