Making a batch of pancakes may sound simple – and it is – but a few unexpected tricks can elevate your breakfast from boring to true diner quality.
Mashed – Fast Food, Celebrity Chefs, Grocery, Reviews
Day: October 19, 2026
Democrats are salivating over, and Republicans are bracing for, a potentially massive blue wave. One GOP pollster is urging everyone to calm down.
Patrick Ruffini, a founding partner at Echelon Insights, has been loudly throwing cold water on Democrats’ hopes of sweeping the red state Senate seats that have become battlegrounds in a worsening national environment for Republicans.
“The polls are, I think, intentionally inflating the size of the battleground,” Ruffini told POLITICO.
Democrats are pushing to flip Senate seats in Iowa, Texas, Ohio and Alaska — all states that President Donald Trump won by at least 11 points in 2024 — with dreams of going even deeper into the map Kansas, South Carolina and even Mississippi. Sensing a potential disaster, Republicans have significantly curtailed their investments in North Carolina and Georgia to direct resources elsewhere.
Ruffini, who isn’t polling for candidates or party committees in any federal races, said he’s skeptical of Democrats flipping some of those seats, particularly in the Midwest, and gives the GOP a coin flip’s chance at keeping control of the Senate.
If a blue wave were to come, he said it would defy the ingrained partisanship in deep-red states that has mirrored growing political polarization around the country.
“I think it would be somewhat of a historic shift if that were to happen,” he said.
Here’s more from POLITICO’s chat with Ruffini, edited for length and clarity. A more condensed version of this interview ran in POLITICO’s Morning Score campaign newsletter.
You’ve been pretty publicly skeptical of polling that indicates a big tsunami for Democrats in November. Why is that?
I think we can read the environment right, but the map wrong.
The pretty large shift towards Democrats that we’re seeing on the generic ballot and in a lot of individual races, I’m not saying that’s not going to materialize. What I am more skeptical of is… the ability of any major party in this polarized era that we’re in to rack up significant gains in states that went double digits for the other side.
I’m not ruling out — I think there will be some [examples]. I think Alaska is one where it’s both an idiosyncratic state, and [Democratic nominee Mary] Peltola has shown some specific candidate-centered strength. Nor would it shock me if [Democrat] James Talarico wins, despite the history in Texas. That would not surprise me, just given the candidate quality disparity, particularly on the Ken Paxton side.
Where I get more skeptical is when you move into the Midwest, where there has historically been pretty large polling errors [overstating Democrats’ chances] in states like Iowa, Ohio. And I think you can extend that to the Democratic enthusiasm around Kansas.
Is your skepticism coming more from the quality of the individual polls that you’re seeing that are showing massive Democratic surges in the Midwest, or is it the history of these states that you’re betting will ultimately win out?
I think fundamentals are going to play an important role, particularly in states where there was a solid Trump advantage. We’re not talking about a state like North Carolina or Georgia that’s only for Trump narrowly, where Democrats, at least in the Senate races, are clearly favored.
Historically the presumption is that states tend to converge on their base partisanship in the closing days of an election, but especially that’s been the pattern in the Midwest.
Specifically as it relates to the polls this year, I think any pollster you would talk to, including myself, is experiencing significant non-response bias favoring Democrats.
When you’re seeing high-propensity Democrats [responding to polls] at twice the rate of high-propensity Republicans, when we know that the turnout on both sides would be roughly evenly paired, that’s a warning sign for polling in this cycle.
It seems like there’s some GOP internal polling saying that Republicans are worried about these states, because they are moving money around to triage certain races. I’m curious if you feel like they’re wrong to be making those decisions?
Absolutely not. They’re not wrong. You do have to take the polls somewhat seriously in the sense of, if you do get a poll that’s within the margin of error, I think you’re duty-bound to spend money in those places and not to ignore what could be a potential signal.
I think that control of the Senate comes down to Texas, so they’re right to be spending money there. If you just look at the amount of money being spent in Texas versus Kansas, obviously it’s a much, much bigger state, and you need to spend much more money.
But it’s not something along the lines of ‘the battleground has shifted. It’s a foregone conclusion. Democrats are going to win the Senate,’ and then the battleground entirely shifts to a state like Kansas or to Iowa, right? I don’t think we’re seeing that.
It sounds like the issue you have is how the broader public is interpreting these polls rather than the polls themselves?
The polls are, I think, intentionally inflating the size of the battleground. And to some extent it’s happening both ways. The polls showing a margin-of- error race in Minnesota is possible, right? I’m not as concerned about a polling error in Minnesota as I am in Kansas.
But because of the number of Democratic internals and because of the incentive of Democratic internals to show close races across the battleground, what you generally tend to see is more of an inflated sense of how big the battleground actually is. A lot of these races just break a certain way.
We’ve reported that Republicans are privately conceding that the House is lost. Is that your reading of the data too?
That’s the best reading of the data. That said, if there’s a three-point polling error or something, then I think it gets very, very tight and anything can happen. But I think that’s the most likely outcome.
What is your prediction for the number of Senate seats Republicans will have?
My prediction for both the probability and the seat count is 50-50. There’s a 50-50 chance Republicans hold the Senate. I think if they do, it’s with 50 seats, probably. But obviously, that can tilt very easily.
Which of these states do you think are going to flip for Democrats?
Alaska is clearly favored. I mean, I don’t know if it’s clearly favored, but I think it’s at least still Democrat. I think Texas is going to be very, very close. I just think the partisanship of the state is — people forget it’s a little bit more Republican than it was back in 2018. I think Republicans are probably being underestimated in Ohio because of the past Midwestern polling error.
At the same time, I would say it’s still uphill in Maine and Michigan to some degree. I think Susan Collins has really been the lone bright spot, at least in terms of the conventional wisdom, the narrative in the Senate for Republicans. I think she has a fighting chance, but I think Republicans are still probably under a 50% chance in both Michigan and Maine, just due to the nature of their partisan lean.
If at the end of all of this it is a real blue wave in the Senate, what will have happened to have made you wrong?
If that happens, we will have seen a level of depolarization in the electorate that we haven’t seen since around 2012. You really have to go back in history for a state like Kansas to flip.That would be pretty unique historically, where it’s a flip where you have an incumbent losing.
That’s the kind of thing that used to happen in Senate races a lot, and then things, starting with Trump, got a lot more polarized. So what that would mean is, maybe this is the start of a new political era. But I think it would be somewhat of a historic shift if that were to happen.
Politics
Grenada rewards travelers who choose a destination for its food. The small Caribbean nation and its sister island, Carriacou, pack an unlikely range of cooking … Read moreThe post From beach shacks to superyacht marinas, Grenada has the food for…
Heavy are the shoulders that wear the wings.
Jasmine Tookes cleared the air after a viral clip showed her declaring that the wings she wore during the 2026 Victoria’s Secret Fashion Show were “so…
E! Online (US) – Top Stories
Voters line up on Aug. 17, 2026, at the early voting station set up in Anchorage’s Midtown Mall. Voters reported waiting about an hour to cast their primary election ballots. (Photo by Yereth Rosen/Alaska Beacon)
Most state offices may be closed on Monday for Alaska Day, but officials with the Alaska Division of Elections are planning to be at work for the first day of early in-person voting in the 2026 general election.
In Anchorage, early voting will be open from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. Monday at Midtown Mall and Anchorage City Hall.
Other voting locations will be open in Eagle River, Fairbanks, Juneau, Kenai, Nome, Palmer and Wasilla.
A full list of locations and operating days and times has been posted online by the division. All votes must be cast before or on Election Day, Nov. 3.
Dozens of in-person absentee voting locations will also open starting Monday across the state, but there is a key difference between early voting and absentee voting, which has also been taking place by mail and fax for weeks.
In early voting, the voter’s identity is checked up front, before voting, so the ballot is guaranteed to count. With absentee voting, whether in person, by mail or fax, the voter’s ID isn’t checked until the ballot reaches the Division of Elections.
If the voter’s identity can’t be verified, or if there’s another procedural problem, the ballot may be rejected and not counted. Alaska doesn’t offer a way for absentee voters to fix procedural problems.
In addition, absentee ballots can be affected by delivery delays. In this year’s primary election, dozens of absentee ballots cast in person were rejected because they didn’t reach a hub location in time for review.
The division said it has changed its procedures for the general election in order to prevent that problem.
But mail delays may still keep some absentee ballots from being counted.
Under state law, a mailed ballot must arrive within 10 days after Election Day if mailed from within the United States,or 15 days afterward, if mailed from outside the country. Those ballots will be counted as long as they were postmarked on or before Election Day.
Any ballots that arrive after that deadline will not be counted.
Farm drones can potentially reduce labor costs, increase yields and reduce chemical use and human exposure to chemicals. But those benefits vary by crop and … Read moreThe post Farm drones may lower costs for growers, but will shoppers save…
(The Center Square) – White House border czar Tom Homan said over the weekend that federal investigators have a “strong case” against U.S. Rep. Ilhan Omar.
Reading Time: 2 minutes
After eight years, the Fantasy Bra is back.
Kylie Jenner walked in the Victoria’s Secret Fashion Show, putting the $50 million diamond garment on display.
Alongside the thousands of sparkling diamonds, she wore colossal white angel wings.
Though Kylie has missed the mark with some endorsements in the past, this spectacle is one you don’t want to miss.
$50 million is a lot of diamonds
On Sunday, October 18, Kylie stepped out to the surprise and delight of the crowd at the Victoria’s Secret Fashion Show.
The Fantasy Bra has had a number of different incarnations. One might compare it to the Ship of Theseus thought experiment.
The unique bra, created in partnership with Jacob & Co., has never been so elaborate or expensive.
With 4,410 natural diamonds, a drop-diamond fringe, and a 75.54-carat Natural Fancy Vivid Yellow diamond in its center, the Fantasy Bra lives up to its name.
The estimated value is $50 million.
The Fantasy Bra appeared — in its first incarnation — in 1996.
German model Claudia Schiffer was the first to wear it.
Its latest iteration was for the 2018 Victoria’s Secret Fashion Show.
It was designed by Swarovski and boasted a whopping 21,000 diamonds.
That year, Swedish-Finnish fashion model Elsa Hosk wore it.
She’s not the first famous face to dazzle in diamonds like this
The Fantasy Bra has come in many forms — and had many famous bearers.
Tyra Banks, Heidi Klum, and Adriana Lima are three of the most famous names to shoulder this glittering burden.
In 2000, Gisele Bündchen wore what was previously the most expensive design.
“The Heavenly Star Bra,” its form that year, was worth a whopping $15 million.
Kylie’s version could buy and sell that one without worry.
Prior to Sunday’s Victoria’s Secret Fashion Show, the brand had teased that the Fantasy Bra would be making an appearance following its 8-year hiatus.
Speculation immediately emerged about who would wear the sparkling attire.
Clearly, VS determined that only Kylie’s stage presence could do the garment justice. Congratulations to Kylie!
Unlike most humans on the planet, she could afford something like that. But it’s likely that no one would actually want to wear something like that on a regular basis.
Ever see how easily a diamond can cut glass?
Kylie Jenner Sparkles in $50 Million Diamond Bra for Victoria’s Secret was originally published on The Hollywood Gossip.
The Hollywood Gossip
(The Center Square) – The U.S. Supreme Court agreed on Monday to hear a case over whether home whiskey distilleries are constitutional.
(The Center Square) – States should pause approving new data centers or place restrictions on their impact rather than using tax incentives to attract those data centers, a majority of voters say according to a new poll.