Biden 306
image description
Trump 232
image description
Click for Senate
Dem 49
image description
Ties 1
GOP 50
image description
  • Strongly Dem (213)
  • Likely Dem (14)
  • Barely Dem (79)
  • Exactly tied (0)
  • Barely GOP (44)
  • Likely GOP (62)
  • Strongly GOP (126)
270 Electoral votes needed to win This date in 2016 2012 2008
New polls: (None)
Dem pickups vs. 2016: AZ GA MI PA WI
GOP pickups vs. 2016: (None)
Political Wire logo Trump Formally Requests Recount In Georgia
Kelly Loeffler May Have Coronavirus
Toomey Says Trump Is Done
Trump Asks, ‘Why Biden Is Forming a Cabinet?’
Trump Sends Bombers to Middle East
Don Jr. Posts Clip of His Father Beating Up Biden

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

Saturday Q&A

Boy, if the fellows who wrote the Constitution had been able to foresee the downsides of putting so much time between the election and the inauguration, we wonder if they would have tightened the timeline up a bit. Or a lot.

Q: I am aware you have answered this before, but it's 2020 and crazy weird things happen this year. Is there any chance of Donald Trump winning this election? Overturning the Electoral College in some weird year 2020 way? Please give me your percentage of confidence that Joe Biden will be voted in by the Electoral College, and become the 46th President. M.C., Philadelphia, PA

A: Trump's strategy for overturning the election results, such as it is, has three prongs. The first is to file a gaggle of longshot lawsuits, in hopes that a few of them hit pay dirt. His legal team has had virtually no success with this, in part because their claims are unsupported by hard evidence, and in part because Rudy Giuliani has thrown a wrench into things by insinuating himself into the operation. The second is to press for recounts. This has gone nowhere, because recounts never result in shifts of the size that Trump would need. The third is to try to pressure Republican officeholders in the various "close" states to do his bidding. This has also gone nowhere; the various secretaries of state (most obviously Brad Raffensperger in Georgia) have told Team Trump to pound sand, the leaders of the Michigan legislature that Trump met with yesterday came out of the meeting and immediately announced that they would not overturn the state's election results, the leaders of the Pennsylvania legislature have said the same, etc.

In short, the President has had virtually no success, with the only exceptions to that being a minor legal win in Pennsylvania and a slight increase in his vote total in Georgia. Neither of those will materially affect the results in those places. And keep in mind that it's not enough for him to pull off a miracle in one state; he needs a bare minimum of three. Meanwhile, as we explained last week, there is no plausible way, by hook or by crook, to corrupt the Electoral College or to somehow send the election to the House of Representatives for a contingent election.

So, our percentage confidence that Joe Biden will become the 46th (or possibly 47th) president is 99.8%. And nearly all of that remaining 0.2% is allowing for the possibility that some sort of disaster befalls him, and the presidency devolves on Vice-President-elect Kamala Harris instead.

Q: The election is over, but Donald Trump is using the powers of the presidency to try and overturn the results of the vote. Once again, I don't understand how that isn't clear fascism, but I imagine you have some good explanation for why it's not.

I've been confused by your rejection of the term "fascist" in conjunction with your consistent use of the term "Trumpism." Whatever you imagine that term to mean, it must be at least as amorphous as fascism. Anyway, I think much of my perception of your flawed analysis stems from the fact that I don't understand your overall views. Could you give a clear summary of how you see the present moment in time?
M.A., Arlington, VA

A: To start with, we would say that "Trumpism" is considerably less amorphous than "fascism," if only because the former term refers to the behavior of one person and his followers as opposed to dozens of similar-but-not-identical leaders and their followers.

There are two reasons that we do not refer to Trump as a fascist. The first is that the word "fascist" is so loaded with value judgments, and has been deployed so often to mean something like "person I hate and think is evil," that it should only be used if the shoe really fits. The second is that the shoe doesn't really fit, it only partly fits. Certainly, there is much about Trumpism that is fascist-adjacent, like his aspirations to dictatorial or near-dictatorial power. However, real fascists achieve actual dictatorial power.

Similarly, go find a picture of a notable fascist (Adolf Hitler, or Benito Mussolini, or Francisco Franco, or whoever). You will notice that they wear clothing that is actually that of a military officer, or that suggests that of a military officer. That is because fascists glorify the military to the Nth degree, and then use that glorification to cement their claims to power by virtue of their being supreme military commander. It's true that Trump pays a lot of lip service to how much he loves America's troops, but he does not don military costume, and he doesn't fetishize soldiers with nearly so much enthusiasm as full-fledged fascists do.

Speaking of soldiers, fascist leaders invariably establish some sort of paramilitary organization that is loyal to them—Mussolini's blackshirts, Hitler's SA and SS, the Heimwehr in Austria, etc. And fascists always use violence, often inflicted by their paramilitary loyalists, as a means of furthering their political goals. Trumpism has no paramilitary arm, and while Trump did deploy some law enforcement officers to Portland and Chicago, that was a far cry from something like The Night of the Long Knives.

To draw one final distinction, fascist movements generally fetishize youth, and generally establish some sort of formal youth organization that is held out as a beacon of hope for the future, and that is subjected to constant propaganda designed to indoctrinate them into support for the fascist leader and his movement. We're talking Opera Nazionale Balilla, Hitler Youth, Jeunesses Patriotes, Nationale Jeugdstorm, and so forth. There is no Trump Youth.

So, if you want to say that Trump has demonstrated dangerously authoritarian impulses, or that he's far enough down the road to fascism that Americans should be deeply concerned, we would agree with you. But an actual fascist, he is not.

Q: Can't the media tell Donald Trump and his "press secretary" that they will not give them expensive air time if all they plan to do is lie and waste everyone's time? E.M., Plano, TX

A: Well, the media can tell Trump and Kayleigh McEnany that, but they are primarily performing for NewsMax, OAN, and Fox News, so they don't much care what CNN, or MSNBC, or ABC News does.

That said, many outlets (including Fox) do cut away when the nonsense begins, or don't cover events that they know will be propagandistic rather than newsworthy.

Q: If and when the trial of The People of the State of New York v. Donald J. Trump begins, how will it be possible to select an impartial jury? It seems that anyone who voted in the presidential election would be ineligible, as would anyone who more than superficially watched, listened to, or read news stories about the President, as well as, possibly, anyone who watched "The Apprentice."

Would one side or the other have to request a change of venue to, say, Guam?
S.C., Mountain View, CA

A: It's a real problem, especially since they are limited to the state of New York—where Trump is especially well known—for venue changes. Sorry, Guam!

In any case, the goal will not be to get jurors who have no knowledge of Trump, since such jurors probably don't exist. Instead, they will start with a vast pool of prospective jurors that will be reduced down with some sort of pre-screening questionnaire, and then by voir dire from the prosecution, the defense, and possibly the judge. Eventually, they will come up with enough jurors that pass muster with attorneys on both sides and the judge.

Beyond that, it will be on the judge to give lots of really clear jury instructions. Like, "You are to consider only the evidence that is presented to you in court. If I am made aware that anyone in the jury room has brought up evidence that they learned of due to the defendant's high-profile public career, and not because of what was presented in court, I will declare a mistrial."

Q: If Donald Trump gets arrested and convicted and has a felony on his record, could he still run for president in 2024? M.J.V., Ramsey, IL

A: Almost certainly. The Constitution creates only four requirements for service as president (natural-born citizen, 35 years of age, 14 years of residency, has not reached the term limits for the office), and none of those is "can't be a felon." There are some federal codes that disqualify people who have committed certain crimes (treason, bribery of a federal official) from officeholding. But first, Trump would have to be convicted of those specific crimes. And second, he would sue and claim that these laws create new and unconstitutional requirements for presidential eligibility, and he would probably win.

Q: There's been much recent press that once in office, Joe Biden should either pardon Donald Trump, or just not pursue federal charges. Just between us, your thoughts? L.K., Alameda, CA

Q: What is your opinion on Donald Trump being prosecuted using evidence from the Mueller Investigation and from the impeachment investigation? R.C., Eagleville, PA

A: Pardoning Trump or letting him off the hook is a bad idea, we would say. It's already been made clear that "balance of powers" is not much of a check on abuses of presidential power, particularly if the president's party controls at least one chamber of Congress. And impeachment has been almost completely defanged. That means that the only thing left to motivate presidents to keep their noses clean (besides ethics and morality, for those presidents who have those things) is the risk that they will be prosecuted once they leave office. Or, perhaps better yet, the DoJ directive about prosecuting sitting presidents could be wiped away, and presidents would then be motivated to keep their noses clean at risk of immediate prosecution. In any event, if Biden looks the other way because he wants to preserve the glory of the presidency, or because he doesn't want to aggravate Trump's base, then he will be complicit in further damaging the fabric of American democracy. This is not to say that Trump needs to be convicted; that's a question for a jury and/or a judge. It's merely to say that every president needs to understand that malfeasance is not automatically consequence-free, and that it will be put under a microscope.

As to specifics, we would guess the Mueller report would be the basis for a federal prosecution of Trump. The legwork has been done, the alleged crime (obstruction) is very serious, and because of Mueller's involvement, it would look at least a bit less political.

Q: What is the seal that Joe Biden displays at press conferences? Is this an official seal for the president-elect, or something made up to look official? F.S., Idaho Falls, ID

A: You are referring to this:

Joe Biden stands at a podium that has a fancy-looking
seal with an eagle and the text 'office of the president elect'

This has caused much consternation on Fox News, and among other right-wing types, who insist there is no such thing as the "Office of the President-elect" and that this is just an indication of Biden's unconstrained and unprecedented arrogance.

It is true that there is no "official" Office of the President-elect, in the sense that there's no statutory declaration of its existence. It is also true that the phrase has been used for generations to refer to the transition team, including in official documents, since it's the obvious name to describe what's going on. It was not until master of marketing Barack Obama that the "office" had a logo, but every president-elect since then has adopted one. That would include this fellow:

Donald Trump stands at a podium that has a fancy-looking
seal with a the White House and the text 'office of the president elect'

Q: You wrote that "There is no doubt that Fox will remain an important player; they've already begun pivoting from Trump State Media to round-the-clock anti-Biden coverage. That worked well for them through eight years of Barack Obama, and will undoubtedly work well for them again." Undoubtedly, huh? Don't you think it will be more difficult to run that playbook with a white, male president? S.S., San Luis Obispo, CA

A: Appeals to racism, either directly or through dog whistles, are definitely easy, low-hanging fruit. But never underestimate the power of the Fox News machine to manufacture outrage (see above answer for an example). Put another way, Sean Hannity and Tucker Carlson never, ever go on the air and say "Sorry folks, I've got nothing today."

Q: What is the reasoning behind federal lawmakers giving up generally safe gigs in Congress for a role in a presidential administration? Sometimes, these promotions seem a bit "lateral." When is it considered a "move up" to leave a job as a congressperson or senator for a stint in a presidential administration? J.R., Miami, FL

A: First of all, don't overlook the serious downsides of being a member of Congress. You have to do a lot of boring or unpleasant stuff, like constantly raising money, and unless you are a senior member of your party and your chamber, you don't actually have all that much power most of the time. For many members, particularly those who have grown tired of the grating things about life in Congress, a plum executive branch job is absolutely a better experience, and often one that grants them greater influence.

Beyond that, members sometimes make the jump because they want to expand their résumé and heighten their public profile in anticipation of a run for some higher office (governor, president, a House member who wants to be a senator) or else in anticipation of becoming a highly paid lobbyist. Others make the move because they are nearing retirement anyhow, and finishing off their careers with a run as a high-ranking member of the executive branch offers them a different experience, and perhaps a chance to achieve some personal or political goals that they were not able to accomplish in Congress.

Q: If Joe Biden has trouble getting his people approved by the Senate, why can't he choose people who have already been approved? I am thinking of people from Obama's cabinet, like Eric Holder. B.K., Dallas, TX

A: The Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998 is not entirely clear on this point, so it might be possible, but its language suggests that once someone leaves office, their Senate confirmation (and thus ability to serve in some other Senate-confirmed office) expires.

Q: After Joe Biden's nominee replaces Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, how long will it be before I can go to the bank and get my hands on a crisp, new twenty with a portrait of Harriet Tubman instead of Andrew Jackson, and then how close to his grave would I need to stand in order to hear Jackson spinning in it? H.F., Pittsburgh, PA

A: Don't hold your breath. A new bill must be functional (i.e., loaded with anti-counterfeiting measures) and legal (i.e., containing all the information required by statute), but also artistic, because it is tacitly an advertisement for the U.S. government and for American commerce. And this must all be accomplished with a very, very small canvas to work with, and with many stakeholders given an opportunity to weigh in and to suggest/demand changes. Consequently, the most recent redesign, of the $100 bill, took 10 years.

When and if it does happen, we think Jackson might be less upset than you think. He wasn't especially comfortable being used as a symbol like this. And while he was certainly a white supremacist (as was nearly every Southerner, and most Northerners, back then), he also admired folks who had balls of steel. And Tubman definitely did, at least figuratively.

Q: Given your analysis of the polls, is it time to revisit the "Comey Surprise" from 2016? Maybe those additional e-mails weren't the factor we had thought they were. E.H., Dublin, Ireland

A: It's certainly possible. We almost made that point in the writeup.

Q: In Friday's "Senate Republicans Also Overperformed the Polls", you said "A bunch of (eventual) Republican voters, instead of incorrectly being counted in the Democratic column, were counted in the undecided/third party column." That sounds like you are trying to avoid saying the undecideds/independents broke Republican. Is there some nuance I am missing? J.A., Rutland, VT

A: That is exactly what we are saying, and we don't feel we tried to avoid it. The question is "why?" The general trend is that, in the absence of an October surprise, undecideds break fairly evenly, with a slight bias toward the party that does not hold the White House. If an October surprise is what happened here, it means that the pollsters largely didn't screw up, because the state of the electorate changed at the last minute. However, as we pointed out, we don't see what that October surprise might have been, or why it would have affected both the presidential race and the Senate races.

The alternative is that the pollsters erred, either by overstating the size of the undecided vote, or by inaccurately characterizing folks who were actually Republican-leaning as undecided. Even if there's a new normal, like that undecideds are now basically Republican votes, then it's the pollsters' jobs to figure that out and adjust accordingly.

Q: I know that when you say something that triggers my B.S. detector, you usually have something to support it, but I have to question the logic in the Thursday item "Chasing the Latino Vote Was Not a Good Idea." I find it hard to believe the Trump campaign was clever, sophisticated, and skilled enough to have had an effective south Texas Tejano strategy. It is easier to believe that they had no strategy, but their generic blue-collar strategy happened to appeal in an unexpected way. While Hanlon's razor shouts inside my head, what was the basis of your interpretation? R.T., Arlington, TX

A: First of all, you're missing some key punctuation we used multiple times in that piece, namely "Latino vote." In other words, the error was not going after Latino voters, it was treating that group as more monolithic than it really is (and, in particular, conflating Mexican Americans with Tejanos in Texas).

And we share your skepticism that Team Trump is actually shrewd and sensitive enough to recognize the cultural differences among various Latino groups (excepting that they had a clear awareness of what motivates Cuban-American voters). It's almost certainly the case that they got lucky and just happened to capture significant Tejano support with their white, working-class-focused messaging.

Q: In olden times, when a lot of votes were counted by hand or by less-than-high-tech machines, it was understandable why a recount might generate different results from the initial tally. But in this day of electronic vote scanners and computer tabulations, could you provide some insight into the most common reasons for vote tallies to change in a recount (shy of some sort of fraud or malevolence)? Where do the errors come in? Is it all in the interpretation of voter intent for ballots that couldn't be scanned? What is the accuracy of most vote scanners? Do we know the reasons why Donald Trump picked up votes in Georgia? S.S., Kansas City, MO

A: Interpretation of ballots that could not be scanned is indeed a very large part of it, particularly when lawyers get involved in the process. Meanwhile, machines aren't perfect, and scanners with a very high 99.9% accuracy rate are still going to err on roughly 5,000 ballots in a state like, say, Michigan (though the errors are likely to be randomly distributed, such that those 5,000 errors might only shift a few hundred votes). Finally, when they do recounts, sometimes they find ballots that weren't actually processed the first time. This is what happened in Georgia; a cache of 2,300 or so votes from a pretty red part of the state were discovered (and the elections administrator in that county was fired as a result). Most of Donald Trump's gain in the Peach State was because the majority of those votes were for him.

Q: You previously answered a question about which states have had the longest streak for picking the president. But which state(s) have the longest streak for picking the candidate that won the national popular vote? It looks to me like New Mexico. Is that correct? J.B., St Albans, UK

A: Yes, you are. The good people of New Mexico have sided with the popular vote winner in every election from 1980 onward, which means they are on an 11-election streak. In second place, on a five-election streak, are Nevada, Colorado, and Virginia.

Q: In a recent post, you listed several counties that had a long string of voting for the winning Presidential candidate, but saw that string snapped by the 2020 election. Which counties now have the longest string of voting for the winning President, including 2020? M.B., Menlo Park, CA

A: The current king of the hill is Clallam County, Washington, which has voted for the Electoral College winner for 11 elections in a row (1980-present). In second place, Blaine County, Montana, and Clay County, Minnesota, are on eight-election streaks.

Q: At what point do districts get reassessed as being Democratic or Republican? If there was a district that was R+6 in 2016, went D+7 in 2018, and D+5 in 2020, do they average out to being D+2 now, or are they still considered R+6 until after a certain number of elections? K.E., Peoria, IL

A: Those figures, which are the work of the Cook Political Report, are based on the last two presidential election years, and are updated after every presidential election and every reapportionment. So, expect an update in early 2021, and then another in 2022.

Q: As I understand it, Donald Trump and his entire family (his children and their children) all have Secret Service protections. What happens on Jan. 20, 2021 at noon? I know the president gets lifetime protection, but how about the rest of the family? D.D., Hollywood, FL

A: The Former Presidents Act covers presidents and their spouses/widows for life, as well as presidential children until they turn 16. So, as of Jan. 20, the only Trumps who will be protected will be Donald Sr., Melania, and Barron.

The statute does not make clear what happens if a president divorces, but should that come to pass, it is likely Melania would be cut off. And as long as we are at it, we will also answer another question we sometimes get: Presidents are allowed to decline USSS protection, but the only one who has done so is Richard Nixon, who decided enough was enough in 1985.

Q: We know the Secret Service are not allowed to commit crimes. How far does Secret Service-client privilege of confidentiality extend? With lawyers the privilege ends with a client's intentions to commit a crime or cover up a crime. Does the Secret Service have any obligation to come forward if they witness a crime or hear a crime being planned or covered up? Would they? I assume they would if they heard a murder being planned, but what about plans to commit fraud with campaign donations or an agreement with a foreign power to help win an election? What about a crime being planned with the person they're protecting, but being committed by someone else, like a family member or personal lawyer? And can a Secret Service agent write a tell-all book once they've left the Service or retired? S.S., West Hollywood, CA

A: In fact, USSS agents are trained to regard their role, in this regard, as being similar to a lawyer. So, anything that would justify breaking privilege would also justify Secret Service whistleblowing. However, they would need to speak to a Deputy AG or someone in the Justice Department with a security clearance, since the information they reveal would surely be classified.

As to tell-alls, they do happen (see here for an example), but they are an extreme breach of etiquette. Further, if a USSS agent were to reveal classified or privileged information in such a book, they could (and would) be prosecuted.

Q: You have mentioned an executive order dating back to the Harry S. Truman administration that has presidential candidates getting intelligence briefings, presumably to prevent a repeat of something like what Truman went through—having to decide whether to use an atomic bomb shortly after learning that such a bomb exists.

Who gets these briefings? Did H. Ross Perot, John Anderson, or George Wallace get them, or was it only the nominees of the two biggest parties? How do they decide which, if any, third-party candidates are worthy of the briefings?
D.R., Yellow Springs, OH

A: We will start by saying that, in addition to prepping a potential president for their future duties, there are several other reasons to keep candidates in the loop. Among them: (1) To make a statement that the intelligence community is not political and does not play favorites in the elections, (2) To warn candidates against saying things that may harm national security, (3) To apprise candidates of potential threats to their person or their campaign apparatus.

We will also note that the briefings are actually infrequent. Presidential candidates are very busy, and on top of that some of them don't particularly want to be briefed (Ronald Reagan was bored by them, for example, and Jimmy Carter didn't want to be put in a position to accidentally reveal something sensitive). Also, the briefings are usually pretty broad, to protect against the risk of something leaking inadvertently or deliberately. When Donald Trump was running, the CIA was so concerned about this, in fact, that they pondered giving him false briefings.

Anyhow, with all of this said, there have been several third-party candidates that got at least one or two briefings, including Wallace, Perot, Anderson, and Lester Maddox. That said, it's at the discretion of the intelligence establishment and/or the president, depending on how much they think the concerns listed above are relevant (Wallace and Maddox were both briefed, for example, because of plausible assassination threats against them). This being the case, not all third-party candidates are given the privilege. Jill Stein and Gary Johnson were not briefed in 2016, for example.

Q: When you cite our illustrious President from Missouri, you credit "Harry S. Truman." I understand that his middle name was "S" and it was not an abbreviation of another name (a compromise to satisfy multiple members of his extended family). Shouldn't it be written "Harry S Truman" without the period, as it is not an abbreviation, but a full spelling of his name? P.C., Schaumburg, IL

A: Anytime we mention his name, we get e-mails raising this point. The reason we include the period is because he included the period:

Harry S. Truman signature, with period after the S

As a general rule, whether it's Harry S., or bell hooks, or M.I.A., we style names in the manner the individual prefers/preferred.

Q: Perhaps you can answer something about the presidency that has always irked me. Why is Grover Cleveland called both the 22nd and 24th Presidents? Never mind that the terms were not consecutive! History doesn't do this with any other two-term presidents. So, who decided we should start calling Cleveland the 24th president rather than just a second term of the 22nd president? Technically, if we are counting terms, Biden would be the 59th President because he won the 59th election. If we are only counting people who were elected as President, Biden would only be the 40th since John Tyler, Millard Fillmore, Andrew Johnson, Chester A. Arthur, and Gerald Ford served but never were elected as President.

Also, what if Donald Trump resigns sometime between now and Jan. 20, 2021, if for no other reason than to screw up all of the Biden #46 merchandise out there? Say, on Jan 19, 2021. Would we really call Mike Pence our 46th president? Or do you think that historians would go with something else? After all, when Dick Cheney and George H.W. Bush were briefly acting presidents they were not "numbered" as such.
E.W. in Skaneateles, NY

A: When historians say "22nd President," they mean "22nd presidential term." A presidential term commences, in effect, with the oath of office, and concludes, in effect, when the next president takes the oath of office. (In reality, the commencement and the conclusion are both slightly before the oaths are taken, but this is close enough for government work.)

Cheney's and Bush's time as acting president (not president, mind you) involved no oath taking, either by themselves or by the president when he was able to resume his duties. So, no new term began or ended. This is also why it's nonsense that David Rice Atchison was president for a day.

If Donald Trump really does resign, even at the last moment (presumably because he has arranged for Mike Pence to pardon him), and Pence is elevated to the presidency and takes the oath of office, then Pence will indeed commence the 46th presidential term, and will universally be referred to as the 46th president.

Q: Who is the most progressive major politician in U.S. history, and why? And who is the most conservative major politician in U.S. history, and why? F.S., Cologne, Germany

A: Well, since nobody can know what's truly in a person's heart, we are compelled to answer based on actions and accomplishments. And while the presidency is very powerful, the nature of the U.S. political system puts constraints on that office and what can be done, such that while we are tempted to pick Theodore Roosevelt and George W. Bush, we're actually going to go with a couple of non-presidents.

For the progressive, we will choose former New York mayor Fiorello LaGuardia. By virtue of his personality and the setup of New York municipal government, not to mention the vast amounts of New Deal money he secured from Franklin D. Roosevelt, LaGuardia was able to do nearly anything he put his mind to. He fought back against government corruption, sending the notorious political machine Tammany Hall to the grave after nearly 130 years. He strove to improve people's morals, and busted many bordellos and illegal gambling parlors. He fought back against poverty. He tried to improve the quality of New Yorkers' water and food. He supported infrastructure projects. In short, he transformed the city in just a few years, and along lines that are 100% in harmony with the Progressive program (as it was practiced by members of the actual Progressive Movement).

For the conservative, we will choose former South Carolina senator John C. Calhoun. He was militantly pro-small-government, pro-white-supremacy, and pro-libertarian (even if that term was not known in his time). Because of his high political office, and the esteem he enjoyed as de facto spokesman for the South, he essentially singlehandedly laid the philosophical and legal groundwork for secession, while also doing much to harden the lines between races.

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
Nov20 Desperate Times Call for Desperate Measures
Nov20 Biden Manages the Best Transition He Can
Nov20 The "Deep State" Strikes Back
Nov20 Trump Plotting a Senate Run
Nov20 Senate Republicans Also Overperformed the Polls
Nov20 COVID-19 Diaries: Dark Days
Nov20 The Biden Cabinet: Secretary of the Interior
Nov19 Seventeen Percent of Republicans Think Trump Should Concede the Election Now
Nov19 Biden Assembles a Team to Handle Senate Confirmation Battles
Nov19 The 2020 Election Was Closer Than the 2016 Election
Nov19 Cheapskate Trump Wants a Partial Recount of Wisconsin
Nov19 Will Trump Hamper Vaccine Distribution so Biden Won't Be Able to Deliver?
Nov19 Biden Has His Work Cut Out for Him Dealing with COVID-19
Nov19 The 2024 Presidential Race Has Started
Nov19 Chasing the Latino Vote Was Not a Good Idea
Nov19 House Democrats Have Chosen Their Leadership Team
Nov18 The Walls Continue to Close In on Trump
Nov18 Biden Unveils More of His White House Team
Nov18 Trump's Golden Fed Pick Turns to Lead
Nov18 Loeffler Will Debate Warnock
Nov18 Obama Makes It Official
Nov18 The Biden Cabinet: Attorney General
Nov18 Today's Senate Polls
Nov17 Trump's Legal "Strategy" Continues to Implode
Nov17 Trump Administration Announce Troop Drawdown
Nov17 We Have a (Second) Vaccine
Nov17 Democrats Headed Back to the Drawing Board on Messaging
Nov17 The Right-Wing Media Bubble Is about to Get More Complicated
Nov17 Nudity Less of a Problem in Philadelphia than Feared
Nov17 The Biden Cabinet: Secretary of Defense
Nov16 Trump Tweeted that Biden Won
Nov16 Trump Is Doubling Down on Legal Action
Nov16 Trump is Setting Booby Traps for Biden
Nov16 Why Didn't Biden Do Better in Cities?
Nov16 Georgia's Recount Is 30% Done and Nothing Has Changed
Nov16 The Battle for the Georgia Suburbs Is On
Nov16 Democrats Are about to Have a Civil War
Nov16 What about 2022?
Nov16 COVID-19 Could Help Biden
Nov16 Trump Overperformed the Polls
Nov15 Sunday Mailbag
Nov14 Saturday Q&A
Nov13 What Is Trump's Endgame?
Nov13 Stealing the Election Is Not Plausible
Nov13 Don't Count on a "Normal" Inauguration
Nov13 What Happened with Latino Voters?
Nov13 McDaniel Likely to Keep Her Job
Nov13 The Pandemic Rages, Unchecked
Nov13 The Biden Cabinet: Secretary of the Treasury
Nov12 Biden Picks Chief of Staff