About Those Tariffs on China...

This is starting to get into dog bites man territory—since this is, what, the fourth time it's happened in the last 3 months? In any case, once again, the administrations of Donald Trump and Xi Jinping have agreed to temporarily roll back the new, insane tariffs. The time frame is 90 days, which is ostensibly meant to allow for the negotiation of a more permanent trade deal.

By virtue of the rollback, American duties on Chinese imports will drop from 145% to 30%, while Chinese duties on American imports will drop from 125% to 10%. Wall Street was pretty happy about this news, as the Dow shot up 1,000 points yesterday, while the S&P reached its highest level since early March. For what it's worth, Dow Jones futures were down about 100 points as of 2:00 a.m. PT, so the bounce could be pretty temporary.

We don't pretend to know exactly what's going on here. Is this business of Trump decreeing harsh tariffs and then backing down because he just can't handle it when the heat (and the negative coverage) increases? Is it some sort of negotiating ploy? Is he deliberately manipulating the stock market, either for the benefit of himself and his friends, or because he believes that the thing that people will remember is the "The Dow was up 1,000 points!" stories? Who knows?

Whatever the case may be, if Trump or anyone else wants to claim that there is some method to this madness, there are a few problems. First, the stock market is still down relative to when he took office. The Dow Jones, to take one example, was at 43,487.83 on January 20, and is now at 42,410.10. Further, supply chains have already been disrupted, and the effects WILL be felt, at least to some extent. It is also the case that American businesses, and foreign nations, have both learned they cannot trust this administration, and are leery of making any sort of substantive investments or commitments. Finally, there is no actual trade deal with China (or with the U.K., for that matter), and either situation could go south at any time. In short, he is not winning.

That said, if one is looking for reasons to be optimistic, there are a couple of things we could point out. The first is that, by all indications, Xi is willing to play ball. That was not (and is not) guaranteed; the Chinese president certainly could have taken (and could take) a position that the U.S. needs to squirm for a while. The second is that when it came time to talk turkey, Trump did not send an amateurish buffoon like Peter Navarro. No, he sent the professional negotiators who have been doing this for the U.S. government for many years. Perhaps the President and his team actually do appreciate the value of expertise, even if they pretend otherwise.

On a vaguely related note, shortly before Trump announced the tariff rollback, he unveiled his executive order on drug prices. As of the moment, at least, it is what we suspected: full of sound and fury, but signifying nothing. The XO directs HHS Secretary Robert Kennedy Jr. to come up with price targets, ideally 50%-90% less than current rates, and then to negotiate with Big Pharma to achieve those targets. If they don't comply, the administration will theoretically impose cuts unilaterally.

In other words, it's the Trumpy version of appointing a blue-ribbon panel. Anybody can take a list of prices and come up with lower prices. Heck, maybe the administration can just adapt the formula it uses to calculate how much in tariffs that penguins should pay. And anybody can talk to pharmaceutical executives about cutting prices. Heck, they might even drop prices by a few percentage points, just to give Trump a "win" so that he moves on to other things. But the notion that a 40% or 50% or 60% reduction is in the offing is simply laughable. It is true that, say, people in Peru pay far, far less than people in the United States, but that is because it is all the Peruvians can afford. Someone has to foot the bill for R&D, and that is customers in America (and other western democracies). And if Trump tries to unilaterally impose cheaper prices, then Big Pharma will sue, just as they did when he tried it 6 years ago, and they will presumably win, just as they did 6 years ago.

Incidentally, there is one other question we don't have a great answer to: Why is Trump so obsessed with getting "wins" right now? The next election is still 500 days away, and by that time nearly all of this will be forgotten. Is it just that he needs praise and adulation on a regular basis, the way an addict needs his crack? That's the best explanation we've got, but maybe there's something we're missing. (Z)

So... What's REALLY Going On Here?

There have been an usually high number of stories in the past few days that provide fodder for anyone of an even mild conspiratorial bent. Here are three of them:

• Copyright Office: On Saturday, Trump fired yet another long-serving staffer from the Library of Congress. Last week, it was Librarian of Congress Carla Hayden. Saturday, Hayden was joined in the unemployment line by Register of Copyrights Shira Perlmutter. Both of these jobs are normally nonpartisan, and are under the purview of, you know, Congress. There are likely to be lawsuits challenging Trump's right to dismiss the two women.
  
  So... What's REALLY Going On Here? With Hayden, as we wrote last week, it appears that her being Black, and a Barack Obama appointee, was fatal. Right-wingers were clamoring for her head, and after the termination, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said: "There were quite concerning things that she had done at the Library of Congress in the pursuit of DEI and putting inappropriate books in the library for children."
  
  Perlmutter, by contrast, is white, and is not alleged to have approved a bunch of pro-LGBTQ copyrights. However, what she DID do was oversee the preparation and publication of a report on the relationship between copyright and the training of AI engines. The document is a little over 100 pages long, and makes clear that there's a lot of nuance here, and that the question of whether an AI engine has violated copyright depends a lot on context. However, the people who are all-in on AI don't want to hear this; they want to hear that anything and everything their engines do is "fair use" and that they need not be concerned with copyright at all. That would be people like... Elon Musk, who has bet heavily on AI, in the form of his platform Grok.
  
  Anyhow, the report was released late Friday, and Perlmutter was out of a job by Saturday afternoon. Coincidence? Probably not. Indeed, Perlmutter probably guessed that once her (former) boss had been cashiered, it was only a matter of time until she was cashiered, too. So, what she issued was actually a draft version of the report. This is not normally done, but it does guarantee that the document cannot be buried entirely, no matter how loud a temper tantrum Musk might throw.
  
  And, by the way, Trump has already appointed temporary replacements for Hayden and Perlmutter. The President chose from among his (many) former defense lawyers, giving the Librarian of Congress slot to Todd Blanche and the Register of Copyrights gig to Paul Perkins. As you might imagine, neither of these people appears to have any experience relevant to their new postings.
  
  
• Air Qatar One: The story of the "free" airplane that the Qatari royal family is allegedly trying to gift to Donald Trump, for his personal use as Air Force One, isn't going away, at least not yet. In fact, a few GOP senators have now weighed in. There are the unfailing bootlickers like Tommy Tuberville (AL), of course, who approve wholeheartedly of the "deal." However, Josh Hawley (MO), John Kennedy (LA) and Shelley Moore Capito (WV) all expressed reservations, albeit very cautiously.
  
  So... What's REALLY Going On Here? There is little question as to Trump's motivations; he wants a luxury plane, free of charge, that will be at his disposal for the rest of his life. However, exactly what Qatar is going for is an open question. Yesterday, there was news brought to our attention by reader S.K. in Los Angeles, CA that the Qataris just so happen to have entered into a deal with the Trump Organization to construct a $5.5 billion luxury resort, with golf course, about 40 minutes north of Doha. This certainly helps make clear how serious Trump was when he promised that his company would not enter into new business agreements with foreign nations while he was president.
  
  There are a couple of plausible explanations as to the Qataris' motivations here. The first is that the $5.5 billion resort is a version of sanewashing, not unlike the Saudis and LIV golf, and the airplane is going to be the sweetener used to seal the deal. The alternative is that both the plane and the resort project are gifts to Trump and his family, in exchange for some sort of future considerations.
  
  This said, don't assume the Air Force One thing is a done deal. We had a couple of e-mails yesterday from readers that bear mentioning here:

  J.L. in Baltimore, MD: Apart from the issue of violation of the emoluments clause I have another concern. Can we be really sure that there's no spyware or malware hidden in the plane? I'm not very knowledgeable about this stuff but I know that the people who create malware are very skilled at hiding their tracks. Maybe one of your readers is an expert in this area and can answer this.

  E.S. in Maine, NY: You wrote that it would take tens of millions of dollars to modify the Qatari plane to have the proper security and communications measures.
  
  As someone somewhat familiar with these matters you are off at least one and probably two decimal points. Think hundreds of millions, or maybe even a billion or two.
  
  Think every aircraft defense system you have ever heard of. Think every comms system you have ever heard of. And every other gadget you have heard of. All will need to be on this plane. Now think of who knows how many systems, many highly classified, that you have never heard of and they will be on that plane. A plane that was not designed to have that equipment. And remember there is no "volume" discount on these as there are only going to be maybe three planes so maybe a dozen of each of these highly classifieds systems made. Just think of the various kinds of shielding that will undoubtedly be required.

  J.L. and E.S. both touch on a fundamental problem, namely that the plane would require massive modifications to be serviceable. Those modifications would take a lot of time and money, and yet still the plane would not be truly secure. In a piece published by Slate yesterday, a former high-ranking NSA official commented on the spy equipment the Qataris would undoubtedly put on the plane: "The plane cannot be returned to a safe mode. It can only be built to attain one in the first place."
  
  And while the specific issue that the Slate piece was concerned with was spying, there's also another possibility that nobody seems to be saying out loud. Thanks to Trump himself, we now know it's possible to build a kill switch into a plane that can be remotely activated. There is no way that such a thing, buried deep in the plane's software, could ever be detected. And it's not at all impossible that the Iranians could call up their clients, the Qataris, and tell them to down the presidential plane and throw the U.S. government into chaos.
  
  Coupled with the abuse of the emoluments clause, all of this might be a bridge too far. The members of Congress might not be too enthusiastic to pay for modifications that are not going to be fully effective, and that are for a plane that might only get a year or two of presidential use (and then would have to be modified again, to remove the classified stuff).
  
  Further, few people have a more finely honed instinct for self-preservation than Donald J. Trump. So, someone might get to him and impress upon him that every time he flew on the Qatari plane as president, he would potentially be taking his life into his hands. Of course, he's a credulous fellow who is easily manipulated into thinking that autocratic leaders are his best buddies, so maybe he won't be open to considering this risk.
  
  
• Afrikaners: The Trump administration is very hostile to immigrants, even those who are fleeing oppressive regimes and are seeking asylum. And so, it is interesting to learn that the White House approved the admittance of 59 Afrikaners who claim they face discrimination and economic hardship in their home country of South Africa, jumping the group right to the front of the line.
  
  So... What's REALLY Going On Here? OK, this one does not require much in the way of conspiratorial thinking. These are white people from South Africa. Elon Musk is a white person from South Africa. Plus, the refugees' story pretty much matches one of the core elements of MAGAism, namely that white people just can't get a fair shake these days because of DEI/uppity Black people. Trump claimed, with a straight face, that he is saving them from genocide. And White House spokesperson Anna Kelly claimed, with a straight face, that this is part of the administration's deeply held commitment to human rights. We could not help but think of this well-known Internet meme, as an illustration of how Team Trump decides who gets human rights and who does not:
  
  
  
  The political and racial dynamics here are obvious enough that the group that the White House expected to facilitate the assimilation of the Afrikaners into American society has refused to take on the job. That would be Episcopal Migration Ministries, an initiative of the Episcopal Church, which actually has a contract with the federal government to help resettle refugees. Bishop Sean Rowe announced:

  In light of our church's steadfast commitment to racial justice and reconciliation and our historic ties with the Anglican Church of Southern Africa, we are not able to take this step.
  
  Accordingly, we have determined that, by the end of the federal fiscal year, we will conclude our refugee resettlement grant agreements with the U.S. federal government.

  Undoubtedly, Rowe and his colleagues knew their funding would be yanked anyhow, so they decided to beat Trump to the punch.

And that's today's dose of trying to read between the lines. Tomorrow, it will be news-via-stereogram, where you literally have to read between the dots. (Note: Not really. We share the general view expressed by reader A.G. in Scranton, PA, that those things constitute cruel and unusual punishment.) (Z)

Democrats Will Go Hogg Wild

There is an old saying, certainly familiar to readers, that when it comes to presidential candidates, "the party decides." The notion is that, when all is said and done, it's a bunch of muckety-mucks in the upper ranks of party leadership who really determine which aspiring president will get the nomination.

The Democrats in 2024 notwithstanding, this conventional wisdom isn't particularly true anymore. If it was, Donald Trump wouldn't have gotten within a country mile of the Republican nomination one time, much less three times in a row. These days, the party does NOT decide who will run the country; the voters do. On the other hand, the party DOES decide who will run... the party.

It would appear that newly minted DNC Vice-Chair David Hogg is about to learn this lesson the hard way. As readers will recall, he has decided—to paraphrase the immortal words of Lyndon B. Johnson—to stand inside the tent and piss out, using the PAC he leads to back young and progressive challengers to older and entrenched Democrats in deep-blue districts. This is not done, at least in part because DNC officials have access to information and resources that could unfairly impact the primaries. The rule is that if a person wants to do some pissing, it has to be from outside the tent.

And so, it is roughly as surprising as the sun rising in the east that the folks who run the Democratic Party have begun a process that will likely lead to Hogg's ouster. Kalyn Free, a longtime Democratic activist who was defeated by Hogg (and one other candidate) in the vice-chair election, filed a formal protest in which she argued that the election was administered improperly. It's a little weedy, but the basic idea is that the DNC has rules about making sure all races, genders and sexual orientations are represented in party leadership, and Free says those rules were not followed properly.

By all indications, Free is correct here, and there really was a procedural error. It is fair to wonder, however, if that procedural error would have been "discovered" if Hogg had not decided to start mucking around in Democratic primaries. In any event, he's not yet out on his rear, but his election, and that of the other vice chair elected alongside him, have been voided, and a new vote will be held. Given that Hogg has now stepped on more than a few toes, his odds of being re-elected as vice chair appear to be roughly as good as his odds of being elected pope. Has he ever been to Chicago?

It's not clear how Hogg will respond to all of this, once his ouster (presumably) becomes official. Surely he had to know that sometimes, if you mess with the donkey, you get the hoof. He played the game, and the game sometimes has consequences. He'll still lead a PAC with eight figures in the bank, so he'll still have a voice and an outsized influence on Democratic politics, just from outside the tent. (Z)

Democratic Presidential Candidate of the Week, #35: Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT)

We didn't have a chance to do a presidential candidate last week, but we're back on course now. Here are the candidates we've already written up:

40. Gov. Phil Murphy (D-NJ)
41. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT)
42. Al Franken
43. Jon Tester
44. Jon Stewart

• Full Name: Christopher Scott Murphy
  
  
• Age on January 20, 2029: 55
  
  
• Background: Like everyone who lives in Connecticut, Murphy was born in New York. His father is a corporate lawyer and his mother is a retired teacher. During his high school years, at Wethersfield High in Wethersfield, CT, it wasn't too much a secret that he was destined for a career in politics, as he was elected class president in each of the 3 years he was eligible (the freshman class did not have a president). He followed that up with twin bachelor's degrees in history and in political science from Williams College, and then a J.D. from the University of Connecticut.
  
  That is a pretty boring biography. Indeed, the fake Chris Murphy that exists on the Internet is kinda more interesting than the real one. By that we mean that he's the subject of a lot of incorrect information, primarily due to mangling of the actual facts. For example, some sources say he was a Rhodes Scholar. This is not true; he did go to Oxford, but as a foreign exchange student during his undergrad years. Other sites say that Murphy earned a Ph.D. That is only true if you adopt a very loose definition of "earned"—in fact, he was given an honorary degree from the University of New Haven (and note, it carried the title usually used for these degrees, namely "Doctor of Humane Letters," and not "Doctor of Philosophy.") Similarly, some sources claim Murphy is Jewish. He's not; he was raised as Congregationalist and now identifies as a non-churchgoing unaffiliated Protestant. We cannot figure out where this particular "fact" came from—maybe it's because his father is a lawyer.
  
  
• Political Experience: Murphy first got involved in Democratic politics while he was in high school, volunteering for various campaigns for statewide office. His mentor was state Sen. Biagio "Billy" Ciotto, who is something of a legendary character in the annals of Connecticut political history. Ciotto worked at the Connecticut DMV for nearly half a century, then retired, ran for office, and spent 12 years as one of the most influential members of the state Senate. He was a master of parliamentary tricks, and in particular liked to put together massive "aircraft carrier" spending bills, where the mountains of pork were kept hidden by complicated legalese, and by OTHER mountains of pork. Presumably Murphy learned a trick or two from Ciotto.
  
  Murphy began his career in office while he was in law school. His first post was on the Southington, CT, planning and zoning commission, serving from 1997-99, and he was elected to the Connecticut state House in 1999 (he graduated law school in 2002). After two terms in the lower chamber of the Connecticut legislature, he was elected to two terms in the upper chamber, and then knocked off 10-term Republican Rep. Nancy Johnson, a victory that was aided enormously by Connecticut's shift from red to blue, and by Johnson's ties to disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff.
  
  Murphy served three terms in the U.S. House, and then decided to try for the U.S. Senate in 2012. In that race, he effectively vanquished two different people who are not too popular with much of the Democratic Party. The seat was then occupied by Democrat-turned-independent Joe Lieberman, who decided that he did not want to face a challenge from Murphy, and so announced he would not run for reelection. And then, in the actual election, Murphy crushed Linda McMahon, 55% to 43%. He has since been reelected twice, which means his current term runs until 2030. Both reelection victories were by 20 points, so Murphy's effectively going to be a senator for life, if that is what he wants.
  
  
• Signature Issue(s): Murphy's signature issue is actually gun control; he got some bills passed at the state level, and he commenced his term in the U.S. Senate mere weeks after the mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, CT. However, you do not run a national campaign in the U.S. that is built around gun control. So, as a presidential candidate, we would guess his signature issue would be rebuilding America's relationship with the world. He's a foreign policy wonk, sits on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and would have plenty of material after 4 years of Trump v2.0.
  
  
• What Would His Pitch Be?: "I am a lefty in a digestible package." Murphy would not quite put it that way, but his message has strong elements of populism and progressivism, while coming from a very vanilla fellow. In that way, he's somewhat like a three-decades-younger version of Joe Biden. If Democrats want "the safest white boy," to borrow Rep. Jasmine Crockett's (D-TX) phrasing from this weekend, then Murphy certainly fits the profile.
  
  
• Instructive Quote: "I mean, what I argue for is that the Democratic Party should be more overtly populist and more pugilistic, more confrontational in its populism—meaning that you are more regularly naming the individuals, the organizations and the companies that are screwing voters."
  
  
• Completely Trivial Fact: Murphy's favorite writer, a person he endeavors to emulate in his speechwriting, is... George Bernard Shaw.
  
  
• Recent News: Leo XIV has yet to deny that the eX-Twitter account that bears his ex-name is his, so we stick with our assumption that it's real. And Murphy became part of that story because the Pope once retweeted the Senator; it was this message about gun control, sent shortly after the mass shooting in Las Vegas in October 2017: "To my colleagues: your cowardice to act cannot be whitewashed by thoughts and prayers. None of this ends unless we do something to stop it."
  
  
• Strengths for the Democratic Primaries: (1) If the Democrats keep their current primary calendar, then the first three states are Iowa, which loves bland white guys; New Hampshire, which REALLY loves bland white guys, especially from nearby Connecticut; and South Carolina, which also loves bland white guys (remember, they backed Joe Biden in 2020); (2) Outside of Bernie Sanders, Murphy is as good at social media as any member of the Senate; (3) Murphy's message seems to be what Democratic voters these days want to hear.
  
  
• Weaknesses for the Democratic Primaries: (1) If Murphy can't seal the deal in the first three caucuses/primaries, then he starts to run into electorates that are less amenable to him; (2) Murphy will not have the "safe white guy" lane to himself, not by a long shot, and anything he does to separate himself from the pack will almost certainly make him less "safe"; (3) He has little national name recognition, outside of political junkies, and thus far has struggled to break through, despite aggressive efforts on his part.
  
  
• Polls: Murphy is not yet enough of a contender to make the cut in hypothetical Democratic candidates' polls. However, in YouGov's poll of politicians, he's in the Top 100 (out of about 500 overall). That's the good news; the bad news is that he's #99, which translates into a dismal 26% approval rating (the list bottoms out at 15% approval). Others in his neighborhood, for what it's worth, include Gov. Greg Abbott (R-TX), Gov. Brian Kemp (R-GA), Nikki Haley and Andrew Cuomo.
  
  
• How Does the Readership Feel?: We asked readers for their thoughts on Murphy running for president; here are some of those responses (note that we do not read readers' assessments until we have written all other parts of these items):
  
  
  • M.B. in Windsor, CT: Murphy is my Senator, and I think he's been strong in that role. He's been running for President since January 20 of this year, and he's doing so by speaking up and speaking out. There's not much media coverage of his road trips to hold town halls, etc.; to the media, he's unimportant because he's not had any sort of national profile and he comes from one of the smallest states (though we do have five House seats, down from 6 a couple of decades ago before the mass-migration south). I mean, has there ever been a Connecticut president?
    
    I'd vote for Chris. My heart is with Pete Buttigieg and several of the fine women whose names have been bruited about. But none of them is electable, so Chris has my vote at the moment, because when most Congresscritters on both sides of the Capitol are staying stumm (other than Bernie and AOC), it's been mostly up to governors... and Chris Murphy.
    
    
  • E.K.M. in Delaware, OH: Murphy's recent decision to become a firebrand on Sunday shows and in social media has remade his image—from dutiful, blended-in, and bland to a forceful detailer of Donald Trump's sins against democracy. He remains only a few steps ahead of Sen. Michael Bennet (D-CO) in the excitement department, but I think he's moving fast in showing voters that he's smart, honest and a very deep thinker. He's obviously running in '28 and working hard on it.
    
    
  • K.H. in Scotch Plains, NJ: I think Murphy would be an ideal candidate. He has Senate experience, having served for over a decade, he's not particularly old, he has put up fiercer resistance to this current president and administration than the vast majority of his colleagues, he's a non-threatening-looking white guy, and he speaks to his constituents in Connecticut and anyone looking toward him with an urgency about what's happening, what he's trying to do to help, and what others can try to do to help. He gives a sh**, and yet, at the same time, recognizes the weaknesses of the Democratic Party both past and present.
    
    He looks like he wants to do everything he can to unite it and do whatever he and it can to stymie and thwart the despicable plans and preposterous ideas of the administration, and I get the feeling he'd be good at conveying it to people who are ordinarily non-political or "soft Trump voters" (the people who aren't really evil, but who just thought the man would basically just fix inflation and do very little to rock the boat or cut essential government services the way he has been) who are beginning to recognize the damage he is doing. I've been a fan of Murphy for years now and would love to see him run. He knows what he's doing.
    
    
  • J.W. in San Francisco, CA: Interestingly enough, Chris Murphy would be the first Polish-American president. That may be an asset in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. He is also flooding the zone against Donald Trump.
    
    However, he is from Connecticut, a wealthy, socially liberal but fiscally moderate state, and I don't know how well that would play. Like it or not, there is a lot of antipathy towards the insurance industry, and I don't know if a Connecticutter could get elected.
    
    
  • M.M. in San Diego, CA: Chris Murphy's accurate analysis of the changed media landscape, especially who's who in the podcast zoo, is laying the groundwork for getting the Democrats' message out to a demographic that they rarely connect with. If he chooses to run, he may have built-in support from an audience he has helped educate. If not, he would be invaluable as campaign and communications director on someone else's campaign (Pete Buttigieg? AOC? Ro Khanna?)
    
    
  • N.S. in Milwaukee, WI: I had hoped you would rank Chris Murphy considerably higher on this list. If you could invent a candidate who could make Hillary and Bernie sing kumbaya, Chris Murphy may well be that person. He'd be in a political Goldilocks zone that few other candidates could occupy: just old enough to have significant high-stakes experience, just young enough to communicate with Gen Z; just polished enough to exude command, just loose enough to avoid phoniness; just progressive enough to please the activists, just inoffensive enough to be a safe pair of hands; just visible enough to plant his seed, just unknown enough to come into it without major baggage. Being outside one of those limits is why Pete Buttigieg, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA); Gov. Gretchen Whitmer (D-MI), Gov. Gavin Newsom (D-CA); Gov. Andy Beshear (D-KY), AOC; Gov. J.B. Pritzker (D-IL) and Gov. Josh Shapiro (D-PA)—in that order, by the qualities mentioned—are less solid candidates, in my view. Not even Barack Obama was in the zone across all of those qualities. Of the likely Democratic field, only Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) stacks up well in similar ways.
  
  
• The Bottom Line: You never know, but Murphy feels more like a 2032 or 2036 candidate than a 2028 candidate. And note, we did not create these rankings. The readers did, with their votes in our survey, back in December.

Next week, it's #34, Mitch Landrieu. If readers have comments about Landrieu running for president in 2028, please send them to comments@electoral-vote.com.

---

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