Iâm a retired military prosecutor, U.S. Air Force Academy instructor, and former Wind Cave National Park Ranger. I love the life that my wife and I have built in the Black Hills of South Dakota. Iâm running for Senate as an independent because Iâm tired of seeing Big Money overpower common sense. The values I learned growing up in a small rural town from my machinist fatherâthe same values that built this great countryâare being treated as though they matter less than a politicianâs personal ambition or a billionaireâs appetite.
More than at any time in my life, I believe our political system needs to be shaken up and that We the People need to overcome the corrupting influence of Big Money. Self-dealing is screwing hard-working, honorable South Dakotans out of their chance to live the American Dream.
Iâm convinced that term limits are the best way to do it. Hereâs a good example of why I believe that. Last month it was reported that my opponent, Sen. Mike Rounds, allowed one of his top advisers â whoâs drawing a 6-figure taxpayer-funded salary â to simultaneously work as a lobbyist for Meta. This adviser, also a former Rounds campaign manager, has been pushing Big Money interests in the halls of the South Dakota state capitol, then advising our U.S. Senator on the very same issues, on the very same day.
There ought to be a law prohibiting that sort of thing. That is why, when Iâm elected, the first bill Iâll introduce is to make ALL lobbying by congressional staff illegal. Iâve had enough. My second bill would be term limits. Washingtonâs culture is so corrupt and out of touch that the people who live there too long donât even realize it anymore.
It was also recently reported that Mike Rounds spends more taxpayer money on private jets than any other member of the Senate.
Iâm not trying to dump on Mike.
I believe Mike Rounds is a good man. Iâm not here to add to the name-calling and personal meanness that does nothing to solve the very serious problems our state and nation face. Iâm here to say that Washington, D.C. needs to change. Most of us can agree our local communities are the ones who pay the price when an elected official stays in Washington too long. We're paying a huge price now.
I agreed with President Donald Trump when he ran on "no new wars." As a patriot whoâs proud to have served in both the Navy and the Air Force, I believe commanders-in-chief have a duty to only send our fighting men and women into harmâs way when itâs absolutely necessary. I agreed with him when he said that we needed to fight to make life less expensive. Where I come from, a promise is a promise.
But now, every time I fill up my Ram 1500 at the Corner Pantry, Iâm paying over $4.00 a gallon. When I buy groceries for my family at Sonnyâs Super Foods, Iâm paying more all the timeâespecially when I buy beef grown by the best ranchers in the world, right here in South Dakota. They are now having to compete with imports from South America that arenât fairly labeled so that American consumers can know the difference.
The Indian motorcycles that my brother works to assemble are getting harder for Americans to buy because of tariffs that we were told would make American manufacturing stronger.
Sen. Rounds has voted in favor of the Iran war every time heâs had the opportunity. He voted for the tariffs that are hurting South Dakotaâs economy. He voted to make the biggest healthcare cuts weâve ever felt, just so that companies could get tax breaks to build data centers. Wired reports that Mike has now taken more campaign contributions from data center-tied interests than from all of South Dakota itself. Those corporate donors are literally getting our moneyâs worth.
Sen. Rounds has been in office so long that he voted for the law that made it so that grocery stores donât have to tell us which country their meat came from. Now he says he wants to bring those rules back. Weâve reached the point where career politicians have been in office so long theyâre running against the exact things they did.
Iâm not running to be an anti-Trump Senator or a pro-Trump Senator. I have plenty of disagreements with the left. It scares the hell out of me that young people are feeling a pull towards socialism. As a former Air Force prosecutor, I think proposals to "defund the police" and "abolish prisons" are insane. As someone who spent decades working to make America more secure, I thought President Joe Bidenâs failure to keep our border secure was unacceptable and offensive.
Iâm running to put South Dakota first, and to work with anyone, whatever their politics, when itâs in the interest of our state.
I was an ethics advisor in the Air Force. I know itâs not my job to judge people by their politics, but I do believe itâs my job to stand up against a system that isnât going to fix itself.
Should President Donald Trump deliver a primetime address next week with the avowed purpose of impacting the elections nationwide?
Yes. Absolutely yes.
President Trump is often the best proponent of his own policies, and the much-anticipated "blue wave" would effectively paralyze those policies and his plans to finish the battle with Iran, build the Golden Dome and Golden Fleet, and slow, if not reverse, the regulatory overhaul underway.
Loss of the Senate majority would also mean near-zero chances of confirming any appellate judges or Supreme Court justices. Spending on the Pentagon would also plummet as Democrats return to their long-standing position of insisting that every dollar of increased defense spending must be matched by one for non-defense domestic discretionary spending.
If President Trump makes these arguments directly to voters and names the names of the senators or Senate candidates who are key allies or the Democratic nominees he believes are from the far, far left, the sharpened focus could help mobilize his base to again support his agenda one last time.
There are precedents for such an appeal, and they had mixed results.
On October 24, 2022, President Biden made a direct closing argument for Democrats at Democratic National Committee headquarters, 15 days before Election Day. The expected "red wave" that year was reduced to a ripple.
On October 25, 2006, President George W. Bush held a nationally televised news conference less than two weeks before the midterms. President Bush discussed Iraq and framed the election choice around national security and taxes. It was a news conference, not a formal primetime address. The GOP got "thumped," to borrow President Bushâs own characterization of the 2006 results.
The takeaway from that limited data set? A speech could work to rally a presidentâs base voters. A press conference wonât.
President Trumpâs rallies around the country have always served as a feedback loop for his messaging. He knows itâs his base that turns out, and he tries out various messages and themes, then amplifies what works and cuts what doesnât in subsequent rallies and in his conversations with the press.
Getting the feedback is particularly important when it comes to turning out the base. As the president has been everywhere in the past month, he has a good idea of what "works" in this campaign cycle.
The Trump PAC may even want to buy network time for an address, or it may simply allow social media to do its thing. A tight 15 minutes would play and play, give birth to ten thousand posts and reels and, crucially, focus the base and independent voters on the stakes, which are very high indeed.
President Trump has got a fine writing staff, but brevity is not second nature to him or them when it comes to speeches. If he does try such a direct appeal, the crucial points I hope he makes in succinct fashion are these:
Economists see the next few years as a boom for the nation. We canât screw it up by ceding control of taxes and spending to Democrats. The 71 economists surveyed by The Wall Street Journal this week predict continued and expanding economic growth, falling gas prices and tamed inflation ahead. "Morning in America" is beginning to dawn again.
Iran is defeated, but the mop-up will take some months, even though oil exports from the Middle East have risen to levels that exceed prewar levels. President Trump knows the scorecard on the battle by heart. He should repeat it again. The United States has decisively triumphed over the evil Iranian regime, and he will finish the job. It will be easier with Republican majorities.
The battle with Iran has demonstrated to the world the need for missile defense and a vibrant, modernized Navy. The president should emphasize his plans for both and warn that Democratic majorities present mortal threats to each.
"Medicare for All" is a clever way of saying "higher taxes, rationed healthcare, and diminished healthcare for seniors." President Trump should pledge again to stop efforts to pass Obamacare 2.0.
The only thing Democrats can agree on is a combination of obstruction and impeachment. Their commitment to weaponizing all of government and bringing back McCarthyism â this time aimed at every Trump supporter and not just him â is extremely strong. Democrats are unapologetically calling for these things, as well as for packing the Supreme Court and many other radical plans.
The Democrats have put forward the most radical set of candidates in American history. Abdul El-Sayed in Michigan, Peggy Flanagan in Minnesota, Troy Jackson in Maine and James Talarico in Texas are all extremists camouflaged as Democrats. In Alaska, they have attempted to defeat the great Senator Dan Sullivan by running a "decoy Dan Sullivan" in an attempt to get leftist Mary Peltola over the finish line. Retreads like left-winger Sherrod Brown in Ohio should not replace the effective and able Jon Husted. Congresswoman Ashley Hinson is exactly what Iowa needs. North Carolina should send Michael Whatley to Washington to continue his long-standing partnership with the president. These are easy choices when the big picture is set before voters, especially when they are reminded of just how far off the normal political map El-Sayed, Flanagan, Talarico and Troy Jackson are.
The president should explicitly ask voters to support Mike Rogers in Michigan, Michele Tafoya in Minnesota, Ken Paxton in Texas and Susan Collins in Maine. President Trump should note that Rogers and Tafoya are likely to be as independent-minded as Sen. Collins, who has often opposed presidential policies, but that all of them represent their states very well.
States that are "light blue" or "light red" deserve senators that represent them, not Hamas or other extremist positions.
President Trump should close by reminding everyone of the mess he inherited. The once wide-open border is now completely closed and sealed tight, with the long-awaited wall nearing completion. Fraud in Minnesota, California and other blue states is being exposed and corrected. Inflation is way down from the 9.1% it reached under President Joe Biden but needs to go down further still, and President Trump and his economic team can get that done with support from Congress, not obstruction.
And the evil regime in Iran that has terrorized the world for 47 years is on its last legs and wobbling. Its nuclear weapons program is obliterated and will not be allowed to be rebuilt. There is work to be done with our allies across the globe, but taking us down the impeachment road because the Democrats have no proposals to do anything else would be a disaster for everyone.
"Americaâs Golden Age is indeed upon us," President Trump should conclude. "I need your vote, and so do these great Republican candidates. Please make a plan to vote and turn out. Thank you. God bless our troops everywhere, but especially in the blockade and at the bases around the Islamic radicals in Iran, and those confronting Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis, and God bless the United States."
Hugh Hewitt is a Fox News contributor and host of "The Hugh Hewitt Show" heard weekday afternoons from 3 PM to 6 PM ET on the Salem Radio Network, and simulcast on Salem News Channel. Hugh drives Americans home on the East Coast and to lunch on the West Coast on over 400 affiliates nationwide, and on all the streaming platforms where SNC can be seen. He is a frequent guest on the Fox News Channelâs news roundtable, hosted by Bret Baier weekdays at 6pm ET. A son of Ohio and a graduate of Harvard College and the University of Michigan Law School, Hewitt has been a Professor of Law at Chapman Universityâs Fowler School of Law since 1996 where he teaches Constitutional Law. Hewitt launched his eponymous radio show from Los Angeles in 1990. Hewitt has frequently appeared on every major national news television network, hosted television shows for PBS and MSNBC, written for every major American paper, has authored a dozen books and moderated a score of Republican candidate debates, most recently the November 2023 Republican presidential debate in Miami and four Republican presidential debates in the 2015-16 cycle. Hewitt focuses his radio show and his column on the Constitution, national security, American politics and the Cleveland Browns and Guardians. Hewitt has interviewed tens of thousands of guests from Democrats Hillary Clinton and John Kerry to Republican Presidents George W. Bush and Donald Trump over his 40 years in broadcasting. This column previews the lead story that will drive his radio/ TV show today.
Regardless of the outcome of the 2026 midterm elections, any party that wins the majority will have done so because of the independent vote. For the past several elections, this cohort has been the crucial swing vote that ultimately decides the election. Independents are the kingmakers.
If Democrats win big on Nov. 3, expect a familiar story. Pundits will call it a mandate. Party leaders will say voters want their agenda. They will be wrong.
I have spent my career in partisan politics, and I keep seeing the same mistake. Both parties read the results of a protest as an endorsement.
Here is why. Independents do not fit neatly into a partisan box. They are not secret Democrats, and they are not secret Republicans. They agree with each side on some things and with neither on others, which is exactly why neither party can claim them.
That does not mean they lack convictions. Independents, like most Americans, have coherent views on politics and policy. And these positions are widely shared and present opportunity for meaningful legislation. On energy, 70% of Americans want government to actively expand supply: more energy, lower prices, less pollution. On immigration, 77% want legal immigration maintained or expanded, focused on the skills the economy needs. Respect our laws and welcome those who contribute.
On technology, 83% want parents to have the legal right to see and control what their kids do on social media. On spending, 73% want to bar Congress from using accounting tricks that hide the long-term cost of a bill. On corruption, 78% support term limits for members of Congress.
Put those together and the agenda is clear. Live within our means. Keep our promises. Win the future while protecting our communities, kids and liberties. Build a government accountable to people, not parties. That is not the progressive wish list, and it is not the Republican platform either. A vote against whoever is in charge is not a vote for anyoneâs program. It is a demand for these things.
Look at what independents are actually upset about. The border is still unresolved after years of promises. Energy costs keep squeezing family budgets. And artificial intelligence (AI) is reshaping jobs and daily life while Congress offers speeches instead of a plan. These are not left or right complaints. They are complaints about people in charge who are not getting results.
Independents are now the largest bloc of American voters. They decide close elections, and they have no loyalty to either team. They vote for whoever seems least likely to make things worse. Two years ago, that was one party. This year it may be the other.
The numbers tell the story. Roughly two-thirds of independents say Washington does not hear them. That is not a number that describes people who have found a new political home. It describes people who feel abandoned and are looking for the exit.
For a blue wave to occur, it will rest on independents who are holding their noses. They will be voting for Democrats because the alternative looks worse, not because they have embraced the progressive wish list. Treating that vote as a blank check is how a party loses the same voters two years later.
Consider crime. Most Americans, whatever their party, want safe streets and a justice system that works. Imagine House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries stepping to the microphone to announce a serious, commonsense crime bill. Fund good policing. Go after repeat violent offenders. Protect due process. It would not be a radical idea. It would be a reasonable one.
That single act would change the national story. Independents would take notice. It would say the party is willing to govern from the center and listen to people who do not agree with it on everything.
But that bill will not come, and the reason is not hard to see. A party that wants the support of the middle is being pulled by a left flank that treats a compromise on public safety as betrayal. Groups like the Democratic Socialists of America hold enormous sway over the energy and the primaries. Jeffries cannot move toward the center without a fight inside his own coalition, and so he does not try.
That is the real danger for Democrats. The very independents who may hand them a majority will be watching to see what they do with it. If the answer is a sharp turn toward the activist left, those voters will leave just as fast as they arrived.
Republicans should not take comfort either. If they lose, it will be because they too failed to listen. Both parties have spent years competing for the loyal base and ignoring everyone else. The result is a country in which most voters feel they are choosing between two disappointments.
There is a better path, and it is not complicated. Secure the border and fix the legal immigration system. Lower energy costs by building what we need. Set sensible guardrails on AI before the technology outruns us. Do these things in a way that respects voters of every stripe, and independents will reward you. Ignore them, and they will punish you, whatever letter follows your name.
This is why just a few handfuls of independents can entirely change the way we view and conduct politics. A growing share of the country is independent, yet very few members of Congress are. That gap is the story behind the story this November.
When the votes are counted, the winners should ask a hard question. Did voters choose us, or did they simply reject the other side? The honest answer will decide whether this election is a turning point or just another swing of the pendulum.
Republican Tom Tiffany and Democrat David Crowley sparred over abortion, taxes, immigration and Wisconsin's growing data center industry Wednesday night as Wisconsin's gubernatorial candidates faced off in a heated debate.
Tiffany, a Republican congressman, and Crowley, the Milwaukee County executive, offered competing visions for Wisconsin as they vie to succeed Democratic Gov. Tony Evers.
The WISN-hosted debate came less than two weeks before Election Day, with polls showing a tight race. A September Marquette Law School poll found Crowley leading Tiffany 49% to 46% among likely voters, a difference within the survey's margin of error. RealClearPolitics rates the race a toss-up.
Here are five of the biggest moments from the debate.
1. Tiffany points to 20-week abortion limit as Crowley declines to name one
Tiffany pointed to Wisconsin's existing 20-week abortion limit when moderators asked whether he would sign a six-week abortion ban, a restriction he previously supported as a legislator.
"I voted for a five-month bill when I was in the state Senate. I will uphold that law as the governor of the state of Wisconsin," Tiffany said.
"I have been very clear where I stand. I've given the answer that I'm at five months," he added.
Tiffany also sought to reassure women about his position.
"All you women out there, you will not have to hold your breath when I'm governor," he said.
Crowley, meanwhile, declined to specify a gestational limit for legal abortion, even when moderators asked whether he supported abortion through nine months.
"These are discussions that need to be made between a doctor and a patient," Crowley said.
Tiffany accused Crowley of supporting abortion through "the full nine months." Crowley countered that abortions later in pregnancy typically involve extreme circumstances and criticized Tiffany's previous support for stricter abortion legislation.
"My position has been consistent ever since I announced for governor," Tiffany responded. "We once again did not hear where David Crowley stands on abortion."
2. Tiffany vows to return Wisconsin's entire $3 billion surplus
The candidates split over Wisconsin's nearly $3 billion projected budget surplus, with Tiffany pledging to return the entire sum to taxpayers through permanent tax cuts.
"We should return all of that to the taxpayers. They've overpaid into the state of Wisconsin," Tiffany said.
Tiffany favored permanent tax cuts over rebate checks, arguing Wisconsinites cannot plan their finances around one-time payments. His proposal includes income and property tax reductions, including a 10% middle-income tax cut.
Crowley argued the surplus should be used more broadly to lower costs for families, including through property tax relief and investments in public schools, municipalities, childcare and healthcare.
Tiffany argued Wisconsin could cut taxes without sacrificing funding for education, transportation and healthcare. Crowley countered that Tiffany's plan would deprive state and local governments of revenue needed to provide those services.
3. Candidates draw stark battle lines over ICE
Tiffany pledged to require Wisconsin sheriffs to honor federal immigration detainers, drawing a sharp contrast with Crowley over cooperation with ICE.
"I will make sure that local, county and state law enforcement coordinate with federal law enforcement," Tiffany said, arguing immigrants who commit crimes should be transferred to federal authorities while still in county jails.
Asked whether that cooperation should be mandated by law, Tiffany said, "I believe we should."
Crowley opposed a blanket ban on cooperation with federal immigration authorities and said immigrants convicted of crimes should be deported. However, he called for restrictions on ICE operations in Wisconsin, including ending contracts with local law enforcement, prohibiting agents from wearing masks and requiring judicial warrants before entering jails and prisons.
"We need to make sure that we're protecting people's civil liberties," Crowley said.
4. Data center boom puts subsidies, farmland and energy costs in spotlight
Wisconsin's data center boom emerged as another campaign issue, with both candidates opposing taxpayer subsidies for the massive projects.
Tiffany outlined conditions for data center development under his administration, including protections against higher utility rates, a ban on taxpayer subsidies, local control, farmland protections and greater transparency.
"Why would some of the wealthiest companies in the world need subsidies from the taxpayers of Wisconsin?" Tiffany said.
Crowley said communities should not be forced to accept data centers they do not want and said he would sign legislation eliminating sales tax incentives for the projects.
Crowley also supported the current pause on data center development pending an environmental review and called for greater reliance on renewable energy to meet rising electricity demand.
5. Crowley says he's 'not familiar' with DSA platform
Crowley faced questions about the Democratic Party's left flank after narrowly defeating democratic socialist Francesca Hong in the Democratic gubernatorial primary.
Asked which democratic socialist priorities he shared, Crowley cited expanding BadgerCare, funding public education and childcare and holding wealthy Americans accountable.
The Republican and Democratic candidates vying to replace Minnesota's outgoing Gov. Tim Walz sparred in their final debate Wednesday over the massive fraud scandal that has unfolded in the state, healthcare and rising gas prices.
MASSIVE FRAUD SCANDAL
"A vote for Amy Klobuchar is a vote for a Tim Walz third term," Republican House Speaker Lisa Demuth said in her opening statement after painting Democratic Sen. Amy Klobuchar as the "status quo" candidate in a "state in crisis" over the $9 billion fraud scandal.
Klobuchar pushed back in her opening statement, saying, "I don't like the status quo. I hate the status quo."
The first question of the debate focused on fraud, a recurring topic throughout the night, and what each candidate would do to combat it.
"Fraud unchecked here in the state of Minnesota has gone far too long, and it has finally come to the surface," Demuth said. "The thing that I will do on day one is I am going to be firing all commissioners, choosing new commissioners that are expert in their field that will carry out the accountability and transparency that is needed in our state. We have to change the culture of fraud."
Klobuchar attempted to distance herself from Walz when addressing the issue.
"The fraud is simply unacceptable and, as a former prosecutor, I'm going to send those fraudsters to jail," Klobuchar said. "Tim Walz should have caught the fraud earlier and he should have done more. He said it himself. And by the way, when my opponent references Tim Walz, I will say one thing. He is not seeking a third term. I am the one up here."
Fraud came up again later in the debate, with Demuth criticizing Klobuchar's close relationship with Walz.
"You have not heard my opponent differ from one policy bill that Tim Walz, who she calls an incredible governor, has allowed to go forward," Demuth said. "I would love to hear one bill, one area, childcare, fraudulent funding. I would love to hear that. If she is separating herself specifically from Tim Walz, Tim Walz allowed the childcare fraud and other fraud here in the state of Minnesota to explode to $9 billion, never firing any of his commissioners or agency employees. But yet you have someone standing here tonight that is supporting everything from the incredible governor, as she has said he is."
Klobuchar responded, "Rewind the tape on this debate please; you will see exactly how I said I differed from Tim Walz."
RISING GAS PRICES
In another tense moment, the candidates turned to rising gas prices, with Klobuchar attempting to link Demuth to the policies of the Trump administration.
"I can tell you the fastest way to bring down your gas prices, and that is to stop this War in Iran," Klobuchar said. "That is it, beginning, middle and end. And when you look at what my opponent brings up, when we had a debate earlier this week, she actually brought up and blamed it on the Keystone pipeline. Then she blamed the healthcare costs on Barack Obama. I don't know what will be next. Maybe Thomas Jefferson, but what I know is that Minnesotans understand what's happened at the pump."
Demuth blamed high costs in Minnesota on the Minnesota DemocraticâFarmerâLabor Party's (DFL) control of state government.
"We can talk about that Keystone pipeline that my opponent has voted against. That would have brought in 830,000 barrels of oil. It would have helped with the supply that we have here, yet she voted against it," Demuth said. "But you have to ask yourself, why are things so expensive here in Minnesota? They are expensive because of overspending by a one-party control in 2023 and 2024. I will bring down prices. I will right-size our state budget and make sure that you can afford your lives, that you can grow, thrive, and businesses will be coming to Minnesota to provide the jobs that are needed. It's common sense, and that's the decision that you have to make as you're looking to this election this year."
HEALTHCARE COSTS AND INSULIN PRICES
As Minnesotans continue to grapple with rising healthcare costs, the two candidates sparred over ObamaCare, which Klobuchar voted for in the U.S. Senate.
"It's important to realize that we're looking at all of the inputs and all of the reasons why our healthcare is more expensive," Demuth said. "Senator Klobuchar supported the Affordable Care Act. She promised that it would bring down our healthcare. Unfortunately, we have seen anything but all of our healthcare since the Affordable Care Act has increased the healthcare cost to all Minnesotans."
Klobuchar didn't address ObamaCare in her response, instead pointing to Demuth's position on abortion and accusing the Republican of being beholden to Big Pharma.
"You've heard from my opponent that, I don't support certain things in healthcare, she's talking about issues that are already settled," Demuth said. "I think it's quite rich to hear the fact that she is the one that broke the healthcare system as the deciding vote on the Affordable Care Act."
During the healthcare discussion, Klobuchar argued that Demuth has not done enough to lower insulin prices and cited the support she has received from the family of Alex Smith, a 26-year-old Minnesotan who died while struggling to afford his insulin treatments.
"Just to clarify a very incorrect or untruthful lie that you just heard was the fact that I did vote yes for the Alex Smith insulin bill," Demuth responded. "Back in April of 2020. The governor signed it into law the very next day."
Klobuchar, who was first elected to the Senate in 2006, won all four of her Senate elections by healthy margins, including her 2024 reelection by nearly 16 points. Before serving in the Senate, Klobuchar was elected twice as county attorney in Hennepin County, Minnesota's most populous. She also ran unsuccessfully for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination.
Demuth, who was first elected to the Minnesota House in 2018, has served as GOP leader in the chamber since the start of 2023 and as speaker for the past year and a half.
WICHITA, Kan. - Voters at President Donald Trump's Kansas rally said the cost of living remains a major concern, but many feared Democratic control of Congress even more.
This midterm election cycle features six Republican-controlled Senate seats that are considered toss-ups, including Kansas Republican Sen. Roger Marshall's contest against Democrat Adam Hamilton. That race has become an unexpected challenge for Republicans in their quest to keep control of the Senate.
And voters who lined up to get a chance to see Trump in Wichita told Fox News Digital that they recognized the stakes, particularly the effect Democrats flipping both chambers of Congress could have on the president's agenda.
"Trump doesn't get the support that he needs to protect America, and that our country will turn into Paris, France," Kathy Bond told Fox News Digital of the riots roiling through the French capital. "That's my biggest concern."
The race between Marshall and Hamilton, who led the Church of the Resurrection which now boasts a congregation of nearly 23,000, according to the church's website, before jumping into politics. The Cook Political Report recently shifted the race to a toss-up, sending Republicans scrambling to dump more money into the state.
Trump's rally in Kansas, the first time a sitting president has visited the Wichita area since former President George W. Bush in 2007, is part of his and Republicans' broader strategy to motivate Republican voters during a midterm election cycle in which he is not on the ballot.
National Republicans argue that without the loyal MAGA voting bloc, they wonât stand a chance as they face turbulent political headwinds.
Though voters are unhappy with the economy, the ones waiting in the long, snaking lines to get their seat inside the Heartland Credit Union Arena argued that Democratic control would be worse.
"We've got to vote Republican down the ballot this year. It's a significant point in the Trump administration," Emily told Fox News Digital. "And it's just we've got to keep the Republican majority. There's too much at stake."
Marshall, who is running for a second term in the upper chamber, recognized that the race was neck and neck and told Fox News Digital in an interview before the rally that "it's the price of gas" that has tightened the race.
"I do feel people's pain," Marshall said. "Every year I go to all 105 counties, finish up the 105 counties in June, and as that price of gas went up, I felt more and more frustration. So maybe we're up 12 points before the Iran War, and as the price went up our poll numbers went down, so I think it's the price of gas."
"But I think people are beginning to realize the rest of the story, that if we were to lose this seat and let Democrats control the Senate, they would go back to their policies that drove gas prices up higher," he continued. "Even today, the price of gas is less on average under President Trump than it was under Joe Biden."
Some at the rally felt that Marshall should have to answer for his votes in the Senate but believed that his experience as a lawmaker overrode the uncertainty that the political newcomer Hamilton could bring should he win on Nov. 3.
"I mean, you know, Marshall's been in it for a while now, so he's gonna have a lot of people that he has to answer a lot of questions to because he's the one been doing the job this whole time," Jenny told Fox News Digital.
"But for me, somebody like Hamilton that hasn't been in, you know, this game and doesn't really know exactly what all this entails," she continued. "I'm sure his intentions are good, but I just don't think that he has the background to do what's necessary for our state."
Minnesota's gubernatorial candidates clashed over the state's fraud scandals in their second debate of the week, with Republican House Speaker Lisa Demuth pledging to fire all state commissioners on her first day in office and Democratic Sen. Amy Klobuchar defending her response.
The scandals have rocked the North Star State, raising questions about how large-scale abuse of state programs went undetected and putting government oversight at the center of the governor's race.
"Fraud unchecked here in the state of Minnesota has gone far too long, and it has finally come to the surface," Demuth said.
"The thing that I will do on day one is I am going to be firing all commissioners, choosing new commissioners that are expert in their field, that will carry out the accountability and transparency that is needed in our state. We have to change the culture of fraud."
Klobuchar called Demuth's remarks "absurd" and said she contacted U.S. Attorney Andy Luger after the fraud came to light to ask what prosecutors needed.
"He said, 'I need more prosecutors'," Klobuchar said. "I called the highest level of the Justice Department, and I got him those prosecutors."
Klobuchar also said she would have caught the fraud earlier, while criticizing Walzâs response. "Tim Walz should have caught the fraud earlier, and he should have done more," she said.
She also sought to distinguish herself from the outgoing governor and criticized Demuth for not clearly separating herself from President Donald Trump. "We don't need a rubber stamp of Donald Trump in the governor's office," Klobuchar said.
Demuth countered that Klobuchar had not identified specific policies on which she would break with Walz, whom Klobuchar has called an "incredible governor."
Beyond fraud, Klobuchar and Demuth used the debate to draw broader contrasts over the economy, taxes, public safety and the direction of the state. Both candidates have ruled out tax increases, but Demuth has argued Minnesota needs to rein in spending and regulations, while Klobuchar has emphasized lowering costs for health care, housing and childcare.
Wednesday's debate in Rochester was the candidates' second face off this week and likely their final debate before Election Day on Nov. 3. Republicans have not won a statewide race in Minnesota since 2006.
The race will also make history regardless of the outcome, producing Minnesota's first female governor. A Demuth victory would additionally make her the state's first Black governor.
Republican Wisconsin gubernatorial nominee Tom Tiffany vowed Wednesday to mandate cooperation between local sheriffs and federal immigration authorities, drawing a sharp contrast with Democrat David Crowley over President Donald Trump's immigration crackdown during their general election debate.
Tiffany said Wisconsin law enforcement agencies should be required to honor federal immigration detainers, arguing that coordination with ICE allows authorities to remove illegal immigrants accused of crimes while they are still being held in county jails.
"I will make sure that local, county and state law enforcement coordinate with federal law enforcement," Tiffany said in the debate hosted by WISN-TV.
Asked directly whether he would mandate that cooperation by law, Tiffany replied: "Yes, I believe we should. They should honor detainers."
Crowley, the Milwaukee County executive, said he would not support a blanket ban on cooperation with federal immigration authorities and agreed that immigrants convicted of crimes should be deported. But he called for restrictions on ICE operations, including barring contracts between local law enforcement and ICE, requiring judicial warrants for agents to enter jails and prisons and prohibiting agents from wearing masks.
"We need to make sure that we're protecting people's civil liberties," Crowley said.
Immigration enforcement has become an increasingly visible flashpoint in Wisconsin, where ICE arrests surged this summer as the Trump administration expanded its nationwide deportation push.
Trump's immigration crackdown has increasingly collided with state and local governments, putting sheriffs and police departments at the center of a national fight over how far local authorities should go to help federal agents carry out the president's mass deportation agenda.
That debate is already playing out across Wisconsin. Twenty county law enforcement agencies in the state participate in ICE's 287(g) program, which allows designated local officers to perform certain immigration enforcement functions. Cooperation with ICE has also emerged as an issue in sheriff races in Sauk and Winnebago counties ahead of the November election.
Wisconsin has simultaneously seen a sharp increase in federal immigration enforcement since Trump returned to office. The latest available federal data showed ICE arrests in the state reaching new highs over the summer, with more than 2,100 people detained between January 2025 and the latest reporting period.
The issue has become a complicated one for both parties heading into the midterms. Republicans have continued to campaign on border security and immigration enforcement, while Democrats have increasingly focused their attacks on the Trump administration's deportation tactics and the conduct of ICE agents.
During Wednesday nightâs Michigan U.S. Senate debate, Democrat Abdul El-Sayed passionately denied ties to the Muslim Brotherhood and admonished Republican Mike Rogers for attempting to link him to the organization.
"[El-Sayed] was passionate about defunding the police," Rogers said, responding to a question about law enforcement funding. "As a matter of fact, he asked the Muslim Brotherhood, excuse me, head Morsi in Egypt, to defund the police there, too. I mean, it's unbelievable."
Rogers was referencing a letter that The Washington Free Beacon reported El-Sayed signed in 2012 calling on the Egyptian president, a member of the Muslim Brotherhood, to purge his nationâs police force.
"To bring into question my commitment to the Constitution is really beneath you," El-Sayed responded.
"I am proud of America. I'm proud to be an American. I'm proud of our Constitution that guarantees all of us the right to pray as we choose to pray. And the question â that you would ask that â I think is actually really quite shameful. As somebody who's actually served under that Constitution, it is shameful."
El-Sayed also caught flak after social media posts from his half-sister alleging that their mother was involved in Muslim Brotherhood activism in the 1970s resurfaced. El-Sayed has denied personal or family ties to the organization and maintained that he was not raised by his biological mother.
"He keeps raising this question about this association with the organization," El-Sayed said at the debate. "I've never been a part because my mom, who's a nurse in Missouri, it doesn't make any sense. And it's actually really quite beneath you, Mike. It's really quite beneath you."
"I know you want to make this about you being a victim," Rogers said. "This is about an ideology. An ideology that's banned in five Muslim countries, an ideology that's banned in another six different countries, an ideology that is very concerning to law enforcement in the United States because they use it for funding overseas operations."
"Mike Rogers demonstrated yet again why he is the commonsense, steady hand Michiganders want to see in the U.S. Senate," Michgian GOP Chairman Jim Runestad said following the debate. "We cannot afford Abdul El-Sayed's far-left, big-government policies, and we cannot risk electing a person who campaigns with the likes of Hasan Piker and seemingly justified the horrific terrorist attack targeting children and the Jewish community in Bloomfield Hills."
The chair of the Michigan Democratic Party, meanwhile, stated that "the choice this November is clear: Abdul El-Sayed is the candidate who will always put Michigan first, while Mike Rogers will only ever fight for Donald Trump, his wealthy donors and himself."
The chaos engulfing France is a preview of what Democrats want for America, Sen. Eric Schmitt warned, contrasting the unrest with new manufacturing jobs and a federal crime crackdown in Missouri that he credits to cooperation with the Trump administration.
"You see what’s happening in France. That’s exactly what they want here, the DSA Democrats," the Missouri Republican told Fox News Digital.
His warning comes as riots, fires and looting have swept France after protests over rising living costs and strained public services turned violent, prompting curfews in parts of Paris and other cities.
"I think the Democrat Party at this point is sort of post-American and anti-Western civilization," Schmitt said.
Asked what a Democratic House would mean for Trump’s agenda, Schmitt accused Democrats of obstructing Republican efforts on immigration, permitting reform and regulations.
He warned that Democratic control could jeopardize funding for Immigration and Customs Enforcement and revive what he described as the political weaponization of government under former President Joe Biden.
But Schmitt also argued Republicans need to give voters a reason to support them, pointing to jobs and public safety as areas where he says cooperation with the Trump administration is paying off.
In Missouri, he highlighted Boeing’s selection to build the Air Force’s F-47 and the Navy’s next-generation F/A-XX fighter as a potentially transformative investment in American manufacturing.
Boeing secured the Navy contract in September after winning the Air Force program last year.
Schmitt, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said the programs would mean 7,000 direct jobs, with additional opportunities for suppliers and surrounding businesses.
"It means that the goal we’ve been fighting for, which is that St. Louis is the defense tech capital of the United States of America, is coming true," he said.
Schmitt said he worked with Trump and administration officials to help land the programs, describing them as "generational opportunities" for Missouri workers.
"You think of the good-paying jobs that’s going to mean for generations to come, it’s just a game changer," he said.
He also tied the aircraft programs to the broader competition with China, saying the next generation of fighters would help meet military demands in the Pacific.
On public safety, Schmitt pointed to Operation Show Me Justice, an ATF-led enforcement surge that resulted in 435 arrests and the seizure of 166 firearms in St. Louis, according to the Justice Department.
Authorities also seized 81 kilograms of drugs and more than $1.25 million linked to suspected illegal gun and drug transactions during the operation, which officials announced had concluded Oct. 15.
Schmitt said his conversations with administration officials have carried a straightforward request for his hometown.
The former Missouri attorney general described the toll of violence on families, including grandparents cleaning up broken glass and parents burying their children.
"We don’t need to accept this," he said. "We just don’t need to accept the idea that violent crime needs to be in the headlines every single day."
He pledged the effort would continue beyond the surge.
"This isn’t a one-and-done deal. There are more resources coming," Schmitt said.
For families wanting to send children safely to school, visit a park or attend a Cardinals game downtown, he said the goal is a better quality of life.
"I think the message is help is on the way, and there are real tangible results now, not just rhetoric, not just empty promises," Schmitt said.
"We’re not letting up."
Schmitt’s third major priority is modernizing St. Louis Lambert International Airport, an effort he linked to the region’s aerospace growth and aviation history.
His Modern Skies Act would fund improvements to air traffic control technology, towers and airport terminals. He said midsize airports need help securing investments that larger hubs can more readily finance.
"St. Louis is the gateway to the West," he said. "It deserves a world-class airport."
The proposal remains a legislative push rather than a guaranteed funding award for Lambert. Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy said during an October visit that airport funding would be competitive.
For Schmitt, those priorities form part of the argument Republicans need to make as voters weigh control of Congress.
He cast the election as "common sense versus crazy," but cautioned that Republicans cannot assume their supporters will show up.
Powered by a clear favorability advantage, a large gender gap and voter discontent with both household finances and President Donald Trump, former Democratic Sen. Sherrod Brown has the edge over appointed Republican Sen. Jon Husted in the Ohio Senate race.
A Fox News survey of likely Ohio voters finds Brown leads Husted, 52% to 47%.
Brown’s advantage is anchored by his stronger personal standing, with his favorability rating 2 points above water (50% favorable, 48% unfavorable), while Husted’s rating sits 13 points underwater (42% favorable, 55% unfavorable).
Economic unease creates another headwind for Husted, as about two and a half times as many voters say their financial situation is worse than two years ago rather than better (46% vs. 19%). Those who say things are worse favor Brown by 49 points, while those who say their finances are better or the same favor Husted by 51 and 24 points, respectively.
The president’s standing in Ohio adds to Husted’s difficulties. Trump won the Buckeye State with 55% of the vote in 2024, but just 43% now approve of his job performance. A 57% majority disapproves, with 46% saying they "strongly" disapprove.
Meanwhile, 52% express concern that Husted is too close to Trump, including 38% who are extremely concerned. Brown faces similar concerns about being too liberal, as 50% are worried, though fewer, 30%, are extremely concerned.
In the matchup, women favor Brown by 14 points, while men support Husted by 4, an 18-point gender gap. Brown also has advantages among voters under 35, voters with a college degree, union voters, and those living in urban and suburban areas. Husted relies on rural communities, non-college White men, married voters, and has a narrow edge among those ages 65 and up.
Partisan crossovers further tilt the field toward the challenger. While Husted receives 90% of Republicans, 9% cross over to back Brown. Some 97% of Democrats support Brown, while just 2% choose Husted — and Brown carries independents by nearly two to one.
Voters who view both Senate candidates unfavorably prefer Husted by nearly 20 points.
Brown is up by 9 points among those who are extremely interested in the election and leads by 29 points among the 15% of Ohioans who say they have already voted.
Legislative preference tilts toward the Democrats, with Ohioans dividing 50% for Democratic control of the U.S. Senate and 48% for Republican control.
In the governor's contest, likely voters favor Democrat Amy Acton over Republican Vivek Ramaswamy by 50% to 48%. Women favor Acton by 10 points, while men back Ramaswamy by 7, a nearly identical gender gap to the Senate race.
Ticket splitting goes in both directions: 8% of Brown supporters cross over to Ramaswamy, while 6% of Husted supporters back Acton.
The survey was completed before a negative television ad from Ramaswamy’s campaign, featuring Acton’s estranged mother, became public.
Conducted October 15-19, 2026, under the joint direction of Beacon Research (D) and Shaw & Company Research (R), this Fox News Poll includes interviews with a sample of 2,005 Ohio registered voters randomly selected from a statewide voter file. Respondents spoke with live interviewers on landlines (219) and cellphones (1,306) or completed the survey online after receiving a text message (480). Results based on the registered voter sample have a margin of sampling error of ±2 percentage points and for the subsample of 1,592 likely voters it is ±2 percentage points. Sampling error for results among subgroups is higher. In addition to sampling error, question wording and order can influence results. Sources for developing weight targets include the most recent American Community Survey, Fox News Voter Analysis, and voter file data. Weights are generally applied to age, race, education, and area variables to ensure the demographics of respondents are representative of the registered voter population. Likely voters are based on a probabilistic statistical model that relies on past vote history, interest in the current election, intention to vote, age, education, race, ethnicity, and marital status. Results among subgroups are only shown when the sample size is at least N=100.
Fox News’ Victoria Balara contributed to this report.
Texas hasn’t gone blue in a statewide race in more than 30 years, but that streak could face a serious test this year. A new Fox News poll finds that while Texas likely voters favor Republicans retaining control of the U.S. Senate and give incumbent Republican Gov. Greg Abbott an edge in his re-election bid, the Senate race remains deadlocked.
The survey, released Wednesday, finds Democrat James Talarico and Republican Ken Paxton tied at 49% each among Texas likely voters in the race to replace Sen. John Cornyn, who lost the GOP primary to President Trump-backed Paxton.
Last month, Talarico was up by 2 points among likely voters (51%-49%). The shift to a tie reflects Paxton consolidating support among conservatives, rural voters, suburban women and voters who backed Cornyn in the primary.
Although Paxton is falling short of Trump’s 2024 margins, he has strengthened his support a tad among both men (+1) and women (+1) since September, while Talarico slightly lost support (-1 and -2, respectively).
Talarico leads by wide margins among Black voters (+65 points), urban voters (+29), those under age 30 (+28), and women with a college degree (+23). Paxton’s strongest groups include White evangelical Christians (+52), White men without a college degree (+32), rural voters (+21) and those age 65 and up (+18).
The survey finds Hispanic voters swinging back toward the Democrats. After backing former President Joe Biden by 25 points in 2020, they favored Trump by 1 point in 2024, according to the Texas Fox News Voter Analysis. This key voting bloc now favors Talarico by 30 points (64%-34%) and prefers Democratic control of the U.S. Senate by 29 points.
Overall, when it comes to Senate control, Texans choose Republicans by 4 points (51% to 47%), up from +1 point in September.
Talarico’s stronger party loyalty is another reason the race is close: 98% of Democrats support him, compared with 90% of Republicans supporting Paxton. Nearly 3 in 10 non-MAGA Republicans cross party lines to back Talarico.
Democrats also retain an enthusiasm edge: 69% are extremely interested in this year’s election, compared with 61% of Republicans. Extremely interested voters back Talarico by 7 points.
"The race is going to come down to two basic questions," says Republican pollster Daron Shaw, who helps conduct the Fox News Poll with Democrat Chris Anderson. "Do disaffected Republicans show up and, if so, do they grit their teeth and vote for a candidate who they have serious reservations about?"
Views of Talarico are net positive, albeit by just 1 point (49% favorable, 48% unfavorable), while Paxton’s ratings are underwater by 17 (41% favorable, 58% unfavorable). Among "double haters," voters who view both candidates negatively, Paxton leads by 50 points.
Voters express similar levels of concern about both candidates: 53% worry Talarico’s positions are too liberal, while 50% are concerned Paxton is too close to Trump. The intensity of these concerns is nearly identical, with 36% extremely concerned about Talarico and 37% about Paxton.
In 2024, Trump won the Lone Star State by nearly 14 points, but his job rating is currently underwater by 9 points (45% approve, 54% disapprove). Still, Paxton draws support from 13% of voters who disapprove of Trump, while 6% of Trump approvers back Talarico.
When it comes to their personal finances, more than twice as many voters say they are worse off (43%) than better off (20%) compared with two years ago; 36% say they are about the same.
Voters who are worse off back Talarico by 45 points, while those who are better off (+49) or about the same (+26) favor Paxton.
The governor’s race gives Republicans more breathing room: Abbott edges his Democratic challenger, Gina Hinojosa, by 5 points (52% to 47%), unchanged since September.
Abbott has a positive job rating (50% approve, 48% disapprove), and nearly all who approve support him in the race, as do 9% of those who disapprove.
Abbott also benefits from slightly stronger party loyalty and more ticket-splitting among Talarico supporters: 7% support Abbott, compared with 2% of Paxton supporters who back Hinojosa.
Conducted October 15-19, 2026, under the joint direction of Beacon Research (D) and Shaw & Company Research (R), this Fox News Poll includes interviews with a sample of 2,011 Texas registered voters randomly selected from a statewide voter file. Respondents spoke with live interviewers on landlines (205) and cellphones (1,303) or completed the survey online after receiving a text message (503). Results based on the registered voter sample have a margin of sampling error of ±2 percentage points, and for the subsample of 1,398 likely voters it is ±2.5 percentage points. Sampling error for results among subgroups is higher. In addition to sampling errors, question wording and order can influence results. Sources for developing weight targets include the most recent American Community Survey, Fox News Voter Analysis and voter file data. Weights are generally applied to age, race, education and area variables to ensure the demographics of respondents are representative of the registered voter population. Likely voters are based on a probabilistic statistical model that relies on past vote history, interest in the current election, intention to vote, age, education, race, ethnicity and marital status. Results among subgroups are only shown when the sample size is at least N=100.
Democratic Senate candidate James Talarico blamed Republican extremism for prompting some of his past controversial remarks during a new interview, including assertions that God is "nonbinary" and that there are six biological sexes, arguing that those weren't issues he ran for office to discuss.
Talarico said that culture war issues became more prominent in the 2021 Texas state legislature and suggested Republicans were responsible for the increased attention to those topics. Talarico, in 2021, opposed a bill to ban men from women’s sports and claimed that "God is non-binary" while on the Austin, Texas, House floor.
Additionally, at a Texas House Committee on Public Education hearing in 2021, he stated, "Modern science obviously recognizes that there are many more than two biological sexes; in fact, there are six."
Talarico, who is running against Republican Ken Paxton in the state's closely watched U.S. Senate race, spoke to The New York Times' Michael Barbaro on the paper's "The Daily" podcast Tuesday. He said he felt compelled to fight what he described as Republican extremism at the time when asked about the comments.
"I was put in a position where I had to fight back against that extremism. So, you mentioned some of my comments on gender or on issues affecting trans people. It's not like I ran for the legislature to talk about these things. Again, if you go back to my first session, I wanted to talk about public education, which is why I ran in the first place," he said, pointing to other issues on which he ran.
"It's kind of ironic that they're clipping these things to make it sound like I'm the one who was talking about this when, in reality, it was the Republican extremists at the Capitol who were obsessed with talking about trans issues, obsessed with talking about people's private parts. That wasn't me. That was them that changed."
The Democratic Senate candidate said that, at the national level, the party may have gone too far. But at the state level, specifically in Texas, he believed certain bills were targeting and harming his constituents.
He pointed to Texas' abortion ban and legislation affecting the LGBTQ community.
"These bills targeting LGBTQ people have real ramifications in our state, especially when they're written to be overly broad," he said. "I'm all for if we want to figure out when it's appropriate for a trans athlete to play in a sport. That's a policy discussion that we should have and an issue we should solve.
"But the bill that they were trying to pass, the bill they ultimately did pass, was a blanket ban in all cases," he continued. "It treated tee-ball the same as varsity baseball.
"And it's because their goal was to score political points off of the backs of a very small, vulnerable group of people in our state. And, so, you know, my values haven't changed, but I was put in a position because of the rise in Republican extremism to defend my constituents."
Barbaro asked Talarico if he subscribed to Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., and her assertion that so-called "Woke One" was "crazy" at a personal level.
Talarico said he regretted not articulating his position in a "more straightforward way" but had no regrets about defending his constituents.
"So, there's a lot that is said and, when you pull out maybe the most inarticulate of those things to make an attack ad, you know, I certainly regret not articulating my position more clearly, in a more straightforward way to say what I actually mean. And that's going to be true, you know, probably for my entire time in public service. I'm not a perfect person. None of us are. And, so, I'm going to always keep trying to improve how I talk about things so that I'm getting my point across," he said.
"I wasn't making a large point about American politics or the Democratic Party. I'll leave those to the pundits and the commentators. All I was trying to say is that I've said things imperfectly, and I'm going to keep working on trying to communicate more clearly and effectively."
Inez Stepman, senior policy and legal analyst at Independent Women, criticized Talarico's remarks.
"The left is always pulling a bait and switch with cultural issues. They advanced policies that placed males on girls sports teams, in locker rooms, in women’s prisons, and tried to push anyone who objected to that insanity out of public life. Now, they say none of this ever existed or isn’t important. But they don’t change their policy or votes," Stepman told Fox News Digital in a statement.
"Not a single Democrat on the federal level voted for a bill to keep men out of women’s sports. If they don’t want to talk about these issues, they could easily put them behind us by ceasing their campaign, including passing laws and regulations that force us to accept men in women’s spaces. But they won’t do that. They merely want us to stop talking about the consequences of their ideas and policies on women and girls."
Talarico was recently confronted about some of his comments regarding cultural issues while participating in a "Jubilee"-style town hall, during which voters confronted him one-on-one. Talarico met with a fellow Christian from Texas who pressed him on his past statements.
"You've said some concerning things in the past kind of related to faith and social issues. Things such as God is nonbinary, questions about how many genders there really are and your justifications using the Bible for abortion," Sarah Gardner, a small business owner, said to Talarico.
"The first comment about God not being defined by gender, when I said that I was being provocative. And I want to admit that and come clean about that. But I think what I was saying is actually not controversial theologically.
"The idea that we can't define God using human categories, not only did I say that, but the late Charlie Kirk said that, the late Pope Benedict said that. And so, yes, I was doing it, maybe in an annoying way, I can admit that," he said.
Democrats are up in arms after a so-called polling firm that projected far-left candidates as strong contenders in several primaries admitted that it had fabricated its polling data.
Wedgewood Polling, which billed itself as an election survey company, released a statement Tuesday night admitting it used "fabricated numbers" for an "experimental project to demonstrate the vulnerabilities, lack of oversight, and overall low barrier to entry in the modern political polling industry."
The group's polls were cited by Abdul El-Sayed's campaign amid a high-profile primary race against Michigan state Sen. Mallory McMorrow and U.S. Rep. Haley Stevens, D-Mich. The nonpartisan polling aggregator Political Polls also cited Wedgewood in the Wisconsin gubernatorial race, showing socialist Francesca Hong having an edge over Republican candidate Rep. Tom Tiffany, R-Wis.
McMorrow said Wedgewood's numbers led to her donations drying up and reporters having "hounded" her with calls to drop out of the race.
"Sure, a point was proven. Polling is broken. But tens of thousands of people poured their hearts, time, energy, hard-earned money into something they believed in - for a year-and-a-half, and it was treated like a game," she said in a statement on X. "Trust is already at an all-time low. We don't get out of this mess without rebuilding trust. And media - who loves to ride the drama of a pollercoaster - needs to take a hard look at what's legitimate and what's not."
Unlike El-Sayed, who advanced from Michigan’s Democratic Senate primary, Hong lost Wisconsin’s Democratic gubernatorial primary to the establishment-backed candidate. El-Sayed, a former Michigan public health official, is currently locked in a tight race against former U.S. Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Mich., for Michigan's open Senate seat.
Democrat strategist Jennifer Holdsworth said she ran a super PAC that raised money for McMorrow and that "this poll was used by several donors to pull back funding at a time we were being outspent by $80 million."
Wedgewood's numbers were cited by high-profile outlets like The New York Times and Decision Desk HQ, which both said they have since removed them from their projections.
The Times said it removed 15 polls released by Wedgewood between June and October after it admitted to fabricating data. The outlet said Wedgewood had "answered a series of questions regarding the identities of the pollsters; the methods they were using to draw their sample, contact respondents and weight their polls; and the source of their funding" during its vetting process.
Decision Desk HQ said it removed 17 Wedgewood polls from its projections but that it "has not changed the projected seat totals or chamber control probabilities in the Senate or House."
Wedgewood Polling's statement said it "was never intended to sway an election" but rather was aimed as a "wake-up call" about data integrity and vetting standards.
"These people are absolute scumbags," veteran Democratic strategist and former Kamala Harris advisor Mike Nellis told Fox News Digital. "They can try to claim that they have some moral high ground here, but they lied about their polling data, got caught, and are freaking out because they've committed fraud."
"The people responsible for this should be run out of American politics, and if they can be, they should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law," Nellis said. He added that both Democrats and Republicans, as well as the media, should reflect on how polling is verified "because there's likely other people that are doing things like this."
Independent outlet FiftyPlusOne said it was investigating Wedgewood when it had released its statement. Co-founder G. Elliott Morris wrote on X, "We were investigating Wedgewood for faking their data and emailed them for comment this morning, ahead of publishing the findings tomorrow. They are trying to cover up their fraud with the 'we were doing a social experiment' excuse."
Former Obama staffer Tommy Vietor said on X that Wedgewood's actions amounted to "lying and fraud."
A group called "Wedgewood Polls" had also previously created a GoFundMe to raise money for polling in Nebraska's gubernatorial and Senate races. It raised $500 of its intended $5,000.
"I know they crowdfunded, I believe, a good chunk of their polls," Nellis told Fox News Digital. "Are they going to return that money? And if not, are they going to be prosecuted?"
Other Wedgewood surveys showed Democrats with significant edges over Republicans in states like Texas, where a July Wedgewood poll showed James Talarico leading state Attorney General Ken Paxton among Hispanics by 64% to 30%.
Republicans, including President Donald Trump, have long heaped doubt on the veracity of polls.
Polls notably showed former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton with an edge over Trump in 2016 — far from the actual result.
And with the fight for control of Congress coming to a head in November, every data point is being scrutinized as political tea leaves.
LEWISTON, MAINE – Former Sen. Joe Manchin, a longtime Democrat turned independent, took aim at Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer on Wednesday for trying to unseat Republican Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, calling his former party leader's efforts "crazy" as he joined Collins on the campaign trail in her high-stakes re-election race.
Collins, a moderate Republican who at times has voted against President Donald Trump and her party, is fighting for her political life as she runs for a sixth six-year term representing blue-leaning Maine in the Senate. She is the only GOP senator seeking re-election in a state Trump lost in the 2024 election.
The race between Collins and Troy Jackson, a former state Senate president, is a top flip opportunity for Democrats as they try to win back the Senate majority from Republicans in the midterm elections. The latest public opinion polls indicate a margin-of-error showdown, and the latest Fox News Power Rankings rate the race as a toss-up, as do leading nonpartisan political handicappers the Cook Political Report, Inside Elections and Sabato's Crystal Ball.
Manchin, who worked closely with Collins during his years in the Senate, was asked by Fox News Digital how his campaigning with his former colleague would sit with Schumer, the top Democrat in the chamber.
"Chuck Schumer would not be surprised of me being with my dear friend. There is no surprise there at all. I told him he was crazy in 2020 from working against her so hard and he’s crazy now to work against her," Manchin said, as he referred to unsuccessful efforts by Democrats to defeat Collins in her re-election six years ago, and their current push to oust her.
Manchin emphasized, "This is not right. She is the soul of America. She is the soul of the Senate, and he knows he needs more Susan Collins, no matter what side of the aisle they’re on. This is ridiculous."
Fox News Digital reached out to Schumer's political team and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee for a comment but did not receive a response at the time this story was published.
A former West Virginia governor who served in the Senate from 2010 to 2025, Manchin frequently broke with his party, frustrating Democratic Presidents Barack Obama and Joe Biden, as well as Schumer and other Senate Democratic leaders.
As he works to oust Collins from the Senate, Jackson has repeatedly tried to anchor the senator to Trump, who has seen his approval ratings in Maine and across the country drop further underwater.
But Manchin said that Collins is "not a Trump senator. She's not a Republican senator or a Democrat senator. She's an American senator that represents her state of Maine ... the most independent minded person I've ever met."
Collins noted that "Joe and I were part of every bipartisan initiative that passed the Senate and became law during the years that we worked together ... I just so enjoy our partnership in getting things done for Maine, for West Virginia and for America."
Manchin and Collins spoke with reporters after meeting with restaurant workers and customers at Simones' Hot Dog Stand, a famed local eatery in downtown Lewiston that's been serving customers for a century. It was the first of two campaign stops in Maine's 2nd Congressional District, a key swing district.
Collins and Jackson last week faced off on the debate stage for the fourth and final time. The senator used the debates to showcase how her Senate seniority has helped her deliver federal funding for Maine. Meanwhile, Jackson used the showdowns to position himself as an outsider who understands the struggles and frustrations of working-class voters.
Jackson won a special nominating convention in late July to claim the party's Senate nomination, which was left vacant after primary winner Graham Platner ended his campaign following allegations he raped a woman he previously dated. Platner denied the allegations but dropped out.
Jackson, who earlier this year unsuccessfully ran for the Democratic gubernatorial nomination, had campaigned alongside Platner during the primary campaign.
Collins, meanwhile, has a history of surviving Democratic efforts to unseat her.
Six years ago, she trailed Democratic challenger Sara Gideon, the Maine House speaker at the time, but Collins won re-election by nearly nine points while former President Joe Biden carried the state by a similar margin.
Fox News' Kailey Schuyler contributed to this story.
Abdul El-Sayed’s past support for Muslim Brotherhood protesters in Egypt is raising eyebrows in Congress after a former staffer for the left-wing Michigan Senate candidate says he's angling for a seat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee if elected in November.
Two Republican panel members said there is no place on the committee for "radical views" held by El-Sayed, who has associated with controversial streamer Hasan Piker but has attempted during his bid for office to distance himself from the socialist arm of the Democratic Party.
"A man with ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, who cheered their takeover of Egypt 15 years ago, and who campaigns with people saying America deserved 9/11, should not come anywhere near the U.S. Senate — and especially not the Foreign Relations Committee," Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, who serves on the power panel, told Fox News Digital.
Sen. Dave McCormick, R-Pa., another member of the committee, responded to the controversy on X over the weekend.
"El-Sayed says he’s running on affordability, so why does he want a seat on @SenateForeign?" McCormick wrote. "I sit on that committee, and someone with El-Sayed's radical views has no business on it."
McCormick’s post came in response to a report by The Midwesterner that featured comments from Jordan Domingue, who worked as El-Sayed’s security chief during his 2018 campaign for Michigan governor.
"It is extremely difficult to comprehend how dangerous this can be if he is elected," Domingue wrote on X. "It’s especially troubling knowing that despite no foreign policy experience, he REALLY wants a seat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee."
In 2011, while working as an assistant professor at Columbia University, El-Sayed wrote an op-ed for The Huffington Post urging the Obama administration to support protesters associated with Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood.
El-Sayed argued that supporting the protesters was in the U.S. interest and wrote that even if the Muslim Brotherhood overthrew Egypt’s government, the resulting state would not necessarily resemble Iran.
"It is in America’s interest to support Egyptian protesters’ efforts to achieve the ability to speak their mind and have a say in how they are governed," El-Sayed wrote . "If the U.S. truly wants to be the beacon of justice and liberty that it claims it does, it would behoove the Obama administration to fall decisively behind the protesters in Egypt."
In a recent town hall, however, El-Sayed, the son of Egyptian immigrant parents, said he does disavow the Muslim Brotherhood. His campaign did not respond to Fox News Digital’s request about his 2011 op-ed about protesters.
The Muslim Brotherhood-backed government took power in Egypt in 2012 but was ousted by the military in 2013.
El-Sayed has throughout his campaign emphasized healthcare, lowering gas and grocery prices and addressing the cost-of-living crisis, as noted by McCormick in his post about the candidate's reported interest in the Foreign Relations Committee.
"It shouldn’t be this hard to get by in the richest, most powerful country in the world," El-Sayed said during his primary campaign against Rep. Haley Stevens, D-Mich., and state Sen. Mallory McMorrow.
McCormick wonders why, given that context, El-Sayed would be gunning for a spot on a committee that deals solely with issues related to U.S. foreign relations.
Your phone buzzes. Another political text. This time, it's an urgent fundraising appeal claiming a campaign desperately needs your help before midnight. You delete it, block the number and get on with your day. Then tomorrow, another one arrives from a completely different number. Sound familiar? I've been there, and frankly, I'm fed up with it.
On The CyberGuy Report podcast, I sat down with George Weiner, founder of PACspam.org and head of the digital agency Whole Whale. George got so frustrated with the relentless political texts that he created a free tool to help people figure out who's sending them. Our conversation revealed why blocking numbers often gets you nowhere, how political fundraising has become a lucrative business and what you can do to fight back.
Join our upcoming CyberGuy LIVE class: 5 Ways to Travel Smarter and Save Money
In this free live online class, Kurt "CyberGuy" Knutsson will share five practical ways to protect your trip and your wallet this holiday travel season. You’ll learn how to secure your phone and personal information, find better travel deals, avoid common scams, save money on bookings and use technology to make your travels easier and less stressful. No technical experience is needed.
Join us Saturday, October 31, at 11 AM ET / 8 AM PT. Register free now at CyberGuyLive.com.
Why blocking political text messages doesn't work
You would think blocking a phone number would send a pretty clear message. Apparently, political texting operations don't always take the hint. I asked George why texts from the same political groups kept showing up after I blocked their numbers. "Well, you block one number and you've only blocked one number," Weiner explained.
He introduced me to a technique called snowshoeing, which allows an organization to spread its messages across multiple phone numbers. A single campaign or political action committee (PAC) may use many different numbers to reach the same people. So, even after you block one sender, another number can deliver the next fundraising appeal.
For George, this frustration became personal. As a father of three, he worries about missing an important call from his children's school. "That could be the school, right? That could be an emergency," he explained. Instead, his phone often interrupts him with another fundraising appeal. He tried replying STOP, reporting messages and registering for the National Do Not Call Registry. Yet the interruptions continued. "I have done it all and I still get these messages," Weiner said. That raises a question I've been asking for years. How did these organizations get our phone numbers in the first place?
How political campaigns get your phone number
You might assume a campaign needs your permission before adding your number to its texting list. Unfortunately, political outreach operates under rules that leave plenty of room for unsolicited messages. Weiner explained how phone numbers can circulate through political donor and voter databases. Campaigns may also combine registration information with commercially available data to identify potential supporters. Furthermore, organizations can purchase or exchange contact lists, allowing your information to reach groups you've never heard of.
Voter registration records vary by state, and phone numbers aren't necessarily public in those records. However, organizations can match voter information with other databases to build detailed contact profiles. Political donations can create additional exposure. As we've previously reported, federal political contribution records can reveal personal information, including your name and address when disclosure requirements apply. Once your number enters this fundraising network, tracking every organization that holds it becomes extremely difficult.
The money behind nonstop political fundraising texts
Here's something from my conversation with George that really caught my attention. There's a substantial amount of money flowing through the political texting business, and the people sending these messages have financial reasons to keep doing it. Weiner pointed to approximately $65 million spent on political texting services during the 2024 election cycle, based on his analysis of Federal Election Commission records. He also believes 2026 spending could exceed that amount, although a final election-cycle total isn't yet available.
George also highlighted how much money individual political messaging vendors receive. According to PACspam's analysis of FEC records covering December 2008 through May 2026, reported payments totaled $17 million for Switchboard, $14.4 million for Mothership Strategies and $10.6 million for Message Digital. These figures span multiple election cycles and reflect reported payments to political messaging vendors, which may include services beyond texting.
Why political fundraising texts keep coming
"There is money to be made," Weiner told me. He explained that fundraising operations can keep paying to send messages as long as the donations they generate justify the expense. Even a small percentage of people responding with money can make another round of texts financially worthwhile. Some appeals claim a donation deadline is approaching or suggest a candidate faces an immediate financial emergency. Others use provocative headlines designed to make you react before thinking.
Weiner also raised concerns about how much money some PACs actually direct toward candidates. He pointed to investigations suggesting that certain organizations spend heavily on fundraising while relatively little reaches the candidate being promoted. PACs operate under different rules, however, and not all are established to make direct candidate contributions. That's why it's important to investigate where your donation will go. And this problem crosses political lines. Weiner stressed that organizations associated with different political parties use these tactics. The repeated pleas for money, he believes, can end up alienating the very voters campaigns want to reach. That brings us to an interesting way to investigate who's behind the messages.
How PACspam helps identify who's sending political texts
George created PACspam.org to give people more information about the organizations filling their phones with unsolicited political messages. "Our phones don't have to live like this," Weiner said while explaining why he built the tool. The free service analyzes political fundraising texts and attempts to identify the committee behind them. It can examine fundraising links and use public campaign finance information to help trace the organization responsible. PACspam also helps document complaints and tracks repeat offenders using information connected to FEC-registered committees. Its public leaderboard focuses on texting behavior rather than political affiliation. Meanwhile, its FEC Texting-Spend Explorer lets visitors investigate campaign spending on texting services. In some cases, PACspam can also help identify the texting technology provider that delivered the message. That last part is particularly interesting because those technology companies may serve multiple political organizations.
Rather than contacting only the committee asking for money, Weiner suggests contacting the texting platform when it can be identified. "They do answer," Weiner told me when I asked whether these companies respond to complaints. He described receiving a response from the legal department of a texting provider. That company explained how he could request placement on its own do-not-contact list. The approach could be more useful than blocking one phone number because it targets a provider that may handle messages for multiple political organizations. Still, one company's removal list won't necessarily apply to competing platforms. Of course, results can vary. An organization may use another platform, and some messages don't contain enough information to identify the sender. Still, contacting a texting provider offers another avenue to pursue.
Getting started requires only a political text you've received. Here's what to do.
Visit PACspam.org.
Copy the unwanted political message from your phone. You can also upload a screenshot if you prefer.
Review the message or screenshot for personal details you don't want to share.
Paste the message into the site's lookup tool, or upload your screenshot.
Select Look up sender to analyze the message.
Review any identified committee, fundraising link or texting provider.
Use the generated complaint information to contact the relevant organization through available official channels. You can also review the site's reporting options.
PACspam can prepare complaint information and help document unwanted political messages, but it doesn't automatically send those complaints on your behalf. It also cannot guarantee that your number will disappear from political texting lists. I also asked George an important privacy question. What happens to the information people submit? "We're not collecting your number. I just want that message," he said. According to Weiner, you don't need an account to use PACspam. Whole Whale also says uploaded screenshots are processed and discarded, while personal messages aren't displayed publicly. Those are the service's stated privacy practices, so I still recommend removing identifying details before submitting anything.
Are unsolicited political text messages legal?
Here's where things get frustrating. The Federal Communications Commission treats political texts differently depending on how they're sent. Political messages sent through an automatic telephone dialing system generally require prior express consent before reaching your cellphone. However, messages sent manually through peer-to-peer texting systems can fall outside those restrictions. That helps explain why so many campaign texts can reach people who never specifically requested them.
The National Do Not Call Registry generally doesn't cover political outreach either. So, registering your number may reduce some telemarketing calls without stopping political fundraising appeals. The FCC also says political campaigns should honor opt-out requests when recipients reply STOP. For robotexts covered by federal consent rules, revocation requests must generally be honored within 10 business days. However, an opt-out from one sender won't necessarily remove your number from other political organizations' databases.
5 ways to block political text messages and protect yourself
You may not be able to eliminate every political text, but several steps can reduce the interruptions and help protect your information.
1. Reply STOP when you recognize the sender
If you receive a message from a legitimate political campaign or organization, replying STOP can unsubscribe you from that sender's messages. However, be selective. If the text looks suspicious or contains an unfamiliar fundraising link, avoid responding. Scammers sometimes impersonate political organizations, and engaging with suspicious messages may confirm that your number is active.
2. Turn on spam filtering on your phone
Your smartphone already has tools that can help move unwanted messages out of your main inbox. Here's where to find them.
On iPhone running iOS 27:
Open the Messages app.
Tap the Filters button.
Select Manage Filtering.
Turn on Screen Unknown Senders.
Make sure Filter Spam is enabled.
Unknown senders can move into a separate folder, reducing interruptions. If needed, tap Allow Notifications to choose which categories of unknown messages can still alert you. Availability varies by region.
On Google Pixel or Samsung Galaxy using Google Messages:
Open Google Messages.
Tap your profile picture or icon.
Select Messages settings.
Tap Protection & safety.
Select Spam protection.
Turn on Enable spam protection, if available.
Google Messages can flag suspicious texts and move some of them into the Spam & blocked folder. Menu options may vary by device and app version. Remember to review your filtered messages occasionally so important texts don't get overlooked.
Blocking individual numbers can reduce messages from persistent senders, even though other numbers may still get through.
On an iPhone, open the unwanted conversation, tap the sender's icon, select Info and choose Block Contact. On an iPhone, reporting a message as spam doesn't automatically block the sender. You need to block the contact separately if you want messages from that number stopped.
On Google Messages, touch and hold the unwanted conversation, then tap Block. You can also select Report spam before confirming.
4. Report unwanted texts to your carrier and the FCC
You can forward unwanted political texts to 7726, which spells SPAM on a telephone keypad. This alerts your wireless carrier and can help its spam detection efforts. For suspected violations of federal calling or texting rules, you can also submit a complaint through the FCC Consumer Complaint Center. If the text appears to be a scam, report it to the Federal Trade Commission at reportfraud.ftc.gov/. Keep a screenshot of the suspicious message if you may need it for your report.
5. Donate directly and limit your personal data exposure
One of George's strongest recommendations involves political donations. If you want to support a candidate, find that candidate's official website yourself rather than following a link in an unsolicited text. During our interview, George warned that donating through unfamiliar political fundraising texts can encourage additional solicitations. He described how a successful donation might lead organizations to think, "we got one, let's send twice as many messages." His recommendation was straightforward: Give through the candidate's official website instead of an unsolicited fundraising link. That helps you verify who is receiving your money. However, even donating directly can lead to additional campaign messages, so review the site's privacy disclosures and contact preferences.
Additionally, consider limiting how widely your phone number appears online. Data brokers can collect and resell personal information, and removing your details from covered sites may reduce future exposure. Check out my top picks for data removal services and get a free scan to find out if your personal information is already out on the web by visiting CyberGuy.com.
Keep in mind that commercial data removal services cannot erase legally required public campaign finance records. They also can't guarantee removal from every political organization's contact database.
Kurt's key takeaways
What struck me most about my conversation with George is how much money is being made from messages that so many of us desperately want to stop. We block numbers and ask to be removed, yet the texts keep coming. And the organizations making money from this system have little incentive to change it. I appreciate that George decided to do something about it. His PACspam tool offers a way to investigate who's behind these messages and push back through official complaint channels. I'd love to see political organizations become more accountable for how they use our personal information. After all, supporting a candidate shouldn't mean giving every fundraising operation unlimited access to your phone. Want to hear exactly how George is fighting back? Listen to my full interview with George Weiner on The CyberGuy Report podcast. We dig deeper into the political texting business, the companies behind it and what you can do when blocking numbers fails. And if you're ready to reduce even more unwanted messages, head to CyberGuyLive.com for my free Sick of Spam? class replay. You'll get practical advice for reducing robocalls, unwanted texts and junk email, along with a free spam-stopping checklist.
Should political campaigns have to get your permission before sending fundraising texts, and should the companies profiting from those messages face consequences when you repeatedly ask them to stop? Let us know by writing to us at CyberGuy.com.
Sign up for my FREE CyberGuy Newsletter
Get my best tech tips, urgent security alerts and exclusive deals delivered straight to your inbox.
For simple, real-world ways to spot scams early and stay protected, visit CyberGuy.com –trusted by millions who watch CyberGuy on TV daily.
Plus, you'll get instant access to my Ultimate Scam Survival Guide free when you join.
FREMONT, Neb. — Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., is predicting Republicans will outperform the polls and retain their narrow Senate majority, even as GOP-aligned groups pull millions of dollars from struggling candidates and redirect resources to races that have suddenly become more competitive.
Thune has been crisscrossing the country campaigning for vulnerable Republicans ahead of the Nov. 3 election. He’s confident that they can hold onto their slim, 53-to-47-seat majority in the Senate but acknowledges that the GOP as a whole faces headwinds.
And as Election Day inches closer and closer, several contests across the country have tightened, like in Kansas, while others may be slipping away from Republicans, like in North Carolina or Georgia.
Thune, in an interview with Fox News Digital on the trail supporting Sen. Pete Ricketts, R-Neb., was still optimistic about the GOP’s chances.
"I think there are a lot of races right now just looking at the polling that are up for grabs," Thune said. "I mean you could call them jump balls, however you want to say it. They're margin of error races, and there are some that are maybe a little out of the margin. But I do think the polling right now, like it has been in past elections, under-reflects the Republican vote."
"And I think you'll see some of that. So we're not giving up on any of them," he continued.
Republicans are hoping to defend six toss-up races this cycle, according to Cook Political Report. And several that earlier appeared as safe bets, like Mississippi and South Carolina, have recently shifted more favorably towards Democrats.
The flow of campaign cash has been staggering during this midterm cycle, with Republican political action committees (PACs) and outside groups dumping hundreds of millions of dollars in key races across the country.
But where the money is being shifted could be more telling.
Earlier this month, the Senate Leadership Fund, a PAC closely aligned with Thune, moved money from Georgia to Kansas, where Sen. Roger Marshall, R-Kan., is locked in one of the more unexpected toss-up contests of the cycle.
The Senate Leadership Fund had initially pledged $44 million to bolster Rep. Mike Collins, R-Ga., in his quest to topple Sen. Jon Ossoff, D-Ga. But the incumbent first-term senator has been raking in campaign donations and consistently led Collins in polling.
And in North Carolina, where former Republican National Committee (RNC) co-chair Michael Whatley is running to keep retiring Sen. Thom Tillis’ seat red against former North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper, outside funding has begun to dissipate.
The Senate Leadership Fund similarly pulled back nearly all of its spending in the state earlier this month, a sign that confidence in Whatley’s ability to best Cooper was waning. Even President Donald Trump, who held a rally for Whatley on Tuesday, is worried about the race.
"I think he’s a great man, and I am worried about him," Trump told reporters earlier this month. "I hope he wins. He was a great leader for the whole Republican Party when I won, and he’d be a great senator."
Meanwhile, Thune was still bullish that Republicans could hold on, but ultimately, it would come down to getting the "low propensity, particularly Trump, voters out, and then you've got to work on winning the middle of the electorate."
"Turnout's going to be a big part of whether or not we're successful or not. And in every state I've been in, that is a clear-eyed focus of our candidates," Thune said.
"That's where resources are being invested. And I think that could be the difference for us come Election Day on whether or not we win a lot of these close races or not," he continued. "And I think that we're gonna outperform the polls for sure come Election Day."
FIRST ON FOX: With the midterms less than two weeks away and after socialist-backed candidates notched sweeping primary victories, a conservative group is warning the far-left agenda will leave Americans worse off.
Advancing American Freedom (AAF) launched "DSA Exposed" on Wednesday. First obtained by Fox News Digital, the website critiques 12 Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) proposals, including universal healthcare, public ownership of major industries, abolishing the Senate and ICE and ending aid to Israel.
AAF argues the proposals would reshape American life — and not for the better. Its site examines their potential effects on healthcare, work, housing and the economy.
"In many ways, this election is being framed as a referendum on President Trump, but the Democrats deserve just as much scrutiny and more because of what motivates their actual policy preferences," AAF President Tim Chapman told Fox News Digital.
In a letter sent to congressional offices Wednesday outlining the new tool, Chapman called the DSA’s agenda "un-American extremism" and urged lawmakers to condemn its "antisemitic rhetoric."
"The DSA represents one of the greatest threats to Americans’ life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness in perhaps American history," he wrote.
The website also lays out a visual timeline of socialist governments dating back to the 1900s. From the Soviet Union to present-day Cuba, the timeline shows whether each government remained in power or ultimately collapsed.
Chapman said the DSA’s biggest issue is its call for greater government involvement. He argued this could have the opposite effect on affordability than intended.
"They're going to put more bureaucrats in charge of the economy and this is the thing that's actually dragging down the economy," he said.
Socialism has become increasingly embedded in American politics after several candidates backed by the DSA prevailed in their Democratic primaries this year.
Some of the DSA’s most prominent endorsements include Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., Rep. Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich., New York Assemblywoman Claire Valdez, U.S. House candidate for New York Darializa Avila Chevalier and Pennsylvania state Rep. Chris Rabb.
The DSA’s upward momentum has left many Democrats questioning the future of the party and whether it could shift further to the left.
An October Fox News Poll found 32% of voters view socialism favorably, up five points from a year ago, while a March poll found 53% of voters under 30 favored moving away from capitalism toward socialism.
Chapman said "a pendulum swing" has left young Americans with "great frustration" over both parties’ handling of the economy.
"Right now, you're having populist politics on the right, and you're having populist on the left and both are massively failing when it comes to the economy," he said.
He said both parties need to do better to prevent an "opening" for socialism and accused Democratic leaders of being hesitant to distance themselves from DSA-aligned policies for fear of losing their party’s base.
"The answer is not to give the authority to the democratic socialists on the left, because they'll actually drive it further into the hole," he said.
As voters head to the polls in November, Chapman hopes the website offers a "deep dive" into socialist platforms and how they stack up against Americans’ priorities.
"Even though they may be a minority of the party, they are the energy within the party," Chapman said. "They’re the beating heart of the movement and I think that the leadership of the party will probably kowtow to that base energy."
The "Ruthless Podcast" hosts called out Democratic hypocrisy Wednesday for decrying "big money" in politics while accepting donations from major companies and billionaires ahead of the midterm elections.
Podcast co-host John Ashbrook highlighted a recent report that Kansas Democratic Senate nominee Adam Hamilton holds up to $4 million in stock in companies in the artificial intelligence (AI) and data center sectors despite previously criticizing AI technology.
"He’s getting rich off of data centers," Ashbrook said.
They also commented on how Hamilton's wife earned between $5,001 and $15,000 from interest in bonds alone from the Bank of China.
"She's hedging on China, if the church doesn't work," podcast co-host Comfortably Smug joked.
"Roger Marshall voted for $30 billion in tax breaks for data centers and for making it easier to build centers while taking tens of thousands from data center developers. Adam will let Kansans decide what's right for their community, not big tech," Hamilton spokesperson Tyson Brody told Fox News Digital.
The podcast also remarked on Maine Democratic Senate candidate Troy Jackson recently disclosing that at least four billionaires donated to his campaign despite previously claiming he had no billionaires backing him.
"That is my favorite Democrat bit," co-host Josh Holmes said. "It's the ‘I'm tired of corporate greed and corporate donations, and I'm not taking big money in politics.’ And like the entirety of their party, each one of them individually is exclusively on the map only because of that."
"He said that he's running for office because he's tired of high-priced lobbyists and corporate greed," Ashbrook added. "Well, of course, if you listen to the Variety Progrum, you know his own son is a lobbyist."
Fox News Digital reached out to the Jackson campaign for comment.
A Jackson campaign spokesperson told WGME, "Nearly 200,000 people have donated to Troy’s campaign, with 95% of contributions under $100, support from Mainers in all 16 counties, and no corporate PACs — unlike Susan Collins, who is heavily funded by corporate PACs and wealthy special interests whose bidding she does in Washington. While Susan Collins remains at the center of a pay-for-play scandal where she steered taxpayer dollars to campaign donors, Troy has always been clear that billionaires need to pay their fair share, and he’ll always put working people first."
Maine's race has been ruled a "toss-up" between Jackson and the GOP incumbent Sen. Susan Collins.
Fox News Digital reached out to the Collins campaign for comment.
Fox News’ latest power rankings have classified the race in Kansas as "leans GOP" in favor of incumbent Sen. Roger Marshall.
Login
