Previous | Next | Senate page | Menu
New polls: (None)
Dem pickups: (None)
GOP pickups: AZ GA MI NV PA WI
News of the Day
The breaking news continues to come at a fast and furious pace:
- Good News for the Republicans: Several outlets,
including Reuters,
have called the House for the Republican Party. Others,
including the AP,
have the GOP on the cusp, with 215 seats to the Democrats' 205. Of course, even if Reuters, et al. have it right, that
doesn't necessarily mean that Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) will keep his job. He probably will, since he has the backing
of Donald Trump. However, you can never tell what the Freedom Caucusers will do.
- Good News for the Democrats: Every outlet
has called
the Arizona U.S. Senate race for Ruben Gallego (D). With 95% reporting, Gallego leads Kari Lake (R), 50% to 47.8%. Since
Lake has yet to accept her 2022 gubernatorial election loss, don't hold your breath waiting for her to concede in this
race.
Barring something very unexpected in Pennsylvania, the 119th Senate will have 53 Republicans and 47 Democrats/Independents, by virtue of the Republicans having flipped seats in Montana, Ohio, West Virginia and Pennsylvania. If the Democrats are going to take the upper chamber back, it will probably take two cycles. In 2026, the blue team will have to defend seats in Georgia, Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Mexico and Virginia. They will try to poach seats in Alaska, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine, North Carolina, Ohio and maybe Florida (see below). Some of those targets are obviously longshots but, for example, if Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) retires, as expected, and Gov. Andy Beshear (D-KY) runs to replace him, as expected, you never know.
In 2028, the Democrats will defend seats in Arizona, Georgia, Nevada and Pennsylvania. They will try to flip seats in Alaska, Iowa, North Carolina and Wisconsin. If there are back-to-back blue waves—which there well could be, since that is what happened the first time Donald Trump was in office—then it's certainly plausible that across the two cycles, the blue team could net 3-4 seats plus the White House. - Staffing the Administration, Part I: Donald Trump has reportedly made his pick for
Secretary of State,
and it is
Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL). That could change, given Trump's mercurial nature, but it's solid enough that everyone's
reporting it.
In terms of qualifications, Rubio is roughly as prepared for the job as Hillary Clinton was when she was picked. He was never First Lady, of course, but he has served for over a decade on the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations. That said, he's not as smart as Clinton, nor as hardworking. Should he vacate his Senate seat, it would be up to Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-FL) to choose a replacement. Don't be too surprised if DeSantis chooses himself. - Staffing the Administration, Part II: Trump has also
tapped
Rep. Mike Waltz (R-FL) to be his National Security Adviser. Waltz is so hawkish he makes John Bolton seem like a hippie,
and is somewhat keen on the notion of going to war with China.
Incidentally, Waltz' district is R+7, so if he gives up his seat, it is not impossible Democrats could flip it. Special elections are wonky, and that race could become a focal point for disappointed Democrats across the nation, not unlike what happened when Conor Lamb flipped the much redder PA-18 in 2018. - Staffing the Administration, Part III: This is both the most predictable, and possibly the scariest,
appointment
Trump will make. Stephen Miller, who is about as far-right as it gets, was named Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy. That is a
catchall title that can mean very little, or can mean a lot. In this case, it will
mean a lot.
Miller is expected to have his fascist fingers (fascgers?) in EVERYTHING, and he'll get his way a lot because he's now one of Trump's
longest-serving and most loyal acolytes.
- Staffing the Administration, Part IV: Trump
has picked
former representative Lee Zeldin to lead the Environmental Protection Agency. They really oughta rename it Environmental
Predation Agency for the duration, since Zeldin cares nothing for the environment, and everything for rolling back as
many regulations as is possible.
- Not So Great Scott: There is no question that Donald Trump
would like to see
Sen. Rick Scott (R-FL) become the next Senate Majority Leader. However, the President-elect has thus far declined to
formally endorse Scott, or to do any arm-twisting, because he (Trump) does not want to back a loser. Perhaps this speaks
to someone who is thinking more tactically than he used to. Or perhaps it speaks to someone who is still overly
concerned with appearances and with "winning." Perhaps both.
We can think of two additional reasons why it might not be terribly wise to back Scott. First, Scott tends to say stupid things. If he says those things as SENATE MAJORITY LEADER RICK SCOTT, it kind of sticks the whole party with whatever foolishness issues forth from his mouth. Second, the Senate Majority Leader is the ultimate backroom wheeler-dealer. That's not an easy thing to do properly if, you know, most of your colleagues hate you. - Hitler v2.0: We say two things as preface to this capsule: (1) We've gotten a lot of nasty
e-mail for daring to describe Donald Trump as a fascist, and (2) You are going to see a lot of "Let's talk to Trump voters
and understand their mindset" pieces in the next few weeks and months (and maybe years).
The specimen of that genre that is getting all the attention right now is a piece from The Philadelphia Inquirer. Among the voters the paper talked to is a 45-year-old former construction worker named Matt Wolfson, who said of Trump: "He's good and bad. People say he's a dictator. I believe that. I consider him like Hitler. But I voted for the man." Wolfson also explained that he hopes that, in particular, Trump's Hitler-like qualities will cause him to keep the U.S. out of foreign wars. Hm, seems like someone might want to review their history books, with particular attention to the events of September 1, 1939. - Throw the Bums Out: Following major losses in the recent parliamentary elections, Japan's PM Shigeru Ishiba
kept his job
yesterday, as he was sustained by his fellow legislators, despite the setbacks. Ishiba said he needs to work on better
addressing the concerns of angry voters. Sound familiar? We'll have an item tomorrow about the global throw-the-bums-out
movement.
- Sinking Ship?: Chris Wallace, who has been in the news business for 55 years, left Fox a
couple of years ago once he was persuaded that the last real journalists had departed that outlet. Yesterday,
he announced
that his new employer will soon be his former employer, as he will leave CNN by the end of the year. Wallace is not
retiring, but guesses, probably correctly, that the real action is in streaming services or in podcasting. He is too
polite to note that CNN is now consistently the third-ranked network in the cable news/"news" ratings, and that it's in
trouble, financially.
- Free Hunter: Quite a few folks,
such as Ana Navarro,
are encouraging Joe Biden to pardon his son Hunter on his way out of the White House. We are entirely in agreement with
this. There is virtually no chance that the First Son would have ended up in the legal crosshairs to the extent he has,
but for the fact that his father is the president. The son should not have to do time just because of who his father
happens to be. Plus, Donald Trump has corruptly pardoned a bunch of far worse guys.
There's also talk that Biden should pull a Gerald Ford, and issue preemptive pardons for anyone close to him who Donald Trump might target—himself, his family, Kamala Harris, Hillary Clinton, etc. We're a little more leery of this, but we absolutely see the argument. It sets a bad precedent and sends a bad message but, on the other hand, these folks should not have to live in fear just because Trump is obsessed with score-settling and revenge. - Gen. Tubman: Let's end with something pretty cool. In honor of Veterans Day, the state of Maryland awarded famed abolitionist Harriet Tubman the rank of brigadier general in the Maryland National Guard. She's still not on the $20 bill, but this is a pretty good consolation prize in the interim.
And that's the way it is. (Z)
Partisanship Reigns--Mostly
Now that popular three-term Sens. Jon Tester (D-MT) and Sherrod Brown (D-OH) have been defeated because their states are so red, one might think that every state is either all blue or all red and candidates from the minority party cannot ever win anything. While most states are indeed either red or blue, not all of them are completely so. A typical red state, like Alabama, voted for Donald Trump and has a Republican governor and two Republican senators. There are 21 states like this. A typical blue state, like California, voted for Kamala Harris and has a Democratic governor and two Democratic senators. There are 15 of these. The other 14 are mixed. Here, politicans from both parties can win statewide under the right circumstances. Here is the lineup for Jan. 2025. The background color in the box with the state's name indicates whether it is a pure blue, pure red, or at least somewhat purple state. Fourteen states are at least somewhat purple in that neither party dominates everything.
| State | President 2024 | Governor | Senior senator | Junior senator |
| Alabama | Donald Trump | Kay Ivey (R) | Tommy Tuberville (R) | Katie Britt (R) |
| Alaska | Donald Trump | Mike Dunleavy (R) | Lisa Murkowski (R) | Dan Sullivan (R) |
| Arizona | Donald Trump | Katie Hobbs (D) | Mark Kelly (D) | Ruben Gallego (D) |
| Arkansas | Donald Trump | Sarah Huckabee Sanders (R) | John Boozman (R) | Tom Cotton (R) |
| California | Kamala Harris | Gavin Newsom (D) | Alex Padilla (D) | Adam Schiff (D) |
| Colorado | Kamala Harris | Jared Polis (D) | Michael Bennet (D) | John Hickenlooper (D) |
| Connecticut | Kamala Harris | Ned Lamont (D) | Richard Blumenthal (D) | Christopher Murphy (D) |
| Delaware | Kamala Harris | Matt Meyer (D) | Christopher Coons (D) | Lisa Rochester (D) |
| Florida | Donald Trump | Ron DeSantis (R) | Marco Rubio (R) | Rick Scott (R) |
| Georgia | Donald Trump | Brian Kemp (R) | Jon Ossoff (D) | Raphael Warnock (D) |
| Hawaii | Kamala Harris | Joshua Green (D) | Brian Schatz (D) | Mazie Hirono (D) |
| Idaho | Donald Trump | Brad Little (R) | Mike Crapo (R) | James Risch (R) |
| Illinois | Kamala Harris | J.B. Pritzker (D) | Richard Durbin (D) | Tammy Duckworth (D) |
| Indiana | Donald Trump | Mike Braun (R) | Todd Young (R) | Jim Banks (R) |
| Iowa | Donald Trump | Kim Reynolds (R) | Chuck Grassley (R) | Joni Ernst (R) |
| Kansas | Donald Trump | Laura Kelly (D) | Jerry Moran (R) | Roger Marshall (R) |
| Kentucky | Donald Trump | Andy Beshear (D) | Mitch McConnell (R) | Rand Paul (R) |
| Louisiana | Donald Trump | Jeff Landry (R) | Bill Cassidy (R) | John Kennedy (R) |
| Maine | Kamala Harris | Janet T. Mills (D) | Susan Collins (R) | Angus King (I) |
| Maryland | Kamala Harris | Wes Moore (D) | Chris Van Hollen (D) | Angela Alsobrooks (D) |
| Massachusetts | Kamala Harris | Maura Healey (D) | Elizabeth Warren (D) | Edward Markey (D) |
| Michigan | Donald Trump | Gretchen Whitmer (D) | Gary Peters (D) | Elissa Slotkin (D) |
| Minnesota | Kamala Harris | Tim Walz (D) | Amy Klobuchar (D) | Tina Smith (D) |
| Mississippi | Donald Trump | Tate Reeves (R) | Roger Wicker (R) | Cindy Hyde-Smith (R) |
| Missouri | Donald Trump | Mike Kehoe (R) | Josh Hawley (R) | Eric Schmitt (R) |
| Montana | Donald Trump | Greg Gianforte (R) | Steve Daines (R) | Tim Sheehy (R) |
| Nebraska | Donald Trump | Jim Pillen (R) | Deb Fischer (R) | Pete Ricketts (R) |
| Nevada | Donald Trump | Joe Lombardo (R) | Catherine Cortez-Masto (D) | Jacky Rosen (D) |
| New Hampshire | Kamala Harris | Kelly Ayotte (R) | Jeanne Shaheen (D) | Maggie Hassan (D) |
| New Jersey | Kamala Harris | Phil Murphy (D) | Cory Booker (D) | Andy Kim (D) |
| New Mexico | Kamala Harris | Michelle Lujan Grisham (D) | Martin Heinrich (D) | Ben Ray Lujan (D) |
| New York | Kamala Harris | Kathy Hochul (D) | Charles Schumer (D) | Kirsten Gillibrand (D) |
| North Carolina | Donald Trump | Josh Stein (D) | Thom Tillis (R) | Ted Budd (R) |
| North Dakota | Donald Trump | Kelly Armstrong (R) | John Hoeven (R) | Kevin Cramer (R) |
| Ohio | Donald Trump | Mike DeWine (R) | Bernie Moreno (R) | TBD |
| Oklahoma | Donald Trump | Kevin Stitt (R) | James Lankford (R) | Markwayne Mullin (R) |
| Oregon | Kamala Harris | Tina Kotek (D) | Ron Wyden (D) | Jeff Merkley (D) |
| Pennsylvania | Donald Trump | Josh Shapiro (D) | John Fetterman (D) | Dave McCormick (R) |
| Rhode Island | Kamala Harris | Daniel McKee (D) | Jack Reed (D) | Sheldon Whitehouse (D) |
| South Carolina | Donald Trump | Henry McMaster (R) | Lindsey Graham (R) | Tim Scott (R) |
| South Dakota | Donald Trump | Kristi L. Noem (R) | John Thune (R) | Mike Rounds (R) |
| Tennessee | Donald Trump | Bill Lee (R) | Marsha Blackburn (R) | Bill Hagerty (R) |
| Texas | Donald Trump | Greg Abbott (R) | John Cornyn (R) | Ted Cruz (R) |
| Utah | Donald Trump | Spencer Cox (R) | Mike Lee (R) | John Curtis (R) |
| Vermont | Kamala Harris | Phil Scott (R) | Bernie Sanders (I) | Peter Welch (D) |
| Virginia | Kamala Harris | Glenn Youngkin (R) | Mark Warner (D) | Tim Kaine (D) |
| Washington | Kamala Harris | Bob Ferguson (D) | Patty Murray (D) | Maria Cantwell (D) |
| West Virginia | Donald Trump | Patrick Morrisey (R) | Shelley Moore-Capito (R) | Jim Justice (R) |
| Wisconsin | Donald Trump | Tony Evers (D) | Ron Johnson (R) | Tammy Baldwin (D) |
| Wyoming | Donald Trump | Mark Gordon (R) | John Barrasso (R) | Cynthia Lummis (R) |
One oddity here is that the day Bernie Moreno is sworn in as senator from Ohio on Jan. 3, 2025, he will be the junior senator because J.D. Vance will still be a senator. But when Vance resigns from the Senate, probably a week or two after that, then Moreno will become the senior senator and whoever Gov. Mike DeWine (R-OH) appoints to replace Vance will become the junior senator.
If you want to consult this page in the future, it is on the Data galore page on the menu to the left of the map in the section "Other Election Data." (V)
Where Do Voters Get Their Information?
In 2016, pollsters learned that a huge dividing line between Trump voters and Clinton voters was education. The more education someone had, in general, the less they liked Trump. In 2024, there is increasing evidence that another major fault line is where people get their political information. A poll in April, when Joe Biden was still the candidate, showed that people who got their information from newspapers (online or in print) or national television, were for Biden 70%-21%. People who got their (dis)information from YouTube or Google were for Trump 55%-39%. Media consumption might be something pollsters should be asking about going forward.
The exit polls also shed light on this topic. In 2020, Biden won 18-21 year-olds 60%-36%. Harris won them by only 55%-42%. How come the boring old white guy beat the dynamic woman of color by so much? How people get information has changed radically in the past few years. Among seniors, only 3% get their information from social media. Among people 18-29, 46% get it from social media. And Republicans own social media the way they own AM talk radio. And Latinos use social media far more than white or Black voters, which may explain why Harris did so poorly with Latinos. (V)
Lame-Duck Session of the Senate Will Try to Confirm More Judges
The 118th Congress has about 7 weeks left, which is time to take care of some business. In particular, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) plans on calling a lame-duck session of the Senate specifically for confirming as many judges as possible. Donald Trump got 234 conservative judges confirmed in his first term. So far, Joe Biden has gotten 213 judges confirmed, but 32 more are in the pipeline. Schumer wants to confirm as many of these as he can in December. Republicans will oppose every one, no matter how many law degrees the candidates have from wherever.
Some of Biden's nominees do not have unanimous backing of all Democrats, which could cause a problem. On his way out the door, Sen. Joe Manchin (I-WV) has said he will not vote to confirm any judge unless there is at least one Republican vote for the candidate (though he's also backtracked on that some). Under the current circumstance, the total number of Republican votes for all the candidates combined will be exactly zero. Manchin's vote is not essential if Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (I-AZ) votes for the candidates, also not a given.
We still don't understand what that dude was doing. Manchin has been a thorn in the Democrats' side for years. If he was planning to run again, it made some sense to stick it to Biden a lot. That would have played well back home. But he wasn't planning to run again. He's a normal politician. He knows how the game is played. He knew that when the Infrastructure bill came up for a vote, he could have said: "I will vote for it if you will provide the funds to build a new state-of-the-art high school in every town in West Virginia, to be called the Joe Manchin High School." Then, when the CHIPS Act came up for discussion, he could have said: "I will vote for it if you will provide the funds to build a new seniors' center in every town in West Virginia, to be called the Joe Manchin Seniors' Center. Then when the CHIPS Act actually came to a vote, he could have said: "I will vote for it if you provide the funds to build a new sports complex in every town in West Virginia, to be called the Joe Manchin Sports Complex." Then when the Inflation Reduction Act actually came up for a vote, he could have said: "I will vote for it if you will provide the funds to build the biggest solar panel factory in the world in West Virginia, to be called the Joe Manchin Solar Panel Factory." But he didn't. He could have gotten it all, and more. What was he up to? It makes no sense. He could have brought his state into the 21st century and been celebrated as the most important person in the history of West Virginia for decades to come. And he didn't do it.
Sinema is an even bigger mystery. She used to be in the Green Party and suddenly she found her inner Republican and liked nothing. At the start of Joe Biden's term, she was 44. She could have acted like a moderate Democrat, gotten more pork than Manchin (because her state is bigger) and served in the Senate for the next 40 years, eventually chairing some major committee. But she threw it all away, apparently for nothing. In some ways, she will be missed. She was the most flamboyantly dressed member of Congress for years, and so was often Page Six material for The New York Post. It's a strange legacy. (V)
Could Women Get a Majority on the Supreme Court?
Many observers are expecting Justice Clarence Thomas (76) will soon ride off into a golden sunset in the quarter-million dollar luxury bus a supporter gave him. Justice Samuel Alito (74) is expected to follow soon after. Both of them are assured that they will be replaced by justices at least as conservative as they are, if not more so. If Kamala Harris had won, they would have had to sit it out for 4 more years at least. Now they are free to go.
For Thomas, who has a large chip on his shoulder, having the wealthy Republican megadonors who pretend they enjoy his company suddenly drop him like a lead balloon will be painful. But surely deep inside he always knew they were giving him free luxury vacations and stuff just to have the opportunity to give him their view of the world. Alito, for his part, can always write a tell-all book that will make him enough money that he can pay for his own fishing vacations without outside help.
There is already lots of speculation about which names The Federalist Society will serve up to Donald Trump on a silver platter and instruct him to nominate. One name that comes up in most lists is that of Allison Jones Rushing, who currently serves on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, in Virginia. She is very conservative and only 42, so she could serve on the Supreme Court for at least 40 years, and maybe 50 as lifespans increase. If she replaces Thomas, there will be five women—a majority—on the Supreme Court for the first time in history. Trump could use that to try to convince women to think he is their hero (see below for more). It is possible that cases might arise in which the five women actually stick together (e.g., some nonpolitical cases relating to discrimination against women). They might even bond over them.
If Thomas and Alito retire, Trump will have named five of the nine justices. It will be the Trump court for generations to come. Five is not a record, but it is a lot. George Washington and Franklin Delano Roosevelt each got eight justices confirmed. But Trump would tie William Howard Taft and Andrew Jackson, each of whom had five. The next highest is Dwight D. Eisenhower with four.
But Trump might be able to beat Taft and Jackson. Justice Sonia Sotomayor is 70 and has severe diabetes. If she does not make it to Jan. 20, 2029, Trump would get a sixth pick. But she could foil him if she wants to. If she resigned this week, Joe Biden could pick a successor and Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) could try to confirm her in the upcoming lame-duck session of the Senate. However, this would require one of Sens. Joe Manchin (I-WV) or Kyrsten Sinema (I-AZ) to vote with the Democrats, something that they haven't always consistently done. Will Sotomayor retire now, knowing that Trump will be president until Jan. 20, 2029? Of course not. She plans to live forever, just like Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
On Monday, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) said that he does not support urging Sotomayor to step down. Since the governor of Vermont is a Republican, Sanders (83) is also planning to live forever, just like Dianne Feinstein. Feinstein was older, but her governor was a Democrat.
If Sotomayor retired, would she have to go home and sit around like a potted plant? We don't know, but we suspect that if she asked her alma mater, Yale Law School, if they needed someone to educate the new generation of lawyers about constitutional law, they might be able to find a spot for her. Or she could surely find a job at some other top law school, write a book, or work for some foundation she likes. (V)
In Conversation: Women and the 2024 Election
We have gotten an avalanche of messages on one of the great surprises of the 2024 election, namely the gender dynamics (which includes the fact that 53% of white women and 40% of Latinas voted for Donald Trump). Some reader thoughts on the subject:
K.X.I. in Malden, NJ, writes: My wife, Caroline, has been devastated by this election result. She's depressed, not sleeping well, having nightmares, and despairing for the future of our country, particularly for women. She grew up in the era of the women's movement, the start of busing, etc., and understands how difficult it has been to create change. Caroline now feels like that movement was set back decades, and that even though we live in a blue state, her daughter may not have the same freedoms she was granted.
Judy is a friend who serves with her on a local commission, and who is a Trump supporter. We've been careful not to let that get in the way of the relationship, and have often gone out together. This week Judy reached out to set a date to take Caroline out to lunch for her birthday. Her text ended with this: "Thank heavens the country voted with common sense!." (Smiley emoji)
Caroline was terribly upset, and didn't know how to respond. But at the same time, this seemed out of character for Judy, who had never seemed like one to rub something like this in one's face. So after a lot of deliberation, she responded with this text: "Maybe you didn't realize that we don't have the same political opinion. This has been an emotional week for me and I prefer not to discuss politics. I don't feel that I would be very good company this week."
Judy almost immediately responded: "Really sorry Caroline. I didn't realize we had different political opinions. Please forgive me. We'll try for lunch when you feel more comfortable." (Face with heart emoji)
So perhaps there really is room for dialog. On the other hand, possibly this is more difficult with men.
Caroline received a call the same day from a very long-time male friend who is also a Trump supporter. He was calling because his wife had seen something Caroline had posted on Facebook that expressed her angst, and he was concerned. But he expressed his concern in a very condescending manner, saying "Everything is going to be fine, you don't have to worry." And he was dismissive of her concerns about the setback in women's rights. He talked about how the "mainstream media" misrepresents everything and lies, and he doesn't pay them any attention. His call to calm her just made her feel that much more despair.
P.B. in Spring Lake, NJ, writes: I think I can understand why some young men voted for Trump, but I don't see how 40+% of women voted for this person found liable for sexual assault and caught on tape bragging about grabbing women by the genitalia. I was brought up and raised my kids that "'no' means 'no'". For these women, I guess no means "maybe" or perhaps "a little further"? I think of this whenever I see a woman in a MAGA hat or t-shirt.
T.C in St. Paul, MN, writes: When I saw the "Julia Roberts Reminds Us" political ad that encouraged women to vote and reminded them their election choice was their private information, I had a different response to it than many other people. I worried that an ad like that might actually have the opposite effect than intended. Instead of encouraging women to vote for Harris, it may have actually discouraged female participation in this year's presidential election. My concern is that male Trump supporters saw that ad and therefore did what they could to prevent their wives or girlfriends from voting altogether. I'd be curious to know if voter turnout among women married to Trump supporters was disproportionally lower compared to 2020.
J.O. in Portsmouth, NH, writes: It pains me to write this, but I think the Democrats would be well served NOT to nominate another woman for a while.
D.S. in Lakewood, OH, writes: I appreciate all that (V) and (Z) and contributors and staff give the Electoral-Vote.com community. I hope you guys manage to continue with the same reasoned analysis you have provided for 20+ years. This will probably be my primary source of news during the coming troubles.
It will be interesting to see what explanation there was for the wild polling misses that herded so many swing states and swing senate races to even (or lean blue) that ended up 5+ points in the red direction.
Postmortem, I have no idea how anyone can put a woman at the top of the ticket knowing that two of the most qualified candidates in history lost to one of the least qualified men in history. And who will ever campaign on truth and facts when blatant lies and outrageous hyperbole do no harm?
B.D.B. in Columbus, OH, writes: After Hillary Clinton lost the 2016 race, a lot of people said that if only she had visited Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, she might have won. We now know that those people are what I would call "idiots." There is no way any woman will win the presidency, at least not in my lifetime (I'm 52). This country is too misogynistic. And yes, I'm saying that the only reason Clinton and Kamala Harris lost to Trump is because they are women. Am I saying that Biden would have done better? No. Not in 2024. But Gov. Gavin Newsom (D-CA) or Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg might have. This country went out of its way to elect a racist baboon rather than elect an eminently qualified female president twice now. What more proof do we need? If Hillary Clinton had won the 2008 Democratic primary, John McCain would have won the presidency. It's as simple as that. A week ago, I was naive enough to think that Harris actually stood a chance. Now I know better.
Clearly, the mindset of a lot of women voters is different from what we, and many readers of the site, imagine it to be. In particular, gender stereotypes die hard, and it may be difficult to imagine and accept that there are many women out there who are just as motivated by anger and resentment as the "angry young men."
Let's give a specific example, Over the past couple of months, we've published a bunch of letters from E.G. in The Villages, FL. And 100% of people who have written in about E.G., and needed to make reference to gender, assumed E.G. is a man. That is not the case, however, she's a woman AND a Latina. And we only published the least vicious of her messages. Some of the unpublished messages are as vitriolic and threatening as the messages we get from Trumpy men.
In any case, we think the last three readers above are correct, and it will be a while before we see another woman nominee. Remember, it is no longer the case that "the party decides," it's the primary voters. And we think it's a pretty good bet that Democratic primary voters, even those who would like to see a woman president, are going to favor male candidates, just for tactical reasons. It's probably more likely, at this point, that the first woman president will be a Republican.
Oh, and one last thing. You won't be hearing from E.G. in The Villages anytime soon... or ever again. First, we're going to aggressively tamp down the negativity on the site for at least the rest of the year. If there is going to be a complaints department in any of the next 7-8 mailbags (and probably beyond), the complaints will have to be substantive criticisms, presented respectfully, and not just ranting and raving. Second, we have become much more aggressive with the mailbag banhammer in the past week, and E.G. is one of the correspondents who have been banned. Her e-mails now go straight into the trash without our ever seeing them. (Z)
Previous | Next
Main page for smartphones
Main page for tablets and computers