Dem
47
GOP
53
We're going to keep the mailbag on the lean and mean side for a while. We think people can only take so much politics in their lives right now.
Also, it seems this week's headline theme was on the tough side. We thought that once people realized that one of the songs is John Lennon, one is Biggie Smalls, and one is Tupac Shakur, the cat would be right out of the bag.
M.S. in Kansas City, KS, writes: I wanted to update you on the election in my district, as I had written you previously about what I had learned and how things were supposed to go. First, apologies, as after that Tuesday I was mildly in shock, which has turned to confusion and surprise. It has taken me more than a week to write this, as I think I have more to say.
The election process in my polling station was very busy, and surprisingly steady. We had all walks of life, several new voters, several experienced voters, all different genders, ethnicities, occupations, it was a nice mix. Most importantly, no electioneering, no disputes, no disharmony. We had several voters who had not registered, who went to the wrong polling station, who had a mismatched address, who generally needed to vote but there was something that needed amended, etc., and all were provided provisional ballots. It's not our place to say whether or not they can vote, we allow them the means and the election office reviews their case. I believe this is similar in a lot of places. One thing which was interesting is that some who went to our polling place mistakenly didn't mind voting, even though we explained the ballot would be different. Some just wanted to vote for the national elections.
Amazingly, we had over the course of 13 hours more than a thousand people come to cast their ballot. Provisional ballots were over a hundred. We signed the ballot (which is needed before and after the opening and closing to verify the vote tally) and we were able to reconcile the votes cast electronically with the vote slips. The Judge asked if we wanted to know who won our district (it was Harris by a fair margin). I thought this would bode well, having been sequestered all day.
I got home late, after the polls had closed, and looked at the incoming results. I was dumbfounded. As the moments went by I was fairly shocked, then alarmed. I could not possibly conceive that the election went the way it did.
Then the explanations came in. Talking heads saying their thoughts, the exit polling, the conspiracy theories (there were a few). All I can say is, "Republican" and "Conservative" are no longer synonymous. I would be hard pressed to believe any conservative calling themselves Republican after this election.
I had recently re-read The Demon-Haunted World by Carl Sagan, and a particular paragraph I recall was just as true decades ago when he wrote it as it is now:
When the United States is a service and information economy, when nearly all the key manufacturing industries have slipped away to other countries, when awesome technological powers are in the hands of a very few, and no one representing the public interest can even grasp the issues, when the people have lost the ability to set their own agendas or knowledgeably question those in authority; when clutching our crystals and nervously consulting our horoscopes, our critical faculties in decline, unable to distinguish between what feels good and what's true, we slide, almost without noticing, back into superstition and darkness.It's not a good feeling when you look around and wonder, what is to become of us? More importantly, will we ever be able to fix it?
J.K. in New Berlin, WI, writes: You wrote:
The vote totals in some of the states are interesting. The Democratic Senate candidates in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Nevada ran even with Kamala Harris, but their Republican opponents ran tens of thousands of votes behind Trump. That means that many people marked the ballot for Trump and then went home. These are clearly not dyed-in-the-wool Republicans. In Arizona, Ruben Gallego ran 90,000 votes ahead of Harris and Kari Lake ran 165,000 votes behind Donald Trump.As a poll worker in my area, I worked a full 14-hour day on November 5. I had at least a dozen people come up to me asking if they could simply vote for president and leave the remainder of their ballot blank. Given the lean of this area (and some of the political attire many were wearing that day), it's safe to say that your conclusion of people voting for Trump and going home is spot on.
D.B.Y. in White Lake, MI, writes: On the local political show Off the Record, one of the reporters said Trump's entire margin of victory was from people who only voted for him.
One can hope with Trump no longer on the ballot, and his picking candidates who appeal only to the base but put off other voters, it will allow Michigan and other swing states to continue to have local Democratic control.
A.M. in Mexico City, Mexico, writes: One of the things I've been thinking about since Election Day is Howard Dean's fifty-state strategy. It clearly worked; in the years since the DNC implemented it, the Democrats captured the House, had a supermajority in the Senate, and swept Barack Obama into office. He even won Indiana that year, and Missouri and Montana were seriously competitive. Obviously, part of this was how fed up voters were with the GOP after 8 years of the Bush administration, but I'm convinced the Democrats wouldn't have won do decisively without the fifty-state strategy. And yet, the DNC has not tried it again since Obama forced Dean out as DNC chair. I've never understood this decision.
We now take it for granted that roughly half the seats in the Senate are lost to the Democrats, and that several states are not worth contesting in a presidential election. I'd argue that this is a big reason why they blue team has come up short several times recently. If they don't even try to seriously contest races or build up a presence in large swaths of the country, then of course voters there aren't going to take them seriously. It'll take time, but if the Democrats really try to increase their outreach everywhere, even in Republican strongholds, I think they'll be in a much better position, rather than having to fight tooth and nail to win or keep a bare bones majority.
There is one more reason to adopt this strategy: It's the right thing to do. Every voter deserves to be treated with dignity. Not giving voters the time of day, unless it's to ask for funding for candidates in swing states, is the opposite of that. If for no other reasons, Democrats should be organizing and showing up in every region because every voter deserves that level of respect.
J.L. in Chicago, IL, writes: While they did not get everything they wanted, it seem to me that a lot of self-styled progressives should be pretty happy since they got some of their biggest priorities:
- Joe Manchin is out of the Senate.
- "Genocide Joe" and "Holocaust Harris" will no longer be setting U.S. policy on Israel/Gaza.
- There probably are enough Republican votes for Senate Democrats finally to eliminate the hated, antidemocratic filibuster that makes it harder for the majority to pass the programs it was elected to pass.
All of these worry me but I can tip my hat to those who campaigned for so long and voted (even if indirectly) to accomplish them. They did it and deserve for that to be widely recognized!
M.B. in Washington, DC, writes:I also have wondered how you've been able to keep up your calm and measured analysis, and am immensely grateful for it. More than 10 days out from the election, I still am not eating and sleeping normally and much of the time I have a sick feeling of dread. Looking through your list of guardrails that are still in place, I have the most confidence in the blue state governors and governments (and am so glad I live in a very blue region); they are showing uniform determination to protect their citizens from the worst consequences of this incoming administration's plans. My second vote of confidence goes to the public, IF large numbers of them come out of their collective delusions about that guy and the MAGA movement. I do feel that we have lost big in this country by eliminating the standard teaching of 8th grade Civics class a few decades ago. I took it, and think it persisted maybe for another 10 years or so, but now students are not taught how the U.S. Government is supposed to work and how the various branches function. This ignorance has been on full display in recent years, to our detriment.
My concern about some of the other proposed guardrails is that they, like many already fallen, depend on people working within the system, following traditional norms and standards, and behaving with honor and integrity. That hasn't worked out so well in the last few years. I am particularly worried about Trump's announced intention to form a board to review flag officers at the Pentagon and dismiss or retire those who don't meet his loyalty standards. He will be the Commander-in-Chief, so probably can do this. I think he will find it hard to identify flag officers who don't put the Constitution first, but maybe not impossible (Mike Flynn, anyone?). There is reportedly at least some segment of the active duty military that is all in on MAGA—not a surprise. I won't even go into all the probable coaching and pressure he's getting/going to get from Russia.
S.L in Glendora, CA, writes: I agree with you that Donald Trump is unlikely to do the worst of what he has planned, such as deporting 11 million undocumented people, completely disrupting the economy, or arresting people simply because he perceives them as enemies, or canceling the next election. He is not going to institute actual fascism. However, I also remember that last time, I thought he wouldn't be as bad as we feared, and then he was so much worse. Nearly every week, we were shocked with some new low. But regardless of how his second term turns out, what depresses me most is that millions of American citizens who lived through the sh**show that was Trump's first term remember only that prices were lower and voted for him again because they believe that somehow he will bring those low prices back, even though nothing he has said indicates he has any plan to do that. Nothing he has ever done indicates that he has the ability to do that. I can't see how the Democrats could have done anything differently to win the votes of such idiots.
I teared up a little when I read your answer to D.M in Austin, because I realize how hard this must be, to dive so deeply into the news in order to write this blog. I used to be such a news junkie, and now I can't even look at the headlines. I don't want to read about the worst possibilities, and I'm pretty sure there is a lot of that going on. I've only looked at Electoral-Vote.com a couple times since the election, scrolling quickly past the map at the top. I so appreciate that rather than hysterical clickbait, you give us calm, level-headed analysis that doesn't drive up my blood pressure. Thank you for keeping up the good work.
And thank you for reminding us to always look on the bright side:
J.A. in Hell's Kitchen, NY, writes: I read the question from D.B. in San Diego about Donald Trump not wanting to have any more elections, and I have had some of those same concerns about him not wanting to vacate the White House again. But I take comfort in a few things:
- He is an immediate lame-duck president this term. His Republican sycophants in the Senate, now know he is not able to legally run again, may no longer fear him (especially not the ones who don't have another election cycle within his presidential term).
- Republicans love power. Not just Donald Trump. And in the Congress there are about 250 Republicans who see themselves as the next POTUS. That can never happen if there is a president for life in office. They won't support his attempts to stay president forever, because they want to be president forever.
- Trump. Not to put too dull a point on it, but Trump is old. He is almost in his ninth decade of life. He has already exceeded the average American male lifespan for someone born in 1946, and his diet isn't what you would call recommended.
M.S. in Houston, TX, writes: Yeah, it's been a very depressing couple of weeks, but not just for the obvious reasons. Even though the Republicans have the trifecta, the Senate is not like the MAGA-dominated House. I think that there are enough remaining old-style conservative senators to stave off some of the worst of Trump's plans.
But, as has been pointed out there many times, Trump is extremely mercurial, never thinks ahead, and shoots from the hip at every opportunity. He's really not that bright and he's only competent at inheriting money. He can be handled, at least somewhat. But he's also in problematic health. If he kicks the bucket in the next year, the country is REALLY screwed. J.D. Vance is just as evil as Trump, but he's far more intelligent, much more subtle, understands the law (even if he has no respect for it), and—most important—he's much more ideological. He's the Goebbels/Himmler to Trump's Hitler. If he becomes president, I fear we've seen our last election—short of a genuine armed revolution.
I.K. in Portland, OR, writes: In response to D.M. in Austin asking how you keep going after the election, I want to point everyone to the wonderful video titled "Election 2024 Post-Mortem," and featuring a conversation between Jon Stewart and Heather Cox Richardson:
Yes, it is an hour long (but it is worth it), and some of what they say can be depressing, but the last part actually made me feel much better and allowed me to keep going. Stewart and Richardson are fantastic people, but the combination of them is amazing. I've sent this to friends, and they all loved it.
D.D. in Portland, OR, writes: When I think of Donald Trump's first term, I realize I spent far too much time and energy being outraged. So looking forward, my goal is to minimize my anger and despair by accepting what will likely come to pass.
To that end, I accept that Trump will:
- Fill his cabinet with unqualified sycophants
- Add at least one right-winger to the Supreme Court, ensuring a crazy supermajority for decades
- Start, stop, and restart several trade wars depending on his mood, scaring consumers and businesses alike
- Make overt racism and misogyny acceptable
- Find the most venal ways to monetize the presidency
- Simplify primary education by removing Ukraine from the map
Plus all the usual stuff you expect from a Republican in power with respect to abortion, environment, taxes, etc.
Yep, that's about it. No need to read national news for 4 years.
D.T. in Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada, writes: Heading into my Term 1 finals in nursing the last 2 weeks, I have been struck by how important my schooling has suddenly become. Trump is president-elect? Never mind, I have three term papers due this week. He appointed that guy for AG? Oh look, I have two presentations due next week. He appointed that gal for intelligence? Eh, don't I have 4 finals to study for in 8 days?
Life goes on. I have other deep priorities that ensure I cannot be involved in the stress of elections.
L.O.-R., San Francisco, CA, writes: I just wanted to jump on the bandwagon. As happens so often, others captured my feelings incredibly well.
C.M. in Philadelphia: "Mainstream news media makes me anxious and irritable and leaves me with a messy cloud of thoughts. Your distillation on Electoral-Vote.com is different. Despite the simple format it manages to be exceptionally well organized, terrible news somehow avoids provoking my fight-or-flight response, and I walk away feeling (often, anyways) a little better and (always) a lot more informed!"
And P.W. in Valley Village: "For my own mental health, I need to step away from binge-consuming political news. And that's where y'all come in.
I want to remain informed. But I don't want consuming MSNBC, the LA Times, NYT, Washington Post, Apple News to fill my news intake at the rate I've been doing. I need a measured amount from a good source. In other words, from you."Thank you!
J.C. in Washington, DC, writes: As readers alluded to earlier this week, thank God the GOP retained control of the House.
They have the trifecta. It will be a mess. Their mess.
Democrats on the Hill will resist when able, vote on some bipartisan bills, and then step back and wait for '26 and '28.
Stay calm and carry on. Time for some tough love.
C.E. in Murrysville, PA, writes: Let Trump be Trump. Don't get me wrong. I am disgusted by the incompetent, corrupt idiot. But if the Democrats fight him at every turn, he will blame them for every failure. They should only put up a fight on something that they are virtually certain to win on, that will blow up in his face in fairly short order, or is something that puts us in grave danger. Otherwise, let him step in it. Yes, the damage will be severe and take many years to repair. But we must kill the infection of Trumpism.
R.M. in Pensacola, FL, writes: You have often written that Ted Cruz (R-TX) is the most hated person in the Senate.
What is equally true is that Matt Gaetz (R-FL) was the most hated person in the House.
We all know why he resigned his House seat following being nominated as Attorney General. While the House Ethics Committee will likely never officially release their report on him, someone will leak it and its contents will be made public in the not too distant future. Even if this sinks his nomination for AG, Donald Trump will have some other plum gig lined up for him that won't require Senate confirmation, so don't feel too bad for him.
However, at least we now have a chance at some real representation in Congress. Sure, Gaetz was my Congressman on paper, but ever since his myriad of issues came to light years ago, he was rarely, if ever, seen around the district. He spent more time at Mar-a-Lago or on a podcast or using Venmo than he did doing his day job.
Good riddance. You won't be missed here.
K.F. in Edison, NJ, writes: As a conservative, I am completely stunned that Matt Gaetz was chosen to be AG. I cannot fathom how anyone can think he is a good choice. The only solace I take from this is that his nomination most likely won't even come up for a vote due to lack of support (probably/hopefully less than ten Senate supporters). Bonus: Maybe we can get a normal human being elected now that he will be out of Congress. I'm just shaking my head in utter disbelief.
B.C. in Walpole, ME, writes: Just when everyone was thinking that Kristi Noem for Homeland Security was as bad as it could get, Trump nominates Matt Gaetz for Attorney General. It's our daily reminder that there is no rock bottom: It can always get worse than it already is. Though to be fair to Trump, Jeffrey Epstein is no longer available to be nominated.
J.L. in Glastonbury, CT, writes: For the life of me, I can't figure out why the Democratic senators wouldn't all immediately pledge their support for Matt Gaetz's nomination. SOMEONE is going to be AG. Wouldn't Democrats prefer it be someone totally incompetent, who has no idea what the Department of Justice actually does, or how it might accomplish something evil? Someone who is a daily reminder of the moral depravity of Trumpism? Also, Democratic senators voting for Gaetz would send the message to Trump that he's an idiot for nominating him. There really is no downside that I can see.
R.L.D. in Sundance, WY, writes: If I were guessing, I'd say Alina Habba turned down appointment as White House Press Secretary because she wants to be available for Attorney General once Gaetz crashes and burns. I kind of thought appointing a lawyer as WHPS seemed an odd choice in the first place, so I'm not too surprised Habba said no. I do think it was kind of ovaries-y to come right out and say "this position is beneath me" almost in so many words.
A.R. in Los Angeles, CA, writes: The pick of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. fits perfectly with Trump's M.O.—destroy everything. He wants to destroy as much of this country as possible and laugh gleefully while it happens. Just as he watched on TV the havoc and violence he unleashed at the U.S. Capitol on January 6, he will watch happily while Junior systematically dismantles the largest and most critical domestic agency, which houses Medicare, NIH, children's health programs and more. And BTW, all of Junior's railing about the food pyramid and corporate ag promoting chemicals falls under the Agriculture Department, not HHS. One wonders whether Gov. Jared Polis (D-CO) was aware of this before he endorsed him.
All of these picks, from Tulsi Gabbard and Pete Hegseth to Matt Gaetz, could have come from a list drawn up by Vladimir Putin. This is Putin's dream, and he's feeding Trump's paranoia and anger. Trump is vengeful and still reeling from the public health community's fight against his irresponsible response to the pandemic, so they are all on his hit list. Take all those four-eyed, arrogant know-it-alls down and "go wild." And Trump will cackle with delight as it happens. He doesn't care if hundreds of children die of a disease that had been eradicated. He doesn't care if polio makes a comeback, which it is doing. He doesn't care if people are poisoned or maimed. He doesn't care.
Trump wants the same with the DOJ and the intelligence community. Sell it all off to the highest bidder, give classified info to the Russians. Who needs hundreds of pages in a Project 2025 document? The plan is simple—destroy everything. And he knows the Republicans in Congress are so weak, they'll do nothing to stop him. He's off to a great start.
I understand that it's tempting to say, well, they have to own it all because they control it. But frankly, alot of people are going to die just like they did during his first term. I'd take a few hits politically to prevent that. The fact that the majority of Americans voted to make their lives exponentially worse out of a mistaken belief that Trump can lower the cost of milk and eggs by a few cents is really frightening.
M.M. in San Diego, CA, writes: It isn't Donald Trump choosing Secretary of Defense, Director of National Intelligence and Attorney General. It's Vladimir Putin. Who benefits from a purge of senior military officers? Who benefits from a crippled intelligence community? Who benefits if no one investigates illegal foreign influence within our government? There was a reason our allies' intelligence services freaked out in 2016.
S.S. in Lucerne, Switzerland, writes: Donald Trump is again displaying political savvy in nominating Gaetz, et al. Nominating RFK Jr., in particular, is fulfilling a campaign promise—and if these folks don't get confirmed, it's on those RINOs in the Senate, not Trump. Trump has nothing to lose here.
I see only one silver lining: Given the high turnover in Trump administrations, it's likely some of these people's public careers are going to be significantly shorter than if they hadn't joined the Trump v2.0 administration.
G.T.M. in Vancouver, BC, Canada, writes: I fail to see why anyone has any difficulty whatsoever in understanding the rationale behind Donald Trump's choices for members of his Cabinet. The object is 100% crystal clear.
The result of Trump's choices for members of his cabinet is that whenever he holds a cabinet meeting, he will clearly be the most competent person in the room.
Now doesn't THAT scare the hell out of you?
P.R. in Arvada, CO, writes: Aside from the obvious DOGE Coin reference, is it just me who sees the irony in the most communist/1984 part of government there ever was? China must be kicking themselves that they didn't think of creating a Department of Government Efficiency. Has there ever been a better way to purge people who get in your way?
M.S. in Newton, MA, writes: I have no idea of Pete Hegseth is qualified. While I am a small "c" conservative, I am not carrying anyone's water. I like some of Trump's picks, and others, I'm not a fan of. So, I have no idea if Hegseth can do the job, but I think you did him and your readership a bit of a disservice. He is more than just a national guard veteran. You seem to care about where people went to school, and he's a graduate of Princeton and Harvard. He's more than just a national guardsman. He served in Iraq and Afghanistan and won two bronze stars for his service. He has also been a fierce advocate for our veterans and the military. I don't know if these make him qualified or not, but I think your readers deserve more of a picture of who he is than just a snide reference to his military career. I get that snarkiness is part of your "shtick," but it can come across as petty, as I think it did here.
L.S. in Queens, NY, writes: Elise Stefanik is currently the U.S. representative for New York's 21st congressional district. That district borders Canada. I will guess that means she has sufficient experience to serve as ambassador.
Let the invasion begin.
(V) & (Z) respond: Having dealt with that kind of existential threat, China should be easy-peasy.
G.L. in Kelowna, BC, Canada, writes: After running the most corrupt administration in (recent) American history from 2016-20, there was no doubt that the Cabinet picks this time were going to be horrific. You'd have gotten very few points for identifying it was likely to contain criminals and fraudsters. However, I wasn't expecting that within the first week, it would be possible to ask an over/under on how many sex offenders, and how many of those child sex offenders, it was going to include.
B.B. in St. Louis, MO, writes: Prophetic words from Tom Waits about the incoming cabinet:
Who are the ones that we kept in charge?
Killers, thieves and lawyers.
P.S. in Gloucester, MA, writes: Getting ready for the parade of Trump v2.0 cabinet appointees, I note that a Warholesque 15 minutes of fame is approximately 1 milliscaramucci in duration.
J.G.D. in Ashburn, VA, writes: Here's a good reason for Joe Biden to step down and let Kamala Harris serve as president even for a short time.
The Former Vice President Protection Act of 2008 authorizes Secret Service protection for former vice presidents, their spouses and their children less than 16 years of age for up to 6 months after the vice president's term in office has ended.
According to the Former Presidents Protection Act of 2012, a former president and his/her spouse get Secret Service protection for life.
With Donald Trump going on a vendetta tour against his perceived enemies, I would like to think Kamala Harris would get this extra layer of protection.
M.C. in Norwich, CT, writes: I'm generally a fan of the site and its approach to summarizing and at times giving thoughtful opinion on the issues of the day. But I really think whichever one of you keeps writing about Sonia Sotomayor's "severe diabetes" needs to get educated about the disease. This is one place where it feels like the site editorializes poorly on the issue. Sotomayor is a Type 1 diabetic, and although that is often mentioned in relation to her need to retire, from all accounts, Sotomayor's diabetes is well-managed and it is something that she lives with every day along with approximately 1.7 million other individuals in the United States, according to the CDC. I'm not saying that everyone has it under control, but Sotomayor at least has been upfront with her care and health. There is no indication that her Type 1 diabetes is uncontrolled and articles suggest that she wears a continuous glucose monitor. The label of "severe diabetes" is unwarranted and feels like unnecessary opining by the site editors.
It's fair to think that Sotomayor should retire and that her diabetes may be a factor in a reduced lifespan. I get how that would be on the minds of many pundits who are concerned about the ramifications a sudden death might have on the makeup of the court. But purely from an opinion perspective, it really cheeses me when you guys say "severe diabetes" as if somehow she is on life support and could pop off into fatal acidosis at any second, especially when by all published news accounts it is managed. I hope the site would be more nuanced in describing diabetes in relation to Sotomayor in the future.
C.J. in Boulder, CO, writes: I think you misread Jared Polis. While I'd agree that his chances of a promotion to president are low (more likely he'll take the next Colorado U.S. Senate retirement), he's always had a libertarian streak and no real fear of showing up with members of the GOP. You've probably forgotten the news conference he held with Donald Trump and a GOP governor early in COVID time. And frankly, his guidance for Colorado through COVID was exceptional—quick to shut things down, reasonable on opening things up, smart enough to avoid the complex rules for COVID vaccines that hamstrung some other states, and was very outspoken about encouraging people to get the vaccine. All that and time will overwhelm the tin-ear response to Robert K. Kennedy Jr's announcement.
J.M. in Arvada, CO, writes: While I'm sure that Jared Polis has presidential hopes, as any politician at his level likely does, I don't think they were ever realistic. As a gay Jewish man from Boulder he campaigned well as a liberal Democrat but a look at his history and what he's done as governor shows a strong streak of (little-l) libertarianism that would likely leave any sort of national campaign a non-starter. While in Congress, he was the only Democrat who was a member of the Liberty Caucus. If the Democrats decide that running even more to the middle/right is the way to go, maybe there's a path for him there, but otherwise he's far too conservative to ever have a real chance. He works in purple-turning-blue Colorado because there are enough little-l libertarians to support him winning his Democratic primary, but I don't think that translates nationally.
B.S. in Covington, WA (formerly of Washougal, WA, in WA-03), writes: One of the top targets of Republicans was WA-03. Rep. Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (D) again defeated Joe "I'm going to burn down Congress" Kent (R), this time by more than 16,000 votes. In 2022, she won by 2,629. Being a Blue Dog Democrat is working for her.
In WA-04, Dan Newhouse (R) again won reelection. To my knowledge, he is the only Republican to vote to impeach Trump and still be in Congress. Will he vote for the Republican agenda? Absolutely. Is he a Trumper? Absolutely NOT!
(V) & (Z) respond: Rep. David Valadao (R-CA) also voted to impeach, and is also still in Congress.
J.K. in Bremen, Germany, writes: Thanks for helping me recover from the election results. Yesterday you helped me in this process of unfolding my crippled mind by reminding me of fond memories of my earliest childhood when you wrote:
Jackie Kennedy: The epitome of the East Wing First Lady. She WAS style from 1961-63, and also inspired women across the country.For some unknown reason, I feel the strong urge to second this statement. I was born in 1964, at a time when most young married women in Germany tried to imitate the hairstyle of the young Kennedy widow. My mother had (by nature) the same full dark hair that Kennedy also had:
When I opened my baby eyes for the first time and saw a female face, it was hers. Still today the visual system in my eye and brain is primed to recognize this style. You may remark that Sigmund Freud would have some things to say about this kind of subconscious pattern recognition. Fortunately, Sigmund Freud has been debunked as a pseudo-scientific quack and is forgotten.
B.F. in Pony Pasture, VA, writes: You wrote, of the #4 worst first lady:
Mary Todd Lincoln: She had mental illness, too; it flared up after the death of her son. But even before that, she was a burden on her husband, and at a time when he really did not need any additional burdens.A single incident, miraculously captured by an early (in fact, pre-Eadweard Muybridge) motion picture camera, tested Abraham's reputation as a truth-teller par excellence:
He survived with reputation intact, but wife severely peeved.
C.C. in Saint Paul, MN, writes: I want to praise/congratulate you on your choice to scale back your tolerance for trolls. I appreciate you are willing to post complaints or disagreements, but I think you are well within your right to sets some limits on it. When people talk about free speech, they seem to think that means everyone has the right to say anything anywhere to anyone without consequences from anyone. No, the Constitution forbidding the government from interfering in free speech doesn't mean I'm not allowed to kick someone out of my home if they start spewing racism or misogyny. Same applies to your website. Your mental health is important and a space that allows for hatred effectively silences many people.
(V) & (Z) respond: Thanks! As we have noted a couple of times, the response has been overwhelmingly positive.
A.Z. from Uppsala, Sweden (but originally from Munich, Germany), writes: You wrote: "What is the opposite of schadenfreude? Freudenschade?"
German has got you covered again: Unlike the questionable claim about 50 distinct Inuit words for snow, we Germans really do have 50 different words for shades of pettiness.
For this, the correct term is: Missgunst, a feeling of grim but powerless resentment over someone else's undeserved windfall. Like Schadenfreude, it's usually used disapprovingly, although in cases like the one you employed it for, it can certainly be warranted.
R.A. in Savannah, GA, writes: There is an antonym for Schadenfreude and it's also German, of course: Glückschmerz. Literally, "luck-pain," it's the displeasure one feels at someone else's good fortune.
(V) & (Z) write: We thought we'd step in with our own suggestion here. Maybe this is cheating, but we think the Pope's remarks are appropriate for this space:
If he's that enthusiastic about the rather pedestrian team in New Orleans, one can only imagine how the Vicar of Christ feels about the Green Bay Packers.
If you have suggestions for this feature, please send them along.