Dem
51
GOP
49
We thought this might be another top-heavy Q&A. However, while we certainly got plenty of DNC questions, we also got a lot of good questions on other subjects. Well done, readers!
This week's headline theme was harder than we expected and, once again, relatively few readers are hitting the bullseye. Here's an additional hint. We COULD have put them in chronological order, but we didn't because that would have resulted in the most important story being the last item on the page. But if we HAD done that, this would be the order:
If you include our hint, then it would slot in right in the middle of the list, between Freudenfreude and Schadenfreude.
Also, we'll have the Tim Walz code names next week. Sorry; the DNC took a LOT of time to watch and write up. However, we do have a new question of the week, nonetheless. See below.
K.H. in Arlington, VA, asks: As a life-long Democrat with a trans-nephew, gay colleagues and gay close friends, with a white mother who compelled me at young age to read books such as Malcom X's diary, and someone lucky enough to be in a progressive high school in the 1970s that made me read books about the true history of our country's treatment of native Americans, etc., etc., I think I have a fair claim to say I'm totally proud of our country's diverse heritage and fully recognize the challenges that many minority groups have faced over our long history.
But I wonder—has the Democratic Convention overdone its focus on showcasing the country's diversity? Tim Walz seems like the "token white man," while the bulk of the speakers seem to be from various minority groups. I suspect (fear?) that a lot of white folks, while comfortable with the idea of diversity, don't want to see a convention that implies that white people are in the minority. And is it a wise political strategy, given that Harris needs white votes, particularly in rural areas and the suburbs?(V) & (Z) answer: This is necessarily a subjective judgment, but we watched all 21 hours (give or take) of the DNC, and we don't think the diversity was overdone.
First of all, the incorporation of Black, and Latino, and Asian, and LGBTQ, and... etc. folks was organic and not forced. Virtually all of them were prominent officeholders, or respected party elders, or broadly popular entertainers. Second, the most important slots, in terms of what viewers are most likely to be tuned in for, are the keynote/primetime slots. And there were plenty of white folks giving speeches in those slots, including Joe Biden, Bill and Hillary Clinton, Walz, Adam Kinzinger and Doug Emhoff.
R.M.S. in Lebanon, CT, asks: One thing I noticed this year at the Democratic National Convention was the lack of a presence or even a mention of Black Lives Matter. They were an important part of the 2016 and 2020 conventions. I have been supportive of many BLM goals, like increased accountability and transparency in law enforcement. And I do agree that Black people are a crucial and indispensable part of the country, and have been since it was founded.
One of my Black co-workers thinks BLM has run out of steam. He says they lack a cohesive message, and have alienated themselves from too many people to be effective, like the pro-Palestinian protests.
Do you think the group is in decline and that is why they weren't at the convention?(V) & (Z) answer: Your friend's critique is correct, and is part of the reason that BLM was not present at this year's convention. However, the much bigger reason is that the Harris campaign wanted to avoid any reminders of radical/Antifa politics. Even if it's not true, having a BLM speaker on stage would have affirmed a stereotype that right-wingers have tried to saddle Harris with.
R.N. in Santa Cruz, CA, asks: Why didn't they give a speaking spot to Gov. Gavin Newsom (D-CA)? Everyone else of any importance at all in the Democratic Party got one. What's up with that?
(V) & (Z) answer: See the above; the Democrats clearly wanted to make as few connections as possible between Harris and alleged radical socialist California/San Francisco. Yes, Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) spoke, but she pretty much had to. Newsom undoubtedly took one for the team, although he DID take the lead in announcing California's delegates for Harris, so he did get SOME face time.
S.P. from Raleigh, NC, asks: There has been much attention paid to all the Republicans who spoke at the Democratic Convention. How do the two conventions compare with regards to speakers from the opposite party?
(V) & (Z) answer: It is very common to find at least one high-profile member of the other party to cross the aisle and give a speech (Zell Miller, Joe Lieberman, etc.). The DNC went beyond the usual one or two, and made it a point of emphasis, while the RNC largely didn't do it at all this year. To the extent that any "Democrats" took the stage at the RNC, it was non-politicians who say they were once Democrats but left the party behind and became Republicans (e.g., TV personality Amber Rose).
S.G. in Durham, NC, asks: Why were DNC speakers from the current administration introduced in the role that preceded their current job (e.g., South Bend mayor Pete Buttigieg, former New Mexico representative Deb Haaland)? Was this their choice or an intentional convention theme to play up their regional roots (or perhaps play down their ties to Biden)?
(V) & (Z) answer: Primarily because when a state's name is called, its delegates cheer lustily. So, a bio that includes an explicit reference to the candidate's home state (or, in Buttigieg's case, previous home state) is good stagecraft.
P.L. in Los Angeles, CA, asks: Why do you think the DNC programming times were so late, even for Chicago time?
(V) & (Z) answer: In part, to make sure people west of the Mississippi would be able to see the important stuff. But primarily because the delegates had busy days with lots to do, and they also had to make their way to the United Center and wait a long time to get in. If the Democrats tried to start the main meeting each day at, say, 3:30, the delegates would have very little time for daytime activities.
R.H.D. in Webster, NY, asks: I was watching a YouTube video about the Presidential Seal, and then rewatched President Biden's speech at the DNC on Monday. This prompted me to ask this question.
It used to be that when the sitting president or vice president spoke at their party's convention, the respective seal of their office would appear in front of them. I'd also see the seal at the box where the president or vice president was seated. But in recent years, I haven't seen any official seal at either convention. I think the last time was when Barack Obama spoke at the 2012 DNC in Charlotte.
Do you know why there are no more seals at these conventions?(V) & (Z) answer: Sorry, but we're going to have to dispute your premise. We looked at some footage of the 2012 DNC, and we didn't see the presidential seal. There WAS a broad allusion to it, in the form of stars encircling the podium (right). But that is also true of the 2024 DNC stage (left):
Meanwhile, under the wonky circumstances of 2020, Donald Trump gave his acceptance speech from a podium clearly adorned with the presidential seal:
To the extent that the seal is or is not present, it's due to the fact that it's not appropriate for use when someone other than the sitting president or VP is speaking. So, in some recent elections (2016), neither candidate was entitled to use it. In others, including this year, it's not so easy, aesthetically, to set things up so the seal can be present for the president/VP, but not for the other speakers. It's much easier to go a little abstract, as the Democrats did in both 2012 and 2024.
R.C. in Des Moines, IA, asks: The "In Memoriam" segment was a nice touch at the DNC, but I found it very difficult to keep up with the list and process who each person was. Are you aware of a list of these names? Also, I am curious if any of the honorees were Republicans.
(V) & (Z) answer: We looked for a list that night, and again since that night, and we haven't found one. However, if you watch the video (which you can, of course, pause), you can read the names very easily. There were indeed a few Republicans in there, most obviously Colin Powell. We actually meant to mention that in our write-up, and just forgot to add it.
Incidentally, we were wrong that this had not been done before. The Democrats also had an "In Memoriam" in 2020.
D.G. in Shrewsbury, MA, asks: What is with the surprising number of the delegates from the different states voting "present"? My favorite was the way the spokesperson from Texas muttered the "present" votes first and then loudly announced the "for" votes.
(V) & (Z) answer: Because Kamala Harris and Tim Walz were the only names under consideration, delegates had only three choices: cast their ballots for Harris/Walz, vote "present," or cast no ballot.
There were 52 "present" votes. Since the delegates are not required to explain themselves, there is no way to be certain as to the motivations of those 52 folks. However, based on interviews with some of the 52 "present" voters, as well as the current dynamics within the Party, most or all of those folks were people protesting the United States' approach to the war in Gaza.
There were 79 delegates who did not cast a vote. Some of them were not present at the correct time. Others were clearly trying to avoid being too closely linked to Kamala Harris. In the latter group, among others, were Sen. Jon Tester (D-MT), Rep. Jared Polis (D-ME) and Rep. Mary Peltola (D-AK).
A.J. in Baltimore, MD, asks: That job creation statistic mentioned by Bill Clinton is pretty stark. Presidents have less impact on the economy than the general public believes they do, but one would think the numbers wouldn't be so lopsided if not for the genuine impact of policy differences between the two parties. What are the biggest reasons why you think Democrats have created 50 million jobs while Republicans have created only 1 million?
(V) & (Z) answer: We think that it's exactly what you assume. All 16 years of Republican leadership since the Cold War were negatively impacted by unwise fiscal policies (e.g., the consequences of trickle-down economics for the first Bush, deregulation of banks and mortgages for the second Bush, tax cuts/haphazard tariffs for Donald Trump). Meanwhile, the Democrats have pursued bottom-up economic policies that have worked out much better (e.g., a tax increase on the wealthy for Bill Clinton, the auto bailout for Barack Obama, infrastructure investment for Joe Biden).
It is also the case that random (or semi-random) externalities have generally broken in favor of the Democrats, with some of the really helpful things (e.g., the dot-com boom) coming under Democratic leadership and some really harmful things (e.g., COVID) coming under Republican leadership.
T.P. in Fort Collins, CO, asks: Given the untruthfulness of the former president, and given the reputation of the Democratic party, shouldn't Kamala Harris avoid lying to voters? I understand that politicians spin facts to their advantage, leaving out context that puts them in a more positive light or puts their opponents in a more negative light. But outright lies from a Democratic candidate are not a good look. The lie I am referring to was Harris's assertion in her acceptance speech, "We are not going back to when Donald Trump tried to cut Social Security and Medicare." The Washington Post gives her claim three Pinocchios. The savings Trump sought were at the expense of health care providers, not beneficiaries. Harris was not the first to use this lie. Others made the same claim at podium in Chicago. Aren't there enough facts to attack Trump on without making stuff up?
(V) & (Z) answer: (Z) is now going to reveal a dirty secret. Every word (or nearly every word) he's ever uttered in a history lecture has been a distortion of the historical record. The discipline of history is predicated on the notion that you can boil down the experiences of millions (or tens of millions, or hundreds of millions) of people over years (or decades, or centuries) and be left with something that is, at very least, the essence of what happened, and that can be communicated in a very short period of time (maybe 20 or 30 or 40 minutes). That is the nature of the beast; it's that or nothing. That does not mean the lectures are dishonest or a lie.
Similarly, on policy, Donald Trump constantly flails about. He's said many things that are, or could be interpreted as, promises to cut Medicare/Social Security. He submitted budget outlines that would have cut Medicare/Social Security (maybe not every year, but in some years). He is a member of a party where some members (ahem, Sen. Rick Scott, R-FL) would dearly love to cut Medicare/Social Security.
When Kamala Harris and other Democrats say things along the lines of what was said at the DNC, they are doing a pretty good job of communicating the essence of Trump's record/policies. Is it literally, perfectly, to-the-detail 100% true? Clearly not. But it's implausible to give a mini-lecture, with all kinds of details and qualifications, every time the subject comes up. And so, you have to simplify. That is the nature of the beast, just as with the history lectures. And it is why people sometimes use the phrase "politician lie"—a phrase that is not literally correct, but nonetheless captures some essential truth.
We do not think it fair that, because Donald Trump tells outright lies all the time, Democratic politicians should feel they cannot tell politician lies. Because when it comes to things like Donald Trump's Social Security policy, politician lies are the only plausible way for Democrats to engage with the subject.
M.M. in San Diego, CA, asks: Does a "pussy bow" indicate the wearer is one of those notorious childless cat ladies who so alarm J.D. Vance?
(V) & (Z) answer: Very possible. We're annoyed we didn't think of that interpretation.
D.M. in McLean, VA, asks: I have a bit of a mystery on my hands. On Monday morning, I saw some stories pop up in my Google News feed about the House Republicans releasing a report saying there are grounds to impeach President Biden. A few "news" sites, such as Fox, had front page stories about it shortly after. Major sites that I follow, such as The Washington Post, had nothing. A few hours later, all the headlines (even at Fox) disappeared.
Is this a case where Republicans specifically released their report to have it buried under news about the start of the DNC? Do the powers that be out there realize that this story could end up so toxic to the Republicans that they are doing everything they can to bury it? Did I just witness a glitch in the Matrix(V) & (Z) answer: Well, the report itself didn't disappear, you can find it right here.
We doubt the goal here was to bury the thing. First, Trumpublicans don't work that way, because they have no shame. Second, if they really wanted to bury it, they could just stop working on it, and if anyone asked, say "it's still in progress" until everyone forgot.
No, we think this was an attempt to steal some thunder from the Democrats, and to cast a pall on their convention. And like all the other things the Republicans did this week, it just did not work. In this case, that's hardly a surprise. Breathless Republican "reports" about alleged corruption on the part of [Democrat X] are well into "Boy cries wolf" territory at this point. Further, there's no way that the House actually impeaches Biden, given how little time is left in his term, as well as the fact that Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) would toss those articles into the trash even more quickly than he did with the ones for DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas.
A.C. in Zenia, CA, asks: It seems that you use the term "pro-Palestinian" as a stand in for anyone opposed to the far-right Israeli government's way of conducting war in Gaza and the West Bank. As a Jew, I can inform you that there are plenty of middle-of-the-road Israeli citizens who are vehemently opposed. This is not to mention left-wing and radical Jews there and all over the world who hate what is being done, and also hate that the far-right Israeli spin machine has everyone in the media equating their actions with all of Israel and all Jews. Many, many people and newspapers in Israel believe that Benjamin Netanyahu's policies are very bad for Israel. Should we name them "anti-Israel"? Would you feel okay using the term "pro-peace" or "pro-cease-fire" or "anti-war" instead of "pro-Palestinian"?
(V) & (Z) answer: We use the term pro-Palestinian to indicate people who are primarily guided by their sympathy for the people of Gaza. We are not open to the other terms you propose because they are imprecise. There are many people who are pro-peace/pro-cease-fire/anti-war without being specifically pro-Palestinian. We also do not accept your implied argument that the phrase "pro-Palestinian" suggests something about either the Jewish people or the Israeli government.
R.D.T. in Fresno, CA, asks: I'm a little confused about the political visits to Pat's King of Steaks in Philadelphia, by both John Kerry and J.D. Vance. Don't any politicians go to Geno's? And since they face (glare?) at each other across an X-intersection, how does a politician dare go to one and not the other?
(V) & (Z) answer: Some politicians do go to both. For example, Mehmet Oz made a point of visiting both during his Senate campaign. He did not ask if they have crudités on the menu, in case you are wondering.
That said, the general rule of thumb—not that Vance got the memo—is that Democrats go to Pat's and Republicans go to Geno's. Pat's owner Frank Olivieri Jr. is an outspoken liberal, while longtime Geno's owner Joey Vento was an outspoken conservative (and xenophobe). For many years, Geno's had a sign above the counter that said: "This is America. When ordering, please speak English." The sign was removed when Vento died a few years ago, but the vibe lingers.
Los Angeles has something of a parallel; one of the best-known (and most touristy) restaurants in town is Barney's Beanery. It was the last restaurant on Route 66 during that highway's heyday. Also, it was (and is) on the edge of West Hollywood, which has been the gay district of L.A. since the 1940s (like the Castro in San Francisco, or Hillcrest in San Diego). For many years, Barney's had a sign above the register that said "No fa**ots." To this day, many Democratic politicians won't touch the place with a 10-foot pole. For the same reason, (Z) has never eaten there and never will.
We have no doubt there are other analogous situations, but outside of Philadelphia, Los Angeles, and maybe Chicago (the Billy Goat Tavern is famously lefty), we don't know the details.
S.G. in Fairmont, WV, asks: Why have the Democrats, and even many independents, quickly and enthusiastically rallied around Kamala Harris? Her 2020 campaign was a disaster, she didn't make a huge name for herself as vice president, and the Democrats have been notoriously contentious for decades. So, why all the insta-love? Is it really just anti-Trump, or something more?
(V) & (Z) answer: One of (Z)'s most memorable moviegoing experiences was when he saw the 1997 film Starship Troopers, which was... pretty good. This is not the best film he's ever seen in theaters, not by a far sight. But he had such low expectations for the film, it's definitely the moviegoing experience where the gap between expectation and the actual film was the largest.
With Joe Biden, given his liabilities and his polling, people who don't want Trump to be reelected had resigned themselves to a difficult, low-enthusiasm campaign, and the hope that maybe the President would pull it out in the end. When Biden was replaced by Harris, not only did many people feel like they'd actually had an impact on the Democratic Party, but the gap between Biden and Harris was dramatic (like the gap between expectations of Starship Troopers and the actual film). Then, she turned out to be a much more skilled candidate that people expected, based on her 2000 campaign, which allowed the momentum/enthusiasm to keep growing.
Yes, a fair chunk of it is anti-Trump. But that can't possibly be all of it, because if so, then we would have seen the same enthusiasm for Biden.
P.W. in Alamo, GA, asks: If Kamala Harris is successful with a 100-day campaign, What are the odds we can cut the presidential, senate and congressional campaign season to less days? I mean, that last U.S. Senate race in Georgia was advertising overkill.
(V) & (Z) answer: Zero. Less than zero. Negative one skillion.
There is no legal way to stop aspiring candidates from advancing their presidential hopes on whatever timeline they see fit. And given that you have to be very ambitious to become president, that means a self-selected group of people who are willing to start maneuvering a year, 2 years, 5 years or more in advance. There are absolutely Democrats who, right now, are positioning themselves for a 2032 run, and maybe a 2036 run.
There exists no plausible change in the system that would persuade these folks to wait around, champing at the bit, until the 100-day mark.
B.B. in Dothan, AL, asks: Is it too early to start thinking about 20 years of consecutive Democratic presidents?
(V) & (Z) answer: Yes. That kind of run has only happened three times in U.S. history (Democratic-Republicans, 1801-25; Republicans, 1861-85; Democrats, 1933-53), and all of those circumstances were unusual. The Democrats are only on year 4 right now; a 20-year run presupposes not only that Kamala Harris wins this year, but that she is (presumably) reelected, and that she is then (presumably) succeeded by another two-term Democrat. That's a LOT of presumables.
J.B. in Prague, Czech Republic, asks: If the Democratic ticket wins in November, do you think President Harris would promote the political career of Pete Buttigieg? If so, how do you think she will do it?
(V) & (Z) answer: Yes, possibly deliberately, possibly indirectly. Buttigieg is really, really good at traveling around/going on TV and selling the administration's agenda. That's a very valuable asset and, unless Harris dislikes Buttigieg for some reason (something that, if true, is not publicly known), she will surely find a way to make use of him. He could certainly be retained in his current post, as Secretary of Transportation. If there is to be a promotion, he's a veteran, and so could move up to Secretary of Defense, perhaps. He'd also be a very good Secretary of Education.
M.K. in London, England, UK, asks: I read that Kamala Harris is the first Democratic nominee not to have their political base in the Eastern or Central time zones... ever. Is this true? And if so, why did it take the Democrats more than two centuries to nominate someone from the Western half of the country?
(V) & (Z) answer: Yes, it's true. We know that Lyndon B. Johnson's home state of Texas is actually in both the Central and Mountain time zones, but LBJ was definitely from the Central portion. And every other Democrat, until Herris, was from somewhere even farther eastward.
It's not all that surprising. First, the great majority of the population of the U.S. is in the two easternmost time zones. It's around three-quarters right now, and was even higher than that 50, 100, 150 years ago. Second, until fairly recently, the population base of the Democratic Party was in the South, followed by the Midwest and the Mid-Atlantic.
R.M. in Gresham, OR, asks: I am making monthly $10 donations to the Harris-Walz campaign and now every e-mail I get asks for $52. I cannot think of any significance to this specific number other than weeks of the year, wins for the Chicago White Sox this year (if they go on a heater), or the number of states we should have (looking at you D.C and PR).
The other thing that catches my eye is that it is twice what Bernie Sanders famously asked for... which just seems like a bit of an own goal in the argument over inflation. Frankly, it's still a lot of money for most of us and seems like quite an ask. Do you have any idea why they settled on this specific number?(V) & (Z) answer: We can find no clear reason for that number.
Also, we've subscribed to many campaign e-mail lists for both Harris and Trump, and we've never gotten a pitch for that particular number from Biden-Harris or Harris-Walz. However, we have gotten a bunch that asked for $25. Maybe whoever configured the e-mail list you are on (which we are clearly NOT on) made a typo? It's a longshot, but... maybe.
If readers have better information than we have, we're happy to hear it at comments@electoral-vote.com.
V.F. in Richmond, VA, asks: So, if Kamala Harris supports no tax on tips, why doesn't she call on the House to pass it now? That would put Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) in a spot. He either has to be the roadblock to getting it done, in which case she can say "see, Republicans will never do this," or it gets passed and Kamala can take credit.
(V) & (Z) answer: She very well might do this. She's only been the candidate for a month, and she was busy with other, more pressing, things for the past couple of weeks. It would also put Trump on the spot. If it actually passed, Biden and Harris would get the credit, which Trump couldn't tolerate. But openly oposing it would give Harris material to work with. The only real problem is that it is terrible, awful, horrible policy and Harris' economic team has probably told her that. If that were to pass, then the next thing would be exempt police officers from taxation, then firefighters. There would be no end to it. And there would certainly be plenty of fraud, with people who are able to do it reclassifying part of their income as tips.
J.R. in Pennsylvania, PA, asks: My theory is that Donald Trump disavows support for Project 2025 because he has his Agenda 47. After all, his ego would not permit the Heritage Foundation to take credit for establishing his (potential) administration and programs. What is your take on this, and why doesn't Agenda 47 get more attention from the media, DNC, etc.?
(V) & (Z) answer: There is no Agenda 47, in the way you mean it. With the exception of a very, very short list of things—tariffs, isolationism, Iranophobia—he has no consistent policy positions. He embraces whatever he thinks will make him popular, and he largely gets his ideas on what will achieve that goal from whoever has his ear.
Most of what he did as president—say, the tax cut—was the result of more skilled politicians stepping into that policy vacuum, and making their policies seem like they were really Trump's idea. That is what Project 2025 is trying to do; position itself from Day One to step into the vacuum. That said, you are right that if Trump feels he's being used, and being told what to do, he will rebel. Maybe the Project 2025 people can right the ship but, at the moment, they have clearly overplayed their hand.
J.M. in Philadelphia, PA, asks: As I peruse the results of various polls, it is becoming clear that Nevada is coming up consistently more Republican than Virginia, the "Blue Wall" states, Arizona, of North Carolina.
In fact, Nevada seems to be closer in result to Texas and Florida than it does to the Northern Route states, which is a big shift from historical results this century.
Do you believe this is a real result? If so, do you have any possible theories for why this is the case?(V) & (Z) answer: There has been a clear movement of Latinos toward Trump in the polls this year, as compared to 2020 and 2016. We don't know if we buy it, but if it's real, well, Nevada has a lot of Latinos.
It is also the case that the COVID pandemic, and the mask mandates, really hit Las Vegas hard, and the workers there have not fully recovered. Republican politicians have been very successful at pinning that on the Democrats. It probably helps that the state's most important newspaper, The Las Vegas Review Journal, is owned by Miriam Adelson.
S.T. in Ocean Grove, NJ , asks: On your current electoral map, you show Harris flipping North Carolina while Donald Trump flips Georgia.
My question is: How does that shift make any sense?(V) & (Z) answer: As with Latinos (see above), there has been a noticeable shift in Black voters toward Trump this cycle. If you buy that, then Georgia (33%) is considerably more Black than North Carolina (23.5%).
Also, Georgia had two critical Senate races in 2020 that got a lot of Democrats to the polls. This year, that is not true. On the other hand, this year's Republican candidates for governor of North Carolina (Mark Robinson) for North Carolina Superintendent of Public Instruction (Michele Morrow) are both crazypants, and that may well drive up Democratic turnout.
F.F. in London, England, UK, asks: You've covered the voter modeling the pollsters undertake. Can you teach us some statistics and explain why this is necessary? Why not just take a large sample of likely voters. If large enough, shouldn't that give us the right outcome? Is the idea is that by modeling the electorate, they can get by with a lower overall sample size?
(V) & (Z) answer: You basically have the right of it. Sampling the entire electorate would be more accurate than sampling just a segment (although not that much more, as chance would have it). But sampling the entire electorate is not plausible, first because it would be prohibitively expensive, and second because there's now way to get all (or even most, or even a large minority) of people to answer. So, polls rely on a small subset of the electorate along with some mathematical magic.
Suppose a pollster calls 10,000 people and 1,000 actually are willing to take the survey, which might take 15 minutes. Actually, a 10% response rate would be pretty good these days. Calling 50,000 people would be very, very expensive (and again, wouldn't get more than 5,000 or 10,000 responses). Online polls can sample large numbers of people, but the demographics of people online is very different from the actual electorate (e.g., poor people are way underrepresented online).
Suppose, by accident, 480 of the 1,000 people who took some survey are women. But the pollster knows that in past elections, 52% of the voters were women. Just doing the math on the actual sample will underweight what women want. So the pollster multiplies what each woman wants by 52/48 to compensate. Suppose that the sample has 15% Black voters but the pollster knows from the exit polls last time that 13% of the voters were Black. So each Black voter in the sample will be multiplied by 13/15 so Black voters are not overweighted. For many other categories that the pollster thinks are important (e.g., partisanship, education, age, income, religion, etc.) there are similar weightings. Then an average is made of all the weighted people in the sample.
There are two problems here. The pollster knows (from census data) exactly how many 18-29 year olds there are in the country. The pollster also knows how many of them voted last time (i.e., the turnout rate) . But maybe their turnout will be higher or lower this time. That also holds for poor people, Latinos, and every other demographic group. In other words, their model of the electorate may be wrong, so the weighting factors may be wrong. All pollsters try to guess turnout by asking questions like: "How important is voting to you?" or "Do you think your vote matters?" but it is still a guess. Also, people can get motivated or demotivated by events later in the campaign.
Second, there might be factors the pollsters don't think are important. They never ask: "Are you a blonde, brunette, redhead, black-haired, white-haired, or other?" because they don't think hair color matters. In 2016, they didn't ask "What is your highest level of education?" because they didn't think education level mattered. Turns out it mattered a lot. Surprise! Do they now ask: "Do you live in a large city, medium size town, village, or rural area?" Maybe that matters. Maybe it doesn't. But asking 50 questions about demographics is going to make people hang up and then there is an incomplete survey, which they don't want. Balancing between asking the right questions and not making the survey too long is tough.
E.W. in Wauwatosa, WI, asks: I sometimes see polling firms or personalities referred to as a "Republican pollster" or "Democratic pollster." Assuming the value of polling is in producing accurate data as opposed to smoke to be blown up an orifice, why would a pollster given to a certain leaning be afforded any consideration or credibility at all?
(V) & (Z) answer: The vast majority of "pollsters" are actually campaign consultants. They are hired by candidates to win elections. That is their mission. What typically happens is that they poll some state, or they poll nationally, to get a baseline. Then the candidate runs ads there. After the ad campaign, they poll again to see if there is a difference. The candidate wants the unvarnished truth to know if the theme of the ad worked. So the campaign pollsters do their level best to run an accurate poll.
But remember, the consultant's goal is to elect the candidate. They love to put on their website: "We helped elect 18 Republicans" or "We helped elect 16 Democrats." The candidate definitely wants the truth, in most cases. But the pollster (and candidate) can choose whether or not to release the poll. If the candidate thinks the poll will help (e.g., it shows him or her with a massive lead to discourage the other side, or it shows them one point to behind to motivate the candidate's base or whatever), the poll is released. Point is, the general public is only made aware of a non-representative subset of the polls that partisan houses produce.
Further, because polls can be used to influence the election and the electorate, a campaign might ask for a poll that produces a certain result. And maybe the numbers released are fake, or highly unrepresentative. After all, the pollster's goal is helping the candidate win. Truth is totally irrelevant. The consultants don't give a hoot about credibility with the general public. They care about having their clients win, so everything is fair game, particularly if the candidate knows going in that the published result would be made up (and thus, not a negative reflection on the pollster's abilities).
The pollsters who have media clients, like SurveyUSA, Mason-Dixon, YouGov, etc. do care about publishing accurate numbers. So do all the small colleges that have gotten into the polling game for the PR. For this reason, we exclude the partisan pollsters—they have an axe to grind and we don't trust them. We have a growing list of over 60 now. Fortunately, most of the partisan pollsters are fairly open about their leanings, as that is in their best interest. If you were a Republican candidate for Congress and you saw on some consultant's Website: "We helped elect 18 Republicans," wouldn't you want to give them a call?
P.F. in Fairbanks, AK, asks: Do polling organizations have any recourse against the Trump campaign for defaming their work similar to the defamation case against Dominion?
I would think the hardest part would be proving actual harm?(V) & (Z) answer: Very unlikely, and for the reason you identify. First, a pollster would have to demonstrate that Trump said something (to at least one other person) that was untrue, and that he knew (or should have known) was untrue. Then they would have to prove that Trump's statement materially damaged them—which, in this context, effectively means "he cost us business, and so we lost money."
With the Dominion case, calling the reliability of their machines into question absolutely cost the company big bucks. Many Republican election officials shied away from doing business with Dominion because they believed the company was corrupt. Many Democratic election officials shied away from doing business with Dominion because they didn't want the elections they ran to be attacked for being tainted. This cost Dominion tens, or hundreds, of millions in business.
It is hard to see how someone could undermine a polling business in the same way. First of all, some pollsters (the universities) aren't making money at all. Second, the people who hire pollsters don't care if Republicans think the polls are screwy. Many Republicans, most obviously Donald Trump, say the polls are screwy anytime they are trailing.
It would be particularly hard for a pollster to make a case against Trump. First, the former president is so truth-challenged, it's not easy to prove that he knows [statement X] is a lie. Second, because Trump is a known liar, it would be hard to prove that people took his lies seriously, because most people do not.
M.G. in Newtown, PA, asks: What happens if Donald Trump decides on, say, October 15 that he's sick of J.D. Vance and wants someone else?
(V) & (Z) answer: First, note that, unless the RNC has a hasty meeting and changes the rules, the only person who can remove J.D. Vance from the ticket is J.D. Vance. He could resign from the ticket but, now that he is duly nominated, Donald Trump cannot kick him off.
Time is also running out for Vance to decide to "voluntarily" withdraw, if he was planning to do so. Ballot deadlines will arrive soon, and ballots will soon start going out (see below). The time will soon arrive where Vance's name WILL be on ballots, even if he decides he wants to withdraw.
Trump could decide to try to do an end-run around the system, and announce that he expects any Trump-Vance electors to cast their electoral votes for some other VP. However there are some serious problems with that. First, the optics would be very bad. Second, some electors might choose not to obey. Even if they are Trump loyalists, there are states that impose a fine on faithless electors, or else take away their right to cast their ballot. If some number of Trump electors do not vote for his preferred alternate to Vance, it's entirely possible that no VP would get the requisite 270 votes. In that case, the Senate would get to decide, and a team of President Trump/Vice President Walz would be inaugurated. Trump surely doesn't want to take that chance.
D.R. in Cincinnati, OH, asks: Where and when does the first state begin early voting or mail-in voting?
(V) & (Z) answer: According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, Delaware and North Carolina will begin sending out mail-in ballots on (or around) Monday, September 9. That's a little over 2 weeks away. More tomorrow on this.
D.M. in Spokane, WA, asks: Much has been made over the Constitution's specification that to be POTUS one must be 35 years old and a natural born citizen of the U.S. There are no other qualifications, and that has always been treated as there CAN BE no other qualifications in law. But is that true? Liberal interpretations of the Constitution have always been that government can implement laws and policies not forbidden. Why would that not apply to qualifications to be president? Why could Congress not enact a law specifying that no one convicted of a state or federal felony could stand for election or serve as POTUS?
(V) & (Z) answer: First, the body of the Constitution contains a third qualification you did not name: a person must have lived in the U.S. for at least 14 years over the course of their life. The Fourteenth Amendment added the requirement that a person guilty of insurrection against the U.S. cannot be elected president. And finally, the Twenty-Second Amendment added the requirement that a person who has been elected president twice (or once, along with serving more than 2 years of another term) is ineligible.
In American law, the Constitution cannot be modified, except through a direct modification (that is, an amendment). Any law that adds a new requirement for president would presume to modify Article II, which laid out the original three qualifications. The Constitution always trumps laws passed by Congress. That is why the two times the requirements for the job were changed, an amendment had to be adopted.
P.L. in Denver, CO, asks: I am 68 and have lived in the same house since 1989. So, I have not had to register to vote in a long time. I never heard of the National Mail Voter Registration Form. Can you tell us what this is and when and how it is used?
(V) & (Z) answer: If you want to register to vote, you can use the federal form (which you would nonetheless submit to your state, or your county of residence, or your municipality). Alternatively, you can use the form or website produced by your state (or, sometimes, your county or municipality). The form you use dictates which set of rules you have to follow in terms of identifying yourself and proving your eligibility. The federal rules are not as stringent as those of most red states.
A.D. in Bend, OR, asks: Does the current, or the newly elected, House of Representatives vote for the President in an instance of neither getting 270 EVs?
(V) & (Z) answer: The new one. They take their seats on January 3, 17 days before the presidential inauguration, and 2-4 days before the EVs are counted.
J.F. in Fort Worth, TX, asks: If some local election official refuses to certify the votes of their precinct and this causes the state's governor to not be able to certify the results, what does that do to all the state and local races and propositions that are also on the ballot?
(V) & (Z) answer: It doesn't freeze them all, but it does freeze any that would be affected by those votes. An election administrator might be able to go on Fox and claim that the results for president are screwy, but all the rest are OK. That's not going to stand up in court, or any official proceeding.
For this reason, Trumpy election officials might have to think twice about refusing to certify. It's at least possible they could keep enough Republicans from taking their seats in the House so as to put the Democrats in control of a contingent election.
J.L. in Baltimore, MD, asks: This is not strictly a question about elections, but this year abortion is a major issue, so it's relevant. I keep reading about plans to "repeal" the Hyde Amendment. But as far as I've been able to find out, it's not an actual law but just a rider that gets attached to funding bills. So is it really a law? And if not, can't Congress simply leave it off future funding bills? And why do people keep writing about repealing it?
(V) & (Z) answer: You are entirely correct; it's a rider that is just copied and pasted into the budget every year. The Congress could get rid of it by not adding it to the next budget, there is no need for a "repeal." We suspect that the word "repeal" is used because it's simpler than a more accurate characterization, and it ultimately gets the point across.
B.S. in Denville, NJ, asks: I appreciate your answer to my question about how many Americans have witnessed the passage of a Constitutional amendment. However I must confess, based on your answer and the subsequent question about it from R.G. in Seattle, that I worded my question poorly, because your answer was indeed simpler than what I was looking for. What I meant by my question was how many Americans, alive or dead, witnessed a successful amendment, as opposed to the number of Americans who live(d) without this event occurring during their lifetime? Or thought of another way, how likely is it that an American, plucked at random out of history, experienced the passage of an amendment?
(V) & (Z) answer: Ah, oops. This question cannot be answered with a high degree of precision, because the fine-grained demographic information that would be necessary is somewhere between "scarce" and "non-existent," the further you go in the past. An estimate is possible, but that runs into one very tricky issue, which we'll get to in a moment.
We'll start with the easy part. The largest gaps between amendments in American history are:
- 61 years (1804 to 1865)
- 43 years (1870 to 1913)
- 32 years (1992 to present)
- 18 years (1933 to 1951)
There are no other gaps greater than 15 years.
Now the hard part. In the distant past, infant mortality rights were frightfully high. In 1800, a newborn had only a 53% chance of making it to age 5. By 1900, it was still only 76%. It took until 1930 to get to 90%, to 1950 to get to 95% and to 1990 to get to 99%.
If you include all the people who died before the age of 5, then you have tens of millions of people (actually, probably north of 100 million) who did not live to see an amendment passed because they passed away so quickly. If you do NOT include them, then the life expectancy for Americans has always been greater than 61 years. Put another way, if you were born in 1810 and you made it to 5 years, 1 day old, then you would be expected to live to be about 64 (and so, would be expected to see at least one amendment passed, given that the longest gap was 61 years).
Your question presents a pretty specific situation, however, namely someone "plucked at random out of history." If you're choosing in that way, your picks are going to be overwhelmingly skewed toward the present day (much larger populations) and toward people who did not die a 2 days old, or 3 weeks old, or 1 year old. On the other hand, when you do your plucking, you might well end up with someone who WILL live to see an amendment passed, but hasn't seen one yet.
These are crude numbers, but it basically boils down to something like this: If you get in the DeLorean and pick someone at random from the past, you have something like a 70% chance of someone who has already seen an amendment passed. If you accept people who either have seen an amendment, or will EVENTUALLY see one, it climbs to around 90%.
B.S. in Huntington Beach, CA, asks: I just concluded watching the first night of the Democratic National Convention and I am so in awe of our President's willingness to step aside for the good of the country. I realize that there are countless individuals who have sacrificed for our country, but I cannot think of another politician willingly walking away from power as Joe Biden has done. Politicians just do not do what he did. Are there other such examples in our history?
(V) & (Z) answer: The obvious answers are Harry S. Truman and Lyndon B. Johnson. They didn't know for sure their gooses were cooked (especially given the state of polling in their era), but it was close enough that they stepped aside for the good of their party and of the country.
The other obvious answer is George Washington, who could have become a de facto king if he'd wanted to, and chose not to. Also add Thomas Jefferson, who was in a position to do much the same thing. The two-term tradition wasn't truly established until someone other than Washington had observed it.
There are many presidents who could plausibly have tried to hold on, but there are none whose decision was anywhere near as momentous as these four.
F.R. in Berlin, Germany, asks: My interest in American politics began a long time ago with the question why the United States' political parties were named as they were, because for European ears they are basically homonymous (the Modern Greek word for "Republic" is "Dimokratia"). Since then, I have got an idea, why Andrew Jackson called his electoral vehicle "Democratic," campaigning against the establishment of his time, but what was the idea behind the name Republican?
(V) & (Z) answer: Jackson's party was originally "Democratic-Republicans," and he shortened that to "Democrats." The Republicans chose their name for two reasons. The first was to imply that their party was the true inheritor of the legacy of Thomas Jefferson and the Democratic-Republicans. The second was to associate themselves with the Roman Republic (i.e., Rome before it was ruined by slavery).
R.B. in Coon Rapids, MN, asks: I was reading about the Lincoln-Douglas Debates. Wow, two guys meeting seven times, taking turns for three hours. Modern debates seem to be a forum for displaying catchphrases and soundbites to a wider audience and not a real moment for voters to learn. What would be the layout, rules, style, etc. of a genuine modern day debate so that it is a meaningful few hours that voters could use when making their civic decisions?
(V) & (Z) answer: Something like this could not work today, since people have neither the time nor the attention spans. Sometimes, Lincoln or Douglas would say, "Go home and have some supper, and then come back, because it's going to take me a while to answer."
Further, Lincoln-Douglas was not really a debate in the way we would understand that term today. Mostly, they each gave their stump speeches. Then, they each responded to the other's speech for a while. If you really wanted to replicate that today, you could give each candidate something like 20 minutes to speak on whatever they want, with 10 minutes for their opponent to respond.
This would be absolutely useless with Donald Trump, of course. He is not capable of delivering a coherent 20-minute speech anymore, even with preparation and notes. And he's certainly not capable to delivering a coherent 10-minute extemporaneous response.
F.S. in Cologne, Germany, asks: A few months back, you mentioned Clausewitz' ideas about war, as a means of presenting the context for the Civil War. But did Ulysses S. Grant, William T. Sherman and Abraham Lincoln actually read Clausewitz? And is Clausewitz the most influential German in U.S history that has never lived in the U.S.?
(V) & (Z) answer: We do not have any evidence that indicates any of the three men read Clausewitz. If any of them did, it would likely have been Lincoln, who acquired books on strategy to try to get up to speed while on the job.
That said, the three men were all part of a military establishment that included men who HAD read Clausewitz (e.g., Henry Halleck). They could well have gotten a primer from their colleagues. Further, the things that Clausewitz saw, and analyzed, they saw too, and could plausibly have figured out for themselves.
And among Germans who never lived in the U.S., but had a big impact on U.S. history, the most significant are undoubtedly Karl Marx and Adolf Hitler.
J.M. in New York City, NY, asks: A sister of mine visited the Virginia Holocaust Museum in Richmond, and now wants to read a layman-friendly narrative of the Nuremburg Trials. Would you be kind enough to recommend something?
(V) & (Z) answer: The standard work is The Anatomy of the Nuremberg Trials: A Personal Memoir, by Telford Taylor, who was one of the key prosecutors (and eventually lead prosecutor).
W.I. in Seattle, WA, asks: I know the map has been a fixture for a long, long time. But it would really great if it had some sense of scale for population/EVs. As the saying goes, land doesn't vote, people do.
There's a nice version at FiveThirtyEight and I've seen many other visualizations.
Thoughts?(V) & (Z) answer: We get a couple of e-mails a week, like this one, proposing we overhaul our approach.
First of all, if people want the information presented the way FiveThirtyEight has it, they can go to FiveThirtyEight. If they want to be able to build their own map, they can go to 270toWin.com. And so forth. We don't know why we would mimic some other site's approach.
On top of that, we also think our approach is the best. You can look at our map and see our best prediction. But you can also evaluate for yourself how sound that prediction is, in your view, based on how dark/light the states are.
M.H. in Chicago, IL, asks: Have you ever considered splitting out the electoral votes for Maine and Nebraska on the electoral-vote.com map, or do you just count on each state's 2nd district cancelling out the other one?
(V) & (Z) answer: We have considered it, but our software is not set up for it, and there isn't actually much polling of the individual districts. So, we do indeed operate on the understanding that they basically cancel each other out.
T.H. in Edmonton, AB, Canada, asks: I see at the top of every day's post the words "Dem pickups" and "GOP pickups" followed by some state abbreviations. Please forgive me for being obtuse, but what is a "pickup"?
(V) & (Z) answer: A state that, if current polling holds, will switch columns. For example, the map is currently predicting that Donald Trump will "pickup" two states he lost in 2020: Nevada and Georgia. And Kamala Harris will "pickup" no states that Joe Biden lost in 2020.
H.F. in Cincinnati, OH, asks: I am teaching a college statistics class, and I plan to use a lot of real data in this course. I notice your data doesn't include sample size—which would be quite useful for my students to find margin of errors, confidence intervals, etc. so we can understand things like statistical ties better. Now I'm not expecting you to change what you provide on your site, but can you recommend a place where I can look for more detailed data from the polls you use?
(V) & (Z) answer: Wikipedia has a page for national polls and state polls of the presidential race; both pages have the sample size and margin of error for all polls.
O.Z.H. in Dubai, UAE, asks: E.G. in The Villages wrote: "You guys are so biased it's cringeworthy. The lies you tell, Lord almighty."
My question is, why would you post this comment without pushing back? I appreciate that you want to demonstrate that you are willing to post critical comments, but this is such vague criticism that its essentially meaningless. Did you consider asking this person to which "lies" they were referring? It could have opened up an interesting dialogue and may have provided an opportunity to demonstrate to this person that it is not Electoral-Vote.com that is posting lies—it's the party that (I assume) this person supports.(V) & (Z) answer: If we push back against all criticism, then it gives the overall impression that we are defensive or that we don't take criticism seriously. So, we only comment if we have information that only we would know, or if we have something funny to say.
We pass the criticism along, silly or substantive, to give an approximation of the messages we're seeing, in the event readers find that useful or interesting. There's no percentage in engaging with someone like this. They just come back with more attacks, or with nonsense. Recall this is the same person who wrote the letter we ran yesterday that claimed Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) is a better speaker than everyone at the DNC combined. When someone is living on a different planet like that, there's nothing to be said.
J.H. in Boston, MA, asks: Can you clarify the claim that MINIX runs on billions of devices? It was my understanding that MINIX was a teaching OS. It might be found primarily on the devices of students taking (V)'s class, or maybe even only on virtual devices. Are you somehow classifying Linux as a MINIX derivative and including all Linux and Android devices in your count? That seems like a stretch...
(V) & (Z) answer: Note that it was (Z) who wrote that (as the original answer made clear), and so it was not (V) making a claim about his own work. Note also that (Z) would not have written such a thing (nor would V have allowed it to be published) if it was not absolutely correct. MINIX has been installed on the Management Engine that has shipped with every Intel x86 CPU since 2008. Intel ships about 2 billion CPUs a year.
D.M.C. in Seoul, South Korea, asks: Since (Z) mentioned it in response F.S. in Cologne's question, would (V) mind sharing how he moved from getting a degree in astrophysics to being a computer scientist?
Also, as a follow up to that question, what is (Z)'s most important contribution to the history profession? Finally, happy birthday to (Z) on the Friday after next!(V) answers: When (V) was a kid, everyone asked him: "Do you want to be a policeman or a fireman or..." He got tired of this and began saying: "I want to be a nuclear physicist." That stopped them in their tracks. Problem solved. When he got to MIT and they asked, out of habit he said: "Nuclear physicist" and they said: "Excellent choice" and assigned him an advisor who was indeed a nuclear physicist. So he majored in physics, always a popular major at MIT.
The summer after graduating, he snagged a summer internship at the National Radio Astronomy Observatory in rural West Virginia (largely because he had experience at MIT programming the IBM 7040 computer and NRAO had just bought an IBM 7040 and could use him as a programmer). So he got interested in astronomy and astrophysics. It was a fun summer: Most of the radio astronomers had Ph.D.s from MIT or Harvard (since NRAO was proposed by a joint group from MIT and Harvard) while the locals were lucky to have graduated from high school. It was a... strange mix. When (V) applied to Berkeley for a Ph.D. in physics, they knew about the internship (because he knew he was going to do it months in advance and put it on his application form). That year, Berkeley had just completed a new lab on top of the hills for doing research on space sciences. Someone on the admissions committee saw that and must have passed his application to the lab director. The director knew that (V) would be getting offers from other top schools, so he offered (V) an NSF traineeship as an inducement to go to Berkeley and be associated with the space sciences lab. With free money with no work required, (V) took it. Also, this was during the turmoil at Berkeley in the 1960s, and that seemed like fun. With the background of NRAO and quickly finding an advisor in the Space Sciences Lab, (V) got interested in astrophysics.
When he got his Ph.D., he realized he wasn't really interested in physics, even though he was offered postdocs at Stanford, Caltech, and elsewhere. He had just been trying to get his aunt off his back when he was 9. By this time (V) was a good programmer, so he looked for jobs as a programmer. He also decided to see the world, so he applied to many universities in Europe and got many job offers. He lucked out again (as with the 7040). In Amsterdam they had just bought a CDC 6400 and (V) had years of experience programming the CDC 6600 (a faster version of the 6400 but otherwise identical). He was offered a position as an assistant professor since he knew all about the new computer and no one else locally did. He liked it there and stayed on. In the words of that famous philosopher, Forrest Gump: "Life is like a box of chocolates. You never know what you're going to get."
(Z) answers: (Z) has several book projects currently on the back burner but, at the moment, his most important contributions are either as a teacher (including significant influence on some of his colleagues) or, perhaps, this site. There are plenty of historians who do not reach as many eyeballs in a lifetime as (Z) reaches in a single day. Currently we are getting about 120,000 unique visitors a week and it is rising rapidly.
And thanks for the birthday wishes!
T.B. in Leon County, FL, asks: Methinks you protest too much on being called Ivy Leaguers. For sure, any person who goes to one of "the eight schools that belong to the Ivy League [football franchise], which are globally-[known] as elite colleges associated with academic excellence, highly selective admissions, and social elitism," is an Ivy Leaguer, and by this definition, you are not one of them. However, Ivy League can and does mean much more than that; being "like" an Ivy Leaguer in appearance makes one fair game.
So in your case, when someone calls you an Ivy Leaguer, wear it for a while and see how it fits. Maybe you can see the reference is to "academic excellence" and not "social elitism"—after all, it came "out of the mouths of babes!"(V) & (Z) answer: We get your point, but the first problem here is that it's just not accurate. We are trained academics, and dislike that.
The second problem is that "Ivy Leaguer" is usually used pejoratively (and certainly was in the letter that commenced this discussion). In particular, it implies two things that we really do not like. The first of those is "arrogant" and/or "pretentious." We can assure you that, among academics at least, we are at the extreme "not arrogant, not pretentious" end of the spectrum.
The other is "privilege." Not everyone at an Ivy League school came from money. Not everyone at an Ivy League school benefited from being a legacy (or from other family connections). But a lot of them did, and that presumption is baked into the phrase "Ivy League." We did not come from money or privilege, and we had to earn our way into the large state schools we went to and we had to earn our degrees. To describe us as "Ivy League," even if that term might also have some positive connotations, is pretty disrespectful to our experience. Also, MIT, where (V) was an undergraduate, doesn't give legacies priority, doesn't have a football team, and doesn't favor rich kids in any way. It favors kids who got a perfect score on the math SAT test. The local culture is hugely different from that school at the other end of Mass Ave. that shall not be mentioned.
S.S.L. in Battle Creek, MI, asks: Who are some of your all-time favorite writers?
(V) answers: Jared Diamond, John Irving and David Sedaris.
(Z) answers: Joseph Heller, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, William Poundstone, Sarah Vowell and Paul Boller.