Oct.12
electoral-vote.com
https://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2024/Info/banners.html
Dem 50
image description
   
GOP 50
image description

Saturday Q&A

As we usually say in these cases: Better late than never. Thanks for being patient!

Oh, and you need another hint for the headline theme? WTF?

Current Events

J.B. in Hutto, TX, asks: President Biden has said that he wishes Congress would come back to Washington to approve emergency funds in the wake of the two major hurricanes that have struck in recent weeks. Why doesn't he use his power under Article II, Section 3, to convene Congress himself? Not only would this simply be the most proper thing to do (people are suffering and the funds are critically needed), but it makes political sense as it would contradict the current GOP narrative that the administration is doing nothing to help the victims. This seems like an obvious thing to do, so why doesn't he do it?

(V) & (Z) answer: It is legally possible, but politically risky, and Biden is not known for making politically risky moves, especially since it's no longer HIS presidential campaign that would be affected.

You are right that insisting that Congress return to Washington would be very dramatic, and would make a strong statement of some sort. However, Republican members would resist, and would be on every right-wing outlet (and some of the non-right-wing ones) carping and whining about how Biden thinks he's a dictator, and is playing silly political games, and so forth. Then, if and when they got themselves to Washington, it is unlikely the Republican majority in the House would pass anything, as an act of defiance.

The most recent historical analogue here is the Turnip Day Session (which was actually more like a Turnip Week session), when Harry S. Truman called Congress into session in the summer of 1948. Why "Turnip Day"? Because there is an old Missouri saying that July 26 is the correct day to plant turnips, and the special session ran from July 26 to August 3.

In 1948, Republicans did carp and whine about the President. However, they didn't have Fox and The Blaze to amplify their bloviating. Further, Congress was rather more functional then, and they ultimately did pass some emergency legislation (despite Republican majorities in both chambers). So, Truman got a short-term win, and he got a long-term win in that he pulled off a surprise victory in the presidential election several months later.

What it boils down to is that it was a risky gamble for Truman. Under modern circumstances, it would be an even riskier gamble for Biden, opening him up to claims that he's engaging in silly stunts while not actually getting anything done.


P.Y. in Boca Raton, FL, asks: Two weeks ago, the betting odds average on Real Clear Politics favored Kamala Harris 51.1% to 47.6%, a margin of 3.5 percentage points. By today (October 11), that has flipped to 54% to 44.7% in Trump's favor. Meanwhile, your Electoral Vote map shows a virtual tie at 247 EVs for Harris and 246 for Trump. The betting odds have diverged significantly from the polls in the last two weeks. Do you have any ideas why?

(V) & (Z) answer: A shift of a couple of points is well within the normal fluctuation built into the polling process. So, it could be statistical noise. Alternatively, there may be Trumpy pollsters who are flooding the zone. That happened in 2020, and if any aggregator is going to be affected, it's RCP, as RCP is well known for being tolerant of right-leaning pollsters and somewhat skeptical of non-right-leaning pollsters.

We recognize that it is possible that Harris has simply lost ground to Trump. However, there is no clear reason that would be the case, and in the absence of some clearly significant event, we are somewhat reluctant to say that a race that has been remarkably stable has suddenly shifted in one direction.


D.W. in Burbank, CA, asks: I've been following your website for years over several elections and always found it useful in keeping me current on what the data looks like. For the past couple of weeks, however, your map graphic and polling data have remained nearly the exactly same with no changes, as if you're re-running the same page day after day.

Please explain?

(V) & (Z) answer: Just this week (Monday through Friday), we've had 36 different state-level presidential polls. They are clearly displayed, under the headline "Today's Presidential Polls."

If the map does not appear to be changing much, it is because it is a close race, and because the much larger number of polls tends to minimize the impact of outliers, and thus to reduce the chances of a dramatic shift in one state or another.


T.Z. in Albany, NY, asks: I got a solicitation e-mail from the Dan Osborn (I) campaign, up against Sen. Deb Fischer (R-NE), and it said that polls had him leading and FiveThirtyEight has it as the closest Senate race in the country. I was suspicious and figured this was some kind of partisan polling and gross exaggeration used to get money, but when I looked on the Electoral-Vote.com map you have a poll showing Osborn with a lead. Is this truly a close race, or is it very unlikely given how red Nebraska is?

(V) & (Z) answer: We've been meaning to get to this story, and haven't had a chance yet. But yes, it's possible the race is that close.

There have been half a dozen polls of the race, and while there are some red flags with most of them, Osborn has come out ahead more often than Fischer has (though Fischer's leads are larger in the polls where she does lead). Nebraska has a populist streak, like Montana or Iowa, and has elected a Democrat to the Senate as recently as 2006 (Ben Nelson). If all of the state's Democrats (about 43% of the electorate) were to line up behind Osborn, and a chunk of the state's Republicans were to join them for whatever reason (they don't like Fischer, they do like Osborn, they want to slay Trumpism, etc.), then Osborn could stand more than a puncher's chance.


D.A. in Minneapolis, MN, asks: You've spent weeks in the Senate Polls section asking where all the Montana polls are. Today (Friday) you finally have one to share which shows Sen. Jon Tester (D-MT) down 6 points, but "Today's Senate Polls" only mentioned Ohio, which is within the margin of error. What are your thoughts: Is Montana a lost cause like West Virginia, or should we not sound the alarm bells due to one poll?

(V) & (Z) answer: First, we did have the Montana poll. It's the fifth one on the list, right after Elissa Slotkin and right before Jacky Rosen.

Anyhow, Montana is nowhere near West Virginia, in terms of being a lost cause. And because any one poll can be an outlier (or just badly designed), you cannot reach any conclusions based on that single data point. That said, Tester is acting right now like someone who is very nervous (e.g., begging people to cast a split ticket). From that, we infer that his internal polling is also telling him he's behind (though perhaps not by 8 points).


C.F. in Waltham, MA, asks: I couldn't believe your explanation of the coverage imbalance of 5 major newspapers. You really think there was a course adjustment? Didn't see it with Biden's mental decline vs. Trump's at all. Hillary's e-mail simpler or more sensational than everything in the Jack Smith case? Not even remotely possible. The only plausible explanation is that there are no consequences to printing bad things about Democrats, but if you report anything bad about Republicans, you'll be endlessly accused of liberal bias, and get tons of death threats. It's just fear and for good reason. Is there really any other logical explanation for the overwhelming bias?

(V) & (Z) answer: We got many sharply worded e-mails on this subject, yours among them. We're going to answer your question, though we must be blunt and note you probably will not accept our answer, since we gave you two logical explanations for the behavior and you rejected them out-of-hand, declaring that you could not believe what we wrote.

To start, let us remind everyone what we actually said:

We don't think that the imbalance in coverage is conspiratorial. Much of it is because shady e-mails are a simpler and juicier story than legal filings, which are rather more dry. We also suspect that newspaper staffs believe they erred in 2016, and have adjusted course in 2024, as a result. That said, whatever the reason might be, the fact is that Trump is getting much gentler treatment in 2024 than Hillary Clinton did in 2016. That's especially concerning given that Trump's alleged crimes are many orders of magnitude worse than Clinton's alleged crimes.

We did not propose that our (brief) comment was an exhaustive analysis of the question, and we did ultimately conclude with an observation that whatever is going on, the various news outlets are not doing the right thing.

In any event, that was written by (Z), who spent 20 years working for a newspaper, and so knows a little something about how newsrooms work. You are right that reporters have become very sensitive—almost certainly over-sensitive—to the complaint that they have a left-wing bias. That line of attack, coming from both right-wing politicians and right-wing media for the last 30+ years, has been enormously successful. On the other hand, we are right that newsrooms critically examine past coverage, and adjust future coverage based on that. (Z) is not in a newsroom anymore, and so cannot say for certain that this dynamic is in effect with Trump's legal woes, but he can absolutely say that he witnessed it with other, similar issues (like Bill Clinton's legal woes).

Meanwhile, we are also right that the e-mail scandal made for easier and juicier copy than the legal stuff. You cannot appreciate how very little 10 (or 20 or 30) column inches is until you've operated within that constraint. And everyone knows about e-mail, meaning that those stories required that relatively little space be spent on educating readers. On the other hand, legal issues are complicated, and Trump has a LOT of them. So, considerably more space has to be spent on background and getting readers up to speed. Meanwhile, because nearly everyone has direct experience with e-mail, it's pretty easy to get their blood boiling. Most people do not have experience fomenting insurrection/committing fraud/etc., and have not been charged in court, so they are less likely to get fired up by Trump's misdeeds. It's not an excuse, it's just the reality of the situation. If you doubt it, then explain why the more salacious elements of Trump's career (e.g., "Grab 'em by the pu**y") are much better known than the seriously illegal acts (e.g., trying to extort Ukraine).

(Z)'s remarks about covering the e-mail scandal and covering Trump's legal woes were also informed by his 20+ years spent in the classroom (he was at the newspaper, and was teaching at the same time, for 10+ years, which is how he can have two different 20-year careers despite having just turned 50). Anyhow, when you've taught as many classes and students as (Z) has, you develop a pretty good sense of how much class time it will take to explain [SUBJECT X]. And he is absolutely certain, based on both instinct and on actual experience with these questions, that the Hillary Clinton e-mail scandal would take FAR less class time to explain that Donald Trump's legal issues.


D.E. in Lancaster, PA, asks: I have a hard enough time keeping up with all the felonious behavior of Trump, so could you explain what legal issues Bibi Netanyahu is facing? Are these charges serious and/or seriously legit? From what I understand, his situation is a bit similar to Trump in that he really can't be prosecuted while he's in office. If that is the case, might a desire to stay out of jail be motivating him to extending/expanding the current conflict? I have the impression that like Trump, Bibi is not a very popular leader and just holds on by his epidermis.

(V) & (Z) answer: In December 2016, Israeli authorities began an investigation of Netanyahu. In November 2019, they charged him (and other members of his government) with accepting bribes, breach of trust, and fraud. In April 2021, the prosecution began mounting its case, with a witness list in excess of 300 people. In June of this year, the prosecution rested. The defense has yet to commence its response.

Netanyahu has been able to drag things out, in part, because it's such a big and complicated case. He's also used Trumpy legal tricks to slow things down (or temporarily pause things). The PM also "benefited" from the pandemic, which closed the Israeli courts for a good, long time. And the current war has also stopped forward movement. So, who knows when a verdict will be rendered? That said, the charges are very serious and are backed with legitimate evidence. We don't know if he'll be found guilty, but we do know that the whole matter was substantive enough that Netanyahu was forced to surrender all of his positions within the Israeli government, except the premiership, when he was first charged.

Politics

S.R. in Ottawa, ON, Canada, asks: Do you think there are any situations where Kamala Harris wins the election and then President Biden resigns before the end of his term? I know you've mentioned in the past that other presidents have considered this; I think perhaps it was Woodrow Wilson? In particular, I'm imagining a situation where Harris wins but the Democrats lose the Senate. Or perhaps one where Harris wins, but barely, and Donald Trump tries anything and everything to prevent her from being officially elected by the Electoral College. It would seem to me that a bit of incumbency could help in both situations.

(V) & (Z) answer: Democrats are generally leery of trampling on tradition and on the norms of democratic government, but the two scenarios you lay out are at least plausible, albeit not likely.

We actually think the very most plausible situation is something analogous to the Wilson situation. He did not want to saddle the country with a lame-duck leader at a time when it was on the cusp of entering a World War, so if he was defeated, he was going to arrange to hand power over to Charles Evans Hughes immediately after the election of 1916. If the Middle East situation were to turn ugly and Harris were to win the election. Biden might hand the reins of power over immediately, so as to minimize the possibility of, say, Iran doing something aggressive during the lame-duck period.


D.G. in Pittsburgh, PA, asks: This is extremely unlikely to happen, but if Kamala Harris were to win the Electoral College and lose the popular vote, how fast would the Republican Party demand the elimination of the Electoral College? November 6th?

(V) & (Z) answer: There would be no such demands from the GOP. Republicans have shown they can do math, and that if the status quo benefits them 80% of the time and the Democrats 20% of the time, then they will endeavor to keep the status quo. Consider the filibuster, which benefits the Democrats sometimes and the Republicans a lot more. The Republicans haven't touched that particular "institution," even after those occasions where it happened to work to the Democrats' advantage.


K.E. in Newport, RI, asks: Why do so many conservative Jews give Donald Trump a pass on antisemitism, when their religion is a crucial part of their identities? I could not picture them tolerating any other politician inviting Holocaust deniers and white nationalists over for dinner.

(V) & (Z) answer: We are not conservative pro-Trump Jews, so we can only guess, but we can think of a number of explanations that probably cover much of it:

As they say, "people contain multitudes."


R.M. in Norwich, CT, asks: You've run some comments in the past several months from readers about the preponderance of or lack of yard signs in certain areas. I live in a blue city in a blue state surrounded by smaller towns. As I drive through them, I do see Trump/Vance signs. My first thought is "What an idiot." (OK, not the exact word I actually use). Do you think yard signs serve any purpose other than to show your allegiance or irritate your neighbors? Seems to me they are leftover relics of a simpler time in politics irrelevant in the modern communication/social media age.

(V) & (Z) answer: We do think they can have an impact.

First, if a person sees signs for [CANDIDATE X], particularly if they see a large number of signs for [CANDIDATE X], it tells them that maybe they should take [CANDIDATE X] seriously. This is probably more important in local and state races, but it could also have an effect on the national level. For example, what if a disheartened North Carolina Democrat who hasn't voted in 8 years because "What's the point?" all of a sudden sees a bunch of Walz/Harris signs around their neighborhood? Maybe that persuades them that THIS election might be different, and maybe they better get to the polls.

Also, if a person knows and respects a member of their community, and that respected community member puts up a sign for [CANDIDATE X], it could influence the people who know that person. For example, "Bob is a senior member of my congregation, and we've always had great conversations in Bible study. If a good Christian like him is backing Donald Trump, that really gives me something to consider."


M.A. in Knoxville, TN, asks: By now, everyone who follows politics know about Project 2025 and their plans, including Schedule F, where roughly 50,000 civil-servant jobs would be declared political appointees, and their holders would be fired and replaced by Trump toadies. It seems to me that this would result in instant lawsuits for illegal termination and the firings could end up being put on hold by a court injunction, preventing Trump from actually replacing those people. I'm curious what your thoughts are on this, do you think Trump could manage to get away with it, or would the courts step in and put a stop to this horrible plan?

(V) & (Z) answer: There would absolutely be lawsuits out the wazoo, based not only on unlawful termination (which any employee, federal government or no, could file), but also union contracts (for those federal employees who are part of a collective bargaining unit) and existing legislation like the Pendleton Act.

We don't know how the courts would rule, though they generally tended to have low tolerance for aggressive rule-breaking during Trump's first term. We do know there's a chance it would take so long to resolve the lawsuits that they may well be rendered moot by Trump's term having ended.

Civics

S.K. in Sunnyvale, CA, asks: You wrote: "Under [Gov. Gavin Newsom], California is already pursuing its own foreign policy, negotiating deals on climate change and other things with China, Australia, and other countries."

Here we are again at questions of the Logan Act. Is this legal? I thought foreign policy was the exclusive domain of the federal government.

(V) & (Z) answer: The Logan Act applies only to private citizens whose discussions with foreign governments are not authorized. Gavin Newsom is acting in his capacity as the leader of the sovereign government of California. The Logan Act does not apply, and he's allowed to reach agreements with foreign countries as he sees fit, as long as they do not abrogate any federal obligations or treaties and do not violate the Constitution, and as long as the agreements pertain only to the state of California.

What Newsom is counting on is that California is so big and rich that foreign governments/companies will voluntarily extend their California agreements to other states, concluding it's easier than having a two-tiered system. The Newsom approach works all the better if other big, blue states (Washington, New York, Illinois) get on board. There is nothing illegal about this.


J.M. in Philadelphia, PA, asks: I am a highly engaged, motivated voter. I live in Pennsylvania, which generally allows vote-by-mail, but, as you have written many times, has a Republican legislature that goes out of its way to reject as many ballots as possible for trivial errors.

I am young, healthy, know where my polling station is, and live within a few blocks of it. I have the sort of job that flexible, and there is no "known unknown" that could keep me from voting in the morning before work. I also can't claim to be super detail oriented... I could definitely see myself doing something stupid like forgetting to initial or date on the dotted line.

So basically, it comes down to this: What's more likely? An unknown unknown stops me from voting on Election Day? Or my mail in vote being rejected on borderline/dubious grounds?

Obviously I know you can't give me an EXACT percentage, I'm curious what you guys would ballpark it at. Currently I'm planning to vote in person on Election Day.

(V) & (Z) answer: In 2020, the state rejected about 34,000 mail-in ballots out of about 2.6 million cast. That is about 1.3%.

If you just work with that number, then that would mean that there's a 1-in-98 chance of your ballot being rejected. So, is there a 1-in-98 (or better chance) you'll be unable to vote on Election Day? Have you been so ill, on any day in the last three months, that you could not leave the house? Has the weather been bad enough on any day in the last three Novembers to potentially make the short trip impossible? Etc.

There are also two other factors here. The first is that while you COULD make an error, you are aware of the potential problems and know not to cast a naked ballot (in other words, don't forget the envelope) and you know to make sure to date the outside. Plus, you live in Philadelphia, which is less likely to reject ballots, and more likely to contact you to give you a chance to "cure" your ballot, should it become necessary. Including these factors surely cuts your odds of rejection by half, and probably more. If so, then you have to ask yourself "In the last SIX (or maybe seven or eight or nine) months, have I been too ill to leave the house?" and "Has the weather been bad enough on any day in the last SIX (or maybe seven or eight or nine) Novembers to potentially make the short trip impossible?" Etc.

Our conclusion is that you're safer casting the ballot in advance, via mail. But if you do, do it promptly, to give maximum time for a "cure," should it be needed.


A.P. in Bakersfield, CA, asks: I read "Number of Judgeships at 30 Year Low," and was particularly interested in your comment about retirement announcements following January 20, 2025, with retirement announcements likely to come from judges whose appointing president matches the party that inherits the White House.

Given Donald Trump's track record of judges that are far to the right, his record of flouting the rule of law, and the apparent anointing of a king by the Supreme Court, is there any speculation that GOP judges may hold off on a retirement if Trump wins? Many of these judges appointed prior to Trump's first term would have been appointed by one of the Bushes, and so may be more likely to be Never Trumpers.

(V) & (Z) answer: Is there any speculation? We haven't seen any, though federal judges tend to play things close to the vest (well, the robe). Is it possible? Sure. We don't think it would be a common phenomenon, but we can imagine someone like J. Michael Luttig, if he was still an active federal judge, holding on to avoid being replaced by Trump, even though Luttig was appointed by a Republican (in his case, George H.W. Bush).


G.M. in Boston, MA, asks: I'm mystified why Judge Tanya Chutkan chose to release the prosecution's brief addressing why many charges against Donald Trump should remain, since they address his activities as a private citizen, not his official duties as president.

If the Judge wanted to influence the election, that would be an obvious way to do it, but I'm searching for an answer which aligns with my hope that she's a seasoned judge pursuing her judicial duties. So far, I'm coming up empty.

What's a legitimate reason that might explain her decision to unseal the prosecution's brief now?

(V) & (Z) answer: This has nothing to do with electoral politics. Even if Chutkan wants to see Trump defeated, and even if releasing the legal brief will help do that, then it's just an inadvertent bonus, and unrelated to her decision-making process.

The presumption, with legal filings, is that the public has a First Amendment right to see them. Just in case Chutkan forgot that (she didn't), a consortium of media outlets filed a motion calling for the brief to be released. The Judge had no choice but to address that motion, and to do so within the boundaries of American law. She found that the petitioners were broadly correct that the brief should be released, but she disagreed with them as to exactly how much should be made public, and so there were numerous redactions and exclusions, on her orders, as a result.

History

A.J.M. in Ithaca, NY, asks: Many people are saying "this is the most important election since the Civil War." What are your rankings of the top ten all-time "most important elections" in U.S. history?

(V) & (Z) answer: Elections can be important for different reasons, which means there's a definite "apples" and "oranges" dynamic here. Nonetheless, here's our best shot at a ranking:

  1. 1896: Populist/Democrat William Jennings Bryan, running on a pretty outlandish economic program (silver coinage, so as to trigger big-time inflation), nearly won. If he had, he might well have crashed the U.S. economy. At very least, he was staunchly anti-imperialist, and would not have led the U.S. into the Spanish-American War, or the Philippine War. Oh, and if the Democratic ticket wins, there's a decent chance that nobody would ever have heard of Theodore Roosevelt. Maybe not Franklin Roosevelt, either.

  2. 1844: James K. Polk said he was gonna get California, and he did it, deliberately provoking a war with Mexico. This quickly served to destabilize the union, and made Civil War all but inevitable.

  3. 1960: We have previously discussed, on this site, what might have happened if Richard Nixon had won arguably the closest election in U.S. history. There's a good chance that there would have been no Vietnam War, as Republicans had much greater freedom to fight communism/Russia with diplomacy rather than guns and bombs. There probably would have been no President Johnson, and so probably no Civil Rights Act or Voting Rights Act. And maybe there would have been no Watergate.

  4. 2016: The election that put Donald Trump in the White House, and made Trumpism an ongoing element of American politics. We hardly need tell readers what the many implications of that have been.

  5. 1940: The U.S. was certainly going to enter World War II, sooner or later. But if the hand on the wheel had been the inexperienced and somewhat impolitic Wendell Willkie, instead of the masterful Franklin D. Roosevelt, the war would certainly have lasted for considerably longer than it did, with all the costs that entails. It's also possible that the Allies would not have prevailed (though that is unlikely, given the advantages in manpower and resources and scientific know-how).

  6. 2024: This is speculative, of course, but it's very, very plausible that the future of American democracy is at stake. Even if Donald Trump is unable to destroy democracy entirely, he might do enough harm to render it unrecognizable.

  7. 1828: This election effectively crystallized the electoral system that is in place to this day. In particular, it firmly established the Democratic Party, political conventions, mass suffrage, campaigning for votes and, thanks to Andrew Jackson's win, populating the federal government with political supporters.

  8. 1860: This is the actual Civil War election. Abraham Lincoln's victory led directly to the outbreak of that conflict, the most momentous chapter in American history. The only reason this election is not at the top of our list is that even if Lincoln had been defeated, the Civil War would almost certainly have happened after the next election, or maybe the one after that.

  9. 1932: Franklin D. Roosevelt was elected on a platform that would transform the United States. If Herbert Hoover had won, there would have been no New Deal. Further, there was some serious risk of a government overthrow. If the politically inept Hoover had remained in office, it might have happened.

  10. 1796: This is the one that made all the others possible. George Washington's two victories weren't really elections, they were coronations. The Election of 1796 was the first real, democratic election. We concede that it wasn't THAT democratic, given how very many Americans (women, Black people, most poor people) could not vote. We also concede that the 1800 election was pretty significant, since that was the first ever transfer of power from one faction to another. Nonetheless, 1796 set the key precedent.

A.J. in Ames, IA, asks: What has been the "worst" weather seen on an Election Day, weather that might have influenced the results of an election? Blizzards for the northern states are probably rare in early November, but what if a hurricane hits Florida the morning of Election Day?

(V) & (Z) answer: Well, there WAS a massive hurricane on Election Day in 1932, though that election was a blowout, so the hurricane can hardly be said to have been a difference-maker.

The difficulty here is that the elections where inclement weather is most likely to have mattered were in the 19th century. That is because the country was smaller (so, a big storm would affect a greater percentage of voters, since they would be spread across a smaller space), the roads were poor, transportation options were less weather-resistant, and early/absentee voting was less available. But we don't have great local weather data for those years and those elections, so it's hard to reach conclusions.

So, we're going to turn the question around a bit. In the previous answer, we noted that 1960 is the closest election in history. Big rainstorms were predicted across several swing states, and John F. Kennedy's people were scared witless, because they knew he was getting support from a lot of infrequent voters who might not be willing to brave a rainstorm. Team Jack was thrilled when the weather reports largely proved to be wrong, and November 8, 1960, ended up being unusually clear. So, that's good weather that may have determined the outcome of an election rather than bad weather.


F.S. in Cologne, Germany, asks: You wrote: "So [Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders, R-AR] thinks Kamala Harris is more radical than Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Adlai Stevenson, Hubert Humphrey, George McGovern, and Michael Dukakis? She went to college at Ouachita Baptist University. Guess they don't teach much history there."

So you regard FDR as radical because of the New Deal, or because of some other issue? And which radical political proposals did Adlai Stevenson, Hubert Humphrey, George McGovern and Michael Dukakis make during their presidential campaigns?

(V) & (Z) answer: There is no example of a true radical, especially a true radical by European standards, who has secured a major-party presidential nomination in the United States. Barry Goldwater, William Jennings Bryan and Donald Trump are as radical as it gets when it comes to reactionary movements, while Franklin D. Roosevelt and Lyndon B. Johnson are as radical as it gets when it comes to progressive movements. But all of those men are only radical in the context of the American system, which was carefully designed to blunt radical impulses.

In the passage you quote, we were not sharing our assessment of those men, we were characterizing the Republican assessment. Since the Reagan years, Republicans have presented every Democrat from FDR onwards as being well to the left of Lenin and Marx. This is nonsensical, particularly when talking about people like Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter, but there it is. And each subsequent Democrat is somehow more radical than the previous one. You would think that people who respond to rhetoric like this would eventually say "Wait a minute..." but apparently not.


R.H.D. in Webster, NY, asks: Imagine it's January 21, 2025. Kamala Harris has just been sworn in as President. Jimmy Carter is still hanging on. Nothing has happened to the other living former presidents.

By my count we'd have seven living presidents at one time. Would that be a record?

(V) & (Z) answer: Yes. There have been six living presidents on five different occasions in U.S. history:

  1. 1861-62: Van Buren, Tyler, Fillmore, Pierce, Buchanan and Lincoln (Tyler's death dropped it to five)

  2. 1993-94: Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush Sr., Clinton (Nixon's death dropped it to five)

  3. 2001-04: Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush Sr., Clinton, Bush Jr. (Reagan's death dropped it to five)

  4. 2017-18: Bush Sr., Carter, Clinton, Bush Jr., Obama, Trump (Bush Sr.'s death dropped it to five)

  5. 2021-Present: Carter, Clinton, Bush Jr., Obama, Trump, Biden

Obviously, this only includes people who were serving, or who had already served, as president. In the 1830s and 1840s, there were times when there were 18 living presidents, factoring in people who had been born and would one day become president. For instance, at the start of 1834, the following 18 presidents were all alive:


D.R. in Phoenix, AZ, asks: There is a famous painting (a couple of them, actually) showing George Washington in earnest, solitary prayer during the arduous time at Valley Forge, Pennsylvania in 1777. Here is the most famous of them:

George Washington kneeling in prayer, next to his horse

The scene is, I believe, intended to demonstrate how very much Washington was a fervent believer in the Almighty. This triggered me to research how religious a man he really was. As a fairly militant atheist, I am always keen to unearth evidence that many of the Founding Fathers were less devout than is claimed by the modern-day advocates of American theocracy. Many of these folks insist that all the founders were sincere, devout, unwavering Christians (enslavement of others notwithstanding), therefore the United States was founded as a Christian nation. In my view, the prominence of Separation of Church and State in the Constitution points to a different reality.

In any case, my research (focused on George Washington, as an undeniably good and great leader and proxy for the Founders at large) did not lead to a definitive conclusion. One source insists that the story of Washington praying at Valley Forge is likely apocryphal, and that in all his writings, the word "Jesus" only comes up in passing a couple of times. Others point to his Farewell Address, which does indeed highlight the importance of religion for the citizenry, though it is important to note that Christianity was not specifically endorsed, nor do the words "God" or "Jesus" appear anywhere in the Address.

Can you shed any light on the relative religiosity of George Washington specifically? And of course any general insights you have about his fellow travelers in this context would be much appreciated as well.

(V) & (Z) answer: There were about 100 people who either helped create the Declaration of Independence, or the Constitution, or both. This group can reasonably be considered "the founders" or "the framers" of American democracy. And anyone who tries to tell you that 100 different people drawn from different parts of the country, with widely varying backgrounds, all believed the same thing on ANY subject is trying to sell you something.

Among those 100, there were plenty of very devout Christians. However, that largely did not include the most famous of the founders. Certainly, none of the really prominent founders were fundamentalist or evangelical, despite claims to the contrary, especially since the modern evangelical movement did not emerge until the early 1800s.

Obviously, people's ideas change over time, but broadly speaking, Washington, Alexander Hamilton and James Madison were deists. They believed that there was some higher intelligence guiding the universe, but did not believe in a personal god, and did not believe that higher intelligence responded to prayers or rituals. Thomas Jefferson was a freethinker who famously referred to himself as belonging to a "religion of one," and who regarded Jesus as more a philosopher than a religious figure. Benjamin Franklin was a freethinker, too, who generally had even less use for organized religion than Jefferson did. John Adams was a pretty devout Christian, but from a very liberal branch of the religion (the Unitarians). His cousin Samuel Adams was closest to a modern-day evangelical, as a committed Congregationalist. John Jay was also evangelical-adjacent, though as a committed Presbyterian rather than a Congregationalist.

All of this said, these men all regarded themselves as gentlemen. They were also, to a greater or lesser extent, politicians. Both things argue for acknowledging and respecting the beliefs of their fellow Americans. So, even the non-religious ones (especially Washington) did incorporate religious or quasi-religious language into some of their public statements. However, the non-religious ones (especially Washington) did not privilege any particular denomination, and tended to speak in very broad terms about "the maker" or "a higher power," thus largely avoiding Christianity entirely.

The scene captured in the Washington painting, which is not backed with contemporary evidence, is almost certainly apocryphal. First, as we note, Washington did not believe in prayer. Further, he was very conscious of his image, and almost always projected strength. He is not likely to have allowed his underlings to see him in such a vulnerable pose. If it did happen, he might well have been kneeling for non-religious reasons, or he might have been doing it as a symbolic gesture to rally his men.


J.L. in Chapel Hill, NC, asks: I read Who Was Harriet Tubman? by Yona Zeldis McDonough. I was surprised by this passage at the beginning of Chapter 6, "A Country at War":

In 1861, Civil War broke out between the Northern and the Southern states. There were many reasons for the war. One of them was slavery. The South wanted to keep its slaves. People in the North wanted to end slavery throughout the United States. So the South decided to secede—or pull away—from the North. The eleven Southern states formed their own army. They called themselves the Confederate States of America. The North didn't want the South to secede. The North went to war to make the Southern states rejoin the Union, which is what the North called itself.

I am wondering what the staff historian makes of this characterization.

(V) & (Z) answer: The short response is that it's fine, given the constraints of a children's book, a medium that does not lend itself to nuance and subtlety. For a more detailed assessment, here's a fisking:

"In 1861, Civil War broke out between the Northern and the Southern states. There were many reasons for the war. One of them was slavery."

Comment: This is true. McDonough is allowing for the fact that things like cultural differences, tariff policy, etc., also played a role in triggering the war. She could have done a bit better job, perhaps, of making clear that all of those issues ultimately circle back to slavery. Alternatively, she could have said something like "The main issue was slavery."


"The South wanted to keep its slaves. People in the North wanted to end slavery throughout the United States."

Comment: True, although one could be left with the impression that the North wanted to end slavery because they found it wrong and immoral. Many of them did feel that way, but the more important concern was that slavery was an economically backwards system that was ultimately bad for the long-term growth of the U.S. economy.


"So the South decided to secede—or pull away—from the North. The eleven Southern states formed their own army. They called themselves the Confederate States of America."

Comment: True, though omits the fact that there were some Confederate troops drawn from outside the eleven Southern states (mostly the border states of Missouri and Kentucky).


"The North didn't want the South to secede. The North went to war to make the Southern states rejoin the Union, which is what the North called itself."

Comment: True enough. The South started the war by firing the first shot, but there wouldn't have been a war if the North didn't eventually fight back. It's like World War II; the U.S. didn't start the war, but it certainly went to war.

If we had been asked to edit the book, we probably would have adjusted the portion on causes, to make clear that slavery was paramount, and not just "one of" the causes. Everything else we point out is probably a bit too much nuance for a work meant for children.


T.L. in Minneapolis, MN, asks: Donald Trump's rhetoric about "bad genes" is really disturbing, and it's easy to imagine him creating concentration camps to imprison and exterminate his enemies. But what makes today's United States different from Nazi Germany where this nightmare scenario may not come to be?

(V) & (Z) answer: First, Germany in the 1930s had a parliamentary system. That makes it vastly easier to get the legislature in alignment with the executive, since they are essentially the same. This is not the case in the United States. Congress is not terribly likely to pass something like the Enabling Act of 1933, which said: "You can make whatever laws you want, Hitler, and you don't have to check with us."

Second, Germany in the 1930s had a fraction of the bureaucracy that the modern U.S. does. The "fourth branch" of U.S. government would be a huge source of resistance to any Hitler-like impulses from Trump.

Third, the German people of the 1930s were, due to the loss in World War I and the privations of the 1920s, ready for a demagogue (or, at least, not particularly inclined to fight back against a demagogue). This context simply does not exist in the U.S., even if there are people angry about the end of coal mining, or drag shows, or dog-eating immigrants.

Fourth, Germany is a smaller country than the U.S., and does not have any constituent states with military and economic might that rivals that of the federal government. North Rhine-Westphalia and Bavaria are pretty impressive, but they are not California and New York. It would be quite difficult for Donald Trump to impose himself on a state, in California, that is actually larger than all of Germany (163,696 square miles vs. 138,070 square miles) and that has 15% of the U.S. population and close to 25% of the money in the country. Also, ask the U.K. what happens when 30+ million people rise up in resistance, even if it's passive resistance.

Fifth, and finally, the U.S. has the lessons of... Nazi Germany to learn from. The 9/11 terrorists managed to get box cutters on the planes because nobody was on the lookout for a scheme like that. Now they are, making it impossible to run that playbook again. Similarly, there are tens of millions of Americans who see a budding Hitler when they look at Trump, are going to be hyper-sensitive to any move in that direction, and are going to resist any such move aggressively. Hitler, to a large extent, managed to fly under the radar until he had firmly established himself as a dictator. He didn't fly under the radar as a political leader, mind you, but he managed to keep his authoritarian impulses hidden until it was too late.


A.A. in Kingwood, TX, asks: A friend of mine told me that, a few decades ago, seasonal workers were a "thing"—people would come here from Mexico, work on the harvest, earn some money and go back. However, at some point someone decided that this was not acceptable, and we started making it hard for people to come in. The net result was that people would come and stay, since there was no guarantee they would make it the following year.

(V) & (Z) answer: Not only was it a thing, it was a thing organized and financed by the federal government from 1942 to 1964 as the Bracero Program. It is absolutely the case that making it difficult to impossible for workers to come to the U.S. legally and temporarily caused some of them to remain in the U.S. illegally and permanently (or semi-permanently).

This is why U.S. immigration policy is, on the whole, dumb. Voters demand a punitive policy, especially when the immigrants are brown, despite the fact that the historical evidence supports a more cooperative policy. Even St. Ronnie of Reagan knew that punitive is not always wise.

Gallimaufry

R.E. in Chicago, IL, asks: I suppose you could consider this a meta-complaint, because it's a complaint about the Complaints Department. Do you really have to include pitiful, obscene (or quasi-obscene, because you redact portions of the words) complaints, such that those from that poor creature in The Villages, or last week's screed from A.L. in Toronto?

I have valued this site since the summer of 2004 for its clearly presented data and its intelligent, civil, and thoughtful discourse. I particularly like the complaints and other content from those who present points of view with which I disagree, because they often include analyses that I had not previously considered, and on more than one occasion I've changed my mind on an issue because a complaint or comment set forth a position I hadn't fully understood. I realize you probably get a lot of garbage from semi-literate imbeciles, and maybe you just want to give our community a sanitized sample of what you receive and have to read. But if I wanted to wallow in online verbal sewage there's no shortage of other sites on the web. Please keep this site clean!

(V) & (Z) answer: We will start by explaining the reasons we run the complaints e-mails. First, some readers like a peek behind the curtain, and enjoy those messages, for one reason or another. There's value in that. Second, we get a lot of messages that have legitimate complaints or criticisms. Some of those folks are a little tentative, because they worry they are crossing a line. Showing people what the really nasty stuff looks like helps make clear where the line actually is. Third, and finally, a lot of the really unhinged stuff boils down to "you're far-left communists" or "you've sold out to the right-wingers." If we're getting both, that suggests maybe we're doing an OK job of being fair.

And if we are going to print the letters, well, a lot of them have "colorful" language. If we eliminated those entirely, we'd be significantly misrepresenting the overall tone and tenor of the complaints. That said, we do redact them, as you point out. Further, we will not run nasty letters that include slurs rooted in race, gender or sexuality. We actually got one letter this week that had all three of those, and pretty much the worst thing you can think of in each case. That letter will not be seeing the light of day.


J.E. in San Jose, CA, asks: On Saturdays, when you describe the headline theme topic as "very tough," does that mean you don't have 50 correct responses yet?

(V) & (Z) answer: It either means that, or that we got a whole bunch of wrong responses in among 50 correct ones.


J.K. in Silverdale, WA, asks: What did you think of the Saturday Night Live premiere, and your guess that if their portrayal of political figures moved the needle at all, it would be to the detriment of the Republican ticket?

(V) & (Z) answer: (Z) has watched both episodes so far. The most biting portrayal might actually be Dana Carvey's take on Joe Biden. Not too far behind are Jim Gaffigan's Tim Walz and Bowen Yang's J.D. Vance. That said, as in actual politics, it's all about the sound bite. "I can see Alaska from my house!" (Sarah Palin/Tina Fey), "Lock Box!" (Al Gore/Darrell Hammond), "Wouldn't be prudent" (George H.W. Bush/Carvey) and [pratfall] (Gerald Ford/Chevy Chase) all did some damage. We did not see any real meme-worthy bits in the first two episodes. So, no needle-moving, we think.


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