The Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) candidates running for the House of Representatives and endorsed by NYC Mayor Zohran Mamdani are all but guaranteed to win their general elections this November, but that does not mean the midterm drama is over in New York. In the state's 17th congressional district, which includes the lower Hudson Valley, Democratic challenger Cait Conley, a combat veteran who served on the Biden administration's National Security Council, could unseat incumbent Republican congressman Mike Lawler in one of the most consequential races of the midterms. 

The highly contested purple district voted for former Vice President Kamala Harris in the 2024 election while reelecting Lawler for his second term. Now, Lawler is attempting to win a third term as support for President Donald Trump wanes ahead of the midterms. As of Friday, The Cook Political Report lists the race, which could determine control of the House, as a toss-up. 

If elected, Conley would have far more in common with the "Badass Women" coalition of security state and military veterans than with DSA types (think more Sen. Elissa Slotkin from Michigan than Darializa Avila Chevalier). As Judge Street Journal's Timmy Facciola notes, "Conley's candidacy is testing the viability of a tactful centrism that rebukes left-wing positions like abolishing ICE or restricting weapon shipments to Israel." Lawler is also vying for moderates, pitching himself as "one of the most bipartisan members of Congress" and emphasizing his willingness to break with Trump occasionally while still welcoming Trump's support. 

While Lawler and Conley certainly are not pure MAGA acolytes or DSA members, both have leaned into a tech-critical position, much like that of more radical populists like Lina Khan or Steve Bannon, revealing how pervasive anti-tech sentiment has become in mainstream politics. 

This tech skepticism was on full display during an October 14 debate, when each candidate made the case for why they were the most equipped to regulate AI, insisting that the industry needs guardrails. 

Conley said members of Congress do not want to regulate AI because "they want to look out for their billionaire and trillionaire backers like Elon Musk, who is pouring over $260 million into this midterm election." She then added that Musk backed Lawler in his 2024 race. 

Lawler then accused Conley, who previously consulted for Primer AI, of being "the AI candidate for the AI industry."

While Lawler and Conley disagree on specific data center regulations (Conley supports Democratic Gov. Kathy Hochul's data center moratorium while Lawler supports local zoning control over data centers), neither wants to pitch themselves as an explicitly pro-data center candidate. During the debate, Conley claimed that, "On Mike Lawler's watch there have been five data centers built in Rockland County." Lawler has said that he had no say in the decision to build the data centers, and during the debate, he pointed out that the facilities were built for financial services. Lawler also attempted to attack Conley over data centers, slamming her in an ad for saying "we need data centers." Regardless of the candidates' specific policies on data centers, their attacks on one another demonstrate that cheerleading hyperscale data center development is a political liability. In their district, data center has presumably become a dirty term. 

The candidates' tech-skeptical rhetoric did not end with unchecked data center development. After the debate, Reason asked both candidates about their positions on age-verification laws for social media and AI, since such regulations raise significant privacy and censorship concerns by age-gating the internet. Unsurprisingly, both Lawler, who voted for the controversial KIDS Act, and Conley, who has proposed stricter age verification for AI tools, parroted platitudes about why such online safety regulations are necessary to protect children. 

"We have watched how social media is literally hurting the mental health of children," Conley told Reason. "And when you talk about the power of AI and what that power could do, we have to regulate this." 

Lawler gave a similar response, telling Reason that he respects free speech but that protecting children "is paramount." 

This bipartisan consensus over social media regulation has long been brewing in Congress. The mainstream political conversations about AI and data centers, however, are relatively new this midterm election cycle. And it appears both Lawler and Conley have figured out which way Americans' sentiment toward AI is leaning, and they have waged their campaigns accordingly. 

The post Nobody Wants To Be the Pro-Tech Candidate in This New York Race That Could Flip the House appeared first on Reason Magazine.

Donald Trump and the MAGA movement’s grip on white voters appears to be slipping, and in an effort to reverse that trend, it seems Vice President JD Vance has designated himself the pied piper of racist rage.

Numerous polls this year have spotlighted Trump’s declining support among white voters — particularly, white working-class voters who’ve been key to his and his party’s political success. Amid this trend, Vance — in speech after speech — has resorted to rhetoric seemingly designed to groom the white American psyche so that white voters turn their ire on nonwhite people rather than on Trump and the Republican Party.

The latest example came during a rally Vance hosted in Michigan on Thursday, in which he suggested Democratic Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed is resentful of certain people and places because they’re “too white, too proud or too American.” He called El-Sayed a “weasel who should shut his mouth and show a little gratitude to the country that gave him everything.”

Vance has returned to this well numerous times over the past year as Trump’s corrupt business dealings, economically destructive tariffs and his deadly war with Iran have turned off some in the MAGA base. You can see plenty of other examples of Vance launching similar appeals to white bigots — including here, here and in the following clip from last December, when Vance told an audience of right-wing Turning Point USA affiliates that they no longer had to “apologize for being white.”

Back in August, the vice president gave an interview to Fox News suggesting that white people who support El-Sayed hate themselves. And keep in mind that all of this is coming from the No. 2 leader of a Republican Party that has spent years frothing at the mouth about liberals supposedly weaponizing “identity politics.” The question is whether white voters choose to indulge in what I’ve previously described on-air as the “racist slop” being offered up by the MAGA movement.

And here, history can be informative. White supremacist movements and organizations in years past — including the Ku Klux Klan — have all sought to unify white Americans around a single racial identity. This trend is explored in films like the documentary “White with Fear,” which shines light on the history of right-wing, racist fearmongering in the United States. White supremacist groups have historically managed to convince some white people to fall in line behind them, but they’ve also faced white backlash as some of the same people have been awakened to these groups’ corrupt ways and self-serving bigotry.

And despite Vance’s efforts, a similar outcome seems to be in play for the white supremacy-boosting MAGA movement as well.

The post Vance desperately targets white voters as Trump’s grip slips appeared first on MS NOW.

Justice Department actions against state election laws highlight growing national conflict over voter registration lists and mail-in voting security.

Mail-in voting is an established mechanism in the United States election system. It lets eligible citizens cast their votes by mail instead of going to the polling place on Election Day.

RELATED:
U.S. Justice Department Sues California Over Mail-In Ballots

Over the past decades, state governments have modified vote-by-mail laws to lower administrative costs, increase turnout, and provide alternative access for citizens who face logistical challenges on election days.

In this in-depth article, we will explore the history of mail-in voting, its characteristics, and why the current Trump administration has sought to alter this voting system.

History and the Rationale for Mail-In Voting

Remote voting in the United States dates back to the American Civil War (1861 – 1865). During this war, Union and Confederate soldiers who were away from their districts were permitted to submit written absentee ballots so that deployment would not disenfranchise them.

Throughout the 20th century, the mailing vote expanded beyond military personnel. State governments initially granted absentee ballots to civilians who were ill, physically disabled, or traveling for business on Election Day. Later, lawmakers introduced no-excuse absentee voting, which allowed registered voters to request a mail ballot without providing a specific reason.

In November 1998, Oregon became the first state to conduct all primary elections entirely by mail. By 2000, Oregon conducted the first mail-in presidential election in the U.S., achieving a registered voter participation of over 80 percent. Following Oregon’s model, other states, including Washington, Colorado, Utah, and Hawaii, transitioned to universal vote-by-mail systems after 2020.

Several practical factors explain the implementation of mail-in voting. For voters, it eliminates common obstacles associated with in-person voting, such as work, child care responsibilities, and long lines at precinct polling sites.

For the U.S. administration, state-wide vote-by-mail reduces the need for temporary poll workers, lowers equipment purchases for physical polling locations, and decreases operational expenses on election days.

How Mail-In Voting Works and Its Security Record

Mail-in voting operates through structured legal protocols designed to maintain ballot security and track individual submissions. State election offices verify registered voter addresses and signatures, using databases before mailing official ballot materials.

After a voter completes their ballot, they can return it by U.S. Postal Service or place it in a designated local election drop box. Upon receipt, election workers process the ballot through signature verification procedures.

Empirical research shows that voter fraud in mail-in systems is extremely rare. Academic studies and data compiled by the Brennan Center for Justice indicate that the total rate of mail voting fraud over general elections averages 0.000043 percent, or roughly four cases for every 10 million mail ballots cast.

U.S. State election officials rely on barcoded envelopes, secure chain-of-custody procedures, and signature checks to prevent duplicate submissions and preserve election integrity.

Institutional Mechanics and the 2020 Pandemic Pivot

Mail-in voting requires precise administrative coordination between state election agencies, postal services, and voters. When the U.S. implements universal mail-in voting or no-excuse absentee voting, election authorities cross-reference voter registration databases to ensure accurate residential addresses.

Once ballots are printed, they are mailed to registered voters with instructions, a secrecy sleeve, and a pre-paid or postage-guaranteed return envelope.

Security throughout this process relies on multi-step verification systems. When a voter completes their ballot, they place it inside the secrecy sleeve, seal it within the signature-required return envelope, and sign a legal affirmation printed on the exterior.

Election offices process these returned envelopes by running them through automated sorting machines and optical scanners that capture the voter’s signature. Bipartisan teams of election workers compare the signature against official registration records, such as state driver’s license files or original voter registration cards.

The COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 triggered a transformation in U.S. elections. To prevent viral transmission at crowded indoor polling places, numerous states rapidly expanded mail-in voting options, allowing millions of citizens to vote remotely.

According to reports from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, the voters by mail grew to 46 percent nationwide in 2020, more than doubling the fraction recorded in 2016. Conversely, the share of voters casting ballots in person on Election Day dropped from 60 percent to 28 percent.

Following the pandemic emergency, several states, including California, Washington, Oregon, Colorado, Utah, Nevada, and Vermont, permanently codified universal vote-by-mail systems into law, establishing remote ballot delivery as a permanent fixture of their electoral infrastructure.

Partisan Realignment, Demographic Realities, and the Red Mirage

The widespread adoption of mail-in voting reshaped traditional patterns of voter participation and introduced complex dynamics in how election results are reported. 

Despite assumptions that mail-in voting consistently favors a single political party, demographic and class analyses demonstrate that vote-by-mail systems benefit diverse working-class populations across the political spectrum.

Low-wage workers, hourly wage earners, agricultural laborers, and caretakers often lack the schedule flexibility required to stand in long lines during restricted polling hours.

Universal mail-in voting removes these temporal and economic barriers, facilitating participation for working families in both urban centers and rural conservative districts, such as in Utah and Montana, where mail-in voting has enjoyed long-standing bipartisan acceptance.

The differing timelines required to process mail-in ballots also created a phenomenon known as the “red mirage.” Because mail-in ballots require time-intensive signature verification, flattening, and manual extraction before they can be counted, many states process in-person votes first on election night.

This operational sequence frequently caused early vote counts to show a temporary lead for candidates who performed strongly among in-person voters, while subsequent processing of mail-in ballots altered vote totals over the following days.

This structural delay in reporting complete totals became a central focal point in post-election legal disputes and public debates over election administration.

Donald Trump’s Stance and Legal Action Against California

President Donald Trump has maintained a vocal opposition to mail-in voting. In public addresses, Trump has repeatedly alleged that universal mail-in voting systems lead to widespread election fraud and unfair outcomes.

Despite using absentee mail-in voting himself in past state elections, Trump argued throughout his campaigns and current presidency that expanding mail-in voting undermines public trust in election administration.

The Trump administration has taken direct executive actions aimed at curtailing mail ballot access. Policy changes and administrative decisions have altered operational procedures at the U.S. Postal Service, including adjustments to sorting equipment and delivery guidelines.

The Department of Justice filed a federal lawsuit targeting California’s election procedures. California established a universal mail-in voting model by enacting legislation requiring county election officials to send a mail ballot to every active registered voter in the state.

The lawsuit by the federal government argued that California’s system creates risks of unlawful voting and challenged state oversight of its official voter registration lists.

Specifically, the federal complaint alleged that California had failed to conduct proper voter roll maintenance, citing federal lists regarding individuals flagged as noncitizens who were sent mail ballots.

The lawsuit sought a court order to block state election officials from counting certain mail-in ballots ahead of the elections. In response, California state officials, including the Attorney General and Secretary of State, defended the legal validity of universal mail-in voting.

State leaders noted that California law relies on signature matching, secure drop-box monitoring, and continuous voter file updates to verify voter identity and maintain system integrity, while arguing that federal interventions violate laws restricting voter roll changes close to an election. Courts continue to review these challenges regarding federal authority over state-administered election laws.

Mail-in voting Also Shapes Results

Mail-in voting remains an essential tool in modern American election administration. From its origins, mail-in voting has provided voters with a flexible, low-cost option to participate in national and local elections.

While the expansion of vote-by-mail systems during the 2020 pandemic increased overall voter turnout, it also intensified political debate over election administration and security measures.

Although empirical data show that voter fraud in mail-in systems remains extremely rare, legal and political challenges, such as federal lawsuits targeting state mail-in procedures, continue to shape the discussion surrounding electoral access.

The ongoing debates over vote-by-mail illustrate a continuing effort to balance security with public access in the U.S. election system. As states enact laws to regulate, expand, or limit mail ballot procedures, the future of mail-in voting will remain a central topic in discussions about democratic participation and legal policy.

MARQUETTE, Mich. — Abdul El-Sayed, the Democratic U.S. Senate nominee in Michigan, signaled Thursday that he would question Israel’s status as an ally of the United States no matter who wins Israel’s elections later this month.

Asked during an interview with MS NOW whether his objections were to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government or to the state of Israel itself, El-Sayed suggested his opposition went further than current leadership.

“I mean, I think we’ve got to get serious, right?” he responded. “Netanyahu is one part of it, but the Israeli military has done heinous things, like heinous things, full war crimes, genocide. So I think we got to just get serious about whether or not we as a country should be subsidizing that government.”

He said he supports “equal rights to peace, dignity, and self-determination” for both “Jewish Israelis and Palestinians,” before pointing to Israel’s lobbying of the U.S. to join the war with Iran.

“But right now, that government has done terrible things with our money in their name, they pulled us into a war we had no business fighting,” he added. “So, to me, an ally is somebody who cares about you and you care about them. I don’t think they care about us. That’s what I’ve seen.”

When pressed on the matter — whether the ouster of Netanyahu would change his views — El-Sayed deferred to after the Israelis selected their next leader.

“Let’s see who the next prime minister is,” he said in an interview with MS NOW, before arguing that “structurally, there are a lot of issues with that ostensible allyship.”

Netanyahu’s main challenger, Gadi Eisenkot, a former chief of the Israeli military, leads a centrist party called Yashar, which translates to “Straight” in English. He has indicated a greater willingness than Netanyahu to more fully engage with the Trump administration on its various regional diplomatic initiatives in Gaza, Lebanon and Syria. Like most other Israeli opposition leaders, Eisenkot has said he would continue an aggressive military posture against militant groups all across the Middle East.

He has positioned his party as a home for voters who are concerned about the direction Netanyahu and his far right and religious coalition is leading Israel. His platform attacks issues where Netanyahu is vulnerable, such as calling for an official investigation into the Oct. 7 attacks, which Netanyahu has resisted. Eisenkot has rejected a Palestinian state in the near term but has pledged to curb settler violence and restrain some settlement expansion in the West Bank.

The International Court of Justice is currently hearing a case brought by South Africa that accuses Israeli forces of genocide. Israel vehemently has rejected the accusation, saying it is based on “biased and false claims.” Israel has said it does what it can to protect civilians and has accused Hamas of using civilians as human shields.

El-Sayed made the remarks after the third stop of his “It shouldn’t be this hard” bus tour — during which he was joined by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y. — with less than three weeks until Election Day in one of the nation’s most competitive Senate races. He faces former Republican Rep. Mike Rogers for the seat being vacated by retiring Democratic Sen. Gary Peters, and the outcome could help determine which party controls the Senate for the final two years of President Donald Trump’s term.

El-Sayed’s views on Israel have become a flashpoint in the race, and he has struggled to win over some Jewish Democrats who are wary of his positions and rhetoric. El-Sayed has said he doesn’t support additional U.S. aid to Israel and doesn’t believe Israel should exist as a Jewish state. During last week’s debate, he wouldn’t say whether Israel or Iran posed the larger threat to the U.S., calling it a “ridiculous question.”

Asked by MS NOW on Thursday whether he would consider Israel to be a U.S. ally and whether the ousting of Netanyahu would change his position on the U.S.-Israel relationship, El-Sayed questioned how much of a friend Israel is, citing the impacts of the Iran war.

“They use us to go and fight a war we have no business fighting,” he said. “We’re paying more in gas. We’re paying more in groceries so that they could help to clear the air to try and annex southern Lebanon. How is that helping? What kind of allies? I’m just saying, like, what kind of ally is that?”

During another part of the interview, El-Sayed said Israeli leadership “just use” the U.S.

“Allies are supposed to care about you implicitly, not just use you. The government of Israel has done nothing but use us,” he said. “They use us for our tax dollars. They use us to run cover at the United Nations. They use us to run cover at the [International Criminal Court] and [International Court of Justice] for their war crimes.”

The Oct. 27 vote will be Israel’s first national election since the Hamas-led attacks of Oct. 7. Netanyahu, who has served as prime minister for more than 18 years across three stints, is seeking another term.

El-Sayed said he would wait to see who wins, but he sounded skeptical.

“I’m not hearing any commitment to Palestinian self-determination from anybody. I’m not hearing any commitment to ending the, like, the policy when it comes to settlements. I’m not hearing any remorse for the utter, like, annihilation of Gaza. So let’s see, right? Let’s see,” he said.

“I think right now, structurally, there are a lot of issues with that ostensible allyship. And I think the American public needs to have a conversation about it,” he added. “Like — and here’s the problem, right — too often the American public thinks one thing, right? You look at poll and poll, poll after poll after poll after poll. You all have reported on it, and then American politicians say something else. Why? And I think we should be asking, like, why?”

He continued, “Why is it that American politicians aren’t having the same conversation as the American public? I’m trying to have the conversation with the American public.”

Asked what his message is to Jewish Democrats who are on the fence about supporting him, El-Sayed turned the question back on the Rogers campaign.

“If you are committed to religious pluralism, take a look at the race that they’re running, and ask yourself if that helps anybody who is a religious minority in this country,” he said.

“If you’re committed to reproductive rights, if you’re committed to democracy itself, there is one candidate on the ballot who’s committed to those things,” he added. “Now, we may have differences when it comes to Israel, but the things that you notice are a lot bigger. I’m committed to the safety and security of the Jewish community like I’m committed to the safety and security of all of our communities.”

If elected, El-Sayed would be the first Muslim senator in American history. He said he is “committed to making sure that no matter how you pray, you’ve got a place here in America.”

“Nobody can tell you what you can or can’t do because of your faith. I know what it’s like to be discriminated against for how I pray, just turn on the TV,” he added. “And so I think the things that unite us are so much bigger than the things that divide us. But when it comes to a conversation about foreign policy, we might disagree. But I hope that the things that bring us  together are bigger than the things that divide us.”

Rogers has tried to capitalize on the hesitancy of some Jewish Democrats who are wary of El-Sayed.

“What the polls aren’t picking up is our effort in the Democrat Jewish community,” Rogers said last week at a campaign stop in Sterling Heights, a Detroit suburb. “There’s about 100,000. Those numbers are swelling up. It’s huge for us. The numbers are growing every day, even after last night, lots of calls, they want to get in and be a part of it. You’re never going to see that in a poll.”

Felicia Schwartz contributed to this report.

The post El-Sayed says a Netanyahu loss may not change his view of Israel appeared first on MS NOW.

As part of a tough re-election campaign in Maine, incumbent Republican Sen. Susan Collins has emphasized on countless occasions that she’s willing to defy President Donald Trump and other GOP leaders. But while there’s some truth to that, the senator’s critics have long emphasized the asterisk that comes with that record.

The New York Times took a closer look at her voting record, which shows that Collins has broken with her party more than any other Republican senator. That said, the same record “reveals that her defections … have rarely thwarted the president during his second term.”

In other words, the longtime GOP senator has demonstrated a willingness to break ranks, except when her vote might actually affect the outcome. Or, as the Times’ report put it, “one of the most dominant and long-running lines of attack against her” is that Collins “only defies the president when it doesn’t matter.”

On Thursday night, in her fourth and final debate against Democratic nominee Troy Jackson, the Maine Republican was presented with a clear opportunity to prove her critics wrong. It did not go well.

A moderator asked Collins, “Can you name a time when you voted against your party and President Trump where it actually changed the outcome significantly?”

The senator began by saying there were “several examples,” though she specifically pointed to one: Early last year, Collins said, she helped organize an effort to defeat Pete Hegseth’s defense secretary nomination, though her effort ultimately didn’t work and the unqualified former Fox News host was confirmed.

“So that didn’t change the outcome,” the moderator replied.

Remember, Collins has faced one specific criticism throughout her re-election bid, and it was highlighted by The New York Times in a front-page article published this week. The senator and her team had plenty of time to come up with examples (any example!) to prove her critics wrong.

But she couldn’t. Then, presented with the opportunity and platform, Collins flubbed it, effectively proving the underlying point.

Whether Jackson and his party turn the debate exchange into a new campaign ad remains to be seen.

The post Pressed on her work with Trump, Maine’s Collins trips over key part of her record appeared first on MS NOW.

During a town hall event on CNN this week, Democratic Senate hopeful James Talarico voiced a sentiment that was well received by attendees: “We have an affordability crisis because we have a corruption crisis.”

The message has become increasingly common as the midterm election cycle has unfolded. Indeed, Democratic Sen. Jon Ossoff of Georgia, in particular, has built much of his 2026 candidacy on the proposition that corruption isn’t only a major national issue, it’s also the principal cause for the problems plaguing regular Americans in their everyday lives. “You aren’t the problem. Neither are your fellow Americans,” Ossoff routinely tells Georgians. “Corruption is why things don’t work for ordinary people.”

There’s fresh evidence that the argument is resonating with the public.

A Gallup poll released last month found that 89% of American adults believe that government corruption in the United States is widespread — up 10 points from a year ago, and 30 points from a Gallup survey conducted in 2006. Earlier this week, The Associated Press released the results of its latest national poll, which similarly found that most Americans believe that Donald Trump “is profiting off the presidency in unethical or illegal ways and is focused more on his wealth than helping people like them.”

But it was the latest Fox News poll that arguably surprised people most. The editorial board of The Washington Post noted:

President Donald Trump’s ouster of Kimberly Guilfoyle as ambassador to Greece this week reflected a belated recognition by the White House political team that corruption is a galvanizing issue in the midterms.

A Fox News poll released Wednesday indicates that corruption has become voters’ top concern, edging out inflation and gas prices. Six in 10 respondents said they’re “extremely concerned” about corruption. … The Fox News finding isn’t an outlier. An Economist-YouGov poll last month showed that most registered voters think Trump is corrupt. A Reuters poll in August revealed that almost 7 in 10 Americans — including about half of Republicans — believe Trump’s private business interests influence his presidential decisions.

These public attitudes are based on a lot more than just cynical assumptions. On a nearly daily basis, Americans are confronted with a fresh round of allegations surrounding the president and his team. “The cesspit of corruption that is Donald Trump’s presidency is finally getting the attention it deserves,” economist Paul Krugman recently observed. “It’s about time. … The level of corruption that Trump has engaged in and enabled in others is completely unprecedented — self-dealing that, as Trump would say, is like nothing anybody has ever seen before.”

This week, MS NOW host Catherine Rampell wrote a column for The Bulwark in which she added, “Donald Trump is robbing Americans blind.” The headline on her piece read, “Just. So. Much. Corruption.”

Voters’ attitudes on this should send a signal to policymakers about their post-election priorities. We’ll learn in a few weeks whether Democrats can win a majority in either (or both) of Congress’ chambers; but if they do, some will no doubt make the case that the party should focus almost entirely on kitchen-table issues.

And while such a strategy would make sense, the midterms are making clear that there’s a direct link between corruption and affordability — and there’s a real public appetite for accountability and reform.

The post Democrats have made corruption a key midterm issue. Polls show voters agree. appeared first on MS NOW.

In the months leading up to Texas’ Republican U.S. Senate primary, the party was divided into a couple of camps. On one side was incumbent Sen. John Cornyn, who enjoyed the enthusiastic backing of most GOP leaders and their aligned super PAC, and who was generally seen as a safe choice who would fare well in a general election.

On the other side was the senator’s intraparty challenger, state Attorney General Ken Paxton, who enjoyed support from the party’s MAGA base, despite being the most scandal-plagued candidate of his generation, and who was generally seen as an enormous risk.

There were reports that Donald Trump was tempted to play it safe, before he ultimately endorsed Paxton, who cruised to an easy primary victory. The results haven’t exactly gone the way the president likely hoped.

Over the past several weeks, a variety of high-quality polls have been conducted in the Lone Star State, and not one of them has shown Paxton leading Democratic state Rep. James Talarico. This has generated a fair amount of panic in GOP circles, where the idea of losing a Senate seat in Texas had been largely unthinkable as the year got underway.

With this in mind, Trump is now taking a predictable step: He’s trying to avoid blame for a possible electoral disaster. Indeed, the president published a lengthy tirade to his social media platform on Thursday afternoon in which he tried to pre-blame Republicans he doesn’t like for a defeat that hasn’t happened yet. From the online rant:

Sadly, and very stupidly, John Cornyn, and his Liddle’ Buddy, Super RINO, Karl Rove, are doing everything possible to make it hard for Ken Paxton, the Greatest Attorney General in the History of Texas, and one of the Best in the United States, to win the upcoming Midterm Election. … They are hurting Texas and, more importantly, hurting the United States of America!

If Ken Paxton loses, it will be because of WEAK and INEFFECTIVE Political Hacks like John Cornyn and Karl Rove, who have ineffectively opposed me for my entire political career.

As a factual matter, it’s true that Cornyn has done effectively nothing to help Paxton since their primary, but the suggestion that the senator is actively undermining his party’s nominee is difficult to take seriously (leaving aside the obvious contradiction of blaming a Paxton loss on “ineffective” opponents). The state attorney general’s troubles are his own fault, not Cornyn’s.

But these details are less striking than the implication that if Trump genuinely believed Paxton was well positioned to win, the president wouldn’t be looking to shift the blame for this race away from himself.

This is not to say that Talarico definitely will win — we should find out in 19 days — and with far-right megadonors throwing an enormous amount of money at Texas, it’s still possible that Elon Musk and company will successfully buy the seat for Paxton.

But Trump’s angry missive does not speak well of Paxton’s chances.

The post Fearing Ken Paxton’s defeat in Texas, Trump tries pre-blaming John Cornyn appeared first on MS NOW.

Musk is the big Paxton funder: According to campaign filings released yesterday, Elon Musk sent $158 million in September to a super PAC that immediately gave that amount of money to a group backing Texas Republican Ken Paxton's Senate bid against Democrat James Talarico.

"On Sept. 9, the first day of the GOP midterm convention in Dallas, Musk gave $75 million to SLF," reports The Texas Tribune. "The next day, SLF put $75 million into a new entity called Texas PAC. By the weekend after the convention, the new super PAC was up on the air with a positive spot about Paxton's work on sex trafficking and a negative ad attacking Talarico as being for 'they/them, not you.'"

Then, two weeks later, "Musk gave an additional $83 million to SLF, according to the group's filing. Sure enough, SLF deposited $83 million into Texas PAC's coffers the following day."

It would be wild if Paxton still loses. Paxton has been embroiled in rolling scandals for years, and some current polls have him underwater by 13 points. A New York Times/Siena survey found only 38 percent of likely Texas voters believe he has "good character," versus 56 percent for Talarico.

Paxton was indicted on securities fraud charges in 2015, and that case dragged on for most of a decade before ending in a pretrial agreement. Then the Texas House, led by Republicans, accused him of bribery and abuse of public trust and successfully impeached him in 2023. The charges centered on allegations that he used his office to help donor Nate Paul—so you can imagine why Musk might want to curry favor with Paxton. Though Paxton was later acquitted by the state Senate, scandal keeps chasing him: Last year, his wife, state Sen. Angela Paxton, filed for divorce on "biblical" grounds, citing adultery as one of the reasons.

Of course, many Republican voters at the state level saw the impeachment as nothing more than a political hit job, one echoing what's happened to President Donald Trump at the national level. But what far-right, already-convinced Republicans believe about Paxton is sort of beside the point: He needs turnout, and he needs to win over more moderate Republicans and maybe even some fence-sitters if he hopes to beat Talarico. It's possible Musk's cash infusion will help, but it's also possible a cash infusion of many millions of dollars won't be enough to rehabilitate Paxton's shitty image.

A poll from the University of Texas and Texas Politics Project conducted in August "contained four major warning signs for Paxton: a drop in his support from June, lagging GOP motivation to vote, worse favorability numbers than Talarico and Trump's approval being underwater in the state."

Scenes from New York: "When Gov. Kathy Hochul first ran for re-election, Republicans in New York tried to prey on fears over crime, rising inflation and illegal immigration to boost the chances of their ticket statewide in the critical 2022 midterms," reports The New York Times. "The strategy seemed to work. Republicans flipped four House seats in New York, while putting a scare into Ms. Hochul, who eked out a six-point victory over Lee Zeldin, then a Long Island congressman who now leads the E.P.A." This year, Republicans have picked Bruce Blakeman, the Nassau County executive, as the guy with the best odds of beating Hochul, and they're running on crime fears again. But it's not working so well.

The crime and public disorder is, to my mind, still a problem, but it's not as rampant as it once was during the peak pandemic years. And it's certainly not perceived as very bad right now.

QUICK HITS

• "Three children and a teacher were killed, and two others were critically wounded, in a shooting Thursday at Silver Rail Elementary School in Bend, Oregon, authorities said," reports CBS News. "The suspect, a 16-year-old male, was shot and killed by a bystander, Bend police said.…Officials would not say exactly what type of weapon was used in the attack or how many rounds were fired. Multiple law enforcement sources told CBS News the suspect used a shotgun, and The Associated Press cited a law enforcement official briefed on the incident as saying it was a pump-action shotgun purchased by his mother."
• "A climate of radical paranoia around AI seems like it will be a feature of our world for the foreseeable future," writes Ross Douthat in The Free Press, "because human beings are really good at being paranoid about mysterious new things. With, of course, the AI doomers themselves being a prime example: As Mike Solana of Pirate Wires notes in his own recent reading of the doom canon, the prophecies of Yudkowsky and Co. are already moderately less credible insofar as they don't account for their own cultural success."
• "Taiwan is preparing to tighten export controls on AI chips to further align with US restrictions, according to a senior official in Taipei, joining a Trump administration clampdown on the smuggling of cutting-edge semiconductors to China," reports Bloomberg. "Taipei plans to add artificial intelligence servers and cutting-edge semiconductors to a list of controlled items, Taiwan's Minister of Economic Affairs Kung Ming-hsin told Bloomberg News. After the measures take effect, he said, shipping restricted AI hardware to China will become a criminal offense under the Foreign Trade Act."
• I'll leave you with a quote from Kennedy (not John or Robert) to start your weekend off right: "Kimberly [Guilfoyle] talked about sex so cavalierly that she made Samantha from Sex and the City seem like Greta Thunberg."

The post Musk's Meddling appeared first on Reason Magazine.

• The battle for voters in the 2026 midterm elections is playing out on the TikTok For You Page.
• One in four Americans say creator content has influenced who they voted for.
• Political candidates are scrambling to connect with more creators in order to reach voters.

Content creators are influencing much more than our coffee orders and skincare routines.

About one in four Americans (26%) say influencer content has affected who they've voted for, according to a survey of around 2,000 US adults conducted by Morning Consult in September, commissioned by Business Insider.

Creator content is an "underestimated avenue" for political campaigns, said Nicole Dunger, a founding partner at the marketing firm People First, which works with candidates and advocacy groups on their creator strategies. "It is a real player and a big player in this space now."

If 2024 was the podcast election, 2026 is shaping up to be the influencer one. Instagram and TikTok creators have joined Fox News hosts and personalities like Joe Rogan as go-to sources of information for voters.

Influencers like Jake Paul and Hasan Piker have emerged as main characters in politics this year.

Paul recently joined President Donald Trump in Ohio for a midterm rally, posting TikTok clips of his Air Force One flight. Piker, meanwhile, has become a campaign ally for progressives like Michigan's Abdul El-Sayed and a negative talking point for Fox News commentators.

As online attention has become a key asset in politics, influencers are helping candidates break through the noise.

A little over half of US adults (56%) told Morning Consult that creator content had affected their views on political or social issues to some degree. That figure jumped among Gen Z respondents, where close to three in four respondents said their views had been swayed by influencer posts.

For campaigns, the challenge is identifying the right creators to work with, particularly when many influencers don't regularly talk about politics.

"You have to have your base of people, your core supporters, and then you have to have a broader cultural space of people who don't always talk about politics," said Parker Butler, a managing partner at the digital strategy firm Luminary Strategies, which works on social strategy with Democratic candidates like James Talarico. "It's worth having different pockets of creators for different purposes."

Reaching creators with smaller followings than Piker (about 3 million Twitch followers), or Paul (around 21 million YouTube subscribers) is a focus in 2026, Butler said.

He said the goal is to shift the creator outreach strategy from "this person has a million followers" to identifying influencers who work in a particular niche a campaign is trying to reach.

Political chatter is moving from TV to YouTube

More and more, political discussions are playing out on digital platforms, whether that's podcasts, YouTube videos, or Twitch streams.

YouTube was the top source for political and election news among US adults in September, narrowly beating out TV, print, and X (formerly Twitter), according to a survey from Syracuse University.

About one in five Democrats and Republicans said podcast appearances could make them "more likely to support a candidate," according to a July through August survey of likely midterm voters from the podcast industry group Sounds Profitable. A smaller share of Independents (11%) said podcasts could make them more likely to back a candidate.

While campaigns see attention moving online, they're still spending the bulk of their ad budgets on TV.

Part of that may be because they're accustomed to buying TV spots. They're also reckoning with the fact that influencer marketing is harder to predict and measure, particularly as social-media feeds become more personalized and algorithmically driven.

"It can be very challenging, but you see the results in the end," Dunger said. "It's the same with door knocking. We know door knocking somehow works and has worked for so long, but it's not like we have those direct measurements."

US President Donald Trump called Ukraine’s renewed strikes on Russian oil refineries a disgrace in an interview with Newsmax and questioned President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s will to settle the war on 15 October. His statements came after he made a deal with Russian President Vladimir Putin to allow Russian diesel back into the US ahead of the mid-term elections in the US.

Kyiv says its long-range strikes have knocked out more than half of Russia's refining capacity, one of the few levers it controls on Moscow's war income, according to Ukraine's Defense Ministry. This is part of efforts to reduce the aggressor's capabilities to launch assaults, including the latest, during which four Russian regions fired 39 Iskander-M, North Korean KN-23, hypersonic Zircon, and supersonic anti-ship cruise Oniks missiles, Zelenskyy said.

Trump criticizes Zelenskyy over oil prices while remaining silent on Russian strikes

Earlier, Zelenskyy said that Ukraine stopped refinery strikes for three days to meet US wishes after Trump announced an “energy ceasefire” on 11 October. At the same time, Russia struck a Kharkiv heat-and-power plant within hours of the announcement, he emphasized.

Meanwhile, in the interview with Newsmax, Trump said Zelenskyy is only pushing world oil prices higher.

“Well, I think that’s a disgrace,” he said.

He added that Ukraine has other options: “There are a lot of targets that you can hit.”

At the same time, Trump didn't say a word about Russian strikes on Ukraine's civilian buildings and power infrastructure ahead of the winter.

Trump compares Zelenskyy to a circus showman

The US leader said he is “not a big fan” of Zelenskyy. He claimed both sides “would like to see it end,” but that he finds Zelenskyy “more difficult to deal with than Putin.”

Explore further

US weighs relief for sanctioned shadow fleet tankers, days after freeing Russian diesel

He also said that he believes the depletion of US ammunition stockpiles is linked to the aid provided to Ukraine under the Biden administration, rather than the war with Iran.

Ukraine has repeatedly offered to help the US counter Iranian drones during the operation. The New York Times reported that a Ukrainian team departed the day after the US made such a request.

Nevertheless, despite Kyiv’s offers and actions, Trump once again compared Zelenskyy to P. T. Barnum, the 19th-century American circus showman, saying that he received a tremendous number of Patriots and Tomahawks.

However, there is no public confirmation that Tomahawk missiles were transferred to Ukraine during the Biden administration.

Elon Musk, the CEO of SpaceX and Tesla, has reclaimed his title as the single biggest known political donor at the federal level, dropping more than $280 million over the summer to boost Republican candidates in this year’s midterm elections.

And his biggest mission so far: to boost Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton in what’s become one of the most expensive contests this year, the Texas Senate race.

In September, the billionaire tech executive transferred a whopping $158 million into the GOP leadership-linked super PAC, the Senate Leadership Fund, in two installments. The first one totaled $75 million on Sept. 9, and then $85 million on Sept. 23, according to the group’s latest filing to the Federal Election Commission.

And a day after each of those contributions, SLF transferred the exact same amount of money to a pro-Ken Paxton super PAC called Texas PAC, their latest disclosures show.

Play

Talarico returns from sick absence swinging as Paxton avoids debate: ‘I’m asking for proof of spine’ October 11, 2026 / 03:05

Democrat James Talarico currently has a 3-point lead over Paxton, according to MS NOW’s polling data partner FiftyPlusOne, meaning this race is still a toss-up.

Musk’s eye-popping donations to SLF reportedly came on the heels of conversations among SLF and Musk’s political advisers about matching contributions to boost pro-Paxton efforts in the final stretch of the election. Earlier in August, Musk’s trust and SLF had donated $10 million and $5 million, respectively, to Lone Star Liberty PAC, another pro-Paxton super PAC. That’s according to the super PAC’s latest disclosure. The infusion of cash from Musk and SLF has allowed both Texas PAC and Lone Star Liberty PAC to dominate the Texas airwaves in the past month. In particular, Texas PAC has quickly become the top spender in what was an already expensive race.

Texas PAC has since burned through at least $132 million of the newly raised money on ads, postage and other efforts in support of Paxton and against his Democratic opponent, Talarico, according to FEC filings, with ad-tracking data showing an additional tens of millions of dollars’ worth of reserved airtime in the coming weeks.

Notably, during the long and contentious Texas Senate GOP primary, SLF had publicly campaigned against Paxton in an effort to protect incumbent Sen. John Cornyn, only for the six-term senator to lose to Paxton after President Donald Trump’s last-minute endorsement of the state’s embattled attorney general.

But SLF quickly pivoted in support of Paxton once he was nominated. Now the $158 million from Musk makes up well over half of SLF’s total fundraising in the third quarter of this year, though the money was immediately rerouted to the pro-Paxton super PAC. Still, SLF boasted a $155 million war chest entering October.

In all, the Texas Senate race has already drawn in more than $500 million just in ad spending on both sides of the aisle, according to data firm AdImpact.

But Texas, of course, isn’t Musk’s only interest.

In the last three months, Musk has also dropped a series of massive donations totaling $89 million into his own super PAC, dubbed America PAC, which has been spending tens of millions of dollars in support of Republicans in other key states like Ohio, Michigan, Iowa and Maine.

Musk also gave $20 million in early September to the Congressional Leadership Fund, a super PAC linked to House Republican leadership, according to the group’s latest filing.

America PAC quickly spent more than $50 million in the last quarter, mainly on canvassing, research, consulting and ad spending, and entered October with just $12 million cash on hand.

According to FEC data, since 2025, Musk has poured at least $366 million into federal elections.

Other top Republican donors so far this cycle include Richard Uihlein, who has given a total of $130 million to various federal campaigns and groups. Miriam Adelson, another top spender, has given at least $70 million to various Republican causes, including $25 million to MAGA Inc., a pro-Trump super PAC.

The 2026 midterm cycle is on track to become one of the most expensive midterm elections in history, with FEC data showing more than $13.5 billion raised across candidates, PACs and party committees, and more than $10 billion spent just on ads, according to AdImpact.

The post Elon Musk pours $168 million into Texas in 11th-hour effort to boost Ken Paxton appeared first on MS NOW.

Congressional Republicans on the campaign trail have struggled to sell voters on last year’s massive tax cut bill, one of their signature achievements. In most cases, candidates would want data to share on who benefited from that legislation. But the IRS is months behind on sharing key data about how the new law affected taxpayers. It’s an absence that raises important questions about why the IRS hasn’t shared what it has learned.

The One Big Beautiful Bill contained all kinds of changes to the tax code, including new deductions for workers on their tips and overtime wages. The IRS was due to release a set of data detailing the overall tax landscape at the end of the 2026 filing season in July, with an updated version in September. According to Politico, this would have included vital findings on “the uptake of individual provisions in the code as well as things like how much more people in different income groups reported earning, and how many people still owed money to the IRS at the time of filing.”

These figures could show that the tax bill was a huge success — or provide more proof that the tax burden has shifted away from the rich and onto Americans already angry at President Donald Trump’s handling of the economy. Per Politico, the IRS “said it is awaiting approval from the Treasury Department to publish the figures.” While the agency does sit under Treasury’s broader umbrella, this isn’t a call Secretary Scott Bessent would normally be making. But the IRS has been the center of an outsized share of drama since January.

The agency went through eight leaders last year, and the commissioner seat is still currently vacant. Bessent stepped in as acting commissioner last year, but his window to legally run the agency closed. The Treasury said in a statement that while he “oversees the operations of all Treasury offices and bureaus, including the Internal Revenue Service,” by March, his service “has expired, and he has not served in that capacity since that time.” Bessent clarified to the Senate in July that while he was no longer the acting commissioner, he was still “performing the duties of the commissioner.”

Play

Maddow points out the dark possibility behind Trump’s removal of IRS commissioner Billy Long August 12, 2025 / 05:57

Day-to-day operations at the IRS, though, are being handled by Social Security Administration chief Frank Bisignano, who has been serving as the IRS’ “chief executive officer” since last October. The role didn’t exist before Bessent created it and it seems like a way to get around having to get a new commissioner confirmed after the last one, Billy Long, was fired two months into the gig. Whether it’s Bessent making the call to withhold the data or Bisignano passing the buck, the outcome is the same: the suppression of public data that could be potentially embarrassing to the administration.

The most plausible alternate, less nefarious, possibility: The IRS simply lacks the personnel to have successfully parsed this year’s tax data. The aforementioned drama included major cuts at the IRS, both in funding and in staffers. Congressional Republicans have clawed back millions of dollars meant to ease the burden on already overworked auditors. The upheaval of mass layoffs, early retirements and the so-called Department of Government Efficiency’s efforts to worm its way into the system prompted a mass exodus of staffers. More than 31,000 employees had left the IRS as of this January, according to its inspector general.

The departures were enough for the IRS to petition the Treasury, in a February memo, for an immediate hiring spree, warning that “ongoing staffing shortages put the 2026 Filing Season at risk,” according to a Washington Sun report in June. CNBC reported in July that Senate Democrats were curious about the discrepancy between that memo and Bisignano previously telling Congress that there were no staffing issues at the agency. (“The IRS delivered a historically successful filing season, efficiently processing returns and issuing average refunds that were 11 percent higher than last year as Americans benefited from the President’s Working Families Tax Cuts,” an IRS spokesperson said in a statement to CNBC.)

Whatever the cause, the full consequences of the most consequential law this outgoing Congress passed remain a mystery. It’s hard to say more about the withholding though given the absence of, well, data. We don’t know how much of the delay is due to incompetence, negligence or ill-intent — or a combination of the three.

What can be said for certain is that the longer the IRS delays in releasing this data, the worse it will look when it finally comes to light. If it vindicates the GOP with positive news, it will be too late to have made an effect on the election. If it damns the tax bill’s effects, Bessent and Bisignano will have a lot of questions to answer about why that information was kept from voters until many their ballots had already been cast.

The post What the IRS is hiding ahead of the midterms appeared first on MS NOW.

TOKYO — An unwelcome blast of US inflation is blowing across Asia’s markets. September’s hotter-than-expected price data revived concerns that the Federal Reserve will keep rates higher for longer, threatening fresh pressure on currencies, capital flows and economic growth across the region.

Last month’s 3.7% year-on-year increase in consumer prices didn’t just exceed forecasts. It ensured the Fed is on an even bigger collision course with both the bond market and US President Donald Trump’s White House. It’s arguably the last thing both Trump and US Federal Reserve Chairman Kevin Warsh wanted to see less than three weeks ahead of the mid-term elections.

The post Hot US inflation singes Asia as higher-for-longer Fed rates loom appeared first on Asia Times.

Two years ago, voters in Arizona, Missouri, Montana and Nevada approved ballot measures protecting abortion rights while also backing Donald Trump for president. This fall, the question is whether that can happen again.

In the four states voting on abortion measures this year — Virginia, Nevada, Idaho and Missouri — Democratic candidates are making sure voters know where they stand. Republicans in several marquee races have been far quieter, leaving the measures off their campaign websites, declining to say how they’ll vote or waiting until the campaign’s final weeks to take a position.

In Virginia, Republican Reps. Rob Wittman and Jen Kiggans, whose races the Cook Political Report rates as toss-ups, haven’t said how they’ll vote on a measure to enshrine abortion rights in the state constitution — even though both have records opposing abortion rights. In Idaho, Gov. Brad Little, who is running for re-election, did not say how he would vote on a measure that would essentially undo the state’s abortion ban until last week, after MS NOW asked both his campaign and the Idaho GOP why he hadn’t taken a position. (Neither responded.) Missouri is the exception: There, Republicans are pushing the measure — though its most prominent champions aren’t on the ballot themselves.

Some on the right say staying quiet is a mistake. Gregg Keller, a GOP strategist, said Republicans “need to be clear about where they stand” when they’re asked about abortion ballot measures. “They should say, ‘I’m pro-life, but here’s what I’m running on.’”

Anti-abortion advocates want them to go further.

“It’s a mistake for a candidate not to be clear about their support for innocent pre-born life, their mothers and pro-life measures designed to protect both,” Kristi Hamrick, a spokesperson for the anti-abortion advocacy group Students for Life Action, told MS NOW. “Ironically, you don’t have to tell the pro-abortion lobby or their candidates to speak up.”

Gavin Oxley, spokesperson for Americans United for Life, also criticized Republicans who stay quiet.

“When abortion is treated as a political poison by politicians on the national stage, grassroots pro-lifers are forced to bear a greater burden when defending against extreme abortion ballot measures,” he said.

That tension isn’t entirely new. In 2024, Trump’s insistence that abortion be “left to the states” drew sharp criticism from some anti-abortion leaders, and the Republican platform dropped its long-standing call for a national ban on abortion. Trump stuck with his approach anyway, and won.

But the results in states with abortion on the ballot may be the strongest argument for staying quiet. In 2024, the abortion rights measures in Arizona, Missouri, Montana and Nevada ran well ahead of Democratic nominee Kamala Harris, by about 11 points in Missouri and nearly 20 in Montana, suggesting that many voters who backed abortion rights also backed Trump. A paper published this month on the Social Science Research Network, an open-access platform, seemed to confirm that theory: It found that in 2024, voters in states with abortion ballot measures were more likely to back Republicans for the House and the presidency, an effect the researchers attributed “entirely” to moderate voters who support abortion rights. (The paper is a preprint and has not yet been peer-reviewed.)

While a majority of Americans support abortion rights, recent polling also shows that abortion isn’t a top issue for voters this cycle.

“It’s not going to help Republicans for voters to be thinking about this, and the best thing Republicans can do is just hope that this issue is out of the spotlight,” said Mary Ziegler, a law professor at the University of California, Davis, and an expert in abortion laws.

But this year is different. In 2024, Trump was at the top of the ticket, pledging not to enact further restrictions on abortion. This year, Republicans are running without him on the ballot and carrying the weight of his historically low approval rating, a struggling economy and the war with Iran. Ziegler said that could make moderates less willing to split their tickets.

“I think you’re seeing Republicans look at what Trump did in 2024 that worked, and try to replicate it,” Ziegler said. “But what worked for Trump may not work anymore.”

Plus, abortion rights supporters have a strong record at the ballot box. Since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in June 2022, voters in 11 states have used ballot measures to enshrine abortion rights in their constitutions, according to KFF, a health policy research organization.

But in politics, winning rarely ends the fight. Missouri’s ballot measure is the first attempt to reverse abortion rights that voters have already approved, and in Idaho, the GOP legislature could reinstate the abortion ban even if Proposition 1 passes.

Here’s what to watch in each state.

Virginia

Virginia offers the most direct test in a pair of key congressional races. Neither Wittman nor Kiggans has clarified their stance on Question 1, the ballot measure that asks if the state constitution should enshrine a “fundamental right to reproductive freedom.” But their Democratic challengers — Shannon Taylor and former Rep. Elaine Luria, respectively — have come out strong in support of the measure.

Wittman has described himself as “100% pro-life” and praised the Supreme Court’s overturning of Roe, but his campaign website does not address the issue at all. Kiggans’ site says she supports exceptions to abortion bans for “rape, incest and life of the mother,” but does not address the ballot measure. Neither campaign responded to requests for comment from MS NOW.

The pattern holds in the state’s Senate race. Democratic Sen. Mark Warner, who is seeking re-election, has backed the measure, while his Republican opponent, Bert Mizusawa, has avoided staking out a position. Mizusawa’s campaign also did not respond to multiple requests for comment.

The measure asks if the state should also protect doctors and other medical providers “from being punished for these decisions,” and allow abortions in the third trimester if a doctor determines a patient’s health is at risk or the pregnancy is nonviable. Abortion is currently legal in the commonwealth through the second trimester, with some exceptions beyond that.

Advocates for the measure say candidates’ silence isn’t an option, given the role Virginia plays for patients across the region as the only Southern state without an abortion ban.

“We’ve seen what happens when people can’t access the reproductive healthcare that they need,” said Han Jones, the campaign manager at Virginians for Reproductive Freedom, pointing to reports of women dying in states with abortion bans.

Opponents counter that the measure is redundant and unnecessary.

“There is no threat to abortion on the horizon in Virginia, even if I might disagree with that,” said Victoria Cobb, president of the conservative Family Foundation of Virginia, the funder of the leading opposition group.

Nevada

Nevada is the closest thing to a rerun of 2024. Two years ago, Trump carried the state even as more than 60% of voters approved a measure to enshrine the state’s current abortion law in its constitution. That law allows abortion through 24 weeks of pregnancy — and beyond that to preserve the health or life of the pregnant person.

But the issue is still playing a key role in this year’s gubernatorial race: Nevada requires voters to approve an amendment twice before it can be added to the state constitution, and the measure faces voters again this year in the form of Question 6 on the ballot. Republican Gov. Joe Lombardo, who has positioned himself as a moderate and is seeking a second term, only recently told the Reno Gazette Journal he would vote against the abortion ballot measure.

Supporters of abortion rights have used the vote to rally around the Democratic nominee, Attorney General Aaron Ford, who has backed the measure and said he would ensure the state “remains a firewall” for access. Planned Parenthood Votes and Nevadans for Reproductive Freedom each announced $1 million ad campaigns highlighting Lombardo’s opposition to abortion. Planned Parenthood Votes’ ad explicitly urges viewers to support Ford.

Idaho

In 2020, Republican Gov. Brad Little signed one of the country’s strictest “trigger” bans, which took effect two years later, after the Supreme Court overturned Roe. But this year, unlike other Idaho Republicans running for re-election, Little avoided weighing in until earlier this month on a citizen-led ballot measure that would overturn the ban if passed. After MS NOW reached out to both his campaign and the Idaho GOP to ask why the governor had not publicly addressed the ballot measure, Little said in a statement he would vote against it because it “simply goes too far.”

Proposition 1, also called the Reproductive Freedom and Privacy Act Initiative, would amend Idaho law to establish a right to abortion up to the point of fetal viability, with exceptions after that for medical emergencies. It would also protect access to contraception, fertility treatment and miscarriage care. Currently, Idaho bans all abortions other than to prevent the death of a pregnant woman and in cases of rape or incest reported to law enforcement during the first trimester. The ban has driven doctors, as well as women with high-risk pregnancies or severe complications, out of state.

Little’s Democratic challenger, Terri Pickens, has openly campaigned on her support for the measure, calling the state’s ban a threat to women’s health and doctors’ independence.

But Pickens faces long odds: Idaho has not had a Democratic governor since 1995. And because Prop 1 would change state law rather than the constitution, the Republican legislature could simply override it next session.

Melanie Folwell, executive director of Idahoans United for Women and Families, the advocacy group that led the effort to create the ballot measure, told MS NOW the organization’s campaign showed abortion access “is actually quite a cross-partisan issue.”

Of the 110,000 signatures the group’s volunteers gathered over 10 months in order to put the question on the ballot, less than 40% came from Democrats, according to the group’s data. Approximately 29% came from Republicans and 31% from unaffiliated voters.

“People of all backgrounds and all political affiliations are interested in this and think the ban is too extreme,” Folwell said.

Opponents argue that it’s Prop 1 that is too extreme. The leading PAC campaigning against the measure has run ads lambasting the measure’s out-of-state donors, who include former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg. They also claim the measure would lead to more abortions later in pregnancy and override the state’s parental consent law for minors if passed. (It would not.)

Missouri

Two years ago, Missouri’s voters narrowly struck down an abortion ban while backing Trump by about 18 points. This fall, Amendment 3 asks voters to reinstate it.

Amendment 3 would change the state constitution to ban most abortions, with exceptions for victims of rape and incest reported in the first trimester and for “emergencies and fetal anomalies.” It would also enshrine a ban on gender-affirming care for minors into the constitution, even though former Republican Gov. Mike Parson signed one into law in 2023 that is set to expire next year.

Here, Republicans are openly campaigning for the measure. Republican Gov. Mike Kehoe and first lady Claudia Kehoe have urged voters to pass it. Claudia Kehoe serves as treasurer for Her Health Her Future PAC, the leading group supporting Amendment 3.

Republican Attorney General Catherine Hanaway, who has said “It’s really important to me that we pass Amendment 3,” also reportedly spent $167,000 in state funds on a television ad that suggested abortion clinics were dangerous. Hanaway defended the ad, insisting that it complied with state law because it did not explicitly address the ballot measure.

In Missouri’s eight House races — none of which is considered a toss-up — several Republicans have lined up to support the measure.

Keller, the GOP strategist, who is based in St. Louis, acknowledged that the Republican candidates in Missouri are bucking the national trend.

“This is not a state where Republicans need or feel as if they need to walk around with trepidation,” he said. “We’re not terrified of the abortion issue.”

Opponents warn that the stakes extend well beyond Missouri. Emily Wales, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood Great Plains Votes and a spokesperson for Stop the Ban, the top opposition group, told MS NOW she feared that if the amendment passed, it would inspire other states to try the same thing.

“Missouri can’t go backwards,” she said. “We don’t want to set a national trend.”

The post Voters backed Trump and abortion rights in 2024. Will they split their tickets again? appeared first on MS NOW.

STERLING HEIGHTS, Mich. — On the eve of the first debate in Michigan’s marquee Senate race, Mike Rogers released an ad saying “we need to end this tariff war now.”

Two days later, he toured a manufacturing facility to tout the benefits it had seen from President Donald Trump’s tariff policy. That night, at a barn party in Highland, he was asked whether the tariffs on Canada had been a net positive or a net negative for Michigan.

“I think overall positive,” he responded.

The mixed messages capture the tightrope that Rogers, the Republican nominee for Michigan’s open Senate seat, has walked when it comes to Trump. In this battleground state, the president is a complicated figure, and some of his policies have proved unpopular.

Rogers, for his part, has argued that his approach to Trump is determined on a case-by-case basis. “If it’s good for Michigan, I’ll be fighting for it. If it’s bad for Michigan, I’ll be working with the president and my friends in the Senate to say we’ve got to change whatever that might be,” he told reporters outside the barn party.

It’s an approach shaped by Michigan’s purple politics. In 2024, Trump carried the state by 1.4 percentage points. That same year, Rogers lost his Senate race to then-Rep. Elissa Slotkin by 0.34 percentage points.

Trump’s standing in the state has been underwater since then. The president’s approval rating among likely Michigan voters is about 42%, according to a poll conducted by Mitchell Research & Communications for local television stations.

That’s what makes a possible Trump visit so tricky for Rogers.

Last week, Trump told reporters, “I’m going to Michigan in about a week and a half.” Days later, asked about a presidential visit, Rep. Lisa McClain, R-Mich., said to “possibly keep the 25th open.” No visit has been formally announced.

Trump may show up. Rogers may not.

In the spin room after last week’s debate, MS NOW asked Rogers whether he wanted Trump to campaign in Michigan and whether he would appear with him. He answered only the first question.

“Yes, he’d be welcome — I’d love to have him talk to those people and get them fired up,” Rogers said, after crediting tariffs with helping cherry farmers and automakers and praising Trump’s no-tax-on-tips policy.

When he was pressed on whether he would appear alongside Trump, Rogers moved on to the next question. He attended a rally with the president in July.

Even Rogers’ supporters are split on whether Trump should come.

Bob Hoffman, the farmer who hosted the barn party on his property, said a Trump visit wouldn’t help.

“[Trump’s] approval rating is so low, Mike Rogers has to, I believe, emphasize that he represents the state of Michigan first, and maybe the Republican Party second,” Hoffman said. He wants Rogers to separate himself from the president on tariffs, fuel costs and immigration.

Linda Brandis, a 66-year-old resident of Commerce Township, sees it differently. She described Rogers as “cautious” in his relationship with the president and “his own man.” But on whether the two should campaign together, she said “it always helps.”

“There is nothing like a Trump rally. It is just pure love,” Brandis said. “So yeah, I think it can’t hurt.”

Abdul El-Sayed, Rogers’ Democratic opponent, agrees that Trump should come. He just thinks it will help him, not Rogers.

El-Sayed’s “it shouldn’t be this hard” bus tour took him to Escanaba, in the conservative Upper Peninsula, where he taunted the president at a town hall.

“Donald is thinking about coming to Michigan,” he told the crowd. “Donald is going to come and remind everybody that Donald is on the ballot. Donald, come. Tell everybody in Michigan that you are on the ballot. Your s––– tariff war is on the ballot. Your dumbass war with Iran is on the ballot. Your Medicaid cuts are on the ballot.”

Rogers, meanwhile, has picked his spots to break with Trump. At the debate, Rogers said that efforts from Immigration and Customs Enforcement in Minnesota this year were “probably not appropriate.” During that crackdown, federal agents killed two civilians. A day after the debate, at the barn party, Rogers said he disagreed with Trump’s deal to obtain diesel from Russia.

But for every step away from Trump, Rogers has taken another back toward him.

The day after the debate, Trump slammed El-Sayed on Truth Social, referring to him by his middle name, Mohamed, and labeling him “a Jihadist lunatic who hates our Country.” Democrats accused the president of using Islamophobic language against El-Sayed, who would be the first Muslim member of the Senate if elected.

Asked by MS NOW if the rhetoric had gone too far, Rogers stopped short of criticizing it.

“I can’t pick the guy’s middle name — that’s his legal middle name,” he said. “My argument is maybe his middle name, we should change it to ‘that big-government socialist.’”

Pressed further, he said, “I won’t speak for the president,” then pivoted to his efforts to court Muslim voters.

It wasn’t the first time Rogers had given Trump the benefit of the doubt.

This summer, after Trump gave a speech on election integrity, Rogers wrote on X that he was “thankful for President Trump’s commitment to transparency.” That was a notable statement from Rogers. He is a former chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, and he strongly pushed back on Trump’s false claims of election fraud after the 2020 election.

The change of tune reflects a basic reality for Rogers. When he left Congress in 2015, Trump had not yet launched his first presidential campaign. Now, Trump is the face of the Republican Party.

Outside the barn party, Rogers was asked by MS NOW what had changed most since he was last in Washington. He didn’t mention Trump. Instead, he cited the cybersecurity experience he had gained and the increased partisanship in Washington.

When he was pressed on Trump, he got back on the tightrope by contrasting himself with Michigan’s two Democratic senators.

“I think we can go back and have a conversation with the president about what Michigan needs — right now, we don’t have that,” Rogers said. “We have two people that get up every morning and stab them in the eye, and can’t wait to do it.”

“My argument is, why don’t we send one person back to say, ‘hey, Mr. President, this is bad for us, this is really good for us, can you do this?” he added. “We don’t have that now. We haven’t had it in over a quarter century. So my argument is, this is the chance.”

Then he looked past Trump altogether.

“We only — he’s going to be there two years, and then he’s gone,” Rogers said. “This is a six-year term.”

Peggy Helman contributed to this report.

The post ‘He’s going to be there 2 years, and then he’s gone’: Mike Rogers’ Trump tightrope appeared first on MS NOW.

Macron’s France: 15% approval, war prep with Russia, now dissolving Soral’s E&R for “extremism.” Elections loom. Romania-style manipulation?

Join us on Telegram, X, and VK.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

Macron is, today, quite possibly, the most unpopular president on the planet, with only 15% approval, according to an Ipsos BVA-Cesi poll. Under his command, France faces economic stagnation (0.6% growth in 2025) and indebtedness (120% of GDP). Under Macron, France has also seen the accelerated deindustrialization of the country, with industries accounting for only 9% of GDP, the lowest level in the European Union, and not surprisingly, purchasing power has plummeted, with half of French people saying their income only covers the essentials and only 70% of citizens of working age currently holding a job.

As if that were not enough, in approximately 10 years of Macron’s government, approximately 4 million immigrants entered the country (many of whom do not work but receive social benefits); an amount that makes economic absorption as well as the ethnocultural assimilation of newcomers impossible. Naturally, linked to the immigration失控 are crime rates, the formation of slums in urban centers, and increased social tensions. Many ethnic French people feel demographically replaced in their homeland, and not by chance, everything indicates that Marine Le Pen will (finally) win the French presidential elections in 2027.

We do not know what the results of a Le Pen presidency would be and it is reasonable to be skeptical about it, but clearly France’s current course is extremely dangerous, including in its foreign policy.

Gradually, over the last 2 years, numerous signs have begun to appear that Macron would be preparing the country for a war with Russia. The French government created a voluntary military service and approved the expansion of the permanent armed forces to 275,000 men, as well as a budget increase for defense. General Fabien Mandon, of the General Staff, stated in 2025 that France should prepare for a high-intensity conflict with Russia within three to four years, and now in September 2026 Macron declared that France “could” become a target of explosive drones. Constantly, too, one hears speeches about the need to transform the French economy into a “war economy.”

Therefore, it may be surprising to many (but not to us) that amid all this that has been happening in the country, the Macron government still finds time for the implementation of a censorship and repression apparatus of totalitarian levels.

Its new victim is the association Egalité et Réconciliation (Equality and Reconciliation), created by sociologist and writer Alain Soral. The association identifies as “left-wing nationalist” and has as its main slogan “left of work, right of values,” appealing to an overcoming of the false dichotomy between left and right and, even more importantly, for a national reconciliation among all social sectors; in recent years, it has been involved in the Yellow Vests protests, in some activities linked to the National Rally party (despite, simultaneously, maintaining a posture of “constructive criticism” against certain Zionist and liberal tendencies present in the party) and in pro-Palestinian activism.

It happens that, on October 9, the Interior Minister of Macron’s government, Laurent Nuñez, announced the opening of a dissolution procedure against the association Egalité et Réconciliation, under the accusation of “political extremism.” Its legal team was given a deadline of 1 week to defend itself, and the decision on the matter should occur, still, in October.

Alain Soral himself is a figure of high nonconformist spirit, which is why he has already been the victim of countless judicial persecutions – dozens in fact – mostly for “opinion offenses,” that is, for critical comments against specific people or “protected minorities.” In convictions, Soral has already accumulated millions of euros to be paid in indemnities to various globalist NGOs, an obviously unpayable sum, as well as having already been imprisoned several times, also for the same reasons. The judicial persecution was so intense that Soral had to exile himself from his homeland, first in Switzerland and then in Russia.

Now, beyond the official justifications, for what reason would the French State ban a relatively small organization with few financial resources?

It is possible to analyze the “angle” of Alain Soral’s presence in Russia in more than one sense. First, because by being in Russia Soral finally became immune to the constant judicial persecution and threats of imprisonment he suffered in France, while at the same time continuing to take an active part in the French political and cultural debate, even from a distance. In this, he was able to exercise and expand his influence, “under the protection of the Russians,” which certainly feeds the typical current paranoias of the French elite about a Russian “informational war.”

There is, however, also an internal aspect. Recently, Alain Soral has again been much discussed by the French media for two reasons. One is the “Bardella case,” which concerns the discovery of supposed “politically incorrect” writings by Jordan Bardella, president of the National Rally party, and the information that in his youth Bardella’s main intellectual influence was Alain Soral. The second is an opinion poll indicating that 15% of French men under 35 years of age identify with Soral’s ideas.

This, on the eve of the presidential elections, represents a significant risk for Macron and for the French establishment. Although, apparently, there is no chance of victory for any candidate against Le Pen, we cannot doubt the possibility of manipulation of the electoral process, as happened in Romania.

This silencing is even more concerning due to the fact that Soral and E&R are practically the only socially and culturally relevant figures in France today who defend national reconciliation and who avoid inciting internal tension, promoted by the most Islamophobic elements of the RN and by the very leadership of Mélenchon’s LFI with its “army” of antifa and immigrants.

Datafolha puts Flávio Bolsonaro at 47% and Lula at 45% ahead of Brazil’s Oct. 25 presidential runoff.

Brazil’s presidential race has tightened ahead of the Oct. 25 runoff, with senator Flávio Bolsonaro losing two percentage points in voting intention to reach 47%, while President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva stands at 45%, according to a Datafolha poll released Thursday. The two candidates are in a technical tie, with the difference falling within the survey’s margin of error.

RELATED: Brazil: Lula Hails Workweek Reduction as Historic Achievement

Among valid votes, which exclude blank and invalid ballots, Bolsonaro leads Lula by 51% to 49%. The gap has narrowed from the previous week’s poll, when Bolsonaro held a 52%-48% advantage.

A separate poll published Wednesday by research firm Quaest also showed a close race, giving Bolsonaro 46% support and Lula 44%.

Text Reads: DATAFOLHA: 51% x 49% IT’S TURNING AROUND!!! Last week, the difference was 4 points. Now it’s down to 2.

The Datafolha survey found similar levels of rejection for both candidates. Some 46% of respondents said they would never vote for Bolsonaro, compared with 44% who said the same of Lula.

Views of the current government were also divided: 41% of respondents rated its performance negatively, while 35% viewed it positively.

The poll was conducted after large rallies in support of Lula took place over the weekend. However, the interviews were completed before the survey could capture any potential impact from the Senate’s approval of a proposed constitutional amendment to end the 6×1 work schedule, under which workers work six days and take one day off.

The proportion of respondents opting for blank or invalid ballots rose from 5% to 6%, while the share of undecided voters ranged between 1% and 2%.

Datafolha interviewed 2,520 people aged 16 and older across Brazil from Oct. 13 to 15. The survey has a margin of error of two percentage points and a 95% confidence level. It was registered with Brazil’s Superior Electoral Court under number BR-00466/2026. In the first round, Bolsonaro received 47.03% of the vote, compared with 45.16% for Lula.

On a recent episode of the Bulwark podcast, journalist Ron Brownstein described the election as a contest between “the wave versus the wall.” The wave being voter anger and President Donald Trump’s plummeting popularity. The wall being structural impediments to voters’ voices, such as gerrymanders and the Republican Party’s stark spending advantage. Now we know […]

The post Don’t let Musk and the billionaires buy America’s elections appeared first on Asia Times.