Electoral-vote.com

Strongly Dem (42)
Likely Dem (3)
Barely Dem (2)
Exactly tied (0)
Barely GOP (1)
Likely GOP (3)
Strongly GOP (49)
No Senate race

This date in 2022 2018 2014

New polls:

Dem pickups : (None)

GOP pickups : (None)

Iran Is Ready to Escalate Over Hormuz
Trump Reveals Lindsey Graham’s Last Words to Him
Zelensky Sets Up New Unit to Strike Deep Inside Russia

Ask Political Wire: Why Are Republicans Resisting Trump?
Grahams Death Leaves Senate Agenda in Limbo
Graham Laughed Off Iran Putting Bullseye On His Head

TODAY'S HEADLINES (click to jump there; use your browser's "Back" button to return here)

• Lindsey Graham Is Dead
• Sunday Mailbag

Lindsey Graham Is Dead

The news broke very late last night, so details are obviously scarce and subject to revision. However, after what is being described as a "brief and sudden illness," Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) reportedly died yesterday at the age of 71.

In a somewhat eerie coincidence, given the deathwatch currently focused on Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY), Graham suffered a cardiac arrest at his residence in Washington. He was taken by ambulance to a nearby hospital, and was declared dead on his arrival there.

Graham was in good enough health that he was scheduled to appear on Meet the Press this morning. And on Friday, he was in Ukraine meeting with Volodymr Zelenskyy. Long plane flights and blood clots can certainly go hand-in-hand, so, in the absence of details, it's fair to wonder if the Friday plane flight and the Saturday coronary are related.

Obituaries are a time to reflect on a person's career, and when we consider Graham's, we do not think history's judgment will be kind. He had become one of the biggest show horses in the Senate (probably in competition with Ted Cruz, R-TX, for top honors), and tended only to introduce "message" legislation, like the Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act of 2025 and the No Retaining Every Gun In a System That Restricts Your Rights Act. Even when he got a bill passed, it tended to be "show" legislation, such as the Laken Riley Act.

Meanwhile, the thing that you really think of first when you think of Graham is that he was a political chameleon, one who shifted positions in a fashion that was usually ham-fisted, and often quite rapid, based on the way the political winds were blowing. Most obviously, when Donald Trump first ran for president, Graham famously slurred him as a "jackass" and a "race-baiting, xenophobic, religious bigot," and said that "If we nominate Trump, we will get destroyed...and we will deserve it." Of course, once Trump took control of the GOP, Graham became one of his most subservient lapdogs (and it is Graham who sponsored the bill that would, if passed, lavish money on Trump's "won't cost taxpayers a dime" ballroom).

In contrast to the (potential) mess in Kentucky, Graham's seat won't be vacant for long. According to the South Carolina law governing Senate vacancies, Gov. Henry McMaster (R-SC) will pick someone to take Graham's place on an interim basis. The National Conference of State Legislatures claims that South Carolina is one of the states that requires the governor to pick from a list submitted by the legislature, but we can find no confirmation of that anywhere else, including in the actual South Carolina civic codes. In any event, McMaster is going to appoint a Republican, and probably a placeholder Republican, to avoid influencing the upcoming election. Nikki Haley seems a plausible option, unless she's so radioactive in the Palmetto State that McMaster wants nothing to do with her.

Whoever McMaster chooses, he's going to choose fast, so the GOP is not down another vote in the Senate (in addition to McConnell's). By law, that person can serve until January 3 of next year. However, given that there is a regular U.S. Senate election scheduled for November, it is likely that as part of the deal, the appointee will agree to resign as soon as their successor's victory is certified. This lets the new senator get a running start on both the job and on seniority. The most recent example here is Laphonza Butler, who reigned her appointed post on December 8, 2024, so that Sen. Adam Schiff (D-CA) could assume the seat immediately.

A bit more tricky is the process of replacing Graham as his party's nominee for the upcoming regular Senate election. He was not wildly popular, having taken just over 56% of the vote in his primary earlier this year, and the South Carolina GOP is somewhat divided. South Carolina law governing primary vacancies says that the filing period for candidates will open the second Tuesday after the nominee's "death, disqualification, or... resignation," and then will close the Tuesday after that, and then a special primary election will be held the second Tuesday after the filing deadline. That means that candidates for the nomination can formally file their paperwork between July 21 and 28, and then the special primary will be held on August 11.

But remember, South Carolina is a Southern state, and like most Southern states, it has a rule that the winner of any election has to get at least 50% of the vote plus one. Even when a sitting senator was on the ballot, there were four challengers. You have to imagine that wannabe senators will come out of the woodwork, now that the nomination has been plunged into chaos (just like what's happening in Maine). And so, there will probably be a runoff, which would take place on August 25.

And who might toss their hat into the ring? We are hardly dialed in to South Carolina politics, but it's probable that Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC), who will be out of a job come January, will take a shot. She's got a huge ego, and will probably convince herself that her distant fifth-place finish in this year's SC gubernatorial primary was just a fluke or fake news or something. Given what's happening in Maine, where nearly every one of this year's failed gubernatorial candidates is now going to take a bite at the Senate apple, it seems fair to assume that Lt. Gov. Pamela Evette, who lost the South Carolina gubernatorial nomination in a runoff, will jump in, too. Third-place finisher Rep. Ralph Norman (R-SC) and fourth-place finisher Rom Reddy, who can self-fund (good!) but is brown (not good!, at least in SC) are possibilities, as well.

Beyond Mace and Norman, the state's House delegation has four other Republicans, and any of them might try for a promotion. They are Reps. Joe Wilson, Sheri Biggs, William Timmons and Russell Fry. That said, you can probably cross Wilson off the list. He's 78, which is a little long in the tooth to start a Senate career, especially when you're trying to replace a guy who just died of a heart attack at 71. Plus, Wilson is defending the least-red district of the four, at R+7, and might need to spend his time campaigning in his district, rather than traveling around the whole state. The other three, by contrast, are 56, 42, and 41, and represent districts that are R+12, R+11 and R+12, and so are safe even if they don't campaign. South Carolina does not have a resign-to-run law, and Senate seats there tend to come open once every generation or so. These things being the case, why not spend a few weeks taking your shot and seeing what happens? Even if it doesn't work out, campaigning statewide can build the foundation for a future promotion, like to governor. That is a job that, unlike the U.S. Senate seats, comes open at least once every 8 years in South Carolina.

Beyond those folks, we suppose it's possible that Haley will jump in, since she also has a giant ego and a tenuous sense of her own unpopularity. If she did jump in, that would presumably take appointment as the interim replacement off the table. Former governor Mark Sanford is also still alive, and is 66, which is at least a few years younger than 71. Entrepreneur Mark Lynch, who actually has some name recognition as the owner of/spokesperson for the Jeff Lynch Appliance Center, was the second-place finisher in the GOP U.S. Senate primary, with just shy of 30% of the vote, and might like another shot. The president of the South Carolina state Senate is Thomas Alexander, and the speaker of the South Carolina state House is Murrell Smith. Folks in those jobs often try to move over to the U.S. Congress, since they've pretty much reached the ceiling in their current jobs.

And despite the fact that we've spent three paragraphs listing 13 potential candidates, this is not an exhaustive list. Any of the statewide elected Republicans could declare, including Secretary of State Mark Hammond, State Treasurer Curtis M. Loftis Jr. and Commissioner of Agriculture Hugh E. Weathers. Project 2025 architect Paul Dans almost mounted a bid earlier this year, before deciding Graham was too tough an opponent. Former lieutenant governor André Bauer did the same song and dance as Dans. And at least one Wikipedia user had an interesting idea, right after the news broke:

The 2026 South Carolina Senate
race page has been edited to show the ghost of Strom Thurmond as the Republican candidate

We don't think that would be legal, though Thurmond is about as alive right now as he was for his last term in the Senate, so who knows. In any event, when an election is dangerously close to a crapshoot, and you only have to spend 2-4 weeks campaigning, it makes all the sense in the world to jump in and see where the cards fall. So, it could very well be even wilder and woollier than the race to replace the other Graham, up north.

And finally, if you squint your eyes very tightly, and look at this race very carefully, could the seat now be in play? South Carolina hasn't sent a Democrat to the U.S. Senate since 1998 (Fritz Hollings, then running for reelection to his sixth term). So, don't bet the rent money on it. That said, the Democratic candidate is already set—it's pediatrician Annie Andrews, who is pretty moderate, and seems to be a pretty good campaigner. She will be able to sit back and watch for a month or so while, presumably, a bunch of Republicans tear themselves from limb to limb.

Meanwhile, South Carolina's PVI is only R+8, because the state has so many Black voters. And right now, heading into what looks to be a wave year, Black voters are pissed. There was only one recent poll of the Graham vs. Andrews matchup, but it had the Senator leading by just 3 points, 48% to 45%. Again, just one poll, and on top of that, it was done by a Democratic pollster, so it should be taken with many grains of salt. That said, it's not completely out of line with the two much older polls of the race, one of which had Graham up by 5 (47% to 42%), and the other which had him up by 6 (42% to 36%).

It's hard to know if a non-Graham Republican will bleed a few points because they are not incumbent, or if they'll gain a few because they don't have Graham's baggage, or if those things will cancel each other out and they'll pull about the same numbers. Still, it is at least plausible that if the Republicans end up with a crazypants candidate—and short-in-duration, splintered primaries are the ideal breeding grounds for crazypants candidates—Andrews could make a real race of this thing.

The ideal thing for the GOP would be if the NRSC Chair, who just so happens to be South Carolina's other senator, Tim Scott (R), could step in, anoint the most electable candidate, and clear the field. Democratic voters hate that, but Republican voters don't mind so much. The problem here is that we doubt Scott has that kind of power, given the many giant egos involved and the enormous temptation presented by a de facto shortcut to the U.S. Senate.

In any event, we'll be watching closely, of course, just like we are watching events in Maine. We also can't even begin to imagine what the conspiracy theorists are going to do with this, though we have no doubt Laura Loomer is hard at work. Meanwhile, Senate Republicans (along with certain former Democratic senators from California) certainly are doing their part to argue for term limits these days. (Z & A)

Sunday Mailbag

The dominant theme of today's mailbag was two men who will not be U.S. Senators as of January 3, 2027, and maybe sooner than that.

Politics: This Week in TrumpWorld

J.A. of Austin, TX, writes: My wife and I finished our road trip this weekend, with our route taking us from Texas through Oklahoma, Missouri, Illinois, Wisconsin, Minnesota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas and back through Oklahoma and Texas over the course of nearly 2 weeks. It was on the second day that we saw that first Trump sign, though there were many other indications of the conservative tilt of the territory we were driving through (primarily through anti-abortion and ani-gay-marriage signage, as well as local primary candidate signs, like a bunch of Tom Tiffany signs once we got into WI). In the remainder of the trip, we saw only three other Trump signs, two flags (both in the same otherwise apparently unoccupied storefront), and a Trump billboard apparently paid for by the Oklahoma GOP... for his 2020 run. Yup, faded but still there. There was also a "This Is MAGA Country" sign, but I'm not sure how to count that one, since it gives them an exit ramp from supporting the Dear Leader explicitly.

On the other hand, there was a sign that seemed to have the iconography of a conservative sign—I nearly announced it as the second Trump sign before I read that it said "Republican Policies Hurt Everyone." And back in Texas, between Waco and home, was a blue billboard with white block letters that filled the entire sign, that just read "I will lower prices starting on Day One" with no attribution. Simple. Effective. Damning.

The last few days of the trip, American flags sprouted along roadsides in every small town we passed through.

So, the rural "heartland" had plenty of conservatism, Republicanism, and patriotism. Trumpism, not so much.

D.C., near the airport, USA, writes: I've been following this site since the very early days, well before I thought I'd get a chance to move to the U.S. I've lived in the U.S. for about 8.5 years now.

After Donald Trump was re-elected, my wife wanted the family to pack up and leave ASAP, but I pushed back, saying that there are a lot of checks on executive overreach, and that we should instead draw some red lines, so that if he crossed one, we'd know it was time to leave, and so we wouldn't be boiled alive by shifting perceptions of what's acceptable.

Well, he's crossed several red lines, and the water feels pretty hot.

He's ignored judicial orders, he's invaded cities with military and paramilitary forces, he's disappeared people... you know the list. We really didn't see "demolished one-third of the White House" coming.

So, at the end of last year, my family relocated back to Australia, while I stayed on to sell our house, and wind things up over here.

While I don't think any of my recent comments were published, I'd changed from signing them as "D.C. in Brentwood, CA" to "D.C. of no fixed address, USA," because, for the last 4 months, I've been road-tripping around the states, having now visited 46 states plus D.C. (no relation). I haven't seen too much of each place, but what I have seen is as heavily polarized as the media suggests. In many states, when people heard I'd been living in California, they thought that was a good reason to leave the country, due to what a hellhole they know California to be. They couldn't imagine fascism to be a reason, though I let them know.

Despite this, most of the people have been very nice, at least superficially, even when enough signal comes through to know they support the fascist party. I think it's worthwhile to remember that, for the most part, people are just living in their echo chambers, forming opinions by mere osmosis. I hope there's a way to break through that barrier and reach them.

I guess that's mostly a you problem now, as I'm flying out tonight, and I hope you're able to bring about a much-needed u-turn, back towards democracy.

I'll continue to follow from abroad.

K.B. in Oro Valley, AZ, writes: Loved the piece on Rob Reiner, but you left out the cherry on top. Reiner's last spoken words on a screen were (with regard to Trump): "we're fu**ed."

Don't think he'd have wanted it any other way.

S.K. in Sunnyvale, CA, writes: Another thing about the proposed Trump $250 bill, though this is more schadenfreude than anything else, I've read that in China, the number "250" is slang for idiot/fool/simpleton. Make of that what you will.

J.E. in Brooklyn, NY, writes: Trump's ultimate money shot:

M.S. in Canton, NY, writes: Every year, the Pantone Color Institute names the "Color of the Year." For 2026, I nominate Reflecting Pool Blue.

It's a shade of green.

Politics: Putting the "Con" in McConnell?

R.H. in San Antonio, TX (but formerly of KY), writes: Gov. Andy Beshear (D-KY) has lived and breathed politics since he was a child, and he has planned for Sen. Mitch McConnell's (R-KY) death or incapacity since winning the gubernatorial nomination in 2019. (Hell, his daddy probably had a plan when HE was governor.)

He knows what the Kentucky Constitution says about the governor filling Senate vacancies, he knows what the Republican supermajority General Assembly has done to try to rein him in, and he knows that standing up to the Republicans is his best route to the Democratic nomination for 2028.

He is a LOT better at this politics stuff than I will ever be, so I'm not certain what he will do, but I what I AM certain of is that he has a plan for this that involves some forceful action.

A.S. in Lenora Hills, CA, writes: You wrote:

As we are not physicians, we don't particularly like connecting the dots here. However, other folks online have begun to do so, so we think we should probably offer a heads up. The percentage of people who survive an at-home cardiac arrest is 6%. An even smaller percentage survive without long-term consequences, such as brain damage. At the same time, if someone on-scene commences CPR immediately, the odds of survival improve to 15-18%. Needless to say, we don't know for sure if it was really a cardiac arrest, or if there was CPR. But don't be terribly surprised if the news breaks over the weekend that McConnell is permanently incapacitated and won't return to work, or that he has passed away.

I am not a physician, but my partner is; My comments here are based on what she has told me in the past. Even if McConnell has no cognitive impairment and his heart is working okay, the CPR alone has probably left him bedridden, possibly for good.

It may surprise readers to learn that movie and television depictions of CPR differ greatly from reality. One does not get CPR and then jump up and run off to score the winning goal in the World Cup finals, or save the world from giant space spiders, or even stand for 24 hours giving a talking filibuster.

Properly administered CPR can break the sternum (breast bone) and/or ribs; it is considered an acceptable side effect of saving the victims's life. It takes many months for even a young healthy person to recover from the damage. Elderly people's bones are rather brittle, injury is almost guaranteed, and recovery is much longer. Someone of McConnell's age may never get out of bed again, solely from the damage caused by CPR.

So McConnell may be perfectly lucid, but very likely frail and bedridden. He may not have energy for more than a few phone calls with colleagues. McConnell's team may be stuck between a rock and a hard place. The optics of a bedridden turtle may be politically just as bad as remaining tight-lipped about it. For the moment at least, McConnell gets to hide in his shell and keep a little privacy and dignity.

To be clear, I'm in no way a fan of McConnell's, but I can understand the politics behind hiding his condition.

L.B. in Ashburn, VA, writes: J.L. in Albany asks:

Would Republicans (staffers, politicians, etc.) pretending that McConnell was alive and talking be violating any laws?

And you answered:

I think it would be difficult to find a crime to charge these people with. Certainly not one that would survive not only a grand jury but also a petit jury.

I disagree. There are a number of choices:

Abuse of Corpse: A person is guilty of abuse of a corpse when, except as authorized by law, he intentionally treats a corpse in a way that would outrage ordinary family sensibilities.

Tell me you think an "ordinary family" wouldn't be outraged by hiding the death of a family member for a month, or pretending they were alive when they were not.

Tampering with Physical Evidence: A person is guilty of tampering with physical evidence when, believing that an official proceeding is pending or may be instituted, he: (a) Destroys, mutilates, conceals, removes or alters physical evidence which he believes is about to be produced or used in the official proceeding with intent to impair its verity or availability in the official proceeding; or (b) Fabricates any physical evidence with intent that it be introduced in the official proceeding or offers any physical evidence, knowing it to be fabricated or altered.

Since McConnell's death would trigger an official proceeding, namely electing his replacement, and they would be doing this very much to impede such a thing, this seems like a slam dunk.

Medical Insurance Fraud: McConnell was taken to a hospital. If he has health insurance, and they billed anything in the hosptial after he was clincially dead to said insurance, that would be insurance fraud. Also, Kentucky Section 304.47-050 (2) makes physicians mandatory reporters of this type of fraud. So not only would the physician and hospital be on the hook for the fraud itself, but any other physician who even knew about it would be on the hook to be a manditory reporter.

Of course, the state Attorney General is Russell Coleman (R), so the likelihood anyone investigates any of this is zero. No one enforces the laws anymore. I wonder though if a Commonwealth Attorney might be able to pick it up, though.

B.F. in Nine Mile Falls, WA, writes: When Mitch McConnell first ran for the Senate in 1984, he criticized incumbent Dee Huddleston for missing Senate votes and ran a series of commercials showing bloodhounds tracking Dee. Perhaps it's time to run a commercial showing the bloodhounds searching for Mitch and following his wife to China.

D.P. in Oakland, CA, writes: Once again Mitch McConnell is running out the clock to prevent a Democratic appointment.

Politics: The Other Graham

Anonymous in OR, writes: Much ink has already been spilled about the rise and fall of Graham Platner. I've been mulling some comments for several days, but I kind of knew anything I wrote would become obsolete before it ever got published. Notwithstanding all that, I think there are a few points that should be raised, with some benefit of hindsight...

We've had similar scandals before, and as (V) & (Z) have pointed out, each situation is unique. That said, I (and my wife) have been pretty surprised at how quick people (including V & Z) were to declare Platner guilty, toast, and to cast him aside. I don't live in Maine, and Platner was on my radar, but not someone I followed until about May of this year. I watched his interview with Jon Stewart on his Weekly Show podcast. I've watched Jake Tapper's interview with his accuser, his initial response, and his "dropping out" speech.

First, Platner has weathered a few mini-scandals so far, but the timing and nature of the latest allegations don't seem to lend themselves to instant disqualification. Let's face it, these allegations are not being tried in court, but in the court of public opinion, where apparently we all get a say. While I'm not taking anything away from Tapper as a journalist, his questions were often leading. He supplied the narrative, and she just had to agree and say yes. Whenever he asked her a direct question, she often had to qualify her answer ("Yes, he violated multiple layers of consent." "Yes, by the way my nervous system reacted.") Never, "Yes, I resisted all his advances, and was very clear about that." I think the most telling aspect was how they agreed that she "complied," but not "consented." There is wide gulf in interpretation there. Since Platner was drunk, and both their memories are hazy, it is pretty clear that even if she wanted to prosecute, no DA would waste their time with this case.

To be very clear: I'm not at all making excuses for Platner, and I'm not at all denying the accuser's experience. Unwanted advances are still sexual harassment or assault, and that perception is solely in the eye of the beholder, and that's just the way it is. It doesn't make the encounter acceptable. My point is, both their experiences can be true at the same time. She may have not wanted to have sex, and remained not wanting to have sex, which makes the encounter inappropriate. But from Graham's perspective, if he perceived her as going from "I'm not in the mood" to "let's get this over with," it's hard to fault him for saying the encounter was consensual.

I think what makes Platner's situation unique among his scandal-plagued peers is what conclusions we can draw about his character and future behavior. Most politicians are highly ambitious folks, who clearly take advantage of their position, and have an arrogance about them. It is usually easy to see how the latest "scandal" is the just latest one we know about, and more will surely follow. In contrast, Platner never really set out to be a senator (listen to the Jon Stewart interview). He was recruited, and it took a little convincing. Sexual conquest doesn't appear to be part of an ambitious track record, but rather just a normal guy (with some veteran issues) bumbling through life and making mistakes. Pete Hegseth has a white Christian nationalist tattoo, and wouldn't you know it, his rhetoric smacks of white Christian nationalism, he writes books about white Christian nationalism, and he sets policy based on white Christian nationalism. Platner's Nazi-linked tattoo... doesn't really jive with everything else we know about him, and doesn't jive with his rhetoric and policy ideas. If elected, do you think he'll pull a 180 and start advancing Nazi policies? The historical data points we have don't seem predictive of future behavior, based on how he presents himself today.

Lastly, while I would very much like to hold our elected officials to ideal standards, society just doesn't seem to be there anymore. The people of Maine should choose their candidates, and the people of Maine should choose their next Senator. Democrats chose Graham Platner as their candidate. Yes, many a politician have fallen due to similar circumstances, but Donald Trump hasn't, and Ken Paxton hasn't, and Marion Barry was elected Mayor after serving time in prison. Voters are choosing their representatives, based partly on the judgment of character, yes, but mostly on what they think the politician will do for them. Despite his unwillingness to go gracefully into the night, it is clear Graham Platner was forced out by the establishment, and not by the voters. Democrats have the opportunity to learn a valuable lesson here, coming off the Biden-Harris debacle. If Platner's replacement goes on to beat Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME), Platner will be relegated to a footnote in the history books, and the powers that be will continue to argue that "the establishment" generally knows what's best for everyone. But if Collins wins... it's hard not to see a growing trend that voters REALLY don't like it when political parties circumvent the will of the people. Joe Biden was a flawed candidate, and arguably Platner was a flawed candidate too, but they were the people's candidates. Maybe Maine can rectify the situation with a nominating convention as opposed to an anointment of the heir-apparent, but I am skeptical. And I will be watching with great interest.

C.A. in St. Louis, MO, writes: I suspect that both Graham Platner and Brett Kavanaugh suffer from "alcohol-induced blackouts."

I have an enduring memory of being with a friend who did. She and I had pizza and two drinks at a restaurant before she drove me home. She seemed normal when we got into her car but she started driving uncharacteristically recklessly—weaving on a highway, laughing, ignoring my pleas for her to stop. When we got close to my home, she ran into a curb and severely damaged a tire so that she could not drive any further. We walked to my apartment where she vomited. She had no memory of any of this the next day; even after seeing the evidence of the damaged tire and my apartment. I urged her never to drink alcohol again. Many decades later, I've lost touch with her, so I don't know if this ever happened again.

M.F. in St. Paul, MN, writes: Just wanted to say thank you for your coverage on Graham Platner. Being only human, I don't think any of us can be 100% objective, but I found what you wrote on Platner to be about as objective as possible.

I think it's important to remember that a candidate who we subjectively like can still be a bad candidate objectively. Per data journalist G. Elliot Morris, Platner was polling worse than any other Democratic candidate of any race polled in the past 90 days (and that was before the rape allegations). In the current blue-leaning environment, in a blue state like Maine, we would expect the Democratic candidate to have a large lead. Platner had a narrow lead averaging about 1% in recent polls. In comparison, Hannah Pingree, in the Maine governor's race, had a large lead of 12.5% (with the caveat that the governor's race gets less polling).

I'd imagine most readers of this site are interested in politics as a vehicle to try to make the world a better place. But to do that, we have to win elections, which means evaluating our candidates as objectively as we can. I really appreciate that your site helps us do that.

B.G. in Greyson, GA, writes: I often serve as a domestic violence expert and practiced law for 30 years. I want to comment on a few issues related to the Platner scandal. C.J. in Lowell made reference to a common misconception that "innocent until proven guilty" is an ethical and legal maxim. This is a very valid restriction, but it applies only to courts and law enforcement taking away a person's physical liberty. No responsible parent would allow their child to visit the home of an accused sex abuser based on "innocent until proven guilty." As Democratic voters we must consider context and the ability of a candidate to win an election where the opponent is likely to continue to do great harm. My work and the research confirm that women rarely make deliberate false reports and should be believed. Platner engaged in a variety of admitted sexist behavior which makes the reports more likely to be true.

A comment a few days ago referred to the vote of Susan Collins to approve Kavanaugh. The writer suggested the accusations were not sufficiently proven. I regularly use the Kavanaugh confirmation in my reports because it illustrates the common problem when domestic violence or sexual abuse is committed in private. A criminal conviction requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt but decisions in civil cases or confirmations should not require such a high standard. As domestic violence experts, we look for information that makes it more likely that what he said or she said was true. There was very strong evidence that tended to confirm the report from Dr. Christine Blasey Ford did not receive the attention it deserved. Years before the Kavanaugh nomination, she and her husband saw a marriage counselor about a dispute where she wanted an extra exit from her house. She explained that she had been traumatized from a sexual assault (by Kavanaugh) when she was a teenager. The chances that she made that story up years before the nomination to prevent confirmation are very close to zero.

T.V. in Kansas City, MO, writes: C.J. in Lowell wrote:

On the other hand, it bugs me no end that all it takes is an accusation, which the candidate swears is false, for the Democratic pooh-bahs to turn on him. Without any investigation or a chance to tell his side, endorsements are withdrawn like they have touched a hot stove. The lesson seems to be that if you want to ruin a Democratic man's political career all you have to do is make a sexual accusation and the Party will be happy to do your dirty work for you.

The thing is, it wasn't just AN accusation. It was a series of scandals and accusations. The Totenkopf tattoo. Then the offensive Reddit posts. Then the reports of sexting and infidelity. Then the reports of abusive behavior from ex-girlfriends. And now, the rape and removed-condom allegations. I agree that if a rape allegation had come out of nowhere—say, if such a charge were leveled at James Talarico—there would be justification in viewing it with skepticism. But the whack-a-mole of Platner scandals sends a clear message: This is a bad guy, likely a misogynist and abuser, possibly a racist, definitely someone with terrible judgment, who belongs nowhere near the Senate (at least, not with a "D" after his name).

R.L. in Alameda, CA, writes: Hopefully this is the last time I will ever type Graham Platner's name. I couldn't bear to listen to his entire 11-minute-long video, but I heard a few clips. He blames everyone for this debacle except the one man who is responsible for it, Graham Platner. It's not the media's fault for reporting it. It's not the "establishment's" fault for abandoning him after sticking with him over and over again during the constant drip-drip-drip of controversy. It's his fault and his alone. His ego is outstanding. If his real goal was to advance a progressive agenda while also sending Susan Collins home from Washington, he never would have run (and he would have already filed his paperwork to drop out rather than waiting until Monday). He knows what he did. When the stories came out before the primary that he was a "bad boyfriend," he knew there were more shoes to drop. Yet he stayed in the race anyway.

On an optimistic note, if the Maine Democratic party handles the nomination of a replacement well, this could increase the chances of defeating Collins. Voters clearly want her out, given votes he received in spite of all the controversy surrounding him.

Uber-progressives like Cenk Uyger ought to shut up, too. Parts of the progressive/Bernie/DSA agenda do appeal to voters, even in Maine. However, this was not a campaign to suppress that agenda. It was a poorly vetted candidate who never should have run. To these folks I say: "I agree with the agenda. However, defeating Collins is more important right now than whether or not Maine elects a progressive or a centrist Democrat (or Independent)." Progressive/DSA candidates have won primaries in New York and Colorado recently. They can win elections with the right candidates.

Platner is an egotistical jerk who should have told the operatives at his door last summer, "Thanks, but I'm not your guy. I have too much baggage."

R.H.D. in Webster, NY, writes: The Democrats cannot win control of the Senate without winning Maine. This was supposed to be an easy win against the always-concerned Susan Collins. But, like usual, the Democrats can't get out of their own way.

Didn't anyone on the blue team do their homework on Graham Platner? Didn't anyone see the warning signs on this guy with a troubled past? Or did they just accept the gospel of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and hooked onto to someone who was going to fight oligarchs and billionaires no matter what.

What does this say about Bernie? He must have lots of eggs on his face now and his credibility has taken a hit. What does this say about the Democrats in general? They should be on offense against the Republican trifecta of a horrible president and a lapdog Congress. But now they have to answer questions about their own candidates' electibility and history.

We have 4 months between now and Election Day. I fear there will be more surprises coming down the pike this election season regarding candidate quality. Platner may just be the tip of the iceberg. If the Democrats fail to win either the House or Senate, they will deserve it.

S.B. in Winslow, ME, writes: I wrote before that I had little regard for Graham "DemTrump" Platner. He has sadly proven me right. He looked to me from the start as an untested, too tainted candidate that was saying what a lot of Democratic Mainers wanted to hear, which reminded me way too much of what I so often heard when Trump was first running: "He tells it like it is!" Any allegation—sexual, financial, or otherwise—just bounced off Trump because he was a megaphone for the things MAGA people feel and wanted to say, which for the most part were and remain... "deplorable."

The only difference with Platner is that he was running as a Democrat. Mainers love independent spirits, but Democrats (me included) still yearn for a candidate who possesses some semblance of moral character. The things about this revelation that really shuck my oysters are that: (1) Platner knew about his past. Only arrogance and a greed for power kept him in this race, and (2) He was not vetted by the Democrats. For a candidate with ZERO political experience running for the U.S. SENATE, which is barely in play, one would expect the state and national party to have been digging deep and quickly into his oppo risks. Shame on them. Shame.

But here we are again. Susan Collins, a well-known name with a lot of Senate clout, who routinely outperforms the polls, is now sitting pretty with the Democrats in chaos. Feels very much like a Biden-to-Harris déjà vu, leaving Sen. Collins "unconcerned."

I hope not. I really hope not. I hope a viable candidate with a LOT of Maine charisma appears quickly and can edge out Collins in November. But honestly, I feel the Democratic Party literally threw away a chance for an oyster pearl in favor of a rotten clam. In doing so, they may well have thrown away a chance at putting the brakes on a reckless congress, president, and supreme court.

A.F. in Portland, OR, writes: I am not from Maine. I have never lived in the NE. But I watched this whole thing unfold over the past year.

Here's how I saw things roll-out, we've seen it before, and we'll see it again. But it seems the old guard of the DNC keeps failing to see that it's their fault. There's an open seat for a senator. Several Democratic politicians, most of whom are qualified, put their names into the race. The DNC comes in and tells everyone who's willing to play ball, to sit out and let Candidate A clear the field, before any primary vote is taken. A rogue candidate, who's not loyal nor a member of the club, stays in.

Turns out the electorate dislikes Candidate A, for reasons X, Y, Z. But since the Primary field was already cleared out, it's either Candidate A, or rogue Candidate B. Electorate convinces itself Candidate B is the best choice, but they're a weak General candidate. When I go onto social media sites, the question I see a lot is "This was the best Candidate we could come up with?" Well, no. I argue if the DNC would stay out of the primaries and stop clearing the field, we'd end up with the best general election candidates we could hope for. Trust the voters to tell you who they want to represent them. Stop forcing candidates on us, like Kamala Harris, like Sherrod Brown, without us putting our voices into the discussion.

S.P. in Harrisburg, PA, writes: Winning is everything. Had Graham Platner's polling in the general election not collapsed, he never would have been pushed out of the race.

T.B. in Wiscasset, ME, writes: I'd like to point out that one other thing Troy Jackson (D) has going for him is that he's from "The County," as is Susan Collins.

Now, Maine has 16 counties, but there is only one "The County." That sense of identity would, I think, help him to peel off a lot more votes in The County, which is heavily Republican.

M.S. in San Jose, CA, writes: You wrote: "If Pingree ends up as the replacement candidate and wins, and if her daughter wins the gubernatorial race, then that will produce a historically unprecedented situation in which a mother is serving in the U.S. Senate and her daughter is concurrently serving as governor of a U.S. state. It may well be an unprecedented situation regardless of gender; we can't find any cases of men overlapping like this."

Please look up the Murkowski family of Alaska. Frank Murkowski was an Alaska senator who ran for Alaska governor and won. As governor, he appointed his daughter, Lisa Murkowski, to the Senate seat that he vacated. So the father was serving as Governor of Alaska at the same time the daughter was serving as Senator of Alaska.

J.K. in Short Hills, NJ, writes: Headline from The Babylon Bee about Graham Platner:

Dems Wishing There Had Been Some Sort Of Sign That Platner Was A Bad Person.

D.C. in Waterville, ME, writes: Democrats in Maine are calling for Graham Platner to step aside because of allegations of sexual crimes.

As a result, Republicans in Maine are now calling for Susan Collins to step aside... so that they can nominate Platner.

Politics: The Democrats

J.C. in Milwaukee, WI, writes: I suspect I won't be the only one responding to the assertion from P.D. in Smithfield that Andy Beshear, Gov. Josh Shapiro (D-PA) and Sen. Mark Kelly (D-AZ) are the only electable candidates in 2028. I'm working in politics right now and I feel fairly tapped in, and I have to agree with (Z). I find it likely that three of the final five candidates are somewhere between "dark horse" and "complete unknown" at the moment. Of those P.D. mentioned, I personally don't think any of them have a chance, for different reasons, of being in that final five.

The only candidate I know for certain who is going to be in the final five is Gov. JB Pritzker (D-IL). He has the money, he's been vetted, his powder is dry; and there's enough for more moderate voters and more lefty voters to hang their hat on. But my money is on a hotshot millennial who knows how to work social media intuitively to run away with it—but great odds that person currently is polling at 0%.

G.R. in Carol Stream IL, writes: Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA) suddenly gets more electable: "Ro Khanna Detained by Israeli Settlers in West Bank."

A.B. in Denver, CO, writes: Regarding "ACA Healthcare Premiums Will Skyrocket Next Year," that's just the overall average plan price going up—there can also be a bump from getting a year older. I recall one year our plan went up like 15%, but the stated increase was "10%." The other 5% was from having a birthday.

And then there's the cost increase from your provider pulling out of the market and you have to select another provider, but they're all higher (or junk).

If the blue team wants some ideas for Project 2029, mandating that health insurance be non-profit is a place to start. Funny how Blue Cross was affordable when they were a non-profit, and things went up, up and away when they switched to for-profit.

R.W. in Brooklyn, NY, writes: While you noted that higher health insurance premiums are likely to lead younger, healthier people to drop coverage, with potentially disastrous results for them should they become sick or injured, you failed to note the far more disastrous flip-side: As the remaining pool of insureds becomes older and sicker, premiums will rise even more, sending the whole mess into a death spiral. I know that you have, of course, discussed this before, but I think it should be noted each and every time this topic comes up.

M.L. in West Hartford, CT, writes: (V) wrote that Michigan Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed wants "...free health care, and to raise wages, improve schools, and fix roads. Of course, making the math work is impossible, but in a debate, who cares about math?"

(V)'s argument would be stronger if he dropped the snark and provided some math of his own, or at least some facts. Is it really his contention that there are no countries in the world today that offer free health care to their citizens while providing higher wages, better schools, and better roads? Or that the richest country in the history of the nation-state can't afford to provide these services to its people? I would have liked to have read his arguments, but he didn't make any. Who cares about math, indeed.

This is hardly the first time that (V) has mocked progressive ideas. He's welcome to his opinion, but I don't know why he seems to have so much contempt for the very idea that we can work together to make life better for all Americans. When he acts like such aspirations are pie-in-the-sky delusions, he sounds like Newt Gingrich or Ted Cruz, which I suspect is not his intention.

M.M. in San Jose, CA, writes: There have been several recent "announcements" of new third parties (e.g. Elon Musk's America Party, Tucker Carlson's Alternative Movement, Andrew Yang's Forward Party, among others). All of these seem to involve a charismatic, often rich, individual who is unhappy with the political landscape, volunteering to lead the flock to the promised land. These rarely survive the press conference that announces them.

By contrast, Reform UK, National Rally (France), aFd (Germany) and the ever-present Greens (many countries) are having more influence. Their strategy seems to involve getting representation in parliament. They define the party platform, concentrate on geographic areas where that platform is popular, and focus their efforts on winning elections, often small ones.

It seems to me that this is the strategy being pursued by the Democratic Socialists of America. Though often thought of as trivially different from Democrats, their party platform is better-defined. Though not in power, they are heard. Their influence is growing and they may win some more elections in November. And they don't have to win to have influence. If other parties co-opt parts of the platform and implement them, that definitely counts as influence.

Consider this comment less as a plug for DSA (history will tell), than as a possible cure for the current two-party system, which is all guns and no rudder.

Politics: Communism

D.A. in Brooklyn, NY, writes: I wouldn't say that (Z) is wrong in his definition of communism. There are almost as many definitions of communism as there are of socialism. But I would offer a different definition of communism, one that recognizes that communism is far more radical than state ownership of all production ("the government owns and controls the entire economy"). In my view, the key elements of communism are:

Communism means that workers exercise control at the point of production, and that production is carried out to serve the needs of people. Production of commodities ceases, as commodity exchange disappears, along with money itself. Treating labor as a commodity (as is done under capitalism) therefore vanishes. Wage labor is abolished.

Communism means working collectively to build a worker-run society. We will abolish work for wages, money and profits. Everyone will share in society's benefits and burdens.

Communism requires abolishing racism and the very concept of "race." Capitalism uses racism to super-exploit Black, Latino, Asian and indigenous workers, and to divide the entire working class.

Communism means abolishing the special oppression of women (sexism), and divisive gender roles created by the class society.

Communism means abolishing nations and nationalism. One international working class, one world, one Party.

The role of government becomes one of coordination, information dispersal, and administration.

There have been, and are today, many political organizations, some in positions of power, that call themselves "communist." None of these have achieved anything beyond a form of socialism, and they typically (as in the case of the U.S.S.R. after World War II, and China and Cuba today) have regressed into state capitalism. Still, communists can learn from these attempts and carry out the uphill struggle to achieve communism. Whether this will be successful is uncertain to say the least.

G.M. in Salt Lake City, UT, writes: In your response to A.J. in Ames, you listed some of the widely accepted socialist programs in the US, but you omitted the second biggest socialist government program, behind only Social Security: the Department of Defense.

M.M. in San Jose, CA, writes: With the possible exception of Cuba, there are no actual communist countries left. Consider the communists of my youth—countries like China, North Korea, North Vietnam, Cambodia, the U.S.S.R.= and Cuba. Plus a number of countries in Africa, Latin America, South America. All of these saw communism as a counterpoint to capitalism and sought ways to reduce wealth inequality through such schemes as collective farming. It was tried in many places and failed in all of them.

Today, most of those countries are simple autocracies. Wealth inequality is growing. China is autocratic in its politics, but capitalist in its economics. Russia's Vladimir Putin flaunts wealth inequality with a vacation home the size of Rhode Island.

So, like "fascist," "communist" has simply become a general-purpose epithet. And the Cold War is over. I doubt if voters still fear a Russian invasion in the style of Red Dawn. The major player today is China. So I'm with you. Calling a candidate "communist" doesn't have the clout it once did.

B.B. in Dothan, AL, writes: I'm already seeing these comments in my local Nextdoor feed. Of course, I'm in Alabama, so it's expected:

Maybe I was just naive when I was younger or they were in hiding. I really don't know. I'm referring to the Communists/Socialists that seem to be everywhere today and are proud of it. They want everyone to know who they are by broadcasting their views and will go out of their way to do so. They also seem to gravitate to politics as their hot topic. It's a shame that they aren't smart enough to know just how good they have it. I would bet that if they were given a one way ticket to go and live anywhere else in the world they would be smart enough to decline the trip...

Politics: Legal Matters

R.E.M. in Brooklyn, NY, writes: Further to (L)'s reply to B.R.D. in Columbus of the value of judicial dissent, I'd like to plug a book I read in high school, Prophets with Honor: Great Dissents and Great Dissenters in the Supreme Court (1974), by Alan Barth. It covers a number of great historical dissents that eventually became law. The fact that I immediately thought of it 45 years later when reading (L)'s response tells you the kind of impression it made on me.

Politics: Foreign Affairs

J.M. in Istanbul, Turkey, writes: As a longtime reader of your political blog, I very much appreciate and applaud your hard work and rigorous intellectual work day in day out all these years. I rarely disagree with your conclusions. However, I have to speak out against your recent comment in "Everybody Loves Turkey," declaring that "Turkey is no longer a functioning democracy."

This statement is false. Yes, we have issues. Two leading and democratically elected opposition figures are in jail, the opposition media is embattled and the government or their cronies control almost all the free press, the main opposition party's internal electoral process has been defenestrated by dubious court rulings, and the judiciary is under much pressure to please the powers that be.

Yet, there are many bright spots. The main opposition parties are still well organized, highly functional and have begun to elevate a new crop of electable and popular leaders. There is still opposition media freely available, and though few, they are still reporting the news and speaking truth to power, day-in, day-out. The last elections, held a couple years ago for municipalities, saw a remarkable opposition victory, whereby 70% of the country's main population centers witnessed opposition parties sweep into local governmental councils and mayoral offices. Professors have much academic freedom to do research and lecture as they please, without fear of retribution (I am a professor myself and the classes I teach, on DEI, are fine and dandy here but banned in parts of the U.S.). And to its credit, the government has instituted and maintained an excellent social safety net, providing free universal health care, generous welfare subsidies, and strong pension schemes for everyone.

So overall, I would say Turkey is and has been a functioning democracy. It is far from perfect, has its share of problems, and has seen some significant democratic backsliding in recent years. But people are hopeful and the system is yet free, albeit unfairly tilted toward the powers that be. As you always maintain, nuance is key and the devil is in the details.

E.W. in Skaneateles, NY, writes: I would like to thank G.S. in Basingstoke, England, UK (along with A.B. in Amman, Jordan, and S.T. in Worcestershire, England, UK) for this week's Schadenfreude item. In addition to being very funny, it's a striking example of life imitating art, as a 2013 episode of the sci-fi anthology series Black Mirror parallels these events every well. The episode, titled "The Waldo Moment," also involves a character created by a comedian, in this case a foul-mouthed blue cartoon bear named Waldo, running as a joke in a by-election who goes viral. It'll be fascinating to see how Count Binface does in his quest for one affordable house, 99p ice creams, the nationalization of Adele, and unicycles as punishment. Makersfield Great Again. Vote Count Binface!

E.M. in Poughkeepsie, NY, writes: Add this to the Count Binface collection:

The Sporting News

R.M.S. in Lebanon, CT, writes: There are two rebuttals I wanted to add to your answer to my question First of all, Andy Pettitte won a second World Series with Yankees in the 2000s, since they won the 2009 title. Roger Clemens was retired by then.

Secondly, Pettitte did admit to using human growth hormone in 2002, which he apologized for. But it wasn't banned by the MLB until 2011, so he wasn't penalized for it.

I don't think using HGH before it was banned should be a factor disqualifying Pettitte from the Hall of Fame. By comparison, look at the description of Tiger Woods's career in the World Gold Hall of Fame. They completely whitewash Woods's criminal admission of reckless driving and his requirements to get drug rehabilitation as the result of multiple car accidents. He was also arrested on suspicion of DUI, with a trial pending. He placed other people in danger with his behavior, but the Golf Hall of Fame enshrined him without even mentioning it. I think most readers would agree criminal behavior is worse than anything Pettitte did.

(V) & (Z) respond: As to the World Series, you're right. The source we checked was formatted oddly, such that the 2009 title was not visible. As to the HGH, the question is not how it "should" be, but how it is. Baseball Hall of Fame voters are very traditionalist, and many of them are fanatically anti-PED. Whether that is right or wrong, it is a fact that roughly one-third of them have decided they will not vote for any PED users.

E.W. in Skaneateles, NY, writes: I wanted to add another difference between soccer and the more popular U.S. sports to your excellent list of why soccer has struggled to catch on in the US. The way substitutions work in FIFA soccer competitions differs greatly from that of other sports. In FIFA competitions, only five substitutions are allowed during the regular match time, and once a player is removed, they cannot come back on the field. There are some more complex rules for injuries and concussions and for overtime, but the NBA, NFL, NHL, and MLB allow basically unlimited substitutions with some variations on their timing and the procedures involved. Except for the MLB, substituted players are not permanently removed from the game. FIFA soccer rules mean that a fan will, at most, see 16 players during regular time. So, if your favorite player is benched or only plays 10 minutes, too bad. This also means that fewer players get to gain valuable in-game experience.

Also, because of this rule, players on the field have to conserve their energy, since most will have to play for the whole game. This fact contributes greatly to the generally slower pace of the game. I believe that if FIFA allowed unlimited substitutes, plus addressed some of the issues you raised in your piece (the stoppage time issue and lack of a public game clock, the fouling/flopping issues, etc.), the games would speed up and become a bit higher scoring. I am thinking it would end up more like lacrosse or hockey scores instead of the existing 0-0, 1-0, 2-1, etc. Some purists would complain about how these changes would ruin the game, but this excellent YouTube video explains how the many changes to the offside rule over the decades have radically altered the way soccer is played and how offsides may need to change in the future. I doubt FIFA will change most of this, but maybe if MLS does, then FIFA will follow. After all, VAR was pioneered by MLS, so maybe there is hope yet.

C.R. in Schrollbach, Germany, writes: You wrote: "If people are spending all their time talking about how [GAME X] was decided by [WRONG CALL Y], that's not great for the sport."

I disagree. For many sports, including the NFL, this is a feature, not a bug. The games only last 2-3 hours. That leaves another 160+ hours/week that have to be filled on the various sports shows and media outlets. And arguing about bad calls and controversial endings is great filler! The NFL has gotten miles out of the "the refs favor the Chiefs" myth. As the Kardashians have proven, there's no such thing as bad publicity!

S.A.K. in Karnataka, India, writes: I felt compelled to write in after reading your post on association football. For context, I have been an avid follower of football, particularly the Premier League, since the late 90s. It was the Arsenal team with Tony Adams, Patrick Vieira and most of all Dennis Bergkamp (a.k.a., The Non-Flying Dutchman ) that got me hooked. When we won the league this year after a 22-year hiatus, I was, of course, over the moon. But, in my decades of being a football fan this was the first World Cup that I felt absolutely no excitement about following and watching.

Turning to your piece, the first point worth noting is that the whole "Balogun's red card wasn't one" narrative isn't nearly as cut-and-dried as it's made out to be. The defense that he had nowhere to put his foot, that it was a 50/50 challenge, and that there was no intent simply doesn't hold up to scrutiny. Lionel Messi not being sent off for an identical offense, against Algeria, doesn't make the claim right. It was a foul which had the potential to break the opponent's ankle (unintentionally, no doubt) and was rightly deemed dangerous. Unfortunate for the player but the correct call.

Speaking of diminishing American soft power, there was the whole abhorrent discrimination and hostility against the Iranian national team that didn't get nearly the coverage it deserved. From delaying and refusing visas for team officials to imposing outrageous entry and exit conditions, the whole affair was an absolute travesty. I fully expected pettiness and bigotry from this administration. The cowardice and kowtowing on display from FIFA and Gianni Infantino also came as no surprise. What was utterly disappointing, though, was the response, or rather the lack of it, from other national teams and their staffs. Not a squeak against such blatant political strong-arming of sport.

As for football failing to appeal to Americans, well, tough luck. The game is better off without that brand of "exceptionalism." For the record, non-Americans despise diving (flopping, as you called it) every bit as much as anyone else.

I'd stop short of calling the U.S. an unsuitable World Cup host, but I see where that view comes from. All the more so in today's political environment and under an administration like the current one.

I'll let Arseblog, the most popular Arsenal blogger, have the last word describing Infantino, here: "a pencil-necked ghoul who looks like someone brought a skeevy toad from a Chernobyl pond to life."

D.E. in Lancaster, PA, writes: What's that about the World Cup being unifying and uplifting? Between this and the shameful and unsportsmanship way the U.S. has treated the Iranian team, I'm having trouble finding much joy there. And it's not just the churlish way America has acted, but the Mexicans have not clothed their selves in glory either, between the homophobic chants and surrounding the hotel where their upcoming opponents were staying to cause a disturbance to keep the other team from getting little to no sleep. We're not just a country of rude and bad behavior but a world.

M.S. in Pittsburgh, PA, writes: While I was watching the U.S. vs. Bosnia and Herzegovina game, I also thought the red card was an overreaction to the foul when watching it live. But it was what it was. Now I'm ashamed at what transpired. It was hard to root for the home team, sadly. The Orange Fool can even take the joy out of the World Cup! A win would have been forever tainted by "the hand of Trump" (see Maradona, 1986). And when he was interviewed about it, Trump had the temerity to say, "Number 1, it wasn't a foul" (how would he know?). Followed by, "All I did was ask for a review because I didn't think it was a foul" (which FIFA had stated, after the game, was not appealable). Then, "And, you know, again, I'm good at this stuff." At what? He hasn't been to a single World Cup match. Too many people from sh**hole countries turns him off and can't be celebrated. He's the poster child for Dunning-Kruger, and he will leave a legacy, just not the one he dreams about.

A.Z.V. in Amsterdam, The Netherlands, writes: After Trump's phone calls to Infantino:

(V) & (Z) respond: We think there might be one country on the map that's colored incorrectly.

M.M. in San Diego, CA, writes: An addendum to the kerfuffle about the three San Francisco Giants who wouldn't act like adults and wear the Pride Night rainbow insignia caps without scribbling their phobic, pseudo-religious disapproval on said caps. As my nephew is a lifelong Giants fan, I thought I would buy the Pride cap for him. Guess what? The Pride cap is the Giants' bestseller according to their online store!

History Matters

A.B. in Wendell, NC, writes: I did not want to write this right away, because I really did not want to rain on anyone's parade... but I see this whole America 250 thing very differently than many other people do. I see it through the eyes of a person who belongs to a group for whom America has steadfastly refused to live up to its promise.

Now, this country was founded on some pretty damned high ideals, ideals it would be hard for anyone to live up to. But that's just the thing. If we TRIED and failed to live up to them, as we have for much of our history, that would be one thing. For much of our history, the circle of freedom was widened to include people not originally included.

What I see now is a nation full of a**holes who gleefully and cheerfully REFUSE TO EVEN TRY to live up to the ideals upon which this nation was founded, all while holding out those very ideals as "evidence" of America's "greatness."

I was but a child when we had our Bicentennial, but I remember. We were a wounded nation, recovering from Vietnam and Watergate, but we managed to come together in unity to celebrate the promise of America, even as there were people for whom the promise was not yet realized. I saw our nation come together a few other times, notably right after 9/11 for about a week. I can't even imagine unity with what looks to me like the majority of this country.

For the 250th, we got a partisan and divisive celebration focused on one man... and not on our country. And we were all told how bad communism is and how great capitalism is. Really? Capitalism does not look too great to me, nor to the sorts of people who voted for and supported folks like Mayor Zohran Mamdani (D-New York City). People who contributed to the meteoric rise of a guy like Graham Platner. People full of angst and worry as the world becomes more and more unaffordable, and one political party that absolutely does not care while the other gives only lip service.

The way I see capitalism is that we traded out King George III (or the slave owners, depending upon which group you come from) for the employer that holds your very life in their hands while keeping a boot planted firmly on your neck. This is NOT my definition of freedom. We now have a country where the more you get paid, the less ACTUAL WORK you do. The more you put in the less you get out. A nation where those who need the least help get the most... and those who need the most get the least, all while being mocked and smeared.

In short, I see very little to celebrate for America 250, which is why I chose not to partake in any of the "festivities." I suspect I am not totally alone in this.

E.W. in Skaneateles, NY, writes: You might be familiar with Gil Scott-Heron and his "Bicentennial Blues," a brilliant spoken-word poem recorded in 1976. I discovered it earlier this year and took it upon myself to write and publish an update, the "Semiquincentennial Blues," for America's 250th. It's striking how many issues from 1776 and from 1976 are still relevant in 2026.

I hope you and your readers enjoy it.

D.R. in Yellow Springs, OH, writes: In response to R.C. in Des Moines, you wrote that publicly funded monuments "were all built well after the event they commemorate (whether that event was a war or a lifetime)."

That's true of the examples you gave (Washington Monument, Lincoln Memorial and World War II Memorial). But the Vietnam Veterans Memorial opened in 1982, less than 10 years after the war ended. The war was so recent that they made plans for what to do if someone listed as missing in action were to come home alive.

Plenty of Vietnam veterans were serving in Congress in 1982. There are even three still serving in the House today: Jack Bergman (R-MI), Mike Thompson (D-CA) and Jim Baird (R-IN).

M.T. in Garden City, NY, writes: If you agree that it fits the category, the Vietnam Veterans Memorial had significant opposition when the design by Maya Lin was chosen as the winner in the competition. "An ugly gash in the ground," "disrespectful to our service members", etc.

Opinion has changed greatly since, in part because of how Vietnam vets, family members, and friends reacted to finding and seeing the names. But at time, it barely got approved, and even then, with a modification to add a more traditionally representational statue to the design.

History Matters, Columbia Edition

J.G. in Louisville, KY, writes: P.R. in Arvada asked: "So, why do we say that people's DNA shows that they are Sephardic Jew or Ashkenazi Jews when all we can really say is that their ancestors migrated from a specific region in the Middle East to a different region?"

The answer is because when we talk about "Jews," we are (messily) talking about ancestral DNA, ethnicity, and religion all at once. Due to endogamy, forced migrations, population bottlenecks, and the like, my DNA is distinct from that of the non-Jewish people my grandparents lived among in Europe before immigrating to the United States. Ashkenazi DNA is a specific, identifiable combination of Levantine, Roman, and other European DNA. When we say my DNA is Ashkenazi Jewish, that label is a shorthand for a genetically related group of people who went on the same ancestral journey.

Sephardic DNA took a little longer to identify because Sephardic Jews didn't suffer the same bottleneck 600-800 years ago that Ashkenazi Jews did. But today, geneticists have identified the unique combination of Levantine, North African, Iberian, and other European DNA that characterizes Sephardic ancestry.

This is the ancestry component. Ethnicity is different. Is everyone with Jewish DNA ethnically Jewish? Not necessarily. My mom's side of the family all arrived from Eastern Europe a hundred or so years ago. They were Orthodox. We are all very ethnically Jewish based on shared cultural experiences such as holidays, foodways, Jewish education, Yiddish-language exposure and the like. On the other hand, I have cousins on my paternal grandmother's side who descend from a French Jewish ancestor who arrived before the Civil War. Many of them have been Catholic for three or four generations and do not feel—and are not—ethnically Jewish at all.

Finally, there's the question of religious practice. My grandparents' generation were ethnically and religiously Jewish both. By my generation (I am an older Gen X; my siblings are young Boomers), the secularization of America meant not everyone was "churched," if you will forgive the expression. If you ask my brothers if they are Jewish, they would say "yes," but if someone asked them to tick a box that matches their religious beliefs, they would check "agnostic."

So would Columbus have been seen as a Jew? I don't think we can know that from DNA alone. Identity is complicated and malleable.

J.E. in Manhattan, NY, writes: I thoroughly enjoyed your piece on Columbus, and thought to offer a couple of points about the lies he himself told.

One reason he insisted that he found Asia—even when other contemporaries were pretty clear it wasn't the case (a certain Amerigo Vespucci was one)—was that in order to collect his payments promised by the crown for reaching Asia he had to have actually reached it, and if he didn't, the payments would stop (and he would be stripped of titles and honors... which happened anyway, though.) So he had a vested interest in telling all and sundry what he found was Asia even though even he probably knew it wasn't.

Another interesting "lie" about his voyage is that it was some well-planned bit of exploration for a new route to Asia. One of the reasons that Columbus had a tough time getting his voyage financed initially was that most educated people (as you noted): (1) knew the Earth was a globe and (2) realized how large it was. Eratosthenes made the first estimates of the Earth's size and he was only off by about 0.5%. Lacking knowledge that the Americas existed, everyone Columbus went to said that it was a suicide mission and a waste of ships. After all, since everyone knew the shape of the Earth, and its approximate size, even a Roman Empire-era captain could figure out about how long it would take to reach Asia from Iberia (yes, the Romans knew about China, they traded silks with them occasionally). And the limiting factor on any ship in any era is water. There is no fresh water at sea; a person can go 3 days—perhaps 4, under the right conditions—with no water, and then you die. No ship could have made it, simply because once you loaded with all the food necessary, plus the trade goods and spare equipment, you'd not have enough room for enough water. Had Columbus not spotted the Bahamas, and sailed by them towards Florida, there's every chance that his crew would have died of thirst just before reaching land. (To be fair, the crew sighted land birds within days of reaching the islands, and they changed course to follow them. But sighting the settlement on one of the islands was still very lucky).

So why did the Spanish monarchs decide to fund this? First, Columbus used several estimates of the extent of Japan-to-Lisbon longitude that were far too large. He wasn't wrong because he was stupid, but he definitely engaged in a lot of motivated reasoning. He then cheated on those a bit. The result was that he said a typical caravel of the day could just make it. Second, the Spaniards had just finished the reconquista of the Iberian peninsula. The Spanish crown could spare the ships, and there was always the small chance Columbus was correct. At worst, he and his crew are never heard from again but the risk/reward was OK with Ferdinand and Isabella.

M.K. in Madrid, Spain, writes: It is probably worth pointing out that Columbus never did land in North America and certainly not in what is now the U.S. He made some landings on continental America, but only on his fourth voyage, although the furthest north that he set foot was Panama. I know that DJT is claiming Panama (part thereof), but that is not the same as Columbus setting foot in the U.S. If you count the Caribbean Islands as part of the American continent, he did land on the American continent in his first three voyages.

The other item that needs to be treated very carefully is the study that shows that he was probably a Valencian silk trader. Millions of people in Europe saw the documentary that described the genetic study referred to in your link to the BBC. The documentary was massively publicized and shown at the same time in multiple countries. However, as a scientist (albeit of the rocket sort), I have to be point out that a documentary is not a peer-viewed study and, after several years, no peer-reviewed paper has appeared. This implies that the study results have not passed muster with reputable scientists in the field. I am not a geneticist but, having published some 150 astronomy and astrophysics refereed papers myself, I know that if a piece of research does not get published in 2 years, it is unlikely to do so. Most journals even put time limits on how long a paper can be under revision before its publication or final rejection.

R.T. in Arlington, TX, writes: I am getting way out of my lane here, as I am at best an amateur historian, geographer and ethnologist from my faithful reading of National Geographic since 8th grade.

When we discuss people from other countries, we routinely fall into a traps of presentism and lumping into baskets. To speak of an Italian prior to 1861, when that nation actually became politically unified, isn't correct, as those people would have seen themselves as Sicilians, Genoans, Venetians, Tuscans, Florentines, etc. The same applies to "Germans," as those lands were countless principalities until that time. We do it in the Americas when we refer to Native Americans/Indians as a monolithic group, when they represent hundreds of distinct ethnicities (tribes), and with Latinos, when not only are there many countries we lump together but multiple indigenous cultures in many of those countries.

So in the case of Columbus, if we want to interpret an embrace of him by "Italians" in 1860-1890, we should take into account that in the era "Italians" in America would have been in a process of forging a common identity for themselves, with or without Columbus as a factor.

K.H. in Ypsilanti, MI, writes: While Columbus may have been a monster, even by the standards of his employers Ferdinand and Isabella, it's petty and inaccurate to keep insisting he did not "discover" America. To discover means to find something out that was previously unknown from a given perspective, and the fact the existence of the lands of the Western hemisphere was almost entirely unknown to the peoples of Europe, Asia and Africa before Columbus certainly qualifies it as a discovery. To say otherwise is like saying a man did not "discover" his wife was cheating on him, because his wife and lover obviously knew about it.

Not to make to big a deal about it, but this is the kind of snide, pretentious distinction that tends to make moderates roll their eyes and be dismissive of libertarianism in general. So let's avoid it.

D.M. in Amagansett, NY, writes: Here's a different assessment. Columbus (not his real name) was the first tech billionaire. He did his own (amateur) research, had his big idea, networked effectively, struggled with financing, got a backer, and put together a team. He led that team on a do or die (literally!) venture. And when he "found" the "new world" he, on paper, owned a percentage. He died sick and bitter, still seeking in vain for what he felt he was due.

Without question he touched off a frenzy of violent entrepreneurship that forever altered human affairs.

A tough and desperate man I'd say. A vain, greedy, ruthless, cruel, king-size jerk? OK, I'll agree with all that. But one who changed the world, for better and for worse.

Elon Musk (and his ilk), for some reason, come to my mind.

P.W. in Valley Village, CA, writes: All of the Revolutionary Era history focuses on the evils of King George III. But by the time he was on the throne, all of the power rested with Parliament. The King decided and directed nothing. Yet, even today, it remains all about King George III.

I see this as an issue well worthy of a correction.

(V) & (Z) respond: First, the monarch did not become a complete figurehead until the early 20th century. Second, and more importantly, the actual culpability of George is less important than the fact that the leaders of the revolution made him public enemy #1.

M.B. from San Antonio, TX, writes: As one of the resident philatelists, I'll share with the readership the 1893 Columbian Issue, the first set of commemorative stamps (as opposed to the definitive stamps that, in the U.S., had first appeared in 1847). Issued in conjunction with the 1893 Columbian exposition, these 16 stamps depict various aspects of the Columbus experience, seen of course through the 19th century mind, and meant to honor the accomplishments of the explorer:

Despite the subsequent reevaluation of Columbus and his legacy, the stamps remain a magnificent set, and are still highly sought after by collectors, especially the upper values, which can be quite pricey.

R.C. in Denver, CO, writes: I always thought the definitive history of Christopher Columbus (and the United States) was done by Stan Freberg, but you somehow failed to mention it:

In Praise of Our Readers, by Our Readers

A.H., from the Great Universe of the EV Commentariat, writes: For lo these many years, I cannot remember when I discovered this site. But after checking my pulse to make sure I am here, and pouring my first cup of covfefe, I settle in each day to my first priority on the internet tubes, Electoral-Vote.com. Your two recent continuing miniseries, "Never Forget" and "Mental Dis-ease," have been exceptional. Not just for the effort that you collectively have put into the effort but ALSO for the response from the commentariat. I have been fortunate; you have printed my responses in both miniseries. I recognize many of the other frequent contributors to the comments. I believe that one of the things that makes Electoral-Vote.com so important to me is that vast varied erudite band of brothers (and sisters) that respond with great insight and knowledge. Your stories and insights have enlightened me and brought the occasional tear to my old eyes and or put a smile on my face. So, in addition to the great work of (V), (Z), (L) and (A), a heartfelt note of THANKS to the entire commentariat.

L.S.-H. in Naarden, The Netherlands, writes: Many, many thanks to A.R. in Los Angeles for her sensitive but heartbreakingly real description of what every woman—or girl, unfortunately—learns to recognize and deal with ("negotiate" is spot on) from the time of adolescence, sometimes earlier. I wish it weren't so, but unfortunately it (still) is.

B.C. in Phoenix, AZ, writes: I have thoroughly enjoyed the Mental Dis-Ease posts. Reading the message from B.M. in Papillion about their snarky SSID program had me laughing so hard I almost wet my drawers. Although fellow survivors of prostate cancer will understand that it doesn't take too hearty a guffaw for that to happen.

Folks like me who work in or have retired from the IT industry will also understand that tech hoarding is an occupational hazard. I have a wealth of old gadgets, including a number of routers which will be ideal for my own activities along the lines of Guerrilla SSID setups.

Viva la revolución

W.K.D. in Fort Worth, TX, writes: To B.M. in Papillion, NE: You are FREAKING awesome...

A.G. in Scranton, PA, writes: PedoPrez47

EpsteinServer

BonespurHero

DraftDodger

Hate4Jesus

NayberFellates47

TinyHandzTinyMindz

Gallimaufry

J.B. in London, England, UK, writes: Sorry, but ascribing T-T-F-N to Tigger in Winnie the Pooh is complete eyewash (to use one of your lovely Americanisms).

Tigger may well have used it in the Pooh films, but they were getting on for 80 years after A.A. Milne's original classic children's books, and Tigger neither could use it in the original (it didn't come along for another 20 years), nor would he have done—it's completely out of character for the original Tigger.

No, T-T-F-N derives from BBC wartime and immediate postwar radio shows involving a guy (oops, another Americanism!) called Tommy Handley, probably originally coined by the cleaning lady whose other line was "Shall I do you now Sir? (It sounds better in the original.) Tigger may have meant "Ta Ta For Now" in the films (who knows), but it was the Jimmy Handley crew to whom the original coinage must be attributed.

R.D. in Freeland, WA, writes: Sorry, but T-T-F-N was NOT in the Winnie the Pooh books. It was an addition to the popular cartoon version. Which was not especially faithful to the spirit of the Pooh books, in my opinion.

Final Words

P.M. in Reading, England, UK, writes: When a priest asked a dying Ramón María Narváez, the 19th Century Spanish Dictator, whether he had forgiven his enemies, Narváez answered: "I have no enemies. I have had them all shot."

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

Jul11 Saturday Q&A
Jul11 Reader Question of the Week: Mental Dis-Ease, Part VI
Jul10 The Maine Debacle: A Lot of People Are Fighting to Be the Captain of this Ship
Jul10 Political Bytes: The Data Isn't Looking Good for the Republicans
Jul10 Democratic Presidential Candidate of the Week, #23: Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA)
Jul10 I Read the News Today, Oh Boy: Go West (and Be Ready to Walk Many Miles)
Jul10 This Week in Schadenfreude: As They Say in Wales, "Chwarae Troi Chwerw, Wrth Chwarae Gyda Than"
Jul10 This Week in Freudenfreude: Rob Reiner Will End His Career on a Very Appropriate Note
Jul09 Graham Cracked
Jul09 Trump's Latest Gambit: The Ceasefire Is Over
Jul09 Everybody Loves Turkey
Jul09 ACA Healthcare Premiums Will Skyrocket Next Year
Jul09 Republicans Are Running Focus Groups Testing "Communism" as a Campaign Theme
Jul09 Stevens and El-Sayed Debated in Michigan
Jul09 Judge Kills Trump's Plan to Collect Data about Election Workers
Jul09 Maryland Starts the Redistricting Process for 2028
Jul08 Platner's Cookie Continues to Crumble
Jul08 The Mitch-stery Deepens
Jul08 Mo Money Mo Problems
Jul08 Lies Across America, Part I: Christopher Columbus
Jul07 Graham Platner's Oyster Is Shucked
Jul07 Everything Trump Touches Turns to Lead
Jul07 Connecting the LIV Dots
Jul07 Never Forget: T-T-F-N!
Jul06 Donald Trump Celebrates His 250th Birthday
Jul06 Democrats May Have Found Their Theme
Jul06 DoJ Starts Investigation of Dan Sullivan
Jul06 What Should Be Article I of Trump's Impeachment?
Jul06 A Million People Lost a Total of Almost $4 Billion on Trump's Crypto Con
Jul06 Mallory McMorrow Is Out in Michigan
Jul06 The Governors' Mansions Most Likely to Flip
Jul05 Sunday Q&A
Jul05 Sunday Mailbag
Jul03 "Macho Man" Hegseth Doing Everything He Can to Create a Christian Nationalist Military...
Jul03 ... While Many Republicans Want to Do the Same with America...
Jul03 ... But Some Democrats Are Pushing Back Against That Sort of Sodom and Gomorrah Thinking
Jul03 Never Forget: Dave Lara and "The Group," in the Navy
Jul03 I Read the News Today, Oh Boy: Did the Women in Uniform Make Victoria Cross?
Jul03 This Week in Schadenfreude: The Onion Has Achieved Complete Success in Its (Info)Wars against Alex Jones
Jul03 This Week in Freudenfreude: For Many Marchers, It's the Happiest Day of the Year
Jul02 Trump's Emoluments This Term Exceed a Billion Dollars
Jul02 Trump Is Energizing Black Democrats
Jul02 Judge Orders Trump to Unfreeze Funds for Hudson River Tunnel
Jul02 Farmers vs. MAHA
Jul02 New Polls Show Very Close Senate Races
Jul02 The Top Democratic House Targets
Jul02 What Tom Kean Didn't Do
Jul02 Republicans Will Hold a National Convention in September
Jul02 Carlson/Greene 2028?
Jul02 Announcement That Alito Is Retiring Proved False--for Now