Outside money, populist messaging and a restless electorate are shaping two of the most closely watched contests of the 2026 cycle.

Texas: a long-held Republican stronghold under pressure

With Election Day only days away, two Senate races, one in Texas and one in Michigan, are drawing attention far beyond their state lines. BBC Americast reporters have been covering both contests on the ground, and their reporting points to three shared themes: shifting voter loyalties, the influence of outside money, and a populist tone that now runs through campaigns on both sides of the aisle.

For roughly three decades, Texas has been a dependable pillar of the Republican electoral map. This year, polling suggests the Senate contest is tighter than many observers expected. Recent surveys show the two main candidates separated by only a couple of points.

The Republican nominee is state Attorney General Ken Paxton, who won the nomination despite friction within his own party and controversies from his past. Political analysts cited in the reporting say the race might look less competitive had incumbent Senator John Cornyn won the primary. Donald Trump’s late endorsement of Paxton consolidated support among the party’s base, but it also gave Democrats an opening they might not otherwise have had.

Republicans have not treated the race as safe. The party has invested heavily in the state, and Trump has campaigned there in person, including at a well-attended rally in Lubbock in West Texas.

The Democratic nominee is state Representative James Talarico, whom supporters describe as an unusually gifted campaigner. His campaign has focused on corporate influence in politics and on anti-corruption themes, aiming to present the race as a choice between ordinary Texans and wealthy donors.

That message has been sharpened by the amount of money flowing into the state. The reporting highlights the financial involvement of Elon Musk, whose businesses, including SpaceX, have a substantial presence in Texas. Talarico’s team has used that involvement as a central talking point, arguing that big-dollar backing is a reason for voters to be wary. Republicans, for their part, are counting on the party’s long record of statewide wins and on Trump’s continued pull with voters.

Michigan: a populist run in a politically divided state

In Michigan, the dynamics differ but echo some of the same themes. Democrat Abdul El-Sayed is running on a left-leaning populist platform built around economic fairness, healthcare reform and structural change in how government works. His campaign pitches itself as a break from the political establishment, even as he seeks to hold a seat that matters to his party’s national prospects.

His candidacy has also drawn sharp scrutiny. The reporting notes that El-Sayed has faced polarised rhetoric about his religious background, as well as criticism of his outspoken positions on foreign policy, particularly the conflict in Gaza. Heavy campaign spending against him adds to the pressure, and opponents have questioned whether his progressive agenda can win over the broad coalition a statewide victory in Michigan requires.

El-Sayed has responded by leaning into his outsider identity. One recent campaign advertisement tied local economic frustrations to wider anti-Washington sentiment, an approach that shows how populist strategies are blurring traditional ideological lines. Messages once associated with one part of the political spectrum are increasingly being used by candidates across it.

What the two races have in common

The campaigns look quite different. Texas is a Democratic attempt to break through in a state that has resisted it for a generation. Michigan is a defence of a seat by a candidate who is challenging his own party’s establishment as well as his opponents. Still, they point to similar conclusions about the mood of the electorate.

Voters in both states appear sceptical of the political status quo. Candidates are responding by emphasising their distance from entrenched power, whether that means attacking billionaire donors, criticising Washington or promising structural change. Money is a defining feature of both contests, either as a target of criticism or as a force shaping the airwaves.

Whether the results bring a historic breakthrough or reinforce existing boundaries, the outcomes are likely to influence how both parties think about strategy, candidate selection and messaging ahead of the next presidential cycle. For now, both races remain close, and both campaigns are making their final appeals to voters.