Dem
50
GOP
50
Consistent with our taking a semi-breather this weekend, this is a somewhat shortened mailbag. There was a LOT of response to the item on fascism, and a fair bit to the one on The Washington Post, so we wanted to share some of those. We also tossed in a few of the regular mailbag features.
Since there was no hint as to the headline theme yesterday, we shall give one today. We already noted that solving this week's theme will take some mettle. We'll add that if you do it, you probably should get a medal.
M.G. in Piscataway, NJ, writes: I think Kamala Harris had a huge missed opportunity. In my opinion, Harris should have gathered all the leaders from every religious group not in Trump's pocket and formed a counterbalance to all the religious organizations that are pro-Trump. I think endorsements from religious leaders are more powerful than celebrity endorsements. I think pro-Kamala religious leaders could have driven higher voter turnout. I think pro-Kamala religious leaders could have created a permission structure that would allow conservative Christians to vote Democratic.
M.M. in San Diego, CA, writes: Don't be too hard on the generals who won't denounce Donald Trump and endorse Kamala Harris. They have spent their entire adult lives keeping their political opinions to themselves. The old saw goes, "If the military wanted you to have an opinion, the military would have issued you one."
T.B. in Santa Clara, CA, writes: I think you'll enjoy this:
B.H. in St. Paul, MN, writes: The missus and I went to vote early today. We went to the Ramsey County Elections Office, waited in line for a few minutes, and then I was called up to the desk where they check which precinct you live in so they can give you the right ballot; right after, another clerk called my wife up. I was at desk #5; my wife was called to desk #3.
In between us, at desk #4, was a man who told the clerk "that's my wife—at the front of the line. We're together." The clerk asked him, does she need an accommodation? Needs the ballot read to her, or something? No. He just wanted her with him when she got, and presumably marked, her ballot. He was told that was not necessary. Nevertheless, he persisted. To her credit, the clerk did not call his wife up to the desk.
I think there are a number of male Trump voters like this one, who suspect their wives may not follow their plan. Answer a phone poll? OK. Reply to an online poll? Sure. But when they get into the booth alone, they just might register a protest vote.
J.W. in Newton, MA, writes: I mostly agree with your response to M.S. in Groton.. Donald Trump and MAGA are clearly fascist in intent, but with a few exceptions like J.D. Vance, they are incompetent idiots. Given our remaining safeguards, how far can they take us? I'd say pretty far. If the GOP wins the trifecta, they have a good chance of locking in white-nationalist, minority rule of the country for years to come (e.g., by making it much harder for city dwellers to vote, or perhaps finding ways to corrupt certification). Think modern Hungary rather than 1930s Germany. SCOTUS won't necessarily lift a finger to help us. Not exactly comforting.
R.E.M. in Brooklyn, NY, writes: I think M.S. in Groton is struggling to respond to their friend's argument that Trump is not a fascist because there is an unstated, underlying premise that is absurd. As M.S. described it, "My friend insists on identifying specific policies that Trump put into place that qualify as fascism. From his view, Trump was president once, and we didn't become a fascist dictatorship; ipso facto, Trump isn't fascist." In other words, to be a fascist, one must have turned the country into a dictatorship.
But on that theory, Hitler was not a fascist until March 23, 1933, two months after he was named Chancellor, when the German Reichstag passed the Enabling Act that gave him dictatorial powers. In other words, M.S.'s friend would have to argue that Hitler was not a fascist in 1923, when he organized a failed attempt to violently overthrow the government of Germany in the so-called Beer Hall Putsch; or in 1925 when he published Mein Kampf, in which he told the world exactly what he planned to do to punish his "enemies."
Trump, of course, organized a failed attempt to overthrow the government of the United States (as I think of it, the Statuary Hall Putsch). Trump has also told us he will "be a dictator on day one"; that the military should be unleashed on undocumented immigrants (the "enemy"), who will be rounded up and put in "camps"; and that he will sic his Justice Department on his political opponents.
The (il)logical conclusion of M.S.'s friend's argument is that no one can properly be labeled a fascist until they succeed; mere aspiring fascists cannot be so characterized. That's an absurd conclusion and one that wholly belies the friend's argument. (And if M.S. tries this refutation out on their friend, I hope they will write in and let us know how it went over!)
S.B. in Los Angeles, CA, writes: Yeah... that's been my take on Trump since 2016, after he secured the Republican nomination, yet kept having his "Nuremberg" style rallies. He's close to being a Hitler but just not smart enough. (And, thankfully, doesn't have the stones that Hitler had.) I've always thought of Trump as a tinpot dictator who happened to stumble into the leadership of a world superpower. God help us all!
A.L. in Bern, Switzerland, writes: I agree with your assessment. I do have two cents to add as to why Trump does not qualify as a fascist leader, however: He does not really like to use military force.
All fascist leaders of the past and present did not just rise through the ranks in the military, they were happy to use the military to advance their goals, both against other countries and within their own country. They all wanted to have a very strong military, ready to strike at their will.
During Trump's term (his first and, hopefully, only) there were several occasions where military force was advised. For example, when there was a chemical attack in Syria. Trump did authorize the use of cruise missiles to attack one air base in Syria. Despite a pre-warning to the Russians, some people were killed on the airbase, but less than ten.
Can you imagine the reaction of a president Hillary Clinton? She would have not been satisfied with a more or less symbolic strike, she would have hit Assad where it would have hurt him dearly. In fact, every other U.S. president would have intervened in the war in Syria after that incident. Trump stayed out of the conflict.
There were several other opportunities for him to show military strength, and he let most of them pass. So he clearly does not see himself as a great military leader.
J.D.M. in Portland, OR, writes: I found it both alarming and amusing when John Kelly spoke of Donald Trump wanting the U.S. military generals to "be like Hitler's generals and simply follow orders without question." Alarming, of course, because that's not how any of it works with the U.S. military. Amusing because Hitler's own generals tried to assassinate him at least four different times, and it's entirely possible other, unknown attempts were made by officers of that rank.
There was even a Tom Cruise movie about this very topic, though Claus von Stauffenberg (Cruise's character) was only a colonel.
E.L. in Dallas, TX, writes: I was not sure if you saw this item from The Hill: "Half in new survey view Trump as fascist."
This poll does not use nearly as strict a definition of fascism as Electoral-Vote.com did. Despite the more vague, and broad definition, I still think it is an informative result.
W.E. in Ostbevern, Germany, writes: I have been a reader of your site for years and do appreciate the content and the entertaining way you present it; really impressed with the effort it means to come up with daily posts of such a length and depth. Your recent item about fascism (and whether the Don might be called a fascist) did rub me the wrong way however, and my irritation is twofold:
I go along with your first three markers for fascism, "us-vs-them" might also be described as the vision of a homogeneous society without conflicting interests, since those are thought to be the work of people who don't really belong and therefore ought to be excluded (driven into exile, jailed or even murdered). However, your fourth aspect, "competence," is not about the characteristic qualities of a Fascist world-view or system of government, but about how well the government works, which has little to do with ideology: "You know, though politician XYZ holds strong conservative beliefs, we still can't call him a conservative though because he's (competent/not able to tie his own shoelaces)." Just doesn't make sense in terms of political philosophy.
I also take umbrage at your idea that the Nazis were particularly competent. In the 6½ years between coming to power and the start of Word War II, the German deficit ballooned, which nicely juiced the economy by funding public work schemes and a massive rearmament; with the country quickly teetering on the brink of bankruptcy. The Nazi top brass seemed pretty oblivious to the actual needs of running a country, with Hitler in his mountain retreat planning Berlin's architecture after domination of Europe had been achieved and intervening in the war effort with quite disastrous consequences, Göring hitting the morphine and boasting about German invincibility, Himmler lost in esoteric dreams of the super race he was going to breed. Two caveats: The Nazi propaganda was top-notch obviously and did project an image of strength and competence, no doubt about it, and there were plenty of soldiers and civil servants who were efficient at what they were doing—though calling Albert Speer's procurement of armaments, which rested on the forced labor of the inmates of concentration camps, "efficient" feels a little odd for sure...
D.E. in Lancaster, PA, writes: For what it is worth, I wholly appreciate your answer on "Is Trump a fascist?" I agreed with nearly most of your points, except your fourth characteristic of Fascism. Your fourth characteristic was "Competence" or the "Made the trains run on time" argument. While you said this supposition isn't factually true, you then claimed that the fascist leaders were very skilled and competent. I'm not sure that was the actual case. A great portion of the Nazification of Germany didn't happen due to skilled leadership but rather through a ground-up movement, where the German people often led the way before political policies were in place. In the first years of Adolf Hitler's rule, it was local organizations and businesses that were the first to start ostracizing the Jews. Business leaders were often ahead of the curve in a bid to receive favor from the Nazi regime, similar to what some billionaires in our day are doing right now. Look at how many local boards and organizations are trying to curry favor with Donald Trump by committing illegal acts that further his agenda—prime examples are Tina Peters, Moms for Liberty, J.D. Vance and well practically all MAGA cultists whose weirdness and outlandish behavior could just simply be their way to get Dear Leader to see them.
On top of that, the Nazi leaders were incredibly corrupt and on the take, with bribes being an accepted way to seal deals. Nazi leaders were for the most part elevated thugs whose leadership skills came more from a Mafia style than Management 101. The Nazi war effort was hampered by shoddy materials and weapons. A famous example is Oskar Schindler who, through bribing that local Nazi leader, Amon Goth, ran a munitions factory run by Jewish laborers whose shells were purposely built to be unusable. The illusion of prosperity that Nazi Germany first gave to the world was illusory, as it was on the back of confiscation of wealth and the implementation of slave labor. The only thing that the Nazis were truly efficient on was documenting their own atrocities.
When "the trains did run on time" they did so not through bureaucratic or management efficiency, but rather through fear of violence and intimidation. Everyone kept their heads down and did their jobs as best as possible for fear they might have the SS knock down their door one night. Efficiency based on fear of violence is not sustainable. Look at any fascist regime and you only see the populace with a forced smile.
That's why I think the fourth characteristic of Fascism should be "Fear" or "Fear of Violence." That is one area that Trump is cultivating like a fine wine.
K.W. in Kenosha, WI, writes: Your post on "Trump the Fascist" was really good. I wanted to add my thoughts to it, as this is a question I have been pondering for a long time, even before Trump "descended the golden elevator."
What distinguishes fascism from communism, since both almost inevitably lead to autocracy?
You came really close in your observation of the nation-state versus the people being supreme (in theory). But I think that distinction is too blurry to warrant describing fascism as extreme right-wing and communism as extreme left-wing. Because in both philosophies, the people ARE the nation-state. Again, in theory.
I find that, in practice, the two philosophies overlap almost completely. They share xenophobia, militarism, strict policing of one's own people, etc. But that overlap pretty much just defines "autocracy" in general. Any autocratic system has those elements. So what makes fascism and communism unique and, especially, what makes them polar opposites on the political right-left spectrum? After years of periodic musing on this, I think I may have at least one answer.
Philosophically, fascism is meritocracy taken to its logical extreme, and communism is egalitarianism taken to its logical extreme.
In fascist thinking, everyone can be ranked by their inherent virtues, whatever those virtues may be. They could be mindsets like loyalty, bravery, or wisdom. Or physical things like strength, handsomeness, or (in the case of women) fertility. Fascism holds that society works best when everyone rises to the level of their own virtue. This means that some people (and ethnicities) are so lacking in virtue that they are actually a drag on society and it would benefit everyone if they were eliminated altogether. And virtue ends up being defined solely by success—people get ahead because they are inherently better than those who are left behind.
In the communist ideal, everyone is equal in essence, and the only distinctions are ones of ability and need (from everyone according to their ability; to everyone according to their need). Those distinctions do not define the individual's worth, just how they fit into the bigger picture. Like fascism, communism says that there are those who should be eliminated, not so much because they are inherently unworthy but because they are a threat to the well-oiled "from/to" machine. (Though even that distinction gets blurred in the practice.)
In that sense, Trump is absolutely a fascist. He talks often about good genes and bad genes. In his worldview, immigrants come from "sh**hole countries" because they are inherently sh**hole people. The world is dog-eat-dog, do whatever it takes to survive. Deception and fraud are perfectly acceptable, because they serve to call out those others who are stupidly susceptible to them. It is not enough for him to win, others must lose. There is no win-win, because success is entirely relative. If we both move up the ladder together, I am not gaining ground on you. Success defines worth.
D.R. in Phoenix, AZ, writes: Thank you so much for the four-pronged explanation of your view of fascism. I have been experiencing generalized dread and anxiety ever since I confirmed the news of Donald Trump's triumph after he beat Hillary Clinton. Since then, Trump has been living absolutely rent-free in my brain. I have stress dreams about him. My attempts to remain an informed citizen often end in depression and foul temper. I can't tell you how valuable it is to have Electoral-Vote.com for its humor and its grounding in good old-fashioned facts, norms, and common sense.
Anyway, your discussion of why it's unlikely that we will wake up the day after Trump's inauguration and find ourselves in a full-on fascist state with all the trimmings was a much-needed balm for me. The 53% of us that are not part of the cult of personality will be highly motivated to resist the madness which is fast becoming the most salient feature of Trump's identity. With our tens of millions, including most of the smart ones (by definition), the anti-Trump movement will present a formidable obstacle to the establishment of a truly fascist regime in America. It is not immediately apparent how a nearly 80-year-old, rapidly fading, exhausted and deranged president will really be able to take his project all the way. What he tries in and after this election will not only fail, it will make the already daunting task of rehabilitating the Republican Party (should it even be attempted) that much more difficult. It will indeed be a gargantuan task to defeat the enemy from within. We won't go quietly. Consider me Proud Vermin, ready to make my stand when the time comes. None of us is alone in this. Viva American democracy! Long live the Constitution!
J.E. in San Jose, CA, writes: Similar to your analysis on whether the actions in Gaza are genocidal, there is a key point to infer, which I doubt many people see: Words are just words. Words act as shortcuts to reduce the need for constant critical thinking. That's not meant as a negative criticism. It is literally why communication works the way it does.
Having said that, I think the pedantry on whether something is a genocide or whether someone is a fascist puts us at risk of being distracted by the literal actions people are taking. It distresses me to no end when people focus on how people define the goings-on in the Middle East—or here, for that matter. I hope we can use that energy and focus it on bettering the situation instead of arguing semantics.
To be clear, I appreciated your analysis today because it allowed us to revisit what's actually transpiring. But the rest of my note here is a preemptive response to the types of other messages you will receive on this topic.
G.L. in Schenectady, NY, writes: You offered a four-point definition of fascism, in order to answer the question of whether or not Donald Trump is a fascist.
Another definition is the one from Lawrence Britt. It has fourteen specific points, all of which Donald Trump checks.
Additionally, the YouTube channel Beau of the Fifth Column published a video in 2021 listing off fourteen specific things that Trump did that align with Britt's fourteen points. In typical fashion for the channel, it was delivered in a way to bring in Trump's supporters, and then drop a surprise on them.
L.B. in Savannah, GA, writes: Other than Electoral-Vote.com, the only other source I never miss reading is Doug Muder's The Weekly Sift. Doug's analysis of current events is remarkably insightful, and I've learned a lot from him. I can't recommend him highly enough.
Several years ago, he posted a list of fascism's hallmarks, along with explanations. I wanted to share it as his site isn't easily searchable. It's a great summary and definitely educational.
D.C. in Myersville, MD, writes: In the item "Trump the Fascist," you lay out a convincing case for labeling Trump as such.
Coincidentally, on the same day, Rich Lowry at The National Review laid out a case that Trump is instead a "Jacksonian figure," and that the Left is once again leveling a "tiresome charge" against the Right.
R.H. in San Antonio, TX, writes: You mentioned Ferenc Szálasi in your item on fascism.
MacOS has a function whereby I can highlight a word or phrase and right-click it for more information, where I saw that he was the collaborator who ruled Hungary while under Nazi occupation. Among the information was this note:
Field of work: NazismNot government, not military, not dictatorship—merely Nazism.
After 79 years, his life's work in one word: Nazism.
I wonder what right-clicking the name of Donald Trump will show, in the year 2104?
S.S. in West Hollywood, CA, writes: This might be the scariest political ad I've ever seen. It's from People For the American Way. Happy Halloween?
R.L.S. in Portland, ME, writes:
M.G. in Boulder, CO, writes: As Electoral-Vote.com noted, both The Los Angeles Times and The Washington Post have declined to endorse either candidate. Neither is being praised for that. The Post has various editorial opinions by staff writers, all disapproving, as are virtually all the comments by readers. Ann Telnaes, their best cartoonist, produced a cartoon labeled "Democracy Dies in Darkness," the Post's motto. The cartoon is a black square. E-V.com pointed out that the billionaire owners of the papers are afraid of a Trump administration. All of this is deserved.
Nevertheless, it's possible that the chickening out has inadvertently been effective. Both papers endorsing Harris would have been expected and produced a tiny ripple. Both papers not endorsing, when both were clearly prepared to do so, is fairly big news and de facto endorsement. I think this is doing more good than harm.
If billionaires show themselves as being afraid of Trump and the powers behind him, what about those of us who are relatively powerless? There is no land of the free unless it is also the home of the brave.
T.J.R. in Metuchen, NJ, writes: I was complaining about The Washington Post endorsement to my girlfriend/domestic partner (D.H. in Metuchen) and she brought up the following points: (1) it was leaked the Editorial Board was going to endorse Kamala Harris; (2) if they actually had, it would have been a dog-bites-man story and no one would have really cared (it would not have moved the needle not one bit), (3) Jeff Bezos has cover if Trump actually wins and doesn't lose anything if Trump loses (Democrats don't do retribution to a large extent.) Win-win all around. Ok, Bezos won't get into the next edition of Profiles in Courage, but that book is going to be pretty thin anyway, methinks.
P.M. in Innsbruck, Austria, writes: If fear as a factor in The Washington Post's non-endorsement is true, what does it say about Jeff Bezos, one of the richest man on this planet? And if it's really fear, why not invest in public civics education long-term, invest in GOTV this year, and finally endorse despite the fear, so the bully would lose the election and one would lose the fear again? And why does no one fear Kamala Harris/Joe Biden/the Democrats? Just because they are the decent and adult ones? And finally: What is wrong in the United States of Freedom and Democracy that super-rich guys have to fear speaking their mind? Can this nightmare get any worse?
A.B. in Cincinnati, OH, writes: The fate of Blue Origin seems a much likelier reason for Jeff Bezos to quash The Washington Post's planned editorial endorsement of Kamala Harris. He might summon the courage to protect a major newspaper and free speech but not when his space aspirations are threatened.
R.S. in Ticonderoga, NY, writes: I've been a digital subscriber to The Washington Post since the days of working from home during COVID. However, I canceled my subscription today after the disturbing news of how a potential endorsement of Vice President Harris was squashed. "Democracy Dies in Darkness," indeed!
D.H. in Durham, NC, writes: Canceled my Washington Post subscription today. Bet you will hear this a lot.
(V) & (Z) respond: We did, indeed.
M.W. in Huntington, NY, writes: Just throwing it out there: I think the non-endorsements by The Los Angeles Times and now The Washington Post are the October surprise. Hopefully they won't move the needle too much, but they're so unexpected that some people who otherwise would've voted for Kamala Harris are now going to pause and question what's wrong with her if these two arguably left leaning newspapers won't endorse her.
(V) & (Z) respond: You think that will be the takeaway, as opposed to "Wow. This is a frightening preview of what Trump v2.0 will look like"?
R.M in Venetia, PA, writes: Spotted this while passing through Bethel Park, PA (yes, that Bethel Park, from where the Trump would-be assassin hailed from). This dude sets this up every year (minus the campaign props) around Christmas as an ode to National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation:
M.G.F. in Minneapolis, MN, writes: As a fellow resident of MN-05, I write to confirm the comment from L.F. in Minneapolis on the creativity of our neighborhood Harris signs. This one is our favorite:
I guess we're into reusing stuff around here...
P.A. in Redwood City, CA, writes: Yet another in the seemingly endless series of clever Harris/Walz yard signs:
P.S. in Bellevue, NE, writes: Lots of creative red-dot-vs-blue-dot signage in NE-02:
J.C. in Washington, DC, writes: Just returned from vacation in Arizona and thought I'd provide my anecdotal yard sign report.
Flagstaff was predictably Harris/Walz everywhere. What struck me was the sign situation in Yavapai County, a very conservative pocket in central Arizona, which has hosted numerous Trump rallies.
The ratio of signs was about equal, which is in stark contrast to 2016 and 2020, when TFG's signs far outnumbered the Democrat's. Here's a photo from a major intersection. You can see the parity and even that one of Trump's signs has been defaced:
Also note the very apropos sign for "Voters Against Signs!" The amount of advertising in all forms I encountered in just eight short days was absolutely exhausting.
N.P. in Ames, IA, writes: Here in Ames, I still see the usual big Trump flags (one in particular is a Trump 2020 flag where the owner used duct tape to make the 2020 to 2024; the economical Trumper?) but there are a whole lot more small yard signs for Harris/Walz. I voted in our public library last weekend and the wait was over an hour and one of the workers who has done this for 20+ years said this is the busiest early voting has ever been at that location, for what it's worth.
W.L. in Springfield, MO, writes: As a foundation for what I'm about to write, I have lived in Springfield all my life. While there have occasionally been Democrats elected city-wide, this has been a mostly Republican town (smack dab in the middle of MO-7). The AIDS epidemic pushed me into the Democratic column in the early 90s and I haven't wavered since. I've always been proud of that association and have displayed yard signs since at least 1996.
We haven't always been ignored by the Democrats. John Edwards (he had so much promise but couldn't keep his pants zipped) came to Missouri State campus in 2004 and Barack Obama came to a local high school football field in 2008. We've been ignored ever since. That's because our district tilts pretty far right and the city generally has, too. Being blue in a red district means I'm particularly sensitive to the support I have around me, gauged through political signs. I've always seen several during election years but never have I seen as many as I have this year. Even during Trump's ascendancy, Trump yard signs were infrequently displayed and that hasn't changed this year, but seeing all the Harris Walz signs is heartening.
The reason why I mention this is that I can feel an enthusiasm in the Democratic Party that I haven't felt since 2008. And it's not just in my friend circle (I've had to excise every vocal Trump supporter from my friends list because you can't support someone like Trump and also support me). On my street alone, there are five yards (not including my own) within a two-block range that have either Harris-Walz, Yes on 3 (the pro-choice amendment), or Betsy Fogle (our state house rep, one of only two such blue districts in this area) signs in the yard. This is at least double the number I've seen in my time living in this neighborhood (more than 20 years). And just outside that area, I see even more. I would guess that there are twice or three times as many such signs as in previous years.
This is all preface to say that I wonder if pollsters are oversampling Trump supporters in fear of falling to another "Dewey Defeats Truman/Clinton Defeats Trump" narrative this year. It feels like a blue wave is coming. While this is entirely anecdotal, it keeps me buoyed in a relentlessly "tight" journalistic narrative.
R.M. in Pensacola, FL, writes: I wanted to provide an update to my comments last week regarding the U.S. Senate race between Sen. Rick Scott (R) and Rep. Debbie Mucarsel-Powell (D).
You had polls with Mucarsel-Powell trailing Scott by six points on Thursday from Emerson and within three points on Tuesday from UNF. There may indeed be something to that!
When I went and voted Friday morning, I saw my first signs (literally) of her campaign! There were a handful of yard signs at my polling location! But, unfortunately, those signs were lost in a sea of signs for everyone else running for office and all of the amendments that were on the ballot.
Beyond that, I still have seen zero existence of her campaign here in the panhandle. Still no ads (on TV, online, or otherwise), no mailers, no texts, no phone calls. Kamala Harris meanwhile is now texting me 182 times a day.
While your polling is showing one thing, I'm still being led by what the campaigns are actually doing and it's nothing in this area as far as I can see. I'm still thinking Scott wins this election by double digits.
B.D. in Niceville, FL, writes: As of Saturday afternoon, still not a single e-mail from Debbie Mucarsel-Powell. I spoke to an acquaintance who had also donated to her in this election cycle, and that person said the same about not getting e-mails. However, that person also said that there is a lot of engagement on social media, and based on that, this person also thinks that VP Harris will flip Florida... AND Texas.
There is literally nothing else I dream of more; well, besides getting a blue trifecta so some things can finally get done.
M.B. in Montreal, QC, Canada, writes: The Montreal Gazette had an item this morning that if Canadians could vote in the US election, 64% would choose Harris, 21% Trump and the rest had no opinion. I would like to have seen the results from Alberta (AKA Texas North), but they gave no crosstabs.
A story a week or so ago said that there are about a million Americans living in Canada and we could decide the election.
M.K. in Essex Junction, VT, writes: As you can see from my attached ballot, I voted for a Democrat for president (Kamala Harris), an independent for U.S. Senator (Bernie Sanders), and a Republican for governor (Phil Scott). I believe when the votes are tabulated that over 65% of my fellow Vermonters will vote similarly and split their ballots in this way. We are definitely an outlier here.
Maybe someday this country will get back to voting for the candidate and not party.
A.M. in the MetroWest, MA, writes: Hello, first time, long time, etc. I found your page in 2008 when I was a young and idealistic non-profit worker. I'm now a middle-aged and not-so-idealistic technology worker (database stuff) but I do my best to have some hope for the future.
I have been told I'm a crank and contrarian. That might be a fair assessment.
A while ago, I believe, you had some words devoted to the split-ticket voter. I had some thoughts about it as I am one.
I'm in Deep Blue Massachusetts, where all the branches are controlled by liberal Democrats with a tiny minority of Republicans, both of the George W. Bush variety (relatively sane) and the Ultra MAGA.
Despite being a left-leaning centrist, I'm planning to vote for the Republican candidate in a number of races, mostly in the local legislature rather than the Federal elections.
Why?
Because I absolutely abhor single party rule in a state. I can't believe for a second that the uniformity of thought in the Massachusetts House and Senate is resulting in more efficiency or better laws—they all just walk lock-step together off the cliff time and again.
I firmly believe that laws made through compromise—rather than strongarm tactics and unanimity of political worldview7#8212;are more effective, efficient, and better represent the desire of "the people" than otherwise.
I don't know if I'm typical of the ticket splitters, but that's my reasoning.
E.G. in The Villages, FL, writes: Mitch mcconnell or anyone else that isn't a practicing psychiatrist have no validity with claims of narcissism , and even if they did they shouldnt ethically disclose it . You people don't know anything about anything
(V) & (Z) respond: We've had a dramatic uptick in e-mails like this one this week, which we are not going to edit, because most of them don't especially make sense. We're not sure if this is triggered by Donald Trump's increasingly angry rhetoric, or by anxiety about the election, or what, but we present a selection of them in case readers find them instructive.
Incidentally, most of the angry Trumpers write in once, or maybe twice, and then disappear. E.G., on the other hand, writes in almost daily, and typically within 30 minutes of the page going live, whether we are early or on time or late. Clearly, hate-reading the site is a highlight of E.G.'s day.
K.S. in Broussard, LA, writes: Your page is clearly a biased page and the validity of your results need to be looked into.
Showing favoritism for a candidate leaves questionable doubt that your reporting on the actual results are accurate.
Hope you reconsider using a picture of unfavorable images for your next reporting host. It's disappointing this is what the general public has the option to see when looking up these results. DO BETTER!!
(V) & (Z) respond: K.S. also advises that they are "A Patriot of the USA!!!!" We assure you, we are not picking the least comprehensible ones and sharing them. They are all like this. In this case, we simply do not understand what "Hope you reconsider using a picture of unfavorable images for your next reporting host" means.
L.W. in Milton, FL, writes: Your site is a joke. Leftist bias bull crap.
Enjoy the red tsunami you communists.
K.D. in Birmingham, AL, writes: It's obvious whoever wrote the fu**ing book about trump and Giuliani and had all that negative bull**it to say about trump voters is clearly hung up on being a petty bi**h and it shows through clearly the fact that you took the time to run your mouth the way you did not only about trump and EVERYONE else you have the mother fu**ing nerve to call trump voters cheaters and say we would try and cheat tonsee him win how bout you sit the fu** down and think long and hard about all you said and ask yourself if it was truly necessary or was it just you being a typical bi**h Democrat left liberal voter that does nothing but run you smart a** mouth and say sh** out of your a** that has no truth no bearing at all...
(V) & (Z) respond: A lot of the e-mails this week were vaguely (or not so vaguely) threatening, but this one was the most unhinged of them all. We are not even sure what this is in response to; we only wrote about Rudy Giuliani once this week, and that had nothing to do with a book. In any case, we present here just the first 150 or so words of the message; it actually went on for close to 1,000 words. We know that revealing that will cause some readers to want to see the whole thing. If so, then it is here. But be forewarned, we did not censor the full version, and it also gets a bit violent.
L.S. in Queens, NY, writes: Good luck with your grueling week. I plan to sit in a pumpkin patch waiting for the Great Pumpkin to arrive. I need gifts. Also, we need to be reminded that orange is not necessarily bad.
(V) & (Z) respond: Don't forget, you have to be very sincere.
O.R. in Kinderhook, NY, writes: Canada's spy program goes to great lengths to infiltrate its southern neighbor:
(V) & (Z) respond: Uh, oh. That's one down. Having compromised baseball, all that's left is mom and apple pie, and then it's all over.
R.H. in San Antonio, TX, writes: On his deathbed, Arnold Rothstein refused to identify his shooter, answering police inquiries with "You stick to your trade. I'll stick to mine" and "Me mudder (my mother) did it."
If you have suggestions for this feature, please send them along.