Haley: I Quit

Yesterday, Nikki Haley, Donald Trump's final opponent, bowed to the inevitable and announced that she was suspending her campaign. She didn't endorse her former boss, but she also didn't endorse Joe Biden or anyone else. She put the ball in Trump's court by saying it was up to him to win over her voters.

A profile in courage this is not. How about a profile in cowardice? Her whole campaign for weeks has been about how Trump is totally unfit to be president. So instead of endorsing Biden and committing to doing everything she can to see that the unfit person never becomes president, she weasels out of it and tells Trump to effectively moderate his views and style and be less mean to attract her voters. He's never going to do that of course, because the viciousness and cruelty is the whole point of it all.

Why the cop-out? Well, she has visions of swooping in and capturing the 2028 nomination for herself. Denouncing Trump would make that impossible, as his base would never forgive her. So she told Trump to earn the support of her voters and washed her hands of the whole thing. In other words, if America becomes a dictatorship, it's not her fault. She disengaged from the process.

Joe Biden reacted quickly to Haley's statement, inviting her supporters to join his team. Biden said: "Donald Trump made it clear he doesn't want Nikki Haley supporters. I want to be clear: There is a place for them in my campaign." That's probably true. In fact, a lot of them are already there. A substantial number of Haley's voters were Democrats or Democratic-leaning independents, especially in states where independents or all voters could vote in the Republican primary. They were already planning to vote for Biden in the general election.

A bigger question is: What will Haley's Republican voters do? There were plenty of pieces about that yesterday, including in The New York Times, The Washington Post, and ABC News. Each outlet spoke with a few dozen Haley supporters and they are all over the map. Some will come home and vote for Trump in the end, some will go for Biden, and some are not sure. But again, not all of them are actual Republicans so the number of Haley supporters who are actually Republicans and might not vote for Trump is probably fairly small. History shows that most of the time the supporters of a losing candidate in the primaries eventually come around to supporting their party's nominee, especially when there is so much time left to get over the feeling of losing.

While we are on the subject of cowardice, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) yesterday endorsed Donald Trump, despite knowing that he is totally unfit to be president and despite having fought against him for years. The two men haven't spoken in over 3 years and McConnell has blamed Trump for the attack on the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. At this point, McConnell's career is almost over and instead of going out with a bang by refusing to endorse Trump and maybe having a legacy of being a turtle with a spine as well as a shell, he decided to go out with a whimper. After all, at this point there is nothing Trump could do to punish McConnell, yet McConnell still refused to put country above party. Nope, all that matters is the party. Not only is it turtles all the way down, it is also partisanship all the way down.

Finally, to celebrate national drop-out day, Dean Phillips also dropped out yesterday. Apparently, he saw the writing on the wall when he managed only a third-place finish in his own home state. His withdrawal was about 2 months too late, but better late than never. (V)

Biden Will Kick Off His Campaign Tonight

The Constitution requires the president to inform Congress of the state of the union from time to time, but does not describe a method or frequency. Many 19th century presidents sent Congress written reports but since the 1930s, it has been a tradition to give a speech to a joint session of Congress. Since the invention of radio, it has also been an address to the American people. When it is given by an incumbent president running for reelection, it has also usually been the kickoff for their reelection campaign. Tonight, Joe Biden will follow tradition and kick off his reelection campaign with the SOTU speech. If you are interested in the history of the SOTU message, here it is.

Biden's speech is basically going to be a campaign commercial and will indicate the themes he intends to push until November. Most likely, he will focus on these three themes:

• The Economy: Biden absolutely has to hit this point and hard. The economy is actually in excellent shape. Unemployment and inflation are near historical lows and the stock market is breaking one record after another, something people can see in their 401(k) statements. The Dow-Jones index closed at 38,712 yesterday and could easily hit 40,000 shortly; it was flirting with 30,000 the day Biden was inaugurated. It's almost a 30% gain already in 3 years. But the popular image of the economy is that it is in the toilet. It is true that prices are higher than they were before the pandemic, but wages are also higher. For some (maybe many) people, wage increases have more than compensated for price increases, but when people look at the price of some staple in the supermarket, all they see is the higher price, not their higher paycheck. It will be up to Biden to hammer on this point tonight.
  
  Biden has plenty of concrete achievements to brag about. There is the CHIPS Act, which will bring semiconductor manufacturing back to America and create jobs in the process. There is the Inflation Reduction Act, which will help deal with climate change and create millions of jobs in the green energy sector in the process. There is the cap on annual drug co-pays for seniors, and much more. Most people are completely oblivious to these laws and Biden will surely talk about how they help millions of people in many ways. This pitch will be aimed at blue-collar workers.
  
  
• Women's Health: This part will be mostly about abortion and the Republicans' efforts to ban it in many states and nationwide if they get the chance. Biden is also likely to mention that Republicans also want to ban many popular forms of contraception because they believe that when an egg finds a sperm it likes, the resulting zygote is the same as a baby and some forms of contraception interfere with the implantation of the zygote, which some extreme Christians view as abortion. For young people, what's going on in Gaza is not good, but banning abortion and especially contraception hits close to home and Biden is going to try to ride this train to victory.
  
  The recent decision of the Alabama Supreme Court that a zygote is a baby is extremely unpopular and causing Republicans to tear their hair out (although Gov. Kay Ivey, R-AL, signed IVF-affirming legislation into law yesterday). Biden is sure to harp on this, too. He could talk about childless couples he has met who are scared they can never have the family they so desire due to the wicked Republicans who hate them. This is low-hanging fruit and Biden is very likely to grab it. This pitch will be aimed at young people and single women generally.
  
  
• Democracy: Donald Trump has said that he will be a dictator for only 1 day. Nice of him. Biden is sure to mention that America is not supposed to have dictators, not even for 1 day. He can point out that Trump has been indicted 91 times in four jurisdictions and is likely a criminal. Furthermore, he has promised revenge on his enemies and has plans to uproot democracy in many ways. This pitch will be aimed at college-educated suburban voters.
  

Will Biden bring up other topics? Sure. Maybe voting rights, the inability of Republicans even to pass a budget, and defending our friends abroad? He will certainly talk about his plans for a second term. Will he push for a law allowing abortion nationwide? How about a comprehensive immigration law combining tighter border security with a path to citizenship for the dreamers who have been in the country for 10 years or who have served in the armed forces? What about reducing the cost of health care? How about tougher enforcement for companies that are price gouging? He might even have some surprises that capture the headlines tomorrow.

Biden will certainly make an implicit or explicit pitch to Haley voters: You are welcome in my big tent. He will undoubtedly praise them for their bravery and dedication to the Constitution and the rule of law and say that their values are his values, too.

But the most important part of the speech will not be what he says, but how he says it. The Republicans' main pitch against Biden is that he is a feeble, demented old man who can barely put his socks on. This is Biden's opportunity to show that he is vital and vigorous, with plans to improve life for Americans in another term. By November, no one will remember exactly what Biden says tonight, but many people will remember the impression he made. Was he a wise, experienced man with a vision for the future or a bumbling, incoherent fool? Footage from the speech could be used by either party, so Biden needs to not only have some high points and applause lines, but has to avoid making any blunders.

The Republican reply will be given by Sen. Katie Britt (R-AL). She has been in public office only a year and is not in a position of power. She has two things going for her: (1) she is an attractive young(-ish) woman and (2) she is not as obnoxious as the other senator from Alabama. No doubt she will contrast her age (42) with Biden's age (81) but probably won't mention Trump's age (77). The Republicans would love to make her the face of the Republican Party, but it's not going to work and her rebuttal to the SOTU will be forgotten in a week. Or an hour. (V)

Trump Will Run a Very Dark Campaign

Most politicians try to run an upbeat campaign, talking largely about how wonderful America is and how it will be even better with them in charge. Remember Ronald Reagan's "Morning in America" or "The shining city on the hill"? Donald Trump is not your run-of-the-mill politician. In his victory speech on Tuesday and many of his other speeches, he depicts America as a dystopian failed state overwhelmed with lawlessness and urban blight, and on a path toward WW III. He promises to get revenge on political enemies, and to stamp out the vermin within the country. This picture is even worse than his "American carnage" inaugural address. To hear him, America is a banana republic, but without the bananas.

It's hardly Reagan's sunny America, but it is aimed clearly at his supporters, who know little of the country or the world outside of their little towns, and believe the rest of the country is worse than Hell. On Tuesday, Trump said: "2024 is our final battle. We will demolish the deep state, we will expel the warmongers from our government—we will drive out the globalists, we will cast out the Marxists, the communists and fascists. We will rout the fake news media, we will drain the swamp. We will be a liberated country again." Change a few words and you've got an old-fashioned holy roller preacher screaming at the believers assembled in his big tent outdoors.

A key difference between Trump and other politicians is that with most politicians, after they score a big win, they try to unite the country and act like the leader of the entire country. Trump has a base-only strategy. He wants to lead his people and subjugate everyone else. The rhetoric concerning the blue half of the country is just as bad as the rhetoric most politicians had about the Japanese right after Pearl Harbor. Neither of the Bushes had a violent hatred of the people who didn't vote for them, but Trump sure does. (V)

Trump Tried to Acquire a Musky Odor

Donald Trump needs money and may soon have power. Elon Musk has money and would like power. Maybe the guy who "wrote" The Art of the Deal could make, well, a deal. The idea would be that Musk would "loan" Trump, say, a billion dollars so he could stay various judges from seizing his assets while he is appealing various civil cases he has lost in the past and various criminal cases he might lose in the future. A second billion tossed into Trump's main super PAC would also be nice. Musk wouldn't even miss the money. What's the point of being the second-richest person in the world if you can't throw your money around?

In return, a future President Trump could give Musk whatever he would like. How about a federal law banning the sale of gasoline-powered cars starting in 2028? That would do wonders for Tesla's bottom line, since demand would go through the roof, along with what Musk could charge per car. Or maybe Musk would like one of his flunkies to be secretary of commerce? The sky's the limit. The only thing Musk has to worry about is Trump's nasty habit of reneging on all his promises, so he would need some serious collateral. And, of course, if Trump loses, at least some of that money is down the drain.

According to a report in The New York Times, Musk made a pilgrimage to Mar-a-Lago recently. The Times reporters weren't present and nothing has leaked (so far), but the smart money is guessing that the main subject of discussion was money and what it can buy. From Musk's recent posts and interviews with insiders, it is clear that one of Musk's top priorities is seeing that Joe Biden is defeated in November.

But in the end, it was probably all for naught. Yesterday afternoon, Musk tweeted: "Just to be super clear, I am not donating money to either candidate for US President." Musk didn't say anything about posting a bond for Trump, but that seems unlikely after the tweet. (V)

Trump's Lawyer's Are Grasping at Straws

Donald Trump's financial problems just keep getting worse. Every 9 days he owes another $1 million to New York State in interest and a smaller amount to E. Jean Carroll. Maybe Elon Musk will bail him out (see above), but maybe not, and in any event, Musk will drive a hard bargain (e.g., a huge loan at an equally huge interest rate). So what has Trump done? He has ordered his lawyers to throw one Hail Mary pass after another. Here are two of them from yesterday alone.

• Hush money case: Of the four cases against Trump, the weakest and hardest to understand is the one in which he paid $130,000 in hush money to porn star Stormy Daniels and then claimed it as a business expense. Falsifying business records is a crime in New York. It is a felony if it was done to hide an underlying crime, which is true in this case. The underlying crime is violating election law because Daniels' contribution-in-kind to his campaign (apparently worth $130,000) exceeded the allowable limit. Nevertheless, that one will go to trial first, starting March 25.
  
  Trump is trying to win this case by excluding a key witness, Michael Cohen. He was the go-between who arranged everything and knows all the details and what Trump was trying to accomplish. Trump asked him to pay Daniels out of his own pocket and then reimbursed Cohen, booking that payment as for "legal services rendered." Cohen is indeed a lawyer, but paying off a porn star does not require a J.D. Even a high school dropout can be trained to pay off a porn star. With a little practice, anyone can do it. Reporting the payment as for legal services is false record keeping, a crime in New York.
  
  Cohen would be a powerful witness against Trump because he knows everything, so Trump wants him excluded because yada, yada, yada. Cohen is a convicted felon for perjury, but in criminal cases, it is very common that witnesses are other criminals because they are the ones who were there when the crime the accused is charged with was committed. Manhattan D.A. Alvin Bragg wants Cohen to testify precisely because he can testify firsthand to what happened and what Trump was trying to accomplish. It will be up to Judge Juan Merchan to decide if Cohen can testify. We can't think of any conceivable reason for a direct witness to a crime to be barred from telling the jury what he saw.
  
  
• E. Jean Carroll case: In this case, the Hail Mary has even less chance to succeed. Here Trump is asking Judge Lewis Kaplan to either: (1) greatly reduce the $83 million award the jury decided on or (2) give him a whole new trial. Good luck with either of those. There is no reason the judge would want to reduce the award. After all, Trump had previously defamed Carroll and she was given a more modest $5 million payment as compensation. Then before the second trial (for comments he made while president), he went out and defamed her again. He should have known better by then and did it anyway. It seems very unlikely the judge will interfere, especially since Trump claims to be worth $10 billion, in which case an award of less than 1% of his net worth is hardly a severe punishment. One of the arguments Trump's lawyers are using is that $83 million is completely out of bounds. Of course, the judge is surely aware of the $148 million payment Rudy Giuliani was socked with for defaming two Georgia election workers. Contrasted with that, $83 million seems pretty reasonable.
  
  As to a whole new trial, Trump's lawyers are going to have to show what was wrong with the first one. Since there was nothing wrong with the first one, there is no reason for the judge to grant a new one. And even if he does, the award could conceivably be greater than $83 million if the members of the new jury are tired of Trump's shenanigans.
  

Trump's lawyers, at least the ones not named Alina Habba, undoubtedly know none of the motions Trump wants have a chance. But they also know they get paid by the hour, so if he wants them to put in more billable hours, fine with them. Trump himself probably knows the motions have no chance, but his goal isn't to win, merely to stall. If he becomes president again, he may be able to drag this out until he's dead, and then it will be someone else's money. (V)

Many RNC Members Want to Pay Trump's Legal Bills

Donald Trump's bills are piling up and will go sky-high when his trials start. We're talking tens of millions of dollars here. Trump is a notorious skinflint who hates paying his bills. He has two preferred strategies for dealing with them. First, simply don't pay them, get sued, and then wear the other side down with endless delays until they agree to accept 30 cents on the dollar. Second, get someone else to pay the bills, for example, the rubes who support him. The first strategy won't work now. If he stops paying his lawyers, they will stop working for him and he needs them. Besides, he probably had to pay a fair amount in advance just to get them to agree to take him on. Consequently, now facing tens of millions of dollars in bills, he is focusing on getting someone else to pay his bills and the RNC is now a top target. Just to give you an idea of the scale here, Trump's legal bills last year ran to $50 million—and this was before any of the criminal trials began. It will be much worse this year.

Some RNC members initially opposed this. Henry Barbour proposed a resolution stating that the RNC wouldn't pay Trump one cent. Barbour now says: "The resolution is dead" as the RNC is warming to the idea of paying Trump's lawyers tens of millions of dollars for defending him. Other RNC members are also coming around. An RNC Committee member from Oregon, Solomon Yue, said: "The only mission of the Republican National Committee is to elect our presumptive nominee Trump as the 47th President."

Can you imagine the joy Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH) felt when he heard that the RNC's only job is to elect Trump and it won't be coming after him or Sen. Jon Tester (D-MT) or dozens of endangered Democratic House members because Trump's lawyers are sucking up all the RNC's money? Having the RNC pay Trump's legal bills is a gift from heaven for the Democrats. Every penny that goes to Alina Habba or Chris Kise is a penny that doesn't go to win back the Senate or hold the House. It's not a done deal yet, but it's moving in that direction.

Also relevant here is that the RNC tends to get its money from big donors. Most individual Republicans who give money to Donald of Nazareth do so because they think he is their savior, not because they are expecting concrete benefits, like a big tax cut for rich people. People who give serious money to the RNC do so because they want very specific policies implemented and want Republicans to control the government to deliver them. They all understand the concept of "return on investment" extremely well. If they believe that their money is going to go to Trump's lawyers and not to elect a Republican Congress, they are not nearly as likely to be generous, although they could switch to the NRSC and NRCC or individual candidates, of course. But a policy of funding Trump's lawyers could well have the effect of greatly reducing the pot of money the RNC has. The big advantage the RNC has over the other committees is its flexibility. It can put money where it is needed, be it a House race, a gubernatorial race, or even a state senate race somewhere. If Trump bleeds the RNC dry, the Republicans will lose the flexibility that the DNC has because all the money it gets is going to help elect Democrats somewhere. For example, the Democrats need to flip only two seats to take over the Arizona state Senate and the DNC has the flexibility to put money in races there if it thinks that is worthwhile. (V)

Senators Are Fighting to Drive the Minibus

The government still doesn't have permanent funding for the current fiscal year. It's been one continuing resolution after another. Unless something happens by tomorrow, part of the government will shut down on Saturday. An omnibus bill to fund the entire government properly is out of the question because House Republicans are too divided to pass such a bill. Instead, Senate Republicans are working on two smaller bills, nicknamed "minibus bills," each funding part of the government.

The complication here is that multiple minibus bills are in play and it matters which one (if any) gets passed. Sen. John Thune (R-SD) is sponsoring a package of six bills that he hopes will pass the Senate and avert a shutdown. The package has over 6,000 earmarks in it, something conservatives hate. They want to shrink the government and earmarks are added to bills to buy the votes of senators and representatives, thus increasing government spending. In many cases, there is nothing actually wrong with the earmarks as they generally go to public works in some state or district to get some senator or representative on board.

Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) is trying to outflank Thune on the right and may vote against the package to show conservative senators that he is a better choice than Thune as the person to succeed Mitch McConnell in January as the leader of the Republican caucus. Thus the possibility of a government shutdown is now deeply embedded in the leadership fight in the Senate and the need to please conservative senators without offending moderate senators. And remember, Democrats get to vote, too.

Thune has a lot of skin in the game. He has requested $116 million in earmarks, including $12 million to expand a water treatment plant in Clay County, SD, and $30 million for housing supply needs in other counties in South Dakota. How the bill fares may give a clue as to which John will become the primary John next year. (V)

Chesebro Documents Reveal More Detail on the Attempted Coup

Conservative lawyer Ken "The Cheese" Chesebro was deeply involved in the legal aspects of Donald Trump's coup attempt. A new dump of over 1,400 pages of documents reveals in even more detail the scheming going on behind the scenes to find some legal way to keep Trump in power after losing the 2020 election. This evidence could be valuable in both Special Counsel Jack Smith's case in D.C. and the Georgia RICO case. It shows what was going on, what the various actors were doing, and who knew about what and when.

Communications between Chesebro and Trump campaign lawyer Jim Troupis showed that as early as the day after the election, a key goal on the Trump side was to create a cloud of confusion by submitting dueling slates of electors. From a legal point of view, this makes no sense since only one slate's credentials would be signed by the governor, as required by law. But Chesebro's plan was to have two slates arrive at Congress and then have Congress pick the fake one, law or no law.

Chesebro's plans were much more fine-grained than was previously known. He was obsessed with details, such as how much debate would be allowed when a senator and a representative objected to the electoral votes from some states. Chesebro's strategy was to slow the process down to give the state legislatures time to send in new slates of electors so he could then argue that the Constitution allowed them to bypass the voters and just send in their own slates. He fretted when the House and Senate adopted rules on Jan. 3 that foiled some of his plans. He wanted unlimited debate in both chambers to give the state legislatures enough time to come up with fake slates of electors. The Jan. 3 rules didn't allow that. He was also focused on the possibility of the contingent election that would happen if the House rejected enough electoral votes to get Joe Biden below 270. He was afraid that then-speaker Nancy Pelosi might delay the vote indefinitely and then become president herself when no president or vice president had been certified. He covered all the bases.

The documents make clear that Chesebro was focused like a laser on the areas of the transfer of power that had few to no guardrails. He believed that the vulnerable areas could be exploited to keep Trump in power using bizarre legal theories. As time went on, court after court shot down his plans. In the end, it was up to Mike Pence to reject legitimate electoral votes, and Pence refused to do so. Chesebro was crushed when he learned that Pence was not going to play ball.

On Jan. 6, Chesebro marched to the Capitol but did not enter the building. When all was lost after Pence refused to delay the count, he then began to traffic in conspiracy theories, blaming "antifa" for the riot.

What Chesebro did and who knew what he was up to is important because he was charged in the Georgia RICO case. He pled guilty and as part of the deal he agreed to testify against Trump and the others when the case comes to trial. The more he knew, the greater the damage he could inflict on Trump and other indictees. (V)

Boebert Wants to Recall Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold

Now that Colorado lost its case in the Supreme Court and cannot ban Donald Trump from the ballot, the repercussions will begin. In particular, Rep, Lauren Boebert (R-CO) wants to recall Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold (D) for starting the case by deciding that Trump was disqualified by the Fourteenth Amendment.

Boebert is not alone in her plea to get rid of Griswold. She has been joined by the chairman, vice chairman, and secretary of the Colorado Republican Party. However, getting a recall election on the ballot is not trivial. It would require getting valid signatures of 621,000 registered Colorado voters on petitions to recall Griswold. That could be a difficult feat to achieve.

Griswold reacted to Boebert's plan by tweeting: "Colorado should be able to bar oath-breaking insurrectionists from our ballot." In contrast, Trump called the decision: "A BIG WIN FOR AMERICA." (V)

Democrats Don't Want to See This Movie Again

Imagine a movie about an elderly, liberal, female, Democratic Supreme Court justice who belongs to a demographic minority. Then imagine that she has a serious illness and the Democrats control the White House and the Senate, something they could soon lose. But the justice loves her work and expects to live forever, despite her disease, so she hangs on. It could be a real thriller. It would be great if it could star Ruth Ginsberg playing herself, but unfortunately, she's dead. But maybe some producer could get Justice Sonia Sotomayor to star in it. After all, justices get a 3-month vacation every summer and have nothing to do.

Sotomayor will turn 70 on June 25, right at the end of the Supreme Court's current term. She loves her job but also has a serious case of diabetes and travels with a personal nurse. There is surprisingly little public discussion about the possibility of her retiring in June so that Joe Biden could nominate a young Latina to her seat and have the Democratic-controlled Senate quickly confirm her successor in time for the October term.

Seventy is not a terribly old age these days, but diabetes is a serious illness. Some studies indicate that diabetes can reduce a person's life expectancy by 20 years due to the many potential complications of it, including kidney disease and cardiovascular disease. But everyone expects to live forever and you can't expect people with great power to ever give it up.

Actually, Sotomayor may enjoy her work and certainly takes it very seriously, but she doesn't really have a lot of actual power. She is a member of a three-woman minority of Democratic appointees on the Court and they never get their way unless two of the Republican appointees agree with them, which is pretty rare, at least on the big cases. If she were to retire, she could undoubtedly get a good job as a professor at a top law school and help educate the next generation of lawyers.

If she hangs on, she had better be prepared to hang on for at least 4 years, because the Republicans may well gain control of either the White House or the Senate in November. And if the GOP doesn't get the Senate this November, the 2026 Senate map is just as bad for the Democrats as the 2024 map. If Sotomayor should die between Jan. 3, 2025, and Jan. 3, 2029, the chances of her seat being filled by a Democratic appointee are probably below 50%. Supreme Court justices don't like to be pressured, but we are still surprised this topic doesn't seem to come up in polite company very much.

Needless to say, if Sotomayor asked a friend who is well-plugged in and knows Biden to tell him that she would be willing to retire if he promised to appoint a young Latina, he would probably take the deal and then not renege on it. We'll see in June. (V)

France Puts the Right to an Abortion in Its Constitution

The U.S. isn't the only country where abortion is an issue. France is another one, but the issue is not a huge one there. The path France is taking is very different from the one the U.S. is taking, where about half the states have banned the procedure. Instead, France has enshrined a woman's right to an abortion if she wants one by amending its Constitution, stating that being able to have an abortion when she wants one is a basic right for every French woman. Amending the Constitution required a three-fifths vote in both the National Assembly and the Senate. France is the first country to include a right to an abortion in its Constitution.

Current French law allows abortions up to 16 weeks of gestational age for every woman, but there are numerous exceptions that allow it later, including fetal malformation, physical or mental health of the mother, and even economic distress. Adding the provision to the Constitution was not controversial as 80% of the population was for it and no political party opposed it. There is some sporadic opposition, but it is not widespread and not organized. (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 in school, at work, etc., please click here.

---

Email a link to a friend or share some other way.

---The Votemaster and Zenger