Sunday Q&A

We're going to do some questions and answers today, and... that's what we've got in us. We hope next weekend will be 100% normal, except that it will be non-politics questions.

If anyone is still pondering the headline theme, we will tell you that something like 80% of people who got it correct included the phrase "Oh, my!" in their responses. That is where "secondarily, it's in the category Movies" comes into play.

Current Events

 

L.S. in Greensboro, NC, asks: As you've pointed out, the current Senate map is very early and highly likely to change. You have also stated that the Democrats need 51 seats to control the Senate. However, if Dan Osborn (I) does win in Nebraska and sticks to his pledge not to caucus with either party, wouldn't the Democrats only need 50 seats for control? Wouldn't 50D, 49R, and 1 "present" keep the VP out of the equation? Or would 50 still be considered a tie, since a majority of 100 is needed for control?

(Z) answers: You are correct. It is unlikely Osborn would commit to 6 years without becoming a member of a caucus, since that means no committee assignments, which in turn means much less influence (and, often, much less pork). But if it is 50D-49R-1I, then the 50D would indeed be a majority.

There is a fairly recent precedent for this. On October 25, 2002, Sen. Paul Wellstone (DFL-MN) died in a plane crash. He was replaced by Dean Barkley, who created his own party and his own caucus (both called Independence). For 19 days, this left the Senate with 50 members in the Democratic caucus (49D, plus R-turned-I Jim Jeffords of Vermont), 49 members in the Republican conference, and one member in the Independence caucus, and the Democrats thus remained in the majority.

The Democrats' thin majority ended, incidentally, when a Missouri special election on November 23, 2002, caused appointed Democrat Jean Carnahan to be replaced with Republican Jim Talent. That meant 50R, 49D, 1 Independence, and put the GOP back in control.

---

 

M.C. in Falls Church, VA, asks: Is it plausible that Donald Trump is a Russian asset? His actions, especially overseas, keep weakening the U.S. as a world power in a way that consistently benefits Vladimir Putin. Even when Trump says something negative about Putin, it seems choreographed to downplay their "special relationship." So, going back to the longstanding speculation that Russia has kompromat on Trump that led to the Russians working hard to get Trump elected in 2016, does a cui bono or Occam's Razor analysis support a conclusion that Trump has been, and continues to be, a Russian asset, or is he just a useful idiot?

(Z) answers: It is an ironclad, 100%, as sure-as-the-sun-will-rise-in-the-east-tomorrow certainty that Donald Trump is a Russian asset. Some time in the past, Vladimir Putin (or, possibly, his predecessors) decided Trump could serve their purposes, possibly in advancing Russian interests, or at least in badly disrupting the U.S., its government, its economy and its culture. They took clear-cut, indisputable steps to raise his profile, to support his political career and, ultimately, to help him win the presidency.

The question is the extent to which Donald Trump knows he is a Russian asset. It is possible he does know, and that he does what he does, at least in part, to gain some reward, or to keep some harm from being done to him. Everyone knows about the alleged Russian kompromat (i.e., a pee-pee tape, or maybe something related to Jeffrey Epstein), but it could also be that his entire financial portfolio is balanced on a foundation of Russian oligarch money (possibly illegal, laundered money), and that he could be financially ruined with a snap of Putin's finger.

It is also possible Trump does not know, and that he and the people who work for him/support him are merely being manipulated by the Russians without their conscious awareness. In this case, Trump would be a "useful idiot," a term the Russians have been using for unwitting assets since at least the 1960s. In other words, the distinction you draw between "asset" and "useful idiot" is not an accurate one. Both the knowing accomplices of Putin and the useful idiots are assets; the only distinction is whether their complicity is conscious and deliberate.

---

 

J.M. in Portland, OR, asks: Wikipedia shows Jared Kushner as a "United States Special Envoy for Peace," while defining "envoys" as "senior officials of the U.S. Department of State representing the federal government of the United States."

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Kushner a private citizen who is not an employee of the DoS and who has no classified clearance and no real authority to act for or commit the U.S. to anything? Didn't he recently meet alone with a foreign government to seemingly aid in negotiating an end to the Iran "conflict?"

How can this be allowed? Is there a precedent for private citizens acting diplomatically for the U.S.? And how about the fact that he is simultaneously negotiating business deals for his own benefit?

(Z) answers: In 1789, George Washington asked Gouverneur Morris, who was at that point a private citizen, to travel to Britain on his behalf for talks with the British government. This was accepted as appropriate and as a practical necessity at the time, since a president cannot be in multiple places at once, and sometimes the conversation needs to be a little more casual (or a little more frank) than would be appropriate with a Senate-verified, full-fledged ambassador or Cabinet secretary. And when a precedent was set by George Washington, everyone tends to follow it. So, every president has used special envoys, and they are usually private citizens.

As a matter of law, even the president does not have the power to commit the U.S. to treaty obligations. Only the U.S. Senate can do that. Of course, Trump likes to operate in gray areas, and to make agreements that aren't quite treaties, like, "I'll withdraw the troops, if you do [X]." Either way, whether it's a treaty or something less legalistic, it doesn't matter too much if it's the president speaking or his emissary. Nothing Jared Kushner agrees to becomes U.S. policy unless either the Senate approves (if it's a treaty) or Trump does (if it's something else).

Your reference to Kushner's being a private citizen suggests you are thinking of the Logan Act, which was signed into law over 200 years ago, and which is about private citizens conducting diplomacy. However, what the law actually says is that private citizens cannot conduct unauthorized diplomacy on behalf of the U.S. government. That is to keep private citizens from undermining the government's position. However, the use of the word unauthorized makes clear that the law anticipates, and allows for, authorized private-citizen diplomats (i.e., envoys). Further, the Logan Act has only caused two people to be prosecuted since it was passed, with the most recent of those being in the 1850s, and neither of the two was convicted.

---

 

S.R. in Auburn, CA, asks: Dr. Ami Bera (D-CA) is running for reelection to the U.S. House in northern California, but he is now running in a redistricted area. His former district was safely Democratic because it was primarily around Sacramento. His new district (which I'm in) is barely Democratic. The goal in redistricting this area was to kick out Kevin Kiley, who is MAGA. Kiley's old district was divided into three. (Incidentally, he is trying to reinvent himself as an independent, although that is outlandish, given his voting record.)

Dr. Bera has been holding meet-and-greets all over his new district, and I went to one recently. He indicated that his friends across the aisle really don't like Trump's policies, so I asked him why all the Republican representatives and senators still vote to support the president. Bera said that everyone is afraid of recrimination. He went on to say that all elected representatives are receiving death threats, not just for themselves, but for their spouses and children.

Is anyone looking into these death threats? Is the FBI doing anything? Is there more to the story?

(Z) answers: Given the ease of long-distance communication, over many channels, it is very easy for hotheads to make death threats against anyone who irritates them. Heck, (Z) has gotten death threats (albeit due to events in the department where he was teaching, and not this site). It is not possible for the authorities to investigate them all, or even a small fraction of them, since 99.999% of them are just hot air.

However, if a member of Congress sets themselves apart from the herd by defying Donald Trump, and if Trump uses his megaphone to target that member, it is at least plausible that the .0001% of the populace who might actually act on their threat would go after the member or their family. So, the fear that Bera reports is at least somewhat justified.

---

 

B.H. in Frankfort, IL, asks: So, the Navy is considering renaming the USS Doris Miller to honor The Convicted Felon. How difficult is it to change the name of a military vessel? If they decide to take the name of an actual hero off the ship and replace it with the name of an actual coward, can the change be reversed? If they're going to trivialize the naming of vessels, why not just call it the USS Convicted Felon, or maybe "Old Bonespurs"?

(Z) answers: Since the early 19th century (specifically, since March 3, 1819), naming Navy ships has been the privilege of the Secretary of the Navy. Of course, the Secretary has people above them in the chain of command, most obviously the sitting president, so those folks usually have some input, and could theoretically demand that a particular name be used for a particular vessel.

It is very unusual to change a name once it's been announced. And it's basically unheard of to change a name once a ship has been launched, since the name and the history behind the name become a part of the ship's and the crew's identity. However, the new aircraft carrier won't be launched until well after Trump is out of office, so the next Secretary of the Navy will have plenty of time to change it without ruffling any (non-MAGA) feathers.

---

 

M.M. in Bainbridge Island, WA, asks: The Kennedy Center's outer walls are made of rare white marble, imported over 60 years ago from the Italian Alps, where it was quarried by a family that had been in business for over 300 years. The vote from the board is to actually engrave Trump's name, in a phrase, in the marble under Kennedy's name, and to make it "as big as possible." This would irreparably damage the facade; it could never be made whole again. Please, please tell me he won't get away with it, and that you believe the courts will stop him.

(Z) answers: I think it is 50/50 that the Kennedy Center board will get away with their plans. Maybe even 60/40 in favor. First, because they have found a loophole, and the judges might well reach the conclusion that their hands are tied. Second, because Trump has already set a model of "Do what you want, worry about the consequences later," which is why the East Wing of the White House is now a pile of rubble. It's possible that the name will be carved before a judge weighs in, and that the Board will basically dare the judge or anyone else to do something about it. Heck, it's possible that it's already been carved; that would explain why the administration has been so insistent on keeping those tarps up.

Even if the name is carved into the wall, in giant letters, the damage can still be reversed, however. There are advanced epoxies that can be used to simulate marble. Alternatively, that same quarry is still in business, and could provide replacement marble. Or, in the category of taking lemons and making lemonade, they could get replacement marble from the Lee Marble Quarry, which is in John F. Kennedy's home state of Massachusetts, and which provided much of the marble in the U.S. Capitol Building (where Kennedy worked for nearly 13 years before moving a few blocks down Pennsylvania Avenue on January 20, 1961).

---

 

J.K. in Elk Grove, CA, asks: At July's hearing, Republicans tried very hard to craft a negative narrative around Dr. Fauci's COVID-19 oversight responsibilities. I know Democrats also had time given at these hearings. What would have prevented one of the Democratic senators asking something along the lines of:

Dr. Fauci, as an epidemiologist, you frequently evaluate risk vectors associated with high-density, closed-door social gatherings. In early 2020, as the virus began spreading rapidly, were public health authorities concerned that high-profile individuals who historically frequented unmonitored private planes, private islands, and elite social circles such as those detailed in Donald Trump's extensive appearances throughout the unsealed Epstein flight logs and contact directories—might serve as unexamined super-spreaders or present unique contact-tracing blind spots for federal monitoring?

It seems to me this type of questioning, even if Fauci invoked his Fifth Amendment rights, would give Democrats a way to work in some Epstein commentary.

(Z) answers: Doable, but it would not achieve much. It would be obvious grandstanding, and "politician engages in grandstanding" is about as newsworthy as "dog bites man." So, it wouldn't get any meaningful attention.

---

 

P.M. in Port Angeles, WA, asks: This is pure snark, but in this "post-truth" era of renaming global bodies such as "The Gulf of America," why shouldn't we refer to this segment of the Persian Gulf that connects to the Gulf of Oman as "The Elbow of Hormuz"? Where I live, we have the very honestly true strait, The Strait of Juan de Fuca (a part of the Salish Sea) which is more truly straight than this so-called Strait of Hormuz which is more akin to a bend or elbow than a strait. Let's call it what it should be called: The Elbow of Hormuz!

(Z) answers: First, we will point out that the word "strait" is unrelated to the word "straight." "Strait" derives from words that mean "narrow" and "connected," and so now means "a narrow body of water that connects two larger bodies of water."

Second, official names for bodies of water tend to be set by the government that controls that body of water, or else by agreed-upon convention. Unofficial names/nicknames are set by... whatever catches on. It is improbable that the powers-that-be will agree to an official snarky name. A snarky name that is good enough might achieve meme status, and so might catch on as an unofficial name, though. But we don't think "Elbow of Hormuz" has much meme potential. It would have to be something that mocks the much-disliked Trump, like the Donstipated Strait.

Politics

 

M.G. in Boulder, CO, asks: You've done a fine job on Trump's Greatest Misses. I'm especially fond of "Operation Veteran Fury." What are his five Greatest Hits? (Are there that many?)

(Z) answers: We will begin this with two caveats. First, we are going to limit ourselves only to the ends, and not the means. There are many presidents who could have achieved a particular end, but who decided (usually rightly) that the plausible means were unacceptable (and, generally, were a case of the cure being worse than the disease). Second, there is no such thing as a government action or policy that 100% of the country agrees with. So, we are going to highlight ends that we think (based mostly on polling) that at least 70% of the American public would agree with (even if, in many cases, far less than 70% would agree with Trump's means):

1. He has reduced the number of undocumented immigrants coming into the country.
2. He has invested a great deal of money in NASA.
3. He led efforts to kill the penny.
4. He got two legitimate bad guys, Nicolás Maduro and the Ayatollah Khamenei, out of power.
5. He (or, really, his administration) has taken steps to reduce the use of animal testing in labs.

We are limiting ourselves to things true of Trump v2.0, though the first two are also true of Trump v1.0. If you intended for us to consider both terms, then replace getting rid of the penny with jump-starting the COVID vaccine.

We thought about including Trump's efforts to get the allies to pay a bit more of the costs of NATO and/or other defense arrangements, but we are unpersuaded he's done anything but cause them to engage in creative bookkeeping. We also considered his issuance of a handful of well-advised pardons, like Alice Marie Johnson, but those are just completely drowned out by all the corrupt pardons.

This is a very thin list, especially for a post-World War II president (who has a massive number of people working for them, and thus massive potential to do good), and for a two-term president. Pick the worst president of the last 75 years in your view, besides Trump, and you can be certain their list would leave this one in the dust. Nixon went to China and established the EPA, Carter diversified the judiciary and negotiated the Camp David Accords, Bush Jr. inspired the nation after 9/11 and had PEPFAR, etc.

---

 

D.S. in Layton, UT, asks: No, not "Is he running?"

However, let me make some assumptions: (1) He is not running because of his Constitutional inability to do so; (2) He is alive; (3) He is still president; (4) He is a free man with the legal ability and health to travel.

Do you think he will be invited to AND show up to the GOP Convention? Will the Republicans want him there and will he want to face them?

(Z) answers: You can be certain that if he is physically able, Donald Trump will be at the 2028 Republican National Convention.

For his part, this will probably be his last opportunity to play the role of conquering hero before a large and boisterous crowd. He would never miss that.

As to the 2028 Republican presidential candidate, it is about 95% that they will be someone trying to claim the mantle of "Next Leader of MAGA." If so, they will want Trump there to either actively (or, failing that, implicitly) bless them as such. In the 5% case, that it's a "move past Trump" Republican, like Gov. Brian Kemp (R-GA), then they will still involve Trump as a sop to the many Republican voters who are still MAGA. In that case, they would probably try to limit him, maybe by having a pre-recorded address that could be edited, or something like that.

---

 

S.K. in Sunnyvale, CA, asks: You wrote, of the Median Strategies poll, the Los Angeles Times smelled a rat. Why is it so difficult, with access to modern RNGs, to produce synthetic polling results that pass the smell test?

(Z) answers: The Times took a cursory look at the data, and thought it didn't look right. Then, they tried to figure out exactly who this pollster was, and what their methodology was. There was no methodology included in the poll, or on the pollster's website. That is very, very unusual. Such information is almost always included because the pollster wants you to trust their process and their results. Further, there was no information whatsoever on the website about the people working for the pollster, and what their credentials are. This is also very, very unusual. Again, such information is almost always made available because both the polling company and the individuals working for it want you to trust their results, and also want to make a name for themselves. People are much more likely to trust "Ph.D. in Statistics from Yale" or "Lead pollster for the 2012 Mitt Romney campaign" than they are [This space left blank].

Another big problem—and we don't know if the Times looked into this or not—is that if you're going to call 20,000 people in hopes of getting 1,000 responses, you need to hire a firm with an industrial-level call center, or you need to build one of your own. Both of these things have footprints, and it's pretty easy to ask a pollster exactly who was doing the actual calling, and then to verify their answer.

Whether the Times pursued that particular lead or not, there were enough red flags that the Times decided to contact the pollster to ascertain who they were and how they were producing their numbers. And that caused the whole thing to fall apart. As to the problem with trying to fake the numbers (assuming a pollster first jumps through the basic hoops of writing up a bio and a methodology and finds a way to create a plausible fake call center), keep reading.

---

 

S.M. in Pratt, KS, asks: Your piece on Wednesday about the fake pollsters got me wondering: How do we tell when someone is legitimate and when are they faking the numbers?

For examples I searched through the most recent polls on Fiftyplusone and Silver Bulletin. The following are some of the very odd numbers of respondents that I found with just a cursory look: Bullfinch 1,000 registered voters (RV); RMG 2,000 RV; Morning Consult 2,200 RV; Rasmussen 1,500 likely voters (LV); Zogby 1,000 LV; Cygnal 1,500 LV; and Emerson 1,000 LV.

How can these companies survey exactly 1,000 or 1,500 or 2,000 RV or LV voters? It would make no sense to continue polling past the point of having a representative sample, only to justify having an exact number of RV or LV. Besides, you can't be applying LV filters in real time. If the companies are conducting a tracking poll, it also won't make sense. On average, in the U.S., we lose about 1.5% of the voting populace to death every year, and another 0.5% to disability. If you're really tracking the same group over time, there should be a gradual loss of participants.

Can you provide me with any insight into what is happening with these pollsters?

(V) answers: Two things come to mind. First, they could be just rounding the count. If a pollster got 1,503 valid responses, they could report that as 1,500 because some marketing guy in the company thought that sounded better. This wouldn't be the first time some marketing guy overrode a company's own experts. Second, it is at least possible that in advance they set a goal of 1,500 surveys and as soon as number 1,500 was obtained, they stopped polling or the computer was programmed to ignore everything after 1,500. It would be an odd thing to do, but it is conceivable. In a tracking poll, it would be possible to force the first round to be 1,500, but indeed you would probably lose a couple the next time—unless it was only a month later and the company kept pestering each respondent to answer again.

If a polling company is making up stuff out of thin air, using round numbers for everything plants red flags all over the place. If no one in the company has any knowledge of statistics at all, they might try it, but if anyone out there has any knowledge of statistics, they would know this isn't a great start. Years ago, Nate Silver discovered that some pollster's numbers didn't follow Benford's Law. This "law" states that the distribution of digits for things you measure in the real world is not uniform. It follows a known pattern. As I recall, the pollster who made up the numbers had too many 5s in the results (e.g. 46.5% vs 43.5% in one poll and 47.5% vs. 44.5% in the next one) because people are terrible at making up "random" numbers. Somebody making up the numbers may not know this, so they could be caught by a careful analysis.

There is actually some scientific literature on detecting fake survey data, sometimes called "curbstoning" (because the person assigned to interview people just sat on the curbstone making up numbers). See, for example, here, here, here, here and here. It turns out to be quite difficult to make up fake data that can survive a close analysis unless you are a really good statistician and understand this stuff in detail.

Further, even if you come up with believable fake numbers, they might not be internally consistent. Let's give a seemingly silly, but real, example. There is a pollster (YouGov) that sometimes includes non-political questions in its polls as a checksum. For example, they might ask "Do you like country music?" As it turns out, 90% of people who like country music voted for Donald Trump. So, if you end up with a poll where only 57% of country music lovers voted for Trump, something is probably very wrong. For YouGov, that causes them to double- and triple-check that they did not do anything wrong. A fake pollster, by contrast, might not realize that their numbers don't make sense. And while it's not usually something as obvious as only 57% of country music lovers voting for Trump, or 32% of Black women respondents saying Trump is their preferred candidate, there are plenty of indicators that, if most of them are screwy, suggest the properly randomized data is nonetheless made up.

On top of that, and along the lines of the answer to the previous question, political consultants with an axe to grind often put out fake top lines without releasing cross tabs or any underlying data that might trip them up. Then detecting possible fake results is not a question of statistical analysis but requires looking at who commissioned the poll, who ran the poll, and does anyone have a vested interested in a particular result.

---

 

C.S. in Columbis, OH, asks: I saw your item about fake pollsters, which I propose to call "fauxllsters" if you're interested in a fun alternative. It inspired me to reach out.

I live in Ohio and have seen multiple news sources over the years. Recently, my algorithm has pointed me to TiffinOhio.net. They have seemingly broken news about Rep. Max Miller, Sen. Jon. Husted (both R-OH), etc. It seems legit. As I look at this site, I try to corroborate the information with larger outlets and public information.

My question is this: How do you go about proving or trusting the efficacy of a news outlet that hasn't earned a national profile, a trustworthy award, or was started by a reputable journalist?

(Z) answers: If you look at their site, there are a few things that are very good signs. First, not all of their stories are political. On Saturday night, for example, they had an item headlined "Tiffin University to welcome new students at convocation." That is the kind of thing that a real outlet with a local focus will do, but not a site that exists solely to promote some entity's political messaging.

Second, the stories generally have real bylines from real people whose credentials you can track down. For example, here's the LinkedIn for Megan Henry, who is the outlet's "state legislature" beat reporter, and who clearly has a journalist's résumé.

Third, the site is forthright about its "rules of engagement" (our term, not theirs). On their "About Us" page, they make clear that while their opinion pieces have a progressive slant, their news pieces are kept very distinct, and try to play it down the middle. They also invite reader feedback and corrections.

We noted earlier this week that we try to use local sources for local news stories, though we also prefer to have at least seen a national news story, from a proven outlet, which gives us much greater confidence the local story is legitimate. However, there are circumstances where a story only exists, and really can only exist, with a local outlet. If that were the case with an item from TiffinOhio, we'd be OK running it.

---

 

K.C. in West Islip, NY, asks: You surmised that the recent poll of the Arkansas U.S. Senate race, which showed Hallie Shoffner (D) leading Sen. Tom Cotton (R) by 3 points, was wrong. Why does that necessarily have to be the case, though? I'd argue that there's tremendous discontent both with Congress, in general, as well as Trumpty-Dumpty's flailing approval rating that it stands to reason the people from the great state of Arkansas might be souring on not only Cotton, but also Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders (R). Is it that far out of the realm of possibility that a state that delivered us Bill Clinton—granted, a lifetime ago—could flip back to purple at some point?

(Z) answers: Clinton was elected when the whole "Southern Democrat" thing was sorting itself out, and a lot of people who would soon be Republicans were still willing to vote (D). That time has passed.

In any event, the poll is not believable because it's an outlier compared to other polls of the race, and because there's no particular reason to think that the Arkansas Senate race would be that close, but the races in Tennessee and Kansas and Alabama would not be. Those states (especially Tennessee) aren't that different from Arkansas. If we had numerous polls, ideally from reliable pollsters, even more ideally from reliable pollsters with some experience polling Arkansas (say, the Roper Center), then we'd start to take it seriously. But we're not going to hang our hat on one wonky poll, especially since any respectable pollster will tell you that the nature of the beast is that about one poll in 20, even if they're done correctly, produces a wacky result totally out of line with reality.

Civics

 

P.G. in Madrid, Spain, asks: I am one of your foreign readers. When visiting the U.S., and several museums and historical sites, I repeatedly saw that the originally proposed Bill of Rights had 12 amendments, of which only 10 passed. But I never found any information regarding the other two. What was in those two amendments? Why were they rejected? Who opposed them? Have they been adopted in any other form? Maybe this is something well known in the U.S., and I apologize if that is the case. But, could you elaborate on those two amendments, and any point of interest related to them?

(Z) answers: To start, we doubt that the average American could even recount the content of as many as 10 amendments. And the number goes lower if they have to match the correct right/rule with the correct number. Certainly, amendments that failed over 200 years ago do not make the cut for anyone other than historians, political scientists and politics junkies.

Madison actually came up with a list of 20 suggestions for amendments to the Constitution, and some of the suggestions had multiple parts. He also expected that the main text of the document would be altered, and not that a list would be appended. Once they had Madison's recommendations, the Congress trimmed the list to 12, wrote up everything as items separate from the main document, and then sent them to the states for ratification.

The two that failed, at least in that original run, were actually the first two on the list sent to states. The first amendment was intended to be a restriction on Congress raising its own pay, and imposed a limit that any pay raises could only kick in for the next Congress. So, for example, if the 5th Congress voted for a raise, it would only be implemented starting with the 6th Congress. The proposal failed to attract enough support, because many state legislators expected the people elected to Congress to be men of honor who could be trusted to do the right thing, pay-wise, without additional limitations. What fools they were.

In the 1980s, as a school project, a college student named Gregory Watson noticed that the amendment had no sunset provision, and was still potentially passable. Watson got a C on the paper he wrote about it, but he rekindled interest in the amendment, since by then people had considerably less trust in Congress. It got the necessary number of states (which, by then, was 38) and became the Twenty-Seventh Amendment in 1992, more than 200 years after it was first proposed.

The second amendment was intended to be rules about apportionment of the House. Madison, and then the Congress, went through several drafts, and eventually sent this to the states:

After the first enumeration required by the first article of the Constitution, there shall be one Representative for every thirty thousand, until the number shall amount to one hundred, after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall be not less than one hundred Representatives, nor less than one Representative for every forty thousand persons, until the number of Representatives shall amount to two hundred, after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall not be less than two hundred Representatives, nor more than one Representative for every fifty thousand persons.

It came within a couple states' votes of passing. There is little information left as to why several states chose not to ratify, but it is probable their concern was that it's somewhat badly written. There are several ways to read the proposed amendment, but one possibility is that it was intended to set up a formula of "every 100 representatives increases the required district size by 10,000 people." In any event, Madison was thinking in terms of 18th-century population sizes, and the guidelines proposed here would almost certainly have made the House absolutely unmanageable by the mid-19th century. So, probably best it didn't pass.

---

 

R.D. in Philadelphia, PA, asks: Does David Hearn have a defamation lawsuit against Donald Trump? Some of Trump's statements regarding the reflecting pool are lies, and Trump most likely knew they were lies. Video of Hearn damaging the reflecting pool? A witness who saw him damaging the reflecting pool? The only obstacle would be damages.

(L) answers: I'm not aware of a current defamation case against Trump but I'm sure Hearn and his lawyers are looking at all their options. I agree that damages would be the biggest hurdle, assuming that Trump's statements went beyond what was in the complaint. If his statements mirrored the complaint's allegations, then he'd be protected by the litigation privilege, which protects litigants from defamation suits for anything said or written as part of the litigation.

---

 

B.F. in Nine Mile Falls, WA, asks: You wrote, in one of your "Legal Bytes":

While we're on the subject of perverting justice, a federal judge in Los Angeles held DHS in contempt for violating her order to hand over images from agents' personal cellphones used in immigration raids last year. In January, U.S. District Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong had ordered DHS to turn over digital images of communications from the cellphones of 800 immigration agents. Evidence showed that agents were using their personal phones during raids and using racial slurs to describe people being detained. The judge ordered DHS to pay a daily fine of $500 and to pay the plaintiffs' legal fees until the phones are produced.

Who pays the fine? DHS (in other words, the taxpayers) or a DHS official? If it is the taxpayers, what incentive is there for DHS to obey the judge's ruling?

(L) answers: The agency pays the sanctions and it comes out of its budget, so there is some incentive to avoid more fines. But the bigger incentives are the escalating tools the judge has if the fines are not enough to get compliance. For example, if DHS continues to stall and violate the court's order, the judge could issue evidentiary sanctions where the judge finds for the plaintiff on that issue and concludes that the missing evidence supports the plaintiff's claim.

History

 

C.M. in Raymond, NH, asks: Looking at APSA's list of best presidents, I have to wonder how much circumstances, rather than skill or personality, contribute to the ranking.

Abraham Lincoln, for instance, is at the top. He unquestionably had political skill, but would he be considered Best President Ever if he had not overseen the Confederate War for Independence? Franklin D. Roosevelt dealt with both the Great Depression and World War II, and in the case of the Depression, is held to have done it more successfully than his predecessor, but without those crises, would he be second-best?

What really made me wonder about this is Bill Clinton at number 12. It seems to me that he was the beneficiary of the post-Cold-War and early Internet economic booms, and managed not to start any stupid wars. What qualifies him for the top quartile?

(Z) answers: There is no question that a person cannot be a "great" president (top 10%) unless they happen to come into office in circumstances that allow for that. Creating a new nation, fighting a civil war, fighting a world war, etc. The closest there is to an exception is Theodore Roosevelt, who did not face a singular crisis, but who did grapple successfully with the many problems that had emerged during the Gilded Age.

Incidentally, it's also hard to be a "failure" as a president unless you come to office in those same kinds of circumstances, and then fail to rise to the challenge. Franklin Pierce, James Buchanan, Andrew Johnson, Herbert Hoover, etc. were all ruined by crises that great presidents were able to handle. In this way, Donald Trump is rather unusual, as he will undoubtedly be ranked among the worst (and perhaps will be ranked the very worst) despite the fact that he has not botched an existential national crisis (COVID-19 probably doesn't rise to that level). Trump's basement-dweller status is almost entirely his own creation.

As to Bill Clinton, keep in mind that there were 8-10 godawful presidents and another 15 or so who were nonentities. So, to make the Top 20, you basically just have to avoid being a disaster or being a nobody. And if you have a few successes, and no giant failures, you can plausibly break into the top quartile. That said, Clinton's shaky grip on #12 is indicated by the fact that the C-SPAN poll, conducted around the same time, had him at #19.

It's not true of the APSA poll, but often the rankings are very much a product of methodology. Some polls (including C-SPAN's, actually) ask respondents to rank presidents in a bunch of different categories, like "moral leadership," "foreign policy," "persuasiveness," "relationship with Congress," etc. Needless to say, if "moral leadership" is in there (and it was part of C-SPAN's poll), that hurts Clinton. If "foreign policy" is in there, that hurts nearly all 19th century presidents, because it wasn't really part of the presidential portfolio at a time when the U.S. was largely isolationist.

---

 

B.S. in Huntington Beach, CA, asks: In response to a reader question, you stated that Andrew Jackson's rating has been recently downgraded. If so, I must say I disagree. I find Jackson to have been an extraordinary president, one who carried some very heavy baggage. He was a Tennessee slave owner, and his treatment of the First People was horrific. However, he was extraordinary in ways with which most Americans are unfamiliar.

Jackson was a top notch fighter and general, having served as a Patriot in the Revolutionary War as a thirteen-year-old, and leading the only successful campaigns as a general in the War of 1812. I believe he was one of our greatest battlefield generals. As president, he was a staunch unionist, whose astute political acumen kept the union together during the first attempt by Southern states to secede (due to tariffs).

I believe Jackson was ahead of Bill Clinton with respect to political skills, and those skills were demonstrated time and again in thwarting his political rivals. He was first and foremost an American in blood and spirit, one who put his life on the line repeatedly in defense of the country he loved and served his entire life. He was also a dedicated family man who suffered great personal loss even as he assumed the presidency.

Let us not forget that Washington and Jefferson were also slave owners, whose treatment of the First People was also callous and horrible by modern standards. And, in Jefferson's case, he also fathered children with one of his adolescent slaves, Sally Hemings. Pedophile?

Viewing historical figures through modern lenses produces interesting assessments, but judging those figures retrospectively, in my opinion, produces results that are both arguable and problematic. Your thoughts?

(Z) answers: It is an indisputable fact that Jackson's ratings have been slipping. You can see for yourself, he used to make the Top 10 regularly, now he checks in somewhere in the high teens or low twenties.

As to why, we have to start by pushing back against a couple of things here. First, when rating presidents, their pre-presidential career is irrelevant. How good or bad a general Jackson was has no bearing on how good a president he was. There are other things that are of questionable relevance, like Jackson's coping with the loss of his wife, or Jefferson's sexual habits. Relevant to judging them as human beings, but maybe not as presidents.

Second, the Native American policies of Washington, Jefferson, etc. were far from admirable. However, they were basically accommodationist—you leave us alone, we'll leave you alone. It was Jackson who was primarily responsible for shifting the nation to a policy of removal, backed by violence (though the Trail of Tears was mostly the work of his successor, Martin Van Buren). Anyhow, you can't really say, "Why should Jackson get docked over Indian policy, when Washington and Jefferson don't get docked?" because that's essentially comparing apples and oranges.

It is true that one must try not to hold past presidents to modern moral standards. But it is also true that some of the choices that past presidents made were at least sorta wrong, even in their time. For example, nobody in that era, outside of a small handful of radicals, was declaring that Jackson should be doing something to get women the vote. So, you can't really hold his disdain for women's suffrage against him, because that was a product of his era. On the other hand, there were plenty of people talking about and documenting the problems with his Indian policy. So, he could have done something different, and chose not to.

In any case, one can make a pretty good argument for Jackson as a middle-of-the-pack president without relying much on modern morality. He was indeed a staunch unionist, one who dealt with several early sectional crises, and one who stood up to the (traitorous) John C. Calhoun. He also inspired the American people, particularly the working class, which is no small thing. And while he didn't win any wars, he didn't start any, either.

On the other hand, the Indian policy was harsh, and he deserves some ownership of that. He engaged in behaviors that were clearly corrupt, most obviously filling federal offices with cronies. He indulged in gratuitous personal beefs, such as the Petticoat Affair. And his economic policy was disastrous; his borderline-irrational hatred of the Second Bank of the U.S. led him to destroy that institution. This, and other economic policies of Jackson's, laid the groundwork for the Panic of 1837, which was the worst economic downturn in the U.S. to that time, and is still one of the two or three worst in American history.

---

 

P.Y. in Boca Raton, FL, asks: I can understand why APSA would downgrade Andrew Jackson in their ranking of presidents, but why was he high on the list in the first place, given his ethnic cleansing—some would say genocide—of Native Americans? Also, why was Wilson downgraded in light of his winning the Nobel Peace Prize for envisioning and championing the League of Nations? And why was Reagan initially high on the list and then downgraded? Finally, back in high school long ago, we learned that Ulysses S. Grant was a drunk, looked the other way while corruption ran rampant during his administration, and caused the Panic of 1873 by tightening money to favor his banker friends. Were all these accusations just fake news spread by the Lost Cause crowd, or did historians back then ignore his record on behalf of Black Americans?

(Z) answers: Jackson earned his high reputation when the majority of Americans saw Native Americans as a threat and an enemy. And once you have a high reputation, particularly one that has lasted generations, it often remains in place. He also got credit for "democratizing the United States," and extending white, male suffrage. But if you look closely, he really didn't do that. Further, people (including scholars) used to conflate Jackson the man/general with Jackson the president; that's not done anymore.

Wilson has been downgraded for two main reasons. The first is that while the League of Nations was a good idea, it ultimately failed. And it failed, in substantial part, because of Wilson's inability to work with the Senate. The second is that Wilson's racism and segregationist policies are seen as much more problematic today than they were in, say, 1940. His longstanding hostility to women's suffrage does not help him, either, though at least he came around on that one.

Reagan has also been downgraded for two main reasons. The first of those is that a huge part of his "success" was that he was jovial and charming and inspiring. But the impact of those things fades as time passes (and as people who remember his presidency pass). The second is that the results of his policies, particularly as regards the wealth gap, mental health, the war on drugs, and AIDS are now clear. And in none of these cases do the outcomes work to the Gipper's benefit.

As to U.S. Grant, he was an average or above-average president who was dragged down into the basement by the Lost Causers. He was not personally involved in the corruption, and was not aware of it until very late in his term. And while he could not save the freedmen, he did crush the KKK, and he did stabilize the South after the worst years of Reconstruction. Grant had relatively little to do with the Panic of 1873, other than the fact that his hard-money policy did not help. But he did not facilitate it through any sort of cronyism.

Oh, and the Lost Causers were not primarily angry about Grant's record on civil rights. They were primarily angry that, during his time as a general, he beat the living crap out of them, including Saint Robert of Lee. But denigrating his generalship did not fly in Gilded Age America, while denigrating his presidency did.

---

 

S.H. in Greenville, SC, asks: Your answer, in which you wrote that some presidents have used body doubles, was a surprise to me as I had never read about this, and a quick search does not lead to any known examples of any U.S. president ever using a body double. What are you referring to? Does this happen in secret and remain that way forever?

(Z) answers: The Secret Service does not share details of its protection strategies, for obvious reasons. However, it is generally agreed that Bill Clinton used a lookalike at least a couple of times, for trips to eastern Europe. The problem is that the "Clinton body double" thing became a major part of Clinton conspiracy theories (particularly the alleged use of doubles by Hillary). So, it's pretty hard to mention the one or two reasonably well accepted instances without looking like a nutty tinfoil-hat wearer.

Gallimaufry

 

A.P. in Kitchener, ON, Canada, asks: Could you give some tips on playing Monopoly at a master level? I know the basics of the real rules (e.g., no money on Free Parking, auction off any properties not immediately bought, etc.) and you can assume those are being followed.

(Z) answers: First, the game is called "Monopoly" for a reason. You have to get one, as soon as you can, and get at least three houses up on each property as soon as you can.

Second, the highest-cost properties are not the best properties. Boardwalk and Park Place are sexy, but they're expensive to develop, and they don't get landed on all that much (since there are only two properties in the group, and since they are on the wrong side of "Go to Jail"). The green properties are even worse, since they are crazy expensive to develop, and they also don't get landed on as much.

My preferred property groups, in roughly this order, are: St. Charles/States/Virginia (Magenta/Pink), St. James/Tennessee/New York (Orange), Oriental/Vermont/Connecticut (Light Blue), Kentucky/Indiana/Illinois (Red) and Atlantic/Ventnor/Marvin (Yellow). They are reasonably priced in terms of development, and people land on them a lot. The most landed-on property in the whole game is Illinois, thanks to the "Advance To Illinois Ave." Chance card. However, the reds are a little tough to develop without cutting things close financially. In contrast to a Trump casino, if you go bankrupt, it's game over.

I try to acquire one property in groups where I don't have a Monopoly, including potentially the greens and the dark blues, just to block other players. I have absolutely no use for the purples, the railroads or the utilities. The utilities are, far and away, the most worthless properties in the game.

There are a few "advanced" tricks. For example, the rules place a limit on the number of houses that can be on the board. It is possible, in some circumstances, to skip upgrading to hotels, and thus to control most or all of the houses, so that no other players can upgrade. If you can get this kind of control, you can't be beaten, though again, it requires the right circumstances. And, in any case, the real key is to focus on the most profitable monopolies, not the most expensive ones.

---

 

J.M. in Portland, OR, asks: In the long ago days of my youth. I remember seeing Song of the South in the movie theater. I loved that movie. Of course, any racism, obvious or implied, went right over my tiny head. One of my personal fondest memories is of a beautiful spring day in Connecticut and my roaming around our backyard singing "Zip-A-Dee-Doo-Dah" over and over (I'm tearing up just writing this down). Of course, I loved Uncle Remus and the stores of Brer Rabbit, et al.

My question is: Viewed through 21st-century eyes, how would the portrayals of Black and white characters be regarded? Still too objectionable to be shown on the big screen?

(Z) answers: I sometimes teach a "History and Film" class, and I sometimes show a clip from Song of the South. You can't get it in the U.S., at least not legally, but I got (and digitized) a copy from Japan. Given the movie's reputation, students often find it to be less racist than they expected. And it is true, it's nowhere near as bad as, say, The Birth of a Nation. But it's still pretty bad.

There are two main issues. The first is that while Uncle Remus is played by a Black actor (James Baskett, whose honorary Academy Award for the role was the first Oscar to be won by a Black man), he very clearly channels a Black stereotype that derives from minstrel performances. It's a pleasant stereotype, as opposed to the more obviously offensive blackface characters like Zip Coon or Sambo, but a stereotype nonetheless.

The second problem is that while the movie was originally supposed to have a title card that made clear it was set in the 1870s, Walt Disney dropped that, and left the timeframe ambiguous. Consequently, it feels an awful lot like the movie is set in the 1860s, or maybe the 1850s. In that case, Uncle Remus would almost certainly be enslaved, and the whole movie would be an apologia for the Southern plantation system, advancing the message that slavery was basically a benign institution.

There is absolutely no chance the movie could be released today—not in theaters, not streaming, not on DVD. For a few decades, Disney had a ride, "Splash Mountain," inspired by Song of the South. And although they downplayed the connection, it was still problematic enough and offensive enough that the ride had to be retooled as "Tiana's Bayou Adventure" (and so, is now based on The Princess and the Frog) after the George Floyd protests.

---

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