Discharging the Government

Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) decided not to allow a vote on extending the expiring ACA subsidies. After all, it might pass and Donald Trump doesn't want that. Neither do the Freedom Caucusers. End of story, right?

Well, no. A number of House moderates in swing districts know that their constituents are hopping mad about the expected spike in health-care premiums and they feel they have to do something about that or be swept away next year. They fumed, but Johnson was adamant: No vote.

Instead, he scheduled a vote on a feeble GOP bill that would pump up Health Savings Accounts a little bit. These accounts allow people to save up for their own health care, with some tax benefits. There was a vote on it in the House yesterday and it passed by a 216-211 party-line vote. It does not include the subsidies the Democrats are fighting for. The bill doesn't have a chance in the Senate, where Democrats will filibuster it. Basically, what it does is make it slightly easier to buy not-great insurance for a low premium. Insurance companies love these policies, because although the premium is low, they almost never have to pay out except under very rare circumstances and then not very much. Most people buying them do not read the fine print until the claim they put in is denied. Then they discover exactly what they have purchased, which is not much.

However, as you may have heard, the House has this thing called a discharge petition. If 218 members sign on, that forces a vote on a bill. We saw it in action recently to force a vote on making the Department of Justice release all the Epstein files. That caught the eye of a number of members, so the Democrats filed a discharge petition to force a vote on a bill to extend the ACA subsidies. They don't have enough votes by themselves, but four Republicans from swing districts saw this as the only way they could survive, so they signed the petition, bringing the number of signatures right to 218, and thus forcing a vote. The Republicans who signed are Reps. Rob Bresnahan (PA), Brian Fitzpatrick (PA), Ryan Mackenzie (PA), and Mike Lawler (NY).

Donald Trump is going to be furious with this quartet, but if he supports a Trumpy primary opponent for each of them, he can also kiss those four swing seats goodbye. Still, he might do it to spite them. You never know.

The House rules allow the Speaker to delay the vote on discharge petitions for up to 9 legislative days. Johnson is clearly in no hurry to bring this bill up for a vote. Democrats tried to force a vote earlier, but their procedural motion was defeated 204-203. Johnson said the vote on the subsidies bill will be held in January. By then, the 22 million Americans who use the ACA would all have learned that their insurance costs for 2026 will skyrocket. Johnson doesn't want that, either. He is in a bit of a bind here. Democrats are going to pound the Republicans on health care for the next 11 months. Many people will definitely notice that their health care costs are going up, no matter how many speeches Donald Trump gives claiming the opposite (see below).

The fact that a second discharge petition has passed within a month against the wishes of both Johnson and Trump show that neither one is all-powerful anymore. As we move into 2026 and Republican representatives begin seriously worrying about their reelection prospects, it will be every man and woman for him/herself. Once the filing deadlines have passed and Trump can no longer endorse primary opponents, Trump will begin to experience full lame duckiness. (V)

Trump Spoke

As announced, Donald Trump delivered a primetime address to the nation yesterday. If you would like to see it, you can watch it here:

It's 18 minutes. And before you click, take note of this legal disclaimer: You cannot click on our link and then sue us on the basis of "that's 18 minutes of my life I will never get back." We provide this information as a public service, and do not recommend actually watching the speech. If you choose to disregard our advice, you do so at your own peril.

In other words, it was a giant waste of time, and we are kind of annoyed we had to watch it. In theory, a presidential "address to the nation" is supposed to be something reserved for special circumstances—some major crisis or tragedy has taken place, or there is some major new initiative being announced, or it's an important national holiday, or something like that. In this case, presumably because of all the turmoil around this administration, not to mention his sagging approval ratings, Trump abused this privilege so he could reach a somewhat larger audience with what is basically his stump speech.

Here is one way to think about the address. We put the transcript into a word cloud generator, and had it include all words used at least three times. This was the result:

Frankly, you might get more meaning out of the speech by looking at this than by listening to the actual presentation.

Here is another way to think about the address—time until 10 "firsts":

1. First Joe Biden Finger Pointing (0:02): "11 months ago, I inherited a mess and I'm fixing it. When I took office, inflation was the worst in 48 years. And some would say in the history of our country, which caused prices to be higher than ever before, making life unaffordable for millions and millions of Americans. This happened during a Democrat administration and it's when we first began hearing the word "affordability."
   
   This was, of course, a major recurring theme of the speech; Biden was mentioned by name seven times, and was indirectly referred to at least four more.
   
   
2. First Baldfaced Lie (0:25): "[Under Biden,] our country was being invaded by an army of 25 million people..."
   
   By even the most... aggressive estimates, the number of immigrants was considerably less than half that. An "army" is a body of persons trained and armed by a government for waging war or defending against another army.
   
   
3. First Xenophobia/Racism (0:42): "[The 25 million undocumented immigrants] came from prisons and jails, mental institutions and insane asylums. They were drug dealers, gang members, and even 11,888 murderers."
   
   This is something of a "greatest hits" bit for Trump; almost exactly the same sentence appears in the speech he made first announcing his presidential candidacy back in 2015.
   
   
4. First Attack on Trans People (1:03): "[Under Biden,] we had men playing in women's sports, transgender for everybody."
   
   We think it's fair to say that trans girls playing high school sports is an important enough issue that it should appear within the first minute or so of a nationally televised address, before such trivialities as the economy, the war on Venezuela, health care, etc. We will admit that we do not know what "transgender for everybody" means.
   
   
5. First "Trump as Conquering Hero" Claim (1:24): "But they're not laughing anymore. Over the past 11 months, we have brought more positive change to Washington than any administration in American history. There's never been anything like it."
   
   FDR, eat DJT's dust.
   
   
6. First "People are Saying" Claim (1:40): "[When it comes to how great these 10 months have been,] I think most would agree."
   
   Hmmm... If "most people" agree this is the most successful start to a presidency in U.S. history, how to explain the 39% approval rating?
   
   
7. First Bragging about His 2024 Win (1:42): "I was elected in a landslide, winning the popular vote and all seven swing states and everything else with a mandate to take on a sick and corrupt system that extra—it really just took the wealth from people and crushed the dreams of the American people."
   
   Trump's crimes against the meaning of the word "landslide" are almost as great as his crimes against the meaning of the phrase "weapons of mass destruction."
   
   
8. First Claim So Obviously False You Don't Even Need to Fact-Check It (3:08): "For the past 7 months, zero illegal aliens have been allowed into our country, a feat which everyone said was absolutely impossible."
   
   There is a good reason that everyone said it was impossible. That reason is that it IS impossible.
   
   
9. First Pitch for the Nobel Peace Prize (4:44): "I've restored American strength, settled eight wars in 10 months, destroyed the Iran nuclear threat, and ended the war in Gaza, bringing for the first time in 3,000 years, peace to the Middle East, and secured the release of the hostages, both living and dead."
   
   Are you listening, Nobel Committee? The first time in THREE THOUSAND YEARS.
   
   
10. First Gaslighting on the Economy (5:01): "Here at home, we're bringing our economy back from the brink of ruin. The last administration and their allies in Congress looted our treasury for trillions of dollars, driving up prices and everything at levels never seen before. I am bringing those high prices down and bringing them down very fast."
    
    "The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command."—George Orwell, Nineteen Eighty-Four

We could certainly keep going, to include "first vaporware policy proposal (health care division)," "first vaporware policy proposal (non-health care division)," "first legally dubious attempt to justify war in Venezuela," "first military porn," "first attack on Somalis," "first attack on socialists," etc., but you get the point.

Here is a third way to think about the address—subjects that got no mention at all across the 18 minutes:

1. Jeffrey Epstein
   
   
2. China (nor "Jina," either)
   
   
3. Hanukkah
   
   
4. J.D. Vance
   
   
5. The national debt
   
   
6. Vaccines
   
   
7. Women
   
   
8. Susie Wiles/the Wiles interview
   
   
9. Rob Reiner
   
   
10. The midterm elections

Taken together, roughly 97% of the speech was things we've all heard Trump say a hundred times before. At the same time, it avoided anything embarrassing or uncomfortable, and it also avoided anything that happened in the last 2 months. It could not be clearer that this was just his standard rally speech, the one he's been delivering for months and years.

And yes, we did leave 3% on the table as "new" material. There was exactly one substantive new thing in there—one thing that is actually likely to come to fruition. Trump announced that all soldiers in the U.S. Armed Forces (presumably, he meant active duty) will get a check for $1,776, which he called a "warrior dividend."

We are, of course, well aware of the various gifts and grants that have been bestowed on America's soldiers over the years, from Civil War veterans' pensions to the Bonus Bill of World War I to the G.I. Bill and beyond. However, here are some of the obvious questions about this new "warrior dividend":

• What is the justification for this, other than "I'd like to try to buy some votes from soldiers who are on the fence?" Most other outlays for veterans were meant to help them adapt to the realities of their post-military life, and ideally (even if this ideal was not always realized) to help them be happier and more productive citizens than they would otherwise have been. Exactly what purpose does a one-time payment in a cutesy amount serve?
  
  
• Warrior "dividend"? Dividend for what?
  
  
• How is this being paid for? Trump somewhat implied that the checks, which he said are already in the mail, will be covered by tariff revenue. This would also comport with the notion that it's a "dividend." Assuming this is the case, then this will be the fifth or sixth thing on which he's spending the same money. The tariff money is also supposed to go to farmers, and to checks for every American, and to paying down the national debt, and to upgrading military equipment, and perhaps to two or three other things.
  
  
• On what authority is Trump spending this money? Only Congress can approve outlays like this (remember that whole thing about the "power of the purse"?), and WE certainly didn't hear anything about Congress approving a bill like this.
  
  
• What will happen if the tariffs are struck down? Assuming tariff revenue is indeed the funding source, and assuming that the tariffs are found to be unlawful, will all the soldiers have to give their $1,776 back?

Despite these issues, we see no reason to think the plan won't go through. Again, Trump says the checks are already in the mail. He operates under the theory that it's better to ask forgiveness than permission, except that he skips the ask forgiveness part. And even if this is a very illegal abuse of power, and is yet another example of the President trampling all over the Constitution, "No, we cannot give this money to soldiers" does not seem like a hill that any politician is going to be willing to die on.

So, there's our take on the Trump speech. We felt we had to watch it and write it up, because this is a pretty pivotal time, and it was at least possible Trump might say something legitimately newsworthy. But, nope. And now that he's "cried wolf" one time, and abused the power of the bully pulpit to ram his campaign rally speech down the throats of a few million politics-junkie viewers, we very seriously doubt we will find time to watch or write about the next one. If (Z) wants to be gaslit, it's much easier to just read the marketing e-mails from the Angels about how they're sure to be a contender next year. (Z)

Government by Executive Order

Even though the Republicans have the trifecta, so far they have passed only one major bill, Donald Trump's BBB. Other than that, it has largely been a legislative desert. Donald Trump doesn't actually care about laws. He is too busy signing XOs. He prefers to govern by XO, since he can do that all by himself, without having to do any work. Here is a graph showing how many and how fast he is signing XOs:

So not only has Trump already signed more XOs than in his entire first term, he also has signed more than Joe Biden in total or Barack Obama in either of his terms. If you want to read them all, be our guest. Here they are. There is also a link there to download a list for Excel.

About a quarter of them relate to tariffs or economic policy. Another 14% relate to DOGE and governance. Here is a breakdown by category:

Trump didn't even write them all. In fact, he probably didn't write any of them. Stephen Miller, Will Scharf (Trump's staff secretary), and the Heritage Foundation had a hand in many of them. In fact, some were drafted in the interregnum, in hopes of there being a Trump v2.0.

Governing by XO has a slew of problems, such as these:

• XOs Are Not Laws: They can't force anyone to do anything. No one can be arrested and tried for violating an XO. They are simply instructions to the federal bureaucracy telling the workers how the president wants certain laws interpreted, or stating his priorities. For example, he could instruct IRS to go after poor people claiming their dogs as dependents vs. billionaires using shell corporations in the Cayman Islands to hide income.
  
  
• XOs Are Temporary: Since any president can sign an XO, any president can sign an XO canceling previous ones (with a few limits relating to review periods for certain kinds of policy changes). For example, on Jan. 20, 2029, the new president could sign an XO stating the following: "All Executive Orders EO 14147 through and including EO 14366 are hereby revoked." Except instead of naming EO 14366, it would name the last one Trump signed, which could well be 15xxx. Then they are all gone. Poof!
  
  
• XOs Don't Appropriate Money: XOs do not appropriate funds to do things. For example, an XO directing DHS to guard the border intensely would be legal, but wouldn't provide funds to hire more agents, buy more vehicles, or put up more walls and fences. Congress would have to pass an appropriations bill to do that. At least, that's the theory (see above).
  
  
• XOs Can Be Challenged: XOs can be challenged in court. Plaintiffs can claim some XO violates the law. A law passed by Congress cannot be challenged as illegal although it can be challenged as being unconstitutional. So taking down an XO is much easier than taking down a law. As you can see from the chart above, many of Trump's XO's have been challenged.
  
  
• XOs Are Not Self-Implementing: XOs instruct federal employees to do something or take some position. But in the end, the relevant employees have to do it. What if they don't? If they are top-level employees and the president discovers they are dragging their feet, he can fire them. But if the resistance is coming from people further down who are pretending to carry out the XO but are not really doing it and who are covered by civil service protections, there is not a great deal the president can do about it.

Trump understands some of this. He certainly understands that many of the XOs will be ignored or challenged in court as being illegal or unconstitutional. But he also understands that by inviting the press corps to watch him sign an XO, he controls the narrative. He knows there will be stories, many stories, about his latest signing. The more outrageous it is, the better. Reporters probably know this, but they are like a mouse who has watched his whole family be killed by mousetraps, and yet thinks that bit of cheese over there looks awfully delicious. (V)

A Second Poll Has Trump at 39%

Yesterday, we had an item mentioning a Marist poll putting Donald Trump's approval at 39%. Today, we have a new Ipsos poll also showing him at 39%. This extra bit of data suggests that it might be true. This is not the lowest Ipsos poll number for Trump this year. In November, they had Trump at 38%. Other pollsters have had him as low as 36%. Being under 40% is never good for a president, especially in a midterm year.

And the effect of polling in the 30s weakens a president in other ways besides being a drag on his party during elections, especially if he is a second-term president. He is increasingly viewed as a lame duck, which makes members of his party less afraid to challenge him on anything (see Redistricting, Indiana). It also makes the opposition bolder and encourages grassroots opposition. Once a narrative of "the president is weak" takes hold, he's toast.

Of course, presidents can rally from being unpopular, but doing "more of the same" usually isn't the best way to break the slump, and Trump is not very flexible. Maybe he thinks starting a war with Venezuela will cause a rally-round-the-flag effect, but many MAGA supporters voted for him due to his promise to keep America out of foreign wars. They won't like him starting one. (V)

Musk Is Back to His Old Habits--Giving Money to Republicans

In 2024, Elon Musk spent almost $300 million to buy Donald Trump a second term. He also bought himself a job as Dogey-in-Chief, dismantling the federal government. In March, Musk opened his wallet again and spent $25 million to try to buy a seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court for a Republican candidate. His candidate was crushed. Then, in May, he drew back to lick his wounds and said he was going to step back and not donate any more money to campaigns. Republicans were dismayed.

But guess what? That phase didn't last long. He changed his mind and will finance some Republicans in the midterms. After all, for someone worth over $250 billion, blowing $25 million on a state Supreme Court race is like a person worth $200,000 donating $20 to a losing candidate. It isn't that big a deal.

So Musk is already donating big money to help Republicans in the midterms. What caused the change of heart? He had dinner at Number One Observatory Circle recently and spoke with the fellow who lives there, J.D. Vance. That could have been it. Or a simple calculation that no matter how much money Musk gives to Republicans, he won't be forced to eat dog food next year and the payback if his candidates win could be enormous. He understands that having members of Congress in debt to him could be valuable down the road.

It is also possible that Musk regrets his spat with Trump and wants to be on the right side of the mercurial president on account of the many huge government contracts that have been awarded to Musk's companies. Helping Republicans keep control of the House is something that Trump probably appreciates, because he knows that a Democratic House is likely to impeach him again and will certainly block his budget and every proposed law. So donating to the NRSC, the NRCC, and other Republican committees may help mitigate some of the bad blood between Musk and Trump. (V)

WinRed Is in a Fight--and it Is Not with ActBlue

ActBlue is a nonprofit one-stop-shopping site for Democrats who want to donate to candidates. It has processed over $17 billion in donations since its founding in 2004. For years, Republicans had no counterpart, probably because they are suspicious of nonprofits. Finally, in 2019, the Republicans created WinRed, a for-profit company to process donations to Republican candidates. That sort of evened the score, though the Republicans are still playing catch-up.

WinRed processed $1.8 billion in 2024 for 5,000 campaigns, from junior deputy assistant dogcatcher for the town of East Cupcake to president. Since it takes 4% of all donations for itself, it earned $72 million gross that year. Of course, it needs personnel, servers, Internet connections, and has to pay the credit card companies a fee, but still, it is a nice business to be in with a gross of $72 million. Not surprisingly, somebody else got the idea and wanted a piece of the action and created a competitor to WinRed. It is called Impact and is led by a former Trump aide, Alex Bruesewitz. Impact and WinRed will now clash over collecting money for Republicans. One could imagine (dream of?) ads on Fox News from one of these companies urging viewers to use them instead of the other guys. On the other hand, what could Impact's competitive advantage be? Maybe taking a smaller cut of the take and sending more to the campaigns? Or claiming they don't trick you into secretly signing up for recurring donations like the other guys?

Impact is owned by a company called PublicSquare, which sells itself as a non-woke version of Amazon. PublicSquare has the financial backing of the Trumps and is a publicly traded corporation. Here is its stock price since 2023:

It is currently selling for a bargain price of $1.25. For the people who bought it for $21 on July 20, 2023, the day of the IPO, don't worry. It will come back, just as all the Trump-backed investments do.

How will the donation wars go? We don't know, but if WinRed and Impact both start running negative ads about the other one, it could have a... well, impact.

Oh, and so far, Trump is not available on Impact, but that could change. If he signs up with them as well, WinRed will not be real happy. But WinRed ought to know by now: It is not about you; it is about him. Especially when it's money FOR him. (V)

Despite Trump, Republican Officials Now Like Mail-in Voting

Donald Trump has complained about the integrity of absentee voting for years. What he really meant was he thought it favored Democrats. Studies have shown this is not true. Plenty of Republicans also vote absentee, especially older ones.

The RNC is now worried that the low-propensity voters who powered Trump to victory in 2024 will not bother to vote in 2026 because it is too much effort. Consequently, it is willing to cross a weakened Trump (see duck, lame) and actively encourage Republicans to vote by mail. In fact, getting Republicans to vote by mail will be a priority of the RNC in 2026, despite what Trump wants. A few years ago, the RNC would never have dared cross Trump on something as important as voting. As late as this summer, Trump vowed to ban absentee voting before the 2026 midterm elections.

Republicans are also going to encourage early voting next week, also a switch from the past. Wisconsin GOP Chairman Brian Schimming said: "Democrats have built a pretty massive structural advantage in early voting for a long, long time. And we just can't keep going into election night 100,000 votes down and expect to make it up in 12 hours. Treating early voting as optional, or something Democrats do, is a losing gamble." (V)

Dan Bongino is Gone-gino

It has been widely expected—and we've written it several times—that as Trump v2.0 hits the 1-year mark, there will be a number of people purged. Yesterday, the first high-profile domino fell, as Donald Trump announced that Deputy FBI Director Dan Bongino will leave his post early next year, something that Bongino confirmed on social media shortly thereafter.

This writing has been on the wall since mid-September, when Andrew Bailey was ALSO appointed as Deputy FBI Director. This is a job that is usually filled by one person, primarily for "the buck stops here" reasons. You don't appoint a second person (and one who is far more qualified, as Bailey was previously the Missouri AG) unless the first person isn't getting the job done, and isn't long for their posting.

From Bongino's end, the problem was that he didn't really like the work, and he really didn't like the salary. It's way easier to sit in a room for a few hours a day, recording whatever fool thoughts come into your head, than it is to go to endless meetings and do other bureaucratic tasks. He also reportedly earned $5 million a year as a podcaster, as compared to his current salary of $221,000. The staff mathematician had a bit too much egg nog last night, but was nonetheless able to confirm that $5 million is more than $221,000.

From the administration's end, the problem is that Bongino clashed with other key players, most obviously "Attorney General" Pam Bondi. It was not too much of a secret that, sooner or later, Bongino would return to his podcasting gig. And so, he was trying to maintain his conspiratorial credibility while also trying to lead the organization that was the subject of most of his conspiratorial thinking. Not an easy line to walk, and the main way this manifested was by him carping constantly about the Epstein files, and Bondi's failure to release them. Needless to say, if you cross Pam Bondi, you cross her puppet master, Stephen Miller. And there's no better way to get yourself cashiered, except perhaps crossing Trump himself.

So, Bongino is out, leaving the Trump administration with only 30 or 40 more highly problematic high-level appointees. (Z)

Dan Newhouse Will Retire and Not Run for Reelection

They are running for the hills. Another Republican representative has thrown in the towel. Rep. Dan Newhouse (R-WA) is #24. He is a mere sapling at 70, and his district is R+10, the most conservative in the state of Washington. There is no obvious reason for him to retire. We suspect that he suspects that the Republicans will be in the minority in 2027 and the Democrats will force a lot of votes he doesn't want to take, so maybe enough is enough after six terms.

Newhouse was one of the 10 Republicans who voted to impeach Donald Trump. With Newhouse gone, the only (possible) other impeach-Trump Republican left is Rep. David Valadao (R-CA), but he faces a tough reelection battle. If he goes down, that means Trump will have gotten rid of all 10 Republican representatives who voted to impeach him. That certainly sends a message to any representative about voting for impeachment if Democrats capture the House in 2026.

Newhouse is (obviously) not a flaming Trumper. He has mostly focused on agricultural issues, which makes him a good fit for his rural district. Absent a massive tsunami or a "candidate quality" problem, some other Republican should be able to hold Newhouse's seat.

Retirement season is upcoming. Often there are retirement announcements in January, after members have discussed their futures with friends, family, and constituents over the holidays. Although Newhouse's seat is not in danger, other retirements could happen in more competitive districts. You can keep track of retirements using the Congress: retirements link to the left of the map above.

In other House news, Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-MS) has a challenger. There is nothing wrong with Thompson. He is a good Democrat and even chaired the 1/6 House committee. His problem is that he is 77, and many Democrats want younger elected officials. A former lawyer for Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Evan Turnage, will challenge Thompson in a primary. Turnage is 33. His only difference with Thompson is that he thinks Thompson is too old and Thompson does not agree.

As a quick side note, Rep. Marc Veasey (D-TX) said he would retire to run for county judge. Now he has said that he will not run for judge because campaigning would take him away from the House too much, and his vote might be needed until Jan. 3, 2027. (V)

Poll: Hochul Leads Stefanik by 19 Points

Gov. Kathy Hochul (R-NY) is up for reelection in 2026. When Donald Trump nominated Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-NY) to be ambassador to the U.N. she gave up her leadership position in the House. Then Trump yanked her nomination when Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) said he needed her vote. Stefanik was thus reduced to a whiny backbencher, so she decided to run for governor of New York.

A new Siena College poll has Hochul beating Stefanik 49% to 30%, a 19-point gap. Maybe Stefanik can gain ground when she is better known, but she is already reasonably well known and that is a VERY big gap. And Stefanik is not even the surefire Republican nominee. Nassau County Executive Bruce Blakeman also wants the nomination. The poll shows him even further behind Hochul, though, 50% to 25%. But that probably doesn't matter because Stefanik is crushing Blakeman for the nomination, 48% to 17%. For any Republican, winning an election for governor of New York is a huge long shot. That's doubly true for a MAGA Republican.

Hochul also has some competition. Her own hand-picked lieutenant governor, Antonio Delgado (D), is running against her. Nice guy. Although the voters are lukewarm on Hochul, they like Delgado even less. She is leading him 56% to 13%. So if everything here holds, it will be Hochul vs. Stefanik and Hochul will win easily. (V)

Twelve Days of Christmas... Games, Part VIII: These Menorahs Are Lit

Today's game involves some wordplay. We are going to give you eight pictures of animal-themed menorahs, along with the names given to them by their creators... but scrambled. And we are going to give you eight pictures of non-animal-themed menorahs, along with the names given to them by their creators... but scrambled. The task is to figure out the correct names for each menorah.

For example, let's imagine that this was image #1 in the non-animal set:

And let's imagine that one of the scrambled titles on the list is "mhornea fo tryebil." Well, you would hopefully eventually figure out that the answer for #1 is "Menorah of Liberty." Of course, it's harder when you have to figure out which of the eight scrambled phrases goes with which. Also, note that some of the names are pretty straightforward, while others involved some wordplay.

Here are the eight animal-themed menorahs:

Here are the scrambled titles, in no particular order:

• ldog lnoi
• enthesinro rhcseriono
• s'onha kra
• sact
• glebob vot
• ohrnodax
• uorarunmsesah exr
• jleung nuf

Here are the eight non-animal-themed menorahs:

Here are the scrambled titles, in no particular order:

• roointsuo bgr
• hogobrna
• hoaarnb
• leabsg nad oxl
• l'sowdr agrtles olge ahonmre
• ot og reweh on ho-amrna ash nego fbeero
• inarmo
• yeh swje

We also have a tiebreaker: Which of these 16 menorahs reportedly outraged Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) when she saw pictures on social media? You can write "Animal 3" or "Non-animal 6" or whatever it is to indicate your answer.

Submit your responses here! (Z)

---

Previous report         Next report

---

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.

---The Votemaster and Zenger