The Pam Bondi Show Got Terrible Reviews--from the Right

The reviews are now in and Pam Bondi got awful, horrible reviews from conservative media and media figures for her over-the-top performance before the House Judiciary Committee last week. What they didn't like was her avoiding answering questions about the Epstein files and her role in handling them. For example, Erick Erickson tweeted: "When the Attorney General of the United States is asked why she has prosecuted no one related to Jeffrey Epstein and this is her answer, she should be fired or resign." The tweet included a video clip of Bondi answering the question of why no one has been prosecuted by saying how great the stock market is doing. Right-wing influencer Tim Pool said: "I think they've miserably handled the Epstein files." Fox News host Lisa Kennedy said Bondi came off "like a shrieking Karen."

Bondi hasn't been popular with the right ever since she announced that she had the Epstein client list on her desk and then, when people demanded that she publish it, said there was no client list. At the time, Megyn Kelly blasted Bondi for this, for first saying there was a list, letting right-wing pundits brag about it, and then leaving them out to dry when she later said there was never a list.

Some far-right figures have cranked their antagonism to Bondi up to 10. Christian nationalist and antisemite Nick Fuentes said: "Pam Bondi needs to be impeached." White supremacist Kyle Rittenhouse, who killed two people at a racial justice protest in 2020, tweeted: "Pam Bondi needs to resign. Harmeet Dhillon for AG." Does he not realize that Assistant AG Dhillon is an immigrant from India with brown skin?

Bondi may even have lost podcaster Joe Rogan. He said the Epstein files scare the sh** out of him and are definitely not a hoax. He added: "Literally demonic human beings that are running the world and don't give a fu** about human lives."

Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY), the coauthor of the law that ordered Bondi to release all the files, with only the victim's names blacked out, was furious with Bondi. She has released only half the files and has redacted large amounts of what was released to protect the perpetrators rather than the victims. Massie told reporters: "The recourse, and I keep reminding the folks at DoJ of this, is that the next attorney general can bring charges against them for breaking the law." He said Bondi's defense for breaking the law is that the DoJ is incompetent. Massie isn't buying that. Bondi called Massie "a failed politician." He replied: "This cover-up spans decades and you are responsible for this portion of it."

On Sunday, Massie went on ABC's "This Week" and said he had no confidence in Bondi and that Merrick Garland performed much better before the committee.

So far, the only Epstein confederate in prison is his procurer, Ghislaine Maxwell, and she is in a Club Fed-type prison in Texas after having had a chat with Deputy AG Todd Blanche. She must have told Blanche something he liked to get sent there. None of the other Americans close to Epstein have suffered anything other than a bit of embarrassment. Over two dozen high-profile people are named in the files released so far, but much of the content of the messages naming them has been blacked out to protect them. So Massie is basically correct that Bondi is protecting Epstein's clients rather than the victims.

Now there is a new wrinkle in the story. Members of Congress may view the unredacted Epstein files in the DoJ headquarters by appointment. A number of them have done that. Now it turns out that Bondi is tracking which member saw which file and has compiled a database. House members Robert Garcia (D-CA), Pramila Jayapal (D-WA), and Jamie Raskin (D-MD) have sent Bondi a letter demanding that she immediately stop tracking members who are looking at the files. Bondi had a printout of Jayapal's search history with her at the hearing last Wednesday.

The members also want a better system for systematically examining the unredacted files. Even Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) has condemned Bondi's spying on the members. Bondi has not responded to the letter. (V)

DHS Has Shut Down. Now What?

Saturday morning at 00:00:01 EST, the funding for the Department of Homeland Security ran out and most of the department shut down. ICE has some funding from the BBB independent of the annual appropriation, so it can continue operating for the time being. Agencies including the Coast Guard, Customs and Border Protection, the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Agency, FEMA, the Secret Service, and TSA are affected, among others. Workers will begin missing paychecks in March. Most TSA workers are deemed essential and are expected to work without pay. Workers who live paycheck to paycheck and who have no savings to live on often call in sick during shutdowns and look for temporary work elsewhere so they can pay the rent and eat. Some find better jobs and quit outright. With fewer screeners at airports, there is likely to be chaos if this goes on for a while. Airlines are allowed to hire their own screeners, but they have to be trained and approved by TSA. Air traffic controllers are part of the Department of Transportation and have already been funded through Sept. 30, so they will continue to work normally.

An agreement is unlikely any time soon, as Congress is in recess and members have gone home. They are expected to come back on Feb. 23. Unlike in other shutdown situations, there are no secret negotiations going on this week (or if there are, they are so secret that no one knows about them). Each party thinks the other one will get the blame for the shutdown and thus has no incentive to negotiate.

The Democrats have a list of demands that must be met before they will approve DHS funding. The main ones are these:

• Roving Patrols: ICE agents all over the country are stopping and arresting people on the street, handcuffing them, and sending them to detention centers thousands of miles from where they were caught. In many cases, anyone who is not white is in danger of being nabbed, even U.S. citizens. A year ago, a poll found that 66% of Americans approved of ICE arresting immigrants at protests or rallies who could not provide proof of citizenship, but ICE isn't even asking for documentation anymore. Besides, few people carry a passport on them all the time. And just 54% approved of workplace raids, so presumably grabbing people off the streets will be even less popular than that. And these polls were taken before ICE killed Renee Good and Alex Pretti in Minneapolis.
  
  
• Due Process: Democrats have said they do not want ICE entering anyone's home absent a warrant from a Senate-confirmed Art. III judge. ICE has been using administrative warrants, which are issued by Executive Branch employees, not actual judges. Democrats want to end this practice. In an Ipsos poll, 50% of respondents said that ICE needs to give targets due process, which means bringing them before a judge where they can make their case, potentially with a lawyer. However, 37% did not think due process is needed. A PRRI poll shows that 61% oppose deporting people to foreign prisons without due process, with 37% supporting deportation without due process.
  
  
• Masks and Cameras: Having ICE agents wear body cameras is popular, with 92% of respondents saying the agents should wear them. Masks are more contentious. The administration says that masks are needed to prevent agents from being doxxed, even though not a single case of doxxing has occurred. More likely, the administration is afraid that if agents can be identified, they could be indicted for crimes by a future administration, and this would hurt recruitment and also make the agents far less willing to break the law. In a Quinnipiac University poll, a clear majority (61%) say agents should not be allowed to be masked. An NBC poll put the number at 63%.
  
  
• Racial profiling: Racial profiling is very unpopular, with 72% of respondents in a Pew poll opposing it. A much-shared video from Minneapolis shows a Border Patrol agent saying he asked someone for their papers due to his accent. DHS denies this.
  
  
• Increasing standards: Due to the large amount of money ICE got from the BBB, it began hiring vast numbers of people and had no time to train them. Having untrained officers in the field is extremely unpopular, with 80% of Americans in an Ipsos poll saying adequate training of officers is very or extremely important.
  
  
• Code of Conduct: Democrats want to hold ICE officers accountable for their behavior. In an Ipsos poll, 59% of respondents didn't expect the investigation of the death of Renee Good to be fair. For the investigation of Alex Pretti's killing, 61% didn't expect a proper investigation.

All in all, most of what the Democrats want as a condition for ending the shutdown is very popular with the voters. This may give them some backbone to refuse to cave until they get what they want. Also, they may realize that caving will be very unpopular and could hurt them in the midterms. The result could be a very long shutdown. (V)

Trump Vows to Sign an XO Requiring Voter ID and Banning Mail-in Ballots

On Friday, Donald Trump issued this bleat on his Mussolini-would-have-loved-it social media site:

The Democrats refuse to vote for Voter I.D., or Citizenship. The reason is very simple—They want to continue to cheat in Elections. This was not what our Founders desired. I have searched the depths of Legal Arguments not yet articulated or vetted on this subject, and will be presenting an irrefutable one in the very near future. There will be Voter I.D. for the Midterm Elections, whether approved by Congress or not! Also, the People of our Country are insisting on Citizenship, and No Mail-In Ballots, with exceptions for Military, Disability, Illness, or Travel. Thank you for your attention to this matter! PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP

In case you can't bear to read it, he is going to sign an XO requiring voter ID and banning absentee voting. We are surprised he didn't go whole hog and say the XO will also forbid people registered as Democrats from voting. The things he DID call for have just as much chance of happening, however, as banning Democrats from voting. Apparently, Chief-of-Staff Susie Wiles doesn't dare tell him that XOs are instructions to federal bureaucrats. They are not even suggestions to state election officials to do anything. Needless to say, no state election official is going to pay any attention to this nonsense. Some of them will indeed require voter ID and ban mail-in ballots—because their state legislature passed a law doing that. Absent a state law, none of them, not even the Republican ones, are going to do that, although a few clever ones might say they are going to require voter ID and thank Trump for the suggestion. But only in states where that is already the law will it actually happen.

Last year, U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, a Bill Clinton appointee, tossed out a previous XO requiring everyone to prove U.S. citizenship when registering to vote. She then wrote: "Our Constitution entrusts Congress and the states—not the president—with the authority to regulate federal elections." It is still true.

Why is Trump doing something that has no effect and will get widely ridiculed? The main reason is that he feels frustrated because Republicans in the Senate have undoubtedly told him that the SAVE bill, which would do the things he put in the XO, is not going to make it because the votes aren't there. It barely passed the House. When he is told he can't have something he wants, he lashes out. That's who he is. By threatening an XO, he is posturing to his base that he is strong. The base doesn't follow the news in detail and Fox is certainly not going to mention it when some district judge rains on Trump's parade and no election procedures change anywhere. (V)

Low-Knowledge Voters Are Turning Away from Trump

We often talk about "low-information voters" or "marginal voters" or some other euphemism without giving a precise definition. Now someone has quantified that and asked how they feel now. A new Verasight poll done for G. Elliott Morris asked respondents two questions in addition to the main payload: (1) Which party controls the Senate? and (2) Which party controls the House? Getting both right qualifies you as a high-knowledge voter. Getting one of them right gets you labeled a medium-knowledge voter. Blowing both qualifies you as a low-knowledge voter. Obviously, there are other possible tests, but about 75% of the respondents knew the correct answers to both questions and 25% didn't, so it does differentiate the top 75% from the bottom 25% in some sense.

Here are the results of the poll:

As you can see, the low-and-medium-knowledge voters were strongly pro-Donald Trump in the 2024 election whereas the high-knowledge voters had a slight preference for Kamala Harris. Now both have soured on him, but the high-knowledge voters have dropped by 12 points vs. 25 points for the low-knowledge voters. The latter are not really Republicans. They were unhappy with prices so they blamed Joe Biden and voted for the guy who said he would lower prices. He didn't do it and they are very angry with him. On many issues (trade, foreign policy, immigration, health care, etc.) there isn't much difference between the two groups,

Morris' conclusion from this study (and others) is that the low-knowledge voters weren't really anti-Democrat or anti-Harris. They were anti-incumbent. They still are, which does not bode well for the Republicans in November.

Low-knowledge voters skew lower-income, lower-education, younger, and less politically engaged. They tend to spend a larger fraction of their income on groceries. Someone making $100K might barely notice if his or her grocery bill went up $100/month, but someone making $35K is likely to notice it very sharply.

Another point from the survey is that low-knowledge voters are very elastic (in the economic sense). They are not die-hard conservatives like, say, evangelicals or gun fanatics. They are not tied to either party and are inclined to throw the bums out whenever they are unhappy, no matter who the bums are. Last time it was the Democrats. This time it could be the Republicans. The survey shows this in other ways. The high-knowledge voters have strong feelings about Trump; the low-knowledge voters don't. Their opinion of him can change due to current conditions.

The low-knowledge voters didn't have much knowledge of what Trump planned to do if elected. They are not ideological and don't actually care much about policy. What they knew is that they were unhappy and since Joe Biden was president, it was his fault. Now they are unhappy and Donald Trump is president. Anti-incumbent is the key here. (V)

Virginia Supreme Court Allows Referendum on Redistricting to Go Forward

Since Gov. Abigail Spanberger (D-VA) was inaugurated, Democrats have the trifecta in Virginia. One of their top priorities is gerrymandering their congressional map to add more Democrats to their House delegation. One small fly in the ointment was a county judge who ruled they couldn't do that. Now the Virginia state Supreme Court has taken up the case and has ruled that the procedure the legislature followed was indeed correct and a referendum scheduled for April 21 can indeed take place as scheduled. If the referendum passes, the new map will give the Democrats a good shot at 9 or 10 of the 11 House seats. They currently have six. If the referendum passes, the map will hold until the 2030 census is published.

The battle is already shaping up with "Yes on 50" and—oh, no wait, that was California. The Virginia referendum doesn't appear to have a number, but it will be the only thing on the ballot. A group called Virginians for Fair Elections is in favor of the new (highly unfair and very partisan) map. Branding is important, kids. The other side has a group called "No Gerrymandering Virginia."

For potential candidates, the situation is complicated. It is hard to plan a campaign if you don't know what your district will look like. In practice most candidates have a Plan A (if the new map is adopted) and a Plan B (if it is not). For some Democrats, Plan A is to run in a newly gerrymandered district and Plan B is not to run at all. For some Republicans, it is the reverse. The primary elections are on June 16. A problem is that the filing deadline under current law is April 2 but the referendum is April 21. Maybe the legislature will extend the deadline later this year.

After Virginia, the only other big state contemplating more gerrymandering is Florida, even though the state Constitution explicitly bans gerrymandering. But back in the real world, who gives a hoot what the Constitution says when power is at stake? Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-FL) is a huge fan of more gerrymandering, so it is likely to happen. Republicans could probably pick up 3-5 seats in Florida with an aggressive map, roughly canceling out Virginia.

Erin Covey at the Cook Political Report is trying to keep track of it all. Here is her take.

State	Net win	Status
Alabama	GOP 1	Pending U.S. Supreme Court ruling
California	Dem 3-5	Proposition 50 passed by the voters
Florida	GOP 2-3	Special session called for April
Illinois	Dem 1	Potential gain if legislature wants it, but no action so far
Kansas	GOP 1	Efforts currently stalled in legislature
Louisiana	GOP 1	Pending U.S. Supreme Court ruling
Maryland	Dem 1	House of delegates passed new map, waiting in Senate
Missouri	GOP 1	New map passed by legislature could possibly be vetoed by the voters
New York	Dem 1	State judge ordered a new map but it has been appealed
North Carolina	GOP 1	State legislature enacted a new map
Ohio	GOP 0-3	Redistricting commission enacted new map required by law
Texas	GOP 3-5	Signed, sealed, and delivered
Utah	Dem 1	Court-ordered new map kept Salt Lake County intact
Virginia	Dem 2-4	Referendum April 21
Wisconsin	Dem 1-2	Pending state Supreme Court decision

There is a fair amount of uncertainty here. For example, the Texas map assumes Latinos will break for Republicans in 2026 as they did in 2024. If they don't, the gerrymander could backfire and turn out to be a dummymander as districts intentionally packed with Latinos might elect a Democrat. Illinois could pick up a seat, but shows no sign of actually doing it. The Kansas bill is stuck and may not get unstuck. In addition, multiple courts have yet to weigh in, but the clock is ticking.

All this said, Covey says that the best case for Republicans is 11 new seats in Florida, Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio, and Texas vs. four new seats for the Democrats in California and Utah. Advantage red team with a seven seat net win. She also says that the best case for Democrats is that Florida, North Carolina Ohio, and Texas give the Republicans only six new seats while the new maps in California, Utah, and Virginia give the Democrats 10 seats, for a four seat net win. So the final score could be anything from R+7 to D+4. She is assuming no net change in Alabama, Illinois, Kansas, Louisiana, Maryland, New York, and Wisconsin, but that is far from certain. A lot depends on whether there is a blue wave and if so, how big it is. Also, the court rulings matter.

The bottom line is nobody knows. Our feeling is that Florida will draw an aggressive map and the net result, based on the 2024 election results, will be a handful of pickups for the red team. However, in a blue wave election, some of the carefully drawn districts might be upsets with Democrats winning supposedly safe Republican seats due to a 2026 electorate that is radically different from the 2024 electorate.

Covey also notes that if the Supreme Court throws out the Voting Rights Act quickly, all bets are off. Most Southern states hold primaries in March or April and once primaries have been held and candidates nominated, changing the map gets awfully hard and the courts might not allow it until 2028. (V)

The Michigan Senate Primary Could Be a Bellwether for Democrats

The Democrats have a vague feeling that 2026 and 2028 could be good to them, and history is on their side, but they don't know which way to go. Some elected officials, party operatives, pundits, and voters say: "Go left, that is where the energy is." Others say: "Move to the center, where many disaffected normie Republican voters are low-hanging fruit ripe for the picking as long as you don't say scary things." What's a party to do?

Primary season begins in 2 weeks, and then we will get some idea where the voters are. The first test—and it is a real lulu—is in Texas (of all places) on March 3. On the Democratic side, a moderate Democrat who is studying to be a Presbyterian minister, James Talarico, is up against Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-TX), who is studying to be Marjorie Taylor Greene, but upside down. On the Republican side, conservative-but-sane Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) is in the fight of his life against Texas AG Ken Paxton, who is so crooked that the Texas House impeached him. That is not an easy achievement for a Texas Republican to pull off. That will give an idea of where the parties are, at least in Texas. Do the voters prefer boring normal or somewhere out beyond the fringe—you know, out in the Oort cloud, with a bunch a big sharp rocks flying around?

In some ways, the Democratic primary in Michigan (Aug. 4), is a better test for what the Democrats want because there are three choices there—call them small, medium, and large (amounts of socialism). It is hotly contested because it is an open seat due to the retirement of Sen. Gary Peters (D-MI) and it is in a key swing state the Democrats must win to have any chance at controlling the Senate in 2027.

From left to right (visually and politically), are physician Abdul El-Sayed, who served as director of the Department of Health, Human, and Veterans Services for Wayne County, MI; state Sen. Mallory McMorrow and U.S. Rep. Haley Stevens (D-MI).

El-Sayed is focusing on health-care costs. He blames the rising cost on corporate greed. He supports Medicare for all, union membership, and an economy that works for working people. He is strongly opposed to funding foreign militaries (which applies to both Israel and Ukraine). He has been endorsed by both Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY).

McMorrow, a previously obscure state senator, went viral on April 22, 2022, with a fiery speech on the floor of the Michigan state Senate. Here it is:

Since then, she has been seen as a rising star in the Democratic firmament. She emphasizes the American Dream and how she made it from a poor childhood being raised by a single mom with four kids to being elected to the state Senate. She wants other people to make it, too. Her issues are cost of living, safe communities, kids and families, and health care. She is a progressive, but not as far left as El-Sayed. She has been endorsed by Sens. Chris Murphy (D-CT), Martin Heinrch (D-NM), and dozens of Michigan politicians who know her.

The establishment candidate is Stevens, who wants a promotion from the U.S. House. She is a moderate who worked on the campaigns of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. She has been closely associated with the auto industry and has campaigned at auto plants. Her top three issues are equitable federal investment, economic empowerment and access, and safer communities. She takes corporate PAC money and has been roundly criticized for it by McMorrow and El-Sayed, who refuse to accept it.

An Emerson College poll from late January had McMorrow at 22%, Stevens at 17%, and El-Sayed at 16%. This means: (1) it is going to be close and (2) many voters are still on the fence. The Republican nominee for the Senate is likely to be former Rep. Mike Rogers. Since there is also an open-seat election for governor and Michigan is a key swing state, there will be a vast amount of (national) attention on Michigan this year. (V)

Will Winner-Take-All Take All?

Forty-eight states award all their electoral votes to the statewide winner of the presidential election. Nebraska and Maine are the exceptions, awarding one electoral vote to the winner of each congressional district and two to the statewide winner. Many short-sighted Republican state legislators in Nebraska want to change this and make the whole state winner-take-all, to deprive the Democrats of one measly electoral vote (which both Joe Biden and Kamala Harris won). Too bad for the folks in Omaha (NE-02), which is a D+3 district. An ugly fight is now brewing in the land of Lincoln (Lincoln, NE, that is, the state capital), and it's complicated.

Rep. Don Bacon (R-NE), who represents NE-02, is retiring. Since the House seat could go either way, the election is going to be very competitive. One of the candidates to replace Bacon is state Sen. John Cavanaugh Jr. (D). He is in a strong position to win the primary and the general election. This is a problem for the Democrats. There is nothing wrong with Cavanaugh; he is a normal Democrat and would make a fine congressman. The problem is that if Cavanaugh is elected to the House, Gov. Jim Pillen (R-NE) gets to appoint the new state senator to Cavanaugh's seat. As an aside, Nebraska used to have a state House, but it was abolished in 1934 to save money and the members of the nominally nonpartisan unicameral legislature are still called senators.

As fate would have it, Democrats have exactly enough seats in the legislature to block a new law that would award all electoral votes to the statewide winner. However, if Cavanaugh wins the House seat and Pillen appoints a Republican to the empty state senate seat, then the legislature will almost certainly eat the blue dot and make it go away. For this reason, Crystal Rhoades, clerk of the Douglas County District Court, jumped in the House race. Her only campaign issue is to save the blue dot for the Democrats. Her argument is that it doesn't matter whether she or Cavanaugh is in the U.S. House. They would both vote the party line on everything, so they are otherwise interchangeable. Only her election would save the Democrats one electoral vote in presidential elections. It is an unusual campaign issue.

Another Democrat in the primary is political organizer Denise Powell. She also acknowledges the blue dot issue, but is talking more about health care and prices. However, Cavanaugh has the endorsement of Reps. Ro Khanna (D-CA), Pramila Jayapal (D-WA), Jamie Raskin (D-MD) and the Congressional Progressive Caucus. This suggests that Cavanaugh might be too lefty to win the seat. It's Omaha, but it's also Nebraska, not Vermont. Powell has the endorsement of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus and EMILY's List.

Cavanaugh also has another advantage: his name. His father, also John Cavanaugh, once represented the district in Congress and his sister, Machaela Cavanaugh, is a state senator. It will be an interesting race. The primary is May 12.

Oh, by the way, the reason we said the Nebraska Republicans are short sighted is that this whole issue is pointless. The Democrats have the trifecta in Maine and have said if Nebraska goes winner-take-all, they will do the same thing, eliminating the one electoral vote the Republicans usually win in ME-02, in the northern 92% of the state. That would cancel out what Nebraska is trying to do. However, it is not a red dot, as ME-02 is the largest congressional district east of the Mississippi River. It is larger than six states and only 10 square miles smaller than all of Massachusetts. From our point of view, having all states be winner-take-all makes it easier for us to keep score in presidential elections, even though ignoring both NE-02 and ME-02 doesn't really matter in practice since they cancel each other.

From a political point of view, it is a pity, because if every state used the Nebraska/Maine system, it would make the presidential elections not depend solely on seven swing states. Both candidates would then campaign in California, Texas, Florida, and New York, because there are competitive districts that would be worth electoral votes in all of them. It would make the presidential race a true national election. Getting rid of the electoral college is not going to happen, but having every state use the Nebraska/Maine system might be doable without a constitutional amendment. That would work only if every state did it. Suppose Congress passed a law ordering all states to use this system? Would the Supreme Court buy that? It is nominally nonpartisan, so it might. It would definitely be an improvement over all states being winner-take-all. (V)

Some Interesting New Polls

A few new polls caught our attention. First, two Senate polls. For the general election for the seat of retiring Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) in a key swing state, Rep. Chris Pappas (D-NH) leads former senator John E. Sununu (R), 45% to 41%. Sununu is the Republicans' ideal candidate because: (1) He was already elected to the Senate once and (2) the Sununu name is well known in the state (his brother, Chris, was a four-term former governor and their father, John H. Sununu, is also a former governor).

In the Texas senatorial Republican primary, Ken Paxton is leading John Cornyn 36% to 27%, with Wesley Hunt at 15%, with 22% still undecided. If you live in Texas, you are advised to turn off your TV until the evening of March 3 because all it is going to have until then are nasty negative political ads.

Also interesting are some approval/disapproval polls. In a recent YouGov poll, Donald Trump is deeply under water at 38% approve and 58% disapprove. However, a Quantus Insights poll is somewhat better for him at 43%/56%. A Pew poll puts it at 40%/58%. Averaging these three, we get 40%/57%. Not strong for a midterm year.

Also interesting is approval/disapproval for J.D. Vance. Pew has him at 38%/52% and Focaldata has him at 33%/43%, which averages to 35.5%/47.5%. So Vance is 12 points under water. Of course, it is mostly Democrats and independents who don't like Vance and they don't have a say in most Republican primaries. However, they most certainly do in general elections and his opponents in the 2028 Republican Presidential primaries might just point this out a couple of times. (V)

---

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.

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

---

Email a link to a friend.

---The Votemaster and Zenger