Dem
50
GOP
50
Wow, we're actually on time today. Many thanks to Jesus, Allah/Yahweh, Vishnu, Zeus, Ahura Mazda, Isis, Thor, Baha'u'llah, Gitche Manitou, Quetzalcoatl, the Winter Witch and/or the prophet/deity/supernatural figure of your choice.
C.B. in South Bend, IN, writes: In your item "Trump is a Dick," you described how, apparently, Donald Trump interfered with efforts to come to a ceasefire agreement in Gaza and to avoid an expansion of hostilities with Hezbollah in Lebanon.
It will be absolute malpractice by the Harris/Walz campaign if they don't beat on this over and over.
Walz should bring this up in the VP debate and the campaign should run ads stating that "while the current administration has been working tirelessly to bring an end to hostilities in Israel, Gaza, and Lebanon, Donald Trump has been working to undermine all those efforts." This should be a high priority in and around Detroit and other areas where the Uncommitted Movement is in force.
T.B. in Detroit, MI, writes: Your item "Uncommitted Won't Commit" mischaracterizes the Uncommitted Movement's position. The organization's statement, issued as a press release on September 18 and quoted in the article you linked, "urge[s] Uncommitted voters to register anti-Trump votes and vote up and down the ballot" while simultaneously advising against third-party votes. I voted Uncommitted in the Michigan presidential primary and intend to vote for Harris in the general election, and I'm are there are plenty of others who intend to vote the same way.
J.M. in Asheville, NC, writes: In "Uncommitted Won't Commit," you wrote: "Groups like this, especially on the 'left,' have a lot of trouble handling situations where you get a choice between a candidate who is bad (from your point of view) and one who is truly horrendously awful. They don't get it that going for "bad" may not feel good but gets you a better result than truly horrendously awful."
I don't think this is it. I think they do get it, but believe that, because any candidate will do some things they find morally repugnant, if they don't vote for any of them, they are morally in the clear because they didn't condone any evildoing. It doesn't matter that not voting results in a worse outcome than voting, because if they voted they'd still have voted for some evil. It's better to have clean hands.
In the end, it's a paradoxically selfish philosophy.
J.T. in San Bernardino, CA, writes: Although I think that the Green Party could spoil this election straight into the hands of right-wing hobgoblins, I do think that the great length the Democrats are going to in order to remove them from the ballot is pretty odious. While I don't think it's as consequential as the anti-democratic practices of the Republicans, it leaves a bad taste in my mouth I'd rather weren't there.
A.J.A. in Elk Grove Village, IL, writes: I feel like I'm going crazy, like the entire political commentariat, including Electoral-Vote.com, are having one over on me.
As I write this, every perspective on the Teamster's non-endorsement for the 2024 cycle centers on identity politics, culture wars, and Sean O'Brien's personal politics. While I think these are all fair points to raise, it does ignore the kaiju-sized gorilla in the room: the 2022 freight rail strike.
Remember that strike was broken—before it even had a chance to kick off—by a bill, passed by a Democratic House, a Democratic Senate, and signed by "pro-labor" President Biden. And the parent union of most of the unions that would have been participating in that strike? The Teamsters.
Much of the general public may have forgotten that, but if you're on-call year-round, and the administration is telling you to be thankful for the 7 sick days you're allowed, it's tough to take that "pro-labor" label seriously. If you're preparing to strike for better working conditions, and a one-party government swoops in and declares the strike illegal, you're going to remember which party that was.
If I was the Teamsters president and my sole consideration was which major-party presidential candidate would be best for my union's interests, I wouldn't endorse this year, either. And I assure you, my personal politics are nowhere near those of Sean O'Brien.
D.B. in Mountain View, CA, writes: In "You Can't Trust Fox," you mention Fox correctly calling Arizona for Joe Biden before any other outlet. It's true that Fox made this call, and it probably was an example of integrity and courage, but there's excellent reason to believe that it was based on bad data and/or a misunderstanding of the data, and that Fox, and the nation, got lucky when it turned out to be right.
This was discussed in detail in an excellent column by Nate Cohn, but not until 2+ years after the election, and Cohn's observations vanished into the void. In a nutshell, Fox (and also the AP) probably relied on an inaccurate pre-election survey and a poor model of how late mail-in ballots would break. Biden was up by 8.5% when Fox made its call, but ultimately won by only 0.3%. As Cohn sums it up:
Was the Fox call the result of the most sophisticated and accurate modeling, or more like being "right" when calling heads in a coin flip? It appears to be the latter—a lucky and dangerous guess—based on a review of televised statements by the Fox News decision team and publicly available data about the network's modeling.
The Fox team believed Mr. Biden would win Arizona by a comfortable margin at the time the call was made, based on erroneous assumptions and flawed polling. While it worked out for Fox in the end, similarly risky decisions could have easily led to a missed call, with potentially dire consequences for trust in American elections.
J.H. in Boston, MA, writes: M.F. in Calgary wants to know why the Democrats don't want a minimum wage increase. Maybe he or she doesn't remember, but one of the first bills in the congress after Joe Biden was elected was a minimum wage increase. In the Senate, we had a vote to exempt it from the filibuster, which was defeated by Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (I-AZ) with a cute curtsy.
I don't know where M.F. got the idea that the Democrats don't want to pass such legislation; they clearly want to and have been trying.
M.G. in Stow, MA, writes: I am spending the weekend birding in Provincetown, MA. She doesn't need it in blue Massachusetts, but pretty sure Kamala Harris has the P-town vote locked up. No Trump signs. Many Harris signs. The best part, though, is the many creative ways of saying "yes" to Harris and "hell, no" to Donald Trump. Here are a couple of examples:
For those who don't know, Provincetown, located at the tip of Cape Cod, is a very liberal and accepting town and an LGBTQ+ haven, hence the unique snark in some of the signs. It also has great birding for the rest of us.
A.H. in Newberg, OR, writes: In a community of +/-25,500 residents, they could only get about a bakers dozen idiots to whoop and holler and wave flags at passing cars and fools of themselves. There were several "flying fickle fingers of fate" sent in their direction:
R.H.D. in Webster, NY, writes: I went back on the same state highway in my neighboring ruby-red county to see if anything has changed after a couple of weeks. There were a few more "Harris-Walz" lawn signs, but not huge ones. Just signs of typical size. I still saw the larger Trump signs and Trump flags waving, but didn't notice any additional ones from before.
Since this is western New York and we're in the NFL season, there are tons of Buffalo Bills signs and flags around. It's probably a good thing the team colors are red, white, and blue.
Oh, that infamous intersection I was telling you about with the anti-Biden signs on a corner? They were updated with Harris' name being displayed, with things like "Harris Lies" and "Indict Harris."
Back here at home, I did see a sign on a town road with a white background saying "Stop Project 2025."
D.E. in San Diego, CA, writes: Not a yard sign, but I noticed in my local grocery store a noted difference in the demand for magazines covering Trump and Harris:
M.M. in San Diego, CA, writes: Over the weekend (9/21-9/22), three of my four Harris campaign signs were stolen. I always buy extras knowing that at some point I'll probably need them. No one disturbed the previous Biden signs... perhaps because my thief didn't think Joe had a chance? Anyway, I regard the theft as a "sign" (feel free to groan) that Donald Trump's supporters are feeling a tad threatened and angry (of course, when aren't they angry?).
D.H. in Lisbon Falls, ME, writes:
S.S. in West Hollywood, CA, writes: S.S. in Weaverville was impressed that the "MAGA is Idolatry" sign they saw while driving remained undamaged for so long. Perhaps the MAGA loyalists don't realize "idolatry" is a bad thing.
(V) & (Z) respond: Yep, to know that, you have to actually read the Bible.
O.R. in Milan, Italy, writes: When I heard this from Donald Trump:
I am your protector. I want to be your protector... you will no longer be abandoned, lonely, or scared. You will no longer be in danger.in my mind I heard the Italian equivalent, "protettore," which also means "pimp." Some campaign strategy, eh, telling women voters he wants to be their pimp.
P.C. in Yandina Creek, QLD, Australia, writes: I was previously tickled when Electoral-Vote.com published my observation that MAGA stands for "Make America Gilead Already."
Trumps recent offer to 'protect' women who will suddenly be "happy, healthy, confident and free" and no longer "thinking about abortion" is straight out of Margaret Atwood's dystopian novel The Handmaids Tale.
So now, as well as watches, sneakers, water, steaks, board games, ghostwritten books, cryptocurrencies, etc., Donald Trump is also selling Stockholm syndrome.
S.G. in Seattle, WA, writes: I really loved the analysis from D.E. in Lancaster of the Childless Cat Lady obsession as just another episode in the long history of literal witch hunts. Conservatives have always condemned and scapegoated women who dare to not conform to society's ladylike expectations, often with violent consequences.
That said, as an epidemiologist, I must elaborate on one detail. D.E. called J.D. Vance a "modern day Cotton Mather." But Mather went on to be a huge proponent of the new practice of variolation—the forerunner of vaccination. He took on the rest of the Puritan establishment—and even a young Ben Franklin—to promote a major scientific advance with the potential to save countless lives, against a society that saw it as the Devil's work. He took a big reputational hit in the process, but he stuck with what he knew was right. Not exactly on-brand for any modern Republican, especially good ol' J.D.
Cotton Mather, like all interesting historical figures, is complex and multi-dimensional. Vance, not so much!
A.G. in Scranton, PA, writes: Wow.
Holy sh**, that is such a solid, salient point that D.E. in Lancaster made.
I would take a guess and say, good job, ma'am... but I could be wrong.
Good job, though.
(V) & (Z) respond: Not that we expect anyone to maintain a database of readers in their head, but D.E. is one of the folks who has tipped their hand in their letters, and has outed himself as a "sir."
R.M. in Sacramento, CA, writes: I read today that Taylor Swift's poll numbers are rapidly declining according to a recent NBC News poll. In a way, I found this quite shocking... as I was unaware Taylor Swift was running for any kind of office that would warrant polling of any kind. Though really, when I think about it, I shouldn't be at all surprised that her popularity and approval ratings among Republicans has cratered after her big endorsement. After all, what she advised everyone to do was gather facts and make their own decisions... and we all know how Republicans feel about the idea of women making their own decisions.
F.H. in St. Paul, MN, writes: The GOP, for some reason, feels that insulting woman and taking away their reproductive rights is a winning strategy. As expected, recent polls show that is far from the truth. Being disrespectful to women makes some men feel strong and in charge, I guess.
Despite the constant hate from the right toward women of all ages, the momentum is in the favor of our mothers, sisters, wives, cousins and friends. With that in mind, now is the perfect time for a big-name singer to cover Helen Reddy's hit song "I Am Woman." Many women/girls have never heard of Reddy, much less the song but, my hope is that the Internet will soon be busting at the seams with covers of this remarkable anthem.
M.M. in San, Diego, CA, writes: A prime tenet of feminism: We are not in competition with one another; we are allies.
J.L. in Boston, MA, writes: You are correct that U.S. Senate candidate Bernie Moreno (R) "managed to shoot himself in the foot" over his comment that abortion shouldn't be an issue for women over 50," but you completely missed why this is so infuriating to me, and other, women. If abortion is only pertinent for women who might need one, now or in the future, why does he think it's OK for men to propose, or vote on, limits to abortion?
J.E. in Gilbertsville, PA, writes: Speaking as a woman over 50, I'm surprised no one has seemed to realize that many of us do have skin in the game—I happen to have two young adult daughters! My younger daughter, in particular, is my cause for concern. She has had trouble with blood clots in the past, was hospitalized for clots in her lungs, and cannot take birth control pills as a result. An IUD is the only option—but I hear Republicans want to do away with that form of birth control, as they feel it is a form of abortion (because, in some cases, it does not prevent fertilization, but prevents implantation instead). If she were to find herself pregnant, she would be faced with running the risk of clots (and possibly death) or of having an abortion. I live in dread of such a day ever happening, and if that day should ever come I pray some stupid Republican law doesn't stand in the way of her making the best decision for her.
Moreno's comment is also offensive because he implies women are opposed to abortion laws because women want an abortion "whenever [they] want." He seems to be implying abortion is something many women do with little thought or conscience. I rarely find that to be true, and it's insulting.
J.L. in Baltimore, MD, writes: I'm a lesbian in my seventies who marched for abortion rights before Roe was decided. While I have never been pregnant, abortion remains a top issue for me. By Bernie Moreno's logic, white people shouldn't bother to care about rights for people of color, cis hetero people shouldn't care about rights for LGBTQ people, Americans born here shouldn't care about rights for immigrants, and so on. His comments give me great hope for Democrats retaining the Ohio U.S. Senate seat. Every time a Republican makes comments that are so ignorant or just nasty, I have hope that their voters will at the very least decide to stay home and not vote at all.
K.T. in Oakdale, NY, writes: You closed out an item on Donald Trump possibly being resigned to an electoral loss by saying " It might even presage the possibility that, if he's clearly defeated, he doesn't put up quite the fight that everyone is expecting."
The chance of him not screaming FRAUD and whipping up whatever violent mob he can is less than 0.00001%. Not only is it built into his entire personality to deny he loses anything fairly, but there is a massive difference between now and previous elections: If he isn't living in the White House in 2025, he will likely be living in a jail cell. There are very few ways to interpret Judge Juan Merchan's remarks other than he plans on handing down a prison sentence, and Trump's total lack of remorse for his crimes supports that path. Not to mention the three other (more serious) trials yet to be tried. I don't see a good ending to this election—either Trump wins or Trump does whatever he can to try to overturn it. I think he'd send whatever militia would listen off to the capital, because the alternative is accepting what will likely be life in prison for someone his age.
T.B. in Waterloo, IA, writes: Your take on "Everyone Hates Project 2025" made me laugh, but only because I've seen many, many, many comments on various Fox "News" articles from people who honestly seem to think that both Project 2025 has been "debunked" and that Trump absolutely, positively no way on God's green Earth had anything to do with it. I so want to tell them "Yeah, if you believe that Project 2025 was made up by the fake liberal media to make Trump look bad, then I have some oceanfront property in Arizona I want to sell you for a really sweet price." Maybe George Strait can be the notary public when I sign over the deed.
R.M.S. in Lebanon, CT, writes: M.D. in San Tan Valley misunderstands what Trumpism is all about, I think. Trumpism is not going anywhere for a long time, even if Donald Trump loses and passes away. One of the things that unites Trumpers is disdain for democratic institutions. For some reason, and this merits research by political scientists, many Americans think democracy no longer works for them. Look at how easily they renominated Trump after he instigated a violent attack on Congress and has spent years attacking U.S. election officials.
I don't see any appetite for non-MAGA Republicans that would substantially change the Republican Party. Even Nikki Haley, who had the most success challenging Trump in the primary, endorsed him. The criminal convictions in New York did nothing to hurt Trump's standing. Anti-Trump conservative Andrew Sullivan argues the convictions have actually helped Trump politically, because he convinced many people they are evidence democratic institutions are corrupt and working against them.
If many Americans don't believe in a democratic system of governance, there will continue to be room for MAGA to exist for the foreseeable future.
D.C. in Portland, OR, writes: M.D. in San Tan Valley used the term "original Reagan-like conservative platform" to describe a reinvented and presumably more sane and traditional Republican Party, compared to today's absurdity. Certainly, Ronald Reagan's era was a very different day, but from my perspective it by no means represented traditional Republicanism or conservatism, at least economically.
Rather Reagan was the start of an economic cult whose extreme policies led to the rapidly increasing inequality we've suffered ever since. That, in turn, led to the disillusionment of ordinary people and the growth in populism and eventually MAGA.
Reagan in the executive, Newt Gingrich in the legislature, and Rupert Murdoch and Rush Limbaugh in media, together created the mean-spirited model of politics that Republicans depend on today.
While fully understanding the spirit of M.D.'s question, Republicans returning to the platform of Reagan would be little escape from the insanity of today's situation.
J.E. in San Jose, CA, writes: My thanks to T.B. in Santa Clara for saying that the next generation sees getting the last word as a concession that they lost the argument. This definitely causes me to think differently about how I communicate with others.
G.T.M. in Vancouver, BC, Canada, writes: I just received my tokens from Trump's Universal Liquid Investment Plan (and you thought that they didn't even exist) and am so proud of them that I just havta share them with you:
J.M. in Philadelphia, PA, writes: You were surprised that most coverage of the J.D. Vance dossier leak focused on the fact that the journalist who leaked it was banned on Twitter. You posited: " Maybe anti-Musk headlines attract clicks and eyeballs?"
I consider myself a well-informed voter and, as a reader of your site, I obviously follow politics closely and mostly prefer "alternative" news sources. I like to think of myself as more logical than emotional, within reason. I hate the click-baity and bothsidesey nature that "mainstream" news sources have adopted over the past 10-20 years.
With that said, I am approximately 1000% more likely to click on an article about Elon Musk being a hypocrite because I hate that creepy billionaire with an increasingly complete percentage of my soul. No doubt there's enough people who have strong feelings about Musk that it makes financial (if not actual, ya know, JOURNALISTIC) sense to promote that version of the story.
O.R. in Milan, Italy, writes: You wrote: As to the outlets that DID carry the news, an enormous percentage (not all, but most) took the 'Musk censorship' angle. Huh? Musk's suspension of the leaker's Twitter account is bigger news than the actual dossier? That we do not get at all, and we can't even come up with much of a theory. Maybe anti-Musk headlines attract clicks and eyeballs?"
Certainly that, but also:
- The headlines are only nominally about eX-Twitter's censorship, the actual topic is the dossier. This means less risk of being accused of peddling foreign propaganda.
- The headlines are a way to underscore that while Musk pretends that eX-Twitter is place for free speech, he is actually suppressing it. Following any dictator's playbook, wannabe dictator Musk goes after journalists.
R.L. in Alameda, CA, writes: In your item on the "Vance dossier" you wrote, "Clearly, Vance did not like Trump (probably still doesn't, in his heart of hearts)." I'm going to fact-check you here. This is a false statement, as it assumes that Vance has a heart.
L.V.A. in Idaho Falls, ID, writes: I used to be an admirer of Elon Musk primarily due to the success of SpaceX and his electric vehicle endeavors (and his very brief stint as a physics graduate student). Then came "pedo"-gate (Thailand) and eX-Twitter and he demonstrated what an a**hole he had become. Then it occurred to me that he's always been an a**hole, but now he's louder and he gets more attention.
E.K. in Brignoles, France, writes: Since I haven't seen it mentioned on Electoral-Vote.com, and after your response to S.P. in Harrisburg, I thought I should point out that one of New York's 28 electors happens to be... Mayor Eric Adams.
Fortunately, there is a mechanism to replace him, but that's not the case in every state. So you see, for my own sanity, the scenario of a 270-268 win for Kamala Harris is not the one I'm dreaming of...
D.W. in Azusa, CA, writes: The fall of Mayor Eric Adams should give us pause about ranked choice voting, at least as it was implemented in the city's 2021 mayoral Democratic primary election. In the first round of voting, Adams got 31% of the vote, Maya Wiley got 21%, Kathryn Garcia got 20%, and Andrew Yang got 12%. RCV presumably increased the votes for Yang and the minor candidates, so there is little reason to think Adams would have avoided a runoff under the old rules, which required 40% to win the nomination outright. It's uncertain whether he would have faced Wiley or Garcia, but either would probably have beaten him in a runoff, since both were progressives and Adams ran (ironically, at this point) as a tough-on-crime centrist.
When, in the eighth round of RCV tabulation, Garcia, rather than Wiley, survived, the votes of any Wiley supporters who did not name Garcia or Adams as among their five ranked choices were discarded. Almost 15% of all the votes cast in the election wound up not counting.
Of course, some of the voters who supported Wiley, Yang, or a minor candidate might have chosen to sit out a runoff election. Others may not have fully understood the RCV process, and for that reason or another not exercised all their choices. This was the first mayoral election in which RCV was used, and maybe awareness of its intricacies will improve with time.
But it's unlikely that turnout for a runoff would have fallen by 15%, and disenfranchising that many voters has to be considered disappointing, even without considering the outcome.
Nearly 30% of those whose voters counted for Wiley in the penultimate round of tabulation wound up having their votes discarded. Had these voters split 72% to 28% for Garcia, as did the voters who named either Adams or Garcia as one of their choices, Garcia would have gained almost 33,000 more votes than Adams in the final tabulation. Since the final margin of the Adams victory was under 10,000 votes, this would have been easily enough to elect Garcia. I conclude that RCV failed in this election to give effect to the likely preference of Democratic voters, thus contributing to the unfortunate situation in which the city finds itself today.
C.L. in Boulder, CO, writes: Andrew Yang rips into Eric Adams in a recent e-mail blast, calling on Adams to resign. Interestingly, Yang—despite being the "most prominent advocate for RCV"—doesn't mention that Adams was elected using RCV (specifically, the Instant-Runoff Voting form of RCV).
New Yorkers can take some solace in the fact that, back in 2021, more people voted for other mayoral candidates than voted for Adams in the competitive Democratic primary. Adams only got 43% of the vote, barely beating Kathryn Garcia, who got 42% of the vote. About 15% of the voters ranked other candidates instead of Adams and Garcia on their ballot. So, doing the math, 57% of the electorate did not support Adams!
Let's hope the next New York City mayoral election has both a majority winner and a winner whose behavior doesn't raise suspicions.
L.H. in Port Huron, MI, writes: When was the last time you heard a Republican calling for one of their own who was caught in a scandal to resign? How long did "George Santos" stick around? Larry Craig? Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL)? And the king snake himself, Trump? However, Democrats regularly fall on their swords. Robert Menendez needed to be indicted before he quit, but his fellow Democrats called for his resignation long before that. Al Franken's head rolled within weeks. Yet Republicans just look the other way.
J.A. in Brisbane, QLD, Australia, writes: I know the evidence is there to suggest being Mayor of New York City is a terminal role, career wise.
But when I read indictments that say Eric Adams "sought and accepted improper valuable benefits, such as luxury international travel, including from wealthy foreign businesspeople and at least one Turkish government official," I do wonder whether perhaps he's angling for an appointment to the Supreme Court?
C.B. In Highlands, NJ, writes: After listening to the charges against Eric Adams and looking at what happened with former senator Bob Menendez, my question is: What will it take to indict Justice Thomas? The charges are so similar, yet Thomas is handled with kid gloves.
J.C. in Washington, DC, writes: Undoubtedly, many of us in the Electoral-Vote.com community have already voted, including myself:
As expected, I found it to be a visceral experience as I made my picks for POTUS, the Senate, Justices, and propositions to enshrine abortion rights and implement ranked choice voting.
The "I Voted" sticker from the Arizona Clean Elections Commission was a nice touch, too!
B.H. in Nevis, MN, writes: You wrote: "Among other things, even if there is some kind of October surprise, the votes that have already been cast can't be changed, even if the people who cast them change their mind."
I can't speak for all states, but in Minnesota people can change their mind and vote again in some circumstances.
Accepted ballots are set aside in a secure area until 19 days before the election, at which time ballot processing begins. At that time, the signature envelopes are opened and the ballot envelopes are removed and set aside so that no one knows whose ballot is whose.
So, until the close of business 19 days before Election Day, to cancel a ballot, a voter may contact the election office that sent their ballot at which time they can be sent a new ballot or simply decide to vote in person.
I believe ballot cancellation is also the process should a voter happen to vote early, pass away, and the election office is notified of their death more than 19 days before Election Day.
J.M. in Portland, OR, writes: Regarding your answer about the value of endorsements, I am a transplant to Oregon. I honestly don't take that close an interest in local politics. When it comes time to vote, for any candidate that I have no idea about, I do three things. I see who's endorsed them in the voter pamphlet, I see what The Willamette Weekly says, and lastly, what The Oregonian says. Endorsements mean everything to me; without them I would have no idea who I want for local dogcatcher.
M.D. in Peterborough, England, UK, writes: K.C. in West Islip makes a suggestion about enfranchising, with a vote for local government, those who work in but do not live in the relevant local government area. It is not unheard of in western democracies. The City of London—the original "square mile" at the heart of the metropolitan area, where most financial institutions are located—does precisely this. It has a resident population of less than 10,000, but (at least pre-pandemic) a daytime, working-week population of over 400,000. Businesses with premises in the City can nominate a number of electors based on their size, not unlike an electoral college. Some years ago, I worked for a very small company with fewer than 40 staff, and was nominated as its sole elector for elections to the City Corporation. I took my role seriously, and canvassed my colleagues' views before voting.
P.S. It's worth noting that if I lived in the City, I would have gotten two votes: one for myself as a resident, and one on behalf of my company.
A.P. in Kitchener, ON, Canada, writes: You answered one question about getting an extra vote for working in a government role in a city, and another one about a student trying to figure out where to vote. I thought it interesting to note that in Ontario, students away at school can vote in municipal elections in both their home municipality AND in the city where they go to school. The timing of elections means a student can vote in advance while home for Canadian Thanksgiving, then on Election Day on campus, giving real meaning to the phrase "vote early, vote often."
D.A. in Brooklyn, New York, writes: I'd like to respond to K.C. in West Islip, who (God bless them) teaches in New York City public schools and who feels badly that they don't have a vote in City elections.
Look, K.C., you're a member of the United Federation of Teachers (UFT). I hope you're an activist, and a militant one at that, because harnessed, activated union power is way more powerful than a mere vote. The UFT could (if its leadership wasn't crap) have a tremendously positive impact on public education, including the conditions you work under. Furthermore, the UFT's political action operation could get into gear and help elect an honest, intelligent progressive as mayor instead of a moronic, corrupt cop. Save your vote for keeping corrupt idiots from representing Nassau in Congress and harness your union membership in New York City. (Full disclosure: I'm in the Professional Staff Congress which, like the UFT, is part of New York State United Teachers which is, in turn, part of the American Federation of Teachers.)
M.W. in Durham, NC, writes: I live in North Carolina, and have been following the gubernatorial race closely. It wasn't shocking to me that Lt. Gov. Mark Robinson (R-NC) has said what he's said. The thing that shocked me, actually, was that the rest of the Republicans in the state, especially the ones in charge of their Party, would give a good goddamn about it. I literally said to my husband, as the rumor circulated a big story would drop, "It can't be something he's said, given all the stuff he says already. It has to be something he's done." Now that the dust has started to settle a little, I have two reactions to it.
First, they already knew Robinson was going to lose his race, but the Republicans retained high hopes of North Carolina going to Trump and they had even higher hopes of a chunk of the Council of State races going to Republicans who are even battier than Robinson. (The Council are our equivalent of the cabinet, all the various Secretaries of [X], each of whom is elected.) If you want to see an even worse candidate for state office, look no further than Michele Morrow, the Republican running for State Superintendent of Public Instruction. She wants to be in charge of our public schools, but she homeschools her children, may not have finished high school, and just this week said the + after "LGBTQ" stands for "pedophiles." Imagine the so-called thoughts of Mark Robinson coming from the worst self-appointed suburbanite scold you see on your local Nextdoor, and that's Morrow. We all figure Robinson probably just handed Josh Stein a (deserved) 20-point win, but he may also have tanked a couple of their worst-best hopes for Council of State, too.
Second, that's the sensible read on things. On the ground, though, I find myself wondering if Robinson's chat room past will make a difference at all. Anybody who'd decided to vote for these clowns has already decided they're fine with all the other stuff he says. And if they're voting for Trump, then they're already fine with someone who buddies up to insurrectionists and neo-Nazis anyway. In fact, I imagine some of his supporters were thrilled to see his comments. As I said to a friend, Robinson probably just became the first Black man my racist mother would be willing to vote for. I'm not sure the voters already in his pocket care as much as polite society.
A.B. in Wendell, NC, writes: OK, so you need a voice from North Carolina on this one.
There was never any way Robinson was going to be elected governor in this state. The latest is just the final nail in a coffin, and Robinson is basically a Black Trump. Like Trump, he speaks without thinking, and goes with his gut.
He is used to speaking in churches where many, if not all people there, agree with him, even if they would not openly admit it. He simply cannot help himself, and he's never grasped the fact that his words are heard by those outside of his bubble... and that there are people who are greatly offended by the things he says.
I am, of course, a transgender citizen of North Carolina, and I very well remember when he called us FILTH. I will never forget it. And I say: WHO is filth NOW, Mark?
He's gone too far on this one. The people who were already gonna vote against him were probably enough to defeat him, but now a lot of people who once supported him no longer can, because he has said the quiet parts out loud, and has engaged in the very kinds of behavior he accused others of engaging in.
Once again, the notion that Republican accusations are confessions in disguise has been vindicated. This guy is not even going down like the Titanic... He's going down like the Edmund Fitzgerald!
A.G. in Los Angeles, CA, writes: Having grown up in beautiful Portage County, I am deeply saddened to read about the MAGA Sheriff. Most of the county is quite poor and right-wing, except for Kent, Streetsboro and Aurora on the western edge, which are much wealthier and much more liberal. Ravenna is the county seat, but could accurately be called Hicksville, and is far from the center of wealth/power in the county (I have many heard people proudly call themselves "rednecks"). Most of the rest is beautiful woods and rolling hills. Driving around during fall is quite the experience in Portage County.
That all being said, Ravenna is a dying city and has no prospects for turning things around. I feel like this is a very similar situation to many MAGA types. They see their wealthy neighbors thriving and need a scapegoat to blame. Having gone to university and high school in the area—granted, over a decade ago—I am not at all surprised to see this coming from the poor MAGA side of the county.
I do want to add one more key thing. I knew people who had Trump stickers, would travel with Trump flags and they are actually very kind people. They may talk a big talk but really they are not nearly as racist or hateful as they are made out to be. It's a product of being in a community where everybody talks like this, but they really don't know any better.
Lastly, I lived there for over a decade and visit regularly. I've never seen or heard of Haitians being there. It's an exceptionally white county.
P.K. in Portage County, OH, writes: Our county newspaper, The Portager, has another disturbing story about our sheriff. I am finding out that local sheriffs have a great deal of power and not a lot of oversight.
W.S. in Austin, TX, writes: You wrote "Another stock commedia character is Scaramuccia, the loudmouth with villainous traits."
I see you went with Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA)... okay, but loudmouths, what with being loud and having mouths, often become communications directors.
What was the name of that guy who supported the villainous Trump as communications director for about 5 minutes? Who was that again?
H.C. in San Franciso, CA, writes: In your piece of about the budget battle/commedia, you have this line about Scaramuccia: "Another stock commedia character is Scaramuccia, the loudmouth with villainous traits."
I had to google to figure out if this Scaramuccia really was the name of this role or if this was some strange reference to Scaramucci, the former White House Communications Director.
(V) & (Z) respond: "Scaramuccia" (female version) and "Scaramucci" (male) are real commedia characters, though the name was often rendered as "Scaramouche," perhaps best known to people from the Queen song "Bohemian Rhapsody."
J.R. in Huff's Church, PA, writes: Still seeking a substitute for "kabuki theater" to describe congressional follies? How about "vaudeville"? This partial list from Wikipedia of typical acts that once graced the country's stages suggests how well it fits: singers, dancers, comedians, trained animals, magicians, ventriloquists, strongmen, acrobats, clowns and jugglers. Surely it's kinder, if not more accurate, than "freak show."
B.J.L. in Ann Arbor, MI, writes: I actually saw kabuki theater here in the states years back. A visiting theater arts professor—from Osaka, I think—put on a show, incorporating an array of corn-fed theater majors in the Midwest back in 1984. It was a telling of Faust, of all things, and like most kabuki, it's usually some grand parable that produces some epic struggle. It's etched in my mind like yesterday. The costumes, artistry, and the storytelling suggest that it's much more meaningful than the sideshow reference for show's sake only. If I ever got a chance to see kabuki again, I would drop everything.
S.R. in Linden, TN, writes: I just viewed your website for the first time, looking for the latest polling info. After finding it, I then began to read the articles underneath. So that you understand, I am neither Democrat nor Republican these days, though I guess I could be described as moderately right-leaning. But again I am a member of neither party.
I find both sides hateful, lazy and undeserving of their status. They are all liars. Every single one of them. And Americans are dense, as they figure out who they believe the best liar is, and then they elect him/her president!
My apologies to say it like this, because I don't like offending others or putting them down. But whomever is writing those articles obviously needs to be told. They sound just as bigoted as the people they are calling out. Only towards MAGA people. And I don't know for a fact but I'd bet towards several others as well.
Not once did they call out any lie at all told by a Democrat. Or their supporters. And I'm sorry to say, they all lie. Nor do they write with such obvious disdain about Kamala Harris supporters. So in regards to the favor I asked for, I simply want you to let them read this: We are all Americans. We all have the same rights. We all struggle as humans at times but I assure you, one side is no better than the other. And all those articles have done is to make sure I never visit your site again. Inclusive, huh? Obviously not!
(V) & (Z) respond: For what it is worth, this individual, who has done such a good job of convincing everyone of how tolerant and open-minded they are, sent this message in on Thursday, when we had an item about Eric Adams—a Democrat, last we checked—being a crook.
Also, the letter writer's English (which we've cleaned up a fair bit) is poor in ways that sorta suggest 'Russian troll.' However, we don't see what the point of that would be, plus we were able to verify their identity.
R.E.M. in Brooklyn, NY, writes: E.G. in The Villages writes: "The fact that you talk about how not in danger Trump is, instead of condemning it, shows how pathetic and disgusting you are."
Wait, E.G. in The Villages is complaining because you are not condemning how not in danger Trump is? They want you to demand that Trump be in constant danger? Wow, I hate Trump, but even I don't want to see him physically harmed; political violence is deplorable. E.G. needs to be careful. It's expressions like theirs that get the attention of the Secret Service.
(V) & (Z) respond: Remarkably, that was one of E.G.'s more coherent messages. Most of them are so clumsy, we can't print them, because we don't understand them.
K.C. in McKinleyville, CA, writes: You seem to have touched a nerve with E.G. in The Villages. Curious if they have a plan to "vote often" for this upcoming election, as those residents are wont to do.
S.S. in Washington, DC, writes: Thank you for including the final words from A.M. in Toronto. As a native Michigander, I've thought of the luck-of-the-draw that I was born on one side of the river and not the other (though the other is quite good!). As the son of a man who died with Alzheimer's, I can relate to those years: the pain, the tedium, the surprising bits of humor.
Electoral-vote.com continues to be clever, accessible, intelligent, and shrewd. But most of all, humane. Thank you!
O.R. in Milan, Italy, writes: Losing one's parents is hard, no matter how old or sick they are. But having to let one's father go alone, during COVID, without the comfort of family, and without the reassuring ritual of a funeral for those left behind mourning, is atrocious. A.M.'s words brought back the painful memory of Bergamo's long, nocturnal caravans of army trucks carrying off the many victims of the pandemic for whom there was no more room in local churches and cemeteries.
I would like A.M. to know that I admire and thank him for sharing the eulogy with us. "Final Words" indeed, touching words that speak of love, words that make us understand who his dad was and, in a way, who he himself is. Because apples don't fall far from the apple tree. I also appreciate the lesson about the soup—how very true! Wishing him all the best, with a warm embrace from Italy.
D.H. in Boulder, CO, writes: Two days ago, my father, who was a Depression child of a single mother, a World War II veteran, and GI Bill beneficiary who wound up leading a solid and productive life, turned 100. Over the past few years he has had to deal with increasing dementia, which is frustrating for him and challenging for me as his sole active caretaking child. I broke into a grand smile when I read the following thoughtful commentary from A.M in Toronto, Ontario, Canada:
...my father had dementia. It's a terrible disease, and watching a parent suffer from it breaks your heart every day. But perhaps unexpectedly, it also has its lighter moments. One day my parents and I went to an all-you-can-eat buffet for lunch. We all began the meal at the soup station. When we got back to the table, my father looked at the soup in front of him, the soup that he himself ladled into his bowl, and said: "They don't give you much soup here."
There's a lesson here for those of us still fortunate enough to have our faculties. From time to time, we all complain about how little soup we get in life. But at the end of the day, it's up to us. We can take as little or as much as we like.Life's lessons come in unexpected ways, and there's no better way to manage a difficult life exit than with a bit of humor. Thank you, A.M.
J.R. in Harrogate, England, UK, writes: For as long as I have been reading your site, I have NEVER wanted the ability to upvote a reader's comment.
The Last Words post from A.M. in Toronto makes me long for that functionality.
S.C. in Mountain View, CA, writes: You responded Sunday to M.C. in Friendship, ME, citing of E.B. White on dachshunds with" "Staff dachshund Flash was the only dog ever to fail out of the obedience school he attended." Flash is in good company. He can watch a (possibly) more famous dog being expelled from obedience school because, among other things, "he demoralizes the other students":
P.L. in Denver, CO, writes: I have my 9th (Rollo) and 10th (Ava) dachshunds right now. Over the years, I twice tried obedience school. Both times was a fail. But... did anyone tell you it is the owner that fails and not the dog? LOL!
R.M.H. in Chula Vista, CA, writes: Our experience with dog training class: (1) Gracie, a grumpy mix, just refused and watched sardonically and (2) Yuki, a playful Akita, was the class clown who was separated from the class for distracting others.
We were asked to not come back and got a refund.
L.R.H. in Oakland, CA, writes: San Francisco Opera has been performing composer Poul Ruders' opera The Handmaid's Tale, a brilliant and harrowing adaptation of Margaret Atwood's famous 1985 novel. I looked up the score, which can be viewed at the web site of the composer's publisher. (It is so dense that conductor Karen Kamensek has an oversized printed version created by the English National Opera when she conducted the opera there. Her score is in two volumes and weighs 30 pounds.)
I took a look at the photos of Ruders at the website, and as you can see, he likes dachshunds:
D.E. in Lancaster, PA, writes: Now, this is a bit of obscure American history. This past Friday, September 27, was the 247th anniversary of when Lancaster, PA, was the capital of the United States! I should add that it was so for just one day before moving to York, PA. The Continental Congress had moved from Philadelphia to Lancaster escape approaching British forces. Who knew?
K.R. in Austin, TX, writes: When I first read that there is a city called Witchduck in the letter from D.E. in Lancaster, I thought it must be a typo. I thought it was likely supposed to be Witchdu_N_k.
When I looked it up, I found it was not a typo. However, I would guess that rather than dunking witches, they checked if a witch weighed the same as a duck:
D.B.G in Minneapolis, MN, writes: I regularly send to about 10 of my friends a snippet of your snarky humour to brighten their day. Or to spray coffee on their laptop.
Case in point, from your response about COVID: "The Paxlovid did not seem to change the trajectory much. On the other hand, the Ivermectin and the bleach injections were a big help.
M.L. in Westchester, NY, writes: I had a very long week, not a bad one, but a busy and exhausting one. I didn't get a chance to settle into Friday's looong post (I love it!) until the end of the day. That meme using Downfall... I won't quote the lines that got me because they don't work nearly as well out of context, but I literally laughed till I cried.
Thank you! I needed that!
BTW, the Freudenfreude item pulled more tears, of a different sort. What a good post today. It was worth the wait! My only regret: if I had caught it when it first went live, I might have sent a winning answer to the headline theme.
W.R.S. in Tucson, AZ, writes: I like your suggestion that Saturday Night Live bring back Tina Fey to play J.D. Vance in their election sketches. I do have two other suggestions for things they might try, though.
First, for Tim Walz: A rotating cast of beloved TV dads (regardless of their physical resemblance to Walz) including, but not limited to, Craig T. Nelson (double points because he was a dad AND a coach on Coach, and because he has played Mr. Incredible in The Incredibles, another beloved dad), Eugene Levy, Bryan Cranston (with hair; think Malcolm in the Middle, not Breaking Bad), John Goodman, Josh Radnor (would have preferred Bob Saget, RIP), Jason Bateman, Kyle Chandler (again, extra points for being a coach as well as a dad), and Reginald VelJohnson.
Second, for J.D. Vance: A different white guy named Chris every episode: Pine, Pratt, Evans, etc.
K.H. in Marysville, TN, writes: Should we be worried? Perhaps we can make an exception since they're coming to help with hurricane clean up?
(V) & (Z) respond: Historically, this is how these things usually start. You do know, for example, that the Spanish Armada was actually a bunch of electricity ships, who were just traveling to England "to help"?
R.B. in Santa Monica, CA, writes: "My last words to you, my son and successor, are: Never trust the Russians." — Abdur Rahman Khan in 1901.
If you have suggestions for this feature, please send them along.