Main page    Dec. 07

Pres map
Previous | Next | Senate page | Menu

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

Saturday Q&A

It turns out the headline theme was harder than we thought. So, we will tell you that both "Mike" and "Johnson" work for the theme. So do "Black" and "Mirror," though "Black" is arguably a bit of a cheat.

Current Events

S.R.G. in Grecia, Costa Rica, asks: What are your thoughts on Joe Biden's pardon timing? It seems to me that issuing the pardon in mid-January, or even late December, would have produced much less blowback. Why do you suppose Biden pulled the trigger so early in the transition??

(V) & (Z) answer: We have no information besides what is publicly available. But here are five theories, from most to least likely:

  1. Biden wanted to get the pardon in before sentencing in the tax case, since "Hunter was spared SOME sentence" is less likely to anger people than "Hunter was spared 5 years in prison."

  2. The Hunter pardon is paving the way for additional pardons—say, preemptive pardons for members of the Biden administration, like Kamala Harris and Merrick Garland.

  3. Biden decided that issuing the pardon in January would make it look like he was trying to sneak it in, and wanted to send the message that he's not ashamed of his decision.

  4. Hunter was not coping well with the situation, and his father, fearful of some sort of mental health or drug relapse, decided to remove the external stimulus.

  5. Biden knows, or fears, that he won't be available to issue a pardon in a month or two. He could be planning to resign for Kamala Harris, or he might have an emergent health problem.

Again, just guesses.


R.Z. in Van Nuys, CA, asks: Among all the hoopla surrounding Joe Biden's pardon of his son, I'm not personally invested in the history of Hunter's fate. Rather, I see it as a distraction, like a cheap magic trick. But I'm terrified about the unusual, virtually unlimited, power that Biden's "paternal action" has now given Donald J. Trump. Maybe I'm missing something here, but now that Biden has set a new "pardon precedent," doesn't this mean that Trump now has this new "pardon power" to "protect" virtually anyone, or everyone, in his cabinet and administration, from committing virtually any crime or anything he commands? It seems to me that his entire administration is now bulletproof, as long as the Boss stands behind them (which gives Trump even more power over them).

(V) & (Z) answer: Trump already has a long history of abusing the pardon power, having given numerous cronies "Get out of Jail" cards—Michael Flynn, Roger Stone, Steve Bannon, etc.—during his first term. The Biden pardon changes nothing on that front; the only thing it might change is how Fox talks about it the next time Trump abuses the pardon power.


M.P. in Fort Worth, TX, asks: The United States has yet to see a woman serve as Secretary of Defense. Would suddenly cutting bait on Pete Hegseth, so he can pivot to Sen. Joni Ernst (R-IA), constitute an actual, 3-D chess move on Trump's part? Or just random happenstance?

(V) & (Z) answer: If you mean that Trump put Hegseth up as a sacrificial lamb, so as to get approval for Ernst, his "real" candidate, we don't see it. As we have written many times, Trump is not someone willing to "lose" in order to "win," because he is not a long-game player. On top of that, if he really wanted Ernst all along, he could have just nominated her. She would have been approved, as she is well regarded by Senate Republicans and also Democrats.

If you mean that Trump expected Hegseth to be approved, but now that he's in trouble, Trump could fix the damage by tapping Ernst, then we really don't see the 3-D chess there. He's got to pick someone if Hegseth is going down, and we don't see how Ernst is a particularly savvy pick, or a pick that conveys any particular benefit. She's qualified, but there are many hundreds or thousands of people who are qualified.


R.M. in Bryan, TX, asks: Does Pete Hegseth have PTSD?

(V) & (Z) answer: There is no question that he HAD PTSD, as he himself has said so publicly.

As to whether or not he HAS PTSD (present tense), we can only tell you two things. First, there are many medical professionals who take the view that PTSD cannot be cured, only managed, such that once you have it, it's forever. Second, things like "difficulty with anger control," "abuse of alcohol" and "difficulty focusing," all of which have been reported in terms of Hegseth's personal and work history, are symptoms of active PTSD.


M.S. in Canton, NY, asks: There have been rumblings that Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-FL) might agree to appoint Lara Trump to Marco Rubio's soon-to-be-vacant Senate seat as a quid pro quo for his own appointment as Secretary of Defense, after the Hegseth nomination crashes and burns. Thoughts on the possibility?

(V) & (Z) answer: We have absolutely no doubt that everyone who would be involved with such a scheme would be OK with it. These are all very transactional people. Whether the various parties are actively discussing such a scheme, we do not know, although we can point out that Donald Trump would hate to lose an extreme loyalist ensconced at the RNC.


K.G.W. in Lafayette, IN, asks: Something that I am wondering is: If the tariffs proposed by the incoming Trump administration are enacted, how much revenue would they generate for the federal government? Would that offset any impact on the economy? Also, how would this revenue be used? Could the next administration utilize these expenditures as a selling point?

(V) & (Z) answer: There is no way to know how much revenue would be generated for the federal government without specifics on what would be subject to duties, and at what rate. And even with that information, it would only be possible to make rough estimates, since it's hard to predict how businesses and consumers would react to the change in prices.

In any case, the tariffs would be, in effect, a sales tax. And since sales taxes are the most regressive form of tax, the tariffs would thus hit poor people the hardest, followed by the middle class, followed by the rich. If you've got $10 million in the bank, then paying an extra $5,000 for a car is not a big deal. If you've got $10 in the bank, then paying an extra $5,000 for a car may not be doable. So, fewer cars (and TVs, and new houses, and cell phones, etc.) would be purchased, and the economy would be at risk of a recession.

As to the money collected, it could be used in a number of ways. It could be used to pay some of the expenses of the federal government. In fact, tariff revenues were the main way the federal government paid its bills until the advent of the income tax. Alternatively, the revenue could be redistributed to people hurt by the tariff, to keep them from rebelling against the Republican Party. This is what happened the last time; the first Trump administration made payments to farmers from Chinese tariff revenues. A third possibility is that the tariff revenues could be used to "balance" the books, and to make extending the rich-people tax cuts look less damaging in terms of the deficit and the national debt. If this is what happens, then it would mean that money was being transferred from the poor and the middle class to the rich, which is pretty much the Holy Grail for many Republican politicians.


G.H. in Branchport, NY, asks: Can you give an opinion, in order, of the biggest threats Trump has nominated or assigned slots in his administration.

(V) & (Z) answer: Broadly speaking, Trump is going to surround himself with his kind of people, which means people that have limited (or no) concern for the law, for ethics, for the customs that have kept the government running for decades or centuries, for the environment, etc. There will be some members of the administration who surprise us in a good way, and some who surprise us in a bad way, but the baseline is such that the upper tiers of the federal government are about to fall into the hands of some very worrisome people.

That said, there are some nominees who are particularly worrisome. Here's a top (bottom?) five, from least bad to most bad:

  1. Pete Hegseth: We only put him this low because, even if he is confirmed, the folks at the Pentagon are pros who are used to "handling" incompetent chest thumpers. See tomorrow's letters for more on this.

  2. Kristi Noem: We're not mental health professionals, so this is just an armchair opinion, but she does not seem to be mentally well. Certainly, she has the fanaticism of a cultist, coupled with the ambition to keep moving up the political ladder. This is a bad combination for a DHS Secretary; with Stephen Miller egging her (and Donald Trump) on, people are going to suffer.

  3. Kash Patel: It looks like this is a hill the Republican senators are not willing to die on, and that they are going to approve him as FBI Director once Chris Wray is fired. The law enforcement establishment will resist Patel's worst impulses, but it may be harder for them than for the Pentagon brass. Patel might have it within him to punish and pursue "enemies" in a manner that would make Richard Nixon blush. And the damage done to the FBI and other agencies could last long beyond Patel's exist.

  4. Robert F. Kennedy Jr.: This is yet another one where you have to hope the resistance, coming from the bureaucracy, from the blue states, and from medical professionals, will render Kennedy somewhat impotent. However, Trump has already nominated a bunch of quacks and enablers in supporting roles, and the various agencies that make up Health and Human Services have a fair bit of power to make policy changes without Congress' input. It could be ugly.

  5. Tulsi Gabbard: She is the only one on the list who could singlehandedly instigate a war, either by leaking intelligence, or merely by giving hostile nations the impression that the U.S. intelligence establishment is asleep at the wheel.

S.S.-C. in Joshua Tree, CA, asks: You've written extensively about the "guardrails" protecting our democracy and expressed the view that they're not as easy to dismantle as some may think. While I don't disagree with this sentiment, I'm wondering about the likelihood of the next administration just driving an ATV over them. What's to prevent, for example, loyal paramilitary units being formed (pick your favorite agency and rationale) and using them to target "enemies" of all sorts? Didn't we already see shades of this in Portland with the heavy-handed DHS response to "protect" federal property? I can imagine so much worse, on a much greater scale.

(V) & (Z) answer: We will say just four things here. First, even if you involve guns and weapons and government-level bank accounts, it is very hard for a small fraction of a population to impose themselves on the majority. See what happened in India in the 1940s for an example.

Second, Donald Trump has very clearly been prioritizing loyalty and fealty over competence. None of the people in the previous answer is remotely competent, particularly at the level needed to impose some version of martial law on a country that is nearly 4 million square miles in size.

Third, Trump has already resumed acting like someone who realizes there are some things he cannot get away with (e.g., Matt Gaetz as AG), who doesn't have the courage to do the really nasty things you need to make yourself into a dictator, and who is mostly going to fight his battles with nasty words and Tweets.

Fourth, there is limited upside, and considerable downside, in constant worry about worst-case scenarios. When the worst came to pass in South Korea this week, people rose up and put a stop to it, and with virtually no preparation or central organization. The same would happen in the United States, should it come to pass.

Politics

D.K. in Sebastopol, CA, asks: I haven't heard or read anything regarding the future of Social Security under the coming administration, have you?

(V) & (Z) answer: Yes, we have, and it helps us understand why you are not hearing about Social Security right now.

If current trends hold, the Social Security Trust Fund is going to be depleted in 2035. The time to do something is now, or very soon. Otherwise, benefits will have to be cut in some way. A meltdown, or semi-meltdown, for Social Security would be politically disastrous. However, not only is the Republican trifecta unable to do anything about it, some sizable number of members WANT Social Security to be cut (or to melt down).

In short, there is almost zero chance of any progress on an issue that a lot of people care a lot about. Under those circumstances, best to say as little as is possible, and hope you can pass the buck to the next administration.


J.M. in Markleeville, CA, asks: I sent a comment last week pointing out the Democrats' problems in the Senate in the future. Yesterday, I saw an article in The Hill which pointed out the same thing: not enough blue states. The Hill agrees with me that the filibuster is on the endangered list. What are your thoughts?

(V) & (Z) answer: There is a cadre of Senate Republicans, led by outgoing Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), that recognizes that getting rid of the filibuster will mean short-term gain, and then long-term pain when the Democrats regain the trifecta.

The only way it happens is if enough Republicans decide that the laws they can ram through right now are worth whatever the Democrats would come up with in 2028 or 2030 or whenever the blue team next has total control. Oh, and the first thing the Democrats would do is overhaul the Supreme Court, thus breaking the hammerlock the conservatives currently have there.

On January 20, 2017, the Republicans had the presidency, 52 seats in the Senate, and 241 seats in the House. They did not get rid of the filibuster, either because they did not think it was a worthwhile tradeoff, or they were too dysfunctional to pass legislation, or both. They now have the presidency, 53 seats in the Senate (+1), and 220 seats in the House (-21).

So, the real question is: Is there any good reason to think this time will be different from the last time? It's possible, we suppose. The Republicans could decide that another Democratic trifecta is so far in the future that it's worth it to outlaw abortion nationwide, or something like that. Or, maybe there aren't enough old-guard types like McConnell left to keep the Senate Republican Conference from getting to 50 votes to kill the filibuster. Or, maybe the Senate's Republicans will persuade themselves that the Democrats are going to kill the filibuster as soon as they get the chance, so the red team might as well get the drop on the blue team.

However, if you asked us to bet, we'd bet that the filibuster survives. Oh, and note that Donald Trump tried to get Senate Republicans to kill the filibuster the last time, and they would not do it. So, he's not really a part of the equation here.


C.F. in Waltham, MA, asks: With a 215 D, 217 R House and 3 seats needing special elections, isn't it mathematically possible for the Democrats to take the house in April? If so, and if Trump really implements his tariffs, or something else that dramatically impacts all voters, is it possible that with wonky special elections, enough people will be so mad at Republicans that they will vote to end the Republican trifecta?

(V) & (Z) answer: Yes, it is mathematically possible. But the fundamental dynamic, assuming no other Republican-held seats come open, is this: The district being vacated by Matt Gaetz, FL-01, is R+19. It is hard to imagine what Trump could do in the span of a couple of months to cause a district that red to flip. Even if the President-elect imposes harsh tariffs on his first day, it would not really start to hit people in the pocketbooks by April 1.


J.C. in Thủ Dầu Một, Bình Dương, Vietnam, asks: I was curious as to why you wrote about Bluesky and not Threads? I have found more and more helpful political content on Threads since I migrated there 2 years ago to avoid the right-wing cesspool that is Twitter.

(V) & (Z) answer: Because we were writing about what people (particularly in politics and media) are doing. And what they are doing is migrating to BlueSky.

What we weren't doing is writing about the relative merits of the platforms. If we had been writing on that subject, however, Threads (being a Meta) property, uses an algorithm not unlike Facebook's. And that means that it's pretty easy for one's feed to get flooded with crap. At the moment, at least, BlueSky uses a far less obnoxious algorithm.

Civics

D.K. in Iowa City, IA, asks: Could Joe Biden grant citizenship to all of the undocumented immigrants that Donald Trump plans to deport? Or at least some?

(V) & (Z) answer: No. Art. I, Sec. 8 of the Constitution says "[The Congress shall have Power...] To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization... throughout the United States." So, deciding who does, and does not, get to be a citizen is the sole prerogative of the legislature. Currently, that process is governed by the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965.


H.C. in Santa Cruz, CA, asks: What is the earliest date that impeachment proceedings against the felon president can be started in the new Congress? Can it be on Inauguration Day?

(V) & (Z) answer: There are two possible penalties in an impeachment proceeding: (1) removal from office, and (2) disqualification from future officeholding. That second penalty means that, although it's never happened this way, a person need not be in office in order to be impeached. So, it is possible to impeach Trump today, if that is what Congress really wants to do.

Of course, Congress does not want to do that.


K.S. still proudly in HARRISburg, PA, asks: Just how far does the Supreme Court's immunity declaration extend? For example: Claiming it to be part of his job, Donald Trump orders Eric Trump to shoot someone point blank on Fifth Avenue. Does Eric have immunity or does the President-elect have to pull the trigger himself? (Yes, Eric may miss a point-blank shot, so there would be no crime, but for this question, pretend he gets it right).

(V) & (Z) answer: The presidential immunity does not extend to others. So, Eric Trump would not be immune from prosecution. His father could issue a pardon, obviously, but that actually wouldn't help much under the circumstances you describe, since the attempted murder/murder charge would be pressed by the state of New York.

And while we, and pretty much everyone else, have taken some dramatic license when it comes to the presidential immunity decision, it's certainly not absolute. If Trump orders someone to assassinate a foreign leader, or to invade Panama and kill hostile militants, or something like that, he'd probably be in the clear, because those are aspects of his official duties. But killing a random person on the streets of New York? It would be difficult to make the case that is part of a president's job, and so would not actually be covered.

Also, we must note that shooting at someone and missing is not a defense against an attempted murder charge.


A.S. in Black Mountain, NC, asks: I understand that when a new law is enacted it cannot be retroactive. But since SCOTUS has determined that there are instances where the President cannot be tried for "official" acts, it seems like lawyers are trying to do just that. I think I am seeing arguments that dismiss things like calling the folks in Georgia to find 11,000 votes as an official act, thus making it not chargeable as a crime. It is me, or has the system changed?

(V) & (Z) answer: There are a few things going on here. It is true that someone cannot be charged for violating a law before that law existed. That is known as an ex post facto law, and is forbidden by the Constitution.

However, the opposite does not hold. That is to say, if a person commits a crime that violates an existing law, and then that law goes away, the crime DOES NOT go away. 1 U.S. Code 109 makes clear:

The repeal of any statute shall not have the effect to release or extinguish any penalty, forfeiture, or liability incurred under such statute, unless the repealing Act shall so expressly provide, and such statute shall be treated as still remaining in force for the purpose of sustaining any proper action or prosecution for the enforcement of such penalty, forfeiture, or liability. The expiration of a temporary statute shall not have the effect to release or extinguish any penalty, forfeiture, or liability incurred under such statute, unless the temporary statute shall so expressly provide, and such statute shall be treated as still remaining in force for the purpose of sustaining any proper action or prosecution for the enforcement of such penalty, forfeiture, or liability.

To give a practical example, imagine that there is a temporary curfew imposed in time of war, and that a person violates that. They do not get their offense wiped away just because the curfew expires—they still broke the law.

All of this said, the Supreme Court does not pass or repeal laws, it interprets existing law. So, the dynamics above don't actually apply to their rulings. If they say [EXISTING LAW X] actually means [Y], then that can have bearing on existing (or past) prosecutions, because they are not creating new law, they are clarifying what the existing law says. Similarly, if they say [EXISTING LAW Z] is unconstitutional, then it wipes out any penalties that might have been imposed under that law, because the law and the penalty should never have existed.

The people who are trying to get Donald Trump out of hot water in Georgia are arguing that the Supreme Court's immunity decision fundamentally changes our understanding of the laws that Trump is accused of violating, and that this new understanding thus exonerates him. That said, they were also arguing that he is immune BEFORE the Supreme Court's immunity decision. Either way, his attorneys will have to persuade a judge (or many judges) that calling up a state election official, and demanding more votes be found, is the official act of a president, as opposed to being an unofficial act of a private citizen/a candidate for office.


J.R. in Orlando, FL, asks: I truly felt, prior to the election, that if Donald Trump was elected, J.D. Vance would invoke the Twenty-Fifth Amendment to replace him within the first year. How feasible would that be? What happens to Trump if the Twenty-Fifth is successfully invoked? Is he no longer sitting president, and can once again be tried?

(V) & (Z) answer: There are three barriers to Vance doing this. The first is that he would have to convince a majority of the Cabinet to go along. That is no small thing.

Second, if Trump objected—and of course he would—Congress would have to sustain the removal, with two-thirds voting to declare Trump incapacitated. Even then, he would not be removed from office, and Vance would only be acting president until Trump was once again deemed competent (if he ever was).

Third, if Vance pulled this, he would be a pretender president with no mandate and no political capital. He would also be a lame duck, as the MAGA faithful would be alienated, and he would have no hope of being reelected. This is rather far from Vance's dream scenario; he wants to inherit the MAGA mantle, and then to be elected twice in his own right.

Invoking the Twenty-Fifth would probably not allow Trump's trials to commence, as he would still be president, and so DoJ guidelines against prosecuting sitting presidents would presumably be followed. Even if he WAS tried, his lawyers would have an excellent argument that he was not competent to face trial, since he was not competent enough to remain president.


T.V. in Kansas City, MO, asks: Regarding "Will Trump Even Bother Having an Official Cabinet?", another potential benefit (for Tangerine Torquemada, anyway) of not appointing an official Cabinet: Should his cognitive decline continue—likely, since these things tend to get worse, not better—it would presumably make it difficult, if not impossible, for him to be removed via the Twenty-Fifth Amendment.

(V) & (Z) answer: Not so fast. Nobody knows if acting department heads have the power to invoke the Twenty-Fifth Amendment. As with... well, pretty much everything, it would be up to John Roberts and his Gang of Five to figure it out, should it come to that.

Second, even if acting department heads are not able to invoke the Twenty-Fifth Amendment, and even if Trump stocks his entire Cabinet with non-Senate-approved people, there is still one duly qualified person he can't do anything about: J.D. Vance. If the President-elect is worried about a palace coup, an all-non-approved Cabinet would potentially be setting up a situation where Vance would have sole authority to decide whether or not to remove Trump. Vance is not likely to do it, for the reasons we discuss in the previous answer, but we wouldn't want to bet our entire presidency on that.


E.W. in Skaneateles, NY, asks: You have written that while the Senate leadership elections are by secret ballot, Trump's Cabinet confirmation votes are public. Do those votes, or any votes, have to be public per law or the Constitution? Or is that just a Senate rule or custom? If the latter, could that be changed?

(V) & (Z) answer: First, note that leadership elections are internal party matters, and so are a very different thing from official Senate business.

As to your question(s), the answer is a little bit complicated. There is no constitutional requirement, per se, that Senate votes be made public. So, the Senate certainly could change its rules to make Cabinet approval votes, or anything else, private.

Hoever, what the Constitution does have is a clause (in Art. I, Sec. 5) that says this:

Each house shall keep a Journal of its Proceedings, and from time to time publish the same, excepting such Parts as may in their Judgment require secrecy; And the Yeas and Nays of the Members of either House on any question shall, at the Desire of one-fifth of those Present, be entered on the Journal.

So, if the Senate makes its votes secret, then 20% of the members vote to make a secret vote public, the Secretary of the Senate has to make the results known. It is probable that there would be 20 or more MAGA senators who would, for example, insist that everyone know who voted to torpedo Tulsi Gabbard or Robert F. Kennedy. And that risk would then cause Republican senators to vote with the assumption that their votes will eventually become public, thus nullifying the purpose of the secrecy.


D.S. in Layton, UT, asks: Why hasn't the IRS gone after Clarence Thomas?

(V) & (Z) answer: Because the taxes on gifts are the responsibility of the giver, not the recipient.


G.T. in Budapest, Hungary, asks: Last year, when the International Criminal Court (ICC) issued an arrest warrant against Vladimir Putin and one of his underlings, there was a lot of talk about how any member country of the ICC should arrest Putin whenever he goes there, but also about how there is no enforcement mechanism for this. More recently, when the ICC issued an arrest warrant against Benjamin Netanyahu, we heard the same thing.

My understanding is that everybody in an embassy has diplomatic immunity, and cannot be arrested, even they proverbially kill someone in the middle of Fifth Avenue. So do I misunderstand something here, or is it the case that visiting heads of state are given nowhere near the level of immunity received by the second deputy of the trade representative?

(V) & (Z) answer: This is a little complicated, but we'll try to explain as best we can.

To start with, within the borders of any particular nation, that nation's laws trump international law. Full stop. [Nation X] might choose to observe international law, or to honor international agreements, or to extend diplomatic courtesies, but those are all choices. Of course, other nations are also free to respond with sanctions, or tariffs, or violence force, or whatever if [Nation X] does not do these things.

In the case of diplomatic immunity, it is not exactly the case that diplomats can do anything and get away with it. They may get some amount of leeway, as a courtesy, but if they commit an actual crime, the nation whose laws they have violated will usually contact the diplomat's home nation and ask: (1) that the diplomatic immunity be waived, or (2) that the diplomat be tried for their crime in their home country. Generally, the home nation will agree to one of these concessions. If the home nation does not, then the host nation will generally expel the diplomat and declare them persona non grata. Sometimes, the host nation will proceed with a trial anyhow, if the crimes are heinous enough.

As to Putin or Netanyahu, if they traveled to the wrong country, they could very well be arrested. Their governments would request they be returned, by virtue of having immunity, and the arresting nation would presumably say "No" (otherwise, why arrest them in the first place?). Then, Russia or Israel would take some sort of punitive measures, like cutting off all trade with the arresting nation. However, the pain probably wouldn't be too bad, because the other nations of the world would support the arresting nation. Depending on the nation, it might even be a net gain. If Putin were dumb enough to travel to, say, Mozambique, do you think they'd be open to giving up all trade with Russia in exchange for an additional $10 billion in foreign aid from the U.S.? We do.


T.S. in Ringgold, GA, asks: In political debates, they have pens to write notes. I was wondering what happened if their pen broke on them. Do they have replacements for them? And if so, are they just there or do they have to ask for it? I was also wondering if they have to take their own pen or if they're provided.

(V) & (Z) answer: The hosts of the debates provide pens, and put several of them at each podium. That said, when we are teaching or giving a presentation, and we need a pen for some reason, we always bring our own as insurance. We have to assume that politicians do the same (or, at least, that their "people" do).

Also, the pens used for debates tend to be of a sort that are not likely to break, by virtue of being good quality, or felt tipped, or both. The most popular pen for recent presidential and vice presidential candidates, for example, is the Pilot G-2. The Sharpie is also popular; the preferred choice of two recent Republican presidential candidates. We won't tell you who they are/were, but we will tell you that one was a war hero and the other definitely is not.

History

F.S. in Cologne, Germany, asks: Who are the 10 most influential scientists in U.S. history?

(V) & (Z) answer: The nature of scientific progress being what it is, it's hard to identify people whose impact was somehow limited to the United States. So, we're just going to list Americans who contributed most broadly to scientific progress. Here's our top 10, from least to most influential:

  1. Jonas Salk: In developing the polio vaccine, he almost singlehandedly ended one of the great plagues of human history.

  2. The Wright Brothers: Proving that heavier-than-air machines could fly made the world a lot smaller and revolutionized commerce, tourism, diplomacy and war.

  3. Samuel F.B. Morse: Before there were cell phones and landlines and radio towers, there was telegraphy. Like the Wright Brothers, the father of rapid-long-distance communication revolutionized commerce, tourism, diplomacy and war.

  4. Grace Hopper: When it comes to computer software, it's hard to think of a programmer more important than she was. After all, machine-independent programming languages were her idea.

  5. Norman Borlaug: Some estimates say that there are a billion people alive today thanks to his work on disease- and drought-resistant strains of wheat. Others say it's closer to two billion.

  6. James Watson and Francis Crick: Unlocking the secrets of DNA laid the groundwork for much of modern medicine. And yes, we know that they stole credit from Rosalind Franklin, but she was not American, and never worked in the United States, so we can't put her on this list. We also know that Crick was a racist prick, but that doesn't mean the work wasn't important.

  7. Albert Einstein: He's in the running for the honor of "most important scientist of all time." We have him ranked this low here because most of his most important work, particularly the annus mirabilis, took place before he relocated to the United States.

  8. J. Robert Oppenheimer, Enrico Fermi, Leo Szilard and John von Neumann: We could not decide who gets primary credit for the atom bomb, so we cheated and put all the big atom bomb guys together. Nuclear weapons ended World War II and laid the groundwork for the Cold War. They also effectively initiated the era of nuclear energy and of nuclear medicine. Those are some pretty big impacts.

  9. Thomas Edison: Inventors tend to get too little attention in lists like this. The man and his lab produced the light bulb, the motion picture, recorded sound, and all sorts of other innovations that helped commence the modern era.

  10. John Bardeen, William Shockley and Walter Brattain: The yin to Grace Hopper's yang, modern computer hardware was made possible by their development of the transistor. And these days, it is not too far off to say that the world is built on a foundation of transistors. Yes, we know Shockley was a jerk and a bigot, but again, that doesn't mean the work wasn't important.

There are two very notable names we excluded because we were persuaded their fame exceeds their scientific impact. We are guessing that some readers will have suggested additions for the list, and we don't want to step on that, so we won't reveal who those two people are right now. But we will include it tomorrow.


R.C. in North Hollywood, CA, asks: I'm curious as to what parallels you see between the Gilded Age and the current state of American politics. To me, the most obvious are the widespread influence of the wealth on politics and the almost shocking degree of tolerance for corruption. Are there other parallels as well?

(V) & (Z) answer: As to the influence of wealth on politics, we'd actually say that's more of a problem today than it was in the Gilded Age. Back then, money helped, but it didn't help that much because there weren't that many ways to spend it (no commercials, for example). Far more important was backroom dealing, networking, and political horse trading, such that presidents ended up deeply beholden to the party bigwigs and to the deals that had been made to get them elected.

As to corruption, we'd also say that's more a problem today than it was in the Gilded Age, at least at the federal level. There will be people who don't like us to say so, but Donald Trump is the most corrupt president in American history, hands down. Nobody is even close, because he has the trifecta of corrupt behaviors: violating laws/norms of governance, putting cronies in key positions, and using the government to enrich himself. Other corrupt presidents have tended to have one, or maybe two, of the three. Richard Nixon, for example, was a lawbreaker and a guy who appointed too many cronies, but he didn't try to loot the government.

The real problem during the Gilded Age was not so much that people tolerated corruption, it's that they didn't quite know how to stop it. The really corrupt guys who ran for president in that era, like James G. Blaine, did not win, and the fellows who DID win almost without exception ran as reform candidates. They just struggled to deliver in a big way, such that change was VERY incremental.

The biggest parallel between then and now is that a lot of people are fed up with "the system." Businesses and the wealthy have too much money. It's hard for the middle and working classes to catch a break, and to achieve stability. The government often seems unresponsive. There's a lot of change—demographic, technological, gender roles/identify, etc.—and it makes some people scared or resentful. In the 1890s, this led to an upswing in populist sentiment that... didn't really go anywhere. Then, in the 1900s, it laid the groundwork for an era of profound political, social and economic reform. We can but hope that history repeats itself.

Gallimaufry

B.M. in Oakland, CA, asks: Is there a way to access the full December 4th (or other) page after the fact? I'd like to send that full page to some of my friends.

(V) & (Z) answer: Depending on how far back you want to go, you can click "Previous Report" at the top of the page. Do that two times right now, and it will take you back to https://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2024/Pres/Maps/Dec04.html, which is the full December 4 posting.

Also, we will say, for those who did not see it the last time we wrote it, that you can get to any day you want just by editing the URL. The only things that change are the date (e.g., Dec04), the year (e.g. 2024), and Pres/Senate. So, for example, if you want July 7, 2017 (a Senate year), you just edit to https://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2017/Senate/Maps/Jul07.html. Alternatively, on the Data Galore page, click on the link that says Archives of this site all the way back to May 2004, pick a date close to where you want to go, and work from there.


S.S.-L. in Battle Creek, MI, asks: Just wondering if you wise folk have preferred dog training/raising resources? Looking at adopting my first from a shelter.

(V) & (Z) answer: First of all, congratulations! If you don't mind, we're going to give you some advice, more than resources, because most resources are going to be local:

Other readers may have additional comments or suggestions. Check in tomorrow, and see. In any event, good luck!

Reader Question of the Week: Anti-Agent Orange

Here is the question we put before readers last week:

S.S. in West Hollywood, CA, asks: Now we know who the leader of the free world is. What I really want to know is: Who is the leader of the Trump opposition? Is there any person, journalist, media outlet, or organization, elected or not, foreign or domestic, who will rise to become an effective voice of conviction against the avalanche of lies, corruption, and immorality about to be released on the world? Please, somebody, tell me there's opposition somewhere out there ready, capable and willing to push back!

And here some of the answers we got in response:

B.J. in Arlington, MA: Jon Stewart.


D.C. in Jacksonville, FL: The leader(s) of the anti-Trump resistance will be the same as they have been, barring a Gestapo-like roundup and incarceration. In no particular order, they are Jimmy Kimmel, Stephen Colbert, and Jon Stewart.


K.H. in Ypsilanti, MI: No politician has really stepped forward to be the focal point of Trump opposition, so I would say the clear leader at this point is Heather Cox Richardson.

She continues to fight the good fight, day after day, detailing the misdeeds and toxic ideology of Trump and his crew in a historic context, while at the same time expressing a vision of traditional American values rooted in community, equality, justice and human rights.

An actual politician will eventually emerge as a rallying point but right now she is the beacon of light so many of us are looking to.


B.D.B in Columbus, OH: The man who has been leading a true anti-Trump crusade in various forms since 2016 is none other than Keith Olbermann, former host of formerly liberal MSNBC. He put out some videos in 2016 for GQ called "The Closer," renamed "The Resistance" after Trump won, and now he hosts Countdown with Keith Olbermann on iHeart Radio. He was planning to retire if Harris won and he has cut down the number of times a week he posts (at least for now), but he's still putting out content.


B.C. in Walpole, ME: Nicole Wallace has a 2-hour program 4-6 ET, with excellent guests and regulars. Unlike Morning Joe, she actually lets them speak, rather than lecturing them. She's done an excellent job of covering Trump/Trumpers/MAGA for several years now. Lawrence O'Donnell is also very good.


K.P. in East Lansing, MI: Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) is already the leader of the opposition. To be a legitimate opposition you need to have something you are in favor of, rather than just being against someone or something.

Most of the alternative ideas that are not merely political talking points have come from Bernie's presidential bids.

When the Democrats win the midterms in 2026, the new Speaker needs to step up and lead the government as described by the Constitution. Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) was very skilled; it will be hard to fill her shoes.


T.B. in Bay Shore, NY: My pick for the next leader of The Resistance(TM) is none other than Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY). She has been fine-tuning her populist message into another Bernie-lite and it paid dividends with the results of people in her district being split ticket voters.


D.S. in Layton, UT: Gov. Gavin Newsom (D-CA) will lead the Drumpf opposition. Young, photogenic, smart and setting himself to be the frontrunner in 2028.


E.M. in Delaware, OH: To me, the question is "will be" versus "should be." I believe Gavin Newsom is the "will be," because he's desperate to be president and the economic size and influence of California creates a perfect forum for counter-programming (with media hype, sadly, being today's political main stage). He can credibly seize on automotive regulations, agriculture, tariffs. Will America tire of him? Can he bond with common folk, especially my Midwestern neighbors? These are serious questions.

The "should be" candidates are Kamala Harris and Gov. Andy Beshear (D-KY). Harris' short campaign revealed the intellectual feistiness—and seriousness—she showed in the Kavanaugh hearings. If she were to use TV wisely on an ongoing basis and build the social media presence that Democrats desperately need, she could be a true force in our media-dependent politics. America is just getting to know her. Beshear is even less well known, but is great on TV and could effectively explain how TFG and his Clown Car are ruining the economy, beginning with his red state. This would work for a presidential run or for turning Mitch McConnell's Senate seat blue.


A.M. in Toronto, ON, Canada: Allow a Canadian to suggest that a very small group of Republican senators may discover they have spines of steel, a moral conscience, a love of country before party and an unshakable belief in the American experiment, and band together to be legislative freedom fighters that keep Trump honest and faithful to his oath of office.


A.A. in Austin, TX: Who is the leader of the opposition? I would nominate the Alt National Park Service. I first saw them on Facebook during the Orange Guy's first term. They organized almost immediately after he took office and worked for four years as resistance workers to keep the National Parks safe. After Biden was elected, they went quiet; the "Force" was with them then. But now they are back with a vengeance, ferocious as a bear and totally anonymous. You rock, folks! Sending you link to their Instagram and FB pages.


K.F. in Framingham, MA: To begin to answer the question as to who or what will lead the resistance to La Naranja Gordo, it helps to identify who will not lead said resistance. The mainstream and legacy media will not be on our side. They will continue to kiss the ring and engage in bothesideriam, sane-washing, and normalization of his behavior. Independent streamers and content creators like Brian Tyler Cohen, Mary Trump, David Pakman, The Rational National, Pod Save America, and others could potentially expand their following even further—but they really need to find a way to go beyond the progressive echo chamber.

The true leader of the resistance should and will be Electoral-Vote.com! If you can find a way to raise the required funding as well as find the time, you can expand your sphere of influence. It may require hiring a few more staffers, other than the staff dachshunds and your staff mathematician. Imagine if you went live with your own podcast, YouTube channel, a strong BlueSky presence, video shorts on TikTok and Instagram, or even created your own boutique social media platform, like EV Social. You could bring your vast knowledge of American history, politics, electoral analysis, and more to the masses. You could be part of the re-education of the American electorate. An accurately informed electorate will be the most important element necessary for any resistance movement. Rather than just watching from the sidelines, you could play a vital role in saving our democracy! From there, the sky is the limit! You could have Electoral-Vote.Com The Movie, Electoral-Vote.Com the Video Game, Electoral-Vote.Com the Action Figure. The list goes on. America is calling. Will you answer?


J.H. in Boston, MA: Did any one figure rise to become the central voice of opposition to Trump during his first term? Nancy Pelosi, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Sen. Mitt Romney (R-UT), Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY), Gavin Newsom, Sep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), or Jon Stewart?

I would say no, (though Pelosi comes close), and I see no reason why his second term would be different, so for the second week in a row the answer is "no one."


S.D. in St. Paul, MN: For many of us, it might feel comforting to see a visible, capable, and even charismatic leader rallying the resistance against the next tRump regime. But as Civil Rights organizer Ella Baker often said: "Strong people don't need strong leaders." So who is actually the leader of the Trump opposition? You are. We are. All of us. So let's all get to work in our own communities and step it up. It's gonna take all of us to build something better and more resilient than the Biden Interregnum.

Here is the question for next week:

C.W. in Carlsbad, CA, asks: How should people prepare for the incoming administration?

Submit your answers to comments@electoral-vote.com, preferably with subject line "Be Prepared"!


Previous | Next

Main page for smartphones

Main page for tablets and computers