Ask voters what they want the next Congress to do, and the answer, in poll after poll this October, is strikingly consistent. It is not a slogan, a scandal or a procedural fight in Washington. It is the price of everyday life. In the Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research survey conducted 8-12 October 2026 among 1,119 adults, 80 percent of registered voters said lowering the cost of living should be among the next Congress’s highest priorities. That figure puts affordability ahead of almost every other issue tested, and it crosses party lines in a way few other questions do. Large majorities of both Democrats and Republicans gave the same answer, even though the two parties disagree sharply about why prices are high and what Congress should do about them.
The same survey found that 68 percent of registered voters put ending the war with Iran at the same top level of priority for the next Congress. That second finding matters because it shows voters are not thinking only about their household budgets. They are also weighing a foreign conflict that has affected fuel prices, unsettled markets and dominated headlines for much of the year. But the ordering is clear. Cost of living comes first, and by a wide margin. Other priorities tested in the survey, including advancing the president’s agenda and investigating the president, ranked far lower. Only about one in five voters put advancing President Donald Trump’s agenda among the next Congress’s highest priorities, according to reporting of the survey, a gap that helps explain why both parties have spent the final weeks of the campaign talking about prices even when their policy proposals point in different directions.
The AP-NORC survey also asked voters a slightly different question, about the issues shaping their own vote, and the answers reinforced the same picture. Eighty-five percent of voters named the economy as one of the most important issues in considering their vote, and 84 percent said the same about the cost of living. Health care was named by 69 percent, and the war with Iran by 64 percent. The survey’s overall margin of sampling error was plus or minus 3.9 percentage points for all adults, and 4.2 points for registered voters, so small differences between issues near the top should not be over-read. But the gap between the economy and cost of living at the top and most other issues below them is large enough to be meaningful, and it has been repeated in other surveys throughout the autumn.
A separate national poll, conducted later in October, points in the same direction on the political consequences of that mood. The Reuters/Ipsos survey conducted 22-26 October among 1,679 adults found Democrats ahead of Republicans by 53 percent to 44 percent among likely voters on the generic congressional ballot, the question that asks voters which party’s candidate they would support in their district without naming a candidate. Among registered voters, Democrats led 47 percent to 36 percent before undecided voters’ leanings were counted, and 50 percent to 41 percent after leanings were included. The survey’s margin of error was about two points for all adults and three points for registered voters. A generic ballot lead is not a seat forecast. National preferences do not translate directly into district or state results, because House seats are won district by district and Senate seats state by state. But as a measure of the national mood, a nine-point likely-voter lead is a substantial advantage, and it is consistent with the AP-NORC finding that voters want change.
Other polling adds texture to that picture without changing its broad shape. A Pew Research Center survey conducted 28 September to 4 October found Democrats ahead 44 percent to 36 percent among registered voters on national House preferences, and found Democratic supporters more motivated to vote, with 63 percent saying they were extremely motivated compared with 46 percent of Republican supporters. The AP-NORC survey found a similar appetite for change in a different form: eight in ten voters said the country needed substantial change or a complete overhaul in how it is run. President Trump’s job approval in the AP-NORC survey stood at 36 percent among registered voters, with 64 percent disapproving, and disapproval of his handling of the economy reached 74 percent and of the cost of living 79 percent. Those are not measures of any individual race, but they help explain why the cost-of-living argument has become the central battleground of the campaign’s final days.
What voters want from the next Congress — and what Congress can actually do
What voters mean by the cost of living is broader than any single statistic. When pollsters ask about it, voters tend to be thinking about the weekly shop, the price of petrol, rent or mortgage payments, utility bills, childcare, and the cost of seeing a doctor or filling a prescription. Official data give part of that picture. The Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that consumer prices rose 3.7 percent in the year through September, with the gasoline index up 9.1 percent in September after seasonal adjustment. Those figures are averages, and averages hide wide variation. A household that drives long distances, rents in an expensive city, or pays for regular medication will feel price pressure very differently from a household that does not. That variation is one reason the cost-of-living message resonates so widely: almost everyone can point to something that has become more expensive, even if economists disagree about the causes.
The causes are genuinely disputed, and voters themselves are divided about who to blame. In an earlier AP-NORC survey conducted 24-28 September, 65 percent of all adults assigned greater responsibility for high prices to the president’s policies, while 67 percent of Republicans assigned greater responsibility to forces beyond the president’s control. Fifty-two percent of Republicans in that survey said the president had handled living costs worse than they expected, even as most blamed outside factors for the prices themselves. A Reuters/Ipsos survey in September found a similar split, with only 44 percent of Republicans approving of the president’s handling of living costs, down from 70 percent in January. Those findings suggest that the cost-of-living debate is not simply a partisan argument in which each side blames the other. Many voters, including many Republicans, are unhappy with the outcome while disagreeing about the cause, and that leaves room for both parties to argue that their programme would do better.
How each party promises to tackle the cost of living
Democrats have made affordability the centre of their campaign pitch. Their argument, in broad terms, is that the administration’s tariffs have raised prices for imported goods and for the inputs American businesses use, that deregulation and tax policy have favoured large companies and wealthy households over working families, and that Congress should respond with measures aimed directly at household costs, including action on housing supply, health care costs and price pressures in concentrated markets. Democratic leaders have framed the election as a choice about whose side Congress is on, and they argue that a Democratic majority would use oversight and legislation to challenge corporate pricing and to protect programmes that help families with health and housing costs. Republicans dispute the tariff argument, saying tariffs are paid in complex ways through supply chains and are a tool for rebuilding domestic industry and negotiating better trade terms, and they argue that Democratic spending proposals would themselves push prices higher by increasing government borrowing.
Republicans have a different affordability pitch, and it is important to describe it fairly rather than as simply the absence of a plan. Their argument is that lower taxes, reduced regulation, expanded domestic energy production and stricter immigration enforcement will, over time, lower costs by increasing supply and reducing the burden on businesses and households. They point to energy prices, in particular, as a lever Congress and the White House can pull, and they argue that Democratic policies on energy and regulation would raise costs by constraining supply. They also argue that many price pressures reflect global markets, supply disruptions and the aftermath of earlier inflation, not decisions taken in the last two years. Democrats respond that energy policy alone cannot explain the breadth of price increases voters report, and that tax cuts for higher earners do little for households struggling with rent and groceries. Sceptical analysts, from both the left and the right, add a further caution: Congress has only limited short-term power over prices, which are set mainly by markets, global supply, monetary policy and the Federal Reserve, not by legislation.
The gap between what voters expect and what Congress can deliver
That gap, between what voters want and what Congress can quickly deliver, is the central tension of this election, and it will not disappear on 4 November. Congress can change tax law, can fund housing programmes, can regulate health care markets, can shape trade and tariff authority, and can use oversight to pressure agencies and companies. What it cannot do, in the short term, is order grocery prices down, set rents in every city, or control the global price of oil. A new Congress could pass an affordability bill, but any bill would still need presidential agreement or a veto-proof majority, and the president’s veto power means that a Democratic Congress facing a Republican president would struggle to enact partisan affordability legislation, just as a Republican Congress would struggle to enact its own programme without Democratic votes in the Senate if the chamber is closely divided. Voters who expect quick relief may therefore be disappointed, whichever party wins, and analysts warn that the gap between campaign promises and governing reality could feed further frustration.
Housing illustrates the problem well. Rents and house prices are driven by local zoning, construction costs, interest rates and the supply of homes in each market, and Congress can influence some of those factors through funding and tax policy, but it cannot build homes directly or set local planning rules. Health care is similar. Congress can change subsidies, regulate insurers and negotiate drug prices for some programmes, but the health system is vast, and changes take years to reach patients’ bills. Food and fuel prices are even further from direct congressional control, shaped by weather, global markets, transport costs and energy policy. None of this means Congress is powerless. It means the honest version of the affordability debate is about direction and priorities over several years, not about a single vote that lowers prices the following week. Candidates who promise the latter, in either party, are promising more than the institution can deliver on its own.
A mandate and a warning for whoever wins
The campaign trail has reflected that tension, with both parties trying to claim the affordability ground while accusing the other of causing the problem. As USN reported in its coverage of the final campaign clashes between President Trump and former President Barack Obama, the closing days have featured sharp exchanges about the economy, the direction of the country and the record of each party in government. Those exchanges matter for turnout, and turnout may matter more than persuasion in the final days, because many voters have already made up their minds about the economy and are deciding mainly whether to vote at all. Pollsters caution that the voters most certain to vote and the voters still deciding are not the same groups, and that difference could shift results in ways national polls struggle to capture.
For the next Congress, the voter message is therefore both a mandate and a warning. A Congress that takes office in January 2027 will be judged, fairly or not, on whether life feels more affordable, and it will face that judgement with tools that work slowly and through negotiation. If it produces visible action on housing, health costs and energy, even incremental action, it may retain the trust of voters who put cost of living first. If it spends its first year mainly on investigations, procedural fights or partisan messaging, voters who told pollsters they wanted lower costs may conclude that Washington heard a different message from the one they sent. That is why the AP-NORC finding matters beyond the horse race. It is not just a prediction about who wins. It is a description of what voters expect the winners to do, and a reminder that the election is the beginning of that test, not the end of it.
Sources
USN reviewed reporting from multiple outlets for this story. Read more from AP-NORC, Ipsos and Outlook India.