Four More States' Voters Head to the Polls

Voters in four more states registered their presidential preferences last night. Largely speaking, the presidential contests were the only games in town, as Connecticut (Aug. 13), New York (June 25), Rhode Island (Sept. 10) and Wisconsin (Aug. 13) will all hold their other primaries later in the year.

Here are the results:

State	1st Place	2nd Place	Turnout
Connecticut	Donald Trump, 77.9%	Nikki Haley, 14.0%	44,328
Connecticut	Joe Biden, 85.1%	Uncommitted, 11.3%	63,329
New York	Donald Trump, 82.0%	Nikki Haley, 12.9%	159,102
New York	Joe Biden, 91.5%	Marianne Williamson, 4.9%	300,762
Rhode Island	Donald Trump, 84.4%	Nikki Haley, 10.7%	12,707
Rhode Island	Joe Biden, 82.6%	Uncommitted, 14.9%	25,257
Wisconsin	Donald Trump, 79.1%	Nikki Haley, 12.8%	555,360
Wisconsin	Joe Biden, 88.3%	Uninstructed, 8.5%	549,268

These numbers will change a little in the next 48 hours, as the states are all reporting between 91% and 95% of the vote in as of the end of the evening on Tuesday. As you can see, outside of Rhode Island, Biden continued to do a better job of holding on to his party's voters than Trump. And in case you are wondering, Wisconsin has an open primary, Rhode Island has a semi-closed primary (independents can participate on either side) and Connecticut and New York have closed primaries. This means that the potentially most instructive result of the night, in swingy Wisconsin, could well have been affected by ratfu**ing on either side, and so isn't instructive at all.

For comparative purposes, here's what happened in these four states the last time there was a non-competitive Republican primary (namely 2020):

State	1st Place	2nd Place	Turnout
Connecticut, 2024	Donald Trump, 77.9%	Nikki Haley, 14.0%	44,328
Connecticut, 2020	Donald Trump, 78.4%	Uncommitted, 14.2%	91,452
New York, 2024	Donald Trump, 82.0%	Nikki Haley, 12.9%	159,102
New York, 2020	N/A	N/A	N/A
Rhode Island, 2024	Donald Trump, 84.4%	Nikki Haley, 10.7%	12,707
Rhode Island, 2020	Donald Trump, 87.1%	Bill Weld, 5.5%	22,009
Wisconsin, 2024	Donald Trump, 79.1%	Nikki Haley, 12.8%	555,360
Wisconsin, 2020	Donald Trump, 97.9%	Adam Nicholas Paul, 0.04%	630,198

There was no GOP primary in New York in 2020, but in the other three states, turnout was higher in 2020 than in 2024, and in two of the three, Trump's share of the vote was considerably higher. Does that suggest less enthusiasm for Trump this year than four years ago? Probably.

As to Joe Biden, here are the comparative numbers for him versus 2012, when Barack Obama was an unchallenged sitting president and, of course, went on to win the election. We could theoretically have used 2016, when Hillary Clinton faced only token competition, but 2012 is more analogous to Biden's current situation:

State	1st Place	2nd Place	Turnout
Connecticut, 2024	Joe Biden, 85.1%	Uncommitted, 11.3%	63,329
Connecticut, 2012	N/A	N/A	N/A
New York, 2024	Joe Biden, 91.5%	Marianne Williamson, 4.9%	300,762
New York, 2012	N/A	N/A	N/A
Rhode Island, 2024	Joe Biden, 82.6%	Uncommitted, 14.9%	25,257
Rhode Island, 2012	Barack Obama, 83.4%	Uncommitted, 14.0%	7,106
Wisconsin, 2024	Joe Biden, 88.3%	Uninstructed, 8.5%	549,268
Wisconsin, 2012	Barack Obama, 97.9%	Uninstructed, 1.8%	300,255

In 2012, both Connecticut and New York canceled their primaries, leaving us with only two states to work with here. On one hand, even correcting for population growth, turnout was way higher this year than in 2012; that should be good news for Biden. On the other hand, Biden considerably underperformed Obama in Wisconsin. There were many stories yesterday about how the Wisconsin results could presage troubles with Muslim and/or progressive voters for Biden. Maybe so, although Wisconsin is not Michigan or even Minnesota, and the population there is only 0.5% Muslim. As to the progressives, that could indeed be an issue. On the other hand, it could also be the case that a lot of otherwise Biden voters crossed the aisle to vote for Haley.

In short, squeeze as we might, the only thing we can extract from last night's numbers is that enthusiasm for Donald Trump appears to be down from 2020, and probably a bit lower than enthusiasm for Biden. Or, it might be more accurate to say that enthusiasm for Donald Trump appears to be down from 2020, and probably a bit lower than enthusiasm for not Trump.

Despite the general lack of downballot races, there were a couple of other results yesterday. In Wisconsin, residents approved two ballot measures. The first, approved 54%-46%, and triggered by Mark Zuckerberg's money-giving, bans private funding for state and local elections. The second, approved 58%-42%, and triggered by alleged informal advising from nonprofit groups, says that Wisconsin elections may be administered only by "election officials designated by law." Both of these initiatives were proposed by Republicans in the Wisconsin legislature.

And finally, there was a runoff in MS-02 last night, for the Republican nomination. The winner was Ron Eller, who hates abortion and undocumented immigrants, and loves guns and Jesus. He believes this whole separation of church and state thing has gotten out of hand, and bases that position on his close reading of... the Northwest Ordinance of 1787. That's a new one. In any event, the 62.9% Black, D+11 district is surely going to return its current representative, Bennie Thompson (D-MS), to Congress, so Eller just won himself the right to do 6 months' worth of useless campaigning.

Next up are Democratic primaries in Alaska and Wyoming on the 13th of this month, then the Republican primary in Puerto Rico on the 21st. The only really interesting election this month is in Pennsylvania on the 23rd, when the Keystone State will not only vote on presidential candidates, but also candidates for the U.S. Senate and House. (Z)

Arizonans Will Vote on Abortion Access

Another day, another swing state with a ballot initiative meant to protect abortion access. Arizona for Abortion Access, a coalition that includes the ACLU of Arizona, Reproductive Freedom for All Arizona and Planned Parenthood Advocates of Arizona, has announced that it has collected enough signatures to put abortion rights before voters in November.

At the moment, abortions are banned in Arizona after 15 weeks unless the life of the mother is threatened, and an upcoming court case could uphold an 1864 law and ban them all. The pro-choice groups say they have 500,000 signatures when only 383,923 are needed, and they are still 3 months from the deadline to make the ballot. Since Arizona Secretary of State Adrian Fontes (D) is on the blue team, it is improbable that he will engage in shenanigans to try to keep the measure off the ballot. So, you can pretty much pencil it in right now.

At the moment, there are four states scheduled to vote on abortion-protecting measures; in addition to Arizona there are Florida, of course, Maryland and New York. The first two of those have very competitive Senate elections this year, the third has a Senate election that just might be competitive now that former governor Larry Hogan (R) is in, and in the fourth, an increase in Democratic turnout could be key to winning swingy House districts. Indeed, between just Florida and New York, it is well within the realm of possibility that abortion initiatives by themselves will give control of the House of Representatives back to the Democrats. If so, we wonder how George Washington would react if you told him that arguing over abortion led to a Black guy becoming Speaker of the House.

Meanwhile, there are efforts underway to get abortion initiatives on the ballots in seven other states: Arkansas, Colorado, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, South Dakota. If the Democrats could pick, they would surely rank Montana first, Nevada second and Missouri third given the U.S. Senate races in those places. The blue team would love to also give an assist to Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH) but, of course, the Buckeye State already voted on abortion access. (Z)

The Sharks Are Circling... Each Other

Generally, heading into an election cycle, a party would like its members to be on the same basic page. That is definitely not happening with the Republican Conference in the House of Representatives, where there is much infighting going on right now.

Most obviously, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) despises Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) and would like to see him removed. Monday, for example, she slammed Johnson because he "FULLY FUNDED Biden's deadly open border." We don't quite understand this critique; wouldn't cutting all border funding make things worse? Shouldn't her complaint be that Johnson did not allocate ENOUGH money for the border? Maybe it's the new math, or something.

In any case, Greene may not be the brightest bulb, but she's clever enough to know that trying to remove Johnson from the speakership, and failing, would be a very bad look for her. If she is going to move forward with her motion to vacate, however, she's got two problems to overcome. The first is that she needs to round up at least a few Republican votes in support of removal. Then she has to make sure the Democrats won't vote to save Johnson's bacon. There is no indication that she's had any success on either front.

Meanwhile, while the back-stabbing usually emanates from the Freedom Caucusers (and the sorta Freedom Caucusers, since Greene was technically expelled from the group), it doesn't HAVE to be that way. Many GOP members are tired of FC shenanigans, and are gunning for the group's chair, Rep. Bob Good (R-VA). Leading the charge is Rep. Derrick Van Orden (R-WI), who says, "Bob Good's wearing our jersey, and he's not on the team."

Good, given his far-rightness, is not actually a great fit for his district, VA-05, which is R+7. So, Van Orden and several of his colleagues are backing state Sen. John McGuire (R), who is somewhat more moderate and is a former Navy SEAL. The anti-Good forces just so happen to have the backing of former speaker Kevin McCarthy, whom Good voted to depose. That means that McGuire will have as much money as he needs to mount his bid. Of course, the risk to Republicans is that Good tacks hard to the right, gets the nomination, and then is compromised for the general. An R+7 seat is a tough nut for a Democrat, but it's not impossible. Especially since the blue team's likely nominee is Paul Riley, a moderate U.S. Army veteran. The primary is June 18. (Z)

And So It Begins, Part I: Four More Years

We presumed this was coming, and now we've seen the first actual right-wing article on the subject. There have probably been others already, but this is the first one we happened to stumble across. Peter Tonguette, writing for The American Conservative, says that the presidential term-limits imposed by the Twenty-second Amendment are unfair (please read that word in your whiniest possible voice) and should be done away with.

His angle here, which is ultimately kind of silly, is that it's probably OK to place a ban on more than two consecutive terms, but that the counter should reset once someone is out of office for a term. Ipso facto, when Trump is reelected in 2024 (this is taken as a given by Tonguette), then he should be allowed to stand for reelection in 2028.

If Tonguette had built his case around the fact that many states have constructed their term-limit laws in this way, then he might have part of a leg to stand on here. Or maybe not, since many states have done it the way the federal government does it. But in any case, his actual case is built around the absurd notion that when the Twenty-second was adopted, it was not foreseeable that a president might serve a term, be out of office for a term, and then return to the White House. Here it is in the author's own words:

Yet those who supported the amendment more than 70 years ago could not have foreseen the prospect of a one-term president who lost the office but who later regained it in a subsequent election. Grover Cleveland remains the only president to have successfully vaulted himself to the White House in nonconsecutive elections, in 1884 and in 1892. (Theodore Roosevelt, president from 1901 to 1909, also gave it a try by running as the Progressive Party standard-bearer in 1912.)

This is, if we may be blunt, monumentally stupid. First of all, every time an amendment to the Constitution has been adopted, the historical background had been examined painstakingly (these days, that job is done by the Congressional Research Service). Second, the Twenty-second Amendment was passed by Congress in 1947, when the median age of the members was about 55. That means that a sizable percentage of them were alive during Cleveland's second term, and some number had living memory of it. And pretty much all of them would have had living memory of Theodore Roosevelt, of course.

Naturally, Tonguette is just making the argument he needs to make in order to fit the circumstances of Donald Trump. If Trump had won in 2020, then Tonguette would undoubtedly be writing that in 1947, the leaders of the country simply couldn't have anticipated that a president might face crises in Europe and the Middle East at the same time, or that they couldn't possibly have guessed that men would regularly live into their 70s and 80s by the 21st century.

Beyond that, even someone who has drunk the Kool-Aid, as Tonguette has, doesn't really think the Twenty-second Amendment is going to be repealed. The bar for that is way too high, especially since at least 10 blue states would have to be on board. The real plan here is to normalize the idea that the Twenty-second is arbitrary, discriminatory, meaningless, etc., so that if the time comes that Trump wins reelection and then runs again, some segment of the public has been primed to accept that.

We are doubtful it will actually work, mind you. Yes, the insurrection clause appears to be toothless, but it was badly conceived, and is not well understood by the general public. The Twenty-second Amendment is one of the bedrocks of presidential elections, and everyone knows about it. That said, Trump has gotten away with a lot of things we did not think he would get away with, so we bring this to readers' attention, just in case. Oh, and remember that it was primarily Republicans, weary of a generation of uninterrupted Democratic rule, who were the drivers behind the Twenty-second Amendment. (Z)

And So It Begins, Part II: The "Biden Bloodbath"

It's an old political strategy: Accuse your opponent of doing that which you are guilty of. Donald Trump is, for the third time, going to run a campaign steeped in violence (rhetorically, at least, and very possibly in actuality, if he loses). That thrills some significant portion of the MAGA base, but it's a turnoff to certain independent/swing voters that Trump needs.

The Donald can't turn into a pacifist, so his only option for resolving this problem is to make Biden an agent of violence as well. But Trump also doesn't want to make Biden into a rival for the title of "most macho presidential candidate," so the Biden violence has to come from his weaknesses (whereas Trump's comes from his alleged strength). And so, yesterday the wholly Trump-owned RNC unveiled a new website with the URL bidenbloodbath.com.

The website is the same old, same old, when it comes to Trump. That is to say, his 2015 speech that launched his political career was about how evil Mexican immigrants are raping and plundering America, and the website is about how evil Mexican immigrants are raping and plundering America, while Biden turns a blind eye. You can click through and read breathless stories of immigrant-on-American violence in Arizona, Georgia, Nevada, Ohio, California, Michigan, Wisconsin, Florida, etc. Apparently, immigrants only commit violent acts in border states and swing states. Who knew?

We have no doubt that if and when Trump and the MAGA faithful look at the site, they'll be thrilled. We also don't believe the site will persuade any undecided voters, because it's so over-the-top and propagandistic that it insults one's intelligence. We only point it out because "the violence-enabling Joe Biden," like "the wicked Joe Biden" is clearly going to be a GOP campaign theme in 2024. (Z)

Trump Legal News: Crazy Train

There were numerous developments related to Donald Trump's various legal entanglements. They have little to do with each other, however, so we're going to run down them list-style:

• Eastman Goes South: Last week, State Bar Court Judge Yvette D. Roland decreed that Trump lawyer John Eastman should be disbarred, and yesterday she made it official and stripped him of his license. He still has a couple of potential appeals, with a final decision to be made by the California Supreme Court, but according to experts, his odds are not good.
  
  In her 128-page decision, Roland was unsparing in her criticism of Eastman, writing (among other things): "Eastman conspired with President Trump to obstruct a lawful function of the government of the United States; specifically, by conspiring to disrupt the electoral count on January 6, 2021, in violation of [the federal conspiracy statute]..." This is not good news for Trump, because his "advice-of-counsel" defense is not applicable if that advice was for Trump to do something illegal. And Trump can't argue "I didn't know it was illegal" because there are numerous White House lawyers (like Pat Cipollone and Patrick Philbin) that have already testified, and will testify again, that they warned Trump that what Eastman was advocating was illegal.
  
  
• Donald's Hope: Hope Hicks, who was once as close to Trump as anyone not named "Trump," has been added to the prosecution's witness list for his upcoming hush money trial. While Hicks is not eager to throw her former boss under the bus, the way former fixer Michael Cohen is, she also won't perjure herself, and she's much more credible than Cohen. So, the general assumption from experienced prosecutors is that she will be called to corroborate Cohen's testimony that Trump conspired to break the law. If so, that would be two witnesses attesting to the scheme; one who carried it out but is sleazy, and one who was privy to the whole thing and is not sleazy.
  
  
• Donald's a Dope: Just hours after he was gagged from attacking Judge Juan Merchan's family (including Merchan's daughter), Trump got on his boutique social media site and posted a clip of a bunch of Fox talking heads attacking Merchan's daughter.
  
  Why does Trump do this? Does he think it makes him look strong? Is he trying to show everyone he's a trickster who knows exactly what he can get away with? Is he just unable to control himself, and he has to find some way to lash out? All of the above? In any event, he makes a mockery of the legal system; nobody else would be allowed to get away with these shenanigans. Frankly, Merchan should jail Trump on contempt charges; even if Trump got himself released on appeal, he'd still spend a couple of days behind bars.
  
  
• Why Does Anyone Go into Business with This Guy, Again?: Trump's efforts to cash out his stock in his scammy social media shell company are complicated by several ongoing lawsuits. One of those is from Andy Litinsky and Wes Moss, who helped Trump create this new company, and who own 8.6% of the stock in it. Yesterday, he countersued and said he wants all their shares to be awarded to him, since they don't deserve them. Litinsky and Moss really should have learned from Trump business partners who profited handsomely from their association and who were treated well by The Donald, like... um... er... Well, as they say, it is the nature of a snake to bite.

And that is the latest 24 hours' worth of Trump legal news. Who knows what the next 24 hours will bring. (Z)

Judge Shopping Will Continue

Recently, we wrote that the Judicial Conference of the United States had announced a new policy, that judges would be assigned at random from the district they represent, rather than the division. The effect of this policy would be that any given case might end up on the docket of any of 10 to 20 judges, as opposed to the docket of just one judge (or maybe two). One-judge divisions have been used for judge shopping, with the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Amarillo Division, being a particular favorite for Republicans. That division just so happens to be served by a sole judge, Matthew Kacsmaryk, a right-wing activist with a penchant for issuing national injunctions.

A few days later, we wrote that Republicans were not happy about this development. While partisans on both sides engage in judge shopping, it's a much more valuable tool for Republicans because their positions tend to be more extreme (and thus cannot get through a legislature) and because there are more one-judge divisions in red areas than in blue areas. And so, led by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), Republican leaders sent letters to the chief judge of each district, urging them to ignore the new policy.

This week, the GOP got good news out of the Northern District of Texas, courtesy of Chief Judge David Godbey (a George W. Bush appointee). Godbey wrote a letter to Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) announcing that the district would continue to operate as it always has, and that the Judicial Conference of the United States can take its new policy and shove it. Well, he said it more politely than that, but that was the gist.

What happens next is anyone's guess. It's possible that will be the end of it. Congress has the power to pass laws telling the judicial branch how to operate, but there's no way House or Senate Republicans would ever allow an anti-judge-shopping bill to pass. Someone could sue, arguing their case was wrongly assigned, but that would likely be a tough hill to climb.

We are guessing that this means the ball is in the court of Chief Justice John Roberts, who is also the ex officio head of the Judicial Conference of the United States. He could potentially impose sanctions on any judge who refuses to abide by the new rules. Alternatively, what he really hates are these national injunctions, so he could encourage his colleagues to accept a challenge to that power, and then join with the three liberals and probably Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett to strike it down. That would not put an end to judge shopping, but it would make it less efficacious, since a Matthew Kacsmaryk or a Drew Tipton could only impose their views on part of the country, rather than all of it. (Z)

Israel's Position Weakens

Yesterday, we had an item on the situation in Israel, which included a letter from reader J.K. in Short Hills, NJ, that was sharply critical of Hamas and the Palestinians. We got many responses sharply critical of Israel, in response; here's one from reader S.A.K. in Karnataka, India:

1. A two-state solution will make Benjamin Netanyahu an utter irrelevance. He will try with all his might to stop that from happening. You know, when you come to think of it, that would be the case for most politicians in Israel.
   
   
2. Netanyahu's days as PM are numbered, one way or the other. He is trying to use this war as a tool to hold onto power. Quelle surprise! The kind of political machinations seen in Israel mean we could still see him tossed out of office in the middle of all this.
   
   
3. For better or worse, Hamas is not going away from Gaza anytime soon. People who assume they will be gone are either naive or don't really know how things work in that part of the world.
   
   
4. I know Americans tend to hang onto every word their presidents say, especially after they have left office. That doesn't change the fact that a sleazebag like Bill Clinton can be trusted with almost nothing. Camp David was way more complicated than that one condescending statement from a liar.
   
   
5. Finally, even though the claims about Palestinian statehood being more of a possibility when parts of it were controlled by Jordan and Egypt might be true, what changed with Israeli occupation was the dehumanization and utterly cruel attitude towards Palestinians. Reaching levels of tyranny at times. That certainly plays a large part in increased calls for statehood.

Thanks for your comments, S.A.K.

We are in no position to evaluate the claims made by J.K. or by S.A.K.; it's just not our bailiwick. Our admittedly not-so-profound conclusion is that Israeli partisans are seeing things through Israel-colored glasses, while Palestinian partisans are seeing things through Palestine-colored glasses, both within Israel and without. This is entirely understandable, and it's also why a resolution is likely to come from external forces that are not as partisan.

That said, the posture of those external forces can and will be affected by events, as they unfold. And there have been two things this week that most certainly weakened the Israeli position, particularly vis-à-vis the United States.

The first of those things was Israel's bombing of an Iranian consulate in Syria, which resulted in the death of a high-ranking Iranian general. Obviously, Israel felt the attack was justified, particularly since they believe the dead general, Brig. Gen. Mohammad Reza Zahedi, was working with Hezbollah and other militant anti-Israeli groups.

Still, under normal circumstances, Israel would have run their plans by the U.S. government. And, assuming the green light was given, the U.S. would have publicly supported the Israeli attack. After all, the last time a high-ranking Iranian general was killed like this, it was the U.S. that did it. However, the U.S. was not warned about the attack until it was underway, and has not expressed support for what the Israelis did. In fact, the Biden administration—which is very unhappy, fearing this will cause the violence to escalate and spread—took the very uncommon step of contacting the Iranian government and disclaiming any responsibility. This is pretty stark evidence of a fraying relationship between the Israeli and U.S. governments.

The second thing that is not going to help the Israelis is a story that most readers have undoubtedly heard about by now. José Andrés is well known as a Michelin-starred celebrity chef, but he might be even more well known for his charitable work around the world through World Central Kitchen (WCK), which is focused on feeding people in times of crisis (usually natural disasters, but sometimes wars and other catastrophes). WCK sent a delegation to Gaza, carefully coordinating their plans with the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF). Unfortunately, that precaution was not enough, and the WCK's convoy was hit by Israeli missiles, killing seven WCK staffers.

Please be clear that we are making no judgments as to how things SHOULD work, we are only talking here about how they DO work. And the fact is that those seven dead people give a face to what is going on in Palestine, very much to the detriment of the Israeli government. They clearly were not combatants, they clearly were not being used as human shields for missile batteries or tanks, they were just there to help. And, as noted, they specifically cleared their movements with the IDF. If you wanted compelling evidence for the claim that the IDF is firing missiles indiscriminately, without regard for their targets, you couldn't come up with something much more compelling than this. Whether the claim is actually true, the WCK tragedy makes it LOOK like it's true. And in times of war, people tend to believe their own eyes above all else.

In any event, Israel has been absolutely excoriated for the attack, by Andrés, by Joe Biden, by House Democrats, by UK PM Rishi Sunak, and by many others. Netanyahu knows he has a PR disaster on his hands, and has acknowledged the "unfortunate" incident, while semi-apologizing and stating "we will do everything so that this thing does not happen again." That is not Netanyahu's usual MO, so it says something that he's gone into damage-control mode.

We don't have the faintest idea what the military situation is, but it's clear that the war of public opinion is slipping away from the current leadership of Israel. And given the importance of outsiders in that region and in this conflict, that is a real problem for Netanyahu. (Z)

Today's Presidential Polls

We only accept Fabrizio polls because they are working with a Democratic-leaning partner in GBAO. That said, even with that caveat, we don't have enormous confidence in their numbers. (Z)

State	Joe Biden	Donald Trump	Start	End	Pollster
Arizona	36%	39%	Mar 28	Mar 31	RABA Research
Arizona	42%	47%	Mar 17	Mar 24	Fabrizio+GBAO
Georgia	43%	44%	Mar 17	Mar 24	Fabrizio+GBAO
Michigan	45%	48%	Mar 17	Mar 24	Fabrizio+GBAO
North Carolina	43%	49%	Mar 17	Mar 24	Fabrizio+GBAO
New Jersey	46%	39%	Mar 26	Mar 29	Emerson Coll.
Nevada	44%	48%	Mar 17	Mar 24	Fabrizio+GBAO
Pennsylvania	44%	47%	Mar 17	Mar 24	Fabrizio+GBAO
Wisconsin	46%	46%	Mar 17	Mar 24	Fabrizio+GBAO

Click on a state name for a graph of its polling history.

---

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