Previous | Next | Senate page | Menu
New polls: (None)
Dem pickups: (None)
GOP pickups: AZ GA MI NV PA WI
Sunday Mailbag
We've already gotten the first wave of recommended Christmas gifts for Donald Trump. For example, A.G. in Scranton, PA, suggests "A bottle of bleach and a needle with a card saying, 'Merry Christmas President-elect Trump. This is the transgender vaccine. Use the whole gallon for best results.'"
We'll be running a bunch more tomorrow, so if you have suggestions, now's the time. Send them to comments@electoral-vote.com with subject line "Trump Xmas." We'll also have Kamala Harris, Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA), Joe Biden and J.D. Vance over the course of the week.
Politics: The Second Trump Administration
D.E. in Lancaster, PA, writes: I read this week that Russian dictator Vladimir Putin said that he thinks Donald Trump will find a solution to the Ukraine War. He then added, "By the way, in my opinion, he (Trump) is not safe now. Unfortunately, in the history of the United States various incidents have happened. I think he is intelligent and I hope he's cautious and understands this." Well, that was... not very subtle.
While I'm loathe to give any kind of helpful advice to the Abomination, if I were in his shoes, I wouldn't stand near any upper story windows. He might also want to think about running his Hannibal Lecter underoos by the Geiger counter nightly, and making sure his Diet Coke doesn't glow in the dark. Or, as Tony Soprano said, "'cause that sugarless motherf**ker is the last f**king drink you're ever gonna have."
A.J. in Baltimore, MD, writes: I think your response as to whether Donald Trump might accomplish something that would please progressive Democrats could have mentioned an important example of the "only Nixon could go to China" phenomenon from Trump's first presidency: the First Step Act. Criminal justice reform is something that could only be passed in a Republican administration, since the GOP has been attacking Democrats as "soft on crime" for decades. Some progressives did criticize the Act for not going far enough, but I think every Democrat in Congress voted for it. I think it may be the best thing to come out of the first Trump administration.
E.F. in Baltimore, MD, writes: You write that tariffs don't work. But to a dedicated grifter like Donald Trump, they work just fine. After he announces blanket tariffs on everything, it'll be time to "negotiate" exemptions from the tariffs for specific categories of goods, whose manufacturers and importers pay him off. There are so many ways to do so, that never come to light. Buy a block of stock in one of his companies through a middleman. Lather, rinse, repeat.
D.W. in Phoenix, AZ, writes: The part of the tariff discussion that's gotten short shrift is "Read my lips, no new taxes." Ring a bell?
The REAL promise Donald Trump made to his pals is lower taxes. Lower, no lower, lower still! As the game of the American oligarchs is inter-generational wealth and the ship of state is already running "lean," since we are running our government on debt and sinking revenue, the tariffs are a tax on the middle class, a way to squeeze some bucks from a beleagured populace and have no shared graduated consequences for the rich. When the rich buy a car at 25% more than it would case without tariffs, it pales next to a rich person paying a more fair share of their real income and wealth. That's what they paid for, that's why they hold their noses and kiss the orange guy.
It follows: When you need clarity on where Trump and the Republicans align, just take a deep breath and when you exhale say the word "money."
M.v.E. in Kitchener, ON, Canada, writes: You wrote:
To start, 83% of Trump supporters and 52% of all respondents want tariffs. At the same time, 79% of all respondents think the #1 priority of the Trump administration should be lowering prices, while 59% of all respondents think tariffs will make prices higher. That means there is a not insignificant portion of the voting public that: (1) supports Trump, (2) wants tariffs, (3) wants lower prices, and yet (4) believes tariffs will lead to higher prices. What on Earth is a non-crazypants politician supposed to do with that kind of dissonance?I'm a big fan of The West Wing (and a time gone by when politics was... so much different). Your rhetorical question reminded me of this clip of Josh Lyman reflecting on just this quality of the voting public:
C.C. in Dallas, TX, writes:
D.H. in Lisbon Falls, ME, writes:
Politics: Trump Appointments
J.P. in Glenside, PA, writes: Donald Trump's pick of Dr. Jay Bhattacharya for NIH is an unmitigated disaster. He is a right-wing propagandist who is trotted out and used all the time by right-wingers to serve any horrible purpose they need when it comes to infectious disease.
M.C. in Fresno, CA, writes: Dr. Marty Makary is correct about Robert F. Kennedy Jr. not being controversial. The entire medical community agrees that he is a bats**t crazy loon. No controversy there.
M.S. in New York City, NY, writes: I live in New York City, where Dr. Jeanette Nesheiwat practices. Here's what I've picked up from a few minutes on her website:
- She's an associate medical director at City MD, which is a chain of walk-in clinics. I'm not sure if she was an actual emergency room physician.
- Her website has plenty of typos.
- She sells nutritional supplements, which seems to be a requirement for conservative talking heads.
- Her book features "miracles in medicine," promising to "illuminate the transformative power of prayer." One gets the sense that Christianity permeates her scientific mindset.
- The only positive I can seem to find is that she was engaged in a mission in Ukraine, and may be a voice in the White House for not surrendering that nation to Vladimir Putin.
May Science help us all.
A.R. in Los Angeles, CA, writes: Some in the media seem to be latching onto the fact that no charges were filed against Matt Gaetz or Pete Hegseth as proof that the allegations are meritless. I thought I'd offer some insight into how these charging decisions are made to show that such decisions frequently have no connection to whether the crime occurred.
First, rape cases are difficult to prove and win—the standard for criminal cases is beyond a reasonable doubt and the verdict must be unanimous. Second, prosecutors often have minimal training in investigating and bringing sexual assault cases. Third, police departments are also under-trained and understaffed and often don't know how to handle or investigate these cases. Finally, women infrequently report these cases or are treated with suspicion if they do, which also results in important evidence being lost or ignored.
The Hegseth case illustrates the problem well. Jane Doe did the right thing in going to the hospital and reporting the crime and asking for a rape exam. The police report shows that the hospital, the nurse and police also did their jobs. There were witnesses to the argument that Doe reported by the pool, and the police interviewed them. The other women confirmed that Hegseth behaved inappropriately toward them. Doe texted a friend about Hegseth's "creeper" behavior. For a crime of violence like rape, these are all really powerful and important facts to show a motive for him to drug her and get her to his room to rape her. She had bruises on her thighs consistent with coercion. It would be interesting to learn what the DA's office did to investigate the case. Why did Hegseth call the officer back to add the detail that he offered Doe the chance to shower and she declined?
Finally, his background is relevant—one wonders if the prosecutors learned that he believes drugging a woman and assaulting her is not rape. This behavior is not usually just a one-off. But even with all this corroborating evidence, the Monterey DA's office still declined to bring charges.
These cases are risky, difficult and time-consuming, with comparatively little upside as opposed to putting a murderer behind bars. Crimes against women are notoriously under-prosecuted. So, the decision not to charge says nothing about whether the crime actually occurred. In this case, the evidence is pretty compelling that it did.
J.T. in Seattle, WA, writes: Democrats in the Senate should have supported Matt Gaetz. Their votes and a few Republicans would have assured his confirmation. Now, instead of an unqualified, scandal-ridden Attorney General, we are stuck with someone who will actually get bad things done.
B.C. in Walpole, ME, writes: Kris Kristofferson (RIP) wrote as fine a line of country music as a man could write: "I woke up Sunday morning with no way to hold my head that didn't hurt."
Then he followed it with the immortal line: "And the beer I had for breakfast wasn't bad, so I had another for dessert."
(V) observed: "In the end, [Pam Bondi] might not be worse than other Republican AGs like Jeff Sessions, Alberto Gonzales, John Ashcroft, Edwin Meese, and John Mitchell. She might even be better than some of them."
She might not be worse than a Who's Who of the worst AGs since Harry Daugherty (also Republican) 100 years ago! Then follows the immortal snark: "That's a low Barr to clear, though."
I'm starting my week with a song in my heart and a lilt in my step.
Politics: Elon Musk
C.F. in Waltham, MA, writes: I was doing my annual watching of A Christmas Carol by Charles Dickens, and I could help thinking about Elon Musk. He is definitely a modern day Scrooge (before Scrooge's transformation, of course), and it is so weird how he seems to have gotten there.
I don't think Elon would be upset about him being compared to a fictional villain or supervillain like Lord Voldemort or Darth Vader, since he himself decided to not just adopt the polarizing term MAGA, but actually call himself the less ambiguous "dark MAGA." I think he fancies himself deeply evil and relishes the idea that he can hurt as many people as possible while continuing to make himself and the wealthiest people in the country even wealthier.
When he sold PayPal and started Tesla and Solar City, he really seemed to believe in climate change and helping this planet. He put most of his money into those endeavors and stuck with them. Now it's like he has no place to go. He takes Ketamine weekly for depression, and clearly his biggest ambition seems to be to abandon the Earth and go to Mars and live there. (After all, the "climate" on Mars is incredibly suitable to people.)
I remember, about a decade ago, seeing an interview with an ex-employee. At the time, he essentially said that Elon Musk was like a Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. Some days he would work through any problem with you and be an amazing partner, but other times he would be your worst nightmare. It's sad that Mr. Hyde is the one who seemed to win out.
The worst part of all is that Elon Musk owes his success and wealth to our country. He could never have become the richest man in the world if he lived in Russia, even though he seems to love the murderous Vladimir Putin. He might not have even been able to achieve it in any state other than California. The regulations he hates probably made his cars much, much better than they would have been if he could have slapped anything together. Yet he sees none of the VC money available, or the support from the government for electrification (tax credits for EVs and carbon credits for Tesla) as having anything to do with his success.
No, Elon Musk is not grateful for anything, and given his depression, he is living proof that you simply can't buy happiness. Maybe the only thing left for him is make as many people as possible absolutely miserable, something Trump is an expert at, but at which his adored Putin is a savant. I only wish that there were some figurative ghosts of Christmas that could let Musk see how much he could change the world for the better. It seems that only a few people who become super wealthy see that as important, and in doing so, are much more likely to be happy in their own lives. I am an atheist, but I always hope that everyone can have a very Merry Christmas regardless of their wealth. Gratefulness, empathy, and helping others, seems to be an excellent way to get there.
(V) & (Z) respond: You really should specify which version of A Christmas Carol you were watching. As (Z)'s grandmother often observed, there's the Alastair Sim version, and then there are... all the others.
A.R. in Los Angeles, CA, writes: If Elon Musk intends to continue threatening and harassing federal workers, he would do well to remember that he's not Donald Trump. He has no immunity for crimes he commits. He also makes his money scamming American taxpayers and those contracts are not guaranteed. There are rules and conditions that must be followed to keep that government money flowing and intimidating employees in order to increase his profits would violate those conditions.
And don't underestimate the power of a civil defamation suit. Even if he's got the money to pay a judgment, a trial would not go well for him.
D.K. in Iowa City, IA, writes: Everyone who opposes Donald Trump, et al., should boycott all of Elon Musk's businesses. And the businesses of anyone else working for Trump, including of course Trump himself.
K.B. in Edgewater, NJ, writes: Elon Musk is actually on record as supporting the end of subsidies for EVs. The logic is simple: Tesla is already quite profitable while Ford and other rivals lose money on each unit sold, even with the subsidies. Musk's true rivals, cheaper and increasingly sophisticated Chinese models (seriously, check out how Chinese models from BYD and Xiaomi compare to Tesla models), will likely never enter this country.
Musk seems to believe (quite reasonably) that ending the subsidies will devastate his domestic rivals' efforts to compete with Tesla while only denting its current profitability.
W.R. in Henderson, NC, writes: Just read where Elon Musk's Tesla factory in Germany is doubling its size and will become the largest auto producer in the country. Apparently this has been in the works for 2-3 years, and is being resisted by environmentalists. Trump's "First Buddy" apparently did not get the memo about bringing jobs back to America. Elon surely won't try to import any of those to the USA, where he'll have to pay large tariffs.
Politics: Legal Matters
R.C. in Newport News VA, writes: (V) wrote: "The only way Joe [Biden] could prevent [his son going to prison] is to issue a blanket pardon to Hunter for all crimes he may have committed. But that could create a firestorm. It's a tough call."
It's not the least bit a tough call. Biden ought to pardon Hunter Biden for all crimes today. This is one of the problems with Democrats: They are too timid when it comes to "upsetting" Republicans. Who cares if Republicans complain? They always complain, no matter what. Trump has done worse (which ought to be repeated every day) and a father helping a son is probably a sympathetic act for most Americans.
J.H. in Boston, MA, writes: Adam Schiff thinks that Jack Smith blew it by dismissing the 1/6 case, because if he had left it pending then Trump wouldn't have his own AG dismiss it because of fear of political blowback. Does anyone believe for one second that Trump would care about this one iota (if the blowback even materialized, which I doubt)?
There exist politicians in the world who insist that the cop who pulled them over give them a ticket that they might otherwise be inclined to let slide with a warning, because they believe so strongly that the law must apply to everyone that they want to avoid even the appearance that it might be biased in their favor.
Donald Trump is not such a politician. He is happy for the benefits of office to redound to him in every way possible. Also, he specially campaigned on killing the investigation on Day 1 and prosecuting everyone involved. If Jack Smith had followed Schiff's advice, he would be handing MAGA world a huge win and the exact fight they wanted to have which would be hugely damaging to the rule of law. I mean, that's coming anyway, but it would have been worse with Schiff's plan.
No, Smith's action was the only viable course.
On a semi-related note, you write that Biden would suffer blowback for pardoning Hunter, and it would be a firestorm that would harm the Democrats. I'm not seeing it. No one would care. And what Democrats would be harmed? They're all out of power. You think this will be the issue the voters remember in 2028? No.
The only slight issue I can see with it is that it gives more cover for Trump to do some very corrupt pardons. But again, Trump is already unbound in that regard, so give Hunter the pardon.
Politics: LGBT Americans
R.D. in Los Angeles, CA, writes: Thank you for sharing the letter from S.B. in Winslow, and thank you for continuing to be supportive of our communities. I came of age as a gay man in the Bush Jr. years, when they turned homophobia into a potent and destructive weapon, tangibly and emotionally. It is incredibly painful to have one's identity voted on and debated as if it were a post office name or farm subsidy.
I have watched with dismay as those same, specious, trite "arguments" have returned against the entire LGBTQ+ community once again—but especially our trans siblings—and it is heartbreaking. I am actually fearful for all our safety—and as a white cis guy that can pass if needed, that's saying something. I know many of my community and other marginalized folks have always felt that fear. Like S.B., I refuse to hide in fear and instead have taken steps to be more active in our community and vocal about my support. I am ready to be on the front line to protect our communities from the hatred that has been simmering in this country. I want S.B. to know they are loved and are not alone in this battle, and that we will fight together for actual freedom—not this pantomime the right imagines it to be.
D.N. in Elgin, IL, writes: S.B. in Winslow asks "What's different about you?" I can answer with little fear of social rejection that I'm left-handed. That's the first thing I thought of years ago when gay people, and now transgender people, began to be accused of choosing their sexual orientation or gender identity.
In all of those categories, I "just am." I never made a decision about any of them. It's my fervent hope that people who aren't heterosexual or "gender assigned at birth" will become as accepted as left-handedness is. As Tim Walz so eloquently put it, "Mind your own damn business!"
A.P. in Westchester, NY, writes: I live in a small, progressive town (less than 10,000 residents) in a Westchester, NY, suburb. Over the weekend, an alt-right hate group with 3.7 million eX-Twitter followers (I'm deliberately leaving out the name so as to not give them any more impressions) published a screed against the elementary school curriculum, apparently because the curriculum included one half-hour session (given once a year) on gender inclusivity. While I haven't seen the lesson, it apparently is more about people being different and including them for who they are, than anything else.
They doxxed multiple school administrators, who have since received death threats. The post has at the time of this writing 3.3 million views, and has been shared multiple tens of thousands of times. The three schools (elementary/middle/high) are on lockdown (i.e., non-students are not allowed into the buildings), with a heavy local/county police presence outside the school. From what we have seen, most parents have continued to send their kids to school.
Someone local is also feeding this hate group with the superintendent's community e-mail updates, who then posts them on eX-Twitter.
The timing of this activity is clearly tied to the election results, is just the tip of the iceberg, and will only get worse—not just for our community, but other similar communities as well.
R.L. in Alameda, CA, writes: Here's another response to the questions from D.E. in Lancaster about the anti-trans ad that was so effective against Kamala Harris. Giving credit where it is due, this take is from Dan Pfieffer on Pod Save America. He is Barack Obama's former communications director and an expert on polling, comms and political ads.
What was so effective about this ad is that it worked on many levels. It brought out the anti-trans bogeyman. It highlighted perceived "government waste." And the tagline (Trump is for you, she is for they/them) delivers the message that Democrats only care about coastal elites rather than you (the forgotten working class). Apparently, the Harris campaign made a response ad but it didn't test well. So, they had no response.
There have been a lot of takes about how Democrats can be for trans rights, but that too much emphasis hurts them. A lot of people who would otherwise support Democrats haven't yet come around to full-throated support of trans rights. The nation just isn't there yet (perhaps trans rights are where gay rights were in the early 1990's, before Ellen Degeneres and Will & Grace). The Republicans know this and effectively used it as a cudgel against Democrats. The blue team needs to figure out how to respond to this. And much work needs to be done to shift the Overton Window on trans acceptance. There just aren't yet enough Americans who support this for it to become a non-issue in a campaign.
Visibility ultimately got gay acceptance to where it is today. I commend the courage of Rep-elect Sarah McBride (D-DE) and others who have been public (e.g., reader A.B. in Wendell). In the meantime, allies like me will continue to speak out as well.
Politics: Ranked Choice Voting
S.C. in Mountain View, CA, writes: As someone extremely involved in the electoral reform movement, I wanted to make one correction to and some comments on your item "Supporters of Ranked-Choice Voting Are Rethinking Their Future."
In that item, you write: "In all the states where it was proposed, the idea was to have open primaries with the top few candidates advancing to an RCV general election." That is incorrect. The Oregon measure would have kept Oregon's closed primary system, but would have changed some offices to use RCV instead of plurality in both primary and general elections. (The Hill's article did refer to "election reform measures that would have set up ranked-choice systems OR done away with partisan primaries—or, in some cases, both" [emphasis added], but I don't fault you for not noticing the first "or".) A more complete summary of the various measures is available here.
I did want to note that all the municipal ballot measures to implement RCV passed (although in Richmond, CA, a competing measure to implement a run-off system also passed with more votes than the RCV measure, so that will take precedence). And in Oregon, the statewide measure was supported by a majority of the voters in the two counties where RCV is used: Benton County, which uses it for county offices, and Multnomah County, where Portland now uses the proportional form to elect its city council. (It also received the majority of the vote in neighboring Hood River County.)
The lesson the movement, including our funders, have learned is that, unless there are extraordinary conditions in a state such as the ones that preceded the Maine and Alaska RCV victories (in Maine, an unpopular governor elected and re-elected with only a plurality of the vote; in Alaska, the high percentage of unaffiliated voters), it is important to get RCV implemented in many local jurisdictions before attempting to take it statewide.
C.L. in Boulder, CO, writes: As someone who spends an inordinate amount of time thinking about better voting methods, I wanted to respond to "Supporters of Ranked-Choice Voting Are Rethinking Their Future." I spent a lot of this past year attending to the Colorado ballot measure that eventually became Prop 131, one of the rejected ranked voting measures. For instance, I testified regularly at the Colorado Title Board, which determines if a measure can be placed on the ballot and what words show up on the ballot to describe the measure. Then I worked to educate voters on what Prop 131 would do. I supported the final measure but felt that it was unnecessarily complex. I was also disappointed with both the pro and con sides' often inaccurate portrayal of the measure.
In Colorado, the proponents didn't work with the county clerks to write the measure. And in the last days of the legislative session, the clerks supported a legislative amendment that will delay implementation of any statewide ranked voting method for years.
Prop 131 and the other rejected state measures proposed changing our single-winner-voting method. A more impactful electoral reform would be to change to multi-winner elections using a proportional voting method for elected bodies like legislatures or councils. Then A.M. in MetroWest, a self-described "left-leaning centrist," wouldn't feel the need to vote for Republicans in an effort to counter single-party rule in his or her state. I too believe that one-party control is bad for good governance.
There are many forms of RCV, and please note that some forms of ranked voting do not qualify as RCV! Most of the time, as you noted, RCV means the single-winner form known as Instant-Runoff Voting (IRV). However, in the same recent election that saw so many rejections of IRV, Portland, OR, inaugurated four successful multi-winner ballot contests, each to elect 3 council members. The result: the most diverse council that Portland has ever had. Cambridge, MA, has been using this form of RCV, known as Single Transferable Vote (STV), since 1941. (Boulder used STV from 1917 to 1947. Personal note: My home was a polling place in Boulder's first 1917 STV election.)
The U.S. Fair Representation Act would use STV to elect U.S. Representatives with each congressional district electing up to five members (the more members per district, the more diverse and representative the delegation) and IRV to elect U.S. Senators and any single U.S. Representatives for states such as Alaska and Wyoming.
In September of 2022, more than 200 scholars called for "multi-member districts with more proportional representation." Some big names who signed include Lee Drutman, Francis Fukuyama, Steven Levitsky, Nancy MacLean, Miles Rapoport, Larry Sabato and Matthew Shugart. The letter doesn't mention which kind of proportional voting method. Because the tabulation and auditing process for STV is fairly complicated, many proportional voting advocates, like Lee Drutman's Fix Our House organization, are more excited about the simpler mixed-member proportional representation systems used in other countries. A non-STV proportional system would get around the bans on ranked voting methods that states like Missouri, Florida and Idaho have passed.
Two weeks ago, Reps. Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (D-WA) and Jared Golden (D-ME) introduced House Resolution 1573 to establish a Select Committee on Electoral Reform to "consider alternatives like multi-member districts with proportional representation..."
FairVote is the national organization most associated with RCV. "It was founded in 1992 as Citizens for Proportional Representation to support the implementation of proportional representation in American elections." Perhaps now is a good time for FairVote to return to its original mission and not focus so much on single-winner IRV-RCV.
(V) & (Z) respond: The most important requirement for a voting system is that the voters understand it. People understand first-past-the-post. RCV went down almost everywhere because it is too complicated for many voters. STV is far, far beyond what the average voter can understand. Even talking about it is a bad idea because it distracts from implementing reforms that might actually pass, like IRV or even runoffs. The perfect is the enemy of the good.
S.G. in Newark, NJ, writes: (V)'s dissection of the failure of RCV initiatives seems spot on. In fact, I tend to agree with the argument that open primaries followed by RCV in the general election is not the best way to do this (although I probably would have voted for such a system to replace first-past-the-post, had I had that option).
There is no logical reason RCV has to be coupled with nonpartisan open primaries. If that's the case, why have primaries at all? Just let everyone—from the crazies in the rightmost lane to the crazies in the leftmost lane and those in all the lanes in between—run in one election and get ranked. This would give protest voters on both extremes their opportunity to express their preferences while, presumably, a candidate somewhere closer to the middle lane (and tolerable to the majority) could get elected. Yes, that's Instant Runoff Voting (IRV), but with an awfully chaotic field.
The reason for primary elections is that we have political parties, and in the 1960's and 1970's the parties and the states decided it would be more democratic to allow people to vote to choose the parties' candidates instead of having party leaders do so in smoke-filled rooms. Turns out that system can lead to extreme results because only the most ideological and motivated partisans reliably turn out for primary elections. Open primaries are supposed to correct for that by "forcing" candidates to tack to the middle to attract some votes from voters that are in or lean toward the other party. But does that really work, given the combined effects of spatial demographics and gerrymandering? In the kind of district where the two survivors of an open primary are likely to belong to the same party, the candidates still have an incentive to maximize their vote from that party's most strident adherents.
(V)'s post pointed out that many Southern states have the equivalent of IRV, minus the "instant" part: partisan primaries, followed by an election requiring an absolute majority to win, followed by a separate runoff election between the top two finishers if no one got a majority in the first general election. (V) also mentioned that IRV might be preferable to this system, because it avoids the "trouble and expense" of an extra election.
I'd like to point out another advantage IRV has over the Southern system. A separate runoff election, means that people have to vote twice to have their votes really count. We know many people won't do that, especially in wintry, post-holiday January with the national outcome known. This usually results in relatively low-turnout, wonky runoffs in which the ultimate winner is chosen by fewer people than would be the case if IRV had been used in the general election. IRV, therefore, is pro-democratic because it allows everyone who bothers to vote (once) to have a say in choosing between the top two finishers.
Of course, in many of the states we're talking about, the people in charge view that aspect of IRV as a bug, not a feature.
All Politics Is Local
H.B. in State College, PA, writes: In an answer about your edits of readers' letters, you wrote: "[F]olks who are not members of the federal executive branch get their party and state as well... For example, Secretary of State Antony Blinken, Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA)..."
So, as a resident of Pennsylvania, I assume that, starting in January, you will refer to our new carpetbagger Senator as "Sen. Dave McCormick (D-CT)."
J.R. In Orlando, FL, writes: I live in Orlando and work in Brevard County. Personally I think it would be very difficult for Matt Gaetz to win a statewide primary. While I tend to vote left, I have a lot of coworkers and colleagues who vote Republican. None of them like Gaetz and were glad he won't be Attorney General.
As for Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-FL), I have no answers. No one I talk to seems to like him, with his fight against Disney and what he has done with home owners insurance here, yet he won his last election in a landslide.
Giving Thanks
S.B. in Granby, MA, writes: I really appreciated the What I'm Thankful For segment. I am struggling this year to feel very grateful for anything, and like the solid Democrat that I am, I am swimming in a turbulent pool of anxiety, nose barely above water. So I would especially like to thank R.P. in Kāneʻohe, HI, for giving me a whole list of reasons to be thankful and reminding me that most of the time, I too, am eternally hopeful.
A.S. in Bedford, MA, writes: I really hope someone else writes in about this and you don't run my letter, but anyways... WTF was that thankfulness for Wikipedia about? This is the year that I stopped donating money to them due to the active rewriting of history going on there regarding Israel. I had a back and forth with them about it and they basically told me that majority rules on their site, so, oh well.
Looking back over the years of Wikipedia, I remember at first that you couldn't believe anything there and always needed to check other sources. Then, for a while, I trusted anything scientific or math-oriented (which was helpful as an engineering student) but nothing else. Then we had a period where it was a legitimate source. Now, politics has gotten to it, or maybe it was always there, but now has hit a subject I care about and know something about. I guess, oh well, right?
And I'm thankful for my toddler, too.
R.H. in San Antonio, TX, writes: K.H. in Scotch Plains gave thanks for Wikipedia and its (thus far) resistance to "start[ing] off well and useful and functioning and then slowly go down the drain."
There is a term for this process, apparently originated by the wonderful Cory Doctorow: ensh**tification.
J.L. in Los Angeles, CA, writes: Two things happened back-to-back for me on Friday. I was reading through the (much-needed) messages of thanks and perspective from Electoral-Vote.com folks when I received a text from my friend who is a professional Santa. He's also a steadfast conservative (hence, the red suit, I'm guessing), and we've had our fair share of mostly-civil debates.
Anyway, my Santa friend sent me a link to the following video with a song for the Christmas holiday during this time of anything-but-niceness:
Amusingly, he didn't realize that the song was entirely written and performed by artificial intelligence—something which I think is simultaneously amazing and terrifying. But the fact remains that, regardless of how this song came to be, its message, when tacked onto the hope and optimism of the reader sentiments, seems a natural pairing as we transition from Thanksgiving to the Christmas and winter holidays. Give it a watch and a listen and see if you don't agree, as well...
History Matters
J.H. in Boston, MA, writes: P.N. of Austin makes an off-hand comment about Joe Biden being the best president of their lifetime. I too have, in the past, written in with comments of that nature. You say he might well go down as such.
For me, my own assessment of Biden's presidency has to be severely downgraded by the fact that he failed to manage his own succession, failed to even get his own party's nomination, failed to get a second term for his party, and failed to bring to justice the perpetrator of the 1/6 coup. It is likely that every single legislative accomplishment will be quickly reversed, and every foreign policy achievement he aimed for will be sacrificed.
How can he be the best president of my lifetime if the totality of his achievements is literally zero or negative? You say that Biden had to "play it safe" with Ukraine, and presumably with the DoJ, with the election, and so now we will all suffer. Give me a president who will risk it.
E.D. in Saddle Brook, NJ, writes: I'm shocked that your write-up on Richard Nixon's comeback left out the culmination of that comeback: His head was elected President of Earth in the year 3000, circumventing the "no body can be elected more than twice" rule.
J.C. in Thủ Dầu Một, Binh Duong, Vietnam, writes: Thought you might like this tie-in to what you shared about presidential swearing-in. I went to the local consulate in Ho Chi Minh City on Friday to get an affidavit. As always—I've been through this many times—I had to tell the woman behind the desk that I am Quaker, so am choosing to affirm. As always, first she ignores me, then she has to go in the back to check with the boss, and come back to state that yes, indeed, I have the right to affirm. I guess us Friends are not too common overseas. But another win for the Judicial Act of 1789! Wish more people knew about it.
D.S. in Palo Alto, CA, writes: As a resident of Northern California, to me the story of Wyatt Earp connects two worlds that were in some ways totally separate in my mind: the "Old West" of Tombstone and other such yarns, and the Modern World that I consider myself to live in. I was somehow gobsmacked to learn that Wyatt Earp died in his sister's Los Angeles Apartment in 1929, and then, for reasons I don't know or have forgotten, is buried in one of the number of private cemeteries in Colma, a southern suburb of San Francisco where fewer residents are alive than not. I didn't comprehend that people could make that transition, even living as I do in the town created by one of the famous robber barons of that era.
(V) & (Z) respond: Earp has two other connections to the 20th century, both by virtue of his final residence. First, the final home in which he lived is close to USC, and he became friendly with several members of the school's football team, including... John Wayne. Second, that residence has been torn down, and sitting on the site today is... Johnnie Cochran Elementary School. So, the fellow associated with one of the most famous acts of violence of the 19th century has been superseded by a fellow associated with one of the most famous acts of violence of the 20th century.
M.G. in Boulder, CO, writes: After reading the question about the gunfight at the OK Corral from G.C. in South Pasadena, I did what I always do with gunfighter-related questions, and asked James Dunham, retired Director of Special Projects and Historian for the Booth Western Art Museum in Cartersville, GA, and also president of The Wild West History Association, for his comments. He replied:
OK (no pun intended), I am ready to take this on.
First each movie and TV version is wrong in different ways. When I was helping Kevin Jarre while he was writing his Tombstone script, I told him his historical errors. He had Doc Holliday killing Johnny Ringo. I told him Doc was in Pueblo, CO, when John Yost discovered Ringo's body. Kevin said, "Jim, we are just making a movie."
The best books are Casey Teffertiller's Wyatt Earp: The Life Behind the Legend and John Bossenecker's books on the Cowboy War.
I started watching the current TV version. In the first episode they have the Benson stage robbery. I thought, "Great, this is an important part of the history that has been ignored." Four of the Cowboy gang wait in the trees at Drew's Station where the rise in the hill slows the coach. They order the coach to stop, but accidentally fire a shot and kill driver Bud Philpot. Bob Paul whips the team to escape and the Cowboys fire and kill a passenger. Both City Marshal Virgil Earp and County Sheriff John Behan put posses into the field and arrest Luther King, who fingers Billy Lenard, Harry Head, and Jim Crane. Wyatt Earp tries to cut a deal with Ike Clayton to give up the outlaws for Wells Fargo reward money. The failure of this plan is an important part of what led to the gunfight.
However, instead of four men on foot stopping the stage, the TV show has a running horseback, gun-shooting chase that results in a crash with the stage rolling over and over. Then they totally get the arrest of the robbers wrong. I gave up on the show.
No question that Stuart N. Lake's Wyatt Earp: Frontier Marshal was what made Earp famous, although it was not the first book about him. Wyatt did meet with Lake several times, but died before publication. Lake made stuff up and Wyatt's wife Josie Marcus threatened lawsuits if he wrote anything she didn't like.
Josie was 19 years old and had come to Arizona territory to perform in a Gilbert and Sullivan production. She hooked up with John Behan in Prescott and met Wyatt in Tombstone. Wyatt was 33 years old and I think he was attracted to Josie, but I do not find evidence of a relationship until later in California.
Following the gunfight, the Earps and Doc Holliday were arrested and charged with police brutality. Following a 30-day hearing in November 1881, Judge Wells Spicer declared that the Earps and Doc were not guilty as they were law officers doing their duty. The Epitaph newspaper was Republican and supported the Earps and The Nugget newspaper was Democratic and supported Behan and the Cowboys.
Google Jim Dunham gunfighter to check me out.
Gallimaufry
R.W. in Churchville, PA, writes: You wrote: "But it doesn't actually matter how it went over in New Haven. It played in Peoria."
I know this is an old common saying, but out of curiosity, I checked the election results for Peoria, IL.
In fact, Kamala Harris beat Donald Trump there, 51% to 47%.
Time to update the reference?
B.C. in Walpole, ME, writes: You wrote: Note: Please do not send us e-mails correcting our Latin grammar.
So few sites/publications I read find it necessary to post that warning...
G.T.M. in Vancouver, BC, Canada, writes: You can take it, coming from one of your high-placed, reliable, sources who was involved but can only report anonymously because they are not authorized to comment directly, that "AI" does NOT stand for "Artificial Intelligence."
What it really stands for, and anyone who is honest in the "computer biz" will tell you the same thing, is: "Augmented Idiocy."
Final Words
R.H. in San Antonio, TX, writes: Andrew Jackson, on his deathbed: "I can tell you; posterity will condemn me more because I was persuaded not to hang John C. Calhoun as a traitor than for any other act in my life."
We trust the modern-day relevance is evident.
If you have suggestions for this feature, please send them along.
Previous | Next
Main page for smartphones
Main page for tablets and computers