Senate page     Dec. 17

Senate map
Previous | Next

New polls:  
Dem pickups: PA
GOP pickups: (None)

Saturday Q&A

And so begins the "reader question of the week" feature.

Current Events

D.R.M. in Delray Beach, FL, asks: I believe the election of the Speaker is based on a majority of voting members present, not a majority of total members. If so, could enough Democratic members miss the roll call to offset the MAGAs causing so much trouble for wannabe speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-CA), leaving him indebted to the Democrats in some small measure, with an apoplectic caucus, and ensuring that no loony could actually find their way into the speaker's chair? More importantly, would there be any advantage for the Democrats in this?

V & Z answer: It is certainly possible for the Democrats to help elect McCarthy by voting "present" during the Speaker election, or by not showing up to work that day. That would allow them to help McCarthy out without voting for him directly (and thus potentially aggravating constituents).

It is instructive, we would say, that there is no indication that McCarthy has considered this or attempted to negotiate with the Democrats. He is apparently preparing to make concession after concession to the MAGA Militia, including allowing pointless investigations, changing the rules to suit their demands, giving them committee assignments they really don't deserve, etc. It is entirely possible that he could secure Democratic support (or, really, Democratic "present" votes) if he agreed to keep the two violent bigots (Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-GA, and Paul Gosar, R-AZ) off committees and to tamp down on useless investigations. But the would-be Speaker has clearly decided that Option A (assuage the nutters) is the only choice and Option B (work with the Democrats) is a nonstarter. Either he doesn't think Option B will work, or more likely, he doesn't think that Option B will help his long-term political fortunes as much as Option A will.

On that point, we would suggest that McCarthy is delusional in even thinking he has long-term political fortunes. First, he has demonstrated that he's a mediocre politician. Second, he's about to make a Faustian bargain of the sort that ultimately destroyed politicians much more skillful than he (e.g., Paul Ryan). Third, McCarthy might want to review the list of Speakers of the House who went on to become president. That list is one person long, and that person (James K. Polk) served as president 175 years ago. Point is, the speakership is a terminal position, especially for a Republican from California who has zero chance of being elected to the U.S. Senate.

Anyhow, since McCarthy is clearly unwilling to play ball, then the Democrats are best served by observing the old adage: "If your opponent wants to shoot themselves in the foot, then let them."


L.K. in Sherman Oaks, CA, asks: Can't the Democrats just pass the budget and the debt ceiling increase via the reconciliation process and not have to go through all this negotiation stuff? Or is that something Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) won't let them do?

V & Z answer: The reconciliation process can only be used to alter existing budget bills. So, it could be used to alter the debt ceiling (which was set by an already-passed bill), but it cannot be used to pass a new budget.


T.R. in Vancouver, BC, Canada, asks: What's up with the term "defense spending"? I've noticed that even left-leaning news outlets, like The Guardian or your site, tend to use what is to me an obvious Orwellianism to describe military expenditure. After all, if someone explicitly claimed that all U.S. military operations now or in the recent past were purely defensive, I'm pretty sure you would describe that as propaganda. So why use a term that implies the same claim, rather than an objective description like "military spending"?

V & Z answer: Well, the expenditure funds the Department of Defense, and the bill is always entitled "National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year [XXXX]." But really, it's a case of being stuck with the term that everyone already knows and is familiar with. If we started using "military spending," we'd have to explain it every time, or else people would assume that we're referring to some subset of defense spending.


R.V.G. in Redwood City, CA, asks: Could Rep. Ruben Gallego (D-AZ), etc. file as independent to run directly against Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (I-AZ) in the primary and leave the Democratic slot empty, so that the general election is head-to-head against the Republican candidate?

V & Z answer: No. We didn't do a great job of explaining this last week, so we want to give it another go.

To start, and most importantly, there is no "independent" primary. If someone gets the necessary signatures, they immediately qualify for the general election ballot. Should Sinema decide to run again, she will easily be able to collect the necessary signatures, and so will be an available option for voters in the general election.

The only purpose to Gallego or any other Democrat running as an independent would be to muddy the waters. With a whole lot of maneuvering, it might be possible for Gallego to get on the ballot as both an independent and as the Democratic nominee, and so to potentially split the independent vote. But the benefits of this would be relatively small, and the risks would be substantial. In some states, most obviously New York, a candidate can be on the ballot as the nominee of multiple parties. Then, their votes are combined. We could not find verbiage in the Arizona electoral code that speaks to whether or not this is legal in that state, or whether the votes would be combined if it is legal. But again, even if Arizona operates according to the exact same rules as New York, the benefits would be pretty minimal.

No, the Democrats' best hope is to convince Sinema not to run, perhaps by offering her some non-Senate opportunity. Failing that, they will have to rally their voters in 2024, with the (absolutely correct) argument that if Democratic turnout isn't huge, it will lead to the election of a Republican senator.


T.T. in Minden, LA, asks: Why is Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) allowing Kyrsten Sinema to hold the Democratic Party hostage? Why doesn't he strip Sinema of all her committee appointments? I know that 51 is much better than 50, but would she really cross the aisle officially? She votes with the Democrats 90% of the time. Presumably she's still going to. But with a GOP House, there will be a lot less to actually vote on, except for judges. If she takes the final step out of spite and declares GOP, they still have the 50 + 1 they had last year. Plus then it would be the GOP's problem to primary her, which they would do without a doubt. The Democrats are giving her all her power to harm them, why don't they refuse to? What am I missing?

V & Z answer: First of all, her leverage is considerably reduced as of Jan. 3 of next year. Schumer now needs just one vote between Sinema and Joe Manchin and not both. Further, as you note there will be considerably fewer bills for the Senate to vote on. Maybe none of the sort where Schumer has to whip every single vote.

That said, there may be circumstances where Schumer needs Sinema. Probably not on legislation, but on judges or other appointments. He's better off keeping her on board, so he can lean on her at least once in a while, as circumstances dictate. If he runs her out of the Democratic caucus, then there's no guarantee she will continue to vote the way Schumer wants. In fact, she certainly seems like the type to be petulant, and to vote against the blue team out of spite.


R.V. in Pittsburgh, PA, asks: The 2023 Senate calendar is out.

It seems like there are far fewer days in DC, including most of January out of session. Any idea why the Senate is conducting business fewer days than normal, especially since 2023 is not an election year?

V & Z answer: You're correct; the Senate was in session for 176 days in 2022 and is planning to be in session for 154 days in 2023. Part of the reason is that in odd years, the January calendar is always much lighter. That is because the new members need time to get their offices set up and running, hire staff, go through orientation, figure out committee assignments, etc. We suspect that Chuck Schumer might also be guessing that there will be considerably less time needed to discuss/debate/vote on legislation.

The presence (or absence) of elections in any given calendar year doesn't really affect the calendar much. In part, that is because members of Congress are perpetually running for office—holding town halls, participating in parades and county fairs, raising money, etc., whether it's an election year or not. In part, it is because the special demands of an election year only affect a smallish minority of the senators. Only one-third of them are up in any given election year, and maybe only half of those are in any danger and need to do serious campaigning. So, the Senate calendar is not substantially reorganized to accommodate the needs of, perhaps, 12-15 members. They are expected to fit their campaigning in with their regular duties, excepting the two weeks (or so) before the election, when the Majority Leader does indeed clear the calendar for them.


D.E. in Austin, TX, asks: How confident are you that Joe Biden's coming out first to support gay marriage was part of a plan so Obama could advocate it second? I vaguely recall you taking a different stance back then, and I've seen nothing elsewhere to support this opinion.

V & Z answer: Well, it was (Z) who wrote that this week, and if something was written 10 years ago, it could only have been written by (V). So, even if your memory is correct, it doesn't mean there is an inconsistency here.

In any event, Biden made his famous pro-same-sex-marriage declaration on Meet the Press on May 6, 2012 (you can view it here if you like). Obama announced his support for legalizing same-sex marriage on the ABC Evening News May 9, 2012 (you can view it here if you like).

If we were working as political consultants, and were asked to design a "trial balloon" situation, our script would look something like this:

  1. Have VP with reputation for being a motormouth go on Sunday morning news shows and make major policy statement.
  2. Judge reaction to VP statement.
  3. If reaction is negative, distance president from statement. If reaction is positive, have president go on primetime news a few days later to affirm statement.

We don't know for sure that this was planned out in advance, but if it wasn't, then it's a heckuva coincidence.


R.O. in Sarasota, FL, asks: Regarding the anti-vaxx stance of Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-FL), I wondered if his children have been vaccinated for COVID-19 and other childhood diseases?

V & Z answer: Florida law requires schoolchildren to get the standard list of vaccinations prior to starting kindergarten. Two of his three kids are old enough to have commenced their educations, so two of his three kids must have received the standard vaccinations. The third is a few months shy of turning 3.

As to COVID-19, DeSantis previously admitted to having been vaccinated against the disease. Now that he's pandering to anti-vaxxers, he refuses to answer that question about either himself or his family. So, we don't know for certain. However, it would be unusual for him to vaccinate himself and not his kids. Further, if his family wasn't vaccinated, he would presumably be wearing that fact as a badge of honor. So, if we had to bet, we'd bet his kids have had the COVID vaccine. At least, the two kids old enough to receive it.


J.E. in Gilbertsville, PA, asks: While I understand that most passenger cars use regular gasoline, I'm curious why there is absolutely no discussion on the cost of diesel. My husband and I were supercommuters until the pandemic hit, and we had both purchased diesel cars. And the price of diesel has been astronomically high! In our area we are still paying well over $5/gallon, which is actually an improvement. It had been above $6/gallon. Don't all the box trucks and 18-wheelers also use diesel to haul goods to the stores? And doesn't that mean we won't have relief on things like groceries until the price of diesel goes down?

V & Z answer: The more facts and figures you include in a sentence or a paragraph, the harder it becomes to read. When it comes to the stock market, the media reached a consensus long ago that the Dow Jones (and maybe the NASDAQ) would be the two figures they would report on, despite the existence of many other indices (some of them arguably more instructive). Similarly, the media reached a consensus long ago that "average gas prices" would mean "average price of a gallon of regular, 87 octane gasoline." That's the type used by the majority of consumers, so it's a defensible choice.

Incorporating diesel into the discussion would make things very messy since the diesel economy plays by somewhat different rules than the unleaded gasoline economy. But for those who are interested, the current national average for a gallon of diesel is $4.80; a month ago it was $5.35; and a year ago it was $3.59. And those prices do indeed affect grocery costs, but it's hard to separate that out from other factors, and so hard to report on.


J.S. in Durham, NC, asks: I am hoping you will be able to shine some light on the issue of cryptocurrency for me, which has consistently been shrouded in fog. It has always seemed like money fabricated out of whole cloth. And so consequently, I do not understand why people would invest tens of thousands of dollars in something that appears to be a house of cards.

Thank you for any light that you can shed.

V & Z answer: To start, all currencies are, to a greater or lesser extent, fabricated out of whole cloth. Limiting ourselves to the U.S., so as to keep things simple, money used to be in the form of gold and silver coins and in the form of bank-issued notes. The gold and silver coins had some intrinsic value, but one that was generally less than the face value of the coins. The bank-issued notes were, in effect, IOUs you could take to that bank to exchange for gold.

Eventually, during the Civil War, the U.S. government took over the printing of paper currency. From the 1870s to 1933, government-issued cash was backed by gold, and the notes could be traded for gold at any federal depository. See, for example, this $100 bill from 1928 (note the line at the very bottom):

It's a $100 bill, but it says that $100 in gold shall be paid to the bearer on demand

After 1933, gold was replaced by silver. And then, in the 1960s and 1970s, the U.S. abandoned all metallic standards, and decreed that its currency was backed only by the "full faith and credit" of the United States government. In other words, over the course of about 100 years, American money moved further and further away from having any intrinsic value and towards being a legal fiction that everyone agreed on. Since the 1970s, a $100 bill is worth $100 because everyone agrees that it is worth $100.

The people who created cryptocurrency wanted something that worked well for electronic transactions and that was decentralized (and basically untraceable). This meant that crypto attracted a lot of technophiles, a lot of libertarian/anarchist types, and more than a few criminal types. In order to give users faith that the currency actually had value, it was necessary to give people confidence that it is regulated and that it is somewhat scarce. Complex computer processing is used to "mine" new coins, and also to validate transactions. Since this processing uses a lot of time and energy, it means that crypto is somewhat scarce and that its production and use are regulated.

At first, the increased value of various cryptocurrencies was a product of the same thing that makes any currency more valuable: demand outstripped supply. If someone is trying to conduct a transaction that requires, for example, Bitcoin, then they have to trade whatever amount of goods, labor, cash, etc. are necessary to acquire the correct amount of Bitcoin. Since Bitcoin is fairly scarce, there was brisk demand relative to supply, and the price rose.

Eventually, prices rose enough that people began to see cryptocurrency as an investment vehicle. At that point, you had competition from people who wanted to conduct crypto transactions and from people who were just looking to invest. In contrast to the cryptocurrency itself, which is well regulated, the trading of crypto was almost entirely unregulated. Or, it was regulated by dubious and often ineffective schemes. Note that FTX, the Sam Bankman-Fried concern that just collapsed, was not a cryptocurrency, it was a cryptocurrency exchange.

The bottom line is this: Cryptocurrency is very different from U.S. dollars, in many ways, not the least of which is that there are debts that can only be paid in dollars (for example, U.S. taxes), but there are no debts that can only be paid in Bitcoin (or Ethereum, etc.). But the idea behind crypto is sound, and is not really more or less "fabricated out of whole cloth" than paper currency is. Where things became... unwise was when people began treating crypto as an investment rather than a currency, and started paying outlandish prices that could not possibly be sustained.

Politics

A.T. in Arlington, MA, asks: Given that Republicans hold the trifecta in South Carolina, Georgia and New Hampshire, and would thus need to go along with changes to the dates of their state's primary elections, are the Democrats' attempts to change the order of the Democratic primaries a form of Kabuki theater?

V & Z answer: Well, to call it Kabuki implies that the Party doesn't really want to change the calendar, and that it's only pretending in order to pander to Democratic voters in those states. We think that the DNC really does want to change the calendar. Whether those states will play along is another matter, though the Democrats do have options if they really, really want to force a change. They can hold caucuses, or they can make nominations at the state convention. These approaches would have the effect of reducing the number of voters who have a voice in the process, so the Democrats probably won't want to go in this direction. But they could.


K.C. in Los Angeles, CA, asks: You suggested that "it is doubtful that any candidate will bother with New Hampshire" if the proposed new Democratic primary schedule takes effect, but it seems that you are discounting an essential factor in presidential campaigning—namely, the varying importance that these states hold in someone actually getting elected president. Winning a primary in South Carolina may propel a candidate to the Democratic nomination, but it certainly won't win them South Carolina's electoral votes, which are completely beyond any Democrat's reach.

However, we can assume that swing voters in New Hampshire will not take kindly to being ignored by the entire Democratic field, especially if the GOP candidates practically take up residency in the tiny Granite State, as usual. This sure sounds like a formula for ceding New Hampshire's electoral votes to the GOP, and while four electoral votes don't add up to much, they just might add up to the difference between victory and defeat in a highly polarized nation (I wonder if Al Gore thinks New Hampshire's electoral votes aren't all that important). I can't imagine that the party bigwigs in New Hampshire aren't pleading with the DNC to avoid this fate. Do you think this is likely to end up becoming a factor that impacts the ultimate decision regarding the primary schedule?

V & Z answer: We do not think this will play a role in the DNC's thinking. First, it is doubtful that there are that many voters whose #1 concern is "did our state get to go first?" as opposed to, say, the issues or the quality of the candidates. Second, the Democratic Party cannot allow itself to be held hostage by a state, particularly not a small, very white one with only 4 EVs. The whole purpose of this exercise is to identify stronger and more electable candidates. And if it works, then those 4 EVs in New Hampshire are much less likely to be relevant.


A.S. in Brooklyn, NY, asks: What do you think would happen to the Republican presidential race and/or the Republican Party if Peyton Manning announced he was going to run for president (as a Republican) in 2024?

V & Z answer: He would have to commit to the general MAGA "platform," which means border wall, culture wars, anti-vaccination, etc. Assuming he did so, and he started talking like Donald Trump Jr., he might well be viable. Manning is smart and media savvy, and is unlikely to say dumb things (although Mehmet Oz is also smart and media savvy, and said plenty of dumb things, so maybe not). Manning is more charismatic than Ron DeSantis and has far less baggage than Donald Trump. Further, red staters love their football. So, the quarterback might actually gain traction.


D.R. in Slippery Rock, PA, asks: I get Hunter Biden's laptop, as much as there's anything to get. What about Burisma paying him $50,000 a month. To do what, exactly?

V & Z answer: Everyone involved—Burisma, Hunter Biden, Joe Biden, etc.—knows exactly what was being purchased for $50,000. It was a lottery ticket, a shot at insider access to Washington D.C. and to the Obama administration. From the viewpoint of Burisma (or any other business), $50,000 is a relative bargain. If it doesn't work out, it's not all that much money. And if it does, then $50,000 is a steal. Consider, by way of comparison, that it cost Saudi Arabia $2 billion to maintain its access to the Trump family, and they aren't even in office right now.

It does not reflect well on Hunter Biden that he was selling lottery tickets like this. But the fact is that most people would struggle to turn down this sort of money, if offered. And there is a long history of presidential relatives selling the promise of access. The money paid to Hunter Biden is entirely irrelevant unless it served its purpose, and Burisma was actually able to purchase insider access (and to gain problematic or illegal favors). And there has never been any evidence that Burisma actually gained access to Barack Obama or Joe Biden. If there had been, it would have been the lead story on Fox every night for the past 10 years.


J.C. in Oxford, England, UK, asks: I actively despise antisemitism and have worked against it in practice as well as just tutting from my sofa.

At the same time I find myself wondering with regard to George Soros... how would you set about criticizing a multi-billionaire who did use their wealth to try and buy political and media influence, if that billionaire happened to be Jewish?

To my mind it's mainly "don't use antisemitic tropes like tentacles" and "don't say things about them you wouldn't say about a non-Jewish billionaire doing the same thing," and maybe "establish what is OK and what isn't independent of any of their positions or ethnicity."

Somehow, though, that still doesn't feel like quite enough. On the other hand, it can't be "people from racial/ethnic/faith groups can no longer be criticized for their behavior at all, if that behavior is also one which has been applied against that group in general as a racist trope." We can mostly intuitively see when the line has been crossed, but trying to write down an objective way of describing where it is makes my brain hurt...

V & Z answer: Unfortunately, that is the nature of antisemitic dog whistles. They're clear enough to communicate their message to the intended office, but blurry enough to create plausible deniability for the person propagating them.

Let us remind everyone of the tweet that Sean Spicer retweeted and that launched this discussion:


Strike one, we would say, is that this comes from NewsBusters, which has a long history of bigotry, through Sean Spicer, who has a long history of promoting conspiratorial thinking. Strike two is the obsession with Soros. How many times have you seen the right-wing media carping about Fred Eychaner, Karla Jurvetson or Reid Hoffman? They are major Democratic donors, too. Why Soros and not them? Or, maybe we should say, why (((Soros))) and not them? Strike three is the nature of the criticism in the tweet. There is no discussion of actual policy; it's entirely about an alleged level of control of the media. This means that the tweet is incorporating long-standing antisemitic tropes of Jewish media control and Jews as puppetmasters.

In other words, it's not a clear line, it's a preponderance of evidence. For comparative purposes, consider the fact that we rendered Soros as (((Soros))) in the previous paragraph. That's known as the echo, and was first used by antisemites to make Jews into the "other." It was then appropriated by Jews and their allies as a way of fighting back against antisemitism. We feel confident that, based on context, you know which side of that dispute we are on, and therefore what our meaning was in using the echo. On the other hand, if Spicer wrote a tweet about (((George Soros))), we would suggest a different conclusion would be warranted.


T.F. in Ridgewood, NJ, asks: Your item about antisemitism caught my interest. (Note: Before I state my opinion, I must also state that I am Jewish by heritage in that my mother was an Orthodox Jew and my aunt was a Holocaust survivor. I love and admire most Jews and I am not antisemitic in any way. I find it necessary to state these things so that my opinions are not simply dismissed as being antisemitic. And by the way, nor am I a "self-hating Jew" as the pro-Israel lobby likes to call people who question and criticize Israel.]

When speaking about antisemitism, why is being opposed to Israel's policies considered antisemitic? I totally disagree with Israel's cruel subjugation of Palestinians, not even allowing them to travel freely outside of their designated territories. I also hate to see when they drop and launch bombs on Palestinians, killing and maiming so many of them indiscriminately. Israel has a very strong propaganda machine that quickly calls every anti-Israel comment an antisemitic one. U.S. politicians are afraid to say anything against Israel for fear of being called antisemitic. This is wrong and so are the policies of Israel toward the Palestinians. What do you think?

V & Z answer: We agree with you. Some criticism of Israel is indeed antisemitic. Some is entirely legitimate, based on the policies that government has pursued. We think it's generally quite easy to separate criticism that is in the former category from criticism that is in the latter, and those who pretend it is not generally have some sort of political agenda they are pushing.

Civics

A.T. in Bloomington, IN, asks: You wrote "The legislation [Chuck] Schumer has in mind [for the ECA] would boldly state that the President of the Senate has no authority at all to question or set aside any electoral votes signed by a state's governor." Couldn't this be a problem for the Democrats going forward? For example, imagine that Biden somehow wins Florida in 2024, but Ron DeSantis signs off on a slate of electors for the Republican. What would the Democrats' recourse be in such a case?

V & Z answer: Well, recall that Congress has the right to object to slates of electors. The Electoral Count Act would make it harder to do so, but the option would still be there. And that is exactly what the Democrats would do if DeSantis tried this.

On top of that, signing a fraudulent document like that is a federal crime. So, DeSantis would be arrested, indicted by the Department of Justice, put on trial, and convicted.


K.C. in West Islip, NY, asks: Maybe I don't understand the subtleties of writing legislation and I don't understand why any update to the Electoral Count Act should be ambiguous at all. What's wrong with them just saying something to the effect of "Henceforth, the winner of the popular vote in each state shall be declared the winner of that state's electoral votes and the correct slate of electors is to be automatically certified irrespective of the personal opinions of that state's governing bodies"? While this wording is a somewhat less than subtle nudge directed at MAGA governors and legislatures, it ultimately works both ways.

Why leave room for interpretation in anything? If there's any vagueness, wouldn't that just leave open a crack in the door for some MAGA lunatic down the road exploiting it, and we end up right back where we are?

V & Z answer: What if Fox reports that the Republican candidate won Florida and MSNBC reports that the Democratic candidate won? What if the state AG declares the Republican the winner and the state SoS declares the Republican the winner? The buck has to stop with one person, so that there is a clear and unambiguous answer as to which candidate won a state.

As we explain in the above answer, it would be difficult for a governor to change the outcome by fiat, no matter how MAGAlicious they are. The results would be rejected by Congress, and that governor would be at serious risk of going to prison. This is why some red-state legislatures are fighting so hard to assert their primacy over the process. They are searching for a means of altering the outcome that would actually be legal.


J.D. in Rohnert Park, CA, asks: Would you please offer your reasoned opinions why Sec. III of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (Disqualification from office for insurrection or rebellion) should or should not be applied to members of Congress who participated in a conspiracy to obstruct certification of the 2020 election and thus overthrow our constitutional government?

V & Z answer: Well, if a member aided the insurrection in their off hours, say by leading tours of the Capitol, then they should be barred from holding office. That's also true for any member who tried to submit a slate of fake electors, and thus participated in an act of fraud.

Beyond that, however, it gets tricky. Members who voted to reject the electors from, say, Pennsylvania were within their rights to do so, and are pretty broadly covered by the Constitution from being punished for actions undertaken while participating in legislative activities. On top of that, if there are going to be disqualifications, someone will have to figure out exactly where the line between unacceptable and acceptable behavior is. Otherwise, Kevin McCarthy and other Republicans will start claiming that Reps. Ilhan Omar (DFL-MN) and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) are traitors and must be expelled from the House immediately.


T.M. in Norfolk, VA, asks: I have been struggling to discern why it takes so long for the results of a ranked choice vote to be tabulated. Are they counted, last place votes distributed, repeat if necessary, by hand? Is there currently no way for a computer to handle this?

V & Z answer: It is not that it takes a long time to count them. It's that small numbers of ballots can make a large difference. And so, RCV states can't begin counting until the deadline for receiving mail-in ballots has arrived. In Alaska, that's 10 days after Election Day. In many states, the deadline is also some time after Election Day to allow for the arrival of military and overseas ballots mailed and postmarked on time.


C.S. in Austin, TX, asks: I've looked and I cannot find a link or story about this anywhere, and I thought maybe you had heard of it. My high school government teacher alluded to a solution to the Electoral College dilemma we now face. He said there was a proposal to award a certain set of electoral votes to the winner of the popular vote. This was back in 1996. I've looked a couple of times, albeit not very hard, for a proposal similar to this. If I remember correctly, his idea was the awarding of 102 (two for each of the states and for DC) to the popular vote winner. I remember thinking, after Donald Trump was elected, that 102 EVs would have swung the election to Hillary Clinton. However, if you only awarded 51 votes (instead of the 102), Donald Trump would have won. Have you ever heard of a proposal like this? Is this even feasible or would it ever gain traction do you think?

V & Z answer: This is called the National Bonus Plan. The 102 EVs for the popular vote winner is one part of it. Another part is eliminating electors, and awarding EVs automatically (thus solving the problem of faithless electors). A third part is that, if no candidate wins an outright electoral majority, then the top two finishers have a runoff 30 days after Election Day. So, presidential elections would never be decided by the House of Representatives.

There is zero chance that this will ever gain traction. The National Bonus Plan would basically retain the illusion that the Electoral College still matters, but would all-but-guarantee that the popular vote winner would be elected president. Small states and swing states would surely be opposed to this, since they would be ceding power to big, populous states like California and New York. And even if enough states got on board for overhauling the process—which would require a constitutional amendment—then they would surely just eliminate the Electoral College entirely.


R.P. in Northfield, IL, asks: Your mention of Postmaster General Louis DeJoy in your item on mail-in voting got me to thinking about him yet again. My question is simple. Why hasn't Joe Biden taken steps to replace him yet?

V & Z answer: The rules governing the USPS were changed several years ago, such that the PG no longer serves at the pleasure of the president. Only the USPS Board of Governors can terminate DeJoy. And though Biden has appointed enough Governors for the Democrats to have a majority, they have decided not to cashier DeJoy, for reasons known only to them.

History

J.C. in Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia, asks: You wrote: The people who are electing the MAGA members to Congress pretty much hate anyone who is to the left of Genghis Khan." I am leery of the trend in movies like Mulan painting the Mongolians and the Huns as the baddies. We just celebrated Genghis' 860th birthday, a national holiday, on Thanksgiving Day. He's widely respected as the founder of the nation, and the greatest Mongolian in history. He was certainly a creature of his time, but if I'm avoiding presentism, I can't find any indication that he was extremely right-wing. However, you're the historian, (Z). Was Genghis Khan truly extremely right wing?

V & Z answer: No; when you go back that far in time, and in particular when you move to an entirely different continent, the modern left-right dichotomy doesn't apply in any meaningful way. And when we wrote that sentence, we did actually intend to use Attila the Hun rather than Genghis Khan. In either case, though, it's really just a synonym for "ultra hardcore."

Anyhow, (Z) has never really loved this particular construction. And your letter has inspired the creation of a more apropos version. So, the next time it comes up, it will be "anyone who is to the left of Vlad the Impaler." He was definitely hardcore.


C.R. in Salt Lake City, UT, asks: With your list of alternative presidential elections, I was surprised to see how quickly you jumped on the recent trend of Andrew Jackson bashing. As recent as 2009, C-Span polled historians and had him ranked as a solid 13th (same result from earlier polls). However, since then, he has dropped on their list to a middle-of-the-pack 22nd.

Why do you suppose the recent rapid declin ? Is it the embrace by TFG? The proxy battle over the $20 bill? You have cited financial woes and harsh treatment of American Indians. Indian removal was a nearly universally supported policy position of the day. Fiscally, Jackson was the last President to preside over our nation with a both a balanced budget and zero debt. Redefining the presidency while battling nullifiers and sex scandals in his Cabinet should also be worth something.

This is not meant as a defense, but really an honest question as to what has really happened in the last 10 years socially, politically, and historically to foster this drastically change in perception of our 7th President?

V & Z answer: Recall, first of all, that the question we were answering was about which presidential losers might have been better choices than the winners. That doesn't necessarily mean that the winners were bad presidents.

With that said, the contours of Jackson's résumé are similar to the contours of Lyndon B. Johnson's résumé. That is to say, there are some pretty big "pros" and some pretty big "cons," and they have to be weighed against each other. In Johnson's case, the pros (e.g., the Civil Rights Act) are rising in many historians' estimation while the cons (e.g., the Vietnam War) might be fading a bit. So, Johnson's reputation is on the upswing.

With Jackson, the opposite appears to be true; the cons are looming larger and the pros are fading. His policy toward the Native Americans, which was actually pretty aggressive for his time, has become more and more problematic, particularly in the past few years. Meanwhile, his biggest claim to greatness is "Jacksonian Democracy," that he brought many more (mostly working class) people into the process and thus helped make America more democratic. But he really rode that change rather than leading it, and so it's no longer seen as the feather in his cap that it once was. And the fact that Donald Trump also harnessed the anger and resentment of the working class may indeed be casting Old Hickory in a new light.


J.M. in Silver Spring, MD, asks: You wrote: "The moment that [James K.] Polk instigated the Mexican-American War, which [Henry] 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."

Can you elaborate on why that is?

V & Z answer: In the colonial era, the North and the South were very different—socially, culturally, economically. Those differences grew more and more profound over time. The two sections had enough in common to work together and overthrow the British, but the fact is that they had certain key interests that were diametrically opposed. In particular, the Southern economy was reliant on slavery and free trade (or something close to free trade) and the Northern economy was reliant on free labor and protectionism.

Because the country was very large, the two sections were able to lead somewhat independent existences for much of the first half of the 19th century. There were two occasions prior to 1840 where they came into serious conflict, and in both cases civil war came somewhat close to breaking out. The first of those was when Missouri requested admission as a slave state, and things grew tense over that, and more broadly over the disposition of the remaining Louisiana Territory land. This crisis was resolved by the Missouri Compromise of 1820. The second occasion was the nullification crisis, which was led by South Carolina, and was prompted by a dispute over tariff rates. This crisis was resolved by a bunch of posturing on both sides, and then an agreement on a compromise tariff.

Once the U.S. went to war with Mexico, there was little question that the U.S. would win. And once the U.S. won, there was little question that it would acquire a whole bunch of new territory. And once it acquired a whole bunch of new territory, then figuring out the disposition of slavery there was necessary. And this is roughly 30 years after Missouri nearly tore the nation apart. That's 30 years where each side became more entrenched, and at the same time much more suspicious and resentful of the other side.

Maybe, if the new territory acquired from Mexico had remained sparsely populated for many, many years, it wouldn't have precipitated a crisis. But within weeks of the Mexican cession being transferred to the U.S., gold was discovered in California. Hundreds of thousands of people came running, and California qualified for statehood by 1850. This necessitated a new agreement about the disposition of new territory. That was the Compromise of 1850, which replaced the Missouri Compromise. That, in turn, led to the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854, which was basically an expansion of the Compromise of 1850 and which led to open warfare in Kansas by 1857. The Civil War began just 4 years later.


M.E. in Greenbelt, MD, asks: In a recent alumni spam e-mail from the university where I got my Master's, there was a "Best Books of the Year" list. One of them was Heather Cox Richardson's How the South Won the Civil War: Oligarchy, Democracy, and the Continuing Fight for the Soul of America. While I often find myself agreeing with the title, Richardson's take on the subject seems to be that after the war Southerners took their attitude and propaganda westward and that cowboy mentality reflects much of antebellum Southern viewpoints, something I'd not previously considered. Before I ask family for it as a Christmas gift, I wanted to get the staff historian's take on the book.

V & Z answer: (Z) hasn't read the book yet, but: (1) the reviews were good, (2) Richardson is an excellent writer and historian, and (3) the argument isn't crazy, or even especially novel. The notion that epicenter of American conservatism shifted from the South to the West has been around for a long time; one recalls, for example, Lisa McGirr's Suburban Warriors: The Origins of the New American Right, which argues that the modern Republican Party was born in Orange County, California. It was published more than 20 years ago.

One thing to keep in mind: Every historian tends to oversell their argument a bit, in service of making things both "clear" and "profound." That's certainly happening here, at least a bit.


D.E. in Lancaster, PA, asks: You noted that, in 1999, Senator Bob Smith of New Hampshire switched from Republican to Independent and then switched back to Republican? That must be one hell of a story, please tell. Especially considering he lost both primaries, which is quite a feat since there are no independent primaries. Enquiring minds want to know.

V & Z answer: The table we used for that item was not well suited to capturing what happened with Smith, and so created some wrong impressions.

When Smith did his political shuffle, he wasn't actually running for reelection, he was running for president. He tried it as a Republican and got nowhere. Then he switched to the Taxpayers' Party for a month or so, but decided he would never get their support because he was a Catholic. Then he switched to independent but, after a few weeks, decided it was a waste of time, and dropped out of the presidential race.

While all this was going on, Sen. John Chafee (R-RI), father of Lincoln Chafee, died. That left John's committee seats open, most obviously the chairmanship of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. Smith really wanted that job, and had to be a Republican to get it. So, he re-joined the Republican Party and was chosen to succeed Chafee on the committee. That said, it was a short-lived victory. New Hampshire Republicans were furious about Smith's party-hopping, and he was primaried in 2002 by John E. Sununu, who is the son of former New Hampshire governor and former White House Chief of Staff John H. Sununu (R) and the brother of current New Hampshire governor Chris Sununu (R).

Reader Question of the Week

Here is the question we put before readers last week:

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).

And here some of the answers we got in response:

K.F. in Framingham, MA: One such relationship that comes to my mind is the one between the United Kingdom and Portugal. The Anglo-Portuguese alliance is the longest-running in world history, dating back to at least the Treaty of Windsor in 1386 and ostensibly even earlier than that. The two historical maritime powers have never fought a war against each other, nor have they been on opposing sides during any broader historical conflicts. Through the centuries, they have come to one another's aid at times when each has confronted challenges and wars with other nations. This "special" alliance was renewed just this past year by way of the UK-Portugal Joint Declaration on Bilateral Cooperation. One recent example of said cooperation was seen in 1982 during the Falklands War, as Portugal welcomed the British Royal Navy to base some of its operations in the Azores.

But perhaps more intriguing is the 100-plus-year partnership between Portugal and Finland. While this does not come close to its centuries-old alliance with Britain, Portugal's bond with Finland is rooted in their mutual opposition to communist and right-wing influences, from forces both within and outside their respective national boundaries, and most recently, with a mutual commitment to fight climate change. They have steadfastly supported one another's sovereignty and independence and just this year, Portugal was quite vocal in support of Finland's decision to apply for NATO membership.


B.S. in Somerset, England, UK: One of my favorite random bilateral connections, being a Brit (albeit not Welsh), is the connection between Wales and Argentina. The story goes that in the mid-1800's, a small group of Welsh carpenters, miners and other tradespeople left Wales to start a new life in Patagonia.

Today, it is estimated that there are 70,000 Welsh Argentines, approximately 5,000 of whom speak Welsh. It is said that Welsh Argentines fought on both sides when Argentina and the United Kingdom had a little falling out in the early 1980s, although I do not know whether this is true.


I.H. in Jakarta, Indonesia: As the largest Muslim country in the world, Indonesia has a lot of bilateral ties with other Muslim countries in the world, including Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and others. In fact, Egypt was the first country in the world to recognize Indonesia's independence.

Indonesia's bilateral ties with Suriname are also unique. The Javanese are one of the tribes in Indonesia, and 13.7% of Suriname's population is Javanese. They are the descendants of indentured laborers brought by the Dutch.


M.K. in Toronto, ON, Canada: My favorite weird bilateral relationship is the recently-concluded "Whisky War" between Canada and Denmark. It doesn't quite fit E.W.'s criterion of non-bordering countries, but it is a weird enough border that I think it should count. It revolves around a disputed maritime border between Denmark and the Canadian Arctic, which went through a tiny, very remote, uninhabited and generally useless piece of land called Hans Island. For 40 years, both countries would intermittently send military units there to assert their control, plant a flag and... leave behind alcoholic beverages, which the next contingent from the other country would drink. The closest that Canadian and Danish soldiers came to confrontation was treating each other to booze. I loved it as a great example to the world of a better way to fight a war than killing each other. Sadly, in light of increased Russian belligerence, the feeling that a disputed border could interfere with joint military operations in the Arctic led to a treaty being concluded; a border running through the island has been agreed to, and the Whisky War is over.


B.J.L. in Ann Arbor, MI: I have spent quite a bit of time in Cuba and it's clear the U.S. does not know how things really operate down there. Cuba has many bilateral relationships in Europe and they are active in everything that isnt happening in the U.S. The Canadians are also more than happy to see us continue this stupid diplomatic embargo and take advantage of less-crowded beaches while there. While I was there, I resolved that Cuba was a weigh station between South America and Europe and there were tons of scientific and development meetings being held in Havana. Good weather and shorter distances to travel. The World Health Organization and other international health organizations are pretty supportive of the Cuban health enterprise and its research and development operations are well supported. The motto in Cuba is "Fix Cuba, and then fix the world." President Obama was onto something to bury the hatchet after so many really unproductive years. We have a big problem in south Florida, where some want to continue the war in Havana. Something about writing into their constitution that we had the right to go back in and reset things if we didnt like what was happening. Sound familiar? It's hurting our diplomacy in the long run. It's interesting to see where you can fly out of Havana: a couple of places in Canada, Venezuela, Spain, Colombia, Panama, and Russia. Does any of these places stick out as odd?


D.R. in Caracas, Venezuela: My nominee for a significant bilateral relationship is the one between Argentina and Iran.

In 1994, a major Jewish cultural center in Buenos Aires was attacked with a car bomb by Hezbollah, a Lebanese terrorist organization. The attack left 85 people dead and hundreds wounded, and represented a major blow to the Jewish community in Argentina. It's worth noting that Buenos Aires hosts one of the largest Jewish diasporas in the world, with more than 300,000 people.

Initially, the Jewish intelligence agency—the Mossad—only blamed Hezbollah for the attack and thought it was retaliation for attacks done by Israel on the terrorist group in Lebanese territory. The Argentine police, on their own, prosecuted a few police officers in a show trial and charged them with cooperating with attack in 2001. However, they were not involved and were set free later on.

But wait, it gets better. In 2003, the former Iranian ambassador to Argentine was arrested, and later freed, in London in connection with the terrorist attack. Apparently, the new theory was that Iran commanded Hezbollah to attack Argentina because during the 1990s, their government signed an agreement with Iran to buy them nuclear technology and then backed off. With this new theory, president Néstor Kirchner appointed a special prosecutor to find the truth—someone who was not connected to the attempts to cover up the attack. It was Alberto Nisman, who in 2006 charged seven Iranian diplomats in connection to the attack.

This story hasn't finished yet. In 2015, Argentina and Iran signed an agreement, supposedly to find the truth behind the attack—which is noteworthy, as it means that Iran recognizes its responsibility in the attack. This agreement was signed by Kirchner's successor, his wife Cristina Fernández. However, special prosecutor Alberto Nisman accused her and her government of signing the agreement un order to cover up the attack with a facade of transparency, with the Argentine government once again making corrupt deals with Iran. A few months later, Nisman was found dead in his apartment.

The epilogue of this story is that even if there's no justice yet for the families affected by both the 1994 attack and the death of Alberto Nisman, at least Cristina Fernández is going to spend some time in prison for a few other misdeeds. But in the other side of the world, in Tehran, a street and a post stamp currently honor one of the people accused of organizing the attack.


J.W.H. in Somerville NJ: Here is an example of Israelis and Palestinians coming together over Ultimate Frisbee.

Ultimate was invented in New Jersey, at my high school. I joined the team shortly after its start, and introduced it on the West Coast in college.


A.B. in Brooklyn, NY: One I heard about as a tournament bridge player: Israel and Indonesia.

These two countries share no diplomatic relationship, and Indonesia is the country with the largest Muslim population of any in the world.

As a consequence of the Munich Olmypics, anytime Israel sends a sports or cultural group to another country, the Mossad make plans to provide security and liase with the official governmental authorities. The Israeli women's bridge team qualified for the world bridge tournament in Bali (2013), so the Mossad became involved in the planning for their visit. Details are scarce, but the inter-governmental relationship soured so badly that the Israelis withdrew the team and a women's team from another nation was substituted.

That this was an inter-governmental issue (rather than a religious one) is shown by the fact that several other teams (playing in the various events) had Jewish players who traveled to Indonesia, played in the tournament (alongside players of other faiths, including Muslims) and went home without incident. One of these was an Israeli woman (Migry Zur-Campanelli) who, as a U.S. resident, played on the U. S. women's team that won the gold medal.


D.S. in Fort Collins, CO: If anyone had wondered—like the clueless reporter at this press conference—whether there were bilateral ties between New Zealand and Finland beyond the age and gender of their prime ministers, New Zealand's Jacinda Ardern lays them out nicely... right after she eviscerates the reporter.


J.H.M. in Stanley, OH: I immediately thought of the remarkable historic relationship between the country of Bhutan and the University of Texas El Paso (UTEP).

Almost all the buildings on the campus of the university are designed to reflect Bhutanese architecture. This choice came about due to a 1914 National Geographic article entitled "Castles in the Air: Experiences and Journeys in Unknown Bhutan," by John Claude White.

Not seeking to violate the given rules for this question, I believe that while the University of Texas El Paso is in the U.S. it is a very much smaller entity and acts independently of the U.S. in this unique long-term relationship.


Here is the question for next week:

S.R. in Englewood, CO, asks: Setting policy positions aside, can you think of any candidate(s) nominated by a major political party that approached or exceeded Herschel Walker in terms of awfulness? Roy Moore certainly, but perhaps you've got other nominations.

Submit your answers here!


Previous | Next


Back to the main page