Main page    Aug. 10

Pres map
Previous | Next | Senate page | Menu

New polls: GA MI PA WI
Dem pickups: (None)
GOP pickups: GA

Saturday Q&A

This is our first completely normal Q&A in over a month. Wild times will do that.

If you're still working on this week's headline theme, here is Hint #2: "Be afraid. Be very afraid."

Current Events

M.R. in New Brighton, MN, asks: Has there ever been a major party presidential candidate as disconnected from reality as Donald Trump is? Has there been anyone even close?

(V) & (Z) answer: The presidency famously creates a bubble around the person occupying the office. Sometimes the occupant takes specific steps to try to puncture the bubble as best they can. For example, Barack Obama instructed his staff to set aside 10 critical-of-him letters for him to peruse each week. Trump is entirely lacking in this kind of self-awareness, and we have not heard of any anti-bubble steps he's taken, nor would we expect him to do so.

On top of that, there are two additional factors that separate Trump from reality. The first is that he's lied so often, and so egregiously, for so long, he has pretty clearly lost track of what is true and what is false. The second is that he's afflicted with some sort of underlying condition that skews his understanding of reality. Maybe that's a diagnosable psychological condition, maybe it's the early stages of dementia, maybe it's both.

There is one other president who checks all three of these boxes. Ronald Reagan was deeply ensconced in his particular bubble. And he was certainly in a state of cognitive decline for part or all of his presidency. The Gipper wasn't exactly an inveterate liar, but he did have the habit of convincing himself something was true because he very badly wanted it to be true. Consider this passage from Paul Boller's Presidential Anecdotes:

At a meeting with House and Senate leaders of both parties in the Oval Office late in 1986, Reagan took the opportunity to announce that military procurement expenditures didn't add anything whatsoever to the national deficit. When Oregon Senator Mark Hatfield, a moderate Republican, disagreed, Reagan cried: "You have played havoc with the military defenses of our country and squandered it all on wastefulsocialprograms" (with Reagan, Texas Congressman Jim Wright observed, "wasteful social programs" came out as one word). When Hatfield reminded him that military spending had doubled (from $148 billion in 1980 to almost $300 billion in 1986), while discretionary spending had been cut by slightly more than 10 percent, Reagan responded: "Our problem is that you have spent less than I asked for military strength and more than I asked on wastefulsocialprograms!"

Government spending was government spending, Hatfield reminded Reagan. Wasn't the President concerned with the overall spending rate and its effect on the national debt? Wouldn't he agree "that a dollar spent on a bomb adds just as much to the deficit as the same dollar would if it were spent on a school book"? Reagan shook his head. "I do not agree with that," he exclaimed, "and I would like Cap Weinberger to address that subject." Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger then got up and explained that money spent on military procurement added nothing to the deficit, because it was spent with American manufacturers who employed laborers who bought consumer goods from merchants who paid taxes on their incomes. "And, therefore," concluded Weinberger, "you see, it all comes back to the treasury in taxes."

Reagan's Congressional visitors were astonished. They realized that Weinberger's reasoning could apply to almost any expenditures that added to the nation's wealth (highways and waterways, for example, rather than weapons) and that it could apply even more forcefully to programs that were more labor intensive and less capital intensive. "There were probably twenty or more of us in the room," Congressman Wright reported afterward. "Nineteen, including Weinberger himself, knew that his contention was sheer sophistry. But one man believed it, because he chose to believe it. The President of the United States actually believed that day that military expenditures did not add anything to the deficit."

We do not think the gap between Reagan reality and actual reality was as big as the gap between Trump reality and actual reality currently is. But you asked for "close," and Reagan was certainly in Trump's ballpark when it comes to this particular dynamic.


J.W. in Aston, PA, asks: First let me say that Donald Trump is a sexual predator, a rapist, and generally a despicable person. I can't stand the sight or sound of him. I deliberately try not to pay attention to his whereabouts or what he says, though he is hard to avoid.

That said, based on your item about his press conference, is it possible that his holing up in Mar-a-Lago is a consequence of PTSD? I read about (Z)'s experience getting shot at. But being a deliberate target vs random violence could have different psychological impacts. And PTSD can take some time to manifest.

Many previous presidents have served and survived combat, George H.W. Bush being the most recent, I think. Some have survived an assassination attempt, as Reagan did. If they suffered PTSD, it was certainly well hidden. I am wondering if this would factor in to the current campaign.

(V) & (Z) answer: The day after the assassination attempt, we wrote this:

Perhaps we should not say this, at this time, but our experience is that readers prefer that we not hold back. So, we will repeat something we've said many times before: Trump, like most bullies, is a coward. And when someone with that much fear has a near-death experience, well, there is no knowing how they will react. It would not surprise us in the least if the assassination attempt produces some sort of PTSD response for him. Of course, were that to come to pass, he would never, ever seek treatment. And Trump + PTSD = ???????

That made some readers very unhappy, but we wrote it because we thought it was a real possibility. Nothing that has happened since has changed our minds. Trump held a rally in Montana yesterday; it was just his second campaign event this month, and he says he won't be holding another for at least 2 more weeks. Maybe he's coping with PTSD. Maybe he's got a health issue that he's trying to keep hidden. Maybe he's declined cognitively to the point that is staff his trying to keep him hidden. Whatever is going on, it's not at all normal for a presidential campaign. It's not even normal for him; he did 6 rallies plus the RNC plus a few other public events in July. Now... almost nothing.


R.L. in Alameda, CA, asks: Since J.D. Vance is criticizing Tim Walz' military service, can you detail what is known about Vance's? In an interview a week or two ago, I heard Pete Buttigieg criticize Vance for not actually seeing combat. Since he is casting stones, I need to know if he lives in a glass house.

(V) & (Z) answer: Vance enlisted in the Marine Corps right out of high school, in 2003, and served for 4 years, rising to the rank of Corporal. For 6 months in 2006, he was deployed to Iraq.

Vance's MOS was "combat correspondent," which makes it sound like he was a reporter. That's not wrong, per se, but it is more accurate to say that he was doing PR for the Corps. His job was to write stories for the USMC website, and other DoD sites, that helped the folks back home understand what the folks in uniform were doing. If you would like to see an example, here is a story from 2005 headlined "VMGR-252 air crews make mission possible in Iraq." Note that, during his military days, he was using the name James D. Hamel.

Vance never saw combat, nor did he come close. This is not a situation like the character Joker, the Marine Corps combat correspondent in Full Metal Jacket. However, Hamel/Vance did witness the effects of the hard hand of war, as he interacted with civilians and/or refugees on several occasions. Also, he may have had a desk job, but note that there is no such thing as a soft Marine.


R.H.D. in Webster, NY, asks: Your section on who should play Gov. Tim Walz (D-MN) on Saturday Night Live got me thinking as to who should play J.D. Vance. I was thinking of Colin Jost with a fake beard. Agree?

(V) & (Z) answer: Here are some head shots:

Vance, Colin Jost, Taran Killam and Zach Galifianakis

At far left, of course, is the far-right Vance. Next to him is Colin Jost, back when Jost had an actual beard. Not bad, but his face is a little narrow, and he's not really someone who does impressions. If the show is going to go with a member of the SNL family, our suggestion would be Taran Killam, who is shown in the third picture. Meanwhile, the preferred choice of the Internet is Zach Galifianakis, who is in the fourth picture.


D.L. in Oaxaca de Juarez, Mexico, asks: Do Joe Biden and Kamala Harris have the ability to improve election integrity? Or can dubious state officials simply do whatever they like?

(V) & (Z) answer: The United States does not have a problem with election integrity. The number of illegal ballots cast each year is trivial; a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a percent of the vote. It's not possible to solve a problem that doesn't exist.

The real question, then, is whether Biden and Harris can do anything to prepare for the shenanigans that Republicans are likely to pull if Donald Trump loses. And the truth is, there isn't much that is within their power. Obviously, no major (or minor) legislation is going to get through Congress. Further, most of the power lies with the states, since it is states that administer elections.

That means that the best the Democrats can do is sound the alarm, over and over, that shenanigans are coming, and then to have lots of hotshot lawyers locked and loaded for when the shenanigans actually come to pass.


A.S. in Black Mountain, NC, asks: Do the presidential and vice-presidential candidates travel in separate planes? I suspect the Orange Menace and Robin do, but what about my favorite nominees? What are their Secret Service code names?

(V) & (Z) answer: If the top two people in the line of succession were to be snuffed out at the same time, that would be very destabilizing for the U.S. government. So, once a president and vice president are sworn in, pains are taken to have them travel in different cars, on different planes, etc. It doesn't always happen that way, but usually.

The loss of nominees for the presidency and vice presidency, by contrast, would be far less disruptive. More specifically, even if the nominees die, there would still be no question as to who is running the executive branch and who has the authority to respond to a military/nuclear strike. So, there is relatively little reason to keep the presidential and vice-presidential candidates separate, assuming they happen to be traveling to the same destination.

And while the U.S.S.S. code names for Donald Trump ("Mogul"), Kamala Harris ("Pioneer") and J.D. Vance ("Bobcat") are publicly known, the code name for Tim Walz has not yet been announced. That said, see the bottom of the page today.


I.G in Chicago, IL, asks: On July 22, speaking of Tim Walz, you wrote: "We see him as a long shot." What changed?

(V) & (Z) answer: In poker, as the saying goes, all you need is "a chip and a chair" and you might just win the tournament. Similarly, once someone is on the shortlist, they might just make the final cut.

In terms of what changed, the biggest thing is something that could not have been known on July 22: Walz aced his interviews, the other candidates did not. It's also the case that some of the weaknesses of the other candidates, most obviously Gov. Josh Shapiro (D-PA) became more widely known.

We don't generally write about our "gut feel," since we try to put our material on an evidentiary basis. However, the night before the pick was announced, we exchanged e-mails where we discussed our guesses, and by that time, we both had Walz at about 40% to be the choice. And if we had been using ranked-choice voting, Walz would have been our pick, because one of us had it Kelly-Walz-Shapiro and the other had it Shapiro-Walz-Kelly.


D.G. in Santa Cruz, CA, asks: If you are in a televised debate against a liar, what is the most effective strategy? Suppose your opponent spends 2 minutes answering a question about taxes and tells five lies during that time. Additionally, he has a tax policy that you disagree with. You have a minute to respond. Do you flag the five lies or go for the policy differences?

(V) & (Z) answer: Joe Biden's problem in the debate, beyond being not mentally sharp for whatever reason, is that he came in ready to talk too much about himself and his ideas and his accomplishments. He was not prepared to deal with Donald Trump and, most importantly, to prick the Trump balloon a few times.

So, if we were advising Kamala Harris, we would tell her she absolutely has to come prepared with some pre-packaged lines designed to get Trump off his game. For example: "Did anyone understand that? I certainly didn't," or "You can tell when he's lying. With Pinocchio, his nose grew. With Donald, he plays the air accordion," or "I'm used to this. As a prosecutor, I used to deal with convicted felons all the time."

Beyond that, if she's going to try to do real-time fact-checking, she needs to pick just the most egregious lie and zoom in on that. Then she can transition into her policy ideas. For example, "Oh, Donald. So many lies. I see that you're still claiming that I am not really Black. The sisters of my Black sorority, Alpha Kappa Alpha, would be surprised to learn that. So would my fellow Howard alumni. These were transformative parts of my life, which is why I want to find ways to reduce the student loan debt burden faced by graduates of Historically Black Colleges and Universities. This is the best way I know to rectify the mistakes of the past and to move toward a a truly equal future."


D.V.I. in Dordrecht, Netherlands, asks: I am sure that Kamala Harris' agenda has been full during the last month, so she didn't have time to visit the succesful U.S. Olympic Team in Paris. Don't you think—from an electoral point of view—that it would be wise for her to give the U.S. sportsmen and -women some attention and public honor, maybe after their return to the U.S. next week?

In the Netherlands, all the medal winners are being invited by King Willem Alexander to receive a royal award. Do U.S. "Olympians" usually get a similar reward from the U.S. government?

(V) & (Z) answer: Well, the United States Olympic Committee (which is not a part of the federal government) gives a cash award to any Olympian who wins a medal. It's $37,500 for a gold, $22,500 for silver and $15,000 for bronze. On top of that, the entire Olympic and the entire Paralympic team are often invited to the White House for a presidential visit. The summer teams from Tokyo could not make an insta-visit because of the pandemic, but in May 2022, the Biden administration hosted both the summer and winter teams:

About 600 athletes, in white uniforms, with the president, VP, and their spouses front and center.

It's very safe to assume there will be a similar gathering once this year's Olympics are over, and that Harris will be present for it, just as she was for the 2022 event (she's wearing a gray suit, and standing at center in the picture).

Incidentally, because the Tokyo Games were delayed until 2021, Donald Trump only had one set of Olympians and Paralympians at the White House, namely the athletes who competed in the 2018 winter games. He hosted them in April 2018.


D.E. in Lancaster, PA, asks: What with the Summer Olympics taking place in Paris, I was wondering if there is a non-jingoistic answer for why the U.S. is usually leading in the medal count? As of this moment, The Washington Post has the medal count as: U.S. - 111, China - 83, and Britain - 57. (France can't be happy about that since they've just been pushed out of third place). Of course, Russia was not allowed to participate in these Olympics due to their actions in Ukraine, which probably accounts for some of America's large haul. Still, overall, the U.S. ranks first for medals won in the Summer Games all-time, and second for the Winter Games, and that's including many Olympics in which Russia participated.

(V) & (Z) answer: We can think of a number of reasons for this. First, the U.S. is a wealthy country. Would-be Olympians have to have many ways to support themselves while they train, even if they are training full time. There are many, many countries where this is not true. On top of that, the U.S. also has enough money for the necessary facilities. If you are going to be an Olympic-level swimmer, for example, you need an Olympic pool to train in. The U.S. has thousands of them.

Second, speaking of infrastructure, the U.S. has the most robust university system in the world, and many hundreds of those universities have top-level sports programs. An enormous percentage of U.S. Olympic athletes began their national careers as members of a university-affiliated team. Maybe you've heard the statistic that if UCLA, Stanford and USC were independent nations, all three would be in the top 25 medal-winners all-time.

Third, the United States has a large and diverse population. India may have 1 billion+ people, but few Indians are of the phenotype necessary to be a good basketball player. China may have 1 billion+ people, but few Chinese people are of the phenotype necessary to be a good volleyball player. Nearly all of the good long-distance runners have East African DNA, probably because people of East African descent have higher hemoglobin and hematocrit, which allow for greater endurance. Nearly all of the speedy runners have West African DNA, probably because people of West African descent tend ot have an unusually high number of twitch fibers in their muscles, giving them greater explosiveness. Nearly all of the loudmouths who have run social media platforms into the ground have South African DNA, thought that has nothing to do with sports, we guess. Anyhow, the U.S. is home to many different phenotypes (including, of course, people of West African and East African descent), and so has the raw material necessary for building an athletic superpower.

Fourth, the U.S. is geographically diverse. Iraq doesn't produce too many world-class skiers, because where would they train? Norway doesn't produce too many world-class surfers for the same reason. The U.S. has every terrain and climate necessary to Olympic training.

Finally, the U.S. also tends to develop athletes in sports with high medal counts. Most of the world cares a LOT about association football (a.k.a. soccer), with the result that a huge percentage of the elite athletes pursue that sport. Well, at most, a nation can win just two soccer medals per Olympics (one for women and one for men). The U.S., for its part, is not great at men's soccer, and is not great at several other sports, like weightlifting and the various non-boxing combat sports. But the U.S. does tend to produce world-class track, gymnastics and swimming athletes. And those folks can and do collect multiple medals in a single Olympics. In the current Olympics, for example, swimmers Torri Huske and Regan Smith have five medals each, while fellow swimmers Kate Douglass, Katie Ledecky, and Gretchen Walsh, along with gymnast Simone Biles, have four. That's 26 medals just for those six women, and in just one Olympics. Their total is more than the all-time total for many nations, including Serbia (24), Venezuela (19), the Phillipines (14), Israel (13) and Saudi Arabia (4).


B.C. in Chippewa Falls, WI, asks: Now that COVID is not really a concern like it was in 2020, and we can expect more in-person voting versus absentee ballots, what are the odds of a clear electoral winner on election night?

(V) & (Z) answer: Not too good, we fear. The Trumpers are openly planning shenanigans that will delay the reporting of the results. We doubt they are lying about that. On top of that, there are several swing/swingy states where the processing of absentee ballots cannot begin until the polls open on Election Day. Pennsylvania is the most important of those; there is little chance the Keystone State will be able to produce final counts by the end of the day on November 5.


M.G. in Newtown, PA, asks: Are there ways to sign up to be a "poll escort" to defend valid voters from questionable challenges, intimidation, etc, specifically on Election Day? Can you point your readers to resources that are doing this on the Democratic side?

(V) & (Z) answer: We do not know about any centralized efforts along these lines, but if any reader knows of anything like this, let us know at comments@electoral-vote.com.

Politics

M.M. in San Diego, CA, asks: Is Robert F. Kennedy Jr. on the ballot for all the battleground states yet? If not, when are the various deadlines to file? I'm only interested in his potential as a spoiler in the swing states.

(V) & (Z) answer: He has made the ballot in Minnesota and Michigan. His campaign says it has fulfilled the requirements in Nevada, Georgia, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, and that it's just waiting for processing. Note that this is not a mere formality; often it is discovered that not enough valid signatures have been submitted. Kennedy has submitted no paperwork in Arizona.

The filing deadline for the five states in which there remains a question: Nevada (7/5), Georgia (7/9), Pennsylvania (8/1), Wisconsin (8/6), Arizona (8/17). So, he better hope his first round of paperwork was OK in the four states awaiting processing, while he is gonna have to hustle in Arizona.


J.A. in Puerto Armuelles, Panama, asks: J.D. Vance turns out to have been a bit of a dud as the Republican nominee for vice president. Who would you have picked instead? If it were up to you, would you stick with Vance?

(V) & (Z) answer: Among the supposed finalists, we would have chosen Gov. Doug Burgum (R-ND). He'll say whatever Trump tells him to, he could have brought some money to the campaign, and he's bland enough that he's not likely to harm the ticket.

If all options are on the table, we would have chosen Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R-TX). That would suggest that maybe Trump has grown up a bit, and that he might be serious about governance. Crenshaw might win over some wary Republicans or independents.

And yes, we would dump Vance. He's approaching the 20-points-underwater barrier. He's an anchor. Have him excuse himself from the ticket for whatever reason, and then dominate a few news cycles with a new, and more fully vetted, pick.


M.J.S. in Gig Harbor, WA, asks: Your comments about the governors in the on-deck circle waiting to run in 2028/2032 got me thinking about how it seems unlikely that a top executive would agree to be the #2 person on a ticket. Tim Walz seems like the kind of guy for whom that won't be a problem, but is it unusual for a governor to run for or win the vice presidency? The only governor as running mate I can think of is Sarah Palin, who was an unconventional pick, to say the least. Have there been other governors that ran for or won the vice presidency?

(V) & (Z) answer: Yes, because it's still a pretty good path to becoming president. Here's a list of all the governors-turned-VP-candidates:

Year(s) Candidate Party Sitting Gov.? Elected VP?
1792, 1804, 1808 George Clinton Democratic-Republican Yes, No, No No, Yes, Yes
1796 Thomas Jefferson Democratic-Republican No Yes
1796 Thomas Pinckney Federallist No No
1812 Elbridge Gerry Democratic-Republican No Yes
1816, 1820 Daniel D. Tompkins Democratic-Republican Yes, No Yes, Yes
1816 John Eager Howard Federalist No No
1832 Martin Van Buren Democratic No Yes
1836, 1840 John Tyler Whig No, No No, Yes
1852 William Graham Whig No No
1860 Hannibal Hamlin Republican No Yes
1860 Herschel V. Johnson Democratic No No
1864 Andrew Johnson National Union Yes Yes
1872 Benjamin G. Brown Liberal Republican Yes No
1876, 1884 Thomas A. Hendricks Democratic Yes, No No, Yes
1900 Theodore Roosevelt Republican Yes Yes
1912, 1916 Thomas R. Marshall Democratic Yes, No Yes, Yes
1920 Calvin Coolidge Republican Yes Yes
1924 Charles W. Bryan Democratic Yes No
1944 John Bricker Republican Yes No
1948 Earl Warren Republican Yes No
1968, 1972 Spiro Agnew Republican Yes, No Yes, Yes
1968 Edmund Muskie Democratic No No
2008 Sarah Palin Republican Yes No
2016 Tim Kaine Democratic No No
2016, 2020 Mike Pence Republican Yes, No Yes, No
2024 Tim Walz Democratic Yes ???

In addition, Levi P. Morton and Franklin D. Roosevelt both won gubernatorial elections AFTER running for VP.

In any case, as you can see, it's pretty common for a governor to accept the #2 slot.


J.L. in Baltimore, MD, asks: This isn't a question about politics, but about your site. How did you choose the name? Most of your item aren't about the Electoral College, but about some other aspect of elections.

(V) & (Z) answer: Because when the site started, it was almost entirely about the Electoral College. The full name of the site was (and is) Electoral-Vote Predictor, and it began as a poll-tracking site. The commentary was only added fairly slowly, and really didn't become predominant until (Z) joined the site.


A.C. in Fairfax, VA, asks: I was wondering when you plan to begin tracking Senate races.

(V) & (Z) answer: At the end of the month, by which time almost all of the candidates will be known.


S.S. in Durham, NC, asks: Will the polling errors which underestimated President Trump—by about 3 to 4 percentage points in both national and swing state polls in 2016 and 2020—repeat in 2024? Have pollsters finally adjusted for this, or is Kamala Harris in serious trouble?

(V) & (Z) answer: We don't know. Nobody knows until around Nov. 6.

Pollsters are all acutely aware of the problem, but fixing it is something else. Response rates to cold calls these days are maybe 5-10%. Some of the non-respondents just don't want to be bothered talking to strangers. Others may be shy Trump voters who distrust the media. There is no way to tell them apart.

One thing that many pollsters are doing now is going multichannel. For example, they send out text messages with a link to a specific URL to do the survey. This gets a much higher response rate than phone calls. It is well known that some people are willing to "talk" to a computer but not willing to talk to a human being about politics. Even people who are thoroughly bigoted might not be willing to truthfully answer the question: "Do you think Black people have too many advantages in society nowadays?" when talking to a person, but might be willing to make choice 5 ("definitely yes") on a computer screen.

Will the pollsters be able to compensate enough? We just don't know. Also, some of the pollsters (e.g., Siena, Marist, Quinnipiac, SurveyUSA) have been at this for years and probably are sophisticated enough to at least try to deal with it. Some of the less experienced ones may not know what to do.

Somewhat ironically, in the past, the pollsters who are online only (e.g., YouGov) and who don't call anyone used to be pooh-poohed. Now they may have the advantage. However, keep in mind that online surveys ignore people who are not, well, online (e.g., poor people, less educated people). Pollsters know this and try to correct for it, but that requires that they have a good model of the actual electorate—the people who will actually vote, not the people who are eligible to vote. Different pollsters have different models and a bad model can screw up results. If a pollster assumes 40% of 18-29 year olds will vote and it turns out that 35% or 45% voted, the poll will be off. Asking people is not a great guide, unfortunately. Sometimes asking about voting history or looking at data from previous elections can help, but polling is still an inexact science.


A.P. in Gaithersburg, MD, asks: Just discovered this site and am a new fan. Will you be getting more recent poll data from states whose polls still reflect candidate Biden rather than candidate Harris?

(V) & (Z) answer: Welcome! Good to have you on board. We will certainly put the polls in as soon as they are published. There has been a relative paucity of swing-state polls, something that we find a bit surprising. Maybe there will be a deluge this week, or else after the Democratic convention. There's a handful of new ones today; see below.


D.K. in McAllen, TX, asks: Kamala Harris has been ahead of Donald Trump for over a week in Pennsylvania and in Wisconsin, but your maps don't reflect that. What is your policy on when a state gets classified one way or another?

(V) & (Z) answer: We do not make a secret of our method. We put polls from reliable pollsters in our database. The numbers you see are the most recent poll and any other polls within a week of it, all averaged together and weighted equally. There is a link to the data in the blue bar above the map, on the right.

The only decision that we make is which polling houses are trustworthy. The shading of a state is determined entirely by the numbers. Also, the last five polls of Pennsylvania had Trump +2, Trump +2, EVEN, Trump +1, and Harris +4. We don't accept polls from all of those pollsters, but nonetheless, it is not the case that Harris is unambiguously ahead in that state.


M.G. in Springfield, PA, asks: I notice you do not include the July 30 Susquehanna poll, showing Harris up by four points in Pennsylvania, in your average. I see that this pollster's FiveThirtyEight rating isn't great, but I'm still a bit surprised you passed this one over. Am I missing something else?

(V) & (Z) answer: We have had many e-mails about that specific poll, most of them specifically asking why the Susquehanna University poll is missing. While there is a Susquehanna University, the pollster Susquehanna has nothing to do with the school. We suspect the pollster chose their name to encourage that misunderstanding. In any case, Susquehanna is a Republican house, and we do not include partisan pollsters in our database.


J.L. in Rockville, MD, asks: Could Indiana be in play?

(V) & (Z) answer: Not likely. Paradoxically, the reason our map makes it look like Indiana is in play is because it's really, really not in play. Zogby, for some reason, did a poll of the state back in April, and got a wonky result. And because the state is not in play, and the Senate race there is a foregone conclusion, nobody else has bothered to conduct another poll. So, we are stuck with that one, wonky result from Zogby. Eventually someone else will poll Indiana, and it will acquire its proper deep-red color on the map.


M.S. in Chicago, IL, asks: Have you thought about including other candidates on your polls on your homepage? Feel like they're going to have a big effect on the election this year and should be included (craziness aside).

(V) & (Z) answer: We've thought about it long enough to decide not to do it. In the end, the winner is going to be one of the two major-party candidates. So, all that actually matters is the share of the vote that each major party is getting. Knowing exactly how many people say they are going to vote for Robert F. Kennedy doesn't really tell you anything new, especially since many of them won't actually end up voting for him.


R.L. in Alameda, CA, asks: If the Harris/Walz ticket wins in November and the Democrats take back the House, making Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) Speaker, Gen X will finally have real power.

So, let's game something out. Suppose Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) decides to do the Pelosi and steps down from power in lieu of a younger Senator. What Gen-X Senator would you recommend to be the new Majority Leader? Who would actually have a shot at it?

(V) & (Z) answer: You've actually narrowed it down to a fairly small pool of options, as there are only 14 Gen-X Democrats in the Senate. Of those, the leading candidate to take over for Chuck Schumer is surely Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ), who has national stature and who is already part of Senate Democratic leadership (he is Vice Chair of the Policy & Communications Committee). In this scenario, there would be a Black president, a Black Speaker, and a Black Majority Leader. It would be a good time to be a cardiologist in the South.

Alternatively, Catherine Cortez Masto (D-NV) is also a member of leadership (Vice Chair of Outreach) and a skilled political operator who would immediately become the highest-ranking Latino or Latina in American history. It's not impossible to move to the top of the heap by the start of your second term; Bill Frist did it.

Or, if you want to cheat, you could pretend that Sen. Amy Klobuchar (DFL-MN) is 4 years younger than she actually is, and you could pick her. She's one of the savviest operators in the upper chamber.


T.A. in London, England, UK, asks: I am a progressive based in the UK, where we kicked out our populist liars last month, thank goodness! Despite that welcome change, our government has very limited impact on your lives. However, the impact of the U.S. elections and this one in particular, is profound on us across the pond and indeed everywhere. Given the Trump fan club of European Politicians like Nigel Farage from the U.K. and Viktor Orbán from Hungary are actively campaigning for your convict, my question is: How can non-U.S. nationals support Harris? I am thinking tele/banking or, given the sheer importance of the election, canvassing in swing states.

(V) & (Z) answer: Campaign contributions by non-US citizens, even in-kind contributions (e.g., volunteering your time), are illegal.

One thing you can do is try to locate Americans in the U.K. and encourage them to contribute, donate, register, and vote. They can go to votefromabroad.org to learn about how to register. There are no doubt expat groups you can approach and try to help them getting American expats to register and vote. As long as you are not helping any specific candidates, it is legal.


R.M. in Bryan, TX, asks: Who owns Donald Trump?

(V) & (Z) answer: (Z) was just talking the other day with a friend about the many downsides of being president. One of those is that, although you are ostensibly the most powerful person in the world, you still have to spend a lot of time jumping around like a trained monkey.

We note that as prelude to this observation: Certainly, the Republican megadonor class owns Trump. He needs their cash, which is why he has to go hat in hand to people like Miram Adelson, Timothy Mellon, Peter Thiel and Richard Uihlein.

Beyond that, Vladimir Putin clearly owns Trump. We do not know what the source of Putin's leverage is. Blackmail? The possibility of building a Trump Tower Moscow? Force of personality? Whatever it is, when Vladimir says "jump," Trump says "how high?"

And Rupert Murdoch kinda owns Trump, although that relationship is more one of mutualism. As much as Trump might kvetch about Fox, he desperately needs all the free publicity they give him. And as much as Murdoch might disdain Trump, Fox needs the eyeballs that Trump attracts.

Those are the entities that clearly have control over Trump. We would certainly entertain other answers, like Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman of Saudi Arabia, Judge Tanya Chutkan, and Melania Trump and her prenup.

Civics

L.D. in New Haven, CT, asks: It has been reported that Jimmy Carter wants to live long enough to vote for Kamala Harris. Early voting is reported to start in Georgia on October 15. If he dies before Election Day, will that vote be discarded?

(V) & (Z) answer: There are 10 states whose laws explicitly state that such ballots are to be counted. There are 16 states whose laws explicitly state that such ballots are NOT to be counted. Georgia is not on either list, so the answer to your question is "nobody knows for sure." That said, in the absence of specific authority allowing election officials to do so, it would be problematic for them to destroy a ballot based on their best guess as to what the rules are.


J.O. in Williamsburg, MA, asks: What if a candidate either: (1) dies from any cause or is (2) severely handicapped (e.g., major stroke) between being elected in November and taking office in January? Who becomes president? Is the newly elected vice president elevated? And how would it be determined that a severe handicap is sufficient to not allow the person to take office? I can envision so many problematic situations.

(V) & (Z) answer: The Constitution is very clear that if a president-elect is unable to serve, due to death or disability, then the office devolves upon the vice-president-elect.

In the event of a seriously disabling incident—say, the president-elect has a stroke and ends up in a coma—then what would happen is that the vice-president would be sworn in, and then the Cabinet would declare the president to be unable to serve under the terms of the Twenty-Fifth Amendment, thus elevating the VP to the top job. Presumably, the necessary paperwork would be prepared prior to Inauguration Day, and would be signed immediately upon the VP being inaugurated, thus ensuring continuity in the government.

It is true, incidentally, that new presidents choose a new Cabinet. However, the way that is achieved is by having the sitting Cabinet officers submit their resignations (if they did not do so, the president could fire them). The point here is that the commencement of a new administration does not automatically cause the Cabinet to be vacated. So, the previous president'a Cabinet would still be sitting, and would be able to invoke the Twenty-Fifth Amendment.

Note also that refusing to elevate the VP would not be a backdoor way to elevate the Speaker of the House to the presidency. The Cabinet would have the choice of allowing a vegetative president to remain "in office" (although not sworn in) or elevating the non-vegetative VP. That's it.


C.G. in El Paso, TX, asks: I know he can't add them, but can Biden eliminate Supreme Court seats via Executive Order and make it a 5-person court?

(V) & (Z) answer: No. First of all, the size of the Supreme Court is set at nine by the Judiciary Act of 1863. Second, executive orders can only be used to instruct employees of the executive branch how to carry out their duties. The Supreme Court, as part of the judicial branch, is not subject to executive orders.


B.S. in Denville, NJ, asks: How many Americans have lived to see the Constitution amended during their lifetimes, compared to how many who have not?

(V) & (Z) answer: The last Amendment to be adopted was in 1992, so the question is: "How many Americans are 32 years of age or older?" (Technically, 32 years, 3 months, 5 days of age, or older.) And according to the U.S. Census Bureau, there are roughly 196 million Americans who are that age or older, and so have lived to see a constitutional amendment. That leaves 137 million Americans who have not had a constitutional amendment passed during their lifetimes.

History

R.B. in Coon Rapids, MN, asks: What significant people in U.S. history had surprising friendships?

(V) & (Z) answer: There are undoubtedly a lot of good answers, but we'll give you five that occur to us off the tops of our heads:

  1. Thomas Jefferson and John Adams: The second and third presidents had very different political philosophies, and the bitter election of 1800 soured their once-cordial relationship, so much so that Adams refused to attend Jefferson's inaugural. Later in life, however, they patched things up and maintained a long and warm correspondence. Famously, they both died on the 50th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence (though the story that Adams' last words were about Jefferson is apocryphal).

  2. Abraham Lincoln and Alexander Stephens: The President of the U.S.A. and the Vice President of the C.S.A. were both longtime Whigs, and formed a close friendship during the time they both served in Congress in the early 1840s. They exchanged letters for the remainder of their lives, often debating the merits of the slave system.

  3. Joe Louis and Max Schmeling: In the 1930s, they were major rivals in the boxing ring. They were also avatars for their respective races; Schmeling was popular with white people while Louis was the champion of Black Americans. They nonetheless became close friends after their boxing careers were over, and Schmeling provided financial support for the bankrupt Louis, including paying for Louis' funeral.

  4. Richard Nixon and John F. Kennedy: They both came to Congress in 1946, they served on many of the same committees, and they were both whip-smart. They often traveled together and had long conversations on a wide array of topics.

  5. Antonin Scalia and Ruth Bader Ginsburg: Scalia was as right-wing as RBG was left-wing. However, they bonded over a shared love of fine food and opera, and often attended performances together. One time, they even appeared on stage together (in bit parts).

We tried to cover a fairly broad timespan, as opposed to giving, say, several famous Civil War friendships.


B.D. in Niceville, FL, asks: I am genuinely curious: How many times did an incumbent president or a former president running again pick a different running mate for the second go around?

(V) & (Z) answer: It's not that uncommon. Here are the people who ran for president at least twice, and who had at least two running mates:


B.J. in Arlington, MA, asks: I grew up being taught that the American Revolution occurred because the colonists objected to "taxation without representation." Was that really the primary reason? What was the list of actual reasons?

I'm asking because I read something somewhere recently that suggested it was really about protecting the institution of slavery when Britian was moving against it. Or maybe the other way around?

Basically, for some inexplicable reason, I find myself questioning everything I believe about this country.

(V) & (Z) answer: There is a left-wing argument that the American Revolution was about protecting slavery, but it doesn't hold water. Sure, that thought might have been in the backs of the minds of a few of the founders. However, the majority of them were not slaveholders, and many of the ones who were had ambivalence about the institution. Also, Great Britain did not outlaw slavery until half a century after independence, so it's not like the end of slavery in British North America was imminent in 1776.

There's actually a very good list of the things that the Americans were unhappy about in 1776, and that list is... the Declaration of Independence. The bulk of the document is a list of the 27 things that had put a burr in the colonists' collective saddles. And while "imposing Taxes on us without our Consent" IS on the list, it's #17.

What really caused the Revolution, in brief, is a disagreement about the place of the colonies in the British system of government. The colonists thought that they were equals of the people in Great Britain who just happened to live on the other side of the Atlantic. This thinking was encouraged by the fact that, for the better part of 200 years, the monarchs of England and of Great Britain pretty much left the colonists to their own devices. The distance was great, and there was no particular need for the mother country to flex its muscles.

By the mid-1700s, however, the American colonies began to prosper. That meant they were a potential source of revenue for the king. It also meant they were a juicy target for the French and the Spanish, and so had to be protected. At that point, the King and Parliament began to lay down the law, and to make clear that the Americans were more like vassals, and were certainly not equals of the people living in Great Britain.

The colonists were not pleased to be told that they had little to no role in their own governance, and were little better than serfs. So, they pushed back. The King was not pleased at his vassals' uppity behavior, and so he cracked down. A giant pi**ing contest thus commenced, and the result was the American Revolution. Taxation was just one of the many exercises of royal authority that the colonists found arbitrary and objectionable.


M.S. in Groton, MA, asks: What's your take on the three-fifths compromise? While it's an embarrassing moment in this nation's history, I'm also unsure what a "better" alternative would've been. Isn't counting enslaved people as "one" what the pro-slavery states wanted, since that would give them more power in Congress? The northern non-slave states wanted the number to be zero.

(V) & (Z) answer: The three-fifths compromise was absolutely necessary. There is no other way that Constitution could have gotten buy-in from the necessary number of states (at least 9 of the 13). It's still an embarrassing reminder, as you note, not only of the sordid elements of the nation's past, but of some of the issues we're still grappling with.


C.A. in Charleston, SC, asks: We no longer have the Federalists, Whigs, Know Nothings, or Bull Moose parties. But how does a political party cease to exist?

(V) & (Z) answer: Well, you're sort of conflating two things. The Know Nothings, the Bull Moosers, the Dixiecrats, the Populists, the Reform Party, etc. were third-party movements that managed to capture some piece of the zeitgeist, usually by rallying around a charismatic figure. But they never reached critical mass, and they all faded out after a cycle or two (or maybe three), typically when the charismatic figure exited the political stage.

We don't have Democratic-Republicans anymore, but that's because that party evolved into the Democratic Party. And so, the only major parties to collapse are the Federalists and the Whigs. The Federalists were a party built for the late 1700s, when only propertied men could vote. Once the franchise spread to all white men, the Federalists' elite-centered agenda simply could not get enough votes. It did not help that the Party opposed the War of 1812, and acquired a reputation for being disloyal and/or treasonous.

As to the Whigs, they were barely a major party; all that party members REALLY had in common was they they disliked Andrew Jackson. Consequently, the Whig Party was held together by the 19th century equivalent of duct tape and bubble gum. It lasted only a couple of decades, and was wrecked when slavery became the preeminent national issue. The Southern Whigs and Northern Whigs could not find a mutually acceptable position on that issue because there wasn't one. And so, the party fell apart in the early 1850s, with the Southern Whigs mostly becoming Democrats and the Northern Whigs mostly becoming the foundation of the newly formed Republican Party.

You are presumably asking because you are wondering about the chances of the Republican Party collapsing. It's not going to happen. Either the Party will change course or will content itself with being basically a regional party. That letter outcome is what happened with the Democrats from 1860 to the early 20th century.


M.M. in Plano, TX, asks: Which side does (Z) support in the historians' argument over whether President James Buchanan was gay?

(V) & (Z) answer: Presumably, you mean that the two sides are "he was gay" and "he was straight." If so, (Z)'s view is that neither side is correct.

There are basically two relevant pieces of information here. The first is that Buchanan pursued marriage with one woman and, when that fell apart, he apparently never pursued another heterosexual romantic relationship. The second is that Buchanan became VERY close friends with William Rufus DeVane King. They lived together for 13 years, they attended functions together, and other politicians made jokes about their relationship. For example, Andrew Jackson called them "Miss Nancy" and "Aunt Fancy."

All of this said, Jackson tended to think that just about EVERY man was too effeminate for his tastes. Further, platonic male relationships back then tended to be MUCH more intimate than today, including very flowery and suggestive (to 21st century ears) language. (Z) thinks that the likeliest possibility is that Buchanan was asexual, and after failing to secure a marriage partner, contented himself to focusing on his career and his friendships with other men.

There's no certainty here, and "gay," "straight but celibate" and "asexual" are all possible. But (Z) thinks the latter best fits the facts.


F.S. in Cologne, Germany, asks: As far as I know, the age of television started in 1950 or so. So why weren't there televised presidential debates in the presidential elections in 1952, 1956, 1964, 1968 and 1972? And would the results of these presidential elections have been different if there had been televised presidential debates?

(V) & (Z) answer: Basically, until about 1976, there was no expectation that the presidential candidates would debate. It was optional. And so, debates only happened in years where the race was tight, and both candidates felt they could gain an advantage by debating.

In 1952 and 1956, not only was TV new, but Dwight D. Eisenhower was a heavy favorite who was not great on camera. He would have been foolish to debate if he didn't have to. In 1964, TV wasn't new anymore, but Lyndon B. Johnson was a heavy favorite who was not great on camera. He would also have been foolish to debate if he didn't have to. In 1968, the race was pretty close, but Richard Nixon remembered what had happened in 1960, and did not want a repeat. So, he skipped debating. In 1972, he was still loath AND he was a big favorite, so there was no way he was going to debate that year.

The 1976 and 1980 elections were pretty close, or at least seemed so when it was time to debate, so there were debates during both cycles. And after that, the custom was established.


B.L.M. in Seville, Spain, asks: Can you recommend a book about the 1968 presidential election? For example, 1968: The Election That Changed America looks interesting, but some of its conclusions appear to differ from established thought. Do you recommend it?

(V) & (Z) answer: Lewis Gould is one of the preeminent political historians in academia. Although his speciality is actually the early 20th century, the book on the 1968 election is still good.

That said, we would recommend American Melodrama: The Presidential Campaign of 1968. That was written contemporaneously (it was published in 1969), and was written by a trio of Brits, so they are generally impartial.

Gallimaufry

L.Y. in Scranton, PA, asks: Do your readership numbers change when the tenor of the news changes?

(V) & (Z) answer: Tracking the actual number of visitors to this site, or any other, remains an imprecise science. And even if we can identify a clear increase or decrease in readership, we can generally only speculate as to the reason.

Anecdotally, however, we've gotten a fair number of e-mails recently saying, "The news was too depressing for a while, but I'm back to reading your site again." Exactly how representative those folks are, we do not know.


D.R. in Phoenix, AZ, asks: B.C. in Walpole wrote:

Your lousy website included this choice piece of tripe today: "Vance clearly knows this, and grew a beard to obscure some of his less appealing features. Maybe it was an improvement, but it also means he looks sinister. There is a reason that the last time the U.S. elected a bearded president was 130 years ago."

Frankly, I find Vance's beard to be his one appealing feature. I'm glad to see a political leader who abhors and obviates the unmanly, uncivilized, unchristian, unhygienic practice of daily scraping one's face with a sharp rock. When my Southern grandmother looked at my newly grown beauty, she remarked, "I can't trust a man who hides his face behind a beard." I rapidly retorted, "Abraham Lincoln," silencing her. To drive my point home, I continued, "Jesus Christ." And with no intention of being cruel, I completed my victory by adding, "Robert E. Lee." She never mentioned it again. And I think perhaps not mentioning J.D. Vance's lovely beard might be a good move for you and your so-called website.

B.C. is a regular contributor to your mailbag, and I don't remember ever thinking, "Wow, this person is out there." So the most recent letter, in its snide tone and laughable substance, was surprising to me. B.C. posited that not all beard enthusiasts are sinister figures. After all, Abraham Lincoln, Jesus Christ, and Robert E. Lee (I guess he's still considered one of the good guys in certain quarters) all had beards. Um, B.C., anyone from the 20th or 21st centuries? No? Perhaps the fact that you have to go back that far to find popular beardos is a clue that you're on the wrong track.

(V) & (Z) answer: That is one of the downsides of communication that is entirely written; sometimes some readers miss the sarcasm. You can be quite certain that letter was written tongue-in-cheek.


M.N. in Chicago, IL, asks: You wrote:

All of [the wannabe VPs] claim to love their current jobs but, with a bit of effort, she could twist their arms into trying out for a job that pays $284,600 per year and requires no work other than calling the White House at 8 a.m. to see if the president is still alive. If she is, they can take the rest of the day off. Sounds like good work to us if you can get it.

Where does the precise time for an 8 a.m. call come from? Is this a subtle joke, or tongue in cheek, or a facetious attempt at humor? I don't get it.

Where does it say they have to check in? Wouldn't some staffers or Secret Service or other government workers relay the message, regardless of whether the VP checks to see if the president is alive?

Further, the modern VP ends up getting pulled into fundraising and pushing for various initiatives of the administration, so it's not really such a low effort gig.

(V) & (Z) answer: Note what we said above about the downsides of communication that is entirely written. This is a very old political joke. We can't find the first person who made it, but we did find this 2000 quote from then-Senator John McCain: "The vice president has two duties. One is to inquire daily as to the health of the president, and the other is to attend the funerals of Third World dictators." Even 24 years ago, this joke was pretty old.

Reader Question of the Week: Past Perfect

Here is the question we put before readers many weeks ago:

D.P. in Sunnyvale, CA, asks: Following up on questions regarding histories being portrayed in the movies, what true historical event/person/story do you think could be turned into a good movie with little to no artistic liberties?

And here some of the answers we got in response:

O.O. in San Diego, CA: Rod Blagojevich, his wife Patti Mell Blagojevich, and her father Richard Mell. You might have to throw some money at them for their story. And throw some money at fact checkers. But the family drama is outstanding even without the crime.


M.W.O. in Syracuse, NY: Not political, but I would pay to see the Berry Gordy story. What a soundtrack that would be!


P.N. in Indianapolis, IN: The story of Robert Smalls, the politician who was born into slavery and stole a Confederate ship during the Civil War, would be a fantastic limited series or film. To the best of my knowledge there are not any pieces about his life.


S.T. in Ocean Grove, NJ: Perhaps Lin Manuel-Miranda could strike gold a second time with Lafayette. While much is known about the Marquis' role in the American Revolution, of course, he was very much in the "Room Where It Happened" during the French Revolution, culminating in the offer (and his rejection) of the French dictatorship in 1830. The ending scene is also already well-written, with a cross-Atlantic view of Lafayette receiving the same memorial honors in the U.S. as George Washington, while in Paris he was buried under soil from Bunker Hill.


M.S. in Knoxville, TN: The life of Robert F. Williams, described in Timothy Tyson's excellent book Radio Free Dixie: Robert F. Williams and the Roots of Black Power, would make a fantastic movie. The head of the NAACP chapter in Monroe, North Carolina, in the late 1950's and early 1960's, Williams was a progenitor of the subsequent Black Power movement. Although he would have preferred to have been a poet, he organized armed resistance to the Klan, who often paraded through the Black community of Monroe behind police squad cars. A fiery speaker, Willims toured the country, building a following. He had a particularly strong base of power among the Harlem intelligentsia. However he aroused the suspicions and resistance of the civil rights establishment, including Martin Luther King, Thurgood Marshall, and Roy Wilkins.

Williams' insistence that he would protect his wife, family, home, and community by any means necessary led to his suspension from the national NAACP. Nonetheless, at a NAACP rally in Harlem a couple of years later celebrating the 7th anniversary of Brown v. Board, large numbers of "agitators" heckled the NAACP leaders and chanted "We want Williams!" The NAACP officials had to virtually beg Williams to speak, after which Williams was hoisted onto the shoulders of crowd, and the heckling resumed.

Ultimately, Williams was forced to expatriate to Cuba, from which he broadcast a radio show called Radio Free Dixie, filled with sixties jazz, soul, and rock music, and politics. During his exile, he shared platforms with Fidel Castro, Mao Zedong, and Ho Chi Minh.

Williams later returned to the United States, and died peacefully in his bed. He was buried in Monroe in a suit given to him by Mao. Rosa Parks gave the eulogy.


M.M. in San Diego, CA: Robert Ballard, of Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute, would make a compelling subject for a historical film—especially all the undercover work he did for the U.S. Navy locating lost submarines and other sunken vessels, which is how he came across the wreck of the Titanic and the Bismarck. He was the first to find hydrothermal vents on the ocean floor, in 1977. He has had a hand in most ocean floor mapping projects, critical for submarine operations. And it was the Office of Naval Research that funded Ballard's deep sea submersible Alvin.


D.R. in Phoenix, AZ: Caligula, the story of a deranged leader terrorizing his people, would be perfect for our times.


W.V. in Andover, MD: For a very contemporary story with a powerful protagonist, I suggest a film about David Hogg, survivor of the Stoneman Douglas shooting in Florida, who has become a leading gun control activist. A documentary was done a year after the tragedy, After Parkland but I think we need a movie about a relatable and powerful hero, like David, who has done so much with his life following the tragedy that upturned his life trajectory. Perhaps a Sully for a young hero of the 2020s, starring a 20-something version of Tom Hanks.


D.R. in Chicago, IL: The story of the last battle of the Civil War, which took place in Alaska, 2 months AFTER the Civil War ended. The Confederate ship Shenandoah won the battle, but as they destroyed 22 Yankee whaling ships, they ended whaling in the U.S.


T.L. in West Orange, NJ: I nominate the life of physicist Richard Feynman. You've got him practicing safecracking at the Manhattan Project, making huge breakthroughs in theoretical physics while sitting in strip clubs, and being a key member of the Rogers Commission that analyzed the Challenger disaster. Given the successes of The Imitation Game, The Theory of Everything and, of course, Oppenheimer, I think the time is ripe for a FeynFilm.


J.T. in Marietta, GA: A great movie could be made of the life of almost ANY European woman artist up to the twentieth century. These days, many people may know of Artemisia Gentileschi, who was famously raped as a teenager by her father's studio assistant in the early 1600s (and in fact she has already had a biopic made about her, though with great license). Less known is the fascinating Italian Sofonisba Anguissola, who invented a new form of portraiture and whose fame led to a position as painter to the queen in the sixteenth-century Spanish court. Upon her return to Italy in her fifties, she impetuously married a much younger sea captain! Her fame was so extensive that Anthony van Dyck visited the elderly Anguissola to pay his respects and draw her portrait. Finally, if even half of the memoirs of Elisabeth Louise Vigée Le Brun are to be believed, her story would make a fantastic movie about court life in ancien régime France (as well as the aftermath of the French Revolution). Less is known about many other early women artists, but their lives would also make fascinating filmed portraits, even if more fictionalized.


J.P. in Horsham, PA: Harry Chapin. Everyone knows the song "Cat's in the Cradle" but that's actually a very small part of his overall career. In the late 1970s, Harry personally lobbied Congress to establish the Presidential Commission on World Hunger, got it established, and was the only person on the commission to attend every meeting, laying the groundwork for the anti-hunger movements of the 1980s. Indeed, it may be commonplace now for musicians to advocate on behalf of worthy causes now, but back in the 1970s, it was just Harry; that probably wouldn't be happening today were it not for his efforts.


M.C. in Reno, NV: The day Stanislav Petrov saved the world. Petrov was a Soviet lieutenant colonel who was the duty officer at the Oko nuclear early-warning command center on September 26, 1983. The system detected a missile launch from the U.S., followed by around five more. Petrov judged the report to be a false alarm (because it did not make sense to launch such a small first strike) and disobeyed standing orders to launch a retaliatory nuclear strike in the event of a U.S. first strike. A later investigation proved that he was indeed correct about a malfunction in the early warning system.


G.R. in Clive, IA: There are so many possibilities that I found it easiest to limit myself to people, relatively recent, with a decent amount of known—or, at least, findable—history. I also tried to stay with people who have not had a major film treatment so far (thus eliminating Winston Churchill, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and Abraham Lincoln, among others). Following all of those criteria, I ended up deciding on Ulysses S. Grant. Came from nothing, failed at many careers before finding his calling. Almost certainly the greatest military leader in the history of the United States. Underrated as a president, though that is changing thanks to recent scholarship. An extremely ethical man for his time (How many men near bankruptcy would have given a slave his freedom, when selling the slave would have provided the equivalent of tens of thousands of dollars?), but with enough flaws to make him interesting.


L.D. in Bedford, MA: I'm somewhat astonished we haven't yet gotten a movie about Andrew Johnson's impeachment. I think you could produce a serious Oscar-bait film out of that, especially with all the impeachment in the air recently. Jerk president trying to preserve the power of the office against a power-hungry cabal who by today's standards were doing the right thing on racial issues, plus the Republican Senators who voted not to convict for a variety of reasons. Where is Aaron Sorkin?


S.S. in West Hollywood, CA: There is no true historical event/person/story that could be turned into a good film with little or no artistic liberties. Films simply don't work that way. They have only 90 to 180 minutes to tell the story. People don't live their lives, and events don't occur, in 90 to 180 minutes. Even the best "based on a true story" films will have timelines condensed and details/various characters created/combined and edited to maintain the history in a logical and entertaining way. Otherwise, the film won't work. At best, you'll end up with the worst type of biographical films. Films that are a string of events—and then this happened, and then this happened, and then this happened, etc.—without ever coming together as a cohesive whole.

The films that work best, think Elizabeth (1998) or Frost/Nixon (2008), are basically historically accurate, but not at the expense of good character and story. They both include the usual condensed timelines, as well as key plot elements and characters created for the film. In Titanic (1997) everything was historically accurate with incredible detail, except the completely fictitious love story at the center of it all. What makes any film good is the quality of writing and filmmaking. However, films about a historical event/person/story will always require some artistic liberties. If that's not what you're looking for, there is probably a good book on the event/person/story that you'll find more acceptable.

Here is the question for next week:

(V) & (Z) ask: What would be a good Secret Service code name for Tim Walz, and why?

Submit your answers to comments@electoral-vote.com, preferably with subject line "Secret Agent Man"!

Today's Presidential Polls

The swing states might not have been swinging much a month ago, but they definitely are now. And notice that today is the first day that Harris leads on our map. (Z)

State Kamala Harris Donald Trump Start End Pollster
Georgia 47% 49% Jul 29 Jul 30 Insider Adv. + Trafalgar
Michigan 49% 47% Aug 06 Aug 08 Insider Advantage
Michigan 50% 46% Aug 05 Aug 09 Siena Coll.
Pennsylvania 50% 46% Aug 05 Aug 09 Siena Coll.
Wisconsin 48% 49% Aug 06 Aug 08 Insider Advantage
Wisconsin 50% 46% Aug 05 Aug 09 Siena Coll.

Click on a state name for a graph of its polling history.


Previous | Next

Main page for smartphones

Main page for tablets and computers