Saturday Q&A

The re-election of Donald Trump, and the re-emergence of a Republican trifecta, has, not surprisingly, led to a dramatic uptick in the number of civics questions.

And if you're still working on the headline theme, we'll suggest you might need to put your thinking toque on.

Current Events

C.F. in Waltham, MA, asks: Donald Trump has suggested he will declare a state of emergency to use the military to deport people without due process. He's loading his Cabinet with amazingly immoral, unqualified people with no FBI background checks. He's going to do big-time tariffs. In fact, it is so bad even some of his supporters are starting to question their votes. Is there any possibility that a campaign directed at the selected electors could persuade 44 Republican electors to go faithless? Hypothetically (since I know there is almost no chance of that), would that actually put Kamala Harris in as president, in a completely unprecedented way?

(V) & (Z) answer: The Constitution makes very clear that whatever candidate gets the majority of the electors is the duly-elected president of the United States. If 44 electors were to flip from Trump to Harris, then yes, she would become president.

However, there is zero chance this will happen. Electors are not randomly selected; they are chosen on the basis of being extremely faithful supporters of the candidate and party to which they are pledged. Maybe a couple of rogues sneak through, but not 44 of them.

Also, even if Harris were to gain the presidency this way, the effects would be... bad. She would have no mandate to govern, and limited legitimacy, even in the eyes of many people who did not vote for Trump. There would be mass resistance, probably violence in the streets, and a Congress that would not work with her at all. Then, in 2026, the Democrats would take a thrashing in the midterms.

---

J.P. in Lancaster, PA, asks: I've heard a couple of reports about voters who said that they preferred Harris, but voted for Trump this year because they were afraid of a civil war if Trump lost. How much of an impact, if any, do you think such people had on the results of the election? How common do you think this attitude was?

(V) & (Z) answer: First, we do not think this was a very common attitude, because it's pretty stupid. We very seriously doubt there were enough people thinking this way to affect a single state, much less the entire election.

Also, we think you should treat with extreme skepticism any "Here's why I voted for Trump" explanation that does not pass the smell test. There is still some level of social stigma associated with supporting him, particularly if a person is not a white, non-college male. We have no doubt that some of his voters don't want to admit the true reasons for their support to other people. We also have no doubt that some of his voters don't want to admit the true reasons for their support even to themselves. So, they offer up alternative explanations to avoid speaking the truth.

Note that we also have our suspicions this applies to some garden-variety explanations, as well. For example, there is a very real possibility that, for some people, "I thought Trump would be stronger on the economy" is really just a socially acceptable replacement for something like "God, I hate these immigrants/Muslims/trans women."

---

S.K. in Sunnyvale, CA, asks: You wrote: "But, as compared to [Matt] Gaetz, [Pam Bondi] looks like Sir Galahad (a.k.a. the 'Stainless Knight')."

In light of reactions like this, I have to wonder, had she been the first choice for AG, would her confirmation have been as assured as it seems to be now? I know such 3-D chess is beyond Trump, but I could see him being coached through a maneuver like this by any number of advisors.

(V) & (Z) answer: We suppose that Trump might be tricked into doing something like this by his more-clever advisors. But we simply do not believe he was a knowing participant in such a scheme.

First of all, Trump did actual arm twisting to try to get Gaetz approved. If the only point was to establish a baseline for how bad the AG could be, so as to make Bondi look good by comparison, there was no need for that. Trump could have just let Gaetz twist in the wind for a few weeks, and then had him withdraw. Second, one must always remember that Trump hates, hates, hates, hates to lose. More mature politicians (e.g., every president besides Trump) are sometimes willing to take a short-term loss in service of a long-term win. Trump does not think long term. Full stop. He's only concerned with today's win, today's loss, today's insult, today's outrage. He just is not someone willing to lose the battle in order to win the war.

---

R.H. in Silver Spring, MD, asks: You've mentioned twice recently that Tulsi Gabbard may well be a Russian asset, but didn't explain why. It's a heck of an accusation; can you explain the reasoning or evidence behind that?

(V) & (Z) answer: First, and most important, she has consistently parroted the talking points of the Putin regime, Most obviously, she has taken the position that in the Ukraine War, Putin is the good guy and Volodymyr Zelenskyy is the bad guy. Second, she is a regular presence on state-run Russian television, sometimes through direct appearances, sometimes through clips drawn from appearances on Fox and other American programming. Third, she has palled around with Bashar al-Assad, who is effectively a puppet of Putin.

We do not know if she is, or is not, a Russian asset. What we do know, for an absolute certainty, is that she is perceived as a Russian asset. And that is enough to leave her unable to do the job to which she has been appointed.

---

C.L.C. in San Mateo, CA, asks: What the Buck is Kamala Harris doing on vacation now?

We need her for confirming judges during the Lame-Duck session. She needs to get back to Washington. In January, she can take an all the vacation she wants. Indeed, she should probably take a permanent vacation abroad.

(V) & (Z) answer: Her absence has not kept any judge from being confirmed. And if it did, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) would just reschedule the vote for a time when she will be back in town. The Senate has already reached an agreement to adjourn until after Thanksgiving, and once they re-convene, she'll be back and ready for tie-breaking duty.

---

B.D. in St. Agatha, ON, Canada, asks: My question is comes from a podcast (yes, I am an aging podcast junkie...), namely It Could Happen Here, the daily and younger sibling of Behind the Bastards.

Recently, while discussing the ramifications of the new administration, the hosts mentioned that key members of the government, many in the Department of Justice, have lawyered up and are being advised to not be in the country at all on January 20, as tRump could immediately issue an executive order to arrest them. I am thinking Jack Smith and even Merrick Garland have to be on that list. Do you think that could happen? Do you think that tRump would arrest Joe Biden and Kamala Harris?

(V) & (Z) answer: If we were someone who might be on Trump's "enemies list," we probably would lawyer up, and we probably would make sure to be in a "safe space" for a few weeks in late January and early February. A foreign country is one option, but a blue state like California is probably pretty good, too. Better safe than sorry, after all.

We very seriously doubt that Trump will actually start trying to round up and prosecute his enemies, however. He would struggle to find people willing to carry out obviously illegal orders. And even if he did find such people, once things got to the courts (and they will get there FAST, thanks to a little thing called a writ of habeas corpus), the cases will get tossed out, leaving Trump with egg on his face. He HATES that. Almost as embarrassing would be if he announced that he was going after, say, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), and then he was unable to actually capture her.

Thus far, Trump v2.0 is not all that different from Trump v1.0. He's surrounding himself with a lot of loons, along with a smaller number of basically sane people. He's bumping up against Senate resistance. He's still got the attention span of a fruit fly. Add it all up, and we see no reason to think his "lock 'em up" approach will be any different in 2025 than it was in 2017. He'll whine, and bitch, and moan about how [person like Hillary Clinton] should be locked up, and maybe he'll lead his rally-goers in chanting on that point, but he won't actually do anything because there's just too much potential for failure.

Oh, and he's especially unlikely to try to arrest Biden and/or Harris. First, that would be a scorching-hot potato to try to handle, and could trigger riots in the streets. Second, Harris gets 6 months of Secret Service protection and Biden gets lifetime protection. The U.S.S.S. is not going to allow their protectees to be arrested just 'cause.

---

P.N. in Austin, TX, asks: You wrote: "It could be a long time before we see a president, or a presidential candidate, with the foreign policy chops of a Biden, a Hillary Clinton, a George H.W. Bush, or a Richard Nixon."

I am a big supporter of President Biden. I honestly believe he's been the best president of my lifetime (I was born in 1975). I would be curious if you agree with that statement. But that's not my question today. No, my question today is: Was Biden's Ukraine strategy far too conservative?

It seems like Vladimir Putin's nuclear threats are far more bluster than actual threat. Ukraine has been losing ground, despite the August gains in Kursk. It seems like Biden and his campaign may have understood far earlier than the general public how far behind he was in the presidential race. So... should he have been more aggressive? Should we have authorized attacks on Russian soil sooner? I feel like, if Putin succeeds, history will look back on Biden's strategy as insufficient. Am I being too harsh or hasty?

(V) & (Z) answer: Biden might well go down as the best president of the last half century, but it's really too early to make a meaningful assessment.

As to his Ukraine approach, Biden was juggling two pretty difficult foes: Putin, and Republicans in the House. He also had to keep in mind the concerns of European allies, not to mention Volodymyr Zelenskyy and Ukraine. Backseat driving and "What if?" questions are easy enough in theory, but things get a lot harder when the buck stops with you.

Ultimately, we think this is a pretty good example of what evolutionary psychologists (and others) call error management. In brief, this is the notion that humans (and other species) are predisposed to make lots of small, low-cost errors in hopes of avoiding one or two large, high-cost errors. There are things that Biden could have done differently, and maybe they would have produced better results. But maybe those things would have provoked a very bad response from Putin, like the use of a tactical nuke. The costs of the latter outcome are so great that Biden just couldn't risk it. So, he had to play things on the safe side.

---

S.S.L. in Battle Creek, MI, asks: I've taken an inexplicable interest in Russia, China, Iran and North Korea. How effective do you think the military and career politicians will be in curbing the Trump administration's worst impulses? What are the likely outcomes of Trump being seen as weak and mercurial by foreign powers?

(V) & (Z) answer: Keeping in mind this is not our area, here are our two predictions for you. On the domestic front, we foresee military and intelligence professionals performing a lot of what could be called "compliance theater." The generals will say, "Ah, yes, no more women in combat roles! Understood, sir, and once the women's enlistments are up in 3 or 4 years, we'll get to work on figuring out how to get to work on figuring that out!" By the time anything might actually happen, he'll be out of office. We foresee such passive resistance on anything else that is far outside the norm, and is clearly counterproductive.

Similarly, the intelligence establishment just might have some experience with keeping their cards close to the vest and with putting one over on people. So, they will surely figure out very fast what Trump wants to hear, and then will make sure that he hears exactly that... while continuing to do business largely as usual. If they have to deceive DNI Tulsi Gabbard, too, then so be it.

On the foreign front, there is simply no question that America's allies will trust the U.S. much less going forward. Even if they realize that Trump is not your usual president, the fact is that nobody can be sure there won't be another Trump-like president immediately after him, or 4 years after him, or 8 years after him. A dozen or more presidents, stretching at least as far back as FDR, painstakingly cultivated a foundation for the United States' relationship with the world, and Trump has taken a sledgehammer to that.

As to America's enemies, they will play Trump like a fiddle, just like they did the first time. You're going to hear more about Kim Jong-Un in the next year than you did in all of the past 4 years combined. That said, Trump's mercurial nature is also an advantage, of sorts, here. He's the only president since 1950 who, if he's angry enough, might actually order a nuclear strike. We doubt the military would carry it out if it was not defensive, but just the risk is enough that a China or a Russia or a North Korea won't push their luck TOO much.

---

D.K. in Pataskala, OH, asks: Do we know who the President pro tempore of the Senate when the Republicans will be take over next year? It would be nice if the position was only an honorific. But, with the position high up in the list of presidential succession, should the unthinkable need arise, I'm sure there'd be questions regarding whether nonagenarian Chuck Grassley or octogenarian Mitch McConnell would be up to the task. Next up in Republican seniority would be Susan Collins (who turns 72 in December). Will it be her?

(V) & (Z) answer: It is pretty much always the senior member of the majority party; the only reason an exception was made for Dianne Feinstein was because she was clearly suffering from serious cognitive decline. If the Republicans were to pass over Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA), even if he is 91, it would be a slap in the face, and a de facto declaration that he's not mentally sound. We don't think the Senate Republican Conference will do that to one of its most esteemed members.

The risk here is really not all that great. It's hard to envision a scenario where, somehow, ONLY the top three people in the line of succession all become unavailable, and in a timeframe that does not allow for replacements to be chosen. The only plausible way the trio could be wiped out all at once would be some sort of nuclear (or other military) strike on Washington, and if such a thing was successful (unlikely), it would also wipe out the Senate Pro Tempore.

Politics

M.B. in St. Paul, MN, asks: Rep. Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (D-WA) is getting a lot of press lately for her win in a Trumpy district in Washington.

To me, a centrist Democrat, she sounds level headed and like she can offer a lot to the Democrats. Do you see a future for her in the party? Either at a statewide or national level? Or do you think she's too centrist for progressives to stomach?

(V) & (Z) answer: She is very young (36), and has serious blue-collar bona fides. So, she could very well have a future in the Democratic Party. But we think would be pretty far in the future.

The fundamental problem is if she runs statewide, she has to face Democratic primary voters in Washington State. And if she runs nationally, she has to face Democratic primary voters across the country. She's probably taken a few too many conservative positions on guns, student debt, certain aspects of abortion access, etc. to be palatable to such voters right now.

To be more specific, if Democratic voters in 2028 decide that what the party really needs is a centrist who can get some independent/moderate Republican votes, that lane is reserved for Gov. Andy Beshear (D-KY).

---

T.W. in Brussels, Belgium, asks: Combining two of this week's stories, with Rep. Mary Peltola (D-AK) having lost narrowly (after winning last time), and an Alaska senate seat being up in 2026, could she put that seat "in play"?

(V) & (Z) answer: Yes, she could. She can clearly win statewide since, in Alaska, there is only one representative, and thus elections for representative are statewide elections. And she would be expected to benefit from it being a midterm, which tends to favor the party that does not control the White House.

However, facing off against an incumbent, and one who is not crazypants, is a tall order. Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-AK) will be no easy opponent. On top of that, Peltola benefits from ranked choice voting, and could not plausibly win without it. Fortunately for her, a ballot initiative to get rid of it failed, by a mere 664 votes.

---

T.J.R. in Metuchen, NJ, asks: Is there any chance at all that Gov. Mike DeWine (R-OH) appoints Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH) to J.D. Vance's soon-to-be-vacant seat? DeWine is 77 and doesn't like Donald Trump. What better way to poke Trump in the eye? I know, the chances of this are 1% at best, and DeWine is a stalwart Republican. Still, I like to dream...

(V) & (Z) answer: We'd say 1% is in the ballpark, but maybe a little high. If DeWine was going to do this, he would say one or both of these things: "Washington works better when one party does not have too much power" and/or "We had two great Senate candidates this year, and I think Ohioans will be better served by someone who has nearly two decades' seniority, as opposed to someone starting from scratch."

It's a longshot, but it's not impossible.

---

D.P. in Oakland, CA, asks: You wrote about a loose Never Trump coalition in the Senate that includes Sens. Kevin Cramer (R-ND), Susan Collins (R-ME), Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) and John Cornyn (R-TX). In a previous post, you had mentioned that Sen.-elect John Curtis (R-UT) was no friend either. Funny that there seems to be a more virulent MAGA strain thriving among Republicans in the slave states than elsewhere. Do you think this is a coincidence?

(V) & (Z) answer: Well, allow us to point out that Texas (Cornyn) was a slave state until the bitter end. That notwithstanding, this is not a coincidence. The former slave states have spent the last 400 years being the most socially conservative, and often reactionary, part of the country. Of course they are going to drink more deeply from the socially conservative, reactionary MAGA cup than any other part of the country.

---

R.H. in Chicago, IL, asks: You have written occasionally about the carpetbagger effect, especially as it concerns U.S. Senate elections. To remind your readers, this is when a candidate running for office in [State X] has an insubstantial connection to that state, perhaps only moving there in order to become a candidate there. The most well-known recent example is the candidacy of Dr. Mehmet Oz, a New Jersey resident who lost to John Fetterman in Pennsylvania.

I doubt that the carpetbagger effect matters much. Considering Oz, for example, I believe his other liabilities were more important. In 2024, the carpetbagger effect didn't seem to hinder carpetbagger candidates. If you were to put a number on the carpetbagger effect, what would you choose? (Note: For me, it's 0.3%.)

(V) & (Z) answer: We don't think you can put a single number on it, although even if you did, we'd say your number is low.

First, carpetbaggers are more problematic in some places than others. In states that are more homogeneous, and that don't have that many people moving in and out, then "outsiders" are more likely to be viewed with suspicion. By contrast, in the highly cosmopolitan states with many migrants—California, New York, Washington, etc.—it's considerably less likely to be a problem, or even to be noticed.

Second, the main problem for carpetbaggers generally isn't their carpetbagger status, per se. It's that they don't know the state and its issues as well as a long-term resident or a native does. We have both lived in California, and both of us have voted there for decades. If we somehow had to run for office in the Golden State, we could at least speak the language of California voters. But if we somehow had to run in, say, Vermont? There would have to be a pretty serious learning curve, and that's a liability against someone who doesn't have to deal with that.

---

M.D. in Sacramento, CA, asks: I'm not a fan of polling and the emphasis put on it during elections. That said, what are the chances that someone would deliberately lie to a pollster in order to potentially help their candidate? Sure, 40 years ago you didn't have to worry about it. It might be more of a factor in polarized America

(V) & (Z) answer: There are undoubtedly people who lie to pollsters. They might lie to try to screw up the results. They might lie because they are embarrassed to tell the truth. They might lie because they don't really know what they are being asked about, and they don't want to look stupid.

There are also people who will give inaccurate answers without them being lies, necessarily. It's possible that a person does not admit the truth on some things, even to themselves. If so, then they are going to communicate such falsehoods to pollsters, as well (this is called self-deception). In addition, human memory is very fallible, and depending on the question, many people will give answers that they believe to be correct, but that are not actually correct.

The real issue is when the lying/inaccuracy is not randomly distributed, and is disproportionately found among supporters of a particular candidate, or members of a particular demographic, or in some other pattern that taints the results.

---

D.E. in Lancaster, PA, asks: So, only two individuals had sex transition surgery in U.S. prisons, one in 2022 and the other in 2023. The average cost of said surgery is $3,000 to $50,000 and the IRS processed 164,997,000 individual tax returns in 2022. That means the cost to individual tax payers is between .00002 and .0003 cents a year. Of course, the price is further diluted when you consider the total revenues brought in by the federal government—$4.9 trillion in 2022. That's making an Andes Mountain range out of a quark. My question is: Why don't the Democrats point this out and use this infinitesimal amount and compare it to the tax cuts for the rich?

(V) & (Z) answer: We will explain to you the thinking here. Readers can decide for themselves if they believe the thinking was correct.

First, let us tell you a story about Ronald Reagan. At some point in his first term, 60 Minutes did a savage takedown of his policies on mental health care, and the deleterious effects of slashing funding for that particular need. The day after the segment aired, a member of the Reagan administration called the producer that had put the segment together... to thank the producer. The producer was dumbfounded, but the Reagan staffer explained that in the footage that 60 Minutes used, Reagan was looking dapper and lively, and that's the only thing anyone would remember.

Similarly, if the Democrats had confronted those Trump ads head-on, then maybe the blue team would have been able to defang the claims some. On the other hand, maybe the effect would have been that voters would have heard even more verbiage about Democrats and paying for operations for trans people, and the details otherwise would have been lost. In that case, the Democrats would have been doing the Republicans work for them, just as 60 Minutes ended up doing Reagan's work for him.

Second, it's pretty hard to push back against something like this without saying things that alienate your own voters, those who are sensitive about transphobia. So, it's at least possible that pushback against the ads could have driven some people into the Trump camp while at the same time driving some Democrats to stay home or vote third-party. Obviously, what the Democrats chose to do did not work. But hindsight is 20/20 and, on top of that, you can be certain that the blue team did polling and focus grouping on this issue, so they weren't just guessing.

We have a couple of items coming up on this general topic. We would have had them yesterday, but they're tricky enough that we wanted a bit more time to get them right.

Civics

G.B. in Collin County, TX, asks: Did the founders of the United States really think that there would never domestic political parties? While the founding generation may have considered it ideal that politicians in the new United States would act on their individual values and not on group loyalties, did they really think that would outlast their generation?

(V) & (Z) answer: You must keep in mind two things about the discussions that led to the Constitution. First, they took place in humid Philadelphia, in the middle of summer, in an era 120 years before air conditioning. Second, reaching agreement on key points was very difficult. And the framers knew that selling the Constitution to the states would be very difficult.

Add this all up, and there was much pressure on them, practical and otherwise, to get something hammered out, but to leave pretty big chunks of the "the plan" vague, for future officeholders (and generations) to figure out. Further, even if they had decided that political parties were an imminent danger, it's hard to imagine what they might have done to forestall that, other than the things they actually did (like divide power, try to insulate judges from political considerations, etc.).

The framers really weren't naive enough to believe there would be no parties. After all, several of them quickly got to work writing essays about how the system would keep parties (well, factions) from getting out of control. And some of them quickly got to work... organizing the first political parties.

---

R.M.S. in Lebanon, CT, asks: In light of Rep. Nancy Mace's transgender bathroom bill, I have a question about the Constitution and transgender Americans. How is the law enforceable, in relation to the First Amendment? A person's gender expression and sexual orientation are forms of self-expression, and should not be grounds for arrest and prosecution. I am a gay man, and if Congress passed a law saying gay men couldn't use the men's bathrooms at the Capitol, I would sue on First Amendment grounds.

(V) & (Z) answer: If you tried to sue on First Amendment grounds, you would lose, because that is not the legal basis for anti-discrimination jurisprudence. There are nine federally protected classes, and the classes were created by various pieces of federal legislation and/or by court decisions. In the case of LGBTQ Americans, "sex" was made a protected class by the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and then the Supreme Court decided that sexual orientation and gender identity are included within "sex" in their ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County (2020). So, if you wanted to sue someone for discriminating against you because you are gay, you would do so under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, with reference to Bostock.

The problem here is that discrimination is legal... if it has a non-discriminatory basis. For example, if a theater company is staging a version of Raisin in the Sun (where all the characters are Black), it's OK for them to say that they will only consider Black actors. If a Catholic archdiocese is hiring staffers, it's OK for them to say that they will only hire Catholics. If a promoter wants to organize a boxing tournament, it's OK for them to say that male boxers may only match up against other male boxers. In all of these cases, the discrimination has some valid basis beyond just discrimination (the usual phrasing is that the discrimination is based on "bona fide qualifications").

As you might guess, people who want to discriminate are very good at coming up with a plausible "valid" basis for their discrimination. So, if Rep. Sarah McBride (D-DE) were to try to sue over Rep. Nancy Mace's (R-SC) bathroom bill, then McBride would claim the legislation exists solely to discriminate, while Mace would argue that it there is a bona fide reason for the legislation, namely to keep women comfortable/feeling safe. There is some fairly related jurisprudence here; women-only gyms have won the right to exist based on this argument.

So, if McBride chose to sue, she might win, she might not. But she's already said she's not going to sue. The pending item we refer to above (well, one of them) is about this very subject.

---

J.R. in Orlando, FL, asks: I have heard the Senate Parliamentarian brought up a lot recently, between your posts and, I believe, Jon Stewart on The Daily Show. In both cases, it seems it is a position that stops things from going through the Senate. So, what is the Parliamentarian? How is the person who holds this position determined?

(V) & (Z) answer: The Parliamentarian of the United States Senate is the non-partisan Senate staffer who is responsible (along with a staff of assistants) for interpreting the rules of the Senate when such interpretations are needed. Their rulings are only advisory, and are not binding, but they are almost always followed, nonetheless. The parliamentarian is appointed (and re-appointed) by the sitting Senate Majority Leader; the current parliamentarian is Elizabeth MacDonough, who has held the post since 2012.

---

D.V. in Columbus, OH, asks: I have a general idea that everything done with budget reconciliation has to be budget-related (lest the Senate Parliamentarian shoot it down), but what can't Republicans repeal or pass under budget reconciliation if they don't nuke the filibuster? Are pre-existing conditions under the ACA safe, with the filibuster being intact? I'm very worried about my prescription medications and what would be covered if the requirements for coverage are done away with.

(V) & (Z) answer: There is no simple answer here; if there was, there would be no need for the Senate parliamentarian.

The basic answer is that if something is going to be done via reconciliation, it has to be primarily related to the budget (it is not enough for it to merely have a budgetary impact). As you can imagine, the majority party tends to think EVERYTHING they want to do is primarily related to the budget, whereas the minority party tends to think that MUCH of what the majority wants to do is NOT actually about the budget. When there's a real leaner case is when the parliamentarian comes in. She might, for example, accept that an effort to reduce costs by excluding plastic surgery from Medicare coverage is a fundamentally budgetary decision, and allow it. And she might, for example, decide that a an effort to reduce costs by excluding abortion care from Medicaid coverage is a fundamentally political decision, and disallow it. As we note in the previous answer, there is a whole staff of people who help Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough answer questions like this.

And the odds are very, very good your prescriptions are safe. Not because of Elizabeth MacDonough, but because trying to slash prescription drug benefits would be political suicide. Donald Trump might try it because he wants "wins," but he will have a very, very hard time finding enough senators to play along. Maine, Florida, West Virginia, Montana, Pennsylvania and South Carolina are all among the states with the ten oldest populations, and all have either one or two Republican senators.

---

B.H. in Northampton, England, UK, asks: I note that in "Republicans Can't Decide If They Want to Punt." you write that "Under [the budget reconciliation process] rules, budget bills can't contain items that are not primarily budget related. If the Republicans try, the Senate parliamentarian would probably order that provision to be stripped. That is a fight that other Republicans don't want now."

However, my understanding (from Wikipedia, at least!) is that the Senate Majority Leader may fire the parliamentarian. So, given the Republican party's current utter disdain for precedent and doing whatever they can to force through their agenda, is it not a possibility that incoming Majority Leader John Thune will fire Elizabeth MacDonough when she doesn't play ball with any non-budget items that they want included, and appoint a MAGAt who will approve anything the Dear Leader's minions want included?

(V) & (Z) answer: First of all, there's no need to fire the parliamentarian. As we note above, MacDonough's rulings are not binding. If Senate Republicans want to ignore her, they are free to do so. However, in practice, that never happens. The last time a parliamentarian's ruling was set aside was in 1975, and on that occasion, senators on both sides were so upset that they agreed to overrule the ruling that overruled the parliamentarian.

The parliamentarian is, along with the filibuster, one of the two things that gives the minority real power in the Senate. For some legislation, the minority can turn to the former. For some legislation, they can turn to the latter. But an enormous portion of the time, at least one of the two options is viable. And whenever a party is in the majority, they are loath to weaken or ignore the parliamentarian, because they know they will be in the minority again one day.

In other words, the filibuster and the parliamentarian kind of go hand-in-hand. If the Republicans decide to cut one off at the knees, then the other will probably follow. But it won't be one and not the other. And it is more likely they will keep both as opposed to undercutting both. Again, they know they'll be the minority one day, and perhaps sooner that expected.

---

R.H.M. in North Haven, CT, asks: If House Republicans end up with a 220-215 or even 221-214 majority, that is really slim. Since Donald Trump has tapped three House members for his administration, vacancies could make the split as close as 217-215 for a while. So, perhaps you could accommodate your readers with a quick rundown of the rules for special elections in the affected states. How long can we expect these seats to remain vacant?

(V) & (Z) answer: There is only one federal rule here: "When vacancies happen in the Representation from any State, the Executive Authority thereof shall issue Writs of Election to fill such Vacancies." That is in Article I of the Constitution, and it means that new representatives may not be appointed, they must be elected in a special election (the same does not hold for senators, where there is a broader range of options).

Generally speaking, state laws give governors some amount of, but not unlimited, latitude in setting the dates for special elections. And generally, there is some prescribed amount of time that must be allowed for both the primary and the general election (although some states forego the primary and allow local party organs to appoint a nominee). Nearly all states allow a governor to skip the special election entirely if the next general election is close enough, but obviously that is not relevant here, as the next general election is either 1 or, in most places, 2 years away.

The seats currently open will all be filled within 70-100 days of the seating of the 119th Congress (on January 3), as that's the timeline laid out in most states, including the ones that currently need to find new representatives.

Incidentally, in case you are wondering why the Senate plays by different rules, it's because senators used to be appointed by state legislatures. So, there was no need to specifically require a special election in case of a vacancy. And no such requirement was added in the Seventeenth Amendment, which switched the U.S. to direct election of senators. Plus, there is someone who can theoretically speak for the same constituency as the one that elected the senator, namely the governor, who is usually the person tasked with picking a replacement senator. There is not someone else who represents the exact same constituency as a departed representative.

---

G.W. in Minneapolis, MN , asks: If Donald Trump were to die after the final date for casting Electoral College votes, and before the date that Congress meets to count the electoral votes, what happens?

(V) & (Z) answer: The moment the Electoral College casts its votes, Trump will be the President-elect of the United States, and nothing can change that. What would happen is that Congress would certify his election and that of J.D. Vance. Then, on Inauguration Day, Vance would be inaugurated as VP (the VP always goes first). Thereafter, since the office of president would be vacant by reason of death, Vance would be inaugurated again as president.

---

J.B. in Bend, OR, asks: In "Trump Legal News: Slow Ride," contributor A.R. in Los Angeles wrote that Special Counsel Jack Smith could request that the federal cases be dismissed "without prejudice," thereby preserving the possibility that they could be revived once Trump is out of office. However, the statute of limitations for both is 5 years. Even if dismissed without prejudice, wouldn't the statute of limitations run during Trump's term?

(V) & (Z) answer: The answer is... nobody knows.

There are some things that stop the clock on a statute of limitations (the technical term is that the statute is "tolled"). For example, if a defendant flees and cannot be captured, or is sick in the hospital, or is too mentally ill to understand the charges against them, then the statute of limitations is tolled until the situation resolves itself (if it ever does).

If Smith, or some other special counsel, were to try to revive the suits against Trump in 2029, then the government would argue that they could not plausibly proceed between Jan. 20, 2025 and Jan. 20, 2029, and so the statute of limitations was tolled. Trump and his lawyers would argue that he has nothing to do with Department of Justice policy, and that he should not be penalized for it, and so the statute of limitations was NOT tolled. And then, it would be up to the courts to decide who's right.

---

D.K. in Iowa City, IA, asks: Would it be possible for a group of citizens to challenge Donald Trump on the basis of his mental health? He is clearly mentally ill, probably a psychopath. Could people demand that he be diagnosed by a team of doctors? And be removed from office if he is found to be psychotic?

I doubt if there is a precedent for this, but it makes sense.

(V) & (Z) answer: Be careful what you wish for. If this was possible, then MAGA Republicans would have been challenging Joe Biden's fitness on a weekly basis. Maybe daily. It would quickly become a partisan tool used by partisans on both sides.

Of course, it is not possible. The Twenty-Fifth Amendment to the Constitution makes clear that the only people empowered to challenge a president's authority on the basis of mental decline (or any other incapacity) are the vice president and the members of the Cabinet, with Congress the final decider should the sitting president dispute the Cabinet's conclusions.

---

K.I. in Sacramento, CA, asks: The Presidential oath of office says, "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President...."

Presumably, "affirm" is for incumbents. Does Trump get to say affirm, since he already served as president?

(V) & (Z) answer: Trump will probably swear, but he can also affirm if he wants. The distinction has nothing to do with whether or not a person has served as president previously. The alternate verbiage was added to accommodate the sensibilities of presidents who do not believe in swearing oaths (usually, for religious reasons). The fellows who wrote the Constitution were being mindful, in particular, of Quakers. However, both Quaker presidents (Herbert Hoover and Richard Nixon) swore, even though they didn't have to. The only president known to have affirmed is Franklin Pierce, who was Episcopalian.

---

S.S. in Mesa, AZ, asks: Has there been enabling legislation for the Twenty-Second Amendment? Or, for that matter, for the Second Amendment? Are all the amendments at risk?

(V) & (Z) answer: As a general rule, there is no enabling legislation, except where the Amendment itself calls for such legislation (for example, the Sixteenth Amendment merely grants Congress the power to levy an income tax, and does not itself levy the tax). One could argue that the now-canceled Eighteenth Amendment had enabling legislation, though that legislation, the Volstead Act, existed to spell out the details of enforcement. Liquor was (broadly) illegal, with or without the Volstead Act.

One could argue that, since the Fourteenth Amendment imposes a pretty specific and severe penalty, there is a need to assign the power to apply that penalty to... some person or entity. But if you don't accept that argument, then the Supreme Court's ruling was novel, and opens up a Pandora's Box where virtually every Amendment could plausibly be legally challenged.

Note also that Donald Trump won his suit against Colorado because it was, in effect, deemed premature (since it was a primary, not a general election). Most of the people removed under the Fourteenth Amendment were booted AFTER they took office. So, maybe this issue will make a return sometime after January 20.

History

F.S. in Cologne, Germany, asks: Donald Trump's comeback is certainly one of the most remarkable political comebacks in U.S. history. So, what are the 10 most remarkable political comebacks in U.S. history?

(V) & (Z) answer: We initially mixed in some non-presidents here, such as Barry Goldwater, Marion Berry and Newt Gingrich, but it was a little too apples and oranges. So, we decided to limit ourselves to the ten most remarkable comebacks among U.S. presidents. That still does a pretty good job of illustrating the various ways a politician might have a second chapter.

1. Grover Cleveland: The original "comeback kid," as it were, given that he was the first president to win, and serve, non-consecutive terms. That said, it wasn't THAT big a comeback, since he won the popular vote all three times he ran. He just happened to lose the Electoral College by a nose in election #2.
   
   
2. John Quincy Adams: His comeback was post-presidential. After brilliant service as a diplomat and as Secretary of State, he got the top job under dubious circumstances, and had an undistinguished and largely unproductive 4 years as president. He left office in 1829 as an unpopular figure, and seemed destined to disappear into retirement. However, he was elected to the House of Representatives in the next election, and went on to be one of the truly great representatives in U.S. history, most distinguished by his principled leadership of the anti-slavery forces in Congress. After 17 years in the House, he quite literally died at his desk.
   
   
3. Franklin D. Roosevelt: He was a rising Democratic star in the 1910s, so much so he was nominated as James Cox's running mate in 1920. The ticket was trounced and then, the next year, FDR developed a paralytic illness (usually identified as polio, but modern scholars have questioned that diagnosis). Between the 1920 defeat and the disability, it seemed, even to Roosevelt, that his career was over. And yet, in 1928, he was elected Governor of New York, followed by election as president in 1932. And we all know what happened from there.
   
   
4. Joe Biden: He was pushed aside for Hillary Clinton in 2016, and between that, his age, and his personal setbacks, it certainly seemed that his long political career was at its end. When he tossed his hat into the ring in 2020, he did not look viable, especially after poor performances in Iowa and New Hampshire. However, a win in South Carolina, as well as a decision by the other leading Democrats that the party simply had to unify to defeat Donald Trump, turned Biden from an also-ran to the de facto nominee in the span of a couple of weeks. And he would go on, of course, to be the only person to beat Donald Trump in a presidential election. That makes Biden the 21st century's answer to Benjamin Harrison (i.e., the only guy to beat Grover Cleveland).
   
   
5. Ulysses S. Grant: Grant is the guy who shows that it's even possible to have a comeback after you die. When he succumbed to cancer in 1885, he was a national hero, and got a funeral procession to match. Thereafter, it was open season upon his memory, courtesy of the Lost Cause writers. As a result, by the 1930s and 1940s, his reputation as both a general and a president were in the toilet. However, the scholarship of the last 30 years—that which focuses on Grant's merits, but also that which highlights the (propagandistic) effects of the Lost Cause—has seen his reputation as a military man fully restored, and his reputation as a president... well, improve substantially.
   
   
6. Jimmy Carter: When he left office in 1981, he was seen as a flat failure. Thereafter, his work on democracy and world peace, his building of homes for poor people, and his generally upstanding and inspiring life, have made him into one of America's great civic heroes. When he passes away, there will be an outpouring of respect and of grief that might not be matched again in the lifetimes of anyone reading this.
   
   
7. Harry S. Truman: He was unusually progressive for his time, which meant he was unusually unpopular for his time, particularly among the people who dominated public opinion (the wealthy, much of the media). And, as we all know, when he ran for reelection in 1948, he was handily defeated by Thomas E. Dewey, just as the polls and the pundits expected.
   
   Except... he didn't lose (certain newspaper headlines notwithstanding). By rallying various elements of the FDR coalition (especially labor), and running against the "do-nothing" Republican Congress, he actually won a pretty comfortable victory, 303 EVs to 189 (plus a margin of more than 3 million popular votes). It's in the running for the biggest upset in presidential election history (alongside Donald Trump's win in 2016).
   
   
8. Abraham Lincoln: He was a pretty effective state legislator for 8 years. Then, he was a fairly low-profile representative for 2 years. Then, his law career took off, and he (and those around him) assumed his political career was over. They were right for 5-6 years (1850-1855, or so), until the Kansas-Nebraska Act threatened to spread slavery across all the territories, and the Whig Party collapsed. Lincoln helped establish the Illinois Republican Party, became its candidate for U.S. Senate in 1858, and then became the national party's candidate for president in 1860. Put another way, he went from "completely out of politics" to "perhaps the best president in U.S. history, winner of the Civil War, instigator of emancipation, author of the Gettysburg Address, and victim of an assassin's bullet" in just under 10 years.
   
   
9. Donald Trump: You could really argue he made two comebacks. Remember, he tried a presidential run in 2000, only to see both his political and business careers founder. But then he signed on to do a reality TV show, which did a remarkable job of re-inventing him as a cunning tycoon. That led to a second presidential run, which was laughable to people on both sides of the aisle... right until it wasn't.
   
   Four years later, of course, he attempted to overturn the results of the election that ended his first term. After years of outrages, corruption and various misdeeds, this seemed to be the straw that broke the camel's back. Republican leaders, including then-Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and then-House Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy, lambasted Trump. He was impeached, and was eventually charged with crimes related to his actions on 1/6, in among a total of 81 felony counts (and numerous civil suits). Democrats across the country, and many Republican leaders, desperately wanted to be rid of him. And the result is... he will be inaugurated as the 47th President of the United States on January 20 of next year.
   
   
10. Richard Nixon: After a meteoric rise, it was Tricky Dick's turn to be his party's presidential candidate in 1960. His 8-year "partner," the wildly popular Dwight D. Eisenhower, threw him under the bus, telling reporters that he (Ike) could come up with something important that Nixon had contributed to the administration, "if you give me a week." That, plus some other campaign road bumps, led to a narrow loss to John F. Kennedy. After a loss in the California gubernatorial election a couple of years later, everyone thought Nixon was done. That included the candidate, who told reporters, "You won't have Richard Nixon to kick around anymore."
    
    That did not last, of course. He re-entered the arena a couple of years later, such that it was obvious by 1965 that he'd be running for president in 1968. After winning that election, he went on to a first term that was very successful and that left him on a glide path to re-election. Unfortunately for Nixon, his paranoia, his shaky morals and his corruption destroyed his second term and his presidency. But, like Trump, he had a second comeback in him. No, Nixon was never elected to political office again. But he did manage to rehabilitate his image (like Carter did), and by the time of his death, he was a respected elder statesman and a trusted advisor to presidents of both parties. That is a trick that we are confident Trump will NEVER pull off. And so, for that reason, Nixon is the greatest comeback artist in the history of the American presidency.
    
    

---

P.V. in Brooklyn, NY, asks: I saw on Wikipedia that the official portrait for Donald Trump has been commissioned by the National Portrait Gallery (paid for by the Save America PAC). I was wondering if they are going to commission a second (different) one after he completes his second term.

It looks like Grover Cleveland only has a single official portrait, but I can't find a lot of information about it.

(V) & (Z) answer: There are actually two "official" sets of presidential portraits. The first is displayed in the White House, and the portraits are commissioned and paid for by the White House Historical Association (WHHA). The other is displayed in the Smithsonian Institution's National Portrait Gallery, and the portraits are commissioned and paid for by private citizens or groups, usually devoted supporters of the president in question.

We put "official" in quotations because neither of these collections has any sort of formal legal status. And so, there are no formal rules governing the collections. That said, Grover Cleveland is represented one time in each collection, setting something of a precedent that each president is recognized, as opposed to each presidency. The non-partisan WHHA is unlikely to break that precedent. On the other hand, it's plausible that Trump supporters could commission and pay for a second portrait, and present it to the Smithsonian. The Smithsonian might accept it, or might not. If the museum did accept, we suspect it would rotate the portraits, rather than displaying both at the same time.

---

R.H.D. in Webster, NY, asks: Assuming Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is approved as HHS Secretary, would that make him and his father (Robert F. Kennedy Sr., Attorney General during the 60s) the first father and son to both have served in a presidential cabinet?

(V) & (Z) answer: No. It hasn't happened too many times, but we know of at least one previous occasion. Alphonso Taft and his son William Howard Taft not only both served in presidential cabinets, they both served as Secretary of War.

---

B.C. in Walpole, ME, asks: Mrs. B.C. in Walpole was mystified, as was I, that Michelle Obama did not make your best First Ladies list. If not Top 5, where would you rank her?

(V) & (Z) answer: Probably somewhere around #8 or #9.

Obama was certainly inspiring, especially to young, Black women. However, she does not equal Jackie Kennedy in terms of how many people looked up to her. Obama was popular and beloved, but most first ladies are. Obama engaged in some admirable activism, most obviously in terms of nutrition for young people, but most first ladies do some sort of good work. And, because she does not like politics, it does not appear Obama was particularly involved in her husband's West Wing work.

In short, Michelle Obama has no major demerits. However, we did not see anything that sets her apart enough to make the Top 5. For the first ladies who DID make the Top 5, we saw specific, outstanding qualities, which we noted.

Gallimaufry

B.H. From Southborough, MA, asks: We used to have fun tracking how long it was between no-Trump EV posts. What's the over/under until we see another one? Is it measured in years?

(V) & (Z) answer: We guarantee you there will be at least one day before the end of the year, because we are going to make a point of having once such day. In particular, the slow holiday season will mean some days made up mostly of stuff that is fun and/or historical. One of those days will be a prime candidate to be the Trump-free day.

---

A.J. in Stockholm, Sweden, asks: Did someone somehow hack you? This looks pretty wrong and surely not your intention:

(V) & (Z) answer: Yes, it's a pretty safe assumption that we did not deliberately set it up so that our tile reads "MARCHING THE ISRAELIS TO THE DOOR OF THE OVEN: Electoral-Vote.com."

We ran that particular graphic 10 days ago, accompanying an item about Mike Huckabee's appointment as Ambassador to Israel, so as to illustrate his history of Islamophobia. We run many different photos and graphics every week; why the algorithm that produced that tile chose that one, while lopping off the top, we have no idea. Another demonstration that maybe AI isn't all that intelligent.

Reader Question of the Week: E Pluribus Unum?

Here is the question we put before readers last week:

(V) & (Z) ask: If you had to come up with a new motto for the United States, one that uses 8 words or less, what would it be?

There was an unbelievable response. We'll share some here, and probably some more at some future date (and note, there were a fair number of similar/duplicate suggestions; we chose the earliest specimen of those):

A.A. in South Orange, NJ: Freedom for me, but not for thee.

---

D.S.R in Tempe, AZ: I've got mine, fu** you.

---

S.R.S. in Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Lasciate Ogne Speranza, Voi Ch'Intrate (Abandon All Hope, Ye Who Enter Here)

---

D.C. in Teaneck, NJ: Deploribus unum (A union of deplorables)

---

D.F. in Norcross, GA: Perhaps this is still the lingering anger and despair talking, but the new motto for the country would be something directed at the rest of the world. To wit: So long, suckers. You're on your own now.

---

P.C. in Toronto, ON, Canada: The inmates have taken over the asylum.

---

P.C. in Vero Beach, FL: No one is above the law... Except HIM.

---

R.R. in Chewelah, WA: Non curamus; non habemus. (We Don't Care; We Don't Have To.)

---

D.C. in Jacksonville, FL: Potius quam proficimus, damus tibi Trump. (Rather than progress, we give you Trump.)

---

J.W. in Hillsboro, OR: Elections have consequences.

---

G.L. in Winter Park, FL: Америка теперь российская область (America is now Russian oblast)

---

V.M. in Cincinnati, OH: Trying to achieve your equanimity but not there yet, probably because I have two young, mixed race daughters. Given that, it feels like we should go with: We fu**ed around, now we find out.

---

K.V. in Albuquerque, NM: Feles comedunt. Canes comedunt. (They eat cats. They eat dogs.)

---

A.B. in Wendell, NC: Si non es alba et recta, exi. (If you're not white and straight, get out.)

---

R.B. in Santa Monica, CA: Quoting Dick Tuck: The people have spoken. The bastards.

---

B.R. in Helena, MT: A republic—if we can keep it

---

J.L. in Walnut Creek, CA: Given the polarization of the country, it seems the best new motto for current times would be: E Pluribus Duobus (Out of Many, Two)

---

W.H. in Seattle, WA: Carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero (Enjoy today—trusting little in tomorrow)

---

S.D. in Homer, AK: Not having a meaningful understanding of Latin, I enjoyed some amusing minutes with an English to Latin translator, exploring options for our nation's new motto. They ranged from the obvious: Ab uno, multi (From the one, many) to the tragic: Amici magis nos timent, adversarii nos minus timent (Friends fear us more, adversaries fear us less) to the merely horrifying: Ubi veritas moritur (Where truth goes to die). I briefly considered a language hybrid: Kooks cum nukes. However, I settled on something simpler: Uh oh.

Note: Please do not send us e-mails correcting our Latin grammar. There is a certain... poetic license allowed for this exercise.

Here is the question for next week:

D.D.W. in St. Louis, MO, asks: On January 20th, who will be the Leader of the Free World?

Submit your answers to comments@electoral-vote.com, preferably with subject line "New World Order"!

---

If you wish to contact us, please use one of these addresses. For the first two, please include your initials and city.

• questions@electoral-vote.com    For questions about politics, civics, history, etc. to be answered on a Saturday
• comments@electoral-vote.com   For "letters to the editor" for possible publication on a Sunday
• corrections@electoral-vote.com To tell us about typos or factual errors we should fix
• items@electoral-vote.com            For general suggestions, ideas, etc.

To download a poster about the site to hang up, please click here.

---

Email a link to a friend or share:

---The Votemaster and Zenger