And... we're back. Because we are so late, and because there were so many answers to last week's question of the week, we are going to defer to next week. We want to have time to organize them properly.

Here is this week's second hint as to the headline theme (which was apparently harder than we thought).:We really expected to use "poker" in a headline, but it did not work. We hoped to use "tortilla," but didn't really think it would be plausible (and it wasn't).

America: You're Grounded

The good news, such as it is, is that at least nobody had to go to bed without dessert.

We have to imagine that anyone reading this knows, by now, that all airplanes in the United States were grounded for an extended time on Friday. The FAA issued an official "ground stop" order at 3:54 p.m. ET and lifted it at 8:15 p.m. ET. However, many thousands of flights had already been canceled or delayed by the time the agency took action, and there are still tens of thousands of passengers today coping with the after-effects of the incident. That includes, most visibly, a bunch of college football teams, some of whom had to delay the start time for their games today. (Though readers will undoubtedly be relieved to hear that UCLA played, and won, on Friday night, and that USC flew early, so that they were available to lose to Indiana at the normally scheduled time).

In response to the semi-crisis, the Trump administration showed the leadership for which it has become so well known. In the initial announcement, Secretary of Transportation Sean Duffy said the grounding was for "extraordinary circumstances and for reasons of safety." We understand the need to be somewhat circumspect, but that kind of vagueness is guaranteed to cause many people to assume there is something terrorist- or hijacker-related going on, and to be frightened. Couldn't he say something like, "There is a systemwide computer issue, not unlike what happened with Microsoft 365 this week, and until we chase it down, we are grounding all flights out of an abundance of caution"? That's the official story as of Saturday afternoon (that it was either faulty wiring or a faulty router), and they certainly knew enough detail to blame the electronics on Friday afternoon.

Meanwhile, Donald Trump fired up his oh-so-informational social media platform. And in his first message sent after the planes were grounded, he shared this:

I am working with Senator Tim Scott and, believe it or not, Senator Adam Schiff, and, additionally, Senators John Cornyn, Raphael Warnock, Steve Daines, Bernie Moreno, Tim Sheehy, Alex Padilla, Mark Warner, Thom Tillis, Chris Coons, Katie Britt, and Dick Durbin, together with Representatives Jason Smith, Nathaniel Moran, Brian Jack, Linda Sanchez, and many others, both Republican and Democrat, on the Motion Picture, Television, and Entertainment Revitalization Act. The support and popularity of doing this, and bringing Entertainment back to the United States of America, has been unbelievable! Hollywood, and so many other places, have been virtually "emptied out" by the Tax Incentives, and much more, given by other Countries. Everyone feels strongly about the Motion Picture and Television Industry -- and so do I, and we all want to save it. It was MADE IN AMERICA, and must STAY IN AMERICA. The Entertainment Industry has largely moved to Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia, and other countries, but the actors, producers, and all others involved want to come back home! Importantly, hundreds of thousands of Blue Collar Workers will be positively affected, BIG TIME, by the passage of this Bill. The amount of money spent on these Tax Incentives will be made up tenfold by the money pouring into the Treasury's coffers. Meetings are being set up, routinely, with the Leaders of both Parties in order to, GET THIS DONE! It is a very Bipartisan undertaking, especially in that so much of the money being lost to other countries is coming out of the Blue States. Hopefully Republicans and Democrats will get together and finalize this already very actively negotiated Legislation. It can be done quickly, accurately, efficiently and, importantly, will benefit all of America. MAKE OUR ENTERTAINMENT INDUSTRY GREAT AGAIN! President DONALD J. TRUMP

The find function in our text editor is unable to find a single instance of the words "airplane," "airport," "flights" or "grounded" in there. Perhaps it is malfunctioning. In any case, we can surely all agree that a currently vaporware bill giving tax breaks to filmmakers is at least equally important to thousands of planes being grounded and tens of thousands of passengers being left in the lurch, as some of them (and some of their loved ones) fear a terrorist attack is underway.

On Saturday, as the crisis receded, Duffy adopted a defiant tone, decreeing that this is all the fault of Congress, because they have allowed the air traffic control system to become dangerously decrepit and obsolete. He'd already been pushing for $30 billion for an overhaul, but now he wants $50 billion. "I want Congress to give us emergency funding. This is bipartisan. This is American. I want $50 billion," he said. His criticism is on point, in that the system is indeed decrepit and obsolete. That said, file this away and think of it next year when [CRISIS X] happens, the Democrats try to appropriate emergency funds to address [CRISIS X], and the Republican politicians and right-wing media scream about the blue team's "reckless spending."

And Duffy's outrage, while well-placed, is also very calculated. In theory, while the finger is pointed at Congress, it will not be pointed at the Trump administration. The problem here is that nobody trusts the administration anymore, and so some uncomfortable questions are already being asked. For example:

Did the DOGE cuts play any role in laying the groundwork for this mess?

Did reliance on poorly tested AI products, perhaps acquired thanks to a no-bid sweetheart contract, play any role here?

Why is the Trump administration able to find money for the President's vanity projects, but not for something like the air traffic control infrastructure?

We have no idea what will come of this, if anything. But it's certainly a reminder that once Democrats take over Congress, they will have plenty of things to investigate, between the backlog from the last two years, and all the new lines of inquiry that will undoubtedly be opened up by the Krazy Keystone Kops over at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. (Z)

Peltola Gets the Call

This news broke just as we were preparing to post today's (very late) posting. The various outlets that call electoral races are being extra-cautious, because of the still-somewhat-unfamiliar vagaries of ranked choice voting. However, NBC and several other outlets now say that Mary Peltola will very likely soon be Sen.-elect Mary Peltola (D-AK). We saw very nearly the same verbiage about 48 hours before the Mississippi Senate race was called for Sen.-elect Scott Colom (D).

The basis for this "firm but don't hold us to it" conclusion is the latest group of votes reported from the Last Frontier. The folks up north have de-iced their tabulating machines enough to count 96% of the vote. And with only a smallish number of ballots remaining (about 12,000), Peltola has 49.8% of the vote, as compared to 46.1% for Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-AK).

Those numbers are not likely to change much once the remaining ballots are added. Even if you grant Sullivan 60% of the outstanding ballots (and that's better than he's done in any part of the state, or with any constituency), he'd still only be up to 46.6%. And with or without such a surge, he would need something like 95% of the ballots currently being counted for the more conservative Gerald Heikes (R), and for the fake Dan Sullivan ("R"). As we have discussed many times now, a big chunk of the fake Dan Sullivan votes are going to become Peltola votes. Meanwhile, some number of the Heikes/fake Sullivan voters (particularly the Heikes voters) are not going to rank other choices, and so their ballots will be exhausted and excluded.

And so, barring a development even more unexpected than South Carolina's and Mississippi's Senate seats going Democratic in the same election, Peltola will become the 56th member of the incoming Senate Democratic Caucus. Happily, her total vote is almost certainly going to be greater than that of the two Dans Sullivan combined, so Donald Trump and AG Todd Blanche are just going to have to find something else to obsess over.

And now, we await only final word from up north, and the results from a few straggler House races. At the moment, most outlets have called something like 256 seats for the Democrats and 170 for the Republicans, which leaves about 9 seats still up in the air. (Z)

Saturday Q&A

Next week, we'll finally get back to a non-politics questions weekend. But not this week.

 

A.F. in Henderson, NV, asks: I've been thinking through the Democrats' great performance in 2026, and entering the legislative term with 55 or 56 seats in the Senate. If the current inflationary environment holds, and voters are still upset with Trump and Republicans, and the Democrats reach 60 seats in 2028, with nary a Fetterman in sight, plus a solid House majority and the presidency, they have the opportunity for real reform.

I think through all the possibilities, like Supreme Court reform, getting money out of politics, etc.—all of it fades away when I start to think about the pendulum swinging back to Republicans in power, in either 2033, 2037 or some other future date. And with that, their likely decision to remove the filibuster and eviscerate any and all the reforms that Democrats created with their hard-won 60 seats in the Senate with a simple majority.

Is there anything Democrats can do to "lock in" any sort of sweeping changes if they were to get 60 seats in 2028 that prevents Republicans from dismantling them the first chance they get?

(Z) answers: One of the notions underlying the Constitution, and democracy in general, is that people should be governed by the people they elected—not by the people the electorate chose 10, 20 or 50 years ago.

For that reason, there are safeguards built into the system that prevent the sort of "eternal" governance you describe. Most obviously, Congress cannot adopt rules that tie the hands of future Congresses. Future Congresses may choose to renew the rules from the previous Congress, but they cannot be required to do so. Similarly, any legislation regarding the budget cannot extend beyond a timeframe of 10 years. Again, Congresses can renew the budget decisions made by past Congresses, but they cannot be required to do so. And, in fact, they can even reverse the 10-year decisions made by previous Congresses.

With all of this said, as a practical matter, there are things that can be done that would be long-lasting. To start, if changes are made to the filibuster, or if the filibuster is wiped out entirely, that will be permanent. There's no way that a Republican majority, whenever one is elected, would re-tie their hands after the Democrats had untied theirs.

Similarly, judgeships are damn near eternal these days. If the Democrats block a bunch of wacky Federalist Society "jurists," and if they end up filling those seats with less partisan judges if and when they control the White House, that will linger until the middle of the century. Further, the federal courts are grossly understaffed right now. If the Democrats were to create a bunch of new judgeships, the effect would be magnified.

There are certain types of legislation that, while technically reversible, are politically difficult-to-impossible to get rid of once they have been integrated into American life. An obvious example is Obamacare, which Republicans hated when it was signed into law, and which many Republicans still hate. They've tried to kill or gut the program many times, but while they stab it with their steely knives, they just can't kill the beast. The same thing has been true of legislation from past generations, including Social Security (which financial conservatives definitely tried to kill in the 1940s), and Medicare (same, except in the 1970s). The obvious bill that today's Democrats could pass that would be effectively irreversible is a statehood bill for Washington, DC, and/or Puerto Rico. There is no precedent for un-stating a state, and the terms of the Constitution make it probable that such an effort would be illegal, unless residents of the new state agreed to it (which they obviously would not do).

And while it is a tall bar to clear, constitutional amendments are effectively permanent. Of the 27, only one has ever been nullified (the 18th—prohibition). When the conditions are right, amendments tend to be adopted in bunches. Most of the amendments were added either in the first decade of the republic, or right after the Civil War, or in the first couple decades of the 20th century. I have argued many times that the current era bears a strong resemblance to the early years of the 20th century (i.e., the cusp of the Progressive Era). So... maybe.

---

 

E.C.W. in New Orleans, LA, asks: Excellent write-up of the Democratic leadership question. You pre-answered most of what i was wondering about. I agree that if either House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries or Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (both D-NY) is to be replaced, Schumer is the correct choice. Since the main arguments I have seen in favor of keeping him as Senate leader is that he was supposedly very effective at recruiting and fundraising, and that a reward for winning back the majority should not be replacement.

How do you rate this argument? And what is the true value of a Senate Majority Leader? Is the most important part of the job leading up to the election, or the fight ahead? Schumer supporters keep talking about replacing the coach after winning the Super Bowl, but I think it's more complicated than that.

(Z) answers: There is no doubt that Schumer is good at recruiting and fundraising. But—and I do not have inside information, of course—I don't think those skills cannot be replicated in some other majority leader.

As to recruitment, it's not too hard to compile a list of candidates when such a list is needed. You take a look at the sitting governor/lieutenant governor (or recent governors/lieutenant governors), members of the House delegation, and promising and/or senior members of the state legislature. It may be that Schumer is better at talking such people into running when they are reluctant, though I imagine anyone who managed to become a U.S. Senator is capable of putting on the hard sell. Also note that Schumer's cautious, and somewhat unimaginative, nature caused him to recruit, among others, Janet Mills in Maine and Haley Stevens in Michigan. How did that work out?

As to fundraising, the primary means by which Schumer does that are: (1) going to dinners/other events with big donors and (2) appearing at campaign events with people who are running for office. However, everyone reading this knows that Schumer is a bland and un-dynamic speaker. So, I seriously doubt that the key to these fundraising activities is that it's Chuck Schumer who is appearing. No, the key is that it's the Majority/Minority Leader of the United States Senate who is appearing. And that cachet would transfer to anyone else who took over the job.

Note that I do allow for the possibility that Schumer is bland in large-crowd contexts, but is dynamite in one-on-one interactions. There are famous examples of that—George W. Bush is a recent example. But that's only a possibility, not something I know to be true. Also, if he was to be replaced, the members certainly know which of their colleagues is great one-on-one. I would bet, for example, that both of the Georgia senators are stellar at it.

And there is no doubt that the majority leader plays an important role in steering legislation through the upper chamber. Lyndon B. Johnson was legendary at it during his time in the job. That said, even the skills of LBJ would be much less useful today than they were in his time. First, because in Johnson's time, there were legitimately 20 members of each caucus who were "in play," and who might cross the aisle, in one direction or the other. So, there was room for plenty of arm-twisting. Further, Johnson did not have to deal with the modern version of the filibuster, which was adopted in the 1970s (coincidentally, about 6 months before LBJ died).

The point here is that cat-herding, while important, is less significant than it once was. The next majority leader, whether Schumer or someone else, will not have to keep tabs on 40 members. He or she will have to keep tabs on the Democratic caucus' 4-5 most liberal members and its 4-5 most centrist members, and will have to make sure roughly half of those folks are on board. And because of the filibuster, as long as it remains, the number of times that cats will need to be herded is pretty small. For these reasons, I don't think replacing Schumer with a different cat herder would be a particularly profound change.

---

 

J.S. in Durham, NC, asks: I am sympathetic with your argument that it may be time for Chuck Schumer to go. However, are you worried that this (and the other fights that they might get into) will drag the Democrats into a circular mud throwing contest that will derail the good work they can do?

(Z) answers: I do not think that is a concern. First, riding the momentum of Election Day, the Democrats are currently in the middle of a partywide performance of "kumbaya." I don't know how long that will last, but it's surely clear to all members that: (1) They better get some stuff done and (2) That is going to require finding ways to get different kinds of senators on the same page, from Josh Turek (D-IA) and Adam Hamilton (D-KS) to Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Elizabeth Warren (D-MA). So, the kumbaya might last.

Second, leadership fights are unpleasant for those involved, but they fade into the background pretty quickly once they are over. Recall that Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) got his current post after an ugly leadership fight—arguably the ugliest in the history of the House. But can you point to a single time where that clearly held him back? He was held back by ongoing divisions within his conference, by the mercurial and hands-off nature of Donald Trump, and by his own lack of skill. But he was not held back by lingering resentments from his election as speaker.

---

 

B.C. in Walpole, ME, asks: I get the argument that the Democrats need steady leadership and that Hakeem Jeffries and Chuck Schumer have the depth of experience. But the fact remains that each is, in his own way, an atrocious communicator. They are the worst. They are people who, when they have spoken, you really wish they hadn't said anything at all. Is there some way that they, having been reelected, designate other people as spokespersons for the Democratic leadership?

(Z) answers: They already do this, of course. How often is there an issue, and you see that the official comment on that issue comes from "a spokesperson for Chuck Schumer" or "a spokesperson for Hakeem Jeffries"? That said, the media really want to hear things from the horse's mouth. Certainly, that is the case on the TV shows—Meet the Press does not give a 10-minute segment to a random Schumer spokesperson.

There are certain members of Congress who are telegenic and outspoken and are regularly booked on the various shows. Bernie Sanders is one and Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) is another. There might be a way to make that dynamic a little more formal. Watch for this week's "Project 2027" items for more on that subject.

---

 

T.S. in Los Angeles, CA, asks: Like many Americans who are tired of big money corporations, billionaires and AIPAC controlling our government, I am watching in horror as House Democrats are cowed and bullied into supporting Hakeem Jeffries for Speaker. Some podcasters are saying it only takes something like 40-45 progressive Democrats to oppose Hakeem Jeffries to avoid him being elected as speaker, but is that actually true? Can't Republicans also vote for speaker?

(Z) answers: The Democratic caucus is likely to have about 260 members. That means that, assuming all members on both sides of the aisle are in attendance, it would take 43 Democrats to scuttle Jeffries (260 - 43 = 217, which is a minority). While the Republicans theoretically could indulge in some high-level ratfu**ing by voting for Jeffries, it is nearly inconceivable they would do so. First, because when your opponent is busy shooting themselves in the foot, you should step aside and let them. Second, when the primaries rolled around in 2028, many of these Republicans would be attacked from the right by a challenger who would say, "Unlike [REPRESENTATIVE X], I would never, ever vote for the socialist communist trans-loving tax-and-spend Hakeem Jeffries to be speaker."

The other problem here is that you can't beat someone with no one. If Jeffries is going to be tossed overboard, you need someone who can get 218 Democratic votes to succeed him. If that person exists (outside of people with the last name "Obama"), we have no idea who they might be.

---

 

P.R. in Arvada, CO, asks: I find odd is that the Republicans just voted for their new leadership. Why are they doing that now and not waiting for the new session? It seems odd that they would let a bunch of people who will not be there next year have a say in who will be running the show.

(Z) answers: They do that because they need to get to work on committee assignments, legislative strategy, any bills they will try to introduce early in the new session, etc. While this does give outgoing members a voice in choosing leadership they will not actually be led by, it is improbable that the outgoing members will go scorched earth en masse. Meanwhile, members-elect, assuming their victory is certain (or near-certain), are invited to Washington to participate in the vote. So, they have a voice in their new leadership, even if they haven't been certified or sworn in yet.

---

 

C.P. in Fairport, NY, asks: In "Democrats Need a Lawyer," the Politico article you cited mentions that it may take at least a month before committees are organized and prepared to launch investigations, and that "the panels must wait for the minority party—newly led by Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH), a prominent Trump ally—to appoint members to the committees as well." Can Jordan refuse to name members from his party to these committees? If so, what are the Democrats' options?

(Z) answers: As a general rule, when considering parliamentary tricks like this, it is worth keeping in mind that there have been members of Congress in the past who were just as partisan as Jim Jordan, and who were much, much smarter. It is improbable, to say the least, that he (or any of his meathead Freedom Caucus colleagues) are going to discover a loophole that escaped the attention of Henry Clay or Joseph Gurley Cannon or Sam Rayburn or Newt Gingrich.

As to the specific loophole you propose, Jordan certainly could do this, but it would be counterproductive for him and his party. At the start of the next Congress, the House will pass an organizing resolution, which includes the committees and their members. It is customary for the majority to accept the minority's preferred committee members, but that is not required (and sometimes, albeit rarely, the wishes of the minority are overruled). If Jordan refused to choose committee members, then the Democrats would either choose for him, or would appoint Democrats to those seats, or would leave the seats open/pending.

Meanwhile, for a committee to conduct business, it only needs a bare majority. Since the Democrats will have the majority on every committee (except, by tradition, the Committees on Ethics, which are always evenly divided), they will be able to do whatever they want to do, regardless of whether Republican members are chosen, or show up for meetings.

---

 

S.P. in Harrisburg, PA, asks: Hypothetically, could the vice president, in his role as President of the Senate, take control of the Senate business, thereby taking that role from the majority leader? Consider that could be a way that J.D. Vance blocks the Senate from tackling Democrat priorities?

(Z) answers: Same rule as above applies: If this was a possibility, somebody smarter and smoother than Vance would already have thought of it and tried it (Richard Nixon leaps to mind).

By tradition, by Senate rules, and by the terms of the Constitution, the VP has exactly two jobs as presiding officer: (1) break tie votes and (2) count electoral votes. Those jobs are both very specifically granted to the VP by the Constitution. Setting the agenda, bringing bills to the floor, calling votes, etc. are jobs granted to the Senate Majority Leader (or to the party leaders in general) by the rules of the Senate. And Article I, Section 5, Paragraph 2 of the Constitution makes clear that "Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings." So, the Senate's preference to deny the VP any additional role in running the chamber has clear-cut constitutional backing.

---

 

K.B. in Sarasota, FL, asks: If (or when) the new Congress impeaches Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, what would be the actual physical means to remove him. If Trump says "Screw Congress," then what?

(Z) answers: If Hegseth is impeached and convicted, he ceases to be Secretary of Defense. He would have no more authority to do the job than, say, Lloyd Austin or Jim Mattis. Or, for that matter, Dick Cheney or Robert McNamara. All of those men WERE the secretary, and they're not anymore. Anyone who followed Hegseth's orders in that scenario would be breaking the law.

If Hegseth threw a tantrum and refused to physically vacate his office, then the Sergeant at Arms of the Senate or the U.S. Marshals service could be dispatched to remove him, I suppose. But Congress would probably just ignore him and leave it for the Trump administration to figure it out.

Since the president is superior to the leader of any executive department, Hegseth could theoretically tell Trump what to do, and then Trump could give the order. But that would be unwieldy, and Hegseth would not legally enjoy certain powers and responsibilities that come with the job. For example, he would no longer be in the line of presidential succession.

---

 

C.F. in Waltham, MA, asks: I honestly thought that after so many members of Congress lost their jobs because of Donald Trump and Pete Hegseth, that at least SOME of them would be so furious as to want revenge! Why were there not enough votes to move the impeachment forward, even with Democrats missing? Why do they still have such fealty to the people who destroyed them? What is their thinking as to voting "no" to advance impeachment?

(Z) answers: Only the members know for sure. However, I doubt they felt like giving the Democrats another "win," so soon after Election Day. Further, Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) wrote very substantive articles of impeachment, covering things like the Iran War. The members might not like Hegseth, but that doesn't mean they oppose the Iran War. If Massie had limited himself to, say, the Venezuelan boat attacks, he might have gotten more Republican support.

In addition, pretty much all of these out-of-work members are going to go find jobs that are based on their having served in Congress. Maybe they will become pundits on Fox or Newsmax. Maybe they will become lobbyists. Maybe they will go work for a PAC or a think tank. By and large, those employment hopes will not be helped if their final major act is to turn traitor.

Finally, it is easy to forget that some fanatical Trumpers are very dangerous people who might just take violent action against a "RINO." They might be encouraged in this, at least passively, by Trump himself. Why assume the risk to yourself and/or your family if you know Hegseth isn't going to be convicted anyhow?

---

 

M.S. in Canton, NY, asks: Soon after Democrat Angie Nixon's near miss in the Florida Senate race, I heard three mostly-incompatible hot takes: (1) This shows that Florida may be back to being a purple state; 92) Nixon could have won if the Democrats had devoted more resources to her campaign and (3) The Democrats could have won if they had nominated a more moderate candidate (like Alexander Vindman, whom Nixon defeated in the primary).

I have serious doubts about all three of these claims, for a bunch of reasons, but I'd like to hear your take on it.

(Z) answers: I think the fundamental issue here is that Florida is not profoundly subject to the trends that dominated the midterms. While it is an agricultural state by total product, farmers are not a key demographic. While it does have a lot of Black voters, they don't make up a commanding share of the electorate. While it does have a lot of Latino voters, they skew Cuban and conservative, and are less likely to turn against Trump than the kitchen-table Latinos of the west. For these reasons, I would not predict that Florida is going to be purple going forward. It's possible, but I would say that a blue-purple Texas is more likely going forward than a purple Florida.

And hindsight is 20/20, of course, but Florida is an expensive state to campaign in. It is possible that any resources directed there might have cost the Democrats in, say, Iowa or Kansas or South Carolina.

As to Vindman, the election was so close, it's easy to think that nominating him would have made the difference. But do remember that he lost the primary for a reason—the state's Democrats liked Nixon better. And if he was the candidate, perhaps young voters and/or Black voters would not have turned out as strongly as they did. Further, consider that in Texas, a sleazeball candidate (Ken Paxton) lost by about the same margin as an out-and-out racist (Bo French) and a fairly popular basically normal elected-multiple-times governor (Greg Abbott). Based on that, it sure seems like the backlash voters were voting based on the (D) next to the name, and not the name itself. So, it could well be the case that any Democrat would have performed about the same in Florida.

---

 

R.L. in Alameda, CA, asks: Is Michigan's incoming U.S. Senate delegation the first pair to not include a Christian?

(Z) answers: No.

Starting in the 19th century, and continuing to the present, there were certainly U.S. Senate delegations that included two people who were deists and/or just pretending to be Christian for political purposes, but were really agnostic/atheists.

Further, when William King took his seat on March, 4, 1917, alongside his senior colleague Reed Smoot, it was the first occasion on which Utah was represented by two active members of the LDS Church. At that time, there were some people within the LDS Church (and MANY people without) who considered the religion to be distinct from Christianity.

Even if you dismiss these leaner cases, Sen. Brian Schatz (D-HI) was appointed to his seat on December 26, 2012, following the death of Daniel Inouye. A week later, on January 3, 2013, Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-HI) took the seat to which she had been regularly elected. At that point, Hawaii had a Jewish senator and a Buddhist senator—i.e., two non-Christians.

---

 

K.B. in Stamford, CT, asks: I was looking over when candidates have conceded their races, (mostly with grace and well wishes). Why does it seem like there is an expectation to concede even before all votes are counted (often with a comment to the effect of "the math isn't there")? What is the harm in conceding the next day in case issues arise? Did any particular concession speech grab your attention?

(Z) answers: There is some value to conceding gracefully. It will either be a somewhat admirable final chapter to a person's political career, or it will leave them better positioned if they end up pursuing elective office or an appointed position in the future.

That said, I think there is a minor, but very practical, consideration that plays a major role in these decisions. Pretty much every candidate—certainly any candidate running for major office—has some sort of election night watch party. And stringing the attendees on, as the oxygen leaves the room, and as depression sits in, and as it becomes clear that the game is up, must surely be torturous. So, conceding lets the candidate and their guests off that very awkward hook. Since the concession has no legal meaning, it does no harm if there is some sort of mathematical miracle the next day.

The concession speech that stood out was the one from Greg Abbott, because it came so early, because it was more kindly and gracious than I've ever seen him, and because it was the first major clue that the story in Texas was going to be far bigger than just James Talarico (D) beating Ken Paxton.

---

 

E.W. in Skaneateles, NY, asks: At times, you have mentioned that there can be difficulties in completing the ranked-choice ballot tabulations, such as the one that might be used in Alaska's Senate race. I would imagine that the actual results are digital totals of the scanned ballots and that software could handle the actual calculation very easily, but I've never voted a ranked choice ballot so I might be missing some nuance here. Could you please elaborate more on what the difficulties are?

(Z) answers: Actually, the difficulties come before the tabulating is done. All of the ballots have to be in one place, it has to be carefully verified that—for example—the tranche of ballots that left Fairbanks is the exact same as the one that arrived in Juneau, and then the late ballots have to be verified and accepted. The actual processing, as you infer, is done by computer and should be fast. That is why Alaska expects to announce final results just a couple of hours after tabulation begins on Tuesday. The only reason it might linger into Wednesday is if there are anomalies that need to be addressed and resolved.

---

 

D.B. in Baltimore, MD, asks: Can you provide some commentary on why there is such a disparity in the speed of counting votes among different states? I get why Alaska is an exception. But how can Florida have 95% of the vote accounted for 2-3 hours after their polls close and several districts in California were only at 60% nearly a week later? And why have tight house races in states like North Carolina and Tennessee provided almost no updates since election night?

(Z) answers: There are several factors in play. First, it depends on the timeline and process by which early ballots are counted. In many states, including Florida, ballots can be processed as soon as they are received (though it is a felony for anyone to leak the results early). In other states, processing can't begin until the week of Election Day, or sometimes until Election Day itself.

Second, the amount of lateness tolerated for mail-in ballots is a big factor. Excepting overseas ballots (which is mostly military voters), Florida rejects any ballots received after 7:00 p.m. on Election Day, regardless of the postmark. Since the military/overseas vote is pretty small, that means that the Sunshine State has more than 99% of the ballots in hand by the time the polls close. By contrast, California is one of the famously liberal states, and will accept ballots up to a week after Election Day. That can be an enormous number of ballots, meaning that even fairly imbalanced contests (say, one candidate leading 54% to 46%) are not a sure thing until the mail-in ballots are all in.

Third, different states handle the post-election ballot counting in very different ways. In some states, there are folks who work round-the-clock, or nearly so, to get the counts done ASAP. In others, a more... casual approach is taken. In North Carolina, to take your example, county boards of elections are responsible for evaluating provisional ballots. And some of those only meet once a week to deal with any ballots that have presented themselves since the last meeting.

And finally, there is geography. California is rather big and rather spread out. It takes a while for the more far-flung ballots to get to whatever central facility is handling the final tabulations. Of all the states, it is probable that only Texas and Alaska have a greater challenge when it comes to having a pretty big chunk of the votes having to travel a pretty long distance.

---

 

G.W. in Minneapolis, MN, asks: With Sens. Amy Klobuchar (DFL-MN) and Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) resigning their Senate seats to become governor, who gets to pick their replacements—the outgoing or the incoming governor? Assuming that in each state these two people get along and are politically aligned, do you think it would be better for the party for the appointment to be made by the outgoing or the incoming governor?

(Z) answers: Blackburn has already made clear she will time her resignation to take place at the same second she is sworn in as governor, thus reserving for herself the privilege of choosing her replacement. Klobuchar has been less overt, but has implied she will do the same.

While they could consult with their predecessors, and probably will on some informal basis, there is no way they would not claim this boon for themselves. First, because it means that one of the U.S. Senators from their state owes them, big-time. Second, because it makes a statement to voters as the new governor begins their term. For the former reason—that the skids are greased for governor-senator cooperation—and because the governor-elect probably better reflects the current will of the people than the outgoing governor, I tend to think it's better for both the party and the public for incoming governors to make the call.

---

 

D.E. in Fremont, CA, asks: I just happened to be in Austin, TX, on November 4 and celebrated the blue tsunami with a tour of the statehouse. I was struck to learn that the legislature meets every other year for only 140 days, unless the governor calls special sessions. The idea—enshrined in the state Constitution—is to keep government limited. The result is apparently that much proposed legislation never gets passed. Do you think Gov.-elect Gina Hinojosa (D-TX) will call a series of special sessions to try to get stuff done? And will restoring reproductive rights be a priority?

(Z) answers: Yes, this is a thing you see in some of the New England states, some of the Great Plains states, and most of the Southern states. Part of the purpose is to keep the government small. Another part is to keep legislators from becoming "professional" politicians. And so, in most of these cases, the legislators are paid a pittance and are expected to have real-world, full-time jobs. In Texas, for example, the legislators are paid an annual salary of $7,200 (though they get a per diem of $221 for days that the legislature is in session, which pushes the total up a bit).

No governor or other official wants to be attacked for suggesting that the rules be changed. "Oh, you want an activist communist socialist high-tax government?" and "Oh, you're a fan of deep-state entrenched answer-to-the-lobbyists professional politicians?" people would say. However, this quaint business of having a legislature that spends 75% or 80% or 90% of the time not governing is not especially practical int he 21st century. So, all governors call for special sessions very liberally, within the constraints imposed by state law. You can bet your bottom dollar (or your bottom $221 per day) that Hinojosa will call a bunch of them.

---

 

A.L. in Highland Park, NJ, asks: In your polling Q&A I asked about the "experts" like Charlie Cook and Larry Sabato, specifically if they add any value above and beyond the polling averages. Your response was that they probably do, but no one had done a postmortem. You suggested you might look into doing just that. Is this afoot?

It seems clear to me that not only are Cook and Sabato and their ilk completely useless repackagers of stale conventional wisdom, their elevated status in the punditocracy can cause actual harm. Sen.-elect Scott Colom (D-MS), for example, has called them out for rating his race Solid R which caused difficulty in fundraising.

Cook, Sabato, et al. are white D.C. insiders who don't get out much, and who missed the uprising caused by the overt naked racism that has become the official policy of the Republicans. Chuck Rocha and Mike Madrid talked about this phenomenon in the border counties in Texas. The focus group folks, like Sarah Longwell, also picked up on it. In my (South Asian heavy) chat groups, family and friends ranging from old timers who have been in the U.S. since the 1960's and their 2nd and 3rd generation offspring, to recently naturalized immigrants, were all incensed by the Tucker Carlsonization of the GOP. This includes far-lefty progressives (yours truly) as well as more Mitt Romney-esque members.

Time to retire Cook and Sabato and their ilk.

(Z) answers: I was keeping a close eye on their Senate ratings, and could not help but notice that a big key to their shiny 90%+ success rate was that they often avoid taking a position on any race that's at all difficult to call. Cook, for example, had Alaska, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Ohio and Texas as "Toss-up." And even hedging bets like that, Cook still blew South Carolina and Mississippi.

With that said, these prognosticators are more useful when it comes to the House races, since there's less polling data for those, and since most of us can't closely track the 100 or so "plausibly in play" seats. Sometime, we will indeed go back and take a look at how the race-raters did, including the House seats. We will not go back and review the race-baiters, though. We already know they lost pretty much everywhere except Florida.

---

 

S.K. in Sunnyvale, CA, asks: Would it be fair to say that the Jensen Huang story is the (belated) October surprise of the cycle? The October surprise that could've been, but wasn't?

(Z) answers: I don't see it. First of all, the story was first reported by The New York Times on October 29. If it was going to affect the elections... well, it could have, since it was already out there. Second, it's hard to see where a little more anti-Trump sentiment might have mattered. Possibly Florida, or a couple of House races, I suppose.

---

 

P.Y. in Boca Raton, FL, asks: It seemed that Jensen Huang would just get a slap on the wrist for having sex with Alice Huang, but when the news about his other dalliance with his employee Kim Powell came out, it was a bridge too far for the Nvidia board. How come Huang gets the boot for diddling Powell while nobody seems to care about Elon Musk having four children with Shivon Zilis, who is his employee?

(Z) answers: I think there are two answers here. The first is that one affair speaks to a lapse in judgment. But for another to be revealed, just a week later, speaks to a pattern of behavior. At that point, it's a fair question: How many others were there?

The second answer, and the controlling one, is this: Nvidia stock was taking a beating. And I have no doubt that the board surveyed the people they know, and ascertained that the stock price would take a worse hit if Huang stayed on than if he was terminated. Keeping in mind that he's 63, they were probably going to have to move on from the one-man-is-the-whole-company model sometime in the next decade or so. Taking that medicine now is not such a bad idea.

---

 

F.S. in Cologne, Germany, asks: Who are your 10 favorite anti-heroes in movies or TV series?

(Z) answers: After all the serious questions, this is dessert. This list might change a fair bit if you asked me again in a month, but here's my answer:

1. Ethan Edwards (The Searchers): It's a "thing" to say John Wayne couldn't act, the same way it's a "thing" to say Ringo Starr couldn't drum. Neither is true. Wayne stayed in a fairly narrow lane most of the time (and when he left that lane, as with The Conqueror, it was usually disastrous). However, within that lane, he actually gave a lot of nuance to his performances (particularly if the film had room for it). His performance in True Grit was absolutely worthy of the Best Actor Oscar that it earned for Wayne (despite his own protestations to the contrary). And his performance in The Shootist was one of the two or three finest final performances in film history. But Wayne's best is his turn in The Searchers, as a fellow who simultaneously is a racist, infatuated with his best friend's wife, suffering from PTSD and deeply honorable.
   
   
2. Deadpool (Deadpool and sequels): He's certainly the funniest anti-hero on the list. I didn't love the third film, because I don't care for multi-verses, but the first two are top notch, and are driven entirely by this never-wanted-to-be-a-superhero trickster character.
   
   
3. Tom Joad (The Grapes of Wrath): What a film. When I show a clip in class, the students are very much into it, despite their general dislike for black and white and for 1940s pacing. And Joad is a fascinating fellow. He's the unquestioned leader of the family (despite not being the patriarch), a (semi-unwitting) crusader for justice, and a guy who's just trying to make it in a world turned upside down. But don't forget, he's also a convicted murderer, and one who has to leave the family after committing a second killing.
   
   
4. Han Solo (Star Wars, Episode IV: A New Hope and sequels): He moves from "anti-hero" to just "hero" pretty quickly, which is why he's ranked this low. Still, he has to make the list; he might well be the most famous character named here.
   
   
5. The Man with No Name (The Dollars trilogy): Clint Eastwood made a career of playing antiheroes, and this is his greatest performance (yes, better than Dirty Harry or Unforgiven, which is really saying something).
   
   
6. Walter White (Breaking Bad) and Tony Soprano (The Sopranos): I am going to cheat and put these two together, as they are both main protagonists from early 2000s prestige cable TV dramas. Their arcs are also fairly similar, assuming you adopt the obvious interpretation of the last scene of The Sopranos.
   
   
7. Elim Garak (Star Trek: Deep Space Nine): The tailor with a dark past as a high-ranking and deadly spy is the best character on Deep Space Nine, a show with numerous really great characters. And he might just be the best Trek character of them all. At very least, he's stiff competition for Spock, Data, Picard, Kirk, Bones, Odo and Wesley. OK, maybe not that last one.
   
   
8. Ellen Ripley (Alien and sequels): Female antiheroes are quite rare, even today. They were virtually unheard of before 1990 or so (unless you count femmes fatale). Ripley was therefore a trailblazer; when Alien came out, she was often described as a "hero for the feminist movement." What laid the groundwork for Sigourney Weaver (and director Ridley Scott/screenwriter Dan O'Bannon) to shake things up the way they did? It probably won't surprise readers to learn that Ripley was originally written as a man.
   
   
9. Jake Gittes (Chinatown) and Sam Spade (The Maltese Falcon): I am going to cheat again, and treat film noir's two greatest detectives as one entry.
   
   
10. Michael Corleone (The Godfather): You could devote an entire academic career to studying this character, and this characterization.

---

Previous report         Next report

---

If you wish to contact us, please use one of these addresses. For the first two, please include your initials and city.

• questions@electoral-vote.com    For questions about politics, civics, history, etc. to be answered on a Saturday
• comments@electoral-vote.com   For "letters to the editor" for possible publication on a Sunday
• corrections@electoral-vote.com To tell us about typos or factual errors we should fix
• items@electoral-vote.com            For general suggestions, ideas, etc.
• Guidelines for questions (Saturdays) and letters (Sundays)

To download a poster about the site to hang up, please click here.

---

Email a link to a friend.

---The Votemaster and Zenger