Sigh. You know what they say about the best laid plans of mice and men.

It took us a very long time to put today's posting together. That is in substantial part because it's quite long, over 9,000 words. And we only kept it to 9,000 words because we held two items that were supposed to be here.

We're going to move those two items to Sunday. We'll also have some Local Bytes and some questions and answers. It's supposed to be non-politics questions weekend, but we think we have to do serious questions when there is a major election looming. We'll do non-politics questions either next weekend, or the weekend thereafter, depending on how the elections go.

To the many and varied people who have sent in e-mails of complaint—some of them very sharply worded—about our schedule this weekend, there is only so much we can do. It takes time to write this material, particularly when it is complicated stuff. We're also preparing for Tuesday, and have been dealing with some tech issues related to that process. And, oh yeah, we have non-blog responsibilities. We do our best to produce the best work we can, while not risking (further) illness. The complaints do not accomplish anything.

Meanwhile, even what time it is has become intensely political, like everything else. Nevertheless, we still recommend that you set your clocks back an hour tonight, no matter whether you are a Democrat, Republican, independent or something else.

And finally, Happy Halloween from staff canine/bat Tuco, and the rest of us at Electoral-Vote.com!

Forewarned is Forearmed, Part I: Nine Ways Trump Might Try to Interfere with the Elections

(V) just bought a new computer monitor, so he could see the elections more clearly. He then put the old one up for sale on a local website for used products. As fate with have it, the first person to respond to the ad was a young woman refugee from Belarus, a country that has long history of elections rigged by an authoritarian. Was fate sending (V) a message? Who knows? But either way, this item seems appropriate today.

Before we proceed, let us remind readers that we wrote a rather scathing piece about J. Michael Luttig and others who outline wild scenarios where, somehow, Republicans are able to complete subvert democracy and the Constitution, and Democrats and the courts are somehow unwilling and/or unable do anything about it. This kind of fearmongering election-process porn, involving wildly implausible scenarios, is not helpful.

By contrast, there are real things that Donald Trump and his fellow MAGA Republicans could plausibly try to do, or are already trying to do. Those are worth a mention. While Trump has not gone full Lukashenko yet, in part because judges in the U.S. have a lot more backbone than senators in the U.S. (see tomorrow for more), Trump doesn't take to losing like a good sport. It is widely expected that he will try to cheat every way he can before, during, and after the midterms and then pray to the ghost of Uncle Scrooge that some of them work. Most news agencies are probably aware of this, but few dare report on it for fear he [Trump, not Scrooge] will sue them or nix their next business deal. One exception is Reuters, which sent some of its 2,500 reporters to interview over 50 election officials, voting experts, and election lawyers across the U.S. to get their takes on what Trump might try to do. The reporters also combed over Trump's statements, court filings, and actions by federal agencies.

Reuters, which was founded in London by a German-born Brit, Paul Reuter, got its start as a news agency in the 1850s by using homing pigeons to transmit financial information from Aachen, Germany, to Brussels (due to a gap in the telegraph system). The company is now part of a multinational financial news company, Thomson Reuters, headquartered in Toronto. So, it is rather less in reach for the U.S. government than most media companies. Below is a brief summary of Reuters' long report on what its reporters turned up:

• Alleging Election Fraud: Trump has a long history of claiming that illegal immigrants voted in elections, despite massive evidence that voting by noncitizens is exceedingly rare and the few cases that have been turned up are generally long-time green card holders who thought that having permanent resident status gave them the right to vote. And in some jurisdictions, they indeed do have the right to vote in local (but not federal) elections. This is because the states, not the federal government, run elections and federal law bans noncitizens from voting only in federal elections. Nevertheless, Trump is likely to lie that millions of illegal immigrants voted—but only in elections Republicans lost. He never claims illegal immigrants voted in elections Republicans won. Odd.
  
  He may also claim voting machines have been hacked. That is nonsense. Over 98% of votes are actually cast on paper ballots. Some states use machines for people to make their choices (which often help blind or illiterate voters by reading the ballot out loud, possibly in multiple languages), but virtually all of these machines print out a paper ballot in the end for the voter to visually verify. For example:
  
  
  
  These paper ballots are then deposited in the ballot box or scanned, leaving a paper trail that can be used for recounts. If a machine were hacked to change votes, the voter could see that and report it. Also, the machines are generally not connected to the Internet so a hacker would need physical access to the machine to hack it. A hacker sitting in an office in St. Petersburg couldn't do it.
  
  
• Pressuring Election Officials: In 2020, Trump famously called Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger (R) and asked him to "find" 11,780 new votes for him. Raffensperger refused to even take the call on Trump's first 17 attempts. Then, on the 18th occasion, he took it on speakerphone with multiple witnesses in his office. In 2020, Trump also tried to pressure election officials and lawmakers in Arizona, Michigan and Pennsylvania. This time, Trump may try to pressure other election officials to change the results, hoping to find some who don't have the cojones Raffensperger has. Unfortunately for Trump, 22 states have a Democratic secretary of state, including the key states of Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada and North Carolina. But even the Republican secretaries are surely keenly aware of what Raffensperger did and his subsequent status as a democracy hero, as well as the consequences of getting caught changing election results. Nevertheless, some of the secretaries are election-denying Trump allies, so you can't know for sure what could happen there.
  
  
• Seizing Ballots: Trump might try to seize voting machines, ballots, or other election-related material. If he failed to get a warrant from a judge, most election officials would refuse. If he got a warrant, red states would probably comply and blue states migh sue. Once he got actual ballots, the chain of custody would be broken and no one could later tell if a henchman or henchwoman went through all the ballots and shredded those for a Democrat Trump wanted to lose. It might be possible to get a magistrate judge to sign a warrant, since magistrate judges are not Art. III judges confirmed by the Senate, but are employees of the Executive Branch.
  
  
• Sending "Monitors" to the Polls: The DoJ is planning to send 1,000 federal monitors to "assist" at the midterms. According to Assistant AG Harmeet Dhillon, their goal is to make sure "nothing funky" is happening at the polls. For example, Black people getting uppity and voting. In the past, monitors were legitimately sent to monitor federal civil rights laws and make sure states complied with them. This year, there is no obvious need to have federal monitors since by now the states have come to accept the civil rights laws.
  
  
• Sending in ICEmen: Sending federal agents, other than monitors, into polling places is illegal and Trump probably won't try that, since many states are aware of this and have a plan to deal with it. However, Trump could station armed ICE agents in full uniform outside selected polling places in an attempt to scare Latinos and others who fail the "white skin test" from voting:
  
  
  
  
• Deploying Troops: At the extreme end, if Trump is really desperate, he might invoke the Insurrection Act of 1807 to order the Army to guard polling place, for example, to safeguard them by not letting anyone enter. This would trigger instant real-time responses, with Democrats asking judges to immediately rule that there was no emergency and so make the deployment illegal. If this were to happen, lawyers at the polling places could inform the individual soldiers that obeying an illegal order was a violation of the UCMJ and could result in their being court martialed. State and local police could also "encourage" individual soldiers to move far from the polling places, lest they also be arrested for violating state laws. Obviously, this could get messy.
  
  
• Declaring an Emergency: Trump could sign an XO declaring an election emergency. He has no authority to do so and nothing in the Constitution or federal law would turn over election administration to the federal government even if there were a valid emergency, which this would not be. But Trump has a long history of trying things that are patently illegal and hoping he can get away with it. The goal here would be more to create chaos and confusion and provide a backstory for later saying the election results can't be trusted.
  
  
• Charging Election Officials: Trump could announce, in advance, that election officials who allow noncitizens to vote could be charged with a federal crime. At the very least, he (or Stephen Miller) could suggest or imply that before allowing someone to get a ballot, the official should check to see if the voter is white. This could make poll workers and other officials afraid and make them double-check all voting credentials (e.g., voter IDs) and have the side effect of gumming up the works, slowing down processing, and creating long lines that might make some voters give up and go home.

Most states are pretty careful about how elections are held. Even red states, or maybe especially red states, DO NOT LIKE the feds interfering in their affairs, like elections. States have detailed protocols for securing elections. For example, 47 states test every single voting machine in advance of them being brought out, and then have them sealed and locked away securely until they are used. They are carefully tracked when they are moved, especially after an election to maintain a secure chain of custody.

Even mail-in ballots have multiple layers of security. The include a signature requirement on the envelope, video cameras pointed at drop boxes 24/7, requirements of bipartisan teams to collect and transport ballots, and more. Many states inform voters by e-mail on the day their ballot has been sent and again when it has been received or when it has been scanned. If there is a problem, some states offer a way to "cure" the ballot.

In short, although Trump is likely to try one (or maybe all) of the above, states do tend to guard their rights carefully and most are likely to fight any kind of federal takeover. And the ones they submit without a fight are states where no Democrat could be elected deputy assistant dogcatcher, so there is no need to rig those elections. Also, unlike previous years, this time everyone is super alert to attempts to mess with elections, so there is no element of surprise, something often the key to a good attack. In the items we're running tomorrow, we'll have additional information about efforts to resist any stunts Trump & Co. might try. (V)

Forewarned is Forearmed, Part II: Foreign Enemies Might Also Try to Interfere with the Elections

Donald Trump is not the only one who might try to interfere with the elections. There are others, Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping, to name just two. Also the guy who runs Iran, but we don't know who that actually is. Maybe it is Whatshisname, the son of the guy who used to run it. Maybe it is somebody in the IRGC. Who knows? Maybe they will, maybe they won't.

In any event, top Democrats in Congress on the intelligence committees are expecting Donald Trump to claim foreign interference if Republicans lose the House or Senate, and are already gaming out how to deal with that. Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA) and Rep. Jim Himes (D-CT) are the current ranking members in the Senate and House respectively, and are likely to become chairmen if Democrats capture both chambers.

They have asked CIA director John Ratcliffe and DNI Jay Clayton to be reachable by phone on Election Day to answer questions about foreign interference in real time. Ratcliffe is a long-time intelligence professional. Clayton, not so much. He spent most of his career as an attorney at Sullivan & Cromwell and was later chairman of the SEC. What the Democrats are planning to do if Trump claims foreign interference is to ask them (especially Ratciffe) for proof of foreign interference. As top intelligence officials in the two chambers, they have a legal right to get that information and also know the sources. By law, Warner and Himes do not need traditional security clearances to receive (top) secret information by virtue of their positions. Ratcliffe knows that. Clayton can be informed of it if need be.

Himes told reporters: "We're making the assumption that the president is not going to accept the results of what looks to be a very challenging election for him and his party. There's a wide array of scenarios that we have war-gamed and trained for." Himes also said that recent meetings with the top intelligence officials gave him confidence that they would not manufacture fake information to please Trump.

Intelligence officials distinguish foreign influence, in which foreign actors try to sway votes (e.g., Iran trying to keep gas prices high) and foreign actors tampering with the technical aspects of voting, such as tampering with voting machine or voter databases. The two Democrats have said they while foreign actors may try to do the former, they don't think they have the capability to do the latter. Part of the "protection" is that the U.S. voting system is so distributed, with over 3,000 counties each running their own show.

Federal law requires that the intelligence agencies inform Congress about potential election interference 120, 60, and 30 days before the election. Warner and Himes said they have not yet received the reports that the law requires the CIA and DNI to give them. They also noted that the previous DNI, Tulsi Gabbard, had zero interest in complying with the law. They are also concerned that the federal government's ability to detect and counter foreign interference has been (intentionally) greatly weakened under Trump.

Both Russia and China like Trump because he is so easy to fool and manipulate. Democrats are much tougher on them because they are not scared of Trump, as Republicans are. On the other hand, Iran hates Trump due to the war he started. So think of the elections as a proxy battle between Russia and China on one team and Iran on the opposing team. (V)

National Bytes: Trump Gone Wild, Over and Over

There are a bunch of national news stories worth a mention, most of which will be obsolete once the election happens. In other words, it's now or never. So, away we go:

Rally Monkey: Donald Trump was scheduled to perform two of his rallies his weekend, in Kansas and Iowa. Then he called them off and said he would do 20 tele-rallies instead, so as to spread the Trumpy goodness around much more widely. Then, after there were a lot of questions about the reasons for the late cancellation, the White House said the in-person rallies were back on , and that the tele-rallies would also happen.

Our Take: There are a number of possible ways to explain this, but we think the correct one is that he's a tired old man who is worn out from campaigning. On an airport tarmac yesterday, a reporter—Reuters White House correspondent Jacob Bogage—asked Trump if the cancellations were for health reasons, and Trump nearly tore the reporter's head off. That attack felt an awful lot like a confession, because that's how Trump rolls: The closer to the truth you get, the pissier he gets. We suspect a secondary issue is that he's struggling to fill up venues these days, and even more pictures of empty seats, right before an election, is not a great look. That said, flaking out was not a good look either, and made it seem as if he'd given up on the Kansan (Sen. Roger Marshall) and Iowan (Rep. Ashley Hinson) who are locked in tough Senate races right now.

---

Rally Monkey, Redux: Trump was so aggravated by Bogage that, when he got back to the White House, he got on his social media platform for haters, and posted an image/meme of the reporter that also includes the caption "Put yourself in shape. You look like hell!!"

Our Take: Pretty rich for a wide load like Trump, whose hair looks like a bird nest, and whose skin looks like a tangerine, to indulge in body shaming. In any event, we will observe that, once again, he becomes much more cranky when he knows or suspects bad news (like, say, an electoral disaster) is coming. Also, at risk of being conspiratorial, is there a native English speaker who would write "Put yourself in shape," as opposed to "Get yourself in shape"? Wethinks Trump may have reposted a meme cranked out by a Russian troll farm.

---

Cue the Video, Part I: As long as we are on the subject of Trump rallies, a woman in Mississippi took the transcript from his rally in that state, and read it verbatim (with a flat affect and vacant eyes, but verbatim nonetheless). Here is the video, which is well worth a look:

Our Take: This was sent to us by reader R.V. in Pittsburgh, PA, who noted: "If most people had a relative talking like this, they'd tell them to see a neurologist." We have nothing to add.

---

Hindsight Is 20/20: Zeteo has a very interesting breakdown of the process by with the Vivek Ramaswamy (R) campaign created that vile Amy Acton (D) ad in its efforts to win the Ohio governorship. The three most notable takeaways: (1) Many people close to Ramaswamy urged him not to use the ad; (2) Amy Acton's mother was not only paid, but told what to say, and may not have been mentally competent enough to consent to the ad; and (3) the Zeteo story has much to say about the role of Ben Yoho, one of Ramaswamy's two key advisors, in creating and advocating for the ad, while it says nothing about the culpability of Jai Chabria, Ramaswamy's other key advisor. Not too hard to figure out who the "unnamed source" for the item might have been.

Our Take: Not only is hindsight 20/20, but sometimes foresight is, too. The only kind of person who would be influenced by an ad like this is a vile creature like... well, Vivek Ramaswamy. He should have taken the advice of people who have at least a bit more empathy than he does. However, he also has a Trump-level case of "I know better than everyone else," so that was not going to happen. There's only been one quality poll of the race since the ad dropped, from USA Today/Suffolk. It has the race at 48% for Acton, 44% for Ramaswamy, which is precisely the same as their poll one month ago had it. However, Ramaswamy's unfavorable rating jumped 2 points relative to the previous poll, from 52% to 54%. So, the tentative conclusion, but one obviously based on too little data to be confident, is that the ad did not help, and may have hurt a bit.

---

Dead Man Walking?, Part I: Rep. Andy Biggs (R-AZ) is trying to knock off Gov. Katie Hobbs (D-AZ). And Turning Point USA, the group that was founded by the late Charlie Kirk, ias doing everything they can to help, spending a staggering $18 million on the Biggs campaign. They are all-in because they are based in Arizona, and because Biggs was the last person Kirk endorsed before his death. None of it is helping much; Hobbs has led by 5 or more in each of the eight polls of the race conducted this month.

Our Take: Turning Point, sans Kirk, wants to position itself as a key player/kingmaker in Republican politics, along the lines of the Heritage Foundation. If the organization can't even get Biggs across the finish line (or, for that matter, even close to the finish line) in its home state, and with such a massive outlay, then it will be hard to take them seriously going forward.

---

Dead Man Walking?, Part II: Rep. Tom Kean Jr. (R-NJ) made a lot of the wrong kind of headlines this year, when he effectively abandoned his constituents for 4 months, refusing to explain the problem (he later said he was being treated for depression). Given the environment and the fact that his district is EVEN, Kean was going to have a tough reelection battle. But the abandonment looks to have been a fatal blow; the Congressional Leadership Fund (House Republican PAC) has pulled its money and told Kean he is on his own.

Our Take: It is a shame that Kean felt he could not be honest about his mental health struggles. That said, politics ain't beanbag, and he should have found a better way to deal with his absence, beyond near-total radio silence. He could have been honest from the beginning (since he ultimately revealed the truth, anyhow). Or, he could have come up with an alternative explanation. But behaving as if his constituents—a.k.a. his bosses—had no right to know was the wrong call.

---

Carolina on My Mind, Part I: Speaking of spending by the party PACs, Senate Majority PAC (Senate Democratic PAC) has just committed to spending $750,000 in South Carolina, to support the candidacy of Annie Andrews (D).

Our Take: The Democrats' money is spread thin right now, in part because they have so many promising races to potentially invest in. Sometimes, a party will spend money on a race just to trick the other party into following suit. It is improbable that, under current circumstances, the blue team has the cash for gameswomanship like that. So, we conclude that the Democratic pooh-bahs have polling that says that this race is winnable, and that the public polls therefore are not off the mark.

---

Carolina on My Mind, Part II: We don't know if the two events are directly related, but as long as we're talking about the Democrats' new spending in South Carolina, we'll also pass along the news that former South Carolina governors, David Beasley (R) and Jim Hodges (D), released a video this week in which they jointly endorsed Democrat Annie Andrews. Beasley is a Never Trump Republican and Hodges is a conservative Democrat. They said they are endorsing Andrews because they are tired of the divisiveness that has gripped the country, and they think she can help heal that.

Our Take: They're not wrong about that. There is no reason to believe that Republican Darline Graham is a bomb-thrower. But if the country is going to be less partisan, it's going to require electing some meaningful number of centrists. Some Republicans will have to get used to being represented by a Democrat. And some Democrats will have to get used to Democratic senators who can't and won't follow the party line all the time.

---

Cue the Video, Part II: Pete Buttigieg, who is campaigning for Democrats across the country (but particularly for candidates in Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada for some... unknown reason), has just released a new ad:

It's not funny or dramatic, but it is fairly brilliant. It shows Buttigieg eating at a Waffle House, and ordering a pretty basic breakfast combo, which comes with a $17.50 price tag before tax and tip. As he eats, he goes through each item on his plate, and explains how Donald Trump's policies have served to make that item more espensive.

Our Take: We got the heads-up here from B.J.L. in Ann Arbor, MI, who added "This is my favorite ad of this cycle. Nothing crazy, no dark voice or music." The ad is not for everyone, but it IS a reminder that Buttigieg is a gifted communicator, and could well be a force in the 2028 or 2032 or 2036 presidential races.

---

Trump's a Bigot...: One more Trump rally item. It's not a secret anymore that the President is a bigot, though as he gets older, and more mentally infirm, and more defensive, and even more confident he can get away with it, he's not even bothering to hide it (or semi-hide it, in the form of a dog whistle). At a rally on Friday, Trump decreed:

[Abdul El-Sayed] doesn't like Jewish people and he doesn't like Black people. I'm talking about Abdul. Abdul is not a big fan of Jewish people, and he's not a big fan of Black people. And I hope you're going to vote against him and send him back to where he came from.

Trump later said that any Jew who votes for El-Sayed is "stupid." Incidentally, El-Sayed was born in Rochester Hills, MI. So, "sending him back to where he came from" means sending him to... Rochester Hills, MI.

Our Take: It is clear that a lot of Jewish Democrats in Michigan are having a hard time with their votes in this election. Everyone knows the famous poem "First They Came" by Martin Niemöller. We very seriously doubt that Trump's obvious pandering to Islamophobia, and his attempt to "other" an American citizen, will win over many Jewish and/or Black votes. We wonder, however, if it will push some reluctant votes into the El-Sayed column, from people who conclude that if you reward xenophobia against Muslims, it's a short trip from there to antisemitism and/or anti-Black racism.

---

...and So Is RFK Jr.: We thought that RFK Jr. was just an anti-science kook. Turns out he's a bigot, too. Who knew? He was appearing at an event in Michigan in support of Mike Rogers (R), and declared: "There are 500 million Arabs in the world. and yet they don't produce science, they don't win the Nobel Prize, they don't win the Fields prize [sic; it's the Fields Medal], they don't win the Wolf Prize, they don't produce literature." It might be expected that prizes awarded primarily by white Westerners would go primarily to white Westeners, so this might not be a fair test. But beyond that, we have another case where Kennedy's "facts" are not correct. There are plenty of Arab Nobel laureates; the most famous is probably Anwar Sadat, while the most recent is Omar Yaghi, who won for Chemistry... last year. Yaghi also has a Wolf Prize. Naguib Mahfouz of Egypt won the Nobel for Literature in 1988, and if you want something more recent, the reigning winners of the National Book Award are Rabih Alameddine (Lebanon, for fiction) and Omar El Akkad (Egypt/U.S., non-fiction).

Our Take: Is Bobby Jr. trying to please the boss? Is he making a play for MAGA, with the idea that he can run for president in 2028? Is he just revealing the truth about what kind of man he is? Could be any or all. But his father, famous for giving a very empathetic speech the night Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated, must be spinning in his grave.

---

Roamin' Catholics, Part I: Last week, a group of 12 Catholic bishops visited the Oval Office. They prayed over Donald Trump, who bowed his head and pretended to join in. The White House then widely circulated a photo of the moment, obviously implying that he has the endorsement and support of the bishops. The bishops were angry at being used in this way (or, at least, they pretended to be angry), and declared that they were not taking a partisan stance, and would pray over any president, so as to "instill our leaders with wisdom and also to help them remain humble."

Our Take: Someone screwed up here, and it is... the bishops. At best, they allowed the photo to be taken, and should not have been so naive as to think the White House wouldn't make use of it. At worst, they are being disingenuous, and found a backdoor way to endorse Trump. Further, anyone who prays for Trump to be humble is fooling themselves. There are some things that even God can't do.

---

Roamin' Catholics, Part II: Robert Prevost, a.k.a. Leo XIV, might be the pope, but he's also an American citizen and he's entitled to vote by absentee ballot. He did so this week, reportedly becoming the first pope to cast a ballot in a democratic election.

Our Take: Unlike the 12 bishops, Leo is savvy enough to keep this nonpartisan, declaring that his message is "his belief in the right and the duty of citizens to participate in democratic processes." That said, we have a pretty good guess as to which party he favored.

---

Man of the Century: At yet another one of his rallies, Donald Trump was presented with a certificate declaring him to be "Man of the Century" by Republican Joe Mitchell, who is running in IA-02. Trump glowed, and clutched the award like an 11-year-old who finally got that pony on Christmas morning.

Our Take: It's like a Saturday Night Live sketch; the awards just get more and more absurd. Does Trump really think they mean something? Or does he just have to act pleased, because there's no great alternative? We honestly don't know.

---

High T: The manly men who work for Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth were moving some furniture around, and did not want to wait for the specialist movers who had been hired to handle some of the more delicate objects. So, they decided to move a 40-inch globe that once belonged to Dwight D. Eisenhower, and that he reportedly used to help plan the D-Day invasion, by themselves. They dropped it, of course, and damaged it badly—probably beyond repair.

Our Take: If there is a stronger contender for Metaphor of the Year, we don't know what it might be.

---

Cue the Video, Part III: And finally, a little dessert to finish this off. At a Trump rally in South Carolina, a Fox reporter grabbed what he thought was a MAGA supporter for a live comment, to ask why the man was in attendance. It did not go well:

You'll have to watch the clip, which is only 27 seconds, to see what the man said. But we'll tell you that the Fox reporter's conclusion was, "Uh, maybe this is not a Trump supporter."

Our Take: We're not surprised that the most salient political analysis we've ever seen on Fox came from a random guy pulled from the crowd.

We told you there was a lot. (Z & A)

Local Bytes: Readers Respond

Today, we'll have a few messages from readers in response to things we wrote, and then a few messages beyond that:

D.H. in Durham, NC, writes: As an informed and concerned North Carolina voter, I appreciated your attention to the race for state Supreme Court justice. This is indeed a vitally important race, not only for the state but for the nation.

North Carolina is essentially a very purple state. A very gerrymandered electoral map for the U.S. House was tossed by a democratic-majority state Supreme Court in time for the 2022 election, which resulted in an even split of our U.S. Representatives. However, Democrats in 2022 failed to pay attention to the state Supreme Court races, which resulted in a flip to the current Republican majority. The court revisited the case concerning the U.S. House map and went back to the old one, resulting in the current 3-to-4 seat Republican majority in the U.S. House of Representatives. North Carolina desperately needs to get the court flipped back, for ourselves and for the country, in order to get the balance of U.S. House seats aligned with the actual voter sentiment in our state. Victories for Democratic justices this year and in 2028 would be just in time for the 2030 census. Getting rid of the gerrymandered state legislature seems incredibly difficult at this point, but one can dream.

---

W.L. in Springfield, MO, writes: You made three references to Missouri ballot measures in "Some Ballot Issues to Watch." Two of them should get some clarification and one is incorrect.

The correction is related to the Missouri house delegation. The post says "In Missouri, voters are being asked to approve a new map that would eliminate the state's only Democratic House district." Missouri currently has two Democrats in the House of Representatives. This measure is to approve the Republican-sponsored mid-census gerrymandering effort Missouri legislators passed at Donald Trump's insistence. That's the one that is pushing Emanuel Cleaver (D) into a R+9 district. Wes Bell (d) would retain his D+29 district.

The clarification is related to the two measures referenced regarding trans rights and abortion. Yes, they have measures for both on the ballot, but Republcians were sneaky and put them into the same ballot measure. They suspected that voters would deny the attempt to re-outlaw abortion and added the trans rights language to that measure to try to persuade anti-trans voters to vote in number and achieve their goal. So while your post is technically correct, as both appear on the ballot, they should reference one another at least in some way since they are tied together at the bodice string.

---

D.H. in North Branch, MN, writes: Regarding your commentary that Lt. Gov. Peggy Flanagan's (DFL-MN) 14-point lead over Michele Tafoya (R) in the state's U.S. Senate race is "probably just an outlier"—as someone who discovered your site during my undergrad Sociology years at UW-Madison before 2008, I think there is a real local mechanic behind that NYT/Siena number that outside observers are missing.

What happened in early September, when polls showed a dead heat was a massive, three-part wake-up call across the state.

First, in Minneapolis, St. Paul and key inner-ring suburbs, the reaction was immediate. The organic neighborhood safety networks and school coalitions originally formed to protect kids and families during local ICE and DHS deployments didn't wait for national Democratic apparatuses to show up. The moment that tie poll dropped, those hyper-local networks converted straight into an aggressive voter drive with deep community trust. It was a perfect time for it: They were literally practicing what they'd implemented as part of students returning to classes.

Second, out in the agricultural counties, soaring diesel and fertilizer costs hit a breaking point. Angry farmers and rural workers who felt squeezed are quietly turning away from the GOP ticket, re-igniting the traditional "Farmer" half of our DFL coalition. And don't seem so 'quiet' about it these days.

Third, there's a distinct Midwest religious factor at play. Minnesota's heavy Scandinavian Lutheran, Presbyterian and moderate Protestant communities are finding their core moral values far better represented by current DFL candidates than by national GOP rhetoric.

The outer exurbs are still holding firm for Republicans, but this three-front surge following that September alarm bell makes a major Flanagan shift much more grounded in ground-level reality than it looks on paper. That 42%-42% poll SCARED THE FERTILIZER OUT OF US!

---

J.L. in Chicago, IL, writes: I think you may be falling into a bit of tunnel vision or confirmation bias or some such thing in writing, "We do not know how [the story that former senator Lindsey Graham paid off male escorts] will play in culturally conservative South Carolina, but we do know that it's certainly not going to help [sister and U.S. Senate candidiate] Darline."

Your conclusion may turn out to be correct but I think your certainty is off. It is plausible, especially if Darline Graham's campaign pushes this argument, that there could be a backlash against what might be seen as a salacious attack on a recently deceased person, probably still viewed positively by some or many of those voters, who can no longer defend himself.

It sets her up to say something along the lines of, "My brother was a good man. I loved him dearly and still feel his loss deeply every day. Like all of us, he had his struggles with sin. If these were among them, I forgive him and I believe that Jesus, with whom he now rests for eternity, forgives him. [Except that she would nail the wording better than a liberal Jew in Chicago.] The good people of South Carolina will see this for what it is, a vile attack on my late brother, whose work on behalf of this state I intend to continue for the next 6 years."

---

J.A. in Manchester, NH, writes: I watched the debate New Hampshire U.S. Senate debate this week between Rep. Chris Pappas (D) and John Sununu (R). Overall, it was lively, but moderator Adam Sexton is pretty adept at keeping people in line.

It was a fairly typical political debate as these things go, and there wasn't a lot of drama. Pappas was good with his responses and overall, didn't make mistakes, other than being a little wordy with his replies.

One thing that stuck out was Sununu's response to which member of his party he respected most when it came to standing up to the President. He invoked Susan Collins. I'm not sure if he watches the news, and I'd bet some real cash he doesn't read Pro Publica. But invoking the senator who consistently tries to have it both ways and has dirt on her hands doesn't play well in a purple state.

But I digress. As I said, it was a lively affair, but I don't think it will move the needle in either direction.

---

R.H. in San Antonio, TX, writes: I haven't lived there for many years, but there is an election for County Judge-Executive (which is basically like the Mayor) of Daviess County, KY (pop. 103,312).

Charlie Castlen (R) is an undergrad classmate of mine, and Rod Kuegel (D) is a fourth-or-so generation farmer who is part of a multimillion-dollar family operation.

Charlie accused Rod of being a Communist.

Rod Kuegel a Communist? Every farmer in the county has heard about the Kuegel family for 50 or 60 years, but that's the first time anybody called any of them a Communist. Anybody dumb enough to believe that was already going to vote for Charlie anyway.

In response, Rod called Charlie a fascist.

Charlie's always been a right-wing *****, so yeah, I can see that, but there is no possibility Rod has ever advocated seizing the means of production.

---

T.H. in Newtown, CT, writes: Jen Tooker is quite interested in my vote for State Comptroller, as evidenced by these three mailers:

A couple things to point out, however:

1. All three of these completely different mailers arrived to my house, addressed to my household (or Current Resident) on the same day. As someone interested in controlling (or comptrolling) my state's finances, this doesn't strike me as the best way to spend money.
   
   
2. Nowhere on any of these three mailers does the candidate mention which political party she represents in the election. Odd! (Note that Tooker has the endorsement of the Republican Party.)

---

J.M. in Arvada, CO, writes: My wife and I moved to Colorado from Arizona 18 years ago, and bought our current house 17 years ago. This year, for some reason, we've started receiving election flyers in the mail about Arizona candidates and issues. I haven't taken too close of a look at them; the recycle bin is on the way back into the house from the mailbox and they go directly in there, but what I have seen suggests these are from the conservative side of the spectrum. I don't know who sold the Arizona GOP a 2-decade-old mailing list, but I hope they made out like bandits. Wasting money mailing Arizona flyers to a liberal couple in Colorado is a great use of conservative funds from my POV.

---

J.K. in Boston, MA, writes: Here in Boston, I am working the polls, as I have for the last few years. There's not a tremendous amount of drama in our statewide races here in blue, blue Boston, though there are several (9!) ballot questions that could go either way. One thing that struck me was that we had to have a second mandatory training this year on de-escalation techniques if belligerent poll watchers challenge ballots. We also had training on what to do if ICE tries to set up shop at our polling location.

My takeaways from this work and the reason I'm writing in is to say:

1. If you are able, being a poll worker is awesome! I am in my 40s, but there are election inspectors who are still in college and some all the way up through retirement age, and we have such fun hanging out all day. It also takes your mind off of thinking about results or national races.
   
   
2. It's wonderful to know that in the face of all of the threats of violence and insanity with ICE, our focus is always on de-escalation and taking down the temperature. I feel like I should remember my poll worker training when dealing with my 12- and 14-year-old at home!

That is a good letter to end on, as it sets up the items we have planned for tomorrow. Thanks to everyone for writing in. (Z)

Today's Senate Polls

Our script that double checks polling numbers is confused and frightened by that WaPo poll of Kansas. The warning it gives us right now is "Warning for KS. Republican is ahead by only -10 points." And yet, the numbers are correct. Further, the pollster that WaPo used is a good one—George Mason University Schar School of Policy and Government. We're not doing much better than the script is when it comes to accepting that the Democrat is up 10 in Kansas, of all places. But Adam Hamilton is up in the other poll, too, and Emerson tends to skew pro-Republican. There's simply no avoiding the conclusion that the Sunflower State might well be on the cusp of sending a Democrat to the Senate for the first time in 96 years. (Z)

State	Democrat	D %	Republican	R %	Start	End	Pollster
Alaska	Mary Peltola	51%	Dan Sullivan*	49%	Oct 26	Oct 29	AK Survey Research
Illinois	Juliana Stratton	56%	Don Tracy	44%	Oct 21	Oct 30	Activote
Kansas	Adam Hamilton	50%	Roger Marshall	47%	Oct 26	Oct 28	Emerson Coll.
Kansas	Adam Hamilton	54%	Roger Marshall	44%	Oct 22	Oct 26	Washington Post
Minnesota	Peggy Flanagan	48%	Michele Tafoya	41%	Oct 24	Oct 28	SurveyUSA
South Dakota	No Democrat	0%	Mike Rounds*	41%	Oct 22	Oct 26	Concord POP

* Denotes incumbent

---

Previous report         Next report

---

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

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

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

---

Email a link to a friend.

---The Votemaster and Zenger