Main page    May 24

Pres map
Previous | Next | Senate page

New polls: AZ GA MA MI NC NH NV PA RI SD WI
Dem pickups: (None)
GOP pickups: GA ME NV PA

Note: No headline theme today, but it will be back next week.

Flag Day Comes Early This Year

Flag Day is actually June 14, but Associate Justice Samuel Alito seems to like celebrating year round. The United States Flag Code (4 U.S.C. ยง5 et seq.) states that the flag should never be flown upside down, except to signal great danger. The Stop the Steal movement has adopted the upside-down flag as its emblem, to show that the country is in grave danger. When photos circulated of an upside-down flag flying at the Alitos' house, for at least several days, Sam used the now-common "blame the wife" defense to try to get off the hook. Apparently, he either never noticed that she was doing this or didn't care. He took a lot of flak for that.

Now it has come out that the upside-down flag at home isn't the only flag the Alitos have used to express their sympathy with right-wing groups. At their beach house in New Jersey, the Alitos have flown the "Appeal to Heaven" Pine Tree flag:

Appeal to heaven flag at Samuel Alito's beach house

The good news is that the Appeal to Heaven flag is not solely associated with the Jan. 6 rioters. The bad news is that it is associated with Christian Nationalists—you know, those folks who reject the separation of church and state in the Constitution and want to turn America into Iran, with small modifications (e.g., the president is not required to have a beard). Since there were plenty of Christian Nationalists present on Jan. 6, this flag is among the many that were flown during that event, so it's kind of a two-fer for the Alitos.

This second incident has led many people to call for Alito to recuse himself from cases involving the Jan. 6 rioters, Christian Nationalism, and Donald Trump, especially whether Trump is above the law. In particular, Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, released this statement after the second flag story broke: "This incident is yet another example of apparent ethical misconduct by a sitting justice, and it adds to the Court's ongoing ethical crisis. For the good of our country and the Court, Justice Alito must recuse himself immediately from cases related to the 2020 election and the January 6th insurrection. And the Chief Justice must see how this is damaging the Court and immediately enact an enforceable code of conduct." Durbin has long supported a bill requiring the Supreme Court to adopt a mandatory code of ethics, something it has thus far refused to do.

Durbin isn't the only member of Congress who sees Alito's behavior as disgraceful. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) said "What we are seeing here is an extraordinary breach of not just the trust and the stature of the Supreme Court, but we are seeing a fundamental challenge to our democracy." She has called on the Senate to investigate Alito. If the Democrats take the House in November, an investigation by the House Judiciary Committee is very likely.

Between Alito and Clarence Thomas, both of whom routinely accept expensive gifts and vacations from people who care deeply about cases before the Court, public trust in the Supreme Court is at a near all-time low. Currently 39% of Americans approve of the job the Supreme Court is doing and 61% disapprove. For a branch that is supposed to be above politics, this is not how it is supposed to be. Here are the approve/disapprove scores since 2020:

Supreme Court approval/disapproval 2020-2024

Alito has ignored Durbin and all other calls to recuse. He is clearly thinking: "What are they going to do about it?" However, if the Democrats get the trifecta in November, they could do a lot next year, including impeaching Alito, passing a law requiring a mandatory code of ethics (with sanctions), and stripping the Court of jurisdiction in some areas. (V)

Supreme Court Rules for the Republicans in South Carolina Map Case

In more Supreme Court news, yesterday the Court ruled in favor of South Carolina in a case about taking race into account when drawing district maps. The Court has held that political gerrymanders are fine but racial ones are not. In the South, however, nearly all Black voters are Democrats, so moving them in or out of a district could be for either racial reasons (illegal) or political reasons (legal). So, when nearly all the movees are both Black and Democrats, how can anyone tell if a gerrymander is racial or political?

The case at hand involves the district of Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC). The legislature drew a map that removed thousands of Black voters from the district, SC-01. With these voters, the district might have been competitive. Without them, it is not. Civil rights groups sued claiming it was an illegal racial gerrymander. The state claimed it was a legal political gerrymander. The Court sided with the state.

The decision is bigger than this one case. It sends a message to state legislatures throughout the South that they are free to move blocs of Black voters into and out of districts at will as long as they claim it is a political gerrymander. In his majority decision, everyone's favorite justice, Sam Alito, made clear that legislators, having taken an oath to uphold the Constitution, deserve the benefit of the doubt. That means that unless they are so foolish as to go on Fox and brag about how their gerrymander was racial in nature, there's virtually no way to overturn such shenanigans (and maybe not even then). No doubt many state legislators will keep this in mind going forward. (V)

Trump Held a Rally in the South Bronx Yesterday

Generally, Donald Trump holds his rallies in rural areas packed with his supporters. He tends to avoid cities because they would draw plenty of opposition, boos, and protests. But yesterday he did something unorthodox for him. He held a rally in the South Bronx, in the heart of one of the most Democratic counties in the country. The two congressional districts that cover the area are NY-13 (PVI of D+38) and NY-15 (D+35). Nearby is also NY-14, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez' district in Queens, which is D+28.

What's up? Is the cheese slipping off the cracker? Did Trump's schedulers confuse NY-13 (D+38) with PA-13 (R+25)? No, Trump believes he is making progress with Black and Latino voters and the South Bronx has many people of both groups. The population is 65% Latino and 31% Black. It is also very poor, with 35% falling below the poverty line. Trump's campaign manager undoubtedly understands that winning New York State is about 12 bridges too far. Nevertheless, since it was certain there would be protesters, Trump knew that the rally would get a huge amount of publicity, thus sending a message to Black and Latino voters nationwide.

One legitimate area where Latinos may actually agree with Trump is abortion. Many Latinos are Catholic, and the Catholic Church opposes abortion.

At the rally, Trump railed against immigrants and vowed to hold the biggest deportation operation in American history—to a crowd full of immigrants, but whatever. But Trump called the rally a love fest.

Further, it was his standard stump speech, attacking Joe Biden and lamenting how his economic policies especially hurt people of color.

More than 100 protesters showed up, and well, protested. The police had to keep the rally-goers and protesters apart, but there was no violence. (V)

Donald Trump, Weaselman

Donald Trump is in some ways a brilliant politician. He has an instinctive feeling for what his base wants to hear—and not hear. In particular, he knows how to skirt hot-button issues that could get him in trouble. Here are a dozen controversial issues where he tries to have it both ways:

In short, on many hot-button issues, Trump simply avoids taking a position and hopes that his base understands in the end he will do what they want and that independents don't understand that. (V)

Trump's Fundraising E-mails Depend on Fear

An e-mail Donald Trump sent out recently had as the subject line: "They were authorized to shoot me." It was a fundraising e-mail. The point was if you gave Trump your last $10, that would deauthorize "them" from shooting Trump. Or something. The preview was: "I nearly escaped death. Biden's DOJ was locked and loaded for deadly force at Mar-a-Lago ..." This was complete nonsense, of course, but Trump needed to get his supporters to read the pitch. When someone is getting 10 e-mails a day from Trump, getting people to read them is increasingly difficult.

What the e-mail was actually about was a recently unsealed document about a 2022 FBI search of Mar-a-Lago looking for classified documents, something a federal judge had approved. The search was as low-key as possible, with no helicopters or even FBI vehicles. No doors were knocked down. All that was in the document was standard boilerplate language from the Justice Dept. manual explaining the limited circumstances in which agents were allowed to use force—namely, if the target completely blocked execution of the court order. Trump wasn't even at Mar-a-Lago when the agents were there. But Trump's version was more likely to scare the recipients into getting out their credit cards.

With so many e-mails a day from the campaign, Trump needs to find some way to get people to pay attention, and scaring the bejezus out of them seems to be the one he has chosen as #1. But there are diminishing returns here. You can get the supporters worried about imminent harm to the candidate only so many times a day before they become immune to it. Perhaps readers are familiar with the story of the boy who cried wolf.

Another popular way to get people to read the e-mails is to dangle a prize in the subject line, like: "There are sweepstakes to win trips to Las Vegas and London. (You can enter to win with a $20.24 contribution)." When there is a chance of winning a prize, people will look at the e-mail. Of course, even if it is true, the chance of winning is microscopic, and it might not even be true. Of course, when this also runs out of steam, Trump will have to try something else. How about reducing the e-mail load to two messages a week? That might work, but Trump is not going there. (V)

TrumpTok

TikTok started out as a place to post cute cat videos, but like many things on the Internet, it has evolved. It is becoming much more political. Even though Donald Trump is not on it, many of his fans are, and they are trying to turn it into a safe space for Trumpists. Since November, there have been 1.29 million pro-Trump posts and only 651,000 pro-Biden posts.

This situation may be partly because Biden recently signed a bill that would force TikTok to sell the American portion of the site to a U.S. company or have it banned. Many of the users don't like the idea of it going away, which may have inspired them to attack Biden, although that is a recent development. Still, the subject has been in the news for months.

C.J. Pearson, a social-media influencer who co-chairs the RNC's youth advisory council, has nearly 149,000 followers on TikTok. He recently posted: "If we allow the Democrats and the leftist organizations and leftist influencers to have a monopoly on the content that's produced on TikTok, we will lose the next generation of Americans." Yup. If you lose TikTok, you lose the country.

Trump could join the platform, but it is mainly populated by young users and they generally don't like him. His appearance could easily backfire and make him a target, so his team has to be careful. Other Republican politicians have also largely avoided the platform as well. (V)

Rick Scott Is Trying Again

Sen. Rick Scott (R-FL) is a very ambitious fellow, even in a body noted for ambitious guys and gals. He wants to be president, but when he unveiled his platform, which included ending Social Security and Medicare in 5 years unless Congress explicitly renewed them, he got hooted down. So he set his sights lower: Senate Republican Leader. In 2022, he ran and was crushed by now-Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY). Undaunted, he is trying again for the top position within the Senate Republican caucus.

His goal might be in reach, except for a couple of minor details. First, he is probably the most hated senator not named Ted Cruz in either party. His Republican colleagues, in particular, despise him as he is not a team player at all. Second, there is the John problem. Two other Republicans are vying for McConnell's job in the next Congress, Sens. John Thune (R-SD) and John Cornyn (R-TX). Both are well-liked in the caucus and both have been in the leadership before and don't want to upset the applecart. Third, Scott is far more conservative than the average Republican senator. The combination of being an arrogant, unlikable person and being ideologically out of step with the Senate Republican caucus is probably not a winning combo.

Oh, and Scott is against compromise with the Democrats. Unless the Republicans get 60 seats or get 51 and decide to abolish the filibuster, that is a formula for getting nothing done. While House Republicans take great pride in getting nothing done, senators aren't like that. They actually do want to legislate and don't like holding the country for ransom. Scott wrote a letter to his colleagues in which he said: "Republicans all across America want the Republicans they elected to the U.S. Senate to stop caving in to Democrat demands. This is not an unreasonable request or expectation." In other words, it's our way or the highway.

Scott is by far the Trumpiest candidate for party leader, but will Trump endorse him? It's a tricky question. It might not move the needle because senators are a lot smarter than the average Trump supporter and are much better at weighing their options. Also, if Trump endorses Scott and one of the Johns wins, that will certainly lead to a rocky relationship with the new leader. Trump might not want to risk that.

Although Scott is already focused on the leadership election, it is a tad premature. First he has to be reelected to the Senate in November. While he is the favorite, it is not a done deal and in a blue wave in Florida, caused by an abortion initiative on the ballot, Debbie Mucarsel-Powell could conceivably beat him. In any event, a very narrow win in his own election is going to make his Senate colleagues think carefully about whether he has the right stuff. (V)

The Fake Electors Are Also Trying Again

Fake Trump electors are under indictment in multiple states, including Arizona, Georgia, Michigan and Nevada. They might well be convicted and sent to prison. Have they learned their lessons? Absolutely not. In multiple states the fake electors are running for elector on the Republican ticket. If Trump wins their states, then they are the legitimate electors. However, if Trump loses, they may well meet and cast fake electoral votes for Trump again.

In most states, the electors are chosen by the state party or a state convention, so the 2020 fake electors are free to try again. However, the ground rules have changed since 2020 due to the Electoral Count Reform Act of 2022 (ECRA). Among other provisions of the ECRA, the certificate of ascertainment, which names the electors, must be signed by the governor, unless state law provides for a different official (typically, the secretary of state) to sign it. So if fake electors meet and produce a bogus certificate of ascertainment, if it comes in without the signature of the authorized official, President of the Senate Kamala Harris will chuck it directly into the circular file with no further ado.

Whether the fake electors can themselves get elected as electors is far from certain, even if they want it badly. Some states might not be enthusiastic about electors who are mired in a criminal case about the very function they would be expected to carry out. There could easily be competitive electors for the position of elector this time and the fake ones would not be certain of winning. After all, there is no shortage of party activists who would like to be electors. The only requirement is that the person not be a federal employee. In principle, King Charles III could be an elector, possibly in an attempt to smooth over the unpleasantries of 1775-83. (V)

Top RFK Jr. Adviser Quits, Citing Hateful Atmosphere

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. needs everything to go right just to get on the ballot in enough states that have a total of 270 electoral votes. If he fails this, he is mathematically eliminated from possibly being elected president. The last thing he needs now is dissension within his campaign. But that is what he now has.

Angela Stanton King, a former Trump supporter, was a high-profile figure in Kennedy's campaign. She was in charge of Black engagement. Now she is quitting the campaign in a huff, citing "an increasingly hateful and divisive atmosphere" that "no longer aligns with my values." Neither King nor the campaign had any further explanation.

At the debut of vice presidential candidate Nicole Shanahan, who has been AWOL since her debut, King was there to praise Shanahan. King said: "I don't fall in love with a lot of people, but I fell in love with Nicole."

King is not without controversy. She was convicted of taking part in a stolen-vehicle ring and was pardoned by Donald Trump after serving 6 months of home confinement. She then ran for a U.S. House seat in Alabama as a supporter of QAnon and was crushed. Some things are too much, even for Alabama. She also called for a military coup against Joe Biden in 2021. Clearly this is the kind of résumé that would stand out to Kennedy.

Part of the reason for her departure might be related to abortion. Within the Kennedy campaign, there has been a spirited discussion about what Kennedy should pretend to believe. At first, Kennedy said he would not support government restrictions on abortion care, but after pressure from King, an anti-abortion activist, Kennedy reversed himself. Currently, Kennedy is back to his original position: the government should not get involved in abortions, one way or the other. It is possible that the most recent flip-flop is what caused King to jump ship. In any event, constantly changing positions gives both parties ammo to use against Kennedy. (V)

This Week in Schadenfreude: Banned

Just between us, Gov. Kristi Noem (R-SD) is a reprehensible human being. There's the dog shooting, of course. Reasonable people can disagree as to whether "that's how things are done on the farm" or not, but what is much less open to debate is the apparent fact that she acted in a fit of anger, without exploring all possible options. And what is not open to debate at all is that she had more than a decade to reflect on what she'd done, and decided... that the story was something to brag about in order to burnish her brand and score political points. We cannot help but notice that, in most contexts, bragging about the killing of animals is a sign that a person is a psychopath.

Of course, it's not just the dog incident. Noem is also an enthusiastic practitioner of the old political trick of scapegoating one group or another, so as to increase her own power. For anyone studying for the SAT at home, that's called demagoguery. And one of her favorite targets is Native Americans. After all, they are not white, and they are much more visible in South Dakota than any other non-white group. Her recent favorite line of attack has been to assert, without evidence, that the nine tribal groups of South Dakota are in cahoots with Mexican cartels, so as to smuggle drugs and guns from Mexico to South Dakota. Exactly how they are doing this without, say, transporting the illegal stuff across state roads that are under Noem's control, and that are her responsibility to secure, is never explained. In any event, this is out-and-out racist. The message is clear as day: "These darker-skinned groups are all working together against you, white-skinned South Dakotans!"

That's not her only well-worn bit, either. Another favorite, when it comes to slurring the Natives, is her claim that test scores on reservations lag those of non-reservation students because Native American parents don't care about education and "aren't there" for their kids. That expert assessment comes, incidentally, from someone who struggled to finish her poli sci (not education) degree at South Dakota State University (which, by the way, has an acceptance rate of 86.1%). We don't begrudge people who get the best education they can get, depending on their personal circumstances. But people who attend glass universities should not be throwing stones, is what we're saying.

It is not going to shut Noem up, of course, but the nine tribal groups have banded together to take symbolic action against the Governor. As of yesterday, every single one of them has exercised their right, as semi-autonomous nations, to ban Noem from tribal lands. That means that South Dakota's own governor is no longer legally allowed to visit roughly one-fifth of the acreage in the state. Good enough for her.

Perhaps the more fitting punishment, however, is that Noem has done and said all these reprehensible things, and her reward is... she's governor of the 47th most populous state, and one that has virtually no impact on anything outside the state. And once her second, and current, term is up, she won't even be that. She's completely blown her chance to be a national figure, and so she will get to spend the rest of her days (after Jan. 2027) appearing on second-tier right-wing networks like OAN and The Blaze, and wondering where it all went wrong—basically the 2020s' answer to Sarah Palin. (Z)

This Week in Freudenfreude: Happy Birthday to... Us

Boy, how time flies. It was 20 years ago today... that Sgt. Pepper taught his band to play? Nope. In fact, exactly 20 years ago, this site went online. If you click through, you'll see that all we had that day was a map, and a prediction of 281 EVs for George W. Bush and 257 EVs for John Kerry (actual: 286 for Bush and 251 for Kerry, so not a bad start at all). The first day we had any actual text, beyond the map, was June 6, and the first time we had political analysis of any sort (a comment on that day's poll of Louisiana) was June 7.

One astute reader figured it out in advance, and sent us a birthday card of sorts. Here's M.G. in Boulder, CO:

May 24th is E-V.com's 20th anniversary. E-V.com began in 2004 as a source for poll analysis to project election outcomes, and at some time close to that a co-worker recommended it to me as a site written by some young guy, probably a smart poly sci grad student, who produced pretty unbiased information written in a style that was understandable and fun to read. At that time it appeared and disappeared without warning. As an election heated up, I'd think, "I wonder if that kid is back," and like magic, E-V.com would appear. (Z) joined (V) in 2015, and in 2016 their work began appearing daily, expanding to include political articles and analysis. It wasn't until about 3 years ago that I thought to look for background information. I should have realized that after 17 years, the "bright grad student" would have become an intelligent middle-aged faculty member, but Wikipedia told me that I'd been really off base about (V) for the whole time that I'd been reading the column. Sometimes you think what you see is the whole picture, but when you see a more complete picture, it's much more impressive.

(V), thanks for a lovely 20 years, and thank you, (Z), for 9 years of added excellence. I'm looking forward to many more.

Thanks, M.G.!

We wanted to mark the actual anniversary, for obvious reasons, but next week we'll have some stuff that continues the commemoration. To help with that, we would like to ask readers to submit images (or links to images) from the last two decades that would have been shocking to you if you could send them back in time to the 2004 version of yourself. Please send them to comments@electoral-vote.com, ideally with subject "Unbelievable Image." Obviously, we welcome a few sentences of explanation and/or commentary.

Naturally, this is an ideal time to thank the people who make this site possible, among them the two people who help input polls for us, the two who help us with tech support, the dozen who serve as copy editors, the person who helps apply all the corrections each day, and, of course, all the readers, without whom it would not be possible. Or, at least, without whom it would not be worthwhile. It's an honor and a privilege, and here's to many years more! (V & Z).

Today's Presidential Polls

Arizona polling is all over the map, but it is likely to be close there. Nevada looks like it could be more trouble for Biden than expected. He is going to have to show up there more than he planned, but at least a trip to Nevada can be combined with a trip to Arizona. (V)

State Joe Biden Donald Trump Start End Pollster
Arizona 44% 45% May 06 May 13 BSG + GS for Cook
Arizona 45% 43% May 19 May 21 Florida Atlantic U.
Georgia 38% 42% May 06 May 13 BSG + GS for Cook
Massachusetts 68% 32% May 16 May 20 U. of New Hampshire
Michigan 45% 47% May 06 May 13 BSG + GS for Cook
North Carolina 41% 48% May 06 May 13 BSG + GS for Cook
North Carolina 42% 44% May 02 May 09 High Point U.
New Hampshire 52% 48% May 16 May 20 U. of New Hampshire
Nevada 40% 49% May 06 May 13 BSG + GS for Cook
Nevada 43% 51% May 19 May 21 Florida Atlantic U.
Pennsylvania 45% 48% May 06 May 13 BSG + GS for Cook
Rhode Island 60% 40% May 16 May 20 U. of New Hampshire
South Dakota 31% 50% May 10 May 13 Mason Dixon
Wisconsin 45% 45% May 06 May 13 BSG + GS for Cook

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


Previous | Next

Main page for smartphones

Main page for tablets and computers