Nov.08
electoral-vote.com
https://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2025/Info/banners.html
Dem 47
image description
   
GOP 53
image description

Saturday Q&A

As we sometimes do when there's big news in a particular week, we're going to give most of the Q&A over to that. We'll round it out with some gallimaufry.

If you're still working on the headline theme, we will note we ran out of time yesterday, otherwise there was going to be an item headlined: "Shutdown News: Has Trump Gone Independent from, You Know, His Senses?"

Election Day, 2025

D.S. in Davis, CA, asks: I keep seeing headlines that the Democrats are back and the Trump realignment is over/false/etc. But none of the high-profile legislative elections featured incumbents. And I doubt the Democratic Party in Congress is suddenly popular. It seems that everyone is media is pushing the same old "us vs. them" two-party narrative where one or the other is on top. Isn't it possible there is actually a realignment here and a functioning populist coalition that is not best described as Democrat or Republican, and that is going to punish both sides equally for the current state of affairs?

(Z) answers: Your question has many parts. To start, there was a time when "I disapprove of the Democrats" meant "I'm definitely/probably voting Republican in the next election." And "I disapprove of the Republicans" meant "I'm definitely/probably voting Democratic in the next election." So, much hay has been made of the very low approval ratings the Democrats are pulling these days.

I have been persuaded for some time that these polls are not saying the same thing that similar polls were saying 20 years ago. There are definitely some devout Republicans who disapprove of the Democrats. However, some of those respondents are almost certainly devoted Democrats who are using their poll response to communicate "I want my party to do more, and I am not happy they're not doing it." There are also many voters who dislike both parties, and do disapprove of both. However, those last two groups are likely to be overwhelmingly Democratic voters in 2026 and 2028 (the former group because they're actually Democrats, the latter group because of "throw the bums out" sentiment). Put another way, I thought those "the Democrats' approval is lower than it's ever been" pieces were grossly overstating how bad the blue team's position really is right now. This week's election would seem to validate that supposition.

Of course, as you observe, the media likes narrative. And the new narrative is "The Democrats are back from the dead." This is also overstated, at least a little, because overstating is what the media tends to do. That said, there is more support for that position than "the Democrats are a dying party" position. This is yet another bad election for Republicans when Donald Trump was not on the ballot. It was also an election that sent a clear message to Democratic officeholders: "We want you to be the resistance." The Team Blue pooh-bahs were already listening (see: shutdown) and now they will listen even more. For both of those reasons, it's reasonable to be bullish on the Democrats' chances in the next two elections.

There may be a populist undercurrent out there, but I doubt it will form into a movement capable of challenging the two major parties. The one thing these populists have in common is shaking up the status quo, and giving the little guy a fairer shake. And what is likely is that, eventually, some person from one of the two major parties will come along and deliver on that broad agenda. That is what happened with the original populists; the nation was deeply divided and kept throwing the bums out of the White House until Theodore Roosevelt came along. It happened again with Franklin Roosevelt and again with Ronald Reagan. I recognize Reagan wasn't ACTUALLY for the little guy, but he managed to persuade voters he was, and many of them loved him for it.


M.T. in St. Paul, MN, asks: OK, Democrats, November 4 was nice, but now let's move on. Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani's (D-New York City) victory appears to have been partly powered by young voters. Though I'm a 68-year old white male, it's time to turn the keys over to the next generations. I have two questions. First, how can moderate Democrats in more conservative areas get young voters to support them?

For the second question, just a short bit of background. Until recently, I taught environmental issues to young adults (i.e. college students). It was my impression that many, perhaps most, of the students would support policies that tend to align with Social Democrats, though they probably didn't think about that. Do you agree and do you feel the country will eventually align with Trump's Socialism or Democratic Socialism?

(Z) answers: There is no question that younger Democrats and would-be Democrats really care about two things: kitchen-table issues (e.g., "Am I ever going to be able to afford a house?") and global warming. The Democrats will have to hammer on those things, as part of the same pitch whenever possible (e.g., "Green tech creates jobs."). This angers the Foxes and Newsmaxes of the world, but that's just too bad for them.

And it is not just young people who support socialist policies, it's people from all age cohorts. The problem is that conservatives (particularly conservative reactionaries) have been badmouthing socialism and its ill effects for 150 years (and note that we said "conservatives," not "Republicans," because back in the day it was primarily Bourbon Democrats who badmouthed socialism). We've shared the famous quote from Upton Sinclair before:

The American People will take Socialism, but they won't take the label. I certainly proved it in the case of EPIC [End Poverty in California]. Running on the Socialist ticket I got 60,000 votes, and running on the slogan to "End Poverty in California" I got 879,000. I think we simply have to recognize the fact that our enemies have succeeded in spreading the Big Lie. There is no use attacking it by a front attack, it is much better to out-flank them.

Keep in mind he said that in the 1930s, which was before the Cold War, and well before the modern Republican Party, and well before Fox.

So, the Democrats may have to undertake an education campaign, one probably focused on the basic point that socialism and communism are not the same thing, and that the nation already has plenty of successful socialist elements (e.g., public libraries, fire departments, etc). Alternatively, they can do what Sinclair did, and come up with alternate branding that avoids the word "socialist."

And it's the Democratic version of socialism that plays well with voters. Trump's version of socialism, in which the government assumes control of the means of production, actually IS communism.


G.V. in Plano, TX, asks: At the end of Monday's discussion of the then-upcoming elections, you wrote "Still, the big story Wednesday could be: (1) Mamdani slaughters Cuomo but the moderate women barely make it or (2) Mamdani does worse than expected but the two moderate women crush their opponents. Or maybe neither of these." But it looks like all three of them did at least as well as expected. I have some thoughts on what this means, but I'd love to hear yours.

(Z) answers: We already alluded to this, but in a "throw the bums out" era, the candidate seems to matter less than would normally be the case, and the letter next to the name matters more, particularly as a means of determining which option represents "change."


S.W. in New York City, NY, asks: What do you know of AtlasIntel, the pollster who reported a 50-49 poll result for the NJ Governor's race (in favor of Mikie Sherrill) a few days before Election Day? It seemed that this triggered much worry for Democrats and a media firestorm that Sherrill was in jeopardy of losing (after many polls consistently showed her with a 4-7 point lead). Of course, Sherrill won the election by 13 points. Is this a valid polling company and who would hire a polling company like this that reported such inaccurate results?

(Z) answers: AtlasIntel isn't American (they are from Brazil) and they aren't really pollsters (they are a marketing firm that does polling to get some publicity, much like Ipsos).

The firm had a pretty good run from 2018-2024, getting a handful of South American elections right (in Argentina and Brazil), and also doing well with the U.S. elections in 2020 and 2024. Nate Silver, in particular, sang their praises.

That said, the trick is adapting your voter model to each new election cycle. The firm had a couple of moderate fumbles in the past, primarily in South American elections. Now, they botched the 2025 midterms. So, maybe they just got lucky in 2020 and 2024. Or maybe whatever insights they have about the likely electorate only work when there's a right-wing populist on the ballot.


T.J.R. in Metuchen, NJ, asks: In the New Jersey gubernatorial election, the polls were way off. I would never denigrate people who I'm sure are hard workers. So, I have to assume their models of the electorate are off. The easy explanation is that Donald Trump just skews every election he is in. He is sui generis and the pollsters have not taken that into consideration. In the elections where he is not on the ballot, he has the coattails of a hat. I understand this is subjective, but should pollsters have realized this and adjusted their models for it?

(Z) answers: Yes, and undoubtedly they did, they just didn't adjust enough. There's really only been one election like this (midterm, Trump as incumbent), and that was 2018. So, they really only had one directly relevant data point to work with. I also suspect, given how wild he's been in 2025 (even compared to his first term), that an anti-Trump backlash of unprecedented strength has built up, and will continue to gain steam. If I am right, well, it's hard to account for something that is unprecedented.


D.R. in Kensington, MD, asks: The polls sure looked like they wildly underestimated Mikie Sherrill and AG-elect Jay Jones (D-VA), and underestimated Gov.-elect Abigail Spanberger (D-VA). Could the polls be similarly off for Trump's approval? Could he actually be closer to 35% instead of 40%?

(Z) answers: Probably not. The difficult thing about polling elections is figuring out who will actually vote. That's not an issue with general approval polls.


R.H.D. in Webster, NY, asks: Do you see either of the newly elected governors as potential vice presidential candidates for 2028, or even as possible presidential candidates in 2032?

(Z) answers: It is not likely.

First, turning our attention to 2028, it's actually pretty rare for governors to be chosen as VP candidates. Maybe it's something about "too many cooks" or alpha personalities, but here is the office held by winning VP candidates in the elections since 1940:

Sitting VP: 6
Cabinet: 1
U.S. Senate: 10
U.S. House: 0
Governor: 2
Out of Office: 2

In case you are wondering who those governors were, they were Spiro Agnew of Maryland in 1968 and Mike Pence of Indiana in 2016.

Here are the numbers for losing VP candidates since 1940:

Sitting VP: 3
Cabinet: 1
U.S. Senate: 9
U.S. House: 4
Governor: 4
Out of Office: 1

In case you are wondering who THOSE governors were, they were John W. Bricker of Ohio in 1944, Earl Warren of California in 1948, Sarah Palin of Alaska in 2008 and Tim Walz of Minnesota in 2024.

So, of the 42 major-party VP nominees since 1940, only 6 were sitting governors. And only one of them was a sitting Democratic governor; the other five were/are Republicans. That may not mean much with a small sample size like this, but who knows.

If the Democrats do, in fact, do something that the party hasn't done too often, and tap a governor as VP, then there is a long line of governors with longer résumés and greater name recognition than Spanberger and Sherrill. It is also worth nothing that many of the presumed Democratic frontrunners—Andy Beshear (KY), Gavin Newsom (CA), J.B. Pritzker (IL), Josh Shapiro (PA)—are themselves governors. And presidential candidates who are not Washington types almost always choose someone who IS a Washington type, to serve as their guide to Washington culture/politics, and their point person on the Hill.

As to 2032, that's many, many lifetimes away. But even if Sherrill and/or Spanberger do something to make themselves a part of the national conversation, they still have one, and very possibly two, problems: (1) The Democratic bench will still be deep in 2032, and (2) There's an excellent chance an incumbent Democrat will be running for reelection.


M.M. on Bainbridge Island, WA, asks: In your discussion of the Minneapolis mayoral election, you describe incumbent mayor Jacob Frey as a "moderate liberal" and candidate DeWayne Davis as a "centrist liberal." I'm not trying to be picky, but can you please explain the difference between "moderate" and "centrist"?

(Z) answers: These terms are sometimes used loosely. That said, to us, "moderate liberal" means "someone right around the midpoint of the Democratic Party" (think: Joe Biden), and "centrist liberal" means "someone right around the midpoint of the overall political spectrum" (think: Joe Manchin).


D.G. in Fairfax, VA, asks: You mentioned that all three judges in Pennsylvania took the same percentage, because people were voting for or against the Democratic bloc. But is there some actual difference, either decisions made or political statements issued, that could have caused a reasonable person to say "yes" to one and "no" to another?

(Z) answers: Certainly. For example, Christine Donohue is 72, and will only be able to serve 3 years before reaching the mandatory retirement age, at which point someone new will be appointed, possibly by a Republican governor. Kevin Dougherty joined with Republicans in 2024 in ruling that even if the handwritten dates on mail-in ballots didn't actually matter in terms of voter fraud, ballots without dates still had to be thrown out. David Wecht issued the ruling that overturned Bill Cosby's conviction for rape.

Any one of these things could plausibly be a reason to vote against any one of these candidates.


O.Z.H. in Dubai, UAE, asks: You wrote that Zohran Mamdani may fairly or unfairly be viewed as the embodiment of antisemitism. Could you explain this statement further? In what sense would it be fair to view him as antisemitic?

(Z) answers: First, the issue required a mention because this element of his profile is absolutely part of the national conversation, and will continue to be so.

Second, at the very moment I wrote that, my inbox was open in the background. And I could see e-mails from readers declaring him to be an obvious antisemite and clearly not an antisemite.

Third, there are some/many subjects where there aren't really two valid points of view. For example, it would be problematic to write, "Some people have judged Joe Biden to be a pedophile (fairly or not)." There is no basis for that. On the other hand, at least in the United States (I assume it's true elsewhere, but I don't know), the culture has decided that [MEMBER OF GROUP X] gets very wide latitude to serve as judge of [OFFENSES AGAINST GROUP X]. This is particularly true when [GROUP X] is a group that has been historically discriminated against and/or marginalized. In American society (and, again, elsewhere, I assume) it is just not the place for a white, male, straight non-Jew to say "That's not antisemitism" or "That's not racism" or "That's not misogynistic" or "That's not homophobic" if a Jew, person of color, woman, or LGBTQ person, respectively, feels otherwise. Especially when some of the aforementioned e-mails were sent by longtime Jewish correspondents who do not have a habit of indulging in historics or speaking dishonestly.

Fourth, in a long piece like that, with literally dozens (if not hundreds) of data points to cover, I can only acknowledge certain points. I can't dig into them. There isn't time, and it would also ruin the flow of the piece. Though even if I could have said more, there was nothing I could have written that wouldn't have made readers who have strong feelings on BOTH sides of this issue upset. I have some items on that very subject coming up soon.


P.C. in Yandina Creek, QLD, Australia, asks: I am very surprised that Donald Trump decided to endorse in the New York City mayoral race. I had it in mind that he only went for sure bets and the polling suggests otherwise. What is his endorsement record in races that are competitive?

(Z) answers: Trump was very deeply invested in this race. Maybe Trump thinks that Mamdani, who is very charismatic, and will undoubtedly be on TV a lot, will somehow become a threat to him politically (say, by serving as a rallying point for discontent). Maybe it's personal; Trump is effectively a New Yorker in exile, and he may be upset that his hometown has been taken over by a person of the wrong skin color and/or religion and/or political outlook. We don't know; the only thing we are sure of is that Trump cared more about this election than any other on Tuesday. That includes the Virginia gubernatorial election, which affects Trump much more directly since Virgnia is next to D.C., and since Virginia is considerably more of a bellwether for the midterms than New York City.

It is not easy to characterize Trump's endorsement record with precision, in part because he endorses in many blowouts, in part because it depends on what one's definition of "competitive" is, in part because he often waits until a result is a foregone conclusion before endorsing, and in part because he sometimes endorses multiple candidates in the same race. However, there are two things that are certainly true. First, in a Republican primary where the candidates are close, his endorsement can be the difference-maker. Certainly, he has a very high percentage in races like that, somewhere in the high 80s or 90s.

Second, in a general election were the candidates are close, his endorsement can be the difference-maker... in the other direction. There have been a couple of studies that suggest that in a general election contest, his endorsement adds roughly 1.5% to the net vote total for the other side. In contests like that (which would probably include the NYC mayoral race), his track record is abysmal, much worse than just flipping a coin.


P.R. in Arvada, CO, asks: I saw the ballot that New York put out and, well, it is weird. It seems as though they print people's names against parties that endorse them. As a result, several people appear on the ballot more than once.

Do you know why this is and if anyone else does that? I thought it was completely normal for someone to be named on the ballot against their party of registration not any and every party that endorses them.

Don't be weird, New York.

(Z) answers: This is known, most commonly, as fusion voting. It is also known by many other names, including cross endorsement, electoral fusion, multiple party nomination, multi-party nomination, plural nomination and ballot freedom. Back in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, insurgent third parties, most obviously the Populists and Socialists, recognized that even if they could not win major elections, they could perhaps earn a seat at the table by hitching their wagon to one of the major-party candidates. So, they would often make a major-party candidate the nominee of their party as well (most famously, William Jennings Bryan was the nominee of both the Democrats AND the Populists in 1896).

The problem is that the major parties didn't like having to pay attention to small, often somewhat extreme, upstart parties. So, the Democrats and Republicans unified to outlaw fusion voting in nearly all states many years ago. The only states that still have it, at least for major elections, are Connecticut and... New York.


Anonymous in CA, asks: I browsed around the site and couldn't find it, so I was wondering what your take is on California Proposition 50. Thoughts about the bill itself, what effect it could have, and any prediction about whether it'll pass?

(Z) answers: Obviously, your final question is now moot, but even if we were writing this before the election, we would have predicted it was going to pass. We wrote pieces on August 27, September 25, and October 28 in which we discussed how the anti-Prop. 50 forces were blowing it, in various ways. In that last one, we went so far as to declare "No on 50" to be a lost cause.

As to the bill itself, this site was first founded to promote voting rights for all. That remains our primary mantra, and it is the one subject where we do not pull punches. Prop. 50 is anti-democratic, there is no doubt about that (and see tomorrow for a letter on that subject). However, I must conclude that doing nothing to push back against the abuses going on in Texas and North Carolina, in particular, is even more anti-democratic. As is so often the case in politics, it was a question of "Which bad choice is the least bad?" I certainly voted for Prop. 50, and while I have no direct information on this point, I would imagine that (V), (L), and (A) did, as well.

The hope is that all of this nonsense will finally give Congress the motivation/political capital to adopt federal anti-gerrymandering legislation. If that does NOT happen, it will be very interesting to see what happens in California in 2032, once the next census is complete. When the governor says, "Well, time to probably give back those five House seats we Democrats pilfered in 2026," will the blue-state voters here swallow hard and say "Well, that's the price of going back to doing it the right way!"? Or will they decide that maybe the temporary change should become permanent?


C.J. in Boulder, CO, asks: Wondering where the crossover is from the gerrymanders we've seen in Texas and potentials in some other states to dummymanders given the rather strong Democratic showing yesterday. Would D+8 or D+9 be enough to boot out some Republicans running in gerrymandered districts? And is the reluctance of GOP officials in Kansas and Indiana to gerrymander a reflection of their worry that they might be walking into an own-goal kind of situation?

(Z) answers: Broadly speaking, if one party takes about 54% of the major-party vote, that is when gerrymanders quickly start to turn into dummymanders. In Texas, there have been a couple of analyses that say that if the vote ends up D+5 (so, 52.5% D to 47.5% R), the recent gerrymander will be a wash. Anything beyond that, and it's bad news for the red team.

Gallimaufry

A.Z. in Santa Cruz, CA, asks: Congratulations to the Dodgers, although as a Giants fan I was routing for the Jays. Either way it was a great Series and awesome baseball. My question concerns what I find to be Fox's baseball broadcasts obsession with "Prayer Hands." Every year, every audience shot that they show seems to find someone with their hands clasped together below their faces apparently asking for divine intervention in the game. I've been to a lot of games (although never a high stakes playoff or World Series) and have never witnessed this behavior. But on Fox baseball broadcasts, you would think that this is the dominant behavior of fans every year. Has (Z) ever been to a Dodgers playoff game and if so, do the majority of fans actually behave this way in tight game situations, or is this Fox trying to control a narrative of baseball fans as highly religious?

(Z) answers: I have indeed been to a Dodgers playoff game. In fact, I have been to a Dodgers World Series game (back in 2020). You do see some folks making that gesture. It seems to be most common among Latino and Latina fans; my best guess is that is what it looks like when Catholics pray (you know, kneel on the altar), and not as much for other Christian denominations (especially the ones well-represented in L.A.).

I very seriously doubt Fox is trying to promote any particular messaging with this. First, the broadcast network does not have the political slant that the cable "news" channel does. Second, that would be VERY subtle. I suspect that when the camera operator and the director are looking for a compelling shot to convey the nervous tension, that's a better visual than, say, "person with pained expression on their face that makes them look constipated."


C.S. in Tampa, FL, asks: It was so cool to watch Shohei Ohtani in the playoffs this year. He is just incredible (9 times on base, wow!). He also seems like such a nice guy, so he is easy to root for. I don't even like the Dodgers, but I find myself pulling for a lot of their players (Mookie Betts, Freddie Freeman, Yoshinobu Yamamoto, even manager Dave Roberts).

Historically, where does Shohei's brilliance this year compare to other epic sports performances? The closest I think I saw in my lifetime was Tiger Woods in 2000/2001 when he was winning everything by massive numbers (e.g., 15-stroke win in the U.S. Open at Pebble Beach!). Michael Jordan and Tom Brady were both incredible, but I don't remember them putting together such an amazing run like this (although maybe I'm suffering from recency bias). Just curious if you've thought about this and if you have some epic sports performances that you would be willing to share.

(Z) answers: Shohei Ohtani is a great player, and a lot of fun to watch. So, don't think we're in the business of running him down. But, you asked a question, and I have to give my best answer.

First of all, Shohei' Ohtani's performance in 2025 was not really "epic." It was very good, and he'll win the MVP, deservedly so. However, as a hitter, he batted .282 with 55 home runs, 102 RBIs, 146 runs, and 109 walks, and he did not play defense. As a pitcher, he only made 14 starts, and he only pitched 47 innings. Although he didn't pitch at all last season, he was considerably more productive as a hitter. And so, his value in 2024, as judged by WAR, was 9.2. That's a Top 100 all-time season, by value (well, it's close; it's actually #118). In 2025, his WAR was 6.6. That's not even Top 500.

Ohtani is novel, by virtue of pitching and hitting, and he's very memorable. And again, he is very, very good. But there isn't really a case for him being historically dominant. For a really and truly dominant season, you have to look to Babe Ruth. In 1923, the most dominant hitting season of all time by WAR, he put up almost as much value (14.1 WAR) as Ohtani put up in the last two seasons combined. In those days, Ruth often hit more home runs in a season than some of the other TEAMS did. Due to this, at least in part, Ruth has the top 3 seasons for a hitter in baseball history and 6 of the top 12.

If you include pitchers, and you're willing to accept pre-modern totals (i.e., before 1900), there were a few guys who put up numbers that were just insane. The most famous of those is probably Hoss Radbourn's 1884, when he started 73 games and won 60 of them with an ERA of 1.38. His WAR for that season is 19.2 (that's nearly THREE TIMES Ohtani 2025). And Radbourn isn't even at the top of the list. In that sams season, Pud Galvin put up 20.5 WAR. Or, if we limit ourselves to the modern era, Walter Johnson won 36 games in 1913 with an ERA of 1.14 and 243 strikeouts, for a WAR of 15.2. Or, if we're going only with post-integration players, Dwight Gooden won 24 games in 1985, with an ERA of 1.53 and 268 strikeouts, for a WAR of 12.2.

Here are my picks for most dominant single-season performance in a dozen other major sports:


T.L. in Bloomington, IL, asks: What college football teams do the Electoral-Vote.com writers support? Does (Z) have any thoughts about the failure of Notre Dame and Southern Cal to renew their football series?

(Z) answers: (V) ceased following sports around the time Mickey Mantle retired. He did not go to a football school for college (some have called his alma mater a trade school), so there was no opportunity for the interest to be rekindled.

I went to UCLA, of course, and root for them in college sports. I just saw the women's basketball team play on Thursday.

(L) went to Florida for undergrad, and roots for them.

(A) never developed the sports gene. She went to a Cal State school that does not have a football team (Cal Poly Pomona), and so there was no opportunity for the interest to be kindled there.


J.E. in San Jose, CA, asks: I appreciate your candor about Tom Brady and his hawking of questionable supplements. How do you feel about Frank Thomas's endeavors?

(Z) answers: I don't approve of that, either. Although, at least he had to do the de facto penance of going on national TV and declaring that his wang isn't working so well anymore.


N.M.D. in Duluth, MN, asks: What are your top 10 most uplifting movies?

(Z) answers: OK, in reverse order:

  1. The King's Speech: His father was a jerk, his brother was a fascist, and he was asked to inspire his fellow Brits during their darkest days, despite his lifelong stutter. The scene where he finally delivers the titular speech is epic, and is surely what clinched the Best Picture Oscar the film won.

  2. A League of Their Own: If society says you can't do something just because of who you are, then screw society.

  3. Glory: The filmmakers understood that the key to the whole soldier's experience in the Civil War was that soldiering was how a man "earned" his manhood and his citizenship. And the film really does a great job of showing how the Black soldiers went through their baptism of fire, and ultimately compelled white soldiers to accept them as men and as citizens. The moment where Thomas steps forward and says he will pick up the flag, if needed, is sensational.

  4. The Grapes of Wrath: When times are really tough, you just have to find a way to persevere.

  5. Bend It Like Beckham: There are a lot of "caught between two cultures" movies. This is probably the best one, and it certainly is the most uplifting.

  6. Rocky: Perhaps the greatest underdog story of all time.

  7. The Shawshank Redemption: If life gives you lemons, then use them to make a big hole in the wall and put one over on the corrupt warden and his corrupt henchman.

  8. 12 Angry Men: Sometimes, you have to stand up to the mob.

  9. To Kill a Mockingbird: The scene where Atticus leaves the courtroom is just unbelievable. "Stand up, Scout. Your father's passing."

  10. Milk: Whether or not Clerks II is the funniest film of all time, all I know is that I laughed more during that movie than any other. And whether or not Milk is the most uplifting movie of all time, all I know is that I never felt more uplifted. I immediately went home after and added a lecture about him and the Castro to my California history course.

Undoubtedly, readers will have thoughts as to oversights.


This item appeared on www.electoral-vote.com. Read it Monday through Friday for political and election news, Saturday for answers to reader's questions, and Sunday for letters from readers.

www.electoral-vote.com                     State polls                     All Senate candidates