In the Senate, where Republicans currently hold 54 seats to the Democrats’ 46, 24 Senate Republicans are on the ballot this season, compared to only 10 incumbent Democratic seats.

Related: Social Security COLA 2017

In the event of a Clinton victory, the Democrats would only need to flip four Republican seats to reclaim the majority in the Senate.

Control of the Senate would be vital to confirming a potential Clinton administration’s Supreme Court nominations. The Constitution requires a simple majority vote in the Senate to confirm or deny a president’s Supreme Court nominee, though a successful filibuster by the opposition party could require a 60-vote override to force a final vote.

On October 21^st, online polling site FiveThirtyEight said the Democrats have a 73 percent chance of retaking the Senate, up 15 percentage points from just a week prior.

In Missouri, New Hampshire, Nevada, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Indiana, incumbent Republican Senate seats are facing mounting competition from Democratic challengers.

Two Republican-held seats in Illinois and Wisconsin are leaning Democrat, according to analysis by the Los Angeles Times. In Missouri, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Indiana, races to retain Republican seats are too close to call.

In the House of Representatives, the Republicans’ 30-seat majority is said to be safer, though Democrats are expected to cut into that majority. Projections from RealClearPolitics have 232 seats going Republican this season, 192 going Democrat, and 11 races too close to call.

Election ads keying on Social Security in battleground races

The Social Security Administration has minced no words on the impending insolvency of the program’s trust fund, which this year’s Trustees’ report projects to be in 2034, at which time all beneficiaries will see a 21 percent cut in benefits.

The Congressional Budget Office is projecting insolvency by 2029, and wider across-the-board cuts for all.

When posed the question of whether each Presidential candidate would agree to a so-called grand bargain to address the trust fund’s solvency, which would include a combination of increased taxes and measures to slow benefit growth, both Sec. Clinton and Mr. Trump balked.

Related: Don't discount a youth-driven Social Security revolution

Mr. Trump said he would address the trust fund’s shortfalls by growing the economy and repealing the Affordable Care Act.

Sec. Clinton was more specific, saying she would expand benefits for some beneficiaries, and would not phase in an increase in the retirement age, which analysts often cite as one necessary measure to slow benefits growth over time.

That prospect—raising the retirement age—is being used as ammunition in television ads by Democrats in battle ground states.

In New Hampshire, where Republican incumbent Sen. Kelly Ayotte is facing a stiff challenge from Democrat Gov. Maggie Hassan, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) recently ran an ad citing Ayotte’s support of raising the retirement age in the effort to shore up Social Security’s Trust Fund.

According to data from the Huffington Post released today, Hassan holds a slight edge in the race, which Ayotte was leading by several points just weeks ago.

Related: 6 myths about Social Security that voters and candidates should know

In a deadlocked race in Nevada to fill retiring Democratic Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid’s seat, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, a powerful national union, began running ads as early as August, attacking Republican candidate Rep. Joe Heck’s alleged support for privatizing Social Security in the House. The website Politifact.com has rated the claims in AFSCME’s ad “mostly false.”

In Indiana, where Republican Sen. Dan Coats is retiring, the DSCC began running a seven-figure ad campaign this summer, according to TheHill.com, alleging Republican candidate Rep. Todd Young supports privatizing Social Security and slashing benefits.

The Young camp countered with allegations that his Democratic challenger, former Sen. Evan Bayh, has previously backed higher taxes to fund Social Security’s shortfall.

No Social Security crisis?

In spite of projections from the Social Security Administration and CBO, some advocates question the premise that Social Security’s future is in jeopardy.

Related: 2 keys to Social Security solvency

Alex Lawson, executive director of Social Security Works, a non-profit that advocates, in part, for expanding Social Security benefits, said claims that the program is “in this dire situation” are “an absolute falsehood,” according to recent reporting in the Huffington Post. Lawson was speaking specifically about an ad campaign run by AARP, calling on politicians to make Social Security’s solvency a top issue this election.

In addressing the issue of Social Security in an AARP bulletin published last June, the Clinton campaign said “Republicans are using scare tactics about the future and effectiveness of Social Security to push through policies that would jeopardize it,” and accused Republicans of attempting to undermine “the bedrock of the system.”

Approaching the red line with Social Security

When the CBO released its long-term projections for Social Security at the end of 2015, it said the trust fund would be insolvent in 2029, five years earlier than the Social Security Trustees’ own report suggests.

That would mean a 29 percent across-the-board cut to benefits. In its projections, CBO estimates greater life expectancy, higher disability rates, and lower interest rates than the Social Security Administration to arrive at its estimates.

“If you believe the CBO, today’s 54-year old will be retiring when Social Security runs out of money,” said Marc Goldwein, senior vice president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a non-partisan think tank that advocates for sound fiscal policy.

“Today’s 62-year olds will be 75, meaning today’s retirees will certainly be affected,” said Goldwein in an interview. “This is not a future problem only affecting younger people.”

A self-described fiscal conservative, Goldwein says he and CRFB have backed several plans that call for tax increases to affect the funding shortfall.

But it is “unrealistic” to think the funding shortfall can be addressed exclusively with tax increases, he said. “The reality is we are going to need a mixture of new taxes and slowing the growth of benefits.”

Goldwein acknowledged the politically tenuous proposition of discussing either prospect during an election season, as the parties compete for valuable senior and baby boomer votes.

But he is concerned that this season’s limited and politicized discussion on the real challenges facing Social Security will only make the bipartisan cooperation necessary to address the issue harder to come by.

“It is one thing to avoid talking about whole choices for political purposes, but this election season we are seeing politicians taking necessary options off the table,” he said. “What I fear is that when options are taken off the table, the debate gets frozen.”

Whoever wins the White House, Goldwein says the next four years will be critical to addressing the issue. “We should all admit that no one knows exactly when the trust fund will go insolvent. But there is very little time. If we haven’t addressed this in the next five years, I think we will be in dangerous waters.”

That would likely mean a last-minute patchwork solution that would include some infusion of taxpayer dollars from the Treasury Department’s general revenue fund, a dangerous proposition to Goldwein and other fiscal conservatives.

“That would be a long-term loss for advocates of Social Security,” said Goldwein. “The program has always been protected—we don’t cut Social Security to pay for education or tax cuts.”

Using general tax revenue to bolster the program would not only add to the country’s debt, but it could ultimately eradicate Social Security’s protections, thinks Goldwein.

“As soon as Social Security becomes a part of the general finance budget, that protection is over,” he said. “Social Security would become just another budget item subject to cuts like any other area of the budget.”