Biden 350
image description
Ties 18
Trump 170
image description
Click for Senate
Dem 53
image description
Ties 1
GOP 46
image description
  • Strongly Dem (233)
  • Likely Dem (46)
  • Barely Dem (71)
  • Exactly tied (18)
  • Barely GOP (44)
  • Likely GOP (53)
  • Strongly GOP (73)
270 Electoral votes needed to win This date in 2016 2012 2008
Dem pickups vs. 2016: AZ FL GA MI NC PA WI
GOP pickups vs. 2016: (None)
Political Wire logo Trump Lashes Out at FBI Investigation
No Matter the Polling Method, Biden Is Ahead
Biden and Trump Set Up Showdown in Pennsylvania
Trump Has No Closing Argument
Trump Supporters Clog America’s Highways
GOP Is Destroying Itself on Altar of Trump

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

Sunday Mailbag

The last mailbag before the big day (though we will be running some readers' predictions on Tuesday, as promised).

2020 Election, Presidency

P.B. in Lille, France, writes: As a French citizen, I have always loved America. I couldn't tell you exactly why...Due to our common history as allies? For the incredible diversity of your country? For your culture and your movies? Maybe because of your unbelievable barbecues? Perhaps for all these reasons?

I traveled a lot in your beautiful country (Florida and California mostly), and I enjoyed every bit of the experience. Since 2016, and for the first time in my life, I have looked at your country with fear and disbelief. I am so sad to see a country that I truly love becoming such a mess under the rule of a fool. Please American friends, please, I beg you: Make America great again, and free the world from that crazy lunatic. I intend to watch the election results on Tuesday (well, mostly Wednesday due to my timeline). I will have a bottle of wine by my side. But will it be to celebrate or to forget? It's up to you, please do not disappoint me.

N.G. in Agoura Hills, CA, writes: With 90 million votes already banked and 150+ million total votes now a very real possibility, perhaps it's time for nervous Democrats to stop freaking out about each and every polling dip from now until Election Day and focus instead on the daunting mathematical reality facing the president: Trump needs to significantly increase his number of total votes from four years ago to have even a snowball's chance of re-election.

In 2016, Trump won some 63 out of 134 million total votes, for around 47% of the vote. That same number in a hypothetical 150 million vote scenario would only bring him to 42% this time around. Both polls and anecdotal evidence suggest that Trump has lost a small, but not insignificant, number of his 2016 voters. At the same time, he's made very little effort to expand upon the coalition of voters that brought him to power. He may still reach 63 million and maybe even increase that number to 65 million if he's picked up some new converts along the way, but I have a difficult time seeing how he can get to much more than that.

Put another way, Trump would need 70+ million votes to equal the 47% he managed in 2016 if 150 million people do indeed wind up voting. That still might not be enough in 2020 but it at least puts him back in "drawing to an inside straight" territory. Unless a credible case can be made showing where those additional 7-plus million votes might be found, I'd submit that Trump's re-election is a virtual impossibility. This little exercise in number crunching may not be enough to calm the fears of the "b-b-b-but 2016" crowd but it has helped me sleep better at night.

D.B. in Winston-Salem, NC, writes: Yesterday, you wrote: "As with our answer above, in about a week, it will be easy to know which past election was sorta similar to this one. But it will only be sorta similar, because there is no historical analogue to going through a pandemic in the midst of a presidential election, or for all the early/mail voting, or for the likelihood of the greatest turnout in American history."

Whenever I see such statements, I always whisper under my breath: "but of course, the population is now higher than ever before in the U.S." A more significant number would be the turnout/population, a percentage, rather than an absolute number for turnout.

V & Z respond: When we made that observation previously, earlier this week, we pointed out that if turnout reaches 65%, that will be the highest in more than a century. And since most women, many people of color, and men between the ages of 18 and 21 could not vote the last time turnout reached 65%, then we would say that 65% turnout this year would be historic and unprecedented, even if some Gilded Age elections had turnout in the 80s.

D.R. in Kensington, MD, writes: I know you've mentioned in the past how important it is when a candidate passes 50% in the polls, something Hillary Clinton did not do in the "Pierogi Alley" states in 2016. On top of that, when added together, the top two candidates in those polls averaged about 88% three days before the election, compared to 95% today. Even without the margin of error, there obviously was a lot of room to move around. Things seem much more stable this year.

Top two in the three "Pierogi Alley" states in 2016, 3 days before election:

  • WI 46+40 = 86
  • MI 46+41 = 87
  • PA 48+42 = 90

Top two in the same states in 2020, 3 days before election:

  • WI 51+43 = 94
  • MI 52+43 = 95
  • PA 51+45 = 96

A.A. in Austin, TX, writes: I read with interest the question from J.K. in New York and your response about the NBC News tool regarding Texas voters. The questioner said the site "shows voter makeup so far as 53% Republican, 36% Democratic and 11% Other/Unknown. That would be a Republican wipeout and contrary to all the polling."

May I offer some on-the-ground perspective? Texas does not have a party registration system. Party affiliation is based on primary participation. If a voter voted in the Democratic primary, that voter would be considered a Democrat in the voting lists, etc. (and likewise for those voting in the Republican primary). Since Texas has been so red for so long, and because "all politics is local" (or used to be), many faithful Democrats vote in the Republican primary in order to have a voice about local elected officials (county judge, county clerk, sheriff, etc.), especially in places where there won't be a viable Democratic opponent. So that 53% is full of Democrats who will vote blue in the General election. While I have never done this and have often counseled/begged people not to do so, I personally know many devout Democrats who do. So relying on party affiliation based on primary voting is a shaky basis for drawing general election conclusions.

V & Z respond: Thanks for the benefit of your inside information!

N.S. in Allentown, PA, writes: Regarding the question you had Saturday about candidates visiting states, I have additional information. I've been working on campaigns for 16 years (and reading your site for about as long). There is a major benefit to a candidate visiting a state that rarely gets discussed: It is a great place for volunteer recruitment. At just about every political event, in order to get in, you need to give your name, ZIP code, e-mail, and phone. Sometimes there's a sign-up for volunteer shifts on the ticket as well. At the very least, we've identified people as supporters who need to be turned out on Election Day. If a candidate holds a rally and 10,000 people come (for easy math), and I can get 10% of them to sign up for an average of 2 volunteer shifts, that's 2,000 shifts. Let's say that each shift they talk to 20 voters, then that's 40,000 voter contacts. I don't work in finance, so I don't know how likely those folks are to donate, but the Obama campaign got an average of $21 from each e-mail address they got. So, if half of the 10,000 people were new e-mails, that's also $104,000 in donations. Not enough to pay for the event, but combined with the volunteers and media coverage, totally worth the trip.

V & Z respond: Thanks to you, as well, for the benefit of your inside information!

A.W. in Keyser, WV, writes: At President Trump's rally this week, thousands of his supporters were stranded at the airport miles from where they were parked when the buses that brought them to the venue failed to show up to return them to their vehicles. I can't help but see this as the perfect metaphor for his presidency. He spent the entire time promoting himself, nothing was accomplished, his supporters were harmed, and they will continue to support him despite of all of this.

H.M. in East Lansing, MI, writes: My best friend from college, whom I've known for 33 years, has been married for 25 years. He has two daughters who are in college right now, ages 22 and 19. He is pretty apolitical and doesn't usually vote. But he is now facing having both of his kids cut off from his healthcare. Oh, and did I mention he has a Japanese wife who can't cut through the red tape to get her green card renewed?

His exact words to me the last time we spoke were: "I have never felt that my family has been attacked as I have been right now." This is what the suburbs are thinking right now.

J.L. in Mountain View, CA, writes: In response to a question by R.K. in Minneapolis, you said you would rather control the Senate than the Presidency. Interestingly, my son asked me the same question last night, and I unreservedly chose the presidency. Donald Trump has demonstrated how much unilateral power the president has. A short sample: He gave classified information to the Russians, he messed up the mail to slow it down, he has removed restrictions on the use of federal lands, he has put new restrictions on immigration, and he has tortured children to act as a deterrent for their parents. The list goes on and on. I would gladly trade stopping and, where possible, reversing, these policies for a vague possibility that maybe Trump would do something right to score a win, or the opportunity to call hearings that might embarrass him.

V & Z respond: An excellent counterargument.

D.K. in Iowa City, IA, writes: People complain about how much money is spent in the political campaigns but nothing is done to limit the spending. The Democrats are spending more than the Republicans this time it appears. Until we can get money out of politics, we will not get corruption out of government.

D.T. in San Jose, CA, writes: Despite decreasing value, it seems that both parties are going to break all previous spending records for television campaign advertising. As an alternative proposal, I'd suggest it would be cheaper in the long run for the political parties to simply start buying the television networks themselves.

The projected campaign spending for 2020 is $11 billion. Not all of that is spent on television advertising, but a lot of it is. Based on numbers that I could find, Sinclair Broadcast Group is only worth $1.38B. If Democrats really wanted to shut Fox News up, the entire Fox Corporation would cost about $22B. Estimates put CNN's value around $5B. Paying for campaign advertising seems to be a classic rent-vs-buy economics question.

Of course, there is something inherently undemocratic about political parties taking over the media, and using them as official mouthpieces of the party...but given that both parties are already spending billions of dollars, trying to buy influence among the voters, I think we may have long since passed the ethical point of no return anyway.

A.B. in Wendell, NC, writes: I was talking with someone the other day who lives in California...and this person asserted that Gov. Gavin Newsom (D-CA) is requiring people to wear masks to have sex. I was just gobsmacked at what some people will believe!

Even if it were true (and it isn't), how would one enforce this? Needless to say, I just treaded lightly and got the subject changed.

V & Z respond: We would bet a large sum of money that this person read this story, which talks about Newsom's suggestion that people wear masks at restaurants when not eating, and that also contains an inline link to a story about a Canadian doctor's suggestion that people wear masks during sex.

In short, this is more nefarious Canadian troublemaking, and has nothing to do with Newsom.

H.F. in Pittsburgh PA, writes: Most followers of have probably already discovered that the nearest equivalent on TV is the PBS NewsHour team anchored by Judy Woodruff. They have rolling presidential and congressional vote updates; analysis by experts in polling, social media, and U.S. history; commentary by conservative and liberal pundits (Mark Shields, at age 83 has seen it all, and can be hilarious. Older citizens watching Mark will perhaps be reminded of the late Speaker of the House, Tip O'Neill). Compared to the big three broadcast networks and the major commercial cable outlets, the PBS NewsHour lacks elaborate studio sets, blaring music, and flashy graphics (the PBS NewsHour production values are downright primitive) but the coverage is thorough and thoughtful, although not the same since the passing of co-anchor Gwen Ifill.

D.M. in Woodland Hills, CA, writes: Another way the 2020 election is different from the 2016 election is that the Cubs didn't win the World Series this year. As you pointed out in 2016, previous to the 2016 Cubs' World Series win, that last time that they won, a Republican was elected president.

V & Z respond: Of course, the team that did win the World Series this year was the Dodgers. And what happened the last time the Dodgers won the World Series, back in 1988? A Republican was elected president...

2020 Election, Senate

D.M. in Elgin, MN, writes: I'm a longtime elections follower and I pay particular attention to unusual rules, such as the single electoral votes in Maine and Nebraska, ranked choice voting in Maine, and "jungle primaries." What occurs to me is that there is an increasing probability that Georgia may have two runoff elections.

It has been a near-certainty that the seat to which Sen. Kelly Loeffler (R-GA) was appointed will end up in a runoff. No credible poll has any candidate approaching 50% in that election. The tightening of the Sen. David Perdue (R-GA)/Jon Ossoff polling would indicate that perhaps neither of the major party candidates will clear the 50% bar. If both seats require a runoff, it could be quite a spectacle, especially if control of the Senate is at stake. Further, what would the role be of a defeated-but-still-president Donald Trump? What about a president-elect Joe Biden?

V & Z respond: We will note that, since you wrote, there has been one poll that put Ossoff at 51% and two that put Warnock at 51%. Interestingly, at this point, it's more likely that Warnock avoids a runoff, since there's a good chance that Matt Lieberman's remaining supporters decide not to waste their votes and/or risk the seat remaining in Republican hands.

S.S. in Walpole, MA, writes: How are you thinking about the special election in GA? All polling, if looking at RCP, for example, suggests the race for second place is a dead heat between Collins and Loeffler. first place will go to Warnock, but no one will get 50% or greater. Therefore, your idea that the Georgia special election is between Warnock and Loeffler is misguided, because Collins is tied with Loeffler right now (roughly 20% support each).

V & Z respond: Our software can handle three-way races, but not four-way races (thanks to Ralph Nader being a serious factor in 2004). But all the polls of the Georgia special election are either (1) four- or five-way polls among all the majorish candidates for the jungle primary or head-to-head polls for the various combinations of the runoff. For a long time, we did not track that race at all, which produced multiple complaints every day. In order to track the runoff, which is what matters, we had to pick an opponent for Warnock, and we were persuaded that Loeffler is polling better, based on the recency and quality of the polls that give her the edge. Since then, of course, we have gotten multiple complaints per day that we chose her above Collins. Fortunately, in just a few days, we will know the identity of the correct candidate for certain (or whether there will be a runoff at all) and then nobody will have to be upset anymore.

B.S. in Montreal, Canada, writes: I wanted to make a comment on the Texas senate race that very few seem to notice or mention.

Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) is the former Majority Whip and is the senior senator from Texas, and a Republican to boot. He has held the office for 18 years.

MJ Hegar, by comparison, is not well known and has only run in 1 congressional race in her career which she lost by a few points.

When we look at the polling, we see that Hegar is having trouble breaking 40% consistently in her polls. But even more telling, Cornyn can't get above the mid 40s himself on a consistent basis. Surely the Libertarian who is polling at 2% is not the reason for this.

The fact is that Cornyn is in trouble. Even though Hegar is not a household name, she is still within single digits of the Senator, who should be above 50% easily, considering he won with 61% of the vote in 2014, and he "never broke a sweat", according to an article in The Dallas Morning News. He's not even the one that everyone hates, that's Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX). People actually like Cornyn, right?

Cornyn is in trouble. He isn't overperforming Trump; he is in lock step. They are both in the upper 40s. So I can't imagine there are many Cornyn-Biden voters. But in the polling, there are consistently higher numbers in "undecided/don't know" column for the Senate race than for the presidential race, about 5 points of difference.

Biden will have coattails and Hegar will finish much closer than the polls suggest.

J.T. in Marietta, GA, writes: I've been puzzled for a long time about the competitiveness of Jaime Harrison in South Carolina. A Black Democrat in a tie with a white Republican? In South Carolina? But then it hit me: remember when Chris Matthews got shown the door at CNN, partly because he confused Harrison for Sen. Tim Scott (R-SC) in a photograph? My theory is that there are a number of low-information South Carolina Republicans who actually think Jaime Harrison is Tim Scott. They see another tall, portly, bald, Black man on TV, and think, "Oh, yeah—that Senator, I like him." These are low-information voters, remember; most people don't even know the names of their state's senators. I know it sounds outlandish (and not to take anything away from Harrison as a candidate, nor to underestimate just how repulsive Lindsey Graham is to voters these days), but I can't help but think this might be making the race competitive. Ironic if the incipient racism in some South Carolina conservatives actually elects a second Black senator.

V & Z respond: Dunno, this would require that voters be unable to recognize Lindsey Graham, and also be unaware that he's the Republican candidate. Further, what happens when these hypothetical folks go to check "Tim Scott" on their ballots and can't find him?

W.S. in Austin, TX, writes: You wrote: "But if [Sen. Joni] Ernst loses, she can always go back home and castrate some more hogs. She's really good at it."

Actually, there's more work in that line in D.C.

V & Z respond: Perhaps so, though it appears that voters will be taking care of some of the higher-profile ones themselves on Tuesday.

Who Supports Trump?

M.C. in San Mateo, CA, writes: I enjoyed the item where you listed the three groups that make up Trump's steady base, but I think you missed one: racists and xenophobes. I think there are a substantial number of these that aren't working class whites, or rich businesspeople, or evangelicals. They will support Trump as long as he directs outrage at those they perceive as outsiders.

R.M. in Lincoln City, OR, writes: I live in a blue county in a blue state, but I have quite a few friends and acquaintances who are solid Trump supporters. I'm always surprised to learn that they back Trump because I find myself thinking along the lines of: "You're not stupid. You and I often have intelligent, fun, reasonable conversations about a wide range of topics."

These are middle-class, moderately well-educated people who are not rabid evangelicals, as far as I know. I would not call any one of them racist. They detest illegal immigration because they say it's not fair to give a break to people who break the rules. Every one of them is an environmentalist and a nature lover. I suspect they love seeing their 401ks and IRAs climb, but I would call only one of them wealthy.

In other words, they don't fit the molds you've listed. I don't know the answer to the question: Why would someone who is not rich, not resentful, not racist, and not homophobic support Trump? I think it comes from a baseless fear of "socialism," the notion that they've worked hard all their lives for whatever they have and they don't think that being born into poverty is an excuse to live off "handouts" from people who actually pay taxes in this country.

Maybe that answer fits into your "resentful working-class white men" category, but I think there's something else going on.

T.J.R. in Metuchen, NJ, writes: Years ago, I had a conversation with a colleague who came from China. I was arguing that people want to have free will, the ability to choose their own destiny. He disagreed, saying most people want to be led, to be told what to do. It took me a long time to digest that, since it is antithetical to the American ideal. Our views likely were shaped by the fact that we grew up in different political environments: I in a free society and he in a totalitarian one. But I now understand his views better.

Some people want a "strong" man (or what they perceive as a strong man) as a leader. It's less about issues than it is a perceived strength of leadership. That strength may be defined by self-confidence, perceived past success, celebrity, physical presence, tone of voice, etc. Add in promised rewards, and that more or less defines a cult leader. It's not all of Trump's base, obviously. But I think it's true about more than a small fraction.

M.M. in San Diego, CA, writes: Trying to understand the conservative reaction to both the pandemic and climate change, I postulate that what drives their response is neither ignorance nor denial. Rather, it is an underlying fatalism that is so pervasive within their ranks that they are unaware that their worldview is colored by it. I'm thinking of the aspect of fatalism in which "the appropriate reaction to the inevitability of some future event is acceptance or resignation, rather than resistance." (lifted from Wikipedia)

The Northern Plains, populated by descendants of Scandinavian and Germanic immigrants, at the mercy of the elements, deeply reflect a come-what-may survivalism. Naturally, the Yankee can-do spirit, in which we build, engineer, and "science" our way out of any problem is deeply mystified by an unwillingness to jump on locking down a virus or moving climate mountains.

This assessment may be completely wrong, but it does lend some dignity, either real or imagined, to the opposition's perspective, and attempting to understand one another is the first step towards bridging a divide.

M.C. in Chicago, IL and Wilmington, NY, writes: I run in conservative circles with my family and work and was thinking about the women in my life who buy the Kool-Aid that Biden is senile, a socialist tool for AOC, and his entire family is a member of the Russian mob.

All of them, about 5 in my life (so not exactly a scientific sample), have a history of being in abusive relationships that they stayed in for many years. So after realizing this, I begin to see that for these women the disrespect and abuse of others is a feature, not a bug as it is for so many of us.

K.E. in Peoria, IL, writes: After your piece on Lou Dobbs blaming Lindsey Graham for Donald Trump's failings I thought I would report on what I've seen in middle America. My county is slightly democratic (Hillary Clinton won it by 3% in 2016) and most of the Republicans here are of the standard-issue business-first mindset. There are a minority of very vocal Trump supporters who are using their vehicles to make their voice heard very loudly. There are more than a couple large trucks in the area driving around with large Trump 2020 flags, and I've spoken to a few people who believe anything Trump has to say (COVID-19 will end on November 4th, mail in voting is fraudulent, etc.).

Over the weekend, I saw a car fully decorated in chalk marker with pro-Trump messages. On the side was a cross, under which was written "Trump is our savior." These are the people who scare me a little, because if and when Trump loses the election they will be the ones marching with AR-15s if he tells them to. The surrounding counties are fairly rural, and conservative, so I can only imagine it would be worse there. There are already Q-Anon flags and signs that I hear about from friends who live outside of town.

Voting Matters

V.O.R. in Phoenix, AZ, writes: There is a simple but deep flaw in the election system. This is beyond the many problems we hear about regularly these days such as voter ID laws, USPS slowdowns, etc. I would think that someone would have noticed it or tried to exploit it in the past but, despite being middle aged and a long time political junkie, I have never seen it discussed. This may be because it would be too risky to deploy in a normal election, though current circumstances make it seem especially potent this Tuesday.

What I am referring to is flooding the roadways with cars on Election Day. Trump's ravings against mail-in voting have put the Republican party in a position where they are likely well behind in early/absentee ballots already cast in many states and are heavily reliant on a large in person turnout of their voters on Election Day itself. If thousands of anti-Trump voters decided to go for long leisurely drives around their cities and towns, making sure to pass by all of the polling places in their area, they could surely cause general gridlock that would dramatically reduce the number of people that make it to the polls. There would be nothing obviously illegal with this behavior. The participants wouldn't need to run any COVID-19 risk by getting out of their cars, they wouldn't need to draw any attention to themselves with flags, banners, or honking. They would simply drive on public roadways at reasonable but slightly slower than normal speeds making sure to be very careful when crossing traffic.

This idea is clearly a morally dubious voter-suppression tactic. It's also inherently risky as it could be difficult to tell in many areas if the early ballots are likely to be for the preferred candidate.

A possible catchy slogan for this project, borrowed from Michelle Obama, is "When They Go Low We Drive Slow!"

Even if no one attempts this, just the possibility is a clear point for why the entire country should implement a well-thought-out 100%-mail-in election system that would dramatically increase participation numbers and remove a major vulnerability of in person voting.

V & Z respond: On Friday, a bunch of Trump-loving truck drivers pulled off a stunt that was in the same ballpark, using their vehicles to threaten a Biden/Harris bus and to keep it from reaching its destination.

T.C in Calgary, Alberta, writes: As a voter from Canada, I find it simply preposterous that Americans have to jump through hoops to vote. Seeing the voter suppression going on in "the world's greatest democracy" is a joke. Registering? Signatures? Chads? Electronic levers? Standing in line for hours? Drop boxes? Post office chicanery? Every state has their own rules? It's ridiculous.

Why doesn't the United States have a non-partisan, single, national election authority like Canada does (Elections Canada) who single-handedly manages a federal election with a blanket set of rules for everyone in every state? In Canada, you're automatically registered to vote when you file taxes, put on the voter list, then come election time, you simply show up at the polls, show ID, mark your ballot with an X and it's done. Everyone follows the same rules and procedures.

Why hasn't any elected official, party, or person running for president (especially Democrats when they control all three levels of government) ever mentioned doing away with your absolutely preposterous, antiquated election machinery and institute a national election body? I know, it's probably written in your outdated, antique Constitution.

Sorry, but the United States looks like a banana republic.

V & Z respond: HR-1, which is currently languishing in Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell's (R-KY) desk drawer, but which—as its name suggests—will be the first item of business if the Democrats capture the trifecta, makes a number of these sorts of changes.

J.A. in Virginia, writes: I voted early this week:

  • There are 3 early polling venues within a 5 minute drive of my house, open all day and some evenings for the 2 weeks prior to the election.

  • I waited in line, I didn't wait at all, and both the (paid and trained) poll workers and (sanitized) booths outnumbered those people voting.

  • I was sent a postcard with my registration details and a QR Code to fast-track the process, but having left that at home I needed only provide my name and address (no voter-ID laws).

  • The party members offering voter help weren't permitted into the voting space, and were mostly chatting with each other (in red and blue shirts indiscriminately) out front.

  • There were no strong-arm tactics, with one exception: I would be fined for failing to vote, because it is compulsory here.

Perhaps I should have mentioned that Virginia is my suburb, not my state (and where the election is being held; we'll have the results about the same time this letter is published). Here in Australia, compulsory voting means that an independent electoral commission makes it easy to register and manage your registration. With less focus on turnout, political parties must also appeal on policy more than ratf**king and dirty tricks. Plus, we run elections on a Saturday so you don't need to take time off work (and don't forget our traditional Democracy sausage).

It's not perfect. I can't take an assault rifle with me, for example. I often say that I don't like to vote because it just encourages the b*stards.

But when I hear about people queuing for 8 hours, some also taking unpaid time off work, only to perhaps be intimidated or have their vote discarded through misinformation or chicanery, I do feel for all of you in the birthplace of modern democracy.

Pray for a landslide, or perhaps meaningful reform that makes every vote count and pressures politicians accordingly. After all, they ain't all bad: it's just that 98% give the rest a bad name.

K.L. in St. Olaf, MN, writes: I work for the Postal Service in Minnesota and our policy statewide since Monday has been to not put ballots into the mail stream. We take them and put them aside and our supervisor delivers them to the election office at the county. This means that we go through all of the outgoing mail manually to pull out any ballots that we may find. I don't know if this policy is nationwide or just here, but I thought I would let you know that in my area people can still put their ballots in the outgoing mail and they will get to their destination in time. With that said, I still think it's a better idea for them to drop them off in person or vote in-person on Tuesday.

V & Z respond: We commend such civic-minded action from public servants, even if the leadership at the tip-top is rotten.

E.K.G. in Patchogue, NY, writes: I just wanted to give some quick anecdotal evidence about early voting in New York, and why it might be low as compared to other states. I received an application for an absentee ballot in September, but with all the mail shenanigans I decided I would vote early in-person. In Suffolk County (Eastern Long Island), the Board of Elections (BOE) set up several main voting "centers" to start voting on Saturday, Oct. 24. I went to go vote on Saturday and the line was insane. Talk about a super spreader event! Some of my friends waited 4 hours to vote. I couldn't wait that long. I went to vote again on Tuesday evening, but again, the line was around 3 sides of a block. I'm not sure what's happening. Few voting machines and too many people? BOE messed up.

So, I will go to my regular polling place on Tuesday next week and it will be easy and take 10 minutes. Joe Biden will carry New York, but sadly I think Rep. Lee Zeldin (R) will win my district again.

V & Z respond: For what it's worth, polls of your district have it as a toss-up.

J.S. in Bellevue, WA, writes: I live in suburban King County, WA, where, as you know, we've had vote-by-mail for years. There are 70 drop boxes throughout the county. These drop boxes are open 24 hours a day for a few weeks before the election. I think of residents of Texas, who are afforded one drop box per county, and am grateful we have several within a 20-minute drive of our house.

I dropped my ballot early Sunday morning, and shockingly, there was almost a line. People were leaving as I was driving up and before I could drop my ballot in the slot, more people had arrived to drop their ballots. I had to move quickly to snap a photo of me pushing the ballot through the slot!

I checked my ballot online on Monday afternoon, and was surprised to see it has already been counted! I am now one of the "locked in" ballots you talk about. No amount of advertising nor October surprises will move my vote one way or the other.

As a side observation, both the Biden and Trump campaigns talk about reserving advertising slots and earmarking spending for the last few days before the election. But with millions of votes already cast and many more being counted every day, the return on investment for the campaigns steadily diminishes. I wonder if future campaigns will invest more heavily in late September and early October spending, rather than waiting until the final days of the election.

A.H in Newberg, OR, writes: Yeah, I have been called an "Unreconstructed Hippie," a "Bleeding Heart Liberal," an "Eternal Optimist," and an "Old Fart." Damn proud of all of them and a few you can't print. In any event, we will never get to that "new world somewhere" we are looking for if we don't all get to the polls. VOTE!

F.S. in Cologne, Germany, writes: My shortest comment ever: VOTE!

V & Z respond: Hear, hear!

Last of the Sign Polls

B.M. in Tionesta, PA, writes: I figured I would check in on the great yard-sign census of Pennsylvania. I have a job in the timber industry that takes me all over Northwest Pennsylvania. Mostly in the counties of Forest, Venango, Warren, and McKean. (This is the Alabama part of the state that pundits love to talk about.) I am also a Joe Biden supporter, although I keep that to myself, because it makes life easier living and working in Northwest Pennsylvania. In my travels, it seems like about a 70/30 or 60/40 Trump/Biden split in yard signage, which will thrill the local GOP leaders. But here is the catch: This should be ruby red Trump country. I shouldn't see any Biden signs! In 2016, I saw 5 or fewer Hillary Clinton signs for every 95 Trump signs. I hope this is a good omen for Tuesday night!

T.K. in Vashon Island, WA, writes: A last-minute entry in the yard sign diaries. My wife and I drove from one side of Washington State to the other (Seattle to Spokane) and back last weekend. We have made this trip a couple times a year since 2017, and we're used to seeing dozens of Trump signs on the long farmland fences along I-90. Sometimes entire barns are painted as a giant Trump sign in this very conservative, agricultural area of the state.

Not so this year! We counted three mid-sized Trump signs on I-90. The interesting thing is that there were at least 10 signs for Loren Culp, the Republican challenging governor Jay Inslee (D). My takeaway was that lots of conservatives in this part of the country aren't ready to abandon the Republican party, but they're tired of the Trump show.

By the way, we also saw three Biden signs along the same route.

A.B. in Denver, CO, writes: An interesting yard-sign observation. In our fairly purple area in Colorado, although I haven't seen many Trump signs, and I've seen more Biden signs (though still only a small number; really not a big sign year this time), there was one fascinating house: A bunch of Republican candidate signs in the yard, but they had taped over the Trump sign with a Sen. Cory Gardner (R) sign. You could just see a bit of the edges, enough to tell it was a Trump sign. Huh.

S.A. in Los Angeles, CA, writes: Not many signs for president in my area of Los Angeles, but I've put up a Trump piñata on my front porch:

A Trump pinata with a
'Yo soy pendejo' sign attached

There are a few signs for the Democrat opposing Rep. Jimmy Gomez (D-CA) and maybe a Biden sign a few blocks away. I went to the National League Championship Series in Arlington, TX, and saw no Trump signs, but a few Biden bumper stickers on a few cars.

A.B. in Tucson, AZ, writes: There is much speculation about Arizona as a swing state in 2020. Maybe this is a predictor: The little town of Oracle (population 4,000) is 40 miles north of Tucson in Pinal County—mining, ranching, and retirement country where Trump got 57% of the vote in 2016. On the main street, fittingly named American Avenue, this week Biden signs outnumber Trump signs two to one, and there are three Kelly for Senate signs but no McSally signs at all.

If Oracle lives up to its name, even rural Arizona is shading blue.

M.S. in Milwaukee, WI, writes: I'm in the heart of one of the famous WOW counties in Wisconsin (which some readers will recognize as Waukesha, Ozaukee and Washington counties, the three suburban counties surrounding Milwaukee, filled with the descendants of white-flighters from the city who routinely deliver overwhelming numbers of Republican votes). I agree wholeheartedly with your many readers who have noted the transition this year from yard signs to yard shrines. It has become extremely rare to see a single Trump yard sign anywhere here. Rather, the typical display includes at least one Trump flag, two or more Trump signs, along with a "back the badge" sign or perhaps a "Trump for Law and Order" sign. Many of the displays near me also feature dozens of tiny American flags and at least two are lit by floodlights so they are available for viewing 24 hours a day. I can only think of one Biden flag I've seen in my county, but it feels like there are many more single Biden/Harris signs here than there were 4 years ago. Perhaps the President's weakness with the famous "suburban housewives" is starting to show. If so, his remaining supporters are trying to make up for it with their shrines.

D.S. in Urbana, IL, writes: I am owned by four retired horses, aged 12-31. They go outside to do their "horsey things" one by one as their stalls are cleaned. Yesterday, each horse was startled and fixated in turn by something moving in the distance. They stared; they snorted; they ran around, bucking and leaping.

I could not see the culprit very well, so I drove down the road to get a closer look at this "monster" that was scaring my horses. It was a newly installed Trump flag fluttering in the breeze.

No wonder they were frightened. It scares the hell out of me.

V & Z respond: One of (Z)'s dogs keeps a close eye on the TV. He regularly barks at any dogs who show up on screen (and he hides whenever lions or tigers or bears show up—oh my!). Only twice has he barked at a human being, though on both occasions, he went absolutely ballistic. The first of those occasions was when a news program showed footage of a thief who was stealing packages from people's front porches. The second was Donald Trump while he spoke at this year's Republican convention.

Legal Matters

R.H.D in Webster, NY, writes: We're all familiar with the verb "Borked," which means to intensely scrutinize a Supreme Court nominee's record upon being nominated and then spin it in an unfavorable way. There are two new words I wish to add to the dictionary:

Garlanded: To delay a nominee for a lengthy period of time in an election year when it comes from a president of the opposite party in the hopes of winning the election and having a president of the same party make the pick instead.

Barretted: To rush through a nominee in rapid time to have him/her seated on the Court a week before Election Day in the hopes that he/she will rule favorably for the president who appointed said justice on critical matters before the Court right after the election.

B.L. in Hudson, NY, writes: On Friday, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said she felt that the three justices appointed by Donald Trump should recuse themselves from any cases involving the election. "I don't trust the Supreme Court one bit," the Speaker said, giving voice to the same sentiments millions of the rest of us share.

I was surprised not to read any pushback on this in the past 24 hours. I expected Republicans to have a field day with it. But the Speaker is right. Republicans don't give two hoots about fair play and, sadly, that seems to include at least five of the six GOP Justices (John Roberts being the possible exception). If given half a chance, Trump's Supreme Court will steal the election for him, and though the need for recusal seems clear, none of them will do that. The best two ways to avoid it appear to be either Trump winning fair and square (unlikely) or Biden scoring a landslide (a little more likely). Barring those two possibilities, we can expect many court cases by Republicans eager to halt ballot counting and suppress the vote in key states. Pennsylvania is a likely target, and Florida is another. It shouldn't have to take a landslide to win, but it might. It's going to be a historic and gut-wrenching time.

B.J. in Boston, MA, writes: Here's an idea (that won't happen). If Joe Biden wins, John Roberts could pull a George Washington and resign after he takes office. He could state that his reason is that he is protecting the reputation of the Court against politicization in the wake of Amy Coney Barret's confirmation. He could thus establish a precedent that Chief Justices are expected to do so, as a check against a Senate majority abusing its power.

I'm sure he would be sad to give up his gig. On the other hand, it would establish him as a legend in the pantheon of American patriots, and I'm sure he could find other interesting and remunerative things to do for the rest of his working years.

He won't do it, of course. It is just an idea.

A.G. in Santa Clarita, CA, writes: I think some people are missing the fact that it is very much possible that Donald Trump will end up nominating four justices to the Supreme Court. There have been rumors that if he loses, Clarence Thomas will announce his retirement. Mitch McConnell would then ram through yet another conservative justice, but one much younger than Thomas.

If Trump and McConnell know that all is lost for them, having lost the White House and the Senate, there is nothing to stop them. Even some of the senators who indicated they won't vote to confirm have changed their tune (ahem, Lisa Murkowski).

At this point I don't know what might happen with a vengeful Trump out to burn everything down. Perhaps some civic minded GOP senators will think twice, but history has shown that they will hem and haw, show some "concern," and then do what McConnell tells them to do.

R.H. in Santa Ana, CA, writes: You wrote that "[McConnell] has now achieved his fondest dream, namely tipping the Supreme Court in a conservative direction for a generation."

Is it not more likely that what he has done was make it more likely that the Democrats will take the Senate majority and then will right-size the federal judiciary to ameliorate (or even eliminate) the court-packing McConnell has done over the last decades?

V & Z respond: McConnell learned, long ago, that he was willing to push the boundaries much more than his colleagues across the aisle are. You're right that he may have pushed his luck too far this time, however.

M.N. in Madison, WI, writes: I got the biggest warm fuzzy from a thought I had while reading your response to P.A.F. from Los Angeles, CA. I realized that if the Supreme Court tried to invalidate a law to expand the Court despite being a clearly delegated power of Congress in the Constitution, it is exactly the sort of thing that would give Congress a clear-cut rationale to impeach any justices that argued to invalidate that law.

I realize that the justices are almost certainly too smart to fall into such a trap, but it was a ray of sunshine in some cloudy times.

A.R. in Los Angeles, CA, writes: I hate to sound like a broken record (that's a vinyl disc played on a turntable for the kids out there), but I have to comment again on the different treatment of court cases depending on the outcome and whether the decision is viewed as partisan. This site had two long items on cases from the Texas Supreme Court (who voted with the Republicans to block ballot boxes) and the Wisconsin appeals court that voted 2-1 to overturn a lower court's decision to allow ballots received after election day to be counted if postmarked by Election Day.

By contrast, a decision out of the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, which SCOTUS declined to hear, was only mentioned briefly in one item. But in that case, the decision was 12-3 to uphold the North Carolina election board's decision to expand the time to receive absentee ballots if postmarked by Election Day. In that case, all three of Donald Trump's appointees voted with the majority, as did 2 George W. Bush appointees, to not interfere with state rules governing elections.

I appreciated the lengthy explanation of the decision out of Wisconsin, which seemed to demonstrate that the decision was indeed motivated by partisanship. But just as much attention should be given to decisions that don't fit what appears to be the preferred narrative of a biased judiciary.

V & Z respond: We have no "preferred narrative." Sometimes we do mention rulings that speak to non-partisan justice, like some of the pro-voter rulings that have come from Trump appointee J. Nicholas Ranjan (see here for an example). That is because those rulings are pretty extreme examples in the "balls and strikes" direction (recent Trump appointee rules against him). Similarly, the Texas and Wisconsin cases were extreme examples in the direction of partisan bias (one an 8-0 majority, the other involving a Trump appointee that the ABA unanimously deemed "unqualified"). For cases less extreme, we don't say anything about the perceived partisan identity of the judges.

R.E.M. in Brooklyn, NY , writes: A National Court of Appeal, as suggested by J.L. in Paterson, is an unwieldy solution. As J.L. proposes it, the court would replace the Supreme Court almost entirely (there are, at most, a couple of original jurisdiction cases a year, and those all get referred out to Special Masters). So it's just rearranging deck chairs, except presumably Joe Biden would appoint the first group, as George Washington did with the original Supreme Court. It would be cleaner and more honest to expand the Supreme Court.

The original idea behind a National Court of Appeals was to relieve the Supreme Court from dealing with circuit splits (like Ninth Circuit says "X" and Fifth Circuit says "Not X"), which do make up a substantial portion of the Supreme Court docket. However, an expanded Supreme Court could take more cases, obviating that issue.

V & Z respond: The main attraction of a National Court of Appeal (or more narrowly, a Constitutional Court that handled only deciding whether a law violated the Constitution), is that Congress could decide to populate it only with sitting appeals court judges who would be rotated back to their home appeals courts after a fixed term. Thus confirmation battles wouldn't be about giving someone major authority for 40 years, but about giving him or her much, but not all, of that authority for 8, 12, 16, or some other number of years. That way, if the country moved sharply in some direction, a couple of presidents could change the composition of that court more quickly than if they have to wait for young justices to die or retire.

P.M. in Makhanda, South Africa, writes: The proposal to introduce a Constitutional Court in the U.S. is interesting. We have had one since democracy was introduced in South Africa in 1994.

Here, constitutional rights are explicitly justiciable. Lower courts can and do strike down legislation for being unconstitutional; the practical difference is that for appeals with a constitutional aspect, the Concourt is the apex appeal court; other matters stop at the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA), the same place as in the apartheid era.

Usually, appeals go through the lower courts and SCA before reaching the Concourt but it is possible for a litigant to win the right to promote a matter to the Concourt without going through all the other steps of an appeal.

When legislation in our system is struck down, it is referred back to the legislature for amendment. The courts are loath to do the legislature's job for it as that would infringe on separation of powers. However, they do have the power to refer new legislation back or to overturn old legislation. A case in point: the part of the Gatherings Act that criminalized holding protest without permission was struck down in 2018.

Our relatively new democracy learned a lot of good lessons from the older ones like the U.S.; it would be great if we can return the favor.

Ghosts of EV Past, Present, and Future

P.W. in Valley Village, CA, writes: You needn't be concerned about not having something to write about once the current insanity comes to a close.

An observation made by Jon Stewart when he was the host of "The Daily Show" just after the close of the Bush 43 administration, and when the pundits and comedians had been bemoaning that they'd have nothing to talk about: Bush's star shone so bright during his presidency that it eclipsed the view of everything else. But once his star exited the stage, all of the others—the ones that had been there all along—again became visible.

You'll have plenty of material to work with.

D.M. in Burnsville, MN, writes: Just wanted to say that I surely don't want you to go dark for a year. Or a month, or a day. That happened to me (and other loyal readers, I'm sure) in the respective interim(s) of 2004-2008 and 2008-2012, IIRC. (But, I think, that was when only (V) was running the site.)

In fact, I can say that every time I type in, I feel the lurking fear that a server somewhere won't recognize your URL or something else will inexplicably fail.

I guess that this is turning into a fan letter. That's not what I want it to be, so let me just close by saying I really appreciate, enjoy and expect your daily input. Don't disappoint me!

I'm quite sure that the US will provide continued opportunities for cogent and insightful political analyses during the next four years. Or eight?

V & Z respond: Thanks for the kind words! Though we'll note that your message becomes rather intimidating if "Don't disappoint me" is read in the voice of Alan Rickman (RIP).

M.A. in Denver, CO, writes: Once all the election hoopla settles down and you guys take a well deserved break, how about you print and comment on the proposed "amendments to the Constitution homework" you assigned a few months ago? I don't think that ever got published or if it did I missed it.

V & Z respond: It did not get published; there was never time or space. That is definitely one of the things we plan to move back to the front burner.

S.J. in Denver, CO, writes: When S.S.L. wondered what you might end up doing with the site during the mellower years of the Biden administration, it struck me what a pleasure it will be to have you fellows free to wax historical more often. Those side trips are a huge reason why my window is always open.

V & Z respond: This is another; we have several of those series we didn't get to finish, and several others that we didn't even get to begin.


M.O. in Arlington, VA, writes: You have recommended on at least two occasions that a person in the Netherlands should take a good shot of "whiskey" to calm election night anxieties. Unless you know for a fact what the person has to drink, or unless you are making a subtle pitch for the consumption of American made products, I would default to spelling the name of the libation available in the Netherlands as "whisky." When ordering an unspecified alcoholic beverage abroad, especially in Europe, I generally have received Scotch, which is spelled without the "e." American and Irish hard liquor, bourbon, etc., is spelled "whiskey," including the "e." I have noticed on recent trips abroad that servers are offering American-made hard liquors, or are making the "e" vs. "no e" distinction obvious, so my observation is becoming a less urgent concern.

On balance, I would advise the use of American "whiskey" as an aid for anxiety and Scotch "whisky" as a mood enhancer. Depending on the outcome of the election, both libations might be called for, and/or the empty bottle can be used in the unlikely case of a Trump win to put one's self out of their misery.

J.I. in Drexel Hill, PA, writes: In yesterday's answers, you incorrectly stated that "The Brady Bunch" was a "show about a well-to-do professional who divorces his wife and marries an attractive blonde, whose kids are constantly getting into trouble, and who lets 'the help' do much of the actual parenting." This is incorrect. Mike Brady was, in fact, a widower. He did not divorce his wife. Carol Brady did divorce her husband, but it was never allowed to be mentioned on the air, thanks to ABC censors.

I can no longer rely upon to have accurate information. I will now have to trust Breitbart as my source of 1970's sitcom facts.

V & Z respond: Sometimes we make a rather sizable error, and nobody catches it until 3:00 or 4:00 p.m. PT, 12 hours after we post. That error, we had 30 e-mails within 20 minutes of the post going live. As to Breitbart, we don't know how strong they are on "WKRP in Cincinnati" or "Maude" or "The Mary Tyler Moore Show," but we would guess they have keen insight into Archie Bunker.

M.N. in Madison, WI, writes: As the duly self-appointed representative for Wisconsin, I am going to take exception to any Pierogi Alley nonsense. While Pierogis can be found in Wisconsin, they are not nearly the item of cultural identity here that they are elsewhere. If you want to identify us with food, it's cheese, brats, and beer, not pierogis, that make Wisconsin.

V & Z respond: How about Paczki-Pabst-Pierogi Alley?

R.H.O. in Portland, ME, writes: In searching for a brand to collectively refer to Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania, I suggest you borrow from economists. About 50 years ago, the dismal science coined a term for the similar ideological current running through the University of Chicago, Northwestern, University of Rochester, and Carnegie Mellon, among other institutions: "Freshwater Economics" (as opposed to saltwater economics, found on the coasts).

As a former economics teacher who grew up in Wisconsin and lived for many years in Pennsylvania, I find "freshwater states" to be acceptable and appropriately descriptive as a way to brand the "Midwest" states.

V & Z respond: Do you know how many e-mails we would get asking what the hell the freshwater states are, every time we used that?

J.B. in Brossard, Québec, Canada, writes: To quote Colonel Kurtz from "Apocalypse Now," "The Horror! The Horror!" when I wrote you for The October 10 Q&A and you decided to place me in, of all places, Toronto! I had put my location as Canada only in the hopes that the deep state could not track me down. Brossard is near Montreal and there is a deep rivalry between the two cities. As such, I would rather the deep state have a shot at tracking me down than being associated with Toronto.

I have to go now—an Abrams M1 tank is pulling up in front of my house and an SR-71 Blackbird just flew over. There's a whole bunch of people out front with flak jackets on—CIA, FBI, DHS, Border Patrol, and it looks like they are being led by Matt Gaetz. He looks angrier than usual and if he explodes, it's going to be a mess!

V & Z respond: We went back and put you in the right city, so there's no question as to where to find you.

Today's Presidential Polls

Given that nearly 100 million ballots have already been cast, and that Election Day is two days away, there is no longer any meaningful possibility of changing the dynamics of these contests. Donald Trump is now down to hoping that either the majority of pollsters missed the mark badly, or that Russian/USPS/SCOTUS chicanery will save him. (Z)

State Biden Trump Start End Pollster
Arizona 50% 46% Oct 23 Oct 30 SSRS
Arizona 50% 47% Oct 15 Oct 24 Y2 Analytics
Florida 48% 50% Oct 24 Oct 29 Langer Research
Florida 49% 49% Oct 28 Oct 29 AtlasIntel
Iowa 41% 48% Oct 26 Oct 29 Selzer
Michigan 53% 41% Oct 23 Oct 30 SSRS
Minnesota 54% 43% Oct 29 Oct 30 PPP
North Carolina 51% 45% Oct 23 Oct 30 SSRS
Pennsylvania 49% 44% Oct 23 Oct 28 Muhlenberg Coll.
Pennsylvania 49% 50% Oct 29 Oct 30 AtlasIntel
Pennsylvania 51% 44% Oct 24 Oct 29 Langer Research
Texas 50% 48% Oct 28 Oct 29 PPP
Utah 44% 51% Oct 15 Oct 24 Y2 Analytics
Virginia 53% 42% Oct 23 Oct 29 Roanoke Coll.
Wisconsin 52% 44% Oct 23 Oct 30 SSRS
Wisconsin 53% 45% Oct 29 Oct 30 Emerson Coll.

Click on a state name for a graph of its polling history.

Today's Senate Polls

Ann Selzer's latest poll suggests that Iowa has slipped away from the Democrats. Could be, though even the best pollsters get an outlier result 1 time in 20. And Selzer's last poll, a month ago, was so different from this one (particularly in terms of independents' and women's support of Trump), it is fair to ask: Was that poll the outlier or was this one? There's no other really good explanation for 15-plus point shifts in those two demographics. She's betting the farm on this one. If everyone else is right and she's wrong, it will be a terrible hit to her reputation. If she's right and everyone else is wrong, she will be crowned Queen of the Pollsters.

In other news, the Arizona Senate race appears to have tightened up a bit, but Kelly has led in 35 straight polls, and he's almost invariably above 50% these days, so he's safe. And in North Carolina, Cal Cunningham just has to keep his hog tied for 36 more hours or so, and then it appears he will have six years to sow his wild oats, if he must. (Z)

State Democrat D % Republican R % Start End Pollster
Arizona Mark Kelly 51% Martha McSally* 47% Oct 15 Oct 24 Y2 Analytics
Arizona Mark Kelly 52% Martha McSally* 45% Oct 23 Oct 30 SSRS
Iowa Theresa Greenfield 42% Joni Ernst* 46% Oct 26 Oct 29 Selzer
Michigan Gary Peters* 50% John James 41% Oct 27 Oct 29 RMG Research
Michigan Gary Peters* 52% John James 40% Oct 23 Oct 30 SSRS
Minnesota Tina Smith* 51% Jason Lewis 42% Oct 29 Oct 30 PPP
North Carolina Cal Cunningham 47% Thom Tillis* 44% Oct 23 Oct 30 SSRS
Virginia Mark Warner* 55% Daniel Gade 39% Oct 23 Oct 29 Roanoke Coll.

* 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
Oct31 Saturday Q&A
Oct31 Today's Presidential Polls
Oct31 Today's Senate Polls
Oct30 Courts Get Involved Again, This Time in Minnesota
Oct30 Things for the Democrats to Worry About
Oct30 More on "Shy Trump" Voters
Oct30 Right-wing Media Try to Salvage Hunter Biden Story
Oct30 On Your Marks, Get Set, Go!
Oct30 The Delicate Art of Question Dodging
Oct30 Donald Trump, Flight Risk?
Oct30 Today's Presidential Polls
Oct30 Today's Senate Polls
Oct29 Biden Continues to Lead in the National Polls
Oct29 Early Voting Has Hit 51% of the 2016 Total Vote
Oct29 Anonymous Isn't Anymore
Oct29 Where Are the Candidates?
Oct29 Democrats Are Now with Trump
Oct29 A New Front in the Voting Wars: The Order of Counting Ballots
Oct29 Overseas Military Ballots Could Be Crucial in Florida
Oct29 Whose Fault Is It?
Oct29 Senate Rundown
Oct29 Schumer's Relationship with McConnell Is in Tatters
Oct29 Whither the Supreme Court?
Oct29 Today's Presidential Polls
Oct29 Today's Senate Polls
Oct28 Melania Trump Hits the Campaign Trail
Oct28 Jared Kushner Is Not Helping His Father-in-Law
Oct28 Biden Decides to Do a Little Swinging
Oct28 The Ballots Are Pouring In
Oct28 Abbott Wins the Ballot Box Battle, But Appears to be Losing the War
Oct28 Trump Campaign Backs Off in Florida
Oct28 One Last Funny Feeling
Oct28 Today's Presidential Polls
Oct28 Today's Senate Polls
Oct27 Barrett Is Confirmed...
Oct27 ..And May Soon Be Mucking Around in the Election
Oct27 Trump Thinks Media Should Not Cover COVID-19...
Oct27 ...Probably Because He's an Autocrat...
Oct27 ...Which Is Absolutely Killing the Republican Party
Oct27 Lou Dobbs Knows Who Is to Blame for the Trump Administration's Failures
Oct27 Six Reasons Not to Panic About the Election
Oct27 Today's Presidential Polls
Oct27 Today's Senate Polls
Oct26 Murkowski is Not Concerned and Will Vote to Confirm Amy Coney Barrett
Oct26 Nearly 60 Million Voters Have Already Cast Their Ballot
Oct26 Could COVID-19 Affect the Election?
Oct26 Could Trump Win the Midwest Again?
Oct26 Did Biden Slip on a Oil Slick?
Oct26 Pennsylvania Supreme Court Rejects Rejected Signatures
Oct26 Biden's Campaign Has Spent More on TV Ads Than Any Campaign in History