Previous | Next
Sunday Mailbag
Another long one, due to our getting a lot of good messages—far more than we could run, even at this length.
About the 4%
V & Z: Another view on the 4% who favor impeachment, but not removal. Reasons for favoring impeachment: First, an impeachment inquiry is the best way to (legally) get the most damaging dirt on DT, a boost for all opposing campaigns. Second, the impeachment process will continue to drive DT totally crazy. Reason for opposing removal: Mike Pence. We'll be better off until January 2021 with a (small-handed) p**sy-grabber than a fanatical theocrat. R.E., Atlanta, GA
V & Z: A very common refrain from right-leaning pundits is that impeachment and conviction would "go against the will of the people" and being an election year, those 538 people in the Electoral College should get to decide whether he should remain in office. So, possibly some of the 4% can't stand what he's done but want his comeuppance to arrive through the ballot box. D.D., Portland, OR
V & Z: I'm one of the 4% who believe Trump should be impeached, but not removed from office. I think my logic is sound, but I'll let you be the judge. First of all, I'm a lifelong Democrat, who wants nothing more than to see Trump out of the White House. I also proudly suffer from TDS. (That's all I'll say about that.)
That said, I do not want to see the Senate forcibly remove Trump from office. The reason is simple: the power of martyrdom. If Trump is removed by the Senate (i.e., "the swamp"), he becomes a martyr to, quite literally, 100% of his current supporters, and our country becomes even more divided and polarized. In his supporters' minds, everything Trump has said about "the swamp" would be immediately proven true. This, to me, makes this group more powerful and dangerous, and open to being wooed by an even more dangerous (read: crazy plus intelligent) "leader".
On the other hand, if Trump is soundly defeated in November, which I believe he can be, many of his supporters will accept that. Not all, but most. They won't be happy, but they won't buy that it was rigged. Of course, there will be a portion of his hard core base who will believe every tweet. They're already lost forever, and safely ignored. But that's maybe 25% of his base by my estimate, 10% of the population.
Given these two alternatives, I'll choose the latter every single time. J.L., Rochester, MN
V & Z: I feel that I fit into this category, but I don't fit into the analysis you provided. I am a lifelong Democrat but also a "democrat." Thus, while I feel that impeachment is an effective way of providing a check and balance on Trump, it should be up to the voters to decide on his removal from office...in an election. It is hard to justify removing a president that is running competitively. S.M., Austin, TX
Other Impeachment Comments
V & Z: In response to a question about delaying presenting impeachment articles to the Senate you wrote: "Further, by law, the new Congress takes office on Jan. 3, 2021, and on that day any bills passed by the previous Congress (e.g., the articles of impeachment) are null and void." However, that is exactly what happened with Bill Clinton's impeachment. He was impeached in December 1998 by the lame duck 105th Congress then tried in January 1999 by the Senate of the 106th Congress. In fact, at least one person—Chuck Schumer—participated in both phases of the process since he was a Representative in the 105th, but had just been elected Senator for the 106th. C.J., Lowell, MA
V & Z: As of this week's vote, Trump is in fact impeached. Appointing managers and informing the Senate are separate acts by the House. S.A., Downey, CA
Note: You both are right, of course. We stand corrected on the legality of the proposed maneuver, and we thank you for that. We stand by our view that the politics of such a maneuver are hairy, at best.
V & Z: The State of the Union address is scheduled for Feb. 4, 2020. Donald Trump surely wants the Senate trial and acquittal to be done so he can gloat during the State of the Union address. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) would gladly comply. This puts pressure on McConnell to get the trial started ASAP, so perhaps he may agree to some of Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer's (D-NY) demands. G.W., Oxnard, CA
V & Z: I respectfully disagree that "[Speaker of the House Nancy] Pelosi doesn't have any real leverage here." Trump is eager for a Senate trial, so he can campaign that he was vindicated. He will demand a trial and his allies will support his demand. Pelosi just has to say that McConnell's prejudgement and refusal to allow witnesses or produce documents precludes a fair trial. She can argue that she will forward the Articles as soon as a fair trial is agreed upon (witnesses, documents, and a recusal of senators who have prejudged the case). C.O., Honolulu, HI
V & Z: You've mentioned it, but I think Nancy Pelosi is really impressive. Goes to show that even at or near 80, one can be completely relevant, even indispensable. In fact, the gravitas that comes with age is probably a plus in these circumstances.
The moment you highlighted is quite funny. It's like a complicit mom (or grandma) telling the kids to shut up at church, all the while conveying quite clearly that she too feels a bit ecstatic. E.F., Brussels, Belgium
Note: The readers whose comments appears directly above yours are, in various ways, describing scenarios in which Pelosi would be playing Trump and McConnell off of one another to get what she wants. If she pulls that off, it would be another example in support of your assessment.
V & Z: A reader asked about the one Republican "yea" vote on the first article of impeachment that was quickly changed to "nay." I saw that happen, too. In your answer, you said there was no picture of the newest voting system on the House floor, but this article describes the newest system, and the photo accompanying it seems to correspond well to the description. I'm at a loss as to explain how someone would mistakenly press the wrong button during such an important vote. Perhaps Congress needs a better vision plan incorporated into their government health insurance. J.K., Greensburg, PA
Note: You're right. We read a description, and it brought to mind a full touch-screen, like a small iPad. But the picture you link to clearly shows the current generation of vote-recording machines. And given how very hard it would be to make a mistake, it gives a little more credence to the possibility that a rogue Republican was whipped into line by House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA).
V & Z: Given the lack of movement in the polls as the evidence mounted, I can't see that changing when the same Ukraine evidence is presented to the Senate. I think the Democrats need a coherent theme that goes beyond the trial. Something like "Mueller found clear evidence of obstruction of justice. The House found clear evidence of abuse of power. There are [X number] of other independent, non-political investigations into Trump criminal activity. The issue isn't whether Trump *might* have committed a crime; it's that he does it all the time. Nixon said he wasn't a crook, and maybe technically he wasn't; Trump can't say that." J.B., Bend, OR
V & Z: I saw you put Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC) as a potential vote against impeachment, but there's no way. North Carolina could be a case study of American politics. My state is filled with pockets of young people (flocked around our major universities) and city-dwellers that make up a majority of the population, the rural mountains (think Mark Meadows), the military mideast, and farming in between. Our elections are all about turnout, unless that's circumvented by gerrymandering, such as in our Congressional representation. I'm hopeful that we get more even representation in the next Senate cycle (one Republican and one Democrat would more fairly represent NC).
Anyhow, I disagree with your assessment that just because Thom Tillis is from purple NC, he might be thinking pro-impeachment. He is a Trump-embracing Republican, definitely have never thought of him as a skeptic. All his tweets, any e-mail I've sent him, he always toes the Trumpian lines: "Democrats just took a baseless vote to IMPEACH President @realDonaldTrump. You can count on me to stand up for President Trump in the Senate..." "Here's what you can expect the Democrats to push for during tonight's presidential debate: impeaching President Trump, because they know they can't beat him in 2020. Socialist policies that would bankrupt our nation and raise your taxes." He pulls out all the usual fear mongering tactics that have become common place in the Trump presidency. We'll see if NC is motivated enough, as we were in 2018, to get the stench out of our (back to being all-inclusive) bathrooms. But you will have to send me a shovel to dig my jaw out of the ground if Thom Tillis votes for impeachment. L.M., Chapel Hill, NC
Note: We are always very happy to hear from folks "on the ground," and—on a related note—are hoping to collect reader feedback about local conditions in the various primary/caucus states as each holds their election.
V & Z: The conventional wisdom is that the Dems just want to get impeachment done before the primary campaign gets fully underway. But I wonder if they may see another benefit to getting impeachment done sooner rather than later. A Trump acquitted by the Senate will be both enraged and emboldened, and likely go even further off the deep end in his behavior and will even more blatantly ignore the law and norms of civil conduct. At some point, he may cross a line that is too far for his less-committed supporters, who finally say "enough."
Meanwhile, with each new outrage Democrats can say "We told you so" and point to Senate Republicans, who could have reined him in, but failed to act. An actual vote to side with him bears greater culpability than merely tolerating his behavior, so I think Pelosi, Schumer, et al., may see a tactical advantage that not only weakens Trump but Senate Republicans as well. K.H., Ypsilanti, MI
Black Voters
V & Z: A.C. from Santa Cruz did not indicate his/her/their race in the criticism about your comment that black voters prefer Biden. I am a black voter and I wholeheartedly agree with your response to A.C.'s comment and do not feel that I am owed an apology. Biden is also not my favored candidate, but as you correctly noted, black voters are not a monolith. S.M., Pasadena, CA
The Best State
V & Z: I'm sure you were looking forward to the responses to your 'Best States' list the whole time you were writing it. Happy to oblige!
I have lived for over a year in six states: Oregon, Washington, Idaho, California, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. I have visited many others. I also spent several winters in Canada and several months in Thailand. Of course, I visited Mexico while living in California. And once upon a time I traveled a bit in south Asia (Singapore, Malaysia), Northern Europe (England, Scotland, Finland, Latvia, Estonia, Western Russia), and Central Asia (Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan).
These "Best Places To Live" lists used to make me defensive. But then I realized that the lists are not applicable to any but the list-makers and their socioeconomic-microculture cohort. "Best" depends entirely on one's preferences and priorities. And those change even within individuals throughout a lifetime. Now I feel relieved when my favorite places don't make the cut, because I won't have to worry about hordes of fools rushing in, thinking they've finally found their extrinsic Elysium. My best place is a small town in the inter-mountain west, where I can walk from my front door into the wilderness, and the neighbors will notice if I don't return. I like where I'm living now because I wanted to raise my children to be citizens of the world. There are around 85 languages spoken in their schools, and everywhere I look I see interracial couples. I have easy access to hiking, and my neighborhood feels in many ways like a small town. For example, I run into people I know at the grocery store; the tiny old Japanese lady next door occasionally hangs extra zucchini from her garden over the fence for me, and I shovel her drive in the rare snow.. A.S., Renton, WA
Note: We actually intended to ask people to send in their thoughts on this question, and then forgot to add that line. If anyone would like to make the case for (or against) a particular state as "the best," or if you have a broader view like A.S. does, we would like to hear it. We'll print a selection of responses in the next mailbag.
V & Z: Seattle is often overcast in its wet season, but not usually rainy. And it's very dry and gorgeous in its dry season, which is half the year. And for the rest of the state, while there are some uninhabited rainy parts, most of it is actually arid climate. But it's not very accurate to speak of "constant rain in Washington state."
For an actual downside to living there, well Seattle has housing prices that compete with San Francisco, and bad traffic, and large homeless populations, and is very remote and disconnected from the rest of the US. J.H., Bellevue, WA
V & Z: At the end, when pointing out the downfalls of your three "winners," you stated that there is too much rain in Washington. This is an oversimplification of the climate diversity of that state and one that plays into stereotypes people often have about the Pacific Northwest.
I live in New York, but was raised in Idaho (another misunderstood state in terms of geography and topography) and spent time in eastern Washington almost every year of my childhood. Once one crosses the Cascades, the climate and weather is exceedingly dry and arid and nothing like what you would find in Seattle or the environs of the Puget Sound. (My sister lives in Seattle and would also want me to point out that Seattle summers are among the most pleasant anywhere in the country.) Of course, the politics of eastern Washington are quite different as well, full of right-wing militia types who have considerable disdain for their leftist counterparts across the state. Oregon shares a very similar dynamic, in terms of both climate and politics. J.M.R., Chappaqua, NY
V & Z: You omitted something important about Massachusetts: it gave its people Romneycare, the practical basis for the ACA. (That's right, the Heritage Foundation paper that the HF pretends never existed...) L.H., Oakland, CA
V & Z: Re. Massachusetts, why do you say it's on its last legs for infrastructure? Logan Airport has been upgraded, as have numerous subway stops, the Charlie Card provides touchless fares (like London's Oyster card), the Central Artery is gone (replaced by the Big Dig, which added a tunnel connecting I-90 to the airport, allowing for express buses that connect to South Station), there's a new bridge to the north, and the toll plazas on the Mass Pike have been eliminated. So what infrastructure are you thinking of that's on its "last legs"? R.M., Brooklyn, NY
Note: We do our best to research assertions like that. For what it is worth, we were basing that on the American Society of Civil Engineers' report card for the state, which says that a large chunk of state roads (35%) are in a state of disrepair, and the water infrastructure is also in poor condition. That said, neither of us lives there (at least, not since the Votemaster did back in the 1960s), so we're hardly experts.
The 2000 Election
V & Z: I will never get over how Bill Clinton's indiscretions contributed to George W. Bush getting elected that first time. So many bad things were direct results. In my opinion, if you are as smart a man as Clinton, who surely read Sophocles and understood it, and you come up from a single-parent family in Arkansas and get to be the leader of the western world, you can damn well keep your pants ZIPPED for 8 years. But then, there's the tragedy... M.B., Pittsboro, NC
V & Z: It was only through the illegal machinations of the SCOTUS and highly partisan arch-right-winger William Rehnquist where a legitimate election was overturned.
It was, in fact, a coup—illegally enforced by the partisans of the SCOTUS.
That illegal decision goes down as one of the blackest marks in U.S. history, right alongside the other recent coup, which took place on November 22, 1963. M.C., Santa Clara, CA
Debating the Debate
V & Z: You responded to a question about why none of the other candidates went after Biden on his son's dubious qualifications for the board of Burisma, by arguing, in part, that this would give Trump sound bites to use in the general election. It seems to me that they could have said something like "I am the most qualified candidate to stand up against Trump on nepotism." J.L., Mountain View, CA
V & Z: "Shouldn't we have a president who is a good role model for the children?" This hardly seems like a line one could plausibly use against any Trump opponent. J.E., Bellevue, WA
Note: You would think, and yet polls reveal that roughly three-quarters of Republicans see Trump as a role model for their children.
V & Z: You wrote that for the Democratic debate, Mayor Pete Buttigieg (D-South Bend) gets the snarkiest line due to saying "Try putting together a coalition to bring you back to office with 80 percent of the vote as a gay dude in Mike Pence's Indiana." The problem is he was shading the truth, a lot, by saying that. South Bend is a liberal enclave inside of Indiana, so it's not a surprise that a Democrat would win handily there. The same effect happens all the time in Salt Lake City, UT, where a Democrat (including lesbian Mayor Jackie Biskupski) usually wins the race. Buttigieg would be crushed in a statewide race, and everyone knows it. He's trying to claim some kind of bipartisan mantle because he won the mayor's race in a conservative midwestern state, and it sounds a false note when compared to someone like Sen. Amy Klobuchar (DFL-MN), who has won statewide in a (more liberal) midwestern state. I personally don't like Buttigieg, because there are several aspects of his campaign that gloss over things like this in his attempt to win the Biden lane; he just feels like a manufactured candidate at a time when we need someone real to stand against Trump. R.R., Pasadena, CA
V & Z: Buttigieg's drink at the debate looks perfectly like water to me. The brownish-orangish hue in the bottom half of the glass appears to be a magnified, distorted, and doubled image of his right thumb, which is resting on the back of the glass there. Both glass and water have higher refractive indexes than air, and the glass also seems to have slightly wavy sides, possibly even of varying thicknesses. The pixels inside the 2D boundaries of the glass are just what you'd expect to see looking through a glass of water like this in the full 3D world—their color is from things behind the glass, not the apparently transparent glass and its also apparently transparent contents. The shiny-looking band near the top of the water appears to be partly his black suit and partly his white collar as they are showing through the glass and water above his thumb, also distorted by bending of light. K.C., Portland, OR
Note: On the night of the debate, on both TV and in the screen cap, it really looked like a dark-colored liquid to us. But, on further review the next morning, we conclude that you are right, and that it was water that was simply reflecting his thumb, his tie, and the red lighting from the podium. We only ran that bit because we thought it might be interesting for folks without extensive public speaking experience to know that one actually has to be quite careful about what one eats or drinks before standing in front of a crowd for multiple hours. Anyhow, we removed the observation about his drink, and replaced it with one about his five-o-clock shadow.
Eternal Tweets?
V & Z: I believe there are various repositories of the tweets of @realDonaldTrump that could outlast whatever the company Twitter ends up doing with them. One example is "The Daily Show's" Trump Twitter museum in NYC, which they claim is a real place, at least sometimes. And federal law may also require some form of more permanent retention of them, after former White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer said they were real presidential pronouncements. Psychiatrist (or thereabouts) Bandy Lee is also maintaining an annotated list of Trump tweets (as she says to show how they are an attempt to gaslight the populace), which will no doubt find their way into a book or ten. D.S., Palo Alto, CA
Note: We may have dismissed the future availability of the tweets too quickly, as long as they are being stored in paper form. Any electronic form will become obsolete far more quickly that anyone realizes, generally speaking. Just today, (Z) was reading an article about how difficult it was to redo the movie Toy Story in a modern resolution (1080p), because just 10 years later, there was no software available that could read the original files.
Hot Under the Collar
V & Z: Justify, if you can, your position that Fahrenheit is an inferior temperature scale.
Celsius is designed for the convenience of bodies of water, and for this reason, allocates 0-100 based on water freezing or boiling. If you are a puddle, you know just what to expect.
Fahrenheit is designed for the convenience of humans, and hence allocates 0-100 based on widely experienced temperature extremes drawn from the real world in which humans live. 0 is very, very cold, and 100 is very, very hot, and all temperatures in between are actually possible and do occur. This makes it a very intuitive scale to describe the human experience.
Furthermore, Fahrenheit degrees are more finely-grained. Knowing it is 50 degrees F, not 51, is more precise information than knowing it is 26 degrees C, not 27. W.S., Dallas, TX
Note: We were just looking for a quick metric/non-metric example to use, and thought that was an easy one. We almost went with pounds/kilograms; if we had done that, we presumably wouldn't be having this conversation right now.
A Warren Piece
V & Z: After the 2016 election, I became a "radical" and vowed that I would vote in every election—not just presidential—and also vote straight party line for the rest of my life. I was done with the ass jackery of the other side.
As a female who has worked hard her entire life, and especially since it seems to me that Clinton got robbed of the election, I really, really want a woman as president—even Marianne in her wackadoodle way is better than what we've got now! I've been supporting Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) from the beginning, but even if the Democratic nominee is a man, I will vote for him.
At any rate, I think you've written that candidates who most people want to have a beer with end up winning elections. There isn't anything I'm overly excited about with Warren; she seems like a total policy wonk and a bit of a bore. I don't want to have a beer with her, but maybe a selfie? I feel the same way about Biden, our front-runner. Beer? Nah.
Imagine my utter surprise when I took the Washington Post's quiz to see which candidate most aligns with my views and it came back primarily Biden! According to them, I hardly agree with Warren at all, but to me it still doesn't matter. I'll vote for her in the primary anyway.
All of this to say that I completely understand the fluctuation of support for Warren. Put bluntly, there's nothing especially inspiring about her campaign. And she's not someone I'd really want to have a beer with. E.K.G., Patchogue, NY
Note: Let us also take this opportunity to remind folks of the very interesting site isidewith.com, which does the same thing as the Post's quiz.
Scapegoating Marginalized Groups Is What Demagogues Do
V & Z: I found your item about transgender rights as a wedge issue greatly upsetting. Not because you or your sources were wrong, necessarily, but more from a general sense of despair over the state of the world.
I'm a transgender woman myself, so this is not a frivolous luxury issue I can sacrifice to appease centrists, the way someone shopping on a budget decides they don't need the largest-screen television in the store. We are talking about whether I, personally, can remain employed next year, can remain living in my home.
It scares and distresses me that there is so much serious questioning of whether I should be able to so much as eat and survive or whether even well-meaning liberals should consider tossing me and people like me overboard for the greater good. Of course Trump and Congressional Republicans need to be defeated before the whole world is ruined, not just my corner of it. But even if we "win" under these circumstances, where does that leave people like me? Is our best possible outcome to be the forsaken children that power Omelas? IC.K., Albuquerque, NM
V & Z: I read with interest your item about the possibility of Trump using transgender rights as a wedge issue to divide Democrats, as well as the Times article you linked to. I'm not convinced that Democrats are actually divided badly enough on this issue for such a strategy to work. In June, Gallup found that 88% of Democrats support trans people serving in the military, and that 66% of Democrats believe trans people should be allowed to use the public restroom that corresponds to our gender identity.
You wrote that "many" Americans do not accept the core transgender principle that our gender identity overrules our biology. First I would point out that I don't think it's necessary for people to fully understand and accept that principle in order to disapprove of specific legal and political actions taken against us (see, for example, the gap between opposition to the military ban vs. opposition to bathroom bills). After all, there are Americans who don't personally condone homosexuality, but also don't support various forms of legal discrimination against gay people. But even leaving that aside, how many is many, and in which direction are people's views trending? Even if opposition to trans rights could be a "winning" issue for now, how long before it goes the same way as opposition to marriage equality, reaching a tipping point where shifts in popular opinion discredit it as a campaign issue?
Moreover, I personally know some left-leaning (and even not-so-left-leaning) folks who were previously noncommittal, but have become more supportive of trans rights in reaction to bathroom bills and Trump's reversal of Obama-era protections. People who already hate Trump for other reasons don't want to be on his side of any issue, which makes me question how effective he can really be at dividing Democrats this way. He is so toxic among so many voters that such a plan seems likely to backfire, at least to some extent.
Thank you for bringing attention to this matter. I have to say, it doesn't feel great to be part of a tiny minority whose rights are being kicked around as a political football, but it is important for people to know that it's happening. I suppose in some sense the controversies can be viewed as positive, since at least trans issues are part of serious public discourse now. When I transitioned in the 1990s, nobody in the public eye was talking about us at all, unless you count Jerry Springer. The wheels of justice grind slowly. J.M., Montpelier, VT
Note: As neither of us is trans, we cannot entirely empathize, but we can sympathize. (Z), for his part, had two different trans students try to commit suicide last year (neither with success, thankfully).
Tea for Two, and Two for Tea
V & Z: I was a little surprised to read that you wouldn't want to know most of the U.S. Supreme Court Justices. I've been fortunate enough to meet or hear speak five of them over the years, and they are without exception among the brightest legal minds alive today, with the most interesting careers and experiences. The history of the Court is also filled with fun, perhaps surprising, human moments, such as the well-known love of opera shared by Justice Ginsberg and the late Justice Scalia.
On a more substantive note, your mailbag had someone who pointed out that the Court did not have to take the Trump tax case. Your response omitted the salient fact that while it takes five Justices to make a majority to rule on a case, it takes only four Justices to agree to hear a case. So the fact that the Court is taking up the case is not necessarily evidence of a pro-Trump verdict. C.S., Arlington, VA
Note: "Most" was a bit of an overstatement. We had two justices we were really thinking about when we wrote that.
Back to the main page