Letter writer JoAnn Lee Frank (“Democrats should learn to yield,” Nov. 21) argues that Americans “overwhelmingly” voted for Donald Trump, so Democrats shouldn’t oppose his agenda. The math says otherwise. While ballots are still being counted in some areas, Trump defeated Kamala Harris in the popular vote by only 1.7 percentage points.
In the 2020 election, Joe Biden defeated Trump in the popular vote by 4.4 percentage points. I don’t recall Republicans saying that Biden “overwhelmingly” defeated Trump or that Biden received a “mandate” and they should all fall in line behind him.
Instead, Trump and many of his supporters rejected the outcome in 2020 and tried to overturn the results. A number of Republican lawmakers, governors and state attorneys general did all they could to block Biden’s agenda.
Frank asserts that Democrats could lose in the 2026 midterms if they oppose Trump, but that also isn’t necessarily true. In the 2018 midterms, Democrats took back control of the House of Representatives and made substantial gains at the state level in a “blue wave” election that was a rejection of Trump’s policies.
Both parties should try to work together when possible, but not at the expense of what’s right for this nation. Trump received millions of votes, but so did Democrats up and down the ballot. Some Democrats won in states and districts that also voted for Trump.
Would Frank assert that these votes don’t matter?
— Mike Mosser, Chicago
Voting against ‘woke’ agenda
I’m confused by the letters from Donald Trump voters who claim they voted not for Trump but against the “woke”/progressive agenda — without telling us what specifically they voted against. What was it? Continuing to address climate change so they and their kids can have a livable planet? (The GOP wants to scuttle our environmental safeguards.) Accepting that gay and transgender people exist and aren’t bothering them? Enforcing our environmental, security and banking laws? Do these letter writers want to see an end to the Food and Drug Administration?
Do they not think that the extremely wealthy should pay their fair share — even more than the rest of us, considering that worked well until Ronald Reagan became president? Should we just accept that people are going to break the law but not be held accountable? What about Trump declaring bankruptcy multiple times but not forgiving unfairly structured student loans? Or, even though these letter writers are not being asked to do anything, based on their personal philosophy, do they believe abortion is murder and those who believe otherwise should be controlled?
What about any of this affects these letter writers so much that they’d want a thief, a man found liable for sexual assault and someone who has repeatedly disrespected even people he hired, to be in charge of the country?
Which of his actual policies do they like the best?
— Robyn Michaels, Chicago
Would-be Democrats unhappy
I needed to read only a portion of Laura Washington’s Nov. 20 column to conclude that her piece would likely be another snoozy retelling of the “Rahm Emanuel is bad” narrative (“Rahm Emanuel leading the Democrats is a nonstarter”). I assumed it was going to be several paragraphs of her expressing her outrage at hearing the suggestion that Emanuel be tapped to lead the Democratic National Committee. It was, and she did.
But in expressing her outrage at the notion of “Rahmbo” coming to the rescue, she simply reinforces the same reason that moderate, on-the-fence, would-be Democrats like me refuse to join up or even consider identifying with the current Democratic Party. In her diatribe, Washington offers no solutions, constructive analysis or alternative pathways — only criticisms. She bemoans the actions of leaders who got themselves elected and reelected by a diverse electorate (winning — what a concept!) and provides no alternatives or substantive suggestions about how Democratic hopefuls may effectively win election.
If I thought that mailing a few fish heads now and then would help elect leaders who improve conditions in my community, I’d be the top FedEx fishmonger on my block.
We don’t have the luxury of standing on ceremony these days. I’d suggest Washington read the room — the progressive bellyaching is taking the Democratic Party down with the ship. This is why the party’s would-be members refuse to come aboard.
— Michael Gunderson, Chicago
Cabinet nominees’ experience
Forget about governing. This is the entertainment Cabinet. In addition to personal loyalty to Donald Trump, a secondary qualification for Cabinet nominees appears to be entertainment experience: Pete Hegseth, Fox News; Dr. Mehmet Oz, daytime TV; Sean Duffy, Fox News; Linda McMahon, WWE; and Tulsi Gabbard, Russian state media.
It’s not that entertainment cannot be a qualification for these positions; it’s just that these Cabinet picks seem focused on giving us a Grade B horror movie.
— Joe Szczepaniak, Wheaton
Nominees prove unworthiness
Donald Trump already is the worst president in our nation’s history. Then he became the worst former president in our nation’s history. Now, he is the worst president-elect in the history of these Un-United States. His cast of proposed Cabinet members is clear evidence of that.
What next for us? The worst reelected president in history? Undoubtedly. And maybe the last president before he becomes emperor or king or an authoritarian?
For those of you of a religious bent, pray!
— J. Harry Jones Jr., Lincolnwood
Definition of ‘religious’ values
Regarding the op-ed “How Latinos found their voice in Donald Trump” (Nov. 22): How disappointing to once again have undefined “family” and “religious” values offered as a reason certain groups voted for Donald Trump. Which values is the author referring to? For example, in the Episcopal Church, our “religious and family values” include welcoming any in need, regardless of immigration status; celebrating the image of God found in children exploring their gender; defending the rights of LGBTQ+ people; seeking reconciliation and equity across differences of race and ethnicity; and seeing all these things as ways of loving God by loving our neighbor as ourselves.
Perhaps as Juan Rangel rightly reminds us — that Latinos are not a monolithic group — he may be reminded himself that the category “religious” is also rich in diversity.
— The Rev. Bryan Cones, pastor, Trinity Episcopal Church, Highland Park
A 21st century Stan Laurel
The various postmortem discussions for the Democratic losses have ignored an important factor: the opinions coming from the U.S. Supreme Court.
The first was the justices’ denial of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment invoked by the Colorado Supreme Court in declaring Donald Trump ineligible for the White House.
The second was when the U.S. Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision, declared that the president has immunity for “presidential acts.” Such a decision makes the president a de facto king and above the law, thus destroying the rule of the law on which the American republic is founded.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, like a modern Cicero, vehemently dissented. “O tempora, O mores!” (Oh, the times, oh, the mores!)
Now America is facing a kakistocracy, a government of the worst people who, like the Pied Piper of Hamelin, are leading America toward a cliff. In a similar situation, Oliver Hardy would have said to Stan Laurel: “Well, that’s another nice mess you got me into.”
God save America.
— Raffaele Di Zenzo, Westchester
Victory not close to a ‘landslide’
The column in Tuesday’s paper by Dr. Dave Nayak (“Pritzker has learned nothing from presidential election’s wake-up call”) repeats the mistake that Donald Trump’s election was a “landslide.” Many reporters and columnists continue to call Trump’s victory a “landslide,” a “mandate,” etc., while failing to fully understand the history of American elections.
Trump won 50% of the vote, as opposed to Kamala Harris’ 48.4%, hardly a landslide or a mandate. The mandate is for the president-elect and the two major parties to work together.
There is no argument that Trump won the election, but an electoral vote count of 312 to Harris’ 226 does not match the landslides achieved by Ronald Regan, who in 1984 won by nearly 16 million votes and 525 electoral votes to his opponent’s 13, and Franklin Roosevelt, who in 1936 won 523 electoral votes to his opponents’ eight. Those were true landslides.
Trump received 76.8 million votes, far fewer than the 81.3 million votes Joe Biden won four years ago. Biden’s victory in 2020 was not a mandate nor a landslide, and neither is Trump’s this year.
— Bill Morris, Lake Forest
Gov. Pritzker imperils projects
I urge the Tribune opinion team to hand-deliver to Gov. JB Pritzker a copy of fellow Democrat Dave Nayak’s op-ed.
Pritzker clearly has stated his intention to obstruct Donald Trump’s agenda and thereby risk the future of several key economic development projects that he himself has initiated and enthusiastically backed.
These include a multibillion-dollar plan to create a quantum computing and microelectronics park on the site of the former U.S. Steel South Works. The Department of Defense’s Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency plans to be a tenant.
Pritzker’s determination to antagonize Trump will discourage support in the National Institutes of Health for Illinois’ extensive biotechnology research, which circulates through university labs and ultimately ends up in companies such as AbbVie.
Climate technology also is a Pritzker favorite that is at risk while the governor pokes Trump in the eye. The nascent Midwest Hydrogen Hub, which includes Illinois partners, snagged a $1 billion federal grant for research.
Why should Trump encourage these and other economic-development programs in a state led by a governor who delights in threatening to thwart him as he attempts to enact his electoral mandate?
— Dan Miller, Chicago
Letter writers’ helpful insight
Letter writers Clare Connor of Chicago (“Pritzker should back off,” Nov. 14) and Joseph A. Murzanski of Orland Park (“Wrong fight to wage,” Nov. 14) should run for office. They both have a grasp of reality in Illinois, of what the key issues are, and a plan to move forward. Their letters show more insight than any Illinois politician has shown in years. If they run for office or hold a class for politicians, they have my vote.
— Steven Ludkowski, Elk Grove Village
‘Happy warrior’ ignores needs
Despite Gov. JB Pritzker’s hollow postelection taunt to President-elect Donald Trump that he needs to “come through me” if Trump comes for Illinoisans, Pritzker’s performance has been far from that of a “happy warrior,” as Pritzker described himself.
During the presidential campaign, in a transparent attempt to promote himself for the national Democratic ticket instead of focusing on issues that voters really care about, Pritzker engaged in unseemly schoolyard name-calling, referring to Trump as homophobic, racist and misogynistic. His failure to effectively manage Illinois voter concerns — massive pension liabilities, exorbitant property and sales tax rates, the undermining of law enforcement and public safety, and financial mismanagement that has garnered Illinois a terrible credit rating — likely accounts for Trump’s percentage-point increase over his opponent in Illinois in the 2024 election versus 2020. Also, high-profile businesses and more than 100,000 residents have departed Illinois during Pritzker’s tenure in office.
Bottom line: The Tribune Editorial Board (“Illinois and Trump are no match made in heaven. But they’ll have to work together,” Nov. 10) got it exactly right!
— James Reum, Chicago
Groups’ perspective is rich
So some groups in Illinois have filed a lawsuit opposing the mandate that state-regulated health insurers must provide coverage for abortion, arguing that such a requirement has their tax dollars being spent on a procedure to which they have a religious objection.
Well, I have religious objections to my tax dollars being spent to support school groups, nonprofits and churches that don’t pay property and income tax and that preach against abortion rights, gay marriage, transgender rights and migrants.
Strange how I must protect their beliefs, but they have no problem using my tax dollars to go against my beliefs.
— Peter Felitti, Chicago
An a la carte-like demand
Regarding the lawsuit targeting abortion coverage in Illinois, I’ve been around long enough to have seen these lawsuits come and go. I always chuckle at the idea that people should be able to fight against what they perceive as an unacceptable insurance benefit. Does that mean that a religious group that does not approve of blood transfusions could insist that that benefit be eliminated?
Actually, it might be a great idea for the Internal Revenue Service to include a checklist for what we refuse to support financially.
Peace groups could request withholding payments to the military, vegetarians could cut out payments to cattle ranchers and women’s groups could cut out payments of any kind to categories that did not include women.
— Sheila Stone, Chicago
Note to readers: As part of our annual holiday tradition, we’d like to hear from you about what is making you feel thankful this year. Sincere thoughts only, please. Email us a letter of no more than 400 words to letters@chicagotribune.com. Be sure to include your full name and your city or town.
Submit a letter, of no more than 400 words, to the editor here or email letters@chicagotribune.com.
