Previous | Next | Senate page | Menu
New polls: AZ GA MI NC NV PA SC VA WI
Dem pickups: (None)
GOP pickups: AZ GA
Partisanship Rules
Politico commissioned Focaldata to run a snap poll after the vice presidential debate. Here are the results:
Look at the partisanship. Among all voters, it was a tie, 50-50. Among Democrats who watched the debate, 94% said Gov. Tim Walz (DFL-MN) won. Among Republicans who watched, 95% said Sen. J.D. Vance (R-OH) won. Among independents who watched, 55% said Walz won. In other words, nearly all Democrats think their guy won and nearly all Republicans think their guy won. Were they watching the same debate? The good news for the blue team is that independents had a slight preference for Walz, although the effect of the debate is likely to be minimal. But it does show how strong partisanship is. It overrides everything else.
The crosstabs are not surprising. Walz did best with younger voters, those with college degrees, and minority voters. Vance did best with voters over 55 and those without a college degree.
In the end, the real winner may be Vance because he has historically bad approval ratings and during the debate, he seemed prepared, competent, and not so weird. For voters who know little about him but have heard that he is weird, seeing him act like a normal politician and not so weird can't help but improve his approval rating. Although we will have to wait for new approval ratings, one bit of evidence suggests that Vance did what he had to do. Among people who did not watch the debate, only 34% said Vance would be ready to sit in the Big Chair if it became empty during his vice presidency, vs. 43% who said he would not be ready. Among people who did see the debate, the numbers were reversed, with 51% saying he was ready and 38% saying he was not ready. So Vance went from "not ready to be president" to "sort of ready to be president." That was his mission and he accomplished it.
For Walz, readiness is less of an issue since Kamala Harris is nearly two decades younger than Donald Trump. So the chance that the veep will need to take over is much smaller for the Minnesotan. Still, among nonwatchers, 36% think he would be ready to take over vs. 41% who think he would not be ready. Among people who watched the debate, 48% said he would be ready vs. 42% who said he would not be. Again, partisanship drives everything, but on the whole, it seems both candidates improved their images, probably because many people simply didn't know much about them.
The Washington Post did it differently. Instead of commissioning a snap poll, they ran a focus group of 23 undecided voters of all ages from around the country. Prior to the debate, nine were probably going to vote for Harris/Walz, 12 were probably going to vote for Trump/Vance, and two were genuinely undecided. This was already an error on the part of the Post; they should have chosen as many Harris leaners as Trump leaners for their panel. Surely they could have found three more undecided voters leaning towards Harris/Walz if they tried harder.
Interestingly enough, after the debate, one of the Harris leaners became a Trump/Vance leaner but one of the undecideds leaned toward Harris/Walz, so Harris/Walz still had nine fans after the debate. None of the Trump/Vance leaners jumped ship, but the one person who switched teams raised their total from 12 to 13. Here is the situation graphically:
Noteworthy is that 11 of the 23 members of the group finally made up their minds definitively after the debate. Were they waiting to see the veeps before making a decision? For the Trump leaners, this is plausible because, given his age and lifestyle, there is a nontrivial chance the #2 guy might end up as the #1 guy, so they wanted to check out #2. For the Harris leaners, this is less likely. Nevertheless, Walz convinced two-thirds of them to say: "Yup, it's Harris for me." One of the undecideds still couldn't make up her mind. What is she waiting for? For James Comey to announce he found even more e-mails?
A question the Post asked of all the participants was: "Do you agree with Walz that Trump tried to overturn the 2020 election?" Three people strongly disagreed, four somewhat disagreed, four were neutral, five somewhat agreed, and seven strongly agreed. Who won? Looks like "alternative facts" won.
On healthcare and school shootings, small majorities think Walz did better, but on abortion it was lopsided. When asked: "Do you agree with Vance that abortion policy should be left to the states?" nine women and two men strongly disagreed and four more women somewhat disagreed. Two men and one woman were neutral. One woman agreed somewhat. Two women and one man strongly agreed. Maybe the Post should have put equal numbers of men and women on the panel? On the other hand, if additional men have the same opinion as Aaron (35) of Pennsylvania, maybe not. He said: "I'm not sure what I think about abortion policy being left up to the states." Thank you, Aaron, for your incredible insight.
On immigration and climate change, small majorities said Vance did better. However, most people are not good at separating their views on a subject, and how someone answered the question. One can believe that climate change is real and the most pressing problem for the country and also believe that Walz botched his answer.
When asked if they would support a preemptive strike by Israel on Iran, all the men and 11 women were for a preemptive strike while six women were not.
April (26) from Arizona may have summed up what she wanted from the debate by saying: "I'm interested in seeing how much they lie or exaggerate, how well they treat each other, and if they come across as real people." (V)
Judge Tanya Chutkan Releases Jack Smith's Brief
Judge Tanya Chutkan instructed Special Counsel Jack Smith to submit a brief explaining why Donald Trump's actions on Jan. 6, 2021, were private actions, not part of his job and thus subject to prosecution even after the Supreme Court ruled that official actions by the president, even illegal ones, could not be prosecuted. Smith complied. Yesterday, Chutkan released the 165-page brief detailing Trump's actions on that day and explaining in detail why they were actions taken by Trump the candidate, not Trump the president. Will this be the fabled October surprise? Well, it's October and this was a surprise.
The brief is a complete accounting of what Trump did that day. It is basically Smith's entire case laid out in detail. Smith argues that Trump used private actors and his campaign infrastructure to try to overturn an election he lost, none of which is even vaguely related to his duties as president.
The document has four sections. The first one lays out the case Smith will make at the trial, including a summary of the evidence. The second one gives Chutkan a roadmap of how to determine which presidential actions are official and which are not. The third one shows how the roadmap applies in Trump's case. The fourth one asks the judge to rule that Trump's actions that day were not official and the trial can commence.
The brief contains evidence not already public. For example, Trump told Republican operatives to create chaos in polling places in Philadelphia so that they could later claim that observers were denied proper access. The same operatives also tried to instigate riots at counting centers.
Smith also framed conversations between Trump and Mike Pence as conversations between running mates, not between a president and his vice president. For example, on Nov. 12, 2020, Pence told Trump that he didn't have to concede but he could recognize that the process was over. Pence also counseled Trump that even though he lost, he could run again in 2024.
Smith also has a witness who will testify that he was there when Trump told Melania, Ivanka, and Jared that it doesn't matter if he won or lost, he was going to fight like hell anyway. Smith will argue that telling his family that it didn't matter whether he won or lost, he was going to fight anyway, is not an official duty of the president, but is evidence that Trump knew he lost. Trump could have told his family that he won and so he was going to fight, but that is not what he said.
One of Smith's key arguments is that the Executive Branch plays no role in selecting the next president, so nothing Trump did concerning the election could possibly relate to the president's duties. The only Executive Branch person involved in the election is the vice president, in their constitutional role as President of the Senate.
The brief also said that Trump told a staffer that he would not pay his lead lawyer (possibly Rudy Giuliani) unless he was successful and the staffer said that in that case, the lawyer wasn't going to get paid. Trump said the details don't matter. The brief also lays out examples where many lawyers and other people told Trump he had lost and he didn't care. He just forged ahead.
The document also describes what Trump did, especially his trying to strongarm RNC and state election officials. For example, Trump ordered then-RNC-Chair Ronna Romney McDaniel to issue a report about election fraud, and she refused. It also discusses how he called governors and other officials to try to get them to cooperate.
Will the brief cause a political storm and affect the election? It will probably be big news for a couple of news cycles and then die down for a bit. Then Trump's attorneys will get to respond. Then Chutkan will make a ruling. If she decides that the trial can go forward, Trump will certainly appeal that to the Supreme Court. The trial certainly won't start before the election, but all the news about what Trump did on Jan. 6 and before to try to overturn the election could influence some of the Nikki Haley Republicans that enough is enough and get them to vote for Kamala Harris, just to be rid of Trump. (V)
How Will the Dockworkers Strike Affect the Election?
Tens of thousands of dockwockers on the Eastern Seaboard, from New England to Texas, went on strike Tuesday, shutting down 14 ports. If it lasts long, it could have major consequences for the economy and the election. The dispute is between the International Longshoremen's Association (ILA) and the shippers and port operators, united in the United States Maritime Alliance (USMX).
USMX has offered 50% raises to the dockworkers, but they want 60%. And that isn't really the biggest issue. USMX wants more automation at the ports and the workers most definitely do not want to hand their jobs over to robots. Agreeing over the money is probably doable, but the automation is going to be a tough nut to crack.
Large retailers, like Walmart and Costco, saw this coming and made plans, either accelerating shipments to have their warehouses fully stocked or rerouting shipments to West Coast ports. That is more expensive, but for companies their size, it is manageable. For smaller importers, cutting the supply chain could be fatal. Imagine a mom & pop store selling unique imported Christmas tree decorations that can no longer get any products from its usual suppliers in Europe.
Different ports handle different types of products. Baltimore and Brunswick, GA, handle imported cars, Philadelphia handles produce, and New Orleans handles coffee, chemicals, and wood products. They have specialized infrastructure to process their certain kinds of products. However, most likely, all the ports will stay closed until there is a settlement, then they will all open at the same time.
Joe Biden desperately does not want the strike to go on for long. He has backed the workers and put pressure on USMX. He tweeted: "Foreign ocean carriers have made record profits since the pandemic, when longshoremen put themselves at risk to keep ports open. It's time those ocean carriers offered a strong and fair contract that reflects ILA workers' contribution to our economy and to their record profits."
In the short run, the strike won't affect consumers much, but if it goes on for a month, some items, including fruit, veggies, coffee, and other food items may become scarce, which will drive the price up. The last thing the President wants is for inflation to rear its ugly head just before the election. Biden has touted himself as the most pro-union president in history, and indeed, he walked the picket line during the auto strike. If he maintains this position, it could make union members in the three crucial Rust Belt states look more favorably on him.
For Kamala Harris, it is a tougher call. She is trying to bat down all the Republican screaming that she is 1,000 miles to the left of Leon Trotsky. She claims to be business friendly. That could coax some Nikki Haley voters to vote for a Democrat just this one time. But she also needs those union members in the Rust Belt and supporting USMX is definitely not the way to do this. They want her to walk the picket line. But if she does this, there go those disaffected Republicans. What's a candidate to do? Pray?
Or maybe talk to Joe. The president has the power to invoke the 1947 Taft-Hartley Act, which would force the striking workers to return to the negotiating table for 80 days in the hopes of reaching an agreement. That would push the strike past the election. However, union members generally don't like Taft-Hartley, since it (temporarily) negates their biggest power: going on strike. As a pro-union president, Biden does not want to invoke Taft-Hartley for the first time since 2002. It pits his legacy against her election. Nevertheless, he is not just sitting around and hoping for the best. He has asked Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg and acting Labor Secretary Julie Su to keep abreast of developments and lend a hand if asked. (V)
How Will Helene Affect the Election?
North Carolina is on knife's edge and is a must-win state for Donald Trump. If Kamala Harris wins the Tarheel State and also Nevada, she can lose Pennsylvania and still get to 270. So what happens there is of great consequence.
Unfortunately, Hurricane Helene just gummed up the works, literally. Roads that voters need to get to their polling places have been destroyed. Mail service for absentee ballots has stopped. Communications are iffy. People who have lost their houses, livelihoods, relatives, and pets and who have no place to go have probably not put voting on the top of their to-do lists. They have much bigger problems on their minds. But the election is not going to be postponed. Now what?
State election officials have said that there is good news and bad news. The good news is that no printed ballots or voting machines have been damaged. The bad news is that many polling locations have been flooded and will not be usable on Nov. 5—assuming anyone can even get there. In addition, many people in the flooded areas have left the state (temporarily) and may not know how to vote, even if voting made it onto their to-do lists.
Which party will the hurricane hit the hardest? That is hard to say. In 2020, Trump won the 25 western counties that have been declared disaster areas, with 62% of the vote. A million people in those counties voted in 2020. On the other hand, the hardest hit part of the 25 counties is Asheville, an artsy-craftsy hippie town that is the county seat of Buncombe County (pop. 270,000), which Biden won with 60% of the votes. Will the devastation in Buncombe County cost Kamala Harris more votes that the not-nearly-as-bad flooding in the other 24 western counties? We don't know.
North Carolina law allows anyone to ask for an absentee ballot to be sent to a temporary address. However, with so many roads and bridges washed out, the USPS may not be able to deliver the ballots or get them back in time. Overseas ballots were mailed out on Sept. 20 and domestic ones went out on Sept. 25. Many were probably in transit when the storm hit and were destroyed. Postal service has been suspended to Zip codes that house 1.3 million North Carolinians. The USPS has said it will restore service as soon as conditions allow it to, but fixing hundreds of roads is not going to happen in the next 5 weeks.
Officials have stated that voters who requested an absentee ballot and didn't get one are allowed to ask for a new one. As long as they don't try to vote twice, there is no problem. Also, people who requested an absentee ballot and didn't get one may simply vote in person—if they can get to a polling place.
Election headquarters in 12 counties have been closed due to adverse conditions. In addition, many people who signed up to be poll workers may not be able to do it, requiring counties to find and train new ones on short notice.
The Republican-controlled state legislature should give the clairvoyants they employ a bonus. They saw this coming, told the legislators, and they acted accordingly. A recent change to the election laws requires absentee ballots to arrive by Election Day, thus eliminating the previous 3-day grace period in the old law, which allowed the counting of absentee ballots that arrive up to 3 days after the election. Also, the legislature changed the law, making it more difficult for election officials to swap one polling place for another—for example, in the event of a disaster.
The director of the state Board of Elections, Karen Bell, is considering asking the legislature to reinstate the grace period and also authorize transmission of ballots electronically. The latter is not totally off the wall. Overseas and military voters are already allowed to submit ballots electronically, so election offices are already set up to handle electronic votes. Whether the legislature agrees to electronic submission depends on the legislators' estimate of which party is hurt more by the chaos. If they feel it will hurt the Republicans more, you will see lightning-fast action to make voting easier.
Another huge challenge will be voter education. Allowing people to request a new absentee ballot or allowing them to e-mail their vote in won't help if the voters don't know about it. But how can they be informed when power is out and cell phone service is out? Not everyone has a battery-powered portable radio.
North Carolina law requires voters to present ID when voting or include a photocopy of it when voting by mail. But North Carolina law makes an exception for voters whose ID was destroyed by a natural disaster. But how many voters know this?
Another factor that is in the mix is that all voters are equal but some voters are more equal. Affluent college-educated voters who managed to flee to a safe location that has power and Internet may be better prepared to look up how to vote and be able to carry out the instructions than people struggling to survive in an isolated flooded area. They may also be more aware of how close North Carolina is and how every vote counts. In short, the political effect of the storm could be huge, but at this point it is unknowable. (V)
Cue the Revenge Tour If Trump Wins
Ankush Khardori, a former federal prosecutor and now a writer for Politico, has written a piece describing what a President Trump could do to punish his enemies in a new term. It is positively scary. Armed with the Supreme Court's affirmation of Richard Nixon's motto that when the president does it, it is not illegal, Trump could actually do next time what he threatened to do last time and didn't (e.g., lock her up).
In addition to the Supreme Court decision giving the president free rein, two things would be different in Trump v2.0 from Trump v1.0. First, Trump has been indicted on almost 90 counts of criminal behavior and has been convicted on 34 on them. He is clearly very, very angry about them and his drive to seek revenge will be massive if he gets the power. And while he could make the federal cases go away, he probably can't make the state cases vanish and he could be sentenced to a state prison starting at the end of his term as president.
Second, he has learned that installing people who have at least some respect for the law can be a hindrance. People like former White House Counsel Don McGahn, who threatened to quit when Trump tried to fire Special Counsel Robert Mueller, are not going to be part of a second Trump administration. Trump's only hard requirement for being appointed to any high position will be a blind obedience to his orders, the Constitution and the law be damned. In particular, Trump's next attorney general will make Jeff Sessions look like Elliot Richardson. Trump will nominate an AG who will take his enemies list, dream up charges for each one, and indict them all. Even if juries eventually refuse to convict them, putting them through the wringer and forcing them to spend tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars on top lawyers will be a punishment by itself.
Jeff Clark is a possible AG, even though he is facing disbarment. However, even a Republican Senate might refuse to confirm him. One route Trump might use to punish his enemies is through the office of the White House counsel. The White House counsel does not require Senate confirmation, so Trump could pick the most loyal lawyer he knows and have him do all the dirty work. Our guess—but this is just a guess—is that it will not be Michael Cohen, even though he has some experience in blindly following Trump's orders. The deputy AG would also have to be a total loyalist, since the deputy does a lot of the day-to-day routine work, including supervising the U.S. attorneys. Needless to say, Trump would fire all the U.S. attorneys on Day 1, and install pliant replacements, especially in D.C., Virginia, Maryland, and Manhattan, where many of his enemies live. He would give them their marching orders and tell them that if they haven't indicted his enemies in their jurisdictions within, say, 3 months, they will be fired.
Trump could also direct his AG to appoint special counsels to pursue his targets. He would probably avoid any in Southern Florida, lest they get Aileen Cannon—who doesn't believe special counsels are legal—as the judge in any of their cases. Of course, if he appoints any special counsels, that would undermine Cannon's ruling, so he is more likely to keep prosecutions within the Justice Dept., which allows his handpicked AG to monitor them all closely and keep them on track.
Another person who would be a dead man walking in Trump v2.0 is FBI Director Christopher Wray, whom he himself appointed. Unfortunately for Trump, Wray took his job seriously and is not Trump's stooge. Even though his 10-year term will not run out until Aug. 1, 2027, Trump will surely can him on Day 1 and replace him with an obedient flunky who will use all of the FBI's resources to dig up evidence to be used to prosecute Trump's enemies.
The list of Trump's enemies is no doubt long and growing. Joe Biden and Kamala Harris are surely near the top of the list, along with AG Merrick Garland, Deputy AG Lisa Monaco, and other top DoJ officials. Maybe even Hillary Clinton, although she is a bit of a distraction. In addition to current and former politicians, many journalists and Democratic donors are probably on the list.
This all said, getting convictions may not be so easy. Line prosecutors are normally free of political interference but if pressured to take bogus cases, many of them may resign and go for better-paying jobs at criminal-defense law firms. These are the people who do the actual work of prosecuting cases, and if they quit en masse, they won't be easy to replace, especially if candidates for the jobs know in advance what is expected of them. Judges have also been known to throw out cases that have no merit. Getting 12 members of a jury to convict high-profile people in cases without any real evidence will be a steep hill to climb. If some of the targets are brought to trial and then acquitted, Trump will feel defeated and become furious. That may inhibit him going forward, since he doesn't want to have jury after jury to declare innocent someone he claimed was guilty. That said, he kept pushing election lawsuits, even as he ran his record to 0-60, so who knows?
Finally, even if the Republicans get control of the Senate, probably not by a margin bigger than 51-49, some of Trump's more outrageous nominees may not be confirmed. One could imagine Sens. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) and Susan Collins (R-ME) simply drawing the line and refusing to confirm incompetent hacks. Since the vast majority of Republican senators actually secretly despise Trump, the two women Senators probably wouldn't be punished for doing so, especially if they threatened to become independents and caucus with the Democrats, like the four current independents in the Senate. (V)
Trump Claims He Would Veto a National Abortion Ban
This item is a counterpoint to the one above. In the previous item, we discussed how Trump could take revenge on his enemies if he wins. Almost everyone who follows him closely knows that when he says he will at least try to do that, he is actually telling the truth. He might not succeed, but he will certainly try.
However, with some things he promises, the chance that he would do it is practically zero (or, as mathematicians put it, smaller than epsilon for all epsilon). In particular, Trump has now out and out said that if Congress passes a bill to ban abortion nationwide, he would veto it. If you believe that, we have not only one fine bridge in Brooklyn to sell you at a bargain price, but three bridges, all in excellent condition, for the low, low price of only $30,000 for all three.
For years, the holy grail of the anti-abortion movement has been a nationwide ban on all abortions. Now imagine that Republicans get the trifecta, however narrowly, even 218-217 in the House and 50-50 in the Senate, and then abolish the filibuster and pass a bill banning all abortions. And a Republican president vetoes it. The blowback would be bigger than Hurricane Helene. Anti-abortion leaders would be demanding Trump's head on a pike. At that moment, all vice president J.D. Vance would have to say is: "I'll sign it" and the impeachment resolution would be signed by an overwhelming majority of the House Republican caucus. Most of them don't like Trump at all, and this would be a way to get rid of him and please much of the base at the same time. Many Democrats would probably sign it as well, just to save democracy.
Trump understands this very well. If he blew an opportunity that might not come again for years, there would be blood on the floor if he vetoed the bill and it would be his blood. How would he explain signing the bill? He would simply say: "I talked to a lot of people and they said I should sign the bill and since the people want it, I will do it. I always do what the people want." The "people" in this case might be just Marjorie Dannenfelser and Ralph Reed, but he wouldn't explain that.
But even if Congress is not able to pass an abortion bill—for example, if Democrats control at least one of the chambers—Trump could (and probably will) do his best to block as many abortions as possible, as that is what his base wants. One way is to vigorously enforce the 150-year-old Comstock Act, which criminalizes sending abortifacients through the mail. Since most abortions now are medical, not surgical, banning the mailing of mifepristone would make it far more difficult for women in red states to get an abortion. Project 2025 makes a point of making sure the Comstock Act is fully enforced. (V)
Election Betting Is Back
Until yesterday, betting on U.S. elections was illegal. Bettors who wanted to wager on U.S. elections had to go to William Hill in the U.K. or PaddyPower in Ireland—and they had to hide their IP addresses using VPNs. A new startup called Kalshi wanted to allow bets of up to $100 million on which party will control each chamber of Congress, with other wagers coming up later. The Commodity Futures Trading Commission, which is more famous for regulating the market in pork bellies, didn't like the idea at all and went to court to stop the company. A judge put a temporary freeze on the company's plans. Yesterday, a federal appeals court in D.C. lifted the freeze, so the company is now free to start taking bets pending a full appeal on the merits of the case. Kalshi will be fully regulated by the CFTC, the same way other futures markets are.
Many people believe that betting on political outcomes is a very bad idea, not unlike baseball players betting on baseball games (one notable player with that habit died recently, as you might have heard). There are many potential problems. A big company could place a bet on some relatively unknown person to win a primary at longshot odds. It could then funnel big-time dark money into a super PAC to support the candidate, which could lead to a big payout. So, by manipulating political outcomes, big players could make big money.
Alternatively a wealthy individual could place large bets simply to influence the odds and affect public opinion. If everyone knew that candidate X was the overwhelming favorite due to the betting odds, that could discourage people from voting for the other candidate(s) because they felt the race was already lost. Campaign betting would provide another way for very rich people to influence elections. Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR) called election betting a "nightmare" scenario that could allow wealthy players to "put their thumbs on the scale." He said betting was a deeply corrupting influence.
Cantrell Dumas of the watchdog group Better Markets noted that on Jan. 6 a bunch of aggrieved people stormed the Capitol because their favored candidate didn't win. He said: "Can you imagine a situation where people with real money in the election [are] betting? ... The integrity of our Democracy is already in a fragile state." Suppose people who expected to win $1,000, or $10,000, or more felt they were cheated out of it. What would they do?
This issue illustrates a bigger problem in the country. Congress makes a law banning something—for example, based on its power under the Commerce Clause. Then somebody does it anyway. It goes to court and then one or more judges overrule Congress because, well, they can. There is a clear federal law banning political gambling. A company announces it is going to break the law and then a three-judge panel decides to overrule Congress. This is not the first time we have seen this movie. (V)
Aileen Cannon Can Move Like a Cannonball--When She Wants to
Since Judge Aileen Cannon threw out the DoJ case against Donald Trump for holding secret documents in his bathroom and refusing to return them when asked by the government, she has more room on her docket now. And she is champing at the bit to hold a trial, just not Trump's trial. No, she has been assigned the case of Ryan Routh, the man who planned to assassinate Donald Trump on his golf course, but who was captured before he even fired a shot.
So is Cannon dawdling, as usual, and finding endless reasons to avoid a trial? No siree. She has already scheduled Routh's trial for Nov. 18, that's just 2 months and 3 days after he was apprehended. In contrast, she held onto Trump's case for over a year before eventually throwing it out because she claimed the law creating special prosecutors was unconstitutional. But Routh's case could go to trial barely 2 months after the alleged crime was committed. How's that for speed? Cannon is clearly angling for a seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit.
Routh has been charged with five counts, including attempting to assassinate a presidential candidate. He pleaded not guilty to all charges and is being held in prison without bail. If convicted, he could get life in prison. (V)
The Supreme Court Is Back in Town
The Supreme Court will begin its new term on Monday and has a number of blockbuster cases on the docket. On Tuesday, a case involving "ghost guns" will be heard. These are weapons that are assembled at home from parts and which the Bureau of ATF tried to regulate. These guns do not have serial numbers. They are widely used in crimes around the country. The issue at hand is whether the Bureau has the statutory authority to regulate them. Gun owners and groups maintain that only Congress has the authority to regulate gun parts.
Another case sure to get a lot of attention is the administration's challenge to a Tennessee law that bans gender-affirming care for transgender minors. This includes puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and gender-transition surgeries. A lower court upheld the ban and ruled that the state had the power to regulate medical procedures. The government's position is that the law violates the Fourteenth Amendment since it singles out one specific type of medical treatment that is banned while all others are left to the doctor and patient.
Another case involving minors has been brought by the adult entertainment industry. The industry is challenging a Texas law that requires pornographic websites to verify that visitors are over 18. This would require users to upload some form of ID that could later leak out if the site were hacked. We are curious as to which side the nation's most famous porn consumer, Lt. Gov. Mark Robinson (R-NC), is on, but as far as we can tell, he hasn't yet taken a position.
A third case involving minors is one resulting from the FDA's decision to ban flavored e-cigarettes marketed to children. The FDA denied a request from a company to market e-cigarettes with "Jimmy The Juice Man Peachy Strawberry" and "Killer Kustard Blueberry" flavors in an attempt to get children to think that vaping is no different than eating fruit.
If Kamala Harris wins the presidency, then multiple criminal cases involving Donald Trump are sure to proceed and some will undoubtedly reach the Supreme Court. But even if he wins, he will not be able to wave a magic wand and make the state cases go away. He is scheduled to be sentenced in December in the New York hush money cases. If the judge orders him to report to prison on Jan. 21, 2029, that case is sure to end up in the Supreme Court this term.
And on top of these, there are all the election cases that are likely to be brought throughout the rest of the year, both before the election and after it. If the Court, along partisan lines, makes controversial decisions that affect the election, there is sure to be a firestorm and calls for Court reform.
In addition to soon ruling on controversial issues that really should be solved by the elected political branches of the government, the justices' own behavior is being questioned. At least two of the justices have accepted large gifts-in-kind from wealthy donors who have considerable interest in the direction of the Court. In response to bad PR about this misbehavior, Chief Justice John Roberts did cobble together a code of ethics. Unfortunately, it has no enforcement mechanism, so justices can violate it with impunity. (V)
Today's Presidential Polls
What can we say? It is going to be a real cliff hanger, unless the electorate is quite different from what the pollsters expect it to be.| State | Kamala Harris | Donald Trump | Start | End | Pollster |
| Arizona | 50% | 48% | Sep 19 | Sep 25 | BSG + GS for Cook |
| Georgia | 47% | 49% | Sep 19 | Sep 25 | BSG + GS for Cook |
| Michigan | 51% | 48% | Sep 19 | Sep 25 | BSG + GS for Cook |
| North Carolina | 49% | 49% | Sep 19 | Sep 25 | BSG + GS for Cook |
| Nevada | 48% | 47% | Sep 19 | Sep 25 | BSG + GS for Cook |
| Pennsylvania | 50% | 49% | Sep 19 | Sep 25 | BSG + GS for Cook |
| South Carolina | 42% | 52% | Sep 21 | Sep 29 | Winthrop U. |
| Virginia | 43% | 37% | Sep 16 | Sep 25 | Virginia Commonwealth U. |
| Wisconsin | 49% | 47% | Sep 19 | Sep 25 | BSG + GS for Cook |
| Wisconsin | 52% | 48% | Sep 18 | Sep 26 | Marquette Law School |
Click on a state name for a graph of its polling history.
Today's Senate Polls
It looks like all the endangered Democratic incumbents are reasonably safe, except possibly Montana. It would be nice if the folks polling Nevada, which is a done deal, would set their sights a bit further north and poll Montana, which is going to be critical.
| State | Democrat | D % | Republican | R % | Start | End | Pollster |
| Arizona | Ruben Gallego | 54% | Kari Lake | 41% | Sep 19 | Sep 25 | BSG + GS for Cook |
| Michigan | Elissa Slotkin | 50% | Mike Rogers | 46% | Sep 19 | Sep 25 | BSG + GS for Cook |
| Nevada | Jacky Rosen* | 53% | Sam Brown | 40% | Sep 19 | Sep 25 | BSG + GS for Cook |
| New York | Kirsten Gillibrand* | 50% | Mike Sapraicone | 33% | Sep 23 | Sep 25 | Emerson Coll. |
| Pennsylvania | Bob Casey* | 52% | David McCormick | 45% | Sep 19 | Sep 25 | BSG + GS for Cook |
| Wisconsin | Tammy Baldwin* | 49% | Eric Hovde | 47% | Sep 19 | Sep 25 | BSG + GS for Cook |
| Wisconsin | Tammy Baldwin* | 53% | Eric Hovde | 46% | Sep 18 | Sep 26 | Marquette Law School |
* Denotes incumbent
Previous | Next
Main page for smartphones
Main page for tablets and computers