Dem
47
GOP
53
We clearly are not in the business of search-engine optimization, or trying to goose click totals, or anything like that, because we are often surprised by which items get the biggest response. This week, it was (V)'s item on China and (Z)'s item on Trumpism and sexual assault. Note, as regards the latter, that many, many readers wrote in with ideas as to what is going on. Nobody wrote in to suggest (Z) is imagining things, however.
R.L.D. in Sundance, WY, writes: The GOP won't turn away from lies and nonsense until sense and truth start winning GOP primaries. And that can't happen unless Republicans with sense, truth, and a sense of truth (if they exist at all) choose to run. And why would they? Why would such a person be willing to put all that time, money, and effort into tilting at that particular windmill? I mean, we're presupposing the person in question has sense, and what sense does it make to mount a campaign that is virtually guaranteed to lose? It only makes sense in a long-term strategy to push the party in a different direction than it's been heading for the past 40 years or so, and that momentum is not going to be redirected quickly. It's possible the Party hasn't reached the point of no return yet, but it's not looking good. And if it is still possible, it's going to take way more than one Man or Woman of La Mancha willing to fight a whole bunch of losing battles.
L.C. in Boston, MA, writes: You wrote: "Trump has also become obsessed with claiming (as he does in his "truth") that egg prices are way, way down. At a press conference yesterday, he insisted that since he has become president, the price of eggs has dropped 92%. The truth is that eggs were selling, on average, for $5.81/dozen the day he took office, and how they are selling, on average, for $6.23/dozen. We're a decade into the Age of Trump (the politician), and we still don't really understand what the point of such a wild, clearly falsifiable claim is."
Judging by the pro-Trump comments I have seen on YouTube (granted, usually about issues other than inflation, such as deportations or the crackdown on universities or state/local governments), the point of his easily falsifiable falsehoods is to give his cultists talking points, which they will gladly repeat even if they themselves know these things to be false. They are perfectly happy to buy into the lies even knowingly, as long as they see these things either not affecting them personally or hurting someone else ("libs," minorities, women, etc.) even more.
G.L. in Chicago, IL, writes: There are a couple of entries in Friday's post that I think are different sides of the same coin.
In the first item, you express surprise at Donald Trump telling blatant, obvious lies. I find the notion of the bully lie to be persuasive: The lies aren't intended to convince or because he genuinely believes them, they're just to demonstrate that he has the power to do so.
I come from a family where most interactions aren't about sharing information or expressing feelings—they're just to demonstrate power. So I know that securing, or even just feeling like you have secured, power can be addictively intoxicating to some people. And it can also be strategic—beat your enemies down enough and they may be less likely to resist.
(And, while an anecdote isn't a dataset, my parents are coincidentally hard-core MAGA. They were also hard-core tea party, but now claim "they never really supported" it when I suggest that there might be lessons available to learn from it.)
Power is relevant to "This Week in Schadenfreude: What a Jackass," as well. I have heard, though I'm not an expert in the subject, that power is often a major dynamic in sexual abuse cases. If, as I believe, MAGA is deeply attractive to people who collect and express power for its own sake rather than for any particular purpose, then it's not surprising that they would be overrepresented in this particularly heinous form of expressing power.
J.M. in Arvada, CO, writes: You compared Donald Trump to the Mafia and how, when the Mafia does a deal, the deal is done, they don't come back for seconds. The better comparison is the Empire from Star Wars, specifically in The Empire Strikes Back. Lando Calrissian makes a deal with the Empire to keep them out of Cloud City for good by selling out Han Solo and Princess Leia. But as we quickly see, Vader changes the terms of the arrangement, leading Lando to complain that "this deal is getting worse all the time!" And then Lando promptly joins the rebellion.
You would think that the number of Gen X-ers who helped drive ESB to one of the top movies of all time and who are now in leadership positions at companies and universities would have learned this lesson already, but apparently not.
J.O. in Centralia, MO, writes: When reading about Donald Trump's going back on agreements he's reached, I am reminded of Kipling:
And that is called paying the Dane-geld;
But we've proved it again and again,
That if once you have paid him the Dane-geld
You never get rid of the Dane.
J.L. in Albany, NY, writes: Regarding Donald Trump's height and weight, it's obvious that the numbers were chosen for the resulting Body Mass Index (BMI) calculations. At 6'3" and 224 pounds, Trump would be overweight. However, if he's really 6 feet tall (as evidenced by the photo of him next to 6'1" Obama), then he lands into obese territory. Likewise, if his height really was 6'3", but his weight was 240 or above, he would also be obese.
Now, BMI is a very flawed measurement. For example, you shared an image of DK Metcalf, who is 6'3" and 224 pounds. According to BMI, Metcalf is overweight, yet I doubt anyone would look at him and say "he could stand to lose a few pounds." That being said, Donald Trump is very vain and wouldn't want the "obese" label slapped on him. He probably doesn't like the "overweight" label, but realizes that claiming to be 199 pounds (the highest at his "height" that he'd need to weigh to be normal weight, per BMI) goes way past "straining credibility." So he settled for overweight instead of obese—where he really likely lands.
For the record, I'm 5'10" and 224 pounds. I'm trying to lose some weight, but am currently stuck around there. I'm in the obese category. (Though, again, BMI isn't reliable. I was in the normal category once and looked way too skinny. "Overweight" seems to be my ideal BMI range.) Looking at Trump and myself, there is no way that he weighs the same as me—even if he has an inch or two on me. My guess would be that he weighs 250 at least.
R.V. in Pittsburgh, PA, writes: I bet Donald Trump didn't have any physical at all and that no labs were done. He probably just looked at the REAL physicals that Barack Obama and Joe Biden released over the years and told his staff to make his lab numbers and tests (EKG, Echo, etc) better than theirs. If Obama's LDL cholesterol was 75, Trump's would be 55. If Biden's triglycerides were 100, Trump's would be listed as 80. If Obama's fasting glucose was 75, Trump's would be 65. And so on and so forth for everything.
There is a better chance (Z) gets a contract for the Dodgers as a starting pitcher than that recent Trump physical being legit.
(V) & (Z) respond: In fairness, (Z) has a pretty mean sinker.
P.D. in Memphis, TN, writes: In response to D.E. in Lancaster, I'd point out the similarities between Napoleon's throne room at the Château de Fontainebleau and the room where Trump shook hands with Shinzo Abe, in Trump Tower.
Both are incredibly tacky.
You can't understand Napoleon without seeing images of that throne room, and you can't understand Trump without the images of that gaudy room where he chooses to shake hands with a foreign leader.
P.S. in North Las Vegas, NV, writes: Your quote from Bull**it Barbie:
White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt responded to Biden's speech: "I'm shocked that he is speaking at nighttime. I thought his bedtime was much earlier than his speech tonight." It is not clear if she thought she was being asked about the last president, or the current one.This lack of compassion coming from an evangelical Christian is disgusting, disturbing, and wretched.
S.K. in Sunnyvale, CA, writes: You wondered aloud why Trumpism seems to have attracted a disproportional number of sexual abusers, with one theory: "Maybe it's as simple as saying that Trumpism is about unchecked id, and sexual misconduct is about unchecked id, and so of course that Venn diagram has a lot of overlap."
I think it's that under Trump's example, MAGA is understood to mean "Make America Great [for [sexual] abusers] Again" by those with these urges, who perceive themselves to have been repressed by the liberal-democratic rule of law: incels, etc.
And of course, this emboldening isn't limited to sexually-abusive behavior (See supremacists, white). But Trump seems to have a personal affinity for others who engage in "locker room talk," so that could be an avenue for these folks to curry his favor in a way that doesn't work for other abuses.
R.K. in Minneapolis, MN, writes: To put it in darker terms, I submit that a large part of TRUMP/MAGA is basically about Abuse.
P.N. in Austin, TX, writes: In your item: "This Week in Schadenfreude: What a Jackass, you wrote, 'If we have the right of it, then the question is: Why?'"
I think the answer is fairly obvious, once you accept the depth of the misogyny of the MAGA movement. They deeply crave a patriarchal society that requires the submission of women. Women are to be property, with no control over the reproductive process. They do this because they suffer from insecurity that they do not control the reproductive process. And in service of this goal, sexual assault serves as a stochastic terroristic oppressor. Women don't fear that all men will assault them, they fear that some man may assault them. And who knows who it could be? Their boss? Their cousin? Co-worker, or maybe some guy at the gym? So long as that fear is present, they can be cowed into submission.
So of course these maggots, oops MAGATs, are all lecherous pigs who will assault a woman the first chance they get. It's their mission, their goal, and their secret desire.
G.K. in Blue Island, IL, writes: Not everyone who goes into public service is doing so because they want to serve the public, and I've formed an opinion over the years that there's a certain type of person who simply regards the whole thing with cynicism, or even contempt. Especially if you're inclined to think "the government is the problem"—if not an outright enemy—then what does one make of being in the government one's self? Worse, if you got elected to the position, what does that say about the people who put you there?
I think some people simply begin to believe, if they didn't already, that politics is just a big game, devoid of any constructive purpose (altruistic or otherwise), and one which allows you to get away with anything once you've achieved certain levels of power. And since you mentioned Venn diagrams, I might note that there's huge overlap in this regard between those who are politically successful and those who are financially successful. #MeToo
N.B. in Springdale, AR, writes: I suspect you will be familiar with Umberto Eco's 1995 essay "Ur-Fascism;" in it, Eco reflects on his youth in Mussolini's Italy and the social currents behind the regimes we in hindsight recognize as "fascist". I re-read it every couple of years and am always struck—and a little disheartened—by how relevant it remains. Writing in the 1990s about events from the 1940s, he says a lot that applies to trends in the 2020s.
While reading the final paragraph of "This Week in Schadenfreude: What a Jackass," I couldn't help but remember this passage:
Since both permanent war and heroism are difficult games to play, the Ur-Fascist transfers his will to power to sexual matters. This is the origin of machismo (which implies both disdain for women and intolerance and condemnation of nonstandard sexual habits, from chastity to homosexuality). Since even sex is a difficult game to play, the Ur-Fascist hero tends to play with weapons—doing so becomes an ersatz phallic exercise.
R.C. in Des Moines, IA, writes: Ruth Ben-Ghiat makes this point in her book Strongmen: Mussolini to the Present:
For one hundred years, the strongman has guided the societies he rules through a transformation of culture and morals that legitimates harming others. While the satisfaction of following orders is part of the appeal for collaborators, authoritarian states also attract individuals who thrive in situations where inhibitions can be freed.To me it is obvious that Donald Trump is attempting just such a transformation. Doing so requires creeps to carry out the creepy agenda. She also asserts that outlaw leaders tend to attract other outlaws into their orbit. Kind of a gravitational pull to a safe space for criminals. That would account for why so many alleged sexual assaulters are attracted to someone found in open court to be a sexual assaulter.
B.B. in Dothan, AL, writes: As a forensic psychologist of several decades, I have had the "pleasure" of evaluating and treating many sex offenders. As most people likely (wrongly) imagine, they are not a homogeneous group. Many different types of personalities, personal histories, and circumstances lead to a small set of behaviors that society has agreed should be illegal. However, one rather common foundational aspect to a portion of sex offenders is in regards to the antisocial nature of their personality structure. In other words, some offenders don't mind overstepping the boundaries of "normal" human relations because they lack the moral prohibitions that prevent most of us from engaging in these behaviors (assuming we wanted to do so). For some, it's "fun" to take advantage of others and the method is of less consequence. Add in that sexual behavior is self-reinforcing (given its physiological foundations), and the recipe for sexual misbehavior is set. As Trump attracts (strike that—seeks out) people with low morals, it should not be surprising that a number of them act immorally in the sexual arena as well.
P.S. Those sex offenders who flash have the highest recidivism rate of any sexual misbehavior, so we might see Fred Piccolo Jr. in the news again soon.
E.S. in Providence, RI, writes: I think one reason the administration has no interest in retrieving Kilmar Abrego Garcia is linked to TCF's extortion attempt against CBS. If Garcia is returned, within a week he'll be sitting down with 60 Minutes and letting the world know everything that happened during his illegal deportation, and about all the human rights violations in that concentration camp. It would have the potential to be the final straw with whatever independents and non-MAGA Republicans that still support him.
R.L. in Alameda, CA, writes: I'm grateful for Democrats, such as Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), who are highlighting the travesty of people (with brown skin) being rounded up by ICE (the modern Stasi?) and being renditioned (kidnapped) to El Salvador. Shame on politicians who are afraid to speak up because they don't trust the American people to distinguish between immigration and rounding up people just 'cause. To me this is some high-level Nazi behavior and I wonder if 80 years from now there will be a corollary to Godwin's Law, replacing "Nazi" with "MAGA."
I'm particularly annoyed at the American Jewish community. I was taught a great deal of Holocaust history growing up. It was the driving force of American Jewish education and ideology. If I had a nickel for all the times I heard the phrase "Never Again," I would be a wealthy man. If there was ever a "Never Again" moment, this is it. And much of the American Jewish community is silent because they are too busy defending Israel and claiming that people who speak out against the Netanyahu regime are antisemitic (they are not, the regime is not the religion) and pro-Hamas (being pro-Palestinian-rights is not the same as support for terrorists).
Does "Never Again" only mean "Never Again for Us"? To be fair, I know a lot of Jews who despise what Israel has become. But the ones with the most power have been silent on the deportations/renditions/kidnappings. Shame on them! "Never Again" means just that and it seems that the collective has instead "Forgotten."
J.M. in Silver Spring, MD, writes: You wrote about Chris Van Hollen's efforts to get Kilmar Abrego Garcia released and returned and commented on his constituent service. He is one of my senators and was my representative in the House for years before that and I'll agree 100% with you. He is a hard worker who really cares.
R.M. in Pensacola, FL, writes: Upon reading (V's) description of his trip to Shanghai and how advanced they were at the time, I have to admit that I had similar thoughts about my trip to China just a few years prior to his trip.
Entering graduate school at Penn State, an economics professor of mine from undergrad would take a group of students to his native China about once every 5 years. In June 2006, about 20 of us spent two weeks in Beijing, Xi'an, Shanghai and finished the trip out in Hong Kong before returning to the United States.
As (V) observed, there was nothing backwards about China and there was nothing backwards when I was there. All of the airports were very modern, and in most instances, more modern than airports here in the United States. Our hotel in Beijing was not far from Beijing National Stadium and the construction of it in advance of the 2008 Summer Olympics was beyond impressive while we were there. (V's) picture of Shanghai showed the Oriental Pearl Tower which, when you observe Shanghai, the Huangpu River and The Bund from the top viewing decks, shows nothing short of a major cosmopolitan city, even nearly two decades ago.
However, the most impressive part of my trip there was on our way from Pudong International Airport into downtown Shanghai. On our way into the city, there was something along the highway that looked like the monorail that you would see at Disneyland/World. Not long after leaving the airport, a train zoomed past us on the track. It was not your average monorail. It was the Shanghai Maglev. At the time (and I believe to this day), the only operating commercial high speed Maglev train. All of us in the group decided to take it back to the airport when we were leaving Shanghai days later.
On our way back to the airport, we all paid 40 yuan (around $5) for what was literally a ride of a lifetime. At the time, the top speed was 431km/hr (268mph) that could be reached in 4 minutes. It is indescribable and videos online don't do it justice. I don't know if (V) rode it while he was there, but I highly recommend to any reader to ride it if they end up in Shanghai. You can't find an experience like that here in the United States and we are decades away from anything like it here—if ever.
It's just one example of how other countries are doing amazing things and outpacing what is going on here in the United States. MAGA will never admit to themselves that others have it better. Sure, the Shanghai Maglev is just a short trip—just under 20 miles—but the only thing stopping us from having something as amazing as that is our country's collective ego. Maybe the repair from the destruction of the Trump Era can be led with the construction of something such as this in a commercially viable manner.
L.E. in Santa Barbara, CA, writes: When I read (V)'s item "What Is Trump's End Game?", it brought to mind this Politico article from two days prior: Forget tariffs--Beijing is already choking off US exports on the sly.
I don't normally read Politico, but this article is spot-on. Indeed, China has been refining this tactic since they joined the WTO in 2001.
(V)'s subsequent Thursday post with the Tom Friedman's interview really drives home another aspect of trying to compete with China, economically. Ezra Klein's intro, "I fear America is trying to fight the China of the 90s or the 2000s..." coupled with (V)'s observations of what China was 16 years ago is very disturbing. Indeed, J.D. Vance's very demeaning comments regarding "Chinese peasants" supports (V)'s and Ezra Klein's observations.
This is not a war of tariffs. This is a full-on trade war. This is a full-on economic war. And we are fighting with 1990s perceptions of China. This is a war we will lose, unless we course-correct immediately.
T.S. in Maple Heights, OH, writes: For me, the money quote in (V)'s recent item about China was: "Very few American students study abroad and those that do a 'junior year abroad' do it for their personal cultural enrichment, not to learn how German engineers build very good cars." Very few Americans at all go abroad or know a second language (a personal mea culpa on the second clause). Our cultural hubris—i.e., uncritical "America #1" jingoism—has been fertile soil for MAGA seed to take root and prosper. A little bit of travel and being open to some exposure to other cultures along with a greater willingness to hear the voices of those cultures on their own terms would bring some much needed humility to our society and serve as an antidote to some of our ills.
J.C. in Thủ Dầu Một, Bình Dương, Vietnam, writes: You wrote that China is only sorta Communist. I think I must say, it's worse than that. After living there for a year and a half, we were astonished how capitalist they were. Most definitely a totalitarian state, yes, where your every move is carefully monitored, in electronic and analog surveillance. But I learned there that dictatorship can be easily paired with capitalism. I'm not saying of course that the whole nation of more than a billion people is capitalist. But I am saying that every person we met—living just north and just west of Shanghai#8212;cared only about money. It is what drove them above all else. We were astonished at how much more capitalist modern China is as compared to someplace like the United States.
B.C. in Walpole, ME, writes: I wince whenever I hear a politician mention "Communist China" because it is clear that they are thinking of the Soviet Union of the 1950s. The USSR never developed a viable economy. Our political leaders are unable to conceive of what China is today. For 15 years, I taught a course on Modern China ("Mao to Now"); China achieved in 75 years the economic development Europe achieved in 500, from a peasant-based agricultural economy to ahead of the most of the world. Electoral-Vote.com, to no surprise, has got China right and is doing a great service for its readers.
C.F. in Waltham, MA, writes:
M.S. in Hamden, CT, writes: You wrote: "Because if there's one place that's just chock full of wild-eyed commie-pinko revolutionary agitators, it's the Harvard Divinity School."
Perhaps you haven't visited a divinity school associated with a non-religious university, but they can be among the MOST radical departments/schools on campus. I speak personally of Yale's Divinity School and, by reputation, about Harvard's. As just one example, Harvard's has a very popular course in Liberation Theology! Sure, some students are there for quite traditional studies in ministry, but many are there for more practical applications of Jesus's teachings.
E.W. in Skaneateles, NY, writes: In your excellent piece on how Harvard is standing up to Donald Trump, your comparison of the school to Joseph Welch of Army-McCarthy hearings fame is even more apt than you indicated. Welch became famous for the line, "Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last?" that he said to Sen Joe McCarthy (R-WI), which was specifically in defense of a young lawyer who had once been part of an organization called the National Lawyers Guild that McCarthy deemed "subversive." One of the organizations specifically mentioned in the fascistic letter from the Trump Administration that "Harvard must end support and recognition of" was... the very same National Lawyers Guild.
J.L in Baltimore, MD, writes: I really appreciate your recent items pointing out how Harvard and others are resisting the bullying of Donald Trump and possibly encouraging other universities and law firms to do the same. It's hardly a new idea in history. "United We Stand, Divided We Fall"; "We must hang together or surely we shall all hang separately"; "The people united will never be defeated"; and I'm sure (Z) can come up with numerous other expressions of the idea that there is strength in numbers. I just hope it will be enough to preserve our democracy.
J.B. in Westwood, MA, writes: The present administration might do well to remember that when George Washington first took command of the newly formed American army, his headquarters were at Harvard. The building in which he lived (albeit briefly) is called Wadsworth House and it is still there and functional; the king he opposed is long gone and mostly forgotten.
M.M. in San Diego, CA, writes: Finally, we've found our Gryffindors...
(V) & (Z) respond: So, John Harvard... had a goblin-made sword?
J.H. in Boston, MA, writes: In this week's Q&A, you first acknowledge that Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) gets a pass from Trump because he's a white male and because some of what he says appeals to white working class voters. Then later you write that there is no way that Scranton Joe, the Catholic-union guy-white male-family man from working-class Pennsylvania could never have improved on the results of the career climber-biracial-California-childless cat lady.
Yes, the debate hurt Biden, a lot. Probably killed him. But he had a proven record of getting 7 million more votes, he had the incumbency. Of course it's hard to know what would happen in these counterfactual hypotheticals, but I am skeptical of your claim. Biden would have lost, I guess. The polling was never there for a Democratic win, but I think there's a lot of chance that Biden could've improved on Harris' result, and that it would've helped most in those Rust Belt blue-wall states that were pivotal.
A.G. in Scranton, PA, writes: I entirely agree that Harris did better than Biden would have.
To be clear, I would have voted for any Democrat over the dictator wannabe who was telling everyone he was gonna be a dictator, but I fu**ing hated how I had a Black woman foisted upon me because, to me, that represents a very serious flaw in the Democratic Party and in Democrats in general, that wrong-headed obsession (which is terrible politics, too) with diminishing one race of people with a steady drumbeat of regularity and, too, downplaying any flaws in a member of another race of people in the name of fighting racism.
Vice President Harris won me the fu** over...and I thought she was about as flawed a candidate there could be, whose coronation was another insulting slap in the face from a party that has made those like me unwelcome for 30 years.
An almost flawless campaign. Yes, shoulda coulda woulda been more populist, less corporatist... but she owned every stage she walked on, she was likeable, funny, positive, even kinda girlishly cute (not in a condescending way, in a very good way) in how she acted when she wasn't being serious.
She was a far better presidential candidate than she ever was a primary candidate.
She was great.
The only "flaw" that irked me, beyond her bended knee to the corporate class, was that whiny, West Coast edge to her voice.
However, I will take a genuine whine from a Vice President than the ten or twenty false identities, voices, and accents Secretary Clinton tried on.
Plus, I don't recall one odd... colloquialism (?) from Vice President Harris, who left all of those very normal and commonly-used references to baskets all the kids are using these days at home.
Only the dithering, doddering, confused President Bidenburg "helped out" on that front by calling Trump supporters "stupid."
I think the election was stolen. She did that fu**ing well.
R.J.B. in Pittsburgh, PA, writes: You wrote:
And the unusual whipped cream on the already unusual cake is that respondents were asked to describe what emotion they have when thinking of a Harris presidential run: "joyful," "mostly excited," "indifferent," "irritated," "outraged," "hopeless," or other.
We gotta be honest, it seems pretty squishy to us. That said, the basic result is that "political insiders" are pretty neutral about Harris running, while registered voters appear to quite like the idea."My sense is that this emphasis on "emotion" is not helpful for progressives and Democrats. I don't love it myself. My brothers, both quite Trumpy, ceaselessly make fun of the "joy" comments about Harris' campaign because, in their minds, it implies that she's a lightweight, unserious, incapable of protecting the country, etc. Thereby playing on a stereotype of progressives and Democrats that's already pretty entrenched.
My younger brother is skeptical of all politicians in any case, believing that they're all corrupt and just in it to get rich. His comment was "I don't want my politicians to be joyful, I want them to be miserable."
C.F. in Waltham, MA, writes: After reading the question and answer as to whether Democrats could run a base-only campaign like Donald Trump did, I started to think about what exactly "base-only campaign" means. I'm not sure that term makes any sense anymore, given that the "voting base" is now disconnected from the "beneficiary base" and not clearly definable.
The beneficiary base of each party is really obvious and simple. The Republican beneficiary is the wealthiest 5 to 20 percent. The Democrat's beneficiary base should be everyone else. (It is not clear what the beneficiary base of Trump is, other than dictators across the world and in the short term, mostly white male sycophants who kiss up to him.)
Everyone seems to say Trump ran a base-only campaign, but both the Republican and the Democratic bases as defined by party registration are not enough to win any national election. I would argue that Trump really ran a hate-only campaign, filled with grievances and issues (both real and fictitious) blaming all of them on either a specific Democrat or all Democrats. He kept repeating that he never made a mistake and so only he could make right any and all of these horrible things. Enough people succumbed to this fairy-tale and voted for him.
The danger for the Democrats is that many think they need to tack more to center to keep their mythological "big tent" ideology. This comes from a bad belief that there was a base-only strategy. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) and Bernie Sanders are actually executing a "beneficiary base" strategy which should be resonating with 80% or more of the voters had their minds not been corrupted by the con artists like Trump and his Republican enablers who convinced people to join their hate cult.
If the above analysis is correct, then the Democrats need to unify on the most outspoken progressive agenda, partly employing the hate strategy by directing that hate toward Trump, the Republican Party and the members of its echo chamber. Reiterate that for the next 3½ years based on outrage over real right-wing actions that only the most completely brainwashed will not relate to their actual deteriorating personal situations with Republicans in control.
J.L. in Chicago, IL, writes: I think you may be seeing what you want to see a bit in your answer to M.D. in Boulder. By the way, for perspective, I have a graduate degree myself, so this is not sour grapes or contempt for education.
A big problem the Democrats have, possibly the biggest, is rigid orthodoxy, centered in those with or currently obtaining undergraduate or graduate educations. We are not showing a lot of signs of recognizing or respecting shades of gray and that has turned off a non-trivial portion of the electorate. I would question whether they—or, sorry, possibly you—are really recognizing the diversity of human experience. You and they may be mostly seeing those aspects of diversity that favor groups traditionally discriminated against, which is great but not the full scope of diversity.
As another example, there may be no aspect of the world with more complicated shades of gray than Israel and the surrounding areas. Yet, there is a lot of very black-and-white thinking coming out of people pursuing some of the most advanced education and their professors.
A.T. in Elkton, MD, writes: Your response to M.D. in Boulder may be among the most scathing in my twenty years of reading the site. That's not a complaint, by the by. It's incredibly astute.
P.K. in Marshalltown, IA, writes: I have lived in Iowa for two stints totaling 13 years to date (the purple stage from 1998-2002 and the red stage since 2016). The announcement that our "beloved" Governor COVID Kim Reynolds (R) will ride off into the Hawkeye sunset opens "fields of opportunities" (a slogan on the signs on major highways welcoming visitors into the state) for Democrats. Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) is getting hammered at his town halls, for which he should be given some credit, as other GOP officials in the state have gone to ground. There is something to be said about Iowa Nice (and Minnesota Nice and Canadian Polite)—if you cross the line, you are effed. And that line appears to have been crossed. Perhaps the voters here will catch up to Ann Selzer's 2024 November surprise poll in 2026. Generally Iowans are not in a big hurry.
One last point. Your piece did not mention State Auditor Rob Sand, the only Democrat elected and reelected to a statewide office in recent times. Sand is currently touring the state parks and local diners, the latter at which he enjoys a pork tenderloin sandwich and/or a piece of pie (and then posts the video on social media). He's young and telegenic—he has experience as a fashion model. Keep an eye on him.
T.H. in Belchertown, MA, writes: Even though I appreciate you choosing to recoginize the Red Sox's Jarren Duran and manager Alex Cora, and MLB commissioner Rob Manfred, this is not why I'm writing.
Instead I want to focus on the fact that you also acknowledged people who have publicly made mistakes in the past, maybe big ones.
So, I want to commend you for recognizing people whom we know are flawed!
This is a refreshing change from the all-to-popular tendency to focus only on the bad, and even effectively condemn people as unrepentant, or their sins as unforgivable (think Al Franken).
If only we could have more public discourse like this.
C.G. in Oakland, CA, writes: Your piece on Jarren Duran reminded me of a recent ESPN article about Lauren Betts, the UCLA Women's Basketball center and All-American, and one of the best players in the nation. In the story, she openly talks about her struggles with alienation and depression, even being hospitalized during the 2023-24 season. Maybe not as impactful as Duran's story, but still pretty rare for an athlete to be this open about it.
G.R. in Tarzana, CA, writes: Reading your answer to A.J. in Ames about what to do in LA, i was excited that you were going to mention restaurants, as I'm always looking for new suggestions. Unfortunately, you provided absolutely none, as almost every single one you mentioned is on my on regular dining card. The "almost" is Providence, which IS the best restaurant I've ever been to in the U.S. (maybe not in the world, though; there is a great fish place in Amsterdam that I discovered last year). Of course, I might be jaded as I went to Providence 10+ years ago as a guest of the Food Network, so not only did I not pay, but Chef Michael Cimarusti decided to go above and beyond in order to impress the Food Network executives, so the dinner consisted of endless samplings of his specialties, each with its own perfectly matched drink. The only downside, is having dined that way, I know that if I were ever to go back, it would never match that experience, plus I'd have to pay for it.
(V) & (Z) respond: That post was written for benefit of a tourist; people who want recommendations geared to locals should send a message to zenger@electoral-vote.com.
J.C. in Thủ Dầu Một, Bình Dương, Vietnam, writes: Among Must See sites in L.A., I would also stress The Great Wall of Los Angeles. At nearly a kilometer long, it is one of the longest murals in the world, created by rival gangs working together, depicting the history of L.A. from prehistoric/Native American times up to the 1950s, with an emphasis on the perspective of women and minorities. In other words, it is the perfect microcosm of El Pueblo de Nuestra Señora la Reina de los Ángeles del Río Porciúncula.
J.M. in Eagle Mills, NY, writes: If you were to ask my spouse, the Griffith Observatory, which you mentioned in passing, ranks right up there. We visited it two or three times in a one-week visit to L.A. Frank Lloyd Wright's Hollyhock House is also in the neighborhood. And although they're a bit afield from Hollywood, Greene and Greene's Gamble House and the the Norton Simon Museum are right around the corner from each other.
(V) & (Z) respond: The Gamble House will be recognizable to many readers, as it was "Doc's" house in the Back to the Future movies.
R.R. in Pasadena, CA, writes: A.J. in Ames asked about stuff to do in LA, and you missed a couple important things about visiting L.A. This is food truck heaven; if you're into food, it's something that has to be experienced, there's a wide variety of stuff available and it's as close as we get to street food in other nations. For Asian food, set course for the San Gabriel Valley; the cities out here (including Alhambra, Monterey Park, San Gabriel, Rosemead, and others) have some of the best Asian food outside of, well, Asia, and in the right spot you can sample cuisine from multiple nations on the same block. If you are here on the right weekend, go to the 626 Night Market for a concentration of this kind of food. L.A. is also chock full of movie and TV landmarks, and if your favorite movie was shot here, then there's probably a website that lists the locations.
I moved from Ames to L.A. long ago, so the biggest difference really is the proximity of the beach and mountains (neither of which exist in Ames), as well as the big city-ness of course. You can hit both in a day, and the mountains have either just hiking potential or sites like Mount Wilson Observatory (Griffith Observatory is easier to get to and has good educational programs, but it's never been a scientific outpost). There are also no corn fields, or smell of pig farms, but the trade-off is a lot of traffic (and when there isn't traffic a lot of people doing 20 MPH over the speed limit). Soak it up, along with the nice weather and sunshine... it's not Heaven, it's Los Angeles.
B.L. in Pasadena, CA, writes: Your best of L.A. response to A.J. in Ames spot on, but you left out the Norton Simon Museum which, in my opinion, is the finest collection of 18th- and 19th-century art (plus some well known Dutch fellows) in L.A. As to Providence, you nailed it. We have eaten there 3 or 4 times, including once at the chef's table where we could see the kitchen in action. (To be honest, at that time, we knew the chef and part owner Michael Cimarusti, as our kids were on the same youth soccer teams—so that helped). Unfortunately, we have been priced out of Providence and no longer know the chef, so your other suggestions are also excellent.
S.G. in Seattle, WA, writes: Regarding Bernie and AOC, you wrote: "This past weekend, they drew nearly 40,000 people for an event in downtown Los Angeles. How they managed to squeeze all the cars needed to transport 40,000 people into the roughly six parking spots available in DTLA, we do not know."
This was, of course, a throw-away joke, but it still feels subtly revealing. We're talking here about the very heart of one of the largest human settlements on Earth. Those of us in normal cities find it endlessly amusing—and more than a little bit sad, to be honest—how thoughtful, educated, community-minded folks in L.A. so often can't seem to even conceive of the idea of public transit, even when it's all around them.
As a frequent visitor, I've taken both trains and buses in LA, far beyond the usual tourist routes, and it's really quite good, especially going into and out of DTLA. Too bad so many locals seem not to grasp that!
(V) & (Z) respond: (Z) has taken public transit to DTLA hundreds of times. However, there are many areas that are not well-served in terms of access to DTLA; for example, good luck getting from the San Fernando Valley to downtown in anything less than 2 hours one-way. Further, while (Z) lives 8 miles away from downtown, and so the trip is only 30 minutes or so, it gets increasingly more onerous once the distance gets up to 15-20 miles or more. Finally, the buses and, even more so, the Metro rail, get very seedy once night falls. While (Z), who is pretty sizable by both weight and musculature, is willing to take late-night trips, he has often observed that it would be considerably more risky for women—and the Sanders/AOC rally ended around sundown.
M.B. in Cleveland, OH, writes: In your item on the Bernie/AOC rally in downtown Los Angeles, you wondered, "How they managed to squeeze all the cars needed to transport 40,000 people into the roughly six parking spots available in DTLA, we do not know."
How quickly we forget! The protesters are bused in. Having everyone on the buses also makes it much simpler to distribute the checks from George Soros.
H.B. in State College, PA, writes: So, I see that the music of Richard Wagner was discussed again. (Z) came up with the old canard that Wagner's music is "too heavy."
I agree that pieces like the "Ride of the Valkyries" are indeed too heavy, when taken out of context, which is doubtless how (Z) has been listening to Wagner's music.
But Wagner did not compose little pieces to be heard by themselves. He created long dramatic arcs. "The Ride of the Valkyries" comes after the long second act of Die Walküre, where much of the instrumentation is like chamber music... not "heavy" at all. For me, it is like no other composer's music, reaching down into the subconscious mind, with an almost hypnotic effect. After the wrenching emotions created in the second act, Wagner needed a pot-boiler like "Ride" to provide some relief.
So you should give Wagner another chance, but you have to be prepared to give it some time, and don't just listen to the "heavy" parts out of the dramatic context.
G.M.K. in Mishawaka, IN, writes: As a reply to F.S. in Cologne, I will first state that as a tuba player, a huge amount of our orchestral excerpts come from Wagner—"The Ride of the Valkyries," "Die Meistersinger von Nürnberg," and "The Flying Dutchman" to name a few. Heck, he even gave us a band excerpt with "Elsa's Procession to the Cathedral." He gave us so many great things to play!
And yet, I must agree with (Z). One quote about his music sums it up quite nicely, but it escapes me to whom to attribute it. "He (Wagner) has some beautiful moments, but some terrible quarter hours."
B.J.L. in Ann Arbor, MI, writes: I was really pleased to see you included Spellbound in your list of best documentaries. I thought it was a unique angle to profile something should be simply a fun diversion and to gauge how the analytics played out in the year they filmed. Your take was equally interesting.
I was also taken with Control Room (2004), which you can watch for free, apparently. Here the propaganda and business of war was presented in a really unique way and I gained a newfound appreciation for Al Jazeera. I liked that it was a little unpolished.
I thought Casablanca (1942) was not far off from being a documentary, as well. Yes, there were actors and a story, but it probably educated the masses about the resistance to Adolf Hitler more than a lot of other media.
E. G.-C., from Brooklyn, NY, writes: In your response to the reader question about 15 documentaries you consider "Must See," you listed Bowling for Columbine by Michael Moore. David T. Hardy used to have a site up where he called out the manipulative editing done in the film. The Wikipedia article for the film has a few examples that Hardy's page missed.
Now, your remark that "You really can't explore documentary films without taking a look at the work of Michael Moore" stops short of compliment, so maybe you're aware of the deceptive editing Moore uses in this work, but I think it's worth calling out, since it's important context even if you don't agree with Hardy that the manipulation is so egregious that it disqualifies the film from being a documentary.
S.G. in Newark, NJ, writes: P.J.T. in Raton mentioned Shoah, which made me remember The Sorrow and the Pity (1969). More than just a punchline in a Woody Allen movie, it brings the banality of evil and the moral crises of resistance and collaboration to life. My mother, who spent World War II hiding with her parents and most of her sisters in the part of France depicted in the movie, could not watch it.
Much less well-known than the movies on your list, Berga: Soldiers of Another War (2003), the valedictory movie by DC-based documentarian Charles Guggenheim, is riveting. It is a tale of survivor's guilt, telling of his World War II Army unit (with which he could not ship out due to illness) which was captured in the Battle of the Bulge. The CO comes through as a larger-than-life figure. Well worth your time if you haven't seen it.
T.L. in West Orange, NJ, writes: Just to add to D.E. in Lancaster's excellent comments extolling the virtues of Cosmos: While ite impact on the broader community cannot be ignored, its impact on the scientific community is important to mention as well. Not the scientific community at the time, at least not primarily, but the future scientific community. If you ask people from the relevant age group (probably 45-65) who are working in any sort of STEM field from research to industry to education, what inspired them to get into the field, I'd be willing to bet that over 80% of them would cite Cosmos as a significant factor. Just an amazing piece of work in so many ways.
J.T. in Philadelphia, PA, writes: R.V. in Pittsburgh wrote: "All in the Family tackled issues that no show dared to poke before (racism, abortion, antisemitism, etc.) and was first sitcom to be recorded in front of a live studio audience."
As you pointed out in your reply, it was Maude that tackled abortion. To the best of my recollection, All in the Family never covered that particular subject, and it most definitely was not the first sitcom to be recorded in front of a live studio audience.
Many sitcoms before it were recorded with live audiences, including The Dick Van Dyke Show and I Love Lucy, and before TV there were many radio shows that were recorded with live audiences, so that was not any kind of an innovation. What made All in the Family different was it was recorded on video tape rather than film, so it gave the appearance of being a one act play in two scenes. I don't know if it was the first sitcom to use tape rather than film, but I rather doubt it, though it may have been the first successful one.
A.H. in Newberg, OR, writes: You wrote: "All in the Family is clearly one of the three most important TV shows of the 1970s..."
This reminded me of my experience with the show.
From 1971-72, I was a radio and television broadcast specialist E-4 sergeant for American Forces Radio and Television Services "AFRTS" (with a few other acronyms that are not suitable for printing on a family site). I was stationed on Johnston Atoll, roughly 800 miles south of Hawaii—2 miles long, ½ mile wide, 600 men, a storage facility for chemical weapons like Agent Orange, and site of both radar and satellite monitoring, and a nuclear test facility. I was the morning man for "Radio Free Johnson Atoll"—kinda like Good Morning, Vietnam, but without the supervision and monetary support of the AFRTS Far East Network. I was mostly on the AM radio station, but I filled in on the low power TV side frequently.
Every Thursday the supply flight would come in with mail and whatever was needed for the island. Part of the freight was three large mail pouches of material for AFRTS. The radio jocks had about 1 hour of live time, as I recall, but the rest of the 16-hour day was canned programming from stateside. On the TV side of the station, there were no facilities for live programs, so everything was canned. The Thursday mail flight brought our TV programming for the following week. TV programming was not videotaped, it was filmed. There were no satellite downlinks. The regular TV programming was usually about 6-7 weeks behind the actual air date stateside, depending on the normally once a week mail flights. All in the Family debuted in January of 1971 and was the hottest thing on stateside TV. Every delivery, every AFRTS station got the latest episode of All in the Family. We couldn't get the Super Bowl until a month later, but All in the Family was premium primetime programming for every AFRTS station worldwide!
S.F. in Chatham, NJ, writes: Last year, my husband decided to buy the full series of All in the Family on DVD, and since then we've been enjoying it together. It's amazing how timely it is: The issues that get Archie Bunker riled up in the early 1970s are still being debated today. I find myself laughing aloud, often cackling, at least once an episode.
When he first mentioned it to me, my husband was shocked that I had never seen a single episode. Sure, I knew who Archie Bunker was, and had heard the theme song, but that was just from the show's pervasiveness in pop culture. I grew up in the South in the 1980s and got a steady diet of Gilligan's Island, I Dream of Jeannie, Bewitched, Mr. Ed, Green Acres, My Three Sons, Lassie, Laverne and Shirley, The Brady Bunch, Little House on the Prairie, and, of course, The Andy Griffith Show (Griffith was a demigod in my home state of North Carolina).
My husband grew up in New Jersey in the 1970s, and All in the Family was on constantly. Since its absence from my childhood TV viewing seemed conspicuous, we speculated that All in the Family wasn't syndicated widely in the South, due to its subject matter. But in fact, it's all to do with the syndication market. I was watching all my reruns on WGN-TV, out of Chicago (which is why I knew about The Bozo Show and the Cubs). And it turns out that WGN didn't have the rights to All in the Family, M*A*S*H*, or Happy Days, so those were shows I just didn't see. I find it fascinating that the decisions made by executives in Chicago determined my exposure to important American television history.
It's great to catch up with the show now, and we've even got our 16-year-old telling us to "stifle yourself" and "dummy up."
(V) & (Z) respond: Wait. The clown show and the Cubs were DIFFERENT programs?
L.S.-H. in Naarden, The Netherlands, writes: You wrote about the fish doorbell last month; John Oliver has an X-rated explanation!
C.S. in Tucson, AZ, writes: A buddy routinely asks docents, "What's the dumbest question you've ever been asked?"
The winner: "Why were so many Civil War battles fought in national parks?"
(V) & (Z) respond: (Z) knows a former docent at the Abraham Lincoln birthplace. On a weekly basis, people looking at the cabin in which Lincoln was (allegedly) born asked: "Did Lincoln help build this log cabin?"
S.N. in Sparks, NV, writes: I am reading a history of Virginia City, NV, entitled The Roar and the Silence: A History of Virginia City and the Comstock Lode. The book includes this anecdote:
In 1871, a vigilante group broke into the Virginia City jail and apprehended Arthur Perkins Heffernan, who they suspected of setting fires in the city. The vigilantes placed Heffernan on a plank over an abandoned mine shaft with a rope around his neck. According to newspaper reporter Alfred Doten, the vigilantes "kindly advised him to give a good jump straight up, when they would quickly remove or turn away the plank, thus allowing him a clear, effective drop." Doten recorded Heffernan's last words as "Turn her loose, boys."
If you have suggestions for this feature, please send them along.