What to watch IN Senate Republican primary races

What constitutes a win? Who will seize the narrative, and how?

The 2026 set of Senate Republican primary races – fueled by the furor over the failed mid-decade congressional redistricting drive – is likely the most closely watched and certainly the most costly in state history. Thanks to the so-called “dark money” being spent by some entities, we’ll never know precisely how much is being directed toward candidates in fewer than 10 races (and the spend per vote will be off the charts).

One thing is becoming clearer, however, in case you ever had any doubt: the campaign against GOP incumbents (and the competitive contests in at least three open seat Republican primaries: SDs 29, 31, and 39) is all about unseating Senate President Pro Tem Rodric Bray (R), viewed by the White House, the Governor’s Office, and key social conservatives as the architect of the anti-redistricting strategy.

So who will win? Good question, both on an individual and collective basis. We’ll tell you that what we’ve been hearing from those with an ear to the ground in different districts is that the individual races will be turnout dependent. Most are quite close – at least much more close than you’re accustomed to seeing in the typical primary election cycle, and will come down to who can drive their supporters to the polls on Tuesday after a mixed early turnout across the state.

A “turnout-dependent” contest means an incumbent is in trouble, and the dynamics are intriguing here. The pro-redistricting challengers have thrown their lot in with the White House (virtually none – save, perhaps, Rep. Michelle Davis (R), who has a voting record on the Third Floor – has talked in any detail about what they would plan to do if nominated and elected; “lower your property taxes” rhetoric does not count as substance for these purposes), and they hope for help from the usual strong social conservative-turned-MAGA Indiana Republican Party base. Of course, the bulk of these voters are Trump voters, and that’s typically a motivated cadre . . . which is why this primary writ large has been positioned by the national players as one in which you’re either with Trump or against him.

What we’ll be watching for Tuesday is whether this base, stirred up by the White House and the MAGA community will turn out in sufficient numbers in an off-year primary election in an election for which the President is not on the ballot. This could not only be decisive in this set of primary races, but also for the general election in November and the future of Republicans and the Republican Party in Indiana.

We’ll also point out that since the challengers enlisted up for this primary assignment some five months ago, the President’s popularity has plummeted by some 10 points nationally. While the decline likely has not been as drastic in the Trump bastion of Indiana, it is certainly discernible, and the “Trump-endorsed” volume has been noticeably dialed down a few notches in the past few weeks. Some might posit that the Trump popularity/approval decrease has effectively canceled out the edge that the challengers might have expected when they joyfully jumped into their respective races.

You may hear some post-primary regret from the challengers that this campaign was too much about Trump and not enough about the voters and what was of concern to them (gas tax hikes by incumbents might have proven a more formidable hurdle for senators seeking renomination had the Iran war not directly led to soaring gas prices, and the Governor offering temporary tax relief – that also had the effect of showing how much money will be lost for road funding from the gas tax).

If the Trump factor effectively evens out, then note that the incumbents being challenged – some in large part because of their age or years of service – actually have longstanding campaign networks in place from their previous races, races for other offices, or local party service. Yes, the challengers backed by the White House, Club for Growth, and other national entities have had money poured into television, digital campaigns, and direct mail on their behalf, but these groups – and many of their hopefuls, have not developed the same nature and extent of networks on a districtwide basis, so even candidate who have been elected to city or county office have largely not run larger campaigns or within the same district lines.

Regardless, given the typically low turnout, each of these races could easily swing in any direction, and we’ve heard candidate feedback from door-to-door campaigning that the temperature in the field is much lower than in previous cycles this decade (though we’re not sure whether this is being reflected in polling). There just may not be much incentive for voters to turn out – and, in some communities, school referenda or school board elections might have served to boost turnout, but lawmakers punted those choices to the fall election. We won’t even dwell on the fact that Hoosier gas prices may approach $5 per gallon by election day (an interesting Brookings Institution analysis released Wednesday finds that residents of GOP congressional districts typically drive more – “26% more miles than a Democratic member’s average constituent”), perhaps also discouraging drives or detours to polling places.

There seems to be consensus that Sen. Jim Buck (R) in SD 21 may be the only incumbent who insiders are willing to suggest will not be back, and, both sides acknowledge, that would have been the likely outcome even absent redistricting. The line here is that Sen. Buck should not have run for reelection this time (some even say now that he should have not run in 2022), and that he and his wife Judy, a key local party leader, were perhaps a bit too choosy in looking to find a suitable successor for him. While former Sens. Allen Paul (R) and Earline Rogers (D) also played the same game and stayed one election too long, they both did eventually find an appropriate successor and left on their own terms as colleagues fear Sen. Buck may not be able to do after lengthy public service.

So now that we’ve told you that Tuesday night will be a real nail-biter, we’ll tell you what you need to watch for on Wednesday morning . . . and beyond.

What Constitutes a Win?

Because no party to the primary has been willing to say winning X number of seats constitutes a win for their side, and since neither side is expected to sweep the field, it will be important for any given interest to engage in some credible post hoc setting of the goalposts. Is the defeat of one or two incumbents a meaningful win for the pro-redistricting forces? Probably not, even though that would arguably be a remarkable achievement in an unremarkable cycle. But when you get up to perhaps three incumbents losing, that’s the kind of territory that’s meaningful.

And those number would not be meaningful just in isolation, as proof that the White House, 206, and the Banks and Rokita political operations carry serious clout, but for what it would mean in practical terms: that the tenure of Sen. Bray as president pro tem might be in jeopardy, particularly as senators who voted against redistricting and are up for renomination and reelection in 2028 consider their immediate future in the body, and their political fate in 2028.

If a wave includes the defeat of Sen. Liz Brown (R), that also empowers U.S. Sen. Jim Banks (R) and Attorney General Todd Rokita (R), and may make life difficult politically for Governor Mike Braun (R) in 2028.

What is the Messaging for an Obvious Loss?

The Trump Team can effectively ignore this as just a local anomaly and not a national trend, the Club for Growth can pack up its local operations without notice. A big loss would be more a question for the Governor and his political team and for Sen. Banks than anyone else, because they are the hometown team that put money and prestige on the line.

The messaging will be important, particularly for the Governor, who expects to seek reelection in 2028, and who could find himself faced with a Senate led by the man he sought to oust and a supermajority caucus populated by a group whom he spent money trying to unseat. We didn’t hear any cogent message from the Governor about why he felt compelled to spend PAC cash against the redistricting-recalcitrant members, but not actively campaign for challengers, and not commit personal capital after he spent some of his political capital.

Sen. Banks should find himself even stronger with his base even with a big loss, and he will not back down. He also won’t have to worry about a few more anti-Banks senators should that be the outcome, and simply needs to retain his standing vis à vis the Governor and AG as the post-Trump crowd looks for a new Hoosier standard-bearer.

If there is an clear negative outcome for Sen. Bray and the incumbent senators, don’t expect any soul-searching. They clearly believe they did the right thing, and were willing to live with the outcome, understanding how difficult it was to withstand a national blitz of some $5 million plus in just a handful of districts. What will be important is just which incumbents lose. Some of the challengers were much anti-institutionalist and more in the insurgent silo than others, and it could be that if two or maybe even three incumbents lose, but lose to some of the more traditional candidates, Sen. Bray can work with those individuals and retain his leadership role.

Should the election prove to be a disaster for incumbents, there may be an overnight coup attempt of sorts which Sen. Bray could have to fend off (before he could potentially shore himself up in November), and there will be considerable palace intrigue.

What does this Mean for the Indiana GOP?

We’ve provided you with some of the granular items to which you must pay attention in the short-run, but there is more at stake in the broader context.

This is the first battle – and perhaps even the most important – in the fight for the post-Trump future of the Republican Party. More of this will play out at the June state party convention over platform and the secretary of state race (and some of this may also be effectively decided Tuesday by which individual delegates are elected by party voters to represent them at the Fort Wayne confab).

There are questions about which elements of “the party” the actual Indiana Republican state party represents today and should represent going forward. Some of this will be resolved in part as the 2028 state races shape up. Will Governor Braun seek reelection, and, regardless will there be a contested gubernatorial primary? Will U.S. Sen. Todd Young (R) face a primary from former Sen. Carlin Yoder (R), Lieutenant Governor Micah Beckwith (R), Attorney General Todd Rokita (R), or others?

And as you look back to what would have brought us to that point, you must ask whether there will be a further concerted effort to push anti-redistricting senators – including Sen. Bray – out of 2028 reelection bids, or to oppose them in 2028 primary contests as we saw this May.

While we could make “what this means for association with the Trump imprimatur going forward” into a separate category, it’s probably effectively subsumed under this category. With the President unable to seek reelection, the Trump name not being on the ballot going forward, and the Trump brand becoming more problematic in the polls, you should be curious to determine just how large the Trump base in Indiana will remain, and whether it will continue to be decisive in Hoosier primaries and conventions.

What does this Mean for Sen. Bray and the Senate?

You’ve discerned by now that this is a pivotal election for the future of the Senate GOP supermajority. No one is suggesting that the supermajority will fail to survive the general elections, but depending upon what happens Tuesday, the composition of the supermajority could become significantly more conservative in November, and, if that happens, a leadership change – and all that follows – would mean a major change in how the Senate is run and how it would act. Since the early 1980s, the Senate has been overseen by Republican institutionalists – Bob Garton (R), David Long (R), and now Sen. Bray.

All three would be viewed as RINOs by backers of the 2026 Senate primary challengers.

A leadership change set in motion by the ouster of the anti-redistricting senators would mean a shift away from pragmatism and oriented more toward ideological voting. A Senate leadership change would also be a canary in the coal mine for House leadership, and House Speaker Todd Huston (R) would have to factor in a new political and Senate environment, and this could change how he herds the cats in his chamber. Until now, he has done a masterful job of walking a tightrope with his caucus, but a big change in the political or policy environment could cause him to alter his management practices, or loosen the reins on items that might not have previously passed muster with the Senate.

The damnedest thing is that while this primary election – in practice – is all about removing Rod Bray from Senate leadership, the public could not care less what individual runs the Senate, so the campaigns have publicly been focused on a different level.

What does this Mean for Negative Campaigning?

The outside spending in the Senate primaries has been devoid of issues and effectively negative – as has some of the candidate spending, even for those not on Team MAGA (such as in the races involving Sens. Spencer Deery (R), Ron Alting (R), and Jim Buck (R)).

Everyone has heard the mantra about how voters hate negative campaigning, but it works. Literally all of the television, direct mail, and digital footprint in the primaries has been negative, and we’ll have an opportunity to learn just how voters reacted to that kind of a blitz. If challengers prove largely successful, it will be due to the incessant negatives, and you better believe that campaign consultants around the state are keeping a close eye on just how this might play out with an eye to November and beyond.

You now have your homework assignment for next Wednesday!