Dem
47
GOP
53
We didn't quite get to post questions and answers yesterday, so... today instead!
Next week, we still plan to do a 100% politics-free Q&A. So this remains a good time to send questions about movies, music, literature, sports, etc., to questions@electoral-vote.com.
R.M.S. in Lebanon, CT, asks: I read your various comments on Elon Musk's involvement in this week's congressional affairs, and I sense you share my discomfort with an unelected foreign billionaire influencing members of Congress and trying to change the government's spending priorities. I think he has been given way too much unearned authority.
However, there is another foreign-born billionaire by the name of George Soros that Republicans have attacked for exerting undue political influence. Soros is a Hungarian-born naturalized citizen of the U.S. who survived the Holocaust and fled communism and has spent billions on strengthening democratic institutions. Republicans have attacked Democrats for at decades for any association with Soros, with the strong implication they have been corrupted by foreign money. Imagine if Joe Biden campaigned with Soros in 2020 and then appointed him as a liaison to Congress to dictate budgeting priorities. I think the Republicans would be in an absolute meltdown for 4 years over that.
Why haven't Democrats made more hay over South African-born Musk involving himself in our government? Is it only OK if Republicans appoint foreign billionaires to influence our decision?(V) & (Z) answer: To start, it is not a secret that very rich people have undue influence in American politics on both sides of the aisle. For every George Soros, there's a Kochtopus. For every Michael Bloomberg there's a Timothy Mellon.
Second, the critical subtext to the George Soros complaints is not only that he's rich, and foreign-born, but he's also a Jew. It's one of the longest-running dog whistles in American politics.
Third, most of the billionaire class at least has the decency to remain lurking in the shadows, so that their fingerprints are not quite so obvious. Musk, by contrast, is like a bull in a china shop. Subtlety is a concept that is completely lost on him. And if he continues on this course, the Democrats absolutely will weaponize him.
J.L. in Los Angeles, CA, asks: Obviously, Elon Musk is not the first individual to have wealth/power while simultaneously being mentally unstable. The madness both Caligula of Rome and King George III of England come quickly to mind. But Elon Musk isn't a ruler (yet!). He's just a very rich and influential developer of cutting edge technologies. And then I thought of Howard Hughes. Is there any insight that looking at the life and career of Hughes can provide us, even obliquely, about Musk?
(V) & (Z) answer: The three men you name all suffered from severe mental illness, to the extent that if they were alive today, and were not ultra-wealthy, they would be institutionalized.
Musk clearly has some sort of dysfunction, but it's not to THAT level. The closest parallel we can come up with is not Hughes—who was somewhat apolitical, loans to Richard Nixon's family notwithstanding—it's Joseph Kennedy. He was a bigot and a megalomaniac, and he eventually ran his mouth one too many times. This led Franklin D. Roosevelt to fire Kennedy as the U.S. Ambassador to the U.K., and to basically bench Kennedy.
Although he knew he'd been permanently sent to his room without supper, Kennedy did not lash out at FDR, and continued to work for the Democratic Party, helping maintain ties to the Irish-American community. Did Kennedy do this because he was willing to honor the niceties of politics? Because he hoped to make a comeback? Because he had aspirations for his kids, and did not want to derail them? All of the above? All we know is that if and when Musk gets smacked down, we do not expect him to go gentle into that good night.
T.C. in Danby, NY, asks: I guess I've been a little slow on the uptake here. I'd thought that Donald Trump was enamored of elon Musk mostly because Musk has what Trump wants: to be known as really, really rich.
This morning, it hit me: Musk has so much money that he could singlehandedly pay for the election campaign of EVERY politician in the country and have enough left over to send them on vacation anywhere for however long they want... and that's just out of the interest on the value of his fortune.
It's so obvious that it can't be true. Please, say it ain't so. What is his appeal?(V) & (Z) answer: His appeal is his money. When Musk climbed on board the S.S. Trump, the Trump campaign was broke. Trump needed someone to underwrite a bunch of expenses, and Musk was willing and able to do that. It is increasingly looking like a Faustian bargain, however.
S.K. in Sunnyvale, CA, asks: With the chatter about making Elon Musk Speaker of the House, my latest irrational fear is: as a naturalized (as opposed to natural-born) citizen, Elon Musk cannot become president under the constitution, and it's implausible to amend the constitution to lift that requirement. But what if Congress passed a bill that declared him, in Orwellian fashion, to be a natural-born citizen? Please tell me this scenario can't happen...
(V) & (Z) answer: It can't happen. In that case, Congress would be ignoring both the Constitution and Supreme Court precedent. Congress is not allowed to do that, and is not going to try. They understand full well that if they do anything that treats the Constitution as optional or advisory, then they are ultimately undercutting their own power.
M.S. in Westport, CT, asks: If you had a few hundred billion dollars to throw around, what would be your strategy to elevate Co-President Musk to President Musk? Would the sane among us have to escape to Mars to avoid the consequences?
(V) & (Z) answer: This is not going to happen.
That said, just for thought-exercise purposes, here is the most plausible approach: For Musk to become president, the Constitution would have to be amended to remove the requirement that presidents be natural-born citizens. Musk is very unpopular with much of the American public, so a campaign to change the Constitution, for his benefit, isn't going to fly. It would be necessary to find someone else, and make them the focal point of such a campaign. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who is popular with both Republicans and Democrats, would have been the obvious choice 10 years ago, but at 77 years of age, he's probably too old now. Maybe... Drake? It's hard to think of someone who is especially plausible.
In any event, once a plausible "Face" of the campaign was identified, then it would be time for a massive media blitz, and a massive lobbying campaign, in support of a constitutional amendment, so that "the people" has "the option" to vote for President Drake, or President Schwarzenegger, or whomever.
Even once the hypothetical Twenty-Eighth Amendment was approved, we don't think Musk is electable. So, upon becoming eligible to be in the line of succession, he'd have to get himself appointed as VP, and then succeed to the presidency when Donald Trump resigned/died/was removed.
Again, none of this is remotely within the realm of possibility.
J.H. in Flint, MI, asks: There are rumors of a challenge to Mike Johnson's (R-LA) speakership. If the House fails to select a Speaker on January 3, and the fight drags on, what effect (if any) would the lack of a speaker have on the certification of the Electoral College results on January 6?
(V) & (Z) answer: To start, the new Electoral Count Act says that the certification process must go forward on January 6, unless both chambers agree to a postponement. Since the House would not be operational, it would not be able to vote for a postponement. So, January 6 it would be.
At that point, there are two possibilities, and there's no way to know which it would be until it happens. The first possibility is that the House decides that it's allowed to certify presidential results, even if it has no Speaker. The whole "we can't do anything until a Speaker is chosen" isn't in the Constitution, and is just a byproduct of tradition and House rules. It is possible to adjust both tradition and the rules.
Alternatively, the certification might proceed, but only with members of the House who are returning (and thus have already been sworn in), or only with members of the Senate (on the theory that all 435 House seats are vacant until the members are formally seated).
R.C. in Des Moines, IA, asks: Can the Speaker of the House be the same person as the President of the United States?
(V) & (Z) answer: No. Article I, Sec. 6 of the Constitution says:
No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time; and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office.In other words, a person can't be a member of multiple branches of the federal government at the same time. The only exception to this is the vice president, who is a member of both the executive branch (as VP) and the legislative branch (as the president of the Senate).
P.H. in Davis, CA, asks: If Donald Trump and J.D. Vance were to both somehow die before January 20th, who would be inaugurated on that day? Would it be second-in-line Speaker Mike Johnson? Would he then serve a 4-year term? I don't believe there is any provision for a new election.
(V) & (Z) answer: The Twenty-Fifth Amendment makes clear that if the Speaker (or anyone else in the line of succession, except the VP) is elevated to the presidency, then that person is only the acting president, and they only keep the job until someone qualifies as VP. The moment Congress approved a new VP, nominated by the acting president, then that new VP would become president.
Meanwhile, by virtue of Article I, Sec. 6 (see above), Johnson would have to resign his seat in the House to act as acting president. So, once his acting presidency was over, he would be out of a job. He could go back to being speaker, if the members of the House so choose. But to go back to being a representative, he'd have to be reelected to his seat.
B.C. in Selinsgrove, PA, asks: These nuisance lawsuits against Ann Selzer, etc., by Trump have really incensed me. It seems like, if it's a rule or policy that a sitting president can't be indicted, then a fair tradeoff should be that they are also not allowed to bring lawsuits against American civilians or companies while in office. It's just too much individual power, especially with the new bogus SCOTUS immunity ruling. What would it take to implement such a rule or law?
(V) & (Z) answer: Keep in mind that it is still possible to bring civil suits against Trump, even while he's the sitting president. So, depriving him (or any other president) of the right to pursue redress would be both unfair and unconstitutional. It would also be open season in terms of committing civil offenses against him, if those offenses have a statute of limitations that is less than the amount of time remaining in Trump's term.
This is so obviously not OK, on so many levels, that any legislation that tried to do it would not withstand court scrutiny. So, the only way to implement such a law—which, again, would be a very bad idea—would be a constitutional amendment. That's the only thing the courts can't strike down.
B.T. in Kansas City, MO, asks: In a couple of news items recently, you've brought up political capital and how it's not infinite. But I have to wonder: Is that still the case in the age of Trump? It certainly seems like Trump doesn't need it and just bullies and harasses anyone into getting his way rather than making compromises. Does political capital still exist in the current Republican Party?
(V) & (Z) answer: Yes, it does. Political capital is just a fancy way of describing the ability to influence people. Most presidents operate quietly and behind the scenes, so it's less obvious when they are spending their political capital. Trump operates loudly, and in full view, so it's more obvious.
But there are clearly limits on what Trump can achieve. He had a bunch of nominees fail last time. He will have another bunch fail this time. He achieved very little of his legislative agenda last time, most obviously failing to build "the wall." Most of what he did "achieve" had nothing to do with him, and was either a product of being in the right place at the right time (e.g., Supreme Court appointments) or going along for the ride as others got things done (e.g., tax cuts). He's not even president again yet, and he's already failing to bend his fellow Republicans to his will (e.g. the debt ceiling, "Senator" Lara Trump).
K.E. in Newport, RI, asks: I believe Donald Trump will begin carrying out mass deportations of illegal immigrants as soon as he takes office. He doesn't need any new laws to do this; he can simply do it through executive orders. It has long been a major priority for Trumpers.
However, what he will need are new funds and employees. Deporting at a rate of 1 million people per year would cost about $88 billion per year, for a total of $968 billion over a decade. By comparison, the entire annual budget for the Department of Justice is only about $40 billion.
To carry out the deportations will require a massive expansion of government personnel and resources. This plan contradicts one of the traditional principles of American conservatism: shrinking the government. What happened to the idea of small-government conservativism and why have Republicans turned against it?(V) & (Z) answer: The last Republican president who actually believed in small government was Herbert Hoover. Then, from 1933-45, Franklin D. Roosevelt rewrote the rules, and the U.S. (presumably permanently) entered the era of big government.
And so, ever since World War II, when Republicans talked about "small government," they did not really mean "small government." They meant "cut spending on social welfare, and other such programs favored by Democrats." The Republicans of the last 75 years have been perfectly happy to invest vast amounts of money and resources in the parts of the government that Republicans like, most obviously the military, the border patrol and farm subsidies..
K.B. in Manhattan, NY, asks: From NBC News: "[Sen.-elect Dave] McCormick told NBC News in July that Pennsylvanians 'can count on' him to be his 'own person' in Congress."
His "Day One Promises" and campaign messages seem to represent generic Republican talking points and he seemed to barely mention Trump or MAGA through the election. He also didn't seem to run on any issues of personal importance. It is unclear to me why he wanted to be a senator.
Based on your assessment of him and his campaign, what are some potential models for his voting behavior in the senate? Could he team up with Sen. John Fetterman (D-PA) as "Pennsylvania mavericks"?(V) & (Z) answer: As far as we can tell, McCormick and Fetterman don't have much in common on policy, besides being pro-fracking and pro-Israel.
The obvious model, until we are given evidence to the contrary, is Sen. Mitt Romney (R-UT). Talk like the leader of the anti-MAGA faction, and buck the party line on occasion, but fall in line most of the time. Romney is just weeks from the end of his 6-year term, and we STILL don't know why he ran for that office.
In any event, keep in mind that in purple Pennsylvania, McCormick needs the MAGA vote, so he can't be too much a rebel.
B.D. in Flagstaff, AZ, asks: I noticed that Barack Obama isn't a choice in your possible Democratic candidates poll for the presidency in 2024. You also seem to allow now that the chances for a third Trump presidency are greater than zero at this point. Don't you think Barack could be convinced to storm back into politics if SCOTUS allows Trump to run for a third term? I would have voted for him in as a possibility in this poll.
(V) & (Z) answer: We did not include him because we want no part in normalizing the idea that term limits don't matter, and can be set aside.
We also think Obama has done his time, and is not interested in serving again.
M.H. in Council Grove, KS, asks: If Donald Trump had lost to Hillary Clinton in 2016, do you think he would've run again in 2020?
(V) & (Z) answer: If we had to bet, we would say the answer is "yes." Winning or losing aside, he loves the rallies, and he loves the moneymaking opportunities that come from being a presidential candidate.
A.S. in Black Mountain, NC, asks: If Judge Juan Merchan decides to postpone sentencing until Donald Trump is no longer in office and then dies in the interim, what happens?
(V) & (Z) answer: Another judge would be assigned to the case. If the death of the judge was somehow a way to escape sentencing for a criminal conviction, that would be... um... very bad for the health of judges.
N.M.D. in Duluth, MN, asks: My understanding is that to accept a pardon is to admit guilt. Doesn't this complicate the issue of Joe Biden providing blanket pardons to the 1/6 Committee? Would the committee members be considered 'guilty' of what Trump accuses them of—if they accept a pardon?
(V) & (Z) answer: Far and away the most important Supreme Court case when it comes to the pardon power is Burdick v. United States (1915), which considered the question of whether or not a pardon must be accepted. The Court decided that a pardon can be declined and, as part of the decision, included an offhand remark that a person might not want to accept a pardon, for fear that doing so "carries an imputation of guilt."
Some lawyers and legal scholars think that's enough to say that SCOTUS found that accepting a pardon means accepting guilt. Many lawyers and legal scholars disagree. What this means is that nobody knows for sure, and won't know until the Supreme Court considers the question and issues a clearer ruling.
E.W. in Skaneateles, NY, asks: I seem to remember from The Trump Years (Season 1) that presidential pardons can be issued and kept under wraps until they are needed, but I might be misremembering that. Could Joe Biden secretly pardon a large number of people thought to be in Trump's crosshairs (cross weaves?) and then those folks can use them if they get indicted on Trumped-up charges in Season 2? That way, it only looks bad if they have to respond to something ridiculous. Are there any downsides to secret pardons, if they are allowed?
(V) & (Z) answer: For the second question in a row, the answer is: Nobody knows. There is no jurisprudence on secret pardons, because nobody's tried it.
However, the general consensus is that secret pardons would not pass muster, if tested in court. There are at least two, rather substantial, logistical problems. The first is that if the pardon was issued in secret, and thus was not announced that the time it was issued, it would be impossible to prove that it was issued while the issuing president was actually in office, and was actually endowed with the pardon power. The second is that if someone had a secret pardon in their pocket, they could make a real mess of the legal system. Imagine a person was charged with [Crime X], which they had secretly been pardoned for. They could go through all or part of the trial, see the evidence against them, and then drop the pardon only when necessary (say, after verdict).
M.B. in Montreal, QC, Canada, asks: A question for (Z): I am currently reading These Truths: A History of the United States by Jill Lepore. It is probably too soon for you to have read it, but can I ask: What is your opinion of her works in general?
(V) & (Z) answer: (Z) has only read one book by Lepore, namely The Name of War: King Philip's War and the Origins of American Identity, and did not care for it. While her appointment is in American history, her degree is actually in American studies. And American studies is about halfway between "American history" and "American literature." So, Lepore's use of evidence could be described as more... poetic than would be typical for a historian. Or you could also say more squishy. (Z) also felt that Lepore's argument, whether she recognized it or not, was just a warmed-over version of Frederick Jackson Turner's "Frontier Thesis," which is 130 years old and has been roundly rejected by the profession.
(Z) is not inherently opposed to "squishy" books, but tends to prefer the works of someone like Sarah Vowell, who makes very clear that she is a storyteller, first and foremost.
A.G. in Scranton, PA, asks: In the history of political power-sharing relationships (what I define the Trump-Musk relationship as), has there ever been an example of two men who assume themselves to be "the brains of the outfit" working well together and that relationship lasting through to a satisfactory-for-all-involved conclusion?
(V) & (Z) answer: There are two basic models here. The first is what might be called the Lincoln-Seward model. William Seward was somewhat stunned to lose the Republican nomination in 1860, and accepted appointment as Secretary of State, assuming that he would be the power behind the throne, since the yokel from Illinois surely did not understand the art of governance.
As it turns out, the yokel from Illinois understood the art of governance quite well, thank you very much, and soon disabused Seward of any notions to the contrary. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, speaking through Sherlock Holmes, once wrote: "Mediocrity knows nothing higher than itself; but talent instantly recognizes genius." To his credit, Seward had talent, and he quickly recognized genius. And so, he and Lincoln settled into a very effective working relationship, but one where it was clear who was the big dog and who was not.
The second model might be called the Bush-Cheney model. Dick Cheney came to the Bush-Cheney ticket with more experience in government, with a broader network of connections in the Republican Party, with a more fully defined political philosophy, and, by all indications, more brainpower. Cheney intended to run the Bush White House and, for several years, basically did.
Eventually, Bush grew somewhat weary of Cheney. Part of that was specific misdeeds on Cheney's part, like the Valerie Plame affair. Part of it was Cheney's presumption, and his getting too big for his britches. So eventually, Bush asserted himself, and Cheney spent most of the second Bush term as someone who was basically an outsider.
There is no chance that Trump-Musk ends up as another Lincoln-Seward. There is an excellent chance that Trump-Musk ends up as another Bush-Cheney. And the breakdown is likely to happen much faster than it happened with George and Dick.
F.S. in Cologne, Germany, asks: You wrote: "Assassins (and, for that matter, serial killers) are known by three names, in the media, so as to protect people with the same name." But why are Giuseppe Zangara, Leon Czolgosz, Mark Chapman and John Hinckley known by only two names and not by three (at least I'm not aware of their third name)?
(V) & (Z) answer: It's a general rule, not a universal one, of course.
Among your examples, Giuseppe Zangara didn't have a middle name, Mark David Chapman most certainly is known by three names, and John W. Hinckley Jr. tends to be known by... well, more than two names.
That said, the middle name is much less likely to be used if the person's name is unusual, such that there is little risk of harm to other bearers of that name. Hence, "Luigi Mangione" instead of "Luigi Nicholas Mangione," "Adam Lanza" instead of "Adam Peter Lanza" and "Jeffrey Dahmer" instead of "Jeffrey Lionel Dahmer."
It is also the case that the news media tend to get this information from court documents. Sometimes, the authorities don't know the middle name early in the process, which means the news media don't know it, either, and so the non-middle-name version ends up being the one that gets circulated and becomes established.
M.Z. in Plano, TX, asks: I remember seeing multiple items about scholars' polls where Donald Trump was ranked as the worst president in U.S. history. My question is, what criteria do historians use, and do they have a liberal bias? I ask because apparently 77 million people in the U.S. did not consider him to be such and voted for him.
(V) & (Z) answer: Some scholars' polls try to impose a pretty detailed rubric on the rankings, asking scholars to consider 10 or 15 or 20 different dimensions of presidential leadership. Some polls have a much less detailed rubric, asking scholars to consider three or four or five dimensions of presidential leadership. Some polls leave it to the scholars to develop their own rubric.
To give an example, (Z) knows someone who participated in the most recent major poll of scholars, in which participants were told to use whatever standards they thought best. And this person rated every president in six categories: legislative accomplishments, foreign affairs, military affairs, economy, inspiration/leadership and management of the executive branch. So, if a president was the best in all 6, they would score a 6 (6 times 1). And if a president was the worst in all 6, they would score a 258 (6 times 43, since most rankings don't include the two less-than-one-year presidents).
Anyhow, most of these dimensions of presidential leadership really aren't partisan. It doesn't matter if you are a Democrat, a Republican or an independent—it's clear that Franklin D. Roosevelt won World War II, that the economy was booming during the Dwight D. Eisenhower years, that John F. Kennedy scored a major diplomatic coup when he navigated the Cuban Missile Crisis, and that Ronald Reagan was really good at speeches and soundbites. Just to make sure, though, a survey back in 2024 broke down the numbers by "conservative scholars" and "liberal scholars." The liberals rated Trump the worst president in U.S. history. The conservatives rated him... third-worst. So, the low scholarly opinion of him isn't just liberal bias.
Oh, and the things that scholars care about, and the things that voters care about, are often very different things. Also, and we'll try to put this delicately, one of those groups tends to be considerably better informed than the other.