We screwed up the link in yesterday's post. If you have a non-politics question for us, you should send it to questions@electoral-vote.com.

The Murder of Charlie Kirk Is Galvanizing Young Conservatives to Action

Republicans are noticing that the murder of Charlie Kirk may have consequences for them. They have lost a talented leader but now young conservatives are being galvanized. They are contributing money and signing up to volunteer. New chapters of Turning Point USA are being formed. Kirk's wife, Erika, is taking over the leadership of the group. Of course, whether the enthusiasm lasts until Nov. 3, 2026, is an open question.

Also unknown is Erika's leadership ability. Kirk amassed millions of followers based on his charisma and personality. Although Erika shares her husband's devotion to Christianity and the conservative cause, she may or may not have the charisma to lead. Also, much of his following was young men attracted to the idea that women's place is in the home, not in the workplace. It remains to be seen if the followers of a movement whose defining feature was urging women to marry young, have lots of kids, and then stay home tending to them will accept a woman as leader of their movement. To us, it would seem, er, odd for a woman to be leading an organization one of whose main goals is to get women out of leadership roles in organizations. If Erika drops the bit about how men should run the world and women are there to serve the men, she may lose many of the men who got on board to support that message. Of course, the MAGA world is full of contradictions. And it is also worth noting that, for many decades, Phyllis Schlafly ran a movement (eventually formalized as the "Eagle Forum") devoted to rolling back feminism and putting women back in the home. So, it's not impossible.

Republican strategists are going to do everything they can to keep Kirk's followers active and try to turn them into partisan Republicans. Many of them were attracted to Kirk and Trump personally, but not necessarily to MAGA "principles," like Making America White Again, cutting taxes for millionaires, and dismantling the federal government. Keeping them inspired may not be so easy. Trump won 50% of the vote of white voters 18 to 29 in 2024. The danger is not that they will become Democrats, but rather that they will become nonvoters.

Kirk's death has also put some Republicans in a bind. Back during Trump v1.0, some social media companies were blocking Trump and other conservatives for lying constantly and spewing hate in all directions. Then Republicans were demanding "free speech," meaning the companies must allow all speech, no matter how hateful. They opposed all forms of censorship. Now that it appears that Tyler Robinson, Kirk's killer, was radicalized in dark corners of the Internet, the same Republicans who used to be wildly opposed to any form of censorship, even for hate speech, are demanding that social media companies block hate speech. That is, they are calling for censorship of content they don't like (e.g., people celebrating Kirk's death and saying he had it coming). The bottom line is that they like censorship when it bans content they don't like but hate censorship when it bans content they do like.

The funeral service was held Sunday in Glendale, AZ. It had been given a Special Event Assessment Rating Level 1, which is unusual for the funeral of a private citizen. This rating unlocks major federal security resources. That was needed because the event was expected to—and did—draw thousands of spectators. The scale of the event was what happens at the funeral of a former president. And remember, Kirk wasn't even a city councilman. He was just a private citizen and political activist. Clearly, Trump is trying to get every bit of publicity he can out of the funeral.

Some of the warm-up speakers made Kirk out as a religious leader. Far-right activist Jack Posobiec held up a rosary and said: "Well, I say to you that a century from now, when they write of the two or three pivotal moments that led to the saving of Western civilization, they will write that the sacrifice of Charles James Kirk was the turning point." The equally far right Benny Johnson went down the same road: "The Apostle Paul describes how God establishes the rulers of the nations in the audience. Right now, there are rulers of our land represented. Their godly mission is wielding the sword against evil."

Trump was the main speaker. Most of the eulogists were generally positive, and said that they would try to honor Kirk's legacy by reaching across the aisle and endeavoring to dialogue with those who hold differing beliefs. Erika Kirk even went so far as to say that, as an observant Christian, she forgives her husband's killer. Trump (and, along with him, Stephen Miller) did not take this tack. Instead, the President decreed: "[Charlie] did not hate his opponents. He wanted the best for them. That's where I disagreed with Charlie. I hate my opponents and I don't want the best for them. I'm sorry. I am sorry Erika." That Trump feels this way is not a secret, but here you have it straight from the horse's mouth. He's not even trying to hide it, even though, in that particular forum, it would have been more appropriate for him to keep such thoughts to himself, or to even play nice for once.

In the end, strongmen gotta strongman. No matter the circumstances, if Donald Trump gets up on stage before a crowd of people, it WILL be a stump speech. Eulogies are not exempted, nor are Boy Scout Jamborees, college graduations, or any other occasion where any other politician would leave the politics at home. Trump ultimately spoke for about 45 minutes, failing to read the room (like at the RNC), such that there were people who were obviously worn out after 5 hours of speechifying, and who had presumably heard Trump's shtick many times before. So, quite a few of those folks very noticeably got up and left while Trump was speaking. Better to keep it brief and leave them wanting more, Mr. President, as opposed to them longing for, well, less. Much less.

If you would like to watch some or all of Trump's remarks, you can click here. For someone who has attacked opponents for being low-energy, Trump was pretty... low-energy. Roughly speaking, about half of the speech was specific to Kirk. The other half was Trump's standard stuff, and could have been heard at any of his rallies, or State of the Union addresses, or Boy Scout Jamboree appearances. Trump did compare the event to a revival, which would thus make him the preacher, the man of God. That's certainly a thought to chew on.

A funeral/memorial marks a pretty key signpost in the memorialization of the dead. We will see if MAGA Nation moves on from the anger and the finger-pointing and the censorship this week. And then, in upcoming months and years, we will see how long Kirk's influence over the Republican Party lingers. (V & Z)

Trump Pushes Bondi to Hurry Up and Persecute His Enemies Now

Donald Trump is not good at waiting. When he wants something done, he wants it done right now. And he is annoyed that AG Pam Bondi has taken so long to indict some of his top "enemies," especially NY AG Letitia James, Sen. Adam Schiff (D-CA), and former FBI Director James Comey. All of them have crossed swords with him; the "small" problem is that none of them has committed a crime.

Part of the reason that Bondi has been a bit slow on the draw is that she has to concoct some kind of criminal offense and make it appear strong enough that the judge does not throw the indictment in the paper shredder before getting to page 2. That isn't so easy since there are no crimes. Opposing Dear Leader is not a crime (yet). The nominal "crime" for James and Schiff is mortgage fraud. Former federal prosecutor Andrew Tessman, who has actually prosecuted mortgage fraud cases, wrote an op-ed in The Washington Post saying that to prove mortgage fraud, the prosecution has to prove the defendant intended to defraud the bank and got a loan he or she would otherwise not have gotten absent the fraud. It will be obvious to any judge that a member of Congress will need two principal homes, one in his own state and one near D.C. The question on the mortgage application about "principal home" is there to weed out rental properties. Tessman said there is no case at all against Schiff or James.

Now Trump has demanded that Bondi get going. Rather than calling her into his office to give the order, he did it the old-fashioned way: Posting the demand on his it's-pretty-much-just-used-for-racketeering social media site. Here it is:

Pam: I have reviewed over 30 statements and posts saying that, essentially, "same old story as last time, all talk, no action. Nothing is being done. What about Comey, Adam 'Shifty' Schiff, Leticia??? They're all guilty as hell, but nothing is going to be done." Then we almost put in a Democrat supported U.S. Attorney, in Virginia, with a really bad Republican past. A Woke RINO, who was never going to do his job. That's why two of the worst Dem Senators PUSHED him so hard. He even lied to the media and said he quit, and that we had no case. No, I fired him, and there is a GREAT CASE, and many lawyers, and legal pundits, say so. Lindsey Halligan is a really good lawyer, and likes you, a lot. We can't delay any longer, it's killing our reputation and credibility. They impeached me twice, and indicted me (5 times!), OVER NOTHING. JUSTICE MUST BE SERVED, NOW!!! President DJT

Needless to say, openly giving the AG orders to prosecute his political enemies is something that even Richard Nixon would never have done. It is a complete violation of the separation of the White House from the Dept. of Justice. Plus, Bondi has served him loyally in various positions for well over a decade, and he doesn't even thank her for her attention to this matter? Where are your manners, Mr. President?

This is not Trump's first attempt to politicize the DoJ, only the most recent. On Friday, Trump fired career prosecutor Erik Siebert as U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia and will replace him with Lindsey Halligan, his one-time personal attorney and special assistant to the president who has worked as an insurance lawyer and has never been a prosecutor. Siebert's offense is that he refused to go after James for the alleged mortgage fraud. This is all part of Trump's view that the entire DoJ is his personal legal team whose goal is to use the full power of the U.S. government to punish his enemies and let his friends off the hook, even when they are caught dead to rights committing a crime (see next item).

Bondi and her deputy, Todd Blanche, lobbied Trump hard to keep Siebert in place. They said Siebert had cooperated on immigration and crime in the D.C. suburbs. Trump simply said: "I don't care." This puts all U.S. attorneys at risk. Technically, they serve at the pleasure of the president, but since Watergate, there has been a general consensus in both parties that the president should not interfere with their work. That has held until now. If U.S. attorneys now fear that failure to obey orders from the White House will get them fired, many of them are now going to start looking for new jobs before it happens. The result will be that Trump fills most of the 93 slots with political hacks who are uninterested and unable to pursue actual criminals and actual crime will go up, as potential criminals will realize the chance of being caught and successfully prosecuted is pretty low.

One of the reasons that Bondi may not be plowing ahead full speed to commit every crime Trump wants her to commit is that she probably knows that Nixon's AG, John Mitchell, served 19 months in prison for various crimes he committed in office. Bondi probably knows that someday there could be a Democratic AG who might go after her. But if she goes too slow, Trump will replace her with someone who does not know or care about Mitchell. So she is in a tough spot: Be punished now or be punished later. When you dance with the devil, guess what you get? (V)

DoJ Kills Bribery Investigation of Tom Homan

Border "czar" Tom Homan likes to come off as a tough-guy cop. Turns out tough-guy crook might be a better description. In Sept. 2024, he was recorded accepting a $50,000 cash bribe for agreeing to help the payer get a border enforcement contract if Donald Trump won and he was in a position to help. The only problem it that was a sting operation and the guy offering the bag of cash was an undercover FBI agent. Oops. Since Homan's acceptance of the money was recorded, it is a slam-dunk case, no?

Sure, but not for this DoJ. It just dropped the bribery case started at the end of the Biden administration. What's a little bribery between friends, after all? If you can't get a part of the action, what's the point of being in this administration? Being cruel to immigrants is fun, but it doesn't pay the mortgage.

A bribery charge was slightly tricky because at the time Homan took the bag, it wasn't certain that Trump would win. Still, an agreement to try to give someone a fat contract in the future if that was within his power in return for cash now is still something that would probably convince a jury, even if Homan couldn't guarantee the contract last year.

What the DoJ could have done is take a good look to see if Homan indeed tried to make good on his promise. But instead the case has now been dropped. And not only is Homan not going to be prosecuted, the unit that was going after him, the Public Integrity Section, which goes after corrupt officials, has been reduced this year from 30 prosecutors to five. Presumably Donald Trump thinks that there will be no corruption in his administration, so there is no need for gumshoes to ferret it out. Unless there is some other explanation, but we can't imagine what it would be. (V)

Pentagon Wants to Block Reporters from, Well, Reporting

Up until now, reporters who covered the Pentagon for major news outlets got a pass that allowed them to roam most of the Pentagon except for areas clearly marked as requiring a security clearance. They could talk to anybody willing to talk to them and could write stories about anything they wanted without getting prior approval from the Office of the Censor. Those glory days are now over.

Starting last Friday, new rules apply to defense war reporters. They are not allowed to roam the halls anymore unless accompanied by an Official Minder from the government. Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell said: "These are basic, common-sense guidelines to protect sensitive information as well as the protection of national security and the safety of all who work at the Pentagon." Pete Hegseth tweeted: "The 'press' does not run the Pentagon—the people do. The press is no longer allowed to roam the halls of a secure facility." Maybe the generals need to stop taping top-secret memos to the walls in the halls and keep them in their offices instead. Just a thought, though.

The Pentagon already moved out news media that could sometimes be critical of the administration and replaced them with yes-men who could be counted on to always spout the official line. In particular, The New York Times, NPR, Politico, and NBC News have been kicked out of their spaces and have been replaced by The New York Post, Breitbart News, One America News Network, and HuffPost. Probably the Pentagonians don't know what HuffPost is. They are probably thinking of the wolf in "The Three Little Pigs" huffing and puffing.

Among the other new rules is this gem: "However, DoW information must be approved for public release by an appropriate authorizing official before it is released, even if it is unclassified." In other words, reporters must now submit their stories to the Office of the Censor in advance and get approval before publishing them. Reporters publishing stories without official approval will have their credentials yanked. That works fine in Hungary, Turkey, and North Korea, so why not in the U.S.? (V)

The Negative Ads Have Begun in North Carolina

Republicans are once again latching onto blaming crime on Democrats as their campaign theme. In this case, it is an ad by Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) against Roy Cooper in North Carolina, although last we checked Cotton was not running against Cooper himself. He is running for reelection in Arkansas, but probably figures that since he is a shoo-in, why not campaign against some Democrat in another state?

His ad claims Cooper is "soft on crime," that old standby. The "evidence" is that on Aug. 22, 2025—when Cooper had been out of the governor's mansion for 7 months—a Black man named Decarlos Brown who has been diagnosed as having schizophrenia pulled out a knife on a light rail train in Charlotte and suddenly stabbed a YOUNG BLONDE WOMAN to death for no reason. Maybe he suspected that she was an immigrant (which she was, from Ukraine) and was just helping Trump rid the country of immigrants. Who knows? In any case, it was Cooper's fault because Brown should have been locked up. Actually, he was, for another crime, but after he served his sentence, he was released. He should have been in a mental hospital, but after the state legislature cut funding for mental hospitals, there is a shortage of beds there.

There are over 20,000 homicides per year in the U.S. But this one was tailor-made for a negative ad: Crazy Black man kills a pretty young white woman for no reason other than that he is crazy. What the ad somehow misses is that violent crime has been dropping for decades, as shown in this graph of reported violent crime incidents per 100,000 people since 1990:

Is crime at zero? No, but although Republicans decry crime—especially violent crime committed by scary Black men named Willie Horton against pretty young white women—they don't actually propose anything that might actually reduce it, like more funding for mental hospitals. Plan B is to have the National Guard pick up litter in D.C. Of course, this just treats the symptoms. What would work better is shooting the litterbugs on sight. (V)

Harris Goes into Full Attack-Dog Mode--against Democrats

Kamala Harris' 2028 presidential campaign is now in full swing. Her new book blasts almost all of her expected 2028 primary opponents. Here is a quick rundown:

• Gov. Gavin Newsom (D-CA): After Joe Biden dropped out in July 2024 and Harris jumped in, she reached out to Newsom and he wrote back: "Hiking. Will call back." He never did. Not only was this a personal insult (because they are were friends), but it is a subtle suggestion that Newsom didn't want Harris to win because then he couldn't run in 2028. So she is implicitly accusing him of playing politics, when she actually is. At the Democratic National Convention he did give her a rousing endorsement in a very high-profile event. That's what matters, after all. Harris desperately needs to knock Newsom out of the running fast because she wants all those California delegates to the 2028 Democratic National Convention for herself.
  
  
• Gov. Gretchen Whitmer (D-MI): Harris also faulted Whitmer for saying she needed to "let the dust settle" before making a public statement. Early on, it wasn't obvious that other high-profile Democrats would accept Harris as the nominee without any input from the voters. Whitmer was playing her cards close to her chest and Harris was miffed. The next day, Whitmer endorsed Harris and became a national campaign co-chair, but it wasn't fast enough for Harris.
  
  
• Gov. J.B. Pritzker (D-IL): He also gets faulted for not coming forward with an instant endorsement. He said: "As governor of Illinois, I'm the convention host. I can't commit." The next day, Pritzker endorsed Harris. He later showcased her at the convention in his state and campaigned hard for her.
  
  
• Pete Buttigieg: Harris wrote that having a ticket with a Black woman who is married to a Jewish man plus a gay guy was a couple of bridges too far for the American people. When Buttigieg heard about this, he noted that Harris never approached him to discuss the situation. Since they are used to be friends, the very least she could have done is gotten together with him, told him about her concerns, and asked for his input. She didn't.
  
  
• Gov. Josh Shapiro (D-PA): Harris faults the Pennsylvania governor for being too ambitious. Pot meet kettle. Pretty much everyone in politics is ambitious. Shapiro is not the only one. He was a finalist in the veepstakes and at one point asked her how many bedrooms there are at Number One Observatory Circle (because it is not on Zillow... at least, not yet). She was clearly worried that Shapiro, who is a very smooth operator and excellent public speaker, might upstage her. In the 2028 cycle, he is going to get even by suggesting she has poor judgment because if she had picked him, she would have won Pennsylvania's 19 EVs and probably those of Michigan and Wisconsin as well.
  
  
• Sen. Mark Kelly (D-AZ): Say what? She is right that an Arizona senator might run in 2028. But it isn't this one, as he is still taking care of his wife, Gabrielle Giffords, who was shot at a constituent event in Tucson years ago. Her gripe about Kelly is that he was too slow to endorse the pro-labor PRO Act. Kelly didn't even bother to reply. Kamala, if you are reading this, you just guaranteed that Kelly will not endorse you in 2028 until it is over. Smart move.
  

Joe Biden also got some flak, as did his inner circle, but the above list is a Who's Who of her likely primary opponents. Except that she isn't paying close attention. She missed at least two people who could be serious challengers: Gov. Andy Beshear (D-KY) and Sen. Ruben Gallego (D-AZ).

We think she has a tin ear. Democrats are desperately seeking unity now and here comes one of the most prominent Democrats in the country attacking other Democrats. She is not a Republican, so she is free to ignore Ronald Reagan's 11th Commandment: "Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican." Instead, she is letting many top Democrats have it with both barrels. Maybe she is only trying to sell books, but our intuition is that she is trying to knock out her primary opponents in advance.

It won't work. Democratic voters want their politicians to be furious—with the heat of 1,000 suns—but they want that fury to be directed at Republicans, especially Donald Trump, not at fellow Democrats. And especially not in service of their own future campaigns. This stunt will label her as an angry candidate, but with anger at the wrong people. Cotton (above) is also a potential 2028 candidate, but he is aiming his anger at a popular Democrat the Republicans would love to take down. Even though his ad in North Carolina is just a stunt to get him some attention, most Republicans will approve of Cotton spending some of his own campaign funds trying to help the party win a key Senate race.

In contrast, Harris comes over as conceited and spoiled, and a chameleon. She didn't earn the nomination by winning a string of primaries. She was handed it by Biden due to the late hour (and his own failure to get out in Jan. 2023, when there could have been normal primaries). Nobody owed her anything. Biden could have said he was releasing his delegates and the 4,700 voting delegates in Chicago should pick the nominee, just like in the old days. If he had done that, she would have had to compete with all of the above potential candidates and beaten them all to get the nomination.

In fact, she could have done it herself. She could have said that she was running for the nomination, but she wanted an open convention with the delegates making the call. A win there would have given her the legitimacy she didn't have and which upset some voters. (V)

Trump Imposes $100K Annual Fee for H-1B Visas

Once in a blue moon, Donald Trump does something that is actually good for workers, even if it isn't for the workers that happen to support him. He has suddenly imposed a $100,000 annual fee on H-1B visas—despite the fact that only Congress can change visa programs, so the courts will probably nix his plan.

While this is a bit weedy, it is important. Here's the deal. H-1B visas are only for highly skilled foreign workers that can't be found in large enough quantities in the U.S. Companies that want to hire a foreigner use H-1Bs to fast track immigrant approval. Applicants must have at least a bachelor's degree and special expertise in engineering, mathematics, medicine, finance, education, law, or some other field. In other words, they must be highly educated professionals. The company sponsoring the application must also claim it can't find Americans with the requisite skills. Companies can't get H-1Bs for bus drivers.

That, at least, is the theory. The reality is different. Computer programmers from India are willing to work for much less than American computer programmers, etc. Consequently, companies use the H-1B to avoid having to pay the market rate for personnel. Over 70% of last year's crop of H1-B visa holders were from India. After the news hit and there was a storm of protest, Trump relented a bit and said the fee will not apply to current H-1B visa holders.

It is true that the $100K annual fee will greatly discourage companies from using this trick and will probably result in skilled Americans being able to negotiate better salaries for themselves if there is no competition from foreign workers from India and China. This new rule will definitely help American workers—but only those with a college degree looking for highly skilled jobs paying well into the six figures. Very few of Trump's supporters will get much help here. Some young Democrats might get a salary boost, though, as a result of Trump's move.

Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick said: "Stop bringing in people to take our jobs, that's our policy. All of the big companies are on board. We've spoken to them about the gold card and this." Wrong on three counts. First, the implication that the jobs being taken by H-1B workers will now go to Trump's supporters is largely wrong. They will go to highly educated people, most of whom are now Democrats. Second, big companies make great use of H-1Bs to suppress wages. They are going to be furious about suddenly having to pay an American $150,000 to do some job instead of paying an Indian $75,000 (who will now cost the company an additional $100,000 to the government). Third, the "gold card" has nothing to do with hiring workers at all. It is a program in which rich foreigners who are worried about their local political situation can buy a green card for $1 million. This program will raise some money from wealthy Chinese businessmen in Taiwan who are worried about a Chinese takeover and want to come to the U.S. It is a much worse scheme than Canada has. There, rich foreigners who have at least $300,000 cash and a business plan that will hopefully result in creating three jobs can get a temporary visa and work permit for a few years. You want to open the first Chinese restaurant in some town out in the boonies of Saskatchewan? OK, you can try. If the business succeeds, the immigrant can get permanent residency. Trump's golden visa program simply allows a foreigner to buy a green card for $1 million. The immigrant need not start a business or create jobs. It's always about the money, not about the country, or even Trump's supporters.

To top it off, Trump is working on a "platinum" card. For a mere $5 million, an immigrant will get a green card and not be taxed on foreign income. Lutnick said the gold card program will raise $100 billion annually and the platinum card will raise $1 trillion. Let's do some math. To raise $100 billion at $1 million a pop, there would have to be 100,000 rich foreigners so desperate to leave their country that they will pay $1 million to do so. The platinum card idea is even nuttier. To raise $1 trillion at $5 million per person, there would have to be 200,000 people who want one and can afford it. Lutnick apparently thinks there are more Russian oligarchs, Saudi sheikhs, and Hong Kong billionaires than we think there are. Or he is assuming that among Trump's base, all numbers larger than 100 are lumped together in the category "big" and they won't be able to do the math.

These programs will be extremely divisive within Trump's base. Steve Bannon and Laura Loomer DO. NOT. WANT. MORE. IMMIGRANTS. Not even Russian oligarchs paying $5 million for an admission ticket. They do not like them, Sam-I-am. (V)

Democrats Need Something to Offer Blue-Collar White Men

Paul Krugman wrote another interesting posting about Charlie Kirk. Last week, we had an item about Krugman's view that what Kirk was selling to young men is the idea that women were put on earth to serve men, not compete with them. In his follow-up, Krugman took a closer look at men and economics. Here is the key graph:

The graph shows the percentage of men 25-54 who are not working and not seeking work. Before 1960, it was below 3%. Now it is above 10%. There is something going on here. Men who should be working aren't. Some of them were looking to Kirk for help.

A little bit of that is caused by women entering the workforce, but factory automation and foreign competition are much bigger factors, especially for "manly jobs." After all, how many women are lumberjacks or mine for coal or do heavy work on construction sites? MAGA, including Donald Trump and Kirk, have been exploiting "male rage" by blaming the problem alternately on cheating foreign countries, immigrants, lying environmentalists, solar energy nuts, the deep state and sneering intellectuals.

The trouble is that while these excuses may make unemployed (and unemployable) men feel their situation is not their fault, it doesn't actually solve the problem. And inexorable economic trends are making it worse, as "manly jobs" (e.g., working on an oil rig) are giving way to "womanly jobs," (e.g., in health care). Kirk's solution, telling women to marry young and have lots and lots of kids, really isn't going to help the men much because women are not going to follow his orders.

What Krugman says the Democrats need to do is to recognize that the problem is real (see graph above) and come up with actual solutions. One is to make "female-coded jobs" more attractive by paying them better. Men are quite capable at teaching. (V) had a male teacher in elementary school. Nothing wrong with that. As medical equipment gets more complicated, men can be encouraged to train to be lab, x-ray, MRI, and other technologists in hospitals. Also dental assistants, EMTs, pharmacy technicians, and other health-care jobs that don't require a college degree. Nothing wrong with that if the pay is good.

Community college and vocational education could be free. Apprenticeship programs could be subsidized. Green energy could be protected by tariffs, so the manufacture, installation, and maintenance of solar panels and wind turbines could be sold to the public as programs to create blue-collar "manly" jobs. Just downplay the spotted owl. Providing broadband Internet to rural areas requires digging trenches with heavy equipment or stringing optical fibers from telephone poles. Sounds like "men's work" to us. In short, a focused, coordinated, very explicit and realistic program that is (nominally) aimed at men should be one of the pillars of the Democrats' platform, argues Krugman, along with pointing out that job opportunities have gotten worse, not better, during Trump's reign. (V)

---

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

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

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

---

Email a link to a friend.

---The Votemaster and Zenger