The Beat Goes On

Another day, another vote. Actually three of them. R.J Matson of Roll Call summed it up like this:

Here are the tallies for the six rounds of voting thus far:

	Day 1			Day 2
Candidate	Round 1	Round 2	Round 3	Round 4	Round 5	Round 6
Hakeem Jeffries	212	212	212	212	212	212
Kevin McCarthy	203	203	202	201	201	201
Byron Donalds	1	0	0	20	20	20
Jim Jordan	6	19	20	0	0	0
Andy Biggs	10	0	0	0	0	0
Jim Banks	1	0	0	0	0	0
Lee Zeldin	1	0	0	0	0	0
Present	0	0	0	1	1	1

As you can see, the start of a new day resulted in a couple of changes, neither of which help wannabe speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-CA). The first is that, despite their claims that Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) is the perfect man for the job because he doesn't want to be the speaker, the MAGA crew all switched their votes to Rep. Byron Donalds (R-FL). The second is that Rep. Victoria Spartz (R-IN) has switched her vote to "present," which she says is a vote in favor of "more deliberation." Once these new developments had manifest themselves in the first vote of the day, and the fourth overall, nothing changed in subsequent rounds of balloting.

Theoretically, McCarthy got a boost on Wednesday when Donald Trump decided not to switch horses, and openly urged all House Republicans to support McCarthy for speaker. But that changed a grand total of zero votes. Trump's exhortation to Republicans had no effect at all. That is not going to be lost on Republican politicians. Trump picked a bunch of candidates in high-profile Senate races, told the voters to vote for them, and most of them lost anyway. Then he ordered House Republicans to do his bidding and vote for Kevin McCarthy and it had no effect. Republicans who previously groveled before the former president are surely going to notice that Trump's pronouncements don't affect the voters very much and also don't affect Republican leaders very much. If members of his own party come to believe that Trump doesn't matter very much anymore, that weakens him even more, especially since he ruled the party because people feared him, not because they loved him.

While Trump has jumped in and is taking sides in the speaker's race, how is Joe Biden taking it? Well, Biden has said it's "not my problem." But it did note that it was a little embarrassing.

After the House adjourned for the day yesterday (something that the members only agreed to do by a razor-thin margin), McCarthy once again met with the leaders of the MAGA 20. After, he said that there had been no deal, but that "progress" was being made. Given that he's not exactly known as a straight shooter, and that he has to make it seem as if he still has momentum, it is not clear how truthful that really is. However, even if it is true, there are two rather sizable problems here.

The first problem is that if there was some boon McCarthy could give up easily, or even could give up with a great deal of pain, he'd already have done it. For example, at this point, he'd probably accept a "one person is all that is needed for a motion to vacate," except that he can't make rules changes by himself, and the majority of the Republican conference isn't going to go for that particular change. Another common "carrot" in these circumstances is offers to help with money and personal appearances for the member's next reelection campaign. However, the MAGA 20 largely come from deep-red districts where they don't really need much help. And to the extent they do, McCarthy already gave it to them this cycle. And see how much loyalty that bought him.

The second problem is that while the demands of the right-wingers are getting somewhat clarified, the 20 are not a monolith, and some of their post-Christmas wish lists are fundamentally incompatible with a McCarthy speakership, or with any speakership. For example, Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL) has a personal grudge with the wannabe speaker because he (Gaetz) feels McCarthy threw him under the bus during the sex trafficking scandal. Several other members also loathe McCarthy on a personal level, such that their main demand is "we want a speaker who isn't Kevin McCarthy."

Others want McCarthy to make commitments that no speaker can plausibly make. For example, Rep. Ralph Norman (R-SC) told reporters that "One of the things is, is he willing to shut the government down rather than raise the debt ceiling?" Needless to say, it would be politically catastrophic to refuse to raise the debt ceiling, particularly if it was publicly known that the Republicans planned to do so months in advance, and that no amount of negotiation was going to change that. On top of that, it's not so easy to negotiate with a member whose knowledge of civics is so poor that he doesn't understand the difference between shutting down the government (which is done by not funding it, and is a moot point until October) and refusing to raise the debt ceiling (which would not shut down the government, but instead would cause the U.S. to default on its debt).

The pressure on the Republicans to figure this out is enormous. If they want to convince the voters that they should be given the keys to the kingdom in 2024, this isn't helping much. And the longer it goes on, the worse it gets. At this point, the quickest way out that we see is that McCarthy gives up his lifelong dream and lets some other Republican try for the top job. We think Rep. Steve Scalise (R-LA) is the most likely one to go next, but he is going to have the same problems with the Freedom Caucus as McCarthy and is going to have to make the same Faustian bargain.

There is, of course, another option for McCarthy. He could sit down with Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) and ask: "What will it take for me to get 30-40 Democratic votes for speaker?" The Democrats don't like McCarthy at all, but they would certainly be willing to play ball if some rather serious concessions could be worked out, like "no silly investigations" and "no playing chicken with the economy." These negotiations would be challenging, since McCarthy has proven himself untrustworthy, and it's not so easy to force a speaker to follow through on their promises if they later say "I changed my mind." But it could be done, and if you were McCarthy, wouldn't you rather be beholden to moderate Democrats, who are generally reasonable, as opposed to MAGA maniacs, who are generally not? Unfortunately, you're not McCarthy, whose lack of imagination is so profound that he hasn't done anything to even begin exploring this possibility.

As an aside, from time to time we get mail for Saturday or Sunday that in essence says: "I don't like either Democrats or Republicans. Why can't we have more parties?" Just imagine we did. Imagine that the Freedom Caucus became the Freedom Party and was on the ballot in every state and could consistently win 20 or so seats in the House. And also imagine the Progressive Party (possibly the successor to the Green Party) could also win a few dozen seats. Then each new session of Congress would begin with a weeks long (or months long) stalemate as the parties tried to elect a speaker and put together a political program. In Israel, Italy, Belgium, and the Netherlands, this happens all the time. But those systems don't really have checks and balances, so when a coalition is cobbled together in the parliament, it can actually implement the agreed upon program. The U.S. is stumbling toward a system that has all the disadvantages of a multiparty system without any of the advantages.

The House will be back at it today. If McCarthy can't nail things down in the three (four? five?) rounds of balloting that will take place today, then "a weekend for everyone to think about it" is probably fatal for his chances of becoming speaker. We shall see if desperate times call for desperate measures and, if so, exactly what those measures might be. (Z & V)

Fred Upton Is Interested in Becoming Speaker

Some people have bandied around the name of former Republican representative Fred Upton of Michigan as a possible speaker. Now the potential speaker has spoken. He is definitely interested in the job. He served in the House for 36 years until his retirement on Jan. 3, 2023, so he has a pretty good idea of how things work there. He wants the House to become functional again.

The model by which he becomes speaker is that eventually the sane Republicans realize that the Freedom Caucus will not give in unless they get everything they want and then some. This will be unacceptable to them. Then Plan B—or more likely, plan K—will be to work with the Democrats to elect a moderate, experienced Republican, such as Upton, as speaker. The Democrats would certainly demand concessions for working with the Republicans. What the concessions would be would have to be negotiated with great care. Once possibility is that all committees would have equal numbers of Democrats and Republicans and all decisions must be made by majority vote of the committee. That could include issuing subpoenas. Such an arrangement would infuriate the Freedom Caucus, which was planning on spending 2 years investigating Hunter Biden's laptop. Since no Democrat on any committee would ever vote for that, it wouldn't happen.

As a strategic move for the Republicans, something like this would probably be a winner. Having them focus on legislating rather than preening would no doubt go over better with the voters in 2024. There are probably a number of issues that sane Republicans and Democrats could agree on if each side was willing to compromise. Just as one example, imagine a an immigration bill with two parts. Part I gave Dreamers who were brought to the U.S. as children a path to citizenship if they lived in the U.S. for, say, 8 years, got at least a high school diploma, had a job or were enrolled in further education, and had no criminal record. Part II would really beef up border security. Building a wall would take too long and be too expensive, but rolls of military-grade razor wire along parts of the border coupled with a large increase in the number of border patrol agents and better equipment for them (e;g., drones equipped with night-vision cameras) would undoubtedly reduce illegal immigration quite a bit. Each side would get something important to it. There are certainly other areas (e.g., health care) where Democrats and sane Republicans could find compromises. It is an intriguing possibility, but a Speaker Upton will happen only if and when most Republicans are convinced that neither Kevin McCarthy nor any members of his team have the votes. (V)

Ohio and Pennsylvania Demonstrate How Coalition Government Could Work

In the Ohio State House, Republicans have a huge majority: 67 to 32, enough to override vetoes (not that it is likely to happen since the governor, Mike DeWine, is a Republican). So it should be easy for Republicans to pick a speaker, with votes to spare, right? Well, it didn't turn out quite like that.

Conservative Republicans wanted Derek Merrin (R) as speaker, but he was unacceptable to a substantial number of more moderate Republican legislators. In part, that was because of his politics. In part, it was because a photo came to light showing Merrin palling around with Wes Goodman, a former colleague who was forced to resign due to sexual misconduct. So, 22 of the Republicans in the legislature banded together with all 32 Democrats and elected a more moderate Republican, Jason Stephens (R), as speaker over the wishes of the more conservative Republicans. Is there a message here? We're not sure.

In Pennsylvania, a different, but also unexpected, scenario is playing out. In the November election for the state House, Democrats won 102 seats to the Republicans' 101. But one Democrat died before the election and two won other offices, so when the session convened on Monday, Republicans had a temporary 101 to 99 advantage. They tried to force a vote for the speaker, but Democrats objected. There was a huddle between the leaders. Then there was a motion to adjourn, but it deadlocked 100-100, meaning the House remained in session.

Later in the day, state Rep. Jim Gregory (R) nominated Rep. Mark Rozzi (D) for speaker. Democrats had previously picked Rep. Joanna McClinton (D) as their candidate, but then McClinton endorsed Rozzi. A vote was taken and Rozzi was elected speaker 115-86, with 16 Republicans voting for Democrat Rozzi. After the vote, Rossi announced that he would become an independent.

Having a neutral speaker is not totally off the wall. The office of speaker was inherited directly from the British House of Commons, where the speaker is expected to be neutral. He is more like the sergeant-at-arms or the clerk of the House than a partisan.

However, we might not be done yet. Sooner or later, all three vacant seats will be filled. Democrats are expected to win all three, making the legislature 101 Democrats, 101 Republicans, and Rozzi, a Democrat turned independent, as the tiebreaker. Will the Democrats try to make McClinton speaker again? Will Rozzi give up his new-found power? We don't know.

Will the U.S. House go the way of either of these states? The Republicans have a large enough majority (nine seats once the Virginia vacancy is filled) that they will never accept a Democratic speaker, but they might have to accept that the Democrats could have a role in choosing which Republican becomes speaker. This will only occur, though, if they are unable to agree on their own candidate for speaker. Still, there could be lessons about working with the other party at the state level. (V)

How Bad Were the Republican Senate Candidates?

As all of our readers know, a number of the Republican Senate candidates last November were not so great. But how bad were they, really? Political analyst Nathan Gonzales has now worked out a numerical measure of how bad they were.

The basic concept, which reflects a heavy baseball influence, is "Vote Above Replacement" (VAR). It is akin to taking a House candidate's vote share and then subtracting off the district's PVI. So, for example, a Democrat who loses by one point in an R+14 district actually did better than a Democrat who won by 6 points in a D+20 district. Gonzales' metric starts by creating a baseline for each state by creating a trimmed mean, which is obtained by averaging all state and federal elections for the past four years except those very far from the mean in either direction (basically, weird flukes for some reason). The candidate's vote total last November is then reduced by the trimmed mean. So if a Republican candidate gets 48.0% of the vote in a state where historically Republican candidates have gotten 47.0%, the candidate's score is +1.0. This normalizes for the blueness or redness of a state. A Republican who got 48% in Hawaii would be an incredibly strong candidate, but one who got 48% in Wyoming would be an incredibly weak candidate.

Here are the results. Blake Masters got a VAR of -3.9, Herschel Walker got -3.1, Don Bolduc got -2.9, and Mehmet Oz got -0.2, which means they all underperformed typical Republican candidates in Arizona, Georgia, New Hampshire, and Pennsylvania, respectively. In contrast, Democratic Sen. Mark Kelly (D-AZ) got 2.8, Sen. Raphael Warnock (D-GA) got 4.1, Sen. Maggie Hassan (D-NH) got 4.1 and Sen. John Fetterman (D-PA) got 0.5. All of these scores are positive, so they all outperformed typical Democrats in their respective states. Maybe all the praise for Fetterman is a bit overdone. He did slightly better than the average Democrat in a moderately blue state. The real champs are Warnock and Hassan, who greatly overperformed what can be expected of Democrats in Georgia and New Hampshire, respectively.

The VAR scores cast doubt on the many stories about how good Republican Senate candidates Joe O'Dea (CO) and Tiffany Smiley (WA) really were. Their scores were -2.3 and -0.9, respectively. Both did worse than a generic Republican would have done. In North Carolina, Sen. Ted Budd (R-NC) had a score of -0.5 but won anyway simply because the Tar Heel State is still a reddish purple. In Ohio, Tim Ryan's score of 3.0 was really good (and the best of any Democratic Senate challenger), but not enough to overcome the Republican lean of the state. The best performing GOP challenger was Joe Pinion (5.2), who was crushed by Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), but not crushed as badly as Republicans are usually crushed in New York.

The GOP Senate candidate who most overperformed VAR was Sen. Tim Scott (R-SC) at 6.1. Other strong Republicans were Sens. Marco Rubio (R-FL) at 3.8 and Chuck Grassley (R-IA) at 3.3, although Rubio may have benefited somewhat from the coattails of Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-FL) at the top of the ticket. The Senate candidate with the highest VAR score this past cycle was... Sen. Peter Welch (D-VT) at 9.1. He won by 41 points. Even in Vermont for a Democrat that is pretty impressive. (V)

Early Voting Doesn't Help the Democrats

Donald Trump and some other Republicans have been railing about early voting on the grounds that it helps the Democrats. Some new data suggest that this is not true and that early voting does not give either party an advantage over the other. If anything, Trump's crusade against early voting hurts the Republicans because if there are problems on Election Day (such as bad weather or malfunctioning equipment that generates long lines to vote) and Democrats have already banked most of their votes, the "Election Day only" strategy he likes can cost the GOP votes.

The new data come from a deep red state, Kentucky, a swing state, Nevada, and a deep blue state, Vermont. In all three states, the legislatures dramatically expanded mail-in voting and early in-person voting in 2022. The results are pretty much the same as before the expansion of voting options. In other words, making it easier to vote did not change the status quo in any of the states compared to previous elections.

In Kentucky, Republicans held the five House seats and Senate seat they held before the election. Kentucky Secretary of State Michael Adams (R) said: "We've shown that it [early voting] is bipartisan. Both sides are comfortable using it." In Vermont, which switched to universal mail-in in 2022, the Democrats held the offices they had previously held (representative and senator) and the Republicans held the office they previously held (governor). Mail-in voting didn't change anything. In Nevada, the congressional seats remained the same but the governor's mansion changed hands. In the old-style voting in 2018, the Democrat Steve Sisolak won the governor's mansion. In 2022, with mail-in voting, a Republican, Joe Lombardo, ousted Sisolak. That hardly argues that mail-in voting helps the Democrats. Lombardo undoubtedly won for other reasons, most likely that with crime a major issue, he, as the sheriff of Clark County, could make a case that he was the best person to deal with it.

Republicans often rant about the security of absentee ballots, but there were no security incidents in any of the three states that expanded mail-in voting.

Not all states are fine with making voting easier. Some states that made it easier during the pandemic are now reverting to the old way. Texas, for example, has reversed drive-by voting in Harris County (Houston).

Texas aside, the long-term trend seems to be for more mail-in voting. Eight states now conduct all elections by mail: California, Colorado, Hawaii, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, Vermont, and Washington. It is mostly Democratic states, with Utah an exception. With Vermont as an outlier, mail-in voting is getting more traction in the West than in the East. However, the Democrats now have the trifecta in Michigan and Minnesota, so there could be changes there this year.

Two states, Nebraska and North Dakota, allow some counties to have all-mail elections upon request of the county. Nine other states (Alaska, Arizona, Florida, Kansas, Maryland, Missouri, Montana, New Mexico, and Wyoming) allow some special elections to be conducted entirely by mail. Four other states (Idaho, Minnesota, New Jersey, and New Mexico) allow certain small jurisdictions to conduct all-mail-in elections. In short, there is definitely movement toward voting by mail around the country. ((V)

Lobbyists Fear Sanders as Chairman of the Senate HELP Committee

While the House is a mess, in the Senate, everything went smoothly this week. The new senators were seated and the new committee chairs were installed. One new committee chairman who is making a lot of lobbyists very nervous is Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), who is taking over the chairmanship of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee from Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA). Murray is moving over to take over the gavel at the powerful Appropriations Committee from Pat Leahy, who just retired. Lobbyists are used to sweet-talking committee chairs to get them to be nice to their clients. That most definitely does not work with Sanders, and everyone knows it.

Sanders will now have oversight power over a number of his priorities, including drug pricing, workers' rights, student debt, and medical debt. He is sure to subpoena powerful people in industries within his purview and grill them in public. Assuming the House Republicans finally get their act together and do what their constituents elected them to do—investigate Hunter Biden's laptop—the contrast between the Senate and House will be enormous. There will be parallel stories in the media all the time with a Senate committee asking pharmaceutical executives questions about why drug prices are much lower in Canada than in the U.S. and a House committee arguing about whether to release naughty pictures of Hunter. Might that give some voters ideas about which party cares more about them? We'll tell you when it happens and there are polls about it.

For Sanders, this is a new role. He has demonstrated that he can give rousing speeches and please progressives. Now he has some real power. How will he use it? He might write some legislation the lobbyists won't like, like allowing the importation of (much cheaper) drugs from Canada. Most of it probably won't pass, but some of it might get into must-pass bills. In any event, having actual legislative language in place will make it easier for the Democrats to pass his bills if they regain the trifecta in 2024.

Politico reporters talked to over a dozen lobbyists about Sanders' new power. They were not optimistic about getting much sympathy from him. Some of them thought that by lobbying other members of the committee they might be able to have some influence. Ranking member Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-LA) comes to mind, but it may not be that easy. Sanders and Cassidy have a history of working together and many of the things Sanders wants would help working people in a poor state like Louisiana. In addition, Cassidy is a physician and might well be willing to work with Sanders on issues related to improving health care. Jeff Forbes, co-founder of a lobbying and public affairs company, said: "Does corporate America have to worry? Of course they do. Between a populist Republican like Cassidy and a left-wing chairman like Sanders, they'll have plenty of anti-corporate areas of mutual interest."

Others thought that when bills came up into which they wanted certain language inserted, they would be better off trying to get it into the House version and hope that Sanders wouldn't notice and strip it out in the Senate version. Others said: "If I'm going to be completely honest, we're still trying to figure out what we're going to do."

This is not to say that Murray was a tool of the lobbyists. She definitely was not, but Sanders is 10x more aggressive than Murray. She likes the image of a "little old lady in tennis shoes." He likes the image as "enemy #1 of big corporations." Sanders also doesn't take money from political action committees, so the lobbyists' biggest tool—donating to the campaigns of senators they want to influence—is totally blunted when dealing with him. He doesn't go to corporate fundraisers and generally keeps a large distance away from lobbyists and their clients. He's going to be a very tough nut for them to crack.

Oh, and one other avenue lobbyists like to use won't work either: lobbying the staff. Sanders' staff is experienced, loyal to him, and hates big corporations as much as he does. That's a requirement to get a job with him. One (anonymous) lobbyist told Politico: "It's hard to find a lobbyist [who] has had much success working with his staff." As a general rule, power corrupts, but in Sanders' case, we're not so sure. Neither are the lobbyists. (V)

New FDA Rule Allows Retail Pharmacies to Dispense Abortion Pills

The FDA has now issued a new rule allowing retail pharmacies to stock and dispense the abortion pill (mifepristone) to anyone who walks in with a prescription from a doctor. In some cases, the prescription may be obtained by a video consultation with the prescribing physician. However, a pharmacy needs to go through a special certification process before it can stock and dispense the drug and pharmacies in states where abortion is illegal are not likely to do this.

Nevertheless, even in abortion-unfriendly states, this could make a difference. If a woman suddenly discovers that she is 5½ weeks pregnant in a state that bans abortions after 6 weeks, getting the pill right now is hugely important. If she can get a prescription quickly from her doctor or via telemedicine and then just walk into a nearby pharmacy that has the drug in stock and get it immediately, that will be a huge relief for her.

The new rule could also benefit women who do not have a stable home address to which the pill could be mailed or who do not want a parent or partner to see that they have gotten it. For women who live in states that ban abortions but who live within driving distance of a pharmacy in a different state that does not, the new rule also makes getting an abortion easier. All in all, the new rule will make abortions easier to obtain and more common. Naturally there will be lawsuits, but assuming the FDA has followed all of the normal rule-making procedures, the courts are unlikely to tell it to reverse the rule. (V)

Meta Is Hit With a Massive Fine

Social media play an increasingly large role in politics, with misinformation running rampant on all of them. Twitter has been in the news a bit lately, what with Elon Musk apparently trying to drive it into the ground. All was quiet on the Meta (owner of Facebook and Instagram) front—until yesterday. That's when the Irish Data Protection Agency hit Meta with a fine of about $414 million. It also ruled that Meta would have to change its ways, which could lead to its business in Europe being far less lucrative than it now is. In all, this ruling could weaken Facebook and Instagram considerably and reduce its power and influence.

At the heart of the case is how the companies handle user data. The terms and conditions state that Meta can collect and use user data as it wishes to. It uses the data to allow other companies to target their ads very precisely. The Agency ruled that not giving users the option of opting out of this collection and sale violates European Union law. But it is precisely this data collection and sale that makes it possible for advertisers to target Facebook and Instagram users very accurately. Without it, placing an ad on Facebook would be like placing an ad in a general-interest newspaper: Most of the readers would have little to no interest in the product being sold. In that case, advertisers would not be willing to pay anywhere near what they are now paying, and Meta's whole business model would fall apart.

The ruling holds only in the European Union, but with 450 million people, it is a much bigger market than the U.S. Meta will now be forced to allow users to opt out of letting their data be shared. Undoubtedly many will. And this is the second big hit Meta has taken recently. The first was when Apple made a change to the iOS operating system used on iPhones (and its sister operating system used on iPads) that allows users to opt out of being tracked. Apple's changes cost Meta $10 billion in 2022. The new E.U. ruling could cost Meta much more because it affects every Meta user, not just those people using Apple's mobile devices. (V)

Five Events with Potentially Massive Political Consequences This Year

There are enough known unknowns that could make 2023 a momentous year in politics, even in the very unlikely event there end up being no unknown unknowns. Here is a list of some of the biggest ones:

• The circus in the House: The current battle over the House speaker is only the opening act. Unless moderate Republicans and Democrats work out some kind of power-sharing arrangement, the Freedom Caucus will run the House, no matter who the speaker is. There will be endless theatrics there that will dominate the news all year. How will this affect the voters? Die-hard Trumpists will be ecstatic and be thrilled to watch, but everyone else is likely to take a dim view of it and it could affect many people's view of what the Republican Party is all about.
  
  
• An indictment: There is a very high chance that Donald Trump will be indicted in Georgia for trying to tamper with the election results there. There is also a decent chance that special counsel Jack Smith will recommend that Trump face federal charges as well. Then, AG Merrick Garland will face the most difficult decision of his career and one that will rock the country, no matter what he decides. If Trump is put on trial for inciting an insurrection (and possibly also for illegal possession of defense documents) it will tear the country apart. But if he is not put on trial for these things, it will also tear the country apart. In any event, the impact of one or more indictments will have a huge impact on the 2024 elections.
  
  
• It's already 2024: The 2024 presidential campaign is already in full swing. Trump is already in. Joe Biden is expected to join in the spring. Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-FL) is expected to announce his run after the Florida legislative session ends in May. Other candidates may well enter as well, especially if they feel Trump has been fatally wounded and DeSantis has vulnerabilities, too. In any event, we will have a full year of 2024 politics a year early.
  
  
• The world is dangerous: There are dangers all over the world. The war in Ukraine is still on and could take a dangerous turn. Ukraine could take back all of the territory Russia captured in 2022 (and maybe in 2014). Russian President Vladimir Putin might make a last-ditch attempt to salvage his reputation and power by going nuclear. Then there is China and Taiwan. China wants Taiwan back but so much manufacturing critical for the U.S. is done there that Joe Biden can't allow that. A hot war with China is a real possibility. Then there is the always unstable Middle East, which could flare up.
  
  
• The economy: To recess or not to recess, that is the question (for the economy). Will there be a recession? And also, will inflation come down? It has rarely been so difficult to judge what the economy will do. There are indicators in all directions. Yet the economy is hugely important for the 2024 elections. No recession, or a very mild recession, will help the Democrats. A deep recession will help the Republicans. It is impossible to read the tea leaves at this point.
  

And again, these are the big items we know about. There could be others that pop up out of the blue. (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