You have questions, we have answers. Since TPM readers are as obsessed with political minutiae as our reporters are, we’re launching a special limited-run bonus version of the pod in this final month before the 2026 midterms. Introducing: the Polltober Show.

Every Tuesday from now until Election Day, Josh and Kate will get into the weeds on all things midterms, drawing on questions that you — our lovely readers — will submit! If there’s anything you want to know about specific races, candidates, chamber control, the courts, the polls, whatever, just drop your queries in the YouTube comments on the latest episode of the TPM Show or the Polltober Show itself. I will scoop them up and pass them on to Josh and Kate to mull over.

This week, Kate Riga and Josh Marshall dig into the first listener mailbag, breaking down key races in Florida and Georgia as well as decoding Democrats’ generic ballot lead.

Don’t forget to subscribe to our YouTube page for more content and the rest of Polltober!

For years, and especially in the last month or so, we’ve been collectively inundated with an AI industry which, uncannily and bizarrely, tells us simultaneously that AI is essential, inevitable and runs a significant chance of exterminating all of us in as few as two or three years. If you’ve dipped into this debate at all, you’ve quickly come upon discussions of so-called “rationalists” or “long-termists” or supporters of “effective altruism” who are simultaneously ubiquitous among those developing AI and in the AI safety (i.e., the folks sounding the alarm) community as well. (For the sake of simplicity and brevity, I’ll refer to these folks as the “REL nexus”: rationalists, effective altruists and long-termists. This is my coinage since I don’t know a better one.) I’ve spent a fair amount of time familiarizing myself with this world and how it relates to current debates about AI. So I wanted to share my basic impressions.

You have questions, we have answers. Since TPM readers are as obsessed with political minutiae as our staffers are, we’re launching a special limited-run bonus version of the pod in this final month before the 2026 midterms. Introducing: the Polltober Show.

On Tuesdays, Josh and Kate will get into the weeds on all things midterms, drawing on questions that you — our lovely readers — will submit! If there’s anything you want to know about specific races, candidates, chamber control, the courts, the polls, whatever, just drop your queries in the YouTube comments on the latest episode of the TPM Show or the Polltober Show itself. Our producer Jackie Wilhelm will scoop them up and pass them on to Josh and Kate to mull over.

Look forward to getting into the weeds with you!

It’s surprising to see Donald Trump campaigning in Texas a month before a midterm election, as he will this week. Far more surprising to see him snubbed by the incumbent Republican governor who until as recently as a month ago appeared to be in an all but nominal reelection campaign against state Rep. Gina Hinojosa. Houston Chronicle reporter Ben Wermund caught up with Greg Abbott who told Wermund he wouldn’t be able to show up because of “other campaign events already planned.” Said Abbott: “Whenever he does show up, it leads to excitement with the base. He does a good job with getting the base organized and turning out.”

He “does a good job.” lol …

While I am certainly not predicting Abbott’s defeat, recent polls have shown a genuinely competitive race. Fox and Siena polls both take in the last week of September showed at Abbott +5 (Fox) or Hinojosa +4 (NYT/Siena). A Marist poll a week earlier showed Hinojosa +3. A few lesser known or GOP sponsored polls have leaned more toward Abbott. An additional concern for Abbott is that Ken Paxton seems to be running genuinely behind. So Abbott could also pick up some some of the downdraft from that race.

Hard to know quite what to make of this, or how much to make of it. But we’re getting what may be a preview of elements of a new era in the Middle East. According to a just released communiqué, Turkey and Pakistan will be sending troops to Saudi Arabia under the three countries’ new “Mecca Pact” to assist with fighting the Houthis in Yemen. The statement is very short on details. So it’s not clear whether this is a meaningful deployment of manpower and resources or something more nominal and symbolic. Nor is the timing of any deployment clear.

It’s hard to know what to say about former Republican Speaker of the House Denny Hastert, whose death at the age of 84 was reported this morning. Few if any political leaders in modern American history have experienced a fall quite so ignominious and total. The obvious point of comparison is Richard Nixon. But post-Watergate Nixon was never without his defenders and supporters. All but his most adamant critics granted significant successes of his presidency. And by the time of his death in 1994, he’d made significant progress in being treated by many as a sage elder statesman, albeit a greatly tarnished one. Hastert remains almost a test case of a top political leader whose fall was immediate and absolute. He came as close as one can come to have to having zero public defenders (though a significant number of former colleagues wrote leniency letters on his behalf at sentencing in 2016).

What stands out in my mind are two moments, one from his moment of ascent to power and another at the denouement but certainly not the nadir of career. Go back to 1998. The so-called Lewinsky scandal had been trundling forward for most of the year. Republicans are giddy about the Red Tsunami that was about to supercharge the existing GOP majority. Predictions of a 30- or 40-seat pick up were common and assumed. (I was one of few people I knew to basically predict no wave at all; it was simply a matter of watching the polls rather than the bipartisan hype.) When Democrats ended up gaining five seats, House Speaker New Gingrich was summarily tossed overboard — a mix of the failure of his wild overpromising and slowly building frustrations with his erratic and high drama leadership style.

The New York Times and Siena released another batch of polls this morning across a swath of red states. The general picture is the same as its been for weeks. Many of these races are close. But Democrats are ahead in almost all of them. The exception in this batch is Iowa where Ashley Hinson is up by a single point over Democrat Josh Turek. That’s essentially a tie and it compares to Sherrod Brown +3, Mary Peltola +7 (first round) and James Talarico +6.

Some have posited at least the possibility that Democrats are benefiting from poll bias in the reddest states. But I think the real story here is another we’ve discussed: candidate quality. Hinson has run in and won a number of competitive races over the last decade. And she’s objectively a solid if not necessarily a terribly candidate. She’s a former newscaster and those always benefit from some level of familiarity and trust based on many voters feeling they know them. The others range from meh (John Husted in Ohio) to catastrophic (Ken Paxton). Again and again we’re seeing cases where Republicans have been able to run passable and even sub-standard candidates in red states. And there’s a good chance that will continue to be the case when there’s no Cat-5 Hurricane year. But it’s when a big storm comes that you find out the levee ain’t very strong.

We’ve been following this conversation here in The Editors’ Blog about what AI is, what it can do and whether it can possibly live up to its hype. It’s worth considering the question from what we might loosely call not only the supply side but also the demand side. From a very broad perspective, the history of the last three decades has been one defined by the fact that you have too much capital chasing too few productive investments. That’s the driver of the recent history of cycles of booms, bubbles, over-investment and busts: the Asian Financial Crisis, the Dot Com Bust, the Global Financial Crisis, perhaps soon the AI Bubble Collapse, along with many smaller of regional ones.

We’re seeing article after article now restating in slightly different ways the same basic point about the AI infrastructure boom: how will this level of investment ever be recouped? This new article in the Journal is entitled: Will America Spend 9% of Its GDP on AI? The Industry Is Counting on It. (It references the same Brookings study we discussed a week ago.) This is more or less the same story as I flagged in that Bain report in last night’s post. A market of $6 trillion for AI by 2031; 9% of GDP in 2032. The numbers may be based on slightly different global modelings — just how much investment, rates of return, etc. But they’re mostly different ways of stating the staggering growth that will be required to cover current levels of capital expenditure. The Journal notes that 9% of GDP in 2032 (one year later than the Bain & Co report focuses on) will mean Americans are spending as much on AI as food, half as much as they will spend on health care. The Journal article reminds us that this isn’t simply about adoption and new products. You have to factor in what will likely be rapidly falling prices as well as competition from new entrants with possibly far lower sunk costs and debt.

Getting into the particulars involves so many variables it’s hard make sense of it without an economic degree. But the overall story is the same as the one in the Bain study. Silicon Valley has committed the economy to unimaginable levels of investment in a very promising but still largely unproven technology. And now we have to go on a national crash course of maniacal innovation just to get out from under that spending overhang or the whole economy craters. Of course, if AI just does a million amazing things and makes all our lives happier and more fun … well, we’ll have to really thank them. But this seems uncertain.

A friend sent me this new Bain & Company study on the growth required to match the current levels of capital expenditure on AI, essentially breaking down the cost of the data center and other associated build outs. It’s an interesting document, not simply for the number-crunching and the predictions, but as a document in the more literary and analytic sense. Needless to say, Bain isn’t coming at this from any “boo capitalism!”/”this is insane lol” viewpoint. But the conclusions aren’t that far from the “this is insane lol” position. It’s very much, “hey! we can do this” but also, “um … wow, there’s quite a lot to do.”

The broad stroke numbers are these. The study says that to keep up with the current levels of capital expenditures AI will need to become a $6 trillion dollar market by 2031. (To give some perspective on that number, a recent Gartner study predicted that global IT spending will be just under $6.4 trillion this year. So devices, hardware, software, services, kind of everything.) It then posits that we can see the beginnings of, with some level of out-year predictability, something on the order of a $1.5 trillion market — which would be made up of a greatly expanded consumer market (Claude apps, ChatGPT, etc.) of between $200 and $400 billion and then an enterprise market (software, sales, marketing, business optimization) of between $1 and $1.4 trillion. So we’re left with about $4.5 trillion to go. That’s where the crash course in innovation comes in.