Electoral-vote.com for Smartphones

Jan24

Two Losers, One Winner in New Hampshire

We watched the returns trickle in all last night, which meant we had plenty of time to think about what they might be telling us. And our conclusion is that both Donald Trump and Nikki Haley had a poor night, while Joe Biden should be pretty pleased this morning.

Let's start with the most obvious of the three, which is Haley. Naturally, her early 6-vote lead did not hold up. With 91% of the votes in, Trump claimed 54.9% of the vote to 41.3% for Haley (resulting in roughly 12 delegates for the former, 9 for the latter). The other "active" candidate, Ryan Binkley, finished a distant seventh place, with just 0.1% of the vote, placing him behind not only Ron DeSantis and Chris Christie, but also Vivek Ramaswamy and... Mike Pence.

So, Haley lost by about 14 points. That is blowout territory; she wasn't even close to making a contest of it. And that is with all kinds of factors potentially working in her favor. The state's Republicans are pretty friendly, on the whole, to her brand of conservatism. Many independents took a Republican ballot, just so they could vote for her. She retail-politicked her heart out. And do you know how much money she, and her allied PACs, spent on advertising in the Granite State? The number is actually kind of staggering: $31 million. That's over $20 for every single resident of the state. Or, if you prefer, it's about $230 for every vote she got. It's true that Trump and his allied PACs also spent quite a bit, but nowhere near as much, with a total of about $15 million.

Naturally, Haley can't rely on most or all of these things in the primaries that are immediately upcoming. We're about to hit a run of states that are very MAGA, and where independents (in most cases) can't cross over. She won't be able to give just about any voter who wants it some face time. She certainly won't be able to spend $20/resident or $230/vote. Yes, she will win the Nevada primary, since she's the only one on the ballot. But thereafter, she'll be lucky to crack 30%. And remember, once again, that soon the states become winner-take-all.

Haley, of course, spun last night's result as a positive, declaring in her end-of-day speech that: "New Hampshire is first in the nation. It is not the last in the nation. This race is far from over. There are dozens of states left to go." This is factually correct... excepting the part about the race being far from over. As legendary Lakers announcer Chick Hearn used to say: "The game's in the refrigerator, the door's closed, the light's out, the eggs are cooling, the butter's getting hard and the jello's jiggling." Put another way, Haley's goose is officially cooked.

At this point, there remains exactly one path for her to claim the 2024 Republican nomination: something would have to happen to Trump (health crisis, criminal conviction), and the Republican National Committee would have to turn to her as the next woman up. This is an extreme longshot, as it not only requires Trump to suffer a devastating blow of some sort, it also requires the RNC to unify behind Haley. That is a big "if" in a party where roughly half the functionaries (committee members, delegates, etc.) are MAGA and half are not. Should Trump become unavailable, the fight to pick his replacement could make the various speakership battles of the last year look like a Sunday picnic.

Nonetheless, slim a chance as it is, this is Haley's path. And so, her thinking right now should be focused on the best way to position herself as the heir apparent. If she keeps going, that certainly does entitle her to some consideration, since she would have put in the work while, say, Gov. Glenn Youngkin (R-VA) and Gov. Brian Kemp (R-GA) did not. On the other hand, if she suffers a string of lopsided losses, then it will serve to underscore that the GOP faithful largely are not buying what she's selling. She's not going to drop out right now, of course, nor is she likely to do so anytime until after Super Tuesday. But that doesn't mean she shouldn't seriously consider it.

Moving on to Trump, it may seem strange to call him a loser when he effectively dispatched his final remaining opponent. However, as with Iowa, there is evidence of some serious cracks in the facade. To start, he took just over half of the vote, which isn't great for someone of his stature, who is effectively an incumbent. Yes, some percentage of the non-Trump vote was crossovers who are Democrats in all but name. But a large percentage of the non-Trump vote was Republicans who don't really want Trump to be their standard bearer again. Compare Trump's take to that of Joe Biden (approx. 65%), keeping in mind that Biden wasn't even on the ballot last night.

There's also some not-so-good news for Trump in the exit polls. Among voters who cast Republican ballots and who identify as moderates, Haley won by a 3-to-1 margin. Among voters who cast Republican ballots and who oppose an abortion ban, Haley won by a 2-to-1 margin. Of course, a lot of those moderates, and a lot of those pro-choice voters, aren't really Republican voters. And a sizable percentage of those who really are Republican voters will hold their noses and vote for Trump anyhow in the general. Nonetheless, Trump is operating with very small margins for error. If he's having a tough time winning moderates, and if he is compelled to adopt a stringent anti-choice position to keep the base happy, then he'll be in a precarious place.

And finally, there is Joe Biden. With a little less than 90% of the vote in, he had collected 51.5% of the vote, as compared to 19.8% for Dean Phillips and 4.7% for Marianne Williamson. However, another 14.1% of the ballots were unprocessed write-in votes. It is true that among the write-in ballots that have been processed, some small number went to "alternative" candidates like Vermin Supreme (639 votes; 0.6%), Paperboy Prince (220 votes; 0.2%), and President Boddie (94 votes; 0.1%... wait, wasn't he the corpse in Clue?). However, the very safe presumption is that most of those unprocessed write-ins are Biden votes. So, as we note above, he'll end up with something like 65% of the vote once the dust has settled.

We think this is an excellent result for Biden. First, because it would have been very easy for unhappy Democratic voters to "send a message," either by voting for one of the other candidates, or by not voting at all. And yet, nearly two-thirds of them chose, despite it requiring some extra effort, to cast a Biden ballot. To give some context, the last time there was an incumbent Democrat in the race was 2012. That year, Barack Obama took 80% of the New Hampshire vote, despite there being no alternative Democrat (the second-place finisher was Ron Paul), despite actually being on the ballot, and despite being a very popular incumbent. Obviously, 65% is not 80%, but given the different circumstances of 2024, it is a pretty decent showing.

The second reason this is an excellent result for Biden is that he gambled, and won, at least for now. That is to say, he poked New Hampshire voters in the eye a little bit, so that he could make a statement about how important Black voters are to him. Last night, he was not punished for that, since he did not suffer the embarrassment of losing to, or winning a very narrow victory over, a non-serious challenger. Time will tell if Black voters appreciate the gesture, and also if New Hampshire voters decide to punish Biden in the general. We can't really know if Biden's bet paid off until we know those two things, but at least for now, things are going according to plan for him.

Meanwhile, how much longer will Phillips and Williamson continue to soldier on? Who knows? Williamson has no money left, and isn't really campaigning. So, she can keep her ghost campaign going for a long time, if she wants, in search of attention, or selling books, or improving her aura, or whatever she's after. In 2020, she withdrew before the first primary, so she's already in uncharted territory.

As to Phillips, we've never understood his candidacy. If you accept his hard-to-believe theory of the race, he was running because it's better that even if Biden is the party's nominee, there be a real challenger for the nomination. Quite clearly, Biden is taking no notice of Phillips, nor are most Democratic voters. So much for that. This week, Phillips has flip-flopped on a near-daily basis on whether he is interested in being the No Labels candidate. So, maybe that is in his future. He's also become the favored candidate of many of the tech bros, who have redirected their money from Vivek Ramaswamy's PAC to Phillips' PAC. So, maybe Phillips will just keep riding along because he likes attention or because he's got nothing better to do. The good people of MN-03 might prefer to have their elected representative in Washington, doing his job, but who are they to dictate?

And that's the story out of New Hampshire. The next casting of ballots will be the meaningless Nevada Republican primary on February 6, followed by the almost equally meaningless Nevada Republican caucus on February 8, where Donald Trump will be taking all 26 delegates, since he's the only still-active candidate to pay the filing fee. (Z)

Trump Will Remain Gagged

Donald Trump has been under a gag order in his Washington case for several weeks now and, barring Supreme Court intervention, he will remain gagged. A three-person panel from the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals already ruled against him, and yesterday, the full circuit declined to hear his appeal. This is not an unexpected outcome, since the gag order was carefully tailored, and clearly has a valid purpose in terms of protecting the (future) jury and the members of the court.

Truth be told, this news is probably not interesting enough to warrant an item on its own. However, it did lead Trump to blow a gasket on "Truth" Social. That is also not interesting enough to warrant an item on its own, EXCEPT that as part of his meltdown, Trump posted this image to remind his base that he, too, is a God-fearing fellow:

Trump kneeling and praying in what appears to be a cathedral of some sort

Perhaps you might notice something fishy about the photo, particularly if you are a regular reader of this site? Like, for example, the unnatural, leathery texture of his suit jacket? Or the pews pointing in the wrong direction? Or... the six fingers on his right hand?

Naturally, if the best proof you have of your churchgoing ways is an AI-generated photo, that reveals a little something about your "churchgoing" ways. Anyhow, this was just too good, so we had to pass it along. (Z)

OK, This Is a Pretty Good "Understanding MAGA Voters" Piece

Last week, we had an item about how much we dislike all those "understanding MAGA" pieces, the ones that The New York Times tends to specialize in, in particular. We probably should have been a little more precise, as we only dislike 95% of them. Once in a while, some writer manages to produce a winner. Such is the case with the now widely circulated Politico article from Michael Kruse headlined "Our System Needs to Be Broken, and He Is the Man to Do It."

Instead of doing very cursory commentaries on 4-10 MAGA voters, Kruse decided to approach the piece by zooming in on a single MAGA voter, namely a resident of New Hampshire named Ted Johnson. Johnson is a 22-year veteran of the armed forces who retired as a lieutenant colonel. He has a high-paying job that allows him to work from home. He has a family and owns his home, whose value has increased 25% since Joe Biden became president. In short, he is in no way someone for whom "the system" is not working. And yet, he wants to burn it all down.

Where does Johnson's anger come from? Even he does not really know, to the point that Kruse didn't even bother to ask. Johnson voted twice for Barack Obama, then twice for Donald Trump. He was a Doug Burgum supporter for a while during this cycle, then switched to Nikki Haley before deciding she was phony. At that point, it was back to Trump, because Trump is the only one who can "break the system" and "take care of the average guy."

As you might imagine, Johnson is a loyal Fox viewer; surely at least some (most?) of his wildly oscillating rage comes from that. For example, consider this passage from the story:

Johnson started talking about "Russia-gate" and "Biden's scandals" and Hunter Biden. What, I wondered, did Hunter Biden have to do with Nikki Haley? "She's not going to hold anybody accountable for what they've done," Johnson told me. "People need to be held accountable. That's why you've got to break the system to fix the system," he said. "Because it's a zero-sum game right now. And to be honest with you, the Democrats are genius. They did anything they could do to win and gain power, even if they lie, cheat, steal... What they're doing is they're destroying the country. Who could bring it back?" He answered his own question: "Trump's the only one."

This passage speaks to the same dynamic, while also illustrating that Trump's criminal cases might just be his Achilles heel:

The federal election interference case in Washington? "I don't see it," he said. "There was no insurrection." The porn star hush money case in New York? "Totally ridiculous." The sweeping election interference case in Georgia? "Jury's out on what's going on there." And the Mar-a-Lago classified documents case in Florida? It's the one that gives Johnson a modicum of pause. "You don't f--- around with classified material. Whoever advised him he could have that—he should have gave that s--- up," he said. "But he was being the stubborn, arrogant person that he is." And he added, "I didn't like the way the FBI did it. The raid was ridiculous. And that just emboldened me."

The rest of the piece has much more of the same.

Conservative lawyer and Trump hater George Conway read the piece and said that it's the "most illuminating thing I've ever read about Trumpism." He continued:

This New Hampshire GOP voter is angry. But he doesn't really know what he's angry about. He wants to be angry. He does know whom he is angry at—the people who he thinks run the country and who he thinks think themselves better than he. He wants to harm them, even if it harms him, and even if it harms the country—indeed, especially if it harms the country, because he thinks harming the country is the best way to harm the people he wants to harm.

That very much gets at the heart of the matter.

In any event, we thought this was worth passing along because it's a reminder that Trumpism is not easily subjected to classic political analysis. It may be in part about blue-collar discontent or immigration or globalization, but there's also a strong primal, visceral element that Trump has tapped into that it is almost certain that he does not fully understand. And he's done it because, billionaire as he might be, in that specific way, he is one of them. Take a look at the Conway quote, and notice that it also describes Trump himself to a T. That's why he's sui generis, because it's not true of any of the Trump pretenders. They can't fake the rage, even if they try (see DeSantis, Ron), because they don't truly feel it. Trump does. (Z)

Another Kind of Article We Can't Stand

There are, as we noted in the "Understanding MAGA" piece last week, a number of different "political analysis" articles that are so common as to be clichés. Some of them are merely unimaginative and kinda lazy. Others drive us up a wall. The "understanding MAGA" pieces tend to fall into the latter category, of course. Also in that group are the "Why Don't the Democrats Understand that the Key to the Election is [this one demographic/this one issue]?"

This week, Slate published one of the very most egregious articles of this sort that we have seen in recent memory. It is by frequent contributor Jill Filipovic (who, to be blunt, often turns in pieces of dubious quality to the many different outlets she writes for). Because Slate uses multiple headlines for most articles in search of additional clicks, this one was published under the headline "Biden's Entire Candidacy Depends on the One Issue He Still Refuses to Talk About" and also under "Biden Is Whiffing It on the Most Important Issue for Democrats."

So, what issue do you think it is that Biden is apparently unaware of, or unwilling to discuss, or... whatever? It's abortion. Filipovic's complaint about the President really has two parts. The first is that he hasn't done enough to protect abortion access:

Clearly, the message is at least getting partly through, which is why Biden's top campaign officials are saying that the president will treat abortion rights with the utmost urgency if he wins a second term. The pitch is clear: If you want abortion rights to be back in the hands of women and doctors, vote for Biden in November.

But Biden was in the White House when the Supreme Court overturned Roe. He has been in the White House for the entire period in which harsh red-state abortion bans have been in place. So why hasn't restoring abortion rights been the No. 1 priority of this term?

In this case, Filipovic goes on to answer her own question: He doesn't have the votes. She does not go on to suggest anything he could have done that he did not do because she knows there really isn't anything. Well, except for one thing, in her view: He hasn't talked enough about abortion. That brings us to the second part of Filipovic's complaint:

But it's hard to say that restoring abortion rights has been the No. 1 priority of Biden's administration, because, while he has made some statements supporting abortion rights, the president simply hasn't made it a cornerstone of his campaign.

He has instead primarily emphasized the threat that Trump poses to democracy—a crucial point to be sure, but one also indelibly tied to abortion. Biden has not been consistently and repeatedly clear on that link: that when liberal democracy expands, so do abortion rights; when authoritarianism takes hold, abortion rights and women's rights tend to come under attack and contract.

This is, quite simply, not in alignment with the facts. Consider a selection of headlines from just the past week:

In short, Filipovic's critique does not stand up to even the most cursory scrutiny. Biden is clearly aware that abortion is going to be key to the 2024 elections, and to that end, he is talking a lot about it, is making sure to handcuff Trump to it and, on the side, is still trying to find ways to protect abortion access using executive power.

And this brings us to a larger observation about the Biden campaign. The fact is that most people, unless they are part of the presidential press detail, aren't going to have a full appreciation of exactly what the campaign is up to and what it is saying. First, because once Biden is giving his stump speech 3-4 times a week, it's going to be less newsworthy and is going to get less coverage. Second, because Biden is going to campaign primarily in swing states. So, the 39 million people in California, for example, are going to have far less exposure to his messaging than, say, the 6 million people in Wisconsin.

It's also worth keeping in mind that Biden is a veteran politician, perhaps the most veteran ever to occupy the White House. He got his start in politics more than 50 years ago. He won six U.S. Senate elections and he's been on three winning presidential tickets. He has a vast army of talented, experienced advisors. He has a gaggle of prominent allies he can call on as surrogates, from Barack Obama to John Kerry to Jill Biden. There is absolutely zero chance that he just doesn't understand, or just isn't aware of the ONE thing that is crucial to his reelection chances, particularly when that one thing is something so obvious as abortion access. (Z)

Kelly Armstrong to Run for Governor in North Dakota

Every action results in an equal and opposite reaction? Apparently so. On Monday, Gov. Doug Burgum (R-ND) said he would not stand for reelection. On Tuesday morning, Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-ND) said he wasn't interested in the job. On Tuesday afternoon, Rep. Kelly Armstrong (R-ND), who is the state's only member of the House, said he was very much interested, and that he would run to replace Burgum, as opposed to running for reelection to the House. Better to be a big fish in a small pond than a small fish in a giant pond, it would seem.

We are hardly experts in North Dakota politics, but a sitting officeholder who has already won statewide three times by virtue of being the only representative is surely the hands-on favorite to win the governor's mansion. That would change if Sen. John Hoeven (R-ND) jumped in, but there's no indication he's interested, and one has to imagine that Armstrong took a stroll over to the other side of the Capitol just to make sure. The only other Republican in the race right now is Tom Campbell, who was a state senator nearly a decade ago. Lt. Gov. Tammy Miller (R-ND) is a possibility, but she's already missed her chance to strike while the iron was really hot.

Meanwhile, North Dakota is R+20 and last elected a freshman Democrat to the House in 1992. So the seat will remain in Republican hands. It will probably take a week or so before we know exactly which hands are in the running, however, as there are no declared candidates yet. (Z)

Looking Back at 2023, Part VIII: What Did We Write About? (The Answers)

Time to reveal the answers:

1. Which of the these words/names appeared most frequently in 2023?

Biden (chosen by 8.1% of readers)

Trump (51.3%)

Republicans (29.8%)

Democrats (0.2%)

People (9.6%)

The Answer: It was Trump, with a mind-boggling 11,276 appearances. That's an average of about 30 per day. Yikes. He's followed by people (5,169), Biden (4,171), Republicans (3,627) and Democrats (3,265).

2. Which non-president politician was mentioned most frequently in 2023?

Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-FL) (47.4%)

Dianne Feinstein (0.1%)

Kamala Harris (0.1%)

Kevin McCarthy (43.1%)

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) (8.9%)

The Answer: DeSantis, who showed up 2,702 times, followed by McCarthy (1,227), McConnell (363), Harris (352) and Feinstein (309). Only one reader bought our Kamala Harris distractor.

3. Which unpleasant member of the House of Representatives was mentioned most frequently in 2023?

Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-CO) (15.5%)

Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL) (14%)

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) (49.4%)

Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) (16.9%)

Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-NY) (4.2%)

The Answer: Because of all of his "investigations," Jordan took the trophy, with 476 mentions. That's well ahead of Greene (252), Gaetz (206), Boebert (188) or Stefanik (79).

4. All of these U.S. Senators were mentioned at least 50 times, except for:

Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) (14%)

Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) (23%)

Sen. John Fetterman (D-PA) (2.1%)

Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) (22.8%)

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) (38%)

The Answer: We actually made an error here, as there are two correct answers: Paul (24) and Cornyn (21). Fetterman (71), Collins (65) and Rubio (51) all cleared the line.

5. Which of these controversial people was mentioned most frequently in 2023?

Tucker Carlson (11.5%)

Adolf Hitler (0.1%)

Sen. Bob Menendez (D-NJ) (0.1%)

Elon Musk (12.1%)

"George Santos" (75.4%)

The Answer: "George Santos," who appeared 526 times, a feat he surely won't repeat. He left Musk (186), Carlson (170), Menendez (106) and Hitler (91) in the dust. If only they had harnessed the power of the sweater vest.

6. Which state was mentioned most frequently in 2023?

California (7.9%)

Florida (64.1%)

Iowa (4%)

Texas (21.9%)

Virginia (2%)

The Answer: We didn't fool too many people here; consistent with the attention paid to DeSantis, Florida (999) was mentioned far more frequently than California (678), Texas (495), Iowa (453) or Virginia (377).

7. Which country was mentioned most frequently in 2023?

Canada (14.4%)

Israel (4.9%)

Mexico (3.3%)

Russia (26%)

Ukraine (51.5%)

The Answer: On this one, by contrast, we managed to trip nearly everyone up. Israel (820) showed up far more frequently than Russia (372), Ukraine (360), Canada (256) or Mexico (173).

8. Which political word was used most frequently in 2023?

Abortion (61%)

Debt (3.6%)

Immigration (16.8%)

Insurrection (13.2%)

War (5.4%)

The Answer: Another pretty easy one. Abortion was mentioned 1,669 times, as compared to 1,427 for war, 620 for debt, 210 for immigration and 189 for insurrection.

9. What non-political word was used most frequently in 2023?

Baseball (23.3%)

Bible (16.7%)

Dachshund(s) (17.3%)

Orange (27.5%)

Turtle (15.2%)

The Answer: It was orange (126), and we all know why. That was followed closely by baseball (115) and Bible (91), with dachshund(s) (52) and turtle (37) bringing up the rear, as they so often do.

10. Which among these was the only historical figure who did not warrant a mention in 2023?

Winston Churchill (4.9%)

Frederick Douglass (6.5%)

Amelia Earhart (42.9%)

Napoleon (15.4%)

Socrates (30.4%)

The Answer: Socrates showed up early this year, thanks to an appearance in Sunday's "last words," but not at all in 2023. Winston Churchill made 24 appearances, Napoleon 11, Douglass 4 and Earhart 1 (as part of a recent Q&A answer about notable German-Americans).

Tiebreaker: If you read every word we wrote in 2023, at an average reading speed, how many hours would it take, rounded to the nearest hour?

The Answer: We should have used "published," since we didn't write everything that appeared on the site, of course. Anyhow, over the course of 2023, it added up to about 2.3 million words. According to the site we used for the conversion, that's about 137 hours of reading at normal adult speed. Or, 137 days at Trump speed.

This one was a toughie, as the average score was 4.24 and there were no perfect scores. However, there was one score of 9/10. Congratulations to:

1. J.P. in Lausanne, Switzerland

The remainder of the Top 20, starting with the six folks who got 8 right, and then adding 14 folks who got 7 and had the closest tiebreaker answers:

2. M.A.W. in Port Ludlow, WA.
3. M.A. in Boston, MA
4. J.G. in Chicago, IL
5. D.B.M. in Vashon island, WA
6. M.J.M in Boston, MA
7. B.C. in Selinsgrove, PA
8. M.A.B. in Windsor CT
9. L.B. in St. Louis, MO
10. J.F. in Fredericksburg, VA
11. H.M. in College Park, MD
12t. T.B. in Wiscasset, ME
12t. M.K. in Munich, Germany
14t. N.A. in Molalla, OR
14t. W.L. in Mol, Belgium
16t. J.B.H. in Wilmington, NC
16t. J.S. in Cape Elizabeth, ME
18. D.B. in Nixa, MO
19. F.M. in Chandler, AZ
20t. A.C. in Tenants Harbor, ME
20t. T.P. in Cleveland, OH

There were well over 1,000 entries, so anyone who made the Top 20 should be pretty pleased with themselves. (Z)

Looking Back at 2023, Part IX: Good Jobs

We took our lumps yesterday, today it's time for some sugar. This is longer than yesterday's entry because we got something like ten times as many e-mails on this question as opposed to the "bad jobs" question:

General:

E.W. in New Orleans, LA: I think you two are absolutely flying when you have longer pieces that are both relevant and squarely nested in your expertise. History, higher education, computing, polling, comparative politics and media all leap to mind. This year I especially appreciated the deep dives into the Reconstruction Amendments, the budget process, and how Fox works.

M.M. in San Diego, CA: Thanks for setting up the Patreon account so we can make recurring contributions to Electoral-Vote.com. Knowing that I can help support terrific daily political analysis is a pleasure.

D.R. in Harrisburg, PA: I'm glad you hired someone to handle corrections. It's nice to know that all my pesterings about semi-colons and typos don't just go into the bit bucket.

M.W. in Huntington, NY: You guys are too prolific for me to remember a best or worst job. So I'll have to generalize.

The way that you two are able to seemingly effortlessly morph a political blog into a place where people of differing viewpoints (though admittedly probably more similar than not) can discuss—not argue or smear—topics such as LGBTQ+, conservative vs. progressive, the complexities of the Middle East, etc. I can only imagine the amount of e-mail reading and editorializing you must do in order to make this site a place where such difficult discussions can be held with open minds. You've shared a couple of e-mails over the years that show just how cruel some people can be behind the keyboard, so I can only imagine how hard it must be to sort through those and find the e-mails that have the same alternate viewpoint but do so with grace. Your students are lucky to have you.

M.C. in Fresno, CA: I'm not sure if this started in 2023 or not, but the schadenfreude and freudenfreude are some of my favorite items to read every week. I particularly like the positive ones.

J.J. in Johnstown, PA: I think the best thing you guys publish is the schadenfreude/freudenfreude each week. The schadenfreude item is sometimes easy to predict, but the freudenfreude item is always a pleasant surprise. Besides, who doesn't want to end each week "Yeah!" and "Hell, yeah!"

M.K. in Rye, NY: I might be bending the rules. I have two thoughts, and they are both general. I'm not capable of picking out any particular item in the mountain of great material you produce in a year. So, make of my input what you will.

Good Job #1. You show up every day. Like, every day. I say the following not to shame you for having days off (in fact, I give you my blessing to take more breaks! How do you even produce such good content so regularly?), but to express appreciation. When you don't post, it shoots a massive hole in my morning. My coffee/Electoral-Vote.com/NYT puzzles hour is cherished and I'm lost when I don't have your musings to start my day. Your material is enjoyable and enlightening, even on those bummer news days, and I feel like I'm part of an informed and diverse community because of your weekend content. (Brilliant idea one reader had about meetups: Count me in, NYC'ers!)

Good Job #2. You are shining examples of grace in how you handle your (rare!) mistakes and how you respond to criticism. I wish everyone in the public sphere could be so mature and dispassionate, especially with the latter. We all know of the kind of vile and irrational feedback you must get and only occasionally share with your readers. Rather than get defensive or attack in return, you mark the data point, make use of what's useful, and (in my imagination) shake your heads with smiles and maybe just a little bit of an eye roll at the worst of it. We need more of this demeanor on the Internet.

G.R. in Tarzana, CA: One of the good jobs this year was quoting me numerous times, which was always the highlight of my day. That said, however, in the spirit of Groucho Marx who declared, "I don't want to belong to any club that would have me as a member!", I believe that quoting me numerous times was a bad job, and makes me question the thought process of those in charge of Electoral-Vote.com.

Specific:

R.L. in Alameda, CA: You ran a series of letters from three readers who are anti-abortion and reader responses to them. It helped me to understand the mindset of people who are opposed to abortion. And I learned that, for some, we are not that far apart. It was illuminating to see that some anti-abortion folks are looking at the post-Dobbs landscape in which women are routinely being denied health care and having second thoughts about whether banning the procedure was a good thing. It gave me hope that, someday, we may live in a world where people on opposite sides of an issue can be more willing to sit down and find common ground than to "defeat the other side into submission."

D.D. in Portland, OR: Not sure if this was the strongest, but I'd say this surprised me the most in a positive way—your many-part discussion of abortion. Your selection of comments put new life into a subject I thought was talked to death long ago.

P.R. in Arvada, CO: There were actually two subjects that really stood out to me this year. Your multiple articles on trans people and on abortion rights. I really like how you solicited responses from people to give us a broad understanding of these issues from people who are directly affected by these issues or who think they should have a say in the lives of others. By controlling the responses and selecting which responses to publish, you were able to keep subjects that elicit very passionate responses from getting personal in a negative way. The articles you yourselves wrote were also done in a way that was respectful of both sides of the issues while also being very informative and educational.

T.B. in Santa Clara, CA: Your series on "Why the Trans Hate?" was fantastic. While the question was never quite answered, the discussion was very enlightening and contained lots of positive stories as well as a better understanding of the struggles of trans people. Hopefully everyone learned a little bit, if not a lot.

B.H. in Southborough, MA: When it comes to political analysis, triangulation, stripping away the noise to get at the true nuggets of truth, and painstaking detail of political races state-by-state, this is like choosing between a Cadillac, Porsche, Jaguar, Lamborghini, Ferrari, McClaren, BMW, Mercedes, and Rolls Royce.

That said, "Today in B.S. Polling" is a classic example of stripping away the glossy veneer to get at the true nonsense behind so much of our so-called polling and journalism these days.

I'd also call out the piece "Gay Resigns" (sorry, technically a 2024 item), citing the trap laid for her but making clear that she was a weak candidate to begin with.

Or if you like, the three-part "Spoils of Office." A classic example of taking three seemingly disjointed news items and showing the thread that binds them.

Or any of the detailed Senate, House, and state government analysis pieces.

Or pretty much any of the schadenfreude pieces.

Or the new freudenfreude section. Giving us hope for humanity.

Trying to answer this question makes me want to scream!

P.D.N. in La Mesa, CA: Why people watch Fox News. Nothing like fear and envy to agitate the body politic.

D.S. in Lakewood, OH: My "one item" is the evergreen "Trump Legal News / Court Rulings"

You guys condense this near-daily monster into edible and easily digested bites.

F.B. in Harrisonburg, VA: "Trump Legal News: Every Breath You Take"

At the time I read that article, I was very impressed with the systematic thoroughness (and well-placed snarkiness) of your analysis. And I loved the serenade of Jack Smith to Trump.

A.B. in Marshalltown, IA: Your strongest pieces this year were your explainers for why voter perception of the economy is lagging behind the actual performance of the economy.

These pieces are important because they address a paradox in Biden's approval ratings, which I haven't seen anyone else explore in detail.

D.E. in Lancaster, PA: So many choices, but while going through the Freudenfreude items the clear winner stood out: your item on Lincoln and the Gettysburg Address. I wrote to you after it was published and expressed how much I admired it, even saying that I wish it would be republished in every major newspaper's editorial sections. Rereading it, the piece still shone and, I am not ashamed to admit, caused me to cry once again!!! Bravo!

I know what with the barrage of news, that the history articles get squeezed out but, man, they are still my favorites. Don't get me wrong, I don't feel like my day has started until I read your perspective on the events of the previous day, but I will always have a soft spot for the history ones. After all, in college, I should have had a double major in History to go along with my English major since I took so many history courses. I always agreed with my advisor/English professor who said that you can't understand literature unless you understand history.

M.G. in Abingdon, VA: For Votemaster, "Balloongate Takes Off and Goes Down." How... how does (V) know all this stuff? That was a _lot_ of extremely detailed technical info.

For Zenger, "Ron DeSantis... and the Lost Cause." The Civil War historian shows his stuff.

B.H. in Randolph, NJ: Your analysis of the legal definition of "genocide"

K.K. in Los Angeles, CA: You publish so many good historical and political analysis pieces throughout the year, it's hard to choose just one; yet, I find your unique obituaries quite a fascinating read.

D.W.B. in Waynesville, NC: To me, the strongest item was the letter from the veteran asking for reasons to accept praise for being a vet. I think this site is at its best when seeking positive feedback from its readers.

T.B. in Leon County, FL: Your getting/allowing readers from Great Britain to comment on British politics was great.

A.L. in Highland Park, NJ: The best set of articles you wrote were in the aftermath of the infamous New York Times/Sienna poll that claimed "Donald Trump leads Joe Biden in five of six key battlegrounds." The cacophony from otherwise sensible people was depressing and you two were the only ones who calmly pointed out the ridiculousness of this poll. Your response was perfect, and I used it when discussing the issue with my colleagues. The basic point was "Trump might or might not win in November 2024, but this poll does not change my priors."

The runner up for Good Job for me is your penchant to let readers with expertise in specific matters take the floor. I have my favorites (lawyers!) but I want to commend the instinct. While this may be a common trait among academics, inviting experts to give seminars/colloquia, I do not see it widespread in political commentary. Even when your gambit does not work because it delves into opinion, the instinct is great, and I hope you will stick to it.

Thanks to everyone who wrote in with kind words! We had a reader suggest that we give a heads up if we're doing this again next year, so folks can keep their nominees in mind. We are, so consider yourself heads upped. Next week, we begin looking ahead to 2024. (Z)

Back to the main page