Jan.24

electoral-vote.com

Dem 51

   

GOP 49

Looking Back at 2023, Part IX: Good Jobs

We took our lumps yesterday, today it's time for some sugar. This is longer than yesterday's entry because we got something like ten times as many e-mails on this question as opposed to the "bad jobs" question:

General:

• E.W. in New Orleans, LA: I think you two are absolutely flying when you have longer pieces that are both relevant and squarely nested in your expertise. History, higher education, computing, polling, comparative politics and media all leap to mind. This year I especially appreciated the deep dives into the Reconstruction Amendments, the budget process, and how Fox works.
  
  
• M.M. in San Diego, CA: Thanks for setting up the Patreon account so we can make recurring contributions to Electoral-Vote.com. Knowing that I can help support terrific daily political analysis is a pleasure.
  
  
• D.R. in Harrisburg, PA: I'm glad you hired someone to handle corrections. It's nice to know that all my pesterings about semi-colons and typos don't just go into the bit bucket.
  
  
• M.W. in Huntington, NY: You guys are too prolific for me to remember a best or worst job. So I'll have to generalize.
  
  The way that you two are able to seemingly effortlessly morph a political blog into a place where people of differing viewpoints (though admittedly probably more similar than not) can discuss—not argue or smear—topics such as LGBTQ+, conservative vs. progressive, the complexities of the Middle East, etc. I can only imagine the amount of e-mail reading and editorializing you must do in order to make this site a place where such difficult discussions can be held with open minds. You've shared a couple of e-mails over the years that show just how cruel some people can be behind the keyboard, so I can only imagine how hard it must be to sort through those and find the e-mails that have the same alternate viewpoint but do so with grace. Your students are lucky to have you.
  
  
• M.C. in Fresno, CA: I'm not sure if this started in 2023 or not, but the schadenfreude and freudenfreude are some of my favorite items to read every week. I particularly like the positive ones.
  
  
• J.J. in Johnstown, PA: I think the best thing you guys publish is the schadenfreude/freudenfreude each week. The schadenfreude item is sometimes easy to predict, but the freudenfreude item is always a pleasant surprise. Besides, who doesn't want to end each week "Yeah!" and "Hell, yeah!"
  
  
• M.K. in Rye, NY: I might be bending the rules. I have two thoughts, and they are both general. I'm not capable of picking out any particular item in the mountain of great material you produce in a year. So, make of my input what you will.
  
  Good Job #1. You show up every day. Like, every day. I say the following not to shame you for having days off (in fact, I give you my blessing to take more breaks! How do you even produce such good content so regularly?), but to express appreciation. When you don't post, it shoots a massive hole in my morning. My coffee/Electoral-Vote.com/NYT puzzles hour is cherished and I'm lost when I don't have your musings to start my day. Your material is enjoyable and enlightening, even on those bummer news days, and I feel like I'm part of an informed and diverse community because of your weekend content. (Brilliant idea one reader had about meetups: Count me in, NYC'ers!)
  
  Good Job #2. You are shining examples of grace in how you handle your (rare!) mistakes and how you respond to criticism. I wish everyone in the public sphere could be so mature and dispassionate, especially with the latter. We all know of the kind of vile and irrational feedback you must get and only occasionally share with your readers. Rather than get defensive or attack in return, you mark the data point, make use of what's useful, and (in my imagination) shake your heads with smiles and maybe just a little bit of an eye roll at the worst of it. We need more of this demeanor on the Internet.
  
  
• G.R. in Tarzana, CA: One of the good jobs this year was quoting me numerous times, which was always the highlight of my day. That said, however, in the spirit of Groucho Marx who declared, "I don't want to belong to any club that would have me as a member!", I believe that quoting me numerous times was a bad job, and makes me question the thought process of those in charge of Electoral-Vote.com.

Specific:

• R.L. in Alameda, CA: You ran a series of letters from three readers who are anti-abortion and reader responses to them. It helped me to understand the mindset of people who are opposed to abortion. And I learned that, for some, we are not that far apart. It was illuminating to see that some anti-abortion folks are looking at the post-Dobbs landscape in which women are routinely being denied health care and having second thoughts about whether banning the procedure was a good thing. It gave me hope that, someday, we may live in a world where people on opposite sides of an issue can be more willing to sit down and find common ground than to "defeat the other side into submission."
  
  
• D.D. in Portland, OR: Not sure if this was the strongest, but I'd say this surprised me the most in a positive way—your many-part discussion of abortion. Your selection of comments put new life into a subject I thought was talked to death long ago.
  
  
• P.R. in Arvada, CO: There were actually two subjects that really stood out to me this year. Your multiple articles on trans people and on abortion rights. I really like how you solicited responses from people to give us a broad understanding of these issues from people who are directly affected by these issues or who think they should have a say in the lives of others. By controlling the responses and selecting which responses to publish, you were able to keep subjects that elicit very passionate responses from getting personal in a negative way. The articles you yourselves wrote were also done in a way that was respectful of both sides of the issues while also being very informative and educational.
  
  
• T.B. in Santa Clara, CA: Your series on "Why the Trans Hate?" was fantastic. While the question was never quite answered, the discussion was very enlightening and contained lots of positive stories as well as a better understanding of the struggles of trans people. Hopefully everyone learned a little bit, if not a lot.
  
  
• B.H. in Southborough, MA: When it comes to political analysis, triangulation, stripping away the noise to get at the true nuggets of truth, and painstaking detail of political races state-by-state, this is like choosing between a Cadillac, Porsche, Jaguar, Lamborghini, Ferrari, McClaren, BMW, Mercedes, and Rolls Royce.
  
  That said, "Today in B.S. Polling" is a classic example of stripping away the glossy veneer to get at the true nonsense behind so much of our so-called polling and journalism these days.
  
  I'd also call out the piece "Gay Resigns" (sorry, technically a 2024 item), citing the trap laid for her but making clear that she was a weak candidate to begin with.
  
  Or if you like, the three-part "Spoils of Office." A classic example of taking three seemingly disjointed news items and showing the thread that binds them.
  
  Or any of the detailed Senate, House, and state government analysis pieces.
  
  Or pretty much any of the schadenfreude pieces.
  
  Or the new freudenfreude section. Giving us hope for humanity.
  
  Trying to answer this question makes me want to scream!
  
  
• P.D.N. in La Mesa, CA: Why people watch Fox News. Nothing like fear and envy to agitate the body politic.
  
  
• D.S. in Lakewood, OH: My "one item" is the evergreen "Trump Legal News / Court Rulings"
  
  You guys condense this near-daily monster into edible and easily digested bites.
  
  
• F.B. in Harrisonburg, VA: "Trump Legal News: Every Breath You Take"
  
  At the time I read that article, I was very impressed with the systematic thoroughness (and well-placed snarkiness) of your analysis. And I loved the serenade of Jack Smith to Trump.
  
  
• A.B. in Marshalltown, IA: Your strongest pieces this year were your explainers for why voter perception of the economy is lagging behind the actual performance of the economy.
  
  These pieces are important because they address a paradox in Biden's approval ratings, which I haven't seen anyone else explore in detail.
  
  
• D.E. in Lancaster, PA: So many choices, but while going through the Freudenfreude items the clear winner stood out: your item on Lincoln and the Gettysburg Address. I wrote to you after it was published and expressed how much I admired it, even saying that I wish it would be republished in every major newspaper's editorial sections. Rereading it, the piece still shone and, I am not ashamed to admit, caused me to cry once again!!! Bravo!
  
  I know what with the barrage of news, that the history articles get squeezed out but, man, they are still my favorites. Don't get me wrong, I don't feel like my day has started until I read your perspective on the events of the previous day, but I will always have a soft spot for the history ones. After all, in college, I should have had a double major in History to go along with my English major since I took so many history courses. I always agreed with my advisor/English professor who said that you can't understand literature unless you understand history.
  
  
• M.G. in Abingdon, VA: For Votemaster, "Balloongate Takes Off and Goes Down." How... how does (V) know all this stuff? That was a _lot_ of extremely detailed technical info.
  
  For Zenger, "Ron DeSantis... and the Lost Cause." The Civil War historian shows his stuff.
  
  
• B.H. in Randolph, NJ: Your analysis of the legal definition of "genocide"
  
  
• K.K. in Los Angeles, CA: You publish so many good historical and political analysis pieces throughout the year, it's hard to choose just one; yet, I find your unique obituaries quite a fascinating read.
  
  
• D.W.B. in Waynesville, NC: To me, the strongest item was the letter from the veteran asking for reasons to accept praise for being a vet. I think this site is at its best when seeking positive feedback from its readers.
  
  
• T.B. in Leon County, FL: Your getting/allowing readers from Great Britain to comment on British politics was great.
  
  
• A.L. in Highland Park, NJ: The best set of articles you wrote were in the aftermath of the infamous New York Times/Sienna poll that claimed "Donald Trump leads Joe Biden in five of six key battlegrounds." The cacophony from otherwise sensible people was depressing and you two were the only ones who calmly pointed out the ridiculousness of this poll. Your response was perfect, and I used it when discussing the issue with my colleagues. The basic point was "Trump might or might not win in November 2024, but this poll does not change my priors."
  
  The runner up for Good Job for me is your penchant to let readers with expertise in specific matters take the floor. I have my favorites (lawyers!) but I want to commend the instinct. While this may be a common trait among academics, inviting experts to give seminars/colloquia, I do not see it widespread in political commentary. Even when your gambit does not work because it delves into opinion, the instinct is great, and I hope you will stick to it.

Thanks to everyone who wrote in with kind words! We had a reader suggest that we give a heads up if we're doing this again next year, so folks can keep their nominees in mind. We are, so consider yourself heads upped. Next week, we begin looking ahead to 2024. (Z)