SELF GOVERNMENT: "The Texas Senate race is cooked!"

TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 3, 2026

Morning Joe, sanguine assessments: We Americans no longer vote on Election Day. We've made it easier (and better) than that.

Back in 1960, Americans did all vote on Election Day, if they chose to vote at all. (Or if they were allowed to do so.)

In the opening pages of his iconic book, The Making of the President, 1960, Teddy White described the way the electorate rolled on that famous Election Day—in the famous presidential election pitting Senator Kennedy against Vice President Nixon.   

We don't vote this way today. With a focus on the candidate destined to win, White's famous book starts like this:

CHAPTER ONE
WAITING

It was invisible, as always.

They had begun to vote in the villages of New Hampshire at midnight, as they always do, seven and a half hours before the candidate rose. His men had canvassed Hart’s Location in New Hampshire days before, sending his autographed picture to each of the twelve registered voters in the village. They knew that they had five votes certain there, that Nixon had five votes certain—and that two were still undecided. Yet it was worth the effort, for Hart’s Location’s results would be the first flash of news on the wires to greet millions of voters as they opened their morning papers over coffee. But from there on it was unpredictable—invisible.    

By the time the candidate left his Boston hotel at 8:30, several million had already voted across the country—in schools, libraries, churches, stores, post offices. These, too, were invisible, but it was certain that at this hour the vote was overwhelmingly Republican. On election day America is Republican until five or six in the evening. It is in the last few hours of the day that working people and their families vote, on their way home from work or after supper; it is then, at evening, that America goes Democratic if it goes Democratic at all. All of this is invisible, for it is the essence of the act that as it happens it is a mystery in which millions of people each fit one fragment of a total secret together, none of them knowing the shape of the whole.   

What results from the fitting together of these secrets is, of course, the most awesome transfer of power in the world...  

Given the way we do it today, many millions of people have already voted in weeks. No president will be elected today, but at least as a matter of theory, Democrats are trying to create that "awesome transfer of power" within the legislative branch of the federal government.

They're doing so in an attempt to rein in the sitting president, whose conduct now seems to become stranger with each passing day.   

In Sunday morning's New York Times, an attempt was made to describe that behavior. In print editions, that "News Analysis" piece sat right there, at the top of page one. 

Of course, given the way we do things today, most subscribers to the New York Times now read the paper online. 

Tomorrow, we'll start to discuss the problems which existed with this latest front-page report. For today, we thought we'd show you what was said on today's Morning Joe program—what was said about the likelihood that the Democratic Party—known as the "Democrat Party on our largest "cable news" channel—might take control of the Senate.   

On MS NOW's Morning Joe, Joe Scarborough routinely presents the most intelligent conversations in American broadcast news. Today, a gang of analysts went way out on several limbs concerning the likely outcome of some key Senate races.   

Example:

Who's going to win the Senate race in Texas? At 6:58 a.m. Eastern, Politico's Jonathan Martin offered this striking assessment about the race between the Democrat, James Talarico, and the Republican, Ken Paxton:

MARTIN (11/3/26): I can't find any Republican in Texas who thinks Ken Paxton is going to win. I think the surprise could be if Ken Paxton does win at this point.   

I mean, Talarico, in the early voting—

It's pretty clear where this is going in Texas. I think Greg Abbott will hang on for governor. But I think the Texas Senate race is pretty clearly cooked at this point.   

Say what? According to Martin, he can't find a single Republican insider who thinks Talarico is going to lose. And when Scarborough threw to John Heilemann in Austin, this is part of what Heilemann said about what he has found in Texas:

HEILEMANN: I couldn't find any Democrat or Republican who doesn't think James Talarico is going to win that Senate race.

Those were rather bodacious assessments. Meanwhile, Scarborough himself was soon saying this:

"Kansas is gone!" 

According to Scarbrough, Kansas is gone for Roger Marshall, the Republican incumbent. Scarborough said it's been gone for a week—and that Kansas insiders all know it.

Those predictions are subject to error—but they're remarkably definitive. And when Scarborough sked his panelists for their overall view of today's Senate races, this is what they said:   

Entire Morning Joe Panel Predicts Democrats Win AT LEAST 53 Senate Seats...

Morning Joe is calling its shot. An entire panel on the MS NOW morning said Democrats will not only win on Tuesday night, they will romp.

At the end of a segment kicking off the program’s 7 a.m. ET hour, host Joe Scarborough went around the horn to solicit predictions from a quartet of his regulars: Politico’s Jonathan Martin, John Heilemann, Mark McKinnon and Claire McCaskill.

All four predicted that Democrats will not only take control of the Senate, but they will do so by a healthy margin.  

“I think 53-47 is probably the safe place [to land],” Martin said.   

And so on from there, with Mediaite providing tape of the predIctions. 

Once again, the pundits were spotted on limbs. Their predictions ran like this:

Senate seats to be held by Democrats
Jonathan Martin: 53 seats
John Heilemann: 54 seats
Mark McKinnon: 55 seats
Claire McCaskill: 53 seats

To our ear, those were surprisingly sanguine predictions. Starting tonight, we'll see if those stars knew their stuff.

In the larger sense, no one knows the way this national challenge is going to turn out. Yesterday, down at the Reflecting Pool, the president's behavior was very strange—and whatever becomes of his party tonight, he'll be in charge of many government functions for the next two years and two months.

 That strikes us as a dangerous state of affairs. Ho is it being reported?

Tomorrow: Highly visible on page one (unless you're reading online)

MONDAY: Who will win those Senate seats?

MONDAY, NOVEMBER 2, 2026

There's a chance we might even find out: Who will win the (thirty-five) Senate seats at stake in tomorrow's elections? A new report by the New York Times reports the numbers from a final set of NYT/Siena polls:

Democrats Show Strength in Final Days of Race for the Senate, New Polls Find  

Democrats are ahead of Republicans in almost all of the seven battleground states that will determine which party controls the Senate, according to the final set of polls from The New York Times and Siena University before the midterm elections.

The surveys found that Democrats hold sizable leads in Texas, which has not elected a Democrat to the Senate since 1988, and Kansas, which has not elected one since 1932.

To win a Senate majority, Democrats need to defend all the seats they currently hold and flip at least four seats that are currently held by Republicans. It has been seen as an uphill battle because many of the seats they need to win are in Republican strongholds.

But the new polls found Democratic candidates ahead in five states that now have Republican senators and effectively tied in a sixth. They hold leads in Kansas, Maine, Ohio and Texas and a narrow edge in Alaska. They are effectively tied in Iowa.   

And so on from there.

Happy Days are here again! But only if the actual voting turns out that way tomorrow!   

We humans! Endless time is being burned today with endless prognostication.  Of course, even the most recent polls are already out of date! 

Meanwhile, who's gonna win those thirty-five seats?  If we can wait for one more day, there's a chance we might even find out!

SELF GOVERNMENT: Or current attempts at same!

MONDAY, NOVEMBER 2, 2026

Solon changes her mind: We humans are allowed to change our minds. We're also allowed to change our public positions.   

Yesterday, Haley Stevens may, or may not, have changed her mind, But she definitely changed her public position. 

She had endorsed Candidate El-Sayed—but yesterday, she flipped, endorsing Candidate Rogers! When we humans attempt to engage in self-government, it will sometimes look like this. We'll highlight a few key points:

REP. HALEY STEVENS (11/1/26): Well, thank you. And greetings to the press corps.

My name is Haley Stevens. I'm a proud Democrat. And I am endorsing Mike Rogers for the United States Senate.

I am one vote in this state. Michigan is a swing state. And I have a divided household, as some of you have heard, up until last night. But even my own mother cast her vote for Mike Rogers as my own father cast his vote for Abdul.

This is a very close election. We all know that. But Abdul made very clear that I was not welcome in his campaign. That he didn't need me there, that he didn't want me there. And at some point, you got to look at who's standing for country.

You know, there's always a lot of elections taking place in America. And this is one. I'm going to cast my ballot. I still haven't done that. And 90 percent of the votes I'm going to cast are going to be for Democrats.

My vote for Senate, I am just one vote, as is every Michigander, my vote for Senate is going to be with Mike Rogers. And I will tell you why:

Because we have to stand with country. We can't stand with hate. We can't stand with Hasan Piker.

A friend of mine was talking about how education is on the ballot, and it's very true. There's a lot of young people looking at this election.

You know, I was a young person once. And we've got to make a choice about who is standing with them.

I think that Chuck Schumer is going to become the majority leader, you know. And I think that there are incredible Democrats and incredible activity taking place across this country.

I stood with my party and I was booed off the stage. And, you know, it was violently shouted down. You know, I was up there with other Democrats. Those people who were on that stage with me, they're going to make their choice.

The ballot box is still very personal and private. And today, in a moment of faith, tied to my faith and to this great city, by the way, I'm standing here with a guy named Mike Rogers.

And there's another guy named Mike who ran the city of Detroit for 12 years. And a lot of Detroiters voted for him. And, you know, he kind of looks like this guy.

And you know what happened with that Mike? You know, he stepped out of his party. He put up his hand for a brief while. He was running for governor.

You know, I don't know everything that's going to happen, you know. And all I can do is lead with love and integrity.

This was a personal and private decision. I woke up this morning and I decided to go to church. And I'm here with the person who I am voting for, for United States Senate.   

Hmm. She decided to go to church, and then she was there with Mike Rogers!

For the record, many people in the state of Michigan are going to vote for Mike Rogers. If we were voting in Michigan, we'd vote for Candidate El-Sayed, but there's no way to prove that the other vote is "wrong."   

That said, it's hard to miss the sense of self-involvement in this first attempt by Stevens to explain her last-minute flip. We refer to such statements as this:  

"I have a divided household, as some of you have heard, up until last night." 

That was an apparent reference to herself and her fiancé, who had already come out for Rogers. Also, the solon now copped to this:  

Abdul made very clear that I was not welcome in his campaign. That he didn't need me there, that he didn't want me there.

Solon, please! Nominees routinely decide who they will, and who they won't, gain votes by campaigning with. That statement made it sound like Rep. Stevens was taking it personally—like she might have changed her vote because her feelings had been hurt. So, of course, did this:   

I stood with my party and I was booed off the stage. And, you know, it was violently shouted down.

Some Democratic Party voters booed her! It's natural to be hurt by some events, but should that have helped decide who she would endorse?   

The whole thing sounded quite self-referential. Moments later, so did this:   

REPORTER: What’s your message to Democrats who are upset that, throughout the primary, you said you would endorse the Democratic nominee, and you’re not doing so today?  

STEVENS: Yeah, and I’m sorry people are upset, and I understand that. I did endorse the Democratic nominee, and he chose to close his campaign by saying I wasn’t welcome.

I’ve never been invited to a campaign event? That’s fine! You know, he’s busy, he’s running all around. I’ve had primaries before myself. It’s not about that. 

This is about leadership and integrity. his is about looking in the mirror, about how real Democrats for Rogers are, constituents of mine that are out there putting themselves out there publicly, and others who aren't.

And that's fine! There’s going to be people who agree with me, people who disagree with me—all the love to them. And all the excitement for what is down the road. 

Amid the piffle, there was a strong hint of self-involvement in that statement too. She's never been invited to a campaign event, she said, even as she assured the world that her flip wasn't about that.  

Personally, we would vote for Candidate El-Sayed; several million Michiganders may vote the other way. Before moving on, we want to record one more set of facts:

To borrow from Stevens' repeated lnguage, it's a set of facts "about country"—about the country shared by these same-age pols: 

Haley Stevens: 
Stevens is 43 years old. She was born and raised in Michigan.  After graduating from high school, she went to American U. in D.C., where she received a Bachelor of Arts in political science and philosophy and a Master of Arts in social policy and philosophy.   

Abdul El-Sayed: 
El-Sayed is 42 years old. He was born and raised in Michigan.  After graduating from high school, "he graduated Phi Beta Kappa with highest distinction" from the University of Michigan, then went to Oxford as a Rhodes Scholar. "In 2014, he completed a Doctor of Medicine degree at the Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons."

Our translation: Each was born and raised in this country. What was Stevens trying to say? 

We humans are allowed to change our minds. We're even allowed to be wrong! 

Routinely, we're less than perfectly rational. That can make self-government hard.

 Tomorrow: Sunday New York Times, page 1 (print editions only!)