Contact Me By Email

Contact Me By Email

Saturday, July 18, 2026

Opinion | My Son Was Killed by ICE. I Want Accountability. - The New York Times

My Son Was Killed by ICE. I Want Accountability.

A photo shows a wooden dresser, atop which there are a number of photos of a boy at different ages.
Harmon Li for The New York Times

By Rachel Reyes

"Ms. Reyes is the mother of Ruben Ray Martinez, who was fatally shot by an ICE agent in March 2025.

This spring I watched Markwayne Mullin’s confirmation hearing to become the homeland security secretary. It was most likely the first confirmation hearing I ever watched. I have never been a political person.

I tuned in because Mr. Mullin’s words were of personal concern to me. In 2025 a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent killed my son, Ruben Ray Martinez, in Texas. He was 23 years old, a quiet, funny and gentle young man — and an unarmed United States citizen. He was shot nearly a year before federal agents killed two other Americans, Alex Pretti and Renee Good, in Minnesota and obviously well before the recent shootings of Lorenzo Salgado Araujo in Houston and Johan Guerrero in Maine. Yet many fewer people know Ruben’s name. The Department of Homeland Security, then under Secretary Kristi Noem, withheld the full details of his shooting from me and from the public.

It was not made public that an ICE agent was the one who shot my son until federal officials were forced to disclose that information because of an unrelated lawsuit.

I wanted to see evidence at his hearing that Mr. Mullin’s tenure would bring a more respectful, serious and transparent approach to America’s immigration enforcement, after the previous period so damaged public confidence in those efforts. I was let down then, and I continue to be let down. Over three months into Mr. Mullin’s tenure, there’s zero indication that Ruben’s death reverberated seriously within the Department of Homeland Security or that it would be treated as a serious test of departmental accountability. Mr. Mullin has not publicly acknowledged my son’s killing, much less explained what, if anything, the department has learned from the tragedy.

A photo shows a woman in a cream-colored top sitting on a bed, touching the bed spread.
Rachel Reyes made a quilt from Ruben’s favorite shirts and jerseys.Harmon Li for The New York Times

We should expect transparency and accountability from any administration — especially one that has claimed transparency as a governing principle. Like most other Americans, I believe immigration laws should be enforced. But we should not be asked to choose between enforcing the law and transparency when federal agents kill someone. The public deserves reliable facts. Families deserve honest answers. And the government should not have to be pressured into providing them.

Here’s what I know about what happened to my son: Ruben and his best friend, Joshua Orta, drove to South Padre Island to celebrate Ruben’s birthday. It was Ruben’s first trip away from San Antonio. He still lived at home while saving money from his job at an Amazon fulfillment warehouse. We were a close-knit family.

That weekend, Ruben and Josh did not tell me where they were going, probably because Ruben knew South Padre’s reputation as a party town and did not want me to worry. That was consistent with who he was: considerate, conflict-averse and reluctant to make himself the center of attention.

On what became his last night, Ruben was driving his car, with Josh in the passenger’s seat, when he approached the scene of a traffic accident at a busy intersection. For reasons that remain unclear, ICE agents were present and operating alongside local officers.

The video evidence, made public almost a year after Ruben’s death, is consistent with what Josh told me and others: He was trying to comply with conflicting directions from law enforcement about what to do. He was driving slowly and braking repeatedly and was not a threat to the officers. His car was in park when they pulled him out. An ICE agent, Jack Stevens, shot him at point-blank range through the open driver’s-side window multiple times. A toxicology report noted the presence of alcohol in Ruben’s system — which is obviously no justification for his death.

Josh said Ruben’s last words were “I’m sorry.”

The Texas Rangers investigated the shooting, and a grand jury declined to indict Mr. Stevens in February. We do not know what evidence the jury — which was closed to the public — did or did not see. A spokesperson from ICE told The Times that Ruben hit an agent with his car and that Mr. Stevens “fired defensive shots to protect himself” and his fellow agents. The spokesperson said that the shooting has been “investigated from every possible angle by an independent body, and it cleared our officer.”

What happened to Ruben deserves a more transparent response. The Department of Homeland Security should address the video evidence that raises questions about its public account, and implement safeguards to reduce the risk of another avoidable death.

These are basic expectations for any agency that sends armed officers into public spaces. ICE should have stronger rules about the use of body cameras and strict boundaries for when its agents become involved in local law-enforcement matters. It should more rigorously enforce its use-of-force standards. When a federal officer shoots and kills someone, there should be public reporting of what happened and temporary removal from field duty for the agent involved while the facts are examined. Those safeguards are not anti-law enforcement. They protect the public, responsible officers and the credibility of the agency itself.

No Americans who have experienced a tragedy like the one I have should struggle to obtain answers from their own government. The government’s dismissal and lack of accountability should concern everyone, regardless of political party.

Perhaps the Department of Homeland Security believes a lack of transparency is institutionally safer than candor. But secrecy does not strengthen law enforcement; secrecy weakens it. A government agency that will not fully explain a fatal shooting should not be surprised when citizens question its judgment.

Mr. Mullin may prefer to treat Ruben’s death as part of the department’s past. But when the government kills an unarmed citizen and then refuses to give a full public accounting, the matter is not past. It remains unresolved for my family and for any American who believes the government must be accountable when it takes a life."

Opinion | My Son Was Killed by ICE. I Want Accountability. - The New York Times

Friday, July 17, 2026

Georgia’s Senators Ridicule Trump’s Election Fraud Claims

 

Georgia’s Senators Ridicule Trump’s Election Fraud Claims

Georgia Senators Raphael Warnock and Jon Ossoff, both Democrats, have countered former President Trump’s false claims of election fraud in their 2020 victories. They argue that Trump’s claims are driven by his ego and efforts to undermine trust in the electoral process. Both senators emphasize their commitment to their constituents and dismiss Trump’s attempts to relitigate the past.

Senators in both parties say the state’s 2020 Senate election is a long-settled issue.

Warnock and Ossoff wave as they embrace with a crowd of people behind them.
Senators Raphael Warnock and Jon Ossoff at a campaign event last year.Mike Stewart/Associated Press

Georgia’s two Democratic senators didn’t wait for President Trump to try to undermine their legitimacy with false claims about their crucial election victories in 2020 that propelled Democrats to the Senate majority.

In interviews and social media posts, Senators Raphael Warnock and Jon Ossoff have aggressively countered a potential presidential claim that they did not win their seats fairly.

They acted after reports that the president would use a speech scheduled for Thursday evening to take aim at them, alleging widespread fraud in Georgia voting six years ago despite multiple inquiries that produced no evidence of wrongdoing.

The two senators and their Democratic allies have ridiculed the president’s fixation on his loss in 2020 and the accompanying Democratic victories as driven by the president’s fragile ego, his efforts to sow distrust about the coming election results and to pressure congressional Republicans to pass new voting restrictions.

“The world’s most famous sore loser will deliver a prime-time address to pursue his six-year-old grievances about the 2020 election while his war in the Middle East spirals out of control and the cost of living continues to rise for Americans,” Mr. Ossoff, who is up for re-election this year, said in advance of the speech. He said that any claim about the Georgia election would be an attack on the state’s voters and elected officials.

“If the president declares Georgia’s elections illegitimate, or if the president declares Georgia’s sitting United States senators illegitimate, he is declaring Georgia voters illegitimate,” Mr. Ossoff said.

Mr. Warnock also brushed off the president’s continued anger over the long-decided and certified election.

“The president can spend every day relitigating 2020 if he wants,” Mr. Warnock wrote on X in one of multiple posts challenging Mr. Trump, including one calling him a “liar, a cheater and a fraud.”

“I’ll spend every day doing the job the people of Georgia elected me to do,” Mr. Warnock wrote.

The 2020 Georgia race has long figured into the president’s claim that he won the election and was defrauded. He was indicted on charges that he illegally tried to overturn the results, though they were dropped after he was re-elected.

His efforts in Georgia were believed to have discouraged some Republican voters from turning out in runoff elections, as members of both parties said at the time, contributing to both Democrats’ winning on Jan. 5, 2021.

Senate Republicans learned that the two men had triumphed and given Democrats the majority while lawmakers were held in a secure area of the Capitol during the Jan. 6 rampage by Trump supporters.

Despite Mr. Trump wanting to revisit 2020, Senate Republicans made clear this week that they wanted little to do with his challenge to the Georgia senators and saw the exercise as a distraction from their efforts to build a legislative record to run on in November.

“The only thing I can tell you is we are focused on the 2026 election — at least I am, and I think most of my colleagues are,” said Senator John Thune, Republican of South Dakota and the majority leader. He dismissed questions about the legitimacy of the two Georgia Democrats.

“That election was a closed issue back in 2020,” he said. “The election in 2026 gives us an opportunity to take a run at and to win one of those seats in Georgia, and we’re going to do everything we can to do that.”

Members of both parties also said that they viewed the president’s speech as part of a campaign to force Republicans to change Senate rules and push through new voter identification requirements, even though Mr. Thune has said repeatedly that the votes do not exist in the Senate to move ahead.

Senate Democrats said they intended to aggressively counter the president’s claims. Senator Chuck Schumer, the New York Democrat and minority leader, said those claims were aimed at laying the groundwork for a presidential challenge to the results in the midterm elections.

“It’s about the election he’s afraid to lose this November,” Mr. Schumer said. “It’s about undermining the 2026 election before a single vote has been cast.”

Mr. Ossoff said Thursday that the president’s continuing focus on Georgia would only generate a backlash and boost Democrats.

“These attacks on voting rights are galvanizing a defiant determination to show up at the polls like never before,” he said. “Remember that Georgia is the seat and the spiritual and civic home of the civil rights movement and the movement that secured the Voting Rights Act.”

Mr. Ossoff added that “when Donald Trump and his allies come down to Georgia and attack voting rights, they’re just motivating people to participate in our democracy.”

Carl Hulse is the chief Washington correspondent for The Times, primarily writing about Congress and national political races and issues. He has nearly four decades of experience reporting in the nation’s capital.“

. Joy's Lindsey Graham Obit: He Was a Traitor and a Coward | The Joy Reid Show

 

Trump Didn't Want to Sign This Housing Bill (It Became Law Anyways)

 

Thursday, July 16, 2026

Trump makes unverified claims of ‘sinister election meddling’ in primetime address

 

Trump makes unverified claims of ‘sinister election meddling’ in primetime address

“In a primetime address, Donald Trump accused China of interfering with the 2020 election, claiming the US electoral process is vulnerable to foreign interference. He announced the declassification of intelligence revealing vulnerabilities in the election infrastructure and called for investigations into those who hid this information. Critics, including Vice President Kamala Harris, denounced Trump’s speech as a smokescreen for voter suppression and a means to interfere in the upcoming midterm elections.

Opponents warn president’s speech is smokescreen for him to meddle in upcoming congressional midterms

Trump in front of yellow curtain, speaking.
Donald Trump in the East Room of the White House in Washington DC on 16 July. Photograph: Saul Loeb/CNP Pool/Shutterstock

Donald Trump accused China of interfering with the 2020 election in a primetime televised address that laid bare his continuing obsession with his defeat to Joe Biden but which opponents warned was a smokescreen for him to meddle in the forthcoming congressional midterms.

In a 25-minute speech on Thursday that had been hyped by Trump himself, the US president cast extraordinary doubts on the integrity of the US electoral process, saying it was “catastrophically” short of standards of fairness and trust, while vulnerable to trespassing by foreign powers.

“No country can be great without fair and honest elections,” Trump said at the White House in an address that began with a familiar rehashing of his favorite campaign boasts, including claims of an unprecedentedly booming economy.

“If there can be no trust, there can be no greatness. Unfortunately, the system we have falls catastrophically short of that standard.”

As a prelude to his claims of interference by China, he went on: “Tonight, I’m announcing the immediate declassification and release of critical intelligence, revealing shocking vulnerabilities in our election infrastructure.”

He asserted that evidence showed the electoral system was “dangerously expose[d] … to hacking, exploitation and interference”.

Trump’s allegations have long been at odds with the views of officials who served in his first presidency, who concluded that the 2020 election was the most secure in the US’s history. However, Trump took issue with those findings, accusing intelligence agencies – whom he tarred as “the deep state” – of a deliberate coverup.

“Just as disturbingly, this vital information has for many years been covered up and hidden from you,” he said. “Those responsible for sounding the alarm instead kept the information secret and hidden. They did not disclose to me as president or to anyone else and, to the best of our knowledge, they did not inform Congress.

“In fact, all they kept saying is: ‘This is the most secure election in the history of our country.

“Today, I’m asking the director of the office of national intelligence, the Department of Justice, the FBI and the CIA to investigate how and why such crucial information was hidden, to fire those involved in the coverup and to file criminal charges, if appropriate, against those people.”

Trump recently installed a key ally, Bill Pulte, as acting director of national intelligence, despite the fact that he has no previous intelligence experience. Pulte, who used his previous position in charge of the federal housing finance agency to dig for evidence for retribution against Trump’s adversaries, is believed to have provided intelligence documents meant to validate the president’s claims of interference in the 2020 poll.

He spearheaded a drive to release previously classified documents along with John Solomon, a rightwing former journalist who has been active in spreading election conspiracy theories and was hired as a White House special adviser last month.

In Thursday’s speech, Trump repeated calls for the passage of the Save America Act, legislation requiring strict voter ID, which is currently stuck in Congress.

“Addressing this crisis of election security demands that Congress must pass the Save America Act,” he said. “How easy is that to do? Unless you want to cheat.”

The speech barely touched on the subject of Iran, despite coming just days after Trump jettisoned last month’s vaunted ceasefire deal and resumed ordering military strikes in an effort to loosen Tehran’s grip on the strait of Hormuz, which has been largely closed to commercial shipping since the start of the war on 28 February, causing global energy costs to soar.

“We are … winning big in Iran, and you will see the fruits of that labor very, very shortly,” he said in a reprise of previous claims that victory in the conflict was at hand.

Despite holding regular media briefings, Trump has delivered relatively few set-piece addresses from the White House – a stratagem frequently used by past presidents to convey messages deemed of paramount national importance.

The setting involves reading a set text from a teleprompter for a limited period, constraints at odds with Trump’s speaking style, which often deviates from a written script and meanders at length.

During Thursday’s address, Trump appeared at times to have difficulty following the syntax in the written text. He frequently adopted the sarcastic tone characteristic of his stump speeches.

Several networks, including NBC, ABC and CNN, declined to air the speech on their main broadcast networks, citing concerns that the content could be politically partisan or inflammatory. The move drew rebukes from Trump, who called for their broadcast licenses to be revoked. All three stations gave live coverage on their streaming services, and some ABC affiliates chose to air the speech.

Television networks are not legally obliged to grant a president’s request to air a speech live. Joe Biden and Barack Obama had requests for White House speeches to be broadcast live refused during their presidencies.

Even before Trump spoke, a succession of Democrats issued denunciations in the expectation that he would intensify his accusations about the 2020 election. Several said his focus on the past masked a more forward-looking agenda: to interfere in November’s congressional midterm elections, when Democrats will attempt to take control of the House of Representative and the Senate.

Leading the counterattack was Kamala Harris, the former vice-president and the defeated Democratic candidate in the 2024 presidential election, who – less than 20 minutes before Trump was due to speak – accused him of planning “to peddle lies and conspiracy theories”.

“Here is what you need to know: The 2020 election was not stolen; we won and he lost,” she wrote on social media. “The Save Act is voter suppression. It is part of a larger agenda of conservatives trying to steal power from the people.”

After the speech, critics doubled down.

“Tonight, Americans heard the president once again repeat claims about our elections that have been investigated for years and repeatedly rejected by the Intelligence Community, the FBI, DHS, DOJ, bipartisan state election officials, audits, recounts, and the courts. The facts have not changed,” said Mark Warner, a Democratic senator from Virginia.

“As Vice Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, I have spent years overseeing our nation’s efforts to defend against foreign meddling in our elections. China is a serious strategic competitor, and it absolutely seeks to advance its interests at America’s expense. So do Russia and Iran. We should confront those threats with facts, not distort them for political purposes.

You've read 14 articles in the last year

At this dangerous time

We hope you appreciated this article. Before you close this tab, we want to ask if you could support the Guardian at this dangerous time for journalism in the US.

According to a leading global watchdog, American democracy is now more imperiled than at any point since the 1960s, marked by a precipitous decline in press freedom – driven by mounting pressure from the Trump administration in the form of threats, criminal investigations, politicized regulation, frivolous lawsuits and, for public media, catastrophic funding cuts. 

Meanwhile, organizations that are supposed to be independent like the FBI and the FCC, our radio and television regulator, have also been targeting press freedom under Trump-aligned leadership, with the FBI raiding a reporter’s home and the FCC threatening ABC’s TV licenses after Jimmy Kimmel made a joke about Melania Trump.

The response from some ultra-wealthy and corporate media owners, keen to appease the president, has been chilling: CBS News has been taken over by a Trump ally; CNN is poised to be taken over by the same billionaire; Jeff Bezos has continued to impose cuts and editorial interventions at the Washington Post; and multiple outlets have settled multimillion-dollar lawsuits from the administration to protect their business interests.

Democracy is best served by a robust, thriving free press. But when that freedom is under attack, it falls to a determined few news organizations to ensure the full truth still reaches the public. Owned neither by a billionaire nor a corporation, the Guardian remains dedicated to covering this administration with uncompromising moral and factual clarity – and to keeping trustworthy journalism paywall-free for the world.“

Why the Trump Admin Tries to ERASE Black History

 

The Real Reason Trump Is Targeting Marginalized Communities

 

Wednesday, July 15, 2026

Opinion | Who Will Win the Midterms? Nate Silver and 5 Other Experts Have Thoughts. - The New York Times

Who Will Win the Midterms? 6 Pollsters and Pundits Make Educated Guesses.

With the midterm elections about four months off, ​Times Opinion asked six polling and politics experts to look into their crystal balls and guess who would win control of the House and the Senate if the elections were held today. These are not scientific computations but educated guesses from people who think a lot about politics.


Which party will control the House and the Senate?

To win a majority, 218 is the magic number in the House. Democrats would need to pick up at least four seats for control of the Senate.

+4D+3D+2D+1D+1R+2R+3R+4R +12D+10D+8D+6D+4D+2D+2R

Democratic Senate majority

Republican Senate majority

Democratic House majority

Republican House majority

Carlos Odio +10D House, Even Senate

Note: House scores are reported as seats over the 218 baseline needed for a majority.

As of today, almost all of our contributors believe the Democrats will gain control of the House but fall just short of a majority in the Senate. We also asked them to pick data points, races and candidates that capture the state of play in midterm contests across the country.

If the elections were held today …

Donald Trump’s dismal approval ratings would suggest a massive House defeat for the president’s party, similar to 2006, 2010 and 2018. But polarization and the sorting of the electorate (meaning fewer swing districts than in previous cycles) as well as the seats Republicans gained through redistricting will minimize G.O.P. House losses. For the Senate, North Carolina seems like a clear flip for Democrats. Maine is a real tossup — Susan Collins has a strong chance even against a Democrat without Graham Platner’s baggage. If you give Democrats both those seats, I still don’t see them winning more than one in the red states of Alaska, Iowa, Ohio and Texas — and the Democrats need four to take the majority.

Mr. Odio is a founder of Equis Research.

All signs point to a Democratic House majority. But there is a drag on Democrats keeping them from a larger tsunami. My informed suspicion is that groups that swung the most toward Trump in 2024 haven’t entirely turned against his party — yet. For a Senate majority, Democrats need to win in at least two states where Trump won by double digits. Even in the blue wave of 2018, only two incumbents (Jon Tester in Montana and Joe Manchin in West Virginia) did that. Today, I can see Democrats pulling off one miracle — but it’s too early to anticipate more. I still think Maine will move on from Susan Collins.

Mr. Ruffini is a pollster at Echelon Insights.

An election being fought on the G.O.P.’s home turf and in districts engineered not to be competitive means it will be hard for Democrats to translate a generic ballot advantage into large seat gains. Without mid-decade redistricting, the G.O.P. would be staring down a 25- to 30-seat loss. Still, the redrawn maps don’t insulate them from losing their majority. For the Senate, elections have become tightly coupled with state partisanship. A Democratic majority would require challengers to win in multiple red states, and the last time a nonincumbent won in a state the other party carried by 10 points or more was Doug Jones in Alabama in 2017. The last time a nonincumbent won in a regularly scheduled election was in 2012.

Mr. Silver writes the newsletter Silver Bulletin.

With the Democratic lead on the generic ballot (currently about D+6), you’d expect them to overcome the Republican advantage from redistricting. That could grow, because most polls right now are among registered voters, and Democrats are likely to have an enthusiasm advantage that will show up once there’s a switch to likely-voter polls. In the Senate, to win those four seats, Maine is a problem. There’s not much polling on non-Platner alternatives versus Collins, and any bridge burning by him on the way out could make it hard to unify around the new nominee. Coupled with the recent Times/Siena Senate polling, that makes for more combinations where Democrats come up short.

Ms. Swasey writes the newsletter Medium Data.

Democrats are very, very likely to win a House majority. They’re only a few seats shy, and midterm elections are highly thermostatic, with the president’s party losing seats in every midterm since 2002. The real question is if they can get a Senate majority to match it. I think not quite — the overall Democratic shift seems likely to sweep North Carolina, but past that you run into a wall of states with either unusually strong Republican candidates (Maine) or solid Trump margins (Ohio, Alaska, Texas, Iowa). The polling is so patchy that it’s hard to know which of those seats might flip.

Ms. Vavreck is a political scientist at U.C.L.A.

Political scientists have learned a lot about the regularities of congressional elections: Incumbents typically win, the president’s party usually loses seats in the off year, his or her approval rating is linked to the way races swing, and turnout matters. These factors mainly suggest Democrats should pick up seats in 2026 — but how many? Given how calcified, or stuck, our politics has become, I expect a modest Democratic pickup. At this stage, my rule was to examine the close races in each chamber and assume Democrats win the competitive seats they already hold, pick up close seats if they won them recently and otherwise lose.

Pay attention to these numbers

Trump’s slumping approval rating

JAN 21, '25 51.6%

TODAY 39.7%

39.7% JUL 12, '26

Source: Silver Bulletin

Ms. Swasey writes the newsletter Medium Data.

Midterms are a reaction to what the president is doing, and right now the president is doing poorly: Trump’s approval rating is below 40 percent. But we don’t have strong historical evidence on what happens with an approval rating like this. Pure correlation would suggest a big Democratic wave, but the Republican wave in 2022 was smaller than expected, on the back of a similarly low approval rating for Joe Biden. My guess is the relationship between approval ratings and midterm results isn’t linear, making 2026 a strong Democratic year but not a re-enactment of 2018.

Ms. Vavreck is a political scientist at U.C.L.A.

Changes in midterm election outcomes from cycle to cycle partly reflect changes in the way people think things are going in the country. Right now, that’s not good for Republicans. Polls also suggest more Americans see important differences between the two parties than ever before. So if Republicans are dismayed, they probably won’t vote for a Democrat — but maybe they stay home instead. There just aren’t that many swing voters, but the few who remain are deciding elections. If Trump’s approval rating improves among them, so will Republicans’ prospects.

Trump’s dismal marks on the economy

JAN 21, '25 42.0%

TODAY 35.2%

35.2% JUL 12, '26

Source: Silver Bulletin

Mr. Odio is a founder of Equis Research.

In his first term, Trump often enjoyed higher approvals on his handling of the economy than on his overall job performance. It was something of a safety net: Voters who didn’t like him for other reasons could say, “But the economy.” That net is gone. He is now regularly rated worse on the economy than on his overall job. What was a hidden strength is now an underlying weakness for him and his party, keeping them from bouncing back before the midterms. It could act as a tiebreaker in Democrats’ favor among less partisan voters.

Democrats are winning on the generic ballot

Net Democrats 

Net Republicans 

JAN 17, '25 +3.3R

TODAY +6.3D

+6.3D JUL 12, '26

Source: Silver Bulletin

Mr. Bacon is a staff writer at The New Republic.

Generic ballot is more useful than approval rating, because ultimately voters aren’t choosing between “I like Trump” and “I don’t like Trump” but between Republican and Democratic candidates. It’s particularly helpful in projecting results for the House, where Americans tend to vote by party, as opposed to the individualized way people evaluate Senate candidates. Democrats lead the generic ballot by about 6.2 points. On Election Day in 2010 and 2018, the out party (the G.O.P. in 2010, Democrats in 2018) led the generic ballot by around eight. A roughly six-point lead portends Democrats winning the House — but they need a few more points for a huge wave.

Mr. Silver writes the newsletter Silver Bulletin.

You can squint and say there’s been some slippage for Democrats on the generic ballot, but in our tracking it’s been pretty minor. They peaked at D+6.6, and now it’s around D+6.2. Some people might attribute that to stories of Democratic infighting in Maine, New York and Michigan — or that the World Cup is giving people a much-deserved break from politics. But my guess is the more likely factor is that gas prices have declined by about 75 cents from their peak.

Gas prices have spiked

JAN 6, '25 $3.17

TODAY $3.91

$3.91 JUL 6, '26

Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration

Mr. Ruffini is a pollster at Echelon Insights.

Inflation is a key indicator — and more to the point, gas prices. Figuratively and literally, gas prices are the scoreboard people drive by every day that tells them if things are going well or poorly in the economy. They’re also a decent barometer of whether Trump will have succeeded in extricating the country from the war in Iran. A national average price of $3.50 or lower — they are currently at about $3.90 — is probably table stakes for any chance that the G.O.P. has of exceeding expectations.

Keep an eye on these races

An Ohio comeback?

Mr. Bacon is a staff writer at The New Republic.

I have never understood why Ohio became decidedly Republican post-2012 while Michigan and Pennsylvania (similar states in many ways) did not. In 2024, Trump easily won there (11 points), while the Democrat Sherrod Brown, a skilled politician, lost to the newcomer Republican Bernie Moreno by four points. This year, Brown is seeking a return to the Senate and leads in some polls over Senator Jon Husted, who was appointed after JD Vance became vice president. I am intrigued (but still doubtful) that a Democrat can win Ohio again. And while I respect Brown, in this era of skepticism about Washington and career politicians, I am surprised a retread remains so competitive.

A Texas shift?

Mr. Odio is a founder of Equis Research.

Many Hispanic voters are souring on Trump, but it is still unclear how far back the clock can be rewound. To 2022? 2018? Among the seats to watch for that answer are Texas’ 15th Congressional District, which is 75 percent Hispanic by eligible population. Under the new lines of the district, Democrats would have won it before 2020 but lost it since. If Texas Hispanics vote in 2026 the way they did in 2018, Democrats will win this race. Our polling at Equis, including a national survey of Latino voters from May, suggests they’re not there yet. Part of how Democrats could get those levels of support is by running candidates that distinguish themselves from the generic Democratic brand. Bobby Pulido — a superpopular Tejano singer who plays quinceañeras and campaigns with slogans like “I’m not team red, I’m not team blue — I’m team you” — offers a strong example.

A Michigan test

Mr. Ruffini is a pollster at Echelon Insights.

Abdul El-Sayed’s Senate bid in Michigan may become the clearest test of whether this year’s progressive surge can survive contact with a swing-state electorate. The backlash to Joe Biden-era gerontocracy has raised Democratic primary voters’ appetite for risk and injected an unruliness into the party’s primaries that we are more used to seeing on the Republican side. If El-Sayed wins the nomination and then carries Michigan in November, progressives will treat it as proof that their brand can compete in a 2028 swing state. If he wins the primary and loses the general, it will be taken as evidence that the Democratic left flew too close to the sun and cost the party a very winnable Senate seat.

An Iowa sleeper

Mr. Silver writes the newsletter Silver Bulletin.

Iowa has been a little bit under the radar. But the Democratic candidate, the former Paralympian Josh Turek, is roughly in a tossup in polls against Representative Ashley Hinson. Democrats have been teased by Iowa polls before: People in my world still remember the Selzer poll that showed Kamala Harris winning the state late in the 2024 cycle (which led to Trump suing The Des Moines Register). But sometimes being below the radar is helpful. The race won’t attract as much money as, say, Texas, and Turek might not be as easy for Republicans to typecast as James Talarico.

A Kansas microcosm

Ms. Swasey writes the newsletter Medium Data.

The Kansas primaries for governor feature a pile of candidates on both sides, in an under-covered race. Unlike Maine, where Democratic candidates flocked to the gubernatorial primary to avoid the tricky Senate race, Kansas Democrats seem more excited about the long-shot Senate election than the (somewhat less long-shot) one for governor. The Democratic side features three candidates, all from the same county, and an endorsement by Gov. Laura Kelly that doesn’t seem to have moved the needle for her preferred candidate, Ethan Corson. The Republican side has six candidates, with the Trump endorsee and State Senate president Ty Masterson still feeling enough pressure to spend big on ads. It’s a microcosm of the dynamics of both parties: Republicans are grappling with the extent of Trump’s control over the party, and Democrats are watching the sway held by incumbents and party leadership degrade in real time.

A Pennsylvania bellwether?

Ms. Vavreck is a political scientist at U.C.L.A.

Josh Shapiro is on the ballot in November seeking a second term as governor of Pennsylvania, and I’m watching. It’s not a competitive race, but he’s a popular Democratic governor in a swing state (he won by 15 points in 2022), he has a national profile, and he’ll use all of this to try to swing Pennsylvania’s highly competitive Republican-held districts. If the Democrats pick up the Seventh and 10th Districts, they are probably on track for a House majority. If the Eighth District flips, they are expanding into working-class territory, raising the possibility that places like northeastern Pennsylvania remain open to Democrats like Shapiro. Results like these will deepen the conversation about the party’s post-2026 future — and Shapiro’s potential role in it.

The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.

Follow the New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, Bluesky, WhatsApp and Threads."

Opinion | Who Will Win the Midterms? Nate Silver and 5 Other Experts Have Thoughts. - The New York Times