Sunday Mailbag

Some weeks, we get a broad variety of letters. Some weeks, a handful of subjects dominate the mailbag. This week is in the latter category.

Politics: This Week in TrumpWorld

P.R. in Havertown, PA, writes: I've been struck by the recent attention to the successful Artemis II mission, and what it reveals about the tone-deaf messaging of the Donald Trump administration.

I've always been a huge supporter of America's commitment to space exploration. Still, I approached Artemis II with some trepidation. It's hard to fully embrace national achievements when they come alongside what I see as ongoing failures that undermine American values—whether that's aggressive immigration enforcement, the unprovoked conflict with Iran, or the dismantling of scientific infrastructure and international partnerships.

And yet, I couldn't help but be drawn in. The beauty of the images, the charisma and diversity of the crew, and the genuine sense of scientific progress made it impossible not to feel a sense of pride. That's exactly why the political response feels so jarring. This was a rare, almost effortless opportunity for a genuinely unifying national moment.

Instead, it feels like it was squandered. By shifting attention toward conflict abroad, Trump effectively pulled focus from one of the few clear American successes. That's particularly striking given that the Artemis program itself dates back to his first administration—meaning this was a success he could have easily embraced.

Rather than capitalizing on that moment, the success of Artemis II now reads as an exception—one that only throws the broader failures of the current administration into sharper relief.

I had a similar reaction to U.S. successes in the Olympics. Those moments should have been easy wins—opportunities to celebrate excellence and unity—but were instead undercut by rhetoric that made them feel smaller. I've had the same concern looking ahead to the World Cup and the 2028 Summer Olympics. At this point, though, I'm less worried. If anything, these events will likely highlight the contrast even more clearly—and I suspect Trump will once again find ways to diminish himself in the comparison.

---

R.P. in Kāneʻohe, HI, writes: In your answer to the question from P.Y. in Watertown about whether our once-friendly international trade partners would either hold out for a new Democrat-led administration or move on, you wrote: "However, while one Trump election could be a fluke, two of them is a pattern."

One of my mantras (I'm sure I'm not the first to come up with this) is: "Once is an anomaly; twice is a coincidence; three times is a pattern." While I'm not sure one could discount Trump's second election as a "coincidence," I'm also not sure it quite rises to the level of "pattern" yet. Like millions of Americans, I was extremely relieved when Joe Biden won the 2020 election—but I was also very concerned that it wasn't a massive landslide win. It was clear to me that the country had not collectively acknowledged the dangers of someone like Trump sufficiently enough to convince me (and the world) that the first Trump win was genuinely an anomaly. In that context, I think the second Trump win represents a "potential" pattern, which means that the rest of the world has essentially put the United States on "probation." If the winner of the 2028 presidential election is in the Trumpy realm, we will definitely have demonstrated a "pattern," thereby violating probation, leading the rest of the world to abandon us for the foreseeable future.

If the next president is a Democrat, we will remain on probation for a period of time inversely correlated with the margin of victory. If the margin is something like that of Biden in 2020, we're probably looking at decades (i.e., multiple consecutive presidential terms) of continued probation. But if the results are something akin to the 1984 re-election of Reagan, we may be able to accelerate our redemption. While I long-ago abandoned any aspirations of making predictions about U.S. politics, I do have a vague sense that recent actions by Trump, and how the U.S. populace (particularly many in the "influencer" tribe previously aligned with MAGA) is reacting to those actions, leave open the possibility of a genuinely massive landslide in 2028. While I'm certainly not optimistic (yet), I'm still clinging to that hopey, changey stuff.

---

R.W. in Brooklyn, NY, writes: If I were you, I wouldn't be so quick to imagine/hope that Pam Bondi will be disbarred at all, much less promptly. Don't forget, it's California that disbarred John Eastman. Florida is a very different story. They have already refused three times to even open an investigation, much less conduct an actual disciplinary proceeding, and most recently the Florida Supreme Court backed them up on that. I don't see any reason that it would be different this time.

And while I have your attention, please let me commend (again) Lawyers Defending American Democracy (LDAD), the group leading the charge on bringing corrupt Trump attorneys to justice. They were instrumental in taking down Eastman, among others, and are hot on Bondi's trail.

---

G.W. in Oxnard, CA, writes: I worked as a civilian engineer for the Navy for 32 years, and in all that time I was aware that a core mission of the Navy was free and unfettered access to the seas. Now the U.S. is threatening to fire on civilian shipping in the Strait of Hormuz, potentially causing an ecological catastrophe. I'm left wondering, "What the hell was I doing for 32 years?"

---

E.H. in South Burlington, VT, writes: This morning I found this entry in my great-great-great grandfather's diary (Hollis Hunnewell from Wellesley):

April 29, 1898. Another political and most unexpected sensation has just come upon us, I am sorry to say, in the shape of a declaration of war with Spain; and what makes it all the more mortifying and painful to some of us is the fact that it is made by a Republican President who had just assured the country that he was determined to preserve peace were it possible to do so. That we should be induced to engage in a war with a nation thousands of miles distant from us without a sufficient cause is indeed a melancholy fact, when we recollect that it is only a little more than thirty years ago that we engaged at home in a civil war costing us hundreds of millions of dollars and the sacrifice of the lives of hundreds and thousands of our young population. And yet, while we are continually boasting of our advanced civilization, we jump into another war, which is regarded by many of our wisest and best citizens as not only unnecessary, but unwarranted; one can come to no other conclusion, I think, than that foreign wars will never cease and that even another civil war is not improbable one of these days.

Politics: Donald Trump, Uniter of the Faiths

M.L.-K. in Randolph, MA, writes: You wrote:

On the other hand, Steve Bannon praised Trump, saying: "It is good in that it gets more of his conservative Catholic base energized. President Trump is smart politically to do this." We fail to see how attacking the pope energizes the conservative Catholic base. Conservative Catholics are generally more religious than liberal Catholics and are less likely to be anti-pope.

I'm neither Catholic nor especially conservative, but if Bannon isn't just spouting copium, I suspect I understand what he might have been driving at.

My impression of the conservative Catholics whom I've interacted with is that, while they don't much like Trump, they're reliable single-issue voters on restricting abortion, or on other culture war issues that benefit Republicans. So I assume that Bannon is thinking that politically energized conservative Catholics will be reminded that the Republican Party is still the only option to vote for due to their pet issues.

Of course, that could well also backfire, if these folks instead decide that they can't in good conscience vote for *either* major party and stay home or vote third-party. At this point I'd hesitate to predict which scenario is more likely, but it's worth remembering that Bannon is himself a conservative Catholic and may in this case have a useful insight into that particular bloc.

---

M.J. in Oakdale, MN, writes: You wrote: "Conservative Catholics are generally more religious than liberal Catholics and are less likely to be anti-pope."

Having grown up liberal in a conservative Catholic family, I think (V) is off the mark here. While it's true that conservative Catholics are more religious, that does not equate to pro-pope. Instead, especially with American Catholics, since the reforms of Vatican II, fervent Catholics are more likely to evaluate the current Bishop of Rome against their own personal mores. As author Michael Novak wrote about Vatican II, "...to be a Catholic now meant to believe more or less anything one wished to believe, or at least in the sense in which one personally interpreted it... One could imagine Rome as a distant and irrelevant anachronism, embarrassment, even adversary."

So I have grown up with these family members adoring John Paul II (seen as moderately conservative), but highly dubious of Francis (viewed as liberal); supportive of Benedict XVI (conservative, and even undoing some of Vatican II), but currently unsure about Leo XIV.

They wouldn't speak ill of any pope, of course, but I think Bannon might not be as far off the mark as you think. Pew research polls seem to support my anecdotal experience.

Again, my experience is largely limited to white American Catholics, and I wouldn't extrapolate to the Latino community, who seem to have a significantly different cultural connection to the Church and the papacy.

---

E.R. in Padova, Italy, writes: In "Donald Trump, Uniter of Faiths," you wrote:

We understand that Trump fights whatever "enemy" he perceives, no matter who they might be. But the fact is that the best-case scenario for him here is that MAGA Catholics find a way they can support both their spiritual leader and their political leader, even despite the obvious bad behavior from Trump. We don't believe there is anyone who will say, "Well, I can't be a Catholic and also MAGA anymore, so I choose MAGA." We do believe there are people who might say, "Well, I can't be a Catholic and also MAGA anymore, so I choose the Church."

I quite agree with your take, but that's not so interesting. What's really interesting is that Italian politicians (and especially the conservative ones, who are quite attuned to their overwhelmingly Catholic base) also do.

The Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni was (is?) one of the most Trump-friendly European leaders (even if she was never personally MAGA), and said "I find President Trump's remarks about the Holy Father unacceptable... The Pope is the head of the Catholic Church, and it is right and proper that he call for peace and condemn all forms of war." As a consequence, yesterday Meloni got her share of Trump's complaints ("no longer the same person," "shocked by her. I thought she was brave, but I was wrong," "It's her who's unacceptable, because she doesn't care if Iran has a nuclear weapon and would blow up Italy in two minutes if it had the chance"). These comments about Meloni were then condemned by ALL Italian political parties, which is quite a feat.

---

J.T. in San Bernardino, CA, writes: You wrote: "We don't believe there is anyone who will say, 'Well, I can't be a Catholic and also MAGA anymore, so I choose MAGA.'"

This is very optimistic. I come from a large, Catholic, generally very conservative extended family. I have churchgoing uncles, aunts, and cousins who I have no doubt are, at this very moment, siding with Trump against the Pope.

While I don't think these uncles, aunts, and cousins will leave the Catholic church, I think there is evidence of a strong trend in white, middle-class, American Catholicism to say "the Pope is the vicar of Christ on Earth... except when he says something I disagree with politically." It was remarkable, when Francis first became pope, to see members of my family who had previously made much of the unbroken line of succession descended from Peter saying, "yeah but this pope, he's a little shaky."

---

L.E. in Putnam County, NY, writes: Beyond the 21st century, one of the best known quotes from St. Pius X (pope 1903-14) was from when World War I was breaking out and an Austro-Hungarian diplomat asked for blessing for their war effort: "I do not bless war, I bless peace." And that's a Pope used as an icon for conservatism.

It should be noted that some people apparently HAVE left the LDS Church when recent president Russell M. Nelson (1924-2025), a physician in his first career from 1947-84, said people should get vaccinated and they chose MAGA anti-vaxxism.

---

A.B. in Amman, Jordan, writes: In "Donald Trump: Uniter of the Faiths," you made the common North American minor faux pas of framing Christianity as a Catholic-Protestant dichotomy. But while us Eastern Orthodox Christians may be a fairly small minority in the U.S., we are the second-largest Christian denomination globally, and we have a far longer history of getting slightly shirty with the Papacy than any Protestants. Just ask any Orthodox Christian what they think about the Fourth Crusade and the 1204 sack of Constantinople if you want to see someone get a bit worked up.

So, at the risk of seeming to talk for all 220-250 million Orthodox Christians around the world (we're a fairly diverse bunch ourselves), let me take a moment to assure you that we're just as disgusted with that whole "Trump as Jesus healer" AI slop nonsense as any of our Catholic and Protestant brethren.

Donald Trump's unifying approach to religion isn't just bridging the theological rifts of the Reformation... at this rate, he might even get around to ending the Great Schism of AD 1054.

That said, we don't necessarily have a great recent track record ourselves over the whole "blessed are the peacemakers" and "turn the other cheek" bits of the Sermon on the Mount, what between Patriarch Kyrill of Moscow's wholehearted support of Russia's war in Ukraine and the Serbian Orthodox Church's slightly problematic record in Bosnia back in the 1990s. Maybe it's time to reflect on the section of the Sermon in Matthew 7:1-5.

---

R.M.S. in Lebanon, CT, writes: I read the item about Trump's insulting images of himself and comments about Pope Leo XIV. I think you, as well as a large number of Americans, are making mountains out of molehills on this particular matter. I will concede his comments and image are blasphemous to many. But so what if it is? Even if you conclude blasphemy is a moral crime, it must fall under the category of victimless crime. Who is really hurt financially or physically by these comments or images?

One of my big problems with the United States is how many people here get their panties in a twist over victimless crimes. Blasphemy, porn, adult prostitution and transgender identities are all things that seem to enrage large segments of the population. As long as these things are done voluntarily, no one is victimized by them.

There are real victims in this country. How about the women who were trafficked and forced into sexual relations with Jeffrey Epstein? Or how about the kids who were sexually victimized by Christian clergy? Or how about the immigrants who were sent to a prison for several weeks with no trials and convictions, where they say they were abused? That one is probably the worst thing Donald Trump has done in his second term.

I would rather we focus on the people who are truly being harmed in this country.

(V) & (Z) respond: As White House Chief of Staff A.J. MacInerney observes in The American President, "the American people have a funny way of deciding on their own what is and what is not their business." We write about politics around here, and we don't get to choose which things impact public opinion. We just write about them when they do.

---

D.A.Y. in Troy, MI, writes: Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth (and that is his legal job title, no matter how much he and Trump insist otherwise) has taken to calling the press "Pharisees" which is the latest chapter in the long book of Every Accusation is a Confession, from the Republican Party and Trump and his henchmen in particular.

The Pharisees, as presented in the Bible, were the basis of the modern Republican Christian nationalist. Their doctrines were hyper exclusionary, believing a certain level of piety and purity (as they defined them) was required to be in the good graces of God. Their disagreements with Jesus were that he presented a hyper inclusionary view of God, and palled around with just about all the kinds of people the Pharisees saw as undeserving of God's grace. I have long compared right-wing Christians to the Pharisees as they seem to take their view that salvation is for a select few and they somehow have a say in it.

This also continues to deepen the blasphemy coming out of this administration. This is an extension of "Trump is Jesus" garbage. And to compare a man who is prosecuting a war of choice and threatening war crimes to Jesus should be disgusting to anyone who claims to practice the Christian faith. Maybe Trump can try to make arrangements with Satan to build Trump Tower Hell.

---

C.P. in Fairport, NY, writes: I just read an opinion piece by Marina Hyde in The Guardian and this paragraph struck me as something you'd have written:

For now, perhaps we are living through the ideal conditions for an American break with Rome. When the English pulled the trigger on the Reformation, of course, they were ruled by a sociopathic malignant narcissist, who emptied his pram of toys when Rome didn't sign up to his obsession of the hour. He was also extremely given to kleptocracy, and couldn't really see a policy position without reconfiguring it as a material benefit to himself. I dunno: something feels familiar, I just can't put my finger on it.

---

M.T. in Lionville, PA, writes: This talk by Trump of promising in advance to pardon crimes seems a lot like the indulgences that the Catholic Church used to sell before sins were committed, annoying Martin Luther and contributing to the Protestant Reformation.

---

S.C. in Farmington Hills, MI, writes:

Politics: Worst... President... Ever

W.V. in Andover, MN, writes: In this week's questions:

D.S. in Fort Collins, CO, asks: At this point, I don't think there's any doubt that the current president is the worst in U.S. history. (If you disagree, I'd be curious to know why.) So my question is: When did this happen? What do you think pushed this president over into "undoubtedly worst ever" territory? And, I suppose, if you still think he's not quite met that standard, then what would it take?

(Z) answers: I was just discussing this with several colleagues, and we all agreed he is now the undisputed "worst ever," leaving even James Buchanan and Andrew Johnson in the dust. If I had to pick a moment where Trump became the undisputed champion, it would be when he commenced with the imperialistic foreign policy that included the killing of Venezuelan civilian fishermen, the invasion of Venezuela and toppling of its leader, and the Iran War. That said, I am open to the argument that Trump crossed that line upon the implementation of his city-invading "border security" policy in Los Angeles/Minneapolis/Chicago, or when he made an utter mockery of the emoluments clause with his crypto scams and Qatari jets and the like.

This one answer generated three responses for me:

1. Growing up, and into my early adult years, I thought Warren G. Harding had nearly universally captured that bottom ranking, but now he doesn't even place in the bottom three. I found it interesting, that outside of Trump, the failures going into and coming out of the Civil War now rank lower than the inept, scandal-ridden Harding.
   
   
2. I'm not sure if the Grover Cleveland terms of office are normally judged separately in ranking the presidents, but I generally thought we rated Cleveland in whole for the sum of both terms, which would set precedent for Donald Trump.
   
   
3. I had already rated Donald Trump as the worst president ever, simply based on his actions of 2017 through 2021. He may have secured it the night he did his walk-about from the White House and ended up holding a Bible upside down in his hand. He for certain secured the title of "Worst President" on 1/6. Nothing in his second term has elevated him in my eyes, but have merely cemented that status with the activities of DOGE and the emasculating of the federal government and its partners in the first year of this presidency, on top of the disastrous activities and scams of year two that you principally alluded to in your answer, (Z).

---

R.L.D. in Sundance, WY, writes: For me, Trump crossed over into "Worst President Ever" on 1/6, when he instigated a riot in an attempt to overthrow the government. Maybe that's just me, but all the terrible, terrible things he's done this term are redundant with respect to that question.

---

K.H. in Golden, CO, writes: Although I agree Trump has crossed over the "gray area" (see below) I disagree when he crossed.

First of all: the gray area. There is, as in so many things, not a line but a gray area. A person can cross into the gray area and then he's "maybe the worst." At some point, he either crosses back into "white" or moves forward until he is definitely in the "black" and is the worst. That's my way of looking at it.

For my money, when tRump separated children from their parents and put them in cages during his first administration, he crossed into the gray area. Some people probably think that is the final line... but this is all opinion anyway so I won't go further. When tRump incited an insurrection on 1/6 he crossed out of the gray area, into the black, and he became the worst president ever, for me.

That's my 2 cents on this line-crossing matter.

Politics: Trump vs. Electoral-Vote.com

R.T. in Arlington, TX, writes: I had a chuckle about your explanation of why you would not be sued by Trump, et al., for your coverage and commentary. Taking nothing away from your legal and intellectual skill reasoning, I would add a practical reason that Electoral-Vote.com is in civil litigation parlance "judgment proof," meaning the site does not own enough assets to be worth anyone's effort to try to take. One of my personal adages is "There are two kinds of people in the world that you shouldn't threaten, the kind that have everything to lose and the kind that have nothing to lose." Electoral-Vote.com is in the latter category.

---

J.C. in Oakton, VA, writes: (Z) wrote, "I think it is unlikely that anyone in the administration is following this site." I can tell you with certainty that there are people I know of within this administration that do follow the site—more on this below.

I had the privilege to serve as a Department of Defense congressional fellow late in my career. For those who don't know, the program assigns a service member to work as a staffer for a member of Congress. In any given year, about 60 individuals serve in offices of both parties in both the House and the Senate. The intent of the program is to expose service members to the highest levels of strategic decision-making prior to moving into key roles as senior officers, often in the Pentagon. I worked for a House appropriator on the Defense Subcommittee—it was an absolutely amazing experience.

In general, the cohort maintains a very tight bond throughout their year on the Hill. The "Fellows Network" is very powerful and is used to exchange information, write bills, obtain co-sponsorships, etc. Early on, I shared this site with my colleagues—most of them found it to be of extreme value in both navigating the atmospherics of the Hill and to gain insight on the true politics of the moment. I also shared this with many professional staff members and even my member of Congress who, in turn, shared it with their counterparts on both sides of the aisle—information is a truly bipartisan currency on the Hill.

Once fellows retire or otherwise leave the service, many of them often end up working as staffers in Congress or, in this case, within the administration; members often develop a close bond with their fellows and thus opportunities follow. Once they accept these roles, they take Electoral-Vote.com with them.

I know, long-winded. But there are most definitely people in this administration, and 100% working on the Hill, that read your site, as I do, daily.

All Politics Is Local

M.L. in West Hartford, CT, writes: The question of whether Tom Steyer was the one who outed Eric Swalwell—and, if so, whether his motives were altruistic or sleazy—is a perfect encapsulation of what moral fundamentalists, with their Bibles, Torahs, and Korans, fail to understand. Because the truth is that it's both! What Steyer did (allegedly) was both altruistic and sleazy. We may never know what his motivations truly were, but it is a fact that this act was both a blow for the #MeToo cause and a triumph for the Steyer campaign. Those of us who wish to strive for a moral path must grapple with these shades of gray, and leave behind the black and white simplicities of faith or ideology.

---

E.F. in Baltimore, MD, writes: Sometimes, there is an overlap between public good and personal gain. If Eric Swalwell's misbehavior was an open secret in the back rooms of Washington, and if the leak was Tom Steyer's doing, Steyer was presented with a choice:

1. Do nothing. Arguably the less moral choice for Swalwell's victims, plus the risk that no Democrat would make it to the jungle primary's final round, or worse, allow Swalwell's opponent in that final round to go public with the story, putting a Trump lapdog into the governor's mansion. Failing that, ending up with the ticking time bomb of a Governor Swalwell.
   
   
2. Go public with the news. Isn't that what the primary campaign is intended to do? Thoroughly vet the candidates? And if Steyer calculated that attaching his name to the leak would alienate Swalwell's former supporters, increasing the fragmentation within the Democratic field and guaranteeing an all-GOP final, was he wrong to keep his fingerprints off the leak?

The real question is how a man like Swalwell ever got this far in the first place. Maybe someone should ask Trump that question.

---

S.C. in Mountain View, CA, writes: While the special election to fill the vacancy in CA-14 created by Eric Swalwell's resignation will be held on August 18, that's not the whole story. That is the date of the special general election (also known as a special runoff election), should one be necessary. The special primary will be held on June 16th (two weeks after the regular statewide primary election). If one of the candidates in the special primary election gets a majority of the vote, they are elected and no special general election is held. But if none of the candidates receives a majority of the vote, then the top two vote-getters will face each other on August 18th. (This two-round runoff process is different from the top-two general election process, where the top two vote-getters in the primary face each other in November, even if one of them receives a majority of the vote in the primary.)

The following gets a bit wonky, but we're all wonks at Electoral-Vote.com, right? California law controls the timing of special elections to fill vacancies. The Governor has 14 days from when the vacancy occurs to issue a proclamation calling for a special election to fill the vacancy, including the date of that election. The election has to take place on a Tuesday at least 126 days but not more than 140 days following the date of the proclamation, except that it can occur within 200 days following the date of the proclamation if that will allow the special primary election or the special general election to take place at the same time as some other election already scheduled that includes some or all of the jurisdiction having the special election. The special primary election is then scheduled to take place on the 9th Tuesday, or in special cases the 10th Tuesday, before the special general election.

Thus, when Doug LaMalfa (CA-01) died on January 6th of this year, Governor Newsom was able to proclaim on January 16th (with four days to spare) that the special general election would take place on August 4th, allowing the special primary election to take place on June 2nd, the same date as the statewide primary election. The special primary contest for CA-01 will be on the same ballot as and just prior to the regular primary contest for CA-01.

However, when Eric Swalwell (CA-14) resigned on April 14th, it was too late for the Governor to schedule the special election so that the special primary could be held on June 2nd. If Newsom issued the proclamation the same day Swalwell resigned (which he did), then the earliest he could schedule the special election would be August 18th (which he did), which put the special primary election on June 16th.

Since vote-by-mail (VBM) ballots are mailed to each voter beginning about 30 days before the election, there will be about a 16-day period prior to the June 2nd election where CA-14 voters will have both ballots in their possession. Unless the Alameda County Registrar of Voters makes it clear on the external envelopes and internal return envelopes which one is for which election, I'm concerned some voters will return the wrong ballot in the wrong envelope or at the wrong time. (Note to self: Bring this to the attention of the Chair of the Alameda County Elections Commission.)

It's too bad the Swalwell revelations didn't occur at least 2 weeks earlier than they did.

---

R.S. in Absecon, NJ, writes: I am a long-time resident of NJ-11, and my wife happens to be a co-executive director of NJ 11th for Change, the grassroots advocacy group that was essential in forcing the resignation of Rodney Frelinghuysen ahead of the 2018 election.

NJ-11 was historically a red district that was a mix of some New York City suburbs (Essex County), but then contained further afield towns in Morris County that also draw a lot of their constituency from the Picatinny Arsenal and surrounding defense-industrial complex associated businesses. A Frelinghuysen was actually in elected office in this area dating back to 1790 (until Rodney's resignation), they have a town named after their family (Frelinghuysen Township) and a large arboretum in the area (Frelinghuysen Arboretum). So this was an old-school, well entrenched political dynasty.

The 2018 election became an open seat that was won by now-Gov. Mikie Sherrill (D-NJ) in what represented the largest congressional swing in the country that year, turning this purplish-red district blue, driven by grassroots advocacy groups and a strong suburban resistance to the Trump administration. In 2020, there was a redistricting that made NJ-11 more blue (and partially leading to the flip of NJ-7 to red, with Tom Kean Jr. replacing Tom Malinowski). This included the removal of rural communities in Sussex County.

So the story is partly that NJ-11 has only recently gone from red to purple to blue, but it's also the change from Sherrill (who was generally center-left, particularly in Congress, and has a strong military background) to now-Congresswoman Analilia Mejia (D), who is the former director of the New Jersey Working Family Alliance. This is a significant swing leftwards and a dramatic swing from the history of this district.

---

S.G. in Newark, NJ, writes: As a former resident of NJ-11, maybe I can shed some light on it. No, the district was not basically blue but held in the red column by the once-popular Rodney Frelinghuysen.

Historically, the district centered around mostly wealthy and white Morris County. Bedminster, for example, is in NJ-11. The district has also included parts of Essex County (especially its western edge, much wealthier and whiter than, say, Newark) and parts of counties west and north (more rural).

The district was Republican, but it was northeastern Republican—against taxes and regulations, but committed to conservative Christian views on social issues. Frelinghuysen was a good fit, and was in Congress so long he became chair of the Appropriations Committee. One would think that a district would be loath to unseat such a Comgressman.

So what happened in 2018, when the district swung from a 19-point Republican win to a 15-point Democratic win? One word that is really four: SALT. The limitation on deductions for State and Local Taxes in Donald Trump's first signature tax act hit this district hard in the wallet. An activist group called NJ 11th for Change (with lots of members from the smidgen of the district located in liberal Montclair) mobilized around the issue. As the complaints grew louder, Frelinghuysen began avoiding his constituents, refusing even to hold town halls. Eventually, he called off his reelection campaign.

That created an open seat, and the Democratic Party found the perfect candidate in Mikie Sherrill: youngish, female, pro-union, pro-choice, centrist, veteran. I canvassed for Sherrill in that first campaign, which was thought to be a nail biter. Doubting myself as I walked up to home after home with Gold Star, POW-MIA, or VFW flags, one person after another opened the door and said, "The fighter pilot, right?" Sherrill ran a GREAT campaign.

Her margin narrowed in the Presidential election year of 2020, with Trump on the ballot. Afterward, with Sherrill in the House and redistricting needed, the district boundaries shifted to exclude some Republican-leaning areas and include some Democratic-leaning ones. The result shows in your chart of the election results.

---

J.K. in Short Hills, NJ, writes: I live in NJ-11 and I voted. Yes, Mejia won comfortably, but I disagree that the election is indicative of anything but the unfortunate binary state of our two party system, which has most people merely voting for the letter next to a candidate's name. A freshly minted Squad membership card will be waiting for Mejia upon her arrival in Washington; however, the district is purplish.

The bigger story of NJ-11 is that rank-and-file Democrats in the district appear to be unapologetically falling in-line behind Meija and—for now—will not primary her in June ahead of the November midterms which, for the large mass of those who sit right-of-center through left-of-center on the political spectrum, is highly disappointing and disheartening. She would otherwise be very much at risk in June as she would not benefit from ten other candidates dividing up the moderate vote as they did in the February primary. Meija will therefore likely have the seat as long as she wants it unless she misreads her victory as a stepping stone to punch beyond her reach and go for statewide office or she gets gerrymandered out by (ironically) Democrats after the 2030 census. In 2020, Tom Malinowski was sacrificed for then-Rep. Mikie Sherrill, who was presciently viewed as more of a rising star, to hold on to her seat when NJ-11 was even more of a toss-up.

---

T.B. in Nowata, OK, writes: I previously wrote to say that Oklahoma could be a possible Senate flip. Well, scratch that off. I had hoped a prestigious, popular former office holder, perhaps Brad Carson or Brad Henry, might enter the race. It did not happen. So likely another horrid Senator from Oklahoma.

Cesar Chavez... and George Washington

J.L. in Richmond, VA, writes: Ok, look, I understand that a slave owner can't possibly be a "good" person, but I think it's a bit murkier than the picture you presented in your response. George Washington was more than just ambivalent about slavery as he actually freed all the slaves he had the legal authority to free in his will (well, upon the death of his wife). He's also, as historians are wont to say, "a man of his time," in the sense that he was born into slave-owning Virginian society and, being an ambitious person, wanted to marry into a prominent Virginian family. This probably, without exception, would've led to a situation where his wife's family owned slaves. The number of 18th-century upper-class Virginian abolitionists has to be a pretty small number, so we are left to conclude that people overwhelmingly succumbed to the social and political pressures of the age and accepted slavery as a fact of life. Washington was one of these people, but we can at least say that at the end of his life, he had a change of heart when he freed his slaves, at a time when basically no one else around him did (including his own family). He tried to set a good example for other prominent Virginians, to follow the path toward greater human freedom that the northern states were following at the time by phasing out slavery as an institution. So we can say that Washington was a slaveholder, but an atypical one, or one might say an extraordinary one for his time, as none of the other prominent Virginian presidents followed his example.

I would venture to say that the best and most important thing Washington did in his lifetime was voluntarily relinquish the presidency after two terms in power, to set an example for the country and the world that power belongs not to a single individual, or to blood, but to the people, if an imperfectly small subsection of the people at the time. And he actually did this not just once, but twice, having already done it before at the end of the Revolutionary War in 1783, when he could've established himself as a kind of dictator as the victorious general, probably for life. Our American Cincinnatus returned to private life, puzzling monarchs the world over, including the British king who is said to have remarked "if he does that, he will be the greatest man in the world."

I know as a historian, you are familiar with the idea that we shouldn't judge people by today's standards as I've observed you making this argument yourself in the 20 years I've read your work. I think also as a historian, you probably resist the idea of funneling historical people into "good" and "bad" camps, because people are complicated and often don't fit neatly in either. But I've always thought, despite Washington not measuring up to our standards today, in many ways Washington was certainly a "good" man by the best standards of his day, and did at least one "good" thing (in setting an example of voluntarily relinquishing power) that has been felt across the ages, to this very day.

---

R.L.D. in Sundance, WY, writes: I agree that Sens. John Cornyn (R-TX) and Mike Lee (R-UT) do not have anybody's best interests at heart, other than their own electoral future, and I agree with Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-NM) that there is still historical value in the current Chavez National Monument site, such that a re-imagining is the appropriate response.

This is essentially what has happened at what is now called the Little Bighorn Battlefield National Monument. What was once a memorial to George Custer and his 7th Cavalry is now a much more even-handed depiction of the tragedy that befell both sides (The Cavalry's immediate defeat and the Native people's ultimate loss of their sacred Black Hills). And while I do certainly think taking down statues of notable Confederate generals and politicians is the right thing to do, I also think there is still educational value in having something for people to see that encourages discussion of why the statues were put up in the first place and why they needed to be taken down. Let's have a discussion about the intimidation of folks in the minority these statues embody. Let's talk about the propriety of revering people who were, in fact, traitors to the country we all claim to love. I don't think they need to be up on pedestals in the public square, but they should be somewhere, say a museum display with explanations of the controversy and why taking them down was the correct choice. We certainly don't want to celebrate these men and their deeds, but we also very much don't want to sweep them under the rug either.

---

S.R. in Paradise, CA, writes: An interesting anecdotal sidebar to your "California Gambit" piece. I am a graduate of David Starr Jordan Junior High, in Burbank, CA. A rather conservative community, at the time of my attending there, but with a healthy share of Latino citizens.

On a recent return visit to my hometown, I passed by my old school and noticed it had been renamed the Dolores Huerta Middle School.

A brick and mortar manifestation of Freudenfreude.

---

Z.L. in Bloomington, IN, writes: Wow, those last few paragraphs of "This Week in Freudenfreude: The California Gambit?" took my breath away! That's exactly the sort of simple, real action we need to be doing to help real people (instead of demonizing them).

I was reminded of the series of terrific detective novels by Anne Hillerman that take place in the Navajo Nation (continuing the series begun by her father Tony), but that deal honestly and sensitively with the deep Navajo culture but also their difficulties and interactions with modern America. Much of the latest book, Shadow of the Solstice, deals with the devastating results of substance abuse among Native Americans and the frankly appalling response by those expected to help. (I realize there would be some poetic license to make the stories have more impact, but Hillerman cites sources that describe the sorts of things that actually happen.) There are plenty of other issues: exploitation of resources, theft and destruction of cultural artifacts, pollution, poverty, unemployment, etc., not to mention the historical atrocities committed by the U.S. government.

My takeaway is that if we were serious about helping people who truly need help, who we as a society have ignored or actively beaten down, here is an opportunity to maybe start atoning for those sins: start with universal healthcare and substance abuse treatment available to any member of a native community. I'd also like to see free or subsidized access to basic infrastructure for power (solar: a no-brainer in the sun-drenched Southwest), water, etc.

Would it really be more expensive than unnecessary wars and unending grift by senior administration officials? I don't think this would be taken seriously today, though that legislation in the PRC (People's Republic of California) does give me a faint glimmer of hope.

---

R.N. in Cleveland, OH, writes: Both Assemblymen are Republicans. Thank you for this story. It gives me hope for the future that not all Republicans are corrupt and self serving like Donald Trump.

The Sporting Life

D.K. in Chicago, IL, writes: The question from R.L. in Alameda regarding local sports teams blackouts hit home for me and many other Chicago hockey fans. To add to the discussion, there is also the complication of whether the local sports broadcasts are carried by one's cable provider or whether one must purchase still another subscription package (like I would now have to do) or even subscribe to a different streaming service. The Babylon Bee humorously pointed out how far this absurdity could go: "Every Inning Of Baseball Game Aired On Different Streaming Service."

---

J.M. in Boulder, CO, writes: In Colorado, the rights to Colorado Avalanche and Denver Nuggets games belong to Altitude Sports and are blacked out on other networks. On DirecTV, Altitude is in the very highest tier of channels, so add more than $100 to a subscriber's monthly bill. Even worse, DirecTV and Altitude have been locked in a rate dispute since 2019, so the channel is not currently available at any price. The only way to legally see the games is to subscribe to Altitude's streaming service for around $20 per month, or $200 per year. As you noted, this is keeping a lot of viewers from watching. My kids pirate the Avalanche games, but for me, it is just not worth the trouble.

---

P.D.N. in Boardman, OH, writes: I was pretty surprised Bob Feller didn't make your draft of pitchers. Any reason? Third all-time in strikeouts. No-hitters in 1940, '46, and '51. 12 one-hitters, still a record. 8 time all-star. 82.6 winning percentage.

---

S.K. in Bethesda, MD, writes: I definitely take Bob Gibson before Bert Blyleven, Warren Spahn, Gaylord Perry or Nolan Ryan. He didn't rack up quite as many wins, but not by a lot—and his winning percentage and ERA were far better, they literally changed the mound because of him, and he is definitely a contender for the answer to the "if you had to pick one pitcher for a game your life depended on" question.

---

J.E. in San Jose, CA, writes: The last year of regular Topps packs having gum was 1991. Some packs were tested without gum, wrapped in plastic instead of wax, if I remember correctly. There are exceptions since then, but the base Topps set has not had gum in packs since.

You used to be able to buy Bazooka by itself and redeem some number of the included comics with a check or money order to receive a complete set of Topps cards. I did this in 1989 and 1990.

(V) & (Z) respond: True, but when (Z) was in his prime baseball-card-buying years, Topps was seen as uncool, and the "cool" cards were Donruss and Fleer. So, those were nearly all of his purchases after 1984 or so.

Gallimaufry

J.G. in Covington, KY, writes: You wrote about the phenomenon of people copycatting funerary bagpipes. While this is obviously the case, you missed an important point. The widespread use of "Amazing Grace" on bagpipes appears to date back to June 4, 1982. It certainly wasn't something that happened before that date in any state I've ever lived in, though it is ridiculously common now.

Why that date, specifically? It was the day Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan was released. In case anyone has forgotten, Spock dies in the movie and his funeral is held at the end... where Commander Scott plays "Amazing Grace" on the bagpipes. While I'm sure they were copying something else (East Coast police funerals, perhaps?), it was that scene that appears to have put the idea in the American consciousness nationwide.

---

T.B. in Santa Clara, CA, writes: Did you see the New York Times article on April 7th about the Artemis II mission? Seems like the author might love dachshunds:

TODAY'S NUMBER 252,756—That's how many miles the Artemis II astronauts were from Earth last night. It's a big number. Our writer Evan Gorelick offers a few points of comparison.

Wiener dogs: If you took 22-inch dachshunds and laid them nose to tail, you'd need a very cooperative pack of almost 728 million dogs to cover the distance. It would be tough: There are only around 900 million dogs, of any breed, in existence.

Walking a dog: If you took one of the dachshunds on a brisk 3-mile-per-hour walk, you'd need to walk for more than 84,000 hours to get there. That translates to nearly 10 years of continuous walking. (If the dog let out a celebratory bark upon arrival, and if sound could travel through space, it would reach Earth around 14 days later.)

---

K.H. in Albuquerque, NM, writes: I thought (Z) would appreciate learning that other dachshunds are picking up the political flag left by Otto and Flash's passing. Gabe Vasquez (D-NM) is sending his critters out on the campaign trail with these images appearing in his e-mail blasts:

---

L.H. in Chicago, IL, writes: On Thursday, you wrote, of the National Popular Vote Compact potentially reaching the necessary number of EVs: "Of course, if that happens, our raison d'être vanishes and we would have to pack up our tent and move on..."

The site has changed much since 2004, and especially since the two Trump terms. The electoral vote map is nowhere near as important as the news roundup and commentary. And if you must maintain a map, it could always be for Senate races, which happen every two years, not four.

Please, don't go.

---

S.W. in San Jose, CA, writes: If the National Popular Vote Compact goes into effect just change electoral-vote.com to popular-vote.com and carry on. You can't get out of this that easily. You started this now you're stuck with us.

(V) & (Z) respond: For the record, that was definitely just a joke.

Final Words

B.D. in Miami, FL, writes: Eugene O'Neill, whose journey started at the Barrett House Hotel in New York, and ended at the Sheraton Hotel in Boston: "I knew it! I knew it! Born in a hotel room and, goddamn it, dying in a hotel room."

If you have suggestions for this feature, please send them along.

---

Previous report         Next report

---

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