Sunday Mailbag

If we may say so, the "All Politics is Local" section is particularly instructive this week.

Politics: The State of the Union

M.G. in Boulder, CO, writes: J.B. in Radnor asked how the Electoral-Vote.com writers keep their sanity. (Z) replied, "I wish I had something profound to say, but I do not."

To (Z), I reply: You're standing too close. Months ago, (V) told us that things were going to get worse because change comes when we can't put up with what we're getting. It's like deciding to stop drinking—you have to reach a level that's unbearable to you to find the will to change. If we're not there, we're close. And I'm encouraged because I was forewarned—by E-V.com.

In recent weeks, the bad news on E-V.com has changed. It used to be bad news for me and my side. Increasingly, it's now bad news for Donald Trump and his administration. Do I like seeing a regime that kills its own people get the upper hand on my country? No. But if that's part of getting the biggest threat to world peace out of power, reading about that encourages me. Trump's poll numbers are going down. Good. An aging, sick, supposedly powerless prince can come here and remind us that we have ways of correcting our mistakes and be applauded by people who need the reminder. That helps. No Kings. May Day Strong. Reverse gerrymandering. Dummymandering. Democratic overperformance. Negative legal news for the Trump team shows up weekly, thanks to (L). Positive Talarico (D) news from traditionally red Texas. E-V.com tells me about them. That's encouraging. There's almost always something to make me feel hopeful, and there's often more than one thing.

It takes time for people to see the shift, even for the people who write about it. (V) and (Z) used to say, "Not a chance for impeachment." Now you are talking about a blue wave and possibilities. E-V.com never raises false hopes, so when you do say something positive, we know it's for real.

---

R.M.S. in Lebanon, CT, writes: I disagree with (L)'s analysis a bit on the potential outcome of Louisiana v. Callais for two reasons. It may temporarily reduce the number of racial minorities in Congress in the short term, but I see no reason to believe the effects will be long-lasting. First, as recently as 9 years ago, the U.S. had a Black president who won with over 50% of the electorate in both of his elections. I do not believe in 2026 the majority of Americans have an objection to electing racial minorities to federal and state offices. Secondly, speaking as a man born in the 1980s, I believe Americans under age 50 are much more racially tolerant and cohesive than Baby Boomers and older generations are. (There are exceptions, like Nick Fuentes, but he does not reflect a majority of younger people.)

I actually think, going forward, religious minorities will be much greater targets for disenfranchisement and exclusion from government than racial minorities are. If you look at the religious demographics of the United States, about 20% of the country is Humanist or irreligious. That's about 1 in 5 Americans, and it's a percentage that's growing. This is not reflected in the composition of Congress, however. Christians and Jews are both overrepresented in Congress relative to their share of the population. I don't see any signs this is changing, since even in most blue states there has not been an organized effort to get more irreligious people elected to office to better reflect the views of their constituents.

I wrote yesterday asking about Christian Nationalism, and I worry about it because there are signs this movement is gaining traction in the U.S., especially since the pandemic. The people who belong to it have a lot of money and media influence, and want to exclude people who do not follow their religious principles from the government. I am a Humanist Buddhist because I reject belief in the supernatural but I agree with the system of Buddhist ethics and they are compatible with a naturalistic view of the world. Christian Nationalists make it clear that people like me are not welcome influencing policy.

---

D.P. in Seattle, WA, writes: It says a lot about the GOP when the man below is presented as the "sane Republican" alternative for their party in 2028:

Politics: This Week in TrumpWorld

J.L. in Albany, NY, writes: I've taken to calling Donald Trump's second term "The Meme Presidency." The "8647" suit against Comey and the rambling about how "we need the Ballroom" filing just reinforce this. They often seem to do things not to succeed, but to generate content to post memes or press releases about.

Remember the sandwich thrower? He had his home raided in order to post a video of this on social media. However, the case itself fell apart and they lost.

There also were the protesters who were arrested for entering a church where the pastor supported ICE. The Trump administration posted a photo of one of the women who was arrested—but only after editing it to make it look like she was crying. They also arrested Don Lemon—a journalist covering the protest—and charged him as if he was part of the protest. I believe these cases are still going on, but I doubt the feds will win them.

I could go on, but this is going to be long enough as it is. I predict the same fates for the 8647 and Ballroom cases. There will be some high profile memes and press releases posted attacking anyone not fully aligned with Trump. They will threaten that anyone who speaks out will meet a similar fate. Then, they will lose in court. However, by then they will have moved on to the next Meme Moment.

---

N.A. in Asheboro, NC, writes: The characterization of Donald Trump, by C.F. in Waltham, as perhaps the "worst businessman ever" jogged something to the front of my mind.

I've met a number of people in my parents' generation who can't give a specific reason they continue to vote for The Convicted Felon (TCF), other than he "reminds [them] of Ronald Reagan." I missed Reagan's presidency by a few years, but I've read enough about the Gipper to think that they do share one great commonality: namely, a fundamental lack of understanding of all the concepts underlying their own policy proposals. What's interesting to me about this is that they were both actors before turning to politics; Reagan in film and Trump on reality TV. I have never tried acting myself, and I don't believe I would be good at it if I did. I do believe that it takes serious effort and skill to do it, and some actors are quite intelligent. But I also see interviews and social media posts that make me think "oh right, their smartest character was written for them by someone else, and their performance in that role was under someone's direction."

I'm not trying to denigrate the skill and hard work involved, but the fact that someone played a genius on TV doesn't make them one in real life. I guess I'm trying to say that I think Trump and Reagan both leveraged this idea of "playing above your intellect" into becoming our two dumbest presidents.

---

M.D.H. in Coralville, IA, writes: Since I have decades of experience actually doing infectious disease research, I was appalled by the choice of Casey Means for Surgeon General and I am utterly disgusted with RFK Jr. and others like Jay Bhattacharya. In this context, Nicole Saphier is a much better choice than Means: She has actually practiced medicine and isn't an out-and-out anti-vaxxer. But most public health experts disagree with her views on Hep B shots for infants and on vaccine schedule flexibility. The changes to vaccine policy that she advocates, while much less drastic than what RFK wants, would put many children at increased risk of sickness and death.

On the autism question, while she concedes that there is no evidence of risk, she sometimes uses mealy-mouthed phrasing like "inconclusive." Technically, a study finding no evidence of something harmful is "inconclusive" because you can never prove ZERO effect. However, a study can say, "We are 95% confident the effect is very small," and many studies have shown exactly that. It is theoretically possible, though mechanistically implausible, that vaccines might increase autism risk by a very very tiny amount. Given the enormous amount of data we have, it is NO LONGER REASONABLE TO THINK vaccines have a clinically important effect on autism risk. Saphier knows this and should stop equivocating.

On larger policy issues, she uses conservative "individual responsibility" framing to avoid discussing structural issues that affect many people's ability to live healthy lives.

She has also made some statements hostile to the trans community.

In short, she is an actual physician with a decent scientific background who sometimes allows ideology to overcome evidence. She may well be the most reasonable choice for Surgeon General that we can expect from this administration. The Administration probably sees her as the most "MAHA" candidate who might get Senate confirmation after the Means fiasco showed how unpopular tinfoil-hat views on vaccines are.

---

E.M. in Milwaukee, WI, writes: As an affluent retired person, I stay quite aware of how the markets (stock/bond/real-estate) are performing, even though I rarely change what I'm doing in those markets. My track record in predicting market moves is nothing special. I've been wrong in my guesses about as much as I've been right.

So, the markets are currently treading water while at a very high point of value. I struggle to see how this can last. The Iran War is almost certain to create a world of hurt for many parts of the world economy and the U.S. can't avoid all of that pain. I get that the current AI boom is based on some real technical advances that will, indeed, change how we live. But the AI sector is terribly over-invested and is also facing strong resistance to data center growth. Perhaps the industry will end up feeling that the resistance was a blessing in disguise, by tamping down some of the worst excesses. But data center growth is critical to their current business model.

I struggle to see how the war and a likely bubble in AI are not going to wreak havoc in the markets soon.

---

M.M. in San Diego, CA, writes: The cost of living is about to explode, especially at the grocery store, because distribution costs have begun to bite. Grocery prices are already high because they never returned to pre-COVID levels, which is one of the widespread "affordability" grumbles.

Today, I received notice of the price increases on items I buy monthly from Amazon. The eye popper is the $7 increase on coffee, followed by the $5.50 additional for filters for the HVAC. $4 here, another $3+ there adds up fast. Now, I am probably a victim of Amazon's dynamic pricing, but still, prices typically creep, not long jump.

Consequently, I don't think many Republican House members will hold town hall meetings during the upcoming recess, unless they want to find out how many of their constituents own pitchforks.

---

J.P. in Lancaster, PA, writes: In your item about Donald Trump's (or his assistant's) legal filing about the National Trust for Historic Preservation suit, you characterized his writing as "second-grade level." My only objection to the entire piece is that characterizing his writing as "second-grade level" is a horrible insult to every second-grade student in this country. Other than that, I'm right there with you.

---

J.E. in San Jose, CA, writes: You wrote: "This obviously has Trump's fingerprints all over it, from the stream-of-consciousness narrative, to the use of MAGA buzzwords like 'TDS,' 'FAKE' and 'Democrat' (instead of 'Democratic'), to the pi**-poor grammar and arbitrary capitalizations, to the elementary-school-level conception of what does and does not constitute evidence. Either Trump wrote it himself, or someone mimicked his style at his command."

Honestly, between the buzzwords referenced by (Z) and the em dashes, it sounds like something AI would write if prompted to use the president's voice and tone.

---

B.C. in Walpole, ME, writes: I had to tell you how appreciative I was of the way Electoral-Vote.com phrased this: "Donald Trump is at an impasse. He doesn't know what to do about Iran and he is stuck. He probably dimly senses that he has to get some serious concession from Iran in order to avoid giving the Democrats a potent talking point in the midterms. He probably also dimly senses that..."

As a member of the Older-American Community, it's my burden in life to yell at TV talking heads and print/Internet opinion writers who without thinking, just using common narrative language, say things like, "[X] has taught the White House a lesson..." and "Trump is learning that..." and "Now the Trump administration is seeing that...", when in fact there is no evidence to support the idea that any minds are changing. But (V) wrote "Trump is dimly aware," which got to the truth of the matter.

---

J.L. in Mountain View, CA, writes: You wrote: "The Iran War could end tomorrow, or could still be going when Trump leaves office."

I ask: "Why not both?"

Politics: 86'ed

B.W. in Easton, PA, writes: I would like to disagree with your interpretation of the meaning of "86." I spent many years in the restaurant business. Before, after, and during my teaching career. I had my first waitering and bartending gig when I was 18 years old (52 years ago). In the business, as we like to refer to those of us who work for the adoring public, 86 does not mean "get rid of." It more commonly means "we are out of..." In most restaurants, as part of the pre-shift meeting, the chef will say things like "we are low on veal parmesan" or "we are out of cauliflower." This means cauliflower is "86ed" and the veal might be 86ed soon. Most places will have a white board where a running tally of remaining items that are in short supply. Many places will also list "86ed" items. The purpose of this is to prevent the embarrassing situation where a server takes an order, then has to go back to the table and find out what the customer would like instead ("sub") of the veal parm. As a night at a restaurant progresses, chefs will announce "86 veal parmesan" which means that there is no more veal parm. I can still hear the next phrase "someone write it on the board" in my head, as I sit here typing. In a cooperative "house," servers will share the phrase verbally. Many times the chef might say "someone tell the bartenders," because they don't get into the kitchen as often, if at all. (Also see The Bear).

This brings me to the seashells on the beach picture. Whomever placed those shells in that configuration, to me, was saying "we are out of our 47th President." This is rather enigmatic. How can we be "out of" a President? Does it mean "get rid of" or does it mean "I'm done with"? Perhaps it means "47 is out of his mind, therefore he needs to quit" or "we can't sell 47 any more because it isn't up to our standards." It might mean "47 smells funny, so I'm taking it off the menu" or even "47 is sold out." In the world of politics, getting rid of someone means voting them out of office, impeaching them and/or sending them to jail. It clearly could mean "I'm done with 47, let's vote him out of office." Who knows? Don't argue with the chef.

I am struck by the creativity of that soul who left that image and I am intrigued with the fact that James Comey would choose to share this curious image on his Instagram.

On the other hand, I have never been a part of any crime organization. I now know that in criminal gangs, "86" could mean "get rid of" in the "you need to kill" sense. But that is not how I saw it. Even an AI search of "86" in the movie series The Godfather had multiple, vague interpretations of 86. If the people close to 47 were are in the restaurant business, they would see it my way. I guess they didn't. Perhaps they watched a bit too much of The Godfather, or something.

I do agree with you that clearly, Comey has a strong, if not airtight, defense. He certainly did nothing wrong in sharing an enigmatic image while walking on the beach and clearly, upon reflection, withdrew it and apologized. Case closed. Especially if he has any restaurant experience.

On the other hand, if the case goes the other way and it actually goes to trial, I would be more than happy to offer my testimony as an expert witness to one of the meanings of "86."

Don't forget to tip your waiter or waitress.

---

C.Z. in Sacramento, CA, writes: When I was a waitress in the 1970s, "86" was used as shorthand from the chef to the wait staff, to tell them that a particular menu item was unavailable. The chef didn't have time to explain the various reasons, but if it happened in the middle of a shift, it usually meant that they had just sold the last serving of that item. The wait staff would need to know that immediately, so that they could communicate that to the diners and: (1) change any orders for that menu item that would have been placed after the "86," or (2) inform the diners who had not yet ordered, that we were out of that item. It definitely did NOT mean "get rid of it", as the wait staff did not have the power to get rid of food. The meaning was more like "it is not available, so you'll have to choose another option."

In a political context, I suppose "86-47" would mean "replace" 47. In no way does "86-47" encourage an assassination attempt on tRump, just as my "Tuck Frump" button does not mean that I want to have carnal knowledge of the Orange Menace. I believe it's called "free speech."

---

S.H. in Sausalito, CA, writes: "86" has a few meanings. In New York City restaurant slang, "86" means "we're out of." It doesn't mean "get rid of." So "86 the black bean soup" means "we're out of the black bean soup."

I owned a sports bar in NYC, and before that worked my way up from busboy.

The use of "86" seems to originate with Chumley's, at 86 Bedford Street, which was a speakeasy, with a dirt passage in the basement that led to a neighboring building. So "let's 86" might have originally meant, "let's skedaddle." Chumley's was the best bar in the world.

---

T.G. in Mount Vernon, NY, writes: In your 8647 piece, you mention the 25th Amendment. I thought you were going to comment that if you add up all those numbers 8+6+4+7 it equals 25. That could be a defense for Comey.

---

J.S. in Quincy, MA, writes: I swear I didn't plan this! It's Amazon's fault! I hope Todd Blanche goes after Jeff Bezos instead of me!

Politics: The Democrats

M.B. in Oxford, MA, writes: Instead of "Build Back Better," I propose Democrats use: "Reset, Restore, Rebuild" (Reset to norms, Restore trust and international leadership, Rebuild our infrastructure, water, power.)

(V) & (Z) respond: Homework time. This is going to be the question of the week for next week, once we run the answers about coping with the darkness of modern American politics. So, be thinking about potential sound-byte-y branding for the Democrats in 2028.

---

S.W. in Harrisburg, PA, writes: I agree with Z's answer to B.C. in Manhattan Beach about Republicans' use of "Democrat Party," but speculate that there's more going on.

I think it's an attempt to separate the Democratic Party from the idea of democracy, as in the Republicans are not against democracy as an idea, but just against these specific people.

However, less frequently, I've also seen some take the argument to the next logical step, by refusing to acknowledge that America has a democratic system. In these situations, they insist we're a republic, again trying to say that the Republican Party is the true protector of our system.

Every time I catch these, I acknowledge that we're a republic, but a democratic republic, because our elected representatives are selected by the people. None have yet to respond to that.

---

T.G. in Lee's Summit, MO, writes: Per your response to B.C. in Manhattan Beach: Finally, someone answers the question! For a long time now, anytime I hear someone refer to the "Democrat" party I immediately tune them out.

There may be many criticisms, legitimate or otherwise, to be leveled at Democrats, and the discourse is welcome. But the use of that one moniker is a sure tell that there is nothing to be gained from the discussion.

---

J.E. in San Jose, CA, writes: To add to (Z)'s accurate response regarding what it likely means when someone uses the phrase "Democrat Party," I would say that its origin likely lies in Rush Limbaugh's radio program, where I would hear it for years while carpooling with a libertarian colleague 20 years ago. You can learn a lot by sampling the media that people with different beliefs consume.

Politics: L.O.L.

R.M. in New York, NY, writes: R.W. in Brooklyn asks: "I'm wondering what you envision when you suggest that 'states and counties must physically resist handing over anything without a valid warrant./ I'm envisioning the little old ladies who staff my polling place duking it out with some brawny sheriff's deputies, and it's not a pretty picture. I'm guessing you had something else in mind?"

Let's not sell "little old ladies" short. Honestly, I'd rather the faith of democracy be in their hands than someone from the younger generations.

This is just one example of why I think this way, but the more you look into this, the more you find that little old ladies and little old men are actually doing the work that needs to be done: "These are the climate grannies. They'll do whatever it takes to protect their grandchildren."

---

C.K. in Haymarket, VA, writes: R.W. in Brooklyn wrote that they were imagining the little old ladies staffing their polling places duking it out with brawny deputies over ballots. I am one of those white-haired ladies staffing a polling place, and I am here to tell you we are a fierce lot! We are trained to know what's OK and what is NOT and we have ALL taken an oath to protect the integrity of the election. I bet many of those brawny deputies might be scared of their sixth grade teacher or Sunday school teacher, and others might be scared of having the threat of a felony explained with multiple cell phones recording. I plan to learn how to use my phone to record and live-stream simultaneously so it would be too late to delete it!

All Politics Is Local

A.G. in Scranton, PA, writes: Sh**. If we win the Senate, John Fetterman (D-PA) is gonna flip.

Fu**. How has the probability of that rat doing that not been written about by a thousand paid writers yet?

You should depress everyone with that today.

---

L.E. in Putnam County, NY, writes: My guess is that John Fetterman's "Republicans fucking love him" comment on Graham Platner (D) is not saying that Platner would get Republican votes, but that he's their dream opponent because of the ammunition Collins can use against him... I realize the second sentence starting "Maine wants" rather than "Maine Democrats want" undermines this, but that could be the stroke addling his expression.

(V) & (Z) respond: We got several comments along these lines, and you are right, we misunderstood his meaning. That said, it's still bad analysis. Platner has already had plenty of mud slung in his direction, and it bounced right off him.

---

J.B. in Hutto, TX, writes: Your write-up of the Texas U.S. Senate race was very good but left out the key element of fundraising. According to the Texas Tribune, Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) raised $9 million in the first quarter of 2026, while Ken Paxton (R) raised $2.2 million. By contrast, James Talarico (D) raised an astounding $27 million in the first quarter of 2026. This is the biggest 3-month haul for any Senate candidate in history, in any state, ever. And while Cornyn and Paxton are still spending gobs of money battling it out in the Republican primary, Talarico has been sitting back and filling his war chest.

Whoever the Republican candidate turns out to be, he's going to have to work very hard to replenish his bank account for the general election. Talarico is sitting pretty as far as money is concerned. In an state as expensive to campaign in as Texas, this is a very big deal.

---

L.E. in Santa Barbara, CA, writes: Last weekend, you ran a couple of letters regarding the California governor's race. Some readers are supportive of Tom Steyer (D), so I did a little looking. Initially, his upbringing, business background, and public service looked impressive. My spousal unit and I decided to seek out our assemblyman at his sidewalk hours to ask him exactly why he supports Steyer (a mix of his background plus strategic thinking—we really need to get a Democrat into the governorship). We felt pretty positive about Tom and his trajectory. However, for strategic reasons, we were waiting to see how things were playing out closer to the election because, yes, we must get a Dem into the guv'ship.

Then yesterday this Steyer flyer hit our mailbox (this is just page one of four):

WTF? Racist beyond belief. Very Republican. Blaming Becerra for what he inherited from Trump v1.0.

Steyer does not need our money, but Becerra undoubtedly does. And maybe those other readers who are fans of Steyer will want to re-evaluate and do as we are doing: Hold your powder until we see that Tom Steyer is the only alternative to a Republican.

---

R.L. in Alameda, CA, writes: I'd like to implore all of the Californians who are throwing their support behind Tom Steyer to reconsider. He says all the right things, but do we really need a billionaire running the state right now? We are supposed to be the party of regular folks and we are considering turning to a billionaire to solve our problems? Sorry, but there simply is no such thing as an altruistic, ethical billionaire. You just can't accumulate that kind of money while also working towards the greater good.

With his money, there are a lot of things Tom Steyer could do to improve the lives of Californians other than running for governor. He could follow the MacKenzie Scott model and start giving his fortune away. He could follow the Scott Galloway model and use his influence to promote something good for society (Galloway pushes back on "bro" culture and promotes healthy masculinity. He also spearheaded the "unsubscribe" movement as a means of trying to reduce the influence of tech oligarchs).

I was ready to throw my support behind Eric Swalwell. Thank goodness the news came out about his misdeeds before the primary. Can you imagine the mess we'd be in if he was on the ballot in the fall against Steve Hilton (R) when this news came out? I liked Katie Porter (D) when she was in Congress, but nothing she has done since has convinced me that she would make a good executive. I'll take a look at Xavier Becerra. His name seems to be popping up lately and he does have the advantage of having won a statewide election (he was attorney general from 2017-21, before joining President Biden's cabinet as Secretary of Health and Human Services). I will likely be one of those annoying undecideds who will jump on the bandwagon of the highest polling Democrat and drop off my ballot on June 1 (the election is June 2).

---

J.A. in Monterey, CA, writes: In response to the comments by Acting Secretary of the Navy, Hung Cao, on witches and pagans controlling Monterey, California, let me give an official report from Monterey, where I have lived for nearly two decades. I can confirm that the city is indeed overrun... but not by witches but instead retired admirals, marine biologists, language professors (at the Army's Defense Language Institute), military officers (attending the Navy's Naval Postgraduate School), and tourists willing to pay $21 for a bowl of clam chowder in a sourdough bread bowl.

If there is a witchcraft conspiracy controlling the municipal government, it is the least dramatic conspiracy in American history, as the biggest local controversy I can recall occurred during one of the annual Sea Lion conventions around Labor Day, where a few Sea Lions weren't too happy about other Sea Lions climbing over them trying to find an open spot on the sand. And this wasn't secret, as it was well documented:

I cannot speak to what happens after midnight. But during business hours, Monterey appears to be controlled primarily by the Monterey Bay Aquarium, John Steinbeck's ghost, an unusually aggressive and cute-as-buttons population of sea otters, and really foul smells around Labor Day (see above). If those Sea Otters are practicing witchcraft, I will admit they have been very subtle about it—although, now that I think about it, they do float on their backs with suspicious serenity while cracking open shellfish in what could generously be described as ritualistic.

---

J.T. in Lexington, KY, writes: Gallrein Farms, the Shelbyville farm business of KY-04 House candidate Ed Gallrein, is not a dairy farm.

It grows produce, plants and vegetables, and serves them up in a fun farmers' market atmosphere with petting zoos, a wedding and events pavilion, and fall agritourism activities like a you-pick-em pumpkin patch, a corn maze, and hayrides.

They also give away their delicious sweet corn in Lexington (not part of KY-04) every Fourth of July, and supply several local restaurants with their yummy, fresh local vegetables.

But Gallrein's is not a dairy farm any more; they transitioned out of dairy cattle when the government offered a buyout program in 1980 to help a sagging market.

I think Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) is too well-loved in his northern Kentucky district to be unseated, but it must be remembered that Gov. Andy Beshear (D-KY) painted a couple of Massie's red counties blue in his 2019 re-election bid. Maybe the home-grown respect for Gallrein's produce can bear fruit for the farmer himself.

---

D.H. in Boston, MA, writes: As someone whose hometown is in NY-21 (Hi, M.S. in Canton and R.S. in Ticonderoga!) and still travels back regularly, it's been funny to see the district show up as a topic on Electoral-Vote.com. I largely agree with (V)'s take on the current primary. Anthony Constantino is not a great cultural fit. He's a rapper (you can find some of his tracks online, but I've hesitated to click on them), and the Republicans in NY-21 are more into country music or classic rock. If Constantino does win his primary, I'd say Blake Gendebien has about as good a chance against him as James Talarico does in the Texas senate race if Ken Paxton gets the Republican nomination there. (To my knowledge, Constantino has committed no crimes or other disqualifying actions, he's just a really bad culture fit.) There are plenty of Democrats in the district, but there are probably enough Republicans who are willing to show up to hold their nose and vote for the candidate with the (R) by his name.

---

M.S. in Canton, NY, writes: Thanks for the piece on the race to replace Elise Stefanik in NY-21. May I add some details of the view from the ground?

For background, NY-21 is almost exactly identical to the part of New York known as "the North Country": the Adirondack mountains and surrounding lowlands. In an era of extreme gerrymandering, it is remarkably coherent geographically and culturally. It is very rural; the largest city in the district has a population of under 33,000, while no other municipality breaks 20,000. To varying degrees, it suffers from all the familiar ills of modern rural America.

On the Republican side, I have no insight into who will win the primary. Anthony Constantino, the Trump-endorsed candidate, comes across as a bull in a china shop. Here in Canton he was thrown out of a county Republican Committee meeting because he kept interrupting his opponent's presentation, to call him a liar. Not surprisingly, the committee endorsed his opponent.

You mentioned that Constantino has also been endorsed by Rudy Giuliani. It's anybody's guess who is supposed to be impressed by that, but YouTube keeps showing me a low-budget ad with the two of them sitting together. Rudy looks uncomfortable and almost seems to have no idea who he is endorsing.

The Democrats in the district have no bench. None. For decades the pattern has been for them to nominate some local official who is unknown in the rest of the district, or even a private citizen who is a household name only in his or her own household, as a sacrificial lamb.

This year's near-certain nominee, Blake Gendebien, is a dairy farmer who has done some excellent work in his community, although his only previous elected position was on the school board in a tiny rural school district. He is working hard on his campaign; I met him briefly, and he comes across as energetic, enthusiastic, and personable. I seriously doubt that will be enough to overcome the heavy Republican lean of the district, even in a blue wave. I have seen this movie too many times before.

Finally, as an example of exactly how Republican this area is, here is my all-time favorite piece of political trivia: Before a Democrat was elected to the House of Representatives in a wonky three-way special election in 2009, Franklin County, NY, had been represented in the House by a Whig more recently than by a Democrat.

---

D.W. from San Jose, CA (but currently in Omaha, NE), writes: I'm currently visiting family in Omaha, and the Democratic primary in NE-02 is getting a ton of advertising time, including a ton of apparent ratfu**ing from shady PACs. The polling shows John Kavanaugh with a substantial lead over Denise Powell, but a look at fund-raising shows that Powell has a huge edge. That's mildly suspicious, but then there's the ads from various PACs. Kavanaugh is a state senator, so the theory goes that if he's elected, the very MAGA governor will appoint someone of similar ilk, ond then the red team will have a supermajority in the unicameral and destroy the "Blue Dot," kill abortion access, and generally do terrible things—so vote for Powell to avoid all of that. There's also ads countering that idea from the Kavanaugh campaign directly, but it's a moderately compelling story. It's also extremely tiresome because of the gigantic frequency of all of the ads which are entirely for this one race.

History Matters

M.L. in West Hartford, CT, writes: I have a contrarian take on the question of what was the most "happy and prosperous" era in human history: now.

By virtually any measure of human progress and quality of life you can find, the 21st Century beats any previous era. Global per-capita GDP is higher than it has ever been. Even though many of our societies suffer from high levels of income inequality, this rise in GDP has clearly led to significant improvements in the quality of life of the average person. Deaths by famine have been greatly reduced. Child mortality has declined from an estimate of approximately 50% for most of human history to a recent low of about 4%. Despite recent conflicts such as the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the ongoing war in the Middle East, this era has seen fewer deaths in military conflicts than most other eras. Bigotry and discrimination remain with us, but awareness of the evils of these ways of thinking has probably never been more widespread than it is today, and this is reflected in both law and culture.

I anticipate outraged responses where the many catastrophes and crises in the world today are listed. I neither deny them nor minimize them. But this is a comparative question; Anyone who seeks to refute my thesis must not only provide evidence for why the current era is not a happy and prosperous one, but must provide evidence that another era was more so. Given that the average person was the equivalent of a peasant for the vast majority of human history—struggling every day for subsistence, with little to no power over the conditions of their lives—the current era seems significantly better.

I think a more interesting question would be: Why do people seem to fairly consistently report that the era in which they live represents a decline for humanity, with some prior period representing a golden age?

---

A.W. in Brandon, FL, writes: O.E. in Greenville asked about the longest political dynasty in United States history. When I want to find out about political dynasties or have other questions about political families or biographies, I often turn to PoliticalGraveyard.com. They bill themselves as "A Database of American History, The Internet's Most Comprehensive Source of U.S. Political Biography or, The Web Site that Tells Where the Dead Politicians are Buried." I find it to be quite comprehensive. According to its own statistics, it has information on over 338,000 politicians, living and dead.

---

D.C. in Teaneck, NJ, writes: Only because I can't resist sharing this oddity.

You wrote: "The organization is the United Daughters of the Confederacy. Anyone who can claim to be an actual daughter of the Confederacy (i.e., alive when the Confederacy existed, or the child of a Confederate veteran) is long dead."

You specified children of Confederate veterans. Had you allowed simply Civil War veterans, two verified children of a Civil War veteran were among us till quite recently: 2013. Samuel P. Dinsmoor—a real character who created the truly memorable "Garden of Eden" in Lucas, KS—served in the Civil War on the Union side. After his wife died, he engaged a young housekeeper. They married when he was 81 and she was 22. They had two children together, both of whom lived until 2013. In fact, says Wikipedia, his son John served in the Vietnam War.

The Garden of Eden is very much worth a visit if anyone is traveling nearby.

---

K.R. in Austin, TX, writes: There may be at least one actual UDC who is alive, depending on how you define it. Maudie Hopkins was one of the people who married a very elderly Confederate soldier when she was very young. She died in 2008.

One of her daughters has passed away, but I found that another daughter commented on an obituary post in 2024. I think she may actually still be alive and be the daughter of an actual Confederate widow.

---

J.E. in Gilbertsville, PA, writes: Your piece on the UDC brought a memory to mind. In early fall 2020, desperate to be surrounded by something other than the four walls of our house, we spent a week in a rental in McGaheysville, VA. My three children were ages 16 to 20 years old at the time and the older two are history devotees. In fact, the oldest was majoring in history at the time (the younger of the two is now pursuing archaeology [ancient Rome focus]). So I figured there'd be some world-class American history to be found in the area.

We stopped in at a little museum that my photo history tells me is called the New Market Battlefield Military Museum. Turns out that museum is quite the education, because the New Market Battlefield Military Museum is 100% all-in on the Lost Cause version of the Civil War. The entirety of the display highlights the white experience and it is absolutely soaked in tissue-wringing sentimentality. We all came out the other end with a clear understanding of the mindset of the many Southerners wrap themselves in the Confederate flag and the identity therewith.

Maybe you can argue we shouldn't have been surprised, but we are still marveling over the disconnect between the historical view and the Lost Cause view.

---

R.E.M. in Brooklyn, NY, writes: I enjoyed (Z)'s facetious suggestion Virginia replace Robert E. Lee on license plates with Ulysses Grant. But I have a more serious one: How about replacing Lee with George Thomas? The "Rock of Chickamauga" wasn't quite the general that Grant was (who is?), but he was one of the most successful in his own right. Most importantly, he was a Virginian who took his oath to the Constitution seriously and stuck with the Union. For that reason alone, he's a hero patriot in my book, particularly now when so many of our "leaders" are spitting on their oaths again.

(V) & (Z) respond: Maj. Robert Anderson, the hero of Sumter, was also a native Virginia who stuck with his oath.

---

C.M. in Raymond, NH, writes: (Z) wrote, "It can be very, very difficult to persuade some students that a paper in a college-level history course is, in fact, an essay that advances a thesis, a thesis supported by primary evidence."

I really wish someone had put that on a billboard when I was an undergrad. I was an engineering major and a chronic procrastinator, so while I enjoyed the liberal arts classes I took, I really didn't have (or, more accurately, take) the time to do the reading and prepare papers.

I remember particularly doing a last-minute paper on the Lithuanian SSR—a report, really, rather than a paper as you describe. In retrospect, a thesis about a strain of independence that persisted through the Soviet era would have been a lot more interesting, even rushed and half-baked as it would have been.

That class was fascinating, BTW... I was very interested in the changes underway in the Soviet Union, so I took Russian first year (and barely passed), then in the summer of 1991, I registered for a fall class called "Soviet Domestic Politics." And BOY was that a barn-burner! We got an expert guide, Dr. Linda Cook, and a front-row seat to the disintegration of the USSR (along with commentary on the historical part of the class from a guy named Sergei Khrushchev). I am still working through the unfinished reading, and finding great insights about the state of Russia and the ex-Soviet republics today.

So on a tangential note... if any readers are looking at colleges, or talking with young 'uns who are, the difference between elite schools and second-tier ones is not the education itself, or even the job prospects, it's the opportunity for experiences like that. Not worth the cost differential, but more and more of the top schools are now not only need-blind but have zero-debt financial assistance.

Adaptations

T.B. in Waterloo, IA, writes: In your answer to A.H.S in Brier, about movies that were better than the books they were based upon, you missed two.

First, "The Shawshank Redemption" short story by Stephen King. I like King's writing, but I found the that short story disjointed. All the elements are there but the writing wasn't up to King's usual standard. Whoever wrote the script for the movie took all of those elements and some of the dialogue and made it into the story so many of us love. And the wonderful Morgan Freeman and Tim Robbins brought Red and Andy to life.

Second, Last of the Mohicans. The book was too wordy for my taste. It was as if James Fenimore Cooper spent two pages describing one tree! I had trouble following the story. The movie may have changed the ending but at least you can follow the plot. And casting the amazing Daniel Day-Lewis definitely helped.

---

D.M. in Tallahassee, FL, writes: You missed what is, for me, the greatest movie adaptation of a novel of all time: 2001: A Space Odyssey.

This is an obvious case where the movie version blew away the book it was based on. Indeed, the movie more or less invented a new whole visual/musical language for storytelling, one that is so distinctive that it's never been seriously copied. (There have been a few attempts, and they all fell flat on their faces, which only further highlights how distinctive Kubrick's achievement was.)

---

J.M. in Portland, OR, writes: Slaughterhouse-Five by Kurt Vonnegut. In the book and movie our hero becomes unstuck in time, jumping back and forth from one time in his life to another without warning. Reading that is one thing, but experiencing it in a film was so much more intense. By the end of the movie I was right where Vonnegut wanted me, completely open to whatever happened next.

Ok, I was tripping when I saw it, but still.

---

L.H. in Chicago, IL, writes: My first thought was The Wizard of Oz, which was apparently your first thought as well (or, at least, first example).

To your list, I would add two more, which I admit might appeal mostly to sci-fi fans. While Logan's Run may not hold up as well as it appealed to me at age 17, it's a decent action/adventure story in a 1970s sci-fi setting. The book is very much like The Wizard of Oz, in that it's kind of rambling and rolls from one adventure to another without making the reader much care. Truth to tell, I don't even recall how it ends.

Soylent Green is based on a book of a different title (Make Room, Make Room), and was an OK dystopian novel, but I found the movie to be more compelling and tightly written. The most famous aspect of the movie (the nature of Soylent Green itself) was not explicit in the book at all, though I did find some hints that could have been taken that way. The scene in the movie at the suicide parlor (Based on the Ethical Suicide Parlors in Kurt Vonnegut's Welcome to the Monkey House?) can still send chills up my spine 50 years later.

---

K.M. in San Diego, CA, writes: My suggestion would be Robert Zemeckis's Who Framed Roger Rabbit, taken from the Gary Wolf's novel Who Censored Roger Rabbit?. Pretty much nothing of the book survived the transition, which is just as well. Zemeckis not only managed to recruit characters from different studios but also gave the story a Chinatown twist, tying freeway construction in L.A. as the actual motive behind the crime.

---

R.L.D. in Sundance, WY, writes: I won't say that the movie Ready Player One is better than the book, but it is an excellent big screen version of the book. If you wanted a more faithful adaptation of the book-to-actors-on-a-screen format, you'd want a TV series, which I occasionally fantasize writing some day. But where the book was very much about us 80s nerds and our culture superimposed on the word of the Internet, virtual reality, and modern capitalism, the movie is more about video games and the Internet culture of the 90s and 00s superimposed on the world virtual reality and modern capitalism and they both do a fantastic job telling two very different but clearly related stories.

---

M.S. in Highland Park, IL, writes: I was surprised The Devil Wears Prada didn't make the list of movies that are better than the book. It's like the top example!

---

T.V. in Kansas City, MO, writes: I'd like to propose another "movie that was better than the book" to your list: Sideways. Alexander Payne's film was an elegiac, hilarious, wistful, and utterly brilliant wine-soaked look at two friends confronting the shoals and anxieties of middle age. It received 5 Academy Award nominations, won the Oscar for Best Adapted Screenplay, and jump started pinot noir sales to boot. Rex Pickett's novel, on which the film was based, was a juvenile male fantasy marked by insulting female characters and some of the worst dialogue I've ever read.

---

T.J.R. in Metuchen, NJ, writes: Which is better, the book or the movie, depends on two factors. One is whether one prefers movies or books. They are vastly different media. The other is what did one do first, read the book or watch the movie? My go to example is The Silence Of The Lambs. I saw the movie first, then read the book. I loved the movie and thought the book was only OK. But lots of people read the book first and said the movie wasn't as good. There is one movie I refuse to watch because I loved the book so much that I know the movie will disappoint me: High Fidelity. One should strive to be aware of one's biases.

We Love You Beatles, Oh Yes We Do

P.J.T. in Raton, NM, writes: Regarding the discussion about The Beatles, I was moved by the comment from D.D. in Portland that "what's truly amazing about the Beatles is you could get a bunch of their fans, ask what their favorite Beatles songs are, and get virtually no overlap." I chuckled at this, because my own list absolutely did not correspond with any of yours. While it's somewhat odd to create lists of "best" songs, "favorite" songs allows for the peculiarities of taste, and so here are mine (in no particular order):

"I Want You (She's So Heavy)": John must have been in his primal-scream phase when he wrote this, for the raw emotion he conveys makes the repetitive lyrics not only feel non-redundant, but rather like a howl in the wilderness, full of pathos and desperation. Paul's bass is top-notch, maybe the best he ever recorded.

"Helter Skelter": The only predominantly Paul song on my list, precisely because it's the farthest thing from saccharine. A great rock and roll song that is historically important, not because of the mass murderer from Spahn Ranch, but because it is often cited as the prototype for both metal and punk.

"Within You Without You": This masterpiece is the fullest realization in The Beatles' catalogue of the influence of both Indian music and Hindu mysticism on George Harrison, and the world became less narrow because of it. One cannot help but see the lyric, "With our love, we could save the world" as presaging the sentiments of John Lennon's "Imagine" and "We were talking about the love that's gone so cold / And the people who gain the world and lose their soul" seems even more poignant today than it was in '67.

"I Am the Walrus": John was at his best, to my ears, when he left the beaten path and wandered off into the wilderness, and this song is a delightful excursion into a surrealism that challenges Ego ("I am he as you are he as you are me and we are all together") and social mores ("Boy, you've been a naughty girl, you let your knickers down"), while also reveling in the absurd ("Sitting on a cornflake" and more).

"Come Together": The groove alone is iconic, and "Old Flat-Top" appears in my mind as Robert Crumb's Mr. Natural. Like "Walrus," the song is awash in playful surrealistic imagery: "He got ju-ju eyeball," "He shoot Coca-Cola," "He got walrus gumboot." I'm not among those who disparage Yoko One; in my opinion, Yoko inspired John to do his greatest work, and I harbor no doubt he would not have written this without her electrifying influence.

These are only five songs, but I could easily expand my list to, I don't know, twenty-two?

---

B.P. in Arlington Heights, IL, writes: These are my rather unorthodox favorites—and yes, in this specific order:

1. "One After 909" (for me, nothing will ever top songs done in circa 1957 pop music styles)
2. "The Ballad of John and Yoko" (ibid)
3. "Revolution"
4. "Sun King/Mean Mr. Mustard/Polythene Pam/She Came In Through the Bathroom Window"
5. "Sexy Sadie"
6. "Rock and Roll Music"
7. "Hey Jude"
8. "Don't Let Me Down"
9. "Girl"
10. "I'm So Tired"

Paul McCartney is a top tier songwriter and great singer. Unfortunately for him, he paired up with, and will forever be compared to, the greatest songwriter of the 20th century and the second greatest singer (after Pete Seeger) ever recorded, in John Lennon. The vast majority of my favorites are obviously Lennon songs, and from the 1968-69 period.

---

R.S. in Morganton, GA, writes: I was 17 when the Beatles first burst on the scene, and I consider myself among their greatest and most faithful fans through the last 52 years. I fully agree with the commenter who said Zeppelin has "Stairway to Heaven" and the Eagles have Hotel California, but the Beatles have dozens of great songs. But back to the lists. First, neither (L) nor (Z) included what I often say is my favorite Beatles tune: "Got To Get You Into My Life." I say often because it's like trying to name one's favorite book or National Park. There are always two or three others in contention. But I never see "Got to Get You Into My Life" on "best of" lists, and it's a really great song. Second, thank you for including "Hey Bulldog." As I said, I consider myself maybe the Beatles' biggest fan, but I had never heard that song before. I have now, and I must say it was a joy to watch their joy in performing it. Thank you for putting it on the list!

---

P.D. in Leamington, ON, Canada , writes: Just a short list to add to the many suggestions sent in by other readers. I believe there are not a lot of "bad" Beatles songs (a question for another time perhaps?) I would like to add "A Day in The Life." I find the combination of two songs, unfinished and then put together to be an interesting study in song composition. I also would like to mention that the final note, which lasts 40 seconds, always seemed to me to last forever. I used to get so angry at my local radio stations who cut the note off before the end. That one note in E Major chord was in itself a musical innovation, of which the Beatles had many.

My other song is "In My Life," which I find to be a very introspective song that always stays in my head long after I hear it. As I get older it seems to grow in meaning.

I am very pleased to read other people's choice of songs they like and the reasons why. I would dare to say that the Beatles are one of the few, if not the only, musical group that would be able to have this diverse of a list of favorite songs.

---

P.D. in Santa Barbara, CA, writes: In keeping with the April 25 and 26 comments about favorite Beatles songs, as well as the usual favorite Top 10 Band lists, I wanted to share this one:

Gallimaufry

S.O.F. in New York City, NY, writes: You wrote: "(V) thinks we should redefine the foot to be the distance light travels in a vacuum in 1 nanosecond."

Americans will do anything to avoid the metric system.

---

E.F. in Baltimore, MD, writes: Or maybe we should tell (V) we should redefine the nanosecond to be the amount of time it takes for light to travel 1 foot. Both units are equally arbitrary.

Final Words

R.H. in San Antonio, TX writes: Nicola Sacco's last message to his son, before his execution for a crime he did not commit: "So, Son, instead of crying, be strong, so as to be able to comfort your mother... take her for a long walk in the quiet country, gathering wild flowers here and there... But remember always, Dante, in the play of happiness, don't you use all for yourself only... help the persecuted and the victim because they are your better friends... In this struggle of life you will find more and love and you will be loved."

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