Today's Nomination News

It was yet another day full of news on the nominations front:

• Don Donald: Sen. Joni Ernst (R-IA) certainly changed her tune on Secretary of Defense-designate Pete Hegseth very rapidly, and now we have a clearer picture of what happened. In short, like a mafia chieftain, Donald Trump unleashed his foot soldiers on the Senator. She was subjected to an unrelenting barrage of harassment over the last week, harassment that had two very clear messages: (1) If you don't get on board, you'll be primaried, and (2) If you don't get on board, you better watch your back. In other words, the Trumpers made Ernst an offer she couldn't refuse.
  
  It is not clear what this means in terms of other Hegseth-skeptical senators. The "muscle" bit works better when there's only one target, and that target is out in the open for everyone to see. If there are, say, six GOP senators who say nothing and then vote "nay," it will be rather harder to make them pay. Not impossible, mind you, but harder. Remember, there are still two sitting Republican House members who voted for impeachment.
  
  
• Kid Gloves: A couple of hosts who work for the far-right-wing Newsmax propaganda operation had the temerity to suggest that Pete Hegseth might be a less-than-ideal nominee to lead the Department of Defense. This hurt Donald Trump's fee-fees, and he pitched a fit. And so, Newsmax management circulated a memo in which they laid down the law: Any on-camera person who says anything negative about Hegseth will be immediately terminated.
  
  
• Nominee in Trouble, Part I: Because there was so much attention on Pete Hegseth, the also-problematic Robert F. Kennedy Jr. was flying under the radar (and probably producing chemtrails while he did it). Not anymore, though. Three GOP senators—Lisa Murkowski (AK), Susan Collins (ME) and Bill Cassidy (LA)—aren't saying they are "no" votes (they can see what happened to Joni Ernst), but they are also very pointedly not saying they are "yea" votes. Cassidy, in particular, is important because his committee will be primarily responsible for vetting Kennedy, and other senators are likely to take their cues from him.
  
  
• Nominee in Trouble, Part II: Tulsi Gabbard is another problematic nominee whose time under the radar appears to be over. It is her bad luck that she's been an apologist/useful idiot for Bashar al-Assad, whose regime fell from power this weekend. This has served to highlight the fact that, well, she's been an apologist/useful idiot for Bashar al-Assad. Trump still badly wants Gabbard to be confirmed, and she has more personal friends on The Hill than Hegseth or Kennedy, so she may still survive. Still, she rushed to Washington yesterday to start lobbying senators before they leave for the holiday break.
  
  
• Nominee in Trouble, Part III: Yesterday, Senate Democrats sent a letter to Mehmet Oz, in which they observe that he's heavily invested in private insurance concerns, and that he therefore stands to benefit financially from his stated plans to privatize as much of Medicare and Medicaid as is possible. The Democrats, led by Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), would like some insight about that conflict of interest, and what the good doctor plans to do about it, if anything.
  
  We mention this because it was in the news. However, we doubt Oz will even address such questions. And whether he does or not, we very seriously doubt that it will affect his confirmation. Republican senators have made clear they aren't too bothered by a nominee who has conflicts of interest. Meanwhile, it's worth noting that Oz has already built a nine-figure fortune by virtue of his medical career and his TV work. How much money does one person need?
  
  
• Monopolized: This is one of those "inside baseball" jobs that is actually quite important. Yesterday, Donald Trump named Andrew Ferguson as chair of the Federal Trade Commission. Ferguson is already one of the five members of the Commission, but now, assuming he's confirmed (and he will be), he'll be calling the shots. He will replace Lina Khan, who was perhaps the leftiest member of the Biden administration. Needless to say, the switch will certainly mean less resistance to corporate mergers and less enforcement of consumer protections. This is good news if you're someone like... Elon Musk (more below).
  
  
• Bring on the Nepotism (Again): For the second time, Donald Trump has selected a relative to serve as an ambassador. Previously announced was Charles Kushner, father of Jared/father-in-law of Ivanka and convicted felon, who will lead the U.S. mission to France. Now joining the list is Kimberly Guilfoyle, fiancée of Donald Jr., who will lead the U.S. mission to Greece. Trump will also employ Massad Boulos, father-in-law to Tiffany, to serve as an advisor.
  
  
• Bring on the Nepotism (Again), Part II: It would seem that Trump daughter-in-law Lara, late of the Republican National Committee, is definitely a candidate to replace Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL). According to The Wall Street Journal, the President-elect is lobbying Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-FL) to make her the pick. We assume that this is all political theater, designed to make all of this look like a legitimate, considered process as opposed to a quid pro quo wherein DeSantis becomes the fallback SecDef nominee if Pete Hegseth fails.
  
  
• Matt Who?: Matt Gaetz, fresh off his failed AG bid, has lined up a new gig. He's going to host his own show on OAN. That seems a step down from "Attorney General" or "member of Congress." In fact, it seems like a step down from "Subway sandwich artist." In any case, we are sure that the network's viewers will enjoy his show enormously. Both of them.
  
  
• Kari Who?: Kari Lake has struck out again. After being floated as the likely pick for ambassador to Mexico, she's been passed over for Ronald Johnson. No, not Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI), but Ronald Johnson, a former Green Beret and 20-year CIA staffer who also served as U.S. Ambassador to El Salvador. In other words, Donald Trump pivoted from someone who is utterly unqualified in Lake to someone who's actually got the résumé for the job. Who knows what Lake will do now? Maybe OAN is still hiring.

And that's the news. You stay classy, San Diego. (Z)

Today's Shady Behavior

The second Trump administration is negative days old, and yet already the scandals are piling up. The big news that broke yesterday is that during the first Trump administration, the Department of Justice used its many powers to acquire phone records and text messages belonging to two members of Congress (Adam Schiff and Eric Swalwell) and 43 congressional staffers (among them Kash Patel). The purpose here was to try to identify who was responsible for leaking information.

The information-gathering was not illegal, per se, since then-AG Bill Barr signed off on the subpoenas, which were then approved by a judge. However, a new inspector general report released yesterday makes clear that Barr did not follow proper procedures—in particular, he did not consult a committee that was supposed to review such decisions. Further, the subpoenas served to cross what is supposed to be a bright-red line, politicizing the DoJ.

Nothing is going to come of this, of course, as none of the people involved will be punished in any way for their unethical behavior. However, it does serve as a reminder of two things, as everyone prepares for the advent of Trump v2.0. First, Trump and his underlings have no compunctions about abusing the powers of government in ways that would make even Richard Nixon blush.

Second, the first Trump administration leaked like a sieve, and the second one will surely be just as leaky. It's a den of thieves (or a pit of vipers, if you prefer), and everyone is looking to stab everyone else in the back, in hopes of moving up the ranks. The more aggressive the (presumably) Pam Bondi-led DoJ is about going after leakers, the cleverer the leakers will be about covering their tracks. We suspect that Washington businesses are about to commence a thriving business in burner phones. (Z)

Americans Want Socialized Medicine

The ills of the American healthcare system are a hot topic at the moment, for obvious reasons. Earlier this week, Gallup released a poll on the subject (one that we have no doubt was commenced before the killing of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson). The results are... very interesting.

To start, 62% of respondents said that it's the government's responsibility to provide healthcare to all Americans, as compared to 36% who said it's not the government's job. That's +26 for "government's job." This is not the highest number ever recorded, but it's the highest number in the past decade. On a related note, approval for Obamacare is at 54% (as compared to 38% opposed). That is effectively the highest it's ever been, essentially equaling the 55% approval/39% disapproval from April 2017.

This said, opinions on healthcare remain sharply divided by political affiliation. While 90% of Democrats and 65% of independents think that guaranteeing healthcare is the government's job, only 32% of Republicans feel that way. The Obamacare numbers are also powered by Democrats (71% like it) and independents (47% like it). Even though many Republicans have gotten insurance via the Obamacare exchanges, only 21% approve of the program.

What it boils down to, we would say, is that there is an opportunity for the incoming Republican trifecta, should the red team choose to seize it. Obviously, because of the Thompson killing, everyone knows that anger at the healthcare system is a bipartisan sentiment. This weekend, we observed that it was once the case that only Nixon could go to China, and it is now the case that there are certain issues on which Republicans have built-in political cover. Surely, healthcare is one of those. If Democrats try to expand Medicare or Medicaid, or to make any other changes like that, right-wingers will scream bloody murder about "socialism" and "socialized medicine." But if Republicans do it, there will be far less blowback, and the Party could consolidate its support among some independents.

That said, we are not holding our breath. Indeed, yesterday a group of 19 red-state attorneys general won a lawsuit that will allow their states to deny insurance coverage to Dreamers. Their argument, which was accepted by Donald Trump-appointed judge Dan Traynor, was that federal law prohibits giving benefits to people who are not citizens. So, they are allowed to defy a Biden-era executive order requiring that such benefits be extended. Blue states will continue to follow the Biden directive.

We must concede that, as much as we are wizened veteran watchers of American politics, things like this continue to confound us, for at least four reasons. To wit:

1. We continue to naively believe that people who claim to be followers of Jesus will have read the Bible and embraced the message of Jesus' ministry. Admittedly, our copy of the Bible is not the King Donald version printed in China, but we feel pretty confident that "charity for white people, but not for brown people" runs contrary to His message.
   
   
2. Per the terms of federal law, people must be treated for emergency conditions, regardless of ability to pay. Is it not better to have folks paying into the system, at least some? And, for that matter, to be preemptively treating emergent concerns, so as to prevent them from becoming emergencies (and, thus, much more expensive)?
   
   
3. Germs do not check citizenship status. If you create an underclass of people without access to medical care, you are creating the preconditions for an epidemic or a pandemic.
   
   
4. Republicans are pleased as punch about their gains among Latino voters this cycle. Don't they want to try to lock some of that in? We know the Dreamers can't vote, but many of them have friends and family members who can.

We didn't expect to be writing this much about healthcare this week, but that's how things go sometimes. (Z)

Here Come De Judges? Not So Fast

There has not been a substantive expansion of the federal judiciary since 1990. There are a lot more people in the country now than there were then, not to mention a lot more laws. So, the same basic number of judges is handling a much, much greater caseload than was the case 35 years ago. This, in turn, means that the federal courts operate at the speed of molasses (maple syrup for our Canadian readers, eh), and it can easily take half a decade or more to adjudicate a case to completion.

Everyone knows that more federal judges are needed, but surely anyone who reads this site can guess what the holdup is. Because new judgeships are not primarily a budgetary matter, a "new judge" bill cannot be passed via reconciliation. That, in turn, means that a "new judge" bill can be filibustered. And anytime such a bill comes before the Senate, the party that does not control the White House either refuses to bring it up for a vote (if they are in the majority) or filibusters it (if they are in the minority). The purpose here is to avoid handing the other party a whole bunch of empty seats to fill with partisan appointees.

The de facto impact of such maneuvering is that Congress is presented one, or maybe two, windows each decade in which it might actually act on the need for more judges. Basically, in the month or so before an election that is expected to be close, there is some hope of approving a bunch of new judges. This is because, at that time, neither party knows who will control the White House when it comes time to appoint the new judges, and thus who will get the bag full of goodies from Santa.

This time around, Sen. Todd Young (R-IN) put together a bill called the JUDGES Act of 2024. Even by the standards of modern bill names, the acronym is tortured: "The Judicial Understaffing Delays Getting Emergencies Solved Act of 2024." In any case, the legislation would add 22 judges in 2025, in 2027 and in 2029. So, the incoming president and 119th Senate would get 22, the incoming president and the 120th Senate would get 22, and the next president and 121st Senate would get 22.

The bill passed the Senate unanimously. House Democrats were more than willing to take it up, but Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) never brought it to the floor. This gives a pretty good clue as to how he, and the House Republican Conference, were feeling about Donald Trump's chances in the weeks leading up to the election.

Now that the election is over, the House Republican Conference is eager to consider the legislation. However, House Democrats say "no dice." And even if Johnson brings up the bill and rams it through, Joe Biden announced yesterday that he would veto it. Beyond the fact that he's not going to participate if Republicans refuse to play fair, he makes the point that a lot of the new judgeships would be in states that already have vacancies due to GOP stonewalling. In a statement, Biden observed, quite reasonably, that "Those efforts to hold open vacancies suggest that concerns about judicial economy and caseload are not the true motivating force behind passage of this bill now."

There is zero chance that a Biden veto would be overridden. Indeed, it's hard to imagine that outgoing Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) would even bring the matter up for a vote. That means that if Republicans really want those new judges, they will have to wait until January, and then they'll have to kill the filibuster. They might do it, but if so, it would be an engraved invitation to the Democrats to pass their own JUDGES Act, one that remakes the Supreme Court, the next time the blue team has the trifecta. You never know, but we would guess the GOP is not interested in playing with that kind of fire. What might work is a bill that creates new judgeships starting Feb. 1, 2029 and spacing them out over multiple years. Nobody knows now who will be president on Feb. 1, 2029, so it could work. But for most politicians, long-term thinking extends to, say, Friday. (Z)

Beshear Chosen to Lead Democratic Governors Association

We missed this story over the weekend—that's what we get for celebrating Pearl Harbor day with the staff mathematician. In any event, thanks to reader R.H. in San Antonio, TX, for the heads-up that Gov. Andy Beshear (D-KY) was chosen to be the next chair of the Democratic Governors Association.

You presumably don't need us to tell you that this is one of those jobs that is often a launching pad for bigger and better things, particularly for someone whose party is out of power in Washington. By virtue of his new post, Beshear will become one of several de facto spokespeople for the Democratic Party, and so his media visibility will increase a lot. Further, the leader of the DGA is primarily responsible for networking and fundraising, so he's going to be able to connect with important Democrats across the country—the kind of people whose support he needs for a presidential or U.S. Senate bid. Also, you don't get elected to this post unless your fellow Democrats think well of you, and suspect you'll be a good "face" of the Party.

Among the DGA leaders who have gone on to bigger things after their time as chair are 26 U.S. Senators, most recently John Hickenlooper (CO), Maggie Hassan (NH), Tim Kaine (VA), Joe Manchin (WV) and Mark Warner (VA). Two of the last three VP nominees, Kaine and Tim Walz, held the post. And two DGA chairs, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, went on to become president. Obviously, there are no sure things in politics, but this is certainly a feather in Beshear's cap. Oh, and in case you are wondering, Govs. Gretchen Whitmer (D-MI) and Gavin Newsom (D-CA) have never led the DGA. In fact, a Californian has only been chosen one time (Gray Davis in 2001), undoubtedly because they don't want the DGA to be TOO awesome.

We suspect Beshear will occasionally remind the donors he talks to that Democrats have a pretty good track record running young Southern governors for president (Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton). They can win red states. Right now the big question for Beshear is whether he will run for the Senate in 2026 if Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) retires then. (Z)

Cue the Musky Odor

We've been planning this for a while, and today the day has arrived. Regular reader A.R. in Los Angeles is being promoted to "regular contributor." Let's let her introduce herself (note that this contains references to our site bios):

Alison Regan is a not-so-mild-mannered resident of Los Angeles who serves as General Counsel for a local municipal agency. She has worked as an adjunct professor at UCLA School of Law, teaching trial advocacy and pre-trial litigation. Her early career was as a trial lawyer practicing in the area of employment discrimination. Probably her most important qualification, besides her legal practice, is her term as president of a local neighborhood council. Once you've survived that cauldron of pitchforks and torches, everything else is easy by comparison.

She advocates for fair and equitable legal processes, good and ethical governance, and an independent and impartial judiciary as a check on political power. When not holding powerful people accountable, Alison loves to chase plastic as an avid ultimate frisbee player with the occasional triathlon thrown in for variety. Unlike (Z) and (V), she has no talent for photography or cooking, though she's handy at the piano during the holidays.

When she's acting as a normal reader—say, Sunday letters—Alison will keep her normal initials and city. When she's contributing, she'll be (L), for Belva Ann Bennett Lockwood (L). Lockwood ran for president of the U.S. in 1884 and 1888 as the candidate for the Equal Rights Party, and was the first woman attorney to be admitted to practice before the U.S. Supreme Court, having drafted the legislation that made it legal to do so.

(L)'s weekly contributions will be primarily in areas where we do not have expertise, and she does, like law, bureaucracy, and reproductive rights. It's going to take a few cycles for us to get everything in sync, so please be patient. That said, here is her first official contribution:

Co-president Elon Musk (whose livelihood depends on government contracts) and Vivek Ramaswamy (whose livelihood... hmmm, what does he do again?) are set to head up a Trump initiative—erroneously titled a "department"—on so-called government efficiency. It's safe to say that efficiency is not really the goal. The real goal is more subtle. Their latest idea is to eliminate the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, one of the few agencies that prevents American consumers from being ripped off by con men and grifters with enormous power and influence. The SEC is also reportedly on the chopping block. You see where we are heading?

The Bobs have already said the quiet part out loud about their mission: "Our opponent is the bureaucracy." That means that "efficiency" is just shorthand for reducing oversight and regulations that affect billionaires like Bob 1 (and his businesses) and increasing the tax dollars flowing to them. That's not how most define efficiency, but these billionaires have a penchant for manipulating language in a way that George Orwell would envy.

There are substantial direct benefits to Musk and his businesses from a hollowed-out bureaucracy. In 2015, The Los Angeles Times reported that Musk's Tesla empire separately benefited from $4.9 billion in government subsidies in various forms including grants, tax breaks, factory construction, discounted loans and Tesla buyer tax credits and rebates. SpaceX has signed federal contracts worth nearly $20 billion; in 2008, the $1.6 billion in taxpayer funds it received saved the company from bankruptcy. SpaceX just signed another $3 billion contract to design a vehicle to take astronauts to the moon. If Musk would just stop sucking at the government teat, that would save the government untold billions.

There are also indirect benefits. All of Musk's companies, including The Boring Company, Neuralink, X, and xAI have faced scrutiny from federal regulators, some of which have cited the companies for violations. Musk does not like this and wants it to stop. How does firing all the government employees who are going after him for violating laws and contracts sound? Peachy, no? It saves the taxpayers money! An AP report says "The incoming administration is seeded with Musk allies, including venture capitalist and former PayPal executive David Sacks serving as the 'White House A.I. and Crypto Czar' and Jared Isaacman, a tech billionaire who bought a series of spaceflights from Musk's SpaceX, named to lead NASA." He also wants to limit the oversight of SpaceX by the FAA and by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which is examining the environmental impact of its South Texas launch facility.

A recent article from the Harvard Business Review argues that the government should be more effective, not necessarily more efficient. A functioning bureaucracy that is legally insulated from politics (as it is now) protects and serves the public. Their work is critical to maintaining the checks and balances that form the foundation of our democracy. They work across administrations regardless of party because the laws they carry out carry over from one administration to the next. Those laws can't be ignored or bypassed by an administration wanting to concentrate power in the office of the president.

The bottom line is that the bureaucracy is one of the public's last lines of defense against a would-be authoritarian, and these overt attacks by those motivated by profit and power demonstrate just how critical it is to democracy's survival. Co-president Musk probably can't believe his luck that he has amassed this much power in the U.S. government without receiving a single vote. Nice work if you can get it. (L)

We won't actually indent future contributions like this; we just had to do it because of the intro text. Anyhow, look for the next one next Wednesday. And if you have subjects you would like to hear about, (L) is certainly happy to have suggestions. (Z)

Exit Paul Krugman

Paul Krugman is professor emeritus of economics at Princeton, author of 27 books and 200+ scholarly articles, a winner of the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences, and a contributor to The New York Times for a quarter of a century. Is he America's most famous living economist? Is he America's most famous living newspaper columnist? There's a pretty good case to be made that the answer to both questions is "yes."

As of Monday, however, his Times career is over. The end was rather sudden, and involved relatively little fanfare. The newspaper posted a brief press release to its corporate website, Krugman penned a farewell column, and that was pretty much it. This set of circumstances, along with the fact that Krugman says he's in good health and that he expects to continue writing elsewhere, naturally has people speculating that the separation was not amicable. But that's only speculation, as neither the Times nor Krugman is talking.

For the subject of his last Times column, Krugman decided to compare the hope that permeated the land when he started writing to the anger and resentment that is predominant today. His view is that the events of the last two decades—in particular, the lies that led to war in Iraq and the shady dealing that led to the financial meltdown in 2008—have caused people to become resentful of elites and "the system," and to follow anyone who says they will punish those elites and they will change the system (no matter how implausible those promises are). Krugman also argues that another dynamic going on is that elites are angry that they are now bad guys, and so many of them, like Elon Musk, are lashing out.

Krugman concludes that, as unpleasant as things might seem at the moment, he thinks there is reason for hope:

So is there a way out of the grim place we're in? What I believe is that while resentment can put bad people in power, in the long run it can't keep them there. At some point the public will realize that most politicians railing against elites actually are elites in every sense that matters and start to hold them accountable for their failure to deliver on their promises. And at that point the public may be willing to listen to people who don't try to argue from authority, don't make false promises, but do try to tell the truth as best they can.

We are on board with this sentiment; we've written numerous times that populist demagoguery is a short-term play, and is difficult to sustain long-term.

In any case, we did not always agree with Krugman, but we know what a highly successful career looks like. Congratulations to him on his quarter-century at the Times and good luck to him in terms of whatever comes next. (Z)

It's Beginning to Look a Lot Like Christmas, Day 7: Merry Christmas America, Part II

Reader T.B. in Powell, OH posed this question to readers: "Imagine you were going to give a Christmas gift to the United States. Specifically, a law, institution, initiative, civic structure, or like commodity imported from some other nation. What gift would you bestow?"

And now, another half-dozen answers:

• P.R. in Arvada, CO: My gift to the United States would be the gift of Standard Time. Imagine a world where the clocks never change, and we embrace the simplicity of Standard Time year-round. This gift to the U.S. would bring numerous benefits. First, it would eliminate the biannual disruption to our sleep patterns, promoting better health and well-being. It would also mean that no one has that one clock that is always wrong. Standard Time, in particular, aligns more closely with our natural circadian rhythms, ensuring that our bodies receive the right amount of daylight throughout the year. Unlike Daylight Saving Time, which can lead to darker mornings and disrupt our natural wake-up cues, Standard Time provides a more balanced distribution of daylight. This can improve mood, reduce the risk of seasonal affective disorder, and support overall mental health. By adopting Standard Time, we can foster a more harmonious and balanced lifestyle for everyone. For thousands of years people kept time where noon was determined by the sun being at the highest point in the sky. If they can do it, so can we.
  
  
• P.W. in Springwater, NY: Wow, I would be thrilled with any of the gifts your readers suggested yesterday, but your item on the "word of the year" led me to think about one reason the U.S. has become so polarized—the politicization of our Supreme Court. So, from Europe, I would propose a gift of an ideologically balanced Supreme Court. Given how much faith in our Supreme Court has declined, and how this is likely to decline even further if and when any of the current justices dies or resigns over the next 4 years, this seems like a timely and apropos gift. And as this article (published many years ago, but still relevant) points out, there are numerous ideas for gifting. These are some of my favorites:
  
  
  • Increasing the number of justices
  • Fixed terms rather than life appointments
  • A bipartisan selection process requiring more than 50+1 votes to confirm
  • Deciding cases through consensus, rather than majority rule
  • An enforceable code of ethics (not included in the article, but recent events have highlighted a real need for this...)
  
  If I found this under my tree, I'd definitely share!
  
  
• J.D. in Greensboro, NC: The gift I would give is The Onion taking over all the major cable news outlets. If we're going to be fed B.S. every day it might as well be funny B.S.
  
  
• M.H. in Sydney, NSW, Australia: Compulsory preferential (a.k.a. "ranked choice") voting. With love from Australia.
  
  
• J.C. in Thủ Dầu Một, Bình Dương, Vietnam: A return to the British Empire. Let's be honest. It appears that we now have the same government we strove to leave, and we've done such a hash job of it compared to the Motherland that we should just return like Newfoundland. I don't see how the last 200 years could have been any worse.
  
  
• G.G. in Horseheads, NY: The Canadian healthcare system. Or something that's single-payer, Medicare-for-All.

We'll be doing this question for a couple more days. If you care to weigh in, send your picks to comments@electoral-vote.com. And if you have a suggestion for what holiday-themed thing we should do next week, let us know. (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