We intended to extend good wishes on the occasion of Rosh Hashanah yesterday, and then... no posting. So, we will do so belatedly, with a bit of help from reader B.J. in Arlington, MA:

Many years ago, on the morning of erev Rosh Hashanah, the great sage Hillel was in the kitchen peeling and cutting apples for a kugel he was making for dinner. His wife, Mrs. Hillel, was outside harvesting honey from their bee farm for morning tea and biscuits. Mr. Hillel went to check on his wife, carrying his apples with him, just as his wife was coming inside. The both turned a corner and bumped into each other.

"You got your apples in my honey!" exclaimed Mrs. Hillel. "You got your honey on my apples!" cried Mr. Hillel. They both looked at the bowls with curiosity, then each chose a piece and took a bite. "Delicious!" they both exclaimed.

And thus, to this day, Jews eat apples and honey on Rosh Hashanah.

(Not really.)

Shana Tovah Umetukah!

Thanks for the assist, B.J.!

Sunday Q&A

An abbreviated, and less-structured, questions posting, given that we combined Saturday and Sunday.

Twenty Questions

 

M.J. in Newton, IA, asks: Donald Trump's comments about 9/11 have me wondering. I see two possibilities; neither is good: (1) He thinks he can just lie to everyone that he was there and the firefighters dragged him out, or (2) He actually believes he was there. If this is what is going on, then it's really bad. Anyone else who acted like this, just once, they would be in an institution that very day!

(Z) answers: As to #1, he most certainly thinks he can lie to everyone about... anything he wants to, and can get away with it.

As to #2, allow me to play devil's advocate. The people who study how the brain works have figured out that people do not "store" memories, so much as they reconstruct them every time they call upon them. This leads to drift, sometimes very substantial drift, over time. And yet, the person continues to believe that their memories are 100% correct.

Donald Trump's entire adult life has been about exaggeration and distortion. There may be some real incident that was the basis for this fantasy. Like, for example, he might have visited Ground Zero a week after the attacks, and he might have been poking around, and a couple of firefighters might have told him to clear out. And since he spends much of his time in a fantasy world, and since he doesn't have a great memory anyhow, he might well have distorted the original memory into the version that he shared this week.

The point is, believing in the truth of a false memory, or even several false memories, is not enough to be hauled away and thrown into a rubber room. Everyone has a few false memories, whether they realize it or not. Trump's problem is that he has so very many false memories, to the point that very few of the things he "remembers" seem to be rooted in reality. Add in his paranoia, his deep insecurity, and his obvious narcissism, and it's clear he's deeply dysfunctional, both mentally and emotionally.

---

 

B.K. in Climax, MI, asks: I keep reading on Electoral-Vote.com that the post office restricting mail in ballots could hurt Republicans worse than Democrats because of rural and older Republican voters. But I read somewhere in the last week or two (I believe it may have been here, as well), that the post office could target Democratic areas and let Republican areas operate as normal. Please explain to me why this isn't going to happen.

(Z) answers: First, we haven't said monkeying with the mail will hurt Republicans more than Democrats. We have said it will also hurt Republicans, not just Democrats, as Trump seems to believe. Which party will take the brunt of it really isn't clear. Second, it's not that easy to target "Democratic areas." In many cases, all mail is sent to some sort of centralized sorting facility, such that the geographic origins are no longer clear. Further, there are lots of people who send their mail from some place other than "near my home." They might drop their ballot in the mail while running errands, or while at work, or when they visit the library. So, dumping all the ballots from, say, San Francisco would be less-than-surgical in terms of precision.

Third, the biggest issue is this: Democrats live mostly in urban and suburban areas. Since the alarm has been sounded, most of them are either going to vote in person, or are going to drop their ballots in ballot-return boxes set up by their states or their counties or their cities. Rural voters, who skew Republican, have fewer options of that sort, and are much more likely to use the mail-in option. So, any scheme that targets mail-in ballots is pretty much guaranteed to affect rural voters, and thus Republicans, disproportionately.

---

 

P.F. in Fairbanks, AK, asks: Even if Donald Trump's ballot scheme has been ruled unconstitutional, I imagine the Trump administration may still try some sort of interference with mail-in ballots. Something being unconstitutional has not necessarily stopped him from trying something anyway.

Does anything stop states from using plain, manila envelopes to send ballots out to voters, and similarly nondescript envelopes for mailing them back? I imagine a state could even allow ballots to be returned to a variety of addresses or P.O. Boxes around the state.

Wouldn't this make it impossible (or, at least, muddy the waters enough) for the USPS to decide which envelopes contain ballots and which don't?

(Z) answers: To start, it would be very difficult to implement any sort of scheme like this at this late date. If states were going to try it, then they'd have to target 2028.

Beyond that, there are some significant problems with the idea. In California (and presumably elsewhere), there is stuff on the outside of the envelope that matters—a bar code to confirm receipt, a couple of warnings about making sure to do everything correctly, a place to sign that the ballot is valid. If these things have to be achieved in a different way, and if there is also going to be some sort of "a variety of return addresses" scheme, it increases the odds of mistakes being made, and of ballots being invalidated. It would also increase the amount of time needed to process ballots, something that Republicans (and some Democrats) are already carping about.

But the biggest problem is that even if a dozen, or two dozen, or ten dozen return addresses are used, it's still going to be pretty easy to figure out which addresses equate to "ballot." So, the USPS would still be able to figure out which envelopes to target.

---

 

M.M. in San Diego, CA, asks: Do you think Vivek Ramaswamy's swing, displayed in the 40 MPH batting cage, is closer to a cricket batter's swing?

(Z) answers: The video was aggressively edited so that you don't really get to see a full swing.

That said, I used to play softball with a guy who first learned to play bat sports as a cricketer. And his (very effective) swing was very much like a baseball swing, except that the bat was largely perpendicular to the plate, as opposed to the parallel swing used by people whose first sport is baseball. Consequently, that player hit a lot of hard-to-field grounders, and virtually no fly balls.

By contrast, Ramaswamy's swing looks nothing like a cricket swing.

---

 

W.F. in Chambersburg, PA, asks: If the Democrats capture the House and/or the Senate, will that give them any actual authority to stop or slow down the construction of Trump's Arlington Arch or the ballroom projects?

(Z) answers: Maybe.

To start, the Arc de Trump and the ballroom require money, and the money hasn't been appropriated yet. So, the Democrats could refuse to put the funding in the budget.

Trump would probably go ahead and do whatever he wants. But Congressional Democrats would then have standing to sue, either on the basis that Trump was illegally misappropriating funds, or that he was making alterations not approved by Congress.

---

 

P.H. in Lakewood Ranch, FL, asks: I may be living in a dream world, but if the Democrats win control of both houses of Congress, what do you think is the probability of them impeaching and convicting Donald Trump and removing him from office?

(Z) answers: The odds of the Democrats impeaching Trump are close to 100%. It may not happen immediately; they may well wait 6 months or a year until he does something really bad, so they can say, "We impeached him because he did [BAD THING X]." If they impeach him on January 4, 2027, then Republicans will crow that it's a political impeachment.

Still, the Democrats almost certainly have to impeach him at some point (possibly multiple times). This is politically necessary, because Democratic voters want to see some accountability. And it is also necessary from a civic perspective, to send the message that presidents are not god-kings, and cannot do whatever they want.

The odds that he will be convicted and removed from office, at least under current circumstances, are close to 0%. It would require something like 17 Republican votes, and those votes most certainly are not available right now. Trump would have to do something so bad that even most Republican voters turned against him. Lobbing a nuke at Iran (or any other country) might do it. A smoking gun that proved Trump facilitated/engaged in sex with minors would do it, too. Maybe a couple of other things.

---

 

D.R. in Kensington, MD, asks: So I was looking at Kalshi and noticed they converted their odds into a table, like the Cook political report: safe/likely/lean/tossup. Currently, the two sites have it like this:

Kalshi: 228 DEM, 198 GOP, 9 Tossup
Cook: 206 DEM, 208 GOP, 21 Tossup

So who do you think will be closer to the result? And which of the two might get more accurate over time? Maybe they'll converge? And with such a different number of tossups, who do you think is closer on the total tossup count?

(Z) answers: I trust Cook far more than I trust Kalshi.

Whenever anyone asks me how to bet on sports, I tell them that doing so is ill-advised, unless they are treating their sports bets as their "entertainment budget." In other words, if someone spends $20 to see a movie, or someone bets $20 on a football game and that makes the game something worth watching for them, then either way, they've paid twenty bucks for 2-3 hours of entertainment.

This is not to say you shouldn't try to use some strategy, if you are indeed going to bet. Unless a person is very good at crunching numbers—and if they are, they don't need advice from me—the key to sports betting is to find situations where people are betting based on emotion rather than reason, and then to bet the other side. If Derek Jeter is playing his final game, bet against the Yankees. If the Dallas Cowboys (allegedly "America's Team") are playing in the Super Bowl, then bet on their opponent. If Steph Curry is about to break the career record for 3-point shots, bet against the Warriors.

I have watched Kalshi and the other prediction markets long enough to see that some people are placing their bets based on emotion, or on wishful thinking. There are others who appear to be manipulating the markets to send a particular message (usually, "Hey! [CANDIDATE X] is totally viable!"). That being the case, the Kalshi odds are not a 100%, cold, hard rational expression of what people actually think. By contrast, Cook most certainly IS a 100%, cold, hard rational expression of what people actually think. And, as a bonus, those people are experts in politics.

I think the problem with Kalshi (people making bets for reasons other than "this is what I think will happen") is going to be particularly pronounced with House races, since it would only take a few screwy bets to skew the odds. That means I believe Cook's tossup total much more than I believe Kalshi's tossup total.

---

 

O.Z.H. in Dubai, UAE, asks: I don't understand what people mean when they say "this year its a bad Senate map for Democrats." Is there ever a good map cycle for the Democrats, given the fact that there are 25 red states and only 18 blue states?

(Z) answers: There are two, somewhat related, ways to judge how good or bad the Senate map is for a party. The first is to count how many seats that party has to seriously defend, and to compare that to how many seats that party might plausibly flip. If there are considerably more of the former than the latter, that's a bad map.

The other way to judge a map is to figure out, for the minority party, how many seats they would need to gain (net) in order to become the majority party, and then to judge how viable it is that they could gain that many. For the majority party, you figure out how many seats they would have to lose (net), and then to judge how viable it is that they could lose that many.

Democrats may indeed have a bad map more often than Republicans do because there are more red states. However, the primary determinant is the elections that took place 6 years previous. The seats up this year (with only a couple of exceptions) are Class II, and so were last contested in 2020. That was the year in which voters punished Donald Trump and the GOP, while Joe Biden had some coattails as he rode to victory.

Under normal circumstances, one would not expect the favorable conditions of 2020 to be replicated in 2026, giving the Democrats a tough row to hoe. But Donald Trump has pulled it off. He and his party are very unpopular right now, just as they were in 2020. At the start of this election cycle, it seemed near-impossible the Democrats could retake the Senate, and everyone was writing that doing so would be a two-cycle project, at least. Now, control of the Senate is pretty close to a coin flip. So, a tough map has became a much-less-tough map.

---

 

R.L. in Alameda, CA, asks: If Abdul El-Sayed wins his election, will he be the first Muslim senator? I assume Ilhan Omar (D-MN) and Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) are Muslim. Are there other Muslims in the House? Have there been? Is there a list? I bet it's a short list.

(Z) answers: Yes, he would be. And you are right that the list of Muslim members of the House is very short. In addition to the two you name, André Carson (D-IN), Lateefah Simon and Aisha Wahab (both D-CA) are also Muslim. The only former member of Congress who is Muslim is current Minnesota AG Keith Ellison (DFL).

Undoubtedly just a coincidence that all six are Democrats.

---

 

S.E. in Okemos, MI, asks: Could you elaborate on why, at the end of your piece, "The Republiconvention, Part II: Who Is John Fetterman?," you "put your money on Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-MI)" as "the next person to occupy the role of 'Democratic apostate'?"

(Z) answers: She's a centrist, she's something of a bipartisanship fetishist, she's often publicly criticized her party (and, in particular, the leftists in her party) in the past, and she's from a purple state. We didn't say she WILL be the next Fetterman/Kyrsten Sinema, merely that she's the most obvious candidate, because she has much of the same profile as past apostates.

---

 

C.V. in Chadron, NE, asks: About a week ago, I was contacted via cell phone to participate in a survey, and I did so with a human surveyor. The survey was mostly about my feelings regarding the Senate race between Dan Osborn (I-NE) and Sen. Pete Ricketts (R-NE), although I was also asked about the governor's race and my feelings about Donald Trump. Upon completion of the survey, I asked the name of the company and was told "Dynata." I did a web search on this company and found this site. I have never heard of them. Is Electoral-Vote.com familiar with them? I wonder if they conduct private surveys for candidates? I was hoping you could tell me more about them. As someone with great curiosity about the state of the Nebraska Senate race, which hasn't had any recent polls that I know of, I hope their survey will be released publicly.

(Z) answers: Dynata is a legitimate firm, and has been in business, under various names, for nearly 50 years. The name changes over the years are not because of something shady, but because there have been a bunch of mergers and re-brandings.

That said, Dynata is not primarily a political pollster, they are a market research firm. So, when they conduct a political poll, they don't have the expertise of a pollster that specializes in politics. They might also be using the political poll as cover to collect data on the people who answer the phone, so that they can turn around and sell that data to advertisers or other businesses.

For these reasons, we probably would take a pass if Dynata wanted to talk to us.

---

 

L.W. in Los Angeles, CA, asks: Why hasn't Nebraska been polled since May? Seems like this could be an important race with national implications, but nobody has polled it?

(Z) answers: If there's going to be a poll, someone has to bear the costs. By and large, there are four types of entities that might do so.

The first of those is media outlets, who tend to focus on races that are local to them (e.g., The Los Angeles Times pays for polls of California races), or sometimes on races of national interest. There aren't too many well-heeled media outlets based in Nebraska, and it would appear that the national outlets that do polling (e.g., The New York Times) have decided this race is not yet worth the expense. They may be skeptical that an independent can win in such a red state.

The second is universities, which sometimes start polling operations as a way to boost their name recognition, or to train students in the statistical arts. Think Quinnipiac, UMass Amherst, Emerson, Monmouth, Marist, USC Dornsife, etc. The universities that choose to do this tend to be in places where there are a lot of potential races to poll. This does not describe Nebraska, and so it's not a surprise that none of the relatively small number of universities there have decided to get into the polling game.

The third is market research firms, like Dynata (see above), which are trying to get some free advertising. However, they are only going to impress potential clients if they are on target. And since they are not especially expert in political polling, they can be leery about tackling a wonky race, like one involving a serious independent candidate. Far easier to poll a traditional Democrat vs. Republican matchup (though Dynata has obviously noted that nobody else is polling Nebraska, and so decided that presented an opportunity for them).

The fourth is the candidates' campaigns, or other political groups like the DSCC, NRSC, etc. However, many polling trackers, including us, won't include polls from campaigns/political groups in their sample. One problem is that they might have cooked the books. The second, and more common, problem, is that campaigns/PACs often release only the polling data that is favorable to them.

---

 

K.E. in Newport, RI, asks: Now that the primary "season" is almost over after 8 months, I think it's time to ask this question: How much do you think the candidacy of Graham Platner will damage the progressive movement? They were extremely aggressive at promoting him in Maine and to the national press, but they clearly did not investigate him thoroughly. A thorough background check involves talking to family, friends, co-workers, intimate partners and neighbors.

I was never a Platner fan. He is a good public speaker but I was very suspicious of his lack of transparency from the beginning. He has many qualities possessed by scammers, where they win people over by telling them what they want to hear, but resist scrutiny into their private affairs. He also sold himself as a blue-collar worker, but didn't discuss having a wealthy grandfather and attending elite New England private schools in his youth. These actions are those employed by con artists.

(Z) answers: I think the damage will be very minimal. In the end, he was forced out, and quickly became yesterday's news.

Far and away, the race that will help/hurt the progressives the most is the Senate race in Michigan. If Abdul El-Sayed (D) wins, then that will be a very important proof-of-concept (lefty messaging can work, even in a purple state). If he loses, and that loss prevents the Democrats from taking control of the Senate, then it will pit the progressives against the moderates in a bitter fight that will make Hillary vs. Bernie look like a Sunday picnic.

There are a few other races, like the race in Maine between Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) and Troy Jackson (D), that will affect progressives' fortunes within the Democratic party over the next few years. But there's no question that Michigan towers above all the rest.

---

 

M.J. in Granger, IN, asks: Concerning the Qatar gift of the 747 that we have refurbished for $400M and counting, it is my understanding that the plane will revert to Donald Trump's presidential foundation for ultimate display in his library or personal use. However, currently it is U.S. government property, correct? Assuming a Democrat takes the oath of office Jan. 20, 2029, (assuming DJT doesn't attend the ceremony and is in the air when the new president is sworn in, similar to Joe Biden's inauguration), could the new president order the officers flying DJT to turn around and land back at Andrews AFB or just rescind the gift to the DJT Library? In other words, "That is a nice plane you have there, I think we'll keep it"?

(Z) answers: The Trump administration's plan, which they made no secret of when the plane was first "donated," is that Trump will transfer the plane, which is currently property of the Department of Defense, to his library foundation during the last day or two of his presidency.

There are two significant legal problems here, however. The first is that if he "owns" the plane, and has the power to transfer it as he sees fit, then the original "donation" was pretty clearly an illegal emolument.

The second, and probably larger, problem is that even if he owns the plane, or even if the Qatari government somehow gave him power to decide upon the disposition of the plane, neither Trump nor Qatar has any ownership of the $400 million in hardware and software that the federal government has added to the plane. So, he has no authority to "give" that stuff to his library foundation or to anyone else.

If Trump does try to give the plane to his foundation on January 19, 2029, you can be certain there will be lawsuits. And he will likely lose.

It is true that other presidential libraries (notably the Reagan library) ended up with old Air Force Ones. However, those planes were retired by the DoD, and then ownership was transferred by an act of Congress.

---

 

W.I.D. in Union, KY, asks: As I recall, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court presides over impeachment trials of presidents in the Senate. If the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court is impeached, who would preside over that trial?

(Z) answers: The presiding officer of the Senate, a.k.a. the Vice President of the United States, presides over all impeachment trials, excepting presidential impeachments.

The reason that the Chief Justice presides over presidential impeachments is that, if the president is convicted, then the VP gets a promotion. The fellows who wrote the Constitution felt that might make the VP less-than-neutral, and so they closed that sorta-loophole.

What the framers forgot to do was specify that the Chief Justice should also preside over vice-presidential impeachments. There's never been one of those, but if there was, then the VP would theoretically preside over his or her own trial.

---

 

D.P. in Oakland, CA, asks: What is the mechanism by which Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) could refuse to seat Democrats next January? Would it be solely his decision, or would it require a vote by the outgoing Congress?

(Z) answers: I cannot emphasize this strongly enough: This is a non-viable maneuver.

To start with, once a Congressional term ends, there are no duly serving members of the House, and the decisions of the outgoing Congress are not binding on the incoming Congress. The first thing that happens, at the start of a new term, is that the House elects a Speaker. The second thing that happens is that the Secretary of the House swears in the Speaker. And the third thing that happens is that the Speaker swears in the other 434 House members (and the three delegates) en masse. It is not likely that the Republicans will hold the majority in January, or that Johnson will be re-elected as Speaker. So, he's not likely to be in a position to try to pull this stunt. And even if he somehow is in that position, there is no way to swear in only the Republicans, since again, the ceremony is a group event.

The stunt won't work in the Senate, either. In the case of the upper chamber, if there's no swearing-in ceremony, then there would be roughly 65 duly-serving members of the Senate. But since there are 22 Republican seats up, as compared to 13 Democratic seats, that would mean a Democratic majority. And the Democrats would promptly elect a majority leader, and that leader would seat the 35 un-sworn-in senators.

On top of this, if Republicans engage in shenanigans to keep Democrats from being seated, then the Constitution would be in abeyance. Every single thing the pseudo-Congress tried to do would result in lawsuits, arguing (entirely correctly) that action [X] is not legal because the duly-elected Congress did not approve it.

---

 

J.R.S. in Peterborough, ON, Canada, asks: The new $1.00 coins have entered circulation. Any chance of the retirement of the $1 bill, to further immortalize The Convicted Felon?

(Z) answers: No chance.

First of all, it's hard to imagine that Trump would regard "I killed the $1 bill" as an accomplishment.

Second, the argument for killing the penny (and, probably soon, the nickel) is that they cost more to make than they are worth. So, they are a net loser for the Treasury. The same is not true for dollar bills, which cost less than 10 cents to make.

Third, the penny serves very few useful purposes today. By contrast, there are many contexts in which $1 bills are used, and could not easily be replaced with $1 coins. For example, there are tens of millions of vending machines that would have to be reconfigured, at significant expense. There are also many cash transactions where the $1 bill is used for precision purposes; Americans would not be thrilled to have to come up with, say, a $10 bill, a $5 bill and two $1 coins to pay for their meal at McDonalds. Also, at risk of being indecorous, there is a particular type of business where $1 bills are the predominant means of exchanging cash for services. If you're not clear what I mean here, let's just say that it's not so easy to stuff a $1 coin into a g-string.

---

 

M.W. in Huntington, NY, asks: (Z) answered a question from L.M.S. in Harbin regarding the use of AI, and offered an example of where he "caught" a student cheating, and "obviously" using AI. While Winston Churchill can't be right, as he wasn't a Californian, I took the bait (as I'm sure a zillion other readers did) and put the question to both ChatGPT and Copilot.

ChatGPT insists the correct person is John Wayne. When I said the answer is Walt Disney, it corrected itself, saying it was indeed Walt Disney, but qualified the correction in saying it could not verify that he moved to California for the health of his lungs. When it further tried to verify it, it still couldn't and suggested not to repeat the claim, as there is no proof.

Copilot came up with L. Ron Hubbard. When I pressed and said it's definitely Walt Disney, it returned saying the facts don't support that and it gave evidence of why it can't be Walt Disney.

Can (Z) provide evidence of why the correct answer is Walt Disney? I'd hate to think the student got an F that they didn't deserve.

(Z) answers: As was characteristic of his time, Disney started smoking at an early age. Certainly his early teens, and maybe earlier than that. He developed a chronic cough (which would plague him all his life, until he died of lung cancer at age 66), and went to the doctor for advice. The doctor, consistent with standard practice in the 1920s, did NOT point the finger at the cigarettes, but did say that moving to a warmer, drier climate was a good thing for breathing/the lungs. This was a common "prescription" for tuberculosis, in particular, which is why Disney's brother preceded him in moving to California. It is also why Harvey Henderson Wilcox, founder of Hollywood, moved west.

These details are covered in The Animated Man: A Life of Walt Disney.

And the question about Walt Disney isn't really about Walt Disney. It's really about the reasons that Southern California's population boomed in the late 1800s and early 1900s, one of which was that people believed moving there was good for their health. Disney is just an easy-to-remember fact related to that larger point. And so, if a student answers that question with "Disney," I can be near-certain they heard the larger presentation about the reasons that people moved to Southern California, thus causing it to grow, thus creating a need for water, thus leading to the water wars. If a student answers with someone else, it is likely they did not hear that part of the lecture.

---

 

S.S. in West Hollywood, CA, asks: Why is it considered cheating to use AI to answer your quiz question, "What notable Californian, who smoked five packs of cigarettes a day, moved to the state because he thought it would improve the health of his lungs?"

How is that different than using Google or any other search engine to research an answer? To me, it becomes cheating if you are plagiarizing and letting AI write for you, but used for research seems legitimate to me. Just be smart enough to know not everything AI tells you is going to be correct, so double check with another source. Just as you would do with any research.

The student got that question wrong because they didn't double check the answer. They should've known "Winston Churchill" didn't make sense if they gave it some thought. For getting it wrong they should have failed, but not for cheating. That seems unfair to me.

(Z) answers: It is cheating because the purpose of the quizzes, as explained in detail in class, is for students to demonstrate they heard the lectures/did the readings, and understood them. And the way they do that is by giving me the correct answers from their own minds and their own notes, not from an Internet search.

In this context, using ChatGPT, Grok, etc. is no different from using Google or Wikipedia—which are also forbidden. In the instructions box for every single quiz, I write: "As you know, you may use your notes and/or the course website during the quiz. However, the use of ChatGPT, Grok, Google, Wikipedia or other external sources is a violation of the course academic honesty policy, and will be handled accordingly."

Most quizzes and exams in college are closed-book. I probably had two or three open-book exams in my entire college career. Forbidding the use of AI/search engines serves to create a de facto closed-book exam, just one the students take at home, rather than in the classroom.

It is also worth noting that the students have to write papers for the class. For THOSE, they can use their Internet research skills (though they still cannot use AI to do the work for them). The simple rule of thumb I provide: "If you would ask your parents or your roommate to do something for you, then you can ask AI to do it for you." It would be OK to ask parents/roommates to proofread a paper, so it's OK to ask AI. It would not be OK to ask parents/roommates to write a paper, or to take a test, so it's not OK to ask AI.

---

 

M.G. in Littleton, CO, asks: I am wondering why you so often identify candidates as "Black" when there is no apparent reason for doing so. I don't see you doing this with other ethnic groups—e.g., Hispanic candidates, white candidates. Nor do you do it with white immigrant ethnic membership groups, Jews, etc. I don't take it as racist; maybe it's a generational thing where by tradition one automatically assumes race is of prime importance as a descriptor?

(Z) answers: If you think there is "no apparent reason for doing so," we wonder what nation's politics you have been following. Even in 2026, there are many, many political races in the U.S. where race is of prime importance. There are plenty of voters who factor race into their vote, either because they want to elevate candidates of a particular race, or because they want to defeat candidates of a particular race.

Also, we don't use "Hispanic," because it is outdated, but we do mention all the time that candidates are Latino. I would guess that 95% of the time we write about Sen. Ruben Gallego (D-AZ), we also include the phrase "Latino vote" somewhere in the piece. We also sometimes get more specific, and note that a candidate is, say, of Mexican descent, or of Cuban descent. We had an item where we did that just this week. We also frequently mention that a candidate is Jewish or Muslim, if that has the potential to be a dynamic in the race. Similarly, we sometimes note that a candidate is Catholic or evangelical, when appropriate. It's rarer to mention specific white sub-ethnicities, though we do sometimes write about the "white ethnic" vote, which is a broad term that includes the descendants of large-scale immigrations of the 19th century (Italians, Poles, the Irish).

Sunday Mailbag

A briefer collection of letters than usual, for obvious reasons.

Politics: This Week in TrumpWorld

 

J.G. in Olympia, WA, writes: FYI, on I-5 in south Olympia, diesel is $7.29/gal. That corridor is the only way to get north to south in Greater Cascadia.

---

 

J.E. in San Jose, CA, writes: I agree with (Z)'s analysis about the president's "resignation and desperation" regarding the outcome of November's election. Further, is there anything about Trump's tone that implies an organized assault on free and fair elections this fall? All that effort for what?

It results in the best of both worlds for the blue team: energized voters with no interference. As much as the president likes to show concern, it is becoming more clear that he only does so when he thinks it will make a difference.

---

 

D.H. in Pueblo West, CO, writes: You are missing a serious possibility with the Trump administration effort to interfere with mail-in voting. Sure, they enjoy screwing up the voting process (especially for states like California and Colorado), and would be happy to rig the elections. But I think the Trump administration knows they will lose big in the midterms and plans to deny the outcome. Right now they are building a story for the MAGA base, making sure they will believe him when he claims the midterm election was stolen. What happens in November to January is the question. He already tried to overturn one election by force, I would be unsurprised to see him try again.

---

 

R.W. in Brooklyn, NY, writes: Regarding your item on Joe diGenova resigning from the DoJ: He not only resigned, but he strongly implied that he was resigning because there was no evidence with which to persecute prosecute Trump's enemies. According to HuffPo, when New York Post reporter Josh Christenson asked diGenova about his abrupt resignation, diGenova replied: "If you want indictments where there's no evidence, you have an ethical problem."

---

 

K.H. in Albuquerque, New America™, writes: Apparently, TCF has decided that renaming New Mexico is a winning message. He has reiterated that message 9 times (as of Thursday evening) on his boutique social media accounts. Sen. Ben Ray Luján (D-NM) has sent letters to Google and Apple insisting that they not change maps on the basis of any possible, implied, or actual XO, but wait until any alteration is codified in a state constitutional amendment (not gonna happen) and approved by Congress.

Meanwhile, in a clear case of "your tax dollars at work," the Texas legislature is holding hearings on annexing 3 or more counties from southeast NM. Again, ain't gonna happen without a state constitutional amendment, which went nowhere in the last legislative session.

Performative governance at its best!

P.S.: New Mexico Republicans were mostly mum on Trump's proposal to call the state "New America." Officials from the Republican Party of New Mexico and spokespeople for the state House and Senate GOP caucuses did not immediately respond to requests for comment on the matter.

Republican gubernatorial candidate Gregg Hull was an exception. "New Mexico does not need a new name," Hull said in a statement. "This state carries the history of Native nations and Spanish explorers who named this land nearly five hundred years ago, and generations of families who built New Mexico into what it is today. That identity is not up for negotiation."

Politics: This Week in TrumpWorld, The Republiconvention

 

K.R. in Austin, TX, writes: You wrote, about Donald Trump's speech, "[W]e would not be surprised to learn that the GOP had also added some fake crowd noise to the proceedings. That's called "sweetening" the audio track, for all you Hollywood fans out there."

That reminded me of when I took a Romanian-American friend to an NBA game. The scoreboard said, "Make some noise!" The volume of the crowd appeared to get louder.

She said to me, "Look around. The cheering is getting louder but nobody is even cheering. This reminds me of when Ceaușescu gave speeches in Romania."

Apparently, "sweetening" the audio track is a favorite tactic of dictators and wannabe dictators.

---

 

D.L.M. in Spokane, WA, writes: You wrote that J.D. Vance told a person waving a Mexican flag to "get the hell out of the country." That was almost certainly staged to give Vance a chance to say that for the MAGAs.

---

 

J.E. in Whidbey Island, WA, writes: You missed one obvious further implication of Donald Trump's promise of $5,000 handouts if the GOP retains control of Congress.

It sure smacks of government redistribution of wealth, a.k.a.—gasp!—socialism. How off-brand can he get?

---

 

B.C. in Manhattan Beach, CA, writes: NPR did an interview with Republican pollster/political advisor Frank Luntz on Thursday morning.

Apparently, Luntz heard something different from what everyone else listening to Donald Trump's speech heard. Luntz said that what Trump really said (or meant—it was not quite clear) was that the populace would be better off by $5,000 per adult if the Republicans were re-elected. The interviewer (Steve Inskeep) pointed out that Trump actually said that every adult would get a check, to which Luntz said that Trump doesn't always say exactly what he means.

Who says it's not possible for two people to listen to the same speech but somehow hear two different speeches?

---

 

M.M. in San Diego, CA, writes: To both (Z) and D.E. in Lancaster: Thank you for your service!

And thanks to you watching and writing about the "convention," I instead watched the NFL season opener, which was, for the first three quarters, much like watching the Browns play the Browns. All was redeemed in the final quarter though.

Politics: This Week in TrumpWorld, A Hero in His Own Mind

 

L.E. in Putnam County, NY, writes: With regard to the insignia worn by the artificial-intelligence Trump (a natural-intelligence one may never be documented), I think that the stars on his shoulders may be gold instead of the silver worn by all actual United States Army officers ranked as lieutenant colonels or above (oak leaves for lieutenant colonels, eagles for full colonels, stars for all general officers).

The image-creator, if not Trump, might have wanted to evoke the gold stars uniquely worn by John J. Pershing, who was authorized to prescribe his own insignia as the only person to ever hold the rank of General of the Armies in his lifetime (the rank was originally proposed for George Washington, who received it posthumously as a 1976 Bicentennial publicity stunt, and more recently it was conferred on Ulysses S. Grant as a retroactive redefinition of his promotion to four-star rank in 1866). Pershing decided to wear four gold stars in a row, and his rank was considered senior to that of the men given the five-star rank.

A Trump with a row of five gold stars would thus rank even higher... perhaps this is inspired by his colleague in authoritarianism Kim Jong-Un, whose grandfather created the Grand Marshal rank that is above Marshal of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, which is above Marshal of the Korean People's Army, which is above Vice Marshal, which is above four-star general.

I have thought that Trump might consider making a particularly loyal general a five-star general to outrank all the generals who have displeased him, but the concrete obstacle of securing Senate confirmation for such a promotion may be less inhibiting to him than the issue of wanting an even higher rank for himself.

---

 

J.N. in Columbus, OH, writes: You wrote:

So, this is not going to endear Trump to all the war hawks and military fans/veterans out there. We do not know why he's suddenly so desperate to push the narrative that he's a great hero, and we also do not appreciate having to write a second item in as many days about this sort of foolishness. Still, any or all of the theses we put forward yesterday could also explain all the phony hero stuff. To wit: (1) He's losing his marbles, (2) He's doing everything he can to make the midterms about him, and/or (3) He's trying to create a distraction. In any event, tonight he'll be the featured speaker at the Republican "convention." Maybe by the time he speaks, he will be the guy who cured cancer, the guy who saved Little Round Top at Gettysburg, and the guy who died on the cross so that wrong-doers around the world could be forgiven of their sins. Literally anything is possible at this point.

Let me add another possibility: He's deliberately committing all the sins possible for a MAGA/Teabagger/military worshiper to finally see him for the Antichrist of theirs that he is. He's trying to push the boundaries. See how deep the worship goes. So while your number three is accurate, I think that's only the actual reaction of his people, not his actual reason for doing these things. I think he's having a big laugh by deliberately doing everything he can to offend them knowing they won't leave. They can't leave. He owns their very souls and they'll stand with him until the very end.

---

 

R.L.S. in Portland, ME, writes: You wrote: "We do not know why he's suddenly so desperate to push the narrative that he's a great hero."

Psychologists provide an explanation, namely SPS, a well-described syndrome afflicting men with small hands.

---

 

P.S. in New Orleans, LA, writes: So, George S. Patton's shoulder boards are red, much like what the ranking officers of the Wehrmacht wore in World War II. I'd like to think Trump isn't smart enough to make that dog whistle, but someone in his administration might be.

---

 

P.J. in Fairbanks, AK, writes: I have searched for verification that the AI image of Trump with his five stars and Medal of Honor was shared or endorsed by Trump in any way. I thought the Medal of Honor might have been a bridge too far, even for him. I suspect it is an over-the-top image for mocking and trolling Trump's childish vanity, not something he sanctioned himself. If I am wrong on this, please let me know.

(V) & (Z) respond: He sometimes deletes things when he gets blowback. However, there is certainly a screen capture out there of him sharing the meme. And there are MAGA folks who have shared it, such that even if it was originally a parody, it's now been embraced by his followers. Could well be a case of Poe's Law in action.

---

 

J.C. in Washington, DC, writes: A quick observation, as I watch the 9/11 remembrance ceremonies. POTUS is, full stop, asleep at the Pentagon as our nation attempts to mourn one of the worst days in its history. He has not yet given his address but I'm sure I will be even more infuriated once he makes his remarks. On his schedule later today? Hopping on Qatari Force One to go play golf in Ireland. Priorities.

I bring this up because you have recently highlighted how this administration is seemingly trying to shoot itself in the foot with respect to the military/veteran vote. Within my circles, including many service members still on active duty in the DC area, I can tell you that Trump is absolutely achieving his aims. The politicization of the Department of Defense (its legal name) and the disparagement of service members past and present is extremely troubling to both my former colleagues and myself. We plan to vote accordingly.

As a recently retired two-time combat veteran I always have respected, and always will respect, the office of the President of the United States. However, that does not mean that I have to respect the person holding the office. Respect is earned—not given. Theodore Roosevelt said it best, "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."

Politics: The GOP

 

A.Q. in Ithaca, NY, writes: You wrote, of Sarah Longwell, "[S]he has her finger on the pulse of the voting public more than most other people in the media do."

I would like to call your readers' attention to her new book, How to Eat an Elephant: One Voter at a Time. She has great insights and writes incredibly well. As you pointed out, she is conservative and a former Republican and "hates [Trump] with the heat of 1,000 suns," which gives her an interesting perspective. I highly recommend that book.

---

 

J.L. in Albany, NY, writes: Regarding Elon Musk spending $20 million in an election, you wrote: "And the money means nothing to him. For him, blowing $20 million is like the average person blowing $100."

Given that I'm a math geek, I felt compelled to check this out. Musk's net worth is about $858 billion. The median American net worth is $192,900. Doing the math (divide $20 million by $858 billion and multiply by $192,900) gives $4.50. So Musk's spending is the equivalent of the median American dropping $5 on a candidate and asking for 50 cents in change back.

But you did mention "average person," which is different than median, so I checked that too. The average person's net worth is $1.06 million. (The average gets inflated by the billionaires.) Running the numbers, this gives $24.71. So, the average person giving the equivalent of Musk's spending would just need a $20 bill and a $5 bill.

If anything, this shows just how much money billionaires have. They have so much money that, to them, a few million is the equivalent of a lunch out to a normal American.

---

 

J.D. in Rohnert Park, CA, writes: I think "the GOP nightmare scenario" is even worse than Charlie Cook predicts. If Democrats' margins in elections rise by 10-15% over 2024—as they already HAVE in several elections this year—the number of Democratic House gains could double the 30's Cook foresees. In the Senate, everyone knows that the GOP could lose in North Carolina, Maine, Ohio, Texas and Alaska. Iowa and Nebraska (Independent) are certainly within the realm of possibility. But now even polls in Arkansas, Louisiana and Mississippi are within the margins of error. If those seats fell, Democrats would be precariously close to a filibuster-proof majority.

Beloved People

 

S.E. in Haiku, HI, writes: In your response to R.M. in Gresham about people universally admired, like Dolly Parton, I would like to add Jimmy Buffet to the list. I do not consider myself to be a Parrot Head, I just enjoy his music, attended a few concerts and read some of his books. In other words, you don't have to be a Parrot Head to appreciate him. He lived a storied life, created a following and lifestyle that made him wealthy, stayed married to the same person until his death and wrote an immense catalog of original music.

I think there are many people like me who aren't Dolly Parton fans—meaning I don't choose to listen to her music on a regular basis—yet are left in awe when I hear her sing her songs or see her perform. Same can be said of Jimmy.

---

 

R.P.E.H. in London, England, UK, writes: I didn't bother sending this on Saturday because I assumed you'd be inundated by fellow Brits, but for us—and I would hope a lot of the rest of the world—there will be almost universal love and respect when David Attenborough dies.

For 75 years, David Attenborough has worked to improve our understanding of the world, leading to some of the best documentaries of all time. For a while he was a director at the BBC, where he commissioned programs like Monty Python's Flying Circus and documentary series such as Civilisation, The Ascent of Man and Alistair Cooke's America: A Personal History of the United States. Since then he has been the voice of almost countless documentaries on the world and its varied inhabitants.

He turned 100 years old on May 8 of this year and may he celebrate many, many happy returns.

---

 

A.B. in Wendell, NC, writes: Chalk me up as another vote for Dick Van Dyke!

---

 

G.W. in Oxnard, CA, writes: I'm sure many readers will point this out, in the Sunday mailbag, in response to which public figure might be as beloved as Dolly Parton, R.V. in Pittsburgh wrote:

I would add Clint Eastwood to the list. I just think he's been around so long most people are a fan of his work... Also, while I think he is a lifelong Republican, he strikes me as a Republican in the mold of a Nelson Rockefeller, Gerald Ford, etc. He seems to have steered away from any controversies and scandals especially given his long life.

I will remind R.V. that at the 2012 RNC (when Eastwood was 82), he gave a speech where he addressed an empty chair with an imaginary Barack Obama and conducted an imaginary interview. The imaginary Obama was foulmouthed and dimwitted. Even though this could be partially excused due to possible diminished mental capacity of old age and being from a generation of less tolerance, I have been on a Clint Eastwood Boycott since that day. When Eastwood does follow Dolly, nearly all the news items will certainly mention this incident.

---

 

S.J.W., Grand Rapids, MI, writes: Clint Eastwood is not within a country mile of being as universally revered as Dolly Parton. Have you forgotten his shilling for the GOP at the 2012 Republican Convention? The "performance" (harangue) with an empty chair he identified as Obama? In a subsequent interview, he said: "President Obama is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people..." This guy is NOT revered by anyone except those who can separate his very polarizing political views and insults from some of his art which was sometimes quite good. I should also mention his misogyny, as evidenced by his serial cheating and discussed by ex-paramour Sondra Locke in her memoir. He's no Dolly Parton.

(V) & (Z) respond: We guessed (correctly) that quite a few folks would write in with reminders of the convention appearance. We wondered if anyone would write in about the generally lecherous behavior. Unless we missed an e-mail, you're the only one. That was unexpected, since he has a long rap sheet on that front.

---

 

L.G. in Boulder, CO, writes: Your follow-up tribute to Dolly Parton prompted me to send this. It was a surprise to me, but I found a gem when I searched "Dolly Parton protest songs" (the Internet found 12). Radiolab put together a singing tribute to the 27 amendments to the Constitution, and Dolly Parton wrote and performed the Nineteenth Amendment!

She also recorded "Deportee (Plane Wreck at Los Gatos)," the Woody Guthrie song about 28 immigrant workers who died in a plane crash as they were being returned to Mexico. Guthrie was moved and outraged that the news stories reported the four crew members by name, and but only referenced 28 "deportees."

---

 

E.R. in Santa Fe, NM, writes: Wow, (Z) felt capable of writing about Dolly Parton's death, but neither (Z) nor (V) felt "particularly qualified" to write about Gloria Steinem? Think about that for a moment, it's revealing.

(V) & (Z) respond: We don't know exactly what you mean by this, and can't imagine why you found it offensive that when a legendary feminist died, we thought it best to have a woman to write about what she meant to the cause.

Gallimaufry

 

C.L.C. in San Mateo, CA, writes: You mention separation anxiety. I know from cats that cats get lonely.

Tuco Hashbrown Chorizo "T.H.C." Bates is lonely without you. Tuco Hashbrown Chorizo "T.H.C." Bates needs a friend. This also alleviates boredom when you are gone. When you are gone, Tuco Hashbrown Chorizo "T.H.C." Bates and friend can play together instead of being bored.

If you get a friend, I recommend a cat. Just remember that pets need me-time, too.

Although they will spend most of their time together, they will need to separate and decompress. With cats, each cat having a cat-condo-tree is a good idea. That said, they will spend most of their time together—playing, sleeping, grooming, etc.

(Z) responds: I am somewhat more likely to get a second dog, rather than a cat, but for now am waiting to make sure Tuco is fully integrated before deciding.

---

 

J.H. in Studio City, CA, writes: Wanted to give a quick defense of Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, far and away my favorite Quentin Tarantino movie (and he's made more 5 star classics than not). It's an uproariously funny hangout flick—I could watch a career-best Leonardo DiCaprio and Brad Pitt shoot the breeze, get high, do a commentary track on that week's FBI, etc., for hours. "Eight goddamn whiskey sours?!?" The way the film also functions as an exhibit for Tarantino's vast knowledge of forgotten cultural arcana (radio broadcasts, needle drops, TV commercials, Green Lantern guest stars) is unparalleled, as is the fact that he was able to make it with the massive budget and top-of-the-line craftspeople that he was. Every frame feels like the cast and crew went back in time to '69.

But the film's treatment of Sharon Tate is where, for me, it goes from a fun evening at the movies to an all-time classic. Though its ahistorical plot twist is certainly less high-stakes than Inglourious or Django's, it's no less emotionally powerful. Ask anyone on the street before the movie came out who Sharon Tate was... on the off chance they even knew the name, they most likely knew her solely as a victim of a heinous crime and/or the wife of one of Hollywood's most problematic figures. Ask anyone after, there's a good chance the first thing they think of is a beaming Margot Robbie as Sharon, watching herself in The Wrecking Crew as the audience applauds her performance. Tarantino uses cinema to give Sharon Tate a second life. Even now it brings a tear to my eye.

---

 

M.A. in Tucson, AZ, writes: I always get excited when I see that D.E. in Lancaster has written something. Everything always sharp, incisive, and funny! The latest Sunday post was as good as it gets. Maybe a once a month "column" for D.E.?

(V) & (Z) respond: Possibly...

---

 

P.C. in Toronto, on the shores of Lake Ontario, Canada, writes: From a Canadian reader, I wish to thank D.E. in Lancaster for the spot-on commentary. But I have to say: only D.E.? For Canadians and, I'm sure, much of the world, the question is why you are not on the streets en masse as this regime dismantles your reputation and upends everyone's lives while feeding Donald Trump's corruption. The pity is that he will likely never see his comeuppance.

As a matter of fact, we have our own movement here now: BABA—Buy Anything But American. Sadly, the good folk at Electoral-Vote.com are collateral damage.

---

 

R.S. in Piedmont, CA, writes: I wanted to share that I just released an EP called "Love Songs to Love"—see here for links to the streaming services.

The reason I wanted to share (well, I'm an artist, but...) is because I think the only way out of this mess is love, and that's what my songs are about. Guns kinda worked in World War II, but here we are again. Love needs to be amplified at this point, yes with materials, but in any and every way possible. People need to feel good about themselves again, and know they deserve better than any tRUMPed up solution to problems.

---

 

D.M. in Santa Rosa, CA, writes: Regarding all the readers who wrote in to promote THEIR team as cursed losers: Only on a site with Democratic-leaning readers could that happen.

---

 

B.S. in Houston, TX writes: I've spent some time on Electoral-Vote.com and really enjoyed what y'all are putting out, so I figured I'd just come right out and ask: Would you be open to a paid article? I'd write something original for your readers, tailored to your site. A few ideas to kick around:

• How to mix vintage and new furniture without the room feeling like a thrift store.
  
  
• The lighting mistakes that make a beautiful room feel flat.
  
  
• What a designer actually changes first in a room that isn't working.

Happy to send writing samples, or if there's a topic you've been meaning to cover, I'm glad to run with that instead. Just let me know your rate and we can go from there.

(V) & (Z) respond: You have definitely taken the temperature of the site, and figured out what we're all about.

---

 

K.H. in Maryville, TN, writes: Last Sunday, J.E. in Brooklyn wrote that theirs may be the first Electoral-Vote.com marriage proposal. I just have to chime in...

Multiple times a week, my day is busy to the point that I haven't read the site before bedtime. Spouse heads off to bed with a perfunctory kiss and a "please come to bed soon." My response is "I know, I know, I'm tired too, but I haven't finished reading Electoral-Vote.com yet today!"

I guess I need to do better before mine becomes the first Electoral-Vote.com-inspired divorce!

Final Words

 

M.G. in Oakland, CA, writes: "I wished to do more harm than I could." No, not Donald Trump, whose final words are still to be spoken. These are from Ranulf Flambard, Norman Bishop of Durham.

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.
• Guidelines for questions (Saturdays) and letters (Sundays)

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

---

Email a link to a friend.

---The Votemaster and Zenger