Looking ahead to the election

It's now early September, the time when regular not-very-political citizens start paying real attention to the upcoming election.  I've been watching events for some time, of course, and I already have a good sense of what the most important issues are.  These are the ones I will be watching most closely -- needless to say, my choices reflect my own priorities.

1.  The Nebraska Senate race.  Dan Osborn is an independent running on a strong economic-populist platform against the Republican incumbent -- there is not a Democrat in this race.  Nebraska is a very red state, but the most recent poll (which admittedly is from May) has Osborn ahead 47% to 42%, so this definitely looks winnable.  I put this race at #1 not only for itself but for what a victory would mean -- if an economic-populist independent can defeat a Republican in a state where a Democrat would have no chance, it will show that Les Leopold's plan for an economic-populist, working-class-led third party or movement is viable, and so far from creating a potential spoiler, is actually the only way to break the Republican stranglehold on vast areas of the country.  If the movement grows, it would ultimately break the grip of the two billionaire-controlled parties on the entire system and free our politics from its current stagnation.  This is the race I'll be watching most closely as the election results start coming in.

2.  The California billionaire tax initiative.  After Osborn's race, this is this year's second most important test of the viability of economic populism as an independent political force -- and in a state almost as solidly blue as Nebraska is red.  Proposed by a union, the initiative would impose a one-time 5% wealth tax on billionaires to pay for health care and education.  Most of the Democratic party establishment (including governor Newsom) is kowtowing to its billionaire donor masters and opposing the initiative.  This will be a pure test of strength -- the masses and the labor movement vs politicians and billionaire power.

3.  Abortion-rights initiatives.  These are on the ballot in Idaho, Nevada, and Virginia, seeking to uphold and defend one of the most basic personal freedoms at a time when it is under the most vicious attack in half a century.  The Idaho initiative is the most interesting case -- this is a very red state, but the only poll that seems to be available (from November 2025) shows it winning 61% to 28%.  If abortion rights can win in such a solid-red state, especially by such a large margin, it will be a powerful warning to the forced-birthers that their war against the freedom of women and girls is a lost cause -- a warning delivered directly by voters, not politicians.

4.  Abdul El-Sayed.  An obsessive Israel-basher, almost certainly an anti-Semite, a long-term associate of jihadist apologist Hasan Piker -- electing this guy to the Senate would be a frightening escalation of the menacing outbreak of Jew-hatred infesting our politics since the October 7 attack in Israel.  Mamdani is bad enough, but a senator has far more influence on foreign policy than a mayor.  Recent polling in Michigan shows him four points ahead, but remember that polls in the primary had him leading Haley Stevens by double digits, when in fact he ended up winning by a far narrower margin (polling in the Democratic primary for governor in Wisconsin likewise had Hong far ahead of Crowley, but in fact she lost narrowly).  Polling seems to overstate support for Israel-bashers.  There's hope El-Sayed can be stopped.

5.  Troy Jackson.  The Democratic Maine Senate candidate is running on an economic-populist platform, though not as radical as Osborn's.  The party deserves kudos for doing the right thing here, dumping the Israel-bashing, "military history buff but didn't know that was a Nazi tattoo", misogynistic Graham Platner for Jackson.  If Jackson wins in November and El-Sayed loses, it will send the best possible message to the party -- nominate economic populists and stay away from anti-Semites.  Plus we'd get rid of the perennially-"concerned" but pragmatically useless Susan Collins.

6.  Texas.  This state offers the best opportunity to punish some gerrymandering politicians.  Districts were redrawn on the assumption that Hispanic support for Republicans would hold steady, but it is not doing so.  The new map may well backfire and actually cause Republicans to lose House seats.  In addition, Hinojosa's campaign for governor has emphasized opposition to data centers (Abbott has supported them, though he recently panicked and changed course), while if Talarico wins for the Senate, it would keep the corrupt, pedo-enabling Paxton out.  Polling suggests both have a real chance.

7.  Men in women's sports.  Arizona, Colorado, and Washington will hold referenda on this issue.  Opposition to men and boys participating in women's and girls' sports has reached 80%, with solid majorities of Republicans, independents, and Democrats in agreement -- an emerging national consensus.  If these initiatives win big, it will express that consensus in a form the media will no longer be able to lie about.

8.  Montana I-194.  This ballot initiative would basically ban corporations from making campaign contributions.  I don't know what risk there is that it would be found unconstitutional, but passing it would represent a rebuke to billionaire power.

9.  The Wisconsin governor race.  Democratic candidate David Crowley is a mainstream Democrat who defeated Israel-bashing nutcase Francesca Hong (who has also supported "defund the police" and even called for abolishing Thanksgiving) in the primary.  The party needs to get the message that this was the right choice.  The Republican candidate, Tom Tiffany, supported Trump's effort to overturn the 2020 presidential election result, a flagrant attack on democracy.  His party needs to get the message that he was not the right choice.

10.  Control of Congress.  In a midterm election, the party not holding the presidency almost always gains seats in Congress.  In this case, the Republican majority in the House is very small and Trump is massively unpopular, so it's a near-certainty that the Democrats will win control of that body -- perhaps by a large margin.  The real question is the Senate.  Current polling has the Democratic candidate ahead in every swing state with a Senate race, plus Alaska and Texas, but in most cases the margins are small, and polling has an uneven record lately.  A Democratic House will be able to squelch a lot of bad legislation; if Democrats control the Senate too, they may be able to pass acts to help deal with the public's major concerns such as prices, jobs, and data centers.  That would require cooperation with Trump (or Vance), which in turn would require smacking down the "always hate and fight the opposing party even if it means nothing gets done" faction.  If that faction and its mentality get the upper hand, there is the risk of the House passing yet another impeachment, which would be a mistake and a waste of time (Trump has done plenty of things deserving of impeachment, but there's no way that the Senate will have 67 votes to remove him).  If the Democrats keep their focus on the economic issues the voters care about, they'll be well positioned for 2028.

[Please, no comments along the lines of "the Republicans will just steal the election".  It's a distraction, and defeatism tends to be a self-fulfilling prophecy.]