Main page    Oct. 05


Previous | Next | Senate races | Menu

New polls:  
Dem pickups: AK ME NC OH TX
GOP pickups: (None)

---

We're back now. Sorry for the interruption. If you like the site, please tell your family and friends about it. This is the time.

Democrats Are Rethinking Their Mail-in-Voting Strategy

Absentee voting never used to be controversial—until Donald Trump got a bee in his bonnet about how banning it would help Republicans. It is true that Democrats use it more than Republicans, but Trump can't even think a half-move ahead in checkers, let alone win at 3-D chess. Democrats often use it to avoid standing in line on Election Day, but if it is banned or sharply curtailed, their Plan B is to use early in-person voting to avoid the crowds. Republicans in sparsely populated rural areas use it because getting to the polls may involve long drives, which is especially problematic for older voters or people with mobility issues. For overseas voters, mail-in is the only realistic option, but no one knows how they actually skew. Their Plan B is to just not vote. No one really knows what the net effect of eliminating mail-in voting would be.

In September, the Supreme Court shot down Trump's XO ordering the USPS to refrain from delivering absentee ballots to voters not on a list he wanted to concoct based on state lists. While that threat is gone (for the moment), some voters are afraid Trump has more nefarious plans in the works regarding absentee voting.

Since 2020, Democrats have encouraged voters to vote by mail. Now they are rethinking that advice. One group that is especially concerned about whether absentee voting will be possible and whether mail-in votes will be counted is Latinos. Many of them are worried about being arrested at polling places by ICE agents, even if they have proof of U.S. citizenship with them. For them, absentee voting is not a matter of convenience, it is a matter of safety. The same holds to some extent for other voters with brown or black skin.

Fear is running through many communities. Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows (D) said that many Maine voters have canceled their standing orders to receive all ballots by mail because they expect them to be seized on the way. She specifically warned against parties discouraging mail-in voting because Maine is a very rural state and for many older and disabled Mainers, mail-in voting is the only option.

In Nevada, Secretary of State Francisco Aguilar (D) is also trying to boost confidence in mail-in voting. He has asked the state's congressional delegation to post observers at the postal facilities that handle Nevada's ballots. He said that the 670,000 Nevadans who voted by mail in 2024 would feel more confident this year if election observers were stationed at USPS facilities. In the past the subject of "election observers" came up only in articles discussing elections in some African country run by a ruthless dictator who was forced to run a mock election to placate some group providing aid to his country. As Bob Dylan pointed out, the times, they are a-changin'.

One grassroots group, Indivisible, is urging voters to vote early, in-person or mail-in, but early in any event. In states that allow voters to verify online that their ballot was received and counted, early absentee voting can be less fearful since the voter can check if the ballot arrived and was counted, but not all states offer this service.

Meanwhile, there was also a newsflash this weekend: All of a sudden, after years of calling absentee ballots terrible and crooked and rigged, now Donald Trump, a long-time absentee voter himself, is urging Republicans to vote by mail. Does this make sense? Were you expecting sense? If so, why? (V)

Europe Caves to Trump's Order to Release Diesel Fuel

Donald Trump is desperate to get diesel prices down to avoid a disaster in the midterms. One of the things he thought of was blackmailing America's (former?) allies in Europe to get them to release massive amounts of diesel oil from their reserves. Rather than tell him exactly what they think of him, a number of them have caved and agreed to release the oil since they believed he would otherwise indeed carry out his threat to block diesel exports to their country if they failed to obey.

In a statement, the G7 leaders pledged to release 100 million barrels, but that will be over 4 months, of which a substantial amount will come in the next 20 days. Who will get the oil was not specified. After Nov. 3, Trump will probably have lost interest and won't care what they do. In principle, they could release 20 million barrels a month and simultaneously buy up 20 million barrels to replenish their reserves. That would formally be allowed by the agreement, which doesn't address replenishing the reserves.

E.U. member states are required to hold a 90-day reserve of net oil imports, but countries are free to determine their own mix of crude oil, kerosene, jet fuel and diesel. The Trump release might put some countries under the 90-day limit, but the E.U. is very unlikely to take any action against countries that (temporarily) drop below the requirement.

Of course, the long-term message everyone got is not good for the U.S. going forward. The message, of course, is that the U.S. is an unreliable supplier and maybe everyone should start looking for other suppliers. Even Russia and Iran might begin looking more reliable now. Another message that will resonate strongly in Europe is that this is the time to move to sustainable energy as quickly as possible, reducing the need for fossil fuels in the first place. Since the U.S. exports a lot of oil to Europe, that is a message U.S. oil companies will feel down the road. But Trump won't be president when the bill comes due, so he doesn't care.

A second message that everyone—Trump and the Europeans—got is this: Blackmail works. The consequence could be a "conscious uncoupling," a phrase popularized in 2014 by Gwyneth Paltrow in a somewhat different context. The fewer contracts one has with a rival, the less leverage the rival has over you. (V)

Both Sides Are Preparing Their Post-Election Lawsuits Already

Donald Trump and his allies are already preparing lawsuits to be filed in states and districts that Republicans lose on the grounds that non-citizens voted in those elections. Do not expect lawsuits in states and districts that Republicans win. Some of the lawsuits will be based on other claims, some of them highly technical in nature. For example, if two people living at the same address put both absentee ballots in the same envelope, that could be grounds to reject the ballots.

Democrats are aware of all this and are also aware that Trump recently told his supporters to cheat like hell. They are prepared to challenge voter intimidation, attempts to seize ballots and the role of the federal government in elections.

Both sides have teams of election lawyers who will be up on election night fielding calls and preparing briefs, depending on the circumstances. From 1996 to 1999 there were an average of 94 election-related lawsuits per year. From 2000 to 2024, the average was 283 and it is growing rapidly. The RNC currently has 179 active lawsuits in 37 states. It is as though the RNC has decided it is easier to win an election by getting a judge to call it for you than by the old-fashioned way of getting more votes than the other side.

On some election cases, the Supreme Court has already ruled, such as its decision to gut what was left of the Voting Rights Act. Also the case about the XO requiring the USPS to vet ballot recipients.

One of Trump's obsessions is getting ahold of all the voter registration data from the states to build a national voter registration database that is under his control and with him having both read and write access to it. So far he hasn't succeeded, but he is certainly not giving up.

An issue that is sure to come up again is the federal database called SAVE (Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements), that is used to try to ferret out non-citizens applying for federal benefits. It was not designed for election matters and is notorious for errors. Trump wants to match state voter rolls against it as a way of disenfranchising anyone with a "foreign-sounding" name—say, Juan Martínez. States are entitled to access this database and remove voters but only on an individual basis now (because it is within 90 days of an election).

Another issue where there will be litigation is U.S. citizens abroad who are the children of U.S. citizens abroad (including military families) but who have never lived in the U.S. Republicans want to disenfranchise all of them and have won court victories in Michigan, Nebraska, and North Carolina so far, with more cases pending. This is just one part of an RNC program to disenfranchise U.S. citizens living abroad.

Yet another issue that will come up is the stationing of ICE or other armed federal agents at polling places, with the ostensible task of keeping order (which is not a federal responsibility) but with the real task of intimidating voters. As these may not be flagged until Election Day, the courts will need to act with lightning speed on them.

The lawsuits will fly and it will get very messy. (V)

Bernie Sanders and AOC Have Proposed Legislation to Ban Flock Cameras

Flock Safety is a private company that has manufactured and installed 120,000 AI-driven cameras on roads all over the country in 49 states. The cameras record not only the license plates of cars they detect, but also the make, model and color of the car, and other features including bumper stickers. Flock's AI software analyzes the images and uses the data to maintain a database of who was where when. Its business model is selling the data to over 5,000 law enforcement agencies. Although its cameras do record people, Flock claims that its customers cannot do searches based on race. However, there is no way for any independent party to verify that claim.

Many Americans find this technology an invasion of their privacy. An Ipsos poll in early September found that Americans do not want them by a margin of 47% to 38%. Young people (18-34) hate them, but seniors like them. Democrats and independents strongly oppose them but more Republicans like them (54%) than dislike them (37%), with the latter group probably containing many libertarians. Men dislike the cameras more than women. The general dislike of the cameras cuts across education levels.

After news stories came out reporting that police officers were using the Flock cameras to track the movements of their romantic partners, ex-girlfriends, and stalk other women, there was a huge backlash to the cameras. If you think this was big news, just wait until some government law-enforcement agency asks for and gets a list of all Americans with a "Resist Trump" bumper sticker with the list containing the name and address of the car's registered owner, nicely sorted by ZIP code. Even Big Brother could not envision such an invasive technology that kept track of the whereabouts of tens of millions of people whenever they get in their cars.

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) don't like the Flock cameras either and have decided to do something about them. Together they have written a bill, called the Ban Flock Act, they will introduce into the Senate and House; the bill would ban the cameras altogether and stop the flow of federal funds to governments that use them.

When asked about the bill, Sanders said: "At a time of growing concern about the unchecked power of artificial intelligence, Flock is eviscerating the very notion of privacy by installing tens of thousands of cameras in communities across America without their consent. We cannot allow America to become a surveillance state where a handful of AI oligarchs profit by giving the government the power to track our every movement." This puts Sanders and AOC on the right side of public opinion. To the extent that the two are leading the anti-AI, anti-Flock movement, it makes it much more difficult for the Republicans to turn them into a boogeyman and boogeywoman, respectively. Also, when the Republicans call them socialists, some people are surely going to think: "Gee, if socialists hate Flock cameras, I'm with them on that." (V)

How Democrats Are Planning to Reverse Trumpism

While we are on the subject of legislation Democrats may push if they win both chambers on Nov. 3, there is also this story. The Ban Flock Act might actually pass next year because the cameras are so unpopular that Republicans who vote against Bernie & AOC's bill know the Democrats will put that front and center in 2028. But Democrats are also thinking long term, namely how to reverse Trumpism if they get the trifecta in 2028. It won't be easy and depends a lot on how aggressive a future Democratic president is, but, as they say, you miss 100% of the shots you don't take.

The main thrust of the bills being prepared is reining in a future president. Will Republicans vote for it? It depends on who the Democratic president is and how he or she acts. If the president aggressively uses all the "new" power Trump has acquired, the Republicans might be interested. Since the Supreme Court now believes in the Unitary Executive theory, a Democratic president could fire every single Trump appointee in the government on Day 1. And since the Pendleton Act is apparently now passé, why not fire all the civil servants Trump put in place? Then tell all red states that unless they allow abortion up to the third trimester of pregnancy, the president will cut off all their federal funding. Then tell all universities, including those in red states, that they have 30 days to submit a D.E.I. plan and start executing it, lest they lose federal research funding. All the Trump tariffs? Gone with the wind on Day 2. Elon Musk violated the terms of his student visa when he first immigrated to the U.S., so on Day 3 the president strips him of his U.S. citizenship, seizes his U.S. passport, and deports him to his native South Africa. If these things all happen, it probably won't be long before there are plenty of Republican votes for legislation reining in the president, possibly specifying that certain acts are felonies and/or impeachable offenses.

Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD), who was a professor of constitutional law for 25 years before being elected to the House, and who will chair the House Judiciary Committee if Democrats capture that chamber, will take the lead on much of this starting in January. He said: "We will have to go department by department, subject by subject, and public purpose by public purpose to determine what we salvage and what we re-create." Some of the topics on the agenda could include these:

• Ways to insulate the DoJ from the White House
• Ways to block a president from destroying and rebuilding the White House without congressional approval
• Rules to prevent presidential self-dealing
• Limits on the president's ability to declare emergencies and then use emergency powers
• Bans on the president levying tariffs without congressional approval
• Bans on the president accepting any payments or gifts from a foreign government without Congress' assent
• Laws forbidding the president from entering into monetary settlements with the government
• Binding ethics regulations for all three branches of government
• A law requiring all presidential candidates to publish their federal (and state) tax returns for the last 10 years
• A requirement for presidents worth more than $1 million to put all their assets in a blind trust
• Laws forbidding presidents from using the DoJ to punish their enemies
• Stronger protections for civil servants to prevent a president from firing or punishing them

And many more, of course, not currently on the list. For example, simply eliminating the president's power to fill vacancies with acting officials. When a top executive branch vacancy occurred, the highest-ranking Senate-confirmed official in that department would automatically move up to temporarily fill the vacancy until the president nominated and the Senate confirmed a permanent replacement. Rules about what can and cannot be in an XO could be made explicit.

A real biggie would be campaign finance reform, eliminating (super) PACs altogether and putting a hard limit on the total donations any one person could make to all candidates and committees combined in a single year. To avoid the Supreme Court striking this down, Congress could first strip the Court of appellate jurisdiction in cases relating to campaign finances, as authorized in Art. III, Sec. 2, Clause 2 of the Constitution. As a bonus, Congress could also make it a federal felony for a justice to vote on a case in any area Congress has explicitly banned it from taking. Oh, and the Constitution DOES NOT grant justices tenure for life. It grants them tenure DURING GOOD BEHAVIOUR and Congress could pass a law saying being convicted of a federal felony is BAD BEHAVIOUR.

Congress could also reclaim power the Constitution grants it. For example, the Senate has the power to "advise and consent" on nominations. It has been doing lots of consenting recently, but little advising. The next time Trump submits a judicial nomination to the Senate, the Senate could vote it down immediately and then give him a list of five names to choose from, along with the message that any nominee not on the list will be voted down immediately without further ado. This would hugely increase the power of the Senate vis-à-vis the president and be fully constitutional.

To put the fear of God in future presidents, laws could make all kinds of actions that Trump took (like bypassing Congress to levy tariffs or wage war) federal felonies (thus eliminating the immunity defense) and making the statute of limitations 10 years, insuring that even a two-term president would have to worry about a future AG from the other party indicting him.

Of course Trump will veto everything if it passes next year, but 2027-28 is just a dry run for 2029 if Democrats get the trifecta. The idea will be to show the voters what Democrats will do if they get the power to do so in 2029. (V)

The Cat Is Out of the Bag

Many people are wondering if Donald Trump will pardon members of his administration (and himself) on the way out the door on Jan. 20, 2029. Now they can stop wondering. In an interview with Time magazine, Trump, when asked if he was "considering pardoning members of your administration prior to the end of your term," said: "Yeah, sure, I'd do that." He also noted that Biden "gave pardons to everyone."

Biden did not pardon "everyone," but he did pardon his son, Hunter Biden, his siblings and their spouses, and Dr. Anthony Fauci in January 2025. Here is a complete list of all the 80 pardons Biden granted. Most of them were routine pardons of common criminals where later evidence showed a miscarriage of justice. Here is the pardon count for recent presidents: Jimmy Carter (534), Ronald Reagan (393), George H.W. Bush (74), Bill Clinton (396), George W. Bush (189), Barack Obama (212), Donald Trump v1.0 (143), Joe Biden (80), and Donald Trump v2.0 (194, plus approximately 1,600 1/6 rioters). Carter also pardoned thousands of Vietnam draft dodgers en masse. Given this list, Biden does not stand out as someone who handed out pardons like candy.

It remains to be seen who Trump will pardon on Jan. 20, 2029. After all, pardons now cost money. A lot of money. It also remains to be seen how effective they will be. The Constitution says the president may pardon offenses against the United States, but it gives no details. For example, can the president grant someone a pardon and then ask them to commit a crime? What if the order is reversed—that is, first the president asks for the crime then immediately grants a pardon? What if the order is: ask for the crime, get the crime, grant the pardon? If the three acts (asking, getting, pardoning) all happen on the same day, is the order critical? Why? The Constitution is silent on this.

A future Democratic AG could easily take the position that a pardon is valid only for a specific crime and only after the pardonee has been duly convicted for that crime. The AG could say that he or she wants to test the validity of pardons granted in advance of indictments and convictions by indicting and trying pardonees, letting the legal process play out, and then seeing how the Supreme Court rules. The same applies to self-pardons.

If a future president really wants to test the limits on advance pardons, he or she could announce: "If anyone assassinates Supreme Court Justice X, Y, or Z, I will grant a pardon." That might get the justices to perk up their ears and see the problem with advance pardons. (V)

Some of the Gubernatorial Races Are Competitive

While much of the media is focused on the elections for Congress, there are also 35 gubernatorial elections next month. Many are in deep-blue or deep-red states and there isn't much to write about them, but a handful are competitive. While national politics gets more attention than state politics in most places, the things governors do often have a greater impact on people's actual lives than what the president and Congress do. Currently, 24 states have a Democratic governor and 26 have a Republican governor, but 50 million more Americans have a Democratic governor than a Republican one. Here is a rundown of some of the key races to watch and here is another one. Here is a brief summary of some of the more competitive races:

• Alaska: The ranked-choice voting system makes this state hard to poll. There are three Republicans on the ballot: fiery Trumpist Bernadette Wilson, former Anchorage mayor Dave Bronson, and former state AG Treg Taylor. The lone Democrat is Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins. If enough Republicans fail to list second and third choices, their ballots will be exhausted and Kreiss-Tomkins could win this one. Yesterday's NYT/Siena poll of the governor's races has Kreiss-Tomkins ahead of Wilson 52-48.
  
  
• Florida: Florida used to be the mother of all swing states. If you are old enough, you might remember the 2000 presidential race and all the legal shenanigans there about counting or not counting the (butterfly) ballots. In the end, George W. Bush won Florida by 537 votes and with it the presidency. It doesn't get much swingier than that. Al Gore is not a crybaby and didn't claim the election was stolen, even though the Supreme Court ordered re-counting of the ballots to stop before they were all re-counted. Now Florida is a red state. Could a Democrat be elected governor? Maybe, but only under very unusual circumstances.
  
  This year the race presents—you guessed it—unusual circumstances. Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-FL) is term-limited. The Republican candidate is Rep. Byron Donalds (R-FL), a very MAGA candidate in what could be a blue wave. Because MAGA is pretty toxic right now, Donalds wants to create separation between Donalds and Donald. To that end, Donalds has scrubbed his campaign website clean of nearly all mentions of Donald.
  
  But what makes the race really interesting is that the "Democrat" isn't a real Democrat. David Jolly is a former Republican who won election to the House in a special election in 2014 (as a Republican) and again to a full term in Nov. 2014. He lost reelection to Charlie Crist in 2016. He is a moderate. Nobody would confuse Jolly with Bernie Sanders, and attempts to label him as a pinko commie won't work. Still, Florida has become quite red, so Donalds is the favorite. Polls put him about 6 points ahead of Jolly, but in a big wave, there could be an upset here.
  
  
• Georgia: Gov. Brian Kemp (R-GA) is term-limited in this swing state. Former Atlanta Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms (D) is running against billionaire healthcare CEO Rick Jackson (R), who bought the GOP nomination fair and square with $80 million of his own hard-earned dollars. Jackson has a side gig as a film producer, including the Christian film 90 Minutes in Heaven. The film bombed and lost a lot of money, which Jackson tried to claim as a business deduction and which IRS disallowed, leading to a big fight.
  
  Sen. Jon Ossoff (D-GA) is running away with his race and there could be synergy between Bottoms and Ossoff, each bringing in groups of voters that could be useful to the other side. Specifically, Bottoms brings in Black voters and Ossoff brings in progressives. Once they are at the polling place, each group will probably support the other Democrat. Polling is very close and it could go either way. The national mood could also play a role here.
  
  
• Iowa: If there is a blue wave in November, Iowa could be right in the middle, figuratively and literally. Gov. Kim Reynolds (R-IA) is eligible to run again but decided not to, so wealthy businessman Zach Lahn bought the GOP nomination. He is facing popular state auditor Rob Sand (D), who has a reputation as just an ordinary guy who is good with numbers. Sand is leading in the polls and both Charlie Cook and Larry Sabato have the election leaning toward Sand.
  
  What could also have an effect is that three of the four House districts also feature competitive races. They have PVIs of R+4, R+4, R+2, and R+15, respectively, but IA-04 (the R+15 one) is an open seat because Rep. Randy Feenstra (R-IA) ran for governor in the GOP primary, got Trump's endorsement, and Lahn beat him anyway.
  
  Open seats are always wild cards. In the absolute best case, Sand could win the governor's race, Josh Turek (D) could be elected senator, and the Democrats could win three or four House seats. The race for governor could affect the next Senate down the road because Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA), who is 93, may have an appointment with Father Time next year or in 2028.
  
  Yesterday's Siena gubernatorial poll has Sand ahead of Zahn 52-41. If it is that much of a blowout, Sand's coattails could help Josh Turek and the Democrats running for the House. If Iowa is a problem for the GOP, they are in some serious trouble.
  
  
• Kansas: This should be a no-brainer. Gov. Laura Kelly (D-KS) is term-limited and the Democratic bench in Kansas is as thin as Twiggy circa 1967. The Democrats nominated state Sen. Cindy Holscher. Republicans nominated the president of the state Senate, Ty Masterson. It is not quite a done deal for Masterson yet, for two reasons. First, he pushed through a controversial bank charter for a Texas bank whose CEO was later convicted of securities and wire fraud. Second, data centers are playing a big role in the campaign because they use immense amounts of water, and water is very important in an agricultural state like Kansas. Mind you, Masterson is still ahead in the polls by 7 or 8 points and is certainly the favorite. Yesterday's Siena poll has Masterson ahead of Holscher, 49-44, the only bit of good news for the GOP in that poll.
  
  
• Nevada: This is the Democrats' best gubernatorial pick-up opportunity, with Gov. Joe Lombardo (R-NV) running for reelection in a bluish swing state against state AG Aaron Ford. The Democratic state legislature has passed over 150 bills, many of them dealing with issues like affordability, paid family leave, gun safety, and more. Lombardo has vetoed almost all of them. Ford's pitch is that if he wins, the Democrats will have the trifecta and can get stuff done. Lombardo is very Trumpy and has Trump's endorsement. That may not be golden in a state with 29% Latinos and 20% multiracial or other minorities. Not to mention a state that has been hit hard by the tariffs—or, more precisely, by Canadians curtailing their Vegas vacation plans in protest of the tariffs.
  
  
• Ohio: Gov. Mike DeWine (R-OH) is term-limited. The Republican candidate is Vivek Ramaswamy, a Trumpy billionaire with connections to another Trumpy billionaire, Peter Thiel. Ramaswamy ran for president in 2024 and it was a disaster. He seems to regard Ohio as a consolation prize. The Democrat is the former director of the Ohio Dept. of Health, Dr. Amy Acton. Ramaswamy is trying to buy the election and Acton is running a populist campaign, not unlike that of Senate candidate Sherrod Brown. These things often correlate and the two could sink or swim together. On the other hand, this seems to be the Year of the Ticket Splitter, so any of the four combinations is possible. Recent polls have it a statistical tie, but yesterday's Siena poll has Acton ahead 49-44. That could be just statistical noise, though. It could probably still go either way.
  
  
• Oregon: The Democrats have the trifecta in Oregon, but Gov. Tina Kotek (D-OR) is not especially popular and she is once again facing state Sen. Christine Drazan (R). If this is a blue wave year, Kotek could pull this one out of the fire, but if it is an anti-incumbent year, Drazan—who does not act at all Trumpy (but is still very conservative)—could realistically win this one.
  
  
• Texas: Texas could be ground zero for ticket splitting, with clean-as-a-hound's-tooth James Talarico (D) leading dirty-as-the stuff-you-often-find-on-the-ground-behind-a-Texas-bull Ken Paxton (R) in the U.S. Senate race, while at the same time Gov. Greg Abbott (R-TX) edges out Gina Hinojosa (D) for governor. Hinojosa is a Latina from the Latino-heavy Rio Grande Valley and Abbott is a four-star general in the culture wars. There is a possible synergy between Talarico and Hinojosa, with each one drawing different groups to the polls who might also vote for the other Democrat. Most polls have Talarico and Abbott ahead in their respective races. However, yesterday's Siena poll has Hinojosa ahead of Abbott 49-46. If Talarico and Hinojosa win, it will be a political earthquake. If Alaska, Iowa, and Texas turn blue, that is the end of the Republican Party as we now know it. But we'll believe it on Nov. 4. Not before.
  
  
• Wisconsin: Gov. Tony Evers (D-WI) is eligible to run for a third term but decided that two is plenty. The Democratic gubernatorial primary was wild and woolly, with candidates dropping in and out like flies. In the end, Milwaukee County Executive David Crowley got the Democratic nomination and will face the very Trumpy Rep. Tom Tiffany (R-WI). Tiffany has backed Trump's trade war with Canada, which is not popular with the state's farmers. Wisconsin is always on the edge and it could go either way.

There you have it. All we can say for sure is that we're less than a month from Election Day, and it's going to be a wild one. (V)

Previous | Next

Main page for smartphones