Senate page Nov. 23
New polls: GA
Dem pickups: PA
GOP pickups: (None)
Will Donald Trump eventually pay the price for (some of) the misdeeds attributed to him? Time will tell,
but we know one thing for certain: He's had (yet another) bad week in court.
Let's run through the various setbacks quickly, so we can move on to more interesting stuff:
- Yesterday, the Supreme Court
it will not get involved in the question of whether or not House Ways and Means Chair Richard Neal (D-MA) can have
Trump's tax returns. SCOTUS' majority is committed to a conservative agenda, but they don't have much use for Trump. The
former president is out of appeal options here, so his attempt to run out the clock until Jan. 3, when Neal will be
getting a demotion, has failed. We presume that the returns will eventually become public, one way or another.
- Yesterday, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) bowed to reality and
before the Georgia grand jury that is looking into election interference on the part of the Senator, Trump, et al. It's not known what
Graham said, as yet. However, Graham's #1 concern has always been protecting Lindsey Graham's rear end. So, it is not likely that
what he said yesterday was helpful to Trump.
- Also in Georgia yesterday, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta
arguments about whether or not a special master should have been appointed to look through the documents seized from
Mar-a-Lago. People who were in the room said that the judges' questions suggest that they are inclined to get rid of the
- If there is one skill where Donald Trump is way above average, perhaps even savant-level, it's finding people
willing to do unethical and illegal things on his behalf, while giving him plausible deniability. In his ongoing
testimony in New York, former Trump Organization CFO, and still Trump Organization employee Allen Weisselberg
has been bending over backwards
to fulfill the terms of his plea deal without incriminating his Trump family bosses. The basic summary is that
Weisselberg admits that tax fraud took place, and he admits that the Trumps signed checks as part of that, and he admits
that the fraud magically stopped once Donald Sr. was elected president. However, Weisselberg insists that the Trumps did
not know about the fraud, and that while it did profit them, it was undertaken solely by him (Weisselberg) for his own
benefit. We may see, one day, how persuasive a jury finds that version of events. That said, for some crimes, it doesn't
necessarily matter if the higher ups knew what was going on; it's enough that they were negligent in allowing it to
- Last week, Republican strategist Jesse Benton was
of illegally funneling Russian money to the Trump campaign. Like Weisselberg, Benton insists that the former president
was ignorant of what was going on. It's not clear whether this might eventually implicate Trump, though we will note
that he pardoned Benton previously for a different crime, and now Benton has six new convictions to deal with. So, if he
has dirt to dish, he has new motivation to dish it.
That's the latest from the Trump legal blotter. He gets a breather for a couple of days, thanks to the holiday. But
next week will undoubtedly bring more adverse legal news. (Z)
In the Q&A
the weekend before last, we included this question and answer:
T.C. in Miami Beach, FL, asks: Florida has a resign-to-run law (i.e., a sitting mayor with
eyes on a open congressional seat must resign the mayoralty in order to run for Congress). Would this apply to Ron
DeSantis if he chooses to run for president?
V & Z answer: Florida's resign-to-run law only applies to state and municipal offices. So, a mayor has to
resign in order to run for governor, but not to run for Congress.
That means the law would have no effect on a DeSantis presidential run. And even if it did, the state legislature lives
in his pocket, and he'd just make them change the law. The Texas legislature did the same thing for Lyndon Johnson in
1960, changing Texas law so he could simultaneously run for the U.S. Senate (again) and for vice president.
Turns out we were wrong... and right.
You see, we don't have every state's election code memorized. In fact, we don't have any state's election code memorized.
We know enough to know that resign-to-run laws vary by state, and we also know how to look things up. And so, we confirmed
that the last update to Florida's resign-to-run law was in 2018. And then we found
of the state's resign-to-run law on the website of the Florida Secretary of State. It says "Updated 01/2018," which means
it's current. And it also says that "Exceptions to the resign-to-run law" include "Candidates for federal office" and
"Persons seeking the office of President or Vice President." That's what you call rock-solid evidence, and so we ran
Well, for reasons that still aren't clear to us, the resign-to-run law might potentially kick in if Gov. Ron DeSantis
(R-FL) decides to run for president. You can click on the link above and confirm for yourself that it is unambiguous,
and says in two different ways that a DeSantis presidential run won't trigger the law (since he would be a candidate for
federal office, and since he would specifically be a candidate for president). And again, the law hasn't been updated
since 2018, so that link is not outdated. We are not sure what's going on here. Maybe the Florida Secretary of State
doesn't understand Florida's election laws. That would be... unfortunate, if true.
In any event, our answer was still correct thanks to our observation that if it became necessary, the Florida
legislature would do DeSantis' bidding and change the law to accommodate him. That's
out of the Sunshine State yesterday, with both House Speaker Paul Renner (R) and Senate President Kathleen Passidomo (R)
confirming that they are on board. So, an LBJ-style "adjustment" is pretty much a done deal. And so, for that matter, is
a DeSantis 2024 presidential run. One does not generally arrange for the laws regarding running for office to be changed
unless one actually plans to run for office. (Z)
When it comes to the promotion that House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) is hoping for, most of the focus has
been on the MAGA crew. After all, without their votes, he's not going to become Speaker. And indeed, he's really got a
problem there. Yesterday, Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL)
Steve Bannon's podcast and said he's got at least five Republican colleagues who won't support McCarthy for Speaker. In
a House that is 222-213, as expected, then five votes are enough.
We're not so sure that the MAGA members actually have that much leverage, however. First of all, Gaetz could be lying
or exaggerating. Second, this might just be performative, with an eye toward getting extra concessions out of McCarthy.
Third, even if Gaetz is correct and even if the MAGA folks are serious, it's not like they are going to get one of their
own elected as Speaker. The most they can do is slow down the process, and even that approach has an expiration
For these reasons, we think the members that McCarthy should really be worried about are these folks, the ones
who won districts that went for Joe Biden in 2020. The third column shows the President's margin of victory in the
district, the fourth column shows by how many points the member won in 2020, and the fifth column shows the difference
between the two (numbers
|| Mike Garcia
|| Anthony D'Esposito
|| George Santos
|| Young Kim
|| Brian Fitzpatrick
|| Michelle Steel
|| Nick Lalota
|| Lori Chavez Deremer
|| Mike Lawler
|| Don Bacon
|| Brandon Williams
|| Tom Kean, Jr.
|| Marc Molinaro
|| Jen Kiggans
|| Dave Schweikert
|| Juan Ciscomani
There are 16 representatives on this list. You will note that 16 is more than the five (or so?) that Gaetz claims.
And 16 is also more than enough to make the difference between 218 votes and fewer than 218 votes.
Perhaps most importantly, though, these 16 members have options. There is no way Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA)
can give her support to anyone who is to the left of McCarthy. On the other hand, a Young Kim (R-CA) or a Jen Kiggans
(R-VA) can vote for a Republican of any sort, including the most liberal member of the caucus. They also have cover to
partner with the Democrats, should it come to that.
The fundamental truth here is that silly investigations, whether into Whitewater or uranium sales or Benghazi or
Hunter Biden's laptop or the Mexican border, absolutely please the kind of people that vote for Greene. But otherwise,
their effect is somewhere between "no impact" and "turning voters off." These 16 members know it, and some are
already making noises about their unwillingness to be a part of 2 years of far-right political theater. So are some
Republicans elected from districts that Donald Trump won. They know that when they face a presidential electorate
in 2024, they need to be able to say something more than "we got to the bottom of Hunter Biden's laptop."
So, every day, some sort of meeting of the minds between the Democratic caucus and the more moderate
members of the Republican conference becomes more and more possible. The blue team might be persuaded to support a
moderate like Kim just in order to stop McCarthy from becoming Speaker. And if that's not enough of a carrot, then
getting to keep a few committee chairs should do the job. And if a moderate-Republican/Democratic coalition emerges
in the House, then those moderate Republicans become a version of Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV). They effectively become
the gatekeepers who get to dictate what (moderate) legislation passes and what legislation doesn't.
You never know what might happen, but we're getting closer and closer to the point that "not McCarthy" is more
likely than "McCarthy" when it comes to the identity of the next Speaker of the House. (Z)
Joe Biden's student-loan-debt forgiveness program is currently on ice as the courts consider the various objections
raised by Republican activist groups across the country. And so, the President
that the pandemic-inspired suspension of loan repayments would be extended, yet again, to June 2023.
Is this a winning issue for Republicans? Undoubtedly, there are some people in red states who are very upset by the
loan forgiveness, but most of those folks are already in the bag for the GOP. There's only a benefit here if fighting
back against loan forgiveness impresses persuadable voters in swingy states and districts. Are there really a lot of
Oh, and there's another part to the calculation. No matter how many voters are impressed by the anti-forgiveness
activity, there needs to be more of them than the number of voters who are driven into the Democratic camp by the same
issue. Recall that young voters showed up in unusually high numbers this election. And yet, their turnout was still less
than 30%, meaning there's still plenty of room for that vote to grow. Meanwhile, Biden is getting opportunity after
opportunity after opportunity to remind them that he and the Democrats are trying to help with their loans while the
Republicans are aggressively defending the opposition position. From where we sit, this looks like bad math for the red
Speaking of issues where Republicans appear to be taking the much more unpopular position, Georgia Republicans are
doing what Republicans these days tend to do, and are bending over backwards to make it harder for people to vote.
The specific issue, as we have
is voting on Saturday, Nov. 26. Georgia state law forbids early voting the day after a holiday, and Nov. 26 is two days
after Thanksgiving and is one day after the holiday that used to be Robert E. Lee Day in Georgia and is now just an
unnamed paid holiday. So, does the state law apply here?
The answer to that question, thus far, has been "no." Fulton County Superior Court Judge Thomas Cox found that the
law in question does not apply to runoff elections. And yesterday, the Georgia appeals court
So, it looks like there will be early voting on Saturday, since time is running out for appeals. After all, it's not
like courts are open for business on Thanksgiving.
That is not to say that Georgia Republicans aren't going to try it, though. They have
to the Georgia Supreme Court. And their argument is... evolving. Now, instead of focusing on the Georgia law involving
holidays, they are arguing that the situation is inherently unfair because only 10 counties, all of them
Democratic-leaning, are going to have early voting on the 26th.
Of course, there are two pretty obvious counterarguments to that. The first is that if the Republican-leaning
counties chose not to have early voting, then that's on them. The second is that the Democratic-leaning counties are
also the most populous counties, and so early voting is needed because there are far more people who need to be
accommodated. We will theoretically learn today if the Georgia Supremes take the case and, assuming they do, if they are
willing to disregard both of these arguments and rule for the Republicans. (Z)
Readers will recall that, back in March, we commenced an effort to identify the worst political figure in America. Here are all the
previous entries in that series, should you care to review:
- March... Sadness, Part I (Round of 64, Part I)
- March... Sadness, Part II (Round of 64, Part II)
- March... Sadness, Part III (Executive Branch, Round 2)
- March... Sadness, Part IV (Judges and Governors, Round 2)
- March... Sadness, Part V (The Legislative Branch, Round 2)
- March... Sadness, Part VI (Others, Round 2)
- March... Sadness, Part VII (Executive Branch, Round 3)
- March... Sadness, Part VIII (Judges and Governors, Round 3)
- March... Sadness, Part IX (Legislative Branch, Round 3)
- March... Sadness, Part X (Others, Round 3)
- March... Sadness, Part XI (Executive Branch, Round 4)
- March... Sadness, Part XII (Judges and Governors, Round 4)
- March... Sadness, Part XIII (Legislative Branch, Round 4)
- March... Sadness, Part XIV (Others, Round 4)
- March... Sadness, Part XV (Final Four, Part I)
- March... Sadness, Part XVI (Final Four, Part II)
- March... Sadness, Part XVII (The Also-Rans)
- March... Sadness, Part XVIII (This One's For All the Marbles)
- March... Sadness, Part XIX (The Write-Ins)
- March... Sadness, Part XX (The Ten Also-Rans)
It was very difficult to remain in sync with the actual NCAA March Madness tournament, which inspired the whole
thing. And once that particular pressure was no longer in operation, it was easy for more pressing news to get in the
way. We have to write the serious stuff up first, and between that and our real-life responsibilities, the "bonus" stuff
sometimes gets pushed aside... for a long time.
But now it's time to finally bring this baby home. Recall that we determined the final winner (loser?) with a
championship matchup, but we also created a "consolation round" for those who did not make the championship, just to
make sure that serious venality did not go unrecognized. And with that reminder out of the way, here are the dozen worst
political figures in America, as voted on by you folks, with thoughts from us and comments from readers:
- Legislative Branch #12 Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV)
Our Take: The worst showing for a Democratic politician. It presumably says something about
both the readership and the Republican Party that it's nearly all Republicans in the Top 10 (along with a few
whose politics are not known, or who are not American).
M.S. in Westchester County, NY: I voted for Manchin, not because of the temper tantrum over
Build Back Better and his corruption, which is bad enough, but for his treachery regarding Freedom to Vote/John Lewis Voting Rights
Advancement Act. It was his bill!
D.R.J. in Oberlin, OH: I voted Joe Manchin for placing his ego and greed ahead of progress
that would benefit all Americans.
- Others #7 Trump adviser and lawyer Rudy Giuliani
Our Take: Giuliani is already fading quickly into irrelevance. Would he make the Top 12
if the voting was next year?
D.B. in Keedysville, MD: Giuliani is just rather pathetic, at this point. He needs to be put
away somewhere, where his wild ravings can't hurt anyone anymore. Sad!
- Legislative Branch "Last Four Out" Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH)
Our Take: Whereas Giuliani might drop in the rankings a year from now, Jordan is set to
rise due to the platform he's likely to get as chair of the House Judiciary Committee.
M.B. in Pittsboro, NC: I very much appreciate the chance to acknowledge the wickedness of two
sorry excuses for human beings in Jordan and Stephen Miller. At least Jordan is an elected official, somewhat exposed to
public scrutiny... although apparently his lack of concern about the sex abuse visited upon the young wrestlers that
were his responsibility is not a sufficient reason for the voters of Ohio's 4th district to unelect him. But Stephen
Miller is even more dangerous. Most Americans don't know he exists and continues to function at the highest levels of
government, whispering in Trump's ear and encouraging the most cruel and draconian opinions and policies, especially on
immigration. I keep waiting for some oppo-research to uncover the truth about him, but because he's barely in the
public's awareness, even something utterly reprehensible in his life would probably not get much coverage. He is a
horror, and deserves to be shown publicly as the villain he is.
- Facebook/Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg
Our Take: And remember, this voting took place before he unceremoniously laid off 10,000
employees. Zuckerberg is going to play the same role in history books as the robber barons of the 19th century.
L.E. in Santa Barbara, CA: When considering all of the choices, I had to rank both Rupert
Murdoch and Mark Zuckerberg in the top five, over Vladamir Putin and Xi Jinping. Why? Because I have always expected
foreign, hostile nations (and even some "friendly" ones) to muck around in our politics and lives. However, without
Murdoch and Zuckerberg amplifying and enabling the mucking over the past several years, these hostile nations never
would have had the impact and successes that they have had and are having.
- Executive Branch #9 Former vice president Dick Cheney
Our Take: We got dozens of e-mails explaining why Cheney deserves to be in the Top 5
(Bottom 5?), and more than half of them specifically referred to him as Darth Cheney. Interesting.
T.T. in Minden, LA: Can there be any doubt that Donald Trump is the winner? I'm boldly
predicting it. But as to the consolation round, I pick Darth Cheney. Would you ever have believed, ten years ago, that
this man would so soon be a distant also-ran for the most damaging political figure? The guy who masterminded the U.S.
launching of an unprovoked invasion? The architect of an overarching state security apparatus (the DHS) that sucks in
billions of dollars per annum with limited oversight and control but almost unlimited reach? The arch-villain who not
only made torture a U.S. policy, but helped popularize euphemisms referring to it (black ops, extraordinary rendition,
enhanced interrogation methods)? Donald Trump truly deserves the "prize" for this contest, if for nothing else than
for helping Cheney's crimes disappear down the memory hole, and making George Bush, who was nominally Cheney's boss,
seem so normal in retrospect.
D.B. in Keedysville, MD: I still consider Dick Cheney to be the Lex Luthor of American
politics, although I recognize that folks younger than I might just call him Darth Cheney. More than any other single
person, he is responsible for the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives lost and the trillions of dollars (that's a "T,"
as in a million dollars, taken several million times!) wasted on the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars. Working with his
ignominious partners, Paul Wolfowitz and, in particular, Douglas Feith, head of the Pentagon's Office of Special Plans,
whose mission was to propagandize the American people into buying the Iraq War (which is, just by the way, against the,
um, law an' stuff), they misrepresented or lied about every bit of cherry-picked information they could find to convince
us to go to war.
- Fox media mogul Rupert Murdoch
Our Take: Murdoch might be the only person here who is hated even more in the U.K. than
he is in the U.S.
M.B. in Melrose, MA: Fox News fuels anger and hatred, using Democrats as the scapegoat,
dividing our country. While Sean Hannity and Tucker Carlson are horrible humans, they would not have a platform without Murdoch.
F.L. in Denton, TX: Radix malorum est Murdoch.
- Executive Branch #16 Former White House senior advisor Stephen Miller
Our Take: Miller is someone who would have gone far, if not for the fact that he ended up in
a first-round matchup against Trump. We'll do another tournament next year, albeit with a different subject, and we'll
find a better way to do the seeding.
S.G. in Newark, NJ: He's an utter embarrassment, a disgrace to his people and an insult to the
S.H. in Phnom Penh, Cambodia: By most reports wielded significant influence on Trump, and
along with Bannon when he was present, was responsible for deliberately ensuring that Trump's policies had overtly ugly,
punch-you-in-the-face qualities to warm the hearts of the American Brownshirts.
- Russian president Vladimir Putin
Our Take: The only reason he is not higher is that the instructions specifically asked voters
to place the most weight on how the person impacted American society and politics.
M.S. in Westchester County, NY: I voted for Putin for this reason: He affected the result of
the 2016 election through the release of the Hillary Clinton and DNC emails and gave us Donald Trump. We still do not know the true story of the
relationship between these two. He is poised to interfere again in 2024. He also has a powerful lackey in
Tucker Carlson. The one, most basic argument that needs to be addressed by the Democrats is the survival of democracy. If
Ukraine isn't a wake up call, what is?
B.H. in Westborough, MA: The Ukraine war—U.N. estimates 14,200-14,400 Ukrainians dead so
far, and estimates of 18,900 Russian Soldiers dead. Reports of rape and torture of Ukrainian women.
- Others #2 Fox personality Tucker Carlson
Our Take: What is most scary about Carlson is that he doesn't believe most of the things
he says, but he is able to make it seem as if he does believe. Surely there is significant socoiopathy there, right?
A.H. in Columbus, OH: My top four votes in the Also-Rans list were easy...but for my fifth
vote I was torn. I specifically thought about your admonition "that the focus is specifically on negative impact on
America and American politics" and felt there really should be an evangelical leader like Billy Graham, et al., in the
running for their very negative impact on America and American politics by weaponizing faith. The problem I came up
against is: I can't choose just one. So I chose Tucker Carlson, because F that guy.
J.P.M. in Eagle Mills, NY: Thanks for including Zuckerberg and Murdoch in this listing. They
were easy, as were Addison McConnell and John Roberts. But oh, picking that last spot between **cker Carlson and Jim
Jordan was tough. Carlson won, just because he has more negative influence at the moment.
- Legislative Branch #2 Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY)
Our Take: We took extraordinary steps to reshuffle the deck, doing something (a consolation
round) that isn't actually a part of the NCAA Tournament (at least, not anymore). And still, McConnell and Carlson
took third and fourth place. The cream always rises to the top, and the scum always sinks to the bottom.
S.L. in Newark, DE: Thank you for giving me another chance to vote for McConnell.
B.H. in Westborough, MA: McConnell is more evil over the long term than even Trump.
- Judges and Governors #5 Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-FL)
Our Take: From the moment we announced the bracket, we thought this result was inevitable.
The only other contender for second place was McConnell, but he's a known commodity whereas the future harm that
DeSantis might do is both significant and unknowable.
T.B.S.S. in Silver Spring, MD: Ron DeSantis often gets mischaracterized (here and elsewhere)
as "Trump, but competent" or "Trump with a brain." I don't think it's quite that simple.
We've seen Donald Trump's central motivation for many decades now. He seeks power because—as with money, buildings,
women, magazine covers, gold toilets, and so on—it helps feed his bottomless need to see himself as the world's most
excellent and important winner.
DeSantis, on the other hand, seems to be animated largely by a desire to punish his political enemies—not merely
defeat them electorally, but actually harm them, using every lever of power at his disposal. That sadistic political
bloodlust scares me more than Trump's corrosive, all-consuming narcissism. But even if it didn't, the degree to which
the former president would hate losing to DeSantis (even in a poll like this) makes this an easy vote for me.
D.E. in Lancaster, PA: So here we are at Sauron vs Voldemort; Darth Maul vs Darth Sidious;
Elagabalus vs Caligula; Thanos vs Doctor Doom; Iago vs Macbeth; Harry Mudd vs Khan Noonien Singh; Mean Mr. Mustard vs
Maxwell's Silver Hammer—and yes, I picked the pairings of villains with some snark in mind. Today
I read that Trump was scared of killer fruit being lobbed at him during his rallies. On the other hand, DeSantis appears
to have a deathly fear of general human decency and that he might inadvertently miss one culture war trope to ride all
the way to the glue factory.
If DeSantis were to become president, no books would be written about
his time in office, as he will probably ban all books that aren't propaganda. I know we're not supposed to judge a
book by its cover but when I look at Trump, I can't help but see a clown and a con-man. When I look at DeSantis I see a
fascist and a thug. Trump doesn't have the intelligence or the attention to detail that was needed to destroy our
democracy whereas DeSantis has the base cunning and lack of ethics to make sure to stab it fatally with his steely
knives. Clearly DeSantis' "conscious hath a thousand several tongues, and every tongue brings in a several tale, and
every tale condemns (him) for a villain." He is surely the worst of the worst! The idea of a future with DeSantis as
president brings this to mind: "An empire toppled by its enemies can rise again. But one that crumbles from within,
that's dead. Forever."
- Executive Branch #1 Former president Donald Trump Sr.
Our Take: There was absolutely nothing we could do—no way of organizing the bracket,
no way of writing the instructions—that could stop this from happening. Remember that we did the seedings by
searching Google for "hate" and "[person]" and then using the number of results that produced. Well, if you do that
for Trump, you get 58,700,000 hits. That's more than the rest of the field... combined.
T.B. in Bay Shore, NY: For a second, I had a "Red button meme" moment on this one but then I
realized you gotta dance with the one that brought you, and for this dance it was always El Cheeto. Sure, Ron DeSatan is
a more polished version of Trump but he is merely the weed that grew out of the nasty orange soil curated from his
D.S. in Havertown, PA: Was this one ever truly in doubt? Sure, McConnell is vile and has
horribly damaged democracy, DeSantis is one of the most openly bigoted individuals in office in this century, Tucker is
just a fire hose of hate, and Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) is all of the above except in Mexico when the power's out. But one
fact rises above all others. Of all of these men (interesting that not a lot of women made it very far in this race to
the bottom), one thing separates the guy who is small-hands-down the winner. Despite what Ron thinks, Trump is the only
one who has any hope of winning a national election. Even if it means stealing it. So, Trump has my...choke,
gasp...vot—no... can't even finish typing it.
And there you have it. If you would like to view the entire bracket, it's
So, why did we finally wrap this up today? Because we're going to launch a very similar sort of thing tomorrow based
on the format of the World Cup. It won't be bad politicians competing, though. It will be... well, as we said, there was
a big hint in one of the headlines of
It's definitely something with much less of a negative vibe than this particular contest. (Z)
We have our first poll of the Georgia runoff and, as you can see, it suggests that Herschel Walker (R) is treading
water while Sen. Raphael Warnock (D-GA) is picking up pretty much all the non-Walker vote from Election Day. And maybe
even some of the Walker vote; the results from Nov. 8 were 49.5% for the Senator, 48.4% for Walker and 2.1% for
Libertarian Chase Oliver.
The crosstabs here are pretty interesting. Walker is leading by 9 points among voters 50+, but Warnock is up 24
points among voters 18-49. There are more people in the latter group, but there are likely more people who will actually
vote in the former group. That said, Warnock is absolutely dominating with Black voters; he's got an 83-point lead among
them. And so, if Black voters show up in sizable numbers (something that Saturday voting will make easier; see above),
then Walker is in deep trouble.
One other thing: Oliver was running as the "armed and gay" candidate, and made much of the fact that he was the first
openly LGBTQ+ Senate candidate in Georgia history. If any of his voters were motivated by a desire to promote LGBTQ+
equality, as opposed to a desire to promote Libertarianism, then you have to figure those folks are now Warnock voters.
After all, Walker has been openly anti-LGBTQ+ during his run, particularly the "T" portion of that. And in case anyone
forgot how he feels, he has been "inspired" by the shooting in Colorado Springs to unleash an
anti-trans speeches. (Z)
|| Raphael Warnock*
|| Herschel Walker
|| Nov 11
|| Nov 17
|| Fabrizio + Impact
* Denotes incumbent
Back to the main page