Main page    Oct. 17

Pres map
Previous | Next | Senate page | Menu

New polls: CA GA NC UT WA
Dem pickups: NC
GOP pickups: AZ GA NV

Elon Musk, Miriam Adelson and Richard Uihlein Gave Trump $220 Million

Q3 Campaign donation filings are being reported now. The biggest news is that three billionaires gave Donald Trump a total of $220 million combined in July, August, and September. Miriam Adelson, widow of casino magnate Sheldon Adelson, gave $95 million. The world's richest man, Elon Musk, gave $75 million. Schlitz beer heir and owner of the U-line packaging supplies company Richard Uihlein gave $50 million. Trump is clearly much beloved by billionaires.

Each of them probably has a different motivation, although when you are a multibillionaire, giving a campaign $50-100 million is small potatoes. Adelson, who was born in Israel, really has only one issue: Israel. She wants a president she trusts to support Israel, no matter how many college students demonstrate in favor of the Palestinians. She likes Trump's Middle East policy: What Bibi wants, Bibi gets. Musk wants to be important and maybe get a position in the Trump administration where he can change the country to be more billionaire friendly, possibly by eliminating or sabotaging anti-poverty and other programs that are of no use to billionaires. He would love to put the kibosh on a few ongoing federal investigations, as well. Uihlein usually keeps a low profile and never does interviews—the exact opposite of Musk—but he has been a Republican megadonor for decades. He probably doesn't want any personal favors from Trump, just low taxes for billionaires.

The Adelsons and Uihleins have been donating to Republicans since forever, but Musk is new to the game. Despite that, he has inserted himself into the campaign in a big way, talking to Trump multiple times a week. With Musk, separating his personal interests from his business interests is increasingly difficult. It could cost him. Last week the California Coastal Commission rejected SpaceX's plans to launch more rockets from Vandenberg Air Force Base, citing his political antics as a reason. He is also butting heads with the FAA over launch requirements. So far, his tweets and behavior have not affected SpaceX getting government contracts, but if Kamala Harris becomes commander in chief, she could decide that having a healthy Boeing Corporation is in the national interest and use her power to send military and space contracts in that direction. That it would hurt Musk would just be the cherry on the sundae.

Wall Street isn't impressed by Musk's politicking. When Musk showed off his "cybercab" last week, the value of Tesla dropped by $68 billion. That's more than the total value of General Motors ($54 billion) or Ford ($43 billion). Musk personally became $12 billion poorer last Friday. Spending more time in Pennsylvania campaigning for Trump and less time making sure he can deliver on Tesla's promises probably isn't going to make investors get the feeling that Musk is on top of the company's problems and fixing them.

The $220 million in donations to Trump from three donors doesn't mean Trump can now dominate the airwaves and ground game. Harris raised $1 billion since July 21, so she can meet the challenge easily. Of that haul, $633 million came from high-dollar donors and the rest from small donors. Harris has used the $220 million donation from the three billionaires to Trump to encourage her small donors to give her more. Also, the megadonors are giving to Trump-affiliated PACs, which get far less favorable ad rates.

Super PACs supporting Senate candidates also raised a lot of money in Q3. The super PAC aligned with Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Senate Majority PAC, took in $119 million. Most Democratic Senate candidates are outraising their Republican opponents, including Sens. Ruben Gallego (AZ), Angela Alsobrooks (MD), Elissa Slotkin (MI), Jon Tester (MT), Jacky Rosen (NV), and Sherrod Brown (OH). Colin Allred (TX) raised $30 million vs. Ted Cruz' $18 million. Bob Casey (PA) is tied with Connecticut resident David McCormick. Tammy Baldwin (WI) is slightly behind Eric Hovde.

The Republican equivalent, Senate Leadership Fund, raised $116 million, so it was roughly a tie. The main Democratic House super PAC received $101 million in Q3 vs. the main Republican House super PAC, which got $81 million. (V)

Harris Targets Mormons

Both western swing states, Arizona and Nevada, have many members of the LDS Church, more than 600,000 in the two states combined. Harris sees an opening with them and is trying to take advantage of it.

Mormons have traditionally voted Republican and tend to agree with Donald Trump on many policy issues. But not all. His hatred of immigrants does not sit well with the many Mormons who have done missionary work in Latin America. They also value probity, sanity, and decency, and do not value being divisive, grabbing women by the pu**y, or inciting mobs to riot. For many Mormon voters, weighing these factors will determine their votes. What it boils down to is that they like the message but don't like the messenger. With Harris, it is the other way around.

Harris' campaign is doing phone banking, door knocking, and holding events specifically targeted at Mormons. She has prominent Mormon surrogates out campaigning for her, including Mesa Mayor John Giles (R), former Henderson Mayor Andy Hafen (R), and others. A recent poll shows that a small majority of Mormons (51%) have an unfavorable view of Trump. Not only is there the illegal/unethical behavior, but also his self-aggrandizing nature does not sit well with the Mormon values of humility, modesty, and frugality that the Church teaches. Also, his brand of grievance politics does not go over well with the many educated Mormons with stable families and middle-class incomes. (V)

There Is Still Time for an October Surprise

As Yogi Berra once famously pointed out, it ain't over 'til it's over. Have we had the traditional October surprise yet? Not really, but there is still time.

The term "October surprise," meaning a late-breaking external event that can sway a lot of undecided voters (and maybe some decided voters, as well), originated in 1980, when Ronald Reagan's campaign manager, Bill Casey, warned that maybe Jimmy Carter was planning an "October surprise" by making a deal to free the 52 hostages held by Iran. It didn't happen because Iran wanted Reagan to win, as demonstrated by it releasing the hostages just minutes after Reagan was inaugurated. But the term stuck.

In 1992, Iran was again in the news. Reagan secretly sold arms to Iran to get the release of American hostages with the intention of using the proceeds to arm the Contras in Nicaragua, in violation of an order from Congress not to do that. This became known as the Iran-Contra scandal. On the Friday before the election, former Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger was indicted for covering it up, and it came out candidate George H.W. Bush knew much more about it than he admitted. This certainly helped cement his defeat. The story broke on Oct. 30, so it was definitely an October surprise and it wasn't a pleasant one for Bush.

In Oct. 2000, a reporter in Maine revealed that in 1976—24 years earlier—George W. Bush had been pulled over for drunk driving. Bush admitted it and said that he had never mentioned it to save his children the embarrassment. Karl Rove, Bush's brain and polling expert, later said that the incident cost Bush five states and almost the presidency. In most countries, a traffic violation a quarter of a century ago would not be disqualifying for leadership now, but America is exceptional (albeit not in the way some Americans think it is).

Sometimes the October surprise gives way to its cousin, the November surprise. In 2004, 4 days before the election, a video from Osama Bin Laden surfaced and warned the U.S. not to strike Muslim nations. Democratic candidate John Kerry later blamed his defeat on it because it put terrorism back in the spotlight on Election Day.

In 2008, John McCain was campaigning on the "fundamentals of our economy are strong" to convince voters that he could continue the successes of the George W. Bush administration. Then the storied investment firm Lehman Brothers collapsed, taking the whole economy with it. McCain was flummoxed and didn't know how to respond. He flailed all of October and that did him in.

In 2016, 11 days before the election, then-FBI Director James Comey announced: "More e-mails!" and that sank Hillary Clinton who was leading in the polls at the time. Remember, much of Donald Trump's campaign was about her private e-mail server, which admittedly she should not have used, but which in reality was probably safer than the State Dept.'s, because the Russians didn't know it even existed.

Will there be an October surprise this year? We won't know until we know. But with so much early voting now, even a really big surprise—say, Ivanka saying that Dad is a slimy crook and she's voting for Harris—the number of votes that could be changed is smaller than in the past. However, maybe the surprise will be that there is no surprise. That would certainly be a surprise. (V)

Republican Pollsters Are Fighting--Other Republican Pollsters

It is pumpkin season and also leak season (though hopefully there will be no leaky pumpkins). Politico has obtained not one, but two leaked Republican memos about the Senate races and they are in conflict.

One memo is from the Senate Leadership Fund (SLF), which is controlled by Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY). The other is from the NRSC. Both of these are supposed to be well-tuned into the races. In any event, they are spending hundreds of millions of dollars on the races and it might be better for them if they were on the same page.

First, they agree that Arizona, Nevada, and Maryland are lost causes, but that Montana looks hopeful. They disagree on Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. With West Virginia a done deal, Republicans need to flip one other seat to take over the Senate. Maybe it will be Montana, but the groups don't want to put all their eggs in that one basket. Three-term Sen. Jon Tester (D-MT) is very well known and popular and could pull it off in the end.

The NRSC found that wealthy Mercedes Benz dealer Bernie Moreno is leading Sherrod Brown (D-OH) by 2 points and Donald Trump was ahead of Kamala Harris by 11 points in Ohio. The SLF had Brown up by 6 and Trump up by only 4. Every single quality public poll so far has Brown ahead:

Ohio Senate race; Brown is up 2-5 points in most polls, and is sometimes above the magic 50%

Michigan has an open seat due to the retirement of Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-MI). The NRSC has Elissa Slotkin up by only 1 point over Mike Rogers. The SLF has Slotkin up by 8 points. We think Slotkin is way ahead. Here are the polls we have:

Michigan Senate racel Slotkin is up 2-8 points, and is very often above the magic 50%

In Pennsylvania, the NRSC has Bob Casey leading Dave McCormick by only one point. The SLF says no, Casey is ahead by 2 points. The data give a somewhat different picture, with Casey having led all year:

Pennsylvania Senate race; Casey is up 1-6 points and is above 50% about 40% of the time

In Wisconsin, the NRSC has California banker Eric Hovde leading Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) by 1 point. The SLF has Baldwin ahead. Here is our data:

Wisconsin Senate race; Baldwin is up 1-5 points and is above 50% about half the time

The last two are close and the difference is just statistical noise, but the Republican PACs are seeing different results than we are seeing in the graphs. Seems odd. The first two are very different and could affect where money is spent. For example, if Slotkin is crushing Rogers, it would probably be best to let him sink or swim on his own and spend the money elsewhere. (V)

PollWatch 2024, Part III: Could the Election Be a Landslide?

Yesterday, we had an item about how the national polls are sometimes way off, with polling errors between 1% and 7% since 1980. This year, it is a virtual tie nationally and in all the swing states. Nothing seems to move the needle, since Kamala Harris was swapped in as a pinch hitter for Joe Biden:

Electoral College graph since January; Harris slightly improved on Biden's numbers but otherwise it's been stable

Individual pollsters may have some built-in bias that they don't even know about. Our hope is that by averaging all recent polls, that will cancel out to a large extent. But what if it doesn't? What if, on the whole, the polls are biased a few points one way or another? How much difference would that make?

One way to find out is to conduct a little experiment. To see what would happen if the polls were biased by X points for Harris, we can take all the polling data and subtract X points from Harris and add X points to Donald Trump and see what happens to the electoral vote. Ditto the other way. We did exactly that and here are the results:

R-5 R-4 R-3 R-2 R-1 No error D-1 D-2 D-3 D-4 D-5
Trump +160 Trump +114 Trump +96 Trump +86 Trump +86 Harris +24 Harris +45 Harris +106 Harris +181 Harris +271 Harris +335


Here is how to interpret the table. The "No error" column shows the electoral-vote score if the polls are spot-on. This is what today's map shows. But imagine that the pollsters were all underestimating Trump's vote share by 5 points (R-5)—for example, due to "shy Trump voters." This is shown in column 1. Then Trump wins the electoral college by 160 EVs, a huge blowout. Now suppose the pollsters are off by 4 points in Harris' favor. Correcting that gives us column 2 (R-4) in which Trump wins by 114 EVs, and so on. If the polls are off by 1 point in favor of Trump, then correcting that brings us to column 7 (D-1), and Harris wins by 45 EVs. If the polls have missed vast numbers of young voters and Harris does 5 points better than the current polls, she will win by a net margin of 335 EVs.

This model assumes the polls are off the same amount everywhere, which is unlikely. If we tried to compensate for different polling errors in all seven swing states separately, we'd be playing seven-dimensional chess and, we have to admit, we are not so good at that. (V)

Nebraska's Time to Shine?

It is well known that people each get 15 minutes of fame. Does that also hold for states? If so, California needs to move on and stop hogging the spotlight. But some states haven't had their allotted 15 minutes yet. One of them is Nebraska, which is a peaceful place that is usually happy to stay out of the limelight. But maybe this year it will get its time in the sun. For six reasons, no less:

So Nov. 5 will be Nebraska's 15 minutes in the sun. But it may have to share it with Montana on account of the critical Senate race there. (V)

The Blue Dogs Are Back in Town

Rep. Jared Golden (D-ME) represents ME-02, which has a PVI of R+6 and which went for Donald Trump by 7 points in 2020. He likes his job and wants to keep it, something not so easy in such a red district. His strategy is to rebuild the Blue Dog Caucus, which had been decimated in recent years as centrist Democrats have been defeated around the country and the party has moved to the left.

If Golden can put together a dozen—or even half a dozen—blue doggers in a coherent group, that group could wield as much power as The Squad, especially since two Squad members won't be around in the new Congress. If the New Dogs have more members than the difference between the parties, it could put the Democrats under as much pressure to do what they want as the Freedom Caucus puts on the Republicans.

Golden has said: "We basically reject party loyalty, the idea that there should be some kind of national party with a series of cascading litmus tests and everyone's gotta follow suit." You know who supports Golden? Sen. Joe Manchin (I-WV), but he's not a Democrat anymore. And soon, he won't be a senator, either.

If the math works out for Golden—that is, if the Democrats capture the House by [X] seats and the Dogs have [> X] members—Golden and his followers will be on a collision course with the party leadership. For example, he has already said he doesn't even want to talk about another climate bill. But he is not a DINO. He calls himself a progressive conservative and thinks his way is the way to rescue the Democrats in rural blue-collar districts like his around the country. He is willing to offer advice to any Democrat who wants to listen.

At their high point, the Blue Dogs had 54 members. Now they have 10. But they are not quiet. Golden is fighting the Biden administration on regulations for lobstermen. Rep. Mary Peltola (AK) is fighting Biden on land use in Alaska. Rep. Marie Glusenkamp-Perez (WA), an auto mechanic by trade, is fighting against electric cars, saying they won't work in rural communities where distances are large and charging points are few and far between. But all of them have won seats in areas Democrats are normally crushed in. Golden wants to increase the size of the caucus and make it more powerful. On the one hand, the Democrats like the idea of more House seats. On the other, they don't like Democrats like Golden opposing some of their most cherished policies. (V)

Can the Real Estate Market Influence Politics?

For some people, climate change is a vague abstraction about something that might happen in 100 years, or maybe not. Who knows? For the people in Florida who have just experienced two nasty hurricanes in a row, it is not a future abstraction. It is here right now. And it is affecting them in ways that they hadn't expected. In particular, the invisible hand of the free market has driven down the value of houses located in areas subject to flooding, while also driving up premiums for storm insurance. It is a double whammy for an increasing number of people.

Cape Coral, FL, west of Fort Myers, is ground zero for this problem. It has canals throughout the city, which makes flooding during storms much more likely than cities not connected to the ocean by water. And as sea levels rise, homes in Cape Coral may acquire swimming pools on their front lawns, for free. But it is not the only place. A study of millions of real estate transactions in Florida has shown that house prices in areas of substantial risk are not growing as quickly as places with less risk. In other words, climate change is actually costing people real money right now. Here is a key graph from the study:

Home prices risky areas have gone up less than in less risky areas

Another problem for people in high-risk areas is that property insurance premiums have soared, especially along the Florida coast. Debbie Mucarsel-Powell is using this as a major theme in her Senate campaign, blaming the rise on Rick Scott when he was governor. Some insurance companies have withdrawn from the Florida market altogether. For a potential house buyer, the very real possibility of massive home damage due to a hurricane and the sky-high prices for insurance is at least a tool for arguing the selling price way down.

As it begins to sink in that climate change is real and is making their houses worth less, it is certainly possible that homeowners in Florida and elsewhere in areas subject to hurricanes, flooding, wildfires, and other natural disasters will demand that politicians do something about climate change since they have actual skin in the game. How long this process will take we don't know, but as more and more people see that they are personally being affected and their most expensive asset is declining in value, they may start to get the message. It could especially affect people whose only real asset is their house and their retirement plans consist of selling the house, renting an apartment, and living off the profit from the sale. If the decline in the value of the house becomes serious, it could upset their plans and they might start to demand action. (V)

Yet Another Supreme Court Justice Comes under Fire

Justice Clarence Thomas has his $250,000 RV and Justice Samuel Alito has his flags. But the other seven justices have avoided controversies (other than their rulings), right? Well, no. Justice Neil Gorsuch just published a book coauthored with former clerk Janie Nitze entitled Over Ruled that is at least as controversial as what his fellow conservatives have been up to, just in a different way.

The book argues that there are too many laws and regulations and it is too hard for companies to follow them all. Gorsuch spent the summer going around and plugging the book to conservative and Republican audiences. He sounded more like someone from the Reagan administration arguing that government is bad, rather than a justice who believes his job is to judge whether some defendant has disobeyed the laws Congress wrote. Clearly, he sees his mission as telling Congress it shouldn't write so many laws that he doesn't like.

The book gives numerous misleading examples and anecdotes, often where it looks like someone was unreasonably convicted of violating some law, as Gorsuch omits key evidence showing that the defendant knew exactly what he was doing and simply found the law inconvenient. A review by CNN also makes it clear that Gorsuch distorts many of the examples to make laws and rules look bad. For example, he decried the fact that a county in Minnesota insisted that people in an Amish community in the state treat their grey water discharges via a modern septic system. Gorsuch felt their religious principles were being trampled on. He neglected to mention that untreated waste water, for example, from washing dirty cloth diapers, could seep into the local drinking water supply and make people sick. This is why the county requires modern septic systems.

He also cherry picks some of his examples. For example, he cites a 2012 article about federal regulators dealing with the cats in Ernest Hemingway's house. But if overenforcement were a rampant problem, surely he wouldn't have to go back to 2012 to find clear examples of it. There would be plenty of current ones. Also, his attack on government overreach seems to have some blind spots. There are no stories about women being arrested because they had a miscarriage and local authorities saw that as an illegal abortion, part of the fallout of the Dobbs decision he signed onto. In short, the book is a political polemic for a conservative cause and not a careful treatise on regulations one might expect from a Supreme Court justice. (V)

Today's Presidential Polls

Yesterday Kamala Harris was winning Georgia and losing North Carolina. Today she is losing Georgia and winning North Carolina. So her EV score doesn't change. If she ultimately wins either one, that will require Donald Trump to win at least one of the Rust Belt states. (V)

State Kamala Harris Donald Trump Start End Pollster
California 61% 37% Oct 12 Oct 14 Emerson Coll.
Georgia 46% 52% Oct 10 Oct 14 Quinnipiac U.
North Carolina 50% 47% Oct 10 Oct 14 Quinnipiac U.
Utah 38% 54% Oct 02 Oct 07 Noble Predictive Insights
Washington 57% 35% Oct 09 Oct 14 SurveyUSA

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

Today's Senate Polls

Nothing new to see here. (V)

State Democrat D % Republican R % Start End Pollster
California Adam Schiff 56% Steve Garvey 33% Oct 12 Oct 14 Emerson Coll.

* Denotes incumbent


Previous | Next

Main page for smartphones

Main page for tablets and computers