I was just replying to a note from TPM Reader RG who was telling me about the situation in New Mexico’s 2nd Congressional District. It reminded me to remind you just how helpful I find these updates and additionally how much I enjoy reading them, especially in these final weeks of a general election campaign. I know about that race in the most general way; I know who the candidates are. But RG got me down into the details on who’s spending, what the ads look like, what the media markets are, etc. And we’re not talking about inside information. I don’t have the sense that RG is a political professional in any way, though he appears to be volunteering with one of the campaigns, just a politics-focused concerned citizen who knows his neck of the woods politically. In other words, probably like you and so many other TPM readers. So if you, like RG, have information I’d really love to know. There’s probably more going on if you’re from a swing state or in a state or district with other contested races. But let me know regardless.

I wanted to add a short post-script to the post below about Democratic freak outs. I realized in this context it might be read as “don’t worry! Kamala has this!” I don’t think that’s a fair or logical reading. But people understandably read things and interpret them in the context of the moment. So let me be clear: I’m not saying that. My point is more that there’s very little evidence that anything has changed or changed more than very marginally since two or three weeks ago when the mood was pretty dramatically different. Indeed, I not only hear from people thinking Harris is now going to lose the election. They’re already on to the mistakes she made that led her to lose the election.

My own take is one of very cautious optimism. That’s in part based on the current polling information and various hunches I have about turnout, polls, recent election cycles etc. Those hunches could be totally wrong. Which is why I don’t tend to write about them. By the hard evidence in front of us — which is itself not that hard — the race could easily go either way. Indeed, I’d add an additional point. People say this race is super close, maybe the closest ever. I’m not even sure that’s true. What we have is a very high uncertainty election. That’s not the same thing. I think it’s quite possible that either candidate could rack up a pretty sizable winning margin, at least in the Electoral College. There are just so many untested or minimally tested assumptions upon which the “closest election evah” hypothesis is based.

But again, back to my point. I’m not saying, don’t freak out, Kamala’s got this. I’m saying the race is very similar to where and what it was in the second half of September. Close then, close now.

Recently a reader asked me why I focus on polls rather than political betting markets for insights into the race and whether I thought polls were more reliable. I was honestly baffled by the question. To me this was like asking whether I thought a scale was a better way to measure weight than dead reckoning. And I’m not trying to be critical of the reader, who is probably reading this. I gave him my answer and we had a good exchange. But I thought it was worth sharing my thoughts on this question.

My analogy about scales is certainly imperfect in a number of ways, just as polls are imperfect. Indeed, it isn’t even really a question of which is better. The most important thing to understand about the relationship between polls and political betting markets is that the latter is largely downstream of the former. Most bets in political betting markets are driven by people looking at polls and betting accordingly. So by definition they can’t be better. Because the bets are derived from the polls.

But there are a few other points that are worth noting and which are worth considering in a broader context.

I mentioned on Monday that the DeSantis administration in Florida is literally threatening criminal prosecution of TV stations that run pro-abortion rights ads for the state ballot initiative to turn back Florida’s six week abortion ban. This piece in the Post largely repeats those earlier reports. But it does confirm that an additional station in Gainesville got the same threat letters. Presumably others have as well.

When I asked to see the text messages you’re receiving, I was mainly interested in the presidential race and even more those coming from the right. I’m also interested in ones from the Harris side and from the big Senate races. It’s a fascinating and illuminating prism into an often subterranean part of the campaigns, and ones that can fly under the radar. But I was particularly struck by this text TPM Reader BG received in New York City.

It identifies itself as coming from a group called “Turn Left,” which is associated with Richard Ojeda from West Virginia. Ojeda’s name isn’t a household word. But you may remember him. He came to a fame as a West Virginia Democrat who voted for Trump in 2016 and then turned against him. He gained a lot of attention in 2018 and 2020 as a candidate who could give Democrats purchase in rural, Trumpy parts of the country. This ad combines the hurricane misinformation of the moment — $750 checks to storm survivors — with pretty florid and traditional anti-Semitic tropes about a “genocidal AIPAC” that has its “claws so deep in Washington” that it “cuts checks to bomb civilians while your neighbors drown.”

“This is what happens,” it continues, “when genocidal groups like AIPAC buy off our leaders. When the same corrupt politicians line their pockets with blood money, then look us in the eye and tell us there’s nothing left for healthcare, education or disaster relief.”

Full text after the jump …