A metà di un mandato presidenziale, negli Stati Uniti si svolgono le elezioni di Midterm. Sono forse meno note le dinamiche e le strategie che possono emergere in questa fase, ma in questa puntata cercheremo di capire due punti fondamentali: il ridisegno dei distretti e l'instaurazione di un governo diviso.
L'articolo L’anatomia delle Midterm americane proviene da Lavoce.info.
In my role as a political commentator, I enjoy making predictions. I possess no special talent for this and am often hilariously wrong: Unlike most other pundits, I famously clung to my stupid belief that former President Joe Biden would never step down as the Democrats' 2024 candidate, for instance. I called the 2020 presidential election correctly (and got most states right, only flipping Georgia and Florida), but I messed up in 2024. (Nevertheless, I still demolished my co-host, who didn't appear to take this challenge very seriously.)
The hardest part about making predictions is separating what you want to happen from what is actually likely to happen. Commentators often feel inclined to rally for their preferred outcome, as if shouting about it on television is going to make it come true. In some ways, this is an easier temptation for us libertarians to avoid, since all outcomes generally seem suboptimal. Once again, that is the case: See, for example, the upcoming 2026 midterms.
It seems inarguable that President Donald Trump has squandered much of his political capital by failing to focus narrowly on the economy and instead launching another unpopular war in the Middle East. It also seems obvious that the Democratic Party, once returned in power, will do everything it can to thwart the administration's shrewdest policies—on tech and AI in particular.
But that is my prediction: Democrats will retake the House of Representatives and the Senate.
I don't have any specific map in mind for the House (it's too complicated), but here are my Senate predictions:
Here is my REVISED prediction for the Senate. For the last several weeks, everything has moved in Dems' direction, and I now expect them to take it.
I still say Collins holds on. Michigan and Ohio seem lost for GOP, though. And I'm not super confident in the Iowa call. https://t.co/oph3Swtgzw pic.twitter.com/FtsrGxmukJ
— Robby Soave (@robbysoave) October 20, 2026
When I looked at the map back in August, I still thought Ohio was a long shot for the Democrats and that Michigan was in play for the GOP due to Abdul El-Sayed being so far left. Now it looks to me like Republicans will lose both seats, along with Texas and Alaska. I'm still betting that the formidable incumbent in Maine, Sen. Susan Collins (R), will hold on—the polls have misjudged her in the past—and that Iowa is a bridge too far for Dems. If Republicans manage to keep those two seats, then it's a 51–49 map in Democrats' favor.
But wait…all is not lost for Trump.
In the event of a 51–49 Dem advantage, it seems somewhat likely to me that Sen. John Fetterman (D–Pa.) could switch parties, which would restore Republican control because of Vice President J.D. Vance's tiebreaking vote. With his conservative rhetoric on Israel and other issues, Fetterman has no future as an elected Democrat in his state—he could never ever ever win a Democratic primary—and will have to strike some sort deal with Trump before his reelection in 2028. Fetterman should agree to become an independent who caucuses with Republicans in exchange for Trump ensuring that no Republican dares run against him in the future. Absent such a deal, Fetterman is virtually guaranteed to be a one-term senator, so if he harbors any desire to keep his job—perhaps that's an open question—he will need to make a move. A 51–49 Senate will give him the exact leverage he needs.
So those are my predictions! What are yours?
I'm joined by Amber Duke to discuss the riots in France, Vivek Ramaswamy's terrible campaign ad, and more.
Here's another shameless plug for my upcoming debate with Katherine Mangu-Ward, Mehdi Hasan, and Jason Stanley! (Katherine is on my side.) If you are in Washington, D.C., please get tickets here.
The post I Predict the GOP Will Lose Its Senate Majority (and Magically Regain It) appeared first on Reason Magazine.
Il Partito Democratico entra nella fase finale della campagna elettorale per le elezioni di midterm con un vantaggio di 10 punti percentuali sui Repubblicani a livello nazionale. Lo dicono i risultati dell’ultimo sondaggio della Cnn, secondo cui più di tre quarti degli elettori vedono in queste elezioni l’opportunità di un cambiamento. La popolarità del presidente Usa, Donald Trump, è scesa al 32%, nuovo minimo storico: gli elettori esprimono una diffusa insoddisfazione sia per l’economia che per lo stato del Paese.
Sentimenti negativi penalizzano il Partito Repubblicano nel suo tentativo di mantenere il controllo del Congresso, anche se alcuni elettori esprimono scetticismo sul fatto che una vittoria democratica possa portare a miglioramenti significativi. Il vantaggio dei Democratici (49% contro 39%) è il più ampio registrato nei sondaggi della Cnn da poco prima delle elezioni del 2020, e si basa su ampi margini tra i tradizionali pilastri che sostengono il partito, come gli elettori afroamericani, gli ispanici, le donne e i giovani adulti.
“Chi è il tizio che ha sferrato il pugno, mi è piaciuto molto“. Lo ha detto il presidente Usa, Donald Trump, dopo che un manifestante in South Carolina è stato colpito da un pugno da un suo sostenitore. Durante un comizio del presidente all’Università di Clemson, è salita la tensione e diversi contestatori sono stati allontanati. A quanto pare, riferisce il Guardian, un manifestante è stato colpito con un pugno da un partecipante al comizio e Trump non ha nascosto la sua soddisfazione.
“È stato fantastico, amico. Wow. Mi è piaciuto tantissimo“, ha detto il presidente. “Chi è quello che ha tirato il pugno?”, ha aggiunto. “Mi hai ricordato Evander. Il vero Holyfield”, ha detto riferendosi all’ex campione dei pesi massimi. Bisogna dar loro atto del loro merito. Ci vuole coraggio per farlo”. Sui social sono stati diffusi video che mostrano un altro presunto sostenitore del presidente mentre colpisce alla nuca un altro manifestante, che è stato poi scortato fuori dalla polizia.
L'articolo Elezioni di midterm, Trump è sotto di dieci punti. Popolarità del presidente al minimo storico: ecco a quanto è scesa proviene da Affaritaliani.it.
I funzionari della sicurezza nazionale degli Stati Uniti si stanno preparando in segreto alla possibilità che il Presidente Donald Trump si rifiuti di accettare i risultati delle elezioni di metà mandato. Mentre numerosi sondaggi prevedono una forte ondata blu – il colore dei democratici – alle urne il 3 novembre, un ristretto gruppo di funzionari sta gettando le basi, insieme ai governi dei singoli Stati e ad alcuni membri del Congresso, per proteggere la democrazia. Lo ha riferito il ‘Washington Post’. Il gruppo comprende dieci funzionari, in carica ed ex, del dipartimento della Difesa, appartenenti a diverse aree dello spettro politico, secondo quanto riportato dal Post. A preoccuparli è il rischio che il Presidente, 80 anni, sacrifichi l’integrità della nazione pur di mantenere il suo partito al potere. “Tutti hanno detto: siamo preoccupati, ma non sappiamo cosa fare”, ha ammesso una fonte al Post. “L’esito che auspichiamo è che gli Stati siano preparati ad affrontare qualsiasi eventualità, qualora dovesse presentarsi”, ha aggiunto.
Il Presidente degli Stati Uniti, Donald Trump, commentando le elezioni di midterm, in programma il 3 novembre, ha detto che “il Presidente perde sempre, per qualsiasi ragione, alle midterm”. “Chiunque sia, repubblicano o democratico, grande Presidente o Presidente pessimo, perde per qualche ragione”, ha aggiunto, parlando con i giornalisti.
La Cnn ha minacciato il Presidente degli Stati Uniti Donald Trump di intraprendere nuove azioni legali se continuerà a impedire ai giornalisti dell’emittente di salire a bordo dell’Air Force One e di accedere allo Studio Ovale. In una nuova lettera indirizzata al dipartimento di Giustizia, l’avvocato della Cnn Theodore Boutrous scrive che il divieto interferisce illegalmente con la possibilità dell’emittente di svolgere i propri compiti nell’ambito del press pool, il gruppo ristretto di giornalisti che segue il presidente e condivide le informazioni con gli altri media. Boutrous ha dato a Trump tempo fino alle 17 di giovedì per ripristinare l’accesso, prima che la rete avvii una nuova azione legale.
“Questi tentativi di ritorsione e discriminazione nei confronti della Cnn, basati sui contenuti della sua copertura giornalistica, sono sbagliati, controproducenti e illegali”, scrive Boutrous nella lettera, ottenuta dal Washington Sun. “Se queste misure dovessero continuare, la Cnn non avrà altra scelta che tornare in tribunale per difendere i propri diritti ed è pronta a battersi per tutto il tempo necessario a tutelarli”. Il mese scorso Cnn, Ms Now e Politico hanno intentato una causa congiunta contro l’amministrazione Trump, dopo che quest’ultima aveva vietato ai loro giornalisti di accedere al complesso della Casa Bianca.
L'articolo Elezioni midterm, “Trump non accetterà l’esito del voto. Prepariamoci a qualsiasi eventualità”. Funzionari della sicurezza lanciano l’allarme proviene da Affaritaliani.it.
Sven Hoppe/picture alliance via Getty Images
A longtime political operative at Meta who played a key role in bridging ties between the company and President Donald Trump's administration is leaving.
Joel Kaplan, Meta's chief global affairs officer, will leave after the midterm elections and a transition period, Axios first reported. Meta confirmed the report to Business Insider.
A veteran Marine Corps artillery officer, Kaplan is a Republican who served as an advisor and deputy chief of staff to former president George W. Bush.
Kaplan joined Meta in 2011. At Meta, he oversaw the company's response to policy issues ranging from the Cambridge Analytica scandal to the end of its fact-checking program.
Kaplan helped repair a once-fraught relationship between Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg and Trump after Meta temporarily suspended Trump's account following the January 6 riot.
Kaplan posted on X on Tuesday that he plans to spend time with his family and figure out what to do next.
Kaplan didn't respond to a request for comment from Business Insider.
Kaplan has served as Meta's chief global affairs officer since 2025, succeeding former UK politician Nick Clegg. Other Meta executives will share his responsibilities, Axios reported.
Have a tip? Contact this reporter securely on Signal at charlesrollet.12 or +1-628-282-2811. Use a personal email address and a non-work device; here's our guide to sharing information securely.
Can Republicans just spend their way to success in Ohio? "Republicans have bombarded Ohioans with ads with $19 million spent on competitive races through Oct. 12, intended to sell voters on the tax law that had been called the One Big Beautiful Bill," reports The Washington Post. "But the message is struggling to connect with voters amid anxiety over tariffs and the war with Iran, which have pushed up prices for everyday products. The ad blitz, the most spent on the topic in any state with competitive races, is aimed at bolstering vulnerable GOP candidates in a state that was considered safely Republican for the better part of the last decade."
Republicans in states across the Midwest (and the country) have experimented with distancing themselves from the Trump administration and its agenda; it's hard to know if this strategy will prove successful, or if it's just too little, too late. In Ohio, though, Republican candidates are mostly staying close to Dear Leader.
Sen. Jon Husted, a Republican, is running for U.S. Senate against Democrat Sherrod Brown in what looks to be an extremely tight race; ads claim Husted has "supported ending taxes on tips, overtime and Social Security, plus a $200 million investment in rural hospitals," trying to tie him closely to President Donald Trump's agenda. But it's really not clear whether this type of pitch will be enough to make voters forget about tariffs and inflation, the war in the Middle East and gas prices. A New York Times/Siena poll found that 79 percent of likely Ohio voters disapproved of Trump's handling of gas prices. It's hard to sell people on a tax cut when they're paying a different tax, in the form of tariffs, every time they go to the store; Ohio voters might not be so easily swindled.
Gun laws in Oregon: In the aftermath of the tragic shooting at an elementary school in Bend, Oregon, where a 16-year-old killed three little kids and one teacher, some parents of elementary schoolers there are asking what laws can be changed.
But "Oregon earns high marks from gun safety advocates for its firearms laws," notes The New York Times. "Everytown for Gun Safety, one of the nation's largest gun violence prevention organizations, ranks Oregon 12th in the country for the strength of its laws, citing recent legislation tightening storage requirements, banning untraceable 'ghost guns' and prohibiting devices that can convert semiautomatic firearms into machine guns." Gifting laws are pretty lax, though, and that might be what happened here: The 16-year-old's mother seems to have been the one who purchased the Maverick 88 12-gauge pump-action shotgun, so it's possible she either gifted the gun to her son or that he stole it from her. "Decades ago, Oregon lawmakers made an exception to gun laws that allow parents to give rifles and shotguns to minors. In many areas of the state, as in other parts of the American West and South, it's a rite of passage for a young person to receive a weapon for hunting or target practice."
There's no law that can really prevent theft of weapons, especially when the thief is a teenager living inside the home where the gun is stored, and there's no law that can prevent parents from foolishly gifting guns to teenagers or young adults whom they've misjudged as capable of handling the responsibility. These are terribly unsatisfying realities.
Prosecutors could, of course, attempt to try the parent for the crimes of their teenager. They "could consider charges ranging from reckless endangerment to manslaughter or criminally negligent homicide, a felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison," continues the Times. "But that would require evidence of more than just a parent's awareness that a child was troubled. Prosecutors would have to establish that the mother disregarded—or, in the case of criminal negligence, failed to recognize—a substantial and unjustifiable risk."
Scenes from New York: "Mayor Zohran Mamdani announced on Monday that New York City will expand free child care for 2-year-olds to Staten Island and across the Bronx as the city moves to add 10,000 seats next school year," reports The New York Times. Here's why that won't work:
The post Will Ohio Voters Buy Republicans' Pitch? appeared first on Reason Magazine.
With little more than two weeks to go until the midterm elections, it seems increasingly possible that the Democrats, already a big favorite to win control of the House of Representatives, will also take charge of the planet's most elite nursing home, the United States Senate, where the median age is 64 years old. RealClearPolitics' poll aggregator has moved control of "the world's greatest deliberative body" (as its members are grandiosely wont to call it) to "toss up," status and prediction markets are now breaking big toward a blue wave. As of this writing, Kalshi has its Senate odds at 63 percent for the Dems vs. 37 percent for the GOP; Polymarket is at 62 percent vs. 39 percent.
As gratifying as it might be to see unprincipled Trump enablers reduced to minority status after signing off on economy-wrecking tariffs, inhumane immigration detentions, and wars of choice, there's at least one good reason to dread a Democratic majority too: Sen. Elizabeth Warren, the Massachusetts progressive who is spending the run-up to the midterms freaking out over possible consolidation in the condiments business and accusing private equity firms of gutting such shopping-mall favorites as Claire's and Toys R Us. There's every reason to believe that a Senate run by Warren and other economic interventionists will waste time, money, and resources trying to prevent a world in which, per the X wag Iowahawkblog, "a panopticon conglomerate owns two brands of hot sauce."
On October 13, Warren posted this dire warning to X:
Hellmann's mayo
McCormick spices
Cholula hot sauce
Frank's RedHotWhat do these products have in common? One company could soon control them all.
I have concerns that McCormick and Unilever's $45 billion merger could increase YOUR grocery prices.
— Elizabeth Warren (@SenWarren) October 13, 2026
It's hard to think of a more competitive and varied market than the one for hot sauces, which is expected to more than double over the next decade. The barriers to entry are generally low, as are the key ingredients, and new entrants can easily market and sell online, avoiding the costs of buying shelf space in conventional supermarkets. Yet Warren is urging regulators at the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission to halt mergers of both product makers like McCormick and Unilever and grocery stores like Kroger and Giant Eagle.
The latter complaint is particularly picayune. Kroger is one of the country's largest supermarket chains, operating around 2,800 stores under its own name as well as Harris Teeter, Ralph's, and others. Giant Eagle operates about 170 stores. This merger is no more the stuff of nightmares than a single company producing both Cholula and Frank's RedHot. If Warren gains more clout from being in the majority, expect her to butt in more and more on such mergers.
Making it harder for businesses to adapt is not a recipe for making goods and services more affordable. But Warren is keen to blame economic creative destruction not on "new forms of industrial organization that capitalist enterprise creates" (as Joseph Schumpeter would have it), but on pure greed. In a TikTok released earlier this month, she shows a poster board with corporate logos from once-thriving companies that she says have been "gutted" by "private equity" firms.
"Here's your local mall," she piously intones. "Now, private equity wants you to believe that Red Lobster went bankrupt because of their endless shrimp….They want you to believe that Claire's went bankrupt because teens stopped shopping at the mall." In Warren's telling, private equity firms magically take over thriving businesses and then strip them bare. The typical pattern is that private equity enters the picture after a business is failing.
Virtually all accounts of the decline of, for example, Red Lobster, note that the chain had been spiraling for several reasons before the private equity firm Golden Gate Capital got involved in 2014. As this CNN article notes, the chain, which started in 1968, had seen drops in sales as customer desires changed. Management compounded the difficulties with a series of bad decisions, including continuing various all-you-can-eat menu specials, before coming out of Chapter 11 bankruptcy last year.
Similarly, it's true that some teens still go to malls and get their ears pierced at Claire's. But anyone who has spent time in retail America over the past few decades knows that malls are no longer the destination that they once were. As CapitalOne Shopping Research documents, "in 1986, there were 25,000 malls, large and small, nationwide." By 2023, that number had shrunk to just 1,200. While some malls are coming back, most are not, and for reasons that have nothing to do with private equity. Online retails plays a role (though a smaller one than usually imagined, with e-commerce accounting for less than 20 percent of all retail sales). But mostly, it's that people today tend to want a different sort of retail environment. Anchor stores—think Macy's and J.C. Penney—are shadows of themselves, and younger people have less unstructured time in which to prowl food courts and arcades.
For politicians like Elizabeth Warren, though, there can be no financial gains or losses that aren't the result of shadowy, conspiratorial forces. If her party takes control of the Senate, her words will carry more weight. But it will be American consumers that ultimately shoulder the burden of an even-more-regulated economy. The market for hot sauces will almost certainly stay spicy, but many other parts will surely suffer.
The post Be Prepared for Elizabeth Warren's Reign of Economic Error appeared first on Reason Magazine.
Bloomberg/Getty Images
Elon Musk is forking over generational wealth to Republicans facing tough midterm elections this cycle.
Over two donations in September, Musk gave a combined $158 million to the Senate Leadership Fund, a super PAC aligned with Senate Republicans, which has, in turn, given reams of cash to funds supporting the Republican candidate in Texas.
The money, shown in new federal disclosure forms, cements Musk as a major player in Republican politics over a year after he publicly split with President Donald Trump over the latter's handling of the Epstein files (though the two have since reconciled).
Republicans are facing serious headwinds over the Iran war, rising inflation, and sky-high gas prices. Polls show that American voters are largely dissatisfied with Trump's leadership and handling of the economy.
All told, Musk has given about $276 million since July. Much of Musk's political donations have ended up in Texas, according to federal disclosure forms, where embattled Attorney General Ken Paxton is engaged in a mudslinging battle for the Senate with state representative James Talarico.
One day after Musk notched a $75 million donation to the Senate Leadership Fund, the Super PAC gave a $75 million donation to the Texas PAC, a group aligned with Paxton.
Then, also in September, another $83 million donation by Musk was matched the next day by an identical donation to the Texas PAC, according to federal disclosure forms.
Talarico's campaign, meanwhile, has raised about $129 million.
Musk's companies are already investing billions in the Lone Star State, as the business magnate builds SpaceX's terafab semiconductor facility outside Houston.
In 2024, Musk announced that he was moving SpaceX's headquarters from California to Texas in response to Gov. Gavin Newsom's policies on gender identity.
Representatives for Paxton and Musk did not immediately respond to requests for comment on Saturday.
Musk, the CEO of SpaceX and Tesla, said last year that he had probably "done enough" political spending, though he left the door open.
"Well, if I see a reason to do political spending in the future, I'll do it. I don't currently see a reason," he told Bloomberg at the time.
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.
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.
The post Musk's Meddling appeared first on Reason Magazine.
This year, Alaska held its primary elections on August 18.
As per a 2020 ballot measure, Alaska primary voters pick among all qualified candidates for a single office, regardless of party affiliation, and the top four then advance to the general election.
In the U.S. Senate primary, Republican incumbent Dan Sullivan won 41 percent of the vote, while former Rep. Mary Peltola, a Democrat, captured nearly 50 percent.
Dan Sullivan was also the distant third-place finisher—but in this case, it was Daniel J. Sullivan Jr., a retired schoolteacher who is also running as a Republican but is not the same person as Daniel S. Sullivan, the junior U.S. senator for the 49th state.
The presence of dual Dan Sullivans is a headache for Republicans, who have fought to keep Daniel J. off the ballot, concerned he would split their votes and cost their candidate his seat.
"Mary Peltola and Chuck Schumer know they can't beat Senator Sullivan on his record, so they're resorting to deceitful political maneuvers that attempt to trick Alaskans and buy a seat," a Republican spokesman told Fox News.
"We are looking into it," President Donald Trump said this week. "It's a disgrace." In fact, NBC News reported in July that the FBI and Department of Justice had launched an investigation "looking for possible wire fraud or a conspiracy to deprive Alaskan voters of a free and fair elections process, which could be a civil rights violation."
In August, the government apparently issued subpoenas, though Daniel J. later said he had not received anything.
But is what he is doing actually illegal? For that matter, should it be?
Carol Beecher, director of the Alaska Division of Elections, barred Daniel J. from the ballot in June after concluding that he was running "with the purpose of confusing or misleading the electorate and compromising the fairness of the ballot."
But a state superior court reversed that decision. "Despite the Division's assertion that Mr. Sullivan may be excluded from the ballot because he lacks 'good-faith,' there is no statute which provides such a criterion," wrote Judge Thomas A. Matthews. "The concept of 'good-faith,' or pure motive, or bona fide intent is simply absent." The Alaska Supreme Court agreed, keeping both Sullivans on the November ballot.
Granted, it seems extremely likely that Republicans are right, and Daniel J. is running specifically to hurt Daniel S.'s prospects.
"Campaign material metadata reveals that Amber Lee, a progressive consultant, authored a press release announcing [Daniel J.'s] Senate bid," WFMD reported in May.
Daniel J. told The New York Times that he was running as a moderate Republican in an attempt to steer the party away from its MAGA wing. But he also admitted that he had voted for the Democrat in the last three presidential races and for Peltola in her races for the U.S. House.
In Beecher's original order keeping Daniel J. off the ballot, she wrote that Daniel J. had asked to be identified as "Dan S. Sullivan" on the ballot, the same name as the senator's. (Alaska reporter Dermot Cole wrote in July that this was not true: Daniel J. wrote "Dan S. Sullivan" in an email to Beecher but followed up hours later to correct it to "Dan J. Sullivan.")
If Daniel J.'s goal truly is to mislead voters, then that is indefensible. But it's not clear that it's illegal, or whether it should be.
"I am not sure exploiting voter confusion about names is any worse than exploiting their ignorance about policy issues like crime, immigration, and health care," wrote George Mason University law professor Ilya Somin. "Trying to prevent such exploitation through criminal and civil liability is likely to violate the First Amendment. In addition, it would likely end up giving incumbent political leaders broad power to curb speech and control electoral campaigns that they cannot be trusted with."
"This is a case about someone running for office with impure motives who is lucky enough to have a name that could confuse some voters," agreed election law expert Richard Hasen. "I don't see how the government could criminalize his running for office for having impure motives. And if it could do so, then it could be a crime every time that the Republican Party backs a Green Party candidate, or Democrats support a MAGA candidate in a primary in the hopes that the candidate would be weaker against a Democrat in the general election. This stuff happens all the time."
But it's entirely possible that Alaska's ranked choice voting system will solve the problem on Election Day.
After the August open primary, the top four candidates compete on a ranked choice ballot, where voters list the candidates in order of preference. If no candidate gets an outright majority, then the lowest performer is eliminated, and every ballot that picked them first is retallied and applied to their second choice.
As long as every Alaskan who wants to vote for Dan Sullivan—either one—lists both Dan Sullivans as their first and second choices, then the system will take care of any confusion. In the (highly likely) event that Daniel J. does not capture a majority on the first ballot, his votes will be retallied and applied to their second choices. The only plausible hiccup is if Peltola, the Democratic candidate, wins a majority in the first round—in which case either Sullivan would have lost anyway.
Of course, Republicans have opposed the ranked choice system since Alaska adopted it. Former Gov. Sarah Palin, who ran against Peltola twice unsuccessfully, said ranked choice was "so weird" that "it results in voter suppression."
In a post last week on Truth Social, Trump called ranked choice voting "Corrupt" and said it "shouldn't be allowed in our Country."
"I just left Alaska, where we have a real bad thing," Trump said Wednesday at a campaign rally in Arizona. "They have the ranked choice voting, where you go into I guess some kind of a test tube or something, and they pick whoever the hell they want. That's another disgrace."
As ever, it's not clear what Trump was talking about. And despite Republicans' complaints, ranked choice voting works quite well: According to the American Bar Association, recent research finds that it "is an improvement over plurality voting with clear benefits in terms of representation, campaign quality, mobilization, and turnout." It also "encourages greater consensus building as well as more civil political campaigns," and voters find it easy to understand.
In the event that a political party finds itself, for example, with two Dan Sullivans on the ballot, ranked choice voting is a perfect solution. If only the party weren't so hostile to it.
The post What Happens When 2 Dan Sullivans Run for the Same Senate Seat? appeared first on Reason Magazine.
No longer so red: Long a swing state, Ohio went for President Donald Trump back in 2016, in 2020, and in 2024. Now, with midterms approaching, it looks likely to vote blue again, and there are early indicators that Republicans have failed to win over Ohio's working-class voters in particular.
"After the first days of early voting in Ohio, a state that could help determine control of the Senate, there are clear signs Democrats are more enthusiastic to vote," reports CNN. "So far, affiliated Democrats make up larger shares of pre-election voters than they did two years ago, even in the most Republican parts of the state. At this point in 2024, Republicans had a 30-percentage point lead over Democrats in counties that voted for President Donald Trump by 20 points or more, according to data from the Ohio Secretary of State. This year, that's shrunk to just five points."
Take this data with a grain of salt: It is just early-voter data.
But this is all rather high-stakes because Republicans are defending a Senate seat, as well as the governor's office. Two races for House seats are considered toss-ups. The conventional wisdom has been that Ohio is now solidly red, with three cycles of presidential election data to support that. But it's possible Trump has pissed off the voters who supported him to such a degree that Ohio will be sent back into swing-state territory.
"God knows we didn't vote for this," one voter—a pastor who went for Trump, then Biden, then Trump—told Reuters, referring to inflation. Other voters wonder about the decline in manufacturing jobs and the fact that the president has paid lip service to these problems but done very little to actually improve people's circumstances.
On Monday, Trump rallied in support of Sen. Jon Husted, who hopes to retain his seat. In the Mahoning Valley, the president announced a few new, uh, incentives to voters: a Defense Department facility based in Cleveland, and promises that a heat provider for Youngstown remained open. "The Youngstown area for decades used to vote Democrat, and then you ran for office in 2016 and flipped it red forever," said Husted in his speech. "Is that right, folks?"
OpenAI arrest: The FBI arrested a Saudi national who worked at OpenAI "and charged him with installing a hidden audio recording device in an executive conference room," per the Department of Justice. Abdulrahman Alfozan had worked as an engineer at OpenAI since July 2025, in the San Francisco office. The company found the recording device "plugged into a USB port on the back of a television in an executive conference room," per Reuters. The device had a microphone and allegedly connected to a camera; the data it stored was encrypted.
"At this time, we have no indications of this individual inappropriately accessing or exfiltrating model weights, source code, or customer data. The employee was terminated," said OpenAI. It's not clear who Alfozan may have been working for or with; he has been a permanent resident of the U.S. since 2020, with stints at Meta and Microsoft.
"If convicted, Alfozan faces up to five years in prison, a $250,000 fine and three years of supervised release," notes Reuters.
Scenes from New York: Mayor Zohran Mamdani has reportedly reached a deal with the City Council to ban horse carriages in the city, per Politico. I'll admit, I don't really care, but I'm intrigued by the fact that the reason this has taken so long to get through has been because the union representing the carriage-drivers has been so successful at advocating for its members' interests.
This is the greatest post in the history of FIRE Reddit. Perfection. pic.twitter.com/dh1tesicfi
— Conservative Dividend Investing (@CDInewsletter) October 13, 2026
"Blessed" is a useful religious concept that has no adequate secular equivalent
"I was lucky" almost wholly fails to convey the weight and sentiment of providence that comes when things go better than you had any right to hope
— Jack (@tracewoodgrains) October 13, 2026
The post Ohio's Democrat Momentum appeared first on Reason Magazine.
Di tutte le scelte impulsive e scriteriate di Donald Trump, la guerra in Iran è forse quella che più di tutte gli si è ritorta contro. Il conflitto è impopolare, i prezzi della benzina sono aumentati e i candidati repubblicani temono che l’argomento possa essere la causa di un risultato disastroso al voto del 3 novembre. Anche per questo nelle ultime settimane si era instaurata una specie di regola non scritta: niente nuovi grandi attacchi americani prima delle elezioni di midterm. Una certezza che adesso si sta sbriciolando, come tutte le certezze che pensiamo acquisite ai tempi di Trump.
La Casa Bianca ha chiesto al Pentagono di preparare opzioni per nuovi attacchi contro obiettivi iraniani che potrebbero essere eseguiti anche prima del voto. La notizia l’ha data ieri l’Atlantic dopo aver sentito diversi funzionari dell’amministrazione. I piani vengono elaborati dal Central Command, il comando militare che coordina le operazioni americane nella regione. «La dimensione e gli obiettivi degli attacchi potenziali, così come l’eventualità che l’amministrazione decida infine di procedere, sono ancora oggetto di discussione», scrive l’Atlantic, ma il semplice fatto che il Pentagono stia preparando delle opzioni è significativo.
Il ragionamento alla Casa Bianca è soprattutto politico. Trump vuole abbassare il prezzo della benzina e mostrare agli elettori di essere riuscito a ottenere un risultato dalla guerra. Anche i sostenitori di una nuova azione riconoscono che «attacchi limitati non basterebbero, da soli, a riportare l’Iran al tavolo dei negoziati, a ripristinare la sicurezza dei trasporti attraverso lo stretto di Hormuz o a far scendere il prezzo della benzina prima del giorno delle elezioni», scrive l’Atlantic. La loro speranza è che una nuova operazione, dopo mesi di relativa calma, permetta invece a Trump di mostrare la propria forza e di rivendicare una qualche forma di vittoria, dando ai repubblicani una spinta necessaria verso il voto.
Eppure in questi mesi la guerra ha già dimostrato di poter produrre l’effetto contrario. Il petrolio è arrivato quasi a 118 dollari al barile nella primavera scorsa e anche dopo le successive discese è rimasto intorno ai cento dollari. La benzina negli Stati Uniti costa in media 4,37 dollari al gallone, contro poco meno di tre dollari prima dell’inizio dell’offensiva americana e israeliana del 28 febbraio. «L’azione militare non ha fatto nulla per abbassare i prezzi del petrolio; ha fatto esattamente il contrario», ha detto all’Atlantic Will Walldorf, professore alla Wake Forest University e senior fellow di Defense Priorities.
A Linkiesta l’abbiamo detto fin dall’inizio, Trump fa annunci roboanti per risolvere militarmente problemi che prima dell’inizio della guerra semplicemente non esistevano. E dal punto di vista elettorale non è un problema da poco, perché nei due rami del Congresso la maggioranza repubblicana è a rischio, e anche per molti candidati repubblicani in tutto il Paese il contraccolpo dell’improvvisazione trumpiana potrebbe costare caro. Un esempio su tutti: Ken Paxton, candidato repubblicano al Senato in Texas, ha detto in privato ai suoi finanziatori che l’aumento dei prezzi di benzina e diesel provocato dalla guerra è «di gran lunga il nostro problema più grande».
Va detto anche che Trump ieri sera ha provato a smentire la notizia di un attacco. «Non attaccheremo l’Iran in nessun momento prima delle elezioni di medio termine che si terranno negli Stati Uniti il 3 novembre», ha scritto su Truth, il suo social. Ma i suoi annunci, roboanti o meno, vanno sempre presi con le pinze. Soprattutto perché il primo a smentirli potrebbe essere lo stesso Trump, anche nelle prossime ore.
A Washington si teme anche che sia Teheran a voler sfruttare le settimane che precedono le elezioni. A inizio settimana, Semafor scriveva che alcuni funzionari dell’amministrazione considerano concreta la possibilità che l’Iran cerchi di danneggiare politicamente Trump prima delle midterm. «Potrebbero voler infliggere dei danni al presidente prima delle elezioni», ha detto a Semafor un funzionario dell’amministrazione, ipotizzando una possibile iniziativa iraniana nelle prossime settimane.
«L’Iran sta guardando il calendario e sa che si avvicinano le elezioni», ha scritto ancora l’Atlantic citando un consigliere dell’amministrazione. Ed è proprio questo a rendere più complicato il calcolo americano: un attacco prima del voto potrebbe servire a Trump per dimostrare forza, ma potrebbe anche riportare la guerra al centro della campagna elettorale, con conseguenze indesiderate – anche sulla sicurezza delle circa cinquantamila truppe americane in Medio Oriente.
La situazione sempre più intricata è dettata dal grado di improvvisazione, sempre più elevato, dell’amministrazione Trump. La Casa Bianca avrebbe voluto arrivare alle midterm con la guerra fuori dalle prime pagine e con il prezzo della benzina in discesa. Ma per ottenere entrambe le cose Trump sta valutando un nuovo attacco: farebbe tutto il necessario per poter dichiarare una vittoria, anche a costo di mandare tutto all’aria riaccendendo una guerra impopolare nel momento peggiore possibile.
L'articolo Trump valuta di colpire l’Iran prima delle elezioni di midterm proviene da Linkiesta.it.
Login