Previous | Next | Senate races | Menu
New polls:
Dem pickups: (None)
GOP pickups: (None)
Sunday Mailbag
It's really remarkable how very much the Trump administration manages to flood the field with such a broad variety of problematic behaviors.
Politics: The 2028 Democratic Field
B.C. in Walpole, ME, writes: Regarding your piece on Aaron Blake's ranked list of potential Democratic candidates: He actually ran an earlier piece on potential GOP candidates which was even more preposterous. It was silly and could not be taken seriously. Sen. John Fetterman (D-PA) is not #5, and shouldn't even be on the list; I think we agree on that. Gov. Josh Shapiro (D-PA) is not the front-runner. Kamala Harris is not #4, and not running either. Why did The Washington Post even print these columns at all? Your commentary on Blake's list was worth more than his list.
M.F. in Des Moines, IA, writes: I mostly agree with your thoughts on Aaron Blake's list of 12 potential candidates, but there are two points I'd like to take issue with; there is one candidate you discount too readily and one whose main obstacle you treat too casually.
Pete Buttigieg should be seen as a top-three contender for the nomination and, moreover, it should not be seen as a mistake if he wins it. It is a mistake to characterize being gay as "six bridges too far." In the present political moment, for a Democrat being gay is in roughly the same position as being Black was in the years leading up to 2008. Conventional wisdom says it's too far, until it suddenly isn't. Look at the MAGA strategy around their attacks on trans people and you see a carefully orchestrated move to separate trans individuals from the rest of the LGBTQ community. Even among MAGA politicians there's an awareness that being gay has gained a level of social acceptability that social conservatives can't easily overcome. This is true even moreso for someone like Buttigieg, whose family looks like it came from a Hallmark ad.
By the same token, I think you underestimate the difficulties that would be faced by Josh Shapiro. There is a segment of the Democratic base for whom Israel/Palestine has become a dominant voting consideration, and for that segment whether or not that war remains hot in 2028 will be of no consequence; they will seek to punish any full-throated defender of Israel regardless of that war's status. I don't agree with that litmus test, but I recognize that for some it's there. While the risk of those voters choosing the MAGA candidate in 2028 is likely to be minimal, this is also a group of voters that will be willing to choose the Green Party or just stay at home to make a point. We probably need a candidate who can make a more nuanced argument here along the lines of "Netanyahu is a bad guy and an example of why you shouldn't put conservatives in charge, but Israel does have a right to exist."
Otherwise I'm largely in agreement with your analysis.
M.G. in Baltimore, MD, writes: In your write up about potential 2028 candidates, you opined that Andy Beshear would first have to decide whether to run for Senate in 2026. That's technically true, but he would be stupid to run for that seat for the simple reason that he is much more likely to be elected president in 2028 than senator in 2026—and his chances of becoming president will go from slim (as anyone's would be) to zero if he loses in 2026.
M.B. in Montreal, QC, Canada, writes: I would like to explain why I could not support John Fetterman for president: his lack of judgment.
He suffers from atrial fibrillation, as do I. I was diagnosed in 2005. What happens in that one of the heart chambers stops beating. That chamber fills with blood that eventually clots. A clot can break loose and block an artery to part of the brain, leading to what is called an ischemic stroke. This is apparently what happened with Fetterman.
When I was diagnosed, the only treatment was to keep taking a blood thinner that would cause any breakaway clot to dissolve. The blood thinner used was coumadin, actually a rat poison. The problem was that the dosage was critical. Too little and you risked an ischemic stroke. Too much and you risked the other kind of stroke—the hemorrhagic, bleeding into the brain. As a result I had to have my blood tested for clotting speed every 6 weeks. After the tests, there were often really minor adjustments of the dosage (e.g. take an extra half-pill every Sunday and Wednesday). But my doctor told me about a patient who had tired of the regime and stopped taking the coumadin. He suffered a stroke 8 months later.
About 10 years ago a new drug that didn't require constant monitoring, Eliquis, came on the market. But it was much more expensive than coumadin and the province refused to pay for it. Until it occurred to one of the bean counters that the every-6-week tests were costing them even more.
What I am leading up to is that even with the new drug, Fetterman decided to stop taking it. Leading to his stroke. Leading to my decision that he showed very poor judgment and I would find it impossible to support him.
B.S. in Phuket, Thailand (and sometimes Stanhope, NJ), writes: Thank you for publishing my thoughts on Gov. Phil Murphy's viability as a 2028 Democratic presidential candidate. I'm not surprised to have been part of a consensus that he's a nonstarter.
However, I did want to bring up one interesting point in his favor, which was prompted by your review of his election results, and it's something I never see mentioned when his 2021 "squeaker" reelection is discussed. As you know, New Jersey (along with Virginia), holds its governorship elections the year after presidential ones. In the modern era (going back to the election of Pres. George H.W. Bush), the NJ governor election has always gone the opposite way of the preceding presidential—except for Murphy's reelection in 2021. As close as that election was, the fact that he prevailed at all, despite strong historical headwinds, shows that voters were decidedly more interested in buying what he was selling than usual. (Note that Virginia, which usually follows the same pattern, did not break it and elected the expected Republican in 2021.) If Murphy is interested in a 2028 presidential bid, he would be wise to highlight this fact.
Politics: This Week in Trump World
C.L. in Boulder, CO, writes: Free Speech for People has 13 arguments in its Case for Impeachment (again) of Donald Trump. You can read the list here. This might be a good list to send to your U.S. Representative, especially if you live in a purple congressional district with a Republican representative. If your representative is a Democrat, suggest that she or he share the arguments with their colleagues on the other side of the aisle.
P.S. in North Las Vegas, NV, writes: What America and this "creature" from South Dakota do not realize is that FEMA extends beyond the natural disasters most people see and experience. For example, Community Emergency Response Team (CERT) program educates volunteers about disaster preparedness for the hazards that occur where they live. In addition, FEMA plays a major role in commercial nuclear power plant emergency preparedness. FEMA acts as a monitor and evaluator of State Emergency Planning, monitoring exercises and state procedures. The lack of knowledge by this former governor just accentuates the clueless cabinet this maniacal president has added to his staff. Like Lee Zeldin of the USEPA, these heads are NOT increasing their departments' effectiveness but tearing them down.
K.P. in San Jose, CA, writes: According to The New York Times, Sen. Susan Collins (R-State of Concern) and Chair of Appropriations recently spoke out against her Dear Leader "refusing to spend $2.9 billion approved by Congress..." My first thought was that this had the potential to be a Rosa Parks moment, but l have seen nary a mention on Electoral-Vote.com, nor anywhere else. Disappointing. Did anyone else notice?
(V) & (Z) respond: Collins is a real-life example of the boy who cried "wolf!" Rarely are her words newsworthy, because she doesn't back them up with action.
R.L. in Alameda, CA, writes: In this newsletter, the University of Michigan (my alma mater) announces an end to its DEI program. It appears that they have shifted around their DEI efforts to other departments, and stopped calling it DEI. But still, it also looks like capitulation to me. Judging from the comments, most alumni are pissed. Here is what I wrote:
If I squint really hard it appears that they have reassigned DEI initiatives throughout the university and stopped calling it DEI. What I'd really like to see is for someone to stand up and defend DEI for what it is. An effort to stop hiring unqualified white men (I'm looking at you, Pete Hegseth).
Here's a thought: What if all the Big Ten schools spoke in unison and said, "F you Trump regime. We are keeping DEI as it is and we are proud of it"? There is safety in numbers.
I hope every white student on campus floods the Diag in protest. Sadly, it is unsafe for their non-white brothers, sisters and siblings to join them. For a school that claims to be the "leaders and best," how about doing some leading!!!
A.Q. in Ithaca, NY, writes: Not so long ago you cited an article likening what the U.S. is currently going through and you commented that we didn't have to worry about that yet since it took Recep Erdoğan 10 years to cement his dictatorship and that Trump was just getting started. I commented at the time that it seemed to me that Trump was actually in his ninth year of the plan. An article in The Atlantic espouses a similar view.
A.G.W. in St. Paul, MN, writes: In my desperation to find some light in the current torrent of dark content coming from the current administration and its effects, I have repeatedly come back to one thing that seems reliable as a bottom line of how far they will take things, and I am risking the comfort I have found in this assumption by presenting it to you for any thoughts anyone might have.
It is this: I am no economist, but I do know that money rules everything, and the stock market is the ruler of all. The men fu**ing with our system are (or claim to be) billionaires, and the majority of their wealth is determined by the robust health of what is happening on Wall Street. This is my source of comfort... the greed of these vapid ghouls will eventually overtake their power lust, and they will pull back on their full throttled assault on—seemingly—every part of our system that provides a sense of security.
Am I delusionally grasping at tiny straws of hope? Dependent on their own survival instinct, that they desperately want to retain their wealth?
R.H. in San Antonio, TX, writes: You wrote: "But every government falls eventually, and if a person believes that the U.S. government has effectively fallen (as, say, the German government did in 1934-35), then that's when it's time to talk revolution."
This brings to mind something I said in the darkest days of the pandemic: "Man, I hope this doesn't turn into a Mad Max situation, because I don't have enough hair to grow a Mohawk."
Politics: The Trump Administration and "Foreign Policy"
S.S. in Athens, OH, writes: Regarding the question from D.P. in Oakland about Donald Trump's obsessions with Canada and Greenland, it is my thought that someone whispered in his ear and told him that, in the face of rising global temperatures, U.S. agricultural production will be severely impacted, and the Great White North will become the most viable location for future large-scale agriculture. In other words, although he will obviously never admit it, Trump is interested in Canada and Greenland because of climate change.
W.R. in Henderson, NC, writes: Kristi Noem's "made for video" visit to one of the prisons in El Salvador would have been more disgusting only if she held her puppy-killing rifle up to the head of one of the prisoners as if she was his executioner. She is an embarrassment to the United States.
S.H. in Duncan, BC, Canada, writes: You wrote: "Meanwhile, we continue to wonder exactly why Trump has such a bug up his a** about Venezuela."
I have a theory: At present, U.S. oil refineries are set up to prefer the type of crude produced almost exclusively by Canada and... Venezuela. This is probably giving Trump way too much credit for planning ahead, but this might actually imply an acknowledgment by the administration that the impending tariff war with Canada will be protracted and likely involve substantial reductions in the import of crude from Alberta. Therefore, locking in future imports from Venezuela by attempting to shut out competitors may be part of that "plan," such as it is.
A.G. in Los Angeles, CA, writes: I mean, how could one forget about how Hugo Chávez was the real reason Trump didn't lose in 2020? Here is a quote from his lawyer, Sidney Powell: "The Dominion voting systems, the Smartmatic technology software and the software that goes in other computerized coding systems here as well, not just Dominion, were created in Venezuela at the direction of [former president] Hugo Chávez."
So, Venezuela must be punished for its role in the 2020 elections! Hugo Chavez (1958-2013) must be feeling the pain from those tariffs every day...
Politics: Whiskeyleaks
S.C-M. in Scottsdale, AZ, writes: It does look like Signalgate/Whiskeyleaks has a lot of traction. It could very well be the issue that derails Trump and MAGA, since it is an easily understood issue unlike immigration actions (or tariffs, for that matter).
It also strikes at the heart of so-called conservative identity. National security has always been a Republican strong card to play. For the time being, that position seems to be in shambles.
From a purely political standpoint it would make sense to fire Secretary of Defense Pete Hesgeth, NSA Mike Waltz and DNI Tulsi Gabbard immediately, but I doubt Donald Trump has the courage to do that.
J.W. in Indianapolis, IN, writes: In response to the question from R.Z. in Van Nuys, regarding whether Whiskeyleaks will take Pete Hegseth down, you wrote: "In the end, Trump likes having lackeys everywhere. But it's most important to him to have lackeys running the law enforcement apparatus, for obvious reasons. He's surely more willing to give up on a lackey who is running some other part of the government."
I agree with the sentiment, but it's also pretty clear that Trump views the military as a law-enforcement apparatus. Threatening to use the military to "quickly solve the problem" if governors refused to call out the National Guard on George Floyd protesters is the first thing that comes to mind, and that was from his first term, when he was less openly fascist. I would go so far as to argue that the military leadership are the most important places for him to have lackeys unwilling to refuse illegal orders. At least the courts might protect us from a corrupt AG. (Of course, that lackey doesn't HAVE to be Hegseth.)
B.C. in Walpole, ME, writes: You challenged readers to predict the first Trump appointee to resign. (Secretary of State Marco Rubio was my first choice.) In my response, I noted that Pete Hegseth would eventually do something so embarrassing to the administration that he would have to resign.
I was wrong, of course. I normalized the Trump administration. I now realize that this administration has no shame; there is nothing that could possibly embarrass them. I mean, their leader has multiple bankruptcies, paid for sex with a porn star, is a convicted felon... what in the world made me think that they could be shamed or embarrassed like any of the rest of us?
E.F. in Baltimore, MD, writes: Another point worth mentioning about SignalGate is why the conversation ever happened in the first place. None of the participants, except Pete Hegseth, were in the operational command chain, or needed timely information about the impending strikes. This was all about a bunch of insiders di**-wagging at each other, trying to prove what big shots they were. Like Trump showing off classified documents to random members at Mar-a-Lago.
E.F. in Baltimore, MD, writes: This might be inside baseball, or I might be stating the obvious, but I don't think I've seen it mentioned anywhere. The Trumpish PR factory has been excusing Signalgate with the "no harm, no foul" defense. Since we can safely assume that our more sophisticated adversaries were listening to the Signal chat in real, or near-real time, they had hours to react. Just because they didn't tip off the Houthis (and why would they want to?) doesn't mean they didn't have time to pre-position their own ELINT collection assets.
For the unenlightened, ELINT is intelligence gleaned from the electronic emissions from a system. Missile telemetry is a good example, and collecting it allows the collector to infer useful information about the system being monitored. So when Hegseth announced exactly which aircraft would be launching exactly which weapons at exactly what time, he was giving away the keys to the kingdom. Russia and/or China now know exactly what electronic signatures our systems will emit, before, during and after launch. Exceedingly valuable information, obtained at virtually no cost.
When one of our aircraft is destroyed, moments before it launches a missile in some future conflict, or the missile loops around to destroy the aircraft that launched it, you'll know what person to blame: that pesky journalist from The Atlantic. I'm sure they're already auditing every tax return he and his relatives have ever filed.
D.H. in Portland, OR, writes: I'm supposing that we can now rename it from the Peter Principle to the Pete Hegseth Principle.
Politics: The Trump Administration and "Fighting Antisemitism"
M.R. in Atlanta, GA, writes: I wanted to comment on your remark that "We've had a few messages from readers who say, First Amendment or not, they're not too sad that the Trump administration is targeting the most outspoken pro-Palestine/anti-Israel protesters. Those who feel this way should remember that these things always start with the easiest targets, and then move on from there."
I couldn't agree more. I can only imagine that some of those messages you reference come from Jews, because I've heard similar sentiments from (a minority of) fellow Jews in our shul. Abducting and disappearing people is, first of all, a violation of my reading of Jewish ethics. There are seven mitzvot (spiritual obligations) we're taught are incumbent upon all people, not just Jews. Among the list of things like "don't murder" and "don't steal" is the requirement to create courts of justice. Grabbing people off of the street and taking them to torture prisons is the opposite of justice; it is the work of a modern-day Pharaoh, Torquemada, Khmelnytsky—pick your favorite Jew-tormenter.
Which brings me to second point: Governments that kidnap people because of their ideas or identity, under the cover of darkness, to places where their desperate families cannot find them, never keep Jews safe. It is, in fact, what has been done to Jews too often in our history (including, ironically, on October 7). Jews should be clear that the kidnapping of Mahmoud Khalil is wrong, is unjust, and ultimately will make Jews more unsafe.
After Khalil was kidnapped, some folks accused those of us who were terrified by this act of "crying wolf." And then we saw the disappearance of folks to torture camps in El Salvador in defiance of a court order for the crime of being "gang members"—which actually meant having the wrong tattoo. As you wrote, they always start with the easiest targets. Yesterday "terrorists," today "gang members," tomorrow... could it be you?
Additionally, something you didn't mention was that many Jews have remarked to each other that we saw that video of Noem in front of shirtless men packed into unspeakable conditions behind bars, and immediately thought of an infamous and harrowing photo of men warehoused in Buchenwald. Yes, the circumstances are different, but no, I do not think this is an accident.
I beg my fellow Jews, and all people who care about law, decency, and dignity: This is not a drill. If they can get us to accept abducting some people, where does it end? It is possible we are on the precipice of something truly awful. I am convinced that how Jews respond will reveal whether and how we stayed true to our Jewish values and ethics, and—perhaps—whether we will survive this awful moment.
M.L. in West Hartford, CT, writes: You wrote: "Those who feel this way should remember that these things always start with the easiest targets, and then move on from there." Thank you for writing this; it has been forgotten by far too many Americans these days.
I'd like to propose an updated version of the famous confession, "First They Came," by Martin Niemöller. I believe this version suits the current moment here in America:
First they came for transgender people, and I said nothing. I was not transgender.
Then they came for undocumented immigrants, and I said nothing. I was not an undocumented immigrant.
Then they came for pro-Palestine activists, and I said nothing. I was not a pro-Palestine activist.
Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak for me.Maya Angelou said, "When someone shows you who they are, believe them the first time." In his first term, Donald Trump showed us who he was—he showed us that he was a fascist. Too many Americans did not believe him. Now we are losing our democracy at a frightening pace. We all need to stop waiting for someone else—the media, the Democrats, the courts—to stop Trump and do what we can to stop him ourselves.
G.D. in New York City, NY, writes: "We've had a few messages from readers who say, First Amendment or not, they're not too sad that the Trump administration is targeting the most outspoken pro-Palestine/anti-Israel protesters."
Whilst personally I disagree with the view expressed, I am actually very happy to hear that these people continue to engage with a site like Electoral-Vote.com. No doubt often disagreeing, but at least hearing the facts/opinions expressed.
You have often posted criticism of your leftward drift, fair or not. Surely the key to a functioning democracy in the future is your site or the (fair but) right-wing equivalent (name it) teaching opposing views.
I hope those readers read on.
P.R. in Arvada, CO, writes: At the end of your item "Video Killed the Reality Star," you mentioned that you have had people writing in to say that they support the targeting of Pro-Palestinian/anti-Israel protesters. It makes me wonder if these people understand the difference between anti-Israel and antisemitic? I wonder why they turn a blind eye to Trump saying things like if he loses the election "the Jewish people would have a lot to do with it," or that Jews who vote for the Democrats hate their religion. Elon Musk is constantly attacking the ADL while promoting antisemitic posts on eX-Twitter and likes to give waves to crowds in the form of a Nazi salute. Stephen Miller actively promotes immigration policies praised by Hitler. While Trump may be friendly with Israel—or, more accurately, Benny Hill Netanyahu—he is definitely no friend of Jewish people. A true American value that really made America great in the eyes of the world was the ability to disagree with protesters but support their right to do so. Targeting protesters you disagree with puts you in the camp of a very unpleasant set of countries. Stalin would be proud of you.
R.L. in Alameda, CA, writes: When will Democrats and Democratic voters realize that they need to get off of Israel? The mere fact that the Trump regime is so in love with Israel, along with Russia, Hungary, Turkey and other authoritarian nations tells us something. The fact that they are detaining people for speaking out against the Netanyahu regime is telling. We can't oppose an American regime that is disappearing people while also supporting an Israeli regime that does the same thing.
As a Jew, it makes my blood boil when they use antisemitism as an excuse to suppress pro-Palestinian views. They claim that these people are Hamas supporters just because they have spoken in favor of not bombing the sh** out of the Palestinian people. Hamas wants a free Palestinian state. So do I. Does this make me a Hamas supporter? (To be clear, I am not—their tactics are as reprehensible as the Israelis.) Is it really believable for the Trump regime to cite antisemitism as their excuse for disappearing students when Trump hangs out with antisemites like Nick Fuentes? He doesn't give a sh** about us. He's using it as an excuse to go after anyone he pleases.
And that doesn't even get into the lack of due process. If they claim that random-foreign-student-with-a-funny-name is a supporter of Hamas and, therefore, a threat to the country, they need to prove it in court. They can't just grab people off the streets on their say-so. And don't get me started on the Venezuelan men who have been sent to a Salvadoran gulag because they have tattoos. This may sound cliché, but this is some top-level-Nazi behavior here and we should be marching in the streets opposing this.
I've said this before and I'll say it over and over and over again until everyone gets it: Criticism of Israel is not antisemitism. I just can't parse how Democrats criticize Trump for getting into bed with Putin but have no problem with full-throated support of Israel. It just doesn't make sense.
P.M.M. in Paris, France, writes: In reply to G.A. in Pomona, I donate to B'tselem, an Israeli human rights organization that fights for the Palestinians' rights. Accusing the Israelis of antisemitism is harder to get away with.
Politics: Abortion
J.L. in Paterson, NJ, writes: In describing a proposed bill in Georgia, you wrote: "Should the measure become law, an abortion would become illegal as soon as a fetal heartbeat is detectable. That would work out to a cutoff of about 6 weeks..."
You've accurately reported the proponents' spin, but it should be added that the spin is a total lie. At 6 weeks, there is no fetal heartbeat because there is no heart. This NPR page has a good summary of science and the scam.
D.W. in Phoenix, AZ, writes: You wrote: "Maybe the rhetoric of the anti-choice movement wasn't truthful."
Speaking of truthful... wouldn't pro-choice or NO CHOICE be a better contrast? I think we ceded that messaging at the inception of the debate. We are all pro-life.
We are not talking preferences, we're talking civil rights that were ripped from half the population by the pretzel logic of a court that has no interest in the history and efficacy of our system. If stare decisis is gone then what is legal is what the court thinks now, and if they change their minds, then that is the new law.
T.B. in Alva, OK, writes: You have doubled down on your pro-abortion position. It is indeed tragic that some dozens of women will suffer and die due to the lack of abortion on demand. It is far more tragic that millions of babies are slaughtered every year in abortion mills, often for reasons that amount to no more than convenience.
We live in a society bathed in blood. Every busy intersection in America carries the stain of innocent blood, but at least the daily carnage of automobile accidents is truly unintentional. Abortion on demand allows us to ignore the young lives snuffed out and leaves us walking on the whitewashed tombs of the dead.
Politics: Voter ID
J.D. in Concord, NH, writes: I read the item about Donald Trump's executive order on voting and citizenship requirements. New Hampshire, unfortunately, will serve as the canary in the coal mine, as former Gov. Chris Sununu (R-NH) just instituted this policy as one of his final, departing acts. As a result, in just a handful of small towns monitored by the journalists at The New Hampshire Bulletin, almost 100 Granite State citizens were prohibited from participating in their town meeting, which is a New Hampshire tradition (think of it as similar to all registered voters of a town getting together annually and acting as the city council).
I know this is all intentional. The modern-day Republican Party has clear disdain for liberal democracy (and I'm willing to bet that most wouldn't be able to accurately explain the phrase "liberal democracy" if their lives depended on it). However, with the parties' demographics recently flipping, and with Democrats becoming the party of the more wealthy and educated voters, I wonder if this requirement will actually work against the very Republicans who worked so hard to implement it. One can only hope...
R.H. in Macungie, PA, writes: When I moved to Pennsylvania in 1980 and went to get my driver's license, I brought along the original of my birth certificate from Virginia. The agent at the DMV refused to accept it. He stated I had to have a certified copy. Luckily, I had one of those at home, but it really made me angry that I had to travel 30 minutes each way to get the certified copy. No amount of arguing worked. He claimed that anybody could make something up, but a certified copy was "official."
Years later, when I went to renew my license, I asked about adding the "Veteran" status to my license. NO PROBLEM—all I had to do was sign a form asserting that I was a veteran. No proof required!! Go figure.
A.G. in Scranton, PA, writes: When it comes to voter ID laws, also remember that because many more people who are minorities in America aren't able to apply for these forms of ID for fear of the consequences of outstanding warrants being enforced at the DMV or the county registrar's office.
These fears can be largely imagined or... they can be very real, indeed. The Republicans have sowed fear by blatantly stating that if anyone tries to register to vote or vote they should be careful if they have bench or active warrants. Police officers aren't there to keep the DMV safe every day from angry customers... they are there to scare off Black and Latino men.
More members of minority groups are likely to have warrants over unpaid fines, child support, traffic citations, restitution, parole supervision fees, trial costs, costs of incarceration (yup, they can charge you daily for imprisoning you) and a bevy of other things than more affluent folks do.
There's many a reason we make life harder on Black and Hispanic men. Getting them to the point of being incarcerated takes their vote and their voice from them. Getting them to the point of being frightened of ending up incarcerated does the same thing with far less effort.
To a middle-class person of any color, a traffic citation and the insurance surcharges are a serious inconvenience... but that's it. To a poor person of any color they are ruinous. Fees and court costs are just Jim Crow in a manner that even liberals cheer for because criminals should pay, right?
Voter registration should be automatic on one's 18th birthday and the right to vote should be taken from NO American, not even those on death row.
Either every citizen is a citizen with rights or none are.
Soap box, dismounted.
Politics: Social Security
A.H. in Newberg, OR, writes: C.H. in West Linn asked about the future viability of Social Security, and potentially fixing it by raising the earnings cap.
Check out The Reformer, a site from the Committee for a Responsible Budget. A little game-playing on how to reform Social Security by changing various parameters to (maybe) make Social Security solvent, or at least extend its lifespan.
R.T. in Arlington, TX, writes: I was holding this thought until a good time, but I didn't expect the subject to come up so soon. Last weekend, I decided that I wanted to know what it would take to balance the cash flow of the Social Security "trust fund." So I found, and used the Committee for a Responsible Budget's site "The Reformer."
I made three changes that would be minimal pain and that was enough to get to positive cash flow. I took the cap off of the maximum taxable earnings (only impacts the highest earners, and their benefits would rise along with their SS taxes). I indexed the full retirement age to life expectancy without changing the age 62 early-retirement option (the retirement age would change one month every 2 years or so). I increased the SS payroll tax by 1% (which is equivalent to 1% worth of nonrecurring inflation). My changes do not reduce benefits for anyone already retired or near retirement, or mess with cost-of-living adjustments. Younger people will have 24 years to prepare for retiring one year later (same as what happened to my cohort). These changes pushed the potential bankruptcy date out over 75 years, but due to potential demographic, economic, and technological changes in future labor markets, I wouldn't take the model seriously beyond 24 years anyway.
My takeaway was that when the clock is running down around 2032, Congress will stop and deal with the problem, but it won't be that painful when it happens, and the system will not actually crash. Remember that this is a cash flow problem, not an investment problem, so the changes will right the ship almost instantly. We won't be waiting years to build up the savings before we see improvement.
J.D.M. in Cottonwood Shores, TX, writes: A quick comment on how Social Security payments are perceived by the general population. The amount you receive is calculated based on the amount you contributed in the past, not your current need, like other safety net programs. Also, the trust fund was created to manage the bubble caused by the Baby Boomers, which meant that generation experienced putting their money into a fund which got larger until they started drawing the money out. These two facts create the (understandable) feeling that the Social Security payees are just getting their money back from the retirement fund they invested in. I believe that this will contribute to the reaction that we will experience if the Muskrats really do manage to disrupt the delivery of those payments.
Politics: Legal Matters
R.A.G. in Seattle, WA, writes: I really enjoy your site and content. It's been a staple every morning almost since (V) first went online all those years ago. I always learn so much from (now) all three of you.
Today, for the first time, I literally laughed out loud—over and over—at this answer from (V) and (Z): "Professors' offices are private spaces. So too are classrooms as soon as the lecture/class meeting has begun. And so, ICE can only enter a professor's office, or a class that is in session, with permission from the professor/university or with a valid warrant."
While I do understand the intent here, this has several issues. First, it assumes that the term "private" has any sort of actual legal meaning. That is very much up for debate in the current climate (e.g., Dobbs) The jurisprudence on what this specific word (that does not appear anywhere in the U.S. Constitution) now means is confused at best; and completely irrelevant at worst. Like many things on Electoral-Vote.com over the years, a whole treatise or book could be written about this term, and I understand your brevity. I disagree these places have any permanent privacy protections. That determination can spin on a dime... in a heartbeat.
However, and secondly: The implication that ICE "can only enter" is dangerous, and in the context of the question (that Z punches a federal law enforcement official in the face) highly disturbing. Not at all from the appropriateness of the action (civil resistance) but for the assumed consequence: going to jail.
Nothing could be further from the truth, and that's not hyperbole. Any attempt to actually undertake anything but passive (and vocal) resistance will likely will provoke a violent, perhaps deadly response, particularly if the resister is brown. I will not add any pictures of ICE personnel here, but these are people you don't want to even think about punching or resisting. That's not a bug, but a feature. (Z) would be lucky to wind up in jail. Even luckier if it was one in the U.S.
When I was teaching law, I had to tread on this issue carefully. The protections of the Constitution regarding search and seizure do not manifest themselves in a Star Trek-esque "force field" at someone's door. Resisting an armed force in the moment is as dangerous as it ever gets as these personnel in the employ of the federal armed forces are highly trained and highly armed with weapons of war. As the ACLU will likely concur, planning one's interaction with them takes thoughtful and careful advance planning. When I was at the front of the classroom, I was forced to do so. My institution had installed a panic button and security features for the door. Sure, for a very different tactical (!) situation, but in the months since, I've reconsidered what I might do if ICE came for a student. The good news for me: I retired, so it can't happen to me in that context. The larger issue is still there.
We do hope that there is redress for unlawful actions of the police force. However, see much of this week's blog content on the disregard of the rule of law in Trump v2.0. Even the term that has appeared may times akin to "We doubt that Americans would stand for that" carries little meaning now, as many Americans who object will not be standing, but left dead on a doorstep. In the past, there might be a 18 USC 1983 action or a Bivens action that deters such behavior. But not anymore. It goes without saying (but I nevertheless reminded by students) courts don't have standing armies. But POTUS does. And boy howdy is he putting them to work on his agenda of terror.
(V) & (Z) respond: You would probably do well to operate under a couple of useful assumptions: (1) Sometimes we include a bit of humor and/or hyperbole in our writing, and (2) that (Z) is not a moron.
Obviously, a physical confrontation with someone who is armed, and who benefits from the state monopoly on violence, is a very unwise idea. However, there is very clear state law and case law, particularly in California, that a classroom-in-session is no longer a public space, and may only be entered by invitation. Should an ICE officer invade a classroom without benefit of invitation or warrant, they would be on shaky legal ground, to say the least. Their situation would become even more tenuous if the professor, (Z) or anyone else, said loudly, "You do not have permission to be here, and I want you to leave" in front of 50-200 witnesses. In (Z)'s case, this would also be backed up by an audio recording, as he records all of his lectures. Think the media might like to get their hands on a copy of that?
T.M.M. in Odessa, MO, writes: In discussing possible attorney discipline, there are two key things to remember.
First, bar membership is court-specific. At the state level, there is a "unified" bar. In plain English, that means that there is a New York Bar rather than a Manhattan Bar and a Bronx Bar. (You still have local bar associations, but they have nothing to do with the ability to practice law.) Belonging to a state bar allows you to appear in all state courts and also to give legal advice related to the law (including drafting legal forms).
At the federal level, there is no unified bar. Instead, each court has its own bar. You have to join the separate bars for the Eastern District of New York and the Southern District of New York if you want to appear in those courts. (Similarly, there is a bar for the appellate federal courts and a bar for the U.S. Supreme Court.)
Generally, most courts will let attorneys licensed in other jurisdictions appear in their courts on a case-by-case basis (pro haec vice is the technical term) as long as they associate with an attorney licensed to practice in that court.
Second, because of this court-specific bar membership, there has been a long-standing debate about whether state courts have the ability to sanction federal attorneys for their work for the federal government. This debate is part of the constitutional tradition which goes all the way back to the Marshall Court in the early 1800s regarding the limits on the application of state law to federal actors.
In the case of the attorneys who have been disciplined for their conduct on behalf of Trump, almost all (if not all) were private attorneys who were representing Donald Trump rather than attorneys working for the Department of Justice.
Now, it is still possible for the federal courts to sanction the DoJ attorneys who appear in front of them. What would qualify for discipline is going to depend on the exact rules of court. But even assuming that these attorneys believe that they are immune from formal discipline, that does not mean that they are not subject to other sanctions.
First, certain actions might subject the attorneys to personal fines for contempt of court. Second, and what should be more important, is that the club of judges is still a rather small club (particularly in individual jurisdictions). And judges talk with each other. If an attorney gets a reputation for being somewhat loose with the facts and the law, judges are not going to find that attorney credible and are likely to more closely scrutinize the merits of the claims.
This last part can't be overstated. Every office that I have ever practiced in has emphasized the importance of maintaining credibility with the courts. You might benefit one or two clients by playing games, but, in the long run, you will be hurting most of your clients. Ultimately, the DoJ needs to defend its position on cases in the U.S. Supreme Court (typically multiple times per year). If the DOJ and Solicitor General lose their credibility with the Supreme Court, they are going to lose the benefit of the doubt that they have historically gotten.
B.C. in Manhattan Beach, CA, writes: The news is full lately of stories along the lines of: (1) Donald Trump threatens law firm because a current or former partner of the firm took some position (or represented some client) adverse to Trump; followed by (2) law firm promises never to do it again (and perhaps promises to provide pro bono legal services to some cause near-and-dear to Trump's heart but that is not financially strapped or otherwise of the sort that would normally qualify for pro bono assistance).
I wonder if this is the natural (or at least should-have-been-anticipated) end-point of the changes to the practice of law, the growth of BigLaw (what lawyers call the mega-firms), and the focus on profits-per-partner (PPP).
Way (way) back, when I started to law school, there were probably less than one or two dozen law firms that had more than 100 lawyers. In most cases, all the lawyers from a firm would be in one "home" office, with the possible exception of a few lawyers in satellite offices either in the same state or in Washington, D.C., that served a particular client. It was almost unheard of to have offices in multiple states with significant number of lawyers in other locations. I think that Baker Hostetler was the one that really pioneered that practice, but it quickly snowballed as firms merged across state lines. By the time I graduated from law school, there were lots of multi-state law firms.
Then the merger frenzy continued, with one of the big draws being mergers that would increase (or, at least, not erode) PPP. That also meant that partners who were "less productive" (read: didn't generate as much profit) were forced aside.
In other words, the profession of law became, more and more, the business of law.
At some point in that progression, law firms continued to elevate the profitability of partners, of types of work, and of types of matters. It was probably only a matter of time that firms could no longer "afford" to alienate clients and potential clients. The world shifted from a situation in which firm "A" was known for representing one particular type of client, while firm "B" represented a different type of client, to a situation in which firms wanted to be able to represent everyone—which meant that they could not afford to alienate anyone.
So if a big player (like the federal government) threatens to put a law firm with thousands of lawyers on its sh** list, the law firm (including even lawyers in completely different practice groups, who never had any matters involving that player) started worrying about the effects on overall profitability of the firm if one or two lawyers (or even an entire practice group) represents some "unfavored" client(s).
When your biggest concern is firm profitability, you don't want to do anything that might impair that profitability—even a little bit.
E.S. in Hudson, MA, writes: On the spinelessness of Paul, Weiss: The full name of the firm is Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, LLP—the "Garrison" being my father-in-law's beloved uncle Lloyd Kirkham Garrison. (Lloyd was himself the great-grandson of abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison.)
As my spouse has written publicly about Uncle Lloyd: "I know for a fact that if he was still alive he'd be kicking the ass of every single one of these cowardly fucks right now. Lloyd Garrison did not defend Robert Oppenheimer and Arthur Miller so that these gutless collaborationist Paul, Weiss mooks could just start goose-stepping with the regime."
Politics: Crockett vs. Abbott
J.H. in Boston, MA, writes: Regarding your reaction to Rep. Jasmine Crockett's (D-TX) "Hot Wheels" quip, ever since Donald Trump descended the golden escalator and flouted every norm of decorum and politeness that had previously governed political discourse and the speech of politicians, the opposition party has tried to run their campaigns on a platform of "can you believe how rude and vulgar Trump is?", and they have nothing but a string of losses to show for it.
On multiple occasions, you have referenced Henry Clay's aphorism "I'd rather be right than be president" and said if Kamala Harris really believed that, then she shouldn't have run. In today's WWF-ified political arena, you can be polite and respectful, or you can be president. Respectability politics has been dead for 10 years and the first Democrat who wakes up to the new reality may be the one to lead the left into the new debased political reality.
(V) & (Z) respond: Perhaps you missed the entire Joe Biden presidency?
J.H. in Parker, AZ, writes: I'll admit my first reaction when I heard about Jasmine Crockett's "Governor Hot Wheels" comment was to chuckle a bit.
Of course, it's not cool to make fun of someone's disability—even someone as deplorable as Gov. Greg Abbott (R-TX). This shouldn't change just because, in his work as governor, Abbott has directly harmed people with disabilities such as himself. It ought not change just because, while governor, Abbott worked to make it harder for people with disabilities like himself to exercise their rights to vote. It shouldn't even matter that one easily imagines the Governor laughing at similar off-color jokes made at the expense of any number of groups which he views as "lesser."
However, the Democratic Party has long had a reputation as humorless scolds. This issue, in my opinion, may well have been enough to allow TCF to win in November with the votes of disaffected pod bros and the like who would probably also chuckle at "Governor Hot Wheels."
I suspect the Congresswoman won't suffer any blowback from this with the possible exception of some faux outrage for a few cycles on Fox. Speaking of humorless scolds...
M.S. in Houston, TX, writes: I'm a resident of Rep. Al Green's (D-TX) congressional district these days, but I spent all my working life in Dallas, and I lived for many years in a neighborhood that is now in Jasmine Crockett's district. And a lot of us around the state really like her. Yes, she can be vicious, but I don't regard that as a criticism. She's an attack dog and she's good at it. She calls a scumbag a scumbag, and anyway, it's really not possible to insult Greg Abbott. I have long argued that Democrats suffer from the belief that they have to be "nice," when what's needed is to be mean as hell. If the other side flatly refuses to play by the rules, there's really no future in simply wringing your hands and complaining about it.
My drill sergeant's mantra in the '60s was "Hit 'em first, hit 'em hard, and kick 'em while they're down." Words to live by when you're dealing with Trump-worshipers.
You also have to remember that Texas Democrats are NOT like Democrats in other red states. We're as much Texans as the racist Republican rednecks out in the boonies. And a large percentage of Democrats here are gun owners. We just don't fit the pattern that coastal Democrats seem to think is necessary to call yourself a liberal Democrat.
G.B. in Collin County, TX, writes: When I was in high school, early in Greg Abbott's tenure as governor of Texas, I took to referring to him as "spineless" over deciding not to accept Syrian refugees. This was an oblique reference to the governor's disability—at the time, I thought it was clever. I'm not proud of it; it makes me cringe thinking about it in hindsight. But I was also literally a teenager and I've learned better since. I am myself a disabled Texan (high-functioning autism). And while I am still no fan of Greg Abbott, since getting past the angry-teenager stage of my political development I've developed a grudging respect for his succeeding in a world literally not built for people like us. Especially within a political party/movement that is actively hostile to any kind of affirmative action-style outreach to minority candidates.
To put it in other words; Greg Abbott's wheelchair is usually not a major flashpoint in Texas politics. So it's all the more shocking to see Jasmine Crockett attempting to turn it into one in such blatantly ableist language as "Governor Hot Wheels." There are plenty of reasons to dislike Abbott, and ways to express that, without referring to his handicap. I was a literal teenager when I did it; she is a 43-year-old woman that should have learned better a long time ago. That she's tried to make up an alternative reasoning behind the nickname hopefully suggests that she's learning that lesson now.
L.P. in Dallas, TX, writes: I am in Jasmine Crockett's district. I love her, but it is never OK to mock what people cannot change. I am all for attack, and even going low, but mocking Abbott's handicap or anyone else's needs to be off limits. We should all be better.
All Politics Is Local
D.A.Y. in Troy, MI, writes: The Supreme Court election in Wisconsin this week is going to be a pivotal moment in America's democratic experiment. The outcome will determine the influence of Elon Musk and his money on politics. If Brad Schimel wins, Musk will be a kingmaker and continue his (blatantly corrupt) campaign practices to his heart's content. However, if Susan Crawford wins, especially if she wins comfortably, Musk and his money could become radioactive (though I do not know if he would retreat from politics).
Musk has possibly made a fatal error. The Koch Brothers have been major power- and money-brokers in American politics and boogeymen for Democrats and other liberals and progressives for decades, but know their true power is no one knows who they are. While political junkies know them and their work well, the general public does not. They have stayed hidden behind an extensive network of political action committees and think tanks bearing none of their fingerprints. In the meantime, they do have several charitable efforts their name is plastered all over.
Musk, on the other hand, is a narcissist who cannot stand to not have the world not know he is the one behind everything. He is in the Oval Office, he is the one bankrolling the PACs. However, that means his DOGEy... musk is all over it. He is personally unpopular and how DOGE is going about its business is as well. If his efforts to elect Schimel actually cost Republicans the election, then Musk coming to support you could be seen as the kiss of death for Republicans going into the midterms.
Tuesday could be the day American democracy dies or rises from the ashes like a phoenix. Vote Wisconsin, and vote wisely.
R.M. in Pensacola, FL, writes: A quick dispatch from the ground of FL-01 in advance of the election on Tuesday.
Something happened last weekend that I have never seen in any election that I have participated or voted in. I was in the back of the house when someone rang our doorbell and asked specifically for my wife when my son opened the door. While I was too far away to hear the conversation, it was clearly someone going door-to-door for Gay Valimont. They were clearly targeting my wife's vote and making sure she was going to vote (she did this past week).
I've never encountered anyone going door-to-door asking for a specific person at an address. While that information has long been public, to see a campaign use that information to solicit votes in that manner is rare.
I'm under no illusion that Valimont will win. Her winning would take the equivalent of "Dewey Defeats Truman," Dave Brat defeating Speaker of the House Eric Cantor, The "Miracle on Ice" and the Cleveland Browns winning five or more games in any season. But if she did end up winning, Trump's presidency as we know it is over because almost every Republican in a state or district that is R+15 or bluer will wake up on Wednesday with a spine.
Yes, it's a special election. Turnout is going to be low. Weird things happen. But if she is within 10 points or so in a district that Republicans usually win 2-to-1, and Josh Weil makes it very close in his election across the state, don't be surprised to see some pushback start to develop from Republicans in unsafe districts as the canaries in the coal mine start dropping dead.
M.S. in Canton, NY, writes: In your write-up of the withdrawal of the nomination of Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-NY) to be U.N. Ambassador, you suggest that part of the reason was that Republicans were worried about a real possibility that her seat might flip to the Democrats. As a resident of her district—the part of the state known as "the North Country"—I have to say that it sure didn't feel that way here. While the district may be "only" R+8, it has been trending ever more strongly red, after a very brief flirtation with "purple" during the Obama era. In 2024, Stefanik beat a weak challenger by 24 points; in 2022, she beat a comparatively strong candidate by 19 points. And from close up, the situation didn't look to get any better for the Democrats in 2025.
In New York, candidates for special elections to fill House vacancies are picked by the parties, i.e., no primaries. The Democrats in this region have essentially no bench at all. They had already picked their candidate, Blake Gendebien, a farmer whose only previous experience in government was serving on a school board in a tiny rural school district (one building, fewer than 600 students total). In addition to zero name recognition, he came with instant baggage: Within hours of his selection, reports surfaced of derogatory comments he had made a decade ago about the North Country work force—"It's hard to find a person that does not have domestic abuse problems, alcohol problems"—and specifically about corrections officers, who make up a politically important part of the prominent prison industry in this economically stressed region.
The Republicans were still gearing up to select their candidate. The Conservative Party, which usually (but not always) endorses the same candidate as the Republicans, had already given their nod to state senator Dan Stec (R), who has the name recognition and experience you might typically expect for a candidate for Congress; I took that as a sign that Stec was the frontrunner to get the Republican nomination, although perhaps not. Yes, there had been some nasty sniping among the aspirants for the nomination, as it seems there always is in MAGA-world nowadays, but unless there was some major intra-party revolt, the Republican nominee should have been a shoo-in in the special election.
In short, I didn't see any evidence that the seat was in danger of flipping. So, either something was going on behind the scenes within the Republican Party here that signaled danger that the rest of us haven't seen, or else Donald Trump and Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) are running really scared.
M.C. in Wilmington, NY, writes: As a resident and voter in NY-21, Elise Stefanik's seat was getting more in danger by the day because all politics is local. So this was not a surprise.
Despite Elise—everyone just calls her "Elise"—being aligned with MAGA and Trump, she stayed connected with the district and our key issues. She had a good staff, so she easily was reelected, over a very progressive Paula Collins who did not really align with the district, and the seat seemed safer than it was.
When Elise was nominated for the U.N., the Democrats quickly agreed on one candidate, Blake Gendebien, a moderate dairy farmer and lifelong resident of the area. He seems smart and gets the issues that matter to voters of NY-21; veterans and retiree issues, local post offices, tourism and trade with Canada. Oops, someone might be talking about making changes here. While Gendebien was getting his message out, no fewer than nine Republicans had declared with no clear frontrunner.
Our economy is also feeling the pain of Donald Trump's actions. Despite a great snowsports season, our winter tourism has been hard hit with the travel boycotts by Canadians and rumors of Canadian cross-border companies closing or reducing their presence. AirBnB owners are putting their houses on the market and restaurants are closing not just for mud season, but for good. In the summer, the Lake Placid area, where I live, is really a suburb of Ottawa and Montreal. Hotel owners are hearing from their Canadian regulars, people who have rented rooms or campsites for multiple weekends for many years, that they will miss their American friends, but will not be coming as long as Trump is wanting Canada as the 51st state. Finally, all of us with Cable TV get the Montreal TV stations so we hear their point of view and while they love their American friends, they are Canadians after all. Trump must be stopped.
All this pain might be hard for a random Republican to defend. Telling voters that having to drive 20 miles for a post office or 150 miles to a veterans clinic is necessary to make America great again might not be well received. So taking everything into consideration, it was time for Elise to stay in the North Country.
Gallimaufry
H.B. in State College, PA, writes: (Z) writes that he finds most classical music up to Gershwin is "generally agreeable," except for Richard Wagner.
I urge you to reconsider! To my ear, Wagner wrote the most profound music ever composed. It reaches down into the subconscious mind like no other composer's does. After I sat through his opera Parsifal the first time, I literally could not sleep as the music played over and over in my head.
But, apart from the music, there is the theme of his Ring Cycle, Der Ring des Nibelungen. It's the story of a man (or god) who ruins his life through his grasping for power, while rejecting the idea of love. At the end he is destroyed through his own folly. What could be more appropriate for the situation the world is in at the present moment?
(V) & (Z) respond: Sorry, the music is too heavy for (Z)'s tastes, like an over-salted soup, or a too-thick gravy. Plus, it's rather hard to forget that Wagner was the favorite of Adolf Hitler and the Nazis.
R.P.E.H. in London, England, UK, writes: (Z)'s comments on Philip Glass reminded me of an old joke...
Knock knock
Who's there?
Knock knock
Who's there?
Knock knock?
WHO'S THERE?
Philip GlassPersonally, I can sometimes get in the mood for Glass (or Steve Reich) but while I can enjoy their stuff for a bit, I also enjoy when it stops.
A.B. in Denver, CO, writes: Regarding your comment: "You can override the default name server at both the level of the computer and of the router, but the procedure for doing so depends on what computer/OS you have, or what kind of router you have."
Comcast/Xfinity Internet service actually hijacks DNS requests and overrides any DNS servers you specify at the host or router level. They detect DNS requests via packet inspection once a packet hits their router outside your home/office, and they answer using their choice of DNS servers. It's part of their "security edge" product, which you can't permanently disable. Other ISPs may do similar as well. You can do DoH or set up a VPN to bypass it, but not every OS can be configured to do that.
So it's possible G.A. in Frankfurt has a similar problem.
As a now-retired computer science professor, I find this fascinating and frightening. As someone who still runs his own servers, I find it very annoying, speaking from experience.
Final Words
D.M. in Wimberley, TX, writes: Bit of an in-joke for musicians, perhaps, but composer Alfred Schnittke's tombstone has to be one of the best:
A rest symbol with a fermata, meaning it should be held longer than usual. The fff below indicates it should be played very loudly. So something like, "a very loud, very long silence."
If you have suggestions for this feature, please send them along.
Previous | Next
Main page for smartphones