A small set of voters in two consequential Senate contests described affordability as their overriding concern, even when they held mixed views of President Donald Trump. The findings are not a poll, but they show the economic arguments candidates will have to meet directly.
Focus groups found deep economic anxiety among undecided voters in two key U.S. Senate races in Iowa and Georgia, where concerns about high costs are influencing Senate race decisions. Many of the participants previously voted for Donald Trump, yet they said affordability, inflation and the cost of everyday necessities could determine their choices in November.
The conversations, observed by NBC News and conducted by Syracuse University with the research firms Engagious and Sago, offer a close look at a small but politically important group: voters who have not settled on a Senate candidate with the 2026 midterm elections approaching.
High costs dominate the decision
Participants repeatedly returned to the price of groceries, gasoline and other basics. One Georgia Republican, Patty O., told the group that the cost of living remained too high and that food prices were “astronomical.”
That frustration was not limited to people with one party affiliation. The 12 participants included six independents, five Republicans and one Democrat. Nine had voted for Trump in 2024, while three voted for then-Vice President Kamala Harris.
All but one said the economy would be a major consideration in their November vote. That matters because Senate campaigns can spend months arguing over national security, immigration or cultural issues, while voters may be using a much more immediate test: whether their household budget feels manageable.
Trump voters are not a fixed bloc
The focus groups complicate any assumption that a past Trump vote automatically translates into a Republican Senate vote. According to NBC News’ account, eight of the 12 participants disapproved of Trump’s performance in his second term, including several people who had supported him in 2024.
Some participants said tariffs were contributing to higher prices. An Iowa independent, Jamie G., said he felt disillusioned by Trump’s actions in office and described tariffs as effectively raising costs for Americans.
Others held more favorable views of the president while still voicing economic reservations. Tyler R., an Iowa Republican, said he approved of many of Trump’s actions, particularly on immigration, but also expressed frustration over tariffs and prices.
That mix is the challenge for both parties. A voter can approve of a president’s approach to one issue and still punish the president’s party if financial pressure remains the defining feature of daily life.
Growth can look different at home
Not every participant described the economy in uniformly negative terms. Drew G., a Georgia Republican, pointed to gains in his investments and 401(k) as a positive sign.
But even that view came with an important limitation: market performance does not necessarily settle concerns about bills, food, rent, fuel or other recurring expenses. Another participant said investment gains did not outweigh what that person saw as broader economic negatives.
This split helps explain why headline economic measures and personal economic sentiment can move in different directions. A family’s view of the economy is often shaped less by a national indicator than by the price at the checkout counter, the monthly insurance payment or the size of a utility bill.
Why Iowa and Georgia matter
Iowa and Georgia are very different political environments, but both are central to the battle for control of the Senate. In close races, campaigns do not need to win every voter; they need to persuade enough uncertain voters or make sure their own supporters actually turn out.
The focus group participants had not yet made their Senate choices, even though some had settled on preferences in other races. Their uncertainty gives candidates an opening, but it also means broad partisan branding may not be enough.
For Republicans, the conversations suggest that relying solely on voters’ prior support for Trump could be risky if those voters believe the administration has not addressed affordability. For Democrats, economic frustration is an opportunity only if they can make a credible case that their candidates have practical answers rather than simply criticisms.
Focus groups show intensity, not totals
The findings should be read carefully. A focus group is not a poll, and a dozen people cannot establish how all Iowa or Georgia voters feel. Polls use statistical sampling to estimate views across a larger population; focus groups are designed to explore the language, emotions and trade-offs behind individual opinions.
Still, the format can reveal why a voter is conflicted. In this case, the reported tension was striking: several people who had once chosen Trump said they were now dissatisfied, yet their concerns did not automatically make them committed to the opposing party.
Rich Thau of Engagious, who moderated the sessions, characterized economic anxiety as the participants’ animating midterm issue, ahead of Iran, immigration and Israel-Gaza. That is a description of this particular group, not a forecast of the election result, but it is a warning to campaigns about what these undecided voters want addressed.
The test is a credible economic case
Campaigns often answer cost-of-living concerns with slogans, broad promises or arguments about who caused inflation. The Iowa and Georgia participants appeared to be looking for something more concrete: evidence that political leaders understand the pressure they feel and have a believable plan to reduce it.
What remains unclear is whether either party’s Senate candidates can turn those frustrations into support. The focus groups do not identify a winner, and they do not show whether voters will ultimately blame the White House, Congress, businesses, global events or a combination of all of them.
They do show the central political reality heading into the midterms: for a slice of undecided voters in Iowa and Georgia, economic confidence is not an abstract debate. It is the standard by which competing Senate messages are likely to be judged.
Leave a Reply