Needed 1885
Biden 0
Booker 0
Buttigieg 0
Harris 0
Klobuchar 0
O'Rourke 0
Sanders 0
Warren 0
Yang 0
Political Wire logo White House Aide Ordered Not to Testify
Michael Cohen Urged to Stick to Russia Story
Trump Defends Border Wall Design
Trump Booed at Madison Square Garden
Trump’s Loathing of Ukraine at Center of Probe
Tories Lead in U.K. Election
TODAY'S HEADLINES (click to jump there; use your browser's "Back" button to return here)
      •  Beto Says "No Más"
      •  Saturday Q&A

Beto Says "No Más"

There are a number of Democratic presidential candidates who seemed very promising heading into this cycle, but who never gained any real traction. Exhibit 1A is Beto O'Rourke, who seemed as if he might be the next Jack Kennedy, but performed more like the next Jack Fellure. His original strategy of "be charismatic, and make good YouTube videos" did not work out, so he shifted to "threaten to seize people's guns." To nobody's surprise, his polling numbers kept dropping, and he was in serious danger of missing the next debate. On Friday, O'Rourke finally bowed to reality and ended his presidential bid.

In the e-mail announcing his decision to supporters, O'Rourke said he will not run for any office in 2020. So, he won't challenge Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX), though Cornyn will still have all he can handle in the general election from MJ Hegar. There is no U.S. Senate race in Texas in 2022, so unless O'Rourke decides to make a run for the governor's mansion or some other statewide office in that year, or he attempts a return to the House of Representatives, then we won't be hearing from him again until 2024 at the earliest. In that year, however, he could attempt a rematch of his close-but-no-cigar run against Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), this time with a bluer Texas and a presidential-year electorate. It would not be a surprise if that is what O'Rourke has in mind.

Of course, by then he will be out of the public eye for 5 years and what people will remember is his dreadful presidential run, not his almost-successful Senate run in 2018. This goes to show you just how blinding the presidency is. If the day after the 2018 election O'Rourke had announced that he was challenging Cornyn in 2020, every Democrat in the country would have cheered him on and money would have poured in. Now his political career is probably over. Moral of the story: Maybe, just maybe, a 50-50 or so shot at a lifetime job in the Senate is better than a 1 in a gazillion shot at being president (Yes Steve Bullock, we are looking at you).

Saturday Q&A

For now, the status quo is that we start the Q&A with questions about the quid pro quo, and go from there.

Q: At this point, it's obvious that there will be Senate impeachment proceedings. You have also noted that it is likely that it will be a trial rather than a parliamentary-gimmicked sham. At very least, it will look like a trial. Unless every single witness (thus far; there's plenty more coming) is all fake, as Fox News would have us believe, the case seems one of res ipsa loquitur, or nearly so. Even the little we've seen and heard is damning, plausible, and corroborated. What happens if Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) makes it look like a trial and then all of Donald Trump's Toadies fall neatly into line, put obeisance before country, and acquit? Chief Justice John Roberts will preside over the trial. What if there's a patently obvious violation of the Constitution, one which Roberts can't possibly misinterpret let alone miss, yet a corrupt Senate acquits? In criminal and civil courts, the judge may set aside an obviously wrong verdict. Is there any provision for this at the presidential impeachment level? How much latitude does the Chief Justice have during and after the proceedings? B.H., Norwood, MA

A: As we all know, impeachments are rare, having happened only 19 times in all of U.S. history. Further, the Chief Justice only presides in the case of presidential impeachments and, of course, there have only been two of those, both conducted in front of a Senate that was broadly hostile to the defendant.

All of this to say is that there is virtually no precedent here that helps to answer any of these sorts of questions. Consequently, John Roberts will largely be operating without a roadmap. That said, we think it is very unlikely that he would try something like this. It is true that judges have the power to set aside verdicts in a civil or criminal trial. However, Roberts will be acting not as a judge but as a "presiding officer," and the question is not whether Trump committed a criminal or civil offense, it is whether or not he committed "high crimes and misdemeanors." It is improbable that any judge would feel confident that their well-established powers in the first scenario would apply in the second scenario, especially since that would de facto mean that a single person would be declaring, by fiat, who gets to be President of the United States. It is especially improbable that Roberts would reach that conclusion, since he's previously been quite clear about the limits of judicial power, even when something unconstitutional appears to be taking place. His position on political gerrymandering, for example, is that it's wrong, but it's also not the business of the federal court system and is an issue for the politicians. Surely, even if he thought the Senate reached the wrong verdict, that would be his position in an impeachment case.

Q: Isn't it possible that Republican Senators are publicly supporting Trump, but will nonetheless happily vote to impeach him when given the opportunity? After all, all of them currently have to be associated with this guy but few of them actually want to be. By voting to impeach him, they would be replacing him with Mike Pence (who is deplorable to me, but is a much more acceptable "regular" Republican). They could say to their constituents: "Look what I did! I got rid of that person we all knew was a reckless maniac and I restored our country's dignity by giving you President Pence. You're welcome." Is it really all that implausible? M.F., Philadelphia, PA

A: It's not implausible. With the caveat that there are a lot of "known unknowns" right now—"what else will future witnesses add?," "will folks like John Bolton and Mick Mulvaney be compelled to testify?," "how will the public respond when they actually get to hear it from the horse's mouth?," etc.—we think there are three plausible scenarios for how this turns out:

  • Trump is acquitted on a party-line vote (or a near-party-line vote)
  • Trump is acquitted, with most or all Democrats and a handful of centrist/vulnerable GOP Senators voting to convict
  • Trump is convicted, with the GOP deserting him en masse, perhaps even unanimously

If one of the first two scenarios comes to pass, then the President's Republican supporters in the Senate will continue to insist, until they are blue in the face (red in the face?) that this whole procedure was irregular, that the Democrats are lawless jerks who don't respect election results, that this was a witch hunt, and so forth.

If the third scenario comes to pass, the Republicans in the Senate will adopt a position that blends mournful ("We didn't like having to do that, but no president is above the law, so we had no choice") with optimistic ("Fortunately, in Mike Pence, we elevated a good man to take the reins"). Of course, if Pence ends up implicated too, then the calculus gets trickier, but McConnell & Co. will cross that bridge when they come to it.

Whatever happens, you can bet that the Senate GOP caucus is very well aware of where everyone else stands, and that there will be a collective decision about what to do. Someone like Susan Collins (R-ME) or Mitt Romney (R-UT) might go rogue and turn against Trump, because their personal circumstances/agenda demand it. But there is zero chance that, say, a Ted Cruz or a Ron Johnson (R-WI) votes for conviction unless they know dozens of their fellow Republican senators are doing so as well.

Q: In your October 31 post, you write that Senator Doug Jones (D-AL) has his mind already made up on how he would vote on the conviction of President Trump (against conviction). This is due, of course, to the rather deep red nature of Alabama electorate.

But doesn't this assume that Roy Moore would be his opponent, thus giving Jones a chance at reelection? In most other scenarios, against practically anyone (and I would even include Jeff Sessions) Jones will not be re-elected. And this leads up to my question: If Jones sees the writing on the wall that re-election is not going to happen, why would he not vote with his base who placed him in office and vote to convict?
P.M., Pensacola, FL

A: Each night, we write many thousands of words, often with a fairly short amount of time to do so. Sometimes, it comes out clunky, and our intended meaning is not perfectly clear. In this case, we did not mean to suggest that Jones has already made his mind up, or even that he's likely to vote for acquittal. After all, far more of his base is made up of Trump haters than of Trump lovers. All we intended to suggest is that he is one of the very few Democrats who has something to ponder when it comes to his vote.

Q: Just for the books, through Friday what's our current total on "Ukraine-scandal X" nicknames? R.R., Memphis, TN

A: Thus far, we're up to five: Ukrainegate, Ukrainepot Dome, Ukraine-ghazi, Ukraine-Contra, and UkraineYZ Affair. As you can imagine, more are coming (and we welcome suggestions). We're also building toward a grand finale, you might say, at some point down the road.

Q: I have a question regarding impeachment and its impact on the Republican primary. Let us assume that Trump is impeached, convicted, removed, and barred from holding future office. And just for this hypothetical, let's say that the conviction vote comes down mid-to-late January. Is the process far enough into the election cycle that such a result could throw the Republican primary into chaos? Presumably, the GOP would try and latch onto Pence as their candidate, but how would that happen? He's not going to file before any of the primary deadlines right now, as that would not please Trump. Would the GOP potentially be thrown into a brokered convention? D.P., Seattle, WA

A: We're not actually certain that the GOP would latch on to Pence, particularly if he appears to be compromised by the same scandal that swept Trump out of office. In any event, if the President is no longer available to run as of mid-to-late January, that probably won't create too much chaos. Here is a list of primary filing dates, by state and party.

There are quite a few states whose deadlines come prior to, say, January 20. And that list does include some very large and important states. However, we suspect that most or all of them would bend their deadlines in this scenario, for at least four reasons: (1) it's the right thing to do; (2) many of them are red states; (3) some of them, like Ohio with John Kasich, might want to be able to get a native son or daughter onto the ballot; and (4) changing the filing deadline is a heck of a lot easier than asking polling place workers to deal with hundreds of thousands or millions of write-in votes.

Our guess is that a brokered convention starts to become a real possibility if Trump is convicted and removed after primary voters have started casting their votes. At that point, he would have sucked up some delegates that would be "dead," plus it would be tough for any replacement candidate to pull things together in time to dominate Super Tuesday. And if the Super Tuesday vote is split three or four ways, with Trump also owning delegates, it would be pretty hard for anyone at that point to lock up the nomination pre-convention.

Q: Mitch McConnell says it's not fair that Trump can't have his own attorney in closed impeachment inquiry hearings. How about this quid pro quo from the Democrats to the White House: Trump can have his attorney in the hearings as soon as the White House starts obeying subpoenas. Do you think it could happen? J.J.F., Woodbridge, VA

A: There is, first of all, no chance that this offer is publicly announced. It would be bad optics for the Democrats, and would play into the Republicans' claims that the Democrats are just making this up on the fly, and are playing political games.

It's possible that this is proposed privately, but we doubt it. From the perspective of the White House, agreeing to abide by impeachment-related subpoenas would not only be out of character, it would put their resistance to non-impeachment-related subpoenas on even shakier legal ground (if that is possible). From the perspective of Democrats, they're not likely to get much value out of Trump loyalists' testimony. And, on some level, the Trump loyalists' resistance actually strengthens the blue team's claims that the President thinks the law doesn't apply to him. Further, allowing a Trump-employed lawyer (or six) into the room would muddy the waters, and would end up giving the Republicans talking points.

Q: I've noticed that you sometimes use sports teams in your analogies, almost always referencing one of the professional sports teams from Pittsburgh. Are either one of you originally from the Pittsburgh area or just fans (or haters)? J.J., Johnstown, PA

A: First of all, any sports analogies, references, quotes, etc., were almost certainly written by (Z). (V) hasn't followed sports regularly since Mickey Mantle was with the Yankees, and he took his undergrad degree from an institution not exactly known for its sports prowess (MIT). On the other hand, (Z) went to a university (UCLA) with 118 national championships across the various sports, and he follows several sports closely, particularly baseball, football, and basketball.

Anyhow, there are two reasons for the tendency toward Pittsburgh sports references. The first is that (Z)'s maternal grandparents, who first sparked his interest in politics, were from...Johnstown, PA, as chance would have it. Consequently, they were big Pittsburgh sports fans. So, it's a small tip of the cap to them, not unlike Carol Burnett tugging on her ear.

The second reason is that a friend and fantasy football rival of (Z)'s, and a regular reader of the blog, is also a big Pittsburgh sports fan. (Z)'s NFL team, grandparents notwithstanding, is actually the Green Bay Packers (a habit acquired from his Wisconsin-born stepfather). Sports-inclined readers may recall that the last time the Packers played in the Super Bowl, they beat the Steelers. So, most of the time that an analogy is deployed in which one NFL team defeats another, (Z)'s choice is generally Green Bay defeating Pittsburgh. It's not unlike making USC jokes, which (Z) also does on occasion (including once this week).

Q: Regarding Trump's change of residency: I think you might be on to something with your third guess as to why Trump may have switched his state of residence. While the GOP bench is paper-thin in New York, it does include Ivanka Trump. Picking his daughter as candidate for VP seems to be just the kind of absolutely bonkers thing DJT would do. Would it be legal? R.H.O., Portland, ME

A: Yes, it would be legal. There are federal anti-nepotism laws, but federal laws cannot supersede the Constitution. And the Constitution has only a handful of requirements for presidential and vice-presidential candidates, none of which are "they cannot be related to one another." Since Ivanka is above the age of 35, is a natural-born citizen, and has lived in the United States for at least 14 years, she could indeed be on a ticket with her father.

Q: In Trump's reelection campaign ad, it touts his great accomplishments. I know in the past he has stated that he will never be impeached because he has accomplished so much for the American people. Recently, Jared Kushner stated that Trump's "record of accomplishments is unimpeachable." Really? I admit that I'm not a fan of Trump, but from my standpoint, thankfully, he has been a pretty ineffective president, even ignoring the constant barrage of scandal and corruption! Is there a metric that historians use to judge how effective presidents are during their term(s)? And if so how does Trump stack up?

It seems to me that despite his personal loathing of President Obama, Trump has tried to emulate or one up him on almost every thing he accomplished, from getting the Nobel to killing bin Laden. It's not working, I think, because he is doing it not in the spirit of what's best for the nation but what can further his childish feud. The Baghdadi killing has proven to barely moved the needle and no one is talking about it like they did with bin Laden. His tax cuts have been generally greeted with a "meh" from the American public. He hasn't built a Wall, he hasn't replaced Obamacare with something better, he hasn't brought peace to the Middle East, he hasn't passed astonishing international deals, he hasn't made things better for the middle class, he hasn't revived the coal industry, farming, or manufacturing industries, and he certainly hasn't drained the swamp. Granted, he has "owned the libs" a lot, but at the end of the day how does that help anyone, including his precious base? I know he is the ultimate Con Man but running on his record of accomplishments seems like a very risky move.
D.E., Lilitz, PA

A: We're going to start with the second paragraph. You're right that Trump doesn't have a particularly impressive record of accomplishment, particularly if we subtract things that had nothing to do with him (the tax cut) and things that any GOP president could have done (executive orders). However, one cannot run for reelection without talking about one's record, and so Trump has to piece together whatever "record" he can, and run on it. The irony that the hated Barack Obama has provided virtually the entire structure for Trump's presidency is not lost on us, though we suspect it's lost on the President and most of his followers.

As to Trump's followers, they—like most voters—have a psychological need to be "right" about the person they voted for and that they support. And so, Trump can count on them to cling to his accomplishments, such as they are, like they are precious diamonds. He can also count on them to invent "accomplishments," as well. On regular occasions, (Z) frequents places where rank-and-file Republican voters post their political opinions. Just yesterday, he read a lengthy conversation between a sizable number of Trump supporters in which they all congratulated him (and each other) on the "fact" that he has significantly reduced the national debt. Wow.

And now, your question about evaluating presidents. There are many moving parts to a presidency. Further, being president in 1830 was very different from being president in 1890, which was very different from being president in 1950, and so forth. Consequently, most of the time that historians are asked to produce rankings of the presidents, they are simply asked to crunch all the data in their heads and to make their best possible judgments.

That said, some surveys do try to put things on something of an objective mathematical basis by asking historians to rank the presidents in a slew of categories. For example, in the widely publicized 2017 C-SPAN poll, scholars were asked to rank presidents according to 11 different standards: public persuasion, crisis leadership, economic management, moral authority, international relations, administrative skills, relations with Congress, vision/setting an agenda, pursued equal justice for all, performance within context of time, and overall. Not bad, but it can be very hard to consistently apply some of these abstractions. For example, George Washington—who, as you may have heard—owned slaves, did not regard women as equals, and felt only people with property should be allowed to vote, ranked #13 in "pursued equal justice for all." That's just one spot below Dwight D. Eisenhower, who forcibly integrated Little Rock Central High school, supported women's suffrage as a young man (women got the vote when he was in his 20s), and certainly favored universal male suffrage.

Whenever (Z) is asked to consider this question, he prefers to rank presidents according to the six key functions of the job. To wit: the president is the commander-in-chief (leads the armed forces), the nation's chief diplomat (manages foreign policy), the nation's chief economist (manages the economy), the head of state (serves as a symbol of American culture, and an inspiration to the citizenry), the chief executive (runs the executive branch), and the chief legislator (sets and advances the country's legislative agenda). If we rank a president in each of these areas, on a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being highest, it is awfully hard to see any where Trump currently merits a score higher than 5 (chief economist). There are at least a couple (chief diplomat, head of state) where he's right around a 1.

Q: Various media outlets have been reporting a running tally of the total number of Trump's lies, but I have not seen any tally of the total number of claims of fact he has made, and therefore the lie total is a somewhat meaningless statistic, as it is a numerator lacking a denominator. I am much more interested in learning what percentage of his claims of fact are found to be lies, e.g. is that 12,000 lies out of 120,000 total claims (10% lie rate), or more like 12,000 out of 18,000 (67% lie rate)? My impression is it is much closer to the latter than the former, so with just 50% more tallying effort these outlets could be giving us a much better picture, and a story like, "Two thirds of everything Trump says is false," would be more powerful than, "Trump has lied 12,000 times." Have you heard of any attempts to capture the denominator? K.C., Portland, OR

A: This would be very difficult to do, in practice, because it would be quite hard to decide what does and does not constitute a statement of fact. For example, what if the President says, "I woke up this morning, looked out across the White House lawn, and as I saw the sun rise, I thought about the good people of Ohio." Is that a statement of fact? If so, is it one? Or is it four (waking up, looking out, seeing the sun rise, thinking of Ohio)? Ultimately, the assumption is that any president utters a lot of: (1) opinions, (2) spin, (3) declarations of fact that are unimportant, like that the sun rose this morning, (4) declarations of fact that are important, like jobs figures. Every president fudges some things across these various categories. However, even in the absence of a direct comparison or a percentage, there is simply no doubt that Trump lies far more often than anyone who has ever held his office. Or any office, for that matter.

To the extent that this can be put on a systematic basis, the only way to do it is to focus on major (and possibly dubious) pronouncements by presidents and other politicians, and to assess those. This is the bailiwick of Politifact. According to their numbers, 85% of the Trump statements they have looked at are at least halfway false, and 50% are completely false. By way of comparison, the figures for Mitch McConnell are 60% and 18%, for Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) they are 76% and 28%, for Barack Obama they are 51% and 13%, for Hillary Clinton they are 50% and 13%, and for Bill Clinton they are 54% and 12%. For reasons that are not clear, the site does not have a tally for George W. Bush.

What this suggests is that when you take the most assertive and aggressive statements of politicians (which is what Politifact tends to select for analysis), you're going to find a lot of spin and distortion, but not all that many outright lies. While Trump is at least a little more willing to spin and distort than anyone else, what really separates him is his willingness to peddle outright falsehoods.

Q: There are several headlines on various web sites like this one from Axios: "October Jobs Report Surprises with 128,000 Jobs Added." We've seen these kinds of headlines over many months now, all while leading economists have predicted that various indicators should be turning lower.

Can economic indicators coming from the Trump administration be trusted? Or could the numbers be fudged to make the economy seem better than it is and to keep the stock market at record levels? If the numbers could be manipulated for political ends, how likely is it that they are just another lie—more fake news—from an administration that thinks lying is a legitimate tool to keep them in power?
H.B., Edgewood, NM

A: When it comes to stats produced by the federal bureaucracy, you can probably trust them. First, it is quite clear that many of the folks who work under Trump are unwilling to play ball the way he wants it to be played, and that they are going to keep doing their jobs the way they think they should be done. Second, cooking the books would be very tough. Humans are very bad at faking data, and it would take only one person to blow the whistle and to blow the lid off of the whole scheme if the administration was trying to do so.

Perhaps most importantly, however, is that Trump is not particularly constrained by what the data actually reveal. He has no compunction about lying (see previous answer), and he knows his base does not double-check his "facts." Consider the jobs figure you quote above. Here is Trump's tweet prompted by that news (a tweet that, by the way, came 38 minutes earlier than it's supposed to, per the embargo that the government imposes on this information):

No need for fake data, or fake results, when you're willing to completely make up 50% of your major pronouncements on policy.

Q: In discussing paying for Medicare For All, you wrote that Emmanuel Saez' and Gabriel Zucman's contention is that "If employer healthcare contributions were turned into salary, and then everyone was taxed a bit more, there would be enough money to pay for Medicare for All, and Joe the Janitor and Mike the mid-level manager would also take home more in pay, since their tax bill might go up by $5,000, but their take-home pay would go up by $15,000, leaving them $10,000 ahead."

I believe there is no way in blue blazes employers would turn healthcare contributions into salary as evidenced by the fact that most of the companies who got the big Trump tax cuts failed to give big increases to workers rather using the money to buy back stock. What indications are there that workers would get a pay increase big enough to offset the tax increase required by M4A?
R.C., Des Moines, IA

A: Let us start with a reminder that Saez and Zucman are not politically neutral in this matter, and so their analyses must be taken with at least a small grain of salt.

That said, you're right that most employers will not be so generous. It is also the case that the item we wrote was a little bit imprecise. What is more correct is to say that the average working adult costs $15,000 to insure, with half of that coming from the employee's paycheck and the other half coming from the employer. As you may have heard, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) released her long-anticipated plan for paying for Medicare for All on Friday (we'll have more on it on Monday), and she's solved this riddle in a fairly predictable manner. She would have the employers send their $7,500 to the federal government, while the employees' $7,500 would no longer be taken from their paychecks, with no tax increase. So, the employers would not be able to take any new money for themselves, while the employees would see an increase of $7,500 in income. Even if, in the final bill, there has to be a tax increase on the middle class, it would probably cost less than $7,500. In short, the Senator has put forth a plausible scenario in which more people get insurance, many people take home more in salary, and business owners won't be able to enrich themselves.

Q: You have mentioned a few times over the last year regarding the future of the GOP post-Trump. Your basic premise seems to be that they will be in a sort of "political wilderness."

I have given some thought to this, but I'm not sure quite where the GOP goes once Trump leaves the stage. After all, Trump supporters (and even the Never Trumpers) need to go somewhere. The way the modern media works suggests that they will still have a big seat at the table in some way.

Should a woman or a gay man get elected president, I can see that president being treated by the GOP in much the same way they treated Barack Obama. I think there will be a rise of the Tea Party 2.0 (they will all of a sudden start to care about the deficit again). There will likely be a significant uptake in sexist or homophobic behavior/language from the right much like the racism that was prevalent during the Obama era.

What do you think? I'd be curious to know what your thoughts are on what happens to the large population of the country who still identify as Republicans—whatever that actually means these days.
R.M., Pensacola, FL

A: Our position on this question has been consistent. The GOP can choose to be a minority party, with great strength in one or two regions of the country, but largely unable to win national elections. That is what happened with the Federalists between 1800 and their collapse in the 1820s, and it is what happened with the Democrats between the Civil War and the New Deal. It's also the course that the GOP is on right now. Keep in mind that the Party has won the popular vote in just one of the last seven presidential elections (2004), and that both men they have put in the White House in that time needed help from the Electoral College, along with some shenanigans. In this scenario, a lot of the NeverTrump Republicans end up as Democrats or as independents.

The alternative is to change the Party's focus in some major way, and to try to bring one or more new political factions into the tent. There has been talk for at least a decade, for example, that the GOP could be a natural home for Latinos, who tend to be religious, family-oriented, value hard work and pulling yourself up by your bootstraps, etc. However, that cannot happen until the Republicans abandon xenophobia and their generally anti-immigration stance, and thus, much of Trumpism. There are a number of cases, in U.S. history, of a party reinventing itself, with the two most obvious being the Democrats in the 1920s and the Republicans in the 1960s. This usually takes a few cycles to pull off; you will notice that the blue team did not start to win presidential elections again until the 1930s and the red team did not start to win again until the late 1960s and 1970s.

We do not know which path the Republicans will ultimately choose; nobody does. If you made us take our best guess, however, we would guess that it will be option #1. Reinventing a political party takes an awful lot of bridge-building, and no small amount of fortitude. We see limited evidence that the current leadership of the GOP has those capacities. It is far easier, particularly for those who are currently in office and whose careers will have wound down by 2025 or 2030, to just stay the course.

Q: I appreciate reading your articles and contents Could you recommend a political podcast and/or political radio channel (at best available via internet stream). J.W., Ummendorf, Germany

A: Yes, we can. However, we thought that it might be even better to crowdsource this. If readers have a podcast or radio show they would recommend, please send us a message with the name and, perhaps, a few sentences on what it is/why you like it. Please do include your initials and city of residence, too, so we can give credit. We will compile a list, and include it in a future post.

If you have a question about politics, civics, history, etc. you would like us to answer on the site, please send it to, and include your initials and city of residence. If you have a comment about the site or one of the items therein, please send it to and include your initials and city of residence in case we decide to publish it. If you spot any typos or other errors on the site that we should fix, please let us know at
Email a link to a friend or share:

---The Votemaster and Zenger
Nov01 House Formalizes Impeachment Inquiry
Nov01 About That Offer to the Republican Senators...
Nov01 Trump Unveils 2020 Strategy
Nov01 The Nine Lives of Obamacare
Nov01 Funding Medicare for All May Just Be Viable
Nov01 Democratic Deluge in Virginia
Nov01 Trump Is Now a Floridian
Oct31 Democrats Get Serious About Impeachment Inquiry
Oct31 Senators Start to Squirm
Oct31 Trump Begins Planning His Defense
Oct31 More on Alexander Vindman
Oct31 Mr. Bolton, Please Report for Your Deposition
Oct31 What's a Trump Staffer to Do?
Oct31 Twitter to Reject All Political Ads
Oct31 Harris Campaign Begins Death Spiral
Oct30 Vindman Speaks, Trump & Co. Counterattack
Oct30 Two Amigos May Have Some Explaining to Do
Oct30 Early State Polls Suggest Rocky Start for Joe Biden
Oct30 Democratic Candidates Don't Care About California
Oct30 What Do Evangelicals Believe These Days?
Oct30 Bet You Didn't Know that Lindsey Graham Is a Big Supporter of the Green New Deal
Oct30 Good News for House GOP?
Oct29 House Democrats to "Formalize" Impeachment Proceedings
Oct29 This Week's Witness List
Oct29 A Tale of Two Photographs
Oct29 Mike Pompeo May Be Interested in A New Job
Oct29 Sessions May Want His Old Job Back
Oct29 North Carolina Republicans Suffer Another Gerrymander Defeat
Oct29 Florida Republicans Forced to Postpone Annual Event
Oct29 Rep. Greg Walden Will Retire
Oct28 Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi Is Dead
Oct28 Trump Organization May Sell Washington Hotel
Oct28 This Is Why Trump Doesn't Go Out in Public
Oct28 We Now Have a Trump Tweet Baseline
Oct28 Show Me the Money
Oct28 Rep. Katie Hill to Resign
Oct28 Details for Sixth Democratic Debate Announced
Oct27 Sunday Mailbag
Oct26 Saturday Q&A
Oct25 Trump Administration Did More than Withhold Aid
Oct25 Democrats Strategize on Impeachment...
Oct25 ...And So Do Republicans
Oct25 Barr Is Paying Dividends for Trump
Oct25 Warren Grapples with Funding Medicare for All
Oct25 Biden Will Accept Super PAC Money
Oct25 Sanders Unveils a Weedy Proposal
Oct25 Klobuchar Makes November Cut
Oct25 Ryan Drops Out
Oct24 Desperate Times Call for Desperate Measures?
Oct24 Zelensky Knew the Score Well Before Trump Called