What Went Wrong with the Polls?
Georgia Senators Form GOP Unity Ticket
Lou Dobbs Has Full-On Election Meltdown
Democrats Work to Defy History in Georgia Runoffs
Giuliani Scared Off Trump’s Lawyers
Nevada Governor Tests Positive
• Stealing the Election Is Not Plausible
• Don't Count on a "Normal" Inauguration
• What Happened with Latino Voters?
• McDaniel Likely to Keep Her Job
• The Pandemic Rages, Unchecked
• The Biden Cabinet: Secretary of the Treasury
On Thursday, CNN and The New York Times called Arizona for Joe Biden; they were the last holdouts among major media outlets. That means that, even excluding Georgia—where a hand recount of ballots is underway—Joe Biden has a firm 290 EVs. The Democrat could lose Georgia (unlikely), and have any one of Arizona, Nevada, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, or Michigan flip to Trump (even more unlikely), and Biden would still be at or above 270. To quote the late, great Chick Hearn: "The game's in the refrigerator, the door's closed, the light's out, the eggs are cooling, the butter's getting hard and the jello's jiggling."
Of course, none of this has caused—or presumably will cause—Donald Trump to concede. The President, and many in his orbit, continue to insist that he won the election, that he will remain president through Jan. 20, 2025, and that the federal government will proceed on that understanding. So, although Trump himself is doing virtually nothing these days, his underlings are apparently hard at work (or, at least, are claiming to be hard at work) on their plans for next year. The real question is, what exactly is going on here? What are Trump & Co. trying to accomplish? It would appear that there are four basic possibilities:
- It's a Hard Coup: For at least a couple of years, and perhaps longer, many on the left
have worried that if and when Trump is defeated, he will put on his tin-pot dictator's hat, and will simply refuse to
yield power. Following the dismissal of Mark Esper as Secretary of Defense, followed by several other personnel changes
at the Pentagon and in the NSA, there have been a number of pieces, like
warning that a hard coup is underway, and that the Trump administration is setting itself up to remain in power through
the use of violence.
We, and in particular (Z), remain extremely skeptical of this particular read on events. Finding half a dozen civilians who are willing to kiss the ring, and to tell the President that he doesn't have to stop being president if he doesn't want to, is not so difficult. Finding enough generals and admirals and troops who share that view is very difficult, indeed. And that is before we consider the fact that Trump has not shown himself to have this sort of iron nerve. He's a blusterer, not a conqueror.
It's also worth noting that the behavior of the administration, and of the Trump family in particular, is not consistent with this notion. If they were really plotting a takeover, the President would not spend all day sulking in his private quarters, would not be bothering with a bunch of useless lawsuits, and, most importantly, would not be laying the groundwork for a 2024 run. After all, if he's dictator-for-life, there's no need for a 2024 run.
- It's a Soft Coup: The notion here is that, instead of using military force to remain in
power, Trump and his allies will utilize constitutional trickery. Specifically, they will take their best shot with
various lawsuits and, when those fail, they will lean on several GOP-controlled legislatures to override the election
results and to award their states' EVs to the President.
This is more plausible than the hard coup, but not much. However, the reasons are complicated enough that we'll give the matter its own item (see below).
- It's a Temper Tantrum: This is the likeliest explanation; that Trump is angry that he has
been repudiated, depressed that 80 million Americans voted against him, and so is engaging in a combination of denial
and lashing out. This would be consistent with his moping and his hands-off approach ever since losing the election, it
would be consistent with his firing certain underlings who displeased him, and it would be consistent with all the
tweets he's been sending out. If there was something more substantial than a temper tantrum going on here, then
surely key insiders like Jared Kushner and Melania Trump would not be
The Donald to concede.
- It's a Grift: This is also pretty plausible, and is not incompatible with "It's a temper tantrum." As Max Bialystock and Leo Bloom discovered, there's sometimes a lot of money in being a loser. Since Trump's loss became evident, his campaign has been raising money hand-over-fist to fight back against the election result. However, as The Washington Post's Dana Milbank first noticed, the fine print of those solicitations tells a different story. Namely, most of the money goes not to the "OFFICIAL ELECTION DEFENSE FUND," but instead to the RNC and/or to Trump's personal PAC. That will allow him to use the money on all sorts of personal purposes, from supporting his future runs for office to paying himself and his family members fat salaries as directors of his PAC.
In short, we don't think there's any chance Trump has a means to remain in office beyond Jan. 20, 2021 (and many others agree). That does not mean he's not doing damage, of course—interfering with Joe Biden's transition will disrupt the smooth operation of the government, and provide opportunities for America's adversaries to take advantage of. Meanwhile, calling into doubt the legitimacy of the election will do further damage to the fabric of the American democracy. (Z)
We've done this once before, but it looks like it's time to take another careful look at the alleged chink in the United States' electoral armor, namely that state legislatures have the power to decide how electors are awarded. Once the vote counting and lawsuits have stopped—and especially if Joe Biden clearly wins Nevada, Arizona, Georgia, and the three "Midwest" states—Donald Trump's only remaining move would be to get a court to order the secretaries of state in those states to refrain from certifying the votes and the governors to refrain from issuing certificates of ascertainment. Then, the idea would be to get the state legislatures to directly appoint slates of Trump electors. According to Axios, this route is apparently under consideration by the Trump campaign. As one lawyer who spoke to Axios observed, "It's basically hijacking the democracy."
And now, let us talk about eight sizable problems this scheme would run into:
- Timing, Part I: It is true that state legislatures are empowered to decide how electoral
votes are awarded. It is also true that each of the state legislatures has already made a decision, enshrining into
state law a decree that their state's EVs will be awarded by popular vote. Two months ago, assuming cooperation from a
friendly governor, any given state legislature could have changed the rules and been on solid legal ground (if shaky
political ground). But starting from the moment that ballots were first cast, and certainly once the last ballots were
in, that privilege disappeared. That is to say, the EVs of all 50 states (and D.C.) have already been awarded.
The only question, one answered by counting the ballots, is to whom. The legislatures cannot change course now, a
position supported by
and existing precedent (including Bush v. Gore).
- Timing, Part II: In short, then, there is no going back and overturning the results
by fiat. The only legal leg the Trump administration could plausibly stand on is
this one; 3 U.S. Code 2
says that, "Whenever any State has held an election for the purpose of choosing electors, and has failed to make a
choice on the day prescribed by law, the electors may be appointed on a subsequent day in such a manner as the
legislature of such State may direct." This is pretty vague, and was obviously written to cover a multitude of
circumstances. But what it means, in this case, is that Trump's legal team would have to make a longshot argument that
multiple states, though they held elections and counted ballots, did not actually "make a choice," and that the
legislatures are now empowered to step in and fill the breach.
This is a pretty tough case to make, since: (1) This statute has never been applied in that manner before, and (2) Team Trump has yet to provide a shred of evidence for its claims of fraud, missing ballots, etc. And if the President's lawyers are going to try to pull it off, they are quickly running out of time. In the states that were close, the deadline for certifying results is not far off, ranging from Nov. 20 in Georgia to Dec. 1 in Arizona. The federal deadline for certifying results is Dec. 8, and the electors cast their ballots on Dec. 14. So, not only would Trump's legal team have to pull off a miracle, they've got mere weeks in which to do it.
- The Courts: Once again, we return to Bush v. Gore here, and remind everyone that
case involved one state, a relatively small number of votes, a plausible-if-shaky legal argument, and upholding the
status quo. Any judge, even one who is ultra-Trump-friendly, is going to need some basis for a pro-Trump ruling
beyond "trust us, the results were baloney." And even if Team Trump manages to get before a Neomi Rao or a Trevor McFadden,
the cases will eventually end up at the Supreme Court. The Supremes would need something very compelling to overturn the result
in a single state, much less two or three states.
- The Legislators: There are four states that Joe Biden won that have Republican-controlled
legislatures: Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Arizona. Trump would need Pennsylvania plus any two of the others
in order to flip the Electoral College. But, even if allowed by the Courts, would Republican state legislators up in
2022 be willing to go on record hijacking democracy? Do they think voters in their states will forgive and forget by
2022? Already, Pennsylvania State Senate Majority Leader Jake Corman (R)
that he's not interested in playing that game, and that state law will be followed this year. Unless he's lying, that's
game over for Trump right there, since Pennsylvania is a must-have for him.
- The Governors: Meanwhile, three of the Biden states that have Republican-controlled
legislatures have Democratic governors (Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin). Regardless of what the courts might
say, and regardless of what the legislatures might do, that trio has a strong foundation for submitting a slate of
electors for their respective states, as both state and federal law empower them to do so. In view of the stakes, not to
mention the will of the voters in their states, that is precisely what they would do. And so, even if the courts and
legislatures conspire with Trump (very unlikely), then we would still end up with two sets of electors, one for Trump
and one for Biden. Welcome to
but on steroids. What would happen then? Keep reading.
- The Archivist: By the terms of federal law, specifically
3 U.S. Code 6,
the final list of electors from each state is communicated by "the executive of each State" to the Archivist of the
United States. And so, if Archivist David Ferriero (an Obama appointee, incidentally) were to receive a set of electors
from, say, the Pennsylvania legislature, and a different set from Gov. Tom Wolf (D), then he is supposed to promptly toss the
legislature's list into the garbage.
- The Counting of Electoral Votes, Part I: Even if the Trump campaign overcomes all of these
problems, and somehow gets multiple sets of electors from multiple states all the way to Congress, they still have
problems. Again, the duty of Archivist Ferriero is crystal clear. But if he is not willing to take on the responsibility
of resolving the matter, and hands both sets of electors off to Congress, federal law still has an answer. As many
readers know, any one representative and any one senator can pair up to file a dispute, challenging one or more slates
of electors. At that point, the Senate and the House are supposed to retreat to their respective chambers, and to try to
work out a resolution. But if they can't, then guess what?
3 U.S. Code 15
has an answer: "But if the two Houses shall disagree in respect of the counting of such votes, then, and in that case,
the votes of the electors whose appointment shall have been certified by the executive of the State, under the seal
thereof, shall be counted." Once again, the governors' lists carry the day.
- The Counting of Electoral Votes, Part II: This is the final line of defense against a Trump hijack, should all else fail. The aforementioned 3 U.S. Code 15 is quite lengthy, and very clearly spells out when Congress must meet to certify the election (Jan. 6 at 1:00 p.m.). However, while it implies that the job must be completed in a timely manner, and it implies that any disputes must be adjudicated with reasonable efficiency, it doesn't actually set any firm deadlines. Nor does it place any limits on how many times disputes may be lodged. And so, if push came to shove, House Democrats could pull a Merrick Garland, and just drag the process out ad infinitum. If we get to Jan. 20 without a resolution, then Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) becomes President Nancy Pelosi. She can probably live with that; Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) not so much. McConnell knows this, of course, so we doubt that he will go to the mat for Trump and by Dec. 14, when the electors vote, he will have thrown in the towel.
So, there's not going to be a soft coup; there are just too many obstacles to overcome. Indeed, although McConnell has yet to crack, five members of his caucus (Susan Collins, Ben Sasse, Lisa Murkowski, Mitt Romney, and James Lankford) have now publicly referred to Biden as the president-elect, and Lankford has decreed that Biden should be given access to intelligence briefings, and that if the Trump administration doesn't take care of that by today, then he will step in. In other words, the President's support in the all-important U.S. Senate is weakening badly, and we're not even at mid-November yet (much less Jan. 6). (Z & V)
Everyone is familiar with the standard presidential inaugural: parade, swearing-in, speechifying, more parading, and an evening of inaugural balls. Donald Trump, lover of pomp and circumstance that he is, got the full rigamarole. His inauguration apparently attracted more attendees than Obama's (we heard it on TV, so it must be true), though Trump's balls weren't nearly as impressive as Obama's.
Hopefully, Joe Biden did not have his heart set on a big inaugural shindig, because he's not going to get one. There are at least three different problems:
- Trump: As long as the current president refuses to recognize the next president, then Team
Biden isn't going to get the necessary logistical support to plan an inauguration. A full-bore event requires some
cooperation from the executive branch, and a bunch of cooperation from the legislature. Obviously, Nancy Pelosi will be
happy to do her part, but it would be a bad look for Mitch McConnell to be publicly standing behind Trump's right to
explore his legal options, but to be privately helping Biden with his inaugural.
- The Pandemic: As you may have heard, there is a pandemic underway. Typically, all of the
VIP seats go to big-time political muckety-mucks. The problem is that big-time political muckety-mucks tend to be on the
older side, and so are likely to be at greatest risk from COVID-19. A socially distanced inaugural is possible, but
tough to pull off with many thousands of VIPs. It would also make for depressing photographs.
- Crowd Control: There are actually two issues here. The first is that getting all the VIPs masked and properly distanced from one another would be tough. Achieving the same with tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of private citizens would be impossible, and the inaugural would be at huge risk of turning into a superspreader event. Biden is not likely to want to pay either the human or the political costs of that. Alternatively, and even worse, Democrats who take the pandemic seriously might stay away, creating a void that could be crashed by Trump supporters/protesters. That would be a bad look for the President-elect, too.
Add it up, and we're headed for a smallish affair, with Biden, Chief Justice John Roberts, and a few friends and allies. This would not be a first; there have been other inaugurals that were scaled down for various reasons, usually poor weather or the president-elect's poor health or both. Alternatively, Biden could go for a virtual inaugural, with his swearing-in and his inaugural remarks delivered from the Oval Office. If he plays it right, he might even be able to get a shot of Donald Trump being dragged out in the background. Either way, expect something different from the usual. (Z)
One of the great surprises of the election, which we began to dig into yesterday, was that Donald Trump did much better with minority voters, and particularly Latinos, than expected. Such expectations were partly created by polling, but also by Trump's overt hostility to immigrants and his dog-bullhorn racism.
There is one thing that pretty much everyone agrees upon: The term "Latino vote" is clumsy and imprecise, and lumps together different groups (Cubans, Mexicans, Venezuelans, Puerto Ricans, Dominicans) whose views may not have that much in common. (The same is true for Asian voters, by the way, although there generally aren't quite enough Indian Americans vs. Chinese Americans vs. Filipino Americans to throw a wrench into polls.) Anyhow, this is a clear adjustment that pollsters will need to make, although exactly how they will pull it off is an open question.
Beyond that point of agreement, there is much debate as to how Trump managed to win roughly one-third of the Latino vote. Here's an overview of the main theories that are currently circulating:
- It's the Economy, Stupid: The majority of Latinos, regardless of specific national background,
are blue-collar. That means, in
of Domingo Garcia, president of the League of United Latin American Citizens, they want to hear how the economy is going to
be reinvented in order to serve them better. In other words, they want economic populism, which Trump (and Sen. Bernie Sanders,
I-VT) delivered, and Joe Biden largely did not.
- Disorganized: Former presidential candidate Julián Castro, among others,
that the Democrats just need to do a better job on Latino outreach, and that the Party has been outdone by the
Republicans in that area for the past few cycles. Jen Ramos, who serves on the Texas Democratic Party's executive
committee, agrees: "We as a party, need to fix this and regain the trust of our voters."
- Many Latinos Don't Like Biden: This is columnist Ruben Navarrete's
to the question. He argues that nearly all presidents these days, and not just Trump, are anti-immigrant, and that many
Mexican voters in particular remember the immigration policies of the Obama era and (in part) blame Biden for them.
- Many Latino (and Black) Men Love Trump: This is
of columnist and Fox News contributor Juan Williams, who is himself Afro-Caribbean. He says the only way to explain
Trump's success is through the lens of Latino culture. Observing (correctly) that Trump did far better with Latinos than
Latinas, Williams asserts that "Latin machismo and Black gangsta rap lyrics have long had a fascination with big money,
grabbing women, including porn stars, and Trump's 'La Vida Loca' lifestyle." He thinks that for many of those voters,
the President's big-swinging-dick image carried the day.
- Tap the Brakes: Matt Barreto, who runs the polling firm Latino Decisions, cautions against overstating Trump's success in this election. He points out that Biden still took two-thirds of the Latino vote, and that Trump's performance with Latino voters in 2020 only looks good when it's compared to his performance with Latino voters in 2016. Barreto attributes the 3-5 points the President added with Latino voters to a decreased focus on anti-immigrant and pro-wall rhetoric.
Some of these things, if the guess is on the mark, will resolve themselves without Democratic intervention. For example, Trump's machismo is unmatched by any other Republican (or Democrat), and so is not a long-term concern for the blue team. Other issues, like the lack of organization and the economic messaging are certainly fixable, should the Democrats choose to make that a priority. The question is whether they think they can win enough of that one-third back to make the effort worthwhile. (Z)
Two days ago, the word was that the Trumps, from Donald Sr. on down, were unhappy with RNC Chair Ronna Romney McDaniel, and were looking to replace her with a member of the family, or else with a hard-core loyalist like David Bossie. What a difference 48 hours makes, it would seem, because now McDaniel has the President's endorsement for a third term and, unlike him, is expected to win re-election easily.
Either those stories from Tuesday were completely off base or, more likely, the Trumps were firing a bit of a shot across the bow to remind the Party and its chair who holds the cards these days. In any event, nearly all Democrats, and plenty of Republicans, were hoping the First Family would go quietly into that good night. Clearly, since they are still pulling all the strings, the Trump dynasty isn't going anywhere. It will be...interesting to see how long this marriage can last. (Z)
On Election Day, the U.S. recorded 100,000 new COVID-19 cases in a single day for the first time. It took just eight days to surpass 150,000 cases in a single day, something that happened yesterday. If you want to know what the map of deep-red hotspot states look like, start with the entire U.S., remove all the coastal states and West Virginia, add back Alaska, and you've got it. Virologists are now wondering which will come first: 300,000 new cases in a day, or Thanksgiving.
The fellow currently occupying the White House continues to fiddle (on his iPhone) while Rome burns. Dr. Michael Osterholm, who works for the next fellow who will occupy the White House, suggested that a 4-6 week national shutdown, during which the government pays for everyone to stay home, is going to be necessary to get this thing under control. That may have been a trial balloon, because Team Biden walked it back not long thereafter. That said, if by January the country is up to half a million new cases per day, and 2,000-3,000 deaths per day, there may be a greater appetite for aggressive measures.
Congress, incidentally, won't be helping much in the short term, either. Nancy Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) made clear on Thursday that, having already dropped their ask from $3 trillion to $2 trillion, they are not going any further. Meanwhile, Mitch McConnell said he's not open to a penny more than $500 billion. There's no reason to think this impasse will be resolved during the lame duck session that lasts until early January. At that point, we shall see if a much worse pandemic and/or a change in presidential leadership causes one side or the other to blink in this high-stakes game of chicken. (Z)
We're taking a look at potential cabinet secretaries, at least until Joe Biden scoops us and makes official announcements. We're going in the order the departments were created. The positions we've already written up:
- Secretary of State (Nov. 11)
And now: Secretary of the Treasury.
- The Job: The Secretary advises on, and helps formulate, economic and tax policy, both
domestic and international. They generally serve as a key liaison between the White House and Congress, and oversee the
U.S. Mint, the IRS, and the Social Security and Medicare trust funds. Apparently the job is pretty good for one's
health, because there are 10 (soon to be 11) former Treasury secretaries living, including the oldest living person to
have held any cabinet post (George Shultz, who held the job in the Nixon administration, and will turn 100 on Dec.
- Considerations: Treasury is always an important post, but it's been a long time since
there was this much riding on the pick. In addition to the usual duties that any Treasury Secretary performs,
Biden's Secretary will need to figure out COVID-19 stimulus funding with Congress (if there is to be another
relief package), and will eventually oversee the transition to a post-pandemic economy. As Fed Chair Jerome Powell
yesterday, the economy that America knew before the pandemic is likely gone forever, not only in terms of businesses
and industries that have been hard hit, but also in terms of new and different means of delivering both goods and
In addition, the progressive wing of the Democratic Party will be watching very closely. They are already skeptical of the centrist Biden, and will interpret his choice as a major sign as to how serious he is about progressive priorities. On Thursday, the President-elect tapped several prominent Wall Street critics for his economic transition team, so there is some reason for optimism from the lefties.
- Candidate 1, Lael Brainard: Brainard represented the U.S. at a number of high profile
economic summits during the Clinton administration, served as an undersecretary in the Obama-era Treasury department, and
is currently a member of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors. She and Biden know each other, and work together well,
and she is regarded as the frontrunner for the job.
The biggest problem with Brainard is that while she's outspoken on some issues that progressives care about, global warming in particular, she's overall a moderate. While her appointment wouldn't infuriate that wing of the party in the way that picking a corporate type (like Steven Mnuchin) would, it certainly wouldn't thrill them either.
- Candidate 2, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA): Warren is smart, a savvy political operator,
and helped create the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. She's undoubtedly qualified to lead Treasury and, in contrast to
Brainard, progressives would be over the moon if Warren were tapped. Although she never served with Biden in the Senate,
they have become close in the past couple of years, and would make a fine team. Further, picking her would fit with the
"team of rivals" Cabinet, incorporating numerous former rivals, that the President-elect envisions.
The most obvious downside to Warren is that her departure from the Senate would put a seat at risk. That can plausibly be managed, however. For example, the Massachusetts legislature could pass a law similar to the one in North Carolina and some Western states that decrees that the governor must pick a replacement from a list supplied by the party of the departed senator. This being the case, the biggest issue for Warren is probably not the vacated Senate seat, it's that a GOP-controlled Senate is very unlikely to confirm her.
- Candidate 3, Sarah Bloom Raskin: Raskin has a background similar to Brainard's, including
service as an undersecretary of the Treasury and a Fed governor. However, she's considerably more left-leaning in her
politics, and would be the progressive wing's preferred alternative if Warren is not an option. Raskin might even make
it through confirmation, since she's obviously qualified, and GOP Senators are much less likely to get angry phone calls
from constituents about the much-lower-profile Raskin than about Warren.
With that said, although constituents probably wouldn't complain much about Raskin, the petroleum industry (which pays the bills for many GOP senators) certainly would, since she wants to end all petroleum subsidies. Further, she's got a reputation for aggressive advocacy on the part of consumers, and Mitch McConnell & Co. surely have some ideas of where she might go with that. So, her odds of being confirmed, while better than Warren's, probably aren't that much better.
- Candidate 4, Roger Ferguson: The Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) is quite clear as to who
saved Biden's bacon when his campaign looked dead in the water, and they expect to be rewarded with Black representation
in some high-profile Cabinet posts. They have thrown their support behind former Federal Reserve Vice Chair Ferguson for
Treasury. He's brilliant, with three degrees from Harvard, additional study at Cambridge, and honorary degrees from a
couple of dozen schools. He was also the only Federal Reserve Governor in Washington on 9/11, and won rave
reviews for his management of the banking system during that crisis. If tapped for Treasury, Ferguson would become the
first person of color to run the department.
There are two major strikes against Ferguson, however. The first is that he and Biden don't really know each other, and Biden is likely to want a trusted lieutenant at Treasury from Day 1. The second is that Ferguson is quite cozy with corporate America, having run TIAA for many years, and having served on numerous corporate boards (like Alphabet, a.k.a. Google). The progressive wing would be less than thrilled if he was chosen.
- Candidate 5, Raphael Bostic: He is already a trailblazer, as the first Black person and
the first LGBTQ person to run a regional Federal Reserve bank. He too would be the first Black Treasury Secretary, and
would also be the first openly LGBTQ person to be confirmed for the Cabinet (Richard Grenell is gay, but the Director of
National Intelligence is Cabinet-level and not Cabinet, and Grenell is just acting DNI anyhow). Bostic is leftier than
Ferguson is, and so selecting him may allow Biden to walk a middle course between the CBC and the progressives.
However, as with Ferguson, Biden doesn't really know Bostic. Further, Bostic's résumé is a little on the thin side, compared to the other leading candidates.
There are a few other names that have been floated, like former Fed Chair Janet Yellen, but this quintet appears to be getting the most serious consideration. Next Up: Defense. (Z)
If you wish to contact us, please use one of these addresses. For the first two, please include your initials and city.
- email@example.com For questions about politics, civics, history, etc. to be answered on a Saturday
- firstname.lastname@example.org For "letters to the editor" for possible publication on a Sunday
- email@example.com To tell us about typos or factual errors we should fix
- firstname.lastname@example.org For general suggestions, ideas, etc.
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
Nov12 Republicans Win in Alaska
Nov12 Exit Polls
Nov12 What's Going on with the Polls?
Nov12 Biden's Coalition May Not Be Stable
Nov12 Democrats Can't Win Senate Seats in Trump States
Nov12 Georgia on My Mind--Until Jan. 5, 2021 at 7 p.m.
Nov12 Stacey Abrams Raises $6 Million for the Georgia Runoffs
Nov12 Michael Cohen: Trump Will Go to Florida for Christmas--and Stay There
Nov11 ACA Looks to Be A-OK
Nov11 Meet the New Boss, Same as the Old Boss
Nov11 The Vaccine Conspiracy Theories Are Already Flying
Nov11 Pennsylvania Got Only 10,000 Ballots after Nov. 3
Nov11 Trump's Loose Lips Could Sink Ships
Nov11 Trumps May Be Plotting Hostile Takeover of the RNC
Nov11 The Biden Cabinet: Secretary of State
Nov10 Esper Is Out
Nov10 Three GOP Lanes Are Forming
Nov10 COVID-19: The Short-Term Prognosis Is Not so Good...
Nov10 ...But the Long-Term Prognosis Is Looking Better
Nov10 COVID-19 Diaries: The Darkness Before the Light?
Nov10 Democrats Score Their First Big House Flip
Nov10 Bustos Is Done as DCCC Chair
Nov09 The Emperor Has No Coattails
Nov09 Election Takeaways
Nov09 Biden Beat Clinton in Most States
Nov09 Biden Won the Suburbs
Nov09 Biden Will Immediately Reverse Many of Trump's Policies
Nov09 The Polls Failed--Again
Nov09 Whither Trump?
Nov09 Preview of the Georgia Senate Runoffs
Nov09 Seven New Senators Were Elected
Nov09 The Battle for California Is Heating Up
Nov08 Happiness Is a Thing Called Joe
Nov08 Sunday Mailbag
Nov07 Biden Inches Closer to the White House
Nov07 Saturday Q&A
Nov06 Biden Inches Closer to the White House
Nov06 Saturday Q&A
Nov05 Biden Wins Michigan and Wisconsin
Nov05 The State(s) of the Presidential Race
Nov05 Let the Lawsuits Begin
Nov05 Georgia on My Mind
Nov05 Biden Looks Screwed Even If He Wins
Nov05 Florida Is a Red State Now
Nov05 Bloomberg Is No Kingmaker Anymore
Nov05 Another Megyn Kelly Moment, but without Megyn Kelly This Time
Nov05 Dead Man Wins Election
Nov03 One Last Look: The Election News
Nov03 One Last Look: The Projections