Main page    Dec. 14

Senate map
Previous | Next | Senate races | Menu

New polls:  
Dem pickups: (None)
GOP pickups: (None)

To our Jewish readers, Hanukkah sameach!

Sunday Mailbag

A proper mailbag for the first time in several weeks!

Politics: This Week in Trumpworld

R.R. in Pasadena, CA, writes: In your item about Donald Trump approving of Nvidia selling its AI chips to China, you should have mentioned that the U.S. government now has a financial state in Nvidia (10%, I think). That likely had some influence on the decision to give the Chinese access to Nvidia's most advanced chips (which they will buy as many of as is possible). There's also the possibility that Trump's external financial interests (his direct ones, or those of his friends and family, or whatever else) will make a lot of money with this sale. The fact that Trump's financial interests are likely pushing the administration to make deals that are harmful to the security of the U.S. is the entire reason that other presidents did not do these kinds of corrupt things. We are going to need a deep investigation of all of this corruption in order to clean out the government, and new laws from Congress to shut all this down in the future.


K.B. in Chicago, IL, writes: You suggested that the seizure of the Venezuelan oil tanker was legal. That seems dubious at best, regardless of a warrant. The United States does not have a right to force other countries to adhere to our sanctions with Iran. Sure, we could seize this vessel if it was in American waters, but it wasn't.

Venezuela is a sovereign state. They can trade with whomever they want. Seeing as we're not at war with either Venezuela or Iran, there's no sound legal justification for this. Theft is theft, whether it's a person committing the crime or a nation's military. You shouldn't downplay the illegal nature of this seizure, even if it has a veneer of legality.

I know that many Americans think that they can impose their foreign policy preference on the entire world, but that's not how it works in a rules-based system that we supposedly once supported. Logically, China, Iran, Russia and any other nation on earth could purport to impose sanctions on the United States and seize vessels that circumvent said sanctions, but doing such an obviously aggressive and illegal action would be awfully close to an unofficial declaration of war.

Obviously, the U.S. has the military might to bully most nations into submission, but it doesn't make it right or legal. We shouldn't act as if what amounts to piracy is a legitimate use of American power.

(V) & (Z) respond: We did not actually say it was legal, merely that it was the most legal of the various actions undertaken against Venezuela.


K.R. in Louisville, CO, writes: A heads up to all national park aficionados (hopefully, everyone is). The 2026 annual pass, which should contain a photo by the winner of the annual photo contest, will be soiled by the photo of the Orange One instead. It's yet another example of the pettiness of this administration, that it tries to put his mug on all possible surfaces.

The good news is that an environmental group is suing to have Trump's picture removed, although the possibility that lawsuit is decided by the time the passes are printed is slim/slimmer/slimmest to none. But the 2026 annual pass is apparently already on sale with this year's picture, so go for it (although the physical passes are backordered... I wonder why). Also, those of us seniors can buy the senior pass (good for our lifetime) at any time of year. Now that I'm eligible, you can bet I will be hightailing it up to my local national park (Rocky Mountain, one of the best!) before the end of the year to get the current photo. The senior pass in 2026 is supposed to have a different picture than Trump, but I'm taking no chances they won't ruin that one, too. No way will I be carrying around Trump's photo for the rest of my life in my glovebox. So if you're a senior, get 'em while they're hot (and not potentially ruined forever).

This is a public service announcement. Thank you for your attention to this matter.

(V) & (Z) respond: The good news is that the photo will remind you that entry is now free on Trump's birthday. (Really.)


R.S. in Ticonderoga, NY, writes: I laughed out loud when I saw this meme (startling my family):

Trump holding a copy of the woman's leg lamp from 'A Christmas Story'

(V) & (Z) respond: There seems to be some confusion here. In that movie, the major award goes to THE old man, not to AN old man.


S.K. in Sunnyvale, CA, writes: Of the release from the White House, "...using ASL interpreters 'would severely intrude on the President's prerogative to control the image he presents to the public,'" you wrote, "We don't really even understand what that last part means."

My guess is that The Convicted Felon (TCF) doesn't want to be reminded, via the presence of a signer, that deaf people exist. Or any people with disabilities, really. And that "image he presents to the public" bit is just cover for him admiring the clips of his own "perfect performance" later.

Hmmm. "I AM the public." Shades of Louis XIV?


S.S.L. in Battle Creek, MI, writes: In stark contrast to Donald Trump, the Biden administration invited me to the White House my first week on this job as part of a celebration of diversity. A couple of Secret Service agents showed me around, spent hours describing things to me, and (with supervision) let me explore tactilely. There were tons of fun stories and lots of hands to shake. But what was at least as cool as all of that was receiving the Bidens' Christmas card months later, which some observant staffer had thought to have Brailled for me. It is one of my prized possessions.


K.R. in Austin, TX, writes: You suggested that Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) is sexist.

As additional evidence, consider that the Republican committee chairs are all men for the first time in 20 years.

Politics: Hoosier Daddy Now?

B.S. in Southaven, MS, writes: I think R.K. in Indianapolis is pretty on target with the assessment of why Indiana refused Donald Trump's demand to redraw their district maps. As a former Hoosier, I can attest that there is a Little Brother vein that runs deep within the character of Indiana. The conservatives in the state may appear to walk in lockstep with MAGA, but don't think for a minute you can order them around, and once you cross that line they are going to start doing everything EXCEPT what you wanted them to do.

When this all started with Indiana a few weeks ago, I was talking with my sister and she was convinced they were so MAGA it might be unanimous; I laughed and told her this is not going to go the way Trump thinks it will. I may have been a bit overconfident, but I took a moment to gloat this morning anyway. To be honest, if Trump had any actual tact he probably could have got what he was looking for. Hoosiers do aim to please, but he confused "loyal" with "subservient." Of course, if Trump had any actual tact, these kinds of shenanigans wouldn't be necessary in the first place.


K.C. in El Cajon, CA, writes: Having read your take on the Indiana comeuppance of T-rump, among others stories, I think a fairly big factor was former VP—and more importantly, former Indiana Governor—Mike Pence. Although it's been a long time since I lived there (one semester at Butler University in 1973), I believe the Hoosier State Republicans, to some degree, were administering payback. I have seen nothing to indicate Pence had any active role, but memories are long and the opportunity to thumb their noses at T-rump was too good to pass up.


C.F. in Fort Wayne, IN, writes: I am a lifelong Hoosier and have to say I am surprised by the defeat of the redistricting effort. Indiana's legislature is usually very comfortable embracing right-wing causes (ban abortion, root out DEI, target immigrants, send the National Guard to the border, etc.). They also have a long history of ignoring their constituents and doing whatever they are told/are purchased to do (strip away local control so business can do whatever they want, "property tax reform" that is merely a giant tax cut for big business at the expense of literally everything and everyone else, etc.). Why was this a bridge too far? I don't disagree with R.K. in Indianapolis, but I don't think their explanation covers the full dynamics, either.

I can say this process had the biggest public pressure campaign that, honestly, I've ever seen by citizens in the state. There were, of course, a lot of letters to the editor, but much more notable was social media. Politicians' Facebook pages were absolutely swarmed with people not only decrying the redistricting effort but decrying Republicans in general. And it looked like real people, not bots.

I can only guess that many members of the state Senate really did feel the heat and backed off, something that is incredibly rare in the state of Indiana. Hopefully the moment builds and real, positive changes can come to Indiana.


P.K. in Marshallown, IA, writes: One thing that seems overlooked in the aftermath of the Indiana Senate vote on redistricting is the stance of Sen. Michael Bohacek (R-Michiana Shores). In late November, Trump took another trip on the cruelty carousel to denigrate Gov. Tim Walz (DFL-MN) as "retarded." (The word is crude and cruel and I'm not gonna gussy it up with asterisks here.) At that time, Bohacek said he would not vote for the redistricting plan because of Trump's use of the slur, especially as Bohacek has a child with Downs syndrome. I don't think Electoral-Vote.com overlooked Bohacek's remarks at the time, but they seem to have gotten lost in counting the votes in the Senate chamber Thursday. Bohacek did what he said he would do, and I suspect he played a role in convincing other members of his party to stand up. Another chink in the Trumpian armor and a big one. Perhaps a "have you no decency" moment? The cruelty of the man and his followers is appalling. At least on Thursday, there were consequences.

Politics: The Democrats

M.G. in Piscataway, NJ, writes: For a long time, I've heard pundits ask the question, should the Democratic party move left, or right? I think that anybody that asks that question fundamentally misunderstands the situation. For the Democratic party to win over the American people, they need to fully embrace economic populism/affordability and move social issues to the state level. Republicans, Democrats and independents all want more money in their pockets. It's the one issue that unites everybody. It's the main issue that low-information voters care about. It's the only issue that has a chance to get rural voters that hate "demon-crats" to even listen to what we have to say.

In a recent New York Times op-ed, James Carville wrote "Zohran Mamdani, Abigail Spanberger, Mikie Sherrill—even down-ballot Georgia Democrats—all won with soaring margins because the people are pissed... It is time for Democrats to embrace a sweeping, aggressive, unvarnished, unapologetic and altogether unmistakable platform of pure economic rage. This is our only way out of the abyss... Just as it was for the Mamdani campaign, raging against the rigged, screwed-up, morally bankrupt system that gave us the cost of living crisis must be the centerpiece of every Democratic campaign in America... we should not fear that running on a platform of seismic economic scale will cost us a general election. We've already lost enough of them by being afraid to try. The era of half-baked political policy is over."

Whenever possible. Democrats should toss social-issue legislation down to the state level. Gun control, for example, should be handled at the state level. Policies that work in a deep red state might be very different than policies that work in a deep blue state.

When somebody inevitably asks "How are you going to pay for that?" Democrats should be prepared to say "Republicans have unlimited money for war and Republicans have unlimited money for tax cuts for their mega-donors, and nobody ever asks Republicans 'How are you going to pay for that?' The Republican party has been taking money out of the pockets of the middle class for 50 years and giving that money to the people at the top. That's why a few people will soon be trillionaires but most of America is suffering."


J.D.M. in Cottonwood Shores, TX, writes: Until recently, I had written Gov. Gavin Newsom (D-CA) off as a potential presidential candidate due to the California problem. Then I heard his interview on the Ezra Klein podcast. The theme of the podcast was how Newsom has a both/and approach to his politics. He vigorously defends democracy against the orange authoritarian. At the same time, he has a positive program to address the affordablility crisis with commonsense ideas. Most important to me was that he acknowledged that the Democratic Party has helped create the current situation.

I felt like his communication style was very approachable and I learned that his upbringing was much less elite than I had imagined.

He has a couple of years to change the national perception, but he has already changed mine!

Politics: Healthcare

J.M. in Silver Spring, MD, writes: You referred to Bronze ACA Plans and High Deductible Health Plans (HDHPs) in general as "junk insurance." While I agree with you that the Republican plan being discussed in the Senate will not answer the mail, I disagree with your characterization of HDHPs as junk insurance. I have had one for years and, as someone who is mostly healthy, they save me money. The four-figure deductible is intimidating but what they really do (through the "allowed amounts") is lower outrageous prices (e.g., $300 for a blood test) to reasonable ones (e.g., $12 for that test). Unless you are on dialysis or have a big hospital stay, you spend less than $1000 a year out of pocket and save hundreds of dollars a month in premiums.

By contrast, AimedAlliance defines junk insurance as plans that offer fewer treatments and services than the ACA permits or short-term plans that discriminate based on pre-existing conditions and/or fail to cover essential services. The American Lung Association points out that junk insurance often offers no out-of-pocket maximum and can leave the insured with huge bills to pay.

All that said, HDHPs are not a good choice for everyone. If you have major health problems they are not a good choice. Also, if you don't have money in the bank to deal with the unexpected hospital stay, you could be out a high-four-figure number and be in trouble. (Note that junk insurance could leave you with a five or six-figure bill.) Alas, a lot of people who fit in that latter category end up with these plans and can find themselves in trouble. Also, another knock on the GOP "plan" is that even HDHPs will see a large increase in premiums under their plan, and $1,000 or $1,500 put into Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) will not compensate for that.


S.S. in Toronto, ON, Canada, writes: You wrote:

What's going to happen, to use the metaphor we've deployed a number of times at this point, is that a lot of Americans are about to touch the stove. In the short term, that really, really stinks. It's a damn shame that the voters—or, better yet, their elected representatives—can't anticipate and respond to problems BEFORE they become painful. But history shows that is just not how it works in the U.S. political system. A president had to be assassinated by a disappointed office seeker before civil service reform could be enacted. People had to see their elders starving and dying before old-age insurance could be adopted. People had to see cops attacking Black people with dogs, and "uppity" activists hanging from trees, before civil rights legislation could be implemented.

I could not agree more. I have been thinking (and saying) for a long time that the whole mess in which the United States (and really the rest of the world) finds itself, while it has involved the loss of thousands (millions?) of lives and excruciating pain everywhere, has been necessary and inevitable. It's how the world works; we think things are okay until they weren't. This is how civilization moves forward. Like children and adolescents, we need to touch the stove to realize all the mistakes we are making, and we don't progress towards maturity until we really look at what's been wrong and figure out how to fix it. It's an inevitable part of growing up for the human race, as it is for every individual. When I was about five, I actually did touch the stove, right after my mother said not to. (It hadn't occurred to me to touch that red hot burner, but her warning inspired me.) I can still "see" the white ring marks on my palm.

We tend to think everything is fine as long we, individually, are okay, or we can't see what is happening to others. As humanity gradually moves toward maturity we begin to notice and try to alleviate the suffering of others, even if it's not happening to us. I truly believe the human race will get there—not in my lifetime, but we can all plant saplings that our descendants will appreciate as mature trees.


M.K. in Charlotte, MI, writes: I would caution C.A.G. in Athens, and everyone else, to be mindful of the details in their health plans, not just the stated premium. At the large employer where I work, we were pleasantly surprised to see our premiums only increased a very small amount from last year. Our deductibles and maximum out-of-pocket costs stayed exactly the same as last year. We were convinced we were among the lucky few. However, one of my co-workers did some digging into the fine print and came up with a shock. Next year, diagnostics (blood tests, x-rays, EKGs, etc.) will largely not be covered. We will have to pay the full cost of these procedures until the deductible is met, and then 20% until the maximum out-of-pocket is met. As the saying goes, "the devil is in the details."


M.S. in Westchester County, NY, writes: Americans may have a preference for capitalism over socialism but there is a fundamental error in your description of universal healthcare in other countries.

The error is this: Universal healthcare is not synonymous with socialism. Socialized medicine is a situation where the doctors are government employees and the hospitals are owned by the government. That describes the British system—their National Health. In many European countries, however, universality is achieved through private markets—strict controls on insurance and health policies. This is the German approach.

In the U.S., we have so many systems, each grafted onto the existing whole, including socialized medicine (the VA). The problem is that each system was created piecemeal—the VA, union contracts, employer tax subsidized plans, Medicare—such that people are hesitant to switch to another for fear that they will be "losers."

The beauty of the ACA (Obamacare) is that, aided by generous subsidies, it is a path towards universality by offering coverage for those who fell through the cracks for one reason or another. So, the Republican plan not only hurts those who are covered by the ACA, but eventually everyone, since it is a step back from universality.


S.D. in Clarkston, GA, writes: Another factor explaining why the U.S. developed private insurance in the post-World War II era is labor relations. While much of Europe and Asia were incorporating public health care into their post-war recovery, the U.S. was dealing with widespread wage freezes. Prohibited from using pay increases to attract or retain workers, many employers began offering more benefits, chief among them being health insurance, which at the time did not cost employers anything close to what it does now.

Politics: The Value of a College Education

P.M. in Edenton, NC, writes: you wrote: "For example, the Census Bureau recently found that the median household income in families headed by a college graduate is more than double that of families with high school diplomas but no college. Joe Biden tried to deal with this by forgiving student debt acquired while attending college, but the Supreme Court killed his plans."

Let's not forget that what Joe Biden wanted to do was illegal, and unconstitutional. If Congress passed a law forgiving student debt, and Biden signed it, that would be perfectly fine. What Biden wanted to do was wave his magic wand and just do something, and he was rightfully stopped by the Supreme Court.

This has nothing to do with the spiraling cost of college; it has to do with what is constitutional or not. In this case, the Court absolutely did the right thing.


P.S. in Plano, TX, writes: You wrote: "Overall, 62% of Americans say going to college costs too much and the benefits are too small to justify the costs. They are not paying attention. The income gap between college and noncollege workers keeps growing and shows no sign of diminishing."

This is true in absolute numerical terms, but false in terms of the percentage increase in wages a degree confers. Wages have grown by a higher percentage for high school diplomates than for college graduates in recent years, and the gap is still growing in absolute terms because college graduates earn a greater amount more right now that a smaller percentage increase in their wages still yields a higher wage increase.

So, the statement "College graduates earn a larger amount of money over high school graduates than they earned three years ago" is true, and the statement "The percent which earning a college degree will increase your wages has declined over the last three years" is also true. It seems weird for both of those things to be true, but high school algebra should be enough for one to understand how that's possible.

Another indicator that the advantage of a college degree is fading is that the unemployment edge is fading.

What does all this mean? That's anyone's guess, and everyone has an axe to grind, so there are a lot of guesses. My personal opinion is that STEM degrees will continue to confer healthy income advantages but that employers are very slowly but very correctly realizing that degrees in many liberal arts majors do not correlate with increased performance in generic office jobs. I guess we'll see.


J.M. in Pittsburgh, PA, writes: (V) wrote: "College is a big deal. Overall, 62% of Americans say going to college costs too much and the benefits are too small to justify the costs. They are not paying attention. The income gap between college and noncollege workers keeps growing and shows no sign of diminishing. For example, the Census Bureau recently found that the median household income in families headed by a college graduate is more than double that of families with high school diplomas but no college."

As a professor, I am really bothered by this argument. Looking at the data, one does see that people whose highest education is a bachelor's degree earn 66% more than people who stopped after high school. But it also shows that those who went to college but didn't earn a degree only earn 10% more than those who stopped after high school. "Going" to college does not provide vast economic benefits unless one graduates. Otherwise, one has just ended up with a lot of student loans.

As a side note, there is also a lot of information available on which degrees correlate with the highest salaries, but choosing a "profitable" field of study that you hate is a good way to end up with no degree. I have seen too many 1st year students failing in programs that their mom and dad thought was a good choice.


D.V. in Everett, WA, writes: You are correct about the correlation between a college degree and financial success, but it is a fallacy to assume causality from correlation. The valid comparison is not between people with college degrees and people without. A valid comparison would require people from comparable backgrounds with and without college degrees. College was a wonderful experience and I recommend it highly to those who can afford it, but as a former public school teacher I've seen the damage done by convincing young people who would have been better off going to trade school or gaining work experience being convinced that simply going to college will provide them some benefit. The worst case scenario, and it happens often, is a wasted year or two, a pile of debt, and a drinking problem.


J.T.M. in Phoenix, AZ, writes: I think you miss an important point in your discussion of "Affordability, Affordability, Affordability." While technically correct about the income gap between college and non-college people, I think it leaves something out. For many, going to college means accrual of significant debt. Gone are the days of getting out of school and relatively quickly paying off small loans at minimal interest rates. A quick check shows average debt is around $30k. I get your point that over a lifetime, a college degree will put you ahead. But how long does it take for a graduate to get out from under that debt and see the benefits? In addition, the labor market has gotten tighter for recent grads. Increased cost of living, particularly housing, also hits young people hard. Add that to being saddled with debt and it's not hard to see why young people and parents would increasingly err on the side of no college when doing a cost-benefit analysis.

Politics: Broadcast Licenses

J.R.A. in St. Petersburg, FL, writes: In response to the answer you gave to J.M. in Norco about TV networks and broadcast licenses, this seems a good time to remind everybody that the three major broadcasting networks, and Fox, do own broadcast licenses, but they do so through a subsidiary, generally referred to as something like the "Owned and Operated Stations Division" at most networks, which itself owns usually a limit of either 7 or 12 U.S. TV stations.

The government could get its fingers on the FCC issued broadcasting licenses for those "O&O's" of the given network, but that would not have any effect on the network itself creating and sending its programming to the remainder of its affiliates. And since it does not own the rest of those affiliates, I don't think the FCC would have any legal nexus to yank their licensees either.

And I'm sure that if FCC tried to pull those licenses on some pretext at the order of TCF, the stations and their parent companies would sue and request a TRO and nothing would actually happen until TACO (Trump again chickened out).

In a related story, though, I do sort of wonder why, especially given the reinstatement of Jimmy Kimmel, Stephen Colbert seems to be rolling over and dying on his show's cancellation. Maybe he's got something going in the background he doesn't want to screw up, or maybe he's just decided it's a good time to retire.


A.B. in Denver, CO, writes: As a cord-cutter, I quibble with the second part of your comment, "If, say, ABC's broadcast license is yanked, they are not going to close up shop and go home. They'll just use one of the alternate means of delivering their signal. At worst, they'll lose some relatively small percentage of the public who still use an antenna."

About 20% of people get their major network channels via broadcast antenna. That's about double the approximately 10% who get health insurance from the ACA marketplace, so if 10% is non-trivial enough to major drive political decisions, I'd imagine 20% is non-trivial also.

Ironically, ABC, CBS, and NBC might prefer to have their broadcast licenses revoked. Of course, since it's the local affiliates that actually own the licenses, such a revocation would only impact the local stations directly "Owned & Operated" by ABC/CBS/NBC or their corporate parents—Disney, Paramount, and Comcast. You can see where I'm going here. Comcast would probably love to push people toward Comcast cable subscriptions, and Disney and Paramount toward their streaming services.

I've found two things as a cordcutter: (1) the hardest/costliest-to-replace via low-cost streaming services are the "local channels," i.e. major network programming (ABC/CBS/FOX/NBC), and of that, (2) the hardest to replace broadcast content are local live sports programming, notably NFL games. You can get the first by paying for their streaming services (e.g. Paramount+ or Peacock) to get "TV shows," but to get live sports you typically need to pay for the "with 'live TV'" expensive variants of streaming services, such as YoutubeTV, DirecTV Stream, etc., which all start at around $80-90/month. Sling, for example, advertises "live" TV, but they intend for you to get an antenna! So, "live TV" is the most expensive part of streaming services. (ESPN is, not surprisingly, another of the cost centers for the cord-cutter.)

That is, it's actually quite expensive for the end user to completely replace an antenna.

Those corporate behemoths of Comcast, Disney, etc., might well come out ahead if they lost the broadcast licenses for their O&O local affiliates. "So sorry, you can't watch the Broncos, but you can get Xfinity cable!" I imagine they would lose some money from local advertising revenue from their O&O stations (which are generally in the larger markets), but my hunch is they'd ultimately make more profit by the increased number of cable/streaming subscriptions if it were forced on people. Revenue from traditional TV stations seems to be declining in any event.

Interestingly, the biggest component of local TV revenue appears to be... political ads. Of course, Comcast, Disney, et al. all run the numbers, and I wouldn't be surprised if someday soon they all quit providing content to affiliates and dump their O&O stations. They could even blame the government for taking them away rather than getting blamed as greedy capitalists, so again, they might welcome license revocation. That would pretty much be the nail in the coffin for antenna folks and a financial hit to those consumers (unless all you want to watch are free reruns of old westerns).

Until then, however, antenna content will remain important, and broadcast licenses of concern to the big players.


J.C. in Fez, Morocco, writes: What you said about ABC—if it hypothetically lost its broadcast license—actually happened in 2020 to the premier Filipino network, ABS-CBN (started by an American). Wannabe Dictator Rodrigo Duterte didn't like it when ABS-CBN hurt his fee-fees, so he worked behind the scenes to have Congress not renew the license. They turned to digital only, and have suffered big losses, but have started to climb out of the hole in recent years. The Filipino market is more network-based than America, so I agree with you—ABC without a licence would do just fine with going digital only.

Politics: Madam President

B.H. in Greenbelt, MD, writes: In "The First Femaie President?", I think you are right all down the line. There are at least 1-2% of the electorate—and not all of them men, I'm sure—who will not vote for a woman as president. Some fundagelicals have the belief that a woman should not be in charge. That small percentage is enough to make the difference in the seven or so swing states. Sad, but true. Hopefully it will change soon.

And you wisely noted that the conventional wisdom—that the first woman President will be a conservative, a la Margaret Thatcher—is not likely to be correct. If both parties nominated women, we would get a woman President, but I can't see the current TOP (TCF's Odious Party) doing that.

Nevertheless, in my lifetime, I have seen two miracles which I never expected to see. One was the election of a Black President. The other was that Indiana University would be ranked #1 in college football.


P.M. in Chicago, IL, writes: "Only Nixon could go to China."

IMO, for the same reason, the first woman president will be a Republican.

And it won't really be soon. :-(


B.C. in Berkeley, CA, writes: My bet for first female president? Ivanka Trump in 2032.

Here's my reasoning:

So that's my bet.


S.N. in Charlotte, NC, writes: I have to say I disagree with the idea that Michelle Obama wouldn't win if she were to run. They're all wrong, including her! I think people underestimate the adoring love people have for her (and the Obamas in general), and she is THE ONLY woman who could do it. I actually think she would win in a rout against absolutely anyone. She has the charisma, the class, the sophistication/style, the gravitas, and the experience (of being near the presidency/in the white-hot spotlight, if not an actual politician). If she were to announce a run, people would go absolutely bonkers.


B.B. in Dothan, AL, writes: Hold on! I think there's a fair bit of truth to the argument that, had James Comey not put his thumb on the scale, Hillary Clinton would have won. So I don't think that necessarily proves your point. As to Harris, I have said all along that she is entirely too inauthentic to be electable. Besides, she had only 107 days to cobble together a campaign and, as you have written, elections these days are all about change. So, I don't think a man would have been elected either.


R.H.D. in Webster, NY, writes: You suggested the time is not right, currently, to elect a woman president. I'd like to challenge that a bit using the two recent examples we have to analyze.

Hillary Clinton had lots of baggage going back to her days as First Lady. It didn't get any better when she was a U.S. Senator, then Secretary of State. The death knell came when then FBI director James Comey unexpectedly announced a week before the election about her questionable e-mails.

Kamala Harris was VP under an unpopular and aging president during a time when they were bogged down by inflation, immigration, and events in the Middle East.

I would add that both women gained their nominations under a cloud of alleged backroom maneuvering. For Clinton, that would be having the scales tipped in her favor over Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) by the party bosses. That made the his supporters mad and they either stayed home or voted third-party. In Harris' case, it was a matter of being "coronated" at such a late stage of the campaign without any primary election or formal vetting. Again, that angered some in the Democratic base and they either stayed home or voted third party. Finally, both women weren't great campaigners and had a challenge connecting with the voting public.

My point is that both Clinton and Harris had major flaws and drawbacks to their candidacies from the start. Therefore, using the only examples we have available, to suggest that a woman can't be elected to presidency today must be taken with some grains of salt.

I for one think that with the right circumstances, and the right candidate, a woman could be elected in the near future.


D.A.Y. in Troy, MI, writes: I've seen you mention multiple times the Democrats will likely gravitate to the whitest, malest, straightest candidate possible for president in 2028. However, I believe that year is actually our best chance to elect a female president.

Hillary Clinton and Kamala Harris suffered for trying to be the followup act to Democratic presidents and essentially continue their policies for another term. They were put into the unenviable position of having to defend the current president and their policies. Harris had it far worse, since inflation and the war in Gaza were on her plate. This is part of the reason Clinton won the popular vote while Harris failed to do so.

The race barrier was broken by Barack Obama, in part, because he was running against the backdrop of the disaster that was George W. Bush's second term. John McCain had to carry the water of a Republican Party that tried to privatize Social Security, botched the response to Katrina, and engineered the collapse of the credit market which sent the country into a deep recession. McCain was doomed.

2028 is shaping up to look a lot like '08. Americans are already disgusted with Trump, and he is not going to course-correct because that is not what he does. He is going to cast blame on the usual suspects and trot out scapegoats like he did this past week. Affordability is not going away and is only going to get worse as AI is not only sucking up electricity and water but the chips that go into computers, game systems, and other electronics, which is driving up their prices. Since Trump is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the tech bros pushing AI and crypto, this is not going to end.

Come the presidential election, the Republicans are going to send out the replacement for Trump because the base is enough of the Republican party to elect the Trumpiest candidate. In the environment forming, they will get crushed by any competent Democrat regardless of their race, gender, or sexuality We will see how the primaries play out, but I think this is our best shot to elect a woman president in the first half of the 21st Century.


M.M. in El Paso, TX, writes: I consider myself an independent, although the current Republican regime is making me feel more and more like a Democrat. I did not vote for either of the women who have been nominated for president. I confess I voted for Trump in 2016 and then voted for the Libertarian in 2024. Since I live in Texas (albeit a blue county), my vote was fairly meaningless in both elections. My issue is not gender. My problem with Hillary Clinton was the same one I now have with Trump. Despite her public pronouncements, I felt she was in it simply for her ego. Couple that with what I found to be an abrasive personality, and I was wiling to take a chance on the unknown. If I could, I would reverse my vote after discovering that Trump is ten times worse. I did not vote for Kamala Harris because I do not think she is all that intelligent. I would vote for Gov. Gretchen Whitmer (D-MI) in a heartbeat, over Gavin Newsom for sure.

Politics: A Matter of Perspectives

R.L. in Alameda, CA, writes: Responding to N.O'D. in Chicago, I think that the perspective from the far right that schools are indoctrination centers teaching children to hate America is one of conflating truth-telling with hatred. They seem to believe that if I tell the truth about, say, slavery and the evils that came with it, I am hating America. Nothing could be further from the truth. I look at the awful things our nation has done (there are plenty of examples) because I love our nation and want it to be better. We can't improve as a people if we turn a blind eye to the mistakes of the past. In many ways, we have done better. In many ways we haven't. Nations, like people, contain multitudes.

As for right-leaning podcasts, I'll also put in a plug for the Bulwark. One thing I appreciate about them is the way in which they disagree with the left. Their discussion of Zohran Mamdani is a good example. Most of the hosts (Tim Miller, Sarah Longwell, JVL, Bill Kristol) are former neo-cons and disagree with most of Mamdani's platform. At the same time, they recognize that he is a good fit for New York, the voters overwhelmingly wanted him and why not try out his policies? If they work, great. New York will be better for it. If they don't, then try something else.

In other words, they are willing to see lefty policies (that they don't agree with) in action to see if they work. They aren't just saying "no" for "no's" sake, as 99% of electeds do. Imagine a world in which a majority of elected Republicans said, "I wholly disagree with Obamacare because it doesn't comport with my political philosophy. But I also don't want my constituents to be harmed by the coming increase in premiums so I'm going to support extending the subsidies anyway." Sadly, this hypothetical person has something in common with Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny.

One thing Trump has injected into our politics that may remain long after he is gone is the notion of sticking to a position, even when it causes harm, because this is more important than making people's lives better.


A.H. in Newberg, OR, writes: Just to reinforce your mention, I personally find The Bulwark informative, entertaining, and quite neutral in their presentations. They have a relatively extensive cast of characters and do a good job of presenting conservative (note that is small-c conservative) positions. On the other side of the spectrum is the Midas Touch grouping of commenters. Yes liberal, tends to be more "legal" discussion oriented, again a wide range of liberal personalities and positions. That is my 2 cents worth, but a Venti Pumpkin Spice Latte with Non-fat and whipped cream on top is going to cost you $6.55 at the local Starbucks.


R.M. in Memphis, TN, writes: I have been listening to The Bulwark's podcasts for the last 2-3 years and have been impressed. They are disaffected Republicans who hold views they still consider to be Republican-leaning. One member of The Bulwark team that I've become a particular fan of is Sarah Longwell. Her focus-group podcast is very helpful in understanding the thinking of low-propensity voters.


S.K. in Bethesda, MD, writes: Ross Douthat of The New York Times has a podcast called Interesting Times on which he mostly interviews right-wing personalities. It can be infuriating (as he rarely pushes back on the things they say, which sometimes means not countering obvious falsehoods), but it is an excellent way to hear right-wing viewpoints in a forum in which the speakers are aware they are not speaking to their base and thus need to try to explain their positions rationally rather than just own the libs or rile up the MAGA folks. In general, though it increases my blood pressure somewhat, I come away understanding a bit more about how they think about things, which I find useful.


A.S. in Santa Fe, NM, writes: In addition to The Bulwark's various podcasts...

Hacks On Tap is co-hosted by Mike Murphy, who is center-right.

The Dispatch has several podcasts. I listen to Advisory Opinions, mostly.

The Holy Post has several good podcasts.

And not political at all, but a fun new podcast from Nathan Fillion and Alan Tudyk...


MS Highland Park, IL, writes: Aaron Renn has a Substack and occasionally writes elsewhere. I've found him to be a thoughtful, intelligent right-wing commentator.

All Politics Is Local

C.S. in Waynesboro, PA, writes: Having lived in Pennsylvania all my 58 years, and having voted in every election (primary, general, off year, etc,) except one since I've been eligible to vote, should Sen. John Fetterman (D-PA) run for reelection in 2028, i will eagerly vote for a different Democrat in the primary. And probably give that other candidate as much money as I am legally allowed to donate. And should Fetterman somehow get the Democratic nomination, then for the first time in my life, I will leave the Senate election box blank, I will not cast a vote for that office.

I have told Sen. Fetterman this in more than one e-mail. And will continue to do so every time he does something uncomprehendingly stupid.

He is a huge disappointment to this Pennsylvania Democrat. I anxiously followed his career from his time as a town mayor, when he married gay couples before the Supreme Court made them all legal. I supported him as lieutenant governor and in his Senate run, and was looking forward to great things for him and the nation in the future.

And now, he's... this. I don't understand it. It's very sad. But I'm already looking beyond him. It a hard thing when your heroes, the people you look up to, end up just being human and having feet of clay.


B.P.J. in McMurray, PA, writes: I voted for John Fetterman in 2022. I won't in 2028. No DINOs. I don't know if it's because of the stroke, which would be a shame, but... Shapiro 2028!


J.E. in Gilbertsville, PA, writes: We talk about John Fetterman a lot in our extended family. To a man, we can't stand him. We all voted for him last time (Democrats, progressives, moderates, and even never-Trump conservatives), but if he runs and gets the nomination this next time, zero of us will vote for him. The absolute best-case scenario for the Democrats is to nominate someone else, because otherwise their Senate chances in 2028 in Pennsylvania are toast.


L.D.K. in Vienna, Austria, writes: In addition to what you wrote in reply to the question from J.H. in Boston, I've read it reported that, until this year, the nominally nonpartisan local election in Miami actually was quite nonpartisan in practice, as well, with national party affiliation of the candidates not really much of an issue that anyone considered to be of importance. This, too, was seen to have substantially changed in this year's election.


C.F. in Miami, FL, writes: At the risk of encroaching on the vaunted Staff Mathematician's territory as a consultant, I would like to add that yet another factor leading to the mayor of Miami not reflecting the true partisan division of an urban center is the fact that the city is divided into five districts, each with its own powerful commissioner. Each commissioner carves out and advocates for an agenda that reflects the needs of that particular district. Governing the flow of traffic, the rate of development, and fixing of potholes all require bipartisan thinking and solutions. Who really cares about liberal or conservative purity as long as the citizens are seeing positive changes in their neighborhood? The commissioners are truly "in the weeds." My district has always been quite liberal, and our commissioners reflect that. Other districts are more conservative, and their commissioners reflect that. We get our liberal vs. conservative political fix at the district level, but again, the solutions are almost always bipartisan in nature.


D.R. in Yellow Springs, OH, writes: Although you did preview the runoff election in New Mexico's largest city, you didn't mention the result: Mayor Tim Keller, a Democrat, was re-elected despite a campaign from his Republican opponent who took issue with Keller limiting the city's cooperation with immigration enforcement. Meanwhile, a liberal faction took control of the City Council.

Bugs Bunny would be proud. Voters took a left turn in Albuquerque.


K.H. in Albuquerque, NM, writes: Here in Albuquerque, what could've been a "throw the bums out" election turned out to be a mini blue wave. Typically, even though the election is ostensibly nonpartisan, ABQ mayors swap party affiliation every 8 years. Instead, incumbent Tim Keller (D) handily defeated Darren White (R) 58% to 42% in the mayoral runoff. Keller becomes the first mayor of the city to win 3 terms.


D.A. in Brooklyn, NY, writes: You may be misunderestimating (oh, sometimes I miss W, his command of English so exceeded that of the current idiot) Brad Lander's (D) chances against Rep. Dan Goldman (D-NY). For one thing, most everyone in that district really, really hates ICE and Trump's immigration policy and Brad Lander was arrested in widely publicized (but rather mild) resistance action against ICE's courthouse raids. He got a lot of cred for that. Secondly, he will have a veritable army of DSA-ers working for him—you know, the people who put Mamdani in Gracie Mansion. Third, he has the full support of a popular new mayor (very popular in Brooklyn) who will still probably not have worn out his honeymoon by the primary (and Zohran Mamdani inoculated himself from a lot of establishment hostility by keeping the playing field "safe" for House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-NY, so the Democrat establishment can't accuse him of willy-nilly being out to knock off incumbents).

And speaking of incumbents... when people are unhappy (and who isn't?), incumbency just isn't as powerful. Finally, yes, Goldman played a leading role in impeaching Trump. But folks—fairly or unfairly—are going to recall that as a failure (no conviction in the Senate) and be inclined to ask "Yeah, but what have you done for me lately?". And, in any case, a New York Democrat boasting about being anti-Trump? That's like a college applicant proudly stating that they know the alphabet.


B.W. in Los Angeles, CA, writes: A important note on Brad Lander challenging Dan Goldman in New York Cuty: He will be seeking to ride the coattails of Mamdani-enthusiasm.

In the latter stages of the NYC mayoral race, former primary competitor Lander enthusiastically supported Mamdani's candidacy, with the two appearing together frequently. The New York Times reports that Mamdani is enthusiastically supporting Lander in the primary.

(V) offers a rationale that "Hillary versus Bernie" isn't a good fit for the dynamics of a Goldman-Lander race, but I'm not so sure I agree. While nominally progressive, Goldman is among the wealthiest members of Congress, with a reported net worth of a quarter-billion dollars. He's a child of billionaires (his mother was the heir to the Levi Strauss fortune).

This is a key point, because progressive priorities have evolved considerably in a few short years, and economic justice has taken center stage. It was affordability and workers' rights (not environmentalism or even social justice) that powered Mamdani to victory. This is Lander's wheelhouse, and his non-billionaire background gives him more credibility. While Goldman's platform is progressive on environmental and social issues (though moderate on foreign policy), his solutions for affordable housing ("public-private partnerships") appear to be more corporatist than progressive.

History Matters

L.E. in Putnam County, NY, writes: You answered a question from S.S. in West Hollywood about the use of July 4, 1776 as America's "birthday."

As I understand it, July 2, 1776, was when the Continental Congress voted (and John Adams predicted that date would be commemorated by fireworks in the future). July 4th was when the resolution was formally presented as a document,and the signatures on the document mainly came after that (not on the prior date of the vote).

The War of Independence basically stretched from the Battle of Lexington to the Treaty of Paris (which made independence a matter of international law rather than self-assertion). Also of note is the USA's historical contribution to the parliamentary form of government, when the House of Commons of Great Britain voted in early 1782 to stop fighting the colonies and the prime minister Lord North (a courtesy peer sitting in the Commons who became Earl of Guilford and a member of the Lords when his father died in 1790) had to leave office and was succeeded by the Marquess of Rockingham, who set the treaty negotiations in motion but did not live to see it through. (This was the first time a government had fallen in such a fashion).


C.J. in Redondo Beach, CA, writes: I must clarify.

The Declaration of Independence was first read to the Philadelphia public on July 8, 1776.

The vote on the wording of the Jefferson's (and committee) document was July 4, 1776. So, in a way it IS important... arguably not as important as the Continental Congress' vote for Independence on July 2, but, as my mom would say, until something is in writing it's not official.


E.R. in Padova, Italy, writes: I have a minor objection to the list of "birthdays" of countries. In the case of Italy, you list March 17, 1861, and describe it as "unification of Italy." On that day the Kingdom of Italy was proclaimed (in Turin; Rome was still part of the Papal States—as you mention in the answer, events of these kind don't actually happen in a single day).

However, while there are a few minor celebrations on March 17, what we (Italians) really celebrate is June 2 (which is actually an official holiday called "Republic Day"). That is because on June 2, 1946, Italians voted to change their government form from a monarchy to a republic.

I'd say that if you ask an Italian about the country's birthday, you'd get puzzled looks, and very few people would answer March 17 (or June 2, for that matter). But if you ask him about celebrations, he'd definitely give the June 2 answer.


V.W. in Wiltshire, England, UK, writes: You might be interested to know that Australia celebrates its "birthday" on January 26, reflecting the arrival of the First Fleet and hence British settlement on 26 January 1788. That date is controversial, given that event was not exactly a positive development for the indigenous Australians, and is often called Invasion Day rather than Australia Day by those of a left-leaning persuasion. There have been suggestions to change the date to either January 1 (1901, reflecting the date the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act, passed by the British parliament, came into force) or May 9 (also 1901, reflecting the first meeting of the federal parliament) among other dates. These have not really gone anywhere, although the event is now taught and talked about with (I would suggest) a more rounded and diverse historical perspective. The long weekend at the end of January is generally considered the end of the summer holiday period in Australia, so in that sense the date works well.

New Zealand celebrates theirs a couple of weeks later, on February 6 (1840, the date of the Treaty of Waitangi). There is a whole other story for another day about how, in short, the Maori were more skilled at skewering redcoats than the indigenous Australians and hence they never needed Mabo because they had Waitangi, so it was always clear they retained certain traditional rights to their land. Interestingly, some modern discourse turns this around by pointing out that while the Maori ceded their sovereignty (in the Treaty), the Aboriginal people never did (and therefore must still have it?!).

Although you've used May 1, 1707, as the U.K.'s national birthday, the anniversary of the date is not marked or celebrated here. The closest thing Britain has to a national day would be the four saints' days of the four patron saints (St. George, St. Andrew, St. Patrick and St. David), where there is a bit of flag-waving and English, Scottish, Irish and Welsh national pride displayed, although none of them is a national holiday (though St. Andrew's Day is a holiday in Scotland and St. Patrick's Day is in Northern Ireland and I believe also in the Republic).


B.B. in Dothan, AL, writes: I would like to recommend a recently published book I'm reading: e Hold These "Truths": How to Spot the Myths that are Holding America Back, by Casey Burgat.

Regarding Supreme Court decisions, the author asserts that SCOTUS answers questions about who holds which powers in society. The good decisions "reflect a nuanced and complicated understanding of the delicate role we need the court to play in our system." Dred Scott was a poor decision because the justices did not consider the politics of the day or the issue. Instead, it "was a transparent attempt to settle the political future of slavery in a single judicial ruling... Instead of calming things down, it simultaneously angered the abolitionists in the North (who bitterly opposed slavery) and further fractured the Democratic Party into proslavery and antislavery groups. This division helped clear the path for Abraham Lincoln's victory in 1860, and the Civil War soon followed." Today's Supreme Court differs from prior years in that they are both openly partisan and more politically irresponsible.

Humor Hath Charms...

R.L.D. in Sundance, WY, writes: As much as I appreciate your dry and snarky sense of humor, I don't usually get full belly laughs out of my daily indulgence of Electoral-Vote.com, but today's gem, "The Grift of the MAGAi" broke that barrier today. Thanks, I needed that!


J.L. in Richmond, VA, writes: Well done on the Mike Lindell (Q) joke, (Z). I rarely ever actually laugh out loud at stuff I read, but I appreciate a subtle sense of humor and that one gave me a legit chuckle.

(V) & (Z) respond: Some folks didn't get the reference. It alludes to the crazypants conspiratorial QAnon "movement."


C.Z. in (not the crook pardoned by tRump), Sacramento, CA, writes: Bravo for "Secretary of Playing Soldier Defense" It made me laugh out loud despite our continued fog/overcast/cold weather, and my recurring sciatica.


G.W. in Minneapolis, MN, writes: You wrote: "Everyone knows the old conundrum: If a tree falls in the forest, and nobody is around to hear it, does it make a sound? Now, it would seem we have the Trump administration corollary to that: If someone quits a job they never legally held, did they really resign?"

I actually think the new conundrum is: If a tree falls in the forest, and everyone saw Trump cut it down, is it still Biden's fault?


D.E. in Lancaster, PA, writes: I'm surprised that you didn't have a picture of a Klingon presenting a frozen cloche as one of today's wintery Twelve Days of Christmas pictogram puzzles... you know, "Revenge is a dish best served cold."

Oh, wait, I finally got the third puzzle: "In the Bleat Midwinter, flashy gloves made moan."

OK, I'm going to stop now before I get banned from the site (if I'm not already).


R.R. in Pasadena, CA, writes: In the pictogram game, you had three photos for number 10, with Stephen Miller, snow, and the symbol for man. For the life of me, I just can't get past the phrase "Nazi the Snowman," which is a far different cartoon than the one I grew up with. I'd hate to hear the lyrics to that song, too—it's already bad enough seeing the videos online.

Gallimaufry

A.L. in Highland Park, NJ, writes: I was touched to see (V) mention Henry Kendall. He was my undergraduate and graduate advisor. Because (V) and I were at MIT roughly 20 years apart, (V) knew Kendall while the deep inelastic scattering experiments were actually going on, while I knew him when the Nobel Prize was finally awarded for the discovery of quarks (turns out inelastic scattering of protons was actually elastic scattering of quarks). The whole story of those experiments is in a book: The Hunting of the Quark: A True Story of Modern Physics, by Michael Riordan. An entertaining bit of history of science. Henry Kendall was also the founder of the Union of Concerned Scientists, and passionate about the environment. He died in a diving accident in Florida while mapping out some underwater caves.

I did meet a few old timers as well: Phillip Morrison and Victor Weisskopf, alumni of the Manhattan Project. Morrison was a hoot. Once he had a group of elementary school kids roaming around the halls, measuring their speed and stride lengths to prove dinosaurs were fleet footed. He roped a few of us in to take data and make plots. Weisskopf liked to visit the junior labs (surely, V remembers junior lab?) and talk about his days as director general of CERN. He was enthusiastic about computers taking over data acquisition. He helped me take apart the Mossbauer effect apparatus and hook it up to a PC with an RS232 cable, instead of the old way of using a polaroid camera pointed at an oscilloscope. Urged me to learn this newfangled programming language called C++. I'm still at it.


S.L. in Dover, DE, writes: I'd like to thank you, the staff dachshunds, and all the contributors to Electoral-Vote.com who help me maintain some degree of sanity.

But the main reason to say thank you is to tell you about the "knock-on" effect (or "paying it forward") you've had on me. As a library worker, I interact with all kinds of patrons and since you began running the idea, I've told them about your expanded meaning of "thank you for your service."

More than that, I've given them examples of the kind of services that we may notice with gratitude but don't remember to say so. I suspect many of your visitors have mentioned the series and have passed along the ideas to others. If you think of the radiating power of such a trend, it may eclipse the No Kings marches as a way to re-align our American society.

If that happens, Electoral-Vote.com should take a bow.

(V) & (Z) respond: We are gratified to hear this, and can only hope you are right this has added to the world in some small way.

Confidential to R.T. in Arlington

A.G. in Scranton, PA, writes: In response to R.T. in Arlington, who wrote a thank you message about his son, depressed, autistic men do incredibly well as dump truck drivers and it is good money. Personal experience.

If he is capable of driving... he could make a hell of a life for himself and never have to feel the undue shame people try to make those who clean up others' messes feel. He's a hero for punching the clock at a thankless job every single day he can, after probably having to hear stupid people say stupid things to him his whole life.

If nothing else, he's a hero for that.

People need earnest men behind the wheels of trucks who are thankful for everything they have in life and who are dedicated to their jobs, not their social media updates.

I do want to ask you, though, to try to be kind to people who are "trouble for their community." A good number of them have no other choice than to be. A good number of them are only "trouble" because we elected people who led a nation that failed to properly educate or dutifully protect them. A good number of them wish to be anything other than "trouble to their community." Every last one of those who don't want to be "trouble" is in some sort of pain. Personal experience, once again.

It is hypocritical to ask others to not discriminate against the mentally handicapped who aren't "trouble for their communities" and then immediately discriminate against the mentally handicapped who are. I am certain it was unintended, the slight to people not much unlike your son. I do things like that all the time.

Anyhow, help talk him into a commercial drivers' license, if he can do it. It is a job that is year-round down there, and pays so much more than what he does now.

Most trucks are equipped with automatic transmissions now and a few I have driven are (hand to G-d) easier than driving most cars I have driven.

Final Words

J.L. in Adams County, PA, writes: In the Talmud (Taanit 7a) the sage, Rabbi Chanina, said "I have learned much from my teachers, more from my colleagues, and most from my students."

If you have suggestions for this feature, please send them along.
Previous | Next

Main page for smartphones

Web Analytics Made Easy - StatCounter