Previous | Next | Senate races | Menu
New polls:
Dem pickups: (None)
GOP pickups: (None)
Mike Johnson's Life Gets a Little Tougher
When we wrote about how Rep. Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick (D-FL) is likely to be expelled from the House, sooner or later (and probably sooner), we did a rundown of the expected changes in membership that are already on the calendar. As part of that, we wrote that the very blue Texas district of the deceased Sylvester Turner would be filled in early March.
As it turns out, we misread the source we used to double-check that. The selection of a replacement took place yesterday; a runoff election in which Democrat Christian Menefee handily defeated Democrat Amanda Edwards, 68.4% to 31.6%, with 87% reporting. Menefee was, until recently, County Attorney for Harris County, TX.
The reason for our error is that there IS an election in the district in March. However, that is the primary for a seat in the 120th Congress, not the runoff for a seat in the 119th. When these same two candidates do battle again in a few weeks, there will be two additional names on the ballot. One of those is an unknown (Gretchen Brown) who has no chance of winning. The other is Rep. Al Green (D-TX), who is a legend in Texas politics.
Green will be shooting for his 12th term, and the reason that he (an incumbent) will be up against Menefee (another incumbent, albeit for only a short time) is because of Texas' redistricting shenanigans. All four candidates are Black, so the election won't be decided by identity politics. It is almost certainly going to come down to Green and Menefee, who are both pretty lefty, so it won't be a Hillary vs. Bernie, Part 238, either. Green's biggest advantage is his stature and sky-high name recognition (and the March primary will have different district lines than yesterday's election, so some voters will not have been targeted during the special-election process, and might not know Menefee all that well). Menefee's biggest advantage is his youth; he's 37, as opposed to 78 for Green. If Menefee wins, the story will be "Democratic voters want to move on to a new generation of leaders." If Green wins, it will be hard to say if it's because he ran a better campaign, or because he's more famous.
Meanwhile, the fact that TX-18 now has a representative puts Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) in the one-defection-only condition. Once Menefee is sworn in, it will be 218 R, 214 D. If one Republican defects on an otherwise party-line vote (assuming everyone shows up to work), that's 217 R, 215 D+R, and the Republican position wins. If two Republicans defect, that's 216 R, 216 D+R, and the measure fails. That will remain the case until, at the very earliest, March 10, when an election is held to pick a replacement for Republican Marjorie Taylor Greene. However, since there are 17 Republicans, 3 Democrats, a Libertarian and an independent on the ballot, it is improbable that anyone will claim the required 50% to be elected. More likely, a replacement will have to wait until the runoff on April 7. That will make it 219 R, 214 D until the good people of New Jersey (probably) pick a Democrat to replace the departed-from-Congress Gov. Mikie Sherrill (D) 9 days later. No 50% requirement in that one, so by mid-April, the House will likely be 219 R, 215 D, which is again a one-defection-only condition.
Johnson is undoubtedly looking forward to the (likely) day that Cherfilus-McCormick is expelled, and his margin of error expands to TWO defectors. What a luxury! But even if that comes to pass, it will likely be in March. That means the Speaker is going to be dealing with the DHS funding situation without a safety net to speak of. That said, he might not really need it. If the Senate takes care of business first (and remember, they'd have to come up with something that could get 60 votes in that chamber), then Johnson would be presented with something of a fait accompli, a bill that would probably pass his chamber with the Democratic votes, plus some/many Republican votes (particularly from swing-district Republicans). That's surely his best-case scenario, especially if Donald Trump signs off on the bill. Then Johnson can disclaim most/all responsibility, and he won't be at risk of a high-profile cat-herding failure. (Z)
Sunday Mailbag
We got more letters about [SUBJECT X] than any other topic this week. And yet, [SUBJECT X] is not going to make even the faintest appearance in today's mailbag. You will see why sometime this upcoming week.
Politics: This Week in TrumpWorld
G.N. in Seal Beach, CA, writes: The top oil-producing nations in the world are the U.S., Saudi Arabia, Russia, Canada, China, Iran, Iraq and Brazil. Top oil consumers are the U.S., China, India, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Japan and Brazil. America produces a couple million barrels more per day than it consumes. China consumes around 10 million more barrels per day than it produces. Nations with the supposedly largest oil reserves are Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Canada, Iraq, United Arab Emirates, Kuwait and the U.S.
Donald Trump has done more than we could have imagined he would with the promotion of oil consumption in the United States. He has shut down wind farms, scoffed at solar panel use, and has only started to push for nuclear when he learned he could grift off it. He has subsidized the petroleum industry in several ways, from subsidies to opening up federal lands for extraction. He has tried to boost domestic demand for petroleum products and worked against renewable energy technologies that largely come from China.
Trump has cozied up to Mohammad bin Salman in Saudi Arabia and Vladimir Putin in Russia in ways that shock America and the rest of the liberal world. He ordered the invasion of Venezuela to enact leadership (not regime) change. He ordered bombing in Iran months ago and threatened the Ayatollahs with more bombings since the protesters there started getting slaughtered. Canada also feels threatened by Trump and the U.S. Lately, the U.S. military has boarded and blocked ships carrying sanctioned oil from Venezuela, and France has gotten in on this action as well.
So, what does this add up to? Friendship with the other great oil-producing nations' leaders, control of their leaders like with Delcy Rodríguez in Venezuela, or threats of military use against those leaders, gives Trump the upper hand in the oil business worldwide. Creating a consortium of oil-producing nations aligned with the U.S. through friendship or force isolates China from access to the world's oil supply when the U.S. controls it. I am an amateur in the energy sector and would guess it would take a decade for China to become independent from the world oil market for its needs—so, sometime into Trump's fourth term, when he has already enriched himself that much more through his control of the world's oil. Not that he has master-planned this in any way, but this may be the ticket to getting China (and India) to bend to the will of the United States.
D.R. in Slippery Rock, PA, writes: My son married a woman from Tunisia. They met when she was here as a visiting Fulbright Scholar. Their entire family, including my grandchildren, had to flee Tunisia because she worked for democracy-promoting groups such as the Carter Foundation. He and my grandchildren are American citizens, but my daughter-in-law is not. They live in an E.U. country, but their visas are about to run out. They applied to move to the U.S., and have done everything by the book. Donald Trump's reason for suspending all visa applications from Tunisia, among other countries, was to prevent burdening the social safety net. My daughter-in-law makes good money and will continue to work remotely from wherever she is. The visa moratorium will break up this family, indefinitely. One parent or the other will be forced away from their children. They had already bought plane tickets and lodging for the consulate interview in another country. Money wasted. This isn't policy, it's cruel, anti-family stupidity.
L.C. in Brookline, MA, writes: You wrote: "The year 2025 was a bad one for The Washington Post... we do not understand what on Earth Post owner Jeff Bezos is doing here.... Needless to say, a badly compromised Washington Post is music to Trump's ears. And a dead Washington Post is even better."
I think Donald Trump may have given a hint to Jeff Bezos that if Bezos wants to keep being on the government gravy train for tech contracts, that he had better kill the Post.
N.M. in West Chester, PA writes: "We do not understand what on Earth Jeff Bezos is doing here."
Bezos is different than Elon Musk. Elon is a white supremacist, as evidenced by his father's teaching and every other single piece of evidence, including the Nazi salute. Elon purchased Twitter to spread the language of hate far and wide. With the rise of AI, he also gains a revenue stream by allowing Grok to run wild. Elon is happy to maintain Twitter as long as he can use it to keep spreading his ideology.
Bezos is a caricature of a Bond villain at this point. It is abundantly clear what he is doing; he is starving the paper to death to limit as much investigative journalism as possible. It is hard to imagine any scandal that could catch everyone's attention like the murder of Alex Pretti has. The only thing that comes to mind would be a videotape from Epstein's island showing Donald Trump in clear focus doing something heinous.
If a journalist had an explosive story like that, do you really think Bezos would let that story run?
R.H. in San Antonio, TX, writes: Jeff Bezos bribed Trump, in hopes of maybe getting enough government contracts so Blue Origin outlives Trump.
Remember when Bill Gates rescued Apple, in order to be able to argue to the Department of Justice's antitrust people that MS did not have a monopoly? Elon may allow Bezos to get enough NASA contracts to stay barely alive, in order to be able to argue that SpaceX is not a monopoly in the space-launch business.
Bezos paid Melania $28 million as a direct bribe.
Perhaps it will be enough.
A.M. in Brookhaven, PA, writes: Your recent item about the new documentary Melania left out an important detail about the White House screening last weekend. According to the Wikipedia article on the film, they needed to use a makeshift theater to show it as the usual screening room was recently demolished. Now how did that happen?
J.A. in Forest, VA, writes: I guess now FIFA will have to create the FIFA Best Actress Award when Melania gets snubbed by the Academy.
Politics: Minnesota...
R.T. in Arlington, TX, writes: After reading the first wave of responses to the question about helping people in Minneapolis, I paused to ask what I can do.
From my location there isn't much I can do for Minnesota.
But then the hyperlocal answer appeared. Both of the families that live beside me in my suburban neighborhood are foreign born, one from Africa and the other from Latin America. I'm going to speak to both of them and volunteer to make contact with whomever they need to have notified if government forces come to arrest them. Texas seems really safe in this regard right now, but all it would take is for someone in the Texas government to get a bee in his bonnet and unleash the state law enforcement apparatus in solidarity with Trump. The unfathomable is now bobbing on the surface of the water.
R.H.D. in Webster, NY, writes: I don't like to discuss the deaths of the two individuals in Minneapolis from a political perspective. But this is becoming a major crisis for the GOP. I'm now convinced they will lose the House and that keeping the Senate is 50/50.
This is a crisis for the Trump White House because a vast majority disbelieves what they're saying about these deaths. When an administration constantly lies about something, it usually doesn't end well for them at the polls. Just think of recent examples like Vietnam, Watergate, Iraq and COVID.
Someone prominent in the Republican party needs to tell Trump that it's time to call off the dogs in Minneapolis. Otherwise, a Democratic takeover of Congress means investigations and impeachments. It will be a rough last 2 years of his second term.
D.A. in Hermosa Beach, CA, writes: This 8½ minute video by Minnesota State Representative Walter Hudson (R) about the Alex Pretti shooting is worth listening to from beginning to end:
(V) & (Z) respond: We are going to share this video in case readers would like to hear an "Alex Pretti wasn't blameless here" perspective. However, we find Hudson's presentation to be very disingenuous, as it operates from the position that if a citizen does anything even slightly problematic, then all bets are off for law enforcement. Hudson speaks a great deal about the "responsibilities" of an observer and gun owner like Pretti, but has nary a word about the responsibilities of the officers. This being the case, it's hard to take his assessment seriously.
D.R. in Hillsboro, VA, writes: I expect (and hope) that you are being besieged by tons of e-mail from readers saying essentially what I am about to say:
Minnesotans, I am proud of you for standing up to the brutality and lawlessness of the ICE thugs that have invaded your state! You did not ask for this fight, but it has been brought to you, and you are not backing downl! Your tenacity is heroic!! May you feel the nation's support, and may you be victorious in driving the menace from your towns and cities!(V) & (Z) respond: We are.
D.E. in Ann Arbor, MI, writes: Isn't it interesting that the young men, boys almost, who may have saved the Union at the Battle of Gettysburg were the First Minnesota. Their "near-suicidal" (per Wikipedia) charge into a greatly superior force of Confederates bought time for reinforcements to keep the slavery-defending army from breaking through at Cemetery Ridge. I have stood on the ridge, reading the interpretive material there, and it is absolutely breathtaking to see that the rebels came a few hundred yards from breaking the Union line there. After the battle, neither commander knew they had just fought a decisive battle. Perhaps one day, history will record that the brave citizens of Minneapolis, armed with their cell phones, turned the tide of fascism, just as their ancestors in the First Minnesota turned the tide on slavery.
J.B. in Aarhus, Denmark, writes: Minnesota, Greenland, Denmark
Vikings 3 — Trump 0
(V) & (Z) respond: The Vikings holding an opponent scoreless? There's a first time for everything, it would seem.
S.S.T. in Copenhagen, Denmark, writes: It seems like it was a year ago I wrote a short note on Greenland for your site. Between then and now I have noticed a linguistic change in the Danish media that might be of concern to certain Republicans (and everyone else). Up to and including the Renee Good killing, the Danish mainstream media could easily be accused of bothsidesism, desperately seeking rational planning in Donald Trump's actions. During the Greenland debacle, this began to disintegrate, and as Alex Pretti was gunned down in Minneapolis nearly every major media site declared it "manslaughter" within hours, hardly mentioning the administration's claims. As far as I have been able to follow the mainstream British and German sites the same phenomenon takes place. The belief in the American system is clearly experiencing the "rupture" Mark Carney envisioned.
F.H. in Pacific Grove, CA, writes: I just discovered the Former Black Panther Speaks YouTube channel. The channel name is a little too exciting (it's unfortunately in all caps), but inside is a fount of wisdom and experience. His basic message is stay nonviolent at all costs, and wait to act more aggressively when the resistance has a large enough voice to speak and act non-violently but in ways politicians and corporations can't ignore.
I find listening at normal speed calming and hope-restoring, but you can listen at 1.75x or 2x and still follow him. He went from 16k subscribers yesterday to 30.5k today. I'd like to see his thoughts spread widely, and quickly, particularly given the rapidly rising tensions.
M.C.F. in McHenry, IL, writes: I think we are seeing the start of the Second American Revolution. The first started against a tyrannical king and ended with a new country. Now the Second has started against another wannabe tyrannical king. I hope that when it's over, the Second proves as glorious as the first.
Politics: ...and ICE
Anonymous in Minneapolis, MN, writes: To be clear, the call from Minneapolis and Minnesota is not "reform ICE." Nor is it "defund ICE." The call is "punish ICE." ICE is an extrajudicial paramilitary group operating under the auspices of the federal government. But they are not following their own rules. They are ignoring the law as it is even currently set down. If what we get is an "abolishing ICE and rebuilding some new immigration enforcement apparatus" discussion, that's a step in the right direction, but the real call from the ground here is that these criminals need to be punished.
E.T. in Ondangwa, Namibia, writes: You wrote about Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-TX) positioning herself during her debate, observing:
She tried to pre-defend herself by saying that these are not normal times and these are not times for normal responses. She said: "We are not looking at politics as usual." She promised to do edgy things that political consultants tell candidates never to do. For one thing, she wants to destroy ICE—which she called a rogue organization— and impeach Homeland Secretary Kristi Noem.With all due respect to the Senate Democrats, I think that in this case, Crockett is completely right. Let's set aside the electoral politics of bright-red Texas for a moment. The police department in Camden, NJ, famously dissolved its municipal police force after decades of corrupt practices and a failure to curb crime came to a head. The details of the Camden police's misconduct are unusually gruesome, but this is worse. Two innocent civilians are dead, and 75,000 innocent people have been detained in just 9 months. I repeat: 75,000 people detained, none of whom have been charged with a single crime. How many felony convictions does the president have again?
I am more than ready to heap praise upon the moderate democratic leaders in Congress for leading with restraint and sensibility when it is called for, but this is not one of those moments. ICE and the Trump administration have ignored and broken every law that doesn't suit them. There's no world in which immigration enforcement agents can legally work crowd control at a protest in a city they were never supposed to be in from the start. Attempting to rectify that with legal restrictions and defunding would be pathetically unimaginative in the best of times. I think that, given everything we've seen (and I'm blessed to be watching from overseas, far away from everything), abolishing ICE and overhauling the entire immigration system is the most reasonable solution that anyone could propose.
S.S. in Athens, OH, writes: An excellent way to aid in identification of ICE agents is to require that all apparel they wear on the job be Hello Kitty themed (licensed, of course). Lest anyone be concerned, rest assured that everything is available in a Hello Kitty version, so this should not pose any limitation on garment choice.
This requirement could also serve as a psychological screen during recruitment, since anyone with the self-awareness and self-confidence to wear Hello Kitty on the job is exactly the kind of person that would be well suited to working as ICE.
Politics: The Democrats
M.L. in West Hartford, CT, writes: I find so much to disagree with in (V)'s item "The Democratic Party Is Deeply Unpopular" that I'm finding it difficult to organize my thoughts or even know where to begin. I think I've narrowed my points down to one factual correction and one argument rooted in both values and strategy.
The one indisputable fact in the piece is that six in 10 voters have a negative view of the Democratic Party. This is true, according to Gallup, which has the Dems at 37-61 on its Favorable/Unfavorable scale. However, what (V) fails to mention is that Gallup has found the Republicans to be almost as unpopular as the Democrats, at 40-58. It feels a bit disingenuous to argue that the Party is hopelessly out of touch with the American people because it is 3 percent more unpopular than the Republicans. But "Democrats in Disarray" is an evergreen story in American politics, facts be damned.
So the Democrats may not be in quite as bad a spot as claimed. The Party does still need to identify a winning strategy for the elections in November, and in 2028. Should Democrats oppose positions that Republicans call "woke" on race and gender issues? I believe this would be both morally wrong and strategically unwise.
What this critique assumes is that winning votes is simply a matter of selecting the policy positions that voters claim they support, and then telling them that you agree with them. But, of course, voters are notoriously unreliable narrators, and so what they claim they support based on the particular wording of a poll question at a particular point in time may not be what in fact moves them to vote. Voters know that they "shouldn't" support or oppose a candidate for socially unacceptable reasons such as race or gender, so they may invent other reasons for their vote. Polling can provide useful information, of course, but it should not be used in such an oversimplified, unsophisticated manner.
Winning votes is about creating a narrative that supports a vote for you and/or discourages a vote for your opponent. In 2026, many voters—especially young voters and working-class voters—get their narratives from social media. Democrats have increasingly ceded this space to MAGA, and algorithms used by these apps tend to lead people to more and more extreme content, where racist, sexist, and homophobic/transphobic messages can be spread out of view of the mainstream media and most voters. THIS is the work of the Democratic Party in the 21st Century, not trying to figure out how much of its coalition it should abandon to try to win elections.
Perception is reality. We might not like it, but this is the world we live in today. When we pretend that all that matters is WHAT position the Democrats take on an issue, and not HOW that position is communicated and used to serve a narrative, we miss the point. A recent story by Politico stated that "[a]fter Trump won, one post-election poll found that, of all of the issues, from immigration to Israel, voters thought Harris had focused excessively on transgender topics. In reality, she hadn't said much about those issues at all. It was Trump's team doing the talking." Trump's campaign used the "Kamala is for they/them. President Trump is for you" ad to create a narrative that Harris didn't care about the average American, and then simply asserted without evidence that Trump did. It worked, in part because Democrats were too afraid to fight back. This is just one issue, but I think it's instructive as to how Democrats should respond to accusations that they are too "woke."
The idea that the Democratic Party should drop its traditional opposition to bigotry and discrimination and acquiesce to the surrendering of the rights of transgender Americans is as misguided as it is offensive. MAGA will not stop at marginalizing transgender people. They won't stop until they have enshrined fundamentalist Christianity in the U.S. Constitution. Anyone who thinks that gay rights—including marriage equality—are not at risk is being complacent. After all, if it is acceptable for the government to discriminate against transgender people because a majority of voters allegedly support it, then why not discriminate against gays and lesbians as well? You might argue that a majority of voters support gay rights, but that is a very recent phenomenon, and we cannot assume that will continue to be the case unless we continue to make a vigorous case for human rights for everyone. By embracing the idea that discrimination is OK if it is supported by a majority of voters, those who would have the Democratic Party adopt this platform put all people at risk.
P.M. in Port Angeles, WA writes: Thomas Edsall's assessment of the Democratic Party reads like a typical "Democrats in Disarray" screed. Yes, I can agree that there is a movement within the Democratic Party to bring younger candidates to run for elected offices, but the overarching issue is not simply dissatisfaction with party leadership, but with revulsion at the actions and attitudes of the Republican Party and their approach to governance.
If one looks at the performance of Democrats in special elections, one does not see any abandonment of the Party. Indeed, their performances indicate a real desire to reshape and support a party that will attend to the needs of average working Americans.
Yes, we are in a crisis situation that requires radical realignment of our thinking and of our commitment to restoring our democracy, but I do not see this as an abandonment of the Party, but of a rebuilding of it.
On the other hand, the withdrawal of the Minnesota gubernatorial candidate from the race and his statement explaining it shows a deep dissatisfaction among Republicans for the direction their party has taken.
B.W. in Los Angeles, CA, writes: In (V)'s item "The Democratic Party is Deeply Unpopular," he paraphrases two opinion pieces that advance an old argument: Democrats have lost support by being too focused on minority groups. Post hoc, ergo propter hoc.
But exit polls reported that 9% of Mayor Zohran Mamdani's (D-New York City) support came from Trump voters, and this aligns with what is, in my view, a better thesis: The Democratic Party isn't too socially progressive for voters' taste, it's insufficiently populist.
In the wake of the Citizens United decision, the Democratic Party has become increasingly corporatist, and Trump's MAGA movement has done a better job of convincing working-class voters that he's for them.
The "populist versus corporatist" dynamic that played out in the 2016 Democratic primary—with the party establishment clearly favoring the corporatist—has been repeated several times since then.
An idealistic 20-year-old who voted in their first primary in 2016 is now 30. They've seen things get even worse for working people, and have seen the party put its thumb on the scale for billionaire-backed politicians it deems "more electable" time and again.
Kamala Harris's elevation to candidate without a primary pissed them off not because she's a Black woman, but because it reinforced an existing frustration that the party doesn't seem to care very much about input from the proletariat.
Fewer working-class voters see the Democratic Party as an ally or feel any loyalty toward them—much less any enthusiasm. There's trust to be repaired, but this won't be accomplished by turning their backs on their most vulnerable constituents.
D.S. in Davis, CA, writes: I appreciate so much (V)'s summary Thursday of why the Democratic Party is deeply unpopular. I feel like I have been trying to say this for a long time, but never quite put it together so clearly. As a bonus, I now have two other authors/sources I can look into who understand the hole the Democrats have created for themselves. There is so much opportunity... I just hope someone can take advantage of it rather than race to the bottom.
A.S. in Silverdale, WA, writes: "The Democrats need to become a political party with a laser focus on winning elections—not an ideological movement that wants to make a point, elections be damned. (V)"
To which I say, hallelujah! Thank you for articulating the crux of the issue that brought us to this time and place. Ideology, no matter how well intentioned, gets you squat unless you can win the popular vote. And that means shutting up about sanctimonious ideological purity and virtue-signaling and focusing on winning elections so we can change how our country is governed and how the rest of the world sees us. Because right now it doesn't look good and the damage may be permanent. The rest of the world has decided that they don't want to deal with a bully and all the ignoramuses who support him. And that means our economic hegemony, for better or worse, is about to end. Just ask anyone who lives in England what it feels like when your country is no longer the dominant global superpower and the center of all trade and commerce. Our kids deserve better than that and Democrats can't shoot themselves in the foot fast enough to prevent it. They need to stop worrying about gender issues and ideological purity and start worrying about winning elections and governing for everyone before the option is taken away.
J.L. in Albany, NY, writes: "The Democrats need to become a political party with a laser focus on winning elections—not an ideological movement that wants to make a point, elections be damned. (V)"
I think this is true and arguably has happened to both parties many times, to the Republicans from FDR until the late 60s, 2008-2012, and to the Democrats arguably from 1968-1992, but certainly again in 2016. Getting back to what the voters want is what got the party back into the driver's seat each time. Donald Trump dropped a lot of unpopular positions that got John McCain and Mitt Romney beaten, like entitlement reform and international adventurism, and moved the party closer to where the voters were on entitlements, trade, isolationism, etc. Once Republicans weren't going to take away Social Security and Medicare anymore, and weren't taking us to war or taking our marijuana, many people realized the Democrats had actually moved pretty far away from their values. I've often thought the liberal arts grad school seminar spilled all over the Democrats' language and messaging some time after 2012 (about the time Twitter became popular) and we've never really recovered from that.
P.S.: I know there's already at least one other J.L. in Albany. Hi, J.L.!
All Politics Is Local
J.C. in Bombay Beach, CA (and soon Milwaukee, WI), writes: I am overjoyed to find that you also believe we might be on the cusp of a New Progressive Era. As a history major (UC Santa Barbara, 2009) who studied the West and the rise and fall of fascism as the focus of my degree, that's what I see too.
Helping to launch this at scale in the U.S. is my current driving focus. I've just joined the Francesca Hong race in Wisconsin. She's the Democratic Socialist candidate for governor. In Q4, she had more individual contributors to her campaign than the next two Democratic candidates combined. Reminds me of a certain Vermont Senator taking off in the 2016 primary season. Last I checked, she has over 1,500 volunteers. Online discourse is all Fran, all the way. It's going to be a long marathon to the finish line in August and then the next finish line in November.
But in my estimation, she's the front runner and it's not close.
I'm going to be helping to pilot a (I believe) new type of campaign role: Creative Recruiter/Creative Director. I'm going to organize the volunteers who have creative skills and leverage them to a very high potential. For example, getting 10 hours per month of a graphic designer doing graphic design vs. 10 hours per month of a graphic designer doing phone banking.
I know that this model works and how to do it as someone who has both professionally been: (1) a Creative Recruiter, (2) a Creative Director and (3) has done this exact work in an external capacity as part of Creatives for Georgia in the 2020 election cycle and Creatives for Harris in the 2024 election cycle. And will be doing this now within the campaign.
If there are other people working in campaigns who would be interested in bringing this sort of role or concept to their campaign, whether you're part of the team electing the Jr. Dogcatcher all the way up to a statewide campaign, let me know and I would be happy to help you figure out how to do it. This role is also useful for GOTV operations, nonprofits in general, and any other orgs who have high numbers of volunteers.
If you feel helpless or hopeless in the driving onslaught of fascism, organize locally or pick up new skills that you anticipate will be needed on the road to the New Progressive Era. Preferably both, which is what I've been doing for 20+ years. The fascists cannot win, because there are more of us than them and we are all, collectively, figuring that out in real time.
Godspeed to every one of you. Godspeed to us all.
R.W. in Brooklyn. NY, writes: Not a big deal but it appears that your assumption that Chris Madel's (R) chances in the Minnesota gubernatorial race weren't good appears incorrect. Which makes his withdrawal from the race even more dramatic.
From the Star Tribune: "Madel, who launched his campaign on Dec. 1, quickly rose from a relative political unknown to a top contender for the GOP nomination. He won over many GOP activists with the communication skills he developed as a trial attorney and his status as a political outsider. He was consistently finishing in the top three in straw polls of GOP activists, in a crowded field of about a dozen candidates for governor."
M.L. in Gainesville, FL, writes: In "Vindman Breaks Fundraising Record in Florida Senate Race," you wrote: "Republicans in Florida now outnumber Democrats by 1.4 million voters. For Vindman to win, he would have to convince a lot of Florida Republicans to vote for him (or to stay home on Election Day)."
He actually doesn't need one vote from Republicans. Vindman, or any other centrist candidate, needs to reach out to the No Party Affiliation (NPA) voters. They are roughly 25% of those registered to vote in Florida. However, he needs the hard-core Democrats to remain fired up so they'll vote whether they see him as progressive or not:
2025 Registration Number of People Republican Party of Florida 5,509,354 Florida Democratic Party 4,044,390 Minor Parties 457,841 NPA 3,329,329 Total 13,340,914
Side note: As a registered Democrat who is on the fundraising lists, I received seven or eight text messages from Vindman's campaign soliciting donations within a few hours after his announcement. Probably a glitch, because several were the same message, but some people likely donated to get those to stop blowing up their phones!
W.D. in Fort Worth, TX, writes: You have suggested that perhaps the more the voters get to know Texas U.S. Senate candidate James Talarico (D), the more they may decide they like what he's selling. I would ask readers to invest 3½ minutes to watch these two short videos. Tell me afterwards if you also wouldn't buy what he's selling. Talarico appears to be the answer to what currently ails American politics.
J.W. in Los Angeles, CA, writes: Sen. Bill Cassidy's (R-LA) legacy should be extended to include the impact of his action to support Robert Kennedy Jr. as Secretary of Health and Human Services. It isn't just that Cassidy went down trying to appease a bully, but that tens of thousands of children died as a result.
W.M.B. in Alexandria, VA, writes: An important dimension to Adm. Nancy Lacore (ret.) running in SC-01 is that the district is home to Naval Information Warfare Command, Atlantic, which has about 5,000 personnel located in the area, and probably about double that in terms of defense contracting workers that are all very familiar with the Navy. So while most people do not consider Charleston, SC, a Navy town, the Navy is one of the largest employers in the area.
L.P. in Chippewa Falls, WI, writes: About WI-3 being a tossup: I live in that district. Derrick Van Orden, or DVO as he is known, is very vulnerable. Evidence: Donald Trump won the district by 7 points, DVO won it by 3-ish. He has won an election, but he also has lost before. Go on DVO's socials and he is non-stop trolled. I am proud to say I was trolling him before it was cool, but I can't get a word in now with all the people trolling him. The prediction market, Predictitt, has his odds at 70% lose and 35% win.
What I find most interesting is he was one of the 17 that voted to extend the ACA recently. Remember this man participated in the capitol riot on 1/6. He will and has done everything Trump says, but he was one of the 17 this time. I have to think it has to do with the overwhelming grief he gets on his socials about it. He even put out a video explaining his vote. All these are not signs of confidence, in my opinion.
E.F. in Baltimore, MD, writes: I live on the edge of MD-02 and MD-03, and will get bounced again if the gerrymandered map goes through. While I'd be pleased to send Rep. Andy Harris (R) back to the private sector, I have my doubts whether this new map is as reliable as its designers think. District 1, the Eastern Shore, is VERY red. Driving through, I never see any signage for Democrats. I can easily foresee the unintended consequences of this gerrymander driving a big turnout of disgruntled Eastern Shore voters. It just seems like the risk/reward for a one seat gain doesn't add up.
And Now for a Public Service Announcement
C.J in Boulder, CO, writes: As a seismologist, I would suggest some improvements to (Z)'s answer about quake preparedness. First, there are lists for earthquake preparedness. The USGS has a couple: supplies and preparedness actions.
Some of (Z)'s advice is dated. Unless you are in an old brick building (like those quaint buildings found in Colorado towns like Alamosa and east from there), standing in a doorway has not been good advice for many years now. Getting under something sturdy and holding on is the best current advice if in wood frame housing. Stuff falling on you is typically the biggest risk in a quake. I'd also say that (Z)'s snarky attitude about preparedness is very similar to that of people who stay when a category 5 hurricane approaches, saying "well, I lived through other hurricanes just fine." Neither Whittier Narrows (M5.9) nor Northridge (M6.7) were really great quakes (M8 or so; as a reminder, magnitudes are logarithmic and the energy increases by a factor of 30 for each increment of 1). Basic earthquake preparedness staves off unnecessary damage and risk: making sure a house is attached to its foundation is cheap and can prevent a total loss. Attaching tall, heavy objects to walls so they don't topple is also easy and can spare injury. Knowing how to turn off the gas is just a tool and a minute's worth of study away (ruptured gas lines and house fires are quite common after quakes, and if water lines are cut, there might not be pressure sufficient to fight a house fire).
More generally, there are two ways to be inconvenienced by a quake. If you are close to the rupturing fault (and if we are talking M7 and up, rupture can extend far from the epicenter), the USGS provisions list, while maybe a bit heavy handed, would be helpful. Utility lines being cut, damage to roads due to fallen materials, subsidence and fault rupture could limit your ability to get around. Are you likely to be close to a quake? If in northeastern San Bernardino, well, yeah, the San Andreas is likely to rupture pretty much any time now and it sits there near the base of the mountains. Berkeley? Yeah, the Hayward fault looks pretty iffy (it runs through Cal's stadium). In downtown LA? That is a question we'd all like answered (there are plenty of very scary faults down there, but they aren't rupturing as frequently).
The other way a quake might affect you is the "Big One" on the southern San Andreas where major interstate highways will be damaged (5, 15, 10) along with the utility corridors crossing the fault. Odds are pretty good that a suburban home in L.A. won't see the water cut off, but gas pipelines might be shut for awhile, brownouts could be possible, and natural gas could be limited for a long time. Some kinds of shortages could emerge before new routes for supplies emerge. The people (seismologists, utility managers, public safety experts, etc.) who meet to game out just how an M8.3 might scramble things often end up offering the simple advice that you should plan on not getting outside help for 72 hours. If you have an app like MyShake on your phone, you would at least get some time to respond if the San Andreas goes.
(V) & (Z) respond: (A) did not like (Z)'s response, either.
Space, the Final Frontier?
D.E. in Fremont, CA, writes: Your answer to S.B. in Winslow about the probability of life elsewhere in the universe was thoroughly convincing as far as it went. But since you didn't watch the film (The Age of Disclosure), you didn't think it necessary to address the more than two dozen government/military officials/employees who supported the idea of a longtime government cover-up of extraterrestrial contacts. You might consider hedging your certainty just a bit (remember V's repeated assurances back in 2015 that the Republican Party would never let Donald Trump become their presidential candidate?). I, for one, am open-minded about the film's assertions. Most of all, though, if indeed there is "disclosure" to be made, I sure hope it happens before I depart this planet.
R.L.D. in Sundance, WY, writes: I tend to agree with (Z) that there's no connection between UAPs and extraterrestrial life. Given the huge numbers that go into the Drake Equation, my thought is that the Great Filter that explains the Fermi Paradox is economics. There's just no profit in going beyond your home system. I think we will, eventually, get to the point of asteroid mining and maybe interplanetary colonies (maybe) but interstellar travel? I don't see it. And I don't see any other spacefaring society doing that either.
M.I. in Jenkintown, PA, writes: Mein gott! (Z) and I finally agree 100% on something! I'll just add that even if those 10 million spacefaring civilizations wanted to reach us, they can't. The distances are simply too vast. Communication, if ever to happen, will happen by light, but even that's just too slow.
T.F. in Craftsbury Common, VT, writes: You posited that an extraterrestrial intelligence that made the effort to come here would surely make contact. I suspect that such an entity, observing who we allow to lead us, our conflicts over fictional boundaries and beliefs, and our oblivious destruction of the biosphere that supports us, might well be hanging out waiting to see if intelligent life emerges on this planet.
Embassies
R.L. in Naperville, IL, writes: You mentioned that Minneapolis has a Ecuadorian consulate, for reasons unknown to you. Things like that must be somewhat commonplace across the country. Our city just got a Moldovan consulate.
Apparently Chicagoland has lots of Moldovans. Perhaps the greater Minneapolis has lots of Ecuadorians?
J.B. in Westwood, MA, writes: FYI, Ecuador has maintained a small consulate office in Needham, MA, for decades. The Needham Observer says that it handles passports/visas and other legal paperwork for Ecuadorian nationals who are working/living in the Boston area. So, having one in Minneapolis may not be an anomaly.
J.T. in San Bernardino, CA, writes: Minnesota actually has an unusually robust Ecuadorian diaspora, which is why they have a consulate in Minneapolis. I used to live a couple of blocks away from the Ecuadorian Consulate building in Northeast Minneapolis where there were some great "Mexican Restaurants" that also had a full menu of Ecuadorian cuisine.
Growing up in Minnesota, I used to wonder why people from places at tropical latitudes would come to the frozen north. On a visit home a few years ago, I was talking to an Uber driver from Liberia, also equatorial, and he said that the people and government of Minnesota were more welcoming to other places. Maybe he was putting me on, but I can't imagine people from the tropics would settle in the tundra without a good reason.
Advice for Students
O.R. in Milan, Italy, writes: I loved (V)'s and (Z)'s replies to A.H. in Chevy Chase, because they reflect my experience. One reading recommendation and two anecdotes follow:
Reading: Here is a brief essay explaining the scientific method. In particular, see the flowchart towards the end—ever so crucial today with AI.
Anecdote 1: After my teaching stint, I ended up in a research environment for 30 years. I recall two theoretical physicists (one of them a head of department) discussing a physics problem at the cafeteria over a cup of coffee. They suddenly hit a snag: Neither could recall exactly a formula they intended to apply. No big deal, though, they just derived it for themselves right there and then, on a napkin. You can't do that unless you have developed the necessary skills in your youth.
Anecdote 2: There was this hard-working first-year student who religiously wrote down everything spoken in class. I hardly ever got to see her eyes, she was constantly bent over her notes in this self-imposed amanuensis task. She had color-coded notebooks depending on the course she was in, and used colored pens/highlighters to mark/classify bits here and there while taking notes. I realized that she must have developed this habit during her high school years, being rewarded with high marks for being so thorough, so orderly. Such a good, studious girl. Yet she no longer was the best in class in university. Others were doing much better than her in tests. She was understandably upset about this.
I shocked her by asking if her plan was to become a court stenographer, or did she perhaps aspire to make heaps of money by selling her notes as self-published brochures to subsequent generations of students? Because if she intended to take home a bit more than just reams of colorful notes, to get the most out of university (and better marks) I suggested she listen carefully instead of wasting her energy and attention by taking notes of everything. Jotting down concepts, without reformulating thoughts in complete sentences, was much more useful because when going over them later; those words also conjure up memory of the moment and the context of when they were deemed important enough to be written down. One word would often carry so much more information and value than an entire paragraph. When I left the university a couple of years later, she came to see me off and thanked me.
M.S. in Canton, NY, writes: I completely agree with everything (V) and (Z) recommended for students to prepare for college, but it brought to mind an alternative take on (V)'s last comment that "I don't care much about their knowing specific facts; they can always look them up." The following anecdote is from Paul Halmos's memoir I Want to Be a Mathematician:
On a Ph.D. oral, Jacob Tamarkin asked the candidate about the convergence properties of a certain hypergeometric series. "I don't remember," said the student, "but I can always look it up if I need it." Tamarkin was not pleased. "That doesn't seem to be true," he said, "because you sure need it now."
J.E. in Whidbey Island, WA, writes: (Z) suggested that students need to "spend less time writing stuff down and more time listening and understanding."
As a student, I found note-taking to be a helpful way to keep my mind focused and engaged with what the professor was saying in the moment. In other words, it was a listening tool, and a deterrent to daydreaming. My practice was to write down nearly everything, adding underlining to the most important takeaways in real time.
In fact, I probably never went back and re-read more than 10% of the notes I ever took. (But when I did, I could easily scan for the key points I had already underlined.) For me, at least, it was the initial act of writing itself that had helped etch the concepts into my memory.
Let's Go to the Movies (and to the TV Shows)
R.P. in Alexandria, NY, writes: In your response to H.M. in San Dimas about favorite baseball movies, there were two films you left out. One of those is Eight Men Out by director John Sayles. I love the film, not so much for the baseball scenes as for the way in which the exploitation of baseball players by team owners was so effectively dramatized. It makes clear why in the early 1890s players formed their own league, the Players League, for a time, in an attempt to escape the reserve clause system that existed until the advent of free agency in the 1970s. My favorite scene is the one which shows how easily Shoeless Joe Jackson's ignorance was exploited by the less talented players who arranged the fix. D.B. Sweeney gives a wonderful performance here. John Cusack as third baseman Buck Weaver, who knew about the fix but played it straight, John Mahoney as manager Kid Gleason and especially Studs Terkel—as the sportswriter Hugh Fullerton who uncovered the scandal—are icing on the cake.
The second movie, The Bingo Long Travelling All-Stars and Motor Kings, starring Billy Dee Williams as a kind of Satchel Paige character, and featuring James Earl Jones as a kind of Josh Gibson character, is much more fun, especially with the exuberance of James Earl Jones's performance. (The movie came out the year before he provided the voice for Darth Vader in the first Star Wars movie). It certainly helped with the humor that Richard Pryor was also in the cast. It's been a while since I've seen this but what I remember is that the baseball scenes showed how much more entertaining this form of barnstorming baseball was in order to draw crowds. It reminds us of how Willie Mays would wear a baseball cap at least one size too small so that it would fly off his head as he chased down a long fly ball. The downside to the humor, which I remembered being disappointed about, was that opportunities to make more of a dramatic point about the effects of segregation and the problems faced by players in the Negro Leagues were missed. At any rate, it's worth a look if there are baseball fans who have not seen this film.
J.T. in San Bernardino, CA, writes: I'm so glad that you mentioned the scene you did from Field of Dreams. So many people talk about the game of catch at the end, but for me the "grown man crying" moment is always Moonlight Graham giving up on his dream to do the thing he was actually meant to do, the thing that he must do.
Yes, the film is a bit "maudlin," but I've explained to my wife that it's like the straight-men version of Steel Magnolias. It understands something very deep about the straight-American-male psyche.
B.B. in Pasadena, CA, writes: In all due deference to the great minds of Electoral-Vote.com, I must stand up for Dick Van Dyke (who is still with us at age 100) about whom you stated: "The Dick Van Dyke show made superstars out of the previously unknown Dick Van Dyke and Mary Tyler Moore."
Dick Van Dyke was the lead in the Broadway Musical Bye Bye Birdie in 1961 which predates the Dick Van Dyke Show by several years. And if being the star of a Broadway musical which ran for a respectable 607 performances and also included Chita Rivera (who had already been a major part of the 1957 West Side Story) makes you unknown, I'm not quite sure what the word "unknown" means.
Thanks to Van Dyke for many joyous years of entertainment.
(V) & (Z) respond: Until recently, "Broadway famous" was merely "New York City famous." Someone like that WAS an unknown outside of one (admittedly very large) city.
B.C. in Walpole, ME, writes: Regarding TV shows that produced/introduced/guest starred the most "future" stars: The Twilight Zone (original version) featured an incredible lineup of stars past present and future, from Buster Keaton to Robert Redford to the cast of Star Trek.
Mascots
B.C. in Walpole, ME, writes: Thank you for your mention of the Purple Aces of the University of Evansville, of Evansville, IN—the Pocket City, the Hub of the Nation, 4 Hours from Anywhere. People my age well remember that tragic night in 1977 when the airplane carrying the Purple Aces basketball team crashed, killing all aboard and wiping out the program, and the tremendous outpouring of love and support for the U of E: We are all Purple Aces.
D.H. in Boston, MA, writes: As a Dartmouth College grad, I noted your discussion of college mascots with interest. Dartmouth was founded in part to educate Native American youth, mainly so they would become Christian missionaries and convert more Native Americans. After a couple decades, the college forgot about that plan, stopped admitting them, and the original college mascot became the Indian. In the 1970s, they remembered they were supposed to be educating Native Americans, started admitting them again, realized they needed to change the mascot, and chose the Big Green as the new "mascot." That was boring. In 2003 the college humor newspaper suggested a new mascot, Keggy, an anthropomorphic beer keg. The college hasn't officially adopted it but I think it is a fitting one.
D.R. in Chicago, IL, writes: A small Alaskan village in southwest Alaska has embraced a rather unusual nickname: The Aniak Half-Breeds.
The teams were previously called the "Apostles." But in the 1970s, students voted to adopt the new name, along with a symbol of a Native man holding a spear next to a white man holding a rifle.
Most of the village's population is Yup'ik or Athabascan. Wayne Morgan, the school board president, says only a handful of people find it objectionable.
B.C. in Phoenix, AZ, writes: My vote for the best offbeat mascot would go to Scottsdale Community College. In 1972, the school administration asked the students to pick a mascot and school colors. Incensed by idea that the amount of money put into the athletic program caused the library to be shorted in funding, the mascot and colors chosen took around two years to be approved.
They remain the pink and green SCC Artichokes!
(V) & (Z) respond: Gee, you'd think that if a sports team was going to have "choke" in its nickname, it would be that NFL team from Chicago.
Watch Your Language
G.Z. in Clayton, CA, writes: You do a fascinating write-up on names, and that redheads were called Redd or Fox, and you pass up a mention of the great Redd Foxx?! Unreal. "This is the big one! You hear that Lizabeth! I'm comin' to join ya!"
(V) & (Z) respond: We thought we'd get a million e-mails about how that was just a stage name, and his real name was John Elroy Sanford.
L.E. in Putnam County, NY, writes: The House of Orange got their name from the town in France whose name derives from a minor Celtic water god remembered by the Romans.
The use of the name for the color derives independently from the fruit, known in Sanskrit as narang, while in Old English the name for the color is geoluhread (which literally means, and is pronounced very close to, "yellow-red").
Like "pink," the word "orange" wasn't being used for the color through much of the time surnames were being settled.
L.S. in Greensboro, NC, writes: I enjoyed your comments on the origins of colors as last names. However, when I saw "blue," I could not help but think of the late, great Vida Blue. Given (Z)'s strong interest in baseball (one that I shared until I totally quit the sport in 1994) I wonder if you have any insight on the origins of that family name.
(V) & (Z) respond: He was from Louisiana, and in French, last-name variants on "Bleu," like "LeBleu" are more common than are English last-name variants involving "Blue." The people who acquired this name many hundreds of years ago likely got it because of their eye color. Vida and his family likely got it because it was the last name of their ancestors'... er... ah... employers?
R.E.M. in Brooklyn, NY, writes: I respectfully dissent from your opinion that Americans never used the title "Mr. Justice" to refer to members of the Supreme Court. The official reports of opinions identify authors as "Mr. Justice So-and-so." It was only upon the confirmation of Sandra Day O'Connor in 1981 that the "Mr." got dropped, likely because "Madame Justice" was too unwieldy.
Gallimaufry
S.D. in Anchorage, AK, writes: I've been a regular reader since 2004, when my 9th grade Mississippi Studies teacher showed the site to the class to teach us very briefly about the Electoral College prior to the 2004 election.
I never thought I'd be in a position to educate and inform (and "indoctrinate") children the way that teacher did, but I gave birth to my son on January 20th. Now that we're home from the hospital, I've started reading your site aloud for the little guy. He might not comprehend how our government works yet, but someday he will be an informed and opinionated citizen like his mom, and you guys will have played a part. And maybe he'll also grow to understand why Mom and Dad are either extra happy or a little sad on his birthday every four years.
Thanks for all the hard work you all do to make the news more digestible.
(V) & (Z) respond: Congratulations! And we are glad to hear our subversive influence might just live on after we are gone.
L.L. in Seymour, CT, writes: Thanks to all for the informative responses to my question about supporting Minnesota. I shared the links, and the post was picked up by many in my network.
T.B. in Leon County, FL, writes: I do share with friends about this site. When I was visiting my brother recently, I showed him something I thought he'd be interested in, and then he read on to read about your slander of Afrikaans. He wasn't amused. (I don't think it was just because his first wife grew up in South Africa.) Something like this often happens when I share your site. For me these are explained away as being part of your character. Nonetheless, I'm glad your anti-Canadian humor has lessened, I mean, push come to shove, I'll want to hide-away on Vancouver Island, and even there it's chilly (by my current standards), and when I come they'll want to know what websites I frequent.
(V) & (Z) respond: The Canadian stuff was 20% light joshing about Canadians' niceness, and 80% satire of American paranoia and jingoism. The 'Nades were NOT the butt of the joke.
Final Words
A.C. in Bloomington, IN, writes: Reportedly the last words of actor Humphrey Bogart: "I should have never switched from Scotch to martinis."
If you have suggestions for this feature, please send them along.
Previous | Next
Main page for smartphones