Dem
51
GOP
49
This is a "special edition" Q&A, for lack of a better description. We chose a baker's dozen worth of questions related to the debate. We'll get to some of the other questions asked this week in next Saturday's regularly scheduled Q&A. Also, we had inadvertertently entered the Marquette poll of Wisconsin twice and today remvoved one of them, making the state a tie.
K.G. in Longmont, CO, asks: Think about this possible scenario for a minute. What if a nuclear weapon was launched from Russia or North Korea and it was headed to the U.S. Biden has less then 7 minutes to decide how to respond to a situation like this. For the best outcome to be reached, would you want Biden making a decision of what to do in this type of scenario? If we did not intercept the missile in time it would be a catastrophe no matter who is in office, but for the ones we love I would definitely not want Biden being in charge of the nuclear football in such a predicament.
(V) & (Z) answer: This is undoubtedly in response to the question we posed at the end of yesterday's post: "Now that I have seen Biden's decline, I guess I will have to vote for Trump, because at least Trump ________________________."
We actually considered this exact scenario, and then decided not to write it into our item, because we decided that it's too improbable to justify the extra verbiage. But now that you ask:
- There has never been a nuclear strike against the United States, and that's in 80+ years of "the nuclear age." And such a strike is inconceivable; any country that tried it would be bombed into oblivion by the U.S. and/or by the nation's allies.
- Similarly, no country is going to lob a single bomb at the United States. North Korea would hit South Korea, not the U.S., while Russia would send a massive volley, if an attack on the U.S. was really what they decided to do. In either case, there is no "quick thinking" by the sitting president that will change the outcome of the attack. And if a counterattack is called for, it will, as noted above, take place with or without presidential approval. The United States' nuclear submarines have authority to launch a strike of their own volition.
- If some sort of action IS needed, there is zero chance that the military will stand on ceremony, and say "well, guess we'll let New York be obliterated because the President is unable to respond." Legal or not, they will take matters into their own hands. The nuclear codes are not some sort of secret password, like an ATM pin number. All they are is the proof that the person giving the order (i.e., the president) is who they claim to be. It is entirely possible to launch nuclear weapons without presidential involvement.
- Biden hesitating for a few seconds under the harsh spotlight of the debate stage is far, far removed from "He will freeze completely for 5-20 minutes, unable to process anything whatsoever."
- Does anybody really believe that Trump would be capable of handling this same scenario?
We would suggest two lessons here. First, the question we posed practically begged readers to send in responses. We got a total of two, and they both proposed ultra-extreme long-shot situations. That suggests to us that the point we made was valid, and that what happened Thursday didn't really make a compelling case for switching from one candidate to the other.
The second lesson is that the president is just one big cog in the machine, and the machine can actually function pretty well without him, when needed (see the second terms of Dwight D. Eisenhower, Ronald Reagan, etc.). But while the guardrails that protect against a poorly functioning president have proven to be pretty effective, the last decade has shown that the guardrails that protect against a malignant president are not so effective. So, it seems to us that even if a person decides they are choosing between a vegetable and a fascist, it's still a pretty easy choice.
P.G. in Madrid, Spain, asks: When assessing the Biden performance, you wrote that the real damaging part was the first 15 minutes. I agree... except for the closing statement. I think that even an average closing statement would have limited the damage done in those first 15 minutes. But as it were, the closing statement by Biden reinforced the impression left at the beginning, reminded the viewers of what happened in the first minutes. As likely as not, much blame should go to the prep team. It should not be so difficult to prepare a couple minutes to close the debate. But, either the team or Biden himself did a terrible job in delivering it. Would you agree? What could have happened to reverse the more or less competent Biden of most of the debate to the Biden of the first minutes?
(V) & (Z) answer: We'll give you our two best theories. First, Biden clearly did worse when he was trying to convey pre-scripted talking points than when he was freestyling. The opening portion of the debate and the closing statement were the two most scripted potions. Second, Biden seems to have been feeling the pressure to hit the bullseye. And the two most important parts of the debate, and thus most pressure-filled, are the opening portion and the closing statement.
A.G. in Scranton, PA, asks: Do you use the Socratic method of questioning to analyze news? If so, could you share with us anxious types those questions so we anxious types might run through them whenever things go wrong every other day or so?
(V) & (Z) answer: We wouldn't quite have framed it that way, but we suppose we do. It is definitely a regular occurrence that we say to ourselves: "If [Proposition X] is true, then that would imply [Y]. Does this make sense? Does the evidence support this?"
The presidential debate is a pretty good example of this process in action. We reflected on the debate for 24 hours or so, and it occurred to us to ask the question we note above: ""Now that I have seen Biden's decline, I guess I will have to vote for Trump, because at least Trump ________________________." We struggled to find answers that satisfied that proposition (in other words, it doesn't make sense). And then we looked at what data we could find (the three polls we discussed) and found that the evidence thus far does not support a migration from Biden to Trump.
R.P. in Kāne'ohe, HI, asks: First of all, congratulations on a magnificent post on Saturday ("The Day After")! It's one of the best I've read in the two decades I've been regularly reading this site. You mentioned that the post may trigger some questions, and indeed that is the case here.
You wrote, "Finally, there is only one candidate on the list that would largely not be subject to most of these concerns [regarding liabilities for running for President instead of Joe Biden], and that is Michelle Obama. However, she has said over and over that she despises electoral politics, and that she has no interest in running for president or any other office." I've seen this same sentiment (i.e., that Michelle Obama could plausibly win the Presidency if she wanted to) expressed multiple times, both previously on Electoral-Vote.com and elsewhere. I can think of only two people who I've seen other respectable commentators suggest might have been in a similar situation: Oprah Winfrey (during the heights of her popularity), and General Colin Powell (during the Clinton v. Dole era); both of whom, like Obama, rejected the suggestion.
Winfrey might have just been wishful thinking among the political punditry at the time (although if Trump proved anything, it's that one doesn't need experience in politics to become president if one is a celebrity of sufficient stature). However, both Obama now (for the Democrats) and Powell in the 1990s (for the then-sane-but-already-declining Republicans) seem like good examples.
This prompts two questions: (1) Are there other examples in American presidential politics where a person was so widely-respected by the populace that a run for president had a plausible chance of success, but who resisted the call? and (2) Are the recent examples (e.g., Winfrey, Powell, Obama) actually plausible election-winners? Or are they most-likely examples of some sort of partisan fantasy that, if actually put through the ringer of an election campaign, would most likely have failed the bid (see Clark, Wesley)?(V) & (Z) answer: Your first question is easier. High-ranking generals who win wars are always hot commodities in American politics. It is a near certainty that if William T. Sherman had wanted to follow Ulysses S. Grant as president in 1876, he could have done it. But he steadfastly refused. Similarly, if Dwight D. Eisenhower had not accepted the Republican Party's entreaties in 1952, Douglas MacArthur could probably have been elected president.
Prior to the 20th century, it was somewhat difficult to achieve the necessary level of notoriety to be a national figure unless you were prominent in politics, the military or religion. Pretty much any politician who was a viable president took a shot at it. Pretty much any military figure who was a viable president, outside of Sherman, took a shot at it. And religious figures, like, say, Henry Ward Beecher, would have done well with voters of similar religious persuasions, but would have been crushed by adherents of different religious persuasions.
In the 20th century, there were more paths to celebrity available, and we can think of a few non-politicians who might have made a serious run at the White House. Will Rogers, who was basically his generation's Jon Stewart, is a possibility, but he was apparently not interested, and he died unexpectedly and pretty young. Charles Lindbergh might have been able to do it, but his period of celebrity happened to coincide with the decline of his party (the Republicans) and the rise of the near-unbeatable Franklin D. Roosevelt. We could conceive of Walter Cronkite possibly making a run, but he wasn't interested.
Of the three individuals you name, Obama and Powell would surely have been serious political forces if they ran. They had firsthand experience with playing the game of national politics and they both played it well. Winfrey was and is popular, but plenty of popular people have wilted once they were put under the microscope. So, we have serious doubts about her, especially since her shtick is "nice," and you can't always be nice in politics. Similarly, you did not name this person, but the notion that The Rock could run for president is risible.
R.K. in Indianapolis, IN, asks: Among the mountain of lies that Donald Trump told during the debate, I couldn't help notice the one truth that Trump keeps telling, and that is about accepting the election results. Whenever anybody asks him about accepting the 2024 election results, Trump hems and haws, avoids the question, or adds the "If the election is fair" qualifier that we all understand to mean "If I win." Trump clearly has no qualms with lying about anything and everything under the sun, so why would he not just say that he will accept the election results, full stop, get his good press, prevent people from being scared off voting for him, and just go back on his word if he loses the election?
(V) & (Z) answer: Because one major purpose of Trump's lies is to communicate to his followers what they should believe, and to communicate to his enablers what they should pretend to believe. If he effectively gives permission to these folks to accept the election results, he might not be able to reverse course when he needs to do so.
K.S. in Sun City Center, FL, asks: I have been following you for several years now and truly value your expertise. Concerning President Biden's performance at the debate: He is a consummate politician with decades of experience. He has said he believes "timing" is everything. Is it possible his debate performance was somewhat intentional (maybe getting a little out of hand for him) so as to rally reluctant Democrats and anti-Trump voters out of complacency. In other words, to shake up the race? Sort of to get sympathy for himself believing in the end voters will choose democracy. I know that's farfetched but I'm being hopeful.
(V) & (Z) answer: Sorry, but we think it's very farfetched. Very. To play into your opponent's main line of attack would be somewhere between "insanely bold" and "insane." Politicians are risk averse, on the whole, and just don't take chances like that.
D.D. in Portland, OR, asks: Where's Kamala?
Clearly nothing will make Joe Biden leave the race except for a note from his mortician. Though he had a rally Friday where he appeared his more robust self, I think it's fair to say that if he gets re-elected there's a reasonable chance he will not finish his term. Heck, he has my vote locked up and I can't help but wonder "then what?" Wouldn't this be the ideal time for the VP to do many more rallies, interviews and the like? Give the people confidence that they are voting for leadership and a vision, not just a person.(V) & (Z) answer: On the night of the debate, she was talking to everyone who put a microphone in front of her. Too bad the debate ended after their bedtimes, because the staff of the East Cupcake Middle School Reporter could have had quite a scoop. And since then, Harris has been double duty on the campaign/rally circuit.
However, with only rare exceptions, what the VP does is not national news. So, you are not likely to hear about her doings unless you specifically search them out. It is also the case that her efforts tend to be targeted at groups and communities where the campaign thinks she will do the most good. So, a Black woman of childbearing age is much more likely to hear about and from Harris than a white male Baby Boomer.
D.T. in Columbus, OH, asks: While I don't think it is likely the Democrats will replace Biden as the nominee, let's imagine they did. Who are the current Biden voters that Kamala Harris might lose?
Switching from Biden to Harris might slightly improve enthusiasm for younger generations, women, and Black voters. Are there any demographics you would expect to see significant losses among? Most of the sexist and racist voters are already on team Trump, so presumably Harris wouldn't lose many of Biden's voters there. Isn't this a net gain?
Are there many groups that only Biden is able to reach, who wouldn't line up behind a replacement Democrat candidate?(V) & (Z) answer: Scranton Joe does much better with organized labor than Harris does. Baby Boomer Joe (who isn't actually a Baby Boomer, but close enough) does much, much better with senior-citizen voters than Harris does.
T.B. in Detroit, MI, asks: Is it possible to know which prominent Democratic politicians were most Googled on Thursday morning?
(V) & (Z) answer: Go to Google trends, and poke around there. If you look at the topline searches, you will see that people care way more about soccer than they do about politics, and that the only politician to be in the Top 25 searches in the 24 hours after the debate was Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY), because his wife died.
If you want to know what would-be-president politicians are being searched for, then pick one of them to "explore," and then look at "related topics" at the bottom of the screen. We chose Sen. Amy Klobuchar (DFL-MN), which told us that in addition to a bunch of searches for her, the other potential presidents who got searched for a bunch are, from most to least searched, Gov. Gretchen Whitmer (D-MI), Gov. Gavin Newsom (D-CA), Kamala Harris, Gov. Josh Shapiro (D-PA), Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ), Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Gov. Roy Cooper (D-NC), Gov. Andy Beshear (D-KY), Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg, Gov. J.B. Pritzker (D-IL), Gov. Wes Moore (D-MD) and... Tulsi Gabbard.
A.M. in Bradford, UK, asks: Given the debate performance, do you think Sonia Sotomayor is considering her future career plans right now?
(V) & (Z) answer: We will actually have a longer item about this tomorrow.
M.M. in San Diego, CA, asks: Do you think Joe Biden's very poor debate performance will give a boost to Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s campaign? Will the Democratic vote be split between Biden and RFK Jr. (if he makes it onto most states' ballots) allowing Trump to win with his typical 49% of the vote?
(V) & (Z) answer: In the short term, maybe. In the long term, probably not.
If a person wants to have a voice in the presidential election, they have a choice of two candidates for whom they can vote: Donald Trump or Joe Biden. So, if Biden really and truly lost people who were planning to vote for him, or who were seriously considering him, on Thursday, it is likely that they are now "undecided" or are voting for Trump.
A vote for Kennedy is a protest vote, and nothing more. Anyone convinced that the system is corrupt, or that both candidates are unacceptable, was already in his camp (or those of Jill Stein, Cornel West, etc.).
D.B. in Glen Burnie, MD, asks: If Joe Biden were to withdraw from the race, do you think that Jill Biden might make a good substitute? She could bring all of Joe's positives without the "old man losing it" mantle. A lot of our best leaders have been women who succeeded their husbands (granted, mostly through death) and followed through on the same platform. It would seem to me to be a good way to change horses without changing the saddle and without a lot of Democratic in-fighting.
(V) & (Z) answer: We have not seen that suggestion... anywhere. It's certainly interesting, and she might well be the most viable non-Michelle-Obama alternative out there. We have no basis for judging if she could actually win, other than the fact that the sins of Bill tended to stick to Hillary when she tried a similar trick.
D.E. in Lancaster, PA, asks: With all this talk of Joe Biden stepping aside and releasing his delegates, if that happens will that mean there will be no Democratic presidential nominee on the ballot in Ohio?
(V) & (Z) answer: We don't think so. Ohio HB 2 has not yet been posted to the state legislature's website, so we can't check for sure, but by all indications, the bill just changed the deadline for the Democrats to name a candidate, it did not grant dispensation to Biden by name.