Dem 51
image description
Ties 1
GOP 48
image description
New polls: AZ GA NV OK OS UT
Dem pickups vs. 2020 Senate: OH PA
GOP pickups vs. 2020 Senate : (None)
Political Wire logo The Dark Heart of the Republican Party
Yes, Elections Have Consequences
What Drove Paul Pelosi’s Attacker
Trump and DeSantis to Hold Dueling Florida Rallies
Pennsylvania Ballots in Undated Envelopes Won’t Count
Elon Musk Didn’t Break Twitter

TODAY'S HEADLINES (click to jump there; use your browser's "Back" button to return here)
      •  Let the Gaslighting Begin
      •  When Will Trump Be Indicted?
      •  Maybe That Odor Is Something other than Musky
      •  Hofmeister Picks Up a Key Endorsement
      •  Yet Again, Oz Reminds Everyone He's a Carpetbagger
      •  Heeeeee's Baaaaaaaack!
      •  Jolly Olde English Politics, Part I
      •  Today's Senate Polls

Let the Gaslighting Begin

It's been about 72 hours since Paul Pelosi, the husband of Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), was attacked by an intruder. But the story continues to dominate the headlines.

To start with, we now know a fair bit more about the attacker, David DePape. He is a far-right MAGA man who often used social media to share unhinged rants about the things that people like that rant about. He entered the Pelosis' house with a supply of plastic ties; the same equipment carried by some of the the 1/6 insurrectionists. DePape has already given a statement to law enforcement laying out his "plan":

DEPAPE stated that he was going to hold Nancy hostage and talk to her. If Nancy were to tell DEPAPE the "truth," he would let her go, and if she "lied," he was going to break "her kneecaps." DEPAPE was certain that Nancy would not have told the "truth." In the course of the interview, DEPAPE articulated he viewed Nancy as the "leader of the pack" of lies told by the Democratic Party. DEPAPE also later explained that by breaking Nancy's kneecaps, she would then have to be wheeled into Congress, which would show other Members of Congress there were consequences to actions. DEPAPE also explained generally that he wanted to use Nancy to lure another individual to DEPAPE.

Not exactly a model of mental stability. Nor of mental ability, for that matter, since it's not hard to figure out that whenever the Speaker is actually at home, she's protected by a security detail that is more than capable of dealing with a hammer-wielding bandit.

DePape has already been hit with state and federal charges, including attempted murder, attempted kidnapping, burglary, elder abuse, and false imprisonment. Either he's going to be judged guilty or he's going to be judged mentally defective. Either way, he's going away for a long time, the only question is whether the walls in his new residence will be made of iron or rubber.

Meanwhile, if you read the statement above, the connection between Trumpian rhetoric and DePape's actions could not be plainer. Of course, outside of a few pariah-exceptions like Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-IL), nobody in the Republican Party is willing to to acknowledge that link and to talk about what needs to change. Instead, we're seeing the standard reactions to situations like this one:

  • Thoughts and Prayers: Quite a few Republicans, including all of the members of the leadership in the Senate and the House, have made clear that they are very upset by the attack and that they are sending their best wishes to Pelosi for a full recovery. This is all good and well, but if they are not willing to talk about the roots of the problem, then their words are hollow.

  • Backhanded Thoughts and Prayers: This is where someone pretends to be concerned about what happened, but then turns it into a backdoor political attack. This is what you would expect of Donald Trump Sr., and he did not disappoint. After several days of deafening silence, the former president finally spoke up. In an interview with some minor right-wing outlet, Trump said "With Paul Pelosi, that's a terrible thing, with all of them it's a terrible thing," but then said the reason it happened was "Democrat-run cities." He continued: "Look at what's happened to San Francisco generally. Look at what's happening in Chicago. It was far worse than Afghanistan... Last weekend it was brutal, it was like a war zone. We have to give the police back their dignity, their respect."

  • Denial: There are also plenty of Republicans who say there is no connection between the Party's rhetoric and the attack on Pelosi, and that there could not possibly be a connection, and that it's crazy to think there might be a connection, and did we mention that there's no connection? For example, RNC Chair Ronna Romney McDaniel got in touch with Politico to explain how "unfair" it is that people are drawing a line between the rhetoric of the Republican Party and the attack on Pelosi. She doth protest too much, we thinks.

  • Crass "Humor": This is a cousin of the Backhanded Thoughts and Prayers. In this one, the person doesn't even bother with the sympathy, and moves right on to mocking and shaming the victim. This is the sort of behavior we've come to expect from Donald Trump Jr., and he did not disappoint. DePape was reported to have been dressed only in undergarments when he attacked (this was later debunked), and so Trump Jr. thought it would be amusing to retweet a picture of the "Paul Pelosi Halloween costume"—a pair of jockey shorts and a hammer. Ha, ha, ha. The younger Trump also managed to slip a little homophobia in there, adding that "if you switch out the hammer for a red feather boa you could be Hunter Biden in an instant." Forgive us for the editorializing, but Trump Jr. is just an awful human being.

  • Conspiracy Theories: Speaking of homophobia, many Republicans—including Trump Jr., Rep. Clay Higgins (R-LA), Sebastian Gorka, Dinesh D'Souza and Elon Musk—propagated a conspiracy theory that Paul Pelosi and DePape were/are gay lovers who had gotten into a quarrel. There is absolutely no evidence that the two men even knew each other, something that San Francisco Police Chief William Scott has confirmed.

This is pretty much the same set of responses that you see from Republicans after a school shooting. That is not a coincidence; they know full well that they have blood on their hands, and they're desperately trying to muddy the waters to hide that fact. Unfortunately, this parallel also tells us that not one damn thing is going to change when it comes to the violent rhetoric, which means we continue to barrel toward the day when some political leader is killed by one of these sickos. (Z)

When Will Trump Be Indicted?

Yesterday, we had an item headlined "When Will Biden Announce?" If you think about it, the question of indicting Donald Trump is subject to very similar pressures. It would be impolitic to do it before the midterms, but once Election Day has passed, then the more lead time before the 2024 election, the better. Consequently, the folks who run the Republican Party are expecting that within 90 days of the election, AG Merrick Garland will indict Trump. For what it's worth, 90 days will elapse on Feb. 6, 2023.

The Republicans who talked to The Hill for the piece linked above insist they have no inside information. We believe them; Garland plays things pretty close to the vest even within the Department of Justice; he certainly wouldn't spill any beans to people who might be close to Trump. The Republicans' reasoning is pretty sound: (1) There's a lot of pressure on Garland to take action, and (2) the more time that passes, the more controversial an indictment becomes. What they did not mention is that Garland is undoubtedly mindful that Trump is itching to launch a presidential bid, and that once he does so, things get much more sticky. So, the AG would undoubtedly like to beat the former president to the punch.

Truth be told, in view of the benefits of beating Trump to the punch, we would not be terribly surprised to see an indictment come down before Thanksgiving. And then everyone can write headlines about the DoJ carving up the world's biggest turkey. (Z)

Maybe That Odor Is Something other than Musky

Yesterday, we had an item headlined "Twitter Is Now Emitting a Musky Odor," about Elon Musk's now-completed takeover of Twitter. It's been just 24 hours, but it's already clear that things are turning rotten in the state of Denmark. Well, Texas actually, since that's where Musk lives these days.

To start, Musk has had great success as an entrepreneur with Tesla, and with SpaceX, and even with his company that makes silly flamethrowers that are actually just propane torches. Given all of this, he surely knows what a bad balance sheet looks like. And he's now got one with Twitter. Actually, "bad" is probably a bit too generous. Disastrous, godawful, frightening or nauseating might be more correct.

According to new reporting from The New York Times, Twitter has lost money in 8 of the last 10 years. Last year, it had a cash flow of a little over $600 million to cover all of its expenses, including $50 million in debt service. Now, with all the debt Musk took on in order to buy the platform, debt servicing alone is going to exceed $1 billion annually. That means all of the cash that the platform is generating plus another $400 million, and that's before a single server or bit of bandwidth or salary is paid for.

If that were not enough, Musk just cashiered the senior management of Twitter, naming himself as the sole director of the company. The folks he just terminated all had giant golden parachutes, meaning that he is going to have to write them nearly $200 million in checks as they exit stage right. Maybe they'll be open to taking that in Tesla stock?

The upshot is that Musk simply must find a way to increase revenues, or Twitter is going to hemorrhage cash so badly you'd think it was a Trump golf course. The user base has been basically static for years, so adding more users (and, thus, more eyeballs for advertising) is not a promising option. And the amount of money spent on digital advertising has also been in decline for years, so increased sales is also not terribly promising.

But Musk is a brilliant entrepreneur and we're not, so perhaps he's got something up his sleeve? Maybe not. Yesterday, Musk advised his staff of the first step that will be taken to increase revenue: charging premium users $19.99 a month for various minor perks, most obviously keeping their blue "verified" check mark. This is a mind-bogglingly bad idea. Some premium users will resent the shakedown and won't pay for that reason. Many others will decide they don't really need the check mark. After all, people who care about tweets from Joe Biden or The Washington Post or Adrian Wojnarowski (breaking NBA news) know full well which account is the real one. Meanwhile, folks in search of legitimacy, including scammers, will be happy to pony up the money. And since Twitter needs that cash, their vetting process is sure to be lax. Basically, it's the cyberspace version of The Star-Bellied Sneetches

If all of this were not enough, Musk not only announced this colossally bad idea, he also told his new employees at Twitter that they have until November 7 to make it happen or they are fired. The new CEO who marches in and lays down the law and says that those who don't like it can hit the road is such a cliché. And we guess it must work... sometimes? But it doesn't work very well in Silicon Valley, where employees are used to a different sort of relationship with management. If these folks were not already polishing up their résumés and their LinkedIn pages, they certainly are now.

In short, between the issues we noted yesterday and the ones we note today, Musk has bought himself a giant headache. And for the vast majority of us who don't much care for Twitter, and don't really like what it's done to public discourse, it will be entertaining to sit back and watch as we see if the platform sinks faster than the Edmund Fitzgerald. Where is Gordon Lightfoot when you need him? (Z)

Hofmeister Picks Up a Key Endorsement

Who is the most popular Republican in Oklahoma? It's probably not Sens. James Lankford or Jim Inhofe, who both have middling approval ratings. It's certainly not Gov. Kevin Stitt. Keeping in mind that politicians tend to get more popular after they leave office, our money is on former representative J.C. Watts. He was popular while he was in office, he retired in 2003 so he avoided the ugliness of the Trump years, he's charismatic, he's an ordained minister, he's a former football player for the University of Oklahoma. There is much there that is appealing to voters, particularly Southern voters.

Prompted by yesterday's item about unexpectedly competitive governor's races, reader J.P.R. in Westminster, CO, brings to our attention the fact that Watts has just endorsed Democrat Joy Hofmeister in her race to unseat Stitt. J.P.R. writes: "Growing up in Oklahoma, J.C. was never my cup of tea, but I'm willing to bet his regional popularity would still carry some weight. I am truly now convinced it could go either way."

Watts' statement of support, delivered in a new TV commercial, was everything Hofmeister could have hoped for:

I was a Republican then, and I'm a Republican now, and, friends, I'm voting for Joy Hofmeister. All this scandal and corruption is just too much. Joy is a woman of faith and integrity. She'll always put Oklahoma first. I know Joy personally, and I trust her, and you can too.

Clearly, Stitt is giving Kris Kobach a run for his money when it comes to unpopular Great Plains states politicians (NB: Wikipedia affirms that western Oklahoma is part of the Great Plains).

Emerson College, which has had an aggressive Republican lean this cycle, released a great poll for Stitt yesterday, asserting that he's up 9 points, 52% to 43%. However, the four previous polls of the race all had Hofmeister up by a small margin. So, it really is anyone's race. (Z)

Yet Again, Oz Reminds Everyone He's a Carpetbagger

This would be a candidate for "This Week in Schadenfreude," but it's just too funny to wait that long. Lt. Gov. John Fetterman (D-PA) sometimes misspeaks because he had a stroke. His Republican opponent, Mehmet Oz, sometimes misspeaks because... um, we don't know why. We presume he delivered his fair share of lectures and demonstrations while he was a med school professor. And obviously, he hosted over 2,000 episodes of his eponymous TV show. And yet, he has a real gift for opening his mouth and inserting his foot.

Yesterday, the not-so-good doctor was at it again. He appeared on Hannity to kiss the ring, and decided to indulge in a harangue about the lack of Republican senators in the eastern U.S.:

Pennsylvania is too important. This is important, we do not have a Republican senator north of North Carolina on the Atlantic coast until you get to Maine if I don't hold this seat. And there has been a Republican senator in Pennsylvania most of my life. I'm gonna keep one here as well.

Do you see the problem? Truth be told, we wouldn't have caught it, because it's really only evident to people who live in Pennsylvania. The issue is that Pennsylvania isn't on the Atlantic coast. It's not even especially close. At its closest point (eastern Philadelphia), it's about 60 miles from the Atlantic Ocean.

If you did decide to make that Philly-to-the-beach trip, you would be traveling through... New Jersey, which most certainly does have an Atlantic coast. Wonder how Oz got confused? Hmmmm... (Z)

Heeeeee's Baaaaaaaack!

Boris Johnson toyed with a return to power and learned that it's not happening, at least not right now. Donald Trump may (or may not) try to make a return to the White House in 2024. Jair Bolsonaro has yet to concede defeat in Brazil, although he's eventually going to have to accept that Brazil's Supreme Electoral Court has already declared him to be a loser. At that point, he will undoubtedly begin planning, plotting and scheming to retake power, but doing so is easier said than done.

And then there is Benjamin Netanyahu, the former prime minister of Israel, who seemingly has so many lives that even cats are jealous. In theory, after five terms in office spread across 15 years, his time as the leader of Israel was ended last year, and the next stop for him was an Israeli courtroom, and a corruption trial.

The problem is that the coalition that booted Netanyahu from power was a motley crew of folks from many different political parties scattered across the political spectrum. All they really had in common was their loathing for the Prime Minister. Their barely-a-majority coalition was able to install a two-headed PM, namely Naftali Bennett and Yair Lapid, who took turns running the show. It turns out that setup—the shaky coalition, the two-PMs-for-the-price-of-one setup, etc.—is not a great basis for governance. And so, the government collapsed.

Consequently, Israelis will head to the polls today for their fifth election in 4 years. The Knesset has 120 seats, which means 61 are needed for a majority. And the only person that has a chance of putting together a 61-seat coalition is... Benjamin Netanyahu. Israeli law imposes an embargo on polls once the Friday before the election has ended. Of the 18 polls published before the deadline, six had Netanyahu's Likud-led coalition with 61 or more seats, three had it at 60, and nine had it at 59 seats or less. The only other coalition that comes close is Lapid's, built around his Yesh Atid Party, but no poll has put Team Lapid above 56 seats. And even in that best-case scenario, Lapid can't say where the other 5 seats would come from.

As with the U.S. next Tuesday, the Israeli election is going to come down to turnout. Netanyahu is looking under rocks for right-wing Jewish voters, in hopes of eking out a majority. On the other hand, if Arab turnout is higher than expected, he's got very little chance of returning to power. We'll know what happened in the next day or two, but whatever the result is, the odds are better than average that sometime next year, we'll be writing an item about Israel's sixth election in 5 years. (Z)

Jolly Olde English Politics, Part I

A couple of weeks ago, we solicited questions from readers about the ins and outs of British politics. Our regular British correspondents—G.S. in Basingstoke, England, UK; A.B. in Lichfield, England, UK; and S.T. in Worcestershire, England, UK—have been kind enough to answer. A few of the questions, and thus the answers, were pretty meaty, so we're going to split this up over the rest of the week. The first entry:

M.M. in San Diego, CA, asks: Why doesn't the Liberal Democratic Party have more appeal for British voters? It seems to be the party that most resembles the liberal wing of our Democratic Party. Did their leadership do something regrettably stupid? Or don't they have much of a message? Or is it something so British it just doesn't translate well into American politics?

G.S. answers: My fellow Britons may give more historical context than this, but the Liberals' current lack of popularity can be traced to one single event, in my view. On May 6, 2010, a general election returned a "hung parliament"—that is, no one party had an overall majority. This is relatively unusual in the U.K. on account of our first-past-the-post system. The Conservatives, then under David Cameron, formed a coalition with the Liberals, who had obtained a rather healthy and king-making 60 seats under a young and dynamic leader named Nick Clegg. Their 60 seats were enough to put Cameron into Number 10. The "bromance" seemed to work quite well, and Clegg was given the post of deputy PM, with many of the Liberals' policies legislated for in this Parliament.

Here's the problem (see attachment):

Nick Clegg holds a sign that says
he will not vote for increases in university fees

Nick Clegg's popularity was largely due to young voters, who, like in America, tend to be more liberal. Clegg had made a very noisy and public pledge that he would not, under any circumstances, raise university tuition fees, which had been introduced under the Labour government. Well, you can guess what happened next. The Faustian bargain Clegg made with Cameron required he renege on this pledge; his base, who were nothing like as forgiving as, say, those who haven't seen a wall built, deserted him, despite much of the Liberal manifesto being enacted. The Liberals went from 57 seats to 8 at the 2015 election, and in 2017 Clegg himself lost his seat. He currently works justifying Facebook's policies to a skeptical world, which explains a lot, in my view.

There have been a series of bland and uninspiring leaders ever since, and the Liberals have never really recovered.

A.B. answers: Truth in advertising: I'm a member of the LibDems, and have been a local election candidate for the party in the past (no, I didn't win). But I'll try and give as unbiased an answer as possible—or at least try to telegraph my bias where it's overt.

There are two broad answers to this, one long-term and structural, one more recent and political.

The long-term structural answer is that first-past-the-post voting systems, as used in the U.K., U.S., and Canada, tend to make it difficult for third parties to gain traction in the political landscape. It's the classic "Why waste your vote on a third party?" paradox. The LibDems in the U.K. and the NDP in Canada show that it's possible for a third party to gain some level of traction—the U.S. system seems more institutionally hostile to the existence of third party—while the Bloc Québécois in Quebec and SNP in Scotland show that parties with strong regional/nationalist core votes can be successful within their home region; but the electoral system tends to favor a duopoly of a main left of center national party and main right of center national party, leaving little space for a centrist party. It will come as little surprise that the LibDems are in favor of reforming the electoral system and replacing first-past-the-post with a form of proportional representation, simultaneously acknowledging the obvious self-interest while arguing it would be fairer for the country as a whole.

The recent political answer is that the LibDems were punished electorally for their decision to enter a coalition with David Cameron's Conservatives in 2010, and the compromises they had to make as the coalition's junior partner. They've never quite recovered (though forgive me for noting as a party activist that the country was manifestly better governed during the 2010-15 coalition than it has been since). Before the 1997 general election, when former LibDem leader Paddy Ashdown was negotiating with Tony Blair over some form of post-election alliance (neither leader quite believing that Labour would go on to win in a landslide), Ashdown argued that proportional representation was a necessary precondition to the LibDems agreeing to a formal coalition because the inevitable decline in popularity faced by all governments over time would threaten to wipe out the smaller party. Just over a decade later, his judgment was proved correct.

S.T. answers: It is one of the great conundrums of U.K. politics, especially given that attitude surveys constantly show that on many issues LibDem policies get a favorable response from the British public. The biggest reason for the LibDems' lack of success has to be the first-past-the-post system. This does not necessarily cause a problem if votes are geographically concentrated, as the SNP has proved in Scotland in the last three General Elections, but the LibDem support had traditionally been evenly spread and that has resulted in lots of second places but relatively few victories. Even in the 2005-10 elections when national support was well over 20%, seats won maxed out at 62 out of 650. This lack of success is self-reinforcing and has allowed the two largest U.K. parties to claim that a vote for the LibDems is a wasted voted as they "never win." This is amplified by the procedures in Parliament which give very little power or standing to anyone outside the government and opposition parties. This also means the media concentrates on Labour and Conservative parties too.

It must also be admitted that there appears to be an underlying distrust of coalitions among the U.K. electorate and this was enhanced by the LibDems' period in coalition with the Conservatives in 2010-15. Then LibDem leader Nick Clegg made something of a hash of this opportunity, particularly over the issue of student tuition fees. His 2015 call for the LibDems to continue to receive votes, to moderate the actions of Conservatives and Labour, fell on deaf ears and the LibDem vote plunged, leaving them with just 8 MPs. There is some evidence of rebuilding, particularly at the local level, but with their platform in parliament nearly annihilated, their ability to recover—outside of by-elections—is sorely tested.

R.H.D. in Webster, NY, asks: King Charles III has to be mortified to see his country become a global embarrassment with their recent political turmoil. Surely, he didn't sign up for this when he took the throne.

Now, I know the British monarch has to grant permission for a P.M. to form a government, and gives an annual speech when Parliament commences. But is there anything else the King can do to step in and bring some stability and sanity for his subjects?

A.B. answers: The short answer is "No."

The longer answer: A British monarch can only act on the advice of their ministers; they cannot act independently. Even the constitutional process of Royal Assent—whereby the Crown signs off on a bill to make it a formal act of Parliament—is now almost completely removed from the monarch's person. It's widely known that the last monarch to refuse assent was Anne, in 1708 (though even then she was acting on the advice of her ministers). It's less well known that the last monarch to grant assent in person was Victoria, in 1854.

The monarch invites the individual who can command a majority in the House of Commons to form a government. King Charles has no discretion in that process, and it's up to the individual parties to decide who is selected as their leader, and up to Parliament to decide who can command a majority (the Conservative Party cleaned up an anomaly that inadvertently gave the monarch some residual discretionary role back in 1957). It is generally believed that almost the last remaining discretionary power that the monarch has in this process is the right to refuse a request to dissolve Parliament under two narrow circumstances: (1) if the current Parliament is "vital, viable, and capable of doing its job" or (2) if the monarch believes they can "rely on finding another prime minister who could govern for a reasonable period with a working majority in the House of Commons." These are the "Lascelles Principles"—and it says a lot about the U.K.'s constitution that these crucial points were defined in a then-anonymous 1950 letter to The Times written by George VI's private secretary (rather than in, say, an act of Parliament). However, it's also generally held that the government should go out of its way to avoid putting the monarch in the position of having to use the Lascelles Principles—though there was some idle chatter about Charles potentially refusing a request from Liz Truss to dissolve Parliament if she attempted to do so between her resignation and the appointment of Rishi Sunak.

S.T. answers: A.B.'s response covers this perfectly.

S.H. in Hanoi, Vietnam, asks: What precisely does a "no confidence" vote mean, and what are its mechanics? One of the bits from the Truss endgame that I couldn't follow was that many Tories were upset about whether a bill to "consider legislation to ban fracking" was a no-confidence vote. I would have assumed a no-confidence vote was simply that—one whose verbiage was along the lines of "do you still want this person to be your party's standard-bearer?" But apparently not.

A.B. answers: There are two separate no confidence paths, one for Parliament to vote on the government, and one for parties to vote internally on their leader. This caused some confusion in the last days of Boris Johnson's government.

A government must be able to form a majority in the House of Commons. In other words, it must show it commands the confidence of the House. A general election can be triggered if there is a vote demonstrating that it has lost that confidence; not necessarily any vote, but a vote specifically designated as proving that confidence has been lost. The most common mechanisms here are:

  1. The opposition or government calls a confidence motion. These rarely succeed since opposition motions tend to unite the government party, and government parties typically don't call confidence motions they're likely to lose. The last successful opposition motion of no confidence was in 1979, when Margaret Thatcher called a motion that James Callaghan lost by a single vote—triggering the election that brought Thatcher to power. Prior to that, the last successful no-confidence motion had been in 1924.

  2. The government declares that a vote on a particular bill or motion is doubling as a confidence motion; this is usually done to force members of the governing party to help pass a particular piece of legislation (for example, John Major using this maneuver to pass the EU Maastricht Treaty in 1993), but can backfire. Liz Truss's catastrophically handled attempt to turn an opposition motion on fracking into a confidence motion—therefore forcing her MPs to vote against a 2019 election manifesto commitment—is a case in point; it was the final straw that brought her down.

Separately from these parliamentary processes, individual parties can hold confidence votes in their own leadership. If they lose, then the leader will have to resign—though this need not trigger a general election if the governing party replaces its leader but still has a majority in Parliament. These need not be definitive. Boris Johnson won the June 2022 internal party confidence vote in his leadership, only to be forced out a month later due to mass resignations by government ministers in protest against the latest scandal to engulf his government.

S.T. answers: Again, I cannot add to A.B.'s answer.

Tune in tomorrow for another installment! (V & Z)

Today's Senate Polls

If you're running for Senate right now, you've got a chance to win! Unless your last name is Horn, that is. (Z)

State Democrat D % Republican R % Start End Pollster
Arizona Mark Kelly* 48% Blake Masters 46% Oct 24 Oct 26 OH Predictive Insights
Arizona Mark Kelly* 49% Blake Masters 47% Oct 26 Oct 30 Wick
Arizona Mark Kelly* 51% Blake Masters 45% Sep 24 Sep 26 Siena Coll.
Georgia Raphael Warnock* 45% Herschel Walker 46% Oct 16 Oct 27 U. of Georgia.
Nevada Catherine Cortez Masto* 43% Adam Laxalt 41% Oct 24 Oct 27 OH Predictive Insights
Oklahoma Madison Horn 34% James Lankford* 62% Oct 25 Oct 28 Emerson Coll.
Oklahoma-special Kendra Horn 36% Markwayne Mullin 59% Oct 25 Oct 28 Emerson Coll.
Utah Evan McMullin (I) 40% Mike Lee* 50% Oct 25 Oct 28 Emerson Coll.
Utah Evan McMullin (I) 46% Mike Lee* 47% Oct 29 Oct 30 Hill Research

* Denotes incumbent

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

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

Email a link to a friend or share:

---The Votemaster and Zenger
Oct31 Where Are We a Week Before the Election?
Oct31 Races for Governor Are Not Following the Playbook
Oct31 Rules for Absentee Voting Are All over the Map
Oct31 Early Voting Is Well Underway
Oct31 Poll: Economy and Inflation Are the Top Issues
Oct31 Ossoff Will Help Warnock
Oct31 Twitter Is Now Emitting a Musky Odor
Oct31 What If the Certifiers Won't Certify?
Oct31 Gavin Newsom Isn't Campaigning--and This is Bad News for Democrats
Oct31 When Will Biden Announce?
Oct31 Republican Concern for Workers Is Play Acting
Oct31 It's Lula
Oct31 Today's Senate Polls
Oct30 Sunday Mailbag
Oct30 Today's Senate Polls
Oct29 Paul Pelosi Attacked
Oct29 Saturday Q&A
Oct29 Today's Senate Polls
Oct28 Can Ways and Means Finally Have Trump's Taxes?
Oct28 A Grift Wrapped in a Con Job inside a Racket
Oct28 Biden and Harris to Campaign Jointly for Fetterman
Oct28 Time to Outlaw Slavery?
Oct28 Brazilians Head to the Polls
Oct28 This Week in Schadenfreude: All Trussed Up with Nowhere to Go
Oct28 This Week in Freudenfreude: The Decline of Fossil Fuels
Oct28 Today's Senate Polls
Oct27 Trump Ending the DeTente?
Oct27 Trump Is Officially Subpoenaed
Oct27 Democrats on the Upswing
Oct27 Pennsylvania Senate Race: The Day After
Oct27 Georgia Senate Race: Do I Hear Three?
Oct27 Washington Senate Race: Rescuing Patty Murray
Oct27 I Am Not a Crook... Unless I Am
Oct27 Today's Senate Polls
Oct26 Fetterman Flops
Oct26 House Progressives Screw Up
Oct26 Congressional Republicans Have Drama, Too
Oct26 Alaska Soap Opera Just Keeps Going
Oct26 The Strangest Poll of this Cycle
Oct26 California Uber Alles
Oct26 Today's Senate Polls
Oct25 Prime Minister Gerald Ford
Oct25 DeSantis, Crist Debate
Oct25 All Eyes on Fetterman
Oct25 Alaska Gone Wild
Oct25 Graham Gets a (Brief?) Reprieve
Oct25 This Isn't Going to End Well
Oct25 Today's Senate Polls
Oct24 Trump Organization Trial to Commence Today
Oct24 Trump Subpoena Chess Game Begins