Dem
50
GOP
50
Maybe we'll be on time tomorrow. We'll see what the universe thinks.
If you're still working on the headline theme, we'll note that we could plausibly have used the words King, Queens and Prince.
D.E. in Lancaster, PA, asks: I read that there are eleven federal judges that take cases for Southern Florida. Has anyone calculated the odds that Judge Aileen Cannon has been named to every major Donald Trump case that has gone through that District? It seems a little too impossible to be believed. I'm not sure I believe that anything underhanded has taken place (and yes, that's a hell of a wishy-washy statement) but if this was a plot to a movie, no one would believe it!
(V) & (Z) answer: We are hardly experts in the procedures by which judges are assigned to federal cases. However, while it's somewhat remarkable that Cannon's name keeps coming up, we don't think it's THAT remarkable.
Cannon sits as part of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. That district currently has 30 judges who are active at some level. However, 13 of those have taken senior status, which means a significantly reduced workload. That leaves us with 17 full-time judges. Cecilia Altonaga is the chief judge, and spends some fair chunk of her time on administrative matters, so let's say it's more like 16.5 full-time judges.
Naturally, these judges have different courthouses that serve as their seats. And, on the whole, an effort is made to choose venues that are reasonably convenient to the individuals involved in a case. Let us assume, for our purposes, that the various crimes involving Trump are considered to have taken place at or near Mar-a-Lago. Of our 16.5 full-time judges, 7.5 have their duty station in Miami, which is 90 miles from Mar-a-Lago. That's not exactly convenient. This leaves us with 9 judges, who are all within 60 or so miles of Mar-a-Lago, which is probably close enough.
There is undoubtedly one other consideration, and that is dockets. If a judge's docket is jam-packed (as is surely the case with most or all of the Miami judges, and many of the five Fort Lauderdale judges), it is not a great idea to put even more on their plates, especially given the constitutional requirement for a speedy trial. Aileen Cannon is the only judge who sits at her duty station—Fort Pierce, a city with a population of less than 50,000. It seems likely that, on average, her docket is less full than the dockets of the more urban judges. On top of that, she drew the first Trump case as a fairly new judge. Presumably, her docket was pretty clear at that point. And she drew the third Trump case shortly after dumping the second Trump case—a decision that surely must have cleared a lot of space on her docket.
So, there is certainly some amount of random chance here, but we suspect that a fair bit of it is just the way the system is structured.
P.S. in Portland, ME, asks: Well, one person strongly agreed with me and one person strongly disagreed with me about Kamala Harris pardoning Donald Trump in exchange for him agreeing never to run for office again. What do you folks think?
(V) & (Z) answer: We have answered this before, but we get this question a lot, so we'll answer again.
Politically, we think this would be disastrous for Kamala Harris. Many, many Americans are weary of Donald Trump's abusing the rules and the laws over and over and over and getting away with it over and over and over. He's done it for the entirety of his 10-year political career, and he did it for the entirety of his business career before that. If Harris were to let Trump off the hook yet again, there would be much fury, and she would likely be un-electable in 2028. Remember what happened to Gerald Ford.
From an institutional standpoint, we also think a pardon would be a disaster. A big part of what empowered Donald Trump is that, in the end, every shady president before him got away with their misdeeds. He is undoubtedly most aware of Richard Nixon (pardoned) and Ronald Reagan (AG Bill Barr made Iran-Contra go away). If Trump were to be given a Get Out of Jail Free card, then that fact, combined with the Supreme Court's presidential immunity decision, would unquestionably inspire a future wannabe fascist president to trample all over the laws, left, right and sideways. The precedent needs to be set NOW that no man is above the law, not even the president.
Finally, reader V.P. in New York City makes the excellent point that Trump would not actually be bound by a promise not to run again, since it would be unenforceable. If he DID decide to take another shot at it in 2028, he would say "Oh, that promise I signed? That was me tricking the deep state into leaving me alone. Suckers!"
M.G. in Newtown, PA, asks: That's great information on ascertainment. I did not know that. I learn something new from your site every week.
Based on this, wouldn't a viable plan for the Republicans be to try to gum up the works in a Democratic state instead? Using the scenario you outlined for Georgia, let's say the GOP successfully gums up the works in Pennsylvania. Then the required number of electoral votes would drop from 270 to 260. Assuming the map went the way you have it today, Trump would have 262 electoral votes, Harris would have 257 and 19 would be unascertained. Then Trump would win the electoral college.
I'm sure the Democrats are doing everything in their power to prevent this sort of stuff from happening, but that seems to be where the line of attack from the GOP would come from.(V) & (Z) answer: It's not so easy as you seem to suggest.
First of all, the only way that Donald Trump benefits from a scheme like this is if Trump-friendly officials derail a state that Harris would otherwise win by trying to withhold vote tallies. However, there is no great way to know who is going to win a close state... until the vote tallies are submitted. So, the Trumpers would be left to make their best guess as to whether Trump is going to win, and then to take underhanded action if they REALLY believe if Harris is going to win. But it would just be a guess.
That brings us to the second problem. The states where there are people in key positions to maybe help with such a scheme are purple/red states. But gumming up the works in red states is considerably more likely to help Harris than Trump, should the state's EVs be left un-ascertained.
As to purple states, they don't have the Trumpers in place. Pennsylvania has Democratic governor and a very-big-on-election-integrity Secretary of State. If Pennsylvania Trumpers attempted any chicanery, both men would file suit so fast you'd hear a sonic boom. If you look at the other swingy states, you would struggle to find one that does NOT have some insurance of this sort. Arizona, Michigan, Minnesota, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin all have Democratic governors (and, in most cases, a Democratic secretary of state). Nevada has a Democratic secretary of state. Georgia is run by Republicans, but Republicans who have famously shown that they have no interest in Trumpy shenanigans. There just isn't a good opportunity to help Trump in a swing state.
E.G. in Rosemount, MN, asks: When you wrote about how it's hard to steal an election after ballots have been cast, I immediately pictured a bunch of stereotypical Trumpists targeting highly Democratic counties and burning down the buildings where votes are being counted—driving by in their pickup trucks filled with drunk, raucous white men waving their flags and throwing Molotov cocktails and likely, being directed and spurred on by the man himself. Please tell me how unlikely that would be to make a difference in the election, that security in place to prevent these sorts of things, and that there's magically a back up system in place for PAPER ballots?
(V) & (Z) answer: Well, not all states have a backup paper trail, although many do. But beyond that concern, your scenario is extremely unlikely.
Keep in mind that the United States does not actually have one presidential election, it has tens of thousands of local elections. When ballots are cast, they are generally counted locally, and then transported to some central location by law enforcement to be formally submitted. So, an attack on that central location might slow things down, but it isn't going to wipe out the results, since those will have already been recorded and reported.
On top of that, the people who run elections know full well there's a risk that some yahoos might try to take matters into their own hands. So, individual precincts have fairly substantive security precautions in place, including the ability to summon law enforcement, if needed. And the central hubs where ballots are ultimately submitted and deposited are even more highly secured, with police on-site. If a bunch of yokels showed up with guns and Molotov cocktails, assuming they could even figure out where to go (information that is not widely publicized, for obvious reasons) they would not have much luck disrupting the election. However, they would have an excellent chance of being shot and killed, or else arrested and charged with enough felonies to keep them in prison for a very long time.
S.K. in Sunnyvale, CA, asks: Isn't Donald Trump's August 14 phone call with Benjamin Netanyahu a blatant violation of the Logan Act?
(V) & (Z) answer: Assuming that we (and others) have put the pieces together correctly, and have appropriately linked the phone call with Netanyahu's "no cease fire in the next 45 days" declaration, then yes.
However, speculation is not proof. Netanyahu denies the call even took place, while Trump is not commenting. Assuming that it did take place, both men have been slimy operators for decades, and are clever enough not to create hard evidence of their scheming. The phone call presumably was not recorded or transcribed. If it was, then both men undoubtedly spoke in coded language, like "If I'm reelected in November, Bibi, you'll have so many bombs that you won't know what to do with them all. The biggest, best bombs in history." We all know what that means, but it's not enough to prove some sort of quid pro quo.
And even if Netanyahu and Trump were stupid enough to speak in non-encoded language, and even if they were stupid enough to record/transcribe their conversation, and even if they were stupid enough to let that recording/transcript leak, it is STILL unlikely that Trump would be prosecuted under the Logan Act. There have only ever been two cases brought under the Logan Act, both of those were 175+ years ago, and neither resulted in a conviction.
P.L. in Denver, CO, asks: I have two questions related to the goings on in Israel. First, I had a friendly debate with my neighbor. She says there are 40,000 U.S. troops on the ground in Israel. I told her that while they may be in the region (on ships, in Qatar, etc.) they are not ON THE GROUND in Israel. There may be a smaller number, but I don't believe 40,000. Who is right?
Second, it seems to me that the fighting going on now has three funding sources: (1) Qatar funds Hamas, (2) Iran funds Hezbollah, and (3) The U.S. funds Israel. A regional war does not benefit Qatar, Iran or the US. Assuming all of this is true, I wonder why Qatar, Iran and the U.S. don't get together and tell Israel, Hamas and Hezbollah that they will get no more support as long as this fighting continues. Would that help stop this unnecessary fighting? Or am I making this way too simple?(V) & (Z) answer: Your first question is easy to answer: You are right. The U.S. currently has 40,000 troops in the entire region, not just Israel, and the vast majority of those are not "boots on the ground." Further, the usual U.S. complement in the Middle East is 34,000 troops. So, things right now are not all that different from a non-war situation. When the two carrier groups were present, the U.S. complement grew to 50,000, but they have departed.
Your second question is much harder, because we are most certainly not experts in the geopolitics of the Middle East. But there are two things we do know. First, Iran is most certainly benefiting from this war, because they benefit from anything that creates chaos and suffering in Israel, and because they benefit from anything that creates chaos in American politics. Second, it is politically very difficult for a U.S. president, regardless of party, to give anything other than full-throated support to Israel. It is also politically very difficult for a U.S. president, regardless of party, to negotiate with Iran, particularly when Iran is actively instigating a war in Israel. So, in our (admittedly non-expert) view, we think you are indeed making things way too simple.
M.F. in Calgary, AB, Canada, asks: Why doesn't the United States increase the minimum wage? Why don't the Democrats want that, even?
(V) & (Z) answer: Many Democrats do want to raise the minimum wage. It's been a signature policy position of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) for years. Admittedly, he is not a Democrat, but he caucuses with them and he had a higher minimum wage plank as part of both of his runs for president, when he was pursuing the Democratic nomination. Hillary Clinton absorbed the "raise the minimum wage" plank from Sanders, Joe Biden absorbed it from Clinton and, once elected, also took steps to increase the minimum wage being paid to workers on federally funded projects. And Kamala Harris has come out in favor of an increased minimum wage.
That said, there are two things that have kept this issue from reaching critical mass. The first is that it's become something of a state-level issue. Many states, particularly the blue ones, have imposed their own minimum wage that is well above the federal one. California, to take one particularly notable example, has a $25/hour minimum wage for healthcare workers, a $20/hour minimum wage for fast food workers, and will vote on a proposal in November that would raise the minimum wage for all workers to $18/hour by 2026, with automatic cost-of-living adjustments thereafter. All of these figures are well above the $7.25/hour federal minimum wage.
The second reason that the minimum wage is not a bigger issue is that, in significant part due to the state-level minimum wage laws, only 1.4% of American workers are earning at or below the federal minimum wage. In the 1970s, when the minium wage was a much hotter issue, that number was 15%.
This is not to say that the federal minimum wage is irrelevant. First, 1.4% of workers is still many millions of people. Further, many workers are only slightly above the minimum wage, while many others are paid hourly rates that are pegged to the minimum wage (e.g., federal minimum wage x 1.25). So, if Harris' proposal is adopted, it would help a lot of people. Just not enough people to constitute an election-deciding constituency.
R.D. in Philadelphia, PA, asks: Everywhere on the news, social media, and all other political sites there are numerous reports of groups, individuals, and organizations endorsing a candidate. I am sure many years ago endorsements were very wanted and needed by a candidate. Do they really matter in 2024? Does it help the campaigns? Do you think they sway voters to vote one side or the other?
(V) & (Z) answer: This would be difficult to prove, but we think there are at least two or three situations where endorsements still matter.
First, along the lines of the "declaration against interests" we wrote about earlier this week, we think people do sit up and take notice of an endorsement that is unexpected and goes against the grain. For example, when Scientific American abandons its longstanding policy of not endorsing, and writes an op-ed saying Donald Trump is just too dangerous to elect, that probably reaches people. Same thing when well-known conservatives, like the Cheneys, endorse Kamala Harris. It likely also caused some people to sit up and take notice when Elon Musk, until then known as being somewhat lefty, lined up behind Trump.
The second situation, which is related to the first, is when a person withholds an endorsement that would seem to be automatic. It would be better for the Bushes to actually speak up and say something, but surely some people are taking notice of the fact that they have chosen not to endorse their party's 2024 presidential candidate. Similarly, the North Carolina Republicans who are refusing to support Lt. Gov. Mark Robinson (R-NC) in his run for governor are undoubtedly influencing some voters, even if these Republicans refuse to back Josh Stein (D).
Finally, when formally organized guilds/interest groups/affinity groups make endorsements, there are certainly voters who take notice. For example, if two similar women Democrats are running against each other in the primary, then the endorsement of EMILY's List matters. Similarly, many teachers take note of what the American Federation of Teaches has to say. And many churchgoers listen to what their spiritual leader or leaders say.
L.Z. in Forest Lake, MN, asks: You wrote that Kamala Harris is up over 20 points with female voters, but down 12 points with men. If this is the case, why is the overall polling essentially tied? I had thought that women make up at least half (and sometimes more than half) of the electorate? I see these kinds of discrepancies in polling all the time, where the crosstabs don't seem to agree with the top-level numbers. Could you explain this?
(V) & (Z) answer: It is true that women have voted in greater numbers than men in every election since 1980.
The discrepancy you point out isn't really a discrepancy, though. In that particular poll (NBC News), Harris was actually up 5 points on Donald Trump among voters overall. Beyond that, at least in this election, a larger percentage of male voters than female voters are undecided or say they are planning to vote third-party.
T.C. in Olympia, WA, asks: Donald Trump has recently commented that he may not run again in 2028 if he loses in 2024. While that may or may not be true, what do you see as the most likely scenario of Trump's influence on the Republican primaries for the 2026 midterm elections, assuming he loses in 2024?
(V) & (Z) answer: There are certainly signs that Trump's power over the Republican Party is weakening, most obviously his failure to have any impact whatsoever on the recent budget can-kicking.
There are many X-factors here, but if Trump really does step back from presidential politics, we foresee at least two things happening. The first is a battle royale for the Trumpian throne, as various folks try to seek leadership of the MAGA faction. The second is that the truly Trumpy members of the Republican Party (not the ones who are just pretending for political expediency) will continue to seek the approval and support of The Donald (and not whatever successor emerges, if one does). And Trump will eat that up, because there are few things he loves more than people supplicating before him.
M.D. in San Tan Valley, AZ, asks: Maybe this is too early for this question, but what the heck, here we go. Picture it, it's early 2027, and Kamala Harris is our President. Not only that, but Trump got beaten so badly in 2024 that his cult has pretty much waved the white flag and the Republican Party has shifted back to their original Reagan-like conservative platform. Can you name five potential Republican Presidential candidates who might fit this ideology and possibly become Harris' opponent in the 2028 election and help Saint Ronnie stop spinning in his grave?
(V) & (Z) answer: We think there is zero chance of this happening. It's going to take at least a few cycles to purge MAGA-ism from the GOP, and that's if the Party is lucky.
That said, if we grant your supposition, here are five names for you, from most to least likely to get the GOP nomination: Gov. Chris Sununu (R-NH), Liz Cheney, Larry Hogan, Gov. Phil Scott (R-VT) and Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (D-PA).
D.V. in Columbus, OH, asks: With the Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX)/Rep. Colin Allred (D-TX) race heating up in Texas, it just occurred to me that Cruz seemingly never received a meaningful primary challenge this cycle after his scandal related to Cancun. Why do you think that is?
(V) & (Z) answer: The odds of unseating an incumbent senator are very poor (less than 10%). The odds of doing so in a primary are even worse than that (less than 5%). In a small state, like Wyoming, you might be able to do it based on retail politics—knocking on doors, going to county fairs, holding town halls, etc. In a giant state like Texas, your only hope is if you already have some name recognition, likely because you already hold some sort of political office (representative, state-level office). Few ambitious politicians are interested in throwing away the bird they already have in hand for a 5% chance at the bird in the bush.
R.C. In Des Moines, IA, asks: You have noted several times that the mayorly of New York City is not a springboard to higher office, most recently in "Trouble for Adams in Big Apple." Why is that?
(V) & (Z) answer: A general problem is that most mayor of New York leave office relatively unpopular. It's a tough job, and it's nearly impossible to keep all the various interest groups happy.
Beyond that, we'll go by the various offices a mayor might pursue:
- Governor, Lieutenant Governor, U.S. Senator, etc.: These are the offices that require the person to go from being a New York City candidate to being a New York State candidate. That's a very tough transition, for two reasons. First, New York City is more liberal than New York State as a whole. So, a candidate who tries to make the switch is likely already out-of-step with their would-be new constituency. Second, there is a well-established dynamic where folks outside of the City (especially in upstate New York) are none-too-fond of politicians within the City. Even if someone leaves the mayoralty with high approval ratings (which, again, does not usually happen), they are almost certainly going to take an electoral beating in Albany and Syracuse and Rochester if they try to win a statewide election.
- City-level Office, State Legislature, U.S. Representative: These offices are plausible for a former mayor. However, most (or all) mayors, having served as an executive with responsibility for 8.5 million people, see these jobs as a big step down. We can't say we blame them.
- President of the United States: This option does not have the problems the other jobs have. However, the American people do not seem to approve of mayors presuming to ask for such a giant promotion. Only three mayors have ever become president (Andrew Johnson, Grover Cleveland, Calvin Coolidge) and all of them served as governors of their states between their mayoralty and their presidency. On top of that, the NYC mayors who have tried for the presidency, like Rudy Giuliani and Mike Bloomberg, had their own unique, additional issues. Giuliani ran a foolish campaign in which he did not contest the early primaries and caucuses, while Bloomberg also got in too late and was seen as an out-of-touch plutocrat.
M.B. in Cleveland, OH, asks: I've been having a discussion with my daughter about where to vote. She is an Ohio resident (OH-11) and attends college in ME-02. Maine allows students attending college in Maine to vote in Maine:
The competitive races in Ohio are for U.S. Senator (currently Democrat Sherrod Brown) and the anti-gerrymandering Issue 1. She would be one vote among 5-6 million.
The competitive races in ME-02 are for the U.S. House seat (currently Democrat Jared Golden) and one electoral vote. In 2020, Golden won 53-47 while Donald Trump won the district 52-45. She would be one vote among 350,000-400,000.We have gone back and forth—the Ohio elections seem more important, and probably more competitive, but her vote is a drop in a larger bucket in Ohio than in Maine.
What would you recommend?(V) & (Z) answer: You make good arguments for both options; here's a potential tiebreaker for you. If she votes in Maine, she will presumably vote in a town or a precinct that is obviously a "college" town or precinct. And any candidate who is powered to victory by such towns/precincts will take note of that, which will make them more friendly to the concerns of students and universities (say, when it's time to set next year's budget for higher education). So, both elections offer the opportunity to advance your daughter's partisan goals, but the Maine election also offers her the opportunity to advance the goals of one of her primary interest groups.
D.E. in Atlanta, GA , asks: Is it that The New York Times wants a second Trump administration because they feel they can make more money by writing articles about the inevitable horrors that will unfold? Or is it that they aren't nearly as liberal as is generally believed?
(V) & (Z) answer: We tend to doubt the conspiratorial thinking that says that the staff of the Times has quietly agreed to promote a second Trump presidency. Here are six theories about what IS going on:
- Donald Trump is so unusual that it's hard to know what to do with him, particularly if you've had a traditional journalist's education.
- That said, clicks and eyeballs matter more than ever, and he does attract both.
- The staffs of media outlets lean lefty, but the management tends to lean righty. Further, many of the staffers, while lefty, are what is known in academia as "Mercedes Marxists." That is to say, their politics exist as an intellectual exercise, and they don't have quite so much skin in the game as many Democrats do.
- Right-wing attacks on mainstream media outlets have been tremendously effective. Many mainstream outlets are now scared to death of appearing to be in the bag for the left/Democrats, and tend to overcompensate.
- Similarly, aggravating Donald Trump carries additional risks of being sued and/or being persecuted/prosecuted by a second Trump administration. We don't know how much of an effect that such fears have, but it's not zero.
- Because of sensitivity about public image, as well as budget concerns, many/most outlets are not as self-critical as they once were. For example, The New York Times got rid of its ombudsman/public editor position in 2017. That kind of self-reflection actually tends to give more credibility to an outlet, and the absence of it therefore tends to take away credibility. To give a specific example, the Times and other outlets clearly realize they made a mistake in publishing so much of the hacked Hillary Clinton material, including such trivial things as John Podesta's favorite risotto recipe. If the Times, et al. would just admit they erred, and explain that is why they are proceeding with much greater care now, we think that would go a long way.
We don't presume to suggest this is an exhaustive list, and it's possible we've missed the mark on some of these. But we think we've hit the nail on the head at least a couple of times.
S.Y. in Skokie, IL, asks: Lately, many times when I see a Newsweek story on the Microsoft headline page, it appears to favor Donald Trump, Republican talking points, or is in disagreement with the majority of polls. I have never thought them to be a Fox clone, but has that become the case? Are they simply contrarians looking for clicks, or have they veered into a right-wing direction?
(V) & (Z) answer: In short: looking for clicks.
Newsweek is not especially partisan, per se. However, it HAS been taken over by a pair of investors whose main (and really only) concern is squeezing as much money out of it as they can. Long ago (around a decade), the publication got rid of all its fact-checkers. In the years since, Newsweek has become as clickbait-oriented as is possible, while still maintaining some semblance of being a news organization.
We still link to Newsweek, on occasion, if it's an opinion piece, or if it's a fact-based piece we've verified with at least one other source, such that we're just using the Newsweek version because it doesn't have a paywall. But we never, ever trust any "fact" that only Newsweek has. We made that mistake once or twice (same thing happened with the Huffington Post) and we won't repeat it again.
In many ways, Newsweek is like Sports Illustrated: Investors riding the corpse of a once-respected brand for as long as they can, before the whole thing goes up in flames.
K.R. in Austin, TX, asks: You sometimes discuss how Saturday Night Live can affect elections, and today, I was listening to a Fresh Air episode about the 25th anniversary of The West Wing. It reminded me of a theory I had, and I would like to know your thoughts.
House of Cards (2013-18) was a very popular show that portrayed incredible corruption and evil in our political system. It seemed very realistic. I have wondered if that show influenced more people to feel strongly that Washington was a corrupt cesspool and amplified Donald Trump's message about draining the swamp. This could be especially true given the general impression that people had of Hillary Clinton being manipulative and ruthless in her pursuit of power.
Do you think that House of Cards could have made the difference in Trump winning?(V) & (Z) answer: With these sorts of cultural artifacts, there's almost always a circular relationship. That is to say, an idea gets out there, the movie/book/show/song amplifies it, establishing the idea even more fully and influencing people's perceptions. (Z) has a few lectures with segments like this. For example, how the L.A. Riots (1992) helped perpetuate a particular perception of California that was then reiterated by films like Falling Down (1993) and Pulp Fiction (1994), which served to further perpetuate the perception.
If there's any single event that awakened Americans to the corruption and evil in the system, it's the Nixon presidency and the Watergate scandal. Iran-Contra, and the many scandals of the Bill Clinton and George W. Bush years did not help, either. In other words, House of Cards was just picking up and amplifying what was already out there. Because those ideas were already out there, we don't belive the show had a meaningful impact in terms of "selling" Trump's messaging. Two additional facts increase our confidence in our answer: (1) the average episode of the show reached about 3.5 million viewers, a very small fraction of the electorate, and (2) you might not expect it, but the audience of the show was overwhelmingly female (about 65%), and so not exactly a Trumpy constituency.
K.C. in West Islip, NY, asks: As a New York City public school teacher, Eric "Donald Trump" Adams is my ultimate boss—granted, with multiple levels of bureaucracy beneath him. As a resident of not New York City, however, I have absolutely zero say in the election of mayors and, by association, who will be school chancellor (Chancellor David Banks is also "retiring" at the end of the school year), school superintendents, etc., all the way on down to building administration who gets hired by these same people.
I've suggested that city employees who don't live in the boroughs should, at the very least, get a half vote for mayor or a vote in a mayoral primary for which you can bet I would not vote for Adams (nor would I have done so the first time, either). My colleagues, who live in the city and pay city taxes, think I'm insane and don't have a valid complaint because I don't live there and don't pay city taxes. Is there a legitimate argument to be made for allowing people who work for government agencies but don't live within the political boundaries of that agency to vote for the very people who have such a major impact on their livelihoods?(V) & (Z) answer: While we don't think you're insane, we do think you have the weaker argument here.
First, most people don't get to vote on their boss. They're just stuck with whatever person the system places in that position. Even in academia, where people choose their colleagues and (sort of) their department chairs, they don't choose the deans and the upper-tier leadership.
Second, your proposal is a nightmare of logic and logistics. Do you believe you should get a full vote in your hometown? If so, then you'd get 1.5 votes, while the people who live in the City would get only 1. Does that seem fair? What if someone owns a restaurant in the City but lives in the suburbs. Do they also get a half-vote in the City? If so, what if they own a restaurant in Albany, and one in Syracuse? Do they get half-votes in all three places, plus a vote in their hometown? Or do they get a quarter-vote in all four places? If so, can they decline their vote in Albany, and so have a one-third vote in Syracuse, NYC and their hometown? If not, is it fair that someone's vote should be diluted, against their wishes, because they happen to have a successful business?
And whatever your answers to these many tricky questions might be, who keeps track of all of this, and how? The situation would be ripe for errors and oversights. There would be some people who would knowingly exercise more voting power than is their legal right. There would be others who would do so inadvertently. Would all of these people be prosecuted?
So yeah, we just can't accept your argument.
R.M. in Concord, NH, asks: Now that Nathan Thornsberry has been indicted for his 1/6 crimes, could he face Son-of-Sam-type charges for profiting (book sales) off his misdeeds?
(V) & (Z) answer: Note that Son of Sam laws do not make such works a criminal offense, they just say that a person can't make money off their crimes. There is indeed a federal law, the Victims of Crime Act of 1984, that empowers the federal government to seize the proceeds of such works (like Thornsberry's book), and to deposit them in the Crime Victims Fund, which is used to compensate victims of federal crimes.
S.P. in Harrisburg, PA, asks: Imagine a scenario where the final EV totals are 270 for Kamala Harris and 268 for Donald Trump. If a faithless elector for Harris either refused to vote for her or voted for Trump, would that send the election to the House? If so, could there be a chance that the House selects Trump, since state delegations would probably favor Republicans? There would be huge fallout from that, but could such a scenario be possible?
(V) & (Z) answer: Is it possible? Yes, theoretically. Is it likely? No, not remotely.
There are a bunch of scenarios here, particularly depending on state law where the faithless elector resides (some states have laws that allow them to replace faithless electors) and whether this hypothetical person flips to Trump or votes for some off-the-board candidate. However, the most important dynamic is this: Electors are chosen because they are devoted to the candidate and the party. A Harris elector isn't going to suddenly discover they are a Trumper, and vice-versa.
D.B.Y. in White Lake, MI, asks: If the Republicans still control the House after this year's election, but have failed to pick a Speaker by the time when the electoral votes have to be certified, what happens? Last year they said no business could proceed until then, including swearing in the new House members.
(V) & (Z) answer: There's no way to be sure until it happens, but this probably isn't a problem.
The reason that most House business cannot be done until a Speaker is chosen and sworn in is that there has to be a Speaker in place in order to adopt the rules of the House. But that's not germane here, because the process for approving EVs is in the Constitution and federal law, and not in the rules of the House.
So, the real issue here, in our view, would be the oaths of office. Here's what federal law says:
At the first session of Congress after every general election of Representatives, the oath of office shall be administered by any Member of the House of Representatives to the Speaker; and by the Speaker to all the Members and Delegates present, and to the Clerk, previous to entering on any other business; and to the Members and Delegates who afterward appear, previous to their taking their seats.Usually, it is the Dean of the House (the oldest member) who swears in the Speaker, and then the Speaker swears in everyone else.
Typically, everyone takes the oath at the start of each session, because that's the tradition and (ostensibly) the rule. However, there is nothing in the Constitution or federal law that says that a member's oath actually expires at the start of a new term. Further, the fact that the Dean of the House is able to swear in the Speaker makes clear that the Dean is already a member and so is already sworn in. And if so, then all members who have already served in the House are already sworn in and would presumably be able to participate in the certification process.
The way the law is written, it could be the case that new members could not participate, since there would be no Speaker to swear them in. Or, it could be the case that even the certifying of electoral votes is "business" (though that's not the usual meaning of that term in federal law), and that it cannot be done without a Speaker in place. However, one could persuasively argue that this entire provision is trumped by the Constitution, which says that the House has to perform certification duty, and so any limits on that are not valid.
In short, we think that "the members can do their job, even without a Speaker in place" is the stronger argument.
Also, note that there are 17 days between the commencement of a new session of Congress and the inauguration of a new president. That's there to allow the Congress to address problems that might come up, like the failure to elect a Speaker. So, there would be a fair bit of time for the House to figure things out.
J.A. in Santa Monica, CA, asks: I was thinking that one way to have the country be less gerrymandered by the Electoral College would be to double the size of the House... if we did that, though, would it make States easier to gerrymander or harder?
(V) & (Z) answer: For a whole bunch of reasons, this would not be the solution that it might seem to be. The "Senate Bonus" would still give an advantage (albeit a smaller one) to smaller states. The rounding involved in awarding house seats would help some states over others. So too would the population movement that occurs between censuses.
As a result, the change would not consistently affect one party or the other. The impact would depend on: (1) exactly how many seats were added, and (2) the dynamics of each particular election. If we take your scenario (double the size of the House) and the circumstances of the election of 2020, then the Democrats would have gotten a small boost. However, the Party won that election anyhow. And, in general, the effect of expanding the number of seats would basically be a coin flip, helping the Republicans in about 50% of scenarios and Democrats in the other 50%.
However, more seats would make gerrymandering easier, and would strongly encourage more of it.
If you would like to read more, you can look at this fairly brief report, and this much more detailed one.
R.H. in Sydney, NSW, Australia, asks: When did Maine and Nebraska adopt their current approach of splitting the electoral votes?
(V) & (Z) answer: Maine was in 1969 and Nebraska in 1992. Note that they are not the only states to try out this approach—California, Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky, North Carolina, Massachusetts, Illinois, Maine, Michigan, Missouri, and New York have all done it at some point in the past.
C.C.B. in Beavercreek, OH, asks: Has anyone calculated what the electoral map would look like if every state allocated their electoral votes the same as Maine and Nebraska?
Is polling sufficiently detailed to make a rough estimate?(V) & (Z) answer: Since most districts aren't polled, there's no way to know what would happen if the election were held today. However, if the "District Method," as it is known, had been used in the last six elections, it would have produced three wins for the Democrats and three for the Republicans. In reality, in the last six elections, there have been... three wins for the Democrats and three for the Republicans. So, except in rare circumstances, allocating all (well, most) EVs by district doesn't have an effect.
L.N. in Arden, NC, asks: I'm puzzled as to why so many people need to register to vote for each election cycle. Of course, there are newly eligible voters each cycle, mostly young adults. But that doesn't explain the extensive and successful voter registration efforts. So, the question is why are so many people not on the voter rolls?
(V) & (Z) answer: There are about 3.5 million Americans born each year, while another 850,000 or so immigrants acquire citizenship. So, in every 2-year cycle, that's around 8.5 million who previously could not have legally registered to vote. On top of that, about 9 million people move to a new state each year, which means 18 million people who need to re-register each cycle on that basis. And then there are people who were booted off the voter rolls for one reason or another, the people whose names changed or who otherwise need to update their information, people who have just never gotten around to registering, etc. So, there's plenty for voter registration groups to do each cycle.
J.K. in Haarlem, The Netherlands, asks: Why are (most) cabinet members called "Secretary" and not "Minister" or some other title?
(V) & (Z) answer: Because, at the time those decisions were being made, "Secretary" seemed more democratic and less British. Those were both big selling points in 1789-90.
D.P. in Oakland, CA, asks: The following is from the new Rick Perlstein op-ed on polling: "As a historian, I was studying how Ronald Reagan's runaway landslide in 1980 was proceeded by every pollster but one supremely confident that the race was just about tied."
Is that correct? That's not how I remember it.(V) & (Z) answer: Well, it's not exactly wrong, but it's certainly constructed in a way so as to make the point that Perlstein was trying to make.
Note, in particular, "every pollster" and "just about tied." There were considerable fewer pollsters then (basically, four or five serious ones), so the consensus he implies is not nearly as overwhelming as it might seen. Meanwhile, "just about tied" is not the same thing as "tied."
If you examine the national opinion polls from that election (there weren't very many state-level polls back then), you will see two things. First, of the 23 polls taken after the RNC (which went first that year, since the Democrats were incumbent), Reagan led in 20 of them. Second, after enjoying a double-digit lead in many summer polls, his lead in polls taken in the weeks before the election was generally 3-5 points. He won by 9.
If this site had been around in 1980, our final assessment would have been something like this: "You have to think Reagan is going to win, but it's not impossible that Carter's late momentum, plus incumbency, might let him pull a rabbit out of a hat. Probably not, though; Reagan has run an effective campaign, Carter hasn't, and this hostage situation in Iran is a real anchor around the Peanut Farmer's neck."
In short, in our view, the pollsters correctly and overwhelmingly called the election for Reagan and, although they had it closer than it really was, they did not predict a tie or near-tie.
F.C. in DeLand, FL, asks: Recently, Sen. Mitt Romney (R-UT) recommended The Age of Acrimony: How Americans Fought to Fix Their Democracy, 1865-1915 by Jon Grinspan. The Senator said that the time described was similar to the current days, and that those times ended when the citizens realized that the level of acrimony wasn't sustainable or helpful.
What do you think about Romney's thesis, that the times were comparable? And what do you think about this book? If prefer not to spend the money, and more importantly the time, reading the book if it isn't worth it. There are a limited number of books I can read, so I'd prefer not wasting my time if possible.(V) & (Z) answer: We have argued, numerous times, that there is much in common between the Gilded Age and the current era, and we are hardly the only ones to think this (search Google for "New Gilded Age"). For this reason, it's not terribly surprising that currently we have both a populist and a progressive movement right now, as happened at the tail end of the original Gilded Age. That said, we think Romney's characterization of why things changed is a little Pollyanna. It's not because people awakened one day, said "Can't we all get along?" and engaged in a rousing chorus of "Kumbaya." It was because they got sick and tired of certain problems and their consequences.
You should consider picking up Grinspan's book. The argument is substantive, and he makes it accessible by telling the story through the eyes of two memorable and rather cantankerous figures, William "Pig Iron" Kelley and his activist daughter Florence. The book can be had for less than $20, and if you read a couple of chapters and decide it's not your cup of tea, you can always donate it or give it away.
I.T. in Orlando, FL, asks: You wrote: "If what you want is folks who crunch all the information in their heads, and then make their best guess as to what it all means, read Cook Political Report or Sabato's Crystal Ball."
Have you considered making a breakdown of your own "gut feel" guesses just before Election Day? Just for each of your own personal posterity? You could make it a friendly competition to see which of you two gets closer.(V) & (Z) answer: We did this back in 2020, and (V) was more accurate than (Z). We'll probably do it again this year, and see if (Z) can even the score.
M.G. in Boulder, CO, asks: Now that you are nearly (I hope) over COVID, would you give us a health report? What have you learned about current treatment and restrictions, and what advice do you have for us? You might link your reply to your original item about your experience.
(Z) answers: Thanks for asking! As with the original item, I'll write this in first person.
Anyhow, I am about 90% better, give or take. Mostly functional, but a lingering cough, and something less than 100% stamina.
I have only two additional insights, beyond what I already wrote. First, this disease requires a lot of rest to overcome. Needless to say, that is generally easier said than done. Most people, including me, are not in a position to take a 3- or 4- week sabbatical from everything. So, you do the best you can.
Second, while many people (including V) had good results from Paxlovid, I did not perceive a meaningful impact. As already noted, I went from really, really sick on the first day to pretty OK on the second day (maybe 60% or 70%), and there was a slow but steady improvement over the next several weeks. The Paxlovid did not seem to change the trajectory much. On the other hand, the Ivermectin and the bleach injections were a big help.
(Note: I do not imagine that any reader of the blog would take that last line seriously. But if a non-reader happens to stumble across this, perhaps due to a Google search, the bit about Ivermectin and bleach was a joke.)