Dem
55
Ties
1
GOP
44
The embers of last Tuesday are still smoldering.
J.W. in Victoria, BC, Canada, writes: I share the happiness expressed by many members of the Electoral-Vote.com community. However, as (V) has noted, this was not necessarily an endorsement of the Democratic Party. Democrats have to either deliver or successfully blame the GOP for the lack of progress. This will not be easy. Fox "News" and the country's billionaires will do anything in their power to regain their chokehold on the non-ideological majority.
Sorry to be a buzzkill. We should still relish this moment!
D.B. in Oak Beach, NY, writes: There's real danger in our current political pendulum. Most of us celebrating the swing to the left ignore a harsher reality: The country still hasn't conquered its darkest political impulses. Was the 2026 election a victory for decency and the rule of law, or just a protest against inflation and overreach? While history favors the Democrats for 2028, an economic downturn on their watch could be disastrous. When the pendulum swings back, will it return responsible conservatives to office, or will it unleash a stronger, more resilient, more emboldened domestic neo-fascism? I worry.
L.O.-R. in San Francisco, CA, writes: I am struck by the comment from E.W. in Seattle, echoed in so many words by others, that "this election... marks the subsidence of the last ripples from the Civil War..." I can't help feeling that way, too. But my head is saying something entirely different: Black Americans saw the promise of equality following the Civil War for less than 10 years, then it was all shut down with a vengeance, not to be resurrected for another 80 years. I am not being negative in reminding Electoral-Vote.com readers of this, merely reminding all of us that progress requires both moments of great advance as well as sustained years of hard work. Without that sustained work, we could quickly slip right back into 2016... or 1876.
J.A. in Forest, VA, writes: You wrote: "Thought for today: If Democrats can win Senate races in North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Mississippi, and Texas, that is, all over the South, what is to become of the Republican Party? They are going to have to do some hard thinking about that."
After the 2008 elections, which were viewed as a complete repudiation of the excesses of the Bush II administration, some pundits (a couple on MSNBC, at least) proclaimed that the United States was now a one-party country, that the Republican Party was finished. How did that work out? The Tea Party formed, the Republicans doubled down on the 1960s Pat Buchanan formula of "divide the country, we'll take the bigger half." The GOP (Gasbags-Only Party) has only one objective, to concentrate power and money in the hands of a few. They can't sell that message, so they'll come up with more phony issues to scare the moogs into voting them more power.
P.M. in Port Angeles, WA, writes: What just happened? I see this as not simply a blue wave, but the beginning of a "radical" realignment of the political landscape. One can clearly see the start of an abrupt and unanticipated collapse of Nixon's Southern Strategy and a possible (and hoped for) re-emergence of non-white citizens taking hold of the political power that they are realizing they possess, a new Reconstruction for America.
This entails a severe fracturing of the Republican Party that will require an intense rethinking of their policies, programs and approach to governance. So far they appear stuck in the "denial" phase of grief. Maybe they will wake up, but I expect it will take a good bit more time. For one thing, it requires an admission that they were wrong about many of their theories and talking points, something they are loath to do.
But the future will take enormous effort and hard work to rebuild all that has been destroyed, including restoring trust that government can be configured to benefit the people of the United States.
Let's not blow this opportunity to move forward rather than back.
R.C. in Jacksonville, FL, writes: The election, with the Democratic successes in the South, brings to mind the remarks Lyndon B. Johnson made when he signed the 1965 Voting Rights Act: "I think we have lost the South for 50 years."
He was wrong, they lost it for 60 years. On November 3, 2026, the Democratic Party got the South back.
D.H. in Boston, MA, writes: Perry Bacon has a pretty fiery piece about how commentators like Ezra Klein, Nate Silver and Nate Cohn overemphasized Trump's "multiracial coalition" in 2024, and how their takes on the 2026 midterms might be similarly mistaken.
For me, the penultimate paragraph is striking:
In the real world, I'm asking and really demanding prominent political commentators stop ignoring and downplaying fundamental realities of American politics. Black men who voted for Trump in 2024 are 1 percent of the American electorate. White college graduates who voted for him are 15 percent of the electorate. People who spent 2025 constantly mentioning the former and never the latter should start covering politics better or stop being read by people who want to actually understand American politics.
D.D. in Bucks County, PA, writes: I was watching one of the Sunday shows, and what dawned on me was another reason (perhaps major reason) for the Blue Tsunami.
It's accountability. Not the way the media is talking about accountability now. Accountability as in to the people of each politician's district/state. Republicans actively ran away (Josh Hawley-like) from holding actual town halls and appearing at debates. The public got mad that they were denied the one direct method (besides voting) to make their feelings known to their elected representatives. This might have been the most consequential thing that these politicians took away from the people they represent.
In addition, no one wants to vote for a coward.
K.N. in Lynchburg, VA, writes: I think your item "Legal News: With a Bunch of Blue AGs, There Are Going to Be Some Changes around Here" missed a big effect of the Democratic AG win in Texas. Texas is one of the few states that allows for serious judge shopping. There was a clear path from Ken Paxton to SCOTUS as follows: Matthew Kacsmaryk for abortion issues and Reed O'Connor for immigration issues. Depending which mailbox Paxton filed in, he was certain to get the judge of his choice. Few other districts outside of Texas work that way.
Once they get their favorite judge, and they win the case, the appeal automatically went to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which is also a heavily right-leaning court. From there, the path leads straight to the Republican-leaning SCOTUS. All of this hinges on having a conservative Texas AG with little respect for legal precedent. That path has been nipped in the bud, so to speak.
I need not mention just how damaging this legal pathway has been to real people who aren't far-right-wing folk.
D.B. in Mentor, OH, writes: As a fan of the "inside baseball" portions that appear on the blog over time I wanted to bring this bit of change to your attention. I haven't yet noticed any mention of the potential flip of the state delegations in the house that could decide the election if no one gets to 270 in the Electoral College.
As of Saturday night, the Democrats control 24 state delegations to the House. If MN-01 and AK-AL both go to the Democrat, they will have the necessary 26 delegations to elect a Democratic president, if the process gets that far.
Just one more guardrail for Democracy if anyone tries to mess with the election in 2028 and the NPVIC hasn't been enacted.
K.C. in West Islip, NY, writes: You wrote that Canada was a winner of the election in large part because the tariffs MAGA has placed on them will likely soon be disappearing.
When I was a teenager in the mid-1990s, my parents switched our television provider and got on the dish bandwagon, which afforded me access to MuchMusic, a station playing exclusively Canadian musicians. It opened up a huge treasure trove for me because, as I understand it, Canadian broadcasting laws require their TV and radio to play something like 60-70% content by Canadian artists. This ends up making them really popular in Canada and minimizes the desire for them to travel south to America, unless they're a really big act like Rush, which transcends borders.
One of the bands I discovered was a group called Sloan, who I immediately became a huge fan of. Back in (roughly) February of this year, I e-mailed the band asking if they'd anticipated coming down to downstate New York on their current tour. In under 24 hours, I received a response. They thanked me for my years of support, expressed immense appreciate for their American fans and closed with an affirmation that they would not come back to America until the hostility and unpleasantry from American politics returned to something normal. I'd say Election Day was a great step in that direction.
Canada wins and so do the legions of fans of Canadian musicians who wouldn't renew their work visas or even bother to consider coming to America strictly because of MAGA politics. Maybe we can get back to a free (or at least cheaper) exchange of the arts across borders, with this political movement looking like it's on life support with the plug halfway out.
M.D. in Ashland, MA, writes: I was just thinking how lucky we are to only have to defeat one mad king every 250 years. I'll gladly wait another 250 for the next one.
T.C. in Richmond, VA, writes: I believe Gov. Andy Beshear (D-KY) or Sen. Jon Ossoff (D-GA) would be terrific candidates for the top spot on the 2028 ticket. As of today, I now think that Sen.-elect James Talarico (D-TX) is a slam dunk for the VP slot if either is nominated as the presidential candidate.
Having Talarico on the ticket guarantees that Texas is even more in play in 2028 than it might be as of now. If the GOP were to lose Texas, it has absolutely no path to 270 EVs. Having Talarico on the ticket also would not put a Senate seat at risk as Gov.-elect Gina Hinojosa (D-TX) now would appoint his replacement, should the Democrats prevail.
S.S.T. in Copenhagen, Denmark, writes: Regarding the straw poll showing Jon Ossoff well ahead in the Democratic field for president, the Danish foreign minister, our former prime minister, agrees. He somehow happened to be in Atlanta on November 3-4, just to chat with Sen. Ossoff, of course. The foreign minister, Lars Løkke Rasmussen, has been a mainstay of Danish politics for three decades and usually knows who is a "keeper." And given the recent Greenland deal, why not talk to a very likely presidential candidate?
On a related note: This week, parallel to the "peace" negotiations in the Russo-Ukrainian war in Abu Dhabi, the Danish government just so happened to host Volodymyr Zelenskyy for a 2-day visit right before his participation in the next E.U. summit, and he was allowed to deliver a speech in the Parliament (a first for a foreign head of state). Talk about a middle finger in the direction of the orange mass across the Pond.
M.M. in San Diego, CA writes: I would not be the least bit surprised if Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) runs in the Republican presidential primary in 2028. Not to win, necessarily, but to raise his national name recognition. Then he jumps to the Libertarian Party, gets their nomination so he can play spoiler to whomever does wind up as GOP candidate. He's not done messing with them yet, much to my delight and entertainment.
J.C. in Oakton, VA, writes: Just watched the Republicans vote down the Pete Hegseth impeachment on C-SPAN. Which also was playing simultaneous comments from Thomas Massie, urging Republicans to vote yes now, knowing it will be much worse later.
Did they learn anything?
Massie was also asked if he would run for POTUS in '28, but he demurred.
In the post-tsunami environment many will dismiss it, but I can actually see it.
T.T. in Eugene, OR, writes: I got a casting notice for a commercial. They are looking for old ladies to say "Where the Beef?" I did a quick glance, thought maybe Wendy's was resurrecting that ad campaign. Nope. It's being made by Common Sense Results PAC, a moderately conservative political action group affiliated with former Michigan governor Rick Snyder, a Republican. I looked him up. It appears he is anti-Trump. It's exploratory ads to test messaging on Snyder's former record as Michigan Governor. They will run it for 13 weeks in the New England area. Hmmm, New Hampshire perhaps?
Needless to say, I declined, as I don't want to do anything that will help any Republican, even those opposed to Trumpism.
So, you heard it here first. Rick Snyder is thinking of running for president.
R.P. in Vashon, WA, writes: Regarding your item "All of a Sudden, 2028 Looks Different," I must respectfully disagree with your characterization of JD Vance as a "terrible politician." A terrible person, perhaps, but dismissing him as an ineffective political actor repeats the exact mistake critics have made throughout his ascent.
I read Hillbilly Elegy before Vance launched his MAGA makeover, and even then, his disingenuous carpetbagging and subtle opportunism were unmistakable. Yet we cannot mistake cynical shape-shifting for lack of talent. Vance is a chameleon who has repeatedly and successfully reinvented himself: from venture-capital darling and establishment Never Trumper to populist firebrand and loyal MAGA attack dog. Each pivot was calculated, executed ruthlessly, and accomplished its exact goal.
Beyond his adaptability, Vance also brings two lethal political assets that opponents routinely overlook: (1) fundraising prowess, as he moves effortlessly between elite Silicon Valley/Wall Street donor suites and the grassroots populist donor base and (2) mainstream rhetorical discipline. Though he can come off as a blundering sycophant to those who know better, Vance is still a skilled orator. Outside of the right-wing media ecosystem, he can present an alarming veneer of sanity and reasonableness—a look he demonstrated with chilling effectiveness during his debate with then-VP nominee Tim Walz.
From the start of his political career, Vance was mocked, dismissed, and laughed off at nearly every turn—including on this site. Yet mockery did not stop him from winning an Ohio U.S. Senate seat, securing the vice-presidential slot, and landing just one heartbeat away from the Oval Office.
If opponents and the press want this year's electoral repudiation to amount to a lasting defense against authoritarian populism, they can no longer afford to laugh Vance off as an inept hack. He is an agile, disciplined, and dangerous operator, and failing to treat him as such only clears his runway to 2028.
W.R. in Tysons Corner, VA, writes: I just wanted to write to say how disgusted I am with the Democrats for being asleep at the wheel during the Pete Hegseth impeachment vote. This was the most important vote since the House came back in session after the midterm election. Everyone knew the vote was coming within 48 hours of Thomas Massie filing it. Yet, eleven Democratic House members were absent, most claiming to have been "stuck in traffic," while Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) wasn't even in town, and was instead in San Francisco receiving an award. Good to know what her priorities are.
If even seven of the eleven absent members had been present, the vote to send the impeachment to committee rather than to a full House vote would have failed. It's Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) and Minority Whip Katherine Clark's (D-MA) job to make sure their members are present for important votes in the House. If they can't manage the basic task of whipping votes, then the Democrats need to get new House leaders pronto. This is no time for delays or amateur hour. Voters are pissed off, and this corrupt administration must be stopped as soon as possible.
K.B. in Chicago, IL, writes: The eleven Democrats who didn't bother to show up for the Hegseth impeachment vote caused it to fail. The vote was 211-204. They deserve to be named and shamed.
According to The New York Times, the no-shows were "Representatives Julia Brownley, Lou Correa and Nancy Pelosi, all of California; Laura Gillen of New York; Steven Horsford of Nevada; Jonathan L. Jackson of Illinois; Brittany Pettersen of Colorado; Melanie Stansbury of New Mexico; Haley Stevens of Michigan; Marilyn Strickland of Washington and Frederica Wilson of Florida."
Democratic voters just gave the party a historic election victory, and they get repaid with business-as-usual nonsense from DC Democrats. Hakeem Jeffries has proven to be quite the incompetent leader during his short tenure. It's a shame no one is challenging him, since we sorely need a competent leader and a fighter. Maybe instead of threatening incoming members, Jeffries should make sure that his current members show up for critical votes!
R.B. in Bartlett, IL, writes: You wrote:
Also, quite a few readers are unhappy about the fact that the Hegseth impeachment vote failed because a bunch of Democrats were not present on the floor of the House. Fair enough, but do consider three things. First, even if the articles of impeachment had been approved, there is virtually no chance they would have resulted in a trial, since Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) would have sat on them. Second, because there most certainly would/will be an impeachment trial when the Democrats control the Senate, the absences might have been deliberate, so as to produce this result. Third, if the Democrats had been present, Johnson might not have called the vote.That overlooks some important facts. The vote that was taken was not on the articles of impeachment, instead it was a vote to move the impeachment to committee for "review." In other words, to send it to die. The vote was closed, by Johnson, well before the planned time. If the vote had been held open, like it should have been, the 11 Democratic representatives would have made it. But it would have also given time for additional Republican representatives to get back to the House to vote. You don't think that Johnson would have kept the vote open if he was losing? People trying to blame Hakeem Jeffries for this are just looking for excuses.
Second, I am happy the vote failed. Here is why: Let's say the impeachment articles passed. So, now it goes to the Senate, where Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) says "We don't need a trial, let's just vote." Does anyone think that the current makeup of the Senate would find 67 votes to convict? And, if they fail to convict, I feel it will be much harder for the Democrats to refile new articles in 2027. Donald Trump and Pete Hegseth will just claim "double jeopardy" and "witch hunt" and "We already had the trial!" But now, the Democrats can file their own articles, get them passed in the House and put on a real trial with real witnesses. Really show the American people what a horrible person Hegseth is.
S.S. in Kansas City, MO, writes: I wasn't sure the Hegseth impeachment vote would warrant any more comment from you but since you did mention it a second time, I thought I would pass on some in-the-weeds level reporting on how the Hegseth impeachment vote went down. It would appear the fix was in from the beginning.
It is clear that the regime was determined to prevent Hegseth's impeachment at this time and it would seem the House Republican Conference was on board with this sentiment. Since Hegseth's impeachment is clearly imminent in the new year, why would the administration work so hard to stop it now? Is this simply a "macho fight to the end" thing (Trump is certainly doubling down and vowing not to change course at all in the next 2 years)? Do they think they can strong-arm just enough Republican senators to vote against conviction? Or, is it that they are still trying to work out a graceful exit and cushy place for Hegseth to land? Maybe all of the above.
A.S. in Black Mountain, NC, writes: My hero of the week is the sentinel at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier who told his boss to STFU.
P.S.: Most people don't know there is a silent "B" in "tomb."
D.F. in Hernandez, Scotland, writes: Well done to the sentinel, Thomas Iglesias, who challenged Pete Hegseth and his group at Arlington.
Did anyone else get Robocop vibes when he finished his rebuke, turned and marched across the parade ground?
"Target neutralized. Mission accomplished." I could see him thinking those words whilst I watched the video:
I wonder if there's a Directive 4 built in.
J.B. in Albertslund, Denmark, writes: I was smitten by a case of severe (literary) déjà vu when I read about how Petey Hegseth pinned a medal on that soldier who told him and his friends to STFU and have some respect at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier(s).
It reminded me of how, in Catch-22, Colonel Cathcart could not figure out how to punish Yossarian for screwing up a mission; so, instead, the Army brass covered it up by awarding Yossarian the Distinguished Flying Cross.
B.C. in Manhattan Beach, CA, writes: In "America: You're Grounded," you missed one of the most-important pieces of the news.
During the press conference in which Secretary of Transportation Sean Duffy declared that the shutdown of the air traffic system was the fault of Congress, Markwayne Mullin (currently Secretary of Homeland Security, and formerly Senator from Oklahoma) pointed out that, when he had been in the Senate, he had worked tirelessly to get Congress to fund upgrades to the air traffic control system, but he had been blocked at every turn by the Democrats.
Oh, wait... that's not what he said. He just echoed Duffy's blame on the Congress, without mentioning that he had (until recently) been part of Congress (in fact, part of the majority party).
I suppose that, once you join the Trump Regime, you are no longer responsible for what you did (or did not do) before that.
(V) & (Z) respond: You're just now figuring this out?
B.C. in Walpole, ME, writes: I just watched the Duffy/Mullin press conference. It had "November Surprise" written all over it. It was such a brazen, uncamouflaged attempt to change the narrative created by the election that it was hard to watch.
At no point did Duffy actually explain what went wrong or how it was fixed. Several of his statements were very obviously wrong, and nothing either of them said was more than self-serving.
R.G. in Washington, DC, writes: I am not a conspiracy theorist in the slightest, but I just can't help but wonder if Friday's ground stoppage was done at the behest of He Who Shall Not Be Named in response to the midterms. The way that Hegseth blamed Congress for inaction makes me think they are relying on the American public to not know that the Democrats aren't yet in charge. I hope I'm wrong on this, but it wouldn't surprise me in a few months if we learn that was the case. I wouldn't put anything past these a**holes.
Incidentally, I just was promoted to a position in Dulles Airport at the terminal that opened this week, so I got to see this unfold up close. A hell of a week to start working at the airport I suppose.
(V) & (Z) respond: Looks like you picked the wrong week to quit sniffing glue.
S.M. in Pepperell, MA, writes: The ground stop is another massive unforced error by the Trump administration. I guess the president wanted a distraction from "Chip-gate." By the way, I think the ground stop should be called "Gate-gate." By blaming Congress for not funding FAA infrastructure upgrades, it is also apparent that Trump thinks the Democrats are in control of Congress right now. Markwayne Mullin can't speak with proper grammar, and together with Sean Duffy, the press conference sounded like a scene from Dumb and Dumber, Part IIV.
L.E. in Santa Barbara, CA, writes: After the air traffic control fiasco, I could not resist. I am old enough to remember when this was first published, so I went scouting the web to find it:
Scott Adams might have turned into a first class jerk in his later years, but in 1996 he already foresaw the coming of DOGE.
R.B. In Cleveland, OH, writes: It's going to be awfully hard for MAGA to pull off another January 6th when they can't keep planes in the sky.
L.E. in Santa Barbara, CA, writes: Even Mussolini got the trains to run on time.
J.K. in Short Hills, NJ, writes: When posing the question on paths for the Democrats to elect a Speaker other than Hakeem Jeffries, T.S. in Los Angeles wrote that AIPAC, along with billionaires and big money corporations, controls our government. Such a comment is not only offensive, but also crosses the line to invoking a common antisemitic trope.
Briefly, AIPAC, which is financially supported by Americans and not the Israeli government, ranks 191st among lobbying groups in the United States. Moreover, for those like T.S. who think the organization is the puppet master pulling the strings in Washington, have they ever considered that those politicians who do take money from AIPAC, which until recently included countless members from both major political parties, actually believe that Israel's being an important American ally is in the best interest for the country and perhaps those critical of Israel should reevaluate their own thinking and get much better educated on the topic?
A.G. in Scranton, PA, writes: I don't like how it's impossible to be critical of Israeli war tactics, its soldiers' battlefield conduct, or politics without immediately being referred to as an antisemite. Zionism can be argued to be a goal of some branches of Judaism, but when geopolitical goals and religion are wedded by those who promote land annexation, only those desirous of squelching debate will refuse to see it for what it is: a cynical trap.
If to be critical of hard-line Israeli goals of a Middle East with neither a Gaza nor a West Bank is antisemitic, then to oppose the United States—a super-majority Christian nation, one governed by those who swear fealty to Christianity's ethics and tenets—annexing land is to brand a person as standing against Christianity and to be critical of the Crusades when teaching them to others is to be an historian with an anti-Christian bias.
Sen. John Fetterman (D?-PA), as far as I know, never made any comments on the State of Israel and the scourge of antisemitism until those became convenient tools with which to attack liberals and Democrats. I know his kind of Pennsylvanian, and if he doesn't use the term "Jew them down" when referring to being cheap or (and, I swear to G-d, this is really a thing) "that's so Jewish" when referring to something being dumb (again, swear to G-d, every dumba** Pennsylvanian I know used that term), then he'd be the first loud-mouthed jock a**wipe from this sh**hole commonpoverty* to not do so.
John Fetterman is like every other jock a**wipe in this state, and I would imagine someone far smarter than him (a slow slug on his deck, perhaps) told him that he should run as a Democrat when he ran because that was the way to win in Pennsylvania that year. Look at the highly insensitive things he said about opioid addicts and the homeless in Braddock in the years preceding his election to the Senate if you want an idea of who he really is as a person. He's a Hillary and Bill Clinton kind of "lock 'em up," "tough on Black people... er, crime," "imprison the super-predators" Democrat. He's never been a good fit and if we start compromising our beliefs for one Kyrsten Sinema wannabe, then what's the point of being in the majority? 56 votes, 55 votes, 54 votes, that sort of difference doesn't matter. Normally I would be pragmatic and say that any person calling themselves a Democrat is better than that person calling themself a Republican, but if we're going to allow one person to undermine our electoral mandate, then there was no point in winning a majority.
Send him out to pasture (a purposefully chosen metaphor) with that enormously annoying racist from Michigan, Haley Stevens.
* - Ain't no commonwealth, that's for sure.
J.E. in Whidbey Island, WA, writes: For many years, I was a fan of the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. But lately, I wonder if, once implemented, it could backfire in unintended ways.
For all its faults, the Electoral College does act as a sort of firewall against nefarious meddling—or just plain administrative incompetence. If things go awry (voter-roll purging, voter intimidation, tampering with vote counts, or botched tallying) in a state, under the present system, the damage is limited to that state's electors. Imagine a nightmare NPVIC scenario: a closely-divided national popular vote, but the totals in one state (and, keep in mind, it could be any state!) are suspect, by a large enough margin to affect the result. Furthermore, suppose the discrepancy is in a state that is not a signatory to the Compact. What then? Would the Compact states accept the disputed national popular vote total? Would they even have a choice to not accept it?
Another example: Even if there is consensus that all of the states' vote totals are above-board, what if the popular vote happens to be so tight that we are in recount territory? Recount laws and procedures vary considerably by state. What if some states refuse to initiate a recount? Even if none refuse, would the nation be able to stomach 51 separate recounts, and the weeks of delay and uncertainty that would bring? Would SCOTUS step in, 2000-style, and call a halt to the whole thing?
These outcomes seem like constitutional crises just waiting to happen if the NPVIC comes to fruition.
Perhaps we would be better off simply increasing the number of seats in the House, to dilute the disproportionate influence of small-population states in the Electoral College. Of course, this would not solve the problem of presidential campaigns being waged nearly exclusively in swing states. But it seems safer than attempting a Constitutional end-run that could turn out to be a time bomb.
B.J. in Arlington, MA, writes: I'm all for breaking the Republicans' ability to win the presidency while losing the popular vote, but the NPVIC makes me uncomfortable. I do not see how it will survive the first time a state awards its EVs to someone other than the candidate its people voted for; the blowback would be incredible.
Imagine that a Democratic trifecta in your state passes legislation to join the NPVIC. In a subsequent election, you and a majority of that state's voters vote for Democratic Candidate A while Republican Candidate B wins the national popular vote and thus gets elected, whereas absent the NPVIC, Democratic Candidate A would have won the Electoral College and the presidency. How will you feel? The answer is that you will feel disenfranchised and also incredibly angry. At the next election, you and the majority of your fellow state residents that voted for Democratic Candidate A will remove your state from the NPVIC by ballot question if allowed, and also by electing representatives opposed to the NPVIC (probably Republicans!).
Instead, I'd rather see Congress fix (increase) the number of congressional seats, reducing the outsized influence of small states with two senators in the presidential election. This addresses the same problem as the NPVIC but operates within the existing system and is very easily justified by the increase in U.S. population since 1910. I guess that requires having a federal trifecta, though. Sigh.
H.R. in Chapel Hill, NC, writes: Was (Z) tortured by Southern clowns at his childhood birthday party? Whatever the reason, it's unfair to call someone "traitor" simply because their loyalties were divided during the Civil War.
Most Southerners had no say in the matter. The elite who held power decided to secede. That forced Southerners to choose between loyalty to their state government or their federal government. They could not do both.
At the time, travel was difficult, so many people never ventured far from where they lived. For most Northerners as well as Southerners, loyalty to their native state exceeded loyalty to Washington, DC—a place they had never been.
I enjoy it when (Z) writes about Southern history, as long as he sticks to the facts. But his unreasoned bias is most unwelcome. Millions of Americans claim Southern ancestors. Why go out of your way to offend us?
(V) & (Z) respond: (Z)'s paternal ancestors were from Georgia.
G.G. in Horseheads, NY, writes: I had to smile when I read your reference to rotten boroughs because, indeed, I just taught about them in the European (Global 2 in New York state) history class I teach (10th graders), drawing a similar comparison, except using our own rural community having a representative and New York City also only having one representative.
This is tied into a unit about how different leaders deal with issues/problems. The overarching issue was how politicians in democracies have to attempt to fix the problems they face or they will be voted out of office, as opposed to totalitarian rulers who can just throw people in jail without repercussions, until eventually there's a full-fledged revolt.
How much of a parallel was that to what happened last week? Hmmm...
L.H. in Chicago, IL, writes: You had a haiku from D.S. in Layton, which ended thusly (with the asterisks representing blurred out letters): "HAHAHAFU**ER."
Well, with a moment's thought, it's obvious what the blurred letters were meant to be, but at first glance, I read it as FÜHRER.
It works that way too. Maybe even funnier.
T.B. in Santa Clara, CA, writes: The prediction from D.H. in Portland of "Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra" absolutely slayed me! What a hilarious VERY deep cut! Even my Next Generation-loving wife didn't remember that one. Well played!
S.S.L. in Battle Creek, MI, writes: I'm blind, so had no idea Stephen Miller looked like a balding middle school edgelord. He sounds like Mandrake from Dexter's Laboratory, however:
S.Y. in Skokie, IL, writes: One more observation on the midterms: It was the most lopsided contest in America since 1940, when the Chicago Bears won the NFL championship game 73-0.
(Z) responds: Let's hope it's not all downhill for America from here, as it proved to be for the Bears after 1940.
K.R. in Austin, TX, writes: D.B. in Baltimore asked why counting votes takes longer in some states than in others. You overlooked the unique reason why votes are counted so slowly in Mississippi: They must say, "Mississippi," after counting each vote.
D.M. in Cleveland, OH, writes: You wrote: "Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith (R-MS) experienced a Colom blow yesterday..."
OMG, what a way to get the blog post going right out of the gate. Best. SNL ad parody. Ever. (And a tip o' the cap to the late, great Phil Hartman.)
I'm going to be chuckling over your joke the rest of the day. Well played!
G.W. in London, England, UK, writes: I enjoyed your malaphor example. You could have applied another one to your Nvidia Story (or any number of recent scandals):
The skeletons in the cupboard are coming home to roost.Credit goes to Tom Stoppard in The Real Inspector Hound.
J.S. in Yreka, CA, writes: I clicked through to see Kristi Noem's $220 million ad campaign video linked in your item about here, but I turned the sound off and enabled closed captions so I wouldn't have to hear her voice. I found YouTube's interpretation of her name amusing:
D.W. in Phoenix, AZ, writes: You wrote, of Kristi Noem: "She is going to have to explain why she couldn't travel commercial or simple chartered jets when she needed to go somewhere that didn't have commercial service."
Only three classes to book in commercial travel: economy, business, first class.
They didn't have the necessary fourth class: posturepedic.
E.M. in Milwaukee, WI, writes: In writing about the best anti-heroes in film, you mentioned the common idea that Ringo Starr "couldn't drum."
On the Wikipedia article about Ringo, there is this pithy quote about Ringo's work:
Starr influenced the Genesis drummer Phil Collins, who said: "I think he's vastly underrated, Ringo. The drum fills on 'A Day in the Life' are very, very complex things. You could take a great drummer from today and say, 'I want it like that', and they really wouldn't know what to do."(V) & (Z) respond: Also see this this video:
M.K. in New York City, NY, writes: Thanks for including me in the Sunday mailbag.
I forgot that your site is "flat," meaning only html files as opposed to dynamic, such as php with "GET" arguments.
For flat html files, to clear the cache, you can use a "?" instead of "&" and then a random number instead of an ampersand. That still works better than the conventional methods because it clears both client and server cache.
W.S. in Tucson, AZ, writes: The final words that the late, great Patrick Stewart delivered as Jean-Luc Picard: "I've come to believe that the stars have always been in my favor."
If you have suggestions for this feature, please send them along.