In the more than four-and-a half hours of presidential debatesthis election season, Sec. Hilary Clinton and Donald Trumpcollectively spent seconds addressing Social Security’s pendinginsolvency.

Related: Social Security finally addressed indebate

But the issue is playing a much more prominent rule incontentious Senate and House races across the country.

As polls and pundits are more commonly calling the top of theticket for Hilary Clinton two weeks before the election, questionsremain as to how Mr. Trump’s recent slide in the polls will affectRepublican turnout and ultimately the fate of down ticketcandidates.

In the Senate, where Republicans currently hold 54 seats to theDemocrats’ 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 needto flip four Republican seats to reclaim the majority in theSenate.

Control of the Senate would be vital to confirming a potentialClinton administration’s Supreme Court nominations. TheConstitution requires a simple majority vote in the Senate toconfirm or deny a president’s Supreme Court nominee, though asuccessful filibuster by the opposition party could require a60-vote override to force a final vote.

On October 21^st, online polling site FiveThirtyEightsaid 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, Pennsylvaniaand Indiana, incumbent Republican Senate seats are facing mountingcompetition from Democratic challengers.

Two Republican-held seats in Illinois and Wisconsin are leaningDemocrat, according to analysis by the Los Angeles Times. InMissouri, 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-seatmajority is said to be safer, though Democrats are expected to cutinto that majority. Projections from RealClearPolitics have 232 seats going Republican thisseason, 192 going Democrat, and 11 races too close to call.

Election ads keying on Social Security in battlegroundraces

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

The Congressional Budget Office is projecting insolvency by2029, and wider across-the-board cuts for all.

When posed the question of whether each Presidential candidatewould agree to a so-called grand bargain to address the trustfund’s solvency, which would include a combination of increasedtaxes and measures to slow benefit growth, both Sec. Clinton andMr. Trump balked.

Related: Don't discount a youth-driven SocialSecurity revolution

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

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

That prospect—raising the retirement age—is being used asammunition in television ads by Democrats in battle groundstates.

In New Hampshire, where Republican incumbent Sen. Kelly Ayotteis facing a stiff challenge from Democrat Gov. Maggie Hassan, theDemocratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) recently ran an adciting Ayotte’s support of raising the retirement age in the effortto 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 byseveral points just weeks ago.

Related: 6 myths about Social Security that votersand candidates should know

In a deadlocked race in Nevada to fill retiring DemocraticSenate Minority Leader Harry Reid’s seat, the American Federationof State, County and Municipal Employees, a powerful nationalunion, began running ads as early as August, attacking Republicancandidate Rep. Joe Heck’s alleged support for privatizing SocialSecurity in the House. The website Politifact.com has rated theclaims in AFSCME’s ad “mostly false.”

In Indiana, where Republican Sen. Dan Coats is retiring, theDSCC began running a seven-figure ad campaign this summer,according to TheHill.com, alleging Republican candidate Rep. ToddYoung supports privatizing Social Security and slashingbenefits.

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

No Social Security crisis?

In spite of projections from the Social Security Administrationand CBO, some advocates question the premise that Social Security’sfuture is in jeopardy.

Related: 2 keys to Social Securitysolvency

Alex Lawson, executive director of Social SecurityWorks, a non-profit that advocates, in part, for expandingSocial Security benefits, said claims that the program is “in thisdire situation” are “an absolute falsehood,” according to recentreporting in the Huffington Post. Lawson was speakingspecifically about an ad campaign run by AARP, calling onpoliticians to make Social Security’s solvency a top issue thiselection.

In addressing the issue of Social Security in an AARP bulletinpublished last June, the Clinton campaign said “Republicans areusing scare tactics about the future and effectiveness of SocialSecurity to push through policies that would jeopardize it,” andaccused Republicans of attempting to undermine “the bedrock of thesystem.”

Approaching the red line with Social Security

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

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

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

“Today’s 62-year olds will be 75, meaning today’s retirees willcertainly be affected,” said Goldwein in an interview. “This is nota future problem only affecting younger people.”

A self-described fiscal conservative, Goldwein says he and CRFBhave backed several plans that call for tax increases to affect thefunding shortfall.

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

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

But he is concerned that this season’s limited and politicizeddiscussion on the real challenges facing Social Security will onlymake the bipartisan cooperation necessary to address the issueharder to come by.

“It is one thing to avoid talking about whole choices forpolitical purposes, but this election season we are seeingpoliticians taking necessary options off the table,” he said. “WhatI fear is that when options are taken off the table, the debategets frozen.”

Whoever wins the White House, Goldwein says the next four yearswill be critical to addressing the issue. “We should all admit thatno one knows exactly when the trust fund will go insolvent. Butthere is very little time. If we haven’t addressed this in the nextfive years, I think we will be in dangerous waters.”

That would likely mean a last-minute patchwork solution thatwould include some infusion of taxpayer dollars from the TreasuryDepartment’s general revenue fund, a dangerous proposition toGoldwein and other fiscal conservatives.

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

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

“As soon as Social Security becomes a part of the generalfinance budget, that protection is over,” he said. “Social Securitywould become just another budget item subject to cuts like anyother area of the budget.”