Previous | Next | Senate page | Menu
New polls: (None)
Dem pickups: (None)
GOP pickups: AZ GA MI NV PA WI
Saturday Q&A
With somewhat reduced pressure from other commitments, the Q&A is returning to normal.
Also, for those still working on this week's headline theme, we will give the additional hint that we really wanted to use the song "Mississippi Queen," written by Felix Pappalardi, but there was no item it fit with.
Current Events
M.A. in West Springfield, MA, asks: Do you believe there is any merit to the rumors that Joe Biden, feeling resentful due to being pushed out by the Democratic Party, was secretly pleased to see them lose this year? Or is that a silly conspiracy theory?
(V) & (Z) answer: While not necessarily a conspiracy theory, we do think it is silly.
Undoubtedly, the events of this year, including the election, have left Biden with a complex range of thoughts and emotions. However, he has spent nearly 60 years serving the U.S. and the Democratic Party. It is inconceivable to us that he would suddenly abandon all of that because of personal grievances.
S.H. in Copperas Cove, TX, asks: You have mentioned a few times that if the Republicans were going to steal the election, it would more likely be with voter suppression, etc. prior to the election rather than legal or electoral trickery after the election. Is there evidence that voter suppression tactics such as limited drop boxes, voter intimidation, voter ID requirements, etc. had any effect in red or purple states where it might have been used compared to blue states?
(V) & (Z) answer: We got a LOT of questions this week about what the numbers from this election tell us. There are two problems here. The first is that the numbers are not complete. The second is that it takes a while for people to crunch them properly. So, we will undoubtedly be writing about questions like this sometime soon, but we have to wait until we have the data and the analysis.
J.A. in Hell's Kitchen, NY, asks: I guess I'm a little confused about something. I keep reading about the "shellacking" the Democrats took. Or the "sweeping" victory the Republicans had.
Am I missing something? The Democrats lost the presidency and the Congress, yes. But the House looks like it's going to be just around the same partisan breakdown as it is now. The Democrats look to have lost by about 1%-2% in the popular presidential vote. The Democrats took some painful losses in the Senate, but 75% of those were probably inevitable in red states (Ohio, West Virginia and Montana) and Pennsylvania will remain competitive.
So how "sweeping" of a victory was this really? And why is it being spoken about like some watershed political change?(V) & (Z) answer: It is being spoken about like a watershed political change for two reasons: (1) people tend to live in the moment rather than seeing the big picture, and (2) people are more likely to react strongly to a result if that result ran contrary to their expectations.
We are going to have several items on this exact subject next week. But we'll give a spoiler and tell you right now what the conclusions of those items will be: (1) Don't reach ANY firm conclusions for at least 6 months and (2) Don't overreact.
T.S. in Flushing, NY, asks: I am still recovering from the results of the election, alternating between overwhelming sadness and intense anger. A few days after, I had a discussion about the election results with my daughter, who is in her late twenties. She feels the reason Trump won was because he had much more media coverage and much more charisma than Harris. My daughter said that at the next presidential election, the Democrats will need someone with lots of personality and attractiveness. Not that Trump is attractive in any sense of the word, but she feels it has to be someone who is good-looking. What do you think?
(V) & (Z) answer: We think that, in the TV age, charisma and attractiveness certainly help. However, Donald Trump is not attractive, and is charismatic in only a very peculiar way, and he won. Joe Biden is not particularly attractive, and is only somewhat charismatic, and he won. George W. Bush is neither particularly attractive nor particularly charismatic, and he won. Kamala Harris is quite attractive, and very charismatic, and she lost. John Kerry is quite attractive, and pretty charismatic, and he lost. Mitt Romney is attractive, and reasonably charismatic, and he lost.
What the Democrats really need is someone who can get voters excited about the Party and its ideas. Bill Clinton had that ability and so did Barack Obama. Yes, they are both attractive and charismatic men, but Lyndon Johnson and Jimmy Carter are/were less so, and yet they were able to do it, too.
D.M. in Shallotte, NC, asks: Since the Supreme Court has, in effect, made Trump a king, what are the guardrails now? Can he totally ignore the courts? Actions and votes by Congress on nearly anything? In other words, are there any constraints for him not to act unilaterally? If so, who would or could stop him? The military is sworn to protect and defend the Constitution. Are they the only ones to stop him? I know these are some radical questions.
(V) & (Z) answer: Here's a lucky seven list of guardrails (and this is not an exhaustive list):
- Congress: It is true that Congress is much more pliant with Trump than it really ought to be. It is also the case that the Republican members have resisted Trump on many occasions, sometimes overtly, sometimes more passively. It is further the case that while Trump will be done in 2028, the members largely have to think about getting reelected in 2030, 2032, 2034, etc., by which time he likely will have shuffled off to the big golf course in the sky. And it is finally the case that if the members of Congress allow Trump to subvert the Constitution too much, then the basis of their power and prestige begins to disappear. Add it all up, and there are undoubtedly limits to exactly how much they will play ball with him. And keep in mind that, with the Democrats' votes, it only takes a small number of Republicans to stymie Trump's legislative agenda.
- The Bureaucracy: Trump has virtually no ability to implement anything by himself. He needs the bureaucracy to do it for him. And if the bureaucracy resists, or drags its feet, then things don't get done. This is why some people refer to the bureaucrats as the fourth branch of the U.S. government. In theory, Trump will try to "solve" this problem with Schedule F, but if he tries it, it will be tied up in the courts for years, probably until the end of his term.
- The Courts: Speaking of the courts, there are certainly judges like James Ho and Trevor McFadden who are willing to do whatever Trump wants. But, in general, the judges apply the law as best they can, regardless of who appointed them. The current Supreme Court is certainly... concerning. However, even they have their limits, particularly when it comes to advancing Trump's personal agenda (as opposed to advancing political positions they agree with). On top of that, the Supreme Court can only handle so many cases each year.
- The Military: In his first term, Trump appointed a lot of generals to key positions. He's not going to repeat that, because he's learned that they are more loyal to the Constitution than they are to him (sleazeball Mike Flynn notwithstanding). However, even if there aren't generals in the Cabinet, they're still there in the Pentagon. And they simply aren't going to comply with illegal or immoral orders. Not only is that an affront to their oath and their service, but it is itself illegal. "I was just following orders" is not a defense. Trump hasn't even taken office again, and the Pentagon brass is already strategizing about how they will cope with problematic orders, should they come down.
- Federalism: In the U.S. system, the states have a LOT of power. And they also have a lot of room for noncompliance.
- The American Public: As we have written many times, governance rests on the consent of the governed. There are practical limits on how much Trump can get away with before millions of citizens rebel or, more likely, just decide to ignore him. To give a silly example, what if he declares, on his first day back in office, that every American must purchase and read a copy of The Art of the Deal? Do you really think people will comply with that? There are all KINDS of opportunities for resistance, depending on what he tries to do.
- Donald Trump: Trump is basically lazy, and cares little for governance. He doesn't have the patience for sausage-making. And he intensely dislikes negative coverage and criticism, particularly if it comes from "his people." There is no doubt that he will implement some of his ideas, particularly when he can do so unilaterally. The tariffs leap to mind as something that is in this category. However, in his first term, most of the occasions where he "delivered" on his promises, it was just political theater. A few miles of border fence was built, and then he held a photo-op. He "negotiated" a new factory in Ohio on taking office, and then... did virtually nothing else in terms of proactive job creation. He said he would "punish" Hillary Clinton, which turned out to mean... that he would lead his rallygoers in chants of "Lock her up." This time around, we foresee, for example, a couple of high-profile deportations. But is there really any reason to believe Trump will try to deliver the breadth he's promised on that issue, or on most others? He wants a few headlines and a photo-op and a week's worth of fawning coverage on Fox, and then he moves on.
J.W. in Newton, MA, asks: Please help me convince my wife that all is not lost, and that full-blown civil war or autocracy within the next 4 years is vanishingly unlikely. I remind her of Trump's incompetence, the allegiance of our military to the Constitution, the first amendment guarantees of a free press, the immense advantages of federalism for those of us in New England, and the benefit of nearly 250 years of constitutional rule. But none of that consoles her, as she is haunted by the experiences of her German family during the 30s and 40s. Her view: Most people don't see civil war or fascism coming until it is too late to emigrate, so it's best to get while the gettin's good.
What's your best pitch to console an extremely intelligent doomer with a family history like hers?(V) & (Z) answer: It used to be no problem to get a box cutter on an airplane, if that is what you wanted to do. Now, it's nearly impossible. Why? Because the 9/11 hijackers used box cutters, and so EVERYONE is on the lookout for those these days (as well as other potential weapons).
So, you can direct your wife to the pretty thorough answer that immediately precedes this one. Or, you can point out that while Trump often sounds pretty fascist/Hitleresque, the U.S. in 2024 is way different from Germany in 1934. Or, you can take note that because Hitler happened, EVERYONE is on the lookout for Hitler v2.0. That makes it nearly impossible for someone to actually get away with trying it, just like it's nearly impossible to get a box cutter on an airplane today.
D.B. in San Diego, CA, asks: I'm struggling to come up with any answers on how 2024 could end up being the "last election," as so many left-leaning pundits are saying. Could you share any thoughts you have on how that could possibly be accomplished? I can't think of anything short of a full cancelling of the Constitution that would get anywhere near it.
(V) & (Z) answer: We share your view that talk of 2024 being the "last election" is Chicken Little, sky-is-falling stuff. The fundamental problem here is that presidential elections are a long process, and they commence well more than a year before Election Day. If Trump tries to cut that process off at the pass, say in June 2027, then people will riot because he will have laid his cards on the table. And if he tries to deny the election result, and stands in the way of a duly elected president-elect, people will riot AND he'll be arrested.
His only slim hope of remaining in power is to find a legal loophole, and to be an official candidate in 2028.
E.S. in Maine, NY, asks: You wrote that only two federal prisoners had transition surgery, and neither of those was a detained illegal immigrant. Could you provide a source for that?
(V) & (Z) answer: Here is FactCheck, which even contacted the Federal Bureau of Prisons to confirm that it was two people, one in 2022 and one in 2023.
D.K. in Iowa City, IA, asks: Are there at least four Republican Senators who will vote against Trump's terrible nominees? Who are they?
(V) & (Z) answer: Yes, though we would expect the list to change a bit depending on the nominee and exactly what the problems are. Susan Collins (R-ME) and Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) are the two most moderate GOP senators, and are likely to oppose a nominee who is particularly unqualified, especially if that person has sexual misconduct or sexism in their past. The newly elected Utah senator, John Curtis, represents a constituency that does not particularly care for the extremes of Trumpism. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) is a Reagan Republican, and might be OK poking Trump in the eye once or twice. Any senator up in 2026 will be leery of voting to approve someone like Matt Gaetz, at risk of something scandalous coming out, with the senator left holding the bag. There are also senators who have specific issues that are dealbreakers. For example, Sen. Steve Daines (R-MT) is staunchly anti-abortion, and might not be willing to vote for someone who has expressed pro-choice views, as Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has.
Note, incidentally, that it is VERY unlikely that a nominee will actually be rejected. That's only happened once in the past 65 years (John Tower in 1989), and only three times in the last century (Lewis Strauss in 1959 and Charles B. Warren in 1925, in addition to Tower). What almost always happens is that the senators make clear their views through the press (as they are doing right now with Matt Gaetz and Pete Hegseth), and the president sees the writing on the wall and withdraws the nomination. For example, during his first term, Donald Trump withdrew four nominees (Andrew Puzder for Labor, Ronny Jackson for Veterans Affairs, Patrick Shanahan for Defense and John Ratcliffe for DNI).
B.B. in St. Louis, MO, asks: Is it possible that Donald Trump has intentionally made outrageous cabinet appointments, fully anticipating that they will fail, so that his subsequent round of objectionable appointments will seem more reasonable in comparison?
(V) & (Z) answer: Ah, yes, the old Saturday Night Live trick. Back in the seventies, in particular, the writing staff might have a sketch with three pretty risqué jokes that they really wanted to get on the air. So, they would add three REALLY risqué jokes, so those would be the ones cut, and the pretty risqué jokes would remain intact.
We considered the possibility Trump was doing this, and were going to put it forward as a theory, but we decided that we just don't believe it. First, we have learned over and over again that he really does not play 3-D chess, and does not play the long game. Second, he HATES to lose, even if it's in service of a long-term win.
Even if we are wrong, and this is Trump's plan, it's not going to work. There's a pretty clear line between "tolerable" and "not tolerable," and the line really doesn't move depending on how many "not tolerable" candidates there are, or how very bad the "not tolerable" candidates are.
E.T. in Seattle, WA , asks: A friend of mine "heard" that Trump wants to do away with confirmation hearings in the Senate. I have read this nowhere... and would not believe it anyway (unless I read it here). Is there any chance that he could actually get away with that? Thank you.
(V) & (Z) answer: We wrote about this earlier this week. What Trump wants is for the Senate to go into recess during its winter break, so he can make a bunch of recess appointments. That would allow him to stock his administration with radioactive people who might not be able to make it through the regular process. In theory, those folks would only be temporary, and would eventually have to vacate their posts. However, Trump abused the living daylights out of the system last time, leaving interim appointments in place long past their expiration date, and would surely do so again.
So, it's not exactly true that Trump "wants to do away with confirmation hearings in the Senate." On the other hand, it's not exactly untrue, either.
S.A. in Salisbury, MD, asks: Can the Democrats in the Senate filibuster any of Trump's Cabinet nominees?
(V) & (Z) answer: Nope. In 2013, because Republicans were blocking a lot of perfectly acceptable nominees for Barack Obama's second-term Cabinet, Senate Democrats got rid of the filibuster for Cabinet posts.
Politics
S.S. in West Hollywood, CA, asks: What do you think is better for the Democratic Party, that Republicans hold the trifecta or that Democrats somehow gain control of the House by a seat or two? What do you think is better for democracy and the country? What do you think is better for the world?
(V) & (Z) answer: Not all parts of the trifecta are created equal. The president, of course, has all kinds of powers independent of Congress. The Senate gets to confirm judges and other officials. So, the first part of your question would be much harder if one of those two parts was in play. But the House, which can't do much of anything on its own? The Democrats are probably better off not controlling it, so that the Republicans can own 100% of what happens over the next 2 years.
The single-most important thing the Democrats could do, if they did hold the House, would be to influence the budget. Most legislation can be filibustered by Democrats in the Senate, but not budget bills. That said, most spending is not discretionary, and a Republican Senate and president aren't going to give up much ground in budget fights, anyhow. So, losing out on the House is not such a bad price to pay for being able to disclaim any blame for whatever might go wrong in the next 2 years.
As to democracy, the country, and the world, we think that 95% of whatever damage is going to be done was locked and loaded the moment Trump and his party gained the more important two-thirds of the trifecta. And in the long term, all three of those entities are probably best off if Trumpism is allowed to be taken to its logical conclusion. It could be that Trump is right about things, and his second administration will revolutionize the country and solve a lot of problems. Or, it could be that Trump screws everything up, and people conclude that Trumpism is a dead-end. Not all of these outcomes are equally likely, mind you.
J.L. in Richmond, VA, asks: A debate I've been having with friends, and have also heard on podcasts, is "Should the Democrats sit back and let Donald Trump and his sycophants implement his policies or try and fight them?" On the one hand, I don't want kids to die because they're being denied vaccines, or to have families torn apart as they're being deported. On the other hand, the American people voted for this and, as I told my wife, if the citizens of Gotham vote for the Joker to be mayor, they're going to get the Joker. Maybe the American people need to see the damage, even if it hurts many people, so that the 80 million people who voted for Trump finally realize there are consequences for how they vote. What do you think: Should Democrats fight to prevent the pain, or let the people experience exactly what they were promised?
(V) & (Z) answer: The Democrats are the opposition party. As Winston Churchill's father pointed out, the job of an opposition party is to oppose. And they Party would be committing political malpractice if it did not do so with all legal and ethical means at its disposal.
Even with a vigorous Democratic resistance, there will still be much room for Trumpism to manifest, and to show the world whether it works... or not. There is nothing the blue team can do, for example, about tariffs. And Democrats have much more power to resist Trumpism in blue states (say, by keeping abortifacients available, or retaining vaccine mandates, or not participating in deportations) than in red states. So, the impacts of his governance are going to be felt most keenly by the states that voted for him.
M.C. in Raleigh, NC, asks: Reading an article about Trump, in which he says he would stagger appointments of (up to 15) House members into his Cabinet (because of the thin majority the GOP expects to have), it occurred to me that he could make Speaker Mike Johnson's (R-LA) job a lot easier by appointing some of the Freedom Caucus members to positions in the administration. Does this seem feasible to you?
(V) & (Z) answer: Not really. There are something like 40 Freedom Caucusers, and there's no way to get enough of them out of the House to really make a dent in the problem. And focusing on the loosest cannons (say, Lauren Boebert, R-CO, and Chip Roy, R-TX) would just mean that Trump would inherit the headache of people who are mercurial and could go rogue at any moment.
P.S. in Atlanta, GA, asks: One of the emerging themes of the postmortems is the difficulty of piercing through the right-wing media landscape and cutting through any propaganda.
I've published a few papers about the difficulty of dealing with modern propaganda from a literacy perspective. I wondered what you two would recommend to either party to cut through the propaganda and help voters make informed decisions. Roosevelt had the Office of War Information in World War II; what can we do?(V) & (Z) answer: We tend to think that the solution to propaganda is not more propaganda. That rarely achieves much of anything.
Instead, we would offer two alternate solutions. First, there is a reason that people who go to college tend to have different political views when they graduate than when they enrolled. It's not because of professorial propaganda, it's because they've been exposed to new information and new ways of thinking about things. So, the ideal here would be to create accessible programming that educates and challenges without being boring or preachy. This is not the easiest thing to do, but it's not impossible. The Freakonomics podcast leaps to mind. And sometime soon, we're planning an item on some of the up-and-coming podcasters and media figures who might end up being a counterpoint to the Ben Shapiros and Joe Rogans and Glenn Becks of the world.
Second, we think Gov. Tim Walz (DFL-MN) was on to something with the "weird" bit. There is much profit in doing what, say, Jon Stewart or Stephen Colbert does—talking not so much about how wrong the right-wing propagandists are, but how odd they are, and how laughable they are.
M.D. in San Tan Valley, AZ, asks: Now that the election is over, and all hell is going to break loose, let's peek into the 2026 gubernatorial elections. Do you foresee Kamala Harris running for California governor and Pete Buttigieg running for Michigan governor? And a quick bonus question: Do you believe Stacey Abrams embraces the notion that "the third time's the charm" and runs for governor of Georgia in two years?
(V) & (Z) answer: It is certainly possible that Harris runs for California governor. But given that she is 60, and that the American people are getting leery of septuagenarian presidents, she's a little short on time if she's still planning to have a career as both governor and a return presidential candidate.
As to Buttigieg, he is surely the most likely of the three to mount a gubernatorial bid. There aren't any better options on the immediate horizon for him, and even if he runs and loses, he's young enough for a comeback.
And Abrams seems to have disappeared; she was barely heard from this cycle. We also doubt she's enthused about a third bite at the apple, or that the Georgia Democratic Party would be interested in that possibility.
Civics
B.C. in Walpole, ME, asks: Is it legal for Elon Musk to conduct foreign policy outside the State Department during the Biden administration?
(V) & (Z) answer: If you read the Logan Act, it certainly does not seem to be legal.
However, only two people have been prosecuted for violating the Act. The more recent of those was in 1852, and neither person was convicted. On top of that, we live in a world where nobody really knows what the law is until the Supreme Court tells us what it is. Consider their creative interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment, which seemed very clear to us... until it wasn't anymore. And finally, in this particular case, an incoming administration (whether Trump's or someone else's) has a pretty good argument that the Logan Act should not apply, since they aren't really private citizens anymore, and since they need to be able to establish their footing in advance of taking office.
M.B. in Cleveland, OH, asks: Fed chair Jerome Powell is in Donald Trump's crosshairs. Powell pointed out that Trump can't fire him: "Not permitted under the law." But the Supreme Court has said that the president can't be prosecuted for anything related to his official duties, one of which is appointing Fed governors. What's to stop Trump from having Powell thrown out of the office, taking away his keys, having everything on his desk packed into boxes, and advising "sorry, not sorry, but you are gone"?
(V) & (Z) answer: It is not Powell's office, or his desk, or his paperweight, that makes him the Chair of the Federal Reserve. Is that he is the only person invested with the legal authority to do that job. He can work in a Starbucks, and he's still the Chair.
Even with the recent Supreme Court jurisprudence, there really isn't much Trump can do here. He could endeavor to create an "alternate" Federal Reserve board, but everyone would just ignore it. He could try to order a U.S. Marshal to arrest and imprison Powell, but Powell would STILL be chair, and the result would just be all kinds of blowback, and possibly even impeachment.
T.L. in Charlotte, NC, asks: Last year, there was a lot of debate and discussion about ways for the Democrats to expand the Supreme Court and thereby counteract the current Trump appointed majority. One of the most interesting proposals was to expand the Court to 13 justices, matching the number of Circuit Courts of Appeals in the U.S. There is a structural justification there, and it would have given the Democrats a 7-6 majority.
Now, the thought of this proposal returning for discussion under the Republican trifecta is very scary. Such an expansion would give the Republicans a 10-3 majority for decades and give Trump alone a 7-6 majority in his appointments. Could they push through such an expansion? Would there be any way for the Democrats to block it?(V) & (Z) answer: If such a change was to be implemented, it would require that Congress pass an updated version of the Judiciary Act, which sets the size of the Supreme Court. Senate Democrats could filibuster such a bill, and thus are able to block the change in that way.
Of course, the Republicans could kill the filibuster, and they might even do so. However, the die would then be cast, and the next time the Democrats had the trifecta, then THEY would pass an even newer version of the Judiciary Act. 13 justices? How about 17 or 21? Or maybe a pool of 40 justices, from which 9 are selected at random? Or mandatory retirement ages? Or maybe stripping the Supreme Court of most of its jurisdiction (which the Constitution specifically allows Congress to do)?
Since the GOP already has a firm grip on the Court, we doubt they would press the advantage even further, and in so doing lay the groundwork for a bunch of tit-for-tat that ends with the Republicans no longer having a firm grip on the Court.
S.S. in Kansas City, MO, asks: How does the resignation and nomination of a Supreme Court justice technically work? Could Sotomayor announce she was stepping down, thus initiating the replacement process, but then, if the Democrats couldn't get her replacement through the Senate in the lame duck session, change her mind and say, "Just kidding!"?
(V) & (Z) answer: Probably, yes. It is already the case that justices submit conditional letters of resignation that say "My resignation takes effect as soon as my successor is chosen." That being the case, it should also be possible to submit a letter that says, "My resignation takes effect only if a successor is chosen by January 10, 2025."
L.B. in The Woodlands, TX, asks: Those of us in Texas fear the odd numbered years. That is when the Texas legislature is in session and they often try to out-crazy Florida. A story crossed my screen today: "Texas Republican files bill to recall Cruz, Cornyn if 'they go rogue.'"
The bill's passage is statistically unlikely. As the article points out, over a thousand bills have already been introduced and this is not on Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick's (R) wish list. But, if by some miracle, it does... would it be legal? Can a state legislature recall U.S. senators?(V) & (Z) answer: As we note above, you can never be sure what the law is these days until the Supreme Court tells us what it is. However, there is a longstanding body of both precedent and jurisprudence that says that once a member of Congress is duly elected and seated, they can only be removed by the members of the chamber in which they serve. Voters cannot recall members of Congress, nor can legislatures. Judges cannot toss them out, nor can presidents.
A.F. in Federal Way, WA, asks: I saw some comments on the interwebs suggesting that Rep. Matt Gaetz' (R-FL) resignation only applies to THIS congress. If, for some reason, his name is withdrawn from consideration for AG in the short term, he could still be sworn back into Congress as the result of the 2024 election. Is this correct?
(V) & (Z) answer: Yes, but it would be a little odd, and might not sit well with his constituents. Also, he would take a step backward in terms of seniority. If he had not resigned, then his upcoming term would count as his fifth for seniority purposes. Now that he's resigned, even if he returns, his term would count as his fourth for seniority purposes.
L.M. in Troy, MI, asks: I couldnt get an answer from Google, but I'm sure you know. In which countries do you have to wait more than a week for election results?
(V) & (Z) answer: The list changes all the time, but there are basically three circumstances where this might be the case. The first is parliamentary systems where the MPs are chosen by the voters, and then the actual government is chosen by the MPs. Some parliamentary governments (e.g., the U.K.) usually manage to sort things out pretty quickly, but others can take a very long time (e.g., the Netherlands, Israel).
The second circumstance is countries where the government is somewhat less than solid. Non-industrialized countries are the most likely to be in this group.
The third circumstance is where the elections are heavily decentralized (particularly if the population is also large). The U.S. is an example here, as is Indonesia, but the most famous example is India. It's so big and has so many people that it takes well over a month to stage an election.
History
S.S.-L. in Battle Creek, MI, asks: Melania Trump gets a lot of flack for being worse than useless. Who were some of the best and worst first ladies, and why?
(V) & (Z) answer: We've answered a version of this question before, but it's probably worth revisiting, particularly in view of today's headline: "Melania Trump unlikely to move to the White House full time as first lady: 'This time is different.'" We're still trying to figure out what the different part is, since she didn't live in the White House full time during her husband's first term, either.
Anyhow, there are really two paths to being one of the good first ladies; you can call them the "West Wing" path and the "East Wing" path. The West Wing first ladies are the ones who managed to be partners in governance, usually by serving as a trusted advisor to their husband. The East Wing first ladies are the ones who inspired the nation with their charity work, or their public persona, or their sense of style. Here's a top five:
- Betty Ford: She was one of the most popular First Ladies, perhaps benefiting from the contrast with her rather bland husband. Ford made it OK to talk about cancer (specifically, breast cancer) while she was first lady, and she made it OK to talk about alcoholism after she was first lady.
- Abigail Adams: A West Wing First Lady before there was a West Wing... or a White House... or a widespread belief that women had something useful to say about politics. She was John's since most important advisor, from his days as a revolutionary to his days as the leader of his country.
- Hillary Clinton: The epitome of the West Wing First Lady. Her efforts to reform healthcare did not work out, but she was undoubtedly an invaluable advisor to, and ambassador on behalf of, her husband.
- Jackie Kennedy: The epitome of the East Wing First Lady. She WAS style from 1961-63, and also inspired women across the country.
- Eleanor Roosevelt: Perhaps the only true West AND East Wing First Lady. She was an important sounding board for Franklin, and was often able to steer him to a more lefty course, particularly on race questions. And she was also an important public figure and symbol in her own right, from encouraging people to conserve resources during World War II to writing a regular (and wildly popular) newspaper column.
As to the bad first ladies, well, there are considerably more paths. Here's that list:
- Ida McKinley and Jane Pierce: They both had significant mental problems, and were drains on their husbands, albeit not deliberately. Mr. McKinley handled this much better than Mr. Pierce did, as Mr. Pierce tended to self-medicate with excessive amounts of alcohol.
- Mary Todd Lincoln: She had mental illness, too; it flared up after the death of her son. But even before that, she was a burden on her husband, and at a time when he really did not need any additional burdens.
- Florence Harding: By nearly all accounts, she was something of a shrew whose emotionally abusive behavior may well have helped drive her husband to an early grave.
- Emily Donelson: She was co-first lady for her uncle, Andrew Jackson, as his wife Rachel passed away before his inauguration. And she participated, with some relish, in social intrigues that made Uncle Andy's life harder and that eventually led to the resignation of the whole Cabinet.
- Melania Trump: We really wanted to find someone else for this slot, but there is nobody else. A fair number of first ladies have been uninterested/absent, like Melania was. However, they did not manage to somehow combine that with a sizable portion of behind-the-scenes sh**-stirring. And then add in the tacky chapters to Mrs. Trump's White House career, like the plagiarized speeches and the "I Don't Care, Do U?" jacket. We just can't make a case for ranking anyone above her (well, below her).
We continue to struggle with where to put Edith Wilson. On one hand, she stepped up and held things together for her husband after his stroke. On the other hand, she assumed powers and responsibilities that were not her due. That was certainly unethical, and may well have been illegal.
W.S. in Pittsburgh, PA, asks: Does any of contemporaneous America seem like 1920's America to you? I look at the robber barons of today, the tariffs, a president with ineffective policies and I see the parallels. Trump said he fears being another Herbert Hoover. He may be right, your thoughts?
(V) & (Z) answer: You can pick any two eras/decades in U.S. history and identify SOME salient parallels. However, if you're really looking for a Trump-like precedent, we think you have the wrong 20's. Herbert Hoover was elected to keep things going as they were, not to be a disruptor. And he had virtually nothing in common with Trump, besides being a Republican and being pro-business. On the other hand, in the 1820's, there was a blue-collar backlash against the changes being wrought in the world by a changing economy and greater internationalization. And a wealthy populist, Andrew Jackson, tapped into that working-class angst by promising to pursue a bunch of policies that were economically unsound, or that scapegoated non-white peoples, or both.
Gallimaufry
D.M. in Austin, TX, asks: I wanted to know how y'all are able to keep going after last Tuesday? What drives you to care anymore? I've lost all desire to read anything about politics or the news, and I thought maybe if you provided a few words how you are handling things that perhaps it might help others. This doesn't feel like any other loss I've ever felt before.
(V) & (Z) answer: There are days where we really don't feel like writing. But we do it anyhow, because we've made a commitment, and once you actually get started, the "I don't feel like it today" sentiment tends to fade away.
That, then, is the answer. If you don't give yourself a choice but to do the blog each day, then you have no choice but to keep plugging away. It certainly helps keep us motivated that we know a lot of people are leaning on us, at least in part, to help navigate the current rough waters.
As to coping with the unhappy parts of Trumpism, we find that a somewhat Zen approach is workable. Everyone knows what's coming, and when those things actually come (like, for example, appointing an utterly unqualified lapdog to be AG), we try to keep in mind that it's not a surprise, and getting unduly upset about it doesn't help, and that things will work out in the end.
F.S. in Cologne, Germany, asks: After Trump won this year's presidential election, is (Z) considering leaving the U.S.? If yes, to which country?
(V) & (Z) answer: No. (Z) has professional and familial commitments that are not transferable, even if he wanted to move to another country, which he does not.
S.O.F. in New York City, NY, asks: How will we know if we've been banhammered? Will we get a courteous e-mail?
(V) & (Z) answer: We've only banned a dozen or so people so far, and all of them went WAY over the line, usually multiple times. In any event, any person who has been banned does indeed get a response from the system, whenever they e-mail, that says "Your e-mail cannot be delivered because you have been blocked."
A.G. in Scranton, PA, asks: Why is it not okay to call Black folks things they don't to like (and I agree, it isn't), but it is OK to call me, a straight (-ish) male "cisgender," whether I like it or not?
(V) & (Z) answer: It's not OK. And (Z) shares your (apparent) dislike for the label. On those occasions that people use it, he replies, "I had nothing to do with choosing that term, I do not like that term, and I will thank you to keep in mind that my gender identity is, in fact, none of your concern."
Reader Question of the Week: E Pluribus Unum?
We had to put this feature in neutral for a while, but we're firing it back up again. Here's a question to get us (re-)started. It's coming from us, although we actually stole it from the aforementioned Freakonomics podcast (we only heard the question, not the answers).
(V) & (Z) ask: If you had to come up with a new motto for the United States, one that uses 8 words or less, what would it be?
Submit your answers to comments@electoral-vote.com, preferably with subject line "New motto"!
Previous | Next
Main page for smartphones
Main page for tablets and computers