It's the Stupid Economy

CNN crunched the numbers and discovered that Donald Trump has now outpaced his predecessor in a very important way. Over the 4 years of the Joe Biden administration, the average price of a gallon of gasoline was $3.471/gallon. As of Sunday, the average price for a gallon of gasoline during Trump v2.0 has reached $3.473.

Obviously, that does not account for inflation. Still, it is a remarkable "accomplishment" for the current president. First, because the Biden average includes a substantial stretch of pandemic, when gas prices were up due to supply-chain disruptions. Second, because the Trump average was well below $3 at the start of this year. So, Trump has managed to make up a sizable gap in just 9 months' time. Obviously, the primary culprit here is the Iran War.

Trump, of course, is well aware of gas prices. He undoubtedly hears about them every day. But he's a man who sees the silver lining in things. Well, the gold lining. Well, the faux gold lining. And so, at a rally this weekend, he shared the good news with the crowd:

And while oil prices are temporarily high and will be falling dramatically in a short period of time, as soon as that war's over, because there's so much oil. All in the Hormuz Strait, there are ships waiting to come, we're getting them out so fast. The United States oil and gas business is making hundreds of billions of dollars... Our country is making hundreds of billions of dollars because of what's happened in the Middle East."

Undoubtedly, people who are struggling to fill their tank so they can get to work will be relieved to learn that at least Big Oil is raking it in right now. It's mind-boggling that any politician, even Trump, would say something so impolitic in the week before an election. But it's real; you can see the video here.

And gas isn't the only thing that (some) people have to worry about. The Big Beautiful Bill has been a wild success in at least one way: It's kicked a lot of people off of food stamp programs. The latest data, which only runs through June of this year, reveals that the number of recipients of food aid has dropped from 41.6 million to 36.5 million. Did every single one of those 5.1 million people really and truly need the assistance? Probably not. Did most of them need it? Probably so. In any event, there are now some millions of people who are now going hungry.

And now, let's talk about jobs. We cannot believe this story is not getting more play, but we've double- and triple-checked it, and it's true. Whenever jobs numbers are first reported, they are estimates. Then, the numbers are revised once they have more and better data. Well, the Bureau of Labor Statistics has quietly revised the jobs totals for the entire Trump administration. The roughly 1.2 million jobs added in 2025 that Trump so frequently bragged about? Turns out, it was a shade lower than that. The real total was... 116,000. In total, the revisions released late last week wiped out more than 800,000 jobs that never actually existed.

At the moment, the total number of jobs added during all of Trump v2.0 is about 1 million. That's very poor, and given that the last few months have all been revised downward at least once, there's a chance it could drop even more. Just due to population growth, a president should be able to fall out of bed and add more jobs than that. By way of comparison, during the Biden administration, the U.S. added 16.6 million non-farm jobs. The staff mathematician is currently indisposed, inasmuch as yesterday was National American Beer Day, but we are given to understand that 16.6 million is rather more than 1 million.

And even for those folks who have a job, the news is not necessarily good. Gallup just released the latest entry in what it calls The American Job Quality Study. They ask respondents to rate their jobs in five areas: (1) Financial Well-Being, (2) Workplace Culture and Safety, (3) Growth and Development Opportunities, (4) Agency and Voice and (5) Work Structure and Autonomy. And then the pollster crunches those numbers, to figure out what percentage of Americans meet the bare minimum qualifications for having a "quality" job. The finding is that only 40% of Americans have one. That is the same figure as last year.

Of course, the way to improve your odds at landing a quality job is to go to college, right? Maybe not so much, at least not for recent college graduates. According to the latest figures released by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, 42% of college graduates aged 22 to 27 are underemployed. That can mean that they cannot find full-time work, but it more commonly means that they are working at jobs where their degree is not necessary. Obviously, if the majority of people are working at non-quality jobs, and if the path to a quality job is increasingly narrow (even if you go into debt to pay for school), that is going to lead to hopelessness and anger. Indeed, this is a big part of the reason many young people in France are rioting right now.

On the whole, even if you were writing a screenplay, or a case study for a textbook, or a dystopian novel, you would have a hard time designing a more challenging economic environment for an incumbent political party. And you know what voters can and should do in an environment like that? In case you're not clear, J.D. Vance had some useful advice last week:

Vote for the people who have solutions to lower the cost of gas, don't vote for the people who made the problem to begin with.

In case anyone still isn't getting it, Vance built upon that a few days later:

Let's just talk about gas prices. Remember in 2022 when Russia invaded Ukraine, and gas prices skyrocketed—they skyrocketed, by the way, far higher than they are today. They skyrocketed in 1979, they skyrocketed in 2001, they skyrocketed in 2007. They skyrocket every time some tin-pot dictator decides to throw a tantrum. And we've got to remember that.

Some very salient analysis from the VP, we'd say. Those temper-tantrum-throwing tin-pot dictators will get you every time.

In short, if the Republicans take it in the teeth next Tuesday, it will not be a surprise at all. And if they don't, then they will have so thoroughly defied the laws of political gravity, you should look out your window, because the pigs will probably be flying. (Z & A)

A World Gone Mad

There have been two stories related to staffing in the Trump administration in the past 48 hours, and we simply cannot decide which one is more insane. So, we'll just let readers decide for themselves.

First up is Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth. It is likely he is going to be impeached. Probably not convicted, although he's sleazy enough and he's disliked enough that you never know. In any event, the impeachment would certainly be an embarrassment for the administration. On top of that, Hegseth is no Rhodes Scholar, but even he is clever enough to know that, one of these days, he's going to get the blame for the Iran fiasco, and is likely going to be broomed.

It would seem that he has come up with a brilliant solution to all of these problems. Putting two and two together (which he is capable of doing, by virtue of having at least four fingers), he's noticed that his current state of residence is Tennessee. He's also noticed that Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) is about to be elected governor, and will get to pick her replacement when she resigns her Senate seat. And so, the Secretary very much likes the sound of "Sen. Pete Hegseth (R-TN)." That would avoid an impeachment, and would put him beyond Trump's firing power.

We have a very hard time imagining that Blackburn would go for this. Not only is Hegseth a loon with a ton of baggage, but that baggage also happens to be carpetbaggage. Some states are open to considering a new arrival for high office, but Tennessee is literally the state that invented the slur "carpetbagger." That said, in today's GOP, you can never say never. In particular, if Trump really leans on Blackburn to do it, so as to rid himself of a couple of headaches, she might capitulate.

Moving along, Trump needs a new press secretary, having fired the other one after less than half a Scaramucci. The betting favorite is Deputy Press Secretary Anna Kelly. She is very pretty, but her hair is red, so she has only one of the two qualifications required for the job. The next best odds belong to CNN propagandist Scott Jennings. There is no way it will be him. Strike one, he used to work for the hated Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY). Strike two, he has occasionally been critical of Trump on CNN's airwaves. Strike three, he has a penis. After Sean Spicer, Trump isn't making THAT mistake again. So, Jennings is out.

The next best odds—and apparently, there is actual support for this in the White House—belong to... rapper Nicki Minaj. She used to be a garden-variety, somewhat vapid, vaguely liberal type. But the COVID-19 pandemic, and the many spats she got into on social media during that time, transformed her into a garden-variety, very vapid, MAGA edgelord. She's palled around with Trump, and has been pictured "working" at a desk in the White House.

It is true that the definitely Black Minaj is not (currently) blonde. But she is attractive, and appointing her would allow Trump to pretend he's open-minded and tolerant. Because she is, of course, one of the "good ones." By virtue of her career, Minaj is pretty good on camera and, thanks to her social media battles, she knows how to spar with the enemy. Plus, her husband was convicted of sexual assault in New York, so he and Trump would have something to talk about at cocktail parties.

It would be pretty nutty to hire a rapper with no meaningful experience for such a critical position, but inasmuch as the American people hired a reality TV star with no meaningful experience for the most critical position of all, there is very little these days that can be ruled out completely. (Z)

Trump's Batting Average in 2026 Election Cases Remains Very Poor

Last week, the Department of Justice sued California and state and local elections officials alleging that they (the feds) had a list of people, the origin of which and the methodology used they refused to disclose, who "may" be ineligible to vote. The DoJ admitted that they didn't know whether these people are eligible voters, whether they are registered to vote, whether any of them have tried to vote, or even whether some of the people listed share the same name with someone else who is eligible to vote (which was the case with Omar Muñoz, who was dragged out of his home and arrested, and whose son shares his name, is a U.S. citizen and eligible to vote). Nevertheless, the feds demanded that California drop everything, in the middle of the election and while ballots are being received and processed, and find and segregate ballots with names matching those on the list until they can be confirmed as eligible voters. If you're thinking that this is an insane and illegal request, you would be right.

It seems that a panel on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals agrees. But wait, why is an appellate court weighing in before the district court? Excellent question. In addition to making this crazy demand, DoJ lawyers also demanded that the district court judge rule on their application for a temporary restraining order (TRO) within 15 hours. Instead, the judge set a hearing for October 27. As we noted last week, when they didn't get their way, the DoJ ran to the Ninth Circuit to get them to immediately issue a TRO. Instead of immediately telling the DoJ to pound sand, strangely, a 3-judge panel scheduled an oral argument on a Sunday afternoon to hear the government's claims. And THEN they told the feds to pound sand.

In a 2-1 ruling, the Court declined to rule on the government's TRO application before the district court, and dismissed the appeal as premature. In addition, the Court also weighed in on the substance of the case. The judges first pointed out that this is an "emergency" of the DoJ's own making. It complained back in July about California's voter rolls, and had alleged then that noncitizens were registered, but ignored election officials who questioned the veracity of the feds' list. And California's election laws that require ballots to be mailed to all voters, and the timelines associated with processing returned ballots, are not new. Nevertheless, the feds chose to bring this suit on October 15, well after ballots were being processed, and didn't initially request either a TRO or a preliminary injunction, belying their belated claims of exigency. The courts will not fix stupid.

In a concurrence, Circuit Judge Mark J. Bennett, a Donald Trump appointee, wrote that he would also deny relief to the DoJ on the merits, or lack thereof, of the case. The lists of supposedly ineligible voters, which were created by U.S. Customs and Immigration Service (USCIS) and Homeland Security Investigations (HSI), are highly suspect and unreliable, as even the feds admit, because they need California officials to ultimately confirm whether the list is worth the paper it's printed on. And California is under no obligation to babysit the feds and reassure them that it knows what it's doing. That's because the Elections Clause of the Constitution gives that enforcement role to the states. Congress has some authority here, but has not usurped the states' role in running elections or removing ineligible voters from the voter rolls. Judge Bennett also notes that "granting Plaintiff its requested relief would result in disenfranchisement, and worse, could jeopardize the County's entire election."

Circuit Judge Gabriel Sanchez, a Biden appointee, also wrote a separate concurrence to warn that "the proposed injunction would transform California's election rules for an election that is already underway and would cause widespread confusion among voters and election officials, divert election administration resources, and usher in electoral chaos." Finally, Circuit Judge Patrick Bumatay, a Trump appointee, dissented and, assuming the accuracy of the feds' list, claimed that noncitizens were voting and that was enough for the feds to step in, even at this late stage, per the Supremacy Clause.

The case goes back to the district court, which held a hearing on the TRO application on Tuesday. The judge apparently appointed a special master to look into the process the DoJ used to identify suspected noncitizen voters. He also admonished the government attorneys: "This court thinks it would be wise that any threats to state or local officials should cease immediately." There was a time when that kind of rebuke would have been unthinkable. The judge promised to rule promptly. (L)

DesperationWatch 2026, Part III: Advertising

Yesterday, we had a couple of items speaking to the sense of desperation currently being manifest by one Donald John Trump. Still to go: two items about candidates who appear to be grasping at straws. For this one, we want to run down some of the eyebrow-raising commercials that have been released in the last month or so. Some of them are in pretty heavy rotation on TV, others were clearly designed for the social media crowd:

"Donald Who?" (see the ad here)

Who's Running It?: John Sununu (R), candidate for the open U.S. Senate seat in New Hampshire.

The Executive Summary: This is surely the least despicable ad we'll include this item, but we had to mention it because it's really something. The main point of the ad is that Sununu and Trump are completely unconnected to each other. "The way Chris Pappas tells it," the candidate says, "I'm President Trump's long-lost son. I've never even met the man."

The Response: We can find no comment from Rep. Chris Pappas (D) about the ad. And Trump apparently hasn't seen it, because if he had, he would have blown his stack.

Our Thoughts: Trumpism doesn't play so well in New Hampshire, it would seem. Especially given that the tariffs on Canada have hit those states that border Canada especially hard.

---

"Ohio Kids Deserve Better than Sherrod Brown" (see the ad here)

Who's Running It?: The Senate Leadership Fund, which is the main PAC for Senate Republicans.

The Executive Summary: The ad is one of several that feature anti-trans activist Soren Aldaco, who transitioned, and then transitioned back. In it, Aldaco asserts that Sherrod Brown supports forced gender reassignment, and claims doctors pressured the then-15-year-old Aldaco's parents to approve gender-reassignment surgery.

The Response: As it turns out, Aldaco was not forcibly reassigned at the age of 15, and instead voluntarily sought surgery at the age of 19 (in other words, above the age of consent). And the procedure did not take place in Ohio, it took place in Texas.

Our Thoughts: Transphobia is the bread and butter of Republican politics in 2026, apparently having surpassed even anti-immigrant stuff. So, if you keep reading, brace yourself for several more commercials along these lines.

---

"The Anointed One" (see the ad here)

Who's Running It?: Rep. Derrick Van Orden (R-WI)

The Executive Summary: Van Orden has produced a number of AI-generated ads, all under the title "The Anointed One," in which his opponent Rebecca Cooke (D) says wildly impolitic things. This one features Cooke and Joe Biden, with Cooke saying: "[I want] to make sure we take advantage of as much corruption as possible and give every illegal alien free healthcare."

The Response: Cooke has sent Van Orden a cease-and-desist letter, telling him to stop running the various deepfake ads. If he does not, she is prepared to sue, arguing that the ads are defamatory and also infringe on her right of publicity under Wisconsin law.

Our Thoughts: AI is another theme that will be present a lot in this item. This particular AI ad is particularly non-credible; obviously, a politician would not say something like that. Further, she doesn't look real, and when "Joe Biden" (briefly) speaks, he doesn't sound anything like Joe Biden. In fact, he doesn't sound like a man at all. Van Orden must think his supporters are stupid. If he loses this election, it will be a happy day for many people, as he's kind of the Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) of the House—pretty much everyone hates him.

---

"Dancing Queen" (see the ad here)

Who's Running It?: Jennifer Balkcom (R), candidate for the open seat representing NC-11.

The Executive Summary: The commercial shows Democratic candidate Jamie Ager hosting a barn dance with a lot of trans flags on the wall, and a bunch of drag queens in attendance. Because, as we all know, "drag queen" and "trans person" are the same thing. Eventually, Ager himself dances with one of the drag queens, while a boy of about 10 looks on and is obviously traumatized. The tagline is: "Jamie Ager talks like you and me, but he's dancing with they/them."

The Response: The Ager campaign has slammed the ad as "100% fake AI-generated lies." Meanwhile, a couple of the drag queens featured are threatening to sue, since their likenesses and names were used without their consent. Also, the song "Dancing Queen" plays in the background of the spot. We tend to suspect ABBA did not sign off on that, and they are known for vigorously defending their intellectual property.

Our Thoughts: And here we have an ad that is both transphobic and also AI (and it won't be the only one in this item). Two for the price of one! If Balkcom wins, she will be a prime candidate to take over for the (presumably) departing Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-AL) as the dumbest person in Congress. Seriously, take a look at this interview she gave a couple of weeks ago. Between the deer-in-the-headlights expression and the lack of familiarity with any policy issue, she makes Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-CO) look like Henry Kissinger. Consider reading some of the comments, like, "This is why you don't eat lead paint."

And this was a particularly dumb deepfake. Beyond the fact that a major-party candidate, particularly in the South, is hardly likely to participate in, and be filmed at, an event like this, it's easy to find the actual ad that was used as the basis for the AI deepfake. It's called "Barn Dance," and shows the candidate participating in a standard, drag-queen-and-trans-flag-free barn dance, during which Ager dances with his wife. Argh! These damned heterosexuals, always rubbing our noses in their lifestyle choices.

---

"My Self Blame" (see the ad here)

Who's Running It?: Stacy Garrity, Republican candidate for governor in Pennsylvania

The Executive Summary: Another AI ad, one in which a particularly shifty-looking Gov. Josh Shapiro (D) turns to the camera repeatedly, and admits openly to all manner of offenses, like sexual harassment, helping cover up Jeffrey Epstein's crimes, and taking bribes. That includes $5 million from the builders of AI data centers, which are portrayed as indisputably evil (in fact, they apparently produce force lightning, like the Emperor in Star Wars).

The Response: Voters in Pennsylvania, of all political stripes, are unhappy about this and other AI-generated ads, and there's much talk about banning them.

Our Thoughts: We're about to get to another ad that has been slammed as antisemitic. We actually think this one is even more so. Not only is the Jewish Shapiro shown regularly in a pose that bears a striking resemblance to the "Happy Merchant," but he's also involved in all sorts of conniving, mostly so he can pocket a bunch of money, and he's aided by evil magick. All of these are antisemitic tropes.

Meanwhile, nobody with the Garrity campaign seems to have noticed the incongruity of running what is essentially an anti-AI ad, created by AI. The force is not strong with these people.

---

"Israel's Wars" (see the ad here)

Who's Running It?: Rebellion PAC, which is led by Cenk Uygur

The Executive Summary: A couple, ostensibly husband and wife, are buying groceries. The wife tells the husband to put a bunch of stuff back, because the money is going to be needed to pay taxes, which in turn will be sent to Israel to pay for the various wars there (plus healthcare). Just in case anyone missed the message, Uygur added, "[I]f you want Israel to keep robbing America, you're going to hate this ad," when he posted it to ex-Twitter.

The Response: This is the other antisemitic ad we promised was coming; the ad has been roundly derided as such. The campaign of Abdul El-Sayed (D), running for the open U.S. Senate seat in Michigan, has disavowed the spot.

Our Thoughts Uygur is probably the most vile left-winger in the United States. He has no interest in solving any problem, he's only interested in virtue-signaling, concern trolling and rabble-rousing, so as to drive viewers/readers to his various media projects. Put another way, he's a left-wing version of Candace Owens or Nick Fuentes. And even if this was really and truly an effort to help the campaign of El-Sayed, it is political malpractice. The candidate is not hurting with people who are critical of Israel. On the other hand, he's got real problems with Jewish Democrats. Should El-Sayed lose by a narrow margin, it would not be wrong to suspect this ad was the tipping point.

---

"Full of Hate" (see the ad here)

Who's Running It?: America Next, the PAC run by... former Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal

The Executive Summary: The ad starts with a clip of Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) saying, "In this country, if you are not Black, you benefit from a system of white supremacy." It follows with clips of Rep. Ilhan Omar (DFL-MN) and The View co-host Sunny Hostin saying similar things. Then an AI-generated woman, hidden in shadows, tells the camera that she cannot show her face because she is white and it is too dangerous. It concludes with the tagline: "Liberals are the new racists."

The Response: The ad has been widely condemned, with more than a few folks describing it as "the most racist ad of 2026." All three of the clips of brown women speaking, by the way, are taken aggressively out of context.

Our Thoughts: First, Bobby Jindal is still a thing? Does he really think he still has a future in Republican politics, even WITH this kind of pandering? The power of positive delusion, we suppose.

That said, of all the ads we list here, this one is probably the most efficacious, since it's running mostly on right-wing "news" channels, and a lot of older, white people who watch those channels eat this "the brown people are the REAL racists" stuff up. It's not going to sway any elections, since anyone who sees this commercial and says "See? She gets it!" is already voting Republican. But it's not likely to cost candidates any votes.

---

"Moms" (see the ad here)

Who's Running It?: Rep. Zach Nunn (R-IA), running for reelection in the R+2 IA-03.

The Executive Summary: A bunch of "moms," five of them white, one of them Black (DEI?), make all the usual claims about Democrat Sarah Trone Garriott having radical views on trans issues, lamenting the harm she would do to children. "When it comes to our kids," says a mom identified as 'Shellie,' "Sarah is just plain dangerous."

The Response: Garriott does not appear to have commented on the ad, but The Washington Post looked into it. It turns out someone is indeed endangering kids. That would be 'Shellie,' who is Dallas Center city councilwoman Shellie Flockhart, and who was prosecuted in 2017 for child endangerment after being caught driving drunk with her kids in the car.

Our Thoughts: It's remarkable that the Nunn campaign did not vet their "moms"; Flockhart's history is all over social media, and even a cursory search would have uncovered it. She says she used to have a problem, but all is well now that she has found Jesus. Nothing more consistent with his ministry than someone who is clearly with sin making sure to cast a few stones.

---

"The King James Talarico Bible" (see the ad here)

Who's Running It?: Ken Paxton (R), who seeks the open U.S. Senate seat in Texas

The Executive Summary: Yet another AI ad, one that features Talarico defacing a Bible with crayons, including adding his last name in between "King James" and "Bible" and adding an eleventh commandment "Let there be six genders." The faux Talarico also turns to the camera and says a bunch of impolitic things, like admitting he's always thought of himself as a Christian who hates Christianity.

The Response: Talarico has actually recorded an ad in which he runs down the claims made in the fake ad, and points out that they're all lies. He ends the spot with a pretty darn good zinger: "I don't have to use AI because the truth about Ken Paxton is bad enough." Boom!

Our Thoughts: Paxton is so ridiculously over-the-top, both with his commercials and his rhetoric, we have a hard time believing anyone takes him seriously anymore. People will vote Republican because they like (R) candidates, or because they like something Paxton has done in his career. We don't believe a single person will say, "Whaaaaaaat? I was going to vote Talarico/was going to skip the election, but then I found out that Talarico is a trans-loving Bible defacer who admits he hates Christianity. Gonna have to vote Paxton now."

We have a couple of conclusions here. The first is that using AI to make your opponents say and do things they never said or did is abusive. There will have to be some laws passed that draw a line between the First Amendment right to criticize and satirize, and an individual's right to control their own likeness and to not be defamed.

Second, to return to where this item began, we think that most or all of these ads reek of desperation. That is not a good look. And while the messaging might make some voters angry, and motivate them to get to the polls, there is an excellent chance that it will drive even more voters away, either because they don't like dirty pool, or because they feel their intelligence has been insulted by such obviously absurd claims. Maybe those voters just withhold their vote from a candidate who runs an obnoxious, offensive and/or desperate ad. Maybe they actually flip to the other side.

The most obviously offensive ad of the cycle may be instructive here. There has been a whole lot of blowback since Vivek Ramaswamy unleashed that reprehensible spot with Amy Acton's (D) pedophile-enabling mother. And the blowback has produced a couple of interesting responses. First, the largest newspaper in Ohio is The Cleveland Plain Dealer. And its policy is that it does not endorse candidates for political office. Or, more accurately, that was its policy. On Sunday, the eddi board ran an editorial headlined: "We cannot remain silent: Amy Acton for governor." The board observes that, "There are moments when a community must decide what it stands for, when its institutions have a duty to speak and when silence itself becomes a statement. Ohio has reached such a moment."

The other development is that Ramaswamy has recently been claiming, in interviews, that this is all Acton's fault because she insulted his mother first. He has been unable to explain when or how, which means he certainly can't explain how such an attack—even if it did happen—justifies weaponizing the sexual abuse of a child. But the obvious subtext here is that even the most obnoxious gubernatorial candidate in the land (sorry, Sen. Tuberville) knows he blew it, and is trying to put Humpty Dumpty back together again. We do not imagine that any of the ads above will have nearly as much negative impact, but even a fraction of that could be decisive in some races.

We have one last DesperationWatch 2026 planned, but today's post is already quite long, so we'll run it on Friday. If any readers have any good examples of ratfu**ing that are going on right now, please do let us know at comments@electoral-vote.com. And on that note, our thanks to readers J.G. in Dallas, PA, A.S. in Black Mountain, NC and L.B. in Savannah, GA for their assistance with this item. (Z & A)

Local Bytes: The End Is Nigh

Some more reports on local races, including a couple of the ones addressed in the item above about commercials.

 

N.K. in Cleveland Heights, OH, writes: We just got a mailer at our house with the dire warning that "Amy Acton is too conservative for Ohio," blasting her for some anti-trans positions she has taken and also complaining that (horror of horrors) she advised a Republican governor's administration on medical mandates. It's paid for by "Progressive Families PAC," which according to some cursory googling, is a newly formed PAC with ties to a bank that funds Republican candidates. Their website is one page of platitudes and zero tangible information about policy positions or, you know, who they actually are. The flyer was addressed to my name "or current resident," so it doesn't seem to be targeting me personally based on whatever they think my voting pattern is. I hope this bit of rodent reproduction implies that some Republicans, at least, are feeling desperate about this race.

At any rate, the flyer came too late for me and my husband, since we both voted early in-person last week. When I went on Wednesday at around 3:00 p.m., there were about 40 people in line ahead of me but lots of election officials processing people, and I was in and out in 20 minutes. (When my husband went on Friday afternoon, it took him around 40 minutes.) There were little Halloween decorations up, and while I was there, at one point an election worker called out "first-time voter!" and we all clapped. There's only one early voting site here in Cuyahoga County, which is home to Cleveland and its suburbs, but it's in downtown Cleveland, so it's conveniently located for anyone who works there, and even from the most far-flung corners of the county I think it's not much more than a half-hour drive. Apparently Ohio is on track to break its previous record for number of early votes cast, which doesn't surprise me, given how many people passed in and out of the early voting site during 20 minutes on a Wednesday afternoon.

---

 

S.D. in Holmen, WI, writes: Here in Wisconsin's hotly contested 3rd congressional district, I find the campaigns of both the Republican incumbent, Derrick Van Orden, and the Democratic challenger, Rebecca Cooke, unpersuasive. Both campaigns seem to rely entirely on television ads, glossy mailers and billboards. There is no ground game that I can detect, except that I have received three postcards encouraging me to vote. Presumably, the sending campaign knows my preferences. I recycle at least ten glossy mailers per week, 75% from Van Orden. The mailers and television ads just recycle the same handful of trite phrases. A new commercial supporting Van Orden features a half dozen middle aged white guys standing around a pickup truck, talking about socialism and guns. Envision a Saturday Night Live parody of people uncomfortable on camera and you'll get the picture. The incongruous round hay bale in the back of the truck screams "I actually know nothing about agriculture," completing the unhelpful whole. Cooke will get my vote in a heartbeat, but I am disappointed that I twice offered to volunteer for her campaign on her campaign website and twice received no response. Perhaps modern campaigns don't involve any two-way communication with any voters, but I find the whole thing disheartening.

---

 

J.T. in Bastrop, TX, writes: I just wanted to share my experience here in red rural south central Texas. I grew up here, and lived here most of my life, but now I live closer to Austin and drive an hour south for work every day.

I take a little two-lane highway south through four small towns along the way to the small town I work in. The only Ken Paxton or Gov. Greg Abbott (R) signs I have seen are in one of those towns, in front of two obviously vacant homes. Plenty of signs for the more local candidates, like U.S. House or state House. The area is obviously red, but the excitement just doesn't seem to be there this go-round.

---

 

D.C. in Oscoda, MI, writes: MI-01 feels like the least noticed, least talked about congressional race in the country. If it is mentioned at all, it is described as "non-competitive," even though we have an excellent candidate in Democrat Callie Barr (attorney, veteran's advocate, local upbringing, mother, wife). She is going up against a MAGA carpetbagger, Rep. Jack Bergman (R), who has been invisible in the district for 10 years and has voted with Trump all the way. To top it off, he has been hit with not one but two separate financial and ethical scandals this year, both reported on in the Detroit News, our state's conservative newspaper. Many of us continue to work hard for our candidate, but it's frustrating that there is seemingly no notice of the fight she's bringing against this truly awful sitting congressman.

---

 

L.B. in Canby, OR, writes: I almost fell off the kitchen stool last night when the evening news showed Donald Trump in Port Huron, MI. I grew up across the river in Sarnia, ON, Canada. Although I have not lived there since 1972, I do have close friends and family who do. Port Huron is even more of a podunk town than Wasilla, AK. Why are they sending the President to all these small places? Yes, there are lots of good freeways leading to Port Huron, as it is a major border crossing into Canada. Port Huron has a population of 29,000 people and I wonder how many of them have been hurt by the trade wars with Canada (and Canadians who used to shop a lot in Port Huron are now staying home). Plus the arena only holds 4,800 people and news reports say only 3,000 showed up. Instead of talking about Nikki Minaj's ass, the news should be covering that the Idiot-in-Chief can only get 3,000 people to show up for a rally. Barack Obama and Abdul El-Sayed got more than that in Detroit and they were speaking in a high school gym with some overflow space.

---

 

M.G.M. in Portland, OR, writes: I was in Toronto airport duty free, and thought I needed a nice bottle of bourbon. I walked through the store a few times and only found a small section of Ontario-based offerings.

---

 

M.N. in Falls Church, VA, writes: My heart goes out to my fellow citizens where the races are tight due to the constant television commercials.

I live in Northern Virginia (NoVa, if you're nasty) and there are ZERO competitive races in the region so we're getting NO political ads.

Sure there are signs in yards and medians but none of this "one ad after another."

Hang tight, kids, it's almost over!

That's good advice, M.N.—just have to hang on a little longer. If any reader has a report for Local Bytes, please send it to us at comments@electoral-vote.com. (Z)

Results in Israel Are Predictably Ambiguous

Yesterday's elections in Israel reportedly had the largest turnout in the history of that nation, such that only half the ballots have been counted so far. But, based on exit polls and the vote totals that have already been released, it looks like the country is in for a bumpy ride in the next few weeks, with both Benjamin Netanyahu and his main rival, Gadi Eisenkot, claiming victory.

The basis for Netanyahu's claim is that it appears his party will have the largest number of seats in the new Knesset, with roughly 27. The basis for Eisenkot's claim is that it appears the Netanyahu opposition will control roughly 65 seats, as compared to roughly 55 seats for Likud and its allies. So, it is possible that the government will come under the control of anti-Netanyahu parties, and that the new PM will be Eisenkot or some other Netanyahu rival.

The problem here is that the two main Arab parties, Joint List and the United Arab List, are projected to win around 15 seats. That means that nobody is going to form a government without participation from one or both of those groups. And, at least thus far, both Netanyahu and Eisenkot have said they will not work with the Arab parties. Desperate times call for desperate measures, of course, and you never know what will happen once a would-be leader, to borrow a line from Abraham Lincoln, realizes "the taste is in my mouth a little."

Between the two, Eisenkot is far and away the one more likely to be able to find room for the Arab parties in his philosophy and in his political bloc. It's virtually inconceivable that Netanyahu could do so, since he is himself fundamentally opposed to such a thing, and since it would also blow a big hole in his coalition, causing the far-right members to flee. Anyhow, once the counting is finished in a day or two, anyone who aspires to be the next PM will have about a month to figure things out. Otherwise, it's a whole new election. (Z)

Today's Senate Polls

If the Democrats could snap their fingers and make all four polls come true, they would take that deal in a minute. They're ahead in three tough states, and Florida was and is a longshot. If the three ties (Iowa, Montana, and Nebraska) go for the Democrats and everything else goes as it is now, the Democrats will get 56 seats. But note carefully, 10 states have a white center in the map and they (and Nebraska) could go either way. At this point, almost anything is possible. (Z)

State	Democrat	D %	Republican	R %	Start	End	Pollster
Florida	Angie Nixon	47%	Ashley Moody*	53%	Oct 17	Oct 27	Activote
Maine	Troy Jackson	49%	Susan Collins*	47%	Oct 22	Oct 25	Marist Coll.
Michigan	Abdul El-Sayed	51%	Mike Rogers	45%	Oct 19	Oct 22	Glengariff Group
Texas	James Talarico	50%	Ken Paxton	45%	Oct 13	Oct 21	YouGov

* 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