Dem
49
GOP
51
For obvious reasons, this one's a little on the short side, and no reader question of the week.
If you're still puzzling over the headline theme, we tried to squeeze "Foxtrot" in there somewhere, because it fits the theme, and because we thought it might cause some folks to notice "Tango" and to go down the wrong road. But we couldn't pull it off.
R.M. in Pensacola, FL, asks: It was only five instances, but why do you think debate moderators David Muir and Linsey Davis pushed back and fact-checked in real time things Donald Trump said during the debate? We have seen so little of this over the last decade with regards to Trump that it was my biggest takeaway from the debate. What gives?
(V) & (Z) answer: Presumably, they looked carefully at past debates, and at the response to them, and decided that it was a real problem that moderators were allowing Trump (and, sometimes, other candidates) to say any damn thing, regardless of how farfetched, without any pushback.
This position is very much intellectually and ethically justifiable. Keep in mind that, in any other context, a journalist would be able to push back against falsehoods (say, at a press conference), or to frame them as falsehoods (say, in a newspaper report), or to simply refuse to publish them. Allowing a candidate at a debate to be entirely unfiltered not only allows them to do an end run around the fourth estate and fact-checking, but it somewhat makes the moderators complicit in the lie, as some people will say, "Well, if this was untrue, surely [MODERATOR X] would say something, right?"
J.D.M. in Cottonwood Shores, TX, asks: I have been frustrated for 44 years with the lack of real time fact checking during presidential debates. Did we just witness a paradigm shift when the moderators fact checked the ummm... Former president?
(V) & (Z) answer: We hope so.
There are two problems here. The first is that, because the moderators are supposed to be "fair," an expectation emerged (encouraged mostly by those on the right) that they should not get involved in the debate, and should not hold the candidates on state accountable for anything. Put another way, if many on the right had their way, Siri or Alexa could moderate the debate, with the only responsibility being to toss out questions every 3 minutes or so. Clearly, David Muir and Linsey Davis decided they did not agree with this way of thinking. It is entirely possible that they've set a new template for the job of moderator.
The second problem, which is trickier, is that the moderators absolutely have to have their ducks in a row when it comes to fact-checking. They have to come armed with hard evidence that speaks to the correct version of the facts, the way Muir and Davis did with, for example, the fact-check about Springfield. That means, in turn, that they have to guess correctly what lies are going to be told. A big part of the reason that Trump got fact-checked and Kamala Harris did not, beyond the fact that he told so many more lies, is that he told obvious lies that the moderators knew would be coming. It could be that future candidates tell less predictable lies, making it harder for moderators to prep. That's why we say "We hope so" as opposed to "Yes, we think so."
B.C. in Walpole, ME, asks: Did Donald Trump make ANY factual assertions during the debate? Was there anything he said that was true?
Also, it seemed to me that Trump was getting far more air time than Kamala Harris. Is anyone tracking this?(V) & (Z) answer: We wrote, and we still believe, that he was actually pretty solid and pretty disciplined for the first 30 or 40 minutes of the debate. For example, he made a very salient (and truthful) point that Harris may be making big promises about abortion access, but that she doesn't have the votes to implement a national policy. That could easily have come from the mouth of Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) or Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) or any other Republican who has actually cracked open a civics textbook.
And there are plenty of folks who tracked speaking time. Trump spoke for a shade less than 43 minutes, Harris spoke for a shade more than 37½ minutes. interestingly, Trump attacked Harris for about 12 of his minutes, while Harris attacked Trump for about 17 of hers.
K.E. in Newport, RI, asks: Do you think Donald Trump is trying to instigate racial riots in Ohio by making baseless allegations against Haitians there? The town of Springfield, OH, had to close and evacuate its municipal buildings and public schools twice already this week due to threats of violence since Trump made this allegation. The Ohio police must be pulling their hair out trying to investigate these threats and secure the buildings over a hoax.
If there is a breakout of racial violence, Trump could use that to attack Joe Biden and Kamala Harris for not keeping the country secure. He would not be the first politician to generate racial violence for political reasons.(V) & (Z) answer: Donald Trump does not play 3-D chess. He does not play 2-D chess. He does not play 2-D checkers.
These days, in particular, Trump generally says whatever comes into his head, and then lets the chips fall where they may. When he said the "dogs and cats" thing, he was steaming because Kamala Harris had gotten his goat with her rally comments, and so he went off on a racist rant. If he does trigger riots, he will not be disappointed in that outcome, but it will be a happy coincidence for him, and not the product of some grand plan.
T.W. in Norfolk, England, UK, asks: I have read that persons of Haitian descent form 2 to 3% of the populatiom in Florida. Could Trump's absurd claims about Haitian (and other) immigrants eating pet dogs and cats anger those with Haitian heritage to move the needle at all in the Florida polls?
(V) & (Z) answer: We're surprised this has not gotten more attention, especially since there were a million "Trump's insensitivity about hurricanes in Puerto Rico could hurt him in Florida" pieces 4 years ago.
Anyhow, according to the Census Bureau's latest estimates (2022), there are roughly half a million Haitians living in Florida, comprising 2.4% of the state's population. That's enough people to make a dent, though remember, his comments would have to take someone who was a Trump voter or a non-voter and turn them into a Harris voter. The number of people for whom that will be true will be far smaller than half a million, of course. Still, we all know that Florida was decided by just 537 votes in 2000. So, every bit could count.
M.M. on Bainbridge Island, WA, asks: Does Donald Trump actually believe that China (or any other country) will be the ones to pay a tariff imposed on it? I'm certain his base believes it. Kamala Harris needs to make this clearer than she did at the debate, where she referred to tariffs as a "Trump sales tax."
(V) & (Z) answer: We agree that, if Kamala Harris wants to make this argument, she has to make it more clearly. During the debate, we had to infer what she meant. And although we inferred correctly, many viewers will not do so.
As to Trump, we doubt he fully understands how tariffs work. First, he's never shown any real command of economic concepts, particularly on a macroeconomic level. Second, he has a powerful reality distortion field, and even if he once understood how tariffs work, he absolutely will make himself believe that they actually work they way he wants them to work, and that if he slaps 20% tariffs on Chinese goods, then it's Chinese people and corporations who pay more, not Americans.
D.B. in New York City, NY, asks: Louis DeJoy was appointed Postmaster General by Donald Trump about 6 months before the 2020 election. Democrats were outraged because he immediately began implementing policies that would likely slow the mail, which may have an impact on mail-in ballots for the election (which, in turn, tend to favor Democrats). There are now fresh reports that there may be similar mail issues impacting the 2024 election. So why on earth has Joe Biden not figured out how to replace DeJoy?
(V) & (Z) answer: The Postmaster General no longer serves at the pleasure of the president. He is hired by, and can only be fired by, the Board of Governors of the Postal Service.
Only the Governors know for certain why they have not chosen to remove DeJoy from office. However, we can suggest several possibilities. The first is that the votes aren't there. Although five of seven board members are Biden appointees, only three of seven are Democrats, as Biden also appointed one independent and one Republican.
A second possibility is that the votes ARE there, or will be when Biden nominee Marty Walsh is confirmed by the Senate, but that the board is concerned about making a move so close to the election. They could be worried about the optics of it. Or about creating more chaos when the USPS already has issues on its plate.
A third possibility is that the governors know, or think, that whatever the issues with the USPS are, they really aren't related to DeJoy, and would be present regardless of who is serving as Postmaster General.
J.W. in Pomona, CA, asks: The YouTube channel Britmonkey, which is pretty reputable, has videos asserting that PredictIt can be more accurate in predicting who is going to win an election than polling, since it involves betting on the winner. How correct is this?
(V) & (Z) answer: Notice the use of "can be" instead of "is," which is a pretty big qualifier.
The argument is that because people are betting real money on PredictIt and other such futures markets, they are more likely to be guided by what they really think, rather than what they hope or feel. There is some merit to this.
That said, there are some... concerns, for lack of a better term. First, prediction markets don't work well at the margins. They tend to assign far better odds to longshots than those longshots really merit. To take an extreme example, any candidate who is listed for betting is going to be given at least a 1% chance of winning. But Taylor Swift, Elon Musk, Al Gore, John Kerry, The Rock, etc. do not actually have a 1-in-100 chance of being elected president.
Also, the markets aren't great at predicting races that don't attract a lot of action. One or two bets can skew things significantly.
When it comes to Kamala Harris vs. Donald Trump, these concerns largely don't apply. But there are a couple of other issues that could come into play. First, if a candidate has an especially devoted fanbase, they could certainly attract a big chunk of non-rational "fan" bets; people who toss $20 or $50 or $100 at the race, just to have a little something extra to make it interesting. It's the same thing with sports bettors and, say, Notre Dame football games or Los Angeles Lakers basketball games. Donald Trump is certainly going to attract some "fan" bets, from the sort of people who paint TRUMP in big letters on the side of their trucks. Could Kamala Harris "fan" bets cancel those out? Maybe; it's hard to say.
The other issue is that the people who place wagers in futures markets are, on the whole, high-information voters who follow the campaign and the news closely. So, they are very sensitive to the impact of various developments (like, say, an adverse legal ruling for Trump). The broader voting public is nowhere near as dialed in. So, this can create a gap between what the bettors are thinking and doing and what the voters are thinking and will do.
In short, betting markets are another data point. We would not say they are more or less useful than polls, just that they are another tool.
T.R. in Philadelphia, PA, asks: I have heard a number of GOP members make the claim that Donald Trump, in both 2016 and 2020, outperformed the polls by 2-4 points. Have the current polling methods been adjusted to more correctly report the true Trump strength, in your view? Are the current polls that show a 2-point lead for Kamala Harris really showing a 2-point Trump lead?
(V) & (Z) answer: This is true, and there is no way for us to know if the effect has been corrected for until the ballots are counted in November.
That said, the pollsters know full well that they missed in 2016 and 2020, and they've spent much time and energy and thought trying to course-correct. It is somewhat unlikely that they will underrate him again. it is more likely that they will either hit the bullseye (or something close), or that they will actually overcorrect in the other direction. Either of the latter two outcomes are better for them, PR-wise, than a third straight cycle underestimating Trump.
G.H. in Branchport, NY, asks: You may have commented on Nate Silver's combo poll before, but interested in your take now. To me he seems to be trying to have it both ways, with the poll compilation reading at least a bit towards Harris and his write ups being pessimistic about her chances.
(V) & (Z) answer: We really don't understand what Silver is doing anymore. He does seem to be covering all of his bases, so that no matter what happens, his reputation as a golden boy remains intact. It is his brand, after all.
To give a more precise example, we don't really know what we learn when he announces it's no longer 53% Harris, 47% Trump; it's now 52% Harris, 48% Trump. Don't those both mean "coin flip"? On our map, when things shift a little, at least you can see why they shifted (e.g., polls suggest Harris' support is softening in North Carolina).
And, as we have written, it's also a real problem for us that Silver is both in the business of prognosticating, and in the business of setting odds on political events. That is a clear-cut conflict of interest, in our view, and that's before considering the fact that one of the investors in the betting concern that Silver works for (Polymarket) is Peter Thiel, patron of J.D. Vance.
R.W. in Brooklyn, NY, asks: The Virginia Commonwealth University poll that you cite has Kamala Harris at 46% and Donald Trump at 36%, despite those being the only two options available. How could it possibly be that a full 18% of Virginia voters are still undecided? That seems completely out of line with national figures. What do you make of this?
(V) & (Z) answer: Some of this can be an artifact of the way in which the poll is worded, or conducted.
But, on top of that, there are certainly voters who are either withholding their support from one candidate or another right now as a form of protest. Most of these will eventually vote for one of the two major-party candidates; they're just not saying that right now. We tend to assume there are a lot more future Harris voters (protesting Palestine, or fracking) in this category then Trump voters (we don't know what they would be protesting, maybe his abortion flip-floppery).
On top of that, there are voters who take pride in being "independent" (even if many of them really aren't), and part of that self-image is waiting until the end to decide.
C.V. in Chadron, NE, asks: What do you think of the possibility of pollsters not being able to properly account for the impact of Taylor Swift's endorsement? Maybe, hopefully, she get can get hundreds of thousands or millions of young people to register and cast votes for Kamala Harris. But, I can easily imagine young voters not participating in polls, and pollsters not accounting for the impact of newly registered young voters. What do you think of the possibility of this?
(V) & (Z) answer: We tend to doubt that one celebrity, even Taylor Swift, can break things this badly.
That said, there is a real possibility that the electorate in 2024 will be different from the 2020 electorate to an extent that pollsters can't fully adjust for it. And if turnout IS up significantly among any particular demographic, we would expect it to be women, young people and, in particular, young women.
K.B. in Madison, WI, asks: I'm sure this is out there somewhere but if so, I can't find it. Thus, could you fill in the blanks for me please? Based on your most recent polling data:
If Harris wins Pennsylvania, her chances of winning the election are _____%.
If Trump wins Pennsylvania, his chances of winning the election are _____%.(V) & (Z) answer: We are not really set up to make this calculation, but FiveThirtyEight's "What If?" Tool is. According to them, if Harris wins Pennsylvania, her chances of winning the election are 90%. If Trump wins Pennsylvania, his chances of winning the election are 78%.
N.K. in Riverside, CA, asks: As a Berniecrat, I spend a lot of time in spaces with progressives who were among the first to call for "Don't Run, Joe," including groups like RootsAction, which publicly pushed for Biden to step down as early as 2022.
Since the October 7th events in Gaza, their drumbeat for Biden to withdraw has only intensified, mainly due to the administration's failure to call for an immediate ceasefire and its perceived lack of empathy for the humanitarian crisis. Since Harris assumed the nomination, she has done little to address this, further alienating young progressives and anti-war activists who see her as a corporate Democrat.
Harris' centrist stances, especially her statement of belief in private healthcare and her tone-deafness on Gaza—acting as if the issues there only started on October 7th—are key reasons why millennial and Gen Z progressives are deeply worried. Many of them feel that Harris isn't doing enough to energize the progressive base, which was crucial in securing Biden's 2020 victory. Sen. Bernie Sanders' (I-VT) stumping for Biden in 2020 helped bring young progressives into the fold, but Harris seems to be risking their alienation by not taking a more progressive stance on key issues.
If Harris ran with the same energy and progressive rhetoric that Obama did in 2008, it's likely she could bring these young voters back. But at the moment, it feels like she's snatching defeat from the jaws of victory by not recognizing the importance of engaging this vital part of the coalition. (Hilary Clinton didn't do enough to bring them home in 2016 and pursued Republicans instead). Thoughts?(V) & (Z) answer: To start, just about every constituency in a political party says that if only [CANDIDATE X] said the things we want to hear, then that candidate would cruise to victory.
As to your specific suggestion for Harris, we'll point out four things that are undoubtedly influencing her thinking and the thinking of her advisors:
- Centrist voters are likely to vote major-party. So, if Harris wins one of them, it's a +2 (-1 for Trump, +1 for Harris). Lefty voters are likely to vote Harris or third-party. So, if Harris wins one of them, it's a +1, not a +2.
- There are more winnable centrist voters than lefty voters, particularly in the swing states.
- Lefty voters are rather more difficult to placate than centrist voters. Biden delivered on more of the progressive agenda than any president in generations, which is why Sanders, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), etc. lined up strongly behind him. And yet, as you yourself point out, many progressive voters wanted his head on a pike.
- If Harris were to "discover" her inner progressive with 50 days left in the cycle, it would not exactly look authentic.
What Harris is hoping is that progressive voters will recognize that presidential elections are often (always?) about the lesser of two evils, and that someone who runs from the center-left doesn't necessarily govern from the center-left (e.g., Biden).
D.B. in Glen Burnie, MD, asks: As a strong supporter of Kamala Harris, I read with glee many of the substack authors who are actively supporting her candidacy. I always finish with a renewed sense of optimism when I read about all of the Zoom calls, "[X] for Harris" groups, the huge number of volunteers and campaign offices across even the red states, and all the other efforts that are happening at ground level for registering voters and planning for "get out the vote." But, as I drink the Kool-Aid, I wonder: Are the Repugnicans doing the exact same things? Are they being as successful as the Democrats? Can you re-assure me that I'm actually drinking the best Kool-Aid?
(V) & (Z) answer: We are not aware of Republican equivalents to things like "Cat Lovers for Harris" or the mega-sized Zoom calls.
What you have to remember is that the Democratic and Republican parties exist in different contexts. Democrats are younger, on the whole, and more technically savvy. They are also more diverse and more urban. These things mean that, for example, the Zoom calls make a lot more sense, because Democrats know how to pull them off and do not otherwise convene with large groups of like-minded people. Similarly, knocking on doors and things like that make more sense when people are fairly densely clustered (as in cities).
Republicans have their rallies and their boat parades and other such events. But they also have two built-in ways to "commune" that don't really have Democratic equivalents. The first of those is the right-wing media bubble, and the second of those is Sunday church. If you're an evangelical Christian in Tuscaloosa, AL, you don't need to join a "Tide Fans for Trump" Zoom call because you get to interact with a whole bunch of fellow Trumpers at Sunday services, and then you get re-affirmation throughout the week through Fox, podcasts, right-wing radio, etc.
All of this said, Trump has been Trumping for 10 years, and the act is getting old. Harris is the new kid on the block. So, we have no doubt enthusiasm for her is higher right now. Whether that translates into victory is another matter; as we have written many times, an enthusiastic vote counts exactly the same as an unenthusiastic one.
A.H. in Espoo, Finland, asks: In your opinion, could Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) have been feeling the wind and decided that it has changed after the debate? Could it be that her calling Laura Loomer out is actually preparing for the post-Trump era?
(V) & (Z) answer: We don't think so. Greene can have her seat representing her ruby-red Georgia district as long as she wants it, barring heavy redistricting. She does not need to "adapt" in order to have a long career in the House. And in a post-Trump Republican Party, there's no place for her, beyond that House seat.
What Greene wants is to move up within TrumpWorld. Maybe that means she wants a Cabinet slot. Maybe, and more likely, that means she wants to be in close orbit to Trump. But there's only room for so many people in Trump's inner circle, and there's only room for one wild-eyed, racist, conspiracy-theory-spouting woman. Loomer has that space right now, and Greene wants to push her out of it.
C.F. in Waltham, MA, asks: I lived in New Hampshire up until last year, and I am trying to figure out what happened to Gov. Chris Sununu (R-NH) who seems almost giddy about the idea of us losing our democracy in 4 years. He is not running for governor again, so what turned him into a Trump sycophant lately? Up until recently, he really didn't like Trump, and for good reason. But now Sununu is practically campaigning for him! What caused his brain to be transplanted?
(V) & (Z) answer: The 49-year-old Sununu clearly does not intend to end his political career with his exit from the governor's mansion. He might be auditioning for a slot in a potential Trump Cabinet, though if so, it's a longshot, since Trump wants all fawning lackeys. More likely, Sununu is planning to challenge Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) in 2026.
P.L. in Denver, CO, asks: General H.R. McMaster has been making the rounds on TV promoting his new book. I have not read it, but have listened to a couple of his interviews. While he certainly has many unkind things to say about Donald Trump, he seems to have many negative things to say about Joe Biden and the Democrats. When pressed to endorse Kamala Harris, he refused to do so and then trashed the Democrats. Do you have any thoughts on this guy? And why can't he be like the Cheneys—say he does not agree with many things that the Democrats do/think, but my God, we cannot have Trump?
(V) & (Z) answer: Yesterday, Pope Francis came out and said that the election is a lesser-of-two-evils election, and that he just doesn't know who Catholics should vote for, because Trump is so cruel to immigrants, but Harris is pro-choice.
If we think solely in terms of other issues Francis has taken a stand on—say, global warming—then Trump is clearly the greater of the two evils. However, if you take the position that certain issues are dealbreakers for you, and each of the candidates is "wrong" on a dealbreaker issue, then it makes some sense that you can't bear to make a choice.
We don't know exactly what McMaster's dealbreaker issues are, though we can guess that trying to overthrow the results of an election probably makes the list. He's also a lifelong ultraconservative Republican, so it's easy to believe that Harris is multiple bridges too far for him, for whatever reason. For example, the Cheneys aren't religious fundamentalists, and clearly aren't THAT committed to an anti-choice agenda. Maybe McMaster is.
This is not to say that McMaster should be given a complete pass here. He knows damn well that "none of the above" is not an option in American politics, and his failure to make a choice does not reflect well on him. Certainly, in his military career, he had to choose from among bad options, and he didn't say "I just can't pick." On top of that, it's worth noting that he's hawking his book, and he'll sell far fewer copies if he takes a strong stand on the elections. There are Trump skeptics and even some Trumpers who will buy the book if he's mildly critical of Trump. Some of those people won't be customers if McMaster officially comes out for Harris.
M.B. in Albany, NY, asks: When a colleague jokingly said he was surprised Taylor Swift wasn't running for president herself, I suggested she probably isn't old enough yet. And indeed, looking it up, she's currently 34—just shy of the Constitution's stipulation that a person must "have attained the age of thirty five years"—and so is not eligible.
Or is she? Swift turns 35 this December. So while she's too young on Election Day, she would be old enough to actually become president on Inauguration Day. Does that mean she could have run? Her birthday is December 13; the Electoral College (casting the votes that truly matter) doesn't meet until December 17—again, she'd be eligible by that standard. The ambiguity of the Constitution's language, which doesn't indicate the date/event by which someone must be 35, seems to make this debatable. For that matter, if someone would be 35 by Election Day, but only 34 for some or all of the primaries, could they run?
To play with it some more: Suppose someone ran for the office believing—all their lives—they held a certain birthdate that had them at least 35 by Election Day. They get elected. Then it comes to light that their birth records were wrong and they are younger than they thought. Would they be removed from office and replaced by their VP?(V) & (Z) answer: You only have to be 35 on the day you assume office. So, Swift could have run, and could have been elected, this cycle.
There is no case of a president or VP who turned out to be too young to serve. Nor, in an era where everyone has birth certificates, is the issue likely to arise. But many years ago, when birth records were much more spotty, there were members of Congress who took office before being legally of age. There were at least four U.S. Senators (most notably Henry Clay, who took office at 29 years, 261 days of age) and at least five U.S. Representatives (most notably William Claiborne, who was probably only 21 when he took office). It never became an issue that these folks were too young, and they were allowed to serve out their terms.
There's no way to know what would happen if someone assumed office today and THEN turned out to be too young. There's an argument to be made that the time to challenge their candidacy is BEFORE assuming office, and once they've been elected and sworn in, it's too late. The historical precedents, including several too-young people who served with some of the men who wrote the Constitution, would support that interpretation. Alternatively, a person might be deemed ineligible to serve until they reach the correct age. In the case of a president, their VP would presumably take over on an interim basis.
R.V. in Pittsburgh, PA, asks: Typically, super PACs run negative ads against the other party, but can super PACs do other functions? Are they allowed to open field offices and engage in get-out-the-vote programs, can they call voters and knock on doors, or are they limited to running ads?
(V) & (Z) answer: They can do whatever they want, and they do indeed do all these things and more. They just can't coordinate with candidates for office while they do so.
D.R. in Phoenix, AZ, asks: Your item on the JUDGES Act (Judicial Understaffing Delays Getting Emergencies Solved) brought up a pet peeve. Namely, why do legislators and others do that thing where they use a godawful forced phrase like that to back in to an acronym? Can't they just call it the Hire More Judges Act and leave it at that? It would certainly save me a lot of eye-rolling.
(V) & (Z) answer: It used to be that bills were commonly named for the members who sponsored them (Sherman Silver Purchase Act, Morrill Act, Pendleton Act, etc.). During the New Deal, there was a shift towards simple acronyms, like the Tennessee Valley Act (TVA), the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Act (FDIC), or Civilian Conservation Corps Act (CCC). These choices were undoubtedly made for purposes of political marketing and for newspaper coverage.
We have no direct evidence, but we suspect the ridiculous acronyms are prompted by similar concerns. There are a million bills that are put forward, and they often cover a lot of the same ground. So, if you want to make sure everyone knows that THIS is the correct bill (say, for purposes of googling it), then the acronym helps a lot. Also, it's an opportunity for some spin, as in the PATRIOT Act.
C.M. in Raymond, NH, asks: Dick Cheney said of TFG, "there has never been an individual who is a greater threat to our republic." Not to downplay the threat of the shouty yam of hate and chaos, but surely John C. Calhoun or Aaron Burr posed threats as great or greater? Any thoughts from the historian?
R.E.M. in Brooklyn, NY, asks: Do you agree with Dick Cheney's statement, "In our nation's 248-year history, there has never been an individual who is a greater threat to our republic than Donald Trump"? If "threat" means intent to do harm to the United States multiplied by proximity to the power to effect that intent, I'm thinking it's either Trump or George McClellan, who, if I recall correctly, would have allowed the seceding states to leave had he won the presidency, but I welcome the Staff Historian's insights.
(V) & (Z) answer: We must allow for the possibility that Cheney was engaging in a little bit of hyperbole. "no greater threat to our republic" is more compelling than "one of the top five greatest threats to our republic."
That said, we know how things turned out, and that Burr, Calhoun, and McClellan did not actually destroy the republic. Two of the three didn't come particularly close, Burr because he bit off more than he could chew and McClellan because he got trounced in the election, and was never really competitive (he only accepted the nomination a few days before Atlanta fell, setting the Confederacy on the path to destruction). Calhoun is in the running for biggest threat, but he was also part of a team effort, and he did die a decade before the Civil War commenced. Do we really give him substantially more "credit" than Robert E. Lee or Jefferson Davis?
In any event, Trump is different, in part, because his story is not yet written. He still has the potential to destroy, where the others didn't. Further, Trump exists in an era where foreign adversaries are more present and more dangerous, and where nuclear weapons exist. If Calhoun and the Confederates had succeeded (and seceded) beyond their wildest dreams, that would have been a tough blow for the country, but at least the United States would still have existed. On the other hand, if Trump really and truly screws up, the U.S. could plausibly be blown off the face of the earth. So, he adds an extra level of danger/risk that simply did not exist in the 19th century.
And indeed, for this reason, if we had to choose someone who was in the running with Trump for "greatest threat to the republic," it would pretty much have to be someone who lived after 1930 or so. We could see a case for Smedley Butler, who might well have become a dictator, if not for the fact that he wasn't interested and instead chose to expose the Business Plot. We could see a case for Charles Coughlin, a budding American Hitler in the 1930s. We could see the case for Hitler himself, for obvious reasons. We could see the case for Joseph Stalin, as the main instigator of the Cold War, or Nikita Khrushchev, as the main instigator of the Cuban Missile Crisis.
Oh, and every single 'Nade, of course.
A.G. in Scranton, PA, asks: How were Barry Goldwater, Walter Mondale, and Eugene McCarthy far less popular than this racist, sexist, felonious clown who can't speak coherent sentences?
How?(V) & (Z) answer: Because American politics are so polarized today that 80%, maybe 85%, of the population simply will not consider one party or the other. This creates a vicious cycle, in which the parties (particularly the minority party) lean more and more heavily into their base's agenda, making that party even less palatable to anyone not part of the base.
This is not the only hyper-polarized era in American history, of course. But it absolutely began in the 1960s, with the willingness of Richard Nixon and other Republicans to villainize their opponents. It reached a fever pitch in the 1990s, thanks to Newt Gingrich, Rush Limbaugh, and the creation of Fox "News." Recall the letter we got last week from the right-winger who described us (V and Z) as "the enemy." That is the kind of thinking that makes it impossible to ever cross the aisle.
We do not suggest that the polarization is 100% the responsibility of Republicans and/or right-wingers. But the responsibility of those folks is well above 50%.
B.C. in Soldotna, AK, asks: "George W. Bush was not a great president" isn't a controversial statement. However, his PEPFAR program may have saved somewhere like 25 million people. Even accounting for the lives destroyed by the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, that's a lot of people who are alive today who might otherwise not be. Even using high the estimates of around 1,500,000 deaths in Iraq/Afghanistan, that's an incredible net positive.
So, how much of PEPFAR should be attributed to George W. Bush? Would it likely have happened if Al Gore or another person was president? Would it be fair to say that Bush directly saved more human lives with his actions than any other U.S. president?(V) & (Z) answer: Bush deserves an enormous amount of the credit for PEPFAR. AIDS was a particular concern/interest of his and of First Lady Laura Bush, he invested political capital (and actual capital) in addressing the problem, and he hit the jackpot. Other presidents are likely to have had different priorities (for example, green energy for Gore).
There's a lot of comparing apples to oranges here, but if we had to pick a president who saved the most lives, we'd probably go with Franklin D. Roosevelt. First, his New Deal programs undoubtedly saved millions of lives during the Great Depression. Then he led the successful U.S. war effort in World War II; but for American involvement, tens of millions of additional soldiers and civilians would have died in the war. His administration also gave early support to the work of Norman Borlaug, whose work with drought-resistant crops ultimately save hundreds of millions of lives.
You could also make a case for John F. Kennedy. If the Cuban Missile Crisis had gone differently, it could easily have left 100 million (or more) people dead.
C.C. in Dallas, TX, asks: How the heck did I find Electoral-Vote.com? It was probably 2004, but might've been a bit later. Was the site noted in something wide-distribution like a CNN article or referenced in some other political-related news site or blog of the time? I can't imagine I would've done a google search for electoral maps or polling averages—it had to have been referenced somewhere else from a source I would have regularly followed. How did you generate traffic in the early days and how do newer readers discover you now?
As an aside, does site traffic spike in presidential years vs. off years and does it spike as it gets closer to November or is it fairly steady daily readership?(V) & (Z) answer: In the early years, we did some advertising on websites and in college newspapers, and we got some coverage from mainstream media outlets. You could have heard about us either way.
We have been advertising with Google search ads for a couple of months. We will soon start advertising on college newspapers. And we benefit a lot from word-of-mouth (people send links to their friends), for which we are grateful, so please tell your friends.
We do get more visitors in election years, especially presidential election years. And traffic to the site will indeed grow over the next couple of months, as the election draws near.
R.B. in Cleveland, OH, asks: Okay, I'll bite: if Marty McFly and Doc Brown are the antagonists of Back to the Future, then whom do you consider to be the protagonist?
(V) & (Z) answer: Well, if you want a corporeal answer, then Biff Tannen. In the original timeline, he came from a poor family, and was apparently both orphaned and abused. He built up his own support network, and had some success in business, even if he was overly aggressive about it. Doc and Marty mucked around with the timeline and ruined his life, seeing to it that he would remain a member of the working class and thus would continue the cycle.
Alternatively, you can see the protagonist as time itself. It did whatever it was supposed to do. Then, Marty and Doc screwed around with it in ways that most certainly benefited the McFly family, and that most certainly harmed the Tannen family. However, the other impacts are unknown. They might well have done enormous harm (a very real possibility, as indicated by the alternate world of the second movie).