A new GLAAD and Morning Consult survey suggests anti-trans political advertising failed to win over many voters in the 2026 midterms. Across the country, respondents were twice as likely to say these ads made them less supportive of a candidate than more supportive, while everyday costs mattered far more at the ballot box. [2], [3]

Essential takeaways

  • The ads often repelled voters: 37% said they were less likely to support a candidate using ads about transgender issues, compared with 18% who were more likely.
  • Affordability led the agenda: 59% named the cost of living as a key reason for voting; just 5% chose transgender issues.
  • The pattern crossed voter groups: Rural voters were especially likely to say the ads put them off, with a 47% to 13% split.
  • Many suspected political point-scoring: Respondents commonly saw the issue as a way to divide voters or attract media attention.

The political ads that missed their mark

Campaigns spent heavily on anti-trans messaging, but the polling suggests that volume didn't translate into broad appeal. In a survey of 2,026 registered voters, 37% said such ads made them less likely to support the candidates behind them, while 18% said they were more likely to do so. That's a substantial gap for a campaign message intended to persuade. [2], [3]

The backlash wasn't confined to one part of the electorate. Among rural voters, 47% said the ads made them less likely to support a candidate, against 13% who said they were more likely. The survey also found negative responses among voters in the South and those without a college degree. [2]

Voters had other things on their minds

For many people, the campaign's culture-war noise was competing with a more immediate concern: paying the bills. Cost of living was named by 59% of midterm voters as a primary reason for turning out, while healthcare costs and access were cited by 31%. Transgender issues ranked far lower, at 5%. [2], [3]

That contrast matters. The survey found that 70% of voters had encountered media coverage of transgender issues in the previous month, yet relatively few said the topic drove their vote. Being exposed to an issue isn't the same as wanting it to dominate a campaign; groceries, rent and medical bills tend to feel rather more tangible. [2]

Heavy spending didn't guarantee persuasion

The poll's findings arrive against a backdrop of substantial spending on anti-trans campaign advertising. The lead report put total spending at more than $187 million, including $78 million in Texas and $26 million in Ohio. Coverage by The Advocate and the Trans Data Initiative also tracked the money and political activity surrounding anti-trans campaigns. [2], [4], [6]

Even in battleground states with heavy ad spending or ballot measures, the survey found that affordability remained a stronger voting concern than transgender issues. Many respondents also viewed politicians' focus on the topic sceptically, saying it was intended to divide voters, gain media attention or sidestep other issues. [2], [3]

What the results can - and can't - tell us

The findings come from a Morning Consult survey commissioned by GLAAD, fielded from 4 to 6 November 2026. It interviewed 2,026 registered voters and 1,725 self-reported midterm voters; the stated margin of error for the full registered-voter sample was two percentage points, and may be larger for smaller groups. [2]

That methodology gives a useful snapshot of what respondents said, but it doesn't prove that any single campaign tactic decided an election. Still, the direction is hard to miss: a message can dominate the airwaves without becoming a persuasive reason to vote. For candidates, the practical lesson may be less about louder ads and more about addressing the pressures voters say they feel every day. [2], [3], [7]

It's a reminder that the loudest campaign issue isn't always the one voters care about most.

Source Reference Map

Story idea inspired by: [1]

Sources by paragraph: