Previous | Next | Senate page | Menu
New polls: AZ CA FL GA MI MT NC NV OH PA TX WI
Dem pickups: (None)
GOP pickups: AZ
Tim Walz: Laser Focused
The Harris-Walz campaign has noticed that VP candidate Tim Walz offers some demographic opportunities to be exploited. And so, that is what the Minnesota Governor will be doing on the campaign trail for the next week... or more.
To start, the U.S. political parties are undergoing a process of realignment, with white working-class voters moving to the Republicans and college-educated voters becoming Democrats. It is to the Democrats' advantage to speed up the movement of college-educated voters to their team (and slow down movement the other way, if they can). Usually when people talk about "college-educated voters" they implicitly mean people who went to Ivy League schools, or other top schools like MIT, Stanford, Duke, Vanderbilt, or flagship state universities like Berkeley, UCLA, the University of Michigan, UNC, etc.
But the vast majority of college graduates did not go to those elite colleges. They went to regional colleges and universities that are not as famous, but are much more numerous. Walz seems to understand that people who went to regional schools are a large untapped audience for the Democrats. At his acceptance speech at the DNC, Walz said: "Now, I grew up in Butte, Nebraska, a town of 400 people. I had 24 kids in my high school class, and none of them went to Yale" (a dig at J.D. Vance).
When Walz was in Erie, PA, he said: "You go off to Yale, you get a philosophy major, write a best-selling book, trash the very people you grew up with, just don't come back to Erie and tell us how to run our lives." What he is trying to do is attract voters who have a bachelors degree, but from a far-from-famous university. They haven't all switched to the Democrats yet, but Walz thinks they could.
The demographic he is aiming at might be called "the state college voter." These are people who went to a school with "State" in the name, like "Cal State Fullerton" or "North Carolina State." The students who go there often stay in their communities after graduating and find decent jobs there, rather than going off to a faraway coastal city and trying to make it big time, never to return. These people form a much larger fraction of the electorate than Ivy Leaguers and have generally flown under the radar. They are college graduates, but not at all elite and people ignore them. Walz is trying to change that and he has the perfect foil in a guy from humble beginnings who went to Yale Law School, which catapulted him into Silicon Valley. That is not the experience of most people who overcame humble roots to get their diploma.
The numbers could work for Walz. About 45% of four-year degree holders attended a regional public university. Very few of these schools are well known outside their state. They admit most applicants with a high school diploma. These are the colleges that students applying to all eight Ivies might have as their safety school, just in case they are rejected everywhere and need to kill a year before reapplying. Despite the vast majority of college graduates coming from regional public universities, the ones in the news all the time are the elite ones—because that is where many politicians, journalists, CEOs, and nonprofit leaders went. You see this bias in lists. In the U.S. News & World Report list of the top 100 national universities, only three are regional public universities.
The Democrats tend to focus on the elite universities and what their students and graduates want. This is often very different from what is going on at the regional universities, where there were almost no encampments about Gaza, high-pitched battles over bathrooms, or fights about affirmative action in admissions. This is because the elite schools lean much further left than the regional schools. Democrats tend to forget this (if they ever knew). Walz, who went to Chadron State College in Nebraska and then Minnesota State University at Mankato, wants to remind them. He also will remind voters that it is the Republicans who have an all-Ivy-League ticket this year, as Trump has a degree from Penn, while Vance earned a degree from Yale. Neither Walz nor Kamala Harris went to an Ivy League school.
And the college graduates are not all that Walz will be focusing upon. While the two members of the Democratic ticket may have "non-Ivy Leaguer" in common, it is also the case that Walz has at least one thing that Harris does not. So, he's going to go on a major media blitz targeted at male voters. First it will be a chat about football with (former football player) Michael Strahan on Good Morning America. Then it will be local hits in swing states, for discussions of high school football and, perhaps, pheasant hunting (note that we initially typed that as "peasant hunting," which is probably more of a Trump family sport). Walz also has appearances lined up with a long list of social media influencers, covering topics from veterans to rodeo riding.
In short, if Walz gets to be VP starting on January 21, 2025, he will definitely have earned it (even if he doesn't manage to shoot a single peasant). (V)
Mad Money: FEC Gives the Republicans an Out
In the money race, the two presidential candidates are headed in different directions. Kamala Harris has passed $1 billion in receipts since entering the race. That's a staggering amount, but even more so since she only got started 2 months ago. Meanwhile, Donald Trump's small-donor (less than $200) donations are way down. They made up half his donors in 2020, and now they're down to less than a third. That's a big problem, because people who haven't hit the cap ($3,300 in the primaries, another $3,300 in the general) can be hit up again. People who donate big, and so reach the limit, cannot. Trump's fundraising struggles have also trickled down to other Republican candidates.
Looking to make up (some of) the difference, the clever folks who run the Republican Party cooked up a bit of a loophole. It's a little weedy, but the simple version goes like this: Political campaigns get much cheaper ad rates than PACs and other political committees. However, PACs and other political committees have fewer limits on the amount of money they can raise. So, maybe if a PAC runs an ad for a candidate (Trump, or downballot), and then slaps a "donate to [X] PAC" at the very end, it becomes a joint effort, eligible for candidate rates, but paid for by the deeper-pocketed PAC/political committee.
It wasn't necessarily clear this was kosher, and a fair reading of the rules says it's surely not. However, the GOP decided to roll the dice and see what happened. The Democrats promptly complained to the FEC, and yesterday the FEC said... nothing. Well, technically, three FEC commissioners (the Democratic appointees) said "this is no good" and the other three commissioners (the Republican appointees) said "this works for us." With the vote tied 3-3, the FEC officially has no opinion, and the Republicans can keep exploiting the loophole.
The Democrats, of course, are also going to start exploiting the loophole. They made very clear they are not going to go through the balance of the election with one hand tied behind their backs. However, most ad inventory has been claimed by now, and besides, the Democrats (and especially Harris) have fewer money problems than the Republicans do. So, the GOP is still going to benefit more from this particular political parlor trick. (Z)
Trump Campaign: The Wrong States Are on the Radar
Well, this is weird. Donald Trump's campaign is finalizing his rally schedule, and they've got major events planned for those notable swing states of Colorado, California, Illinois and New York. Joe Biden won all of those states by at least 13 points in 2020, and his average margin of victory across the four was 20 points.
Here is the official explanation for this curious approach from the Trump campaign:
Choosing high-impact settings makes it so the media can't look away and refuse to cover the issues and the solutions President Trump is offering. We live in a nationalized media environment and the national media's attention on these large-scale, outside-the-norm settings increases the reach of his message across the country and penetrates in every battle ground state.
We suppose it is possible they really believe this. But if so, they are delusional. First, Trump gets plenty of coverage. Second, whatever amount of coverage he gets, it's not going to change because his rally is in Riverside, CA, instead of Butler, PA.
We have a few alternate possibilities, and while we are not in love with them, we'll pass them along:
- Trump has misunderstood the strategy currently being pursued by Kamala Harris. There is value in visiting counties,
in swing states, dominated by the other party. An extra vote in Brunswick, GA, counts as much as one in Atlanta. On the
other hand, going to states dominated by the other party won't help your electoral vote total.
- Trump is trying to raise funds (see above) by connecting with new donors.
- Trump's rallies have been struggling to draw attendees. Perhaps he values a full house above all else, either for visual purposes, or for ego purposes, or both.
Whatever is going on, this is definitely as unconventional, and appears to be as unwise, as the Trump campaign's ground game strategy. It's less than a month until we see if it blows up in his face. (Z)
Media Matters: Harris Agrees to CNN Town Hall; Trump Rages
Kamala Harris—who, as you may have heard, does not do enough media—took a break from her interviews with Howard Stern and Stephen Colbert, her town hall on Univision and her appearance on The View to agree to do a town hall on CNN on October 23.
This is a de facto acknowledgment that the additional presidential debate CNN had offered to host is not going to happen. In turn, that means there likely will not be another presidential debate. In the interest of fairness, CNN has offered to do a town hall with Donald Trump, as well, on the same night. The general idea is that a group of undecided voters would grill Harris for about an hour, then she would leave, and then the same group would grill Trump for an hour. Though he could always change his mind, of course, Trump said "no." Very much like he said "no" to 60 Minutes' offer to do an interview this week.
The fact that Trump declined the 60 Minutes interview—that he chickened out, if you will—is not stopping him from raging about Kamala Harris' appearance, however. We wrote up the Harris appearance, of course, and we found it rather bland. Certainly, it was nothing out of the ordinary when it comes to presidential-candidate interviews. And yet, Trump is in a RAGE about it. During an appearance in Michigan, he spat:
The other big news is the fraud committed by 60 Minutes and CBS together with the Democrat Party, working together with them, which will go down as the single biggest scandal in broadcast history, I predict. It's a big story, I don't know if you've seen it yet.
Not only did Trump provide no evidence for this claim, he didn't even explain exactly what part of the interview has a burr under his saddle. However, he did promise that if he becomes president again, he's going to see to it that CBS loses its broadcast license. (FCC Chair Jessica Rosenworcel has already issued a statement saying that isn't going to be happening).
There is simply no question that Donald Trump, right now, is more unhinged than at any other point in his public career. He's seeing bugaboos everywhere, even where nobody else sees them, and he's grossly overreacting, even by his own, already gross, standards. We have two theories as to what's going on. The first is that the inner reality-TV star is coming out. The longer a reality TV show goes on, the more outlandish and gimmicky it has to get, in order to hold on to viewers.
The second theory is that he is losing (or has lost) all mental discipline, and is descending rapidly into madness, Macbeth-style. As much as we don't like to say it, we think this theory is the right one. If we're correct, and he's reelected, god help us all. (Z)
It's Not Just Our Imagination (or Yours), Part II: NYT, WaPo, Others Really Are Downplaying Trump Legal Woes
We had an item earlier this week, covering the New York Times article in which several reporters illustrated Donald Trump's mental decline using cold, hard statistical facts. This "sequel" item is rather less complimentary of the Times.
Yesterday, Judge Tanya Chutkan decided to unseal several exhibits in Donald Trump's criminal case, at the request of Special Counsel Jack Smith. That said, there's not actually anything new to note, as yet, as she agreed to stay her own order for a week, while Trump's lawyers ponder their legal options.
If you are a regular reader of The New York Times, or other major newspapers, you might not have heard about this new development. That is because they don't give Trump's legal problems all that much attention. At least, they don't give that subject as much attention as Hillary Clinton's e-mails. Media Matters just published a study on this question. Here are their results:
| |
|
|||
| Outlet | |
|
|
|
| The New York Times | |
|
|
|
| The Los Angeles Times | |
|
|
|
| USA Today | |
|
|
|
| The Wall Street Journal | |
|
|
|
| The Washington Post | |
|
|
|
The imbalance is pretty clear.
Note that, for purposes of this analysis, and to keep things relatively comparable, Media Matters looked at Clinton coverage from October 29 through November 4, 2016, and Trump coverage from October 3 through October 9 of this year. The reasoning behind that is that October 28, 2016, is when James Comey released his infamous letter, while October 2 of this year is when Chutkan unsealed the brief in Trump's Washington, DC, case. In other words, a comparison of the week's worth of coverage following an important information dump about each campaign.
We don't think that the imbalance in coverage is conspiratorial. Much of it is because shady e-mails are a simpler and juicier story than legal filings, which are rather more dry. We also suspect that newspaper staffs believe they erred in 2016, and have adjusted course in 2024, as a result. That said, whatever the reason might be, the fact is that Trump is getting much gentler treatment in 2024 than Hillary Clinton did in 2016. That's especially concerning given that Trump's alleged crimes are many orders of magnitude worse than Clinton's alleged crimes. (Z)
Israel, U.S. Nearing Consensus on Iran Retaliation
Earlier this week, we noted that the world is waiting to see how Israel responds to the recent missile strike against them launched by Iran. We also pointed out that Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu was taking his own counsel on the counter-attack, and not taking much interest in what the Biden administration had to say. This raised the possibility of things taking a very ugly turn, which could potentially blow up in the face of Joe Biden, Kamala Harris and the Democrats.
It would seem that Netanyahu's ears were more open than previously reported, as there was news yesterday that he and Biden have been hashing things out before Israel makes its move. According to off-the-record sources, the two leaders are moving toward an agreement where Israel responds more aggressively than the U.S. would prefer, but in a manner not likely to dramatically escalate tensions in the region.
Not much more is known right now and, in any event, the story won't really be written until someone in Israel pushes the "launch" button. However, the news is worth passing along, in view of our previous item. Further, it also gives us an opportunity to add a follow-up to that item, courtesy of reader P.B. in St. Louis, MO. As we have noted many times, we are WAY out of our element when it comes to Middle East geopolitics. By contrast, P.B. has multiple claims to relevant expertise, including a Masters in International Political Economy from Washington University in St. Louis (thesis on autocratic institutions and Middle Eastern politics), and numerous family members in Israel (thanks to a Jewish-American spouse), as well as friends in Lebanon and Iran. This circle of acquaintances spans the political spectrum.
Here is what P.B. had to add to our earlier piece:
In your posting, you noted that the Biden administration has been all-in on Israel and referenced a fantastic Sherlock Holmes/Spock's ancestor quote to explain this observation. I think that you're generally correct, but I believe that I can offer some additional context and analysis.
The Biden administration is looking at a situation where an anti-American coalition is strengthening and moving against U.S. interests around the globe. The core of this coalition is Russia and Iran, along with their various proxies throughout the world. Russia has a geopolitical interest in controlling its neighboring states up to the borders of the former Russian Empire, if not beyond, and maintains proxy groups in Ukraine, Moldova, Georgia, and Armenia, etc., in pursuit of this aim. Iran has a geopolitical interest in controlling its neighboring states up to the borders of the former Persian empire, if not beyond, and maintains proxy groups in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Yemen, etc. in pursuit of this aim. These interests are naturally opposed by other states in Europe and the Middle East, as well as by the U.S., which has a geopolitical interest in a friendly (or at least neutral and politically fractured) Europe and Middle East. In addition to geopolitical concerns, the current governments of Russia and Iran have strong ideological incentives to work together and oppose the U.S. Vladimir Putin came of age during the Cold War and sees the U.S. and NATO as key ideological opponents, and the Ayatollah-led Iranian regime arose from the ashes of a U.S.-backed secular monarchy and publicly opposes the continued existence of the U.S. and Israel on religious and ideological grounds.
Over the past two decades, Russia and Iran have strengthened significantly and seen a great deal of geopolitical success. Both countries are heavily dependent on hydrocarbon revenues, and both have been able to bring in massive amounts of capital by selling hydrocarbons to Europe, India and China. Russia has used its capital to defeat the Chechen separatist movement and install a puppet government in Chechnya, invade Georgia to install puppet governments in the Abkhazia and South Ossetia regions, prop up the dictatorship of Aleksandr Lukashenko in Belarus, invade Moldova to weaken the pro-EU government and prop up a breakaway government in the Transnistria region, prop up the dictatorship of Bashar al-Assad in Syria after the Arab Spring protests, invade Ukraine to seize and annex Crimea and the eastern Donbas region, and most recently invade Ukraine in an attempt to entirely destroy the state. Russia has also sold or given missile and nuclear technology to Iran and created a robust digital espionage and propaganda machine to drive political conflict and discord in the West. Iran has used its capital to fund allied militias in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Yemen, destabilizing these countries and weakening the influence of Iran's rivals in Saudi Arabia, Israel, and the U.S. They have also sought to create militias to destabilize Jordan, but have so far not succeeded. Iran has also sold or given drone technology to Russia for its war in Ukraine as well as various ammunition and other support. On top of this, the U.S. failure and withdrawal from Afghanistan has removed a major U.S. threat from Iran's east.
Knowing all of this, and with decades of foreign policy experience under their collective belts, the Biden administration has pursued a strategy of opposing the Russia-Iran coalition wherever possible, swallowing any domestic political concerns, with some impressive results. The war in Ukraine has ground to a stalemate and consumed a massive amount of Russian resources. Sweden and Finland, two countries historically neutral since the 19th century, have joined NATO and moved entirely into the U.S. orbit. Azerbaijan, a geopolitical rival of both Iran and Russia, has won their three-decade conflict with neighboring Russian ally Armenia (with Israeli military aid). The Biden administration reconciled with Mohammed bin Salman, the crown prince of Saudi Arabia (and a morally concerning leader to say the least), and as a result the price of oil has dropped (which squeezes the finances of Russia and Iran) and Saudi Arabia has moved closer to a formal recognition of Israel. In response to the latter, Hamas launched its massacre against Israeli civilians last October in an attempt to change the narrative and halt Israeli-Saudi normalization. In this they have so far succeeded, but the other results have been devastating for Iran's proxy groups. With aid from the Biden administration, Israel has eliminated Hamas as a military force and reduced the organization to a low-level insurgency in Gaza. They have also dramatically reduced the combat effectiveness of the much larger Hezbollah organization in Lebanon and eliminated the vast majority of their leadership. This significantly tips the balance of power in the region against Iran and Russia.
The Biden administration has done all of this in spite of strong domestic opposition to Ukraine from the U.S. right (which is not terribly challenging for a Democratic administration to resist), and to Israel from the U.S. left (which is much more challenging). There have been several studies suggesting that much of the right-wing anti-Ukraine propaganda as well as the left-wing anti-Israel propaganda can be traced back to the same sources associated with the Russian government and their attempt to generate political discord in the West. So far the U.S. has resisted this discord and acted firmly against the Russia-Iran coalition wherever possible. We shall see if that continues!
Thanks, P.B.! This certainly helps make the picture clearer for us, and we hope it does the same for readers. (Z)
I Read the News Today, Oh Boy: Spam Lamm
Readers may recall that (Z) has a near-encyclopedic knowledge of the TV show M*A*S*H. And one of the finer episodes is "Private Charles Lamb," where animal-loving company clerk Radar O'Reilly saves a lamb from becoming holiday lunch by replacing it with a "replica" made of spam. That's what the headline is about, for those who don't know the show.
Anyhow, for last week's headline theme, we gave the hint "we added 'Chippendales' to the headline of this item, in part, because it's adjacent to the theme, in a manner of speaking." On Saturday, we added "we tried to get 'Trickle Down Economics' into a headline, but couldn't do it." On Sunday, we gave a rare third hint: "there was going to be an item headlined 'TrumpWatch 2024: And You Thought Nixon Had an Enemies List,' but we ran out of time and had to push it back." And now, the solution, courtesy of reader D.M. in Austin, TX (who also explained most of the hints):
I think your theme is actually famous "Dicks":
- It's the Economy, Stupid: Port Strikers Head Back to Work—Dick Head (footballer from Australia)
- Endorsement Watch: Liz Cheney Hits the Road—Dick Cheney (former VP)
- Melania Trump: A Wolf in Sheep's Clothing?—Dick Wolf (film and TV producer)
- Show Me the Money: House Democratic Spending (Largely) Smothers Republican Spending—Dick Smothers (comedian)
- October Surprises: Two New York Congressmen May Be in Hot Water—Dick York (actor)
- I Read the News Today, Oh Boy: Chip 'n' Dale (but not Chippendales)—Dick Dale (guitarist)
- This Week in Schadenfreude: The Wisdom of Solomon? Not Exactly—Dick Solomon (best character ever in a TV show)
- This Week in Freudenfreude: Will and Harper—Dick Harper (Jim Carrey's character in Fun with Dick and Jane)
- Hint: Trickle Down Economics—Dick Trickle (race car driver)
- Hint: And You Thought Nixon Had an Enemies List—Dick Nixon (former president)
Dick Lamm, from the headline for this item, was governor of Colorado from 1975-87. So, our headlines had a whole bunch of Dicks. And so does Chippendale's.
This one was a toughie, so we didn't actually get 50 correct answers (since we got many, many incorrect answers). Here are the first 25 readers to get it right, though:
|
Moving on to this week's theme, it's in the Trivial Pursuit category "Language," and we cannot exactly say if it relies on one or multiple words per headline. We will say that the Israel-Iran headline was not intended to be a part of the theme, because people are going to die when Israel responds, and we don't make a game out of tragedy. That said, that headline accidentally fits the theme, nonetheless. But again, it's not part of the game. For a hint, well, if you look carefully we think you'll be OK.
If you have a guess, send it to comments@electoral-vote.com, with subject line "October 11 Headlines." (Z)
This Week in Schadenfreude: Not a High-IQ Individual, We Suspect
Although IQ, at best, is a somewhat crude instrument for measuring some types of intelligence, Donald Trump and his followers are obsessed with it. We could not help but think of that fact when we read about an as-yet-unidentified man who went viral last week.
The man attended a charity auction in Texas, and apparently had some money to spend. So far, so good. What he ended up buying, for $4,000, was a Taylor Swift guitar. When he walked up to receive the guitar, he was also handed a hammer, which he promptly used to destroy the instrument. Presumably, the "privilege" of destroying the guitar, and thus ostensibly "sticking it" to Swift, was what was actually being auctioned. You can watch the video at the link, if you wish.
There is, as you might have guessed by now, one small problem. The guitar was never used by Swift, was not signed by Swift and, by all indications, has nothing to do with Swift. It did come with a signed CD, however. So, what we have here is a fellow who paid $4,000 to destroy a guitar worth maybe $150, plus... a Taylor Swift-signed CD, which definitely was not destroyed. Good job, Mr. MAGA.
We are reminded of the old aphorism about a fool and his money... (Z)
This Week in Freudenfreude: Not Even in the Same Zip Code
There is a pretty clear theme running through the two "freude" items this week. In response to Hurricanes Helene and Milton, donations have been rolling in from across the country. That includes, of course, generous donations from many celebrities. And we bet that you could guess, without much prompting, which two celebrities have made the biggest donations. We're not going to make this a pop quiz, though; we're just going to tell you. It's Taylor Swift, who gave $5 million, and Dolly Parton, who gave $2 million (half from her own money, and half from her charitable foundations).
Neither woman has direct ties to the affected states. Both are Southern, however, or nominally so, with Parton having been born in Tennessee, while Swift spent some of her formative years there. Beyond that, they are both clearly very fundamentally decent people. Last Friday, we wrote that a pretty good litmus test for right/wrong is "Would Jimmy Carter approve?" In response, reader J.H. in Portland, OR, wrote in: "Another test I use is, 'What would Dolly do?'" We think that's a pretty good one; perhaps we should also add "What would Taylor think?"
Needless to say, at a time when some prominent folks are interested primarily in using the hurricanes to score a few cheap political points, it's heartening to see other prominent folks stepping up to try to help their fellow man and woman. Others include Ryan Reynolds and Blake Lively, Metallica, and Morgan Wallen. There will also be a benefit concert later this month featuring Sheryl Crow, Keith Urban, Bailey Zimmerman, Luke Combs, James Taylor, Eric Church and Billy Strings. And note that these donations are publicly known because the recipients shared the news, not the donors. Kudos to all of them for their good works.
Have a good weekend, all! (Z)
Today's Presidential Polls
The polls are coming fast and furious now. Today's group is not great for Kamala Harris, but it's not devastating, either. (Z)
| State | Kamala Harris | Donald Trump | Start | End | Pollster |
| Arizona | 48% | 51% | Oct 05 | Oct 08 | Emerson Coll. |
| California | 57% | 35% | Sep 24 | Sep 30 | U. of Cal. Berkeley |
| Florida | 47% | 51% | Oct 03 | Oct 07 | Marist Coll. |
| Georgia | 50% | 50% | Oct 05 | Oct 08 | Emerson Coll. |
| Michigan | 50% | 50% | Oct 05 | Oct 08 | Emerson Coll. |
| Montana | 40% | 57% | Oct 05 | Oct 08 | Siena Coll. |
| North Carolina | 49% | 50% | Oct 05 | Oct 08 | Emerson Coll. |
| Nevada | 49% | 48% | Oct 05 | Oct 08 | Emerson Coll. |
| Ohio | 45% | 51% | Oct 03 | Oct 07 | George Mason U. |
| Ohio | 46% | 52% | Oct 03 | Oct 07 | Marist Coll. |
| Pennsylvania | 47% | 45% | Sep 23 | Oct 01 | YouGov |
| Pennsylvania | 47% | 48% | Oct 02 | Oct 07 | U. of Austin |
| Pennsylvania | 49% | 50% | Oct 05 | Oct 08 | Emerson Coll. |
| Texas | 46% | 53% | Oct 03 | Oct 07 | Marist Coll. |
| Wisconsin | 49% | 50% | Oct 05 | Oct 08 | Emerson Coll. |
Click on a state name for a graph of its polling history.
Today's Senate Polls
There are very, very few plausible scenarios where the Democrats lose the Ohio seat and hold the Senate. So, those two Ohio polls have to be making Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) sweat. (Z)
| State | Democrat | D % | Republican | R % | Start | End | Pollster |
| Arizona | Ruben Gallego | 50% | Kari Lake | 43% | Oct 05 | Oct 08 | Emerson Coll. |
| Florida | Debbie Mucarsel-Powell | 40% | Rick Scott* | 49% | Sep 29 | Oct 06 | Siena Coll. |
| Florida | Debbie Mucarsel-Powell | 48% | Rick Scott* | 50% | Oct 03 | Oct 07 | Marist Coll. |
| Michigan | Elissa Slotkin | 49% | Mike Rogers | 44% | Oct 05 | Oct 08 | Emerson Coll. |
| Montana | Jon Tester* | 44% | Tim Sheehy | 52% | Oct 05 | Oct 08 | Siena Coll. |
| Nevada | Jacky Rosen* | 50% | Sam Brown | 42% | Oct 05 | Oct 08 | Emerson Coll. |
| Ohio | Sherrod Brown* | 48% | Bernie Moreno | 47% | Oct 03 | Oct 07 | George Mason U. |
| Ohio | Sherrod Brown* | 50% | Bernie Moreno | 48% | Oct 03 | Oct 07 | Marist Coll. |
| Pennsylvania | Bob Casey* | 48% | David McCormick | 46% | Oct 05 | Oct 08 | Emerson Coll. |
| Texas | Colin Allred | 44% | Ted Cruz* | 48% | Sep 29 | Oct 04 | Siena Coll. |
| Texas | Colin Allred | 46% | Ted Cruz* | 51% | Oct 03 | Oct 07 | Marist Coll. |
| Wisconsin | Tammy Baldwin* | 50% | Eric Hovde | 46% | Oct 05 | Oct 08 | Emerson Coll. |
* Denotes incumbent
Previous | Next
Main page for smartphones
Main page for tablets and computers