Previous | Next
Saturday Q&A
We got a lot of e-mails, in particular, from people who said they like to read the site with their morning coffee. With the new plan, of one double-length Q&A a week, well, you're gonna need a bigger cup.
We know the chief reason House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) won't pursue
impeachment right now is because there aren't enough votes in the Senate to sustain it. The
suggested impeachment of Supreme Court Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh is a likely non-starter,
for the same reasons. In essence, those reasons boil down to, and are embodied by, one person:
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY). He likes power, he is comfortable in power, and he
knows exactly what to do with power, which makes him (IMHO) a dangerous man, indeed.
My question is this: since Congress may impeach (and perhaps remove) virtually anyone in the federal
government, elected or otherwise, suppose the target of impeachment were Sen. McConnell himself?
Were articles against him to clear the lower chamber, would he be able to exert influence, in his
capacity as Majority Leader, to prevent a floor vote against him from occurring? Or could that power
be stripped from him somehow to avoid conflict of interest?
B.W.S., Pleasant Valley, NY
We must point out, as delicately as we can, that there is a faulty assumption contained within your answer, namely that Congress may impeach virtually anyone in the federal government. That, according to more than 200 years of precedent, is not the case.
As with so many things, the lawyers (most of them) who wrote the Constitution were a little imprecise in their verbiage in this matter. While they decreed that "civil officers of the United States" can be impeached, they did not explain exactly who that describes (beyond the obvious fact that it excludes military personnel).
It was in 1797, at a time when Congress was figuring out a lot of things, that they had to confront the question of to whom, exactly, the impeachment power applies. The key figure here was a real estate speculator named William Blount. He grossly overextended himself, debt-wise, and was left with a lot of land that he could not sell to Americans. So, he decided to try to persuade the British to grab Florida and Louisiana, such he could sell his land to British migrants instead. In order to facilitate this plan, he managed to get himself elected to the Senate. Yes, we know a story of a deeply-in-hock real estate baron who abuses his political office in order to promote his own personal financial interests, specifically by selling the U.S. out to a foreign power, is very hard to believe. But it happened!
In any event, this whole scheme eventually became public knowledge; it is now known as the Blount Conspiracy. President John Adams and much of Congress were outraged, and the legislature had to decide what to do. They began two parallel proceedings: (1) Expulsion of Blunt, and (2) Impeachment of Blunt. The expulsion was easy; he was booted from the Senate by his colleagues there by a vote of 25 to 1. Impeachment was a little trickier, and was made more so by the fact that Blount went on the lam and fled to Tennessee to avoid being called to testify. Ultimately, by a vote of 14 to 11, the Senate decided that their power to expel members (which derives from verbiage in Article I of the Constitution) supersedes their power to impeach (which derives from verbiage in Article II). And ever since Blount, Congress has operated with the understanding that members may be expelled by the other members of their chamber, but they may not be impeached.
Consequently, the only folks who have any ability to send McConnell packing are his fellow senators, and the only option they have available (barring a radical new reading of the Constitution) is to expel him. Since the powers of the Majority Leader are rooted entirely in the rules and customs of the Senate, and has no Constitutional basis, it is certainly possible for McConnell's 99 colleagues to dump him, if they choose to do so. Of course, that isn't going to happen.
It seems to me that at some point it might be better for the Republicans to support impeachment. If it becomes clear that Trump will not win (without, ahem, help) then wouldn't it be better to throw Mike Pence to the wolves so that the GOP can say they did the right thing for America and stem some of the losses in the Senate, House and states? I am struggling to see the logic for long term Republicans to stay silent and sully their careers for a guy who only has the support of a small but vocal minority. D.G., New York, NY
You don't win election to Congress, or to other high-profile office, without getting very good at sensing what direction the political winds are blowing. And right now, at least on the GOP side of the aisle, they are blowing in Trump's direction.
In the last 30 years or so, specifically in the area of gun policy, we've seen abundant evidence of what can be done by a small but vocal minority of voters if they are (essentially) single-issue voters. Trump's base may only be 30% of the national populace or so, but many of them have become single-issue voters, and that single issue is Trump. Further, that 30% is a national number, and does not capture the extent to which the GOP or to which particular states/districts are dominated by Trump voters. Consequently, there are many Republican officeholders who challenge Trump at their own peril. For, say, a senator from Oklahoma, hugging Trump close is an easy call, because support for him is overwhelming in that state. For someone like Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME), it's much harder, because she cannot win on the strength of pro-Trump votes, nor can she win on the strength of never-Trump votes. She needs a lot of both, which is a tough line to walk.
It is likely that once Trump is out of office, and when and if the GOP begins to pay a real price for the direction the Party has taken, some Republicans will suggest they were never really on board with him. But again, that will be a product of their skill in judging which way the winds are blowing, and a recognition that they're no longer blowing in a Trumpian direction.
I have a question about the DNC opposition research on which you reported. Setting aside DNC Chair Tom Perez's caveat that such research is performance- and issue-based (given that they're also digging for lawsuit skeletons and gotcha quotes), I'm wondering how much you think Democratic-produced negative press will really affect the Teflon Don's prospects. Such revelations seem to gin up the base and tune out the middle (Did Pu**ygate even matter?). Particularly since then he and his operatives have further undermined the credibility of earnest lawmakers, reporting, and truth itself. B.H., Greenfield, MA
We don't have a crystal ball, or a fly on the wall at DNC headquarters, so we can't answer your question with total certainty. However, it is worth noting that the Party is currently benefiting from the advice of many very skilled political operators, up to and including Barack Obama. Also, it is clear that instead of beating the voters over the heads with "Donald Trump is bad!" (as the Clinton campaign kinda did), the Democratic pooh-bahs plan to use the information surgically, often by promulgating it through third parties (for example, reporters).
You're right, of course, that a heavy-handed approach can be a turn-off. You're also right that there is a certain segment of the electorate is a lost cause, and will vote for Trump under any circumstances. However, if the DNC takes a more subtle approach with its information, the Party can probably do itself a fair bit of good with persuadable folks (independents, disaffected Republicans, Obama-Trump voters, etc.). Also, it can probably drive Trump into a lather, causing him to make unforced errors, which will also work to the Democrats advantage.
Since the Whistleblower/Ukraine Scandal started to blow up earlier this week this has felt like the Big One. Even John Dean, of Watergate fame, made a statement saying this feels big. And by the Big One, I mean a scandal so severe that Trump loses his lock on Republicans which brings his downfall. Yet there are those on the left who are saying this will be yet another scandal that Trump will skate by on, like all the myriad ones of his presidency. Since intuition is just our subconscious way of seeing patterns in data that might not be consciously apparent, why would you think that I (and others who follow politics) are getting this feeling that this is the Big One from? In your opinion, does this Whistleblower/Ukraine Scandal have legs and why? Or if it doesn't, why not? D.E., Lilitz, PA
It is understandable that anyone would be cautious, since Trump has skated on so many other things, including those where he and his team seem to be caught red-handed. For example, we are still wondering why nobody seems to have followed up on the fact that Jared Kushner tried to get a direct line to Vlad Putin installed in the Russian embassy during the campaign. What is the plausible innocent explanation for that?
When it comes to the current situation, there is also the added issue that there are many pieces of the puzzle that are still missing. So, any answers to your questions are necessarily rather speculative. Still, we think that this could indeed have legs. Legs enough to cause the GOP to turn against Trump? Mayyyyybe. Legs enough to fatally damage his re-election prospects? It's possible.
The obvious comparison here is Watergate, and we think there are three salient features of this situation that parallel that one. The first is that neither was an isolated incident; both Nixon and Trump had well-developed reputations for shady behavior before a tipping point was finally reached. The second is that "use the FBI to cover up a burglary by my people" and something like "I will only release foreign aid if you help me take down my rival" are simple, easily understood by all citizens, and obviously corrupt. The third is the evidence. In the case of the infamous Nixon "smoking gun" tape, that was slam-dunk proof that the President was guilty of the things his underlings had accused him of doing. In the case of the whistleblower, there are clearly insiders willing to speak to what they saw and/or heard, as there were 45 years ago with Nixon. There may also be audio evidence, as presidential phone calls to foreign leaders are sometimes recorded. And finally, assuming the current speculation is reasonably correct, Trump unwisely made his proposal to a foreign leader who might be persuaded to spill the beans, especially if he thinks the Democrats will win in 2020.
Again, Trump has danced his way out of these things before, and he may again. But we think that, depending on what the missing facts are, this could be trouble for him.
I just had an interesting conversation where it was suggested that, from Dick Cheney onwards, the office of Vice President has gained major significance. I'm not sure I agree, but I'd be very interested in your feedback. Thoughts? D.L., Cary, NC
Officially, of course, the VP has two jobs. The first is to break ties in the Senate. The second is to call the White House in the morning, check if the president is still breathing, and then go golfing when the answer is "yes."
Customarily, given the near-total impotence of the office, VP candidates were chosen to balance the ticket by appealing to some core constituency that the guy at the top of the ticket did not. Sometimes the pick was mostly about geography, or about some specific interest group like labor, but most commonly the goal was to make sure that both the conservative and liberal factions of the party were represented (this was back in the days when both parties had liberal and conservative wings). On top of all of this, the VP choice was typically made, in part or in whole, by the party and not by the presidential candidate.
Perhaps it is evident what this state of affairs was all-but-guaranteed to produce. At best, it tended to result in presidents and veeps who did not particularly see eye-to-eye on things. At worst, it produced presidents and veeps who barely knew one another, or who actively hated one another. In the former category, one is reminded of Rutherford B. Hayes, who only had one question when he was told that his running mate would be William A. Wheeler. That question: "Who is Wheeler?" In the latter category, one recalls numerous "partnerships" where the two men at the top of the ticket could barely conceal their loathing for one another. That list includes FDR-Harry S. Truman, Ike-Nixon, and JFK-LBJ, among others.
In the last half century or so, the underlying dynamics we describe above have changed a bit. First, there is less motivation to satisfy various "factions" of the parties. In particular, the two parties don't exactly have conservative and liberal wings like they once did, so that kind of pairing doesn't happen so much anymore. On top of that, it is now the president themselves that chooses their running mate, at least most of the time.
As a consequence of these developments, it is now much more common for the parties to end up with a ticket made up of two candidates who actually like one each other and who basically see eye-to-eye with each other. And in those circumstances, many recent presidents have chosen to entrust their VP with extensive responsibilities. That is particularly true of that last two Democratic pairings, Clinton/Gore and Obama/Biden. It was also true of Bush/Cheney for the first part of W.'s term in office, but then Bush clipped Cheney's wings, in part because Bush began to learn the ropes of Washington, and in part because Cheney got too big for his britches.
With that said, executive pairings that look a lot more like the old model are not entirely obsolete. the John McCain/Sarah Palin ticket could come straight out of the 1880s, excepting Palin's gender. George H. W. Bush, as a former rival of Ronald Reagan's, was never an insider, and was mostly used for insignificant tasks like attending funerals. And we do not believe that, in any meaningful way, Mike Pence and Donald Trump are partners. Pence is basically a trained seal; Trump gives orders, and Pence barks and claps.
What is the appeal of Joe Biden? I will confess, I am a supporter of Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), but I just dont get what he brings to the table. K.P., New York, NY
We would say that it is these four things, primarily, listed from least to most important.
- He's a centrist: There are many voters who prefer a candidate with a
not-too-ambitious political program, either because those voters prefer a limited federal
government, or they prefer to be realistic instead of idealistic. Biden's centrism is important to a
lot of his voters; the only reason we don't rank it higher is that it's not particularly distinctive
to him. There are a lot of centrists in the Democratic field (e.g., Sen. Amy Klobuchar, DFL-MN), so
that cannot be the main explanation for his appeal.
- He's charismatic: Biden is debonair, he's got that great smile, and in
general he projects the image that a lot of people want for their president. And we would be remiss
if we did not point out that for at least a segment of the electorate, that means "older, white
man."
- He's the closest thing to Obama v2.0: Barack Obama is the most popular
Democrat in the land, particularly among the members of the Party. As Obama's VP, Biden is the
nearest thing to Obama available on this year's Democratic ticket. In theory, Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) could have been Obama v2.0, but for a variety of reasons, it just didn't happen.
- Electability: By huge margins, the #1 "issue" that Democrats care about in 2020 is "can beat Donald Trump." Depending on what poll you believe, about 35% of the blue team ranks that as their top concern, whereas no other issue (global warming, racial justice, infrastructure, etc.) breaks 10%. At the moment, due to his high name recognition, as well as items #4, #3, and #2 on this list, Biden is leading the field in "electability."
Our response to your question also explains why we have written many times that Biden may be vulnerable, long-term. Every time that Warren persuades someone that she could win this thing (or Bernie Sanders, or Pete Buttigieg, or Kamala Harris), then Biden's #1 argument takes a hit. And his propensity for gaffes have the potential to undermine his image/charisma, while race-related gaffes (like praising the two segregationist senators) have the potential to lessen the associated-with-Obama glow.
Several Q&A cycles back, I read your answer to the question of why Cory Booker isn't catching on. I'm curious as to your thoughts on the same with regard to Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA), beyond the brief bounce she got after the first debate. Perhaps, as a white guy, her record as a prosecutor doesn't disenchant me as much as other left-leaning voters. And conceding that this may not be Harris's year, my follow-up question is: Would she make a good #2 on the ticket? J.R., Westminster, CO
Our best guess is that there are two problems, one of which we will describe as "strategic," and the other we will describe as "tactical."
Strategy refers to the big picture, the overall plan for how a candidate (or general) plans to win this thing. Harris' strategy was to be enough of a progressive, and yet enough of a centrist, that she would be acceptable to both wings of the Democratic Party, and so could be a unity candidate. As it turns out, though, the progressive voters appear to want an actual progressive, and the centrist voters appear to want an actual centrist. None of this hybrid stuff.
Tactics, on the other hand, refers to the day-by-day and hour-by-hour decisions that a candidate (or a general) makes. Overall, Harris' tactics do not appear to have been well thought out. In particular, either she's the Biden critic or she's not, but flipping and flopping on that point served only to alienate his supporters in the party without winning over many of his detractors. She's also spent far too much time raising money and far too little time, you know, actually campaigning.
There are a few other liabilities we could talk about; Harris' record as a prosecutor is an issue for her, and she comes off a little cold, like the recently-withdrawn Bill de Blasio or the why-hasn't-he-withdrawn Tim Ryan, as opposed to warm like Joe Biden or Elizabeth Warren, or deeply passionate like Bernie Sanders. Still, we think a weak campaign, strategically and tactically, is the main issue.
As to Harris' potential as a VP, she does have some selling points, not the least of which is that she would give a ticket some bona fides with black and Asian voters. Also, the VP candidate is often expected to be an attack dog these days, and Harris is good at that. That said, Biden is probably not thrilled at having been attacked, and a two-woman ticket is improbable, so among the frontrunners, Bernie Sanders may be her only really plausible match.
I had a question about your
piece
on Thursday regarding Sen. Bernie Sanders' "Housing for All" plan, which I think was unfair. To be
clear, as a socialist I am partial to most of these ideas, but I do like to stray from falling into
echo chambers on the left by reading sites like this one.
With that said, what is the purpose of going straight to "there are no free lunches"? The post in
question bothered me because it came to that rather dismissive and biased conclusion in regards to
taxes and spending. The phrase is such a popular yet dishonest trope for readers that automatically
relegates needed plans that would tackle serious problems to fantasy land. We all know taxes are
necessary to pay for things. And the nefarious "no free lunches" line been used to advocate for
smaller government in strategic but rather dishonest ways that justified deep cuts in welfare and a
variety of other programs over the past four decades. We have had paid for massive programs before,
from the New Deal to the Interstate Highway System to the Great Society, and we can certainly
organize our budget around universal housing, healthcare, and education if and/or when the political
will is there.
C.H., Highland Park, NJ
Well, recall that our phrase came in the context of a piece about all of the "for All" ideas that Sanders has put forward. He and Elizabeth Warren are both a little fuzzy on how they will pay for these very expensive proposals. That can and will hurt them with voters in election season, and it could come back to haunt them should they be elected. "What happened to the wall?" would be replaced by "What happened to Medicare for All?" Just as we freely point out Joe Biden's vulnerabilities (see above), we would be remiss if we did not note this Achilles' heel for Sanders, particularly on the same day that he unveiled the latest "for All" proposal.
You're right that, with enough will, any program is theoretically possible. However, federal government outlays are quite large, and it may not be as easy as it once was to find money for some huge initiative. Keep in mind that the entire budget in the year that Social Security was adopted was less than $3 billion ($56 billion in 2019 money). In addition, big, expensive changes tend to happen in response to existential crises, like the Great Depression or a world war. It's hard to argue that today's circumstances reach that level in the minds of voters (even if they should). And finally, the GOP has spent the last two generations framing anything other than deep tax cuts as wild-eyed socialism, and thus poisoning the well. One can only imagine what would happen if, for example, a Democratic president were to try something like the New Deal today.
We also had this pie chart recently showing where the federal government spends its money. A large piece of the budget is locked down by existing programs and laws and would be very hard (politically) to change. A Democratic president and Congress could cut the DoD budget in half if it wanted to, but that doesn't even come close to providing enough money for Sanders' programs. Either taxes will have to go way up or the deficit will have to get a lot bigger, both of which have their complications. Taxing the rich may be morally justified, but that would bring in only billions, not trillions. The problem with Sanders programs is that he is not willing to go on record with where the money will come from.
Do you think it is likely that, if Donald Trump loses reelection in 2020, he will run again in 2024? If yes, is it conceivable that he will get the Republican nomination or, failing that, run as an independent? J.W., Ummendorf, Germany
For purposes of this answer, we will assume that in 2024, Trump is still living and that he has avoided imprisonment. Neither of those things are guaranteed, of course, given his less-than-stellar physical fitness and his more-than-concerning record as a businessman and president.
Anyhow, Trump being who he is, he is likely to be "running" for president from the moment he leaves office. By that, we mean lots and lots of snotty tweets about his successor and, very likely, lots of rallies. After all, he loves the rallies more than anything, and he can undoubtedly find reasons to keep holding them. Maybe to "campaign" for other candidates, or to promote a book, or something like that.
It is unlikely that Trump runs a traditional campaign in 2024, at the age of 78. However, if he has remained in the public eye for four years, and if his brand of Republicanism continues to hold sway with the GOP base, he could be "drafted." The historical analog here is William Jennings Bryan, who lost the elections of 1896 and 1900, but remained a prominent Democrat and public figure, and was persuaded by his fans to give it another shot in 1908. It didn't work, of course, but the same thing could plausibly happen with Trump in 2024. Not probable, given the various issues we've noted, but plausible.
Given all the leaks in this White House, how is it possible that nobody has yet leaked the Trump tax returns? Congress, California and the New York AG have tried, and seemingly failed, to obtain them. Not one IRS employee has leaked them. No hacker group has tried to release them. Are they really that secure? We have had leaks from so many different sources, up to and including military intelligence and diplomatic cables. What are your thoughts on why they haven't leaked yet? Or do you think someone will leak them right before the election? A.G., Santa Clarita, CA
This is a true mystery, and we wish we had a satisfactory answer. There are at least three distinct reasons we can think of that someone might leak them, even at risk of their job and/or some time in the slammer: (1) a sense of duty, (2) a desire for fame, and/or (3) money. Surely, it would not be difficult to get a less-than-savory media outlet, or a wealthy Democratic operative like Tom Steyer, to pay seven figures for a complete copy.
We operate under the assumption that the various entities that have the returns—the IRS, Mazars, Deutsche Bank, the Trump Organization, etc.—have taken steps to secure them, such that only a few people in each case have access. But beyond that, it's remarkable that nobody has been tempted by any of the things above; maybe they are waiting to see what happens with the court cases, or they are waiting for the election to be closer. If anyone reading has any better ideas, or any better information, we'd be glad to hear it.
As a matter of curiosity: In order to prevent a bloody primary among Democrats in Massachusetts, could Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) announce that she is stepping down as a senator by Nov. 2, 2020, in order to have a special election for her seat on Nov. 3, 2020? And if yes, when would she have to announce that? Could she wait until she is sure she has the Democratic presidential nomination in the bag (assuming she lands it), or would it be too late? T.K., Vienna, Austria
We've gotten several variants of this question, though most wonder about what will happen if Warren is elected president, and whether that will affect the balance of power in the Senate. Not many of them come from this angle. We can answer both variants at the same time, though it's worth pointing out that Warren is unlikely to give up her "safety net" as a favor to Markey/Kennedy, and it is unlikely that either Markey (as a sitting senator) or Kennedy (as the frontrunner, according to polls) is going to jump at a partial term.
Anyhow, Massachusetts law is pretty wonky in this regard, primarily due to how many times the state has dealt with this basic issue in the last 20 years. In 2004, John Kerry was the Democratic candidate, the Massachusetts legislature was dominated by the blue team, and the Massachusetts governor's mansion was occupied by a Republican named Willard "Mitt" Romney. Our staff researchers are looking into whatever became of him. Anyhow, as of 2004, Massachusetts was one of about three dozen states that allowed governors to choose an interim senator until the next statewide election. Inasmuch as the Democrats in the state legislature did not want to risk losing Kerry's seat for two years, they quickly rammed through a law that declared that the vacated Senate seat would remain open until a special election could be held, in no fewer than 145 days and no more than 160 days (the governor gets to choose the exact day, though it has to be a Tuesday). Several years later, when Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) died and a Democrat (Deval Patrick) was back in the governor's mansion, the legislature tweaked the law to allow the governor to name a temporary replacement.
Legally speaking, that is where things stand today. Per the terms of Massachusetts law, Gov. Charlie Baker (R-MA) would pick a replacement for Warren if and when she quit, and that replacement would theoretically serve for 145 to 160 days until a special election could be held. It is probable (though not guaranteed) that a Democrat would win that special election, meaning that Baker would only get about four months' worth of senator if he picked a Republican.
But wait, there's more! That's why the word "theoretically" appears in the preceding paragraph. You see, four years ago, this issue came up yet again when it looked like a Massachusetts senator might be vacating their seat. That senator was a young whippersnapper named Elizabeth Warren, who was under consideration as Hillary Clinton's running mate. Then-Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) did not want to have a Republican placeholder for even four months, especially since he foresaw the possibility that the election could end up in the Senate. So, he called up his lawyers and asked them to find a loophole, which they did. Their interpretation of the Massachusetts law was that the 145-160 day clock begins when the senator announces their intention to resign, not when they actually leave their job. Ergo, they concluded that Warren could produce a letter of resignation on, say, July 1 that announced her departure effective November 8. In that case, no placeholder would be chosen, and the seat would remain vacant until the special election.
This means that the Senator has a fair bit of control over her seat, should she be leaving it for greener pastures. For the reasons we outline above, we doubt she would try to game the process to create seats for both Markey and Kennedy (especially since the loser of that contest could just run in the special election, where they would have a huge advantage due to name recognition). However, it is entirely possible that if elected to the presidency, she could submit her resignation on Nov. 4, to take effect on Jan. 20, 2021. That would not cover the whole 145 to 160 days, but it would eat up a big chunk of it, giving Baker's appointment just a month or two on the job prior to the special election.
Do you have any concerns regarding the safety of our current presidential candidates? At what point do they receive USSS protection, and is that protection sufficient against the firepower currently available to the general public with our existing gun laws? Do you see any parallels between the political atmosphere now and that of the 1968 presidential election primaries? D.M., Granite Bay, CA
Are there parallels between 2020 and 1968? Certainly, as the nation is bitterly divided, things are very tense, and people seem to be especially comfortable taking things into their own hands through acts of violence.
That said, we don't think 2020's candidates should be unusually concerned about being targeted. They don't get USSS protection until they get nominated, or until the president asks for them to be protected. When that happens, they are as good as gold, because the USSS is really good at what they do. Until then, however, the candidates have private security (or, in some cases, government-provided security due to the office they hold). The alternate security might not be as good as the USSS, if only because the USSS is the best, but it's still very, very good. And long gone are the days when candidates exposed themselves carelessly. Robert F. Kennedy was shot while trying to take a shortcut through a hotel kitchen, for example, and was famous for traveling around without a security detail (or with an amateur detail; his main bodyguard on the night he was killed was his friend, football player Rosey Grier).
Why haven't you mentioned the Republican debate being held on Sept. 24th? P.J., Springfield, VA
There are a lot of events being held, like town halls, and candidate forums, and debates, and the like. There's just no way for us to give attention to them all, as it would be enormously time consuming and enormously repetitive. So, we tend to pick the ones that appear to be major news events. In the case of the Republican debate, it's only two of the three challengers to Trump (Bill Weld and Joe Walsh), and it's only being broadcast on the Internet. That doesn't quite clear the bar for "major news event," in our view.
Back to the main page