Dem
49
GOP
51
Too bad we don't live on Bajor, with its 26-hour day. Then we might actually have time to get everything done that we want to get done. Unfortunately for us, we live on Earth, with its piddly 24-hour day. Where is The Sisko when you need him?
We thought this one was going to be on the short side. Not so much. The weekend before an election will do that.
On that note, we're working on an item about the Ann Selzer poll. But we want to get it right and we ALSO want to get this posted. So, we'll have the Selzer item tomorrow. We promise.
If you have not responded to our survey, on the demographics of the readership and on this week's election, now's the time to do so. We're going to cut it off on Monday at 9:00 p.m. PT.
R.H.D. in Webster, NY, writes: This will be my ninth presidential election that I'm voting in. My first five votes were for the Republicans (both Bushes, Dole, and McCain). My last three have gone to the Democrats (Obama, Hillary, and Biden). For this one, I'm emphatically voting for Kamala!
I don't understand why this is a coin-flip election. Kamala Harris should be winning this in a landslide. Maybe she will in the end. But I don't get why anyone would want to flirt again with a man that we all know is despicable and destructive. As it's been said in the campaign, it's time to turn the page and move forward. I don't want to have to re-live through another four years of hell coming from the White House.
While voters this year are basing their vote on issues like the economy, abortion, and immigration, I still believe, first and foremost, that character matters in whom I want to lead us. I want a president that I can look up to because I want America to be a country everyone in the world can look up to.
Had President Biden stayed in the race, I would have proudly voted for him no matter the outcome. But he realized there was something more important than his own ambitions. He graciously stepped aside and allowed his Vice President to take the mantle. That's leadership!
I'm not just voting for Kamala Harris because I'm against Trump. I am voting for her because I believe she has the experience and temperament at this crucial time to lead our nation and the world. I see in her someone who will not back down and who brings the change we keep clamoring for every four years.
I live in a state that has a woman governor for the first time in its history. It's been a great experience these past 3 years, and I am ready to see that dynamic happen with our next President.
Don't believe what you hear and see in the media. All you need to do is VOTE, then ask your friends and family to vote too, for our future and for common sense.
I pray that this Tuesday will be more like 2008 than 2016.
D.D. in Portland, OR, writes: I get it. Like you, I enjoy some good natured ribbing at other people's expense. But at some point, you have to know when to stop.
What I'm referring to is all this talk about Trump's re-election chances being a coin toss. This has caused insufferable anguish to your readership.
You really got me going there! Now, after you finish your well-earned laugh, please fix your site so it shows that Harris is leading by 10 points, will earn 320-350 electoral votes, and everything will be OK.
P.R. in Arvada, CO, writes: Even though I see a lot of doom and gloom online and in the news, I am cautiously optimistic about Tuesday. My completely unscientific and in no particular order reasons are: (1) surprising people have commented to me that they are getting sick of the negative Trump and GOP in general adverts; (2) When I look at the swing state polls, while they are all within the margin of error, Kamala is slightly ahead most of the time. True margin-of-error polling should be a lot more random as to who is ahead; (3) When I see video of Donald Trump's rallies, there are a lot of people whooping and hollering. However, there are also a lot of people (women) stoney faced and just not getting into it; (4) Finally, the Steelers are just awesome at the moment. Making that "team" from Green Bay look like the local high school team.
Things are too good for the tangerine chimp to ruin.
M.H. in Arvada, CO, writes: At the end of your survey, it says:
Me too, fellas. Me too.
V.J. in Pecatonica, IL, writes: The release of the Iowa presidential poll today confirmed all of my suspicions. I just returned yesterday from a road trip that zig-zagged through Iowa, from the eastern border to the western border and back.
I saw VERY few signs for either Donald Trump or Kamala Harris. Granted, the number of Trump signs exceeded the number of Harris signs, but not by much. There were more signs for candidates in other races, but there still weren't very many political signs overall.
During my long drive I wondered how Iowans really feel about the presidential race... It would seem clear to me that the lack of Trump signs points to a lack of enthusiasm, and perhaps that's an indication that 2020 Trump voters are going to either stay home, or vote for Harris. Maybe the lack of political signs is also a signal that people are fed up with the divisiveness of today's political environment—maybe more people are taking the high road and just voting quietly. In any case, I had already added Iowa to my "watch list" for election night, and this poll certainly offers me hope.
E.G.G.-C. in Syracuse, NY, writes: Just wanted to share my lawn sign:
G.T. in Awakino, New Zealand, writes: On the theme of yard signs... a farm on a state highway running through a remote part of New Zealand's North Island has, since 2016, been displaying a large and rather pompous tribute to Donald Trump. It has no doubt delighted some (I imagine only a few, given what I know about this country's predominant attitude to your 45th president) but has greatly annoyed many. It has been vandalized—and repaired—many times; at each restoration achieving a little less grandeur than before. I like to think that the damage it sustained was purely from the supernatural effects of the many middle-finger salutes it got from passing motorists, but I accept that a number of bullet holes might have also played a part in its eventual destruction!
All attempts to repair it have recently ceased. I think the farmer has finally got the message from the Harris/Walz campaign that "we're not going back"...
A.H. in Newberg, OR, writes: I live at the back end of a small cul-de-sac, 11 houses total, so by my driveway, my sign would not normally get a lot of attention. I know my neighbors have seen it, a couple of commented approvingly. I have had it up for 3 weeks:
Knowing that Election Day is a week away, I decided to move my sign to a more visible location. The entrance to the cul-de-sac is +/-350 feet away on a well traveled street. Parochial school, middle school, elementary school, three churches access off or through that street. I placed my sign Tuesday morning around 8:30. Tuesday evening, my sign was still there. Wednesday morning, there was nary an indication of my sign's existence.
There are a number of signs on that throughfare. Several for TFG and his acolyte. More for local conservative (I won't call them "Republican") office seekers. A couple of inverted Stars and Stripes.
NOT A SINGLE Harris or Walz sign. My sign did not even last 24 hours!
My ballot was submitted last week! I will not be silenced!
M.S. in Las Vegas, NV, writes: A friend in Florida recounted this story to me: "I was on the Nextdoor app the other day. I rarely check it out because it's nothing but stupid drama, but something caught my eye this time. A man was ranting about someone stealing and smashing a Trump sign he had in his front yard. He was blaming the neighborhood kids. So a neighbor from across the street checked his ring camera. Turns out it was an alligator who did it!"
(V) & (Z) respond: Maybe that's also what happened to the sign belonging to A.H. in Newberg. Lots of alligators in Oregon.
J.F. in Albuquerque, NM, writes: You have to have an invitation into my house to see this, because I didn't want to confuse people, but this is the ticket I have been supporting, hearkening back to the Great Society. (Fred) Harris ran for and won the open Oklahoma U.S. Senate seat in the 1964 election.
S.S. in Athens, OH, writes: There are more signs than usual around here, especially for the Ohio Supreme Court races and Issue 1 (anti-gerrymandering). Being a college town, the signs are overwhelmingly Harris-Walz/Sherrod Brown/pro-Issue 1/pro-Democratic justice candidates, although there are a couple of notable outliers. There's one house with at least twenty Trump/Vance and Bernie Moreno signs on the lawn, but also two Harris/Walz signs. Not sure what that's about...
(Has anyone ever seen a display for any Democratic candidate that compares in ostentatious grandeur to some of the over-the-top creches devoted to Trump?)
There is one sign, however, that is unique:
G.W. in Winterville, NC, writes: I saw this today in the yard of someone I would have bet was a Trump supporter:
M.F.H. in Forest Park, IL, writes: Over the past two weekends I have been travelling in Wisconsin and Minnesota for pleasure.
Of course, we all know that signs don't vote, but in the drives, my companions and I noticed a couple of things. First, Wisconsin really is 50/50 if signs are anything to go by. But I thought about your discussion of Fareed Zakaria's article that Democrats don't get the impact of their stance on social and cultural issues. The rural/urban-suburban-college town (including a drive through the St. Olaf campus—lots of VOTE signs not necessarily one candidate or another sign!) divide is real and highly visible. Our guess is that in rural areas, there aren't many visible people of color, of diverse gender or sexual orientation. But if the Democrats were to focus on the Farm Bill and the way climate is impacting their livelihoods, and the like, it could be an inroad to their economic hearts. To many, climate change has become a social/cultural issue which really to the Democrats in the car is a health, economic, and quality of life issue.
In southeast Minnesota particularly, the dryness of the terrain was stark, so much so that one of my travel partners noted that it seemed almost like the 1930s Dust Bowl. If Democrats could get the message out that they understand the issues of rural America and are the party that wants to continue supporting small, family-owned farms through drought, fire, and pestilence, maybe they would be more on board. After all, aren't these upper-Midwest areas supposedly among the best places to live as the climate changes? We think Tim Walz might have been picked as Kamala Harris's running mate to try to speak to that demographic.
As to Quiet Voters of any stripe, we noticed in red southeast Wisconsin, it was again pretty 50/50, but on the occasional "Republican" lawn, we noticed support for the Republican U.S. Senate candidate, the Republican congressional candidate, the Republican state candidate, signs that touted "Hate has no home here" and no signs for the Republican presidential candidate all on the same lawn. While I don't relish the possibility of a flipped Senate if Eric Hovde (R) were to win in Wisconsin, I will hope that the idea of a split ticket will help propel Harris/Walz to the White House.
D.E. in San Diego, CA, writes: Another good sign:
F.C. in DeLand, FL, writes: I just accompanied my wife to the local early voting location. The line to vote was almost an hour long. (I didn't vote; I'm a traditionalist and will be voting on Tuesday. On a different note, I did not have my picture taken with the Trump life size cutout.)
While my wife was voting, I was talking to the poll watchers. They claim that the numbers of people voting are setting records. Talking to other family members who live in different areas, I'm hearing the same thing. An NBC News site is counting the number of early voters. They, too, seem to be reporting on a massive number of voters.
I'm having problems imagining pollsters creating an accurate model of the voting population given the current number of voters being reported. From the statistics classes I took decades ago, the issue about trend analysis is that it works in the "relevant range." We may be way past that range. If I'm right, the polling information that you share with us on a daily basis may be meaningless. We may be going into Election Day blind. And that worries me.
And then I take a few steps back and think about democracies. From what I remember from what little history I know, democracies often fail not because of a revolution or an invasion but because the voters vote the despot into power.
E.W. in Skaneateles, NY, writes: I would like to wholeheartedly thank whichever Electoral-Vote.com readers suggested the Postcards to Swing States project of the Progressive Turnout Project. Instead of endlessly doomscrolling political news sites, I completed and mailed 500 postcards to Arizona voters using little gaps of time in my day, as well as a few evening hours:
Each postcard I wrote reduced my anxiety about the election a tiny bit, and I feel good that I did something concrete to help turn out some swing state voters. Curious about what I was doing, one of my daughters even helped write around 25 of the postcards herself. If any Arizona Electoral-Vote.com readers received a postcard from New York, you might have heard from us!
G.N. in Albuquerque, NM, writes: I saw a comment today about how inept the canvassing is for Republicans. I can say the Democrats seem to be doing much better based on my experience over the weekend. I was sent a text last week about canvassing in Phoenix and since I had that Friday and the weekend off, I did it. The bus and the hotel were paid for, but meals were mostly on us (though there was pizza at the field office in the afternoon and snacks, coffee, and bagels were available in the morning). The number of attempted contacts was in the tens of thousands overall from the numbers I heard about. We had over 20 from Albuquerque, but there was 3-4 times that number from California there just looking around the room and this wasn't the only field office:
Between my partner and myself, we processed through 115 or so contacts through the mini-van application. It was hot on Saturday, but it was worth it and we were all passionate and believed in what we were doing. All things considered it was pretty organized and well executed. Getting out and doing something makes a difference for sure. Also, a certain Arizona Senate candidate dropped by. I didn't get to meet him directly, though, as he was probably going around to all the field offices that day.
M.G. in Philadelphia (but from Stow, MA), writes: Some of your recent items made me want to share with you my experiences canvassing in Philadelphia. I decided that I couldn't sit in blue Massachusetts with so much at stake, so I volunteered to canvass in Pennsylvania from Halloween Day through the election. I told the campaign I would go wherever they needed me, as long as I could drive there. They sent me to Philadelphia. The last two days I was in south Philly, but over the weekend they're sending me to the close suburbs because they have more volunteers than they need in the city center, and I have a car to get me to other places.
People are coming in from everywhere to help, which is great. Over the weekend, there are literally busloads of people coming in from New York, Boston, and other nearby blue state cities. The past two days, I have canvassed with three people from Sweden, who came here to help. I didn't know that was allowed, but I guess as long as they don't donate to the campaign, it's OK.
I want to say that doing this is putting me outside my comfort zone. I'm an engineer, so talking to people I don't know is not my strength. However, it's important, and to be honest I feel knowledgeable enough to do this largely because I've read your site since at least 2004. So, thank you.
This is, at this point, a GOTV effort. It's hard to feel rewarded doing canvassing, because most people don't answer the door. Also, these are targeted Democratic voters, so most who do answer are definitely voting and doing a full Democratic ticket, so I leave them with a thank you and a reminder to remind all their like-minded friends and family to vote. There are some outliers on our lists, though, and I thank you for giving me the knowledge to be persuasive in those situations. I know not to waste my time and emotions on the few MAGAites we see, but for the few people who are wavering or undecided, I've been able to sway them to voting for Harris by first asking them what's most important to them, and then talking knowledgeably about those issues. The most rewarding one today was a young man who was planning to vote third-party as a way of protesting that he had not heard yet from Kamala what he wants to hear regarding Gaza. I explained that she hears him already, but cannot say out loud what he wants to hear because she would lose more votes than she would gain. I convinced him that Tuesday, in Pennsylvania, is not the time to make a protest vote. He agreed and will vote for Kamala.
So, I feel like I'm doing some good, and the idea is that there are thousands of people doing the same, and hopefully we'll make a difference.
B.J.L. in Ann Arbor, MI, writes: Kamala Harris and Tim Walz in Ann Arbor earlier this week:
My personal estimate of Burns Park attendance: 8,000-10,000. 30-ish porta-johns and 3 food trucks. A 1-mile line into the entrance as we snaked around our neighborhood at 6:00 to get in by 7:05. A 1-mile walk to get in past security:
E.T. in Okahandja, Namibia, writes: Before the election goes down on Tuesday, I wanted to fully articulate my thoughts on the election and this site's election coverage. While I am proud to be so highly informed about the election from reading this site, among others, I also worry that by being highly informed on the election, we forget the perception of these two candidates among less well-informed voters. That's why I'm terrified that Donald Trump will be propelled to victory by the sentiments of voters who are either uninformed or apathetic.
I'll begin with a personal anecdote. I'm currently serving overseas in the Peace Corps while in pre-service training, one of my fellow volunteers flat-out said that he thinks Trump will win because the Biden administration has done a terrible job. When I asked what he meant by a "terrible job" he pointed to the war in Gaza. Naturally, I pointed out that Biden does not control Israel or Gaza, so blaming him for a humanitarian crisis that was started and is being continued by people that he cannot control is silly. This got me nowhere. I pointed to this story to highlight that even though the majority of voters hate Trump, everyone is betting on him winning because he still represents an upheaval of political stagnation in the minds of voters across the spectrum.
I found this video by YouTuber Monsieur Z grimly enlightening. To summarize the main arguments, Mr. Z—not to be confused with (Z) on this site—claims that Kamala Harris represents the neoliberal status quo, and that she is not a competent leader who delivers on her promises, while Trump is something new. By far the most egregious part of the video comes towards the end, where he argues that "when it comes to Donald Trump, all she does is regurgitate the same talking points about Project 2025 and January 6, and in that latest town hall, just outright saying that Donald Trump is a fascist. What Kamala Harris has been resorting to in the last few days, of saying that Donald Trump is a fascist#8212;comparing him to Hitler7#8212;it really comes off as somebody who doesn't feel like they are going to win, that they are resorting to whatever it takes at this point to attack their enemy and try to weaken however they possibly can."
Suffice it to say, Project 2025 is a real plan that Trump's supporters have embraced, January 6th happened and Trump encouraged it, and he HAS embraced fascist ideas like calling for retaliation against media outlets that report on him unfavorably. To claim that Kamala is desperately trying to make Trump into a straw man for radical conservatives is completely disingenuous.
I'll stop there because getting caught up trying to argue and point out correct information is completely pointless. The people who believe these arguments don't care about substantive policy. They care about replacing an administration built on compromise with an administration that will cater to their wants and needs.
I also don't believe this jaded attitude is limited to conservative voters, although it is more extreme among that group. One of the valid arguments that Monsieur Z makes is that Harris has little or nothing to say about foreign policy. Indeed, there is not much on Harris's website or platform to go off of. But we can reliably infer that she would continue Biden's policies by sending money to Ukraine and Israel, negotiating with companies to steer manufacturing and tech away from doing business with China, etc. These may be good policies, but the Biden/Harris administration doesn't have a strong headlining foreign policy achievement, while Barack Obama's administration killed Osama Bin Laden, arranged a deal to stop Iran from going nuclear, and reopened relations with Cuba.
I can also see where these jaded voters are coming from when they talk about Harris being dishonest. I hated her response to the first question of the presidential debate. When faced with the question, "Are Americans better off now than they were 4 years ago?" she responded not by giving a straight answer but instead preaching the merits of her economic plan. I thought it shouldn't be that difficult for her to say yes and throw out some statistic about low inflation or falling energy prices (wink-wink Republicans), and THEN jump into her economic plan.
The point of all this is that even if we know that Kamala Harris is a flawed but qualified candidate and that Trump is evil and crazy, voters have become numb to the neoliberal economic policies that Harris represents. That's why voters will forsake any belief in truth or common decency and enable a convicted felon to take back the presidency.
This next part may sound corny, but I do sincerely believe that Kamala Harris can win this election. I'm not just saying that for the sake of ending on an optimistic note. Even if less informed and jaded voters are compelled by Trump's appeal to anger and hate, many more still find his words and actions unacceptable. For these voters, the choice of candidate is still a choice between Harris, who could make a dent in the social and economic problems plaguing the country, and a candidate in Donald Trump who will only create more problems. It will only take a few voters to choose the grim possibility of solutions over fascism and creating more difficulties for a reasonably strong candidate like Kamala Harris to keep the White House.
S.S.T. in Copenhagen, Denmark, writes: What I would like to do with this letter is offer some reflections on why I would vote for Kamala Harris if I could. Maybe it will help someone to decide.
First, in Denmark we famously have seven social democratic parties. Actually, at present, we have ten parties in the Parliament but no one would dare to fundamentally change the welfare state. In this political world, I belong to the far left. In American terms probably the Green Party. I might well have been one of those Floridians voting for Ralph Nader in 2000, I might even have voted for Jill Stein in 2016, though I doubt I would have dared it. In 2020 I would have voted Joe Biden, and this year I would have thrown my heart and soul behind Kamala Harris (including volunteering and money). Certainly out of fear for Trump 2.0, but also because Harris speaks of joy and Hope, that shining city on a hill.
But Gaza! Yes, it is horrendous. Benjamin Netanyahu has used the American election year to the hilt—at a terrible cost to Palestinians, and for that matter Israelis. But don't vote Trump or abstain because of that. His "peace plan" has nothing for the Palestinians, only the Israelis.
Finally, as a European, if Trump was right about one thing, it was that the Europeans should spend more on the military to earn American protection. Only together and with power may the liberal democracies of the world country the Chinas and Russias of the world.
Finally, the USA may have many and deep problems, but it is NOT in decline. During the past 4 years, with the membership of NATO for Sweden and Finland and the variant defense of Ukrainian nationhood, the USA has, on the contrary reached the apogee of its powers. Russia and China both decline in population. The U.S. does not. The reason for many of the tensions right now are that this age is the last call for both Russia and China, which is exactly why you and the rest of the world need Kamala Harris in the White House.
E.K.H. in San Antonio, TX, writes: I just read your item your piece about "Shy Harris Voters" and I have to share my story.
Way back, 20 years ago, I was living in Northern Virginia, married to a military man. The 2004 election was between John Kerry and George W. Bush. I made no secret that I would be voting for Kerry. My husband bought into the "swift boat" lies about Kerry and urged me to vote for Bush. I tried to point out that anyone can say anything, especially on the Internet, which was fairly new at that point. It fell on deaf ears. After the election, he said, "I'm embarrassed to tell my family you voted for Kerry." I responded, "I can fix that for you. Don't tell them. It's none of their business." I also added, "Democracy begins at home."
Needless to say, the marriage didn't last. I don't take kindly to being told what to do.
A.F. in Boston, MA, writes: An interesting personal tidbit about the ripple effects of abortion, maternal healthcare, and voting:
I'm originally from Texas and much of my family still lives there. We travel there about once a year to visit, usually for my grandfather's birthday. My therapist (an MD, not MSW or similar) strongly recommended against my pregnant wife travelling to Texas under any circumstances until the baby is born because of the laws around abortion and the rapid deterioration of maternal health statistics.
If MDs are willing to voice this to men—granted, she knew where my politics are, that I was receptive to the message, and it was on-topic at the moment—imagine what women are being told by their own PCPs and OBs in the confidence of the doctor's office. Even if a doctor isn't telling someone how to vote, telling a patient that traveling to [RED STATE] is a major health risk on par with some of the most severe State Department international travel warnings is going to swing some votes.
D.C. in Kansas City, KS, writes: My father was with his friend, Doug, one day in 2020. Doug's mother stopped by and during the course of the conversation TFG came up. She announced that she wouldn't be voting for TFG and added "Don't tell your father."
This phenomenon won't matter in Kansas but it could matter in the swing states.
D.C. in Pampa, TX, writes: I just wanted to add a little "outside the bubble" perspective. I grew-up in an ultra-conservative, ultra-religious family in Idaho. My grandfather was a meddler in regional politics: He got ballot measures and constitutional amendments put on the Idaho ballot a number of times, personally "harassed" our governors and state legislators to do his bidding, headed political action groups, and traveled to Wyoming, Montana, and Utah trying to get their governments to make the same changes.
That said, not only was this a guy who would not accept multiple state governments not doing his bidding... he also would not accept it from anyone in his family. He would bring home piles of sample ballots, and instruct us all how to complete them with the only possible correct answers. This was repeated for extended family and literally anyone who he could reach.
Every Election Day was humiliating for my grandmother. She is an incredibly strong, independent-minded, and immensely intelligent woman in her own right. However, she also grew up in an age and culture of subservience to patriarchy. Despite her own ideas, at the end of the day she was obliged to do whatever her husband wished. This being established, he still would not take ANY chances. He would follow her into her voting both, push his way in, push her aside, very panicked-like, and was very verbally and physically assertive in assuring HIS choices were marked on HER ballot. This made her very publically angry. But it changed nothing.
This is the first big election since his passing. She is now free to vote or not vote per her own choosing. And she is definitely exercising this new freedom. So we have 50+ years of at least two reliable votes going one way that are no longer in play for that particular way. My grandfather's methods only served to provoke me into critical thinking and mostly vote opposite of his wishes long, long ago. I drove my own car at a time of my choosing to vote... my grandmother was not allowed to go with me. After voting she and I would talk. She always did what he wanted, but hated a lot of it and said it would've been different had it not been for his forced supervision. Meanwhile, we would both lie to him as to how I voted. It just wasn't worth the family drama, which would be intense, endless, and unforgiving.
This is a very real phenomenon, but largely silent, especially in these hyper-saturated conservatively ubiquitous cultures. Especially when it's seen as not just political, but religious. In conservative Mormon culture-ville, NO ONE dares cross the patriarchs or the church leaders (even though the Church itself makes no political endorsements as an institution, it couldn't be more clear what is expected from local leaders). So the elections happen, then everyone is stunned and furious that the Democrats got as many votes as they did, even if it's only 20-30%, because virtually NO ONE will admit casting those votes. And there is where we get such fuel for the fire about non-existent fraud. It's simply easier for the patriarchy to accept the idea of fraud than it is that their flock is not following their directives. It's absolutely detrimental to the ego, and these gentlemen have powerful yet deeply fragile egos. And when they are crossed, they can become terrifying and/or inflict family damage/pain. So, most of us... we lie.
D.R. in Portland, OR, writes: There's one subject I am hearing talked about constantly though indirectly in the media, but I've never actually heard the word used: Patriarchy. It's the millennia-old way of defining gender roles so that men have higher status than women (and gay and transgender people have none at all). It is tightly embedded in a larger hierarchy in which white-skinned people are superior to dark-skinned, and Christians are privileged over those with other beliefs. This structure pervades everything, but we don't talk about it directly; instead we talk about gender gaps, voting blocs, abortion and immigration policy. It's important to recognize that everything Trump says is intended to reassure listeners that if he is president, this traditional social structure will remain in place. That's why he attacks DEI programs, runs ads about transgender athletes, promises to be a "protector" of women, and holds a "love fest" at MSG that is just an obscene celebration of hypermasculinity.
I don't believe this election is fundamentally about tax policy or foreign policy or any other policy. It's not the economy, stupid, it's the patriarchy.
A.S. in Renton, WA, writes: I'm appalled by the television ads telling women to lie to their husbands but vote for Harris.
People don't understand how many women will be mistreated as a result of the suspicions these ads will feed in the minds of insecure men.
Post-it notes in women's bathrooms were a good idea. These ads... not so much.
M.M. in San Diego, CA, writes: Megyn Kelly's warning to the Trump campaign to tone down the "bro talk" after the Madison Square Garden rally soft-soaped the point. Let me 'splain what Ms. Kelly actually meant: "Yo, knuckle dragging, bulletheaded Bubbas, women cannot stop laughing at you because you regard yourselves as 'Alpha' males. Actual Alphas can speak, read and write at college level at the very least, and do a bit of upper division math, too. They recognize that there are women who are as intelligent, if not more so, than they are without resentment. But most importantly, they don't whine about how unfair they are treated by the world writ large. Women don't particularly like you, not because they are femi-nazi bit**es, but because you are pathetic, arrested development children in adult bodies. It's time to GROW UP!"
A.H in Chevy Chase, MD, writes: I strongly believe that the takeaway after this election will be that polls and pundits have vastly underestimated women in this election. I'm not only referring to their share of the eventual electorate, but the thousands (millions?) of hours of unpaid volunteer hours by women who are working round the clock to GOTV for Kamala Harris.
I am in a group of more than 10,000 women physicians who spend hours each week writing postcards, calling, and knocking on doors—and a few are running for office themselves. There is hardly a woman that I know who hasn't put time into supporting the Harris campaign. And each time I make calls or knock doors, I have real, meaningful conversations with undecided or uncertain voters.
The unpaid work of women—so often unseen—is going to carry this election.
M.B. in Menlo Park, CA, writes: A not-too-fictitious conversation in my head:
Electoral-Vote.com on Nov. 1: Here are a bunch of reasons why Donald Trump is a demagogue.
Donald Trump later that day: Hold my beer, wait until you hear what I have to say about Liz Cheney
Electoral-Vote.com: OK, are we done with the weird stuff for the day?
Donald Trump: Not even close.
L.H. in Chicago, IL, writes: I can't thank you enough for your item in which you refuse to bothsides the distinction between human decency and indecency.
Among those who are not fully in the MAGA camp, it seems there are two kinds of people: those who think they see which way the wind is blowing and suck up to the fascists, and those who refuse to do so. I've never considered myself an icon of bravery, but there are some lines I refuse to cross, and one is "Don't piss on me and tell me it's raining." I will not believe what a liar is telling me and disbelieve my own eyes and ears. It's comforting to know there are others like that out there, others who are more visible than I am, and therefore risking more.
I've read 1984, and I know how this can end. In my twenties, I might have been cowed into submission or at least silence. In my sixties, I'm more willing to risk retaliation than I am to pretend the fascists are in any way acceptable. I commend you for your courage and integrity as well.
P.W. in Springwater, NY, writes: I usually read Electoral-Vote.com in the morning, but didn't quite get to it yesterday, so I had the great pleasure of reading it this morning. And I wanted to thank you specifically for two items.
The first was the letter from A.B. in North Carolina. To be honest, after 9 years of Catholic education (somehow my parents missed 3 years when we moved) the whole idea of an LGBTQ+ community... well, to this boomer, it was eye-opening to say the least. But it took me only about 5 minutes to realize that I liked that person who I just found out was gay and his gayness didn't matter. And then I met someone else who was "out" and so on. I realized I didn't care "what" a person was, just "who" a person was. And while I don't personally know (at least I think I don't know) anyone who is trans, as a health professional, I am well aware that transitioning is not a decision made lightly or frivolously. A.B. said all this succinctly and decisively but I would also paraphrase Tim Walz: It's none of anyone else's damn business. But hey, I'm afraid that grammar/high school indoctrinization is still beneath my surface so I do appreciate hearing about her experiences and her courage in sharing. I am so sorry we live in a country where kindness and acceptance is so seemingly in short supply.
Secondly, I hadn't had a chance to look for the Julia Roberts commercial, although I'd heard it on the radio. I thought it sounded great, but it's so much better when you can actually see it. The facial expressions, from the condescending husband to the two women, is priceless. The responses from such stand-up guys as Charlie Kirk and Newt Gingrich would be humorous if not so arrogant. Kirk's comment about the "American hat"—ugh!—reminds me of Donald Trump hugging American flags when he was in office. As if only he and his followers "owned" the flags? Obviously, they'd like to "own" women. (After seeing his stunt with the mic, it makes me wonder what he was doing with those flags, anyway, but that's another question.) What really got to me in this ad however, was that my husband, who's generally not inclined to tell me what to do, didn't "get it" in the same way. He grew up in a household where his dad, a nice guy, to be sure, certainly seemed to be the dominant force. And after 50 years of being together, I still do occasionally have to remind my husband that his opinion is not the only or always right one. Old habits die hard. So thanks, also, to the Harris campaign and Julia Roberts for that reminder, and for you to posting both.
J.G. in Chantilly, VA, writes: Thanks for taking a stance on Trumpist demagoguery. Jeff Bezos should hand over his riches to you. Maybe you can provide him with a spine in return.
And thanks again to A.B. in Wendell for educating us on SCOTUS decisions supporting trans rights, and making us more understanding of the trans community. Please continue, I'm listening.
A.H. in Newberg, OR, writes: OK, I am a white Anglo Saxon protestant (WASP) grouchy old male curmudgeon liberal left lunatic. Please pass on to A.B. that I raise a pint of Oregon Kraft Brewed IPA to her for her always thoughtful and insightful comments and postings. You go, girl!!!!!!
L.O.-R. in San Francisco, CA, writes: Thank you to A.B. in Wendell. I'm always so grateful for her perspective on a wide range of topics. Keep writing in, please! And NC voters could only be so lucky to have you represent them in office someday!
R.V. in Pittsburgh, PA, writes: I truly think if there was a second Trump term, he'd order a military strike against a deep blue city. There would no longer be a General Milley, Mattis, or a Kelly, but likely a Mike Flynn in charge. There would also be the SCOTUS ruling that would give him carte blanche to do whatever the hell he wanted, no matter how despicable the act. Now grant it, were he to give such an order, some in the military would refuse it. But the mere fact that even such an order could be given at all is so troubling it's hard to even put into the appropriate words.
J.S in Riverside, IA, writes: At our annual poll-worker training in Washington County Iowa, we were specifically instructed to NOT confront anyone wearing political attire during voting next Tuesday. State law does not allow electioneering within 300 feet of any poling place.
This concerns me that we are now allowing people to violate the law under the threat of violence. Why are we normalizing this behavior? Could it be because our county auditor is a Republican?
P.N. in Austin, TX, writes: In your piece, "Could We Have a Trump Presidency and a Democratic House?," you missed one important detail: If the Democrats take the House, with a majority of five or less, but the fascists control the White House and Senate, then someone is either getting arrested or they'll "fall out a window." Fascist regimes always target the legislative body first.
R.E. in Birmingham, AL, writes: If the blowback from the Madison Square Garden rally costs Donald Trump the election, then "hey, that guy's a racist!" will be the least surprising October surprise ever.
K.K. in Pittsburgh, PA, writes: I've been volunteering on phone banks for the Kamala Harris campaign, and we heard an interesting anecdote today. A Puerto Rican voter in Georgia told one of our volunteers that he was all set to vote for Trump until the MSG rally. Now he, and EVERYONE AT HIS CHURCH, are going to vote for Harris. One wonders if that comedian will end up having lost the election for Trump?
D.K. in New Tork City, NY, writes: Your criticisms of the "comedian" Tony Hinchcliffe were spot on, as was the comparison to Don Rickles. Not only was Rickles funny, he told racial or stereotype jokes as to poke fun at racism, not the subject of the racism. It is a very fine line, but Rickles did it and Hinchcliffe didn't even try. Rickles would go after himself and his own religion with just as much vigor as when he went after anyone else. Further, he didn't punch down. Much of his shtick was that we are all in this together. When he made fun of Italian stereotypes, he did it to Frank Sinatra's face. If he was taking shots at Ronald Reagan, he did it to his face. The subjects of his wit were always in on the joke. Can you imagine if Hinchcliffe tried to roast Donald Trump or J.D. Vance?
C.C. in Belknap County, NH, writes: I wanted to share that I made a post yesterday on eX-Twitter that now has over 2.5 million impressions. I'm running for New Hampshire State Senate District Two:
(V) & (Z) respond: Good luck to you on Tuesday!
P.S. in Gloucester, MA, writes: Saw this on Threads (in the wake of the hate fest at Madison Square Garden):
My fellow Americans-
If you do not have an emotional support Canadian, now is the time sign up before supplies run out.
There is a backlog of orders because of the hate rally today, so please be patient. A Canadian will be assigned to you shortly.
D.H. in Lisbon Falls, ME, writes: Hopefully a future U.S. History exam question:
Compare and contrast the comments of the Rev. Samuel D. Burchard in the 1884 presidential election ("Rum, Romanism, and Rebellion!") with the comments of Tony Hinchcliffe in the 2024 presidential election ("a floating island of garbage in the middle of the ocean right now. I think it's called Puerto Rico.")
Discuss how each comment led to James G. Blaine and Donald Trump losing their elections.
P.C. in Austin, TX, writes: This is in regards to the bona fides of Buzz Aldrin, referenced in "Today in Endorsements."
My only "up close" experience with Aldrin was as the keynote speaker at a Destination Imagination "Global Finals" event. Destination Imagination is a semi-competitive program for youth to demonstrate leadership, teamwork, technical and presentation skills, etc. So, we're talking university students all the way to third graders (think 8-year-olds).
Buzz was the only celebrity of note (to my recollection), and eagerly anticipated. He had the complete attention of the entire audience (10,000 or so, the vast majority very young).
Unfortunately, Buzz took the stage in a state of inebriation (or, to be charitable, some other state of neural impairment).
I was with a group of 10-year-olds. It was, frankly, embarrassing and appalling. I understand that alcoholism is a disease (my family is not immune), but there's no excuse for putting that man, in that condition, on stage with a live microphone and letting him riff wildly for 5 minutes in front of that audience.
Needless to say, his endorsement will not impact my vote. I do hope he's getting the help he needs.
T.W. in Norfolk, England, UK, writes: If I could say anything to Buzz Aldrin, it would be this: You looked at our planet from a distance of 250,000 miles, and you saw how exquisite, precious and vulnerable it is, and yet you choose to support someone who'd happily kill it for a few more years of keeping himself out of jail while jailing anyone who disagrees with him? At your advanced age you should be thinking about your legacy, not destroying it, you massive disappointment.
A.G. in Los Angeles, CA, writes: Since you had an item about Buzz Aldrin and space, I wanted to highlight a very good book about the topic: Carrying the Fire: An Astronaut's Journeys, by Michael Collins. It's a fantastic personal account of how the space program got going and what training for the moon mission was like. The sense of awe and fear of going to space, combined with Collins' detailed account of technical aspects of the program, make it a must read. You probably will also get a sense of why Buzz might be in the (R) column for the upcoming election.
It's an uplifting read, which many of us could use right now. Full disclosure: I "read' the audiobook.
S.N. in Sparks, NV, writes: You wrote, of Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA), "We continue to be amazed that this man looks in the mirror every morning and sees a devout Christian."
I am not a theologian, but I did earn a master's degree in theology in the early 1980s. The question you raised perplexed me also, and over time I found a possible answer in the following:
Religious ------------------------------------------------------------ Spiritual
At one end of the spectrum are "religious" people, who I define as people who emphasize "right beliefs." Taken to the extreme, how you live your life or treat others is irrelevant for the purposes of salvation, you just need the correct beliefs. To illustrate, back when I was still a Christian, I expressed the view that Jews could go to heaven without accepting Jesus as their personal savior. I was promptly informed that I was going to hell for believing this.
On the other end of the spectrum are "spiritual" people, for whom doctrine is much less important. They emphasize connection to others—to god(s), to other people, to the world around them, etc. Of course, most people fit somewhere in between the extremes and can possess elements of both religious and spiritual. Within this framework, I think conservative Christians would cluster more toward the religious mode. Therefore, someone like Mike Johnson can absolutely consider themselves Christian, while giving little evidence of caring about other people or following the example of Jesus of Nazareth as portrayed in the Gospels.
I think this schema would apply equally well to religions such as Hinduism, Judaism, and Islam. I am less sure it would work with Buddhism, or fit the religious belief systems of Native Americans or Native Hawaiians.
P.C. in Austin, TX, writes: My understanding of (extreme) conservative Christian approaches to, well, most things, is that the government can only be seen as an intruder on the lives of the faithful, and thus its scope should be minimized. "Give unto Caesar..." and "God will provide."
In this case, the government should thus have no hand in healthcare, at least for the faithful (which, of course, should be everyone!). The same is true for education, the environment, the operation of businesses, etc. etc.
For many, healthcare should be provided by members of the flock. Think "Healthcare Sharing Ministries" (HCSMs). One can watch Last Week Tonight's review of HCSMs (some "mature" content) to see how that's going.
A.G. in Scranton, PA, writes: Gentlemen,
Nice...
Pulling out the Hebrew name of Christ after referencing Nazis writ large and a Nazi sh**head like Johnson, by name?
Don't think everyone missed why (probably) you chose that way to say it on this day.
That's why we pay you the big bucks.
G.B. in Winterville, NC, writes: Not too long ago, the far-right-dominated North Carolina General Assembly finally decided to expand Medicaid under the ACA. The reason they decided to give those "slacker, unemployed people" insurance is not out of any compassion for the state's less fortunate residents. No, it was simply the almighty dollar. See, the state has been losing rural hospitals and even the major (academic) medical centers have been losing money because they have to absorb the costs of uncompensated care. It doesn't look too good when your constituents have to go through multiple counties in order to get to a hospital, because their own hospital closed due to money loss. A closure that could have been prevented by expanding Medicaid years earlier.
And that's exactly what happened to us earlier this year: We lost a rural hospital not too far away (due to financial losses, and inability to find a partner hospital for funding). A county with 20,000 people, now have no emergency care or other major medical facilities within 45 minutes. That's too far for many stroke or heart attack patients to have a reasonable chance to save some/most/all brain/cardiac function.
So, to read that MAGAt Mike Johnson is even considering monkeying with the ACA just blows my mind (although, it really shouldn't). And what makes this even worse is that most of Louisiana is rural, and had to be suffering the same hospital closures, and there's no way MAGAt Mike is unaware. Unless he's been living under a mountain of rocks.
If this doesn't just scream that he and the rest of the nutters are giving the public the middle finger, while saying "Eff YOU!" to the public, I don't know what does. Unconscionable.
For the record, I am affected by all this, as I am a cardiac catheterization lab nurse, and I work in one of the state's academic medical centers.
T.S. in Florissant, MO, writes: One of the most staggering things to me about this election is, as Barack Obama and Van Jones have pointed out, the massive double standards that exist between the two major-party candidates, which appear to be held and condoned by at least a significant portion of society.
Kamala Harris has to be the absolutely perfect candidate in every conceivable way. She cannot make any mistakes. People supposedly "don't know her well enough," and she has to be "specific" and "elaborate" on her economic policies. And even when she is, they still say she hasn't been. And the frequency and way in which she talks with the press has to be just so. Her behavior, personal life, hair, dress, and every word that comes out of her mouth have to be completely perfect and above-board. If she so much as wiggles an eyebrow the wrong way, people will be on her case. She's playing with fire whenever she even laughs a little bit. Or when she doesn't. God forbid she ever expresses anger publicly. Any tiny misstep can cause her to lose votes.
Donald Trump, on the other hand, is not expected to live up to any standards whatsoever. He doesn't have to be intelligent. He doesn't have to have sound economic policy. He doesn't even have to know what he's talking about. ("Tariff is the most beautiful word"—like, who the hell talks like that?) Not only does the way in which he handles the press not have to be just so, but he can bully, sue, and threaten press organizations, search engines, and social media companies daily. He doesn't have to be of sound mind. No one expects him to exhibit any leadership qualities whatsoever. I'm a better leader of people than he is, but the fact that he sucks at it badly is apparently not a problem. It's perfectly okay for him to be devoid of core values and principles. He doesn't have to be gracious and kind. He doesn't even have to be generally law-abiding. He doesn't have to be not a convicted felon. He doesn't have to be faithful to his wife. He doesn't have to control his emotions and his constant exhibition of unbridled rage is totally cool. Nothing he ever does is playing with fire.
Basic expectations that were applied to previous presidential candidates do not apply to him in any way for whatever reason. When I was growing up, so many presidential candidacies were ended instantly by the candidate saying or doing something stupid or unprofessional or without the expected decorum, or by some kind of scandal. Now Trump says things that should be campaign-ending every single day, multiple times a day, has been doing so for the past 9 years, and it doesn't seem to hurt him in the least. Nor does any of his unethical, scandalous, and criminal behavior over the years.
Can you imagine if in 1980 Ronald Reagan had publicly raged over Debbie Harry and said he hated her? No one ever would have taken him seriously again. He would have been laughed out of every room he walked into. Can you imagine if Reagan publicly bulled and threatened young women, young enough to be his daughters or granddaughters?
Conversely, can you imagine if Kamala tweeted out in all caps, "I HATE KID ROCK"? She would never be taken seriously again. She'd lose in a landslide. The standards still apply to her.
Can you imagine the toxic, misogynistic crap they would be saying about Kamala if she had 5 kids with 3 different guys, and if she had cheated on each of those guys, including with porn stars? If she were caught on tape having a "grab 'em by the di**" moment? If she had a husband buried on her property? If, furthermore, one of her biggest women supporters had 12 kids with 3 different guys? But there are exactly zero expectations of propriety from Trump and Elon Musk. If anything, these obvious, glaring double standards to which no one even bats an eyelash, let alone protesting in the streets, are confirmation that patriarchy absolutely exists.
It is so disappointing and frustrating.
We live in a time of total insanity. But I hope the Puerto Rico thing hurts the Republican Party badly and that the garbage truck ride becomes Trump's "Dukakis in the tank" moment. And I hope to God enough of us are still sane enough to make the right choice in this election.
J.D. in Cold Spring, MN, writes: My head is going to explode!! Is this sane- washing, bothsiderism, or just plain crazy?
Donald Trump's racism creates a problem for—wait for it—DEMOCRATS!
New York Times "news analysis": "Donald J. Trump's anti-immigrant message is exposing longstanding tensions and challenging Democrats' hopes for solidarity."
Help!
B.B. in Pasadena, CA, writes: I am beyond sick and tired of the 'bothsideism' displayed by the allegedly mainstream news media (words chosen carefully to exclude faux news). Jon Stewart famously called it out many years ago now (and got Crosstalk canceled). But it is now worse than ever, capped by the heinous lack of cojones of Jeff Bezos and Patrick Soon-Shiong. Bezos' Op-Ed on why he did it was total B.S. and, of course, ignored a long history of newspapers taking a stand (for better or worse). I can't help but remember Charles Foster Kane—channeling William Randolph Hearst—telling a reporter: "You provide the prose poems, I'll provide the war." Newspapers have not been shy about falsity (or truth; notably, of course, Katharine Graham, Ben Bradlee, Watergate).
So it was, not with amazement, but rather awe that I found today's 3,000 word "The Final Argument: Demagoguery" a masterpiece of profound importance.
I have been reading Electoral-Vote.com more or less since day one, including the lean years, waiting for the next election to get (V) back in gear. It is the first thing I read in the morning. There are a lot of words since Day 1 and much time gone by, so I may not recall other jewels posted, but this one, to me, is the most important I have ever read. A well-reasoned, precise factual analysis that actually spells out the truth that chops through the crap that this country receives both from home and abroad is breathtaking. It was immediately followed by a viewing of Lebron James's video attached to his endorsement of Kamala Harris. Electoral-Vote.com and that clip had me weeping.
It is worth repeating that Joseph Goebbels, as the Minister of Propaganda (Nazi Germany, for those too young to know), emphasized the importance of controlling education and media to shape public opinion, stating, "If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it." Donald Trump seems to be massively stupid, but if he is, he is still some innate genius as he has mastered the "Art of Goebbels" that through propaganda and the control of information, the regime could control the beliefs of the masses. Of course, has also had help from his friend, Vlad.
Sadly, half the country will say I am a left-wing commie pinko fu**ing a**hole who deserves to be put up there on the firing squad along with Liz Cheney and others who are doing their best to save the American Experiment from fascist ruin.
I've tried to get as many friends to start reading Electoral-Vote.com and a surprising number have actually come back to me with quotes (some I'd never have expected). I've sent in (albeit modest) donations.
I merely want to thank Electoral-Vote.com for their extraordinarily huge time and efforts and hope that you will do your best to keep them going for a long time to come. We need them. The country needs them. And they need to be heard.
(V) & (Z) respond: We thank you for the very heartfelt words, and are glad to have you as a long-term member of Team EV.
G.V. in Bogotá, Colombia, writes: In your item "Arab Americans favor Jill Stein," you present the idea that Arab-Americans would vote for Harris "...apparently without regard to the consequences."
What this fails to take into account is the fact that the destruction of Palestine and the death toll in Gaza is so tremendous that the Harris-Biden administration has nothing left to offer to Arab-Americans. The war has left every family broken, so don't ask them to think about the issues of concern to Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's constituency. For Arab Americans, it is clear that they fall way down in the list of priorities of a hypothetical Harris administration, and her behavior shows that she is not willing to put their lives above her priorities. She is consistent, so we do know that she'll put the voice of the majority of America before every other issue. And that means support for Israel.
Trump, on the other hand, is for sale. He claims to be Benjamin Netanyahu's friend today, but he would forget that friendship in a heartbeat if there is enough money to be made. So no, those Arab Americans are not being irrational, they just see the race in completely different terms from someone within the U.S. bubble.
J.B. in Brossard, QC, Canada, writes: As a tail end baby boomer, my reference for the Middle East conflict are some lyrics from the Genesis song, "Blood on the Rooftops," released in 1976: "Arabs and Jews boy/Too much for me."
This is a conflict that has gone on for years (really, forever) and it is incredible that Arab Americans may be delivering the solution to the detriment of their Gazan brothers and sisters. Four years of the Orange Man may be enough to get it done. Though I support team Israel, I am sympathetic to the plight of people in Gaza. It seems to me Gazans are just pawns of others with a different agenda—the elimination of the state of Israel. If their votes do lead to the end of Gaza, it will bring a bit of order to the region. It is my understanding that the Crusades brought order to the world—albeit in a brutal manner, but it did bring order. History repeats itself.
S.V.E. in Renton, WA, writes: I was listening to an interview with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez today, talking about the dichotomy of opposing some administration policies while still voting for them, and it inspired me to post this to my social media. I wanted to share it here:
Landslides Lead Left
I'm more progressive than most and I proudly cast my vote for Kamala Harris and a full democratic/progressive slate downballot.
There are those in the progressive movement who object to the current administration's handling of many current crises (most notably, but not limited to, the travesty happening in Gaza right now), and who want to influence policy and "punish" the administration by voting third-party (or not voting).
For what it's worth, I share many (if not all) of your concerns, but I disagree strongly with your strategy. Narrowing the margin of victory reduces the power of the winner, and if votes are unavailable on the left, our candidates will be forced to look for them on the right. It is incumbent on us at the edge of the Overton Window to understand that our role is to move the center by pulling at the borders with all our might, knowing all along that we will never get everything we want in our lifetimes, but remembering that "two steps forward and one step back" is still one step forward.
In the meantime, overwhelming victories give our representatives in government more room to maneuver and get as much changed as is possible.
Landslides Lead Left
J.K. in Portland, OR, writes: There's an old joke about the Middle East. A frog and a scorpion meet on the shore of the Jordan River. The scorpion asks the frog for a ride across the river to the other side. The frog says, "Why should I do that? If I let you on my back, you'll stab me and I will be paralyzed and will drown." The scorpion replies, "Well, I can't swim, and if I stab you in the middle of the river, I would drown too." The frog considers that and allows the scorpion to climb on board. In the middle of the river, the scorpion stabs the frog. Dying, the frog asks, "Why did you do that? Now we're both going to die." The scorpion, in its last breath, says, "Because it's the Middle East."
The state of affairs over there today suggests that the Jews of Israel have fully become Middle Easterners. Just about everybody who has origins (cultural or genetic) in the region has ancestors who belonged to one of the Abrahamic religions, all of which have teachings that are antithetical to the behavior of the major antagonists (Israel, Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran) of the current war. The innocent victims (Palestinians in Gaza, anti-war Israelis, Lebanese) are just that—victims—and the major antagonists agree only on their willingness to sacrifice the victims in the furtherance of their causes.
Yes, Israel is pretty much the only democracy in the region and the spectre of the Holocaust remains an important aspect of thinking about how we got into this mess. But enough is enough. Yes, Benjamin Netanyahu and his cronies achieved power through the ballot box (aided by all sorts of propagandistic and worse behaviors by the antagonists). But, even taking Netanyahu's personal corruption aside, the Israeli government has gone too far in its behaviors over the past year—so much so that it is entirely appropriate that the United States and other countries who have supported Israel's right to exist must exert their power to put an end to the carnage and to use force if necessary to put an end to the overt aspects of the conflict in order to begin to work on the less overt aspects in unity. And it is impossible to overestimate the difficulty of doing that.
Meanwhile, here in the United States, only one of two people will become President on January 20, 2025. And of those two people, only one is capable of even thinking about possible ways to end the carnage. And that person is not the narcissist addicted to public profanity. Any American citizen of Middle Eastern descent—or, for that matter, who takes Abrahamic religious tenets seriously—and who even considers not voting for Kamala Harris because of the current situation in the Middle East is engaged in self-delusion. And to these folks I say: Please wake up and do not take the role of the scorpion to make the United States a victim of the Middle East.
B.H. in Whispering Pines, NC, writes: Last night we were lucky enough to spend an hour with Maurice "Butch" Holland, Jr. while traveling from Raleigh Durham Airport to our winter home in Whispering Pines (near Pinehurst in Moore County). Butch (D) is running to unseat Tom McInnes (R), who is running for his 6th term as state senator from District 21 (Moore and Cumberland counties). From 2013 to 2023, Butch has served as either 1st Vice Chair or Chair of the Moore County Democratic Party, and in April of 2023 he was elected as Chair of the 9th Congressional District. He is a longtime Moore County native.
Needless to say, Butch was a fount of local political knowledge. We discussed the gerrymandering of the state's congressional maps, what's happening on the ground (Butch confirms Kamala Harris's ground game is putting Donald Trump's outsourced effort to shame), and what's happening in Asheville (he believes that provisions will be made for all to vote their despite the hardships, and that it will not have any significant consequence in the election). He is cautiously optimistic that Harris will carry the state, largely due to one key statistic: Fully 1/3 of Republican women are pro-choice, and he sees that driving a lot of "crossover" voting by women.
Tonight, Butch hopes to see Harris' rally in Charlotte (he doesn't yet know where it is—they don't tell you until the day of for security reasons, he only knows he needs to be there at 6:00 p.m.).
I asked him if he feels any personal danger due to the election, whatever its outcome. He downplayed this and doesn't see any real threats of violence, at least not in Moore County.
Thanks for the time, Butch! I felt like I was talking to (V) or (Z). You can learn more about Butch's campaign here.
R.L.D. in Sundance, WY, writes: The reason the University of Wyoming took a whole month for their presidential poll is that the JIP (Jackalope Internet Protocol) is very lossy due to coyotes and, up by Yellowstone, wolves.
Seriously, though it's not a big shift, it gives me hope that Trump lost 4 percentage points from the PPP poll in April. Wyoming won't be competitive any time soon, but I'll grasp on to any sign people are coming to their senses.
J.A. in Forest, VA, writes: After redistricting a couple of years ago, I was moved from Virginia's 6th Congressional District to the 5th. The 5th is a slam-dunk, absolute sure thing for Republicans... except I'm not totally sure about that.
In 2008, Democrat Tom Perriello won the district by fewer than 1,000 votes. Perriello was one of the hardest-working members of Congress, holding numerous town hall meetings in his district (as opposed to the 6th District Congressman of the time, Bob Goodlatte, who famously ran on term limits but stayed to serve 13 terms, and should have been a face on a milk carton since he was rarely seen in public for the better part of a decade). Perriello voted for the Affordable Care Act, then apologized to his district for doing so. Predictably, he served just one term, then the Virginia CDs were re-districted to insure that the 5th would remain forever red.
Despite that, the 5th CD has had close elections. In 2018, Denver Riggleman won with just 53.2% of the vote. In 2020, Bob Good defeated Black physician Cameron Webb with just 52.4%. The Virginia districts were again re-drawn, this time by a more or less independent commission, and Good won re-election in 2022 with 57.6%. Unlike some other districts in Virginia and other states, this is never a 70/30 district; there's a substantial portion of the electorate that always votes Democratic.
This year Good was tossed overboard by the Trumpists; he was defeated by John McGuire, 50.3% to 49.7%, in a vicious primary fight that featured non-stop attack ads. The ads worked—they convinced me that neither should be in Congress. The alternative is a Black woman Democrat, Gloria Tinsley Witt, an Amherst County native who grew up in a farm home without plumbing. My wife was a classmate of Witt's for a year, after the schools were desegregated. Witt is woefully underfunded and has little chance of reaching 50% of the vote, but she may not need to. Many Republicans were turned off by the Republican primary bitterness; a week ago I saw a large, professional-looking sign on Route 29 (the principal North-South road through the district) encouraging write-in votes for Bob Good. If McGuire loses 5% of the Republican vote to write-ins for Good, that might be enough to tilt the election in Witt's favor.
Probably not going to happen, but I'll be keeping an eye on the vote totals on Tuesday. This district is turnable, if only the national Democrats would notice.
K.S. in Pittsburgh, PA, writes: I'm not sure if all states have the same rules as Pennsylvania, but it's important to know that in the Keystone State you can vote provisional if you aren't sure if your mail-in ballot was received. To vote provisional, you go to your polling location on Election Day and explain that you were sent a mail-in ballot, but want to vote provisional just in case it wasn't received. They hold provisional ballots until they assure your mail-in has not been received and then it becomes a valid vote. If you still have your mail-in ballot, turn it in at the polls and you can vote normally. For those not in Pennsylvania, check your state's requirements.
S.L. in Glendora, CA, writes: I was pretty surprised to hear that two of your readers from Florida aren't getting any e-mails or texts from Debbie Mucarsel-Powell. I'm sitting out here in California and I've been getting e-mails from her for over a year. I got three just today, and seven yesterday, including one from her adorable husky, Kali. This doesn't count the e-mails I get from her good friends Jimmy Kimmel, Gavin Newsom, Martin Sheen, and Chuck Schumer. I haven't donated a dime to her campaign, but still the e-mails come. It seems like there is something wrong with a campaign that is neglecting potential voters while e-mailing people on the other side of the country.
S.C. in Henderson, NV, writes: I'm a Nevada voter, located in Henderson.
For context, I was a registered Republican from 1996 to 2016. I voted a Republican ticket from 1996 to 2008. I voted for Gary Johnson in 2012 and 2016. I voted for Joe Biden in 2020 and early voted for Kamala Harris in 2024. I also switched my party affiliation to Democratic Party in 2018.
Part of the reason I did not consider Sam Brown (R) when voting for the Senate this year is that I now feel it's unconscionable to vote for any Republican for any office, while the party is being lead by Donald Trump. A great deal of soul-searching has also been involved, which makes me seriously question why I ever had a Republican Party affiliation, when my ideologies have generally leaned progressive.
As for candidate Brown, I don't consider him to be a Nevadan. To be fair, I've only been a resident for 13 years; However, I'm not running for a political office. Having had an unsuccessful race in Texas, in coming here, I view Brown as a political opportunist. In immediately running for a United States Senate position, he demonstrated he wasn't willing to pay his dues or make a genuine effort to represent his constituency.
I also have to question his judgment, considering he aligns himself with Donald Trump, a man who holds obvious contempt for veterans. The injuries Sam Brown sustained in service of his country are tragic. He deserves credit for his service. I don't understand how to can reconcile giving his support to a man (Trump) who would ridicule his pain and sacrifice. Bad judgment is my conclusion.
Finally, Brown's campaign, at least his political ads or those of his surrogates, is devoid of policy. They are simple messages of "Rosen is bad." Constant negativity without a plan of action is fatiguing.
I hope this can provide some insight. Thank you for the work you do.
J.N. in Las Vegas, NV, writes: I live in Las Vegas and this is Sam Brown's third campaign, so he is a known entity in Nevada at this point. He was tagged as a carpetbagger in his first campaign and that has stuck. In this cycle, Sen. Jacky Rosen (D) had a distinct money advantage and went up on TV months before Brown and has absolutely hammered him on one topic: abortion! By the time he started his own advertising, the narrative was set. Also when audio was released of Brown addressing supporters saying he was against abortion in all instances, with no exceptions, it has pretty much sealed the deal. Brown has also positioned himself as a far-right candidate and Nevadans have never embraced candidates at the fringes. Jacky Rosen is also not a grandstander and works in a bipartisan fashion, focusing on Nevada issues.
M.P. in Reno, NV, writes: As a Nevada voter, my opinion is that Sam Brown is way behind in the polls because:
- His appearance (reconstructed face due to war injuries) doesn't help him and may be a liability. Many of his commercials don't show him.
- More important, his statements and positions aren't compelling enough to stick in the mind.
- Most important, the Democratic ground game is vastly superior. They have hundreds of unpaid, passionate volunteers blanketing Reno and Sparks. The GOP has a few paid lollygaggers. No comparison.
M.S. in Las Vegas, NV, writes: I live in Henderson, NV, and you probably know this, but it's really just a suburb of Las Vegas in Clark County. I can tell you that every negative Sam Brown ad I have seen from Jacky Rosen has included this exact phrase: "MAGA extremist Sam Brown" and then the ad goes on to inform us that when he was in Texas he wanted a total abortion ban with no exceptions for rape or incest, and then concludes that Sam Brown is too extreme for Nevada. I have probably seen at least 3x, and probably more like 5x, more negative ads about Sam Brown than I've seen about Jacky Rosen.
In comparison, the anti-Rosen ads will generally talk about her lying about Sam Brown, or being somehow shady and involved in questionable financial deals (I'm being vague because the ad is vague and my point is it's not memorable or clear what exactly they're accusing her of), or—and this is the negative Rosen ad I have seen the most—the ad will talk about how Rosen and Kamala Harris want to pay for trans surgeries and how much they love trans people, with the obvious assumption being that the average Nevada voter will think trans people are somehow less deserving of respect, or, worse, are freaks.
In short: it's "trans people are horrible and Rosen loves them" vs. "Sam Brown is a MAGA extremist from Texas who wants to completely ban abortion even in cases of rape or incest." I don't think I need to point out my opinion of which one of those arguments would be more likely to hit home with voters.
K.R. in Austin, TX, writes: Reading the complaints department letters makes me feel bad for all the elected officials who must also be getting letters like this regularly.
I have written to my school board members on occasion. I have also met them in person. Several told me that they knew who I was because I wrote such thoughtful e-mails, even if I disagreed with them.
I wondered if my e-mails were really that well written and memorable. Now that I see the e-mails you get, I would bet that any e-mails that show a modicum of thought and kindness really stand out in the stream of sewage they must get.
Maybe politicians should say that their offices will no longer read e-mails from constituents, but they will carefully read anything sent via U.S. mail. That might filter out the worst of the letters.
M.S in Portland, OR, writes: I've been enjoying your commentary since 2004, when one of my former physics graduate students sent me the Electoral-Vote.com link. What started as poll aggregation morphed into an insightful, smart, must-read political blog. I start each day with my cup of coffee accompanied by confirmation bias provided courtesy of Electoral-Vote.com.
Today I feel compelled to write you for the first time. As a retired academic I understand and embrace both the tone and perspective you bring to political discussion. Your informed logical arguments support open discussion without judgment. The snark makes it fun. That said, and in my opinion, the "Complaints Department" detracts from rather than adds to the site. As an example, the comment from K.D. in Birmingham was filled with emotion and vitriol, and as such, it was not constructive nor did it add anything to the political discussion. Since the content in your site as written clearly expresses your logical and reflective nature(s), you should not feel obligated to publish a "Complaints Department."
(V) & (Z) respond: We'll probably have fewer of these once the election is over. Still, they do have value. They give a sense of a certain type of voter that is definitely out there. They help illustrate that the difference between "message of disagreement" and "message that is over the top." And when the complaint is legitimate, then readers know we are aware of that particular concern.
J.E. in Whidbey Island, WA, writes: I have (attempted to) read the complete, uncensored screed from K.D. in Birmingham. The only conclusion I can reach is that it must actually have been written by generative (or is it degenerative?) AI that was trained on the complete corpus of Trump's 2024 campaign rally speeches, merged with the transcripts of all interviews conducted with the attendees of said rallies.
God help us all.
(V) & (Z) respond: We tested that, to make sure. K.D. in Birmingham is all too real.
D.C. in Brentwood, CA, writes: Regarding the hate-mail from K.D. in Birmingham, you wrote it was the whole, uncensored letter, but you've either made a mistake, or you're intentionally misleading the readers. You left off the last line from the really uncensored version:
THE ARISTOCRATS!
(V) & (Z) note: E.G. in The Villages is the site's most reliable hate-reader, and almost invariably sends in one or more snotty comments within 15-60 minutes of each day's post going live. We thought some readers might be interested in a whole week's worth of messages (which are unedited).
E.G. in The Villages, FL, writes:
November 1: If she lied about who she votes for and can't have a real convo, what else is she lying about . Get rid of her
November 1: Sex change is not a necessary medical intervention. Sorry
November 1: Ab wants more full throated support from kamala, that's the only support she has and whyl she's there . Ask Willie Brown and judge Joe Brown
November 1: An in Wendell says tough sh** . How liberal and tolerant of you
October 31: People who support abortion hunt at violence towards pregnant women. Do you even sleep at night or just think about trump all night long ? Did you write anything about Biden calling Trump supporters garbage ? So glad this is the last week I'll follow this page of fiction, just to see your reaction to Trump winning again. He's a fascist sure , then wouldn't you be scared to write this way about him
October 30: Look at all those Knicks and rangers Nazi rallies . Oh wow , people who get fired like to say sh** about the people who fire them. Biden /Harris doesn't fire anyone
October 30: Basketball style throws of paper towels LMAO? Talking about grasping from straws. All the speakers were racist , complete nonsense . And don't flatter yourself about me reading your sensationalized fiction, I'm here to watch you squirm after trump wins , then I'll never read or see this embarrassment of a page ever again
October 29: You guys are ridiculous . First of all, there is nothing off limits when it comes to comedy . Second, comedy is subjective , so nobody cares if you don't find Matt Walsh or Tony hinchcliffe funny. Plenty of people do . Also, they cut out the joke about Kamala being a cu** because it wasn't a joke, it was fact . So fu** you and fu** Kamala . I am surrounded by subhuman excrement like you.
October 28: Oh no! The party of tolerance is canceling their washington post subscriptions because someone didn't endorse the candidate they wanted . Go back to your safe spaces , weak a** people
S.P. in Cranston, RI, writes: Here's a short (and short shelf-life) song about anxiety concerning the upcoming election:
J.B. in Denver, CO, writes: Oh come on. The last weekend before the most critical election in U.S. history and you all are REALLY phoning it in.
Trump is putting forth more of an effort in the closing days than you all are.
(V) & (Z) respond: When you're talking about a site that publishes something on more than 99% of days, despite having just two primary authors, we think "you're lazy" is definitely a fair criticism. Presumably it did not occur to you that being ready on Election Day requires vast preparation on our part?
Look, we get it. A lot of people are anxious about the election, and for some of them, we are a convenient target for their stress release. If that's what you need to do, then better us than someone else. We get enough snotty messages that a few more don't have any impact.
L.G. in Thornton, CO, writes: I just want to tell you one more time how much I appreciate what you both contribute to my political understanding each and every week, year-in and year-out. You couldn't possibly do it so faithfully if you weren't at least a little bit ADDICTED to your calling (hobby). Thank you. I benefit greatly from your addiction.
In case you ever wonder if you make an impact on a non-Democratic audience, I have always been an unaffiliated, independent voter who looks at every issue on its own merits, unconstrained by what a political party tells me how to feel about it. What's more, I am a retired Christian pastor who is appalled by how much the average Christian has been co-opted by Republican noise, in opposition to Jesus' Christian Manifesto as proclaimed in the Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 5-7).
For me, Electoral-Vote.com is the voice of sanity in the midst of a mostly insane world. Thanks again. Take the weekend off and rest. Take the pups for a long walk. My beloved Sadie is evidence of what happens when a long-haired dachshund crawls in bed with a Yorkie. She ended up with a Yorkie face and a sleek "limousine" dachshund body:
I look forward to your live blogging on Tuesday night.
(V) & (Z) respond: Thank you so much for your kind words! And we would like to make clear to all readers that kind and supportive e-mails always outnumber the snotty ones by a large ratio. At least 5:1.
F.L. in Allen, TX, writes: My daughter and her husband kinda go all out for Halloween. This year, they made a bevy of tombstones and I was asked to submit a suggestion:
If you have suggestions for this feature, please send them along.