Trump's Iowa Victory Suggests Some Sizable Chinks in the Armor

There's been time for the dust to settle, and for various entities to collect a little bit of data. And while Donald Trump's victory in the Iowa caucuses certainly speaks to his dominance over the Republican Party, it also hints at some issues that could come back to haunt him in the general election.

To start, in our write-up, we took note of the very low turnout. Though there are numerous possible explanations for that, one of those is that Trump fanaticism is fading. We've noted many times that wildly enthusiastic votes are worth exactly the same as any other votes. So, it's not a big deal if someone isn't motivated enough to show up to caucus, as long as they're motivated enough to show up to vote in November. That said, voting in November also takes time, and could also require many people to deal with cold weather. So, if enthusiasm IS waning, it could be a problem for Trump come general election time.

There's also another enthusiasm issue hinted at by the topline numbers, though taking notice of it is something of a matter of framing. In the lead-up to the caucus, there were many outlets pointing out that Trump was about to score the most lopsided win of any non-incumbent in the history of the Iowa Republican caucuses. This is true, and he did pull that off. And when you frame it that way, it sounds really good. However, Trump is not a random non-incumbent; he's a former president. And if you compare him to other presidents who have run in the caucuses (i.e., incumbents), he actually did very poorly. Republicans usually cancel their caucuses when an incumbent is running, but if we take a look on the Democratic side of the aisle, Bill Clinton got 98% of the vote in 1996, while Barack Obama did the same in 2012. The one incumbent Republican to face a caucus in the last 40 years is... Donald Trump, who got 97% of the vote in 2020. All of those numbers are, as we understand it, much larger than 51%

Perhaps the fairest comparison to Trump, since Grover Cleveland lived and died long before the Iowa caucuses existed, is Al Gore. Gore was not running as a former president in 2000, but he was a sitting VP, and someone who was strong enough that he scared off most of the competition. He got 63% of the vote in his Iowa caucus. Now, you could point out that the Democrats' way of doing caucuses tends to favor strong performances from the winners (since the supporters of non-viable candidates have to re-cast their ballots for viable candidates, or else cast no ballot at all). There is something to that. However, here's another (hypothetical) way to think about it, courtesy of MSNBC's Joe Scarborough: If Barack Obama was running this year, do you think he would collect just 51% of the vote?

Now let's talk about the demographic underpinnings of Trump's victory. Back in 2016, Trump got a little less than 25% of the Iowa caucus votes, while last night he got a little over 50%. Most of that "growth" is because turnout was much higher in 2016; he actually got around 50,000 votes each time. Nonetheless, The Washington Post did a breakdown of where his votes came from 8 years ago as compared to where they came from this week. And the upshot is that he's doing even better with rural and evangelical voters as compared to 2016, but noticeably worse with urban and educated voters. You don't want to draw firm conclusions from a small, somewhat wonky sample. But we would be remiss if we did not point out that the swing states largely will swing on the votes of the latter demographics, and not the former.

And finally, the polls. When Ann Selzer released her final pre-caucus poll, it was the topline numbers that got all the attention. However, there was some interesting stuff on page six. Specifically, among likely caucusgoers, 11% said they planned to vote for Joe Biden in the general, while another 14% planned to vote for Robert F. Kennedy Jr. or for a third-party candidate. Undoubtedly, that 25% was not there to vote for Trump, but to vote for protest candidates like Nikki Haley. Further evidence of that comes from an NBC Poll wherein 43% of Haley supporters said they would vote for Biden over Trump. The point here is that when, say, Al Gore got 63% of the Democratic vote in 2000, he could reasonably count on most of the remaining 37% to come home eventually. In Trump's case, it looks like half the people who didn't vote for him on Monday will not be coming home. And this is in Iowa, where the demographics are very favorable to Trump.

One other poll we will mention: The Washington Post's entrance poll (same thing as an exit poll, except that people are queried on the way in, instead of the way out). That poll found something that has already popped up in a bunch of other polls: a sizable percentage of Republican voters would find a Trump conviction to be "disqualifying." In this particular case, 31% said so. Breaking it down further, 49% of Haley voters, 33% of Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-FL) voters, 6% of Vivek Ramaswamy voters and 10% of Trump voters feel that way.

It is not at all clear what "disqualifying" means to these voters, exactly. Would they vote Biden to keep Trump out of power? Would they vote third party? Not vote at all? Overcome their cognitive dissonance and vote Trump anyhow? Presumably, all of these things would happen in some measure. What's clear, however, is that a conviction would cost him a chunk of votes, likely more than he can afford to lose. This is especially true among Republican voters who are already casting about for an alternative candidate.

Again, you don't want to read TOO much into the views of a small subset of voters in a smallish, wonky state. That said, we've seen endless "Warning signs for Biden" pieces this cycle. So, it's worth noting that, even under circumstances about as favorable for Trump as possible, there are warning signs for him, as well. (Z)

Trump Legal News: Good Morning Judge

Jury selection is underway in the second defamation trial pitting Donald Trump against E. Jean Carroll. The former president lost the first one, of course, and has already lost the second one; the only question is how much money he has to pay this time.

The commencement of jury selection alone is not newsworthy enough for us to write an item. What does make it newsworthy is the fact that, although it is entirely unnecessary, Trump was present in court yesterday. He's also made a point of being in court for his other civil cases, despite a long history of avoiding courtrooms like the plague. What is going on, here? Certainly, it is at least possible that Trump thinks he can somehow alter the outcome of one or more cases by being there in person. Perhaps he can make a MAGA juror swoon, or needle the judge, or somehow trigger a mistrial. However, if this is his thinking, then at most these things are added benefits of being there in person.

No, the main motivation—obvious to the point that the media is observing that the campaign has moved to the courtroom—is politics. Trump is a savant when it comes to earned media (i.e., free PR), and court is where the free PR is to be found for him these days.

Put it this way: When was the last time that you read a story about one of Trump's rallies? Nobody cares about them anymore, other than the few thousand people who attend in person. Nobody much cares about his speeches, or his social media kvetching, or nearly anything else he does because the novelty/shock has worn off. However, when he goes to court, it remains front-page news. And the front pages are where he wants to be.

In some cases, like the fraud trial, it is easy for him to get lots of attention. He throws a tantrum in the courtroom, holds a whiny press conference afterward in which he claims he's being persecuted, and the next day gallons of printer ink and millions of pixels are expended on the story. Oh, and his fundraising take increases dramatically.

In those cases where the PR isn't there for the taking, Trump is more than capable of creating it for himself. For example, there aren't cameras and throngs of press for the Carroll trial, in significant part because of rules meant to protect both the jury and the plaintiff. No matter; Trump managed to create controversy by demanding that the trial be suspended for a week so that he could attend his mother-in-law's funeral on Wednesday.

As you might imagine, Judge Lewis Kaplan was unimpressed by this request. First, there's no need to delay a week for a one-day funeral. Second, as the judge pointed out, there is no actual need for Trump to be present. Third, someone brought to Kaplan's attention that Trump has a campaign event scheduled for that day, so apparently he's not THAT constrained by his alleged funerary plans. Consequently, Kaplan denied the request.

This, in turn—and undoubtedly, by design—caused Trump to go ballistic. He got on his failing boutique social media platform and screeched:

Crazed, Trump hating Judge, Lewis Kaplan, who presided over the Election Interference Witch Hunt, disguised as a trial, of a woman I have never met before (celebrity photo line does not count - I had no idea who she was!), was asked if he could delay this Rigged Political Scam for one day so that I could attend the FUNERAL OF MY BELOVED MOTHER-IN-LAW WITH MY WIFE, THE FORMER (AND NEXT!) FIRST LADY OF THE UNITED STATES — AND HE SAID NO. He is a bad person and an even worse Judge. Appointed by, and friends with, Clinton, he purposely scheduled this HOAX right in the middle of the important New Hampshire Primary. This is the second trial concerning the same person, who is represented and financed by POLITICAL OPERATIVES. It could have taken place at any time, including months ago. Can anyone imagine a husband not going to his wife’s mother’s funeral over a MADE UP STORY - A story that has been allowed to simmer by a really bad Judge who suffers from TRUMP DERANGEMENT SYNDROME!

The dog whistle here is so unsubtle, we can't help but be reminded of the line from 30 Rock: "Just say Jewish; this is taking forever." Trump's attorney, Alina Habba, also used court time to complain about the decision until Kaplan told her in no uncertain terms to zip it.

Anyhow, that is the latest trick in the Donald Trump dog and pony show. Brace for it, because he's got a whole lot of court time coming up, which means a whole lot of whining and complaining and posturing. (Z)

Haley: It's a Two-Person Race

It's a little bit of a strange thing for a third-place finisher to say, but Nikki Haley began her post-Iowa campaigning by declaring: "I can safely say tonight Iowa made this Republican primary a two-person race."

Since Haley did not immediately suspend her campaign, that means that she's talking about herself and Donald Trump as the two remaining candidates. As we wrote yesterday, she's not wrong, in the sense that Ron DeSantis' goose is cooked, and he's about to suffer a bunch of bad losses, followed by his withdrawal from the campaign. On the other hand, if Haley was going to be 100% accurate, she would have described it as a one-person race. After all, her D-Day is looming too, on or about March 6 (i.e., the day after Super Tuesday).

There is one happy result of Haley's new framing of the race: She announced yesterday that she will not participate in any more debates unless Donald Trump and/or Joe Biden are onstage. Inasmuch as that won't be happening anytime soon, if at all, this means that the last two Republican candidates' debates are presumably off. ABC already canceled Thursday's planned debate, and surely CNN will soon give up on Sunday's. We can't say we're disappointed.

As we, and others, wrote after the last debate, finding a reason to forego any further debates was the strategically correct play for Haley. At the moment, she is sure to finish well ahead of DeSantis in New Hampshire and South Carolina, and probably in Nevada as well. That being the case, why give the Governor even the slightest opening? Plus, debate prep is brutal and time consuming; undoubtedly Haley would rather be out on the campaign trail.

This also means that we are apparently in the post-Trump debate era. For several decades, if there was a debate held by a major media outlet (or major debate-staging organization), and a politician got an invite, that politician showed up with bells on. Trump had the insight that you should only RSVP if it makes sense for you to do so. Now, every top-shelf politician is thinking that way. Haley just canceled on the two remaining candidates' debates, while both Trump AND Biden are wavering when it comes to the usual trio of presidential debates. We could be entering into an era where debates become much rarer, thanks to Trump, which is kind of a good thing given how obnoxious the debates have become, also thanks to Trump. (Z)

Asa, We Hardly Knew Ye

The writing was on the wall in 10-foot letters. And yesterday, former Arkansas governor Asa Hutchinson proved he can read, as he dropped out of the presidential race.

Lane-splitting seems to work well for motorcyclists, but it's not a great strategy in politics. Both Hutchinson and Chris Christie jumped into the race with the promise that they would be anti-Trumpers, and would be the candidates for those Republicans who want to see the party emerge from the wilderness, and return to some semblance of normalcy. The fundamental problem for both men is that "traditional Republican" might get it done in a general election, but it's not a great path in the MAGA-dominated GOP primaries. And so, while both Hutchinson and Christie were willing to hit Donald Trump a little (for example, saying they wouldn't vote for him if he was the Republican nominee), they weren't willing to go for any body blows. That left both candidates in a no-man's land: Too Trumpy for the Never Trumpers and too Never Trumpy for the MAGA crowd.

In Hutchinson's case, one wonders what fantastical tales he was telling himself in the last 6-8 weeks before hitting the campaign trail every day. He was barely registering in polls, to the point that many pollsters stopped asking about him by name. He stopped making debate cuts long ago. He was out of money. His campaign manager quit because he believed Hutchinson had no path forward. Exactly what was the former governor hoping for? A Palm Beach-style fiasco in Iowa, wherein 12,000 Trump votes were accidentally registered as Hutchinson votes? Sorry, Asa, they don't use butterfly ballots for caucuses.

With Hutchinson out, the GOP race has just two delusional candidates left in Nikki Haley and Ron DeSantis. Or three, if you want to include megapastor Ryan Binkley, whose prayers and "personal relationship with Jesus" earned him exactly 774 more votes in Iowa than we got. These folks will all reach the end of the line in the next few weeks. Meanwhile, the only Democratic primary with any intrigue at all is New Hampshire, because of the write-in storyline. Add it up, and it could be the most anticlimactic primary season in recent memory. Oh well, we'll just have to write even more about Trump's legal troubles. (Z)

The Bulwark Says What We (and Surely Others) Have Been Thinking

Last week. The New York Times had yet another of those "trying to understand Republican/Trump voters" pieces. This one was quite elaborate, with pictures, and some fancy web design, and about 4,000 words' worth of reporting. If you read it, you will learn nothing, because you already knew that the kind of people chosen for these features are substantially out of touch with reality.

Of all the most clichéd article types that one sees in modern political analysis, there may not be any that we find more annoying than these pieces. To start with, they are a little patronizing when it comes to their subjects, holding them out as nutters or freaks or simpletons. If we have seen even one of these kinds of articles that had any real empathy, as opposed to faux empathy, we don't remember it.

Meanwhile, the pieces are also dishonest when it comes to "serving" the readership. Again, the lack of real empathy suggests the goal isn't understanding so much as it is performing "balance." "See, we don't just cover left-wing perspectives," the Times can now say, for at least the next month or two. The thing is, if the real goal is to understand the underlying dynamics of the American body politic, then where are the pieces trying to understand the mindset of urban Democrats? Latino and Latina voters? LGBTQ voters? Educators? Baby Boomers? People earning less than $20,000/year? Such pieces are unheard of, or nearly so. And yet, "what are Republican/MAGA voters thinking?" is a genre unto itself.

There's also one other problem. These pieces are almost invariably written "without judgment." People are allowed to share their views, which go unchallenged in the name of "fairness." But, of course, their views are often counterfactual, at best, and offensive/bigoted at worse. Platforming, and amplifying, such viewpoints in the news section can be problematic, to say the least.

We are not the only ones who think this way, it would seem. This week, Jonathan Last of The Bulwark had a piece taking the Times, in particular, to task. He writes:

Over the weekend, The New York Times ran Part #937 in its continuing attempt to understand Trump voters. It's a gorgeous, premium package filled with portrait photography and earnest quotes. The Times wants you to know that they're not just hearing these patriotic Americans, they're listening to them.

For example, Jan Altena is voting for Donald Trump because "he's got principles, that's the key feature there."

That is a very real statement that the Times accepts and presents to readers...

Because we must understand why all of these people support a man who wrecked the American economy, attempted a violent insurrection, is under 91 felony indictments, and has been disavowed as a threat to the country by a large number of the high-level Republicans who worked directly for him.

As always: The New York Times is part of the effing problem.

This package does nothing to help readers understand the motivations of Trump voters. It merely amplifies their fact-free feelings.

We don't have much to add to this, beyond "hear, hear!" It's a reminder that there's definitely some political coverage out there that pretends to embrace high ideals, but that is really quite insidious. (Z)

New Mexico Republicans Get Their Woman

It would seem that the New Mexico GOP has been taking a careful look at the playbook of the California GOP: If you're looking at a near-hopeless Senate race, find a candidate with some "star" power. In the Golden State, it's former baseball player Steve Garvey. And in New Mexico, as of yesterday, it's Nella Domenici, the daughter of legendary U.S. Senator Pete Domenici.

With six full terms under his belt (1973-2009), Pete was the longest-serving senator in New Mexico history. He was known for his advocacy for mental health and nuclear power (not at the same time), and for his skill in bringing home the pork. Nella's qualifications for the job are... she's Pete's daughter. She has zero experience in political office, and has spent her career in finance.

Domenici is a pretty good get for the New Mexico GOP, since her last name is undoubtedly worth at least one or two percent of the vote. That said, she faces a very uphill battle, for these reasons:

• Part of the reason Pete Domenici retired is that New Mexico had become pretty blue by 2009. It's currently D+3, which means that a Republican still could win, but it's not too likely. Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-NM), who is running for reelection, is pretty bland and inoffensive, which means that he doesn't excite too many Democrats, but he also doesn't offend too many of them, either. He won his first Senate election by 6 points, and then, once he was incumbent, he won reelection by 24 points.
  
  
• On that same theme, the last time New Mexico sent a Republican to the Senate was in 2002, in the person of... Pete Domenici. And, of course, he was riding the benefits of incumbency. The last time New Mexico sent a freshman Republican to the Senate was in... 1976.
  
  
• Nella will benefit from her father's last name, but he won't be campaigning for her, because he died in 2017.
  
  
• In general, "prominent U.S. Senator's kid" sounds good on paper, but doesn't work out too well in practice. To take one example, Michelle Nunn, daughter of Sam, lost by 8 points when she ran for Georgia's U.S. Senate seat in 2014. To take another example, Adam Laxalt, son of... Pete Domenici, lost by 1 point when he ran for Nevada's U.S. Senate seat in 2022. And in both of those cases, circumstances were more favorable for the senatorial offspring than they will be for Nella Domenici in 2024.
  
  
• The Republican primary is not uncontested. Former Bernalillo County Sheriff Manny Gonzales, who is also a former Democrat, is in as well. New Mexico is 50.1% Latino, and while identity politics isn't everything, it isn't nothing, either.

In short, things in New Mexico just got a little more interesting. But not interesting enough that we foresee writing very many more items about this particular race. (Z)

Looking Back at 2023, Part V: Best Event

Last week, we had Most Deplorable Person and Most Admirable Person. Yesterday, we had the Worst Event, and now it's the best events of 2023.

First, some runners-up:

Personal Triumphs

J.H. in Peterborough, ON, Canada: The best thing that happened in my world is the blossoming of my 2-year-old grandson.

R.L. in Alameda, CA: The best thing that happened last year was my oldest child graduating from Eastern Michigan University with a BA and a teaching certificate and getting a job teaching 5th grade in Dearborn Heights, MI. They are off the family payroll and paying for their own life! Woot!

P.G. in Arlington, VA: Phish performs Gamehenge in its entirety for the first time in 29 years. This affects such a minuscule portion of the population that even I agree it should not make your list. But, for the phans who care, this was nigh upon a miracle and just a beautiful and inspiring moment. We assumed this musical project, created by Trey Anastasio in the late 80's as his senior project at Goddard College in Vermont, was permanently shelved. But it was dusted off, reimagined for a stage production with dozens of performers, and presented with gusto for a deeply grateful (and very surprised) crowd. For me, it's restored a bit of my "anything is possible" optimism that's been sorely lacking for years now. I needed that to face 2024.

Sporting Matters

B.J.L. in Ann Arbor, MI: The feel good thing of 2023 is that the Detroit Lions played well this year and actually made the playoffs.

J.W. in Kansas City, MO: Damar Hamlin's return to football (and life) after a cardiac arrest at a game in January. He not only came back, but his experience made him an advocate for CPR training and automatic defibrillators (AEDs).

O.B. in Milwaukee, WI: The Packers crushing the Cowboys in the playoffs. How 'bout them Cowboys?

Unionization

D.A. in Brooklyn, NY: The rebirth of the union movement in the USA. Writers Guild, SAG, UAW, Teamsters (UPS), SEIU (Kaiser Permanente, et al.) and others struck or posed credible strike threats that wrested significant gains from the corporate fat cats. Doctors, grad students, baristas continued to organize. Polls show >70% of the public is now pro-union. Solidarity Forever! Power To The Workers!

International Affairs

S.A.K. in Karnataka, India: Baby steps towards improving Saudi-Iran diplomatic relations. There is a long way to go before things can be termed normal on that front. The initial steps, though, are very encouraging.

This alone has the potential to reduce and even eliminate U.S. influence in the Middle East and consequently make that region much more peaceful than it is today. Both of those have to count as awesome things.

M.S. in Washington, DC: The Polish election. The recovery of a country from nearly a decade of nationalist rule is a hopeful sign for a global turn back towards liberalism.

J.M. in Geneva, Switzerland: The change of government in Poland. It shows that a rational coalition with a centrist core can prevail against a populist incumbent with anti-democratic tendencies. The non-change of government in Spain was a close second, for similar reasons.

The News

C.W. in Visalia, CA: The best thing that has been happening in our last year of tragedy is the PBS NewsHour. The staff of the NewsHour have fearlessly delivered the truth about climate change, the Hamas/Israeli war, and our dysfunctional political system. I love the way they finish each hour with a positive story about people who strive to make our world a better place.

And the top five:

5. Ukraine

J.M. in New Glasgow, NS, Canada: Ukraine is still independent.

I'll go on record as having had zero faith in the ability of Ukraine to withstand Russia's invasion. I was convinced (and told anyone who would ask) that the entire affair would be over in a matter of weeks, Volodymyr Zelenskyy would be dead, and some puppet would be running Ukraine. Russia was just too big a country with too powerful a military and Ukraine was much smaller. I'm happy to be wrong and now, almost 2 years after starting, Ukraine is still holding on. Yes, there are problems and the "peace" achieved may not be everything they want, but compared to my expectations that Ukraine is still independent is remarkable.

You simply cannot allow any country, least of all one with Vladimir Putin in charge, to invade other sovereign countries and start naked wars of aggression in this day and age. It is the responsibility of every person to resist and to send a clear message that it won't be tolerated. I'll say, despite some bellyaching in the U.S., most of the world has been very supportive and responded appropriately. No dictator like Putin ever stops until they are stopped.

D.M. in Alameda, CA: Ukraine has not lost the war.

K.K. in Northridge, CA: President Biden has not abandoned Ukraine.

4. The Economy

T.F. in Craftsbury, VT: The Fed and administration managed a soft landing for the economy, laying the groundwork for a possible major shift in popular opinion in '24 and thereby undercutting a significant (if specious) argument for returning Bonespur Donny Jonny to the White House.

S.B. in Los Angeles, CA: The soft landing from the inflation crisis in the United States is the best thing to happen in 2023. As the largest economy in the world, the U.S. drives the world economy and a healthy U.S. economy is not only good for us Americans but for people around the world, relatively speaking.

D.R. in Charlotte, NC: Social Security cost of living increase of 8.7% at the beginning of 2023. This helped my wife and me through the year.

3. Medical Advances

B.S. in Huntington Beach, CA: The development of a vaccine that protects against malaria is, in my opinion, the most positive development of 2023. If successful as the trials indicate, the new vaccine could conceivably save over 400,000 lives a year. If effective as indicated, malaria could be reduced to a minor pestilence by 2030. Truly amazing.

M.M. in San Diego: Last year gifted the world with two medical miracles: an affordable malaria vaccine and a cure for sickle cell anemia. Millions, especially in underserved countries, will be spared difficult, debilitating disease provided the world does the right thing and spends some money.

R.M. in Baltimore, MD: The possible breakthrough drug that may lessen Alzheimer's Disease. Alzheimer's researchers have been working tirelessly for decades with almost no progress. Finally, there is something partway through the pipeline that will make the condition more livable. The world is aging rapidly, Alzheimer's respects no borders, and its incidence will increase rapidly over the years.

P.B. in Gainesville, FL: Stunning progress in medical technology, e.g., mRNA vaccines and gene therapies that have been in the works for a few years. To take one example: Since forever, a diagnosis of cystic fibrosis for a young person was effectively a death sentence when they reached their 20s or so. I recently learned that CF is now pretty much treatable. There are many other examples: COVID, flu, and RSV vaccines; malaria treatments; new cancer drugs; hope for Alzheimer's, and gene modification therapy for a variety of ills. Impressive!

M.S. in Missouri City, TX: FDA approved gene-editing treatment for humans—opening up many possibilities in the eradication of genetic diseases.

2. Trump Legal

B.H. in Wyandotte, MI: The 91 indictments of Donald Trump. Whether any of these result in a conviction, at least people tried to bring him to justice for his various crimes. Republicans have either ignored these as inconsequential or attacked them as being totally partisan, but they are there for the historical record. Just like his impeachments. If our democracy actually survives this assault by Trump and the alt-right and brings him down, it should serve as a reminder for any future autocrats desiring to subvert our democracy that it will not go quietly into the night.

D.E. in Lancaster, PA: There were actually five Best Events of 2023 and they occurred on March 30, June 8, July 27, August 1 and August 14. Those are, of course, the dates that Donald Trump was indicted. I pick the 91 criminal indictments of Trump not because I detest him and everything he stands for with a white hot passion, but rather for what those indictments represent. For me, they stand not only as the best thing of 2023 but also as probably one of the top ten great moments in American history; they show that we are a nation of laws and that no one person is above those laws. The part of me that hates the Uber-Deplorable Trump got its satisfaction with the election of Joe Biden and the electoral defeat of Don the Con. The indictments, on the other hand, are a balm to my soul. The federal and Georgia indictments related to Trump trying to subvert the election demonstrate that at least part of our society is willing to fight for the idea of democracy and to disavow tyranny and authoritarianism. It is, after all, the subject that so many pixels and so much ink have died for in the past year, and will continue to die for in the coming years and beyond.

G.A. in Carnation, WA: Jack Smith's indictments of Donald Trump finally gave pessimistic Democrats some hope that somewhere, somehow, Orange Jesus will be held accountable for something (like an attempt to subvert our democracy with an insurrection in our nation's capital).

1. Abortion

B.H. in Southborough, MA: The numerous abortion reaffirming election results. In a country where the system is indeed rigged against the majority of voters, this issue sparks massive turnout even in red states. It will likely cost the GOP a large chunk of the political power they are so desperately trying to retain.

S.W. in New York City, NY: The abortion votes in Ohio, Kentucky and Virginia—all winners for women, and a little comfort and re-assurance that not everyone in America is nuts.

K.F. in Framingham, MA: The overwhelming victory for reproductive rights in Ohio was at least one of the best things to happen in 2023, if not the best. It demonstrated that even in red states, the issue of protecting reproductive rights is still a strong motivator to generate turnout and that the Dobbs decision is a gift that should keep on giving to the blue team so long as they bravely continue to put it front and center. This was an especially sweet victory after the GOP tried to make it harder to get this item on the final ballot.

M.M. in Windermere, FL: The best thing that happened in 2023 was proof that the issue of individual rights moves the populace to action. That is, the election-over-performance of Democrats and the huge margins that support legal abortion, evidenced by the success of the abortion rights campaigns and referendums.

I purchased a pink t-shirt, with a woman's face in red, white and blue, above the phrase "Second Class Citizen." If women get wise to this outrageous shackle of oppression, they will understand this and rise up to vote in vast numbers.

This gives me hope for 2024.

Thanks to everyone who weighed in!

Also, we made an error last week. When we were tallying the Best Person votes, we did not realize that the last line on the spreadsheet was not visible. And so, we inadvertently excluded the person who should have been #3. Let's rectify that:

3. Volodymyr Zelenskyy

K.S. in Baltimore, MD: A total hero, a true servant, a brave leader. Our world needs more like him.

M.W. in Huntington, NY: For most admirable, I'd nominate Volodymyr Zelenskyy.

At first glance, he seemed so ill-prepared for such a situation, but for over a year, he has consistently showed true leadership. Leaders around the world should be taking notes.

And while wars tend to make great presidents of those who rise to the occasion, that's not true for all—ahem, George W. Bush.

B.C. in Phoenix, AZ: Since I chose Vlad "Hitler Redux" Putin as Most Deplorable, I gotta choose the flip side, Volodymyr Oleksandrovych Zelenskyy, as the Most Admirable. For justification, let's set aside the whole deal about him starting out as an actor/comedian and advancing to leading a nation in a successful (so far) defiance of a major world military power. No, we'll concentrate on the real reason he's so admirable: Since the war started, the guy has rarely, if at all, been seen with a necktie.

I hate neckties. Their only purpose is to give your political and business opponents a ready tool with which to lynch you.

Next up, we'll look back at the year Electoral-Vote.com had in 2023; if you'd like to comment, there is still time. Send a message to comments@electoral-vote.com with subject line "Good Job" if you would like to point out an item, or anything else, we did well; or send a message to comments@electoral-vote.com with the subject line "Bad Job" if you have criticism of a particular item or anything else. Please do remember to include your initials and location. (V & Z)

---

If you have a question about politics, civics, history, etc. you would like us to answer on the site, please send it to questions@electoral-vote.com, and include your initials and city of residence. If you have a comment about the site or one of the items therein, please send it to comments@electoral-vote.com and include your initials and city of residence in case we decide to publish it. If you spot any typos or other errors on the site that we should fix, please let us know at corrections@electoral-vote.com.

---

Email a link to a friend or share some other way.

---The Votemaster and Zenger