Previous | Next | Senate page
New polls: MI MN PA WA WI
Dem pickups: (None)
GOP pickups: AZ GA NV PA WI
Note to new readers. Welcome. Mondays-Fridays we do news and analysis. Saturdays we answer questions from readers. Sundays it's "letters to the editor."
Saturday Q&A
It was a big week in politics, as you might have noticed. As a result, we got vast numbers of questions about current events. Even the questions we got about things like history and civics are also current events questions. So, we're just going to have one, big current events section today, starting with the 2-3 questions (all about J.D. Vance) that were the most commonly asked questions of the week.
This actually ended up being much longer than a normal Q&A, so we'll bring the reader question of the week back next week. Sorry.
Current Events
K.T. in Columbus, OH, asks: Republicans have tried to make the case that Joe Biden cannot withdraw from the race. The consensus answer to that assertion seems to be that the Democratic convention has not taken place yet and there is no Democratic nominee until then, so he can indeed withdraw.
But... since the Republicans have already had their convention and formally nominated their presidential and vice presidential candidates, can they drop J.D. Vance from the ticket, even if they wanted to do so?(V) & (Z) answer: The Democrats' claim about replacing Biden, that it's legal to drop him because the convention hasn't happened, is a plausible response that makes sense to people and that can also be communicated in a sound-bite-length answer.
It's not the real answer to the question, however. The real answer begins with the fact that, per a little thing called the Thirteenth Amendment, a person cannot be compelled to run for president, vice president or any other office.
The real answer continues with the fact that political parties have no formal status in the Constitution. This being the case, assuming the parties do not violate any federal laws, they are free to use any process they want in order to determine who their candidates will be. They can throw darts at a board, they can hold one convention (or six), they can nominate candidates and then change the rules and declare that the nominations are moot and the candidates' names will be drawn out of a hat. In the end, the two names communicated by the Party to the states, as the two names entitled to the Democrats' automatic line on the ballot, are the two names that will be printed.
The answer concludes with the fact that, as Ohio has reminded everyone, states have different deadlines by which they must be informed as to the names of the candidates.
If J.D. Vance gets pushed off the Republican ticket, it is overwhelmingly likely that he will "voluntarily" step down, for [REASON]. That would allow both him and Donald Trump to save face (to an extent, even though everyone would know what was really going on). It would also allow the Republican National Committee to say "Ok, the VP slot is open. So, we're going to follow our procedures for picking a new VP." Those "procedures" would boil down to a meeting of the members of the RNC, who would then approve Trump's choice of replacement.
If Vance will not go willingly, then things get a little more complicated. Nonetheless, if Trump was insistent on making a change, the process would basically be the same as if Vance went willingly. The RNC members would meet and approve the new VP candidate. They might also have to change one or two RNC rules to make that kosher. If so, that is within their power.
Where things get stickier is if Vance leaves the ticket on or after September 1. On that date, the states' ballot deadlines begin to arrive. And once that is the case, and ballots start to be printed, then—depending on the laws and the deadlines in each state—either the party has to pay for new ballots to be printed, or else the state simply won't allow the party to make a change. A party could try to sue, but there would be little time to resolve such disputes, and the party would probably lose.
And then, in mid-September, some states begin early voting. That makes it even more dodgy to swap out a VP. Does a vote for Trump-Vance count if the ticket later changes to Trump-Rubio? Probably, since people are voting for electors rather than candidates. But it's enough of a gray area that the courts would be asked to weigh in.
The bottom line is this: (1) If Vance is dropped, he will surely pretend that it's his decision and not Trump's, and (2) Time is of the essence, and if Vance does not get booted in the next month, he's surely safe, as it becomes prohibitively difficult to get rid of him.
M.A. in Knoxville, TN, asks: If Donald Trump were to replace J.D. Vance as his vice-presidential candidate, would he be able to wait until after the Olympics to do so? Or would his best bet to be doing it during them, so the news is buried somewhat? And what do (V) & (Z) think are the chances Trump will be willing to admit he made a mistake and replace Vance? Personally, I don't think he's capable of it at this point in time. He's simply spent too long insisting he never makes mistakes to admit making one now.
(V) & (Z) answer: As we note above, if Vance leaves the ticket, he will certainly frame it as his decision. That won't be true, but the number of people who see through the ruse will depend on how good his excuse is. We don't think there's any compelling excuse for a very young, ambitious man to decide that suddenly he is not interested, so we therefore assume that most people would figure out the truth.
The previous paragraph outlines the line of thinking that the Trump campaign will have to engage in if they decide to cashier Vance. Essentially: "Can we sell this as having nothing to do with Trump, and thus not being a reflection on his decision-making skills?" We think they will be forced to reach the same conclusion that we did, namely that nobody is going to buy it if Vance suddenly realizes he doesn't want to run for VP after all. If so, then it would make Trump look bad, and, as everyone knows, he hates to look bad. So, we think it is considerably more likely than not that Vance stays on the ticket. At the moment, we'd probably put it as 67% he stays, 33% he goes.
With that said, we're about a month removed from writing that Biden staying the course was a 90% likelihood. And we think that was basically correct when we wrote that. But then the next 3 weeks (a.k.a., 3 lifetimes) happened. Biden made some missteps, the media rose up against him, key Democrats got skittish, and the polls worsened a bit. So, Biden departed. The point here is that Vance is currently vulnerable, and if he has another week or two like the one he just had, his odds of survival could decline rapidly.
As to the Olympics, we don't think that matters much. Yes, people are watching, but it's not such a dominant story that it would impact the major coverage that a change in VP would receive. Truth be told, Trump really needs to decide in the next week or so if he's going to dump Vance. And then, if that's the path forward, the Trump campaign needs to pull the band-aid off as quickly as is possible, so as to place as much time as possible between the damage done and the election.
R.M.S. in Lebanon, CT, asks: The history of remarks from J.D. Vance attacking childfree people will provide an absolute gold mine for Kamala Harris's opposition research team. He is dismissive and scornful of an entire class of people, and it makes him look like a Neanderthal who is unsympathetic to other people's circumstances.
Some of the most popular and beloved celebrities in my generation are unmarried and childfree. Taylor Swift and Zac Efron are two prominent examples. I knew by the time I was about 24 that I did not want the financial responsibility or the environmental impact of having kids in my life. I believe overpopulation is leading to destruction of forests and contributing to global warming. I am 3 years older than Vance and 8 years older than Swift, and I can say with absolute certainty that demeaning comments on people without kids will piss off Swift and by extension her tens of millions of fans.
However, I don't understand the logic behind right-wing Christians attacking people for being child-free. Do they think this is good politics? Why? Vance's own church, the Roman Catholic Church, is pastored almost exclusively by childfree clergy, unless they had kids before starting their vocations.(V) & (Z) answer: You know who else didn't have children? Jesus. Oh, and George Washington. Yes, Old George had adopted children, but Vance has made clear those don't count.
Vance's take on childless women is tied up in a whole worldview that claims to be based on the Bible. In essence, the purpose of sex is to procreate, and the purpose of women is to raise the children that result from that procreation. The graduation speech a couple of months ago, from the Kansas City Chiefs' meathead kicker, laid it out in very great detail.
If this is your thought process, then childless women and LGBTQ people, among others, are not going along with the plan. A plan that is, allegedly, "God's" plan. The majority of Americans don't see it that way, but Vance is, and always has been, about connecting with the minority who agree with that line of thinking. It's a viable position to stake out in a red state like Ohio, with a lot of evangelical voters. It's not such a winner in swing states.
S.K. in Atlanta, GA, asks: Does J.D. Vance need to resign his Senate seat to run on the Republican ticket?
(V) & (Z) answer: He is not required to resign until he is elected and sworn in as VP. It is not unusual for sitting members of Congress to retain their seats while running for the vice presidency. The most recent senator to do it is... Kamala Harris in 2020, while the most recent representative to do it is Paul Ryan in 2012. Harris gave up her Senate seat on Jan. 18, 2021, two days before assuming the vice presidency.
R.H.D. in Webster, NY, asks: If J.D. Vance is elected vice president, where would that place him among the youngest VPs we've had?
(V) & (Z) answer: If Vance is elected, he will be sworn in at an age of 40 years, 172 days. That will place him third on the list, behind John C. Breckinridge (36 years, 47 days) and Richard Nixon (40 years, 11 days). Breckinridge assumed the office at such a young age that he was younger on departing (40 years, 47 days) than Vance would be upon entering the office.
You didn't ask, but if Vance were to be elected president, and then were to be elevated to the presidency anytime prior to June 18, 2027, he would be the youngest president in U.S. history, beating out Theodore Roosevelt (42 years, 322 days). However, barring a major change in the next few months, Vance has no chance of outpacing John F. Kennedy (43 years, 236 days) as the youngest elected president.
D.M. in Alameda, CA, asks: Thinking about the crazy rumor of J.D. Vance's for sofas, wouldn't you say that it fits neatly into the tenet of research about modern urban legends in that the more a legend is debunked, the more it spreads because people just hear the legend (rumor) and ignore the response?
(V) & (Z) answer: Yes. And that's a problem for Vance, particularly if more of these things catch on. Even if the smoke is wholly invented, there are a lot of people who just assume that where there's a lot of smoke, there's fire. And so it wouldn't take much for Vance to acquire a reputation as some sort of pervert or deviant, even if it's not based in fact.
That said, Donald Trump actually IS a pervert and a deviant, and has not been tarred, at least not among the voters in his base. It's a reminder that politics is not fair. But the fact is that Trump has charisma, while Vance (from where we sit) does not.
And note that it is not necessary to write critical messages to us because we called Trump a pervert and a deviant. Sexually healthy people do not molest random women in public, nor speak about their teenage daughters as sexual objects, among other well-documented incidents.
T.B. in Leon County, FL, asks: If J.D. Vance didn't have sex with a couch, what did he have sex with? If no one tells, do we have to guess between it being a sofa, canapé, settle, chaise longue, ottoman or church pew?
(V) & (Z) answer: This illustrates the problem that may be emerging for Vance. Even if a story is not true, some people believe it, while others give it additional life by making jokes about it. And that gives the whole thing a veneer of truth, particularly for people relying on Google searches.
And in the part of the country he grew up in, we'd assume it was a davenport.
M.R. in New Brighton, MN, asks: I know J.D. Vance's joke about Diet Mountain Dew flopped, but can you shed any light on this attempt at humor? I'm guessing that there is pop culture connection between Diet Mountain Dew and "something," but I don't know what that "something" is.
(V) & (Z) answer: First, for those who did not see this story, here is what Vance said: "I had a Diet Mountain Dew yesterday and one today, and I'm sure they're going to call that racist, too."
Second, the fact that it was a diet soda is not related to the joke, it's just telling us that he prefers a low-sugar and/or low-calorie drink. Drinking diet soda isn't exactly "macho," so we wonder if someone from the Trump campaign will tell him to knock it off for now. Probably not, since Trump himself is known to drink Diet Coke by the gallon.
The joke, then, is about Mountain Dew. That drink was created in Knoxville, TN, which is part of Appalachia, and its initial purpose was as a mixer to make Depression-era moonshine more palatable. So, for some people, the drink is associated with Appalachia. And what Vance was thus suggesting is that the left-wingers think anything associated with Appalachia is racist.
This is a pretty stupid joke. First, because jokes don't work if your audience does not have the code. (Z) writes jokes about, say, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) for this site, but wouldn't make a Greene joke in class because 95% of students wouldn't understand it. Second, because even if you understand the code, it's just not very funny or clever. While not too many people know where Mountain Dew came from, more know that Dr. Pepper came from Texas, and considerably more know that Coke came from Georgia. Like Tennessee, those are also Confederate states. And yet, is "I had a Diet Coke yesterday and one today, and I'm sure they're going to call that racist, too," funny, even if you connect Coke with the Confederacy? Not to us.
S.D. in St Paul, MN, asks: I had thought the most strategic choice for Trump's VP would have been Nikki Haley, as a way to potentially get her supporters to the polls. So I was actually relieved when Trump picked J.D. Vance as his running mate. Now that the campaign dynamics have shifted so dramatically, what do you think is the likelihood of Trump dumping Vance and trying to recruit Haley as VP?
(V) & (Z) answer: Close to zero. First, Vance is still more likely than not to remain on the ticket. Second, Trump is simply not capable of going to someone, hat in hand, to admit his mistake and request they join his ticket. That is doubly true when the person is a woman. And adding her would not help that much, anyhow. Even if she had been the original pick, we seriously doubt the people who voted for her in the primaries—who were largely voicing opposition to Trumpism—would suddenly climb on board a Trump ticket. We think it is even less likely if it is crystal clear that she was the runner-up pick, at best.
R.C. in Shawnee, KS, asks: Would there be any advantage for Kamala Harris if Joe Biden were to resign on about October 1 (or on any date before the election)? The Democrats could then claim the very first woman president, #47. She would then be the incumbent. Would that give her any kind of boost?
(V) & (Z) answer: We don't see how that would help. First, that would force her to spend the most crucial weeks of the campaign learning how to be president, and then being president, as opposed to campaigning. Second, we think voters would see it as a ruse, which it would be, and would react badly.
J.C. in Binan, Laguna, Philippines, asks: Wait. If Joe Biden speaks from the Oval Office and endorses Harris, how does that not violate the Hatch Act?
(V) & (Z) answer: Because the Hatch Act explicitly excludes the president and vice president from its terms.
M.M. in Leonardtown, MD, asks: Does President Biden's decision to end his re-election campaign increase or decrease or not change the likelihood of Hunter Biden receiving a pardon for his federal felony conviction on weapons possession? Is said likelihood dependent on the outcome of the November election?
(V) & (Z) answer: Many readers disagree, but we think a Hunter Biden pardon—which would certainly happen on his father's last day in office, and would probably not be dependent on who won the election—is much more likely than not. The President not only cares about his son, but he also has some pretty good justifications, namely that Hunter was really only prosecuted because he is Joe's son, and also that there's a good chance that the law under which Hunter was convicted was not constitutional.
E.H. in Dublin, Ireland, asks: I'm wondering how much of the switch from Joe Biden to Kamala Harris has been carefully choreographed by the Democratic Party over the last month. It does seem that the elements of the party that are the easiest for Vice President Harris to win over once she became the presumptive nominee; the young progressives as represented by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), the Congressional Black Caucus, gave their support to President Biden. In contrast, the constituencies that could have had most regret when she replaced President Biden on the ticket were the ones calling for him to step down. And then, of course, there was the timing of the announcement.
Without wanting to sound like a conspiracy theorist, was this process meticulously managed? Did George Clooney, for example, get a phone call at some point asking him to wade in?(V) & (Z) answer: It was certainly choreographed; the only question is when that choreography began, and exactly who was involved. For now, absent any real information being public, we have no idea what the answers to those questions are. We will probably learn someday, when the people involved write books.
Note that it is entirely possible, and probably likely, that the choreography began before Biden was committed to dropping out. For example, Biden's people could very well have gone to the Congressional Black Caucus and said: (1) We would like a public show of support, but (2) We also want to make sure you'll be 100% behind the VP if she becomes the candidate.
M.F. in Baltimore, MD, asks: Were we being sexist in underestimating Harris? I can't imagine that we would have felt the same level of hesitation had she been a man.
(V) & (Z) answer: We certainly don't think so. The two biggest objections to her candidacy were: (1) the polls showing that Harris and other alternatives were not outperforming Biden, and (2) the lack of encouraging precedent for switching horses so late.
Truth be told, for anyone who was committed to replacing Biden, a woman of color was almost certainly the best choice. First, because abortion is a key issue this year, and a woman has more credibility on that issue than a man. Second, because Harris presents the biggest contrast with Biden. If he had been replaced by some other fairly bland, white centrist type—say, Sen. Chris Coons (D-DE)—do you think Democrats would be all that enthusiastic?
M.C. in Elmhurst, IL, asks: Any chance somebody from Kamala Harris' team is reaching out to Cornel West and Jill Stein and saying: "I'm not Joe, withdraw so we can do this thing. By the way, I've heard we need new ambassadors to [YOUR CHOICE OF COUNTRY]."
(V) & (Z) answer: Doubtful, for two reasons. The first of those is that the voters supporting those candidates are not, on the whole, likely to become major-party voters. They would just vote for whatever Green replaced Stein, or for some non-West protest candidate like Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
The second problem, as we saw with Donald Trump's effort to recruit RFK Jr., is that such overtures tend to leak out. And that's pretty bad PR in exchange for what would be a minimal gain.
M.T. in Oceanside, CA, asks: The outpouring of enthusiasm for Kamala Harris is something I've never seen before, even in Barack Obama's first run. It feels real and organic, indicated by unprecedented donations, thousands of new campaign volunteers, and thousands of new voter registrations since the announcement. Harris does not have to go through a grueling primary process, so hopefully the enthusiasm sticks. Do pollsters try to factor in enthusiasm in groups that have not been likely voters in the past, like Gen-Zers for example? If so, how would they go about it?
(V) & (Z) answer: Pollsters play their cards close to their chests and don't divulge their secret sauces very much so we don't know how they are handling this. Our best guess is that the way they would proceed is to tweak their likely voter models. Remember, only 55-65% of eligible voters actually vote. How do they know if someone is going to vote? Just asking is not worth much because not many people are willing to go on the record saying "Nah, I'm lazy. Voting is too much trouble," except maybe for double-haters who want to make a point about how bad both candidates are.
To determine likely voters, each pollster has (secret) questions, like "Did you vote last time?", "Do you think voting is a civic duty?", etc. They might try to capture enthusiasm by thinking of new questions like "Do you think this is the most important election in your lifetime," "Do you discuss politics with your friends a lot?", "Would you go to a rally If your favorite candidate gave a speech 50 miles from your house?", "Have you donated money to your favorite candidate?", "Do you have any yard signs for your favorite candidate?", etc. The problem is that it is hard to tell in advance which of these filters actually works.
A.G. in Scranton, PA, asks: Is it possible for Kamala Harris to not be Black enough to claim that "title" while still being so very Black that she is Willie Horton's "gangsta-ass ho"?
The right wingers somehow think so. I was wondering what your actual opinion is on how the right-wingers are going to handle that internal debate... that there really is one. I know that they're all just so angry that a Black woman is getting uppity and having opinions they don't like.(V) & (Z) answer: We do not think that Black voters, and others who would look particularly favorably on a Black candidate, will have any question about Harris' Blackness. She went to Howard, an HBCU. She joined a Black sorority. She looks Black. By U.S. historical standards, she is legally Black. Oh, and while there are plenty of people using anti-Black racial slurs against her online, there is nobody using anti-Asian racial slurs.
We also think racist voters will see her as Black. And so, the racist dog whistles and commercials that we know are coming will speak to them.
M.M. in San Diego, CA, asks: So, why does Kamala Harris's tendency to laugh occasionally while she is being interviewed disgruntle the right? She's not inordinately loud, she doesn't laugh at inappropriate things. To me, she just seems good humored. Oh, wait, in Trump World women can only be attractive sex objects who smile demurely?
I'm particularly aware of this criticism because at one family Christmas gathering decades ago, my father accused me of "cackling" when joking around with my niece and nephew. Is this a problem for men of a certain age or something? Inquiring minds and all that.(V) & (Z) answer: Recall this famous painting, executed by Grant Wood in 1930:
Note how the woman not only stands behind the man, but she subtly looks toward him for cues as to how to behave. This is the product of an era in which women were often seen as property of their fathers, and then their husbands, and were to take their marching orders from the male who "owned" them. Any display of emotion, unless it mirrored a similar display from dad/husband, was effectively an act of defiance.
Today, you are more definitely likely to find these attitudes among older men than you are among anyone else. But it's not at all unheard of to find them among some women or young men, particularly those who are evangelical or who are recent immigrants from patriarchal cultures.
P.M. in Pensacola, FL, asks: Given the strong liberal tilt of Austin, the blue big cities of Houston, Dallas/Fort Worth, San Antonio, and El Paso, the high Latino population (especially in the Rio Grande Valley), and a governor and legislature that only responds to the color red, do you believe Texas could possibly in play now that Kamala Harris is the (apparent) nominee for the Democrats?
(V) & (Z) answer: Maybe, particularly if she chooses the right running mate (e.g., Sen. Mark Kelly, D-AZ, or Gov. Andy Beshear, D-KY) and if Rep. Colin Allred (D-TX) has some coattails in his Senate race against Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX).
That said, we wouldn't want to bet money on it. The blue-ing of Texas has been predicted for at least four presidential cycles and hasn't happened yet. Oh, and note that many of the Rio Grande Valley Latinos have been there longer than the Rio Grande Valley Anglos, and are politically conservative.
C.L. in Boulder, CO, asks: Thanks for linking to the news article about the "78-Year-Old Criminal's Fox News Appearance." I tried clicking on the "clearly worried" text, but the embedded press release doesn't have active links. So I went to kamalaharris.com, where one can make a donation or volunteer, but I didn't see where one can do much else or find out much other information or even ask the campaign a question. Any advice on what to do? Do you know a secret campaign website (or, at least, secret to me) that posts the press releases?
(V) & (Z) answer: Presumably they will eventually start posting to the campaign website, but for now they are posting everything to her eX-Twitter account, @KamalaHQ.
D.F. in New Orleans, LA, asks: I am a 50-something white male with a disability, total blindness.
Listening to your excellent summaries of current affairs, I wondered which of the two candidates thinks about people such as those with characteristics like me. I dislike Donald Trump's style intensely. I recall his mocking a New York Times reporter by making fun of his disability. Call someone out on their thoughts or their reasoning, not their disability! Harris seems like she'll reach out to the minority groups of this country, but not everyone thinks of disabled people as a minority because we belong to other groups as well.(V) & (Z) answer: We think the answer is unquestionably Harris. Some Republicans might care about those who are differently abled, particularly if they have relevant personal experiences (for example, Rep. Nathaniel Moran, R-TX, has a son who is deaf). However, Donald Trump is clearly not one of those Republicans, and he surrounds himself with people who share his worldview.
Harris is part of a party that, on the whole, tends to have more empathy. She's also a part of an administration that has tried to be mindful of the needs of all voters; important speeches from both her and Joe Biden usually have someone doing sign-language translation, while Trump speeches did not have that during his presidency.
There's also this. Earlier this week, in honor of the anniversary of the Americans with Disabilities Act, Harris held a meeting with disability leaders to discuss, in particular, reproductive rights. At the commencement of that meeting, she politely described herself and what she was wearing for non-sighted attendees: "I am Kamala Harris, my pronouns are she and her, and I am a woman sitting at the table wearing a blue suit." The RNC responded by sending out a tweet mocking her for that. So, that would seem to indicate where everyone stands.
J.C.A. in Shepherdsville, KY, asks: Why do some people think the Democrats are no longer the party of the working people?
(V) & (Z) answer: We have three answers; you can choose which one(s) you like.
First, on policy, it was a Democrat (Bill Clinton) who signed NAFTA into law, and it is Democrats who tend to support free trade agreements. Many working people see such agreements as anti-worker.
Second, the last couple of decades have seen a migration of educated people to the Democrats. Some people, encouraged in this line of thinking by Republican politicians and media, believe that a party cannot house both constituencies, and that the Democrats now look down their noses at blue-collar people. Some Democrats have said things that help encourage this perception.
Third, many working people these days appear to be more motivated by culture wars issues than kitchen table issues. If so, then the Republican Party has what they are looking for.
K.A.I. in Sacramento, CA, asks: Kamala Harris has no genetic children (though she does have stepchildren). If she becomes president, would she be the first president without genetic children since James Buchanan?
(V) & (Z) answer: Yes, but with an asterisk. While he was alive, people believed that Warren Harding had only one, adopted child. It was not until 2015, close to a century after his death, that DNA evidence proved conclusively that he had a child born out of wedlock with his mistress, Nan Britton.
For those who are interested, the only president with no children of any sort is James K. Polk. And the only presidents, besides Buchanan, whose children were all adopted are Andrew Jackson, James Madison and George Washington.
R.S. in Milwaukee, WI, asks: As I understand it, Kamala Harris as Vice President will preside over the counting of the Electoral College votes which may result in her becoming president. Has this scenario happened before?
(V) & (Z) answer: Yes, a handful of times. The first time it happened was with John Adams in 1797, and the most recent time it happened was with George H.W. Bush in 1989. There have also been VPs who had the "honor" of confirming their own defeat in a presidential election. The first of those was actually Richard Nixon in 1960, while the most recent was Al Gore in 2000.
K.C. in West Islip, NY, asks: I was initially all aboard the Gov. Josh Shapiro (D-PA) train for the veep selection of Kamala Harris but then I read a number of comments on various articles suggesting that a Jewish candidate would cost Harris Michigan due to a large Muslim population in that state. Do you agree with this?
(V) & (Z) answer: Well, she already has a Jewish husband, and so that dynamic might already exist. We're not sure a Jewish running mate heightens the dynamic all that much.
Also, as we've written, having one or two Jewish men in close orbit may give Harris freedom to be a bit more Palestinian-friendly than Joe Biden has been. Certainly, many Muslim voters have to be at least somewhat happy that she irritated Benjamin Netanyahu.
All of this said, regardless of the running mate, Harris needs to have a meeting with Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) to figure out what needs to be done and said to get Tlaib's full-throated support, including campaigning for the Harris ticket in Michigan.
C.C. in Portland, OR, asks: You didn't mention Treasury Secretary Pete Buttigieg in your roundup of potential VP choices for Kamala Harris on Monday, but how would you assess his chances of being chosen?
(V) & (Z) answer: Close to zero. First, Democratic leadership clearly thinks a gay man is still a bridge too far for some voters, especially when paired with a minority woman. Second, there's no chance at all that he helps bring his home state into the Democratic column (yes, he lives in Michigan now, but he's still seen as a Hoosier). Third, Buttigieg is very educated and very urbane. Harris is very educated and very urbane. Stylistically, she is going to be looking for more of a salt-of-the-earth type, we think.
R.B. in Durham, NC, asks: Could Barack Obama be picked as Harris' running mate? And would that help with voter turnout?
(V) & (Z) answer: It probably would help with turnout, if for no either reason than Obama is a heckuva campaigner and is wildly popular with Black voters.
Could he be the pick? That's a question that, as we have noted recently, would have to be resolved in court. The Twelfth Amendment says that "no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States." However, the Twenty-Second Amendment says only that a person cannot be elected more than twice. So, while there is no question that Obama cannot be elected president again, it's not necessarily clear that he cannot serve as president again. And if he is still eligible to serve, then he's eligible to be VP.
And if you are wondering what would happen if he became VP and then Harris (or some other running mate) were to keel over the day after being inaugurated), Obama would be able to serve out the full term. The Twenty-Second Amendment does not limit the amount of time a person can serve, it only limits the circumstances under which they can be elected.
J.W. in Asuza, CA, asks: Would it be a good idea to have Joe Biden as vice president, since he is still liked well enough, and not in as serious a position as before? It would also completely eliminate any questions on the legality of the money since it is still technically a Biden-Harris ticket.
(V) & (Z) answer: The argument about money is a weak one, and the Republicans are going to lose it. And dispensing with that argument entirely is not worth the blowback Democrats would get from people (not just Republicans) who would say: "He's not fit to be president anymore, so how is he fit to be one heartbeat away from the presidency?"
Also, we doubt that picking Biden as the running mate would engender much excitement or would bring votes. Other running mates, on the other hand, could do one or both of those things. You don't want to give up that possibility if you're the Democrats.
L.C. in Edgewater, FL, asks: I was wondering if former Louisiana governor John Bel Edwards would be a good idea for Kamala Harris?
He also checks a lot of boxes and is approximately the same age as Harris. He was very popular and he won election twice as governor. While Louisiana isn't a swing state today, it was not too long ago—remember, Bill Clinton won the Southern states of Louisiana, Arkansas, Tennessee, Kentucky, West Virginia, and one time each Florida and Georgia. Could Edwards possibly put some Southern states in play realistically, since Louisiana is a true Deep South state, unlike Kentucky?(V) & (Z) answer: First, the Clinton elections were 32 and 28 years ago. In politics terms, that is not at all recent. We very much doubt that Louisiana could be put in play. And even if it's nominally possible, North Carolina and Roy Cooper are a way better bet. North Carolina is much more purple and has twice as many EVs.
All of this said, there's a much bigger reason that Edwards will not be picked: He's anti-choice. This is probably a dealbreaker for any Democratic national ticket that will be mounted for the rest of his life, and is certainly a dealbreaker in 2024.
C.L. in Boulder, CO, asks: You have written multiple times that Kamala Harris' running mate has to be a white male, but I'm curious—if we could get beyond a white male, who would be the best female, Black and/or Asian running mates for Harris?
(V) & (Z) answer: This is not original, but the best woman running mate, and the best overall, would be Gov. Gretchen Whitmer. She's from a swing state, she is a solid campaigner and she has a long record of achievement.
If the pick were to be a Black person, we'd say that Gov. Wes Moore (D-MD) makes the most sense. He's young and he's got charisma to burn.
If Harris were to select an Asian running mate, well, the pickings are a little slimmer. Many of the most prominent Asian-American politicians are either no longer with us, or are too liberal to balance the ticket. We suppose we'd suggest Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-IL). She's not going to bring her state with her, since Illinois is already blue. But she's a war hero and she might help in the Midwest overall.
And you didn't ask about a Latino, but if that was the direction Harris went in, we would think that the best choice would be Julián Castro. He's young, he's charismatic, he was in Barack Obama's cabinet, and maybe he somehow helps the ticket win in Texas.
C.A.G. in Athens, GA, asks: After Joe Biden withdrew, I read that ActBlue was blowing up with donations. I love the ticker they have at the top of their website showing how much they have raised since 2004. I also found a site that provides some other metrics, such as donations (by hour) for the past 24-hour period, daily/weekly donation amounts for the recent past, and the 20 highest donation days since 2020. My question is this: Is this information also available for WinRed? I'm very curious as to how the two sides' contributions compare both before and after Uncle Joe's withdrawal.
(V) & (Z) answer: We do not know of such a site, and we're not surprised that one does not seem to exist, The ActBlue tracker was created by a young computer programmer with the time and the skills; people like that are going to lean heavily Democratic. Further, on the whole, Republicans prefer to keep information close to the vest (consider the White House visitors' logs during the Trump era, for one example). Democrats tend to be more transparent.
That said, it will not be long before the tale is told. We're to the point in the election cycle that monthly fundraising reports are required by the FEC; they're due by the 10th of the month. So in a week or so, the world will know what the fundraising picture looks like.
T.J.R. in Metuchen, NJ, asks: Please settle an argument between me and a friend. He argues that having everybody vote would help Democrats. I'm of the belief that: (1) the number of lazy Democrats and lazy Republicans is the same and (2) If you forced a lot of people to vote, they would just vote who was on top of the ballot. I'm sure that making people vote would increase their desire to make a better, or even a reasoned, decision.
(V) & (Z) answer: At the moment, the Republican Party is running a base-only strategy. Under Donald Trump, the Party represents ideas that really excite a minority of the population, but are somewhere between "distasteful" and "truly abhorrent" to the rest of the population.
This being the case, a rule that everyone must vote would surely work to the benefit of the Democratic Party. Yes, some unwilling voters would vote randomly, but some would undoubtedly adopt a "lesser of two evils" approach. And we think that mindset would favor the Democrats by a fair margin.
D.M. in Brooklyn, NY, asks: The president-is-not-king constitutional amendment is DOA because of folks that want their guy to be immune. Would an adjustment to the text that excludes folks that have ever been sworn in before January, 1, 2025 be acceptable?
(V) & (Z) answer: For Republicans, no. At the moment, this is the party of Project 2025. This is the party of, for many voters and officeholders, authoritarianism. They not only want Trump to be unencumbered in the future, should he be reelected, they want other future Republican presidents to be unencumbered as well. Remember, some of them are drooling over what J.D. Vance—who is younger, smarter, and more right-wing than Trump—would do if he gains the presidency in 2028.
For Democrats, definitely no. Their immediate and overriding concern is reining in Trump, should he become president again. Democratic voters would be furious if he was given a waiver.
J.J. in Johnstown, PA, asks: You noted that the proposed Twenty-Eighth Amendment is pretty much just a messaging bill. Of course, Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) won't bring it up for a vote for the reasons you listed, but my understanding is that amendments can originate in either chamber of Congress. So, how likely do you think it is that some Democratic senator introduces the same bill and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) brings it to a vote? I could envision a certain Democrat from Arizona introducing it as to have a certain Republican senator from Ohio on the record as having voted against it.
Also, one note about Joe Biden stating how eager he is to sign it: Presidents don't need to sign an amendment since it is a Joint Resolution, nor can they veto it.(V) & (Z) answer: You're right about not needing a presidential signature. That was just sloppy writing because we were running late and hurrying.
And we think it's very possible the bill might be brought up in the Senate. These kinds of possibilities are why we think this messaging bill has more teeth than the Republican messaging bill about Kamala Harris and the border.
R.T. in Arlington, TX, asks: I'm sorry to ask, but I didn't see the explanation for why Donald Trump is angry with Benjamin Netanyahu. Do you mind a bit of reteaching?
(V) & (Z) answer: First, Trump thinks that Netanyahu began to hedge his bets in the last year or so of Trump's presidency. In particular, the former president was angry that Israel declined to play a part in the attack that killed Qasem Soleimani.
Second, Netanyahu congratulated Joe Biden on his election win. This is entirely pro forma stuff that pretty much every leader does when someone wins election in another allied/important country. Nonetheless, Trump took it as a personal insult, because he wanted Netanyahu to climb on board with the idea that the election was stolen. "Fu** him," said Trump, and the two men did not speak again until yesterday.
J.M. in Asheville, NC, asks: The Secret Service failures that allowed the Donald Trump assassination attempt to occur have me wondering: Do all presidential candidates get Secret Service protection, or is Trump special in this regard because he's a former president? How would proteciton have been handled at, say, an Obama rally in 2008?
If all candidates do get protection from the Secret Service, when does this start? Surely not all primary candidates get it. Does Robert F. Kennedy Jr. get it?(V) & (Z) answer: Per federal law, specifically 18 U.S. Code Sec. 3056, "Major Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates" are granted Secret Service protection. That protection is generally not supposed to begin more than a year prior to the election, and it is supposed to be extended to spouses and minor children 120 days before the election.
The decision as to who is a major candidate, and exactly when they (and their families) receive protection, is in the hands of the Secretary of Homeland Security in consultation with key members of Congress known as the Congressional Advisory Committee. This said, the president can also, on their own authority, instruct the Secret Service to extend protection.
RFK Jr. asked for, and did not receive, protection several times earlier in the campaign cycle. However, after the assassination attempt, he was reportedly assigned a protective detail.
P.W. in Alamo, GA, asks: Has the United States ever seen a 30-day period with this many twist and turns?
(V) & (Z) answer: Not very often. However, in April 1865, the Confederacy collapsed, the Civil War ended, a president was assassinated and his assassin was captured and killed, and a new president was inaugurated. That's certainly in the running for most eventful 30-day period in U.S. history.
In April 1945, a president died, another one took his place, Adolf Hitler died by his own hand and the Germans surrendered.
And in August 1974, a president resigned in disgrace, his successor was inaugurated and pardoned him and, most momentously, (Z) was born.
F.S. in Cologne, Germany, asks: What would have happened in 1968 if Lyndon B. Johnson hadn't withdrawn his candidacy? Who would have been the Democratic nominee, and who would have won the presidential election?
(V) & (Z) answer: Johnson would surely have been the nominee, but he wouldn't have won the election; he was just too damaged. Also, a wild card is that his heart was in terrible condition. Given the rigors of campaigning, he might well have had a heart attack that took him off the campaign trail or maybe killed him.
B.J. in Arlington, MA, asks: In one term, has Joe Biden already surpassed the legacy of most presidents who have served two terms in office?
(V) & (Z) answer: Well, even a two-term president is not likely to surpass the biggies: George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Franklin D. Roosevelt, etc. But of the 16 presidents who served at least 7 years, we'd say Biden has left four of them in the dust: James Madison, James Monroe, Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush. There's also another group of five or six two-termers—Andrew Jackson, Ulysses S. Grant, Grover Cleveland, Woodrow Wilson, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama—where Biden's relative position requires some serious number of very subjective judgments.
N.W. in Atlanta, GA, asks: With Biden now only serving one term, is he the most consequential one-term President ever? Granted there isn't a ton of competition.
(V) & (Z) answer: There are thirteen one-term presidents, and you used the word "consequential," and not necessarily "best." We would say John Adams, who helped keep a fledgling nation afloat and avoided a war with France that the country could not afford, probably edges Biden. James K. Polk, who goaded Mexico into a war and dramatically expanded the United States' territorial holdings, was more consequential than Biden. You can make a pretty strong argument that James Buchanan, and maybe even Donald Trump, were more consequential than Biden by virtue of the various harms they inflicted on the country. Actually, you might also put Herbert Hoover on that list, too; he didn't do as much harm as Buchanan and Trump did, but his mismanagement of the Depression certainly did much to make the New Deal possible.
But yes, Biden is in the top five or six most consequential one-termers. Maybe top three, depending on one's point of view.
M.M. in Leonardtown, MD, asks: As of today, based solely on his accomplishments to date, where would you rank Joe Biden among his peers who held the position of POTUS? And does his rank on January 1, 2025, change based on the outcome of the November election?
(V) & (Z) answer: He's probably in the #12-#16 range, due to his management of COVID and the economy, as well as forward-looking legislation like the CHIPS Act and the money for green technology. Of course, this is very tentative, and the full story—as with any president—will not be clear for decades.
And if Kamala Harris is elected, that cannot but help increase the esteem in which Biden is held. The people who make these judgments, mostly historians and political scientists, are human, too, and Biden yielding power and passing the baton to a younger person, Cincinnatus-style, is a hell of a story.
J.L. in Los Angeles, CA, asks: My friend in Ft. Lauderdale, FL, is a staunch conservative who often tries to defend his party's flaws and flawed candidates with a "both sides are just as bad" argument. Here's an example from this past week:
Biden is a puppet and has been doing what he was told to do. He was a career politician that did absolutely nothing for the majority of his time in politics. I mean, he's said more racist stuff than Trump ever has. He's lied as much as Trump ever has. Every politician is a scumbag. Period. That is what it is. The fact that Trump is not a politician is probably why so many people like him.Assuming that I'd prefer to at least attempt to have an adult conversation with this fellow, what should I say to him? Or am I just tilting at a windmill?
(V) & (Z) answer: Sorry, but you are tilting at a windmill.
To start, your friend is Gish Galluping. He's throwing out all kinds of "arguments" that largely aren't arguments at all, since they cannot be proven or disproven. For example, the notion that Joe Biden has said more racist stuff than Donald Trump? That's ridiculous, since Trump is the master of racist dog whistles and bullhorns. But there's no way to quantify "amount of racist stuff said," especially since so much of it is subjective.
Beyond that, even when there IS evidence, your friend clearly doesn't care. There is simply no factual basis whatsoever for claiming that Biden lies (or has lied) more than Trump. It doesn't even make sense; lying is a core element of Trump's style. It's like saying Richard Nixon told more jokes than Ronald Reagan. It's just not true, and could not possibly be true, because Nixon had no real sense of humor while Reagan was a master joke teller. That said, we don't have a "joke counter" for Nixon or Reagan, while we definitely have lie trackers for Trump.
Finally, your friend's arguments are internally inconsistent. For example, he says every politician is a scumbag, but Trump is good because he's not a politician. Well, we've got news for your friend. Maybe Trump wasn't a politician when he came down that escalator in 2015. But at some point in the 9 years since, and closer to 2015 than 2024, he became one.
J.M. in Silver Spring, MD, asks: I noticed today that, in general, you use a lower-case "p" when you write "president." Growing up, I was taught that you always capitalized the "p" in "President" when speaking of the President of the United States. Why do you use lower-case?
(V) & (Z) answer: While we are certainly not error-free in this regard, we follow AP style, which is to capitalize when using the full name of the office, or when using the short name in place of a person's name, or when using the short name as a title, but not when using the short name generically. So, for example, "President Joe Biden is the current President of the United States. The President will no longer be president as of January 20, 2025, however."
We use this same convention for other office holders. For example, we might write "The Speaker said he will not bring the bill to the floor" but we might also write "If the Democrats retake the House, then House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) will be the new speaker."
S.E.Z. in New Haven, CT, asks: According to Wikipedia, "A Scaramucci (or Mooch) is 11 (sometimes 10) days and is named after the length of White House Communications Director Anthony Scaramucci's tenure under President Trump."
Since you have been known to discuss certain durations using the Scaramucci as a unit of measure, how many days do you consider a Scaramucci to be?(V) & (Z) answer: Well, that's why we have a staff mathematician. We would have asked him how he calculates this, but last night was Friday night and, well, you know.
That said, if we HAD to do the math ourselves, we would just split the difference and use 10.5 days.
Today's Presidential Polls
This is another good group of polls for the Harris campaign. If she was starting in a hole, that would be rough. But if the election is something close to a coin toss, then that is a much better place to be, especially since Trump has proven unable to grow his support. (Z)
| State | Kamala Harris | Donald Trump | Start | End | Pollster |
| Michigan | 46% | 49% | Jul 25 | Jul 26 | SoCal Research |
| Michigan | 49% | 49% | Jul 22 | Jul 24 | Beacon + Shaw for Fox |
| Minnesota | 50% | 40% | Jul 23 | Jul 25 | SurveyUSA |
| Minnesota | 52% | 46% | Jul 22 | Jul 24 | Beacon + Shaw for Fox |
| Pennsylvania | 49% | 49% | Jul 22 | Jul 24 | Beacon + Shaw for Fox |
| Washington | 52% | 38% | Jul 24 | Jul 25 | PPP |
| Wisconsin | 49% | 50% | Jul 22 | Jul 24 | Beacon + Shaw for Fox |
Click on a state name for a graph of its polling history.
Previous | Next
Main page for smartphones
Main page for tablets and computers