Most Likely Source of an October Surprise? The Middle East

This week marks the one-year anniversary of the terrorist attack that launched the latest war in Israel. And, if you have been following things at all, you know that the situation there is getting worse, not better. If there is going to be an election-changing event in October, it's more likely to emerge from that part of the world than from anywhere else.

As we have noted many times, we dislike writing about this subject because it's very touchy, and it's not our area of expertise. Indeed, this item was actually going to run yesterday, but it would have been the last piece we wrote, and it is not well to engage with this subject when one is not at peak mental sharpness.

In any event, let's do a brief rundown of where things stand, just to make sure everyone's on the same page. Israel is currently fighting a three-front war, something they haven't dealt with since Benjamin Netanyahu was a teenager. To the south, it's Gaza and Hamas. To the north, it's Lebanon and Hezbollah. To the east, it's the West Bank, where radical Islamists who are somewhat in cahoots with Hamas have risen up in violence.

If this was not enough on the plate of the Israeli government, Iran has waded into the conflict. The Iranians were already funding and egging on Hamas and Hezbollah, and a week ago, they launched 181 missiles at Israel. This is actually the second missile attack from Iran this year. At the moment, Israel is pondering its response, while Iran has warned that if oil wells or nuclear facilities are targeted, there will be hell to pay. If this sounds to you like a giant, very dangerous pi**ing contest, you have the right idea.

It is hardly disputed at this point that, at least at the outset, Netanyahu badly misjudged the nature of this war. In particular, he failed to grasp that the PR war would be as significant as the conventional war. To that end, the Palestinians became an object of much sympathy around the world. Recently, the number of deaths in Gaza passed 40,000. For comparison purposes, that's more than two thirds as many people as the U.S. lost in the entire Vietnam War. The nature of the war in Gaza is such that the line between "combatant" and "civilian" is fuzzy, but the best guess is that half of the dead are non-combatant. That includes a lot of women and children, of course.

Given all of this, Netanyahu was under enormous pressure, both from without and within. He has pretty thick armor when it comes to pressure from foreign governments, but domestic unrest is a different thing, particularly given that his governing coalition is tenuous, at best. However, on September 28, Israel managed to kill Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of Hezbollah. Yesterday, the Israeli government announced that it had also killed Nasrallah's successors. For the Israeli PM, this is a coup on par with Barack Obama launching the operation that killed Osama bin Laden. Consequently, Netanyahu has bought himself some time, possibly a lot of time.

Now, let's turn our attention to the U.S. Through all of this, the Biden administration has been working ceaselessly toward some sort of resolution, with no success. This is hardly surprising, as there is virtually no alignment in goals between the various players involved. The U.S. just wants peace, and possibly a two-state solution, in hopes that peace will be long-lasting. The fact that a two-state solution has been a goal for generations tells you about the odds that it's going to happen this year... or ever.

Meanwhile, as we have pointed out many times, neither Israel nor Hamas is especially interested in peace right now. Netanyahu and the key members of his governing coalition want to inflict massive damage on the various hostile factions that are within, or near, the borders of Israel. The PM has the additional motivation that every day of war is another day that his various criminal trials are delayed. Hamas, for their part, is destabilizing a situation that the Gazans find intolerable, and is also attracting a lot of international support. Adding another layer is that Iran does not especially care about Palestine OR Hamas. Their goal is to achieve Iranian and, more broadly, Shiite supremacy in the Middle East. They want to do everything possible to derail cooperation between non-Shiite nations, most obviously the increasingly close relationship between Saudi Arabia and Israel.

There is little doubt that U.S. politics has already undergone a substantive change when it comes to support for Israel. The protests that took place on campuses (and elsewhere) made clear that there are many young people today who are of voting age and are overtly hostile to Israel. Meanwhile, American Jews have, on the whole, become considerably more Israel-skeptical than they were on October 6, 2023. That doesn't mean that all American Jews have changed their views, nor does it mean that previously pro-Israel Jews are willing to completely abandon Israel. However, there is much disdain for Netanyahu, and much broader support for limits on arms sales, two-state-solution arm-twisting, and the like.

But while the domestic politics have shifted, the geopolitics apparently have not. We say again, we don't know this subject all that well. We also suspect that there is much to know that cannot be publicly revealed. In any event, while talking peace, the Biden administration has nonetheless done much to keep Israel's war machine running smoothly. ProPublica had two articles in the last week, one on how the U.S. has not withheld so much as a single bullet from Israel, and another about how Antony Blinken put his thumb on the scale to make sure Israel was not sanctioned for withholding aid to Gaza. Further, the attacks on Hezbollah, including the one that killed Nasrallah, were undertaken with significant U.S. support.

We don't know exactly why the Biden administration is as... supportive as it is. However, we tend to doubt there is some sort of corruption here, along the lines of the Trump family and the Saudis. You can e-mail in and correct us if it is announced, next year, that Joe Biden will be taking over management of $2 billion in assets on behalf of the Israeli government. We also tend to doubt that Biden is motivated by political concerns, since his career is drawing to an end, and since the domestic political situation would actually seem to argue for tapping the brakes.

To re-use a favorite quote from Sherlock Holmes, yet again, "When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." Since we reject the alternative assumptions, we therefore have to assume that Biden and Blinken are guided by geopolitical concerns, in particular reining in Iran. It is certainly possible that their judgment is wrong, or that they are old men whose brains are stuck 20 years in the past. On the other hand, they have close to a century of foreign policy experience between them, and they have access to all kinds of information that we don't have. The general public won't have a full picture for years or decades, if ever.

Regardless of the reasons why, the bottom line is that the Biden administration is all-in on Israel, and will remain so through the election. And there are many ways that could plausibly blow up in Biden's face (and, by extension, Kamala Harris' face). Israel's response to Iran (and Israel is resisting input from the Americans) could light the fuse on an already tense situation. Israel is also planning to escalate its operations against Hezbollah, so that situation could go south. In addition, school is back in session, and the campus protests could begin anew.

For these reasons, and likely others we're not thinking of/aware of right now, the Middle East is most certainly the most likely source of an October Surprise in the next several weeks. (Z)

Trump Still in Bed with Putin

As long as we are on the foreign affairs beat, Bob Woodward has a new book coming out. It is called War (they must have worked hard coming up with that one), and it's a Woodward-esque, dirt-dishing exposé about much of the behind-the-scenes maneuvering during the three major conflicts of the present day (Afghanistan, Israel, Ukraine).

The book, perhaps in the interest of "balance," does have some revelations about Joe Biden. First, the President has a potty mouth that would make a sailor blush. He has called Benjamin Netanyahu a "fu**ing liar" on several occasions, along with other f-word-based appellations. And despite Biden's close relationship with Barack Obama, #46 has sometimes expressed pique with #44, particularly the fact that Vladimir Putin (sorry, Vladimir Fu**ing Putin) was allowed to get away with invading Crimea in 2014. Oh, and after the Afghanistan withdrawal, George W. Bush called the White House to empathize, telling Biden "I got fu**ed by my intel people, too." Clearly, Bush speaks "Scranton Joe's" language.

The great bulk of the book, at least judging by the excerpts already made public, is about Donald Trump. This is not a surprise, as there is so much there to work with, and also, that's what sells. Republicans buy Trump-branded shoes and watches and Bibles; Democrats buy muckraking works about The Donald. That's just how it is.

The revelations that are getting the most attention, and rightly so, involve Trump's relationship with Vladimir Putin. There are two biggies. The first is that, while the pandemic was underway, and supplies were very scarce, Trump sent a secret shipment of COVID testing equipment to the Russian dict... er, president. The second is that, since leaving office, Trump has spoken to Putin on the phone "as many as seven" times.

Trump promptly lashed out at Woodward in a statement:

None of these made up stories by Bob Woodward are true and are the work of a truly demented and deranged man who suffers from a debilitating case of Trump Derangement Syndrome. Woodward is an angry, little man and is clearly upset because President Trump is successfully suing him because of the unauthorized publishing of recordings he made previously. President Trump gave him absolutely no access for this trash book that either belongs in the bargain bin of the fiction section of a discount bookstore or used as toilet tissue. Woodward is a total sleazebag who has lost it mentally, and he's slow, lethargic, incompetent and overall a boring person with no personality.

Trump might have written that one himself, given the personal attacks and poor grammar. In any case, Woodward is a veteran journalist who undoubtedly has multiple sources for his claims, and who generally shows his work in the book (for example, he recounts the story of a specific aide who was asked to leave Trump's office so Trump could hear Putin on the phone). Trump, meanwhile, is an inveterate liar. So, you can tell who we believe here.

Kamala Harris is already getting some mileage out of the Woodward book. During her appearance on Howard Stern's radio program yesterday, she lit into her opponent:

I believe that Donald Trump has this desire to be a dictator. He admires strongmen and he gets played by them because he thinks that they're his friends and they are manipulating him full time and manipulating him by flattery and with favor... [This] is just the most recent stark example of who Donald Trump is, that he secretly sent Covid test kits for the personal use of Putin, of Russia, an adversary to the United States," she said

Despite prompting from Stern, Harris did decline to say whether or not she wished Putin had died from COVID.

We wonder if, one day, it will be known if Harris has the right of it. That is to say, is Putin's power over Trump just a case of a master manipulator playing a useful idiot like a violin? Or is there some externality involved, as well, whether it's a blackmail pee pee tape, or promises of Trump Tower Moscow, or something else? The one thing we are sure about is that if Trump is reelected, he will promptly re-assume his position as Putin's lap dog. At that point, you can feel free to buy new maps without Ukraine on them. Or Estonia, Latvia, or Lithuania. (Z)

Trump's Enemies List Is Long, and Growing

We've already deployed our favorite Sherlock Holmes quote. Why don't we add our favorite Maya Angelou quote? To wit: "When someone shows you who they are, believe them the first time." Last week, we had an item talking broadly about Trump's plans to punish his perceived enemies, should he regain the White House. Trump has shown us who he is, and we have no reason to doubt that he'll try to make good on his threats.

We are not the only ones to think so. Our item last week linked to a Politico article that sounded the alarm. That same day, The New York Times published their own article on the subject, based on their interviews with 50 former federal government employees, most of them having worked for the Department of Justice or the Office of White House counsel. And 42 of them said that Trump would be a threat to keeping criminal enforcement separate from politics, while 39 said he'd likely order the DoJ to investigate a political adversary. They were almost evenly divided on whether the DoJ would play along; 27 leaned in the direction of "yes," 23 leaned in the direction of "no."

It seems pretty clear that the question is not "Will he try it?", it's "Will he succeed?" That being the case, we thought a rundown of the threats reported in just the last week or so was worth noting:

• Trump has promised to get rid of Temporary Protected Status and to deport all the Haitians in Springfield, Ohio.
  
  
• Trump said he would hit tractor maker John Deere with a 200% tariff. Apparently, he believes the company is un-American because it has moved some operations to Mexico. Note that their stock took a 2% hit the day Trump said that, so he's doing harm whether or not he is able to make good on his threats.
  
  
• Trump also wants to prosecute Google, because he is persuaded the search engine only shows negative items about him, and positive items about Kamala Harris. "This is an ILLEGAL ACTIVITY, and hopefully the Justice Department will criminally prosecute them for this blatant Interference of Elections. If not, and subject to the Laws of our Country, I will request their prosecution, at the maximum levels, when I win the Election, and become President of the United States!" he Truthed.
  
  
• A former Trump advisor said that, if the former president is reelected, "Disney is fu**ed." Trump is still angry about the ABC debate, and wants the network's parent company to pay the price.
  
  
• In an interview, Mitt Romney conceded that he's probably a target, and that he's particularly worried that his family will be targeted.
  
  
• Of course, Trump wants to prosecute any election officials he deems to have "cheated" in the 2024 election.
  
  
• And finally, Trump is also threatening to imprison journalists he deems unfriendly.

We don't have anything insightful or pithy to add. He's a scary, scary man, and if he's reelected, he'll be surrounded by hordes of additional scary, scary men. (Z)

Don't Forget that Ron DeSantis Is an Authoritarian, Too

Despite the fact that the headline mentions Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-FL), this is actually mostly an item about abortion. More specifically, it is an item about abortion ads.

The Lincoln Project may have one or two scandals on its ledger, but it's still really, really good at producing political ads. We embedded a recent pro-choice ad the organization did, featuring a police officer arresting a young woman traveling across state lines, as he claims she is planning to procure an abortion. Yesterday, the organization released a new pro-choice ad and it is brutal:

If you really want to understand it, you should watch it. That said, we'll try to give a sense of it. The ad features a woman named Daisy (that's also the title of the ad; presumably a callback to the famous LBJ "Daisy" ad). It starts with her warm memories of growing up with her father; footage from her youth is interspersed throughout the ad. We then learn that Daisy's father became a Trumper, and a supporter of Trump's policies on abortion. And finally, in an outcome hinted at throughout the spot, we learn that Daisy had a pregnancy that somehow went wrong, and that she died due to restrictions on prenatal care. Anyhow, the ad has been viewed 200,000 times in the first 24 hours.

Let us now hit you with another pro-choice ad; this one's NOT from the Lincoln Project:

In this one, a woman named Caroline talks about how a case of brain cancer, which emerged while she was pregnant, put her in the position of having to get an abortion in order to survive (the fetus would not have survived either way). She warns that, under current Florida law, she would not be able to make the choice she made.

And that is where DeSantis comes in. We suspect he does not care about abortion, one way or another. But whatever his views are, his political base is fanatically anti-abortion. So, it would not be well for a pro-choice amendment to pass and become law on his watch. Consequently, he is doing everything he can to defeat the Florida abortion amendment, and if he has to abuse the powers of his office to do it, then... oh, well. So, among many other abuses, he has directed his underlings to send cease and desist letters to TV stations that are airing pro-choice ads (specifically, the one with Caroline). If the stations do not obey, then DeSantis is threatening management with 60 days in jail.

Like Donald Trump, DeSantis is a scary, scary man, with no discernible moral compass to speak of. That said, we think there is a significant risk that maneuvers like this will backfire. Anyone who is pro-choice is already lost to the Governor, at least on this issue. And by putting his inner fascist on display, he risks driving the "small government" types into the pro-choice column. We are just not impressed with his political instincts, and continue to believe strongly that he will never, ever get within a country mile of being president. (Z)

Trump's Mental Decline: It's Not Just Our Imagination (or Yours)

The New York Times has come in for a lot of criticism this cycle, primarily for being a bit (or more than a bit) too willing to normalize Donald Trump. Maybe they have taken that criticism to heart, because the Gray Lady has been hitting the former president pretty hard this week.

Like anyone who follows politics, the Times is well aware of the perception that Trump has shown a significant mental decline since leaving office (and he was no great shakes even while he was IN office). Not only does he ramble and seem to lose track of his train of thought, Trump also makes a lot of serious mistakes, from confusing Iran and North Korea to confusing Joe Biden and Kamala Harris.

Of course, anyone can make a mistake (or ten), especially when they are on camera as much as Trump is. So, the Times decided to try to put things on a more objective basis, and did a computer analysis of his speeches. Here are their findings:

• In 2016, Trump's average speech was 45 minutes. This year, the average is 82 minutes.
  
  
• Trump is now using 13% more all-or-nothing words, like "never" and "always" than he did 8 years ago.
  
  
• Trump uses 32% more negative than positive words; in 2016, it was 21%.
  
  
• Trump uses 69% more curse words now than he did in 2016.
  
  
• Trump's historical frame of reference is overwhelmingly the 1980s and 1990s.

All of these are potential signs of dementia, or some similar impairment. For example, the increased reliance on swear words is called disinhibition, and can reflect a loss in mental discipline and/or the use of swear words as a distractor to keep hearers from noticing a person's mental lapses. Similarly, people with dementia tend to lose short-term memory, while long-term remains intact. It is common for such a person to recall (and even to think they are in) a past era, while showing a lack of awareness for the present.

The Times talked to a number of people who know Trump well, but are no longer in his orbit, like Anthony Scaramucci, Gen. John F. Kelly (ret.) and author Ramin Setoodeh, who interviewed Trump many times for a book on The Apprentice. They are unanimous in thinking that Trump is much worse than he was 4 or 8 years ago. The various experts that the paper consulted were in agreement; they just couldn't say if it's normal aging, or if there is an underlying condition, as well.

The Trump camp, meanwhile, had two, contradictory responses. Many of Trump's underlings, such as spokesman Steven Cheung, said there's been no change, and that anyone who says otherwise is peddling fake news. Others complimented Trump on his deliberately chosen word-salad strategy, which Trump himself calls "the weave."

For our part, we believe the numbers, and we believe our own eyes and our own ears. As to what this means, should Trump become president again, we do not know. On one hand, if he becomes even more incoherent, he may struggle to do the most damaging things on his to do list. On the other hand, if he becomes even more incoherent, that may invite more capable and cunning underlings, people like Stephen Miller, to fill the void. Further, Trump is just a means to an end for many of these folks, and if they have cover to get rid of him under the Twenty-Fifth Amendment, and to replace him with J.D. Vance, they just might do it. It's yet another giant wildcard, for a man that has so many of them. (Z)

More on Election Betting

Lawyer-reader A.R. in Los Angeles, CA, read with interest an item we had last week, and has sent in a fuller breakdown:

Last week, this site had an item about a D.C. case between the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) and Kalshi, a company that operates a derivative exchange, who wanted to list event contracts that allow trading on which party will win control of Congress. I thought I'd dig into it a little more to see what actually happened in the case. It turns out that, upon closer inspection, it's much more nuanced and interesting than we realized.

First, this is not a case of a court going rogue and ignoring federal law. In fact, it's just the opposite. The district court specifically stated in the opinion that the case was not about whether these types of contracts are a good idea or whether betting on elections hurts election integrity: "Although the Court acknowledges the CFTC's concern that allowing the public to trade on the outcome of elections threatens the public interest, this Court has no occasion to consider that argument. This case is not about whether the Court likes Kalshi's product or thinks trading it is a good idea. The Court's only task is to determine what Congress did, not what it could do or should do. And Congress did not authorize the CFTC to conduct the public interest review it conducted here."

The basic setup is this: Congress passed a law, the Commodities Exchange Act (CEA), which authorizes the CFTC to regulate derivatives. Event contracts, where one trades based on the likelihood of a certain event, are a type of derivative regulated by the CFTC. (As an aside, many of these contracts are about risk mitigation—so, if you own property in a hurricane zone, you could buy a contract that a certain hurricane will hit your area as a hedge against any losses you may incur from said hurricane.) You can't list an event contract without being registered with the CFTC. Typically, companies "self-certify" that they're in compliance with CFTC's requirements and they get their certificate—the whole process is pretty quick. But there's a special rule that allows the CFTC to conduct a 90-day review to determine if the contract is in the public interest, if the contract "involves" specific subjects: illegal activity, terrorism, assassination, war, or gaming. Yes, "gaming" is listed right after "war" in the law. You can see what Congress was getting at, right? They don't want people trading on whether someone will be murdered, or whether war will break out, or on some illegal activity like whether someone will rob [X] bank. And gaming is there to prevent trading on big sporting events. You'll notice that what is not listed here is elections. And elections are not an otherwise illegal activity (well, not yet anyway, assuming Donald Trump doesn't get his way).

Nevertheless, the CFTC invoked this special rule, conducted a 90-day review, determined the contract was not in the public interest and denied the registration. Kalshi sued and claimed the CFTC had exceeded its authority in conducting the review in the first place. So, the Court wasn't asked whether these contracts are a good idea or whether CFTC was correct in its assessment that they are contrary to the public's interest—even if there's a good argument that assessment is on the money. Instead, the Court was asked whether the CEA authorized the CFTC to conduct the review at all under the terms of the special rule.

The Court said no, the special rule doesn't apply here. And its opinion is an exercise in judicial restraint, which is exactly what we want from our judicial system. The CFTC really tied itself in knots trying to fit this square derivative into the round categories in the special rule. First, it said the contract involves an illegal activity because while elections aren't illegal, state law prohibits betting on elections, and these contracts involve betting on elections, so it's an illegal activity. The Court said whoa, that's not really what "involves an activity that is unlawful" means. The phrase "involves" an illegal activity references the subject of the contract: Is the subject of the contract illegal? It's not about whether trading on the subject could make it illegal. And you can see why that reading of that phrase makes sense, because a broader interpretation could subject more categories of contracts to the special rule than are actually listed in the special rule. Plus, whether trading on something is illegal under state law is irrelevant, as the CEA specifically preempts any conflicting state laws regarding derivatives.

Second, the CFTC said that these contracts involve "gaming," because gaming is synonymous with gambling and gambling means betting, which is what these contracts involve. But the Court said whoa again, because under that logic, every event contract that involves betting on some event would be considered gaming and would be subject to this 90-day review. And that can't be right because then there would be no need for a "special" rule specifying when these reviews can be conducted. Maybe the CFTC has seen Music Man, where they have trouble in River City because it starts with T, which rhymes with P and that stands for Pool!

So, the Court, not unreasonably, concluded that Kalshi was correct that the CFTC had exceeded its authority here. Interestingly, this is one of the first cases to be decided under the new standard of review for agency decisions. You'll recall that SCOTUS, in Loper Bright, overturned Chevron, so now courts conduct an independent review rather than a more deferential review of agency decisions.

But wait, there's more. In denying the CFTC's request for an emergency stay pending appeal, the D.C. Appeals Court pointed out that if these types of contracts were so bad, the agency had the power all along to enact a rule to subject them to greater scrutiny. You can practically hear Glinda the Good Witch telling Dorothy she had the power to go home all along. Turns out the last category of that special rule is this: "(VI) other similar activity determined by the Commission, by rule or regulation, to be contrary to the public interest." Well, would you look at that! The CFTC could have enacted a "rule or regulation" with the requisite comment period, etc. to state that events contracts involving elections are contrary to the public interest and cannot be registered. Far from a case about a Court going rogue, this is a case about an agency asking the Court to fix its screw-up. Thankfully, the Court declined this invitation.

Finally, if Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR) was going to weigh in, what he should have said is that the Court was right not to write what Congress did not, and either the CFTC needs to draft a rule addressing this subject, or Congress needs to amend the CEA giving the CFTC specific authority to regulate these types of contracts. But to misrepresent what the Court did and what the case was actually about is lazy, irresponsible and just wrong. We need to be shoring up our beleaguered courts and not piling on because it's politically expedient.

Thanks, as always, A.R.! (Z)

I'm with the Band, Part I

Today's post is, on the whole, kind of a downer. A.R. in Los Angeles didn't get the memo, of course, but everything else is no fun at all.

To that end, let's finish with a dessert that (partly) pays off an item from yesterday: What is a good name for a band composed of Donald Trump and Elon Musk? Here are 10 reader suggestions:

• G.S. in Spokane, WA: Crooks and Done (Brooks and Dunn)
  
  
• M.S. in New York City, NY: Notorious P.I.G. (Notorious B.I.G.)
  
  
• K.L. in Sterling, VA: The Tyrds (The Byrds)
  
  
• P.C. in Yandina Creek, QLD, Australia: Joy / Division (Joy Division)
  
  
• D.E. in Lancaster, PA: Panic! At The Capitol (Panic! At the Disco)
  
  
• C.V. in Leander, TX: A Crime Called X (A Tribe Called Quest)
  
  
• S.S. in West Hollywood, CA: Men Without Cats (Men Without Hats)
  
  
• B.F. in Los Angeles, CA: Klu-Tang Klan (Wu-Tang Clan)
  
  
• J.F. in Fort Worth, TX: Hückster Twö (Hüsker Dü)
  
  
• M.S. in Las Vegas, NV: The White Gripes (The White Stripes)

We'll have more soon! And if you have suggestions, there's still time to send them to comments@electoral-vote.com (Z)

Today's Presidential Polls

Did we mention that the presidential race is close? (Or, at least, the pollsters think so.) When the election is over, Siena is going to be the subject of either a lot of "Wow! They saw what other pollsters did not!" articles, or a lot of "What the hell was wrong with Siena's model?" articles. For our part, we do not believe that Donald Trump is really up 14 points in Florida. (Z)

State	Kamala Harris	Donald Trump	Start	End	Pollster
Arizona	48%	47%	Sep 23	Sep 29	GSG + NSOR
Arizona	48%	50%	Sep 24	Oct 01	Fabrizio + Anzalone
Florida	41%	55%	Sep 29	Oct 06	Siena Coll.
Georgia	47%	47%	Sep 23	Sep 29	GSG + NSOR
Massachusetts	61%	32%	Oct 01	Oct 05	Suffolk U.
Maryland	57%	35%	Sep 23	Sep 28	U. of Maryland
Michigan	47%	49%	Sep 23	Sep 29	GSG + NSOR
Michigan	51%	48%	Oct 05	Oct 07	Research Co.
North Carolina	47%	48%	Sep 23	Sep 29	GSG + NSOR
Nevada	48%	47%	Sep 23	Sep 29	GSG + NSOR
Pennsylvania	48%	48%	Sep 23	Sep 29	GSG + NSOR
Pennsylvania	50%	49%	Oct 05	Oct 07	Research Co.
Texas	44%	50%	Sep 29	Oct 04	Siena Coll.
Texas	45%	50%	Oct 02	Oct 06	Florida Atlantic U.
Wisconsin	48%	46%	Sep 23	Sep 29	GSG + NSOR
Wisconsin	50%	48%	Oct 05	Oct 07	Research Co.

Click on a state name for a graph of its polling history.

Today's Senate Polls

Democrats are leading in all the states they need to lead in, and Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) is within striking distance. Still, where the heck are the Montana polls? Maybe buffalo don't have cell phones. (Z)

State	Democrat	D %	Republican	R %	Start	End	Pollster
Arizona	Ruben Gallego	51%	Kari Lake	44%	Sep 24	Oct 01	Fabrizio + Anzalone
Massachusetts	Elizabeth Warren*	59%	John Deaton	35%	Oct 01	Oct 05	Suffolk U.
Michigan	Elissa Slotkin	52%	Mike Rogers	47%	Oct 05	Oct 07	Research Co.
Pennsylvania	Bob Casey*	51%	David McCormick	48%	Oct 05	Oct 07	Research Co.
Texas	Colin Allred	44%	Ted Cruz*	47%	Oct 02	Oct 06	Florida Atlantic U.
Wisconsin	Tammy Baldwin*	52%	Eric Hovde	47%	Oct 05	Oct 07	Research Co.

* Denotes incumbent

---

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.

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

---

Email a link to a friend or share:

---The Votemaster and Zenger