Previous | Next | Senate page | Menu
New polls: (None)
Dem pickups: (None)
GOP pickups: AZ GA
Jobs Report Is Stellar
Normally, this would not be big enough news for us to write a weekend item. However, we had an item yesterday noting that people with advance information were saying the newest jobs report would be so-so. Maybe these people were working from a phony version of the report, like the phony forecast of orange juice futures in the movie Trading Places. In any event, the actual report was fantastic.
How was it fantastic? In pretty much every way possible. The U.S. economy was expected to add about 140,000 jobs in September, and it looks to have added something more like 254,000. Further, the July and August numbers were revised upward, by 72,000 jobs. Unemployment is thus lower than expected, at 4.1%, which is effectively full employment. And the stock market surged yesterday in response to all of this.
It is possible this will put a little wind in the sails of Kamala Harris. At very least, if the October jobs report is not so good, then it should be a wash. We tend to think that anyone who says, "Sure, the September report was great, but the October one wasn't, so I just can't vote for Kamala Harris" was never going to vote for her anyhow. (Z)
Saturday Q&A
It turns out this week's headline theme is very tough. Not too surprising, since to pull it off, we did have to make use of an athlete who is only well known in Australia. In any event, several readers who did get the theme said that the headline that tipped them off was "House Democratic Spending (Largely) Smothers Republican Spending." We'll also add that we tried to get "Trickle Down Economics" into a headline, but couldn't do it.
Current Events
J.H. in Lodi, NY, asks: Has it always been the case that, in judging who won or lost a debate, style counts but lying does not?
(V) & (Z) answer: It is an overstatement to say that "style counts but lying does not."
However, as we tried to communicate in our debate write-up, many viewers will struggle to pick up on lies that are not incredibly egregious, because those viewers just don't have the information necessary to evaluate what they are hearing. So, a shrewd liar, like J.D. Vance, can get away with an awful lot, even if a clumsy liar, like Donald Trump, gets away with much less.
Second, no matter how low-information a viewer is, they can still judge style. They can reach conclusions based on tone of voice, posture, usage of hands, physical appearance, etc. John F. Kennedy, in the first-ever presidential debate in 1960, benefited enormously from out-pointing Richard Nixon on style. This was a major advantage for Ronald Reagan and Barack Obama, as well.
So, we would amend your statement to: "style helps a lot, and it's possible to get away with a lot of lying, if a candidate isn't too hamfisted about it." And we would say this has indeed always been the case.
S.S.L. in Battle Creek, MI, asks: The terrible, great, and just fine debates we've seen this cycle have me wondering: How would the two of you prepare for presentations of this magnitude?
(V) & (Z) answer: Well, there are some teachers who pre-plan every minute of class time, with detailed outlines of every single thing they will say in their lectures. Neither of us is that kind of teacher. (Z) prefers to walk into the classroom with an outline, and a general sense of what he will say, but not too much beyond that. He finds that makes the lecture a bit more organic and spontaneous, and also allows him to adapt on the fly, based on what the students seem to be interested in, or what they seem to be struggling with. (V) is more of a PowerPoint kind of guy and prepares the lecture carefully in advance with PowerPoint sheets to explain many issues. Of course, explaining the difference between paging algorithms is a different beast than explaining why John Breckinridge didn't help the Confederacy all that much.
Neither approach would work for a debate, of course. We'd probably want to memorize roughly 10 facts/factoids germane to the issues most likely to come up. And then, on top of that, maybe 5 "comeback" lines that are likely to be useful at one point or another (e.g., "The guy can't help himself. He opens his mouth, and a river of weird flows out.") Then, we'd probably do a couple of practice debates to work on timing and body language, and that would be about it.
D.A. in Long Beach, CA, asks: When J.D. Vance says this: "One of the things that changed is in the state of Ohio, we had a referendum in 2023 and the people of Ohio voted overwhelmingly, by the way, against my position. And I think that what I learned from that, Nora, is that we've got to do a better job at winning back people's trust."
... isn't he really saying that the people of Ohio are wrong because they voted against his position? That he needs to do a better job of getting Ohioans to "trust his / Republicans' position"?(V) & (Z) answer: That is exactly what he's saying. People in general, but particularly right-wingers, and even more particularly evangelical right-wingers, tend to believe their position is the right one, and all other positions are the wrong ones. So, if you don't back the right-wing position, what must have happened is that they did not do enough to help you understand how you are wrong and they are right.
L.L.G. in Thornton, CO, asks: In the item "Democratic Ads Feature Women Who Needed an Abortion," you wrote: "In five states, Democratic Senate candidates are running similar ads... This kind of ad may come to define the 2024 election cycle, especially if the candidates running them all win."
I would like to track the effectiveness of these ads. So, can you please identify the 5 states?(V) & (Z) answer: The Politico piece from which we took that fact did not specify what states were being referenced. However, we were actually able to find Democratic pro-choice ads being used in six Senate races: Maryland (Angela Alsobrooks), Michigan (Elissa Slotkin), Nevada (Jacky Rosen), Texas (Colin Allred), Wisconsin (Tammy Baldwin) and Virginia (Tim Kaine).
Note also that pro-choice ads are airing in North Carolina, even though there is no Senate race there this year.
M.v.E. in Kitchener, ON, Canada, asks: Do you think California bill AB 1780, banning legacy admissions, will raise or lower the quality of USC grads?
(V) & (Z) answer: Well, it can't possibly lower them, can it?
All joking aside, having student bodies chosen based entirely on merit obviously means an increase in the quality of the average incoming student. That said, a big reason for legacy admissions is to keep money flowing into the school. If George Lucas donates $100 million to the USC film school so his kid can be trained in the latest special effects techniques, that benefits other students too, and also increases the quality of graduates. We do not know enough about top-level university economics to weight the trade of legacy donations for better-qualified non-legacy admittees.
M.G. in Boulder, CO, asks: As part of an answer to P.L. in Denver last week, you said, "First, Iran is most certainly benefiting from this war, because they benefit from anything that creates chaos and suffering in Israel, and because they benefit from anything that creates chaos in American politics." Would you expand on that? How does Iran benefit from this war or chaos in Israel and the U.S.? I would have thought that stability in the Middle East would be of more benefit.
(V) & (Z) answer: Iran aspires to be the key player in the Middle East. To that end, with the backing of Russia, they have fashioned an alliance that includes them, Syria, Lebanon and, to an extent, Iraq. The opposing alliance/bloc is backed by the United States, and includes Israel, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and the United Arab Emirates. Anything that destabilizes the latter group is good news for Iran. If your enemies grow weaker, you necessarily grow stronger, even if you're just remaining in place.
A.H. in Chevy Chase, MD, asks: I am a Jewish Israeli-American dual citizen; I have a sibling serving in IDF and right now stationed on an IDF base in the north of Israel. Despite what some might think about what that means about my politics, I am exceedingly disgusted with Benjamin Netanyahu in so many ways, but right now, in particular, about his disregard for any guardrails the U.S. has attempted to put in place. Most recently, Netanyahu's authorization of the assassination of Hassan Nasrallah, the day after Joe Biden called for a ceasefire, is a perfect example of the joy with which he will openly thumb his nose at the U.S.
My question is: Imagining Kamala Harris wins in November, how far is it politically possible for a U.S. president to go in truly pushing back against the Israeli government? I accept there are constraints that the U.S. public may never fully understand, including very key U.S. military bases, but what other hard limits exist?
Looking at demographics and public opinion even among Jewish young adults, a hard pro-Israel for the DNC seems hard to maintain politically.(V) & (Z) answer: As we have noted many times, this is well outside our area of expertise. However, even if the domestic politics of Israel change (e.g., support for Israel ceases to be a litmus test for Jewish-American voters), Israel is a key piece of the puzzle when it comes to pushing back against Iran. We don't know all the nuances and subtleties, and we doubt that anyone who DOES know all the nuances and subtleties is able to speak publicly, but Iran is very hostile to the West in general and to the U.S. in particular, and is on the cusp of being a nuclear power. We may not know exactly why, but it could not be clearer that the Biden administration is willing to do practically anything to make sure that Israel remains as a check against Iran.
In short, we don't see a major change in the U.S. government's support for Israel, even if Israel becomes fairly toxic with the voting public. After all, the U.S. government supports Saudi Arabia, and Saudi Arabia is ALREADY toxic with the voting public.
Politics
C.E. in Clifton Park, NY, asks: What happened in Iowa that it moved sharply to the right in 2016 and 2020? Polls show it now returning closer to the center but it was more or less reliably blue prior to 2016.
(V) & (Z) answer: Brain drain. Starting in the 1980s, and continuing for decades after, the #1 export of the Hawkeye State wasn't corn or pork bellies, it was young people, especially educated young people. This left older, rural, socially conservative white people in charge, which is how someone like Steve King got elected over and over, despite being something close to an outright white supremacist.
Now, those right-wing rural dwellers are dying off, and big Agriculture is taking over their farms. Meanwhile, the government of Iowa has taken aggressive steps to try to get young people to stay (for example, subsidized mortgages). So, power is shifting back toward the cities and suburbs, which are blue.
A.T. in Chicago, IL, asks: Does anyone poll Nebraska or Maine districts?
(V) & (Z) answer: Yes, but not all that much. ME-02, in particularly, tends to be under-polled.
A.B. and A.M. in Bedford, MA, asks: In our house, we are watching for updated presidential polling from Kansas (6 EVs). The last polling appears to be from April (Zogby) and seems to show—with Kennedy in the race—a decided cooling of Trump fervor vs. 2020. While Kansas has not voted for a Democratic presidential candidate since 1964, given the 2022 turnout and results in the Kansas abortion referendum, we are wondering what your thoughts are on whether Kansas could be a dark horse win for Harris this year?
(V) & (Z) answer: It's not likely, but is it possible? Certainly. After all, Kansas does have a Democratic governor. And keep in mind what happened in 2016, when pollsters decided it wasn't worth it to poll the "blue wall" states anymore, since everyone "knew" what was going to happen there.
R.M.S. in Lebanon, CT, asks: What do you think the chances are a Trumpist attorney general or district attorney suddenly files criminal charges or announces a criminal investigation against Kamala Harris in October? I could see one sympathetic to Trump doing this as a way to stop Harris's momentum and turn public opinion against her. Remember what happened to Hillary Clinton in October 2016?
(V) & (Z) answer: Not zero, but low. To launch an investigation or file charges, there has to be some lawbreaking there. And, for example, while Republicans can (and do) blame Harris for everything that's gone wrong at the border back to the days of Pancho Villa, she clearly hasn't done anything criminal. An overly aggressive AG who tries to cook up a criminal investigation/case, by pursuing Harris on made-up charges, runs the risk of having that backfire, by reminding the country that in TrumpWorld, the powers of the government will be used to persecute and prosecute political enemies.
S.J.Z. in Darien, IL , asks: I am mystified by the fact that a candidate who launched his political career by calling Mexicans murderers and rapists, and who said that a judge was unqualified due to his Mexican descent, is polling at 40% among Latino and Latina voters, which strikes me as disastrous for Kamala Harris. What do you attribute this unexpected popularity to? Is it simply due to recent economic conditions?
(V) & (Z) answer: Well, Trump is polling at around 40% with Latinos and Latinas right now. And, in 2020, Trump got... 40% of the Latino and Latina vote. So, it does not appear to be a product of current circumstances (economic or otherwise).
We'd say that Trump's support among Latino and Latina voters is partly baked into the system. First, non-Mexican groups, particularly Cubans, see themselves as being wholly different from Mexicans. Second, there are plenty of people of Mexican descent, particularly along the Rio Grande, who have been in the country for centuries, and who are pretty hostile to undocumented immigrants. Third, there are many culturally conservative Latinos and Latinas who prioritize that over their ethnic identity.
At the same time, Republicans got about 25% of the vote along Latinos and Latinas in the past two midterms. Only Trump gets that number up to 40%. Clearly, there is something peculiar to him, beyond what is baked into the system. There have been many articles explaining this in terms of his being "macho," which ostensibly comports well with Latino ideas about masculinity. The problem is that Trump only does about 3 points better with Latinos than he does with Latinas. So, either the "macho" thing isn't actually a big deal, or else it affects Latin voters of both genders.
We tend to think that Trump's appeal is probably due to his economic message. Broadly speaking, Latinos and Latinas are as kitchen-table oriented as any affinity group. Further, keep in mind that anyone who can vote is, by definition, a legal resident of the United States. And those folks are often in competition with undocumented immigrants for jobs. Recall that the most famous Latino activist of all, Cesar Chavez, was outspokenly opposed to undocumented immigrants, as he recognized that cheaper undocumented labor undermined his negotiating position as a labor leader.
All of this said, Trump is down 15-20 points among Latino and Latina voters, which is still very big. That's about where he is with women voters. In fact, the only affinity group that is indisputably MORE anti-Trump is Black voters.
Also, since Biden won comfortably with 60% of the Latino and Latina vote, then Harris can certainly do it, too.
L.F. in Boulder, CO, asks: I've been a reader since 2016, when I was 14 years old and Donald Trump had just won the election. My parents recommended Electoral-Vote.com to me, and it's been a go-to source of political news since, even now, when I am about to graduate from college as a molecular neurobiologist. In line with this, my question is biology-related: why is it that very few people seem to be talking about COVID, in terms of voter demographics changing since 2020?
I recall that after the Red Wave That Wasn't in the 2022 midterms, I thought to myself: well, of course Republicans didn't get the votes they expected. They killed so many of their voters! I am, of course, referring to the politicization of basic avoidance measures of COVID such as masking and vaccinations. As you know, COVID-19 is a brutal disease made worse by being unvaccinated, and those who refuse to take precautions are much more likely to get it. To compound this, many MAGA voters are older folks (with weaker immune systems and more comorbidities) who live in rural areas (with less access to healthcare) who then, you know, take horse antiparasitics instead of relevant medicine. According to the CDC, there have been 1.2 million deaths in the US from COVID since 2020 and the real number is very likely to be higher than that. This is not counting permanent disability from long COVID, which accounts for many more. Additionally, studies have shown that after the vaccine became available, excess death rates among Republicans (but not Democrats) spiked. To me, it seems like many people from one major party dying and not the other, especially when a vulnerable population (seniors) is where many Republican votes come from, is a big change in the electorate from 2020. Do you think this is having a real effect on elections, and if so, how much?(V) & (Z) answer: First, congratulations on your pending degree!
Second, you make a compelling case, and we think you are absolutely right that there could be an effect. Remember, 2024 turnout models are based largely on 2020, and 2020 would not reflect a big chunk of the people who passed away or were incapacitated.
We would guess there are a couple of reasons you're not seeing any pieces about this (including from us). First, it's very hard to measure; all you can really do is guess. Second, it's hard to write about something like this (or any other disaster, like Hurricane Helene) without seeming crass.
A.S. in Renton, WA, asks: This article, published on Slate, and shared by Political Wire, had me in a whirlwind of emotions: fond memories of my evangelical upbringing, traumatic flashbacks about my evangelical upbringing, sadness, frustration, grief, anxiety. Do you think the movement described in the article could move the needle in this election?
(V) & (Z) answer: For those who do not care to read, the article is about a bunch of hardcore, hard-right pro-Trump evangelical activists who think all Democrats are possessed by demons, and who are going to do everything they can to get Donald Trump elected.
We do not think this reporting is meaningful in any way. First, note that it comes from Slate. Slate might well be the most sophisticated clickbait operation in the American media today (it's between them and Fox). Slate's politics are generally lefty, and the writing is often of good quality, but their business model is built on clickbait. So, EVERYTHING they write about is "stunning" and "game-changing" and "possibly the key to the election" and "the one critical thing people don't understand about [SUBJECT X]." Basically, the writers at Slate are modern-day muckrakers.
Meanwhile, it is true that these hardcore, grassroots evangelicals will walk 10 miles barefoot over a field full of broken glass and rattlesnakes to vote for Donald Trump. But there have been hardcore, grassroots evangelicals working hard for socially conservative presidential candidates for the last 220 years. That includes hardcore, grassroots evangelicals working hard for Trump in each of the last two elections. They can maybe get their own community roused to action but they don't affect many people outside the movement.
We see no reason to believe the impact of evangelicals will be any more significant in this cycle than it was in the last two. In fact, due to the general decline in religiosity among Americans, and because many evangelicals have grown disgusted with Trump, for various reasons, it could be LESS significant.
Civics
M.M. in Newbury Park, CA, asks: Sorry to jump back a week (which I've heard is a lifetime in politics), but I've been thinking about Kamala Harris's intention to create a carve-out for abortion rights, and Senator Joe Manchin (I-WV) refusing to endorse her because of it.
How exactly would the Democrats, assuming they control the Senate, go about such a thing? Would it be something like, "Point of order: any laws regarding women's health issues are not subject to the filibuster"? You've mentioned before that once carve-outs begin, it's a slippery slope, as it opens the door to carve-outs for any must-pass bill.
So, even though I completely disagree with Manchin (I would be happy to see an end to the filibuster), doesn't he have a point? Wouldn't this carve-out signal the beginning of the end for the filibuster?(V) & (Z) answer: To start, your summation of how a carve-out would be achieved is spot on. A Democratic senator (presumably) would bring a point of order, and if the point of order was carried by a majority, then the carve-out would be in place.
As to Manchin, we'll try to put this delicately: He's full of crap, as is usually the case with him. Do you know how many filibuster carve-outs already exist? Molly Reynolds, of the Brookings Institution, took a close look at the question in her book Exceptions to the Rule: The Politics of Filibuster Limitations in the U.S. Senate and found 161 of them. Some are big and some are fairly trivial, but they're not rare. And pretty much everyone who follows politics knows about several of them, including the carve-outs for judges and budget reconciliation.
So, Manchin's notion that an abortion carve-out would be an armageddon-level assault on democracy is fundamentally dishonest. Further, Harris' support for a carve-out was already implicit in her previous statements in support of codifying abortion access (since that will necessarily require setting aside the filibuster, as there won't be 8 or 9 or 10 Republican votes for such a bill). That means that Manchin's behaving like this was a new and shocking revelation that completely changed his view of Harris was also fundamentally dishonest. Why he wastes all of our time with this political theater, only he knows.
P.L. in Los Angeles, CA, asks: Can you give context and even general voting behavior advice for voting on ballot propositions (at least, in my case, for Californians)? Based on some research, I understand these measures failed to pass in legislature and are now up for voter referendum. Notable is that once a proposition is passed, it cannot be adjusted thereafter without yet another proposition, leading to unintended consequences that the legislature cannot repair on its own. As a result, I have read the recommendation that even if you agree with the sentiment behind a proposition, it's often unwise to vote "Yes" on it.
Can you confirm, deny, or expand on the conclusions from my research, including that final recommendation?(V) & (Z) answer: It's complicated, especially in California, which will be the focus of our answer.
To start with, your statement "these measures failed to pass in legislature and are now up for voter referendum" is not accurate. It's true some of the time, but most ballot initiatives are actually in two other categories: (1) by law, they must be put to the citizenry for a vote, or (2) they were placed on the ballot by the citizen initiative process.
As to the impact, and the extent to which the initiative will be set in stone, you have to read the voter guide. If it says "This initiative will amend the state constitution..." then yes, it's something that cannot easily be changed. So, if you have doubts, you certainly should give strong consideration to voting no, especially since California's ballot propositions are somewhat notorious for being sloppily written or not fully thought out. That said, not all of them are changes to the constitution; others just allocate money or reform the criminal code or otherwise do things that the legislature has the power to affect.
Residents of other states should consider doing the legwork to make sure they understand how their state's referendum/initiative processes work. This article, from Ballotpedia, is a good starting point.
M.B. in New Orleans, LA, asks: You mention on a fairly regular basis that the official candidate campaigns pay lower rates for ads than non-candidate entities (PACs, etc), but how does that actually work from the ad seller's perspective? I'm assuming normal ad buys are just fair-market rate (i.e. whatever they can get), but how do the candidates' prices get set? Is that then subsidized, somehow, so the seller gets the normal amount in the end? If not, what's to stop them from just refusing to sell ads to campaigns?
(V) & (Z) answer: Federal law says that if the ad seller has the inventory available, and a campaign asks to buy it, then the seller has to make the sale. Meanwhile, the sale price must be the same as the lowest price that the seller charges to any customer. This means that political campaigns get the same discounted price that the ad seller's most loyal, high-volume customers get.
There are no subsidies. That said, an ad seller can hardly claim "I can't stay in business charging $300 for a late-night commercial slot," since they were more than happy to charge that same price to Lou's Mattress Kingdom. Meanwhile, there are also some useful benefits to making sure politicians on both sides of the aisle stay happy with your business and your industry, in the same way that donut shops giving out free donuts to cops isn't solely about thanking them for their service.
B.S. in Burlington, VT, asks: I have just been going back and forth with my brother who said, when he bought a house in South Carolina, he found the original owner still on the voter rolls. He/she (the original owner) has since moved to Indiana. Who's to say he/she couldn't vote in both states and if so, how many people do this and is this more of an actual "thing" than the "hordes crossing the border to vote"?
(V) & (Z) answer: It is very rare. To start with, it's not too easy to pull off. Someone would either have to: (1) be in both states to vote in person; (2) vote absentee in their old state, despite not having an address where they can receive their absentee ballot anymore; or (3) vote absentee in their new state, while making sure to be in their old state to vote in person. It's not impossible, but it's a lot of work to add just one vote to the tally. On, and it also puts the person at risk of criminal prosecution if they are caught.
And, despite what Donald Trump and some Republicans might claim, states do their best to make sure that ineligible voters are removed from the rolls. A particularly useful source of information is... the U.S. Postal Service, since if someone files a change of address from South Carolina to Indiana, they clearly aren't a South Carolina voter anymore. There is also a consortium of states called ERIC (Electronic Registration Information Center); it allows states to exchange information on registered voters, with an eye toward identifying people who are double-registered. However, many red states—the ones that claim to be deeply concerned about voter fraud—have withdrawn from ERIC.
D.T. in Columbus, OH, asks: I know that running elections is typically the responsibility of state (and local) governments. But does the federal government gain any additional authority in situations where there has been a disaster declaration?
If the North Carolina legislature refuses to make any changes, in order to accommodate voters who have been impacted by Helene, can the Biden administration force them to do anything? Is the FEMA director able to declare "due to the ongoing emergency, the North Carolina board of elections must continue to accept ballots that arrive up to three days after Election Day"?(V) & (Z) answer: There is no authority that kicks in automatically, excepting in the case of military voters (in which case the federal government has some power under the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act). However, the government has plenty of clever lawyers in its employ. And one thing that clever lawyers do is find ways to sue. So, it's plausible that, if North Carolina doesn't fly right, the federal government could bring suit under, say, the Voting Rights Act.
B.E.F. in Lafayette, CO, asks: The Democrats are rolling in cash, and I still get multiple requests and calls per day. The last thing I want to do is fund more advertisements and fundraising calls. While I understand some of the funding goes to essential services, I suspect a huge amount of the funds are used in activities that have little or no value to society.
With their huge current warchest, could the Harris campaign announce they were making a huge donation for hurricane relief? Sending $100-200 million to the states affected could have an enormous beneficial impact and if a few North Carolina, Georgia and Florida voters decided that was meaningful, so much the better. If Trump can find ways to use donations to pay legal bills, it seems that Harris should be able to find a way to help people out.(V) & (Z) answer: The FEC's rule on this is: "Campaign committees can give gifts to charity. The amount donated to a charitable organization cannot be used for purposes that personally benefit the candidate."
So, the only potential hang-up here is if the donation would be seen as personally benefiting Harris. We don't think that is much of a risk, however. First, the donation would presumably be benefiting the campaign, not Harris personally. By "personal benefit," the FEC generally means something like, "Your campaign donated money to the charity you founded, where you pay yourself seven figures to serve as executive director." Second, the FEC tends to be pretty toothless, and usually isn't able to go after even the most blatant violations of campaign finance law.
H.G. in Bellingham, WA, asks: First of all, Jimmy Carter seems like a heck of a guy and he's done a great job proving that there's life after the White House.
However, I do have a question about voting rights as they pertain to someone who dies after casting an early ballot, but before Election Day. If Carter cast his ballot for Harris on October 7th, and died shortly thereafter, would his vote be invalidated as a result? Most folks would fly under the radar (or maybe under the surface, since Jimmy was a submarine officer), but a former president, not so much. In any case, I'm sure Rosalynn wouldn't mind waiting until November 6th.
Anyway, sorry for the morbid question, but the piece got me thinking about it.(V) & (Z) answer: We've answered this before, but we get the question every week, so we'll answer again.
There are 10 states where state law explicitly says that the ballots of dead people must be counted. An 11th (Connecticut) extends that privilege only to members of the armed services.
There are also 14 states where ballots from deceased people are supposed to be thrown out. There is a lot of variance in terms of the exact procedures and rules used in each of these states.
That leaves 25 states, plus D.C., where the law is silent on this question. Georgia is one of those 25 states. So, Carter's ballot would surely be counted, were he to perish between casting it and Election Day, since there's no legal basis for NOT counting it.
History
J.S. in Hightstown, NJ, asks: You wrote that a number of other states had, in the past, used the method that Maine and Nebraska now use to allocate their electoral votes. When were those states allocating their electoral votes like that? I was born in 1968 and have followed elections pretty closely since I was first able to vote in one in 1988, but I don't remember other states being anything other than winner take all.
(V) & (Z) answer: All of them, outside of Maine and Nebraska, were before you were born, and most of them were way back in the early 19th century.
That said, there are two states, besides Maine and Nebraska, to split their EVs by design at some point in the 20th century. In the 1912 presidential election, California gave 11 EVs to Theodore Roosevelt and 2 to Woodrow Wilson. That was the fourth and final time that the Golden State split its EVs before abandoning that system. And in the 1960 presidential election, several Southern states adopted kooky systems that resulted in split (and sometimes unclear) EV tallies.
There are also states that split their EVs NOT by design in the 20th century and/or 21st century, due to faithless electors.
S.C. in Caracas, Venezuela, asks: In "Trump Is a Dick," you wrote about how Richard Nixon managed to derail a peace deal with Vietnam in 1968. I didn't know that! Can you elaborate more on the subject and/or provide further reading?
(V) & (Z) answer: It's a little complicated, but the basic version is this: The Vietnam War was THE issue in 1968, and Lyndon B. Johnson knew that a reduction of hostilities and a significant draw-down of American involvement, would really help Democratic nominee Hubert H. Humphrey.
So, Johnson tried to make that happen. However, the then-president of South Vietnam, Nguyễn Văn Thiệu, was unenthusiastic about the terms that Johnson wanted. Nixon, by then the Republican nominee, was very dialed-in to foreign affairs by virtue of his time as vice president, and decided to take advantage of the situation. Working primarily through a Republican activist named Anna Chennault (who was of Asian descent, which is why she was asked to take the lead), Nixon communicated to Thiệu that he would get better terms under a future Nixon administration. A peace deal was no certainty under any circumstances, but Nixon's subterfuge was enough to get Thiệu to dig in, and thus to torpedo whatever chance there was of a deal.
As to further reading, you could get a copy of Chasing Shadows: The Nixon Tapes, the Chennault Affair, and the Origins of Watergate, which very reasonably connects the shady behavior of the Chennault Affair to the shady behavior of Watergate. Or you could get Richard Nixon: The Life by John A. Farrell; Farrell's analysis of the Chennault Affair (which is spread across two chapters of the book) is considered the definitive one. Alternatively, Farrell wrote up a pretty good summation for Politico Magazine a few years back.
Also, after we wrote that, several readers quite rightly wrote in to point out that Ronald Reagan worked behind the scenes to undermine a hostage deal with Iran in 1980. So, these sorts of Hatch Act abuses have kind of become part of the GOP presidential playbook.
S.J.Z. in Darien, IL, asks: Has the Heritage Foundation always been filled with far right crazy people? It seems like I remember them being a bit more...sane many years ago.
(V) & (Z) answer: The answer to your question is... yes.
Heritage was founded by Nixon administration alumni, with a view toward promoting conservative principles. It was meant to be a right-wing version of the Brookings Institution. The problem is that there was already a well-established right-wing version of the Brookings Institution, namely the American Enterprise Institute (AEI). So, it wasn't enough for Heritage to adopt the staunch pro-business politices and fanatical anti-communism that were characteristic of the 1970s GOP. The AEI was already promoting those things, and promoting them very well, thank you very much. So, the Heritage folks, in order to distinguish themselves, and to lay claim to their own piece of the funding pie, added culture wars stuff to the mix, so they could make nice with evangelicals. The specific culture wars issues have changed, but it's pretty much always things that are pretty far out there.
E.W. in Skaneateles, NY, asks: Now that you mention Slovenia, I have a question. Besides former First Lady Melania Trump, who are the most prominent or interesting Slovenian-Americans throughout U.S. history?
(V) & (Z) answer: Well, Slovenia is relatively small (2 million people), and it has merged with and split from various other nations, and various empires, many times. Oh, and the U.S. didn't really begin to see an influx of Eastern European immigrants until the early 20th century. For all these reasons, you're not going to find too many (or any) notable Slovenian-Americans from the 19th century (or even the early 20th).
We note all of this as a means of explaining why nearly everyone on our list is still alive. We would say the most prominent Slovenian-Americans are Monkees drummer Micky Dolenz, NBA player Luka Dončić, former football player and current radio personality Mike Golic, Sen. Amy Klobuchar (DFL-MN), NHL player Anze Kopitar, journalist Charles Kuralt, actor Patrick Warburton and musician "Weird Al" Yankovic. There is a famously bigoted current member of the House of Representatives who is also of Slovenian descent, but we will not dishonor the Slovenian people by including him with all these people of attainment.
Gallimaufry
L.L.G. in Thornton, CO, asks: You wrote that, 100 years ago: "Chicago Soldier Field opened for business. It is still waiting, to this day, to be home to an NFL team." Don't the Chicago Bears play at Soldier Field?
(V) & (Z) answer: Yes. The fact that they're occupying the place 8 or 9 or 10 Sundays during football season is not going to help with Chicago's ongoing search for an NFL team. Or perhaps we should say a real NFL team.
J.H. in Boston, MA, asks: Speaking of piercing the veil of anonymity, a week or two ago some reader wrote in with a comment about how they like seeing the cities that the readers come from, and reminiscing about their own connection to the cities that the readers are from. Which reminded me of a thought I have every time your semi-regular respondent E.H. of Stevens Point writes in. See, my extended family is from Stevens Point, WI, and I have a first cousin named Erin H***** who lives in Stevens Point. So every time I see a letter from E.H. of Stevens Point, the thought pops into my head to ask you whether it is Erin. But I never do, because I'm like 99% sure it couldn't be her. And also, like I said, keep it anonymous. So I'm not asking. I'm sure it's not her. But is it though?
(V) & (Z) answer: No, it isn't.
That said, we regularly serve as conduit for putting people in touch with each other. If reader 1 wants to ask reader 2 about some subject or shared connection or whatever, we will forward reader 1's message to reader 2, and tell reader 2 they can do with the message whatever they wish, including ignore it.
Previous | Next
Main page for smartphones
Main page for tablets and computers