Senators Warn Trump: You Went Too Far--on Immigration

Multiple Republican senators have now come to the conclusion that Donald Trump's immigration policy has become a big problem for them, especially with Latino and suburban voters. Soon-to-be-former Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) said: "I always thought that this idea of mass deportations sent the wrong message." If the Senator always thought this, one might ask why he never mentioned it until it began hurting Republicans at the ballot box.

Maybe Cornyn's new discovery of something he always knew is due to a September Fox poll that shows 53% of the voters think that Trump's way of enforcing immigration laws has gone too far. Among those who don't like the deportation policy, 45% think the government is using too much force while 49% think the wrong people are being deported. It is not clear who they think the right people are. White people? Only criminals? The entire starting lineup of the Chicago Bears? Hmmm... now we might be on to something. Sen. Mike Rounds (R-SD), who is up in November, is in the "only criminals" camp. He thinks that only people who have violated some law other than immigration law should be deported. Of course, if that is the plan, then there is no room for "dramatic" action over and above what previous administrations have done. Every administration tries to deport criminals, and they do so as quickly as those criminals can be found.

Soon-to-be-former Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC) said: "I would rather have 100 illegally present people go free than have that innocent person caught. Tillis probably saw the ProPublica investigation that has found 506 cases in which ICE arrested U.S. citizens for deportation. The link shows videos of some of the arrests. The people are all yelling: "I'm a U.S. citizen," but instead of stopping and saying: "Prove it," the agents just continue handcuffing the people and forcing them into vans. The agents clearly care not a whit if the person they are arresting is a U.S. citizen or not. In at least one case, when the arrestee said he was a U.S. citizen, the agent said: "I don't care." ProPublica also found:

• Nearly 100 Americans were detained after being asked about their citizenship—almost all people of color.
• Of the 300 Americans charged with assaulting agents, nearly all the cases were dropped or dismissed.
• Agents arrested 63 people for recording the agents' activities (which is perfectly legal).
• 36 people were held for over a day without being allowed to make their permitted phone call.
• A dozen U.S. citizens have actually been physically deported, which is completely illegal.
• Many children and teenagers have been brutalized.

It is a long report, with many details and many videos of detentions.

Soon-to-be-former Sen. Joni Ernst (R-IA) is also disturbed. She said: "Is there a way that President Trump could look at these individuals and say, 'OK, we'll allow you to stay but we're going to tax you more...' as a way of paying a fine because you broke the law entering the country?"

Or maybe the Republican senators saw the NBC News/Telemundo poll of 800 Latino voters that showed that only 27% approved of Trump while 69% did not. Sen. Jim Justice (R-WV), who comes from one of the Trumpiest states in the country, said: "Before you know it, you get people that get carried away in their job and whatever it may be, and all of a sudden, then you're dragging people away that have lived on your street corner for 15 years, and I don't know that we need to be doing that stuff." It is amazing that all it takes is an election (and a handful of polls) for senators to discover their true views on immigration.

But while some Republican senators are unhappy with Trump, some House members are unhappy with the Republican senators. In particular, House Majority Whip Tom Emmer (R-MN) is now saying out loud what many House Republicans actually think about their colleagues at the other end of the Capitol. Emmer is angry that the Senate can't pass bills the House sends over. He said: "Don't keep telling me 'Don't have the votes. Don't have the votes.' You suck." A staffer of a Republican senator responded that what would suck is losing the majority and Emmer should aim his fire at Democrats, not Republicans. Emmer believes Senate Republicans should abolish the filibuster so they can pass the bills the House sends them, but Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD), who is keenly aware that the chances of his caucus being in the minority on Jan. 3 are roughly 50-50, has no interest whatsoever in doing that. (V)

The House Freedom Caucus Will Change in January, but How?

It is not known if Tom Emmer is a formal member of the Freedom Caucus (because they keep their membership list secret and not all members are public about it), but he sounds like one. The group will change considerably in January, however, and that might have consequences. The FC policy chair, Rep. Chip Roy (R-TX), ran for Texas AG and lost the primary, so he won't be back in January. Among other high-profile FC members who decided to run for other offices and—win or lose—won't be back in January are Reps. Andy Biggs (R-AZ), Byron Donalds (R-FL), Barry Moore (R-AL), Ralph Norman (R-SC) and Tom Tiffany (R-WI). While these losses might or might not decimate the group, at the very least they will lower its profile. Democrats capturing the House will lower it even more, since Democrats will just let them whine to their hearts' content and completely ignore them. However, even if the Republicans hold the House or it is so close that every vote counts, the FC will still lose a lot of leverage with the loss of so many high-profile members.

Of course, the loss of so many leaders opens a path for other FC members to rise to prominence. Reps. Eric Burlison (R-MO), Brandon Gill (R-TX), Clay Higgins (R-LA) and Keith Self (R-TX) are expected to try to get leadership roles in the caucus. There will also have to be a new chair. Rep. Andy Harris (R-MD) will probably be reelected to his seat in the House but he is term-limited as FC chair.

A possible new FC strategy in the event of Democratic control of both chambers could be opposition to deals between Congressional Democrats and Donald Trump (rather than pushing for their own legislation). They could try to lobby other House Republicans and maybe some moderate Democrats to try to sabotage anything Trump wants to do together with the Democrats. They will swap in "RINO" for "socialist" as their favorite new word. Or maybe they'll just go with "RINO socialist." That's a twofer, and who cares if it actually makes sense or not.

But as Yogi Berra noted: "It ain't over 'til it's over." There will have to be a mobility-impaired-waterfowl session of Congress in December because government funding runs out on Dec. 11. FC members are scared to death that this will result in a Christmas omnibus, in which members get a tasty bit of pork or bacon in exchange for their vote. It happens all the time and for them, keeping the pigs in check will be a priority and last hurrah. (V)

Too Little Too Late

The cheap seats are all gone. Republicans hope to spend $1 billion in October to save the midterms, but it may be too late. A large chunk may come from Donald Trump's private slush fund, MAGA Inc., which has over $400 million cash on hand. The problem is that campaigns that reserved ad space in the spring got good deals but campaigns trying to buy space now are sometimes paying 3-5x what the early birds paid. That is the same principle as someone buying an airplane ticket the day before the flight and discovering that the person next to him paid a fifth of what he paid by buying the ticket 6 months ago. Much higher ad rates means much less bang for the buck.

One key race where the money is flowing is Texas, which has a very contested Senate race featuring a very bad candidate who needs to be propped up by massive ad spending in a very expensive state. The last time a Democrat was elected to the Senate from Texas was in 1988, yet MAGA Inc. spent $22 million last month trying to help Ken Paxton. The MAGA Inc. ads are running mostly on streaming services. The group has been paying almost $900 per ad while James Talarico is paying $290 for the same amount of time because he reserved a time slot many months ago. Note that the rule is not that campaigns have to be charged the same as all the other campaigns. The rule is that campaigns have to be charged the lowest current market rate. So, if the rate that longtime, regular advertiser Sneed's Feed and Seed (formerly Chuck's) would pay an outlet for a spot is $900, because inventory is low, then that's the rate the campaigns pay.

Neil Newhouse, a veteran Republican pollster, thinks the ship has already left the dock. He said: "After the votes are counted, I think we're going to find the most effective advertising in terms of communicating message and moving voters and poll numbers, the most effective time was advertising that happened well before Labor Day, not after it. A million dollars of advertising in October is a drop in the bucket."

Money is important, but isn't everything. Kamala Harris spent much more than Donald Trump in October 2024, but it couldn't bail her out. Elon Musk spent $25 million on a single Wisconsin Supreme Court race and his candidate was wiped out. Right now the Republicans have almost twice as much money to spend this month as Democrats, but if Newhouse is right, it is too late because most people have already made up their minds and seeing the same ad 50 times next week isn't going to change it.

Nevertheless, Democrats are not giving up on trying to catch up. They are starting to employ their secret weapon: Barack Obama. He recorded two dozen ads last week, is starting to appear at fundraisers, and is campaigning for selected Democrats around the country, including James Talarico and Gina Hinojosa in Texas, Josh Turek in Iowa, and Abdul El-Sayed and Jocelyn Benson in Michigan. (V)

Who Really Lives in California?

California voters will vote next month on a ballot measure, Prop. 40, to tax the assets of billionaires who live in California. Not surprisingly, some billionaires are trying to avoid the tax by leaving California—often for Texas or Florida, which have no state income tax. Experts on tax avoidance say that the number of people who really cut all their ties with some state (or country) and fully move to another one is not all that large. People who are used to the good life in the Bay Area can buy a house in Miami, but most of them don't actually want to live there because their families, friends, favorite restaurants, cultural activities, businesses and more are still in California. And the (usually) mild California climate doesn't exist in Texas or Florida. Nor is San Francisco a mosquito-infested swamp. What the billionaires want to do is pretend to move by buying a house in Texas or Florida, registering to vote there, and getting license plates from that state and then claiming they live there. The California Franchise Tax Board (FTB) is onto this game and it will be quite a cat-and-mouse game if the measure passes. The polls are mixed; the vote could go either way.

The measure taxes billionaires who lived in California on Jan. 1, 2026, so any billionaire who started moving after that is out of luck, no matter how diligent and thorough he or she is about the move now. But even for billionaires who saw this coming, fighting the FTB won't be easy because just buying a house and registering to vote elsewhere won't do the job. There is a substantial amount of case law dealing with residence, some of it going back to a 2003 case involving rancher Stephen Bragg, who claimed to have moved to Arizona. What the case law says is that what matters is not where you are registered to vote, but "the center of your life," which encompasses the following factors, and more:

• Amount of time one spends in California versus amount of time one spends outside California
• Location of spouse or registered domestic partner and children (and where they go to school)
• Location of principal residence
• State that issued driver's license
• State where vehicles are registered
• State where one maintains their professional licenses
• State where one is registered to vote
• Location of the banks where one maintains accounts
• The origination point of one's financial transactions
• Location of healthcare providers (doctors, dentists, etc.), accountants and attorneys
• Location of one's real property and investments
• Permanence of one's work assignments in California
• Location of one's social ties, such as their place of worship, professional associations, or social and country clubs

Some billionaires may be tempted to lie about these factors, but the FTB has many tools available, especially subpoena power. For example, the first item in the list above is important. How much time does the person spend in California? Lying is easy. Getting away with it, not so much. Billionaires tend to make calls all the time and phone company records show which cell tower picked up the call. Swearing under oath you spent all of March in Miami when phone records show many calls in March originating in San Francisco could lead to a perjury charge. Credit card statements for purchases in California restaurants, stores, theaters and other things don't lie. Executives at a billionaire's company can be deposed under oath and asked about meetings they had where the billionaire was present. The date and location the billionaire signed contracts can usually be found. Records from the hated Flock cameras can be subpoenaed. And much more.

Shail Shah, a former auditor at the FTB, said California billionaires fall into three buckets. First, some don't think the measure will pass and aren't doing anything about it. Second, some see it coming but realize they were clearly California residents on Jan. 1, so it is too late to do anything. Third, others have begun "moving" out of state already and will challenge the Jan. 1 effective date in court, claiming it should be Election Day (Nov. 3) and that retroactive dates aren't legal. Of course, they had better have severed all ties with California by Nov. 3. For many of them, still being the CEO of a company headquartered in California is a giant red flag to the FTB. Of course, it may be possible to move the whole company to Texas or Florida, but many mosquito-averse key employees may refuse to move, badly damaging the company.

If Prop. 40 passes, expect years of litigation. It will probably be in state courts rather than federal courts since this is purely an issue of state taxation and the California Supreme Court may get the final word. (V)

The States Also Matter

Most political punditry and polling is focused on the Senate and House elections, and to a lesser extent, the 35 races for governor. But these aren't the only games in town. There are also many competitive seats in state legislatures up in November, potentially flipping control of them, in some cases creating or ending trifectas. Also, some chambers may cease being veto-proof or may start being veto-proof.

After years of Republican dominance in state races, this year Democrats are on offense. One analysis showed that in the best case, Democrats could get the trifecta in seven states and break Republican trifectas in six states. Getting all of this is unlikely, but getting some of it is realistic in a blue wave. Republicans have a chance to break Democratic trifectas in only two states and could get their own in at most five states. Here is the current trifecta map:

Much of the Democrats' problem began in 2010, when Barack Obama showed roughly zero interest in state legislative races and Republicans netted 700 seats in them and took control of 20 chambers. Now both parties are on the ball. Heather Williams, president of the Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee (DLCC, analogous to the DSCC and DCCC), said: "2026 is proving to be a once-in-a-generation opportunity for Democrats to shift the balance of power away from Republicans." A memo from the Republicans' counterpart, the Republican State Leadership Committee (RSLC), said this year would be a "political environment that is likely to be one of the most challenging for state Republicans in recent years." It also said the Republicans would focus on defense first.

Democrats' top priorities for trifectas are in Nevada, Minnesota and Pennsylvania. To get Nevada, Aaron Ford has to beat Gov. Joe Lombardo (R-NV). In Minnesota, Democrats need to hold their 34D, 33R lead in the Senate and pick up one seat in the state House. In Pennsylvania, they need to flip three seats in the state Senate and hold their 103D, 100R lead in the Assembly. Flipping three seats won't be simple because only half the state Senate seats are up this year. However, Gov. Josh Shapiro (D-PA) is spending as much time campaigning for state Senate seats as he is for his own reelection. If he can pull this off, in 2028 he can talk about his "long coattails," which might get him quite a few endorsements from Democratic officeholders who might want to grab onto them in the next cycle.

The Republicans' best shot at a new trifecta is Kansas, where term-limited Gov. Laura Kelly (D-KS) is likely to be replaced by Ty Masterson (R).

There are four states where either party could conceivably get the trifecta: Alaska, Arizona, Michigan, and Wisconsin. In all four, there is a competitive race for governor, which is essential, of course. In Alaska, the Senate is 9D, 11R and the House is 14D, 21R, 5I. The five independents are a big factor, naturally. In Arizona, the Senate is 13D, 17R, and the House is 27D, 33R. In Michigan, the Senate is 20D, 18R and the House is 52D, 58R. This is probably the easiest of the four for the Democrats, especially since Jocelyn Benson is the strong favorite to be elected governor. In Wisconsin, the Senate is 15D, 18R and the House is 45D, 54R, so the latter chamber will be tough, but not impossible, for the blue team.

Now on to trifectas that could be broken by the election of a Democratic governor. These are Georgia, Iowa, and Ohio, where the Democratic candidate has an excellent chance, and Florida, New Hampshire, and Texas, where the Democratic gubernatorial candidate is in a much weaker position, but one that is not impossible. None of the legislative chambers in any of those states is expected to flip.

There are also two states where the Democrats could lose their trifectas: Maine and Oregon. In Maine, the Republicans could capture the state House if they can flip three seats. In Oregon, Gov. Tina Kotek (D-OR) could lose her reelection bid.

Also of interest are the supermajorities some states have, which allow the majority party to override the governor's vetoes. Democrats are focused on breaking the Republican supermajorities in Iowa, North Carolina, and Ohio, all of which could have a Democratic governor in January (North Carolina for sure, since Josh Stein is not up this year).

Trifectas come and go. Right now, Republicans have more than Democrats and only a handful of states have split government. That wasn't always the case as this chart of trifectas shows:

As you can see, until 1996, the Democrats dominated in trifectas. Then it suddenly switched and Republicans have dominated since then. In a sufficiently big blue wave, it could switch again. (V)

The FCC Is Considering a Rule Change

Combine two very unpopular scourges and what do you get? AI-generated political robocalls. FCC Chairman Brendan Carr is considering a proposal from a conservative group to loosen the rules, and allow political robocalls with AI-generated voices, all before the midterms. Imagine hearing Barack Obama praising some Republican as very bipartisan and good to work with. Or hearing Donald Trump giving Republican voters permission to vote for some Democrat because the Democrat really likes him a lot. You may not have to imagine this if Carr steers through a rule change later this month.

Consumer groups are livid at the idea of a flood of automated calls pushing fake information in which the "speaker" sounds like some well-known person but is really an AI program. We got a dry run of this in 2024 when thousands of New Hampshire voters got a call from an AI-bot that sounded like Joe Biden and which urged them not to vote in the primary but rather to "save" their vote for the general election.

Fake robocalls are nothing new, but AI takes them to a new level. In 2020, tens of thousands of Black voters got robocalls telling them that if they voted by mail they could face arrest and debt collection. The perpetrators, Jacob Wohl and Jack Burkman, were caught and fined $5 million. Catching the perps may not be so easy next time. (V)

Today's Senate Polls

Nearly everything continues to come up roses for the blue team. In particular, a poll like the one from Alaska, with a 2-point margin, certainly could be an outlier. But Mary Peltola has led in 11 of the 12 polls that are good enough to make our database. That makes it far less likely that any one of them is an outlier. However, note that Alaska is very difficult to poll because so many voters live way off the beaten path and may not even have a telephone, let alone an Internet connection, so they are hard to contact. (Z)

State	Democrat	D %	Republican	R %	Start	End	Pollster
Alaska	Mary Peltola	51%	Dan Sullivan*	49%	Oct 01	Oct 03	AK Survey Research
Iowa	Josh Turek	48%	Ashley Hinson	44%	Oct 01	Oct 04	Suffolk U.

* Denotes incumbent

---

Previous report         Next report

---

If you wish to contact us, please use one of these addresses. For the first two, please include your initials and city.

• questions@electoral-vote.com    For questions about politics, civics, history, etc. to be answered on a Saturday
• comments@electoral-vote.com   For "letters to the editor" for possible publication on a Sunday
• corrections@electoral-vote.com To tell us about typos or factual errors we should fix
• items@electoral-vote.com            For general suggestions, ideas, etc.
• Guidelines for questions (Saturdays) and letters (Sundays)

To download a poster about the site to hang up, please click here.

---

Email a link to a friend.

---The Votemaster and Zenger