Biden Set to Go to the Mat with Big Oil
Democrats Need to Talk About the Economy
Bloomberg to Spend $60 Million on Midterms
Warnock’s Gloves Come Off in Final Stretch
GOP Lawmaker Floats Probe Into Ukraine Peace Talks
• Loan Forgiveness Website Attracts 8 Million Applications in 2 Days
• House Democrats Are Raking It In
• Grifters Gotta Grift
• Walker Admits to $700 Payment
• Ye Buys Parler
• Question of the Day: I Read the News Today, Oh Boy
• Today's Senate Polls
The midterm election is exactly 3 weeks away, which means we are in primetime for candidate debates. Here's a rundown of the biggies from yesterday:
- Ohio Senate:
As we've noted numerous times, the swing-state U.S. Senate contests have largely gotten nasty. And Ohio is up there with
Pennsylvania and Georgia for the "honor" of being the nastiest. That did not change with last night's debate; the final
tilt between Rep. Tim Ryan (D-OH) and J.D. Vance (R).
As with so many other races, the two candidates worked hard to tie their opponent to unpopular members of their party. Ryan, for his part, worked to make Donald Trump an anchor around Vance's neck, and also pointed out that Vance has said flattering things about Alex Jones in the past. Vance invoked Joe Biden, of course, but also portrayed Ryan as a fanatical supporter of Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA). That's not true (as Ryan observed, he actually tried to replace her as Speaker), but Pelosi is very unpopular with many Republicans, so invoking her name is enough to do some damage.
The other main theme of the debate was racism, with Ryan accusing Vance of being an advocate for "replacement theory," the notion that Democrats are working to supplant white Americans with immigrants. Vance has most certainly said things that are replacement theory-adjacent, but last night he took great offense, and accused Ryan of slurring his (Vance's) biracial children (Vance's wife is of Indian descent). Of course, having biracial children is not, in and of itself, proof that someone is not a racist (see Thurmond, Strom).
- Utah Senate:
This was the only time that Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) and Evan McMullin (I) will debate. The main topic of discussion was
January 6, with McMullin portraying Lee as a key co-conspirator and Lee insisting he was just watching from the
sidelines. Eventually, Lee was compelled to declare that Joe Biden definitely won the presidential election. For
McMullin to maneuver things in this manner is a win for him, since Lee-as-insurrectionist will displease some
Utahns and Lee's rejection of "stop the steal" will displease others.
The candidates also wrestled with abortion, with Lee taking a far-right, "no legal abortions under any circumstances" stance and McMullin saying he does not support "abortion on demand," but that there have to be exceptions for rape and incest. McMullin also observed that Sen. Mitt Romney (R-UT) has been a far better advocate for Utahns' interests than Lee has been, and said that it is telling that Romney has chosen not to endorse Lee.
On a related point, both candidates were invited to submit candidate statements to The Salt Lake Tribune in advance of the debate. McMullin's submission was unremarkable; just your standard stuff. For example: "I'm Evan McMullin, and I'm running for U.S. Senate not as a member of any political party or as a representative of some special interest, but as a true independent dedicated to serving Utah and our nation." Lee, by contrast, wrote his statement in the third person, and using language that kind of suggests third-grade book report. For example: "Mike Lee serves as a United States senator representing the state of Utah. Since taking office, Senator Lee has earned a reputation as a principled conservative. He believes elected officials are responsible for keeping the federal government within its constitutionally limited role." The Senator has been the target of much mockery as a result of this.
- Georgia Governor: Stacey
Abrams (D) really needs a game-changer, as she has consistently trailed Gov. Brian Kemp (R-GA) in the polls. She does
not seem to have gotten it last night.
Kemp has managed to figure out Abrams' Achilles heel(s), and managed to introduce all of them into the conversation last night. He linked Abrams to Joe Biden, of course, railing against the so-called Biden-Abrams agenda. He also made much noise about Abrams' refusal to accept the results of the 2018 gubernatorial election. And Kemp accused her, not accurately, of wanting to defund the police.
Abrams tried her best to fire back, in particular highlighting Kemp's staunch anti-abortion statements. But she was clearly outgunned and outmaneuvered last night. This was the only time she and Kemp will be on stage together this cycle, so this was clearly a lost opportunity.
It's hard to know what impact debates will have, barring a gross error by a candidate. If we had to guess, however, we would say that McMullin helped himself the most yesterday while Abrams helped herself the least. (Z)
It took the White House a good, long time to put together the website where people will be able to request forgiveness of some of their student loans. Was Team Biden mindful of the embarrassments of the Obamacare website roll-out, and so doing everything possible to be absolutely sure to avoid a repeat? Or did they want to time the launch so it happened in very close proximity to the midterms? Maybe some of both? Readers can reach their own conclusions.
In any event, the site is online now, and has been since late Friday. And in the 2 (business) days that it's been available, it's taken in more than 8 million applications without any notable difficulties. That's obviously a pretty good start. Ultimately, about 40 million Americans are eligible for forgiveness. The administration expects that about 32 million of them will actually apply, which means that Team Biden is 25% of the way to its goal.
There is no specific information about the demographics of the 8 million current applicants, or the other 24 million who are expected to apply. However, they will surely skew young, educated, and toward the less rich end of the spectrum. Those are all Democratic demos, these days. And if 10 percent of them (say, 2-3 million) are more motivated to vote in November in hopes of more of the same, that could certainly be a big deal.
Meanwhile, there is the small matter of court challenges, which certainly will not be resolved before the debt forgiveness is proffered. If the courts do get involved, we are not sure they can say "You know that $20,000 you don't think you owe anymore? You do, again!" And if they try it, well, that will certainly play into the Democratic narrative that the judiciary is out of control and that the time has come for some sort of big reforms. In short, this is a story that could unfold in some very interesting ways. (Z)
In the last few cycles, particularly 2018 and 2020, Democratic donors spent a lot of their money on wild goose chases, lavishing cash on candidates who had little hope of winning, like Amy McGrath in Kentucky or Jaime Harrison in South Carolina.
There is considerable evidence this cycle that Democratic donors are not making the same mistake, and instead are sending the money to where it will do the most good. Consider, for example, a new analysis from Politico, based on the 65 most competitive House races this cycle. The Democrats have the fundraising lead in 50 of them (77%).
And it is not just that the Democrats are outraising their opponents in most races, it's also that, in many cases, the members of the blue team are utterly swamping members of the red team. Rep. Elissa Slotkin (D-MI), for example, has $3.7 million in the bank as compared to just over $100,000 for her opponent. Rep. Angie Craig (DFL-MN) has $3 million, compared to just under $500,000 for her opponent. There are many other similar disparities, most of them in swing states or districts. Politico found a total of 27 districts where the Democrat's haul has at least doubled that of the Republican.
The saving grace for the Republican candidates, such as it is, is that the national committees and PACs are doing what they can to make up the difference. However, non-candidates pay much more for advertising than candidates do, so the money of the National Republican Congressional Committee and other such groups can only go so far. At the moment, the GOP PACs are trying to stretch their dollars with ads that tout multiple candidates at the same time.
In the end, this year's race for control of the House is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma. As all readers know, "most money spent" does not necessarily correlate to "victory." However, money has more effect in local races than it does in statewide or national races. Further, money donated is most certainly a proxy for voter enthusiasm. By all indications, the enthusiasm is on the side of the Democrats right now.
That brings us to a second point. That Kansas election, where voters shocked the nation by voting overwhelmingly for abortion rights, was way back at the start of August. As we all know, a week is a lifetime in politics, which means that was about ten lifetimes ago. Since then, there have been no bright, red blinking reminders about how angry voters are about Dobbs.
Imagine, though, that some other Midwestern state—say, Iowa—was holding a similar sort of election today. Don't you think it would turn out similarly? And if and when it did, don't you think all the punditry pieces would be about how Dobbs is going to be the key to this election? As opposed to pieces like this one CNN ran this weekend, headlined "A Republican wave in the House is still quite possible." We just wonder if maybe Michael Moore might have the right of it, and the pundit class might be allowing distance to cause them to forget how eye-opening that Kansas result was.
And a third, and final point. It is implausible to poll 435 separate elections, or even 50-65 separate elections, in a meaningful way. So, projections for control of the House are primarily based on national measures (e.g., how Democrats do vs. Republicans on a generic ballot) and on past experience (e.g., the president's party usually loses seats in that president's first midterm election). But these things are very crude predictive tools, and may not be adequate for an election with so many X factors (abortion, the economy, Donald Trump, etc.).
This is not to say that we're predicting a Democratic hold when it comes to the House. What we are saying is that there are so many known unknowns, not to mention a few unknown unknowns, that we wouldn't want to bet any money on any possibility. Any outcome, from Democrats gain 5-15 seats to Republicans gain 15-25 seats, is entirely plausible. And nobody can know or predict what it's going to be until the votes are actually counted. (Z)
Donald Trump made a very big show of donating his presidential salary to various charitable causes. Actually, he made a big show for the first year or so he was president; then that bit of PR seemed to be forgotten. Maybe he kept donating the money quietly, without expecting any attention, and maybe he stopped making the donations. We're not sure which it is, though we do have an idea as to which is more likely.
If Trump did donate every dollar of his presidential salary, that would have been about $1.6 million. And, as we already kinda knew, he made most or all of that back by charging extortionate rates to the Secret Service when the USSS was required to rent rooms at Trump properties in order to protect Trump and his family. The House Oversight Committee is looking into the matter, and was compelled to make public some paperwork related to their investigation on Monday. Quite often, the Trumps charged the USSS double or triple the government-allowed rate, ultimately relieving the federal government of well north of $1 million.
Nobody seems to be saying exactly what might come of all of this. If the Democrats lose the House, then investigations like this one will come to a quick end, and will presumably be forgotten. The Oversight committee could refer the matter to the Department of Justice, but the DoJ already has plenty of Trump stuff on its plate without adding more. The main significance may be the extent to which the overpayments implicate the Secret Service in corrupt behavior. It is possible for the government-allowed rate to be waived, but it requires special paperwork to be filed and approved. The USSS may have deliberately fudged that paperwork as a favor to Trump. Given that the Secret Service already has several recent scandals on its ledger, change could be coming for that agency. (Z)
When it comes to the question of whether Herschel Walker paid for an abortion, the candidate's story seems to change every few days. At first, it was "I don't know this person, and never met them." Then it was, "OK, I know her, since she is mother to one of my kids, but I certainly never wrote her a check for $700." As of Monday, the story had morphed into "Yes, it's my check, but I don't remember what it was for, and it certainly wasn't for an abortion."
When this news first broke, our view was that the woman was telling the truth and Walker was not. That he keeps "discovering" new versions of his story certainly has done nothing to change our assessment. Meanwhile, it is Politics 101 that when you're dealing with something adverse, you pick an answer/some spin that adequately addresses the situation and then you stick with it. As Walker constantly revises his story, he keeps generating new headlines, and reminding everyone of what happened. This obviously serves to maximize the chances that the news will actually hurt him. (Z)
There are some news stories that, when we see them, we know instantly that we will write something. And there are some news stories that miss the cut by a mile. The tricky ones are the ones in between. We don't want to overlook something significant, but we don't want to waste readers' time, either.
We cannot recall a story, at least not recently, that was closer to that line than this one. On one hand, it was covered by every major outlet, and it was sent in by numerous readers. On the other hand, both of the key players involved are on the very fringiest fringes of relevance. So, we wouldn't blame you if you stopped reading about how Ye, the artist formerly known as Kanye West, has reached a deal in principle to acquire the far-right social media platform Parler.
Ye, for his part, is barely a political figure. Yes, he ran for president in 2020, and he will likely keep running for president, like a modern-day Harold Stassen or Lyndon LaRouche. But he is not going to influence any elections, especially since it's not easy to get on the presidential ballot in most places. To the extent that he'll make any headlines in the future, it is overwhelmingly likely that they will be of the "Can you believe what Ye said now?" sort.
Parler, for its part, is barely a social media platform. It's in competition with many other platforms, like Gettr, Gab, and Truth Social for the relatively small number of right wingers who want to be able to spew forth venom for other right wingers to read, 300 characters at a time. Twitter, which is itself something of a cesspool, has 237 million active users daily. Parler, at its height (when it was being used to help plan the 1/6 insurrection), had 12.3 million active users monthly. These days, given that the platform has chased away everyone but the bigots and the incels, Parler is down to just 137,000 active users monthly. That's not only way, way, way fewer than Twitter (or Facebook, or Baidu, or TikTok), it's considerably fewer than E-V.com gets. And we have not been a part of planning even one insurrection, nor are we backed by even one billionaire musician. Though if you're reading, Sir Paul McCartney, we're listening. We'd be happy to create a former Beatle Patreon tier, just for you. We could even create a slightly less expensive one for Ringo.
The amount that Ye is paying for Parler is unknown, but apparently it's worth it for him to get another round of media headlines. He will also use the platform to spew his bile, unfettered—he has really leaned into the antisemitism lately. "In a world where conservative opinions are considered to be controversial we have to make sure we have the right to freely express ourselves," the musician explained in a press release.
That's all good and well and yes, Ye can technically say whatever he wants on his own platform. However, he seems to have overlooked a couple of small problems. The first is that for people to join or follow Parler, they have to download the app. And the two main app stores (Apple AppStore and Google PlayStore) have both banned Parler in the past, and could do so again, if it descends further into the muck. If nobody can access your platform, then does it really exist? Further, even if Parler manages to remain available, there's nothing that says Ye's utterances have to be paid any heed by the media. Already, "Ye said crazy thing #12 about the Jews" is getting old, and it isn't going to get much more interesting when he's shouting into the void that is Parler. Certainly, we are hoping this is the last time we have any reason to write about him or his new toy. (Z)
This week, we are running answers to questions we posted this Sunday. In each case, you'll hear from (V) and (Z) and then 10 readers whose submissions we've selected.
Yesterday, we ran answers about members of Congress who might not be the sharpest knives in the drawer. Today's question, from L.P. in Chippewa Falls, WI, is something of a long one:
I am a guy who consumes news. I have for a while thought maybe too much, and now am certain I consume it too much. I am just a guy and my detailed knowledge of current events and the degree I care about them has next to zero effect on how they play out. If there is any cause and effect relationship between the news and me, it is the news is causing me some serious mental distress. I can't be the only one and I am certain there are many of us out there who are in my current state. You two do a wonderful job at what you do and I appreciate it when you admit you are not experts in a topic and reach out to your readers for comment.
From politics, to economics, to world affairs—and, yes, even the very real threat of nuclear war—the news is front and center every day. I can't escape it. Is it that I care too much, is it fear of missing out, is it an obsessive problem? I would really like to know if you two experience this to some degree. How do you deal with it? Is it OK to take a break (if so, how?). You have a lot of readers who seem to have a vast amount of expertise in a lot of subject matters. I think it is safe to assume there are a good number who have a valuable opinion on this matter.
And now, the responses:
(V): I often get depressed. There is no way out until 10% of the MAGA-ites die off.
(Z): Burnout is definitely a problem. We have both written it before, and we'll write it again, but writing about Donald Trump, in particular, is not a lot of fun. Obviously, we can't run away from the news and still produce this site. But it should be clear that the snark, while amusing for readers, is also a coping mechanism.
V.M. in Cleveland, OH: I was a huge consumer of news for years. During the Trump years, I spent way too much time reading the news, especially when it pertained to a subject that I believed I needed to communicate with my Republican senator about. After months of his canned GOP responses, I gave up on him. Then I read the news feeling completely helpless to do anything about what went on from 2016 to 2021. That made me crazy anxious. My doctor put me on anti-anxiety medication, and had to up the dosage twice to keep me from panic attacks on a daily basis.
So, I finally decided I had to stop reading the news. Not only did it cause panic attacks, it kept me continually in a state of rage due to me feelings of helplessness. I decided that the only thing I would read every morning is E-V.com. It is intelligent, read by intelligent and clear thinking people, and gave clear political commentary while trying to be fair. And I needed to laugh again. Your snarky comments and sarcasm on outrageous behavior by the ignorant gave me relief. So that's my story. Now I just scan headlines to see if there is anything important I need to research or read more about. But as it's the same old, same old with most media outlets, I usually don't get any "news." It's usually stuff I already knew.
J.K. in Silverdale, WA: It's easier to take a break from a habit if you can identify what function or need the habit fulfills for you. News consumption can be especially tricky to break from if those in your social circle keep up with the news more than they keep up with the Kardashians. For me, and I suspect for many readers, E-V.com is so much more than an informative political news site. V & Z have cultivated a sense of community that allows for the kind of meaningful exchange that I am engaging in right now. So, if you need to take a break, you may need to hang with people who don't follow the news for a while. If you have an opportunity to engage with very young children, that's usually a safe and entertaining option. And, no worries, we news junkies will always welcome you back.
A.S. in Bedford, MA: It sounds like you need to get the news consumption aspect of your life into better alignment with your needs. I have found the WOOP method (wish, outcome, obstacle, plan) helpful for this type of thing.
A.R. in Los Angeles, CA: I wholeheartedly support taking a break or cutting back on news consumption. I am so much happier since I stopped listening to NPR first thing in the morning. Now I carefully curate how I get the news and regularly impose periodic media blackouts on myself. I find myself looking more for original source material like the ISW reports for news about Ukraine or a newsletter from a leading epidemiologist for COVID info. And E-V.com's synthesis of political news helps with my sanity there. Without the media filter that tends toward sensationalism, reading the news is much less likely to raise my blood pressure. I also tend to stay away from stories where there's nothing I can do and it's just going to depress and paralyze me. I need to stay in action mode and to do that, I need to maintain some optimism that my activism isn't completely futile. So, I make no apologies for avoiding grim news of death and destruction.
R.V. in Pittsburgh, PA: My obsession with the news began in my early twenties with the (second) Iraq war. Perhaps it was youth that made me more resilient the abuses of the American news cycle than I am today. For hours I would gorge on NPR, blogs, NYT, E-V.com (ever since Kerry's loss, baby!), Air America (desperate, I know) and most importantly PBS' Frontline, the mother of all nightmares in your living room (who could forget the episode about the rise of assisted suicides with helium purchased from Party City?).
Post-January 6, I ran out of steam. Media theory à la Neal Postman and Marshall McLuhan opened me up to rethinking my habits as more banal stimulation than intellectual curiosity. But sometimes humor reveals the greatest truths. My catharsis came when stumbling upon the following cartoon, drawn for a humor book in 1982. It convinced me I had become a type of predictable media consumer, similar to sports fans or soap opera fanatics. If you see a bit of yourself in the drawing like I did, perhaps this may be the right time to reconsider your commitments to the news:
G.K. in Blue Island, IL: I was torn on this topic until today. Torn because, while I share with L.P. in Chippewa Falls the virtually irresistible draw of news, politics, current events, etc.—along with the extreme level of anxiety it engenders, I feel a major deficit in American politics is the unengaged voter—that what would help most is for people to become more politically aware and take seriously the threats to democracy and personal freedoms before a mob of gullible extremists swarm the Capitol, and before Roe is overturned.
I say "until today," though, because I started the day having my faithful, loving dog of 16 years euthanized. In my grief, I find it hard to reconcile the time I spent riveted to CNN, Political Wire, Politico, et al., that could have been spent with Roxie (or the rest of my family). I still feel the truth of my views on unengaged voters, but it's exhausting and does me (and my family) no good to carry the weight of other people's ignorance. Short of starting my day with E-V.com's recap, and possibly slapping the face of the next person who tells me they're "apolitical," I'm disengaging for the sake of those around me.
V & Z reply: Please accept our condolences on your loss. We are very sorry to hear about the loss of Roxie, though we are also confident you gave her a very happy life.
I.W. in Santa Clara, CA: The best thing for L.P. in Chippewa Falls to do is to choose an issue near to their heart, and to dedicate some time to addressing it. It doesn't matter what L.P. is good at—their skills will be needed and welcome in the community trying to work on said issue. If the goal is to create a better society, a better world, it will require every talent, every skill set to achieve.
A quote attributed to Margaret Mead seems appropriate: "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it's the only thing that ever has."
Education, voting, homelessness, housing, poverty, and on and on—these problems and more can all benefit from the time and energy of all of us.
I strongly believe that L.P. will see, as so many before them have, that there are groups doing good in the community and that this effort often goes overlooked by the media.
In short, if you don't like the news: change it. Doing so will help those impacted as well as L.P. themselves
B.A. in Oskaloosa, KS: Your description of the mental distress that today's news can bring mirrors mine in many ways and so I feel your pain. What I have done for myself is a combination of things. I've done a lot of research and education, which includes looking primarily for sources with as little bias but with differing viewpoints as possible. On the education side, I've also taken a lot of history classes in order to gain perspective on human history (I'm also a data nut having worked in that field for many years). I've found that exercise helps with this problem as well as promoting overall health. Think easy stretching as well as brisk walking, especially outside (yoga, tai chi and qigong). And yes, I do take a break from news. This happens most frequently on the weekends, when it seems easier to let other activities distract me. To your question on the why of your distress, just asking the question already opens a door to answering the question. My final offering is something that helps me in the moment. When I hear, see or read something (any topic—doesn't have to just be politics) that causes a strong emotional response, I pause briefly to break the cycle of reacting to an emotional brain. That simple pause allows just enough space for my rational brain to take charge again.
J.M. in Silver Spring, MD: My own constant consumption of news (including E-V.com) is rooted in my obsessive hunger for knowledge of any sort. Like L.P., I am sometimes disturbed or upset by things in the news (usually GOP dirty tricks) and this angers me. I don't detach from the news so I can't say how best to do that, but I try to vent to friends who have the same reaction and we tend to calm each other down.
S.S-L. in Norman, OK: My goodness. You cannot possibly imagine how good it feels to have my experience put into words. I'm not as alone as I thought!
I have no social media and refuse to engage with comment sections. Yet I've historically checked the news probably twenty times a day. It's almost never good. The constant stress of tribalism, mass shootings, nuclear war and political BS triggers my OCD and anxiety, keeps me up at night, and is largely responsible for a heart arrhythmia that is now wreaking all sorts of havoc in my mind and body. Magically, when I get 8-10 hours of sleep for about ten days in a row, the arrythmia vanishes. But a couple days of 0-7, and I'm back to a skipped heartbeat every thirty seconds. So what do I do? Why, keep checking the news, of course.
I'm now trying never to type "news" into Google, and only skimming the headings on E-V.com to look at legal matters and Freudenfreude. I'm not always successful. Still, I can't keep reading about politicians saying and doing things I can't control. It's not like these things affect my vote. I'll still vote the same, donate to certain causes, and do some advocacy in my own little corner of the universe, but I very much need to avoid absorbing negativity. Doctor's orders. I might leave the news altogether, at least until my heart is healed. I strongly suspect it would be good for me. I just don't want (V) and (Z)'s work to go unappreciated.
Mindfulness. Yoga. Books. Hot tea on cold and quiet mornings. These will be the things that get me through.
We got a lot of great responses; hopefully the ones we chose were instructive.
I am a professor at the Canadian equivalent of a community college. In such a setting, sometimes I end up in teaching classes that are outside of my direct field of expertise (political science masters, geography doctorate). If I were ever asked to teach a history class what general advice would you provide? I enjoy reading about history, but only took a couple of courses in undergrad on the subject. I imagine this advice would be germane to high school teachers, as well.
We've already gotten some very interesting answers we are looking forward to sharing. And there's still time for others to chime in. (V & Z)
The OH Predictive Insights riddle has been solved, courtesy of readers T.L. in Phoenix, AZ; R.L. in Tucson, AZ; J.S. in Christiansted, U.S. Virgin Islands; E.H. in Westford, MA; K.R. in Austin, TX; C.G. in Los Angeles, CA; A.M. in New York City, NY and B.R. in Glendale, CA. We hope we didn't miss anyone. Anyhow, Matt Owens and Scott Harkey gave their last initials to the ad agency they founded, OH Partners, and then that morphed into OH Predictive Insights. (Z)
|State||Democrat||D %||Republican||R %||Start||End||Pollster|
|Georgia||Raphael Warnock*||46%||Herschel Walker||44%||Oct 16||Oct 16||InsiderAdvantage|
|Illinois||Tammy Duckworth*||50%||Kathy Salvi||36%||Oct 10||Oct 11||Research America|
|North Carolina||Cheri Beasley||44%||Ted Budd||50%||Oct 10||Oct 13||East Carolina U.|
|New York||Chuck Schumer*||57%||Joe Pinion||37%||Oct 12||Oct 14||Siena Coll.|
|Ohio||Tim Ryan||45%||J.D. Vance||47%||Oct 11||Oct 15||Suffolk U.|
|Utah||Evan McMullin (I)||32%||Mike Lee*||47%||Oct 05||Oct 06||OH Predictive Insights|
* Denotes incumbent
If you wish to contact us, please use one of these addresses. For the first two, please include your initials and city.
- firstname.lastname@example.org For questions about politics, civics, history, etc. to be answered on a Saturday
- email@example.com For "letters to the editor" for possible publication on a Sunday
- firstname.lastname@example.org To tell us about typos or factual errors we should fix
- email@example.com 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
Oct17 Warnock Debates an Empty Podium
Oct17 Lake Won't Commit to Accepting Defeat
Oct17 Roger Stone Is a Nut Case. Who knew?
Oct17 What About Fetterman's Health?
Oct17 Question of the Day: Idiocracy
Oct17 Truss Has Cheesed Off Just About Everyone
Oct16 It's Backwards Day!
Oct16 Today's Senate Polls
Oct15 The 1/6 Committee Hearings, Day 9: Goodbye, Farewell and Amen
Oct15 Trump Hole Just Gets Deeper and Deeper
Oct15 The Economic News Is Not So Good
Oct15 Walker Wins by Not Losing Big
Oct15 This Week in Schadenfreude: Infowars Has Its Waterloo
Oct15 This Week in Freudenfreude: Or Was It... Murder?
Oct15 Today's Senate Polls
Oct14 Today's Senate Polls
Oct13 Select Committee to Show Evidence That Trump Knew There Would Be Violence Jan. 6
Oct13 E. Jean Carroll's Defamation Lawsuit Can Move Forward
Oct13 New Poll: Abortion Is a Big Motivator for Voting
Oct13 Biden Says a Slight Recession Is Possible
Oct13 Ian Votes No
Oct13 Why Republicans Are Sticking With Walker
Oct13 Senate Races Have Become Exceptionally Negative...
Oct13 ... And Gubernatorial Races Have Become Exceptionally Asymmetric
Oct13 Today's Senate Polls
Oct12 Biden Scores Diplomatic Victory in the Middle East
Oct12 Tulsi Gabbard Figures Out Something That Everyone Else Knew Back in 2020
Oct12 Republicans Hammer on Trans Athletes
Oct12 Voters to Biden: Dooo It!
Oct12 L.A. Story Goes National
Oct12 Boosters Need a Boost
Oct12 Michael Moore Sees Tsunami Ahead
Oct12 Today's Senate Polls
Oct11 Make America Bigoted Again?
Oct11 L.A. (Not So) Confidential
Oct11 Not so Fast, Sasse
Oct11 Dobbs v. Biden
Oct11 You Can't Spell "Grim Reaper" without M-A-G-A
Oct11 Vance, Ryan Debate
Oct11 Senate Leadership Fund Is Spending in Colorado Again
Oct11 Today's Senate Polls
Oct10 Very Tight Senate Races in Four States
Oct10 It's Debate Season
Oct10 It is Also Election Season
Oct10 How Are Republicans Dealing with Abortion?
Oct10 How Will the Supreme Court Deal with Abortion?
Oct10 Election Officials Are Tightening Security
Oct10 Five Issues That Could Determine Control of Congress
Oct10 Marijuana Is on the Ballot