Tuesday, November 03, 2026

It might be dumbing down politics a notch or two from previous practice, but it might be tomorrow's trend in answer to polling reports on an election day morning. Forbes reports prediction market outlook, from Kalshi

https://www.forbes.com/advisor/investing/ohio-midterm-election-prediction-markets/ 

What we likely will not see at all, or in any believable presentation, a post-election analysis worth the time to read it, of whether polling per traditional methods, or prediction market attention, is the better predictor of actual election outcomes - limited to these 2026 midterms, since prediction markets are a new thing.

Make of it what you will. An alternative is to trust guessing from one who's been viewed as a pundit over time, right or wrong, but ready to voice an opinion: https://www.thedailybeast.com/james-carville-makes-bold-midterm-election-eve-prediction 

The most promising thing is to wait until tomorrow, when actual voting results will be reported. But what's the fun in that? Fun then is whether your voted choices win or not.  Yours win = fun. Their's win = grim acceptance.

UPDATE: Foxrbes - prediction market guessing for Minnesota's midterm elections. Doug Chapin is not getting pred mkt respect in MN CD6. Emmer is the incumbent moron, and improvement would be easy.

 

 

Monday, November 02, 2026

A representative dialog showing why I oppose twitter/tweets, online for everybody, is this.

Nicolle Wallace interviewing and sharing commentary with Heather Cox Richardson about now and the future:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LCa6CmuQqNY&t=58s

While in agreement with the bulk of their discussion, others who might be less aligned still must admit that this is more worthwhile than a tweet about some high-strung ditz endorsing Mike Rogers. Where the only mystery or deep thought would be how did that ditz get to where anyone attributed gravitas to what she did or said. A tweet war over that endorsement is about all it deserves.

 

 

Hello Donald J. Trump. You have friends who like your never ending warfare, with cause to see it drag on. And on. And on.

 AJ reporting -

How US oil firms profit $130bn from Iran war as household bills surge

As energy from the Gulf and Russia take a hit, American oil and gas firms are the big gainers. The biggest losers: consumers around the world

 By Federica Marsi -- Published On 2 Nov 2026

United States oil companies have earned more than $130bn in profits during the war on Iran, even as consumers pay much higher prices for key commodities, amid fears that US President Donald Trump may renew fighting after midterm elections.

The estimate, released by The New York Times, is a conservative evaluation based on the performance of 51 large US oil and gas companies in the six months from April through September. By contrast, in the same period in 2025 – when the prices of oil were lower prior to the launch of the US-Israel war on Iran – they collectively earned less than $47bn.

Recommended Stories

list of 3 itemsend of list

But the gains come as burgeoning living costs are crushing consumers. Americans have spent an extra $150bn on petrol and diesel since the war on Iran began on February 28, according to an analysis by Brown University’s Climate Solutions Lab, which amounts to more than $1,150 per household.

The disparity has fuelled a political debate over who gains and who pays the price for the war. Responding to Trump, Democratic Representative Jim McGovern wrote on X: “We’re not making a ‘freaking fortune,’ we’re PAYING a ‘freaking fortune’.”

US Big Oil in position to profit where others lose

Naser al-Tamimi, a fellow at the Institute for International Political Studies (ISPI) in Milan, Italy, said US energy companies have benefitted from the war in different ways. “Crude producers gain from higher oil prices, while refiners capture exceptional margins as diesel and other fuel supplies tighten,” he said.

Additionally, “damage to Middle Eastern and Russian refineries, disrupted Strait of Hormuz shipments, and sanctions-related trade frictions have intensified shortages”, while “relatively secure US facilities and access to discounted crude strengthen these gains”.

ExxonMobil and Chevron, the biggest US oil companies, on Friday reported profits of between $10bn and $15bn. While the gains are considerable, The New York Times found they generally remained below 2022 levels, when Russia’s invasion of Ukraine caused oil prices to soar to roughly $100 a barrel and raised natural gas prices, compared with the current average of $90 from April through September.

[...] 

Continued pressure over cost of living

Analysts warned of continued volatility until a durable political settlement between the US and Iran is reached. Oil prices dropped briefly in the summer after a memorandum of understanding was signed in June, but prices quickly soared again when talks broke down.

A more recent escalation in fighting between Saudi Arabia and the Houthis has further compounded the crisis: the Bab al-Mandeb strait that connects the Red Sea to the Gulf of Aden, which Saudi Arabia uses to export oil, is now also a theatre of war.

“In the short term, windfall profits will only strengthen oil company balance sheets and shareholder returns,” Miller said. “However, the big profits come with a major caveat. That’s because over the longer term, high oil prices risk harming economic growth prospects and could even contribute towards the outbreak of a recession, which would in turn be likely to lead to reduced demand for oil” and accelerate the transition to renewable energy.

Florence Schmit, senior energy strategist at Rabobank’s global economics and markets team in London, said it was likely that the prices of key energy products would remain high given the uncertainty about the duration of the war in Iran.

“Prices in all markets that have an exposure to this global supply shock – which includes the US – will face high prices also next year, and consumers will continue to feel this price pressure unless governments step in,” Schmit told Al Jazeera.

The item continues, and earlier this graphic was part of the post -


 Dylan, early in his career, sang, "You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows."

You don't. So, are you happy with this war, or ready to vote Dem to have a better chance of ending the grotesque profiteering? It may drag on, but it may not. We shall see.

A hypothetical. When there is a bit of public bleating about "FRAUD!" can there be such a thing as a fraudulent war? One premised by public decree one way, but done to achieve a different outcome, from another direction? And if there can be, is there one, now since Feburary? A "four week" war? 

And, who'd do such a thing? Who'd be that sneaky? Over barrels of oil?

UPDATE: Sophistry. 

 FURTHER: A trillion dollar fraud war - an oil war disguised as a security threat war that can hit a trillion if lasting long enough -  dwarfs anything that any Minnesota Somali community rump groups may have committed, as a welfare fraud. War fraud has a lot of death and destruction to it. Welfare fraud just means an unduly inattentive bureaucrat or three asleep at the switch. No loss of life, no destruction. No Hegseth.

AJ reports on a Republican write-in effort in South Carolina.

 It is more against Donald Trump, than against Darlene Graham.

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/11/2/write-in-ralph-south-carolina-republicans-challenge-trumps-senate-pick 

 

 

Sunday, November 01, 2026

Abdul El Sayed needs to win the Michigan Senate race and nothing else happening there should matter. He is a Dem and he is a progressive. [UPDATED]

There's stuff happening (e.g., Dem's staff resigns as she 'sells her soul' to endorse swing state MAGA Senate candidate + Sanders feuds with AIPAC over last-minute Rogers donations). AIPAC has a lot of money, and buys what it can for political advantage. 

Days ago, Times of Israel published -

Michigan GOP Senate candidate Mike Rogers said to ask AIPAC not to campaign on his behalf

As pro-Israel lobby group becomes increasingly unpopular across US politics, Axios says aides for Rogers warned its involvement would be detrimental to defeating Abdul El-Sayed

FURTHER: Anderson Cooper does a 15 min interview with Stevens.  Meanwhile, El Sayed's campaign is reported by Forbes to have had a record day for contributions to the campaign, with thousands of new donors.

 

Politico: "Space Force scrambles as Musk’s SpaceX retires its major rocket. Other rocket-makers have faced delays getting their vehicles up and running, leaving the Pentagon in a bind. "

https://www.politico.com/news/2026/10/22/space-force-spacex-rocket-musk-01131131 

The Crabgrass headline gives the item's own headline. In part -

SpaceX is by far the dominant player in the rocket business and indispensable to the military, dwarfing competitors and accounting for 85% of U.S. launches in 2025. The company is phasing out its Falcon 9 rocket to make way for Starship, a massive new vehicle that SpaceX says will be more efficient and profitable, but which many military satellites aren’t designed to fit.

The situation leaves the Space Force in a launch crunch that could affect the military’s ability to put its advanced satellites in orbit — and on time. The Pentagon has few alternatives to ferry its equipment, and SpaceX’s competitors are likely years away from being able to offer comparable services.

“Everybody’s having problems, so the Space Force is freaking out a little bit about launch,” said one former Space Force official, who, like others, was granted anonymity to discuss the sensitive issue.

It also highlights the scale of Musk’s company’s footprint and the way its business decisions can affect the security of countries including the United States. From the battlefield in Ukraine, where Kyiv is dependent on his Starlink satellite internet service, to cutting-edge artificial intelligence and SpaceX’s stranglehold over the pathways to orbit, the world’s first trillionaire has a direct hand in the technology that will shape the future.

The Space Force recently tried to book rides for three future satellite missions, but SpaceX declined to offer its services, according to two people familiar with the missions. No other rocket companies offered to take them either, the people said.

A top official at the Space Force downplayed the problem about finding rockets to launch military satellites.

“I wouldn’t say there [are] missions I’m worried about being able to fly; I would say we’re working through the right way to support those customers,” said Brig. Gen. Eric Zarybnisky, the Space Force’s acting portfolio acquisition executive for space access.

But Zarybnisky acknowledged growing pains for the government and space industry as demand for rockets increases. “Temporarily, there are some things we’ll need to work through, again, as we get new providers flying,” he said.

There is more detail in the original, again, here. 

 

 

Homeland Security Dept. is buying Boston Dynamics' robot dogs. Some BD employees have officially objected.

 https://arstechnica.com/ai/2026/10/boston-dynamics-employees-want-to-block-sale-of-robot-dogs-to-ice/