Main page    Oct. 23

Pres map
Previous | Next | Senate page | Menu

New polls: GA NC NV NY
Dem pickups: NC
GOP pickups: AZ GA

Election Crimes Have Consequences

If you're the type of person who is willing to help Donald Trump try to cheat in order to win an election, yesterday was a disheartening day for you, as three different folks of that description got smacked upside the head by the courts.

We'll begin with America's Former Mayor, since he was the most famous of the three people who got bad news. He may once have been a man of integrity (reviews are mixed on that), but in his golden years, he's turned into a real sleazeball. His behavior has gotten him into legal hot water on many, many fronts. Among the matters that have been resolved, the massive $148 million judgment won by Georgia poll workers Ruby Freeman and Shaye Moss really stands out because that is a lot of money, and because it hits the money-obsessed Giuliani where it really hurts.

Consistent with his present-day sleaziness, Giuliani has very clearly been dragging his feet when it comes to selling assets so that he might satisfy at least part of the judgment. Already, the former mayor's bankruptcy protection had been removed because of his intransigence. And yesterday, U.S. District Judge Lewis Liman ruled that his patience has been exhausted, and that Giuliani must now transfer a long list of assets without selling them. So, Freeman and Moss are now the proud new owners of Giuliani's Upper East Side apartment, his Mercedes, a dozen luxury watches, some cash, and $2 million in IOUs from the Trump '20 campaign. Freeman and Moss will never see that $2 million, we dare say, but they'll still realize well into the seven figures with the other assets.

One cannot help but notice that Giuliani, who was once in very close orbit to Donald Trump, has been invisible during this cycle. The former mayor also appears to be broke. And from this follows our usual observation that Giuliani is a prime candidate to throw Trump and others under the bus once the various court cases (Georgia, Arizona, etc.) get before a judge. We assume that Giuliani still wants to see Trump reelected, and so will keep his lips zipped until November. But sometime after that, we would guess the former mayor sings like a canary.

Another hopelessly hamfisted Trumper is Couy Griffin, the New Mexico commissioner who was convicted for crimes related to his actions on 1/6, and then was removed from his elective office under the terms of the Fourteenth Amendment. Griffin appealed his convictions, based on the argument that he did not know he was trespassing because the line between "you CAN be here" and "you CAN'T be here" was not clear. Yesterday, a three-judge panel from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia rejected his argument.

Griffin says he will appeal, of course. He could ask for an en banc hearing (all the judges of the DC Circuit) or he could go to the Supreme Court. Who knows if either or both would be open to granting cert. In any case, as it currently stands, one of the primary lines of defense for 1/6 participants has been shut down. Meanwhile, the authority of the United States Secret Service and other protective forces has been expanded. Now, the security perimeter around a person or building is whatever the pros think it is, and not "where the ropes are" or "where the fences are."

And as long as we are on the subject of Griffin, let's indulge in a little idle speculation. Remember, Griffin was not denied the opportunity to run for office based on the Fourteenth Amendment, he was removed after already having been elected. In the relatively small number of cases where someone was disqualified on this basis, it was mostly post hoc (i.e., after they had been elected). In the Colorado case earlier this year, the Supreme Court said that Trump had to stay on the ballot there, and could not be booted from the primary on the basis of having fomented insurrection.

However, the Court's ruling did not bring complete clarity to the question. In particular, the opinions of all four women justices raised the possibility that the Fourteenth Amendment could still be activated, under the right circumstances. If Donald Trump wins the election—or, more precisely, appears to have won the electoral vote—we wonder if someone (or many someones) will file suit, and re-raise the question of whether he is disqualified from holding federal office. Again, the question has not been conclusively answered. Further, we would imagine that ANY citizen in a state who gave its EVs to Trump would have standing to sue. So, at least in theory, he would not be protected by the fact that, say, Texas' AG Ken Paxton (R) and Governor Greg Abbott (R) are in the bag for him. We are not experts here, of course, but it seems plausible that this is something that some Democratic operatives/lawyers might be keeping in their back pockets right now.

And finally, Cochise County Supervisor Peggy Judd was one of the Arizona officials who dragged their feet when it came to certifying Arizona's election results. Yesterday, she admitted she broke the law, and copped a guilty plea. Her punishment seems like a bit of slap on the wrist to us: unsupervised probation for 90 days and a $500 fine (on top of nearly $20,000 in costs that Judd was previously required to reimburse). Still, a punishment is a punishment, and Judd's now got a criminal record.

The lesson here could not be more plain: Try to screw around with the election, and you will pay a price (while your Dear Leader, Donald Trump, will not lift a finger to help you). We recognize that some Trumpers are True Believers, and care not a whit about consequences. However, surely some would-be troublemakers must be taking note of the fates of Giuliani, Griffin, Judd, et al., and noticing that they all had to pay a price while not actually accomplishing anything electorally. Maybe that will make some stop the stealers think twice before sticking their necks out. (Z)

Republicans Continue to Come up Short in Anti-Democratic Lawsuits

Yesterday, the courts did not concern themselves only with folks guilty of 2020 election shenanigans. There were also two cases in which budding 2024 shenanigans were shut down.

To start, the stunts that the Georgia Elections Board tried to pull are in abeyance, for now, and will remain so well beyond the election. As readers will recall, the Board had implemented two measures intended to cause chaos and to lay the groundwork for "stop the steal" claims: (1) a requirement that all ballots in Georgia be hand-counted (not the votes, just the ballots) and (2) a new power for election officials to conduct investigations into the results before certifying them.

When various voting-rights advocates sued, Fulton County Superior Court Judge Robert McBurney got the case. He may be a Republican appointee, but he had no patience for any of this foolishness, and ruled that the Georgia Elections Board could not do what it was trying to do. The RNC appealed to the Georgia State Supreme Court, which has not just one, but eight, Republican appointees (and one judge who won a nonpartisan election back in 2018). Yesterday, the Georgia Supremes issued a unanimous order denying an expedited appeal of McBurney's ruling.

This means that if the new rules are going to be implemented, it's not going to happen until the 2026 election cycle, at the earliest. If you believe in reading the tea leaves, which is always a tricky proposition with judges and their preliminary questions/rulings, courts do tend to prioritize pressing matters. The fact that they did not prioritize this (unanimously, no less) somewhat suggests that they expect to maintain the status quo when they finally hear the case, meaning there is no rush.

Meanwhile, over in Michigan, the RNC had filed a lawsuit accusing state officials of mismanaging the voter rolls. Specifically—and you really don't need us to tell you what the scheme was—the Party wants Michigan to be much more aggressive about removing voters. We do not know if the lawyers that the RNC is hiring just aren't very good, or if the lawyers are forced to grasp at straws, because straws are all they have got.

In any case, the central contention of the RNC's case is that there are 50 Michigan counties with more registered voters than voting-age adults. This is a ridiculous assertion, though it is EXACTLY the kind of claim you see if you lurk on Fox News' website or any other right-leaning message/comment boards. U.S. District Judge Jane Beckering was having none of it, and issued a 30-page ruling scorching the plaintiffs. The ruling raises three main points: (1) the method that the RNC used to compile its numbers is nonsensical, (2) therefore, the argument the RNC is making does not hold water, and (3) even if the argument DID hold water, the RNC does not have standing to file the suit.

It is nominally possible that the RNC could try to appeal Beckering's ruling, but their odds of success are long. First, as with the Georgia Supreme Court, it is doubtful that the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit is eager to rearrange its schedule to entertain a bunch of conspiracy-based legal theories. And even if the Sixth Circuit IS open to that, any court is going to be VERY leery of making big changes to the voter rolls (or to anything else election-related) this late in the process. Also, don't forget that Beckering absolutely dismantled the RNC's case, so there's every chance that if and when the Sixth Circuit did take a look at the case, they would say, "Yeah, Judge Bickering's ruling looks about right to us."

That leads us to the exact conclusion that we had for yesterday's item when it comes to Republican legal shenanigans: The courts just aren't interested in playing along. And even if the RNC or the Trump campaign or any other entity can find one or two judges willing to tote their water (a Neomi Rao, a Trevor McFadden, an Aileen Cannon), it's not easy to draw Republican stooges three or four times in a row. (Z)

Building a Firewall

The courts are an important line of defense when it comes to election integrity (and we mean that term in its actual sense, not the sense it is used by stop-the-steal Trumpers like Mike Lindell). However, they are not the only line of defense. So, let's talk about some of the steps that others are taking, in anticipation of potential shadiness in a couple of weeks.

To start, if it is indeed a close election, then there is every chance of another "red mirage," wherein a state appears to be in the Trump column, but moves to the Harris column once the absentee totals start to come in. There was a time when reporters had to concern themselves only with forecasting and reporting. Now, they also have to be educators. And so, virtually every major news outlet has taken steps so they are in a position to communicate clearly to voters what is going on, and why they are making the calls they are making. To wit:

Mind you, we will still be very leery of Fox News' reporting on election night. Arnon Mishkin, who oversees Fox News' data/projections operation is very good. But they probably did err in calling Arizona as early as they did in 2020. Further, there is now enormous pressure being brought to bear from the propaganda side of the operation, which is roughly 95% of the staff.

Election officials are also gearing up for potential trouble. NBC News has been talking to the folks responsible for overseeing voting in various swing states, and yesterday reported on some of the measures being implemented. It's a mix of "heartening" and "really sad it's come to this."

For example, in Maricopa County, AZ, the tabulation center has been converted into something of an armed fortress. There are now two layers of security fencing, and the building will be protected on Election Day by drones flying overhead and by snipers on the roof. Many of the people who will work on tabulation will park off site, and will be transported by armored buses. Anyone who enters the building will have to pass through a metal detector and will be recorded by security cameras at all times.

Or how about Cobb County, GA? There, the local sheriff's department will station officers at all polling places. There will also be an emergency call center, with 148 cameras and closed-circuit TVs set up to monitor polling places and key traffic corridors, and fire/medical/police personnel available for rapid deployment, as needed. The Georgians toyed with installing panic buttons, very much like those used by banks to alert authorities about bank robbers. That proved dodgy, so election workers will be given police radios instead.

Maricopa and Cobb are just two of the more notable examples, but similar efforts are underway in places like Detroit, MI; Milwaukee, WI; Denver, CO; and other purple/blue-purple states. Further, those responsible for security don't necessarily want to show all their cards, so there are undoubtedly measures being taken that are not being shared with reporters.

And on that point (keeping things on the down-low), Kamala Harris sat down for yet another big interview yesterday, this one with NBC News. And one of the questions that came up was whether Team Harris was prepared if Donald Trump tries to declare victory prematurely, or to steal victory through chicanery. Harris responded "Of course," and said her team has "the resources and the expertise and the focus on that." She would not give specifics, which makes sense, since the Harris campaign doesn't want to show its playbook to the Trump campaign, and to give the Trump campaign time to figure out workarounds. But we have no doubt that Harris '24 is locked and loaded, should it be necessary.

The upshot here is this: Many people have observed that Trump and his acolytes have had 4 more years to plan and plot and scheme, and so can be expected to put up a better effort than their amateurish attempt to steal the election in 2020. This may be so, but those who would prevent Trump from stealing the election in 2024 have also had 4 more years to plan. And, in general, "people who do not work for Donald Trump" tend to be considerably more competent than "people who work for Donald Trump." Add in the courts (see above), and there is much in place to protect democracy in 2024, and an excellent chance that the line will hold. We've written it before, and we'll write it again: If the Republicans are going to steal this election, it is vastly more likely to happen with pre-election shenanigans than post-election shenanigans. Not that the pre-election shenanigans are going terribly well these days (see above and below). (Z)

Today's Ratfu**ing News

We had an item Monday discussing how, as far as political operatives go, Elon Musk is pretty good at... building electric cars. The Musk-funded GOTV operations, underway in several swing states, are something of a fiasco.

Further, Musk appears to be having poor results with his efforts to, in effect, buy votes. Last week, he announced that people who signed his petition promising that they: (1) support the First Amendment, (2) support the Second Amendment, and (3) have registered to vote, would be eligible for a $1 million prize. In an effort to make the scheme "legal," Musk eventually altered it, such that the $1 million is no longer a "prize," it's "salary" for serving as a spokesperson for his PAC. In any case, he's given out two $1 million prizes so far, and both went to... hardcore Trumpers who had already cast their ballots. The general supposition is that Musk is not attracting many new voters to the Trump banner, and that the participants in his de facto lottery are almost entirely people who were already on board the S.S. Tiny (Handed) Dancer.

That said, Musk is not above playing dirty pool, and he has more than one trick up his sleeve. OpenSecrets just issued a report on one of his other "initiatives." He is substantially (or entirely) funding the Building America's Future PAC. And one of the Building America's Future PAC's main activities is creating websites and sending out text messages that appear to be part of Kamala Harris' campaign, but aren't.

The main fake site is Progress2028.com, which is meant to appear like a Harris-campaign-run response to Project 2025. It makes her look a few ticks more liberal than she actually is, particularly on issues that get conservatives' blood boiling. Meanwhile, the phony text messages read like this:

Kamala Harris believes LGBTQIA youth deserve access to gender-affirming care and safe, inclusive schools in Grand Rapids. Kamala will ensure minors can access the care they need without fear of parental intervention or discrimination. Help make our schools as trans-friendly as possible.

That's not exactly a misrepresentation of her position, but it puts it in the most assertive form possible. And obviously, Harris herself is not looking to highlight her stances on the election's most divisive issues.

What Musk is doing is probably not illegal. The texts do not claim to come from Harris or her campaign, they come from (the phony) Progress 2028, and are designed to encourage you to conclude on your own that they are from her. Will it work? Maybe, though we doubt many people read political text messages right now, since there are so many of them. Plus, Musk isn't doing so well with his other political maneuvering, so this could go nowhere like all the other stuff. (Z)

PollWatch 2024, Part IV: The Senate Gap

One of the things that stands out about this year's polling is the rather sizable gap between the numbers of the Democratic candidates for president (Joe Biden and Kamala Harris) and the numbers of the Democratic candidates for Senate. We thought we'd take a look at that, and see if things are out of line with the elections of the recent past.

First, here are the numbers as they currently stand. We're going to look at states that are: (1) among the 10 most competitive states in the presidential race, and (2) have a Senate race this year. States that fulfill only one of those two requirements tend to have wonky numbers that aren't very instructive. We are going to use FiveThirtyEight's polling averages, as that site tends to be pretty evenhanded in the polls they include (as compared, in particular, to Real Clear Politics). The difference column reflects how the presidential candidate is doing relative to the Senate candidate. In other words, "-3%" means the presidential candidate is running three points behind the Senate candidate.

 
Republicans
Democrats
  
State President Pct. Senator Pct. Difference President Pct. Senator Pct. Difference Pres. Gap
Arizona Donald Trump 48.6% Kari Lake 43.4% +5.2% Kamala Harris 46.7% Ruben Gallego 50.3% -3.6% 8.8%
Michigan Donald Trump 47.2% Mike Rogers 43.9% +3.3% Kamala Harris 47.4% Elissa Slotkin 47.8% -0.4% 3.7%
Minnesota Donald Trump 44.3% Royce White 37.4% +6.9% Kamala Harris 49.8% Amy Klobuchar 48.5% +1.3% 5.6%
Nevada Donald Trump 47.2% Sam Brown 41.2% +6.0% Kamala Harris 47.3% Jacky Rosen 49.3% -2.0% 8.0%
Pennsylvania Donald Trump 47.8% David McCormick 44.2% +3.6% Kamala Harris 47.5% Bob Casey 48.3% -0.8% 4.4%
Texas Donald Trump 50.9% Ted Cruz 48.8% +2.1% Kamala Harris 44.1% Colin Allred 45.0% -0.9% 3.0%
Wisconsin Donald Trump 47.4% Eric Hovde 46.0% +1.4% Kamala Harris 47.8% Tammy Baldwin 49.8% -2% 3.4%

That's seven states, then, that are among the 10 most competitive states in the presidential election AND that have a Senate race this year. Georgia, North Carolina, and Iowa are the three that don't make the list, by virtue of having no Senate seat up for election.

The presidential gap (last column) is the sum of the gap between Trump and his party's senator and Harris and her party's senator. In all cases, as you can see, Trump is running ahead of the GOP candidate and in all cases but one, Harris is running behind the Democratic candidate. If something's wacky, then the presidential gap would theoretically be bigger in this year's election than in past elections. We are writing this before compiling the numbers, however, so whether or not there's something odd going on in 2024 will be almost as much a surprise to us as it will be to readers.

Here are the actual results for states that met the above criteria in 2020:

 
Republicans
Democrats
  
State President Pct. Senator Pct. Difference President Pct. Senator Pct. Difference Pres. Gap
Arizona Donald Trump 49.1% Martha McSally 48.8% +0.3% Joe Biden 49.4% Mark Kelly 51.2% -1.8% 2.1%
Georgia Donald Trump 49.2% David Perdue 49.4% -0.2% Joe Biden 49.5% Jon Ossoff 50.6% -1.1% 0.9%
Georgia Donald Trump 49.2% Kelly Loeffler 49.0% +0.2% Joe Biden 49.5% Raphael Warnock 51.0% -1.5% 1.7%
Michigan Donald Trump 47.8% John James 48.2% -0.4% Joe Biden 50.6% Gary Peters 49.9% +0.7% 1.1%
Minnesota Donald Trump 45.3% Jason Lewis 43.5% +1.8% Joe Biden 52.4% Tina Smith 48.7% +3.7% 1.9%
North Carolina Donald Trump 49.9% Thom Tillis 48.7% +1.2% Joe Biden 48.6% Cal Cunningham 46.9% +1.7% 0.5%
Texas Donald Trump 52.1% John Cornyn 53.5% -1.4% Joe Biden 46.5% MJ Hegar 43.9% +2.6% 4.0%

Once again, we have seven entries, because while four of the ten-most-close presidential states did not have a Senate election (Florida, Nevada, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin) there were two Senate seats up in Georgia.

Now, the 2016 numbers:

 
Republicans
Democrats
  
State President Pct. Senator Pct. Difference President Pct. Senator Pct. Difference Pres. Gap
Arizona Donald Trump 48.1% John McCain 53.7% -5.6% Hillary Clinton 44.6% Ann Kirkpatrick 40.8% +3.8% 9.4%
Florida Donald Trump 49.0% Marco Rubio 52.0% -3.0% Hillary Clinton 47.8% Patrick Murphy 44.3% +3.5% 6.5%
Nevada Donald Trump 45.5% Joe Heck 44.7% +0.8% Hillary Clinton 47.9% Catherine Cortez Masto 47.1% +0.8% 0.0%
New Hampshire Donald Trump 47.3% Kelly Ayotte 47.8% -0.5% Hillary Clinton 47.6% Maggie Hassan 48.0% -0.4% 0.1%
North Carolina Donald Trump 49.8% Richard Burr 51.1% -1.3% Hillary Clinton 46.1% Deborah K. Ross 45.4% +0.7% 2.0%
Pennsylvania Donald Trump 48.2% Pat Toomey 48.8% -0.6% Hillary Clinton 47.7% Katie McGinty 47.3% +0.4% 1.0%
Wisconsin Donald Trump 47.2% Ron Johnson 50.2% -3.0% Hillary Clinton 46.5% Russ Feingold 46.8% -0.3% 2.7%

Once again, seven entries. That will happen when states have (at least) two U.S. Senate elections per every three election cycles. This time, the close-for-president states that are omitted are Maine, Michigan and Minnesota.

We recognize that this is a pretty basic analysis, but several things do stand out:

So yes, the Senate gap this year is larger than it has been in either of Donald Trump's other elections. There are numerous possible explanations for this, among them that it's a small sample size that could be affected by one or two unusual elections (John McCain on the ticket, Kari Lake on the ticket), that Kamala Harris is weaker than Hillary Clinton/Joe Biden, or that Donald Trump 2024 is stronger than Donald Trump 2020 or Donald Trump 2016. But one very plausible explanation is that the pollsters are underrating Harris by a couple of points. If so, that small difference would be very big, indeed. (Z)

Today's Presidential Polls

So, 10% of Georgians are still undecided. Really? (Z)

State Kamala Harris Donald Trump Start End Pollster
Georgia 43% 47% Oct 06 Oct 15 U. of Georgia
North Carolina 47% 46% Oct 17 Oct 20 SurveyUSA
Nevada 47% 49% Oct 08 Oct 15 Fabrizio + Anzalone
New York 58% 39% Oct 13 Oct 17 Siena Coll.

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

Today's Senate Polls

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) was delighted when the red team was able to recruit Sam Brown. It would seem Brown wasn't as strong a candidate as it seemed. (Z)

State Democrat D % Republican R % Start End Pollster
New Mexico Martin Heinrich* 51% Nella Domenici 40% Oct 10 Oct 18 Research and Polling
Nevada Jacky Rosen* 49% Sam Brown 44% Oct 08 Oct 15 Fabrizio + Anzalone
New York Kirsten Gillibrand* 57% Mike Sapraicone 31% Oct 13 Oct 17 Siena Coll.

* Denotes incumbent


Previous | Next

Main page for smartphones

Main page for tablets and computers