There are going to be big political winners and losers on Tuesday. But there are also going to be big polling winners and losers. Through this cycle different classes of pollsters have been seeing a very different race. Wednesday morning we’re going to know who was right and wrong. But here’s an aspect of polling that doesn’t get talked about enough. It’s not just accuracy. There’s another part of this.

We know that polling has gotten both harder to do and more expensive to do as fewer people respond to polling phone calls. If one out of twenty calls gets answered, that’s a much more expensive proposition than if one out of three does. So non-response has been driving up the costs of polling, and that’s overwhelmingly hitting the pollsters who use live callers. Live calls are generally considered the most accurate, though it’s far from certain whether that’s still the case. Non-response also puts accuracy under growing strain because pollsters need to make sense of which political groupings are more or less likely to respond. If non-response is identical across all political affiliations it’s not a problem from an accuracy perspective. But that’s almost certainly not the case.

At the center of the escalating Twitter bonfire this week is the issue of “brand safety.” Musk and Republican leaders are now complaining that “woke” activists are breaking Twitter and pushing it toward financial collapse with calls for boycotts. That’s not what’s happening. Not even close. Are there various activists groups pushing for advertisers to pause or drop Twitter advertising? Yes. But they’re not the real problem. The issue is “brand safety,” which I thought I would dig into because it has implications far beyond the Twitter train wreck. It’s at the heart of many issues in political media.

First, how do I know anything about this? Why am I an expert? Before TPM moved to a subscription model, brand and influencer advertising were at the heart of our business. Because of that, for upwards of fifteen years I had to deeply immerse myself not only in the advertising business generally but in the niche of advertising in political media. It was a huge part of my work for years and I had to understand it really, really well — because the existence of TPM depended on it.

If you have been watching the on-going bonfire of Twitter, you may have noticed a couple new things at the end of this week. The exodus of advertisers continues. This morning Twitter began firing what most reports suggest will be roughly half the company’s workforce. The also faced a new round of lawsuits over the company’s allegedly beginning layoffs with no notice. Most notable today though was the shift in Musk’s own tone as expressed in his tweets and an impromptu appearance at a business conference. He’s shifted from swagger to panicked complaining that Twitter is imploding as a business because of a campaign by “activists” to make advertisers abandon the site.

No doubt it will come as a great surprise to you. But Marco Rubio’s story of a Rubio canvasser (who turned out to be a notorious white supremacist) who was viciously beaten over his political beliefs continues to fall apart. Cell phone videos of the incident have now emerged (seemingly from the assailants’ defense attorneys) which undermine the political attack storyline and actually show one of the assailants (just before the attack) telling Christopher Monzon to go about his business and keep canvassing.

One question that comes up a lot when we talk about the debt ceiling is whether there might be some extraordinary executive branch action to get around the problem. These range from outlandish theories about minting trillion dollar platinum coins to much more reasonable things like simply declaring that under the 14th amendment the whole debt ceiling law is unconstitutional. On the merits, I think this latter argument is valid, indeed almost unquestionably valid. But I think this is largely besides the point. The point of the “full faith and credit” is that United States debt obligations are beyond any question. That is why the US is able to borrow money freely and at very low rates of interest. Indeed, the whole global monetary system is significantly underpinned by that commitment.

In several recent posts I’ve told you that most of the near-term (pre-2024) dangers of a GOP House majority are manageable. I don’t mean “no big deal.” It’s disaster after disaster. But I mean manageable in the sense of things the country can get through. With one exception: a debt-limit hostage-taking stand-off in 2023 in which House Republicans force the first U.S. debt default in U.S. history. Regardless of the outcome of Tuesday’s election it will be within Democrats’ power to prevent this crisis in advance by settling the debt limit issue during the lame duck session of Congress. Whatever the political complexities, it is straightforward as a technical matter. Pass a bill in the House raising the debt limit high enough to take the issue off the table for years to come. Then take one of the remaining “reconciliation vehicles” on the Senate side and pass the law with 50 votes. Done and done.

But here’s the thing. We had a great TPM virtual event last night with two of the most knowledgable people about the U.S. senate, Adam Jentleson and Steve Clemons. Both agreed that there’s virtually no chance Democrats are going to do this.

I heard from a reader last night who thanked us for the latest episode of the podcast because of how it focused on possible scenarios after a GOP win on Tuesday. Then I heard from TPM Reader FT who essentially said, Okay, there’s all the polls and the election in Israel. And basically it looks like the right is winning and will win everywhere. What then? What comes next?

I’ve always been unashamedly into polls. As longtimers know, we ran PollTracker for years and only really stopped it because the other aggregators had such a total focus on polls that we simply couldn’t keep up with the state of the art when it was only a side assignment. People who read TPM are political people. And we’re interested. And there’s nothing wrong with that. But I take FT’s point.

I have been giving this quite a lot of thought and there aren’t easy answers. There aren’t a lot of pleasant answers. Let me kick off the conversation with a bit of big picture and then some specific points about how I see the next couple years.

Until today, there was a dearth of quality polling over the last 10 days on the congressional generic ballot as well as in key Senate races. That changed today. Multiple, high quality polls confirm a significant shift in the national race in favor of Republicans. Sometimes there is systematic polling error across multiple pollsters. Indeed, it’s happened a couple times in recent years, albeit in the opposite direction. But if these polls are broadly accurate they tell a clear story.

One of the many questions arising out of Ron DeSantis’s migrant airways stunt two months ago was how his administration justified flying migrants out of Texas when the law explicitly mandated that funds could only be used to fly migrants out of Florida. Newly released documents answer the question.

As I noted earlier, Benjamin Netanyahu is headed back to being Prime Minister. There’s still some question about how many seats he’ll have. But he’ll be PM either way. Title notwithstanding, Israel does not have an electoral college. But I use that headline because this article in the Haaretz notes something with a comparable effect. The pro- and anti-Netanyahu camps both got roughly the same number of votes, both just over 49%. But Netanyahu’s bloc will likely get as many as 65 out of 120 seats — a comfortable majority by recent standards.

So how did this happen?