Dem
50
GOP
50
We got a huge number of messages on Donald Trump's mental state, on the Middle East and on... St. Olaf.
S.K. in Atlanta, GA, writes: I have two younger male cousins (in their late 20s) who seem to have become the perfect targets for Donald Trump's efforts to convert these types in the "manosphere." Both of them have, in the last 3-4 months, gone from apolitical to ravenous MAGA backers constantly sharing right-wing TokToks, clips from Nelk Boys, etc.
While I mostly ignore the content they share on our cousins' Whatsapp group, what I found particularly interesting was when I just asked them both if they were registered and planning to vote. Both replied basically that voting is stupid and rigged anyway so neither was registered by the time the deadline had passed in Texas where they live.
Seems to me that Trump may be gearing up for a miss on this particular effort.
P.V. in Kailua, HI, writes: In your item "Musk Has Spent $80 Million for Trump So Far," (V) asks: "What is Musk's game? Is he aiming for a Cabinet position in a Trump administration?"
I think that what Musk is aiming for is an endless stream of attention. Like Trump, Musk is a giant, sucking black-hole of need. He is seeking continual external affirmation that he is the smartest, most powerful, best-loved man who ever lived and it is clear that he is willing to spend billions of dollars to get what he wants. The problem is that Donald Trump also needs continual external affirmation that he is the smartest, most powerful, best-loved l man who ever lived. There can be only one. The Musk/Trump relationship is destined to end badly. The only question is how much collateral damage the inevitable blow-up is going to cause.
(V) & (Z) respond: Watch for an item on that very subject this week.
G.T.M. in Vancouver, BC, Canada, writes: After reviewing your comment about how Dolly Parton and Taylor Swift have given generously to hurricane disaster relief, I did a bit of calculating based on net worth.
It seems that Donald Trump would have to donate a shade over $15.62 million if he didn't want to be outdone by someone he most likely thinks of as a "ghuurrrrlll" (Swift) or a shade over $28.57 million if he didn't want to be outdone by someone he most likely thinks of as a "fat ghuurrrlll" (Parton).
Please let me know when his personal check(s) arrive.
J.G. in Scarsdale, NY, writes: One thing to perhaps consider about Saturday Night Live's take on the debate and its lack of meme-worthy moments is that the debate itself was a meme-fest. For example:
M.P. in Leasburg, MO, writes: For the first time in my life, I am seeing political signs in the yards of many of the churches in our area. They are prominently displaying "Vote NO on Amendment 3," which is Missouri's abortion amendment. I thought the Johnson Amendment prohibited churches from political activities. After doing some cursory research, what I found basically stated that they could not advocate for or against "a candidate" from "the pulpit."
I drove by a megachurch (by rural standards) the other day, only to see a giant lit-up screen on the side of the building normally used to advertise church-related services, brightly showcasing "Vote NO on Amendment 3"—replete with circle and slash. Undoubtedly, church funds are being used to support this. I guess this is a product of Donald Trump's executive order, which halts the enforcement of any consequences for doing so. Technically, it's not being declared by the minister or from the pulpit. At least we are not seeing Trump signs in the church yard. Not yet, anyway...
M.W. in Durham, NC, writes: Yet another check-in from North Carolina, land of Michele "my biggest qualification is that I have no experience" Morrow (she bragged about it in a debate this week) and Mark "cardboard cutout" Robinson.
This week I drove several times between the Triad (Winston-Salem/Greensboro/High Point) and the Triangle (Raleigh/Durham/Chapel Hill) along I-40 and I-85, the main combined corridor across the northern half of the Piedmont region of the state. The urban regions are very blue, the rural/small-town segment between them is very red, including towns where neo-Confederates turned out en masse a few years ago to "defend" statues.
I literally lost count of how many billboards I saw for the Harris/Walz campaign. They tended to include a single point of policy or an exhortation to vote by November 5 and a picture of Harris. There must have been two or three dozen. I've lived here my entire life and cannot remember the last time I saw a presidential campaign take out billboards on the highway, much less Democratic campaigns using them in majority-Republican areas. I'm sure it's happened before, but not such that I readily recall it.
In contrast, I saw one-and-a-half Trump billboards. One was full-sized and simply had his name in the largest possible font. The other was much smaller, one half of a dual sign featuring two half-sized billboards on one post. It featured Trump's name and some longer statement or slogan, but, due to being half-sized, it was too small to read at highway speeds.
For me, the takeaway is that Harris is very actively seeking to engage voters here, and actively working to persuade them with simple policy points like a tax break for working families, but the Trump campaign's only message, if it can be called that, is to reference the existence of Trump himself. The barrage of mailers in NC from the Trump campaign has stopped, at least in my town, but I'm sure there are plenty of commercials on TV. I was surprised to see such a persistent effort by the Harris/Walz campaign in a given medium go almost completely unanswered, though.
I also saw a handful of billboards purchased by some individual or other organization. One featured a photo of J.D. Vance with the text "J.D. Vance as possible US President? WEIRD!!!' The other, which I saw in two locations, featured a photo of Trump and a photo of Mark Robinson with the word "creeps" in very large font beside them. I admired the simplicity of the message!
S.C. in Mountain View, CA, writes: As long as people are sharing pictures of the political signs they spot, I thought I'd share this picture of my "sign garden". Most of the signs are for local offices. People in the neighborhood have told me that they deliberately drive down my street before an election to get my "recommendations."
J.H. in Portland, OR, writes: This is the only Trump sign in my North Portland neighborhood. It's mine:
L.G. in Portland, OR, writes: From The People's Republic of Portland:
R.H.D. in Webster, NY, writes: As I was getting off the highway and stopped at the light, I spotted a bumper sticker on the guardrail. It said, "Destroy Democracy, Vote Republican." Must be reverse psychology.
L.F. in Minneapolis, MN, writes: Traveling through the Trump country of MN-06, the main competition seems to be who can put the greatest number of generic Trump signs on their property. But here in the deep blue bubble of MN-05, creativity rules. Here are some from a walk around southwest Minneapolis:
D.E. in San Diego, CA, writes: I live in an area whose voter registration is over 80% blue so it's not surprising there are no Trump signs near me, but it does allow the populace to be a little more humorous with their campaigns signs than would be the case in a mixed neighborhood. Here are two samples:
M.M.W. in Kensington, MD, writes: I walk past this gem in my neighborhood regularly:
N.S. in Syracuse, NY, writes: Saw those pictures of veteran yard signs and figured I'd add this one that is down the road from me:
S.F. in Chatham, NJ, writes: This political sign went up very early in my town alongside an unofficial Harris-Walz one. It makes me smile every time I pass.
D.S. in Acton, MA, writes: I am as anti-Trump as they come. I listened to the entire Bloomberg interview, and am surprised to find your take misguided and biased. I may not agree with him, but I found his arguments lucid and defensible. He consistently approaches issues from a business perspective, and there are certainly problems with that, but it is not crazy. He digresses as a matter of course, but doesn't really lose the core of the topic and is able to ultimately circle around, just as he claims. He is pretty quick-witted, certainly more than me! It is pure fantasy to believe that he is somehow "losing it" and you are doing your readers a disservice by making that argument.
M.M. in Alexandria, MN, writes: I decided to watch Donald Trump's performance at the Univision town hall from about 33:30 to the end (because I wanted to see the reaction to his answer regarding 1/6, and ended up watching the rest). I agree with your view that the event allowed Trump to spout his usual lies and propaganda unchecked. However, I focused instead on the audience reactions and body language. I was surprised how apparently disciplined the audience was. I don't think I saw a single smile. I did, however, see some fairly hostile body language from a number of the folks sitting there. On the whole, I sort of got the impression that they weren't really buying his B.S. I hope that's true.
D.S. in Layton, UT, writes: In response to the Fox "Women's Town Hall":
M.B. in Menlo Park, CA, writes: Bret Baier wasn't interviewing Kamala Harris, he was debating her. It was a debate where one of the debaters got to pick all the topics, ask all the questions, and repeatedly interrupt the other debater.
E.V. in Derry, NH, writes: Apropos of your comments about the open partisan stance of Fox, there was this in an article in USA Today:
Trump doesn't want negative ads on Fox
Trump ended a friendly interview on Fox & Friends by telling the hosts that he would be meeting today with Rupert Murdoch—their big boss—about coverage of the campaign. Trump said he would tell Murdoch he doesn't want to see negative ads or critical commentators on Fox during the final weeks of the campaign. "I'm going to say, Rupert, please do it this way," Trump said. "And then we're going to have a victory, because I think everyone wants to have a victory."
R.E.M. in Brooklyn, NY, writes: You ask why, post-Biden withdrawal, there is no chorus demanding Trump withdraw because of mental unfitness. I think you are missing the fundamental difference between Republicans and Democrats. The former does not care about their candidate's fitness for office, mentally or otherwise. They know he's unfit to be President, or they are turning willful blind eyes to it. For them, it's only about promoting racism, xenophobia, misogyny, owning the Libs and lowering taxes for the super-rich. Only Democrats care about fitness for office—which is a major reason they oppose Trump in the first place. When they saw their candidate falter, it called both his ability to do the job for another four years and his electability into question. Plus, the Democratic Party has leaders like Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) who could press Biden to withdraw. No such leaders exist in the Republican Party—indeed, it has no leaders, only followers (Speaker Mike Johnson, R-LA) and cowards (Sen. Mitt Romney, R-UT; Gov. Brian Kemp, R-GA; etc.) who are too afraid to speak out fully against Trump.
P.D. in Memphis, TN, writes: On the matter of the gentle treatment of Republicans in general vs. the harsh treatment for Democrats in the press, I don't think there's any mystery at all. The Harris campaign and Democrats generally are spending money on streaming channels, social media, blogs that run ads and generally modern media. The "traditional" media is largely an afterthought. The Trump campaign and Republicans in general are spending money on cable channels and the "traditional" media as their primary spend.
This is natural, both sides know where their voters hang out.
The cable channels and other news media know full well that Donald Trump will demand all money be pulled from ads from any group that attacks him. He would have no hesitation in doing such, even if his advisors tell him it will hurt his campaign. Thus, to keep the cash flow coming, they treat him with kid gloves, and blast Harris constantly. Given the Trump cash cow will shortly end, this may be changing as the election nears. Or it may not; they may want to grasp for every nickel. But, IMHO, that is the reason for the blatantly unequal treatment, it's just money.
Corporations rarely put red or blue over green. That's just how they roll.
K.M. in Ypsilanti, MI, writes: Why is it that the reaction to Trump's crazy comments and actions seems to be muted? Easy, it has become white noise.
(V) & (Z) respond: That description works on many levels.
D.G. in Pittsburgh, PA, writes: I'm at 50% with Trump is losing his mind. The other 50% of me thinks that he's trying to lose the election on purpose. Think about it: The guy has no interest in governing or actually going to work every day. If he loses, the grift continues. He gets to run around the country for another 4 years and claim voter fraud. He gets to hold more rallies and sell his cheap made-in-China merchandise. His behavior is so odd that it's hard to explain. Standing in front of a town hall listening to music for 30 minutes? What? Can you imagine if Kamala Harris did that? The racist comments he's making now about immigrants in this country (even the legal ones) are so gross and he's gone so low, that you have to wonder if his end game is to just throw in the towel. It just makes me incredibly sad that this race is close. It's mind-boggling.
L.D. in Las Vegas, NV, writes: I would argue (and have) that we have not seen an age-related mental decline in Donald Trump. How can I say that, when it's on display for all to see? Simple: The decline is real, the source is just not (primarily) age. It's his right-wing bubble. Trump's brain is so melted from right-wing B.S. that it is masking any similar age-related symptoms. Watch any of the many interviews of his rally-goers, who might be 30 years younger than he is, and they display both the same lack of mental acuity, and arguably the same decline since 4 or 8 years ago. Or rather, the same increase in dangerous or nonsensical rhetoric, as they mindlessly parrot their Dear Leader, and each other.
If someone has been drinking poison, it's probably hard to tell if they also have acid reflux.
Of course, the source of Trump's decline does not change the fact that he is unfit for most jobs, especially the one he is seeking.
J.B. in Bend, OR, writes: I was surprised that no one in the media (or late night comedy) commented on Trump's answer before he started dancing at his musical rally. A woman asked about inflation, and Trump commented on how prices were high on things like "bacon... lettuce... and tomatoes." Hmm, I wonder what he had for lunch just before that rally?
It reminded me of the scene in Trading Places in which the Duke brothers are explaining commodities to Eddie Murphy's character and reference pork bellies "which is where we get bacon... like you might have on a bacon, lettuce and tomato sandwich," prompting Murphy to break the fourth wall with a look that said "you gotta be kidding me."
S.N. in Charlotte, NC, writes: Totally agree that Donald Trump's botching of appearances is worse than Joe Biden's before he exited the race. The problem is, a cult is a cult is a cult. Trump's followers don't pay attention to or discard the validity of actual news organizations, their reporting, videos they won't watch or claim are fake, whatever. They don't care what he says or does and are just so low-information that absolutely nothing matters. Nothing. It's another case of Occam's razor here, I think.
G.W. in Dayton, OH, writes: You asked readers to offer explanations of why Trump is not called out for the same things that condemned Biden in the public eye.
I think the answer is demeanor. When Biden is in trouble, he looks it. He looks confused, and (frankly) a little frail. When Trump is in trouble, he looks tough and belligerent. What he says may be whackadoodle, but his aura still says he is in command. The darker his glower, the more people mistake it for strength, not weakness.
G.R. in Baffin Island, NU, Canada, writes: I think the major difference between why Joe Biden got constantly taken apart for his age and mental acuity and Donald Trump does not is that Biden looked old. Just looking at the two in comparison, whether you like either candidate or not, Biden clearly looks much more frail and aged. Biden standing at a podium would often have moments where he appeared lost or had his mouth agape. That, in conjunction with a much paler complexion and thinner hair, made him look very physically weak (yes, Donald Trump's spray tan and combover are clearly a good political move for him!)
Politics can, of course, be very shallow and how you are perceived by the voter matters based on how you look, whether fair ot not. Biden's obvious physical frailty was compounded by his gaffes and misstatements (whether usual or not). In the end, Trump just has a more physically commanding presence compared to Biden and I think gets much more of a pass because of it. All that being said, I think Trump is an absolutely awful human being and I would never vote for him, but fortunately I live in Canada and it's not my problem!
D.E. in Lancaster, PA, writes: It looks like you should have picked this week to have the headline theme be "Famous Dicks!"
J.S. in The Hague, Netherlands, writes: Two weeks before the election, Trump is talking about the size of Arnold Palmer's di**. This is why they don't want him going on television. Sh** like this can be ignored if he says it at a rally. His base won't see it, and they wouldn't believe it if they did. Can you imagine him dropping this line on 60 Minutes, though?
D.O. in Portland, OR, writes: You wrote: "The [Bernie] Sanders voters who moved to [Donald] Trump did so because they cared more about the message that the system is broken than they did about the details."
I see this explanation a lot, and it clashes with my experience early in the Sanders era where most people came to the Sanders camp BEFORE hearing his message. For many people, Hillary Clinton was simply a bridge too far and we flocked to Sanders because the only other (sorta?) serious option was the Republican Party, who were in the middle of their Clown Car primary and looked very much like they would end up nominating a theocrat (which would be another bridge too far for many). Since we were hanging around the Sanders events, we eventually listened to his message and liked it, but the die was cast long before that.
Yeah, sexism was a factor for many. So was the multi-decade propaganda campaign waged by the GOP. For much of the angry left though, it was Clinton's support for the Iraq war, her overall-bad performance in the Senate, her lukewarm-at-best support for LGBT+ rights, and her squandering of diplomatic situations like the Arab Spring as Secretary of State. We desperately hoped that the rest of the Democratic Party would wake up and see what we saw, and reject her in favor of literally anyone else. Sanders... just kinda was in the right place at the right time, early on. He wasn't even serious about campaigning at first, and was as surprised as anyone when he got this sudden boost from people who hadn't even heard of him before.
As Clinton was simply never an option for us, when the general election ballot had Clinton on one line, and literally anyone but Clinton on the other lines, we chose accordingly—and mostly we chose a major-party nominee just like most other voting blocs (my non-swing-state protest vote went to Evan McMullin, who I knew nothing about and still don't particularly care to read up on, since I don't live in a swing state and he won't ever actually win anything).
trump spent the next four years proving that his evil was not an act—and depending on which data you look at, more than half of Sanders supporters abandoned trump in 2020, and don't seem to be supporting him in 2024. And yet, trump's "message" hasn't exactly changed.
This phenomenon was never about the messages. It wasn't even about Sanders (or trump)—it was about Hillary Clinton the whole time. For one reason or another, she was just not an option for many people, and that should have been obvious to everyone else well before the 2016 campaign started.
* - Note: I know it's petty, but my spell-check has a rule I added that to de-capitalize the word "trump," even at the beginning of a sentence, because... I just can't give even the most-basic grammatical respect to the man.
J.L. in Paterson, NJ, writes: Your answer to K.E. in Newport left out one factor: bigotry. I'm sure that some of the Sanders-Trump voters were misogynists who simply voted against the woman (Hillary Clinton). Similarly, in 2008 there were Clinton-McCain voters. Some of them were white supremacists who simply voted against the Black guy (Barack Obama). Neither Clinton nor Sanders condoned such bigotry, but a candidate has no way to turn away votes that are cast for bad reasons.
As to the Sanders 2016 voters "who believe both parties are irredeemably corrupt and misguided," some of them have changed from "believe" to "believed"—the Trump presidency dispelled the delusion that there's no significant difference between the parties.
A.J.A. in Elk Grove Village, IL, writes: When you wrote that every woman over the age of 15 has been talked down to by a man at some point, it got me thinking. I only came out as trans at work earlier this year. Have I been talked down to in that short period between then and now?
Yes. I have a coworker, who—as soon as he began perceiving me as a woman—forgot that I have 15 years of experience in this field and began explaining very basic concepts and tasks in the most condescending fashion I've ever experienced.
It's a very strange mix of emotions, experiencing misogyny directly for the first time. It's frustrating, obnoxious, demeaning, etc., of course. It's also reassuring that my coworkers (or at least this douchebag) do perceive me as a woman. I hate that there's a silver lining to that cloud.
K.F. in Tucson, AZ, writes: I keep seeing a screenshot or copy of a social media post where a woman states that her daughter, when asked by her doctor for the date of her last menstrual period, responded "It's regular, you don't need exact dates."
I also see a lot of women encouraging each other to delete period-tracking apps from their phones, or stop recording that data in more general health apps. The implication being "we are no longer comfortable freely providing data that might be used against us."
If we aren't confident our private HIPAA-protected medical data will never be used in that way, why would we assume a private polling firm's data on our voting intentions won't be weaponized against us? Especially with a candidate openly stating he intends to punish his enemies, implicitly giving permission to his followers to do that work for him?
Living in Arizona, I get an average of 2-5 calls or texts per day right now (since late August) from unknown numbers. Some of them likely are legitimate polling companies. But I block each one. They don't need to know how I'm voting. I would love to believe there aren't Trumpers out there who would take that data and make it a literal hit list, but that's not a safe assumption anymore.
One of the Harris-Walz signs I pass while driving has been smeared with red paint. I hear men mutter about "she's real brave" when they see a Harris-Walz shirt on a woman. It's not so much coded threats of violence as "plausible deniability."
I would be deeply surprised if many women who intend to vote Harris aren't weighing the moral calculus of people being discouraged by inaccurate polls or absent yard signs against the very real personal risk of harm.
K.K. in Franklin Park, PA, writes: I live in a purple suburb just north of Pittsburgh. Last night I attended a meeting of my local municipal Democrats' Committee, and the committee head said that they have received a number of requests for Harris/Walz lawn signs... from registered Republicans. They've also had some Republicans register to phone bank for Harris. I wonder if this is a common phenomenon across the country.
In a vaguely related incident, I've been phone banking for the Harris campaign and talked to a woman in a red state who said she has a Harris t-shirt but is afraid to wear it for fear of trouble from her neighbors.
All of which makes me wonder if there are "shy" Harris voters this season that could be skewing some of the polls. Here's hoping!
C.K. in Kailua, HI, writes: Spotted by my daughter in a public restroom in western North Carolina. This location is experiencing heavy traffic because the bathrooms have running water.
M.D., fighting like Hell in the Poconos to preserve democracy, writes: For the first time in my memory our campaign staff here in Monroe County is going after almost everyone. In the past we concentrated on getting out Democrats and persuadable Independents, but now we are going to almost every door. Canvassers are being told to not knock on doors if there is a no trespassing sign, large dogs or Trump signs, so we are still missing some potential Harris voters. But what I've heard from a few canvassers is when they knocked on a door and a woman answers, she was positive for Harris until her husband shows up and then she wouldn't speak any more. Not sure how many mixed politics marriages there are in this country, but there are women out their who are "shy" (fearful) Harris voters. Or perhaps I'm just being overly hopeful that this is significant.
N.A. in Asheboro, NC, writes: I voted early in person today. The line was short and everything seemed to be going smoothly. I live in a very red, somewhat rural area that, without looking it up, I would guess skews older than North Carolina as a whole. I saw a handful of older folks running down lists of candidates from both parties, trying to choose the best candidate, regardless of party. I would have thought ticket-splitting died about 10 years ago around here, but maybe not. I got to meet the Democratic candidate for my state House seat as well. She introduced herself by saying she's running to fund public schools and oppose vouchers, then mentioned her party affiliation and handed me a candidate list after seeing my enthusiastic smile at that statement.
My partner and I went together, and as luck would have it, she had received a hand-written letter from a volunteer in Minnesota yesterday urging her to vote and reminding her that her vote is both powerful and private. That letter might have made the difference for us deciding to go today instead of putting it off until next week. I think another reader here had written in saying they were involved in a campaign like that, so if you're reading this: Thank you!
S.P. in Bedford, MA, writes: Massachusetts started sending out vote-by-mail ballots on October 7, at least in my town. Tracking my ballot shows it was mailed out that day, I received it on the 9th, I returned it on the 10th, and it was received and accepted by the town on the 11th.
S.S. in Toronto, ON, Canada, writes: I can attest, very happily, that I sent my absentee ballot to Pennsylvania (Delaware County, to be exact). I used the website that C.P. in Malden linked to. It worked fine, but when over 2 weeks went by and the site was still indicating that they had not received my vote, I phoned the bureau of elections office there. I got through to someone (the very friendly and helpful Sabrina) almost immediately, who checked for me and found that there were some mail-in ballots that were being counted and hadn't yet reached the tracking site. I can imagine that they have piles to deal with. Within a few more hours, I got an e-mail confirming that they had received my ballot in good order. Since I would not be able to vote in person, I was enormously relieved that they had my precious ballot in their hands. Yayyy, Delco, PA!
J.E. in Gilbertsville, PA, writes: Every election cycle I read that "it may take a few days to call the winner of Pennsylvania" due to the fact that mailed in ballots can't be counted until the day of the election. And yet, I don't think we've ever had an election where Pennsylvania wasn't called that night (or very early the next day). All this hand-wringing is unnecessary.
P.C. in Yandina Creek, QLD, Australia, writes: I am compelled to vote by Australian law. Today I voted in the state election. I was waiting for my wife, who had a 15-minute appointment about 30 minutes from home. Whilst waiting I looked up an early voting center, drove the short distance to the community center, showed a bar code that was e-mailed to me (as a certified voter), had my details confirmed verbally, picked up a ballot form, filled it out (even though I am not in my electoral region), dropped it in the out-of-region ballot box, and drove back to collect my wife. Total time taken, including the drive and parking? Less than 10 minutes. This should be the U.S. standard. Anything else is flat-out voter suppression.
N.F. in Liège, Belgium, writes: This week I voted for the first time as a naturalized citizen of Belgium.
First, some observations: Voting is more or less mandatory, punishable by a modest fine; Voting took place in person on a Sunday (you can designate another person to vote on your behalf if needed); I needed to show my national ID card.
Next, the mechanics and the result: We were selecting the 49 at-large seats within the local city council, as well as several seats within the provincial government. Like most of Europe, it's all proportional representation for a parliamentary-style system, meaning you basically just vote for a political party, and the winners will form a governing coalition. This city and province have been dominated by the Socialist Party for decades, and there was a feeling in the air that they've mismanaged things. The election resulted in a mild surge of the center-right parties as well as for the Belgian Workers Party (even further to the left than the Socialists).
Finally, my personal feeling: Unlike my U.S. voting persona where I am highly informed and partisan, here in Belgium I feel like a low-information swing voter. And it feels great! I decided whom to vote for as I was walking to the polling place. I voted based on intuition and discussions with people, and I don't feel particularly invested in the outcome (despite being a taxpayer and home owner with children and other roots here). I voted for the center-right and do wish the Socialists would have lost more seats, but I don't care that much. I wish I could feel this disengaged from the U.S. election, but alas your site keeps me very engaged!
L.R. in Nancy, France, writes: I hesitated before writing this message, because I greatly appreciate your blog and the huge amount of effort that you both put into it, and do not want to criticize. However, as I'm sure I won't be the only reader to point out, your statements that about half of the Palestinians killed in Gaza were members of Hamas is inconsistent with the two sources you cited in your response to S.D. in St. Paul. Both of these sources indicate that only about 40% of those directly killed by the war were non-elderly men. Surely these men were not all members of Hamas. As the OCHA page that you cite also notes, in addition to the known dead, more than 10,000 people are thought to be buried under the rubble, 90% of the Gaza population has been displaced from their homes, nearly 500,000 people are facing catastrophic levels of food insecurity, and the hospital system is in shambles. These conditions are surely most deadly to the most vulnerable members of the population. So the suggestion of some readers that somehow the proportion of civilian victims in Gaza is lower than in other wars is clearly not true.
J.L. in Chicago, IL, writes: I don't for a moment think he did it for this reason but Donald Trump did the right thing in moving the U.S. embassy in Israel to Jerusalem. U.S. law had called for that for 20 years. Presidents were allowed to issue national security wavers for 6 months at a time and four presidents, including Trump, had issued them every 6 months. It was a mockery of the law and everyone looked the other way for their own reasons.
Congress could have changed the law at any time but chose not to do so. For once, Trump faithfully executed the law (eventually). As I say, I don't believe he did it for that reason but, even if he did the right thing for the wrong reason, he still did the right thing.
J.G. in Garner, NC, writes: Born shortly after the founding of Israel, I was raised in the reform Jewish community in the U.S. By the 1960's, I learned that according to the Orthodox Jewish Israeli theocracy, I was not considered Jewish. That put a damper on my interest in my personal "return" (emigration) to Israel. I still supported the Zionist concept of the need for a Jewish homeland. I was astonished by Israel's success in the 1967 War and continued to support Israel's right to exist as a homeland for Jews, but became increasingly distressed by the religious apartheid and repression of Palestinians in the occupied territories.
With sorrow, I continue to support Israel's right to exist as a haven for Jews, even though I would not be welcome there as someone who no longer identifies as Jewish. Accordingly I also think that Israel has a right to defend itself, which it does quite well with U.S defensive weaponry.
In the last 18 months, Israel's right-wing has taken the country from an apartheid state (see settlements in the West Bank and the annexation of Jerusalem) to a terrorist state, waging war against the civilian populations of Gaza and now Lebanon. They bomb hospitals and refugee camps and have displaced millions in both Gaza and Lebanon. They are starving the civilian populations. The calculus seems to be that one Israeli life is worth at least 30 non-Israeli lives. I am sickened.
The U.S. should have cut off supplies of bombs and other offensive weapons a year ago, when it became clear that the value calculus was 10-got-1. Benjamin Netanyahu's justification by the right to self-defense reminds me of the apocryphal murderer of his parents who pleaded for mercy because he was an orphan.
O.R. in Milan, Italy, writes: Am I allowed to respond to "Jewish Readers Respond," even though I am not Jewish? Or American?
M.S. in Newton strikes me to be a single-issue voter [Israel]. They are for Trump because they say they "look at the man, himself, and the [Israel-related] actions he's taken." They say they look at the MAN, not his party. However, they do not adopt the same criterion for the opposite side. They only consider the PARTY of Harris—not the woman, herself, and the actions she's taken.
As for how the U.S. would feel if every country in Europe moved their embassy to Atlanta, I need to point out that the analogy doesn't work. Using M.S.'s example, European embassies would be in Atlanta already, and the moving would be to Washington, DC. Incidentally, after Nigeria inaugurated its new capital of Abuja, most foreign embassies preferred to remain in Lagos.
R.L. in Alameda, I can relate to very well. I have long considered Judaism different from Israel. Although I may have always had a bit of a soft spot for Israel, I nevertheless did detect signs and attitudes that smacked of apartheid (my Israeli friends begged me to please never say that out loud). And I find Benjamin Netanyahu and his ilk absolutely despicable.
R.E.M. in Brooklyn mentions the "one-state final solution to Gaza and the West Bank" that would open up great opportunities for profitable real estate development along the sea-front. I have no issue with R.E.M.'s choice of words, by the way. To the point, I'd say.
B.J. in Arlington, I can relate to, too. I too am worried by the flaring up of antisemitism everywhere. I've often had the impression that the political spectrum is not flat but really a circle, and on the side diametrically opposite the center, the far-right and far-left meet and overlap in more ways than one.
D.D. in Portland, OR, writes: Thank you for posting and thank you M.S. in Newton for sharing why you support Trump. It's refreshing to read clearly articulated views from somebody I fundamentally disagree with.
Makes me hopeful about our democracy.
R.L. in Alameda, CA, writes: I have to appreciate (V) & (Z) pairing my letter with the one from M.S. in Newton as the first two letters in your "Jewish Readers Respond" item. If that doesn't indicate that we are not a monolith, I don't know what does. M.S. and I live in completely different worlds and world views. I have two responses, both of which I expect to fall on deaf ears. First, I find it ironic that an Orthodox Jew is such a single-issue voter that Trump's past actions vis-à-vis Israel are all he cares about. Do you understand that your Orthodox ancestors were vehement anti-Zionists? This is due to the (former) belief among the Orthodox sect that the Jewish people aren't supposed to repopulate the land of Israel until the Messiah arrives. I guess you guys re-wrote the liturgy after Israel became a done deal in 1948. Second, if you are so enamored with Israel that it is the only issue you are voting on, I invite you to leave the Diaspora and live there. I'm so tired of Orthodox Jews purporting to speak for the rest of us.
To R.E.M. in Brooklyn and B.J. in Arlington, I believe you are falling into the trap set by the Zionist movement by equating criticism of Israel from the left with antisemitism. So I'll say it once again: Israel is not Judaism. Zionism is not Judaism. One is a nation and the other is a political movement. Both are perfectly eligible to be criticized and such criticism is not antisemitism. Consider this: When I criticize Iran for its terroristic actions, am I being Islamaphobic? Yet Israel gets to do the same terroristic stuff and gets a pass? Can you imagine the outcry if Iran had pulled off the pager attacks?
Finally, for B.J, you seem willing to rationalize a lot of civilian casualties. I really don't get your math when you claim that Israel has caused "3 times fewer civilian casualties than is typical in warfare." Since when are any civilian casualties acceptable (let alone 40,000+, which is likely a gross undercount)? As for the pager attacks, they were so indiscriminate and un-targeted (killing and maiming countless civilians), that it was probably a war crime. And you're OK with this?
B.J. wrote about how their consciousness was raised by keeping in touch with an Israeli woman who has been impacted by the fighting. Are you willing to raise your consciousness further? I invite you to get in touch with Palestinians trying to survive in Gaza. Or Palestinians living in the West Bank with the foot of the IDF on their necks all the time. It wasn't ok when the Nazis did it to us, and it isn't ok for us to do it to Palestinians. Be prepared to have your world rocked. Once you see what has been happening, it is impossible to un-see it.
C.M. in Chicago, IL, writes: M.S. in Newton started their comment with "I am a politically conservative, Orthodox practicing Jew who will be voting for Donald Trump. For me, I couldn't care less about who he dines with, who he might have to deal with to get things done, or any of the "political" moves he needs to make."
M.S. then finished with this about the Democrats: "I see the party of Omar, AOC, Tlaib, Code Pink, J Street. I see a party full of militant anti-Israel and antisemitic activists, and I see a party that will not be there for Israel and not be there for the Jews."
People too often conflate a dislike for how Israel handles things with antisemitic activities. I dislike how Iran does things, but have never been called anti-Islamic because of that. Bad governments are bad governments, and not liking them does not equate to not liking the population they govern. My guess is if you asked most Jewish people if they hated Muslims, they would say no, but then ask them if they hated Iran they would say yes.
The hypocrisy there brings me to my next point: How do the two points M.S. made not contradict each other? How can, on one hand, someone not care that Trump dines with or deals with antisemitic people, and then on the other hand be bothered that the other party might also be doing the same thing? I think these highlight the deep-level hypocrisy that often comes up in conservative politics. You can see this trend in things like abortion, where conservatives claim to be protecting unborn children, only to cut funding for CHIP or WIC programs that help already-born children, or help parents with the ever rising costs of childcare. Or in their claims to be the party of law and order while supporting folks that attacked police officers on 1/6, or plan on voting for a convicted felon.
S.J.Z. in Darien, IL, writes: I must say that I find M.S. in Newton's second reason for voting for Trump bizarre—that Trump has Jewish grandchildren and his love for them is, in M.S.'s estimation, genuine. Therefore, one assumes the argument goes, Trump can't be antisemitic (or implement antisemitic policies).
First, (and please imagine me shouting this with my hands cupped to my mouth, Elaine Benes-style.) Kamala Harris' husband is Jewish! Apparently M.S.'s estimation of Kamala's love for her husband doesn't measure up to M.S.'s estimation of Trump's love his Jewish grandchildren. Or maybe Democrats are duplicitous enough to implement antisemitic policies even if their spouse is Jewish.
Here's a question for M.S.: If Kamala had picked Josh Shapiro as her VP, would it have changed your mind? The answer to that question is the clue that this argument is a rationalization of what you were going to do anyway.
J.B. in New York, NY, writes: I'm sorry, but I need to call out M.S. in Newton on their support of Trump. First, however, a bit about me for some context: I am the grandson of Jewish refugees from Ukraine. They hid out in Italy before immigrating to the United States in the 1940s, and were lucky enough to not be sent to a concentration camp. I, in turn, was raised Jewish and Bar Mitzvahed during the height of the Clinton Administration.
M.S.'s viewpoint—and a very ugly viewpoint at that—is one I find all too common in the Jewish community, particularly among the middle aged-to-elderly Orthodox. It's this sense of other-ism borne out of old-country trauma. Our ancestors were at the bottom of the totem pole, they moved someplace they aren't, and now feel they have license to kick down.
Here's a newsflash for you, M.S., and any Jews voting for or considering voting for Trump: To say the Democratic Party condones antisemitism is absurd, and you know it! Chuck Schumer is one of nine Jewish incumbent U.S. Senators. Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD), currently on the House Oversight Committee, is Jewish. Rep. Elissa Slotkin (D-MI), currently running for Senate, is Jewish. Hundreds of Jews have served in both houses. As to antisemitism within the party, save for a microcosm on the far left, there's no "there" there.
M.S. and too many others are blind or willfully ignorant to Trump's malignant narcissism. Any courtesy or love he shows to others is the world's best mask. He's in bed with the far-right and isn't fazed by Neo-Nazis supporting him. Jewish Republicans who vote Trump are little more than pick-mes, hopeful that their allegiance will spare them when the Christian conservatives behind Project 2025 take the wheel.
B.C. in Manhattan Beach, CA, writes: I appreciate the various perspectives you provided in your letters from M.S. in Newton, R.L. in Alameda, R.E.M. in Brooklyn and B.J. in Arlington. It is valuable to hear from people with direct connections to an issue.
However, I did want to pick one nit with B.J. in Arlington: It is not "Lebanon" that has been attacking Israel for a year—it is Hezbollah. Admittedly, Hezbollah is (physically) located within the borders of Lebanon, and their attacks originated there, but my understanding is that it is not the official position of the government of Lebanon or of the majority of the people of Lebanon to attack Israel. In the same way, Israel has been concentrating its response against Hezbollah, rather than against Lebanon in general.
J.E. in Gilbertsville, PA, writes: I'm compelled to reach out to B.J. in Arlington in response to their letter. Their fear pulled at my heart and I want to give them cause for hope.
While it's natural to be anxious about the anti-Israel protests of some on the left, and what that may mean for Jews in America in the future, I truly believe the anger of those protesters will never take over the party's zeitgeist. Most Democrats seem to have a much better grasp on "Christian values" than the Republicans ever did. (And please note that comment doesn't come from my deep-seated religious beliefs—to paraphrase B.J., I was raised Catholic but have become an atheist, and my sense of Christianity is actually cultural.)
My point is that while I do know many people who are angry at Israel for their treatment of the Palestinians, people who want Benjamin Netanyahu strung up in the public square, people who want the Democratic Party to become much less pro-Israel, every single one of those people has nothing against any Jews anywhere on earth. The heart of these voters comes from a place of wanting the best for HUMANS, not for Palestinians or Jews. We are all one people, is the gist. Are there some crazies on the left who don't make that distinction? I'm sure there are. But that's not where the heart of the party will go. I don't want B.J. thinking it's a zero-sum situation.
J.K. in Short Hills, NJ, writes: As a professional market strategist, I agree with the general consensus that Kamala Harris' economic plan is the lesser of two evils. Donald Trump's desire to lower taxes on top of the mostly needless cuts in 2017 is arguably reckless and certainly inflationary. And don't get me started on tariffs. Her going after gouging committed by grocery stores, which notoriously have razor thin margins, is a bit bizarre for a centerpiece proposal but is mostly harmless while her jumbo-sized tax credit for first-time home buyers could serve to drive up housing prices for everyone else. The potential fiscal stimulus implemented as the result of a sweep by either party makes the Federal Reserve's desire to "land the plane softly" a much trickier proposition. A Republican White House and Congress might make it impossible. We on Wall Street are accordingly rooting for any shape of a split government.
So why do voters view Trump as better for the economy and the betting markets currently have him as the favorite to win the election? What pundits are seemingly forgetting is that during the 4 years he was President, things were mostly pretty good. Although his supposed "track record" might be his campaign's only asset, it's ostensibly a very good one. Unlike Harris, he's much more of a known quantity. Americans were paying roughly $3.25, on average, for a gallon of milk in 2020 but now must fork over more than $4 presently. It was also quiet, yet turning on the TV today is depressing given the various conflagrations from around the planet. George Floyd is also, sadly, an afterthought for most, and many believe that Trump indeed delivered the vaccine similar to Kennedy's getting a man on the moon by the end of the 1960's thanks to his famous declaration. I'll leave it to the foreign policy experts to explain why geopolitics have regressed so much in the last 4 years, and I contend that Trump got quite lucky during his first term with the economy, for the post-Financial Crisis recovery was very weak given the massive echo of the Great Recession that his policies did not cause the damage that they would have otherwise. Most voters, though, don't understand this nuance.
P.C. in Yandina Creek, QLD, Australia, writes: Economics 101: Assume an imported auto vehicle retails for $20,000 and is roughly price competitive with a locally made vehicle.
If the imported vehicle is then hit with a tariff of 100%, meaning a retail to consumer price of $40,000, what chance the locally made vehicle manufacturer will not raise the price of their vehicle to at least $35,000? Given the need to "maximize shareholder value" (and the subsequent incentive of managerial bonuses/profit share) I estimate the chance of a steep price increase is effectively 100.0%.
Now apply this formula to the trillions of dollars of imports into the U.S. and guess what the outcome will be...
Even if the Republican platform had a plan (or even a concept of a plan) to improve local manufacturing, the best case scenario is a several-year lag, but more likely decade(s) to find any semblance of equilibrium. In the meantime, chaos.
At present, given every known metric to measure economic success, the U.S. has far outpaced and is the envy of the world in its economic recovery from the pandemic. When Kamala Harris goes into the Fox's den and is asked why she wouldn't do much different to President Biden, I hope she has the comparative stats memorized and can reel them off. Stunned silence from the Fox talking heads is too much to ask for, but the tell will be how quickly they change the subject.
B.B. in Dothan, AL, writes: L.L.G. in Thornton asserts that they "earned" their Social Security retirement benefits. This is a common misconception. Most people believe that Social Security is akin to an IRA or 401k, where the money received is directly commensurate with the money paid. Like most transfer payments, though, recipients qualify for benefits when they meet the eligibility requirements. The truth is that we paid for our parents' and grandparents' benefits—our kids and grandkids are paying for our benefits. That's why there is an expected shortfall—we didn't have enough kids to pay for us.
L.E. in Santa Barbara, CA, writes: Yesterday's question from, and your answer to, L.L.G. in Thornton regarding Social Security as "welfare" brought back a fond memory from late 2010. My aunt was a staunch Republican who, sadly, was also bigoted against Black people. Thus, she was prone to rail against then-President Obama's signature Affordable Care Act as "welfare" for the lazy. (Yes, simply because the president was Black and because she consumed conservative TV, it was enough for her to object to "ObamaCare.")
One time, when visiting my mother, she was off to the races complaining about this topic. My mother, ever the champion for those in need and ever so quietly liberal, waited for her to slow down on her rant and the asked her, "Now, what medical insurance do you have? Oh, Medicare with an AARP supplemental plan? Now, you do realize that you are also taking a government handout by using Medicare, right? Isn't that also welfare? That's really all that 'Obamacare' is doing—extending that welfare beyond us old folks."
My aunt spluttered and made a few attempts at excuses, then changed the topic. My mom, after my aunt had headed home, told me that she always delighted in defining the federal government's assistance through Social Security and Medicare as welfare, since that really highlights the hypocrisy of the Republicans' arguments against providing assistance to those in need.
My aunt lived less than a year after that exchange but, thankfully, had significant end-of-life assistance from Medicare. My mother lived into her 90s and was able to cast her last presidential vote for Hillary Clinton. I'm sure she would have been thrilled to cast a vote for Kamala Harris, were she still with us.
R.A. in Barefoot Bay, FL, writes: I own a small newspaper in Barefoot Bay, the largest manufactured-home community in Florida and have my own take on the current real estate market.
The frequent disasters we've had are both propping up the Florida real estate market and pushing us towards the brink. As the storms hit, insurance rates rise and this should drive down prices, but people keep paying higher prices and higher insurance premiums. It's not just about supply and demand. The frequent hurricanes are destroying thousands of homes, reducing supply, and those Floridians displaced, whether homeless and/or jobless, are forced back into the market, increasing demand. This is unsustainable, double-whammy, forced migration.
I'm unsure what the tipping point will be, but assume that insurance increases in the coming years will do it. If you have a mortgage, but can't afford the insurance, you have to sell or you lose your home. If you're on a fixed income and fear losing your home, you may be forced to sell your home rather than lose your investment completely. But if you're a buyer, you're facing the same crisis and will be priced out of Florida if home prices do not come down to help offset the insurance premiums.
I don't see how current market prices, which continue to go up, can be maintained except with the vicious cycle described above, of hurricanes propping up the market by squeezing the supply of available homes.
K.R. in Austin, TX, writes: You wrote that some Florida voters may vote for Democrats to fight climate change.
Based on comments that I see online, I think it's possible that at least as many Florida voters will vote Republican to stop the Democrats from using their hurricane machine to attack Florida.
There seems to be a number of people who don't believe humans can accidentally damage the climate with pollution but do believe that humans can purposely create hurricanes and precisely control their path.
A.S. in Renton, WA, writes: Like M.W. in Huntington, I, too, keep feeling surprised by the jobs report. I personally know both highly-skilled and entry-level people in various regions of the country who are diligently job-hunting but can't find work.
I don't expect any of them to see relief until February, after the exchange of political power and the resolution of any fallout. Most industries prefer stability. I think U.S. businesses in general are in a holding pattern, if not holding their breath.
G.M.K. in Mishawaka, IN, writes: I was out to dinner with my son at a chain Buffalo-wing restaurant on Saturday night, with the TVs full of college football, which I don't really watch. My son, who is pretty politically aware, asked, "What's with all the political ads?" So I started paying attention to the TVs and their commercials. I counted two Kamala Harris ads (one pro-Harris, one anti-Trump), and three Trump ads (all anti-Harris, of which two were particularly transphobic). Maybe they are both advertising in one of the bluest parts of Indiana because the nearby towns of Niles and St. Joseph are in the swing state of Michigan.
But then I saw four Jennifer McCormick (D) ads and four Mike Braun (R) ads. They are locked in a governor's race here in the Hoosier Stare that may be far closer than it might have seemed just a few months ago. There was a scandal where Braun's running mate Micah Beckwith told us we could "vote for strength and godly boldness, or, I would say, the Jezebel spirit." Also, in his podcast, Pastor Beckwith has claimed to be a Christian nationalist, and threatened to fire any state employee that has their pronouns in their e-mail signature.
We Hoosiers have been a red state in the last 20 years or so, but there are times when the red team takes things too far. W made McCain unelectable here in 2008. Then-Senate candidate Richard Mourdock said in his 2012 debate against Joe Donnelly, "Life is that gift from God that I think even if life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen." Two weeks later, he lost. Mike Pence would not have won reelection as governor in 2016 had he not resigned to run for VP, due to a bathroom bill, among other things.
Two last things: I voted on the second day of early in-person voting. I had to wait for 45 minutes, and women outnumbered men in line 5-1. Second, tonight I saw an ad for Rep. Rudy Yakym (R-IN). He shouldn't need to advertise, since his challenger, Lori Camp, has virtually no money.
Things are going to be a lot closer in Indiana that people think.
P.S.: Rudy's daughter and my son were in kindergarten together. My kiddo still remembers to this day how young Ms. Yakym was telling everyone how great a person Ted Cruz was, if that tells you anything.
A.R. in Los Angeles, CA, writes: I've been phone banking for Nebraska U.S. Senate candidate Dan Osborn (I) for 3 weeks and I can tell you that voters there are very engaged and Dan has a lot of Republican support. It is, indeed, because he is laser focused on local issues and Sen. Deb Fischer's (R-NE) absence when Nebraskans needed her. He points to a local rail disaster that can be traced to a relaxation of safety measures that Fischer supported. Corporate greed is a big focus of his campaign as well. He supports farmers and fights against the corporate takeover of small farms. Not only is he pro-choice but what's getting less attention is that he also favors legalizing cannabis. In addition to the abortion rights initiative, there's also a ballot measure to legalize medical marijuana in the state. That will also drive turnout.
Republicans in Nebraska that I've spoken to are not Trump cultists. Many are party loyalists but they have much more immediate concerns, like ensuring their livelihoods and futures. I called one house and was told the person was unavailable because "he's harvesting." Dan Osborn speaks directly to them. I like his chances.
R.M. in Pensacola, FL, writes: The polling that you published on October 14 declaring Florida a red state most likely is accurate, but the polling from Mason-Dixon may actually be underselling the spread between Sen. Rick Scott (R) and Rep. Debbie Mucarsel-Powell (D) a bit.
Yes, Scott is unpopular here. But at least I know who he is! I have no clue who Mucarsel-Powell happens to be, and I'm just as much of a political junkie as many of your regular readers are!
Your item on the second of two hurricanes to hit the state in as many weeks is the most I have seen anywhere regarding her campaign.
No ads. No texts. No e-mails. Nothing from her campaign. I get 83 text messages a day from Kamala Harris and nothing at all from Mucarsel-Powell. If it wasn't for the occasional ad from Scott's campaign, I'd almost have no idea there was a Senate race going on here in Florida.
I suspect internal polling suggests that Scott has a 10-12 point lead and both campaigns aren't really doing much, especially here in the Panhandle. Maybe some other readers in the area have a different experience, but I fully expect Scott to have his easiest election to date next month.
G.B. in Collin County, TX, writes: On Tuesday, there was a televised debate between Ted Cruz and Colin Allred in the contest for the former's U.S. Senate seat. Given that this is both the sole meeting between the two this cycle and probably the Democrats' sole opportunity to play offense in the Senate this year (I'm skeptical that Nebraska's two races will be as far apart as polling says), I thought it would be a good use of my time and my aborted journalism education to watch along and provide an on-the-ground perspective on the race for the community at Electoral-Vote.com.
The debate was a much more professional affair than we've come to expect out of presidential contests lately. Both Cruz and Allred came onstage having done their homework, and started the event with a mutual handshake before assuming their podiums. While both knew how to present themselves on television, differing styles come into play. Without getting into a shouting contest, Cruz consistently somehow seemed much louder than Allred all night; his delivery was more energetic and impassioned while Allred's was confidently matter-of-fact. Where Cruz kept his eyes fixed on Allred during the latter's speaking time and cracked an occasional grin, Allred was frequently looking down at a notepad during Cruz's speaking time. While Allred's body language came nowhere close to the disaster that was Joe Biden's head hanging slack during his ill-fated matchup with Donald Trump back in June, it is noticeable enough that it might impact how the audience viewed the event. It's the difference between a bright young attorney addressing a jury and a Baptist preacher working the pews; the latter ends up having a bit more fire behind it and that makes for a better show.
But body language and style can't be the only things that you spend an hour on. Once the two started getting into issues, Allred's strategy focused on hitting Cruz for voting against things that he supported when Democrats were pushing them through the Senate. Cruz said he supported increased border enforcement, Allred hit him for voting against a bipartisan agreement in the Senate that would have done so. Same for an aid package to support Israel, Ukraine and Taiwan. On abortion, Cruz tried to deflect from the Supreme Court's decision, and said that if Allred disagreed with Texas law he should be running for state office in Texas.
The airwaves in the state have been inundated lately with Cruz ads about "men in women's sports," and when it came up in the debate, Cruz went for the jugular on the subject. When Allred insisted that the subject was only coming up so that Cruz could deflect attention from his voting record, Cruz responded that he did not actually deny supporting such. While I don't think that voting for the Equality Act is an enormous albatross around Allred's neck, even in Texas, he also did not do a great job of actually defusing this particular bomb. The debate just kind of moved on to 1/6, where Allred fared better by insisting that Cruz being insufficiently in favor of convicting participants meant that he was not actually pro-law enforcement.
One of the first elections I was eligible to vote in was in 2018, when Cruz fended off a surprisingly viable challenge from Beto O'Rourke and when Colin Allred entered Congress by flipping a swing district in Dallas (it was later redrawn to be much more blue). In the absence of either candidate landing a real knockout blow in the debate, I have to conclude that the race is going to end up like the Beto/Cruz matchup six years ago: Allred runs an admirable game but still comes up just short. A statewide victory in Texas has been the white whale of Democratic politics for my entire adult life; always just out of reach despite what looks like favorable terrain if you squint at it. It will most likely remain so this year.
B.M. in Chico, CA, writes: You had posted about different states getting different levels of attention and it reminded me of this meme which I wanted to share in case you hadn't seen it:
A.B. in Chesapeake, VA, writes: Questions from M.A. in Knoxville and J.C. in Trenton about the Supreme Court are further addressed in Jack Balkin's The Cycles of Constitutional Time, first recommended to me from Electoral-Vote.com. Constitutional rot and renewal concerning the Supreme Court, as discussed in the book, has not been so relevant since the 1850s. The book, written in 2020, may be out of date with the extreme rulings recently from the Roberts' Court. I am hoping for a revised addition after the 2024 election. God help us if Trump wins.
J.T. in San Bernardino, CA, writes: The letter from J.H. in Boston and your response reminded me of how my community college U.S. History I class blew my mind and changed my whole intellectual apparatus when it came to time, space, morality (well before I transferred to a 4-year and became ensconced in critical theory and postmodernism).
Anyway, in that class, a quote that stuck with me was one from Ralph Waldo Emerson, who wrote in his journal during the outbreak of the U.S. invasion of Mexico: "The United States will conquer Mexico, but it will be as the man who swallows the arsenic, which will bring him down in turn. Mexico will poison us."
In K-12 I'd been taught almost nothing about this war and its historical significance, but this quote really crystallized my historical understanding of its relationship to later events that I had been taught about.
Now I'm a college professor myself, and I have the utmost respect for the K-12 history teachers and their nigh-impossible task. However, it's still kind of astounding to me that I look back and see that my U.S. history education in K-12 tended to go:
- 1776-1814 (the early years)
- then nothing important happened
- 1860-1865 (the Civil War, and the Lincoln assassination)
- then nothing important happened
- 1914-1921 (World War I, Prohibition, women get the vote)
- then nothing important happened
- 1928-present (Depression, World War II, and then we're off to the races)
For reference, I'm an "elder millennial" who graduated from high school in 2002.
What that community college U.S. History class really planted in my brain was something very cynical. That those years where "nothing happened," which my professor actually put a laser-focus on, are years that include a ruthless invasion of Mexico, a botched reconstruction in which most of the gains won in the Civil War were given back, a Gilded Age where striking workers were murdered like cattle for daring to demand humane conditions... episodes that redound poorly on U.S. history. To my mind it seemed—and remains—almost conspiratorial, that those years seem to just get hopped over in K-12 history.
What shocked me even more was when I started teaching students in California, who seem to have very little knowledge of that war, or of the fact that the state they grew up in owes its existence as a state to it.
T.L. in St. Paul, MN, writes: Kudos to (Z) for the item on St. Olaf's stellar student voting record! St. Olaf is, indeed, full of smart people, though not quite as stuffed with them as Carleton, the far superior college on the other side of Northfield (guess which one is my alma mater).
Denizens of St. Olaf are not Olafians, but Oles, and their counterparts across the Cannon River are Carls. You'll be heartened to know that the voting habits fostered at St. Olaf are ingrained for a lifetime. We have a 2024 Ole grad (apparently it takes two Carls to spawn an Ole) who has recently decamped to Indiana. When we reminded him a few weeks ago to request an absentee ballot, he had already obtained one, filled it out, and sent it in. Um! Ya! Ya! is the rallying cry of Oles everywhere, and I offer it in the spirit of bipartisan Ole-Carl cooperation to get out the vote everywhere!
For all your hard work, thank you from Minnesota, where all the voters are above average.
C.B. in Lakeville, MN, writes: I'm the public address announcer for St. Olaf women's volleyball, men's basketball, and women's basketball; I'm in my third year doing this.
The demonym for alums or current students of St. Olaf are Oles. It's pronounced (OH-leez), not "Oh-lay" as in the football (soccer) cheer, and not "OALZ" as it looks. The singular is "Ole" (OH-lee).
Also, "Olaf" in the school name is pronounced like "OH-luf." When I started doing PA for games, that was one of the first things I was told.
Another fun fact about St. Olaf College: It's the only college with a school song in 3/4 (waltz) time.
B.L. in Bloomington, MN, writes: I've read Electoral-Vote.com diligently since 2004, back when I was an undergrad pursuing Computer Science at St. Olaf College, using such textbooks as Modern Operating Systems and Structured Computer Organization. When the Votemaster revealed his identity, and after I realized that it matched my textbooks at the time, I was obviously surprised at the connection!
I am writing you, probably joining a chorus of Oles, to point out the correct demonym (Oles) and pronunciation (oh-leez) for those who consider St. Olaf a part of their identity. Um! Yah! Yah!
M.S. in Roseville, MN, writes: As a Scandie-German Minnesotan with two St. Olaf graduates launched into the world, I am quietly proud to read about the AICDC recognition.
But, I have to say that "Uff Dah!" has many nuanced meanings based on tone, eye roll, and head movement, including relief, acknowledgment of a tough job well done, what's said when getting up from a deep couch after sitting awhile, and, yes, dismay. It contains multitudes.
As an example from the e-mail I wrote to my boys, "Uff Dah! I thought *I* coined the phrase 'Olafian'!"
And, when we lift a tiny, icy glass of aquavit, we tend to say Skål!
And this is just a fun fact, but when we went down to St. Olaf's famed Christmas Fest one year, we swung by the local liquor store in the faint hope they had a bottle of aquavit. The clerk responded, "Do you want the Danish, the Norwegian, or the Swedish type?" Uff Dah!
J.W.S. in Prairie Du Chien, WI, writes: Just writing to say while there may not be a St. Olaf, MN, there is one in Iowa. It's in the northeast part of the state, not terribly far from Minnesota. It's about 30 minutes west-southwest of me. And you bet I'm voting, being in a swingy state and all.
E.G. in The Villages, FL, writes: You're starting to rock me off now . Baier asks real questions and now he's on a team. For the first time , she faces any kind of real questions and melts . What will she do in office ? And geez , I wonder what team you guys are on You sure aren't journalists
(V) & (Z) respond: Somewhere, The Villages is missing its idiot.
And yes, we did run this letter just so we could make that joke.
Also, because some readers expressed an interest, we ran this letter completely unedited. This one should have gotten about a dozen edits, so it's not as bad as the letter from J.C. in Birmingham, which needed more than two dozen.
Oh, and we might as well say it again: We do not claim to be journalists. We are academics who comment on politics. Pundits, maybe. Journalists, no.
A.L. in Waterville, OH, writes: It's pretty clear that whoever runs this site has not touched grass is a long time. You seem to have no real pulse on American politics. If you think Kamala is winning you are either in denial or are just not very smart.
(V) & (Z) respond: So THAT'S Ann Selzer's secret.
K.H. in Corning, NY, writes: J.C. in Birmingham, AL, wrote: "No wonder you're for Kamala: She, like you, is totally fake!!!... Ever thought of doing a balanced website? Ya, didn't think so."
I find myself spending a moment to contemplate why someone with thoughts like these would read a site like this. One possibility is that they don't; they are only writing to foment discord, and you are one of their 1,000 letters written today. In which case, it is interesting to think about what tactics are being deployed.
Another possibility is that you've heard from them before and things they've written suggest that they are indeed followers of the site. In that case, it's really interesting to ponder whether they receive a modicum of sanity by the contact (and what would they sound like without that!)? Several sips of coffee fuels this little side-quest of thought, which is something that is delightfully common on reading your site, by the way—you spark a lot of thought and congtemplation. As a 20-year fan, I appreciate your content daily (I was so happy when you went daily!). And yes, there is a leftward lean, but it's in the spices, not the meat.
(V) & (Z) respond: This person is not a regular correspondent; there's been an uptick in one-nasty-letter people since we started running a bunch of Google ads. And, on your observation about what they get out of the contact, we do hope that their lashing out at us perhaps forestalls them lashing out at someone who would actually be damaged by it.
S.S. in West Hollywood, CA, writes: Have you considered that J.C. in Birmingham might actually be a Donald Trump alias? Needing 26 corrections to get the complaint readable seems like a pretty big clue. Trump's John Barrow identity was blown years ago, but he does like to compare himself to Jesus Christ, after all.
(V) & (Z) respond: Impossible. None of the edits we made involved incorrectly capitalized words.
D.C. in Toronto, ON, Canada, writes: As a proud Canadian, I enjoy the running tongue in cheek jokes about us. But what A.G. in Scranton wrote wrote was at least right up against the line, if not over it.
I don't care about the profanity. The jokes are mostly funny but when someone suggests Canadian men aren't "real men" it's going a bit too far.
Swap "Canadian" with almost any other adjective and I doubt you'd ever consider posting that.
I don't mean to sound prudish but there's a difference between a silly running joke and straight up bigotry.
(V) & (Z) respond: Well, we wouldn't post it if it was a protected-class-type group (Black men, gay men, disabled men, etc.), but we probably would if it was something like "Trojan men."
Anyhow, we don't disagree with you that it went right up to the line, and maybe crossed it. We allowed it because, as we noted, A.G. really does channel the spirit of Hunter S. Thompson, and "right up to the line, and maybe across it" was pretty much Thompson's mantra. Plus, A.G.'s letter captured the irritation expressed by many letters we did not run.
D.J.M. in Salmon Arm, BC, Canada, writes: No doubt that A.G. in Scranton correctly chastises the troll A.L. in Toronto. However, he also suggests, "At least you'll understand what Canadian women are doing when they flee south of the border to find real men." Okey dokey, so that explains why our animal shelters have been filling up with cats as the ladies take flight to find real men who can legislate their bodies. Sorry, gotta go (as I grab my toque)... I have another bushel to fill.
(V) & (Z) respond: A very fair point.
B.C. in Walpole, ME, writes: I have a complaint about the Complaints about the Complaints Department: I see no mention of M.C. Escher...
(V) & (Z) respond: If we get complaints about any of the three letters here, then we can get REALLY recursive. Complaints about Complaints about Complaints about Complaints Department?
A.R. in Arlington, VA, writes: In response to D.M. in Cleveland, regarding Montana Buffalo, I would just like to say this:
Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo.
The Wikipedia page for this is a thoroughly enjoyable read, and I wasn't even a linguistics major in college.
(V) & (Z) respond: Just keep in mind that James while John had had had had had had had had had had had a better effect on the teacher.
P.K. in Sunnyvale, CA, writes: Dear S.K. in Sunnyvale,
Both of my parents have the initials "S.K. in Sunnyvale." They don't read this site but I have for about 20 years. I always like your comments and wonder who you are. Please keep writing.
R.L.D. in Sundance, WY, writes: Regarding duplicate initials, I remember when I saw a letter from "R.D. in Austin, TX" that I hadn't written. There were, at the time I moved there, at least three other people who not only had my same initials but also the same name and I had already had the experience of needing a middle initial to distinguish between us in e-mail. Twice! So, I immediately started signing my Electoral-Vote.com posts with my middle initial, for clarity, but also it was kind of habit by that point. Now that I've left Texas behind, it doesn't matter. In fact, I'm not sure I've even seen one other contributor from Wyoming, let alone another R.D.
(V) & (Z) respond: We do hear from L.M. in Laramie on occasion.
B.J. in Arlington, MA, writes: J.R.A. in St. Petersburg wrote that "Non-pronounceable initialisms never get assimilated as actual words."
There used to be an organization called the Society for the Preservation and Encouragement of Barbershop Quartet Singing in America, abbreviated SPEBSQSA. I participated in the 1990s, and we were taught that the abbreviation was NOT to be pronounced. Nevertheless, everyone referred to it as "Spebsquasa."
They eventually gave up and renamed the organization as the Barbershop Harmony Society.
I'm not sure if this supports or refutes J.R.A.'s assertion.
M.S. in Canton, NY, writes: You wrote: "It is pumpkin season and also leak season (though hopefully there will be no leaky pumpkins)."
Actually, pumpkin-and-leek soup sounds quite tasty.
D.N. in Elgin, IL, writes: A.G. in New York City shared the final words of their aunt, who complained that dying took all afternoon. It took several weeks for my dad's second wife to die of COPD, and she was eager to get it over with. The minister at her funeral told the story of visiting her a few days before her death, and she asked him to pray that she died that night in her sleep. He visited her again the next morning and she told him accusingly, "You didn't pray hard enough!"
If you have suggestions for this feature, please send them along.