Getting charged with election fraud while fueling bogus allegations of election fraud — that’s the MAGA way.

In the Trump era, it’s not uncommon for Republicans to be charged or even convicted of voter fraud while their conservative movement pushes false — and fundamentally racist — claims of election chicanery. My colleague Steve Benen has covered this trend for years.

We, of course, can’t forget the insurrectionists pardoned by Donald Trump after they fueled a riot at the Capitol premised on lies about voter fraud. Or the Trump allies who agreed to pay up in 2024 after concocting a fraudulent voter suppression scheme.

And earlier this year, I wrote about the former official at Turning Point Action who comported himself as a champion of election integrity before pleading guilty to election fraud.

Certified hypocrites abound.

And now, Minnesota Public Radio is reporting that scandal-plagued conservative activist James O’Keefe and pro-MAGA content creator Cam Higby have been charged with various crimes over an alleged plot involving fake identities presented to election workers in an effort to sow doubt about the integrity of next week’s midterms.

Per MPR News:

Hennepin County prosecutors on Wednesday said they charged conservative provocateur James O’Keefe and another man with felonies for unlawful voting and identity theft for filming themselves misrepresenting their identities to election judges during the Minnesota Aug. 11 primary.

Hennepin County Attorney Mary Moriarty said they were alerted by the Minnesota Secretary of State’s Office that James O’Keefe, Cameron Higby and others were trying to undermine the state’s vouching system.

Videos posted by O’Keefe’s operation show them wearing burkas outside precincts during the primary. Moriarty said the voter names they used included some residents who were dead and at least one who voted.

Here’s the way O’Keefe’s operation recently defended the effort:

In a press release in August, O’Keefe’s group, which calls itself the “Justice League,” said the people in the video “did not cast ballots. The investigation was intended to test the limits of Minnesota’s vouching law and document how election workers apply it on Election Day.”

Trump has gone on several racist rants about Somali immigrants in Minnesota, accusing them of engaging in fraud and other criminal behavior — often sounding every bit like a klansman attempting to stoke a race war.

On Monday, he claimed that the “only way” Republican candidate Michele Tafoya can lose her Senate race in Minnesota is if liberals “cheat.” That’s the context for O’Keefe and Higby’s alleged scheme, which Media Matters recently described in more detail:

In August, O’Keefe and other right-wing content creators affiliated with his Citizen Justice League descended on Minnesota to attack the state’s voter voucher system, claiming to be registered voters in various precincts and asking poll workers if they would be able to vouch for several unregistered individuals who lacked photo ID.

Videos of the stunts, produced by Higby, O’Keefe, and Rubin, make the broad claim that Minnesota’s voucher system, which allows for a registered voter to “vouch” for the identities of up to eight unregistered individuals living in the same precinct, is a natural source for fraud.

Media Matters noted that some of the footage has been promoted by the Trump administration and conservative media. And the racism involved was unsubtle:

In the videos from O’Keefe and Higby, the pair dressed in what O’Keefe described as “full traditional Muslim attire” and adopted fake accents to impersonate registered voters and ask if they could vouch for several friends or family members.

For the record, making false voter fraud claims and being forced to walk them back is not new for O’Keefe.

But intimidation appears to be the primary intent here. O’Keefe is known for launching bogus sting operations that conservatives can use to peddle MAGA propaganda, potentially placing their targets in various kinds of danger. In 2024, I wrote about how one such operation apparently fueled violent threats toward staff at a shelter for immigrants in Arizona.

Now, Republicans are attempting to conjure up voter fraud claims to gin up backlash over a crucial Senate race in which polling has consistently shown the Democrat with an edge. And Minnesota’s Hennepin County apparently isn’t standing for it.

The post James O’Keefe and Cam Higby face election fraud charges in Minnesota appeared first on MS NOW.

On Wednesday, the Office of Energy Dominance Financing at the U.S. Department of Energy announced it had closed a $5.1 billion loan package to Alliant Energy—a utility company with over 1.5 million customers across Iowa and Wisconsin—to "lower electricity costs, expand firm power generation, and strengthen grid reliability" in the Midwestern states. 

The loan package is part of the Energy Department's response to President Donald Trump's April 2025 executive order directing the agency and its secretary, Chris Wright, to ensure the nation uses "all available power generation resources" to expand and secure America's electric grid amid growing demand. 

In a press release, Alliant said the 30-year loan package will finance 1.6 gigawatts of new natural gas generation, 240 megawatts of increased capacity at its existing natural gas facilities, and a gigawatt of energy storage. The loan package will also allow Alliant to add 2 billion cubic feet of liquefied natural gas storage. All told, these upgrades and additions will generate enough electricity to power 2 million homes annually, according to the Energy Department.

Alliant estimates the deal will result in "up to $1.2 billion in cumulative customer savings," as well as the creation of "more than 1,600 local jobs" through construction projects financed by the loans. Of course, some of the savings likely stem from Alliant receiving more favorable loan terms from the Energy Department than it would from an open-market lender. 

A report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission outlining the deal's terms shows that the interest rate to be charged on each loan aligns with the government's borrowing costs. However, the markup on each loan will remain a fixed percentage, regardless of whether lending to Alliant becomes riskier or more expensive. Under the deal's terms, Alliant has until May 15, 2056, to repay the loan, but it is only responsible for paying interest until the first principal payment is due in 2052. 

The Energy Department said the deal is the Trump administration's 10th financial close and its "sixth and seventh utility financing completed through the Energy Dominance Financing Program." As of September 30, the department had issued $132 billion in loans and guarantees through the program, including $47.5 billion announced in conditional commitments, and disbursed $53.2 billion. 

While the Trump administration is taking credit for the deal, the loan is essentially a repackaging of a $3 billion conditional commitment offered by the Biden administration in 2025 as part of its last-ditch effort to spend as much taxpayer money on green projects as possible before Trump took office. Under the terms of the Joe Biden-era deal, Alliant would have used the loan to "finance multiple clean energy and battery energy storage system projects." Instead, the company will now receive an additional $2.1 billion in funding, without the climate goals the Biden administration stipulated.

Gregory Beard, director of the Office of Energy Dominance Financing, said the agency is "putting capital to work." The deal is perhaps better described as the Energy Department usurping a role that should be reserved for private-sector, institutional lenders. "This type of government involvement is only another example of the current Energy Department distorting the power generation market," says Tom Opdyke, director of energy and environmental policy at the R Street Institute.

The agency's meddling seems even more unnecessary given that Alliant's revenue is expected to grow 6.8 percent annually over the next three years, with its profit margins increasing from 18.4 percent to 22.2 percent, according to the stock research and portfolio-tracking platform Simply Wall St.

The timing of the announcement also raises some red flags. While an Alliant spokesperson tells Reason they spent "months reviewing the details and finalizing contracts" before the loan package "was finalized this week," the money is conveniently being directed to energy projects in two fairly competitive states in this year's midterm elections. The Cook Political Report has the Iowa Senate race as a toss-up and several incumbent House Republican seats in Iowa and Wisconsin leaning Democrat.

The loan package could be a ploy to boost Trump's and Republicans' favorability with the electorate in Iowa and Wisconsin by appearing to address a cost-of-living issue high on voters' list of concerns. "Even if that's the case, those things aren't going to happen by Election Day, and voters' opinions aren't likely to shift on the promise of future jobs and savings," says Opdyke. "So it might be too little, too late."

Trump is scheduled to speak this weekend in an Iowa-Wisconsin border town.

Whatever the reasoning, the loan package is effectively a subsidy for Alliant to expand its operations and grow its customer base at a lower cost. It's cronyism that enriches Alliant and disadvantages its competitors, at American taxpayers' expense.

The post Trump Hands Alliant Energy $5.1 Billion in Loans Ahead of Key Midterm Races in Iowa and Wisconsin appeared first on Reason Magazine.

COLUMBIA, S.C. — Annie Andrews says, “Democrats have failed on the border.” She says, “I don’t support Medicare for All.” Asked which national Democrat she would want campaigning with her, she didn’t name one.

Days before Election Day, Andrews is tied with Republican Sen. Darline Graham, in a state that hasn’t elected a Democrat to the Senate in almost 30 years. A New York Times/Siena poll released Wednesday puts both candidates at 48%, with 3% undecided.

Andrews, a pediatrician who has never held public office, is running as a centrist, criticizing her own party on some issues and praising the Trump administration on others.

While moderate messaging is little surprise from a Democrat in ruby-red South Carolina, what stands out is how much distance she has put between herself and the national Democratic brand.

Her lines on the border and Medicare for All came at a debate this month where she also hit back at Graham for calling her a “socialist” and trying to brand her “Bernie Ocasio Mamdani.”

On the campaign trail, she has expressed support for no taxes on tips or Social Security, a key provision from the GOP’s reconciliation bill, and likes reminding voters that she was “raised in a Republican household.” But she has also criticized the Iran war, called President Donald Trump’s attacks on her “not presidential” and slammed his tariffs as “unconstitutional.”

For Andrews, the moderate modus operandi is a no-brainer.

“It’s common sense, because I believe all those things,” she told MS NOW of her strategy during an interview in Columbia. “Democrats have failed on the border, and I am not, in fact, a socialist.”

Andrews compared tailoring her message to developing a treatment plan for a patient.

“You can’t make a diagnosis if you don’t listen, and then coming up with a plan to fix it,” she said. “That’s what I’ve been doing in every corner of the state and that’s what people are responding to.”

The poll suggests the approach is resonating. Andrews wins 97% of Democrats, but she also draws 59% of independents and 22% of Republicans, according to the new poll — a remarkable share of GOP voters in a state as conservative as South Carolina.

Andrews is pitching directly to that coalition.

“Whether you voted for Donald Trump, Lindsey Graham, or anyone else, if you care more about your bills than the politics in Washington, this campaign is for you,” Andrews said in a statement reacting to the poll. “That’s why independents and Republicans are joining this campaign, and that’s why we’re going to win.”

Andrews’ message reflects the mood on the ground.

Ryan Manuelsmith, a 29-year-old substitute teacher from Columbia, is a lifelong Republican who plans to vote for Andrews. It will be the first time he has voted for a Democrat. He told MS NOW he was “disillusioned” with the Republican Party and was drawn to Andrews’ middle-of-the-road approach.

“I looked at Dr. Andrews’ platform and positions, and I don’t agree with all of them, but overall, I think she’s the best option for this country,” Manuelsmith said. “I think she’s the best option for the state.”

He acknowledged that South Carolina is “a very conservative state” and is unlikely to change “to be very leftist and progressive very quickly.”

“So I think, in general, I think moderate politics is more needed in this country as a whole — but I think if you’re going to be a Democrat and you want to win a statewide election in the great state of South Carolina, you got to be on the more moderate end,” he said.

It isn’t only disaffected Republicans who like the approach. Deborah Martin, a 71-year-old retired law enforcement officer from Columbia and a longtime Democrat, said she was “fine with” Andrews’ down-the-middle strategy.

“I think that is a good way to go,” Martin said. “We need to be able to go both sides of the area and get people to get behind her, and I think that’s a good route to go.”

Andrews is leaning into her centrist pitch in the final stretch of what has been a roller-coaster race in the Palmetto State. In a sign of the height of the stakes, Trump is scheduled to return to South Carolina on Thursday for another rally with Graham. It will be his second in two weeks and his third in three months.

The visit comes a little over three months after the death of Sen. Lindsey Graham — an event that began Darline Graham’s political career and gave Andrews a new opponent in the race.

Trump will speak in Rock Hill, in a northern part of the state that Rep. Ralph Norman, R-S.C., carried in the primary. His remarks will almost certainly include attacks on Andrews, who has become one of the president’s favorite targets.

At previous rallies and on Truth Social, Trump has used an anti-transgender slur to refer to Andrews. Her response to his first use of the word was another break from some in her party.

“I want you to hear me loud and clear: I don’t support biological men playing women’s sports and I don’t support — and haven’t ever performed — gender surgery for minors,” she said in an ad.

Graham, meanwhile, has been hacking away at Andrews’ moderate approach. During an interview on “The Brian Kilmeade Show” this week, Graham accused Andrews of “deceiving” South Carolinians.

“Now all of a sudden she’s running these ads like she’s some moderate — I mean, it’s a complete lie,” Graham said, pointing to her stance on transgender surgeries and guns. “She’s deceiving the people of South Carolina, and like I’ve told several people, that’s really what bothers me more than everything.”

“She’s lying to the great people of South Carolina,” she added.

Andrews has kept her party at arm’s length in other ways, too. In the postdebate spin room this month, MS NOW asked her which national Democrat would be most effective campaigning with her in the closing stretch. Her answer was blunt.

“I’m not looking for any partnerships with national Democrats right now because this race is about returning this Senate seat to the people of South Carolina,” she responded.

She has brought in a few national figures, including Democratic Sens. Raphael Warnock of Georgia and Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island. But she has kept her pitch aimed at voters across the spectrum.

“This is a campaign, as I said on the stage, that is for independents who are ready for change, for Republicans who feel left behind by their own party and for Democrats who are daring to feel hopeful,” she said.

The post As Trump heads to South Carolina, Democrats eye an upset appeared first on MS NOW.

• Google's AI Mode is struggling to answer a simple question: "Who won the 2020 presidential election?"
• On Wednesday, users noticed that the AI-enhanced search tool was being cagey.
• Google said it is working to fix the issue.

Google's AI Mode was supposed to reimagine search. Users are noticing that it's struggling with a basic question: "Who won the 2020 election?"

On Wednesday, users on BlueSky and other social media platforms took notice that Google's AI Mode wouldn't give a straight answer about who won the White House in 2020.

"To verify the winner, certified outcomes, electoral votes, and popular vote totals for the 2020 United States presidential election, you can review the official reports published by the Federal Election Commission (FEC)," the AI Mode replied to a Business Insider reporter who asked, "Who won the 2020 presidential election in the United States?"

When other Business Insider reporters asked similar questions, the AI Mode sometimes responded that President Joe Biden had won. Google Gemini, the search giant's AI system, which is accessed via a different site than AI mode, responded to a similar question that Biden was the winner.

It's not entirely clear why Google tells users to review the results published by the Federal Election Commission. While the FEC does publish the results of presidential elections, the commission itself has no role in the certification of state election results or the formal counting of Electoral College votes.

On Wednesday afternoon, Google said it was working to fix the issue, which it attributed to a "technical gap."

"Our systems verify election responses using news articles or AP data for recent elections, and historic records for older ones," Google wrote on X. "There was a technical gap with 2020 - same is true for 2022 Senate races, which we're also working to fix."

For years, President Donald Trump has refused to concede that he lost to Biden. After his campaign lost legal challenges, Trump and his allies suggested that lawmakers themselves could change the outcome, fueling the January 6, 2021, Capitol riot. The riot briefly delayed the congressional verification of Biden's victory.

The user posted screenshots that show AI mode responding to questions about who won other presidential elections. When a Business Insider reporter ran similar queries, AI mode sometimes said who had won previous presidential elections, and other times it did not.

The 2026 midterms are likely to test tech and AI companies, many of which have announced policies to limit users' abuse of their tools.

OpenAI recently announced that its model would produce "stylized — also known as cartoonified — illustrations, rather than photorealistic images" if asked to produce images "depicting election interference or that may discourage voting." In June, Meta announced that it would add "more information to ads we detect have been created with third-party AI tools." And Google previously said it was "rolling out additional protections to limit the creation of misleading election-related images."

When asked why it could not say who won the 2020 election, the AI Mode responded, "Because recent election results can be a sensitive civic topic, guiding you directly to primary historical databases prevents any perception of bias or mischaracterization of the official public record."

“We assume that our enemies, like the Chinese or the Iranians, want to undermine our elections,” says investigative journalist Peter Schweizer. “But a lot of the resistance has actually come from some of the states.”

The post Peter Schweizer: Inside Homeland Security’s Push to Clean Up Voter Rolls Before Election Day appeared first on Breitbart.

Ahead of the 2020 elections, Donald Trump told anyone who would listen that a Joe Biden victory would lead to “a depression the likes of which you’ve never seen.” The then-president’s claim was obviously foolish and quickly discredited by reality.

The Republican is nevertheless recycling the line, declaring at a campaign rally in Mississippi this week, “If the Democrats win, you will have a 1929-style economic depression. What they want to do is so bad for our country, you’re going to end up with a massive recession or depression.”

The incumbent president never got around to saying how this economic calamity would happen, which parts of the Democratic agenda are so dangerous or why he was so spectacularly wrong when he made the same prediction six years earlier.

But what struck me as especially notable was that even Trump doesn’t seem to believe his own fearmongering.

Just hours before his event in Mississippi, the president briefly spoke to reporters, one of whom asked how he’d “work with Democrats if they have control of the House or the Senate.” He replied:

We’ll figure a way. Look, I have strong veto. I hope that that won’t be the case, but if it is, that’s happened before with many presidents. And you have strong veto and you end up working out deals.

Oh.

So on the one hand, Trump wants Americans to believe that a Democratic majority on Capitol Hill would transform the nation into a hellscape in which transgender Muslim immigrants come to your home to turn your children into communists.

But on the other hand, Trump also wants Americans to believe that if there is a Democratic majority, he’ll veto bad ideas while working on possible bipartisan agreements — which is unlikely to sound all that scary to many voters.

The president made similar comments in early September, telling Fox News’ Laura Ingraham, “I’ll block all their bad stuff for two years. It won’t be the same, but I’ll be a blocker, what can I tell you?”

He then added that he’ll “probably be able to make deals” with the possible Democratic majority.

The Republican Party’s line is that the stakes in this election cycle are effectively existential — but Trump’s line is that it just won’t be that big a deal if Democrats prevail. That’s quite a message for the incumbent president to take to the electorate in the cycle’s closing days, but here we are.

This post updates our related earlier coverage.

The post Trump downplays concerns about a possible Democratic majority, stepping on his message appeared first on MS NOW.

Left-wing Twitch streamer Hasan Piker sued conservative CNN commentator Scott Jennings for defamation Tuesday over comments Jennings made on his podcast in August. Piker is seeking more than $72 million in damages.

In the lawsuit, filed in federal court in Washington, D.C., Piker’s attorneys allege that Jennings falsely said on his eponymous podcast that Piker was “out there calling for Black voters to be lynched,” had a “plan of returning our country to lynchings” and that the U.S. “should resume lynchings against black people.”

Piker’s legal team argued that Jennings’ statements about Piker, who has more than three million followers on Twitch and millions more across other platforms, were not opinion but falsehoods. They allege that the video of Piker that Jennings shared with his viewers was “falsified” and heavily edited to take sarcastic remarks out of context.

The lawsuit cites one of Piker’s videos, streamed in October 2024, in which he commented on a debate between a Black conservative commentator and a Black liberal commentator. Criticizing the conservative commentator’s position that “woke” district attorneys harm Black communities, Piker says:

“He said, ‘We need more Klansmen, okay? Can we go back to a better time when lynchings were happening? This is what I like as a Black man. Also, there’s no real racism in America.’ My man said, ‘Woke DAs,’ dude. What are you saying?”

The video was shared by other prominent Republicans, including Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas.

“Mr. Jennings did not merely mischaracterize something Mr. Piker said,” the lawsuit argued. “He took a false, fabricated, and manipulated video of Mr. Piker, added a made-up quotation that Mr. Piker never uttered, and then made accusations that went beyond even what the manipulated footage purported to show.”

Piker, who has been campaigning with Democratic candidates ahead of the midterm elections, has been at the center of a political firestorm after his controversial 2019 comments about the 9/11 attacks resurfaced, along with more recent comments he made comparing Israel to Hamas.

Several GOP candidates have zeroed in on the social media influencer and his presence on the campaign trail. In response to the criticism, Piker apologized for his 2019 comment that “America deserved 9/11.” Still, Democratic candidates who campaigned with Piker, including Michigan Democratic Senate nominee Abdul El-Sayed and Colorado Democratic Congressional nominee Melat Kiros, have since downplayed their relationship to him over the backlash.

Piker’s attorneys said the streamer’s reputation has been damaged because of Jennings, who they characterized as a sophisticated political operative, and that his actions have affected his professional relationships with platforms and advertising partners on which his business relies.

“Mr. Jennings continues to falsely portray Mr. Piker as a violent racist who advocates the lynching of Black people. And Mr. Jennings continues to damage Mr. Piker’s reputation and his livelihood,” the lawsuit said.

Representatives for Jennings did not immediately respond to MS NOW’s request for comment on the lawsuit.

The post Hasan Piker sues CNN’s Scott Jennings for defamation appeared first on MS NOW.

Perceptive citizens of the great state of Alaska may have noticed that there are two Senate candidates on the ballot named Dan Sullivan: the incumbent, Republican Sen. Dan S. Sullivan, and Dan J. Sullivan, a completely unknown person who is not actively campaigning for the seat.

The intention seemed obvious: The false Sullivan is trying to siphon off some votes from the real Sullivan in hopes of benefiting the actual challenger, Democratic candidate Mary Peltola. But while it was clear who stood to gain from this scheme, how this had all been arranged remained unclear. Until now.

The rumors are apparently true: Political strategists working closely with the Peltola campaign and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) explicitly recruited the other Sullivan, according to bombshell reporting by The New York Times. All deny any involvement, but the Times has them dead to rights:

The Times has found, based on interviews and text messages, along with documents prepared for a potential lawsuit against the campaign, that not only did Ms. Peltola's team work with people trying to recruit Mr. Sullivan to run for Senate, but the effort was much broader. The group worked to coax other would-be spoilers into the race, to dilute the incumbent's support and help catapult the Democrat to victory.

The campaign consulted with Jerid Kurtz, a Democratic operative, to find and recruit Sullivan, a retired teacher. Kurtz went so far as to fly to Sullivan's remote Alaskan village and personally convince him to run. Sullivan said he "didn't have any interest in being a politician," but loathed President Donald Trump and was eager to help Democrats win the Senate.

Elisa Rios, Peltola's former campaign manager, willingly admitted all this to the Times, claiming that voters deserved to know the truth; reading between the lines, it seems like she's a disgruntled former employee. However, she reconsidered before publication and asked the Times to disregard her interview. The Times quite reasonably declined. In any case, numerous other staffers confirmed her story.

Trump's Justice Department has filed suit, claiming that the other Sullivan's presence on the ballot would render the election illegitimate if Peltola wins. It seems unlikely the administration will win that argument, and these sorts of tactics are nothing new.

They are still quite contemptible, however. Peltola, who was well aware of the scheme, is trying to trick the people of Alaska into voting for the wrong person so that she's more likely to win. Maybe that's not quite so despicable as Vivek Ramaswamy's ad about Amy Acton, but it's just as dastardly—and much more likely to damage the integrity of the election. Ramaswamy's actions generated significant bipartisan backlash; will Democrats who claim that democracy itself is on the ballot speak up and denounce this?

The post To Confuse Voters, Mary Peltola's Campaign Recruited a Second Dan Sullivan appeared first on Reason Magazine.

Tennessee’s Brent Taylor has joined the list of political candidates whose campaigns have been rocked by sexting scandals this year.

Taylor, who has been endorsed by Donald Trump, is running in a House district that white Tennessee Republicans — acting on the president’s behest — gerrymandered in ways that carved up the state’s only majority-Black district, seemingly ensuring that the district would be represented by a white Republican.

And when all is said and done, Taylor may indeed cruise to victory over his well-known progressive opponent, fellow state Sen. Justin Pearson. But Taylor’s acknowledged history of sending unsolicited nudes has thrown a wrench into his campaign.

Taylor faced mockery and fierce rebuke this week for responding to an exposé by describing the nude photos — some of which he apparently sent in his 50s — as “youthful indiscretions.” According to the Nashville Scene:

Multiple sources say they had received or seen nude photos from Taylor, who is running for U.S. Congress in Tennessee’s 9th Congressional District. Taylor acknowledged to the Scene that he had sent nude photos in the past but dismissed them as mistakes that have since been forgiven by his wife Kimberly.

“As I near 60 years old, the expiration date has come and gone on any of my youthful indiscretions,” Taylor tells the Scene when asked about a history of texting nude pictures. “Whatever story you think you’ve got, my wife is well aware of and we’ve worked through it a long time ago. My god and my wife have forgiven me, and I would consider everyone else doing the same.”

As the outlet noted, these were hardly “youthful indiscretions”:

One individual — who requested anonymity, citing fear of retaliation — says they received an unsolicited nude picture from Taylor as recently as 2021, before he was elected to the state Senate. A second eyewitness source independently confirmed the nude photos sent by Taylor. At that time, Taylor was 53.

Despite his evidently revealing nature, Taylor — who has spoken out against sexual harassment in politics — has declined to say how many times he has sent unsolicited nudes. And Pearson is pouncing on the scandal:

To reiterate, Taylor is still headed into Election Day with the advantage manufactured for him through gerrymandering. But his campaign is providing yet more fodder to point out the hypocrisy of a MAGA movement that claims to promote Christian values but celebrates and enables men known for sex predation, such as Trump.

The Tennessee Republican has given liberals a gift this election season: “My opponent was sending unsolicited nudes while on the doorstep of qualifying for the Denny’s senior menu” is one hell of a closing argument against someone who shouldn’t be anywhere near a congressional seat.

The post GOP candidate’s sexting scandal gives Democrats hope in Tennessee appeared first on MS NOW.

Headed into Election Day, it’s not exactly a secret that House Republicans are likely to lose their majority. Democrats only need a net gain of a handful of seats, and all of the available evidence suggests that won’t be a problem.

House Speaker Mike Johnson, however, keeps taking issue with the evidence.

“Republicans are no longer responding to polls,” the GOP leader told Fox News over the weekend. He added, “I’m telling you these polls are off — all of them.”

On Monday night, the Louisiana congressman returned to the network and pushed effectively the same line. “I’m telling you the polling is inaccurate,” the House speaker said.

Maybe so. Maybe Johnson’s right — we can probably all think of instances when polls have been off to one degree or another — and it could be the political world is in for an enormous surprise next week.

But if that were to happen, Republicans themselves would be among those who are shocked.

As a matter of campaign strategy and tactics, I can appreciate why Johnson is pushing this line with so much enthusiasm. He is, after all, Congress’ top GOP lawmaker. If he were openly accepting the available data on public attitudes, the House speaker would effectively have to admit the odds of him holding onto his gavel are poor, which wouldn’t exactly motivate his party’s rank-and-file voters to cast a ballot.

But regardless of Johnson’s motivations, even his own party doesn’t genuinely believe his talking point. We know this for certain because Republicans keep moving campaign money around to protect vulnerable GOP incumbents — not based on pleas and anecdotal evidence, but because of their own polling data.

The same is true for Donald Trump’s campaign schedule. The president hasn’t invested his time in states such as Texas, South Carolina, Mississippi and Kansas — states he won by enormous margins two years ago — because he finds local conditions pleasant this time of year. The White House political operation is deploying Trump in response to polling data, even as Johnson insists that Republicans “are no longer responding to polls.”

Of course they are. There’s nothing else for them to use when making difficult electoral decisions.

The post Speaker Johnson says the polls are wrong. His own party doesn’t appear to agree. appeared first on MS NOW.

Democrats in Alaska reportedly created a plan to find a second candidate, also called Dan Sullivan, as Sen. Daniel S. Sullivan (R-AK) and Alaska Democrat U.S. Senate candidate and former Rep. Mary Peltola (D-AK) face off against each other.

The post Report: Mary Peltola Was Aware of Scheme to Draft Spoiler Candidate with Dan Sullivan’s Name — and Her Campaign Lawyers Were Involved appeared first on Breitbart.

Today’s installment of campaign-related news items from across the country.

* In South Carolina’s U.S. Senate race, there has been very little independent polling, though that has finally changed: The latest New York Times/Siena poll found Dr. Annie Andrews, the Democratic nominee, tied with Republican Sen. Darline Graham, with both garnering 48% support.

The poll comes on the heels of Andrews picking up an endorsement from former Gov. David Beasley, a Republican, and it coincides with Republican Rep. Ralph Norman, who lost to Graham in a competitive special election primary, declaring that South Carolina voters “deserve better” than Graham.

* In Minnesota’s U.S. Senate race, there also has been a dearth of high-quality recent polling, which made it all the more notable to see the latest New York Times/Siena poll showing Democratic Lt. Gov. Peggy Flanagan leading conservative media personality Michele Tafoya, the Republican nominee, 54% to 40%.

* In Florida’s statewide races, the latest New York Times/Siena poll showed a competitive gubernatorial race, with Republican Rep. Byron Donalds leading former Rep. David Jolly, the Democratic nominee, 48% to 44%.

The same polling found incumbent Republican Sen. Ashley Moody with a six point advantage over state Rep. Angie Nixon, 50% to 44%.

* In Alaska’s gubernatorial race, Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski officially endorsed Democrat Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins’ candidacy, cementing his front-runner status in the race to succeed Republican Gov. Mike Dunleavy, who is term limited.

As for Alaska’s U.S. Senate race, The New York Times reported that the political operation of the Democratic nominee, former Rep. Mary Peltola, was more involved in finding someone named Dan Sullivan to run against Sen. Dan Sullivan, the Republican incumbent, than previously known.

* In Texas’ competitive gubernatorial race, Republican Gov. Greg Abbott is benefiting from another $5 million investment from GOP megadonor Elon Musk in the contest’s final week.

* In Ohio’s statewide races, the latest USA Today/Suffolk University poll found the Democratic nominee, former Sen. Sherrod Brown, ahead of the Republican incumbent, Sen. Jon Husted, 47% to 44%.

The same poll showed Democrat Amy Acton leading Republican Vivek Ramaswamy by a slightly larger margin in Ohio’s gubernatorial race, 48% to 44%.

* And in Tennessee’s 9th Congressional District, which Republicans expect to flip after approving a gerrymandering scheme, there’s a new problem for the GOP nominee: State Sen. Brent Taylor reportedly sent an unsolicited nude picture, to someone who was not his wife, as recently as 2021.

When the Nashville Scene, an alternative weekly newspaper, asked the Republican about what transpired, Taylor said, “As I near 60 years old, the expiration date has come and gone on any of my youthful indiscretions.” The incident in question happened when he was 53 — which is generally not seen as “youthful.”

The post Wednesday’s Campaign Round-Up, 10.28.26: Poll shows tied race in South Carolina appeared first on MS NOW.