Electoral-vote.com

Saturday Q&A

The subject of the week, not surprisingly, was Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (I-AZ). Tomorrow, we would like to run thoughts on her switch from her Arizona constituents, so please send them along if you are an Arizona voter and are so inclined.

Current Events

J.K. in Las Vegas, NV, asks: If Kyrsten Sinema runs for reelection as an independent in Arizona, what would prevent the Democratic Party from putting up their very best candidate as an independent as well, and not putting anyone on the Democratic ballot to avoid splitting the general election vote three ways and likely handing it to the Republican? Seems like that would put a final nail in the coffin of Sinema's shameful Senate career. Can a candidate run in the primary as an independent and then after beating Sinema, run as a Democrat? Or for that matter, why not just keep the independent label? Is there a downside to doing that?

V & Z answer: This was the single most common question we got this week, despite the fact that the Sinema news broke just 12 hours before we begin selecting questions for the mailbag.

The flaw in this strategy is that the Party cannot guarantee the Democratic slot will remain empty. A person could file for their own amusement. Or in search of attention. Or, someone who's actually a Republican could file with the idea of doing some ratfu**king. And since there are some voters who don't pay much attention, and who just vote for the (D), that person would certainly attract some general election votes. Very possibly enough to deny the "independent" Democrat the election.

What the Democrats could do is run a party loyalist for the Democratic nomination, with the understanding that they will withdraw from the election after the primaries. Under the terms of Arizona election law, the Democratic Party would be able to choose the withdrawn candidate's replacement, and could nominate the "independent" Democrat. However, this strategy has risks, too. The blue team would have to make sure that the fake nominee would actually win the nomination and would actually drop out once they had it. Also, the "independent" Democrat would likely still appear on the ballot as an independent, and it's possible their independent votes and their Democratic votes would not be combined. Finally, some voters might be unhappy about these kinds of shenanigans. And they wouldn't have much time to get over it, since Arizona tends to hold its primaries very late.

M.O. in Metamora, MI, asks: Given Kyrsten Sinema's party switch, and the implied threat to Democrats trying to replace her, if everyone scrambled as quickly as possible, what are options for bringing Instant Runoff Voting to Arizona in time for the 2024 general election?

V & Z answer: Zero, we would say. The Arizona legislature would have to make that change, and the Arizona legislature remains under Republican control. They are not going to take steps to help the Democrats solve their newfound problem.

J.A. in Rutland, VT, asks: Was Kyrsten Sinema's announcement timing tied to the election in Georgia? If election results were different, would she have still made the move, or at a different time?

V & Z answer: It seems very unlikely to us that the timing was coincidental.

Sinema's pretty inscrutable, and only she knows for sure what her reasoning was. However, it is very likely that if she had made this announcement a week ago, or two weeks ago, it would have motivated more Georgia Republicans to get to the polls on the belief that the Senate was still in play. So, she might have kept it under her hat as a favor to Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY). Or, she might have kept it under her hat because she wanted to make sure her committee memberships remained secure.

All of this said, switching to "independent" maximizes the attention paid to Sinema, her leverage in the Senate, and her chances of getting reelected. So, she probably would have made the switch even if Sen. Raphael Warnock (D-GA) lost.

J.H. in Boston, MA, asks: Under the 50-50 senate of 2021-2023, though Democrats held control of the chamber due to holding the vice presidency, the Senate committees were split in some way. Each committee had equal co-chairs and they split subpoena power.

One of the benefits to the Democrats of Raphael Warnock winning re-election and clinching an outright majority was to have been the ending of this power-sharing arrangement. The Democrats would chair all the Senate committees in the 2023-2025 Congress.

Now, with Sinema leaving the Party, what does this mean for the committee chairs? Sinema has said she doesn't expect the Senate structure to change as the result of her decision, but that answer could go either way. Is this one of the pressure points that she has over Chuck Schumer now?

V & Z answer: Obviously, we will get a very clear answer to this question in about a month. However, both Schumer and Sinema have some leverage here. For Sinema's part, she can stop the Democrats from gaining outright control over the committees by voting with the Republicans. However, if she's planning on running for reelection, that would wipe out most Democratic votes she might get. Further, she'd lose her seniority if she effectively began caucusing with the Republicans. So, the two senators need each other.

C.W. in Carlsbad, CA, asks: I hear a lot of people talking about how somehow this coming shift to 51/49 (Advantage Democrats) in the U.S. Senate will somehow open up the possibility of progressive legislation in 2023. I don't see how that can happen for at least 2 more years due to the new configuration coming to the House in that same timeframe. And that's if the Democrats can hold that advantage in the 2024 election. However, could that possibility encourage certain Democratic Senators to soften their stance on breaking the filibuster rules in certain cases now? There's a lot out there, like statehood for Puerto Rico, that could change the Congressional dynamic for decades. Does Uncle Chuck have time or leverage?

V & Z answer: You sent this in before Kyrsten Sinema left the blue team. But even when it was 51 to 49 (or, really, 49+2 to 49), anyone who thought a wave of progressive legislation was in the offing doesn't understand how the system works. There is no way the Republican-controlled House would pass any of it, and legislation passed by this House expires when this Congress does.

To kill or adjust the filibuster before this Congress expires would require the votes of both Sinema and Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV). There's no reason to think either of them has had a change of heart on this subject, much less both of them. That's doubly true now that Sinema has bailed out and Manchin is facing a tough reelection campaign.

J.S. in Chevy Chase, MD, asks: Of Senator Sinema's switch from Democrat to Independent, you wrote: "As an independent, she's effectively guaranteed to make it to the general election ballot." But while it's true she won't have to face a primary, won't she now have to satisfy possibly daunting ballot access requirements?

According to Ballotpedia, as an independent she'll have to get signatures of 3% of the registered voters in Arizona who are not party-affiliated. Putting this together with figures from the Arizona Secretary of State's office it looks like she'll need over 42,000 signatures. Given that Sen. Sinema is not particularly popular, is it so clear that she can get on the ballot as an independent?

V & Z answer: Getting signatures just takes money. And Sinema currently has about $8 million on hand. She will not have a problem collecting the signatures she needs.

R.C. in Des Moines, IA, asks: You wrote: "Sinema has always given the impression that her primary concern is Kyrsten Sinema. Certainly, this news does nothing to argue against that impression." I don't doubt this conclusion, but how does running for reelection as an independent and giving herself very little chance of winning help Kyrsten Sinema?

V & Z answer: She slightly increases her chances of winning reelection, with the notion of somehow eking out a plurality in a three-way race. And she dramatically increases the chances that the seat is lost to the other political party. She might not care, since she's allegedly an "independent" now. But for some small advantage to herself, she is risking potential harm to millions of voters who put her into office in the first place.

D.R. in Tetovo, North Macedonia, asks: I'd like to know your thoughts on the idea of the Biden administration nominating Kyrsten Sinema for some other job that would require her to give up her seat in the Senate.

Obviously, Sinema left the Democratic Party and went independent because she feared losing a primary election. And Senate Democrats would be happy if Gov.-elect Katie Hobbs (D-AZ) were to appoint Sinema's successor after Hobbs takes office in January. Although state law requires that the appointee be of the same political party as the previous senator, there's nothing stopping a conventional Democrat like Ruben Gallego from changing his party registration to independent for the purpose of complying with that requirement.

Sinema has a law degree and experience as a criminal defense lawyer, might Biden be willing to nominate her to a federal judicial vacancy? Would she accept that if he offered to nominate her? Would the Senate confirm her if that happened?

What non-judicial jobs might Biden be willing to nominate her for, and would she be willing to accept them? Would the Senate confirm her for an ambassadorship or a Cabinet position?

V & Z answer: Needless to say, a firm answer to this question requires information we don't have, particularly as regards Sinema's motivations. That said, a federal judgeship seems the most likely possibility to us. It would be a lifetime position, and an increase in salary as compared to the pay of U.S. Senator ($174,000 vs. about $215,000), which might be what Sinema's looking for. She would still be a basically reliable Democratic jurist, and it's just one slot among a couple of hundred, so Biden would probably go for it. And Sinema's Senate colleagues would probably vote to confirm her. She would probably even get some Republican votes, since an "independent" is better for them than a flaming leftist.

That said, if Sinema dreams of a seven-figure salary as a lobbyist and/or corporate board member, then she won't be interested in anything like this.

A.W. in Honolulu, HI, asks: The Washington Post reports that "Currently, 11 Democratic senators come from states with a GOP governor who could appoint a Republican replacement."

But, how many Republican senators come from states where a Democratic governor could appoint a Democratic replacement?

V & Z answer: We assume this question is meant to apply to the next Congress, and that Sen. Pat Toomey (R-PA) is excluded. If so, then there are three: Susan Collins (ME), Roger Marshall (KS) and Jerry Moran (KS). Kentucky and North Carolina also have Democratic governors and Republican senators, but state law there decrees that the replacement senator be of the same party as the departed senator. And Louisiana has a Democratic governor and Republican senators, but state law there requires a special election be held to replace a departed senator.

S.S. in West Hollywood, CA, asks: What options do Democrats have to exploit the rules on the Speaker of the House vote if the Republicans are divided? For example, can anyone announce a run or do they have to come from/be nominated by the winning Republican majority? Is there any reason a moderate Democrat can't run and try to get support from moderate Republicans?

V & Z answer: The Democrats have the same basic opportunities that any minority party has in any legislature. They can join with another political faction (in this case, moderate Republicans) in order to form a governing coalition. It's not common in U.S. politics, but it's not impossible or against the rules.

And the Democrats are free to nominate a candidate (or many candidates). When Paul Ryan (R) was elected speaker, for example, the second-place finisher was... Nancy Pelosi. However, it is exceedingly unlikely that a Democrat could win. If a bunch of moderate Republicans defect from Kevin McCarthy (R-CA), and reach across the aisle, they are going to insist on one of their own, not a member of the other (minority) party.

R.D. in Philadelphia, PA, asks: Prior to Paul Ryan becoming Speaker of the House and after John Boehner (R) stated he was retiring from Congress and the speakership, the Republicans had another potential nominee for the post. Was that Kevin McCarthy? I don't recall the name, but I remember the potential nominee had issues with public speaking, with a habit of making public speaking gaffes. I remember Rachel Maddow of MSNBC highlighting the public speaking issues on her show at the time.

V & Z answer: There were actually a number of other contenders, but McCarthy is indeed the one you're thinking of. Here is the Maddow segment.

R.L. in Alameda, CA, asks: You recently provided a list of a dozen or so Republican members of Congress who represent districts won by Joe Biden and speculated that this group could team up with Democrats to elect one of their own as speaker and work on bipartisan legislation for the next two years. This gave me hope that there is a world in which we aren't faced with endless, pointless investigations. However, I haven't seen any stories that this is being considered. Have you found any evidence that a Young Kim (R-CA) or a David Valadao (R-CA) could become the next Speaker? Are there stories that I have missed that this threat to Kevin McCarthy's speakership is real? Help me Obi Wan Kenobi (or Z & V)—You're our only hope!

V & Z answer: There is zero public evidence of these kinds of machinations. But there wouldn't be public evidence at this point, even if such maneuvering were going on. If, say, Young Kim were to be a known candidate for the speakership, then she would have a giant target on her back. Right-wing outlets would hurl invective in her direction. Other outlets would start looking for skeletons in hopes of a scoop. Her colleagues, at least some of them, would start working to undermine her.

If someone was going to try to pull this off, it would be far better for them to appear uninterested until an impasse was reached. Then they could swoop in as a dark horse, claiming they were just doing it for the good of the country. This would mean less scrutiny and less blowback from partisans. Not NO scrutiny/blowback, mind you. Just less.

A.L. and T.L. in Portland, OR, asks: My son and I were talking about Kevin McCarthy's plan to kick Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) off the House Intelligence Committee. If McCarthy were to do this, couldn't Joe Biden just give Schiff the necessary clearance to receive intelligence briefings? Or is there more to it and that? Thanks for clarifying!

V & Z answer: The President can make the briefings available to anyone he wishes. The big problem is that Schiff would not be able to participate in committee hearings or votes.

D.E. in Austin, TX, asks: Does it make any sense to suspect the investigation of Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) is a preemptive attempt to have an investigation of her done and finished, under the current favorable House, so as to get it wrapped up before the change in House leadership can go nuts on her?

V & Z answer: That is very plausible, and would apply whether or not she actually did something wrong. If this is nothing, it's better to get rid of it before Republicans can try to turn it into something. And if it is something, it's better to get rid of it before Republicans can turn it into something huge.

M.S. in Cupertino, CA, asks: As I understand it, a 2015 Supreme Court ruling made same-sex marriage legal in all 50 states. The law that passed in the Congress is slightly different. It tells all states to accept as legal any marriages performed in states where it is legal. I don't understand in how the Supreme Court decision and the new law will interact in practice. Can you explain? Will some states stop issuing marriage licenses? What new court cases is this combination likely to generate?

V & Z answer: At the moment, the Court's decision in Obergefell remains in effect. That means that all states (and D.C., and the territories) have to grant same-sex marriage licenses.

However, it is likely that the Supreme Court will eventually hear a challenge to Obergefell, since the doctrine on which that case was based (the Fourteenth Amendment right to privacy) was gutted by the Dobbs decision. Should SCOTUS overturn Obergefell, then the Respect for Marriage Act will effectively replace it, making clear that the federal government recognizes same-sex marriages and also that states must recognize same-sex marriages from other states. The reason(s) that Congress did not just declare all same-sex marriages to be legal are: (1) some of the Republicans in the Senate insisted on the slightly more limited policy, and (2) Congress has to have constitutional authority for what it does, and the (very clear) authority it's using here is its right to regulate interstate commerce.

J.E. in Boone, NC, asks: A CNN article about the release of Brittney Griner mentioned that the other detainee, Paul Whelan, is a U.S., Irish, British and Canadian citizen. I know some people of Irish descent can obtain Irish citizenship. But four countries at once—how does that work?

V & Z answer: He was born in Canada to British-citizen parents. So he's had those two citizenships from the outset. He and his family relocated to the United States when he was young, and he eventually applied for and received American citizenship. The Irish citizenship is the (semi-) mystery; even The New York Times couldn't nail it down for certain. At least one of Whelan's grandparents was Irish, and it's possible for someone to apply for and receive Irish citizenship when that is the case (under some circumstances). So, that's probably what happened. There are other possibilities, like committing to invest a certain amount of money in Ireland, but there's no evidence that Whelan pursued (or was able to pursue) those other options.

R.M.S. in Lebanon, CT, asks: Since 2020, businesses across the U.S. say there is a shortage of coinage. For instance, the coffee shop I frequently stop at on my way to work accepts cash but requires you to use exact change if you want to pay in cash. I have no issue doing so because I don't like to carry around lots of change. I recently asked the owner why she still has that policy almost 3 years after the pandemic began. She said the banks in the area will only allow people to get coinage one time per week and they do not have enough available for her to get through a 7-day week. She said after about 4 or 5 days she is usually out of coins.

I have read a bit online about the problem and I am finding many different explanations for it, some of which are mutually exclusive. Some articles say inflation and increased consumer spending after COVID-19 restrictions were lifted is the main reason for the shortage. The banks simply cannot keep with the increased spending and demand for money. Other articles say consumers are being stingy with cash and are paying more and more with debit and credit cards, which has caused the flow of coinage to fall beyond what is necessary to maintain supplies. Other websites say that the pandemic has disrupted mining, which caused a decrease in the supply of metals used to make coins. Whatever the cause, it is not due to a lack of production. The U.S. Mint is producing cash at a rate higher than before the pandemic.

I'm sure a fair amount of coinage gets lost accidentally every day from things like falling out of cars, being thrown in the trash, or falling under furniture. However, that has always happened and cannot account for the shortage. What do you think is the cause of the problem and how can the country fix it?

V & Z answer: There are two basic problems. The smaller issue, which will eventually resolve itself, is that people are leery of using change because of their fear that "infected" coins will transmit COVID germs.

The bigger issue, which will not resolve itself, is, in effect, hoarding. The last time there was a major coin shortage was in the 1960s, when silver prices went up, and people began hoarding coins made with silver. This was easy to fix; Congress just passed a law that coins would no longer be made with silver.

The current-day hoarding, in contrast to the 1960s hoarding, is not deliberate. Coins just aren't that valuable anymore, and it's not especially practical to carry the number of coins needed for most transactions. To use the economists' term, coins have largely ceased to be a transaction currency and are now just a settlement currency. So, those people who pay in cash get their change in coins, and dump it in a jar or a drawer at home and don't bother spending it. Ipso facto, unintentional hoarding. Sure, some people eventually take that change to a bank or a coin-counting machine, but a lot of people just leave it sitting for months or years.

One possible solution would be to try to eliminate coins. But that's a nonstarter. First, there are still significant elements of the economy that require coins (washing machines, vending machines, parking meters, etc.). Further, some people would be infuriated by the notion that they are getting screwed out of a nickel or a dime or a quarter because of rounding to the nearest dollar. The U.S. hasn't even been able to retire pennies, despite years of trying. Good luck trying to retire quarters.

Another possible solution is to pass legislation that somehow pushes people in the direction of cashless transactions. The nation of Nigeria just adopted a new law of this sort, capping the amount of cash that people can withdraw from ATMs each week. However, nearly anything Congress might do in this direction will anger Republicans as being anti-commerce and Democrats as being anti-poor people.

That leaves us with the only plausible solution, which is for the U.S. Mint to increase production to whatever level is necessary to flood the market with enough coins. If the coins cost less to make than their face value, then any hoarding (deliberate or not) would result in a net profit for the government. The problem is that dimes are profitable (they cost 4.39 cents each to make), and all the coins worth more than a dime are also profitable (quarters, for example, cost 9.63 cents each), but nickels and pennies are net losers (7.42 cents and 1.76 cents, respectively).

Politics

B.C. in Walpole, ME, asks: What is the Republican Party's way out? What the Republican Party seems to want is to lose Trump and to keep Trump voters. The best option on the first part seems to be, Trump dies. It never occurred to me that Dick Cheney would still be alive in 2022; I didn't think he'd make it for the second term. And nobody, I mean nobody, thought Keith Richards would make it to 1980. That was over 4 decades ago. So, not a good plan. And on the second part, the Trump voters are loyal to Trump. They don't care about the Republican Party anymore than Trump does. (As you have noted, Trump is better at attacking Republicans than he is at attacking Democrats.) Republicans will destroy their own party trying to hang onto Trump, who doesn't care about them, and his voters, who care about them even less.

It seems to me that the only sane way out is for true Republicans to seize control of the party machinery by any means possible, cut their ties with Trump altogether, abandon the Trump voters, and determine to spend some time in the wilderness as the minority party. That would repeat their experience during the Great Depression and after, ca. 1932 to 1952.

I know: That's not an option for Republican elected officials. Could it be an option for enough Republicans and party leaders? They would save the nation from Trumpism and build a viable, and probably stronger, new second party. What other way out do they have?

V & Z answer: It's a real problem for the party of Lincoln. And you can bet that people more dialed-in than we are have spent much time trying to think of answers, and have come up empty.

The first problem, as you point out, is that anyone with the platform needed to try to steer the Party in a new direction isn't going to be willing to do so. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) is probably the nation's most powerful and prominent non-Trumpy Republican. But he's also 80 years old. He's not going to undertake a scheme meant to reboot the Party over the next 20 years, especially since he's seen firsthand what happened to people like Reps. Liz Cheney (R-WY) and Adam Kinzinger (R-IL). And so, McConnell just offers up the usual mealymouthed comments on Trump and Trumpism, and does nothing to actually change the direction of the Party.

The second problem is that The Republicans win a lot of elections, and the ones they lose are often close. So, it's very possible for them to convince themselves they don't have a problem, and that things are basically OK.

And the third problem is that the majority of Republican voters are quite happy with the candidates the Party is putting up. That's how Trump still has power, how his biggest rival is Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-FL), and how people like Doug Mastriano, Kari Lake and Don Bolduc keep getting nominated. Back in the days when presidential candidates were chosen in smoke-filled rooms and senators were elected by state legislatures, the pooh-bahs had a lot of power to choose the direction of their parties. But now, the party doesn't decide anymore, the voters do.

Probably the best thing for the Republicans, long term, would be if Donald Trump gets the nomination again and then the Party takes a beating in 2024 again. That would make four elections in a row where they were hurt by him, which might cause some critical mass of Republicans to wake up.

D.F. in Norcross, GA, asks: In your answer to a question by D.T. in San Jose, you wrote, "There is a presumption that Team McConnell has no limits on what it will do in the vulgar pursuit of power, but that is not the case. There are some things they won't do until the Democrats have given them cover."

My question is, what "cover" did the Democrats give Moscow Mitch to steal two SCOTUS seats, first by implementing the "McConnell Rule" to put Neil Gorsuch on the bench, and then totally ignoring it to jam Amy Coney Barrett onto the Court?

And please don't bring up McConnell's whining about the rejection of Robert Bork, who was unfit (IMHO) to sit on ANY bench, much less the SCOTUS, by acting as Richard Nixon's willing hit man for the Saturday Night Massacre.

V & Z answer: In 1992, a U.S. Senator from Delaware by the name of Joe Biden gave a speech on the floor of the Senate in which he suggested that George H.W. Bush should not try to fill a Supreme Court vacancy in an election year. There wasn't a vacancy at the time, and there wouldn't be one that year, as it turns out. Biden was just trying to be proactive.

Based on this speech, Republicans began to speak of the "Biden rule" in 2016, as they made clear they planned to deny Barack Obama the right to name a replacement for Antonin Scalia. On March 16 of that year, for example, Mitch McConnell made a speech on the floor of the Senate in which he decreed "The Senate will continue to observe the Biden Rule so that the American people have a voice in this momentous decision."

You may find McConnell's reasoning to be spurious, and many do. But he definitely felt the need for some political cover provided by Democrats.

J.B. in Hutto, TX, asks: I have read that progressives tend to have fewer children than conservatives. Anecdotally, among people I know personally, it does seem to me that progressive couples are much more likely than conservative couples to have made a conscious decision not to have children. Is there any hard data to shed light on this phenomena? If it is true, what does that portend for the long-term political future of the country?

V & Z answer: Yes, there is plenty of hard data. See here for a very readable writeup from the Institute for Family Studies. The cause and effect here appears to cut in both directions. That is to say, people who are likely to have more kids (e.g., Catholics, rural Southerners) already tend to be conservative, while having kids tends to make them even more conservative.

That said, it doesn't portend much for the future. The difference in the total number of children born is not enormous, since there are more lefties in the country than righties. And the children of conservatives are more likely to reject their parents' values than the children of liberals. So, it all ends up basically balancing out.

R.H.D. in Webster, NY, asks: What is the most purple state in the country today? I'll take a stab at it and say Georgia. That's because they re-elected a Republican governor, but also re-elected a Democratic senator, have another Democratic senator, and their House delegation is nearly split.

V & Z answer: Georgia is a pretty good answer. As an alternative, we'll go with Wisconsin. They just split their governorship and Senate seat, too (albeit in the other direction). The state's House delegation is 5R, 3D. And in the last two presidential elections, Wisconsin went for Joe Biden by 0.63% (20,682 votes) and Donald Trump by 0.77% (22,748 votes). It's the only state to have a margin of less than 1% in both elections.

Civics

K.V. in Hartland, WI, asks: There has been a lot of talk that the next Speaker may not be a member of the House of Representatives. Is this a feature or a loophole? If it is a feature, why would our Founding Fathers want such an option? How often has the speaker been someone outside of the chamber? How likely is it to happen with the next session of Congress?

V & Z answer: James Madison and the other fellows who wrote the Constitution do not appear to have given much thought to the matter. They essentially expected the job to mirror the position of Speaker of the House of Commons, which is a functional role, not unlike the sergeant-at-arms or the parliamentarian. It is instructive that, in the Federalist Papers, which are very thorough, there is no mention of the speaker. The job didn't become significant (and political) until Henry Clay came along in 1811.

There has never been a Speaker who was not a member of the House, and we do not believe that will change next year. Politicians are ambitious people, and are not temperamentally inclined to give away one of the four or five most powerful jobs in the land to someone who did little to nothing to earn it.

D.C. in Brentwood, CA, asks: Is it (ever) legal for a sitting Senator to run for the other Senate seat, when it comes open, in order to get a new 6-year term without risking their current seat if they lose? I can't see a restriction in the Constitution, but I can imagine there would be state laws that might be allowed.

Obviously they'd have to vacate their current seat to take the new seat, leaving someone else to get a partial term, but politicians do that all the time when changing the type of their elected position (e.g., when running for Governor or President).

If it's technically allowed, has it ever happened?

V & Z answer: It's legal, and states can't stop it, as there's no prohibition in the Constitution, and "you can't run for the Senate if you're already a U.S. senator" would be creating a new qualification for office.

It has indeed happened, albeit only a few times. The most recent case we're aware of is a wonky one. In 1992, Kent Conrad (D-ND) was theoretically up for reelection. However, he'd promised not to run again if the federal budget deficit was not substantially reduced during his term. This was the height of Reaganomics, and so that promise was not fulfilled, to say the least. Consequently, Conrad said he would not stand for reelection.

However, after the primaries, the other North Dakota senator (Quentin Burdick) died, triggering a special election under state law. Conrad concluded that his promise had barred him from running for reelection to his own seat, but that it was OK to run for the now-open seat. So, Conrad ran and won. He resigned his original seat, took over the vacant seat, finished Burdick's term and was reelected three more times.

J.E. in Boone, NC, asks: I read in an article today that at Herschel Walker's last campaign event, the Journey song "Don't Stop Believin'" blared as he smiled and waved. I recall reading a few times that [artist or group] sent a cease and desist letter to [campaign] because [artist or group] didn't want [campaign] using the song.

I assume campaigns have to seek an artist's/group's permission to use their songs. Correct? And it would make sense that a campaign's legal staff should know that. Correct? How does all that work?

V & Z answer: Your assumptions actually aren't entirely correct. Generally speaking, political campaigns purchase the same kind of public performance license (from ASCAP and/or BMI) that bars, stadiums and other venues purchase. This entitles them to play almost any song they want without running afoul of copyright law.

That does not mean the artists have no recourse, though. If they wish to do so, they can file suit against a campaign. The argument is not that copyright is being violated, but instead that the use of the music falsely implies endorsement, which is legally problematic in several ways (e.g., it violates the Lanham Act).

There are downsides to the lawsuit approach—it costs money, it takes time (often longer than the campaign will last), and it gives additional publicity to a candidate who is presumably objectionable. On the other hand, it's also a bad look for a campaign to haggle with an artist and to have a bunch of news items about how [popular artist or group] finds [candidate] odious. So, a cease and desist letter is normally enough to end the usage of a song. And if it isn't, some artists will go to court, while others will choose not to pursue the matter further.

J.K. in St. Paul, MN, asks: With New Hampshire's state law requiring their primary to be first, what does "first" really mean? Does it have to be a whole day, or could they just open the polls an hour earlier than another state that is having a primary the same day?

V & Z answer: Remember Gerald Ford's quote about what is and is not an impeachable offense? He said: "an impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history." Well, "first" means "whatever the New Hampshire secretary of state thinks it means." We think it is improbable that either the current or the incoming secretary would be satisfied to be first by just an hour or two, though.

L.E. in Putnam County, NY, asks: Ever since New Hampshire passed its "We must be first, and the Secretary of State can do whatever is necessary to make sure of it!" law, I have wanted another state to pass a law that says "Our primary must be held 1 week before whatever date New Hampshire sets for theirs."

Until now, the national parties' support for New Hampshire going first has inhibited this, but now it seems the gloves are off. If such a law were passed, how would the paradox be resolved? Would there be a hook to get it to the Supreme Court?

V & Z answer: It would be resolved by the parties. The states can play primary calendar chicken as much as they want, but if the Democrats and/or the Republicans say "We won't count any New Hampshire delegates awarded before March 1," then the Granite Staters are effectively neutered. What's the point of holding a primary that doesn't actually count for anything?

S.E.Z. in New Haven, CT, asks: You wrote: "The Fourteenth Amendment disqualifies from federal officeholding anyone who 'engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.'" and also "What the Democrats would really like is for a federal judge to step in and make a finding that Trump and/or other 1/6 participants, were guilty of fomenting insurrection. Then, disqualifying those people from officeholding would be a fairly nonpartisan act."

If a judge found Donald Trump guilty of "fomenting insurrection," would not his lawyers argue (successfully at some judicial level) that a court finding of "fomenting insurrection" is different and less serious than the "engaged in insurrection" required by the Fourteenth Amendment to prevent him from holding office?

V & Z answer: Doubtful. One of the key things in interpreting the Constitution is the intent of the authors. And there is no doubt that the authors of the Fourteenth Amendment intended it to apply to people like Confederate president Jefferson Davis and Confederate vice president Alexander Stephens, despite the fact that neither of them ever picked up a weapon or participated in a battle.

History

M.W. in Richmond VA, asks: You wrote: "Seven [English] speakers were executed for delivering unwelcome news to the king."

You can't just say that without giving us some details.

V & Z answer: All of those executions took place a long time ago, and in a time when the Speaker tended to be involved in politics in multiple ways beyond their parliamentary function. Anyhow, here are the seven; all were executed by beheading:

John Bussy (executed 1399): Henry IV accused him of disloyalty

Thomas Thorpe (1461): Picked the wrong side in the Wars of the Roses

Thomas Tresham (1471): Also picked the wrong side in the Wars of the Roses

William Catesby (1485): Yet another who picked the wrong side in the Wars of the Roses

Richard Empson (1510): Accused of treason by Henry VII and convicted and executed shortly thereafter

Edmond Dudley (1510): Accused of treason by Henry VII and convicted and executed on the same day as Empson

Thomas More (1535): Refused to play along with Henry VIII's split from the Catholic Church

In general, these men were actually executed well after they had left the Speakership.

E.M. im Pasadena, CA, asks: Which Presidential election wins do you think were the biggest negative for the United States?

For example, I believe Donald Trump is a terrible human being and was a terrible, divisive president. Hillary Clinton wasn't a great candidate, but I think would have been a successful and fair president. However, I also couldn't stand George W. Bush and his decision to invade Iraq. Had he lost to Al Gore, we may have avoided an unjustified war and have had stronger environmental laws in place 20 years ago.

This question involves a lot of guesswork and may be fairly partisan, but I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on which presidential winners were most consequentially negative both in the modern era (say, since FDR) and throughout the history of the U.S.

In other words, which Presidential elections would have been most beneficial to the U.S. had the loser won?

V & Z answer: Besides the two elections you name, here are ten others where it might have been better for the country if the loser had won:

1828 (Andrew Jackson defeats John Quincy Adams): Adams didn't have a great presidency, but he was a decent fellow, and was not prone to wrecking the nation's economy or killing Native Americans. So, that's two points in his favor over Jackson.

1832 (Andrew Jackson defeats Henry Clay): It would have been interesting to see what a skilled insider like Clay would have done with the presidency. And, like Adams, he was not prone to destructive economic policies or killing Natives.

1844 (James K. Polk defeats Henry Clay): The moment that Polk instigated the Mexican-American War, which Clay would not have done, was probably the moment that the U.S. passed the point of no return when it comes to the Civil War.

1876 (Rutherford B. Hayes defeats Samuel Tilden): Hayes was a do-nothing president. Tilden couldn't have been much more ineffectual, and as a more skillful politician with clearer policy ideas, he might have been considerably stronger.

1912 (William Howard Taft defeats Theodore Roosevelt and William Jennings Bryan): We are not persuaded that Bryan had the political skills or the smarts to be president. TR, on the other hand? He was very good during his 7 years in office, and there's an excellent chance he could have improved on Taft, who largely kept the country idling in neutral during his 4 years in office.

1924 (Calvin Coolidge defeats John W. Davis): Coolidge was just a caretaker president, and one who was basically asleep at the wheel due to crippling depression. Davis couldn't have been much worse and, like Tilden, he might have been a lot better.

1928 (Herbert Hoover defeats Al Smith): Hoover had limited executive experience and was no match for the Great Depression. Al Smith had governed one of the country's biggest states (New York) and was known for being pretty innovative in terms of policy. Maybe no president could have softened the blow wrought by the Great Depression, but it's at least possible Smith could have made a better job of it than Hoover did.

1968 (Richard Nixon defeats Hubert Humphrey): Humphrey would probably have ended the Vietnam War in short order. And he certainly wouldn't have had Watergate and all the other corruption and malfeasance.

1976 (Jimmy Carter defeats Gerald Ford): Carter was a very decent human being, but he was overmatched by some of the challenges the late 1970s threw at him. Ford was also a very decent human being and, as an experienced Washingtoninan, might have fared better.

1980 (Ronald Reagan defeats Jimmy Carter): Reagan made Americans feel better about being Americans, which is no small thing. But he also initiated policies that continue to do harm, not the least of which is trickle-down economics. Had the now-experienced Carter been given another 4 years, he might have righted the economic ship without contributing to the vast inequality of wealth that is eating away at the U.S. today.

Did we miss any? Are we wrong about any of these? Let us know.

Gallimaufry

O.Z.H. in Dubai, UAE, asks: You often note that you are not lawyers. However, you seem to know an awful lot about the law. In last week's Q&A, you answered "inside baseball" questions about Section 6103(f) of the Internal Revenue Code, the U.S. Bankruptcy Code, and stated that "much deference is given to the DoJ in their choice of venue". Most non-bankruptcy lawyers wouldn't know that much about the U.S. Bankruptcy Code (certainly not off the top of their head) and most non-litigators wouldn't know about how much deference is given to the DoJ's choice of venue in federal prosecutions. While the former can be looked up, the latter would only be known to federal court litigators. So my question is, do you gents know all this stuff (notwithstanding your lack of a law degree) or do you have lawyers who you consult on such matters?

Also, which Phillips Academy is running these polls? There are two: Phillips Academy Andover and Phillips Academy Exeter. I am curious because I went to Deerfield and my cousin went to Andover (and we both hate Exeter). Thanks!

V & Z answer: It is (Z) who writes most of the legal answers. He does sometimes consult with lawyers when necessary, but that doesn't happen all that often. Some things (like the customs of the federal courts) he picks up from knowing a fair number of lawyers. Some things, the research skills of a historian are not especially different from the research skills of a lawyer. And some things, well, it's not too tough to figure out the broad outlines of legal thinking on many subjects.

What lawyers can do, and (Z) can't, is very clearly identify exactly where the line is between, say, "not defamatory" and "defamatory." Also, lawyers are able to sort things out when there are multiple legal issues in play, like "You crashed a poorly maintained rental car into a publicly owned telephone pole located on private property right on the border of California and Nevada. Which laws are paramount?"

And it is Andover that does the polls.

D.R. in Slippery Rock, PA, asks: Would you kindly post pictures of yourselves, the dachshunds, and the staff mathematician?

Inquiring minds want to see.

V & Z answer: Flash is on the far left and Otto is next to him:

You can figure out the rest on your own.

K.H. in Albuquerque, NM asks: Every now and then, a reader makes a statement like "I've been following E-V.com since 2008." I vaguely remember following the site fairly early on when it was just a pre-election blog that didn't post much if anything in the off years, but I don't know the precise year that I started reading.

That got me poking around in The Wayback Machine and I discovered their earliest snapshot of Electoral-vote.com -- 10 June 2004. After some experimenting with the URLs and use of the handy 'Previous Report' button, I was able to back up to 24 May 2004. It's only 537 days until your 20th Anniversary! Do you have a pattern picked out for your china and is it registered with an online vendor?

Back to my train of thought: Is 24 May 2004 the first issue of Electoral-vote.com? I assume your interest in Vote From Abroad was a key motivation, but can (V) kindly fill in some of the early rationale? Was there a prototype, either a spreadsheet model or a Vrije Universiteit internal website? You certainly hit the ground running!

V & Z answer: The original goal was indeed to get Americans living abroad to vote. An estimated 7 million American citizens lived outside the country then. If they were a state, they would ranked around 13th, more populous than three-quarters of the states. Federal law allows all of them over 18 to vote in the state they last lived in but many of them don't know this. (V) was trying to think of a way to get to them and tell them they could vote. Unlike, a state, you can't just knock on doors because they are scattered all over the world. So he thought of building a website about politics and elections. On the top, he put a banner linked to OverseasVote2004.com (long since gone), which explained the law and helped expats get the form required by each state to register. Then the voter could download the form, fill it in and send it back with whatever other documents the state required to register. He later learned that 30,000 people downloaded forms from them. Presumably many of them also voted. In October of 2004, the site was getting 600,000 visits a day and was the #1 political website in the entire country. It was even in the top 1,000 websites in the entire world on any topic. There were cartoons about the site in national publications. So (V) figured there was apparently some interest and just kept going. Years later, just as (V) was beginning to feel enough is enough, (Z) joined to revitalize the site.

Here is a link to the first posting. The introductory announcement is under the Welcome link.

The secret sauce that made it so popular was the then-revolutionary idea of tracking the state polls every day to compute the electoral vote every day, not the popular vote. While it seems obvious now, no one had ever done it until (V) got the idea. This is what got all the attention.

The Vrije University wasn't involved in this. No one there even knew about it. And there was no spreadsheet model, just some software that (V) wrote himself to do the math. Later, Eric Paulson of Viking Web Development contributed software that allowed the map to be generated automatically from the data, which helped enormously. Several years later, once it was clear the site would be around for a while, the format was updated to the current style.

Reader Question of the Week

We are going to try something new. Well, at least partly new. We often get questions that work better if they are crowdsourced, rather than us trying to answer. We've put a few of these questions out there, but now we're thinking about doing one per week, where the answers will appear in the next week's Q&A. Here goes our first one:

E.W. in Skaneateles, NY, asks: Americans have a tendency to see everything in terms of how it affects the U.S., but the World Cup shows just how many other bilateral relationships are out there. (And where else can you see Koreans cheering next to Portuguese or Uruguayans hanging out with Ghanaians?) In your view and that of your readers, what are some of the most interesting, unexpected, or offbeat bilateral relationships that don't involve the U.S.? Bonus points for ones that don't involve countries that share a border and that don't involve colonialism.

Some of my answers are the beef between Honduras and China (about Taiwan), the previous weird friction between Ecuador and the U.K. (Julian Assange), the history between Uganda and Israel (Entebbe), and the connections between Japan and Peru as well as India and Guyana (immigration).

Thoughts? Send 'em along.

This item appeared on www.electoral-vote.com. Read it Monday through Friday for political and election news, Saturday for answers to reader's questions, and Sunday for letters from readers.

www.electoral-vote.com State polls All Senate candidates