Dem
51
GOP
49
The letter we expected to appear in the Complaints Department is actually the fifth letter in the very first section today.
Also, we have decided to include some reader comments in our upcoming item on media coverage of the Democrats/Kamala Harris vs. Republicans/Donald Trump. Do you think Democrats are held to a higher standard by the media, yes or no? Why do you say so? If you have thoughts, send them to comments@electoral-vote.com, preferably with subject line "Equal Treatment."
C.C. in Hancock, NH, writes: I agree with your answer to P.J. in Quakertown concerning the Biden-planned-it-all-along theory, but I'd like to offer an additional reason why it's unlikely to be true: Without the benefit of hindsight, it would have seemed like a colossal risk. Biden couldn't have known months ago (certainly not before the debate) that a well-orchestrated ticket switch would turn out so well. Once he made the decision, he surely hoped it would go well, but I suspect he was as surprised as anyone else at how well it in fact did go. It only seems like a master stroke in hindsight because it happened to work. But in the moment, without a crystal ball, it must have seemed like a Hail Mary pass.
P.B. in Gainesville, FL, writes: After reading your item about Presiden Biden being angry at the Democratic leadership for conspiring to dump him as the party's candidate, I felt compelled to respond.
I thought your coverage (presumably, reporting on the Democratic zeitgeist) was a little harsh. Not wrong, really, but it came across as a bit ruthless. I'd ask anyone: How would you feel if you were Joe Biden and this happened to you? You'd be mad, too. I know I would be. During the lead-up to his "withdrawal," I felt that all the maneuvering to swap him out was really quite ungrateful, short-sighted and, frankly, disgraceful and ageist.
Of course, I will absolutely admit that I was in despair about his prospects in the election, not really because of him or his ability to continue being an outstanding president, but much more so because of the horror with which I viewed a future in which the Orange Monster was re-elected. Also, at that time it was not at all clear to me (nor, I would guess, to many others) how Kamala Harris could do any better than Joe Biden. After all, her previous run for President was a giant "meh" (to be charitable). And Democrats have a storied history of shooting themselves in the foot in various exasperating ways, ie losing winnable elections.
Fast-forward to now, and yes, it all appears to be coming up roses for Kamala. The Democrats coalesced behind her at relativistic speed, there is real enthusiasm among voters, and as long as Kamala really does win, we will all tell ourselves, "It was for the best." Yes, as long as her campaign doesn't somehow screw it up.
It would be fair to say that Politics is a blood sport, and one shouldn't go into it without a very thick skin (as you guys have pointed out a few times). And virtually all politicians must know this. But I still feel sh**ty about how Biden was treated. I just hope he sticks around long enough after the election, and after his policies and legislative achievements have really had time to reach full flower, to be able to say "See? I told you it was good."
R.R. in Memphis, TN, writes: What a weirdly vicious little screed about a good man who ultimately made an unselfish decision to put country over his own ambition.
Joe Biden is the best president of your lifetime, (V). He's been through more adversity than any modern politician you can name. History will be very kind to him.
That said, Biden has a right to be angry. His record of accomplishment and body of work as president absolutely merited a second term, even if his physical body did/could not. He's still human. He's hurt, but he'll get over it and move forward because it's what he has always done.
I'm not sure why you felt the need to take such an aggressive sh** on Biden. You appear to lack empathy. When you're not being so sanctimonious, you could learn something from him.
(V) & (Z) respond: Consistent with our comment yesterday, note that while (V) wrote that piece, it is only (Z) for whom Biden might be the best president of his life. (V) was alive for about a year during FDR's last term, and he would put LBJ as #2 in his lifetime. Yes, he screwed up on Vietnam badly, but the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act, the Great Society programs, and more make up for it.
D.R. in Rahway, NJ, writes: Nice hit piece on Biden. Thought for a second I was reading a New York Times editorial. You realize Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) wanted a mini-primary and open convention right? You understand the reason the party and voters were so easily able to transfer to Harris, especially the delegates, in record time was because of Joe Biden, right? I know he isn't an Ivy League snob like you guys, but it's comical how little you think about him. History will look fondly on Biden, especially for how he saved the Democratic Party and the election. Not Pelosi, who's never run outside a safe blue district in her life.
(V) & (Z) respond: Neither of us ever attended an Ivy League school and both got our Ph.D.s at large state universities.
J.M. in Richboro, PA, writes: I wanted to express a different take on the "Biden is Angry" piece.
Full disclosure, Biden was not my first choice in 2020, though I was gently admonished by my wife (who has some experience in state government) during the primaries that I was underestimating the value of his experience in Washington. Ideas are important, she said, but if you don't surround yourself with people who can implement them, little gets accomplished. Biden would be the person who knew what buttons needed to be pushed and levers needed to be pulled to get things done. It sure seems like she was right! Biden has been very effective and without fanfare or drama.
The debate was a disaster! No excuses or apologies, but I think what ensued is where I differ from the piece you ran on the matter. I am not suggesting I don't like the outcome—Harris running what may be a freight train of a campaign (with Biden's staff, it could be noted)—but I also don't believe that the ends justify the means.
Biden didn't just stumble in that debate; he fell off a proverbial ledge. But the Democratic Party didn't offer him a hand up, they backed the truck over him. I believe Biden's successes in Washington have come at least in part because he didn't treat people the way he was treated after the debate... by his own party, no less. His leaving most people with their dignity is what made it possible to pass big legislation with small majorities.
He may have been wrong in thinking he was strong enough to campaign successfully for another term or that he is even the right person for this moment (certainly the stakes are higher than ever before) but the people in his party were wrong to handle it the way they did—most notably the Speaker Emerita, who in my opinion is a bit overrated and has been tougher on Biden than she ever was on House Republicans.
I think he has every right to be angry or hurt, though it's true there is absolutely nothing to be done about that except move on... maybe with some satisfaction in watching his apprentice take his place.
T.H. in New York City, NY, writes: Maybe being on the literal 1/6 hit list gave Nancy Pelosi clearer vision that the president has yet to acquire. He has a habit of refusing to see what's in front of him, even if it's a fundamental domestic threat. Did he really think Donald Trump was going to debate him? Does he not understand what Trump is? Does he think that what Trump did in 2016—gaming the vote with help from enemies of democracy—is just politics, that fomenting insurrection is just politics? I resented mightily while it was happening Pelosi's move against Biden, but now I'm grateful because Harris/Walz is a ticket Democratic voters can rally behind and that's the only thing that counts if we are to keep our secular, constitutional democracy.
P.T. in Jackson, MS, writes: Its getting out that Joe Biden is taking it personally is just more proof that he had to go. At that level of politics, or anything really, the elite don't let it known what they take personally. It's literally where the saying "keep your friends close, and your enemies closer" came from.
S.J.Z. in Darien IL, writes: What's funny about all of the outrage regarding Joe Biden being pushed out of his candidacy (e.g. the husband of M.H. in Council Grove) is that 99% of it is coming from the right. Two months ago, judging from their truck wraps, they were ready to kidnap Biden and throw him in the back of their truck. Now they are very "concerned" that he's not being treated fairly. I smell a rat.
What's really going on is that they are trying to create outrage on the left through widespread concern trolling. Don't fall for it. And never take political advice from your opponents.
J.E. in San Jose, CA, writes: You wrote:
The upshot is that Trump might very well be in as psychologically delicate a position as he has ever experienced. And, as is invariably the case with him, he is now operating on instinct and on id. This is problematic for Trump '24 in number of ways. Most obviously, it means that he's talking about the things that anger and upset him (and that anger and upset much of his base), but that don't resonate with the swing voters he needs.I spend a few hours every month with a therapist, and it's completely changed my life. But I don't only look for inspiration from those sessions. I will take it anywhere that I can get it!
In this passage, you observe the difference between talking about things that make someone feel better, instead of resonating with their conversation partner. Granted, I'm not trying to win an election. (But I guess we're all trying to stay out of jail, right?) Anyway, thank you for reminding me of a key way to strengthen my relationships: Meet people where they are instead of making it all about me.
D.E. in Lancaster, PA, writes: I love when people self-own. Case in point, Mad King Donald was asked by reporters about his claims that photos of people gathering to greet Vice President Harris's jet were altered by AI and in reality no one was there. The Grand Duke of Grift replied, "I can't say what was there, who was there. I can only tell you about ours. And we have the biggest crowds ever in the history of politics. We have crowds that nobody has ever seen before." OMG, the Vizier of Vomitus actually said a truth. I agree that no one has ever seem crowds the size that are attending the Trump rallies since they mainly exist in his fevered little brain, along with Hannibal Lecter, electrified sharks and his 2020 landslide victory!
What's even more fantastic beyond the Sultan of Swindle's massive self-own is the fact that maybe finally, finally, finally the press is pushing back and begining to wonder if his lunacies and lies are more than Little Donnie Trump just being Little Donnie Trump. Tim Walz' zeitgeist moment of branding Trump and his MAGAhaters "weird" has finally caused some people to point at the Little Lord of Lies and say, "Mommy, that man is naked."
J.P. in Lancaster, PA, writes: I read that Donald Trump has diagnosed Joe Biden as near vegetable stage. I'm not sure that Trump is qualified to make such a diagnosis because he is not a physician. However, because Donald is noticeably orange and rather rotund, I feel confident and qualified to state that he is near pumpkin stage.
M.M. in San Diego, CA, writes: After you wrote that the alt-right fringe is trying to paint Kamala Harris and Tim Walz as drunkards, I thought I'd mention something else seeping out of that quarter. My young conservative friend, who is very interested in the law, insists both Harris, as a prosecutor, and Ketanji Brown Jackson (as a public defender, perhaps?) are soft on pedophiles, ergo the entire Democratic Party establishment are pedophiles or sympathetic to them. This won't go mainstream, but there's plenty of young dudes marinating in this kind of swill.
(V) & (Z) respond: You may be wrong about it going mainstream. "Pedophiles" or "pedophile enablers" are one of the default attacks that Trumpy Republicans use against Democrats these days.
J.M. in Arvada, CO, writes: With one of you being in former Pac-12 country (RIP) you should be familiar with the term "Couging It" or "Couged It," which is snatching defeat from the jaws of victory or, as you put it, "coming from ahead to lose." So named because of the long-shown tendency of the Washington State University Cougars, particularly the football team, to do exactly that. This is perhaps no better shown than in the 2013 New Mexico Bowl where the Cougs had a 45-30 lead over the Colorado State Rams with less than 3 minutes to play, and lost 48-45 in regulation. They managed to allow the Rams to score, fumbled the ball the next drive, allowed the Rams to score again and get a two point conversion to tie the game, then with less than 30 seconds left, WSU fumbled the ensuing kickoff and the Rams kicked a field goal to win on the final play of the game.
Right now it appears the GOP are Couging the presidential election.
T.M.M. in Odessa, MO, writes: There are times when it is unclear if Donald Trump does not know what he is talking about or knows that what he is saying is pure nonsense but it supports the line that he wishes to push.
His claim about the Harris nomination being unconstitutional is a prime example of this.
The U.S. Constitution literally says nothing about being a candidate for president. As far as the Constitution is concerned, the election of the president occurs when the Electoral College meets and the electors can vote for whomever they want. There is no "official ballot" for the electors.
The U.S. Constitution delegates the process for choosing electors to the states, and that is where being the nominee of a national party plays a role. Every state has the elector candidates run on the same ballot as the person whom the elector candidates pledge to support for president (and vice president). And, in every state, "established" parties automatically have a ballot slot. While the exact language varies from state to state (some tying it to the national nominee of the party and some giving the state party the power to name the candidate), the effect is that the nominees of the Democratic and Republican Party get that spot on the general election ballot. But that is a matter of STATE LAW not the CONSTITUTION.
Now, the Constitution does (at least, as interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court) have something to say about the process by which the parties nominate their candidate. According to the decision in Democratic Party vs. Wisconsin back in 1981, the national parties have the First Amendment right to structure their nomination process however they want and do not have to use primaries or comply with the state laws requiring primaries—which is how the Republican party managed to opt out of the Nevada Presidential Primary this year. So, when President Biden decided not to run and to release his delegates, the Democratic Party had the constitutional right to devise whatever method of choosing the replacement nominee that it wanted as long as it nominated its candidate by the deadlines imposed by state law for naming its candidate.
Trump can complain that the process used by the Democratic Party was "not fair" or whatever other snarky term he wants to use. But it was definitely constitutional (unless the Supreme Court wants to overturn a 40-year-old precedent, which we all know never happens, as the Thomas Court ALWAYS strictly follows precedent).
J.H. in Lodi, NY, writes: I, for one, believe Donald Trump is pretty ignorant of the details of Project 2025. He's too lazy to find out more than would fit on half a sheet of paper. He only had two accomplishments in his 4-year term. Paul Ryan wrote the tax bill he signed into law without Trump knowing anything about it except for its broadest concepts. The Federalist Society chose the Supreme Court justices for him. The writers of Project 2025 would become the members of his administration, who would carry out its proposals while he would be golfing or watching TV... or out campaigning for reelection.
B.B. in Dothan, AL, writes: It's not a lisp. For a long time, TFG has not had great pronunciation. For example, he often mushes "S" sounds, especially at the ends of words. That kind of thing is common for older folks, as our muscles age and body parts start moving around willy nilly. The reason why it seemed so much worse during the eX-Twitter interview was that he was slumped forward, leaning into a cell phone microphone. This bad posture doesn't permit the lungs and diaphragm to operate normally and actually causes poor diction. Why his handlers didn't give him a proper microphone I have no clue, other than he's generally hired incompetents.
E.K. in Brignoles, France, writes: I thought you had already seen this, but today's post suggests you haven't. There's video of Donald Trump calling Kamala Harris a "fu**ing bitch" while playing golf.
(V) & (Z) respond: Not quite a smoking gun, we think, since the words are a little indistinct, and it's hard to be sure if it's Donald Trump saying them, or his son Barron.
B.G. in Grayson, GA, writes: I work as a domestic violence author and court expert. When Donald Trump was caught referring to Kamala Harris using the "B word," it was not just obnoxious and sexist, but also told the public something important about him. Research about batterer narratives found that most abusers would say it is wrong for a man to assault a woman, but then they say "except." The most common exceptions are (1) she did something he defines as wrong or (2) she is a [INSERT SLUR]. The B word is one of the more common slurs. Abusers believe it gives them permission to assault the woman. For that reason, it is dangerous and demonstrates what a poor example he is.
J.F. in Sloatsburg, NY, writes: R.L.P. in Santa Cruz wrote:
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).The reason that Trump wears suits that are frumpy and ill-fitted almost certainly goes back to his ego. We've seen him claim repeatedly that he is 6'3" or 6'4" and 220 pounds, both of which are patently absurd even to the casual observer. Maybe 32 years ago, when he had a bit part in Home Alone 2, those numbers were close to correct, but it's certainly not the case now, between the usual shrinkage as one ages and the ravages of poor diet and little activity.
In order to get a good, clean fit on a suit, measurements have to be taken—politicians and businesspersons operating at that level are not buying off the rack at Men's Warehouse. They're usually getting custom jobs, or there will be an alteration and fitting session included in a store purchase. For someone with the self-image issues that Trump has, these fitting sessions and measurements will be a humiliating experience—being told he has a 46" waist is not something he wants to hear, nor that his hips (with or without the girdle or alleged diaper) are even larger... or that he has gotten shorter while his chest has also gotten bigger.
Most likely, he refuses to stand for a fitting and instead just tells the person doing the tailoring what he thinks his numbers are. The tailor is left to exercise their best judgment. Worse, due to Trump's ego and the very real possibility of not being paid, the tailor must err on the large side—going too small would infuriate him. While professional tailors are going to be good at this part of the job from experience, they're not perfect, and these conditions make it impossible to get the kind of sharp, classy fit you see on people like Kamala Harris and Tim Walz... or on Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, or Barack Obama.
(By way of background, although I am a lawyer, one of my hobbies is making my own suits for work and my own outfits for anime, video game, and comic conventions. I used to do this on commission, as well, though no longer.)
A.G. in Scranton, PA, writes: As the last white, blue-collar, non-college-educated ultra-leftist on the planet, as the only one who's not sold out for giant, stupid flags in pickup trucks and pretending to be something I'm not, I often feel lonely in our party. My corner of the tent is very, very small.
Vice President Harris? I had my doubts. I'll never be a fan of her coronation. I prefer democracy to whatever that was, but...
I was excited to vote for "Not Trump" when she assumed the throne, having been selected by King Biden as his successor. But that's where my excitement ended. "Not Trump" was a great candidate, in my opinion. "Not Trump" said "no" to pretty much everything that "Trump" and his racist, sexist, raped-child-victimizing ilk said "yes" to, like racism, sexism, and victimizing raped children. How could I not be excited by that platform? I even ordered a lawn sign, "Former Soldiers, Marines, Bank Robbers, Prison Inmates, and the Twice-Divorced, PTSD-Addled Jews for Not Trump 2024." I had to hurry; there was a rush on those down at the campaign headquarters. I had to shove all the other former Soldiers, Marines, bank robbers, prison inmates, and the twice-divorced, formerly-heroin-addicted, PTSD-addled Jews who were standing in line for their signs out of the way.
But, I wasn't excited by Vice President Harris. I was excited by her résumé of not being Donald Trump for her entire life. That was decades and decades of experience she had going for her on that front.
Since then, honestly? She's kinda winning me over.
An FDR-ish Lite, kinda, sorta massive program of house building? Not perfect, but she's getting there.
Fighting back, not allowing the Republicans to make "liberal" a dirty word? About effing time.
Not being Alan Colmbes to their Sean Hannity (who used to endorse Democrats on WABC radio... yeah, I remember you Sean, you little, silly, angry, weakling)? I'm kinda liking that about her, too.
Vice President Kamala Harris now officially has the endorsement of the Committee Representing All Former Soldiers, Marines, Bank Robbers, Prison Inmates, and formerly Heroin-Addicted, Twice-Divorced, PTSD-Addled Jews and all of the teeming masses who qualify as all of those things for her candidacy in 2024.
I mean, that's gotta be worth, like, a 2- or 3-point swing, if I know my demography.
S.N. in Charlotte, NC, writes: You noted that Kamala Harris is currently the "change" candidate, but warned that might change. I heard PBS' Jonathan Capehart say that she's the change candidate just by walking out on stage, a Black woman. That certainly won't change and is definitely to her advantage.
J.B. in Bend, OR, writes: For the first time in my life, I contributed to a political campaign: Harris and Walz. The intellectual reason: stop Donald Trump. The emotional reason: I actually like the team of Harris and Walz; they make me smile.
I will offer this as a prediction based on historical patterns: People vote for change and a hopeful future. When Ronald Reagan ran against Jimmy Carter, it was "vote for me, things will get better" vs. "vote for me, but we have to face the reality of oil shortages." When Barack Obama ran against John McCain, it was "hope and real change" vs. "an old white man and a clueless running mate." When Trump ran against Hillary Clinton, it was "make America great again by voting for an outsider" vs. "vote to return to the Clinton years."
This election it's "hope and change" vs. "let's go back to chaos and fear." I feel confident the first label will win.
R.D.P. in Kent, WA, writes: As a dad whose two beautiful daughters were conceived by IVF, Tim Walz' introductory speech in Pennsylvania gave me tears of joy. I haven't had a positive reaction to a candidate in many years. Fertility issues affect 1 in 8 couples. The pain and anxiety of those who struggle with infertility is complicated and real.
Hearing more of Walz' story has reinforced the idea that has gone through my head for a long time: America has been bullied, beaten up, and hurt. We need the guidance of a coach, the wisdom of a teacher, and the comforting embrace of a dad. I'm glad we finally found one.
N.Z. in Seattle, WA, writes: You wrote that "The 'weird' attacks are really getting to Trump."
They aren't. At least, there is no evidence they are. I keep seeing articles and hear the Maddowite boomers in my life throwing around "weird" as they have suddenly found a sticking insult with enough bite and neutering power to disarm the Republican party.
I understand the mindset here, that fascists want to be feared and revered and not othered. But I really don't believe it is upsetting many Republicans and certainly not having any meaningful effect. I'm a fan of calling fascists a whole slew of other things, but "weird" just seems like another ill-conceived tactic from an out-of-touch strategist. Furthermore, the big-tent Democratic Party is the party of the weird—or it should be, at least.
S.P. in Tijeras, NM, writes: Tim Walz's use of "weird" to describe the GOP in general, and Trump/Vance in particular, is pretty good for a couple of reasons. It is monosyllabic. In the current climate of hyperbole-driven attacks, it is subject to a variety of interpretations requiring a certain amount of thought, so it's thought provoking. When teaching teenagers how to play the game, high school football coaches (like Walz) opt for the fewest syllables possible when employing terminology; single syllable preferred, but no more than two. It's downright Shakespearean.
J.C. in Trenton, NJ, writes: The wording of the Harris campaign press release on the debates struck me as unhelpfully dismissive of the Republican candidates. There is repeated emphasis on the titles of vice president and governor while denying the titles of former president and senator to the Republicans: "Assuming Donald Trump actually shows up on September 10 to debate Vice President Harris, then Governor Walz will see JD Vance on October 1..."
I'm no fan of the guys, but I find it immature to dismiss their titles this way in a serious press release.
D.C. in Queens, NY, writes: I certainly hope no Democrat believes that Texas or Florida are in play. It is anecdotal, but I remember previous cycles where the left has thought things were going so well that these states (and Ohio) would be in play, only to lose, badly. Better to focus on the Steel Belt and the sunshine states actually in play.
P.Y. in Boca Raton, FL, writes: As a professor emeritus of economics, I was appalled by the economic plans put forth by both Donald Trump and Kamala Harris. I was not particularly surprised by Trump's proposals, but I expected better of Harris. After reading both, I am seriously considering going back to being a "double hater." Both candidates demonstrate not only a lack of understanding of basic economics, but also a complete ignorance of the economic events of the last hundred years. Trump's proposed tariffs will not only increase consumer inflation, they will also trigger retaliation by our trading partners, much as the Smoot-Hawley tariffs did in the 1930s, when they helped turn an otherwise severe recession into the Great Depression. Trump would do well to re-read David Ricardo on free trade.
Harris' proposed price controls on groceries and rent are no more informed. Apparently her handlers forgot that it was Nixon's price controls on groceries that produced meat shortages at supermarkets and long lines at gasoline stations. Or New York's rent controls that created a shortage of affordable housing because fewer rental units were built. Or the Soviet system of prices set by the state rather than the interaction of supply and demand that created black markets in the old Soviet Union and everywhere else it was tried. Harris would do well to read Adam Smith or any freshman economics textbook.
L.V.A. in Idaho Falls, ID, writes: I have been a little frustrated at the response to "Inflation is high." The most common retort has been (to paraphrase) "But wages are up, so don't worry" with no supporting data. So I decided to go out and get some data. My source, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. I calculated "inflation minus wage growth" monthly since the inauguration of Donald Trump. Negative means wages grew more than inflation:
Under Trump, wages outgrew inflation. This lasted until COVID kicked in, where inflation outstripped wages. Clearly, with the Fed increasing interest rates (September of 2002 through July of 2023), we have returned to a "normal" state of wages outgrowing inflation. So much for the "Mad Max" descriptions of the current economy.
A.C. in Zenia, CA, writes: You wrote:
[P]eople with at least a masters degree in economics understand any of this. To most people, since eggs cost more than they used to, there is still inflation. People don't understand that if the price of something is stable for several years but is still more than it was 5 years ago, that means there is no inflation. Inflation is the year-to-year change in prices, not this year's price vs. some historical price years ago.I can't figure out if you doth protest too much to not understand, or whether you believe your own statistical understanding of perceived reality. The key thing for ordinary people (also known as "voters") is not that the rate of inflation is down, it's that prices are still going up. They're perhaps going up more slowly than 1 year ago, but that's like reassuring women that because the rate of violence against women is increasing more slowly, that they are safer.
When prices are actually going down, people will feel "inflation is getting better." It's not about a master's degree in economics. But surely you guys are very smart, so I just can't understand why you keep making the same argument, or why the Democratic politicians think that quoting some abstract national percentage number ("3% better than 7%!") is going to make people all happy. Gas prices go up, then they go down. It's not some unicorn-rainbow event to imagine that eggs and milk and meat could and should cost less than they did last year. It's not about 5 years ago, and saying that people who are upset about costs going up are being ridiculous—Why not say 30 years ago if you really want to make them seem like dunces?—isn't going to win any friends.
S.O. in Independence, MO, writes: You wrote:
One area where prices have gone up a lot is housing. That is not something most people notice, though. People don't buy a new house every week. And even for renters, it is less noticeable because many people have a 12-month lease and would see rent increases only when it is up.When you're participating in a housing market this bad, you notice more often than when they increase the cost at the end of a lease. You notice every time you have to pay each month. You notice as your standard of living drops because all available money has to go to a one-bedroom apartment. If you're not buying a house, you probably still notice the prices skyrocketing as you are being reminded that you're stuck in the rent cycle for life.
L.E. in Santa Barbara, CA, writes: After reading "Not Taxing Tips Is Popular with Voters, Not with Economists...," I got my Michael Hiltzik newsletter and wanted to share his more nuanced analysis of what is on the table. From his perspective, Vice President Harris has already defined her plan in a way that addresses the unintended consequences that you highlighted. Additionally, he nicely contrasts it to the Republican plan that currently is on the table.
C.P. in Los Angeles, CA, writes: Disappointed that you let the comment that Rep. Ilhan Omar (DFL-MN) is "arguably the most antisemitic of all the Squad members" slide as if it is a foregone conclusion. Too often, opposition to the right-wing government of Israel is automatically treated as antisemitism. One can be against the government of Israel without being against the Jewish people.
J.C. in Binan, Laguna, Philippines, writes: I'd say in the case of Morocco, where I lived for 12 years, there was a different reason than Iran for rapprochement with Israel. Under Donald Trump, the U.S. became one of only three nations to recognize that the Western Sahara as an integral part of Morocco, disenfranchising the Saharawi in the process. In exchange, Morocco became on good terms with Israel—and Israel became one of the other two nations to recognize the Western Sahara as part of Morocco.
S.D. in St Paul, MN, writes: In "Welcome to 1968," you wrote:
The Palestinian community did get one major thing they wanted from Harris: She did not pick the strongly pro-Israel Gov. Josh Shapiro (D-PA) as her running mate. Nonetheless, that didn't change anything. This is always the case with single-issue communities of any kind: giving them a big piece of what they want doesn't placate them at all. They want the whole enchilada—even if they are not Mexican.Many in the Palestinian community and the Palestine solidarity movement more broadly are absolutely horrified at the Israeli government's disproportionate retaliation against the Hamas attacks. The Israeli military has indiscriminately treated Palestinian civilians, women, children, babies, journalists, doctors, teachers, and emergency workers as if they were all enemy combatants. More than 40,000 Palestinians have been killed (and that's surely an underestimate), many more have been severely injured, many more are facing starvation and disease, and many more are missing. Some survivors are reporting having lost over 100 family members.
The power of the uncommitted movement lies in the threat to withhold votes from Harris-Walz in order to demand a policy change and call attention to this dire situation. Sure, many folks could end up voting for the Democrats. But there is zero leverage in publicly committing to vote Democrat regardless of the Democrats' position on Israel-Palestine. I don't feel that Palestinians or anyone in the uncommitted movement is being unstrategic in organizing around a cease fire, an arms embargo, an end to genocide, and a free Palestine. The challenges that might create for a Harris-Walz ticket that's potentially supported by "the Nikki Haley Republicans, the evangelicals, and significant segments of the rest of the country" is Harris and Walz's problem. The Palestinian solidarity movement is moving the needle of public opinion; many more people and groups will come around when they feel supported or when it's politically safe to do so. That's how social movements work.
At any rate, my point is this: I value this website, but I would ask you to please write with more care when you address Israel-Palestine. To represent people who don't want their families killed as malcontents who are never placated and want "the whole enchilada" feels inappropriate and insensitive.
J.M. in Portland, OR, writes: I have to take issue with (V)'s statement that "This is always the case with single-issue communities of any kind: giving them a big piece of what they want doesn't placate them at all."
As a pride-flag-waving member of a single issue community, after Obergefell v. Hodges, my boyfriend and I married, adopted some cats and have quietly enjoyed our domestic bliss for close to a decade. No guarantees we won't demand more in the future, like national employment non-discrimination, but we're pretty placated. For now.
When it comes to the Palestinian diaspora and Kamala Harris, the gist of their protest seems to be they want their family and friends in Gaza to be safe foremost and for the U.S. not to have an active hand in making Gazan lives worse. Those are pretty reasonable demands from any U.S. voter.
P.S. in Gloucester, MA, writes: Like D.E. in San Diego, I live in a very, very blue state. I am doing phonebanking and tech support for phone banks with Swing Blue Alliance (a statewide Swing Left group here in Massachusetts). Swing Blue Alliance is doing work in Pennsylvania, New York (flippable U.S. House districts), Arizona, New Hampshire, and North Carolina (an early bet on the effectiveness of registration and GOTV drives that looks like it may well pay off). I'm also going to be going to Philadelphia with Swing Blue Alliance to register incoming college students to vote in Pennsylvania.
Please consider working on U.S. House and Senate and critical down ballot races—there will be lots more other people volunteering for Harris-Walz than for a lot of the critical U.S. Congress and downballot races.
I have also done some phonebanking with Grassroots Democrats HQ, a California group, for flippable U.S. House districts in California. There are even more flippable U.S. House seats in CA than in NY, and flipping the US House is likely to be work as significant as volunteering for Harris-Walz, if not more so: Harris will need a functioning, allied U.S. House to get things done, and in the event that the Trumpers manage to delay certification of the presidential election beyond noon on January 20, 2025, the Speaker of the House will become acting president. I'd rather have that be Hakeem Jeffries than Mike Johnson (or worse)!
Grassroots Democrats HQ is doing work in states other than California, as well.
There are also several U.S. Senate races critical to retaining a functioning U.S. Senate—also very important to Harris, in order to get cabinet and judicial nominations confirmed. Jon Tester in Montana, Sherrod Brown in Ohio, Jacky Rosen in Nevada, Ruben Gallego in Arizona, Elissa Slotkin in Michigan and Tammy Baldwin in Wisconsin. And two flip opportunities: Colin Allred in Texas (running within the margin of error against Ted Cruz), and Debbie Mucarsel-Powell in Flordia (running against Rick Scott, with an abortion measure on the ballot).
And as we in Swing Blue Alliance are well aware, there are critical downballot races in Maricopa County, AZ (which contains a whopping 64% of the voting population of the entire state of AZ), in particular the county recorder race, responsible for conducting and certifying elections, where a Democrat is running against an election-denying Republican who successfully primaried a moderate non-election-denying Republican incumbent. Oh, and the Republican running for county sheriff was Joe Arpaio's assistant for 24 years.
There are downballot races in Pennsylvania to ensure Democratic control of the state legislature, and in North Carolina to break the Republican supermajority in their state legislature.
Lots to choose from, and just as important as joining the groundswell of people volunteering for Harris-Walz, if not moreso. Get lawn signs, bumper stickers, and merch for Harris-Walz for yourself and friends, and invest your time to work on the U.S. Congress and downballot races that Harris will need in order to get things done.
E.B. in Seattle, WA, writes: I saw this piece in our local paper just before the Washington primaries. It asserts that by taking the total Democratic vote share in the primary in federal races, you can forecast national trends. If the Democrats take 60%+, like they did in 2018, it'll be a blue wave. If they take 50%, like in 2010, it'll be a red wave nationally. In the middle, like the 55% in 2022, means relatively little change.
For reference, the still-being-counted vote totals in federal races is about 58% Democratic, indicating a modest blue advantage.
N.R. in Berlin, MA, writes: You wrote:
Connecticut: No Republican has been elected to Congress from Connecticut in 18 years, but not all of them realize that. The top race is for the Senate. Sen. Chris Murphy brought in $13 million. The two Republicans who want to challenge him, Beacon Falls First Selectman Gerry Smith and pub owner Matt Corey, have raised less than $65,000 each. Good luck with that. And what is a selectman? What do they select? Voters want to know.In New England, many towns are governed by a Town Meeting or (Representative Town Meeting). In most of those towns, the executive branch is a Board of Selectmen (now often called a Selectboard to eliminate the gendered language). In Massachusetts, where I live, this a board of 3 or 5 people. They serve basically the same role as the mayor of a city.
Politically, it is often a steppingstone to a run for the state House or state Senate, or in rare cases for a statewide office. Running for U.S. Senator from that position would be a pretty big jump, especially since Beacon Falls has about 6,000 residents—not exactly a huge constituency in a state of 3.6 million people.
So no, these are not serious contenders, but you already knew that. However, it is actually an important elected office in town government.
J.G. in Farmington, CT, writes: You wrote: "And what is a selectman? What do they select? Voters want to know."
Glad you asked! As a resident of Connecticut for over 20 years, I love to share our weird New England quirks! In short, they don't select; they are selected!
There are no counties in Connecticut that have any political power; they're all historical. Every square inch that doesn't belong to the feds or the state is incorporated in one of our towns or cities. All county governments, long considered ineffective and ceremonial, were abolished in 1960.
Each town or city has its legislative and executive branches of government. In some towns, the legislative branch is called the Town Council, City Council, Board of Aldermen, or Board of Selectmen. They were (usually) men who were (s)elected to run the town once rule-by-meeting got too complicated. However, the First Selectman is often, but not always, separately elected as the chief executive. If that sounds like a mayor, you're right! And some towns do elect a mayor, who is even called a mayor!
There may also be an unelected town or city manager who handles the day-to-day administrative tasks of running the place. I invite curious readers to visit each of our 169 towns' websites to find which of them have mayors, first selectmen, or town council chairs! Fun vacation reading, I promise!
Interestingly enough, since Connecticut counties went by the wayside in the 1960s, a need has been recognized for county equivalent councils of government to allow for better coordination among geographic common interests like infrastructure and education. Some of these towns don't have the population to support independent school districts, for example. They would enter into agreements with neighboring towns to consolidate resources and jointly operate schools. In the last few years, the legislature formalized regional councils of government statewide to foster this kind of cooperation, but the towns in each regional council don't line up exactly with the historical counties. But that's a story for another day.
M.S. in Canton, NY, writes: In your write-up of the Vermont primaries you mentioned Vermont incumbents of both parties who have been reelected with overwhelming majorities. Your readers might be amused to see the kind of hard-hitting ad that another very popular Vermont politician, former senator Patrick Leahy, ran when he was leading by 40+ points in the polls:
S.W. in Ottawa, ON, Canada, writes: In your Senate primary analysis for Vermont, you said this about Republican candidate Gerald Malloy, and his maple leaf themed "Deploy Malloy" logo: "Hm. He seems to have missed the memo that you're not supposed to tell people you're a Canadian sleeper agent, just waiting for the "GO, EH!" command."
As a Canadian, the more accurate way to activate a sleeper agent is: "A'RIGHT, GIV'ER!"
R.S. in Milan, OH, writes: I enjoyed the Bob and Doug McKenzie item. I've been thinking about how well the McKenzie brothers would do with a skit about one of this year's biggest pop songs, "Too Sweet" by Hozier, with lines such as "Hey! This guy really is a hoser!" and "I'll tell you what's not too sweet: this maple syrup."
And speaking of pop songs, the one thing I think your piece was missing was reference to their Top 40 hit, "Take Off," with its fabulous inclusion of Rush frontman Geddy Lee. It would have been a beauty way to go with it.
J.R.A. in St. Petersburg, FL, writes: In your otherwise detailed write up of Bob and Doug McKenzie's Adventures North of the 49th Parallel, I was a little disappointed that you did not mention their collaboration with another very famous 'Nade, Rush bassist and lead singer Gary Lee Weinrib, OC, who most of us know by the childhood pronunciation of his name: Geddy Lee.
He contributed vocals to the title track on the pair's 1981 album of the same title, a song—"from the hit single part of the album"—which went to number one on the CHUM charts, number 5 in Chicago, and made it five slots higher than Lee's own band peaked, with their biggest hit single "New World Man." "Great White North" peaked at number 16 on American Top 40, in March 1982.
And now... on with the countdown.
D.J.M. in Salmon Arm, BC, Canada, writes: It was nostalgic reading your tribute to "Great White North" this week. Bob and Doug, were—and still are—iconic characters in Canadian comedy. However, I do take issue with your assessment that this was a "malicious compliance with a dumb rule." Obviously, the rule led to an increased exposure of the two Canadian actors. Promoting "identifiably Canadian content" is a hallmark of the CBC and exporting this talent to our neighbours is a long standing tradition. Good day, eh!
S.R. in Ottawa, ON, Canada, writes: Given your obvious fondness for them, I thought you'd enjoy seeing these photos of the Bob and Doug McKenzie statue just outside the Oilers' arena in Edmonton, Alberta:
The statue has been there a few years in a new area known as the Ice District. They're about a hundred feet or so from another statue of a hockey glove holding a giant cheese puff:
The one with the cheese puff was taken after Game 4 of the latest Stanley Cup final. Enjoy!
P.S. in North Branch, MI, writes: Strange Brew was how my mother introduced me to Hamlet.
Fun times.
J.L. in Chicago, IL, writes: A couple of points in "Welcome to 1968" were wrong. First, this is not the first Democratic convention in Chicago since 1968. The 1996 convention was here. Second, Little Palestine is not in Chicago. It is in Cook County but in a suburb. That, of course, does not matter in a practical sense as far as getting to the convention to protest but it does matter. One of the best ways to irritate a Chicagoan and show that one does not understand Chicago is to refer to some suburb as "Chicago."
More on the opinion side of things, even as a native Chicagoan, I do not think I had ever heard of Little Palestine. That is no slight to the community. We are a very diverse city and region with a lot of ethnic communities, which is great. My point is that this particular one is less than 0.5% of the population of Cook County and, while absolutely as entitled to press its issues of concern as any other group, it is not an existing local political powerhouse or anything like that. If I had to make a guess, the protests may have more white college students than Arab Americans.
It is always possible that things will spin out of control, but even if the protestors try to deviate from their assigned area, I would be really surprised if things get to the level of tear gas, flashbangs, and things of that sort.
As to Mayor Johnson, I suppose that if this turns into a disaster, it could poison the rest of his term and end his political career. However, in the much more likely case that things go fairly smoothly, neither the convention nor this particular aspect of it will be a big deal. It probably will not even come up much in his re-election campaign in 2027. We as a city and he as a mayor have a whole lot more going on. He may end up serving multiple terms as mayor and I suppose could end up being an historically memorable holder of that office. But, I do not see much chance of him becoming governor or senator or a Cabinet officer. It's not how the local politics line up. And I will remind you that we have some experience with a local elected official making it big. I don't know that Johnson would even want those things. His priorities and base of support are fairly local.
B.C. in Walpole, ME, writes:
R.B. in Mill Creek, WA, asks: Has there ever been a vice president who became president and then had their vice president becoming president?
(V) & (Z) answer: It has happened twice, though one case carries an asterisk or two. The first case is John Adams, who was VP to George Washington, and then yielded the office to his own VP, Thomas Jefferson.That first case deserves an asterisk as well. Because of the rise of political parties, which the founding generation opposed in theory and on which the Constitution was silent, and because of the electoral system established by that constitution, John Adams' VP in 1797-1801 was his opponent in the election of 1796, because the electoral system at the time did not distinguish between the president and the vice president, but only produced the top two electoral-vote-getting candidates. They ran against each other again in 1800. So Jefferson, Adams' VP, did indeed succeed Adams after the election of 1800. but they represented opposing parties.
J.H. in Boston, MA, writes: Richard Nixon's VP wasn't Gerald Ford, it was Spiro Agnew. Ford was the minority leader in the House. Yes, of course, Ford was appointed to replace Agnew, but he barely had a chance to serve before ascending to the top spot. All of which is to say that yes, you can technically count him as a VP, but he deserves a third asterisk.
B.R. in Melbourne, FL, writes: About the biased comments on the X interview... the editor definitely is opinionated about both men.
Half the country likes them. The other half does not. We know who the editor favors. Can journalists be neutral and just be fact-based? Some of us that read your comments are offended and not interested in your opinions toward the party in control nor these favored biased outlets. Why not post something that can be shared... facts and truths. You just keep driving wedges with opinionated rhetoric of the platform. Or are you only interested in your political position? Thus, making your audience supportive of Democrats only?
Propaganda machine must be the goal of the platform apparently.
(V) & (Z) respond: You are right, eX-Twitter's goal is to be a propaganda machine. That IS the platform you were referring to, right?
E.G. in The Villages, FL, writes: You guys are so biased it's cringeworthy. The lies you tell, Lord almighty.
S.B. in Hood River, OR, writes: To offer a counterpoint to your response to J.V. in Honolulu, my wife and I are both "highly educated." I have a B.S., and my wife holds two M.S. degrees. After long careers in tech we can "pick (and can afford) the best stuff." In our case, that consists of high-end Windows machines and high-end Android phones and tablets. We recently retired, my wife as a software engineer, and myself as a data center planner. We are familiar with Apple products, either from being required to use them by our employer or, in my case, having to support them in a computing environment.
We have valid reasons for not preferring Apple. Since the Mac's introduction, Apple has adopted a pretty much consistently closed architecture approach. Apple knows best what hardware you need, and you must buy their products if you want their OS. The argument is that it is the only way they can ensure issue-free operation. While there is some validity to that philosophy, many people like us prefer to be able to pick from a wide array of hardware vendors, getting exactly what we want. And Windows has gotten progressively better at supporting this over the years. Apple also makes it relatively difficult to customize the OS experience. We don't care for this either.
Then there is how Apple conducts business. Going back to when Apple briefly licensed MacOS in the mid-90s, when Steve Jobs returned, he felt Apple wasn't making enough money and terminated the agreements. Companies went bankrupt as a result. At the same time, Jobs ensured that Apple did not contribute to charity as a corporation. Apple's data centers had no preference for green energy. Tim Cook has reversed these policies, but that was only after Jobs passed away. Apple, until recently, used proprietary interfaces, requiring customers to buy higher priced peripherals. This practice has finally begun to end. And they treat independent retailers very poorly. A relative used to sell iPhones. If someone bought a phone using a charge card, he would have a negative profit, the margin Apple provided was so small.
None of the big tech companies are faultless, but we have never cared for Apple's approaches, and will continue to prefer more open architectures. We are joined by hundreds of highly educated engineers that we have worked with over the years, who have the same preferences.
A.A. in Branchport, NY, writes: "Dad Builds Coolest Tunnel for Tiny Dachshund So He Can See Over the Fence."
(V) & (Z) respond: Great. Now the staff dachshunds want one, too, despite the fact that we don't actually have a fence.
R.P. in Chicago, IL, writes: I feel like Electoral-Vote.com is a community, so it's especially wonderful to enjoy the musical offering of "one of our own."
M.B. in Cleveland, OH, writes: A few years ago, probably in the Sunday letters, you ran a series on people with unfortunate names. I thought you might appreciate this unfortunate road name. This is in far eastern Washington, near the Idaho border:
(V) & (Z) respond: We didn't even know they were Jewish.
A.G. in Scranton, PA, writes: Another hanging story. Kinda dark.
A man to be hanged by famous hangman of British lore, Alebert Pierrepoint, after the bag had been placed over his head asked the very skilled and professional hangman if he could please scratch his nose as it was itching.
Pierrepoint, certainly skilled in both gallows humor and the dry wit so common to the British people, remarked, "It won't bother you in a moment."
Rimshot?
I wonder if any of those unfortunate enough to be caught up in our war on sane military budgets/peace of mind/American values/Geneva Convention/basic human decency/effective forms of interrogation, implemented by professionals rather than politically partisan amateurs, had anything funny to say from the waterboard?
Wow. Just depressed myself.
If you have suggestions for this feature, please send them along.