Electoral-vote.com

Saturday Q&A

If "questions about civics" was a major American industry, then Donald Trump would be well on his way to spurring the economy to new heights.

If you're working on the headline theme, we'll give the additional hint that every reader who solved the puzzle needed a day to do so.

Current Events

S.K. in Sunnyvale, CA, asks: You wrote: "Instead, [Luigi Mangione] could try for jury nullification by arguing that Thompson led to many people's deaths by denying healthcare they had paid for, so he deserved to die."

Isn't that a form of an insanity plea? That his (and perhaps others') mistreatment by the healthcare industry pushed him out of his right mind?

(V) & (Z) answer: No. As chance would have it, a lawyer-reader wrote in with the exact answer to your question, and so rather than hold that letter to tomorrow, we're just going to share it now. So, here's R.W. in Brooklyn, NY:

If/when Luigi Mangione goes to trial, you're quite right that he may shoot (sorry!) for jury nullification. But I think it's at least as likely that he will pursue a justification defense (also known as a necessity defense). This is the defense used, inter alia, by climate protesters and abortion clinic blockaders. It's allowed in New York (not all states permit it) and it's an affirmative defense that permits a jury to find someone not guilty if the person can show that s/he took reasonable actions that were necessary in order to avoid a harm or evil that is greater than the harm s/he caused by breaking the law. It's very difficult, but not impossible, to prevail on that defense, and I'll be surprised if Mangione doesn't at least try. At the very least, it would give him a forum to share his views about the societal harm caused by health insurance companies.

It is quite helpful to have a reader base that is way above average when it comes to education and expertise.

B.B. in Saint Louis, MO, asks: What percentage, do you suppose, of the folk cheering the murder of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson voted to support an administration whose executive and legislative policies are guaranteed to promote even worse insurance company service?

(V) & (Z) answer: A very sizable percentage.

In the end, voting for Trump and cheering for Luigi Mangione are, for many people, byproducts of the same thing: They think the system is badly broken, and they want radical change. Thet problem is that they are so desperate for change, or so ill-informed (or both), that they don't do a very good job of evaluating whether radical change (or ANY positive change) is likely to happen if they [vote for X] or [give money to Y] or [cheer for Z].

This is not a problem limited to the political right/Trumpers, by any means. Lots of people who want "change" in Israel/Gaza voted against Kamala Harris. The desire for change may be on point, but the means is not.

D.G.H. in Barnegat, NJ, asks: Is there a risk of a copycat shooting of the United Healthcare CEO, such as the CEO of a bank which foreclosed on many people, or the CEO of a venture capital firm that extracted all value from a company and left its employees without jobs?

(V) & (Z) answer: Absolutely. That may just be why a lot of these corporate interests have launched various PR blitzes, whether it's UnitedHealthcare's new CEO going on TV and conceding that the system kinda is broken, or Atrium Health forgiving a whole bunch of unpaid bills that were never going to be paid anyhow, etc.

That said, Thompson was offered, and encouraged to use, a security detail by his employers, and declined. Surely, CEOs of companies who might in any way be deemed "predatory" are not going to be making the same choice anytime soon.

D.E. in Lancaster, PA, asks: Proving that there is never anything new under the sun, regarding the hoopla surrounding Luigi Mangione (his lawyer has reported that his office is getting e-mails from people willing to donate money to help with his legal defense and on the Internet, there are numerous products glorifying his alleged actions, just to name a few) but this has all happened before, hasn't it?

I'm thinking in particular, during the early years of the Great Depression, many Americans of all political stripes breathlessly followed the violent criminal sprees of Bonnie and Clyde, Ma Barker, Pretty Boy Floyd, John Dillinger, Baby Face Nelson and (the Abomination's personal favorite) Alphonse Capone, elevating these criminals to near-folk-hero status. Nearly a hundred years after their violent reigns, people still have recognize their names. I have heard the theory that these bank robbers' popularity can from the fact that so many people had their lives destroyed by the collapse of the U.S. banking industry, a kind of "sticking it to the Man" philosophy. Do historians still subscribe to that theory and is there greater context that history can provide the hero status of the criminal? And is there any correlation between the hero worship of these dubious characters and real world changes?

(V) & (Z) answer: This phenomenon is so common that it has a name, bestowed in the 1950s by legendary scholar Eric Hobsbawm: social banditry. The list of notable examples is very, very long, and includes examples that are fictional, semi-fictional, and real, among them: Robin Hood, Ned Kelly, Joaquin Murrieta, the outlaws of the Wild West, the bank robbers of the Great Depression era, etc.

There are, of course, criminals and lawbreakers in every era. However, particular historical contexts are certainly a key element in elevating what would otherwise be garden-variety crime into something that is perceived as a form of resistance or activism. While it is difficult to connect social banditry to specific reforms, clearly there is some level of correlation. The outlaws of the Old West certainly encouraged the federal and state governments to impose more structure, including more regulation of business, on communities in the West. The criminals of the 1920s and 1930s most certainly helped bring about the demise of prohibition, while also helping spark a conversation about bank regulation that laid the groundwork for the New Deal.

Even the fictional social bandits are, at very least, an interesting case study for historians. Robin Hood, for example, wasn't real in any meaningful way (there may have been an outlaw named Robert of Locksley, or something similar, but he didn't fight the Sheriff of Nottingham or hang out in Sherwood Forest with Little John and Friar Tuck). However, the story serves as post hoc justification for the rebellion of the nobles against King John, and the promulgation of the Magna Carta.

D.A. in Long Beach, CA, asks: Back in 2008, the state of Oregon didn't have enough money to expand Medicaid to everyone, so they drew a lottery as to who would and would not get coverage for the next year. The unintended consequence was that they now had a randomized group of people who got a "public option" for healthcare vs. a control group of people doing things the way that they always had done.

I learned about this on podcast a few years ago. One of the many points they made was that lowering the barrier to healthcare increased utilization on the system (supply/demand), but didn't necessarily decrease visits to Emergency Rooms, as is common wisdom. Of course, that was the non-scholarly version for us non-academics, and the article was a few years ago. I would love to hear your thoughts.

(V) & (Z) answer: Emergency Rooms actually serve several, somewhat overlapping, purposes in the American system of medicine:

They provide emergency care: If a person is affected with something that is legitimately, or potentially, life threatening, and that requires immediate attention, the ER is where they go. This could be a physical injury (say, from a car wreck), or a heart attack, or a severe respiratory inflammation, etc.

They provide urgent care: If it is Friday at 10:00 p.m., and a person develops a severe sort throat, or they sprain their ankle, or they cut their finger in a way that requires stitches, that is not a life-threatening condition. But if they want treatment, they are not going to be able to see their primary physician anytime soon (assuming they even have a primary physician). In some places, and some insurance networks, and at some times of day, they can go to an urgent care clinic. But otherwise, if timely care is wanted, then it's the ER.

They provide "rapid" testing: If you see your primary care physician, and they decide that you need to have an MRI or an ultrasound or something like that, then in most circumstances, you have two options: (1) you can make an appointment with a specialty clinic and wait multiple days or weeks or months, or (2) you can go to the ER. There have been a couple of occasions, for example, when (Z) was absent from usual blog activities due to kidney infections. And on those occasions, his PCP said he needed a kidney scan, and that he would have to go to the ER for it, because that was the only way to get the procedure in a timely fashion.

Because the ER fills so many different needs, most ERs are jammed around the clock. The primary thing that reduces the number of people seeking care is not the healthiness or insurance status of the population, it's that people get to the ER with a non-life-threatening condition, learn that they will have to wait 6 hours, and decide they can tough it out until they get better/can see their PCP/can go to an urgent care clinic.

However, different kinds of ER visits impose very different costs on the system. If someone goes to the ER to get stitches in their injured finger, or to get a prescription for antibiotics, that's a relatively low-cost event. If someone goes to the ER because they've felt poorly for months, and they just can't keep going, and it turns out they have Stage IV lung cancer, then that's a very high-cost event. So, the broad availability of preventative and maintenance care most certainly does reduce overall costs, even if it doesn't make the ER less busy.

F.S. in Cologne, Germany, asks: Why is there a widespread fentanyl crisis in the U.S., but not in Europe?

(V) & (Z) answer: The short answer is: The availability of heroin.

For a long time, it has been relatively difficult to get heroin into the United States. For this reason, the people who use(d) heroin, and the people who provide(d) the heroin, shifted over to fentanyl because the fentanyl fills the same niche and is easier to smuggle/acquire.

Europe, by contrast, is relatively close to Afghanistan. And Afghanistan used to produce a large amount of heroin, which was relatively easy to smuggle into European countries. So, there wasn't much of an "opening" for fentanyl. But now that the Taliban has basically shut down heroin production, European law enforcement officials are bracing for a significant uptake in fentanyl usage on the continent.

There are, of course, other factors as well. For example, American physicians leaned into fentanyl as a pain reliever considerably more aggressively than European physicians did (despite fentanyl having been developed in Europe), and so helped create opioid addicts that otherwise would not have been opioid addicts. But that said, the primary answer is the economics/logistics of the drug trade in the U.S. versus the economics/logistics of the drug trade in Europe.

Politics

M.R. in Atlanta, GA, asks: Having moved to Atlanta, news of Jimmy Carter's health is a regular topic of news coverage. I've wondered if it might be "better" for Carter to die while Joe Biden is president; the tributes will be appropriate and solemn, with appreciation for Carter's achievements. I worry that Trump's reaction will be cruel, crass, self serving—or all of the above. What do you think?

From a craven political point of view, do you think Trump would suffer any blowback for acting like a jackass when a former president lay in state? My brother thinks nobody would care. Any thoughts?

(V) & (Z) answer: We don't think it matters too much when Carter dies. His funerary and commemorative events will be controlled by people who are not Trump, and Trump is usually wise enough to just stay out of the way at these times. That is particularly likely here, as Trump does not have any particular grudge with Carter, since they are of different political generations and milieus. If Hillary Clinton was to die, Trump might well say or do something boorish. But he has no dog in the fight when it comes to Carter.

But, if Trump DID say or do something boorish, we agree with your brother that it would not move the needle much. On those frequent occasions, there is a news cycle or two full of outrage, and then... Trump says or does some other boorish thing, and everyone moves onto that. That's called "flooding the zone," and Steve Bannon says (quite rightly) that it's a key element of Trumpism.

G.B. in Plymouth, MN, asks: Can you please explain to me why $100 billion in disaster relief is considered a concession to the Democrats? You wrote that "much of the funding involved will go to red/purple states and/or Republican voters." If so, why is it considered a concession to the Democrats? Do Republicans no longer even care about the well-being of their own constituents? I just don't get why the Republicans are being painted as giving something to the Democrats when in fact that funding is something that they themselves should want.

(V) & (Z) answer: Many Republicans are budget hawks (or pretend to be so, right up until it's time to give rich people and/or corporations another tax cut). Some of them absolutely will allow their constituents to suffer in service of the political agenda or political point they are trying to put forward. See, for example, the states that turned down free money to expand Medicaid under Obamacare. Others demand the political cover of "I had no choice but to back down on my budget hawkish ways, this one time, in order to get Democrats to agree to [X]." The Democrats care enough about securing the disaster funding that they are willing to tolerate this framing.

K.B. in New York City, NY, asks: Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) has a long history of bipartisanship, joined the Senate as a Reagan Republican, supported whistleblowers for decades and probably could only be primaried because of his age. So why would he denounce Christopher Wray and support someone unhinged like Kash Patel?

(V) & (Z) answer: The letter that Grassley sent to Wray earlier this week was 11 single-spaced pages, and read like a rant. This was not just political theater for the sake of Donald Trump. Grassley, by virtue of being Chair/Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, has had regular dealings with Wray, and the animosity there is clearly personal and deeply felt.

Beyond that, we've always had the impression that Grassley was more conservative than his public image suggested. Also, he's 91 and presumably won't be running for office ever again. Both age and "nothing to lose" can make someone considerably more likely to express opinions that are VERY unfiltered.

We don't particularly understand how someone with as much experience in law enforcement oversight as Grassley has could look at Patel and like what he sees. But if the Senator is convinced, thanks to his dealings with Wray (and, before that, James Comey) that the FBI is badly broken, then we guess he could decide that a "disruptor" is just the thing.

M.A. in Knoxville, TN, asks: I don't remember Donald Trump having any real success at finding leakers during his first administration. Mainly, I remember him getting more and more upset and angry that he couldn't find the leakers nor stop the leaks. I also seem to remember that the harder he tried to unmask leakers, the more leaks there were. Did Trump have any success at finding leakers during his first administration?

(V) & (Z) answer: Trump had virtually no success with plugging leaks the first time around, no matter how hard he and his team tried. Remember "Anonymous," who was not outed until he (Department of Homeland Security official Miles Taylor) eventually outed himself.

Trump and his team are going to work even harder this time around, aided by people (e.g., Kash Patel) who little concern themselves with niceties like "the rules" and "the law." We'll see how successful they are.

J.H. in San Luis Obispo, CA, asks: I'm not religious, but this is Notre Dame we're talking about here. Why, oh why, did President Biden cede attendance at the reopening ceremony to that festering cesspool of pond scum? Is Biden that far gone at this point?

(V) & (Z) answer: We don't think Biden skipped it because of cognitive decline, because he did other high-profile public things that week (e.g., a visit to Angola). We do think that, with 4 years as president, and 82 years on the planet, under his belt, he's pretty tired.

If Biden had gone to Notre Dame, there would have been all kinds of diplomatic niceties, like a meeting with Emmanuel Macron. Plus, the President would have had to screw a smile on his face and pose for pictures with/make small talk with Donald Trump. We can see how someone whose gas tank is empty would take a pass on that. And that is what Biden did, sending his wife and daughter in his stead.

If Donald Trump was classy, he would have said: "Joe Biden is Catholic, and I am not, so I am going to forego this event, and let the day be his." But Trump is not classy, so not only did he not do that, he took the opportunity to take a cheap shot at the First Lady.

Civics

J.P. in Seattle, WA, asks: If, somehow, Donald Trump and the Supreme Court get rid of the Fourteenth Amendment to further his goal of ending anchor babies (like his father), wouldn't that mean, barring further law being made, that the U.S. would go back to citizenship being conferred to anyone standing on U.S. soil? Open borders, indeed!

(V) & (Z) answer: We think you may have garbled some of the concepts and terminology here. There are three ways to acquire citizenship in the United States:

Birth: The formal term for this is jus soli ("of the soil") citizenship, and it means that if you are born in the U.S., you gain citizenship. This is one form of natural-born citizenship, and is the type that Trump & Co. want to eliminate. It's common in countries of the Western Hemisphere, and almost completely nonexistent elsewhere.

Parentage: The formal term for this is jus sanguinis ("of the blood"), and it means that if your parents had/have citizenship, you (potentially) gain citizenship. This is the other form of natural-born citizenship, and exists, in some form, in every country. That said, each country, including the U.S., has different rules for exactly which circumstances convey jus sanguinis citizenship. Sometimes, it only comes through the father. Sometimes, it requires citizen parents AND birth in that particular country. Sometimes, it depends on how recently/how long the citizen-parents lived in the country.

Naturalization: This means jumping through whatever hoops a country establishes in order for a non-citizen to become a citizen. Every country offers some version of this, though in many cases the hoops are very, very difficult to jump through.

We think you might have taken note of the term jus soli, and interpreted it to mean something it does not mean. In any case, if Trump and his team somehow do manage to eliminate that category of citizenship, it will mean that the U.S. will only grant citizenship in the second and third manners listed here. It will not, in any way, make it easier to acquire citizenship.

M.W. in Huntington, NY, asks: During this past election, I mentioned to my son that one of the reasons that this site was started, was to help spread awareness that Americans abroad can vote.

My son asked why an American citizen would be allowed to vote in American elections. Off the top of my head, American soldiers in foreign countries came to mind, and some employees working overseas. My son accepted those, but when I mentioned that (V) lives full-time in Amsterdam, he started questioning why an American, living full-time in another country, would be able to vote in American elections. I didn't have a good answer.

In clicking the various links you have to groups promoting voting abroad, I couldn't get a solid grasp on why (V) can vote. I think I saw something about expats pay U.S. taxes. Is that true? Is that why Americans abroad can vote? And why would (V) pay U.S. taxes if he doesn't live or work remotely in the U.S.? That doesn't seem right to me.

Around the same time, I saw articles that Trump has proposed to end this double taxation. Are we sure you're not a Trump supporter and this blog is just cover?

In all seriousness, can you help explain why Americans like V can vote and also why someone like V is double taxed?

(V) & (Z) answer: The short answer is: Congress passed a law saying that any American citizen not living in the U.S. can vote in federal elections in the state they most recently lived in. If you want to ask why Congress passed such a law, it goes back to the Revolutionary War. One of the issues then was "No taxation without representation." U.S. citizens living abroad for any period of time, no matter how long, have to pay federal income tax on their worldwide income. There are tax treaties with some (but not all) countries that provide specific credits for specific types of income. For example, if a U.S. citizen living in France owns stock in British Airways, who gets to tax the dividends? These treaties are needed because every other country but the U.S. taxes based on residence, not citizenship. But since U.S. citizens living abroad are subject to U.S. taxes, Congress decided they certainly should not lose their representation (i.e., the right to vote in federal elections) nor other benefits—for example, Medicare—if all the other conditions are met. So the idea is that if you are paying taxes, you should get to vote for the people who write the tax laws.

As a practical matter, the government doesn't even know where people are living. Unlike all the European countries, the U.S. has no mandatory population registry for taxes, voting, driver's licenses, Medicare, etc. You have to tell each organization separately where you live. Someone could be living abroad, but use a relative's U.S. mailing address or a forwarding service for mail. And what about permanent embassy and consulate employees who don't change with administrations? What about members of the armed forces stationed abroad, or civilians working on military bases? What about Boeing employees who do maintenance on aircraft bought by foreign airlines? Should they lose their right to vote after serving abroad after, say, 10 years? Without some relatively foolproof way to foil expats who used a relative's domestic mailing address, it would be unenforceable to disenfranchise Americans after living abroad for [X] years. Americans living abroad can renounce their citizenship if they want to. Then they can't just move back or vote, but they also don't have to pay U.S. taxes anymore.

As to whether or not this site is just a front for Donald Trump... no comment. [Note to Electoral-Vote.com Director of Security: Make sure to forward M.W.'s e-mail address to Kash Patel.]

B.C. in Walpole, ME, asks: Is it true that if the legislative branch appropriates money to be used for a particular purpose, the executive branch can decide not to use the money for that purpose, or use it for another purpose, or not use it at all? (Asking for a friend.)

(V) & (Z) answer: With some funding, there is some small amount of flexibility in how it is spent. To the extent that Donald Trump oversaw ANY border wall construction during his first term, it was border wall construction funded by redirecting money for "military construction," with the argument that a border wall is as much a military project as a new barracks at Quantico.

With most funding, there is no discretion. A president cannot reroute it, and cannot refuse to spend it. Richard Nixon made regular use of the latter trick, which is called "impoundment," leading to the passage of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974. That bill makes clear that impoundment is not legal. That said, the law only matters if either Congress or the courts are willing to enforce it. We are not optimistic about Congress, but do have some hope when it comes to the courts.

Z.C. in Beverly Hills, CA, asks: I recall that the Colorado primary case established that removal off the ballot wasn't appropriate, but removal from office once elected possibly was. I'm wondering whether anyone or any state would try once he's actually inaugurated.

(V) & (Z) answer: Since it is not clear who does, and does not, have standing to initiate such a suit, and since there are so very many people who hate Trump, and since there are so very many officeholders (e.g., state secretaries of state) who would like a promotion and might like some good PR in service of that, we would be shocked if someone does not sue to try to have Trump disqualified under the terms of the Fourteenth Amendment.

That said, we have not seen or heard so much as a whisper about this. And we would think that someone would be signaling their intent, in some way, by now. If it does not happen, then we can only come up with two potential explanations: (1) everyone decided it was too "Obama is not a citizen"-adjacent, and a bad look; (2) everyone decided that J.D. Vance is even worse than Trump.

M.C. in Glasgow, Scotland, asks: On the prospect of immigration raids on congregants in church, you wrote about "thorny legal issues related to separation of church and state, sanctuary ... years' worth of lawsuits from churches..."

Sanctuary? Does precedent suggest that claiming sanctuary may have any legal force?

(V) & (Z) answer: Today, sanctuary has no legal force in the United States, nor anywhere else.

That said, there are many churches that believe strongly in sanctuary, particularly for refugees/immigrants, such that there's even a term for it (the sanctuary movement). As a result of this philosophy, there are at least three dozen known cases of an undocumented immigrant currently living in a church so as to avoid deportation.

It is also true that churches tend to know a thing or two about PR, and a thing or two about how to use lawyers effectively. Even if a church does not have a strong case, well, coming up with novel legal theories is what the best lawyers are paid to do. Further, embarrassing your opponents (e.g., the Trump White House) is often as useful as actually winning your case.

S.T. in Worcestershire, England, UK, asks: In "Donald Trump Gives His First Post-Election Interview," you discussed the potential obstacles if the once-and-future president tried to lock up his "enemies." You wrote: "Finding a grand jury in very heavily Democratic D.C. to do that would be a challenge..."

This raises the obvious question: Would the Trump administration be able to move such cases away from Washington, DC, to a more—for them—congenial legal district and/or judge?

(V) & (Z) answer: Under most circumstances, no. Art. III, Sec. 2 of the Constitution says "The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed." That means a person has to be tried in the place where they broke the law (well, where they are alleged to have broken the law). For most politicians, that means Washington, DC.

Sometimes, there is some amount of... fuzziness, for lack of a better term. When Donald Trump stole the classified documents, he illegally took them from Washington and he illegally kept them in Florida. So, he could theoretically have been tried in either place, and Special Counsel Jack Smith decided that the weight of the criminality was in Florida, so that is where he filed. Barring some very creative interpretation of events, it would be very difficult to argue that Kamala Harris or Nancy Pelosi had committed their "crimes" in, say, Amarillo, TX. And if the Trump administration tried it, the case should be kicked instantly.

There are two reasons that venue shopping works for things like mifepristone access. The first is that those are civil matters, rather than criminal, and so the rules are a little different. The second, and far more important, is that federal laws can fairly be said to have an impact everywhere. So, every venue is an appropriate forum for adjudication.

P.F. in Fairbanks, AK, asks: What would happen if Joe Biden nominated Kash Patel and the current Congress rejected the nomination? Would Donald Trump still be able to just renominate him?

(V) & (Z) answer: Yes. Being rejected for a position does not, in any way, disqualify a person from being nominated/appointed in the future, either for the same position, or for a different one.

If the current Congress was absolutely determined to stop Patel, and had the votes to do it (which is certainly NOT the case), there are two ways it could be done. First, they could impeach and convict Patel on some sort of high crime and/or misdemeanor, and disqualify him from future officeholding.

Second, Congress could pass a law changing the requirements for service as FBI Director. For example, there is already a law requiring all federal judges, except those serving on the Supreme Court, to have a law degree. Making that the rule for FBI Directors would not actually stop Patel from serving, since he does have a law degree (as every single FBI Director has had), but some other requirement could be created that would bar him from service, and that would probably pass legal muster, like "FBI directors must have at least 5 years' service as an agent."

L.K. in Los Angeles, CA, asks: I saw today (Tuesday) that Gov. Gavin Newsom (D-CA) appointed Adam Schiff to the Senate so Schiff could take office this week. But... I thought Schiff won the special election to fill out the rest of Dianne Feinstein's term. Why did Newsom need to appoint him? It seems confusing.

(V) & (Z) answer: There is no outlet that is taking time to explain this in stories about Schiff's elevation to the Senate. It's very possible that even the various reporters don't know the answer.

Anyhow, being a big state with very liberal rules about how late ballots are accepted, it actually takes California a long time to officially certify election results. In the case of the two elections Schiff won (the special election, for roughly the last month of Feinstein's term, and the regular election, for a 6-year term in his own right), the results were not actually certified until yesterday. So, the moment that the results became official, Schiff would have become the junior U.S. senator from California. However, because New Jersey finished the job faster, and was about to install Sen. Andy Kim (D-NJ), Laphonza Butler/Newsom/Schiff arranged things so as to get Schiff promoted a few days early and so as to grab a higher rung on the seniority ladder than Kim.

If you read Newsom's proclamation appointing Schiff, it specifies that Schiff will only serve "until his successor is elected and qualifies and is admitted to his or her seat by the United States Senate." Newsom, and everyone else, knows full well that Schiff's "successor" is Adam Schiff. That verbiage makes clear, however, that appointed Sen. Schiff and special-election winner Sen. Schiff are different things, legally speaking.

E.S. in Eugene, OR, asks: I once heard on TV (60 Minutes?) that more than half of the land in the U.S. was foreign-owned. Is that true?

(V) & (Z) answer: No, it is not true. We're not sure if you are misremembering, or if you heard a statement with additional details (like, say, "half the uranium-producing land in the U.S. is foreign-owned").

In any case, the U.S. federal government, all by itself, owns about 30% of the land in the United States. If another 50%+ was foreign-owned, that would leave less than 20% for state and local governments, private businesses, and private citizens. Clearly, that cannot be the case. In fact, less than 5% of the land in the U.S. is foreign-owned. That is due, at least in part, to a sizable body of federal and state law that makes it somewhere between "difficult" and "impossible" for foreign citizens/businesses/governments to purchase American land.

History

J.B. in Bend, OR, asks: The result of the most recent presidential election surprised me, given the personalities involved and the opposition to or non-support of Trump's candidacy by numerous Republicans. It got me to wondering what were the five (if that many) most surprising results of a presidential election. I figure Donald Trump's win over Hillary Clinton is #1, but other than that one, have there really been truly surprising election results?

(V) & (Z) answer: We can't really give you a ranking. Polling gives a somewhat objective basis for identifying "surprise" results, since you can look for elections where the polls pointed strongly in one direction and that direction was wrong. However, polling has only existed for around 80 years and 20 presidential elections, and so does not cover the majority of races for the White House. Among the elections that did take place in the polling era, far and away the two biggest surprises are the Trump win over Clinton in 2016 and the "Dewey Defeats Truman" election in 1948, when Dewey most certainly did not defeat Truman. You could rank those two in either order in terms of how surprising the result was. The 2000 result, with Al Gore unable to ride Bill Clinton's popularity to victory, was also a bit of a surprise, but not as big as 1948 or 2016.

The biggest surprises in elections that took place before polling began:

1824: In a four-way race, John Quincy Adams got trounced in the popular vote, and yet was elected president by virtue of a contingent election in the House.

1876: The Democrats were regaining their footing after four straight presidential losses, and had the more popular candidate in Samuel Tilden. However, Tilden went down to defeat thanks to the Electoral College AND some post-election chicanery.

1888: Grover Cleveland was pretty popular and was the sitting president. Benjamin Harrison's biggest selling point was that his grandfather had been president. Harrison eked out a very narrow victory by virtue of being from the larger political party.

That's six elections, three from the polling era, three from the pre-polling era. The top five is in there somewhere, but because of the apples and oranges problem, we just can't make a ranking that draws from both lists.

S.E.Z. in New Haven, CT, asks: You mentioned that Virginia has never had a female governor, which led me to this Wikipedia chart:

I am unable to find any pattern in this data. California and Maryland, two Democratic Party strongholds, have zero; while conservative Alabama and Texas have two. The anomalies are nearly sufficiently widespread to shake my faith in stereotypical common knowledge.

Is this Wikipedia chart correct? If so, is the political universe simply as random as this, or can you perceive a logic at work in this information?

(V) & (Z) answer: The chart is correct. There's no single explanation; it's the product of a number of factors:

The West: Generally speaking, states west of the Mississippi were more liberal about rights for women, including voting rights for women, than states east of the Mississippi. So, states in the west are more likely to have had one or more women governors than states in the east. It is not a coincidence that the first state to give the vote to women (Wyoming, in 1869) was the first state to elect a woman governor (Nellie Tayloe Ross, served 1925-27).

Turnover: If a state has shorter gubernatorial terms (1 or 2 years) and/or term limits, there is more opportunity for a woman to have been elected. New Hampshire, for example, has 2-year gubernatorial terms, while Oregon has term limits. As you can see, each of those states has elected three women as governor. By contrast, some states have governorships that are semi-dynastic. Iowa, for example, had a governor (Terry Branstad) who served six terms. California always reelects its governors, such that there have been fairly limited opportunities for aspiring women candidates. Those states have one women governor between them.

Senators: On a related note, a state is only going to produce so many people with the potential to win statewide elections. And that means a state is only going to produce so many women with the potential to win statewide elections. In some states, those women have gravitated toward state-level office. In some states, those women have gravitated toward the U.S. Senate. California, for example, has had zero women governors, but has had four women senators, which is more than any other state. It's also had one woman VP, which is also more than any other state.

Ma and Pa: There is (or, at least, was) a pretty well-established tradition, mostly in the South, of electing a woman to serve as a de facto placeholder for her husband, because the husband was barred from service due to term limits or criminal convictions. Lurleen Wallace was elected in Alabama, for example, as a means of effectively re-electing the term-limited George Wallace. Miriam A. "Ma" Ferguson was elected in Texas because her husband, James E. "Pa" Ferguson was a crook who had been disqualified from officeholding and could not serve in his own name. It was not a secret that Pa would be running the show for Ma; their slogan was "Two governors for the price of one."

Random Chance: There have only been so many gubernatorial elections in U.S. history. If we limit ourselves to the era where women candidates had any chance of winning whatsoever (basically, the last 100 years), then there have been considerably fewer. If we limit ourselves to the era where women candidates had a very real chance of winning (basically, the last 40 years), there have been fewer still. When you are dealing with a relatively small number of elections, you're going to get some anomalous results, in both directions (some states electing more women than might otherwise be expected; some electing fewer).

R.H. in Anchorage, AK, asks: I was going to ask you to provide a list of the top 10 deadliest days in U.S. history. But, then, Google to the rescue. Do you agree with this list and do you have any comments on any of these events? I noticed that three of those days had Civil War connections. Another 3-4 were caused by natural disasters, though the Johnstown Flood definitely had a human element behind it. I was surprised that I had never even heard of three of these events (7, 9, and 10).

(V) & (Z) answer: Here's the list from the link:

September 8, 1900: the Galveston Hurricane (Death toll: 6,000 minimum)

September 17, 1862: Battle of Antietam (Death toll: 3,650, approx.)

April 18, 1906: San Francisco Earthquake (Death toll: 3,000 minimum)

September 11, 2001: 9/11 (Death toll: 2,996)

September 28, 1928: Okeechobee Hurricane (Death toll: 2,500 minimum)

December 7, 1941: The Bombing of Pearl Harbor (Death toll: 2,403)

June 27, 1862: Battle of Gaines' Mill (Death toll: 2,377)

May 31, 1889: Johnstown Flood (Death toll: 2,209)

April 9, 1865: Sultana Disaster (Death toll: approx. 1,700)

October 8, 1871: The Peshtigo Fire (Death toll: at least 1,200)

This is pretty much the standard list, and is as accurate as is possible. As to comments, here are a few:

With the possible exception of 9/11, The numbers are all imprecise, even the ones that appear not to be. Casualty figures for Civil War battles, and for natural disasters, are both "ballpark" numbers. In part, that is because people were not as well documented 100 or 150 years ago. In part, it is because it can be hard to draw the line in terms of who counts, and who doesn't. Is someone who got shot at Gaines' Mill, got sent to a hospital, got dysentery, got sent home to recuperate, and died at home 2 months later, a casualty of the battle? Probably, but they would not be counted as such. And there are plenty of leaner cases that are much tougher calls than this hypothetical.

It's not totally random, because of hurricane season, but it's still remarkable that four of the top five happened in September.

If you ever visit Johnstown, you will learn they are pretty proud of their flood. Odd thing to be proud of, but you go with what you've got, apparently, and that's far and away the most famous event in the town's history.

It's too bad that so few people have heard of the Sultana disaster. Those men died heroes, just like the others who perished in the Civil War.

Such lists do not, and really cannot, include pandemics, because the numbers are just too imprecise. In roughly 9 months in 1918, about 675,000 Americans died of Spanish flu. That's an average of 2,500 a day, which means there MUST have been days that would make the Top 10 here. There are also days during the COVID pandemic that must have qualified for the list. But there's just no way to identify the correct days and their correct casualty figures, because the numbers are so squishy.

R.M. in Norwich, CT, asks: On Wednesday, You wrote that you missed a story over the weekend because you were celebrating Pearl Harbor Day with the staff mathematician. Is "celebrating" the word you really wanted to use there? My first thought was you had a keg and guys were playing cornhole. We celebrated V-E and V-J Day. Wouldn't "remembering" or "memorializing" been a better choice of words?

(V) & (Z) answer: Sure, if we'd had time to put the post aside and revise, we would have chosen "commemorating" rather than "celebrating."

That said, and to be blunt, we don't really understand the purpose of messages like this (and we get a lot of them). That was one of 5,219 words that we published that day, and that we wrote (as we always do) on a tight timeline. Does anyone really think that we are somehow happy that nearly 2,400 Americans died that day? That we think it's funny or something? What is the message or lesson we are expected to take from being called out here? If a reader thinks a correction is warranted, then they can send a message to the corrections e-mail, and we usually accommodate that. But why send in a question like this, one that effectively demands we explain ourselves? Again, we just don't understand what this is supposed to accomplish.

Oh, and by the way, if you celebrate V-J Day, you are necessarily celebrating the fact that, within a week, well over 250,000 Japanese civilians were sent to their deaths by nuclear weapons, thus beating the Japanese populace into submission. That seems an even less appropriate thing to "celebrate" than Pearl Harbor.

J.L. in Paterson, NJ, asks: I guessed wrong—I thought that one of your "demoted" scientists would be Eli Whitney. As to his influence, I've seen the theory that, without his invention of the cotton gin, slavery would have died out without a Civil War. Any comments?

(V) & (Z) answer: We strongly considered him, and he was probably #11 or #12. The reasons he did not make the cut are that: (1) someone had to be outside the top 10, and (2) the South had so much money invested in human capital, it is likely that SOME way of reinvigorating the Southern economy, post-tobacco, would have been found.

R.B. in Cleveland, OH, asks: All the usual nicknames for Trump (drumpf, tfg, cheeto jesus, orange hitler, hamberdgular, the blob that hates everything, etc.) are so first-term. If I started to refer to him as "President Doughface," how accurate would that be, from a historical perspective?

(V) & (Z) answer: Historically, "doughface" meant "Politician from the North who pandered to the South in order to win elections."

Originally, this referred specifically to folks who pandered on the issue of slavery. Since slavery does not exist anymore, that is not possible. However, the New-York-born-and-raised Donald Trump does pretend to be religious in order to pander to Southern evangelicals. He also kowtows to Southern cultural conservatism, in terms of things like trans rights, education policy and critical race theory. So, if there is such a thing as a doughface in the 21st century, Trump is it.

Gallimaufry

J.H. in Boston, MA, drinking a Guinness, asks: You wrote: "Did you know that... Guinness... isn't really in the publishing business anymore?... Their primary source of income is staging world-record attempts."

Did they discontinue the beer?

(V) & (Z) answer: It is true that the book was originally created to generate publicity for the brewer. However, the book was spun off to its own company, then sold to an American business, then re-acquired by the brewer around 40 years ago. Since then, it has changed hands half a dozen times, and there has has long ceased to be any connection between the brewer and the book.

The brewer does have an interesting business conundrum right now, but it's not that people don't buy books anymore. It's that, among the TikTok generation, it's become "a thing" to order a Guinness and to try to drink down to the "G" on the glass/label with the first drink. This has increased demand enough that the brewer is rationing its beer until it can ramp up production.

J.B. in New York City, NY, asks: When are you guys coming to BlueSky?

(V) & (Z) answer: That's one of those things that makes sense, but that there's no pressing reason to switch. So, it tends to stay on the back burner for a long time. Maybe when we do the changeover for 2025.

T.B. in Leon County, FL, asks: How often do you adjust contributions that put double spaces after colons and sentence-ending punctuation? It's hard for me to write without them. (And, frankly, I think the double-space aids reading.) I'm guessing you have an electronic routine that "corrects" these and other common habits of the proletariat. What habits are corrected in this way (and therefore not labored over)?

(V) & (Z) answer: Well, there isn't really anything that we have set up to be automatically corrected. We do what we do, and try to get things as correct as possible, and THEN we run several scripts, one of which looks for programming errors, one of which looks for duplicate words (e.g., we accidentally typed "the the president"), one of which checks for spelling errors, one of which checks for mistakes in people's affiliations (e.g., we accidentally typed "Sen. Bernie Sanders, R-VT"). The scripts aren't perfect, obviously, but they help.

However, the situation you describe actually IS automatically corrected, it's just that it's not by us. HTML, the language used for webpages, treats ALL spaces as one space. So, if you type any of these things:

Don't feed the dachshunds

Don't  feed  the  dachshunds

Don't    feed    the    dachshunds

Don't      feed      the      dachshunds

Don't        feed        the        dachshunds

It will come out like this:

Don't feed the dachshunds

What that means is that we do not "fix" the sort of double spacing you describe. However, we do not actively take steps to preserve it. And that means that it gets "corrected" by virtue of how HTML works.

D.N. in Silver Spring, MD, asks: This is completely frivolous, but I couldn't help myself (well, I could, but I didn't). You wrote: "Staff Dachshunds Otto and Flash are the same breed, and yet are night and day." Which is night and which is day? What pulled one of them toward the dark side?

(V) & (Z) answer: Flash is night. He is obsessed with food, and becomes an evil kingpin when some might be had via some conniving and/or some gymnastics. He has managed to break into closed closets, dog food containers that were screwed shut, backpacks, briefcases, and desk drawers. Despite being maybe 14 inches tall, he once managed to reach a boysenberry pie that was on a table 3½ feet off the ground, pull it down, and eat it all. Another time, when a lower cabinet door in the kitchen was not closed properly, he managed to use the shelves as a sort of ladder, and to reach half a pizza that was nearly 4 feet off the ground. A couple of weeks ago, he figured out there was hardtack in (Z)'s satchel, left over from a lecture on Civil War soldiers' lives. Flash dragged the satchel off the desk, unzipped it, got the plastic Ziploc out of there, chewed the Ziploc open, and ate the hardtack.

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

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