Sunday Mailbag

We have included a couple more lengthy letters than we normally would. The DNC is a big and complicated topic.

Politics: The DNC, General Comments

A.R. in Los Angeles, CA, writes: Thinking about the diversity at the DNC, I also thought it was organic, and that's what made the event all the more powerful and inspiring. I couldn't help but think that the Republicans are missing out on so much talent simply because of their bigotry. I've listened to the speeches of Michelle Obama, Sen. Raphael Warnock (D-GA), Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) multiple times—I was riveted. And then the performances by Stevie Wonder, John Legend and Sheila E.—incredible! Not to mention Oprah... and so many more!

As the Democrats embrace joy, they are showcasing what is possible when people who have traditionally been excluded get a seat at the table. Everybody wins. It was thrilling to witness. Only a Harris candidacy could make this possible—she has made visible what had been in the background, and to see people of color, especially women of color, take center stage and dominate feels like a seismic shift. I'll vote for that any day.

---

B.C. in Walpole, ME, writes: Before and during the Republican convention, you seemed to think that the conventions are pretty dull fare, on the level of grass growing and paint drying, and I could not agree with you more. I can't take them, in any year. But Mrs. B.C. is an inveterate watcher of conventions and found this week's to be entertaining and charming. She liked the music, which is not aimed at her demographic. She has especially enjoyed and appreciated the great diversity and unity of America on display at the event tonight.

I'm starting to enjoy Kamala Harris' smile as opposed to Trump's scowl and smirk.

---

J.E. in San Jose, CA, writes: In response to K.H. in Arlington, I would posit that the target audience (lapsed and younger voters) are in aggregate too young to notice or care about the lack of homogeneity. But I do understand the observation. I truly believe such concerns become less important with every passing year. Am I right? I guess we'll find out in a couple months or so.

---

R.V. in Pittsburgh, PA, writes: On Thursday at the DNC, Eva Longoria said during her speech the energy of the Kamala Harris campaign isn't just being felt in Chicago, it's going on across the country. Then the large screen behind her showed about a dozen watch parties occurring in cities in swing states. I thought that was magnificent.

In this day and age, people are busy, whether it's work, doing chores around the house and running errands, or engaging in about a million leisure activities. So, for all those people to show up in ALL those cities to attend a watch party (and no Taylor Swift was involved) shows people are excited about the Harris campaign. I love Joe Biden, but I doubt there would have been convention watch parties going on throughout the country (except maybe in red states) if he was the one accepting the party's nomination this past Thursday. Time is the most valuable commodity there is (arguably), and for all those people in all those cities getting together for a watch party, that ONLY happens if your excited and passionate about the nominee.

---

T.S. from Mansfield, OH, writes: One of the aspects of the DNC that seems to have been overlooked by the pundits was the emphasis on values. It appeared to me that the Democratic Party spent much of the week reclaiming the language of values from the Republican Party (freedom, community, patriotism, justice, etc.), and this seemed to get short shrift from the talking heads who were discussing what had just happened on the main stage. Was the media not seeing this or am I biased about the media?

---

V.S. in Celle, Germany, writes: I am just a big fan of your blog and an interested bystander from Germany when it comes to American politics. In this respect, I had to write something about the impact of the DNC on my emotional state because I am just awestruck. I cannot imagine how a better convention could have been organized.

To me, the convention is about values and who you want to be and, of course, who you do not want to be. It is about what purpose you see for yourself in life and what role you want to play in the ecosystem we all live in.

The convention stresses humanity in all its forms: having good emotions or having bad emotions, being a mother or not being a mother, being a Jew or being a Christian, etc. As (V) & (Z) noted quite often, it's about diversity and a humanity we all share.

I was really surprised by this convention. I expected it to be a collection of political stump speeches or longer versions of pep talks. Instead, the DNC is a collection of different life stories. These stories force the audience to ask oneself: "Who do you want to be?" And "Are you willing to fight for it?"

The convention distills what I read in so many books: To be human is to be compassionate. We must not lose our humanity! This convention fills me with joy of being human.

---

J.E. in San Jose, CA, writes: As a white-presenting male (I am hapa, but most cannot tell) raised in a culturally suburban hellhole, I can understand the appeal of the RNC speeches in aggregate. They tell viewers it's someone else's fault. It's someone else's fault they can't make more money. It's someone else's fault they are divorced. It's someone else's fault that they're hooked on opioids.

They tell me that the GOP will make me feel better. That's right: The GOP is telling me that their party is a safe space for me. The very thing the party rails against (safe spaces) is, of course, a projection. Shocker.

You mentioned yin and yang between the two parties' conventions, and I agree. And after the RNC tells me it's someone else's fault, it also means the remaining oxygen for the DNC, from a conservative perspective, must be this: Regardless of what the Democrats say, it will be implied that it's my fault. I don't want something to be my fault. It makes me feel bad. So why would I listen to a party that I think is making me feel bad?

I realize this response has a bit of hyperbole, but I think it explains the subject matter of both DNC and RNC speeches as well as the mindset of why many people vote a straight red ticket no matter who is at the top.

---

P.D.N. in La Mesa, CA, writes: I'm going to say something from my education in American history: This is looking like the most consequential political convention since the Republican convention of 1860.

---

J.H. in Seattle, WA , writes: At 31 years old, I'm considerably younger than (V) & (Z), and your average reader. I've followed your website for the past 4 years and every morning I enjoy reading your analysis from a more moderate perspective.

The reactions I'm seeing among people my age and younger were largely missing from your coverage of the DNC (aside from a very brief aside in the sub-section "The Missing Link" on Friday). This isn't meant to be criticism, but I'd appreciate the chance to provide some insight into what my cohort is thinking.

The first three days of the DNC were well-received—many heavy hitter speakers, some with more substance than others, but positive. A standout moment was when Tim Walz declared that "healthcare and housing are human rights"—certainly something I never expected to hear in the US of A!

However, when it came to the vibes, Day 4 was a gut-wrenching turn for the worse.

The DNC rolled out the red carpet for a cop (is anti-Black police brutality no longer an issue?), a former Secretary of Defense, and even some Republicans, who for decades have led us into one disastrous presidency after another (Adam Kinzinger excluded, perhaps). Yet the DNC could not spare 2 minutes for a pre-vetted speech by Georgia House member and Palestinian-American, Ruwa Romman, that would have endorsed Harris and given Romman a chance to express her pain just like the Israeli-Americans had the previous day. It would have been a simple, fair, and ceremonial gesture, but the DNC did not allow it. It seems there is room in the tent for the people above, but not Palestinians.

Then, Harris gave a speech that was warmly received by pundits but panned by my cohort. After well-delivered anecdotes of her life and promising domestic policies, Harris continued to co-opt the deplorable Republican immigration policy of yesteryear, weirdly emphasized that we have the "most lethal" military force in the world, and repeated the stock response on Israel/Palestine that precluded an arms embargo or any substantive steps to rein in Benjamin Netanyahu. People my age love nothing more than to hear how good we are detaining and killing people.

Cynically, I understand that Day Four was clearly geared toward swing state voters and disaffected Republicans. It may have been strategically correct, but it risks weakening her left flank at a time when Netanyahu continues to murder innocents and when college campuses will soon be in session.

I sincerely hope that what we saw was posturing for votes and doesn't reflect her actual plans on those topics. She is championing abortion, unions, housing, and voting rights—all laudable. You can't get everything you want in politics, but the signals from Day Four left a very, very bad taste in the mouths of my peers. The honeymoon is over for us.

---

R.H.D. in Webster, NY, writes: I know the Democrats are on Cloud Nine after a very successful convention. But I want to offer two quick thoughts they need to consider.

First, the only reason for the blue team being in this current position is due to a very early debate, by most standards, between Joe Biden and Donald Trump. Biden's stumbles gave the Democrats enough time to cajole him to step aside and to coalesce around VP Kamala Harris. Simply put, had the first debate taken place in the more traditional spot after Labor Day, the blue team would have been stuck with Biden to the end and likely would have resulted in a Trump victory and a red trifecta.

Second, there is still lots of time between now and Election Day. There are plenty of "knowns" and "unknowns" to navigate. I still think this will be a close election and it's all hands on deck. The next big date to circle is when Harris and Trump debate on Sept. 10. Let's see what happens after that encounter. If Harris crushes the debate against Trump, then it's likely over and the only question remaining is how big the margin her victory will be.

Politics: The DNC, Speakers

D.E. in Lancaster, PA, writes: First, a little bit of behind the scenes stagecraft: I was watching a Bulwark YouTube video that had an interview with Jon Favreau—the Obama speechwriter, of course, and not the Hollywood director. Favreau wrote, along with President Obama, the speech the former president gave on Night Two. In the video, Favreau revealed that the crowd size joke was in the speech early on but, as these things go, was cut rather quickly due to time constraints. During their last pass on the speech, out of the blue, President Obama told Favreau to reinsert the "crowd size" joke with no explanation. What completely surprised Favreau as he watched Obama deliver the speech was that, for the first time, despite many practices, Obama included the hand motion measuring the size of Trump's... crowds. Favreau said it was so unexpected and it caused him to laugh, even though he was very familiar with the written part of the joke. I found that interesting, in that it highlights that we often forget that President Obama had a surgical-strike sense of humor and an astute comedic timing, made all the more devastating by his calm, "Straight Man" demeanor. As most comedians will tell you, it is harder to get a laugh as a "Straight Man" than it is as the zany Foil.

Which is great seque into why the RNC speeches were so bad, especially in comparison with the DNC. Most effective speeches include a variety of tones and almost demand a bit of humor to highlight the more serious themes. For the Republicans their speeches are just a drumbeat of "I'm Right. I'm superior," with little to no variation. Some tried to interject a "humorous" moment but always with disastrous timing, like a train wreck running into another train wreck. Unfortunately, for Republicans, comedic timing is not something you can learn. You either have it or you don't. There's no trying to fake it—talking to you, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX)—because when you don't it sounds like a DJ trying to mix Madonna's "Like A Prayer" with Led Zeppelin's "Stairway to Heaven."

Part of the problem for Republicans is that they have few A List entertainers and even fewer comedians. Consider that Fox's Greg Gutfeld was the Right's answer to The Daily Show, except minus all the humor. Or consider right-wing political cartoonist Ben Garrison, whose jokes are seldom humorous and are often indecipherable. The Washington Post used to have Chip Bok as a political cartoonist and I would write the editors asking them to explain the joke. Which brings me to "Republican humor," which often comes across as very "you have to be in our clique to understand," as it focuses on really odd takes on political minutiae. Also, Republican humor is often infantile, crass and sometimes outright gross, relying on shock value. Yes, I know we were just talking about Obama's hand gesture that was one part parody of Trump's "Accordion Hands" and the other part insinuating a comment on Trump's penis size obsession. I might as well be speaking in Tamarian to Republicans here when I say that there is a very fine line in comedy between suggestive funny innuendo and something crass and crude, and that line is constantly dancing and moving. Here we get back to the start of the argument: It takes natural comedic timing and intuition to know which side of that shifting line your joke falls. Predictably, Republicans always go for the double-down on jokes that land on the wrong side of the line, which makes their "jokes" even more painful and, well, weird. Or maybe there is just a huge partisan divide in this country with what's considered funny.

I also wanted to add that I haven't watched a lot of either convention, isolating my viewing to "highlight" clips. Even still, a decent clip will usually show one or two shots of audience reactions. One of the things I always disliked about both parties' conventions is that the delegates, as they would wander aimlessly about the convention floor, would look and act like drunks at 1:00 a.m. at a New Year's party, what with their silly hats, outlandish costumes and glassy eyes. The bits I saw of the RNC's delegates only confirmed that stereotype, especially when the delegates bizarrely latched on to wearing huge bandages on their ears (another example of a Republican joke that landed with a thud). On the other hand, at this year's DNC, the audience shots I have seen showed the delegates dressed normally without all the silly accoutrement, looking very much like your ideal next door neighbor. The delegates seemed to know where they were supposed to be and not wandering aimlessly around like a drunk trying to score a hookup right before last call. Maybe the media was being partisan in their coverage, or maybe I haven't seen the right clips. Still, the delegates looked presentable, professional, relaxed, sober and, more importantly, like sane everyday Americans instead of some sort of outlandish cosplay participants at a CPAC convention holding J.D. Vance Sperm Deposit Cups!

---

A.G. in Scranton, PA, writes: The Vice President's speech was incredible and hit nearly every point I was hoping she'd address.

One miss, though.

I truly wish she had taken a minute to speak on the damage Donald Trump and the MAGA Republicans have done to America's families, our schools, our sense of neighborly decency and kindness, our faith-based institutions, our general sanity.

Neighbors won't speak to neighbors. Lifelong friendships have ended. School board meetings are now conspiracy-theory screaming-level rants and ridiculously out of place culture wars arguments instead of conversations about educating our young. Already anemic support for systems of good and G-dly living and the mercies and forgiveness that good religions preach has cratered. Every family get together (for many) is like walking on eggshells, waiting for the Orange elephant in the room to rear his very ugly head from the mouth of a person we love, but who we no longer know or understand. Watching the "news" is now, oftentimes, like awakening in the Twilight Zone with screaming, sweating brown shirts and bottle blondes peddling virtual insanity about the Chinese or transgender/crossdresser/LGBTQIA/DEI/woke-ism grooming.

That's one "man" who did that. Maybe he was the last few dozen nails in a coffin that started being hammered shut in 1994, but the descent into madness was rapid enough that I felt it less than a day after having come back to the world.

Anger is not an American value. Nor are meanness, lying, spreading disinformation, personality-cult-leader worship, threatening behavior in the name of crime prevention (open carry), racism, sexism, antisemitism, nor anything I see around town on crudely written, handmade signs that offend passersby just for the sake of evoking a reaction and letting people know how committed you are to the very worst parts of human nature.

The America I left for prison's many depredations and dehumanizing tortures is nothing like the one I came home to.

Our sense of being one, as Americans, was ruined, because we didn't plan for what the future would hold with enough foresight. Now that we know what our weaknesses are as Americans, the togetherness and sense of family and fellow, neighbor and passerby, best friend and stranger, community and country, that we will now hopefully have the opportunity to work to create will be something far better, if we both work hard and plan well, perhaps even a sense of common cause of the Dec. 8, 1941, America of my grandparents, perhaps the Sep. 12, 2001 America of my life, perhaps something far better still than those.

That's my hope.

That's what I'm voting for: an opportunity to work hard, plan well, and see a shining city on a hill again, rebuilt from the ashes of one man's successful quest to tarnish that city's glean, divide its people, destroy its systems, poison its kind nature.

A new and better city, one built atop the truly twisted wreckage of all he destroyed. A city even better than the one I left, in chains. A city set free of its own chains, bonds of division.

To live to see that city?

That's my hope.

---

J.C. in Washington, DC, writes: Just finished watching Kamala Harris' speech.

Put my marker down. She's winning-even with the "Known Unknowns" and the "Unknown Unknowns." Friends of all stripes around the world have shared similar sentiments.

What an amazing time to be alive. As Kamala mentioned, let's all accept the responsibility and privilege of being Americans.

We're back, baby!

---

I.K. in Portland, OR, writes: I noticed that a large number of media outlets are harping on the fact that Joe Biden's speech got pushed out of "primetime" the first night. Seriously? Does anyone actually care one iota about "primetime" any more?

Even though I live on the west coast, I didn't watch the first day of the DNC in real time. I can't imagine that more than a small number of people would ever watch the whole convention that way. I'm sure that even the people attending the convention who left early were just fine watching what they missed later.

I watched the convention the next morning (in my case, after I read Electoral-Vote.com to get an idea of what was worth watching). It was a snap to find the whole first day of the convention on YouTube, complete with a list of timestamps for each person who spoke. Just click on a timestamp, and it took you directly to the speech. Easy Peasy!

Biden's speech was fantastic, and the late hour certainly didn't seem to slow him down one bit.

Frankly, I don't care how long the convention goes.

---

C.R. in St Louis, MO, writes: I'm a fan of Joe Biden but I disagree with your grade of his speech. I may be traumatized a bit from his later, fumbling appearances, but I saw an elderly man up there slurring words and pulling out all the fire he could muster to cover up his infirmity. For a contrast to Biden's style, I submit Bill Clinton's speech in 2012, where he managed to make his points against Republican economic policy with wit, charisma, and facts. Biden relied too much on pounding the lectern. That gets tiresome even if you agree with the content. I give it a "B," which is far below Hillary and AOC, but above Steve Kerr.

In the weird department was the MSNBC panel discussion afterward about the size of Biden's ego and how hard it was to let go. One panelist's reference to Lyndon B. Johnson undermining Humphrey's campaign was interesting, as we wouldn't expect Biden to do such a thing. Then again, Harris isn't openly campaigning against Biden's toughest political issue as Humphrey did when he called for LBJ to pause bombings in Vietnam.

---

R.G.N. in Seattle, WA, writes: The closing speech of the convention's first day featured a President who looked ten years older than he did at the debate. I am comforted that a rested Joe Biden effectively made the point that he still has what it takes, but for the good of our country, he recognizes the importance of graciously passing the torch on to the next generation.

---

W.F. in Orlando, FL, writes: Thank you for sharing the speech of Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-TX) at the DNC. It's been a bit sad to see the same faces over and over, especially at the RNC, but also in the Democratic congressional leadership. Crockett's speech was funny, inspiring, and moving. It was an amazing performance for a relative newcomer. I'll be hoping to see more of her in the coming years.

Politics: The DNC, Details

S.K. in Sunnyvale, CA, writes: Have we all so quickly forgotten the way that the "pussy bow" blouse entered the popular vernacular: the time Melania Trump wore one to the second presidential debate during the 2016 campaign, mere days after the infamous Access Hollywood video surfaced? I'm not sure it was flattering comparison for Kamala Harris to invoke.

---

J.B.S. in Chapel Hill, NC, writes: My wife tells me that Kamala Harris wore navy, not black, for her speech. Navy is, I'm told, the color of the commander-in-chief. Also, the bow thing is also part of Navy dress blue uniform.

---

P.L. in Denver, CO, writes: I believe there is another aspect to the suit that Kamala Harris wore of the first night of the DNC. The color was "Coconut Brown"!

---

G.B. in Collin County, TX, writes: In your recap of Day Three of the DNC, your crack about the Flying Spaghetti Monster after discussing the day's invocations and benedictions got me thinking. It got me thinking about the paradox around non-religious Americans, whom I count myself among. We are simultaneously one of the fastest growing parts of the electorate but also one of the least visible. Using a broad definition of non-religion (including those not committed to a specific faith, alongside explicit atheists/agnostics) we are about 20% of the population. This is larger than all minority faiths put together, and the second-largest religious grouping in the country behind Christians. Yet discussions of religious diversity in the country almost never mention the non-religious explicitly. When we do come up, it's either as a boogeyman on the right, or as a punchline about our own irrelevance like the Flying Spaghetti Monster; a joke that only exists to point out the absurdities of the established religions.

Despite non-religious Americans consistently voting for Democrats by about the same margins that Jewish Americans do, there aren't very many visible non-religious Democrats that could be brought out onstage. The highest profile name I can think of is Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (I-AZ); someone that was persona non grata in much of the party even before she left it, and has actively rejected the term "atheist." When Madalyn Murray O'Hair did embrace the label in the 60s, as part of a lawsuit that got the Supreme Court to forbid mandatory prayer and Bible reading in public schools, she became "the most hated woman in America" to show for it. Non-belief is stigmatized as incompatible with American identity, therefore non-believers stay quiet about it even within the party that commits itself to religious pluralism and secular government.

We have as much stake in the game as Jews or Muslims or Hindus or any other spiritual minority. Especially as the GOP keeps moving towards a Christian theocracy, it would be nice to see some acknowledgment from the blue team that we too are a part of the American quilt. We are among those most committed to a free society and a pluralistic democracy in this country. It is ripe ground for Democratic outreach, but only if the party makes the attempt.

---

L.S. in Queens, NY, writes: In the sub-section "Diversity v3.0," you wrote "We would also accept a Jedi knight."

C.L. in Boulder reported that on Day 0, "At the welcome event we heard Jaime Harrison, head of the Democratic National Committee. Harrison introduced Luke Skywalker (Mark Hamill) who talked about turning his father away from the Dark Side and made a comment about wanting to turn Americans away from the Orange Side."

Personally, I feel that you should appreciate that a Jedi Knight even showed up from... a galaxy far, far away.

Did you expect an educational trip to Dagobah?

P.S. Remember that when you look at Donald Trump and J.D. Vance: "These are not the candidates you are looking for."

(V) & (Z) respond: (Z) has already been to Endor, Bespin, and Alderaan, and thinks that Dagobah is not too much to ask.

Politics: The DNC, The Roll Call

P.K. in Marshalltown, IA, writes: The roll call at the party conventions has always been one of my favorite things—it's Americana at its finest ("Idaho, producer of the best potatoes in all 50 states, casts all its votes...") and it proudly announces to the world how a democratic republic renews itself by nominating folks to serve its citizens.

I will admit to not watching the GOP for a number of years (for a reason, natch) but feel the need to tune in for the Dimmycrats. I loved the pandemic approach in 2020 and I loved the stagecraft for this year, even if I cannot recognize half the music that was used. I joined the broadcast just after Florida voted, as I had turned on PBS after arriving home from work and could see that the roll call was underway (while they had their noodleheaded commentariat, including the "Nade David Brooks, chatting away). I quickly turned to C-SPAN, which is the best way to watch the proceedings because they don't employ talking heads. I have only one suggestion: John Mellencamp's "Pink Houses" would have served Indiana better.

---

P.V. in Kailua, HI, writes: The DNC roll call/dance party was super fun and appealed strongly to my former-record-store-clerk sensibilities. In an interview, DJ Cassidy said that he collaborated on song selection with the DNC and the delegations though he doesn't give many details about the process. Overall, I thought the playlist was pretty great but some states clearly did not understand the assignment. I mean, if Utah can come up with Neon Trees, some of these other states should have been able to do better than "thematically appropriate to the task at hand... we guess?", to quote (Z). No doubt there were time constraints, especially given the recent change in candidates. Nevertheless, the songs that were meaningful to a state were more fun than the seemingly random chart toppers ("Shut Up and Dance"? Seriously, Maine?) even in the cases where I had to google to find out what that meaning was.

The Pacific island territories are unlikely to ever be associated with mainstream songs. However, the indigenous people have an amazing musical heritage. Earlier this summer, Hawai'i hosted the Festival of Pacific Arts and Culture. And let me tell you: Guam. Kicked. Ass. While I don't know a lot about the regional culture in Western states like Montana, Wyoming, and the Dakotas, I would be very surprised if they didn't also have music influenced by their indigenous people. Though I suspect it would require more time and effort, a DJ worth their turntables should be able to mix any genre of music in a manner that would keep the party vibes going. My hope is that future conventions with a longer lead time will take the opportunity to showcase even more musical diversity.

A few other notes:

1. If Rhode Island is going to claim Taylor Swift because she bought a mansion there, they should at least use the song she wrote about the Rhode Island mansion she bought. "The Last Great American Dynasty" is both a banger and is "thematically appropriate" as it tells the story a woman who defied the social norms of her day.
   
   
2. What does California's use of the Kendrick Lamar Drake-diss track "Not Like Us" say about Harris' foreign policy? Is this a warning shot at Canada? You guys probably approve.
   
   
3. The Dropkick Murphys were a fine choice, but having lived in Massachusetts for many years, I can tell you, all the cool kids know the quintessential Hub song is "Roadrunner" by The Modern Lovers. Whenever I hear it, I am transported back, driving past the Stop and Shop with the radio on.

And lastly, my favorite musical reference of the convention was not the roll call or any of the performances but the blink-and-you'll-miss-it shot from the Second Gentleman's introduction video. Young Doug Emhoff looks really happy to have The Clash's "Give 'Em Enough Rope." I can relate. I wore out the grooves on my copy.

---

B.Q. in Gig Harbor, WA, writes: Thanks for the listing of songs used for that amazing roll call. Just wanted to comment about Guam's song pairing. Although there is some coffee produced on the island, I never saw it despite being born and raised there. Sure, coffee is popular there, but almost all of it comes from off island. Thus the only reason I think this pairing came about is rooted in Guam's motto "Where America's Day Begins," being that it is the part of America closest to the international date line. And what better way to start your day than a nice cup of espresso?

---

D.M. in La Habra, CA, writes: Noticed you chalked up "Ain't No Mountain High Enough" as being merely "Thematically appropriate to the task at hand" for the Northen Mariana Islands during the delegate roll call. However, Mariana is home to the deepest trench in the ocean (from sea level it's deeper than the highest mountain: Everest), which works with the theme of the song and kinda marries the "river wide enough" and "valley low enough" lyrics together. Probably no better song for that particular set of delegates.

---

J.F. in San Francisco, CA, writes: How could California not use The Grateful Dead when reporting their delegate vote? Could have Phil Lesh singing "Box of Rain." I guess this just shows how old I've gotten...

(V) & (Z) respond: Mmmmmaaaaaaaybe.

---

T.K. in Salem, MA, writes: Explaining the use of a "thematically appropriate" song for Montana's place in Tuesday's Roll Call, you wrote, "the most famous musician from Montana, Hoyt Axton, is probably a bit too old."

Too old? (I mean, true, he's been dead for 25 years.) But this is Hoyt Axton. All he did was write (among many others) a song that would have been the most "thematically appropriate" to this year's convention of all: "Joy to the World."

I'm referring, of course, to the song whose cover by Three Dog Night was the number one hit of the year 1971—the one that begins "Jeremiah was a Bullfrog," not the Christmas hymn.

Sounds like this music committee needed more input from aging Baby Boomers!

---

W.W. in Aspen, CO, writes: As a native Montanan, I would say that the choice of song for Montana, Lenny Kravitz' cover of The Guess Who's "American Woman," almost certainly referred back to Jeannette Rankin, the first woman to hold federal office in America.

---

S.M. in Austin, TX, writes: Thanks again, gentlemen, for helping us to take a break from the end-of-the-world-as-we-know it focus on the presidential campaign. Normally I skip over the more playful sections you write, but after watching the DNC roll call, I could not resist reviewing the list of songs.

That is when it hit me that a song that was missing and should be added to Kamala's playlist is... "Year of the Cat," by Al Stewart.

I did not realize that this was produced by Alan Parsons, whose Pyramid album got me through late nights in grad school.

As a childless cat lady (3 and counting), I still enjoy this haunting melody as much as I did when it first came out.

---

J.L. in Albany, NY, writes: I was excited to see the DNC Roll Call Spotify playlist. Unfortunately, when I tried to play it on my phone, Spotify told me that I needed the app for the full versions of the show. My first thought was that someone could find all the songs on YouTube and make a playlist. My second thought was that I could make this playlist.

So while I watched the final day of the DNC, I put together the playlist. I tried to use official YouTube videos whenever possible. In case anyone wants to listen to it, it's here.

Politics: The DNC, Pete Buttigieg

M.F. in Burbank, CA, writes: Some additional information for S.G. in Durham, who asked why DNC speakers from the current administration were introduced in the role that preceded their current job. Pete Buttigieg effectively answered this question in an interview with Steven Colbert. He was attending the convention as a member of the Democratic Party, and not in any official capacity as Secretary of Transportation. Because he was not speaking on behalf of the administration, he (and I assume others) chose not to use his official title during the convention or when giving interviews in Chicago.

(V) & (Z) respond: This is what happens when you ask a historian. Finding excuses to say the states' names was a Franklin D. Roosevelt trick, and so predates the Hatch Act. However, Hatch Act considerations are now clearly a big part of the calculus.

---

R.E. in Detroit, MI, writes: You wrote: "[U]nless Harris dislikes Buttigieg for some reason (something that, if true, is not publicly known), she will surely find a way to make use of him."

I am surprised that you are unaware that the Harrises and Buttigiegs are close personal friends. I was on a 2020 fundraising Zoom with Doug Emhoff and Chasten Buttigieg, where they talked about how they bonded over their shared experiences with the relatively uncharted role of "candidate's husband." Kamala and Pete both butted in to share jokes, and it was the kind of mutual warmth that even good politicians can't fake. On the Sunday that Joe Biden dropped out and endorsed Harris, the next thing Kamala did was to go to dinner with Doug, Pete, and Chasten. This was not something that was set up in reaction to the day's events, but because the couples have frequent dinner dates and Pete was back in D.C. that day after one of his "Santa Claus" tours (going around the country announcing a million bucks for a bridge replacement or new buses, whatever, and getting interviews on local news).

I have no inside info, but the scuttlebutt among Pete-niks is that he would be tapped for UN Ambassador, to give him international experience in preparation for when Antony Blinken gets tired of the Secretary of State job. Blinken, it is believed, wants to stay on until he gets the Israel/Palestine combat into a calmer situation, something that his personal pride is wrapped up in now, and Harris would be inclined to let him stay on as long as he wishes, since he has shown competence in the face of difficult situations (also including negotiations over Ukraine support and Russian sanctions).

---

D.S. in Winnetka, CA, writes: The problem with Pete Buttigieg serving as Secretary of Education is that it would seriously inflame the religious right, who already believe that the DoE is a left-wing tool for indoctrinating children. That might create issues for 2026 House and Senate races. Transportation is still the best fit for him.

Politics: The DNC, Gender Roles

R.L. in Alameda, CA, writes: I've been mulling over what type of take I'd like to share with the Electoral-Vote.com community about the DNC. There is so much! A couple of things jump out at me, both related to the men who are either on, or adjacent to, the ticket.

Doug Emhoff and Tim Walz both (and in their own way) model a very different type of masculinity than what we have seen from the Trumpublicans over the past 9 years. It's a masculinity of being strong and supportive of their female partners, but not needing to be the one in the spotlight. Both men are capable of expressing their emotions. The Vances and Hawleys of the world seem to think that masculine strength is manifested by never expressing emotion. Yet they worship the orange man, who regularly gets "emotional" every time he goes off on a rant or TruthStorm.

I resonate so much with Doug because, in my relationship, my wife is definitely the primary. She is our public face. She earns more than I do. I handle family logistics behind the scenes and support her. If we were a political couple, she would be the candidate and I would be her manager. I don't feel threatened by this as a man. I don't feel less masculine (and she doesn't let me forget that I'm the man in the relationship). We are a real partnership. Doug models this in his speech and actions. To live in a world where so many men believe that masculinity means being tough, macho, in charge and never, ever standing behind our women, it takes true strength to be the "plus one."

Tim models, with his very presence, a masculinity that is caring, compassionate and in touch with emotion. Putting his hand on his heart when he is praised or putting his hands together as a show of gratitude is so authentic and such a beautiful expression of masculine emotionality. Frankly, I believe that this world needs this. How many wars are started and fought by men who won't acknowledge how they feel? Because guess what? The emotions are going to come out eventually. And when they aren't acknowledged, they come out "sideways" and we end up with Trumpian rants or, worse, actual armed conflict.

Finally, witnessing Gus Walz's show of emotion says a lot about how his father has modeled this for him. When I saw him stand up, in tears, and shouting either "that's my Dad!" or "love you, Dad!", my first thought was how touching it was. My second thought was that the GOP is going to skewer this kid for the infraction of expressing love for his father (never mind that, as a 17-year-old, he should be off limits). It's time to put to bed the notion that men don't cry. (I'm the one who cries in movies, not my wife). To cry in public, in a world where this is verboten, takes true strength. You go Gus!

I am thrilled at seeing so many strong women taking charge. I am "all-in" and ready for Madame President. Us men will be fine. We've been at the top of the food chain since forever (especially white men). We'll be OK stepping back for a bit.

After several false starts, is 2024 finally going to be the true "year of the woman"? It would be about damn time!

---

D.B. in Franklin, TN, writes: In regard to your musings about Republican attacks on Tim Walz' conflating IUI with IVF, Ella Emhoff's appearance at the DNC, and Gus Walz' emotional reaction to his father's speech, I think the answer is clear.

The only tool in their arsenal is to throw sh** at the wall and see what sticks.

The problem is, they're constipated.

---

D.C. in Portland, OR, writes: I'm in tears!

Tim Walz' son's reaction to his dad expressing his love for his family was the most authentically beautiful moment I ever remember seeing on TV. I'm in tears just thinking about it. Wow. What a beautiful family and another incredible night.

OK, back to tears...

Politics: The Harris Campaign

D.D. in Portland, OR, writes: Thank you for your thoughtful answer to S.G. in Fairmont about the Democrats suddenly coalescing around Kamala Harris. I've wondered the same and I imagine many others do as well. I appreciate she's the beneficiary of diminished expectations, but I challenge you to find a better answer. For example, how did Gov. Gavin Newsom (D-CA) suddenly have no desire for the top job? I imagine he's aware that with Kamala's nomination, the likelihood of him ever becoming president dropped significantly. Last I checked, successful politicians tend to envision their color portrait in post offices on a wall (opposite of a smaller, black and white one of Trump, God willing).

I mean this with zero cynicism when I say I don't understand how so many intelligent, capable, and ambitious people apparently "took one for the team" and supported Kamala Harris almost immediately. Since when do Democrats act as one?

In the words of a recent First Lady, "Be Best."

---

D.F. in Ann Arbor, MI, writes: S.G. in Fairmont asks why have so many Democrats rallied around Kamala Harris when her previous campaign was such a "disaster." For the last 2 years, whenever my lefty friends would bemoan the idea of Joe Biden running again in 2024, I would say, "Well, who else can it be? I mean, OBVIOUSLY not Kamala..." I had been a little excited about her in late 2019, but she definitely seemed like a fatally flawed candidate.

But in early June, weeks before Biden's terrible debate performance, I attended a small fundraiser where the Vice President gave an exceptionally inspirational speech about the challenges the country faces today but also the opportunities for the nation that could lie ahead. It was a short, 20-minute oration, with no notes or teleprompter, given to a intimate crowd of about 50 people. I left both fired up but also depressed because I knew Joe Biden couldn't give a performance like that anymore. "Why can't she run for president," I wondered? It's amazing how history works sometimes.

I think her amazing success to this point is in part because she actually got better, after 4 years of speaking to so many groups, working personally with world leaders, and developing her own sense of self. But I also think she has risen to the moment. Just as no one would have ever expected Volodymyr Zelenskyy could become such an outstanding leader for Ukraine until his country's challenges required it, I think Kamala Harris will prove herself equal to the task in front of her simply because she must. And I'm thrilled to see it!

---

F.C. in DeLand, FL, writes: Assuming that Kamala Harris wins in November, I hope she realizes that much of her support came from a rejection of MAGA rather than an embrace of her policies. Otherwise, there may be a huge backlash in 2028, and who knows who'll ride that into power? Might be someone worse than Trump (this is predicated on Trump not being able to run again in 2028, either for legal or health reasons).

All this country needs is an increasing back and forth swing between extremes that get further and further apart. Centrifugal force can be a bit**.

---

M.F. in Burlington, ON, Canada, writes: I'm not sure if I've shared Paul Wells's Rules of (Canadian) Politics before, but it strikes me that Rule #3 applies to your current presidential election: The candidate in the best mood wins.

---

S.J.Z. in Darien, IL, writes: There is a book to be written, or at least a long article, about how Cornel West went from being the protégé of Richard Rorty and potentially a philosopher of lasting importance to running a pathetic attempt at a spoiler campaign against what could potentially be America's first Black woman President. What's more, that Black woman happens to be America's bulwark against a traitorous, race-baiting fascist! I mean, Donald Trump has always been a scumbag. West had real promise.

---

C.Z. in Sacramento, CA, writes: New Randy Rainbow video!

Politics: The Trump Campaign

T.N. in Santa Cruz, CA, writes: My wife is a fluent Irish speaker and has noted that since long before the rise of Trump, the Irish word for a loud brash person is trumpadóir.

Note: The Irish language in English is called "Irish." If you find a book on Gaelic, it is the Scottish language.

---

B.R. in Eatontown, NJ , writes: As I read Wednesday's report on the DNC, specifically the sub-section "Stirring the Pot," you forced me to do something I almost never do with you guys—go to the source and double check that you weren't overstating what somebody said. Specifically, it was your statement "The claim that Vance is making is that Beshear called for him (Vance) to be raped." But sure enough, it's in the Trump campaign statement, in black and white. I never would have believed anyone could have thought that. Because what it does is show that, yes, Vance is completely and utterly lacking in empathy, and really doesn't even have the first notion about what empathy is.

I'm all too aware that empathy is one of those qualities that is hit-and-miss in terms of whether humans have it. Most (at least that's my perception) only have it in limited degrees. Some have it so much that it becomes overwhelming. And then there are a lot who have it in a healthy amount. But to be totally devoid of empathy—that's not something I can say I've encountered before in my life.

And yet that's just what Vance told us—that he is so totally lacking in empathy that he doesn't even have the slightest idea what it involves. And that makes him scary—maybe just as scary as his psychopathic boss.

---

E.B. in Seattle, WA, writes: There are two correct ways to order a dozen donuts. The first is a detailed list (two maple bars, an apple fritter, a bismarck...). The second is to ask for an assortment and let the staff pick them out. Not knowing anything beyond glazed and sprinkles shows that J.D. Vance has never ordered donuts in his life. Which is a damning indictment.

A more important question is: Where was Vance's advance team? A staffer should have gone in ahead of the cameras, checked to make sure that everyone inside was OK with being on camera, checked the vibe in the room, and maybe even dropped a couple of $20 bills in the tip jar. Doing that might have meant going to another donut shop, but it would have saved a painfully awkward situation.

---

R.L. in Alameda, CA, writes: All I can say about the cringe-worthy video of Vance in the donut shop is that, if his face had been fuzzed out, I would have thought he was Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-FL). What's up with Trumpblican men who don't know how to order a freaking donut or make small talk while doing so?

---

W.S. in Greenville, NC, writes: I have to point out a glaring error in your article "This Week in Schadenfreude: Vance Just Can't Fudge It." BBQ is only available in North Carolina (and only east of Raleigh). It's a common mistake because Texans, for many years, have been putting ketchup on grilled beef and calling it BBQ.

Politics: Signs of the Times

J.A. in Austin, TX, writes: My wife and I went on a walk tonight in a neighborhood just down the road (for a change of pace) and we saw our first campaign yard signs of the season.

Most of the walk, there were none to be seen, then we hit one street where there were seven Harris-Walz yard signs, and one yard with homemade Trump signs (which I didn't see, but my wife did—they were taped to a tree trunk).

Granted, Austin is pretty blue, so the relative count probably isn't indicative of much. But what may be of more interest is the owner of the Trump paraphernalia, who was out watering his lawn. I was wearing a "Save Ferris" t-shirt (referring to the movie, Ferris Bueller's Day Off), and upon seeing it, he smiled and said "I love it! Save Ferris!" and then he yelled "Save Trump!" He revealed (unintentionally, I believe) that, at some level, his supporters are aware that he's in pretty dire straits, even though they likely wouldn't otherwise have admitted it.

---

M.S. in Philadelphia, PA, writes: For what it's worth, I did a 51.5 mile bike ride to the northwest of Philly and didn't see a single Trump sign.

Interestingly, the farther into the suburban/rural areas, the fewer signs present.

---

C.C. in Saint Paul, MN, writes: It's hard for me to describe to others just how big of a deal the State Fair is to Minnesotans. I thought your readers might be interested to see an example of the crop art from the Minnesota State Fair:

There's usually a couple of political ones, but this year there were a ton, including many with explicit references to Harris and Walz. I stopped by the DFL's booth, but ended up just moving on because the line was so long. I have never seen that happen before.

---

A.H. in Newberg, OR, writes: Picked my sign up today about 3:15 this afternoon:

3:45, installed in the front yard!

Politics: Single-Issue Voting

J.A. in Hell's Kitchen, NY, writes: I live in New York, pretty well known for being a liberal stronghold. Having said that, it also has a very large Jewish population, and understandably that makes the issue and the reaction to the issue of the Palestine/Israel conflict complex. Some of the most liberal people I know become very hawkish in their defense of Israel. On the other hand, I also work with many people that are stridently pro-Palestinian in their positions. I am no Israel apologist. My position on the State of Israel is probably far to the left of many people in the Democratic Party, but I have heard from at least two co-workers/friends that they don't want to vote for Kamala Harris, because she's "just as bad" as Donald Trump, or "there's no difference between the parties."

This is an attitude that I really cannot abide. What I wish these people would say is "there's no difference between the parties for ME" or "she's just as bad to ME." After all, that's what they really mean. Because the two parties definitely won't feel the same when a woman needs an abortion and can't because they've been outlawed by the Republicans. The two parties won't feel the same when they try to get rid of legal same-sex marriage as law of the land. The parties definitely don't feel the same to the Americans who have to hear the inciting and hateful rhetoric about their particular racial group, or people from their ethnic background being disparaged publicly by the man who would be president. And regardless of how many people say the opposite, words do matter.

My main problem is that this small subset of ostensibly liberal voters is going to withhold their support for Harris because she is not giving them what they want. She refuses to endorse an embargo of arms to Israel. Disregarding the geopolitical consequences of doing so, this type of ultimatum-ism (word?) is not something that lends itself to gaining support in the party that you need to gain that support in, because the Republicans certainly don't give a rat's a** about your cause. You want us to support your cause, but you refuse to support us in ours? You would abandon the rest of us because you aren't getting what you wanted from the candidate that is going to push the hardest to resolve the situation peacefully? That is your right, to vote as you wish, but telling us that you are willing to throw us to the wolves if we don't support you certainly will not engender any support for your cause. To be clear, I do support an arms embargo of Israel, and I do support ending aid to Israel permanently. But do not claim to be the arbiters of what is good and what is right, while simultaneously telling the rest of the people who agree with you to fu** off.

---

L.S.-H. in Naarden, The Netherlands, writes: While I'm certainly not a Middle East expert, it seems to me that "single-issue" voters fail to realize that the war/events/atrocities going on in Israel and Gaza are not just about Israel vs. Palestinians. It's more like 4-D chess of Israel vs. Palestinians vs. Hamas vs. Hezbollah. Or, if you prefer, 3-D chess: Israel vs. Palestinians/Hamas vs. Hezbollah—because Hamas has embedded themselves among Palestinians and Palestinians have voted for Hamas leadership.

In any case, framing the conflict in a bilateral manner of Israel vs. Palestinians strikes me as simplistic. The same goes for withholding votes for the only political party that wants to try to solve this situation. Of course, if the "single-issue" voters are sure that their withheld votes won't elect Trump, I can understand their wanting to register their protest votes to gain leverage in policy decisions. But the challenges that creates for the Harris-Walz ticket can have unintended consequences for all: When can we really be sure that protest votes won't result in an even worse choice?

Politics: Lies

J.N. in Columbus, OH, writes: T.P. in Fort Collins wrote: "The lie I am referring to was Harris's assertion in her acceptance speech, 'We are not going back to when Donald Trump tried to cut Social Security and Medicare.'"

It's not a lie. I don't care about The Washington Post, which equated what she said to Donald Trump's budget, which is not the same thing at all.

On August 8, 2020, Trump signed an Executive Order, Deferring Payroll Tax Obligations in Light of the Ongoing COVID-19 Disaster, which deferred the employee portion of Social Security payroll taxes for certain individuals. Now, of course they claimed it wouldn't hurt Social Security, but given the pending insolvency issue, any cut or deferment hurts that program.

Next was Trump's 2020 promise to cut the payroll tax, brought to us, incidentally, by the very same WaPo that is now sucking up to Trump: "If I'm victorious on November 3rd, I plan to forgive these taxes and make permanent cuts to the payroll tax," Trump said at a news conference in Bedminster, N.J. "I'm going to make them all permanent." "In other words, I'll extend beyond the end of the year and terminate the tax," Trump later added. "And so we'll see what happens."

But if you want to hear it right from the horses mouth, here you go. Oh, he insists the whole time that he'll protect Social Security, but anyone who knows even a little bit about the subject is aware that his plan is unsustainable, and will end with cuts to Social Security.

---

S.S.-L. in Battle Creek, MI, writes: Kamala Harris didn't lie at all when she said the Trump administration tried to dismantle Social Security and Medicare. On the contrary, tens of thousands of disabled people were forced to undergo a rigorous and unclear review process, even while SSA field offices remained closed and medical clinics were only taking emergency cases, and/or were reopening, but backlogged by months to years. While that was happening, field and hearing offices were instructed to reject digital signatures in favor of hardcopy, and both administrative law and federal civil judges were being appointed who clearly believed disabled people were lazy, dishonest, etc. You can draw a similar parallel for the Medicare and Medicaid programs. We'll never know how many people starved, lost their homes, or died due to Trump-era benefits policies.

Politics: IUI vs. IVF

C.S. in Philadelphia, PA, writes: I feel compelled to respond your comments on IUI vs. IVF, as my wife and I went through IVF and were blessed to have our son. This is not to take away from Governor Walz and his wife's struggles, along with the other one in seven couples who struggle with infertility. Nor is this to take away from their willingness to speak openly about it. I am also writing (with my wife's approval) as a man who did not have these procedures done to him or have to carry our son for nine months.

There are significant differences between IUI and IVF. For us, IUI was covered by insurance; IVF was certainly not and even with grants, it still cost out of pocket around $25,000. As you noted, IUI is less invasive. One round of IUI involves one procedure on the woman, a doctor taking sperm and directly inserting it into her vagina (still not pleasant). IVF involved injecting my wife with drugs in the buttocks daily for a month (which messed with her mental health... already a difficulty when you struggle with infertility), surgery to remove the eggs, hoping they can be fertilized, and then implanting the embryo (more surgery). That is still hoping there is no miscarriage and having to try again. My wife had 14 eggs removed, five were successfully fertilized, three continued to develop, and one... one... made it through genetic testing. And genetic testing costs extra, too. That one is our son. Other couples are less fortunate than us.

At best, this is an unforced error on Walz's part and at worst grossly insensitive. I'll leave the sincerity of J.D. Vance for others to determine, but fortunately or unfortunately, he is correct in noting the distinction.

---

K.D. in Chicago, IL, writes: As someone who went through more than five years of infertility, including three rounds of failed IVF, before ultimately becoming a parent, I can tell you that the specifics of the Walz family's infertility journey are irrelevant to me. What touched me deeply is the immense pain that is palpable when he talks about his struggle. I don't care what treatment ultimately ended up working—it's getting there that's the hard part. The irony is that most of the people I know shouting from the rooftops about this falsehood barely know the differences in the treatments themselves and have never had to experience the great impact failed fertility treatments have on your body, your marriage and your mental health. Shame on them.

---

M.A.A. in New York City, NY, writes: First off, my two kids were born via IVF. However, for our first one, we tried IUI a number of times, with no success, thus leading us to the somewhat more invasive/involved and significantly more expensive IVF. That's the natural progression one follows.

Had we succeeded with IUI, we'd probably generally tell people we used IUI. However, we're also not in politics, nor in need of simple sound bites. So it's pretty reasonable for the Walzes to simplify things to IVF.

---

J.F. in Fort Worth, TX, writes: The ginned-up "scandal" of the difference between IVF and IUI reminds me of the equally ginned-up "controversy" that Barack Obama's "certificate of live birth" was somehow not the same as a "birth certificate."

---

A.R. in Raleigh, NC, writes: I wanted to write in as an OB/GYN to briefly describe the differences between IUI (intrauterine insemination) and IVF (in vitro fertilization) since it appears to have become a tiny mini-controversy on the campaign trail.

I do some informal "advising" for local candidates and officials if there are women's reproductive health issues that they want some clarification or insight into. Usually it is because the anti-abortion right makes up phrases with no medical meaning (like late-term abortion or after-birth abortion) and I have to explain to the campaigns that these are things that—because they are made up—allow the speaker to say the obviously extreme-sounding phrase while also allowing the listener to believe it to mean whatever they want it to mean. But the words are intentionally selected to be extreme, while prohibiting an actual fact-check of the phrases because the phrases have no meaning.

IUI and IVF are different, though, because they are actual medical terms that have an accepted definition, and thus a fact-check is possible. IUI is where sperm are directly inserted into the uterus during ovulation—and is helpful if there are issues with sperm quality/quantity, if donor sperm is being used, or in cases of unexplained fertility. IVF is where eggs are collected (from the woman by stimulating egg maturation, or from a donor), fertilized with sperm "in vitro" (which means it is done outside of the body), and then it is re-implanted back into the uterus. It can be done for many of the same reasons IUI is done (usually if IUI is unsuccessful), but also in the case of donor eggs, upper genital tract damage/dysfunction, and fertility preservation for those with medical problems such as cancer who might want the option of having children after their potentially fertility-impairing treatments.

As described earlier this week, both fall broadly in the category of "fertility treatments," but only one of them would run afoul of the far-right religious conservatives' desire to never let a fertilized egg go to waste. If I were advising these campaigns, I'd stick to the phrase "fertility treatments" because it is technically true and also is probably more recognizable to the general public than IUI or IVF. And it still carries the same ethical and moral weight: The people seeking fertility treatments are people who are trying to adhere to J.D. Vance's advice that their value to society is derived from having children. Er, sorry wrong party's talking point. I mean that these are everyday women and men who are struggling—often for years—with infertility, and are desperate to grow their families and experience the joy and love of having a/another child, and view fertility treatments as a source of hope for them to fulfill that dream. But maybe the Democrats have done some poll testing and I'm wrong on this point, or they just like the medical gravitas that the phrase IVF conveys.

As an aside, I'll highlight two additional reasons that this issue has political potency for Democrats as compared to abortion and why it'll likely stick around as an issue as long as the Republicans allow that to happen. First, that fertility treatments often (although certainly not always) has the perception of impacting men, as Gov. Walz highlights. Obviously, in the case of abortion, it also impacts men, but for some reason societally we don't really view it that way. Secondly, the stereotypes of who receives the procedures are different. Even though it isn't true, the stereotype of a woman seeking an abortion is an irresponsible single teenager (in reality, the majority of women obtaining abortions are mothers who are concerned about their ability to financially provide for the children they already have). The stereotype for fertility treatments is a married suburban couple. Obviously, one of those demographics is a hotly contested voter group.

Politics: Polling

M.F. in Burlington, ON, Canada, writes: Your answer to F.F. in London, regarding the weighting of polls, covered the issue very well. However, while you alluded to cost as a reason pollsters don't take larger samples, I think you left out one salient point: the issue of diminishing returns. (I'm sure you understand it, but I think it was a mistake to leave it out of your explanation.)

Most people intuitively understand that a larger sample size will mean a smaller margin of error, but the rate at which a larger sample size reduces the margin of error isn't constant. Doubling the sample size doubles the cost of the poll, but as the samples get bigger, the amount by which it reduces the margin of error gets much smaller.

As an extreme example, a sample of 100 will give a margin of error of 10.0%. Doubling the sample to 200 reduces the margin of error significantly, to 7.1%. On the other hand, a sample of 5,000 gives a margin of error of 1.4%, but doubling the sample to 10,000 only reduces the margin of error to 1.0%. The first is clearly worth the extra effort and expense; the second, not so much.

The polling industry decided decades ago that the sweet spot of a sample size that gave a reasonable margin of error without becoming prohibitively expensive to gather was around 1,000, with a margin of error of 3.2%. Although pollsters will sometimes depart from that, I don't think I've ever seen a poll published with a sample smaller than about 600 (margin of error of 4.0%) or larger than about 2,500 (margin of error 2.0%). Sure, a sample of 5,000 in the latter case would reduce the margin of error to 1.4%, but is that additional 0.6% 19 times out of 20 really worth doubling the cost? Probably not.

---

K.P. in East Lansing, MI, writes: There is an interesting article about polling bias in The Atlantic this week (sorry, paywalled). The non-response bias was higher in 2020 than in 2016. Apparently, the "shy Trump" voter was a person who was polled but responded "I like Trump, fu** you," and hung up. And if you do not complete the survey your response is not included in the sample.

You sometimes refer to the rule of thumb that Democrats need to win the popular vote by 3 points to get the win. That's helpful and insightful. But this year, the Democrats may need to poll 5-6 points higher than the Republicans to get to that 3-point margin, due to that non-response bias.

Politics: 52 Pickup

M.A. in Park Ridge, IL, writes: Why request a $52 donation? Well, it got R.M. in Gresham thinking, got them to write in, got you to feature the letter. In other words, it got lots of attention. That's the whole point.

When I get a request for a funny amount (say, $24 or $3, both of which I have recently received), I always take a minute to think about why that amount. It's a little like playing Wordle.

The system works!

---

S.W. in Utrecht, the Netherlands, writes: My guess is that it has to do with getting the most out of donations using the psychology of numbers.

For a lot of people who are willing to donate $50, there is little holding them back to donate an extra $2. Same goes for $26 vs $25. However, for the campaign this extra $2 per donation is 4% extra, applied to a large number of donations. As Harris raised roughly $200 million in individual donations, we are talking about $8 million more than if they asked $50.

---

S.B. in Columbus, OH, writes: If I request 25 or 50 dollars, the amount is general and is taken less seriously. I teach and if I tell students to take a 10 minute break, they naturally think 10-15 minutes. If I say 11 minutes, more of them come back on time.

This is known as the "precise vs. round numbers effect" or the "precision effect." This concept suggests that people are more likely to respond positively to requests when a specific, precise amount of time or money is mentioned, rather than a general or round number.

This effect works because precise numbers often appear more thoughtful and credible, leading people to believe that the requester has put careful consideration into the amount. As a result, they are more likely to comply with the request. In contrast, round numbers can seem arbitrary, which might make people less likely to respond favorably.

---

J.R. in San Francisco, CA, writes: I have been making $34.34 donations to the Harris campaign, in deference to TFG's criminal convictions.

---

M.D.A. in Salt Lake City, UT, writes: I donated to the Harris campaign several times. My max donation was $20 with a 3 dollar "tip" to the DNC. Now, I get emails asking for $23 all the time. I wonder if R.M. did $52 once, and that was the max, so that is the ask?

(V) & (Z) respond: You're right. Keep reading.

---

R.M. in Gresham, OR, writes: In case you wanted the answer, I did some more digging and found that I purchased items from the Harris store the day she announced Tim Walz to show my support for that pick... totaling $52. So now they are just asking for that amount again (and again, and again...)

My apologies for not figuring it out earlier. It is a testament to my belief in your political omniscience that my first instinct was to ask Electoral-Vote.com!

All Politics Is Local

J.M. in Cary, NC, writes: I currently live in North Carolina and support Democratic candidates nearly exclusively. What has been happening over the last weeks seems like pure desperation; near-daily snail mail from the Donald Trump campaign and/or the RNC supporting him. We have never gotten these in the past for federal positions, only the occasional state-office GOP candidate mailing. My spouse is getting them too.

Do you think they are indeed desperate and just blasting EVERYONE regardless of demographics or voting records?

---

P.M. in Edenton, NC, writes: This flier arrived in my mailbox yesterday. The reverse side has a list of typical attacks on Kamala Harris (communist/radical leftist/etc.). I find it particularly curious they are taking deliberate steps to try to unlink Trump from Project 2025:

(V) & (Z) respond: True story. We tried to adjust the color levels on the image to make it as readable as possible. However, at maximum readability, it made it appear as if we'd tinkered with the image to make Trump look comically orange. Like, Oompa Loompa orange. So, we had to tone it down some.

---

R.L.D. in Sundance, WY, writes: Sundance is a town of just over 1,000 in the flawed 2020 Census. So, it's strange to see a line at the polling place outside of the general election and even then it's 5 people tops. This week was no exception. Also, I was surprised to see only a handful of races on my ballot: U.S. Senate, U.S. House, a couple of legislative races and a few county-level and party offices. When I lived in Texas, I always felt like I was supposed to weigh in on every judge in the state, as there were so many judicial races on the ballot. I'm not fully up to speed on how Wyoming handles judgeships, but it clearly isn't via partisan elections. That's a good thing.

For the past couple of months, Reid Rasner, the main challenger for the Senate seat held by John Barrasso, has been sending me campaign texts. And I'll admit, I've been kind of a troll to them. Unfortunately for them, they didn't have any way to stop me from spamming their phones with my questions and comments and they made no attempt whatsoever to address them. But I'll give them this, they were persistent. Despite the fact that my political priorities are VERY different from them, nobody managed to get the campaign to remove my number from their database.

But Barrasso was a juggernaut, ending primary night with just over two-thirds of the vote. Rasner got right around a quarter of the statewide vote. For a little while, Rasner's best showing was here in Crook County, but we ended up second behind Niobrara by a fraction of a percent. In these two very red counties, a candidate who couldn't have embraced Trump tighter if he'd climbed inside Trump's ill-fitting suit, only got to 31% by rounding. I take heart in that. It probably won't affect Trump's ability to win Wyoming's 3 electoral votes, but it does suggest that Trump's shtick isn't transferable. At least not automatically.

I would have put some effort into learning about the Wyoming Democratic primary, but nothing that happened there really matters. And yet, somehow, nobody ever claims that Wyoming Democrats are wasting their vote and argues that they should just bite the bullet and vote Republican since, like the Libertarians and the Constitutional Union parties, they have no chance to win anyway.

Complaints Department

S.N. in Charlotte, NC, writes: In the Day Four sub-section "Democrats Do It Better," you shared a comment from someone in The Villages who's crazy enough to think Ted Cruz is a great speaker, and you joked about the author's possibly being under the influence of the kind bud. But as someone who may or may not have been a partaker of the sweet leaf for the last 30-ish years, I've never in my life been high enough to think anything that dumb!

---

A.H.-S. in Brier, WA, writes: You know, Ted Cruz is a better narrator than Morgan Freeman.

(Oops, forgot the sarcasm warning.)

(V) & (Z) respond: The difference is that one of them escaped to Cancün, while the other escaped to Zihuatanejo.

---

A.A. in Branchport, NY, writes: Please continue publishing letters from The Villages. They provide insight into Earth 2's reality bubble.

AND they make me laugh!

---

B.C. in Kirkland, WA, writes: I will take you to task for "the 10 most notable storylines of the day" on Day Three. Your very first sub-section was "Roll Call Music" from Day Two. So, you only delivered nine notable storylines of the day.

Also, while the Roll Call Music was interesting to see, I don't think that qualifies as a "notable storyline," but more of a side story.

What I am saying is you shorted your readers a notable storyline from Day Three. I haven't watched it yet, so maybe the DNC is running out of steam, and there were only nine stories worth telling.

(V) & (Z) respond: You read nearly 5,000 words about Day Three, and your conclusion is that we were having trouble finding enough to say?

Gallimaufry

D.C. in Brentwood, CA, writes: My 13-year-old daughter is happy to hear that she is better at Sporcle than (Z), as she has aced that "countries of the world" quiz several times.

---

P.M. in Lausanne, Switzerland, writes: I have to say, given the incredible breadth of knowledge shown everyday on this site, I was slightly disappointed that (Z) could only find 180 world countries on that Sporcle quiz, especially with that version, which has a map.

I tried it without looking at the map for most of it, and easily found all countries with 3 minutes to spare—and I'm usually totally clueless about the Friday titles game.

I wonder how you guys do with the world flags quiz!

(V) & (Z) respond: (Z) had to memorize all the countries of the world in 10th grade, and so is working with information that is roughly 30 years out of date. Further, he really only needs to know about two countries, the United States and... Canada (albeit for different reasons).

---

R.W. in Leander, TX, writes: You ran this quote: "R.E. in Atlanta, GA: King Arthur, in Monty Python and the Holy Grail: 'Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.'"

It made me curious. Mind sharing the count of folks who write in to correct the character attribution?

(V) & (Z) respond: It was around two dozen. About the same number of people wrote in to tell us that Lynyrd Skynyrd is from Florida, not Alabama. This does not compare to the roughly 100 people who wrote in several years ago to advise us that Mike Brady, on The Brady Bunch, was a widower and not a divorcé.

Final Words

R.H. in Las Vegas, NV, writes: Spanish playwright Lope de Vega: "All right then, I'll say it. Dante makes me sick."

If you have suggestions for this feature, please send them along.

Today's Presidential Polls

Pennsylvania and North Carolina are shaping up as the keys to the election. We suspect there will be a lot more polls of them in the next couple of weeks. (Z)

State	Kamala Harris	Donald Trump	Start	End	Pollster
Pennsylvania	47%	48%	Aug 23	Aug 23	SoCal Research

Click on a state name for a graph of its polling history.

---

If you wish to contact us, please use one of these addresses. For the first two, please include your initials and city.

• questions@electoral-vote.com    For questions about politics, civics, history, etc. to be answered on a Saturday
• comments@electoral-vote.com   For "letters to the editor" for possible publication on a Sunday
• corrections@electoral-vote.com To tell us about typos or factual errors we should fix
• items@electoral-vote.com            For general suggestions, ideas, etc.

To download a poster about the site to hang up, please click here.

---

Email a link to a friend or share:

---The Votemaster and Zenger