Dem
50
GOP
50
We thought this was the correct letter to start with today.
A.S. in Black Mountain, NC, writes: Among the things we missed over the last 10 days is Electoral-Vote.com! Not as much as having power or running water, though. Just got power and Internet back at 5:00 p.m. today (Oct. 7). Running water weeks away. Trying to catch up on the news. We were fortunate to not have our home damaged, unlike others who died or lost their homes, cars, pets, businesses, jobs and sense of well being. Entire towns were washed downstream, hitting other structures along the way. It will be years before there is a semblance of what we had and barrels of money will be needed. Thanks to the feds and the state for sending aid quickly, first by helicopter and then trucks. The sounds of choppers delivering aid flying over our place went on for days, now not so much. Trucks are our lifeline now. Enough drinking water to float a ship. Stores are opening, no gas lines and the traffic lights are working, mostly. Slow progress.
S.K. in Bethesda, MD, writes: My theory about the recent slight shift in the polls toward Donald Trump is that it is a bounce from the VP debate. While (V) and (Z) and most of the readers on the Slack channel seemed to believe that Tim Walz won, many political observers in the media believed otherwise (as did I). But more importantly, Republicans sincerely believed J.D. Vance won a major victory, whereas it was fairly clear they understood Trump lost the debate with Harris.
Bumps come for two reasons: partisans feeling more confident and being more enthusiastic about speaking to pollsters, and fence sitters getting off the fence. I suspect that some of both of these happened in the week after the debate. The first (enthusiastic partisans) has little lasting effect, but the second one could be problematic for Kamala Harris's chances if a meaningful number of Republican leaners who have been reluctant to get on board with Trump were pushed in his direction because they were impressed with Vance. These are just the people who might have made a point of watching the debate. My hope is that most of the bump will fade, as bumps tend to do. But I do worry about Trump-skeptical Republican leaners feeling like they now have an excuse to vote red.
D.R. in Phoenix, AZ, writes: Well, you guys were right, and I was wrong. You said, at the time, when the news about Lt. Gov. Mark Robinson's (R-NC) Nude Africa musings broke that everyone was overreacting, he'd already said a bunch of crazypants stuff, and this story wouldn't matter in the big picture. I wrote in to respectfully disagree, predicting it would be "ballgame" for Kamala Harris and against Donald Trump. Turns out, as you prophesied, the Mark Robinson story had a very short shelf life, and seemingly little to no impact on the presidential race. Robinson won't be governor, but he probably never was going to be. I still can't believe how inured to scandal the American electorate has become in the past 10 years. Thought this would be a biggie. Next time I'll probably just take y'all's word for it.
M.R. in New York City, NY, writes: K.E. in Newport asked: "Why do so many conservative Jews give Donald Trump a pass on antisemitism, when their religion is a crucial part of their identities? I could not picture them tolerating any other politician inviting Holocaust deniers and white nationalists over for dinner."
My response to this question is different from the one given by (V) & (Z), and is informed by my social circle, which is made up of mostly moderate Jews (of which I am one) who have considered voting Republican this year for the first time.
Almost no Jewish person I know thinks Joe Biden has been lacking in his support after Oct. 7, so I wanted to take that off the table. However, every person in my circle is deeply disturbed by the campus protests and the "woke left." Not a single one of these people have ever voted for Trump before, but some of them are now undecided. For the ones considering voting for him, it is a statement against antisemitism, which they believe is coming from college-aged leftists. They believe the Republicans are standing against the college protesters and that Trump would be unlikely to tolerate it.
Personably, I disagree, but I hear the point so much that I know this is a serious concern for them. Even those of us who will not consider voting Republican agree that the rise of antisemitism in the American left, and the canceling of "Zionists"—which is really all American Jews because the belief of a Jewish state in Israel is nearly universal among Jews—is one of the most troubling things we've seen against our people in our lifetime.
T.N. in Nashua, NH, writes: You wrote: "We'd say that Trump's support among Latino and Latina voters is partly baked into the system..."
A couple of points you missed. What I see in local Latinos (I grew up in Mexico, so I often talk in Spanish with local service economy entrepreneurs) is less love for Trump and more abjuration of the opposing party:
- Latino immigrants, as a rule, grew up in countries governed by strongmen*. So Trump's authoritarian attitudes don't strike as sour a note for them; that's simply the way they've seen governments run.
- Latino voters, as a rule, grew up in conservative Catholic societies. So they dislike a lot of the cultural litmus-test items Democrats now require.
Harris is identified with the progressive wing of the Democratic Party, which actively disparages cultural values most of them hold dear. This further alienates them from her campaign. I'd be surprised if the opposition to Kamala is as low as 40%, but my observations are also based on recent immigrants who won't vote.
* - Three of Latin America's current strongmen happen to be female. They are still strongmen.
D.W. in Burbank, CA, writes: I agree with you that Kamala Harris was less-than-exciting executing her "first, do no harm" strategy during the 60 Minutes interview, but I think it was still a big win for her because all anyone will remember about it was that she showed up and Donald Trump did not. As Woody Allen once famously said, "90% of life is just showing up."
A.S. in Renton, WA, writes: My Gen-Z kid sent me this interview yesterday, calling it, "Super interesting Kamala Harris interview!"
My daughter enjoys autocomplete interviews, which pop up regularly in her recommended content. She is more politically aware than most of her peers. We were glad to see that Harris is finding ways to reach them.
(Also, thank you for explaining that Slate is clickbait. Whew! *mops brow* :) )
S.E.Z. in New Haven, CT, writes: You wrote: "We did not see any real meme-worthy bits in the first two episodes" of Saturday Night Live.
I would like to nominate, from the second episode of SNL, Tim Walz saying, "If we're allowed to stand up here and lie, I'd like to say that I was at Tiananmen Square."
E.P. in Fargo, ND, writes: In "Trump Campaign: The Wrong States Are on the Radar," (Z) questions why Donald Trump would be campaigning in states that aren't competitive for him, suggesting it's either delusional or unwise. Not quite.
We shouldn't forget what happens when people underestimate Trump and his campaign. The campaign didn't choose Colorado out of ignorance. They went there because their internal polling gave them confidence. While they may not expect to win Colorado, they know their presence can bolster their colleagues. Complacency will cost this election, and underestimating Trump is complacency.
(V) & (Z) respond: And yet, when Hillary Clinton pulled the same stunt, and in states far more in reach than California and New York are for Trump, people said she was being unwise. And they were proven right. She went to Arizona and didn't go to Wisconsin. Not so smart.
S.P. in Harrisburg, PA, writes: I would like to offer another possible explanation to Trump going to blue states: He believes he has a solid lead in all the swing states and wants to run up the popular vote.
J.C. in San Diego, CA, writes: I saw a theory of why Trump is holding rallies in states he has no chance of winning. Those states have some of the highest numbers of Republicans (California, New York and New Jersey, etc.) and he is looking to rile up the base, so when he loses he can activate them everywhere. This is his Insurrection v2.0 plan. More violence everywhere.
M.K. in Toronto, ON, Canada, writes: I am going to toss a different consideration into the mix over Donald Trump going to large safe Democratic states with rallies—if he can get big turnouts, or at least claim that there were 500,000 people (mostly invisible) at each, when he loses the states even though everyone knows he can't win them, he will point to his imagined popularity at the rallies and assert that the numbers were subject to voter fraud, and even any certified vote tallies for those states are fraudulent.
M.M. in Chicago, IL, writes: As a voter in Chicago, I feel you might have missed one potential reason why Donald Trump's campaign might want to come to places like Illinois and New York and Colorado.
A lot may depend on where in those states he is going, and your item doesn't say so this could be off base, but in 2016 Trump came to Chicago.
His rally there drew a crowd—not of his friends, but of his enemies. The crowd was so hostile that they were forced to shut down the rally. He ended up with a few nice media days of getting to talk about how violent the cities were and how evil the people in them behaved towards him.
It could be another similar baiting tactic. Go into friendly territory, provoke a response, use the response to whip your base into a frenzy. He's done it before and he might be doing it again.
J.L. in Paterson, NJ, writes: With regard to the question from T.L. in Minneapolis, I agree with all five of your reasons for thinking that the equivalent of a Nazi takeover couldn't happen here. Still, I've always thought that the single most important difference was another one: tradition. Germany was a monarchy until the Kaiser's abdication in 1918. Hitler came to power less than 15 years later. The U.S., by contrast, has been a constitutional republic for well over two centuries. The weight of that tradition would operate against authoritarianism here—although, admittedly, the Supreme Court's ruling on presidential immunity cuts against that hope.
E.F. in Baltimore, MD, writes: While your surmise that Donald Trump is descending into madness might be correct (with the added bonus of giving him an insanity defense, should he ever go on trial again), I'd suggest that his latest crazy rant about CBS is intended primarily to hijack the news cycle for yet another couple of days, just like his cat-eating Haitians fable. Sucks up all the oxygen, and prevents any real issues from being discussed.
And yes, some voters need to be entertained. Candidates who want their votes have to put on a show for them. Vote for this insane, murderous clown, and he'll bite the head off a chicken on live TV!
M.D. in Grand Rapids, MI, writes: In response to Trump's Mental Decline: It's Not Just Our Imagination (or Yours): I've worked as a union stagehand since the late seventies. The first presidential campaign stop I worked was for Ronald Reagan in an aircraft hanger at MBS airport in Saginaw, MI. Michigan being a swing state, for most of my career I've worked events for both sides and for third parties.
This spring, I worked a press conference (with invited guests and stagehands only) on April 2 in Grand Rapids. I observed Donald Trump's staff ordering the building security to disable and then cover with black plastic bags any and all cameras in any parts of the building and on the loading dock where Trump may be, or where his car was parked. Normally the Secret Service wants access to the control room and will use those cameras for surveillance. I believe the staff was afraid of a video of a backstage incident being leaked that would show his real decline.
K.J. in Pittsburgh, PA, writes: You wrote: "Trump also wants to prosecute Google, because he is persuaded the search engine only shows negative items about him, and positive items about Kamala Harris. 'This is an ILLEGAL ACTIVITY, and hopefully the Justice Department will criminally prosecute them for this blatant Interference of Elections. If not, and subject to the Laws of our Country, I will request their prosecution, at the maximum levels, when I win the Election, and become President of the United States!' he Truthed."
OMG! He reads clickbait that belittles him and praises Harris. He has no understanding of how Google's algorithm works. He has been programming it. He should watch cat videos for a while and see how his feed changes. Or maybe Fail Army videos are more to his taste. No wonder his worldview is so dark.
K.H. in Golden, CO, writes: I have looked at detailed images of the 43-foot sculpture of the would be emperor with no clothes. It is not anatomically correct. The... hands are too big.
O.R. in Milan, Italy, writes: Anatomically correct work?
At that age, I would expect the bells to hang lower than the rope.
E.D. in Saddle Brook, NJ, writes: I'd like to respond to R.M. in Norwich about yard signs. We actually find them very helpful. We generally don't know much about the candidates for local offices. We tend to look to two sources for guidance: Recommendations from local politicians we trust and yard signs. There are houses in our neighborhood that frequently have yard signs out. Some houses consistently have a lot of signs we agree with, while others consistently have signs we find horrible. We look at those houses to help decide on the local elections. We'll also notice patterns in the signs other houses have and can infer a lot about unknown candidates by the combinations of signs we see.
S.C-M. in Scottsdale, AZ, writes: You are generally correct about political signs. I was told when I first ran for the Austin, TX, City Council that the signs were to build name identification. This was particularly important in my first run for office. My name ID at the time was a whopping 10%, which my consultants said was really good for someone who had been involved with city politics for at least 5 years.
My name ID got up to around 40% after being on the Council for 3 years. At that point signage was designed to mess with my opponent. I'd walk swing, and even enemy, precincts and hand out signs to supporters. The idea was to send a message to the other campaign that their candidate's support in those precincts was not as good as they thought. We'd also put signs up on well traveled roadways in those precincts so they would be noticed by drivers.
P.M. in Edenton, NC, writes: I thought I would share a message from my (Trump-loving) aunt, who recently took a trip across Northeastern Pennsylvania: "Went to Wellsboro yesterday, home today. We always play the Trump sign game. About 100 miles, 71 Trump, 2 Harris. On the way back we took a different route, 117 Trump, 16 Harris. Total 188 Trump, 18 Harris. If only Pennsylvania didn't have Philly or Pittsburgh, ugh!"
Here in (rural) North Carolina, on my 30 mile-commute, I have seen about equal numbers of both Trump and Harris signs.
I am not sure what these signs really indicate for the election (in my own personal opinion, not much), but I thought I would share.
C.P.S. in San Jose, CA, writes: In northern Connecticut I came across the sign on the left; two houses later I encountered the sign on the right:
It would be interesting to know whose sign went up first.
B.M. in Franconia, PA, writes: This picture is from suburban Philly:
I am not sure the owner saw the irony of the sign between the two characters.
R.H. in Macungie, PA, writes: As a followup to my report from May, we have seen signs popping up since early August along "Trump Alley" in our drives through Pennsyltucky. The Trump signs outnumbered Clinton and Biden signs about 8 or 9 to 1. This year, the ratio is about 3 Trump signs for every 2 Harris signs. We get the impression that some folks are more emboldened to express their support for Harris/Walz. By the way, the first sign to appear was back in June, and it stood alone for 2 months. It didn't mention any candidate but stated "I'm voting for the convicted felon." In our own neighborhood bordering Pennsyltucky, Trump signs outnumbered Clinton and Biden signs, but this year the Harris signs outnumber the Trump signs, which are scarce.
C.F. in Woodland, CA, writes: For your yard sign photo collection:
M.J in Washington, DC, writes: To add to (pile on to?) the on-going commentary of road signs seen and unseen favoring Donald Trump, I wanted to relay discussions had during the recent UCLA/Penn State football weekend. I was sharing an AirBnB with a couple who had traveled from North Carolina for the game and stopped at the Bloomsburg Fair before heading on to College Station.
Given the popularity of the event, the timing so close to the election and typical patron demographics, they expected to see a sea of red t-shirts, MAGA hats and other outward displays of Trumpmania, but were relieved when they realized they didn't see much visible support for either candidate. For my part, on the drive from the exurbs of Washington, DC, to Happy Valley, we saw one Trump/Vance sign and one car so laden with Trump/anti-Harris bumper stickers I'm pretty sure he couldn't see out of his back window, but otherwise, only signs for local Democrats. Which gives me... a glimmer of hope? (Which is more than I can say for the Bruins salvaging this season. All will be right with the world if we beat $C, obviously, but otherwise, this will be the true definition of a rebuilding year.)
M.B. in Nashville, TN, writes: I had the pleasure of visiting Stockholm for the first time recently and noticed these posters plastered all over town. It is reassuring to know that Kamala Harris seems to have the Swedish indie music crowd all wrapped up.
C.P. in Malden, MA, writes: In your reply to J.M. in Philadelphia, you gave a set of probabilities of their ballot being accepted. However, I believe there is another important factor in favor of voting by mail. In Massachusetts, you can track the status of your ballot and ensure that it was accepted. If it was rejected for any reason, you can see that online and request another one, vote early in person, or vote on Election Day.
I don't know for a fact how it works in Pennsylvania, but I found this this website that appears to do the same thing. I can't verify how it works because I am not a Pennsylvania voter, but if it works the same way then there is zero risk to voting by mail. If your ballot is rejected, you just vote in person.
T.S. in Mansfield, OH, writes: First day of early voting in Ohio was this past Tuesday. The first tranche of mail-in ballots were sent out that day. My brother received his the next day. The instructions for mail-in ballots are very particular. If you can't read or have difficulty with reading comprehension or focus, have sloppy handwriting, don't fill out the forms and the envelope just so, or can't afford the $1.01 return postage, absentee voting is going to be a problem.
I voted in person at my county's Board of Elections as soon as possible after getting off work. The polling room was full and traffic in and out was steady. The polling official that I spoke to stated that it had been a busy day.
I couldn't find any tabulation as of Friday evening how many ballots have been cast/received.
B.M. in Dyer, IN, writes: I have been a frequent reader of your site since all the way back in 2004 with Bush-Kerry (I still remember that map where the whole thing was going to come down to New Jersey (marked tied the morning of November 2). I wanted to offer some comments/assistance to O.S. in Muncie in getting their residency and registration sorted out.
Let's start with the simple one, verifying if O.S.'s voter registration has been processed. That can be checked by going to indianavoters.in.gov and clicking the 'Check Voting Status' button.
Now for the headache about getting an State-Issued ID. I agree that the Indiana BMV (Indiana calls it a 'Bureau,' for whatever reason) website is unclear. I found this page.
My serious suggestion to O.S. is to find a way to get to a local BMV Office ASAP. One thing that Indiana does fairly well is get people transacted quickly (or sent on their way for missing documents) at the BMV Office—I have often had transactions done and completed in less than 10 minutes. Once transacted, it usually takes 7-14 days for the permanent document to be sent to you, so O.S. should move fast!
E.S. in Cincinnati, OH, writes: The early voting update from Tuesday, as well as other similar pieces you've had recently, tend to confirm something I have believed for a long time now, something I think the pollsters' models cannot adequately track: the votes of women, especially women of a certain age.
There is a fabulous line from the movie My Big Fat Greek Wedding that every woman I know absolutely loves: "The man is the head, but the woman is the neck." We love this because it speaks so deeply of our experience of our power... not just that we can influence men, but that we must do it subtly, out of view, without letting the man suspect we are interested in anything but supporting him.
Being raised within the patriarchy that has dominated this country, women internalize the view that our value depends solely on how we are perceived by the men around us: fathers, teachers, bosses, ministers, husbands, politicians. We learn to hide our complaints and differences, sometimes even from ourselves. We clung to the belief that men had our best interests at heart, that they valued us and loved us and would care for us. After all, we'd had the feminist revolution, right? And "Me Too!"?
Then came the defeat of Roe v. Wade. The women in my circle were horrified (and the majority of them were not of childbearing age!). My sister said it best: "This absolutely makes it clear that they do not value us as people, at all."
Part of the amazing upswell of excitement over Kamala Harris raising to the top of the ticket is the overwhelming excitement we have in the hopes for a woman president. But we learned from the last time, and as you've pointed out yourselves, we're not talking about that. We're not talking about how proud we are of seeing a woman stand up to the misogynistic trumpster fire who was her debate opponent. We talk about the economy, and the border, and the rights of minorities (and all of those things are crucially important, do not get me wrong). But in the back of our heads, we're thinking, "Of course it has to be a woman, a woman who takes him down and proves to the country that we matter, that we have value, that we are HERE."
Throughout the summer, I would look at your Tipping Point page (my favorite on the site!) and mentally add 6% to the blue side, to accommodate all the women of my generation out there who are quietly nodding to their men, agreeing with their pastors, not making waves among their neighbors. Since Kamala, I have reduced this to 4%, but know it is still there. And as I write this, 4% would turn all the swing states blue, even Florida (where my other sister and her two voting age daughters now live!). That may be out of reach, but still I predict a Harris win 319-219.
Because women are the neck. And thank God for that.
(V) & (Z) respond: We think there is an excellent chance that the women's vote is being underestimated. But do note that we botched the numbers in that piece. Keep reading.
M.L. in West Hartford, CT, writes: You commented on the early ballots received in the five states that report the gender of those voting early, noting that "...52.2% of the ballots were cast by women, while 44.7% were cast by men (3.1% chose not to reveal their gender). That's a gap of 7.5%, which might seem good for the Democrats (since women skew blue), but the blue team won women by 11 points in 2020 and 15 points in 2016. So, Harris is really going to need to extend her advantage here."
Correct me if I'm wrong, but this seems to misinterpret the data provided. The data states the percentage of BALLOTS CAST by the two genders, NOT the percentage of Democratic and Republican votes. Therefore, it would seem to be improper to compare the gender gap in early ballots received in this election to the gender gap in votes cast in previous elections, as they are measuring different phenomena.
Given the large gender gap that has been predicted by polling in this cycle, that early ballots in those states have skewed female would seem to be good news for Harris.
(V) & (Z) respond: You're right. We screwed up. We'll fix that with an update on Tuesday.
J.E. in San Jose, CA, writes: You have mentioned that Kamala Harris has the biggest gender gap in the polling era (since the 1940s). Considering that is only 20 years after women got the franchise, it's quite possible it's the biggest gender gap among voters in U.S. history.
P.K. in Marshalltown, IA, writes: In the late 1970s, I recall reading a review of a book published, as I can best recall, as The Princeton Review Guide to Colleges. In said book, there was a line about my beloved alma mater, Bowling Green State University, along the lines of "the All-American college. A place where even long-haired malcontents brush their teeth after every meal."
I'm good with snark and enjoyed the line, though attempts to Google this phrase have been fruitless. And yet this also fits with your item about Tim Walz, who has degrees from Chadron State and Minnesota State-Mankato (it may have been Mankato State University at the time he was a student). I'm a first-generation college student. BG offered me access to education and the world that I would never have had if I had stayed in my hometown. I am grateful for that. So many of us come from these regional institutions, many of which train those who teach in the K-12 systems and staff middle-management positions in businesses across the country. We are the backbone. I will not leave the Democratic party because I agree with the values in general, but I cringe when the focus of some of the leadership, often schooled in the elite institutions of the country and legacy admissions, does not recognize the kitchen table issues that affect so many (those without college educations, community college graduates, and graduates of regional colleges and universities). The Trumpists make hay with so many because the elites are not schooled in the real world.
B.S. in Charleston, SC, writes: I get the basic premise for what you're going for with the whole "State" college/university... but including North Carolina State University in that mix is a bit of a faux pas. Maybe more than a bit...
First, NCSU is one of the three major North Carolina universities. It is part of the research triangle, along with Duke and Chapel Hill, and is the preeminent public engineering school in the state (actually ranking above Clemson, my alma mater, much to my chagrin). Chapel Hill does not even have an engineering program. And while North Carolina does have a state run university system, they're under the UNC moniker. Schools such as UNC-Greensboro and UNC-Charlotte are more in line with what you were thinking, not NCSU.
And for what it's worth, South Carolina is of a similar setup, with many ancillary/regional campuses under the USC umbrella and South Carolina State being completely separate, as it's an HBCU and, I believe, the largest in the state.
S.G. in Durham, NC, writes: Just so you know, since our family is wading through this process, NC State is actually pretty competitive among other state schools. The better example is Appalachian State, which is by all accounts a great school (and in beautiful surroundings) and has a high acceptance rate.
M.W. in Huntington, NY, writes: Something I've been meaning to write in about. It is true that the jobs report was good and the economy looks to be headed for a soft landing. But something is "off."
Fortunately, I'm employed, but I have been aggressively looking for a new job for almost a full year. My personal reasons are a desire to remain relevant as technology is changing faster and faster, and to increase my salary to catch up with past inflation. Having two kids in college at the same time will light a fire under you.
For context, I'm a business analyst/project manager in a major investment bank in America, managing programs for equity trading systems. Working in a quarter-million-employee company means that you don't necessarily get to play with the latest tech because someone else gets to sit in that seat.
I see numerous postings in LinkedIn from professionals who have been out of work for almost a year and don't see a light at the end of the tunnel. Or they have rounds and rounds of interviews only to be ghosted at the end.
I fall into that latter category. I've had some great interviews over the last several months, only to not hear anything at the end, or get a "thanks, but no thanks." I'm currently a week and a half from my sixth-round interview with a hedge fund and am patiently waiting to hear back. (I know: Get out the tiniest violin and start playing.) During one of the interviews, the hiring manager mentioned that they had over 100 applicants within an hour of it being posted on LinkedIn. And I know it's true. LinkedIn shows you when it was posted and how many people applied.
The thing is, being in my mid-fifties, in this career space, I'm concerned that I might get tapped on the shoulder and shown the door and be immediately irrelevant. Firms seem to be looking for unicorns. I can check 97 boxes out of 100, but they'll find the person with 98 or willing to take less pay.
A bit of a rant, but something isn't right. There are so many people looking for so few seats.
R.T. in Arlington, TX, writes: I think (Z)'s assessment of why Trump's legal problems don't get as much attention from the prominent mainstream media makes sense as far as it goes. But the answer could be a lot simpler than that. Trump has been a lying, cheating, woman-abusing, defrauding, sad and, yes, weird human for 40 years. He has been a really loud version of that for 10 years. Aren't we all kind of tired of his noise by now? Is a new bit of misrepresentation, stealing, abusing, defrauding, weirdness, random speech, selfishness, grift, etc. actually news any more? Any of those things coming from Kamala Harris would be news because it is out of character and inconsistent with her past behavior.
D.T. in Columbus, OH, writes: I would argue that the (definitely real) bias in media coverage has a much simpler explanation than being some sort of conspiracy to help Trump.
Simply put: Negative stories about Democrats are more "newsworthy". Keep in mind exactly how low the bar has been set for Donald Trump. He utters crazy, rambling nonsense every day. He says bigoted things all the time. So "Trump does something awful" is not really an interesting news story. It is very clearly a "dog bites man" event.
This isn't a moral judgment, or excusing Donald Trump's behavior as acceptable. But if the purpose of news organizations is to provide people with information they did not yet have... well, reminding people that "Trump is still a crazy a**hole" is a waste of effort. Everyone already has this information.
By contrast, when one of Trump's opponents screws up, it is quite noteworthy. Corruption, bigotry, or mental impairment are not expected from the Democrats.
In the first debate this year, Donald Trump's rambling was actually way less coherent than what Joe Biden said. But the impact for Joe Biden's campaign was much more significant. Everyone knows Donald Trump is incapable of presenting a coherent argument. But people had higher expectations for Biden, so his bad performance was more newsworthy. This was a "man bites dog" situation. It was information that many voters did not already have.
I don't like the imbalance in reporting, either. I wish the bar had not been lowered so much for Trump. But that's not something the news organizations can change by themselves. That can only be fixed by the voters, many who are inexplicably still willing to vote for Trump.
S.K. in Brooklyn, NY, writes: Allow me to paraphrase my wife: When a political figure makes statements, reporters generally consult experts to affirm, analyze or dispute said statements. Nobody blinks. When a political figure makes unhinged, irrational and, let's be honest, completely fu**ing loony ramblings with little to no ties to reality, psychologists and mental health are the experts reporters should be consulting. Every time! And they should always offer a possible diagnosis.
This is the only appropriate way to cover the calculated, flood-the-zone sh**storm behind Donald Trump's dissembling. Major media should do this for every story. They should compare his behavior to other crazed figures and discuss treatment and recovery prognosis. Either way, whether he's "acting" or ill, Trump is a dangerous man and should be treated as such.
(V) & (Z) respond: Note that, depending on the circumstances, it is somewhere between "frowned upon" and "risking sanction" for a mental health professional to presume to diagnose someone they have not personally examined.
A.L. in Highland Park, NJ, writes: Please convey my thanks to A.R. in Los Angeles for the superb explanation of the election-betting court opinion. I had scored this as an ideological opinion from overly libertarian justices, and I'm sure I was not the only one, given the slant of the news articles. A.R.'s clear explanation opened my eyes and gave me hope for our justice system. A.R.'s writing style is always engaging, and I thank them for taking the time from their undoubtedly busy schedule to give an expert opinion.
S.B. in North Liberty, IA, writes: I have a few remarks in response to the question from C.E. in Clifton Park about Iowa politics.
First, I don't entirely agree with C.E.'s premise. The state was not necessarily "reliably blue" prior to 2016. We have had a Republican governor since 2011. Barack Obama won the state handily in 2008 and 2012, but George W. Bush won in 2004 and Al Gore barely eked it out in 2000.
Second, I do agree with (V) and (Z)'s answer about brain drain. That is certainly real, and has contributed to the consistent reelection of people like Steve King, who thankfully finally lost a primary in 2020 to a guy whose name doesn't matter because he's basically Steve King-lite.
Where I (strongly) disagree is the comment about the government of Iowa taking "aggressive steps" to get young people to stay in the state. The state government is run by a bunch of yahoos who compare trans people to cancer and assert that teachers have "sinister agendas." (Fortunately, that guy lost reelection in 2022, but the point stands.) There was also a state senator who claimed he had a business degree but it was actually a training certificate from Sizzler.
At the top of the heap of crazy is Gov. Kim Reynolds (R-IA), the most anti-public-education governor this side of Scott Walker. Every single thing she does is aimed at destroying public education and making teachers' lives miserable, from her pet "school choice" bill, to the bill aimed at destroying Area Education Agencies, to her nonstop slew of book-banning, anti-trans "bathroom bills," etc. And this is by no means an exhaustive list. Her goal is to destroy public education and push as many students to private religious schools as possible (paid for by the taxpayers, thanks to her voucher bill).
To the extent Iowa Republicans want young people to stay in the state, it is only after they have been brainwashed through their hand-picked way of indoctrinating kids as they go through school. Reynolds has no time for anybody with a modicum of intelligence and would rather see the brain drain continue than actually have her own state, you know, thrive. She and other Republicans know that if the brain drain stops, they will start to lose elections, so why would they discourage this?
Power, unfortunately, is not "shifting back toward the cities and suburbs" (not to mention the largest city in Iowa is barely 200,000 people). Reynolds rules Iowa with an iron fist, and election results will continue to reflect this. I certainly hope I'm proven wrong in a few weeks.
M.W. in Durham, NC, writes: More fun news about Michele Morrow, the far-right Republican running for North Carolina's Superintendent of Public Instruction: She was at the Capitol for 1/6 and has said she would eliminate extracurriculars and refuse federal funding for North Carolina schools. Given you're now running ads at three universities in North Carolina, any student who's a North Carolina native and still deciding how to vote might want to reflect on what the loss of well over $3 billion every year in federal funding would have done to their own educational experience. Hard to believe it would have improved things.
Earlier this year, one of the major news stations in the state, WRAL, ran a poll of approximately 680 voters. A surprising number of Morrow supporters said Morrow's activities and policy positions, such as these, made them more eager to vote for her. When we wonder whether the likes of Robinson and Morrow having the masks pulled off, Scooby-Doo style, will have any effect, I think it's important to remember they were never wearing masks in the first place. People who want to elect someone other than Robinson or Morrow have to get out and vote and get their friends and neighbors to do the same. There is zero backlash against what these candidates say and do. There seems to be zero reduction in enthusiasm from their voters. Robinson is still campaigning—now alongside a cardboard cutout of Trump—and people still show up. Anyone who sees the headlines about Robinson and assumes the Republicans are cooked and they can relax is flat wrong.
P.S. in Gloucester, MA, writes: The perfect storm appears to be brewing in Nebraska:
- NE-02 (basically metro Omaha) leans Democratic, and its incumbent U.S. representative, Don Bacon (R), appears to be vulnerable against current state senator Tony Vargas (D).
- NE-02 controls one of Nebraska's 5 electoral votes.
- Dan Osborn (I) appears to be doing very well against incumbent U.S. senator Deb Fischer (R). (It is perhaps the Democrats' best path to prevent a 51-Republican Senate.) Nebraska has two U.S. Senate seats up for election this year, because there's a special election for the other seat (in which the Republican is way ahead of the Democratic challenger). Osborn doesn't want any direct help from the Democratic Party or organizations identified with it, given how red the rest of Nebraska is, outside of NE-02.
- There are not just one, but two abortion-related measures on the ballot. One would guarantee access to reproductive healthcare, the other would further restrict it.
The Democratic Party and Democratic-allied organizations should be upping their ground game in NE-02 to flip the U.S. House seat and win the electoral vote—but also to help pass the pro-access reproductive healthcare ballot measure, to defeat the further-access-restricting ballot measure, and (sotto voce) to elect Dan Osborn to the U.S. Senate (perhaps by mentioning in passing Osborn's and Fischer's positions on abortion and their respective impact on reproductive healthcare access).
The reproductive healthcare access measures and Osborn's Senate candidacy might best be fought for, statewide (in the very red rest of the state, in particular), by nominally nonpartisan organizations campaigning specifically for reproductive healthcare access.
One model that has worked well elsewhere is to use phone banking to recruit boots-on-the-ground canvassers within the target jurisdiction, who then implement the door-to-door get-out-the-vote strategy. The phone banking can be done by volunteers outside the jurisdiction (all across the country) as well as within the jurisdiction.
J.C. in Washington, DC, writes: This race is heating up. VA-07. This ad, and a counter ad, are showing up relentlessly. And in a very expensive media market.
C.L.C. in San Mateo, CA, writes: I got a job as a poll-worker. I have asked around at work while on break (no politicking on the clock) about navigating the deceptively worded propositions, referenda, and initiatives on the Californian ballot. The consensus is the KQED California Voter Guide. Evidently, KQED (a PBS station) got some lawyers, working pro bono, to read the legalese, and figure out how they are trying to screw us over.
T.M. in Bucks County, PA, writes: Regarding "shy Harris" voters, I want to offer some perspective from Pennsylvania's 1st District, which leans Republican but remains competitive. Recently, I spent time with a long-time friend, a loyal Republican who has never voted for a Democrat. We were at a country club on Philadelphia's Main Line, surrounded by staunch Republicans. My friend confided that he won't be voting for Donald Trump this time, but he keeps that quiet because openly expressing his views would lead to being excluded from certain events at the club. This is a clear example of a "shy Harris voter."
In my area, which is the most conservative part of the district, Trump signs dominate the landscape, and I haven't seen any Harris signs. Yet when you engage people in conversation, a different story often emerges—this "shy Harris voter" phenomenon is very real.
Finally, our 22-year-old son recently started working for the DNC. Many of his male friends in town are staunchly pro-Trump, and he's well aware of it. While he enjoys his work, he's hesitant to tell people about his job, reflecting the divided political climate he's grown up in. He, too, is a shy Harris voter, avoiding putting any political signs in our yard. Interestingly, the DNC has been creating signs aimed at appealing to these quieter voters, using camouflage and orange colors—a subtle nod to their cautious nature. (We have one on our fridge.)
D.M. In Cleveland, OH, writes: You wrote, of the Senate polls, "Still, where the heck are the Montana polls? Maybe buffalo don't have cell phones."
I believe the concern among most buffalo, likely producing this suppressive effect, is the fear of roaming charges.
[/rimshot]
(V) & (Z) respond: How did we set those pins up, then fail to knock them over?
P.Y. in Pittsburgh, PA, writes: Your blog is great, with good insight and some humor mixed in, but you really need to do something about your map; it's not reflective of reality.
Can't you do an average of respectable polls, or at least only use select individual polls to represent the current state of the Electoral College?
I mean, four polls have Pennsylvania tied, so you have Pennsylvania tied? What about The New York Times with their +4 for Harris? Even FiveThirtyEight, which lets some questionable Republican-funded polls into their average, has Pennsylvania with a 0.8% lead for Harris.
Using one poll, and who knows how good it is, to represent the state of the election is misleading, generally toward Republicans. I KNOW that's not your goal, but it is the result.
Maybe skip the map and just do the blog.
(V) & (Z) respond: We are actually quite picky about which polls we include. We have a list of 70 "pollsters" we never use, including partisan ones, polls that use AI, and start-ups with no track record. We also don't use any pollster whose 538 rating is too low. When a new pollster shows up, we take a very good look before including them. Most get rejected. The reality is that the margin of error is generally about 4%, so there is a lot of variation even among reputable pollsters, and each one has a different model of the electorate. It's a tough business to be in. If you mouseover a state, you see the source of the color. For example, Wisconsin is now the average of four polls, Michigan of five, and Pennsylvania of six. Our hope is that by averaging all reliable polls within a week of the most recent one will tend to cancel out methodological problems with any one poll.
G.S. in Placentia, CA, writes: According to Newsweek, a key swing state has flipped in favor of Donald Trump.
RealClearPolitics' polling tracker shows that, with no toss-up states, Michigan has flipped in, with the former president now half a point ahead of his opponent, Kamala Harris, in the state, on 48.5 percent to her 48 percent. It's the first time that the tracker has shown Trump ahead in the state, which Joe Biden flipped to blue in 2020, since July 29.
Usually you keep up to date with the latest direction. It is starting to look like RCP is a more reliable and up to date site than yours. Not too late to change.
(V) & (Z) respond: We get e-mails like these two all the time, where correspondents insist that we are doing something wrong because we are not including their preferred polls, or because our numbers are different from what other sites have.
We'll note two things. First, we have our method, which we spell out clearly, and which we apply consistently. The process is completely automated once the person who does the data entry has entered the numbers and double checked it. There are also heuristics in the software that warn us to triple check the numbers when something out of the ordinary is entered. We also share our data freely with anyone who wants it. Second, to be blunt, anyone who believes that a polling gap of 0.8% or 0.5% is definitive probably should not be lecturing us about polling.
J.C. in Birmingham, AL, writes: As if you've ever had any fondness for The Cheneys. And now Liz is your long-lost buddy. Riiiiight...
No wonder you're for Kamala: She, like you, is totally fake!!! (The good news is, Liz's being Kamala's newfound fake buddy is costing Harris votes, not adding to her total.)
Ever thought of doing a balanced website? Ya, didn't think so.
Maybe you should post a bias disclaimer at the top?
(V) & (Z) respond: Only if you put a grammar disclaimer at the top of your e-mails. We had to make no less than 26 different corrections to get this message to this state of readability. That's one correction for every third word.
S.K. in Wildwood, MO, writes: So you've taken out ads in the swing states... are they partisan ads?
I've come to your site for the poll analysis for 12 years.
I generally scroll through the increasingly long, left-leaning partisan diatribes in favor of your electoral analysis.
But I'll stick with other polling sites if you are actually taking out left leaning ads in the swing states.
(V) & (Z) respond: You surely must be a loyal reader if you don't know the answer to your question, since we've explained what the ads are for on four different occasions. On Oct.7, we also provided links to three of the college newspapers where our ads are running.
M.D. in Peterborough, England, UK, writes: I think you are quite right to surmise that if you are getting complaints both that you are too far-left, and that you have sold out to the far-right, then you are probably being balanced.
For about the last 10-15 years, people on both the left and the right in the U.K. have been quick to scream "biased BBC" whenever that outlet does something they don't like. I find it hilarious to observe, and usually groundless, as I am that rarest and most oxymoronic of things, a devoted centrist. I think it may be true that some commentators (Laura Kuenssberg, Nick Robinson—former chairman of the Young Conservatives!) have a slight rightward lean, and that other features (notably Radio 4's Friday Night Comedy, which I love) are decidedly left-wing. However, even at a granular level, each clearly exhibit that which we call "balance" on a regular basis.
P.F. in Fairbanks, AK, writes: Once again, I was right to top off my coffee and set aside distractions so I could properly savor last week's Complaints Department.
No matter how ridiculous the complaint is, I know that educators can't help but take them just a little bit personally, and that sometimes the best medicine is to roll with it. You guys do a great job of showcasing both pointed and thoughtful criticisms and off-the-walls self-gratifying nonsense. I think it lends credibility to your professionalism and integrity.
I also think it validates your readers when we disagree with something you've written but are not confident, ourselves, in our disagreement, or perhaps can't put our disagreement into words. Periodically, I'll linger on a complaint long enough to appreciate the counterpoint or the perspective, and it adds to my understanding of the larger situation. And other times, I wonder at the entitlement of some readers to dictate to you the form of your labor.
The good of the work you do every day vastly outweighs the pockets of single-issue rage that come your way. Your work matters, not just to the people who have followed you for 20 years, but to anyone who has decided to engage in civics because of your site.
So, whether you're living in J.D. Vance's pocket while you coddle Kamala Harris, or if you're in the bag for Harris while you give Donald Trump a free pass, just know that your work is appreciated.
(V) & (Z) respond: Thanks so much for the kind words!
B.C. in Phoenix, AZ, writes: I suspect that A.L. in Toronto is actually a Canadian MAGAtroll. Equating Electoral-Vote.com with Fox "News" is like saying The Adventures of Tom Sawyer and Hillbilly Elegy have the same literary value. The dead giveaway, for me, is the fact that A.L. does not give any examples of what a "good site" would look like and say.
A.G. in Scranton, PA, writes: To A.L. in Toronto:
Sir,
Kindly eat a bag of di**s.
This site is about dispassionate analysis, that's why smart people come here. This isn't a grrr angry liberal rant site... so eat those di**s in that bag, fu** off with your friends at university, enjoy your clean and orderly cities... and freeze your a** off in that fu**ing tundra whose entire benefit to the world is measured in bushels. At least you'll understand what Canadian women are doing when they flee south of the border to find real men.
In summary: Eat di**s, many bags of them. Fu** off and die.
(V) & (Z) respond: Even though we edited it down, and also censored it, this letter has a bit more... pique than we might normally allow. However, A.G. in Scranton is the Electoral-Vote.com answer to Hunter S. Thompson, and so gets extra leeway.
L.S. in Queens, NY, writes: You wrote: "[P]heasant hunting (note that we initially typed that as "peasant hunting," which is probably more of a Trump family sport)".
I believe that you might be confusing Donald Trump with Dick Cheney. He shot Harry Whittington in the face. And Whittington apologized to Cheney!
M.E. in New Haven, CT, writes: When we did the college tours with our kids in 2011-17, every single admissions office at a school that wanted to be at least considered 'elite' seemed to hire young attractive women who had all attended the same training to give the identical introductory spiel and they ALL used the "peasant" vs. "pheasant" as an example of bad proofreading.
J.L. in Chapel Hill, NC, writes: Regarding '"peasant hunting," this historical document may be of interest:
M.S. in Knoxville, TN, writes: I loved your freudenfreude item on celebrities aiding those afflicted by Helene and Milton. A few points must be made, however.
A great deal of eastern Tennessee has been devastated by Helene, including Cocke, Unicoi, and Greene Counties. This is absolutely no laughing matter.
A controversy has arisen about the devastation in the state. The governors of all the other states affected by Helene could see the hurricane coming, and requested federal aid and disaster declarations in advance of landfall. Gov. Bill Lee (R-TN), however, instead declared September 27 to be state day of fasting and prayer, apparently on the theory that what all the other governors did was wrong because the state of emergency did not exist yet. As a result, federal assistance to Tennessee was behind that to the other states.
All of which is to say that Tennessee is definitely an afflicted state. Therefore, both Dolly Parton and Taylor Swift have direct ties to an afflicted state.
But, above all, I must rise to the defense of Dolly Parton as not only deeply tied to Tennessee, but to East Tennessee, perhaps more so than any other person since Davy Crockett. Davy, however, was famously quoted as saying "You all may go to hell. I'm going to Texas" after losing a Congressional race. Dolly would not say anything like that, nor would she lose a Congressional race. You may recall, too, that Texas did not turn out well for Davy.
Dolly was famously born and raised in Sevier County, Tennessee, and her statue graces the front of the County Courthouse. When she set off to the Big City to start her music career, the Big City was Knoxville, where she first achieved notice as a regular on the Cas Walker television show, before heading off to Nashville in Middle Tennessee.
If anyone thinks that Dolly then left East Tennessee behind, and never looked back, this could not be farther from the truth. Dolly continues to maintain a residence in Sevier County, Tennessee. Not long ago, the son of a friend was working at a Little Caesar's Pizza when Dolly came to the drive thru to pick up a couple of pies.
Dolly also runs a business empire in Sevier County, with no less than ten businesses, including, of course, Dollywood (where she continues to appear several times a year).
Dolly's version of state song "Rocky Top" is perhaps the most beloved rendition of the song, and inspired Lake City, TN, to rename itself Rocky Top. Dolly performed "Rocky Top" live at a University of Tennessee football game last season before almost 100,000 fans, a significant number of whom came to see Dolly more than the football game.
In short, it would be a mistake you wouldn't want to make to come to East Tennessee to help with the Helene cleanup and rebuilding and say that Dolly is only nominally Southern. Them's fighting words around here.
(V) & (Z) respond: We meant that Dolly Parton is Southern, and Taylor Swift is nominally Southern. That said, we erred in thinking that Tennessee was not hit by the hurricane. We consulted a map, but it was clearly out of date. Either that, or it hadn't been corrected by someone with a Sharpie.
M.A. in Knoxville, TN, writes: In your Freudenfreude item on Friday, you noted that reader J.H. in Portland wrote: "Another test I use is, 'What would Dolly do?" They're not alone, I've seen bumper stickers on cars here in Tennessee saying "Be more like Dolly." Here's one example among several, one I've seen personally:
A.G. in New York City, NY, writes: My aunt was a slightly paranoid curmudgeon during all the time I knew her, but also frequently witty. Her actual last words: "Apparently, dying takes all fu**ing afternoon." Herself to the end!
If you have suggestions for this feature, please send them along.