Previous | Next | Senate page | Menu
New polls: PA
Dem pickups: (None)
GOP pickups: GA NV
Saturday Q&A
When we divide things up, we put questions about specific events from the last week or so in "Current Events," and questions that are more broad, or are about process, or are about polling/prognostication in "Politics." This generally produces a Current Events section that is much larger than the Politics section. Not today, though.
Also, we knew this week's headline theme was tricky, and while a fair number of readers have come close enough to get credit, only a couple have actually hit the bullseye. Here's a pretty good second hint: If we had used the theme for this upcoming Friday (the 23rd), we would have done everything possible to fit Santos (well, actually, "Santos") into a headline. However, we couldn't do it this week, because it would not have been accurate to the theme.
And finally, this ended up rather longer than expected. And we could also use a bit more time to comb through all the Tim Walz code names, so we'll hold that until next week.
Current Events
D.M. in Austin, TX, asks: If Trump loses this election, will he finally go away, or will we forever have him running for the presidency?
(V) & (Z) answer: Our default answer to this question, for some time now, has been: "Assume that Trump will run for president in every election, until he says otherwise."
That said, in 2028, he may well be in prison. He will also have suffered 4 more years of cognitive decline. And he will have lost two consecutive presidential elections. So, there are some serious potential obstacles there. At this point, given what we know and what we don't know, we'd guess he's 40% to be the Republican nominee in 2028 if he loses in 2024.
M.R. in New Brighton, MN, asks: During his talk with Elon Musk, Trump revealed his plans to flee to Venezuela if he loses the election. Facing prison time, I understand why he would want to flee the country, but do you have any idea as to why he would pick Venezuela as a destination?
(V) & (Z) answer: He was surely speaking tongue-in-cheek. That said, yesterday (Z) coincidentally did the quiz on Sporcle where you try to name all the countries of the world (he got 180 out of 197). If Trump did that same quiz, we suspect he'd get fewer than 50, and maybe fewer than 30.
If our guess is correct, then when he's trying to think of a foreign country to "escape" to, he's presumably working from a fairly small list of possibilities that he can recall. He's also spent the entire cycle decreeing, without any basis, that Venezuela has become a paradise because they've dumped all their bad people in the United States. Trump also probably thinks, almost certainly incorrectly, that his strongman friend Nicolás Maduro will remain in power there. And finally, Trump may have some vague inkling that South America is a good place to go to avoid extradition, because a bunch of Nazis pulled that trick after World War II. If that is a part of his thinking, he's wrong, since every South American country, including Venezuela, has an extradition treaty with the U.S.
B.B. in St. Louis, MO, asks: If Donald Trump loses the election and flees the country to avoid prosecution, does he still maintain his Secret Service protection?
(V) & (Z) answer: There is no ironclad answer, since this scenario has never been anticipated. That said, the legislation that grants protection to ex-presidents specifies the two circumstances under which they no longer receive a protective detail: (1) their deaths, or (2) their declining ongoing USSS protection.
The only president to dismiss his protective detail was Richard Nixon. However, if Trump were to flee the U.S., we suspect that would be interpreted as de facto renouncing the right to protection. Failing that, Congress would likely pass a bill specifically withdrawing Trump's protection.
Note also that Secret Service agents are, first and foremost, law enforcement agents. If Trump was to flee the U.S., and his protective detail was with him, it would be their responsibility to arrest him and return him to the United States. So, even if he did not officially lose his rights to protection, he would still cease to be protected by the Secret Service if he tried to flee the country, since he would have to dodge them to avoid being arrested.
D.R. in Rahway, NJ, asks: I'm quite amazed how you wrote that Donald Trump's interview with Elon Musk wasn't too bad, and then made no mention how Trump was speaking with lisp the entire time. If that was Biden, you and the rest of the media would be covering it relentlessly. What gives? I'm glad I was at least vindicated in my belief that this site seemed to cover Biden unfairly and gave TFG a pass.
(V) & (Z) answer: Seriously? That item was written by (Z) who, most obviously, wrote 8,000 words on the Saturday after the debate making the case that Biden might possibly survive his debate performance, and that people shouldn't jump to conclusions. Biden did not survive, of course, although in that piece we also correctly predicted that he would only be in trouble if the polls and/or Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama turned against him (all of which happened).
(Z) also wrote multiple items, like this one, excoriating the media for tearing Biden to shreds while largely ignoring Trump. In that piece, (Z) commented:
But this business of piling on Biden, and letting Trump skate? We just don't get it. Is it clickbait? Bothsidesism? Left-leaning people acting on their emotional impulses? Trump's venality being so baked in that it's not even newsworthy at this point? All of the above? Something else? If we were the editor of one of those publications, at some point we'd say, "OK, maybe we've gone a little over the top with this; let's pare it back." It's just hard to take seriously a publication that has the same basic story five and six and seven times, with little counterbalance in the form of "Trump was bad, too" or in the form of "Dumping Biden isn't the slam dunk it might seem."We don't mind critical feedback, but let's at least operate in the realm of reality, OK?
As to your question, Trump does not typically speak with a lisp, and we have not detected a lisp in any of his other recent public appearances. So, when a lisp suddenly appears in a situation where he is speaking into an unknown microphone, with an unknown Internet connection, and where the platform on which he is appearing is having serious technical issues, we have to presume that what we are hearing is technical in origin.
Further, the character of his voice is far less important than the character of what he says. And we made quite clear that what he said was generally rambling and unfocused.
P.J. in Quakertown, PA, asks: I've been wondering for a few weeks now, and the more that time goes by, and events unfold, the more my suspicions increase. It seems that the events and timing leading up to President Biden's decision, his endorsement of Kamala Harris, and her meteoric rise in the polls just could not have played out any better, even if Santa delivered them on Christmas morning.
Harris is either the luckiest politician in decades, or some very clever "rope-a-doping" has been orchestrated against the GOP and Donald Trump. So, what is your thought about the possibility that all this was planned? That President Biden knew months ago that he didn't have it in him for another run at it and understood that an open primary would tear the Democratic Party apart. That Kamala was ready for the job and the best way to win in November would be to play it coy until after the Republicans had their hate-fest convention to lower the boom.(V) & (Z) answer: It is probable that Biden knew a week or two in advance that he was probably going to throw in the towel. We doubt he had made the decision months in advance.
For your theory to be correct, the nation's highest-ranking Democrats would all have to be very good actors. Until the bitter end, or very near it, Joe Biden was behaving as someone who was under assault, and was doing everything he could to save his career. Nancy Pelosi was behaving as someone who didn't like what she was doing, but was doing it because it had to be done. Barack Obama was behaving as someone who did not like to see his protégé fail, but who had no choice but to join with Pelosi.
Even if you believe that all of these people could carry off these Academy Award-level performances, the conspiratorial take also requires believing that Biden was willing to go on national TV and give a very convincing, and embarrassing performance as a man in serious decline. He is clearly public-spirited enough to give up the presidency for the good of his party and his country. We don't think that even he is public-spirited enough to willingly subject himself to what happened on June 27.
P.F. in Fairbanks, AK, asks: I don't understand how Donald Trump's wealth is based on his DJT stock. Yes, the stock has a lot of value on paper, but that value comes from him owning it and him duping his underlings into buying it. Where are the buyers champing at the bit to buy it once he's president?
(V) & (Z) answer: The current paper value of Trump's holdings in TMTG is $2,646,135,000. He will never get that much money out of his shares; he'll never even come close.
That said, if he is returned to the White House, he will get far, far more money out of them than otherwise. First, if "Truth" Social remains his primary mode of communication with the public, that will drive traffic to the site. Second, his fans will continue to buy shares as a way of supporting their hero. Third, people and entities looking to curry favor with Trump might buy big chunks of stock. As long as these dynamics keep the share in the $15 or $20 range, he might be able to sell enough of his shares to net $500 million to $1 billion. If he loses the presidential election, then all of these things will be far less true, and he might well be lucky to get $100 million.
Meanwhile, there are pretty good reasons to believe that his other business interests are not worth all that much. His claimed net worth was always rooted in his sense of how valuable his "brand" is, and now that's pretty much in the toilet. His real estate holdings are significantly encumbered, including by the $500 million in judgments that have not yet been paid out. So, winning the election vs. losing it could have a huge impact on his bottom line.
Politics
B.B. in Buda, TX, asks: I know there are a lot of variables to deal with, but do you have any sense of which party is likely to have control of the House in January 2025? Seems like there's a lot riding on this since the House is the body that actually certifies the presidential election results, and I'm convinced House Republicans will do all they can to interfere with that process if they're in control.
(V) & (Z) answer: There are various outlets that try to project this. At one extreme, The Hill's guess is that the Republicans are 61% to hold the House. At the other extreme, RaceToTheWH.com projects that the Democrats are 57.7% to take the House.
What this tells you is that it's basically a coin flip and that nobody really knows. Control of the House will be decided in 40 or so swingy districts, and most of them aren't yet being polled very much. For that reason, the projections in the previous paragraph are largely based on the smallish number of House polls taken when Joe Biden was the Democratic candidate. If you absolutely had to place a bet, you'd have to guess that the advent of Kamala Harris, and the wave of enthusiasm that has engendered (no pun intended), will ultimately make the Democrats the favorite to win the House.
J.C. in Binan, Laguna, Philippines, asks: When you look at past campaigns, since you've been doing this, how often have you seen a campaign come from behind and make a sudden surge to trending positive and leading, only to end up losing it all at the end? If we treat the Democratic ticket as one entity, have you ever seen a coming from behind in July and then surging to the lead in August but losing in November?
(V) & (Z) answer: This site has been in operation since 2004, which means this year will be our sixth presidential election. And in that time, there is one campaign that fits the trendline you describe.
In July of 2008, the McCain campaign was flailing. On July 15, for example, our map had Barack Obama with 320 EVs, McCain with 204 and 14 tied (Missouri and North Dakota, if you can believe it).
Over the next 5 weeks or so, McCain surged. The Arizona Senator started talking about how very much he wanted to drill for oil and make America "energy independent" and he also started saying that Obama was a good guy, but too inexperienced to be president. This worked pretty well, such that by August 20, our map had it Obama 264, McCain 261, with 11 tied (Virginia). McCain technically wasn't leading overall, but he was certainly within spitting distance, and he WAS ahead in "solid" states.
Then, it was a series of disasters for McCain and his party. Specifically, the economy went over a cliff, and, as a Republican, McCain got part of the blame, since a Republican was in the White House. On top of that McCain picked Sarah Palin as his running mate, and while that did not hurt him immediately, it did hurt him once she began to go on TV and do really dumb interviews. Meanwhile, the Democrats had a very successful convention, with Barack Obama giving a very good acceptance speech. By October 2, our map had Obama with a commanding lead again, with 338 EVs to 185 for McCain with 15 tied (North Carolina). If you give those 15 to Obama (and he did indeed win North Carolina), that leaves you with Obama 353, McCain 185. The actual result was Obama 365, McCain 173, which is not too far off.
So, the wheels could still come off for Harris '24. That said, a lot of things went wrong for McCain in summer of 2008, and presumably a lot of things would have to go wrong for Harris. It wouldn't be the same exact things, since there is no successful RNC or disastrous VP pick in Harris' future. But some sort of real disaster in the Middle East could play a similar role.
J.F. in Radnor, PA, asks: The polls for the Blue Wall states have recently consistently shown Kamala Harris ahead by about 3-4 points. That is just within the margin of error, but almost outside. Is there any comfort (for Harris supporters) that the difference is +3 to +4 vs +1, or is it the case that once you are in the margin of error it doesn't matter what the differential is?
(V) & (Z) answer: Every point matters. If a candidate is ahead by 2 points, the probability that he or she is really ahead is greater than if the candidate is 2 points behind. Being ahead outside the margin of error is simply a statistical convention. If someone polls at 48% with a MoE of 4%, what this means is that there is a 95% chance of the true value being between 44% and 52%. MoE is by convention two standard deviations. If the MoE were reported as one standard deviation, then the range would be smaller but the probability of the true mean being in the range would be only 68%. If the MoE were reported as three standard deviations, the range would be even bigger but the probability of the true mean being in the range would be 98%. A long time ago, somebody decided that a 5% chance of being wrong was better than a much wider range and it stuck. There is nothing magic about being 0.1% above or below the MoE boundary. The better you do in the poll, the more likely you are actually ahead.
P.S. in Marion, IA, asks: Given the many challenges of conducting a quality poll nowadays (not the least of which being cost), do you feel election markets are actually better now at predicting the future than polling? Since it requires people to "put their money where their mouth is," it seems like it's a better measurement of people's sentiment by taking in unmeasurable variables like voter enthusiasm and people who won't answer a survey.
(V) & (Z) answer: No. Betting markets are a different data point, and one worth taking note of, but we would not say they are better than polls.
The first problem is inherent in the nature of parimutuel betting. People wager money, that money is put into a pot, there is eventually a result, the casino takes a chunk of the money and then divides the rest among the bettors who wagered correctly. What that means is that early betting continues to affect the odds, even if those early bets no longer make sense. To take an obvious example, one we've mentioned before, there was a huge amount of money bet on Kamala Harris to be the Democratic nominee for vice president, back when that seemed an inevitability. Today, there is zero chance she will be the VP nominee, but there are still tens of thousands of bettors who have Harris VP bets, and so her now-zero chances of being VP are affecting the odds as if her chances were NOT zero.
The second problem is that when you treat politics like sports fandom, you are going to get people who make bets as fans, bets that are not entirely rational. In particular, because many people treat Donald Trump like a cult leader, there are going to be people who bet on him because they really want him to win, or they want to say they placed a bet on him, or whatever, even if their bets are financially unsound. For this reason, we tend to assume that the betting markets always overstate Trump's chances of winning.
P.E. in Warsaw, Poland, asks: How much credibility to you give to polls from CNBC?
(V) & (Z) answer: To start, you must understand that TV networks, whether cable or broadcast, do not generally conduct their own polls. They pay professionals to do so, and then publish the results, which is why you tend to see things like "the new ABC News/Ipsos poll" or "this week's CBS News/YouGov poll." ABC and CBS are paying the bills, Ipsos and YouGov are doing the actual polling.
So, when we decide whether or not to include CNBC polls in our database (and we do include them), we are not making a judgment about the network. We are making a judgment about the pollster they use, and usually they use Hart Research, which is a Democratic-leaning house, and Public Opinion Strategies, which is a Republican house. Since the two pollsters are working together, we assume their biases cancel each other out, and that their numbers are OK.
Incidentally, we include Fox polls in our database, for much the same reason. In Fox' case, they hire Beacon Research, which is a Democratic-leaning house, and Shaw & Company Research, which is a Republican-leaning house. They keep an eye on each other, so we trust their results.
S.W. in New York City, NY, asks: In recent polling, I am both curious and pleased to see that Harris is picking up significant Latino support. Any thoughts on why this is happening? Is it just the general trend of many constituencies enthusiastic about her campaign?
(V) & (Z) answer: It is possible that Latinos and Latinas are excited to have a first-generation American, and thus a child of immigrants, to vote for. At this very moment, the Harris campaign has an ad in heavy rotation talking about how being the child of immigrant parents has influenced her political career.
It is also possible that, given the choice between a white person and a person of color, some Latinos, particularly younger Latinos, prefer a person of color.
Finally, it could be, as you propose, that Latinos are excited about the same things that non-Latinos are excited about, and that the movement in that community is largely unrelated to culture/race/etc.
We have no great factual basis for knowing which it is, but if you asked us to guess, we would guess it is mostly #3, with a bit of #1.
J.P.R. in Westminster, CO, asks: Do we have any reason to believe that Florida might be back in play since Harris became top of the ticket?
(V) & (Z) answer: It could be. First of all, there are a lot of Floridians unhappy with Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-FL) and his "leadership."
Second, there is, of course, an abortion initiative on the ballot. Democratic turnout should be up. It will be up even more if Democrats think they might actually swing the state's EVs or its U.S. Senate seat.
Third, as per the last question, Harris is doing much better among Latino voters than Joe Biden. You do not want to make the mistake of assuming that Cuban voters (the predominant Latino demographic in Florida) think and vote the same way as Mexican voters (the predominant Latino demographic in the Southwest). However, there has been polling that indicates Harris has picked up roughly 7 points among Latinos in Miami-Dade County.
C.S. in Madison, WI, asks: Is it just me, or is Kamala Harris much better at rallies than she was during the 2020 primaries? Has she been taking acting lessons?
(V) & (Z) answer: It seems that way to us, too. The best way to improve at public speaking is to do a bunch of public speaking. And as a very active VP, Harris has gotten a lot of experience under her belt since her 2020 presidential campaign.
D.E. in San Diego, CA, asks: For those of us who live in California, where the outcome of the presidential vote is a foregone conclusion, how can we help the Harris campaign in the swing states where energy and effort can make a difference (rather than a monetary contribution)? For example, working a phone bank remotely or going over voter lists to prepare mailers is something that it seems could be done just as easily in California as in Georgia.
(V) & (Z) answer: The Democratic Party's webpage has an extensive listing of events that people can participate in to help the Harris campaign, or to help other campaigns. This includes virtual events that can be done from anywhere, like phone banking, text banking and fundraising.
K.E. in Newport, RI, asks: Does it seem to you that Kamala Harris is being held to a much higher standard by the U.S. press in this campaign? What do you think would happen if she accused Donald Trump of faking his crowd sizes with AI imagery or publicly called on Tehran to release the e-mails it hacked from Trump's campaign? Why is she being held to such a higher standard?
(V) & (Z) answer: Yes, we do. We actually had an item about this planned for yesterday, and then ran out of time and space (we try not to go past 6,500 words or so). That item will certainly run next week, and we will give some thoughts as to the apparent double standard.
M.H. in Council Grove, KS, asks: My husband and I were recently talking about Kamala Harris' campaign. I, like many others, was worried about Joe Biden running again and have now become more excited and optimistic about Kamala and Tim Walz. My husband is much more of a libertarian. He is no fan of Donald Trump, but isn't exactly a big fan of Kamala either. He thought it was terrible that the DNC didn't even try to have a primary for anyone to run against Biden. Then Biden dropped out and Kamala immediately replaced him with no one else getting a chance. Now he is not happy that the Harris/Walz website doesn't talk about what policies they are for and against. He says he understands why, but thinks it's wrong. I was wondering if you think there are many other swing voters out there that would be thinking the same way? Could it be a problem?
(V) & (Z) answer: With 150 million voters out there, there are plenty of voters thinking EVERY way you can imagine. And there are certainly people thinking along the same lines as your husband.
That said, people (including your husband) really shouldn't be thinking that way, in our view. As to the nomination process, every Democrat in the country could have jumped into the race, either when Biden was the opponent or when Harris was. The leading Democrats chose not to do so because they knew they wouldn't win, and they would damage their future prospects. And it wasn't the Democratic pooh-bahs these people (Gov. Gavin Newsom, D-CA; Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, D-MI; Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg, etc.) were worried about, it was the Democratic delegates. These are the same delegates drawn from the grassroots of the Party, who ostensibly represent the views of the Democrats in their community. Point is, these decisions used to be made in a smoke-filled room. That's really not true anymore, and it's not particularly on point to think of these choices as being handed down from above.
As to the lack of policy, that is going to be the focal point of the pending item we mention in the previous answer. Short answer: The Harris campaign is about 3 weeks old, and the DNC, where the platform will be adopted, hasn't even been held yet. If you want to be critical of someone's lack of policy, how about Donald Trump, who has had much more time to come up with something, and who has already held HIS convention? It is true that his website does have a "platform." But does anyone think that "end inflation" or "seal the border" are serious policy proposals?
J.H. in Boston, MA, asks: You wrote about Kamala Harris's possible picks for various cabinet level jobs. I'm sure every president likes to have their own people around them, but since Harris is not only the same party as Joe Biden, but also a current member of the administration and has probably worked with some of the current Cabinet officers, would it be likely that some people would be asked/allowed to just stay on in a Harris administration?
Do you know whether/how much that happened in previous instances of a VP succeeding their own running mate? Did Bush 41 keep any Reagan cabinet appointees?(V) & (Z) answer: It is very likely that Harris would ask some of Biden's appointees to remain on the job. As a 50-year veteran of U.S. politics, he was choosing from a much broader network of allies and former associates than Harris has available, and some of "his" people, especially with 4 years' experience under their belts, are surely as good as or better than anyone she might come up with.
And yes, there are many instances of VPs-turned-president who held over members of their predecessor's cabinet. George H.W. Bush retained Secretary of the Treasury Nicholas F. Brady, Attorney General Dick Thornburgh, and Secretary of Education Lauro Cavazos. Gerald Ford, Lyndon B. Johnson, Harry S. Truman and Calvin Coolidge, for obvious reasons, kept nearly everyone. William Howard Taft kept Secretary of Agriculture James Wilson and Postmaster General George von Lengerke Meyer, although Meyer was shifted over to being Secretary of the Navy. That covers every person who went straight from being VP to being president in the last century-plus.
T.F. in Debrecen, Hungary, asks: I had a question regarding the potential transition of the Biden administration to Vice President Harris, should that scenario arise. Specifically, if she were to retain any members of President Biden's cabinet, would they need to be reappointed following her inauguration?
It seems that this could be particularly advantageous, especially if the Senate shifts to a Republican majority in the upcoming election. I'm particularly curious about the implications for Secretary of State Antony Blinken, given his extensive experience with the Ukrainian/Russian and Israel/Palestine conflicts.(V) & (Z) answer: They do not have to be re-appointed. So, this could indeed be a way to make it harder for a Republican-majority Senate to muck around in Harris' (hypothetical) administration.
P.R. in Overland Park, KS, asks: Having avidly followed The West Wing during its entire run (and having re-watched it in its entirety at least once), I wonder about a bipartisan spirit. In that alternate universe, Jed Bartlett hired arch-conservative lawyer Ainsley Hayes, because he "likes to hear from smart people who disagree with him." And, of course, Matt Santos (D) chose his defeated opponent, Arnie Vinick (R), as Secretary of State.
There is a die-hard conservative Republican former politician I keep thinking about, whose political philosophy is at odds with nearly everything the Vice President believes, but there is a strong shared belief in democracy and in America.
So, let us fantasize for a moment or two. Assume that Democrats control the Senate without Kyrsten Sinema (I-AZ) or Joe Manchin (I-WV) gumming up the works. Where in a Harris Cabinet could Liz Cheney serve our country without requiring a brain transplant? It could be an ultimate "reaching across the aisle" moment, and would drive the House Twitter Caucus absolutely bonkers.(V) & (Z) answer: Beyond her work on the 1/6 Committee, Cheney's committee work in the House was on the Committee on Armed Services. But there's no way that she gets appointed to Defense or State, because her résumé simply doesn't justify it. If she'd served on, say, Ways and Means, then MAYBE that would put her in line for Commerce. But Defense and State always go to people with decades of experience.
That means that if Cheney ends up in a Harris Cabinet—which is certainly not impossible—then there is really only one slot that makes sense: Interior. That post pretty much always goes to someone from the Western U.S., and the issues that Interior deals with don't break down cleanly along Republican-Democratic lines, so the political leanings of that secretary matter a lot less than with, say, the Secretary of Education.
C.C. in Hancock, NH, asks: In response to J.O. in Williamsburg, you wrote that "the commencement of a new administration does not automatically cause the Cabinet to be vacated." This gave me an idea. If the GOP takes the Senate, but Harris takes the White House, could the current Cabinet resign in November or December, Biden nominate Harris's picks for Cabinet, and the lame duck Senate confirm them?
(V) & (Z) answer: Is that possible, and legal? Yes. Is it likely? No.
First of all, the optics would be really bad. It would look sneaky and underhanded, and the commentariat would scream bloody murder. Also, the senators would not be pleased to have to give up pretty much their entire holiday season.
We should not overstate the extent to which a Republican-controlled Senate would block Harris' Cabinet. There are numerous GOP senators, from Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) to Lindsey Graham (R-SC), who believe that a president should basically get to choose the staff they want. The only people at real risk of being blocked are people who are very lefty, or who are controversial for some reason.
J.E. in San Jose, CA, asks: Do you think there are enough low-information voters to cost Harris a swing state because they wrote in Biden because they were confused why he was not on the ballot?
(V) & (Z) answer: No. First of all, you would have to be VERY low information to not know about the change in the ticket. Second, it is actually pretty tough, in many/most jurisdictions, to figure out how to vote write-in. It's unlikely someone could be ignorant of Harris' nomination, and yet could figure out how to cast a write-in ballot. Third, in the general election, write-in votes for Biden will largely not be possible. Only 8 states, namely, Alabama, Delaware, Iowa, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Oregon, Vermont and Wyoming allow people to write-in whomever they want. In 33 states and D.C., a write-in candidate has to file paperwork (which Biden will not do) in order to receive votes. In the final 9 states, no write-ins are allowed.
J.W. in Asuza, CA, asks: On Thursday, the Votemaster was pretty harsh towards Joe Biden, while on Friday, Zenger was pretty respectful of Biden. Do you two have different opinions on the President?
(V) & (Z) answer: We both agree that Biden was a very successful one-term president, and that he is putting country and party ahead of his own needs by stepping down (the latter point is what the Friday item was about). We are of differing opinions about exactly how weak Biden's position was, and exactly when it became clear he should/would step down.
D.H. in Portland OR, asks: We know Donald Trump is the leader of the Republican Party and will remain so until he shuffles off this mortal coil. I would like to know if the leader of the Democratic Party is Joe Biden or Kamala Harris?
(V) & (Z) answer: You could make a case for Biden, since he still holds the reins of power. You could make a case for Harris, since she's calling the shots for the DNC and, to a greater or lesser extent, for the conduct of the election.
That said, at the moment, we think the actual leader of the Democratic Party is Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi (D-CA). That won't be true if Harris wins and is inaugurated, but we think it is true right now.
R.D. in Philadelphia, PA, asks: Do you think there are Republicans in the House and Senate, and possibly in state and local government, who want Trump to lose so they can put him behind them?
(V) & (Z) answer: It is a 100% certainty that there are many such people. The moderate governors (Phil Scott in Vermont, Chris Sununu in New Hampshire, etc.) and senators (Lisa Murkowski; Susan Collins, R-ME), along with the old school party loyalists (Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-KY; Sen. John Cornyn, R-TX) are just the most obvious ones. We have no doubt there are also plenty of people pretending to be Trumpers who would nonetheless like to see him gone. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), for example, not only knows that Trump is running the party into the ground, he also knows there's no hope of a presidential run while Trump is still on the scene.
Beyond the future of the Republican Party, we suspect there are also some officeholders who have done the math, and have concluded they can achieve more of their goals under a Harris administration than under a Trump administration. Trump largely does not govern, and his policy goals are either unrealistic (border walls, "end inflation") or actively harmful to American interests (tariffs, pi**ing on NATO and other international agreements). Democrats, including Kamala Harris, don't do obviously unwise things just because their extremely ignorant gut tells them to. Further, Democrats are willing to negotiate in hopes of achieving policy goals. To be more precise, if you represent Idaho, and you need money for a bridge in your community, you are far more likely to get it from a Harris administration than from a Trump administration.
S.S. in Toronto, ON, Canada, asks: I keep wondering whether Donald Trump is really aware of what is frequently said about him, that he is demented, stupid, mentally ill, the worst president ever, incapable of forming a strategy, unable to speak coherently, etc. I often wonder whether he, or any of his staff, ever reads what is said on Electoral-Vote.com or any of the other non-right-wing sites and newsletters. If so, does he just ignore these things? Do they affect him in any way? Or is he kept in a safe bubble by his handlers?
(V) & (Z) answer: His bubble is thick, and his defense mechanisms are well-established at this point in his life.
That said, he has often shown an awareness of the negative things being said about him. Not surprising, since he's the target of so much negativity, no bubble could keep it all out. And although he pretends not to be bothered, some of the criticisms clearly eat him up. For example, he is clearly very bothered by being called "weird."
K.M. in Adams, WI, asks: When Harris/Walz win in November, the GOP is going to start demanding a pardon for Donald Trump. I think Kamala Harris should agree to the pardon/pardons on one condition, that Trump goes on national tv and admits to committing all the crimes he has been convicted of. Is there any chance this would happen?
(V) & (Z) answer: No. First, it would be bad politics, as millions of Democrats would be outraged by such a deal. Second it would be bad policy, as it would reaffirm the lesson of Richard Nixon: Do whatever you want as president and, at worst, you'll just have to vaguely admit to being a naughty boy.
C.S. in Newport, Wales, UK, asks: Concerning Donald Trump creating fear, uncertainty, and doubt, surrounding the election results, I wonder if the role of TV networks may be worth looking at? I would guess that if all of the big networks call the election for Harris at some stage during the night then, as in 2020, most people will accept that and move on.
(V) & (Z) answer: If the networks called the election for Harris, that certainly would undermine Trump's claims that he really won.
However, the networks are not going to make the call unless they are sure. And while they can often extrapolate results based on past outcomes and exit polls, it gets tricky in states that are really, really close. That is why it took a couple of days, back in 2020, for anyone to call Arizona, Nevada, Georgia, North Carolina or Pennsylvania. In fact, we were not able to write a post declaring Biden to be the winner until Sunday, 5 days after the election.
If Harris wins in a landslide, or semi-landslide, then the networks can make the call. If not, then things could get messy.
B.B. in Philadelphia, PA, asks: What is a legal basis (if any) might be in the Trump's fantasy that the vice president's elevation to the top of her party's ticket is "unconstitutional" and it is a part of some kind of a "coup" within Democratic Party?
(V) & (Z) answer: There is no legal basis. There are many reasons, but here is the simplest: Nobody can be compelled to run for president if they don't want to. If Biden says he's out, then he's out, end of story.
R.M.S. in Lebanon, CT, asks: One of the objectives of Project 2025 is banning porn. How would such a ban be implemented? First of all, producers could post pictures and videos outside the U.S., where it is still legal. Secondly, isn't porn protected by the First Amendment?
(V) & (Z) answer: It is an entirely unrealistic policy proposal. We will give you four big reasons that is the case (and this is not an exhaustive list).
First of all, porn is not protected by the First Amendment. In fact, obscenity is illegal in most of the United States. Some things feature naughty bits, but have serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value (like, say, "The Birth of Venus" or an anatomical guide for classrooms or The Bible, all of which are clearly not obscene). Some things have the naughty bits, but don't have serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value (and thus are obscene and illegal). The Supreme Court offered some guidance on this question, in the 1971 case Miller v. California. However, that case made clear that "community standards" matter, such that something that is obscene in Salt Lake City might not be obscene in Los Angeles. The upshot is that it would be VERY difficult to even figure out exactly who had and had not broken anti-porn laws. And if you do figure it out, you're going to end up arresting a lot more people in red states (more strict community standards) than blue states (less strict community standards).
A second problem, as you point out, is that the people supplying pornographic material could easily establish themselves outside of U.S. territory, and thus beyond the reach of U.S. law.
A third problem is that, even if you decide to focus on those who are receiving pornographic material, there are so many people indulging that it would be impractical to pursue them all. It would be like trying to go after everyone who speeds while driving.
A fourth problem, not unlike the situation with guns, is that the amount of pornography that is already out there, in people's closets, and on their hard drives, etc. is massive. What would be done about that?
T.B. in Bozeman, MT, asks: Imagine that Donald Trump had been assassinated on that fateful July day in Pennsylvania. What would have been the most likely scenario for the ensuing GOP convention? And what sort of trajectory would have been most likely for the presidential campaign and November election?
(V) & (Z) answer: Since the Republican Convention was just days later, there would have been enormous pressure to find a candidate the entire party could coalesce around. It would have been difficult, if not impossible, to stage a quickie duel for the nomination between, say, Ron DeSantis, Nikki Haley, Ted Cruz and Gov. Glenn Youngkin (R-VA).
Remember, Trump had not yet announced his VP pick. If his campaign and his family knew for sure it was going to be J.D. Vance, and they could convince everyone that was the case, then Vance would probably have been the candidate the Party rallied around. Failing that... well, in a situation where a candidate dies unexpectedly and late in the process, the "safe" and non-contentious pick to replace them is usually a family member. And because Ivanka has distanced herself, that probably means Donald Trump Jr.
As to the trajectory of the campaign, that's very hard to say. Trump didn't get any sympathy points for being shot, and because of the GOP's base-only strategy, we would guess his successor wouldn't get any due to his death. Meanwhile, whether the candidate is Vance or Donald Jr. or someone else, they probably wouldn't command the fanatical loyalty that Donald Sr. does. Meanwhile, the Democrats' internal struggle would likely have unfolded the same way. So, the best we can come up with here is that the death of Trump leads to a Kamala Harris victory over Vance or Donald Jr. in November.
C.S. in Guelph, ON, Canada, asks: I have noticed that Donald Trump's picture next to the electoral vote prediction is less flattering than Harris' picture. While I appreciate that the authors, and most of the readers, most likely skew Democratic, in the interest neutrality, would you consider using candidate pictures that are visually equal?
(V) & (Z) answer: No. We explained that decision when we made it, and we stick by it. That is Trump's booking photo, and when he began using it as part of his campaign, it became fair game for this purpose. We believe it accurately captures the tone and tenor of his campaign, while also reminding people of his actions in 2020 and 2021, which should certainly be part of the consideration for people as they cast their ballots.
R.M. in Norwich, CT, asks: My political hero as a teenager was Bobby Kennedy. Bobby Junior's campaign is imploding in front of our eyes. Of course, he doesn't come close to having the qualities that defined his father. The acorn fell miles away from that tree. It was a little over 25 years ago when we lost the other Kennedy Junior, namely JFK Jr. Based on his life up to that point, his public comments, and published writings, could you see him entering the political arena at some point, and do you think if he did he would have been destined for great things?
(V) & (Z) answer: He had the magic name, his father's good looks, and charisma to burn. And he clearly intended to enter politics at some point. That said, those who interacted with him said he was something of an empty suit, and that he left little impression on them once he'd left the room. Our guess is that a seat in the House of Representatives was within reach, but that he wouldn't have advanced beyond that. That would be the same thing that happened with another presidential son, namely James Roosevelt.
T.C. in Jersey City, NJ, asks: Why is George Soros often evoked in antisemitic dog whistles and conspiracy theories, while Miriam Adelson is not? Is it simply because of their respective political leanings or are there additional layers?
(V) & (Z) answer: It's entirely due to their political leanings. The kind of people who believe Jews are secretly running the world are overwhelmingly Republicans. The kind of people who are offended by subtle (and unsubtle) antisemitism are overwhelmingly Democrats. So, the antisemitic stuff only makes sense in one direction: Made against Democrats for the benefit of Republicans.
Note that this is not to say that all, or most, Republicans are antisemitic. This is not the case. Nor is it to say that no Democrats are antisemitic. This is also not the case. But politics is a numbers game, and there's only one major American political party where antisemitic nonsense is likely to do more good than harm.
R.W. in Brooklyn, NY, asks: In regard to your note that "[Rep. Ilhan] Omar [DFL-MN] has more money than her challenger and outside groups haven't been much involved in the race," I'm wondering if you have any sense of why AIPAC and other groups poured money into defeating Reps. Jamaal Bowman (D-NY) and Cori Bush (D-MO), but have let Omar (arguably the most antisemitic of all the Squad members) slide.
(V) & (Z) answer: Because Bush, and particularly Bowman, were pretty bad fits for their districts, especially once they came out as strongly critical of Israel. Bush's district has a lot of pro-Israel Christians (remembering that many Southern Black voters are religiously conservative Baptists) and Bowman's district has a lot of pro-Israel Jewish voters. Omar is a pretty good fit for her district, especially given her strength among her district's sizable population of Somali voters. AIPAC isn't stupid. They know how to conduct a poll, and they know how to use that information in guiding their spending choices.
A.G. in Scranton, PA, asks: What happened to the solidarity Middle Eastern states used to have on the issue of Israel?
(V) & (Z) answer: In a word: Iran.
Iran did not much enjoy being a powerless pawn in the ongoing struggles between the world's superpowers. And so, over the last couple of decades. the Iranian government (admittedly, backed by the Russians) has crafted a bloc that includes them, Iraq, and Syria, along with Shia Islamist factions in Lebanon (Hezbollah), Yemen (the Houthis) and Syria (Liwa Assad Allah al-Ghalib).
This has caused an anti-Iran bloc to emerge; it includes Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates, most of the rest of Lebanon, Yemen, and Syria, and also... Israel. The Trump administration's diplomatic "breakthrough" in Israel's relations with their neighbors, the Abraham Accords, was mostly just formalizing a state of affairs that already existed.
And before you ask, yes, Hamas is being substantially funded and armed by Iran.
Civics
P.M. in Pensacola, FL, asks: Has there ever been a suggestion to give U.S. territories one voting representative, one voting senator, and one electoral vote?
(V) & (Z) answer: We are unaware of that, if it's happened. And really, it doesn't make much sense. Article I, Section 3, Clause 1 of the Constitution says: "The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof, for six Years." So, if the arrangement you propose was going to be enacted, it would require a constitutional amendment.
The bar for statehood is much lower; a bill just has to pass both houses of Congress and then get a presidential signature. It's hard to envision a situation where there is VAST support for giving one representative/senator/EV, but much less support for giving them one representative/two senators/three EVs.
K.F.K. in CleElum, WA, asks: What loophole allows the orange felon to vote? Is it because he's awaiting sentencing? If the sentencing hearing goes through in September, will he be ineligible to vote for himself in November?
(V) & (Z) answer: We've addressed this before, but we get this question every week, so we'll answer again.
Trump's home state of Florida adheres to whatever the laws are of the jurisdiction in which a person was convicted. And the law in New York says that a person only loses their vote if they are: (1) convicted of a felony, and (2) incarcerated.
This means that if Judge Juan Merchan sends Trump to prison, pending appeal, and Trump remains there until Nov. 5, then Trump would not be allowed to vote. We think it is very, very unlikely that Merchan would do that, however.
D.H. in Portland, OR, asks: Why do Vermont and New Hampshire have two year governorships?
(V) & (Z) answer: Broadly speaking, it was to make sure power did not remain in any one person's hands for too long. More specifically, it was because in the very early years, before the U.S. had formal political parties, each state was home to two political factions of roughly equal size, based primarily on geography. Back then (the 1790s), governors served 1-year terms, and there was a gentleman's agreement that nobody would run for reelection more than once. Most people did run for reelection, and most of them won, making the job de facto a 2-year position. Eventually, that evolved into an official 2-year term, and still later than that, it was legislated that the terms were unlimited. A person can now serve as many 2-year terms as they can get themselves elected to.
There have been dozens of efforts, mostly in the last century, to change it to 4 years. Usually, these efforts die in the state legislature, because the legislators are not eager to give more power to the executive branch. Sometimes, these efforts die at the hands of voters. For example, the last time Vermont's citizens got a chance to vote on the question was in 1974. With the Watergate scandal all over the front pages, people were not eager to create a more powerful executive, thank you very much.
R.K. in Minneapolis, MN, asks: I'm waiting with bated breath for it to be too late to remove Vance from the GOP ticket, to replace him with someone less terrible. When would it be, theoretically at least, too late to remove him?
(V) & (Z) answer: Another 10 days, we'd say. Maybe 2 weeks, at the most. Ohio's (extended) deadline for the major parties to submit their tickets is August 27. It is improbable the state legislature would change the rules in order to allow a native son to be booted off the ticket. And even if you overlook that, other state deadlines (including those in some blue states) will arrive on September 1. We are quite certain that blue states like Washington won't accommodate shenanigans from Trump, even if Vance publicly announces that he just isn't interested anymore.
History
R.B. in Mill Creek, WA, asks: Has there ever been a vice president who became president and then had their vice president becoming president?
(V) & (Z) answer: It has happened twice, though one case carries an asterisk or two. The first case is John Adams, who was VP to George Washington, and then yielded the office to his own VP, Thomas Jefferson.
The second case is Richard Nixon. Obviously, there was an 8-year gap between his vice presidency, served under Dwight D. Eisenhower, and his presidency (asterisk 1). And Nixon's VP, Gerald Ford, only got the top job because Nixon resigned (asterisk 2).
L.E. in Putnam County, NY, asks: Do you think the U.S. is wired so there will always be multiple parties?
(V) & (Z) answer: Yes. There have been two occasions where a major party faded away (the Federalists in the 1810s and the Whigs in the 1850s), and in each case, a new major party arose pretty quickly to take their place. It took roughly 10 years for the Whigs to replace the Federalists, and roughly 2 years for the Republicans to replace the Whigs.
It only makes sense, under the U.S. system of conducting elections. Basically, as long as 45%+ of the voting public is unified behind one candidate or party, then the remainder of the voters better pull together, or they're going to lose every election.
D.S. in Layton, UT, asks: Was the inclusion of John C. Calhoun, as the running mate of both John Quincy Adams and Andrew Jackson in 1824, intentional or a boo-boo? I ask this sincerely knowing nothing about the man.
(V) & (Z) answer: It was intentional. The Election of 1824 was the last one in which there was only one major political party. That meant that all four candidates that year—John Quincy Adams, Andrew Jackson, William Crawford and Henry Clay—were all nominally Democratic-Republicans. Calhoun realized he couldn't win the presidency, but he did have support among both the supporters of Adams and those of Jackson. So, Calhoun positioned himself as the VP candidate for both men.
B.J.L. in Ann Arbor, MI, asks: With Joe Biden doing his best Ben Kenobi and dropping out, we will have had successive one-term presidents. That's been rare in the presidential ranks dating back to the Cleveland-Harrison-Cleveland troika, and even that isn't fair. I wonder whether there are eras where the electorate is just more fickle, harder to satisfy, or the governing bodies are simply less effective and thus there are periods where there is a rash of tossing out folks with every chance. After Andy Jackson, we had a rash of one-termers, including Martin Van Buren, the William Henry Harrison/John Tyler team, James K. Polk, Franklin Pierce and James Buchanan. That's five elections in a row.
Are the tea leaves such that Kamala Harris should be concerned about being a one-termer, and should consider whether adopting the Polk approach of committing to serve only one term makes sense?(V) & (Z) answer: It's true the last two presidents were one-termers. But before them, 9 of 12 sitting presidents were reelected. So, you could very well argue we're in the midst of a two-term renaissance.
The real answer to the question is that these things depend on circumstances. The one-termers of the pre-Civil War era were because the Democrats were evenly divided between Northern and Southern Democrats, and each faction effectively demanded turns at controlling the White House. When the two factions couldn't work it out, the Whigs won. The one-termers of the Gilded Age were largely due to the same dynamic, except that it was the Republicans who had two factions (not Northern and Southern, but liberal and conservative).
Donald Trump was a one-termer because he was an unpopular candidate who barely eked out a win in his first election, and couldn't do it again the second time out. Joe Biden is a one-termer because he was elected at an advanced age, and ultimately persuaded voters that he wasn't up to a second term that would take him through his 86th birthday. We really don't think that either of these situations presage anything for Harris.
B.B. in Pasadena, CA, asks: You have previously been skeptical that Jon Stewart has the power to affect elections, arguing that he is "preaching to the choir." Given that you included the extraordinary clip from Monday's Daily Show, what is your opinion as to Stewart's effect on the current election, both in terms of his anti-Trump message and the fact that he obviously wanted Biden out long before the choir started to sing that song.
This also raises a historical question. What, if any, person(s) outside the regular political sphere (think, for example somebody like Will Rogers) had the power to, and did, swing a presidential election?(V) & (Z) answer: Consistent with the fact that his program largely reaches Democrats, Stewart probably did play some small role in whipping up the sentiment that swept Joe Biden off the Democratic ticket. That said, if Stewart had not returned to his Daily Show chair, the outcome would surely have been the same. It wasn't the early adopters of "Biden is too old" that did the President in, it was the debate performance.
It is nearly impossible to say that any one non-politician swung an entire election. That said, one group of people who had/have that sort of power are prominent religious leaders. In the 19th century, a lot of voters would listen to Lyman Beecher or Charles Grandison Finney. And Rev. Samuel D. Burchard probably did change the outcome of the 1884 election with his "Rum, Romanism, and Rebellion," albeit not in the direction he intended. In the 20th century, Billy Graham had that kind of power, though he usually tried to remain above the fray.
There are a few journalists we can think of that had this kind of influence. James Gordon Bennett had enormous influence over Democrats for nearly three decades. His voice might have been decisive in a presidential election during his time of prominence, although he mostly held sway in New York, which the Democrats didn't usually win during his career. William Randolph Hearst may have gotten William McKinley elected in 1896, and he was certainly responsible for the rise of Theodore Roosevelt to the vice presidency. Without Hearst, the Rough Rider probably never becomes president. And Walter Cronkite turning against the "unwinnable" Vietnam War in February 1968 almost certainly sunk Lyndon B. Johnson.
And finally, there are certain comic performers that could have pulled off the trick. Johnny Carson could probably have swung a close election, though he tried very hard to play things neutral. And there is certainly a TV show that has exercised enormous power over elections, though it's not The Daily Show, it's Saturday Night Live. Chevy Chase did much to help brand Gerald Ford as a bumbling oaf, and Tina Fey did much to encourage the impression that Sarah Palin was a vapid airhead. Those two performers, in particular, might meet your criteria.
Gallimaufry
F.S. in Cologne, Germany, asks: What are (V)'s and (Z)'s most important scientific contributions?
(Z) answers: This is only (Z) answering, so we are clear who is making the judgments. (Z) is not a scientist, so he has no scientific contributions. He is a historian. And from his vantage point as an outsider, it is pretty clear to (Z) that (V)'s most important scientific contribution is his development of the microkernel-based OS called MINIX, which is found on billions of electronic devices worldwide. That's billions, with a "B."
As long as we are at it, our biographies aren't much of a secret, but we nonetheless get e-mails all the time that get things wrong. So, again, (Z) is a historian and (V) is a computer scientist (whose Ph.D. degree is in astrophysics). (Z) went to UCLA and (V) went to MIT and Berkeley. Those are not now, and never have been, Ivy League schools. See tomorrow's complaints department for the latest e-mail, of many, accusing us of being Ivy League snobs. Ivory tower snobs? Fine, but not Ivy League snobs. And finally, (Z) is younger than the majority of this site's readers, as he won't even turn 50 until the Friday after next. He is a bit weary of being accused of things like "You're still stuck in your 1960s mindset," since he wasn't even born until 4 years after the 1960s ended. Similarly, "Why don't you get someone to write for the site who isn't a Baby Boomer?" In fact, neither of us are Baby Boomers, having been born on opposite sides of the 1946-64 window.
J.V. in Honolulu, HI, asks: I noted that your 'force-reload' instructions were Mac-first/Wintel-second and it made me wonder what the browser demographics of your readership is? Has it changed over the years?
(V) & (Z) answer: The ordering was due to the fact that both (V) and (Z) are Mac users and so naturally think of Mac first. We have never asked our readers about OSes or browsers, but from a quick check of the nginx log, it looks like well over half the requests come from Safari, so among our readers, Apple is very popular. We do know that in 2020, 88% of our readers had at least a bachelor's degree, 54% had at least a master's degree, and 22% had a doctorate. High educational status tends to correlate well with using Apple gear because highly educated people tend to pick (and can afford) the best stuff. For anyone interested, we used to use Apache as the server, but it was too slow and required setting up half a dozen servers on Election Night to handle the load. Then we went over to lighttpd, but it is not maintained well. Now we use nginx, which is stable and fast.
D.M. in Lexington, NC, asks: You wrote:
We'll also note, even if it's a little extraneous, that Peters' B.A. "degree" is from the Clayton College of Natural Health. This now-defunct, non-accredited, distance-learning "educational institution" offered classes in various forms of alternative medicine. Hard to believe that someone who went to a "college" like that would have a tough time distinguishing actual evidence from "things I wish were true."I've been a regular reader of this site, like many others, since its inception in 2004. I also spent most of my (reasonably successful) career in corporate training leadership as a person with no college degree. In 2019, my boss at the time gently suggested that I get my undergraduate degree, and I discovered Western Governor's University. I liked the "go at your own pace" format, and appreciated the per-semester tuition because it motivated me to work harder (lower costs!). I finished my undergrad in just under a year. I then went on to complete a Master's in Management in Leadership, also at WGU and also in just under a year. Just this week, after gentle nudging, I convinced my husband to pursue his own undergrad degree. My question: What is your stance on distance learning universities in general, as compared to more traditional approaches to higher education?
(V) & (Z) answer: Our default response is that we are wary of them. There are two reasons for this. First, distance learning allows universities to increase income while reducing costs. There is less need (or no need) to maintain physical classrooms (expensive!) and many times distance learning also allows schools to assign many more students to each faculty member. The cost savings can, and sometimes does, encourage administrators to oversell (or grossly oversell) the merits of distance learning.
That leads us to the second concern. When an 18- or 19- or 20-year-old goes to college, there is a lot of learning and development that goes on outside the classroom. Learning to live with roommates. Learning to shop for food and toiletries. Participating in sports, arts, activism, or other group activities. Having conversations with intellectual peers. Interacting with people whose background is very different than their own. Interacting one-on-one with professors. And so forth. A lot of this is lost if a student rarely, or never, sets foot on a campus.
This is not to say that distance learning is wholly without merit. If a person has already done that out-of-classroom learning, commonly because they are a "non-traditional student" (code for someone who is much older than most of the student body), then it's not nearly as important to be on campus. Further, if work or family considerations make traveling to and from a campus impossible, then distance learning is certainly better than no education at all. It is also the case that while some students struggle to maintain discipline with the less-structured approach characteristic of distance learning, others thrive. The ones who thrive tend to be adults who realize that if they screw around, they are wasting their valuable time and money.
Finally, note that our original answer wasn't really meant to be about distance learning, per se. It was meant to note, albeit subtly, that Clayton College of Natural Health has (well, had) all the characteristics of being, basically, a diploma mill: screwy curriculum, distance learning, no accreditation and out of business. The biggest problem there, by far, is the lack of accreditation, not the distance learning. The distance learning just contributes to an overall picture of a "college" that was trying to spend as little money as possible while collecting as much tuition as possible.
R.G. in Seattle, WA, asks: Your answer to B.S. In Denville was direct and to the point. But what was asked would have been easily answered by simply looking at Wikipedia page that lists the dates of the amendments. I know that it is important to answer a student's question directly and in a timely manner, but since you get to choose what questions to answer on the site, maybe you could give us a bit more background on what helps you decide what questions fit your "website"/s profile?
(V) & (Z) answer: The most important factors in our choice of questions are: (1) Do we think we have something useful to say that you're not going to find somewhere else?, and (2) Do we think the answer will be of interest to readers? We chose the one you note because while it's pretty easy to look up the amendments, figuring out the age demographics of the current population (e.g., how many people alive today are 33 years old or older) is actually harder than you think. Census Bureau data can be difficult to work with.
Beyond that, we can tell you three things that improve the chances of our picking a question. First, short is better than long. It's OK to use whatever words are necessary to get the basic question across, but if the question goes on for multiple paragraphs and, in particular, if it really has three or four or five separate questions, then it's much less likely to make the cut (or, we might cut it down to just the basic question). Second, try to resist the temptation to begin answering the question within the body of the question. If we have to put "You're right about [X] and you are correct about [Z]" in our answer, it makes for less-than-stellar reading. Third, make sure to include initials and city. If we have to research that before we can even begin working on the question, it makes it likely we don't do it.
E.W. in Jersey City, NJ, asks: I've been reading your site pretty consistently for two decades now. And if I remember correctly, you used to keep a politically neutral viewpoint, sticking to the facts and only offering your opinions when it came to interpreting poll data. At some point—maybe around the primaries for the 2016 election—I remember a day when you announced that going forward you'd start letting your opinions show through in the daily report.
Do you remember when that was, or have a link to it? I'm curious to re-read your reasoning. Was it a difficult decision? Do you regret not making that change earlier?(V) & (Z) answer: We are willing to be told otherwise, but we don't recall a specific day where we announced that as a "new" editorial policy. It was really something that just evolved over time.
To begin, we should note that not all subjective statements are inherently proof of bias. If we say "this speech was good" or "that interview was bad" or "that line of attack is potentially effective" or "that was not a good choice of running mate," those are all perfectly valid assessments within the realm of dispassionate political analysis. In many cases, we are then citing some person (e.g., a reporter, politician, etc.) we trust and link to an article where that opinion is stated.
We will also note that "playing it down the middle," which often takes the form of bothsidesism, isn't actually a lack of bias (in most situations). It's just a different form of bias.
In any event, the change in posture probably did come in or around 2016, for three related reasons. First, (Z) joined the site. Historians mix much more subjectivity into their work, on the whole, than astrophysicists and computer scientists do. Second, once the site became a two-man team, it also became year-round. That means that for much of the time, we're not talking about polls because there are no polls to talk about. And once you start talking about things that are not data driven, more subjectivity necessarily enters in.
And finally, we came to appreciate and accept that Donald Trump is not just another politician, and that a failure to be properly critical of his misdeeds would make us a part of the problem. To give a crude parallel, though one we think of regularly, there came a point where the Civil Rights movement was in the right, and their opponents were in the wrong, and there weren't "two equally valid viewpoints." This site was founded to promote civic involvement and voting, and that remains the core mission. It is therefore entirely correct for us to be critical of anyone who does or says things deleterious to civic involvement and voting. At the moment, that is Donald Trump and his enablers.
We would not describe this evolution as a difficult decision, per se, although it's certainly something we thought a great deal about as we tried to find the correct approach to things (note that we found it particularly helpful, and entirely correct, to draw a very clear distinction between normal Republicans and Trump Republicans, which made it clear that we were not criticizing an entire party, but instead a particular faction within that party). And we don't regret how that process unfolded; it takes how long it takes.
M.L. in West Hartford, CT, asks: You wrote: "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 to have an unusually high number of twitch fibers in their muscles, giving them greater explosiveness."
Can you share your evidence for these facts? I'm skeptical, as it sounds like racist pseudoscience, and my Internet research did not turn up any evidence of them, or even any promising leads. To be clear, I am not accusing you of any conscious bias, but I am curious to know what the scientific evidence supporting these assertions is.(V) & (Z) answer: There has been an enormous body of scholarship on the question of athletic performance, and the factors that go into it. So, we must confess, we are surprised you couldn't find any trace of the ongoing discussions of the genetic underpinnings of athleticism.
Anyhow, here is a journal article about hematology and East African distance runners, here is a journal article about twitch fibers and athletes of West African heritage, here is a journal article that talks about the gene ACTN3 in both groups, and since journal articles are kind of hard for non-experts to penetrate, here is an article from Slate that serves as a sort of literature review.
Note that nobody thinks that genetics are 100% of the explanation for why some people are good at sports (or a specific sport) and some people are not. But genetics certainly aren't 0% of the explanation, either.
L.H. in Chicago, IL, asks: Does (V) go barhopping with Guido van Rossum, or is python too far up the OSI network stack?
(V) answers: Guido and (V) met at a level far above the application level. We met at the employment level. Bar hopping is at a far higher level than that.
Today's Presidential Polls
Maybe Kamala Harris should have chosen Gov. Josh Shapiro (D-PA). On the other hand, Emerson has had a strong Republican lean this cycle, so maybe not. (Z)
| State | Kamala Harris | Donald Trump | Start | End | Pollster |
| Pennsylvania | 49% | 51% | Aug 13 | Aug 14 | Emerson 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