Previous | Next | Senate page | Menu
New polls: (None)
Dem pickups: (None)
GOP pickups: AZ GA MI NV PA WI
Sunday Q&A
We didn't quite get to post questions and answers yesterday, so... today instead!
Next week, we still plan to do a 100% politics-free Q&A. So this remains a good time to send questions about movies, music, literature, sports, etc., to questions@electoral-vote.com.
Current Events
R.M.S. in Lebanon, CT, asks: I read your various comments on Elon Musk's involvement in this week's congressional affairs, and I sense you share my discomfort with an unelected foreign billionaire influencing members of Congress and trying to change the government's spending priorities. I think he has been given way too much unearned authority.
However, there is another foreign-born billionaire by the name of George Soros that Republicans have attacked for exerting undue political influence. Soros is a Hungarian-born naturalized citizen of the U.S. who survived the Holocaust and fled communism and has spent billions on strengthening democratic institutions. Republicans have attacked Democrats for at decades for any association with Soros, with the strong implication they have been corrupted by foreign money. Imagine if Joe Biden campaigned with Soros in 2020 and then appointed him as a liaison to Congress to dictate budgeting priorities. I think the Republicans would be in an absolute meltdown for 4 years over that.
Why haven't Democrats made more hay over South African-born Musk involving himself in our government? Is it only OK if Republicans appoint foreign billionaires to influence our decision?(V) & (Z) answer: To start, it is not a secret that very rich people have undue influence in American politics on both sides of the aisle. For every George Soros, there's a Kochtopus. For every Michael Bloomberg there's a Timothy Mellon.
Second, the critical subtext to the George Soros complaints is not only that he's rich, and foreign-born, but he's also a Jew. It's one of the longest running dog whistles in American politics.
Third, most of the billionaire class at least has the decency to remain lurking in the shadows, so that their fingerprints are not quite so obvious. Musk, by contrast, is like a bull in a china shop. Subtlety is a concept that is completely lost on him. And if he continues on this course, the Democrats will absolutely weaponize him.
J.L. in Los Angeles, CA, asks: Obviously, Elon Musk is not the first individual to have wealth/power while simultaneously being mentally unstable. The madness both Caligula of Rome and King George III of England come quickly to mind. But Elon Musk isn't a ruler (yet!). He's just a very rich and influential developer of cutting edge technologies. And then I thought of Howard Hughes. Is there any insight that looking at the life and career of Hughes can provide us, even obliquely, about Musk?
(V) & (Z) answer: The three men you name all suffered from severe mental illness, to the extent that if they were alive today, and were not ultra-wealthy, they would be institutionalized.
Musk clearly has some sort of dysfunction, but it's not to THAT level. The closest parallel we can come up with is not Hughes—who was somewhat apolitical, loans to Richard Nixon's family notwithstanding—it's Joseph Kennedy. He was a bigot and a megalomaniac, and he eventually ran his mouth one too many times. This led Franklin D. Roosevelt to fire Kennedy as the U.S. Ambassador to the U.K., and to basically bench Kennedy.
Although he knew he'd been permanently sent to his room without supper, Kennedy did not lash out at FDR, and continued to work for the Democratic Party, helping maintain ties to the Irish-American community. Did Kennedy do this because he was willing to honor the niceties of politics? Because he hoped to make a comeback? Because he had aspirations for his kids, and did not want to derail them? All of the above? All we know is that if and when Musk gets smacked down, we do not expect him to go gentle into that good night.
T.C. in Danby, NY, asks: I guess I've been a little slow on the uptake here. I'd thought that Donald Trump was enamored of elon Musk mostly because Musk has what Trump wants: to be known as really, really rich.
This morning, it hit me: Musk has so much money that he could singlehandedly pay for the election campaign of EVERY politician in the country and have enough left over to send them on vacation anywhere for however long they want... and that's just out of the interest on the value of his fortune.
It's so obvious that it can't be true. Please, say it ain't so. What is his appeal?(V) & (Z) answer: His appeal is his money. When Musk climbed on board the S.S. Trump, the Trump campaign was broke. Trump needed someone to underwrite a bunch of expenses, and Musk was willing and able to do that. It is increasingly looking like a Faustian bargain, however.
S.K. in Sunnyvale, CA, asks: With the chatter about making Elon Musk Speaker of the House, my latest irrational fear is: as a naturalized (as opposed to natural-born) citizen, Elon Musk cannot become president under the constitution, and it's implausible to amend the constitution to lift that requirement. But what if Congress passed a bill that declared him, in Orwellian fashion, to be a natural-born citizen? Please tell me this scenario can't happen...
(V) & (Z) answer: It can't happen. In that case, Congress would be ignoring both the Constitution and Supreme Court precedent. Congress is not allowed to do that, and is not going to try. They understand full well that if they do anything that treats the Constitution as optional or advisory, then they are ultimately undercutting their own power.
M.S. in Westport, CT, asks: If you had a few hundred billion dollars to throw around, what would be your strategy to elevate Co-President Musk to President Musk? Would the sane among us have to escape to Mars to avoid the consequences?
(V) & (Z) answer: This is not going to happen.
That said, just for thought-exercise purposes, here is the most plausible approach: For Musk to become president, the Constitution would have to be amended to remove the requirement that presidents be natural-born citizens. Musk is very unpopular with much of the American public, so a campaign to change the Constitution, for his benefit, isn't going to fly. It would be necessary to find someone else, and make them the focal point of such a campaign. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who is popular with both Republicans and Democrats, would have been the obvious choice 10 years ago, but at 77 years of age, he's probably too old now. Maybe... Drake? It's hard to think of someone who is especially plausible.
In any event, once a plausible "Face" of the campaign was identified, then it would be time for a massive media blitz, and a massive lobbying campaign, in support of a constitutional amendment, so that "the people" has "the option" to vote for President Drake, or President Schwarzenegger, or whomever.
Even once the hypothetical Twenty-Eighth Amendment was approved, we don't think Musk is electable. So, upon becoming eligible to be in the line of succession, he'd have to get himself appointed as VP, and then succeed to the presidency when Donald Trump resigned/died/was removed.
Again, none of this is remotely within the realm of possibility.
J.H. in Flint, MI, asks: There are rumors of a challenge to Mike Johnson's speakership. If the House fails to select a Speaker on January 3, and the fight drags on, what effect (if any) would the lack of a speaker have on the certification of the Electoral College results on January 6?
(V) & (Z) answer: To start, the new Electoral Count Act says that the certification process must go forward on January 6, unless both chambers agree to a postponement. Since the House would not be operational, it would not be able to vote for a postponement. So, January 6 it would be.
At that point, there are two possibilities, and there's no way to know which it would be until it happens. The first possibility is that the House decides that it's allowed to certify presidential results, even if it has no Speaker. The whole "we can't do anything until a Speaker is chosen" isn't in the Constitution, and is just a byproduct of tradition and House rules. It is possible to adjust both tradition and the rules.
Alternatively, the certification might proceed, but only with members of the House who are returning (and thus have already been sworn in), or only with members of the Senate (on the theory that all 435 House seats are vacant until the members are formally seated).
R.C. in Des Moines, IA, asks: Can the Speaker of the House be the same person as the President of the United States?
(V) & (Z) answer: No. Article I, Sec. 6 of the Constitution says:
No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time; and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office.In other words, a person can't be a member of multiple branches of the federal government at the same time. The only exception to this is the vice president, who is a member of both the executive branch (as VP) and the legislative branch (as the president of the Senate).
P.H. in Davis, CA, asks: If Donald Trump and J.D. Vance were to both somehow die before January 20th, who would be inaugurated on that day? Would it be second-in-line Speaker Mike Johnson? Would he then serve a 4-year term? I don't believe there is any provision for a new election.
(V) & (Z) answer: The Twenty-Fifth Amendment makes clear that if the Speaker (or anyone else in the line of succession, except the VP) is elevated to the presidency, then that person is only the acting president, and they only keep the job until someone qualifies as VP. The moment Congress approved a new VP, nominated by the acting president, then that the new VP would become president.
Meanwhile, by virtue of Article I, Sec. 6 (see above), Johnson would have to resign his seat in the House to act as acting president. So, once his acting presidency was over, he would be out of a job. He could go back to being speaker, if the members of the House so choose. But to go back to being a representative, he'd have to be reelected to his seat.
B.C. in Selinsgrove, PA, asks: These nuisance lawsuits against Ann Selzer, etc., by Trump have really incensed me. It seems like, if it's a rule or policy that a sitting president can't be indicted, then a fair tradeoff should be that they are also not allowed to bring lawsuits against American civilians or companies while in office. It's just too much individual power, especially with the new bogus SCOTUS immunity ruling. What would it take to implement such a rule or law?
(V) & (Z) answer: Keep in mind that it is still possible to bring civil suits against Trump, even while he's the sitting president. So, depriving him (or any other president) of the right to pursue redress would be both unfair and unconstitutional. It would also be open season in terms of committing civil offenses against him, if those offenses have a statute of limitations that is less than the amount of time remaining in Trump's term.
This is so obviously not OK, on so many levels, that any legislation that tried to do it would not withstand court scrutiny. So, the only way to implement such a law—which, again, would be a very bad idea—would be a Constitutional amendment. That's the only thing the courts can't strike down.
Politics
B.T. in Kansas City, MO, asks: In a couple of news items recently, you've brought up political capital and how it's not infinite. But I have to wonder: Is that still the case in the age of Trump? It certainly seems like Trump doesn't need it and just bullies and harasses anyone into getting his way rather than making compromises. Does political capital still exist in the current Republican Party?
(V) & (Z) answer: Yes, it does. Political capital is just a fancy way of describing the ability to influence people. Most presidents operate quietly and behind the scenes, so it's less obvious when they are spending their political capital. Trump operates loudly, and in full view, so it's more obvious.
But there are clearly limits on what Trump can achieve. He had a bunch of nominees fail last time. He will have another bunch fail this time. He achieved very little of his legislative agenda last time, most obviously failing to build "the wall." Most of what he did "achieve" had nothing to do with him, and was either a product of being in the right place at the right time (e.g., Supreme Court appointments) or going along for the ride as others got things done (e.g., tax cuts). He's not even president again yet, and he's already failing to bend his fellow Republicans to his will (e.g. the debt ceiling, "Senator" Lara Trump).
K.E. in Newport, RI, asks: I believe Donald Trump will begin carrying out mass deportations of illegal immigrants as soon as he takes office. He doesn't need any new laws to do this; he can simply do it through executive orders. It has long been a major priority for Trumpers.
However, what he will need are new funds and employees. Deporting at a rate of 1 million people per year would cost about $88 billion per year, for a total of $968 billion over a decade. By comparison, the entire annual budget for the Department of Justice is only about $40 billion.
To carry out the deportations will require a massive expansion of government personnel and resources. This plan contradicts one of the traditional principles of American conservativism: shrinking the government. What happened to the idea of small-government conservativism and why have Republicans turned against it?(V) & (Z) answer: The last Republican president who actually believed in small government was Herbert Hoover. Then, from 1933-45, Franklin D. Roosevelt rewrote the rules, and the U.S. (presumably permanently) entered the era of big government.
And so, ever since World War II, when Republicans talked about "small government," they did not really mean "small government." They meant "cut spending on social welfare, and other such programs favored by Democrats." The Republicans of the last 75 years have been perfectly happy to invest vast amounts of money and resources in the parts of the government that Republicans like, most obviously the military, the border patrol and farm subsidies..
K.B. in Manhattan, NY, asks: From NBC News: "[Sen.-elect Dave] McCormick told NBC News in July that Pennsylvanians 'can count on' him to be his 'own person' in Congress."
His "Day One Promises" and campaign messages seem to represent generic Republican talking points and he seemed to barely mention Trump or MAGA through the election. He also didn't seem to run on any issues of personal importance. It is unclear to me why he wanted to be a senator.
Based on your assessment of him and his campaign, what are some potential models for his voting behavior in the senate? Could he team up with Sen. John Fetterman (D-PA) as "Pennsylvania mavericks"?(V) & (Z) answer:
B.D. in Flagstaff, AZ, asks: I noticed that Barack Obama isn't a choice in your possible Democratic candidates poll for the presidency in 2024. You also seem to allow now that the chances for a third Trump presidency are greater than zero at this point. Don't you think Barack could be convinced to storm back into politics if SCOTUS allows Trump to run for a third term? I would have voted for him in as a possibility in this poll.
(V) & (Z) answer: As far as we can tell, McCormick and Fetterman don't have much in common on policy, besides being pro-fracking and pro-Israel.
The obvious model, until we are given evidence to the contrary, is Sen. Mitt Romney (R-UT). Talk like the leader of the anti-MAGA faction, and buck the party line on occasion, but fall in line most of the time. Romney is just weeks from the end of his 6-year term, and we STILL don't know why he ran for that office.
In any event, keep in mind that in purple Pennsylvania, McCormick needs the MAGA vote, so he can't be too much a rebel.
M.H. in Council Grove, KS, asks: If Donald Trump had lost to Hillary Clinton in 2016, do you think he would've run again in 2020?
(V) & (Z) answer: If we had to bet, we would say the answer is "yes." Winning or losing aside, he loves the rallies, and he loves the moneymaking opportunities that come from being a presidential candidate.
Civics
A.S. in Black Mountain, NC, asks: If Judge Juan Merchan decides to postpone sentencing until Donald Trump is no longer in office and then dies in the interim, what happens?
(V) & (Z) answer: Another judge would be assigned to the case. If the death of the judge was somehow a way to escape sentencing for a criminal conviction, that would be... um... very bad for the health of judges.
N.M.D. in Duluth, MN, asks: My understanding is that to accept a pardon is to admit guilt. Doesn't this complicate the issue of Joe Biden providing blanket pardons to the 1/6 Committee? Would the committee members be considered 'guilty' of what Trump accuses them of—if they accept a pardon?
(V) & (Z) answer: Far and away the most important Supreme Court case when it comes to the pardon power is Burdick v. United States (1915), which considered the question of whether or not a pardon must be accepted. The Court decided that a pardon can be declined and, as part of the decision, included an offhanded remark that a person might not want to accept a pardon, for fear that doing so "carries an imputation of guilt."
Some lawyers and legal scholars think that's enough to say that SCOTUS found that accepting a pardon means accepting guilt. Many lawyers and legal scholars disagree. What this means is that nobody knows for sure, and won't know until the Supreme Court considers the question and issues a clearer ruling.
E.W. in Skaneateles, NY, asks: I seem to remember from The Trump Years (Season 1) that presidential pardons can be issued and kept under wraps until they are needed, but I might be misremembering that. Could Joe Biden secretly pardon a large number of people thought to be in Trump's crosshairs (cross weaves?) and then those folks can use them if they get indicted on Trumped-up charges in Season 2? That way, it only looks bad if they have to respond to something ridiculous. Are there any downsides to secret pardons, if they are allowed?
(V) & (Z) answer: For the second question in a row, the answer is: Nobody knows. There is no jurisprudence on secret pardons, because nobody's tried it.
However, the general consensus is that secret pardons would not pass muster, if tested in court. There are at least two, rather substantial, logistical problems. The first is that if the pardon was issued in secret, and thus was not announced that the time it was issued, it would be impossible to prove that it was issued while the issuing president was actually in office, and was actually endowed with the pardon power. The second is that if someone had a secret pardon in their pocket, they could make a real mess of the legal system. Imagine a person was charged with [Crime X], which they had secretly been pardoned for. They could go through all or part of the trial, see the evidence against them, and then drop the pardon only when necessary (say, after verdict).
History
M.B. in Montreal, QC, Canada, asks: A question for (Z): I am currently reading These Truths: A History of the United States by Jill Lepore. It is probably too soon for you to have read it, but can I ask: What is your opinion of her works in general?
(V) & (Z) answer: (Z) has only read one book by Lepore, namely The Name of War: King Philip's War and the Origins of American Identity, and did not care for it. While her appointment is in American history, her degree is actually in American studies. And American studies is about halfway between "American history" and "American literature." So, Lepore's use of evidence could be described as more... poetic than would be typical for a historian. Or you could also say more squishy. (Z) also felt that Lepore's argument, whether she recognized it or not, was just a warmed-over version of Frederick Jackson Turner's "Frontier Thesis," which is 130 years old and has been roundly rejected by the profession.
(Z) is not inherently opposed to "squishy" books, but tends to prefer the works of someone like Sarah Vowell, who makes very clear that she is a storyteller, first and foremost.
A.G. in Scranton, PA, asks: In the history of political power-sharing relationships (what I define the Trump-Musk relationship as), has there ever been an example of two men who assume themselves to be "the brains of the outfit" working well together and that relationship lasting through to a satisfactory-for-all-involved conclusion?
(V) & (Z) answer: There are two basic models here. The first is what might be called the Lincoln-Seward model. William Seward was somewhat stunned to lose the Republican nomination in 1860, and accepted appointment as Secretary of State, assuming that he would be the power behind the throne, since the yokel from Illinois surely did not understand the art of governance.
As it turns out, the yokel from Illinois understood the art of governance quite well, thank you very much, and soon disabused Seward of any notions to the contrary. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, speaking through Sherlock Holmes, once wrote: "Mediocrity knows nothing higher than itself; but talent instantly recognizes genius." To his credit, Seward had talent, and he quickly recognized genius. And so, he and Lincoln settled into a very effective working relationship, but one where it was clear who was the big dog and who was not.
The second model might be called the Bush-Cheney model. Dick Cheney came to the Bush-Cheney ticket with more experience in government, with a broader network of connections in the Republican Party, with a more fully defined political philosophy, and, by all indications, more brainpower. Cheney intended to run the Bush White House and, for several years, basically did.
Eventually, Bush grew somewhat weary of Cheney. Part of that was specific misdeeds on Cheney's part, like the Valerie Plame affair. Part of it was Cheney's presumption, and his getting too big for his britches. So eventually, Bush asserted himself, and Cheney spent most of the second Bush term as someone who was basically an outsider.
There is no chance that Trump-Musk ends up as another Lincoln-Seward. There is an excellent chance that Trump-Musk ends up as another Bush-Cheney. And the breakdown is likely to happen much faster than it happened with George and Dick.
F.S. in Cologne, Germany, asks: You wrote: "Assassins (and, for that matter, serial killers) are known by three names, in the media, so as to protect people with the same name." But why are Giuseppe Zangara, Leon Czolgosz, Mark Chapman and John Hinckley known by only two names and not by three (at least I'm not aware of their third name)?
(V) & (Z) answer: It's a general rule, not a universal one, of course.
Among your examples, Giuseppe Zangara didn't have a middle name, Mark David Chapman most certainly is known by three names, and John W. Hinckley Jr. tends to be known by... well, more than two names.
That said, the middle name is much less likely to be used if the person's name is unusual, such that there is little risk of harm to other bearers of that name. Hence, "Luigi Mangione" instead of "Luigi Nicholas Mangione," "Adam Lanza" instead of "Adam Peter Lanza" and "Jeffrey Dahmer" instead of "Jeffrey Lionel Dahmer."
It is also the case that the news media tend to get this information from court documents. Sometimes, the authorities don't know the middle name early in the process, which means the news media don't know it, either, and so the non-middle-name version ends up being the one that gets circulated and becomes established.
M.Z. in Plano, TX, asks: I remember seeing multiple items about scholars' polls where Donald Trump was ranked as the worst president in U.S. history. My question is, what criteria do historians use, and do they have a liberal bias? I ask because apparently 77 million people in the U.S. did not consider him to be such and voted for him.
(V) & (Z) answer: Some scholars' polls try to impose a pretty detailed rubric on the rankings, asking scholars to consider 10 or 15 or 20 different dimensions of presidential leadership. Some polls have a much less detailed rubric, asking scholars to consider three or four or five dimensions of presidential leadership. Some polls leave it to the scholars to develop their own rubric.
To give an example, (Z) knows someone who participated in the most recent major scholars poll, in which participants were told to use whatever standards they thought best. And this person rated every president in six categories: legislative accomplishments, foreign affairs, military affairs, economy, inspiration/leadership and management of the executive branch. So, if a president was the best in all 6, they would score a 6 (6 times 1). And if a president was the worst in all 6, they would score a 258 (6 times 43, since most rankings don't include the two less-than-one-year presidents).
Anyhow, most of these dimensions of presidential leadership really aren't partisan. It doesn't matter if you are a Democrat, a Republican or an independent—it's clear that Franklin D. Roosevelt won World War II, that the economy was booming during the Dwight D. Eisenhower years, that John F. Kennedy scored a major diplomatic coup when he navigated the Cuban Missile Crisis, and that Ronald Reagan was really good at speeches and soundbites. Just to make sure, though, a survey back in 2024 broke down the numbers by "conservative scholars" and "liberal scholars." The liberals rated Trump the worst president in U.S. history. The conservatives rated him... third-worst. So, the low scholarly opinion of him isn't just liberal bias.
Oh, and the things that scholars care about, and the things that voters care about, are often very different things. Also, and we'll try to put this delicately, one of those groups tends to be considerably better informed than the other.
Sunday Mailbag
We're keeping it lean, given the dual questions/letters posting.
Politics: PINO
R.B. in Cleveland, OH, writes: Thank you for the insight last weekend regarding President Doughface. Recent events with the Elon Musk shutdown, however, have clearly demonstrated that Trump should further be known as PINO̵President in Name Only.
P.W. in Springwater, NY, writes: The budget fiasco of the past week has been a study in idiocy, but in the end, it worked out as I suspected it might—a bill that kicks the can down the road with more Democratic than Republican support. What did surprise me, although I really should NOT have been surprised, was Co-President-elect Elon Musk seemingly taking the lead on throwing the monkey wrench into the works. Wasn't it just about 2008, that someone with the initials DJT started agitating that the newly elected president was not legitimate because he had been born in Africa? Wasn't there a lot of "Sturm und Drang" about seeing the "real" birth certificate? And remember who go the better of that nonsense? Oh, the irony—now someone really born in Africa is about to become Co-President and, once again, DJT has been overshadowed.
D.E. in Lancaster, PA, writes: So, the Abomination's pick for Attorney General, Matt Gaetz, got shot down by the Senate, forcing Gaetz to withdraw his nomination. Then, after Co-President-elect Elon Musk riled up the true believers about the government funding bill, the Abomination tried to jump on the bandwagon, looking like a Johnny-Come-Lately follower instead of a leader. His preferred bill, with the elimination of the debt ceiling, went down in flames. The bill to fund the government was essentially the original bill and contained nothing of his demands, and was approved by a huge number of representatives. His opponents have effectively accused him of being subservient to another "Alpha male." Add to that, the political reality, that the day after his inauguration, the Abomination will be a lame duck.
In Iron Man 2, Ivan Vanko says of Tony Stark, "If you can make God bleed, people will cease to believe in Him. There will be blood in the water, the sharks will come." Has the Abomination been significantly wounded by these series of huge missteps and self-inflicted wounds? Are the sharks begining to circle? Once the Political Predators get a nibble out of that pudgy, bloated orange flesh, they might find they've acquired a taste for it. Cue up John Williams' Jaws theme, "dun, dun... dun, dun... dun, dun, dun, dunnnnnnnnnn!"
T.B. in Waterloo, IA, writes: All of this talk of Elon Musk and Donald Trump got me wondering: Who is the dominant and who is the subversive? Right now it's looking like Trump is the submissive.
Inquiring minds... really don't want to know.
(V) & (Z) respond: On Friday, we almost wrote that Musk was the top and Trump was the bottom, but we thought that would get us in trouble.
S.S. in Athens, OH, writes: You wrote: "Musk's co-President-elect (or maybe it's his assistant), Donald Trump..."
We need to be clear here: While he may think so, Trump is not "Assistant President-elect"; he is merely "assistant to the President-elect."
The lesser responsibilities of that position leave him time for playing golf. And beet farming.
R.C. in Des Moines, IA, writes: If Donald Trump dislikes being called co-president, then we should honor that and start referring to him as Elon Musk's executive assistant.
S.C. in Farmington Hills, MI, writes: Will that be all, sir?
S.B. in Johannesburg, South Africa, writes: I take issue with Elon Musk being described as Co-President-elect. I think the more appropriate title is Regent Musk, as the King is incapacitated.
Oh, and as a South African, I can say we are delighted that he has removed himself from our gene pool.
P.O. in New York City, NY, writes: Given Elon Musk's newfound influence in government, Trump may need new signage. Being a good citizen I wanted to help him, since he is very busy I'm sure:
M.A. in Knoxville, TN, writes: You wrote:
There was a time when we suspected Trump would get sick of Musk, and would push the South African aside. Now, however, we're not sure that's possible. Trump may have no choice but to kowtow to Musk, for fear of being targeted by the Twitter flamethrower and a fortune that is rapidly approaching $500 billion.I think Trump can still toss Musk aside and get away with it. Much of Musk's powerbase of sycophants on Twitter are also MAGAs and were MAGA before they became Musk fanboys. Musk's descent into becoming a right-wing a**hole was powered by their fawning attention on Twitter. He'd tweet things that MAGAs approved of and get tons of ego-stoking replies from them, so he'd tweet more things like that and more and more...
If Trump turns on Musk in a way that leaves MAGAs feeling Musk did something to wrong Trump, it'll get ugly for Musk on Twitter quickly. On top of that Trump will soon be in charge of the Federal government, which has multiple investigations already ongoing into Tesla. Musk's fortune is almost entirely due to the vast amount of Tesla stock he owns. If Trump directs his new heads of the NHTSA and SEC to go after Tesla hard, that could crater Tesla's stock. That gives Trump the power to make Musk no longer the richest person on the planet.
J.O. in Columbia, MD, writes: There is not going to be a breakup between the Musk/Trump bro-ship anytime soon. Anyone who has been paying attention over the last 10 years knows that you can boss Trump by keeping him on edge̵see The Case of V. Putin, Trump Tower Moscow and the Pee Tape. Like Putin, Musk holds one thing Trump wants and one thing Trump fears, both of them being eX-Twitter.
Trump formed Truth Social with the clear intent to cash out by getting then-Twitter—or someone—to buy it out. Trump can't really cash out by selling his own Truth stock because insider sales have to be declared, so the price would tank. Today, nobody but Musk (or The Onion?) has the cash and motivation to buy it out. Trump won't abandon Musk while he sees this as a possibility.
Through his ownership of eX-Twitter, Musk has access to Trump's private feed. Whether Musk has done this or intends to do so, Trump knows this is a possibility, and that any embarrassing—or legally dangerous—content just might get leaked.
So, Musk is dangling one carrot and threatening with one stick. We saw this show before; the difference this time is that Putin was quiet and Elon Musk doesn't do "quiet."
Politics: The Elon Musk Fan Club
J.S.M. in Chicago, IL, writes: Just like Elon Musk, I'm a naturalized American who grew up in Pretoria, South Africa, during the 70s and 80s. As such, I must ask you to please stop referring to him as a South African. Yes, the Co-President-elect was born and raised there, but he is an American now (or, more precisely, a South African-Canadian-American). From my perspective, Musk has much more in common with American dipsh**s than he does with South African dispshits. America created this monster and America should take responsibility for him.
J.B. in Bend, OR, writes: While Elon Musk's threats to primary Republicans who don't vote "appropriately" on Cabinet nominees or the funding bill are worrisome, in that he's immune to either electoral or financial repercussions, I'll note his real vulnerability: He's a complete novice when it comes to the political game.
Here's the reality that he doesn't realize: There's nothing significant to be gained by stalling the funding bill or forcing confirmation of nominees, which means he's wasting political capital on things that don't really matter. By doing that now, rather than waiting until he can influence votes on more important issues, he's tipping his hand to people who are very skilled at making sausage and giving them plenty of time to figure out how to deal with him.
I can easily imagine several members of Congress quietly conspiring to come up with many devious ways prevent Musk from taking away their power. These people know how to create delays, how to use procedural rules, and how to create fatal flaws in proposed legislation without getting any blame or even appearing to be involved.
Musk is a political novice, and just as bad, he surely thinks he's the smartest guy in the room. That's not a recipe for success.
E.S. in Providence, RI, writes: The best thing President Biden could do for America is to deport Elon Musk to South Africa, revoke his passport, and bar him from re-entering the country as a national security threat.
If the president does it, it's not illegal.
Politics: Healthcare
M.G.F. in Minneapolis, MN, writes: Last week, B.C. in Soldotna wrote with some back-of-the-napkin math explaining why United Healthcare's $22 billion in profits isn't really that much per customer. Their analysis is missing a few variables that cast the insurer in a bit worse light. First, looking at "profits" neglects all of the insurer's expenses that are directly intended to deny coverage. The company employs hundreds of employees specifically to deny or delay valid claims. This math similarly neglects all the expenses from healthcare providers that are required to first comply with, and then fight, the insurance company's claims procedures. That spending inflates the prices charged for medical procedures. For every dollar we spend on "healthcare," at least 25% is estimated to be spent on billing and claims administration. Speaking for myself, I personally spend more time talking to medical coding and billing professionals than I do talking to medical professionals; and that's usually fighting over office visit coding where the argument clearly is costing every company involved (insurer, provider, and my employer) more than providing the original care cost. And finally, it neglects the inflated salaries and bonuses paid to for-profit insurance executives compared to their non-profit peers.
Admittedly, some of these costs don't amount to much on a per-customer basis, but it all adds up. To that point, it's worthwhile to point out that even though $22 billion isn't a huge number on a per-patient basis, it is still a staggeringly huge number. For example, it's roughly the same as the patient out-of-pocket costs for all cancer care in the U.S. If we removed all the profit from the health insurance market, that's far more than $22 billion that can go back into patient care instead of billing procedures and profits. If all that we do with that money is eliminate the out-of-pocket costs for cancer patients, that's still a great improvement—far from "the average person is still screwed," caring for the most harmed patients is literally what insurance is supposed to do.
K.S. In Baltimore, MD, writes: I'm sorry but the math from B.K. in Soldotna does not add up for me. B.K. said to Google it, so I did and found United Healthcare's 10K statement and on page 39, the $22 billion looks like net profit to me.
Net profit comes after expenses. So AFTER United Healthcare has paid for some of the procedures doctors have prescribed, like colonoscopies (and denied others), they are still making that $22 billion. That would presumably also be profits AFTER they pay their executives fat salaries and fly them off to fancy hotels in Manhattan for meetings.
The roadblock to reform, in my view, is not poor math. Who blocked Hillary's attempts? Who morphed into the "tea party" when Obama, in attempt to compromise, adopted Romney's Republican idea as a basis for the ACA? Who is opposing Medicare expansion? It's the Republicans, apparently in the stranglehold of the health insurance companies like United Healthcare, that are "only" making $22 billion a year in profit.
Kindly enlighten me if I am missing something here.
D.A. in Brooklyn, NY, writes: B.C. in Soldotna wrote that United Health Care only makes $440 in profit per customer, per year, and concludes from this that health insurance companies are not the problem. However, B.C. is not taking into account the total costs of running the UHC business, paying the myriads who scrutinize and "deny, delay" etc., not to mention their pricey defense attorneys, and all the corporate overhead. Nor does B.C. take into account the hours and hours of time that MDs, RNs, PAs, etc. are required to spend on paperwork. The U.S. health care system is such a mess that I'm sure there is no single cause. But focusing exclusively on corporate profit (or C-suite salaries) hides the damage that these corporate behemoths are inflicting on the system.
E.W. in Silver Spring, MD, writes: Several comments last week took to defending, or at least partially defending, health insurance companies. The problem isn't just there, but the for-profit nature of the whole system. Every piece needs to turn a profit—from the hospitals, to the clinics, to the pharmacies, to the medical device manufacturers, and the pharmaceutical companies. Each step is extracting a profit for their shareholders, so the $440/person United Healthcare makes is their profit after factoring in everyone else's.
To get an idea, here's my story. I take medication daily to stay alive. It was developed more than 45 years ago, and the R&D has long since been paid off.
In 2010, I was in Europe and ran out. I got the script transferred to a nonprofit pharmacy nearby. I spent 20 minutes pleading with the pharmacist to find a way to take my insurance, there was no way I could afford the pills. She simply couldn't. She apologized multiple times as she rang up the 'market price' for the medication. It was roughly $8. The copay I was so desperate to pay was $15. I have never in my life gone from terrified to livid so fast.
So I had a brilliant idea when I got back to Maryland: I'm going not use my insurance to buy my pills. The same 30-day-supply market price in the U.S.? $150. Back to livid. I couldn't win.
Buying the script with (most of) the profit stripped out, and removing profit from the pharmacy as well as the health systems infrastructure, reduced the market rate of my meds 95%. Of course the insurance isn't paying 95% of it. In lieu of government price regulation, the insurance companies do reduce prices by purchasing in bulk, but the copay still can't drop to that $8 mark, because the pharmacy, and everyone else, needs to turn a profit on the sale.
Health insurance companies are a good example of the problem, but high priced executives, and profit for shareholders permeate the whole healthcare system. None of this even taps into the other added expenditures of a for-profit system, that only exists here, like advertising, which alone is $25 billion.
Politics: Legal Matters
A.R. in Los Angeles, CA, writes: It seems clear the Georgia appellate court was determined to find a way to disqualify Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis, even if it meant violating its own rules to do it. Like all appellate courts, it sits not as a finder of fact, but only as a check on the court below, to ensure that the trial court did not make a clear legal mistake and that there is evidence supporting the lower court's decision. Instead, it usurped the trial court's role and used the wrong legal standard to get DA Willis off the case. The 2-1 majority ignored the law, which requires an actual conflict of interest before an attorney can be disqualified. An "appearance of impropriety" is insufficient. Judge Scott McAfee held that the defense had not proved that there was an actual conflict of interest, and the appeals court did not reverse that aspect of the decision. For that reason alone, the trial court's ruling should have been affirmed.
Instead, the appeals court latched onto McAfee's extracurricular comments about Willis' private behavior and his opinion of them, comments that had no legal basis and were highly inappropriate. It was during that detour that McAfee stated there was an "appearance of impropriety" that could only be rectified if Special Assistant DA Nathan Wade stepped down, which he promptly did. Willis could have appealed that aspect of the Court's ruling, but instead made the strategic decision to get on with the case sans Wade.
The appeals Court used both McAfee's finding of an "appearance of impropriety"—which, again, is not a basis to disqualify an attorney—as well as Willis' decision not to appeal that finding, to bootstrap its way to an extralegal, unsupported decision to disqualify Willis. Regardless of the defendant's identity, the Georgia Supreme Court should take this case, if only to get their appeals court back in line. The decision is a gross misuse of their appellate power and is not grounded in the law or the facts. The dissenting judge rightly takes his colleagues to task for veering way out of their lane.
(Z) is correct that the case is not dead, but it may yet be starved to death. If the appeals court ruling survives a petition to the Georgia Supreme Court, it goes next to the executive director of the Prosecuting Attorneys Council for the State of Georgia, Pete Skandalakis, who can choose a new prosecutor or decline to move the case forward at all. Even if a new prosecutor is appointed, they can drop the charges. It's hard to predict what this case will look like by the time Trump leaves office.
R.T. in Arlington, TX, writes: I don't see how it should be a surprise that Ken Paxton would sue an out-of-state doctor. Aside from the performance art aspect (he sues everybody for everything all the time), you had to know this would happen because nothing is ever settled until it is litigated these days. The Texas legislature and governor passed an extreme law. Others sought out a loophole, so the Attorney General has to try to close the loophole. He may win or lose, but he was obligated to try.
From my own experience with professional licensing of engineers, I can tell you that jurisdiction is anything but clear-cut, because we license trades and professions at the state level, when the body of knowledge/area of competency has no connection to the land or geography in general. Here is a hypothetical to illustrate this: I am domiciled and do most of my actual work in State A. The client (customer, patient?) who hired me works in an office in State B, but the headquarters of their company is in State C. The related project site is in State D. I likely travel to State D some during the project. The ultimate owner of the project is headquartered in State E. Modular construction for the project takes place in a fabrication plant in State F. Pieces of machinery for the project are manufactured in States G through Z, and a half dozen foreign countries.
In this scenario, any and all of these jurisdictions could assert jurisdiction and require me to carry their license. I tested this once by sending letters with this scenario to the licensing boards of all 50 states. One third never replied. One third replied to say they never respond to hypotheticals. The remaining third had no consistent understanding of what their jurisdiction should be with a strong preference for either: (1) where the project site was located or (2) where the work was being performed.
All along, most trades and professions should have been regulated by a single national authority for that profession or by local agencies applying a single set of national regulations and requirements.
E.S. in Eugene, OR, writes: Attorneys who sue media on behalf of Donald Trump are violating ethical rules and laws in the states in which they are licensed, and should be brought before the bar for filing cases they know to be meritless.
S.M. in Austin, TX, writes: As a civil litigator, who has devoted my entire career to helping ordinary citizens, I take major issue with the following statement: "This is also a clear example of why the general rule in civil cases in Europe is better. There, the loser pays the winner's costs. Then frivolous lawsuits like this end up costing the person who filed them, not the target."
Adopting that rule would have a chilling effect on personal injury lawsuits, consumer protection lawsuits, environmental lawsuits and civil rights lawsuits. You want a world where the victim of discrimination has to decide between protecting their rights versus being subject to a judgment for attorneys' fees should they lose? No lawsuit is perfect, and all can be lost.
We already have protections against frivolous lawsuits. See Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 11 and its state law equivalents.
M.N. in Madison, WI, writes: You wrote "We don't foresee reform anytime in the near future, but if you want to hope and rally for something that is at least plausible, and within the power of Congress, hope and rally for the Department of Justice to be spun off as a quasi-public agency, along the lines of the Federal Reserve."
While I agree that depoliticizing the DoJ would be good, presidents in general, and the President-elect in particular, have been perfectly willing to toss out the heads of other similarly "protected" agencies when it suited them. This will only ever be respected by Democrats (and not always by them either), and never Republicans, to the net detriment of the American public.
(V) & (Z) respond: That's why we chose the Federal Reserve as our example. Once a person is appointed by a president, they cannot be removed, thus insulating them from political pressure.
Politics: Hitting the Nail on the Head
L.E. in Santa Barbara, CA, writes: I just wanted to thank C.J. in Corvallis and acknowledge the contribution to last week's mailbag. Her comments so clearly articulated the way I have been feeling since November 5. Perhaps it's the fact that I am the same age and remember how hard we, and those who went before us, had to fight to get a modicum of control over our own bodies and lives that her comments evoked such a strong emotional response from me.
C.J.'s comment, "The many articles about what the Democrats need to change seem akin to blaming the rape victim," resonated hugely. I have been walking around saying that all the stupid thought pieces about what Kamala Harris or Tim Walz or the Democratic Party should have done was like saying, "Well, she shouldn't have been wearing shorts to the beach, you know—it was just asking for trouble."
So, C.J., thank you, and know there are those of us out here whom your comments really spoke to.
N.N. in Murray, KY, writes: As a man, I must applaud C.J. in Corvallis for a great letter! I have thought many of the same things, and am glad that someone intelligently summed it all up better than I could have. Thank you.
Politics: A Call for Help
Q.F. in Boulder, CO, writes: I find myself in a depression I cannot shake. It is, in large part, the revelation that America is not filled with the Americans I thought it was—caring, upstanding as reflected in our soldiers during World War II, whose generosity and kind-heartedness was a hallmark of the way we treated others. I thought we, as Americans, respected women. That we stood for what is right, through a shared morality taught by every major religion.
I have lost connections to immediate family over politics. I cannot enjoy any website forum, regardless of the subject, without finding references to the corrupt felon and his cult that I inevitably MUST refute. So I stop visiting websites. I have no close friends, no local family, and no current church. I work remote, so truly I feel like a stranger in a dangerous land.
And that's silly. I shouldn't feel that way about this country. But we're so backwards—single-payer healthcare comes to mind. I cannot condemn Luigi Mangione, though I do not advocate violence. Is this all there is, are we truly the failed country I now see? I avoid the news, but I also have to avoid social sites now, too. Even your site has started to be something I have trouble reading, and yours is the only political site I reach for with the morning coffee. Help?
(V) & (Z) respond: We thought the most useful thing would be to run your letter, and let readers respond.
History Matters
O.S. in Muncie, IN, writes: You compated Luigi Mangione, the alleged shooter of the United Healthcare CEO, to other historical figures such as Charles Guiteau. I think a more apt historical parallel to Mangione would be abolitionist John Brown. Both were intensely controversial figures who appeared at divisive moments in history and committed acts of violence in the name of ultimately noble causes. Both of their actions spoke to an underlying tension that much of the rest of the country felt. News of the shooting has led to many Americans sharing their own stories of being denied care, and quite a few people have expressed sympathy towards Mangione. I just thought this was an interesting thing to think about.
L.F. in Edina, MN, writes: You write that the perception of Joe Biden's administration may change in the future, as happened with Harry S. Truman. No doubt historians will reevaluate him, but the people who are living now are a different story, if Truman is your model. My parents (and grandparents) were Franklin D. Roosevelt supporters who began with positive feelings towards the president they inherited. That all changed when Truman fired General Douglas MacArthur, who was a real hero to their generation. Growing up, all I heard about "that #@$& little haberdasher" was that single fact. The family voted Republican ever after. So did many of their friends and neighbors, especially those who had served, or knew those who served, in the Pacific theater.
Of course, they are all dead now, so historians can reevaluate as they please. I expect Biden's legacy will have parallels. People who are here now will mostly remember the doddering old man who didn't know when to step back. (Along with the alarm when we realized we had no idea who was actually running the show.) Once we all die off, he may be judged differently, but it's going to take a while.
Recommendations
J.M. in Portland, OR, writes: In "This Week in Freudenfreude: Be the Change You Wish to See in the World," you wrote:
The quote in the headline is supposedly from Mahatma Gandhi, though it doesn't appear in any of his published writings. We're actually pretty sure he borrowed it from Winston Churchill, who got it from Mark Twain, who stole it from Abraham Lincoln, who heard it from George Carlin. That said, our research into the matter is still ongoing, and it's possible there are one or two holes in our hypothesis.This reminded me of a book: The Boomer Bible, by R.F. Laird.
I strongly recommend it. It is the only text that has ever made me cry laughing, AND it's quite educational.
A.B. in Davidson, NC, writes: I really liked this week's freudenfreude. I wanted to pass along a wonderful PBS documentary I watched a few years ago called For This and Future Generations..., about Montanans rewriting their state constitution in the summer of 1972. It has some great interviews with participants and, if I remember correctly, there is some discussion of the "clean and healthful" environment clause.
The title comes from the preamble of the constitutional convention and I find it really touching. It shows an ethos that I wish was more common today: "We the people of Montana, grateful to God for the quiet beauty of our state, the grandeur of our mountains, the vastness of our rolling plains, and desiring to improve the quality of life, equality of opportunity and to secure the blessings of liberty for this and future generations do ordain and establish this constitution."
D.R. in Pittsburgh, PA, writes: In case any readers are not yet listeners, the podcast If Books Could Kill just released an episode on What's The Matter With Kansas? by Thomas Frank.
While the podcast normally debunks the kind of pop science books marketed to mainstream audiences, this episode uses Frank's book as a jumping-off point for some interesting poli sci discussions, up to and including the most recent election.
You Can't Please Everyone
T.F. in Austin, TX, writes: In your item "Gaetz Is a Loser," you wrote: "Similarly, once the report is released, it's clearly going to include information that strongly indicates: (1) hiring of many prostitutes, and (2) sex with underage women."
They're not "underage women." They're girls.
You're usually good about wording things appropriately, so I assume this was unintentional. The phrase is all too commonly used by the media and by the men who seek to minimize their victimization of girls. But if they're "underage," they're girls, and victims of statutory rape.
(V) & (Z) respond: If we use "girls," even in this context, we will get complaints about sexism, observing that we would never refer to 17-year-old males as "boys."
D.S. in Layton, UT, writes: When you accurately quote Matt Gaetz as saying "But at least I didn't vote for CR's that fuck over the country!," does that indicate a policy change regarding the use of profanities?
(V) & (Z) respond: Similarly, there is no policy on profanities that does not leave some readers unhappy. If we censor, we get unhappy e-mails, if we don't censor, we get unhappy e-mails. So, we censor, except when the words were uttered/written publicly.
Who Let the Dogs In?, Part III
S.O. in Madison, WI, writes: "English nonsense"?
Avery the Wire Fox Terrier would have a word:
Yes, the balloon is face height—around 6 feet—yeah he gets 'em. 'Nuff said.
B.H. in Sherman Oaks, CA, writes: M.S. in Roseville tells us "...at Christmas, hardtack is often on my plate, along with lingonberry sauce, pickled beets, pickled herring, and Jarlsberg cheese."
Oh, M.S., you poor, poor thing...
And to think I used to complain about fruitcake!
S.Z. in Parma, OH, writes: Many of your public enjoy reading about your hounds; you mentioned their ability to secure food. We have had four greyhounds. They are wonderful. Most generally, they can be described as polite, mellow, and not prone to much activity. Our first, Captain America, would push or pull a chair to get to the top of the table, or ice box. We got him in the month of December. I was given smoked salmon for Christmas by a choir member. He took the bag off the table, and I tried to retrieve...well, some of it. Another time, I came home with some cake with a heavy topping of whipped cream. In an eye blink, he tongued off a portion of the cream. I had the cake in my hand, and did not see the swipe.
Cassius loved pasta noodles. Both Cassius and Karma would whimper to have some turkey vegetable soup. They all very much enjoyed my cooking. And I have to mention Argos. We had him for such a short time. He would take food out of Karma's mouth. Only Karma is left, and she is not yet nine. The boys never made it that far.
Gallimaufry
D.D. in Portland, OR, writes: I was feeling a bit low when I read the prediction from J.M. in Philadelphia, detailing how a certain warthog-faced buffoon's immigration policy will play out. Was going to say something like, "I wish I could disagree with you, but I can't. At least I wish the prediction did not seem obvious, yet it does."
Then, as a gift from above, you responded to E.D. in Saddle Brook with a play on Prince Humperdinck's line from Princess Bride, "I always think everything could be a trap, which is why I'm still alive."
Thank you for keeping up the insight and snark! There's a shortage of perfect blogs in the world. It would be a pity to damage yours.
(V) & (Z) respond: Glad we could help rescue you from the pit of despair.
Final Words
M.S. in Hamden, CT, writes: In the mid-twentieth century, Yale had two particularly eminent chemists, John Kirkwood and Lars Onsager, who were close friends. Indeed, they were buried next to each other. When Kirkwood died in 1959, his headstone displayed his basic biography, plus a gazillion honors he had received. When Onsager died in 1976, his headstone listed only one honor, a Nobel Prize. After his widow died fifteen years later, Onsager's children added a modest asterisk after "Nobel Prize" with a footnote saying, "*etc."
If you have suggestions for this feature, please send them along.
Previous | Next
Main page for smartphones
Main page for tablets and computers