Dem
51
GOP
49
There was a lot of response to the letter that A.T. in San Francicso sent in. A lot. So that is where we will start today.
J.P. in Lancaster, PA, writes: I read the letter from A.T. in San Francisco with some degree of head-shaking. They wrote:
Ha! Good luck thinking that; many, like me, are already out the door, and said buh-bye to Joe Biden since it's clear he's more interested in playing to the Nikki Haley types and staying c**ked to Benjamin Netanyahu.
I'd prefer to vote West if he's on my state ballot, but I'm fine with Stein.
If it means reelecting Trump, so be it. Sometimes a little short-term pain is needed for long-term gains.As much as I would rather avoid it, I feel compelled to use the quote often misattributed to Albert Einstein: "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." The Green Party has tried this before, and it backfired in 2000 and 2016, leading ultimately to 8 years of George W. Bush and 4 years of Donald Trump. During those 12 years, any progress previously made on progressive issues was moved further backwards than would have been the case with the election of Al Gore and/or Hillary Clinton. It then took a long time and a lot of effort to get back to where we had been before those elections. Even Ralph Nader understands this now, although it took him 24 years to get there. Now, he says that he will support President Biden's reelection but won't formally endorse him. Says Nader, "I know the difference between fascism and autocracy, and I'll take autocracy any time." Way to go, Ralph!
Need I mention that 2000 was 24 years ago. Due to Bush 43 and Trump, we are not where we would have been on the environment and other issues if those two had not occupied the White House. Twenty-four years is not short-term pain, and thus far there has been no long-term gain as a result of that "short-term pain." Another 4 years of Trump will make things even worse, A.T., and it will take that much longer to repair the damage that will be done (if it ever is or can be repaired). Do you really think that Trump will handle the Gaza situation, the Ukraine situation, or anything else more to your satisfaction than Biden? How many years will the "short-term-pain" last this time—24 years, 48 years, or more? Chances are, A.T., that if you and those who agree with you do what you say, you will depart this planet before we get back to where we are now. What you are proposing is insanity, no matter where or from whom that quote originated.
D.A.Y. in Troy, MI, writes: A.T. from San Francisco wrote "If it means reelecting Trump, so be it. Sometimes a little short-term pain is needed for long-term gains."
The problem with this logic is there is nothing short-term about the pain inflicted by letting Republicans get elected and there are no gains long-term or otherwise. The current Supreme Court supermajority is the result of Willie Horton, swiftboating, and "but her e-mails," which is working to undo the progress of the past 60 years. If Donald Trump is reelected, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito will be replaced with young radicals in short order to ensure conservatives' iron grip on the highest court will continue for decades to come. They have already reversed Roe and have a list of other decisions and laws they intend to dismantle.
And the Palestinians that A.T. seems so concerned about would fare extremely poorly if Trump returns to the White House. Jared Kushner just this week suggested rounding up all 2.25 million Gazans and dropping them in the middle of one of the planet's most inhospitable deserts so Gaza can be redeveloped into beachfront property.
This mindset of letting the perfect be the enemy of the good needs to be purged from the Democratic electorate. Politics is a messy business where you do not always get what you want and you have to swallow some bitter pills along the way. I am not happy with the situation in Gaza, but not voting for Joe Biden will do nothing to make it better and will likely make it worse. If people want long-term gains, they need to give the Democrats power in the long-term and not check out the moment things do not go their way.
D.D. in Denver, CO, writes: Regarding the prospect of Trump winning in November because sufficient numbers of progressives and leftists stay home or vote third-party, A.T. in San Francisco writes: "Sometimes a little short-term pain is needed for long-term gains."
And here is maybe the left's biggest blind spot. There will be NO long-term gains from another Trump presidency. Zero. None. The country is not going to "wake up" en masse, eject Republicans from office at every level from Washington to the county dogcatcher's office, and usher in a glorious new age. It. Is. Not. Going. To. Happen.
This was true in 1968, it was true in 2000, and it's true in 2024. If there's ever a time when it ISN'T true, I don't expect to live to see it.
But there will be a whole lot of short-term and medium-term and long-term pain. Maybe disgruntled voters with a long list of reasons why Biden isn't morally pure enough think they'll live through it. Hell, maybe they're right... which says a whole lot about their version of morality, none of it nice.
Their "short-term pain for long-term gain" is suffering and death for people I love. Anyone who's okay with that can GTFO.
J.L. in Paterson, NJ, writes: On the well-worn subject of Ralph Nader's role in the 2000 election, J.Z. in Brooklyn repeats the well-worn excuse from Ralph Nader's defenders: Many Florida Democrats voted for Bush. I agree with your response downplaying party registration, but there's a bigger flaw in the argument: J.Z. ignores that an event can have more than one cause.
Nader's groundbreaking book Unsafe at Any Speed made this very point about automobile accidents. One subject of the book is the "second collision"—what happens when there's an impact and the vehicle's occupants are thrown to the side or forward. Yes, a negligent driver who caused the first collision was at fault, but Nader correctly put some blame on manufacturers whose vehicles weren't as safe as they could be (flimsy doors, no seat belts, etc.). The culpability of the other driver doesn't exculpate the negligent manufacturer.
Cut to 2000. That some Democrats voted for Bush doesn't answer the relevant question: What would have happened if Nader had chosen not to run? Yes, many of his voters would have voted for some other Green Party candidate anyway. Without Nader's personal stature, however, some of his voters would have voted for Bush and some for Gore. The issue is the balance between those two groups. Academic analyses have concluded that the key number (Gore percentage minus Bush percentage) would have been on the range of 20%, 25% or 26%. Applied to the nearly 100,000 Nader votes in Florida, this difference would have swamped George W. Bush's official margin of 537 votes, thus putting Al Gore in the White House.
A.T. in San Francisco, CA is okay with this result, writing: "Sometimes a little short-term pain is needed for long-term gains." This strategy failed in 2000. If the Democrats had veered left, somehow holding all the actual Gore voters while picking up many of the Nader voters, then the Democrat would have won. By A.T.'s logic, the short-term pain of the Bush presidency (hardly a "little" pain, by my lights) should have caused the Democratic Party to adopt the Green Party platform. In practice, however, the Democrats have continued to be a moderate center-left party, with the Greens still on the ineffectual fringe. And the people who died in the Iraq War are still dead.
R.O. in Santa Fe, NM, writes: What a bunch of codswallop I read last Sunday from "pure" liberals who plan to throw away their votes rather than accept their best option. I think of myself as a "practical liberal" who knows that the only way we achieve our goals is to take as much of the loaf as possible and come back again for more of it. Many established liberal achievements have been won in that way. Those who want the whole loaf Right Now! are little different than what The Predecessor promises to do on his first day if elected.
It's a good thing that A.T. in San Francisco votes in California, whence President Biden will win all of the electoral votes in November regardless of A.T.'s attempts at purity.
P.S. in North Branch, MI, writes: I am taking issue with R.C. in Des Moines claiming progressives "need to grow up."
This assumes we progressives are actually part of the Democratic fold. I hate to ruin the illusion, but we aren't.
Progressives have barely tolerated Democrats since October 2009, when Joe Lieberman killed the public option. We vote for your candidates because we can rely on your dysfunction and back-stepping to know nothing will actually get done.
A.T. in San Francisco, CA, writes: Your claims about who was a lefty and who was a centrist are nonsense.
You describe John Kerry and Michael Dukakis as leftier than, say, Bill Clinton or Barack Obama; nothing is further from the truth. Dukakis was very pro-business centrist. Kerry ran on enhancing the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, he supported NAFTA, he supported the death penalty in certain cases, he opposed same sex marriage, and he voted in favor of the Iraq war.
To claim these Democrats are leftier is nonsense; if that's the best you have for leftists, then you further show why the Democrats need to lose.
(V) & (Z) respond: We actually wrote that John Kerry and Barack Obama were both center-left. So, all you're really disputing is our characterization of Michael Dukakis. Also, if we adopt your thinking, it actually makes the point of that answer stronger, namely that voting third-party does nothing to push the Democratic Party further left.
J.L.J. in San Francisco, CA, writes: Regarding "Twice as Many Voters Think Trump's Policies Helped Them More than Biden's," I just want to note that one reason folks may think Trump policies personally benefited them is because of the pandemic relief legislation. If memory serves, business owners got big loans, sometimes in the millions, that eventually were forgiven in full. For workers, they got the expanded unemployment benefits—about $600 per week on top of regular unemployment, then another round, around $300 per week extra. Between the two, the expanded unemployment ran from something like March through to December. Plus, folks got the stimulus checks—two rounds, one at $1,200 and the other at $600 (both had more for families). Some states, like California, also sent out stimulus checks ($600 to $1,200), which occurred "under Trump's watch." As a result, the savings rate in the U.S. ballooned during the pandemic. Folks felt loaded. Yes, both rounds of stimulus/expanded unemployment were proposed and written by a Nancy Pelosi-run House. They passed with bipartisan support, and Trump gets credit for signing them into law. But that's inside baseball stuff most wouldn't notice (nor remember).
Furthermore, I feel it worth remembering that Pelosi/Democrats were willing to send two checks to voters with Trump's name on them in an election year—people first, party second. All the grousing, whining, and wavering (and all the "no" votes) came from the GOP side. That alone tells me had it been a Democrat in the White House, these bills may not have gotten through, and if they did, they certainly would have been more watered down. Yet that need not be a hypothetical, because we got a Democrat in the White House. Biden had his stimulus bill too, though with no—as in zero, none, nada—GOP support in either chamber. While it had the expanded child tax credit and bailouts to shore up faltering state and local governments (thus funding every police department in the country), and a check ($1,400), it did not include expanded unemployment benefits nor a business-owner bailout, and this one occurred as everyone was returning to work. I think most people forgot about the Biden one, as it happened within several weeks of his taking office, and followed the two rounds from Trump, so memory might mix it all together under Trump. This is just a wild guess on my part, but I think it may be worth considering in your analysis of why folks think Trump policies benefited them.
A.G. in Scranton, PA, writes: VP Kristi Noem? Even her eyes have that bats**t crazy look. She is so obviously just going to be another cuckoo, like Sarah Palin... only this time she won't be an albatross around the neck of an American hero. She'll be a feature to his campaign, not the bug.
G.M. in Laurence Harbor, NJ, writes: Your report about the allegory inherent in The Wizard of Oz was very enjoyable. But these days, if Dorothy, on her travels, met people with no brains, no heart, and no courage, she would not be in Oz; she would be in Mar-a-Lago.
J.Q. in Cambridge, MA, writes: K.B. in Madison asked: "Who do you feel are the most influential voices with independent voters when it comes to speaking out against Donald Trump?"
Your response included only people who have been close to Trump's orbit. I think the most influential voices will be people close to each independent voter themselves. Think: friends, family, neighbors, co-workers, congregants, etc.
You did get it right when you added: "...it has to be people who have previously demonstrated strong loyalty to Trump, and so cannot be dismissed easily when and if they turn." It's just that when these are folks known personally to the voter themselves, they will have far more impact than anyone in Washington.
F.Y. in Ann Arbor, MI, writes: In your answer to the question from J.S. in Hightstown, you wrote that Alejandro Mayorkas' impeachment articles might land on Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer's (D-NY) desk on Monday, April 8th.
A consultation with my Crystal Ball reveals that the gods will be extremely angry if that should occur, and will rain down retribution upon the red states of Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Missouri, etc, by blotting out the sun in mid-afternoon and delivering darkness to the land.
OK, some blue states too, but even these gods aren't perfect.
A.S. in Lenora Hills, CA, writes: You wrote: "whereas we've never heard of a fanatical Bidenite."
Really?!?
C.W. in East Hills, NY , writes: I am usually right on board with the questions you raise and amazed by the fluency, knowledge, insight and common sense of your responses. But in the case of "Why Aren't Voters Outraged by Trump's Behavior?" I feel a bit different. The more I look at this opening line the fuzzier it becomes: "Different people have different theories of why people are not outraged by Donald Trump's outrageous behavior."
I understand that you suggest a lot of people don't know what's going on. Perhaps. But I find that quite difficult to believe, though of course it may be correct. Your track record is very good. But let's look at it another way. Just who are we talking about?
First of all, Democrats are outraged. So they are off the table in terms of the question.
On the right side, a big group of Republican elites—from Liz Cheney to the Lincoln Group to people who worked for Trump and beyond—are outraged. Off the table.
On the lower-profile side, a big group of run of the mill Republicans—i.e., those who voted for Nikki Haley and others despite the contest being over—are outraged. Off the table.
So the people who arguably are not outraged (and the only group the question should pertain to) are Trump's base and non-Trumpers who will vote for him anyway.
And the answer I think is pretty evident. Without judging (for a moment), these people probably range from "He's a jerk but I like my tax cuts and a right wing Supreme Court" to "Trump is loud but not actually doing anything further from the norm than other Republicans or Democrats" to "I find this entertaining." And, of course, the group to which your item refers, who are ignorant about politics.
The point is, that the only group for which this question can truly be raised is well less than half the country. And, in this group, there are plenty of common-sense reasons they are not outraged.
A follow-up point is exit polling that suggests that Trump will lose a significant chunk of Republican support if he is convicted of a felony. This suggests the answer to the initial question: Republicans who still back Trump likely are skeptical of the left's howling about his crimes. To them, the case still has not been proven—certainly to the extent that it would justify giving the Democrats four more years in the presidency.
But a chunk of this group says if Trump's bad behavior is validated by a jury, well, that will be good enough for us. The suggestion is that they will be outraged once they believe what the media is reporting.
P.M. in Palm Springs, CA, writes: Your section about "low-information voters" hit a nerve with me, and with others I am sure. I was alerted to your take on it by a long comment on Teagan's Political Wire, but it's been an obsession of mine for decades. I agree with you, but am less charitable about excusing it. I am in three local groups engaging in voter registration and outreach. Once a week I man/woman a booth at a main street "fair" registering voters and promoting Democratic party values. I was a poll worker in the distressingly low-turnout California primary that just concluded. I have always been distressed at the general ignorance of the average person on the street, who may know the batting average of every Dodger but cannot tell you even one of their senators' names or what election is coming up. At our booth we have a bumper sticker that reads "the world is run by those that show up." I do hope that around election time, more people tune in and become aware of what's going on that affects every aspect of their daily life. I do hope that the people who vote have paid some attention to those who run the government and affect their lives. It's a thin line, but democracy depends on it.
D.L. in Oaxaca de Juárez, México, writes: Voters aren't outraged by Donald Trump's behavior because he gives them permission to be their worst selves. It feels good to blame others and not be accountable for your own problems. That self-reliance is a supposedly conservative tenet just means irony is dead. They follow Trump in particular because he's authentic. As in an authentic narcissistic sociopath. His belief in the grievance he spews is genuine, even if he uses many brilliant manipulative tricks to get over. Sadly, corporations, conservative think tanks, and an assault on both getting out the truth and wading through nonsense to find it that would make both Orwell and Huxley jealous, have monetized and mollified so many in America that an authoritarian seems like a feature and not that bug known as fascism. I'm hoping the financial stuff takes him down. In its own way, that finally got Al Capone. And make no mistake, Trump is a gangster. That's much of his appeal to the morally bankrupt. He learned all too well from Roy Cohn how to steamroll the law. Seeing as he'll likely avoid criminal trial before the election and the voters are channeling 1930's Germany, the best hope for democracy may just be the government rightfully seizing his assets and him losing it so bad that enough see the would-be-emperor has no clothes.
C.R. in St. Louis, MO, writes: You wrote: "The ironic thing here is that many of [Donald Trump's] supporters live in quiet rural areas where people generally get along and neighbors help each other, hardly the dystopia Trump is imagining. Believing Trump requires them to have two contradictory visions of America in their heads at the same time."
I don't believe there is a contradiction in his rural supporters' minds. There are two Americas to them. The rural areas are full of God-fearing folk just working hard, falling behind, and getting ignored or screwed by indoctrinating urban elites. The cities are full of minorities, immoral gays, crime, drugs, and corruption. Never mind that poor rural communities are ravaged by opiate addiction, alcoholism, and meth problems. That's the fault of those politicians, corporations, and big city elites.
This is as old as time. There is a normal divide between urban and rural. You can look at Alexander Hamilton's Federalists vs Thomas Jefferson's agrarian utopia party for an easy example. It is not specific to the U.S., either. In my wife's home country, Czechia, the same divide exists where rural areas consistently vote differently (generally more conservatively) from urban areas. Perhaps American society is self-segregating in clearer lines now with social media and the current media landscape. If only both sides could see it's always been the rich (job creators) screwing everyone and crying when they have to pay their fair share of a progressive tax. Or it's maybe the Canadians. I may be getting hoodwinked.
(V) & (Z) respond: Note that you can't spell "hoodwinked" without "eh."
D.M. in Boston, MA, writes: Trump learned his trade in the fields of real estate, marketing/branding, professional wrestling, and reality TV. In these fields there is very little expectation that a person's words have any connection to reality. He relies heavily on hyperbole when he speaks. We have a long list of instances of Trump's use of hyperbole over the last 10 years.
Deciding which parts of Trump's speech to take literally, and which to dismiss as hyperbole is a little bit like deciding which parts of the Old Testament to take literally. There isn' really an intellectually honest way to make the distinction. And so we see whatever we want to see and call that truth.
I find it helpful to think of Trump's speeches as functioning like a Rorschach test. I learn nothing about Trump's intentions, beliefs or memories when I listen to him speak. It's all noise. It doesn't mean anything. I stand a better chance of understanding the meaning of my dog's barks. My interpretations of what he means say more about me than about him. My interpretations reveal my fears, my beliefs, my values, and not his.
The well meaning liberal commentariat earns clicks and mentions by taking his most frightening utterances seriously. The problem with this analysis is that it is also characterized by hyperbole. These warnings sound increasingly like meaningless noise because of their over-reliance on hyperbole. And this strategy isn't persuasive to undecided voters.
B.B. in Dothan, AL, writes: Per Occam's Razor, the simplest explanation is that saying outrageous things is what got TFG elected in the first place. This is his formula:
- Say outrageous things.
- Media is outraged but covers him for free.
- Democrats are outraged.
- Base loves him for goading the media and Democrats into knee-jerk reactions.
- Pretend it was something else other than what he actually said.
F.F. in Providence, RI, writes: I have seen a number of news items about the red soles of the Trump Sneakers possibly running into trademark issues with Christian Louboutin's shoe designs. However, my first impression on seeing the sneakers was that someone in the Trump Organization wanted to make it seem as if the proud owner was walking through blood.
I won't link to the sneakers, but I'm imagining they were picturing something like this war bond poster from World War I:
It may sound paranoid but after reading your items on the "Bloodbath" speech, I thought I'd share my hot take in case it helps anyone else connect some dots.
R.L.P. in Santa Cruz, CA, writes: I'm surprised that some wealthy person hasn't stepped up to pay Donald Trump's bond. Seems to me it's a very good bet. Even if Trump never paid back any part of the "loan," there is at least a 50-50 chance he'll win in November. If he does, he can make decisions benefiting his benefactor to the tune of at least ten times the $460M "investment." What gambler wouldn't take a bet with 50-50 odds of winning a 10x payout?
R.H. in Santa Ana, CA, writes: You wrote: "[AG Letitia James] most certainly cannot go after any of these funds. Trump may use his PAC and/or his campaign accounts like they are his personal piggy bank but, in the end, they are not his assets and are not in her reach."
Perhaps it's not that certain.
It's been many years since I had any reason to know this, but there is a concept called "piercing the corporate veil," which basically says that if a person treats corporate funds as his personal property, that person's creditors can treat those funds as his personal property as well, though this is perhaps more commonly seen when a corporation's creditors seek to enforce a judgment against the property of the owner of that corporation.
In New York, Walkovsky v. Carlton is a leading case on piercing the corporate veil. The court in that case held that a plaintiff needs to prove that a shareholder used the corporation as his agent to conduct business in an individual capacity. A court will pierce the corporate veil when it finds that the corporation is an agent of its shareholder, and will hold the principal vicariously liable, due to the respondeat superior doctrine.
B.P. in Pensacola, FL, writes: I'm an attorney who has contact with the world of surety bonds on a fairly regular basis. Your item on Letitia James's brief about multiple bonding companies raises a fairly common occurrence for very large bonds, such as those often used for construction projects, particularly large public projects. There can be a "lead" surety and one or more "follow" sureties who all take a piece of the risk, similar to the way a Lloyd's of London syndicate works.
What is preventing Trump from getting a bond, clearly, is that he is perceived (surely based upon financial statements that were provided with the applications to the surety companies and other public information) to be a very bad credit risk and so they are demanding collateral that is much more liquid than they might require for a better credit risk. A lien position on his properties is unattractive, particularly if the principal is a bad credit risk, because it's going to be behind one or more layers of debt (i.e., they would have a second or third mortgage position, which is worthless for a surety). Contractors who bond projects regularly typically have either cash in the bank or securities in an account of some sort that is the principal collateral for their bonding line. Sureties may also take other collateral, including real estate, but they've got to have either a highly liquid position or a position that gives them comfort in the value of an illiquid asset—so a first-position lien on property that is worth more than the bond, for example.
Clearly Trump doesn't have that, which says that literally all or nearly all of his assets are in his real estate—hardly the diversification that a truly wealthy person would have. As many have been saying for years, his wealth is just a sham.
J.B. in Bend, OR, writes: I am mildly surprised that no one has pointed out that Judge Scott McAfee actually did Fulton County DA Fani Willis a favor in telling either she had to go or Nathan Wade did.
First, I'm not sure he had the authority to do that, and I think Willis could have appealed his ruling if she wanted. Nonetheless, he did her a favor.
There is no question that Willis' prosecution was tained both by the relationship and her testimony. McAfee correctly pointed out that unless one of them stepped aside, the prosecution was going to be dogged by continued speculation about whether the relationship had resumed and whether she was now benefiting financially from Wade working for her.
McAfee not only pointed her to what should have been done as soon as the relationship was revealed (something Z and V also noted), but he gave her cover for doing so.
However, none of this is going to make much difference because it is hard to see how Willis can get a jury selected, present her case, respond to the defense and then get a verdict within the next 7 months. Normally, a defendant does not want to drag out a criminal defense because doing so is very costly to the defendant. Without that concern, though, slowing everything down is pretty easy.
Bottom line: As is true of all the other prosecutions, Americans cannot hope that a court ruling will save them from Trump; we must do it at the ballot box.
A.J. in Mountain View, CA, writes: In response to the question posed by Y.H. in Toronto, I wanted to point out that opposition to IVF has been well known in Catholic theological circles for many years. There was an old guide on "How to Vote Catholic" that was cited in this 2008 blog post, so I know it is older than that.
The "How to Vote Catholic" guide describes the Church as being opposed to IVF for two reasons: (1) destruction of embryos goes against the notion of the sanctity of all human life from conception, and (2) it is seen as a by-pass of the proper martial act, which is considered in Catholic teaching to be an integral part of the holiness of the marriage union and the only "correct" way to produce children.
Without commenting on whether I agree with these notions, I do want to make the point that opposition to IVF is not new at all—it has just become more mainstream as Republicans take more and more extreme positions on the culture wars issues.
E.S. in Maine, NY, writes: If life or birth begins at conception, and the single cell fertilized egg is a human, and destroying it is murder, as the right-to-life (RTL) people profess, there are many consequences of that. Rape and incest cannot be a an exception to allow murder. It quite literally would be punishing the child for the sins of the father. You cannot logically say life begins at conception and you support exceptions. IVF would be vastly more expensive, if available at all (as the Catholic Church and many RTLers want). The Alabama decision brings these consequences to the general public, much to the dismay of the RTL crowd, who understand that those positions are wildly unpopular.
M.A. in Knoxville, TN, writes: Since abortion is a—and perhaps THE—major issue of the elections this year, I wanted to pass along something I read the other day that brings the future the anti-abortion zealots have in mind. It's a short story called "The Frozen Generation" by Jacob Coffin. In it embryos are now considered lives, because the law says that life starts at the moment of conception.
Since it's a short story, describing it even in summary will include spoilers, so skip the next paragraph if you want to avoid them.
The story starts on the night that anti-abortion zealots have won a great victory: "embryonic deaths in an extraction clinic [are] to be charged as [second-degree murder]," with first-degree murder being on the table if it's due to a deliberate act. This has some side-effects that were predicted, but ignored, because an old anti-abortion law says that any person or organization that assists an abortion clinic will be held equally liable. This results in the power company cutting off the clinic's power and gas stations refusing to sell them fuel to keep their generators running. As a result it's only a matter of time before the thousands of frozen embryos start thawing and everyone that works there will be charged with murder.
It's an all-too-real look at the kind of future anti-abortion zealots want. It's not very long and well worth reading.
R.W. in Brooklyn, NY, writes: In regard to the pro-choice ballot measure in Montana: While 60,000 signatures doesn't seem like all that many, it turns out that Montana only has about one million people in total. (I had to look that up and, honestly, I am still stunned.) To put it in perspective, here in New York State, that is the equivalent of needing to gather about 1.2 million signatures. Yikes!
M.M. in San Diego, CA, writes: Hal Malchow is absolutely right about selling the brand rather than the individual. That's the exact approach influence operations focused abroad use. Also, negative ads denigrating an opponent don't boost the candidate's turnout; rather, they suppress the opponent's support. Technically, a campaign should do both—tout the noble, awe-inspiring values of the Party, which includes [Candidate X], of course; then, separately, run negative ads against [Candidate X]'s opponent. Then marshal heaps of cash and volunteers to mount a Get Out The Vote (GOTV) drive focusing on massive door-to-door out reach. Voila! (or Bob's Your Uncle... may need Brit input on that bit of transcription).
J.K. in St. Paul, MN, writes: I think there is something to the marketing of Democrats as a "team." You've written many times about how some voters only care about the "R" behind the name. Maybe you have mentioned the "D" as well, but I recall seeing the former more often. So why not? There are low-information voters who are Democrats. Maybe independents or uncommitted voters would be more likely to vote "D" if they knew specifically what the Democrats stand for.
When the Republicans constantly scream how Democrats are the spawn of Satan, and the Democrats say, "All are welcome," it doesn't give one much of a policy position to hold on to. We know what we mean, but the statement on its face is really not true. Democrats don't want white nationalists, Neo-Nazis, bigots, misogynists, or any of the basket of deplorables. (Although we'd actually love to have those people as long as they stopped those behaviors and became hippie dippie pinko commies like us.)
D.E. in Lancaster, PA, writes: Well, this weekend, Lancaster had a little bit of Republican performance nonsense thrust upon it. First off, let me just say that I don't really follow local politics—after living in D.C., the local politics of Lancaster is kind of... tiddlywinks, so I might not capture the nuances of the situation. I do know that Lancaster is a tad more Democratic than the surrounding suburbs of Pennsatucky. I also know that if you were to listen to the people who live in the outlying townships, they talk about Lancaster like it is second only to Sodom and Gomorrah in terms of licentiousness, drugs, violence and enforced "wokeness." Let me assure you, it is most certainly not, nor does it come anywhere within interstellar distances of being so.
While most of the local news is not even to the level of dog bites man—it's more dog-pees-on-fire-hydrant level—I did see some news that registered in my consciousness. The Head Librarian of the Lancaster Public Library had decided to hold a Drag Queen Story Hour at its new main branch in downtown Lancaster. The reason why this registered in my awareness is because I thought to myself, "Well, there's a brave soul for this area."
The Drag Queen Story Hour was supposed to take place yesterday. You will notice, I used the word supposed. First off, on Friday a collection of about 30 Sling Blade types gathered in front of the library to get down on their knees and pray to God Almighty to protect the children from this abomination. I can understand their response a little since attendance was mandatory for all children in the city and surrounding... wait, oh sorry, I misread that last part. It appears that attendance was completely voluntary and with parental supervision. But still they prayed—hopefully against any further inbreeding taking place.
God must have heard their prayers, because HE sent a suspicious package and called in several bombs threats so that not only was the Drag Queen Story Hour canceled but that most of downtown Lancaster (not a huge area, mind you) was shut down and residents of one city block were forced to evacuate on a particularly cold and rainy day. I guess the last time I read the Bible, I must have skipped over the part about "Blessed be the bomb threat makers, for they shall protect the children from ridiculous political propaganda!" With a continual stream of real injustices and things that should cause moral outrage that we see and hear about each day, these idiots are more concerned about manufactured grievances. But if Fox says it's true, it has to be the greatest crime ever against humanity... until the next "let's get the natives all riled up" story comes along.
There is a bright side to this performance absurdity that did more to inconvenience people than it did to move any needles. In my life, I have known a few drag queens. While I do not understand the appeal of doing drag, I can attest that the drag queens I have known have been the most fearless, tenacious and unstoppable force known to man. They are the Delta Force and SEAL Team Six combined of the Gay Rights movement. While a broken heel might cause a flutter of the heart, there aren't enough bomb threats, real or pretend, that will stop them once they have set their sights on a goal. They are often selfless in giving of themselves and would think nothing of risking their lives for those kneeling in prayer for them to burn in hell. It's just who they are.
This bit of kabuki theater made me think of a co-worker and friend, Danielle Fitzpatrick of Norfolk, VA, who passed away a few years ago. Although I hadn't seen her in ages, her death greatly saddened me because she was a truly a brave and formidable person. Certainly light years more fearless to me. And if Danielle were in Lancaster today, she would have whipped a bobby pin from her hair and told the bomb squad, let's go find those bombs and if they're there, I'll defuse them in a second—and she would have! Let's all raise a glass of vodka tonic, real or pretend, in her memory. She was a force of nature.
A.A. in Austin, TX, writes: F.F. in Royal Oak asked about the imbalance of turnout in the Texas primary; basically, it was roughly 2:1 Republicans vs. Democrats. They were concerned regarding the chances of Colin Allred (D-TX) in the general election. You posted a nice reply about why there were more Republicans voting in the primary (the Republican presidential primary was more interesting) and that primary turnout is not predictive. That is only part—and perhaps a very small part—of the story.
Turnout was miserable. I believe it was a huge lack of enthusiasm for both the Republicans AND Democrats. With no meaningful presidential primary on either side, there wasn't much to actually get voters interested. Even the contested Democratic U.S. Senate primary, which Rep. Colin Allred (D-TX) won, didn't generate too much enthusiasm as he was a clear favorite all the way through, as shown by the final vote tally and the fact he won without a runoff.
It's important for people outside the state to understand that the Texas primary also included local elections for offices such as county judge, district attorney, district judges, county commissioners, etc. Many parts of the state are so ruby-red that true-blue Democrats often vote in the Republican primary in order to have some say on local elections. Remember the saying, "All politics is local."
I belong to several statewide Democratic women's groups on Facebook. Some have membership of over 20,000, and one has over 60,000 members. Before the primary, all groups were inundated with posts from loyal members torn between voting in the Democratic or Republican primaries. Many were desperate to keep the far-right candidates from taking over their county government. This was not for ratf**king purposes, it was a sincere attempt to bring some sanity to local elections. In their county, whoever won the Republican primary was going breeze through in November. The primary WAS the election, and voting in the Democratic primary was pretty much the same as voting third party in other states; they would be throwing away their vote. This resulted in a much depressed Democratic voting total statewide.
Ah, but November cometh! Those true blues will now vote reliably Democratic and with great enthusiasm. Will it be enough to oust Cancun Cruz? Perhaps; Texas isn't terribly fond of Ol' Ted. We'll just have to wait and see.
C.G in Pflugerville, TX, writes: F.F. in Royal Oak wrote that they added up the Texas primary totals and decided that there weren't enough votes to beat Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) in November. I disagree for a few reasons. First of all, the Democratic presidential primary was largely ceremonial so many Democrats stayed home. Also, Texas primaries are open, so I'm sure there were plenty of Democrats that were voting on the other side. And weirdly, our local ballot had a number of initiatives on it that were only available on the Republican side. My wife crossed over to vote against them. So while I won't say that Colin Allred will win, he has as good of a chance as anyone and he'll probably do better than Beto O'Rourke did.
C.E. in Valparaiso, FL, writes: Just wanted to say THANK YOU for publishing your item "Five More States Vote Today," and reminding us, Florida voters, in time that the Republican presidential primary has not actually been canceled. Most sources I came across were implying that everything was canceled as far as the March 19 voting. But you came to the rescue! I read your site in the morning, worked all day, and after work, leisurely strolled to my local voting site (took me longer to walk there than to vote!) and protest voted for Nikki Haley. I know Donald Trump has amassed enough delegates for my vote not to matter, but surely I am not the only person who knows this, and yet over a million people voted in Florida yesterday. People still want their voices heard.
I am, as I like to say, an OG ratfu**er, as I registered as a Republican several years ago, before ratfu**ing was really fashionable the way it is now. With that said, I am a Democrat at heart, and voting all blue in November.
M.M. in Centralia, IL, writes: You wrote: "IL-12: And here we have a reminder that Donald Trump's endorsement is rather less powerful in a two-way race. The former president's candidate, Mike Bost (R), is currently in the lead, with 52% of the vote, which means that former state Rep. Darren Bailey (R) has 48%. However, 6% of the vote is still out, such that this is the only primary from yesterday that still hasn't been called. Once this is sorted out, the winner will go on to win the general, as the district is R+24."
We have the ignominious privilege of living in IL-12. Not to be critical here, but Bailey graciously conceded on Tuesday evening, before the 10:00 CDT news. I was taken aback by this because there was absolutely nothing that was gracious about his campaign against Gov. J.B. Pritzker (D-IL) two years ago. He came off as particularly strident and not a nice person.
Trump endorsed Bost a couple of weeks ago only because it was clear Bailey didn't have a chance, even though Bailey marketed his platform as "Fighting like Trump." I was surprised the actual election was this close. Bost is a traditional (R), and expresses himself like a reasonable person, but still totes the (R) issues' water across the board. An earlier endorsement of Bailey from Trump could have turned this one.
D.T. in Columbus, OH, writes: Another interesting result from Ohio is that school levies all across the state failed on Tuesday. Even in wealthy and highly-ranked school districts.
This is an entirely predictable outcome, though. For most of the state, the only competitive primary races were on the Republican side. As a result, voter turnout favored Republicans over Democrats by more than a 2:1 ratio.
Considering the well-known attitudes that Republicans have regarding both education and taxes, it seems like an obviously terrible idea to try to pass a school levy during an election that was expected to have disproportionately high Republican turnout. I question the wisdom of districts not deciding to delay levies until the November general election instead.
R.L.D. in Sundance, WY, writes: As someone who has been working in homelessness data for more than a decade, I appreciated your coverage of the initiative on the ballot in California and the letter from A.B. in Wendell about affordable housing. People are understandably skeptical about the California initiative, as so much money has been spent in recent years to little obvious effect, but A.B.'s comments shine a light on why that is. The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) publishes annual System Performance Measures, which is the source of the following numbers.
To start, California pretty consistently houses approximately 55,000 people experiencing homelessness in any given year, approximately 80% of whom stay out of the system for 2 years or more. At the same time, there are approximately 100,000 people newly entering the system each year. On average, that's 2.07 newly homeless persons for every person that successfully gets housed with official homelessness dollars (there is an unknown number of people who are able to self-resolve, which makes sense since, as terrible as things are, there is not exponential growth in the total population). Clearly, the homeless services systems in California are seeing significant success, but things never seem to get better because it is only addressing one side of the equation; without some attention to preventing people from losing housing in the first place, it takes all the running they can do to stay in the same place.
As further proof, nationally the number of people newly homeless dropped by a dramatic 14.5% in 2020, rose slightly in 2021 and rebounded again in 2022. What was different about 2020-2021? COVID-related eviction moratoriums.
This 2:1 ratio is pretty typical across the U.S. For example, in the Raleigh/Wake County Continuum of Care (CoC), where Wendell is, they have a very similar ratio of 2.27. And it's not a red vs. blue thing, either. The most recent data for Wyoming gives 2.23 and for Texas 2.22. And it's not (simply) urban v. rural either; Los Angeles City and County CoC gets 2.40. There's little chance Gov. Gavin Newsom (D-CA) will ask me, but if he did, I'd recommend spending that new money on housing affordability.
D.H. in Waterloo, ON, Canada, writes: M.M. in San Diego asked you about the possibility of shortening the campaign season, observing that the British typically have campaign seasons which last only about 2 months.
You correctly stated that this would be impossible, but I think your response left out the fundamental reason, which is the fact that elections in the United States always occur on "the Tuesday next after the first Monday in November." That ensures a predictability which is avoided in Britain (and Canada).
For Canadian elections, the latest possible date is "the third Monday of October in the fourth calendar year following the previous general election," but we are unlikely to get to that date. Instead, "General elections are called when, on the advice of the Prime Minister, the Governor General dissolves Parliament." The date of the election is then set with advance notice of between 37 and 51 days.
T.M.M. in Odessa, MO, writes: M.M. in San Diego asked about the short British election cycle. Several additional comments to make about that question.
First, countries like Britain, Canada and Australia do not have primary elections. Instead, party committees "pre-select" the candidates that they will be running when the election is called. Thus, they do not have the "election before the election" system that we have. You would cut out a significant amount of campaigning if you had the parties select the nominees.
Second, these countries hold their federal elections separate from their state and local elections. With only one race on the ballot and one ballot (or two ballots, in the case of Australia), it does not take long to get the ballots prepared and printed.
Third, as you noted regarding earlier times, there is a fine line between campaigning and other political activity. In a country like the U.K., there is a "leader of the opposition" in Parliament who is the de facto nominee of his party to be the next prime minister. This person has the automatic right to pose questions to the prime minister during weekly "question time" (other members only get to pose questions if called on by the Speaker of the House) and is usually the final speaker for the opposiiton in any debate in which the Prime Minister is speaking. He will also frequently be invited to "visit" the various districts (especially those held by members of his party) to learn about issues in the district and/or make speeches to key groups. In the U.S., we would call that campaigning. But in countries like the U.K., such activities are not considered to be campaigning because no election has been called yet. Obviously, this low-level campaigning goes into overdrive when an election is called, but it still does take place outside of the official campaign.
In short, in some ways, the U.S. does have a longer campaign season. But, in other ways, that claim is somewhat of a myth and is based in differences on how we structure an election and what we define as campaigning.
M.D. in Peterborough, England, UK, writes: The acerbic comment reported by R.K. in Cambridge that "In England we have a Conservative Party much like your Democrats. We just don't have a Nazi Party..." rings somewhat true. I have always said that our political spectrum is the same as the American, but oriented much more to the left. It has moved a long way right in the last 5-8 years, though, and many of our Conservatives have become quite Freedom-Caucusey (Boris Johnson being our Donald Trump—"Britain Trump," as the orange original called him, in a typically dense moment of mangled syntax).
I was, somewhat to my own retrospective astonishment, involved with the ConservativeHome website in its earliest days, when David Cameron looked like a progressive choice compared to a Labour Party that was described by Germaine Greer as representing "the worst kind of conservatism." The founder of ConservativeHome was amazed to find that most British Tories at the time identified with the Democrats, rather than the party of Reagan as he had assumed they would, although I had suggested to him that it would probably prove to be the case. The GOP of the 2000s was already way too far-right for most Brits.
N.F. In Liège, Belgium, writes: Funny you should mention the 50/50 chances of Vladimir Putin making it to a next term. Politico's Russia experts analyzed the 2030 scenarios in detail and concluded:
- 5-10% chance: Democracy Flowers
- 10-15% chance: Russia Disintegrates
- 15-20% chance: Nationalist Rising
- 20-25% chance: A Technocratic Reset
- 45-50% chance: Long Live President Putin
In other words, the last option is the only one where Putin holds onto power, making your assessment right in line with the experts.
C.J. in Boulder, CO, writes: I wonder if you are selling the Union's success in the Far West short (though Glorieta Pass itself was probably too late in the game on its own to change things). Supposedly, U.S. Grant said "I do not know what we would do in this great national emergency if it were not for the gold sent from California." It is sometimes hard to fathom just how significant the gold production in California was to the national economy: From the discovery in 1848 to the eve of the Civil War, the value of the gold mined exceeded the 1850 money supply by a factor of two, and was comparable to the sum of coins, bank notes, and bank deposits in 1860.
So, while the direct Confederate advance in the Southwest was pretty feeble, there was a lot of Southern sympathy in California. Several Confederate officers were still in the U.S. Army in California in 1861 and could have armed Confederate militias. Some of the evidence remains on the landscape: Southern sympathizers named the Alabama Hills near Lone Pine for the CSS raider Alabama. Unionists got their revenge after that ship was sunk, naming a peak for the USS Kearsarge (a ship itself named for a New Hampshire peak). One of the two senators from California (William Gwin) was a Southerner who strongly supported slavery, and southern California was well known to sympathize with the South, having organized several secessionist militias, so it isn't impossible to imagine some scenario where Confederates might have come to control the gold emerging from the state. Toss in Nevada's silver boom that was just underway and the finds of gold in Colorado, given Grant's quote and the South's need of hard currency to buy supplies in Europe, wouldn't the loss of California and the West been a serious loss to the Union?
P.S. Off topic, this sentence from Lincoln's Cooper Union address popped up as I was checking things, and it seems pretty applicable today: "Your purpose, then, plainly stated, is that you will destroy the Government, unless you be allowed to construe and enforce the Constitution as you please, on all points in dispute between you and us. You will rule or ruin in all events." Sure sounds like part of the GOP these days...
W.F. in Chambersburg, PA, writes: Every day at Gettysburg National Battlefield, the rangers are asked, "Where was General Grant's headquarters located?" When they reply "Vicksburg," it clearly isn't the answer the tourist expects. So, here is cheers to General George Gordon Meade, the victor of Gettysburg—of whom most Americans have never heard of. And cheers too, to his horse Old Baldy, on display in Philadelphia.
B.C. in Walpole, ME, writes: M.M. in San Diego wrote: "I'd make the trip to Walpole to attend a performance of Little Orphan Annie Get Your Gun!" M.M is always welcome to come, but should know we have a new show. Our current budget-saving combined production is OklaHamlet! ("To thine self be true Prince of Denmark!/Prince of Denmark—OK!").
(V) & (Z) respond: Sounds interesting but, for our part, we prefer to wait until Walpole stages the thoughtful celebration of the Jewish experience that is The Merchant of Venice on the Roof.
C.L. in Boulder, CO, writes: How about some not-quite-final words?
My husband grew up in the Boston area in the 70s as a big Red Sox fan. We followed the 2004 season hopefully as the Red Sox made yet another attempt to end the Curse of the Bambino. We were amazed and delighted as the Red Sox became "the first and only MLB team to win a seven-game postseason series after losing the first three games." Then the Red Sox were off to the World Series.
Unfortunately, my husband came down with flu-like symptoms and pain in his shoulder. At our second visit to the doctor in three days, he was sent to the emergency room. While waiting for he ER doc, we were watching the fourth game of the World Series. The doctor came in to talk to us and turned off the TV. I don't remember what the doctor said. The doctor left. We turned the TV back on. The Red Sox had just won the World Series! My husband said, "I've waited a long time for this. I thought I would feel better." Soon thereafter, my husband was put in a medically-induced coma, his arm was amputated and he didn't emerge from the coma for 2 weeks. He doesn't remember his final words spoken as a 2-armed man.
P.S.: Life is good. We celebrated our 29th wedding anniversary this year.
If you have suggestions for this feature, please send them along.