Previous | Next
Biden Says He Didn't Do It
We pretty much could have written this item on Thursday night, before Joe Biden's interview on "Morning Joe." As expected, he appeared on the program and denied that he ever had any sort of inappropriate interaction with Tara Reade, full stop. Here is the appearance, should you care to watch for yourself:
As is consistently the case with Biden, his performance was inconsistent. He had strong moments, and in particular did well walking the fine line between "This story is not true" and "I am not going to attack Tara Reade." He also had shaky moments, perhaps most notably his response to the obvious questions about what makes Reade different from Christine Blasey Ford.
Now that the interview is in the can, we stand by our position that it's not going to change much of anything, beyond putting an end to "Why isn't Biden speaking up?" stories. People disinclined to believe Biden were underwhelmed by the appearance, and are full of critical things to say about the candidate, and how he was "filleted" and "raked over the coals" during the interview. People who were already on Team Biden have given the appearance high marks, and consider the matter to now be closed. Barring new accusations, or new (and compelling) evidence for or against Reade's account, that is going to remain the status quo. (Z)
Saturday Q&A
This year's edition of "Who will be the VP" is in full swing.
Q: I wonder about your take on the Tara Reade story. Why won't this become Joe Biden's "but her e-mails?" Even after his "Morning Joe" interview, why won't the media stay on this story and keep airing every little nugget it can find to keep it in the news? They are desperate for juicy stories that attract lots of eyeballs (in the form of ratings or pageviews), and a potential sexual-related scandal involving a major party's nominee for president is about as juicy as it gets. Why do you believe this won't linger throughout the general election and cause some voters to sour on Biden given what the use of a private e-mail server did to Hillary Clinton? J.B., Philadelphia, PA
A: There are two reasons that the Hillary Clinton e-mail story had legs. The first is that Donald Trump kept hammering on it at his rallies, in speeches, on Twitter, and so forth. The second is that there were new revelations on a somewhat regular basis (at least in part because Julian Assange & Co. made a conscious effort to keep the story going when it seemed to be losing steam).
With Reade, as we have written, Trump and his campaign are clearly unwilling to weaponize her. They undoubtedly have polling that tells them that such attacks remind people of Trump's own (much better documented) history of sexual misconduct, and ultimately hurt him with voters that he badly needs (i.e., suburban women). So, he's not going to keep the story alive. Someone like Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh might try, but while the talking points of the President may be news, the talking points of right-wing media pundits are not.
Meanwhile, news outlets basically don't run the same story over and over. Time and column inches (or pixels) are precious, and readers' attention spans are short. So, even a scandalous news story only gets ongoing coverage if new information comes to light. That's why Watergate was so devastating, because there was something new and nefarious every day. Similarly, there were a bunch of major developments on the Clinton e-mail front during the 2016 campaign, whether it was Assange/Roger Stone chicanery, or DNC shenanigans, or Huma Abedin's old laptop being found. If there is not something significant and new on the Biden front, there's simply no story to write. And we don't count "Another person comes forward with hazy memories of a 30-year-old conversation with Reade" as significant and new at this point. It would have to be either a new accuser, or some sort of compelling new evidence that speaks to the truthfulness of either Biden or Reade.
Q: I remember when Donald Trump and Brett Kavanaugh were accused of sexual misconduct, there were many stories of threats to the accusers. I haven't seen news stories about that kind of abuse being used to silence Tara Reade. Has she been getting any threats? If so, why isn't more written about it? If not, does this say something about Joe Biden and/or his supporters? C.F., Merrimack, NH
A: Forgive us if this seems judgmental, but we don't see any other way to answer the question. Broadly speaking, Republicans are much more likely to see the world in black and white terms: right and wrong, just and unjust, good and evil. And a whole right-wing media landscape has developed that encourages and takes advantage of this, filling viewers', listeners', and readers' heads with rhetoric (propaganda?) that confirms the righteousness of the right-wing perspective and the utter venality of the left-wing perspective. We do not mean to say that all Republicans are this way, but some of them are, particularly the folks who consume large amounts of Fox News, Breitbart News, Ben Shapiro, Hugh Hewitt, and the like.
The result of all of this is that folks like Stormy Daniels and Christine Blasey Ford were not only presented as wrong, but as evil, petty, vindictive women with nefarious agendas. When you take (some) of the folks who consume right-wing media, and you fill their heads with those sorts of ideas, it's pretty easy for the rhetoric to turn violent. (Z) is reminded of an occasion a few years ago when a professor in his department was denied tenure and went on Fox News to claim that it was because of his conservative politics (it was actually because of his poor teaching, and his problematic habit of blurring the lines between student and professor). Anyhow, a "gentleman" located the directory of phone numbers for the department's professors, and left several of us voicemails threatening to kill us violently.
Like you, we can find no indication whatsoever that Reade has been the subject of any sort of violent threats or other such tactics in response to her claims of being sexually assaulted. And that is what we would expect, because there simply does not exist the particular sort of wide-scale left-leaning traffic-in-anger-and-resentment media industry that would be needed to encourage such feelings.
Q: Can a person (for example, Joe Biden) be the nominee for both the Democratic Party and the Green Party? J.F., Fort Worth, TX
A: This is called electoral fusion, and it used to be common, as third parties (most obviously the Populists) found it a useful way to magnify their influence. Naturally, the two major parties did not much care for a situation that empowered third parties, and so the practice was outlawed in most states long ago. The only states where it's completely legal today are Connecticut, Delaware, Idaho, Mississippi, New York, Oregon, South Carolina, and Vermont. California allows it for presidential elections only, and a few states allow it with write-in candidates.
Q: So what really happens if Tara Reade forces Joe Biden to drop out? J.V., San José, Costa Rica
A: The fate of his delegates varies on a state-by-state basis, but there would be enough of them that would remain legally pledged to him that no other candidate could claim the nomination at this point (not even Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-VT). So, we'd be looking at an old-fashioned convention where the nominee is not known until the end. Unless, of course, COVID-19 made holding a convention impossible. Then, the Democrats would either have to find a way to make a 15,000-person Zoom session viable, or they would have to change the rules to put the decision in the hands of a smaller number of folks, like the 400 members of the Democratic National Committee. You can imagine how thrilled Bernie Sanders' supporters would be if the Party chose the latter path.
Q: You have mentioned several times now that Bernie Sanders is holding on to delegates in order to get some kind of clout with the DNC. Could you please explain this? If Sanders is no longer running, what good are the delegates to him? How do they help his progressive platform if he's not even running anymore? R.G., Portland, OR
Q: What would be the cost to Joe Biden to say that he will split the New York delegates with Sanders because the primary was canceled? How does that hurt Biden in any way? Seems like a no-brainer. Would the DNC even allow this? D.B., New York, NY
A: If the Senator were answering this question, he would tell you that he wants his movement to have a voice in the writing and approval of the Democratic platform. There's going to be a conversation about the text of the platform, and there are going to be procedural votes on what to approve and what not to approve. The more Sanders supporters that are involved in the process, the further left they can pull the platform.
And now, let's speak some truth. The party platforms used to be pretty important, but that is not especially true these days. Candidates run on what they want to run on; they do not wake up each morning and reread a document that was workshopped by a committee at the convention. And then, if the candidate is elected, the platform becomes even less relevant, since governing is the art of the possible (not the art of "whatever we wrote back in July"). It could be that Sanders persuades Biden to embrace, say, a higher minimum wage, or the Green New Deal, or some other progressive priorities. But that will be the product of the usual politicking, and not because of the platform.
Sanders is no fool, and he knows this. That suggests he has goals beyond influencing the convention/platform. And the obvious goal, one he could not announce publicly, is to be in the strongest position possible to claim the nomination should Biden fall for any reason (illness, sexual assault allegations, etc.). We do not think that is likely to happen, even if Biden is pushed aside, as it remains the case that Sanders was not the preferred candidate of the majority of Democrats (much less independents or NeverTrump Republicans). Still, this is surely a part of his calculations.
And as to D.B.'s question, yes, Biden could afford to be generous like this. He and his delegates will still be a solid majority, and will still maintain control over the platform and the nominating process. Why not make the Senator (and, more importantly, his supporters) feel like they are valued members of Team Blue?
Q: Reading some of the mailbag comments from Sanders supporters, there appears to be a vast gulf between Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders on policy issues. But when I go to isidewith.com, I agree with Biden on 88% of the issues and Sanders on 86% (heck, I even agree with Howie Hawkins on 81% of the issues). All of these folks, and frankly almost any other candidate, score higher than my 26% agreement with Donald Trump. Assuming that Sanders supporters are within a relatively close range of that 2 percentage point difference between the two (or even the 7 points between Biden and Hawkins) and that isidewith is an accurate representation of policy beliefs, why is there such angst about voting for Biden? R.W., Manama, Bahrain
A: We have three answers to your question. The first is that the election process is designed to highlight the differences between candidates and not the similarities. The second is that not all issues matter the same to voters, and "the candidate agrees with me on ten different issues" may be far less important than "the candidate disagrees with me on abortion rights" or "the candidate disagrees with me on the Second Amendment." And the third is that people often vote as much on personality and likability as they do "the issues."
It is true that the gap between Biden and Sanders on policy is not nearly so great as we've been led to believe (indeed, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-MA, actually has a moderately more left-wing voting record than Sanders does). Those policy differences become even less important once we consider what things might actually be implemented. Still, the handful of notable differences that do exist—exciting and "authentic" rebel vs. bland career politician, Medicare for All vs. expand Obamacare, socialist vs. not a socialist, didn't work for Obama vs. did work for Obama—matter a lot to a lot of voters.
Q: Why is Susan Rice not being talked about as a potential vice-presidential pick? She has the credentials and the foreign policy experience. L.F., New Milford, CT
A: There has been a little bit of buzz about her, given her academic bona fides and her serious foreign policy chops. However, we would guess that the primary thing holding her back is her involvement with (and mishandling of) Benghazi. She didn't mishandle the actual incident, but she did go on TV and say some unwise things in the immediate aftermath. Handing Donald Trump and the Republican Party that kind of ammunition would be a tough thing for the Democrats to do, especially given the availability of less-damaged candidates for the #2 slot.
Q: You have written that Joe Biden may focus on Southern states, possibly picking Stacey Abrams as VP, or he may focus on the upper midwest, possibly picking Gov. Gretchen Whitmer (D-MI) or Sen. Amy Klobuchar (DFL-MN). But wouldn't an African-American woman from the upper midwest have the broadest consensus? What do you think of Rep. Gwen Moore (D-WI)? M.H., Boston, MA
A: Moore would be an interesting choice, given that she's got some progressive bona fides, along with her box-checking demographic profile. She is also one of two people to defeat the wildly-unpopular-with-Democrats Scott Walker in an election (current Wisconsin governor Tony Evers is the other). However, we think there are three things holding her back: (1) her lack of a national profile, (2) her age, as she'll be 70 on Inauguration Day, and (3) a few minor skeletons in the closet. For example, her son was arrested (and convicted) for slashing the tires of Republican politicians. Maybe that would make him (and her) into Democratic folk heroes, but maybe it would play poorly.
Q: Before Joe Biden made the debate announcement that his running mate would be a woman, my dream Democratic ticket had been Joe Biden with former Senator Jeff Flake of Arizona. My preference for Flake stemmed from his principled and outspoken stances against Trump and the desire to have an unprecedented, broad coalition to "Make America Moral Again." Even though it is not going to happen, I wonder: Do highly-partisan people typically react negatively to running mates from the other side? Have there been any major-party tickets with running mates from the other party since the 12th Amendment was passed? M.T.E., Seaside, CA
A: In past generations (way past), this sort of gesture was seen as a positive thing. Today, however, it tends to be seen as a slap in the face of the party's base. When John McCain seriously considered making Joe Lieberman his running mate in 2008, he was told in no uncertain terms that the evangelicals would riot if he chose someone who was neither a Republican nor a Christian, and so was cowed into picking Sarah Palin. If Joe Biden picked a Republican running mate (say, Condoleezza Rice, whose name has been bandied about), the progressive wing of the party would be furious.
It is also the case that, historically, these sorts of arrangements worked out poorly. William Henry Harrison ran with John Tyler, Zachary Taylor ran with Millard Fillmore, and Abraham Lincoln ran with Andrew Johnson. In the first two cases, the VP was really a Democrat pretending to be a Whig, and in the third case, a new party name was temporarily adopted (National Union) to make a pro-unity statement, since Lincoln was a Republican and Johnson was a Democrat. In all three cases, the president died early in his term, leaving the country to be led by a president with no party. The Democrats did not want to work with Tyler/Fillmore/Johnson because those men were considered apostates. And the Whigs/Republicans did not want to work with Tyler/Fillmore/Johnson because they substantially disagreed on the issues. Given Biden's age, along with the plague that is currently sweeping the land, we think this historical lesson is relevant, even if it's 150-plus years old.
Q: How do you think a potential Stacey Abrams pick would compare to Palin? From what I've seen, I think Abrams would bring more gravitas than Palin, and avoid the mistakes the latter made in '08. Remember "I can see Russia from out my back porch?" But I also sense if Abrams is the pick, the GOP will howl about an apparent double standard in the media of Abrams getting a pass while they raked Palin over the coals for any little thing she did? R.H.D., Webster, NY
A: Well, the GOP has been known to claim double standards that don't exist, so their hypothetical talking points should not be taken as proof of concept.
In any event, we would say that Abrams' résumé, while slight by historical presidential standards, is still stronger than Palin's was. Abrams has considerably more education, including a JD from Yale. Palin has only a BA, and that required attendance at half a dozen schools to complete. They both had/have about a decade in political office under their belts, but Abrams' highest attainment (six years as minority leader of the Georgia House) is probably more meaningful than Palin's highest attainment (a little over two years as governor of a small and somewhat idiosyncratic state).
The biggest difference, though, is the one you highlight. Abrams has a commanding presence and is a smooth and confident public speaker, as evidenced by her SOTU response. Palin projected a considerably less impressive image, something that was not helped by her inability to answer a lot of simple questions. Remember when she could not name a single magazine she reads? It's fine to not actually read magazines, but to be unable to even come up with the name of a plausible one? Not good.
As an adjunct to Palin's public presentation of herself, she was also a particularly good target for being lampooned. She didn't actually say the thing about being able to see Russia; that was Tina Fey on "Saturday Night Live." However, the silly joke line was nonetheless so Palin-like that it stuck to the candidate like glue. There are a small number of politicians who were (or are) particularly susceptible to being eviscerated by SNL and other satirists: Gerald Ford, Mario Cuomo, and Donald Trump among them. However, there may be none that was quite so susceptible as Palin.
Q: With all the talk regarding Joe Biden's VP pick and who would most benefit the ticket, the one
thing I've yet to hear discussed is that Biden will be entering the White House needing to hit the ground running like
no one has ever had to before. Not only does he have COVID-19 and the economy to navigate, but he also has to rebuild
the government and our relationships with allies from the ground up.
Knowing this, it seems the number one need from a VP is someone who can also hit the ground running. Someone with
the experience, skills, fortitude and big picture thinking to share the burden. In my mind, Elizabeth Warren
fits the bill best. Who do you think would most benefit Biden as VP with these herculean tasks? Has there ever
been a first term President walking into the White House facing so many extreme challenges?
S.S., West Hollywood, CA
A: For a very long time, the VP was about as useful as the proverbial bucket of warm you-know-what. Once he did whatever he was going to do to help the ticket get elected, he then took up residence in political Siberia, waiting for the expiration of either the president's term or the president.
This was true for the two presidents who, we would say, best answer the final part of your question. Abraham Lincoln took office with seven states having already seceded, and another eight on the brink (four of which would eventually join their Southern brethren). The country was collapsing around him (and, by the way, the economy was also doing poorly). Franklin D. Roosevelt took office in the midst of the worst economic downturn in American history, and with the continued viability of the U.S. government in serious question (other nations, including Italy, Spain, and Germany saw their governments overthrown at this time, under these circumstances).
What FDR and Lincoln both did, rather than rely on their VP, was make sure to get good people into key Cabinet posts. Lincoln had William Seward (State), Edwin Stanton (War), and Salmon P. Chase (who, though a prima donna, did a good job at Treasury). FDR had Cordell Hull (State), Harold Ickes (Interior), and Frances Perkins (Labor). If there was a Hall of Fame for cabinet officers, these six people would be in it.
And that leads us to the other part of your question. If Biden really wants a jack-of-all-trades VP who can do anything (foreign affairs, Congressional liaison, source of advice, etc.), then that is a description of Hillary Clinton. But there is no particular need for a VP like that, since a good Cabinet will handle much of the heavy lifting. Biden should really think of his VP like the joker in a deck of playing cards. That is to say, someone who can fill one obvious gap in his administration and fill it really well. That could well be Warren if he feels he needs someone to handle working with Wall Street. But it could also be someone who can travel the world and make nice with heads of state, or someone who can go on TV and be an inspiring spokesperson for the administration (given Biden's own shortcomings in that area).
One reality that Biden will confront is that although he is highly experienced and can handle almost everything a president has to do, there is just too much. He might decide to focus on domestic issues like COVID-19 and the economy and simply outsource foreign policy to someone else, just because even a president gets only 24 hours a day. The main foreign policy goal would be reestablish good relations with America's traditional allies. To do that, he would need a secretary of state who knows all the world leaders and who has their respect. Fortunately, there is such a person available. His name is Barack Obama.
Q: I'm reading your items on Biden's VP pick, and through most of my time reading your site, you have really downplayed the importance of who gets the #2 slot. You generally say it might influence the state the VP is from if they are popular, but really it doesn't make a big difference. Now your writing seems to suggest that suddenly the VP pick is the only thing that matters for 5 or 6 different states. Have you changed your mind? Do you think that Biden is just that much different than other candidates, or that racism now the most important thing in elections? C.F., Merrimack, NH
A: It is true that VPs don't matter that much when it comes to delivering a particular state or region. In fact, 1960 (LBJ and Texas) was very probably the last time that it mattered at all. However, there are two reasons that the VP pick is worthy of special attention in 2020. The first is that there are enough swing states that look to be close that the right VP might just pull a key state into the Democratic column (as LBJ did in 1960). Second, one of the big questions of the campaign is exactly what kind of coalition the Democratic Party and the Biden campaign will try to build. The VP pick will tell us what they've decided. If it is Amy Klobuchar or Gretchen Whitmer, then the Midwest is the main target. With a woman of color, it is the South.
Q: I noticed that for some states in your map, several polls were averaged together, but for other states, only one poll was used despite their being some other fairly recent polls (such as NH, TX). How you decide when to average or not to average? Do you exclude any polls that are older than a month? Although I am sure this is mostly a subjective practice, are there any best practices for averaging polling? J.H., Glendora, CA
A: We only use polls from the last week, unless there are no polls in that timeframe. That may seem a very short timeline when polls are as infrequent as they are right now. But once we get to the home stretch of election season, it's definitely the way to go, so as to minimize the possibility of missing late breaks in the electorate.
This is what explains the "missing" polls you allude to; they're both more than a week old. Beyond that, if it appears we have overlooked a poll, it is usually for one of two reasons. The first is that we actually have overlooked it; nobody's perfect, although the volunteer who kindly does this labor for us is very good, so there aren't too many misses. The second is the poll comes from a house we don't trust. For example, we used to offer "with Rasmussen" and "without Rasmussen" options, because Scott Rasmussen's methodology is so questionable and because his results tend to have a strong Republican house effect. Recently, his numbers have gotten so wonky that we simply can't take them seriously anymore.
Q: I have seen some speculation that people sheltering at home are more likely to take calls from
strangers—like pollsters—out of boredom or loneliness. If true, this would seem to shorten the time necessary for the
pollster to hit the desired number of responses, perhaps reducing some costs, but will this development have any effect
on the results or quality of the polls?
Speaking of costs, media companies are taking a beating due to loss of advertising revenue, etc. Polling seems like a
natural for cost-cutting. Do you anticipate that we will see far fewer public polls sponsored by media outlets this
election season as a result, to the immense frustration of political junkies like, well, all of your readers?
J.S., Madison, NJ
A: It is unlikely that the current situation makes polls less reliable. Pollsters build their model, figure out how many responses they need, go and get those responses, and then fit the responses to match their model. All that the current situation does is make the third step in the process cheaper and easier to complete.
It is true that polling is a possible target for cost-cutting. However, it is also true that cutting polls in the midst of the most hotly-contested presidential contest in decades, if not generations, would be an unwise editorial decision. It is also the case today that a lot of polls are produced by universities (e.g., Quinnipiac) or colleges (e.g., Marist, Siena, and Emerson) that have free labor, and are looking for free advertising and not for remuneration. So, we doubt there will be a noticeable decline in the number of polls this year, particularly once things really heat up.
Q: When I looked at today's (May 1) map, what jumped out at me is how well the set of strongly GOP states in the contiguous 48 correspond to the part of the country drained by the Mississippi River, including the Missouri, Arkansas, and Ohio river systems. I'm curious whether the site's resident historian thinks this is more than mere geographical coincidence. What, if any, historical, cultural, economic or other factors account for these states being more fertile ground for a politics of grievance, white nationalism and faux economic populism than other parts of the country? D.S., Chapel Hill, NC
A: We could undoubtedly write millions of words exploring this, but you don't want to read millions of words, so we'll try to be much briefer. The geography of the mountain states pushed them substantially in the direction of extractive industries (mining, logging, etc.) that make use of a great deal of blue-collar labor. The geography of the Southern states and much of the Midwest pushed those places substantially in the direction of agriculture, which led to the rise of slavery and black sharecropping, but also a lot of white, subsistence-level farmers.
Having taken these economic turns, these places saw relatively little heavy-duty urbanization, and small and rural populations remained predominant. Further, the availability of the Mississippi River as a means of transport in the 18th and 19th centuries, and then railroads and trucks in the 20th, meant that folks in those areas largely dealt with...other folks from those places. Large-scale foreign immigration was limited until fairly recently, and there were relatively few cosmopolitan cities that engaged in substantial foreign trade (with New Orleans being the biggest exception). All of this meant a high level of homogeneity across the mountain states, much of the Midwest, and the South (unless you count the black citizens, which most white folks in those places certainly did not do until being forced to in the 1950s and 1960s).
For the coastal states, nearly the opposite is true. They embraced trade and manufacturing, had large-scale immigration as early as the 1830s and 1840s, and had many urban and cosmopolitan areas. There was still an undercurrent of white, working class activism (and sometimes resentment) in many of these places (particularly New York, Chicago, Boston, and Philadelphia), but it wasn't quite as salient among all the other people, and became less so over time.
Q: Why is Indiana so much more conservative than its surrounding midwestern states (Illinois, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and even Ohio)? J.P., Montrél, Québec, Canada
A: Surely, there are Hoosiers out there who can add insight that we do not have, and perhaps we will hear from some of them. For our part, we see two obvious answers to your question. The first is that Indiana had much less urbanization and much less industrialization than other Midwest states; Indianapolis is its only major metropolis (with about 800,000 people), and only three other cities there have more than 100,000 people (by way of comparison, California has 74 such cities).
The other answer we've got is that Indiana appears to have a similar dynamic to the one that our readers described with Boston and New Hampshire. Boston/Chicago liberals have tended to remain in residence in Boston/Chicago. Boston/Chicago conservatives have tended to move just across the state line to New Hampshire/Indiana.
Q: I'm confused as to why South Carolina is so important to the Democrats and, in fact, pushed Joe Biden over the top. South Carolina has not gone for a Democrat in all the elections on your map, and the last time it went for the blue team was in 1976. In view of this, why did it play such an inordinately large role in the Democratic primary? M.C., Santa Clara, CA
A: It is because moderate black voters are one of the most important Democratic constituencies (and possibly the most important Democratic constituency) and South Carolina, as the primary/caucus calendar is currently situated, is the first time they get to weigh in on which candidate suits their fancy. If a candidate does not do well in South Carolina, there is every reason to believe they will perform poorly in the rest of the South, as well as in places like Michigan and Illinois (lots of black voters in Detroit and Chicago).
Q: What result in the past represents the current record for the biggest Electoral College defeat for a sitting president? Should your current prediction of 390-148 come to pass, would this make Donald Trump the biggest sitting loser in history? A.B., Aberdeen, Scotland
A: The worst Electoral College defeats for an incumbent are the ones inflicted by Ronald Reagan on Jimmy Carter in 1980 (489-49, 90.1% of the EVs for Reagan), by FDR on Herbert Hoover in 1932 (472-59, 88.9% of the EVs for Roosevelt), and by Woodrow Wilson on William Howard Taft in 1912 (435-88, 81.9% of the EVs for Wilson). Obviously, Trump is not close to a record drubbing; for that to happen he would have to lose all but the nine reddest states.
Q: Donald Trump is looking less likely to win the November election. If he does lose, he will still have nearly three months in office. What would prevent him from using his remaining power to aggressively wreak vengeance on his enemies and reward all his friends? I am not only thinking of the pardon power, but also of executive decrees that would remove "Deep State" people from their jobs, de-fund needed programs, etc. He might even be capable of fomenting armed rebellion among his followers. If he did, what would stop him? K.A.L., Mahopac, NY
A: He might use the pardon power willy-nilly, and there probably isn't much that can be done about that. But most everything else will be limited by the way the system is set up. If he tried to nuke, say, France on the way out the door, the Pentagon would undoubtedly refuse the order. Most federal employees can't be fired, even by the president, and those that can be fired could easily be rehired by the next president. The same is true of executive orders; anything nutty (or not nutty) that Trump does by XO would be undone on the afternoon of January 20, 2021. Fomenting rebellion is not such an easy thing to do, and besides, Trump is a classic bully: He talks big, but shrinks when the time for action arrives.
Q: As Donald Trump has grown evermore unable to do anything but insist that his administration has done
famously in combating the virus, better than any other could possibly have done, and recently has sunk into the
depths of confused and desperate attempts to find a quick remedy (like bleach!), anyone following along has had at
least fleeting thoughts of invoking the 25th Amendment.
I realize this would be a very difficult undertaking just six months from the presidential election, but I've got to
believe that some folks have been scoping it out. I know it involves the Cabinet members voting, and what with all the
back and forth and acting secretaries, it might be hard to know just who those voting members would be. Could you lend
your expertise to filling out this pipe dream of mine and hazard a guess about the likelihood of such a scenario
happening? Thanks as always.
M.B., Pittsboro, NC
A: We hate to disappoint you, but we just don't see this happening. It would require a sizable number of people to risk not only their political careers, but also their lives and those of their families (if Christine Blasey Ford got some nasty threats, imagine what would happen to anyone who tried to actually boot the Donald out of office). Then the matter would head to the Senate, which would fail to sustain the maneuver. So, all that for nothing.
The only thing we can see that would change the equation is if Trump became physically unfit to do the job. Like, for example, he had a stroke, or he contracted COVID-19 and ended up on a ventilator. Beyond that, the attitude of every Republican in a position of power is undoubtedly: (1) "let's get as much mileage as we can out of this guy," or (2) "hopefully we only have to hang on for another 6 months."
Q: My daughter is a sophomore in high school and is currently taking civics. She is having a hard
time with an assignment and I was hoping to get your input. Here's the prompt: "Write an essay arguing why Trump is a
good and/or misunderstood president." Her teacher has included several links to articles that paint Trump in a
relatively positive light.
We are not Trump fans and she's having a hard time deciding how to go about writing the essay. We thought she could
take the perspective that Trump suffers from narcissistic personality disorder and therefore is not completely
responsible for his decisions/actions. I was wondering if you could think of any other possible thesis statements to
base her essay on?
L.S., Weaverville, NC
A: To start, this depends on your sense of the teacher's goals. It's possible this is a "devil's advocate" type assignment, where the teacher is trying to compel students to stretch themselves by taking a challenging position and trying to sustain it. That is a pedagogically valid technique. It is also possible that this is an "indoctrinate the students" assignment from a right-wing, Trump-loving teacher. This is pedagogically reprehensible, but it happens.
If it is the latter, then your daughter probably has to grit her teeth and write the essay that Donald Trump Jr. would write if he was in the class. It is basically not possible to argue for Trump's greatness using conventional standards, since even those areas where he was doing ok (e.g., the economy) have gone to pot due to COVID-19. The best way to argue for Trump's record of success would be to go to the White House website, look through all the press releases, and try to find some way to impose order on them. A thesis along the lines of: "Trump has had a significant impact on his three biggest policy priorities, namely immigration, deregulation, and national defense." That would give an argument and a structure, and then the press releases would provide plenty of primary evidence.
A better approach, assuming the teacher isn't expecting students to kiss the Trump throne, is to focus on the "misunderstood" part of the question, as your proposed thesis would do. That said, resident historian (Z) doesn't love your specific proposed thesis, as it's rather judgmental and hard to support with solid evidence. If the teacher's a fire-breathing left-winger who just wants an anti-Trump screed, then maybe. But if (Z) was the student here, he might focus on how presidents are traditionally judged, and how Trump doesn't fit that mold. For example, something along the lines of: "Historically, presidents have aspired to be national leaders, but that misses the mark here because Trump sees himself more like a parliamentary leader, attuned almost exclusively to the needs of his party. We would do better to evaluate him as a de facto prime minister, rather than a president."
A third option—and again, this depends on your sense of the teacher—is to reject the premise. Most teachers really just want to see original thought, and good arguments/writing. If you think this teacher is game for this sort of thing, the argument could be "Trump is most certainly not a good president, as is clear from even these ostensibly pro-Trump articles." Then, you would pick apart the holes in whatever articles were offered. This was actually (Z)'s preferred strategy when he was in school. He was once in a class with Michael Dukakis (yes, that one), and the essay prompt asked students if they agreed or disagreed with the assigned book. 49 students agreed (in search of letters of recommendation); (Z) was the only one who disagreed. There was a grand total of 1 "A" in the whole class.
Note to everyone: We recognize that this is a little bit of a tangent to the main focus of the website, but we thought a little commentary on pedagogy might be of interest.
Q: While doing some late-night googling, I came across
this
referencing (Z)'s
recent piece.
To say that the author, Louis DeCaro, is somewhat critical of the piece is putting it mildly, as this is one of his more
polite assertions: "It is not exaggerating to say that this is one of the worst, most ill-informed and historically
false profiles of John Brown that I have ever seen."
This naturally led me down the rabbit hole, so to speak, and I came to understand that there are some starkly
different historical views of Brown. While some of the criticisms of (Z)'s piece seem a little petty to me, the author
is a professor himself and has written multiple books on Brown. So, from the perspective of a layman examining his
background, he does seem to have a fair amount of credibility on the subject. I expect an entire column could be
devoted to a full rebuttal of the blog post, so I'll try to narrow things down to a few questions on my part: (1) With
regard to John Brown's business failings, how much can be related to the difficult economy of the time, and how much to his
own lack of business acumen?; (2) What evidence is there of Brown's religious fervor in relation to the standards of the
day?; and (3) What were Brown's specific goals for Pottawatomie and Harpers Ferry raids? What did he feel he could
accomplish at those locations in relation to the national abolitionist movement?
S.G., Morgantown, WV
A: We don't want to take potshots at this gentleman; if people are really interested they can click on the link and reach their own conclusions. We will say, however, that his standards of judgment are...curious. The goal of that piece and that series (which is returning this week!) is to give folks a reasonably brief, hopefully readable overview of historical events written in our usual editorial voice (i.e., a touch of snark). He doesn't seem to get our voice, which is fine since he's not a regular reader, but he also complains about things like a lack of hard evidence. Well, hard evidence is a thing for journal articles, book-length treatises, and footnotes. It is not apropos to this medium, nor to this particular task.
Anyhow, as to Brown's business failings, we will start by reminding everyone that he did not fail once or twice, he failed twenty times. Clearly, there was something wrong there, though the something varied depending on circumstances. Sometimes, the issue was that he was more a Christian than a capitalist, and would make decisions that were charitable rather than profitable. For example, he was known for giving jobs to people for whom he had no work because he felt sorry for them. Sometimes, the issue was indeed the difficult economy of the time. For example, he got involved in land speculation in Ohio right before a major economic downturn (the Panic of 1837). Sometimes, the issue was that his scheme was dumb. For example, he tried to sell American wool in England—a very cold country that has plenty of sheep. This was like trying to sell coals in Newcastle.
As to Brown's religious fervor, there is no question that he was very devout. He was an adherent of a pretty intense branch of Christianity (he was Calvinist), and he was known for quoting scripture, for requiring that anyone who served under him to pray/attend Church/read the Bible, and for "policing" his community for sinful behaviors. Presumably the issue here, then, is not that we described him as religious, but as a religious fanatic. On that point, he and his followers slaughtered half a dozen people in cold blood in God's name. Further, Brown fancied himself a modern Moses and, as we pointed out, grew a long beard so he'd look the part. And finally, he tried to foment a large and violent rebellion, once again in God's name. Other folks in antebellum America did not do these things. To us, this takes him from the realm of "merely devout" to "unusually fervent/fanatical." Your mileage may vary.
And finally, the general goal of both sides in "Bleeding Kansas" was to intimidate the other, and so to clear the path for the adoption of a single constitution favorable to the agenda of the faction. As an anti-slavery partisan, Brown's purpose at Pottawatomie was thus to frighten pro-slavery Kansans and Missourians so that anti-slavery Kansans could adopt (and gain Congressional approval for) an unchallenged constitution that banned slavery from the state. As to Harpers Ferry, Brown's goal was very clear. He wanted to capture the town, seize the guns held in the federal armory there, and then use those weapons to arm slaves, thus triggering a vast slave rebellion.
Today's Presidential Polls
Our polling database has five polls of North Carolina taken in April. In them, Donald Trump has gone from 49% to 47% to 46% to 45% to 40%. Wonder what the problem could be?
Yesterday we speculated about what is really going on in the pinkish red states (like Montana), which haven't been polled recently. Today we get an answer about one of them: Georgia. Like Texas, it is a statistical tie. If Donald Trump is going to have to fight for states like Georgia and Texas (and maybe Montana, which hasn't been polled since Feb. 22), that is going to use up money and resources that will be sorely needed in North Carolina and Arizona. And the remaining Koch brother is not going to chip in.
Also, if you look at the map, Michigan and Pennsylvania are now bluer than Wisconsin, which agrees with our intuition that Wisconsin will be a heavier lift for Biden than those two. But if he wins Michigan and Pennsylvania and holds all of Clinton's states, he needs to win only one of Wisconsin, Arizona, North Carolina, and Florida, whereas Trump would need them all. (V & Z)
| State | Biden | Trump | Start | End | Pollster |
| Georgia | 44% | 45% | Apr 25 | Apr 27 | Cygnal |
| North Carolina | 47% | 40% | Apr 27 | Apr 28 | Meredith College |
| Pennsylvania | 49% | 43% | Apr 21 | Apr 26 | Harper Poll |
Back to the main page