Previous | Next | Senate page | Menu
New polls: WA WI
Dem pickups: NC
GOP pickups: AZ GA MI
Sunday Mailbag
We have a second round of debate comments and memes from readers, but we are going to hold those for the regular week, since we ran the first round of comments and memes during the regular week.
Politics: The 2024 Presidential Race
D.E. in Lancaster, PA, writes: All the Millennials and Gen-Zers had their hearts in a flutter when Taylor Swift endorsed Kamala Harris after the debate. But for this old guy (I was born at the tail end of the Boomers, but personality-wise I'm the epitome of Gen-X), my heart fluttered when one of the true Queens of Rock and Roll gave her support to Harris. I, of course, am talking about Stevie Nicks, who signed her endorsement "Childless Dog Lady!" Now that's true Star Power. Phooey on Taylor's scarf; I'll take Rhiannon any day. "And wouldn't you love to love her."
J.D. in Rohnert Park, CA, writes: I'd like to see more than ads with Republicans supporting Kamala Harris. I'd like to see an hour-long telethon where Republicans for Harris appear in person and discuss their reasons for opposing Trump. Such a program might actually get a large audience.
P.V. in Kailua, HI, writes: A.G. in Scranton hypothesizes that there might be a "Shy Harris Rural Female Effect" because it could be dangerous for women in red areas to admit that they will be voting against Trump. There appear to be others who agree and would like to lend these women moral support. Electoral-Vote.com readers skew older and male so they many not be aware that it has become a mini-trend for young women to put anonymous post-it notes with positive affirmations in women's public restrooms, especially in schools and the workplace. The point is to give each other small boosts of confidence with things like, "You've got this!" or "You are worth it!"
Seen in a woman's restroom at the Minnesota State Fair:
Prepping for distribution in Pennsylvania:
It's a terrible thing to think that, in the U.S., saying how one is going to vote might put one in danger. But some Trump voters are really angry and women have been killed for as little as turning down a date or declining to give a man her phone number. So better safe than sorry.
R.L. in Vancouver, WA, writes: I've enjoyed reading your website for several years, but never considered sending you an e-mail. However, when you wrote that "Harris fully understands that at least a third of the voters don't know who she is," I had a difficult time accepting it. Did you mean they don't know enough about her to vote for her, or did you literally mean they don't know who she is?
I teach high school history, and I thought I'd do my own experiment. Granted, my students are still a year or two from being voters, but I asked my students two different questions:
- Could you name the Vice President of the United States?
- Do you know who Kamala Harris is?
On average, only about four students per class said they could name the Vice President. Yikes! However, about half of each class said they knew who Kamala Harris is. The disconnect is puzzling to me. I guess the good news for the Vice President is that she has lots of room to improve her polling as people get to know her.
I.H. in Washington, DC, writes: I finally found a site that tracks presidential campaign events in case you want to share with your readers: VoteHub.
Politics: Progressives
S.D. in St Paul, MN, writes: To add to (or to complicate) your response to the question posed by N.K. in Riverside, Kamala Harris's failure to engage the "progressive" Left on the issue of Israel-Palestine is not just a failure to shore up that one constituency; it's arguably a failure to engage the broader electorate.
I was recently listening to an interview with Yousef Munayyer, senior fellow at the Arab Center in Washington, DC. After making the basic point that an arms embargo puts the U.S. in a more strategic position to negotiate a ceasefire, he mentioned something interesting. He said that poll after poll shows that the vast majority of Democrats support ending arms shipments to Israel; that the majority of Independents want to end military aid to Israel; and that nearly 40% of Republicans now support ending arms shipments to Israel. Munayyer marveled at the fact that the Biden-Harris administration is actually to the right of 40% of Republicans on this pressing human rights issue. If Harris wanted to be more decisive on Israel-Palestine and draw a clear contrast between herself and Trump, then clearly the opportunity is there.
J.G. in Olympia, WA, writes: N.K. in Riverside wrote: "If Harris ran with the same energy and progressive rhetoric that Obama did in 2008, it's likely she could bring these young voters back." That is a really odd statement to make. Hillary Clinton was to Barack Obama's left in 2008. Obama was a generic center-left candidate who tried to avoid specifics as much as possible and presented himself as a Rorschach test to Democrats. Sure, liberals who didn't bother to read the candidates' positions might have assumed he was X, Y or Z but it wasn't so.
In comparison, Kamala Harris has always been a progressive and ran as a progressive in 2020. When she was doing decently early on, Biden co-opted a lot of her platform. Then he picked her as his running mate and together they had one of the most progressive terms in U.S. history. What's more, they actually ran on progressive policies instead of just pushing them through when the opportunity presented it. She is running to finish what they started, but from her more liberal position than from Biden's slightly more centrist position. The progressive politicians who actually understand this supported Biden and now support Harris.
What she won't do is insert herself into ongoing foreign diplomacy while the administration she is part of is in the midst of negotiations. Because of course she wouldn't. I wouldn't want a president who torpedoed the best hope for the Palestinians just to potentially pick up a few percentage points. No progressive or liberal would. Pragmatism is the bedrock of progressive and liberal thought in American history and is the driver of every single advancement that we've won.
A.B. in Wendell, NC, writes: Your response to N.K. in Riverside was pretty good. But I think yon progressive N.K. needs a dose of pragmatism.
I consider myself, by the way, to be progressive, but I do not always toe the party line (and remember, I am an Officer of my state party) Frankly, Kamala Harris isn't as strong as I would like on issues I think are key... which are likely different from what N.K. thinks are key.
The point is this: Our current system, requiring 270 EVs to win, insures that one of two people will be President come January: Kamala, or Trump v2.0. That is simply reality, and no amount of wishing it was different will make it so.
My point is to ask N.K. to look at ANY issue they see as "key" and ask who will handle it better: Kamala or Trump? If N.K. truly is progressive, then the answer should be the same as mine. My vote is for Kamala, even if it is, at least to some degree, also an anti-Trump vote.
That is the current reality in American elections. Sometimes ya gotta vote for less-bad in order to make sure F**KING TERRIBLE does not win. It sucks, but it is the current reality. Keep working on the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact but for the sake of everything and everyone you love... VOTE KAMALA!
L.O.-R., San Francisco, CA, writes: N.K. in Riverside writes in, calling for Kamala Harris to run from the left. It is, of course, possible and even likely that Harris is analyzing her positioning the way you described. More important, though, is that Kamala Harris has never ever run or governed from the left side of the Democratic Party. She ran for District of Attorney of San Francisco as a reform pragmatist, right in the middle, ideologically, of her two opponents, and that was how she governed. She ran for Attorney General of California as a reformist, mainstream criminal justice professional, and that was how she governed in that role. She ran for and legislated as a Senator as a mainstream Democrat. She ran for President in 2020 as a moderate responsive to the #MeToo and #BlackLivesMatter energy of that time, but not the leading cheerleader for those perspectives. She joined the moderate Joe Biden administration and has supported his approach for 4 years.
Why would she suddenly abandon her core political values (to use her term) now? That would be inauthentic. What's so refreshing about her, suddenly, is that she seems to be actually enjoying her authentic self, something we've never ever seen from her before. It's a delight. She is and has always been a moderate, cautious person who responds to the pressures of the day by supporting incremental, pragmatic change that nudges the country to a more compassionate stance. You can see that on Gaza, where she has been vociferous in her support for the state of Israel and for Palestinian self determination—pulling the mainstream of the country a step to the "left," but not upsetting any apple carts.
Ever since Harris has entered the national arena, it seems that people have called her a leftist or wanted her to be further to the left, and I can only believe they do it because she's a woman of color coming from the San Francisco Bay Area. Her record is not and never has been as a leftist. She is and always has been a pragmatic moderate whose values pull left.
T.S. in Florissant, MO, writes: I just wanted to comment on the question from N.K. in Riverside, and your response. It is not possible to overemphasize that the Vice President needs to say and do whatever it takes to win in swing states. There is far more at stake than just her personal political success. Our republic as we know it will be ruined if she loses.
What progressives are missing is that she cannot just take a wild swing to the left in this campaign to make the base happy. If she does this, she will lose. That's the mistake that Donald Trump constantly makes, by the way, and why he lost the popular vote in two consecutive elections and will probably lose it a third time. I feel like progressives who talk like this aren't making any political calculations at all, but rather just selfishly demanding she say whatever makes them happy.
While your points were not necessarily wrong, what you guys missed in your response to N.K. is that Joe Biden could do some of those things and get away with it because he's an old white guy that some of these skittish voters feel like they can intuitively trust to a somewhat greater extent. Kamala Harris is not. Also, we were in a pandemic that Trump badly bungled. In 2008, John McCain didn't have nearly the cult following and charisma that Trump has (or had), and that election was during a huge financial crisis and recession that made Republicans deeply unpopular, which is why Barack Obama could get away with some of it. Another reason is that Obama is a man. These things make a difference.
Harris cannot go out on the campaign trail and start sounding off like Reps. Ilhan Omar (DFL-MN) or Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) or Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT). She just can't. If she does, she will lose. Period. The Democratic Party knows this and that's why the DNC could not take or even really countenance the Palestinian side last month.
What Kamala is up against is a lot of old, white boomer voters in swing states who may not necessarily like Trump but have been at least partially brainwashed by 35 years of right-wing media. They are absolutely terrified of progressives. So Kamala can't be one. And they are scared of people who look like her. And they're hesitant about having a woman president. She has to win them over. It sucks but that's what she and her campaign have to work with.
Let her play 3-D chess in this election for the next 50+ days. Progressives can and should tolerate it and still vote for her. Her campaign has plenty of money to spend on internal polling, so if any of this is incorrect, she can make minor course corrections with some constituencies as needed.
In the big scheme of things, I think people in general love making history and want to vote for candidates like Obama and Harris. I'm optimistic about her chances. But she has to stay the course.
If she wins, she will be open to persuasion to do the "right" things and "progressive" things on some issues, including Gaza. Trump will be open to none of it. Not only will he not care about Gaza in the slightest, but he will make that situation and every other issue progressives care about even worse and he will ruin our country entirely as well. It's obvious to me which way to go.
Politics: Signs of the Times
J.D.M. in Cottonwood Shores, TX, writes: Quick report on Trump signs seen driving 40 hours through rural Texas, Arkansas, Missouri, Illinois, Wisconsin, Iowa and Oklahoma: large plywood signs (a lot of those 4 years ago) zero, large sign on side of barn: one... but does a Trump/Pence sign even count? Regular yard signs: 7, one of which still had the almost-hanged man.
Yeah, yeah... Not scientific, yada yada... If the fever hasn't broken, the patient is at least exhausted.
D.E. in Atlanta, GA, writes: I used work on local, state and federal campaigns. I despise lawn signs because, in my opinion, they were a way for volunteers to avoid making calls or knocking on doors. Just stick one in your front yard and say that you helped the campaign. They're also a blight on any landscape.
That said, this is a yard sign I would put in my yard. It speaks to me on many levels:
M.L. in Eastern Colorado, writes: Here in the far eastern side of Colorado, it's a pretty safe bet most of the people vote red. It's rural enough that I won't put my town in the title because I might be the only person with those initials here. Obviously, this is Trump country. On my 20-mile drive to work, I pass three Trump flags in front of the fewer than ten houses on the trek.
This post isn't about Trump's signs though. Last week, my wife was perusing our county's Facebook marketplace. A man I know of (again, very rural here) posted that he has a few dozen extra yard signs for Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Not from CD4 but running here) and he encouraged people to come take some and support her campaign.
The responses were so good! "Hell No!" "Carpetbagger!" "I'll take them all, I was planning on having a bonfire!" Within an hour, the post had been deleted.
I knew several of the names of the responders and knew them to be Republicans. I wouldn't completely write off her Democratic challenger.
T.B. in Wiscasset, ME, writes: This Thursday, my cousin and I drove from Wiscasset, ME, to Stonington, ME, a distance of roughly 100 miles. Just north of Route 1 in Waldoboro, we started counting Harris/Walz and Trump signs. Actually, we counted locations with signs. I counted 42 locations with Harris/Walz signs, and my cousin counted 14 locations with Trump signs. Those were surprisingly small numbers, considering the distance. Anyway, the locations counted were all within Maine's notoriously Trumpy Second Congressional District. And the location count was 3:1 in favor of Harris/Walz. Had we counted signs instead of locations, then there would have been only one more Trump sign, for a total of 15, and roughly three times as many Harris/Walz signs (i.e., about 125 Harris/Walz signs). I think this might indicate a bit of a difference in enthusiasm.
The day before, we drove to Boothbay and saw hundreds of Harris/Walz signs and virtually no Trump signs. This trip was all within the First Congressional District.
All this positivity was drenched when, just after crossing the Wiscasset town line, on the way home, I saw a banner beside the road reading: "Trump 2024 F**K your feelings."
Politics: This Week in TrumpWorld
P.T. in Jackson, MS, writes: "Donald Trump does not play 2-D checkers" should be on the Electoral-Vote.com masthead.
J.S. in Houston, TX, writes: A couple of points about the Truth Social stock DJT that has been brought up on your site now and then. This stock is very heavily shorted which is a key reason for the drop in the price over the past few weeks. Trump declared that he is not planning to sell his shares, which predictably led to a rally. Trump is truth-challenged and it is smart to make that declaration irrespective of his plans. If Trump and other executives do hold off on selling when they are allowed to (in a few days), DJT stock could rise sharply from a "short squeeze." I predict a roller coaster.
Also, it is assumed that it is good for Truth Social and the DJT stock if Trump wins the election. I am not so sure. If Trump loses, there will still be plenty of drama with him going in and out of courtrooms and possibly prison. And Elon Musk and eX-Twitter would be less likely to promote wholesale lying.
R.E.M. in Brooklyn, NY, writes: I think Donald Trump led with his chin on the Taylor Swift t-shirt parody. How about a "Donald J. Trump Errors Tour" shirt with a montage of January 6 rioters, Charlottesville tiki-torch Nazis, Trump holding a Bible upside down in front of a church, Brett Kavanaugh with a coathanger superimposed, Putin, Kim, and that dachshund puppy in a hot dog bun? I'd buy that shirt.
M.U. in Seattle, WA, writes: Your comment on Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) regarding Laura Loony, er, I mean Loomer: "Anyhow, when you're too racist and too crazy for Marge Greene, you're in a VERY special place." I cannot tell you how loud I laughed when I read that line! Yes, a VERY special place indeed! In fact, I'm not sure there has ever been a more special place for someone, in that regard!
P.B. in St. Louis, MO, writes: When I read about MTG criticizing Laura Loomer, even though they both agree on most looney right wing policies, I immediately knew why: Laura Loomer is Jewish, and MTG is one of the most outspokenly antisemitic elected officials in the U.S.
There is a popular TikTok meme about face-eating leopards (which actually predates TikTok), wherein members of minority groups espouse the beliefs of extremist organizations in a bid to gain acceptance, only to have the extremist organization turn on them. I'm certain that is what is happening here.
A.T. in Bloomington, IN, writes: I literally lol'd at your haiku. Bravo! I've taken to sharing it with my friends, though I've made a slight modification so that it stands on its own:
Donald Trump's skin is
as thin as the layer of
gold on his toilet
G.D. in Ithaca, NY, writes: Regarding your comments that Trump's skin is thinner than gold (specifically that of his possibly apocryphal golden toilet) I decided to look at just how thin that would be. Human skin is anywhere from 5 to 0.5 mm thick—though the epidermis layer itself is quite a bit thinner, but in all cases are thinner than a gold coating. Typical gold coatings are anywhere from 0.5 to 2.5 microns thick, but let's assume at least 2 microns thick given the wear and tear on a toilet which may see significant use between regular operation and the odd document. If we assume he went with an 18K coating, which is cheaper than 24K but looks close enough, he'll have gotten 12.8g or $794.94 worth of gold applied to his toilet (like a typical Kohler unit, where I am assuming the entire surface area is coated). This means, in the most abstract and tortured of unit conversions, his skin is thinner than 44.2 shares of DJT stock as of 9/13 closing.
Politics: Polarization
M.S. in Las Vegas, NV, writes: You wrote: "We do not suggest that the [current level of political] polarization is 100% the responsibility of Republicans and/or right-wingers. But the responsibility of those folks is well above 50%."
You can say that again. As someone who at least sometimes voted for Republicans 20 years ago, I can tell you that I absolutely cannot conceive of ever voting for any Republican for any office for the rest of my life.
And that is without question 100% the fault of today's Republican Party. They are spineless, power-hungry fools who will look you in the face and spout nonsense than anyone this side of a lobotomy would know is untrue, invalid, or illogical (or all three).
C.N. in San Diego, CA, writes: You wrote about the increase in polarization.
What's interesting to me, is that my own "polarization" really only set in during the Trump years. Up until that point, I wouldn't vote for Republicans, but they were decent folks with ideals and principles. I could have a debate with them and we could talk about possible compromises.
Nowadays, their willingness to vote for, support, and provide cover for Trump has changed all that for me. I've basically lost all respect for these "conservatives." I wouldn't hire them to walk my dog or water my plants—I just don't trust their judgment anymore.
I miss having a sane opposition party.
Politics: Media Criticism
A.G. in Scranton, PA, writes: CNN headline, the big scoop, so to speak: "Harris Campaign's former Twitter account uses deceptively altered audio to bash Trump."
Uh...up against the guy WHO LIES ALL THE EFFING TIME?????? Yeah, maybe it's okay to play their game once in a while.
Where's the full page ad about people not murdering newborns, CNN?
Oh, yeah, both sides do it, right?
Effing CNN.
What a joke. Remember when they were influential? Remember when they, I don't know, reported sh** that made sense to report? Remember Desert Storm, old Wolf with the Baghdad skyline lighting the eff up? Yeah, now we're down to nitpicking Twitter posts for accuracy against a guy who lies every time he opens his mouth.
Eff CNN.
B.W. in Los Angeles, CA, writes: I appreciate the thoughtful reply from P.V. in Kailua, but I'm afraid I'm not yet moved from my lack of frustration with papers like the Times.
This is for one fundamental reason: I don't believe it's a press outlet's job to be, as P.V. puts it, "crystal clear about what matters in this election."
I don't look to the press for guidance, I look to them for information. That information can then be used in conjunction with my own ethical compass and civic-mindedness.
I share P.V.'s concerns about both-sidesism and other sloppy (or cowardly) journalistic practices. I'm just reluctant, at this stage, to extrapolate from those a motive (or even a trend).
The idea of a "biased media" is perhaps the oldest right-wing conspiracy theory. When presented with only anecdata as evidence, it's a virulently illiberal premise. I feel a nagging trepidation when seeing it adopted in any form by those who lean leftward.
K.L. in Phoenix, AZ, writes: P.V., I agree that the media—and The New York Times in particular—don't hold Donald Trump to the same level of critique as they do Kamala Harris. The reason for this is simple: Much of what Trump says is so vapid and intellectually bankrupt that there's little of substance to engage with. Frankly, what more can they say? His statements are often so shallow that trying to critique them meaningfully feels like grasping at air.
So, what do they do? They shift their focus to Harris, where they can finally put polished critiques to use after 4 years of Trump's incoherence and 4 years of a quieter Biden presidency. Harris provides the substance needed for a deeper analysis, and the media can't resist. In the process, however, they may unintentionally divert attention from the far more dangerous implications of Trump's potential return to power, which carries far greater consequences.
It's almost like the dilemma faced by the Elves in The Rings of Power. Just as they wrestled with the temptation to use their rings—power they couldn't fully control—to avoid fading, the Times feels drawn to focus on Harris, because she offers something substantive. Meanwhile, while the country balances on a knife's edge, the risk remains that Sauron (Trump) could regain his One Ring in November, while the media is too busy sharpening their knives for Harris.
Politics: Prediction Markets
M.W. in Ottawa, ON, Canada, writes: I'd like to add one more reason that people use betting markets: as a hedge against an unfavorable outcome. Let's suppose I'm convinced that my taxes will go down by $10,00 if Trump is elected. I might place a bet that pays out $600 if Harris wins. That way my "loss" is only $400 if Harris wins.
D.S. in Palo Alto, CA, writes: About Prediction betting: They got it massively wrong in 2016, when you had to pay 99 times the Donald Trump price to bet on Hillary Clinton. Pretty good odds for those who bet for the ultimate winner.
J.L. in Paterson, NJ, writes: With regard to Nate Silver's role as an advisor to Polymarket, you write that "it's also a real problem for us that Silver is both in the business of prognosticating, and in the business of setting odds on political events. That is a clear-cut conflict of interest, in our view..."
Polymarket doesn't set odds. It offers a market. Polymarket odds, like New York Stock Exchange prices, are set by how each of the individual customers chooses to bet ("invest"). Joe Biden's odds crashed after the debate because many of those individuals changed their minds about the probability. You had this right when you noted the potential impact of "fan" bets, especially in a market with few participants. If Nate Silver were setting the odds, a few "fan" bets would make no difference.
Polymarket charges a commission. It profits when there's MORE action, but its take doesn't depend on who actually wins an election or what price the contract was trading at. If Silver posts that [Candidate X] is 71% to win, that would probably move the betting line, but it wouldn't affect Polymarket's interest. Conceivably, such a post might prompt a few new bettors to enter the market, thus benefiting Polymarket, but that incremental effect would be small.
(V) & (Z) respond: Silver helps them decide what bets to offer, which necessarily means that he has to help them establish some sort of opening price. And among the options being offered right now is "Trump Silver Bulletin odds >60% next Friday?" This clearly puts him in a position to manipulate his prognostications so as to make money as a bettor (or, more likely, to have associates make money as bettors). We do not presume that he IS cheating in this way, but the mere possibility is deeply problematic.
Politics: Darths Vader
J.V. in Madison, WI, writes: In conjunction with the passing of the late great James Earl Jones, I would like to point out his tangential connection to one of the long-term discussions of this website, the use of the phrase "kabuki theater."
Jones played Sergeant Major "Goody" Nelson in Francis Ford Coppola's 1987 film Gardens of Stone, about the ceremonial regiment at Arlington National Cemetery. The film takes place during the Vietnam War far from the front lines. As a supporting character, Jones steals every scene he is in. Near the middle of film Jones says the following:
Why Madam, we are the Old Guard. We are the nation's toy soldiers. We march with rifles that cannot shoot. We fix bayonets that cannot stick. We are the kabuki theater of the profession of arms. Jesters in the court of Mars, God of War, do-da, do-da.That was probably the first time I heard the phrase kabuki theater used in the Electoral-Vote.com meaning of the term.
The film is doubly relevant in light of Trump's recent shenanigans at Arlington National Cemetery.
May the force be with you, Mr. Jones.
S.K. in Sunnyvale, CA, writes: You wrote: "[Liz Cheney] also noted that so will her father [vote for Kamala Harris]. Dick. Yup. That Dick. The one Democrats liked to compare to Darth Vader. Dick Cheney."
So, like Darth Vader, Dick Cheney finally comes to the light side.
RIP, James Earl Jones.
J.H. in North Salem, NY, writes: The moment I saw that Dick Cheney would be voting for Kamala Harris, I sent a text to the rest of my family that said, "Hell has frozen over—Dick Cheney will vote for Harris."
My wife immediately responded with this quip: "Will he campaign for her or just invite Donald to go hunting?"
All Politics Is local
C.F. in Miami, FL, writes: In response to T.W. in Norfolk: Donald Trump's current obsession with Haitian dog-eating immigrants, combined with "Venezuelan gangs taking over apartment complexes," both run the risk of a slight push-back at the ballot box here in South Florida. In the case of the latter, my sense is that upper-class Venezuelans and, to a lesser extent, their middle-class brethren would see these claims as legitimizing proof of their qualms with Maduro.
Over the last 8 years, Trump has lost some Venezuelan votes due to his policies and rhetoric on immigration, but his harping on communism and socialism has probably gained more votes overall among immigrants in Miami-Dade with origins in a left-wing country (Cuba, Venezuela, Nicaragua, etc.).
It's a delicate balancing act that could expose just how absurd the rhetoric is. Will it be a turning point with Haitians (already liberal) and Venezuelans (the loudest voices are extremely conservative, but the majority run the gamut), just as Elián González proved to be the catalyst to turn Miami-Dade from red to blue?
Just to re-cap that situation: All of Miami was engrossed in the protests and stood alongside the Miami-based family, and they watched the 6 p.m. local news for coverage. And then the national and international news came on at 6:30 and exposed the city to the perspective of a father wanting to reunite with his little boy after the trauma of losing his mami.
Miami-Dade has been blue ever since! People saw just how much they had been controlled by the over-the-top rhetoric coming from the frothing-at-the-mouth anti-communists who couldn't see the humanity of a boy returning to his papi.
Will that be enough to make Florida blue? Maybe not for Kamala Harris, but Sen. Rick Scott (R-FL) surely must be sweating!
A.G. in Scranton, PA, writes: Signs of life (ugh... a pun) up in the backwoods of the Tucky part of Penn's land:
Harris signs appear. Not a lot of them. But any is more than none.
We will take Pennsylvania. I feel it.
Real sign of life? My father is defying my mother and not voting for Trump. That's my key indicator. If that spineless, henpecked man can do it (and the dude's my hero, don't get me wrong) but if he's not voting for Trump... well, I think the wheels are coming off.
C.L. in Boulder, CO, writes: You wrote: "U.S. House, NH-02: ...if the Republicans hope to steal a New Hampshire seat, this is the one they should focus on. The GOP banner will be carried by Lily Tang Williams, who has a compelling personal story (she fled the cultural revolution in China), but is an unknown."
Not to me. I heard Lily Tang Williams speak, maybe when she was running as a Libertarian for U.S. Senate from Colorado in 2016; she focused on her personal story back then, too. I lived in China from 1986-88. She left China in 1988. She came across as extreme to me, comparing her to the Chinese I know in China and in the United States. I looked on her campaign website for some reference to her time in Colorado, but didn't find any. Anyway, I thought maybe readers in New Hampshire would like to know that she changed parties, changed states and changed her candidacy from one congressional chamber to another. Given that this is her second try for the U.S. House in New Hampshire, having lost the Republican primary in 2022, maybe New Hampshire readers already know this information, but since you didn't mention it, I thought I would.
Williams also ran in 2014 for a state House seat in Colorado as a Libertarian and lost.
An Unpleasant Musk
S.C. in Mountain View, CA, writes: You wrote that sales of Tesla cars started dropping when Elon Musk bought Twitter.
While the plural of anecdote is not data, Musk is also losing sales of Powerwalls; at least, he definitely lost one sale. We are about to have a storage battery attached to our system of solar panels. The installer gave us prices (parts and installation) for a Franklin system and two different Powerwall systems. The cost of the Franklin system is 10% more than one of the Powerwall systems and 20% more than the other. We're going with the Franklin system.
P.L. in Denver, CO, writes: I agree with your comment that Elon Musk moving to the right has turned off Democrats. I am a lifelong Democrat. I used to think I would buy a Tesla, but no more. Recently, I started to investigate taking advantage of the various incentives to electrify my home. The fellow I was working with suggested a Tesla Powerwall battery backup and a SPAN panel, which is a smart breaker box that works with the Tesla Powerwall. The SPAN panel company was started by a former Tesla VP. I asked him if they have another brand, as I did not want to support Musk. He told me he hears that a lot but that the batteries are really good. I decided to pass at this time!
A.B. in Wendell, NC, writes: You might also mention that even if the pollution was the same for gas-powered versus generation of power for EV's (and it isn't) that having the pollution in one place makes carbon capture easier than a gas-powered vehicle roaming all over.
The real answer, though, is to promote more ways to do remote work, reducing the need for commuting.
COVID
P.S. in Plano, TX, writes: I'm sure you'll get a ton of e-mails like this, but I wanted to point out that (Z)'s recent post makes it sound like Paxlovid is the standard treatment for COVID. I don't believe this is correct. When I got COVID, I asked about Paxlovid, and the ER doctor said that Paxlovid had a high risk of side effects, so the costs didn't outweigh the benefits except for very serious cases. He told me instead to alternate acetaminophen and ibuprofen every 6 hours for a few days. That worked fine.
He acknowledged that some doctors prescribed Paxlovid for mild COVID cases, and he said that they were likely doing what their patients wanted rather than what was best for them.
J.E. in Akron, OH, writes: I'm glad to hear that (Z) is on the mend, and as a physician, I appreciate your willingness to share your story as a reminder that COVID can still cause serious illness. I do, however, want to correct a misconception about Paxlovid. There is good evidence that Paxlovid reduces the risk of hospitalization and death from COVID in patients who are at risk due to age and/or underlying health problems. However, studies of the effect of Paxlovid on time to symptom resolution have shown little to no effect.
I spend a fair amount of time explaining to patients who are not at high risk that they are unlikely to benefit at all from Paxlovid; even for high-risk patients, the benefit is protection against severe disease, not rapid symptom resolution.
M.A. in Knoxville, TN, writes: In your comments on COVID Wednesday you wrote: "It's also possible the new variant is really bad on Day One, and mild thereafter, but that's not usually how viruses work."
I've had COVID twice, the first time in March of 2020, before enough was known about it to recognize it as COVID until later, and a second time in December of 2022. Both times it was like the worst cold I'd ever had for a few days then it just... went away. I had some lingering inflammation from the first one that didn't become obvious for a few weeks, but I was vaccinated when the second bout hit and didn't experience any of that. So with COVID sometimes it IS really bad then suddenly it's mild or gone. COVID is a very weird virus.
E.S. in Half Moon Bay, CA, writes: (Z), I was glad to hear you rebounded quickly after contracting COVID. I have one tip perhaps to readers (not as retired physician but as a past COVID victim—thankfully mild due to vaccinations like you had!) Paxlovid does have an awful aftertaste. I discovered somewhat surreptitiously that blueberries counteract it. Having recommended it to friends, I can anecdotally confirm some validation of the observation. Worth a try as long as you don't have any sensitivity to blueberries.
History Matters
C.J. in Redondo Beach, CA, writes: If we were to include the whole of their lives, Herbert Hoover may have saved more people than any person who became president... just not during his time in office. He saved Europe from starvation multiple times. Literally millions of people would have died from famine if not for him.
If he hadn't become president, he'd probably be considered one of the greatest Americans ever.
R.H. in San Antonio, TX, writes: Malaria was endemic in the Tennessee River Valley, until Franklin D. Roosevelt's Tennessee Valley Authority dammed the rivers and created reservoirs which provide electricity and water to millions of Americans in the U.S. Southeast.
The reservoir levels are raised and lowered by several feet every few days, because the mosquito which carries the Malaria parasite can only develop in shallow water, and when the water level is lowered enough to dry out the place where the eggs are laid, those eggs will die.
D.B. in Mountain View, CA, writes: Regarding your comment that "There's no way to know what would happen if someone assumed office today and THEN turned out to be too young," there is a precedent for this. In 1934, Rush Holt (R-WV) was elected to the Senate at the age of 29 and took office after his 30th birthday in June 1935.
J.M. in Silver Spring, MD, writes: So I just wanted to point out that Charles Coughlin was, in fact, a "'Nade."
R.R. in Pasadena, CA, writes: You wrote about how Black soldiers took it upon themselves to push for desegregation. While true, I think it undersells other factors. The performance of Black soldiers during World War II made a large impact on the white soldiers they served with, to the point that most white people in the military saw them as just another soldier by the postwar period. Soldiers had a lot of respect then, for obvious reasons, so the white soldiers going out into the world and influencing others would have made a difference in changing minds about segregation. There's also the performance of Black soldiers during WWII, where there were a lot of groups, such as the Tuskegee Airmen, whose exploits were widely shared. That heroism worked on people to make them see Black people as equals.
Maybe the biggest thing to come out of WWII was the desegregation of the military by Harry S. Truman. This was inspired by the racist attack on a U.S. soldier, Isaac Woodward, right after he retired and while he was still in uniform. Truman, and then Eisenhower, pushed this through the system, even in the face of disobedience by some soldiers. Eisenhower, of course, went on to send troops to desegregate schools in the South after Brown v. Board. I don't think there's any doubt that Truman's actions had a large impact on the idea that Black people were just as capable and deserving of freedom as white people, and driving that wedge into segregation helped open the way to a better nation.
None of this would have been possible without the heroism of the Black men who went to war, and then came home to fight for their own freedom. They definitely had help, though, by other Americans who believed in our ideals and worked to right something that had been wrong for far too long.
History Matters: Vice-Presidential Edition
M.L. in West Hartford, CT, writes: I think you left out the number one reason why John C. Calhoun was a terrible VP, in addition to being a terrible American and a terrible human being all around.
Calhoun was the leading expositor of the idea that slavery was not just a "necessary evil"—as many of the Founders believed—but a "positive good." This philosophical shift seems to me to be what made Civil War inevitable. If that's true, then Calhoun bears (more than any other single figure) significant responsibility for the outbreak of the war, even though it did not occur until a decade after his passing.
I assume that this was either omitted for space or because it was not directly related to his service as VP, which I understand, but I just couldn't let a discussion of Calhoun's faults go without chiming in to mention what I think was his most heinous act (which, as you note, is really saying something).
C.L. in Boulder, CO, writes: When I saw the question, I thought, "Well, of course, Dick Cheney will be one of the best VP picks because he was a very effective VP." Imagine my surprise when he was on the five worst list. I guess the definition of "best" and "worst" depends on the judge's definition. Certainly, Cheney thought he was the best. As the person in charge of picking VP candidates for George W. Bush, Cheney just looked in the mirror and changed his voter registration from Texas to Wyoming.
J.D. in Breckenridge, CO, writes: I take issue with your characterization of the five best and worst VPs. First off, I interpreted the question more from a running mate standpoint. It is incredibly hard to know, absent hindsight, whether someone chosen as VP will turn into a strong president. Little evidence would have pointed at Truman in this light. Secondly, we rarely get the chance to evaluate a pick in this light. Yes, several presidents have died and we have that data. And most VP nominees have not so it is a challenging data set.
Second, calling out Dick Cheney as a top five bad VP is just bad scholarship. You may not agree with things he advocated but was he always ready to step into the big chair? Absolutely. Did he help George W. Bush get elected? Yup. So this to me is more a question of your lens than an objective assessment of performance. Al Gore? Really? Tell me how he developed the modern vice presidency please? He was not co-President with Bill Clinton. That is revisionist history at best. Yes, I lean right and will be voting for Kamala in two months.
How did Andrew Johnson not crack your list of worst VP picks? Lincoln thought he needed him to win what he thought might be a closer election in 1864. Maybe Johnson helped, and his brand pre-1865 was actually pretty good. He was a hard worker, great speaker, risked life and limb several times during the war as a Unionist and advocated things like the Homestead Act. As President, if your lens is how they performed as VP/president, he was pretty bad. Perhaps not the worst (a few doughfaces and Nixon come to mind) but why was he omitted?
And if we are talking about VPs who stepped up, don't forget Chester A. Arthur. A stalwart (viewed as the corrupt wing of the Republican party of the time) and collector of customs in New York City, Arthur turned out to be a pretty decent president, getting civil service reform done and turning his back on Roscoe Conkling and that crew. We forget what politics were like in the 1870s and 1880s. Go Google those folks and you won't feel so bad about right now.
And while Spiro Agnew was no doubt a bad guy on many dimensions (OK, he was totally corrupt as governor of Maryland taking bags of cash), did he do his job on the Republican ticket in 1972? I think you have to say "yes." He was an attack dog against George McGovern and while it was probably not needed, he delivered what Richard Nixon asked and needed.
So if we are purely talking about best and worst VP picks to get elected, here are my thoughts:
Best Lyndon B. Johnson absolutely won Texas for John F. Kennedy; read Robert Caro's book here which is outstanding. No question LBJ stepped into the big chair, but he helped win JFK the presidency and then was nearly out of it until November 1963. Made the biggest difference of any VP nominee, and few going back before 1945 are relevant.
Joe Biden—the contrast with Palin was clear and I totally agree he was a great pick.
Cheney—see above; heart attacks aside, Cheney understood the assignment and while he clearly has faults, do I doubt he has the best interest of the USA at heart? No, just with a lens I don't share.
Mike Pence—established Donald Trump's bonafides with the establishment. Would I ever vote for him? Nope. Did he help Trump? Yup.
Maybe I'll give you Al Gore as number 5 here, but only because Perot muddied the waters and Gore was the 220-yard drive down the fairway that sets you up to par the hole. Sometimes you shouldnt try to eagle or birdie.
Worst
Sarah Palin absolutely cost John McCain in what was a closer election than it should have been given the economic turmoil; imagine what McCain/Romney or McCain/Lieberman would have done. It wouldve been too close to call.
Jim Stockdale—great military career; not a great candidate. People forget that Ross Perot had a real shot for a while in 1992; had he picked someone else, who knows?
TBH, it is hard to find anyone else who actually mattered to the campaign materially. George McGovern and Walter Mondale were always going uphill in their races; not sure even the "perfect" VP pick would have made a difference. And VPs pre-1945 were so rarely the focus of the campaign—there were no debates, and until Tyler took over in 1841, people weren't even sure what being VP meant relative to the presidency.
C.J. in Redondo Beach, CA, writes: I'd like to submit Chester Arthur for consideration under best VP selections. Arthur was known as a master behind-the-scenes political operator and his machine probably won New York for James Garfield in 1880. Then he went on to be a better-than-expected president once his boss was assassinated.
"I am but one in 55,000,000; still, in the opinion of this one-fifty-five millionth of the country's population, it would be hard to better President Arthur's Administration." — Mark Twain
Complaints Department
R.H. in Albany, WI, writes: I'm writing to ask and question why you referred to Tim Miller in this way: "Miller is gay, is married to a man, and is quite open about it. It's quite liberating."
Why is writing about Tim Miller's sexual orientation and marital status relevant to this story? I have no problem with gay, married men. I am one myself. What I don't understand is why you think it is relevant to this story. Were the story about being gay or being a gay married man, perhaps it would be. The paragraph(s) note some of Tim's qualifications and experience that justify the credibility of his being in the Spin Room. He is a professional political operative with experience in high-level campaigns and a respected political blogger. Why does being a married, gay man matter?
It seems to me that you are participating in the ongoing homophobic obsession of singling out gay and gay married people and considering this a defining attribute of everything that Tim Miller and any other gay person does or believes or thinks. It's not. It's as if being gay means that you think and act a certain way and hold certain beliefs. That's not true. It's part of who he is and who I am, but it is not all of who we are or how we think or what we feel.
If you think your description is valid, then why didn't you treat the other people you wrote about in the same way? You didn't mention their sexual orientation or marital status. Why the double standard?
(V) & (Z) respond: In answer to your question, those sentences immediately followed a couple of sentences about Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) being a two-faced phony. Does that make it clear what the point was?
E.G. in The Villages, FL, writes: Oh, it's ok for women to address men that way? Warped double standard.
(V) & (Z) respond: This is presumably a response to our observation about Donald Trump chastising Kamala Harris for interrupting him. Nowhere did we write, or imply, that it's OK for women to treat men that way.
L.E. in Birmingham, AL, writes: What a horrible biased viewpoint! QUOTING FROM YOUR WEBSITE: "Harris and Trump have never met, but they already hate each other, so there could be fireworks. If Harris wants to get under Trump's skin from the get go, she could refuse to shake his hand on stage and say to the moderators: 'I never shake hands with rapists; as a prosecutor, I put them in prison.' At that point, Trump's head might well explode."
HOW ABSOUTELY CHILDISH! Repulsively immature when discussing the next leader of our Nation.
HERE IS WHAT IS IMPORTANT TO REAL AMERICANS... not the social justice warriors or Leftist with childish mentality that operate solely on emotionalism: ECONOMIC POLICY PROPOSALS FROM A POTENTIAL HARRIS ADMINISTRATION! Harris has proposed GOVERNMENT PRICE CONTROLS. Harris has proposed GIVING $25,000 OF YOUR TAX DOLLARS TO NEW HOME BUYERS. Harris has proposed TAXING UNREALIZED CAPITAL GAINS up to 44%!
VOTE ON POLICIES—NOT PERSONALITIES! TRUMP 2024—SAVE OUR NATION from the destruction from within! Vote against all Democrats and RINOs and their anti-American, Marxist agendas!
J.E.K. in Wayne, PA, writes: Thought I should comment on the letter from R.H. in Colusa comparing your electoral map to the one presented by Election_Time on YOUTube. I went and checked Election_Time out and found it to be basically useless. As someone who has watched polling and electoral maps for almost 50 years, I think your analysis is better thought out and, more importantly, objective. My observation listening to Election_Time and looking at the comments about their site is that it is designed to give "conservatives" hope, and possibly support some people's election denial if Kamala Harris is elected president.
There are several problems with Election_Time. To start, the pollsters used are not screened for biases. For example, he gives the impression that Pennsylvania is leaning toward Trump, even though, with exceptions, it has leaned Democratic in the past. And there is no reason to think that the suburbs, where I live, have become more conservative from 8 years ago. If anything they have become more liberal. He also uses Trafalgar and Patriot Polling to show that Pennsylvania is now leaning toward Trump... by one point, and he dismisses Emerson's results by arguing that they have a "left bias." Even that wording, rather than "Democratic bias," implies a strong conservative tilt.
He randomly gives off reasons why he assigns a grade to each state based on his "knowledge." The grading is not objective in any way and in many, if not most, cases, his choices lean toward Republicans. I can give several examples:
- He assigns North Carolina to Trump and implies it is almost a sure thing. I can see that assignment. However, he fails to mention the polls that show the Republican candidate for governor of North Carolina lagging significantly behind the Democratic candidate and how the Democratic candidate might provide coattails.
- He implies that Arizona is a sure thing for Republicans but ignores the poll aggregates that show a Democratic lead and fails to consider the changing demographics of Arizona. He also ignores the significant lead Democratic senate candidate Gallego has over Lake and the potential coattails.
- Another example is Wisconsin, which he implies will go Republican in spite of the polling and the recent landslide election of a Democrat to the Wisconsin Supreme Court.
In a nutshell, Election_Time is highly biased and this is very apparent in their pseudo-methodology and tone. I don't always agree with your political positions, but you have a methodology in your aggregation that is consistent and open for evaluation. This makes your aggregation heads and shoulders above Election_Time's aggregation. Could they be right on Election Day? Sure. But it is not because their methodology is good or objective. Even a broken clock can be right twice a day.
B.C. in Manhattan Beach, CA, writes: Several of the complaints you have published (such as the recent one from R.H. in Colusa, CA) allege that Electoral-Cote.com has a liberal bias (or has taken a recent turn in that direction, sometimes alleged to date from the time (Z) was added as a contributor).
In response, all I can do is quote "Stephen Colbert" at the 2006 White House Correspondents Dinner: "Reality has a well-known liberal bias."
J.B. in Houston, TX, writes: I would like to respectfully disagree with M.R. in Cottekill regarding their criticism of this site for pointing out the absolutely racist actions taken by AG Ken Paxton in Texas. An article in the Huffington Post (which V & Z may well have been referencing in their response to M.R.) describes the horrific SWATing and fabricated search warrants (for alleged voter fraud, of course) against members of LULAC, including Latine state representatives running for office. The goal is voter and political intimidation.
I've been following these stories, as I have recently moved back to my home state to be near family. Living in Harris County, I have learned that my voter registration by mail, as instructed on the Texas secretary of state's website, is likely invalid because of all of these voter suppression tactics by an incredibly undemocratic state government that I can not wait to vote against.
B.B. in Dothan, AL, writes: LOL ROTL LMAO!!!!!! If you published nothing but on Sundays letters like the ones last week, my week would be complete. Gives me great joy to see people revealing their innermost Karen. Thanks!
Delaware Gone Wild
K.B. In Manhattan, NY, writes: You wrote: "We didn't know Delaware had any wildlife. Maybe rabbits, or something else with a very small range."
Any lightly regulated creature of the free market is wildlife. I often visit Wilmington to view dovetailed LLC's and long-necked Corps.
D.S. in Albuquerque, NM, writes: I don't usually complain when you guys say something dumb while you think you're being clever, but now you've got my Irish up. You're obviously not aware of it, but outside of Wilmington and Dover, Delaware is mostly rural and gorgeous. And if you had bothered to look it up, you'd find that the state has numerous public and private wildlife refuges. Not only that, some of the wildlife is very cute:
And one refuge, in the southeast corner of the state, has the best name ever: Assawoman Wildlife Area.
I demand a retraction!
S.K. in Los Angeles, CA, writes: Just the other day, I saw a description of the range of the bobcat as "all of the contiguous states except Delaware."
Dr. Strangeloe-v: Or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Map
J.P.R. in Westminster, CO, writes: I was thinking exactly the same thing that spawned the question of C.C. in Dallas: How did I happen upon this humble site? I don't remember exactly what month it was, but it must have been between August and October of 2004. A younger friend of mine was a college junior at the University of Central Oklahoma (a philosophy major and poli-sci minor), then as now very avid about politics (he's since been the mayor of a small town in Oklahoma and remains active in local government).
Incidentally, I just texted him asking him if he still reads. He admits he'd forgotten about it several years back as life circumstances shifted, but upon a quick revisit he indicates enthusiastically he will again be a regular site visitor.
D.H. in Boulder, CO, writes: C.C. in Dallas mused on how they came to find Electoral-Vote.com. I know my path. Before the 2016 election, I read an article about Sam Wang and the Princeton Election Consortium. I visited that site frequently and noticed a set of links under the heading Blogroll (it's still there). Under that heading was a link to "Electoral-Vote.com (a pioneer!)". I followed it and my life has been more rewarding ever since.
J.C. in New York City, NY, writes: I found Electoral-Vote.com around the same time C.C. in Dallas did and I am nearly certain I came in from Digg, Reddit, or StumbleUpon, in order of probability.
J.D. in St. Paul, MN, writes: C.C. in Dallas doesn't remember how they found your site in 2004 and specifically can't imagine having Google-searched for electoral maps. Still, my bet is with a forgotten Google search for electoral maps. That's how I found you. Those were dark times for cartographic representations of the state of the presidential race. Some people just want maps. There was Real Clear Politics, which was problematical in certain ways, but it did have maps. And suddenly there was you! The occasional wry commentary was a mere bonus.
W.C. in Lake Zurich, IL, writes: I saw the question about how the early days of the site were marketed. I also joined very early on; I think during John Kerry's election. You have been my go-to source for political info, in season and not.
If I recall, there was a page out called "if the world could vote" and showed polls from people in other countries. This was (I think) provided by the VoteAbroad website, which linked back to you. This may be the way that the original poster found you as well, it was pretty popular among my friends at the time.
I haven't seen the "if the world could vote" map ever since, but it was interesting to see at the time.
Thanks for all the great work you have been doing over the years!
M.M. in San Diego, CA, writes: To K.H. in Corning: Yes, yes and yes! I love finding connections to the various places Electoral-Vote.com contributors hail from. Once someone from Olmsted Falls, OH, wrote in, and I couldn't suppress a tear of nostalgia because I'm a graduate of OFSH—Go Bulldogs, especially the fantabulous marching band! Then there was someone from Downers Grove, IL. While I have no direct connection, I couldn't help but wonder about the origin of the name. I speculated that because "downer" is a term for a stricken cow, that perhaps it was named for a grove of trees in which something toxic to cattle was growing; however, I was wrong. Downer was the name of the landowner and the apostrophe has been lost. There are many more, too numerous to list. So, yes, K.H., we are as one.
Gallimaufry
M.B. in Windsor, CT, writes:
J.H. in Boston, MA, writes: There was an episode of How I Met Your Mother where Neil Patrick Harris's character advances the point of view that Ralph Macchio's character is actually the bad guy of Karate Kid, who stole William Zabka's girl, humiliated him, and won the karate tournament illegitimately by doing an illegal kick. This episode had one or both (I forget) of the actors on as surprise guest stars at the end. Apparently during production, they got to talking about this point of view, which led to a reboot starring Macchio and Zabko with a much more sympathetic presentation of the nominal villain's point of view.
It's become something of trend in media. We have antagonist-friendly retellings or reinterpretations for various Disney properties and of The Wizard of Oz. The Star Wars fandom has its "the Empire did nothing wrong" niche, and Marvel has one for Thanos.
In addition to being a fun little bit of fanfic, it strikes me as a useful exercise for a political commentator in the era of hyperpartisan narrative weaving. Piercing the biased lens that your partisan narrator tries to force on you is a useful skill when reading proclamations of political actors today. also rejecting the black and white binarism of traditional storytelling and embracing gray morality can equip one to make better sense of a complex world full of mostly selfish mostly amoral actors.
All of which is to say that I think the conditions are right for Electoral-Vote.com's production of a Back to the Future franchise reboot from the Tannen family perspective. Who do you like for the part of the elder Biff Tannen? I heard a rumor that the character is based on a real-life real estate magnate with some acting experience and that this guy may be looking for work soon. Someone should look into whether he's available.
R.R. in Nashville, TN, writes: If you were doing Biff's story, sure, he would more than likely be protagonist. But that's not what Back to the Future is about. So we have to take the story as is.
Of course Marty is the main character. If you study Joesph Campbell's—or Chris Vogler's#8212;work on the Hero's journey, the Hero is always the main character. And in the Hero's Journey, the Shadow, what the hero fears the most, is represented by Biff.
This is not just some academic paradigm that may be otherwise meaningless. Who is Protagonist and Antagonist effects how the three-act structure is constructed, where and what the major turning points are, and how the journey works to tell the best story the writer needs to tell.
While the hero's journey is critical to any story, in order to shape a film—especially a U.S. movie—it is essential to distinguish who the protagonist is and why. And who the antagonist is and why. This definition works in just about every Hollywood film I've seen and studied. And it is a critical aspect of writing and producing just about every Hollywood feature.
W.S. in Austin, TX, writes: You wrote: "Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield don't actually own the Ben & Jerry's ice cream brand anymore. But they still have big-time name recognition, and they still know a thing or two about making ice cream."
Four years ago, I wrote them suggesting Im-Peach-Mint Delight. This novel ice cream would consist of peach-flavored ice cream embedded with mint chocolate chunks and topped with mint sprinkles arranged in a smiley face.
Final Words
R.M. in Pensacola, FL, writes: Back in March, you answered a question from F.S. in Cologne, Germany, about who the worst 10 Senators in U.S. history were (you gave 10 bonus ones for free).
One of the senators on your list, John C. Stennis, was from my wife's hometown of De Kalb, MS. The Stennis family were friends of my wife's family, so much so that when my wife was a little girl, she would roller skate in his office in town, even when he was there. Family lore has it that my wife's great-grandfather was the bailiff in Stennis' courtroom when word reached him that Theodore Bilbo (also a member of your list) had died, so Stennis closed court for the day so he could go register to run. He, of course, won, and by the time he retired in 1989, he was the second longest serving Senator in U.S. history (and is now ninth on that list).
(I must note that a third Senator on your list, Jefferson Davis, also held the Class 1 seat. A full 15 percent of your list has held that one seat. Does anyone know what Roger Wicker is up to these days?)
Last weekend, I had the opportunity to visit my in-laws and when we were there, we stopped by Pinecrest Cemetery in town to visit my wife's brother, who passed away far too young. My brother-in-law is buried six graves away from Stennis, and after visiting her brother's grave, said she wanted to walk over to "Mr. John's" grave. I said "sure," and we went over where she then proceeded to say "Mr. John, this is L.S., C.S's granddaughter. I don't know if anyone has been here to see you lately, but I just wanted you to know that there is a good chance that a Black woman may become President of the United States in a few months."
I think I felt the ground shake as he rolled over in his grave.
At any rate, his head stone is simple and the phrase on it may possibly show that he had some self-awareness as to how he was in life and show why he was that way. I'll leave that for you and the readers to decide:
Ed. Note: If you can't read the headstone, it has Stennis' name, dates, and the inscription "He plowed a straight furrow."
If you have suggestions for this feature, please send them along.
Today's Presidential Polls
One of these things is not like the other. Although note that Kamala Harris' support isn't all that different in blue Washington and purple Wisconsin. It's Donald Trump's support where the difference lies. (Z)
| State | Kamala Harris | Donald Trump | Start | End | Pollster |
| Washington | 53% | 32% | Sep 03 | Sep 06 | Elway Research |
| Wisconsin | 49% | 47% | Sep 11 | Sep 12 | Insider Advantage |
Click on a state name for a graph of its polling history.
Previous | Next
Main page for smartphones
Main page for tablets and computers