Dem
52
Ties
2
GOP
46
An abbreviated, and less-structured, questions posting, given that we combined Saturday and Sunday.
M.J. in Newton, IA, asks: Donald Trump's comments about 9/11 have me wondering. I see two possibilities; neither is good: (1) He thinks he can just lie to everyone that he was there and the firefighters dragged him out, or (2) He actually believes he was there. If this is what is going on, then it's really bad. Anyone else who acted like this, just once, they would be in an institution that very day!
(Z) answers: As to #1, he most certainly thinks he can lie to everyone about... anything he wants to, and can get away with it.
As to #2, allow me to play devil's advocate. The people who study how the brain works have figured out that people do not "store" memories, so much as they reconstruct them every time they call upon them. This leads to drift, sometimes very substantial drift, over time. And yet, the person continues to believe that their memories are 100% correct.
Donald Trump's entire adult life has been about exaggeration and distortion. There may be some real incident that was the basis for this fantasy. Like, for example, he might have visited Ground Zero a week after the attacks, and he might have been poking around, and a couple of firefighters might have told him to clear out. And since he spends much of his time in a fantasy world, and since he doesn't have a great memory anyhow, he might well have distorted the original memory into the version that he shared this week.
The point is, believing in the truth of a false memory, or even several false memories, is not enough to be hauled away and thrown into a rubber room. Everyone has a few false memories, whether they realize it or not. Trump's problem is that he has so very many false memories, to the point that very few of the things he "remembers" seem to be rooted in reality. Add in his paranoia, his deep insecurity, and his obvious narcissism, and it's clear he's deeply dysfunctional, both mentally and emotionally.
B.K. in Climax, MI, asks: I keep reading on Electoral-Vote.com that the post office restricting mail in ballots could hurt Republicans worse than Democrats because of rural and older Republican voters. But I read somewhere in the last week or two (I believe it may have been here, as well), that the post office could target Democratic areas and let Republican areas operate as normal. Please explain to me why this isn't going to happen.
(Z) answers: First, we haven't said monkeying with the mail will hurt Republicans more than Democrats. We have said it will also hurt Republicans, not just Democrats, as Trump seems to believe. Which party will take the brunt of it really isn't clear. Second, it's not that easy to target "Democratic areas." In many cases, all mail is sent to some sort of centralized sorting facility, such that the geographic origins are no longer clear. Further, there are lots of people who send their mail from some place other than "near my home." They might drop their ballot in the mail while running errands, or while at work, or when they visit the library. So, dumping all the ballots from, say, San Francisco would be less-than-surgical in terms of precision.
Third, the biggest issue is this: Democrats live mostly in urban and suburban areas. Since the alarm has been sounded, most of them are either going to vote in person, or are going to drop their ballots in ballot-return boxes set up by their states or their counties or their cities. Rural voters, who skew Republican, have fewer options of that sort, and are much more likely to use the mail-in option. So, any scheme that targets mail-in ballots is pretty much guaranteed to affect rural voters, and thus Republicans, disproportionately.
P.F. in Fairbanks, AK, asks: Even if Donald Trump's ballot scheme has been ruled unconstitutional, I imagine the Trump administration may still try some sort of interference with mail-in ballots. Something being unconstitutional has not necessarily stopped him from trying something anyway.
Does anything stop states from using plain, manila envelopes to send ballots out to voters, and similarly nondescript envelopes for mailing them back? I imagine a state could even allow ballots to be returned to a variety of addresses or P.O. Boxes around the state.
Wouldn't this make it impossible (or, at least, muddy the waters enough) for the USPS to decide which envelopes contain ballots and which don't?(Z) answers: To start, it would be very difficult to implement any sort of scheme like this at this late date. If states were going to try it, then they'd have to target 2028.
Beyond that, there are some significant problems with the idea. In California (and presumably elsewhere), there is stuff on the outside of the envelope that matters—a bar code to confirm receipt, a couple of warnings about making sure to do everything correctly, a place to sign that the ballot is valid. If these things have to be achieved in a different way, and if there is also going to be some sort of "a variety of return addresses" scheme, it increases the odds of mistakes being made, and of ballots being invalidated. It would also increase the amount of time needed to process ballots, something that Republicans (and some Democrats) are already carping about.
But the biggest problem is that even if a dozen, or two dozen, or ten dozen return addresses are used, it's still going to be pretty easy to figure out which addresses equate to "ballot." So, the USPS would still be able to figure out which envelopes to target.
M.M. in San Diego, CA, asks: Do you think Vivek Ramaswamy's swing, displayed in the 40 MPH batting cage, is closer to a cricket batter's swing?
(Z) answers: The video was aggressively edited so that you don't really get to see a full swing.
That said, I used to play softball with a guy who first learned to play bat sports as a cricketer. And his (very effective) swing was very much like a baseball swing, except that the bat was largely perpendicular to the plate, as opposed to the parallel swing used by people whose first sport is baseball. Consequently, that player hit a lot of hard-to-field grounders, and virtually no fly balls.
By contrast, Ramaswamy's swing looks nothing like a cricket swing.
W.F. in Chambersburg, PA, asks: If the Democrats capture the House and/or the Senate, will that give them any actual authority to stop or slow down the construction of Trump's Arlington Arch or the ballroom projects?
(Z) answers: Maybe.
To start, the Arc de Trump and the ballroom require money, and the money hasn't been appropriated yet. So, the Democrats could refuse to put the funding in the budget.
Trump would probably go ahead and do whatever he wants. But Congressional Democrats would then have standing to sue, either on the basis that Trump was illegally misappropriating funds, or that he was making alterations not approved by Congress.
P.H. in Lakewood Ranch, FL, asks: I may be living in a dream world, but if the Democrats win control of both houses of Congress, what do you think is the probability of them impeaching and convicting Donald Trump and removing him from office?
(Z) answers: The odds of the Democrats impeaching Trump are close to 100%. It may not happen immediately; they may well wait 6 months or a year until he does something really bad, so they can say, "We impeached him because he did [BAD THING X]." If they impeach him on January 4, 2027, then Republicans will crow that it's a political impeachment.
Still, the Democrats almost certainly have to impeach him at some point (possibly multiple times). This is politically necessary, because Democratic voters want to see some accountability. And it is also necessary from a civic perspective, to send the message that presidents are not god-kings, and cannot do whatever they want.
The odds that he will be convicted and removed from office, at least under current circumstances, are close to 0%. It would require something like 17 Republican votes, and those votes most certainly are not available right now. Trump would have to do something so bad that even most Republican voters turned against him. Lobbing a nuke at Iran (or any other country) might do it. A smoking gun that proved Trump facilitated/engaged in sex with minors would do it, too. Maybe a couple of other things.
D.R. in Kensington, MD, asks: So I was looking at Kalshi and noticed they converted their odds into a table, like the Cook political report: safe/likely/lean/tossup. Currently, the two sites have it like this:
Kalshi: 228 DEM, 198 GOP, 9 Tossup
Cook: 206 DEM, 208 GOP, 21 TossupSo who do you think will be closer to the result? And which of the two might get more accurate over time? Maybe they'll converge? And with such a different number of tossups, who do you think is closer on the total tossup count?
(Z) answers: I trust Cook far more than I trust Kalshi.
Whenever anyone asks me how to bet on sports, I tell them that doing so is ill-advised, unless they are treating their sports bets as their "entertainment budget." In other words, if someone spends $20 to see a movie, or someone bets $20 on a football game and that makes the game something worth watching for them, then either way, they've paid twenty bucks for 2-3 hours of entertainment.
This is not to say you shouldn't try to use some strategy, if you are indeed going to bet. Unless a person is very good at crunching numbers—and if they are, they don't need advice from me—the key to sports betting is to find situations where people are betting based on emotion rather than reason, and then to bet the other side. If Derek Jeter is playing his final game, bet against the Yankees. If the Dallas Cowboys (allegedly "America's Team") are playing in the Super Bowl, then bet on their opponent. If Steph Curry is about to break the career record for 3-point shots, bet against the Warriors.
I have watched Kalshi and the other prediction markets long enough to see that some people are placing their bets based on emotion, or on wishful thinking. There are others who appear to be manipulating the markets to send a particular message (usually, "Hey! [CANDIDATE X] is totally viable!"). That being the case, the Kalshi odds are not a 100%, cold, hard rational expression of what people actually think. By contrast, Cook most certainly IS a 100%, cold, hard rational expression of what people actually think. And, as a bonus, those people are experts in politics.
I think the problem with Kalshi (people making bets for reasons other than "this is what I think will happen") is going to be particularly pronounced with House races, since it would only take a few screwy bets to skew the odds. That means I believe Cook's tossup total much more than I believe Kalshi's tossup total.
O.Z.H. in Dubai, UAE, asks: I don't understand what people mean when they say "this year its a bad Senate map for Democrats." Is there ever a good map cycle for the Democrats, given the fact that there are 25 red states and only 18 blue states?
(Z) answers: There are two, somewhat related, ways to judge how good or bad the Senate map is for a party. The first is to count how many seats that party has to seriously defend, and to compare that to how many seats that party might plausibly flip. If there are considerably more of the former than the latter, that's a bad map.
The other way to judge a map is to figure out, for the minority party, how many seats they would need to gain (net) in order to become the majority party, and then to judge how viable it is that they could gain that many. For the majority party, you figure out how many seats they would have to lose (net), and then to judge how viable it is that they could lose that many.
Democrats may indeed have a bad map more often than Republicans do because there are more red states. However, the primary determinant is the elections that took place 6 years previous. The seats up this year (with only a couple of exceptions) are Class II, and so were last contested in 2020. That was the year in which voters punished Donald Trump and the GOP, while Joe Biden had some coattails as he rode to victory.
Under normal circumstances, one would not expect the favorable conditions of 2020 to be replicated in 2026, giving the Democrats a tough row to hoe. But Donald Trump has pulled it off. He and his party are very unpopular right now, just as they were in 2020. At the start of this election cycle, it seemed near-impossible the Democrats could retake the Senate, and everyone was writing that doing so would be a two-cycle project, at least. Now, control of the Senate is pretty close to a coin flip. So, a tough map has became a much-less-tough map.
R.L. in Alameda, CA, asks: If Abdul El-Sayed wins his election, will he be the first Muslim senator? I assume Ilhan Omar (D-MN) and Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) are Muslim. Are there other Muslims in the House? Have there been? Is there a list? I bet it's a short list.
(Z) answers: Yes, he would be. And you are right that the list of Muslim members of the House is very short. In addition to the two you name, André Carson (D-IN), Lateefah Simon and Aisha Wahab (both D-CA) are also Muslim. The only former member of Congress who is Muslim is current Minnesota AG Keith Ellison (DFL).
Undoubtedly just a coincidence that all six are Democrats.
S.E. in Okemos, MI, asks: Could you elaborate on why, at the end of your piece, "The Republiconvention, Part II: Who Is John Fetterman?," you "put your money on Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-MI)" as "the next person to occupy the role of 'Democratic apostate'?"
(Z) answers: She's a centrist, she's something of a bipartisanship fetishist, she's often publicly criticized her party (and, in particular, the leftists in her party) in the past, and she's from a purple state. We didn't say she WILL be the next Fetterman/Kyrsten Sinema, merely that she's the most obvious candidate, because she has much of the same profile as past apostates.
C.V. in Chadron, NE, asks: About a week ago, I was contacted via cell phone to participate in a survey, and I did so with a human surveyor. The survey was mostly about my feelings regarding the Senate race between Dan Osborn (I-NE) and Sen. Pete Ricketts (R-NE), although I was also asked about the governor's race and my feelings about Donald Trump. Upon completion of the survey, I asked the name of the company and was told "Dynata." I did a web search on this company and found this site. I have never heard of them. Is Electoral-Vote.com familiar with them? I wonder if they conduct private surveys for candidates? I was hoping you could tell me more about them. As someone with great curiosity about the state of the Nebraska Senate race, which hasn't had any recent polls that I know of, I hope their survey will be released publicly.
(Z) answers: Dynata is a legitimate firm, and has been in business, under various names, for nearly 50 years. The name changes over the years are not because of something shady, but because there have been a bunch of mergers and re-brandings.
That said, Dynata is not primarily a political pollster, they are a market research firm. So, when they conduct a political poll, they don't have the expertise of a pollster that specializes in politics. They might also be using the political poll as cover to collect data on the people who answer the phone, so that they can turn around and sell that data to advertisers or other businesses.
For these reasons, we probably would take a pass if Dynata wanted to talk to us.
L.W. in Los Angeles, CA, asks: Why hasn't Nebraska been polled since May? Seems like this could be an important race with national implications, but nobody has polled it?
(Z) answers: If there's going to be a poll, someone has to bear the costs. By and large, there are four types of entities that might do so.
The first of those is media outlets, who tend to focus on races that are local to them (e.g., The Los Angeles Times pays for polls of California races), or sometimes on races of national interest. There aren't too many well-heeled media outlets based in Nebraska, and it would appear that the national outlets that do polling (e.g., The New York Times) have decided this race is not yet worth the expense. They may be skeptical that an independent can win in such a red state.
The second is universities, which sometimes start polling operations as a way to boost their name recognition, or to train students in the statistical arts. Think Quinnipiac, UMass Amherst, Emerson, Monmouth, Marist, USC Dornsife, etc. The universities that choose to do this tend to be in places where there are a lot of potential races to poll. This does not describe Nebraska, and so it's not a surprise that none of the relatively small number of universities there have decided to get into the polling game.
The third is market research firms, like Dynata (see above), which are trying to get some free advertising. However, they are only going to impress potential clients if they are on target. And since they are not especially expert in political polling, they can be leery about tackling a wonky race, like one involving a serious independent candidate. Far easier to poll a traditional Democrat vs. Republican matchup (though Dynata has obviously noted that nobody else is polling Nebraska, and so decided that presented an opportunity for them).
The fourth is the candidates' campaigns, or other political groups like the DSCC, NRSC, etc. However, many polling trackers, including us, won't include polls from campaigns/political groups in their sample. One problem is that they might have cooked the books. The second, and more common, problem, is that campaigns/PACs often release only the polling data that is favorable to them.
K.E. in Newport, RI, asks: Now that the primary "season" is almost over after 8 months, I think it's time to ask this question: How much do you think the candidacy of Graham Platner will damage the progressive movement? They were extremely aggressive at promoting him in Maine and to the national press, but they clearly did not investigate him thoroughly. A thorough background check involves talking to family, friends, co-workers, intimate partners and neighbors.
I was never a Platner fan. He is a good public speaker but I was very suspicious of his lack of transparency from the beginning. He has many qualities possessed by scammers, where they win people over by telling them what they want to hear, but resist scrutiny into their private affairs. He also sold himself as a blue-collar worker, but didn't discuss having a wealthy grandfather and attending elite New England private schools in his youth. These actions are those employed by con artists.(Z) answers: I think the damage will be very minimal. In the end, he was forced out, and quickly became yesterday's news.
Far and away, the race that will help/hurt the progressives the most is the Senate race in Michigan. If Abdul El-Sayed (D) wins, then that will be a very important proof-of-concept (lefty messaging can work, even in a purple state). If he loses, and that loss prevents the Democrats from taking control of the Senate, then it will pit the progressives against the moderates in a bitter fight that will make Hillary vs. Bernie look like a Sunday picnic.
There are a few other races, like the race in Maine between Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) and Troy Jackson (D), that will affect progressives' fortunes within the Democratic party over the next few years. But there's no question that Michigan towers above all the rest.
M.J. in Granger, IN, asks: Concerning the Qatar gift of the 747 that we have refurbished for $400M and counting, it is my understanding that the plane will revert to Donald Trump's presidential foundation for ultimate display in his library or personal use. However, currently it is U.S. government property, correct? Assuming a Democrat takes the oath of office Jan. 20, 2029, (assuming DJT doesn't attend the ceremony and is in the air when the new president is sworn in, similar to Joe Biden's inauguration), could the new president order the officers flying DJT to turn around and land back at Andrews AFB or just rescind the gift to the DJT Library? In other words, "That is a nice plane you have there, I think we'll keep it"?
(Z) answers: The Trump administration's plan, which they made no secret of when the plane was first "donated," is that Trump will transfer the plane, which is currently property of the Department of Defense, to his library foundation during the last day or two of his presidency.
There are two significant legal problems here, however. The first is that if he "owns" the plane, and has the power to transfer it as he sees fit, then the original "donation" was pretty clearly an illegal emolument.
The second, and probably larger, problem is that even if he owns the plane, or even if the Qatari government somehow gave him power to decide upon the disposition of the plane, neither Trump nor Qatar has any ownership of the $400 million in hardware and software that the federal government has added to the plane. So, he has no authority to "give" that stuff to his library foundation or to anyone else.
If Trump does try to give the plane to his foundation on January 19, 2029, you can be certain there will be lawsuits. And he will likely lose.
It is true that other presidential libraries (notably the Reagan library) ended up with old Air Force Ones. However, those planes were retired by the DoD, and then ownership was transferred by an act of Congress.
W.I.D. in Union, KY, asks: As I recall, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court presides over impeachment trials of presidents in the Senate. If the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court is impeached, who would preside over that trial?
(Z) answers: The presiding officer of the Senate, a.k.a. the Vice President of the United States, presides over all impeachment trials, excepting presidential impeachments.
The reason that the Chief Justice presides over presidential impeachments is that, if the president is convicted, then the VP gets a promotion. The fellows who wrote the Constitution felt that might make the VP less-than-neutral, and so they closed that sorta-loophole.
What the framers forgot to do was specify that the Chief Justice should also preside over vice-presidential impeachments. There's never been one of those, but if there was, then the VP would theoretically preside over his or her own trial.
D.P. in Oakland, CA, asks: What is the mechanism by which Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) could refuse to seat Democrats next January? Would it be solely his decision, or would it require a vote by the outgoing Congress?
(Z) answers: I cannot emphasize this strongly enough: This is a non-viable maneuver.
To start with, once a Congressional term ends, there are no duly serving members of the House, and the decisions of the outgoing Congress are not binding on the incoming Congress. The first thing that happens, at the start of a new term, is that the House elects a Speaker. The second thing that happens is that the Secretary of the House swears in the Speaker. And the third thing that happens is that the Speaker swears in the other 434 House members (and the three delegates) en masse. It is not likely that the Republicans will hold the majority in January, or that Johnson will be re-elected as Speaker. So, he's not likely to be in a position to try to pull this stunt. And even if he somehow is in that position, there is no way to swear in only the Republicans, since again, the ceremony is a group event.
The stunt won't work in the Senate, either. In the case of the upper chamber, if there's no swearing-in ceremony, then there would be roughly 65 duly-serving members of the Senate. But since there are 22 Republican seats up, as compared to 13 Democratic seats, that would mean a Democratic majority. And the Democrats would promptly elect a majority leader, and that leader would seat the 35 un-sworn-in senators.
On top of this, if Republicans engage in shenanigans to keep Democrats from being seated, then the Constitution would be in abeyance. Every single thing the pseudo-Congress tried to do would result in lawsuits, arguing (entirely correctly) that action [X] is not legal because the duly-elected Congress did not approve it.
J.R.S. in Peterborough, ON, Canada, asks: The new $1.00 coins have entered circulation. Any chance of the retirement of the $1 bill, to further immortalize The Convicted Felon?
(Z) answers: No chance.
First of all, it's hard to imagine that Trump would regard "I killed the $1 bill" as an accomplishment.
Second, the argument for killing the penny (and, probably soon, the nickel) is that they cost more to make than they are worth. So, they are a net loser for the Treasury. The same is not true for dollar bills, which cost less than 10 cents to make.
Third, the penny serves very few useful purposes today. By contrast, there are many contexts in which $1 bills are used, and could not easily be replaced with $1 coins. For example, there are tens of millions of vending machines that would have to be reconfigured, at significant expense. There are also many cash transactions where the $1 bill is used for precision purposes; Americans would not be thrilled to have to come up with, say, a $10 bill, a $5 bill and two $1 coins to pay for their meal at McDonalds. Also, at risk of being indecorous, there is a particular type of business where $1 bills are the predominant means of exchanging cash for services. If you're not clear what I mean here, let's just say that it's not so easy to stuff a $1 coin into a g-string.
M.W. in Huntington, NY, asks: (Z) answered a question from L.M.S. in Harbin regarding the use of AI, and offered an example of where he "caught" a student cheating, and "obviously" using AI. While Winston Churchill can't be right, as he wasn't a Californian, I took the bait (as I'm sure a zillion other readers did) and put the question to both ChatGPT and Copilot.
ChatGPT insists the correct person is John Wayne. When I said the answer is Walt Disney, it corrected itself, saying it was indeed Walt Disney, but qualified the correction in saying it could not verify that he moved to California for the health of his lungs. When it further tried to verify it, it still couldn't and suggested not to repeat the claim, as there is no proof.
Copilot came up with L. Ron Hubbard. When I pressed and said it's definitely Walt Disney, it returned saying the facts don't support that and it gave evidence of why it can't be Walt Disney.
Can (Z) provide evidence of why the correct answer is Walt Disney? I'd hate to think the student got an F that they didn't deserve.(Z) answers: As was characteristic of his time, Disney started smoking at an early age. Certainly his early teens, and maybe earlier than that. He developed a chronic cough (which would plague him all his life, until he died of lung cancer at age 66), and went to the doctor for advice. The doctor, consistent with standard practice in the 1920s, did NOT point the finger at the cigarettes, but did say that moving to a warmer, drier climate was a good thing for breathing/the lungs. This was a common "prescription" for tuberculosis, in particular, which is why Disney's brother preceded him in moving to California. It is also why Harvey Henderson Wilcox, founder of Hollywood, moved west.
These details are covered in The Animated Man: A Life of Walt Disney.
And the question about Walt Disney isn't really about Walt Disney. It's really about the reasons that Southern California's population boomed in the late 1800s and early 1900s, one of which was that people believed moving there was good for their health. Disney is just an easy-to-remember fact related to that larger point. And so, if a student answers that question with "Disney," I can be near-certain they heard the larger presentation about the reasons that people moved to Southern California, thus causing it to grow, thus creating a need for water, thus leading to the water wars. If a student answers with someone else, it is likely they did not hear that part of the lecture.
S.S. in West Hollywood, CA, asks: Why is it considered cheating to use AI to answer your quiz question, "What notable Californian, who smoked five packs of cigarettes a day, moved to the state because he thought it would improve the health of his lungs?"
How is that different than using Google or any other search engine to research an answer? To me, it becomes cheating if you are plagiarizing and letting AI write for you, but used for research seems legitimate to me. Just be smart enough to know not everything AI tells you is going to be correct, so double check with another source. Just as you would do with any research.
The student got that question wrong because they didn't double check the answer. They should've known "Winston Churchill" didn't make sense if they gave it some thought. For getting it wrong they should have failed, but not for cheating. That seems unfair to me.(Z) answers: It is cheating because the purpose of the quizzes, as explained in detail in class, is for students to demonstrate they heard the lectures/did the readings, and understood them. And the way they do that is by giving me the correct answers from their own minds and their own notes, not from an Internet search.
In this context, using ChatGPT, Grok, etc. is no different from using Google or Wikipedia—which are also forbidden. In the instructions box for every single quiz, I write: "As you know, you may use your notes and/or the course website during the quiz. However, the use of ChatGPT, Grok, Google, Wikipedia or other external sources is a violation of the course academic honesty policy, and will be handled accordingly."
Most quizzes and exams in college are closed-book. I probably had two or three open-book exams in my entire college career. Forbidding the use of AI/search engines serves to create a de facto closed-book exam, just one the students take at home, rather than in the classroom.
It is also worth noting that the students have to write papers for the class. For THOSE, they can use their Internet research skills (though they still cannot use AI to do the work for them). The simple rule of thumb I provide: "If you would ask your parents or your roommate to do something for you, then you can ask AI to do it for you." It would be OK to ask parents/roommates to proofread a paper, so it's OK to ask AI. It would not be OK to ask parents/roommates to write a paper, or to take a test, so it's not OK to ask AI.
M.G. in Littleton, CO, asks: I am wondering why you so often identify candidates as "Black" when there is no apparent reason for doing so. I don't see you doing this with other ethnic groups—e.g., Hispanic candidates, white candidates. Nor do you do it with white immigrant ethnic membership groups, Jews, etc. I don't take it as racist; maybe it's a generational thing where by tradition one automatically assumes race is of prime importance as a descriptor?
(Z) answers: If you think there is "no apparent reason for doing so," we wonder what nation's politics you have been following. Even in 2026, there are many, many political races in the U.S. where race is of prime importance. There are plenty of voters who factor race into their vote, either because they want to elevate candidates of a particular race, or because they want to defeat candidates of a particular race.
Also, we don't use "Hispanic," because it is outdated, but we do mention all the time that candidates are Latino. I would guess that 95% of the time we write about Sen. Ruben Gallego (D-AZ), we also include the phrase "Latino vote" somewhere in the piece. We also sometimes get more specific, and note that a candidate is, say, of Mexican descent, or of Cuban descent. We had an item where we did that just this week. We also frequently mention that a candidate is Jewish or Muslim, if that has the potential to be a dynamic in the race. Similarly, we sometimes note that a candidate is Catholic or evangelical, when appropriate. It's rarer to mention specific white sub-ethnicities, though we do sometimes write about the "white ethnic" vote, which is a broad term that includes the descendants of large-scale immigrations of the 19th century (Italians, Poles, the Irish).