We are not going to have a run down of all the elections today. We are saving that for tomorrow. Don't miss it. Then at 6 pm EST (7 pm EDT if you prefer Daylight Saving Time all year) tomorrow we will switch to Nov. 4 and start live blogging the election all night until it's over or we run out of coffee. We will frequently update the main page, but you will have to force a reload of the page regularly to see the new page. See how here.

And a reminder that we are running a survey, so that readers can predict which candidate they think will win the 18 Senate races that are plausibly in doubt, how many House seats the Democrats will win, and which candidate they think will win the 17 gubernatorial races that are plausibly in doubt.The survey will be available until 10:00 p.m. PT tonight; we will have the results in Tuesday's posting. Click here to record your responses.

Don't Confuse Them Losing with Us Winning

Democrats are very nervous. The news is all good and they can't believe it. Texas is in play? South Carolina is in play? Kansas is in play? It makes no sense. They are panicking that half the Republicans refuse to be polled and that the polls are way off. Nate Silver ran this cartoon to express Democrats' feelings.

If the Democrats win big tomorrow, many of them are going to draw the wrong conclusion. Morgan Jackson, a senior adviser to North Carolina U.S. Senate candidate Roy Cooper (D), put it this way: "Don't confuse them losing with us winning." What he means is that many Republicans will stay home tomorrow and many independents will vote blue, but the Democratic brand is still toxic in many places. People will be voting that way simply because gas prices are high. This is not a formula for winning in 2028 when the unpopular president will be out of office in a bit over 2 months.

A veteran Democratic pollster who wanted to remain anonymous said: "This is not an affirmation of the Democratic Party in any which way. It is very much a rejection of Trump." Matt Barron, a Democratic strategist in the Midwest, said: "When your opponents are destroying themselves, just get out of the way and let it happen." Lis Smith, an architect of Pete Buttigieg's 2020 campaign, said that Democrats winning in deep-red territory are doing that by distancing themselves from the national party. That is not an option for the 2028 Democratic presidential nominee. Smith also noted that in a wave election, a lot of average-to-mediocre candidates get swept in by the wave. That won't happen next time, absent another wave.

If Democrats don't deliver next year (which they probably won't, because Trump will veto every bill they pass unless it somehow has a billion dollars for him personally in it), in 2028 many people could switch sides again, saying: "We gave you the keys to the kingdom and you didn't deliver for us." This election is shaping up to be an anti-incumbent election, not a pro-Democrats election. Democrats get that wrong at their peril.

It is likely that the DSA candidates and DSA-adjacent candidates will win their races easily and all of a sudden the progressive wing of the Democratic Party will commence saying: "See, this is the way to go in 2028." If Abdul El-Sayed wins big in Michigan, they will be howling this to the moon. That could be true, but one Senate victory against a weak opponent and half a dozen DSA members winning in D+30 House districts does not a realignment make.

However, there is possibly a different story that we might get out of tomorrow. It is possible, not likely, but just possible that Democrats could win Senate seats in North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Mississippi, and Texas—a rout in the Sout'. If that happens, or most of it happens, (Mississippi is really a reach), then the message should be exactly the opposite: Democrats can win in 2028 in the South (!) if they pick a moderate who plays well there. That would be music to the ears of Gov. Andy Beshear (D-KY), who is definitely not DSA-adjacent.

Four other Senate races to watch are those in Kansas, Montana, Nebraska and South Dakota. If moderate Democrats (or moderate Democrats hiding in purple clothing) do well, that also sends the message that Democrats can win traditionally red states, but not with "Defund the police" as their slogan. Victories by both DSA(-adjacent) candidates and moderates in the South and Midwest sends a very mixed message for 2028. For Senate and House races it is straightforward to have a candidate in each contest who is a good fit for the local electorate. That doesn't work in national elections. Democrats have to realize that and think about how best to win in swing and red states. We expect that both moderates and progressives will do well tomorrow, so cue the start of the 2028 battle on Wednesday. (V)

Republicans Are Expecting a Brutal Night Tomorrow--and Beyond

Republicans are expecting and bracing for a shellacking tomorrow evening. Quite a few House members in deep-red districts—even recently re-gerrymandered districts—are probably going to lose. A year ago, every Republican in an R+8 district probably wasn't even planning to campaign. Now many of them are in the fight of their lives and some will lose. In private, House Republicans are not wondering if they can keep the House. They are wondering how bad the slaughter will be and how big the Democrats' margin will be. They are also aware that being an incumbent is always better than being a challenger and all the Democrats who get swept in by a wave election in 2026 will be incumbents in 2028 and will be better known and harder to dislodge then.

Many Republicans in once-safe districts are begging the party leaders for money to stem the bleeding, but that money is already allocated to Senate races in red states. The leadership knows the House is gone but the Senate is still in play. One senior Republican said to Politico off the record: "It could be quite a brutal evening. Once the dominoes start falling it becomes hard to stop them." In other words, if Troy Jackson wins easily in Maine and Sen. Jon Ossoff (D-GA) and Roy Cooper win in Georgia and North Carolina, respectively, by double digits. then it's Katie bar the door when the Midwest results start coming in.

Some Republican incumbents are so hard-pressed for cash that they have stopped polling, to save money for ads. So they don't even know what is about to hit them. One Republican strategist responded to a Politico reporter's question about the state of the race with a video of a dumpster on fire being swept away flood waters, sort of like this.

Republican strategists' fear is not that young Latino men and white working-class men of all ages will vote Democratic, but that they will stay home and not vote at all. And in a year when Democrats are super energized, that's a problem.

In Ohio, the Senate race is close, although Sherrod Brown has had a small but consistent lead since July. But internal polling shows that Vivek Ramaswamy's numbers are collapsing and his despicable ad is probably going to go down in history as the 60 seconds that turned a winnable race into a landslide defeat due to a deeply flawed candidate's terrible decision, despite being warned. And the one-two combination of Brown and Amy Acton may provide sufficient coattails to flip some close House races in the state.

The NRCC has commissioned polling in over 100 House districts, an unprecedented number, to see how deep into red territory the flood may reach. The NRCC and RNC are now coordinating ads to save Reps. Bill Huizenga (R-MI, R+3), Rob Wittman (R-VA, R+3), Mike Turner (R-OH, R+4), Jeff Hurd (R-CO, R+5), and Monica De La Cruz (R-TX, R+7). All of them are in danger for the first time. Rep. Andy Barr will probably be elected governor of Kentucky but his KY-06 House seat is in danger of flipping even though it is R+7. Rep. Brad Finstad (R-MN) won by 18 points last time but is barely running even now.

One senior Democratic operative said: "I would rather be us than them. But if anyone tells you they know what's going to happen, they're full of sh**. Everything is close."

The election is the easy part. Then what? Donald Trump will be president until Jan. 20, 2029, unless he dies or is forcibly removed, but he will be probably be the lamest of ducks starting January, especially if Democrats claim both chambers of Congress and every House and Senate committee starts investigating people in his administration for malfeasance in office, corruption or both. He will be full of rage, and who knows where that will lead. His influence will be at the lowest point ever. Even lower than on January 7, 2021, since there is no possibility of him running for president again. Many Republicans believe that the era of Trump's bleats on his full-of-gas social media site dictating how Republicans should vote is over forever. If Republicans he endorsed take real drubbings, Republicans will see that he has no magic power to protect them and act accordingly. Every man and woman will be on their own next year and it will be a very rough ride for Trump. (V)

Trump Is Planning to How to Govern with a Hostile Congress Opposing Him

Someone has apparently gotten through to Donald Trump and told him the Democrats are going to win the House and maybe the Senate. He has taken that to heart and is making plans to govern under those constraints.

Needless to say, he will veto everything the Democrats send him. He might not even bother submitting nominations for Executive Branch vacancies to the Senate and skip right ahead to acting positions. Judicial vacancies will be more painful, especially those in the appellate courts and higher up. It is unlikely (m)any of those will be confirmed.

He will have to spend a lot of time dealing with all the subpoenas from Congress. They will ask people to testify and documents to be produced. He can't just outright refuse. That would just be another article of impeachment. Refusing to comply without appearing to be refusing to comply may take some work. Expect to hear a great deal about "executive privilege" next year. He will claim everything the Democrats want is covered by it and they won't get anything. However, many of the subpoena targets are likely to be people outside the Executive Branch who probably won't defy them for fear that a future Democratic AG might indict them for it.

But his main focus will be what he can do on his own. Plans include more tariffs, including on critical minerals and wind turbines according to sources. Maybe doesn't realize that putting tariffs on wind turbines will encourage American companies to build them. Has he forgotten that he hates them, especially near his golf courses?

Other executive actions are likely to be on immigration, housing costs, trade, foreign policy, moving things around in the federal budget so can spend funds on projects he like and not on projects he hates, and maybe starting a new war or two. White House counsel Will Scharf is now spending his time figuring out what Trump can do legally or almost legally or not so far from legally that it will add a new article of impeachment. The general approach is "do it and if the Supreme Court says no, then stop doing it."

Nathan Gonzales, editor of "Inside Elections," said: "President Trump in the last two years has basically ignored Congress and tried to do as much as possible through executive orders and executive power. I think he will only continue if there are Democratic majorities." For example, he will keep announcing national emergencies and then start using the powers that come with them. To cancel a national emergency, a two-thirds majority is needed in both chambers of Congress.

Trump Is Contagious

No, he doesn't have COVID but his extreme unpopularity is starting to rub off on other Republicans who embrace him. This is not only a problem tomorrow, but also for the next two years. If Republicans who are up in 2028 (which is 19 Republican senators and probably at least 200 Republicans in the House) get the idea that cozying up to him will get them defeated, most are smart enough to figure out that carrying out his every whim is not a good idea.

The New York Times released the final Siena University poll early this morning. It is predicting a very big blue wave. See below for the data. But almost as interesting as the top-line numbers is the popularity of the candidates in key Senate races. Here are the net favorability numbers in seven key races, sorted by the difference between the Democrat's favorability and the Republican's favorability.

State	Democrat	Dem Fav.	Republican	GOP Fav.	Difference
Texas	James Talarico	+10	Ken Paxton	-20	D+30
Michigan	Abdul El-Sayed	+12	Mike Rogers	-12	D+24
Kansas	Adam Hamilton	+9	Roger Marshall	-10	D+19
Iowa	Josh Turek	+15	Ashley Hinson	EVEN	D+15
Ohio	Sherrod Brown	+2	Jon Husted	-12	D+14
Alaska	Mary Peltola	+5	Dan Sullivan	-7	D+12
Maine	Troy Jackson	-3	Susan Collins	-1	R+2

Why are the Republicans so unpopular? In the case of Ken Paxton, it is because he is a terrible human being. But that is not true of Mike Rogers, Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-AK), or Sen. Jon Husted (R-OH). We have to think it is because they have embraced Trump and it is rubbing off on them. If they lose badly tomorrow, other Republicans, especially those up in 2028, as surely going to take notice. That is going to have consequences in Congress next year. If the Democrats write some bill that is popular but which Trump hates (for example, one eliminating his tariffs in order to get prices down), more Republicans may be willing to buck him, knowing that being associated with him is actually not good for them personally. This could certainly effect how much stuff gets done next year. (V)

Early Voting Is Surging

According to early-voting export Prof. Michael McDonald, more than 54 million Americans have already voted this year. The pace is similar to the 2018 midterms, when the Democrats flipped 41 House seats. McDonald said that if the pace keeps up, it could exceed the 2018 midterms, which had highest midterm turnout rate since 1914. Early voting is up 30% over 2022.

McDonald said that the turnout is very uneven, with Democrats and independents fully engaged and Republicans much less so. So far, 43% of early voters are Democrats vs. 32% who are Republicans. He also said that young voters and minorities are turning out in large numbers. In fact, he sees very high engagement among Blacks, Latinos, and Asian Americans, but less among whites. He also noted that early voting banks votes that can't change, even if there is some major news today or tomorrow. Nate Silver estimates that at least 40% of Michiganders and Michigeese have already voted, so their votes can't be affected by someone going rogue (see below).

In-person early voting is up more than voting by absentee ballot. This is consistent with more Democrats voting early, with many of them afraid the USPS will intercept and destroy their ballots to please Donald Trump. Voting in person eliminates that threat, even though Trump's threat was to have the USPS seize ballots going to voters, not from voters.

Early voting also varies a lot by state. In Texas, which has hot races for senator and governor, more than 6.3 million had voted as of last Wednesday. That is 50% more than in 2020. Early voting is also up more than 30% compared to 2022 in Kansas, Maine, Michigan, and North Carolina, all of which have Senate races this year. Early voting will taper off now as some states do not allow it up to Election Day. (V)

Court Tells Trump "No" Yet Again

On Sunday, the U.S. District court for the district of Alaska dismissed Donald Trump's suit against the state without leave to amend. In other words, the U.S can't file an amended complaint for the same claims. Judge Sharon Gleason granted the motion brought by the GOP-controlled state government on standing grounds. She held that even if the feds can establish an injury caused by defendants (i.e. that the non-incumbent Dan Sullivan's presence on the ballot violates federal law), there's nothing the Court can do about it. There's no remedy or redress for the feds' complaint. Thus, they don't meet the criteria to get into federal court.

The Alaska Supreme Court already addressed this issue and allowed the other Sullivan to remain on the ballot. And the incumbent Sullivan is identified as such on the ballot. Plus, as we've pointed out many times, Alaska uses ranked choice voting so if anyone is truly confused, they can rank both candidates first and second.

Alaska argued that the DoJ's demand to segregate ballots to determine if voters were confused was impossible. The Judge agreed and held that the requested relief is "infeasible":

As explained by the State and Intervenor-Defendants, many voters have already cast their ballots in the November 2026 general election. Those cast ballots have been commingled and cannot now be segregated or the identity of the person who cast each ballot ascertained. More fundamentally, the United States provides no workable plan as to how it proposes to segregate ballots cast for Daniel J. Sullivan on Election Day and then conduct a court-ordered unspecified 'investigation' of those ballots in a manner that would preserve voter secrecy.

Gleason also wrote that intervention at this late date would create voter confusion and could cause people to stay away from the polls. Under the Purcell principle, courts are to avoid taking any such actions so close to election day.

But Politico points out that the feds seem to have moved on to Plan B, which is to intimidate anyone who seems to support Dan J. Sullivan. Apparently, the FBI has "visited" donors to the retired teacher's campaign. The U.S. Attorney in Alaska has said he's investigating despite the fact that Republicans have engaged in this practice more often and in this cycle and federal law doesn't explicitly prohibit it. (L)

Cook Moves 12 More House Races Toward the Democrats

In yet another sign of the Democrats' momentum, the Cook Political Report just moved another batch of 12 House races toward the Democrats—and zero races toward the Republicans. Last week we had an item about how the Cook Political Report is regarded with awe in D.C. because 97% of its "likely" candidates win and 94% of its "lean" candidates win. This new batch of changes isn't going to bring much joy to Mudville the NRCC headquarters. Here is the list:

District	Incumbent	Old Rating	New Rating
OH-09	Marcy Kaptur (D)	Toss Up	Lean D
PA-08	Rob Bresnahan (R)	Toss Up	Lean D
CO-05	Jeff Crank (R)	Lean R	Toss Up
PA-01	Brian Fitzpatrick (R)	Lean R	Toss Up
SC-01	OPEN (Was Nancy Mace, R)	Lean R	Toss Up
FL-07	OPEN (Was Cory Mills, R)	Likely R	Lean R
FL-09	Darren Soto (D)	Likely R	Lean R
IN-05	Victoria Spartz (R)	Likely R	Lean R
NC-05	Virginia Foxx (R)	Solid R	Likely R
NC-09	Richard Hudson (R)	Solid R	Likely R
NJ-02	Jeff Van Drew (R)	Solid R	Likely R
WA-05	Michael Baumgartner (R)	Solid R	Likely R

There are several important changes here. Moving PA-08 to lean D means a Democratic pickup. Moving CO-05, PA-01, and SC-01 to toss-ups probably means 1 or 2 pickups for the Democrats. Together these represent 2-3 flipped seats. The other changes probably won't result in seats flipping.

On Friday, Cook's Dave Wasserman estimated that the Democrats will pick up 12-25 seats tomorrow, giving them a solid majority. He also said that seats that swung hard to Trump recently are the ones most likely to swing hard back the other way, since the voters there are not reliable Republicans who have voted Republican for decades. He notes the Rio Grande Valley and Western Wisconsin as problem areas for the Republicans. Also, the top of the ticket in Ohio is problematical and that could be felt downballot as some Republicans might be disgusted and stay home.

Another factor that could hurt the Republicans is the 42 open seats. Defending an open seat is always harder than beating an incumbent and more Republicans than Democrats are voluntarily retiring this cycle.

Another interesting metric is where the DCCC is dropping money only 4 days from the elections. Much of this new money is part of the $36 million Mike Bloomberg just gave the Democrats, on top of the $80 million he already gave them. The DCCC is making these ad buys because its internal polling shows the Democrat has a chance. It is putting $27,000 in KS-02 (R+10) and $53,000 in AR-02 (R+8). It didn't disclose where else it is buying ads, but it certainly is buying them elsewhere with a fresh $36 million in hand. (V)

Which is the Most Important Single Race Tomorrow?

There are a lot of important races tomorrow. We have covered many of them in detail. But which one is #1? Seventeen of the top reporters and editors at Politico were asked to choose one race as the single most important race tomorrow. Here are there responses.

• D. Burns: If Rev. Adam Hamilton (D) wins in Kansas, the Democrats have a whole new playbook in red states.
• C. Mahtesian: If Don Davis in NC-01 survives the new gerrymander, it will be a harbinger for a blue tsunami.
• W. McCarthy: If the tax on billionaires passes in California, the people have had enough of them.
• J. Harris: If Sherrod Brown gets his old job back, Ohio will be in play in 2028.
• C. Mui: CA-11 (Nancy Pelosi's seat) is a battle over the future of AI and data centers.
• M. McCarthy: Will long-time Republicans in a red district (OH-07) tolerate a wife-and-child-beating Republican?
• A. Burns: The low-key Xavier Becerra is about to take over the 4th biggest economy in the world.
• D. Kahn: Justin Pearson (D) is running on only one issue in TN-09—data centers. A win has huge implications.
• J. Piper: Susan Collins is "concerned" about Trump but that's all. Maybe the voters are more than concerned.
• N. Reisman: If Kathy Hochul loses for governor of NY, can any moderate win in 2028?
• S. Benson: If James Talarico can turn Texas blue, boy oh boy do Republicans have a Texas-size problem.
• K. Leonard: Rep. Maria Elvira Salazar told Trump to fu** off direct to camera. What will her Latino voters say?
• D. Desrochers: Free trade is on the ballot in NH, with Chris Pappas for and John Sununu against it.
• J. Martin: If Democrats win all the marbles in Iowa (Senate, Gov., 4x House), that is a huge rejection of the GOP.
• A Wren: Progressives think that if Abdul El-Sayed can win in Michigan, progressives can win anywhere.
• S. Issenberg: Jared Huffman (D) will win in his new district, but will the likely chairman of the Natural Resources Committee abandon saving the planet now that he represents cattle ranchers, not Bay Area hippies?
• D. Goldberg: Rick Jackson (R) called Brad Raffensperger a "Judas." If he is governor of Georgia will he take the call if Trump calls on Election Day 2028?

These are the experts speaking. Now what about us? Here we go.

• (L): If Sherrod Brown wins big, he will have coattails downballot and this will presage a blue wave nationally.
• (V): If Gina Hinojosa (D) wins in Texas, that is a 10 on the political Richter scale because she beat a serious pol.
• (Z): The Texas U.S. Senate race. If the Democrats get a foothold there, it could be the first step in remaking the state and the region.

Haley Stevens (formerly D) Has Endorsed Mike Rogers

Haley Stevens is currently a representative, but that will come to an end on January 3, as she gave up her House seat to mount an unsuccessful run for the U.S. Senate. As it turns out, her time as a Democrat appears to have come to an end even sooner.

After Stevens was defeated by Abdul El-Sayed (D) in a primary that was ugly on both sides, she acted like a good soldier and said that she was on Team El-Sayed because she is on Team Democrats. She has been largely absent since, and when she did pop up, her support for El-Sayed was noticeably tepid. For this reason, the El-Sayed campaign said last week that it had no interest in Stevens helping out in the last week of the race. Then, over the weekend, Stevens announced she was endorsing Mike Rogers (R), promptly overtaking Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D?-TX) in the race to win this year's Sour Grapes Award.

So, what happened here? It could be that Stevens simply could not tame the negative feelings left over from the primary, that she felt she had to vent them, and this weekend was her last chance. It might also have been specifically a response to the "thanks but no thanks" from the El-Sayed campaign. However, the likeliest explanation is that Stevens and El-Sayed are on opposite sides of the Israel issue. Stevens is about to marry a Jewish gentleman who loathes El-Sayed. And while she is not currently Jewish, she is reportedly converting. So, there is much scuttlebutt that this is what worsened an already bad relationship with Sayed, to the point that the festering wound burst open. Of course, someone could ask Stevens to explain herself, but... Anderson Cooper already did, and she struggled to answer.

Perhaps the Representative feels better having gotten that off her chest. Hopefully that was worth it, because she just ended her career in politics, at least as a Democrat. It is one thing to take sides against the family (well, the Party) in public. It's another thing to do it the weekend before an election. It's another thing still to do it in a race that is very close, and that could possibly determine control of the Senate. We got a number of comments from readers; here's a selection:

 

K.H. in Maryville, TN, writes: I hope the El-Sayed camp comes out swinging and says, "The recent actions of Ms. Stevens have proved that Michigan Democrats have chosen the right person to be Michigan's next senator. Her flaking out at the 11th hour is proof that she is not reliable, she is beholden to special interest groups, and she is not fit to serve the citizens of this great state."

---

 

K.J. in Pittsburgh, PA, writes: Haley Stevens thought she had a future in politics. And maybe she does. But it won't be in elective office after this weekend. She is not charismatic enough. She thought she had a Senate seat sewn up with support from Democratic party honchos. Being a sore loser is a bad look for a Democrat, even if Republicans don't seem to care about that. Maybe she has a future in a post-Trump Republican party. In the meantime, she is auditioning for a political consultancy job, maybe with AIPAC.

---

 

A.G. in Scranton, PA, writes: Ha! I love James Carville! He's a loudmouthed, foul-mouthed former Marine who believes the Democratic Party's focus on silly "woke" stuff and identity issues scared away the blue-collar base... and he just said that Haley Stevens sold her soul for food!

He and I are basically different versions of the same guy, and he just said the same thing I did about that traitorous racist.

---

 

R.V. in Pittsburgh, PA, writes: Haley Stevens should open up the Bitterness Cafe (and maybe she include Tulsi Gabbard, John Fetterman and Joe Manchin as co-owners). Where did this last minute endorsement of Mike Rogers come from? The Hasan Piker crap has been out there since before the Michigan senate primary. All of a sudden she's bothered by it now. as the election is 2 days away.

Perhaps Elon Musk said "Hey Haley, endorse Mike Rogers and I'll buy you and your family Christmas gifts for life, plus a free Tesla." So it's like winning both showcases on the Showcase Showdown on The Price is Right.

---

 

K.B. in Chicago, IL, writes: Haley Stevens is yet again revealing exactly who she is with her last-minute attacks on Abdul El-Sayed. With her fiancé endorsing and appearing at an event for Mike Rogers and Stevens demanding an apology the weekend before the election, she once again makes it all about herself as the Democratic Party tries to reclaim the Senate. Frankly, it's disgusting.

Democratic Party primary voters made the right call. Stevens is a narcissist and fraud. She pretended to endorse Abdul after the primary and then spent months actively trying to sabotage the Democratic nominee. She should have no future in the party. Democratic Party elites who tried to foist her on voters should be ashamed, too.

Thankfully, polling shows Michiganders are backing El-Sayed, as Rogers and his ilk try to smear him as a jihadist. Funny coming from a party with militant "Christians" who want to wage a holy war against Muslims. The smears don't look all that different from the ones against Barack Obama, who dealt with both anti-Black racism and anti-Muslim smears (despite being Christian).

Contrast Stevens with Francesca Hong (D), who is actively campaigning for David Crowley in Wisconsin, despite their ideological differences. The difference between the majority of progressives and centrists like Stevens is that progressives are actively supporting people like Hamilton in Kansas and Crowley in Wisconsin. Meanwhile, many centrists are actively rooting against both Abdul El-Sayed and Angie Nixon (D).

We need to have a big tent to defeat MAGA once and for all. It should run the full spectrum from Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) to Adam Hamilton. Candidates need to be a good fit for their states and districts. They need to be able to win primaries without a $50 million advantage from right-wing super PACs. And we need to show the door to disloyal, narcissistic frauds like Haley Stevens, someone voters already rejected.

House Democrats are so hopping mad that they want to expel her from the House Democratic Caucus. And Stevens' chief-of-staff and many other staffers quit. That is not ALL that meaningful right now, in that there are only 20 or so days left in this session, and she might not bother showing up to work anyhow. On the other hand, if she does show up to finish out her term, she could be a rebel vote, making things like the Hegseth impeachment harder to get passed. (Z & V)

The New Campaign Worker Is an AI Bot

While the air war is always important in a campaign, so is the ground war. Voters are much more likely to be convinced to switch sides after talking to a campaign worker who explains what his or her candidate wants and how it will help the voter than by watching a slick TV ad. The trouble is that send ground troops out there to talk to all the voters requires a lot of ground troops that most campaigns don't have.

Enter AI. Candidates can hire specialized AI firms and give them campaign literature to train a chatbot on. This includes candidate speeches, press releases, the candidate's platform and the candidate's website for starters. Then the chatbot sends out text message to voters, asking them to respond by text message. The Democratic firm of Vector Political has had its bots send out 3 million text messages so far. They have gotten 35,000 people to engage in conversations with the bots—without telling the voters they were talking to bots. While the yield is barely over 1%, engaging with 35,000 voters is a lot, especially since it doesn't require any paid workers or volunteers and costs very little. Furthermore, AI can analyze the 35,000 conversations and summarize its findings to the campaign staff. In this way the candidate can get a good idea of what is on the voters' minds. It is almost like running a 35,000-person focus group.

In addition to sucking up data, some AI systems score each person who responds with a score of 0 to 100, with 0 meaning someone who hates the candidate and 100 meaning a potential donor and/or campaign volunteer. This information tells the campaign who to ignore going forward and who to approach and how.

Some of the conversations with the bots have become quite personal in ways they might not have with a campaign worker at the door. It is at least partly analogous to the fact that robopolls have been more accurate than live interviewer polls in some cases because some voters are willing to tell a computer that they are voting for a racist candidate but are not willing to tell a person that, possibly because they fear a person might say "shame on you" whereas they know a computer won't do that.

Some experiments have shown that chatbots can actually get some voters to change their minds. In one experiment the chatbots were 4x more effective at moving voters than TV ads were. Since chatbots are also cheaper than TV ads, expect more of them in the future, for better or worse. (V)

Musk Is Spending Nearly Half a Billion Dollars on the Midterms

After the disastrous Wisconsin Supreme Court election, Elon Musk said he was getting out of politics. But he's pretty fickle and soon got back in—to the tune of $446 million. That is what he has spent this year.

Musk dumped $25 million on the Wisconsin race and his candidate was crushed. But he has so much money, he doesn't even notice losing $25 million or even $446 million. It's just peanuts to him, but in some cases it could flip a race. He has dumped money in 40 House and Senate races of interest to him. Being chronically online himself, Musk has little regard for traditional television advertising. This is how his main personal PAC, America PAC, has spent $216 million. He likes digital ads but oddly enough, also flyers sent to voters. Most of the rest of the money went to the official Republican House and Senate PACs:

So far, more of Musk's money has gone to Texas than any other state. It has been $168 million so far, an enormous amount for one state in a midterm election. Most of that has gone to negative ads about James Talarico. This should give you an idea about the focus:

Look at the ad closely. Talarico is on baseball Team Woke, along with a Black player and a Latino player. And all of the strikes are about gender, especially transgender. That's all Musk has to work with. Talarico works with Black people and Latinos and supports trans people. He's not a Real American like you. That's the entire message. Note that strike two is about men playing on girls' teams, not boys. Maybe someone, somewhere has proposed adult men playing on high school girls' teams, but if so, we missed it. Nothing about how Ken Paxton will lower gas prices or get the Epstein files out there. Nobody would believe that, of course. So this is where campaigns are now.

By making himself the poster child for billionaires buying elections, Musk may be inadvertently helping Democrats get rid of megadonors altogether if they get the trifecta in 2028. They could write a bill banning all campaign spending in excess of the current $3,500 limit per candidate per election and $5,000 limit to the party committees. It would be a three-step process:

1. Create a carve-out in the Senate rules so bills on campaign finance can't be fillibustered.
2. Strip the Supreme Court of its appellate jurisdiction on campaign finance cases and make it a felony for a justice to vote on any issue Congress has banned the Court from taking.
3. Pass the campaign-finance bill.

There is nothing above a Democratic trifecta couldn't do, if the Democrats have the nerve. It is just possible though that using an unbridled Musk as a boogeyman, it might be possible. (V)

Massie Will Force a Vote on Impeaching Hegseth

Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) will soon be out of a job, but for the moment he is still a representative. Congress has to come back by Dec. 11 to pass a bill to fund the government. Massie has said that as soon as it is back, he will file a privileged motion to impeach Sec. of Defense Pete Hegseth. Assuming the parliamentarian approves his request—and if the parliamentarian refuses, he will probably be fired by Speaker Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) on Jan. 3 if the Democrats take the House—the House must vote on the motion within 2 days. All Democrats will support it and there are probably enough Republicans who are unhappy with Hegseth—for losing a war that has cost $50 billion so far with no end in sight and that will enrich Iran from levying tolls in the future—to get 4 more votes.

What the Senate will do with the impeachment is anyone's guess. If Trump wants to use Hegseth as the fall guy for losing the war, he might instruct Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) to proceed with the trial. Of course, Hegseth could resign to avoid being convicted.

Hegseth has a house in Tennessee and dreamed up the cockamamie plan of being appointed to the Senate seat of soon-to-be elected-Gov. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN). Blackburn seems cool to the idea. Her term is up in 2028, so Hegseth would have to run for a full term then. If North Carolina is lost and South Carolina and Mississippi are even in play, we can imagine that she would want a much stronger candidate in 2028, lest that seat also be in play. Tennessee has eight Republican representatives now, maybe nine in January, so surely she can find one of them who would be a stronger 2028 candidate than Hegseth. Also, Hegseth is widely despised in the Senate, so he would be a terrible senator and have no influence at all in the Senate. We doubt she will play along. There is nothing in it for her or for Tennessee.

Massie's motion has eight articles of impeachment. It argues that Hegseth violated the 1973 War Powers Resolution in Iran, and other U.S. laws in Venezuela, Yemen, and elsewhere. There is also one about trying to suppress the speech of a U.S. senator.

If the trial is in December, with the current Senate, there could be a quick vote and acquittal. If the trial is in January, when Democrats may control the Senate, it could be a real circus. We can't see Hegseth sticking around for that. If Trump doesn't fire him by Jan. 3, he will probably resign rather than face a trial in the Senate. What happens after that remains to be seen. Sen. Mark Kelly (D-AZ) could file a civil suit against Hegseth for trying to suppress his First Amendment rights and parents of soldiers killed in Iran could too, claiming Hegseth should have refused the illegal orders from Trump to bomb Iran. (V)

A Congress Controlled by Democrats Could Weigh in on Trump's Census Plans

The third clause of Art. I, Sec. 2 of the Constitution begins as follow:

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct.

The Fourteenth Amendment also addresses apportionment. Sec. 2 begins as follows.

Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed.

Note that both refers to persons, not citizens. Donald Trump wants to change that and have the census count only citizens (and if he is forced to, green card holders). But there are many noncitizen persons in the U.S. who are legal (holders of H-1B visas, foreign students, businessmen, refugees, asylum seekers, and others) And of course, there are persons in the U.S. illegally. All of these noncitizens have always been counted in the past because the Constitution says persons. The founders knew the difference between an inhabitant and a citizen and used the word "citizen" when they meant citizen, for example, members of Congress must be citizens and the president must be a natural-born citizen. It has never been tested if a baby delivered by a Caesarian section is considered natural born. Shakespeare, for one, didn't think so.

The change that Trump wants would force a dramatic shift of political power from blue states (which, by and large, have the most noncitizens) to red states by moving House seats and electoral votes from blue states to red states. Over 300 federal programs allocate funds based on population, as determined by the census. So Trump wants to shift power and money to the red states. He also wants to eliminate the questions abut race and ethnicity from the census, to make minorities less visible. These changes are a real threat to democracy.

The 2030 census is scheduled to happen on April 1, 2030. All persons in the U.S. on that date should be enumerated. Plans and forms for it are being formulated already. If Democrats capture Congress on Tuesday, they could try to block Trump's plans. Congress doesn't have direct authority over the census; Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick does. However, it could pass laws specifically stating that all noncitizens, legal or otherwise, must be included in the count or it is not valid and that there must be questions about race and ethnicity.

There is no way on God's green earth that a stand-alone bill with these directions could survive a Senate filibuster. However, Democrats could add these provisions to a must-pass bill, like the budget or the defense appropriations bill by simple majority vote and dare the Republicans to torpedo the bills, with all the publicity and complications that would bring. We have been down that road before. In 2024, Sen. Bill Hagerty (R-TN) made an attempt to add an amendment to an omnibus spending bill to specifically exclude noncitizens from the census but the votes weren't there.

Sen. Andy Kim (D-NJ) is the ranking member on the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs census subcommittee, and he is on top of this. He recently said: "The census is enshrined in our Constitution and not up for political debate." If the Democrats take the Senate, he will become chairman of the subcommittee and use his power to push back on Trump. Also incensed by this proposal is Rep. Robert Garcia (D-CA), who is very likely to become chairman of the House Oversight Committee, which has broad powers to investigate almost anything the chairman wants to investigate.

If Congress doesn't overrule Trump's plans by laws, there will surely be a lawsuit and will be up to the court to determine what a person is. (V)

Today's Senate Polls

Even without looking at the numbers, one thing is obvious: There is a lot of blue below and not a lot of red. This is not a good sign for Republicans. The Times/Siena poll is the gold standard in polling and all seven of their final Senate polls have the Democrat ahead. Although a year ago anyone predicting the Democrats would take the Senate would get a lot of strange looks, such is not the case any more. (V)

State	Democrat	D %	Republican	R %	Start	End	Pollster
Alaska	Mary Peltola	48%	Dan Sullivan*	46%	Oct 23	Oct 30	Siena U.
Iowa	Josh Turek	48%	Ashley Hinson	47%	Oct 26	Nov 01	Siena U.
Iowa	Josh Turek	50%	Ashley Hinson	49%	Oct 26	Oct 29	YouGov
Kansas	Adam Hamilton	49%	Roger Marshall	44%	Oct 27	Nov 01	Siena U.
Kansas	Adam Hamilton	50%	Roger Marshall	49%	Oct 26	Oct 29	YouGov
Massachusetts	Ed Markey*	53%	John Deaton	32%	Oct 27	Oct 31	U. of New Hampshire
Maine	Troy Jackson	51%	Susan Collins*	45%	Oct 27	Nov 01	Siena U.
Maine	Troy Jackson	52%	Susan Collins*	47%	Oct 26	Oct 29	YouGov
Maine	Troy Jackson	54%	Susan Collins*	45%	Oct 26	Oct 31	U. of New Hampshire
Michigan	Abdul El-Sayed	51%	Mike Rogers	47%	Oct 26	Oct 29	YouGov
Michigan	Abdul El-Sayed	51%	Mike Rogers	48%	Oct 30	Oct 31	Research Co.
Michigan	Abdul El-Sayed	53%	Mike Rogers	42%	Oct 23	Nov 01	Siena U.
Minnesota	Peggy Flanagan	52%	Michele Tafoya	47%	Oct 30	Oct 31	Research Co.
North Carolina	Roy Cooper	54%	Michael Whatley	45%	Oct 26	Oct 29	East Carolina U.
North Carolina	Roy Cooper	55%	Michael Whatley	44%	Oct 26	Oct 29	YouGov
Nebraska	No Democrat	0%	Pete Ricketts*	49%	Oct 26	Oct 29	YouGov
New Hampshire	Chris Pappas	54%	John Sununu	42%	Oct 27	Oct 31	U. of New Hampshire
Ohio	Sherrod Brown	49%	Jon Husted*	44%	Oct 26	Nov 01	Siena U.
Ohio	Sherrod Brown	49%	Jon Husted*	48%	Oct 30	Oct 31	Research Co.
Ohio	Sherrod Brown	50%	Jon Husted*	48%	Oct 26	Oct 29	YouGov
Rhode Island	Jack Reed*	63%	Raymond McKay	32%	Oct 27	Oct 31	U. of New Hampshire
Texas	James Talarico	50%	Ken Paxton	43%	Oct 27	Nov 01	Siena U.
Texas	James Talarico	51%	Ken Paxton	47%	Oct 26	Oct 29	YouGov
Texas	James Talarico	52%	Ken Paxton	46%	Oct 28	Nov 01	AtlasIntel

* 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