The Sharks Are Circling

For one day, the news cycle was focused on the Supreme Court, and its unprecedented expansion of presidential immunity. Then, it was right back to Joe Biden's debate performance and his infirmity for office.

It is really... unbelievable how aggressively the various non-right-wing outlets are beating this particular drum. We got an e-mail from reader S.G. in Durham, NC, pointing out that the New York Times' op-ed page was wall-to-wall Biden bashing. We took a look, and then visited Slate and found much the same. And then Politico, and then The Hill...

We decided to edit together screen captures of front pages from all four sites. The Hill is at the top, Politico is center, left column. The NYT is center, right column. And Slate is on the bottom. We also highlighted Biden must go stories in blue, and Trump must go stories in red:

In case you don't want to count, it's 22 Biden must go stories, as compared to one Trump must go story.

At this point, let us remind you of three things:

1. Donald Trump also gave meandering, unfocused answers at the debate
   
   
2. While Biden's answers were halting/disorganized, some of Trump's were scary
   
   
3. The Supreme Court just issued a ruling that could be interpreted as "anything goes if you're president."

It appears painfully obvious, at least to us, that Trump's performance was more disqualifying than Biden's. Alternatively, calling for both Trump AND Biden to go seems a reasonable response, but we could only find one of those. The Rupert Murdoch-owned Wall Street Journal had an op-ed headlined "Biden Should Withdraw, And So Should Trump."

But this business of piling on Biden, and letting Trump skate? We just don't get it. Is it clickbait? Bothsidesism? Left-leaning people acting on their emotional impulses? Trump's venality being so baked in that it's not even newsworthy at this point? All of the above? Something else? If we were the editor of one of those publications, at some point we'd say, "OK, maybe we've gone a little over the top with this; let's pare it back." It's just hard to take seriously a publication that has the same basic story five and six and seven times, with little counterbalance in the form of "Trump was bad, too" or in the form of "Dumping Biden isn't the slam dunk it might seem."

That said, and as we noted in our extensive piece on Saturday, Biden does not take his cues from the media. He does care about Democratic politicians, however, and there have been some cracks on that front. As you can see in the image above, if you look closely, Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D-TX) has become the first Democratic member of Congress to call for Biden to step aside. In addition, key Biden allies, including Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Jim Clyburn (D-SC) have shown slight indications of doubt. They're not hopping off the S.S. Biden yet, but they're not giving the Full Sherman when it comes to supporting the president, either. On the other hand, the Democratic politician who matters most, namely Barack Obama, is still in Full Sherman mode, and is backing Biden 100%.

The other thing Biden will heed, and we noted this on Saturday as well, is polls. There have been a lot of polls since the debate, and while we could discuss them individually, that would get very dry. So, we're going to talk about general themes, instead. And the first of those is that the polls generally say that Biden's support has slipped a bit, anywhere from 1 to 4 points. Do keep in mind that you can't really be certain that the trajectory of the race has changed until about 2 weeks have passed. Until then, any shifts could just be a dead cat bounce. Or, in this case, a dead cat drop, we suppose.

Another theme is that significant majorities of voters, and slight majorities of Democrats (in most polls) think Biden is too old to be president and/or that he won't be able to handle another 4 years in office. Consistent with this, a clear majority of voters overall, and again a slight majority of Democrats, want to see Biden step aside. Note that there are polls that are exceptions to this; for example, in the latest from Reuters/Ipsos, 33% of Democrats, and not a majority, said Biden should step aside. Again, we're just describing what is generally true of all these polls.

The third theme, and the rub, as it were, is this: As is usually the case, "generic Democrat" is more popular than any specific Democrat. That is to say, you can't replace somebody with nobody, and once pollsters move from "should Biden be replaced?" to "should Biden be replaced by [X]," then the numbers get much more murky. In fact, even in this still-emotion-driven post-debate window, he is outpolling (or tied with) all Democrats, save one.

That one, of course, is Michelle Obama. In that same Reuters/Ipsos poll, the various Democrat-Trump matchups polled as follows:

• Biden 40%, Trump 40%
• Michelle Obama 50%, Trump 39%
• Kamala Harris 42%, Trump 43%
• Gov. Gavin Newsom (D-CA) 39%, Trump 42%
• Gov. Gretchen Whitmer (D-MI) 36%, Trump 41%
• Gov. Andy Beshear (D-KY) 36%, Trump 40%
• Gov. J.B. Pritzker (D-IL) 34%, Trump 40%

Undoubtedly, that Obama result has many Democratic voters dreaming of a switch to the former first lady. However, we are going to have to rain on that parade a little. First, as we've noted many times, she does not want to run. Second, if she did run, there would be a couple of potentially big X-factors, namely how well voters would respond to the notion of an Obama dynasty, and also how voters would respond to the long-peddled right-wing conspiracy theory that Obama was going to be the candidate all along. Third, and finally, it's only some polls that show Obama outpacing Biden by a bunch. Others have her in a statistical tie with him.

We'll say one last thing, at least for now, on the subject of replacing Biden. It is entirely possible that any of these folks could grow their support if they took over for Biden as the Democratic candidate. But it's a real crapshoot. They could screw up once the spotlight is on them. They could have liabilities that are not currently known. And even if those things don't come to pass, it's a very bad look for a party to change candidates mid-stream like this. It suggests a party in disarray, that does not know what the heck it's doing. That's why a mid-campaign switcheroo has never worked. And if such a switch does make the Party look bad, it could cost the Democrats more than just the presidency.

We remain persuaded that the overwhelming likelihood (90%+) is that Biden stays in the race. He's only getting out if the polls turn decisively against him, and the Democratic leadership does as well (two events that would certainly correlate with each other, if they came to pass). And time is a variable here; the later that Biden drops out, the worse the damage would be.

If you look closely again at the image above, you can see that Biden's team is doing a bunch of things to try to put out the fire. He's apologized again, and said that in addition to being ill, he was fatigued from international travel. He's meeting with governors, and he's calling members of Congress, and things like that. Also, the canceled meeting with Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu is back on. You think someone in the White House believes that might change the narrative, perhaps?

All of this is good and well, but what the President really needs to do is appear on camera, in situations where there is no script and there is no teleprompter. That's the only thing that will convince people (not all of them, but some) that the debate fiasco was an anomaly. Team Biden knows this, and has scheduled an interview with George Stephanopoulos. Excerpts will air on Friday, and the full interview will air on Sunday. We will be watching with great interest. (Z)

Trump Legal News: Maybe September

The Supreme Court's new definition of presidential immunity has raised questions in all of Donald Trump's criminal cases, including the one in which he was already convicted. As a result, Judge Juan Merchan has decided not to sentence Trump this month, as planned, and instead has moved the sentencing date to September 19.

Most of the stories that we saw about this news framed it as a victory for Trump, because the delay means he won't be doing jail time, or suffering any other penalty, before the election. Sure, but that was always the case. As such, it was an easy call for Merchan to wait until he's had a chance to look at Trump's dubious claims that he was covered by presidential immunity. Even the D.A. agreed that a delay was for the best. With all the appeals that Trump will undertake, actual punishment is surely a year or more away, and would be post-election, delay or no.

Indeed, from where we sit—and maybe we're missing something here—this news is pretty disastrous for Trump. True, Joe Biden doesn't get the benefit of a big distraction from his current woes. And true, it means that Trump won't be sentenced days before the Republican National Convention. But it does mean he'll be sentenced about 6 weeks before the actual election. That means lots of headlines at just the time when non-political-junkie voters are paying attention.

The obvious parallel here is James Comey's announcement about Hillary Clinton's e-mails on Oct. 28, 2016. And remember, he didn't actually find anything, and she was never convicted of a crime. So, even if Trump is not sentenced (possible), or even if his sentence is overturned (not very likely), it will still be a gaggle of Trump-the-criminal stories. Maybe 6 weeks will be enough for the effect to subside, as opposed to the 11 days that Clinton had. But we tend to doubt it. (Z)

Giuliani Disbarred

Donald Trump may be pretty good at avoiding consequences for his actions—$500 million in judgments and 34 felony convictions notwithstanding—but his acolytes aren't. Yesterday, Trump crony and America's Former Mayor Rudy Giuliani was disbarred in New York.

What a mess Giuliani's life has become. He can no longer practice law in New York, and he's on the cusp of being disbarred in Washington, DC. He faces criminal charges in two different states. He's got a couple of mega-sized civil suits pending against him. He owes a $148 million dollar judgment, has gone bankrupt due to his inability to pay that and other liabilities, and is about to lose control of his assets to a bankruptcy trustee. He's also been fired from several high-paying media gigs. And there is nothing in this entire paragraph that is not a direct byproduct of Giuliani's association with Trump.

As long as we're on the general subject, Steve Bannon did indeed report on Monday to begin his 4-month prison sentence. He tried to have a press conference before surrendering, at which he blathered about how "this thing" is bigger than him, and that the populist Trump army is on the march. Unfortunately for him, he was largely drowned out by anti-Trump protesters and/or Bannon mockers.

Bannon got lucky and drew FCI Danbury, which is a low-security "Club Fed" type prison. The good news for him is that he won't share space with violent criminals, he will be allowed to send e-mails and make phone calls, and the commissary has both graham crackers AND Oreos (according to the AP). The bad news is that the e-mails can't have attachments, and monthly phone time is strictly limited. So, there's not going to be a contraband "Bannon from prison" podcast while he's in the joint. Since he gets out November 1, he'll therefore be sidelined for most of the campaign. (Z)

Brian Kemp Is Trying to Have It Both Ways...

This is a story that was on tap for last week, but then bigger news pushed it aside. Gov. Brian Kemp (R-GA) sat for an interview with CNN, and talked about his presidential primary vote. Or, really, his non-vote. He proudly declared that he did not vote for Donald Trump, and then said... he didn't actually vote for anyone, and that he would nonetheless be voting for Trump in the general election. Here are his exact words, if you want a case study in bloviating:

I mean it would be interesting if I had've voted for him, it would be interesting if I didn't, it would be interesting if I didn't vote at all. But the bottom line, it doesn't really matter. I mean, he was the presumptive nominee before the primary ever got here. I mean, I didn't support anybody in the race. I mean, I was thinking about it, but just 'cause a lot of circumstances and the way things played out, didn't end up doing that, but said all along for the most part that I would support the ticket, and that's what I've always done, that's what I'm doing this November.

Add another one to the list of people who will not be appearing in a future edition of Profiles in Courage.

Kemp's revelation, such as it is, tells you two things. The first is that Kemp is absolutely going to be looking to move to Washington in the near future. Maybe he will run for the U.S. Senate, maybe he will run for president, maybe both. The second is that his crystal ball is murky, and he can't tell what the status of Trumpism will be in 2 or 4 years. So, he's setting himself up to claim membership in the never Trump resistance, but also in the Trump movement.

We suppose that might fly in a statewide election, since Georgia has a complicated relationship with Trump, and since Kemp is well-known and is reasonably popular statewide. But if he decides to run a national campaign for president? In that case, this mealymouthed, spineless, Lindsey-Graham-style crap won't get it done. As long as Trump leads the party, a person has to be 100% on board if they hope to succeed him, when that day comes. And once the Trumpist spell is broken, it will be by someone who was not willing to touch him with a 10-foot pole. But this middle-of-the-road stuff didn't work for Nikki Haley, and it didn't work for Mike Pence, and it's not going to work for Brian Kemp. (Z)

...So Is Joe Manchin

Right around the time that Brian Kemp was sharing the details of his "brave" stance on Donald Trump, Sen. Joe Manchin (I-WV) was reminding everyone that he, too, is a politician who likes to talk out of both sides of his mouth. He wrote an op-ed last week in which he diagnosed what ails the U.S. political system:

Throughout my time in the US Senate, I have always tried to bring everyone to the negotiating table—such as in passing the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, the Electoral Reform Act and common-sense gun-safety legislation—no matter their political beliefs to find common-sense solutions to America's greatest challenges, including our soaring national debt, the high cost of living for families across the country and the crisis at our southern border.

But it's become clear after my 14 years in Washington, DC, that our national politics are broken and both parties are finding it more difficult to compromise and find any common ground. It's not just me who sees this as a problem: According to a 2023 Pew Research Center survey, 86% of Americans agreed that "Republicans and Democrats are more focused on fighting each other than on solving problems" is a "good description" of our political system.

This is bothsidesism at its worst, since Manchin is strongly implying that both parties are equally responsible for the gridlock in Congress. It's not 100% on the Republicans, but certainly the lion's share of the responsibility lies with the GOP, and has since the days of Newt Gingrich. Manchin has been in Congress for 14 years, and knows this full well, even if he pretends otherwise.

The purpose of the op-ed, apparently, was to goose fundraising for Manchin's Country Roads PAC. He announced that while his PAC previously had given money mostly to Democrats, he would now be giving to Democrats, Republicans and independents at all levels of government who are committed to working across the aisle to get stuff done. For the moment, he's sending some cash to Sen. Angus King (I-ME), Rep. Jared Golden (D-ME) and Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA).

We know what Kemp's game is (see above). We still don't understand what Manchin is doing. If he's planning to extend his political career, he's running out of time to make that decision, since the deadlines for an independent run for governor or U.S. Senate are nigh upon us. And if he doesn't jump in this year, his next opportunity, if he took it, would likely require him to unseat a fairly popular incumbent in Sen. Shelly Moore Capito (R-WV).

Maybe he's done with politics, but he isn't done with being in the spotlight, and wants to make sure he continues to get attention for the foreseeable future. Or maybe he sees a lucrative opportunity as the salaried leader of the Country Roads PAC. He's always kept an eye on his own bottom line, so it wouldn't surprise us. (Z)

You Can't Spell Al Michaels without "A.I."

This is not directly related to politics, but we have, of course, been keeping a close eye on developments in A.I. technology, specifically as they facilitate the creation of plausible political fakes—fake images, fake audio recordings, fake video footage.

During this year's Olympics, NBC will conquer yet another frontier with their daily recaps of each day's action. This is a job that is generally done by some senior, well-established personality, like Bob Costas or Mike Tirico. And it will be done by a senior, well-established personality this year. Or, at least it will sound that way. The network has contracted with an A.I. firm to fake the voice of famed announcer Al Michaels (with Michaels' approval), and will use the fake Al voice to narrate the real highlights.

Mind you, there is no NEED for this. Michaels is still capable of doing highlights the "old-fashioned" way, and if he's not, NBC has plenty of other people on staff. The network is going for a two-fer here. First, they are going to drum up some interest among people who will tune in to see how good the Al Michaels software really is. Second, the network dreams of a day when they can replace many of the (expensive) human announcers with (cheap) A.I. announcers, and this will be a nice little test run.

And actually, there is a direct political angle to this story. Back when the status of Joe Biden on the Ohio ballot was up in the air, we were somewhat critical of the Democrats for scheduling their convention so late in the summer, and thus creating this issue in the first place. What we forgot was that the Olympics run from July 26 to August 11. So, unless the DNC wanted to compete with the Olympics (bad idea), then they had to wait until mid-August. Note that this is the basic situation in all presidential years, which means that it really is time for Ohio, Alabama, Washington, et al. to change their stupid laws. (Z)

Britons Are About to Rain on Sunak's Parade

Rishi Sunak lasted close to 2 years as prime minister. Or, if you prefer, he was good for 56.3 Scaramuccis, or 12.5 Trusses. But the jig is up. After more than a decade of Conservative rule, the people of the United Kingdom are eager for change. They will head to the polls tomorrow and will make Labour's Sir Keir Starmer the new PM. There is a very good chance that he will outlast a head of lettuce.

Our three regular British correspondents have provided a thorough overview of the things you should know if you want to follow and understand the election. First up, G.S. in Basingstoke, England, UK, on the General Election campaign:

American readers of this site will, of course, be familiar with the train wreck that was the first 15 minutes of the presidential debate last week. U.K. political watchers, however, have watched effectively the same thing unfold in slow time over the last 6 weeks; specifically, Rishi Sunak and the Conservative Party's attempts to hang onto power with their general election campaign.

Where to start? Well, the Prime Minister elected, in common with all the party leaders and multiple foreign heads of state, to travel to France for the D-Day commemorations early in June. Nothing wrong with that, of course. What provoked absolute fury and ridicule, however, was his decision to leave said commemorations early to conduct an interview with a national news channel. Veterans were furious, opponents gleeful, about his lack of judgment, and we had our first seminal photo of the campaign, with the President of the United States, Chancellor of Germany, the President of France together with the er.... UK Foreign Secretary:



Not content with this blunder, the PM then sat for an interview attempting to portray him as a "man of the people." A reminder: Sunak is a multimillionaire, with his wife well on her way to being a billionairess. When pressed on the ostensible hardship of his childhood and what he had "gone without", Sunak revealed that he had been deprived of—no, REALLY—a Sky TV subscription so that... he could be sent to one of the poshest private schools in England, Winchester, where the PER-TERM (not yearly!) fees approach $20,000. Given the 94% increase in food bank usage in the U.K. over the last 5 years, this revelation just might have shown something of a tin ear.

Eager to get in on the act, Sunak's advisors then gave him another headache. It was revealed that (and the intimation here is that the protagonists have inside information) a number of Sunak's aides and other Party members had made (successful) bets on the timing of the general election. Sunak was visibly furious and said anyone guilty would be thrown out of the Party, but opposition members were keen to point out that the "investigation" will not be completed until after that date and so is effectively rendered moot. The Conservatives subsequently suspended the two candidates caught up in the scandal anyway, but they remain listed as "Conservative" on the ballot, and the suspension begged the question of why Sunak hadn't acted more directly when the allegations first surfaced, if he was as angry as he claimed.

When not pressing the self-destruct button, the Tories have been launching all kinds of easily falsifiable claims about the aspirant Labour party. To take one example, they claimed Britons' taxes would go up by £2000 per household per year. Ouch! Now this is true... but only if all households pay the same level of tax (they don't) and only if you count the tax bill over the ENTIRETY of the next Parliament—so 5 years, not 1, as the claim seemed to imply. Secondly, the Tories have been attacking Labour over taxing pensions—a tax which would be avoided if the tax thresholds (the point at which you don't pay tax) had risen in accordance with inflation. As Prime Minister and Chancellor of the Exchequer, Rishi Sunak might just have had something to do with those tax thresholds in the past. Hypocritical, much?

We get to this week, and the Tories are now in full defense mode. The even-more-right-wing-than-the Tories "Reform" Party are polling at parity or even ahead of the Conservatives; Tory MPs are openly warning about the consequences of a Labour supermajority and the loyal Tory newspapers carry pretty much the same warning. Jacob Rees-Mogg, Honourable Member for the 18th Century, who is in very real danger of losing his seat, issued forth today that "I'd want to build a wall in the English Channel" (and you thought the Rio Grande was going to be tough terrain). Sir Keir Starmer, the aspirant PM is, true to form, treading very carefully, warning constantly that change will only come if we vote for it. We go to the polls tomorrow, and shall see on Friday morning whether he is right.

Next, S.T. in Worcestershire, England, UK, outlines how events will likely unfold tomorrow and Friday morning (all times British Summer Time, so EDT +5):

At 7:00 a.m. tomorrow morning, thousands of polling stations across the 650 parliamentary constituencies in the U.K. will open for voting in the 2024 General Election. At that point millions will have already voted. Any elector in the U.K. can claim a postal or proxy vote, no questions asked, if they submit a request by set deadlines. Much of Election Day itself is oddly quiet due to legal limits on reporting. We can expect films of prominent politicians going to vote, pictures of unusual or quirky polling stations, and cute animals outside them. There will probably be rumors of high turnout, which almost invariably prove incorrect. More concerning is the new requirement for in-person voters to bring ID documents with them. This is frankly an unwelcome and unnecessary import from the States which may yet cause problems on the day.

At 10:00 p.m. the polls will close. Shortly after, the main U.K. broadcasters will issue details of a joint exit poll which has been carried out throughout the day. In three of the last four elections, this has proved remarkably accurate, and it was not THAT far off in 2015, either. This time it may prove more difficult due the expected sharp fall in the Conservative vote, a larger than normal number of seats appearing to be heading for tight finishes, and the result of major boundary changes. The latter vary from "nip and tuck" all the way to wholesale dismemberment of previous seats and the creation of new ones in areas of population growth. Less than 100 constituencies are completely unchanged. As results are only ever published at constituency level, it is hard to establish the base line for the revised seats. Most of the U.K. media will use the estimates produced by Professors Thrasher and Rallings who have had a decent track record in this area after previous boundary changes.

By now the vote counting all by hand—no voting machines in the U.K.—will be underway. Readers wanting to follow the results as they come in are probably best served by the BBC or Guardian websites, neither of which have paywalls. A list of the estimated time of each declaration, which is inevitably an approximation and often subject to delay, is here.

Several of the earliest declarations are usually in the northeast of England. Sunderland prides itself on rapid counts. These seats, mostly held by Labour, are, however, a weak guide to the national picture, often having lower than average swings.

The first drama of the night (estimated declaration 12:15 a.m.) may improbably happen in the Essex seat of Basildon and Billericay, 30 miles east of London. The retiring Conservative MP notched up a majority of over 20,000 in 2019. The local party waited several months for a letter from party HQ listing the authorized candidates they could select a replacement from. When the list turned up, several days after the election was called, it consisted of one name: Party Chairman Richard Holden MP. Holden won one of the "Red Wall" seats in northern England, traditionally Labour constituencies, in 2019. Unfortunately it was one of those dismembered in the boundary changes. Nevertheless his transfer to another seat over 250 miles away, which he has no link with, and the manner of his "selection" has gone down badly with locals and the seat now appears to be a 3 way marginal with Labour and the right-wing-populist Reform party in contention.

The first conventional Conservative/Labour marginal to declare may be Swindon South (12:30), 80 miles west of London. Former minister Rob Buckland, a Conservative, has a majority of circa 5,000 and looks very vulnerable.

In Scotland the battlefield is different, with the main protagonists being the Scottish National Party and Labour. The fight will be particularly intense in Glasgow and its surrounding urban sprawl. The first Scottish declaration (1:00 a.m.) may be Rutherglen, just south of Glasgow, which has already changed hands between the SNP and Labour 4 times in 9 years! It will be the first indication of how that fight will pan out.

The first London seats to declare may be Putney and Tooting (1:30 a.m.). Putney was Labour's sole gain anywhere in 2019. With polls suggesting Labour lead the Conservatives by over 30% in London, the Conservatives may be struggling to hold even 10 of the capital's 75 seats.

Swindon North follows its twin (1:45 a.m.). It has a far larger Conservative majority, circa 14,000. If Labour take this, they are winning big. At around the same time the first Conservative seat being targeted by the Liberal Democrats, Harrogate and Knaresborough, also declares.

2:00 a.m. is due to see a clutch of seats declare. Darlington and Redcar are two "Red Wall" seats in the north east, both with Conservative majorities around 4,500. Both easy pickings for Labour? In the West Midlands, Cannock Chase and Warwickshire North are seats held by Labour from 1997-2010, which have both swung heavily to the Conservatives since (majorities of 18,000 and 20,000). If they fall, as some MRP polls suggest, Labour is heading towards landslide territory. Vale of Glamorgan is a rare "bellwether" seat in South Wales, with a sickly Conservative majority of circa 2,500. Wales may become a Conservative-free zone before the night is out. Torbay in southwest England is a long shot Lib-Dem target. Their ability to win seats from the Conservatives in this region will depend crucially on Labour voters being willing to vote tactically.

After a brief lull, the floodgates open at around 3:00 am with nearly two-thirds of all declarations probably in the next 150 minutes, including your UK correspondents' seats at Lichfield (3:00), Wyre Forest (3:30) and Basingstoke (4:00). Two results stand out. In a new seat, south of London, Godalming and Ash, (3:30) Finance Minister Jeremy Hunt is, despite an estimated 10,000 majority, at great risk of losing to the Lib Dems. If that does happen, it will be the first time a serving Chancellor of the Exchequer has lost his seat in a General Election since at least the 19th century. And in the Essex seat of Clacton (4:00), Reform Party leader—and friend of Donald Trump—Nigel Farage will be making his eighth attempt to be elected an MP, after seven misses.

By 5:30 am, possibly much earlier, if the polls are correct, Labour may have secured the 326 seats to give them a majority in the House of Commons, in which case the U.K. will have a new government. If things go really badly for the Conservatives, one last seat to watch out for—a late declaration—may be Norfolk South West. The defending Conservative MP there got 68.7% of the vote back in 2019. Since then her popularity has diminished somewhat. She is Liz Truss.

Thanks, S.T. and G.S.! Tomorrow, we will have a piece from our third British correspondent, A.B. in Lichfield, discussing the floors and ceilings for the various parties, and then later in the week we'll have the actual results. (Z)

Today's Presidential Polls

A must-win state for both candidates is a coin flip. Of course, the poll was conducted before the debate. (Z)

State	Joe Biden	Donald Trump	Start	End	Pollster
Pennsylvania	45%	44%	Jun 06	Jun 19	Commonwealth Foundation

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