Sunday Mailbag

We really did have a posting yesterday; hopefully folks will go back and peruse it if they haven't already. As to today, if you thought you'd heard the last about German chocolate cake, well, you've got another think coming.

Politics: Filegate

C.W. in Carlsbad, CA, writes: I'm mad as hell. Really. I don't know what it is about classified documents that causes the press to go all giddy. Maybe it's in the back of their minds that they might scoop some significant government secret. It's all 007-ish, and maybe if you put on that background music it all seems kind of romantic. But listen: I've worked in the classified world for decades. Having things classified is only one aspect of how we keep secrets. The most important features of the classified system are compartmentalization and document control. Compartmentalization generally assures that whatever individual information is exposed, it doesn't describe the whole system. On all the programs I've worked on, I still don't know the entirety of any of them. If I walked out of the building with a document accidentally placed in my briefcase, it could be bad, but not the end of the world. You don't want people doing that, obviously, but there's a procedure for dealing with even that case. I suspect with the chaos of White House changing of the guard between November and January, and all the harried and hurried (and diminishing number of) aides, these kinds of misplacement accidents happen. I bet if you look into all the previous presidents, every single one since Truman has "found" something they had to return to the Archives. That the press is making such a big deal about this is very embarrassing.

What the classified world cares about is limiting knowledge and risk to the programs that would benefit from that secrecy. They various document control entities pay very close attention to formal documents (like specs), as well as providing rules and guidance on how classified working material is generated, used, and disposed of. Very likely we are dealing with working material in these cases. The more people who generate these temporary documents, and the more hands that are on them, the greater the risk of misplacement. No doubt while we are running around like headless chickens yapping about the political fallout of these events, the people in charge of this process are seriously evaluating how the rules and guidance need to be changed in order to prevent this kind of thing from happening. That is a working system... at work. Let them do their jobs, instead of politicizing what amounts to a normal process. For all we know, these new items are actually unclassified but their cover sheets got left on.

The less the president says about this whole thing the better. What matters here in all cases are: (1) why the documents are outside the control space, (2) what programs they describe, and (3) who has seen them. Joe Biden is not going to know the answer to any of those questions. The press is unlikely to discover any of this beyond what the White House can tell them about the first item. That is very little, and it's by design. Yet the press is determined to make a story here. They already have a story about a president who deliberately took documents and stonewalled the government agencies when they requested their return. This thing with the Biden docs is not that story. It has never been that story. MSM knows this, and yet in their quest to make a political horse-race out of whole cloth, they promote this false equivalency. If this is going to be the next 2 years I am done with watching any news channel. Wake me up when they go back to looking at real news.

---

K.C.W. in Providence, RI, writes: Even "left-of-center" NPR is doing false equivalence reporting on this. There is no equivalence between taking, concealing, rejecting orders to return, etc. by Donald Trump, et al., with falsely attested statements that "that's it" etc. and Joe Biden's team locating, identifying, reporting, turning over, etc. all documents promptly and according to law. Who can we trust these days? Not even NPR? How low have we sunk?

---

G.W. in Oxnard, CA, writes: Your description of mishandling classified material is inaccurate, but the main point is mostly correct. Mistakes in handling classified material where the person was not intentionally breaking the rules are generally not punished and are not criminal. If the person did something particularly stupid, even if they weren't knowingly disobeying classified material rules, they might get suspension for a few days without pay, but not likely much more. If the person is breaking the rules and they know they broke the rules, but they weren't trying to compromise classified material, then it is more serious and could result in more severe punishment, possibly loss of the person's security clearance. Loss of a security clearance will result in loss of job for most workers with a security clearance. The example of leaving classified material in a car and then the car was stolen probably fits this category.

The part that makes Donald Trump's situation criminal is the documents were stored in such a way that they could be compromised, and the documents were stolen. It is nearly certain that classified handling rules were broken in the Joe Biden case. There are still questions on the legality of the Biden documents. Were classified material rules followed in getting the documents to the office? Were the documents properly stored? The documents were found in a locked closet. The closet would have to meet requirements of a strong room, the closet would need to be alarmed, and there is armed response to that alarm. If it is true that the documents got there by legal means and were stored legally, then it is very unlikely that a crime was committed even if there were several classified handling rules broken.

---

M.H.B. in Washington, DC, writes: I completely agree with most commentators that qualitatively and quantitatively, Joe Biden's and Donald Trump's document mishandling are not remotely similar, but the slackness of the document tracking system is appalling! Nobody is keeping track of who has them, where they are, when they were supposed to be returned—who's in charge of this operation?! They need to hire a couple of good, old-school high school librarians to keep track of this stuff, somebody like old Mrs. Gertrude, who would pursue you down the hall breathing fire if your library book was one day overdue! Somebody responsible needs to know at all times what documents are out, who has them, where they are being used and when they will be returned, and then make sure they are returned.

---

M.S. in Sherman, TX, writes: Silly me. I thought top secret documents had to be signed for—that is, signed in and out, by authorized persons only. If Joe Biden himself, or a government official close to him, signed for those documents, then fine, Biden was sloppy in the handling of official documents, and joins the ranks of Hillary Clinton with her e-mails. On the other hand, forgive me for thinking that the timing of this revelation is highly suspect. I can't help but suspect that those documents may have been planted by a MAGA operative in order to create a false equivalence to Donald Trump, ahead of any DOJ charges, and to smear Biden ahead of 2024. Shouldn't NARA be able to provide the name of the person who signed for these documents? If not, why not? Am I being naive in thinking NARA is/should be more professional in the handling of official documents?

Politics: Social Security

J.R.A. in Seminole, FL, writes: In your list of four possible outcomes of the Social Security issue, you missed one.

If the cap on Social Security deductions was removed—it is somewhere in the neighborhood of $130,000, I think—I've been told that the Social Security Trust Fund would remain solvent well after 2070, if not later.

---

R.H in Santa Ana, CA, writes: It has been reported many times by seemingly-authoritative sources that the fiscal solvency of Social Security could be secured for 75 years or so by lifting (or eliminating) the cap on income subject to its tax.

Medicare is already taxed with no cap, and a lifting (or elimination) of the cap on SSA taxation would only affect the highest-earning fraction of us.

That would be the easiest imaginable vote to justify to voters, but of course it would irritate the people who fund Congressional campaigns.

When it comes down to a choice between irritating the 1% or telling the 99% they're gonna have to make do with only 75% of the Social Security benefits they (we) were promised, that's not a politically difficult decision.

---

F.C. in DeLand, FL, writes: Social Security will not collapse when the Trust Fund hits zero. Instead, it coverts to a pay-as-you-go system. It will continue, but the monthly benefits will be reduced. The current estimate is that there will be an immediate drop of about 24% in benefits, which will continue to drop very gradually from that point on.

When will this take place? Basically, in the mid-2030s, when I've been retired for about 10 years. This has been known for decades, and neither party has actually accomplished anything to fix it.

This happens unless Congress gets off its ass. But given the voting habits of older people, Congress will (eventually) do something. Probably too little and too late.

If I had to guess, I'd suggest that Congress will do two things. First, addressing the short-term shortfall, they will authorize the Social Security Trust Fund to borrow from the general fund. This will avoid the cut in benefits, at the cost of an increased deficit and debt. To address the underlying issue of too many retirees and too few workers, the long-term solution could be to continue increasing the full retirement age two months every year until revenues are greater than expenditures. This will be far less painful than the 3-year bump that France is discussing. (It's easy to forget that when Social Security was first created, the retirement age was higher than the life expectancy.)

But given the brinkmanship that our current political theater requires, I'm not completely confident that Congress will get their act together. So I recommend to all the young people I know to maximize their retirement savings. That way they'll still have the possibility of retirement even if the brinkmanship brings us over the cliff.

Politics: Ranked Choice Voting

S.C. in Mountain View, CA, writes: I appreciate your recognizing ranked choice voting as one of the Winners of the 2022 Election Cycle, and including my explanation as to why RCV discourages negative campaigning. I just have two addenda to what you wrote:

1. Nevada requires that constitutional amendments placed on the ballot by petition have to be approved in two consecutive general elections, so voters will have to approve the RCV constitutional amendment again in 2024 before Nevada can start using RCV.
   
   
2. In addition to the step-one success of the Nevada initiative, seven cities and two counties voted on ballot measures to adopt RCV; seven of the measures won and two lost. A complete list can be found here. In particular, both Portlands opted to adopt the proportional form of ranked choice voting.

Politics: The MAGA Militia

B.R.D. in Columbus, OH, writes: Assuming that these select committees will go back to the nonsensical format of giving each member 5 minutes to grandstand and get a sound bite on Fox from their hearings, I suggest the Democrats use what they learned from the 1/6 Committee. Rather than use their turns to grandstand or to suggest the committees are crazy or illegitimate, use their turns to ask serious, pointed questions of the witnesses. Nothing more, nothing less. The witnesses will probably be relieved to be answering something reasonable, to correct misperceptions, and so forth. And the media (and viewers) will begin to notice the Democrats are using the hearings to actually gain information. The Democrats can get together, plan their questions, have questions at the ready that will prebut or rebut Republican rants/questions, and simply proceed. (The ranking member could orchestrate/lead this effort.)

Don't try to play the Republican game. In fact, refuse to play it. Because you can't win it. Instead, use the hearings to establish what the real questions should be, to frame the situation differently, and to act responsibly while doing so. The media will notice, as will the American public. The 1/6 Committee was highly praised for its presentations and witness questioning. Obviously, with Republicans running the show and plotting chaos, the Democrats cannot craft hearings around particular narratives or conclusions. But they can use the hearings to present a contrast to the Republicans' chaos-making machine. They can use what they learned from the January 6 Committee and apply it to the situation they find themselves in. I would love to see Democrats work to change the game rather than try to beat Republicans at theirs. I suspect other Democrats and independents would enjoy that, as well.

---

J.W. in Los Angeles, CA, writes: It is dangerous to refer to the MAGA 20, those holdouts who understood and took advantage of Speaker Kevin McCarthy's (R-CA) many failings. There are plenty of MAGA Republicans who stood with McCarthy, like Jim Jordan (R-OH) and Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA). Elise Stefanik (R-NY) was happy to refer to herself as "Ultra MAGA." The MAGA holdouts were largely not ideologically distinct from their colleagues, they were performatively different.

---

A.R. in Los Angeles, CA, writes: Kevin McCarthy will absolutely make it through a 2-year term and here's why: He is just like the MAGA crew and has no problem accommodating every fringe action they want to take. His first act as speaker was a selfie with a grinning MTG—there is nothing this man won't do to "troll the libs" and hang onto that big gavel. His second act was to remove the metal detectors outside the House floor to signal that January 6 not only was no big deal, but even if it was a big deal, the crazies "aren't there for me," to use Donald Trump's words. This is all about payback and making life as miserable as possible for government workers and House democrats. Like Trump and his followers, McCarthy has no interest in governing—voting on show pieces to shore up the base and devoting the entire schedule to sham investigations is his bread and butter.

And he can do this since he knows that the so-called moderates won't do a thing to stop him because they're all terrified of being primaried or Tuckered, whether or not they live in a swing district. McCarthy calculated that being a far-right speaker was the winning play and he was right. He will happily lead them right over the cliff. We'll see if they continue to pay the price at the ballot box.

---

D.M. in San Francisco, CA, writes: The one flaw in your poll of how long Kevin McCarthy will last is that you are measuring it in days instead of Scaramuccis.

Politics: The Decline and Fall of the Republican Party?

D.C. in Portland, OR, writes: I'm sure you've seen this already but I had to comment as I found it fascinating, if a little disappointing: Bret Stephens and David Brooks lament their disownment of the Republican party.

There are far too many quotable remarks in there for me to address them all and so I must focus on this barn-buster account of the party's unfortunate demise, per Brooks:

Then the establishment got discredited (Iraq War, financial crisis, the ossifying of the meritocracy, the widening values gap between metro elites and everybody else), and suddenly all the people I regarded as fringe and wackadoodle (Pat Buchanan, Donald Trump, anybody who ran CPAC) rose up on the wave of populist fury.

Their conversation continues in a similar vein, casting shades of blame in many directions but never once considering if, or how, the components of their own tired, never-changing ideology that continues to evoke Ronald Reagan as its trail-blazer, could have contributed to the ugly descent of Republicanism.

Never do they reflect that perhaps Reagan's policies creating our decades-long acceleration of inequality, could have led to the "whackadoodles" gaining a foothold.

Reading the thoughts of this Jurassic pair—those who, despite everything, appear to have learned nothing—was, as I already said, a little disappointing.

---

D.W. in El Segundo, CA, writes: M.G. in Chicago writes:

My definition of a conservative does not include the Sen. Rick Scott (R-FL) 1% view that the U.S. should return to pre-World War II capitalism, nor do I believe George Wallace's or 1948 Strom Thurmond's political views were based on Conservative values. I do not believe the Freedon Caucus, MAGA supporters, or any of the Republicans in Congress that have failed to "stand up" represent any of the values of Dwight D. Eisenhower, Ronald Reagan or Nixon, and so I don't think they should be called Conservatives. Pseudo-fascists, anarchists, or some euphemism is far more appropriate, but when will sites like yours and the mainstream media stop insulting the Ike/Reagan/Nixon conservatives by misidentifying this 30 or so percent of the electorate as conservatives?

A very legitimate ask, and here's the fix: When the Republican Party disavows any and all of the aforementioned groups, says unequivocally "that ain't us... we don't want their votes or their toxic rhetoric and they re un-American, and also asshats of the first order!" like the Democrats did for civil rights and voting rights in the sixties, than the ask will be fulfilled.

But this IS the base, this IS the Republican Party of conservatives. Voting for Donald Trump once could be a fluke, an exploration, a primal yelp for "different" but more than 70 million Republicans voted for him twice; same guy. The guy that says there are very good people on both sides of the swastika...

---

L.T. in Vienna, Austria, writes: As a schoolboy in English grammar class, I was fascinated by figures of speech, especially metaphors. My favorite metaphor of the time was the last lines of Oliver Goldsmith's poem, "The Village Preacher." After describing how his heart was with his parishioners, it goes on:

To them his heart, his love, his griefs were given,
But all his serious thoughts had rest in heaven.
As some tall cliff that lifts its awful form,
Swells from the vale, and midway leaves the storm,
Though round its breast the rolling clouds are spread,
Eternal sunshine settles on its head.

Your item Bigotry of Bigotries Saith the Preacher, All Is Bigotry gets my vote for the greatest metaphor of modern times. The comparison of Emo Phillips' joke and the GOP mess is just brilliant. I have sent it on to 400 readers of my e-mails spread around the world. Hopefully it will deliver a few extra readers to your site!

Politics: Walking a Mile in a Republican Voter's Shoes

J.K., Silverdale, WA, writes: W.K.D. in Houston writes: "I know that most of the (left-leaning) E-V.com readership is thinking, 'Why didn't Kevin McCarty just do a deal with the Democrats? Why why why why why?????'... E-V Dems, consider for a moment just how much you dislike Republicans. Take a minute or two to feel the hate and loathing well up inside you. Well, how do you think Republicans feel about you? You may be surprised to hear that the intensity of their dislike for you matches yours for them, neuron for neuron."

Wow.

I cannot speak for all the left-leaning readership of E-V.com, but as for this reader—you do not know what I am thinking or feeling. And I don't know what Kevin McCarthy thinks, but I can tell you that I gave little consideration to him risking political suicide by making a deal with Democrats. I do not "dislike" Republicans, and no "hate and loathing" wells up inside me when I think of my right-leaning fellow citizens. My emotional responses to Republicans are as varied as Republicans themselves, and can include everything from appreciation and admiration to frustration, profound sadness, and pity.

How do I think Republicans feel about me? I would not presume to know their feelings, but those who know me seem to like me. That's sweet. I do see some worrying bumper stickers as I drive around town—"Make Liberals Cry Again" or decals of Donald Trump pissing on the word "Liberals." Such stickers are frequently paired with signs professing love of country. That makes me wonder how the person can claim to love our country while apparently feeling intense disdain for half the people in it. In contrast, one of the most common bumper stickers I see paired with stickers supporting liberal politicians says "Resist Hate."

And what about you, W.K.D.? I do not know your political leanings, and I didn't bother to check any previous posts of yours on this site. Are you a Republican who feels intense dislike welling up inside you at the thought of someone like me having ideas for this country that diverge from yours? How are you feeling as you read this? If your hate and loathing matches mine, then you feel none at all. If you do feel hate and loathing that you attribute to this readership, well, that might be projection, and I'd feel concerned about you. Deep breaths, W.K.D.—I wish you peace.

---

M.L. in Westchester, NY, writes: I question how W.K.D. in Houston knows "that most of the (left-leaning) E-V.com readership is thinking, 'Why didn't Kevin McCarty just do a deal with the Democrats?'" Has W.K.D. not been reading this site? It's been clear that such a deal was very unlikely, and would not have benefited either side.

I could be mis-reading W.K.D.'s intentions, but I smell projection in this: "Take a minute or two to feel the hate and loathing well up inside you. Well, how do you think Republicans feel about you? You may be surprised to hear that the intensity of their dislike for you matches yours for them, neuron for neuron."

How can anyone imagine that those of us on the left don't know how much the right hates us? They explicitly tell us every day! It's been clear for decades that the right wing thinks of the left as flat-out enemies and not "real" Americans. MAGA openly and gleefully rode that emotion into power.

More importantly, maybe W.K.D. should question their assumptions, and then they will be in for their own surprise. That loathing they so easily imagine welling up? It belongs to the MAGAs, not lefties like me. I strive to have logic and empathy rule my emotions, and especially to not let hate drive me. Not so the right, which despises lefties so much that they'll burn down our country (and our planet) rather than work with us.

When such a hateful and irrational mentality takes power, people suffer. That is why I am against the current American right, not because I hate anyone, but because I see how MAGA relishes destroying people who have done no one any harm. I want those who are "different" to be safe and have control over how they live their lives, basic freedoms that the spiteful MAGA crowd is eager to take away. I am 100% against bullying and cruelty, whether it targets liberals or anyone in any part of the political spectrum. How many MAGAs take such a stand?

W.K.D., kindly keep the hate where it really lives and don't project it on to me.

---

R.K. in Tucson, AZ, writes: This is in response to W.K.D. in Houston. I respectfully disagree with their premise.

I grew up in Oklahoma, where there is an intense rivalry between The University of Oklahoma and Oklahoma State University. Most of my family attended these schools. Those who went to Oklahoma are ambivalent toward Oklahoma State except when the two schools are playing each other, and usually support OSU when they are playing an out-of-state rival. My OSU family members, however, hate OU with the heat of ten thousand suns and would never root for them. I relate this not to elevate OU or disparage OSU. In fact, I have two degrees from OSU. I am merely making the point that there are different levels of feelings that people have for one another.

In my experience, Republicans tend to wear their feelings on their sleeves, while Democrats often keep them to themselves. During the last election, I mentioned to my 42-year-old son that I considered myself to be left-leaning (which significantly understates the reality). To which he replied, "When did that happen?" I think he is a Democrat, but he never has told me, nor has my daughter. I believe that I would know if they voted Republican. And while I do dislike Republicans, "disgust" and "disappointment" more accurately describe my feelings than "hate" and "loathing."

Politics: Complaints Department

J.C. in Daytona Beach, FL, writes: I notice a lot of shade being thrown at George Santos on this site. It amazes me how little respect people have for a man who stormed the beaches of Normandy to protect our freedoms. Shame.

V & Z respond: It really is remarkable that he had time to do that while also taking a leading role in the development of the atomic bomb.

---

M.H. in Boston, MA, writes: You referred to the House of Representatives as a "circus", a statement that is grossly unfair to circuses, many of which feature talented high-wire and trapeze acts. I believe the word you are searching for is "clown show."

This Week in Trumpworld

R.W. in Brooklyn, NY, writes: You wrote that Allen Weisselberg is still on the Trump Organization payroll and that he will be doing "pretty easy time" at Rikers. Neither is true. As of Tuesday, he and the Trump Organization have parted ways. And while Weisselberg apparently will he housed in the NIC (the infirmary section of Rikers), there is no such thing as easy time at the notorious hellhole that is Rikers Island.

All Politics Is Local: California

R.L. in Alameda, CA, writes: I disagree with your assessment that Rep. Katie Porter (D-CA) is not a good fit for California. I think she's perfect! She a progressive and will have a lot of appeal in the Bay Area and LA County. And she has proven that she can win in purplish-red Orange County. Her narrow margins of victory are a feature, not a bug. She should be able to appeal to moderate voters from Orange County down to San Diego. Her ability to gain votes from Republicans should allow her to do well enough in the Central Valley and northern coast. I would choose her over everyone else who has been mentioned as possible candidates, and this includes my representative, Barbara Lee (D-CA), who jumped in the next day. I love Lee and she surely has progressive chops. But, as you have written, 77 is a bit old to start a Senate career (unless you're Sen. Mitt Romney, R-UT). At 49, Porter could have a nice long 18-24 year career in the Senate, driving CEOs nuts with her whiteboard. It's time to see more Gen-Xers in office!

---

L.E. in Santa Barbara, CA, writes: Even before she announced on Tuesday and before your posting on Wednesday, I had given some thought to Katie Porter's potential run for the Senate. As much as I like Porter (I actually wrote Gov. Gavin Newsom, D-CA, when he was filling Kamala Harris' vacancy, and suggested he appoint Rep. Porter), I fear the picture of her reading The Subtle Art of Not Giving a F*ck will not do her image well.

I had three, almost simultaneous thoughts, when I saw this during the House Speaker fracas:

1. Classic snark!
   
   
2. Uh-oh—not giving an "eff" is not someone I want to have represent me in the Senate. I want someone who really cares and fights for me, and for all Americans. (I know she actually does, but I am more engaged than many. This image will be used against her by both Democrats and Republicans, in my opinion.)
   
   
3. What an awful message to send to the young demographic, who are the ones she greatly appeals to, and whom we struggle to get to the polls every single election. Ugh.

Yes, the Speaker fight was out of the control of the Democrats. However, this was not the right message to project, in my opinion. Perhaps she should have looked to Nancy Pelosi's trolling for inspiration instead of engaging some uncomfortable snark. I fear many will not consider her a serious candidate, just an opportunist. I truly don't think this will help with her Senate campaign.

Thus, I totally agree with your assessment that she potentially will face some strong headwinds. Appealing to only the young, progressive faction in California will not do it for her, especially since she is running for the seat of one of the most moderate of the nation's senators. The fact that Californians have re-elected Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) over and over again is an indicator of just how moderate the California electorate really are. Even Gavin Newsom is not the wild progressive that so many perceive.

All Politics Is Local: New York

R.H.D. in Webster, NY, writes: This week, you listed the New York Democrats as one of the biggest losers of 2022. I agree with your assessment. Now they are trying to make up for that.

As you know, we have a current vacancy for the Chief Judge position for the New York Court of Appeals. This is our equivalent to John Roberts at the U.S. Supreme Court. Let's just say the nominee, Hector LaSalle, has been getting the full "Bork" treatment.

To start, the state Senate's Judiciary committee was increased from 15 to 19, to add more Democrats on it. During the hearings, LaSalle's record has been cherry picked and grilled six ways to Sunday. This includes his positions and rulings on abortion, labor, and criminal justice reform. It has created a schism between progressives (who oppose him) and the Latino community (who support him), which hasn't been pretty.

There hasn't been a lot of press coverage, but from what I've read, it appears this nomination is due to fail, not only in the Judiciary committee, but in the full Senate. He is getting a hearing and a vote needs to be held by Jan. 22. Twelve Senate Democrats have already said they will oppose him. This is not a good start for Gov. Kathy Hochul (D-NY) in her first full term in office.

Presuming the LaSalle nomination goes down to defeat, Hochul will need to make another appointment from the list given to her by a special panel who selects qualified judicial nominees for these positions. What the left wants is to put more balance on the high court. Or, so they say.

The real motivation, though, is for the Democrats to correct their errors of getting too greedy with their gerrymandering last year, which led to the GOP flipping four House seats, including one now held by national disgrace George Santos. By rejecting LaSalle, and getting someone more liberal on the Court of Appeals, the state legislature can pass a new redistricting map that will pass judicial scrutiny in time for the 2024 elections. In turn, Democrats get back those flipped seats and allow another New Yorker, Hakeem Jeffries, to become House Speaker in 2025. Oh, and he won't need 15 rounds of voting to get the job.

The moral of this story is the judicial branch, at every level, is becoming more politicized by both parties.

---

K.C. in West Islip, NY, writes: It's undeniable that the Democrats did miserable in New York in the midterms and much blame can be pinned on the godawful disaster that was the gerrymander fiasco.

I had mentioned in a previous comment that some chunk of what went on in the New York election was presumably due to Long Islander Lee Zeldin (R) being on the ticket for governor. For some reason, this MAGA whackadoo is very popular in these parts. This much was evident when he secured the vote of both Nassau and Suffolk County (Zeldin, of course, is from Suffolk).

I bring this up because in 2010 and 2018, Andrew Cuomo (D) won both counties, and in 2006 Eliot Spitzer (D) won both. Before that, popular moderate Republican George Pataki regularly won these two counties, but that's ancient history. Long Island may be considered theoretically a reddish region, but that may be a misrepresentation of our electorate as a whole. My congressional district (NY-02) had zero chance of flipping blue—we are, after all, the district that repeatedly sent Peter King to D.C. In NY-03, Robert Zimmerman (D) lost to someone who may allegedly be George Santos (but who really knows) by 22,000 votes and in NY-04, Laura Gillen lost by a little over 10,000.

Not that two seats was the difference between holding and losing the House, and I'm certainly not excusing the Party for an incredibly disappointing showing across the state, but I have to question whether those seats would have been held by the Democrats if it wasn't for the coattails of Zeldin bringing out the Long Island voters in a way that may not have happened if the GOP nominee for governor had hailed from somewhere in North Cow Country instead.

All Politics Is Local: Other States

M.D. in San Tan Valley, AZ, writes: J.B. in Hutto asks: "What can possibly be done to reverse the decline of local journalism?" And you answered: "At the moment, the most promising options appears to be subscription-based websites that connect journalists with interested readers. Substack, for example, has a number of people who are supporting themselves and are doing the good work that used to be done by small, local papers and/or by alternative weeklies."

Exactly what we have here in the great state of Arizona. We have two awesome state journalists who provide a daily subscription based e-mail Monday through Friday on Arizona politics called "The Arizona Agenda." The information and subjects are very familiar to what we get from our very good friends at electoral-vote.com.

V & Z respond: If readers have other suggestions for good information about local politics in their areas, please send them along!

---

S.C. in Mountain View, CA, writes: J.L. in Chapel Hill asked "What has Georgia done that we haven't?" in the context of Georgia apparently turning blue while North Carolina hasn't even become purple.

In all sincerity, I would answer that question with one for J.L.: Does North Carolina have an organization similar to Fair Fight Action? Fair Fight Action was founded by Stacey Abrams after she lost the 2018 Georgia gubernatorial election and through hard work it helped turn Georgia blue. You can't only depend on outside money and people parachuting in just prior to an election to turn a state blue (although it helps). You need people who live there (all politics is local, remember?) doing the hard day-to-day work of organizing voters and building supportive infrastructure between elections.

I don't know if North Carolina has a similar organization, which is why I'm asking J.L. If it does, maybe it could use some help. If it doesn't, maybe J.L. could help start one.

Unpredictable

E.M. in Poughkeepsie, NY, writes: In "Looking Backward: The Experts' Predictions for 2022," you gave Nostradamus 5/5 for boldness for predicting the demise of the EU, but the literal text ("Sacred temples of the Roman time, will reject the foundations of their foundation") suggests this was actually a prediction that Roman concrete would fail in the next 500 years, which is not very bold. After all, old stuff breaks, so let's say a boldness of 1. But this actually turns out to be wrong as well. Roman concrete has incredible durability, and it's just recently been suggested that this is because hot mixing with quicklime gave Roman concrete the ability to self-heal.

My reason for writing is that it is unsatisfying that the "concrete will fall apart" interpretation and the "end of the EU" interpretation get the same score. There should be a penalty for making a bolder prediction and getting it wrong, not just bonus points for being bold when correct. As Carl Sagen reminded us, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. How about subtracting the boldness from the correctness score when mostly wrong, instead of just zeroing it? Or perhaps subtracting it when it is below the boldness? The purpose of a multi-valued scoring system is to signal differences when they are important. It would be an improvement to adjust the scoring to show that spectacular failure is worse than just guessing incorrectly. And then Nostradamus (or his devotees) could earn negative scores, not just zeros, as they deserve.

V & Z respond: If boldness is punished, nobody will make bold predictions. Nostradamus is dead, so he doesn't care, but the readers who send in predictions aren't.

---

B.S. in Washington, D.C., writes: Y'all are usually spot on, but the Nostradamus prediction is clearly about the Trump family. Trump is a divorced 'king' later found unworthy, perhaps by the religious right for failing to take care of their agenda. The islands in question? Manhattan and the island that Mar-a-Lago sits on.

The unexpected replacement? Eric Trump will take the reins of the Trump Organization after his father's indictment or conviction.

---

M.Y. in San Jose, CA, writes: You wrote:

Brian Sullivan, CNBC: "The growth rate of EV sales will actually drop in 2023 from 2022.

Boldness: 4/5. Sullivan has not been in the market for an electric vehicle, it would seem. There is much pent-up demand, and that is before the tax credits for some EVs were brought back to life. It's true that there might be a recession in 2023, but the current market demo for EVs tends to be somewhat less affected by recessions than Americans as a whole.

Implicit to my career in the EV industry is projecting the future market size of EVs worldwide. I disagree with your assessment, and I believe Sullivan's statement should get a 1/5 boldness rating.

Although the fourth quarter numbers for 2022 aren't yet available, the first three quarters of 2022 EV sales in the U.S. grew at approximately a 60% rate from the same three quarters in 2021. When the fourth quarter numbers come in, the year-over-year rate will come down, but for the sake of illustration, if that 60% rate was maintained we'd have 100% EV sales by about 2030. Although that state of affairs is my personal and professional goal, I don't think we should allow hope or optimism to influence our assessment of the market.

It is still in question which vehicles will be eligible for the tax credit you mention, but no matter which vehicles are eligible, I agree that demand will remain strong in 2023. Nevertheless a vehicle needs to be built, before a vehicle can be sold and delivered, and I am not convinced the industry can continue accelerating this quickly. I'm anticipating a growth rate in 2023 of somewhere around 30% worldwide over 2022. I haven't seen or done any U.S.-only projections but I don't expect the U.S. market will be appreciably different as the worldwide supply is limited.

Keep in mind that a 30% change in market size is enormous; it is the type of thing that only happened before my grandparents were born. I hope, for society's sake, that in reality it expands much faster. Everyone in the industry is working to increase the supply as quickly as possible—but I nevertheless believe the growth rate of EVs will not be maintained.

---

S.G. in Seattle, WA, writes: You gave 3/5 for boldness on the prediction that India would overtake China in population in 2023. But this is precisely what the population estimation folks at the U.N. (ie. the world's leading experts on the topic) predict what is going to happen. Not with 100% certainty, but they believe it's more likely than not, and it shouldn't even take the whole year—just until sometime before July 1. Indeed, their best estimate of the existing gap is much smaller than yours (less than 9 million as of July 1, 2022; just over half a percent of their populations).

For those who like to geek out over data tables (i.e., most E-V readers), visit population.un.org/wpp and click on "Download Data Files" and then "Probabilistic Projections" for more info. Note that, like all good purveyors in prediction, they provide ranges for their estimates, which appear across the multiple tabs of the spreadsheet.

---

R.N. in Canton, MI, writes: In your comments about the prediction of Steven Overly of Politico, you wrote: "This is like predicting the Detroit Lions won't win the Super Bowl. It's as inevitable as death and taxes." Are you aware that the Lions won eight of their last ten games (including two wins against the Green Bay Packers), that they only missed the playoffs because of a horrendous call in the Rams-Seahowks game, and that there is a lot of talk about them making a deep run into the playoffs next year? As Jamaal Williams said, "Stop Playing Us".

V & Z respond: Sorry, we didn't have time to properly edit that day's posting because we were too busy compiling a list of Lions Super Bowl wins. It really shouldn't have taken that long, but there was some confusion to be straightened out when we got it mixed up with our list of French military victories.

---

S.V. in Camarillo, CA, writes: Hey now... I think it's time to use Houston Texans as the team to joke about. Dan Campbell is lifting the curse and the De-troit Lions had an inspiring win this weekend! It's all dawg!

J.H. in Boston, MA, writes: You gave yourselves no partial credit for predicting that one of the ultra-MAGAs, Boebert, Gaetz, Jordan, Greene, Gosar would be out of office in 2022. But Madison Cawthorn could've easily been included on your ultra-MAGA list, and as we know, he lost his primary.

Latin Still Makes Us Sic

D.S. in Cleveland Heights, OH, writes: Regarding the various responses Latin Makes Us Sic, I'm sure you guys and various others couldn't help but think of this all-important lesson in Latin:

V & Z respond: Yes, quite a few folks sent that in. We feel like a Biggus Dickus that we did not think to include it.

---

T.W. in Norfolk, England, UK, writes: If the Latin for "We have a Speaker" is supposedly "Habemus Locutorem," per O.R. of Milan, then surely the accompanying picture has to be this:

The Borg theme seems somehow... apt.

Of course, Locutus of Borg didn't work out that well for the Borg when the good guys managed to neutralize them, so there's that to look forward to.

---

J.B. in Montgomery, IL, writes: Please make O.R. of Milan take it back. One Locutus in the canon is plenty.

---

P.C. in Yandina Creek, QL, Australia, writes: Today I perused the online version of the main broadsheet newspapers in Australia (Sydney Morning Herald/The Age from Melbourne), with a particular story catching my eye": "US House Republican Probed Over Jan. 6 attack May Now Investigate FBI," including an image of Rep. Chip Roy (R-TX) looking harried. I transitioned from this to reading the Latin scholars on the E-V.com letters page. I now pose some Latin that will tie these thoughts together: Nemo iudex sui causa, which I understand to translate to "no man can sit in judgment of themselves."

How is Roy, whilst under investigation by the FBI, able to "investigate" the FBI? For the legal scholars, is this legally (ethically?) possible? Are there any congressional laws or rules that will stop this insanity? Why has this escaped the citizen-lawyers group that challenged the election of Madison Cawthorn and others for aiding and abetting insurrection? This looks like a monumental screw-up going somewhere to happen.

---

G.T.M. in Vancouver, BC, Canada, writes: After seeing the actions of the Republican party lately, isn't it time that they officially adopted Melius est regula in inferno quam serve in caelo as their official motto?

Gallimaufry

H.F. in Pittsburgh, PA, writes: Your comment that "... Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-AL) and former HUD Secretary Ben Carson appear to have intelligence, but intelligence that is very domain-specific (football strategy and surgery, respectively)" reminded me of the doctor joke: "What's the difference between a pathologist and a surgeon? A pathologist is a doctor who knows everything but can do nothing. A surgeon is a doctor who knows nothing but can do anything."

---

A.M. in Olympia, WA, writes: Methinks that the tardiness of your late postings on Saturdays may be due in part to the loose wrist tendencies of the in-house math bartender on Friday eves. Capiche?

V & Z respond: Have you been talking to the dachshunds, those little motormouths?

---

M.G. in Chicago, IL, writes: Just fess up when you are hung over from the cocaine-and-hookers party.

V & Z respond: Same question.

---

D.M. in Spokane, WA, writes: S.K. in Sunnyvale wrote to correct the common mistake concerning German's chocolate cake. Most people believe the cake is named for Germany, the country, when in fact it is named for the chocolate brand used in the original recipe, a baking chocolate itself named for a factory worker named German. The brand still exists. S.K. linked a Wikipedia article which traces the origin of the recipe to a Dallas Morning News (DMN) article from 1957. That is a commonly cited source, and it is periodically referenced in DMN articles to this day, sometimes with a claim that the recipe originated from a particular small bakery in the Oak Cliff section of Dallas. I lived in that neighborhood during my high school years in the early 1960s, and that bakery was indeed known for its cakes, including German's chocolate. But the recipe predates 1957, and may have come from elsewhere.

In the early 1950s my family lived in Pyote, TX, a tiny town in the Permian Basin. My mother operated a diner there, catering mainly to the personnel of Pyote Air Force Base, where World War II aircraft were mothballed in the desert. Incidentally, Black folks driving Highway 80 knew that they could stop at her diner for a meal, a huge consideration for them as they traveled across segregated Texas. She closed the diner in 1954 when the family moved from the area. When she died in 1993, she lived in Plano, TX. My siblings and I found a very large recipe file among her belongings. In the recipes was a newspaper clipping with a recipe for German's chocolate cake. It bore her handwritten notation, "Give to Marie." Marie was a pastry cook who cooked pies, cakes, and other goods in her home and delivered them to my mother's diner. I recall eating German's chocolate cake in my mother's diner.

---

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 or share:

---The Votemaster and Zenger