Of French Fries...

As most readers will know by now, the Trump campaign staged a bit of political theater this weekend, wherein the former president donned an apron and "worked" at a Feasterville, PA, McDonald's for 15 minutes or so.

The secret is already out that the whole thing was carefully choreographed. That is to say, the McDonald's location was not actually open for business, and everyone there was carefully screened, and was friends or family of the staff members. Some folks are making a big deal about this but, truth be told, we tend to think it's much ado about nothing. The Secret Service isn't going to let random people approach a presidential candidate, especially one who's already been targeted at least twice by would-be assassins. So, the not-so-genuine nature of the whole thing was baked in (fried in?).

What is of more interest to us is whether this appearance actually advanced Trump's goals, which were to: (1) affirm himself as a "man of the people" and (2) draw attention to his claims that Kamala Harris is lying about having worked at McDonald's in her youth. As to the first of those, we just don't know. When Joe Biden (and Harris) walked the union picket lines, we could absolutely see how that would engender some appreciation among union workers, since a sitting president (and VP) had never done that before, and media attention is very helpful for strikers. Working the french fryer at McDonald's is kind of a similar move, and we certainly don't think it's "bizarre," the way some on the left are describing it. However, we have a harder time believing that the nation's many McDonald's workers see themselves in a rich guy who didn't even take off his tie and worked a whole quarter of an hour. That said, we're not the target demo, so maybe we are off base here.

As to the second goal, we think that "controversy" exists entirely in the head of Trump and some of his loyalists. Most people don't even know about Harris' work history, and even fewer know of Trump's conspiratorial thinking about that work history. And even folks who are in the know, we seriously doubt they made the connection that Trump was hoping to make. Even if they did, what, exactly, was his message? "I'm a real McDonald's worker because I put in 15 minutes at the fryer and the takeout counter"? Seems thin to us.

What we do know is that a stunt like this is not a net positive if the damage it does is greater than whatever benefits it brings. While many right-wingers have lauded Trump for his audacity/brilliance/slumming, he's also been the butt of a lot of jokes, which he hates. Here's a small selection, for example, of the many, many memes that sprung up this weekend, as if by magic:

Drudge has a grudge:




Sticky fingers:




But where's the cookie crook?:




Send in the clowns:




Be like Mike?:

We're cutting it off at five because the vast majority make the same three jokes: he's a thief, he's a clown, and he's fat. Since we don't do fat-shaming jokes, that leaves us with relatively little ground to cover here. Anyhow, thanks to reader J.L. in Los Angeles, CA, for help in putting these together.

Another way in which the visit could plausibly come back to bite Trump in the rear was the rather thoughtless scene that played out the next day. It would seem that Rep. Chuck Edwards (R-NC) owns at least one McDonald's. And so, at a joint appearance with Trump and some other Republicans, Edwards presented the former president with a "french fry certification pin." Who knew that even existed? The presentation would have just been a little cheesy (Mayor McCheesy?), and that would be that, except that it took place... during a tour of hurricane-ravaged sites in the Tar Heel State. So, not the best timing.

We'll see what the next stunt in Trump's "man of the people" tour is. Maybe he'll (pretend to) use a toilet that is NOT plated in gold. (Z)

...And Penises

This might be the most brutal takedown ad we've ever seen. Donald Trump may have much of the combat sports world on his side, but he most certainly does not have Dave Bautista. While Bautista is a giant, muscular WWF legend, he's also an outspoken liberal who first got involved in politics as a surrogate for the 2016 Bernie Sanders campaign. Last week, Bautista recorded a campaign-style ad to be aired on The Jimmy Kimmel Show:

You should consider watching it, but if you don't, know that it really hits Trump where it hurts, calling into question the former president's masculinity in roughly two dozen different ways. For example: [A] lot of men seem to think that Donald Trump is some kind of tough guy. He's not. I mean, look at him. He wears more makeup than Dolly Parton."

We actually had not seen the video until reader P.C. in Yandina, QLD, Australia, brought it to our attention. On the other hand, it would seem that Trump HAS seen it, and that's what's behind his recent move to turn up the locker room talk to 10. Most obviously, the Donald earned quite a bit of coverage this week with his comments about the size of (deceased) golfer Arnold Palmer's... putter, if you will. He's also said a bunch of other locker-roomy things in the past few days.

The choice to make Palmer the star of the show is not too much of a surprise, since Trump was in eastern Pennsylvania, and the golfer was a local boy and is a local hero. Palmer was also a Republican, and while he lived long enough to learn about and to disdain Trump (dying in September 2016), Trump presumably doesn't know that. On top of all this, Trump's cultural references are all stuck in the 1970s and before, and this just reiterates that. We have no doubt that he went to some of the old Friars' Roasts in New York City, where they would tell all kinds of stories and jokes like the one Trump told (quite often about Milton Berle's natural gifts). Palmer himself was the subject of a very famous off-color story/joke in that era. Allegedly, the golfer went on The Tonight Show and explained to Johnny Carson that he and his wife liked to get affectionate while watching baseball games: "I kiss her on the strikes, and she kisses me on the balls." This never actually happened, but we would bet good money that: (1) Trump is familiar with the story, and (2) Doesn't know (or care) that it's not true. (Note that the story has also been told about many other personalities from the 1970s and 1980s.)

The upshot is that it looks like Trump's closing argument is going to include a lot of clumsy ribaldry, as he tries to stabilize his macho image, and to win over as many young, male voters as he can. It's interesting because, back in 2016, this same kind of talk ("grab 'em by the pu**y") came closer to destroying his campaign than any of the other myriad controversies he was involved in. It's basically a 180-degree turn. Either he's changed in the last 8 years, or the voting public has. (Z)

So Much for Blocking Overseas Ballots

An item we had yesterday was about efforts by the Republican Party to block overseas votes being cast for elections in Michigan, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania. The official reason for this is [wave hands around] "um, fraud." This is both dishonest and insulting to the intelligence of anyone who follow politics. The "G"OP has been pulling these stunts for long enough, at this point, that we all know exactly what is going on. They've concluded that overseas ballots now skew Democratic, after having skewed Republican for many years due to the previously right-leaning military vote. It's reprehensible; if you're entitled to vote in U.S. elections, you're entitled to vote in U.S. elections, end of story.

The good news is that these efforts appear to be going absolutely nowhere. Yesterday, two different suits were shot down in two different states by two different judges. In Michigan, Judge Sima Patel found that the state's rules for overseas ballots are legal and valid and that, even if that were not the case, the lawsuit was brought too close to the election. In North Carolina, Judge John Smith ruled that there is a minor defect in the plaintiffs' suit, in that they had "not presented any evidence" that fraud was occurring. You can imagine the Republicans' lawyers saying: "Shoot! We knew we forgot something!"

So, people's right to vote will not be taken away. That's good. Even better, we would say, is the reminder that courts tend to move very fast when they need to, and they tend to have very little tolerance for this kind of nonsense. Donald Trump and the RNC batted .000 in 2020, and there's no indication they'll be able to reverse that trend in 2024, when and if they file another gaggle of meritless suits. (Z)

Trump Gets Himself Sued Again

Suits filed by Donald Trump tend to be meritless. Suits filed against Trump? Usually a whole lot stronger. The fellow who keeps a veritable army of lawyers employed has bought himself yet another lawsuit by virtue of his loose lips. Who is his newest legal adversary? The Central Park Five.

Readers will call that Trump's first forays into politics/public policy, and one of his earliest forays into unvarnished racism, involved his efforts, in 1989-90, to secure the conviction of five Black men who were accused of assaulting and raping a white woman. The then-real estate developer took out a full page ad in The New York Times pressing not only for convictions but for all five men to be executed. Here's the ad, if you've never seen it:

As you can see, Trump was pushing for the death penalty, even though the death penalty had been abolished in New York in 1984.

During his current run for president, as with the previous two, he's looking to lock up the racist vote. The way to do that, in theory, is with dog whistles, so the racists get your meaning, but (ideally) everyone else does not. Trump doesn't do subtlety very well, however. And so, during his one and only debate against Kamala Harris, after she accused Trump of using race to divide Americans, he issued forth with this, ostensibly reminding his base that he is on top of the "troublemaking urban Black people" problem:

This is the most divisive presidency in the history of our country. There's never been anything like it. They're destroying our country. And they come up with things like what she just said going back many, many years when a lot of people including Mayor Bloomberg agreed with me on the Central Park Five. They admitted—they said, they pled guilty. And I said, well, if they pled guilty they badly hurt a person, killed a person ultimately. And if they pled guilty—then they pled we're not guilty.

Well, that certainly proved his point that he does not use race to divide people!

In any event, here's the problem. The Five never pleaded guilty, the victim of the attack was not killed, and ultimately all of the Five were exonerated. So, Trump's "facts" are pretty much 100% wrong. And, in view of the Five (and their lawyers), defamatory. So, the quintet sued yesterday.

Trump has most certainly left himself exposed here. The Five have been trying to move past this for close to 40 years, and can absolutely say they were damaged by a major-party presidential candidate going on national TV and reciting a false narrative of events. Trump can hardly claim he did not know the truth, given the interest he took in the case. We suppose he could claim he is unable to remember the details; that would reflect badly on him in a different manner.

Although we have no doubt that the Five absolutely feel damaged, and absolutely want to be made whole, we would guess that their filing right now, as opposed to waiting until after, say, November 5, is not a coincidence. They, quite reasonably, loathe Trump, and certainly don't want to see him in the Oval Office again. We don't know if this will make a dent, but we do know that both parties are fighting tooth and nail for Black men right now. Certainly, a reminder of Trump's comfort with scapegoating Black defendants isn't going to help him with Black men. (Z)

Endorsement News

When it comes to endorsements, it's now put up or shut up time. And so, there have been a whole bunch of them in the presidential race in the last week or two. We thought we'd run down some of the more interesting ones.

To start, The Atlantic has bestowed its endorsement on Kamala Harris. That is more newsworthy than it might seem, because the publication usually tries to stay above the fray, and has only endorsed five times in its history. The first endorsee was Abraham Lincoln, who was running against guys who were pro-slavery. The second was Lyndon Johnson, who was running against a guy who was anti-civil rights. The remaining three were the three opponents of Donald Trump. Perhaps you sense a theme in what is required to get The Atlantic involved.

Harris has also picked up the support of some notable conservatives. Former Secretary of Defense and Nebraska senator Chuck Hagel has not only endorsed her, he's helped create a group called "Republicans for Harris." Former Pennsylvania representative Charlie Dent not gave his endorsement to Harris, he's already cast his ballot for her. Susan Ford Bales, daughter of Gerald Ford, jumped on board yesterday, explaining that she believes Harris can heal the nation the way her father tried to do. Also yesterday, often obnoxious New York Times columnist Bret Stephens announced that he's going to hold his nose and vote for Harris. He explained:

Kicking and screaming, I'll cast my ballot for Harris.

I really would rather have just sat out Election Day. But Jan. 6 and election denialism are unforgivable. And as my friend Richard North Patterson likes to say, "Donald Trump is literally bleeping crazy." And what crazy brings in its wake is JD Vance, whom I find worse than Trump, because he's just as cynical but twice as bright. And what it also brings in its wake is Tucker Carlson and the Hitler defenders he likes to platform.

Fortunately for the Democratic nominee, a reluctant vote counts just as much as an enthusiastic one.

There has also developed, between the campaigns, a competition for the support of... Pittsburgh Steelers. We suppose that makes sense, since it's something of a double-whammy; not only is Pennsylvania a swing state, but all the Steelers who have endorsed so far are Black. In any case, Harris has the backing of Jerome Bettis, Mean Joe Greene and the family of Franco Harris. Trump, by contrast, has landed Antonio Brown and Le'Veon Bell. For those who don't follow sports, the three Harris supporters are all NFL Hall of Famers, and have nine Super Bowl rings between them. Brown, meanwhile, has a reputation for both sexual assault and mental instability, and he literally quit in the NFL in the middle of a game (throwing his pads and helmet into the crowd). Bell is not markedly better in terms of his reputation for being erratic. The two Trump supporters have one Super Bowl ring between them.

In addition to the football players, the Trump campaign has also bragged about the support of nine more celebrities (for those who need more than Hulk Hogan and Kid Rock):

• Billy Ray Cyrus
• Nicky Jam
• Joe Germanotta
• The Nelk Boys
• Bryce Hall
• M.I.A.
• Henry Cejudo
• Gretchen Wilson
• Adrianne Curry

Most of these names are probably not familiar to readers, since most of them would need to move up a letter or two just to qualify as C-listers. Probably the best known are the Nelk Boys, Canadians (uh. oh) who host a far-right podcast; Cyrus, a one-hit wonder whose one hit ("Achy Breaky Heart") was 30 years ago; and rapper M.I.A., whose appearance on the list (as a pro-Palestinian woman of color) is quite a surprise, to the point that many people suspect she's trolling. If she's playing it straight, well, then the M.I.A. cheese is pretty far off the M.I.A. cracker, because in her endorsement she said she looks forward to 4 years of President Trump followed by 8 years of President Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

There is also one endorsement that you might expect Harris to have that she has NOT picked up. That would be the endorsement of Alpha Kappa Alpha, the sorority she joined in college, and has been closely affiliated with ever since. While many members of AKA are campaigning for Harris, the sorority itself is a 501(c)(7) nonprofit, and so is forbidden from endorsing candidates for office, at risk of losing their tax-exempt status. That said, most people can presumably guess what side an organization composed of 360,000 college-educated Black women is probably on. (Z)

And Now for a Community Service Announcement

Reader S.S.-L. in Battle Creek, MI is closely involved with the National Federation of the Blind, and with various efforts related to voting. S.S.-L. sent us some information that may be of interest to readers, and so we wanted to pass it along:

A number of Blind and print-disabled voters have inquired about accessible voting in their states over the years. Please be aware that various federal laws require voting to be accessible to voters with disabilities, the most relevant being the Help America Vote Act of 2002 ("HAVA"). Among other things, HAVA requires accessible ballot marking devices to be usable at all polling locations. There are several such devices counties can choose from, all of which come equipped with screen-readers, headphones, and tactile controls.

Unfortunately, poll workers often lack training in such devices, the devices aren't plugged in, are malfunctioning, etc. We who rely on these options have a number of options when accessible ballot marking devices aren't ready for us when we arrive. If we have the time, we can wait for the poll workers to call the manufacturer's helpdesk to diagnose and treat the problem. If we don't have the time, we can leave and return later, request to use a different polling location, or receive assistance from an individual of our choosing (though the latter obviously compromises our right to a private ballot.) In some locations, the reality is that using an accessible ballot device may compromise your right to a private ballot in the first place, due to the differences in size and formatting from standard ballots. This is less of a concern if you can persuade your friends and family to use the device, as well.

Speaking of, you do not need to be disabled to use the accessible voting machines. Able-bodied people may find them convenient due to their shorter lines, streamlined format, and safeguards against accidentally skipping or double-marking selections. It's also true that the more of us who use them, the more likely it is that they'll be set up properly in the future. Poll workers are absolutely not allowed to ask about your disability status or even so much as hint that you're inconveniencing them by choosing to use an accessible machine. They also may not force you to call ahead, accept assistance of some kind, or in any way impinge your right to a private and accessible voting experience.

These rules are the same whether you choose to vote on Election Day or you'd prefer to vote early. If an able-bodied person can vote, then you can, too. Neither administrative inconvenience nor incompetence are affirmative defenses to the law.

There is also a growing number of states in which accessible electronic absentee ballots are available upon request. These are digital ballots that you can receive via e-mail or other electronic means, mark using your own access technology, and return either by paper mail or, in some states, from your home computer. Note that although the discussion of cybersecurity is a conversation for another time, federal law is clear: If military and overseas voters can use it, then so can we.

The table below shows the list of states and whether they have accessible, electronic ballot delivery to voters; whether they have accessible, electronic ballot return; and whether they offer electronic ballot return for military and overseas voters.

State	Acc. El. Delivery?	Acc. El. Return?	El. Return for Mil./Overseas?	E-Permitted Return Methods
AL	Yes	No	Yes	Portal
AK	Yes	Yes	Yes	Fax
AZ	Yes	No	Yes	Portal
AR	No	No	No
CA	Yes	No	Yes	Fax
CO	Yes	Yes	Yes	Portal
CT	Yes	No	No
DE	Yes	Yes	Yes	E-mail
FL	Yes	No	Yes	Fax
GA	No	No	No
HI	Yes	Yes	Yes	E-mail
ID	No	No	No
IL	Yes	No	No
IN	Yes	Yes	Yes	E-mail
IA	No	No	Yes	E-mail
KS	No	No	Yes	E-mail
KY	Yes	No	No
LA	Yes	Yes	Yes	Fax
ME	Yes	Yes	Yes	E-mail
MD	Yes	No	No
MA	Yes	Yes	Yes	E-mail/Mobile Voting
MI	Yes	No	Yes
MN	No	No	No
MS	No	No	Yes	E-mail
MO	No	No	Yes	E-mail
MT	Yes	No	Yes	E-mail
NE	No	No	Yes	E-mail
NV	Yes	Yes	Yes	E-mail
NH	Yes	No	No
NJ	Yes	No	Yes	E-mail
NM	Yes	No	Yes	E-mail
NY	Yes	No	No
NC	Yes	Yes	Yes	Portal
ND	Yes	Yes	Yes	Portal
OH	Yes	No	No
OK	Yes	No	Yes	Fax
OR	Yes	No	Yes	E-mail
PA	Yes	No	No
RI	Yes	Yes	Yes	E-mail
SC	No	No	Yes	E-mail
SD	No	No	No
TN	Yes	No	No
TX	Yes	No	Yes	Fax
UT	Yes	Yes	Yes	E-mail
VT	Yes	No	No	Portal
VA	Yes	No	No
WA	Yes	No	Yes	E-mail
WV	Yes	Yes	Yes	Mobile
WI	No	No	No
WY	No	No	No
DC	Yes	Yes	Yes	E-mail
USVI	No	No	Yes	E-mail

Finally, the National Federation of the Blind has a hotline you can call if you have questions about your civil rights generally or voting specifically. NFB Legal can be reached by phone at (410) 659-9314, x2440 or by e-mail at Legal@nfb.org

Thanks, S.S.-L.! If any readers have questions, or have additional resources to recommend, please do send a message to questions@electoral-vote.com, and we'll make sure the information gets to the right place. (Z)

Note by (V): As an overseas voter and security guy I am appalled at using insecure email for returning ballots. There has to be a better way. For example, overseas voters could use the local mail system to return ballots to the American embassy (or consulate) in their country. Then the embassy could use diplomatic mailing procedures to securely send each day's batch of ballots to a government receiving office (or offices, one in each time zone) for further distribution to the correct state elections office.

Today's Presidential Polls

The Georgia result is the most implausible here. But if you flip that one, and take all the rest at face value (which you really shouldn't do), Kamala Harris is your next president. (Z)

State	Kamala Harris	Donald Trump	Start	End	Pollster
Arizona	46%	49%	Sep 29	Oct 14	George Mason U.
Florida	43%	53%	Oct 07	Oct 18	U. of North Florida
Georgia	51%	47%	Sep 29	Oct 14	George Mason U.
Michigan	49%	47%	Sep 29	Oct 14	George Mason U.
North Carolina	47%	50%	Sep 29	Oct 14	George Mason U.
New Mexico	50%	41%	Oct 10	Oct 18	Research and Polling
Nevada	48%	48%	Sep 29	Oct 14	George Mason U.
Pennsylvania	49%	47%	Sep 29	Oct 14	George Mason U.
Wisconsin	50%	47%	Sep 29	Oct 14	George Mason U.

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

Today's Senate Polls

Don't look now, but Rep. Debbie Mucarsel-Powell (D-FL) has been creeping closer and closer to Sen. Rick Scott (R-FL) in polls after the last few weeks. Maybe it has something to do with his being a notorious jerk whose company defrauded the government and who wants to get rid of Medicare and Social Security. Or maybe people just don't like his tie. Hard to know. (Z)

State	Democrat	D %	Republican	R %	Start	End	Pollster
Florida	Debbie Mucarsel-Powell	46%	Rick Scott*	49%	Oct 07	Oct 18	U. of North Florida
Washington	Maria Cantwell*	53%	Raul Garcia	38%	Oct 16	Oct 17	PPP

* Denotes incumbent

---

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