Previous | Next
Saturday Q&A
Reader M.A. in Knoxville, TN points out something that we should have figured out for ourselves long ago, namely that sometimes readers would like to be able to send out a link to the "Reader Question of the Week" answers. So, as you can see, we've converted that into its own section with its own headline. That headline is a link to the item. If you want a link to last week's bumper stickers, here you go.
Current Events
K.S. in Jefferson City, MO, asks: We have heard how business communication can be more effective with visuals, and we saw how devastating visuals were in the 1/6 hearings. So, why do presidents rarely use charts, visuals or video to help make their point in speeches such as the State of the Union Address? Prop people in the gallery do not seem as moving or memorable, in general, than, say, rioters storming the Capitol or the devastation in Ukraine or Gaza.
(V) & (Z) answer: We would say there are two reasons. The first is that American culture values tradition, to the point of fetishizing it, and the first president that showed up to the SOTU with a Powerpoint would be mocked roundly. "Who does he think he is? Prof. Biden of D.C. Community College? Al Gore trying to save the planet? Joe Salesman trying to move some aluminum siding?"
The second problem is that it visuals add an extra layer of difficulty to the process, and nailing the SOTU is already hard enough. It takes some practice to be able to do it well, and for most of the period in which visual aids would have been a real possibility, the presidency has been occupied by people from a generation that tends not to see the point of visuals. (Z) knows plenty of Baby Boomer professors who simply will not add slides to their lectures, even if it dramatically improves communication with the current generation of students.
M.M. in San Diego, CA, asks: Does Joe Biden wear dentures? Listening to him during the SOTU, especially when he was speaking rapidly, he slurred slightly and I'm wondering if he has ill-fitting dentures that slip a bit. Remember having to learn how to enunciate clearly when you first got dental braces and again once you got a retainer? Perhaps that's similar to what's going on occasionally.
(V) & (Z) answer: He does not seem, to us, to have dentures. However, he certainly has veneers, and he probably has a few dental implants. And dental implants can create the same effect; (Z) knows because he has several implants due to a baseball injury many years ago.
D.N. in Hyattsville, MD, asks: In your "Takeaways" section for the item on Joe Biden's SOTU address, I was surprised that you didn't include responses from right-wing sites as you've usually done for previous newsworthy events. Was there a reason for this? On one hand, sites like Fox make me feel like I'm being inundated by a flood of something nasty—but on the other, I'd be interested in your perspective on how the right wing is responding and what significance it might have (if any) for the campaign.
(V) & (Z) answer: We couldn't find any. Fox and other right-wing sites tend only to do takeaways pieces for things where at least one conservative is involved, like debates and Republican SOTUs.
D.B. in San Diego, CA, asks: I get that the minority party needs to say something, rather than letting the President have the full spotlight for the SOTU, but I'm also struggling to remember any responses from either party that were meaningful or impactful. Could you share any thoughts you have on why the response is necessary? And maybe offer some advice to the minority party on who should present it and what they should say?
(V) & (Z) answer: The response is not necessary, of course, but now that it's an established tradition, there is no way that either party is going to willingly yield a chance to reach millions of voters for free. Such opportunities don't come along very much, especially since people don't pay as much attention to the conventions as they once did.
If either party were to come to us, and ask for advice, we would say two things. First, the response to the SOTU used to be given by party leaders—the Senate leader, the House leader, or both. We tend to think that's more useful than sending some rookie up there in hopes of creating a new superstar. Presumably they are thinking of Barack Obama, whose national debut took him from little-known Illinois state legislator to one of the three or four most popular Democrats in the country in the span of 10 minutes. However, he was an unusually gifted (and extremely experienced) public speaker. On top of that, that speech wasn't a response to the SOTU, it was the DNC keynote.
Our other piece of advice, and this is something every teacher knows, is that if you have 10-20 minutes, you can cover one point well, or multiple points badly. These responses, including the one from Sen. Katie Britt (R-AL) last night, seem to be designed to respond to the ENTIRE hour-long address in just minutes. Can't be done, at least not well. Far better, in our view, to say: "We'd like to talk to you tonight about [ISSUE X]. The President just said he wants to do [THING Y] and we dislike that because of [PROBLEM Z]. If you elect us, we will focus on doing [THING A], which makes more sense because of [REASON B].
D.E. in Lancaster, PA, asks: Since the whens, hows and wherefores of the State of the Union are not precisely defined in the Constitution and since the framers of said document were not particularly fond of political factions or parties, then what the hell is the Response to the State of the Union? How did it come about, why did it come to being, and is there a good reason for it to continue? If I was the leader of the Republican Party, I would take a long hard look at how many times it has blown up in their faces and refuse to participate any further. The many failed GOP Responses have brought about the end of the presidential aspirations of Bobby Jindal, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) and Bob McDonnell, just to name a few. Katie Britt is just the latest victim. I'll be sure to send her my thoughts and prayers, plus a useful link to The Art of Public Speaking: The Original Tool for Improving Public Oration by Dale Carnegie.
Also, maybe I'm having a "Trump" moment but I seem to remember that the State of the Union Address were usually on Tuesday nights, mainly because the pundits dissected it all week long. Am I misremembering? I know that SOTU isn't required to be any particular date, but since the House has to invite the President to give his remarks, could the ever-belligerent GOP have picked a Thursday, so there is less time for the pundits to possibly praise Biden's speech, because the pundits will be off pursuing something else at the beginning of the week? I would assume the GOP wanted to go for the Black Hole of Friday night, but that conflicted with certain members of their Caucus plans to get teenage girls drunk for a weekly... activities (per Madison Cawthorn). Or is there some other logical reason behind Thursday being picked?(V) & (Z) answer: The response to the SOTU started in the late 1960s, during the Johnson administration, at the height of the Vietnam War. However, its format evolved dramatically, as the opposition experimented with various approaches, including a group response (10-15 members of Congress), a Q&A session, a press conference, and an interview on the evening news. For the first couple of decades, the response was not immediate, and was delivered between a day and a week after the SOTU. The current format, involving 1-2 people responding immediately, was established during Ronald Reagan's second term.
As to the Thursday slot, which is indeed semi-unusual, only Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) knows for sure why he chose it, and he's not telling. It could have been to limit commentary on Biden's speech (although that would only be partly successful, as it's going to be the main and probably only topic of discussion on the Sunday news shows). It might also be because Thursday night is usually the highest-rated night for scripted television (and so fewer people might be willing to tune in to the speech).
On the other hand, it could be an entirely reasonable decision. Johnson might have noted, for example, that his chamber was likely to be busy, earlier in the week, with the budget (which it was).
R.M. in Pensacola, FL, asks: With another State of the Union and the response in the books, why would anyone want to do the response?
At best, nothing noteworthy happens and within 12 hours, everyone has forgotten what you said (or even noticed a response was given in the first place). At worst, you give a speech that is so bad that the only thing people know you for is how thirsty you are, or...whatever that was on Thursday night.
Politicians have to know at this point that there is no upside at all, and only downside. So why do it?(V) & (Z) answer: Even with a lousy speech, there are ten times as many voters who know Katie Britt today than knew her a week ago. And while her delivery was terrible, the voters who matter to her might well have looked past that and liked what she had to say. A candidate who actually nails it, like Gov. Gretchen Whitmer (D-MI) did in 2020, can derive the benefits without the downside.
It is worth noting that quite a few SOTU respondents went on to big things later. Four future VPs participated in at least one SOTU response: Gerald R. Ford, George H.W. Bush, Al Gore and Joe Biden. And seven future presidential nominees did, too, with four of those actually ending up in the big job: Ford, Bush, Bill Clinton, Biden, Michael Dukakis, Gore and Bob Dole.
O.Z.H. in Dubai, UAE, asks: I don't usually find it useful to follow up on my questions that you have answered, but your response to my question last week made me think that perhaps you had misunderstood what I was asking. I was not asking only about the U.N. vetoes. I agree that the vast majority of Americans pay no attention thereto. But for those progressives and Arab-Americans who are very much following the conflict in Gaza, those vetoes sort of crystallize exactly what the Biden Admin's policy is, do they not? And while in your Super Tuesday item you mentioned the uncommitted votes in Minnesota, that wasn't the only state that had significant Democratic primary voters voting "uncommitted".
You say that the Biden administration is well aware of this problem. I have no doubt that they are. But what exactly are they going to do about it? Is it just to hope that people will realize that Trump will be way worse? I truly hope that people will realize that, but where I live, people think Biden is simply the devil—and I am unsure Arab-Americans will be able to think with their heads rather than their hearts.(V) & (Z) answer: We have written a LOT about the situation in Israel. We literally had a TEN-PART series in October and November in which we integrated our thoughts and reader comments. In the 150 or so days since the Hamas attack, we've had more than 50 items that at least mentioned the subject of Israel/Gaza/the Palestinians. It has also been a regular part of both the Q&A and the mailbag.
Beyond that, we really don't know or understand what you expect. Yes, the voters in Michigan and Minnesota are a problem for Democrats, but what do you want us to say beyond that? Similarly, we cannot know what the Biden administration will do, exactly, because we are not invited to the planning meetings. However, we have consistently said the President will slowly triangulate, such that he's much more pro-Palestinian, while increasingly holding Israel (or, at least, Bibi Netanyahu) at arm's length. And we think our assessment here has been sustained. Biden is pushing a cease-fire hard, he just announced the construction of a pier to facilitate the flow of humanitarian supplies, he expressed deep sympathy for the Palestinian people in the SOTU, and he openly called for a two-state solution as well. These are all things that the pro-Palestinian folks have been loudly demanding, and they got all of them in just a manner of months. That is very rapid; politics is not about instant gratification, despite people's expectations to the contrary.
F.F. in London, England, UK, asks: In your write up on the Minnesota result, you acknowledge Biden's uncommitted voter problem but go on to say he knows it, he's on it, and Trump would be worse. Do you not think you are under estimating the signal, or at least under-discussing it vs the space given to his over performance vs polls etc.
I'd like to hear what you think about the implications. People that show up to say uncommitted may be the over-water part of a much larger iceberg. I'd love to hear you discuss how big the submerged part of that iceberg is. Is it likely to be outcome determinative? If so, who does this empower? Does Benjamin Netanyahu now have leverage over Biden because he would have to be on-board with any solution?(V) & (Z) answer: First, while there is a problem here, let's not overstate it. The voters that are rebelling against Biden are a relatively tiny fraction of the electorate. And while they could be decisive in a couple of swing states, "could be" is very different from "likely to be" or "are certain to be." It also remains the case that Donald Trump's support in both Michigan and Minnesota was weaker with his party than Biden's was with his.
We are not entirely sure what you mean by "an iceberg," and we see no evidence that would speak to such a phenomenon. A fair number of people went to the polls in Michigan and Minnesota to fire a warning shot across Biden's bow. A rather larger number of people went to the polls to show their support. And some number went to the polls and said "Biden doesn't need my vote; I will vote Haley." There is simply no reason to believe that some huge, previously unknown anti-Biden vote exists out there. It could, but there's no meaningful evidence for it.
And finally, the predictions you ask for involve information that is unknowable. In fact, there are two things that are unknowable. The first is how the situation in Gaza will evolve in the next 6 months. It could well develop in a way that works to the benefit of Biden, or in a way that works to the benefit of Donald Trump. Either is certainly possible, although note that only one of the two presidential candidates is in a position to directly influence events in the region.
Beyond that, there is no way to know what the anti-Biden voters will do in November, and there is no way that anyone CAN know. Even if you fed them all truth serum, they themselves don't really know. At the moment, voters have the luxury of being able to make a statement without it having any real impact. It will not be until November that they actually have to make a choice with real consequences. And American political history has taught us that the number of people who say they are going to cast a protest vote in November is always considerably larger than the number of people who actually do it.
T.B. in Detroit, MI, asks: I'm not a lawyer and I'm still working through the rationale behind Trump v. Thompson, but it seems to largely center on the idea that a state can't remove somebody from a presidential ballot. But if a state can't do it, who can? Could Barack Obama run for president now? Or, for that matter, Greta Thunberg? Ruth Bader-Ginsburg? The possibilities are limitless.
(V) & (Z) answer: We do not love to be in the position of making sense of the Roberts Court's jurisprudence, but this seems like something that they would be able to answer pretty easily, if it came to that. Whether a person already served two terms, or is not a U.S. citizen, or is dead is an entirely objective determination. Whether someone engaged in insurrection to the level that it's disqualifying is at least partly subjective.
S.K. in Atlanta, GA, asks: Does the ruling by SCOTUS requiring an act of Congress to declare an individual ineligible to be President due to committing insurrection directly run up against the other Constitutional prohibition on bills of attainder?
(V) & (Z) answer: Maaaybe? It certainly seems that way, and we've had quite a few readers with superior legal expertise to our own write in to make this point. Here, for example, is reader W.B. in Denver, CO:
Banning a person from all employment requiring an oath of office, if undertaken directly by Congress, would be an unconstitutional bill of attainder. Legislative bans on named persons working in broad categories of employment have fallen afoul of that provision more than once. And there is no reason to think Congress passing a law to give it authority to pass a bill of attainder under color of Section 3 would provide any real insulation from finding such nonsense unconstitutional. Starting a constitutional crisis is certainly within the Republican wheelhouse these days. But starting one that is dead certain to make you look like a fool several times over... well, come to think of it, there is that Alejandro Mayorkas thing. But Republicans think they understand phony impeachments. Figuring out phony Section 3 proceedings would likely give them a splitting headache.The only reason we hesitate to say "yes" is that the Supremes must have had some conception of what a legal exercise of the Insurrection Clause looks like. Right? We hope? And so, perhaps they are saying that in this case, a finding of "insurrectionist" would not be an unconstitutional bill of attainder. They might even argue that the Fourteenth Amendment, coming later than Article I of the Constitution, implicitly superseded the Attainders Clause.
This is the problem with such a lousy, poorly written ruling: Any interpretation runs up against nearly insurmountable legal and logical problems.
D.E. in Ashburn, VA, asks: You write that Judge Scott McAfee is thought to be "a stickler for professional decorum," and therefore the appearance of impropriety might be enough for him to remove Fulton County DA Fani Willis from the Trump case. Seems to me a much more damning situation would be if he strongly suspects that Willis and Nathan Wade lied under oath about when their relationship began. Couldn't such a suspicion on his part justify his removing Willis from the case even if perjury is not proven?
(V) & (Z) answer: Possibly, but in our—again, non-lawyer—opinion, probably not. McAfee is going to have to write something that explains the basis for whatever decision he makes. And if he is going to remove Willis on the basis of, in effect, perjury, he either has to say she perjured herself or she didn't. He can't really say "I'm kicking her to the curb because I kinda think she might be lying." That's a supposition. On the other hand, he CAN say "I'm kicking her to curb because I find her conduct to have undermined professional decorum and the integrity of the process." That's a finding.
By the way, (Z) gets to deal with a version of this problem on a regular basis. When grading a student essay, you have to explain the grade you gave. And if you suspect dishonesty, and you're going to ding the grade, you have to be able to prove it. You cannot say: "D+/68. I think you probably plagiarized, and I am going to give you a poor grade based on that suspicion."
R.P. in Northfield, IL, asks: Why isn't the generous severance package given to Alan Weisselberg by the Trump Organization seen as a crime in itself—attempting to influence a witness?
(V) & (Z) answer: Along the same lines as the previous answer, it's not enough to suspect or to "just know" that something shady happened. It has to be provable in a court of law. That would likely require some sort of smoking gun, like a recording of Donald Trump telling Eric Trump to pay Weisselberg an extra $500,000 to keep him quiet.
Alternatively, AG Letitia James could try to show that Weisselberg's severance payment is WAY out of line compared to similar employees with similar levels of service. But that's a tough sell, especially since the Trump Organization is an unusual business, and since Weisselberg worked for them a long time, and was something of an honorary family member.
D.H. in Boulder, CO, asks: Chubb is a public company with $225 billion in assets (per their website) that is required to maximize profit for its shareholders, and Federal Insurance Company is a member. While the $91.6 million bond they underwrote for TFG is a drop in the bucket for them, it is still a real money risk. Based on a statement they have made, they provide appeal bonds as a normal part of their business operations, although I could find no mention of this on their website. I assume their exposure in the event the award is upheld is the full amount of the bond, less whatever cash TFG puts in, plus whatever value they can extract from any collateral that is pledged.
My question is: Why the heck would they do this? I have no insight into the terms, but I can't imagine TFG was able or willing to put much in the way of capital or first position assets into this, given that there is a much larger settlement following he needs to prepare for. Thoughts?(V) & (Z) answer: First, there is little that is publicly known about the bond, and that may remain the case for a very long time. Don't assume, however, that he and Chubb are not already working on the other amount that needs to be bonded. In fact, they may already have an agreement in place.
As to Chubb's motivations, we can think of two possibilities, and it could be either or both. The first is that Trump is in a bad way right now, given his exposure and his in-the-toilet reputation. Chubb may well have gotten very favorable terms, like a very high interest rate, or collateral whose value far outweighs that of the bond, or both. The second is that Chubb is gambling that Trump will be reelected in 2024, and sees much benefit in having a president who is deeply in their debt.
J.S. in Chevy Chase, MD, asks: This article says that Steve Garvey came in first in the race to fill out the remainder of the late Senator Dianne Feinstein's (D-CA) term. Is that true? If it were, I would think it would be a big story, but I haven't seen it anywhere else, including on your site. Clicking a link within the story takes you to the California Elections website, which does show Garvey ahead in this race. Is the explanation that Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) is expected to win once all the ballots (including absentee ballots) are counted?
(V) & (Z) answer: First of all, the article you included is just... terrible. There's a very good chance we'll write a scathing review of it (and a few other pieces) sometime this week. We've been pondering it for several days (before we got your question), and are just deciding if "Here's another example of terrible analysis/terrible polling" pieces are getting tiresome.
That said, Alexander Sammon is correct that Garvey came out slightly ahead of Schiff in the special election to finish Feinstein's term (and slightly behind Schiff in election for the full term that will commence in January 2025). We don't really know why some people voted for Garvey in the special election, but not for him in the regular election, but some people clearly did, because he's up to 1,741,167 votes in the former, but only 1,623,863 in the latter. It's probably because the regular election had far more protest candidates than the special election did, with 26 candidates in the former and only 7 in the latter. Presumably, a lot of the protest vote migrated to Garvey once there were no Libertarians or independents to vote for.
The reason that this is not big news is that neither election was determinative. In November, California voters will choose between Schiff and Garvey for the regular term, and they will also choose between Schiff and Garvey for the balance of Feinstein's term. The winner of the latter election will have to wait until the ballots are all counted and the results have been certified, then they'll get a certificate of election from California Secretary of State Shirley Weber, then they'll head to Washington to serve a roughly 6-week term with Sen. LaPhonza Butler (D-CA) returning to civilian life. Then the winner of the former election will be sworn in on Jan. 3, 2025, to serve a term in their own right. And in both cases, it is going to be Schiff, since the Democratic vote will unite behind him, allowing him to twice leave Garvey in the dust.
M.B. in Menlo Park, CA, asks: You've commented that having Adam Schiff run against Steve Garvey for Senate avoids a messy Schiff vs. Rep. Katie Porter (D-CA) runoff, and allows Schiff to coast to victory in November. However, with Garvey on the ballot, will more Republicans turn out to vote in the half-dozen or so swing House races, and possibly cost Democrats control of the House? Republicans might not have bothered voting if it was Schiff vs. Porter (and since California's electoral votes are a lock for Biden), but perhaps they will show up vote for Garvey, along with down-ballot Republicans.
(V) & (Z) answer: We are very doubtful that having Garvey on the ticket will matter in any meaningful way. California Republicans are not fooling themselves that he can win, any more than North Dakota Democrats are fooling themselves that Katrina Christiansen can win. If GOP voters show up big-time for various House elections, it's because they believe those House candidates can win, not because they're there to vote for Garvey.
G.M. in Laurence Harbor, NJ, asks: It's been a long time since I was in the military. In that position I had to, occasionally, assist JAG officers in mounting a defense, so I became very familiar Uniform Code of Military Justice—or, as I felt sometimes, the Non-Uniform Code of Military Injustice. So it goes.
Your item about Rep. Ronny Jackson (R-TX), which mentions he was demoted from rear admiral to captain, raised a question in my mind. Even 54 years ago while I was still in the service; retiring officers had the luxury of getting a boost in their rank upon retirement. So can it be said that Jackson not only was reduced one rank upon retirement; he did not get the traditional promotion many officers received. So, in effect, he was booted down two ranks, right?(V) & (Z) answer: That's not too far off. Bumping a flag officer (or even a non-flag officer) up a rank on the retired list is a pretty common reward for a successful career, but it's not automatic. And it certainly wasn't going to happen with Jackson, who was already in some hot water when he retired (this is part of the reason he jumped ship on the Navy; no pun intended).
Even if Jackson had been granted a retirement promotion, our guess is he would have been dropped two ranks in 2022. Otherwise, he would have been demoted from rear admiral to... rear admiral. Since relatively few people outside of the military are familiar with the distinction between rear admiral (upper half) and rear admiral (lower half), a demotion from the former to the latter isn't all that much a punishment for someone who has returned to civilian life, since they can still call themselves "rear admiral."
Politics
W.C. in Victoria, BC, Canada, asks: Jake Sullivan seems to have a big role in the Middle East conflict negotiations. What is his formal role and how is he perceived on both sides of the aisle?
(V) & (Z) answer: Sullivan is the National Security Adviser, which makes him the second most important presidential appointee when it comes to managing U.S. foreign affairs, behind only the Secretary of State. Indeed, the two jobs are close enough in stature and in function that there have been times when the same person occupied both posts (e.g., Henry Kissinger).
Sullivan has the sort of résumé that should make anyone jealous. He has two degrees from Yale (J.D. and B.A.) and he is also a Rhodes Scholar with an M.Phil. from Oxford. He was a close adviser to Hillary Clinton, and a member of the Obama administration, including a lengthy stint as senior foreign policy adviser to then-VP Joe Biden. In generations past, this would have made him a figure of respect and esteem on both sides of the political aisle. In 2024, well, everything we have written here means that Republicans hate him. They just don't rally against him very much because there are many targets that enrage the base more.
J.S. in Cambridge, MA, asks: This 25-minute podcast by Ezra Klein makes the strongest case I've heard for a brokered convention, contingent, of course, on the (unlikely) event Joe Biden decides that, if his popularity continues to sink, that it is hopeless and it would be better not to pull an "RBG." I've heard this brokered option airily dismissed but I would very much like your more thoughtful take on Klein's case.
(V) & (Z) answer: Since you asked, we will tell you we do not think very much of Klein's case. To start with, it has a general aura of intellectual dishonesty. In fact, what we were reminded of was the O.J. Simpson trial, where a bunch of seemingly relevant/compelling pieces of information were presented by the defense, while rather giant holes in the argument were (successfully) ignored/waved away.
We'll give an example of something from Klein that did not sit right:
Biden has done fewer interviews than any recent president, and it's not close. By this point in their presidencies, Barack Obama had given more than 400 interviews and Trump had given more than 300. Biden has given fewer than 100. And a bunch of them are softball interviews—he'll go on Conan O'Brien's podcast, or Jay Shetty's mindfulness podcast. The Biden team says this is a strategy, that they need apolitical voters, the ones who are not listening to political media. But one, this strategy isn't working—Biden is down, not up. And two, no one really buys this argument. I don't buy this argument. This isn't a strategy chosen from a full universe of options. This is a strategic adaptation to Biden's perceived limits as a candidate. And what's worse, it may be a wise one.This is an incredibly problematic comparison. Obama did scads of interviews (including plenty of softballs, like going on Marc Maron's podcast, or Zach Galifianakis' Between Two Ferns) because that was a big part of his strategy for selling Obamacare. Trump did scads of interviews because he was on Fox all the time selling Trumpism and/or airing grievances. Sure, one reason Joe Biden does fewer interviews is that they don't play to his strengths (same reason George W. Bush didn't do many). Instead, the President sells his policies through backroom dealmaking, as befits a guy who has been in politics in 50 years. These differences are much more about style and about particular approaches to politics based on the person's strong suits than they are about anything else.
Even worse, however, is this mind-boggling bit from Klein about a potential brokered convention: "Could it go badly? Sure. But that doesn't mean it will go badly." It is amazing to us that someone could make such an argument with a straight face: "Let's blow the whole thing up, because while that MIGHT be disastrous, that does not mean it WILL be disastrous."
In fact, it is a near-certainty that a brokered convention would turn into a train wreck of epic proportions. If the Democrats were suddenly to give hope to supporters of Gov. Gavin Newsom (D-CA), Gretchen Whitmer, Kamala Harris, Pete Buttigieg, Sen. Raphael Warnock (D-GA), Gov. Jared Polis (D-CO) and a whole bunch of others, and then turn around and yank the rug out from under them, is it really plausible that all wounds would be healed and all differences would be forgotten by the time of the election? Maybe 100 years ago, when people were used to brokered conventions, but not in the 21st century. Remember Bernie vs. Hillary? Well, replicate that, except with 5 to 10 bitterly disappointed factions rather than one. Oh, and instead of the suspicion that a few thousand party insiders were responsible for the result, it would literally be true that a few thousand party insiders would be responsible for the result.
It is also the case that while Biden's approval ratings are low, the (admittedly limited) available polling simply does not support the conclusion that some other candidate would outperform him at the polls. In fact, the obvious alternatives almost invariably have LESS support than he does (at best, they are neck-and-neck with him). And while Biden has been under the microscope for decades, an alternative candidate will not have been tempered in that way. Can Democrats be certain that Newsom, or Polis or Warnock or Whitmer doesn't have some skeleton in their closets that will jump out just in time to ruin every Democrat's Halloween? And even if you assume that, by virtue of their high offices, they've already been vetted, there are plenty of people who wilted once they tried to step onto the presidential stage. Ask Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-FL), or Marco Rubio, or Michael Bloomberg, or Jeb! about what it's like when the spotlight gets ten times brighter.
Our disdain here reflects the fact that we feel Klein is being kind of selfish. He doesn't want Biden as the candidate, and so he engages in fantasies where that might not happen. And if that's what he wants to do in the shower, or on the subway, or at the gym, then no problem. But to share his views with a broad audience, and to get the hopes up of people who think like him? We think it's a jerk move.
The bottom line is this: Barring a health crisis, it's going to be Joe Biden vs. Donald Trump. Full stop. Anything else is just empty BS. The system works the way it works, and there is zero precedent for a candidate having their party's presidential nomination in hand and saying "Nah, I don't want it."
K.C. in West Islip, NY, asks: Now that the North Carolinians have given the GOP nomination for governor to a completely-out-of-his-mind, beyond-MAGAt lunatic, do you think there's any value in throwing some money in there so President Biden could potentially ride Josh Stein's coattails to North Carolina's electoral votes?
(V) & (Z) answer: First, let us note that when we listed the strikes against Lt. Gov. Mark Robinson (R-NC), we noted that he is "nutty, sexist, racist." We should also have included "antisemitic," as he's said a few things that could have come out of Mein Kampf. We regret the oversight.
Second, giving money to the Biden campaign or the Stein campaign probably wouldn't have the desired effect, but there's a pretty good argument for sending some funds to Common Cause North Carolina, which works on voter registration and get-out-the-vote operations.
M.A. in Knoxville, TN, asks: Do you think that Donald Trump's plans to run a dark campaign, probably the darkest ever run in the U.S., could backfire on him? His base eats that stuff up, but most people find constant negativity to be a real turn off and exhausting. This likely applies especially to suburban women whose votes is coveted and could decide the election.
I know that I personally got sick of his negative spiel long before he finished the first year of his presidency. (And I still feel like throwing up when I remembered he actually was president.) I refuse to watch any video of him, listen to any audio and often skim through quotes, because I just can't stand the negativity. If I recall correctly, even Adolf Hitler wasn't negative all the time, but Trump sure seems to be.
So, so you think his doubling and tripling down on the negativity possibly lose him otherwise gettable votes?(V) & (Z) answer: That is very possible. Demagoguery has, and has always had, a limited shelf life. Eventually some people tire of it, while the remaining believers begin turning against one another. We cannot say that Trump WILL reach that inflection point in year 9 of his political career, but he certainly COULD, especially since this is an election year and since he's getting more and more unhinged by the day.
J.F. in Ft. Worth, TX, asks: Quite a few of us (including V & Z, if I remember correctly) were wrong about Donald Trump successfully running in 2024 after his loss in 2020. What do you think would change if he lost again in 2024 to prevent him from running and being the nominee in 2028?
(V) & (Z) answer: Well, he could die, or become so physically/mentally infirm that another run is not possible. He could be in prison, or the GOP could decide that a guy who lost two elections in a row (and three popular votes in a row) needs to go.
All of this said, we are never again going to predict his exit from the political stage until it's a done deal. Until future notice, we assume he will run again in 2028, 2032, 2036, 2040...
M.J.F. in Lindenwold, NJ, asks: You wrote: "If [Sonia] Sotomayor should die between Jan. 3, 2025, and Jan. 3, 2029, the chances of her seat being filled by a Democratic appointee are probably below 50%." Does this mean that you are expecting Joe Biden's chance of winning re-election is "probably below 50%"?
(V) & (Z) answer: No, it means we think there is a better than 50% chance that either Donald Trump will win the election OR the Senate will end up under Republican control and they will refuse to approve a replacement.
D.R. in Phoenix, AZ, asks: I am eagerly anticipating seeing some of the anti-Trump ads that, in my view, write themselves (so much material). I know campaigns don't want to use their best stuff too early, but now that Super Tuesday is here and the starting gun for the general election has sounded, when can I expect to see some savaging of Herr Drumpf on the TV machine or the interwebs? I can't wait.
(V) & (Z) answer: Today? The Biden campaign, looking to capitalize on the SOTU momentum, is beginning a 6-week, $30 million ad blitz this afternoon. The spots have not been posted to any of the campaign's social media accounts yet, nor to the campaign website, but one of them reportedly juxtaposes Trump against pictures of the KKK (the 1920s KKK, which often marched around with "America First" signs).
P.M. in Oakland, CA, asks: My question is simple. Dan Osborn? Contender or magical thinking?
(V) & (Z) answer: For now, we have to say "contender." Nebraska is pretty populist, like many states in that part of the country, and is open to electing non-Republicans to statewide office on occasion. They sent a Democrat to the U.S. Senate as recently as 2006 (Ben Nelson); we're not talking true one-party states like Oklahoma or California.
If the Democrats, who are not running a candidate, join with the state's independent voters, then Sen. Deb Fischer (R-NE) could indeed be in some trouble. There's only been one poll of the race so far, but it has Osborn up 2 points, 40%-38%, with 22% undecided. Since those 22% undoubtedly know Fischer, it suggests they are willing to take a look at Osborn's wares, to see if they like what he's selling.
Civics
K.E. in Newport, RI, asks: Polling has become much more difficult over the past decade for several reasons, the largest being people being unwilling to answer unknown phone callers. The reason why most people do not want to answer calls from unknown or anonymous callers is due to a huge volume of robocalls. Robocalls are heavily associated with scams.
Between 2018 and 2022, one group of only 13 individuals made 8 BILLION robocalls in the US about false auto warranties. This was a phishing attempt to get people to call back and provide their credit card numbers to extend non-existent warranties.
Why hasn't the U.S. simply banned robocalls outright? It's not a violation of the First Amendment to say a real person must be on the line if you want to call a phone. It's simply to prevent automated calling that is ripe for abuse.(V) & (Z) answer: Because there are plenty of legitimate uses for robocalls, like your doctor's office calling to remind you that you have an appointment, or the electric company calling to remind you to pay your bill if you want the electricity to stay on. And it's not too easy to write a law that draws a clear line between the good ones and the bad ones, especially given that this does raise First Amendment issues.
B.R.D. in Columbus, OH, asks: I haven't heard anyone address this question, though I am finding it harder and harder to keep up with everything these days, so I may have missed it. I understand that Nikki Haley has suspended her campaign. But does her name appear on any/all future Republican primary ballots? I am not sure how that works within a campaign: Do you try to get on as many ballots as possible early on? I know you have to invest time, and I realize you have to meet different state deadlines. But would she have had her campaign make that time and effort investment early? I am curious because it occurs to me that some Republican voters might vote for her even after she has suspended her campaign.
(V) & (Z) answer: The deadlines to get on the ballot are often in January or February (or sometimes even earlier), so campaigns have to jump through whatever hoops that are necessary long before the first primaries/caucuses. So, you're going to see votes for a lot of zombie candidates for the next couple of months, particularly those whose campaigns were well-heeled (Ron DeSantis, Haley).
T.B. in Wiscasset, ME, asks: Could the Supreme Court, even in the absence of a request to reconsider, decide to revise its ruling in Trump v. Anderson to clean up the problems you described on March 5th?
(V) & (Z) answer: Nope. Or, at least, there's no established precedent for doing so.
If the Court is going to reconsider a case, they must grant cert to a new case that raises the same issues. In some limited circumstances, they can also agree to accept a petition for a writ of coram nobis (basically, a request to reconsider a case based on new facts), but that's very, very rare even when it's a possibility, and it only vacates the original decision (it does not rewrite it).
R.H.D. in Webster, NY, asks: I have a technical question about the Colorado ballot in the wake of the Supreme Court ruling this past week. Hopefully, you're able answer this.
The Supreme Court ruled that Donald Trump could remain on the Colorado ballot. But I seem to remember, most Coloradans vote by mail, and the ballots who vote on Election Day had to have been printed already.
So had the Supremes ruled that Trump couldn't be on the ballot, would that have meant new ballots had to be printed, and the primary election delayed, or would any Trump votes simply not have been counted?(V) & (Z) answer: The ballots would have stayed the same, and would have been tabulated. However, if Trump was not eligible to be on the ballot, that would mean he was not eligible to be president, and his votes would have been thrown out. It's perfectly legal to vote for a non-legitimate candidate, like Mickey Mouse, but those votes don't count, of course.
This is why the Court had to get its decision out there. They wanted the people voting in Colorado on Election Day, and the people counting the ballots, to know what Trump's status was.
D.S. in Layton, UT, asks: Surely I am not the only person interested in the primary that will determine whether or not Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-CO) gets nominated in her new district. When is it, and why wasn't it held the day of the Presidential primary?
(V) & (Z) answer: It is on June 25. There is a benefit to going early in the presidential process, namely greater influence. And there is a benefit in holding off, namely it gives candidates for state and local office more time to gauge their support and to campaign.
A state can hold both contests on the same day, and save money, but then the state only gets one benefit or the other. Or a state can have both benefits by holding two different primaries, but that costs more money. Colorado has chosen the latter approach.
G.S. in Basingstoke, England, UK, asks: I've been following the site since 2004, but it never occurred to me to ask the following: What exactly is the historical and political origin—and since when has there been—a "Super Tuesday"?
Secondly, since its inception, has the Super Tuesday we've just had been the least politically consequential in the history of the event?(V) & (Z) answer: Super Tuesday was the result of conversations between Southern states in the 1970s, held with an eye toward maximizing their political influence. In many ways, the story of American political history is the story of the South trying to lay claim to more power than their population would otherwise entitle them to.
The first "Super Tuesdays" were in 1984, although there were several of them. The real "proof of concept" came in 1992, when a consortium of Southern states was able to propel Bill Clinton to the Democratic nomination. Since then, most Southern states have voted on the first Tuesday in March, while a handful of non-Southern states have also climbed aboard the bandwagon.
There's no way Super Tuesday could have existed before 1960 or so, because presidents weren't chosen by primaries/caucuses before that. Of the roughly 10 Super Tuesdays there HAVE been, surely this year's was the least consequential. It's not unusual for one party's nomination or the other's to be a done deal by Super Tuesday, but not both parties' nominations. That said, in 2020, Trump was a done deal, and the Democrats consciously rallied around Joe Biden, with a whole bunch of candidates dropping out right before Super Tuesday. So, that one was also somewhat inconsequential, though it was at least a LITTLE more dramatic than this year's.
B.J. in Arlington, MA, asks: I'm writing this on Tuesday morning. By tonight, Trump will be the inevitable Republican nominee. At what point does he start receiving classified briefings? Is the answer to that question set by law or tradition?
Trump owing approximately $500M obviously makes giving him classified information a huge national security risk. Will that factor into what information he receives?(V) & (Z) answer: To start, this determination is made by the sitting president in consultation with the intelligence agencies. There is no legal requirement that presidential candidates be given access. Also, it's not ongoing briefings, it's usually just one or two of them that give the presidential candidate the big picture.
The Biden Administration has reportedly already decided that, for both political and national security reasons, Trump will be given a briefing or two. Needless to say, they will not be sharing with the rest of us what will be covered. But we think it is very likely they will present things in fairly general terms, and will avoid telling him anything specific enough to be useful to America's enemies.
History
A.N. in Los Angeles, CA, asks: You have previously given lists of the best and worst Speakers of the House in history. You have also written about the influence of First Ladies of the United States, such as how Abigail Adams and Dolley Madison served as sounding boards for their husbands. Since today is International Women's Day and this month is Women's History Month, who are your choices for the 5 best and 5 worst First Ladies of the United States in history?
(V) & (Z) answer: The five worst:
And the five best:
- Abigail Fillmore: She knows what she did.
- Edith Wilson: Depending on your perspective, she could be on either list. On one hand, she was doing her best to shield her husband from undue stress after his stroke. On the other hand, she assumed an undue amount of power in a manner that would certainly be illegal today, and was probably illegal back then.
- Jane Pierce: She never wanted to go to Washington, saw her son's death in a train accident en route to the inauguration as divine punishment for her husband's election, and spent Franklin's entire presidency punishing him for all of this. This certainly did not help with his deepening depression and alcoholism.
- Mary Todd Lincoln: It may not have been entirely her fault, but when she gave in to her fits of temper, she distracted and depressed her husband at a time when he had enough of a burden to bear.
- Melania Trump: Her disdain for the job and, by extension, for the American people was crystal clear even before she wore that "I Don't Care. Do U?" jacket.
- Betty Ford and Rosalynn Carter: We're cheating a bit here, because we are mostly including them for their post-political careers. Ford's public admission of alcoholism, willingness to seek treatment, and founding of the Betty Ford clinic, along with Carter's equal partnership with her husband in all of his charitable and activist endeavors, make both women inspirations and role models.
- Michelle Obama: She had no designs on a public career, and hated the vitriol, and in particular the racist vitriol, that she and her family were subjected to on a daily basis. Still, she did her duty and did it well, not only inspiring young women (especially young Black women), but also serving as an invaluable partner to her husband and doing good work on children's nutrition.
- Abigail Adams: She was her husband's most important advisor, and her husband was a towering figure of early American history.
- Jacqueline Kennedy: No First Lady has been more inspiring, or has done more to curate and preserve the White House as a museum and historical institution.
- Eleanor Roosevelt: As impressive as these other first ladies were, Roosevelt leaves them all in the dust. She wasn't much of an "East Wing" first lady, but she was far and away the greatest "West Wing" first lady. She not only served as adviser to her husband, she persuaded him to take concrete actions on behalf of working people and people of color, and later served as a columnist and peace activist, as well as the nation's preeminent elder stateswoman.
OK, we couldn't really come up with five First Ladies worthy of criticism; most of them are somewhere between "OK" and "pretty good." If you really want a fifth one, Florence Harding "henpecked" Warren to an extent that it might be considered emotional abuse if they were alive today. But he was a sleazy philanderer, and probably deserved some henpecking.
J.T. in Philadelphia, PA, asks: When I went to school in the 1950s and 1960s, I recall that the "Great Compromiser" was one of the icons of the early history of the Republic, in that before Abraham Lincoln came along he helped to keep the Union intact. I have the distinct impression that Henry Clay's reputation has fallen somewhat in recent years, as I don't hear his name bandied about very much anymore. In the 90s I had a Black friend, since deceased, who was very dismissive of Clay, because he thought Clay's compromises helped to prolong the institution of slavery.
So I'm wondering what the resident historian thinks of Clay and how he would assess the man and his legacy.(V) & (Z) answer: Clay was a slaveholder, of course, and that's certainly part of his descent from the pantheon of American heroes. That said, he was a brilliant political mind, one of the finest the U.S. has ever produced. And, by all indications, he was a man of integrity.
As to your friend, we're not so sure what Clay could have done differently under the circumstances. If he hadn't negotiated the Missouri Compromise, then the South would probably have seceded right then, and at a time when the North was not in a position to do anything but sit back and watch. It wasn't until the North became an industrial power in the 1850s that it could reasonably hope to impose its will on the South.
E.G.-C. in Syracuse, NY, asks: I was wondering if I could trouble you with suggestions for scholarly books about the Mexican-American War?
(V) & (Z) answer: If you want a good general overview, particularly one that finds some room for women in the discussion, then take a look at A Wicked War: Polk, Clay, Lincoln, and the 1846 U.S. Invasion of Mexico (2012) by Amy S. Greenberg, who is Professor of History and Women's Studies at Penn State. If you want a book that reflects the very latest trends in scholarship, then get The Dead March: A History of the Mexican-American War (2020) by Peter Guardino, who is Professor of History at Indiana University. The hot thing right now is "borderlands" studies, in which evidence from both sides of a "border" are synthesized into a cohesive analysis. In this case, obviously, Guardino builds his account by consulting both Mexican and American sources.
R.C. in Des Moines, IA, asks: How strong was the support in the North after the Civil War for the very punitive measure of permanently revoking statehood on the South?
(V) & (Z) answer: What you are referring to is the state suicide theory, which was Sen. Charles Sumner's (R-MA) notion that the Southern states had forfeited their statehood, and reverted to territorial status, thus entitling the federal government to take a heavy hand in imposing new laws upon them.
Sumner's theory was too radical, even for most of the radicals, and so he dropped it. And even he did not envision the Southern states' territorial status being permanent.
Gallimaufry
M.R. in New Brighton, MN , asks: Kudos to L.N. in Springfield and B.B. in Newtown for complaining about your use of the word "ratfu**er". Every morning for at least the last 10 years I have sat down with a cup of coffee to read your blog. I enjoy your civil, reasoned and intelligent commentary on politics. But then, a few months ago, you started using this word: "ratfu**er." Do you use profanity in your lectures? Or with your colleagues? Do your students use profanity when speaking with you? I would like to think that you and your students have enough respect for each other that you do not. Why do you use profanity with us, your loyal readers? Why don't you have the same respect for us?
What brought about this editorial change? What transgression was so egregious that it warrants profanity as a response? As I understand it, by your definition of this word, when somebody switches parties in a primary election, then they are guilty. For example, suppose a voter who despises Trump has every intention of voting for Biden in November, but that voter is worried that Biden will lose. The voter would prefer anyone other than Trump, and so the voter asks for the Republican ballot in an open primary and votes for Nikki Haley. You would call that voter a "ratfu**er." I don't think there is a need to label this voter, but if you insist, you could this person a strategic voter. Or you could say that this person had engaged in crossover voting. But, by spewing profanities at this voter you can be assured of one thing—they'll stop listening to you, they'll quit reading your blog. Is that what you want?
One last note. Wikipedia tells me that the term "ratfu**ing" was coined by Southern California frat boys in the 1950s, and there is a strong connection to... USC. Why, oh why do you have such an affinity to an obscene word with USC frat boy connections?(V) & (Z) answer: Not to be disagreeable, but first, we most certainly do use profanity in lectures... when it is appropriate. To take one example, (Z) has a lecture on anti-Black racism in California where he plays the song "Fu** the Police." To take another example, in service of the point that heroic politicians were not demigods and were human too, (Z) has a lecture where he tells the students about Abraham Lincoln's favorite joke:
It was right after the Revolution, right after peace had been concluded. And Ethan Allen went to London to help our new country conduct its business with the king. The English sneered at how rough we are and rude and simple-minded and on like that, everywhere he went. Til one day he was invited to the townhouse of a great English lord. Dinner was served, beverages imbibed, time passed as happens and Mr. Allen found he needed the privy. He was grateful to be directed thence. Relieved, you might say. Mr. Allen discovered on entering the water closet that the only decoration therein was a portrait of George Washington. Ethan Allen done what he came to do and returned to the drawing room. His host and the others were disappointed when he didn't mention Washington's portrait. And finally his lordship couldn't resist and asked Mr. Allen had he noticed it—the picture of Washington—he had. Well what did he think of its placement? Did it seem appropriately located to Mr. Allen? And Mr. Allen said it did. The host was astounded. (mocking British accent) "Appropriate? George Washington's likeness in a water closet?" "Yes," said Mr. Allen, "where it will do good service. The whole world knows nothing will make an Englishman sh** quicker than the sight of George Washington."(Z) does warn students when PG-13 language is forthcoming, which is pretty much the verbal equivalent of the asterisks. Oh, and if you imagine that university faculty do not swear in private, well...
Second, rat**cking can refer to dirty tricks in general, though it most commonly refers to a situation where a person gives money, or their vote, or other resources to a candidate they do not want to win as a means of helping a candidate they DO want to win. There is no word that conveys the notion so succinctly, so we've been using it for a long time, and not just in the past 3 or 6 months. Here, for example, is an instance from 2019 and here is one from 2020.
And finally, sometimes Wikipedia is wrong. The two people most responsible for the term ratfu**ing were Daily Bruin cartoonist Tony Lath and future Richard Nixon dirty trickster H.R. Haldeman. And contrary to Wikipedia's claims, Haldeman was a UCLA graduate (his name is even on Pauley Pavilion, where the basketball team plays its games).
M.G. in Boulder, CO, asks: L.N. in Springfield asked you to use fewer words requiring asterisks. That surprised me because in recent months you have cut down on those words considerably. L.N. may be a new reader because they mentioned your staff, which implies that they are not aware that only two people are responsible for all the words and all the research that appear 7 days a week, 365 days a year (366 in election years).
I quite agree that asterisked words lack charm and grace, though B.B. in Newtown managed the charm part ("It is really hard to say ratf...asterisk asterisk...er!" ). And that brings up an asterisked word that seems hard to escape—ratf**king. This has come to mean a particular type of dirty trick that is acceptable political behavior, and it has been used for that behavior for over 50 years. Where did the term come from? Are there acceptable, widely recognized substitutes?(V) & (Z) answer: As we note above, it came from UCLA, with some help from USC and Caltech, in the 1960s. And there is no word that comes close to conveying a relatively complicated concept—but very specific one—in a simple way.
We do our best not to resort to the four-letter words unless it's really necessary for one purpose or another. For example, the thing that undoubtedly triggered at least one of the letters from last weekend was a joke about how all the Johns in the Senate helps to explain why that chamber is so often full of sh**. There is no way to make that joke work without the four-letter word, and we just couldn't leave a reference to all the Johns hanging (we could have gone with a prostitution joke, but thought that was even more vulgar).
By contrast, we had this in the SOTU writeup yesterday:
Rep. Troy Nehls (R-TX) did not shout. But he did wear a t-shirt with Donald Trump's mug shot. And he did stand at the back of the House chamber, holding his jacket open, so that the cameras would get a good shot of the shirt anytime they panned across the room. Note that this is not very far removed from what a flasher does.Here's the original version:
Rep. Troy Nehls (R-TX) did not shout. But he did wear a t-shirt with Donald Trump's mug shot. And he did stand at the back of the House chamber, holding his jacket open, so that the cameras would get a good shot of the shirt anytime they panned across the room. Note that opening your coat so people can see the di** you've got under there is also what a flasher does.It was not easy to abandon the second version, which is funnier. But we had to conclude the coarse language was not essential.
H.M. in Paris, France, asks: Are you not liveblogging any election this cycle?
(V) & (Z) answer: We usually only do that for general elections (i.e., the election in November), and will presumably continue that practice this year.
Reader Question of the Week: Donald Trump, Superstar
Here is the question we put before readers last week:
P.F. in Fairbanks, AK, asks: If (when?) Donald Trump's life is turned into a movie, which actor do you think would best portray him? You may bend the rules and choose someone no longer living if need be. Bonus: What would you title the movie?
And here some of the answers we got in response:
L.B. in Boise, ID: Alec Baldwin. He has experience with the role, and he could shoot someone on a movie set and not lose any supporters.
(Probably in bad taste, but I can't be the only one thinking this.)
S.W. in New York City, NY: Casting for Trumped: For younger Trump, Joaquin Phoenix (or Hunter Biden if we're casting non-actors); for older Trump, Raymond Burr; for all his wives, drag queens.
D.M. in Austin, TX: Gary Busey:
J.A. in Brisbane, QLD, Australia: Charlie Chaplin in The Hate Dictator.
D.M. in Oakland, CA: In a world where convincing likenesses can be achieved between Gary Oldman and Winston Churchill, Helen Mirren and Golda Meir, or Christian Bale and Dick Cheney, I think it has to be stipulated that pretty much anybody could end up playing Donald Trump. That being the case, I think the best casting would be the casting most likely to render him apoplectic.
Accordingly: Stormy Daniels is Donald Trump in 90 Seconds: The Trump Story (Extended Cut).
B.S. in Indianapolis, IN: Roseanne Barr in 50 Shades of Cray Cray.
J.L. in Long Beach, CA: The title will be Fear of Failure because, in the end, deep down, that's the sole motivator of the man's entire deeply pathetic and performative life. Preferably made posthumously, and sooner rather than later.
The actor will be Charles Laughton, around 1957. Laughton did nasty film characters better than anyone else I can think of. Also, it works in terms of physical resemblance:
R.C. in Lenexa, KS: I propose Will Ferrell for the role of DJT. He has previously played an uninformed, incurious, and uncaring Republican President, namely George W. Bush. Thus, he has trained for the part.
For the movie title: I propose Bigly, which has to be among the Trumpiest of all Trump's "best words:.
L.M. in Tampa, FL: The actor would depend on whether the movie was intended as a comedy or a drama.
For the comedy version, I'd choose Nathan Lane, 5'5", and he'd have to play it in 10-inch platform shoes. All the other actors would have to pretend not to notice the shoes whenever Lane, as Trump, was in earshot.
For the drama version, the living actor I would choose would be Zach Galifianakis. I think he could do justice to the dichotomy of outward bluster and inward feelings of inferiority. (But if Philip Seymour Hoffman were alive, I'd choose him.)
The bonus question is easier. I'd call it Tawdry: the Life and Times of Donald Trump. The advertising copy would have all the Ts enlarged, using the gothic font of the New York Times. The remaining letters would be in the Comic Sans font. It would be ugly on purpose.
S.T. in Philadelphia, PA: Gérard Depardieu. No question. He's a fellow corpulent, aging showman who nonetheless fancies himself a heartthrob. A fellow credibly accused rapist and admitted serial sexual assaulter, as well as a fellow tax-dodger and Russophile. Like Trump, willing to give up his own country for financial gain. Who nonetheless still commands legions of fanatical followers among his own betrayed people whom he successfully plays for carnival marks.
K.J.O. in Brookdale, NJ: I elect Peter Sellers to play Donald Trump. In my view Trump definitely wants to be in charge and feels he is best suited to run the show. He believes he is the most qualified and any other person would fail. However in fact he is a bumbling idiot not qualified to lead in any endeavor. I would resurrect Peter Sellers to play the role. Sellers was a master portraying bumbling idiots such as Inspector Clouseau.
W.V. in Andover, MN: When I see Trump walk on stage and just stand there, I also get a visual image of Boris Karloff as Frankenstein's Monster in the 1931 film:
J.B. and G.C.B. in Fort Kent, ME: Orson Welles: He portrayed the Trump-like Charles Foster Kane (a blending of media moguls William Randolph Hearst and Joseph Pulitzer), so Welles certainly comes to mind. My wife suggests a title, too: CONvict.
J.C. in Northbrook, IL: The Big Lie, starring Brendan Fraser
A.M. in Brookhaven, PA: If I was producing a movie about Trump, I would choose the late Dick Shawn who played the lead in Springtime for Hitler: A Gay Romp with Adolf and Eva at Berchtesgaden from The Producers (1967 version). Clearly, the movie would be titled Springtime for Trump: A Gay Romp with Donald and Family at Mar-a-Lago.
R.L.D. in Sundance, WY: I'd say the person to play Trump is definitely Jeff Daniels, but Dumb and Dumber is already a thing.
K.H. in Ypsilanti, MI: The obvious choice would be Thomas F. Wilson, best known as Biff in the Back to the Future series. Of course, it could be argued he's already played that role.
B.C. in Walpole, ME: Lots of actors can do a credible Trump, so I only offer suggested titles for the movie:
The Greatest Story Ever Told
Mein Trumpf
How to Succeed in Business without Really Succeeding in Business
The Devil Called Down to Georgia
Worse Than the Disease
Who Knows Where 187 Minutes Goes
91 Shades of Indictment
Profiles in Grift
The Power of Positive Delusion
Donnie Get Your Lawyer
The Color Orange
Other People's Money
The Clothes Have No Emperor
Missed it by Just That Much
The Man Who Saved America from Ron DeSantis
The Greatest Sneakers Ever Sold
Cheating at Golf
Code Name: Chaos
Arrested Development
The Untouchable
Here is the question for next week:
B.L. in Hudson, NY, asks: What is "Canadian conservative"? How does this differ from American conservatism?
Submit your answers to comments@electoral-vote.com, preferably with subject line "Conservative, Eh"!
Back to the main page