Trump Wrecks the Economy

If you wanted to derail the world's mightiest economy, there are a few things you might do, if you happened to be the President of the United States. For example, you might adopt an erratic trade policy that has no consistency, and no clear purpose. You might add to that instability in the job market. And then, for the whipped cream on top, you might chat with the media and badmouth the very economy you are supposed to be shepherding.

Donald Trump has done all three of these things. Readers know, at this point, about the on-again, off-again tariffs against Canada and Mexico. Over the weekend, Trump insisted that they will be on-again with a vengeance on April 2, specifically teasing plans for a 250% tariff on dairy products. Does he really mean it, or is he, as The New York Times' Binyamin Appelbaum argues, just looking for another round of begging from the leaders of those two nations because it makes him (Trump) feel powerful? And if begging is all he wants, will he actually get it from Canada's new PM (see below)?

As to the job market, the effects of DOGE are being felt. Thus far, about 60,000 federal employees are definitely out of work (with more to come). This, in turn, is causing private business concerns to increase their rate of terminations. As a consequence, the number of job losses last month jumped 245%. That is the biggest single-month increase since July 2020, which was in the middle of the pandemic. It's the worst February since 2009.

And as to Trump's verbiage, well, he didn't get the memo that the president is supposed to be the economy's #1 cheerleader (if only they'd presented that memo in picture form). So, he went on Fox this weekend and said some... impolitic things. Trump declared that "You can't really watch the stock market." This from a fellow who did only that when the stock market was going up at the start of his first term. He also said that the United States should not be thinking short-term, and that "If you look at China, they have a 100-year perspective." Again, that represents a pretty big change of course from his first presidential term, and from his 2024 campaign. Trump concluded that his economic policies might cause "disruption" and conceded that there might be a recession.

It is pretty obvious what Trump's game is here; he knows that things could get rocky this year, or next, or both, and he doesn't want to take the blame. So, he's trying to rewrite the rules of the game. However, what he's really communicating is "even the president thinks things are probably headed downhill." And that is the kind of thing that the markets respond to, and not in a good way. Yesterday, in what some commentators are calling a "bloodbath," the U.S. stock market lost $1.75 trillion in value. The Dow fell 900 points, the NASDAQ was down 4%, and the S&P was down 2.7%. It's the worst day the market has had since September of 2022, and all value that has been gained since Trump became president was wiped out.

Hit particularly hard, incidentally, was Tesla stock, which dropped 15% in value yesterday, resulting in a $30 billion hit to Elon Musk's wallet. We make a special note of this for two reasons. First, we would tend to guess that if Tesla is hit extra-hard, it represents some sort of reaction to the Trump administration. Second, if Tesla stock keeps dropping, either because Musk is not doing his job as CEO, or because his actions are making the brand toxic, then his current arrangement will become untenable. He might have to give up his side gig and start doing his real job(s). Alternatively, the board of Tesla might decide they are better off without him than with him.

Naturally, as part of the "It's never Trump's fault" campaign, there is already much finger-pointing in the direction of Joe Biden. Trump is doing it, and so are members of Congress, like Rep. Nicole Malliotakis (R-NY). She sat for an interview with CNN yesterday and opined:

Well, there's been talk about a recession for well over the past year. This is something that has been a threat going back to the Biden administration... You can't disregard the damage that the Biden administration did to our economy with their regulations, with their inflationary spending, with the interest rates that have skyrocketed because of his policies. You can't, you can't negate that.

If you would like to hear it for yourself, the footage is here.

This is not inherently an unreasonable position. The economy is a complex, often slow-moving beast, and there can absolutely be delayed effects when a presidential administration leaves office. Perhaps the most obvious example of this is that the sequence of events that led to the Great Depression had as much to do, or even more to do, with the policies of the Calvin Coolidge administration than the Herbert Hoover administration. Poor Herbie was just left holding the bag.

That said, it's a bit harder to accept Malliotakis' thesis here. First, an honest actor, even if they were laying some/most of the blame at Biden's feet, would also have to admit that Trump's policies have not helped (in the same way that Hoover's tariff policies helped worsen the Great Depression). Malliotakis is not conceding that.

Second, neither Trump nor Malliotakis nor any other Republican is really enunciating a clear cause-and-effect argument for why Biden is to blame. They toss out a bunch of buzzwords like "spending" and "inflationary" and "regulations," but don't clearly explain how those things produced what's happening in the economy right now. The Inflation Reduction Act was passed 2½ years ago—why would its effects be felt now, and so suddenly?

Third, take a look at this chart from the Atlanta branch of the Federal Reserve:

That does not look to us like the culmination of a downward trend that commenced 6 months or 12 months or 18 months ago. It looks like an economy that was humming along until someone took a sledgehammer to it, perhaps by mounting a pseudo-trade war, or by slashing a bunch of government jobs willy-nilly. (Z)

As Per Usual, Government Shutdown Comes Down to the Wire

There is no chance of an actual budget getting through Congress this week (with funding running out on Friday). In fact, there is no real chance of an actual budget getting through Congress anytime this fiscal year. And so, Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) has, predictably, changed tactics, and is going for a continuing resolution (CR) that will keep the lights on for now.

Of course, with the modern-day GOP, nothing can be quite that simple. Or, at very least, quite that honest. In general, a CR implies that the terms of the current budget will simply be extended for [X] number of months. And that is certainly how Johnson is selling it—as an extension of the final Biden budget. Biden, of course, is a Democrat. So, Democrats should be very pleased to extend his budget priorities for another 6 months or so, right?

Not so fast. The CR that Johnson has put forward does not just extend the Biden budget, end of story. It increases funding for defense and for border enforcement, while cutting funding for aid to children and families, healthcare and election security. The CR also contains no funding for disasters, which is a problem because the money already set aside for disasters has been spent, and there is a significant risk that if such funding is not spelled out, the Republican-controlled Congress would find it in themselves to allocate extra money in the future if, say, a bunch of red states get hit by a hurricane, but not if, say, California gets hit by another round of fires.

The biggest problem, from the Democrats' perspective, is that the CR does nothing to rein in Elon Musk, or to specify that he and Donald Trump must spend the money that has been allocated by Congress in the manner that has been indicated. In fact, the CR has some bookkeeping trickery that would give Trump and Musk even more room to move money around as they see fit. In short, the bill is very Republican- and MAGA-friendly, even though it's being presented as an extension of Biden's budget.

Today, the House is scheduled to vote on the CR. As we have noted a thousand times, the GOP has virtually no room for error here. So, Trump is furiously whipping votes on his side of the aisle, and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) is furiously whipping votes on HIS side. Reportedly, Johnson thinks he has the votes, though he's thought that before and has been proven incorrect. Among GOP House members, Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) is the only one to have announced he is a hard "no." He regularly bucks his conference on legislation, so he probably means it. Other Republicans are wavering. Among Democratic House members, there are a few who have said they are at least considering a "yes" vote, namely Henry Cuellar (D-TX), Vicente Gonzalez (D-TX) and Tom Suozzi (D-NY). In other words, the vote could go either way.

If the CR passes the House, Johnson plans to adjourn until next week, basically giving the Senate two options: (1) approve the CR, or (2) shut the government down. The Republicans can't use reconciliation here, since it's not a new budget. So, the Democrats could filibuster, but then they would be at risk of taking the blame for a shutdown (and, potentially, some of the other economic woes unfolding at the moment; see above). So, if the CR reaches the Senate, the blue team will be in the position of either swallowing a bill that makes them very unhappy (and that is wrapped in the "it's Biden's budget" lie) or potentially owning the shutdown. The Democratic senators are keeping their powder very dry; only John Fetterman (PA) has suggested he's likely to vote for the bill (or to vote to kill a filibuster), while another half-dozen Democratic senators are hard "no" votes, and the other 40 or so members of the caucus have kept their plans to themselves. On the Republican side, only Sen. Rand Paul (KY) is a firm "no."

And so, the American people get to sit back and see what today's episode of As the Capitol Turns brings. When it comes to the question of whether there will be a shutdown, it's a little disturbing that your guess is probably about as good as that of the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives or the Majority Leader of the United States Senate. (Z)

This Isn't Your Parents' Media Establishment, Part I: Ruth and Scott

There was a time when someone like Ruth Marcus was a dream hire for a newspaper. Bachelor's degree from Yale, law degree from Harvard, a talent for the written word—it's not too much a surprise that The Washington Post poached her in 1984, while she was finishing up her law degree. She's been at the paper ever since, and has covered campaign finance, the Supreme Court, the Department of Justice and Congress, among other beats. She became an opinion columnist, and an associate editor of that section, in 2006.

As of yesterday, however, her 42-year career at the Post is at an end. Over the weekend, she submitted a column that was critical of owner and publisher Jeff Bezos and his new editorial policy. The column was spiked, and in response, Marcus tendered her resignation. But hey, at least they still have Marc Thiessen!

The text of the spiked column has not been made public, but there is no way a battle-hardened newspaper veteran like Marcus did not foresee this outcome. It could be, at 66 years of age, she's ready to retire, and so she decided to go out in a (small) blaze of glory. Alternatively, maybe she will be the latest journalist to make the jump to Substack, or some other platform like that. If so, however, she does not appear to have announced her future plans. Certainly, there's nothing on her eX-Twitter or Bluesky feeds. One would imagine that if she planned to start "Ruth's Rants," or some such, she would make sure to have that in place before falling on her sword, knowing full well that people would be looking for it.

But while old-school folks like Marcus are "out" these days, folks adapted to the new media landscape are definitely "in." It was difficult not to think of the shift in the journalistic establishment when the news of Marcus' demise came in the same hour as the news that CNN pundit Scott Jennings just signed a new contract with the network, one that gives him a hefty increase in pay.

Jennings' job, ostensibly, is to be the talking head who gives the "conservative perspective." Here are some of the conservative perspectives he's shared in recent months:

• If Donald Trump does not like rulings by courts that are not the Supreme Court, he is entitled to ignore them.
  
  
• The reason that Trump keeps losing in court is that "hack Democratic attorney generals" do what Republican AGs are unwilling to do and engage in "venue shopping," looking to find the most "lunatic liberals" they can. (Note: The slight majority of Trump's losses in court, so far, have come in front of Republican-appointed judges.)
  
  
• Elon Musk is a dedicated public servant, and his work on DOGE has nothing to do with undermining oversight of his companies.
  
  
• For those who are offended by Elon Musk running the government, despite not being elected, what about... Joe Biden? "Well, Joe Biden was on the ballot one time and he never, and he, and I don't and I don't think he ever ran the country for one single day."
  
  
• Elon Musk's salute was "not a Nazi salute." (However, Jennings was unwilling to replicate it on air.)
  
  
• Volodymyr Zelenskyy should be ashamed by the attire he wore to the White House.
  
  
• Saying that Haitian immigrants are eating dogs and cats "is not racist."
  
  
• Basketball star Caitlin Clark was wrong to acknowledge her white privilege, and only did so because she's "been captured by the woke mob."

This is not serious, thoughtful commentary. Heck, it's often not even commentary that Jennings actually believes in. He's a Mitch McConnell-type Republican, having worked as an aide to the Senator for many years. If you watch carefully when Jennings talks, you can tell when even he doesn't really buy what he's selling.

What we have here—and we thought of this parallel independently, but then saw others draw it, as well—is basically a pro wrestler. Specifically, what pro wrestling fans call a heel; a person whose job it is to be the "bad guy," nearly all the time, and ideally in a manner that is as over-the-top as is possible.

We're not sure which group of viewers this insults more. Liberal-leaning viewers, who apparently need a foil who is a total clown in order to feel righteous? Or conservative-leaning viewers, who are supposed to think Jennings is playing it straight, and isn't putting on an act? What we do know is that CNN has just slashed its budget and gotten rid of a bunch of staff, including a bunch of actual journalists. Meanwhile, they had no problem finding the money to give a hacky entertainer like Jennings a nice raise. There are still a few folks of reasonable quality there—a Jake Tapper, a John King—but we're getting closer and closer to the moment that one cannot take CNN any more seriously than one takes Fox. (Z)

This Isn't Your Parents' Media Establishment, Part II: All Media Will Be Forced to Choose

We had an item on February 18 in response to a reader complaint that they wished the site would go back to being more neutral, the way it used to be. Our response, as readers will recall, was that the current environment makes that an impossibility.

As it turns out, we're not the only one dealing with the Brave New World of Trumpism, and wrestling with it publicly. Last week, under the headline "All Media Will Be Forced to Choose," The Bulwark's Jonathan V. Last (a conservative, keep in mind) made very nearly the same argument we did:

We can learn a lot about what's wrong with our democracy by examining how the media has split into three fairly distinct spheres.

There's the state media—Fox, Newsmax, the Federalist, HughHewitt.com—which have become pure propaganda outlets.

There's the "neutral" media—The New York Times, The Washington Post, ABC News, CBS News, CNN—which believe that politics should be covered as a sport with reports about who's up and who's down. Extraordinary efforts are made by these institutions to present both sides of every question, even if it means presenting the case for illiberalism or platforming people who the media orgs know are lying to their audience.

Finally, there's pro-democracy media—outlets which understand that America is experiencing an ongoing authoritarian attempt and that they must stand on the side of small-l liberalism.

But this segmentation is not sustainable. Three spheres will soon collapse into just two: Media orgs that oppose authoritarianism and media orgs that accept it.

Notice, incidentally, that Last also adopts our usage of "Fox," refusing to support their phony branding by appending "News" to the name.

And Last's piece wasn't the only one like this in the last week. Techdirt has been on the forefront of DOGE coverage, for the obvious reason that they are focused on Silicon Valley, and so they know well both the players and their playbook. That site had a piece headlined "Why Techdirt Is Now A Democracy Blog (Whether We Like It Or Not)," in which writer Mike Masnick noted that Techdirt has been getting complaints about its non-neutral political coverage, and requests/demands that the site go back to the way it was. He responds:

We've spent decades documenting how technology and entrepreneurship can either strengthen or undermine democratic institutions. We understand the dangers of concentrated power in the digital age. And we've watched in real-time as tech leaders who once championed innovation and openness now actively work to consolidate control and dismantle the very systems that enabled their success.

I know that some folks in the comments will whine that this is "political" or that it's an overreaction. And it is true that there have been times in the past when people have overreacted to things happening in DC.

This is not one of those times.

If you do not recognize that mass destruction of fundamental concepts of democracy and the U.S. Constitution happening right now, you are either willfully ignorant or just plain stupid. I can't put it any clearer than that.

This isn't about politics—it's about the systematic dismantling of the very infrastructure that made American innovation possible. For those in the tech industry who supported this administration thinking it would mean less regulation or more "business friendly" policies: you've catastrophically misread the situation (which many people tried to warn you about). While overregulation (which, let's face it, we didn't really have) can be bad, it's nothing compared to the destruction of the stable institutional framework that allowed American innovation to thrive in the first place.

This is a fairly small segment of the overall piece; readers should consider clicking on the link and reading the whole thing.

We do not have all that much to add here, other than to say that we thought it useful to point out that many outlets are being forced to reinvent themselves due to the new political context, and to remind folks that we think every single day about whether we are being as fair-minded as we need to be, given that one branch in that road leads to "bothsidesism and sanewashing" and another branch leads to "partisan screeds." (Z)

Captain Canuck: Canada Has a New Leader

On Sunday, Canada's Liberal Party held an election to choose a replacement for Justin Trudeau, who is stepping down. And the winner, in a rout, was Mark Carney, who took 85.9% of the vote in a four-way race. The victory means that, within days, the new leader of the Liberals will take over as prime minister.

Carney has no experience in elective office, but he has served in prominent public positions, including both as deputy governor and governor of the Bank of Canada, as associate deputy minister of finance, as governor of the Bank of England (the first non-Briton to hold the post) and as the United Nations special envoy on climate action and finance. He's also worked in the private sector, for a couple of prominent investment banks, and has an impressive educational pedigree that includes degrees from Harvard and Oxford.

In short, he's pretty clearly the yin to the yang of Donald Trump. That is to say, one of them is well-educated, has had a very successful career in the world of business and finance, and knows how to negotiate, while the other just pretends to have all those qualities. In addition, Carney is a moderate (by Canadian standards), to the point that he was asked to join Stephen Harper's Conservative government as minister of finance, but declined because he felt it would be inappropriate to go straight from running the Bank of Canada to doing that job. Carney, by virtue of not being in government, is also free of any association with the somewhat radioactive Trudeau. The current PM's previous right-hand woman, Chrystia Freeland, resigned in protest of his policies and then ran in this weekend's election to replace him. She got 8% of the vote. Clearly, Liberal voters want no piece of Trudeau, even a piece that had a high-profile falling out with him.

We are not experts in Canadian politics, of course, but even we can read a scatter chart. And here is what polling of Canadian politics has looked like since the last election:

As you can see, the Liberals were in deep moose doo-doo, until a rapid change in fortunes that began on or about January 20 of this year. Hmmm... hard to guess what happened.

Given the circumstances of his election, Carney thinks he might have a wee bit of a mandate. In a speech acknowledging his victory on Sunday, he decreed:

I am a pragmatist above all. So, when I see that something's that's not working, I will change it. My government will immediately eliminate the divisive consumer carbon tax on families and farmers and small and medium-sized businesses. And we will stop the hike in the capital gains tax because we think builders should be incentivized for taking risks and rewarded when they succeed. Canada needs more of this type of change. Change that puts more money in people's pockets. Change that makes our companies more competitive. Change that builds the strongest economy in the G7.

There's someone who's trying to do the opposite. There's someone who's trying to weaken our economy.

Yeah, Donald Trump.

And Donald Trump has put, as we know [and] as the prime minister just said, unjustified tariffs on what we build, on what we sell, on how we make a living.

He's attacking Canadian families, workers and businesses. And we cannot let him succeed. And we won't. We won't. I am proud of the response of Canadians who are making their voices heard, and their wallets felt...

The Americans want our resources, our water, our land, our country. Think about it. If they succeeded, they would destroy our way of life. In America, health care is a big business. In Canada, it is a right. America is a melting pot. Canada is a mosaic.

In the U.S., differences are not respected or recognized. First Nations are not recognized. And the French language would never have any rights. The joie de vivre, the culture and the French language are part of our identity. We must fully protect that. We must promote that as well. We will never give them up for any trade agreement.

America is not Canada, and Canada never, ever will be part of America in any way, shape or form.

We didn't ask for this fight. But Canadians are always ready when someone else drops the gloves. So, the Americans, they should make no mistake. In trade, as in hockey, Canada will win.

Under the terms of the Canadian constitution, a general election must be held no later than October 20 of this year, but it can be earlier. Given the Trump bump shown in the chart above, and that enthusiasm for Carney is never likely to be higher than it is right now, the government will surely call for an election much sooner than that, maybe even within the month.

We would be grateful to have the thoughts of Canadian readers; send them to comments@electoral-vote.com. We'll run some of them tomorrow. (Z)

Teutonic Shift: More Reader Comments on the German Elections

We had one last set of reader comments on the recent German election to run, and we wanted to get them in before moving on to the Canadian election. So:

T.K. in Freiburg, Germany, writes: I think an update on the latest developments after the Federal Election in Germany might be useful:

1. Friedrich Merz has performed a 180-degree turnaround on the debt brake. Whereas before the election he still wanted to adhere strictly to it, two "special funds" (in reality "special debts") are now intended. This was agreed in the coalition negotiations between the CDU/CSU and SPD.
   
   
2. However, one should not believe that this is already a done deal. For one thing, the agreement of the Greens is needed to achieve the two-thirds majority required in Parliament, for which the Greens will make it a condition that the "special funds" are used to finance climate projects. Secondly, the approval of the federal states is also required. This is only guaranteed where the government consists of the parties of the desired coalition. Otherwise it is questionable. Furthermore, the opposition parties have announced a constitutional complaint, arguing that the special fund should be decided by the already dissolved Parliament instead of the newly elected Bundestag. Should the Federal Constitutional Court uphold this, the special fund would have failed.
   
   
3. Nevertheless, I think that this special fund will be implemented in some form or other, because the new federal government could at least enforce the special fund for the Bundeswehr (the military) by simple resolution with reference to the existence of an emergency situation. The Constitutional Court would hardly object to this, especially as the Federal Government would have a comprehensible argument at hand with the possible reduction or even cessation of any American military support. I also think that the support of parties outside the new coalition can be won in some form, albeit in return for concessions that will dilute the effect that the special fund is intended to achieve.
   
   
4. Economically this special fund would be a questionable matter, not least because other European countries would not be able to follow suit because they do not have the necessary financial leeway. With the expected rise in interest rates, they will find it more difficult to finance their regular budgets. So it is still difficult to predict what will come out of this, but it would send a very strong signal to the outside world (in fact, it already does).
   
   
5. Overall, we are dealing with a change in policy, comparable to the time of German reunification. Stock and bond prices have already reacted. It is no exaggeration to speak of a "game changer." Without Donald Trump, whether you like it or not (you probably won't), this would probably not have happened so quickly. In chess, one would speak of zugzwang.

Developments are very much in flux and the situation could change significantly in just a few days.

---

M.C. in Greece, NY, writes: Germany and Europe are affected by four major trends since World War II:

1. The creation of NATO, whose main goals have been to keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down.
   
   
2. The realization of a continent-wide and centuries-long political, economic and legal integration culminating in the European Union.
   
   
3. The four generations of feminism that have added the formerly ignored half of civilization to the impressive and progressive brain trust of European politics, science, business and culture.
   
   
4. A coming population collapse, in particular in central, eastern and southern Europe that will be catastrophic economically and politically.

As drought from climate change and displacement from war distress the Middle East, there has been a nearly two decade "emergency" immigration into Europe of Islamic refugees from countries that are, in part or in toto, failed states, unable to provide food, water and safe housing for an increasingly large number of their residents.

Into this volatile mix two major factors have served as an unstoppable catalyst for the rise of extreme-right parties:

1. The multicultural mix of Christians and Muslims has, generally, not gone well. This time is no exception.
   
   
2. The economic dislocation placed on working-class folks from the failures of globalism and, to name one other factor, increasing automation, has enraged people who used to vote left, but have now swung hard to the right.

Not helping any of this developing mess has been the ascendancy of Donald Trump as POTUS. An inveterate blamer personality whose subtext is always "I deserve the most attention" and "I am going to rip you off," Trump has encouraged the European far-right while aggressively denigrating NATO, the EU and feminism, along with promoting the idea that there is no such a thing as climate change. Trump's insistence that feminism and non-white low-educated immigrants are an existential threat play right into the pitch lines of what were once lunatic-fringe right-wing parties on the Continent.

The questions are: With all the damage done to the formerly prosperous established order, what will happen to NATO, the EU, the rights of women and Muslim immigrants in light of demographically shrinking economies? In particular, with a bellicose, but demographically and economically declining Russia wanting to impose its hegemony as far as possible into northern, central and southern Europe? Will borscht replace currywurst in Berlin food stalls?

---

J.B. in Aarhus, Denmark, writes: Here in Denmark, people are generally satisfied with the outcome of the election. The visceral feeling of disdain/dislike for the Germans (who occupied their country in World War II) had mainly dissipated for Danes during the four years of comparison between Angela Merkel and Donald Trump. Most of the Danish population can reluctantly accept a federative (dilatory) participation in a Teutonic Nation where they never could before, a 1,000-year Reich.

If you had told me a month ago that 21% of Germans were Nationalsozialistische sympathizers, I would have said: "hmm, seems low." This 21% is most likely true for any country, including here in my home country. (It is also important to recognize that the bulk of support for the AfD (Aryans for Deutschland) stems from the Prussian/East German provinces).

I don't think Americans realize the extent of how horrified Europeans were by whole J.D. Vance/Pete Hegseth dog-and-pony show in Munich. And, don't get me started on the Greenlandic state-of-affairs.

Relatively speaking, I think most Europeans think the results yesterday are as hunky-dory as one can expect... during the age of Drumpf.

---

J.R. in Berlin, Germany, writes: You wrote: "The neo-Nazi AfD Party did worse than the polls showed it would do, and it is unlikely that endorsements by Elon Musk and J.D. Vance made any difference."

It is really a stretch to call the AfD a "neo-Nazi" party. Yes, there are fringe elements that sympathize with the Nazis. But the core of the party is the voters disenfranchised by Angela Merkel's cohabitation with the SPD for 12 years, bringing a Grand Coalition mush that left the right wide open for voters who, justifiably, blanched at her grabbing her ankles on immigration.

We could just as justifiably call the Republicans, now dominated by the MAGAt party majority with their own 1930s-style fascist proclivities, a neo-Nazi party.

I am a U.S. citizen who has fled for higher ground, and do not fear the AfD anywhere nearly as much as I fear the post-modern GOP.

Thanks, again, to everyone who wrote in with their thoughts! (Z)

---

If you wish to contact us, please use one of these addresses. For the first two, please include your initials and city.

• questions@electoral-vote.com    For questions about politics, civics, history, etc. to be answered on a Saturday
• comments@electoral-vote.com   For "letters to the editor" for possible publication on a Sunday
• corrections@electoral-vote.com To tell us about typos or factual errors we should fix
• items@electoral-vote.com            For general suggestions, ideas, etc.

To download a poster about the site to hang up, please click here.

---

Email a link to a friend.

---The Votemaster and Zenger