Sunday Mailbag

About 40% COVID-19, about 40% elections, and about 20% other stuff.

COVID-19, Life and Times

P.D. in Woodbridge, NJ, writes:

State of the bug:

Looking at the national data, the outlook remains murky. We have had both near record highs and lows for new cases and deaths in the last week. Any reports that it is "out of control" or that "we are ready to open" are based on something other than data.

What do we really know?

1. As of today, there is currently no cure, vaccine or even an effective, reliable treatment for this disease, which is both more virulent and more deadly than the flu.
   
   
2. States are going to reduce or remove restrictions. Some people will "go back to normal," others will continue to modify their behavior and help reduce the spread of the disease. Whether we jump back on the exponential growth curve of March or stay linear will be due to how many of each group we have.
   
   
3. Stories on every major news outlet spin one direction or the other. On the right, we see stories about how we have this well in hand will soon be back to normal. On the other hand, on CNN I read a story about how Sweden's death toll is soaring, but their case growth seems to be under control and their deaths (though widely variable day to day), do not show any clear trend at all. Or The New York Times story "Singapore Seemed to Have Coronavirus Under Control, Until Cases Doubled," a contention not even remotely backed up by the data. It looks to me like they are cooking the data to make the case for social distancing.
   
   
4. The number of "COVID deniers" is declining. In addition to the surveys that have been done to support this, I can personally report that I now get attacked less when reporting facts in the Fox news comments section (we all need a distracting hobby in these troubled times).

For the first time, I think I have some good news...and maybe very good news. Just this morning, some really smart analyst noticed that the various regions of New Jersey had very different looking COVID data. So, they reported each region's hospital data separately.

In the North region (the one nearest NY city), we hit a peak of COVID-19 hospitalizations on April 14 and have been dropping steadily ever since. In central NJ, we peaked at the same time, but didn't start dropping for another week. And in Southern NJ, we are still steadily rising. This can be seen here for fellow data junkies.

As social distancing behaviors are probably not very different in each area, how do we explain this? Clearly the disease started and spread earlier in the north than the south, but why are hospitalizations now going down? If we use the NY study to estimate that we have a 10-20% exposure rate, there are likely still plenty of people left to keep this growing for a while.

My opinion is that we are starting to see the beginnings of "herd immunity." If 20% of the population have been exposed, and if they are not getting re-infected when re-exposed, and if they are no longer infectious (lots of "ifs"), then we are perhaps starting to push down on R0 (the rate of transmission).

When I ran this theory past my ICU doctor friend (he is literally on the front lines, though they let him work remotely for safety reasons), he pointed out a less happy explanation: maybe COVID-19 is just blowing through the area and killing all the vulnerable and there are fewer of them left, so the numbers are going down.

To be honest, there is not enough data to make a definitive conclusion as to which theory is the real explanation for the decrease. It could be one, the other, a combination of both, or it could be something neither of us have even considered. Nonetheless, for the first time, we are now seeing real data that is actually decreasing. There is good news, indeed.

V & Z respond: As a reminder, P.D. has consented to send us regular updates on how the fight against COVID-19 is going. Thank you very much for your reporting.

---

J.A. in South Salem, NY, writes:

One additional possible consequence of the publicity around the meat supply chain "in danger of breaking" and using the Defense Production Act to respond is that there may be a run on meat products. The more affluent consumers will buy a lot more meat, worsening the situation for those who can't afford to buy and freeze extra supplies. This situation previously caused headlines when people left the metropolitan areas for their second homes and brought freezers to hold their extra meat purchases, making it harder for the locals to buy food. If this story shows up again in the media, it will reinforce the theme of the disparity of the coronavirus impact on richer and poorer segments of our communities.

---

G.T.M. in Vancouver, BC, Canada, writes:

I am greatly saddened to see that my prediction "I wouldn't bet my rent that the "Vietnam War" death toll won't be passed by Tuesday" turned out to be accurate.

COVID-19, National Politics

J.K. in Short Hills, NJ, writes:

Please tone down the anti-Trump rhetoric. It's diluting the product, for it has been particularly bad in the past few weeks. There's plenty of blame to go around at all political levels for the current crisis, which includes both the current White House and those from the past. How do you explain the vast differences on infection rates in the New York metropolitan area and those for Seattle or the Bay Area? The President is not the variable in this study. The New Yorker, which leans left, will tell you that Mayor Bill de Blasio (D-New York City) and, to some extent, Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D-NY), should shoulder much of the responsibility for the outbreak in New York. Moreover, most Western countries have had similar struggles with the virus, suggesting that whoever was President, we would likely be in exactly the same place as we are now. Lobbing barbs from the cheap seats is easy with 20/20 hindsight whether the target is a Republican or a Democrat.

---

R.L. in Alameda, CA, writes:

My first memory of national affairs was the Iran Hostage Crisis of 1979-80. I turned 13 in 1980 and, therefore, came of age in the Reagan/Bush era. This has very much shaped my politics much in the way that 9/11 has shaped millennials and the Age of Covid will shape my teenagers. I've always followed politics pretty closely and have long felt that Republicans have been plotting to end democracy and take over America. Since Trump came into office, it seems to me that, like a Bond villain, we have reached the point in the "movie" where their nefarious plot has been revealed. It seems that they are no longer trying to hide their love of voter suppression, court packing and sticking it to poor people and people of color. They used to do these things while explaining (spinning) why they are actually helping people. They don't even bother anymore. I wonder if this is becoming apparent to low-and-no-information voters. I have to think that the daily self-descriptions of how successful the Trump administration has been at responding to COVID-19 simply does not align with people's reality, even among his base. Perhaps that, along with the aforementioned "plot reveal," explains your rather blue electoral map as people leave the Trump camp in droves.

---

K.M. in Denver, CO, writes:

Observations from your readers in red states gave me a flicker of hope that Donald Trump's base is now unsatisfied with his COVID-19 failings. R.M. from Pensacola, FL, noted that MAGA hats and clothing are no longer being worn proudly out in public. B.K. in Dayton, OH, related how Ohio is rallying around their governor's competent and steady actions during the crisis. J.W. in Lexington, GA, pointed out that their governor now knows what the bottom of a bus looks like. And all of this was before Trump's highly publicized comments about ingesting disinfectants. Surely, more Republicans now wonder why on earth they should align with Trump, when he is showing such undisciplined and dangerous leadership. Perhaps, I pray, some of these good people will decide to vote against Trump in November.

---

M.A., Denver, CO, writes:

You wrote:

The problem here is that it [injecting disinfectant] is not only not curative, it's dangerous (and possibly lethal). Further, in contrast to hydroxychloroquine, just about anyone can get their hands on disinfectant. And so, the President's bad advice potentially put hundreds (thousands? tens of thousands?) of lives at risk.

Anyone who is stupid enough to inject disinfectant is doing the collective human gene pool a favor by doing so.

---

R.T. in Arlington, TX, writes:

I appreciate the frustration of watching the Trump presidency in action, but the notion of suing him for negligence, incompetence, or whatever has much broader consequences than the one man. Last week, G.S. used, the phrase "the King can do no wrong", which rings badly in an American's ear. The proper term is "sovereign immunity". It is more logical than you might think. In the original British common law context, it was a consequence of absolute monarchy. If the sovereign (monarch) can change the law on a whim, how could the sovereign ever be in violation of it? The idea was carried over into American common law, but here it means that neither a public official (elected or civil service), nor a public agency, nor a political unit can be held negligent for exercising the discretion that comes with their office.

Sovereign immunity protects a massive number of government workers from being second-guessed for just doing their jobs, as long as they were acting in good faith. It protects a police officer who blocks a road to keep traffic away from a high-speed chase and unintentionally triggers a wreck. It protects a city water department from being liable for flooding damage when a water main breaks because there were no funds to maintain it better. It protects a fire captain who misjudges the spread of a fire and an adjacent building burns down because hoses and firefighters were out of position. It protects a child protection officer who places a child with a relative who appeared to be a safe haven but turned out not to be. Without the grace to make a mistake now and again, why would anyone be willing to make tough decisions?

To sue Trump for the reasons proposed means abolishing sovereign immunity and this would mean the paralysis of government as we know it. It's just not worth it.

---

C.J. in Bristol, UK, writes:

You wondered, regarding potential meat shortages vs. shortages of medical equipment, "Why did one circumstance trigger a quick and full-throated response, and the other a slow and partial response?" You posited several explanations, but I believe you missed the most likely: Trump, and his male backers especially, have a particular conception of "food," the very unreconstructed notion that in order to qualify for the word, there has to be dead animal on the plate. If the supply chain disruption had been in the carrot, or tomato, or eggplant lines, the response would never have been so rapid. These people are terrified of the idea that they might be 'deprived' of the only thing their fragile masculinity will allow them to consume. They don't really care about medicines (for sissies), or vegetables (for sissies), they're men. They need meat.

---

B.B. in Bangor, ME, writes:

You say that Trump is making a legitimately difficult decision regarding "workers' health vs. citizens' need to eat". However, millions of people in this country have chosen to live without eating any meat, without any ill effects. There's no reason the response to a meat shortage couldn't just be "try these vegetarian recipes!" But that isn't the way Trump or his supporters think, so this is just another case of Trump making decisions based on the culture wars instead of rational policy.

---

S.N. from Portland, OR, writes:

Here is another reason why meat packing plants are declared essential businesses. You can't throw red meat to the base without red meat. If outbreaks had occurred at tofu factories, you can bet there would be no such order.

---

D.K. in Oceanside, CA, writes:

The president does not feel the need for face masks or other protective equipment. His daily access to cheeseburgers, however, must not be threatened.

---

M.E. in Greenbelt, MD, writes:

In your piece about Trump ordering meat processing plants to stay open, methinks you might have missed a reason. Given his well-known appetite for fast food, he may have been concerned with his ability to get a Big Mac for himself!

---

M.M. in San Diego, CA, writes:

While watching the video that K. W. in Providence, RI, linked to, of the confrontation at a Florida rally/protest, I realized that these guys will never figure out why they can't get laid.

COVID-19, State Politics

P.B. in Spring Lake, NJ, writes:

The polls show what we have always known (or, at very least, suspected). Fox viewers will approve of an act done by a Republican but disapprove of the same act if it is done by a Democrat .The Republican Governors with the high approval ratings, are doing the same things as their Democratic counterparts. However, the swing voters, in this case, are the Republicans in their states. They approve of Gov. Mike DeWine (R-OH) or Gov. Larry Hogan (R-MD) but disapprove of Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D-NY) or Gov. Phil Murphy (D-NJ). Obamacare is an extreme example of this. Originally a program with a Conservative/right-Republican philosophy, one using private insurers, it was adopted by Democrats and then promptly vilified by Republicans.

---

M.A. in Brookline, MA, writes:

Like many of us, I have been very curious as to what the impact of Georgia's aggressive reduction of social distancing measures will be. In looking at the data, I notice a possible partisan divide that can tell two very different stories.

The number of cases reported here tells a story of a steady rate of new cases recently, and perhaps even an increasing number of cases in the last day or two. On the other hand, if you look at the data put out by the Georgia Department of Public Health, you get a very different story—one where the number of new cases seems to be decreasing rapidly.

If you look at the descriptions of the data, you'll see that: (1) it does seem to be the same underlying data, but (2) the difference is how the data is grouped together. Specifically, the Google data groups cases by the day that they were counted, whereas the Georgia DPH data groups cases by the day of symptom onset, whenever possible. Since there is often a lag between when symptoms appear and the case being counted, the Georgia DPH data will have the counts for past days increase over time, at the expense of more recent days looking smaller. This in turn, has the impact of painting a far rosier picture of case counts shrinking by day than is reality.

While it is tempting to ascribe this to Georgia officials intentionally trying to shape public opinion, I suspect that it is far more likely a case of sloppy presentation and understanding of the underlying data. But it might shed some light on the disconnect between Georgia officials and the scientific consensus on when it is appropriate to reduce social distancing measures.

---

J.C. in Honolulu, HI, writes:

I can give you a little insight as to why Gov. David Ige (D-HI) is so unpopular.

First, you still have lingering resentment to the incompetence of the false missile alert from January 2018. Second, Ige appointed Lt. Gov. Josh Green (D) to be the point of contact for the COVID-19 response. Then Ige completely shut out the Lt. Governor from the process. Green is a medical doctor from the Big Island, and the citizens and voters listen to him because of his experience.

Ige's actions stand in contrast to those of, for example, Mayor Derek Kawakami (D-Kauai). A complete lockdown and they have had a total of 21 COVID-19 cases and 0 deaths. Oahu is just under 400. The residents are proud of what the Mayor of Kauai did. His orders went into effect before the Governor's, making it look like Ige was leading from behind.

This is why everyone I talk to says, "Thank God Ige cannot run again."

---

S.E. in Haiku, HI, writes:

As you are probably aware, Hawaii is a state whose economy relies heavily on tourism. Before COVID-19, locals were of the opinion that too many sweetheart deals were given to large corporations and developers associated with the industry (hotels, timeshares, cruise ship companies and the like). Strike 1. When COVID-19 struck, most of the jobs on the islands being in the tourism industry were lost. Strike 2. To a lesser degree, closing all of the parks, most of which are beach parks, turned off anyone not necessarily affected by strikes 1 and 2 above. Strike 3.

---

E.D. in Nunda, NY, writes:

You are doing what Andrew Cuomo always does: equate New York City with the state of New York. Our county (Livingston) now has 59 cases and 5 deaths (four of these nursing home deaths from a hospital who sent a patient back to the nursing home with a positive virus test). I would not call that a "hot spot." I'm sure the number will go up, but each case is being traced by the health department. Despite being the reddest county in the state, no one is resisting the stay at home request.

I live on 32 acres of mostly swamp and woods, some lawn, big pond. Total isolation except every four weeks, when my grandson brings me groceries that Amazon and Walmart can't bring me. My neighbor has a big rottweiler/mastiff mix (totally friendly, but don't tell anyone). That's the last house until my house an eighth of a mile away. Western New York until Buffalo is wide open spaces.

COVID-19, Swedish Edition

P.W. in Valley Village, CA, writes:

There's a lot of talk about the Swedish approach to COVID-19. The numbers there are accelerating. Earlier in the pandemic Sweden's infection rate was twice Denmark's, and now they're more than triple. While it's true that Sweden's numbers are similar to those of other European countries (Netherlands), and lower than others (Italy), the fact that their death rate is so dramatically higher than those of all their immediate neighbors is certainly significant.

Truly, both the left and the right are having a field day with this. When the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Newt Gingrich, and Glenn Beck are praising Sweden, you know we've entered into an alternate universe worthy of Rod Serling's "Twilight Zone." But we've been here before. History doesn't repeat itself, rather, it rhymes: Sacrifice human lives in the interest of economic activity, CHECK! (Slavery) Make public health policy decisions based on politics rather than science, CHECK! (AIDS)

Dr.David Ho, the man who did the research that proved to be the game-changer for AIDS, has asked, "Please give us time." I trust him, and I'm willing to give it to him.

The Swedes, however, are not. By putting much of the Swedish population in front of the COVID-19 firing squad now, a much greater percentage of the Swedish population will not be getting the benefit of what medical research will bring. The result of this will be more dead Swedes, and more Swedes with permanent disabilities. In the interest of economic activity, the Swedes have decided this is a price they're willing to pay. In a couple of years, once we're totally done with this and the analysis is competed, we'll know whether or not Sweden made a good public health policy decision.

Meanwhile, here in the good ol' USA, we're making public health policy decisions for our 5% of the world's population, with which we have 1/3 of the world's COVID-19 cases, and 1/4 of the deaths. We're winning.

---

M.T. in Linköping, Sweden, writes:

I have to dissent when, in your item "Don't believe anyone's numbers," you list Sweden together with China and Russia as the countries where the "nations' leaders also have motivation to fudge the numbers."

It is true Sweden is trying to balance between keeping the society open and working and limiting the spread of the COVID-19. The jury is still out whether it's successful, and it might even be that what is the best strategy in one country isn't the best in another. Currently the Swedish numbers are higher than those in our Nordic neighbors, mostly because we have been unsuccessful in keeping the spread from elderly care homes.

However, don't put the Swedish reporting in the same paragraph as the reporting in China or Russia. When The New York Times compared many nations' normal death rate with their current death rate, they found that Sweden's COVID-19 numbers pass the smell test. Please feel free to question the Swedish strategy, but trust the Swedish numbers.

V & Z respond: Our point was merely that any nation might possibly have reason to fudge their numbers, not to definitively declare that any one nation (like Sweden) is doing so.

---

Ö.M. in Stockholm, Sweden, writes:

As a Swede I was greatly disappointed that you accused Sweden of fudging the numbers. Although it was unclear from your post if you meant that the official Swedish numbers were wrong or that the government just ignored them when describing reality, either way it was a sloppy accusation without any evidence (made even worse by bundling us together with the likes of China and Russia).

The Swedish death toll numbers could very well be the most accurate in the world. We have a long history of good record-keeping when it comes to population statistics and our COVID-19 death tally matches very well with the excess mortality that has occurred during the month of April. Many European countries have a significant undercount of COVID-19 deaths since they almost exclusively just count those who died in hospitals and not those who died in nursing homes. The latter category represents one third of the total deaths in Sweden.

The death toll per capita in Sweden is indeed higher than our Scandinavian neighbors, but it is also lower than in most other Western European countries (even when we are comparing the official numbers). Scandinavians are more likely to follow the government's recommendations, so prohibitions are less necessary for us.

Despite the very harsh criticism we got from foreigners, Sweden is now slowly beginning to see the light at the end of the tunnel. We can also marvel at the unusual situation that it is now American liberals who are calling Sweden a disaster while it is American conservatives who see us as a role model. Very strange indeed.

(And no, I am not recommending Americans to copy-paste the Swedish strategy. Swedes trust each other to do the right thing and we have a functioning social safety net. Americans do things differently.)

---

M.A. in Denver, CO, writes:

You wrote:

[Sweden's] government claims their approach worked out just peachy, but the numbers say differently. The land of lingonberries has lost at least 2,274 people to COVID-19, which is more than double the combined total of Denmark, Norway, and Finland. Even if we consider Sweden's higher population, they've had 22 (known) deaths per 100,000 people, compared to 7 per 100,000 for the Danes, and 4 per 100,000 for the Finns and the Norwegians.

However, you are only assigning value to half of the equation. The other half of the equation is how much it costs society to avoid further total deaths by implementing lock downs and social distancing. There is, and will be, real costs to the response measures including bankruptcies, foreclosures, unemployment, lifetime earning decreases, and increased poverty.

Despite what we might want the answer to be, spiritually or morally, a life is not worth an infinite amount of money. Most western governments have put a value on a human life, so that cost/benefit questions of rules and regulations can be evaluated. That is how we decide what the speed limit on a street should be, balancing lives (drivers/pedestrians vs. commute time). It is how we decide on an acceptable amount of particles of air pollution in the air, balancing factory or industry economics against lost or shortened life spans due to bad air quality. As cold, macabre and distasteful as we might find the process, we do it all the time every day.

So the real question is: Does Sweden's response to COVID, which is basically to go for herd immunity quickly, have a better cost-benefit profile to the other responses? That can and will be eventually measured. I have no idea how Sweden will fare in that analysis or if "going for herd immunity quickly" will be less costly than locking down for an extended period of time but I know that it is not intellectually honest to only measure one side of the ledger.

The 2020 Veepstakes (and the 2020 Cabinetstakes)

J.M. in Portland, Oregon, writes:

I almost hate to say this out loud but, as good as Sen. Amy Klobuchar (DFL-MN) looks on paper and as significant as her impact might be in securing Minnesota for Joe Biden, she just doesn't look "presidential" to me. I'm not being sexist—Hillary Clinton, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), and Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA) all pull it off, to name just three. Sen. Klobuchar looks like someone with whom you could have a cup of coffee and a few good laughs. But face down Vlad Putin and reestablish the U.S. as the world's leader? Not so much. I saw her and Pete Buttigieg on Colbert the other night, and neither of them looks like a president to me. Sadly, looks are important in elections these days.

---

S.D. in New York, NY, writes:

I have a little bone to pick with your assessment of the VP picks for Biden. You said that "A woman of color is not likely to play well with the angry, resentful blue-collar men in the Midwest who put Trump in office." My problem with this statement is that it implies that Joe Biden's trying to reach these men in the first place. Chances are, if they had a problem with a woman of color being vice president, they were never going to vote for Biden in the first place and are just going to vote for Trump again. A white woman won't change things dramatically with them—if they're racist, chances are that they're sexist as well. Blue-collar men who are tired of Trump and are willing to get rid of him at all costs will vote for Biden no matter who he picks.

The backbone of the Democratic party is not blue-collar men, but black voters. No group is as large and as loyal to the Democratic Party as they are—they're the reason Biden got the nomination in the first place. One of the biggest reasons for the Democrats' failure in 2016 was the dramatic drop in black voter turnout. This was especially true in Wisconsin where the black voter turnout dropped nearly 20%. Similar drops (perhaps not as precipitous) occurred in other states like Pennsylvania and Florida, which may have tipped the scales in Trump's favor in those states as well. Joe Biden needs to find a running mate who can energize black voters, whether that's Kamala Harris, Stacey Abrams, or someone else. I believe it's very premature to write off states like Wisconsin, North Carolina and Florida just because a black woman is on the ticket, especially when they contain so many black voters.

Besides, what states could Amy Klobuchar possibly win for Biden? Minnesota? The last Republican to win there was Nixon. Biden doesn't need her for that state. Picking her would essentially create another Clinton/Kaine ticket, and we all know how that turned out. He's perfectly capable of appealing to the Midwest himself. Now he just needs to maximize and energize his base—black voters.

---

K.A. in Key Largo, FL, writes:

I couldn't agree more with your hunch that Biden might pick a white woman (Klobuchar, Whitmer or Warren) as his VP and name a black woman, Kamala Harris, as his AG. I would also think that if Biden were to announce his choices of two other black women for, say, Secretary of State (Susan Rice) and/or Chief of Staff (Stacey Abrams), that would essentially put to rest any concern that Clyburn and black voters have from Biden not picking a black woman as VP.

Furthermore, Biden's suggestion that he would put some Republicans in the cabinet is a very smart move for the very same reasons you gave. I particularly like the idea of him picking the two sitting Senators you mentioned, Toomey and Johnson. I had earlier submitted a Biden Cabinet Wish List and had put Senator Rob Portman (R-OH) on it, thinking Ohio voters might just go back to blue in picking his replacement. But Wisconsin and Pennsylvania are better choices because they are much more likely to vote blue. That said, why not shoot for the trifecta and see where the darts land?

While my political values align with the Green Party, I vote Democratic because I believe in pragmatism and working with different groups to achieve success. I would be very excited to vote for a Biden-Klobuchar ticket, knowing their team includes Harris, Rice, Abrams, Toomey, Johnson and Portman. Throw in Jay Inslee for EPA, and some young diverse talent like Julián Castro and Pete Buttigieg, and I'm giddy!

---

J.F. in Pasadena, CA, writes:

My VP favorite is still Claire McCaskill—two Senate terms with service on Armed Services and Homeland Security, puts Missouri in play, solid centrist aligned with Biden's positions, temperamentally synched with Biden, someone he's known for years and is comfortable with, a former county prosecutor, and someone who is well-vetted, having gone through three Senate campaigns. And she is sharpening her rhetorical skills with her appearances on MSNBC, as well as introducing herself to the progressives in the party.

---

L.D. in Chicago, IL, writes:

I would like to know why it is assumed that Joe Biden has to appoint a woman as his VP on the ticket. Is it just because he was forced to say he would under duress on MSNBC? Sexism is a two-way street.

Joe Biden needs a superstar as his VP because he certainly isn't. And that does not include Kamala Harris. This heartless, cruel woman refused to pay tribute to Kobe Bryant after his death because he had a sexual allegation against him several years ago which was dropped when the accuser refused to testify. He was an iconic figure in the black community and she is the highest ranking black officeholder from his state. Considering all the celebrities who gave their tributes, it was her duty to be in the forefront. Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) paid a fantastic tribute so it wasn't a feminist issue. Nobody as cruel and spiteful as Harris should be in office.

The one possible woman candidate in the Democratic Party I would regard as a superstar is Michelle Obama, who I still consider our First Lady. She has the highest approval ratings and she has no ties to losers. If she won't run, the only two other superstars in the party are men: Andrew Cuomo and Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA). These are the only three people who I think can help Biden win.

---

J.W. in Indianpolis, IN, writes:

In response to the question from M.T.E of Seaside, CA, I can offer myself as an example in support of the statement that the progressive wing would be furious if Jeff Flake was selected as Biden's running mate. According to FiveThirtyEight's Trump Score, he voted with Donald Trump over 80% of the time, which is 21.1% higher than would be expected based only on his state of residence. Consider how angry the left is at Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) for her behavior during the Kavanaugh confirmation hearings, and then remember that Flake somehow managed to display even less spine and principle than she did.

Jeff Flake talks a big talk, especially now that he's out of office, but whenever he had the opportunity to make a difference? Let's just say that his surname is appropriate.

---

A.R. in Los Angeles, CA, writes:

Speaking of getting too far out over one's skis, I'll do you one better. I think you're right about Rep. Jim Clyburn's (D-SC) statement being a hint that Biden could be leaning toward a Klobuchar as his veep pick. I also agree that Biden simultaneously announcing that he'll reveal some cabinet picks could mean he'll reveal Kamala Harris as his AG. But in addition to that, I think he'll also announce that Elizabeth Warren is his pick to run Treasury. Why? Because as Daily Kos recently pointed out, in order to prevent the Gov. Charlie Baker (R-MA) from being able to appoint her replacement, thereby possibly keeping the Senate in Republican hands, she'd have to resign before June 23, which would force a special election. And there's no way she'd resign unless a cabinet post were locked up. So, if Biden wants Warren on his team, he's got to make up his mind where she fits pretty quickly.

---

S.B. in Los Angeles, CA, writes:

Secretary of State Barack Obama? Wow, that is some real out of the box thinking! At first, I was gobsmacked but then I started thinking it through. There is no formal prohibition and there have been previous presidents who have gone on to serve in government after their presidencies such as John Quincy Adams in the House and William Howard Taft in the U.S. Supreme Court.

Once one gets past the formal requirements and looks at the politics of such an appointment, I'm thinking a President Biden might run into criticism in that he might be perceived as having a co-president or being unable to handle the job alone. Certainly, President Obama is qualified for the secretaryship. And there would be a certain poetic justice in a Secretary of State Barack Obama spearheading the reversal of President Trump's reversals of President Obama's foreign policy accomplishments.

V & Z respond: It's not likely but, under these unusual circumstances, it's not impossible, either.

The 2020 Electoral Map

A.C. in Columbus, OH, writes:

I think it really can't be overstated just how seismic an event it would be if/when Texas flips blue, or even purple. Consider, if the southwestern states (Nevada, New Mexico, and Arizona) become and remain reliably blue, coupled with the traditional East Coast states (everything from Virginia northward), the Pacific states, and Illinois and Minnesota, that gives Democrats 264 EVs as a starting point (or in other words, 6 EVs from the White House). All they would need is one of Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio, Florida, North Carolina, or Georgia, and they would win. But, if Texas were to become blue with its 38 EVs, then literally there would be no realistic path for Republicans to ever win the White House again. They could win Florida, Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, and Georgia, and they still would not even crack 240 EVs. Heck, you could even concede Pennsylvania to Republicans, and they would still be 18 EVs short.

However, if the Democrats were to completely abandon the Upper Midwest, this would also have the effect of turning the Senate even redder. So we could have a bizarre dynamic where Republicans could never win the Presidency, but Democrats could never win the Senate. Gridlock would become even more of the norm in Washington than it has ever been. It shows the shortcomings of the system the Founders envisioned, where the majority of the country could be Democrats, but the Senate would always be in the hands of the national minority party. Once Republicans lose Texas, instead of changing their policies and moving more to the center, they may decide to double and triple down on being the party of "No".

We are still probably a decade away from this becoming a reality, but it could very well be we have not yet seen the worst of hyper-polarization in the United States.

---

L.M. in Colorado Springs, CO, writes:

It was quite surprising to see Texas turn blue on this morning's map! The last Democrat to win Texas was Jimmy Carter in 1976, 44 years ago. If the Democrats could win it once again (38 electoral votes), no other pickups from 2016 would be needed. They would have 272 electoral votes with 270 needed to win. Either my math is flawed or I am dreaming. Don't wake me up, but please check my math.

If the Democrats go with a Texas strategy rather than an upper Midwest strategy (WI, PA, and MI) the pick is clearly Nevada Senator Catherine Cortez Masto (D). Her paternal grandfather is from Mexico which is clearly the largest Latino group in the U.S.A. Getting out the Latino vote in other states would probably take the Democrats over the top even if Texas is not winnable.

---

R.W. in Richmond, VA, writes:

You wondered about Texas being a statistical tie in the polls because you view Texas as more Republican than Montana, Missouri, and Iowa. Not so at the presidential level. Donald Trump's 2016 margins in Montana and Missouri far exceeded his 2016 margins in Texas, and he did only barely better in Texas than in Iowa in 2016. So, the current data is not necessarily flawed. Now, will Trump lose Texas? Probably not, but would he be likely to lose it before losing any of the other 3? Probably yes.

---

D.A. in Brooklyn, NY, writes:

Your comment...

They are Montana (Feb. 22), Iowa (Mar. 5), and Missouri (Feb. 27). All were most recently polled before the COVID-19 crisis hit and Trump's mismanagement of it became apparent. We hope some new polls of these states appear soon. It could be interesting.

...came as a relief. I was beginning to wonder if there was any way we could return the Louisiana purchase to France and get back that $15M.

---

S.T. in Worcestershire, UK, writes:

Interested in your comment about Iowa. While I appreciate that the state is more Republican-inclined than some key swing states, I am surprised it is not more in the limelight. The trade wars with China have damaged the agricultural sector in a state where this is key. Further, the Democrats had some sparkling results there in the 2018 house races and, probably most important of all, Sen. Joni Ernst (R-IA) appears to be vulnerable. Given the importance of regaining the Senate to prevent endless obstruction by Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), I would have thought Iowa was worth a lot of effort from the Democrats. They have the potential of a vital double win here.

---

P.J.C. in Los Angeles, CA, writes:

Isn't Wisconsin really the Midwestern coal-mine canary? Voter suppression and gerrymandering are so virulent in Wisconsin these days that pre-pandemic, I always assumed that it was undoubtedly the ultimate tipping state in 2020. Michigan has had its share of Republican tomfoolery in the last decade (Rick Snyder, anyone?), but its voting numbers have never been nearly so precarious as Wisconsin's when it comes to the Democratic candidate for POTUS from 2000-present. Plus, taking into account that the supreme court election there that risked so many lives, and that went rather unexpectedly to a candidate from the "Democratic wing of the Democratic Party," don't you think that Wisconsin is far more deserving of canary status? Michigan's 2016 drift to Trump seemed much more like an anomalous New-Hampshire-to-Bush-circa-2000 event.

---

D.H. in Hamden, CT, writes:

I normally enjoy reading your site, but I thought some of your analysis this week was pretty sloppy, particularly the suggestion that picking a woman of color would concede Wisconsin. Donald Trump won Wisconsin 47.9% to 46.9%, and a lot has happened in the last four years, including a primary in Wisconsin that was a PR disaster for the GOP. I suspect most people who would be turned off by Biden choosing a woman of color, especially one of substance such as Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA), would not vote for him anyway, and in any case, Wisconsin is too purple to write off so cavalierly. After all, the demographics of the state may be changing, but it did vote for Obama.

Let me acknowledge that part of my reaction is that you pushed a button with me: I have a visceral reaction when someone suggests identity and race determine who will win, especially in very purple states, and that felt like the premise of a good portion of your VP discussion today (pick a Caucasian to play for the Midwest, pick a Black woman for the south, pick a Latina for the Southwest). I am not suggesting that you don't see more nuance than my caricature suggests, but I think your analysis today did not acknowledge that nuance.

V & Z respond: That passage was less precise than we would have liked, in retrospect. Obviously, the Badger State will be in play, regardless of the VP pick. However, the selection of a Stacey Abrams or a Rep. Val Demings (D-FL) will be a clear sign the Democrats don't intend to give Wisconsin as much attention as they could.

---

C.H. in Walhalla, SC, writes:

I am one of the 55% who voted for Joe Biden in the South Carolina Primary. I would like to take issue with all of the claims that Rep. Jim Clyburn (D-SC) saved Joe Biden's candidacy and swayed South Carolina Democrats toward voting for him. The temporal proximity of the two events does not mean that a cause/effect relationship exists between them. My opinion is that a large majority of us had already made our choices for president long before Rep. Clyburn's endorsement.

Very early in the election process (I'd say the day after November 8, 2016) I started looking at potential Democratic presidential candidates. I asked myself which of them would my Republican friends be most likely to cross party lines to vote for. Joe Biden was my answer.

During this time I saw Joe in an episode of "Jay Leno's Garage," and on "The View" where he comforted Megan McCain as she dealt with the imminent prospect of her father's passing. In both instances he was very authentic and personable.

A month or two before the primary, I happened upon an online news article in which a black journalist (I believe he was originally from South Carolina) did an article on black South Carolinians' opinions of each of the presidential candidate and their reasons for supporting Joe Biden. Their opinions were a validation of my own thoughts.

In conclusion, my vote has been for Joe Biden since the beginning of this election cycle. I will crawl over broken glass, fight my way through a monsoon, or fend off a zombie apocalypse, while wearing a full hazmat suit, if necessary, so that I can show up at the polls in November to vote for him.

The Democratic Divide Lives On

D.A. in Brooklyn, NY, writes:

While being very pro-Bernie Sanders and very pro-AOC, I've always been respectful of Joe Biden and his supporters and have always planned to support the Democratic nominee, and indeed Democrats everywhere. I planned to donate "'til it hurts" to the DLCC, DCCC, DSCC, and of course as many progressive Democrats as I can in the general election.

That was this morning. For this Sanders supporter, there has been a complete sea change. It's one thing for the Democratic establishment to play hardball with Sanders, circling the wagons as it did in desperation after Nevada. That's politics. Cancelling an election (even if entitled to by state law)? That's voter suppression. That's saying that not only do they not want to hear my voice (which is ok—they can ignore it—that's politics), they don't want anyone to hear it. This is beyond the pale. It is anti-democratic.

I was going to vote for Sanders in the primary and then do my best to help Biden win. I will still vote for Sanders one more time: in the general election, in November. And I will do my best to convince other Sanders supporters to do the same.

I will also vow to never, ever, vote or support any Democrat or organization that supports Democrats. That includes progressive Democrats like Sanders and AOC. I respect them but they are making the same mistake that I did, over the last 25 years, trying to work with Democrats. The Democrats are truly Republican-lite. I'm done.

---

J.W. in Newton, MA, writes:

In your answer to R.W. from Bahrain, you discuss the apparently narrow ideological gap between Bernie Sanders and Joe Biden, as measured by websites like isidewith.com. As a college professor who interacts frequently with Sanders supporters, I believe their main concern is that Biden will not adhere to his surprisingly progressive platform. With some reason, they believe that he will compromise these positions once in office, both because his new views are not sincere, and because he will seek to compromise with the gangsters who run the GOP. I am not a Sanders supporter, but I think they have a point.

---

J.O. in Raleigh, NC, writes:

I suppose the letters from Bernie Sanders supporters complaining about your coverage of the Senator will not end until the man stops making news, and thus no more pieces on him, but maybe not even then. They have ranged from the reasonable and reflective to the downright villainous. And when I say villainous, I mean that literally. One of those letters was only a couple jots from fitting right in with the screed of movie villains from a hundred different movies, desiring to rebuild society from the ashes of destruction. And that's the rub. I have no doubt that the majority of Sanders' supporters are as reasonable as I think I am, probably even the vast majority. But this vocal minority of his supporters have the whiff of anarchy about them. That the tearing down and destruction was maybe actually the point, and what would come after is just icing. Those folks are way down the path of the ends justifies the means, and I cannot support that. Sanders' failure to completely disavow such talk and such supporters has left me disappointed and disturbed. Obviously no politician is perfect, but this feels like a glaring problem to me. Even though I support nearly every policy position he has that I'm aware of, I could not support him. When my turn in the primaries came, I voted for Elizabeth Warren.

Joe Biden is not my ideal candidate, but I will vote for him in whatever fashion is made available to me come November. I will vigorously oppose any false equivalency made between Biden and the Orange Pestilence. And I will try to reason with everyone I know who is thinking of voting for someone other than Biden in the general election.

---

S.S. in Raleigh, NC, writes:

The self righteousness and moral superiority of the never-Biden and dump-Biden crowd is mind-boggling. Your actions are actively enabling and assisting a self proclaimed serial adulterer, sexual assaulter, racist and misogynist. And those are some of his less nefarious qualities.

Not all of us live in shiny mega-mansions like Susan Sarandon and Sarah Silverman and have the privilege and resources to coast through another Trump presidency while tweeting safely from within their castle walls. As a minority, the last 4 years have been devastating for my friends and family.

Bernie Sanders has endorsed Joe Biden. No matter how much you yell, scream, and throw tantrums on Twitter, Sanders will not be the nominee. Please let it go for the sake of our democracy and especially for the people like me, who you claim to fight for.

---

P.F. in Las Vegas, NV, writes:

When accusing (V) and (Z) of "indefensible" comments, N.B. of Ann Arbor, MI, quoted you as writing: "Many (young) supporters of Bernie Sanders are distraught and disappointed, and many of them don't know what they are going to do or whom they are going to vote for..."

N.B. doesn't seem to have noticed the first word in this quote: "Many." The writer's ensuing accusations of your condemnation of young people include a string of generalizations about what young people care about. Ironically, N.B. paints all young people with the same brush, while you correctly qualified your comments with "many" (not even "most").

More egregiously, N.B. asks, "why is it that young progressives are silly utopian children throwing a fit when we threaten to not vote for Biden, but older, suburban moderates who threaten not to vote for Sanders are just being normal, pragmatic voters using their votes as leverage to advance their interests?" N.B. seems to be comparing apples and oranges here: Democrats vs. independents/conservatives who can swing either way from election to election. Swing voters don't need to "threaten." If they're Democrats, I'll say that I follow politics fairly closely and am involved in my local community, and I have never encountered a single Democratic voter either in 2016 or now who has threatened to not vote for whoever won the Democratic nomination—other than a rather vocal segment of Sanders supporters.

N.B.'s query about potential Biden supporters who threatened not to vote for Sanders makes even less sense, considering what N.B. wrote in the very next paragraph: "Biden...dominated with voters who were concerned about electability. These were often older voters. Older voters viewed getting Trump out of office at all costs as the only metric." How does N.B. reconcile the absurd contradiction that voters whose primary motivation is to dethrone Trump threatened not to vote for Sanders?

---

A.B. in Wendell, NC, writes:

As a Gen Xer, I take great umbrage with N.B. of Ann Arbor implying they will be the first generation of Americans poorer than their parents. That is our Xer legacy. Our Boomer parents systematically screwed us. Read 13th Gen: Abort, Retry, Ignore, Fail? sometime.

Reade-ing Between the Lines

M.D. in Tobyhanna, PA, writes:

Doing some research, it seems Tara Reade has a bit of a problem with the truth and with manipulating people. According to this article from Medium, she lied to and stole from an animal non-profit. This is one of the best documented articles I have ever read. In addition, a post on the very left-wing Daily Kos directed me to this article that documents how Reade changed her blog post on Medium to agree with her latest version of her story.

It is difficult for me to believe her story at this point.

---

R.V. in Pittsburgh, PA, writes:

This is the difference between the Republicans and the Democrats. The current president has a long history of sexual assault going back to the 1970's, paid a porn star (probably from campaign funds), and bragged about assault on the "Access Hollywood" tape.....and was elected in November 2016 with practically full support from the GOP. The Democrats destroy their own over far less (e.g., Al Franken).

Biden has one story from a woman who's a criminal. One accusation from a phony like Tara Reade vs. 20+ credible cases spanning decades and the former is the one who might be destroyed politically.

If Biden did have any checkered past, I'm sure the Obama team would have found it during their 2008 VP vetting process.

---

S.B. in Cincinnati, OH, writes:

One aspect of the Tara Reade allegation is that she places the incident in 1993. This has a significance that no one I've seen has noted, connected to a name once famous but now (justifiably) all but forgotten: Bob Packwood.

Senator Packwood (R-OR) was one of the now-vanished breed of Republican Senate liberals, first elected in 1968. Right after he was re-elected to a fifth term in November 1992, The Washington Post published an article detailing allegations by ten women (lobbyists and former staffers) of sexual abuse and assault. This led to an investigation by the Senate Ethics Committee (chaired by none other than Mitch McConnell!) which dragged on for more than two years, in part because of Packwood dragging his feet, especially about turning over a detailed diary he had been keeping. After additional evidence was found, nine more women came forward, it turned out Packwood had altered the diary entries he turned over, and the Ethics Committee issued a report in early September 1995 recommending Packwood's expulsion. He resigned before the Senate could consider it.

Reade alleges that Biden assaulted her at a time when the Packwood allegations were the talk of the Hill. At that time, even the most lecherous (male) senator would have had to be stupid not to mind his Ps and Qs, and no one has accused Joe Biden of being stupid. And a woman like Reade, subject to such an assault, would have known exactly where to go with her accusation. It is hard to believe such an allegation at that time, if there was anything behind it, would not have been taken seriously and found its way into the media.

---

J.K. in Short Hills, NJ, writes:

Those that believe Christine Blasey Ford but not Tara Reade (and vice-versa) are making a weak attempt of rationalizing away their political biases. The circumstances surrounding both are far too similar to have divergent opinions about the two events. Neither Ruth Marcus' article nor your analysis of it mention Anita Hill, who was far more credible as a witness. Ironically, Joe Biden was the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee at the time of the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings, which arguably is one of the biggest stains on his record. To his credit, the former Vice President has apologized for his behavior.

---

D.C. in San Francisco, CA, writes:

You referred to Bernie Sanders' baggage in the area of sexual misconduct. I'm not speaking to the truth of Tara Reade's claims, but seriously, you can't compare an allegation of actual sexual assault with some people in a large campaign being accused of a range of discriminatory or harassing acts. Neither is good, but any direct comparison between the two is a massive false equivalence.

With the amount of mail you get telling you that you're biased against Sanders, why would you even try to equivocate these things?

V & Z respond: If the Democratic standard is "no tolerance," then the nature of the behavior doesn't matter, because "no tolerance" means "no tolerance." We are not certain that is where things currently stand, but that is certainly where they stood when Al Franken was run out of town on a rail. Also, we are not certain how one unproven accusation of a single very bad act by the candidate himself compares to confirmed and numerous accusations of a hostile environment that did not involve direct behavior by the candidate himself. What we do know is that you cannot definitely say that one is hands-down more damning than the other. We also know that if the president of IBM was accused of sexually assaulting an employee or of creating a hostile work environment for dozens or hundreds of employees, either would be actionable in a court of law.

Hoosier Party?

J.E.F. in St. Paul, MN, writes:

As a proud native Hoosier with the additional advantage/disadvantage of three degrees from Indiana universities, please allow me to fill out your speculations on reasons for the Great State's general conservatism relative to the rest of the Midwest. It's true that I'm now living happily in the diaspora (Minnesota division), but I guarantee that I've consumed enough pork tenderloin sandwiches and peach cobbler to write with some authority.

Your first observation, that Indiana lacked and still lacks, relative to its neighbors, many large and medium cities with their left-labor and cosmopolitan elite (i.e., Democratic) populations is fair enough, though it's hardly a fully satisfying explanation. After all, purplish Iowa is even less urban.

Your second observation is hogwash. Perhaps you're right that conservatives from Massachusetts have moved across the border to New Hampshire, shifting the balance a bit in that state, but conservatives from the Chicago area certainly have not moved eastward to Indiana in any considerable number. For one thing, conservatives would not be happy in Hammond or Gary. "The Region," as we Hoosiers call the counties close to Chicago, is actually left-leaning compared to the rest of the state, and is considerably African-American and/or union-influenced, historically.

No, the real reason Indiana is generally conservative, verging on reactionary, is that the state's culture and its political culture, especially from Indianapolis southward, is border state, or Appalachian, or Scots-Irish Calvinist to the core. Indiana was settled very largely by people moving west from Carolina to Kentucky and then sharp north to Indiana (think Abraham Lincoln's migration history). Assumptions and attitudes in the state have far more in common with those in old North Carolina, Kentucky, Tennessee, Arkansas, and rural Missouri than they do with anything in neighboring Ohio and Illinois, never mind Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa, and, heaven forbid, Minnesota. There is a reason—a historical and cultural one—that wags have long called Indiana the middle finger of the South.

---

T.K. in Warsaw, IN, writes:

I am a born and raised resident of Indiana, and a strong Democrat. There are more of us, I assure you. We are up against a very large slice of 60 and older, almost entirely white fellow citizens, many of whom have never traveled out of the state, much less the country, and have little idea what the rest of the world is really like; only what they are told on TV (Fox). This is slowly changing, as our tech and agriculture and college strongholds attract more diverse people from around the country and world, but progress is slow. There's one other uncomfortable truth, which I will quote from this item in the Indianapolis Recorder:

According to the Indiana Historical Society, African Americans were not allowed to become residents of Indiana without paying a fee and proving they were free before the Civil War. During that war Indiana contributed over 200,000 troops to the Union, but a significant number of Hoosiers, especially those who moved from the South and still had relatives there, were sympathetic to the Confederacy and wanted Indiana to be neutral.

Then in the 1920s the Ku Klux Klan experienced a major revival with its new headquarters in Indiana, although it is uncertain how much Confederate imagery was used at that time. The flag definitely had a major revival during the Civil Rights movement in the 1950s and 60s as a symbol of resistance when the federal government forced states to recognize laws protecting the rights of minorities.

In other words, we have a lot of racists, and most of them are voting Republican.

---

J.R. in Indianapolis, IN, writes:

As James Carville famously observed, Pennsylvania is Philadelphia and Pittsburgh with Alabama in between. Well, Indiana is Pennsylvania without Philadelphia.

---

J.W. in Indianapolis, IN, writes:

Indiana was settled largely by people (mostly Virginians) coming west on the Ohio River, which resulted in our state having a much more Southern-influenced culture than our regional neighbors. This is true of Ohio and Illinois as well, but they (and the other states that J.P. listed) have much greater access to the Great Lakes than Indiana, which would make it easier for people to enter those places from Northeastern states. Basically, we have more in common with Kentucky than our neighbors in other directions. There is a reason that we're sometimes called the northernmost southern state.

---

L.M. in Nashville, IN, writes:

Looking at the 2008 presidential election map by county is helpful for understanding Indiana to some extent. The state went blue that year, and the map accentuates those small geographic areas that may trend blue, mostly urban areas and college towns.

The rest of the state, in my opinion, favors the red team for a number of reasons. People in these areas are not particularly transient and have been in place, in many cases, for generations and enjoy a generally stable and acceptable status quo, even if it is a bit of an illusion. I have family in rural Illinois, Ohio, Michigan and western Pennsylvania, and I think these situations are similar, with the exception that the Indiana economy and state government finances have been generally good, and arguably well-managed, for a number of years. From my Michigan family's perspective, especially, Detroit runs the state.

On another note, I've remarked for years, only half-jokingly, that the Mason-Dixon line runs through Indiana. I've traveled on the ground throughout the U.S., spending time in out-of-the-way places as part of my work, and so I have developed some feelings for this. Central, and certainly southern, Indiana remind me much more of the culture of the South and Southeast than they do the North. Grits and fried biscuit country. When I've traced the migration of my ancestors (of European descent), they moved into Indiana mostly from the now very red parts of Kentucky-Virginia, Ohio, and western Pennsylvania. They tend to be people who now see themselves as historically being relatively self-sufficient and receivers of little benefit from government at any level.

After writing most of this, I tried to find some additional data to make my case, and I found this piece. Also, an interesting side note, and very much in my mind as I have been writing, Vigo County has predicted the presidential election winner for many cycles in a row now.

Not E-veryone Hates E-voting

B.C. in Hertfordshire, UK, writes:

Not sure I agree with your analysis of the pitfalls of Internet voting.

Yes, passwords are insecure but not because they can be intercepted when transmitted under SSL encryption, because they pretty much can't. They are insecure because people choose stupid passwords that can be guessed or brute-forced, and because people re-use passwords across many websites such that if one organization has its database hacked (including user passwords) then the hacker gets the passwords for many other websites.

The U.K. has experimented with Internet voting (in low-key local elections) and it was based on mailing (snail-mailing, not e-mailing!) each elector a unique code (a password, if you will) that they enter online when submitting their vote. This approach could be made more secure still by requiring the voter to enter, as well as their unique code, items of information about themselves (e.g. date of birth) that they were required to give when registering as an elector. The mailing thing is not a big deal because prior to every election (local or national), every elector gets mailed a personal voting card anyway.

Further, in the UK, when one submits an annual tax return online, one receives in response a very long code (to print or otherwise store) containing encrypted data proving that one has indeed submitted the tax return. A similar technique could be used for voting provability: the returned code could not only prove that one had voted but, with data as simple as a vote, could even encode what the vote was. Thus every vote submitted is verifiable and provable.

If all of the above were protected with SSL it seems pretty secure to me!

V & Z respond: It is true that snail mailing the encryption key to every voter would be more secure than having it be fetched electronically. But what happens if the hacker sends a letter back to the elections board saying that the envelope came opened so it may have been compromised and could you send me a new one? The board then invalidates the old one and sends a new one. The voter may have already tried to vote (and failed) using the revoked one or be confused about what to do. People may lose the paper encryption code. Older voters may not understand the entire process and de facto lose their vote. Also, sending the encryption code by snail mail does not protect against malware installed on the voter's computer that changes the ballot before it is encrypted. In general, we believe that too large a fraction of the population either doesn't have a computer or would find e-voting too complicated to use correctly. In 30 or 40 years, we will have a population that is very computer savvy along with much better technology (65,536-bit RSA keys anyone?). Then it will be time to reconsider e-voting, but for the next 10 years it is still fraught with problems.

---

J.M. in New York, NY, writes:

While I agree computers are vulnerable and tokens aren't a viable option yet, cell phones are. I work with a national bank and we use a one-time token, and are bound by so many federal and local laws and I feel this is the way forward, not computers. Android may have to beef it up a little, but Apple is pretty close to solid.

V & Z respond: Apple's iOS is indeed more secure than Android, which runs on Linux, but we don't believe Android could survive a determined attack by the best hackers Russia has and who probably have a more-or-less unlimited budget. Probably iOS couldn't survive such an attack either. Remember, the banks are not thinking about having the complete force of the Russian GRU as the attacker. Measures that will stop a 16-year-old kid in the Philippines won't stop the GRU. Most people are not aware of it, but the Intel chips that power most computers have hardware defects that make them vulnerable to attack even if the software is bug-free (which it is not). Smartphones are much more vulnerable than you may think. Over 4,000 smartphone vulnerabilities have been found and patched and countless numbers of others are no doubt still out there undetected. A sophisticated and determined enemy with an unlimited budget (again, think the GRU or the folks at the troll farm in St. Petersburg) are bound to know about many of them. It's just too risky.

---

M.S. in Scarsdale, NY, writes:

It would seem that a major impetus for internet/digital voting schemes is predicated upon making the jobs of election administration easier. As many have noted, the primary driver of administrative ease is not necessarily always accuracy. One goal is to deliver vote totals as soon as possible.

Americans have been conditioned to expect to know the winner of the presidential election on election night. When that doesn't happen, they tend to view the results with a jaundiced eye. Remember election night 2000, with the Florida switch between Bush and "too close to call"? Just because Bush's name was announced first, the Republicans pounced and said their party was the winner, despite the uncertainty. Much of the public seemed to agree. The question wasn't posed as open ended—did Bush or Gore win—but whether Gore could catch up. (The networks are more cautious now.)

The media drives this conversation. The media must start educating the Americans public now that the winner may not be known on election night—especially since, as you mentioned, there may be a horde of absentee votes to be counted in states that do not typically deal with them. Since vote by mail is probably the wave of the future, the media and the public need to change their expectations. Donald Trump may call ballot counting after the voter goes to sleep as 'fake', but the media doesn't have to play that game. They have a critical role in this election.

It Was a Dark and Stormy Presidency

A.P. in Kitchener, Ontario, Canada, writes:

A thought on the sophomore looking for help on the Trump assignment. I would suggest focusing on the "misunderstood" element of the question. She could then argue that Trump is misunderstood by his supporters; they think he is trying to help them, when in reality he is furthering his own agenda. I realize this loses the pedagogical point of the exercise, but in this case it feels like the teacher has crossed a line (i.e., no one should be forced to defend a racist, misogynist, etc.).

---

J.C. in Binan, Laguna, Philippines, writes:

I have another answer for the daughter of L.S. in Weaverville, NC, that may be of help, depending on her predilections. As a Quaker, we follow George Fox who said in the 1650s, "There is that of God in everyone." Yes, this may be highly offensive to some, but we believe that even the greatest evil men in history also had that of God in them. It is for this reason that we eschew violence of any kind. I believe that is true of Trump as well, and that commonality is what I can reach out to, even if he lacks the compassion and empathy to do it himself. As to what specific there is that is good in him though, I wouldn't know where to begin. I hear he's nice to Barron?

V & Z respond: And very nice to Ivanka.

Today's Presidential Polls

Another poll of Texas that has it as a toss-up. Pretty soon, if this keeps up, the Lone Star State is going to have to be added to the list of 2020 swing states. And we are still waiting to hear from Montana again. Its three EVs aren't so important, but if Biden wins Montana or comes close, that could also mean that Steve Bullock could win a precious Senate seat there. (Z)

State	Biden	Trump	Start	End	Pollster
Texas	43%	43%	Apr 18	Apr 27	U. of Texas at Tyler

---

If you wish to contact us, please use one of these addresses. For the first two, please include your initials and city.

• questions@electoral-vote.com    For questions about politics, civics, history, etc. to be answered on a Saturday
• comments@electoral-vote.com   For "letters to the editor" for possible publication on a Sunday
• corrections@electoral-vote.com To tell us about typos or factual errors we should fix
• items@electoral-vote.com            For general suggestions, ideas, etc.

---

Email a link to a friend or share:

---The Votemaster and Zenger