My thoughts on the 2026 midterms...

 

President Donald Trump. Official portrait. 

As you are almost certainly aware, the 2026 midterms are next week in the United States. Unlike many previous elections, I am having a very hard time predicting what will happen. As I have written several times this year, polling is unreliable at best and deliberately misleading at worst. We had four cases of polling firms just making things up for "social experiments" and once that happens, polling, which has already been wrong for years now, loses all credibility. 

Without the advantage of polling, you kind of have to use your brain to try and figure out which side is going to win. The media narrative is that the Republicans are going to get wiped out, and that's what the unreliable polling says. But is that what is going to happen? 

To be fair, I do think that the Democrats do have some legit advantages and I do think it's worth it to go through them. But I also think the Republicans have some as well. And I think the narrative that the GOP is going to lose both the House and the Senate by wide margins is unlikely. 

So what are the Democrats advantages?

1. President Trump is, supposedly, unpopular. Trump's polling is underwater and I think he lost quite a bit of support because of the Iran conflict. How relevant this is, is an open question, but Democrats are going to argue that Trump will bring his own party down. I do think that the GOP's chances of holding onto both houses would be higher if the Iran War hadn't happened. How unpopular Trump actually is, is also an open question due to the aforementioned terrible polling issues. Historically, polling has always underestimated President Trump and his party during his era. 

2. Historically, the President's party ends up taking losses during midterms. This is as close to a rule as you can get when it comes to US politics and it would be surprising if that was not the case. 

3. Candidate quality is a problem for Republicans. This is entirely about Vivek Ramaswamy, who is one of the worst candidates the Republican Party has ever put up and he's putting a safe Republican state, Ohio, into play for the Democrats as well as making a safe senate seat into play. Ramaswamy would be a bad candidate normally, but he's emblematic of all the problems the United States has right now. 

4. The economy is not working for a lot of people. More on this in the GOP section though. 

5.  Gas prices are undeniably high. People are angry about this and they may blame President Trump and his party for this. 

6. Roy Cooper is almost certainly going to win in North Carolina as he is a very good candidate. He's a popular ex-Governor and there really isn't a scenario where he loses outside of a Red Wave year. He narrows the path that Republicans have to keep the Senate, and he does it in a swing state that has trended Republican. 

But I do think that the Republicans have some major advantages as well.

1. The Democrats are even more unpopular than President Trump. Indeed, they have never recovered after 2024 and people still remember they are the party that opened the borders and support children changing genders. 

2. The Republicans won the redistricting war. The redistricting efforts led to between 6 and 12 seats that are now fairly safe for Republicans, which means the Democrats path to win the House is a lot narrower. Indeed, most of the Democratic House seats in the South have been eliminated. There is a small chance that it could backfire on Republicans, but still, it seems unlikely that this isn't a huge advantage for the GOP. 

3. The DSA is a big problem for the Democrats on multiple fronts. In places like Wisconsin where the DSA candidate lost (in embarrassing fashion due to the fake polling), DSA supporters are demoralized and may not show up. I live in Wisconsin and I see almost zero enthusiasm for David Crowley. 

But in places where the DSA candidate won? It's scaring the normies. Folks don't like to see people like El-Sayed in Michigan and I think a lot of folks are going to turn out against them. The Democrats are scarier than the Republicans, for sure, and it may drag down the party as a whole. 

4. Democrats don't have an animating issue in 2026. There's not Black Lives Matter to turn out black voters. There's no real fear of Trump anymore given that he will be gone in two years no matter what. The things that are animating people, like the Palestine issue or AI Data Centers, are pretty much ignored by both parties. Generally speaking you need an animating issue to turn out low propensity voters. I do think that Republican voters are still animated by Trump and his pet issues, though at least some of them dropped out due to Iran. 

5. Democrats are broke. The Republicans absolutely had a massive money advantage while the national Democratic Party was broke. Indeed, there have been reports of the Democrats waving the white flag in certain House districts. They have been canceling ad orders to better use what resources they have left. This is also linked to the fact that USAID was defunded, so that limits how much money they can raise. 

6. The Trump Administration is being very aggressive against voter fraud and other shenanigans. This has been a major factor in previous elections, Democrats could get away with things if they weren't being watched. But now they are being watched. 

7. The economy is working for the people most likely to vote. This probably sounds insane if you are Generation Z or a Millennial, but Gen X, Boomers and the few remaining Silents are doing great right now. The stock market is high, home prices are high, and the complaints young people are having about H1B visas, HR never calling folks back and high housing costs, aren't really relevant for them. I think these generations are fine with how things are going and they will show up for the GOP on election day. 

I would also say that this advantage with older voters limits the damage people like Nick Fuentes and other disgruntled "Republicans" angry about Iran can do. Their audience is almost entirely made up of people that are unlikely to vote anyways. Folks talking about "punishing" the GOP weren't likely to vote anyways. 

So, with all that being said, what do I think will happen? Well, I think we can eliminate a Blue or Red Wave style election. Redistricting alone means that the chances of getting a huge win is a long shot for Democrats. And a midterm election is not the time for the Republicans to pick up major seats. 

That leaves three real outcomes, a Blue trickle where the Democrats pick up the House and Senate but by slim margins. The 2nd outcome is a minor Blue victory where they pick up the House or the Senate, not both. The third option is that the Republicans keep both houses, probably by a slim margin. 

Which of these do I see as most likely? I would say the most likely outcome is the split where the Republicans keep the Senate and the Democrats gain the house by a slim margin. The opposite outcome, where the Dems win the Senate, seems impossible given the advantages the Republicans have in the Senate. The other two outcomes, the Blue Trickle or the GOP hold seem less likely but are at least possible. 

Still, I wouldn't want to put money on much this year, if I was the kind of person to bet on politics. With polling in the state it's in, my predictions are based on vibes and not data (except for the GOP redistricting wins). Any outcome is possible, outside of a true wave election. 

The Black Sea has become the world's most dangerous due to the Russia-Ukraine war.

 

A Russian tanker with anti-drone netting. Financial Times.

The Black Sea has become the world's most dangerous due to the Russia-Ukraine war. Financial Times. More sailors have died in the Black Sea than any other waterway in the world this year, despite the conflict against Iran. The Black Sea is a critical route for grain from Ukraine and oil from Russia. Attacks from both Russia and Ukraine have hit 570 shops and killed at least 40 sailors, compared to only 24 in the Strait of Hormuz, though given that both Russia and Ukraine have motivations to downplay the violence, the true toll is unknown. The Black Sea has been dangerous at all stages of the war, but the current level of violence increased after Ukraine began targeting gas freighters delivering to Crimea, but Russia responded and expanded the attacks dramatically, to the point where 90% of strikes in the past 45 days were from Russia. Both sides have resorted to using other ports to try and avoid the chaos in the Black Sea. As for the shippers, they are having trouble insuring the ships and finding crew to man them. 

My Comment:

The Battle for the Black Sea has been an under-covered aspect of the Russia-Ukraine war. To be fair, the war has gone through three phases. The first phase, Ukraine won a major victory, largely pushing Russia's Navy out of the conflict, especially after their flagship Cruiser Moskva was destroyed. The second phase was noted by the brokered grain deal that allowed Ukraine to ship without too much hassle. But now we are in the third phase, which has now turned into a buzzsaw. 

I do think that this is not a great development for Ukraine. And they only have themselves to blame. This is another consequence of their rather misguided war on Russia's energy production. Though Ukraine has done damage, Russia's response has been brutal. And largely shutting down shipping is one of the bigger effects. 

Ukraine already has cashflow problems. They need to be able to ship out their exports if they are to have any income at all. But right now their choices are mostly to ship it overland or try to get them out on the Danube River, which is also under heavy attack. If this keeps up, things will get very interesting next year. 

To be fair, it's not like this is good for Russia either. They need to ship out oil and gas and the Black Sea is a good route to do so. Yes, they have a lot of other ports to do so and can ship over land as well, but neither is a good solution. The difference is that Russia is better equipped to absorb the losses. 

Either way, this is not a good development for the rest of the world. Though the Iran War and the Houthi conflict in Yemen have had a larger effect on gas prices, the Black Sea conflict is absolutely contributing to the high prices. It's why I am hoping that the peace talks actually happen and we can end this war. 

Until that happens I do expect this to get worse before it gets better. The article mentioned that both sides have gone from targeting the engines to targeting the bridge, which will absolutely lead to more deaths. I am guessing that the problems they are facing finding crew willing to face this are just going to get worse... 

Irregularities abound in 2nd round of Brazil election, which Lula claims to have won.

 

Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula Da Silva. New York Post/Getty. 

President Luiz Inacio Lula Da Silva has been declared the winner of the Brazil election. New York Post. The results are shocking given that Lula's opponent, Flavio Bolsonaro, had easily won the first round of the election by 2.2 million votes. The election will likely be contested due to irregularities caused by the Brazilian Supreme Court, which allowed polling places in districts likely to go to Lula to continue on for two hours after polls had closed on Bolsonaro districts. The Justice that ordered the stop,  Cristiano Zanin, was Lula's former lawyer. 

My Comment:

This is extraordinarily bad optics for Brazil and I wonder how they get out of this with any kind of credibility in their elections. These results, where Lula won by 4 million votes three weeks after losing by 2.2 million beggars belief and I don't see any reason why such a swing could happen. It also did not follow what the polling was saying. 

It's hard to think of a more explicit scenario for a crooked election. Bolsonaro's districts ended the voting at 5:00pm like they were legally required to do. The Lula districts should have done the same thing, but somehow their machines weren't shut down and they were able to follow this court order. That meant Lula's supporters had two more hours to vote. 

Does that mean that Lula didn't win? It's unclear. It's not impossible that Lula swung six million votes since the 1st round. Keep in mind, Lula and Bolsonaro were not the only candidates in the first round and some people left the vote blank. It's possible that Lula was able to consolidate those votes. Is it likely? I don't know. I don't see any reason for such a switch, even if it is possible. And, given that Brazil's elections are fully electronic and don't leave a paper trail, it's hard to detect fraud even if it is there. 

But it hardly matters what the results are when there is the appearance of fraud. The results could be 100% accurate but it doesn't matter when a Justice so obviously tips the scales of his preferred candidate. Everything else could be on the up and up, the polling could be wrong, Lula could have convinced people to vote for him and the margins may have been enough that keeping the polls open for two more hours didn't change anything, and it doesn't matter because how can Brazilians trust elections now?

It's also unlikely that anything will happen to overturn these results. Bolsonaro is contesting these results, but it's unlikely that a new election will happen regardless. I also don't see some kind of civil war breaking up, even though it appears to be justifiable. Instead, it seems likely that Lula will remain President, probably for life. If there is any good news here, it's that Lula is old enough that he's unlikely to get another term after this one. 

Fake polling has affected the 2026 midterms.

 

Michigan State Senator Mallory McMorrow says she dropped out of the Senate race due to a fake poll. Politico/AP.

A polling outfit has admitted that its polls were faked, throwing doubt into the 2026 midterms. Politico. Wedgewood Polls said that they were doing an "experimental project" to show that an "entirely fabricated" polling firm could sway public opinion. There is evidence that these polls had an effect, as they were cited by outlets like New York Times and Politico. Michigan State Senator Mallory McMorrow claimed on X that the fake polls directly affected the Senate race in the state. After the poll showed she was down to single digit support, funding dried up, and Mallory said the poll "killed us". It is unclear what Wedgewood was attempting to accomplish. 

Just before this poll hit, the Mitchell poll that also showed me in single digits hit. That poll was bullshit - and our team proved it. It was an open SurveyMonkey link that people were able to send around to friends and take multiple times. We expended a lot of capital (and took a serious risk) - calling it out as bullshit. MIRS ultimately declined to publish it because of shoddy methodology. But then this one hit immediately after. It was a one-two punch. Then all of the sudden it was a pattern - and people believed it had to be true. It killed us. These were some of the absolute worst days on the campaign. Especially for my team. There are no words to explain the morale blow, and nothing I could do or say to my team to fix it. Just an excruciating, nauseating blow. By that point, we took a risk and we spend our money. We put our ads up. They were working. But the damage was done. And I was drowned out by outside spending and the narrative that we had completely collapsed.

— Mallory McMorrow (@MalloryMcMorrow) October 21, 2026

My Comment:

The 2026 election remains one of the most difficult to predict and the fake polling is a major reason why. And this isn't even the first time this happened this cycle! There was another fake outlet that was propping up Francesca Hong in Wisconsin, earlier in the year. Given that polls are already unreliable and have underestimated Republicans dramatically in previous years, I wouldn't be surprised if the "blue wave" ends up a blue trickle at best and a GOP trifecta at worst. 

Regardless though, this fake polling is obvious really bad. If McMorrow is right and her funding dried up due to bad polling that had little basis in reality, that's not a good thing. She might have lost anyways, but she didn't get a fair shot. I don't have a dog in that race, I generally consider all Democrat candidates to be equally bad, but it's bad for the Republic if fake polls are deciding who gets elected and not the voters themselves. 

There is a lot of speculation as to why these polling firms have been faking their data like this. It's not an issue of them being lazy, they are doing this on purpose. Democrats are saying this could be some kind of pied piper strategy to boost progressive candidates which will be easier to beat in November. I don't think Republicans are that stupid or that smart.

My guess is that both cases were out and out scams. It wasn't a social experiment, it was an effort to rig the prediction markets. Prediction markets are legalized gambling and bets can be placed on anything. My guess is that these polls were trying to shape the outcome of races so they could place bets on the outcome and make easy money. Indeed, they wouldn't even have to vote on the outcomes, they could just vote on the polling average, while their own polls could skew them. It's a pretty good scam and I wouldn't be surprised if that is what this is about. 

It's another reason why I am getting more and more opposed to online gambling and prediction markets. Letting folks bet on everything from their living room is bad enough, but with these prediction markets out there, there is now an incentive to fudge reality until you get the outcome you want. It's not just sports, where there are now constant rumors of play being disrupted, but our very elections. 

I am not one to call for regulations, but honestly, these fake polling firms are pretty much begging for them. They are effecting the outcomes of elections and that's not acceptable. Regardless of the motivations, putting out fake polls is a bad thing. And while they are regulating things, they should regulate prediction markets as well, or, better yet, ban them entirely. 

President Putin has agreed to resume three way talks between Russia, Ukraine and the United States to attempt to end the war.

 

President Vladimir Putin (right) with US Envoy Steven Witkoff. Reuters. 

President Putin of Russia has agreed to three way talks including Ukraine and the United States. Reuters. Putin released Stephan Hubbard, an American citizen held in Russia, as a gesture of good will. The Kremlin said the talks could occur next month in Abu Dhabi, which has hosted previous talks this year. Those talks were not productive and did not end the war. Putin also offered help to try and end the war in Iran and offered up another meeting between himself, President Trump and President Xi Jianping of China. It is unclear if Putin or Zelensky are willing to compromise on their various war goals and actually end the war. 

My Comment:

The good news is that at least Putin and Zelensky appear willing to talk. That hasn't been the case for most of the year, after the previous rounds of talks fell apart. Their positions were too far apart and neither side was willing to give up anything to end the conflict. 

Has anything really changed since then? Not really. The battlefield largely remains a stalemate. Russia has made gains, but Ukraine has retaken some territory as well. Both sides have taken major damage but neither side appears to be near an actual collapse which would actually incentivize a deal. Ukraine is closer than Russia, they have lost most of their air defenses, have major energy concerns, and have a major recruitment problem. But both sides could continue the war for at least another year.

What could happen is an energy ceasefire. President Trump tried to ram through one earlier this month, which both sides immediately violated, but it's not outside the realm of possibility. Russia would obviously benefit from their oil refineries being damaged and Ukraine would benefit from keeping whatever energy infrastructure they have left running. It would be a low cost way to make things better for each side. 

But for a greater peace deal? I just don't see it. Putin still hasn't achieved his goals for the Special Military Operation. At the very least, I would expect him to demand the remaining territory he has demanded that he has not yet captured. And I don't see him agreeing to any security agreement for Ukraine.

Zelensky, for his part, has backed down a bit from his demands. He has at least said that he would accept freezing the war where the lines are now, but hasn't gone beyond that. That's better than his previous demands where he not only wanted Russia to withdraw from the territory they conquered, but to give back Crimea as well! The big demand though is a security agreement that would have article 5 triggers, which Putin would never accept, and has not agreed to give up claims to the territory they lost. 

Regardless, ending the war is going to be a long process and the more both sides talk the better it is. I am not expecting an end to the war this year, but it's very possible that it could end next year. A negotiated settlement is the most likely outcome, though I haven't ruled out a collapse of Ukraine's military. It will be a cold winter after all, and much of Ukraine's energy systems have been destroyed.