Mar.23
electoral-vote.com
https://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2024/Info/banners.html
Dem 51
image description
   
GOP 49
image description

Saturday Q&A

We got a lot of questions about Donald Trump's financial situation. Guess we were not wrong to write four or five items on that subject this week.

And if you are still working on yesterday's headline theme, we'll tell you that "the good, the bad and the ugly" was just a distractor, and that the important part of that headline isn't any of those words.

Finally, we are trying to write a piece about Donald Trump's billion-dollar merger, but we just can't make sense of the numbers. If any readers understand this sort of high-level finance, and would be willing to answer a few questions for us, please let us know at comments@electoral-vote.com.

Current Events

R.W. in Brooklyn, NY, asks: You've written about Letitia James filing judgments against Trump in New York and Westchester Counties, and the possibility of her doing the same in Chicago, Florida, and New Jersey. I'm wondering whether AG James would be able to seize any of Trump's foreign real estate (like his beloved Scottish golf course) and, if so, what the procedure would be. I suppose a preliminary question would be whether he actually owns any foreign real estate or has just licensed his name.

(V) & (Z) answer: Trump's business empire is notoriously opaque, and so it's not entirely clear what foreign assets he owns. Most "Trump" properties abroad appear to be licensing his name, rather than being owned by him.

That said, the one thing he definitely owns are two golf courses in Scotland (Trump Aberdeen and Trump Turnberry). And federal law, specifically 28 U.S. Code 1355, says that foreign assets may be seized in order to satisfy a judgment.

If James goes after the Scottish (or any other foreign) property, it won't be easy. The golf courses in Scotland are held by a trust registered in Florida. So, the AG would have to file in that state first. Then, once the courts signed off, she'd have to ask the federal government to work with Scottish authorities to enforce the judgment. Going after the domestic properties will be much easier, so James will undoubtedly prioritize those. That said, the Scottish holdings are reportedly among the only properties Trump does not have a mortgage upon. So, James might ultimately be forced to go after them, in order to get to the $500 million total she needs.


E.W. in Skaneateles, NY, asks: Does Trump's lack of success in obtaining one or more surety bonds for the full amount to appeal his fraud judgment suggest that the surety bond market, as a whole, simply thinks he's committed fraud and is liable for the actual amount? That is, can we safely assume that the players in the appellate bond market believe that his appeal will fail and that he'll somehow avoid paying them? I would assume that the State of New York will have a far easier time collecting any judgments against Trump than a surety bond company, but I'm no lawyer, nor do I play one on TV.

(V) & (Z) answer: The bonding companies are basically looking at two things: (1) the (somewhat) objective question of what the proposed collateral is worth, and (2) the (somewhat) subjective question of how likely the borrower is to actually satisfy their obligations. We don't know for certain, obviously, but we suspect that every company that has talked to Trump has decided that he's the worst credit risk possible and that he's certainly going to lose on appeal. So, all they are really concerning themselves with is question #1: How good is his collateral? Clearly, good enough for a $100 million bond (E. Jean Carroll) but not good enough for a $500 million bond (state of New York).


D.E. in Lancaster, PA, asks: Don't hate me but I have yet another Trump bail money question. Could Letitia James go after Trump's campaign funds or PAC monies? It's the part of his business that has the most liquidity. If she can, would she or should she? If she did, then he would scream "election interference;" but he's going to do that if she just scoops up the loose change in the back seat of his limo.

I know campaign funds are supposed to be separate from a candidate's business but Trump has obliterated those lines by using campaign funds to pay his personnel lawyers. I think James could easily prove that Trump is siphoning off those funds.

(V) & (Z) answer: She most certainly cannot go after any of these funds. Trump may use his PAC and/or his campaign accounts like they are his personal piggy bank but, in the end, they are not his assets and are not in her reach. Indeed, the fact that most of Trump's properties are actually owned by the Trump Organization or by some other S-Corp, and not by him personally, is also going to complicate things for her.


P.C. in Grayslake, IL, asks: In the New York case, does Melania Trump have any say In protection of assets that may be included in an prenup or that may be listed in a trust for heirs?

(V) & (Z) answer: Not in the sense that (we think) you mean. She can't say, "Wait. You can only sell [X]% of Trump Tower, because I am entitled to [Y] money."

That said, if Donald Trump puts money in an irrevocable trust where Melania and/or Barron are the beneficiaries, the state of New York (largely) could not go after those assets (unless the transfer was an obvious attempt to dodge judgment). Although there's no proof, there is much scuttlebutt that Melania, who knows how to take care of herself, has a trust that receives monthly payments from her husband.


J.H.C.V. in West End, NC, asks: Back in 2016 primary, Donald Trump, touting his wealth declared that he could self-fund his campaign. Clearly, he does not have that kind of wealth. That said, many of his followers seem to think he is a financial genius; to what extent are they right?

(V) & (Z) answer: Trump has made a couple of very smart investments in his life; most obviously, the construction of Trump Tower was a big winner for him. That said, his grandfather was a New York real estate investor who handed off the business to Donald's parents, who handed the business off to Donald. And, as chance would have it, the former president inherited his parents' wealth just before a big upturn in the New York City real estate market. So, his big win with Trump Tower appears to be less about business savvy and more about momentum, both in his following in his forebears' footsteps and in the dynamics of the NYC real estate market.

Trump did do a heck of a job of making himself into a "brand," first with his shrewd use of local and national media (especially the New York Daily News and The Howard Stern Show) and later with his reality show The Apprentice.


K.B. in Manhattan, NY, asks: Responding to Joe Biden's comment on Trump's "bloodbath" remark, Trump campaign spokesmen and noted film critic Steven Cheung claimed the Biden campaign was "engaging in deceptively, out-of-context editing that puts Roman Polanski to shame."

What does he reference Roman Polanski? I haven't seen any commentary on this.

(V) & (Z) answer: First, Cheung is not the brightest bulb. If he was, Donald Trump would feel threatened, and Cheung would not have been in the former president's employ for so long.

(Z) knows a fair bit about film history, and even teaches a class in the subject. And his guess is that Cheung just chose a filmmaker who is known as an auteur. It could just as easily have been Martin Scorsese, Quentin Tarantino, Steven Spielberg, James Cameron, Greta Gerwig or dozens of others. If Cheung actually knew film history, he would know that the guy who's notorious for aggressive (and sometimes misleading) editing is Michael Bay. Also well-suited to Cheung's purposes: Michael Moore.

It is at least possible that Cheung specifically chose Polanski because Polanski is a convicted statutory rapist, and Republicans are obsessed with the notion that Joe Biden is a pedophile. However, we have a somewhat hard time accepting that Cheung would make that connection in his head, and an even harder time accepting that he would believe others would make the connection.


A.M. in Bradford, England, UK, asks: Given Mike Pence's apparent irrelevance this week when it comes to a former VP not endorsing the President he served with, it got me to thinking: I certainly don't want to wish death upon anyone, but if the "hang Mike Pence" crowd had somehow managed to accomplish their goal, how do you think the last few years would have gone? Would the mob have immediate buyer's remorse, putting an end to the MAGA movement or do you think we'd still end up where we are now (a Mike Pence story having barely moved the needle)?

(V) & (Z) answer: We recall how angry many Republicans (including Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell, R-KY, and soon-to-be-speaker Kevin McCarthy, R-CA) were after 1/6. Donald Trump managed to hand-wave that away, largely thanks to his and his media allies' muddying the waters ("It was a peaceful demonstration! They were just tourists!").

Maybe that hand waving would still have worked if Pence had been executed, but we doubt it. A dead VP (and pictures of same) would be very, very difficult to overcome. And that, we think, would have given the non-MAGA Republicans enough fortitude to hold on to their spines and actually stand up to Trumpism, as opposed to once again bowing down by the end of January 2021.


O.Z.H. in Dubai, UAE, asks: Russia and China on Friday vetoed a U.S. resolution at the United Nations Security Council that called for "an immediate and sustained cease-fire" as part of a deal in Gaza.

Can you please explain to me what on earth is going on? I know you're not foreign-policy experts, but why would Russia and China do this? Anger is mounting all over the world and now it just seems like the Gazans have become a totally expendable pawn in a great power struggle. That is not surprising—it's just that I don't understand Russia and China's motivation in this regard.

(V) & (Z) answer: The Russians and the Chinese say that the language of the document was weaselly, and written in such a way that the U.S. could claim it had called for a cease-fire, but without actually compelling Israel to abide by it. Given that Joe Biden is trying to do some pretty aggressive juggling here, this strikes us as very plausible.

It is also possible, however, that Russia and China don't want a cease-fire because the violence in the Middle East, and the resulting political turmoil in the United States, serve their geopolitical purposes.


K.E. in Newport, RI, asks: The Biden impeachment inquiry began back in September, under the speakership of Kevin McCarthy. It is already 6 months long but the inquiry has still not released a written report, nor have they held a vote on whether Biden will be impeached. Do you think they are purposely stretching out the length of the inquiry until Election Day to hurt Biden's electability? If so, could the courts intervene?

(V) & (Z) answer: The inquiry has been stretched out because the Republicans don't have enough votes to move forward, but they are also unwilling to push the "eject" button. So, they are stuck in limbo. We don't think "We've been working for 18 months to impeach Biden" is a great campaign plank, since it underscores the GOP's failures here. Even people who don't follow politics closely know it only took a couple of weeks to impeach Donald Trump.


J.S. in Hightstown, NJ, asks: It's been over a month since Alejandro Mayorkas was impeached. When is the Senate trial going to take place?

(V) & (Z) answer: The clock does not start in the Senate until House Republicans deliver the articles of impeachment. Somehow, some way, Mike Johnson has not found the 3 minutes it takes to walk over to the office of Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY). Johnson's explanation is that he was waiting for the budget situation to be resolved. If so, it is now (see above). However, the House is about to go on a 2-week break, so if Johnson is telling the truth, he will presumably deliver the articles of impeachment on Monday, April 8. We'll see if that actually happens.


Y.H. in Toronto, ON, Canada, asks: I'm a daily reader of your site. It's my morning ritual to read it during breakfast. I'm also a follower of the news, and so consider myself "in-the-know." Yet, I'm struggling to understand the IVF issue. There must be some part of it that I'm simply not getting. Abortion has been an issue for my entire 50-year existence, and the views on each side are clear(ish). Now, only in the past month, since the Alabama Supreme Court's ruling, IVF has become an issue and I can't wrap my head around what is going on. Why Republicans are against IVF and Democrats need to protect it. Are Republicans against people trying to have children? I'm clearly ignorant of some aspect of this issue. What is it that I'm missing? Why is IVF treatment in danger?

(V) & (Z) answer: Republicans are not against IVF, per se. However, the Alabama Supreme Court decided that, at least in one way, IVF embryos are human beings. This is entirely consistent with the evangelical "birth begins at conception" point of view, and Alabama Chief Justice Tom Parker made very clear in his ruling that he was being guided by what Jesus wants.

Although the decision was narrow (it said that parents who lose embryos due to clinics' mistakes can sue under a law that covers harm done to living children), it nonetheless raised a lot of troublesome questions. For example, the decision at least implies that getting rid of unused embryos would count as murder. It very strongly implies that a clinic employee who, say, dropped a tray with some embryos on it would be guilty of manslaughter. As long as these ambiguities existed, it was just too risky for IVF clinics in Alabama to keep operating, and most of them shut down until they were protected by a bill passed by the Alabama legislature.

In sum, then, Republicans want IVF to be legal but many of them also want it to be the case that birth begins at conception 100% of the time. As a practical matter, given the kinds of issues raised in the previous paragraph, these positions are mutually exclusive. And the Alabama decision suggested other developments that might come down the pike, including other (red) states deciding that embryos are people, or making some other such decision, like "taking mifepristone is murder."

Politics

C.F. in Waltham, MA, asks: Donald Trump has moved into authoritarian dictator mode by threatening consequences if he loses. Since he is a bully who has gotten everyone to do what he wants, using fear and threats (see Republican Senators and House members), he is clearly attempting the same playbook on the general voting population. I expect it will get worse. The question is, will independents be too scared of a "civil war" to vote for Biden? Could his winning strategy so far work to get him the presidency, even though we vote with secret ballots?

(V) & (Z) answer: We doubt it, for three reasons. First, everyone knows Trump is a paper tiger. He can intimidate Republican officeholders because he can deprive them of votes and cause them to lose elections. But he doesn't actually have the balls to act on his violent threats. Note that when the 1/6 insurrection commenced, for example, he had already returned to the White House and was safely ensconced in the Oval Office.

Second, it is hard to imagine voters saying to themselves: "I'm concerned about the damage Trump might do in the days or weeks after losing the election, so better to just give him the powers of the presidency for 4 years. He won't do any harm that way!"

Third, when people feel bullied, and they have a chance to push back, they usually do. The secret ballot is more likely to allow voters to punish Trump for his bad behavior rather than to cause them to kowtow to him.


K.B. in Madison, WI, asks: Sarah Longwell, of the Bulwark, has recently talked about the importance of former Trump officials speaking up about his gross incompetence, in hopes their words will have an impact on independent voters. This got me thinking: Who do you feel are the most influential voices with independent voters when it comes to speaking out against Donald Trump? To clarify, I'm speaking in the broader context of Americans as a whole (i.e., not just former Trump officials). I'd enjoy seeing a top ten list that ranks individuals who you feel can effectively sound the alarm on why Trump cannot return to office.

(V) & (Z) answer: Keep in mind that a lot of the people in a position to warn the American people have already done so. Mike Pence, for example, or former Chiefs of Staff Mick Mulvaney and John F. Kelly.

In any case, we don't think we can give you a top ten list, per se, because the rankings would be somewhat arbitrary. What we can do is give you a ranking of various types of people, in roughly the order that they would be able to undermine Trump. So:

  1. The Family: The obvious candidates here are Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump, who were Trump White House insiders. If Melania or one of the Trump sons were to come out and say, "We love Donald, but we cannot stand by without warning the American people that he's declined badly in terms of his cognitive abilities," that would be pretty bad for him, too.

  2. Trump Allies in Congress: If Reps. Marjorie Taylor Greene or Matt Gaetz (R-FL) or Jim Jordan (R-OH) were to turn against Trump, that would get some attention. However, it would have to be the fanatics. Nobody would much care if chameleons like Sens. Lindsay Graham (R-SC) or Ted Cruz (R-TX) suddenly "discovered" they don't like Trump.

  3. Trump Co-Conspirators: If the people who worked with Trump to commit crimes were to go public, admit what they did, and decree loudly that the former president knew exactly what was going on, that would hurt him some. It would have to be an inner-circle crook, though, like Rudy Giuliani or John Eastman.

  4. Trump White House Staffers: As we note above, many of the people who worked in the Trump White House have already spoken out against him. But Secretary of the Treasury Steven Mnuchin hasn't. Nor has HUD Secretary Ben Carson.,

  5. Non-White House Staffers: We're thinking Ronna Romney McDaniel here; she worked closely with Trump for many years.

  6. Trump Media Pawns: There aren't too many people, even in the right-wing media, who haven't expressed concerns about Trump in one way or another. However, Sean Hannity has stayed on board for the whole ride, so a flip from him would be a pretty big deal.

The bottom line is that it has to be people who have previously demonstrated strong loyalty to Trump, and so cannot be dismissed easily when and if they turn. People like George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Condoleezza Rice and Karl Rove could denounce Trump (and most of them have), but they'll be ignored as RINOs, deep staters, etc.

We will also note that if people like Pence and Kelly really and truly believe Trump is a threat, they should be out there saying it, over and over, and telling people the only alternative is to vote for Joe Biden. Instead, what they have mostly done is mumble their opposition, and then say they will be voting third-party. That's not a terribly courageous stand, and one wonders if these folks are being constrained by some odd sense of decorum, or fear they will be targets for violence, or something else.


F.F. in London, England, UK, asks: Thanks for the piece on predictive value of the polls.

Is it fair to say you're looking at the head to head polls and not the approval/disapproval ratings? Because when I look at those polls on FiveThirtyEight, Joe Biden's disapproval rating is the highest of any president since they've had the polls. His approval rating is worse than anyone except Harry S. Truman, and he's within 1.5% of George H.W. Bush. There are some swings in the Jimmy Carter data, but if the company Biden is keeping on these polls is Truman, Carter, Bush Sr., isn't that bad news?

I do take your overall point that this is not a normal election, but if it were, would you worry?

(V) & (Z) answer: It's not a good thing to have such low approval ratings, but there are two things that one must keep in mind. The first is that we are, for reasons not yet 100% clear, in an era where every politician has terrible approval ratings. Not long ago, we did an item about YouGov's approval ratings, and noted that while Biden is under water, he's also the fourth-most-popular politician in America. His numbers are bad, but everyone else's are worse.

Second, among the people whose approval ratings are worse is Donald Trump. It would be one thing if Biden was running against Ronald Reagan. But up against Trump, approval ratings probably favor Biden, because as poor as his numbers are, Trump's are even poorer.


F.F. in Royal Oak, MI, asks: I added up the vote totals for Republicans and Democrats in the recent Senate primary election in Texas: almost a million total Democratic votes and over 2 million total Republican votes. Why shouldn't I conclude that Rep. Colin Allred (D-TX) has very little hope of beating Ted Cruz in November? Sure, not everyone votes in the primary, but it seems unlikely that way more Democrats will come out in the general. I'd love to get your thoughts on this, and on whether primary vote totals are any use in predicting final election results.

(V) & (Z) answer: There were a number of competitive Republican primaries for the House of Representatives. Also, the Republican presidential contest was more meaningful than the Democratic one. So, more Republicans turned out to vote.

It would be very helpful if primary turnout was, in any way, predictive of what will happen in the general. But it just isn't, which is why you don't see articles talking about primary turnout numbers and what they tell us.


E.W. in Silver Spring, MD, asks: You've said a number of times in the run up to 2022 that the Senate map was a bad one for Democrats, and you're saying the same thing about 2024. That leaves only one map left, 2026, and that one also seems to have the same problems as the previous two. Given that there are only three maps for the chamber, is it a fair assessment that Senate Democrats are performing as well as possible, or nearly as well as possible given the current political landscape? In other words they are winning all, or nearly all the winnable seats they can be reasonably expected to win? Would that mean the reverse is true as well, that the Republicans are loosing all, or nearly all, the loseable seats in the last three elections?

Or is there a different way that I could be thinking about this?

(V) & (Z) answer: We will point out two things. First, as we have written many times, the steep decline of ticket-splitting means that most senators "match" their state's presidential vote. There are only a handful of exceptions right now, like Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME), Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH), and Sen. Jon Tester (D-MT). There is also Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV), but starting in January, that seat will revert to the Republicans permanently.

Meanwhile, in the 2016 election, Donald Trump won 30 states. In 2020, he won 25. Given the tendency we describe in the first paragraph, that would seem to suggest that the Republicans' "Senator ceiling" is about 60 seats, and their floor is about 50 seats. If so, then the Democrats' ceiling would be about 50 seats and their floor would be about 40 seats.

So, we think you're probably right to think that the Democrats are currently maxing out their potential. That could always change, if Washington D.C. becomes a state, or if things revert to the way they were 15 years ago, when 60-65 Democratic senators was a real possibility. But right now, 50 or so looks like the blue team's limit.


M.M. in San Diego, CA, asks: I genuinely envy the British, with their roughly two month campaign season, and I understand that each parliamentary candidate only needs to campaign in their small constituency rather than the entire country because it's a parliamentary system. That said, is there any way we could limit campaigning from Labor Day through Election Day (early September to early November)? Fundraising could begin as soon as a candidate declared, but no ad buys, no retail campaign, flyers, merchandise, nothing until Labor Day. No one who isn't in journalism or a hardcore follower of politics pays any attention to an election until the last few weeks (why the "October Surprise" is so devastating), and the cost of a campaign would be dramatically reduced, cutting out the influence of big donors and reducing the amount of time spent fundraising by sitting legislators. All I can see is the upside, but there's undoubtedly drawbacks which aren't occurring to me. What say you?

(V) & (Z) answer: Impossible. To start, any such limits would run into serious First Amendment issues.

Beyond that, we will point out that in the 19th century, custom (but not the law) dictated that candidates for president should not campaign, as that was beneath the dignity of the office. So, upon nomination, they were supposed to go home and basically sit there while things played out. While candidates honored that expectation in terms of the letter of the custom, they found all kinds of ways to violate its spirit. They would engage in letter-writing, getting their words into major newspapers. They would arrange to be "invited" to give guest speeches/lectures at various events. They would meet with dignitaries from cities and states across the country (the "front porch" campaign). If Congress tried to impose a British-style short election calendar on American elections, it would just favor sleazy types who are not concerned with rules and who are good at flouting them.

Civics

R.H.D. in Webster, NY, asks: I've read your references to "knowns" and "unknowns" during this election cycle. Can you give us some examples of these terms you've mentioned as we get deeper into the campaign: (1) known knowns, (2) known unknowns, (3) unknown knowns, and (4) unknown unknowns.

(V) & (Z) answer: Others might draw the lines a little differently, but:


P.L. in Denver, CO, asks: I know that if neither Donald Trump nor Joe Biden gets 270 electoral votes, the vote goes to the House, with each state getting one vote. Is this vote based upon the pre-2024 House or is it based upon the new House?

(V) & (Z) answer: The new House. A new Congress always takes its seats a couple of weeks before the president is inaugurated (Jan. 3 or Jan. 4 vs. Jan. 20), for this very reason. That is to say, it's up to them to finalize the presidential election.


D.K. in Iowa City, IA, asks: Would it be illegal to create a GoFundMe account to raise 20 million dollars for the family of a person who successfully assassinates Donald Trump? We would make it clear that we were not encouraging anyone to kill Trump, but since Trump is hated by many millions of people and it is likely that someone will kill him, we want that person's family to not suffer when that person is either killed or sent to prison. I don't think it would be hard to raise money.

(V) & (Z) answer: This is a very dark question, and we are answering it because we also got a question (that we can't find right now) about how it is legal for that loon in North Carolina to call for the execution of Barack Obama, etc.

In any case, as a practical matter, GoFundMe would never allow this listing. However, it WOULD be legal. The Supreme Court has established that threats against someone are protected free speech, unless the threat is imminent. So, you could theoretically raise money for someone who might happen to assassinate Donald Trump. You cannot raise money for someone to assassinate Donald Trump next Thursday. Similarly, you can call for the execution of Barack Obama. However, you cannot send out a message on Facebook suggesting that people join you to storm Obama's residence and kill him on Saturday at 3:00 p.m.

History

M.A. in Knoxville, TN, asks: As we all know, the Republicans are all-in on culture wars, often inventing stuff out of whole cloth to fuel them (e.g., Critical Race Theory, which has never, ever, been taught in K-12 schools). Is this a new occurrence, or have there been other periods of US history where a political party exploited culture war issues? If it's not unique, which period was the most extreme, the current one or a past one?

(V) & (Z) answer: Culture wars have been a part of every U.S. presidential election, and most non-presidential elections, as well. In 1800, Federalists warned that Thomas Jefferson and the Democratic-Republicans planned to outlaw The Bible. In 1860, Democrats warned that the Republicans and Abraham Lincoln were going to force white people to marry and procreate with Black people. In 1928, Republicans claimed that Democratic nominee Al Smith enjoyed "card-playing, cocktail drinking, poodle dogs, divorces, novels, stuffy rooms, evolution... nude art, prize-fighting, actors, greyhound racing and modernism." In 1960, Republicans said that if John F. Kennedy was elected, he would take his marching orders from the Pope. In 1964, Democrats produced a coloring book in which kids could color pictures of Barry Goldwater dressed in KKK robes.

It's hard to compare across eras, but the culture wars stuff of 1860, which was almost entirely about hardcore racism, was pretty hair-raising.


K.P. in Coventry, RI, asks: With the news that Mike Pence cannot "in good conscience" endorse Trump, it had me curious. Has there ever been a historical case of a president where their own VP refused to endorse them for a later election of any kind?

(V) & (Z) answer: There have been 10 presidents who, after leaving the White House, ran for office again. Seven of those tried to regain the White House and three pursued other offices.

Three of the ten were themselves VPs who succeeded to the presidency before the passage of the Twenty-Fifth Amendment, and then were not reelected (Millard Fillmore, John Tyler and Andrew Johnson). So, they could not possibly have a VP who did not endorse them, because they never had a VP at all.

Two of the ten remained on good terms with their only VP (Grover Cleveland and Theodore Roosevelt).

One of the ten had one VP die before he tried again for office, and remained on good terms with the other (Ulysses S. Grant).

One of the ten saw his VP die before he took another shot at office (Herbert Hoover). And dead men tell no tales.

One of the ten is Donald Trump.

That leaves John Quincy Adams and Martin Van Buren. Both of them ran as anti-slavery candidates after having had pro-slavery VPs from the South (John C. Calhoun and Richard Mentor Johnson, respectively). It is safe to assume their VPs did not approve, although in that era, endorsements weren't really a thing the way they are now.


B.W. in Los Angeles, CA, asks: In your response to P.D.C. in New Salem, you sensibly noted that throwing money and resources to third party candidates is almost always a loser in a two-party system. I'd read the question slightly differently, however, which led me to my own: Is it plausible that 20th Century-style conservatives might eventually try to engineer the marginalization of the Republican Party altogether as a means to overcome Trumpism's lingering influence?

Or perhaps more likely, could Trump-flavored extremism age so poorly that it damages the Republican Party brand beyond repair, resulting in its displacement by a new conservative party? I have only a 101-level knowledge of U.S. History, so I know only that two prior conservative major parties existed in the US: the Whigs and the Federalists

What were the conditions that precipitated the rise and fall of current and previous conservative major parties, and are there any historical parallels with the current moment or with plausible near-term futures?

(V) & (Z) answer: The Federalists were destroyed because their platform was tailored to the needs of elites, which was fine for the first half-dozen presidential cycles, but eventually became a problem as more and more non-wealthy people got the vote. The Party's opposition to the War of 1812 caused it to be branded as disloyal and sealed its fate.

The Whigs weren't really a conservative party. In fact, they were barely a party at all. To a large extent, their only commonality was that they disagreed with the policies of Andrew Jackson. They were destroyed by slavery, as there was no middle ground on which Northern Whigs and Southern Whigs could agree.

It would not be wise to predict the collapse of the Republican Party, as no major party has collapsed since 1856, and the two that DID collapse did so under very specific historical circumstances. No, what will happen is that the GOP will eventually evolve, as it always does (so does the Democratic Party).

One should not expect this evolution to happen anytime soon. Right now, the Party is fully controlled by the Trumpists. And, at least for now, it's having enough success to justify its current course. The GOP has a majority in the House, is just shy of a majority in the Senate, and has won three of the last six presidential elections. There are many signs of weakness, like winning the popular vote in only one of the past eight presidential elections. And it's not like the current Republican coalition is capable of governing in a meaningful way, but... Trumpy voters largely don't care.

The moment that Trump exits the political stage, we will see what happens. Maybe nobody can replace him and the spell of Trumpism will be broken. But our guess is that not only will Trump have to leave, but the Party will have to take a thrashing in an election or two before it starts to change course.


A.S.W. in Melrose, MA, asks: I'd like to drill down on the statement from A.T. in San Francisco, who wrote, "Sometimes a little short-term pain is needed for long-term gains."

That was the same sentiment expressed by my activist friends in 2000—but by 2004, after four years of W., they had universally eschewed that idea and were referring to Nader as "crazy uncle Ralph" for his continued candidacy. (Full disclosure: I myself voted for Nader in '00, but with the knowledge that my Massachusetts vote would have no real effect on the ultimate outcome.) I saw that attitude as foolish then, and I still do today, but I'd love to get the perspectives of people who have real expertise in historical and political analysis. Is the strategy of "lose to win" ever an effective one for a party or a faction, or is it always better to take the wins that you can achieve?

(V) & (Z) answer: First, we can really only look to the last 60 or so years to answer the question, as that is the era in which presidents have been chosen by primaries and caucuses. It is possible that, say, 100 years ago, a mass protest vote might have influenced the men in the "smoke-filled room," but that's not relevant anymore. All that matters is whether a mass protest vote might influence primary and caucus voters 4 years later.

Here's a rundown of every Democratic nominee who lost a presidential election since 1960:

Unless you think we have badly mischaracterized these politicians, we see no examples of the phenomenon that A.T. in San Francisco posits. That is to say, a Democratic loss rarely results in the next nominee being more lefty, even more rarely results in the next nominee being very lefty, and has not produced a leftier candidate who actually won. The last four Democrats who won the White House either took the baton from a nominee who was leftier than they, or who was also center-left .

Now, there ARE examples on the Republican side, we would say. The rejection of the center-right Gerald Ford in 1976 led to the election of the much more righty Ronald Reagan in 1980. The rejection of the center-right Bob Dole in 1996 led to the election of the much more righty George W. Bush in 2000. And the rejection of the center-right John McCain in 2008 and Mitt Romney in 2012 led to the election of the far-right populist Donald Trump in 2016.


F.S., Cologne, Germany, asks: Is Mitch McConnell the worst U.S. Senator in history? Who are the 10 worst U.S. Senators in history?

(V) & (Z) answer: Mitch McConnell was not the worst senator, although he certainly did plenty of damage to the norms of American government. And, having single-handedly packed the Supreme Court with far-right justices, he might well have unleashed forces that he did not intend, and that he cannot control.

In any event, as with the similar question above, we think a straight ranking would be a bit arbitrary. So, we're going to give you groupings, in rough order of how much damage each of those types of senators did:

  1. The Insurrectionists: These are the senators who laid the groundwork for secession and/or who actually led the Southern states as they departed the Union. The key person here is John C. Calhoun (D-SC), but others include Jefferson Davis (D-MS), Robert Toombs (D-GA) and Judah P. Benjamin (D-LA).

  2. The Red Baiters: These are the senators who used anti-Communist hysteria to secure power and influence. The most notorious of these, of course, is Joseph McCarthy (R-WI), but William Jenner (R-IN) also merits a mention.

  3. The Fabric Renders: These are the folks who were inspired by Newt Gingrich, and who have been eating away at the foundations of the Senate for the last 30 years. McConnell is in this group, as are Ted Cruz, Josh Hawley (R-MO), Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Mike Lee (R-UT) and several others.

  4. The Old School Racists: In this category are the unabashed white supremacists who did their part to maintain the racial order of the 19th and early 20th centuries. This list could be very long, but the most notorious entries are probably Theodore G. Bilbo (D-MS) and Benjamin Tillman (D-SC).

  5. The New School Racists: These are the post-World War II segregationists who tried to rally resistance to the Civil Rights Movement. The first name that comes to mind is Strom Thurmond (D/R-SC), but one wouldn't want to forget Jesse Helms (D/R-NC) or John Stennis (D-MS).

  6. The Old School Crooks: These senators held office in the 19th century, when there was far more tolerance for corruption and for politicians who were on the take. The poster child here is James G. Blaine (R-ME), the continental liar from the state of Maine.

  7. The New School Crooks: These are the senators who served after the crackdown on corruption, and who got caught taking bribes. Notables include Joseph R. Burton (R-KS), who is the first U.S. Senator ever to be convicted of a crime, Harrison A. Williams (D-NJ) of ABSCAM infamy, and Robert Menendez (D-NJ).

There you go; 20 senators for the price of 10.


M.B. in San Antonio, TX, asks: The great Cuban singer/songwriter Sindo Garay was long lived: 1867-1968. In his youth in the 1890s, he was already famous enough that he was introduced to the father of Cuban liberation, José Martí, who died in 1895. Decades later, after the Cuban Revolution, he was honored by Fidel Castro in the 1960s. Garay liked to boast that "not many men have shaken hands with both José Martí and Fidel Castro." I tell my students that it's as if someone had shaken hands with both George Washington and Abraham Lincoln, or alternatively with both Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt. My question: While we know it could have happened, do we know for sure if there was anyone who shook hands (or otherwise interacted) with both Washington and Lincoln, or with Lincoln and FDR?

(V) & (Z) answer: It's actually not as unlikely as you might think, because one handshake, or the other, or both, could plausibly have happened when the legendary president in question was still young and unknown. In other words, it would have been hard to shake hands with both Lincoln and FDR in the White House, but it was not too tough to get one of them in the White House and the other at some earlier point in their lives.

And certainly we know of people who achieved both of the combinations you laid out, including some very notable people. John Quincy Adams, for example, interacted with Washington many times while dad was serving as VP, and then interacted with Lincoln many times while both were Whig members of the House of Representatives. In fact, Lincoln was in the gallery when Adams suffered the cerebral hemorrhage that led to his death 2 days later.

As to FDR, he was a member of a prominent family, and so several of his relatives interacted with Lincoln, including his father, James Roosevelt.


J.W. in West Chester, PA, asks: As we approach the anniversary of the Battle of Glorieta Pass, often called the Gettysburg of the West. What is your opinion of the battle, and what would you think would have been different had the South won that battle or committed more resource to the campaign?

(V) & (Z) answer: In theory, success in that battle, and in the larger New Mexico campaign, would have been a boon to the Confederacy by giving them access to sources of gold and other precious metals, and would have allowed them to trade with the Far East, potentially giving access to much-needed weapons.

In practice, it does not seem likely it could have actually worked. The Confederacy did not have the resources to hold onto the lands they theoretically would have captured. They couldn't even hold on to their own lands. Further, trade with Asia was great for luxury goods and some foodstuffs, but those nations were not industrial powers at that point, and were not going to be able to produce modern cannon, warships, muskets, etc. And even if such purchases were possible, transporting those goods from the Far East to the main theaters of battle (Virginia and Tennessee/Mississippi/Georgia) would have been prohibitively difficult. There was no transcontinental railroad, after all, until 1869 (i.e., 4 years after the Civil War ended).


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