A New Generic House Ballot Poll Has the Democrats at D+11

There have a large number of polls of specific House races, but all of them effectively take into account characteristics of that specific race, those specific candidates, and other factors that may not apply in other races. One question pollsters have been asking for decades that factors out these specific-to-a-particular-race things is: "Are you going to vote for the Democrat or the Republicans for the House of Representatives?" It doesn't factor out all the local characteristics because some voters know who the local candidates are, especially close to Election Day. Still, the question deemphasizes the local candidates.

Nate Silver took a look at how accurate the House generic poll has been over time, but in an interesting way. Instead of looking at Democrats vs. Republicans, he looked at the president's party vs. the opposition. Here are the results for the midterms since 1994:

So for example, in 2022, the generic ballot said President Joe Biden's party would lose the House popular vote by 0.7%. The Democrats lost it by 2.7%. In 2018, the generic ballot said that President Donald Trump's party would lose the House popular vote by 8.0%. The Republicans lost it by 8.6%. While in individual years, the generic ballot has been off typically by 3-4 points, averaged over all the midterms since 1994, the mean error is only 0.8%. So the generic ballot is a reasonably good indicator of the House popular vote.

With this as prologue, Reuters has a new House generic poll conducted by Ipsos. The result is D+11. However, when undecided voters were pressed to make a choice, the graph was reduced slightly, to 50% vs. 41%, or D+9. Here is the generic poll since the start of Trump v2.0,with the shaded areas showing the margin of error:

Clearly there has been a strong movement toward the Democrats since about August. If the final House vote is D+11 or even D+9, that will probably translate into a few dozen seats and almost certain Democratic control of the House with enough margin for Speaker Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) to get his programs through without having to worry about any fringe caucuses blocking him.

The poll also asked about Donald Trump's approval. It is approaching the Bush line—but from the wrong direction. It is now 32%, up from 31% last time. But that variation means nothing. It is just statistical noise. Here is Trump's approval during his second term:

If the generic poll is as accurate as previous ones and Trump's approval is really in the low 30s, that does not bode well for Republicans next week. (V)

The Crypto "Industry" Has Spent $176 Million in the Midterms

The crypto "industry," which is like talking about the "Nigerian prince industry," only bigger, is flexing its muscles and has donated over $176 million to candidates in over 100 congressional races this cycle, in an attempt to build a Congress that won't try to rein crypto in or pass laws that treat crypto ads like ads for cigarettes. Although Donald Trump used to regard crypto as the biggest scam in town, at some point he had an epiphany—he loves scams—so he got into the crypto "business" himself and has made billions off it. But industry "leaders" realize Trump will not be around forever and Democrats tend to pass laws to protect people from scams, so they want to seed Congress with members who will oppose any attempt to regulate crypto, even if a future Democratic president does want to do that.

The crypto barons have set up a super PAC, Fairshake, which spent $196 million in the 2024 cycle and is at it again. So far it has done well, with 53 of the 58 primary candidates it supported winning their primaries. Of course, candidates often win for reasons unrelated to their positions on crypto. Fairshake understands that ads that say "Vote for John Smith because he supports crypto" would be a bad idea, so the ads are all stealth ads. They urge voters to support crypto-preferred candidates for reasons ranging from immigration to taxes to many other topics, just not crypto.

Fairshake also runs bitter personal attack ads on candidates who want to rein in crypto or to just make people aware of the risks. One of their top targets has been Sherrod Brown (D), who is trying to regain his old job as senator from Ohio. He lost his seat in 2024, largely due to the barrage of money against him from the crypto people. If he wins this time, he will certainly be a huge foe of crypto in the Senate. Fairshake has also spent $10 million to defeat Lt. Gov. Juliana Stratton (D-IL). Unfortunately, for them, she has billionaire Gov. J.B. Pritzker (D-IL) soilidly behind her, and he can take $10 million out of his petty cash box any time he wants to.

After the collapse of FTX and the meltdown in 2022, the SEC got on crypto's case during the Biden administration and levied $6 billion in penalties in 98 cases. Fairshake understands that having the SEC go after crypto again in 2029 could be a big problem, so it wants to remove crypto from the SEC's oversight portfolio and give to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, which is much more accustomed to dealing with highly speculative investments. The bill to do this, the Clarity Act, has been blocked by Senate Democrats.

Fairshake isn't the only crypto organization spending money in politics. The Winklevoss twins have spent $21 million on ads, mostly trying to defeat Brown. Marc Andreessen and Ben Horowitz, big fans of crypto, gave $3 million to MAGA Inc. and $1 million to the Republican campaign committees. Other crypto titans, including Mike Novogratz, Chris Dixon, Matt Huang, and Charles Cascarilla, have also made big donations to support pro-crypto candidates. (V)

An Important Race Nobody Knows About

Does the name Anita Earls ring a bell with you? If you live outside North Carolina, probably not. And if you live inside North Carolina, also probably not. But she is on the ballot next week and her race is important. The impending slaughter of the hapless Michael Whatley (R) by Roy Cooper (D) in the Senate race has sucked up all the oxygen, but Earls' race has long-term implications for the state and country.

North Carolina is a swing state. While it hasn't given its electoral votes to a Democrat since 2008, the governor, lieutentant governor, attorney general, secretary of state and superintendent of public instruction are all Democrats, and after Jan. 3, 2027, almost certainly one of the senators will be, too. In swing states, there are constant election disputes that go to the state Supreme Court.

Sad to say, what matters the most in these cases in not the U.S. Constitution, the state Constitution, federal law, or state law, but who the state Supreme Court justices are. In North Carolina, there are partisan statewide elections for justice, with candidates labeled with a (D) or (R). Nobody even pretends they are neutral referees, just calling balls and strikes. Currently, five of the seven justices are Republicans and two are Democrats. Earls is one of the Democrats and is up for reelection this year. She is running against Republican Sarah Stevens. If Earls wins, the balance will still be 2D, 5R.

Earls is for broad voter access and against gerrymandering. Her mixed heritage (white mom, Black dad) has made her very sensitive to the issue of racial equality. She believes abortion is a fundamental right under the state Constitution. She thinks marijuana should be legal. Stevens is a Republican leader in the state House but her campaign website doesn't go into much detail on her platform other than she opposes sex offenders from having access to places intended for minors.

The reason this race is important is that in 2028, three of the Republican justices are up for reelection. If Earls wins, then the Democrats need win only two of those races to get a majority on the state Supreme Court starting in 2029. If they will all three, they will have a majority for years to come since the term for a justice is 8 years with no term limits, but mandatory retirement at 76. North Carolina is a swing state but its legislature and its congressional districts are heavily gerrymandered. A Democratic majority on the state Supreme Court could support a radical change to the maps. (V)

Some Ballot Issues to Watch

Candidates are not the only choices voters are being offered next week. There are many ballot initiatives in many states. Here is a quick rundown of some of the ones that are attracting the most attention.

• Transgender Issues One issue that Republicans are pushing for all it's worth is trans girls on girls' sports teams. With inflation running rampant, wars in Iran, Ukraine, and Gaza, and the vast majority of voters saying the country is heading in the wrong direction, it's nice to know how much Republicans care about girls' sports. Pity they don't care much about girls being raped in Ohio.
  
  Arizona already has a law restricting people playing on girls' or womens' sports teams in public schools to people marked "female" on their original birth certificates. A referendum next week would expand the mandate to private schools and require access to bathrooms and locker rooms to be segregated by gender at birth. Nebraska already has that but the ballot measure would enshrine it in the state Constitution, making it impossible for the legislature to ever change it. The measure in Washington state would require aspiring athletes to undergo an inspection by a healthcare provider to determine what precisely was inside their underpants. Colorado and Missouri have ballot measures that would ban transition-related surgeries for minors.
  
  
• Abortion That old favorite never dies. In Missouri, voters already approved abortion access by ballot initiative 2 years ago. Now state legislators want to reverse the ban, so they put up a new ballot measure to do so. In Idaho, by contrast, pro-choice groups put up a measure to make abortion legal up to 24 weeks of pregnancy.
  
  
• Voting Rights In California and Nevada, Republicans championed a measure that would require absentee voters to supply the last four digits of their drivers' licence or Social Security number to vote. Arizona has an initiative that would require a photo ID for absentee voting, but doesn't specify exactly how that would work.
  
  
• Redistricting The redistricting wars are far from over. We are just now starting the 2028 round. In Missouri, voters are being asked to approve a new map that would eliminate the state's only Democratic House district. In Maryland, the reverse is true. Voters are being asked to approve a map that would eliminate the state's only Republican House district. Both of these measure would take effect in 2028.
  
  
• Miscellaneous Prop. 40 in California would impose a 5% wealth tax on the assets of the 250 billionaires who were living in California on Jan. 1, 2026. Most of the revenue would go to healthcare programs. Gov. Gavin Newsom (D-CA) was for the measure until his presidential campaign revved up and he began asking billionaires for campaign contributions. Then he suddenly discovered how the billionaires felt about it. In fact, they have pumped over $600 million into defeating the measure. This would not be the first tax based on wealth in the U.S. Many muncipalities have a property tax on the value of one's real estate, which is a wealth tax. Only the California one includes all assets, not just real estate. Taxes like that are common in Europe.
  
  In Montana, a measure would bar corporations from spending money on elections. This would could be a way to undermine the 2010 Citizens United decision that corporations (and unions) could spend unlimited money on campaigns. It will surely be challenged in court if it passes.
  
  Voters in Alaska will be asked if they want to junk the state's top-four primary followed by a ranked-choice general election. If passed, the state would revert to partisan primaries.
  
  In Alabama, a measure would require schools to play the national anthem at least once a week. In Idaho, a measure asks people to choose what they would like as the official state gun: Winchester Model 1894, Winchester Model 1873, 1873 Colt Single Action Army Revolver, M1 Garand rifle, Colt M1911 .45 automatic Colt pistol, or Remington Model 700 bolt-action rifle. Propositions like these are the 2026 version of the 2004 gay marriage ballot question, meant to motivate very particular kinds of voters to get to the polls.

There are many more ballot measure, but these will get the most attention. (V)

The Plot Thickens in Alaska

The Alaska Senate election is going to lead to big legal battles if Mary Peltola (D) wins. Sen. Dan S. Sullvian (R-AK) is running for reelection and among the other people who filed to run is Dan J. Sullivan, a retired teacher. The administration tried to get Dan J. kicked off the ballot, but the Alaska Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution has three criteria for being a senator, namely that the candidate is: (1) at least 30 years old, (2) a U.S. citizen, and (3) a resident of the state. Since Dan J. met all three criteria, the court ruled he was entitled to run for the Senate. Call this Plan A.

Since polling has Mary Peltola leading, the administration is trying again. It filed a lawsuit claiming that if Dan S. doesn't win, the state should go back and count all the votes for Dan J. as votes for Dan S. Call this Plan B. That votes for one candidate should count for another is absurd on its face. Imagine that in 2000, Al Gore had claimed that all the votes for Ralph Nader should be counted as votes for him or in 2016, Hillary Clinton had claimed that all the votes for Jill Stein were from people who actually wanted her to win so they should count for her.

The judge handling the case, Sharon Gleason, a Barack Obama appointee, is clearly skeptical and asked why the government waited until Oct. 22 to file—after Alaskans had already begun voting. A ruling to count votes for one candidate for another would open the floodgates for future requests. Also, Dan. J. could file a lawsuit claiming that people are fed up with the current Senate, so all the votes for Dan S. should be counted as votes for him.

Now the State of Alaska has chimed in. It wants the feds to buzz off and let it run its own election according to the Constitution and state law. The state is satisfied with Dan J.'s claim that he is a Republican and is seeking the votes of people dissatisfied with the incumbent. The state also said that the candidate's middle initials are on the ballot and furthermore, the senator is listed as Dan S. Sullivan while the teacher is listed as Daniel J. Sullivan, so voters can tell them apart. Furthermore, since the election is ranked choice, a voter could pick one of them for #1 and the other for #2 so if one were eliminated, the vote would go to the other.

If Gleason rejects the lawsuit, as the state has requested, and Peltola wins, then the Republicans will start Plan C: get the Senate to refuse to seat Peltola. This will put current Majority Leader (and possibly future Minority Leader) John Thune (R-SD) in a real bind. He is largely a straight shooter and if Peltola shows up with a document certifying her win signed by the governor, his inclination will be to accept it and move on. But if Trump starts bellowing, Thune might be afraid to do that. Of course, come Jan. 3, 2027, Thune might not be majority leader, even without Peltola seated, in which case all the bellowing in the world won't work. The worst case is that the Democrats have 50 seats without Peltola, the Republicans have 49, and Peltola narrowly won with fewer votes than the two Dans combined. In theory, this shouldn't happen if all Dan J voters picked Dan S second and vice versa, but some of them may have exhausted their ballots with only a single pick. Then it could result in a huge floor fight.

It is at least conceivable that, in such a floor fight, Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) votes for the actual winner, Peltola, because she believes in honest elections and wouldn't mind having another woman as her colleague. Peltola is no fire-breathing radical and she and Murkowski aren't all that far apart on the issues. They also cooperated when Peltola was in the House. Murkowski is not someone who hates Democrats because they are Democrats. She just endorsed Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins (D) for governor. She said: "Jonathan understands that governing requires listening to people with different perspectives and finding common ground to solve the problems all of us face."

Another twist on this is that if Peltola wins in Alaska and James Talarico wins in Texas, Democrats will have senators from two big oil-producing states. Both Peltola and Talarico have promised to defend oil against Democrats who want to phase it out. Depending on the number of seats the Democrats hold and what mood Sen. John Fetterman (D?-PA) is in, the votes for climate legislation may not be there, even with a Democratic majority. On the other hand, Democrats are running on getting prices down, including gas prices, and one way to do that is pump more oil in Alaska and Texas. This could put the lower-the-price-of-gas caucus in conflict with the save-the-planet caucus. It could get very complicated, with horses being traded on some futures market.

Yesterday, The New York Times threw a wrench in the works. It reported that Dan J. was not happily living in his quiet fishing village reading books about fish and tending to his garden when he suddenly decided to run for the Senate. Nope. In fact, Peltola's team combed through voting lists to find all the Dan Sullivans in the state and then carefully selected Dan J. and helped him get on the ballot. This sort of trickery is actually not unusual. Other candidates have been doing this kind of stuff for years. The question is whether it will affect the election. Republicans who were planning to vote for Dan S. will still do so. The big unknown is are there many Peltola voters who will be disgusted by this trick and switch to Dan S. The disclosure may not be fatal, though, because: (1) not all Alaskans will even know about this before they vote, (2) some Alaskans have already voted, and (3) some people who like Peltola will admire her cleverness for pulling this off.

The revelation could possibly affect the lawsuit, but probably not. Parties often recruit candidates. In primaries, it is not unusual for parties to (financially) support someone on the other team who they think would be a weak general-election opponent. This kind of stuff is actually the original use of the thing we call rodent reproduction. Republicans did it this year in a couple of Democratic House primaries, for example. It is scuzzy, but perfectly legal, to contribute to a candidate who you think is a weak opponent to your candidate. In fact, there have been many primaries where a Democrat switched his or her registration to Republican in order to vote for a crazy fringe candidate, and vice versa. Nevertheless, this development is not going to help Peltola. (V)

Other Important Races--for Inside Baseball Fans

The Alaska Senate race is complicated, as noted above, but there are also a couple of other complicated races lined up. One is a race against the clock. The government is funded until only Dec. 11, so there has to be a differently abled waterfowl session of Congress after the midterms. In that session, one of three things will happen. First, there could be a continuing resolution funding the government for another month or two, which in Senate-speak is called kicking the can down the road. Second, there could be the famous Christmas omnibus bill, with all kinds of sparkly goodies to bribe members to get on board with it. Third, all attempts could fail and the government could shut down for Christmas. Nobody wants that, especially the voters.

If Democrats take one or both chambers of Congress in the midterms, kicking the can suddenly means that the Democrats will have much more power in drafting the new budget in January or February. This puts a lot of pressure on the Republicans to get the government funded before Dec. 11. This is never easy under the best of conditions and certainly not with a 219R, 214D House with two vacancies. However, the two vacancies, FL-20 (Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick) and TX-23 (Tony Gonzales) will be filled by special elections on Nov. 3. The winners of the special elections to finish the terms of their departed predecessors until Jan. 3, 2027, will be seated as soon as they are certified, probably by the end of November. This will probably give a 220R, 215D House for the rest of the year.

A big problem for Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) is that with a two-seat margin, he needs almost all of his members to show up and vote to ram a bill through, especially if it is a complicated and controversial bill. But if several dozen Republicans have been defeated for reelection, will those members even show up in December for votes, or will they be busy looking for new jobs? They will still get paid, even if they call in sick, and they don't have to worry about Donald Trump threatening a primary since they will be gone on Jan. 3, 2027, no matter what.

Consequently, in the December session, there could be a Democratic majority because half a dozen or more defeated Republican members didn't feel like showing up. That could lead to a motion to vacate the chair that might succeed. Then, Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) could become speaker and insist that the only option is a CR to fund the government through Feb. 28 to let the new Congress deal with it. Donald Trump would go apoplectic if this happened, but it is a possibility that can't be discounted. Even in the best-case scenario for Johnson, herding the cats with a 2-seat margin and dozens of depressed soon-to-be-former members will be the biggest challenge of his lifetime.

On top of this, there is another race bubbling under the surface. After a crushing defeat, Johnson may not want to run for minority leader. He might just decide that life as a backbencher is more enjoyable than being minority leader, always a thankless position in the House. Thankless or not, there are a couple of Republicans who are interested in the job, namely Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-LA) and Rep. Jim "Gym" Jordan (R-OH). It could be quite a battle because Jordan was a founder of the Freedom Caucus and Scalise isn't even a member. This fight will play out at the same time the House is trying to cobble together a budget to keep the government funded.

Scalise has been the Republicans' #2 for 8 years and raised $24 million for House Republicans. Jordan is a real firebrand, which makes him an icon to the hard liners. If the Republicans are wiped out next week, surviving members may not be inclined to go with someone in the current leadership, which led to the disaster, and might be willing to gamble on real change—that is, Jordan. Some members may want "fresh blood," meaning the 62-year-old Jordan and not the 61-year-old Scalise.

You started reading an item about inside baseball, so... here is some more of it. Rep. Tom Emmer (R-MN) (which always amuses V because "emmer" means "pail" in Dutch) is currently the #3 in the Republican hierarchy. He has said no matter the election outcome, he will run for whip, the #2 job in the minority. This will force Scalise to either run for minority leader (and possibly lose to Jordan) or let Jordan have the top position and fight Emmer for the #2 position. The Democrats don't have this problem. If they get the majority, they get an extra leadership position (speaker) so everyone can just move up one step on the ladder.

And remember, all this will be going on while the Republicans are under the gun to pass a budget before the Democrats probably take over on Jan. 3. (V)

The Cook Political Report in the Spotlight

We often write items like: "The Cook Political Report announced [X] ratings changes yesterday." What is this "Cook Political Report" thingie and why is it so important? Yesterday, The Washington Post ran a story entitled: "What is the Cook Political Report, and why is Washington so obsessed with it?" to try to explain to the masses what CPR is.

Back in 1984, a then-30-year-old Charlie Cook decided to write up a political newsletter packed with political data that he sold lobbyists and PACs for $150/year. It was a niche item, but still popular in its niche. In 1997, Cook devised and published his PVI (Partisan Voting Index), which is widely used by all political pundits to this day. By then, pretty much every publication that covered politics subscribed to Cook's report

In the early 2000s, the Report went online and became available to a much wider audience (including us) at $350/year. By then, it began to rate every Senate and House race as "solid," "likely," or "lean" one way or the other, or else "toss-up." The ratings were ultimately subjective, using polls, fundraising, candidate analysis, review of the campaigns, and anything else that seemed relevant. Cook added employees and they became more specialized. For example, the 28-year-old Erin Covey handles just the House races and spends half an hour every day watching campaign ads. There are now nine full-time employees, eight of them female. Cook himself is retired and Amy Walter is now the CEO. Here is a photo of Covey, managing editor Carrie Dann, Publisher Amy Walter, and Senate-and-governor editor Jessica Taylor.

By October, the ratings take on a nearly mythical status, and become one of the last bastions of political wonkery in the capital that everyone trusts. When an editor wants to change a rating, the whole team gets together to discuss it. Ratings are not changed lightly. There has to be a new and important development to warrant it. It could be a poll, a fundraising report, a gaffe in a speech, or even a campaign ad (Vivek Ramaswamy's now-infamous ad led to change from "toss-up" to "lean Democratic," not because it is despicable, but because the Cook staff thinks it will cost Ramaswamy a lot of votes from women).

When the Report changes a rating, they hear from the affected candidate instantly. It doesn't matter if it is an upgrade or a downgrade. They always hear about it. Of course, they are happy to take the call because it means talking to the candidate and getting more information about how things are going. Candidates don't like being "likely" or "solid" because that chokes off fundraising. Covey said that campaigns have hidden positive internal polls from her for fear she would upgrade them. The ideal rating for a candidate is "toss-up," so the candidate can beg his or her supporters for more money.

Some people are now thinking that prediction markets are the future of, well, prediction. Charlie Cook pooh-poohs this, saying: "I don't care about some 19-year-old guy sitting in his parents' basement in his boxer shorts betting 10 bucks on Kalshi. I want expertise."

In the end, what keeps the myth going is the results. An analysis of 10,374 races rated from 1984 to 2024 found that 97% of the "likely" candidates won and 94% of the "lean" candidates won. Toss-up races were roughly split 50-50. That record is tough to beat. (V)

The EU Is Going After Starlink

Elon Musk's decision to downgrade Starlink to hurt Ukraine and help his buddy Vladimir Putin has caused a firestorm in the U.S. Some people have said that a private corporate executive should not be making U.S. foreign policy. That is the job of the president and Congress. There have been calls to nationalize SpaceX.

Musk's decision has not gone unnoticed in Europe, either, and that could have major ramifications down the road. In particular, Europe wants to replace Starlink as fast as it can to avoid having European security being dependent on the whims of one man, especially one who supports the fascist AfD Party in Germany.

That won't be so easy, though, as Starlink already has 11,000 satellites in orbit and 12 million customers. Its closest competitor is the French SATCOM firm, which has 600 satellites. Two Finnish companies, ICEYE and Nokia, have announced an agreement with Ukraine to explore satellite communications, but they won't launch before 2028. Nevertheless, the trend is clear. Europe will disengage from the U.S. militarily as fast as it can. This has always been one of Vladimir Putin's foreign policy goals and he won.

In addition, EU President Ursula von der Leyen is working on a deal to combine the satellite and space business of Airbus, Leonardo, and Thales into a single company that can match SpaceX, just as Airbus is now as good or better than Boeing. She is also working on reserving critical parts of the electromagnetic spectrum for European players only. In particular, she wants the bands used for satellite-to-home users to be for European companies only. Additionally, EU legislators are working on bills that would hamper or at least complicate Starlink's expansion into Europe in multiple ways.

Modern warfare is highly dependent on communications for guiding drones, finding targets, and more. The F-35 fighters are so dependent on satellites, that without them, the pilot is flying blind. Europe is fully aware of this and determined to keep Musk out of Europe and start a serious competitor as soon as possible, building on European companies that are already in the space business. No one in the EU trusts Musk for a millimeter. Smart people. (V)

Local Bytes:

We start today with a letter that we got many variants of yesterday. We were aware of the facts contained therein, but that does not mean that we are wrong in writing that the ad is mostly running on right-wing "news" channels.

 

T.B. in Union City, CA, writes: The "Full of Hate" ad ran during the 8th inning of World Series Game 3 on Fox, at least where I am in the San Francisco Bay Area.

I understand it also ran during one or more Big Ten football games on Fox.

I wrote to both Fox Sports and MLB to complain about how inappropriate (and repulsive) it was to show it during the World Series.

---

 

S.N. in Sparks, NV, writes: NV-02 covers most of the northern half of Nevada. The urban centers are Washoe County (Reno and Sparks) and the capital, Carson City. The remaining 11 counties are very rural. The rural counties are heavily Republican and vote at high levels. Washoe County favors Democrats in recent elections, but generally by small margins. Our current representative is Mark Amodei (R), who usually won his elections by 10-20%. Amodei decided not to run for re-election, so this is an open seat.\0x2028

The Democratic candidate is Theresa Benitez-Thompsom (TBT). She has quite a few years of experience in the Nevada Assembly, including years as Majority Leader. Her policies lean progressive, though she has a reputation for listening to many voices. If she can get elected, I think she will be a good match for the district.

The more interesting story is Republican candidate David Flippo from southern Nevada. After failing to win elections there and with NV-02 coming open, Flippo suddenly became a resident of Reno. He has various scandals plaguing him, though. The financial ones probably won't hurt him with Republicans, but falsely suggesting he earned a Bronze Star with valor might. The Bronze Star is legit, the valor part is not. Since Flippo won the June primary over Amodei's preferred candidate, Amodei has refused to meet with Flippo or even take his phone calls. Amodei recently announced that he voted for a third party candidate and explained why in a Mother Jones interview. Whether Amodei will have any impact is unknowable.

In recent week, the district has been added to the Democrats "red to blue" list, accompanied by some money and star power. Trump has attacked TBT on a couple of occasions and even donated around $500,000 to Flippo's campaign from his MAGA, Inc., stash. Odds favor Flippo, given the Republican tilt of the district, but TBT does have a chance.

---

 

E.W. in Skaneateles, NY, writes: A few observations on the current election season.

New York Governor's Race: My kids are well aware of Gov. Kathy Hochul (D) and hold a negative view of Bruce Blakeman (R), largely due to the overwhelming volume of pro-Hochul and anti-Blakeman ads appearing on YouTube between Minecraft and Be Amazed videos. While pro-Blakeman ads have been sparse, there has been a flood of mailers labeling everyone from our local county legislator to our Assembly candidate and state Senator as Hochul-loving socialists.

One particularly misleading mailer claimed that our Assembly candidate, Ian Phillips (D), supported "taking away grocery coupons, promotions, and discounts." In reality, the One Fair Wage/Price legislation aims to ban surveillance pricing—the practice of using personal data, browsing history, or location to charge different prices for the exact same product—while explicitly preserving broad-based discounts like loyalty programs, coupons, and senior or veteran pricing. What chutzpah!

Attorney General: I occasionally see mobile ads and yard signs for AG Letitia James (D). However, I have seen zero outreach from her challenger, Saritha Komatireddy (R), whose name I had to look up despite having already cast my vote early for James.

NY-22: My newly redistricted congressional district (NY-22) has become relatively non-competitive, but we still see frequent online ads (mostly on YouTube) for Rep. John Mannion (D) alongside numerous Mannion yard signs. His opponent, Kailee Buller (R), remains relatively unknown; I only see yard signs for her and no digital ads.

SD-48 and SD-50: Although I live in SD-48, I constantly receive mobile phone ads for state Sen. Chris Ryan (D) in SD-50, likely because I frequently travel to that district for work and errands. Interestingly, Ryan's ads are often immediately followed by ads for his challenger, James Corl (R). Both campaigns are wasting money microtargeting me outside their district—it is 2026, and political ad targeting should be far more precise by now.

---

 

C.C. in Dallas, TX, writes: A neighbor is a former member of the county Republican Committee so they always have signs out. This year, the only ones by the street are opposing a bond package. They have a Ken Paxton (R) sign up because... well, they literally have to, but it's set back in the trees close to the house and almost unnoticeable. As has been noted in other submissions, Republican voters are keeping a very low profile this time around. I absolutely expect them to get out and vote in force, with few actually ticket splitting. What will be interesting is the total vote count for Gov. Greg Abbott (R) and the total for Paxton to see what proportion just abstain from the Senate election. If enough go with the argument that any (R) is better than any (D), then Texas will not be a Democratic pickup.

---

 

K.F.K. in Cle Elum, WA, writes: Just saw this post from a friend in Minnesota:

When Michelle Tafoya talks about Peggy Flanagan's net worth, remember: When Tafoya said Americans could handle higher gas prices caused by the war in Iran with a "stiff upper lip" and "one less trip to Starbucks," she likely wasn't talking about herself.

The retired sportscaster and Republican candidate for U.S. Senate has assets worth between $10.7 million and $37.9 million, according to her financial disclosure, putting her near or in the top 1% of wealthiest Americans.

The posting got this response: "Friends of mine rented a townhouse from Tafoya years ago. She illegally withheld their deposit and they had to sue her to get their money back. She was nasty and deceitful. Not character traits Minnesota needs in their representatives."

I'm rooting for Peggy, even though I don't live there anymore.

---

 

S.A.K. in Karnataka, India, writes: L.B. in Canby wondered why Donald Trump would campaign in an obscure town in the corner of Michigan. I have been very interested in Michigan's U.S. Senate race this year, so naturally I too had been thinking about this rally since Monday. The analysis threw up some interesting stuff. Turns out Mike Rogers (R) ran behind Trump in all 74 counties that the latter won in Michigan in 2024. Guess which county had the widest margin? St. Clair, home to Port Huron. A margin of 4,265 votes, to be precise. Fifteen of those counties saw a margin of at least 1,000 votes. Across those 74 counties, Rogers was behind Trump by 56,768 votes.

Still, with Trump rallying his base, there is a big task ahead of Abdul El-Sayed. Not to mention the bald-faced Islamophobia being bandied about not just by Trump and the Republicans, but also by a small but vocal minority of "centrist" Democrats. That the mainstream media all but gives it a free pass is reprehensible. He also has to contend with polls like these, where more than a third of the electorate are self-confessed bigots. Add to this mix figures like Rep. Hillary Scholten (D) and a Jasmine Crockett-lite Rep. Haley Stevens (D), and you have an Everest-sized challenge.

For the record, I believe El-Sayed will lose by about a point.

---

 

D.M. in Madeira, OH, writes: My wife and I went with our four adult children to vote early in Hamilton County, OH (Cincinnati), this week. Shhh... don't tell the Republicans, we snuck in a 17-year-old to vote! (He will turn 18 later this week, before Election Day, so is eligible.)

Although like all of Ohio, Hamilton County has only one early voting place, they actually moved it out of Downtown Cincinnati a few years ago into a suburb in the middle of the county, and it's very easy to get to, and they run an efficient machine. Although it was crowded, we didn't have to wait in line and were in and out in maybe 20 minutes.

I always appreciate how much the Board of Elections makes a big deal out of first-time voters. The poll worker was very patient and thorough in explaining the process to my first-time-voter son, and they have a big bell for first time voters to ring and everyone stops and cheers.

We live in the part of eastern Hamilton County that was gerrymandered by the Republicans into OH-08 to try and take down Greg Landsman from OH-01 (we were in OH-01 in 2024). That plan failed, but I don't expect the blue wave to be big enough to power Vanessa Enoch to victory in OH-08.

With 6 registered voters in the house, we get a LOT of mailers. We get some addressed jointly to my son and daughter, who don't appreciate the insinuation that they are married. My older son has gotten two out-of-state handwritten postcards encouraging him to vote.

Thankfully we do not watch much TV, but we will be grateful for election advertisement season to be over. It reminds me of the "good old days" (2012) when Ohio was a swing state.

---

 

D.B in Baltimore, MD, writes: I live in sapphire-blue northern Baltimore. I early voted this week at the nearest location to my apartment (about a 1.5 miles away). I've early voted there in the past, including the general election in 2024, and always breezed in and out very quickly. Maryland has a very uncompetitive governor's race and really nothing else of any significance this year (the most exciting part of the ballot for me was voting yes on B.I. 3, which allows redistricting). I went around 10:30 am on Tuesday, figuring that this would be one of the slowest times. I was genuinely surprised by how many people were there. Normally, poll workers outnumber voters two- or even three-to-one. But the place was buzzing and I even had to wait in line. It made me very excited. It also made me feel very lucky after reading the letter from N.K.in Cleveland Heights about only having a single early polling location in Cuyahoga County (Cleveland). Just the city of Baltimore alone has 9 early voting locations. What a difference a state legislature makes.

More tomorrow. If readers have reports, send them to comments@electoral-vote.com. (Z)

Today's Senate Polls

"Candidate qualtiy" cuts both ways. Often Republicans nominate some fringe figure who loses a winnable race. In Florida, Democrats could have nominated Alex Vindman, who had a chance against appointed Sen. Ashley Moody (D-FL) but chose not to. Angie Nixon might do just fine in California, but not in Florida.

A 14-point lead by Peggy Flanagan (DFL-MN) seems very unlikely. It is probably just an outlier. Also the tie in South Carolina. If South Carolina is genuinely in play, then Texas is lost for the Republicans.

State	Democrat	D %	Republican	R %	Start	End	Pollster
Florida	Angie Nixon	44%	Ashley Moody*	50%	Oct 19	Oct 26	Siena U.
Florida	Angie Nixon	45%	Ashley Moody*	49%	Oct 25	Oct 27	St. Pete Polls
Minnesota	Peggy Flanagan	54%	Michele Tafoya	40%	Oct 19	Oct 26	Siena U.
North Carolina	Roy Cooper	54%	Michael Whatley	40%	Oct 01	Oct 20	High Point U.
Ohio	Sherrod Brown	47%	Jon Husted*	44%	Oct 21	Oct 26	Suffolk U.
South Carolina	Annie Andrews	48%	Darline Graham	48%	Oct 19	Oct 26	Siena U.

* 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