Programming Notes: We regret how late this is, even by the recent Friday standards. We have been working all day long, planning out not only today's post, but the next four after that. And we have been testing our Election Day setup. It takes time.

On that note, we have so much news-related material, that we are going to do a news-focused post tomorrow, as if it is a weekday. Then, on Sunday, we'll have questions and letters. That is the only way to squeeze everything in.

DesperationWatch 2026, Part IV: Never Forget, both Parties Engage in Ratfu**ing

On Wednesday, when we promised this item was coming, we did not know that a big ratfu**ing story was just hours away from being piblished in The New York Times. Either we were prescient, or... ah, let's just assume we were prescient.

In any case, since the news broke that the Senate campaign of Mary Peltola (D) was behind the recruitment of the Dan Sullivan who is not a senator, with an eye toward costing the Dan Sullivan who is a senator some votes, there has been much gnashing of teeth and rending of garments by Republicans. Donald Trump, ever the fan of democracy in action, wants Peltola to be thrown off the ballot and criminally charged. The leadership of the Department of Justice, which knows full well what its main job is (see below), has issued a new wave of subpoenas. Gov. Mike Dunleavy (R-AK) has launched an investigation. House Oversight Chair James Comer (R-KY) said he will launch an investigation, as well.

Readers don't need us to tell them this, but we'll say it anyhow: This is all grandstanding. It serves at least three purposes: (1) to further get the word out to Republican voters in Alaska to fill their ballots out properly; (2) to get the message out that Democrats cheat during elections and (3) to distract from other stories, like how the Iran War is killing Republicans at the polls. All of these people (well, maybe not Trump) know full well no law was broken here.

Now, the scheme certainly was political malpractice. It is improbable that the scheme will cost the real Dan Sullivan a meaningful number of votes. Obviously, whatever campaign staffer was behind it expected that both Dan Sullivans would be listed on the ballot in a similar fashion, which is not what happened. But even if the scheme had worked to perfection, it depends on Republican voters not only making a mistake, but also being too lazy or careless or dumb to finish filling out their ranked-choices. Was it really plausible that a decisive number of Republicans would have done so? And the potential benefits of such a scheme have to weighed against the potential costs, namely "What happens if the scheme is uncovered? How will people react?"

And that brings us to a letter we got after we first wrote up the Peltola story:

You wrote:

Parties often recruit candidates. In primaries, it is not unusual for parties to (financially) support someone on the other team who they think would be a weak general-election opponent. This kind of stuff is actually the original use of the thing we call rodent reproduction. Republicans did it this year in a couple of Democratic House primaries, for example. It is scuzzy, but perfectly legal, to contribute to a candidate who you think is a weak opponent to your candidate. In fact, there have been many primaries where a Democrat switched his or her registration to Republican in order to vote for a crazy fringe candidate, and vice versa.

Do you sincerely believe that what the Times uncovered is nothing more than the "original use of ... rodent reproduction"? Seems to me that there is a major difference spending money to boost the chances of a weaker candidate in the opposing party's primary and actively recruiting/engineering a campaign that is designed to confuse voters/frustrate their intent. I know that Alaska has put some guardrails in to mitigate that confusion but whether they succeed in their goal is beside the point. The issue is whether this crosses the line from ratfu**ing to... rat necromancy? Ratattouing?

Either way, playing it off as just something both sides do hits my ear as blue-hued version of red-hat cognitive dissonance. I hope you'll address it less reflexively and more reflectively in a future post.

We are not including the name of this author, in part, because they did not include it. And in part, because we are about to argue the entire complaint is nonsense.

To start with, the "two candidates with the same name" thing is an old bit, one that antedates the emergence of the term "ratfu**ing" by multiple generations. Perhaps the most famous example is a House election in 1946, where the Republican candidate was a man named Joe Russo. The Democrats really, really wanted to win that election. That includes, in particular, the campaign manager for the Democrat who was running. That manager had the idea that his candidate had a very bright future ahead of him. So, the campaign manager recruited another Joe Russo to run as an independent. The second Russo was compensated handsomely for his... efforts, we suppose? It didn't end up mattering, though, as the fake Russo got 1,000 votes and the Democrat ended up winning by 22,000 votes.

Readers who took note of the year, and perhaps who know that Massachusetts was long-notorious for dirty tricks, might have guessed by now that the campaign manager was Joseph P. Kennedy Sr., and the candidate he was boosting was his son John F. And Joe learned the trick from his dad, who was also John F., and was known as "Honey Fitz." You don't get a nickname like that without being a slimy operator, and Honey Fitz often recruited same-name candidates to make sure his machine-backed people won their elections.

And while the Kennedys are the most famous example, there are plenty of others involving same-name or very-similar-name candidates. It's happened a lot in New York City, including several cases within the memory of people reading this. There have been citywide elections with John C. Liu and (fake recruit) Jay C. Liu, Vito Lopez and (fake recruit) Victor Lopez, and José Rivera and (fake recruit) José L. Rivera. There was also a House election with José E. Serrano and (fake recruit) Jose E. Serrano (note missing accent from the faker's first name, which was just enough to allow him to be listed under that name). Just a few years ago, there was a state Senate race in Florida with two Alex Rodriguezes (and neither of them were the famous baseball player, though A-Rod's former teammate, Mark Teixeira, is about to be elected to Congress). More recent still, there was a House race in Pennsylvania with two Mike Doyles.

More importantly, we cannot accept the assertion that the "same name" bit is a different level of dishonesty than other such shenanigans. When the Nixon flunkies first coined the term "ratfu**ing," they used it to refer to dirty tricks in general. But today, it is generally used to refer to a very specific kind of dirty trick, namely a person or group posing as something they definitely are not, in order to try to get unfriendly voters to withhold their vote or to waste their vote on a non-viable candidate. We're going to run down some of the ratfu**ing of this sort that is taking place at this very moment, and we do not see any sort of meaningful distinction between these tricks and the stupid stunt Peltola's campaign pulled. They're all trying to achieve the same basic thing in the same basic way.

When we promised this item was coming, we put out a call for reports from readers. And we're going to start with the example that we got more e-mails about than any other. Many Ohio voters have gotten this flier in the mail; it appears to come from the campaign of Socialist Party U.S. Senate candidate Greg Levy:

Levy is furious about the flier because he is not behind it, and he says it mocks him and misrepresents his positions. The actual source of the flier is Enough Promises Ohio PAC, which is affiliated with Donald Trump's MAGA Inc. PAC. In total, Enough Promises Ohio has spent over $1 million to promote Levy's campaign. The actual Levy campaign has spent a little over $100,000.

There's also at least a little bit of ratfu**ing going on in the state's gubernatorial race. One of Vivek Ramaswamy's (R) biggest media backers is Buckeye Bulletin, which has published many flattering items about Ramaswamy, and which has vigorously defended the sleazy Amy Acton ad. The outlet bills itself thusly:

Buckeye Bulletin is about strengthening local connection. Inspired by Ohio's identity and resilience, we strive to reflect the perspectives and experiences of the communities we serve. As we grow, we remain committed to reliable journalism, strong editorial standards, and a distinctly Ohio-driven voice.

Not hardly. The Buckeye Bulletin is actually funded by the Lincoln Club, a conservative advocacy group based in California.

There is a slightly different strategy in use in the Michigan U.S. Senate race. For several months now, a group called Democrats for Mike Rogers has been producing fliers and airing commercials in which people claim that Democratic candidate Abdul El-Sayed is a dangerous radical, with the result that while they (the people speaking in the fliers/commercials) might be Democrats, they are going to have to vote for the Republican Rogers. Democrats for Mike Rogers is, in fact, a Republican PAC, funded by one prominent local Republican, and several other donors who reside in Tennessee. The "Democrats" in the ads are actors and/or stock art.

Maybe it's something in the water, but there's a similar scam going on next door, in Wisconsin. There, the responsible PAC is the Progressive Alliance of Wisconsin. It's been sending out lots of copies of this flier, which is meant to enrage lefty voters, and cause them to skip the gubernatorial election rather than vote for Democrat David Crowley (since there is no third-party option on the ticket):

Funding for this one actually comes from a group registered in Chicago, and funded by The Classen Group, a Republican organization based in Oklahoma.

And since we just mentioned Oklahoma, let's move south to Texas. Latino voters in the Rio Grande valley are up for grabs. The area used to be highly Democratic, but many of the residents of the area voted for Donald Trump in 2024. Now many have soured on him on account of the deportations. One of the House races expected to be the closest, despite the mid-cycle redistricting, is in TX-34, which always included Brownsville and McAllen but now also goes north to the conservative Corpus Christi. Currently the incumbent is Vicente Gonzalez (D). The district used to be D+9 but the redistricting this cycle made it R+3. This is a typical potential dummymander district.

Gonzalez is being challenged by Eric Flores and it is getting nasty. One of his ads shows Gonzalez at a backyard cookout, handing out meager portions to disappointed guests to emphasize the high price of food.

Here is where it gets ugly:

You might think that Flores paid for the billboard to show off Trump's endorsement and his support for ICE. Actually, no. The Democrats put up the billboard—to show off Flores' endorsement by the exceedingly unpopular Trump.

We'll end with another example from Texas, this one (fairly) statewide, and going in the opposite direction. Over 3 million mailers like this one have arrived in the mailboxes of Texas voters in the last few weeks:

It's a little hard to read, but it is meant to look like helpful advice for trans teenagers, giving them some resources for support, but also some information about how to transition without their parents knowing.

The mailer uses a lot of information purloined from the Transgender Education Network of Texas, which is a real and legitimate organization. But it actually purports to come from the Texas Transgender Student Union (TTSU). TTSU is not a real and legitimate organization. It is a PAC headquartered in Wyoming, and run by Republicans.

We write above that all of these tricks, starting with Peltola, are equally sleazy. That's not entirely correct. We would say that of everything addressed here, the one thing that is in a different category than the rest is the trans mailer. All the other stuff is basically misusing information to try to fool (mostly) low-information voters. The trans mailing, by contrast, could cause anti-trans parents to do some very problematic things if they believe that the mailer was somehow instigated by their kid. Various forms of abuse, not to mention expulsion from the household, are not at all out of the realm of possibility. Similarly, if a closeted trans kid incorrectly thinks they've been outed, there is a risk of running away and/or committing suicide. Remember, 40% of trans people have attempted suicide at some point in their lives.

We'll finish up by noting that this item is not exhaustive. We don't want to beat folks over the head with too many examples, but there are also ratfu**ing fliers or ads in wide circulation in Nebraska, Massachusetts, Kansas, Florida, Mississippi, and other places.

Notice that, the ratfu**ers are mostly Republicans (and this statement would not cease to be true if we included the other states). From this, we draw two conclusions. First, consistent with the overall theme of this series, the GOP is feeling desperate right now. Ratfu**ing is not always an act of desperation, but it usually is. Second, all the pearl-clutching, from Donald Trump on down, is a load of bull cookies. They have absolutely no objection to dirty tricks, except when the trickster is a Democrat.

Finally, our thanks to readers D.M. in Cleveland, OH; D.T. in Columbus, OH; E.C.F. in Somerville, MA; E.J. in Columbus, OH; J.E. in San Jose, CA; R.B. in Cleveland, OH; R.H. in San Antonio, TX and T.K. in Akron, OH for their help in putting this item together. (Z, V & A)

Legal News: For Trump's DoJ, Weaponization Is Job Number One

The DoJ continues its rampage against Donald Trump's perceived political adversaries, even though it's being continuously thwarted by grand juries and federal judges. There is one small, but recurring, problem: The cases are bogus and have no legal basis.

First up are the Comeys, who are proving to be more-than-worthy adversaries of a president who is obsessed with abusing the powers of his office, along with the vast resources of the Department of Justice, to attack anyone who has dared criticize him or anyone associated with someone who has criticized him. Maurene Comey, a respected and talented federal prosecutor who successfully prosecuted cases against Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell, was summarily fired in July 2025. Her offense was that she is the daughter of James Comey, the former FBI director who dared to resist Trump's attempted weaponization of the FBI and DoJ in his first term. She sued for wrongful termination because, as a career prosecutor, she is protected by federal law that prohibits turning bureaucrats into political cronies.

On Monday, a district court ruled in Comey's favor on both statutory and constitutional grounds, finding that the government had violated due process, separation of powers principles, and federal administrative law. The judge awarded her back pay. Given that Trump and agency heads have emptied departments of civil servants, this victory will probably encourage more of those servants to challenge their firings. The government has said it will appeal and no doubt this will wind up in front of the Supreme Court, where there's no telling how the Republican majority will rule. Given their support for the unitary executive theory and their rulings allowing Trump to summarily fire independent agency heads, they could find that Congress doesn't have the authority to limit the president's ability to fire anyone. In that case we'd return to the spoils systems that the legislature enacted laws to combat. In fairness, that was a mere 150 years ago, so we really don't have much evidence that such laws week. Anyhow, for now, chalk one up for another Comey.

As for James Comey, mere hours after Maurene won in court, a new charge against him was unsealed by a federal judge. The new charge accuses him of leaking national security information. In case you're wondering if this case is as weak as the sea shells case or the perjury case that was thrown out, the DoJ did not manage to get a grand jury indictment. Instead, they filed what's called a "criminal information" under seal earlier this month. They can't proceed unless and until they get a grand jury indictment, and Comey's lawyers are saying that the 10-year statute of limitations ran on October 5, when the document was filed. The charge stems from a New York Times article from October 5, 2016, about a surveillance warrant issued secretly to Yahoo to search for e-mails related to a terrorist organization. The DoJ claims that Comey directed staff to contact the Times to correct some inaccuracies in a different article about the case and revealed classified information. Comey's lawyers say this was investigated in Trump's first term and no wrongdoing was found.

Once again, the DoJ had to recruit lower level prosecutors from Texas and Florida to sign off on this garbage, alongside Trent McCotter. McCotter, who is listed as the Acting Deputy Attorney General, also signed off on the last-ditch effort to interfere in California's elections. Between Stanley Woodward and him, they have become the go-to stooges for Trump-related prosecutorial abuse.

The feds also continue to pursue other former underlings who dared to cross Trump. Cassidy Hutchinson, former White House aide, went to the top of Trump's enemies list when she told Congress what she had been told and what she had witnessed regarding Trump's behavior on January 6, 2021. Earlier this week, a grand jury rejected an indictment federal prosecutors brought to charge her with perjury over her Congressional testimony about Trump's role in the attack on the U.S. Capitol on January 6. Prosecutors inside the DoJ had warned that the evidence was insufficient to charge her with a crime but that hasn't stopped the office from carrying out Trump's retribution campaign. So, they continue to get humiliated by grand juries who expect evidence that a crime has been committed. And grand juries sit for months and hear multiple cases, so the more the DoJ keeps bringing these weak cases, the harder it will be for them to secure indictments, even when it doesn't involve Trump's adversaries.

Interestingly, or ominously, the Hutchinson case was brought by the Civil Rights Division, which is Harmeet Dhillon's. She seems to have appointed herself as Trump's muscle. Needless to say, the mission of the Civil Rights Division does not include bringing trumped-up (Trumped-up?) charges against those perceived to be disloyal to the king. The revelation about the non-indictment came about in an unexpected way. During a recess in a hearing in a different criminal case, also involving bogus charges against former FBI agents (keep reading), Neville Hedley, the acting senior litigation counsel (is anyone serving without an "acting" title in any of these positions?), walked in to tell the magistrate judge Zia Faruqui that the grand jury had issued a no true bill or a "non-concurrence." Hedley did not identify the defendant but the press who were assembled for the hearing in the agents' case quickly figured out who it was and reported it.

The hearing that Faruqui was presiding over involves Trump's relentless pursuit of former FBI agents over—wait for it—Hunter Biden's laptop. Are we really supposed to believe that this administration is concerned about a president's relative potentially profiting off the presidency? Do they really want to highlight that issue? Right before an election where Trump's corruption is front and center? Apparently, yes... yes, they do. And they also want to highlight their mind-boggling incompetence. Once again, they've managed to piss off a federal judge with underhanded and unlawful behavior.

As with the latest Comey case, former FBI agents Nikki Floris and Bradley Benavides were charged with a criminal information instead of an indictment. And it was signed by a prosecutor from Missouri who then tried to add a new charge without getting the judge's approval or securing an indictment. Faruqui, a federal magistrate judge, was not amused and warned that the prosecutor's behavior made it seem as though the case was brought for an "ulterior motive." She added: "Everything you are doing is just giving me more and more concern... Why today, in this case, have you changed the entire history of how you charge cases?" The judge threw out the new complaint. He also noted the agents' stellar record and that they each won multiple awards while serving at the FBI. One FBI agent testified at the hearing and called the case a "distraction" from his public corruption cases.

The hearing on the motion to dismiss continued into a second day on Wednesday, with defendants' attorneys questioning current FBI agents about the origins of the investigation. Even if the DoJ gets past this stage, they still need to secure an indictment from a grand jury, which they are clearly having trouble doing. The clown show continues. (L)

Local Bytes: Early Voting Is Their Cup of Tea

A recurrent theme in the Local Bytes reports we've gotten is that people are voting early, and noticing signs of a lot of enthusiasm this year:

 

B.C. in Phoenix, AZ, writes: On Tuesday, I filled out my mail-in ballot and early the next day I helped my wife and son complete theirs. Some years I take our ballots down to the polls on Election Day, but this year I decided to early vote. So, on Wednesday, I chose the polling venue of the Paradise Valley Town Hall.

Paradise Valley is a suburb just northeast of Phoenix. About 13,000 people live there; around 83% of them are white, and I would bet at least 85% of them are stupid-rich. The primary industries are top-tier hotels, golf resorts, and... top tier hotel golf resorts.

You get an idea of the true affluence of the place when you pull into the town hall's parking lot and note that virtually every parking space is covered parking. Don't want them poor golfing Snowbirds from Chicago and New York to be exposed to the brutal sun of the 74*F high temperature it can get to on Christmas Day in Phoenix! Anyway, I parked my ratty 11-year-old Japanese ride next to an Audi Q8 on one side and new Toyota must-be-a-servant's Camry on the other, and went inside.

I was directed to a set of double doors on my left where a very pleasant young lady noticed that I had three mail-in envelopes and asked if one of those ballots is mine. I nodded and she instructed me to hold on to my ballot and put the other two into the box slot. After I did that, she pointed me towards another gal who asked for a valid ID. When I showed her my driver's license, she compared it to the voter information on the envelope before scanning a code on the envelope. Information popped up on a screen, and after I confirmed it is my name, address, etc., she touched the screen again so that an electronic sign in box appeared in which I could scribble my name. She then tapped the screen one last time, told me my ballot had been verified and thanked me for voting.

When I pulled up the Maricopa County elections site the next day and entered my information, it said "FINAL NOTIFICATION: Your ballot has been accepted for processing and will be counted." My wife's information that day said "Your ballot was mailed to you." Once they confirm her signature, her ballot will be counted.

I really liked the process. I could have voted without having to pull out any ID, which would simply mean I would have to wait until the ballot was verified. Or I could do what I did, and present my ID at the polling place and verify my ballot right then and there. The key is I had a choice, and isn't that what voting is all about?

---

 

C.J. in Burke, VA, writes: I found the letter bout early voting from N.K. in Cleveland Heights very interesting. N.K. mentioned that Cuyahoga County has only one early voting site. I live in Fairfax County, VA, and work early voting there. The two counties are about the same size in terms of population, and Cuyahoga is about 17 percent larger in area. Here, we have three early voting sites spread throughout the county, open 45 days before the election. Another 13 voting sites throughout the county open about 10 days before the election. Turnout is up significantly from the previous midterms, and we get relatively short lines from time to time, but no one has to wait 20 or 40 minutes (at least, not where I work). I applaud N.K. for taking the experience so well. Oh, and we also love to yell "first-time voter!" It is the most "fun" we have, embarrassing the young first-timers, and sharing the joy and pride of the older first-timers.

---

 

J.H. in Monroe County, NY, writes: My husband and I went to vote early on Sunday afternoon. There are 15 early voting locations in Monroe County, home of Rochester, NY. We are grateful to have such easy access to early voting. On Monday, the Monroe County Board of Elections reported that early voter turnout for 2026 was matching that of 2024, a presidential year! We witnessed it ourselves on Sunday. When early voting in the past, or even voting on Election Day, we have rarely, if ever, had to wait in any kind of a line, but this time we did! With no truly competitive races on our ballot (two of the offices on our ballot have Democrats running unopposed), people are still clearly very engaged and motivated to vote this year. Hopefully that bodes well for areas where there are important, competitive races on the ballot.

---

 

K.C. in Louisville, KY, writes: It's only anecdotal evidence, but... early in-person voting opened today (Thursday) in Kentucky. We're still fairly new at this early voting thing, having only done it since the pandemic.

When I arrived at my polling place, I was shocked to see a line out the door. I have never seen such a thing, even in a Presidential election year.

Talking with other people in line, it was clear enthusiasm is huge this year. Every person I talked to said they couldn't wait for a chance to vote.

Considering we have only one statewide race this year (which is not competitive), this leaves me wondering about turnout in other places which actually matter.

---

 

M.W. in Braddock Heights, MD, writes: I early voted in Frederick County, in western Maryland, on Monday. I went with three of my roommates, all of whom thought there was going to be a problem voting. One thought their ID needed to match the address of where they are registered. I kept telling them they are registered and they will not be disenfranchised while I am around. We were in and out in less then 5 minutes with no problem. This particular polling place is in the rural part of Frederick County, and every poll worker was looking at us, as we were four noticeably Transgender Women. I don't think they had ever seen a transperson they knew was trans before in their life. They were respectful and followed the law, which is all I can ask for.

The shills in the parking lot, just outside the range they are legally required to have to be beyond the polling place, didn't even try to converse with us. they were for Dan Cox's (R) campaign for governor, I believe. Part of me loves that they don't try to convince me, knowing it is a lost cause. I don't even listen to their ideas anymore. The Republican Party would have to acknowledge my right to exist and stop their war on the LGBTQQI community for me to change my position. Not likely to happen.

---

 

P.W. in Springwater, NY, writes: In ruby-red NY-24, the race actually seems a bit competitive this year. Because I'm an election worker, and not always posted to my district on election day, I often vote early. It's usually relatively quiet—in and out in less than 15 minutes#8212;so I take whichever service puppy I'm raising with me:

It's a great socialization experience since it's a new environment, with just enough voters to practice people greetings and a short amount of time to practice sitting quietly while I complete the ballot. I decided to vote early, just to give Kaylie that experience.

The early voting poll site was the busiest I've ever seen. There was a constant flow of people going in and out, the area inside the doors was crowded, and although Kaylie wasn't too overwhelmed, it was clear that standing in line in that crowd would have been too much of a challenge for an exuberant 4½ month old puppy. We never made it to the actual polls—instead, we practiced people watching (i.e., taking in everything around her without her running up to, and jumping on, every person she saw).

I'm hoping that the increased turnout means more voters who used to skip non-presidential years, as well as new voters, are becoming engaged in this important civic responsibility. Our democracy needs that. And even though Kaylie didn't get to "vote," I'll be able to vote Tuesday, since this year I am stationed in my precinct.

Wishing everyone a happy Election Day!

We swear that we did not coordinate that last letter and the schadenfreude today. It just worked out that way. (Z)

I Read the News Today, Oh Boy: M*A*S*H Was Robert Altman's Attempt to Make a Jean-Luc Godard Film

The famous 1970 film M*A*S*H, which led to the even more famous TV series of the same name, was roundly praised by critics when it came out, with many of them commenting on how new and different the style of the movie was (in particular, the documentary feel, jump cuts, and use of overlapping dialogue). And the film was pretty new and different among American films. But those who were paying attention to world cinema would have noticed that M*A*S*H was very obviously channeling the 1965 Jean-Luc Godard film Pierrot le Fou. Certainly, Godard noticed it, which is what led the two filmmakers to collaborate, along with others, on the much less successful Aria (1987). There is approximately one of these "different directors each direct a segment" films that actually worked out well, and Aria was not the one (How the West Was Won was).

We had two hints last week, as we usually (but not always) do. The first was "the theme is very timely. Like, within the last 24 hours, as of the moment that we publish this. Maybe even the last 12 hours." The second was "We really wanted to work M*A*S*H into a headline, but just couldn't swing it."

And here is the solution, courtesy of reader D.D. in Bucks County, PA:

In this spooky season, with the jack-o'lantern trying not to "scare it"self, this week's headlines all contain the names of movies and TV shows with the recently deceased Tom Skerritt:

• Polling, Part I: Another Pollster Goes Up in Smoke—Up in Smoke
• Polling, Part II: With Experience Comes Wisdom—Wisdom
• Legal News: Republicans Go for Broke on Voter Suppression—Broke
• Political Bytes, National Edition: Basic Human Decency Really Is Alien to Trump—Alien
• I Read the News Today, Oh Boy: Lusitania Survivor Frank "Lucky" Tower Wasn't So Lucky—Lucky
• This Week in Schadenfreude: Trump Is No Longer FIFA's Top Gun—Top Gun
• This Week in Freudenfreude: Hopefully This Cheers up Acton, Omar—Cheers

And here's a question: Is Tom Skerritt the only actor to be in two movies that are an anagram of each other? (Swing and Wings)

There certainly can't be many actors for whom that is true.

We finally got M*A*S*H in there, in this item's headline. And note that we are generally tolerant of answers that are in the right ballpark. So, for example, we accepted "Tom Skerritt movies," even though Cheers is a TV show. However, it was necessary to mention Skerritt.

Here are the first 60 readers to get it right:

M.B. in Albany, NY M.W. in Altea, Spain T.V. in Dinwiddie, VA R.H.O. in Portland, ME P.S. in Atlanta, GA M.T. in Simpsonville, SC R.H. in Cleveland, OH S.G. in Durham, NC P.Q. in Metuchen, NJ J.T. in Philadelphia, PA S.K. in Ardmore, PA M.M. in Dunellen, NJ R.S. in Landing, NJ S.K. in Bethesda, MD C.B. in Lakeville, MN D.D. in Highland Park, IL D.E. in High Springs, FL P.A. in Redwood City, CA B.C. in Manhattan Beach, CA D.B. in Pottstown, PA R.P.E.H in London, England, UK J.C. in Carmel, IN L.D. in Bedford, MA J.M.R. in Muncie, IN G.S. in Basingstoke, England, UK B.F. in Baltimore, MD E.A. in York, PA T.K. in Manchester, MO M.S. in Canton, NY P.H. in Ft Lauderdale, FL

K.H. in Albuquerque, NM M.C. in Valley, NE M.S. in Highland Park, IL C.W. in Atlantic Beach, FL S.S. in San Diego, CA M.T. in Wheat Ridge, CO W.V. in Hemet, CA I.H. in Occupied DC J.H. in Flint, MI C.O. in Marion, IA D.M. in Grand Rapids, MI R.B. in Richmond, VA M.K. in Forest Hills, NY P.H. in Bozeman, MT T.K. in Half Moon Bay, St. Kitts K.M. in Ypsilanti, MI C.A. in Richmond, VA M.K. in Long Branch, NJ E.B. North Liberty, IA S.B. in Palm Harbor, FL B.A. in Sioux Falls, SD H.B. in Santiago, Chile R.S. in Milan, OH B.S. in Ottawa, ON, Canada L.F. in Webster Groves, MO D.M. in Austin, TX J.M. in Arvada, CO D.L. in Uslar, Germany B.R. in Arlington, MA J.H. in Lake Forest, CA

The 60th correct response was received at 7:27 a.m. PT on Friday.

For this week's theme, it relies on one word in some headlines, multiple words in others, and it's in the category Entertainment. For a hint, we'll say we don't like to repeat the same "bit" in close proximity, but sometimes events are beyond our control.

If you have a guess, send it to comments@electoral-vote.com with subject line October 30 Headlines. (Z)

This Week in Schadenfreude: Claiming There Is Voter Fraud Does Not Make It So

Reader D.E. in Lancaster, PA gave us a heads-up about a story that isn't getting much attention, even though it's a more serious offense than the Mary Peltola story (see above) that is sucking up so much oxygen. In the end, one person (allegedly) did something illegal, the other did not.

The would-be lawbreaker in this case is conservative activist James O'Keefe, who partnered with a social media personality named Cam Higby to "prove" that voter fraud is easy to pull off. The pair decided to make their point by taking advantage of a Minnesota law that allows one voter in a precinct to "vouch" for the identity of another voter. This is obviously meant to allow people who might not have ID (e.g., poor farmers) to exercise their right to vote.

We suppose it is possible that O'Keefe and Higby might have been successful, if they'd played things close to the vest. But since the purpose here is performative, they had to turn it into a show. So, they dressed in Muslim garb, including a niqab (face covering) for one of them, to cast their phony votes. We guess they were going for a three-fer: Democrats are trans, Muslim and fraudsters. And note that we recognize that cross-dressing does not actually mean "trans," but we also know that people like O'Keefe and Higby think it does.

The duo filmed their stunt and put it up on social media, which guaranteed they would be caught. That said, they might have been caught anyhow, since: (1) normal voters do not make a point of filming their trip to the polling place and (2) normal voters do not collect their ballot, then choose not to vote and not to sign the ballot. O'Keefe and Higby did not vote/sign because they believed that they would not be guilty of a crime until they applied their John Smallcocks Hancocks. They were wrong about that, and now they have been indicted.

There's also a similar story that's made some news in southern California. A woman named Laura Lee Yourex is also a Republican and also believes that it's easy to commit voter fraud. So, she signed up her dog to receive ballots as an absentee voter. The scheme actually did work in 2021, in the California recall election. It did not work in 2022, when a tipster warned authorities that Maya Jean Yourex is a dog and not a human. And when Laura posted pictures of Maya to social media, with completed ballot and "I Voted" sticker, that was enough to trigger criminal charges.

In contrast to O'Keefe and Higby, Yourex's case has already been adjudicated. She agreed to a plea deal that required her to pay for four billboards like this one:

The dog pictured is, in fact, Maya.

There have been a fair number of stories like this in the Trump era: Republican activist tries to commit voter fraud, gets caught. We would say they are actually helping to prove the opposite point of the one they intended to prove. (Z)

This Week in Freudenfreude: Talk about a Worthy Enterprise

North Carolina has been particularly aggressive in strategically eliminating polling sites, ostensibly in the service of "budget concerns." The real goal, of course, is to make it harder for certain Democratic-leaning constituencies to vote. And the reason that North Carolina is in the vanguard, as it were, is that while the state's population is roughly evenly divided between Republicans and Democrats, the state Senate is 60% Republicans, the state House is 59% Republicans, and the state Supreme Court is 71% Republicans. Keeping Democrats from voting is the most effective way for the GOP to hold onto a disproportionate share of power.

In previous elections, college students have been able to vote at polling places on campus. However, a bunch of those were removed for this election, at the behest of the legislature. That includes the polling places at North Carolina A&T, University of North Carolina at Greensboro, Western Carolina University, Bennett College and Elon University. Is it a coincidence that those schools all have above-average Black enrollment? Of course not. Student votes are disproportionately Democratic, Black student votes even more so.

Someone who has studied their history, even cursorily, might be leery of mucking around with students from the city of Greensboro, in particular. That was a hotbed of Civil Rights Movement protest and was, of course, the site of a very famous lunch counter sit-in. But today's Republican politicians don't study their history. Actually, it's more accurate to say that they actively try to rewrite history. Something else they have in common with the Soviet Union.

Anyhow, the spirit of protest has not waned at those universities. And so, the campus College Democrats chapters, backed by the Michelle Obama-founded When We All Vote, filed suit in February, asserting that the choices made by the legislature are discriminatory and violate the Fifteenth Amendment and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The wheels of justice turn slowly, however, and so the lawsuit is still waiting for adjudication.

This being the case, students at all four schools moved on to Plan B. They have founded an organization called Protect Ours, which runs shuttles that take students to the polls. Many students, including most who live on campus, don't have cars, and the nearest polling places are located multiple miles away.

On top of that—keep in mind what we said about the spirit of protest—campus leaders organized a demonstration on the first day of early voting, which was October 15. On each campus, several hundred students marched from their campus to their nearest polling place, while news cameras captured the scene:

The spirit of Martin Luther King Jr. is alive and well in North Carolina. And given the raison d'être of this site, we struggle to think of any story that is more worthy of freudenfreude than people demanding their right to vote, especially young people.

Have a good weekend, all! (Z)

Today's Senate Polls

The polls are coming fast and furious now; the speed-up is a little later than we would have liked. Mostly good news here for Democrats, except those Democrats who are really hoping to flip South Carolina. That said, it's just one poll and that state is clearly in play. Further, and we've written something like this a couple of times recently, if you told the Democrats they would win Kansas/Maine/Michigan/Texas, but at the expense of South Carolina, they'd take that deal every day and twice on Sunday.

Meanwhile, here is a question: Is it worse to expect a good Election Day, and to be sorely disappointed, as was the case for the Democrats in 2016 and 2024? Or is it better to see the iceberg looming for weeks and weeks, and then to finally strike it, as looks likely to happen to the Republicans this year? (Z)

State	Democrat	D %	Republican	R %	Start	End	Pollster
Kansas	Adam Hamilton	49%	Roger Marshall	45%	Oct 20	Oct 26	SSRS for CNN
Massachusetts	Ed Markey*	55%	John Deaton	26%	Oct 07	Oct 18	U. of Massachusetts
Maine	Troy Jackson	49%	Susan Collins*	45%	Oct 20	Oct 26	SSRS for CNN
Michigan	Abdul El-Sayed	49%	Mike Rogers	42%	Oct 20	Oct 27	SSRS for CNN
Montana	Alani Bankhead	21%	Kurt Alme	30%	Oct 05	Oct 21	Montana State U.
New Hampshire	Chris Pappas	48%	John Sununu	41%	Oct 02	Oct 19	U. of Massachusetts
South Carolina	Annie Andrews	47%	Darline Graham	51%	Oct 19	Oct 24	East Carolina U.
Texas	James Talarico	49%	Ken Paxton	43%	Oct 20	Oct 27	SSRS for CNN
Texas	James Talarico	49%	Ken Paxton	47%	Oct 21	Oct 25	Texas Southern U.
Texas	James Talarico	52%	Ken Paxton	48%	Oct 22	Oct 28	Activote

* Denotes incumbent

---

Previous report         Next report

---

If you wish to contact us, please use one of these addresses. For the first two, please include your initials and city.

• questions@electoral-vote.com    For questions about politics, civics, history, etc. to be answered on a Saturday
• comments@electoral-vote.com   For "letters to the editor" for possible publication on a Sunday
• corrections@electoral-vote.com To tell us about typos or factual errors we should fix
• items@electoral-vote.com            For general suggestions, ideas, etc.
• Guidelines for questions (Saturdays) and letters (Sundays)

To download a poster about the site to hang up, please click here.

---

Email a link to a friend.

---The Votemaster and Zenger