Biden 372
image description
Ties 16
Trump 150
image description
Click for Senate
Dem 51
image description
Ties 1
GOP 48
image description
  • Strongly Dem (217)
  • Likely Dem (96)
  • Barely Dem (59)
  • Exactly tied (16)
  • Barely GOP (30)
  • Likely GOP (39)
  • Strongly GOP (81)
270 Electoral votes needed to win This date in 2016 2012 2008
New polls: KS MI
Dem pickups vs. 2016: AZ FL MI NC PA TX WI
GOP pickups vs. 2016: (None)
Political Wire logo Crowded Georgia High School Reports Infections
U.S. Response to Virus Met with Incredulity Abroad
New Zealand Marks 100 Days of No Community Spread
White House Has Given Up on Pandemic
Trump Abruptly Ends News Conference
Trump Wanted to Be Added to Mount Rushmore

TODAY'S HEADLINES (click to jump there; use your browser's "Back" button to return here)
      •  Saturday Q&A
      •  Today's Presidential Polls
      •  Today's Senate Polls

Saturday Q&A

Appropriately, we begin with a run of VP questions.

Q: Joe Biden's campaign will announce its VP choice any time now. Are they really still deciding, or is it more likely that decision was made some time ago? Is it known if Barack Obama's choice of Biden as VP was made at the last minute, or was it actually much earlier than announced? L.H., Ljubljana, Slovenia

A: We suspect the answer is not quite as binary as your question supposes. Joe Biden probably has a pretty good idea of which running mate he will choose, but he's turning that name over in his head to see how Biden-Harris or Biden-Rice or Biden-Whoever feels to him, and if it still seems right a few days in. And if he does know for certain, he certainly hasn't told more than a few people, for fear of the name leaking. That includes keeping the VP candidate themselves in the dark; if they were to be told, say, a week in advance, it would be in their best interests to leak that in order to tie Biden's hands.

In 2008, Obama wanted an older, white running mate, so that his ticket wouldn't be too "radical" in terms of the change it represented. He narrowed it down to several candidates (Sen. Tim Kaine, D-VA, was another frontrunner), and once he finally settled on Biden, the announcement came pretty quickly (about 24 hours).

Q: I'm guessing the official anointing will come just in time for the 8/16 Sunday news shows. Could you play White House Casting Director for a moment? It's easy to envision Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA) slotting into Attorney Generalship if she isn't tapped to be VP, or Susan Rice as Secretary of State. But what potential posts in a Biden administration do you see the other also-rans being best suited for? M.P., Fort Worth, TX

A: Not all of them are suited for a cabinet portfolio. And some of the ones who are suited would be creating an unacceptable vacancy by their resignations from their current jobs (e.g., Sen. Maggie Hassan, D-NH). That said, Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-IL) would be an obvious pick for Veterans' Affairs. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) could take over Treasury or Commerce. Historically, Commerce went to a business executive and Labor went to a labor leader, but Donald Trump stuck a businessman in both jobs, so that custom is kaput. Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms (D-Atlanta) could get HUD. Stacey Abrams would be a fine AG, if Harris doesn't get it. Gov. Gina Raimondo (D-RI) would be a good choice for Treasury, Commerce, or Transportation.

Q: Speculation about VP choices is rampant in the weeks leading up to a presumptive nominee's convention. Once the name is announced, however, the guessing game is quickly forgotten and the also-rans return to (relative) media obscurity. As I think back, it seems like VP picks are quite often a surprise or don't come from the list of leading contenders. Sarah Palin is an obvious example, but I can remember Dan Quayle and Al Gore being equally unexpected picks at the time. And, of course, Dick Cheney surprised everyone by deciding that he was the best candidate found by his own search committee. No doubt there is some publicity value in choosing a running mate no one saw coming, as it's a lot more exciting than going with the choice everyone expected. Could you give us a brief history of predictable vs. out-of-left-field VP choices? C.C., Los Angeles, CA

A: Let us begin by observing that the VP horse race only became a thing fairly recently. Before the 1950s or so, the VP was chosen by the convention to balance the ticket, and there was relatively little interest in who might be chosen. So, the lists you seek are largely going to be confined to the last three-quarter-century or so.

Beyond the names you already gave, here are our picks for the three biggest surprises since 1940, from most to least recent:

  • George H.W. Bush, 1980: First of all, Reagan and Bush did not much care for one another, inasmuch as one was a hard-right Johnny-come-lately who wasn't even a Republican until the 1950s and the other was a moderate blue blood descended from generations of Republicans. Their relationship did not improve during the campaign, as Bush mocked Reagan's economic plan as "voodoo economics" and dragged his feet before dropping out of the race. Second, up to the mid-point of the Republican convention, the general understanding was that Reagan would partner with Gerald Ford as a sort of co-presidents ticket. The announcement of Bush was thus the twin shock of the Ford plan falling apart and Reagan tapping a rival.

  • Spiro Agnew, 1968: About a week before Agnew was announced, Time magazine ran a front-page article about possible GOP VP candidates with 8 frontrunners and 12 dark horses. Agnew did not make either list. Still, Nixon knew the value of an attack dog from his service in that role for the Eisenhower-Nixon ticket, and Agnew was an excellent attack dog. Plus, Nixon wanted to run a law-and-order campaign, and Agnew was a well known law enforcement hawk. The fact that the Maryland governor was already dogged by rumors of corruption was, apparently, not a concern for Tricky Dick.

  • William Miller, 1964: Barry Goldwater was not that well known nationally, and had a reputation as something of a kook. The assumption was that he would choose a level-headed running mate with national stature, like his colleague Everett Dirksen, or maybe House Minority Leader Charles A. Halleck. Instead, Goldwater went with someone even less-known and even more kooky than he. A popular rhyme went: "Here's a riddle, it's a killer/Who the hell is William Miller?"

Here are three non-surprises, from most to least recent:

  • Gerald Ford, 1973: Maybe this is cheating, but when Agnew resigned due to corruption, Nixon really needed someone who had a national reputation for steady leadership and for integrity. As the House Minority Leader, and someone who had absolutely no connection to the administration or Watergate, Ford was the ideal (and arguably the only good) choice.

  • Richard Nixon, 1952: Dwight Eisenhower was one of the oldest presidents ever elected, and had a history of health problems. He needed someone who was young, a war veteran, and who, ideally, came from a swing state. Nixon checked all three boxes, and was a rising star in the party thanks to his anti-Communist efforts. Imagine what a slam dunk AOC would be if she was 10 years older, Black, and came from Florida. That's Nixon in 1952.

  • Lyndon B. Johnson, 1960: Johnson was John F. Kennedy's main rival for the 1960 nomination and was nationally known. Further, Kennedy really needed a Southerner on the ticket, ideally one from the giant swing state of Texas. Johnson was so clearly the right pick that the Kennedy brothers tapped him despite the fact that they both loathed him.

We don't think there's any clear pattern in terms of whether a "surprise" VP is more or less likely to be successful than a "predictable" VP. What we do think is that VPs chosen solely because of the votes they might attract, with no attention paid to what happens after the election, tend to be very poor picks.

Q: I've been a loyal reader of your blog since 2004, and I remember that spring there was rampant speculation that John Kerry would select John McCain to be his running mate, creating a "unity ticket" of a Democrat president and Republican vice president. My question is multipart: (1) Is there any way to know how serious that story was? And (2) Supposedly, McCain had a similar unity ticket idea in 2008 and Joe Lieberman was on McCain's short list, which makes sense as they were close friends. Was the D-CT at the end of Lieberman's name the only thing standing in the way? J.C., Brooklyn, NY

A: The New York Times reported on the possibility of a Kerry-McCain pairing at the time, which means they surely had multiple sources they considered trustworthy. Kerry and McCain both pooh-poohed it, but that's what we would expect, even if it was the truth. So, it was probably real and at least somewhat serious (though it was apparently McCain who said "no").

The issue with Lieberman in 2008 was not really with Lieberman or his party ID, especially since he wasn't even a Democrat at that point (he was an independent from 2006 forward). The issue was that McCain was doing very poorly with evangelicals, and his people persuaded him that the only way to fix that was to pick an evangelical as his running mate.

Q: Someone was bound to ask, but can you do a quick explanation of why you chose each of the individuals you used as examples of getting 0 points in your VP pick lineup? S.S., Long Beach, CA

A: Truth be told, nobody who was actually tapped for the VP slot would earn a 0. All of them were tapped for some reason. We just picked the names of 12 bad VPs, some of them bad as candidates, some of them bad as the VP. We'll have more to say on this subject this week.

Q: You discussed (an admittedly unlikely) scenario where the Senate would choose our next Vice President, and said "In that case, say hello to President Harris, or Abrams, or Rice." Why not President Biden? Are they explicitly restricted to choosing between the nominees for Veep? R.E., Birmingham, AL

A: If the Electoral College is unable to elect a VP, and the choice falls to the Senate, then the Senate is only allowed to choose from the top two electoral-vote getters. The Constitution explicitly states that.

Q: You suggested that if Joe Biden only serves one term, 2024 would be a free-for-all among Democrats, and his Veep wouldn't necessarily have an advantage. Then later in the week, you suggested his Veep would be in a great position to take over as President in 2024, which could then possibly turn into 8 more years. What is the best option for Biden, et al., to steer it in the latter direction and give his Veep the upper hand rather than causing another giant free-for-all in 2024? In other words, how does a woman being Veep help her become the first female President? T.B., Santa Clara, CA

A: If Joe Biden really wants to hand off the presidency to his VP, he will need to do four things to make that happen: (1) deny any intent to serve one term and be done; (2) make the VP a high profile member of his team; (3) be a popular president; (4) announce that he won't seek reelection on roughly Feb. 15, 2024.

Numbers 1 and 3 will discourage other Democrats from mounting serious presidential campaigns. Numbers 2 and 4 will put the VP in the best position to be Biden's successor. If he really wanted to give his veep a huge boost—and that is not his style at all—he could resign the presidency in Jan. 2024 announcing some vague health issues. That would make it a lot tougher for challengers.

Q: Let's say Joe Biden picks Kamala Harris for VP, they win, and the Senate is split exactly 50/50—all of which seems like something that has a high probability of occurring as of today. Then, at some point during his term, Biden either resigns (unlikely) or passes away (not so unlikely), and Harris becomes President. At this point, what happens is that she nominates someone to be VP, and both the House and Senate must vote to approve this person. But what if the Senate vote is 50/50? There's no VP to vote to break a tie over who the VP would be. M.S., Pittsburgh, PA

A: If the new president (Harris, Rice, etc.) is wise, they will approach Mitch McConnell (or whoever is leading the Senate GOP caucus at that point) and secure their backing for a moderate Democrat. Then, that person will be approved and there will be no issue.

If the new president does not do that, or if McConnell won't play ball, then she will just nominate the VP of her choice, very possibly a fire-breathing left-winger, like Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) or one of the Oregon Senators, or Elizabeth Warren. Then, the President will tell McConnell & Co, that they are welcome to engage in the most high-profile obstructionism in U.S. history, and to see how the voters feel about that, while also leaving Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) as the next person in the line of succession.

Q: Earlier this week, you talked about what would happen if the presidential election had to go to the House of Representatives where each state delegation gets one vote. What happens to the votes of state delegations that are tied, like Pennsylvania (9R, 9D)? Also, what would happen in the unlikely, but possible, event of a tie in the votes of the House state delegations as a whole (e.g., 24 states to 24 states with two states tied)? E.W., Skaneateles, NY

A: If a state is unable to cast a vote, by virtue of being tied, then they cast a blank ballot.

As to the overall count, the only thing that matters is 26 votes. Anything less than that, in any combination, will not produce a resolution. So, 24-24-2 is no different than 25-24-1, or 15-10-25, or 25-25-0.

Note that it is possible to achieve resolution by some members abstaining from the vote. In 1800, there were 16 states, and so 9 delegations were needed to secure the presidency. For 35 ballots, the tally was 8-6-2 for Jefferson. On the 36th ballot, individual members from Vermont and Maryland decided to abstain from their state's vote. That took those two states out of the "tied" column and put them into the "Jefferson" column, giving him 10 delegations and thus the presidency.

Q: In 1972, Richard Nixon secured his re-election over George McGovern with a record margin of 17,995,488 votes. While this year's election is still many lifetimes away, what are the chances that the 18 million record falls? S.P., Wheaton, IL

A: By virtue of population growth (primarily), the U.S. has had increased turnout in 5 of the last 6 presidential elections. In 2016, 138,847,000 people cast votes. It's hard to know what the effect of COVID-19 and increased vote-by-mail will be, not to mention the high interest in this election, but 145,000,000 votes is probably plausible, but also an upper limit. If that comes to pass, Joe Biden would need 56.2% of the vote to win by 18 million. He's done that well in a few polls, but only a very few, and he's only once done better (a CNN poll in January that put him at 58%).

In short, the most optimistic turnout projection, and the most optimistic outcome for Biden, would make that 18-million-vote margin of victory happen. It's certainly possible, but it's not too likely.

Q: What happened to all the money Michael Bloomberg said he'd spend to support the Democratic nominee? S.W., San Jose, CA

A: We haven't heard anything about this. And if he made any sort of big public spend, it would be big news, so we would have heard of it if it had happened. That leaves three possibilities, as we see it:

  1. He's changed his mind, for whatever reason (doesn't like Biden, doesn't think it's necessary, etc.).
  2. He's waiting until later in the cycle.
  3. He's spending money, but keeping it hidden, so as to avoid talk that there is a conspiracy, or that Biden is a Bloomberg puppet, or whatever the case may be.

Any of these is plausible; only Bloomberg knows which it is.

Q: I am a staunch Democrat and will vote for him regardless, but I detect a personality trait in Joe Biden that concerns me: he thinks he is sharp when much of the time he is not, or his attitude smacks of someone who is old and out of touch. I have known so many people throughout my life who think they are funny, witty, smart, etc. and they are not really that way. I feel Biden thinks he is being sharp, powerful or playful in a clever way when it definitely does not come off that way. Examples include sniffing females' hair, hands on shoulders, biting his wife's fingers at a rally, calling a woman a "lying dog-faced pony soldier" at a town hall meeting in Iowa, or his "No Malarkey" slogan at one point in his campaign. All of these highlight his age and that he is out of touch. As an example, the 'I wouldn't take a cocaine test, either' comment was a very stupid way to emphasize that he doesn't need a cognitive test. He could have simply said, "Anyone who talks to me for 5 minutes will realize that I don't need a test for Alzheimer's. I don't know that you could say the same thing about our president, based on his interview with Axios this week." Boom.

My question is: Can a campaign not see that they have a big lead, and that Biden should be playing "prevent defense" at this point?
J.J., Des Moines, IA

A: We agree that Biden is sometimes lacking in self-awareness. In particular, he clearly thinks of himself as an honorary Black man, and that causes him to say things he really shouldn't say.

As to your question, the campaign most certainly is running a "prevent" campaign, but they do have to get their candidate out there sometimes. And while Biden gonna Biden, and there isn't much anyone can do about that, it's also the case that the 99% of the time where he's just fine gets little coverage, and the 1% where he screws up gets mega-attention. So, the impression that he's a walking gaffe factory is, in part, due to what kind of story attracts eyeballs and sells newspapers, and what kind does not.

Q: You pointed out a good example of "narrative engineering" by the press with The Hill piece about Joe Biden allegedly trying to back out of the debates. Can you comment on another example of this phenomenon, namely the progressive "wave" that has the Democratic establishment on its heals? This week, another incumbent was upset by an activist lefty type and the hyperbole has been flowing ever since. But, for some perspective, the progressive "wave" in Congress right now consists of 4 members, and there have been 3 establishment upsets this year, all of which were at the expense of flawed incumbents. Every time this happens, there is a flood of stories about how the Democratic party is moving to the left and Nancy Pelosi is inconsolable, but when a dozen centrist candidates win in 2018 and a dozen more in 2020, silence. S.O.F., Jersey City, NJ

A: The example we gave from The Hill is, in our view (especially Z's view), either deliberate or subconscious partisan framing on the part of that site's staff. You're right that the "progressive surge" story gets undue attention, but our guess is that it's not partisan in the sense that the media is trying to subtly push a progressive agenda. Our guess is that "progressive upstart beats 10-term congressman" is an interesting story that gets clicks and sells papers, and "10-term congressman wins yet again" is a boring story that doesn't. Sort of the like the distinction in the previous question: "Biden screws up!" is much more interesting than "Biden has a 90-minute Q&A, does fine."

Q: You mentioned that the President has more cash on hand than the Biden campaign. You also pointed out they haven't announced where they will spend the money. It's less than 100 days until the election and right now it looks like Biden is set to win more than 300 EVs. One might ask what Trump is waiting for. Instead, I will ask a different question: how much of the campaign cash do you think Trump could transfer to his own off shore accounts before someone discovers it and finds a mechanism to stop it? W.S., Tucson, AZ

A: When a campaign sends cash anywhere, that is very carefully tracked. What happens to the cash next is basically not tracked at all. Someone like Donald Trump surely sees that for what it is: A very easy opportunity to launder some campaign money into money in Donald Trump's pocket. Whether he has actually seized upon that opportunity is a different question, but the nonpartisan Campaign Legal Center thinks that he has. They just filed a lawsuit claiming the Trump campaign has engaged in self-dealing to the tune of $170 million. We'll see what the courts think, although not anytime soon, as the suit was only filed last week.

Q: If New York indicts Donald Trump or the members of his family for financial crimes, what is there to stop Republican-friendly IGs or DAs from indicting Joe Biden or Nancy Pelosi or Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) or other Democrats of trumped up charges (pun intended)? G.W., Oxnard, CA

A: There are two issues here. The big one is that indicting someone without a good-faith belief in their guilt is an abuse of process and could lead to disbarment and/or imprisonment. You will notice that nobody, no matter how Trump-friendly they may be, has tried to indict Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. They know that would be playing with fire.

The second issue is that you can only be indicted in places where you've committed a crime. Assuming a Biden presidency, none of his appointees are going to be pursuing frivolous federal revenge suits against Democrats. And, not coincidentally, all of the leading Democrats come from very blue states. Delaware officials aren't going to indict Biden, California officials aren't going after Pelosi, and New York isn't going after Schumer. Even if the AG of, say, Wyoming, was willing to take a chance with their license and their freedom, they don't have any jurisdiction.

Q: When you look at the succession of presidents provided us by the GOP in our lifetimes—from Nixon to Reagan to George W. to this one—aren't we all kind of shuddering over what might follow next?

With that in mind, has the Republican Party been working on anything to shore up their nominating system so as to head off another Trumpian whackjob in 2024? Or are they really able to live with embarrassments like this as their standard bearer?
S.J., Denver, CO

A: First, you may shudder at some of those names, but for most Republican pooh-bahs, the only nominee who makes them shudder is Trump.

In any event, the only real curative is to grant party insiders greater control over the process, a la the Democratic superdelegates. Even the Democrats rebelled against that, and Republicans are the party that distrusts both authority and expertise. So not only is the GOP not working on anything, but it's politically impossible that they would try it.

Q: Despite a steady drumbeat in the news of Donald Trump's various political and reelection woes, he has in fact seen a slow but steady climb back upwards in the polls and related metrics in the past few weeks. This is happening despite the disastrous Axios interview and relentlessly increasing number COVID-19 deaths. What do you think accounts for this quiet and inexplicable turnaround? J.M., Jacksonville, FL

A: We think it is probably more correct to say that his numbers have stabilized, rather than to say that they are climbing. That said, they are still moving around within the margin of error. Further, they are something of a trailing indicator, which means that current numbers largely reflect the "COVID-19 is serious" Trump of last week, rather than the "the Chinese virus is fake news" Trump that returned this week. Let's see another couple of weeks' polling data before we reach any conclusions.

Q: Your analysis involves many pollsters; does it also include Rachel Bitecofer? She does very good analysis and she basically predicted the blue wave in 2018 when others were not so certain. She argues that the hyperpartisanship that we are currently experiencing is one of the reasons Trump has not fallen below 40% approval and probably won't in November D.M., Whippany, NJ

A: Bitecofer doesn't produce polling numbers, per se, which means she does not provide the sort of raw material that we put into our database. We do, however, sometimes write items about the people who make broad predictions, including Bitecofer, Larry Sabato, Charlie Cook, etc. Expect one of those this week, in fact, about another prognosticator who is getting a lot of attention.

Q: As a result of the 1960 census, California gained 8 EVs. Is this the largest decennial gain in U.S. history? If not, what is? Conversely, what is the largest decline in electoral vote history? M.C., Salem, MA

A: California benefited from the twin effects of absolutely torrid state-level economic growth (due to increased migration, tourism, and defense spending) as well as the population growth of the "baby boom." Here are the other occasions where a state has gained 8 or more EVs:

  • After the census of 1820, Ohio gained 8 EVs
  • After the census of 1790, Virginia gained 9 EVs
  • After the census of 1930, California gained 9 EVs
  • After the census of 1810, New York gained 10 EVs
  • After the census of 1910, Oklahoma gained 10 EVs

Oklahoma comes with an asterisk, because they gained statehood at that time, and so started with 0 EVs.

And here are the five times a state has lost 4 EVs or more

  • After the census of 1840, North Carolina and Pennsylvania both lost 4 EVs
  • After the census of 1980, New York lost 5 EVs
  • After the census of 1840, Virginia and New York both lost 6 EVs
  • After the census of 1820, Massachusetts lost 7 EVs

Obviously, it was much easier to lose a bunch of EVs (or to gain a bunch) before the membership of the House was capped at 435.

Q: John C. Calhoun (now that you've introduced him to us) served as vice president under two presidents (John Quincy Adams and Andrew Jackson). Did any other VP serve under different presidents as VP? T.B., Tallahassee, FL

A: The only other one is George Clinton, who served under Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. This was, of course, prior to his career as a pioneer of funk music.

Q: Watching the excellent recent Apollo 11 documentary, Richard Nixon's congratulatory phone call to the astronauts mentioned that he was calling from the "Oval Room" at the White House. Was this a common name for the Oval Office at the time, or did Nixon misspeak? P.F., Catonsville, MD

A: When the White House was originally built, oval rooms were in vogue because they were then a cutting-edge demonstration of humans' construction capabilities. So, the original structure has three large, oval-shaped rooms stacked on top of one another in the center of the building. The one on the ground floor is known as the Diplomatic Reception Room. The one above that is known as the Blue Room. And the one above that is known as the Yellow Oval Room. It is commonly used for parties, receptions, and large meetings. This is undoubtedly the room Nixon was referring to.

The Oval Office was not built until the 20th century, and though its shape was a nod to the three older oval-shaped rooms, it's in a different part of the building (the West Wing, as you might guess), several hundred feet to the north of the Diplomatic Reception Room. It has never been known as the "Oval Room."

Q: It's commonly said that Barack Obama was our first Black president. It's certainly true that he identified with that part of his heritage. Yet, Warren Harding was rumored to have Black ancestry and he didn't seem comment on it. He also didn't identify with it. Is there any evidence that Harding did have ancestors who were Black? Ron F., Eugene, OR

A: If you go far back enough, everyone has ancestors who are Black, of course, since homo sapiens originated in Africa (possibly around Kenya). That said, the only evidence that Harding was Black is based on offensive stereotypes—he had big lips, a broad nose, etc. His DNA has been tested, and it shows no signs of recent African ancestry (i.e., the last 15 generations or so). Harding is one of several presidents who was thusly slurred by opponents; others include Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, Calvin Coolidge, and Dwight D. Eisenhower.

Q: You wrote that you switched from "black" to "Black" when referring to people of that ethnicity, because the former "implies something that is merely descriptive, whereas the capital implies a shared culture or identity." I read your site daily and don't recall when you've capitalized "white" the same way, even when the adjective is in the same sentence as "Black." Why? J.X., Suzhou, Jiangsu, China

A: There are two reasons, and they are highly correlated. The first is that white people do not have a shared experience or a shared identity in the way that Black people do. Indeed, until fairly recently (the last century or so), it would have come as a surprise to a Russian, a German, and a Frenchman to learn that they are all the same race.

The second reason is that white supremacists argue that white people do have a shared experience and identity, and that identification should be just as important a signifier as "Black" or "Latino" or "Asian" or "Jewish" or "American." Consequently, the white supremacists do capitalize "White." As a general rule, we try to do the opposite of what the white supremacists think is correct.

Q: Will you vote by mail in November? F.S., Cologne, Germany

A: Inasmuch as it's not so easy to find a polling place in the Netherlands, (V) has voted by mail for a very long time. (Z) just sent in his application for a permanent absentee ballot this week. He preferred a mail-in ballot, but California does not offer a choice between the two for some reason. Oh, well!

Today's Presidential Polls

A lot of money will be spent polling Michigan this year just to make sure nothing gets missed, like it was in October 2016. Odds are that money is wasted, but better safe than sorry. (Z)

State Biden Trump Start End Pollster
Kansas 43% 50% Aug 05 Aug 06 PPP
Michigan 51% 40% Jul 25 Jul 30 EPIC-MRA

Today's Senate Polls

We really don't believe Kansas is a toss-up. It's going to take many polls like this one to change our minds. (Z)

State Democrat D % Republican R % Start End Pollster
Kansas Barbara Bollier 37% Roger Marshall 47% Mar 10 Mar 11 PPP
Kansas Barbara Bollier 42% Roger Marshall 43% Aug 05 Aug 06 PPP
Michigan Gary Peters* 50% John James 40% Jul 25 Jul 30 EPIC-MRA

* Denotes incumbent

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

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

Email a link to a friend or share:

---The Votemaster and Zenger
Aug07 Tennesseans Waltz to the Polls
Aug07 Trump Announces Plans to Cut TikTok, WeChat off at the Knees
Aug07 What's Going on with Trump and Facebook?
Aug07 Here Comes Another Trump Book
Aug07 CPD: Debate Schedule Not Open to Debate
Aug07 Biden Opens Mouth, Inserts Foot
Aug07 Letitia James Goes After the NRA
Aug07 Young Sues Trump
Aug07 Today's Presidential Polls
Aug07 Today's Senate Polls
Aug06 Axios: It's Harris or Rice
Aug06 Democrats Prefer Harris; Republicans Want Rice
Aug06 Acceptance Speeches Won't Be at the Conventions
Aug06 Biden Announces a Massive Ad Buy
Aug06 Can an Election Be Held During a Pandemic?
Aug06 Michigan Was a Mess
Aug06 Trump Sues Nevada over Absentee Ballots
Aug06 Republicans Knocked on a Million Doors Last Week, Democrats on Zero
Aug06 McConnell Says That He Will Need Democratic Votes to Pass a COVID-19 Relief Bill
Aug06 If Trump Loses, Republicans Will Have a Leadership Battle
Aug06 Rashida Tlaib Wins
Aug06 VP Candidate Profile: Sen. Maggie Hassan (D-NH)
Aug06 Today's Presidential Polls
Aug06 Today's Senate Polls
Aug05 In the Sunflower State, Everything Comes Up Roses for the GOP
Aug05 Trump Embarrasses Himself in Axios Interview
Aug05 Trump's Debate Dithering
Aug05 Today's Stance on Vote-By-Mail
Aug05 How Trump Could Steal the Election
Aug05 VP Candidate Profile: Gov. Gina Raimondo (D-RI)
Aug05 Today's Presidential Polls
Aug05 Today's Senate Polls
Aug04 Vance Is Out For Blood
Aug04 Not-ctober Surprise
Aug04 Fauci-Birx Role Reversal?
Aug04 The Last Tsar of Russia
Aug04 Time Runs Short for Trump
Aug04 Who Will Be the DNC Keynote Speaker?
Aug04 VP Candidate Profile: Rep. Val Demings (D-FL)
Aug04 Today's Presidential Polls
Aug04 Today's Senate Polls
Aug03 White House and Democrats Remain Far Apart on New Relief Bill
Aug03 Meadows Walks Back Tweet on Delaying the Election
Aug03 Clyburn: Trump Is Mussolini
Aug03 Will Trump's Renomination Be Private?
Aug03 What's the Matter with Kansas?
Aug03 Arizona Votes Tomorrow
Aug03 Michigan Votes Tomorrow
Aug03 Missouri Votes Tomorrow
Aug03 Washington Votes Tomorrow