A total repudiation of Trump is on the way. Cheer when it happens.
After a recent round of polls I was at mentally at 80 percent odds that Democrats would win the Senate. I emailed that number to friends on October 30.
Winning includes picking up at least four.
My stated most likely case for over a month was +6, but most likely does not mean probable. My expectation now is +6 or +7 depending on Iowa.
This increased confidence stems from a set of polls released late Sunday evening by the New York Times.
Democrats Show Strength in Final Days of Race for the Senate, New Polls Find
The New York Times reports Democrats Show Strength in Final Days of Race for the Senate, New Polls Find This is a free link.
Dissatisfaction with President Trump and frustration over his management of the economy are dragging down Republicans, according to the polls. Just 38 percent of likely voters approved of the president’s job performance in the seven states in the poll, a strikingly low figure given that Mr. Trump had won five of the states by double digits just two years ago.
The newfound Democratic strength was powered by growing trust in the party to handle the economy — the key motivating issue for voters this year. Democrats hold a nine-point advantage on the cost of living across the battlegrounds, and they led on this crucial measure in every single state.
If the polls are accurate and these trends hold, Democrats would win control of the Senate.
But there were some reasons for Democratic concern: There are still some undecided voters, and voters who decided only in the last month favored Republicans by a nine-point margin.
In the Senate race in Texas, James Talarico, a Democratic state legislator, held a seven-point edge over Ken Paxton, the Republican state attorney general, 50 percent to 43 percent among likely voters. Mr. Paxton had the worst image of any candidate included in the survey — by far.
Polls are imperfect. Six years ago, Ms. Collins had trailed in every survey before the election — and she still won re-election comfortably.
But the new polls revealed a series of flashing warning signs for Republicans — about both their candidates and the broader political environment.
In every state but Maine, the Democratic Senate candidate was viewed more favorably than the Republican candidate.
One key advantage for Democratic candidates is that they are leading with independent voters in every state surveyed. That includes Iowa, where Josh Turek, a Democratic state legislator, was effectively tied with Representative Ashley Hinson, the Republican nominee.
The polls found that the Democratic resurgence was powered by a renewed strength among younger voters and Latinos, as well as the relative weakness Republicans have among the party’s base of white, working-class voters.
Mr. Trump had made gains among Latino and younger voters in 2024. But this year, his party’s Senate candidates were winning only about one-quarter of younger voters and Latino voters.
Crumbling trust in Republicans on the economy — and in Mr. Trump in particular — helps to explain how Democrats are competitive in a state like Kansas. Mr. Trump won Kansas by the widest margin of any of the seven states polled, and the state has not elected a Democratic senator for nearly a century. But diesel prices that rose after the Iran war, and the administration’s decision to drop import tariffs on foreign beef, have dismayed farmers.
Adam Hamilton, the Democratic nominee and the pastor of the largest church in the state, leads Senator Roger Marshall, the Republican incumbent, 49 percent to 44 percent.
In Texas, 49 percent of likely voters view Mr. Talarico favorably, while 39 percent view him unfavorably, giving him a 10-point-edge on favorability despite an enormous, very negative ad campaign against him funded chiefly by Elon Musk, the world’s richest person.
Mr. Paxton, Mr. Talarico’s G.O.P. opponent, has seen his image decline in recent months. Fifty-four percent of likely voters there now view him unfavorably, while only 33 percent view him favorably.
In Alaska, Mary Peltola, the former Democratic congresswoman challenging Senator Dan Sullivan, has faced criticism after a New York Times investigation found political operatives aligned with her recruited another candidate, Dan J. Sullivan, to run as a Republican in the race to try to pull votes away from the Republican incumbent.
The poll was mostly completed before the release of the story. Even so, Ms. Peltola was the only Democrat in this set of polls to lose ground since an earlier Times/Siena poll. The poll found her with a narrow edge over Mr. Sullivan, 48 percent to 46 percent.
Anecdote of the Day
Rey Gonzales, a 62-year-old Republican living in Houston, said that he had been troubled by the allegations that led to Mr. Paxton’s impeachment and by reports that he had been unfaithful in his marriage. Mr. Gonzales, who says he voted for Mr. Trump in 2016 and 2020 but did not vote in 2024, says he plans to support Mr. Talarico purely out of dislike for Mr. Paxton.
When asked what he liked about Mr. Talarico, his answer was succinct: “Nothing.”
The Final Polls Show a Blue Surge. Can We Trust Them?
Nate Cohn, the Times’s chief political analyst, asks The Final Polls Show a Blue Surge. Can We Trust Them? This is a free link.
A substantial Democratic lead in Texas? Kansas? Anything like these results would have been unfathomable just a few months ago.
In today’s polarized era, there’s no precedent for a party to fare this well in so many states that are generally safe wins for the other side. The only plausible comparisons are the Democratic victories in 2006 and 2008, but the recent polls outpace even those. The average of all polls shows Democrats leading in the same states as the Times/Siena surveys, giving the party the edge in more solidly Republican Senate seats than it managed to flip in 2006 and 2008 combined.
On the other hand, there’s precedent in the Trump era for polls to overestimate Democrats, and it’s reasonable to wonder whether the polls might be overestimating Democratic strength yet again. This is a real possibility. President Trump’s supporters are relatively unlikely to respond to polls, which introduces the ever-present risk of a polling misfire. And as will be discussed at the end of this newsletter, there are signs that this is a serious problem for pollsters again this cycle.
Nonetheless, Democrats lead by enough that they could win the Senate even if the polls underestimate Republicans by as much as they did in 2016 or 2020. And if there were ever a time when American voters might offer such a decisive verdict on the president, this could be it.
Historically, quagmire abroad and high prices at home are the ingredients for a failed presidency. Since the American attack on Iran, Mr. Trump’s approval ratings have fallen into the mid-30s — below the long supposed “floor” in his support. It’s made him the most unpopular president heading into a midterm election since Harry Truman in 1946.
For the first time, a significant number of Republican-leaning voters disapprove of his job performance. He’s much less popular than he was ahead of previous Trump-era elections, including those when Republicans were clobbered.
His approval ratings are at least a net 10 points worse than they were in 2025 before decisive Democratic victories in New Jersey and Virginia. They’re a net 12 points lower than they were heading into Election Day in 2018, when Democrats won the national vote by nearly nine points in a “blue wave” (though they were unable to flip key red-state Senate races).
It’s absolutely possible that Democrats will be disappointed once more. To keep those Senate seats, Republicans merely need to get Republican-leaning voters to show up and vote Republican, as they usually do. It wouldn’t be a shock if that happens. This is still Texas and Kansas we’re talking about.
But this seemingly simple task is much more challenging for Republicans today than it was in 2018. Back then, Republicans could win merely by holding voters who supported Mr. Trump. His approval rating was over 50 percent in all of the crucial red states where Democrats fell short. This time, they won’t have that essential advantage. His approval rating is under 40 percent across the five red states included in this poll (Kansas, Texas, Ohio, Alaska and Iowa).
Mary Peltola was the only Democrat to lose ground since September in Times/Siena polling. The Alaska poll was almost entirely completed before The Times reported that operatives aligned with the Peltola campaign had orchestrated an effort to place another Dan Sullivan on the ballot to siphon votes from Senator Dan Sullivan. (Alaska is a challenging state to poll, so we started earlier than in the other states.)
Are the polls off?
Over the history of the Times/Siena poll, there have been two previous elections when the final polls showed everything seeming to break toward Democrats.
The first was in 2018. Our final polls showed Democrats gaining across the board, including in races that had barely been on the radar. Democrats surged by double digits in just a few weeks to build startling leads over longtime Republican incumbents in districts that supported Mr. Trump in the previous election. Democrats even led in Georgia’s Sixth, which had badly disappointed them in a special election one year earlier when Jon Ossoff lost.
In the end, the final Times/Siena polls were dead-on — including where Democratic strength was most surprising.
The second time was in 2020. Joe Biden steadily gained in our polls in October, as Mr. Trump’s poor debate performance and subsequent Covid hospitalization reignited the possibility of a landslide win.
In the end, the final Times/Siena polls in 2020 underestimated Mr. Trump by five points (Mr. Biden won, but by much less than our polls suggested).
In recent days, there have also been warnings from other pollsters. The Washington Post released the result of a poll finding Mr. Hamilton up around 10 points in Kansas, but the pollsters did not trust the result. Registered Democrats were more than three times as likely to cooperate with the survey as registered Republicans (though it is worth noting The Post did not observe a similar problem in earlier polls of Maine and Michigan).
The persistence of this kind of nonresponse bias introduces the risk of a systematic polling error like those in 2016 or 2020. That said, nonresponse bias doesn’t make a systematic polling error inevitable. Our 2022 final polls were on the money even as white Democrats were 28 percent likelier to respond than white Republicans. Similarly, our accurate 2018 polls had a much higher response from Democrats.
There are two factors that help explain why it’s possible for the polls to be right, even when Mr. Trump’s supporters are less likely to respond.
One is turnout. There’s a lot of evidence suggesting that Mr. Trump’s supporters aren’t just less likely to respond to surveys, but also less likely to vote in midterm elections. This would help explain the basic pattern of polling error during the Trump era: Polls have a pretty good record in midterms but not in presidential elections.
The second factor is a technique called “weighting,” in which pollsters make statistical adjustments to give more weight to voters from groups underrepresented in the survey responses. This gives pollsters a chance to produce reasonable results, simply by giving more weight to registered Republicans, self-identified Republicans or the voters who say they voted for Mr. Trump who did respond to the survey.
Weighting is not a panacea. That’s because nonresponse bias can run much deeper than what can be observed and corrected in the data. A poll might be weighted to have the right number of Trump supporters but still have the wrong kind of Trump supporters — and particularly the kind of Trump supporter who might be voting Democratic.
Imagine, for instance, if the Trump voters who responded to a pollster were likelier to be the kind who supported Nikki Haley in the 2024 primary. A pollster might then have too many of the kinds of Trump supporters who would readily defect to Democrats. The Post believed it had this kind of issue in Kansas: Even after weighting, the results still seemed too good for Democrats.
Despite its imperfections, weighting has kept the survey industry afloat. In elections like 2018 or 2022, it was sufficient. For many pollsters in 2024, it probably prevented another misfire like those in 2016 or 2020. As far as I can tell, many public pollsters — maybe even most public pollsters — would have shown Kamala Harris with a clear lead over Mr. Trump in 2024 if they had used the weighting techniques that were common back in 2018 or 2020. Instead, they’ve adopted heavy-handed weighting techniques that can bludgeon even the worst samples back into the ballpark.
You can see why it’s hard to make any assumptions about the polling error this cycle in today’s Times/Siena polls. This summer, we adopted a new set of weighting techniques to improve our polling. When we re-evaluated our 2024 polls with this new weighting approach, we saw that our polls would have been about 1.6 points better on average. The difference felt meaningful, but it was fundamentally modest.
This time? Well, look for yourself. Here’s what our final polls this year would show if we had used the weighting from prior cycles:
- Michigan: D+16 (today’s actual published result is D+11)
- Alaska: D+6 (actual D+1)
- Iowa: D+4 (actual D+1)
- Kansas: D+10 (actual D+5)
- Maine: D+5 (actual D+6)
- Ohio: D+11 (actual D+6)
- Texas: D+9 (actual D+7)
On average, that’s a difference of more than three points.
What does all of this mean for 2026? Well, you can choose your own adventure. More than anything, it illustrates how hard it is to predict how the polls might err.
Maybe it implies that we’ve adopted weighting techniques that can handle the problems that caused the Times/Siena poll to overestimate Democratic strength in the past, especially in white working-class states. If so, maybe we’re dead-on.
Or perhaps one could argue that the Times/Siena polls will underestimate Democrats. Our polls were accurate in 2018 and 2022, after all, so maybe one should trust the old approach in a midterm election. If so, maybe the Democrats will do even better than our polls suggest.
Maybe it implies that we’ve adopted weighting techniques that can handle the problems that caused the Times/Siena poll to overestimate Democratic strength in the past, especially in white working-class states. If so, maybe we’re dead-on.
Or perhaps one could argue that the Times/Siena polls will underestimate Democrats. Our polls were accurate in 2018 and 2022, after all, so maybe one should trust the old approach in a midterm election. If so, maybe the Democrats will do even better than our polls suggest.
I’m a Believer
I’m a believer and so is Nate Silver.
Nate Silver says The NYT/Siena Polls Show a Blue Tsunami
NYT/Siena released their presumably final set of polls this evening, and they showed what can only be described as fantastic numbers for Democrats, putting them ahead — sometimes narrowly, sometimes not — in basically every Senate battleground and in the associated governor’s races, including in Texas.
These polls weren’t quite in the territory of FLIPR’s officially “weird” scenarios, but they’re close to that boundary. Even if Democrats were to lose a couple of these races — and there’s actually some bad news for them here in Alaska, I think — absolutely no Democrat is going to complain if they only flip the top five races in this chart, especially if it comes along with the Texas governorship.
The Times/Siena polls are also not that surprising, given that the NYT shows a D +11 on the generic ballot and that, in most cases, the trends in their polls follow the patterns FLIPR has previously detected. Although the model trusts the NYT/Siena polls a lot — they’re among our more highly-rated pollsters — it does adjust every survey firm’s numbers for house effects. In other words, it knows that NYT/Siena has tended to have good numbers for Democrats this cycle, and that’s priced into its forecasts, including to some extent even in races that the NYT hasn’t polled.
We’ve left the ambiguous zone
The other reason I didn’t sleep so soundly last night, I’ll admit, is because I have a fair bit of anxiety about the election. In the Senate, FLIPR has sort of been teetering on the boundary between a “Lean D” and a “Likely D” forecast — formally, this is defined as a 75 percent chance of winning — in a way that felt slightly uncomfortable.
I don’t want to get too “meta” here — there’s been enough of that in the newsletter — but we were sort of in an ambiguous place where it wasn’t quite clear whether pollsters and modelers should “own” the fact that they were projecting a big night for Democrats — and own the risk of another embarrassing systematic polling error. The NYT/Siena polls resolve that, in my opinion, in Democrats’ favor, for better or worse. Polls show that Democrats will win the Senate, perhaps soundly. They might be wrong or they might predict slightly the wrong states to flip. No currently R-held state other than North Carolina counts as “Solid D”.
But Democrats could actually absorb a modest-sized polling error and perhaps still prevail given the latest round of surveys, including some that came in after our deadline tonight and so haven’t even hit FLIPR yet.
It was just barely — the NYT/Siena polls actually had less of an impact on our model than I expected — but for the first time tonight, Democrats’ Senate odds improved to a number that begins with an “8”.
I’ll basically defend this, though, because The New York Times is notorious for not herding. They’ll publish weird results like Flanagan +14 in Minnesota or Ricketts +6 in Nebraska, knowing full well that polling averages are usually more accurate than individual polls and they’ll probably wind up on the wrong side of the consensus. But for that reason, NYT polls can sometimes serve as early warning signs or bellwethers, depending on which party you’re rooting for. In 2022, for instance, the Times published a survey showing Democrat Sharice Davids ahead by double digits in Kansas’s 3rd Congressional District, which she indeed won by basically that margin. In 2020, they didn’t have a great night, but did correctly show Lindsey Graham winning by a solid margin in South Carolina when some other pollsters didn’t.
Not to relitigate this, but in 2022, even the Times’s own reporters didn’t seem to want to fully own the fact that their surveys were projecting a relatively good night for Democrats as compared to what you might expect from President Biden’s poor approval ratings.
The Times is taking a real risk with this latest round of polls. President Trump has sued pollsters for projecting overly rosy results for Democrats — at least when they indeed turned out to be wrong. There’s none of the hedging or fudging or herding or fiddling with likely voter numbers like we’ve seen from other highly-rated pollsters.
Except that, according to The Times’s Nate Cohn, the NYT actually did tinker with its weighting scheme after its polls, like most others, overrated Democrats in 2024. If they hadn’t done that, their polls would have been even better for Democrats, Cohn wrote, by roughly three points across the board (the major exception being Maine).
Philosophically, this is important to FLIPR. Our implicit prior is that pollsters are quite aware of their previous errors and have an incentive to avoid repeating their mistakes.
You’ve seen a lot of this behavior, actually, and there are better and worse versions of it, from Marist showing implausible shifts from its registered to its likely voter numbers to the Washington Post expressing doubt about its Kansas survey but publishing it anyway. I’ll admit I’d be pretty shocked if Adam Hamilton actually hits the +10 from the Post survey, but it looks like slightly less of an outlier now with FLIPR’s average up to Hamilton +3.3 — one of the strongest swings toward Democrats so far in the endgame — and Republican incumbent Roger Marshall apparently leaking an ad that defended his controversial medical billing practices against the advice of his campaign.
Silver’s Wimpy on Alaska
Alaska was one state where prediction markets were more bullish on D chances than FLIPR, and previously, I’d written that I’d probably take prediction markets’ side given Peltola’s history of overperformance in the state and having been elected statewide in 2022. But I think I’m more on FLIPR’s side now, which has the race reverting from “Lean D” to “toss-up”.
Not me. I will go with Nate Cohn who says “Alaska is a challenging state to poll” and the betting markets that did not budge an inch.
Silver does not look at betting markets at all. I believe that is a fundamental mistake.
We will see.
Silver on Maine
In FLIPR, Maine sits right at the 75/25 boundary between “Lean D” and “Likely D”. The model probably isn’t going to get much more confident than that given the contradictory “fundamentals” indicators. Although we haven’t yet incorporated a University of New Hampshire poll that had Jackson 9 points ahead and which, like NYT/Siena, showed favorable trendlines for him.
I’m going to admit it would be kind of hilarious if Jackson does win by 9 points or something and Marist weighted its way out of an accurate result by applying an implausible likely voter adjustment that turned it into a +2.
Silver’s Not a Believer on Texas Governor
Meanwhile, in the gubernatorial race, the Times had the Democrat, Gina Hinojosa, +2
FLIPR’s average disagrees, showing Greg Abbott ahead by 2 points, and the state remains “Lean R” rather than having moved into “toss-up.” If you’re rooting for Hinojosa, though, perhaps you can allege there’s been a little bit of herding here. There have been a lot of Abbott +1s and Abbott +2s in the polls.
I am not a believer on the Texas Governor race either, but I am much more of a believer that Silver.
I give Democrats a 40 percent chance to oust Abbott. Silver is only 31 percent.
Related Posts
October 26, 2026: Trump’s Eight Huge Unforced Errors Will Set MAGA Back for Years
The disintegration of MAGA is underway. Trump gets 100 percent of the blame.
October 30, 2026: Texas Early Voting Is 13.5 Points Bluer than 2024. Is That Enough?
Let’s discuss early voting in Texas.
November 1, 2026: Mish’s Final House Forecast, Every Seat Called, Democrats Win 243
No tossups every race called.
There are a lot of assumptions (extrapolation) that go into polling
Well fella’s, this time it’s different. No, really, I mean it this time. I think we will be waiting quite a while before we get all the counts and recounts are done. Maybe we’ll know by the end of the week.
Trump 2.0, true to form, will not just roll over. First there is the veto. And he will continue to distort executive powers and orders.
Trump preparing to steamroll Congress if Democrats win
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2026/11/01/trump-preparing-to-steamroll-congress-if-democrats-win/
Drudge Report headline: “Will Trump Flee USA?”
Where to, Bolsonaro’s Brazil? Don’t think that he’d find a red carpet in Brazil. Maybe Russia?
The only country that loves Trump is Israel
Thats a given.
The parties are not opposition parties. They are a tag-team.
It looks like the Iran war will escalate after the mid-terms when congress is pretty much inactive for the rest of the year. The democrats probably hope Trump takes care of Iran for Israel before the end of the year, so they won’t care. They will breathe a sigh of relieve that they will not have to vote on it. Trump will be a lame duck and can’t use any mileage he gets out of it. Democrats won’t look into any aspect of the Iran war as “We’ve got to focus on helping working families”. Their AIPAC funding is safe.
Note how many AIPAC candidates get elected. Also note how many AIPAC-own get named to head the important house/senate committees if the democrats win majorities.
Much as I hate the democrats, I want them to do well enough to effectively punch Trump in the mouth. But not enough to get much of their nonsense enacted. I want to see the republican party purged of its Israel-Firsters, bible nuts, neocons and Ayn Rand disciples.
I especially want El Sayed to win in MI to make AIPAC waste its money.
“I want to see the republican party purged of its Israel-Firsters, bible nuts, neocons and Ayn Rand disciples”
What is remaining? Drag queens and slumlords?
LOL.
Funny stuff coming from a Dem
Excellent question.
tech bros
Just another way to describe, “Israel-Firsters, bible nuts, neocons and Ayn Rand disciples” + incels.
“Trump will be a lame duck and can’t use any mileage he gets out of it.”
He’s not going to get mileage from escalating. The war is already unpopular. No “rally around the flag” will come from escalating it. Plus Iran will seriously respond throughout the region and possibly outside it. There will be “unforeseen” consequences – which is ridiculous, since Iran has issued a list of possible targets which might include Dimona and desalination plants in both Israel and the Gulf countries. Sen Chris Murphy was right. Trump’s plan is insane.
A lame duck in his last term would have nothing to lose from going ape shit.
Think Benito Mussolini, only with modern weapons including drones. Of course I’d never advocate harming anyone especially trump. But there may be American patriots that may not be as benevolent as I am. Giving up and leaving the country may be his best choice and for his cabinet too. Not a threat but a warning he should look to his own safety and not trust the SS.
But US oil companies will make a fortune.
Yeah dem will be in a spot to end the war. I would think trump wants them to do it so he can blame them for losing
“Taking care of Iran”…not sure what that would entail. Using nukes? Extremely bad idea. Attacking civilian infrastructure and hydrocarbon facilities? Also a bad idea as everybody in the Middle East but Iran has extremely exposed infrastructure that Iran could destroy in a few days of retaliating causing an almost immediate collapse of the Western financial system. Trump continuing along the same course as recently? I think we are very close to or in the first stages of following China’s 40% meltdown in their tech sector with our AI sector. A billion barrels of stored hydrocarbons have been expended..very little time left economically to play footsie with the Iranians.
While optimal, I would not place a big bet on the dems taking control of the senate.
So “Cheer when it happens”. Why, because it soothes your feelings about Trump or fills your ego because of the “unforced errors” you wrote about? The fall out will be much worse than Trump’s errors. You have at least have 4 “Dem” senator candidates who want to fundamentally change America including ushering in socialism. The outcome is going to be much worse and voting will more influenced by socialistic movement. It’s going to take an true implosion to change back to conservative principals.
Worse than attacking a country that he’d promised not to attack? A country that posed us no risk and didn’t do anything to us? Worse than killing thousands (so far) in this illegal, unconstitutional war? Worse than making us slaves to a tiny foreign nation? Worse than setting the world economy ablaze? Worse than pushing us to the precipice of use of nuclear weapons?
Versus having 4 more out of 100 senators who threaten the nation with Medicare For All?
Grab the kids and get in the car honey, we’re heading for the hills. The socialists are coming for our super-expensive, shitty health insurance policies!
Maybe that will force the republicans to actually oppose “socialism”. Who was the party that has been buying shares of corporations? What is a bigger example of socialism than the MIC?
The government may invest in my startup and become its largest investor.
Because it’s not socialism when the rich get the freebies, only when we the people do.
Fox news has you jumping at your own shadow. Shut it off and wake up!
yawn.
i’m on SS, medicare and medicaide. god knows i am so frightened of government socialism. keep that stuff away from my free shit army goodies
Look clown, Trump is a pedophile rapist who starts stupid wars, breaks the constitution, builds monuments to himself with taxpayer money, and is an economic idiot who gives favors to Russia, trashes Canada, and threatened to take Greenland by force. You have to be an MM Maga Moron to support that.
The Biggest Upset of Election Night Could Come From South CarolinaLindsey Graham’s sister inherited his Senate seat. Plenty of Republicans aren’t buying it.
I hope you are right but I doubt it. I lived in SC for several years. Among the dumbest fucks on the planet.
i 2nd that. i lived there for a glorious decade in 90s of last century. ole strom was our senator at 100. he did bring the bacon home to SC
I don’t get it. The consistency 100%. Perfect fit. She has a vagina, and so did he. How can conservative South Carolina voters not go for that?
I am totally amused as to why everyone suddenly thinks everyone will vote for
USAID Fraud; Open Borders; higher taxes; Medicare fraud; Crime ; ect..
Really, everyone is going to forget all of the 2020-2024 hanky panky ?
It takes a Maga Morons to not see what is going on.
Trump WH plans to govern by executive action if Democrats win Congress
https://english.almayadeen.net/news/politics/trump-wh-plans-to-govern-by-executive-action-if-democrats-wi
I thought he already was!
Michigan ought to be the easiest one for them. But establishment donorCRAT bastards have done everything they could have done to lose that seat. I think they will fall a bit short though.
Nancy Pelosi has been bashing Abdul El-Sayed just before the election, saying he is wrong on Israel
What is she – 97? No one under 45 favors Israel – even Jews.
Nancy Pelosi? Whaa…? Didn’t she die already?!
Oops… sorry! I was remembering a different donorCRAT from SF. Dianne Feinstein. I am pretty sure she’s dead, though her staff might disagree!
Except, she has completely reversed course and now fully supports Sayed.
I think she saw the immediate Democrat reaction to Stevens endorsing Rogers (they were furious and kicked her out of the party) and Nancy got in line
“Vote Blue No Matter Who!”
But only sometimes….
Desperate times measures. We are a literaly on the brink of World War III because of this stupid asshole and his legion of butt buddies.
“Desperate times measures.”
What does that mean, and what does it have to do with Haley Stevens endorsing Mike Rogers?
Are there be any true Republicans left in office? RINOs?
Trump is the Republican Party now. He has changed it significantly. It’s not going back to what it used to be.
After this wipeout, a lot of GOP strategists will want to un-Trump what’s left of the party. If they try to resurrect the Bush-Cheney wing, they’ll just extend the party’s time in the wilderness because few voters want that. GOP White House aspirations are probably dead until at least 2036 – and then only if they become something different than what they’ve been the last 20 years. Their one remote chance for 2028 would be if Vance takes over in 2027 and completely reverses and repudiates most of what Trump did during this term. And even then, he’d face justifiable criticism for not having done enough to stop Trump’s insanity by having publicly opposed him. What are the odds of that? 1%? Less?
Something I wrote a long time ago:
“The weirdest thing is that for the GOP to become a party that actually could get some populist agenda items accomplished and enacted into law, Trump might have to lose to clear the way for serious, focused, steady politicians who know how to pass laws, not just tweet and emote and cause pointless chaos.”
….meditate upon the career of Huey P. Long for an example of a populist who actually got things done. A man who marshalled resources and allies and set about achieving what he promised to.
Not only that, but Long faced an entrenched and established political opposition that was not shy about using blackmail, corruption, bribery, and when necessary, outright violence to get what it wanted. He didn’t respond with excuses, the way so many Trump cultists and Obama groupies do. His methods and goals were often unsavory, but Huey P. Long, delivered results. Not hope and change, not triggering the libs, but results in the form of concrete material benefits (roads, bridges, schools, literacy classes, voting rights, bank regulation, etc.) for the average frustrated Louisianan.
Long not only got things done, he got so much done, he transformed Louisiana in only a few years. For generations after his death, people named their children after Huey Long, and the Long name was enough to get a politician elected in Louisiana.
Trump could have been a sort of Huey P. Long. Instead, he is a buffoon, a man has fixed nothing, improved nothing, and who is making populism into toxic radioactive Kryptonite for generations to come.
Of course, the Team R grandees will never allow an actual populist to so much as sniff power..
The difference is that Huey Long actually cared about the people of Louisiana. Anyone who thinks the Top Republicans in Charge (TRIC) give a flying F… about regular Americans has a screw loose.
U.S. Senator and former Louisiana Governor Huey P. Long died from internal bleeding and an infection on September 10, 1935, two days after he was shot inside the Louisiana State Capitol in Baton Rouge. He was 42 years old. [1, 2, 3]
The Shooting
Team R is red
Team D is blue
Neither one of them
Gives a shit about you.
I wish Massie ran as an independent in KY just to split the vote with the republican AIPAC shill.
Unfortunately, it was against Kentucky law for someone who lost in the primaries to run as an independent.🙁
Vance is toasted toastier than Trump.
It’s probably best to wait until after the votes are counted and the troops have formally refused orders to overthrow the United States of America before calling it a wipeout. I own a farm in Missouri and can’t stand this shape shifting creep, but Senator Josh Hawley has opposed Trump on a few issues. He’s no Thom Tillis. He’s got that fumblementalist Christian thing going on.
Nothing left, but child molesters, and the chuds that love them.
Recent video from the past, Trump is all for female teachers molesting those ultra lucky junior high and high school boys.
In the current GOP line up, being a RINO would be a badge of honor. Thinking of Massie and Rand.
“The newfound Democratic strength was powered by growing trust in the party to handle the economy — the key motivating issue for voters this year.”
Wait! What? I thought it was Husted’s sweet, sweet ass.
the government is not supposed to or be empowered or 🤔expected to handle the economy.
True but look how that has worked out for the average Joe/Jane in America compared to the average person in China over the last 50 years….makes you think?
I can’t wait for the new group of backstabbing weasels running our democracy. I’m sure things will improve since god government controls the world. (disclaimer-that’s sarcasm for the dense).
Ooh so edgy “every5ing sucks your vote don’t matter”
Grow up
I’m 81, maybe I know something you don’t junior.
Or you’re like every other moldering geezer who is vastly out of touch and doesn’t care enough about the nation to bother voting because problems are for the young.
Most problems we see are created by government. You seem to think more government will straighten out the mess these clowns have already created. I guess the vacuous are at least happy.
it’s the people of amerika that are assholes. they are the government. democracy has always worked since ancient greece. you might be old, but not much wisdom. i’m a senior, too, old sport.
“I’m too stupid to drive a car so by extension cars are bad”
What incredible logic! By such logic, anarchy is now the ideal because government is bad! No one has ever used government to do anything useful, so why have it?
You have no future, so you don’t think anybody else deserves one.
Looks like the Iranians’ strategy of pinning Trump down on energy and the resulting effect on the US economy have worked.
The USA citizenry should think about the fact that a small determined nation can affect Washington significantly. Yes, its easier with a moron in the White House, but a significant development nonetheless. The vaunted US military couldn’t do anything about it.
This election will be proof positive that USA is an empire that has its best days behind it because a bunch of greedy ignorant plutocrats are now in control and the citizens are clueless.
A few thoughts:
Iran is not a small country, or at least as small as most Americans think it is.Smart empires know when to fight and when to buy off determined opponents.Emphasize ignorant of 1 & 2 for our plutocrat in chief.
If you want to see a smart expanding empire look no further than China, taking the world by trade not war.
I don’t think Pedro was referring to Iran but Israel.
Seems like there’s a lot of pissed off voters coming to the polls. If the Dems do take 6 seats in the Senate, wouldn’t that be more of a repudiation of congressional lack of oversight?
That too
To a large degree, I would think so. Yes.
Yes, but congress will proceed to ignore that message.
Except the democrats have already taken an investigation of the circumstances of the Iran war off the table. They prefer Trump resolve it before they would have to vote on it and show their true colors (Israeli blue and white).
I’ll be enjoying popcorn and looking forward to how the narcissist-in-chief reacts when the voters do the equivalent of smashing the mirror the narcissist uses to see his own reflection.
Also looking forward to less political ads in the mail and on the doorknob, not getting multiple daily phone calls and emails, and not having random people show up at my house wanting to talk about who I will vote for. For a little less than 2 years before it starts up again.
My re-registering my party as none-of-the-above cut the cascade of campaign garbage intrusion considerably.
I’m a registered Democrat living in a solid Republican state, the only people bothering me this election cycle are the democrats begging for money. I delete their emails, texts and voice mails. Almost all requests are from out of state candidates.
I registered independent and I am getting buried in Republicans spam texts, and emails. I had to restrict to my contact list just to make my phone usable again. These people have no clue.
My democrat sister in law in Texas made a contribution to a democratic PAC in the name of my Republican father in law in Florida. He is getting swamped with Talerico ads. LOL! She’s such a bitch.
ha ha ha. my pal in SC put an ad in a local rural county paper decades ago for free horse manure at his father’s plantation, who he hated.
I like her already!
Kamala said the D’s should prioritize investigations and accountability so long as the D’s don’t hold DJT accountable via impeachment proceedings, because that would “waste resources”.
Let’s leave the biggest P.O.S. evah in office for the next 2 years, because preventing more of the same from the same fucking guy is not as important as investigating some henchmen and associates further from official power.
Real fucking accountability.
Currently they do not have the votes to convict him, so attempting it is completely pointless. If a group of Republicans were to somehow grow into actual human beings and guarantee enough votes to convict, the whole process would take around 15 minutes, and he would be gone. But that has been on the table for almost 6 full years, and all they have done is to become less human.
There is no more appropriate time to impeach than now. The D’s prior impeachment proceedings and lawfare were comically inappropriate virtue-signalling. Now when they’re sorely appropriate, they threatening not to.
You dont know you lack the votes until you start investigations, investigate, publicize, and dare people to vote to protect a crook raked through the mud publicly.
You dont win if you dont even try. You dont obtain justice if you never even try.
If there are 55 Dem senators on January 3rd (and Murkowski might flip), it’s highly possible – maybe even probable – that 12 republican senators would convict. Many GOP senators hate Trump. Not only will he have brought about this huge electoral loss, but he also worked to oust their buddies Cornyn and Bill Cassidy.
Removing Trump, gives them Vance, who is an extremely dark and dangerous human being.
any red team uniparty senator, who wants to be president in 2028 or 2032 will vote to convict.
Even if Team D had the votes, they would do nothing.
Makes sense, we know the guy is guilty of all kinds of crimes, we can prove it beyond a reasonable doubt but the jury probably won’t convict so we might as well just drop it? Usual thinking of a states attorney. How about we try him and allow the public see who his co-conspirators are if nothing else.
Agree. The idea that you don’t impeach a President who does immoral and illegal things because you can’t get a conviction is preposterous and weasel-like. By that ’logic’, no one would have condemned politicians who supported slavery prior to the Civil War.
took a history class in charleston SC from a black professor decades ago. his analogy to slavery in mid 1800s was akin to people knowingly buying cotton shirts and things from the little girl slaves in indonesia…….people in downtown charleston or philadelphia all were wearing cotton shirts, where the cotton was grown and picked… by slave girls in much of usa at the time. i thought it a profound analogy.
Actually, there was a movement to boycott cotton cloth and sugar at the time, precisely because these things were made with products of slave labor.
Since when did laws or legal standards start to matter?
Basically Team D from 2006-2008 all over again.
Team D was swept into office in a wave of disgust with the War On Iraq, then proceeded to bitch about how they could do so much better if they were in charge but otherwise do nothing to stop the war.
Of course, after being elected in 2008, those wars became Obama’s wars. The upshot was that Obama did more to neuter the antiwar movement than anything Dick Cheney could have imagined, because now criticizing the wars meant criticizing St. Obama.
Democrats are nothing if not cynical.
bingo. winner comment. plus libya war crime.
Dems are NOT going to investigate the Iran war. As long as Trump winds it up by the end of the year, he is completely safe on THAT issue. It would be in AIPAC’s interest to shield Trump from CONVICTION following impeachment in order to demonstrate that AIPAC has got your back no matter how bad you suck.
The scenario that Trump winds up this war by the end of the year is unbelievable to me. It is a morass right now. Iranians have cards including strikes on third party infrastructure. Trump’s bunker busters didn’t wind things up in ’25. What will be different in the next 60 days? Drop nukes and hang us all over the edge of WW3?
More options including a possible deal are discussed here:
Iran Says Hormuz Is Closed. The Tankers Are Still Moving.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5-j8oAkeWFU
Intentions (or orders) not necessarily outcomes.
Bread & Circus for the Masses . . . Nothing will get done . . .
Kayfabe for educated intellectuals whose minds are still hopefully maturing.
Nothing getting done is a big step up from the status quo.
Yeah man, you’re so cool and edgy…
Like why even try man, fuck it, take another hit of this…
You prefer “Mr. Smith Goes To Washington” happy horseshit?
It’s not a binary. it’s a spectrum.
With plenty of horseshit too, but still.
I guess you’ll be content with your crumbs.
The irony of D’s:
> Like why even try man, fuck it, take another hit of this…
D’s say this to mock people for voting independent. Then D’s say this to defend their leaders choosing not to do the right thing, like impeaching trump or voting on single payer medical care.
PANEM ET CIRCENSES. nothing has changed since humans were voting in greece and roman times.
Scale changed. That would be sometime in the Roman republic.
Greek elites with relatively small numbers and skin in the game was a different thing from an ever-more sprawling Roman or USA electorate, and ever-more distant and hard to monitor sprawling government. Italian city-states for awhile had the scale thing working right too. I mean of course for the participating elites, but for things like fiscally sound polities. Vast numbers of precarious plebes who will vote themselves raises from the public granaries while elites carve out chunks at a higher corrupt level raise different screwball stuff.