Lots of Talk about Texts

After reports came out that the U.S. Secret Service deleted text messages from Jan. 5-6, 2021, the chairman of the Select Committee investigating the coup attempt, Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-MS), sent a subpoena to the USSS demanding the deleted texts and any explanation for why they might have been deleted. An answer of: "We don't have them because we wanted to cover Trump's a*s" would not go over well. The USSS tries very, very hard to avoid being partisan. If the public came to feel that it protects only Republican presidents and that Democratic presidents are on their own, there would be hell to pay.

The USSS says it is taking the subpoena seriously. Anthony Guglielmi, the head of communications for the agency, said it would fully cooperate with Congress and supply whatever was requested. It has already supplied almost 800,000 un-redacted e-mails, radio transmissions, and records to the Committee.

However, the inspector general of the Dept. of Homeland Security, Joseph Cuffari, told the Committee on Friday behind closed doors that the USSS has not been cooperating with his own investigation of the matter. In fact, it may have deleted data he sought after he asked for it. So it is possible that the USSS' strategy is to say it is cooperating with various investigations but actually under the radar is blocking them. If that is what is going on, it probably indicates the USSS has something to hide. If so, both the inspector general and the Committee want to know what it is and why the agency is not fully cooperating with the investigations and is possibly even actively trying to impede them.

Several Committee members, including Thompson and Jamie Raskin (D-MD), are quite irate about the missing text messages and are clearly angry with the USSS for not cooperating fully with the investigations. They are not swallowing the USSS' story that the agency reset all of its iPhones for a planned system migration and data was lost, so no big deal. They want to know why they weren't backed up before the reset to factory settings, if that is what happened.

The subpoena is the first one from the Committee to an Executive Branch agency. If the agency does cooperate fully, that sets a precedent for other agencies down the road.

Three members of the Select Committee investigating the Jan. 6 coup attempt went on television yesterday to talk about the text messages. Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) appeared on ABC to say that she expects an answer to the Committee's subpoena by Tuesday. She also noted that she was shocked that the USSS had deleted texts after an inspector general had asked for them. If the Service can't recover them by Tuesday, a lot more questions are going to be asked.

Committee member Adam Kinzinger (R-IL) went on CBS and also discussed the text messages. he said: "In the very least, it is quite crazy that the Secret Service would actually end up deleting anything related to one of the more infamous days in American history, particularly when it comes to the role of the Secret Service." Kinzinger also said that the Committee was not going to subpoena Donald Trump because everyone assumes Trump would lie to the Committee under oath, even though that is a felony.

Meanwhile. another Committee member, Elaine Luria (D-VA), was on CNN and said: "One would assume they had done everything possible to preserve those records, to analyze them, to determine what kind of things went right or went wrong that day and their practices and procedures."

All three of them were astounded that such potentially important evidence could be discarded so lightly, and then after a government watchdog agency had specifically asked for them.

Luria and Kinzinger are about to be important players in the ongoing hearings, the next installment of which will be on Thursday. Together they are expected to go through the events of 1/6 minute by minute, with a focus on what Trump did (and did not do) for a period of 3 hours during the riot. It is expected that new witnesses will fill in the blanks on Trump's activity while his mob was ransacking the Capitol and his own staff was telling him to call them off and he refused.

Luria also said that Thursday's hearing will be the last one in this series but that the Committee's work is far from done and the public will hear more from the Committee before it closes up shop. All of the members said that if new information or witnesses become available, the Committee could possibly schedule more hearings. (V)

Abortion Foes Want to Ban Online Ads

Opponents of abortion are opening up a new front in the abortion wars. Specifically, they want to ban online ads for reproductive health services. Their idea is that Texas could make it a crime for a clinic in New Mexico to advertise abortions in Albuquerque to people in Houston. And maybe even make it a crime to advertise that they are willing to send abortion pills to people in Houston.

This gets very complicated very fast. Typically an abortion clinic in New Mexico doesn't run paid ads on the websites of Texas newspapers and radio stations. Instead, people search for "abortion clinic" or "abortion pills" using Google, Bing, Yahoo, or some other search engine. What the search engine displays is not an always an ad. It could be just the home page of the clinic that the search engine found. In this model, there is no ad at all so the new laws would not apply.

However, a clinic wanting to drum up business could go to Google or the others and sign up as an advertiser by buying a search term, say "abortion pills." What this means is that when someone anywhere types: "abortion pills" a link to the clinic's Website appears on that person's results screen. If the person clicks on it, then Google charges the clinic an amount of money previously agreed to. If a clinic offers to pay 5 cents per click, it will be displayed lower down on the list than another clinic that has offered to pay $1 per click. Deciding how much to pay per click is a complicated business and all the search engines offer tools to dynamically manage bids, but this is clearly advertising. But who is the advertiser? Is it the clinic or is it Google? And can Texas tell Google, which is incorporated in Delaware but is located in California, what it can and cannot do?

The legality and technology of all this is far from clear. An advertiser, say a clinic, could instruct Google to refrain from displaying ads in states where it is illegal, but that is impossible to enforce. All Google has to go on is the IP address of the incoming request and that can be easily hidden by a anyone with a virtual private network (VPN), some of which are free. Thus, a woman in Texas searching for abortion pills could tunnel the request through a VPN server in Illinois and all Google would see is the Illinois IP address and thus display the ad.

Blue states could also fight back by passing analogous laws to target products and services in red states. If Illinois wanted to pass a law banning advertisements for Disney World or Miami hotels from appearing in Illinois, it could do so. If New York wanted to ban ads for Kentucky bourbon, why not?

However, the legality of such state laws would be very much in question. Abortion clinics generally charge money for their services, and so are engaged in interstate commerce. The Constitution clearly gives Congress, not the states, the power to regulate interstate commerce. The Supreme Court could easily see where this was going and decide it wasn't in a good direction, especially if blue states started doing it as well.

Also on the subject of interstate commerce, on Friday the House passed a bill largely along party lines guaranteeing women the right to cross state lines to get an abortion. The bill will die in the Senate. Nevertheless, it puts most House Republicans on record as opposing women's right to travel for whatever purpose they want. This is not going to play well with suburban women in November.

Also at issue could be the First Amendment. Specifically, it bans Congress from making laws banning free speech, but courts have often interpreted it more broadly. Who knows what the Supreme Court might do with claims that these laws are forbidden by the First Amendment. In short, this approach is going to open a giant can of worms and lead to legal and technical battles that will go on for years. (V)

Democrats Are Hoping That Trump Will Announce a 2024 Run Now

Democrats are not only hoping (and, in some cases, praying) that Donald Trump announces his 2024 presidential candidacy in August or September, they are actively planning for it, just in case.

First, the Democrats expect Trump's entry to generate a huge financial windfall for the their Party. They are already thinking about how get their donors hopping mad and how to spend the incoming funds.

Second, officials know that many base voters are despondent that the Democrats have achieved so little so far in Joe Biden's presidency. They believe that having nothing to run on would be forgotten if they have something (or someone) to run against.

Third, a Trump announcement would consume all the political oxygen for weeks and make many people forget about inflation, the war in Ukraine, and much more. All the negative policy issues that could hurt the Democrats would be pushed into the background.

Fourth, the continuous squabling between the progressive and moderate wings of the Democratic Party would stop in the face of a common enemy both wings desperately want to defeat. This would unify the Party in a way no legislative success could.

Fifth, Trump still maintains that he won the 2020 election. Once he is an official candidate, every Republican running for any office from governor to deputy assistant dogcatcher is going to be asked: "Who won the 2020 presidential election?" An answer of: "Trump won" is not going to sit will with independents or suburban women, but any other answer is going to get Trump to start yelling: "RINO" at the candidate, thus reducing Republican turnout.

Of course, the decision when to jump in is Trump's alone. Factors like his hope that the Dept. of Justice will be scared to indict an active presidential candidate could play a role. If he delays too long and is indicted before he declares, it will be too late. There is no way the DoJ will scratch an indictment just because the suspect is running for office, incidentally, otherwise every suspect in the country would file to run for some office. But Trump presumably doesn't realize that, or else is in denial.

If the Democrats were really smart, they'd have folks like Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Hillary Clinton and Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) go on all the news shows to opine that Trump isn't going to jump in anytime soon because he has tiny hands and because he's just too frightened of Mitch McConnell. But that sort of mind-game-playing isn't really the Democrats' style, is it? (V)

Republicans Are Scared of Child Rape Case

On Friday, we had an item about how Indiana AG Todd Rokita (R) attacked Caitlin Bernard, the doctor who performed the abortion on the 10-year-old rape victim who fled from Ohio to Indiana to please his base.

Quite a few Republican strategists agree with us, and feel this story will generate a huge backlash and will hurt Republican candidates up and down the ballot. They want to bury it as deep as possible. Their nightmare scenario is every Republican candidate in the country being asked: "Do you think a 10-year-old girl who was raped should be forced to bear the rapist's baby?" A "no" will anger much of the Republican base but a "yes" will anger most independents. "I have to catch a plane. See you!" will not please anyone.

The issue is not going to go away, as many red state legislatures are busy drafting, debating, and passing new laws to further restrict abortions—the result of which is to keep the issue front and center. John Thomas, a strategist who works for House Republicans, said: "These are the kind of things that are going to breathe life into the Democrats' hopes of maintaining some sort of coalition." Another Republican strategist, Scott Reed, said: "You know, we've got a historic opportunity here this November, and let's not blow it." Another (anonymous) strategist said that insisting that 10-year-old rape victims should carry the baby to term, as fabled right-wing lawyer James Bopp recently did, emphasizes precisely the area that makes even moderate opponents of abortion squeamish.

This case pits the far right against the even farther right. As bills are being drafted, big fights are breaking out among Republicans over the wording of the bills. In particular, should there be any exceptions written into proposed laws, especially for things like rape and pregnancies in children (and a 10-year-old is unquestionably a child). When state legislators argue for "no exceptions whatsoever," that argument is going to be used by Democrats over and over, even in different races in different states with the message: "This is what Republicans want." That is going to motivate both Democrats and independents to vote.

But even with Republicans providing Democrats with campaign fodder, the blue team is not necessarily home free. Rep. Jim Himes (D-CT) has been talking to voters in his very blue state and concluded that telling voters to elect more Democrats so they can protect the right to abortion doesn't work well. He now believes that bills that are targeted to specific concerns will work better than just trying to pass a law that says: "Abortions are legal in every state despite what state law says." For example, a bill that says "abortions are legal in every state to save the life of the mother puts Republicans in Congress in a bind. Any Republican who votes against it is saying that if a woman gets pregnant and the only way to save her life (e.g., with an ectopic pregnancy) is an abortion, then she can't have it and will have to die. Sorry about that. Himes doesn't think that will be an easy sell with women who might get pregnant—especially with women who then realize that if they are raped, it could be fatal for them.

Himes point is that some voters have ambiguous feelings about abortions at 8 months, but forcing Republicans to go on the record voting that it is better for a woman to die than for her to have an abortion is not going to win them a lot of votes with suburban women. Forcing these kinds of votes will show everyone how extreme the Republicans are.

A consequence of this kind of reasoning is that the Democrats are essentially forced to make a choice of what they want in their bill, namely either:

• Allow any woman to demand and get an abortion whenever she wants it
• Only protect abortions to save the mother and in cases of rape, children getting pregnant, etc.

The former is probably more satisfying than the latter for most Democrats. The only problem is that no bill of any kind will pass the Senate since Republicans will filibuster it. The advantage of the latter is that it forces Republicans to take a very difficult vote that could be electoral poison for them. Given that no bill is going to pass no matter what's in it, designing it to hurt the Republicans the most might be a good strategy. The downside here is to anger some Democrats who will then ask: "Why did you propose such a weak bill?" The answer, of course, is "no bill can pass the Senate now, so we are trying to defeat as many Republicans as possible so we can try again in 2023." But not every Democratic voter can play chess. (V)

Will the Future Be Worse than the Past?

One of The New York Times' conservative columnists, David Brooks, has written a column suggesting that bad as the previous 6 years have been, the next 6 years could be worse. We hope he is wrong, but he does have some good points, as follows:

• Direction of the country: A recent Siena College poll shows that only 13% of the voters are satisfied with the direction of the country. That is a terrible number. Continuing in the same direction is only going to make it worse, especially since there is no one more dangerous than someone who feels they have nothing to lose.
  
  
• Nobody likes the leaders: In a recent poll, 33% of the country approves of the job Joe Biden is doing. While this is not a record low, it is pretty bad. But the other side is almost as bad. Half of Republicans don't want Donald Trump to run again. Yet we are quite likely to get Biden vs. Trump in 2024, which will make large numbers of people very unhappy, on both sides.
  
  
• Inflation: Inflation is higher than it has been in 40 years. The United States is not the Weimar Republic, but people still feel this every day. Remember "It's the economy, stupid?" The causes of the inflation are complex, in part due to disruptions from the pandemic (which is by no means over), in part due to the war in Ukraine, and in part due to other causes, but people don't like it and probably won't like the cure (high interest rates followed by a recession).
  
  
• The leaders are all old: Joe Biden is 79, Donald Trump is 76, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) is 71, Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) is 80 and speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) is 82. Only Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) hasn't hit 70 yet (he is 57), and he has a host of other problems (like no backbone and no beliefs other than he would like to be speaker). Are there young, dynamic leaders anywhere to be seen in D.C.? Not with a national profile, and there won't be unless the boomers finally decide to get out of the way.
  
  
• The parties are failing: Increasing numbers of voters are becoming independents, largely because they don't like either of the major parties. One recent poll showed that 62% of the voters want a third party. That's not going to happen for many reasons, but that leaves a lot of unhappy voters who simply vote for the least-bad party. It also generates a lot of apathy and discontent.
  
  
• The system is broken: Another recent poll showed that people believe the current system doesn't work, with 58% saying that it needs major reforms or a complete overhaul. Half of young adults says that voting doesn't matter and doesn't affect how the government operates.

A point that Brooks didn't make is that democracy is hanging by a thread. If Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger (R), Arizona House Speaker Rusty Bowers (R), and a couple of other officials had less backbone than they did, democracy might not have survived in 2020. Having the survival of democracy hinge on half a dozen people being able to resist enormous pressure is not a good place to be.

A large piece of the problem is that the two parties are so closely matched at about 45% each and the checks and balances work so well, that it is impossible for either party to get anything done. In parliamentary democracies generally, if one party or a coalition of parties gets a majority in the parliament, it can carry out its program. If the voters don't like it, they can kick them out at the next election. Of course, multiparty systems come with their own problems, especially forming a government after an election (see: Israel, Italy, the Netherlands, and Belgium).

Also, the Republicans are completely dishonest. They talk endlessly about abortion, which they don't really care about, and hardly ever talk about cutting taxes for rich people, which is what they really want. Remember 2017, when they had the national trifecta? Did Congress pass a very carefully crafted law effectively banning abortion nationwide and dare the Supreme Court to throw it out? No, all the Republicans did was ram through a giant tax cut for rich people. But GOP voters haven't caught on, so it works. The Democrats actually care about their stated platform, but the Senate filibuster blocks them from carrying out even that portion of it that the moderates and progressives agree on. In short, the system is completely broken.

Brooks thinks that a fringe candidate might emerge in 2024 whose entire platform was: Everything is broken and I will fix it. But we are very skeptical that such a candidate (like Ross Perot in 1992) could emerge and win, and even if someone managed to pull it off, Congress would probably still be deadlocked and under the control of people way past their "use-by" date. (V)

Republicans Will Probably Hold Their 2024 Convention in Wisconsin

The New York Times is reporting that the Republican Party will likely hold its 2024 nominating convention in the key swing state of Wisconsin, specifically in Milwaukee, the largest city in the state. The RNC has to officially sign off on the choice in its meeting next month, but it is likely to do so. Donald Trump won Wisconsin in 2016 but lost it in 2020, so anything the Republicans can do to win it again in 2024 is probably a good idea for them.

Milwaukee wasn't the only finalist in the competition for the convention. So was Nashville, TN. However, Tennessee is not a swing state and some local officials in Nashville don't want the convention, so the RNC will probably go with Milwaukee, which has the facilities to handle an influx of the 50,000 delegates, alternate delegates, Republican politicians, donors, journalists, bloggers, media crews, TV anchors, spinmasters, photographers, technical personnel, public safety teams, medical personnel, prostitutes, alternate prostitutes, and more. Protesters are probably not included in that count, however, although some no doubt will show up.

Since 1832, national conventions have been held in 27 cities in 19 states. The most popular cities have been Chicago (25 conventions), Baltimore (10), Philadelphia (9), New York (6), and St. Louis (4). In the distant past, transportation to the convention was a big issue, which is why Chicago was so popular. Here is a map showing where the conventions have been held:

Here is a list of where the post-World War II conventions were held:

Year	Democrats	Republicans
1948	Philadelphia	Philadelphia
1952	Chicago	Chicago
1956	Chicago	San Francisco
1960	Los Angeles	Chicago
1964	Atlantic City	San Francisco
1968	Chicago	Miami Beach
1972	Miami Beach	Miami Beach
1976	New York City	Kansas City
1980	New York City	Detroit
1984	San Francisco	Dallas
1988	Atlanta	New Orleans
1992	New York City	Houston
1996	Chicago	San Diego
2000	Los Angeles	Philadelphia
2004	Boston	New York City
2008	Denver	Minneapolis-St. Paul
2012	Charlotte	Tampa
2016	Philadelphia	Cleveland
2020	(Virtual)	(Virtual)

As you can see, holding a convention in a swing state hasn't always been the choice. Of the 10 physical conventions starting with 2000, only four have been in swing states (Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Florida, and Ohio). In 2000, the Republicans met in Pennsylvania but the Democrats carried the state. In 2012, the Democrats met in Charlotte and the Republicans met in Tampa. However, the Democrats lost North Carolina and the Republicans lost Florida. In 2016, the Republicans met in Cleveland and did indeed win Ohio. Still, that's a batting average of only .250, which is not great in baseball and terrible in politics.

All things being equal, holding a convention in a state might be worth a point or two in November, but it can't overcome national trends. And the choice of a location has to consider many factors. First, cities have to bid for the convention. A party could yearn desperately for Michigan, but if Detroit doesn't enter a bid, it is not going there. Second, the logistics have to be there. The city needs a modern, huge convention center, sufficient hotel capacity for the 50,000 visitors, and direct flights from all regions of the country. Third, the weather is a factor. For example, in August, Phoenix' average low is 85F and the average high is 104F. This may (partly) explain why no national convention has ever been held in Arizona. Fourth, conventions are very expensive. If a major donor (e.g., the owner of a big fancy hotel) agrees to pony up millions of dollars to get the convention where he or she wants it, that also factors into the equation. Fifth, there are a few cities that meet the other requirement, but that raise issues in terms of the party's image. No city in America is better suited to handle an influx of 50,000 people than Las Vegas, for example, and yet there's never been a convention there. Finally, sometimes a key governor really wants the convention. Consequently, swing-state status is just one of many variables the parties have to consider.

The Democrats haven't made a pick yet. Gov. J.B. Pritzker (D-IL) is pushing hard for Chicago, even though Illinois is not a swing state. However, Atlanta, Houston, and New York have also made bids. Houston is too hot in the summer and Texas is a lost cause, so scratch that one. Thus the real battle is among New York, Chicago, and Atlanta. Given how swingy Georgia has become and the fact that Delta Airlines' main hub is Atlanta with flights to it from just about everywhere, it is clearly a serious contender. (V)

The New PVIs Are Out

Charlie Cook & Co. have been computing and publishing the Partisan Voting Index (PVI) of House districts and states for 25 years and the new ones have just been computed. The PVI of a district or state is how much more Democratic or Republican it is compared to the weighted average presidential vote in 2016 and 2020. Thus D+2 means the area is 2 points more Democratic than the country as a whole as measured by the weighted average of the 2016 and 2020 presidential elections. In other words, if the national two-party popular vote averaged 50% Democratic and 48% Republican, then a D+2 district is about 52% Democratic and an R+6 district is about 54% Republican. Here is a map of the country showing every district based on the newly drawn district maps.

At a glance, the entire country seems red, with New Mexico the only all-blue state outside of New England. But this is an illusion since Democrats are tightly clustered in cities and buffalo don't vote (although Buffalo does). If you go to the page linked to above and mouse over any district, you get a pop-up with information about the district. For the time being at least, a PDF or spreadsheet with all the data is only for paying subscribers to the Cook Political Report (which we are) but Cook typically releases the data for everyone, eventually.

Nevertheless, David Wasserman of the CPR has released a fair amount of general information about the new PVIs. One change from the past is the weighting. Previously, the two most recent presidential elections counted equally. That has now been changed, with the most recent one weighted at 0.75 and the one before that weighted at 0.25. The change was made because straight-party voting is becoming much more common than it was and 2016 is like ancient history now, so it counts for less.

Before any of the new maps were drawn, Wasserman and others predicted the new map would give the Republicans up to five new seats. Then the Democrats got extremely aggressive in Maryland, Illinois and New York and Texas Republicans played it safe, so it looked like advantage Democrats for a while. But in the end, courts in Maryland and New York threw out wild gerrymanders, Ohio ran out of the clock on a map heavily biased toward Republicans, and Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-FL) bullied his legislature into accepting a map even more gerrymandered than the one the finest gerrymanderers in the state had put together. So Cook now has a net gain of 0 to 5 for the Republicans, assuming that everyone who voted in 2020 does so in 2022 and votes the same way. Of course, that won't happen.

Comparing the old and new PVIs gives some insight. There are 17 House districts that went from R+x to D+y, but Democrats already hold 12 of them, so they have only five pickup opportunities. On the other hand, of the 13 D-to-R districts, Democrats hold 11, meaning the Republicans have 11 pickup opportunities. This gives the Republicans an 11 to 5 edge here, again assuming no red or blue waves this year. That alone would be enough to flip the House.

But there is more. Seventeen previously competitive districts became redder while only seven previously competitive districts became bluer. Sometimes the effect is dramatic, as in TX-24 in suburban Dallas, which was R+1 and is now R+10. Consequently, incumbent Rep. Beth Van Duyne (R-TX) can now relax and go fishing this fall instead of bothering to campaign. That same effect also plays out in eight more Texas districts, since the legislature opted for beefing up their leads in many districts rather than trying to create new red districts. The net effect is that even absent a red wave, the Democrats wouldn't be able to flip any Texas districts, and with a red wave, they could lose some of their own seats. In several other states, Democrats went for broke while Republicans played it safe and built enduring maps rather than being reckless and greedy, as Democrats did where they could.

Wasserman distinguishes between competitive seats (D+5 to R+5) and hypercompetitive seats (D+3 to R+3). Before redistricting, there were 90 competitive seats and 51 hypercompetitive seats. Now those numbers are 82 and 45, respectively. Control of the House will be largely determined in those 45 districts.

It is surprising that Democrats didn't come out of this even worse, since they were fighting with one hand tied behind their backs. In many big blue states, like California, Colorado, New Jersey, New York, Virginia and Washington, independent commissions or courts drew fair maps. In contrast, in big red states like Texas, Florida, and Georgia, Republican-controlled state legislatures drew the exactly maps they wanted. Maybe unilateral disarmament is not a great idea. Here is a map showing who made the maps:.

The difference is striking and goes back to a fundamental difference between the parties. The Democrats think the most important thing is playing according to the rules and being fair. The Republicans think the most important thing is winning. It shows. Also, for decades, Republicans have prioritized winning state legislatures. Democrats tend to show up in March of presidential years and focus on winning the White House. There is no reason other than gerrymandering that Republicans have large majorities in the state Houses and Senates of slightly Democratic states like Wisconsin (38D, 61R in the House; 12D, 21R in the Senate) Michigan (53D, 56R in the House; 16D, 22R in the Senate), and Pennsylvania (90D, 113R in the House; 21D, 28R in the Senate).

The bottom line here is that 203 districts are D+x, 226 districts are R+y, and six are EVEN. If the latter split evenly and everybody holds serve, the new House will be 229 Republicans and 206 Democrats. The current House is 211 Republicans, 220 Democrats, and four vacancies. Thus the new PVIs "predict" a gain of about 18 seats for the GOP. But remember, issues like abortion, guns, and Donald Trump's future plans could easily upset the applecart. (V)

Mehmet Oz Is in the Middle of a Nasty Inheritance Battle

It is never helpful for a Senate candidate in a competitive, high-profile race to be simultaneously bogged down with a high-stakes personal court battle, such as a child custody battle or a dispute over an inheritance. Oddly enough, this has happened not once, but twice, for Republican Senate candidates in Pennsylvania this year. The first came when the Trump-endorsed Sean Parnell (R) dropped out after a judge awarded custody of his children to his former wife, who accused Parnell of abusing them.

Now, Mehmet Oz (R) is embroiled in a bitter, multinational dispute with his two sisters over their wealthy father's estate, including accusations of forged wills and looted bank accounts. If Oz puts most of his energy into his Senate race, he could lose out on millions of dollars in inheritance money, but if he focuses on winning the money, he could lose the Senate race. His lawyer in the inheritance case said it is a "complex and fact-filled family drama." As a consequence, Oz may have to prioritize power over money or vice versa. If he really thinks he can win the Senate race, he might decide his he enough money already and focus on the election. But if he realizes that he is a serious underdog, he might start dreaming of all the nice houses he could buy with a few more million and focus on the court case.

On one side are Oz and his sister, Seval Oz, who lives in California. On the other is his sister Nazlim Oz, who lives in Istanbul but is suing her brother in New York for not paying her $15,000/mo. for 3 years for the rent of two Manhattan condos he is using. In turn, they are suing her for allegedly looting their late father's Turkish bank account by forging his signature on various legal documents and then hiding the money in banks in the Cayman Islands and other places. A Turkish handwriting expert has confirmed the forgery. There are many other accusations flying back and forth.

As far as we know, Lt. Gov. John Fetterman (D-PA) has not (yet) enlisted Nazlim to make any ads stating that her brother is a crooked, untrustworthy scoundrel, but there is yet time. Also, Fetterman hasn't taken the low road to point out that not only is Oz a Muslim, but also a citizen of Turkey. As long as Fetterman is leading in the polls, he is certainly not going down that road. On the other hand, if Oz starts making his campaign about Fetterman's recent stroke and how he has lost his marbles as a result, Fetterman could decide to go down the low road as well. There is plenty of material to work with, and getting Oz' sister to badmouth him as a crook on video might not be hard to do since she is already doing it in court filings. It's worth noting that Fetterman HAS hired The Jersey Shore's Nicole "Snooki" Polizzi to record a video proclaiming how excited she is to have a fellow resident of New Jersey running for the Senate in Pennsylvania. So, the Lieutenant Governor is definitely not above a little trolling. (V)

---

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