Dem
51
GOP
49
This week's mailbag is not top heavy, the way the last several have been.
J.D.M. in Cottonwood Shores, TX, writes: I am writing in today in support of your answer to D.K. in Iowa City about why the Democrats need Biden in 2024 despite his age. I would like to expand upon your point that Biden has created a coalition that spans the older Democratic base (who grew up on the truism that you had to stay in the "center" to win nationally) and the new "alignment," as you called it, of voters of all ages who have mainstreamed ideas that used to be considered "too liberal."
He has the support of the old alignment because they are his tribe. He has the support of the new group because he reached out to them in real, meaningful ways. Of the 12 candidates that made it to the debate stage in 2020, he was 12th on my list. (I knocked on doors for Bernie in 2016 and 2020.) But he won me over immediately when I read about the Biden-Bernie task force to jointly work on the platform that year. And now that he (and the Democratic Congress) have actually followed through on those plans? I have been completely won over.
I also recognize that we still need the cover of running a "centrist" because most people don't have the time or inclination to pay attention to the details. (Don't tell them that the Inflation Reduction Act is really the Green New Deal Lite.) This also means that appearances are key. I suggest that all Biden ads start using this picture of Trump without his makeup:
Let me close by contrasting Biden's 2020 approach to Al Gore's and Hillary Clinton's approaches in 2000 and 2016.
In the late 1990's, I switched my party affiliation from Democratic to Green. Being a nerdy environmental engineer/political activist, I was disgusted by the stunningly right-wing environmental details of NAFTA. In 2000, I, along with thousands of others, waited for any hint from Gore that he would take a more environmentally sensitive approach than President Clinton had. Just a wink, wink, nudge, nudge would have done the trick. None came and, being members of the Green Party, we, you know, voted for the Green Party candidate.
In 2016, as a very active participant in the Bernie campaign, I was in daily contact with the Bernie delegates to the national convention from my state. Instead of acknowledging the significant number of voters represented by all of those Bernie delegates, Hillary's people were actively hostile, to the point of abusiveness, towards them. Especially during the platform committee deliberations. My friends came home incensed and started a mini-campaign to get people to vote for Jill Stein.
From those two stories, you can tell who I blame for the elections of Bush II and the Orange Menace.
J.S. in Bellevue, WA, writes: A couple of times, you have asked whether the Republican candidates for president really want to win or not. They don't seem to be going after Trump, and their efforts to win over his supporters are tepid at best. How can they win if they don't beat Trump?
The dynamic that these candidates don't seem to understand is that Trump supporters are more like college football fans than traditional voters who vote for the candidates who most align with them.
College football fans are fanatic about their teams—they don't care (too much) whether their team wins or loses. If they have a bad season, the fans just push harder the next year. They don't care if the coach or star running back are caught up in a scandal. They don't care who is starting or not. They are going to be fans of that team no matter what. Trying to convince a USC fan to switch their allegiance to UCLA, or a Michigan fan to become a Michigan State fan, or an Alabama fan to switch to... any other team is just impossible. Listen to how Trump supporters talk about his scandals or indictments—they just don't care, or they see him as a victim (the referees in that game were terrible!). This is how college football fans talk about their teams.
The best the opposition can hope for is this: Tell people you don't need them to support you, you just need them to show up on game day and boo the juggernaut. Get enough people in the stadium who are booing your opponent, and for a single Saturday afternoon, you've got what looks like support.
This is what Chris Christie is trying to do—he's not telling the MAGA faithful to turn against Trump. That's impossible. What he's doing is asking everyone who isn't MAGA to effectively push against Trump on Election Day and maybe come out with a win.
The rest of them, including DeSantis, are just groveling around the stadium on game day hoping someone will cheer for them or trying to photobomb their way onto TV. It isn't going to work.
A.K. in Tacoma, WA, writes: You wrote about how Donald Trump is going to get one of his political rivals killed. I think he'll be ecstatic when it happens. In his warped way of thinking, he'll see himself approaching Vladimir Putin levels of power (bullets vs. chemical means notwithstanding). And he'll use the "incident" to speak to his followers and warn his other rivals that they shouldn't mess with him politically or legally. I can already hear it now: "This was a horrible thing. A horrible thing. I hope it never happens again. But these things happen." And his followers will know this is what he wants and his rivals will know that he's letting the most feral dogs off the leash. And the problem is, even with this sort of rhetoric, Trump himself will never get in trouble for it. If he got away with inciting an insurrection, he's almost certainly going to get away with inciting murder.
M.M. in Atlanta, GA, writes: Equally concerning are Trump's many incitements against Jack Smith (and his family). The most recent one, where he said Smith should be "put out to rest" was particularly alarming.
R.L. in Alameda, CA, writes: The Tories in the UK have sacked Boris Johnson and forced him to resign from Parliament. Jair Bolsinaro has been prevented from running for office for 8 years by the Brazilian Superior Electoral Court.
You up, American Republicans? Last I checked, Trump is still most likely to be the nominee of your party.
R.L. in Alameda, CA, writes: It's hard to figure out what the producers of Gov. Ron DeSantis' (R-FL) "anti"-gay campaign ad were thinking. Your write-up covers all the reasons why it is a terrible ad politically. I found it to be positively homo-erotic (which is why I put the 'anti' in 'anti-gay' in quotes). I mean, if he really hates gay people so much, why all the images of oiled-up, beefcake men? Methinks he doth protest too much.
He could save us all a lot of trouble and heartache if he would just find a good therapist who can help him to come out as his authentic, freaky self. (Although I can't imagine a single queer person who would want him in their tribe).
By the way, I have to wonder if someone on his campaign reads E-V.com. I tried to show the ad to my wife this morning and it has been pulled. Googling it only brought up news stories about the ad. The ad itself has disappeared. I sure hope the Lincoln Project made a copy and I can't wait to see what they do with it.
(V) & (Z) respond: There are definitely copies on YouTube, albeit incorporated into news reports on the ad.
C.G. in Reston, VA, writes: About DeSantis' horrible ad: The use of that specific bodybuilder image people have been talking about (the black and white one with the bearded guy looking and smiling towards the top of the frame) is not accidental.
That specific image is a favorite of fascists from 4chan and reddit and is part of the family of "Chad" memes known as the "GigaChad," used to promote the fascist ideal of masculinity. And it is frequently deployed specifically in anti-trans discourse. Only the most online of incels (and those of us who study right wing online spaces) would know this. As you correctly pointed out, that was a direct appeal to the terminally-online right. Since these spaces are where the mainstream right wing outlets like Fox and the Daily Caller get their content these days, it would be reasonable to conclude that the DeSantis campaign is making a very calculated move to appropriate one of Trump's most powerful strongholds. Whether or not that works remains to be seen.
Mainstream media outlets don't understand these spaces and, even in the wake of the Trump presidency, which was in no small amount powered by the denizens of the likes of 4chan and reddit, it seems like a lot of this still flies under the radar. I wish they would pay more attention to what happens there. As tough as it is to read, it's a great way to predict how their rhetoric will evolve, and what they'll do next.
S.B. in Natick, MA, writes: Regarding your assessment of Ron's crazy ad, there may be two things you're missing:
- Regular people are not going to see that ad. I don't know if it's running on TV, but I assume that the only people seeing it are those who want to be outraged who are not voting for him anyway, and those who are receptive to that ridiculous message.
- The ridiculous-message audience is not "incels" but they are closely related. It's pretty obvious to me that he's trying to capture the 4chan meme community with this one. He wants to be the one that all the lunatics start making the BASED! memes about and to capture the "meme magic" that supposedly pushed Trump over the top in 2016. At the very least, he's trying to keep that crowd from getting behind Trump.
The "meme magic" was a major motivator among grassroots content creators in 2016. I'm not so sure that community still exists today, or is anywhere near as influential, but I'm assuming DeSantis is not leaving any stone unturned.
D.K. in Oceanside, CA, writes: Most of us have done dumb and embarrassing things as adolescents, but we grow up and those events are forgotten (except at family gatherings). DeSantis will never live long enough to outgrow that hormonal teenager, anti-LGBTQ video. It's beyond cringeworthy.
D.C. in Brentwood, CA, writes: You have written about a lot of workarounds for the striking down of affirmative action, which you have suggested will likely lead to a diverse student body without direct consideration of race. Most of the proxy metrics can be lumped under the umbrella term "class."
As a person who considers myself a progressive, liberal, civil libertarian, etc., I can't help but think this is a good, principled decision, which will lead to positive outcomes by less conflicted means, and which will be self-balancing over time, as marginalized groups change.
M.M. in Plano, TX, writes: In 1974, after completing four years of service in the U.S. Air Force, I started postgraduate work at the University of Georgia. One student who was getting a lot of attention was the leader of a white pride group. I learned that he was also an Army ROTC student, which meant that he was being pipe-lined to command a platoon of 37 enlisted soldiers, one quarter of whom, on average, would be Black. Obviously, he would be the worst possible candidate to command them in a just manner. The services are absolutely right to insist that the leadership cadre have the same racial proportion as the corps of followers.
D.E. in Culpeper, VA, writes: I think that one part of your discussion of the gutting of affirmative action misses a few very important points with respect to the service academies. My 2+-decade career as a commissioned officer in the United States Navy gave me a very strong understanding that the legacy concept and the insular nature of the officer corps (promotion selections are made by boards of officers at the various military personnel commands) are very strong indeed.
For an example of the former, we need look no further than John S. McCain I, John S. McCain II, John S. McCain III, and John S. McCain IV. For validation of the latter, one need note merely that, despite the fact that the Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) and Officer Candidate School (OCS) have commissioned far more officers than the academies, there was no 4-star admiral who was not an Annapolis graduate until Paul Miller was elevated to that rank in the early 1990s. Also, a significant number of plebes are athletic recruits who are enlisted and then attend a year of prep school before entering the academy. It might also be interesting to take note of how much of the academies' infrastructure has been funded in the form of gifts from grateful alumni.
This is not necessarily as much the case for the other academies. For example, George C. Marshall was a graduate of the Virginia Military Academy, and Colin Powell was awarded his commission through the ROTC program at the City College (now University) of New York. Nevertheless, the practice does seem to thrive across the board.
L.E. in Santa Barbara, CA, writes: With so many of us having questions about SCOTUS, I want to recommend a podcast I recently was introduced to, 5-4 Pod. You can read transcripts on the website, but it is also easy to find on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, etc. You can subscribe for a fee, but they make many of the episodes open to all.
On it, three attorneys discuss/dissect U.S. Supreme Court decisions, current and past, and how these decisions have led to where we are today. They bill the podcast as "a progressive and occasionally profane take on the ideological battles at the heart of the Court's most important landmark cases..." (In truth, it is very profane, with lots of f-bombs. I suspect none of these three ever plan to argue a case before the Court.) Their discussions dissect legal arguments used, but in a manner that a non-lawyer can readily understand.
In their latest episode, they address 303 Creative vs. Elenis and, near the end, answer the question that E.R. in Loomis asked. Essentially, by the time this case got to the Supreme Court, the lawsuit no longer included any claim that 303 Creative had received a request for services by a gay couple. However, one of the attorneys opined that an "enterprising district attorney or Attorney General in Colorado should be going through every filing ADF [the organization that brought the suit on Lorie Smith's behalf] has made in Colorado in the last five years, checking it all out, and then bringing charges against them and Lori Smith—they lied in official court documents under penalty of perjury. They perjured themselves."
Each episode is an hour, plus or minus. However, for me, listening while I complete mindless chores allows me to better understand what has happened to our civil rights over time. (I found the June 6 episode of Sierra Club v. Morton a good discussion of "standing.")
B.R. in Eatontown, NJ, writes: There were two questions yesterday about recent SCOTUS decisions where I thought your response was pretty good, but where I felt a fuller legal analysis would be appropriate. In that regard, I will note that I've been a practicing lawyer for over 40 years, and have had a strong interest in Constitutional Law going to my high school days.
First, E.R. in Loomis posed a question about 303 Creative vs. Elenis, the SCOTUS decision holding the Colorado's Anti-Discrimination Act violated a web-designer's right not to make websites for same-sex couples. E.R. questioned why it wasn't tossed out by the first judge to encounter it.
It's important to recognize that the key argument presented by 303 Creative, certainly the key argument addressed by the Supreme Court in its decision, was a First Amendment freedom of speech argument. When it comes to standing in these cases, the Court has long held that to establish standing the claimant does not actually have to engage in conduct that would expose that person to criminal prosecution. Rather, the Court recognizes that statutes prohibiting certain kinds of speech will have a "chilling effect" on persons who would want to engage in that type of speech, and so allows the claim so long as the claimant expresses a desire to engage in the speech in question.
While statutes that prohibit speech are much more common, from time to time the Court is presented with a cases where the claim is that the law requires the claimant to engage in speech that they don't want to engage in. These cases are referred to as compelled speech cases (think a statute that compels all students in a school to participate in saying the Pledge of Allegiance). The Court had of course held that compelled speech violates the First Amendment just as much prohibitions on speech. And in such cases, the Court has long held that standing is established when the claimant can assert that the statute would compel the claimant to engage in speech that they don't want to engage in.
In 303 Creative, there were, as E.R. referenced, complications in the standing claims asserted by 303 Creative and Lorie Smith. However, at least from the news reports I've seen on this topic, it is questionable whether these were ever raised with the various courts that heard the matter. Rather, from what I understand reading the opinion and some of these new reports, this case was presented to the trial-level judge for resolution based on a stipulated set of facts, which did not get into these complications. That continued as the case worked its way through the appellate process. In these sort of cases, courts will rarely if ever question the facts if the parties choose not to do so; rather, they will accept the facts as presented. Judges can and will consider the legal implications of those facts even if the implications are not disputed by the parties (for instance whether the facts as presented establish standing), but independently verifying the facts is usually beyond the scope of their duties.
There have been other circumstances in which the Court has taken a similar broad view of standing (for instance, abortion before Dobbs). But that is not universally true of all claims, even all circumstances where a "chilling effect" could be raised.
Second, M.G. in Boulder posed a question about Counterman v. Colorado, the SCOTUS "stalking" decision holding that because of the First Amendment freedom of speech, the courts must apply a subjective standard in trials involving charges arising from communications that are threats of violence or similar harm against a potential victim. M.G. questioned what the Court meant by its requirement that it had to be proven that "the defendant had some subjective understanding of the threatening nature of his statements."
I will start by noting that this is not actually what the Court held. Rather, it held that "The State must show that the defendant consciously disregarded a substantial risk that his communications would be viewed as threatening violence." But regardless, it's easy to explain why the Court reversed and sent the case back (remanded) to the Colorado courts for a new trial. And it had nothing to do with what the Justices thought the evidence established about Defendant's ability to understand the threatening nature of his comments. Rather, it was because that is a decision that had to be made by a jury, not judges.
Ultimately, the reason the Court reversed the conviction in the case is that it was tried using a different standard than the one the Court held was required by the First Amendment. Since the case was tried before a jury, this means that the jury decided the case based on jury instructions ("jury charge") that were wrong. When that happens, appellate courts almost always reverse the decision below and send it back for a new trial. That's because regardless of what the error was about, the jury in deciding to convict could not and did not approach its decision using the correct information about what the law required the State to prove. In this regard, it is important to keep in mind that in criminal cases tried by a jury, it is not for the trial judge (or an appellate court) to determine whether the facts meet the correct standard. Rather, that is why we have juries—to make those determinations.
M.M. in Centralia, IL, writes: You wrote: "... if the school orchestra needs a new French horn player, French horn players can be given preference."
Nuh-uh. French horn players are a dime a dozen. Now if we want to talk about double reeds, you're on to something. I've had one bassoon student and two oboe students who chose their instrument primarily because it meant a free ride at a lot of colleges. Really!
N.A. in Asheboro, NC, writes: The mention of "the Boofer" by D.E. in Lancaster had me doubled over laughing! It brings to mind what I believe is the most apropos legacy for the Justice being referenced: ever since his feeble defense in confirmation that "boofing refers to flatulence," I think of Brett Kavanaugh every time I have to fart.
D.E. in Lancaster, PA, writes: Regarding the spat in Kookville, I've read that it is Rep. Scott Perry (R-Insurrectionist), who is avoiding MTG and not the other way around. Frankly, that makes more sense, since I too would not want to have tell Mad Madge to her face that she's been voted out her high school clique because she had the temerity to try to date up to the school's quarterback (although she wouldn't understand the word "temerity," and the idea of Speaker Kevin McCarthy, R-CA, as a leader strains the analogy)! Not unless I had a whole battalion of guards with assault rifles locked, loaded and aimed, and even then with a great deal of trepidation.
Mad Madge, who is the embodiment of indignation and righteous anger, would avoid that confrontation only if there were no cameras around; but otherwise she would be:
Bring it on bitches, I haven't had a flare up of entitled anger for the past hour since I screamed at the young Black girl in the cafeteria for giving me an uppity attitude after I threw my money at her and accused of her of being a moron for not knowing the caloric count of a bag of M&Ms off the top of her head. I mean, why do we pay these idiots, to just stand around doing nothing all day and forcing the much more important me to have to research information I really don't care about but am using to make a point about how worthless she is and how the sight of her is an affront to me, who is obviously so very, very important, in fact the exact center of the universe. So if you want to tell me I've been kicked out of your stupid club of losers, that I wouldn't be caught dead hanging around with, especially that bitch Boebert, then you got another thing coming. I'm itching for a fight and you just volunteered!Yeah, I would avoid that cray-cray too. Can you tell I work in the service industry?
M.F. in Burbank, CA, writes: I am writing in response to "Republicans Have a Mormon Problem." While there is a lot on this site I have very little personal experience with, this is something I know quite intimately, as both a former Mormon (Latter-day Saint) and a former Republican.
Demographically speaking, I should be a Trump supporter, as I am a white straight cis male, raised in a rural community, with a deeply religious family, and only a high school education. I was raised to believe that homosexuality is an abomination, abortion is murder, and that men hold divine authority over women. However, I was also raised to highly value honesty, integrity, generosity, self-sacrifice, and community service. I was taught that the Republican Party was the party of all those things, and that the Democratic Party was the party of immoral behavior, godlessness, and dishonesty. I voted for the first time in 2004 for George W. Bush (in Florida) because he was a Republican, full stop.
As a direct descendant of a former president of the LDS (Mormon) church, Heber J. Grant, I am related to a great many prominent members of the community, both religious and civil. Thus, in early 2008, I found myself in my grandmother's living room with about 15 people, one of whom was my great uncle, then-Sen. Bob Bennett (R-UT). We asked him to break down the Republican primary field (McCain, Romney, Huckabee, Giuliani, Paul, Thompson), which he did with great candor and many personal anecdotes. He listed the strengths and weaknesses of everyone, as well as his opinion of their fitness for office (which was not high for several of the candidates).
We then asked him to do the same for Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, who were both senators at the time. He said, in effect, that while he disagreed with them politically, he respected them both, and that they were both thoughtful, intelligent, caring, patriotic, and extremely capable. While he had no intention of voting for them, he said that either one would make a perfectly good President of the United States. Needless to say, Bennett's bipartisanship and honesty was going out of vogue, and he was tea partied by Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) two years later.
His words stuck with me, though, as I had never even considered voting for a Democrat. The concept that they might also be good people had not crossed my mind. I began paying attention to politics for the first time (that is when I found this site), and I ended up voting for Obama in the general, though otherwise a straight Republican ticket.
Over the next decade, I reevaluated both my religious and political beliefs. I left the LDS church, keeping with me the teachings I liked (honestly, integrity, generosity, etc.) and discarding the rest (creationism, patriarchy, anti-LGBTQ, etc.). I remained a Republican, but as the party morphed, and my worldview expanded, I found I voted for them less and less. Trump's primary victory was the nail in the coffin, and I left the party, likely never to return.
In my extended family (I have over 40 first cousins), most are still active members of the LDS church, but they are certainly not all Republicans. We have many LGBTQ members of the family that are broadly accepted and loved by us, if not yet by the church as a whole. While there are some Trump supporters, most despise the man and his movement. We are more motivated by "love one another" than by the rhetoric of hatred and exclusion. While I suspect that some will continue to vote for Republican candidates, especially once Trump is gone, many will not, and not just the younger generations (my parents left the Republican Party at the same time I did, and are still very active members of the LDS church). Well over half of my extended family lives outside of Utah, so this impacts much more than just Utah elections.
I can only speak to my personal experiences, but for what it is worth, I can confirm that, yes, the Republican Party does, indeed, have a Mormon problem.
M.S. in Phoenix, AZ, writes: I am a Mormon with a perspective on the Church's decline and the implications on politics. Until the last 10-ish years, attrition was largely based on converts getting over their fervor after a few months and slipping away. Out in the "mission field" (the Mormon colloquialism for areas outside of Utah/Idaho/Arizona), the numbers of butts in seats on Sunday versus the number of members recorded on the rolls showed an activity rate of around 20 percent. Back home in Zion, the activity rate was usually around 80 percent. These days are gone, with Utah activity rates now hovering between 50 and 60 percent. For the first time ever, generational Mormons are leaving activity in large numbers.
Anecdotally, of my nine missionary "companions," five have left the Church and another is considering it and my brothers report the same ratio. Compare that to our boomer father: Every one of his six companions is still an active, participating Mormon.
But back to politics. Why is this decline happening? For a Church claiming to be led by "living prophets," it sure seems behind the times. Younger (and some older) Mormons have lost patience with the racism, homophobia, and anti-feminism of the nonagenarian leadership in Salt Lake. We do not see or hear God in Russell M. Nelson's and Dallin H. Oaks' and Jeffrey R. Holland's bigoted speeches, press releases, and hundred-billion-dollar secret hedge funds. So, not only are Mormon numbers declining in raw terms, the members who slip into inactivity become overwhelmingly liberal. And that's on top of the noted leftward swing of the increasingly smaller numbers who remain.
As you mentioned, Utah and Idaho aren't changing their color anytime soon. However, Arizona and Nevada have substantial enough Mormon populations that the shift could make a difference statewide—not to mention concentrations in New Mexico, Colorado, Oregon, California, and Washington who affect legislative and congressional races. Also don't forget: Generational Mormons are disproportionately rich, civically motivated, and well-organized. That's a powerful donor base whose alliance is shifting! This is an interesting time.
M.D.H. in Coralville, IA, writes: You wrote: "Many of them hate his uncouth personal style, feuds with Sen. Mitt Romney (R-UT), and hatred of Muslims."
I'm sure most of your readers know that Romney is one of the least Trumpy GOP senators. He was the only GOP Senator to vote against Trump in both Impeachment trials, for instance.
But some of your readers might not know that Utah had fewer COVID-19 deaths per capita, whether measured by officially reported COVID deaths or by excess deaths, than any other Republican state. Had every Republican County in the U.S. done as well at saving lives as did the average Utah County, around 500,000 lives could have been saved. Utah was a prominent exception to the trend observed by many analysts of deaths being higher in counties where more people voted Republican in the 2020 Presidential Election. My personal theory is that Utah probably shows "what might have been" in the absence of Trumpism.
J.S. in Hightstown, NJ, writes: I have to admit that when I was quickly scanning through the headlines of the post for Thursday, I misread "Republicans Have a Mormon Problem" as "Republicans Have a Moron Problem." Either headline is probably correct.
J.S. in Georgetown, KY, writes: Thank you Tim Griffin and thank you E-V.com. I am sick to death of politicians I support lying to me about matching, deadlines, fake opinion polls and any other lie they are willing to tell to get more money out of me.
Sick of it to the point that I've stopped contributing.
J.L.H. in Los Altos CA , writes: I can add to your answer to M.O. in Syracuse about PBS or NPR promoting matching donations. Solicitors for our local NPR station often say something like "if we don't receive $1000 in the next hour, then we have to offer to give the matching funds back." But of course, whoever donated those matching funds will seldom ask for their money back. Also, on the other end of this, if you donate a large amount, say $1,000, the station will ask if they can promote that as a "matchable donation."
S.G. in Newark, NJ, writes: I am suspicious about "matching" donation campaigns even by reputable nonprofits. My suspicion derives from what I learned about a different, but analogous, ploy.
Many product sellers try to goose sales by promising to donate an amount of money to some worthy cause for each unit sold. "Until July 31, the makers of Chocolate Frosted Sugar Bombs will donate $1 for every box sold to the Society for the Prevention of Abuse of Calvin!" I always thought that if I wanted to donate a dollar to that charity, I'd rather do so directly, rather than buying an overpriced and unhealthy breakfast food (and if there's a tax deduction to be had, I'd rather take it myself). But then I started reading the fine print, and discovered that always, always, always, two things were true. One is that the promoter of the "deal" promised a minimum donation to the charity even if not a unit of the product was sold. Two is that the promoter of the "deal" specified a maximum donation to the charity even if an infinite number of units of the product were sold. I think it's safe to assume that the product's regular sales usually were sufficient to ensure the minimum donation, so people who bought more product because they thought it would benefit the charity were merely enriching the product seller.
I don't know this for a fact, but I suspect that donation matching campaigns work the same way. Mr. Rich Guy allows Americans for Great Causes to say that he will match every dollar donated for the next month. But he also promises to give the cause $2 million no matter what, and also not to give any more than $2 million. (Or maybe the cause is simply quite confident that no way, no how, will it ever collect $2 million in a month from its base of small donors.)
Perhaps someone in your readership has direct knowledge.
K.R. in Austin, TX, writes: The censure of Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) does appear to be helping his fundraising. Could that be a feature rather than a bug to the Republicans? The Senator from California is most likely going to be a Democrat regardless of who the candidate is. Of the three leading candidates, I'd imagine they'd most prefer Schiff for a number of reasons.
A.B. in Wendell, NC, writes: Just going to say it—I wish Elissa Slotkin were here in North Carolina! I do not think I have ever seen a better political ad! Too bad Michigan has her!
E.W. in Skaneateles, NY, writes: You wrote that Rep. Matt Rosendale (R-MT), who is running for Senate against Sen. Jon Tester (D-MT), had a pronounced Maryland accent. That got me wondering, what exactly does a Maryland accent even sound like? Fortunately, Google supplied me very quickly with an excellent video that I am passing along to you and your readership.
I don't necessarily care about what people sound like, and I greatly dislike the whole "I've-lived-here-forever-so-I-automatically-know-what's-best" shtick. After all, sometimes an outside perspective is needed to shake things up and get people out of entrenched ways of thinking. Nevertheless, that Maryland accent is very different from how I imagine Montanans speak, so I agree that an accent like that might make a difference politically.
M.S. in Westchester County, NY, writes: I'm active in the Democratic Party in Westchester County. Mike Lawler is a savvy politician and he will be tough to beat in November 2024. Lawler is a former Republican strategist and knows how to portray himself as a moderate, despite being a loyal Kevin McCarthy follower/typical conservative Republican.
However, your knocking of Mondaire Jones is uninformed. He is a smart politician in his own right. His announcement ad pulled the right chords, with a pro-police statement, defense of the right to abortion and more. In addition, he has already locked up many local politic endorsements and is off to a great start. I'm sure that Liz Gereghty is a lovely person, but Mondaire has the hearts of activists and the party here.
E.D. in Saddle Brook, NJ, writes: Your analysis of possible outcomes for Threads assumes that Twitter will maintain its position. That's not at all a given. Elon Musk's politics get a lot of attention because it's easy to understand, but that's not the problem with Twitter. Twitter barely even functions anymore. The site breaks often, and every change Musk makes leads to a worse experience. The people on Twitter don't want to stay there anymore, but they do because there isn't a viable alternative. The site is completely toxic to most advertisers. The company is losing massive amounts of money and is refusing to pay bills like rent, hosting fees, and severance packages. All of the problems are trending toward getting worse. The only path toward making Twitter profitable seems to be for Musk to admit defeat and sell the company for a small fraction of what he paid for it to someone who can afford to eat big losses and rebuild.
If someone comes along with a similar site that's easy to use, offers all the key features Twitter has, and can scale well, then Twitter will die fast. So far, no one's been able to deliver all of those goals. If someone pulls that off, Twitter will die quick.
R.J.J. in San Francisco, CA, writes: The only way for someone to turn off Threads after they enable it is to delete their Instagram account, which is making it a nonstarter for many people.
G.S. in West Lafayette, IN, writes: I know quite a few people who identify as liberals or middle-of-the-road who will not go anywhere near Threads. The sheer scale of privacy intrusion by Meta products and the avaricious attitude behind their data scraping is a massive turnoff. Threads, as a particular instance, is alleged to not be available in the EU because it is so massively in violation of GDPR. You also apparently can't sign up to access via a web browser—because web browsers have some capability of blocking tracking and data scraping, especially with the right add-ons in place—you can only sign up via a cell phone app. Of course, cell phones provide even great opportunities for data scraping, including other apps, location tracking, and A/V capture.
You didn't mention BlueSky. That is something many of us have been waiting to see how it would settle out. Some Black and female early adopters have reported that it is terrible because of the abuse, and it is not even open for a general subscription yet. Apparently, there is no plan for effective moderation. After Jack Dorsey announced he was putting all his support behind Robert Kennedy for president, that was another nail in the coffin.
Reddit isn't dead yet, but is coughing up blood (to use the Monty Python line). The value there was in the moderation in the various subreddits, but moderators have (and are) leaving in droves because of the decisions being made by the owners to try to pump up profits. It looks like their gameplay was written by Elon Musk.
Many other services have started up for microblogging, although none have a great deal of traction. Most of my social circle now have Mastodon accounts. Mastodon takes a little getting used to, and is definitely a different experience than other platforms, but we're finding good engagement. Abusers tend to get blocked and booted fairly quickly, although that is up to individual system admins (Mastodon is federated non-profit servers rather than a centralized commercial company). It has sort of an early BBS/Usenet vibe to it. We'll see how that develops, given governmental regulations and commercial competition.
There is an old quote, attributed to Paul Ginsparg: "The problem with the global village is all the global village idiots." There is undoubtedly a parallel for social media that we are seeing play out here.
M.E. in Syracuse, NY, writes: I have never understood the attraction of Twitter. If you are an invisible plebeian, there's no difference between a tweet and standing on the corner, naked, yelling at clouds. I guess there's a chance you get noticed by a famous person's publicity team, but there's no conversation and nobody cares.
I would quit Facebook tomorrow if it weren't for the fact I am able to touch base with everyone I've known over multiple phases of my life. I hate the things its algorithm puts in my feed.
I joined Threads only to poke Elon in the eye.
R.C. in North Hollywood, CA, writes: I read with some interest your response to J.D. in Sarasota concerning why members of Congress are permitted to change parties while in office. I think there's a further reason to add, based on our particular system of democracy: In the United States, we elect individuals, not parties.
Many countries use a parliamentary system for legislative elections. In such a system, each party receives a percentage of seats in the legislature based roughly on its percentage of the popular vote, and the party has the power to choose who those representatives will be. That is not the system we use here.
The framers of our Constitution were very suspicious of political parties (which existed in Britain at the time), and many doubted whether they would or should even exist in this country. In fact, in his Farewell Address, George Washington famously warned against the formation of parties in the U.S. So the framers deliberately opted against a parliamentary system, which they felt would place too much power in the hands of parties, and instead chose to have the people of each state or district choose their own senators and representatives as individuals. The seat belongs to the individual, not to the party, and the expectation is that individual will act in the best interest of their constituents, not their party.
For many years, the system achieved the desired result: compromise. Since they owed their seats to their voters, not to their parties, individual senators and representatives would at times go against the will of their party for the sake of their constituents, which meant there would be a much greater chance of bipartisan policymaking. Ticket splitting was more common; people really would vote for the better candidate, not just for the party. Changes in our culture have since led to much greater party loyalty on the part of voters and lawmakers, but the fact remains that our system is still designed to place individuals above parties, and for that reason, individuals are free to change their party affiliation as they see fit.
While we're on the subject, it's for this reason that I believe that laws that require governors, in the event of a senate vacancy, to appoint replacement senators who are of the same party as the outgoing senator are unconstitutional. The seat belongs to the individual, not the party, and the constitution states that state legislatures can empower their executives to fill vacant seats, but it does not say that anyone else can be involved in the process—including parties. It seems to me that laws empowering the party to effectively choose the replacement are parliamentary in nature, and therefore contrary to the system the framers of the constitution chose for our country.
M.W. in Ottawa, ON, Canada, writes: Your answer to T.W. in Norfolk was correct, but missed the opportunity to mention state ratifying conventions. These do not allow the citizenry to overrule a deadlocked Congress, but do allow Congress to bypass obstreperous state legislatures. For a constitutional amendment which has broad popular support, such as abortion rights or gun control, if such an amendment can gather the necessary support in Congress, it will surely be sent to the States to ratify by convention rather than by legislature.
Fun quiz: Only one amendment has been ratified this way. Which one?
(V) & (Z) respond: The answer is at the bottom of the page.
R.H. in Santa Ana, CA, writes: It costs tons of money to put an issue on the ballot in California, so the only issues that make it on the ballot here are those which have wide support or those which have very narrow (but very, very deep—as in pocketed) support.
Sometimes popular referenda make it on the ballot and are swamped by ads from very, very deep-pocketed opposition.
There are 39.5 million people here in California.
Imagine those problems, eight times worse, on the national stage.
R.H. in Santa Ana, CA, writes: Zora Neale Hurston interviewed Cudjoe Lewis near the end of his life. She wrote a book about the man, but she could not find a publisher willing to print the vernacular in which Cudjoe answered her questions, and she refused to let it be published except as written.
A few years ago the manuscript resurfaced and was published under the title Barracoon (after the "barracks" enclosure in which enslaved persons were held upon their arrival on slave ships).
The reason Cudjoe was historically important was the fact that he was then thought to be the last survivor of the cargo of the last ship to bring slaves to America from Africa.
He talked about the time at the end of the war when the Yankee officer came to the plantation to tell the slaves they were free. The suddenly-free slaves asked him "Where will we go? What will we do?"
I don't remember the officer's exact words, but it was something like "Not my problem".
In the war's aftermath, the newly-freed slaves had at least one advantage over their former enslavers: They knew how to grow gardens and build things and break horses and tend to cattle and pigs.
Many white men did not survive the war, and of those who did, relatively few had the practical skills their former slaves possessed.
The freedmen asked their former enslavers to give them land, but these requests were refused, so they saved up their earnings from doing the practical things I mentioned and they bought enough land to build their own settlement, which they called Africatown.
Cudjoe said there was some talk about buying passage back to Africa, but nothing ever came of the idea.
Forty acres and a mule, indeed!
W.V. in Andover, MN, writes: I would add one other terrific post-Civil War book to the recommendations you gave to reader J.S. in Pemaquid. I had the great pleasure of listening to Professor David Blight address the Minnesota Historical Society a few years ago, and have thoroughly appreciated his Race and Reunion: The Civil War in American Memory.
(V) & (Z) respond: (Z) debated whether to include that. It's very good, but a colleague once assigned it to his students, and the students were overwhelmed because the book requires a fairly advanced understanding of the war and its memory.
A.T. in Quincy, IL, writes: In response to G.W. in Oxnard, about Justin Nash's red hat with the capital "T," you wrote, "It's a Texas Rangers cap." That's funny. It was almost my guess, too, but I wrote that off because of the color. It used to be blue, at least back in the 1970s. I know because I had a couple myself, back when I was living in the Dallas/Fort Worth metroplex. At least, I think I got a second one, sometime after the first got a burnhole in it.
Important safety tip: never hang a cloth baseball cap on a light bulb. Especially when it's on. Yes, I was a stupid kid. No, thank any/all deities, I did not burn the house down.
(V) & (Z) respond: Thanks to home/road uniforms, the emergence of "alternate" uniforms, breast cancer caps (pink), St. Patrick's Day caps (green), military appreciation caps (camouflage or earth tones), Fourth of July caps (red, white and blue), and all sorts of others gimmicks meant to move merch, most teams these days have caps in a dozen (or more) different colors, regardless of what the actual team colors are.
P.S. in Gloucester, MA, writes: Ah, the Toledo Mud Hens—the triple-A farm team of the Detroit Tigers. Having settled in Boston in the late 1970s, I know something about masochistic baseball fandom, heightened by also being a lifelong fan of the Tigers.
Fond memories from childhood of Ernie Harwell broadcasting Tigers games ("...and a young man from [randomly chosen odd place name, like Flat Rock, MI] is going home with that home run ball as a souvenir!").
I just learned that he'd read the following passage from the Song of Songs in The Bible at the start of the first Grapefruit League game each year in spring training: "For, lo, the winter is past / The rain is over and gone / The flowers appear on the Earth / The time of the singing of birds is come / And the voice of the turtle[dove] is heard in our land." We read that passage at the naming ceremony for our daughter, 34 years ago.
G.T.M. in Vancouver, BC, Canada, writes: Your item on Justin Nash prompts me to share this with you.
Many years ago, I ran into one of my former corporals while walking along a downtown street. He was now wearing sergeant's stripes. His promotion had just come through that day and so I suggested that we (and his lady friend) "wet down" his new stripes.
Accordingly, we repaired to the nearest bar. The bar had changed considerably from the sleazy atmosphere that it had had the previous time I had thought about entering it and was quiet, dimly (but well) lit, and populated by well-dressed people.
After a few, the sergeant excused himself and headed off to the loo. When he returned he was incredibly dour and insisted that we had to leave.
Well, neither his lady friend nor I wanted to, and we finally pried the reason out of him: He had "cold cocked" someone in the washroom (because that person had grabbed his ass while he was relieving himself). It was at that point when it finally dawned on me (and his lady friend) that we were in a "gay bar."
It was also at that point when one of the people at the next table turned to him, tapped him on the shoulder, and said: "That's OK, dearie, I would have done exactly the same thing. What he did was just RUDE!"
The look on the sergeant's face as he experienced his epiphany was wonderful to behold and he never returned to his previous position with regard to homosexuals.
T.L. in West Orange, NJ, writes: Five years ago, Daryl Davis came to speak at the school where I was teaching at the time. He was riveting; I don't think there was a dry eye in the auditorium left after he was done, which, given the alleged jadedness of today's high schoolers, is saying something.
J.S. in Durham, NC, writes: Many years ago an African-American woman named Ann Atwater befriended a leader of the local KKK, a man named C.P. Ellis. There is a book about this called The Best of Enemies: Race and Redemption in the New South, which was also made into a movie. I just wanted y'all to know that this has happened more than once.
I'm not sure how we recreate this. It is very difficult for people to show love to those who are showing them hate.
E.H. in Dublin, Ireland, writes: I've been a regular reader of E-V.com for nigh on 20 years and have always been both enlightened and entertained by the writings of Votemaster and then Zenger, not to mention the special reports like Paul Dorsey's COVID Diaries and the contributors on politics in Blighty.
But I feel we can no longer overlook serious shortcomings in the recruitment process at E-V.com. The excellent dachshunds aside, it seems like the assembled ancillary talent pool is mediocre at best. The mathematician, famously, has personal issues with which I'm sure we can all relate. The theologian, mortician, linguist, and astrologer don't seem to contribute much. And the Crystal Ball seems to be out of action more often than not.
(V) & (Z) respond: Thanks to COVID, everyone's got staffing problems these days. This pattern COULD be explained by the fact that we pay wages in Milk Bones, but we doubt it.
T.D. in Detroit, MI, writes: All dachshunds are by nature brave, as you know. They are also willful and somewhat sneaky. I refuse to believe that fireworks disturb them in the least. More likely, they simply wanted a day off in the country.
J.C. in Washington, DC, writes: Although this is New York City, those of us here in DC agree. And then POTUS sends resources to them:
It's a trap!
T.G. in Lee's Summit, MO, writes: In response to the question from L.S. in Greensboro as to whether NPR has jumped the shark due to their "USC Experts," (V) & (Z) responded: "Depends. Were either of the experts also Canadian?"
I have to say, I spent an exhaustive amount of time researching (on The Google) and I can't find any reference as to where Dan Karpenchuk went to school. Conspiracy? Hmmm...
(V) & (Z) respond: Note also that the country is led by JUStin Trudeau, PC. It really couldn't be plainer.
M.V. in San Francisco, CA, writes: You wrote: "Do you know how underqualified you have to be when USC refuses to let you buy your way in?"
Trump applied to USC's cinema school, which graduated, among others, George Lucas. USC's cinema school is extremely selective, and considered one of the best in the world.
(V) & (Z) respond: You do know that the USC and Canada stuff is just a joke, in the same tradition as something like The Dozens?
E.A. from Okemos, MI, writes: L.Y. in Scranton writes: "If everyone who reads E-V.com were to get one additional person to vote in 2024, that would help tremendously."
I am happy to report that I will get at least two new voters for the next presidential election. My twins will turn 18 this fall and will be able to fully participate in all aspects of the upcoming election cycle (including the primaries). I am also happy to report that in their high school government class this past year, E-V.com was referenced as an information source for current political events. They were both quite impressed (not easy to do with teenagers) when I told them I read the site everyday.
(V) & (Z) respond: We are delighted to hear all of this, particularly that there will be two young people who actually exercise their right to vote.
M.W. in Ottawa, ON, Canada, writes: Richard Feynman's final words are somewhat in dispute, although both versions express the same sentiment.
His sister says they were "This dying is boring." James Gleick, his biographer, says they were "I'd hate to die twice. It's so boring."
I'm inclined to believe his biographer embellished them slightly.
If you have suggestions for this feature, please send them along.
The only amendment to be ratified via the state-convention approach is the Twenty-First, which ended prohibition.