Trump Waives Sanctions on Russia

It now looks that Donald Trump has picked sides in the war between Russia and Ukraine: He is for Russia and against Ukraine. He wants Russia to win. Maybe then Russian President Vladimir Putin will let Trump build Trump Tower Moscow, the tallest building in Europe, with a golden penthouse at the top gifted to Putin. When questioned about whether he asked Elon Musk to reduce Ukraine's ability to use his satellite system, Starshield—something critical to Ukraine's ability send drones to their targets—Trump denied that there was a problem. Ukraine's President, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, disagreed, saying there was a big problem with the satellite network.

The Lindsey O. Graham Sanctioning Russia and Iran Act of 2026 (PL 119-111) imposes various sanctions on Russia, but has an escape hatch. The sanctions can be waived if that is in the national interest—as determined by the president. And sure enough, the President has determined that buying diesel from Russia might help the Republicans in the midterms and keep the pinko commie Democrats from capturing Congress and investigating everyone associated with his regime. That would obviously be in the national interest. So late Friday, Trump signed an XO waiving the sanctions—despite a growing bipartisan chorus calling on him to increase the pressure on Russia, not decrease it. The XO is called "Implementing the Lindsey O. Graham Sanctioning Russia and Iran Act of 2026." The way it "implements" it is by not sanctioning Russia and Iran. Clever, huh?

Maybe no. Trump often misses the forest for the trees. While he sees Russia as a friend, the vast majority of voters see Russia as America's enemy and they see Russia as the aggressor in the war in Ukraine. This puts Democrats in the position of attacking Trump for supporting a ruthless dictator and Godless communism and Republicans in the position of having to defend Trump's crush on Putin. That won't be easy.

There is bipartisan opposition to the XO. Rep. Don Beyer (D-VA) tweeted: "Trump's latest surrender to Putin again betrays our Ukrainian partners and defies clear congressional intent of legislation designed to punish Russia for its illegal war of aggression." Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) tweeted: "These waivers have nothing to do with our national security, & everything to do with sucking up to Vladimir Putin. I hope my Republican colleagues will join me in condemning this craven, cowardly action."

Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC) did indeed join Blumenthal and tweeted: "It's unconscionable that this administration is capitulating to a Russian dictator who illegally invaded Ukraine and butchers innocent civilians every single day." Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) tweeted: "Lindsey would be appalled." Doug Heye, a former communications director for the RNC, unfavorably compared Trump's behavior to Ronald Reagan's unflinching anticommunism and hatred of Russia.

One senator who was definitely on the spot was Sen. Graham (R-SC). Not Lindsey, since he is dead, but his sister, Darline, who is running to finish out his term. Should she honor his memory and oppose the diesel deal, possibly angering Trump, or should she kowtow to him and give her opponent, Dr. Annie Andrews, some ammunition in a state not known for loving Godless communism? Saturday, she ever-so-gently came out against the diesel deal, but without mentioning the fact that maybe, just maybe, Trump had something to do with it. She said: "Personally, I would choose to keep the pressure on Russia to end the war and get the gas prices low, because I don't trust Putin and I don't trust Russia."

Some Congressional Republicans look like they really mean it. A number of them have warned Trump that no part of his legislative agenda—including an extra $350 billion for the Pentagon—will pass Congress in the mobility-challenged aquatic-bird session of Congress in December unless he relents and gets tough with Russia. If they really hold up the bills (or add provisions making sanctions mandatory with no escape clause) that will definitely get his attention. If a bill makes tough sanctions the law of the land and Trump then defies it, he is simply handing the Democrats an easy-for-voters-to-understand article of impeachment.

Oh, and there's one more thing. As a byproduct of waiving the sanctions on buyers of Russian oil, the waiver also helps China, which buys a lot of oil from Russia. So the model is Russia and China: good, NATO: bad. Got that? Also, it shows that no law has any meaning anymore, not even laws Trump himself signed not a month ago. Or as they say (or said) in France: "L'État, c'est moi."

The beleaguered Zelenskyy clearly sees the writing on the wall and hopes Europe will help him. He warned Friday that if Ukraine falls to Russia, as many as 20 million Ukrainians could seek refuge in other European countries, something the European countries definitely do not want. This could step up European aid to Ukraine to prevent Ukraine from falling. However, the EU has its own set of problems, including rearming itself and juggling its budget, so there is a limited amount that the EU can contribute on short notice. (V)

Tax Cuts Don't Cut It

Republicans had a (fever) dream that they could ride their tax cut bill to victory in the midterms. They are even rebranding their BBB the "Working Families Tax Cuts" bill. It's not working. A new Politico/PF Global poll shows that fewer than 10% of Americans rate the tax cuts as one of Trump's biggest successes. Even with affordability on top of everyone's list, tax cuts are not seen as a way to tackle affordability. Could that be because people know that the tax cuts were heavily weighted toward millionaires and billionaires? Maaaayyyybe. The provisions for no tax on tips and a few scattered deductions that are hard to use in practice just haven't registered. Here are the results on how many Americans say taxes are:

Even among Republicans, only 13% rate taxes as the top issue. Among independents, it is only 3% and many independents don't have an opinion on the topic. That doesn't scream: "VERY IMPORTANT." Colin Reed, a GOP strategist, said: "Elections are more about the future than the past. Even if people and small business owners are happy that their taxes didn't go up in 2025, they also want to know what's going to happen in 2027."

The Republicans' effort to rebrand the BBB as a tax cut bill has been a mixed bag. Just 30% supported the BBB but 40% support the bill when it is called the "Working Families Tax Cuts" bill. The problem is that fewer than one in five respondents even know what it is. Getting a boost from 30% to 40% among less than a fifth of the voters doesn't add up to much. Republicans aren't spending much money pitching the bill under its new nam,e.

And in truth, the voters' views on taxes work against the Republicans. Respondents were asked to select up to three issues relating to taxes that they supported. Here are the results:

So taxing billionaires and large corporations is what the voters want. Guess which party is going to push that to the hilt? (V)

What to Watch on Election Night

Ronald Brownstein has an interesting column on bellwethers to watch on Election Night. He notes that veteran Democratic pollster John Anzalone says the vibe he is getting is that this election will be like 1994, where the whole country is in play. He thinks there will be a number of "accidental House members" in January, people no one—the candidate included—expected to win but won anyway. Veteran Republican pollster Whit Ayres is worried about trend lines and is also bracing for unexpected and unpleasant surprises. He basically agreed with Anzalone's assessment when he said: "In this environment, I think we are going to find states in play that we never thought would be in play come in November."

Anzalone thinks there will be three narratives on Nov. 4:

1. Latinos, young voters, and Black voters returned to the fold and voted Democratic.
2. Republicans are seriously bleeding working-class non-college white voters.
3. Republicans still control rural areas, but the gap is narrowing.

That said, certain counties stand out as bellwethers. They fall into six rough categories, as follows, with these examples:

Urban Centers

Democrats' performance in big urban centers, especially with young Black voters, will be a key to Democrats' hopes. They need to do more than win here. They need to rack up huge margins:

• Wayne County, MI: If Black urban voters come home, it will here in Detroit. Turnout is key.
• Cuyahoga County, OH: Same here in Cleveland. Democrats take these for granted at their peril.
• Tarrant County, TX: A majority nonwhite county including Ft. Worth; could be a bloodbath for Ken Paxton (R).
• Hennepin County, MN: This educated, affluent county that includes Minneapolis nosedived for the Dems in 2024.

Traditional Suburbs

The well-off, white, highly educated suburban counties outside major cities used to be Republican. They have moved left in recent years. But will they stay that way when Trump is not on the ballot?

• Delaware County, OH: Turnout in this heavily white, wealthy, educated county could test Trump hatred as a force.
• Waukesha County, WI: Same story as Delaware County, OH.
• Oakland County, MI: How will Abdul El-Sayed (D) do with affluent (Republican-leaning) suburbanites?
• Kent County, MI: This county around Grand Rapids is about average. How will Abdul El-Sayed do here?
• Johnson County, KS: This well-off very highly educated county is the key to Adam Hamilton's (D) insurgent campaign

Suburban Melting Pots

These counties are traditional (Republican-leaning) suburban counties that have increasingly large middle-class minority populations. How will that affect their votes?

• Gwinnett County, GA: Jon Ossoff won many Black, Asian, and Latino voters in 2020. Can he up that?
• Cobb County, GA: It is west of Atlanta instead of east, like Gwinnett, but otherwise same story.
• Maricopa County, AZ: Joe Biden was the first Democrat in 70 years to win it. How will Gov. Katie Hobbs (D) do?
• Orange County, CA: This formerly GOP county is now half Latino and Asian. How will Trumpism play here?
• Collin County, TX: This Trump, Biden, Trump county full of Asians, Latinos, and Black voters is a true bellwether.

Latino Enclaves

Donald Trump made huge gains with Latinos in 2024, especially young ones. How will his deportation policy play out this time? These counties will tell:

• Hidalgo County, TX: This border county will show how well Trump's policies are playing with Mexican Americans in McAllen.
• Cameron County, TX: Another border county, this one around Brownsville, but otherwise like Hidalgo.
• Miami-Dade, FL: Another heavily Latino county, only this time Cubans and South Americans.
• Bronx County, NY: The Bronx is now heavily Puerto Rican and Dominican. How will these Latinos vote?

Blue-collar Areas

White working-class voters without college degrees used to be the very base of the Democratic Party. Now they are the very base of the Republican Party. They love Trump on the cultural issues but will they vote their prejudices or their wallets this time?

• Luzerne County, PA: This Wilkes-Barre-based county is a Republican county of late. Will it still be this year?
• Lackawanna County, PA: This Scranton-based county could help Paige Cognetti beat Rep. Rob Bresnahan.
• Lorain County, OH: Sherrod Brown must get his margin here way, way up from the +6 points he had in 2024.
• Mahoning County, OH: This county around Youngstown in Northeast Ohio is also a key Brown target.
• Macomb County, MI: Home of the fabled "Reagan Democrats" is critical for Abdul El-Sayed and Jocelyn Benson.
• Catawba County, NC: Another blue-collar county, but with a heavy dose of evangelicals.

Rural Redoubts

Rural areas are the Republicans' last bulwark. The issue is not whether they will stay red, but by how much. That is crucial in statewide races. Trump's policies have hurt farmers on diesel, fertilizer, foreign markets, and rural hospital closures. How much stress can these overwhelmingly white counties take?

• Darke County, OH: This county produces corn, soybeans, chickens and eggs.
• Grant County, WI: This county produces dairy, corn and soybeans.
• Scott Count, IA: Corn, soybeans and hogs are the mainstay of the economy here.
• Ford County, KS: A huge meatpacking plant in Dodge City is here, but it is staffed by Latino factory workers.

This list is from CNN, so hopefully as results begin coming in on Election Night, they will pay special attention to these bellwether counties to see how various demographic groups are actually voting. (V)

Texas is Tight

A new CBS News/YouGov poll has James Talarico at 51% and Ken Paxton at 49%, a statistical tie. But what is more interesting is that YouGov asked more than "Who are you going to vote for?" It also dug down to ask: "Why?" Some of those results are quite interesting, including these items:

• Talarico voters are split, with 48% liking Talarico and the other 52% simply voting by party label.
• Only 23% of Paxton voters like the candidate. The rest are voting for the (R) or against the (D).
• Talarico voters are overwhelmingly voting for him on account of the cost of living.
• 54% of Talarico voters say their man has the right character whereas only 41% of Paxton voters say that.
• 64% of Talarico voters say personal qualities matter; with Paxton voters, it is 34%.
• A full 87% of Democrats say they will definitely vote vs. 76% of Republicans.
• 51% of Paxton voters say their vote is to support Trump; 67% of Talarico voters say it is to oppose Trump.
• Only 1% of Democrats will vote for Paxton but 5% of Republicans will vote for Talarico.
• Latinos break for Talarico 60% to 39%.

The poll also had Gov. Greg Abbott (R-TX) ahead of Gina Hinojosa 52%-48%. (V)

It Is a Mixed Bag on Senate Fundraising

The Q3 numbers on fundraising are now in. But what is more important in the final 2 weeks is not how much money a candidate may have scored in July, but how much the candidate had in the bank on Sept. 30. Those numbers are now also in. Here they are for some of the top Senate races. If you are thinking of making a last-minute donation, the table below could give you a guide of who could use some help and who is richer than Uncle Scrooge, depending on your party preference:

The top two Democrats, Sen. Jon Ossoff (D-GA) and Roy Cooper, don't need to spend a penny nickel in the last 2 weeks. They are going to win in landslides no matter what. Cooper could win friends and influence senators by doling his war chest out to Democratic candidates in need now, like Sherrod Brown, Mary Peltola, and Josh Turek. It would also benefit him personally, since being in the Senate majority is a lot more fun than being in the Senate minority. Also, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) would be very grateful for his assistance in gaining the Senate majority and that gratitude could extend to giving Cooper his choice of committee assignments, something a junior senator does not normally enjoy.

Ossoff is young and will surely run again some day, maybe for president in 2028 (although he said he won't), maybe for the Senate in 2032. He could dish out a bit of his haul to win some friends, but keep much of it for a future campaign. There is no point in wasting any of it on his 2026 race. That is over and done now.

James Talarico is way ahead of Ken Paxton in cash on hand, but Elon Musk could toss another billion into the race to help Paxton, so Talarico needs to use his war chest himself. It would be political malpractice to give any of it to needy Democrats. No one will blame him for using every nickel himself.

Interestingly, no Republican candidate has money to burn. All of those ahead of their challengers are in tight races. These include Sen. Jon Husted (R-OH), Rep. Ashley Hinson (R-IA), Mike Rogers, Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-AK), and Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME). (V)

Raphael Warnock Is Campaigning Hard--in Mississippi

Jon Ossoff is the Georgia senator up this year, not Raphael Warnock. Nevertheless, Warnock is out there stumping and raising money like crazy. And it isn't even in Georgia. Or for himself. Or for Ossoff (who doesn't need any help). Warnock is out there campaigning for Scott Colom, a local D.A. who is running for the Senate against Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith (R-MS) in Mississippi. Warnock has even raised $500,000 for Colom. It is a bit odd for a senator in one state to be working really hard for a candidate—and not even a Senate colleague at that—in a different state. What's going on?

Warnock knows exactly what he is doing. It is a long shot gamble, but there isn't much of a downside for him and there is plenty of upside if he wins his bet. Mississippi is more competitive for the Democrats than many people realize. To start with, 38% of the voters are Black and it is a safe bet that virtually all of them are Democrats. This means all a Democrat needs is 21% of the white vote. That is not impossible under exactly the right circumstances. Those would be: (1) an excellent Democrat (Colom is a law-enforcement official); (2) a weak Republican (Hyde-Smith is a run-of-the mill senator who got only 54% of the vote in 2020); (3) a poor economy (gas, diesel, and fertilizer prices are high); (4) an unpopular Republican president (Trump is at 44% approval in Mississippi) and (5) a blue wave election (seems likely). Hyde-Smith led Colom 52%-48% in an October poll. You never know.

Hyde-Smith made a Joni Ernst-size blunder when asked about the high price of beef. She said: "You have so many proteins to choose from." This remark quickly became the core of a Colom ad:

The punch line of the ad is: "Pick another senator instead."

If Warnock helps bring this one home, he will be a hero to Democrats for helping to win an "unwinnable" state no one was counting on. It will also mean a fifth Black Democratic senator, which Black voters nationally will appreciate. Additionally, if Colom, Ossoff, James Talarico and Roy Cooper all win (or if even ¾ of them win), suddenly Democrats will realize they can compete in the South.

But Warnock isn't just being a party man. There is something in this for himself. He is thinking about running for president in 2028 and the South has a large number of convention delegates. If Ossoff was telling the truth when he said he was not going to run for president, Warnock would be the favorite to scoop up a large fraction of them. To that end, he is also criss-crossing the South campaigning for other Democrats in the region—and getting out there for the voters to see him. He has nothing else to do this fall, so why not? It's worth a shot. (V)

Let the Blame Game Commence

Donald Trump increasingly understands the Republicans will lose the House and possibly also the Senate. He has also been campaigning like crazy all over the country, as shown below:

Some people are going to put 1 plus 1 together and get 2 (or 10 in binary). Hmm, Trump made the midterms about himself and Republicans lost. Time to start warming up for the blame game. Trump never accepts blame for anything. He blamed his 2020 loss on (imaginary) voter fraud. Ahead of the 2022 midterms, he said that if Republicans won, he should get all the credit but if they lost, he should get none of the blame.

Trump is a true master at the game of blaming someone else and he is just itching for it to start. One of his targets will be James Blair, who runs his most important super PAC, MAGA Inc. Trump hates spending money and getting nothing in return. Blair has been spending millions of dollars from MAGA Inc. and Ken Paxton is still behind in Texas, Sen. Jon Husted is still behind in Ohio, both Dan Sullivans are still behind in Alaska, and Ashley Hinson is roughly even in Iowa. To Trump, this is a sign of incompetence (rather than a sign that yelling LEFT-WING-RADICAL-SOCIALIST-PINKO-MARXIST-COMMIE day and night doesn't actually work anymore, especially with younger voters who rather like the idea). Trump especially doesn't like the fact that Blair traveled to Republika Srpska this month, a self-governing region in Bosnia, for a very lucrative deal advising the regional government ahead of local elections. What was Blair doing moonlighting in some place whose name he can't even pronounce instead of spending every waking hour winning House and Senate races?

Another target will be Chris LaCivita, Trump's 2024 campaign co-manager, who was also off in that unpronounceable place with Blair making big bucks trying to defeat God-only-knows-who instead of working to defeat Democrats from Texas to Alaska. Trump has abruptly distanced himself from both men, calling them "outside consultants," to try to hide the fact that they are among his closest political henchmen.

Sources say that Blair and LaCivita asked chief of staff Susie Wiles for permission to take on the [unpronounceable] gig and she approved. Other people in Trump's orbit are starting to eye Wiles as a target, especially people who are eyeing her job. These include Stephen Miller, Bill Pulte and Steve Witkoff. If things go south on Nov. 3, by Nov. 4, they will be howling at the moon for her head on a pike. There are rumors that she may quit in January, no matter what, because she is simply burned out by the very high pressure job, especially managing all the infighting. This will simply make her an easier target since her departure will look like a smart power play by her rivals, even if it really isn't.

Sources say that it was Wiles who set up Katie Zacharia's fatal interview on Fox that was the last straw for Trump and got her canned before even making half a Scaramucci. Her appointment made Trump look incompetent for picking someone so incompetent. If Wiles played a key role in this whole debacle, that won't endear her to Trump and could make her a scapegoat for a possible election disaster. Trump is now defending Wiles, but that could change quickly if there is a blue tsunami.

Another possible target after the midterms is Project Redistricting. At its core, it was a decision to spread Republican voters thinly and create many Republican districts with narrow majorities instead of fewer districts with solid Republican majorities. In Texas, the new map was based on the 2024 election results, which assumed Latinos will vote Republican in droves. If they don't—and polls show they won't—someone has to be blamed for the incredibly stupid idea of redrawing the maps mid-cycle. Who can be blamed? Maybe Gov. Greg Abbott (R-TX)? Maybe Ken Paxton? Maybe the Redistricting Fairy? It is a puzzle, but Trump is surely working on it. (V)

The Year 2027 Will Be a Miserable One for Congressional Leaders

The coming year is likely to be awful for congressional leaders, no matter who is in charge. For each one, the situation is different.

In January, Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) can probably keep his job if he wants to, but why would he want to? If Democrats take the House, which seems very likely, and Republicans hold onto the Senate, even if it is 50-50 and J.D. needs to be called in often to break ties, Donald Trump will be constantly urging Thune to pass bills and send them over to the House, where are all certain to end in the paper shredder. This will wear poor Thune down. If Republicans lose both chambers, Trump will constantly belittle Thune as a weak loser who can't do anything. It will be embarrassing and not fun at all.

For Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), getting a majority will mean he has to try to legislate. But his majority is likely to be thin, a few seats at most. Getting the support of Mary Peltola (AK), James Talarico and Josh Turek (IA) on bills sponsored by Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) will be tough. Schumer won't have a working majority on anything and he will have a restless base that demands he use his new majority to get stuff done. If Schumer fails to get the majority, his party members will see him as a failure and the term starting in Jan. 2027 will almost certainly be his final term as a leader and also in the Senate. If Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) doesn't primary (and beat) him in 2028, some other young Democrat will. It will be a disappointing and ignominious end to his long political career.

If Republicans miraculously hold the House against all odds, Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) will be hailed as a conquering hero and will be able to keep his job if he wants it, but his margin will be so thin he won't be able to get anything done and Trump will dump on him all the time. If Republicans lose the majority, Johnson probably won't run for minority leader. It is a thankless job with no power. It might be good for some old-fashioned grandstanding though, so Rep. Jim "Gym" Jordan (R-OH) might try to get it. He loves grandstanding. If Johnson drops out of the leadership and the Democrats have the majority, the new Republican leader will have no power, no ability to raise lots of money for members, and will never be able to herd the cats, especially with Trump trying to call all the shots from the sidelines.

The leader in the best position will be Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY)—if the Democrats have a huge majority. Then it might be possible to pass bills and send them over to the Senate to die. At least he can then tell his base that he tried and that it isn't his fault nothing got through. That is not likely to mollify them much, though. If he has a small majority, like Schumer, he will have to deal with the split between progressives and moderates and may find it difficult to get anything through. One thing he could do is have the House turn into the world's greatest investigative body, with the entire 2 years devote to exposing the many criminals in the administration and preparing the footwork for a future Democratic AG to rain down the indictments.

Short of a massive Blue wave that gives the Democrats huge majorities in both chambers, Democrats are unlikely to get many bills through Congress, and those that do get through will be promptly vetoed. However, if Schumer and Jeffries are willing to play the long game, their strategy should be to pass popular bill after popular bill, have them all vetoed, and then have the Democrats run in 2028 on electing a president who will sign the bills next time they are passed.

One thing they have to carefully maneuver though is the desire of the activist base to focus on investigating the administration and the desire of the majority of Democratic voters to get prices down. There are bills that can be passed that do the latter, but to get the full effect, the bills have to be on the front pages every day, not another witness in some investigation. Bills aimed at affordability include these:

• Bills to repeal Trump's tariffs on food (to reduce the cost of groceries)
• Bills to beef up "Obamacare" subsidies (to reduce health care costs)
• Bills to allow the government to negotiate drug prices (to reduce health care costs)
• Bills that reform the permitting process (to make it easier to build more houses to get prices down)
• Bills to ban corporations from buying single-family houses (to reduce housing costs)
• Bills to heavily subsidize electric cars (to fight high gas prices by avoiding gas altogether)
• Bills to subsidize solar panels (to fight high electricity costs)
• Bills to encourage the construction of nuclear power plants (to fight high electricity costs)
• Bills to subsidize child care (to allow more parents to work and make money)
• Bills to mandate paid leave (to avoid income loss during sickness or emergencies)
• Bills to raise Social Security benefits paid for by eliminating the FICA cap (to help seniors)

These can be combined with higher taxes on billionaires to show that it is the billionaires who are paying for all the subsidies. Week after week after week there could be debate on one of these bills, grabbing the national attention, followed by a vote every Friday morning with Democrats in favor and Republicans opposed. The message every week would be: "Democrats want to tackle affordability. Republicans want to protect billionaires." Democratic voters will like this (see above) and will be repeatedly told that to make these things actually happen, what is needed is to elect a Democratic president in 2028. The problem is that voters can focus on only one thing at a time, and Jeffries will have to decide whether it is the affordability-bill-of-the-week or the corruption-investigation-of-the-week. Whatever he decides, some Democrats will be angry with him. (V)

Shapiro All but Officially Revs Up His Presidential Engine

No one really has any doubt that Gov. Josh Shapiro (D-PA) will officially announce his presidential run very soon after he trounces Stacy Garrity (R) and is reelected in a landslide. But his trigger finger got so itchy that he couldn't even hold off for 2 weeks. Consequently, he just announced his presidential PAC. Two more weeks of begging for donations isn't going to matter but it does tell Pennsylvania voters that he is not really interested in the job he wants them to hire him for on Nov. 3. Josh, if you are reading this, you are supposed to keep your ambitions in check until at least the day after the midterms. This is not cool. On the other hand, in an era where a politician who gets a 50% approval is considered a miracle worker, maybe with his 62% approval rating, he can get away with stuff no one else this side of Bernie can pull off.

Shapiro brings three things to a presidential campaign that no other likely candidate has: Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin. These are not small things since together they have 44 electoral votes. He is very popular in his own state, is an excellent public speaker, is young, but not too young (53), and understands the Rust Belt better than any of his likely opponents.

Although Israel is going to be a big issue in the primaries and Shapiro is Jewish, the fact that the Pennsylvania governor's mansion was firebombed during Passover in a terrorist attack makes Shapiro uniquely qualified to speak out against bigotry in all its ugly forms. He could address Black voters, Latino voters, and even Muslim voters, and say: "My life and my family have been viciously attacked by a violent bigot. I feel your pain. I know what it is like. I really do." And it could well work. Maybe he could adopt the instrumental theme song from Driving Miss Daisy as his campaign theme song. Jumping the gun by 2 weeks is a small thing, but voters prefer their politicians to be a little less obvious about their aspirations for higher office when running for a lower one. (V)

Today's Senate Polls

Florida is out of reach for the Democrats. A Black DSA member is the wrong candidate for the Sunshine State. Maybe in California or Illinois, but not in Florida. Sherrod Brown has a consistent lead in Ohio and is probably on track to get his old job back. It's still Texas Tossup between James Talarico and Ken Paxton. (V)

State	Democrat	D %	Republican	R %	Start	End	Pollster
Florida	Angie Nixon	47%	Ashley Moody*	53%	Sep 27	Oct 15	Activote
Ohio	Sherrod Brown	47%	Jon Husted*	42%	Oct 16	Oct 17	On Point Polling
Texas	James Talarico	50%	Ken Paxton	46%	Oct 17	Oct 18	On Point Polling
Texas	James Talarico	51%	Ken Paxton	49%	Oct 08	Oct 16	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