California, Here We Come

It's a big day at the polls tomorrow, with six states taking their turn holding primaries. California is the biggie, both literally and figuratively, but there are contests of interest in Iowa, Montana, New Jersey, New Mexico and South Dakota, as well. Let's jump right in; we're going to organize this by office:

Governorships: The gubernatorial race that everyone will be watching, of course, is the one taking place in the Golden State. Because of California's wonky system, there are actually 59 official candidates in the race to succeed the term-limited Gov. Gavin Newsom (D-CA). It is therefore at least possible that the next governor of California could be Barack Obama. Not the famous one we all know about, mind you, but Barack Denzel Obama Shaw, who legally changed his name to honor the two Black role models he most admires. This Barack Obama, like the other one, is a Democrat, as you might imagine.

That said, in the real world, it's pretty much down to three candidates. There were four reliable polls of the race released in the last few days, and there they are, with all candidates who broke at least 5% in one of the four:

Pollster	Hilton	Bianco	Becerra	Steyer	Porter	Mahan
Emerson College	23%	12%	28%	23%	5%	5%
PPP	20%	14%	18%	22%	7%	7%
McLaughlin & Associates	25%	10%	19%	21%	7%	6%
Kreate Strategies	26%	9%	27%	20%	5%	4%

In short, it's a pretty close race, at least among the top three contenders. It's hard to know how many of the people saying they will vote for one of the hopeless candidates (e.g., Matt Mahan, Katie Porter) will stick to their guns, and how many will change their minds at the last moment and vote for a viable candidate. It is also hard to know what the impact of "gaming the system" will be. Steve Hilton (R) could lose votes of Republicans trying to get Chad Bianco (R) into the runoff. Or, the candidate whom voters perceive as the Democratic frontrunner (probably Xavier Becerra, D) could lose Democratic votes to the candidate whom voters perceive as the Democratic runner-up (probably Tom Steyer, D), in an effort to shut Republicans out of the election altogether.

Looking at all the polls, and knowing what we know, our gut feel is that the potential outcomes shake out something like this:

• Becerra vs. Hilton: 50%
• Steyer vs. Hilton: 35%
• Becerra vs. Steyer: 10%
• Some other matchup: 5%

Probably the most important point is that, despite all the usual hand-wringing, the Democrats are overwhelmingly likely to advance at least one candidate to the general election. At that point, the Republicans will be out of luck. Yes, we're in a "throw the bums out" era, and yes, there are a lot of things that California voters are angry about. But it's still a very blue state that really hates Donald Trump. A normie Republican might have a puncher's chance, but not one who hugs Trump close, as Hilton and Bianco both do.

Meanwhile, over in Iowa, things are going to be more interesting than they have been in a pretty long time. To start with, Gov. Kim Reynolds (R-IA) has decided that she's had enough. So, although she could run for a third term, she won't do so. The Democrats have already coalesced behind their candidate; it's going to be Iowa Auditor of State Rob Sand, whose current job is to make sure the other politicians are not wasting the taxpayers' money. On the Republican side, the bench is thinner than you might expect. Five candidates, including a former bureaucrat, two current/former state legislators, and a farmer who is going after the racist vote, are running. The favorite is Rep. Randy Feenstra, though polling has been pretty scarce (given that Ann Selzer is out of business), and what polling there HAS been has been all over the place.

What makes Iowa interesting is that it could end up as the canary in a coal mine for the Republican Party in 2026. Probably the best way to describe the last 10+ years of Iowa politics are "red, but blue-curious." And maybe that blue-curious stuff finally comes home to roost this year, given the headwinds facing the GOP. A few pollsters have tested out a Sand-Feenstra general election matchup, and they've all concluded Sand is the favorite. The most recent (but still pretty old) poll actually puts Sand ahead of Feenstra by 12 points, 51% to 39%. Meanwhile, the race raters have it as "Tossup" (Cook), "Lean R" (Inside Elections and Sabato), and "Tilt D" (Race to the White House).

There are also races in New Mexico and in South Dakota, but they aren't quite as interesting. Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham (D-NM) is term-limited; the race to replace her is almost certainly going to feature former representative and former secretary of the Interior Deb Haaland (D) against Mayor Gregg Hull (R-Rio Rancho). There's been no polling of that general election matchup, but New Mexico is pretty blue, at D+4, Haaland is pretty popular, and Donald Trump is very unpopular. So, you have to presume the odds heavily favor Haaland to succeed Grisham.

South Dakota is even less interesting than that. It's a very red state (R+15), and the incumbent governor, Larry Rhoden (R), is running for reelection. Rhoden is actually not too popular, and could plausibly get knocked off by any one of the three Republican challengers—one recent poll had it at 23% for Rhoden, 22% for businessman Toby Doeden, 21% for Speaker of the South Dakota House Jon Hansen and 19% for Rep. Dusty Johnson. And three of the four candidates, with Hansen the exception, have come out on top in at least one recent poll. But they're all pretty interchangeable white MAGA Trumpers, and whichever one of them wins will then go on to trounce former state Senator Daniel Ahlers (D) in the general.

U.S. Senate Seats: Here, the contest of most interest is the one in Iowa. Sen. Joni Ernst (R-IA), who said some very impolitic things early in the campaign, decided not to run for a third term. There are two Republicans running to succeed her, Rep. Ashley Hinson and former state Sen. Jim Carlin. Hinson has raised $7 million to about $300,000 for Carlin, and the one poll of this primary had her up by 39 points, 58% to 19%, so she will presumably advance. On the Democratic side, it's state Sen. Zach Wahls against state Rep. Josh Turek. Wahls, who was raised by two lesbians (who married once they were legally able), is known for his LGBTQ activism. Turek is a former paralympian who has been working his rear end off doing retail campaigning around the state. Turek is a pretty heavy favorite to advance—recent polls have him up by around 20 points. Meanwhile, general-election polls have the (likely) Hinson-Turek general election contest as a toss-up. Or, if you prefer the race raters, three have it as "Likely R" (Inside Elections, Sabato, Cook), one has it as "Tilt R" (Race to the White House) and two have it as "Tossup" (RCP, The Economist).

The Senate race in Montana might end up being very interesting indeed, but... not tomorrow. Former U.S. Attorney Kurt Alme (R) will destroy two unknowns on that side of the contest. However, he is the fellow who benefited from ballot manipulation, as he filed, and Sen. Steve Daines (R) withdrew his candidacy for re-nomination, in the 5 minutes before the deadline arrived. That the two men conspired in such an undemocratic manner could be a liability for Alme in the general.

Former state Rep. Reilly Neill (D) will probably advance on the Democratic side of the contest, and then the Democratic Party will tell all Democrats not to vote for her in the general (indeed, she might well drop out). Seth Bodnar (I), who will be the real Democratic candidate, won't even be on the ballot tomorrow, since he's not running as a member of a political party. This is, of course, a state that Jon Tester (D) represented in the Senate until 2 years ago. If Bodnar can unite independents and most Democrats, and can run against both Trump and the Alme-Daines conspiracy in this red-but-really-more-populist-than-anything-else state, then... who knows?

There are also Senate primaries in New Jersey, New Mexico and South Dakota. All of them involve incumbents running for reelection—Cory Booker (D), Ben Ray Luján (D) and Mike Rounds (R), respectively. All three will lay waste to unknown challengers tomorrow, and then will win reelection in the general. The only drama in these contests, such as it is, is in the New Mexico race. The only Republican to formally file was Christopher Heuvel, who was disqualified. Now, the only Republican in the race is retired oil worker Larry Marker, who will need to collect at least 2,351 write-in votes in the primary in order to win the right to be crushed in the general. If he can't do it, then Luján will enjoy an uncontested general election.

Mayoralty: The race to be mayor of America's second-largest city, Los Angeles, has been... quite the show. Incumbent Karen Bass (officially I, but really D) is running. She has the benefits of incumbency, and of being backed by the Democratic machine, so she will advance to the second (and final) round of voting. However, she is not likely to clear 50% (if she did, the election would be over, and there would be no second round).

The other person in the race will either be City Councilwoman Nithya Raman (officially I, but really D) or reality TV star Spencer Pratt (officially I, but really R). Raman is an outspoken progressive and is, obviously, challenging Bass from the left. Pratt is, well, a prat. He has no business being associate dogcatcher of a small town, much less mayor of an important city, and he's been enmeshed in mini-scandal after mini-scandal during this campaign; he had to apologize for being a 9/11 truther, he had to basically reject the endorsement of Donald Trump, and he said that he understands the harm that ICE has done because "I've eaten more Mexican food than any white person in Los Angeles."

The biggest mess involves Pratt's living arrangements. He says his house was burned down in the Palisades fire (true), and that he's been living in a trailer on the property ever since because he did not have insurance and he doesn't have money to rebuild (half-true, at best). Reporters discovered Pratt has been living, at least part of the time, in a $1,500-a-night room at the Hotel Bel-Air paid for by his campaign. The candidate says he only stays there sometimes, and he does so mostly for security reasons.

The fact that Pratt's core issues (the fire, homelessness) are Bass' biggest weaknesses, and the fact that the city's Republicans have to vote for someone, have kept his candidacy afloat, even if he is a walking advertisement for the movie Idiocracy. Most polls have Pratt leading Raman by a couple of points or so. However, far and away the highest quality poll from the last week, conducted by the Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies, had 26% of voters supporting Bass, 25% supporting Raman and 22% supporting Pratt. Either Democrat would certainly demolish Pratt in the general, while a Raman-Bass matchup is more likely than not to favor Raman. So, Bass will probably be casting her ballot for Pratt, as he's a much easier opponent for her.

There are a lot of House races that are of interest, either because they are in swing districts, or they are old guard vs. new guard, or they are Hillary vs. Bernie Part 322, or for some other reason. However, this item is already pretty long, and there is such a thing as too much of a good thing. So, we are going to preview the House races tomorrow. If readers have any suggestions as to House races in California, Iowa, Montana, New Jersey, New Mexico or South Dakota that we should look at, please do let us know at comments@electoral-vote.com. If you include a paragraph or two as to why they are interesting, all the better. (Z)

Graham Platner, Candidate for the Modern Age

Some readers may be familiar with a pretty popular eX-Twitter account with the name "Modern Seinfeld." The basic idea (and note, some content is pretty risqué) is the elevator pitch for Seinfeld episodes if the show was being made today, as opposed to the 1990s. For example: "Jerry and George compete to pick up the same woman on a plane. When Jerry sneezes, George jokes about Ebola and gets them both quarantined."

We mention this because the Senate campaign of Graham Platner (D), who hopes to unseat Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME), has a very similar feel to it—He keeps getting enmeshed in scandals, but scandals that could really only happen in the 2020s. There's already "The Ill-Considered Tattoo," "The Indecorous Tweets" and "The Vulgar Reddit Posts," all of which could be episode titles if Platner was the central figure in a sitcom called Yes, Senator, instead of being an actual candidate for the U.S. Senate. And, over the weekend, we added Season 1, Episode 4, namely "The Sexting."

The details are a little complicated, and most of the coverage has been a little clunky, so we'll try to lay things out clearly. Early in Platner's marriage to his wife Amy Gertner, they had some issues, including some conflict and some problems with infertility. During that time, Platner exchanged explicit text messages with some number of women (more than one, but it's not clear how many more). His wife discovered them, confronted Platner, and they apparently worked things out.

As Platner's campaign was getting serious, and as campaign operatives began doing "self-oppo research" (in other words, trying to figure out what's out there that the opposition might find and weaponize), Gertner disclosed the existence of the texts to staffers on the campaign. Sometime in the past few weeks, right-wing media got their hands on the story, which was then confirmed by a now-former campaign worker named Genevieve McDonald, whom Gertner had confided in, and then had a falling out with. It is not clear if McDonald was also the original leaker, though she might have been.

Platner, and even more forcefully Gertner, have come out and condemned this reporting. While both acknowledged that the sexts are real, both say they have moved beyond this problem, which they insist is their own personal business. Here is the statement that Gertner released:

I confided deeply personal details about my marriage to someone I considered a friend. In the months since, I have had to watch as she spread malicious gossip to anyone who would take her call. I trusted this person with the most private chapter of our lives — the early days of our marriage before any campaign was on our mind — and I am deeply hurt by her betrayal and the invasion of our privacy.

It is no secret that Graham and I have struggled on our fertility journey. We did the hard work that marriage requires. We went to counseling. We were honest with each other in ways that weren't easy. And we came through it, not in spite of how much we've been through, but because of how much we love each other and the life we've built. Our marriage today is stronger than ever before.

I know who Graham is. I know the man I married and the husband he has been to me on the best and the worst days of my life. That hasn't changed, and it won't.

Incidentally, the couple is still on their fertility journey; they attempted in vitro fertilization earlier this year, and that effort ended in a miscarriage in April.

Speaking in terms of ethics and morality, we do not see an issue here. Yes, Platner was unfaithful, at least on an emotional level. His wife found out. They dealt with it. It's their marriage, and if they say they are OK, then they are OK, and it's nobody else's damn business.

Speaking philosophically, there are certain kinds of stories that are basically verboten because they are unethical. For example, it's generally not OK to out someone, even if you have incontrovertible proof. This sexting story is a little trickier because, of course, Platner is a candidate for a major political office. At the same time, Gertner is very clearly a victim here. She did not deserve to have this paraded across the front pages, particularly since she is undoubtedly still in mourning over her lost pregnancy. One wonders if the harm to her is great enough that it should outweigh the public's "right to know."

Finally, speaking politically, we just don't know what the impact of this news will be. Again, Platner keeps getting enmeshed in 21st century stuff that doesn't quite have an analogue in past generations. Yes, it's a sex scandal, but we would guess that most voters do not draw an exact equivalence between sending naughty texts and fully consummating an act of adultery. Plus, in the Era of Trump, there's clearly a much greater tolerance for dalliances than there once was.

On top of that, Platner has proven to have a pretty thick coating of teflon, as his other scandals have largely slid right off of him. If we had to guess, we would guess that the ideas that Platner embodies (e.g., "throw the bums out," "time for a new generation," "time for a new way of thinking") are ultimately more important than the candidate himself, and that this newest scandal won't meaningfully change the calculus in the Maine Senate race. But that's just our best guess. (Z)

Legal Bytes: Trump Fought the Law, and the Law Won Again

It was a busy weekend on the legal front, as Donald Trump and his administration continued to suffer setbacks with every level of the court system that is not the Supreme Court:

Slush Fund Blues: A number of lawsuits have been filed against the Rioters and Thieves Fund and there has already been court action in a couple of them. The first court order, issued Friday morning, was courtesy of U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema in Virginia and involves a case filed by plaintiffs who claim they were victims of Trump's weaponization of the Department of Justice. Among them is former federal prosecutor Andrew Floyd, who worked on 1/6 cases and whom Trump fired last year, and a college professor whom Trump's DoJ charged with assaulting federal agents at a protest (no, he's not sandwich guy but, like him, the prof was acquitted). The judge issued a temporary restraining order blocking the government from setting up the fund, transferring any money to it, or making any disbursements from it until at least June 12, when a hearing will be held.

Later on Friday, the judge who was overseeing Trump's fake IRS case, Kathleen M. Williams, reopened it at the request of 35 former federal judges who claim that Trump's suit perpetrated a fraud on the court. The judge said she would investigate the circumstances surrounding the suit and ordered the government to file a brief by June 12 concerning whether Trump colluded with the IRS and DoJ in concocting the case and then dropping it to avoid judicial scrutiny.

Our Take: Ruh-roh. On the one hand, if acting AG Todd Blanche and Trump really thought no one would sue them over this slush fund and that no court would put a stop to it, maybe we can sell them that land in Florida we're always trying to move. On the other hand, once again, the courts are bailing out the Republican conferences in Congress. Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) and Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) are probably secretly rejoicing that they can publicly call out the courts for being "activist judges" while avoiding having to take any uncomfortable votes on Trump's rioters' relief fund.

On top of that, you hardly need a law degree to see how completely corrupt and illegal this thing is, but on its way to the dump, it could take a few people with it. In particular, if Williams decides to do some investigating into the origins of this case, Blanche and acting IRS Commissioner Frank Bisignano could have to answer some rather awkward questions. They will stonewall, of course, but in the meantime, their little project will be on ice. For once, their standard delay tactics are only going to hurt themselves.

---

The Trump-Kennedy Center: We know how much Trump loves to attach his name to stuff. Well, thanks to yet another Friday court ruling, the Trump name has to come off the Kennedy Center. U.S. District Judge Christopher R. Cooper ordered the name removed within 2 weeks because adding it violated the law passed by Congress in 1964 naming the building in honor of President John F. Kennedy. His order also prohibits the board from carrying out its planned summer closure because the board failed to do its due diligence before making that decision. Both sides have to file an update on next steps by June 5.

Our Take: Trump was not happy about this decision and went onto his social media site to whine about it. He now claims he's abandoning the center altogether, while also complaining about the judge's decision. Meanwhile, 2 weeks from Friday is June 12. Trump's team is going to be awfully busy that day. It will be very interesting to see if his underlings comply with the order to take his name off the building. We may well be treated to the rare sight of Trump's name being taken off something, which would certainly serve as a metaphor for how his presidency is going.

---

86 Petracca: People on the left, and the right, agree that the case brought against former FBI Director James Comey—the case of the seashells that gave Trump the sads—is utterly without merit. It's hard to imagine it will make it to trial (though it's also hard to imagine how it got past a grand jury). Over the weekend, the prosecutor that Todd Blanche got to bring the case, Matthew Petracca, decided to leave his position as Assistant U.S. attorney in the Eastern District of North Carolina. He'll move to some other, as-yet-unannounced position in the DoJ, but he's no longer the attorney of record for the Comey case, and has been succeeded in that capacity by Assistant U.S. Attorney Timothy Severo.

Our Take: Nobody is explaining why Petracca jumped ship. One can certainly imagine less-than-innocent explanations, like some sort of tampering with the grand jury, as happened with U.S. Attorney Andrew Boutros in the "Broadview Six" case that was dismissed last week. However, that is just idle speculation at this point. What's certain is that Severo is a 30-year, well-respected prosecutor. We can imagine him deciding to drop the case or, at very least, to continue "prosecuting" it with a palpable lack of enthusiasm.

There will undoubtedly be more legal news later this week. There always is. (L & Z)

A Concert for the Aged

The Trump Administration is clearly getting ready for the World Cup, as this whole Freedom 250 concert has officially turned into a giant own goal.

At the moment, the lineup has been reduced to Flo Rida, Vanilla Ice and what we would call "Music Factory." We don't say "C + C Music Factory" because one C, David Cole, is dead, and the other C, Robert Clivillés, has said he wants no part of the event. However, Freedom Williams, who has legal control over the band name, has implied he'll probably show up and perform.

Meanwhile, it looks like the most usual of the usual suspects, namely Kid Rock, will not be riding to the rescue. Reportedly, he was actually considered for the original lineup and rejected. The first problem is that he's old and hasn't had a hit in years. The second problem is that his politics do not align with the "rap-rock" fanbase, such that he has trouble filling seats these days. The third problem is that he's been at the center of a couple of scandals, most obviously the unauthorized helicopter visit at the singer's home. On balance, the folks behind Freedom 250 apparently decided Kid Rock was more a liability than an asset.

Of course, there's no problem so embarrassing that Donald Trump can't make it worse. And so, he hopped on his social media platform for the tragically uncool, and unspooled numerous rants this weekend. Here's the most comprehensible among them:

I understand Artists are getting "the yips" having to do with their performance on Wednesday, so I am thinking about bringing the Number One Attraction anywhere in the World, the man who gets much larger audiences than Elvis in his prime, and he does so without a guitar, the man who loves our Country more than anyone else, and the man who some say is the Greatest President in History (THE GOAT!), DONALD J. TRUMP, to take the place of these highly paid, Third Rate "Artists," and give a major speech, rallying the Country forward like I have done ever since being President! Two years ago, the United States was DEAD. Now we have the "HOTTEST" Country anywhere in the World. I don't want so-called "Artists" that get paid far too much money, who aren't happy. I only want to be surrounded by Happy People, Smart People, Successful People, and People that know how to WIN. So, by copy of this TRUTH, I am ordering my Representatives to look at the feasibility of doing an AMERICA IS BACK Rally on Wednesday, Washington, D.C., same time, same location. Only Great Patriots invited — It will be a Wild and Beautiful Celebration of America! President DONALD J. TRUMP

Because nothing says "hip" like a reference to an artist whose peak was 70 years ago, and who died nearly 50 years ago. Next thing you know, Trump will be telling us that he's a more hep cat than Adolphe Menjou.

We know why Trump is so desperate for acceptance from at least some of the cool kids, even if those kids largely ceased to be cool 20-40 years ago. What we don't fully understand is why he, and in particular those around him, cannot accept that it's just not happening. First of all, by and large, the things that cause someone to be an artist of whatever sort (film, music, painting, poetry, whatever) do not generally align with MAGA. Second, even those artists who are politically neutral, or are MAGA-leaning, just don't want to risk alienating their fanbases. Yes, there's the occasional Kevin Sorbo or James Woods or Lee Greenwood or Kid Rock, but that's about it, and it's been "about it" for 10 years. Isn't there a time when you should stop beating your head against the wall, and should stop embarrassing yourself?

It will be interesting to see if Team Trump actually follows through with this rally/speech idea. We just cannot imagine it will draw, since the rallies have already gotten tiresome, even for MAGA folks, and since Washington, DC, is about the least MAGA city in the country. If Trump can't even fill a hall when he visits red-state voters in their backyards, how is he going to fill a giant, public space in D.C., where the faithful would have to travel, get expensive lodging, etc.? And if he goes forward, then everyone is going to run photos the next day showing how meager the crowd was. We predict an even bigger black eye than the military parade, which is saying something.

Incidentally, it seems like we should do something next month in honor of America's 250th birthday, but we don't know quite what. We're doing "Never Forget" this month (see below), and we definitely will not be inviting Kid Rock or Vanilla Ice as guest contributors next month, but beyond that we are open to suggestions. If you have 'em, please send 'em to us at comments@electoral-vote.com, preferably with subject line "250 Candles." (Z)

Never Forget: Welcome to Korea

On each of the weekdays of this month, we will be running one or more reminiscences of the people who helped wage America's wars. This includes both military and civilian personnel. For the leadoff position this year, we've chosen an account from reader R.A. in Paris, TX:

My father, Bob Alsobrook, served in an artillery unit in the Korean War:

The red silk scarf he wears in the photo was not regulation Army. He had grown up in Depression-era rural northeast Texas, a descendant of several generations of farmers, and had been attending college, majoring in fine art. During the break between his associate's degree and transfer to a university, the Army drafted him. He was deemed officer material and sent to Officer Candidate School. He had an aptitude for math, so he was trained as an artillery forward observer and sent to serve in Korea. He wore the scarf because there was no color in the drab mountains where he was stationed.

During one battle, he was walking down a hill when a North Korean shell exploded nearby, the shrapnel piercing his legs. Unable to stand, he knew the next round would be re-calibrated and would kill him. Fortunately, the shell that landed nearby was a dud. He was sent to a M.A.S.H unit, given penicillin, to which he apparently was allergic, and went into a coma for three days. After surviving attempts by both the North Koreans and the U.S. Army to kill him, he was sent on R&R to Japan, where he spent an entire month's salary purchasing a set of china for his mother. As the oldest grandchild, I inherited that china and still use it.

After other adventures, including one in which he became trapped behind enemy lines for 3 weeks, he finished his time and was honorably discharged. He returned to Texas, married and had three children who adored him, and became a surrogate father to two other teenagers who became part of our extended family for decades. He returned to college in 1963, finished his BFA, and invented a new medium using oil paint on etched aluminum foil.

He was proud of his military service, but he was profoundly anti-war and refused to join the local VFW club, although he did stay in touch with his former comrades-in-arms. He never used the veterans' benefits to which he was entitled, not even to help with expenses when he returned to college to finish the degree that the U.S. government had interrupted. He never hunted again; he said he knew what it felt like to be prey. He sympathized with the young men who wanted to avoid serving in Vietnam.

Among the military insignia he kept in a cigar box, one that I had decorated with pasta shells and gold paint for a school project, was a Purple Heart and a Bronze Star. Like many veterans, he would talk about his military experiences but never about combat. I was an adult in my 30s before I learned what a Bronze Star was, and over the years, I would occasionally ask him how he had earned it. He would only reply that he had been young and foolhardy. Similar questions about what combat was like elicited only the response that it was "sheer terror." For the rest of his life, he was troubled that he had killed men. Several years after Korea, he responded to a statement that an acquaintance had made in support of imposing the death penalty for anyone who had committed murder. He simply said that he would be included in that group and refused to acknowledge that following orders in war automatically absolved him of that sin.

One last comment: My father despised Gen. Douglas MacArthur. His unit had remained stationed above the 38th parallel for some time after Harry S. Truman had ordered MacArthur not to go there. They were located close to the border, where the Chinese army had amassed around 500,000 troops who were waiting to overrun the Americans. To my father and his fellow officers, MacArthur was an arrogant, insubordinate warmonger who would have gotten them all killed. They had no sympathy when he was relieved of duty; they all knew he would have court-martialed them for such insolent disobedience.

Thanks, R.A.—great start to this year's series.

We continue to welcome submissions, if anyone cares to share their story, or that of a family member, acquaintance, etc. Send them to comments@electoral-vote.com, ideally with subject line "Never Forget."

P.S.: The reason we always ask for specific subject lines, in instances like this, is not because we are nitpicky professors making arbitrary rules for the students to follow. It is because we get a lot of e-mail, and this makes it much easier to find messages on a particular subject, since we can search by subject line. If a reader uses some other subject line, there's a good chance we'll still see, and handle, the message properly. But if it's the subject line we request, then those odds go up to 100%. (Z)

---

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