Dem
51
GOP
49
We may have set a record for the number of e-mails sent to the comments mailbag this week.
C.R.B. in Monroe, NC, writes: On June 25, (Z) wrote: "The stars have aligned in such a way that this week's presidential debate could be the most impactful in recent memory. Maybe the most impactful ever."
Yeah, I would say so.
T.C.W. in Arlington, VA, writes: To paraphrase Abraham Lincoln, I was once very skeptical about switching horses in the middle of the stream. Having Joe Biden, an incumbent, step aside as the Democratic nominee is rare for a major party. What's even more rare is the incumbent party actually winning the election when the incumbent steps aside. I believe one has to go back about 100 years to the transition between Calvin Coolidge and Herbert Hoover to find an example where a party was successful when its incumbent stepped down.
Regardless of the dim historical record, we live in exceptional times. One hallmark of our times is that the media is highly partisan and opinionated. Compound that with the regular messaging from a campaign or candidate and narratives take hold quickly. The Republican Party has spent 4 years casting Biden as "Sleepy Joe" and connecting him to what it calls the "radical" left. History will eventually tell a different story, particularly when Biden's legislative record is considered, but that narrative unfortunately has taken hold. In fact, the narrative even damped the mood of Biden's most ardent supporters. With Kamala Harris, no such label has been firmly attached to her. Lord knows the Trump campaign and right-leaning media will try, but they have 3 months. While 3 months does constitute multiple lifetimes in politics, I'll take 3 months to fend off and counter negative narratives with a yet-undefined candidate over 4 years of negative messaging for a defined candidate any day.
E.G.G.-C. in Syracuse, NY, writes: I do believe there is a chance for the Democrats now. As a self-identified socialist (aligned with Allende, Sanders, Mitterrand, et al.), I believe the best chance to stop Donald Trump is for Kamala the Inevitable to choose Sen. Mark Kelly (D-AZ) or Gov. Josh Shapiro (D-PA) as her running mate.
I'm a realist. Even though I still believe in Che's ideas of revolution, Trump must be stopped...
P.J.C. in Grayslake, IL, writes: I am 67 and a federal worker. I was also a Marine officer and I have a post-graduate degree. I am middle-class based on the salary that I bring home. By demographics, I should be a Republican, but I have no problem voting for President Biden even if he mental acuity has decreased. He actually has passed good programs during his administration and I am making money in the stock market (more than under Donald Trump).
I am not a fan of the VP because I believe she was a lousy AG in California and not a very good Senator. Also, when she has been given special projects, she just has not seemed to deliver. But I cannot vote for the Republicans because they just scare me: I am still waiting to pay less taxes than I did before the Trump tax legislation, I don't want anyone to tell me what medical procedures I can or cannot have or pay for, I don't want right-wingers telling me what version of the Bible I should read, and I do believe in climate change. Project 2025 has no redeeming value—it is scary and destructive—and I fail to understand why average Americans will vote against their own interests when they vote for Trump.
J.H. in Richmond, VA, writes: I wonder if an appropriate comparison for now might be 1992, depending on whom Kamala Harris picks as her VP candidate. Bill Clinton had the nomination in hand by the Democratic convention, and Ross Perot had thrown the election for a little bit of a loop, so there are those differences. But there were some iffy feelings about Clinton's character, despite the charm he could wield, so his victory was far from assured. What I remember was the sudden burst of energy from the convention, especially when he chose Al Gore as his running mate. Democratic efforts felt more energized—sort of like now. Perhaps Harris and company can take a bit from the Clinton-Gore playbook: Build the energy of "new generation," (taking on the older Bush get out in person a lot, etc. Even if Harris wasn't running as a candidate until now, it was really the convention and post-convention when Clinton/Gore really took off.
W.S. in Austin, TX, writes: In the past I've wondered how Republicans can possibly believe that if 2020 was truly a rigged election, they also believe 2024—which involves a sitting Democratic president—won't be similarly rigged.
I am now wondering how Republicans can still believe elections can be rigged, if a sitting Democratic president—who had his personal reputation as not-senile at stake—was convinced he would probably lose, and therefore stepped down.
It should be an irrefutable logical ramification of Biden's dropout that no one, anywhere in America, believes the 2024 presidential election could possibly be rigged by Democrats.
Unfortunately, Republicans are not noted for their Spock-like mastery of logic.
D.C. in New York City, NY, writes: You have talked about small donations to Harris being a sign of voter enthusiasm, which is obviously true. However, for me anyway, I am now able to read your site every day again. That last month was so depressing all I could manage was scanning the headlines. Glad things have changed, I missed reading every morning.
(V) & (Z) respond: Glad to have you back on board. We've gotten a fair number of e-mails like this recently.
K.H. in Maryville, TN, writes: You gentlemen are going to earn your salaries like never before, getting us through this election. Please double your pay from here on out.
I feel really sad right now. President Biden did not deserve to be shoved out like this. I don't know what the best thing to do would have been, and maybe this was it, but I just feel sad. I sure hope my party can figure something out so we don't look like complete fools over the next few weeks.
I personally would like to see a Harris/Shapiro ticket.
Guess there's nothing to do now but make some popcorn.
(V) & (Z) respond: Yes, on the day Biden dropped out, the staff dachshunds demanded a dramatic increase in the number of treats handed out.
Of course, they demand that every other day, as well.
E.K. in Brignoles, France, writes: I am truly sad for President Biden. But it became inevitable. The situation was simply unsustainable, and as a statesman, he made he right decision. At 81, Biden can be proud of himself, his career and his presidency, and I think he deserved better than a humiliating defeat. Now we're in completely uncharted territory, but one thing is certain: Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), who's three years older than Biden, got what she wanted, once again. You just don't mess with her.
R.M. in Bryan, TX, writes: In his 2020 campaign for president, Joe Biden promised that he would be a "transitional president." This was generally taken to mean that he would facilitate a passage of leadership and power from one generation to another.
That promise is being fulfilled now. It is without doubt that it has come sooner than Biden expected or desired. But to his credit, he yielded to circumstances, suppressed his desire, and passed the torch.
There is virtue in that.
J.T. in Draper, UT, writes: President Biden perfectly executed the "Rope-a-Dope" tactic of Muhammad Ali against George Foreman in the 1974 Rumble in the Jungle boxing match in Zaire.
D.W. in Phoenix, AZ, writes: You wrote: "It was at least plausible that if [Biden's] speech had been a Kennedy- or Reagan-style home run, it might have given Harris a little bit of a boost. But as it is, we don't think it will have much impact, one way or the other."
I think there's a spin on this: It affirms the decision of Biden to NOT run and of the critics of his "persistence" to coalesce with the supporters of his right to run again. He was clearly not at the top of his game and it was both generous and necessary for him to step aside.
This heals the rift and makes him heroic rather than feeble and a victim of another Trump election. If he had exceeded expectations, that rift would persist. To be the next Hillary and to get a Trump presidency because of a tactical inevitability would be a GIANT error for not only our union but for Biden's legacy, and at 80+, legacies are proximate!
M.E. in Roanoke, VA, writes: I'm writing to you all because I believe that your write-up unfairly judges President Biden's Oval Office address. I found the speech to be an "instant classic" and one of the most poetic and emotional speeches I've heard in many years.
You seem somewhat disappointed that President Biden did not deliver "blue kale" (the Democrat equivalent of "red meat" for a Republican) by directly calling out former president Trump or more explicitly campaigning for Vice President Harris. I believe that doing so would have destroyed the impact of the speech.
Everyone knows that Biden thinks Trump is a threat to democracy; by not mentioning his name, Biden simultaneously emphasized that his predecessor is below the dignity of the office while also allowing his own words to be more fully absorbed by the listener without as immediate of a partisan reaction.
I heard a man invoke the great leaders of our past and call on the full weight and dignity of the office of President of The United States to challenge the voting public. I heard him desperately appeal to our better nature and urge us to reflect on the future. As a deeply Catholic conservative who probably overemphasizes the role and words of our Founding Fathers, the language he used connected with the "spiritual" side of me and invoked the same feeling of guilt I associate with a scolding from the pulpit.
I desperately want to vote for not Trump. I simultaneously believe that such action betrays my religious principles and the guidance of the Church as expressed by her bishops. This cognitive dissonance haunts me and President Biden's speech directly highlighted it.
"How stands the Union?" asks Daniel Webster from his grave. Well sir, I'm sad to report to you and Mr. Franklin that we were not worthy of keeping the Republic given to us.
M.T. in St. Paul, MN, writes: You mentioned Republicans being mad about Biden not addressing his age in his Wednesday night speech. I read a similar viewpoint in a BBC article. I think Biden is too old. I'm guessing most Americans think he is too old. But does Biden think so? I have seen no indication from him that he thinks he is not healthy enough to run. And he gave the speech, talking about his reasons. I believe he was telling the truth, that he felt the Democrats were in disarray and they need to unify. Hopefully the Democrats will put the whole age issue in the rear-view mirror now. And I agree with you that his speech was just OK. To me, he clearly is more feeble than he was even 6 months ago. Kamala Harris, assuming she is the nominee, would do well to keep Biden very close as an advisor, but not have him do too much stumping for her.
D.E. in San Diego, CA, writes: L.E. in Putnam County wrote: "Whatever my differences with Joe Biden, I am resolutely determined to vote for him in November—even if my vote turns out to have to be a write-in, and even if he personally calls me to ask me to vote for a replacement nominee."
To this, and other Biden supporters, I say: While you have the absolute right to do as you please with your vote, a right I vigorously support, you also can be called out for your incredible lack of wisdom. Not supporting the Democratic nominee, no matter who it is, makes it that much easier for Donald Trump to win.
Trump has a floor of about 35% and a ceiling of about 45%, depending on which polls you believe. Therefore, if the opposition is united, Trump cannot win. Splitting the non-Trump vote between more than one candidate only makes it that much easier for Trump to walk away with the presidency. After all, the Nazi Party never took more than 38% of the vote in a free election, and in the only election where Hitler had opponents running against him (1933) he only managed about 42% of the vote, and that's after he had already been appointed chancellor. It takes less than 50% to win these days, and Trump could well pull off the trick if protest votes like yours become a more popular thing.
Finally, protest votes have always struck me as the equivalent of a 4-year-old being told that the family's planned trip to the child's favorite restaurant had to be changed at the last minute because the restaurant was closed. The child whines and cries and doesn't go along with the family because they aren't getting the one thing they want. Some part of their mind thinks that their expression of disappointment will be heard by someone who cares and has the power to change things, even when it is patently obvious that such a thing will never be. Protest voting is exactly the same: Nothing will change, and you are more likely to get something you don't want than something you do.
K.R. in Hilo, HI, writes: I believe I've come up with a way for Vice President Harris to almost certainly become President Harris. I think she needs to somehow give the "full Sherman" that she will serve only one term as President. By doing so, anti-Trump Republicans and swing voters who are a little put off by the degree of her lean to the left may be assured that it will be for only 4 years, and by then, Donald Trump will be gone, and they can revert to voting more along their own leanings. In addition, she would be able to better solidify Democrat voters who are feeling cheated out of an open primary.
She should openly acknowledge that her path to the nomination has been unusual—not unfair!—and that there will be an open primary in 4 years. It could be seen as a patriotic response to Biden's patriotic action of stepping out of the race. If she is personally popular at the end of her term, that will benefit the next Democratic candidate. If she is personally unpopular at the end of her term but the Democrats have popular policies, it will provide the opportunity for change while staying within the same party.
By pledging to serve only one term, I think she can garner enough votes from people who would otherwise be uncomfortable with her to pull her across the finish line. She will have attained the goal of being president, of being the first female president, and of being the first president of Asian descent, obliterating glass ceilings like few others have. Four years as vice president followed by four years as president should be enough for anyone.
T.W. in Norfolk, England, UK, writes: I've been finding stuff to do during my insomnia time and I just turned to Threads and discovered the "I Understand The Assignment" topic. I've now started to have hope for the future of America again; there are so many inspirational, strong, loving women there who are really enthused by Kamala Harris and it makes me think that just perhaps, "Yes, you Kam."
R.E.M. in Brooklyn, NY, writes: Well, the past 4 days have proven to have gone much, much better than I anticipated they would. As matter of objective fact, I believe Joe Biden is still the best person to serve as President from 2025-29. But perception is reality, and I see that the perception that Harris is a much better candidate than Biden at this point is becoming the reality. There was no feeding frenzy, and the Party is united behind Harris. This bodes well for defeating fascism in November.
I.K. in Portland, OR, writes: Like (V) and (Z), I still think Joe Biden could have won the election. However, that Amtrak train has passed, and I'm pleased at how quickly the Democrats have found their previously missing unity and coalesced around Kamala Harris.
So right now, pretty much the biggest worry about Harris is whether U.S. voters are willing to elect a woman president. But a female friend of mine (born in Mexico, but now a U.S. citizen) pointed out that if even Mexico (land of manly machismo) could elect a female president, then it is about damn time that the U.S. could do the same. If anything, the current abortion debate means that Harris will be able to get even red-state women to vote for her as a presidential candidate. It also helps that (as many point out) it would be the Attorney General versus the Convicted Felon.
D.D. in Hollywood, FL, writes: I've always believed that one of the issues that worked against Hillary Clinton was how she dressed. I know it's not fair, as men can wear a suit (as long as it's not tan), but Hillary dressed too feminine at times, and I'm sure this made her look weak, especially against a bully like Donald Trump, and especially at the debate.
Watching Kamala Harris, I noticed that she seems to have mastered the art of dressing as a woman without looking weak. Her wardrobe is quite superb. This will make a definite difference.
J.L. in Los Angeles, CA, writes: This meme makes an excellent point about DEI:
J.E. in West Hollywood, CA, writes: As an Assistant Attorney General (a civil service position), my late father reported directly to the AG. Despite being a lifelong Democrat, for 55 years he was able to work amicably and effectively with AGs from both sides of the aisle. That streak ended with Kamala Harris. He said she was too ambitious and too focused on her pet projects to concentrate on the day-to-day running of the department. But he did predict that she would run for president one day. And he said this even before she became senator. It took less than 20 years for his prediction to come true.
M.W. in Boston, MA, writes: Clearly, Doug Emhoff and Melania Trump should debate.
J.D. (with the periods after both initials) in Cold Spring, MN, writes: I'd like to add to your observations about Trump's clueless campaign. Yesterday, BOTH Donald Trump and J.D. Vance appeared together here in St Cloud, MN. First, as I have written before, they have no real chance to win Minnesota, especially with Sen. Amy Klobuchar (DFL-MN) on the top of the ticket running against a Mark Robinson/Kari Lake-type opponent (Royce White).
Second, St. Cloud? While the surrounding region is MAGA country (Tom Emmer, R-MN, is our Congressman), even if the surrounding three-county region voted 100% for Trump (it was 60% in 2020), it would make little difference in the statewide vote tally.
Finally, why have both of them campaign together in this backwater region of an unwinnable state when Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Arizona, Michigan, Georgia and North Carolina are all more important? My only guess is that they got greedy with Biden on the ticket, thinking they could win Minnesota, and are too slow or too dumb to change. Campaign malpractice.
L.H. in Chicago, IL, writes: You wrote: "[Trump gave] a dark speech, about how prisoners from mental institutions are being let into the country by the Democrats. The fictional cannibal Hannibal Lecter also made an appearance."
Yesterday, on Stephanie Miller's radio show, I heard a theory that sounds like complete snark, but I'm finding it very plausible. A guest on the show posited that Trump has no idea that the word "asylum" has two distinct meanings. So when he hears that immigrants are coming to our border requesting asylum, he thinks they want admission to our mental hospitals. Thus the continual references to mental patients and Hannibal Lecter.
To me, it passes the Occam's Razor test.
K.R. in Austin, TX, writes: If D.F. in New Orleans has any doubt about who would specifically care more about someone with total blindness, they should know that Donald Trump fought with an architect to try to remove braille from elevators in Trump Tower because, he said, nobody blind would ever live in Trump Tower.
Also, please note that even some Republicans who have personal experience with a disability don't support others in the same situation. Gov. Greg Abbott (R-TX) is in a wheelchair, and he won't even meet with disability advocates. Besides the political angle, I wonder if he's in such a privileged position of power and money that he personally doesn't experience as much hardship as the typical person in a wheelchair. Or maybe it's just that Republicans tend to be mind-bogglingly hypocritical.
M.E.W. in Raleigh, NC, writes: I nearly had to quibble with the assertion about the Willie Horton ad being the most racist in history until I saw the modifier for "presidential campaign TV ad." Jesse Helms would have otherwise taken the cake for worst overall for his atrocious "White Hands" ad against Harvey Gantt. While there's little doubt there will be a bullhorn rather than a dog whistle in whatever ads TFG's campaign comes up with, I doubt it'll be as overt as Horton or Hands. They have their own followers who will make those sorts of ads and get millions of views. What remains to be seen is if TFG or J.D. Vance repost them or re-tweet them, giving them the same oxygen as if the campaign made it themselves.
C.W.M. in Monroe, WA, writes: Can you imagine the apoplectic rage of TFG when he loses to a Black woman!
D.M. in Alameda, CA, writes: The Don may well have made Sen. J.D. Vance (R-OH) his VP pick in order to reassure his base about his own age issue. If he (the Don) didn't make it through his term, there would be someone even more rabidly MAGA in the wings. Picking someone like Gov. Doug Burgum (R-ND) would have been vastly less reassuring. This makes it very much less likely that the Don would dump Vance. Who else could he pick that would serve the same purpose?
J.G. in El Cerrito, CA writes: While I tend to agree with you that Donald Trump doesn't like to admit mistakes, and so therefore he is unlikely to want to dump J.D. Vance from his ticket, I think Vance's chances are maybe worse that you have argued. Trump doesn't like to admit mistakes, but he loves, Loves, LOVES to blame other people for his problems and throw them under the bus. I could easily see Vance being the next person to find out just how little anyone else matters to the orange Jesus.
J.G. in Covington, KY, writes: I saw the CNN interview where Gov. Andy Beshear (D-KY) was asked about J.D. Vance's nepotism comments. I laughed out loud. All I could think was that there was no way Vance could have made it any clearer, at least to Kentuckians, that he has no understanding of Kentucky or how things work here. From the look on Beshear's face, he was thinking the exact same thing. Allow me to explain.
Throughout Kentucky's history there has been a tradition of elected office being treated like any other craft, with an informal apprenticeship. Just as a blacksmith would look for a relative with suitable qualities and the inclination to become a blacksmith, then train him in the craft, elected offices have traditionally been passed along the same way.
The office is held as much by the family as by the individual who is actually doing the job. Therefore, if the family wants to maintain a lock on the office, they better ensure that the duties of that office are consistently executed with a high level of competence and a low level of corruption. If they don't, the county residents will eventually replace them, thus preventing the commonly expected problems with such a system.
It may seem odd, but I assure you that it actually works quite well. As an example, I lived for a time in a county that had a fourth generation county clerk, all of them named T.R. For most of a century, county residents went to the polls and checked the box for T.R., not caring which one it was. The present T.R. was the best county clerk I'd ever encountered, which shouldn't be surprising, as his father and grandfather had been training him for the job all his life.
With education and communication improving and the population becoming more mobile and fluid, this tradition of "apprenticing" for office has mostly died out in large portions of the state. However, the old tradition is alive and well in more remote areas, and if no longer practiced, still exists in living memory almost everywhere else. This is why the nepo accusation was hysterically funny, and why poor Andy was struggling not to laugh.
Full disclosure: Like Vance, I was raised in Ohio with deep Appalachian roots (Kentucky and West Virginia). Unlike Vance, I have lived in various parts of Kentucky almost my entire adult life.
J.R. in College Station, TX, writes: If you are from the South you know that the people that J.D. Vance describes coming from are not Hillbillies, Rednecks, or Crackers. They are "White Trash." One can be part of the Hillbilly, Redneck, or Cracker culture and be respectable, sober, hard working, industrious, frugal, and have strong family relationships. In each of these cultures, "White Trash " is understood to be the opposite of all that. I suppose that Vance felt more comfortable denigrating a whole regional culture rather than admitting that what he "rose above" was his own family's "While Trash" proclivities.
B.C. in Walpole, ME writes: I vigorously protest the clichéd portrayal of Neanderthals by R.M.S. in Lebanon, who wrote, "The history of remarks from J.D. Vance... makes him look like a Neanderthal who is unsympathetic to other people's circumstances." Neanderthals, unfairly stereotyped as knuckle-draggers, were in fact far more humane and sympathetic than certain Vance adherents and MAGA-ites. This denigration of Neanderthals has got to stop. (For MAGA-ites, "denigration" means "dissing.")
K.H. in Albuquerque, NM, writes: For years, I was told that my last name (a common Czech one) meant "mountaineer." Then, late in life, a cousin told me that it actually translated more like the common stereotype of "hillbilly." My Czech forebears came from Hlinsko, Bohemia, (now Czech Republic) and never lived in Appalachia, immigrating straight to Kansas.
The other side of the family arrived in Virginia, moved to Kentucky, and eventually ended up in Missouri. They could probably be identified as hillbillies, sensu strictu. However, my great-great-grandfather was named Issac Newton Gromer.
Stereotypes are the devil's playground.
M.M. in San Diego, CA, writes: The only thing I see and hear in all of J.D. Vance's distorted perspective on women (no abortions ever, no divorce ever, childlessness makes us less than), marriage (again, no divorce ever) and families (those with children should be taxed less but have more voting power than those without), is the poor little abandoned boy with no father and a checked-out, druggie mother. He was poor and unhappy because his parents weren't forced to remain together: This is a child's ideation, fantasy, solution for his very real pain. Which, by the way, could get resolved with about 8 weeks of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, J.D.
B.C. in Phoenix, AZ, writes: In your answer to M.M. in San Diego, you displayed Grant Wood's "American Gothic" and explained how the posture of the woman reflected "an era in which women were often seen as property of their fathers."
I submit that to anyone of the Christian, Jewish or Muslim faiths, the idea of women as property is true to the precepts of the Pentateuch; the holy scripture of all three religions. The book of Genesis, especially chapter 30, is full of stories of "maidservants" passed around as so much progenitive candy. Exodus 21:7-11, Leviticus 19:20-22, and Deuteronomy 21:10-14 are all literal guides for sleeping with women and taking them for your wife.
So, the status of women in the Old Testament actually gives some justification for evangelicals needing to vote for the crooked, felonious male Donny Trump over the dynamic, intelligent female Kamala Harris.
D.C.W. in Fredericksburg, TX, writes: Did you happen to catch how much the picture of the man and the woman in the 1930 Grant Wood painting you posted resembles the inauguration picture of Melania Trump making a face behind her husband's back on the dais? It is uncanny.
In honor of Kamala Harris' nomination, I say "We won't go back!" We will step out and step up.
BTW, not a "childless cat lady", not that there is anything wrong with that. A proud mom of a herd of Dachshunds who give a Bark Out to Flash and Otto.
(V) & (Z) respond: Flash and Otto Bark Out right back.
S.C-M. in Scottsdale, AZ, writes: My spouse of nearly 51 years is a childless cat-lady and will vote for Harris. In a way, she is a super cat lady since she has fostered 321 cats since 2010.
(V) & (Z) respond: On the other hand, Flash and Otto do not approve of this.
B.D. in Niceville, FL, writes: To M.M. in San Diego, who wrote asking about Kamala Harris' laugh disgruntling the right: I hope it is true, and I will shamelessly contribute to disgruntling the right, because I actually downloaded one of Kamala's laughs from online sources, and made it my default ringtone on my cell phone. Now I guess I should ask my friends to call me when I am out and about in our very Republican corner of the woods!
T.B. in Nowata, OK, writes: I want to see someone ask Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), among others, what he thinks about the idea that only politicians with kids should be able to hold office.
B.G. in Grayson, GA, writes: The statement by J.D. Vance that wives abused by their husbands should stay married for the children is wrong on the facts in addition to being inhumane. The ACE (adverse childhood experiences) Studies from the CDC demonstrate that living with abusive fathers does far more harm than good for children. Children exposed to domestic violence will live shorter and less healthy lives. Vance was focused on physical abuse, but ACE tells us it is the fear and stress abusers cause rather than any immediate physical injuries that do most of the harm.
I am presently working on my seventh book about domestic violence and wanted to share some interesting findings with our community. For many years, the health costs from domestic violence were estimated at $5-8 billion per year, but that was limited to treating the immediate physical injuries. ACE tells us the stress caused by abuse leads to many serious health problems over our lifetime. As a nation, the U.S. is spending at least $3.5 trillion annually on costs related to domestic violence, including $2.1 trillion on health costs. This comes to about $11,000 per person annually. If we were writing a check for this, it would have been stopped long ago. Instead, we pay this in health insurance, taxes, crime, and as a significant brake on our economy because adult victims, children, bystanders, and some abusers never reach their full potential. Obviously, we cannot expect to save the full $11,000, but we know we can save a big chunk because there have been communities like Quincy, MA; Nashville, TN; San Diego, CA and High Point, NC, that have used a group of best practices to dramatically reduce domestic violence crimes. This in turn results in a reduction of other crimes because children exposed to abuse are more likely to commit crimes.
In 1961, the American Cancer Society and two other health organizations wrote a letter to President Kennedy revealing the association between smoking and cancer. President Kennedy responded by asking the Surgeon General to create a committee to investigate. This led to the 1964 Surgeon General's Report linking cancer and smoking. Many different parts of society took a role in seeking to discourage smoking. This led to a significant decrease in smoking that has saved millions of lives and trillions of dollars. The ACE Research offers a similar opportunity by preventing domestic violence and child abuse. Just as the American Cancer Society and American Heart Association worked to prevent smoking in order to reduce cancer and heart disease, they have the research that demonstrates reducing domestic violence and child abuse would significantly reduce cancer and heart disease. I hope we will elect a president who cares enough to lead a campaign to prevent domestic violence and child abuse which will result in a strong economy and increased life expectancy.
R.M. in Sacramento, CA, writes: In response to the question from M.R. in New Brighton regarding J.D. Vance's Mountain Dew joke: Where I came from (rural Wisconsin), Mountain Dew was referred to as "hillbilly pi**water" by almost everyone I knew. (This was in the 70s and 80s, growing up). Im guessing Vance has heard that too.
J.H. in Lodi, NY, writes: Coca-Cola became a national brand too quickly for it to be associated with the South. The cola that did was Royal Crown Cola, especially after the phrase "RC and a Moon Pie" took off. It became popular during the Depression with the working and non-working Southerners because it was cheaper than a Coke. However, it was a Southern thing, not an Appalachian thing, so it fits that Vance would choose Mountain Dew over an RC.
J.H. in Boston, MA, writes: You wrote: "...more know that Dr. Pepper came from Texas, and considerably more know that Coke came from Georgia. Like Tennessee, those are also Confederate states."
I don't know whether it rises to the same level of common knowledge (for the record, I knew Coke was from Georgia, but did not know Dr Pepper was from Texas), but for anyone who came from Eastern North Carolina, it would be common knowledge that Pepsi is from New Bern, North Carolina. Another Confederate state.
P.K. in Marshalltown, IA, writes: As a native of Ohio who has lived in Wisconsin, Illinois, Michigan, and now Iowa, I thank you for clarifying that Senator Vance is alleged to have engaged in some sort of sexual activity involving a davenport. I must point out, however, that he would not be drinking a diet "soda" branded Mountain Dew. He'd be enjoying a pop.
(V) & (Z) respond: Yes. Someone should definitely give him a pop.
O.C. in Yandina Creek, QLD, Australia, writes: Given the disparity between J.D. Vance's extremely critical statements on Trump in 2016 and his current fealty, may I suggest that it wasn't Diet Mountain Dew he was sipping but was, in fact, Kool-Aid...
K.C. in West Islip, NY, writes: I wanted to respond to R.B. in Durham. While the Constitution may be a little murky in the area of whether Barack Obama could run as VP and ascend to the presidency, this seems to me a very slippery slope. If that loophole opened up, what stops us from turning into Russia, wherein Vladimir Putin had a short break from his presidency before getting it back for, evidently, the rest of his life? What stops the MAGA universe from electing President Vance, who resigns and turns over the White House to VP Trump and then down the line someone turning it over to two-term president and current VP Donald Trump Jr., Barron Trump or any myriad Trumps who follow in perpetuity? Regardless of the legality of it, and regardless of how revered he is among Democrats or how great a president he was, Barack Obama should absolutely not be in the conversation for VP lest the door becomes open to an eternity of Trumps and no end to the MAGA movement.
J.B. in Hutto, TX, writes: Thank you for your excellent write-up on the proposed Twenty-Eighth Amendment. I am strongly in favor of it, though I wish it also included the following section:
No judicial officer, including justices of the Supreme Court, may sit in judgment of a case in which the person who appointed them to their judicial position is a party.
R.L.D. in Sundance, WY, writes: I'm very much in favor of your suggestion for Joe Biden to issue an executive order to arrest members of Congress who supported the January 6th coup attempt. And I'd even like to see him follow through. Bring them all into a lecture hall somewhere and explain how there isn't any way they can hold Biden accountable unless they think they can convince a bunch of Democratic representatives to join them in impeaching him. And even then, they get to have President Kamala Harris running as an incumbent. "But there is a way to make sure this never happens again," the lecturer says from the podium as staffers pass out copies of the Morelle amendment. I've previously recommended giving the Supreme Court this treatment, and while I firmly believe it shouldn't take a Constitutional Amendment to undo this, that genie has already been let out of the bottle.
B.H. in Southborough, MA, writes: Regarding your answer to J.C.A In Sheperdsville regarding why the Democrats are no longer the party of the working people, I submit another possibility: effective Trump messaging.
The U.S. political system is a well oiled duopoly run by the richest individuals and corporations, as pointed out many times by people like George Carlin and well documented in this Freakonomics podcast.
Working Americans are getting poorer every year as the system continues to grind away their assets in favor of the 1%. Only the Republicans are smart enough to empathize with this trend, even though their policies are the ones largely causing it. They admit that the system is indeed rigged but say it's the Democrats' fault, and they alone have the solution. Trump delivers this message well, and an increasingly desperate and underinformed working class eats it up.
This does not superseded your other theories—it combines with them.
R.L.P. in Santa Cruz, CA, writes: Your response to a question from J.C.A of Shepherdsville about why people think Democrats are not the party of working people mentioned three factors: free-trade agreements, snobbery, and culture wars.
Yes, that about covers it, but let's be clear what working people we're talking about: not "working people" but "white working people." That part of the blue-collar cohort has, since 1968, voted Republican in droves (by thirty- to forty-point margins). Republicans earned those votes, almost all of them, by assuring white voters that Republicans would do everything they could to minimize government expenditures that might benefit Black Americans. That's culture war territory, for sure, but it's not the whole war, and it accounts for almost all of the shift by the white working class from being inclined to vote for Democrats to voting overwhelmingly for Republicans.
The Nixon/Atwater Southern Strategy convinced white working-class voters to vote for union-busters who pledged to preserve systemic white advantages and continue the economic, legal, and social oppression of Black Americans. Their rallying cry in the sixties was "busing." Now it's "woke," but it moves the same cohort of voters. Trade agreements and snobbery add a little edge, but they don't move the masses. Archie Bunker won the culture wars and gave Republicans every election victory they've seen since 1968. Bill Clinton fooled them for a while with his "end of welfare as we know it" dog whistle. But not for long, and now they have a candidate who blasts the quiet part at full volume, to the delight of Archie Bunkers everywhere.
S.G. in Arlington, VA, writes: Your repeated assumption that white, male working-class voters who might otherwise vote Democratic would now, with a Kamala Harris nomination, abandon the ticket "in droves" due to her gender and race, which you back up only with your blanket analysis that "the main reason Biden beat Trump in 2020 but Hillary lost to him in 2016 is that Biden did better among white men," is irresponsibly simplistic and glosses over a lot of important information.
For example, many people have argued that Hillary Clinton's narrow Electoral College loss could be explained by one or more of her campaign missteps, such as being too confident to visit the Blue Wall states in the latter part of the campaign, her statement that she wanted to put coal miners and coal companies out of business, and her labeling of some Trump voters as a "basket of deplorables." Then there were the things outside of her control, such as the media's disproportionate focus on her e-mail server "scandal," and of course James Comey's public announcement of an investigation, which may have scared voters into thinking she was about to be indicted. Did all that boil down to white men voting against her based on her gender alone? And what about all the people who voted for Jill Stein?
So, 8 years after that election, during which time we've lived through a disastrous Trump presidency that culminated in an attempted coup, a pandemic, a calamitous Supreme Court, and other monumental changes in the world, not to mention demographic shifts in the voter population, you are summing up Harris' prospects as being determined by some ostensibly large number of white men who otherwise vote Democratic (and some of whom must have voted for Obama) but whose misogyny determined their anti-Clinton vote in 2016 and who still in 2024 will just not vote for a woman, regardless of who they are, and regardless of the current circumstances, the campaign, and all that has transpired since 2016. I would want to see more evidence before jumping to that conclusion.
J.C. in Washington, DC, writes: The French just pulled off a Coup d'etat with respect to the opening ceremonies of the Olympics.
Unbelievable. Unparalleled. Unprecedented. The inclusivity and diversity was phenomenal.
I've already had friends on the Hill say this is a "soft-power" game changer for our election.
Emmanuel Macron looks good right now. So does Kamala Harris.
R.M.S. in Lebanon, CT, writes: The Olympics are the biggest international event of the year. Millions of Americans will be watching. Kamala Harris ought to make a surprise appearance at the closing ceremony and speak to the U.S. and world audience. France is a close NATO ally and I am sure French President Emmanuel Macron and Mayor of Paris Anne Hidalgo would accommodate the Vice President of the United States to speak in Paris. I think this would be an excellent PR opportunity for Harris to build her public profile, show her support for U.S. athletes, and demonstrate she values our alliances with Europeans.
They probably would not welcome Donald Trump or J.D. Vance to speak, given their open criticism of NATO and willingness to throw Europeans under Vladimir Putin's bus.
As an added bonus, Harris speaks some French. At the age of 12, her family moved to Montreal, where she attended a Francophone school in the 1970s.
R.L.S. in Portland, ME, writes: I was surprised that your write-up of Sen. Angus King (I-ME) as a potential VP candidate did not make reference to King's extensive experience as governor of ME to secure our border from an invasion by 'Nades.
(V) & (Z) respond: Everyone is well aware of his heroic efforts on that front.
J.R. in Ottawa, ON, Canada, writes: This is to announce that the Canadian invasion has been postponed until further notice; there is some hope now that the U.S. will get its act together without the need for outside assistance.
J.F. in Toronto, ON, Canada, writes: Loved the AI images and posts of Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL). Your comment that he was, ultimately, a putz also rang true. I only hope that you know the base meaning of the Yiddish word. It interestingly translates in many senses quite nicely to current use of English "di**."
(V) & (Z) respond: We do know. You can get away with more if you use Yiddish instead of English.
A.B. in Wendell, NC, writes: I said YEARS ago that Matt Gaetz looks like a better-dressed, and slightly better-fed Ace Ventura. So I am glad someone else is finally noticing, by asking if anyone has seen Gaetz and Jim Carrey in the same room!
J.W. in Los Angeles, CA, writes: Seems like someone could change Lyin' Kamala into Lion Kamala and put that to work.
C.Z. in Sacramento, CA, writes: Trump may regret more than just his VP pick... he may regret his "new" nickname for Kamala Harris. When he says "Lyin' Kamala Harris," I hear "Lion Kamala Harris." She should reply "Yes, I AM a lion when it comes to defending the rule of law against a convicted rapist, crook, and con man."
C.S. in Linville, NC, writes: If for no other reason then his 5 o'clock shadow, will you please refer to TFG's new boy toy as "Shady Vance"? Thank you.
B.C. in Walpole, ME, writes: You wrote: "Congress Grills Cheatle"
Ain't it a shame they didn't Grill Cheseboro.
P.S. in North Branch, MI, writes: The Brits are truly on to something. Donald Trump and Joe Biden have been running for reelection for damn near 4 years and it is exhausting. Harris has around 15 weeks max. And with early voting, people will be sending in ballots very soon. I can now be convinced that we need to end primaries and restrict all election activities to a brief window of time.
C.S. in Philadelphia, PA, writes: Sunday morning, I was playing a game with ads on my phone with my 3-year-old son. After about four ads in a row of President Biden asking for money, my son said "no more" and "different advertisements." I want to tell myself this is what convinced Biden to drop out.
J.F. in Fayetteville, NC, writes: I live in North Carolina. In 2008, Barack Obama won the state with an enormous get-out-the-vote effort. I know: I personally managed the ground effort in three local precincts. I got lots of calls, for years thereafter, asking me to pitch in again. Due to a job change, I didn't have the time to do the same work, and Obama lost the state. Coincidence? Well, yeah, probably, but it makes a point. North Carolina is blue if the Democrats can bring out the vote, but otherwise, it's gonna go red.
Since 2012, Democratic GOTV efforts have been minimal. For example, I haven't seen anything from the Biden campaign this year. But on Kamala Harris' third day as a candidate, a Gavin Newsom volunteer texted me asking me to make calls for her.
You heard it here first: Harris is gonna try to put the Tar Heel State in play. And she just might pull it off.
P.R. in Arvada, CO, writes: Every now and then people send it their observations of the political signs etc that they see. I have two observations recently.
First, over the week of July 4th, my wife and I (childless and couldn't care less about anyone else's opinion of that) went to Western Pennsylvania to visit her father for the week. There are a few properties in the area that have very proudly been sporting Trump signs since 2016. Seriously, it has been totally consistent—flags, yard signs, you name it. This last time, though, there was literally nothing to see—flags, banners, yard signs, all gone.
Second, I saw my first group of people standing at a busy intersection waving their signs in support of a candidate. Middle-aged white ladies would seem to be on board the SS Harris.
A.G. in Scranton, PA, writes: The Republicans are now scared poopless of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. as their stupid, antidemocratic ploy has monumentally backfired, as has all of the sexism, racism, and horrid stuff they cannot help themselves but say about people.
There are now wall-to-wall ads telling me, screaming at me, that the man they wanted me to love is actually, suddenly... A LIBERAL ABORTION LOVER!
I love it. Please forget those tens of millions we spent to get you to think he was worth voting for. Orange Jesus made a mistake, apparently!
Finally. True and actual irony in action. Not the fifty-two hundred and eight things people think "irony" means.
The outcome of the action was the opposite of the intended outcome!
Thanks, Trump.
A.S. in Chicago, IL, writes: I am getting sick and tired of you describing Hillary Clinton as "arrogant." People who worked with her when she was SOS said that she was always kind and considerate of others who had demeaned her from the Obama campaign in 2008. Hillary endorsed Kamala Harris 2 days ago, while Obama stayed on his mountain pontificating about it. Talk about arrogant. It is this attitude by some progressives that gave us Trump. I hope you're happy with that.
(V) & (Z) respond: We wrote: "Clinton had a lot of baggage and many people strongly disliked her as a person and thought she was arrogant." This is not our opinion of her, it is an accurate description of the political climate of 2016.
W.G. in Houston, TX, writes: Why is there a photo of Harris next to the word Biden? The convention hasn't happened yet and you are telegraphing the outcome. Please go to hell. I used to have respect for your site and I lost it when I logged on today.
G.T.M. in Vancouver, BC, Canada, writes: Dear Sirs,
You wrote: "We would like to congratulate you on figuring out that we are in cahoots with the Jewish media (those meetings were supposed to be secret!)..."
Please be advised that:
We have advised our solicitors, Wieselwort, du Plicité, Poco-Escrupuloso, Flerd, and Corrotto, LLP, to initiate appropriate legal actions unless you provide a satisfactory response within 14 days.
Yours truly,
Billy-Bob Bilderburg
M.G. in Boulder, CO, writes: I have always liked the Mailbag because it's so much better than any other comments section I find. Your mail is more informative and far more positive—I do realize that it's curated, and I appreciate that. But recently you've printed several letters that I'd call trolling. Criticism is OK, but unpleasant; mean-spirited letters seem counter-productive to me, and I was disappointed.
Still, I have often praised your decision making, so I reread the letters. Then I thought again.
Electoral-Vote.com could have written a whole column on the importance of my vote. I would have skimmed it and thought something neutral, like "Um," and moved on. The letters I objected to told me, "You do not want people like this in your life, let alone your government. Your vote matters. And while you are thinking about that, consider a contribution or several. And volunteering, or at least sharing Electoral-Vote."
I was going to write a "Complaints about Complaints" letter, but maybe you need a section called "Compliments about Complaints."
D.C. in Myersville, MD, writes: You wrote: "It all points to the Democrats having been prepared for this, and the Republicans getting caught with their pants down."
The GOP can't imagine anyone throwing the ring in the fire.
L.S. in Queens, NY, writes: You wrote: "Is there really any question the entire Trump family would be sorted into Slytherin if they attended Hogwarts?"
Probably not Tiffany Trump, the daughter Donald never mentions. Definitely not cousin Mary Trump.
D.A. in Brooklyn, NY, writes: Eric and Junior would be squibs and not get into Hogwarts at all. Ivanka definitely Slytherin. But Tiffany, Barron? Uncertain. And then there's niece Mary: Gryffindor all the way.
B.F. in Pony Pasture, VA, writes: S.E.Z. in New Haven asked: "According to Wikipedia, 'A Scaramucci (or Mooch) is 11 (sometimes 10) days and is named after the length of White House Communications Director Anthony Scaramucci's tenure under President Trump.' Since you have been known to discuss certain durations using the Scaramucci as a unit of measure, how many days do you consider a Scaramucci to be?"
As an engineer (who has never used her engineering degree), I can lay this to rest. Note that: (1) these definitions have not yet been accepted by ANSI, and (2) the abbreviation for the unit is "scam."
1 scam (metric) = 10 days; 1 scam (avoirdupois) = 11 days
S.S. in Toronto. ON, Canada, writes: You wrote: "(V) & (Z) respond: We got many e-mails from readers explaining how it actually is possible to convert yards to meters. Do readers REALLY think that: (1) not only are we ignorant of that fact, but (2) we think that God favors one system of measurement over another? C'mon, folks."
OH NO!!! I thought it was just on Facebook that people felt it necessary to fact-check jokes and cartoons and then explain them to the class. Your Canadian (and here, by extension, British jokes) invariably make my day—and also make me share them with my American family. This sad bit of news at least took my mind off my daily horror at the state of democracy. Sigh.
(V) & (Z) respond: Wait until people hear that it took us 12 parsecs to put together today's mailbag.
D.H. in Portland, OR, writes: To make it crystal clear to those who have no sense of humor about yards and meters, you could have linked the best sketch from the most recent season of Saturday Night Live:
(V) & (Z) respond: That sketch was, in fact, the inspiration for that joke.
F.L. in Allen, TX, writes: J.E. in Gilbertsville wrote about Democrats in Pennsylvania who were gleeful that Donald Trump was shot, were amazed that an assassination attempt did not happen sooner, and dismayed that the shooter missed.
This brought to mind quotes from two different people, although they express the same sentiment:
"I've never killed a man, but I've read many an obituary with a great deal of satisfaction." - Clarence Darrow
"I didn't attend the funeral, but I sent a nice letter saying I approved of it." - Mark TwainI want Trump to die of natural causes, just like anyone else—and, no, gunshot wounds are not a natural cause, even in America. I'm just hoping that day happens while he's in prison.
If you have suggestions for this feature, please send them along.