Do You Want to Know a Secret?

If you're a member of the House Republican Conference, and you're not a part of the "in crowd," you certainly do. As it turns out, in addition to the official rules package that the House adopted on Monday, there is a secret three-page addendum that was produced as part of the negotiations. Most GOP members of the House don't know exactly what's in it, and those who do are keeping their lips zipped.

Note that at least some portions of the agreement are known, by process of elimination. That is to say, it is known that Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) agreed to put three hardliners on the House Rules Committee and to hold show votes on a whole bunch of issues. Those things are not in the official rules so, ipso facto, they must be in the secret document. But that's not enough to fill three pages, and so there are at least some things that are still to be revealed. Well, assuming they ever are revealed.

Meanwhile, let's take a closer look at the resolution that the House passed, and that includes the rules that people are actually allowed to know about. In addition to making it much easier to bring a motion to vacate the speakership, and to pass legislation cutting federal employees' salaries, here are some of the other changes implemented by House Republicans:

• Proxy voting is no more.
  
  
• A Select Committee to look into COVID-19 has been established.
  
  
• The House Ethics Committee has been significantly weakened.
  
  
• The Congressional Budget Office is ordered to produce dynamic scores of major legislation. That means that, in addition to the direct economic impact of legislation (for example, "we're spending $70 billion on subsidies for aerospace firms"), the CBO has to guess as to the economic impact of that spending (for example, "that $70 billion will lead to 5,000 new jobs, which will produce $5 billion in income tax revenue, and will trigger the construction of 10,000 houses, which will produce $3 billion in corporate tax revenue," etc.). The clear purpose of this change is to make tax-cutting bills look less costly.
  
  
• There are two anti-abortion bills, H.R. 7 and H.R. 26, already cued up.
  
  
• Members are now required, in theory, to keep their bills to a single subject. Easier said than done, since even the omnibus bills the right-wingers hate technically have one subject (e.g., the budget).
  
  
• House floor privileges for territorial governors and the mayor of Washington, D.C. have been revoked. That covers a grand total of six people, five of them Democrats, and the sixth (Arnold Palacios of the Northern Mariana Islands) an independent.
  
  
• Lobbyists who used to work in the Capitol are no longer allowed to use the Capitol gym. Who said the House Republican Conference doesn't care about governance?

Recall, once again, that these are the things that McCarthy and his leadership are acknowledging publicly. One can only imagine what things might be so problematic that they are worse than, say, reducing ethical oversight. What's abundantly clear, however, is that the MAGA crew is calling the shots right now. The abortion bills, to take one example, were added to the rules package and to the House calendar without any consultation of the moderate Republicans. This is a situation ripe for a rebellion, either from the right, or from the center.

In related news, McCarthy got himself across the finish line with a bunch of negotiating and a whole bunch of concessions to the MAGA 20. On the other hand, playing no role whatsoever? Donald Trump. The former president lobbied hard for his loyalists to support McCarthy, and then claimed credit when McCarthy finally got over the hump. But, as it turns out, Trump didn't swing a single vote.

Note also that the clown show, or the pi**ing contest, or whatever you wish to call it, is already in full swing. Yesterday, House Republicans approved the formation of a committee that will investigate the "weaponization" of the federal government under the leadership of Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH). The vote was entirely along party lines. Meanwhile, Rep. Pat Fallon (R-TX) decided he wanted to beat the rush, and filed the first impeachment articles of the 118th Congress (targeting, in this case, DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas). Of course, the Democrats know how to pi** too, so they filed an ethics complaint against Rep. "George Santos" (R-NY).

No wonder more than 50 members left the House before the 2022 elections. They knew to get out while the gettin' was good. (Z)

Biden Addresses Classified Documents, Says Nothing

CNN has learned what was contained in the classified documents found in Joe Biden's office at Penn. It was intelligence memos and briefings related to Ukraine, Iran and the United Kingdom. There were 10 documents, in total.

The President held a press conference yesterday, as part of the summit he's attending in Mexico City. Biden could no longer avoid reporters' questions on the matter, and so he said "I was surprised to learn there were any government records that were taken there to that office," while emphasizing that he and his staff take security seriously. He also said that he is unaware of the contents of the documents, and that he knows little beyond the fact that his attorneys turned the materials over to the National Archives.

In fairness to Biden, it would be inappropriate for him to try to learn more, or for him to say anything else, while an investigation is underway. It is also the case that we don't yet know if he bears any personal responsibility for the breach. It's possible that he never saw or touched those documents, or that the last time he saw/touched them was when he was VP, and it was apropos for him to handle them.

It is not likely that much more will be known until U.S. Attorney John Lausch Jr. completes his investigation. Lausch has already briefed AG Merrick Garland several times, but beyond that, his timeline is a mystery. He could wrap things up tomorrow, or he could take until Christmas. (Z)

Let California's U.S. Senate Race Begin

Imagine that you are an upwardly mobile politician in California. The governor's mansion might not be open for 4 years and one of the two U.S. Senate seats is going to be locked up for a good, long time—probably decades. That means that if you're after one of the really big prizes, your eye is on the other U.S. Senate seat right now. That would be the one occupied by Dianne Feinstein (D), who is 89, and who may well be in poor physical and/or cognitive health.

Pursuing that seat does come with a couple of logistical challenges, though. The first is that it's not actually vacant yet. Feinstein has not yet announced her 2024 plans, and though it's widely assumed that she will step down, the niceties dictate that after a 40-year career serving California in various offices, she should be allowed to exit on her own timeline. Jumping the gun here could come off as a little bit (or a lot) crass.

That said, the second logistical challenge is that the Democratic bench is deep, and is chock full of ambitious types. So, while a candidate would prefer not to step on Feinstein's toes, they would also prefer not to be caught with their pants down when the dominoes do start falling. The first person to enter a major political race gets a heck of a lot more attention than the sixth person.

Rep. Katie Porter (D) took a long look at the situation, and decided, in effect "Feinstein's toes be damned." And so, the Representative formally announced yesterday that she's running for the Senate in 2024. "California needs a warrior in the Senate—to stand up to special interests, fight the dangerous imbalance in our economy, and hold so-called leaders like Mitch McConnell accountable for rigging our democracy," decreed the would-be senator in her announcement.

Porter has a number of strengths that will serve her well. She's charismatic and hard-working, and is one of the best fundraisers in the House, having hauled in a staggering $25 million in the last cycle. She's also beloved by many progressive voters for her lefty politics and her acerbic nature. Just last week, during the speaker mess, photos of her reading the book The Subtle Art of Not Giving a Fu*k went viral on social media:

Knowing full well she would be on camera a lot, Porter did not select that book by accident. So, add "politically savvy" to the list of strengths.

That said, Porter does have a couple of problem areas that should be noted. The first is that she has something of a reputation for being overly concerned about the needs of Katie Porter. It was, as noted, at least a little crass for her to rain on Dianne Feinstein's parade. And, speaking of rain, California is experiencing terrible flooding right now, which makes the timing of the announcement doubly questionable. Even if she wasn't going to wait for the Senator to make up her mind, Porter should at least have waited until the floods subsided.

In addition, it is not clear exactly how good a fit Porter is for the state of California. She just won reelection in her district, CA-47, by a relatively narrow margin—51.7% to 48.3%—against a relatively unknown former state assemblyman, Scott Baugh (R). That probably reflects the fact that CA-47 is purple (D+3), while Porter is more a deep-blue type of politician. The problem here is that, in statewide elections, Californians tend to prefer candidates that are lefty, but not too lefty. Given the choice between, say, Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Chris Murphy (D-CT), and Joe Manchin (D-WV), California voters would be likely to go with Murphy.

In any case, the race is on. Feinstein says her decision will be coming within the next couple of months. We shall see if Reps. Adam Schiff (D), Ro Khanna (D), Barbara Lee (D), Eric Swalwell (D), etc. decide to wait for that, or if they also jump the gun. (Z)

Democrat Wins in Virginia

As we noted on Monday, the Virginia state Senate seat vacated by Rep. Jen Kiggans (R-VA) was up yesterday. And the winner is Aaron Rouse (D), who narrowly defeated Kevin Adams (R), 19,430 votes to 19,082. Though Adams was in the lead when the in-person votes were counted, the absentees broke 4-to-1 for Rouse, and that was enough to seal the deal. The margin of victory is about 0.9%, which is outside the 0.5% margin that would allow Adams to request a recount, per Virginia law.

Given that this took place a hop, skip and a jump from Washington, and given that it's going to be the only hotly contested election for many months, we would very much like to be able to draw some broader conclusions from it. But with less than 40,000 people voting, and with the margin of victory less than 400 votes, what can we really say? Not much.

That said, there is one notable significance to this outcome. The Virginia Senate was already tilted in the Democrats' favor, and now it's just a little bit more so. Once Rouse is seated, the body will have 22 Democrats, 17 Republicans, and one member who is Republican by registration but who does not caucus with either party (Amanda Chase). Even with a slim 52-48 Republican majority in the Virginia General Assembly, Gov. Glenn Youngkin (R-VA) will not be able to get anything extreme passed into law as he tries to score points with the base in advance of a possible presidential run. Undoubtedly, he is very jealous of Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-FL) right now. (Z)

Weisselberg Gets 5 Months

The Allen Weisselberg saga seems to have reached its end. Sentencing was scheduled for yesterday, and Judge Juan Merchan affirmed an already-agreed-upon sentence of 5 months. The former Trump Organization CFO (and still Trump Organization employee) reported immediately to Riker's Island to begin serving his sentence. That is a particularly notorious prison, but Weisselberg will be kept separate from the general population, so that any Trump "fans" in the pokey can't use Weisselberg's head to express their views.

Given the extent of Weisselberg's malfeasance, this certainly seems like a slap on the wrist to us. It also seems that way to... the judge who sentenced him. The 5-month term was part of a plea-bargain agreement, in exchange for Weisselberg's "truthful" testimony in the case(s) against the Trump Organization. And yesterday, Merchan lamented how light the sentence he agreed to is, now that he's heard all the relevant testimony. He observed that, but for that agreement, the sentence would have been "much greater." For the record, the maximum penalty for the crimes with which Weisselberg was charged is 15 years.

And so, Weisselberg appears to have dodged multiple bullets. While he did render "truthful" testimony, he was very circumspect, such that he did not anger the Trumps and so he remains on the payroll. And while he'll spend some time in the slammer, it will end up being something like 3 months of pretty easy time, so he's not going to pay all that much a price for his malfeasance. We are having our legal research team look into it, but we assume this marks the first time in American history that a rich white guy was able to escape serious punishment for crimes he was caught red-handed committing. (Z)

Losers of the 2022 Election Cycle

Yesterday, we ran down the 10 biggest winners of the 2022 election cycle. Today, it's the biggest losers. As with yesterday's list, consider this one to have the gold medal winner in first place, followed by a nine-way tie for the silver:

1. Donald Trump: The emperor quite clearly has no clothes (which, in this case, is a frightening thought). Many Republican voters haven't figured it out yet, but most Republican politicians now have, thanks in no small part to November's results.
   
   Trump had a very, very bad year. He started out as the all-but-certain 2024 GOP presidential nominee. Now he is the fight of his life with Ron DeSantis and probably others. His super power was endorsing candidates and then watching them coast to victory. Now his super power is endorsing candidates and watching them go down to defeat, sometimes by large margins (see: Dixon, Tudor). Not as good. The only good thing for him in 2022 is that he wasn't indicted. That could change in 2023 and probably will. His position is greatly diminished compared to a year ago.
   
   
2. Ted Cruz: It has flown under the radar, primarily because Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) is nowhere near as significant as Donald Trump, but the Senator arguably had a worse election cycle than the former president did.
   
   To start, Trump's political fortunes went into severe decline, but, despite the Texan's delusional fantasies, nobody turned to Cruz as the next man up. Ron DeSantis is in line ahead of him, and so too are several others, including Nikki Haley, Gov. Greg Abbott (R-TX), Mike Pompeo, and Mike Pence. Heck, at the books right now, Tucker Carlson is getting better odds than Cruz. And Ye (Kanye West) is getting the exact same odds. "I am about as viable a presidential candidate as Ye" is not a line you want on your résumé.
   
   Meanwhile, as poorly as Donald Trump did with his endorsements, Cruz did worse. He backed 24 House candidates (and one senator) as part of his "Cruz 25 for 22 Victory Fund," and just nine of the 24 (and the senator) won. In addition, his Truth and Courage PAC gave big money to three candidates, and only one of those was elected. Once the general election was over, Cruz licked his wounds, and then hit the campaign trail to rally voters on behalf of Herschel Walker. Oops. If everything Trump touches turns into lead, then everything Cruz touches turns into uranium. The man is radioactive, is what we're saying.
   
   
3. Kevin McCarthy: Even though we are only publishing this now, we drew up the list in mid-December. And so, we did not need the benefit of last week's dog and pony show to know that McCarthy has become the poster boy for "be careful what you wish for, because you just might get it." The now-Speaker has achieved the object of his fondest desires, but his majority is paper-thin and built on a foundation of nutters. Newt Gingrich, John Kasich and Paul Ryan were all brought down under similar circumstances, and they: (1) had greater political skill than McCarthy, (2) had a larger majority than McCarthy, and (3) had a far-right fringe that was less radical than the MAGA 20. Can he possibly make it through the entire 2-year term?
   
   
4. The Supreme Court: Consider this fact: Exit polls in Michigan showed that the most important issue in this election, for nearly half the electorate there, was abortion. By contrast, inflation was the most important issue for about a quarter of the electorate. Other swing-state exit polls produced similar results, though it was in Michigan where the numbers were most striking.
   
   Put another way, the Supreme Court made its most consequential decision in years (and perhaps decades) in Dobbs, and was promptly kicked in the teeth. That ruling almost singlehandedly tamed the looming red wave, while also causing voters in six different states to vote in favor of abortion rights (or else against abortion restrictions). If Samuel Alito thought he had resolved this question for all time, he was as wrong as Roger Taney after he finished putting the final touches on the Dred Scott decision.
   
   So, the voters pushed back against the Court's conservative majority on this issue, and will undoubtedly continue to do so in 2024 and 2026. Meanwhile, confidence in the Court is at an all-time low. And, as we have pointed out many times, when Americans don't respect the Court, they find ways to ignore or subvert its rulings. If it keeps acting like an organ of the far-right wing of the Republican Party, SCOTUS will discover that it has about as much influence as, well, Donald Trump.
   
   
5. The Once-Rising Democratic Stars: Stacey Abrams was once seen as the future of the Democratic Party. But in her second run for the governorship of Georgia, she came up short. Much shorter, in fact, than in her first run, despite having 4 years to organize and register voters, and having raised $100 million. She ran against Gov. Brian Kemp (R-GA) who probably was unbeatable by anyone since even some Democrats like him for standing up to Donald Trump. But now what does Abrams do, assuming she is still interested in elective office? She doesn't appear to be interested in a House seat, although that would probably be the best opportunity for her to rebuild her political career. She could wait until Kemp is term-limited in 2026, but in politics, third time is rarely the charm (ask William Jennings Bryan), and voters might not feel she's ready for the big chair. Typically the people who run for governor hold some other statewide office, or some federal office. Abrams has never held any office higher than state representative (although she was minority leader).
   
   Beto O'Rourke is another case of someone for whom people had high expectations that didn't pan out. He ran for senator in 2018 against Ted Cruz and lost. He ran for president in 2020 and lost. He ran for governor of Texas this year and lost. What does this show? That Democrats can't win statewide in Texas and losing a statewide race in Texas as a Democrat does not make you presidential material. Some people thought he would be the new Bobby Kennedy. He wasn't. Many people aren't Bobby Kennedy. Most people, in fact.
   
   Abrams and O'Rourke are young enough and talented enough that they could still undergo a renaissance. But they do have a problem that they live in states that don't seem interested in electing them to high office. Maybe they should do what Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg did and move to Michigan.
   
   
6. The Celebrity Republicans: Mehmet Oz and Herschel Walker had great lives heading into 2022, one of them a popular TV show host and the other a beloved football star. Nonetheless, they both decided that it was worth it to roll the dice in search of power (though one wonders if they fully understand how much power a first-term senator actually has). In any event, they both lost, and will be the butt of jokes for years, while all of their skeletons are now out in the open. Was it worth it?
   
   
7. Alejandro Mayorkas: Why Mayorkas took the job of Secretary of DHS is beyond us. It is a hopeless job. There is no way the border can be secured or even managed until Congress gets on the stick and passes some laws and allocates enough money. One astounding fact: There were 2.4 million encounters between unauthorized migrants and border patrol agents in the 2022 fiscal year. Million! There is a huge problem at the border, but Mayorkas can't fix it. Only Congress can, yet Mayorkas gets the blame. And now, thanks to the House coming under Republican control, there is a decent chance he will be impeached in 2023 (see above), even though one struggled to identify what "high crimes and misdemeanors" he might have committed.
   
   
8. George Santos: Liar, liar, pants on fire. We have recounted his lies at great length. Nothing about his C.V. is true. We are even wondering if his name is actually George Santos. Maybe not, as nothing else he's said about himself is true. The feds are onto his case, because his net worth seems to have zoomed up in 2022 and they want to know where the money came from. For example, did it come from some local billionaire who wanted his very own congressman? If he is indicted, he might try for a plea deal in which he resigns his seat in the House in return for a shorter prison sentence. However, that won't help him in Brazil, where legal authorities have renewed interest in taking a look at the Representative's possibly illegal check-cashing activities. While 2022 was a bad year for Santos, despite his win, 2023 could well be a lot worse.
   
   
9. The NRSC: As the chair of the NRSC this cycle, the job of Sen. Rick Scott (R-FL) was to flip the Senate back to the Republican Party. Obviously, he failed in that. And that failure came, at least in part, because of Scott's mismanagement and hubris. There was, for example, the 11-point plan to "Rescue America," which was supposed to set Scott up for a 2024 presidential run. What it did, instead, was allow Democrats to claim that the Republicans want to get rid of Medicaid and Social Security. Further, in search of a reputation as a miracle worker, Scott invested serious resources in a near-unwinnable race in New Hampshire, and in two absolutely unwinnable races in Colorado and Washington. This helped the Democrats not only hold the Senate, but to expand their majority by one, while effectively killing Scott for President 2024. Maybe he'll be back in 2028, but he's so unpopular, and his political instincts are so bad, that we doubt it.
   
   
10. Republican Megadonors: For various reasons, the Democrats do much better with small-dollar donors than Republicans do. The Republicans make up for that by doing much better with billionaires. And the billionaires stepped up this cycle, with Richard and Elizabeth Uihlein's $80,881,015, Kenneth C. Griffin's $71,050,000 and Jeffrey Yass' $49,000,000 leading the way. Nearly all of this money went to U.S. Senate candidates who failed to win their elections, meaning that the megadonors spent something like half a billion dollars on losers. When the Supreme Court issued its ruling in Citizens United, Republicans breathed a sigh of relief, because that decision makes possible these outsized PAC donations. But, as it turns out, C.U. doesn't help nearly as much when a party has a big problem with C.Q.—candidate quality.
    
    
11. New York Democrats: What a train wreck the New York Democratic Party was this cycle. Andrew Cuomo was taken down by scandal, and then his replacement, Gov. Kathy Hochul (D-NY), made unforced error after unforced error. While she won reelection, it was by a way-too-close margin for such a blue state.
    
    And then there was the fiasco with gerrymandering, where the blue team got too greedy, and ultimately cost themselves multiple House seats. Republicans swept Long Island, winning two open Democratic seats in Nassau County and picking up additional seats in the Hudson Valley. This included knocking off Sean Patrick Maloney, who was not only an incumbent, but was the chair of the DCCC, which is charged with winning House races for the Democrats. It is embarrassing, to say the least, when the DCCC chair can't win his own election.

Ok, that's actually 11 losers and not 10. We couldn't decide which of these to excise from the list and, besides, everyone knows that it's better to go to 11, especially when most blokes are only going to 10. (V & Z)

Looking Forward: The Experts' Predictions for 2023

Yesterday, we also reviewed the predictions for 2022 made by pundits. They batted .317, which isn't as good as the .372 we initially gave them credit for, but is still pretty good.

Today, it is pundit predictions for 2023. Recall that we are awarding boldness scores right now, so that the judgment is made with the proper context.

• Paul Callan, CNN: "In polling, California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D-CA) will lead all Democrats."
  
  Boldness: 4/5. There is certainly a lot of talk about Newsom, but we think his popularity outside California (and, for that matter, inside California) has been greatly exaggerated.
  
  
• Dylan Matthews, Vox: "Donald Trump will be the frontrunner for the Republican nomination heading into 2024."
  
  Boldness: 2.5/5. On one hand, he still commands the loyalty of much of the base. On the other hand, Ron DeSantis and criminal indictments are looming. This seems like something close to a coin flip, to us.
  
  
• Edward Luce, Financial Times: "Will Donald Trump be indicted? Yes."
  
  Boldness: 1/5. We think Trump cannot avoid his legal troubles entirely, given how badly exposed he is in both Georgia and the Jack Smith investigations. And if an indictment is going to come down, it really has to come down this year, given that prosecutors don't want to interfere with the elections.
  
  
• Mark Herrmann, Above the Law: "After Trump is indicted, there will be violence."
  
  Boldness: 3/5. We doubt this, at least a little, because Trump's most fanatical supporters are widely dispersed and, by all indications, kind of cowardly. Plus, they've seen what has been happening to the 1/6 insurrectionists.
  
  
• Dylan Matthews, Vox: "The Supreme Court will rule that affirmative action is unconstitutional."
  
  Boldness: 0.5/5. They've already heard the necessary case (Students for Fair Admissions Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard College). And the conservative majority, with John Roberts taking the lead, believes social inequality is a thing of the past. It's nearly inconceivable that two of the six right-wingers jump ship to vote with the three liberals.
  
  
• Mark Herrmann, Above the Law: "At least one of the defamation cases against a conservative or a conservative news organization will result in a plaintiff's verdict in 2023."
  
  Boldness: 2.5/5. We think the outcome is nearly certain; the only question is whether it will come as rapidly as Herrmann predicts. That is a very close call.
  
  
• Brian Sullivan, CNBC: "The growth rate of EV sales will actually drop in 2023 from 2022."
  
  Boldness: 4/5. Sullivan has not been in the market for an electric vehicle, it would seem. There is much pent-up demand, and that is before the tax credits for some EVs were brought back to life. It's true that there might be a recession in 2023, but the current market demo for EVs tends to be somewhat less affected by recessions than Americans as a whole.
  
  
• Alice Stewart, CNN: "I'm encouraged to see gas prices level off after record highs. I hope to see gas around $3.80 per gallon by the end of 2023."
  
  Boldness: 2/5. The current number is $3.26. Given what happened with gas prices in 2022, $3.80 is very plausible. Note that we'll give full credit for accuracy as long as the Dec. 31 figure is within 10 cents of $3.80.
  
  
• R.J. Fulton, The Motley Fool: "I believe 2023 will be a year in which Bitcoin builds momentum to get closer to the $40,000 mark."
  
  Boldness: 4.5/5. Bitcoin is currently trading at around $17,000. It is... ambitious to predict that any investment instrument will more than double in value in one year. And when it's a type of crypto, a market segment that has many people skittish due to the FTX meltdown? We are very, very skeptical.
  
  
• Laura Coates, CNN: "Who will win the Nobel Peace Prize? Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy."
  
  Boldness: 3/5. Can you win a Nobel Peace Prize for successfully waging a war? Even if it's a war of self-defense? Guess we're going to find out.
  
  
• Michael Weidokal, Cleveland.com: "At least in terms of the size of its population, India will overtake China to become the world's largest country in 2023."
  
  Boldness: 3/5. China's population is currently 1,453,326,102. India's is 1,414,199,747. Can the latter outgrow the former by nearly 40 million people? It's plausible, but a little bit bold.
  
  
• Steven Overly, Politico: "Trade tensions with China will grow."
  
  Boldness: 0.5/5. We are tempted to give this a 0.25 or a 0.1. This is like predicting the Detroit Lions won't win the Super Bowl. It's as inevitable as death and taxes.
  
  
• Nostradamus, French mystic: "Because they disapproved of his divorce, a man who, later, they considered unworthy, the people will force out the King of the Islands, a man will replace him who never expected to be king."
  
  Boldness: 5/5. This is understood to refer to Charles III, although for it to work, he'd have to hand the throne off to Prince Harry. There is zero chance that Charles abdicates; William is only getting that throne from his father's cold, dead hands. And there is even less than zero chance that the Windsors allow the throne to devolve upon Harry, who is persona non grata right now, to say the least.
  
  
• Baba Vanga, Bulgarian mystic: "A devastating solar storm."
  
  Boldness: 5/5. The last one happened in 1859. So, as a matter of pure numbers, it's unlikely that one will happen in any given year. And the good news for us is that if it does happen, the world's electronic infrastructure will be so screwed up for so long, we probably won't be able to publish an item in 2024 admitting we were wrong.

Tomorrow, it will be our predictions for 2023. (Z)

---

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

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

To download a poster about the site to hang up, please click here.

---

Email a link to a friend or share:

---The Votemaster and Zenger