A newly released national survey of rural registered voters finds that the cost of living has become the dominant concern in communities that have been central to Republican electoral strength, creating a potentially important turnout problem ahead of the 2026 midterm elections.

The KFF-Associated Press Rural Voters Survey, published Wednesday, found that 69% of respondents considered it extremely important for candidates to discuss the cost of living. Health care costs followed at 56%, while 54% selected fraud in government programs. Agriculture and farm policy, often treated as the defining rural issue, ranked lower at 35%.

The findings do not show a wholesale partisan realignment. Rural voters in the survey still leaned Republican by a wide margin, and 98% of Republican or Republican-leaning respondents said they were more likely to support a Republican congressional candidate than a Democrat. But the results point to a gap between party preference and enthusiasm: economic dissatisfaction appears strongest among some Republicans who are also less certain to vote.

Costs cut across partisan identities

Three-quarters of rural voters rated the cost of living in their communities as only fair or poor, up 25 percentage points from a comparable 2017 survey. Fifty-seven percent disapproved of President Donald Trump’s handling of the economy, even though 48% approved of his overall job performance. Among rural Republicans, 27% disapproved of his economic management.

That subgroup matters because it expressed weaker voting intent. According to the survey’s published topline results, 59% of rural Republicans who disapproved of Trump’s handling of the economy said they were absolutely certain to vote, compared with 79% of those who approved. Overall, 74% of rural Republicans and 81% of rural Democrats said they were certain to cast ballots.

A separate Reuters-Ipsos national poll released Monday found broader economic discontent, with only 17% of U.S. adults approving of Trump’s handling of the cost of living. The two surveys measured different populations and asked different questions, so their percentages are not directly comparable. Together, however, they indicate that household prices are influencing political judgments beyond any single region or demographic group.

The pressure has a measurable economic backdrop. The Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that consumer prices rose 3.4% over the 12 months through August. Gasoline prices increased 27.4% over that period and 3.9% in August alone. Food prices were 2.7% higher than a year earlier, including a 2.2% increase for groceries and a 3.4% increase for food away from home.

Those figures help explain why the survey found rural voters about as worried about paying for gasoline as for health care. Sixty-seven percent said they were at least somewhat worried about affording gas, while 66% said the same about health care and 60% about food. Longer distances to jobs, schools, medical care and stores can make fuel costs particularly difficult to avoid in rural areas.

A strong national statistic can coexist with local strain

The survey arrived one week after the Census Bureau reported that inflation-adjusted median household income reached a record $87,460 in 2025, up 2.6% from the previous year. That national gain is important context, but it does not mean every place or income group improved equally, and it predates the 2026 surge in energy costs captured in the latest inflation report.

Rural respondents described weaker local conditions than the national income headline might suggest. Forty-four percent said there were fewer good-paying jobs in their communities than five years earlier, while 17% said there were more. Seventy-two percent rated local job opportunities as only fair or poor. The Associated Press’s reporting on the poll found that voters repeatedly connected their economic judgments to the prices of fuel, groceries and health care rather than to top-line growth measures.

The new results also fit a longer trend. A Brookings analysis published in June, using separate polling, found that Trump’s net job approval among rural voters had fallen substantially from early 2025. That earlier decline does not prove how voters will behave in November, but it supports the conclusion that rural political loyalty is not immune to economic dissatisfaction.

What the poll can and cannot show

KFF and the AP surveyed 2,241 registered voters living in rural census tracts from Aug. 12 through Aug. 24. Interviews were conducted online and by telephone using a probability-based panel and a registration-based sample, with results weighted to the rural registered-voter population. The overall margin of sampling error was plus or minus 3 percentage points; margins for smaller subgroups were larger.

That design is stronger than an opt-in internet poll, but the results remain a snapshot rather than an election forecast. They measure registered voters, not a modeled likely-voter electorate, and the survey was completed weeks before publication. Economic conditions, campaigns and international events can still change turnout and vote choice.

The clearest conclusion is narrower: rural voters remain more Republican than the national electorate, yet many are dissatisfied with prices and local economic opportunity. For both parties, the strategic question is less whether rural America has suddenly switched sides than whether candidates can persuade economically frustrated voters that participation will materially improve their daily lives.