Trump's First Criminal Trial Could Begin Today

Some days we have to think about which item goes first. Most of the time presidential election items go first, then Senate elections, House elections, and finally everything else. Occasionally, it is a close call (e.g., if a major Senate candidate drops out, that outweighs most presidential news). This is not one of those close-call days, however. The biggest news story in the country, maybe the world, today will be Donald Trump's first criminal trial—assuming it really happens.

Trump has no doubt ordered his lawyers to do everything legally possible to make the trial not happen today, and preferably not until after the election, if at all. But assuming that Judge Juan Merchan has had enough of Trump's dillydallying, actual jury selection could begin today in Lower Manhattan at 100 Centre Street. The building is ugly, is encircled by scaffolding, and has the ambiance of an aging cafeteria. Still, Merchan's courtroom on the 15th floor will be the center of the media universe, if all goes as scheduled.

There will be a media frenzy that will dwarf anything O.J. Simpson, who died last week, ever experienced. Generally speaking, trials in New York are not televised, but the judge could make an exception. It is very unlikely that Merchan will do so. Security will be tight but court and law enforcement aren't talking about what they will do, other than protect the sanctity of the trial. Trumpers are expected to protest near the courthouse, but they are unlikely to get in, in part because their way will be blocked by reporters, photographers and video camera people from just about every media outlet in the known universe. Also agitators. Laura Loomer said she would be there with a camera crew to do interviews and appear on Steve Bannon's podcast. Plenty of demonstrators on both sides are expected, too.

While there will not be live audio or video from the courtroom, reporters in the room will be allowed to use their smartphones to live blog the proceedings. The New York Times has assigned ten reporters to the beat, including two of their top stars, Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan. Other major publications will undoubtedly have a goodly number of reporters and editors on the story as well. Will Fox even cover the story? We're not so sure. Here is the Fox website as of yesterday:

As you can see, there are 19 stories there, none of them about the trial. Apparently John Goodman's physique, disappearing moms in Kansas, and Disneyland's plans to crack down on people lying about disabilities to cut the lines are more important than Trump's trial. If you look closely, many of the stories are designed to make "ordinary people" feel afraid that "they" are coming after them. The obvious conclusion is that only Donald of Nazareth can save them.

The process will begin with the voir dire today. Potential jurors will not be asked about who they voted for, but will be asked about their media-consumption habits, whether they have ever attended a political rally, and whether they are members of organizations such as the Proud Boys. The judge and lawyers will be on the lookout for people who may be biased, but want to monetize their jury time by writing a book or doing paid interviews after the trial. Each side has jury consultants to help out—for example, by searching social media for jurors' footprints there.

Alvin Bragg is about to become the most famous prosecutor in America. He hasn't given interviews about the case or done anything that could have the verdict reversed on appeal. He understands what he is up against and the massive spotlight he will be under. Bragg said: "I've been an officer of the court going on more than 20 years, and the way we comport ourselves is important." He did tell radio station WNYC: "The core is not money for sex. We would say it's about conspiring to corrupt a presidential election and then lying in New York business records to cover it up." Other than that, it's mum's the word. In this respect, he is like Jack Smith, who is also all business. This is the exact opposite of NY AG Letitia James, who loved being in the news during Trump's civil trial. She was willing to talk to anyone from The New York Times to the East Cupcake Middle School Reporter.

When the trial finally starts, one key witness will be Stormy Daniels. The judge might address her by her legal name, Stephanie Clifford, but it's still Stormy. She will be asked what happened that fateful day. She is quite articulate and will describe what happened in as much detail as the prosecutors want. Remember that Trump is not accused of having an affair, but of cooking the books to hide it in order to win an election. Still, the prosecutors have to first establish that Trump had something he wanted to hide. Daniels can testify to that.

Stormy Daniels is the warm-up act. Michael Cohen will be the star. He will testify that Trump instructed him to pay Daniels $130,000 for her silence and then reimbursed him for it. He will also testify that he didn't do any legal work for Trump, so records showing the payments for legal services rendered are false. Trump's defense will be to call him a liar, one who lied under oath, and say you can't trust him. Bragg will question him about why he lied under oath. He will say it was to protect Donald Trump. The lie was about how many times Cohen had spoken to Trump about the failed Trump Tower Moscow project. Cohen said it was three times. It was really 10 times. Will the jury believe that lying to protect Trump years ago disqualifies Cohen as a witness? We'll see. Trump is not taking any chances, though. On Saturday on his boutique social media site, he attacked Cohen (in violation of the judge's gag order), presumably in an attempt to influence any Trump supporters who might make it into the jury. It is very likely that Bragg has some corroboration about what the payments to Cohen were for. He may have gotten testimony earlier from former Trump Organization CFO Allen Weisselberg, for example. Or maybe from some other Trump Organization employee. In a recent interview, Cohen said there would be surprises in the trial.

In addition to all this, Trump has a Pecker problem. Former National Enquirer publisher David Pecker was involved in an effort to "catch" and then "kill" stories that could harm Trump's campaign. In particular, he paid off Playboy model Karen McDougal $150,000 to buy her story of a 9-month affair with Trump and then not publish it. Pecker is likely to be called as a witness. He can certainly testify that Trump was actively trying to suppress stories about the candidate's various extramarital affairs. He may or may not know the details of the deal with Daniels, but he can corroborate Cohen's story that Trump was trying to buy the silence of people who could damage him. And unlike Cohen, Pecker has never been convicted of perjury and doesn't have a credibility problem.

Another likely witness will be Hope Hicks. She can testify to Trump's state of mind during the campaign. For example, if she testifies that Trump was very worried about the affair with Daniels ruining his election chances, that would provide the motive for the crime. She was very close to Trump and probably knows a lot about the deals with Daniels and McDougal. There could also be unexpected witnesses, as Bragg has been very quiet about his plans. Other potential witnesses are McDougal, Daniels' attorney Keith Davidson, and even the doorman at Trump Tower, Dino Sajudin, who Pecker tried to pay $30,000 to kill a potential story about "Trump's love child."

Trump has said he plans to testify himself. His lawyers will tear out their hair if he does. He will almost certainly commit perjury if he does and will be easily misled by prosecutors' questions. The lawyers will do everything possible to keep him from being on the witness stand. That said, he's the client, so if he insists...

The trial itself will affect the campaign BIGLY. Defendants are normally required to be present during a criminal trial. Trump could ask the judge to be excused, but the judge is not obligated to grant the request. If he doesn't ask or he does ask and the judge refuses, Trump will have to be in the courthouse Mondays, Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Fridays for 6-8 weeks. This will limit his campaigning to Wednesdays, Saturdays, and Sundays, plus possibly some evenings. Even with his own jet, it would be difficult to get to Wisconsin and back in an evening and Trump is known to hate sleeping anywhere but his own bed (presumably in Trump Tower during the trial). However, he can hold press conferences before and after each day's court session.

Trump often complains that he is being treated unfairly. In reality, he gets away with things that would put any other defendant behind bars before the trial. Here are just a few of the ways he has advantages over ordinary defendants:

• The arraignments: Every day, thousands of accused criminals are charged with crimes. They are handcuffed and put in a holding cell for hours waiting for their turn to get their mug shot and then appear in court only to be released when bail is posted. Trump was never handcuffed, never put in a holding cell, never made to wait, and never required to post bail. In only one of the four criminal cases (Georgia) did he have a mug shot taken. But he was not forced to undergo the humiliation all other defendants have to put up with.
  
  
• Making threats: In all the cases, Trump was told not to say things that could intimidate witnesses, judges or jury members. He has violated that constantly. Any other defendant who violated the judges' orders would be promptly arrested and put in jail until the trial. When Sam Bankman-Fried contacted a potential witness before his trial for securities fraud, the judge instantly revoked his bail and put him behind bars until the trial. Trump has completely gotten away with it because all the judges are treating him with kid gloves. Even people running for president can be jailed, as Eugene Debs and Lyndon LaRouche were. Only Trump gets away with it.
  
  
• The Supreme Court helped: What Trump wants more than anything, even more than an acquittal, is delaying the cases until after the election. Trump concocted a theory that presidents can't be prosecuted for things they did in office, even if they are criminal. A lower court threw that out and the appeals court wrote a long decision upholding that decision. Then the Supreme Court took the case and added months of delay to the process. For anyone else, the Supreme Court would have said that the appeals court did its job correctly and denied cert. He got special treatment here, again.
  
  
• Trump got his own judge: It was the luck of the draw that in the Mar-a-Lago case, the judge assigned to the case, Aileen Cannon, was appointed to the bench by Trump. Any judge with a tiny bit of self-respect and respect for the legal system would have refused the assignment and told the chief judge that she has an obvious conflict of interest so he should pick someone appointed by a different president. And after taking the case, she could have moved it along quickly to prove that no one is above the law. Instead, she is dragging it out endlessly, to curry Trump's favor.
  
  
• Getting the bond reduced: In the New York civil case, the judge ordered a bond of $454 million to be posted to stay seizure of Trump's assets. The purpose of the bond is to make sure the plaintiff can collect the full judgment immediately if the appeals fail. Trump argued that he couldn't find a single insurance company that would give him a bond that big. However, he didn't even try to find nine insurance companies that would each put up $50 million, along with $4 million of his own money. That would probably have worked. On top of that, the appeals court mysteriously reduced the bond to $175 million. Trump then found an insurance company not certified to work in New York State that wrote a document stating that in the event of Trump losing the appeals, they wouldn't pay up. That is no bond at all. Basically, he hasn't posted any bond and if he loses, the state of New York will have to fight him tooth and nail to collect a penny. No other defendant would get such a fantastic deal (though the bond situation might evolve a fair bit, pending an April 22 hearing).
  

So basically, Trump has been treated extra-gently during the entire process. That could stop today, though, when the actual trial begins.

One last thought here. Bragg knows that there is a chance of a hung jury, which would look terrible on his record, so at the last minute he might offer Trump a plea deal: Plead nolo contendere to misdemeanor falsification of business records and pay a substantial fine. Trump would likely take it to avoid being labeled a convicted felon. (V)

New National Poll Has Trump Ahead of Biden 46% to 45%

Normally, we would not have a separate item for a single national poll, but The New York Times filled the entire top of its website with it Saturday, so OK, this time. Here is a screenshot:

The Siena College poll has Donald Trump at 46% and Joe Biden at 45%. The real news is that Biden is showing momentum. Since March 25, Biden has led in five national polls and Trump has led in five polls. Real Clear Politics has Trump ahead by 0.2 points. That is a much smaller lead than earlier this year. In February, Trump was leading Biden by 5 points. That's almost gone now. But it's the direction that matters. Biden is definitely gaining on Trump. That's the news story. And this is before the trial starts (see above).

Biden's improved standing is largely due to Democrats who have finally come to realize that their pipe dream of a new candidate riding in on a white horse and rescuing the Party is not going to happen. Biden is going to be the nominee and they prefer him to Trump, even with all his problems. Biden now has the support of 89% of the people who voted for him in 2020 (vs. 94% of 2020 Trump voters supporting Trump again).

One huge problem for Biden is that nearly 80% of the voters see the economy as fair to poor, even though by most objective measurements it is doing just fine. The economy is just one of the reasons that 64% see the country as moving in the wrong direction. But that number never gets below 50% because all the people who didn't vote for the president always see it moving in the wrong direction. Throw in some people who did vote for the president but don't like his policies, and the "wrong direction" generally gets at least 60% of the vote.

The poll shows a small increase in support for Biden among Black and Latino voters, suburbanites, and women. Younger voters are still a problem area, though. Only 4% approve of how he is handling international affairs.

If you want to see how the electoral votes are evolving over time, we have a nice graph for you. Also for all previous elections back to 2004. You can get to it any day by clicking on "Electoral-vote graphs" on the menu to the left of the map. It is worth noting that the second graph is probably more relevant than the top one since states where one of the candidates is ahead by a point or two really shouldn't be counted in the candidate's favor. What is more important is which one has a substantial lead in enough states to get to 270 EVs. (V)

RFK Jr. Has Ruled Out Running on the Libertarian Party Ticket

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has a ballot access problem. It is not easy for an independent candidate to get on the ballot in all the states—not even when your running mate is fabulously wealthy as a result of once being married to Google cofounder Sergey Brin. A better solution for Kennedy would be to get the Libertarian Party nomination, since the LP is already on the ballot in most states.

Yesterday, Kennedy announced that he is giving up his attempt to get the LP nomination and will go it alone (English translation: The Libertarians don't want him). Kennedy's problem is that he is not a Libertarian. He really doesn't fit in well with what Libertarians want. Not even on issues where they appear to match. Kennedy's signature issue is opposition to vaccinations. Does that match what Libertarians want? Not really. Libertarians are against the government forcing or even coercing people to be vaccinated, but they have no problem with people who want to get vaccinated doing it voluntarily. Their issue is the government forcing people to do things. Their view on vaccinations (and many other things) is that it is up to individuals to make their own choices, free of government mandates.

Kennedy has waffled on abortion. At first he favored a 15-week ban, but then he saw some polling data and changed his mind. This is suspect to Libertarians, whose position is clear: If a woman wants an abortion, it's none of the government's damn business. It's her decision, not her senator's.

Kennedy has also struggled to formulate a position on IVF. That should be easy: All the polls say it is very popular, so he should go with that. He clearly has no positions on any non-vaccination issue that he actually believes in. He is also not a good enough politician to do some polling, find out what is popular, and then adopt and stick to those positions as if he cared about them. (V)

What Will Happen If Trump Loses in 2024?

If Donald Trump loses in 2024, will we get endless court cases and an armed mob attacking the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2025? Trump may try, but some key things are different. For one, Trump will not have the power of the presidency and the DoJ on his side. He will not be able to claim victory on election night from the East Room of the White House. Doing that from Mar-a-Lago or some Trump-branded hotel doesn't have quite the same ring of authenticity.

Also, the person overseeing the counting of the electoral votes on Jan. 6, 2025 will be President of the Senate Kamala Harris, not Mike Pence. She is not going to ask the states to try again. The Electoral Count Reform Act of 2022 (ECRA) states that the VPOTUS is merely a clerk who watches the count and keeps score, not a judge who has any authority to interfere with it or reject electoral votes. If a mob outside the Capitol doesn't like that, Biden will be the one to decide whether to call out the National Guard and when. He will also be the one to decide if he should invoke the Insurrection Act to deploy the military.

If there is some institutional deadlock on or after Jan. 6, Biden will remain in control of the levers of power until Jan. 20, 2025, at noon. Staying in power is easier than trying to acquire it, since the Secret Service, law enforcement, and the military will listen to the sitting president before they listen to a challenger.

Trying to send in fake electoral votes won't work in 2025 because the ECRA states that the certificates of ascertainment, which contain the electoral votes, must be signed by the governor, unless state law dictates that some other person sign it. The only conceivable other person is the secretary of state. Could a Republican governor or SoS do this? Theoretically, yes, but only in states with a Republican governor or SoS. Here is the list of these officials in the major swing states.

State	Governor	Secretary of State
Arizona	Katie Hobbs (D)	Adrian Fontes (D)
Georgia	Brian Kemp (R)	Brad Raffensperger (R)
Michigan	Gretchen Whitmer (D)	Jocelyn Benson (D)
Minnesota	Tim Walz (D)	Steve Simon (D)
Nevada	Joe Lombardo (R)	Francisco Aguilar (D)
New Hampshire	Chris Sununu (R)	David Scanlan (R)
North Carolina	Roy Cooper (D)	Elaine Marshall (D)
Pennsylvania	Josh Shapiro (D)	Al Schmidt (R)
Wisconsin	Tony Evers (D)	Sarah Godlewski (D)

In only three of these swing states is the governor a Republican, and in one of those three, namely Georgia, the governor is not only a straight shooter, but a Trump hater. In New Hampshire, the governor is making nice with Trump right now, but is not likely to commit crimes on The Donald's behalf. In Nevada, Gov. Joe Lombardo (R-NV) has endorsed Trump, but the secretary of state, Francisco Aguilar, is a Democrat. If Lombardo signs a fake certificate of ascertainment, Aguilar, the guy who counts the votes, will instantly sue him and argue in court that he counted the votes and Trump lost. That should be a fairly potent argument. In other words, it doesn't appear that in any of the swing states, a fake-electors scheme would be easy to pull off because either the governor wouldn't sign it or the guy who counted the votes would contest it in court. (V)

The Sheep Are Running to the Slaughterhouse as Fast as They Can

When Donald Trump's media company merged with a shell company and went public as DJT, the stock hit a high of $79.38. On Friday, it closed at $32.59. So if you bought $10,000 worth of DJT at the peak after the merger, your stock would now be worth $4080. The trajectory during the past month doesn't look encouraging (unless you're rooting for the stock to do poorly, in which case it looks fantastic):

But some people bought the shell company, DWAC, earlier. Tree-remover Jerry McLain of Oklahoma didn't want to miss out, so he bought DWAC at $90/share 2 years ago. He put his life savings into it, expecting that he would make a killing, thanks to his orange hero. McLain is not worried. He said: "I know good and well it's in Trump's hands, and he's got plans." Market analysts are not so optimistic. The company has lost $3.5 billion of its capitalized value since its debut a month ago, mostly because it reported a loss of $58 million in 2023 on revenues of $4 million, less than the average Chick-fil-A franchise, while paying out millions in executive salaries and bonuses.

The long-term prospects are terrible since it has only a tiny number of users and advertisers are avoiding it like the plague. For many Trump supporters, losing half of your life savings or more is a small price to pay to allow Trump to make an extra $2.5 billion—assuming he can sell his 58% share of the company without causing the bottom to drop out, which is unlikely. After all, he needs the money more than they do.

Many of the 400,000 retail investors in TMTG, the underlying company that trades as DJT, are still optimistic, despite market experts saying it is still grossly overvalued since the company doesn't even have a plan to ever make a profit. Todd Schlanger, who works at a furniture store in West Palm Beach, not far from Mar-a-Lago, says he has invested $20,000 in DJT stock so far and is buying new shares every week. He posts on Truth Social and encourages people to buy a share every day. He recently asked: "Do you think we have hit bottom?" (Hint: the answer was "no" because it dropped another 10% after his posting.) He thinks liberals are trying to knock it down. We suspect he doesn't know it is nearly impossible to short the stock because nearly all the publicly available stock is already shorted and the fees people are charging to borrow it in order to short it are gigantic. Truth Social users keep trying to pep each other up. @BaldylocksUSMC wrote: "The fight has been long and hard on most of us and that this stock is not for the weak, but that one day they would triumph over critics who were brainwashed beyond repair."

Billionaire media mogul Barry Diller called the stock a scam bought by dopes. User @Handbag73 replied that Diller "didn't get it." Diller is not the only one who doesn't get it. User @Bill7718 wrote: "Come on DJT, every time I buy more, the price drops more." User @manofpeace123, who bought the stock at $65, about double Friday's closing, said investing in DJT was a way of telling Trump: "I believe in you and I stand with you through good times and bad." User @realJaneBLONDE posted: "NOT panicked NOT worried," but two days later demanded that Congress make short selling illegal. When user @seneca1950 asked whether anyone was concerned about the company's plans to issue tens of millions of new shares (converting the redeemable warrants would sink the stock even more), the user was criticized as spreading FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt). User Rabistol wrote: "You must be short with no way out." Of course, the more DJT drops, the better the people holding a short position do.

For many DJT investors, it's not really about the money. Carol Swain, a conservative commentator in Tennessee, said she invested $1,000 in DJT at $48, over the objections of her financial adviser who (correctly) predicted it would dive. She said: "If I lose it, fine. If I make a profit, wonderful. But at the end of the day, I wanted to show my support." But she suspects there is stock manipulation. She is worried that the company leaders are so silent now, but she figures they are busy working on something new and amazing. Like getting the rubes to give them more of their retirement savings.

Here are typical comments on The Washington Post website relating to the article linked to above:

• They may have well made the ticker for the stock SCAM and these idiots still would have bought it.
• Hang on for dear life, dumbos.
• I think it's a great idea that people who believe in Trump invest every last penny of their money in him.
• I don't really care, do you?
• These investors are not investors. They are cult members.
• God gives stock tips now? And picked this one?
• Hey rubes ... the stock market (and investing in general) is not a statement of support for political movements.
• WaPo headline should read: Trump profits off fools again.
• Trump Airlines, Trump Vodka, Trump steaks, Trump neckties, Trump casinos, Trump University...shall I continue?
• A fool and their money are soon parted.
• Grift Social.
• Hear that buzzing noise? That's the sound of sheep being sheared.
• My question to the investors is, who do they think is going to support them after they lose their retirement savings?

Nearly all were like this, or worse. (V)

Alaska and Wyoming Went for Biden Saturday

Joe Biden won the Alaska Democratic caucuses Saturday. Since Biden was the only remaining candidate, the Alaska state party decided that a voice vote was good enough, and no actual ballots were cast. Biden got all 15 delegates. The Republican primary was held on March 5. Donald Trump got 88% to Nikki Haley's 12%

In Wyoming, Biden received 96.0% of the vote and uncommitted got only 3.3%. Biden won all 13 delegates. Apparently the protests against Biden's Middle East policy didn't resonate at all in the Cowboy State. (V)

House Will Send Mayorkas' Impeachment to the Senate Tomorrow

Republicans feel that since the Democrats impeached Donald Trump twice, they are also entitled to two impeachments. The lucky first impeachee is Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas. The charges are "Willful and systemic refusal to comply with the law" and "breach of public trust." The impeachment resolutions passed the House 214-213, largely along party lines.

Both articles are complete nonsense. Mayorkas has not stopped the flow of immigrants over the U.S.' southern border because Congress has refused to provide adequate funding to do so and hasn't updated the immigration laws in decades. This is because Democrats and Republicans fundamentally disagree on how to handle the problem, so the votes aren't there for doing anything. This puts Mayorkas in an impossible situation. That is very different from willfully violating the law.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said: "The Senate is ready to go, whenever the House is. We want to address the issue as expeditiously as possible. As I said yesterday, impeachment should never be used to settle policy disagreements. That sets an awful precedent." The articles of impeachment are scheduled to be delivered to the Senate tomorrow. Most Senate Democrats agree with Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT), who called the articles "laughable on their face."

Schumer hasn't said yet precisely what the procedure will be, but a full-blown trial with witnesses and testimony is precisely the kind of show trial the Republicans want, so Schumer is not going to oblige. Most likely some Democrat will make a motion to dismiss the charges and there will be a vote on it. If there are 51 votes supporting the motion, the charges will be dismissed and that will be that. (V)

Biden Will Forgive Student Loans for Another 277,000 Borrowers

The Supreme Court told Joe Biden that he could not cancel student debt by executive action, but he is still trying to do it for specific classes of borrowers where he is on stronger legal ground. His latest move primarily targets poor students with heavy debt, especially those who studied in worthless programs. It mostly uses existing programs, like SAVE, but changes the rules slightly. Biden's latest plan will cancel $7.4 billion in debt for 277,000 former students. Republicans oppose canceling student debt and will almost certainly challenge Biden's moves in court.

Most of the new recipients of debt cancellation borrowed relatively small amounts (<$12,000) and have been making payments on it via the SAVE program. Others include teachers, librarians, academics, and public safety workers who have been making payments for over 10 years.

While this new action helps some people with student loans, so far all of what Biden has done has helped only about 10% of the 43 million Americans with federal student loans. Whether this is enough to help him in November is unclear. It could annoy blue-collar workers who might have taken out a loan to buy a truck, for example, and no one is talking about forgiving truck loans. It could also annoy the 90% of people with student loans who didn't get relief. On the other hand, it could make the 4 million people who got relief into big Biden fans. (V)

Colorado Pro-Choice Group Has Enough Signatures to Put Abortion on the Ballot

A Colorado group that wants to enshrine the right to an abortion in the state Constitution claims that it has gathered over 225,000 signatures on a petition to put the issue to a vote. They need only 124,238 to get it on the ballot. Groups trying to get something on the ballot always try for far more than they need because many of the signatures may later prove to be from people other than registered Colorado voters.

Abortion is already legal in Colorado and the Democrats have the state trifecta there, so if this initiative passes, nothing will change immediately. Still, by putting this in the state Constitution, a future Republican-controlled state legislature could not pass a law banning the procedure. It would also override a 1984 measure that prohibits health insurance from covering abortion care for public employees and people on public insurance.

Democrats often try to get abortion measures on the ballot in the hope of getting young people to the polling place to vote for candidates. That is less of an issue in Colorado since there are no races this year for governor or senator. Also, six of the eight congressional districts are so gerrymandered as to be nearly unwinnable by one of the parties. However, Rep. Yadira Caraveo (D-CO) in CO-08 is in a district with a PVI of EVEN, so a higher turnout of young voters could help her hang onto her seat. And who knows what might happen in CO-03, the R+7 district that Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-CO) is fleeing. (V)

It's Amateur Hour at the DNC

Joe Biden might not be allowed on the Ohio ballot because he will not be the official nominee of the Democratic Party until the roll call vote, probably on Aug. 22, 2024. Ohio law requires parties to submit the names of their candidates before Aug. 7. Ohio is not really a swing state, but not having Biden on the ballot could depress Democratic turnout, which might be fatal to Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH). Losing that seat would almost certainly mean Republican control of the Senate in Jan. 2025.

Next came Alabama. There the deadline for getting on the November ballot is Aug. 15. Alabama is not a swing state and there are no crucial Senate elections there, but missing the deadline is sloppy.

Now a third example has cropped up: Washington State. Here the deadline is Aug. 20. Washington is less likely to be a problem because the Democrats have the trifecta and can change the law if need be. Besides, the secretary of state, Steve Hobbs, is a Democrat.

Still, missing all these deadlines is inexcusable. When the DNC planned the convention years ago, they should have had a summer intern go look up the deadlines in all 50 states and D.C. and then picked a convention date that was prior to the earliest deadline. The first week of August would have been fine. The party that does not hold the White House holds the first convention, so next time a Republican is elected, the Ohio law could come back to bite the Republicans in the rump. However, the Republicans completely control the Ohio state government, so they will no doubt be willing to give the GOP a pass. Getting all the states to move their deadlines to, say, Aug. 25 would be even better, but don't count on that happening. (V)

Today's Presidential Polls

Maybe it's the favorite son effect, but Florida is lookin' good for Mr. Mar-a-Lago so far. Of course, the abortion and marijuana initiatives in November could uproot everything.

State	Joe Biden	Donald Trump	Start	End	Pollster
Florida	31%	39%	Apr 05	Apr 07	Ipsos

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

---

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