Previous | Next | Senate page | Menu
New polls: (None)
Dem pickups: (None)
GOP pickups: AZ GA WI
Musk-Funded GOTV Efforts Are Struggling
As we have noted several times, the Trump campaign has outsourced its get-out-the-vote (GOTV) operation to third parties. This is unheard of in modern politics, but probably not illegal. If some billionaire wants to spend his own money hiring people to knock on doors and encourage them to vote, it's probably legal as long as the campaign and billionaire don't coordinate.
This is what the Trump campaign has done, although the "not coordinate" part is doubtful since Donald Trump talks to Musk, one of his outsourcers (outsourcerers?) multiple times a week. As long as they just discuss golf and how Melania is taking the campaign and who she will vote for, it is probably OK. If they get into politics, maybe not so OK. In any event, as we have also pointed out a couple of times, while Musk does know a lot about making electric cars and firing rockets into space (and catching them on the way down), he doesn't know much about running a GOTV operation, and it is starting to show.
It works like this. Musk has hired contractors to do the work and shelled out $75 million to them so far. They hire hourly workers at $20/hr to knock on doors. The workers get lists of where they are to go, but they have to provide their own cars to get there and pay for the gas themselves. In some cases, the contractor checks where they are, utilizing an app on their smartphones, but there are other apps the workers can put on their phones to fake their locations so they can cover up the fact that they didn't actually do the work they were assigned. The contractors have auditors who check on the workers. For example, they try to determine if flyers the workers were supposed to deliver actually got delivered. If workers are found cheating, they are fired. But then the contractor has to find and train new workers, which is not easy to do because no one is about to give up an actual job for a 3-week stint canvassing, and unemployment is low. Also, it is not clear that the contractors actually care whether the workers do anything, since the contractors get paid no matter what. It's all about the grift.
Musk's PAC, America PAC, has goals about how many doors its canvassers are supposed to knock on. For example, in Wisconsin, it is 450,000. It is falling far short of that there. The contractors hired by America PAC are having trouble finding people to hire, the ones who are hired often quit quickly (for example, over pay disputes), and again, some of them may be lying about how many people they have contacted.
The focus of America PAC's operation is getting low-propensity voters to the poll. "Low-propensity voters" are people who rarely, if ever, vote, either because it is too much trouble, they think all politicians are crooks, or they believe there is no difference between the parties. Getting them to vote may take more than knocking on their doors and announcing: "Hi, I'm from America PAC. Early voting has started, so time to vote!"
In addition to using Musk for his GOTV operation, Trump also used Turning Point Action (TPA), which was going to handle Wisconsin, Michigan, Nevada, and Arizona. TPA has already given up on the first three and is now focused only on Arizona. It has some experience there. In 2022, it worked for Kari Lake and Blake Masters. Both were crushed.
Kamala Harris doesn't have so many problems because the campaign itself is running the GOTV operation and it has hundreds of thousands of volunteers who are doing the work because they believe in her, not because they can make a couple of bucks an hour more than they could at McDonald's. (V)
The Obamas Will Campaign with Harris
Barack Obama, who is still very popular with Democrats, has been campaigning hard for Kamala Harris. He is currently on a 6-day tour through five of the swing states. Obama has especially targeted young Black men and tried to convince them that Trump doesn't give a hoot about Black people, whereas Harris does and they should get off their rear ends and vote. He also chastised (some of) them for refusing to vote for a woman. In addition, he addressed the young Black men who like Trump because he is "strong." Obama said that bullying people who can't fight back is not strength. He has come in for some criticism for his tough love.
Of late, Obama has been mocking Donald Trump, calling him a huckster, and saying that he lacks the mental fitness to lead the country. At the University of Arizona on Friday, Obama said: "You would be worried if your grandpa was acting like this. Tucson, we do not need to see what an older, loonier Donald Trump looks like with no guardrails." Obama tries to say things that will get under Trump's skin because he knows his rallies will be well covered in the media. For example, he noted that Trump is always trying to sell supporters stuff. He laughed: "This is my favorite: He's got the Trump Bible—wants you to buy the word of God, Donald Trump edition." Then he noted that the Trump Bibles are printed in China and noted the hypocrisy.
Up until now, Obama has campaigned on his own. That is about to change. Starting this week, both Barack and Michelle Obama will campaign together with Harris, to pull in big crowds with their star power. They will campaign separately. On Thursday, the former president will appear with Harris in Georgia. On Saturday, the former first lady and Harris will appear together in Michigan.
This will be the first time Michelle has campaigned this year. She notoriously hates campaigning. In 2016, when then-Sen. Mark Kirk (R-IL) was running for reelection after having suffered a major stroke and was barely able to function, many Democrats pleaded with Michelle to run for the Democratic nomination for the Illinois Senate race, which was hers for the asking. She would have crushed Kirk in the general election even if she held just one event a week. But she refused. This allowed now-Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-IL) to jump in and win easily.
No plans have been announced beyond Saturday, but it is expected that both Obamas will appear at more events with Harris as the campaign winds down.
The Obamas aren't the only celebrities out there for Harris. On Saturday, Harris was out in Michigan with rapper Lizzo, who is a Michigan native. She will also do a joint appearance with pop singer Usher. Harris understands that she has to work hard to get young people to vote and appearing at rallies with pop stars might get their attention.
On the other hand, Harris has no plans to campaign with Joe Biden in the final 2 weeks. She is trying to quietly distance herself from Biden, so she doesn't want to be seen with him. She is emphasizing "change," and appearing with him sends the wrong message. Of course, he understands this and is fully cooperating, specifically by talking to labor leaders and others out of view behind the scenes. (V)
Do Women Want to Be Protected by Trump--or from Trump?
In September, Donald Trump told women: "I will be your protector." This didn't go over so well with the ladies. Quite a few feel they do not need to be protected by a man, especially not this man. Younger women, college-educated women and single women, in particular, tend to chafe at the idea of their requiring a man to protect them, especially a man who has been found liable in court for committing sexual assault against one woman and has been accused of it by many other women.
It's not that women lack anxiety. Many of them are anxious about many things—their lives and their position in society, for example. But what they are worried about is not what Trump wants them to be worried about. He wants them to be scared of criminal immigrants. Instead they are scared that their rights to abortion, IVF, and contraception may be taken from them by Trump and the Republicans. He dismisses these fears as unrealistic and wants them to be afraid of what he tells them to be afraid of. Many women see this as paternalistic and patronizing.
At his convention, Trump surrounded himself with hypermasculine people like pro wrestler Hulk Hogan and Ultimate Fighting Championship CEO Dana White, who has been filmed hitting his wife. Many women see Trump as trying to protect them by restoring the patriarchy in its full 1950s glory and moving gender roles back 75 years. Back in the 1950s, one of the most popular TV shows was Father Knows Best, in which a kindly father faced problems in his family, but in the end he always saved the day. Republican voters are on board with this. An Ipsos survey has shown that a majority of Republican men and Republican women agree with the statement: "Traditional family structures, with a wage-earning father and homemaking mother, best equip children to succeed." In another poll, nearly half of Republicans (and 60% of evangelicals) agreed with the statement: "In a truly Christian family, the husband is the head of the household and his wife submits to his leadership." Harris gets this, which is why her slogan is: "We're not going back."
Trump's attempt to protect women might catch on a little with older, married women who don't like all the changes in the country since the 1950s. Some of them like the idea of being protected by a man. But when Trump talks about "protection" to younger women (and, of course, many older women), they hear "control," and they don't want to have Trump control their lives. Whether Trump will pick up more votes among older married working-class women who were on the fence than he will lose among younger women who were at least open to him because prices used to be lower is unknowable at this point, but we don't like his odds. (V)
A Secret Company Is Spending Nearly Three-Quarters of a Billion Dollars for Harris
Quick. What company is spending $700 million for Kamala Harris in a controversial way? Don't know? Well, we didn't either until we saw this story in The New York Times. The company, Future Forward, has raised and is spending $700 million in a way that some campaign pros think is inefficient. But the company was founded by a group of wonky Obama campaign veterans who think they know better than the pros, and are acting accordingly. They are extremely secretive, which is why nobody has ever heard of them. But they are exceedingly focused on what they believe is the best strategy for Harris and don't especially want any input from her campaign team.
The company is more like a political science lab than a super PAC. It has tested thousands of messages with ads on TV and the Internet and social media postings. Only one in 20 of the tested messages is ultimately approved and run big time. The company is serious about testing its messages thoroughly before pushing them out everywhere. The company claims to have run 10 million voter surveys since January, of which four million were since Harris entered the race. Seems like a lot to us. Each message is ranked in its effectiveness in moving voters, and it is the survival of the fittest. Whichever company is getting the order for all the hard disks they are buying to store their data is surely doing well. The company has some very rich donors supporting their work, but they are rather shy about naming names.
David Nickerson, the political scientist who ran the experiments division of Barack Obama's very data-driven 2012 campaign said: "They're probably the most analytics- and evidence-driven PAC I've ever seen." But not all pros think that so much money should go to testing ads and spending the rest of it on running the best ones, even if they are really good at it. Some of them want to see more money going to GOTV efforts, but that is not what Future Forward does.
Here's where the controversy is: The pros want to microtarget the ads. What about those fence-sitting left-handed middle-age wealthy college-educated Baptist Black married vegan lesbians? Shouldn't we be focusing on them? OK, maybe not so specific, but people in the Harris campaign think all day long about which demographic groups they need to microtarget. Future Forward says that all of its data say that broadly based ads are more cost effective than a collection of microtargeted ads. That's where the disagreement is, and Future Forward says it has disks full of data to back up its claim.
Since July, the group has tested over 300 ads, both online and on TV, and measured the effectiveness down to a tenth of a percentage point. They haven't disclosed how they do that, but presumably they do some polling in some market, run the ad, and then poll again. According to their measurements, this is the best ad of all. It is only 1 minute and worth watching. If you are not signed into a YouTube account and get a message asking you to sign in, you can just click on the "best ad" link and watch it there.
The ad starts with Harris at a rally speaking directly to the camera talking about what she will do to help ordinary people by trying to reduce prices and cut taxes. She says: "If you want to know who someone cares about, look who they fight for." The ad cuts to families in kitchens and people shopping as she continues speaking. So after 4 million voter surveys, the company discovered that all they had to do was use footage of her repeating Ronald Reagan's stump speech. No microtargeting at all here. Just a generic speech talking about how she would help middle-class voters on kitchen table issues. That got the best response of the hundreds of ads they used. The campaign didn't like this at all. They wanted to microtarget a dozen very specific demographics, not just say: "I'll lower prices and cut taxes." Who is right? We dunno. Maybe James Carville ("It's the economy, stupid"). (V)
Jill Stein May Be a Spoiler, But Maybe Not the Way You Think
People who are close to Green Party candidate Jill Stein are begging her to drop her campaign lest she elect Donald Trump and end democracy in America. They are aware that the number of votes she got in 2016 in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania exceeded Trump's margin in each of those states. If she had dropped out and endorsed Hillary Clinton in order to stop the menace of Trump, Clinton might have won. Then Clinton, not Trump, would have nominated three Supreme Court justices, taken the pandemic more seriously, and done quite a few other things the Stein voters cared about. So with the election a coin toss now, will Stein drop out and endorse Kamala Harris?
Well, no. That is despite her own family strongly urging her to do so now. One of her adult sons recently told a reporter that early this year her own family asked her not to run for fear of electing someone she abhors. She ignored them all. To make it worse, her campaign is not focused on all the great things she would do as president, like raise the minimum wage, implement the Green New Deal, make healthcare more affordable, etc. Instead, it is focused on hammering Harris for the wars in Gaza and Lebanon, as if Harris had some control over Joe Biden's foreign policy. Stein's attacks on Israel are so unrelenting that she managed to get white supremacist and former KKK wizard David Duke to temporarily shelve his virulent antisemitism and endorse Stein, who is Jewish. What he likes about her are her constant attacks on Israel. Stein has rejected his endorsement.
But her rejection may not have much of an effect. A recent poll from Noble Predictive Insights shows that Stein may be hurting Trump more than she is hurting Harris. The company, founded by Mike Noble, hired David Byler, who used to be The Washington Post's answer to The New York Times' Nate Cohn, as chief researcher and seems to be a neutral pollster. When voters were asked if they preferred Harris to Trump, it was Harris 49%, Trump 47%. But when Stein was added to the mix, it became Harris 49%, Trump 46%. This suggests that Stein is pulling more support from Trump than from Harris. Of course, this is only one poll and national polls don't really count, but it is still noteworthy because it contradicts the conventional wisdom that Stein hurts Harris the most.
How come? It is not due to Duke's endorsement, because that came after the poll, although that could cement Stein's support from antisemites. Maybe it is because some Trump supporters don't like either Harris or Trump on Israel (both support Israel), and Stein is full-throated against Israel. Or maybe they are pro-Putin and Trump isn't sufficiently Putiny (Putinish?). Stein famously dined with Putin in 2015 and in 2024 defended him and refused to call him a war criminal for invading Ukraine. (V)
Trump May Fund the Transition with Unlimited Dark Money if He Wins
It is more than 2 months from Nov. 5 to Jan. 20, surely enough time for a president-elect to get ready to take over, right? No way. A president needs to appoint something like 4,000 people who need Senate confirmation (e.g., the Cabinet, subcabinet, and agency heads and subheads) and others who don't (e.g., the chief of staff and many, many people who work for the president in the White House). Managing the process and interviewing people takes time, money, office space, and communications infrastructure. If the president hasn't gotten the top positions nailed down by Jan. 20, he or she won't get off to a running start and will be perceived as disorganized.
Congress understands all this and provides funding and office space to smooth the process along. Joe Biden got over $7 million and temporary office space for 500 people, as well as e-mail, IT, and telecomm support. Training is also available in government mail and other procedures for new hires. Biden also raised and spent another $22 million from private donors. This is normal.
What is not normal is Donald Trump's announcement that he may forego all the government assistance, which requires a fair amount of transparency, and just get rich donors to bankroll the transition with dark money that does not have to be reported. If you want something from the Trump administration, tossing some money into the transition pot is a good idea. It is called pay-to-play. It is the opposite of draining the swamp. It is feeding the alligators and mosquitoes.
While not agreeing to take federal money will allow unlimited donations to flow in for the transition, it also has a downside. Then Trump will get little information about what is going on in the various departments, what the ongoing issues are, and he will have to find private office space and arrange for his own e-mail, IT, and telecomm. Joe Biden will then feel little obligation to help him and might not feel bad if Trump botches his start and makes a fool of himself.
Just to name one small thing: For some sensitive positions, a security clearance is needed for potential job candidates to explain the issues they will face and ask them how they will handle them. If Trump refuses to accept the government money and oversight, Biden could order the FBI not to cooperate with the transition team, so the process of getting clearances couldn't even begin until Jan. 20. This will not necessarily mean chaos reigns, because cabinet officers stay on the job past Jan. 20 until they either resign themselves or the new president fires them. Would Trump fire the current Secretary of Defense if his candidate hasn't even started the clearance process yet? Would the Senate confirm someone without a security clearance for that position?
Trump has already chosen former SBA chair Linda McMahon and GOP megadonor Howard Lutnick to shake down potential donors who want something from the Trump administration, although he phrases it somewhat differently. The pair will accept résumés from people looking to work for Trump and start to vet them. Proof of loyalty to Trump, rather than, say, to the law, will be a big selling point.
In contrast with Trump, Kamala Harris has already agreed to take the money and the oversight, so the transition to a Harris administration would go smoothly. In addition, she might keep some of Biden's appointees since she knows many of them, but she might give them new positions. Of course, she is also much more aware of current issues facing the various departments than Trump is. (V)
Biden Has Provided Student Loan Relief to 5 Million Former Students
One of the things Joe Biden campaigned on in 2020 was relief for student loans. He tried to do it by Executive Order, but the Supreme Court said: "Nope." Only Congress can reduce or eliminate student debt. Unfortunately for Kamala Harris, many students living with crushing debt don't understand how this works and are blaming Harris for not "doing something." Some of them may decide not to vote for her as a result or not vote at all on the grounds that the parties are equally bad.
Despite the Supreme Court ruling, Biden has been able to use existing programs and shoehorn $175 billion in debt relief in there. Almost 5 million former students have benefited from these programs. They, at least, won't be blaming Harris for not fulfilling Biden's promise. While this is only 11% of the people with student loans, in a close election, every vote could matter.
Below is a graphic that shows how much money has been forgiven (on the left). Each box represents $1 billion. Next comes the debt that Biden's plan would have eliminated had the Supremes not vetoed the idea. But even Biden's plan, which called for up to $20,000 in debt to be relieved per student, would never have covered all student debt, which adds up to $1.6 trillion.
Some people with student loans are being crushed. The link above has a video with some horror stories, like one from a woman who borrowed $34,000 as a student and now owes over $500,000 due to accrued interest. Nevertheless, not all students are like this. Many students found good jobs after graduating and are doing fine paying off their loans.
Harris understands that student debt relief plays well with people who went to college, who are a big part of her base. She has often talked about Biden's successes in this area and promised to try to continue to provide relief, something that only Congress can do in the end. She constantly attacks Donald Trump and the Republicans for opposing debt relief. Of course, if she gets elected, the students with loans are going to expect action, not excuses. (V)
GOP is Now Trying to Block Overseas Military and Civilian Voters
U.S. citizens living abroad, both civilian and military, may vote in the state they last lived in. In the past, voting among overseas Americans was not controversial. Democrats felt that all U.S. citizens should be allowed to vote. Republicans believed that the majority of overseas Americans were in the military and were Republicans. Everyone was happy.
It is now believed that the civilian overseas vote exceeds the military vote and both have become heavily Democratic. The military vote is not what it was because enlisted members are now disproportionately minority and there are far more enlisted service members than officers, who tend to be Republican. It is estimated that there are 6.5 million eligible voters living outside the country, of which 1.6 million are entitled to vote in battleground states.
Consequently, Donald Trump and Republicans generally are trying to make it harder for Americans outside the country to vote. Republicans in Michigan, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania have filed various lawsuits to curb overseas voting, claiming it is susceptible to fraud. They also object to a federal law that states that American citizens who have never lived in the U.S. may vote where their parents vote(d). They want all ballots from outside the country to be set aside and counted later. At the very least, this could help Trump on Election Night and then give him an argument to claim fraud when they are counted later and erase any lead he might have.
One problem the Republicans have, though, is PR. Disenfranchising active or former military voters who are risking (or have risked) their lives for their country does not play well with many voters, especially veterans. On the other hand, maybe the lawsuits are working as intended. Some expat groups are saying that they are hearing from people who were planning to vote but now will not because they think their vote will not count. So the lawsuits are a form of voter suppression. The Pennsylvania Secretary of State's office issued a statement saying the Pennsylvania lawsuit is "nothing more than an attempt to confuse and frighten people ahead of an important election." It also said that all ballots sent out are valid and will be counted if returned correctly. (V)
Many Republican Senators Despise Trump
A new biography of Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) out later this month has some revelations about what McConnell thought of Trump in 2020. McConnell called Trump "stupid," "ill-tempered," "a despicable human being," and a "narcissist." And that is coming from someone who has to work with Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX). He also hinted that a sizable fraction of the GOP Senate conference felt the same way. He also said that it was not just Democrats who were counting the days until Trump was gone.
McConnell will not be a leader starting in January, but he will still be in the Senate and regarded by many senators as an elder statesman to whom they can turn to for advice. Think Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), except not able to rid his party of a weak presidential candidate. McConnell has built up a lot of good will among conference members, having led the Republicans for 18 years, the longest tenure of any Senate leader in history. If Trump wins, there could be tensions between him and the Senate, especially if the Republicans control the body 51-49 and not all of them are on board with Trumpism. A former Senate aide, Brian Darling, said: "A lot of the Senate Republican allies are not strong allies."
There is a lot of lingering bad blood between many senators and Trump. That could flare up if Trump wants Congress to do things the senators feel are bad for the Party and the country. The House is far more likely to be compliant with Trump because many representatives are from highly gerrymandered and very Trumpy districts. That is much less true of entire states.
Three Republican senators who voted to convict Trump at his second impeachment trial will be in the new Senate: Sens. Bill Cassidy (LA), Susan Collins (ME) and Lisa Murkowski (AK). Several other Republican senators are clearly not big fans of Trump, including Mike Rounds (SD) and Todd Young (IN). Neither of the likely Republican leaders, Sens. John Thune (SD) and John Cornyn (TX), especially like Trump and both have a history of criticizing him. The next GOP whip, Sen. John Barrasso (WY), is a McConnell ally. If Trump wins, he may have to actually negotiate with the Senate, even if the Republicans control it. The leadership will not roll over and play dead for him. (V)
Democrats Are Worrying About Harris Facing a Republican Senate
Democrats worry. That's what they do best. Their #1 worry is about Donald Trump winning the election. Their #2 worry is about Kamala Harris winning but the Republicans controlling the Senate and blocking Harris at every turn. The last time a Democrat was elected president and had to immediately face a Republican-controlled Senate was when Stephen Grover Cleveland was first elected in 1884, and that was a far less partisan time. Indeed, Cleveland himself was almost as Republican as he was Democratic, and even endorsed a Republican (William McKinley) to succeed him in the White House.
Harris is way behind on planning her possible transition. Presidential candidates normally begin planning their transition 6 months in advance of the election. Harris didn't have that luxury. She also has to consider the very real possibility of a Republican Senate. Most of the current Democratic seats are probably safe, but to get to even 50 seats, the Democrat (or independent) has to win one of Florida, Montana, Nebraska or Texas. In current polling, only Dan Osborn (I) is leading (in Nebraska) and there is no guarantee he will caucus with the Democrats, as the four current independents do.
Harris' first task will be getting the Cabinet confirmed. This could require at least one Republican vote for each nominee, and that Republican might just ask for something in return. The most likely Republican crossover is Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK). Unfortunately for Harris, her state's biggest industry is oil and she might demand that Harris cut out all this talk of getting rid of fossil fuels as the price for her votes. Another possibility is Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME). Her state's biggest industries are fishing, logging, and farming. That could prove easier, especially since she is up in 2026 and Murkowski is not. The Green New Deal does not threaten the profits of the lobster industry.
Since cabinet appointments never expire, Harris could keep any current secretaries indefinitely, and possibly move them to new posts. She could also appoint acting secretaries for a limited amount of time. A real Hail Mary play would be for Biden to appoint Harris' choices in December and have the current Senate ram them through in a lame-duck session, but that would really poison the well.
Harris could make a deal with the new Republican leader, either John Thune or John Cornyn, but she doesn't know either of them well at all. Still, if they want to make a break with Trump and take back their party, working with Harris could be a start.
Cabinet and other appointments would only be the first problem for Harris. There are plenty more. The government is scheduled to shut down on Dec. 20. Probably the can will be kicked to past Jan. 20, especially if the Republicans capture both chambers of Congress. In any event, Thune or Cornyn might demand major changes to the budget in return for agreeing to bring nominations to a vote. With Sens. Joe Manchin (I-WV) and Kyrsten Sinema (I-AZ) out of the way in January, the Democrats will be united, but if they have only 48 or 49 seats, they will need Republican votes and Harris will probably be forced to give Republicans a lot of what they want on the budget to avoid a shutdown. Her political skills will be tested to the max within weeks of her inauguration.
On policy goals, Harris will have to do triage. Making abortion legal in all states or fighting climate change would be out of the question. Some of the provisions of the 2017 Tax Cut Act will expire in 2026. The Republicans will fight to keep some of them so there has to be a tax bill. Cutting taxes for ordinary people might be doable, as long as millionaires and billionaires got even bigger cuts. Raising taxes on the rich will not fly. Forget it.
With Trump no longer calling the shots, there are a few things that might get through, especially if the Democrats control the House. Republicans really want a border bill and Harris has said she would sign the Lankford-Murphy bill that Trump vetoed, even though he wasn't president last spring when he vetoed it. Since Republicans really want that bill, Harris could offer a trade: I'll sign the Lankford-Murphy bill if you will pass a bill for incentives to build an extra million houses. Republicans could then claim credit for adding to the housing supply. They might even go along with subsidies for first-time home buyers.
In short, if Harris were to focus only on relatively neutral things, like the border, housing, infrastructure, tax cuts, creating jobs (in manufacturing), helping small businesses, reining in China, reducing the cost of health care, etc., she could get some things done. But this would mean abandoning all the red meat (blue meat?) that her base craves, like action on abortion, ending gerrymandering, appointing liberal judges, phasing out fossil fuels, and all programs that help poor people.
Could the Democrats win the Senate in 2026 and then carry out her program? Always possible, but an uphill battle. Here is the 2026 Senate map:
Next time around, Sen. Jon Ossoff (D-GA) has to defend his seat, probably against Gov. Brian Kemp (R-GA). He won't have Sen. Raphael Warnock (D-GA) on the ballot then to get Black voters to the polls in droves. He could easily lose. Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) might be in some danger, but probably the other Democrats are safe.
What about pickup opportunities? One obvious one is Susan Collins' seat. Could Maine absorb $100 million in TV spending? Are there enough TV and radio stations available? And who would the Democrats run? The obvious candidate would be Gov. Janet Mills (D-ME). She beat crazyman Paul LePage in 2022 by 13 points, but Collins is not crazy and has won five Senate elections in Maine. She won't be an easy target. However, she would be 74 at the start of a potential sixth term and might decide that enough is enough and retire, in which case Mills would be the favorite.
A second possible pickup would be North Carolina, especially if Harris and gubernatorial candidate Josh Stein (D) win the Tarheel State this year. Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC) is up in 2026. In 2014, Tillis beat incumbent Kay Hagan by 1.56%. In 2020, he beat Cal Cunningham by 1.75%. However, Cunningham had a wardrobe malfunction, specifically concerning his zipper. It got stuck in the open position. Absent that, he might have won. In any event, North Carolina is getting bluer every year, so if the Democrats can find a good candidate, they could win that one. The obvious choice is outgoing governor Roy Cooper (67).
If Mills and Cooper can win, the Democrats could net one seat if Ossoff loses and two seats if Ossoff hangs on, assuming they don't lose any other seats. (V)
Michiganders and Michigeese Contemplate Moving to Canada if Trump Wins
After a recent Kamala Harris rally in Grand Rapids, MI, a Politico reporter spoke to 20 of the Democrats who attended it. They were scared to death about what could happen if Donald Trump pulls this off again, as he did in 2016. Honest-to-God fear has replaced joy on the campaign trail for them. Some were considering voting with their feet. One 62-year-old artist said she didn't want to live in "a Trumpian hellscape. We might have to leave: Canada, if they'll take us." Many of the others noted that they were close to Canada and were making contingency plans to move there if Trump won.
This sentiment also arose in Jan. 2017 and the number of Americans applying for permanent residency in Canada did rise, but only by 4%. But this time it is worse. In early 2017, people could believe that Trump-the-deal-maker would make lots of deals with Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and get things done in a bipartisan way. Nobody believes that now. Also, in 2017, Trump didn't talk endlessly about retribution and enemies within the country and jailing his enemies without a trial. He is far more vicious now than then. Also, then, he had no idea how the government worked and stocked his administration with generals who took an oath to defend the Constitution and meant it. None of that is applicable now (well, actually, he still doesn't really understand how the government works).
Will people who want to emigrate to Canada get in? Maybe. On the whole, Canada's immigration policy mirrors JFK's famous remark. It is "Ask not what Canada can do for you, but what you can do for Canada." If you have skills that Canada needs and a job lined up where you can use them, you are pretty much welcome. If you have skills that are in short supply but no job (e.g., you are a nurse or engineer) and speak English or French, you still have a good chance. Alternatively, if you have plans and enough money to start a business that will employ a certain number of Canadians, you can usually get a temporary residence permit. After a few years, they check to see if you did what you promised and if you did, make it permanent. For others, it depends on the applicant and the details. If Trump wins, there is almost certain to be a surge in applications. (V)
Previous | Next
Main page for smartphones
Main page for tablets and computers