Maybe There Is Progress Toward Ending the Iran War

Axios is reporting a scoop that a one-page memorandum of understanding agreed to by the U.S. and Iran may be close. Among other provisions, Iran would "agree" to a moratorium on nuclear enrichment (but wouldn't give up the enriched uranium it has now) and the U.S. would agree to unfreeze billions of dollars in Iranian funds. Both sides would then remove all restrictions on transit through the Strait of Hormuz.

If this report is true, and if it is ultimately signed by both sides, we would be back to the status quo ante except that Iran would get all its frozen funds back and the U.S. would get a vague promise (that Iran probably has no intention of keeping) that Iran won't enrich any more uranium for some period of time. If this is indeed the deal, any objective observer would score it as "Iran won the war." It got back all its frozen funds in return for a promise it has no intention of honoring, while also learning valuable lessons about leveraging Hormuz and, as a bonus, causing the U.S. to waste tens of billions of dollars. Of course, Trump will tell his base that this was one of the greatest victories in all of history, greater than Marathon, Gaugamela, Hastings, and Agincourt combined. His base will swallow it whole, largely because they think Marathon is a foot race and they have never heard of the others.

So why would Trump accept what is basically a defeat? Because gas prices are going way up and with them, the Republicans' chances of holding the House and Senate are going way down. That's all he cares about. Well, actually, what he probably really cares about is his own approval rating, but that is being dragged down by the Iran War, too. Either way, and end to the war is about the only card he has left to play. So, if Trump turns tail and runs, you can't be too surprised. But again, this is all very preliminary. (V)

Vance Campaigned in Iowa Tuesday

Did we mention that the 2028 presidential race is up and running—even before the midterms? We forget. In any event, J.D. Vance clearly understands that he is no longer the favored child over at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, and has to work on it himself. He probably also knows that the only sitting vice president to be elected president since 1836 is George H.W. Bush in 1988, and that happened because Ronald Reagan was popular at the end of his term, so Bush could run as "Reagan's third term." That won't be the case in 2028, so Vance has to win the nomination on his own, possibly against Marco Rubio and maybe even against Don Jr.

So what is a presidential aspirant to do? Go to Iowa, obviously. That's where it always starts. So on Tuesday, Vance headed to Des Moines, where he nominally campaigned for Rep. Zach Nunn (R-IA). But Vance is not fooling anyone. He was actually campaigning for J.D. Vance. The chairman of the Iowa Republican Party, Jeff Kaufmann, said he believes this will be the first of many visits by Vance. Since there is an open-seat race for governor, an open-seat race for senator, and four potentially competitive House races, two of which are open-seat, Vance has plenty of cover. That's six races he can campaign in. The House races are surprisingly competitive for a state as red as Iowa. Here is the rundown:

District	PVI	Incumbent/Open	Location	Incumbent	Notes
IA-01	R+4	Incumbent	Southeast	Marianette Miller-Meeks (R)	MMM won by only 799 votes in 2024
IA-02	R+4	Open	Northeast	Ashley Hinson (R)	Open seat; Hinson is running for the Senate
IA-03	R+2	Incumbent	South central	Zach Nunn (R)	This is the swingiest district
IA-04	R+15	Open	West	Randy Feenstra (R)	Open seat; Feenstra is running for governor

As you can see, IA-01, IA-02, and IA-03 are all very competitive, and the open seat in IA-04 could possibly be, depending on the candidates. Combined with open-seat races for senator and governor, Iowa is going to get a great deal of love until Nov. 3. Then it gets a short vacation until the presidential candidates begin pouring in starting in January.

Vance's campaign is basically about reciting the greatest hits of the Trump/Vance administration. He has to. He is conjoined at the hip with Trump and if Trump is unpopular in 2028, Vance is dead meat. But it's not easy because Iowa is a one-industry state: food. Times are tough on account of Trump's tariffs and the counter tariffs, which badly hurts Iowa's farmers, who depend on the exports of their corn, soybeans, pork, and other farm products for their income. Given that Iowa's problem revolves around foreign policy (trade), Vance has the additional problem is that his likely main competitor, Marco Rubio, can make a better case that he is the foreign-policy expert. Vance has a lot of work to do. He's going to be around the Hawkeye State a lot this year and practically ful-time next year.

The combination of the open Senate seat and three fairly evenly divided House districts has taken a little bit of attention away from the race for governor, the first one since 2006 with no incumbent because Gov. Kim Reynolds (R-IA) decided she's had enough, even though she was eligible to run again. Many observers had expected Feenstra to get the nomination easily, but he hasn't gotten much traction. He has to beat state Rep. Eddie Andrews, former state Rep. Brad Sherman, and former director of the Iowa Dept. of Administrative Services Adam Steen to get the nomination.

Whoever gets the GOP nomination will face state Auditor Rob Sand (D), who is running unopposed. He has benefited from the financial support of his wealthy wife and her family. Todd Blodgett, who worked in the Reagan White House and for the RNC said: "I don't think Randy Feenstra can beat Rob Sand, who is a thoroughbred." Sand frequently quotes the Bible, owns two handguns, and goes deer hunting each fall. He asks audiences to sing "America the Beautiful" at the start of campaign events. He is a folksy kind of guy. A recent Echelon Insights poll has Sand beating Feenstra 51% to 39%. If Feenstra gets the nomination and Sand crushes him, Sand could have coattails that help the Democrats in the other races. With all the races and multiple pickup opportunities for the Democrats, Iowa could end up being one of the most contested states this fall. (V)

Republicans Want to Appropriate $1 Billion for the Ballroom

When Donald Trump tore down the East Wing of the White House, he said people should not worry because he would create a place to hold his balls at "no charge to the taxpayer whatsoever." Well, maybe not. Earlier this week, the Senate Judiciary Committee requested a cool $1 billion for the ballroom, nominally to make sure Trump's balls are secure.

This raises a raft of questions. First, If Trump said the whole thing would be privately financed, what's the billion for? Second, why did Trump think it would cost $200 million initially if the Senate wants to appropriate more than five times as much? Third, if the taxpayers pay for it, what happens to the $300 million or now $400 million has already raised? Does Trump just keep it and we move on? Fourth, if so, does it count as an emolument? Fifth, does anyone remember that Trump v2.0 began with the DOGEys killing off government programs right and left, with no authority to do so, in the name of saving money. Does spending $1 billion on a ballroom save money?

Republicans are trying to connect this to the shooting at the D.C. Hilton. Is the idea that future WHCD dinners could be held in the ballroom? We suspect that journalists would not be happy holding an event to celebrate the First Amendment inside the White House, even if Trump charged them only $5 million to rent the space for an evening.

Politically, the ballroom was very unpopular even when it was going to be entirely privately funded. The appropriation is part of the new reconciliation bill, so Democrats can't filibuster it. This means it is likely to happen. However, then the Democrats can campaign on "The congressional Republicans cut your healthcare so they could spend a billion dollars on a ballroom for Trump." Wasteful spending is something even Republican voters don't like. Given the results in Indiana, if Trump says he wants the billion for the ballroom (so he can put the privately raised $400 million in his pocket), few, if any, Republican politicians will challenge him. In fact, some are already on board. Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-ND) said: "I guess as long as liberals insist on shooting presidents, it will take a lot of resources to protect presidents. I'm fine with it."

If the ballroom ends up costing the taxpayers $1 billion, that could become a headache if a Democrat is elected president in 2028. If the funding were private, on Day 1, a new president could order the Army Corps of Engineers to just tear it down, saying private buildings have no place on public land. If the new president moved quickly and quietly, the building could be damaged beyond repair before any judge could order the demolition halted. Then it would have to be demolished. But if Congress pays for it, that argument goes away and it might be more complicated legally. Of course, if he new president wants to show how aggressively he is going to remove every trace of Trump's presidency, root and branch, he could just give the order anyway and let the chips (and faux-gold chandeliers) fall where they may. (V)

Republicans Have Nothing to Offer, So They Will Lash Out at Democrats

On Monday, Donald Trump met with over 100 small business leaders to pitch his tax cuts. His allies think he is wasting his time. Then want him to go full scorched earth. Forget the issues and just blame the Democrats for everything. Inflation? Biden's fault. Crime? Obama's fault. Gas prices? Congressional Democrats' fault. Iran? Hillary's e-mails. Just blame Democrats for everything and run ads day and night doing do. Scare the voters. Works every time. Except when it doesn't.

Normally campaigns don't go negative this early, but Republican operatives sense that the House is probably already lost and the Senate is now 50-50, so going negative and just pounding the Democrats on everything is their last hope. Of course, by November, the Republicans will have had the trifecta for nearly 2 years. By then, it will be a tough sell that the powerless congressional Democrats or past presidents drove gas prices up. But if that is all you have, it is what you use.

One Republican donor said: "If you talk to the NRCC, they're spinning. They were trying to sell the administration's accomplishments but now it is just 'Democrats are bad.'" The donor also said: "When you go negative, that means you;re behind." A spokesman for the NRCC, Mike Marinella, countered that with "The NRCC makes decisions rooted in data and polling, not vibes, which is why we tune out the chattering class. The NRCC is working hand-in-glove with the White House and our battle-tested Republican candidates to hammer vulnerable House Democrats for backing the largest tax hike since World War II, raising taxes on every income level, keeping tips fully taxed, and gutting the child tax credit." Democrats are going to point out that Republicans control the entire government, so whatever happened is their fault.

According to a new WaPo-ABC News/Ipsos poll young voters 18-34 are a real problem, with 52% planning to vote for Democrats and 19% planning to vote for Republicans. This group tends to be especially sensitive to prices and affordability, and yelling that Democrats are the root of all evil is probably not going to resonate with them. Some of them don't remember of Biden years and many of them don't remember the Obama years.

Another problem the NRCC has is that whatever message it cooks up, Trump never stays on message. Maybe the NRCC wants to focus on inflation during the Biden years, but Trump could ruin that by pivoting to how he was robbed of the election in 2020. That is not going to move those 18-34 year olds who are worried about buying gas and food.

And even if Trump gets the message, he sometimes puts it in ways his base laps up but independents and moderates in both parties don't. One of his recent bleats began:

So ironic that Cryin' Chuck Schumer and the Democrats are hiring SLEAZEBAGS like Barack Hussein Obama's Crooked former Attorney General, Eric Holder, and others of that ilk, to look into Voter Integrity, when this same group of Human Garbage RIGGED the 2020 Presidential Election.

For Trump to call the Democrats "human garbage" is a(nother) new low. Can you imagine what would have happened if Joe Biden had called his opponents "human garbage"? Or even if George W. Bush had done that? Trump's base eats that up, but it tends to turn off moderates and independents. So if Trump gets the message from the NRCC "Go negative" and this is what comes out, it may be counterproductive with groups the Republicans desperately need. (V)

Yes, Virginia, There Are Normie Republicans

Kristen Soltis Anderson, a Republican pollster, wrote an interesting piece on Republican voters. Some people think that there are two kinds of Republicans: MAGA diehards and never Trumpers. She says that her polling shows this is not true and about half of all Republican voters actually fall into a different category: normie Republicans. They are fairly supportive of Trump on many (but not all) issues, but are Republicans because they watch Fox, hate the Democrats, and the Republicans are the only other game in town. However—crucially—they do not think of themselves first and foremost as Trump supporters or members of the MAGA movement.

As the economy continues to go south, more and more Republicans are giving Trump the blame. As a consequence, the number of Republicans who are "party-first" normie Republicans rather than "Trump-first" is rising. This is a bad omen for the GOP.

Although the normie Republicans would never consider voting for a Democrat, they are still a problem for the GOP this year. Among Trump-first Republicans, 62% say they are extremely motivated to vote this year. Among normie Republicans that is only 49%. That is different from past years. At the moment, Democrats are telling pollsters they will walk across hot coals barefoot to vote, while Republicans are not so enthusiastic about voting. In Anderson's polling, 82% of Democrats say it is "extremely important" to win the midterms vs. only 57% of Republicans say that. Among normie Republicans, it is only 47%.

How come? The normie Republicans are unhappy with the economy, health care, foreign affairs and democracy. Only a third support the war in Iran. If large numbers of unhappy normies simply stay home (because voting for a Democrat is out of the question), it could help Democrats up and down the ballot. So turnout will be a big issue in the fall.

So how will the Republicans try to drive turnout? As noted above, they will go negative and attack, attack, attack. Since Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) is retiring, she is not as useful as a boogeywoman as she used to be. So Republicans will try to make the election about Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), even though she is only on the ballot in NY-14, and Gov. Gavin Newsom (D-CA), who isn't on the ballot anywhere. They will blame them for every outrageous thing any Democrat has ever said. Neither had ever called for defunding the police (that was Cori Bush, who was booted by fellow Democrats in the 2024 Democratic primary), but who cares? They will hit Democrats nine ways to Sunday on trans girls in sports. If Democrats refuse to take the bait and just reply "Whatever, but your war of choice is making me pay $5/gal. for gas" the Republicans' ploy probably won't work as well as in 2024 when the price of gas wasn't not on the agenda.

In short, how well Republicans motivate the normies could spell the difference between Trump going down in the history books for having been impeached twice and his having been impeached five times. (V)

Another House Member Is under Fire for Sexual Misconduct

Yet another congressman, Rep. Chuck Edwards (R-NC), is alleged to have sexually harassed his staff. There seems to happen an awful lot, including recently Madison Cawthorn (R), Matt Gaetz (R), Tony Gonzales (R), George Santos (R) and Eric Swalwell (D). If you want to go back further, there are even more. It is almost as if people elected to Congress think because they make the laws, they don't have to obey them. It's one or the other.

Edwards is now being investigated by the House Ethics Committee on account of behavior toward two female staffers that the women found inappropriate and which created an uncomfortable work environment. One of them told other people on the staff about Edwards' behavior in real time. The behavior continued even after the staffer stopped working for Edwards. The staffer and Edwards were in Las Vegas together for 3 days in November 2025. It seems unlikely that was a work visit, since Edwards' district is in North Carolina, not in Nevada. Other staff members were concerned about this because Edwards was needed on the floor of the House for a vote. A letter one staffer gave Axios to review said: "You are the most amazing woman. I only wish I could explain the joy and meaning to me for the time we spent together at the office—but especially away from it." Edwards also bought her jewelry and other gifts. It would seem Edwards thinks of himself as a romantic.

However, Edwards has been married for 46 years to someone else. Also, affairs between members and staffers are forbidden by House ethics rules. Maybe Donald Trump could take this problem (potentially losing another vote in the House) and fix it by making an offer to Iran: "I admire your sharia law so I will have an adulterer in my party stoned to death as required by your law if you will open the Strait of Hormuz."

Edwards is running for reelection in his R+5 district in Western North Carolina, which includes the liberal Asheville. His opponent, fourth-generation North Carolina farmer Jamie Ager, is going to have a field day with this. The district is not deep red and in a blue wave, even without this scandal, would be a Democratic target. This makes it worse for the Republicans. Best case for the Democrats is that there is a motion to expel Edwards that gets a majority but not a two-thirds majority and Edwards continues to be the 2026 candidate. Best case for the Republicans is that Edwards resigns from Congress, drops his re-election bid, and the North Carolina Republican Party picks some popular state senator from the district to run in his place. The problem with this scenario is that North Carolina state law does not put any constraints on when the special election is to be held, leaving that to the governor. Gov. Josh Stein (D-NC) will undoubtedly schedule the special election for Nov. 3 "to save the taxpayers money." (V)

Sherrod Brown Is Running against... Jeffrey Epstein

The Ohio Senate race is an oddity. Incumbent Sen. Jon Husted (R-OH) is barely known in Ohio, while challenger Sherrod Brown is universally known in the state. Also, the race is technically a special election for the last 2 years of J.D. Vance's term and the winner will need to run again in a regular election in 2028. Since Husted is not well known, Brown's first ad since he won the Democratic primary on Tuesday tries to define Husted before Husted can. It is a dilly. You can watch it here.

If you can read faster than you can watch, here is the text:

Of all 535 members of Congress, who's taken the most money from associates of Jeffrey Epstein? Jon Husted. That's who. In fact, Husted's taken over $116,000 from one of Epstein's closest friends and co-conspirators, and last year took a maximum donation from him just weeks before voting to block the release of the Epstein files. Jon Husted, who's he really working for? I'm Sherrod Brown and I approve this message.

The ad isn't on YouTube (yet) but this one is:

In this ad, Brown speaks directly to the camera and mentions a "list" that singles out Husted as one of the three most corrupt senators. The source of the list is not mentioned, but Husted making the list probably refers to the Ohio scandal in which the local electricity company spent $60 million on bribes to get the state legislature to raise electricity rates—and Husted was deeply involved in it when he was lieutenant governor.

Democrats like a fighter and boy, is Brown going to fight. If Brown's campaign is all about how corrupt Husted is and how he takes money from Epstein's buddies, that is a brilliant strategy. It makes the conversation about Husted's corruption—and even Republican voters hate corrupt politicians—and not about trans girls in sports. Even in deep red Ohio, that might work for Brown. He can disassociate himself from national Democrats and just pound Husted being corrupt, especially with the re-trial of the corrupt electricity company executives going on in October. In fact, the thing Husted is already best known for in Ohio is his role in the first trial, of the corrupt executives, which ended in a hung jury.

This could end up being the most expensive Senate race in the country this year, especially if the NRSC comes to realize that Michael Whatley is no match for former governor Roy Cooper in North Carolina and just leaves him to twist in the wind. The Republicans' Senate Leadership Fund has already earmarked $79 million for television, digital, direct mail, and GOTV (Get Out The Vote). The Democrats' Senate Majority PAC has reserved $40 million just for television.

Brown's biggest disadvantage is his age (73). Husted is 58. Democrats want younger leaders, but if Brown is feisty and aggressive, younger Democrats might forgive him for having been born early in the Eisenhower administration. One peculiarity about Brown is that he got college backwards. It is common for students to go to the local state university and then if they are really good, go to an Ivy League school for graduate study. Brown did it backwards. He was an undergraduate at Yale, majoring in Russian studies. Then he got masters in education at Ohio State and then a second masters at Ohio State (in public administration). Brown is married to Connie Schultz, a Pulitzer-Prize-winning progressive journalist and now professor of journalism at Denison University in Ohio. If Husted treats her like the great-great-granddaughter of Karl Marx, he will get quite an earful in return. (V)

Tennessee Goes for a Shutout

Yesterday, Tennessee Republicans unveiled a new map that would split up Memphis among multiple districts and virtually guarantee that all nine representatives from the state will be Republicans. This is a harbinger of future maps elsewhere that will be winner-take-all, like the electoral college.

Gov. Bill Lee (R-TN) called the legislature into a special session last Friday and they got to work getting rid of the one Democrat in their House delegation, Steve Cohen, who represents Memphis and is white. Memphis has 388,000 Black and 152,000 white voters. TN-09, which contains Memphis and some northern suburbs, is 60% Black and 25% white. It was D+23. Charlie Cook hasn't calculated the new PVI yet, but there are enough new Republican areas added that it will be virtually impossible for Cohen to win reelection. Here is the old map:

Here is the new map.

As you can see, Memphis, in the far southwest part of the state, has been split up and incorporated into three districts: the new TN-05, TN-08, and TN-09. The latter is almost disjoint from Cohen's old district. Also, more Republicans have been added to TN-05, Andy Ogles' district, because Democrats were planning to target him. Now that is impossible.

The map is heavily gerrymandered, but it doesn't have the classic lizard shape of other gerrymanders because Tennessee is so heavily Republican (read: white) that even a map that respects county boundaries will produce deep-red districts. The only problem was Memphis, so it was split among three districts. Problem solved. You may have recalled from high school history class something about the rotten boroughs in 19th century England. Think of Tennessee creating its own rotten boroughs using computer-assisted mapmaking. At least the British ones more-or-less happened organically as towns that became depopulated over time still had representatives in the House of Commons, even though nobody lived there anymore. (V)

New York Moving Towards More Gerrymandering

Now that Florida has raised the gerrymandering stakes, another state is gearing up to join the party: New York. The state House delegation has seven Republicans and state Democrats think they can come up with a map that reduces that to three. The districts that the Democrats want to flip are on Long Island, on Staten Island, in the Hudson Valley, and one upstate.

However, the state Constitution makes it impossible to change the map for 2026, so the Democrats' focus, with urging from Gov. Kathy Hochul (D-NY) and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY), is to aim for the 2028 elections. That will require a referendum in 2027, in which the voters will have to approve a constitutional amendment.

One complication is that the Assembly and Senate have somewhat different ideas about how to go about this and how permanent the new rules should be. The state legislators want to get it right this time. They made a mess last time. The initial map after the 2020 census was fought over in court. In the end, a judge threw out the official map and hired a special master to draw a new map. This allowed Republicans to gain seats in 2022. In 2023, The Court of Appeals made the state redraw the map again. The next year, another commission drew another map. So the legislators want to have a procedure and draw a map that will pass all the expected court fights.

New York isn't the only blue state that is going to go wild in 2028. Colorado currently has a 4D, 4R split. State legislators are going for 7D, 1R in 2028, but for legal reasons they can't do it this year. If every state goes for broke, that might actually make enough people so angry that Congress might be forced to address the American rotten boroughs problem. This is, of course, the outcome we are rooting for. (V)

How Trump Is Working to Rig the Midterms

ProPublica is an independent newsroom that investigates and publishes reports about abuses of power. It now has a report out on the ways the administration may try to rig the midterms. Here are some of their findings:

• The AG: After the 2000 election. Donald Trump pushed then-AG Bill Barr to find some election fraud. Barr looked and there wasn't any. He told Trump this. Trump was furious. No one expects the next AG, whether it is Todd Blanche, Jeanine Pirro, or someone else to do a repeat performance of what Barr did.
  
  
• Guardrails: There were also many guardrails in place in 2000. At least 75 career officials who have jobs related to election security have been fired or who have left since Jan. 20, 2025. Trump has placed dependable lackeys in at least two dozen key positions, many of them election deniers. All the guardrails in the Executive Branch are gone now.
  
  
• CISA: The DHS has an agency called the Cybersecurity Infrastructure and Security Agency (CISA) that deals with, well cybersecurity, including elections. In Trump v1.0 it collected evidence disproving many of the circulating conspiracy theories. It even built a "Rumor Control" website. This time around, Trump is taking no chances. He froze all of CISA's election security work and fired or transferred all the employees working on election security. There is nothing left there now.
  
  
• Law Enforcement: However, other federal agencies also have cybersecurity teams, especially law enforcement agencies. Or we should say "had" teams. FBI Director Kash Patel dismembered the Bureau's public corruption team, which looked for criminal activity relating to elections. He also disbanded a team that looked at illegal foreign interference with elections. The DoJ's Civil Rights Division also had a team that protects voting rights. All of its 30 career lawyers have been reassigned or have quit. Trump has restocked it with his own people, including four lawyers who worked with him trying to overturn the 2020 election.
  
  
• Team America: In the summer of 2025, a small team of lawyers that called itself "Team America" began looking for federal levers it could pull to interfere with state elections, pursuant to a March 2025 XO in which Trump tried to exert power over the states. Team members include David Harvilicz, who is tasked with election security, including voting machines. He formed a company with the architect of Trump's claims of election hacking in Michigan. One of his workers is Heather Honey, who claimed there were more ballots cast in Pennsylvania than there are voters there. Many others have ties to a conservative organization run by Cleta Mitchell.
  
  
• Voter Rolls: The DoJ and Team America are trying to develop software to root out noncitizens. However, to do this, they need the states to supply the voter lists, which most states have refused to do. The software is of poor quality and turns up many false positives. Harvilicz and Honey are deeply involved in this project.
  
  
• Kurt Olsen: He worked to help Trump overturn the 2020 election and was sanctioned by judges for it. He is now Trump's director of election security. He is the driving force behind the raid on Atlanta, where the FBI seized all the 2020 ballots. Initially, the head of the FBI office in Atlanta, Paul Brown, refused to cooperate and was told to either resign or be moved. He resigned and the raid took place.
  
  
• The Public Integrity Section: The DoJ has a unit called the Public Integrity Section that makes sure the DoJ doesn't wander off into politics when enforcing the law. Lawyers from the Section tried to block the raid on Atlanta because there was no evidence of any wrongdoing. Trump reduced the Section from 36 people to two people.

Each of these moves eliminates a guardrail. In the past, attempts to break the law and interfere with an election would run into one or more of the above units that would try to stop them. They have all been muzzled or emasculated. This means if Trump tries to interfere with the midterms, he will not receive so much as a warning from any federal agency. Of course, this doesn't apply to state units, but the states can't count on any federal help if Trump ramps up an interference campaign. (V)

---

Previous report         Next report

---

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.

---The Votemaster and Zenger