Electoral-vote.com

Do Democrats Insist on Taking Positions the Voters Hate?

Last week, we ran an item entitled "Why Do Democrats Insist on Taking Positions the Voters Hate?," based on a column by Thomas Edsall of The New York Times. That piece, written by (V), triggered an overwhelming response, most of it critical. We ran some of those letters on Sunday, and we are going to run some more at the end of this item.

Among those letters was one from reader J.F. in Fort Worth, TX, who observed—to paraphrase—that (V) and (Z) are usually on the same page, but that a divide can sometimes be detected, and that the divide was particularly palpable in that piece. J.F. is entirely right; (Z) does not care for Edsall's work in general, and did not care for that op-ed in particular, and even wrote an e-mail to (V) that evening saying as much.

Under these circumstances, a different look at that piece is called for—this is something that we promised we would do this weekend. And since it is already established that this is solely (Z)'s perspective, then it is time do something relatively rare, and abandon the usual "we" in favor of "I." Everything you read here, until you get to the reader letters at the end, is 100% (Z).

To start with, I will concede that Edsall is basically on the mark about four things:

Sometimes in politics—most of the time, in fact—it is necessary to avoid letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. Lincoln accepted that the process of ending slavery would have to unfold somewhat slowly, and proceeded accordingly. Same thing with Franklin D. Roosevelt and the social safety net, John F. Kennedy and civil rights, Barack Obama and healthcare, etc.

What this means is it might well be advisable for Democrats who are generally pro-trans to decide that pushing for programs and medical treatment that will keep trans kids from committing suicide is a fight worth having, while, say, fighting to allow trans girls to play high school sports is of less importance, and might be a fight to be had another day. A useful indicator of the "temperature" of public opinion came last week, when the IOC banned all trans women from participating in women's events. This is a non-issue, since no trans woman has ever won a medal. But the IOC nonetheless felt pressure from all sides (but particularly U.S. Republicans) to make that change and, being a fundamentally political organization, made it.
On that point, there are a LOT of people who are generally center/center-left, but who are really, really, really bothered by trans people, and by trans equality. These people tend to skew older, and older people tend to vote.
The Democrats have been very effectively tarred as being radical on the issue of trans rights.
Voters on the fringes, in both parties, have outsized clout because they donate money, they donate time, and the lack of competitive districts means the biggest concern is being primaried by someone even more lefty (for a Democrat) or someone even more righty (for a Republican). For those who cannot click through and read the original Edsall piece, he does show his math on this point, backed with links to studies.

So, those are the elements of the Edsall piece that were agreeable to me. Now, four concerns I had upon my first reading:

As a historian, I have been taught that the very first thing you want to do when evaluating a document is to consider the source. This is also a major theme of my undergraduate courses; there are exercises in every course I teach that ask students to think critically about what weaknesses or biases might be inherent to any particular document or any particular author/creator.

I am somewhat leery of Edsall because of my general sense that he's a little out of touch. He is an 84-year-old white man who grew up with wealth, with numerous of his relatives (including his father) in the finance industry, and several others on the faculty at Harvard. He was himself educated at elite institutions, and he's spent his career as part of the intellectual elite, working variously at Columbia University and The Washington Post. It is true that any of us who are academics have at least something of an "ivory tower" problem, but I, at least, have regular contact with students in their teens and twenties. Edsall hasn't stood in front of a classroom in 25 years. What it amounts to is that I am just not persuaded he's the best person to assess what ails the modern-day Democratic Party.
While it may seem silly, a related concern is that Edsall runs one column per week. Undoubtedly, he is a talented writer, and he knows how to build an argument. However, on those occasions where we are off for a few days or a week, it's actually really tough to get up to speed, and it takes a few days to be "in shape" again, much like a long-distance runner who takes a week off from training. It would be extra difficult if EVERY posting came after a week off, and thus a week of not paying intense attention to the daily headlines.
Edsall evinces no awareness of some rather key nuances here. Is he actually unaware, perhaps because he's not following the political news closely? Did he overlook those nuances because column inches are precious? Did he skip the nuances because they weaken his argument? I don't know. But what I do know is that the Republicans have made "stop trans girls from playing high school sports" not so simple as it seems.

For example, Edsall cites a vote that was taken last week, in which all but two Democrats in the House, and all Democrats in the Senate, voted against a measure that would have banned trans girls' participation in high school sports. But he does not mention that the measure they voted against was actually a rider to the Save America Act, and was specifically designed to make it more painful for the blue team to oppose that legislation. If the rider had been added to the bill, then Republicans running for office this year would have their choice of "Democrats filibustered an attempt to keep trans girls from playing high school sports" or "Democrats apparently don't care about voter fraud," depending on what works best with their constituents.

To take another example, just yesterday the Trump administration sued the state of Minnesota because the state allows trans girls to play high school sports. And what the administration wants is to cancel ALL federal funding for Minnesota schools. Nobody can seriously believe that the lawsuit is REALLY about trans girls playing high school sports. It's really about Donald Trump's desire to punish the state of Minnesota, Gov. Tim Walz (DFL-MN), the people who resisted ICE, and Somali-Americans, in some order. And the larger point is that giving in on this issue is not only a slippery slope in terms of "What will become the next civil right to be taken away?" it is also a slippery slope in terms of "How will a surrender here be leveraged as a hammer against blue cities/states?"
I have written this before, but I hate, hate, hate any piece that starts from the vantage point that most or all of the members of a political party are dunderheads who can't help but shoot themselves in the feet.

The people who have risen to leadership of the Democratic Party are at the peak of their profession. They are smart, they are savvy, and they care passionately about staying in power, either because they love power, or because they want to do good in the world, or both. Is it possible that some of them, given the high altitude in which they fly, are a little out of touch? It is, but that sort of jaundice, when it sets in, is usually seen among the highest-ranking and longest-serving members of the party, NOT the vast majority of members.

There is only one major player in American politics today who appears to be basically irrational, and that is Donald Trump. We've spent years trying to figure out what his game is, and have had to accept that there really is no game. He does what his gut, and his penis, and his greed, and his over-developed revenge complex, and whoever is manipulating him on any given day tell him to do, and that's it. Other Republicans kowtow to him—left, right, and sideways—but they are not being irrational. We think their choices are not terribly admirable, and are a bad long-term play for them and their party, but they're not irrational. We understand exactly why Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) and VP J.D. Vance have become Olympic-level bootlickers.

Now, since Edsall proposed a systemic explanation for what's going on, I will do the same. Again, I'm a historian, so I think about these things through that lens. I begin with four assertions about the nature of the American political system:

With rare exceptions, American politics has had a conservative faction and a liberal faction for the past 220 years or so. The exact party that represents each faction has changed, and sometimes both factions are represented in both parties. But, with The Era of Good Feelings as the possible exception, there has consistently been a conservative faction and a liberal faction.
Broadly speaking, the liberal faction has favored change. The conservative faction has favored the status quo. To the extent the conservative faction favors change, it's change BACK to how things were. Remember that the core tenet of Trumpism, ostensibly, is to Make America Great Again—to revert back to some bygone, halcyon era where things were somehow better (in the case of Trump, he's specifically said that era is the 1950s).
A lot of Americans really don't like change. On the whole, the older someone is, the more likely they are to be leery. And, as I note above, older people vote.
For 200+ years, the conservative political faction has employed, as a core strategy, a program of taking one or two particularly extreme manifestations of change, one that might or might not be embraced by a few members of the liberal faction, and tarring the entire liberal faction with it.

Let's run through a few historical examples:

1800: In the United States' first real presidential election (George Washington's two elections were uncontested, and John Adams' 1796 election was basically seen as a continuation of Washington), the conservative party was Adams' Federalists and the liberal party was the Democratic-Republicans, with their nominee Thomas Jefferson. Though Jefferson was white, Southern and a slaveowner, he was seen as a freethinker on religion (which he was) and a supporter of the worst excesses of the then-recent French Revolution (Jefferson was pro-French, but deplored the violence into which the French Revolution descended). The Federalists already had the fiscal conservatives of the day in their pocket, what they needed to do was firm up the social conservatives. So, the Party spread the rumor that Jefferson, if elected, planned to confiscate and burn all of the nation's Bibles.
1832: Today, Americans are worried about the rise of a right-wing monarch (see below). Back in the day, they were equally concerned about the rise of a left-wing monarch; someone who might use their control of the teeming masses to assume dictatorial power, along the lines of the Greek tyrants of the 7th and 6th centuries B.C. (Americans back then were intimately familiar with classical history.) Inasmuch as Andrew Jackson was very popular with the teeming masses, the opposition Whigs tried very hard to make the case that if was reelected in 1832, he would form a latter-day Greek-style tyranny. Many readers will have seen the famous cartoon that circulated widely in that year:
1864: If you had to pick one social issue that dominated the 19th century, that social issue would have to be racism (with women's rights in second place). Throughout that century, particularly after 1850 or so, conservatives (the Democratic Party, by that time) constantly portrayed the liberals (the Republican Party) as wild-eyed radicals on race issues. Abraham Lincoln was actually a moderate on race, but he did set slavery on the road to extinction, and so when he ran for re-election in 1864, the Democrats tried to convince voters that the next step was to encourage, or even require, interracial marriage (a.k.a. miscegenation):
1936 and 1940: The thing that really scared Americans in the 1930s was getting involved in another world war. And, as we have pointed out many times, American society was very antisemitic back then. Oh, and on top of that, the very popular FDR looked unbeatable (and, in fact, he was). In desperation, conservatives tried in 1936, and again in 1940, to spread the story that FDR was either a tool of a vast Jewish conspiracy, or even that he was himself a secret Jew, whose family had changed its name from Rosenfeld to Roosevelt.
1960: The Republicans of 1960 has a problem similar to the ones faced by Republicans in 1936 and 1940, namely a very popular Democratic president running for reelection. Americans' main bugaboo of that era was different, however—instead of vast Jewish conspiracy, it was a vast communist conspiracy. And so, anytime John F. Kennedy made public appearances in 1963 (including that fateful November in Dallas), Republicans circulated handbills declaring that Kennedy was a closet communist who was guilty of treason against the U.S.:
1988: And now we get into elections that most readers will remember. The late 1970s and 1980s saw an anti-civil-rights backlash, in response to the gains made int he 1950s and 1960s. This is not dissimilar to the backlash right now, against LGBTQ Americans, which is undoubtedly fueled, at least in part, by the dramatic gains of the 2010s. Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan tapped into that undercurrent of backlash with dog whistles, talking about "the silent majority" and "welfare queens," respectively. In 1988, George H.W. Bush's people leaned into the racist backlash much more aggressively, with the infamous Willie Horton commercial, making "clear" that if Democrat Michael Dukakis was elected, scary Black men would be raping white women across the land:
2008: Another generation, another bugaboo. In 2008, just a few years removed from 9/11, the group that frightened people prone to reactionary voting was Muslims. And so, Republicans launched an all-out blitz trying to persuade voters that Democrat Barack Obama was a secret Muslim. These efforts were remarkably successful at moving some voters into the "He's a Muslim" camp, and others into the "I'm just not sure he's really a Christian" camp:
2024: And now, an election that 100% of readers remember, because it was just 2 years ago. I have no doubt that Kamala Harris is broadly sympathetic to trans Americans, and that she would not pursue anti-trans policies if she was elected president. However, she is a savvy politician, and knew full well that a full-throated defense of trans rights (or any defense of trans rights) was politically toxic. So, by and large, she stayed away from that issue. The way that you can tell that she was successful is that the central event of her career that Republicans used for their "she's for they/them" ads came from her time as California AG, when she accommodated the needs of a grand total of TWO trans prisoners, and did so because the law required it. Even if you remember the key campaign ad, you should consider rewatching it, to remind yourself of how dishonestly it was edited:

This ends the history lesson.

Perhaps I am particularly sensitive to "Don't those dunderheads know any better?" analyses because I am a Civil War historian, and one of the stupidest hypotheses about that war is the "blundering generation" hypothesis—the notion that if the politicians in the 1850s had been wiser, or more level-headed, or something like that, the Civil War could have been avoided. One way you can tell this hypothesis is stupid is that Donald Trump believes in it. The thing that "blundering generation" people are never able to answer is: What solution, exactly, was available, and went un-tried?

My theory, as compared to Edsall's, proposes that the problem the Democrats face is not one of stupidity, or shooting themselves in the foot, or myopia, or anything like that. In fact, Kamala Harris, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY), et al., are dealing with a problem that the liberal faction always has to deal with. And while some politicians might have handled the problem better than others, even brilliant operators like Jefferson, Lincoln, Roosevelt and Kennedy were not able to solve it entirely.

I think you can also argue that today's liberals have an even more difficult row to hoe. First, because there is now a whole mass-media ecosystem—cable "news," websites, social media, etc.—that is by and large without gatekeepers. So, it's way easier than it once was to widely propagate exaggerations and outright falsehoods. Second, and very related, is that Americans today seem to be more likely to believe whatever they hell they want to believe, without worrying about evidence. This has always been a dynamic in American culture, but my gut feel is that it's particularly profound today.

Also important, note that all the examples above involve a claim whose relationship to the truth is somewhere between "dubious" and "completely non-existent." What that means is that even if Democrats successfully defang the trans issue (presumably by surrendering unconditionally), then the Republicans absolutely, 100%, without question will come up with some other fringy wedge issue that is not at all a core part of the party's platform and that, at most, has the backing of a small minority of Democratic politicians.

This leads to one last, and somewhat obvious question, I would say, namely: Is there anything that today's Democrats can learn from these historical examples? There is, but I suspect some people won't like it. The only way to win this particular game is... not to play. Lincoln, for example, ignored the miscegenation stuff. Same for Roosevelt and "Rosenfeld," and Kennedy and communism. Think about it this way: Did anyone ever once claim that Obama needed to do more to address the "Muslim" issue? Pushing back against this conspiratorial/propagandistic stuff serves only to do three things: (1) make the targeted group—Muslims, trans Americans, Black people, Jews, etc.—feel like you are throwing them under the bus, (2) give oxygen to the claims and (3) cause voters to think that there must be some truth to the claim, since [POLITICIAN X] seems to be so upset about it. It's a version of the Streisand Effect.

Notice that "leave it alone" is exactly the approach that most Democrats are taking today. They try very hard to avoid taking any stance at all, since coming out pro-trans will upset one group of voters and coming out anti-trans will upset a different group. This may not be satisfying to many people, and that is very understandable, but it is the strategic choice supported by 200+ years of American political history.

It is theoretically possible that a Democratic politician, or even the entire Democratic Party, could take 100% ownership of one of these wedge issues, and to try to turn it around on the Republicans. You know, something along the lines of "Yes, we favor equal treatment of trans Americans. We're just trying to follow that part of the Constitution, you know, the one that says 'equal protection before the law'?" Or maybe, "Well, many of us enjoy reading our Bible, and we couldn't help but notice that Jesus said to treat everyone kindly, and did limit himself only to people whose gender identity matches what's on their birth certificate." I describe this as "theoretically possible" because I struggle to think of an example where it's been successful, or where it's even been tried. Actually, I can think of ONE example, but... it's from a movie. The climactic speech in The American President involves President Andrew Shepherd (who is clearly a Democrat) taking 100% ownership of his membership in the ACLU and his dislike for assault rifles, and demanding to know why anyone who loves America/the Constitution would disagree. A very satisfying scene, but not one with a whole lot of real-world parallels.

The other thing the Democrats can do is try to offer a compelling vision for the country, one more appealing than the one offered by the Republicans, and ideally one even more appealing than finding some group to scapegoat. There is no question that the blue team is trying, and that they've certainly got a lot of ammunition to work with right now. Whether they are succeeding, well, I would submit that's a more useful question for Tom Edsall than spurious arguments about being too trans-friendly.

P.S.: JFK did take ownership of the Bay of Pigs, but I don't think that quite follows the framework laid out here. That was an attempt to make him look incompetent, not an attempt to make him look like a wild-eyed lib'rul.

And now, some more reader letters:

P.R. in Arvada, CO, writes: After reading the responses to the Thomas Edsall piece, I wanted to let Anonymous in TN know that they do have the support of a lot of people in the world. It may not seem like that due to the extreme noise made by the bigots and the media's tacky need for clicks, but we are here for her. To all of the trans readers, you are not alone and there are a lot of people like me who fully support you. I don't pretend to understand what you are going though but I do know you deserve our love and support.

Part of the problem trans people face is how easy it is to demonize them based on sheer ignorance. Part of what makes the Republicans so effective is their ability to take a complex issue and distill it down to a very short, easy-to-understand sentence that sounds reasonable until you actually think about it. Mandatory Voter ID for all sounds reasonable unless you actually think it through. When you tell people who don't have the first idea what it means to be trans or why they need help or what it really involves, it is really easy to give short sound bites that appeal to people's pre-conceived ideas. Step 1 in the process is to make sure people know as little as possible about the issue as possible for as long as possible. If you aren't taught about something at school, chances are the majority of people aren't going to be curious enough to learn, and they will just let these soundbites reinforce their preconceived notions. If you aren't willing to take a few seconds to think about it or you haven't been taught anything about it, it is believable that men will try to attack women in female restrooms. That is completely unbelievable if you take a few seconds to think about what a trans person has to go through to transition and how much more dangerous it is for a trans woman to use a male bathroom.

Even the people who push hardest against trans issues don't seem to have any valid argument for their stance. Their hypocrisy and inconsistent views are off the charts. They want us all to be assigned the sex we were at conception? Is there a test for that? What about the people who develop both male and female parts? Fu** them, they really don't count? S.S. in West Hollywood explains very simply that science does understand this, and there are valid genetic reasons for it. If we ignore the actual science, should we also ignore the causes of other genetic disorders and tell those people they don't need help and to suck it up? Biblical "arguments" are just as laughable. If you believe in God then surely you believe they also made trans people. Maybe the test isn't how they deal with it, but rather you are the one being tested, to see if you have a shred of compassion in you. When you make people feel as though the whole world is against them and do your best to make sure kids commit suicide because they can't get the help they need, you're the problem. It really puts you up there as some of the nastiest people.

R.M. in Gresham, OR, writes: I just wanted to reach out to Anonymous in TN and say that I cannot begin to imagine the fear, anger, and hurt you must feel simply for living your life as authentically as possible. I want to make sure you know that not everyone wishes you harm, though I can certainly understand why it must feel that way. If it is worth anything, I am sending loving-kindness and compassion your way, and working to ensure that no one has to feel this way in the future.

May you be safe. May you be healthy. May you be happy. May you live with ease.

J.H. in Parker, AZ, writes: I don't know if you need any more correspondence on the controversial Edsall posting but it will be at least cathartic to write this, so I thought I'd offer a differing viewpoint...

As I read the many passionate critiques in Sunday's post, I couldn't help but think of the infamous Henry Clay line, "I'd rather be right than be president." Certainly, not all of the Democrat or Democrat-leaning, or not-entirely-opposed-to-the-Democrats voters felt this way in 2024, but enough of them did to have a devastating impact. Whether we're talking about Kamala Harris not being supportive enough of trans rights or Gaza or whatever issue was not pure enough for a particular voter, enough people stayed home or cast protest third-party votes or even voted for Epstein's bestie to teach the Democrats a lesson and likely cost Harris the election. And now where do we find ourselves? In a fascism-adjacent (at best) country that's objectively worse for the groups who were the subject of these protest votes.

People need to remember that politicians are not generally a courageous lot and are loath to do the right thing if they think it will cost them their next election. For example, Barack Obama's "evolution" on gay marriage had little to do with his personal growth on the issue between 2008 and 2012. It was because decades of activism for gay rights had finally brought the culture to a point where a centrist Democrat could say the things out loud that he had long believed privately. If we somehow manage to survive our current national nightmare, this sort of long-term work will be required to, hopefully, bring us into an age of trans equality and acceptance. And yes, I'm aware that trans people have been intertwined with the gay rights movement from its early days, but the issues have clearly diverged in the public consciousness, surely with the help of right-wing propagandist media.

S.O.F. in New York City, NY, writes: I'm fascinated by the back and forth on the Thomas Edsall piece. The discussion centers on the Henry Clay sentiment "should a politician prioritize standing on principle over winning elections, or vice-versa." This misses an important dynamic, in my opinion. The alternate way of looking at this is whether the Democrats on social issues are peddling false hope in the positions they take. Take trans rights, for instance. If a Democrat in a deep-blue district runs on transwomen in women's sports, as a politician, they benefit from it. But, given the realities of the electorate, acceptance of transwomen in women's sports is probably not going to happen anytime soon. Bottom line: The politician benefits from this, the transwoman doesn't. On the other hand, if they ran on preventing violence against transpeople, economic opportunities for these folks, housing support, etc., it's a workable goal. So it seems to me that the discussion about some of these issues should center on whether we are being straightforward with marginalized groups on what improvements the electorate can deliver for them, rather than promising something that isn't going to happen. For civil rights issues, it may be simply more honest for Democratic politicians to propose mechanistic solutions for advancing civil rights rather than to promise societal acceptance.

E.C.W. in New Orleans, LA, writes: Glad you're up and running, and I hope people didn't bite your head off too harshly over the Thomas Edsall piece. I am quite confident that (V) does not hold animus is his heart for trans people, nor do I think that the secret to Democratic success is adopting white nationalism Lite. (V) was interested in having the discussion, and exploring the viewpoint, which is (sadly) pretty well-established in the strategist and punditry circles.

I was going to write in myself, but I ran out of time preparing for No Kings, and I trusted that D.E. in Lancaster would say what I had to say better anyway! That being said, I would just add, I think commentators like Edsall are wrong, and often, insincere. In my 35+ years of working in politics, the "powers that be" always caution Democrats, liberals, and progressives against going "too far" on social issues and economic issues. But never Republicans, even when they go full fascist. Whenever Democrats back an oppressed group they cry that this will alienate that treasured mythical creature, the "real" American. And whenever Democrats propose some eminently-reasonable economic policy that works in 100 other countries, they claim it will bring about swift economic ruin. These pundits and strategists are self-serving defenders of wealth and status quo and they should be completely ignored.

Republicans win elections for three simple reasons: (1) They are awash with money, always will be; (2) They have ENORMOUS structural advantages, from the makeup of the Senate and the Electoral College to the almost total ownership of legacy media, social media, talk radio, and local TV stations and (3) Since Nixon, but really catching fire with MAGA, a willingness to cheat and do anything to take and hold power, from stealing SCOTUS seats to voter suppression and 1/6.

Until Democrats seriously address those three problems—which is, I know, a tall order—I don't want to hear one word from a campaign consultants mouth about abandoning vulnerable groups or adopting milquetoast economic centrism.

B.C. in Manhattan Beach, CA, writes: I don't want to dive into the entire dispute about the Edsall article and the general issue about trans women (and particularly about trans women in sports). I do want to comment, however, about the somewhat-related issue of the IOC's recent decision to ban trans women from competing in women's events, starting with the 2028 Olympics (which some have attributed to pressure from the GOP).

In 1987, my wife got pregnant with our first child. Because of my wife's age (what was then referred to as a "geriatric pregnancy," but is now referred to as "advanced maternal age"), we decided to have amniocentesis on the fetus to determine if there were any genetic defects that would be likely to affect our unborn child. Part of that process was getting counseling from a "Clinical Geneticist" (a doctor specializing in genetic medicine). As it turned out, the geneticist we met with was slated to be in charge of genetic testing at the 1988 Seoul Olympics (coincidentally, he was of Korean ancestry).

We learned from the doctor that at those Olympics, in addition to testing for performance-enhancing drugs (including testosterone), athletes were to be tested for their genetic sex. The doctor mentioned that, in addition to XY and XX genotypes (typical male and female, respectively), there were also XXY, XYY, XXYY, and XXX genotypes, and even something called "XX Male" syndrome in which a genetic female develops as a male.

Those variations in genotype have different effects on the body, and mean (among other things) that the "sex assigned at birth" can be arbitrary, because few newborns are genetically tested. At the time of birth, the doctor or nurse makes a "best guess" about sex based upon external appearances, which is not necessarily an accurate reflection of the baby's genotype. That is something I would not have known if not for our meetings with that clinical geneticist many years ago.

All of that raises a question: If a baby is assigned "male" at birth, but has one of these genetic variations, what does that mean for later ability to compete in athletics (or even to use the appropriate bathroom)?

R.W. in Brooklyn, NY, writes: I think you're off-base with your supposition that "even liberal women may support a trans woman's right to get a job, but still don't want her in the locker room at their gym." Post-op trans women are indistinguishable from cis women, and I can assure you that pre-op trans women aren't parading around the locker room displaying the genitalia that they loathe. In trans support, the real dividing line is sports participation, not restroom or locker room usage.

M.S. in Chicago, IL, writes: Why did Jesus insist on taking positions that (some) voters hate?

Thanks to everyone who wrote in! (Z)

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