Note: We made a small change to the headlines today. If you click on a headline now, you will be taken to a separate Web page containing only that item (like Political Wire). You can then copy and paste the URL of that page into emails, social media postings, etc. to send a single item to others. We encourage you to do so.

Graham Must Testify

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) fought the good fight, we suppose. But now, it's all over. Despite the very best efforts of his legal team, Graham was unable to escape testifying before Fulton County DA Fani Willis' grand jury.

The Senator's latest defeat came courtesy of the Supreme Court. Last week, Clarence Thomas imposed an administrative hold on the Graham subpoena in order to give SCOTUS time to consider Graham's request for relief. This appeared to be a temporary victory at the time, and it proved to be so. It took the Court just 6 business days to decide they aren't buying what Graham is selling. The unsigned order denying Graham a hearing had no dissents.

In fact, not only did Graham not win, he didn't even manage to buy himself extra time. His scheduled date for testifying is November 17, and obviously he'll have to be there with bells on. That gives the Senator roughly 2 weeks to strategize. There are some questions he might be able to dodge, based on the argument that they relate to his business as a legislator. But those will be the exception, meaning that for the rest, he'll have to choose whether to lie and commit perjury, or to throw Donald Trump under the bus and commit potential career suicide, or to invoke the Fifth Amendment, which will make Graham look guilty and will aggravate Trump. Not a lot of winning options there. (Z)

Sasse Is In, So He's Out

The Board of Trustees of the University of Florida has unanimously approved Sen. Ben Sasse (R-NE) as the next president of the university. In a little over a week, he'll go before the State University System of Florida's board of governors for final approval, but that's customarily a rubber stamp.

This means that, once Sasse is official, he'll quit the Senate and Gov. Pete Ricketts (R-NE) will have to select a replacement. As we have noted previously, in response to a question from a reader, Ricketts could pick himself. And, given that he's term-limited, he might well do it. Failing that, all three members of Nebraska's House delegation—Mike Flood, Don Bacon, and Adrian Smith—are Republicans, and could be in line for a promotion.

Sasse is already very unpopular with the student body, and has already received a vote of no confidence from the University of Florida Faculty Senate. This is a very bad start, and he might find that it's not so easy to do his job when the university community is rebelling against you. But even so, once he resigns, there's no takesy-backsies. (Z)

The Seven People With the Most at Stake on Tuesday

People love lists, and The Hill has an interesting one up right now. As you can see from the headline, it's their opinion as to which seven people will be watching the election returns most anxiously next Tuesday night. Here's the executive summary:

1. Joe Biden: This is the most obvious entry on the list. If the Democrats lose control of the House, not only will his legislative agenda be dead for 2 years (the rest of his term?), but he and his son Hunter will be "investigated" six ways to Sunday. Losing the Senate, meanwhile, would probably mean no more judges getting approved.
   
   
2. Donald Trump: He's joined at the waist with quite a few high-profile candidates, including would-be Republican senators J.D. Vance (Ohio), Blake Masters (Arizona) and Herschel Walker (Georgia). If his handpicked people suffer a bunch of defeats, it will only give more momentum to those Republicans who are trying to push the former president out the door.
   
   
3. Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-FL): Speaking of Republicans who are trying to push Trump out the door, DeSantis has positioned himself as the heir apparent to the Trump throne. If Trump has a bad night Tuesday, that strengthens DeSantis' position. If Trump has a good night, then the opposite happens.
   
   
4. Gov. Gavin Newsom (D-CA): Just as DeSantis has positioned himself as Trump's heir apparent, Newsom has positioned himself as Biden's heir apparent. Newsom has more competition than DeSantis does, it would appear. Nonetheless, if the Democrats have a bad day on Tuesday, then the Democratic rank-and-file will be clamoring for new leadership. And that means a potential opportunity for Newsom.
   
   
5. Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA): Speaking of new leadership, if the Democrats take a pasting, she's going to have to abide by her sort-of agreement to step down and allow for some new blood in the upper echelons of House Democratic leadership.
   
   
6. Sen. Rick Scott (R-FL): The Senator sees big things for himself, including a white mansion on Pennsylvania Avenue. To aid his climb up the ladder, he's been leading the National Republican Senatorial Committee this cycle. If the Republicans take back the Senate, he'll be a conquering hero. If they don't, he'll be Charlie Brown.
   
   
7. Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY): If the Representative is going to resume her political career in the future, it will be as part of a post-Trump GOP. The worse the Trump faction does, the closer that possibility becomes.

It is an interesting list, but if we were editing The Hill, we would have made a number of changes. To start with, the last two entries don't really belong. Rick Scott may have delusions of grandeur, but he's going nowhere, regardless of how well Republicans do this cycle. He barely wins his elections, and he will forever be the guy who wants to kill Social Security. Meanwhile, Cheney's return to politics, if it ever happens, is far in the future. Nothing that happens on Tuesday is going to meaningfully change the timeline.

We would also make a few additions to the list:

1. Stacey Abrams and Beto O'Rourke: They both have a lot of promise as candidates for high federal office. But you have to be able to win, or you're not going to get support. And while the likely losses these two are going to suffer on Tuesday are not necessarily fatal to their political careers, they will be very difficult to bounce back from.
   
   
2. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY): McConnell is 80 years old, is at odds with the Trumpers, and is increasingly unable to rein in the louder members of his caucus, like Scott, Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Josh Hawley (R-MO). If the Kentuckian does not get his Majority Leader's gavel back now, he probably won't ever get it back.
   
   
3. Vladimir Putin: Things aren't going well for the Russian "president." He could really use some American discord. And if the pro-Russian faction of the Republican Party gains control of half (or all) of Congress on Tuesday, he might just get it.
   
   
4. Pete Buttigieg: We think he's actually better positioned to be the "next generation" leader of the Democrats than Newsom is. The fact that Newsom will win re-election by 20 points should not be seen as a sign of how popular he is. It should be seen as a sign of how blue California is.

So, did we miss anyone? (Z)

Today's Trump Legal News

It's a pretty rare day, these days, that does not have some Trump-related legal news. And the last couple of days were no exception. To start with, in a development roughly as predictable as the Lakers' inability to make threes (trust us, everyone in L.A. saw this coming), Donald Trump decided to appeal his tax return case to the Supreme Court. Chief Justice John Roberts has already placed an administrative hold on the matter, so the Court can consider Trump's request. This is the same sort of administrative hold that did Lindsey Graham not a damn bit of good (see above). We'll see if Trump has better luck.

Meanwhile, Liz Cheney may be out of a job soon, but she's a busy bee until then, and yesterday she told PBS' Judy Woodruff that the 1/6 Select Committee is in negotiations with Donald Trump about his subpoena and testimony. "We have not made determinations about format, but it will be done under oath. It will be done over multiple days," Cheney noted.

We are struggling to wrap our minds around this, since Trump is a man who never met a subpoena he couldn't delay. All he would have to do is file a lawsuit challenging the validity of the subpoena and he could run out the clock. Why isn't he doing that, which would seem to be his default position? Here are the four theories we've got:

1. He really thinks he can help his cause by testifying. This seems like madness to us; he's not going to be able to inflame the MAGA crowd with behind-closed-doors testimony, and the risk of perjury would be enormous. Trump has many weaknesses but, in general, being able to calculate the cost-benefit analysis in a situation like this is not one of them.
   
   
2. He's going to file a lawsuit; the negotiations are just to strengthen Trump's hand so his lawyers can say "he tried to work with the Committee!" This remains the likeliest explanation, in our view. If this is the plan, then Trump would be following the same basic playbook as his former chief-of-staff, Mark Meadows.
   
   
3. He suspects he's about to get indicted by AG Merrick Garland, and doesn't want to give the DoJ any additional ammunition to use in terms of criminal charges. Recall that Garland did not choose to go after Meadows, but he could have, and he probably would have won. For Trump, even a week in jail would be humiliating, and he might not want to give the AG a layup that could lead to that result.
   
   
4. He thinks that dodging the 1/6 Committee will make him look weak in the eyes of the MAGA crowd.

We'll soon find out what the plan is. Given the upcoming election and holidays, there are only about 4 weeks left where Trump could plausibly appear before the Committee. (Z)

Today's Endorsement News

Most endorsements don't move the needle very much, if at all. But there are occasions where, just maybe, an endorsement might make a difference. We had a couple of those on Tuesday.

First up, Marc Victor (L) announced his withdrawal from the Arizona U.S. Senate race, along with a full-throated endorsement of Blake Masters. Victor said he talked to Masters, and "We found ourselves in general agreement about how to improve America and to advance the cause of freedom and peace. After that discussion, I believe it is in the best interests of freedom and peace to withdraw my candidacy and enthusiastically support Blake Masters for United States Senate. I intend to assist in any way reasonably possible to elect Blake."

Victor will still be on the ballot, of course, and some Libertarians won't know he's withdrawn. Others won't be interested in voting Republican. But Victor's announcement could shift 1-2% of the vote in Masters' direction. And if the race is as close as some (but not all) polls predict, that could swing it.

And then there is Liz Cheney, who is getting in the habit of supporting selected Democratic candidates. The latest member of the blue team to receive her blessing is Rep. Tim Ryan (D-OH), in his race against J.D. Vance. Actually, it wasn't so much an endorsement of Ryan as it was a plea not to vote for Vance, but Ryan will take it.

And as long as we're on the subject of Tim Ryan, we had a number of readers this weekend who wondered if the attack on Paul Pelosi might work to the Democrats' political advantage. Ryan is apparently thinking along the same lines, and during a town hall event on Fox, ripped into Republican extremist rhetoric in general, and Donald Trump Jr.'s "halloween costume" idea in particular. That would seem to be a case of going into the lion's den, and then poking the lion in the eye, but the crowd gave him a loud round of applause. So, maybe Ryan is on to something. (Z)

Today's Dysfunctional Democracies News

Israel has fewer than 10 million people, and only about 6 million of those are registered to vote. You would think that they could therefore count the votes in a national election fairly quickly, and could announce results not terribly long after the polls close. Not so much, however.

That means that when it comes to yesterday's election, we're left to judge based on exit polls. And according to those numbers, Benjamin Netanyahu will once again be Prime Minister of Israel. His Likud Party-led alliance projects to have 62 seats in the new Knesset, which is a majority plus one to spare. That could still change, though a drop to 61 seats (still a majority) is more likely than a drop to 60 or 59 (not a majority anymore). Everything depends on whether any or all of three small parties pass the 3.25% threshold to get a seat in the 120-seat Knesset. Time will tell how viable such a thin majority is, long-term. Maybe Nancy Pelosi can offer some advice on cat herding.

Meanwhile, about 3,000 miles, a different prime minister also has some cat-herding headaches. That would be Rishi Sunak, the newly installed PM of the United Kingdom. Recall that, in the past, the custom (and the rule) was that new PMs were given a year to figure out the job before they were at risk of being cashiered. But Liz Truss caused such a fuss that tradition and rules were pushed aside, and she was shown the door after a little more than a month in office.

That means that Pandora's Box has officially been opened. Sunak, in an effort to distance himself from Truss, reshuffled the Cabinet a bit. It wasn't that much of a reshuffle, but it was enough that it did not sit well with many Tory MPs, and so they are now hard at work on letters of no confidence in the new PM. Note that the link there is to The Express, which is a right-wing tabloid with a history of being truth-challenged. In other words, it's the British equivalent of The New York Post. Normally, we wouldn't trust The Express, but we assume the paper is dialed in to right-wing politics. And in case you're still skeptical, the story has been reported by American outlets, as well.

We doubt that some Tory MPs getting their knickers in a twist would be enough to bring down yet another PM. On the other hand, if Sunak finds himself enmeshed in scandal, as was the case with Boris Johnson (and Truss, sort of), then that might be enough to do it. And guess what? He's already got the first major scandal of his administration. It involves Suella Braverman, who is the U.K.'s Home Secretary (equivalent to DHS Secretary in the U.S.), having been reinstated to that position by Sunak after being forced to resign by Truss.

Braverman—and we think we can get away with saying this, since we're not Brits—seems kind of whackadoodle. Certainly, she's an ultra-hardliner on immigration, despite being the daughter of immigrant parents. And her current scandal has two elements to it. First, she used a private e-mail account to send and receive at least half a dozen highly sensitive government documents. Second, the Manston migrant center, which is under Braverman's purview, was meant to be a temporary holding center for a few hundred English-Channel-crossing immigrants at a time. It's currently got a few thousand detainees, many of them being held for weeks at a time. Observers have lamented the "zoo-like conditions," and how "dangerous" and "wretched" the facility is right now.

Needless to say, American readers will struggle to wrap their minds around the possibility of a high-ranking government official who uses private e-mail when they should not, or a migrant detention facility along a nation's southern border becoming dangerously overcrowded. But that's what Sunak is dealing with right now, and he may have no choice but to bow to the pressure and to sack Braverman for the second time in three weeks. If that does happen, she'll be both the shortest-serving and second-shortest-serving Home Secretary in British history. (Z)

Jolly Olde English Politics, Part II

As we noted yesterday, this week we're running questions (from the readers) and answers to those questions from G.S. in Basingstoke, England, UK; A.B. in Lichfield, England, UK; and S.T. in Worcestershire, England, UK. Here's the second installment:

D.R.M. in Delray Beach, FL, asks: There is a distinct possibility that after the next UK election, whenever that may happen, the SNP could be the King's Loyal Opposition. How might this (as well as the current chaos) affect Scotland's potential independence?

A.B. answers: I'll take this scenario at face value, though with three important caveats: (1) independent assessments of current polls often put the LibDems second on seat projections, not the SNP; (2) online electoral seat projections for U.K. elections are notoriously unreliable since they typically assume an even national swing; (3) few of us are currently convinced that the Conservative Party will collapse quite as far as some projections suggest.

Anyway, the scenario where the SNP are the second-largest party at Westminster may make it more likely—though not definite—that a second independence referendum would be held; though this might be as much down to the politics of the (presumably) Labour government in this scenario. The Labour Party is fundamentally in favor of maintaining the Union, but it isn't as aggressive in that unionism as the Conservative Party (full name: the Conservative and Unionist Party). A Labour landslide would likely result in a reduction of SNP seats at Westminster (though it would still easily remain the largest party in Scotland), and would mean that the SNP would no longer have the Conservative Party as its punching bag. Labour could make the tactical decision that in this scenario it would be better to allow the referendum to go ahead on the basis that the U.K. government will rarely face a more favorable situation for a "no" vote in a referendum. But it would be very difficult to predict the outcome of a second referendum; Scotland is deeply split over the independence issue.

There is a slight risk that the more radical pro-independence factions in the SNP may try to push Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon into a Catalonia-style wildcat referendum that hasn't been fully authorized or—as has been advocated by a small minority in the independence movement—simply copy the Irish First Dáil in 1919 by unilaterally calling an independent Parliament on the basis of a victory for pro-independence parties in a forthcoming Scottish election (that this then led to a civil war and partition in Ireland tends to be glossed over). While these scenarios are currently unlikely, and Sturgeon remains committed to a "legal referendum'" as the mechanism for achieving independence, neither particularly lend themselves to increased stability in either Scotland or the broader U.K. Balancing the moderate pro-independence forces with the more radical factions within her party remains a significant challenge for the First Minister.

Note that there is Western Hemisphere precedent for the scenario outlined in the question. The Bloc Québécois formed the official opposition after the 1993 Canadian Federal Election following the collapse of the Progressive Conservatives. This was quickly followed by the 1995 Quebec Referendum, where the province narrowly voted to remain part of Canada.

S.T. answers: I disagree with the premise of the question. Even if the SNP won every seat in Scotland they would have only 59 MPs. Although there are some scary projections floating around for the Conservatives at present, it is exceptionally unlikely that they will ever fall below 100 seats. (Many of the projections are based on the Electoral Calculus website, which applies national swings very indiscriminately to individual constituencies with often comical results). Even if the SNP did become the opposition, it would not really help them, as the governing party controls the timetable of the U.K. parliament with a rod of iron. The SNP's best chance of achieving their goals would be if their votes were vital for a party to form a government, at which point Labour or Conservative parties might suddenly discover that a further referendum or more powers to the Scottish parliament might be a great idea after all!

G.S. answers: Scotland is partially governed from two separate entities in different locations, with different remits and electoral systems. The one familiar to your readers is the U.K. Parliament in Westminster, London; this is elected on a first-past-the-post system, where you could hypothetically win a single constituency with 1.0001% of the vote if the remaining 99% is split among sufficient candidates that nobody else exceeds 1%. Most Members of Parliament (MPs) do not exceed 50% for their election. Of the 650 MPs, 59 are elected from Scotland; the Scottish National Party contest (only) these seats, and currently hold 48 of them. The leader of the SNP in Westminster is Ian Blackford, MP.

The second place Scotland is governed from is the Scottish Parliament, located in Edinburgh and referred to as Holyrood. This is elected using the additional member system, where some members are directly elected with the most votes and then additional representation is given to other parties based on their share of the vote. Holyrood has 129 members (Members of the Scottish Parliament, or MSPs); 64 are currently from the SNP, but this does not tell the full story—if first-past-the-post were used, there would be virtually no opposition to the SNP as the vast majority of opposition members owe their election to the "secondary" round and not the direct election, such is the SNP's dominance. The leader of the SNP in Holyrood, and the leader of the SNP overall, is (Scottish First Minister) Nicola Sturgeon.

The two Parliaments are allocated specific responsibilities by legislation; areas such as tax, education, transport and health are given to Holyrood, and are referred to as "devolved matters." Areas such as defense, ability to enter into international treaties and, critically, any votes on independence, are kept at Westminster, and are referred to as "reserved matters." More on this in a moment.

The first Scottish independence referendum was held in 2014 and, as I am sure people know, resulted in a roughly 55-45% vote against independence. Opinions will vary, but some of the principle reasons for the "no" vote seemed to be the promise (from Westminster) of extra devolved powers (which indeed happened afterwards) and a somewhat rushed independence campaign under then-leader Alex Salmond that either could not, or would not, answer fundamental questions, such as whether an independent Scotland would keep the British pound as its currency. The 2014 referendum was billed as a "once in a generation" referendum, with no further referenda unless there were "significant changes in circumstances."

Forward to 2016. In an attempt to placate Eurosceptics in his party, then-PM David Cameron gave us the Brexit referendum. The U.K. as a whole voted 52-48% (sigh) to leave, of course, but Scotland voted 62-38% for remain. Newly minted SNP leader Nicola Sturgeon had her "significant change"—that Scotland was being dragged out of the E.U. against its will—and the independence movement had new impetus.

Fast forward to current events. In June of this year, Sturgeon announced legislation that would hold a second independence referendum on October 19, 2023. But, independence votes are a reserved matter, right? Not so fast, the SNP argue: their position is that the Scottish Parliament holds elections which, by their nature, ascertain the political will of the people—so why is a new independence referendum any different? If you aren't sure what the answer is, you are in good company: this has been referred to the U.K. Supreme Court, and legal arguments are currently ongoing about whose interpretation of the law is correct. Nobody knows how the Court will rule, but one thing is certain: they are certainly not in the bag for the ruling Conservative party, as the bloody nose they gave the Tories over the prorogation of Parliament in 2019 shows. It seems to me that this decision will ultimately be a win-win for the SNP; a ruling in their favor will grant the referendum next year, whereas a negative ruling will feed a sense—among some in Scotland—that they are being dictated to by England and are not free to chart their own course, thus emboldening the independence cause.

Finally, onto the actual question, which I haven't forgotten about. Firstly, for the SNP to become the loyal opposition, both of two things have to happen. The first is that the SNP have to at least maintain, and likely increase, their share of the Westminster MPs from the current 48 to at least mid-50s. This is certainly possible, and indeed likely, to my mind. The second thing is that Labour have to decimate the Conservatives in England to the point where number of Tory MPs is fewer than the number of SNP members. I agree with my countrymen that this is not very likely—while we can of course dream, the fact is there are too many rich/largely rural constituencies in the south of England where disposing the Conservative incumbent is going to be too difficult. It is my sense that the Conservatives' poll numbers are at their nadir at the moment and, while I doubt they will win the next election, the thought of dropping below 100 seats is improbable. I share my countrymen's skepticism of Electoral Calculus here. Of course, the Tories almost elected Boris last week. If that had happened, all bets were off and G.S's wife had promised she would go to London on her first political protest in her 36 years. The likelihood is that she wouldn't have been the only one there.

However, we are talking hypothetical and controversial issues here, so let's wade right in. I disagree with my countrymen here that an SNP opposition would not further the independence cause. Of course, with 500+ Labour MPs of the 650 MPs in Parliament, the SNP will be in no position to dictate the legislative program. Their powers are not zero, however: for example, as the leader of the opposition, Ian Blackford would get the greatest number of questions at PMQs each week. He would be able to table amendments to legislation before enactment. He would be able to ask "urgent" questions in Parliament, and exercise other powers of Parliamentary trickery, such as the tabling of legislation that resulted in the farce over fracking last week. These "soft" powers would enable him to put new PM Kier Starmer in the position of having to answer questions or take decisions that he would quite rather went away or he could simply ignore. By using these powers, Blackford would be able to regularly highlight his cause, potentially forcing the PM's hand into a referendum or else providing further evidence to Scotland of England's willingness to overlook them. So, in short: is an SNP opposition likely? No. But, if it came to pass, would it further the independence cause? Yes. Personally, I hope that Scotland remains in the U.K.—it really is a fabulous country—but I also recognize completely that, as a Yorkshireman living in England, this is entirely not up to me.

---

E.G.G-C. in Syracuse, NY, asks: Would it be possible, and even a viable solution for the U.K., to return to the E.U., thus reversing some of this crisis, and the potential independence of Scotland and even the departure of Northern Ireland to form a sort of Irish federation under the umbrella of the E.U.? Or do you think the U.K. will just keep going it alone and rely, perhaps, on the U.S.?

A.B. answers: Possible, yes. Politically likely under current circumstances, no. The E.U. would probably take us back if we asked, and may even be willing to give generous terms, but the U.K. is still too split to make this politically viable in the immediate term. What's more likely is that a future Labour government would consider taking us back into the European Single Market while leaving us outside of the EU—and therefore move towards a much softer Brexit that gains us better access to European markets, though with no voice in setting the rules of those markets. If that were to work, then perhaps in 10-15 years it might be more politically acceptable to rejoin. I'm highly biased on this point since I'm a staunch Remainer (not to mention a former resident of Brussels, which makes me about as suspect as possible as far as a Leaver is concerned), but rejoining the Single Market and offering a possible path back to E.U. membership would quickly accomplish the following: (1) improve trade with our most important economic partners—and so settle some of the recent economic uncertainty, (2) help resolve some of the intractable issues arising over how Northern Ireland can simultaneously remain in the U.K. and the E.U. Single Market (an open border on Ireland is a key part of the Good Friday Peace Agreement), and (3) potentially lessen support for independence in Scotland, which voted overwhelming for Remain.

However, some Scots would argue that the quickest way back to E.U. membership would be Scottish independence and an immediate application to join the E.U. It's a powerful argument, not least because one of the arguments used against independence in the 2014 referendum was the need to maintain Scotland's status as part of the E.U. (and didn't that work out well two years later?). I'm both a unionist (in the Scottish sense) and a Remainer, but my eligibility for a Scottish passport in the case of independence means that even I have the occasional wobble here.

S.T. answers: I should start with a declaration of interest. As a committed remainer, I delivered 6-8,000 leaflets door-to-door in the 2016 referendum urging my fellow voters to stay in the E.U. My local district voted 63% leave.

At the time, I said to a fellow remainer that I feared that if we lost, neither of us would see E.U. membership again in our lifetimes. I see no reason the change that opinion. Among other things, why would the E.U. countries want us given our weakened economic state and the problems we caused them whilst we were members, endlessly wanting to receive exceptional treatment? I hope that it may be possible for relations to improve and in particular that the U.K. might rejoin the single market arrangement, which would significantly improve our ability to carry out trade without bureaucratic impediments. We would, however, have to accept rules which we would not be involved in making and accept freedom of movement. Both of these are areas which the Brexit wing of the Conservative party will oppose to the hilt, and could cause disquiet among voters—they were key elements in the referendum result. Opinion may be slowly changing but I do not think it is there yet.

G.S. answers: Agree with A.B: possible, yes, likely, no. I am reminded of a moment on a relatively influential political TV show recently where a German comedian (yes, really) asked the audience a simple question: How many of you would now change your votes in the Brexit referendum? Of the audience of hundreds, maybe two or three raised their hands (without specifying which way). This led the comedian to conclude, correctly in my view, that if the same vote were held today, we would have near to/exactly the same result.

Of course, I've alluded previously to the financial pain that is coming in the next few weeks, so there is always the possibility that the climate could change.

Good stuff! And tomorrow's are pretty interesting, as well. (V & Z)

Today's Senate Polls

The polls will be coming fast and furiously this week. Don't believe the one in New Hampshire or the one in Washington, but Arizona, North Carolina, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin are all too close to call. That is almost certainly going to be the case all the way to Tuesday.

State	Democrat	D %	Republican	R %	Start	End	Pollster
Arizona	Mark Kelly*	47%	Blake Masters	43%	Oct 19	Oct 26	Arizona State U.
Arizona	Mark Kelly*	47%	Blake Masters	46%	Oct 26	Oct 30	Beacon + Shaw
Arizona	Mark Kelly*	47%	Blake Masters	47%	Oct 29	Oct 30	Phillips Academy
Colorado	Michael Bennet*	51%	Joe O`Dea	43%	Oct 26	Oct 29	Emerson Coll.
Missouri	Trudy Valentine	40%	Eric Schmitt	54%	Oct 26	Oct 28	Emerson Coll.
North Carolina	Cheri Beasley	43%	Ted Budd	44%	Oct 27	Oct 30	Meredith Coll.
New Hampshire	Maggie Hassan*	47%	Don Bolduc	48%	Oct 28	Oct 29	St. Anselm Coll.
Nevada	Catherine Cortez_Masto*	45%	Adam Laxalt	44%	Oct 24	Oct 28	Suffolk U.
Nevada	Catherine Cortez_Masto*	46%	Adam Laxalt	51%	Oct 26	Oct 29	Emerson Coll.
New York	Chuck Schumer*	57%	Joe Pinion	39%	Oct 28	Oct 31	Emerson Coll.
Pennsylvania	John Fetterman	47%	Mehmet Oz	47%	Oct 24	Oct 28	Muhlenberg Coll.
Utah	Evan McMullin (I)	34%	Mike Lee*	53%	Oct 25	Oct 27	OH Predictive Insights
Washington	Patty Murray*	48%	Tiffany Smiley	46%	Oct 31	Oct 31	InsiderAdvantage
Wisconsin	Mandela Barnes	46%	Ron Johnson*	48%	Oct 26	Oct 30	Beacon + Shaw
Wisconsin	Mandela Barnes	47%	Ron Johnson*	51%	Oct 26	Oct 30	Wick

* Denotes incumbent

---

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.

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