Documents Here, There and ... Everywhere?

Another day, another batch of classified documents found in one of the offices Joe Biden had between his stints as vice president and president. The new batch's existence was first reported by NBC News.

Very little is, as yet, publicly known about the new group of documents. It's even a little fuzzy exactly where they were found, though it appears to be another workspace related to Biden's relationship with Penn. The number of documents in the new cache appears to be about 10, but a precise number has not been announced. The contents of the documents is also unknown, though there do not appear to be any SCI documents in the new cache, as opposed to in the first cache. It's also not clear when they were found, or when they were turned over to the federal government.

We are certainly not insiders when it comes to the handling of classified information. But it sure seems like the federal government has a bit of a classified-document-tracking problem. In Donald Trump's case, the National Archives knew enough to realize that things were missing, and to ask for their return. But it would seem nobody knows exactly what's missing, because if they did, they would know whether or not Trump had returned everything. In Biden's case, the missing documents have been missing for at least 6 years without anyone noticing, and they would have remained missing if Biden's legal team hadn't found them and turned them over.

And that brings us to a point worth noting. This whole situation reflects badly on Biden. Maybe he was personally responsible for the misplaced documents. Maybe it was one of his staffers. Either way, though, the buck stops with the boss. At the same time, the situation also reflects well on Biden, in one important way. The easiest way to make this go away would have been to toss the documents in the fire, Mark Meadows-style. After 6+ years, the National Archives and the rest of the federal government surely would have been none the wiser. But Team Biden did what was required by the law and by ethics. Their (foreseeable) reward for that, of course, was to end up with a scandal on their hands.

On that point, and as we pointed out on Tuesday, there is a clear legal difference between what Biden did and what Trump did. The former surrendered the classified documents as soon as their existence came to light. The latter did not, told what appear to be lies about the situation, had people sign perjurious documents about the situation, and continues to obfuscate. In a court of law, Biden would be in the clear whereas Trump would be in serious danger.

On the other hand, politically, it's getting harder and harder to separate Biden's actions from Trump's. Nuance is not, on the whole, a strong point of the print, online and television media, particularly the right-wing variant. Already, there have been numerous calls for AG Merrick Garland to appoint a special counsel to look into Biden's document handling. Certainly, doing that would allow Garland to claim that he's being fair to everyone, regardless of who is in which party, and regardless of who is and is not his boss. However, Jack Smith is not only looking into document-related behavior by Trump that might well be illegal, he's also looking into the 1/6 insurrection. So, appointing a special counsel to look into Biden would imply an equivalence between Biden's actions and Trump's actions that doesn't actually exist. It's another tough call for the AG, who surely must be wishing by now that his Supreme Court appointment had gone through. Hell, just staying on the D.C. Court of Appeals would have been easier than the mess he has now.

The White House has not, as yet, offered any comment on the new trove of documents. They won't be able to hide forever, though, particularly as more information about them comes to light. Maybe they will wait until tomorrow to talk about the matter, in hopes that the story is partly swallowed by the weekend news black hole.

Meanwhile, that's two days in a row where our lead headline was based on a Beatles song. Will we stretch it to three tomorrow? Even we don't know yet, since we don't know what the big news is. You'll have to make sure to read tomorrow's posting to see if we can work it out. (Z)

McCarthy Bet the House

Speaker-for-the-moment Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) has made a bet, according to political analyst Ronald Brownstein. A big one. Brownstein thinks that McCarthy has bet the House. His gamble is that he can work with the MAGA 20 and control them. In a somewhat similar situation, it didn't work for Dr. Frankenstein and probably won't work for McCarthy. Former speakers John Boehner and Paul Ryan understood that such a bet was a very bad idea, didn't make it, and that didn't work either. Now McCarthy is making the opposite bet: Give the MAGA 20 everything they want and spend at least an hour a day praying the monster does not turn on him and eat him for breakfast.

The problem is that the MAGA 20, sooner or later (probably sooner), will do something that the 18 House Republicans in districts Joe Biden won in 2020 can't stomach. Someone will make a motion to vacate the chair and McCarthy will lose the vote. Just about all Democrats expect this scenario to play out. Probably a fair number of Republicans do, too, but they are too scared now to say it out loud.

Conservatives are pooh-poohing this talk, saying that going full-bore MAGA will bring hordes of new conservatives to the polls in 2024. That might be true, but it will also brings hordes of people who hate the MAGAites (MAGAonians? MAGAnolias? MAGAbees?) to the polls as well. Conservative strategist Ken Blackwell said: "The politics of America is turning out a base. It is no longer being decided by 20% of independent voters. So your base matters, your platform matters." What Blackwell seems to be missing is Newton's third law of physics and politics: "For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction." The past three federal elections haven't shown any sign that going full MAGA is a net winner in general elections, especially in swing states and districts.

Other Republicans also doubt the wisdom of McCarthy's decision. Former Pennsylvania representative Charlie Dent said: "Neither Boehner nor Ryan would have made these kinds of concessions. Is surrendering your way to victory really winning?" Part of the problem is that giving the MAGA 20 a platform to act crazy is only going to accelerate the flight of college-educated Republicans in the suburbs to the Democrats. They may not be wild about the Democrats' tax plans, but they understand that one party is letting nutters call the shots and one is not. It is far from clear that holding the country hostage in an attempt to cut Social Security and Medicare is going to flip enough blue-collar Democrats to compensate for losing the suburbs. In fact, attempts to gut Social Security and Medicare might cost the Republicans votes from blue-collar workers who appreciate their views on transgender issues and CRT but don't want their Social Security cut.

An endless stream of polls, including one sponsored by AARP after the election, have shown that Republican voters hate compromise and want their leaders to stick to their guns. The problem is that Democrats and especially independents—and there are more of them than there are Republicans—want the parties to compromise. The extremely aggressive "my way or the highway" style of Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) and his friends doesn't sit well with them. The Nov. 2022 exit polls showed that the Democrats carried independents in the recent election. They did it only barely, but it was nonetheless first time in 40 years that Democrats won independents in a midterm. And that was before the Jim Jordans of the world started breathing fire to the national media every day. The reason Democrats won independents, according to the exit polls, is that many of them think Republicans are extremists. Just wait to see what happens when the Republicans prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. And Joe Biden seems to be settling on that very campaign message: "Republicans are extremists." That will resonate even more when the red team demonstrates it every day.

Why are the MAGA 20 behaving like this? Don't they have strategists and pollsters who give them some clue how their show is likely to work out for the Republicans in 2024? Dent has an explanation. He thinks that as long as they can placate their base, "I don't think they care about whether or not Republicans are in the majority." Could well be. Being in the minority is actually easier since you aren't held accountable for actually governing. (V)

Biden Is Going Weaponize GOP's Plans to Gut Social Security

Joe Biden is keenly aware of the MAGA 20's plan to force a hostage crisis on the national debt and use it as a lever to try to gut Social Security and Medicare. He can't wait. His opposition to it is going to feature prominently in his reelection campaign. "Save Social Security—Vote for Biden" fits nicely on a bumper sticker. Biden has been around long enough to know that Social Security is called the "third rail of American politics' for good reason.

What is more than a bit ironic is that the people who care passionately about Social Security and Medicare are seniors, and they form a disproportionate fraction of the Republican base. Threatening to blow up the world economy if you don't get something your base strongly opposes doesn't strike us as a winning formula, but what do we know? On the other hand, Biden knows a bit about politics and he thinks the MAGA 20 plan is a political loser.

A somewhat different approach the MAGA 20 could take to Social Security is not to cut benefits, which is toxic, but to raise the retirement age. It is currently 67. If it were moved to, say, 70, then people would pay into the system for 3 more years and take money out of the system for 3 fewer years. That would keep Social Security solvent much longer. However, telling a 62-year-old that he can't retire in 5 years but has to work another 8 years may not be wildly popular with the Republican base.

The MAGA 20 also want a balanced budget and they want it without tax increases. This is going to require big cuts to the current budget. Social Security is the biggest item in the budget, so it can't be spared or the math doesn't work. But military spending is another huge item that will be hard to avoid. Biden is also going to campaign on protecting the defense budget and accuse the Republicans of weakening national security. It is the reverse of the usual pattern, but if the MAGA 20 continue to push for a balanced budget, Biden and the Democrats are going to keep pushing them to explain how they will do it.

How will this play out? Actually, we got a preview in 2011 when the Republican House, then led by John Boehner, tried the same playbook. Boehner demanded deep cuts to Social Security as the price for not having the U.S. default on its debt and blowing up the world economy. Then-President Barack Obama proposed a deal that would raise the debt ceiling and cut Social Security, but also raise taxes. The tea party flat-out rejected this. The final result of the negotiation was an increase in the debt ceiling but also automatic spending cuts across the board. Whether something like that would be palatable now remains to be seen. The MAGA 20 are not fans of compromise, but sane Republicans might join with the Democrats on some kind of compromise bill because they know who will get the blame for the resulting depression. (V)

Democrats Want Seats on All of the New Select Committees

When the Democrats proposed a committee to investigate the Jan. 6 coup attempt, then-Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy boycotted the effort after then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi rejected two of his appointees. In the end, only two Republicans, then-Reps. Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger, were willing to be on it. That was probably a huge mistake for the Republicans, as it resulted in no one on the committee who was interested in defending Donald Trump. Now that the Republicans are setting up multiple committees to investigate the government, Democrats are not going to make the same mistake. They want full representation on all the new select committees. Although they will be in the minority, they will undoubtedly fight the Republicans tooth and nail on everything. The technical term for what is going to happen is "sh**show."

The committee where the most action is likely to be is the one investigating whether the government is "weaponized" against Republicans. Chair of the House Democratic Caucus Pete Aguilar (D-CA) said that Democrats call it the "tin-foil-hat committee." Nevertheless, there will be Democrats on it. Aguilar said that when the time comes, members interested in being on the panel could inform the leadership of their interest and some of them would be chosen.

The Democrats don't really have anyone like Reps. Lauren Boebert (R-CO), Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) and Jim Jordan. So when people like that begin grandstanding, the members of the blue team are almost sure to be outmatched. Nevertheless, the Democrats on the committees will get some speaking time and they will probably use it to make the argument that the whole investigation is nonsense and is based on nothing. (V)

Most Committee Chairs Are Now Known

One of the things the MAGA 20 rammed down Kevin McCarthy's throat is a set of rules that strips him of much of his power and gives it to the committee chairs. Consequently, who runs the committees is of critical importance. Most of the assignments are now known. Here are the leaders of the major committees. For the fun of it, we also listed the ranking members. Except on a handful of committees, which handle matters that are not terribly controversial (like Science, Space, and Technology), the ranking member will have no say in how the committee operates or what it investigates.

Committee	Chair (R)	Ranking member (D)	Notes
Agriculture	Glenn Thompson (PA)	David Scott (GA)	A new 5-year farm bill is needed this year.
Appropriations	Kay Granger (RX)	Rosa DeLauro (CT)	Granger will not tolerate any cuts to military spending.
Armed Services	Mike Rogers (AL)	Adam Smith (WA)	Rogers wants to increase the Pentagon's budget.
Budget	Jodey Arrington (TX)	Brendan Boyle (PA)	Arrington will have a tough job getting a budget through.
Education	Virginia Foxx (VA)	Robert Scott (VA)	Foxx had this job from 2017 to 2019.
Energy & Commerce	Cathy Rodgers (WA)	Frank Pallone (NJ)	Rodgers will focus on gas prices, fentanyl, and COVID-19.
Ethics	Michael Guest (R-MS)	Susan Wild (PA)	George Santos is on the to-do list here.
Financial Services	Patrick McHenry (NC)	Maxine Waters (CA)	Oversight of the regulators is on the menu, also cryptocurrencies.
Foreign Affairs	Michael McCaul (TX)	Gregory Meeks (NY)	The withdrawal from Afghanistan will be front and center.
Homeland Security	Mark Green (TN)	Bennie Thompson (MS)	Green is a member of the Freedom Caucus. It will be wild.
House Administration	?	Joseph Morelle (NY)	The Committee has overisght over the Capitol police and Library of Congress.
Intelligence	Michael Turner (OH)	Not Adam Schiff (CA)	Turner is a staunch China hawk.
Judiciary	Jim Jordan (OH)	Jerrold Nadler (NY)	Jordan is a real firebrand. Nadler is a tough NYC brawler. Expect fireworks.
Natural Resources	Bruce Westerman (AR)	Raul Grijvala (AZ)	Westerman wants oil and gas drilling on public land.
Oversight & Accountability	James Comer (K)	?	Hunter Biden's laptop lives here.
Rules	Tom Cole (OK)	Jim McGovern (MA)	Will Cole be able to manage this unruly committee?.
Science, Space & Tech	Frank Lucas (OK)	Zoe Lofgren (CA)	The panel oversees NASA, NSF, NOAA. Probably no big fights.
Small Business	Roger Williams (TX)	Nydia Velazquez (NY)	Williams wants to look at fraud (perhaps the $1 million he got during COVID-19?).
Transportation & Infrastructure	Sam Graves (MO)	Rick Larsen (WA)	Graves will investigate the 2022 infrastructure law.
Veterans' Affairs	Mike Bost (IL)	Mark Takano (CA)	Bost initially opposed benefits for vets exposed to burn pits.
Ways and Means	Jason Smith (MO)	Richard Neal (MA)	Smith wants to extend those parts of the 2017 Tax Cut Act that are expiring.

In a few cases, the choice of chairman or ranking member is not final. One post that is going to be controversial is the ranking member of the Intelligence Committee. The old chairman was Adam Schiff, but McCarthy hates Schiff and will try to remove him from the Committee altogether. (V)

There Will Probably Be More Extremists in the House in 2025

There has been a lot of attention to the new rule that any member of the House can make a motion to vacate the chair. This attention is pointless. Unless there are 218 members who want to fire the speaker, it won't happen. If there are 218, then it hardly matters whether it takes 1, 5, 50, or 200 to support the motion to start the process.

What has gotten far too little attention is Kevin McCarthy's promise not to intervene in primaries in open districts. That sounds fairly neutral, but in practice, it will work out quite differently. When there is an open seat in a deep-red district (and there were 11 of them in 2022 in districts R+10 or more), the MAGA 20 are going to locate a prime recruit and get him or her to run. McCarthy will try to find a more normal Republican and, in some cases, may succeed.

However, what McCarthy has promised to do is not provide any funding for his candidate from his super PAC. The MAGA 20 will undoubtedly find plenty of funding for their candidates. The likely result in the next Congress is that there will be a MAGA 25, MAGA 30 or MAGA 35. Remember, the deal applies only to deep-red districts where the winner of the GOP primary is certain to win the general election. Preventing the leadership from supporting Republicans who can win in swing districts would be very risky. And, all things considered, the MAGA 20 would prefer being in the majority (so they have the committee chairmanships) if it doesn't cost them anything. If nothing else, it reduces the chances they'll be tossed off their committees.

In short, on account of this deal, the next Republican caucus (Jan. 3, 2025 to Jan. 3, 2027) will very likely be more radical than the current one. Some of the 18 Republicans in Biden districts are likely to lose, removing some of the moderate voices from the caucus, and the new members who replace retirees in deep-red districts are likely to be more radical than their predecessors. With fewer moderates and more radicals, the caucus as a whole is likely to shift to the right. This is true even if the Democrats knock off five or more of the Biden 18 and get a majority. Then they will face an even angrier opposition. However, House rules don't give the minority any power at all, so in a certain sense that may not matter in the short run. Still, on Jan. 3, 2025, Jan. 3, 2027, or beyond, an increasingly radicalized Republican caucus could be in the majority and act accordingly.

McCarthy's promise is a big deal. In 2022, his super PAC, the Congressional Leadership Fund (CLF) spent over $250 million on House races. Some of that was in deep-red districts, some in swing districts. If he hadn't spent heavily in open districts, the MAGA 20 group would surely have been bigger than it now is. For example, in TX-08, the CLF spent $700,000 to help Morgan Luttrell beat Christian Collins. Collins said he would side with MTG, demanded a nationwide audit of the 2020 election, and said Dr. Anthony Fauci should be in jail. In NY-23, another McCarthy-allied PAC spent $1 million to defeat Carl Paladino, who called Hitler the kind of leader we need today. He also said that Michelle Obama should return to being a male and go live with a gorilla in Africa. In MO-04, a McCarthy-allied PAC spent $500,000 to defeat state Sen. Rick Brattin, who sponsored a bill that would make it a crime to provide an abortion to an out-of-state woman. In Florida, McCarthy intervened in multiple districts to stop the craziest of the crazies. Also in Alabama and elsewhere.

If McCarthy keeps his promise—which is a big "if"—then all the money that would have otherwise gone to keeping the crazies from winning primaries will go to helping moderate Republicans win in swing districts. So the promise may help Republicans hold the House by diverting money from districts where a Republican was going to win no matter what, to districts that could go either way. However, McCarthy, a lifelong weasel, could double-cross the MAGA 20 and still keep his promise by having his "friends" tell donors not to donate to the CLF, but to some other super PAC run by an ally or to the NRCC. (V)

Barbara Lee Is Also Running for the Senate

The dam is breaking. On Tuesday, Rep. Katie Porter (D-CA) announced she was running for the Senate in 2024. Yesterday, Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA) told fellow lawmakers in the Congressional Black Caucus that she is also running and would soon make an official announcement. Neither of these announcements are terribly respectful of Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), who isn't dead yet and who should at least be given the opportunity to exit gracefully.

Lee was widely seen as the most likely replacement for Feinstein if Feinstein resigned mid-term. But the reason Lee was the top pick as a replacement is also a key argument against her running for a full term in 2024: The Texas-born legislator will be 78 on Election Day. As a replacement senator, she would have merely been a placeholder to provide a level playing field for the real competitors in 2024. Given that, outside of the occasional Bill Frist, it takes at least 10 years to get enough seniority to have any power in the Senate, she is simply too old to start a Senate career now. Porter is 49 and Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), who is also expected to run, is 62. Another likely entrant is Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA), who is 46.

All these plans are going to put some pressure on Feinstein to make an announcement soon. However, the Senator is famous for resisting pressure and these early announcements may make her dig her heels in. The problem with that is if she waits until half a dozen other Democrats declare, announcing a retirement will very much make it look like she is giving up due to a fear of losing the primary. That's hardly an honorable way to go. She should have known that there was be a lot of interest from other Democrats and announced her decision already.

Meanwhile, the timing of Lee's announcement raises a chicken-and-egg question that is interesting, at least to politics junkies. As we noted yesterday, it was at least a little tacky for Porter to announce while significant portions of California are still flooded. But perhaps Porter knew that Lee's announcement was coming, and felt there was no choice but to move forward. On the other hand, maybe Porter's announcement gave cover for Lee to announce. In other words, was Porter reacting to what Lee was about to do, or was Lee reacting to what Porter just did? Alternatively, they might both have been moved to action by some other member, if they have inside info that Schiff, Khanna or someone else is about to jump in. We'll see if anyone else declares in the next week or so. (V)

McCarthy Backs Santos

Kevin McCarthy, who will need nearly every vote the first time a motion to vacate the chair comes up, yesterday supported Rep. "George Santos" (R-NY) and said he didn't have to resign, despite faking his entire résumé. McCarthy said: "It's the voters who made that decision. He has to answer to the voters and the voters to make another decision in 2 years." McCarthy is scared to death that if Santos resigns, a Democrat could win the resulting special election, making his tiny margin even tinier.

However, other Republicans have already called on Santos to reign. Rep. Anthony D'Esposito (R-NY) did so yesterday. So have over a dozen top Republican officials in Nassau County, where most of Santos' district is located. McCarthy doesn't think very long term. There are multiple criminal investigations of Santos already ongoing. One question the feds are interested in is how he went from poor 2 years ago to rich now. A side question is even if he suddenly earned a lot of money through his company, did he pay the requisite taxes on his income? There are also questions about his campaign finances. If Santos is indicted, he will be a millstone around McCarthy's neck. McCarthy might have been better off finessing the whole issue.

So far, Santos is stonewalling and saying he won't resign. Of course, if he is indicted and offered a plea deal that includes resigning, he might take it. It takes a two-thirds majority of the House to expel a member, no matter what he has done. Members are traditionally never expelled unless that have been convicted of a felony. (V)

Sarah Huckabee Sanders Is Inaugurated

Sarah Huckabee Sanders was sworn in as governor of Arkansas on Tuesday. Her main qualification for the office is that her father once held it. She was also Donald Trump's second press secretary, where she lied with a sweet Southern accent. She is Arkansas' first woman governor.

In her inaugural address, Sanders said she wanted to become Arkansas' education governor. On her first day in office, she signed an executive order banning political indoctrination of Arkansas' school children. She also banned the teaching of critical race theory. In addition, she also froze new government hiring and said she would phase out the state's income tax. She also forbade the use of "Latinx" in government documents. She didn't explain how these things will improve the quality of education in Arkansas.

Actually, Arkansas isn't the worst state in terms of education. It beats Alabama, New Mexico, Louisiana, Alaska, Mississippi, Nevada, and West Virginia. But "We're #42" isn't exactly a rallying cry, especially when there are only 50 entrants in the competition, so there is plenty of room for improvement. Sanders has a direct interest in elementary education: She is mother of a first grader, a third grader, and a fifth grader. (V)

Looking Backward: Our Predictions for 2022

On Tuesday, we took a look at how the punditry did in predicting 2022. Today, we're putting our own 2022 predictions under the microscope. Recall that we established the boldness value last year, and that a prediction that is more correct than not (i.e., 3/5 or higher) gets the full boldness bonus. Let's get to it:

• A version of Build Back Better will be passed, with a price tag in the neighborhood of $1.5 trillion.
  
  Boldness: 2/5. Biden has staked a lot on this, and will do whatever it takes to get it done, so this isn't that bold.
  
  Final Score: 2.5 (Accuracy: 2.5, Boldness: 0). We were right about the bill, which ended up with the name Inflation Reduction Act of 2022. However, it was for $738 billion, which is nowhere near $1.5 trillion.
  
  
• As a result, Joe Biden's approval rating, per the FiveThirtyEight polling average, will be within 1 point of 50% on Dec. 31.
  
  Boldness: 3/5. Historically, there's been a pretty big ebb and flow, though it's not common for their to be a positive flow for the president right after a midterm election. So, this is bolder than it seems.
  
  Final Score: 0 (Accuracy: 0, Boldness: 0). It was 43.3%. The staff mathematician says that actually is within one point of 50%, but we're pretty sure that's the not him talking, it's Jack Daniel.
  
  
• Also as a result, the Democrats will increase the number of Senate seats they hold.
  
  Boldness: 2.5/5. It's a good map, but not a good environment. So, this is middle-of-the-road bold.
  
  Final Score: 7.5 (Accuracy: 5, Boldness: 2.5). We were right. Thanks, John Sen. Fetterman (D-PA)!
  
  
• The closest Senate race of the year will be in... Nevada.
  
  Boldness: 3/5. There are half a dozen states that could contend for this "honor," so it's a bit bold to settle on one of them.
  
  Final Score: 8 (Accuracy: 5, Boldness: 3). That race was decided by 0.78%, which did indeed make it the closest of the cycle. It was trailed by the Georgia primary election (0.9%), Wisconsin (1.01%), and the Georgia runoff (2.80%).
  
  
• At least one U.S. Senator will resign, leaving a replacement to finish their term.
  
  Boldness: 1/5. We can't stick our neck out on every prediction. Most years feature at least one senator stepping down.
  
  Final Score: 2.5 (Accuracy: 2.5, Boldness: 0). Nebraska's Ben Sasse did announce his resignation in 2022, though it didn't take effect until Jan. 8, 2023. So, we're giving ourselves half credit.
  
  
• By the end of the year, House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) will no longer be the favorite to become the next Speaker.
  
  Boldness: 3/5. On one hand, he was passed over by another Republican once before (Paul Ryan in 2015). On the other hand, what current member of the House Republican Conference is likely to supplant McCarthy? That group is so divided that there is no consensus leader.
  
  Final Score: 0 (Accuracy: 0, Boldness: 0). He remained the favorite, wire-to-wire, although just barely for much of the time.
  
  
• One among Lauren Boebert (R-CO), Matt Gaetz (R-FL), Jim Jordan (R-OH), Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA), and Paul Gosar (R-AZ) will no longer be in office by the end of the year.
  
  Boldness: 5/5. Five incumbents, most of them in very red districts. This is a very aggressive prediction.
  
  Final Score: 0 (Accuracy: 0, Boldness: 0). Except for Boebert, who was nearly unseated, this didn't come even close to happening. This was almost as bad as some of those Nostradamus predictions, and we don't even have the excuse that we died five centuries ago.
  
  
• Stacey Abrams will be elected governor of Georgia.
  
  Boldness: 3/5. Incumbents are not easy to defeat, even if you're a good campaigner and organizer.
  
  Final Score: 0 (Accuracy: 0, Boldness: 0). This, obviously, did not happen either.
  
  
• At least two people in Donald Trump's near orbit will be sentenced to prison time.
  
  Boldness: 2/5. That this will happen is basically beyond doubt. The only question is whether it will happen this year.
  
  Final Score: 7 (Accuracy: 5, Boldness: 2). Steve Bannon and Allen Weisselberg. Weisselberg's sentence did not become "official" until this week, but he struck the plea deal in 2022, so we are giving ourselves full credit.
  
  
• Trump's new social media platform will be a failure by any measure—profitability, audience size, reach. In particular, it will not give Trump what he wants: A means to share every thought that comes into his head with the entire country.
  
  Boldness: 0.5/5. Another one where we didn't exactly stick our necks out.
  
  Final Score: 5 (Accuracy: 4.5, Boldness: 0.5). We're going to ding ourselves just a little, because if Trump says something truly wacky, he still gets some coverage. But beyond that, is there any doubt that we were correct.
  
  
• British prime minister Boris Johnson and Brazilian president Jair Bolsonaro will both be out of office by the end of the year in a double blow for right-wing populism.
  
  Boldness: 4/5. Bolsonaro is up this year, and could well lose. Johnson doesn't have to hold an election until Jan. 2025, however, and is not the type to resign voluntarily.
  
  Final Score: 9 (Accuracy: 5, Boldness: 4). Nailed it. Though we could not possibly have guessed Johnson's downfall would be due to... Christmas parties.
  
  
• Prince Charles will assume the British throne, taking the regnal name George VII.
  
  Boldness: 4/5. Mum is getting up there in years, so it won't be too much a shock if Charles assumes the throne. Picking a regnal name other than Charles III is pretty bold, though.
  
  Final Score: 2.5 (Accuracy: 2.5, Boldness: 0). Right on the first half, wrong on the second.

Adding it up, we piled up 46 points out of a possible 120. That's a very solid .383, which is better than the pundits did with their 2022 predictions (.317). It is also way better than we did with our 2021 predictions (.260), or than the pundits did in 2021 (.341). Next week, we'll start to figure out how the readers did in forecasting 2022. Tomorrow, however, it will be our predictions for 2023. (Z)

---

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

• questions@electoral-vote.com    For questions about politics, civics, history, etc. to be answered on a Saturday
• comments@electoral-vote.com   For "letters to the editor" for possible publication on a Sunday
• corrections@electoral-vote.com To tell us about typos or factual errors we should fix
• items@electoral-vote.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