Republicans Are in Panic Mode

With early voting already started in many states and Election Day only 5 weeks away, Republican PACs are facing a reckoning. It's triage time. Some Republican candidates will make the cut and others will be cut loose, to sink or swim on their own. Also, desperate times call for desperate measures and these are desperate times (for Republicans).

High (low?) on the triage list are the Senate races in Georgia and North Carolina. Here's why. First Georgia:

Next North Carolina:

Republican groups have poured hundreds of millions of dollars into these races and it has made no difference. After all, how many ways can you call someone a communist? The Democrats have extremely good candidates in both races, Sen. Jon Ossoff (D-GA) and former governor Roy Cooper, respectively. The Republican candidates have what are politely called "candidate quality" issues. The RNC and NRSC are about to cut both of them loose because Texas, Iowa, Ohio and Alaska are more urgent and less hopeless. If this happens soon, Ossoff, who is an extremely good fundraiser, could end up winning by double digits, maybe even mid-double digits. If he can pull that off, a guy who can win a reddish swing state in the South by that kind of margin would be a formidable presidential candidate in 2028. So if the Republicans cut off Mike Collins in Georgia, they may be creating a very powerful Democratic presidential candidate in 2028 in the process.

Also, as we have noted repeatedly before, after the 2030 census, winning the blue states plus Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania won't get the Democrats to 270 electoral votes. They absolutely need to break through in the South. Georgia and North Carolina have 32 EVs together now and may have more in 2032. This is more than Wisconsin and Pennsylvania combined. If these states turn blue, as Virginia has, the GOP has a BIG problem. The above graphs are for a midterm with excellent Democratic candidates and mediocre Republican candidates, but the handwriting is on the wall. A southern Democrat, like Ossoff or Gov. Andy Beshear (D-KY), could be a potent contender.

But there is more to the panicking story. Donald Trump is weighing some options that are bad for the future of the country but might help a little in the midterms. One measure is a 90-day ban on diesel exports. The idea is that fewer diesel exports mean more diesel domestically and thus lower prices. That might work, although energy markets generally don't turn on a dime. The long-term damage to the country is that the countries suddenly cut off from fuel they need are likely to conclude that the U.S. is an unreliable supplier that can cut off essential fuel because it is politically convenient. That is basically a message that they should hedge their bets and start looking for alternative fuel sources that are more reliable. That will hurt U.S. oil companies. They are wildly against this proposal, of course, and had expected their large donations to Trump in 2024 protected them from this kind of stuff. They may then conclude that Republicans don't believe in honest graft. When they are bought, they don't stay bought. In addition, refiners who lose major overseas markets may decide to reduce output accordingly in order to drive prices back up. So, Trump might have to reconsider this 90-day embargo.

Another area where Trump may be forced to backtrack is beef imports. This one is tricky. Consumers (an obviously important constituency) like the cheap imports because they lower food prices. But beef ranchers absolutely hate the imports. If Trump cuts back on importing cheap beef, ranchers may be placated (except for diesel prices) but consumer food prices will continue to rise. There is no good position for Trump here.

Another sign of panic is Trump's campaign schedule. He is going to Oklahoma this week, and then Alabama, Alaska, Florida, Iowa, and Texas in October. Campaigning in deep red states like these means that Trump (or more likely, Susie Wiles) understands these states could realistically go blue in Senate and some fairly red House districts. Whether his presence there helps or hurts the GOP is another question, however. It could motivate Democrats are much as, or more than, Republicans. When J.D. Vance went to Iowa to campaign for Ashley Hinson, she politely announced that she was busy and couldn't campaign together with him. If Vance is too toxic to be seen with, what does that say about Trump? Also, unlike Vance, who knows how to stay on message and call all the Democrats socialists three or four times a minute, Trump tends to make his speeches about himself, not about the candidate he is trying to help. This could remind Democrats why they hate him so much. It is far from certain that these desperate visits will actually be a net plus to the candidate nominally being supported.

What is also happening—albeit quietly—is that Republican candidates are either asking Trump for permission to criticize his administration (but not him personally) or just doing it without asking. Trump is being forced to swallow this, no matter how much it hurts him (although see our posting tomorrow). Topics where candidates are going against Trump include Iran, data centers, ICE and AI. Before this is over, Trump may have to swallow even more stuff he despises. (V)

Republican Senators Are Dismayed with Trump for Toadying Up to Xi

At a national security briefing last Thursday, Republican senators were told that China and Iran are deepening military ties and Chinese satellite data helped Iran kill American soldiers in Jordan. They DO NOT LIKE Donald Trump cozying up to Chinese president Xi Jinping and treating him like his new best friend instead of a murderous dictator who has helped kill American soldiers. Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) said that the 21-gun salute and B-1 bomber flyer were "over the top." Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) said: "I understand the importance of engagement and diplomacy, but inviting Putin to the G20 and rolling out the red carpet for President Xi, I'm not enthusiastic about that." Referring to the deaths of the American soldiers in Jordan, Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-ND) said: "It's fine he's here, and it's fine that he treats him like a foreign leader, but it's also important that he [Trump] confronts these issues with him [Xi]." Sen. Roger Wicker (R-MS) said Trump should "not invite Xi Jinping to Washington for such a lavish welcome." The normally mild-mannered Wicker went onto the Senate floor to remind Trump that "his guest is a brutal, unelected and oppressive dictator who seeks to dominate his neighbors and whose massive military arsenal is aimed directly at the United States of America." Sen. Thom Tills (R-NC) said: "We should be having those sorts of reception for people who are not plotting our ultimate demise—not Xi Jinping."

But Trump doesn't care what Republican senators think. He personally went to Joint Base Andrews to welcome Xi to American soil, the first time any president has done that in 64 years for any foreign leader other than the pope. Trump also flattered Xi excessively, saying it was a great privilege to receive Xi. The flattery was not returned. Xi merely said "President Trump and I have respect for each other." Nothing more. Trump didn't dare hold a joint press conference with Xi out of fear reporters would ask why he used to say China was America's biggest enemy and now he is a supplicant to the great Chinese leader. Some people might even think it odd that he was running ads calling Democrats communists (which they are not) while palling around with an unrepentant and proud actual communist.

Was anything of importance accomplished at the summit meeting? Basically, no. Here is a brief summary of what transpired:

• Lots of pomp and circumstance but nothing meaningful was achieved.
• The current truce in the trade war was extended by 2 months. Yay?
• There was no progress on tariffs, rare earths, advanced semiconductors, or any other hot trade issues.
• There was no progress on the status of Taiwan.
• Xi and Trump made no progress averting an AI disaster in which AI bots take over the world.
• Xi kept referring to the "Thucydides Trap" (a rising power confronting an established one can lead to war).

Trump probably doesn't have a clue who Thucydides was.

In short, nothing at all was accomplished except Trump looking like Xi's lapdog. Oh, wait. something was accomplished. All the tech billionaires were treated like important diplomats. Present at the state dinner were Sam Altman (Open AI), Jeff Bezos (Amazon), Tim Cook (Apple), Jensen Huang (Nvidia), Elon Musk (Tesla) and Sundar Pichai (Google). They all surely have the best interests of the American people in their hearts. (V)

Data Centers: Bad, Oh Wait, No... Data Centers: Good

There is nothing—except maybe puppies and apple pie—that everyone agrees on. No, scratch that. About 8% of Americans are cynophobic (that is, afraid of dogs). And, you guessed it, some people have malusdomesticaphobia (fear of apples). Maybe there is nothing we all agree on.

Case in point. Democrats thought they had a winning message with opposing data centers. Nobody actually likes data centers near where they live. That seems very widespread. Former senator Sherrod Brown (D) has figured this out and made opposition to data centers a central plank of his platform in the Ohio Senate race. Many Democrats cheered him on. But not unions, which previously loved him a whole bunch during his three terms as a senator. In particular, construction unions want more data centers due to the jobs created by their construction. These jobs are well-paying, but temporary since once construction is completed, almost nobody actually works in a data center. They are all administered remotely, often by highly specialized non-union network administrators working in Silicon Valley. At best, there might be one or two local employees who swap out broken disks for new ones once in a while, a couple of specialists to monitor the power and water, and probably a few security guards to watch the property and deter intruders. A billion-dollar data center might employ 10 people. In contrast, a billion-dollar manufacturing facility typically employs 500 to 5,000 (often unionized) workers, depending on the level of automation.

Poor Brown. What's a candidate to do in a state where most people hate data centers but his personal base loves them? Also, since the race is heavily nationalized, he gets lots of donations from out-of-state data-center-hating Democrats. Suddenly loving data centers will: (1) make him sound like a hypocrite and (2) turn off the out-of-state money spigot. His friends understand his problem, but that doesn't solve it. Brett McElfresh, business manager at the Plumbers and Pipefitters Union in Canon, said: "At the end of the day, we're a building trades local. We build things. If we're not building things, our guys don't make money and the economy isn' growing." He knows that data centers consume a huge amount of water for cooling and many plumbers are needed to put in the pipes to get that water where it is needed. Appreciating Brown's problem doesn't solve it.

Brown is trying to thread the needle. He does not oppose data center construction. Instead he wants the tech companies to pay for all the power and water they use so the data centers don't raise local utility rates. But that doesn't address many voters' concerns about construction traffic, noise, pollution, and how a giant data center can disrupt a peaceful community. Another approach he is taking is blaming his opponent, Sen. Jon Husted (R-OH), for leading the charge to bring data centers to Ohio, which did raise electricity and water bills.

Husted, previously a big supporter of data centers, is trying to duck the issue now. He hasn't run any ads for or against data centers. He thinks if he hides, the issue will blow over. Guess what? It won't. Brown is not exactly ducking the issue, but talks much more about other things on his résumé, including fighting for public employees right to collective bargaining and bringing home a lot of bacon in Joe Biden's various infrastructure projects. The unions do understand that his heart is in the right place, even if they disagree on data centers.

One twist here is that Husted has championed a bill passed by the House that would make tech companies pay for all the electricity and water they use and also pay for grid updates needed to supply it. Democratic senators now have to decide whether to support the popular bill, which would also help Husted and hurt Brown. None other than Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL), the #2 Democrat in the Senate, said of the bill: "It's an effort to rescue Husted's campaign." It puts Democrats on the spot. Most of them say they haven't made up their minds yet. Usually, politics trumps policy, so the bill probably will fail. If the Democrats capture Congress, they can also crank up a new bill in January sponsored by their folks. (V)

Chatbots Are Partisan

Data centers aren't the only AI-related problem on the scene. So are AI chatbots. Many of them are highly partisan, and are delivering up lies and calling it unbiased news. A number of them are promoting very partisan websites, sometimes referred to as "pink slime," posing as neutral news sites.

This observation comes from an op-ed in Politico written by two people who work at NewsGuard, an organization that studies the reliability of news sites. What they did was ask seven leading AI chatbots questions about candidates and issues. In half the cases, the bots cited pink slime sites as reliable news sources. In a few cases, they were the only sources cited. The percentage of chatbot's responses that cited pink slime varied considerably. OpenAI's ChatGPT cited pink slime 71% of the time, Microsoft's Copilot 54%, Perplexity also 54%, Anthropic's Claude 50%, Google's Gemini 42%, Meta AI 38%, and xAI's Grok 29%. When asked about this, a Microsoft spokesperson said: "Copilot has been designed to ground answers in high-quality search results that balance safety, authority, and access to information." Did you expect: "Our bot is pretty stupid so it serves up fake news half the time"? Interestingly, left-leaning sites were cited 3x more than right-leaning sites. This may be due to the fact that there are many more postings to the former than the latter. Flooding the zone seems to work.

The prompts were designed to elicit responses about races in six battleground states: Alaska, Georgia, Iowa, New Hampshire, North Carolina, and Ohio. The sites cited as sources all had plausible-sounding names, like the PeachStatePost.com (R) and GranitePostNews.com (D). Parties have tried to shape the news since approximately when news was invented, but using highly partisan sources and presenting them as neutral reporters as news is new in America, although Russian disinformation campaigns go back a long ways.

The rise of partisan AI is important because increasingly many people use AI to get news and tend to believe what the bot says. Even people who don't want to use AI end up using AI. Many ordinary searches on Google now give results concocted by Google's Gemini bot rather than links to (reliable?) sources. NewsGuard identified 1,179 pink slime new sites, which is more than the 937 remaining daily newspapers in the U.S. If people get their information mostly from social media and bots regurgitating stories from pink slime sites run by political parties and their affiliates, this is not going to lead to a well-informed public. Pink slime and social media interact because many fake news sites buy ads on social media to increase readership. When voters see ads for fake news sites with plausible names on social media and then a chatbot cites them as a source, the voters see them as familiar and tend to swallow the pink slime whole, without questioning it.

Another observation NewsGuard made is that the fake news stories fall into two groups: positive news about the favored party and candidates and negative news about the disfavored ones. The bots tended to latch onto the negative stories more than the positive ones. Maybe the bots see the positive stories as unreliable "puff pieces" but the negative ones as good investigative journalism, which they certainly were not. Welcome to the future of news. (V)

Supreme Court Hands Democrats a House Seat--Again

It is a fight to the death over the House district MO-05, which includes Kansas City, MO, and some of its suburbs. It used to be D+12 and is represented by Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-MO). After Donald Trump ordered states to re-gerrymander their maps, Missouri did so in Sept. 2025 and the district became R+9, which was nearly hopeless for Cleaver.

In Dec. 2025, a group called People Not Politicians and its executive director, Richard von Glahn, filed 300,000 signatures in support of a ballot initiative to force a vote on the new map. on Aug. 4, 2026, Missouri SoS Denny Hoskins (R) rejected the petition just before the deadline because mumble mumble Donald Trump mumble mumble more seats for Republicans mumble mumble. The primary was held using the new map.

Von Glahn sued in state court. On Sept. 3, 2026, the Missouri Supreme Court ruled that the ballot measure met all the legal requirements and so must be on the ballot. On Sept. 4, Hoskins asked the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn the state Supreme Court. Four days later, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who oversees the Eighth Circuit (which includes Missouri), denied Hoskins' petition. That should have been the end, but no. Republicans are nothing if not persistent.

Richard Brattin, who won the GOP primary using the new map, went to U.S. district court to argue that since he won the primary using the new map, they should use that in November. U.S. district judge Stephen Clark, a Donald Trump appointee, granted Brattin's petition. Von Glahn sued and on Sept. 9, in an unsigned order, the U.S. Supreme Court put Clark's ruling on hold and sent the case back to the Eighth Circuit. On Sep. 17, it upheld Clark's order.

Then Von Glahn went back to the Supreme Court a third time. Hoskins and Missouri argued that Von Glahn didn't have standing to sue this time. The Supreme Court didn't buy that and on Friday ruled that the Eighth Circuit court was wrong and the Purcell principle—election rules should not be changed too close to any election—applied here, so the 2022 map should be used in 2026. What happens in 2028 depends on whether the ballot measure succeeds or fails. But in any event, Cleaver is safe in 2026 and the Missouri delegation will probably be 2D, 6R on January 3, 2027, just as it is now (V)

The Ballroom Is Does Not Conform to Fire and Safety Codes

Donald Trump was in a big hurry to get his ballroom finished quickly so he can hold his balls there. To speed things up, he did the initial design himself. After all, he thinks he knows buildings like nobody knows buildings. Then he hired a professional architect, James McCrery II, to finish up the details. McCrery immediately saw that Trump's design violated the D.C. fire code and the building safety code, which only wimps care about, after all. McCrery duly informed Trump that his design was illegal, but Trump knew that he knew better than the professional architect and insisted on doing it his way. McCrery didn't want his name associated with a building that violated fire and building safety codes, so he quit. He probably also knew that Trump often stiffs the people he hires, lets them sue him, then ties the case up in court for 10 years until the other side gives up.

Among other things, this incident shows what Trump's priorities are. Iran war? Nah? Ballroom? Very much so. Trump is very much into the details rather than hiring a professional and saying: "I want a beautiful ballroom that can hold [X] people. Please design one for me."

White House renovations are normally handled by agencies that are required by law to meet all national and local codes, but Trump has bypassed all of them and given project management to a tiny office that is not even a federal agency and is thus exempt from federal rules.

It is not clear if Trump has budged on his design since then. If he hasn't—and budging is not one of Trump's strengths—this could become important on Jan. 20, 2029. If the ballroom is not compliant then, a Democratic president could say: "I can't risk harm happening to foreign diplomats and government employees. Retrofitting the ballroom is impossible now, so I just ordered the Army Corps of Engineers to tear down the ballroom. I had no choice. I will ask Congress for permission to rebuild the East Wing as it was before 2020." In other words, code violations could be an excellent cover story for a Democratic president to tear down the ballroom and claim it was for safety reasons, not because he wanted to stick it to Trump. The public might well accept that decision based on fire and safety grounds. So Trump may be handing a future Democratic president a plausible reason (on a golden platter) for tearing down the ballroom and getting then public to see the decision as legitimate. (V)

The Bond Market is Exciting; That is Not Good

Not a lot of people other than professional bond traders follow the ups and downs of the bond market. But a lot of people sure feel the consequences. Here is the yield of the benchmark 10-year treasury note for the past 20 years:

Ten-year treasury bonds pay $1,000 at maturity but are traded on the market, usually for less than $1,000. The discount upon purchase plus the semiannual interest coupons determine the effective interest rate. The effective interest rate has shot straight up this year and is currently at 5.19%, a near-historic high for the past 20 years. Bond prices drop (which makes yields go up) when investors expect more inflation in the future and demand more interest as compensation. Right now, the gas price ($4.50/Gal.) and diesel price ($6.48/Gal.) are making investors nervous and they expect the Fed to raise interest rates later this year.

So, does anyone other than bond traders care about bond yields? Probably not many, but they will soon feel the consequences. The bond market basically sets the interest rate on credit card debt, mortgages, car loans, student loans, personal loans, and other consumer loans, which people most definitely feel. A rising bond yield also puts pressure on the Fed to raise rates again, since fighting the market rarely works, if ever. Fed Chairman Kevin Warsh understands this very well.

All of these data point to more pain for consumers in the coming months, precisely when affordability is the keyword for the midterms. There is no relief in sight, certainly not before Nov. 3 and probably not even next year, which matters for 2028. It is not hard to imagine Democratic candidates for all offices in 2028 repeating in unison: "If you like the current economy, vote a straight Republican ticket. If you don't, vote a straight Democratic ticket." While James Carville is way past his prime, his motto, "It's the economy, stupid," is alive and well.

If the Democrats capture Congress, they could try to pass popular "messaging" bills about affordability that Republicans will fillibuster to death, but which send a signal to the voters. For example, they could pass a bill that reduces taxes on people making less than $100K and makes up for it by raising tax rates and closing thousands of loopholes millionaires and billionaires use to reduce (or escape) taxes. Democrats could attempt to eliminate the cap on FICA contributions (currently $184,500), which would shore up Social Security for decades. They could try to raise the subsidies available on Affordable Health Care ("Obamacare") plans to reduce health care costs. They could try to restore all the cuts to Medicaid that the Republicans passed. They could attempt to make driving cheaper by passing a bill to provide huge subsidies to anyone buying a new American-made electric car. Another bill could provide big subsidies on American-made solar panels, to help reduce electricity bills. Republicans would probably fillibuster all of these things and if they didn't, Trump would veto them. This would send everyone the message that Democrats want to make life more affordable and Republicans are blocking every move. How will that sell in 2028? (V)

Comparison of 2026 with 2020

A week ago, we compared the current Senate map with the one on that day during the previous (2022) midterms. Now we will compare today's map with the one on Sept. 28, 2020, the last time the Class II senators were up, so this is a true pineapples-to-pineapples comparison. Here are the maps:

This year the Democrats are doing better in Nebraska, Kansas, Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Arkansas, Georgia and North Carolina. But they are doing worse in Montana, Minnesota, Michigan, Maine, New Hampshire and South Carolina. We think that Minnesota and Michigan aren't really worse, just that the recent polls there are outliers.

The comparison with 2024 looked better for the Democrats than the comparison with 2020. Which is a better indicator? Hard to say, so we won't say. However, other factors, like a D+9 generic House poll suggest this will be a good year for Democrats. (V)

Latinos Are A Huge Problem for Republicans

In 2024, an unexpectedly large number of Latinos (but not Latinas) voted Republican. There were endless stories about how this was a permanent realignment and the Democrats were henceforth sunk. There is now increasing evidence that Donald Trump took that huge gain and deported it, never to be seen again (at least, not any time in the foreseeable future).

In an average of high-quality polls in September, Republicans are 35 points underwater with Latinos, with it going 64 to 29 for the Democrats on the generic House ballot. That would be a massive shift since 2024, when the presidential polls were D+7, not D+35.

This huge change could result in the map changes in Texas and Florida becoming dummymanders, particularly in districts where the Republican mapmakers had counted on a massive Latino vote for them. That now seems very unlikely. Here are the changes among Latinos (male + female) in some key Texas and Florida Latino-heavy districts where the mapmakers assumed they would do well in 2026:

As you can see, the six Latino-heavy districts in Texas have moved toward the Democrats by 16 to 31 points. The seven Latino-heavy districts in Florida have moved 11 to 25 points toward the Democrats. None of these districts have moved toward the Republicans or even stayed roughly the same. Republicans changed TX-35 from D+19 to R+4, making a sure Democratic win now leaning Republican. But that assumption may now be way off and the Democrat has a good chance if Latino turnout is strong, as it is likely to be. Similar booboos may have been made in other districts.

And these are House races. In Senate races, the shift is also likely to be felt. This is very likely to be why Republican Ken Paxton is behind in most polls in Texas and Democrat Angie Nixon is doing surprisingly well in a few polls in Florida, although she is not nearly as consistent as Democrat James Talarico in Texas.

You don't need a focus group to figure this out; Trump has been disparaging Latinos for 2 years now and arresting and deporting hundreds of thousands of them, even some U.S. citizens. It is hardly surprising that Latinos don't want "more of the same." This could cost the Republicans multiple House seats and maybe a Senate seat or two. (V)

---

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