Dem
51
GOP
49
Better late than never!
R.G.N. in Seattle, WA, writes: It seems that Donald Trump remembers a near-fatal helicopter crash with a tall Black politician (Nate Holden) in New Jersey as a near-fatal helicopter with a short Black man (Willie Brown) in San Francisco. Perfectly reasonable, The Bay Area skyline looks just like the Jersey Shore. No signs of dementia here.
J.E. in Manhattan, NY, writes: You wrote: "Now, please note that this is a real divide that exists among some people in the Black community (particularly the activist class). That is to say, is the experience of someone who is Black, but not a descendant of enslaved Americans (something true of both Harris and Barack Obama) really comparable to the experience of someone who is Black, and IS a descendant of enslaved Americans?"
This is all true; however, one should note that Harris' family (on her father's side) is from Jamaica, and Jamaica was a slaveholding part of the British Empire until 1838. Unless Harris' family emigrated from Africa to Jamaica after that date, she too is the descendant of slaves, given that her father is Afro-Jamaican.
I bring this up because almost any Black person whose family tree goes back very far in the Western Hemisphere is the descendant of slaves; just not slaves of the American South. And yes, it's also true that some of the debate about differing experiences is academic, but the experience of anti-Black racism is common to much of the African diaspora, and the only difference is maybe the degree and the particular form it takes in each country. And among the African-American activist class the difference of experience you mention is by and large academic.
The whole line of attack that Harris is not "Black enough" is, as you note, not for a white guy to weigh in on. But, as importantly, policing who was and was not Black has a long and ugly history in the U.S., and Trump's rantings about Harris' racial identity is of a piece with the men (it was always men) who drafted the laws governing who was and was not a full human being. This isn't something we have reckoned with yet in the United States, and it's one reason why Trump's racist rhetoric gains traction.
(As always, much credit to Ibram X. Kendi, whose book Stamped from the Beginning: The Definitive History of Racist Ideas in America should be required reading for every American history class at the college level).
L.P. in Dallas, TX, writes: Joy! That is what Kamala Harris and Tim Walz are bringing to the table that has been missing in social discourse for too many years. Hope and positivity are things again. The stress level, which was palpable in my blue city, and in my red state, has lightened. From the dark end of the street, to the bright side of the road, in a matter of a few weeks. I could not be happier with these candidates!
C.J.R. in Avondale, AZ, writes: Just got out of the (reportedly) largest political rally in Arizona history. If people are allowed to vote, Kamala Harris will win. First we had HOPE. Now we have JOY!
E.G.G.-C. in Syracuse, NY, writes: I've been reading a lot about the Harris-Walz campaign being about joy, and what and effective approach it is.
I just wanted to give a parallel that, because of Trump, might resonate: the plebiscite in Chile in 1988. The campaign against the dictatorship was "la alegría ya viene" (happiness is coming). Sparing details and many things that I witnessed, the campaign actually worked, and democracy returned the following year.
Since Donald Trump loves dictators, I think it's fitting that joy might defeat him, just like Augusto Pinochet was...
E.S. in Rheinbach, Germany, writes: Kamala Harris, Tim Walz and your site have at least on thing in common... and that is "bringing back the joy."
I live in Germany and my English is not the best, but your items about a very serious topic (the felon eventually taking the presidency and laying the world in tatters) are, besides the well-drawn conclusions and good information, connected with a good sense of humor and fun!
For example, reading about Kari Lake's job-description as an weather anchor in Arizona ("tomorrow will be sunny and hot") is priceless.
Keep it going that way!
B.K. in Champlin, MN, writes: I am going to keep this one short and sweet. I have voted in five presidential elections in my lifetime.
I have only felt the way I feel today in one of those, 2008 Obama/Biden.
I am that voter that went from dreading having to deal with 2024 to feeling joy and excitement to elect the next president of the U.S.
This ticket has captured the spirit of facing productive struggle through positivity and it's the energy we all need right now.
R.L.P. in Santa Cruz, CA, writes: I think Kamala Harris might win this election just on appearances. Her team looks young, bright, and happy. The Republican team looks like a couple of grumps. Also, Harris and Walz are good dressers, while Trump and Vance look cluelessly frumpy and wear ill-fitting suits, to boot. Trump, being obsessed with appearances, must know this. It's probably driving him crazy, and it will be impossible to fix (except for the frumpy suits, but Trump seems to have a blind spot in that area).
S.P. in Cranston, RI, writes: Bringing back the joy: This song I wrote on Tuesday is getting more play than anything I've ever posted on YouTube before. I give you "The Kamala Walz":
C.L. in Boulder, CO, writes: My favorite of the various t-shirt messages I've seen:
R.H. in San Antonio, TX, writes: Why is Trump not campaigning for the next 2 weeks?
The guy clearly hated everything about being President the first time, save for the grifting opportunities, the immunity from prosecution, and the Nuremberg rallies.
He's still grifting with both hands, as he'll do until he can't do it any longer, and the six berobed radicals of the Supreme Court have given him as much leeway as possible on the immunity part, but he's voluntarily giving up the rallies? There's got to be something direly wrong with him; it looks like his handlers have seen that he can't read a 2-minute script without going off on a 90-minute rant about the "stolen" 2020 election, sharks, electricity and Hannibal Lecter.
What other explanation makes any sense at all? Why would he voluntarily give up the dopamine rush he obviously gets from appearing before a few thousand adoring goobers?
M.S. in Hamden, CT, writes: I like the suggestion that Trump might not be holding many rallies these days because of PTSD or fear of another attack. I'd also like to throw another possibility into the mix. Maybe Trump knows/fears that any rally he might hold right now wouldn't draw as many people as the Harris/Walz rallies, and certainly nothing in comparison to the DNC in a week. Whatever the reason, wouldn't it be nice if Walz asked, in his low-key way, whether Trump is hiding with his boxes in the Mar-a-Lago basement because of lingering mental effects from the assassination attempt, or due to fear of seeming small? Two diminishments for the price of one!
(V) & (Z) respond: A lot of people have PTSD, often because of very brave and admirable things they did, and it might not be well to make light of that condition.
J.P.R. in Westminster, CO, writes: In response to J.W. in Aston, I don't know if you have other mental health clinicians among your readership, but I will throw my professional impression behind, at least, the possibility that Trump might be suffering from something like PTSD. Interestingly, now coming up on a month since it happened, it would move diagnostically from the column of "Acute Stress Disorder" over to "PTSD" (depending on extent of symptoms and severity thereof—which, as I'm sure you can imagine, I have no way to know and consequently this is no conceivable way a formal diagnosis).
E.L. in Dallas, TX, writes: Experts: "Trump speech patterns hint of potential cognitive decline."
W.S. in Austin, TX, writes: There are other possibilities, such as late-stage neurosyphilis, which would also help explain Donald Trump's recent fixation on Al Capone.
I.T. in Orlando, FL, writes: You wrote: "[W]e don't really grasp what the purpose of mispelling "Kamala" is (though Trump has been doing it for about a week now). Maybe it's a clumsy portmanteau of Kamala + Obama..."
I believe that maybe it is actually a lame attempt at a portmanteau of Kamala + Blah, like she's just a "blah" candidate. It would probably be more effective if it were spelled Kamablah, and/or spoken aloud, but either way, "clumsy" is right on.
P.N. in Austin, TX, writes: At first, it crossed my mind as an amusing thought. But then I considered it seriously, and, well... {shrugs}... maybe? The only explanation I can come up with for Trump's new moniker for the Vice President, "Kamabla," is that it's a reference to NAMBLA. Arguing in favor of the point is the constant right-wing pedophilia-related conspiracies. Arguing against the point is that Trump is just not that clever or subtle. But who knows, these nut jobs have some weird dog whistles.
A.K. in Alexandria, VA, writes: Trump's current nickname for his opponent, Kamabla, is supposed to be pronounced Ka-ma-blah, i.e., a variation on blah, blah, blah (like Bob Loblaw). It does not work as a schoolyard insult because each syllable has to be pronounced so weakly that it gets lost.
B.F. in Madison, WI, writes: I could be wrong, and wouldn't be sad to not be able to auger Donald Trump, but I think Kamabla is a portmanteau of "Kamala" and "blah." Given his mispronunciation of her name, the cadence fits and since he and Vance are being harried so much by "weird," I could see him taking the lesson away that he needs a softer insult to land a heavier blow. Though acknowledging that nuance would be a sign of rather impressive growth.
M.K. in Franklin, WI, writes: I'm gullible and willing to believe it's just a consistent typo (now made consistent by autocorrect?) that Mr. Covefe is too distracted or indisposed to correct. But I wouldn't be surprised if it's intended to sound like "comma blah," as in "blah people," a dog whistle based on Rick Santorum's infamous claim that he was saying "blah" people shouldn't receive government assistance when the video clearly shows him saying "Black."
J.L. in Albany, NY, writes: Regarding Trump's intentional misspelling of Kamala Harris' name as "Kamabla," someone on Threads pointed out that if you add a "CK" to the end, his intentions become clear. It's a shortening of "KamaBlack"—an attempt to make Kamala sound scary because she's Black.
It's not a very good attempt or very imaginative. It used to be that Trump excelled at coming up with nicknames for people. It was one of the few things he was decent at. Nowadays, though, he seems to be unable to come up with anything good. He reuses old names ("Crazy Nancy" becomes "Crazy Kamala"), he comes up with nonsensical ones that take effort to explain ("Kamabla"), and he comes up with ones that fail to have any negative impact at all ("Laughin' Kamala"—she has joy in her life... the horror!).
To use terminology Trump would understand, his latest attempts at nicknames are just SAD!
G.R. in Carol Stream, IL, writes: I have a theory why TFG may be using the misspelling Kamabla. The theory is stupid, so it's probably correct.
Kamabla as in ¿Habla Español?, an infantile attempt to link her to Latin American immigrants.
E.C.W. in New Orleans, LA, writes: Your analysis of the nascent Swift Boat campaign against Walz was very good, as were the additional reader comments. Although attacking your opponent's greatest strength is an ancient technique, the modern, highly-reprehensible style was perfected by Karl Rove. From 1994 to 2004, it didn't matter if someone was a highly decorated, multiple amputee, Republican or Democrat, SEAL or Swift Boat, the far right would say the candidate was unstable, a traitor, a coward, or a friend to the terrorists.
In the original Swift Boat campaign against John Kerry, a few things stand out. W. had some military cred from his time in the Air National Guard as well as being a wartime president. Vietnam was and always will be a controversial part of American history so John Kerry's service and subsequent protests were more vulnerable to attack. And the Democrats really leaned into the campaign to make the 2004 election a "better commander in chief" decision. Plus the audacity of it all, attacking someone with three Purple Hearts and decorations for valor as being unpatriotic, was still shocking. Obviously, none of that hold true now. Trump makes a terrible contrast to anyone who has served a single day in the service. Tim Walz isn't claiming to be Rambo, just a competent Sergeant Major, and the Democrats are ready this time.
E.H. in Dublin, Ireland, writes: As a presidential candidate, John Kerry always came across as somewhat aloof, a little hard to relate to. Many voters were looking for a reason to dislike him and vote against him, and Swiftboating gave them that excuse. Tim Walz, on the other hand...
J.S. in Minneapolis, MN, writes: I'm a transportation researcher living in Minnesota. Geographic information systems/science (GIS) is A Thing in my work. ESRI is like the Microsoft of the GIS world. I absolutely hate it and prefer open-source tools like QGIS and PostGIS, but I can forgive Tim Walz for being an ESRI person because his keynote speech at the ESRI User Conference was amazing. It's refreshing to hear a political leader speaking fluently about highly technical information and doing so in a way that resonates beyond us technical wonks. Ezra Klein's interview with Walz may be a better primer for a general audience, but if any of your readers are super data nerds like me, I highly recommend watching the keynote.
J.M. in Stamford, CT, writes: You wrote, regarding the Democratic ticket's possible weakness in foreign policy experience, that: "...Harris' and Walz' backgrounds are both in state-level politics, and do not include foreign policy chops, right? Not so fast. You could certainly argue that Walz' time spent in China (as a teacher) and in Italy (as a soldier), as well as his gubernatorial dealings with Canada (trade pacts) give him some insight."
Well, sure. And you could add this, from Politico, about Walz's years in Congress: "He rose to become the ranking Democrat on the House Veterans' Affairs Committee and served multiple stints on the Armed Services Committee."
The Defense Department does do some stuff relating to other countries, I think.
R.G. in Washington, DC, writes: I first started religiously checking this site back when I was an early teen finding my politics calling before the Kerry-Bush election and am finally getting around to possibly contributing to the mailbag!
I am writing regarding what I believe is an underrated aspect of Tim Walz. His foreign policy credentials, particularly on nitty gritty issues like China policy, seems to be largely neglected from the discourse by many serious commentators (ranging from Ezra Klein in his post-VP announcement podcast to even here, dare I say) when discussing what unique attributes Walz brings to the ticket. Walz was one of the Democratic caucus' main advocates for promoting human rights, environmental, and labor standards in China. He's been at the forefront of freedom movements in Hong Kong and Tibet, serving on the China Commission beginning with his election to the House in 2006. He's proven to be dynamic on these issues as well—he went from a strategic-engagement stance on China and Hong Kong in the hopes of reforms in mainland China to embracing Hong Kong self-determination. He was the only Democrat to co-sponsor the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act. He's spoken fairly extensively about how his teaching experience in China shortly after the Tiananmen Square massacre shaped his views on promoting human rights through cultural engagement.
Thus far, the hard foreign policy credentials Walz brings to the table on perhaps the greatest long-term geopolitical and strategic challenge the U.S. faces has really only been discussed in the "foreign policy eX-Twitter" world but without much mainstream traction. I hope this stuff gets out, because, while it's great that Walz's personality and hard hitting one-liners are a viral attraction, he brings quite a lot to the table on policy issues across the board. MAGA are soft on China and soft on Russia and foreign policy is another area that Democrats should be seen as head and shoulders above the Republicans in gravitas and understanding of nuance. I suppose it's possible that the Harris campaign wants to shy away from discussing foreign policy, as it would bring Gaza to the forefront, but there's much more substance to Walz to discuss!
T.B. in Nowata, OK, writes: As soon as I read your take on Tim Walz, especially the last point about him showing up in a football booth, excitement ensued thinking he might make the Manningcast.
The segments with President Obama were instant classics, I'm sure Walz could deliver as well.
The campaign needs to contact Omaha Productions—Go!
S.L. in Irwin, PA, writes: If Tim Walz pops up on College Gameday this fall as a guest picker, especially if the show is at a Big Ten campus, the presidential race is over.
K.R. in Austin, TX, writes: I don't usually look at Fox News. Does their website usually have this many articles about a VP candidate? Are they scared? Are they just throwing everything at the wall and seeing what sticks? Among the phrases that appeared in various headlines after he was tapped as Kamala Harris' running mate:
- stolen valor
- delusional
- radical riptide
- mugshot
- not normal
- should frighten every American
- transfer dangerous prisoners to US
- why high schoolers don't know the Constitution
- a hoax
It's amazing how Fox News is a different world.
L.T. in Vienna, Austria, writes: Looks like the GQP is attacking Walz for being an Open Borders Fan.
Minnesota does have a border with Canada, so maybe Trump will want to build a wall there, and make Canada pay for it. Got to keep those Canucks out, after all. Nobody from sh**hole Countries.
(V) & (Z) respond: The Minnesota governor's mansion is just 270 miles from the Canadian border. And yet, nobody besides the keenly insightful Trump seems to be aware of the enormous risk that Walz has been compromised, and is already a sleeper member of Team 'Nade.
A.G. in Scranton, PA, writes: My homey, fellow Jarheaded J.D., attacked a CNN anchor for scrutinizing his military record from the safety of a CNN suite.
I do the very same thing when I'm overblowing my own importance to some blowhard in a bar. You talk down, pretend you saw more sh** than you did, notched a few more RKs maybe... maybe the brunette down the bar gets a little interested in what you're saying...
I don't do that to attract women. That's ridiculous and toxic. I earn my women the right way.
Anyhow... that's what Vance's doing right there. He's playin' like his little sandbox was a million times worse than it was.
No doubt he saw some sh**. But, yo, J.D., I'm on to you, okay? Chill, brother.
D.S. in Palo Alto, CA, writes: I am becoming incensed by the continued sofa jokes aimed at J.D. Vance. He did not originate the meme, in his book or anywhere else, as I understand it. I have other thoughts about "even if he had," but they are irrelevant, since he reportedly didn't have anything to do with it. Unless there is even a modicum of a germ of truth behind it, it is totally unfair. Good people, including the Democratic VP nominee, should stop doing that.
S.R.G. in Grecia, Costa Rica, writes: I am weary of hearing about the ridiculous "couch" associated with J.D. Vance. It is obvious that there was never a couch!
It was a love seat.
R.E.M. in Brooklyn, NY, writes: I propose creating a new word: "vancetorum." It is defined as "the frothy mixture of lube, dust bunnies, and loose change that is sometimes the byproduct of sofa sex."
J.F. in Albuquerque, NM, writes: You wrote: "Vance is a jerk and a bad father."
I think this is unfair. J.D. Vance wouldn't couch it in those terms. I'm sure he'd want to take the word jerk off the table.
K.S. in Ithaca, NY, writes: You wrote: "How long will it be before 'the coach vs. the couch' becomes a meme?"
Not long... the attached hit my Instagram feed within hours of your post going live:
K.W. in Dallas, TX, writes: You were right about Steve Martin to play Tim Walz on Saturday Night Live, but he declined.
E.F. in Baltimore, MD, writes: Very much doubt James Austin Johnson would play Tim Walz, seeing as how he's already their amazingly good in-house Trump impersonator, and could hardly play both characters simultaneously. If they want an experienced fellow Minnesotan, Al Franken would be an excellent choice.
(V) & (Z) respond: Well, Dana Carvey played both George H.W. Bush and Ross Perot at the same time, sometimes in the same sketch.
L.T. in Metuchen, NJ, writes: I feel compelled to point out that there was a big swing and miss when you theorized about who could/would play VP nominee Walz on SNL. The obvious choice is David Huddleston, a.k.a. The Big Lebowski himself. We can only hope that in addition to Jeff Bridges reprising his role as The Dude to cut a promo with Walz, in early November during his victory speech, Walz embraces his inner Lebowski and proclaims, "Condolences! The bums lost!"
S.M. in Scotts Valley, CA, writes: I liked your review of possible actors to play Tim Walz on Saturday Night Live, but I feel you missed the most obvious choice:
Ok, I know Ted Lasso is a character, so I'll settle for Jason Sudeikis. Anyway, I feel that there is a lot of crossover in the Walz and the Lasso storylines. Listening to each of them talk just makes me happy.
D.T. in Columbus, OH, writes: Has anyone ever see Tim Walz and Wallace Shawn in the same room?
Choosing Grand Nagus Zek for Vice President?
Inconceivable!
S.K. in San Antonio, TX, writes: I love the Lore vs. Data compare of the Veep candidates! Something about Walz was bugging me; he reminded me of someone and I couldn't put my finger on it. Finally figured it out: Neelix from Voyager! Maybe Ethan Phillips should be added to the SNL portrayal shortlist!
J.C. in Oxford, England, UK, writes: I nominate avuncular mid-Westerner Jim O'Heir.
R.J.J. in San Francisco, CA, writes: While I hope the SNL gig goes to Andy Richter as he connects with Tim Walz's Midwestern tone the most readily (being a Grand Rapids, MI, native son), I think we're all missing the boat on Walz's best celebrity match:
J.F. in Ft. Worth, TX, writes: Forget Jost, Killam, and Galifianakis. The obvious choice to play J.D. Vance is Tucker & Dale vs. Evil's Tyler Labine.
R.B. in Cleveland, OH, writes: My vote for who should play J.D. Vance on SNL is Haley Joel Osment!
S.T. in Philadelphia, PA, writes: M.G. in Newton asked whether readers knew of volunteer opportunities for those who would protect vulnerable voters. Two options: Election Protection and, for Philadelphians, the Committee of Seventy.
D.G. in Saint Paul, MN, writes: I have volunteered with Election Protection in the past. They indeed organize something like poll escorts to help people navigate challenges. While I personally didn't run into any issues, fellow volunteers did and were able to have the harassing individual removed.
B.W. in Memphis, TN , writes: I wanted to let you know about Poll Chaplains. My understanding is that the group will train lay and ordained community leaders to support voters at poll sites in ten key states. The group is non-partisan and folks from every faith background are invited (and in this context, "faith background" includes strong philosophical beliefs, atheism, secular humanism... you just need a guiding worldview/moral compass). I think the first training sessions have already started, but the registration form is still live.
J.T. in Albuquerque, NM, writes: I believe Common Cause has a robust program for non-partisan poll watchers who can assist voters. When I was younger (I'm 86) my now deceased wife and I did that here in Albuquerque.
S.M. in Austin, TX, writes: M.G. in Newtown asked about protecting voters from intimidation. Just as you have often mentioned, voting procedures are controlled by the states and their respective counties.
Working many years as an election judge (when we only trained to watch out for possible bomb threats in 2008, because of the anger that a Black Man could become president) there is in Texas the ability to sign in as a voter's assistant. That is done at the actual voting location.
You can volunteer with the local Democratic office is to offer to drive people to vote. Then, if you would like, you can also sign up to assist them in voting at their voting booth. This is a roundabout way to provide the moral support for groups that tend to be intimidated.
By the way, an election judge/clerk can also provide assistance the same way—all you need to do is ask.
L.W. in Concord, MA, writes: I've never seen the term "poll escort" used in this context and I can't speak about programs that may exist in other states. But I have for years volunteered on Election Day to be a poll watcher for the Democratic Party of New Hampshire. I vote early in my home state of Massachusetts and on Election Day I get up early and drive to a previously assigned polling place over the state line. I'm there when the polls open and I stay until the last voter votes.
During the weeks before each election, the New Hampshire Democratic Party provides me with training, credentials and reference materials. When I arrive, I introduce myself to the election officials running my assigned polling place and show them my credentials. They provide me and the other poll observers (there are almost always poll observers from both parties present) with a place to sit where we can watch the process. From our vantage point, we can see if there is a problem and if individual voters are being turned away. We can address those issues with the election officials. If we see acts of intimidation, we can report them to the election officials. We also have contact information for a central "Boiler Room" maintained by the New Hampshire Democratic Party so that we can escalate questions and report problems if necessary. In New Hampshire, absentee ballots are opened and counted during the times of the day when there are fewer voters at the polling place, like mid-morning and mid-afternoon. We observe the opening of the absentee ballots and follow up if we see any absentee ballots being rejected for any reason.
Even in the Republican-leaning districts I have been assigned to over the years, my experience with the election officials has been uniformly positive. Whatever their personal political beliefs, on Election Day they are committed to making sure the process goes smoothly and the count is accurate.
The New Hampshire Democratic Party, and perhaps New Hampshire law, require that the poll observers be lawyers (although not necessarily lawyers admitted to practice in New Hampshire; I am a retired member of the bars of both Massachusetts and New York). As I said, I'm not familiar with how this is done in other states and I'm confident that the local laws and requirements differ. But if you contact your state Democratic Party, they will be able to advise you about how you can help.
E.W. in Skaneateles, NY, writes: I commend M.G. in Newtown for wanting to be a "poll escort." I would suggest that if they want to help voters on Election Day, M.G. should just become a poll worker. During my poll worker training, we learned about poll watchers, what the rules were, and how to deal with poll watchers if they get out of hand (mostly, try to de-escalate the situation and call the police if that doesn't work). We were very busy during the 2022 midterm elections, and we fortunately didn't have any poll watchers. However, if any had showed up and been a problem, we'd have had our hands full. More people working the polls would certainly help!
W.W. in Minneapolis, MN, writes: Making sure you are aware of this resource. It lists state-by-state what the requirements are to be a poll watcher, and what they are able to do.
J.C. in Washington, DC, writes: As an Arizona voter, I can't tell you how happy I was to see you move Arizona into the "tied" column this week.
I'm confident that Harris/Walz/Rep. Ruben Gallego (D-AZ) will win. Especially talking to friends around the state and across the spectrum of political ideology.
My ballet should arrive soon... in the mail.
I know that it will be a visceral experience for me and will share with the community.
C.B. in Lakeville, MN, writes: I realized that if Tim Walz (and Kamala Harris) were elected, it would set off an interesting chain reaction in the high levels of Minnesota government. If Walz were to become vice president and resign his position as governor, Minnesota will get its first female and first native governor (Peggy Flanagan) and the first Black lieutenant governor (Bobby Joe Champion, currently president of the state). The control of the Minnesota Senate could depend on the presidential election, too.
The last time the lieutenant governor spot became open was in 2017, when Walz appointed then-lieutenant governor Tina Smith to Al Franken's vacant seat after Franken resigned. Michelle Fischbach (Republican, currently representing CD-07), as President of the Senate, then became lieutenant governor, setting up an interesting scenario with the governor and their lieutenant being of different political parties. Fischbach refused to resign her state Senate leadership position and her state Senate seat. We don't yet know what Champion might do with his state Senate seat if he ascends to lieutenant governor. The Minnesota Senate is currently split 33-33 with one vacancy. Champion's district is a fairly safe DFL district. The special election to fill the current Senate vacancy will be this fall, and its winner will determine if the DFL will still have the state trifecta going into 2025.
C.C. in Saint Paul, MN, writes: Some thoughts on Tim Walz from a Minnesotan:
- If they're going for "folksy midwestern middle-aged white guy that calms those who are afraid of diversity/change (but don't like admitting it out loud) will find non-threatening," mission accomplished.
- He gives me serious "favorite harmless uncle" vibes.
- I wasn't thrilled when he originally got the governor nomination but he's grown on me.
- In both budget legislative years that had Republican-led legislatures, he managed to avoid a government shutdown without last minute nail biting.
- I was impressed with his very pragmatic COVID response and the fact that he stuck to COVID guidelines for a long time in the face of tremendous pressure from Republicans.
- I love his lieutenant governor, Peggy Flanagan; she is native and a woman (a first).
Full disclosure, though: I am a childless dog lady and thus miserable, deranged and sociopathic.
C.S. in Philadelphia, PA, writes: Jewish Never Trump Republican in Pennsylvania. If that didn't give it away, I was backing Gov. Josh Shapiro (D-PA) for vice president. In 2016, I wrote in John Kasich, never thinking Hillary Clinton would lose Pennsylvania, let alone the Presidency. in 2020, I was not willing to make the same mistake, and I voted against Donald Trump by voting for Joe Biden. I felt then that Kamala Harris was too liberal and there were better-qualified options (and 2020 Harris was significantly more qualified than 2024 Senator Vance, but Biden it was. Feeling that Biden had handled the last 4 years as deftly as possible and I agreed with him on defending democracy at home and abroad, I was looking forward to voting for him rather than against Trump. The poor debate performance was frustrating and I understand the political calculus of needing to have Biden drop out and the quick coalescence around Harris.
The choice of Tim Walz left me (and my Jewish moderate Democratic wife) disappointed. I feel the choice was meant to solidify the base and certainly gave them a shot in the arm (which was desperately needed). The reasons for not choosing Shapiro can be traced to numerous things that go beyond my undergraduate degree in political science. Nevertheless, Shapiro could have expanded the anti-Trump coalition and blunted the rightward lurch of the American Jewish community. Shapiro has the ability and credibility to condemn antisemitism, defend Israel, and criticize the actions of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. That talent is sorely missing on the left (and the right). The threats to democracy presented by Trumpism and the antisemites among Trumpists are a more immediate concern so I am still voting Harris. However, I still feel stuck in a political no man's land.
J.E. in Gilbertsville, PA, writes: As Pennsylvanians who care deeply about the outcome of the upcoming election, we were very excited to know that Josh Shapiro was a top contender for the VP job. The topic has been hot among all five of us in the household (myself, my husband, and our three grown children—one of whom is a politics/IR major at the University of Sydney). When we watch the news over dinner (a habit that began because my son can't stand the sound of chewing), we cheered every time they talked about Shapiro being the VP. Shapiro seems to have all the right stuff in terms of poise, polish, and performance. So, naturally, we were pretty upset.when we found out Kamala Harris chose Tim Walz. I spent entirely too much time the next day watching all the new coverage, wondering "Why him?"
And I have to say I get it now. It took less than 24 hours for me to fall for Walz and lose a lot of respect for Shapiro. What struck me—and my two daughters—the most were the reports that Shapiro was pushy during the interview process. Every woman on earth has been exactly where Harris was: in a room with a man whose ego is so big they don't leave much oxygen left for anyone else in the room. Women always suffer in such exchanges. We just can't get away with being as pushy as men. I was so disappointed to hear that about Shapiro. Have there been rumors of problems with women in his offices/campaigns? I wouldn't be surprised. (Edit: Yes, as it turns out.)
In contrast, Walz has very favorably impressed us. My son, in particular, is over the moon about how progressive he is (the rest of us are happy about that too, just not as happy—for him it was a make-or-break). What a great guy Walz appears to be! His authenticity is going to play really, really well. He is the breath of fresh air we all need. And his "dad vibes" are very popular with the youth, apparently.
So, long story short, I don't think the choice of Walz is going to hurt Harris in Pennsylvania much. First of all, I think the polls of Pennsylvania are wrong; the enthusiasm here is off the charts now that Joe Biden dropped out. The bad polls under Biden were largely the result of previous Biden voters who were thinking of sitting this one out, and they are all back on board with bells on. Secondly, Walz is going to win over at least a few additional percentage points of Pennsylvanians. That's my prediction!
K.H. in Cologne, Germany, writes: Although Germany has no right to send electors for the Electoral College, there is an actual poll. It's for the ARD—the largest German public broadcaster—and done by Infratest, which is one of the most serious pollsters in Germany. Therefore, it's solid. It says: Harris (77%), Trump (10%), neither (8%). I don't know what the missing 5% say. Perhaps it's of no interest to them.
It's very interesting to watch the change from mid-July, when it was Biden (28%), Trump (9%), neither (59%). So, Harris did her work in Germany. We are somewhere between D.C. and Hawaii, now.
S.C. in Mountain View, CA, writes: In your reply to Saturday's the question from I.G. in Chicago. you wrote : "And if we had been using ranked-choice voting, Walz would have been our pick, because one of us had it Kelly-Walz-Shapiro and the other had it Shapiro-Walz-Kelly."
Actually, that's not true. With RCV, Kelly would have 1 vote, Shapiro would have 1 vote, and Walz would have 0 votes. You'd have a tie between Kelly and Shapiro that would have to be broken by flipping a coin.
The Borda method, used to determine baseball's Most Valuable Player award and college football's Heisman Trophy winner, wouldn't have helped, either. In the traditional Borda method, with three candidates, you'd give your first choice 2 points, your second choice 1 point, and your third choice 0 points. That would give each of Kelly, Shapiro, and Walz 2 points each, a three-way tie.
Condorcet (pair-wise) systems would have also resulted in a three-way tie, because Kelly vs Shapiro ties 1-1, Kelly vs Walz ties 1-1, and Shapiro vs Walz ties 1-1.
You could invent a system that would let Walz be the winner. Say, a non-linear Borda system where the first choice gets 3 points, the second choice 2, and the third choice 0. That would result with Walz getting 4 points and Kelly and Shapiro each getting 3.
About the only existing system that would let Walz win is Approval, if and only if you both agreed in advance that you would each Approve both of your first two choices and not your third choice. Then Walz would have 2 votes and Kelly and Shapiro would have one vote each.
This does not mean I support Approval voting for public elections; I do not. I still prefer ranked choice voting. It's just that no voting system works well when the number of voters is less than the number of candidates, and choosing a winner becomes more a matter of negotiation than of voting.
P.S. in Gloucester, MA, writes: In your answer to T.A. in London about whether foreign nationals can do anything to support candidate(s) in a US election, you said that even uncompensated volunteer time is illegal. That surprised me—so I did a little Googling.
The FEC page on foreign nationals seems to be focused on prohibition of activities that involve any sort of money, and activities that constitute campaign decision-making. That doesn't seem to include, for example, unpaid volunteering on phone banks, text banks, or letter- and postcard-writing work.
The Capitol Immigration Law Group's page on the subject, headlined "US Elections—How Can Foreign Nationals Be Involved in the Political Process?" says that "Some foreign nationals who do not have green cards can nonetheless help a political campaign via voluntary non-monetary contribution of services. The Act provides that the "volunteer" exemption applies as long as the foreign national performing the service is not compensated by anyone. It goes on to note FEC rulings on some specific cases (for a foreign-national student doing unpaid volunteer work for a campaign, and against an artist providing artistic work for a campaign, but for Elton John doing a benefit concert for Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign—despite the clearly monetary aspect involved).
My take is that unpaid volunteer work by non-famous people that does not involve specialized talent, such as unpaid volunteering on phone banks, text banks, or letter- and postcard-writing work, would probably fall under the ruling about the foreign-national student, but I am not a lawyer.
J.K. in Portland, OR, writes: The incessant drumbeat of False Equivalence (or, if you prefer, both-sides-erism) by The New York Times is becoming unbearable. TFG holds a press conference at his home where he lies like a rug and they ask why Kamala Harris hasn't held a press conference. "She has better things to do" is a true answer, but the Fourth Estate will not tolerate being neglected. TFG comes out with a same old tax-cuts-for-the-rich policy idea and the Times' headline is "Trump has tax policy that will raise the debt $7 trillion but Harris' is a mystery." Over 50% of the Times' articles on the election are damning the Democrats with faint praise. And The Washington Post isn't much better. To get some sense, one has to read non-US newspapers such as The Guardian or perhaps Libération or De Volkskrant for people who aren't limited to English language sources.
And in a show of jingoism, the daily Olympic medals table at the Times was rank-ordered by total medals won until the U.S. got more gold than anybody else, at which point they switched to rank-ordered by number of gold medals won.
Where is the sense of investigative reporting and logical conclusions based on solid evidence? I guess it's clickbait uber alles. To which I say Pferdmerde.
R.H. in Cleveland, OH, writes: This week's Trump press conference is what we get when the mainstream media-at-large have already surrendered to a despot. It was a gross display of the media's obsequious subservience to a madman. There was not one single hard question asked of the president, and not a single "journalist" there followed up regarding his lies.
Swing voters and low-education voters are likely not going to read about it later or hunt for fact checks. They're going to take everything at face value, and assume it's the truth based on the lack of good journalistic practice at what was not a press conference, but a free campaign event.
This country has a media crisis and will cease being a free country if nothing is done about it.
S.S.L. in Battle Creek, MI, writes: As one of your resident disability rights attorneys, I found two of Sunday's comments particularly interesting.
First for some inside baseball. A reader noted that Justice Sonia Sotomayor's job is protected by the ADA. This is not true. The ADA doesn't apply to the federal employer-employee relationship. Instead, her job is protected relative to her disability status by Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 ("The Rehab Act.")
Another reader pointed out that disability rights laws are being gutted by the judiciary. This can hardly be overstated. In June, the Supreme Court released an opinion that has the potential to overturn decades of precedent around giving agencies the power to regulate the implementation of laws passed by Congress. Such regulation is vital for laws like the ADA—which are silent on the issue of software accessibility, for example—and help both to fill in the gaps as well as offer greater enforcement mechanisms in and out of court. Our only saving grace is that Congress implicitly incorporated those regulations each time they reenacted or updated the law once the regulations had gone into effect. But will the Court care? Your guess is as good as anyone's. Make no mistake: Defendants will absolutely bring every challenge to the regulations that they can think of to try to overturn our right to live in the world.
Finally, a quick note about the word "handicapped." The term stems from betting games in which a cap was used to collect money, easily transferring to the tradition of disabled beggars holding caps in their hands to do the same. We are not beggars, and so handicapped is an inaccurate term.
A.A. in Branchport, NY, writes: Donald Trump's difficulty hearing questions at his recent presser and at last week's National Association of Black Journalists conference would indicate that he has suffered some hearing loss (not unusual for people his age) and is in need of hearing aids.
Of course, accepting this would place him squarely in the ranks of people with disabilities. And we know how he feels about disabled people.
A.L. in Villigen, Switzerland, writes: Whatever Elon Musk's plan was when he bought Twitter, it never was making it profitable. I think he really does not care for making any income with it. But he's making money from owning it: influencing the stock market, influencing the shareholders of his companies, gaining political power. Musk has just one superpower: making money.
But he gets some backlash that could cost him dearly: The German billionaire Dirk Rossman is in the news, saying that everyone buying a Tesla is not caring for the environment. He announced that he will not include any more Tesla cars in his business fleet, and says that people should simply buy other electric cars. Of course, it is just one company, and they had just a few dozen Teslas (out of 800 cars). But Musk is escalating with tweets like "Civil war in Great Britain is imminent." People notice, and it simply does not fit his former image. People who were adoring him were no right-wing extremists: those people will abandon him.
P.S. in Plano, TX, writes: You wrote that "we're not sure there is such a thing as an illegal boycott." It is illegal for a U.S. person to participate in a boycott unsanctioned by the United States and fostered by one foreign government against another foreign government. This mostly comes up with Arab states, whose governments mandate people subject to their laws boycott Israel. I believe you are correct that X is not the target of an illegal boycott.
I.H. in Washington, DC, writes: DOJ antitrust attorney reporting for duty here from the Outer Banks (celebrating the recent Google win!).
Given my position I'm not really supposed to weigh in on things like this, so let me refer you to this article, instead. The long and short of it is that, yes, there is the concept of illegal boycotts in antitrust law, but, no, this is not it.
B.C. in Walpole, ME, writes: You wrote, "We are not lawyers, but we're not sure there is such a thing as an illegal boycott."
Samuel Goldwyn observed, "If people don't go to see a movie, there's nothing you can do to stop them." (Okay, I didn't check the source. I think it was Samuel Goldwyn. It could have been Churchill, Lincoln, Gandhi, Jefferson, Angelou, or Thomas Carlyle.)
S.M. in Morganton, GA, writes: I write today in reference to your response to M.M. in Plano and their inquiry as to President James Buchanan's affectual or sexual orientation.
Thank you. Thank you for busting the binary of "gay" or "straight." Thank you for placing the relationship (and Jackson's bigotry) in historical context.
As an ace-ish queer person, seeing "asexual" provided as an option—no fanfare, just an option—was euphoric. I felt seen and, quite possibly, historically represented. Thank you. Thank you so much.
R.M.S. in Lebanon, CT, writes: In discussing James Buchanan's sexuality, you left out a fourth possibility for him: bisexuality. There is a phenomenon across most cultures called bisexual erasure which downplays bisexuality, ignores it, or insists it isn't even real.
In reality, bisexuality is the most common category under the LGBT umbrella, yet it is the least visible. All of the men I have dated are bisexual, and my last partner reunited with his ex-wife after we dated for about 1.5 years. I don't have hard feelings about this since he felt he would be happier with her, and I want him to be happy. Many people, both gay and straight, look down at bisexuality and it pressures them to deny and hide their identities.
There is a tendency among many people to view human sexuality as a black and white issue with people living in completely different social spheres. However, human biology and psychology have shown this isn't true and sexuality is on a spectrum with people living on different areas of it.
(V) & (Z) respond: (Z) considered that possibility and rejected it. If James Buchanan was attracted to people of both genders, he would have commenced a relationship with a woman, because he lived in a world that strongly pushed people in that direction, and we would never have known that he might be anything other than straight.
R.E. in Chicago, IL, writes: By coincidence, this past week I've been re-reading (for the first time in 55 years) my old copy of American Melodrama, and I fully agree with your assessment that it's the best of the contemporary accounts of the 1968 election. I turned 20 in the summer of 1968, so I remember the events of that unfortunate year all too well. I'm also a lifelong Chicagoan, and the descriptions of the 1968 Democratic convention and the activities around it match up very closely with things I saw in person.
A couple of observations about the comparisons some have made between the 1968 election and this year's: first, as American Melodrama captures very well, the times then were very different that they are now. My generation of males was getting drafted and sent off to war that nobody really understood, and the cities were exploding in racial tension that was far more intense than today's. And the candidates were nothing like today's: The Democrats spent over a year fighting among themselves before Hubert Humphrey was selected. And the Republican candidate that year was smart and disciplined. Couldn't have been more different in 2024.
J.K. in Portland, OR, writes: Your narration of Ronald Reagan's delusionary understanding of budgets and spending corresponds pretty closely to what I heard from colleagues at a think tank who had first-hand experience working with the people who advised the president. In considering how to react to the bombing of a Marine barracks in Beirut in 1983, my colleagues were told that the advisors could not present two different plans to the President and ask him to choose between them. Instead, they had to go with one plan for an up or down answer with no consideration of alternative plans. If the answer was "down," then they had to go back and return with an alternative plan. So much for comparative cost-benefit or Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats analyses—they were beyond his comprehension.
Of course, Reagan's lack of understanding was measured in deciTrumps.
M.J. in Richmond, CA, writes: You wrote: "For example, Barack Obama instructed his staff to set aside 10 critical-of-him letters for him to peruse each week."
This was actually ten letters a DAY (business days only), and they were not all required to be critical. I realize this is a fairly trivial point, but I wanted to call it out in case readers are interested in learning more about it. The excellent book
To Obama: With Love, Joy, Anger, and Hope by Jeanne Marie Laskas describes the process, the staff and volunteers involved, and of course, the letters themselves. For folks not interested in the entire book, Laskas' initial essay, from which the book grew, is available.
R.C. in North Hollywood, CA, writes: I'd like to add two contributions to your list of surprising historical friendships: Bill Clinton and George H.W. Bush, and Billie Jean King and Bobby Riggs.
L.R.H. in Oakland, CA, writes: Readers may be amused to know that there's an opera, Scalia/Ginsburg, by Derrick Wang, about the friendship of the two Supreme Court justices. I've never heard it and can't comment on its quality. The website for the production includes video of Scalia and Ginsburg discussing the opera.
P.B. in Gainesville, FL, writes: In response to the question from D.E. in Lancaster, there are many reasons the U.S. does so well in the medal count each Olympics. You guys did a good job in highlighting some of the main ones. In summary, these are: (1) sheer wealth, (2) a robust training and development system and (3) a large population to benefit from 1 & 2. I think the other reasons you gave (4, environmentally diverse, and 5, focusing on high-payoff sports) are less important factors than 1-3 (although they do help).
But in reality, the U.S. doesn't do nearly as well as you would expect it to, given these significant advantages. You can see this by adjusting the medal counts for either population (reason 3), GDP (a proxy for reasons 1+2), or both (i.e., GDP per capita). That is, a better measure of "success" or "performance" in the Olympics might be "medals per million" (or 10 million, etc) and/or "medals by GDP." One nice website that does this is here, but there are several others that pop up in a Google search.
For example, as of this writing, the U.S.'s medal total (113) divided by its population (336M) gives a score of 0.34 medals per million. Sounds good, right? China is doing pretty well this year too; its total is 86 medals/1,410M = 0.06 mpm, which is obviously way less than the U.S. But before you get too pleased with yourself, consider this: Yhe US ranks 45th on the list, and China is 71st. Wha-a-a-a?? Who does better? Let's look at some examples:
- Those pesky Canucks: 25 medals/41M = 0.61 mpm—yikes! That's 34th, and almost twice the U.S. rate. (Wait, if this is so, why are they planning to take over....?)
- Norway: 4 medals / 5.6M = 0.72 mpm, 29th.
- France: 58 medals / 68M = 0.85 mpm, 25th --the hosts have to be pretty pleased with that, but the non-host Brits have virtually identical numbers (24th), and besides, we're not done yet.
- Netherlands: 30 medals / 18M = 1.67 mpm, 9th. Must be because they're all such TALL PEOPLE!
- Australia: 50 medals / 27M = 1.83 mpm, 8th. Oi! Oi! Oi!
- New Zealand: 16 medals / 5.3M = 3.0 mpm, 4th. Nice! But who knew? This is almost 10x the US score!
And the winner is... Grenada! With 2 medals and a little more than 0.1M people, its score is 18mpm, or more than 50x the U.S. performance per person!
Note, this is only factoring in population (people from smaller countries are well aware of this effect), so it's no accident that most of the above examples are "rich" countries. The medalspercapita.com website also offers the "per GDP" score, which factors in both population and wealth, and there, even the above "honorees" do not fare so well, in terms of "Olympic productivity per GDP." Dominica tops that list, with Grenada now 3rd, New Zealand 16th, China 59th, and the U.S. a disappointing 71st, out of 84 countries listed.
In other words, and to be completely honest, the U.S. does a pretty poor job of turning its wealth and talent into Olympic glory, on a pro-rata basis.
J.C. in Binan, Laguna, Philippines, writes: A huge reason why the U.S. does best in overall medal count is that it sends so many athletes. Yes, many are good, but if you send a larger pool you have more chances. That boat was crowded when the U.S. came by near the end of the opening ceremony. Thus, I think a better mark is overall golds. At this moment, China leads by one medal at 34—and 36 if you include Hong Kong, which we really should, because China completely controls HK, just like the U.S. should get all Golds credited to them for Puerto Rico and Virgin Islands, etc. For my money, we are currently losing the medal race. (Although the country of my wife here is doing its best ever, woo-woo!)
G.A. in Carnation, WA, writes: There is a better way to assess which nations are doing well in the Olympics besides medal count (favors large nations) or per capita medal count (favors small nations). This is detailed in a paper by Robert C. Duncan and Andrew Parece published in The Journal of Sports Analytics in July. The idea is to determine how many medals a country should win, based on all the countries that have ever won a medal, the total medals available in the particular Olympics (through that day), and the population of the country. There is a website that has a link to the New York Times article (subscriber only) where I first heard about the method, a link to the Journal article, and on the home page a daily update of the Paris Olympics rankings. The U.S. sits in 5th place as of August 10, 2024. Australia is in first place. They've taken a commanding lead over France, in second place.
R.A.G. in Seattle, WA, writes: Don't forget Title IX. Pretty sure U.S. female athletes got a bit of a tailwind vs the rest of the world on that. I think I read that this is the first Olympics that has gender-equal numbers of athletes. Many other nations give cash prizes for Olympic medals. Wonder if they have gender-specific pay scales too?
J.M. in Silver Spring, MD, writes: B.C. in Walpole wrote: "When my Southern grandmother looked at my newly grown beauty, she remarked, 'I can't trust a man who hides his face behind a beard.'"
Hey! I resemble that remark!
Mrs. B.C. in Walpole, ME, writes to D.R. in Phoenix: You questioned a recent letter by my husband, and reliable analysts (V) and (Z) assured you that what he wrote was tongue-in-cheek and intended as humor. Well, yes; he often has good intentions. But that does not mean that your suggestion that he is "out there" and "on the wrong track" is necessarily incorrect. Also, I knew his grandmother. She wasn't crazy, but she was a carrier. Just trying to be fair here.
(V) & (Z) respond: Also, B.C. is a historian, and everyone knows how THEY are.
D.R. in Phoenix, AZ, writes: In 1856, William Palmer, as he stepped onto the gallows to be executed for murder, is said to have looked at the trapdoor and exclaimed, "Are you sure it's safe?"
I can only hope I'll be that composed when the time comes.
If you have suggestions for this feature, please send them along.