Previous | Next | Senate page | Menu
New polls: AZ FL GA NC NE NV TX
Dem pickups: (None)
GOP pickups: AZ
Sunday Mailbag
Same issues as yesterday delayed today's post. Sorry, they are the responsibility of the gods of urban construction and were beyond our control.
Politics: The Harris Campaign
B.B. in Anchorage, AK, writes: You wrote: "Since [Kamala Harris'] July donors made 2.6 million contributions averaging $69, they can each be hit up another 47 times before they hit the $3,300 limit." It nicely summed up a problem I have not figured out how to solve. I would love to be counted among her new donors, and to support her campaign, but my efforts to fend off solicitations following earlier political contributions have never been successful. The act of contributing to any campaign seems doomed to result in scores, if not hundreds of solicitations between now and November. I'm not willing to subject myself to that. I wish I could slide an envelope with cash under her door.
(V) & (Z) respond: Sign up for a burner e-mail account with Yahoo, gmail, or some other service and use that.
J.M. in Los Angeles, CA, writes: Harris Is Trying to Do Something That Has Been Only Once in Nearly 200 Years?
So, I have a slightly different take on this. Yes, it is very true that Kamala Harris would be just the second VP in that span to be elected from VP to president (sorry, Al Gore).
However, nine VPs have succeeded to the presidency during their term due to the death or resignation of the president.
Overall, 15 VPs have subsequently become president by any route, or about 31% of the 49 people who have served as VP. I can't think of any other group (besides "major party nominee") that has a higher probability of becoming president, so if that is indeed one's goal, VP is not a bad job to get.
B.R.D. in Columbus, OH, writes: I have followed some coverage of Israel and Palestine, and I have talked with my neighbor who subscribes to some Israeli papers and has a daughter and family living near Gaza. We are both horrified by Benjamin Netanyahu's corruption and grip on power and the suffering in Gaza, and we both continue to hope that Secretary of State Antony Blinken and diplomacy will bring about a cease fire and the return of hostages. We note that, historically, time after time, when some measure of stability has been close in the Middle East, extremists or terrorists have assassinated, attacked, or undermined. Most recently, when the Saudi Arabia/Israel agreement was close, which would have checked Iran's power, Hamas brutally attacked Israel.
But my comment has to do with coverage of Kamala Harris and the push to get her to say more about the war, promise more, act more. To carve out a different position from Joe Biden. To my knowledge, no one has pointed out or acknowledged that she simply cannot do so. The administration she is part of is in the midst of negotiations! Anything she says or does could and would threaten those negotiations, would be pounced on and used to undermine those talks. (It's bad enough that Donald Trump appears to be undermining them in another way.) We may disagree with the Biden's administration policy, but we cannot, it seems to me, realistically ask Kamala Harris to revise that policy while negotiations are going on. Such a revision would undercut Blinken and the entire State Department, give the middle finger to all their efforts, and potentially end all negotiations and thus any hopes of a cease fire and the return of hostages.
R.H. in Santa Ana, CA, writes: Who would Kamala Harris' AG be? You suggested Preet Bhrara, who is "very aggressive."
A questioner on Bill Maher's Overtime asked Bhrara why the Trump family was able to operate in New York City for so many years without being prosecuted.
His answer?
"My bad."
Z.C. in Beverly Hills, CA, writes: You wrote, of Tony West "Oh, and he would be the first Black AG." What about Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch?
(V) & (Z) respond: You're right, our error. We are still working to acknowledge the literally hundreds of readers who wrote in to address the oversight.
T.V. in Kansas City, MO, writes: Speaking of Project 2025 ads, check out this stunner from The Lincoln Project:
It's one of the most effective—and chilling—political ads I've ever seen.
Politics: The DNC
S.D. in St Paul, MN, writes: Just wanted to second the concerns from J.H. in Seattle about Day 4 of the DNC. And from where I stand, it's not just Gen Z. Multiple generations of leftists are cringing whenever Harris panders to the right on immigration, Palestine, fracking, police brutality and the broader military-industrial complex.
In some ways, it feels like this election is a faceoff between the Fascist Party (Donald Trump and J.D. Vance) and a middle-of-the-road Republican Party or a revanchist centrist party (Harris and Walz).
K.C. in West Islip, NY, writes: J.H. In Seattle wrote... Well, a lot of stuff. I fear for this upcoming election specifically because of folks like them.
In case you didn't notice from the comfort of your community in the Pacific Northwest, America is essentially a center-right country. Your local elected officials may veer to the left, certainly in my neck of the woods we have Rep. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez (D-NY) (not my congresswoman, but geographically very close) but we're talking about a national election and those absolutely must be treated differently.
Complaint number one was the DNC "rolling out the red carpet for a cop." So the flip what? Apparently, J.H. believes every single cop in the history of America is guilty of anti-Black brutality. Go ahead and state that opinion (not fact) on the national stage and you can kiss a huge chunk of independents good-bye, and hey maybe lose some more moderate Democrats while you're at it. You definitely won't convert any MAGA-light folk who may possibly be persuadable either.
Next complaint was about the Republicans who spoke. Again... so the flip what? Shrink the tent a little more by telling anti-Trump Republicans to go buzz off. Worked out great for Kari Lake when she told the McCain Republicans in Arizona to go away. In a functioning country we have two robust parties who have differing opinions but the ability to respect each other and compromise with each other (e.g., Ronald Reagan/Tip O'Neill) and by telling any sane Republicans who are left out there that they can go screw we're essentially sealing off any hope of future unity. But from J.H.'s pedestal that's obviously not important.
The penultimate complaint was a mishmash of carping about Harris's speech including her daring to emphasize America's lethal military might. It's a global society, J.H., and what happens in other parts of the world directly affect our allies and directly affects us. Making no mistake that we're still here and we're still the world's strongest military is just good politics.
While J.H. correctly identified that the day was geared towards swing state (undecided?) voters and disaffected Republicans, they deduced that: "...it risks weakening her left flank at a time when Netanyahu continues to murder innocents and when college campuses will soon be in session" and that "The honeymoon is over for us."
I don't think it can be stated more emphatically: Anyone, and I mean anyone, who doesn't vote for Harris—either by voting for Trump, voting for any third party with zero chance of winning, or simply not voting at all—is going to be complicit in getting the exact opposite of what they want in the name of sending a message that Harris, or any future Democrat in any future NATIONAL election is not far left enough. Make no mistake, J.H., if Trump wins this election then you're going to see rampant police brutality going unpunished, you're going to see Israel doing whatever it wants to Palestinians, Russia doing whatever it wants to everyone and you're going to see your freedoms and those freedoms of all marginalized communities vanish like a fart in a fan factory. So save the self-righteous pontification and understand that any shift to the far left will doom Kamala Harris and, in the end, doom America.
S.S.L. in Battle Creek, MI, writes: I'm the same age (31) as J.H. in Seattle and a pragmatic progressive in the spirit of Elizabeth Warren. Neither I nor any of our same-aged peers I've asked feel the same as you and yours regarding DNC Day 4. Age is not the common denominator. Day 4 seemed to be received at least equally as well as those before it in this swing state...
E.L. in San Diego, CA, writes: In regards to the DNC's denial of a speaking slot for Ruwa Romman at their Convention, J.H. in Seattle wrote: "...the DNC could not spare 2 minutes for a pre-vetted speech by Georgia House member and Palestinian-American, Ruwa Romman..."
First, a couple of facts. Romman's speech consists of 517 words, which would take about 5 minutes to deliver, not 2. As a reference, Gov. Gretchen Whitmer's (D-MI) speech was only 395 words, and Gov. Jared Polis (D-CO) spoke for less than 3 minutes. Also, the speech does not include a single mention of Hamas, let alone recognition of their indisputable culpability for initiating this war.
Beyond that, it was a politically unwise move for three dozen delegates to attend the convention as "uncommitted" because of I/P policy disagreements. The reasons are obvious. It is crystal clear that a Trump win would represent a catastrophic loss for their cause. And a Harris win, in spite of their interference, significantly diminishes their future leverage. Any way you look at it, that's a lose-lose situation.
Now, from the DNC's perspective, it was wise to deny a speaking slot to Romman because a political party's convention is a meticulously choreographed event that hopefully improves the party's chances of winning an election. Every aspect has to be judged strictly by considering whether it may help or harm the chances of electoral success.
Most importantly, NEVER provide a national TV stage to someone who may take the opportunity to go rogue and, in an instant, destroy the party's unity and goodwill. That's simply a risk no judicious campaign would ever take. The DNC made the right decision.
L.R.H. in Oakland, CA, writes: In yesterday's answers, you cited lack of a constituency as a reason for the absence of Al Gore and John Kerry at the Democratic National Convention. Gore has a possible constituency among environmentalists and everyone who worries about global warming—which should be all of us.
But I think the larger reason is that they seem to be from the outgoing generation of politicians, even more than Joe Biden and the Clintons. They haven't held elected office in a long time and they're not much in the news, despite Kerry's service in the Obama and Biden administrations. And, for what it's worth, Kerry turns 81 this year.
(V) & (Z) respond: We got many dozens of e-mails making this point. We considered adding a specific note on this in our answer, and didn't include it. Perhaps we should have done so. It is true that Al Gore is an environmentalist. It is true that environmentalists are a key Democratic constituency. However, it is not necessarily the case that environmentalists are still Gore's constituency.
The voters who care about the environment AND who need to be cajoled into voting are younger voters. Inasmuch as Gore's political career ended 24 years ago, he's basically an unknown to voters under 30. Maybe voters under 40. For those voters, who (Z) deals with all the time because they are his students, Gore is not the politician associated with environmentalism, AOC is. And she did speak at the DNC, of course.
Politics: The CNN Interview
R.L. in Alameda, CA, writes: Donald Trump is clearly graded on a curve. Kamala Harris answered Dana Bash's questions, sometimes in a very politician-y, non-answer kind of way, but she was thoughtful, articulate and coherent. Yet Bash went after her again and again, particularly on changes in her policy positions (such as being against fracking before she was for fracking). When Trump is being interviewed they just allow him to go on and go with his stream-of-consciousness word salad. Sigh!
There is a very simple, authentic answer that Harris could be giving to questions like this. Jon Favreau often suggests this on Pod Save America. (Harris' campaign team really should listen to the pod). "There was a time when I was opposed to fracking. Since then, I have spent over 4 years, first as a presidential candidate and then as Vice President. In that time I have learned new information, which has led to a change in my position. My values have not changed. I believe a good leader should be able to take in information, listen to various viewpoints and be willing to change if new information merits a change. So yes, I was opposed to fracking up until 2019, changed my position in 2020 and I have been consistent since then. My values to fight for the middle class have not changed."
That was the one part of the interview that turned me off due to her defensiveness. To be fair, Dana Bash went to the well over and over again, seeking a different answer. My point is that, given that Harris and Tim Walz are so authentic and usually speak like normal people, this would have been an opportunity to turn that tables on the whole "a politician can never change their mind" thing and just be honest that, sometimes, it is appropriate for a leader to take in new information and change their position. This tactic would also help her to avoid getting defensive.
All in all, the interview was fine. Her campaign probably approached it with a goal of "doing no harm." I judge that they achieved that goal.
R.R. in Lancaster, PA, writes: I take issue with the characterization that basically every news outlet, this one included, have ascribed to the vice president's response to the question "Will you appoint a Republican to your cabinet?"
Aside from my opinion that this may be one of the more pointless questions in the interview, I'd point out that Kamala Harris' response was "Yes I would... yes I would." A clear use of the conditional form of "will." One of the reasons that I agree this sort of interview borders on useless is that there's no expounding on answers that really need context. In this case, with more time the VP could have reiterated that she values diversity of opinion (as she just had moments prior) and that there is value in that diversity, even at the cost of disagreement. She could have talked about the conditions that would make such an appointment make sense. Perhaps she could have, on reflection, mused that maybe an appointment or two to a senior advisor role without administrative authority over an executive department would make the most sense.
At worst, she is guilty of not actually answering the question. "I would" is not actually a response to the question "will you?" I don't know the extent to which she was deliberately obfuscating or dodging. I also don't know why Dana Bash stopped pressing for unhelpful answers to pointless questions (like the question about her first day). A more nimble interviewer might have followed up with "you say you would? You would if... what?" Or in Bash's case, I'm surprised she didn't at least go with "But will you? BUT WILL YOU?"
At best, I think this is an example of Harris' thoughtfulness and care with which she speaks, which I, for one, value greatly.
R.W. in Brooklyn, NY, writes: One thing you didn't mention in regard to Tim Walz's presence at the CNN interview: Although he didn't participate much, when he did we had the opportunity to see Kamala Harris looking at him with genuine affection and a slight smile. Can you imagine Trump looking at Vance (or anyone!) that way, particularly when the other person was getting the attention?
A.G. in Scranton, PA, writes: Thank you for mentioning other forms of service to country as being equally deserving of honor as military service.
I thank postal workers, nurses (a lot), teachers, even people with private, thankless jobs, like grocery store cashiers, garbage collectors, and even those clowns at Motor Vehicles...though I grit my teeth on that last one. Ooh, child welfare workers, addiction outreach workers, AND now, more than ever, polling place workers.
It's all gotta work for it to all work.
Seriously, thank you. I hate the phrase that people utter by rote to me as a veteran. But if I deserve it, certainly millions of others do, as well.
Veterans of all sorts of service come in all shapes and sizes.
Some just better lookin' than others.
R.T. in Omaha, NE, writes: You wrote: "It was nice to see Walz choose not to privilege one form of public service over another..."
20+ year love affair with your site and you lost me by showing just one hand.
M.S. in Canton, NY, writes: You wrote: "Clearly, our assessment of the interview is pretty CNN-critical and pretty Bash-critical." Would that be a case of Bash-bashing?
M.W. in Newington, CT, writes: I wanted to let you know that I read your quote of Quentin Tarantino:"I'm going to vote for her fu**ing anyway no matter what she says in the stupid fu**ing interview, so don't fu** sh** up." in Samuel L. Jackson's voice. I was visualizing the scene at the end of Pulp Fiction and think that Kamala Harris is going through a bit of a "transitional period" and that we should all just "be cool."
(V) & (Z) respond: Well, the path of the righteous woman is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men.
Politics: Tim Walz
A.Q. in Ithaca, NY, writes: You wrote: "We're not sure exactly why [Tim] Walz is sticking in so many Republicans' craws..."
I think the answer is J.D. Vance. The Trump campaign demonstrated such poor judgment in their VP pick that it's driving them crazy. Admittedly, that's not a drive; it's a short putt.
G.K. in Blue Island, IL, writes: Re: "We're not sure exactly why Walz is sticking in so many Republicans' craws..."
I submit it's because he's stealing their brand. No one would mistake Mike Pence for a Democrat, nor Tim Kaine for a Republican and, generally speaking, both parties have stuck to their own sides of the fence when picking VPs in the past. Gov. Josh Shapiro (D-PA) would have been an "on brand" pick since, in the monochromatic world of tribalism, many would look no further than his faith and match it to the stereotype—deserved or not—that he belongs to a defined and longstanding subset of Democrats.
Walz is a 20-year+ veteran, he embraces the Second Amendment, he openly loves his family, and he hails from (and represented in Congress) a rural, right-leaning district—all of which the Republicans have long thought were part and parcel of their trademark. Even more appalling to the Red Team, he's... well, likeable. He's a happy guy. He's sharp as a tack and willing to challenge those who think of Democrats as somehow un-patriotic.
Just saying some of the crazy, conspiracy-addled pushback we're seeing might not be driven so much by an oblique fringe "stategery" as by a zeal reserved for apostates to the conservative identity.
J.D. in St. Paul, MN, writes: Why does Tim Walz drives Trump's people crazy, leading to bizarre attempts to smear him, e.g. "doggate?" For the reason Harris selected him: He threatens to take away the sanest 5 percent or so of their core constituency: white working class men. If he does this, it's game over.
A gun-owning, 24-year military veteran who likes to hunt but supports reasonable gun control gives the sanest 5 percent of the core Trump constituency permission to consider the possibility that regulating gun access is common sense. A high school football coach who supported gay students gives them permission to think charitably rather than dismissively about youth struggling with sexuality. A guy who graduated from Chadron State College and didn't enter politics until he was in his 40s demolishes Trump's depiction of Democrats as elitist professional politicians. In short, Walz humanizes the Democratic Party and its stance on cultural issues for certain kinds of white working-class men and for this he's an existential threat.
D.A.Y. in Troy, MI, writes: I think the Republicans are so fixated on Gov. Tim Walz (DFL-MN) for two closely related reasons.
First, Walz was the one who first started calling them "weird" and knocked them for such a loop. It is such a brilliant insult to throw at the right because it both innocuous (there's nothing wrong with being weird) but at the same time tears down the Republicans' image of themselves as the defenders of tradition and normalcy. He was then made the running mate, which just has to leave them incensed.
Second, the Republican leadership is probably enraged that they saddled with J.D. Vance. They likely believe he was foisted on them by Trump's idiot sons and their tech bro buddies, and now they are stuck with him and the full luggage set that came with him. His strange obsession with disparaging people (especially women) without children plays straight into the "weird" message, and he cannot seem to open his mouth without instantly shoving his foot in it. He is the new Sarah Palin.
So, in their eyes, if their running mate is going to be a millstone around the neck of the campaign, then the Democrats' running mate should be a millstone around the neck of THEIR campaign. It only seems fair, right? However, because Walz is generally good guy, they find themselves grasping at straws and making the most minor things into these campaign-destroying flaws because it is all they have.
But the Republicans should be careful. In 1988, the Democrats focused a lot of time and money on tearing down Dan Quayle that should have been used against George H.W. Bush. It was one of the many missteps of their ultimately doomed campaign. The Republicans of '08 and Democrats of '88 are not campaigns you should want to emulate.
R.L.D. in Sundance, WY, writes: I saw this YouTube short, which features a juxtaposition of Tim Walz visiting a Runza in Nebraska vs. J.D. Vance.
The contrast couldn't be more stark. Walz not only understands the value of eating at Runza, but he has great skill at personal interaction. For the uninitiated, Runza is a chain almost entirely in Eastern Nebraska (but possibly spilling over into Iowa) and their signature item is basically a dinner roll baked with meat inside. It's phenomenal. If you're in Nebraska at meal time and you see a Runza, you should definitely stop. Good stuff.
(V) & (Z) respond: They are also in Kansas, Colorado and South Dakota.
K.H. in Maryville, TN, writes: This was posted to one of my Facebook groups:
Have you heard about the Never Walz Group? They bought booth space at the MN state fair to hand out anti-Walz stuff. What they failed to do is buy the domain...so someone else did.
Politics: IUI vs. IVF, Redux
J.F. in Albuquerque, NM, writes: C.S. in Philadelphia wrote: "I feel compelled to respond your comments on IUI vs. IVF ... At best, this is an unforced error on Walz's part and at worst grossly insensitive."
My wife and I went through both procedures, as well as the intermediate technique that involves stimulation of the ovaries before intrauterine insemination. We rinsed and repeated the method of current choice numerous times. When I have referred to the successful technique, which involved trying a fourth or fifth doctor who recognized that our problem was immunological rather than functional, and then beginning a course of steroids before using conventional sex plus IUI, I have routinely referred to having "done IVF." None of our procedures, IUI or IVF, was funded by insurance except some of the testing. Our sizable household repair fund evaporated in the rainy days as a result.
C.S. is right to point out what a draining experience IVF is, but left out the draining experience the man puts himself through (unlubricated) in both cases in order to provide the substance that is inseminated—no matter how well-practiced in the technique a man might be, it is a non-trivial test of self to say, "I'll catch this ejaculate in a cup and trust it to some other person (probably male) to insert through a tube into my wife's vagina instead of using my own injector, because it increases the chances." I humor myself with the thought that because our beloved daughter has no Y chromosome, it may well have been the pre-IUI sex that did the trick because XX sperm have a known stamina advantage.
Yes, the right can try and make a distinction that bare IUI is "natural" (could have been practiced at any time since the first detailed understanding of anatomy), and IVF is "playing god" (something they were never concerned with when couples had multituplets because destroying an embryo interfered with the will of some god or other) and yes, C.S. is right that IVF is more expensive and painful (woe, for the time I slipped during the shot and badly bruised my "patient"), but come on, please: They are both emotional rollercoasters of anxiety, self-doubt and dependency on medical professionals by two people whose bodies had so far refused to behave "naturally."
S.F. in Chatham, NJ, writes: I hate to belabor the IVF vs. IUI "controversy," but as someone who underwent IUI, I feel compelled to offer a few points.
First, while the two treatments are quite different, the process leading up to them may involve many of the same steps. It likely begins with fertility drugs in the hope that natural conception is possible. It may include a procedure called a Hysterosalpingogram (HSG) to confirm there are no underlying issues with the uterus. It may involve tests on the male partner to verify things are ok on his end. There may be actions taken to stimulate ovulation, which involves injections and frequent doctor visits. My journey included all of these steps, which were stressful, invasive, and often painful.
Second, fertility treatment is deeply personal and wrapped up in a lot of emotions. For many, it's not easy to talk about. When asked, I usually mutter something about having gotten "help" to have my children and leave it at that. If pressed, I may say I had something "like IVF." Only if the person is really curious would I discuss IUI. In 16 years, I have never volunteered it to begin with. Why? Because almost no one knows what it is; IUI does not have the same shorthand that IVF does. It's tedious to have to explain it, and frankly brings up memories that aren't the most pleasant, despite the good outcome.
In the end, this is semantics and, from a policy perspective, I have no issue with Tim Walz using his experience with IUI as a reference point to discuss threats to IVF. They are part of the same package of medical practice. The same doctors and clinics provide both procedures and related treatments. Threaten IVF, and IUI will also suffer. Here in the New York City suburbs, fertility treatment is a big business. If doctors were no longer able to provide IVF, it would likely upend the entire business model of some clinics, calling into question their viability. For couples trying to start a family, this would reduce options where there are already few.
Politics: The Trump Campaign
S.S. in West Hollywood, CA, writes: Does Donald Trump ever laugh?
Challenge accepted! Surely, there must be some video of Trump having an honest laugh. After sorting through many "World leaders laugh at Trump..." type videos, I found this. It's more of a giggle and smirk than outright laugh, but it's genuine. That must count for something.
K.R. in Austin, TX, writes: The smile Trump shows after making Jeffrey Epstein crack up near the end of this video is the closest thing to any documentation of Trump laughing:
As a bonus, he uses the same dance moves that he uses at his rallies.
N.N. in Andover, MA, writes: You are exactly right about wishy-washy messaging from H.R. McMaster. After all the harsh criticism of Trump, Gen. McMaster turned around and published a piece in The Atlantic expressing high praise for the former president's foreign policy instincts. What could he be thinking?
Politics: The Arlington Visit
Q.A. in Fullerton, CA, writes: My maternal grandparents are both buried in Section 60 at Arlington National Cemetery (grandfather was a veteran of World War II and Korea, grandmother the military spouse). I am fairly certain they were not OK with Trump's visit the other day, and were probably turning over a little bit while it was happening. I don't recall anybody in my family being asked or giving "permission" for this visit!
M.S. in Canton, NY, writes: My father (World War II combat veteran) and mother are buried in Section 60 of Arlington National Cemetery. (And by coincidence, a friend of mine from high school, a woman who died of natural causes far too young, is buried just a few steps away.) So to me, that location is indeed sacred ground. The whole staged event by the Trump campaign was appalling.
My wife's comment was, "I'm surprised your mother didn't rise up out of her grave." If you had known my mother—either her politics or her personality—you would know what a threat that would be.
G.C. in Alexandria, VA, writes: Trump's "visit" to Arlington is/was an abomination!
As you, and other readers, may know, my son gave his life when as an Army Ranger. His squad was sent to a mountaintop to rescue a Navy SEAL. He, along with 5 others, died in this rescue attempt, as did the Navy SEAL.
My son's burial service was March 11, 2002, the 6-month anniversary of 9/11. From his gravesite, I and those attending could still see the hole in the side of the Pentagon. That visual is seared into my memory.
There were plots still available in Section 66 when he was buried, so Section 60 was not in use in the early months of our nation's war on terrorism. The majority of service members subsequently were buried in Section 60.
I received several phone calls from family members expressing their outrage over Trump's visit. I thanked them.
Yes, I was outraged that he did what he did. I was, however, thankful that he wasn't standing in Section 66.
But what he did this past week hasn't changed my opinion of him. I still think he's an a**hole!
Please vote!
R.G.N. in Seattle, WA, writes: As a Navy hospital corpsman assigned to Marine combat operations during the Vietnam War, I watched many American servicemen give their last full measure of devotion to their country. Words cannot express the range of emotions I felt upon learning about a Trump campaign worker shoving aside an Arlington National Cemetery employee who tried to prevent the illegal use of the cemetery for political gain. Attempting to defend the dignity of that hallowed ground is not "having a mental health episode" and slurring that employee for doing her job is an insult to all war veterans.
G.M. in Laurence Harbor, NJ, writes: I am a veteran and it has my blood boiling. I have a sign outside my house which states "Veterans Against Trump." It was supplied by the advocacy group Vote Vets (votevets.org, if anyone is interested in learning more or getting their own sign). I am a Vietnam veteran who spent his year there during the Nixon administration, coming home to derisiveness and dishonor. I applied, and was accepted, to college sitting in a hooch near Qui Nhon but when I showed up to the school, they changed my acceptance to "provisional," stating they felt I would not be able to do college work.
Further irony ensued as I ended up appealing the decision with a young Black woman who had spent her year as a Medivac Nurse. We prevailed. It has taken years to be mostly sanguine with my time in the Army and in Vietnam. As I sit here writing this and looking out my front window, I notice a car slowing down to stop to view the sign and a twinge of dread overcomes as I fear the occupants are planning to rip the sign out of my lawn and throw it over the cliff.
C.V. in Austin, TX, writes: After the debacle at Arlington, and seeing posts from furious veterans about this being the last straw, I decided to look up where the most veterans live. The results were quite striking, ranked by state (according to wisevoter.org):
2. Texas
3. Florida
4. Pennsylvania
7. Virginia
8. North Carolina
9. Georgia
11. Michigan
13. ArizonaThis was already a tight election without Trump deploying one of his favorite foot-guns.
M.A.K. in London, England, UK, writes: In response to D.C. in Portland, who asked why the Trump campaign would go to Arlington and then behave like a**holes, your correspondent has neglected a simple and obvious explanation: They went to Arlington and behaved like a**holes because they are, in fact, a**holes.
D.L. in Uslar, Germany, writes: Trump giving an inappropriate thumbs up in pictures is nothing new. I seem to recall him doing it in hospitals a couple of times during his presidency. No doubt it's a thoroughly ingrained reflex that he does without thinking. For most of his life, photos like this were taken at business events, grand openings, and groundbreakings. It's an appropriate gesture at all of those, as a glance at any local paper would show.
He's not the only one with a strange hand gesture in that picture. The lady on the left appears to be throwing horns, like a metal fan, although she has the back of her hand to the camera. The woman to the camera's right of Trump is doing something similar. With her thumb under her fingers, it's not metal horns. She's probably not a supporter of the neo-fascist, Turkish nationalist Grey Wolves, so it's not that. It's probably some family gesture (and both women might be doing the same thing), but to someone not in on it, it looks inappropriate and, dare I say, weird.
(V) & (Z) respond: It is presumably the University of Texas "Longhorn Salute." Recognizable to an American, but still inappropriate.
B.D. in Niceville, FL, writes: You wrote: "Steven Cheung said there was no physical altercation, and that the whole incident was the responsibility of one person who was 'clearly suffering from a mental health episode.'"
OMG, I cannot believe that I actually agree with Steven Cheung. Of course, he probably didn't realize he was talking about Trump!
A.K. in Pico Rivera, CA, writes: The answer about why the Secret Service didn't enforce the possible violation of law by Donald Trump at Arlington National Cemetery brings to mind that there a lot of law enforcement agencies in Washington, DC, area with very specific authority over the buildings and grounds of said agencies. This doesn't even take into account that Arlington Cemetery isn't in D.C., but is in Virginia, and is under the control of the Pentagon.
Politics: Afghanistan Withdrawal
R.P. in Alexandria, NY, writes: In your reply to D.C. in Portland about the withdrawal from Afghanistan you note, "Second, to the extent that it can be pinned on someone, that someone is either Donald Trump or Joe Biden (or both). Trump is potentially entitled to blame because his 'art of the deal' dealmaking created the pre-conditions for a hasty withdrawal."
This is the Achilles Heel for Donald Trump, and what is so galling about the Arlington episode. Joe Biden's approval tanked because he was actually doing his best to engage in governing, and was stuck with the legacy of his predecessors in Afghanistan.
In this way, the 2024 election is reminiscent of the 1980 election, when Jimmy Carter was dealing with the twin legacies of our policies of supporting the Shah of Iran (whose dictatorship we had helped to put in power in 1953), and also supporting Israel during the Yom Kippur War, when OPEC launched its oil embargo that triggered the inflation of the late 1970s. Ronald Reagan rode the wave of discontent about inflation and Carter's inability to get the U.S. hostages released right into the White House.
This seems to be the more significant reason why Trump wants to run against Joe Biden, because he could rerun the Reagan-Bush playbook from 1980, including the difficulties of threading the needle between support of Israel and oil-driven inflation. A reminder that President Trump moved to prop up oil prices during the pandemic would seem to be in order now that the reset has taken place, along with the details of the "art of the deal" dealmaking.
J.C. in Binan, Laguna, Philippines, writes: You wrote: "killing 183 people and injuring hundreds of others. Among the casualties were 13 U.S. soldiers." I hadn't seen it laid out so starkly like that before. Do we (Americans) really measure 13 American lives more than 170 non-Americans? It seems so incredibly crass. But that is what I have heard from all the media: the anniversary of the death of 13 American (soldiers).
(V) & (Z) respond: Ah! We forgot to mention that the other dead people were brown. Hopefully that clears things up.
Politics: Musical Notes
J.G. in Covington, KY, writes: For those fascinated by this week's music-in-politics news, the following may be of interest.
First, Audie Cornish interviewed DJ Cassidy about the DNC roll call for her podcast The Assignment. It was an interesting, if abbreviated, peek behind the scenes. The interview comprises only the first half of the episode. The second half is a discussion of music in campaigns with a professor who studies the topic. (Also interesting, but for different reasons.)
And there are Trump's musical troubles. This has become such a constant thing that Wikipedia has devoted an entire page to the topic: Musicians who oppose Donald Trump's use of their music.
Also, Isaac Hayes' son and the family's attorney were both interviewed on The Breakfast Club. I found the bit where they explained that they view themselves as fighting on behalf of all musicians to be especially interesting. It sounds like they are prepared to take this to the wall and beyond.
Happy listening!
J.D. in Akron, OH, writes: How can I request that ABBA allow the Trump campaign to use "Waterloo"?
(V) & (Z) respond: If only Napoleon had remembered to seize control of the airports, things might have been different.
Politics: Signs of the Times
E.S.T in Lake Helen, FL, writes: Inspired by the DNC, I made a political sign, and my textile artist wife made a banner!
We are leaning into the love and joy aspects of their campaign.
R.H.D. in Webster, NY, writes: This past Friday, I was driving through a neighboring county that is ruby-red, politically. There were lots of Trump signs and flags waving at certain locations. I did see a couple "Biden-Harris" signs, too.
But what struck me the most was coming up to an intersection and seeing large signs like "Indict Biden," "Biden Lies" and "Biden is a threat to democracy."
I'm thinking to myself, don't some of these people follow the news and realize that Biden isn't running anymore?
C.K. in Rochester, NY, writes: We haven't seen any political signs at all in our Rochester, NY, neighborhood—until this one... a first!
Politics: Media Criticism
B.C. in Phoenix, AZ, writes: I, too, have wondered why CNN gives the Orange Donny either a pass on, or a promotion of, his most egregious comments and opinions. After some research, I think I have found an answer and hereby submit it for your consideration.
CNN is targeting one of their key demographics, which is older guys who: (1) are approaching retirement, (2) haven't saved enough for retirement, and (3) can't get it up.
How else could one explain ads and articles which speak to the issues of "The Average Walk-In Shower Cost in 2024," "7 Ways to Retire Comfortably With $500k," "Microplastics discovered in human penises for the first time" and "What your semen says about your health?"
J.B. in Austin, TX, writes: I read the "fourth estate" reference and immediately thought, "they have gone from serving as the fourth estate to something of a wholly self-serving fifth column."
I thought this quite clever, even profound, and felt compelled to share.
Q.F. in Boulder, CO, writes: I am tired of seeing media outlets falling more and more into calling us the "Democrat" party, a slur begun by Republicans.
Even MSNBC does this. Voters lean "Democrat" instead of Democratic. It's Democratic! "Democratic" is the adjective. Democratic Initiatives, Democratic Policies, Democratic candidates, Senators and Congressmen. The noun is "Democrat."
Have you noticed how this is seeping into average usage? I know it sounds small, but words matter. We represent Democratic ideals, and that says something.
J.N. in Columbus, OH, writes: You wrote: "Unfortunately for the Democratic candidate, the media has allowed Trump to seize control of the narrative, at least for now."
Here fixed it for you: "Unfortunately for the Democratic candidate, the media has seized control of the narrative for Trump, at least for the next 2 months."
G.O. in White Plains, NY, writes: In discussing The New York Times, you describe them as part of the "non-right-wing media."
This is increasingly a questionable categorization, sadly.
B.W. in Los Angeles, CA, writes: As a longtime former resident of New York City, I'm also a longtime reader of the Times.
I've seen much loud criticism of the Gray Lady's editorial choices recently (not just on your site), and I'd contend that the Times hasn't changed as much as its readers' expectations have.
The statement "The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters..." is so old and omnipresent that any consistent reader can recite it by heart. I don't think it's fair to assume, then, that the guest essays are proxy for the Editorial Board's official viewpoint on any issue. It's rather more likely, in my view, that certain op-eds are presented in documentarian spirit.
I'm as unimpressed by Rich Lowry's reasoning (not to mention his inelegant shoehorning-in of words like "defenestration") as you presumably are. Crucially, I suspect the Editorial Board may be, as well!
But this is what passes for political insight on the right—The Times is simply holding up a mirror to it. I didn't gain any new insights into Donald Trump or Kamala Harris as a result of reading it, but wouldn't you agree that it paints a rather vivid picture of how the American right, circa 2024, has lost its way intellectually?
Consumers of the Fox cable channel demand that their pure ideology will be unflinchingly catered-to at all times. I hope Times readers don't begin to do the same—we'd miss a lot of information that way.
All Politics Is Local
P.S.in Gloucester, MA, writes: Good to hear from M.S. in Philadelphia about signage northwest of Philadelphia. (Montgomery County?)
I spent several days last week in Philadelphia with Swing Blue Alliance and Project 26 PA (named for the 26th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, lowering the voting age to 18) helping students returning to Temple University register to vote. Not much signage in the city, or in Elkins Park, where some of us stayed.
But on our way home, I visited a cousin of mine who shares my interest in family history and genealogy, and who lives in small town/rural Lehigh County. He's a blue dot in a sea of red: Every other house, on our way up to I-80 to return to Boston, had a Trump sign.
I think that it's critical not only to get infrequent voters in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh to vote, but also to identify and to connect with the blue dots in Pennsyltucky. They may be too few in number to win their downballot races, but their votes help win the statewide races just the same as those in the blue parts of the state.
There is one interesting mid-state U.S. House race: PA-10. I am on Swing Blue Alliance's phone bank team and we are reaching out to voters in that district. The incumbent is Scott Perry (R), one of the House members involved in Donald Trump's attempts between the 2020 election and January 6 to stay in power (and a requester of a pre-emptive pardon from Trump between January 6 and 20). The Democratic challenger is the anti-Kari Lake: Janelle Stelson, the former 11 p.m. news anchor on WGAL-TV, channel 8, in Lancaster (which serves the Harrisburg and York markets in PA-10)—and a former Republican. She decided to leave WGAL after 28 years there to run against Perry when the Dobbs decision was handed down. PA-10 is one of two Pennsylvania U.S. House seats that the DCCC now considers flippable, the other being PA-01 (Brian Fitzpatrick).
D.R. in Harrisburg, PA, writes: When reading the question from C.E. in Clifton Park regarding Pennsylvania polls looking a little close for comfort, I felt compelled to comment. I am from central Pennsylvania and as long as there is a breath in my body I will vote for Kamala Harris in November. I also ignore every single phone call and text asking for my opinion or my money. I think I might be a "hidden" Harris voter and I bet there are plenty of people just like me.
J.H. in Boston, MA (formerly of NC), writes: J.M. in Cary wondered why they are getting political solicitations for federal offices that they haven't gotten in the past. Well J.M., I don't know whether you've noticed, but this year, NC is both the tipping point state, and the closest-to-even polling state. That is something that hasn't been true since at least 2008 (it was close in 2008, but not tipping point). All residents of North Carolina need to get ready for a flood of presidential campaigning.
R.H. in West Grove, PA, writes: Just wanted to provide some background answers to your readers in North Carolina. My wife and I also received those Trump flyers in the mail, which, if you check, most of them are addressed to "voter" or "current resident." That means they are paying the bulk mail rate. USPS charges a lower rate of you agree to send your mailing to everyone in a ZIP code, rather than a list of recipients. The most likely explanation is being cheap, rather than any particular strategy.
S.M. in Morganton, GA, writes: Yesterday morning (the 31st), I went to the Blairsville Farmers Market in Union County, GA. We are rightabouts where Georgia, North Carolina and Tennessee meet: southern Appalachian rural with Atlantean influence. Between the high volume of traffic for the Labor Day weekend and the commencement of the "regular" campaign season, I decided to keep track of political wear and paraphernalia.
My first observation: There was a decline in personal political advertising in general. I saw the fewest pieces I have seen in any trip to the market all summer. This means a rather noted decline in Trump stuff, as before this point it had been 100% Trump support.
I saw four pieces of political wear (five, if you count the Whiskey/Bourbon 2024 shirt):
- A "Save America Trump 2024" t-shirt
- A Harris/Walz t-shirt
- A Harris/Walz button
- An ear bandage (that was placed in such a way to be a political statement, not a medical need)
My local analysis: The desire to be visible for Trump supporters is lower; the ones that are doing it now are making it really, really weird. Meanwhile, any support for any statewide or federal Democrats is something I have never seen at my market in the past 7 years. That was surprising.
R.L.D. in Sundance, WY (formerly of Austin, TX), writes: I've been noticing how light the red of Texas has been for Donald Trump on the Electoral-Vote.com map recently and it made me wonder if Trump is really weak there to the point that it might be in play. I have noticed times in previous cycles where Republicans were doing less well than the general redness of the state would suggest, so I decided to do some quick and dirty comparisons.
First, while Trump has performed well enough on Election Day to be in no danger of losing the state's electoral votes, he has done less well than his predecessors. In his last two outings he got 52% (2020) and 53% (2016) compared to Mitt Romney's 57% in 2012 and John McCain's 55% in 2008 (both against Barack Obama) and George W. Bush's 61% as sitting governor of Texas vs. John Kerry.
Then I looked at today (August 29) in history. At this point in '04, Bush—again, the sitting governor—was ahead by 21 points at 58%. By '08, McCain was running at 50% and leading by 9 points. Romney, in late August 2012, was at 55% and leading by 20 points. Then we have Trump leading by 8 points vs. Hillary Clinton in Aug 2016, but only hitting 45%. By 2020 he was up to 47% against Biden but trailing by one point. Today, he's still at less than half, 49%, and only leading Kamala Harris by 5 points.
I'm not going out on a limb or anything (well, not far out), but even in Texas, Trump is weak. I've said for many years that if Texas Democrats can get their act together, they have the potential to get over the top. I liken it to Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania in 2016, where "everybody knew" that Clinton was going to win, but Republicans went out and "wasted their vote" anyway. This is why it's a bad idea to toss around that "wasting your vote" rhetoric for parties that have no chance, because in Texas (and Wyoming) that includes the Democrats, at least in statewide races. Texas Democrats need to channel their inner Quixote and tilt at the windmill. 2024 is a good time to do that, with a weaker-than-usual candidate on the top of the GOP ticket and the highly unpopular Ted Cruz (R) defending his Senate seat against a stronger-than-usual Democrat. I think if the Democrats can get a taste of victory this year, some sign that a win is possible, that long-predicted purpling of Texas might just be in the offing.
History Matters
R.H. in San Antonio, TX, writes: The State Department's web page about the Nuremberg tribunals is here.
Plus, the Rare Book Room at the Brandeis School of Law, University of Louisville used to have the dead-tree transcripts of the Nuremberg Tribunal; I don't recall if the Tokyo IFTME Tribunal transcripts are there or not.
One cool thing I do remember are the signs in that room warning occupants that in the event of a fire alarm, the door will seal and lock, and the room will be filled with Argon gas, causing asphyxiation of occupants with the bad luck to be present at the wrong time.
That cheery idea made an impression on me, almost 40 years ago.
R.R. in Pasadena, CA, writes: B.S. in Huntington Beach asked about presidents walking away from power, and you mentioned Harry S. Truman and Lyndon B. Johnson, plus George Washington and Thomas Jefferson. The other person I think that should be included is John Adams.
Adams had a contentious election with Jefferson, and he could have decided to pull what Donald Trump did and try to declare the whole thing illegal and stay in office. Different times, of course, and it's not clear he could have managed to get people to riot on his behalf, but the fact is that he didn't try to fight against the result once it was determined and ceded power at the required time. Yes, there was a bit of drama, but he still turned over the presidency willingly, which was really a pretty rare event in world history at that time. And the nation was still young; if he had fought against it, it could have set a precedent that made turning over the presidency contentious each time. Adams created the model of how to handle it when you lose the election, even as president, and that allowed us to have the transfer of power be peaceful even after the most rambunctious elections (at least, until 2020).
M.J.M. in Lexington, KY, writes: In addition to the presidents you mention I would add a vice president, Al Gore in 2000. His concession was true patriotism and at least delayed the fracturing of the population into red and blue to the extent we are now.
C.L. in Boulder, CO, writes: L.K. in San Francisco asked about presidents' foreign-born parents. Interestingly, Louisa Catherine Johnson Adams, the mother of John Quincy Adams, was born an American citizen in England to an American father. She spent some of her childhood years in France, met and married her husband in England (in All Hallows-by-the-Tower church that I visited this summer), then moved with him to Prussia as he fulfilled his diplomatic duties. The fourth country she lived in was the U.S. Louisa Adams may have been the most traveled woman of her time.
M.W. in Ottawa, ON, Canada, writes: Surely, Martin Luther must be the most influential German in U.S. History. Without Luther, there would be no Pilgrims.
I'd also like to nominate Konrad Zuse, who invented the binary computer.
Carl Friedrich Gauss and Johann Wolfgang von Goethe might also be mentioned, but I think Luther has the best claim on the title.
Foreign Words
D.E. in Lancaster, PA, writes: I wanted to piggyback off your answer to R.D. in Paris. You wrote, "That means we are more likely to be aware of words in other languages that achieve things that cannot be achieved in English." Case in point, and my favorite example of this phenomenon, is the French term l'esprit de l'escalier, which translates to "spirit of the staircase" or "wit of the staircase." This refers to that moment when you come up with the perfect reply long after the fact. I don't know about the rest of the world, but if I had a dollar for every moment of l'esprit de l'escalier, I could run for the Senate as a Republican!
Another favorite of mine, thanks again to the modern day Republican Party, is sturm und drang, which literally means "storm and stress." Staying with the German, I look forward, as I suppose many Electoral-Vote.com readers do, to each week's Schadenfreude and Freudenfreude stories. All these "Lost in Translation" words sent me down two wonderful rabbit holes. On the way, I discovered that there people who try to discern why certain languages and cultures have unique phrases for certain human conditions and experiences and why others don't. A curious thought I had never had about human societies.
I first wondered if there are words or phrases in English that just don't translate into other languages. Turns out there are a lot, and a good portion of them relate to politics. J.D. Vance might be unaware of this, and if he is he probably doesn't give a damn, but one word in the title of his book that unfortunately put him in the public limelight, "hillbilly" has no direct translation, since it originally describes a group of people who lived in the Appalachian Mountains with its not so subtle dig of being poor and uneducated.
Donald Trump has many words or phrases that you can associate with him that defy translation: "bamboozle," which means to distract your marks in order to pull off a crime; "gobbledygook," which means unintelligible rambling, which was originated by an American Congressman, Maury Maverick (D-TX); and "plead the Fifth," which of course derives from the Constitution. Trump is also looking for a particular American word that his opponents Harris and Walz have found with ease, the "bandwagon," which is a word that P.T. Barnum coined for the wagon that carted the musical instruments for the circus, but which President Theodore Roosevelt gave its present political meaning as some movement that one can easily jump on, or off as the case might be. Trump being the King of Legal Suing might be "flabbergasted" (another word that doesn't translate easily) to learn that to sue in a legal sense often has to be translated into "awkward" (yet another English word with no direct translations) multi-word phrases, such as the French poursuivre en justice. We are now at the height of electioneering and politicians are inundating us with "spam," another unique English word, often with a lot of "ballpark figures," which is hard to translate since it derives from the American sport, baseball, but means an inexact estimation. Other common words we use everyday with no one-on-one translations include "insight," "silly" and "nice," with all its contextual and expressive connotations.
On the other hand, I started to wonder about other foreign language words that have no direct translation into English. What I found were some words that brought a smile to my face, but many so achingly beautiful that I wondered how I've lived without knowing them. First, for some humorous ones: The German backpfeifengesicht, which means a face that is crying out to be punched. Bakku-shan (Japanese), which means seeing a woman from behind who you imagine is gorgeous but on seeing her from the front is most definitely not. Trying to revive a failed relationship in Italian is cavoli riscaldati, which translates to "reheated cabbage." Tartle is a Scotch word for when you go to introduce someone and you blank on that person's name. There's the Armenian word qti maz, which directly translates as "nose hairs" but means a person who gets bogged down with details that don't matter. Back to the German with kummerspeck, which translates to "grief bacon," or that excess weight you put on from binge eating in an emotional state!
Now for some words that made me question why I never knew there was this particular word for something so very common in my life: From Urdu, the word goya, which means that moment you become so absorbed in a great film, play, TV show, music or story that you think it is real. Tsundoku, which is Japanese for a person who obsessively buys so many books that they begin to pile up but who doesn't actually read them. The Finnish word sisu, which means hating to do something but you do it anyway. Ndo is the Igbu word for saying you're sorry for something you have no guilt over. The French flaner is when you walk aimlessly without a destination. Sobremesa is the Spanish word for the conversation that takes place between friends after the meal is finished. In a similar vein is the Italian word abbiocco, which means feeling comfortably full and relaxed after dinner with friends. The Norwegian utepils, which translates as "outdoor lager," or the act of enjoying a beer on a warm sunny day. Then there is the Inuit word iktsuarpok, which means when you are eagerly awaiting someone's arrival and you check every few minutes to see if they have arrived.
Lastly, here are some of those achingly beautiful words: Waldeinsamkeit, a German word which translates to "forest solitude" but means that feeling of being at one with nature that comes from walking by yourself through the woods, which brings to mind Henry David Thoreau and his walks through Walden woods. There is the Swedish word mangata, which translates as "Moon road" and means "that shimmering reflection of moonlight on water." Merak is a Serbian word for the simple mundane pleasures that make you feel at one with the cosmos. The Japanese have a word, boketto, for when you stare out into the distance but without any conscious thought. Hiraeth is that constant gentle longing to return to the land of your ancestors, courtesy of the Welsh. Razbliuto is the Russian word for feeling nostalgic for someone you used to love. There is also the Russian word toska, which is spiritual anguish and yearning but not for any particular thing. Finally, the word ya'arburnee, the Arabic word that translates to "May you bury me" or when you love someone so passionately that you would rather die first than to have to live without them.
P.V. in Kailua, HI, writes: In last week's Sunday comments, there was a link to an article about the meaning of the Hawaiian word hapa. The article asserts, "Much of [hapa's] current usage derives from the phrase hapa haole, meaning 'half white.'" The first part of this statement is correct; the second part is not. Although in present day Hawai'i, haole has a colloquial meaning of "Caucasian," it actually means "foreigner." Thus, hapa haole means "half foreigner," the implication being that the other half, by default, is Hawaiian. Some, though by no means all, Kānaka Maoli (Native Hawaiians) believe that using hapa to mean anything other than "half Kānaka Maoli, half something else," is a dilution of the language and culture they have kept alive in the face of massive obstacles. There is validity to their argument. In the Hawaiian language, the default perspective is surely Hawaiian. To assert otherwise is illogical.
My family has been in Hawai'i for over 100 years and I am biracial, but I am not Kānaka Maoli. My opinion on who gets to be hapa is immaterial to anyone other than myself. However I want to dispel two common misconceptions about the term hapa that I have heard from people who are not from Hawai'i. Firstly, it has never had a negative connotation among Kānaka Maoli. It does not need to be "reclaimed." Secondly, it does not exclusively or even primarily mean "half Asian, half White." To assert that it does excludes or marginalizes those who are part Kānaka Maoli. To displace a people from the center of their own language is illogical, among other things.
P.M. in Philadelphia, PA, writes: I have been a devoted follower of your site for many, many years. I have regularly posted links on social media and have often recommended friends to follow you.
I have periodically bridled at your references to political "Kabuki theater." I've been a professional stage actor for 56 years and am one of very few American actors (Nick Offerman, a colleague, being another) to have studied and performed in Kabuki theatre. The adopted son of one of the great Kabuki families came to America in the early 60's and has been teaching Kabuki technique and directing adaptations of classical western plays in the Kabuki style for decades.
Any actor's work on stage is "living honestly in imagined circumstances." A pet peeve as an actor is the assumption that, because we are "actors," we are incapable of being truthful. We practice many methods like substitution of events and relationships in our own lives to make completely honest the events we experience in the stories we realize on stage. You, as members of the audience, know instantly when we are being disingenuous.
As with Shakespeare, classical melodrama, etc., with Kabuki work, we must find an honest emotional connection large enough to match the extreme emotional circumstances of the highly-charged stories those genres demand. With our Kabuki master, we learned and practiced the craft of couching those truths in the stylized techniques of that ancient form.
Finally, like the elaborate physical and vocal performances of 19th-century European melodrama, whose most famous proponent, François Delsarte said, "(The) outward gesture, being only the echo of the inward gesture which gave birth to it and rules it, should be inferior to it..." practitioners of Kabuki Theatre perform in a manner that is hugely honest.
Perhaps another comparison could be found to describe overblown, dishonest displays such as those of the Freedom Caucus.
(V) & (Z) respond: We'll have to put D.E. in Lancaster on the job.
Complaints Department
A.Z. in Santa Cruz, CA, writes: I read your site daily and am so appreciative of the work that you do. I'm colorblind and have no red receptors, which in technical terms is known as being a protanope. As a molecular biologist, I have often struggled with how people present certain kinds of data (I think of the early 90s and the development of color Powerpoint slides as the beginning of the dark ages for colorblind people). The journals in the field have become better about requiring certain kinds of displays to be more colorblind friendly, and in the peer review process, I try to ask for changes to figures if I see a graphic that is impossible for me to discern.
I tend not to complain about color choices as I can usually figure out things based on context, but in your piece "Maybe America Can't Be Fixed," the first three bar graphs (which my wife says use green and orange) are impossible for me to discern. She thought you might have chosen those colors to avoid red and blue as colors, since they have their own meanings in politics (to me, red just looks like dark mud, but it is easy to discern from blue). When I see graduate students and colleagues choose colors that are hard to detect for us chromatically-challenged folks, I point them to a great website called Color Universal Design, about how to make figures and presentations that are friendly to colorblind people. While the site is a little heavy on the molecular and cell biology presentation, one of the useful things it presents is lots of examples of what colorblind people actually see compared to people with color vision. This is the first time in years that I thought that your site had made bad color choices, but I thought it would be a good opportunity to raise awareness of color vision challenges.
(V) & (Z) respond: We generally work to make sure everything is colorblind-accessible, but we dropped the ball that day, obviously.
P.Y. in Philadelphia, PA, writes: I've been reading your blog for years, and it's very informative and interesting; however, I don't understand why our projected electoral map only uses the latest poll for each state rather than a compilation of polls.
For instance, as I sit here today, your map shows Pennsylvania leaning Trump because one poll shows Trump up 48-47. If you look at multiple polls, however, Harris has the lead.
I'm not implying bias, but wouldn't a compilation of polls paint a more accurate picture?
(V) & (Z) respond: We don't necessarily use just the latest poll. We use an average of the last 7 days' worth of polls, or the latest poll, if there hasn't been one in the last 7 days. We also only use polls from houses we are persuaded are of acceptable quality and non-partisan. At the moment, for example, our Pennsylvania projection is based on four polls.
Q (No, Not Him)
A.S. in Black Mountain, NC, writes: W.S. in Greenville writes: "I have to point out a glaring error in your article 'This Week in Schadenfreude: Vance Just Can't Fudge It.' BBQ is only available in North Carolina (and only east of Raleigh). It's a common mistake because Texans, for many years, have been putting ketchup on grilled beef and calling it BBQ."
The view I see from a ridge in the Black Mountain area towards the so-called BBQ nirvana east of Raleigh is smudged by the smoke of burning hickory slowly infusing its aroma into the pork shoulder soon to be shredded and topped with a subtly sweet sauce and placed in a toasted bun for me to savor. W.S. and I will have to agree to disagree on NC "Q". However, Texas BBQ is another matter.
I took issue with another post a long time ago about the cheese (American, of course!) to make a Philly Cheesesteak. I am not a gourmet, but when an attack is made on a food stuff I love the gloves come off.
G.V. in Plano, TX, writes: W.S. in Greenville trollishly commented on the inferiority (nay, nonexistence!) of BBQ outside North Carolina. What a depressingly narrow view.
I'm Texan, but I've spent quite a bit of time in the Tar Heel State: I lived there for a while 30 years ago, and I still have several good friends there and visit at least once each year. I've had a lot of delicious BBQ there, including a full-on pig pickin'. On a few occasions, North Carolinians have tried to bait me into the tiresome "brisket vs. pulled pork" debate, but there aren't many things more pointless than that. For some reason, many people in North Carolina think BBQ is a dish; we in Texas (and a lot of other places) know that it's a cuisine. Yes, we love our slow-smoked, succulent brisket here, but also BBQ chicken, turkey, sausage (especially the wonderful, peppery blend that originated in Elgin) and yes, pulled pork. I'm here for all of it. The many regional variations just make it richer and more enjoyable.
A.B. in Wendell, NC, writes: I must take issue with W.S. in Greenville. Now, I live in North Carolina, as readers know... and the BBQ war here rages. As far as I am concerned, the red sauce is the only edible North Carolina "BBQ." The vinegar sauce, which you get east of Raleigh, has but one purpose for existence... to play a practical joke on friends when they come to visit, because no more noxious substance has ever existed on the face of the Earth.
Now, by birth I am a Midwest farmer's daughter, and in the Midwest, pork IS NOT BBQ. Beef is. And we sure as hell do not put ketchup on it. We put the most awesome and only real BBQ sauce on the planet on it, and we slow cook it for about 12 hours. THAT is real BBQ.
And now I am going to put on my Kevlar and wait for all the hate mail coming from what we call "Down East" here.
P.S.: Hatfield-and-McCoy-type feuds have started over the debate between the red sauce and the noxious vinegar sauce here in North Carolina.
Gallimaufry
J.L. in Schenectady, NY, writes: You wrote: "The Wick there is 'Wick Communications.' It would be much more awesome if John Wick had gone into the polling business."
Well, we do know that Donald Trump hates dogs.
M.C. in Santa Clara, CA, writes: OK, I'll start the joke:
"John Wick and Hannibal Lecter walk into a bar..."
M.C. in Newton, MA, writes: I'm not sure that polling by John Wick would be trustworthy: Keanu Reeves is Canadian.
R.R. in Pasadena, CA, writes: Oh boy, you really messed up the lineup for your Miss Universe pageant. You started off strong with Leia from Alderaan, but then it all went wrong. Saavik might be Vulcan, but she's also half-Romulan so it's not likely the Vulcans would find it logical sending her instead of a full Vulcan. And, while the inclusion of Babylon 5 is laudable, it can't be "Delenn representing Minbari," as the planet is named Minbar... it's either "Delenn representing Minbar" or "Delenn representing the Minbari."
You should be prepared for an evaluation when your annual Nerd Cards come up for review; we can't allow too many public slip ups like this or anyone will be able to call themselves sci-fi nerds.
(V) & (Z) respond: We knew about Minbar versus Minbari, that was an artifact of a last-minute rewording to avoid having to use Alderaanian.
T.S. in Denver, CO, writes: I want to thank you for your continued efforts towards greater inclusivity in your political commentary. Your mention of Delenn of Minbar among examples of likely Miss Universe pageant participants was heartening for niche 90s sci-fi fans seeking greater representation of our hero(in)es among the upper pantheon of fictional sci-fi badass b**ches. Representation matters.
As an aside, Kira Nerys of Bajor was totally robbed of the "Trek" spot in the pageant by Saavik. Vulcan privilege is real.
A.K. in Pico Rivera, CA, writes: Nice pick of three contestants. But I would suggest adding T'Pol from Star Trek: Enterprise; Counselor Troi from Next Generation and Aeryn Sun from Farscape.
(V) & (Z) respond: If anyone from Farscape makes the cut, the line starts with Chiana.
B.C. in Walpole, ME, writes: You acknowledged, "We're the last people to insult the intelligence of the American people. OK, that's not true, but we are not the first people to insult the intelligence of the American people. Maybe fourth or fifth or so." Seems like a sound policy.
Final Words
R.R. in Chewelah, WA, writes: Q: "What do Robert F. Kennedy Sr. and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. have in common?"
A: They're both being eaten by worms?
Editors' Note: Yes, it's a little dark. Or a lot dark, even.
If you have suggestions for this feature, please send them along.
Today's Presidential Polls
The swing states are still showing up as coin flips. If this is true, then it's worth remembering that Kamala Harris probably needs to win fewer coin flips than Donald Trump does. In most combinations, he needs four of seven swing states, while she needs three. The only way Trump can do it with just three is if the three are Georgia, North Carolina and Pennsylvania AND he wins at least one of the two CD-level EVs in Nebraska or Maine. (Z)
| State | Kamala Harris | Donald Trump | Start | End | Pollster |
| Arizona | 48% | 49% | Aug 29 | Aug 31 | Insider Advantage |
| Florida | 47% | 53% | Aug 16 | Aug 31 | Activote |
| Georgia | 48% | 48% | Aug 29 | Aug 31 | Insider Advantage |
| North Carolina | 48% | 49% | Aug 29 | Aug 31 | Insider Advantage |
| North Carolina | 50% | 50% | Aug 06 | Aug 31 | Activote |
| Nebraska | 37% | 54% | Aug 23 | Aug 27 | SurveyUSA |
| Nevada | 47% | 48% | Aug 29 | Aug 31 | Insider Advantage |
| Texas | 46% | 55% | Aug 14 | Aug 31 | Activote |
Click on a state name for a graph of its polling history.
Previous | Next
Main page for smartphones
Main page for tablets and computers