Dem
49
GOP
51
It's a very good group of letters, if we do say so. And why shouldn't we—we didn't write them, so it's not like we're tooting our own horns.
R.H. in Macungie, PA, writes: I'm terrified that the polls show the race so close in the swing states. But I'm also OK with that, because I want every Democrat to be super motivated to vote. If Democrats turn out, I don't think Donald Trump can win. The LAST thing I want to see is polling that says Kamala Harris has a big lead.
A.B. in Chesapeake, VA, writes: In June, I wrote to you about the Biden-Trump debate. It bears repeating with minor changes in person and gender. Kamala Harris should close with the 4 reasons we should vote for her:
- The planet is getting hotter. There is no question about that. Climate change is a real and existential threat. Only one of us is doing something about it. That guy wants to stop all progress that we are making and go backwards until it is too late.
- Half of our people have lost the control over their rights to family planning. I am the only one here who is willing to preserve your right to control your body including birth control, in vitro pregnancy assistance and when to have children. That guy is solely responsible for your loss of these rights.
- The deficit is out of control because the Republicans have given trillions of dollars of tax breaks to the wealthiest, three times. Each time, in the 80s with Reagan, 2000s with George Bush, and 2017 with that guy, wealth has shifted to those who need it the least at the expense of the least of us. Only I am willing to work with the other side to attack this problem with compromise and balance. It will put more money in the pockets of everyone making less than $400,000.00.
- I have surrounded myself with the best team to solve these problems. That guy says he will do that, but almost everyone who has worked with him says he is the worst and will not work with him again. He will only surround himself with the worst in his second term. The choice is clear. I ask you for your support.
A.B. in Denver, CO, writes: Since Kamala Harris's team says they're concerned the mics will be muted and she will be unable to fact-check Agent Orange: She should bring a stack of 8.5 x 11" cards with funny phrases/drawings on them, like "Liar," "Pants on fire," "Srsly?" "LOL," simple line drawings of his profile with Pinocchio noses at ever longer sizes, etc.! It would be hilarious, would connect with younger voters used to seeing card comments like that, and would be a yuuuge contrast with the last debate's split screen of Joe looking sleepy. How do we get this idea to her campaign?
J.E. in Whidbey Island, WA, writes: You wrote: "November 6, 12:01 a.m. (projected): Trump could begin whining that the election was stolen."
Hasn't this already begun?
(V) & (Z) respond: Yes, but right now he's speaking about it in the future tense. Once November 6 arrives, he'll be able to shift to the past tense.
L.A. in Waynesboro, PA (Pennsyltucky), writes: I joined a Facebook group called "Cat Ladies for Kamala Harris," which already has 98.6 K members, and there are many posts daily showing photos of people wearing T-shirts and showing their Harris/Walz flags, yard signs and car decals. Also photos of their cats in blue or pink hats. People are excited to post photos of these, especially when they are seen in very red states! It's energizing and gives me hope. Waiting on my "Harris and Walz, Obviously" sign to put outside.
L.R.H. in Oakland, CA, writes: I agree with virtually everything K.C. in West Islip said about the previous letter from J.H. in Seattle. There's also this, though: "Apparently, J.H. believes every single cop in the history of America is guilty of anti-Black brutality."
If J.H. believes that, it's not far-fetched. Modern American policing grew out of squads that rounded up fugitives from slavery and returned them to enslavement. Police forces all over the country behave in a racist manner, disproportionately targeting people of color, and there's plenty of evidence to back that up. Sometimes it's owing to department policy, sometimes it's on their own account. Over the last 20 years, police departments have become increasingly militarized and more heavily armed.
K.C. and other readers might be interested in The Riders Come Out at Night: Brutality, Corruption, and Cover-Up in Oakland, by Ali Winston and Darwin Bondgraham, a well-researched and sobering book about the Oakland, CA, police force in the last 35 years.
D.S. in Winnetka, CA, writes: Regarding the comment from K.C. in West Islip: For those who don't know, West Islip is one of the Alabama parts of Long Island.
A.C. in Chicago, IL, writes: I've been visiting the site since 2004, but I am writing in for the first time to push back on the responses to J.H. in Seattle. Quite frankly, you all come off as tone-deaf, if not heartless. I'm an immigration attorney—believe me, I understand that Trump is the enemy. I was prepared to vote for Joe Biden's corpse, and will absolutely vote for Kamala Harris. But sometime in the next couple of weeks, I'm going to have to sit down with a young man and explain to him that because of when and how he entered at the southern border, his case is a long shot. That while I will fight for him as hard as I can, there is a good chance that he is going to be sent back. I'll have to look him in the eye and tell him it is quite likely he is going to die. All because President Biden—a man I voted for, and would have voted for again—implemented policies at the southern border in order to get re-elected.
I agree that voting for him was the right thing to do, and so is voting for Harris. But if you think it's wrong that I, J.H., and a whole bunch of other people feel bitter about the fact that doing the right thing will still put blood on your hands, then to steal the phrase from K.C. in West Islip: Flip you. She's got my vote, she's got (some) of my money, stop acting like she's also entitled to my flipping soul.
J.O. in Centralia, MO, writes: For what it's worth, here's my custom yard sign:
C.S. in Waynesboro, PA, writes: I live in a ruby-red area of Pennsylvania (Doug Mastriano is, in fact, our state senator, which I sincerely apologize for). This weekend, I took several trips around town to run errands. On my trips, I saw three Trump regular yard signs, two Harris regular yard signs, one large Harris sign (attached to a wooden frame, like 4 feet by 6 feet or 5 feet by 7 feet), and one sign that read simply "County Over Party."
Some caveats: This is obviously unscientific, I don't pretend that what I saw is representative of my town as a whole. And it is early in the campaign, with most people not even paying attention until Labor Day.
But having said that, and having paid attention to yard signs over the years, I have to say, this is strange. In 2016, there were like 5 or 6 Trump signs for every Hillary one. And in 2020, there were like 3 or 4 Trump signs for every Biden. Now the number is pretty much equal. Plus, there are usually one or two of the large signs around town for Trump. And I have never seen a large sign for a Democratic presidential candidate, that I can recall. In addition, there are three houses around here where they had, in the last two elections, multiple Trump yard signs and at least one Trump flag of some sort flying. And these were up before Labor Day I'm sure. This weekend, nothing at all for those three houses. Perhaps the owners moved and the new owners don't want to do that, I don't know.
But I do have to say, this is nothing like I've seen in the last two presidential elections. And I don't mean to suggest Trump with lose my town or my county. Surely he'll win both, but perhaps by a smaller margin than in the past. I have no idea what this portends for the election 2 months from now. I'm just throwing my observations out there for consideration, although I do like not seeing a Trump sign on every other block.
C.L. in Boulder, CO, writes: I saw this yard sign in Boulder:
J.K. in St. Paul, MN, writes: Walking my dogs around the deep blue neighborhood of the deep blue district I live in, I have seen many clever and funny progressive, liberal and pro-Democrat signs. (I've only ever seen one Trump/Reagan house—yes, one Reagan mailbox sticker and a bunch of Trump signs/flags, but they moved away a couple years ago).
My new favorite is this gem, partly because I only recently discovered the epiphany that is The Barbie Movie:
E.S. in Cincinnati, OH, writes: You wrote: "In Arizona, Michigan, Nevada, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, the Democrat has had a substantial and consistent lead all year, yet Harris is not killing it in those states. What's going on here?"
I suspect what we're seeing is the Fox News effect. It makes me sad to say that plenty of my peers here in Ohio still treat Fox as the only legitimate news source, rather than as the propaganda arm of the Republican Party that it is. Fox pundits no doubt pound on Harris and "lefty" Democratic senators like Cory Booker (NJ) and Elizabeth Warren (MA) 24-7, but I suspect have much less to say about more centrist Democrats like Sherrod Brown (OH). So people are freed from Fox News' brand of poison when considering their own senator, and fall back on more traditional (and reasonable) methods of making their decision—things like "what has my senator been doing to help me?"
Which brings up a question from me: Aren't there laws against the kind of overt-propaganda-masquerading-as-news that Fox spews every moment of every day? I suppose not, but there should be.
J.P. in Glenside, PA, writes: On your question about the gap between Kamala Harris and the Senate races in the polls, I would posit a couple of theories. First is that several incumbent Democratic senators (e.g., Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin, Bob Casey of Pennsylvania) have deep name recognition and proven popularity and re-electability with their state electorates. Although not a battleground, Montana is a case in point. Tester is running well ahead of Harris/Walz. Folks there like him a lot and have done so since long before Harris became VP or the nominee for president.
Second is that Harris, despite the massive recent enthusiasm, is still being dragged down by being part of the Biden-Harris administration and has not yet fully overcome the Biden drag, so-to-speak. If that were not the case she would be 6-8 points or more ahead of Trump nationally instead of about 4. People are still unhappy about inflation, the border/immigration issues and have not forgiven this administration for the Afghanistan withdrawal, which put Biden under 50% approval permanently.
So, to me, there are two independent dynamics here: (1) state vs. national and (2) that, try as hard as she might, Harris cannot fully escape Biden's orbit. The latter dynamic is essentially the linchpin of the GOP campaign against her and their propaganda machine is very effective.
K.F. in Tucson, AZ, writes: You wrote: "We still think it's, well, weird, that so many Arizonans are going to vote for Trump and Gallego. It doesn't compute."
Hey there! Moved to Arizona in 2022, and have paid attention to my neighbors. As a middle-aged white lady, people tend to be a bit freer with their opinions in front of me than they might be if I were walking around with a big HARRIS/WALZ t-shirt. I mostly agree with you. I do not think Trump will take Arizona—the abortion measure and Senate race are not working in his favor. Unless more than half of the large number of Californians who've moved to Arizona in the last 4 years are doing it for better political alignment instead of cost of living (doubtful), I can't imagine that he's gained any ground.
But I think you're underestimating just how wildly unpopular Kari Lake is in AZ. Gallego seems... fine. He's a veteran and Latino, but neither of those are exactly rare qualities here. Kari Lake's ego has been continuously writing checks on the credit line of Trump's popularity. And it's painfully clear she doesn't have access to those accounts. He can get away with insulting John McCain, contesting elections, and openly cozying up to white supremacists... she can't. My impression is that many local Republicans—even MAGA—view her as an embarrassment.
I'll leave it to you to guess why a woman displaying exactly the same obnoxious, egomaniacal crazy as Trump gets almost entirely hate for it, while he gets praise... from certain quarters. My guess is those quarters think she should sit down, shut up and make them a sandwich. They're probably happy to hear her praising their hero, but that doesn't translate into votes for her. Especially when there's a perfectly good male veteran on the ticket who isn't exactly emphasizing his party affiliation in much of the advertising.
To be honest, I'm not sure how Reps. Lauren Boebert (R-CO) and Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) have managed to avoid this, since they're arguably wackier than Lake. I suspect Lake made the critical error of failing to win her first election, and "losing to the libs" is their one unforgivable sin.
M.W. in Huntington, NY, writes: With regards to the "weirdness" of the presidential polls showing a close election, vs the senate polls showing strength for the blue team, it must be that polling houses are attempting to account for the shy Trump voter and are over-weighting Trump in the presidential polls.
As you have written many times before, vote splitting simply doesn't exist anymore. If so, and there is much evidence that is true, then we might see a blue wave this year. I know, my bias is showing, but it's inconceivable that a MAGA Trump lover would vote for Trump and then turn around and vote for Rep. Ruben Gallego (D-AZ) for the U.S. Senate. That's just not going to happen.
I think the Senate polls are going to be the barometer of this election.
A.D. in Telluride, CO, writes: I think the answer is there are a group of voters who love Trump and hate the Republican Party.
J.I. in Hicksville, NY, writes: In the Q&A, you posited some theories as to why Donald Trump is outpolling Senate Republican candidates. One answer could be that there are a number of shy Harris voters out there, that don't want to say they are voting against a vindictive strongman that promises to punish his opponents large and small.
A.G. in Scranton, PA, writes: I think there might be a "Shy Harris Rural Female Effect" that isn't being detected by polling agencies because those pollsters have no clue how toxic it is out here in rural America and how dangerous it might be for a female to admit that she's voting against the Lord and Savior Donald J. Christ. I'm not kidding, people tell, report, on other people who say bad things about the former President out here. I take it as a badge of honor when I get the looks and the Jersey state birds from Pennsylvanians who'd spend their children's food money on guns, ATVs, and zero turn mowers. Being hated by losers like that? Sounds like they think I'm different from them. I'm soooooo okay with being different from them.
A.H.-S. in Brier, WA, writes: Dear Mr. Cheney:
I write this as an unashamed progressive liberal. I'm sure to many in the GOP, perhaps to you as well, I would be a "Socialist!" or a "Communist!" I am equally certain that you and I would disagree on nearly every possible policy issue facing the United States.
Nonetheless, I need to offer you an apology.
Throughout your tenure as vice president, I frequently (and vocally) accused you of being an anti-American fascist, bent on creating an imperial presidency without any of the "checks and balances" that the Constitution requires.
I apologize. I was wrong in that view. Your actions have shown that you have a deep respect for this country and our Constitution.
We are now faced with an existential danger to the United States. And, unlike many career politicians who think only about saving their own skins, you have chosen to stand up in defense of the United States. While we may disagree about every other political issue facing us, we can agree upon this: that the United States of America is worth saving.
Thank you. And I hope and pray that I will never have to face a similar choice from the other side. America works best when there are deeply dedicated people with divergent views trying their best to move her forward.
J.P. in Cranford, NJ, writes: I have very mixed emotions about Liz and Dick Cheney announcing their voting for Kamala Harris. Given Cheney's policies and actions in the Bush administration, I cannot view him as anything other than evil.
This feels to me like they are wanting center-right Democrats to see them as putting country before party, which could be a very politically astute move to position Liz as a presidential candidate for 2028 or 2032.
While Trump would be a historic risk to democracy if he gets back in the White House, I fear Liz Cheney would not be far behind him.
A.G. in Scranton, PA, writes: While I am happy that former Vice President Cheney is voting for the present Vice President, his commitment to not radicalizing America into a jingoist's wet-dream fantasy comes almost exactly 23 years too late.
Remember that he was at the forefront of those belittling the ten or eleven of us who weren't chanting for country and drooling for what those or eleven of us "un-American", "unpatriotic" people stood against: an unjust war that would break the men and women who fought it, leave thousands dead, tens of thousands maimed, waste treasure by the trillions, spilled sweat by the pool-full and spilled blood in the sands by the river-full.
"You don't support the troops? You don't support the mission?"
Lost a ton of friends and a career to that man. Everyone makes mistakes, believe me, I know. But to not acknowledge the straight, thick, dark black line that one can easily draw between the jingoism that "un-American-ed" people who disagreed with the global war on terror to where we are with Trumpism is cowardly, small, revisionist, and simply reopens those old wounds for those of us who thought before we chanted and drooled.
L.P. in Dallas, TX, writes: I love the idea of an ad with prominent Republicans telling voters they should vote for Kamala Harris. I also think they should run an ad with a few MAGA ladies agreeing that they cannot tell their family, or husband, or church, or whoever, what they really believe, but when they get in that voting booth, they are voting for Kamala, and getting our country back to normal again. Give people permission to not follow the MAGAS in their red state, and reminds them no one will know. Living in my red state, I know a lot of people that are just sick of the drama and, if encouraged, might vote for an end to that.
J.P. in Horsham, PA, writes: Although I agree with your answer to the question posed by W.S in Austin, I would also like to point out that Donald Trump's record regarding risky military maneuvers during his actual tenure is yet another line of evidence that the pullout from Afghanistan would likely have been much messier had Trump been calling the shots. Recall, for instance, the disastrous raid on Yakla in Yemen, which took place a mere 9 days after Trump took the oath of office (and, by natural extension, 8 days and 23 hours after he first broke that oath.). One U.S. military death, somewhere between 10 and 30 civilian deaths, a complete failure to obtain any useful information, and more questions than answers. And a part of me wonders if the only reason why Trump approved it was because Barack Obama wouldn't.
D.C. in Cuyahoga Falls, OH, writes: Donald Trump is clearly trying to take credit for few military deaths under his watch, as you noted with the point about "nobody killed in Afghanistan." But I do wish the Kamala Harris Campaign, or campaign surrogates, would highlight some of Trump's military mishaps. Despite being admittedly less interventionist than other Republicans, he doesn't have a spotless record with military casualties. U.S. special forces members were killed in the Tongo Tongo ambush because Trump ordered the operation despite warnings they were not prepared. More than 100 U.S. troops suffered brain injuries from Iranian missile strikes, and Trump immediately lied to say "No Americans were harmed."
There's plenty to work with.
M.M. in Baltimore, MD, writes: In your item on James McCain speaking in opposition to former President Trump, you wrote: "As someone who is an active-duty soldier, we presume McCain cannot campaign for Harris or otherwise endeavor to influence voters. In fact, we're not sure why he felt it was OK to share his plans to vote for Harris—we thought that was verboten."
You are half-right; both the Hatch Act and DoD Directive 1344.10 prohibit servicemembers from campaigning in support of or opposition to partisan political candidates, but permit members to express political opinions so long as they are personal and do not convey any sense of an official government position. As long as 1LT McCain, while out of uniform, says "I support Kamala" and nothing else, he's in the clear.
J.E. in Gilbertsville, PA, writes: I'm glad you mentioned that these pro-Trump mailers are hitting Democratic mailboxes everywhere. My husband brings in the mail every day and he's positively obsessed with how many of these mailers we are getting. There are 5 voting-age registered Democrats in this house so you can imagine how deluged we are. My husband has taken to announcing the daily "haul" (like, "Son, you got two more today!" or "You four all got one today, I feel left out!"). It's getting to be as annoying as all the TV commercials.
P.L.B. in Catonsville, MD, writes: When you posted about The Mystery of the Flyers, my first thought was, "this is the work of either an incompetent campaign or a ninja-level ratfu**er." If the Trump campaign, PACs, and state parties really want to separate Trump from Project 2025, then do not mention Project 2025. Ever. Even to deny support of it. It's like advertising that your hamburger is "0% rat" rather than "100% beef." Technically true, but it raises suspicions and kills sales.
On the other hand, sending this flyer to all voters, Democrats included, keeps Project 2025 in their minds, causes some low-information voters to look into it, and maybe causes some fence sitters to hop over to the Harris side. Or, at least, not hop to the Trump side.
If it turns out a Never-Trumper somehow convinced state parties that this was a legitimate mailer, and got them to send it out in bulk, that would be some stealth-level, subversive counter-campaigning.
R.S. in Vancouver, WA, writes: The Republican Party success of the 1990s were largely built on their success with using direct mail. So, I'm confident that there are plenty of Republicans of a certain age that believe "mountains of junk mail can move the needle."
M.R. in Atlanta, GA, writes: Living in Atlanta, we're getting tons of election mail, and a truly enervating volume of Trump material. We live in a majority-Black neighborhood, so clearly the campaign is betting that some of my fellow voters think Shmuck a l'Orange is some sort of mastermind baller. My guess is that they won't have much luck.
In the meantime, I'm getting tired of filling our recycling bin with the deluge of Trump trash. So, since Trump thinks he's such a friend to the Jewish people, I decided to respond with a little Hebrew lesson for him—return postage paid:
At the very least, I feel a small frisson of excitement using up a few cents of the knuckle-dragger's war chest.
P.A. in Redwood City, CA, writes: I strongly second your advice to B.B. in Anchorage to create a burner e-mail address for political contributions.
In 2012, I made political contributions to Barack Obama and to the DSCC and DCCC, and, since I own my own domain, I used a newly made-up email address for this. I have also made contributions using this address every other year. I set up e-mail filters to move any messages that come to this address into a special folder and mark them as read, so they are largely invisible to me unless I go looking for them. I changed mail providers in June 2020 and, just for fun, I haven't emptied this folder since then.
Today I celebrated my getting my 14,000th political e-mail since June 2020. Yesterday was a recent high mark: 42 messages in one day. I don't understand how the campaigns can think that anyone would react positively to this deluge.
On a related topic, I have discovered that using the "Stop" reply to text messages really does work for Democratic solicitations.
L.H. in Vancouver, BC, Canada, writes: There is another potential solution for B.B. in Anchorage. Many e-mail providers, such as gmail, let you add a plus ("+") to your account name, followed by any valid string, but still deliver to your primary address. So if your address was example@gmail.com, you could donate using example+harris_donation@gmail.com.
This is easy to filter to a folder, it's one less account to manage, and it's handier if you want to look back for your donation receipt or such.
D.W. in Benbrook, TX, writes: Since I live in Texas, I was especially interested in "Texas Hates Democracy." I posted a link to that article on my Facebook page—just the link with no comment. Facebook removed it, claiming it violated their rules.
(V) & (Z) respond: Facebook's content bots are as bad as those at Google Ads, which give us trouble all the time.
W.S. in Austin, TX, writes: You wrote: "We try to keep the editorializing to a minimum, in general, but when it comes to voting rights, all bets are off. And all of this is absolutely shameful."
Completely agreed.
This, in fact, is a big part of why I wanted Joe Biden to pick Stacey Abrams as his VP.
That wasn't just about Georgia as a swing state, the consequences for the presidential election, and control of the Senate via Raphael Warnock and Jon Ossoff.
It also wasn't just that it would have freed Biden to name Kamala Kamala as his AG. She would have been exceedingly well qualified, and would vigorously have prosecuted Trump, and in a timely fashion, setting herself up for an excellent and wholly deserved presidential run this year after Biden stepped down, based on her super-respected national profile.
Oh no, it was also that Stacey fu**ing Abrams has made voting rights her paramount signature issue, which shows me, if I had any remote doubt, that in addition to being an electric public speaker who thinks very well on her feet, that woman has her head screwed on properly and knows what's what.
Voting is the right that unlocks and preserves all other rights.
J.C. in Temple, TX, writes: Yes Gov. Greg Abbott (R-TX) and AG Ken Paxton (R-TX) are evil. But, they are just servants of the true threats to democracy, West Texas oil billionaire zealots, Tim Dunn and Farris and Dan Wilks. They make the Taliban look like the Scouts.
R.R. in Nashville, TN, writes: Texas hates democracy.
Texas wants to Secede.
Hmmmm. Maybe if we study this some, there's a win-win solution to this situation!
F.F. in London, England, UK, writes: Your response to N.M.D. in Duluth makes a number of good points, and one that I will respectfully disagree with: Governments do not sell physical assets (land, etc.) for debt redemption, so that's not a relevant consideration to debt sustainability. National debt is a claim on economic performance (via the government's taxing power), and as Paul Krugman notes, the U.S. economy is large, and stabilizing debt would take a 2.1% tax raise. This is a political problem, not an economic one.
Larry Summers and Jason Furman wrote an excellent piece on how to think about national debt. In short, no one knows how much is too much, but a rapidly widening fiscal deficit without a strategy should be concerning. Markets like credibility—that's why Liz Truss's tax cuts caused a panic in U.K. debt and the fall of her government, even though the debt to GDP ratio is 86% vs. 123% in the U.S. (and U.K. debt in 1946 was 259%).
R.S. in San Mateo, CA, writes: A.C. in Zenia quite haughtily criticized you for pointing out that inflation is measured year-to-year, rather than compared to historical prices. They lamented that while inflation is down, prices are still rising.
Well, A.C., that's pretty much the definition of inflation, and is in effect almost always, every year, regardless of who's in charge. A.C. also wrote, "When prices are actually going down, people will feel 'inflation is getting better.'" That's actually called "deflation." It's very rare, and typically accompanies a recession or depression. Surely, A.C. is not suggesting that voters would be happier in that situation. Although one might not need a master's degree in economics to understand this, it might help to at least review an economics textbook.
R.D. in Austin, TX, writes: I work in higher ed as an academic counselor, but my first major in college was journalism. As a moderate liberal who has always voted for Democrats and who generally wants our society to have trust in institutions that are supposed to do right by it in a functioning democracy, I am becoming very angry with our clickbait-and-headline short-attention-span grabbing media.
For all the talk and whining—and, in some cases, proper complaining—about how bad Joe Biden performed in the debate and how the age issue would now be squarely on Donald Trump's shoulders, not a damn thing gets said about how poorly Trump is performing in the mainstream media. Biden spit the bit big time in the debate and if not for that, we would have still had the two grumpy old men running for President. But I have to say, seeing how Trump can't complete a sentence or hold a thought for more than 3 seconds—other than what is deeply embedded in his preprogramed long-term RAM-style memory—I believe the media has not learned one damn thing about covering Trump. No one could have listened to Trump's rambling in New York this week and come away with it feeling any differently than after listening to Biden on that debate stage. Someone like Trump, who is clearly in decline, and for who all we know might have brain cancer, does not need access to the nuclear codes.
P.V. in Kailua, HI, writes: B.W. in Los Angeles believes that The New York Times' editorial choices are being criticized unfairly, stating that the Times has a long standing commitment to publishing a diversity of opinions in their letters and that it is the readers' expectations that have changed. However, the problem with the Times is not the guest essays; the problem is editorial decisions and headlines for supposedly neutral news articles. Some recent examples:
- September 1: "Trump Campaign Uses Statements from Gold Star Families to Attack Harris." Kamala Harris had nothing to do with the Arlington incident. Focusing on Trump's attempt to involve her in his self-made mess helps him achieve his ends.
- September 1: "Meandering? Off-Script? Trump Insists His 'Weave' Is Oratorical Genius." Sub-headline, "Former President Trump's speeches often wander from topic to topic. He says there is an art to stitching them all together." The Times chose to help publicize the Trump campaign's spin that his incessant lies and incomprehensible drivel are just a creative speaking style.
- August 31: "Conservative Moms, Charmed by Trump, Would Rather Avoid His Misogyny." The "conservative" moms in question are "Moms for Liberty," who have quoted Hitler in their advertising, intimidated teachers and school boards, and been designated an extremist group by the Southern Poverty Law Center. During Trump's address to their August 30 conference, he said, "Think of it, your kid goes to school and comes home a few days later with an operation. The school decides what's going to happen with your child." This is, of course, ludicrously false. The Times didn't think it was important enough to include in their article.
- August 30: "Kamala Harris and Donald Trump have plans to solve the housing affordability crises. Economists have doubts." The headline itself is fine. The article states concerns that Harris' proposed $25,000 benefit for first time home buyers would increase demand and raise prices. Fair point. As for Trump, they speculate that his plan to deport millions of undocumented immigrants would free up housing but would also decrease the construction work force and thus ultimately reduce the amount of new housing built. Excuse me for a moment while I bang my head on my desk. So we have, on the one hand, the questionable utility of financial support for home buyers and, on the other, the mass deportation of millions of people. The Times presents both as equally serious economic policies worthy of analysis.
I could go on but, in the interest of time and space, I'll stop at those four recent examples.
Furthermore, though it has become worse recently, this is not a new development. Eight years ago, on October 29, 2016, the Times had three front-page articles above the fold about then-FBI Director James Comey reopening the investigation into Hilary Clinton's e-mails. Last week, on August 28, after Special Prosecutor Jack Smith's most recent announcement, there was a minuscule note at the very bottom of the front page. The headline, in full, was "Superseding Jan. 6 Indictment." The one additional sentence, pointing to a story on an inside page, doesn't even mention Trump by name.
The New York Times is not the only media outlet guilty of shifting focus away from Trump's loathsomeness. CNN had a headline on their website after the superseding indictment that read, "The return of Trump's legal issues to center stage presents new challenges for Harris" because, sure, let's talk about how Trump's criminality is Harris' problem. The Politico headline after the Harris-Walz CNN interview was "Harris evades questions about her identity" because apparently the real story is not that Donald Trump said something racist about Harris, but that being biracial is so confusing Harris owes us an explanation! Both CNN and Politico have since changed their original headlines to something only marginally better, still keeping the focus on Harris rather than Trump. The Washington Post has been the least bad of the major news sources but even they have been slipping. Similar to the Times, their September 1 headline about Arlington was "With boost from grieving families, Trump sharpens attacks on Harris."
So, yeah. This is why people are complaining about The New York Times and other legacy media. I suspect that, to at least some extent, these hot takes are meant to goad their predominantly liberal readership, thus increasing engagement and social media buzz. To that end, I guess you can say they are successful—the internet is talking about it and outrage is good for generating clicks. But it's a dangerous game. There is a real chance this kind of insidious bias will help elect Trump—again. Furthermore, those of us who care about political news and, you know, the future of democracy, object to click-bait in supposedly serious journalism. The Times and the Post have both lost me as a paying customer. I canceled my Times subscription years ago over this kind of pseudo-even-handedness. I finally gave up on the Post just this past week. Currently, I get all my news online by following people who have made it their job, or at least their avocation, to monitor the media. That's how I know the Times is still broken, even though I don't subscribe anymore (and it was pretty easy to get around the paywall to verify what other sites were reporting).
I absolutely agree with B.W. that it is important to leave the ideological bubble and seek out differing views—as long as those views are based in reality. I've become a big fan of The Bulwark. They, along with Political Wire and this site, are now getting my money and my clicks. As ex-Republican never-Trumpers, The Bulwark contributors openly support Harris but they are not reticent about criticizing policy proposals and campaign strategy when they disagree with her or her staff. They cover what motivates Trump voters (Sarah Longwell's focus group reporting is terrific), but they also address head-on the many (so, so many) ways that Trump and his campaign are dangerously abnormal. They are crystal clear about what matters in this election—and that is making sure that an incoherent, pathologically dishonest, wannabe dictator is not elected President. Again.
K.L. in Phoenix, AZ, writes: While it's commendable that B.S. in Los Angeles advocates for diversity in viewpoints, there's a crucial difference between presenting a range of perspectives and giving a platform to arguments that are intellectually bankrupt. The New York Times' decision to publish certain op-eds under the guise of "balance" often seems less about fostering meaningful dialogue and more about pandering to a misguided notion that all opinions, no matter how baseless, deserve equal airtime.
Let's be clear: Not all viewpoints are created equal. The Times, in its attempt to "hold up a mirror" to the American right, often ends up amplifying the very intellectual decay it should be critiquing. When a publication of its stature allows poorly reasoned, ideologically driven drivel to share the same space as well-researched, thoughtful commentary, it does a disservice to its readers and to public discourse as a whole.
The idea that publishing nonsense is somehow enlightening because it "paints a vivid picture" of the current state of the right is laughable. We don't need more vivid pictures of intellectual decline; we need higher standards that refuse to normalize the irrational and the absurd. Giving credence to bad ideas isn't journalistic integrity—it's abdication of responsibility.
If the Times truly values critical thinking, it should focus on presenting counterpoints that are grounded in evidence and logic, not on validating wishful thinking or thinly veiled bigotry under the pretense of diversity. The real tragedy is that, in its effort to seem balanced, the Times might be losing sight of what true balance looks like—promoting rational, informed debate instead of giving equal footing to the absurd.
R.H. in Cleveland, OH, writes: This week, you devoted a huge amount of space to the inane ramblings of so-called Democratic "strategist" James Carville. He got it right in 1992. He has not gotten it right since. In 2020, he said it would be a rout and we would see just how badly Donald Trump was to be crushed by 10:00 p.m. election night. He got that completely wrong and we had to wait until January 20 to be absolutely sure about it, and we barely made it in the swing states.
Today, two-thirds of the mainstream media are helping Trump with his lies regarding the election. Many of them are helping him by repeating them unquestioningly, and the rest are helping him by not mentioning it at all.
W.C.S.P. in Chicago, IL, writes: In response to R.D. in Austin about rides to the polls:
- The NAACP will help people with transportation.
- There are free rides avaiable on Vote Early Day.
- Austin's Cap Metro has offered free rides on Election Day in the past, so seems likely they will this year, too.
- Dallas transit is free on Election Day.
- And this page from AARP is 6 years old but might have some good options as a last resort.
Hope that helps!
K.L. in Milwaukee, WI, writes: RideShare2Vote is an organization that will take voters back and forth to the polls free of charge. It is not yet operational in all states, but it's worth checking to see if it exists in your state.
R.M. in Fort Wayne, IN, writes: If you need assistance getting to the polls, contact your county Democratic/Republican headquarters, and they'll find away to get you there. I've volunteered to drive for the Democrats before. I'd say the same if you're willing to help get people to the polls, let your local party of choice know you are available to help.
A.B. in Wendell, NC, writes: In light of your comment in "When Mudslinging Is All You've Got," I thought I would tell you what it is like living in a swing state. Constant bombardment of ads, not just from the candidates, but from every possible interest group you can think of, and some you never even heard of. Ten text messages a day from Kamala Harris or Tim Walz begging for money I do not have. They already have my vote, if for no other reason than the fact they are NOT TRUMP.
The twenty bucks I can afford are far better spent in a close state Senate or House race, or maybe, to continue my tradition of always giving when Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) runs. She is the ONLY out-of-state candidate I have ever sent money to, and I have never lived in Wisconsin. But I remember how, in 2007, she introduced a trans-inclusive ENDA to compete with Barney Frank's non-inclusive ENDA bill. I have never forgotten that Tammy had our backs in the trans community, so she gets my support. Never much, since I don't have much... but the fact that she is the ONLY out-of-state candidate I donate to should say something.
I have gotten to the point, with the pro-Trump ads, or the anti-Kamala ads... that I literally scream and swear at the TV and call them liars seven ways to Sunday. I live-fact-check them, screaming the truth at their lies. And at the end, I say "My name is A.B. from Wendell, NC, and I approve THIS message for you!" And one finger is extended towards the TV. I'll let the readers guess which one.
The thing is, no matter how many ads I see, my mind is made up. My vote will be for the candidate who iis NOT TRUMP. That means Kamala Harris. No amount of ads can change this. You could film Kamala eating babies live and I'd vote for her. You could film Trump rescuing puppies and I still would not vote for him. In fact, if I came across Trump ON FIRE, I would not pee on him to put out the flames.
This is why I do not contribute to presidential campaigns. My twenty bucks will matter more somewhere else, and I am sick of all the damn ads and text messages. If it were not Trump running, and I were not an officer of my state Democratic Party, I would seriously consider staying home because the ad bombardment frankly ticks me off—nd I am trying to be polite about this.
M.H. in Athens, GA, writes: Since Georgia is viewed as a swing state this election (though, honestly, I don't thing that we are quite there yet!), I thought you might enjoy a completely unscientific "view from the ground" (as of this week).
First, I have lived in Georgia for almost 40 years, and in the same neighborhood for the past 30+ years. So I have a pretty good feel for the local lay of the land. Second, I live in a strongly Democratic county (albeit surrounded by very conservative rural counties). So, my observations need to be taken with that dose of salt:
- The TV networks are flooded with both Donald Trump and Kamala Harris ads, especially on popular shows (e.g., Jeopardy!, Stephen Colbert, etc.). Initially, Trump hit the airwaves first during the Olympics, but the Harris campaign quickly caught on to this and slotted their own ads in. Uniformly, ALL (and I DO mean ALL) Trump ads are dark, both in coloring and content. I have yet to see anything resembling a positive Trump ad, and some of them are downright nasty! The Harris ads, in contrast, are mostly bright in coloring and positive in tone. Lately, there have been some really hard-hitting ads from the Harris campaign that have begun to air, but they are still far above the gutter in which the Trump ads dwell. It seems that the Harris campaign has borrowed or copied from the two Raphael Warnock campaigns in terms of tone, coloring and content. A very smart move, I think!
- Lawn signs: Harris signs have sprouted up all over the place in my neighborhood; it seems that every day I see another one or two. What is missing are ANY Trump lawn signs, even on properties within the neighborhood that I KNOW lean or are firmly planted in that direction. So, either the Harris campaign is better organized and is getting their signs out there, or the Trump campaign is poorly organized and signs are not available, or there is a decided enthusiasm gap between the two camps, or some combination of the above. But the contrast is really noticeable!
- This absence of Trump signs even extends to signs on business properties that have, in the past, featured notable Trump signs. I have seen VERY FEW Trump signs around town, even in places that I would have expected them.
- Further, the absence of Trump signs even extends into the surrounding rural areas. I regularly travel about 30 miles outside of where I live, and so far have seen very few Trump signs. VERY few! Again, in previous elections, there have been any number of such signs along the roadside. But, not this year... so far!
Having lived in Georgia a long time, I am not convinced that Georgia is truly a swing state... yet! Yes, we now have two Democratic senators. However, the Republicans ran really bad candidates against both Warnock and Jon Ossoff, and both Warnock and Ossoff ran smart campaigns. Ossoff will have his hands full in two years, if the current governor, Brian Kemp (R), decides that he wants a promotion to Washington. The demographics in Georgia are changing, and at least parts of the Republican party here are not frothing-at-the-mouth MAGAs. But the populace here is still largely conservative.
In another 10 years, I think things will be different. But, if I were the Harris campaign, Georgia would not be in the top five states for spending campaign dollars. There IS a chance that Harris can carry Georgia, if the GOTV campaign succeeds in mobilizing large numbers of Democrats, AND many never-Trump Republicans stay home (lots of Kemp Republicans do NOT like Trump at all), or do not cast a vote for Trump, or even cast their votes for Harris (I do not think there will be many of those... but stranger things have happened!).
R.T. in Arlington, TX, writes: I identify as expatriate Oklahoman, but I've lived in Texas for 48 years in total. (Full disclosure: I am stirring a pot here.) Texas has always been a yellow-dog state. It was Democratic from 1866 to 1980, in flux from 1980 to 1982, and Republican from 1982 to present. You might attribute this to a historically libertarian political philosophy but you would be missing some things. Texans see themselves as superior human beings, rightful recipients of the bulk of God's blessings, who merely condescend to live in political affiliation with the United States of America. In a Texan's heart, secession is always an option, and why not, because they could clearly do a better job than Washington does. Given this core belief structure, Texans suppress heterodox thinking of any kind. You won't be taken seriously if you aren't a Texan, and if you identify as Texan but diverge from the orthodox beliefs you "must not be a Real Texan." Naturalization is possible but not unless you can sign the articles of faith.
A key component of this system has been the Texas Agricultural & Mechanical University, which is a cult. A&M gathers up rural youth, spends 4 to 6 years indoctrinating them all to think exactly the same way in everything and then disperses them like dandelions across the state to procreate. In the Origin and Cause Report after the infamous A&M Bonfire Collapse of 1999, the organizational psychologist commented that A&M student culture was so conformist that even when Aggies break rules, they do it all together and all in the same way. Aggies permeate the power structure in ways Canadians can only aspire to.
So, getting back to the comments from R.L.D. in Sundance (formerly of Austin), no one here is going to predict a Democrat winning the state until after it happens by accident. Don Quixote is a cautionary tale, not a role model. Non-Republicans aren't going to get our hopes up or risk the blowback of publicly supporting them. But if it ever does happen, don't expect Texas to be purple for long. It is more likely to flip wholesale to being yellow-dog Democratic. Because it's more important here to think the same way than the right way.
A.F. in Las Vegas, NV, writes: You wrote: "In Nevada, Gov. Joe Lombardo (R-NV) vetoed a record 75 bills in 2023. Democrats overrode him in the House on all of them, but are one vote short of a supermajority in the Senate. If they can pick up one seat in the Senate, they will go to town and run the state without his input."
There is a bit of a joke among the more liberal Democrats in Nevada that the Nevada Democratic Party doesn't want the supermajority and the ability to override vetos because it would be held accountable by the base who want to see bigger changes than what they can negotiate from a Republican governor.
R.L.D. in Sundance, WY, writes: I read the write up for Sen. John Barrasso's re-election bid on your Senate Races 2024 page and had to chuckle when I saw my initials featured prominently. You flatter me, gentlemen!
As it happens, I have considered running to represent Wyoming in Washington, but not as a Democrat. For two reasons: (1) I figure, if I'm going to take a shot at it, I might as well take one that is at least pointed at the target and not wide left and (2) I am, in fact, registered as a Republican. From my first voter registration when I turned 18 in South Dakota, I've either been registered as a Republican or voted in the Republican primary (because Texas doesn't register a party affiliation). I'm kind of an odd duck in that I'm liberal for conservative reasons, but more importantly, we need two viable political parties in this country and the Republicans are in the process of going out with a whimper if they don't change course. If they want to be viable outside of "flyover country" beyond the next decade, they're going to need more moderate candidates like me. With Republicans explicitly trying to drive moderates away for the past 25 years, that's going to be a tall order.
D.S. in Laurel, MD, writes: I suspect you are right that the poll showing a tie in the Maryland Senate race is a bit of an outlier, but I wouldn't call it a "fluke." Larry Hogan's gubernatorial campaigns may have succeeded partly because Maryland elects its governor in an off year (aligning with presidential midterms) when the turnout is lower, older, and more conservative, but he has a reputation (whether he deserves it or not) for moderation in the state. Before the primary, Democrats who supported alternatives to Angela Alsobrooks argued she was liberal enough to put the general election at risk. Hogan has a puncher's chance, especially if some of the state's most liberal voters stay home because they know Kamala Harris will win Maryland in a landslide.
M.B. in Granby, MA, writes: John Deaton (R) will certainly lose to Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), but his candidacy reflects two notable trends in politics: (1) carpetbagging Republican candidates, and (2) the emergence of cryptocurrency exponents as a political force.
Deaton became a Massachusetts resident in January 2024. He runs a website called CryptoLaw and has a YouTube channel with the same name. Elizabeth Warren, it should be noted, is a critic of crypto and wants to regulate it.
P.K. in Marshalltown, IA, writes: While Iowa is apparently not in play as related to the Electoral College this year, every yahoo running for Congress in this state spent a considerable amount of dough to advertise during the Iowa-Iowa State football game Saturday. Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeks (R) may have taken the cake, pushing a grocery cart around a store to complain about the Democrats being responsible for high grocery prices.
M.H. in Snohomish, WA, writes: Ooh, bold choice for the Freudenfreude. I'm sure you knew this was coming...
I've worked in research labs for 20+ years, most of that time doing early-stage drug discovery. I'm going to leave the discussion of patents alone for now (I'm a biochemist, not a lawyer) and make a few points about the production and administration of pharmaceuticals.
You wrote: "A molecule is a molecule is a molecule, and they know what is, and is not, the correct molecule."
Since you brought up Breaking Bad, I'll remind readers of the many batches of... product, that Walter threw out because the results were of "poor quality." He knew what the right molecule was, but he still made bad batches. These things can happen—for example, when you use a different brand of bleach, when glassware is not thoroughly cleaned, or when temperatures are out of spec because the AC is broken in the lab (ask me how I know!). In the TV show, Mr. White could determine the purity of his synthetic product just by looking at it. In reality, the yield and purity of each batch has to be measured using a variety of methods including, but certainly not limited to, LCMS and NMR. The apparati for each of these will easily run six figures and aren't the type of things someone sets up in their basement. Quality control is expensive if it's not done on a large scale.
You also wrote: "if a person cannot acquire their Sovaldi or Daraprim the legal way, then it is better they should have a bootleg version than to not have their meds at all."
The obvious risk in giving patients untested product is that they might be exposed to an acutely toxic impurity that harms them directly. There are other risks, though. Under-dosing a patient for example, with HepC, could lead to the development of a drug-resistant virus that doesn't just kill the patient, but also spreads to others rendering the only available cure obsolete and causing the death of multitudes.
Lowering the standards for quality doesn't actually improve access, it just creates the illusion of access. If we want folks to have access to high-quality healthcare, somebody is going to have to pay for it, one way or another. Insurance could pay more, or pharma could ask less. Personally, I'd like to experiment with a single-payer public option, but whatever we do to improve access, let's make sure we're providing access to something worthwhile.
M.H. in Boston, MA, writes: Regarding your comment that "a molecule is a molecule is a molecule," it is good to remember that no chemical reaction is 100% pure. Before advising your readers to home-brew prescription drugs, it is worth recalling cases like the group of young people who developed Parkinson's disease in the early 1980s by taking home-brewed heroin with a potent neurotoxin as a minor chemical byproduct (MPTP instead of MPPP).
J.S. in Hightstown, NJ, writes: I have to disagree with your praise of Four Thieves Vinegar Collective (FTVC). I read the article about them that you provided a link to, and while it has some information about the technology they use to run their reactions, it doesn't provide much detail about how the products from these reactions are purified or how multi-step syntheses are carried out to go from available starting materials to the desired final product.
As a synthetic organic chemist, I have run thousands of reactions like the ones needed to make drugs they say can be made for far less than what pharmaceutical companies charge. It is very rare for a chemical reaction to produce 100% yield of the desired product with no side products or contaminants present. It is true that many final drug products can be made relatively easily and cheaply. That is why once they lose patent protection, generic versions can be sold for significantly less. However, the generic version is also subject to significant testing to ensure that it is of high enough purity to safely ingest. This also adds a cost to the manufacturing process that FTVC is ignoring. Unless the products FTVC produce can be purified to the appropriate level so that someone taking them is not also ingesting possibly harmful contaminants, I'm not sure that they really are a group that should be praised.
J.A. in Austin, TX, writes: P.M. in Philadelphia questioned the use of the phrase "Kabuki theater," interpreting its use as substitute for "lie" or "untruth".
As I have understood and used the phrase, Kabuki theater (the real thing) is highly stylized, and formulaic to an extent that would make Edgar Rice Burroughs quit for being a novice. With drama in the modern American sense of the word, you watch to find out whodunnit, or for the surprise reveal at the end that he was actually a ghost all along, or some other trope-subversive deviation, something "fresh" and "new." The stories in Kabuki, as I understand it, tread culturally well-worn paths and hew to the cultural assumptions of what a story is and should be, eschewing plot innovation for pageantry and beauty.
Which makes the use of the phrase in describing political theater not about an untruth, but about making a big show on the way to a foreordained conclusion.
Admittedly, doing so downplays the aspects of beauty and discipline in real Kabuki theater, and only focuses on the plot (and it's lack of any surprising outcome), but it isn't (in my view) intended to imply dishonesty.
P.V. in Kailua, HI, writes: Regarding the request from P.M. in Philadelphia to find a substitute for the term "Kabuki theater," I suggest "kayfabe" (pronounced KAY-fayb). Kayfabe comes from the world of professional wrestling. It means the understanding of all involved that the antics inside and outside the ring are scripted, with performers and audience tacitly agreeing not to acknowledge the pretense. Though the etymology of the word is unknown, the various speculations about its origin don't indicate anything problematic. Not being a fan a professional wrestling, I first encountered the word in the context of political shenanigans and had to look up what it meant. I run across it fairly frequently, usually when a pundit is talking about legislative posturing.
Continuing on the subject of language, I greatly enjoyed the survey of words with no direct translation provided by D.E. in Lancaster. I would add that the Finnish word sisu has a connotation beyond "hating to do something but you do it anyway." Sisu conveys the idea of ongoing perseverance and stoicism in the face of unrelenting adversity. The word is deeply meaningful in Finnish culture and is strongly associated with resistance to the Soviet invasion in the Winter War of 1939-40. I first learned of the term from a 2022 film entitled Sisu that is basically just 90 minutes of an old Finnish man revenge-killing Nazis in increasingly gruesome ways. I found the movie to be quite gratifying. The violence is, however, extremely graphic, so be forewarned.
J.C. in Binan, Laguna, Philippines, writes: I very much appreciate the litany of interesting etymology from D.E. in Lancaster. Yes, famously, sisu and sauna are the two words in Finnish that can not be translated into English. But that is not the definition of sisu. My grandfather emigrated from Finland at the turn of the last century. Sisu is a proud and noble word and at the heart of Finnish culture, in no way a negative It is enduring courage in the face of adversity; continuing on even when it is likely you will fail. The closest definition is, "When the Russians attack, again, and it is the coldest Winter of the century at -40 degrees, and the Russians can't handle the cold, but you go into sauna at 100 degrees C and then roll around in the snow, naked, and then go back into sauna, and then ski down the hill and shoot the Russians, and then ski back up the hill before they can shoot back, but the Russians win anyway, because there are so many more of them who keep on coming, and you lose 12% of your country, permanently." That is sisu. (And as a pacifist, I am not impressed, but I also am, a little.)
H.R. in Pittsburgh, PA, writes: I know James Carville's description of my state as "Pittsburgh and Philadelphia separated by Alabama." I am also aware that others have called the Red parts "Pennsyltucky."
I personally prefer Penissee.
C.M. in Belfast, UK, writes: Now fellas: as an avid Pearl Jam fan with an exceptional filth radar, you simply cannot expect me to read "For those who might have had a different reading of things, note that the food we intended in Pearl Jam's name is just 'jam'" and *not* choke on my chipolata. I've emailed before about this matter and such indecency does not become you.
I'm away to lie down with an attack of the vapours.
(V) & (Z) respond: You wouldn't believe how many e-mails we got that mentioned that. We thought it was clear that, for some of the bands, the food was sometimes just part of the band name. After all, there's no such food as a smashing pumpkin.
M.R. in Cottekill, NY, writes: I am not sure how to start off a response to such an ignorant article as "Texas Hates Democracy," but the easiest is to say that just because you are of color or are disabled you cannot respond to the state when it asks you to confirm your voter registration? Is that what you are implying? Or, are you implying that they get special privilege because they are as such? Does that give them a pass to not have to respond? Whether disproportionate or not, others were included, yes? That means that others were purged also. Maybe—just a big maybe—is those people didn't care. Have they actually voted in the past elections? I would say that is a measurable metric that you might want to think about. It's funny, I really used to lean on this site for insight into elections but it just keeps jumping further and further in to the leftist quagmire with worthless opinion.
(V) & (Z) respond: Since you ask, we weren't implying anything. We were stating outright that Greg Abbott and, in particular, Ken Paxton have undertaken a campaign of trying to stifle the votes of minority voters. We backed that not only with the example of the voter registrations, but two other news stories that speak to the same thing. This exists in a context of red-state efforts, across the nation, to suppress minority voters, as well as voters from other Democratic-leaning groups. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, and sometimes a reprehensible anti-democratic proto-fascist is just a reprehensible anti-democratic proto-fascist.
R.H. in Colusa, CA, writes: past (pre-Zenger) when, though always biased blue, you at least seemed objective. Nowadays you are both full-blown cheerleaders, far, far left of any sort of simple reporting, with (seemingly) almost every paragraph containing some sort of dig at Trump.
I also follow @Election_Time on YouTube. They seem to also be presenting data which is broad-based and well-reasoned. The fact that they manage to do it on a neutral basis is refreshingly laudable, but not the reason for this note, which is: Why are your results SO far apart? You have Trump headed for certain defeat, while they suggest the possibility of a Trump landslide. Clearly, you cannot both be correct. Appreciate any enlightenment.
(V) & (Z) respond: In answer to your question, we will point out that you sent this letter to us on September 4, when our map had the electoral vote at 292-246, and had five swing states, plus Virginia, as "barely Dem." But tell us more about this "certain defeat" that we are predicting.
I.T. in Orlando, FL, writes: You wrote: "There's a bit in the movie Back to the Future when the primary antagonist, Marty McFly, tells the secondary antagonist, Doc Brown..." Thank you for giving protagonist Biff the vindication he so rightly deserves.
A.T. in Elkton, MD, writes: I cannot decide if your calling Marty and Doc "antagonists" is a subtle joke or if perhaps y'all got it confused with "protagonist." If joke, applauded; if mistake, well...
(V) & (Z) respond: In his History and Hollywood course, (Z) sometimes does an exercise where students are asked to pick a movie and consider what happens if you decide the protagonists are really the antagonists. We were going to add a paragraph explaining that possible interpretation of Back to the Future, and then decided to just let it ride as-is.
M.D. in the Poconos, PA, (but born and raised in Philly), writes: The Philadelphia Eagles beat the Green Bay Packers in Brazil today, 34 to 29. according to my maths, that makes them undefeated and the Packers very defeated. #FlyEaglesFly.
Not a pretty game from what I heard, as I'm in Mannheim, Germany at the moment where it's 6:00 a.m. and could only get to hear the game on 610 WIP Philly Sports radio website since Hulu wouldn't let me watch the game even with a VPN. #GoBirds.
Did I mention #FlyEaglesFly?
(V) & (Z) respond: Fake news. There was clearly chicanery. Dirty tricks. Lies and deceit. If we've said it once, we've said it a thousand times: Brazil is the Canada of South America.
L.S. in Queens, NY, writes: Don't bother with Electoral-Vote.ru. How many ways can you praise Putin before you get bored and imprisoned for the lack of praise?
Get Electoral-Vote.ca before those people north of the U.S. start their takeover.
K.H. in Corning, NY, writes: I find it interesting to consider how often I read the location of Electoral-Vote.com readers and feel a personal connection to their location. It both surprises (does everyone feel this?) and validates (there really is a close connection among the world's people). It further personalizes the news and content you provide.
So many times I have paused to note, "that's where I grew up," or "my company has a plant there that I've been to," or "I remember that place from my vacation," or "I used to live there, " or "I have a cousin there." It's just kind of neat to connect the individual people whose thoughts I'm reading to the individual that is me, in the context of current events.
B.C. in Walpole, ME, writes: You wrote: "Aggregators attempt to build and present a database of most or all of the polls conducted for a particular election cycle. We, on the other hand, present a numerical interpretation of a subset of carefully curated polls."
Good to know. I only patronize boutique/designer aggregators.
(V) & (Z) respond: There's a reason we are known as the Rolex of political blogs.
H.J. in Tucson, AZ, writes: This, from Arthur Rimbaud, seems appropriate: "Yes, our life is a misery, an endless misery! Why do we exist? Send me the news."
If you have suggestions for this feature, please send them along.