Main page    Sep. 07

Pres map
Previous | Next | Senate page | Menu

New polls: CA FL OH TX
Dem pickups: (None)
GOP pickups: AZ

Saturday Q&A

Another week with a very heavy politics section. For that reason, we'll have to hold off on "Reader Question of the Week" this week.

And if you are working on the Friday headline theme, here is an additional hint: Ice, Ice baby.

Current Events

J.H. in Boston, MA, asks: You wrote that Hunter Biden got a plea deal. My understanding is that a plea deal involves some give and take, pleading guilty to lesser charges in exchange for avoiding a trial. Other news outfits reported that Biden pleaded guilty to every tax charge he was facing, after prosecutors refused his offer of an Alford plea (the precise impact of which is lost on me). But other than that rejected offer, I'm not seeing anything about any deal made, but instead it looks like complete capitulation by Biden. Can you clarify?

(V) & (Z) answer: Because of the Alford plea proposal, it was initially reported as a plea deal, which was the situation when we wrote the item. Later, the reporting was clarified, and we updated our item.


A.W. in Brooklyn, NY, asks: Why do we think anyone cares what Liz Cheney has to say about this election? Hasn't she been pretty irrelevant since Wyoming decided she's the wrong kind of... candidate?

(V) & (Z) answer: The extent of the effect remains to be seen, but when bona fide conservative Republicans with right-wing credentials that are beyond doubt announce that they are voting for Harris because Donald Trump is just too dangerous, it gives bona fide conservative Republican voters "permission" to vote for Harris without feeling they have betrayed their party.


C.S in Linville, NC, asks: Having followed Elon Musk's early ventures into electric cars with enthusiasm, I have been disappointed in his thirst for wealth and power in the last decade.

Is he able to become President? I feel like he is in prime position for a White House run in the far-right lane that will be left wide open when the Dear Leader is gone.

(V) & (Z) answer: Musk is a naturalized American citizen, having been born in Pretoria, South Africa to South African parents. He is not eligible to run for president.

He is also a Canadian citizen, incidentally, thanks to his mother having been born in that nation. His best, and probably only, hope of leading the U.S. is for him to wait for the Canadian invasion, and then to arrange to be named leader of the newly installed puppet regime, in the manner of a Vidkun Quisling.


R.C. in Des Moines, IA, asks: Elon Musk fanboying over Donald Trump may or may not be hurting the Republican nominee. I'm wondering if bringing Trump closer and closer to himself does any damage to Musk and/or his companies. Do you have any thoughts on that?

(V) & (Z) answer: There is virtually no question that Musk's business interests are being hurt by his far-right turn. Recall what Michael Jordan allegedly said about his preference to be apolitical: "Republicans buy shoes, too." Well, Democrats buy EVs, too. In fact, Democrats buy more EVs than Republicans.

It is a verifiable fact that Tesla sales dropped substantially in the last couple of years. It is also a verifiable fact that Musk's reputation with Democratic voters is absolutely in the toilet. Musk has blamed the reduced sales on increased interest rates for car loans, but the drop does not coincide with significant changes in the prime rate, and it does coincide with Musk's acquisition of Twitter. It's not too hard to put two and two together here. Also noteworthy is that Tesla's market share of electric cars has dropped from over 75% in 2021 to under 50% now. People are still buying electric cars—just not his.


W.S. in Austin, TX, asks: Donald Trump makes a big issue about the 13 soldiers who died when the U.S. left Afghanistan. Considering the situation, 13 deaths are less bad than it could easily have been. Has Donald Trump or his supporters ever said what they would have done differently that would have reduced the number of casualties?

(V) & (Z) answer: To start, Donald Trump is very good at claiming that he would have handled [TOUGH SITUATION X] better than anyone else. This is, 100% of the time, bull**it. Not 98%, not 99%, not 99.9%, but 100%. When it's just hypothetical (say, the Afghanistan withdrawal, or the war in Ukraine) he never, ever explains how he might have done better. When it's not hypothetical (say, border security, or relations with North Korea, or Iran and nuclear weapons, or managing the budget, or replacing Obamacare) he always comes up short, and does worse than his predecessors, both Democratic and Republicans.

As to Afghanistan, we will say two things. The first is that the 13 soldiers' deaths were the work of a suicide bomber who managed to bypass U.S. security. That is something of a black swan event, and if circumstances had been a little different (or a lot different), maybe he doesn't get through. Or maybe two suicide bombers get through. It's impossible to say.

Second, Donald Trump has absolutely no idea how to manage a military withdrawal—if he did, it would have happened while he was president, since that was the timeline he agreed to (and then disregarded). Further, by the time Afghanistan was winding down, all the grown-ups had quit or been run out of the Trump administration, and he was being advised by sycophants, nitwits, and sycophantic nitwits. There was no particular talent there when it comes to handing tricky, nearly unprecedented military situations. If they had somehow done better than the Biden administration did, it would have been dumb luck. And the odds are they would have done as poorly, or worse, than Team Joe did.


B.B. in St. Louis, MO, asks: Given that a major Trump talking point this election cycle involves the demonization of undocumented immigrants, why have the Democrats not brought up the fact that several Trump properties have employed, and perhaps continue to employ, undocumented immigrants? Is this an item that perhaps Vice President Harris should ask him to explain at the debate?

(V) & (Z) answer: There is a small, a medium, and a large problem here.

The small problem is that the candidates don't actually get to interrogate each other at the debate. Yes, it's sometimes possible to backdoor a question in there, but there's no guarantee the target will answer.

The medium question is that Trump's various hypocrisies, including employing undocumented immigrants, are well known, and don't seem to bother anyone besides the people who already aren't voting for him.

The large problem is that there is no way to frame this that doesn't aggravate some key Democratic constituency. If Harris says, "Donald, why do you hire undocumented immigrants when you know it's illegal and you're not allowed to do so?", then some voters with immigrant relatives will see that as scapegoating immigrants. If Harris says, "Donald talks big about undocumented immigrants, but he knows full well they are a big part of keeping American businesses running," then some voters will see that as encouraging undocumented immigration.


Q.F. in Boulder, CO, asks: Will there be a dedicated Slack or Discord channel where readers can chat, as was done for that disastrous Biden-Convicted Felon debate? It was a lot of fun to "watch" with others. Thank you

(V) & (Z) answer: If there is a reader who plans to run a channel, let us know at comments@electoral-vote.com, and we'll include the information in our debate preview.

Politics

J.P.R. in Westminster, CO, asks: Kamala Harris has hired a "rural vote director." Having been born and raised in red states, I'm applauding this, and I know (V) certainly is because, well, how many features has he alone written on this very thing over the years? But my question is, what has taken the Democrats so long?

(V) & (Z) answer: Barack Obama also did this, which suggests, to us, two possible answers to your question. First, thanks to enthusiasm, Obama and Harris were/are both awash in money. And when you have money to burn, you can afford to spend some of it on rolling the dice. Second, many rural Democrats are Black. Perhaps Black candidates are more sensitive to the need to connect with those voters than non-Black candidates are.


A.M. in Ottawa, ON, Canada, asks: Kamala Harris is raising gobs of money. New registrations and new volunteer signups are strong, suggesting lots of enthusiasm. Yet, after early clear gains in the polls after Harris became the de facto nominee, in the last two or three weeks the poll trends have basically been stalled. Are the polls missing something?

M.C. in Elmhurst, IL, asks: The question I have is about the disparity between the Senate polls and the presidential polls and many of the swing states like Arizona, Michigan, Pennsylvania, or Wisconsin. These polls are frequently showing the Democratic Senate candidate outperforming Harris by 2 to 5 points, sometimes even more.

We know that polling firms have tried to adjust to account for the fact that Trump has overperformed his polls in the last two elections. Are they only adjusting the presidential poll and is that causing some of the disparity?

That wouldn't seem to be a sound approach to me, but it almost seems more believable than a bunch of Gallego/Trump voters or Baldwin/Trump voters or Rosen/Trump voters.

(V) & (Z) answer: We get a bunch of questions along these lines every week—why Harris' polls don't seem to be all that much better than Joe Biden's, and/or why the Democratic Senate candidates are running ahead of her, often by a lot. We wish we had good, clear answers here, but we don't. All we can offer is possible theories. Let's start with the notion that the current polling is on target, and some explanations for how that could be possible:

And now, let's consider the notion that there might be something wrong with the current polling, and how that might be happening:

Note that all of the theories above, if correct, are based on the presumption that it is Harris who is being undervalued. That is for two reasons. First, Donald Trump is at or near his historical ceiling. There is no particular reason to think he can break through 48% support (or so). Second, the non-polling indicators (e.g., fundraising) overwhelmingly favor Harris.


C.E. in Yakima Valley, WA, asks: With all the talk about childless cat ladies, does Kamala Harris even have a cat? Will she bring a feline with her to the Oval Office? Considering the number of people that Joe Biden's dogs have bitten in the last 4 years, this seems like a real issue for discussion.

(V) & (Z) answer: On the whole, cats are rather less of a problem than dogs when it comes to keeping them from, you know, biting Secret Service agents. If it's necessary, a cat can be isolated in a room or suite, and not exposed to non-family members. They don't have as much need for human interaction, nor do they need to take potty walks.

In any event, Harris does not have any pets. Should she be elected president, it's likely she'll acquire one or more, just like the Obamas and the Clintons did. Only two U.S. presidents have been pet-less: Donald Trump and James K. Polk.


C.F. in Waltham, MA, asks: Trump comes up with dumb grade school names that seem to stick and has settled on Comrade Kamala Harris. I'm trying to understand how calling someone a friend, while showing that you yourself cater to Putin by using the Russian language, makes any sense at all. Am I missing something?

(V) & (Z) answer:

A wanted poster accusing JFK of treason, a button saying that you should vote LBJ if you want communism, an anti-Clinton t-shirt where the C is a hammer and sickle, a button accusing Joe Biden of being a Communist tool, and an AI-generated image of Kamala Harris in communist regalia

Since the Cold War, Republicans have accused every Democratic president, and presidential candidate, of being a closet communist. Donald Trump, whose fairly limited consciousness of world affairs was formed and then petrified in the 1960s, is particularly prone to that bit of sophistry.


M.C. in Falls Church, VA, asks: What share of voters genuinely like Donald Trump, as opposed to those who will vote for him for some other reason, like a preference for a Republican administration?

(V) & (Z) answer: We see no reason to think "I like Trump" and "I have a favorable opinion of Trump" are materially different sentiments. At the moment, Trump's favorability rating is about 43%. So, we'd say 43% of Americans actually like him, while another 4% or so are prepared to hold their noses and vote for him.


A.G. in Scranton, PA, asks: Vice President Harris leads former President Trump in popular opinion polls by 52% to 46%. These numbers seem familiar to me: Obama 52%, McCain 46%.

Is this basically just where we are? Are 46% of people still the McCain/Palin, say anything no matter how vapid, do anything no matter how odious coalition of hatred and anti-intellectualism? Has the Vice President put together the Obama Coalition this rapidly? Has there been some shift (I would have to think there was as old people die and as young people are the sorts who tend to go and get themselves born these days) that has cobbled together a similarly sized pair of similarly aligned coalitions?

(V) & (Z) answer: The U.S. system strongly encourages the formation of two roughly equal partisan factions. So, excepting cases where one candidate is really unpopular (Barry Goldwater, Walter Mondale, Herbert Hoover, etc.), both parties are going to poll within a few points of 50%. We don't think the alignment of 2024 is quite the same as the alignment of 2008; non-college whites have clearly migrated toward the Republican Party, while college-educated suburbanites have clearly migrated toward the Democratic Party.


M.K. in Los Angeles, CA, asks: I figured out that the blue states have negative 5 electoral votes and the red states have positive 3 electoral votes since the last census (that I am pretty sure was manipulated by the Trump administration by ending it early, scaring immigrants, etc.). So doesn't this give the GOP a +8 advantage this election when it comes to Electoral College votes? Won't it be harder for Kamala Harris to get to 270 and easier for Donald Trump?

(V) & (Z) answer: California, Illinois, Michigan, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania and West Virginia all lost one EV. Colorado, Florida, Montana, North Carolina and Oregon gained one EV. Texas gained two EVs.

Working from the 2020 presidential map, that's minus-5 EVs for the Democrats and minus-2 EVs for the Republicans, for a net of minus-3 EVs for the Democrats. Meanwhile, it's plus-2 EVs for the Democrats and plus-5 EVs for the Republicans, for a net of plus-3 EVs for the Republicans. So, it looks like a swing of 6 EVs to us. Which means that the Democrats' hill is, indeed, a bit steeper to climb. That said, there aren't too many plausible combinations of swing states that produce a gap of 6 EVs or less. Some, but not too many.


R.F. in Baltimore, MD, asks: An article on Fox's website quoted an "expert" who said Kamala can't win without Pennsylvania, and Trump can't win without Georgia. Since polls in Pennsylvania show it's tied, and at this point Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden were polling much better, this means Kamala has essentially already lost. What's your take?

(V) & (Z) answer: We tried to find this article, and could not. This is not too surprising, because Fox runs a lot of articles and op-eds like this.

Assuming that is what the pundit said, they are either dumb or pandering to the audience or both. There is no particular reason to think that the dynamics of [PRESIDENTIAL RACE X] will be the same as (or even especially similar to) those of [PRESIDENTIAL RACE Y]. Each one is its own special creature. That is doubly true in a race with an unprecedented change at the top of one of the two tickets.

Similarly, it is laughable to say that it's possible to call Pennsylvania right now, with more than 50 days left in the campaign. And if it is, well, guess what? FiveThirtyEight's polling average has Harris with a narrow lead. If you look at the map above, our (more selective) method has Harris with a narrow lead. So if you had to make a pick right now, the evidence supports Pennsylvania going for Harris.

And finally, while Pennsylvania would be a big get for Harris, she can certainly win without it. Again, take a look at the map above. Take Pennsylvania away from Harris and give her North Carolina, and she wins with 273 EVs. Alternatively, she can replace Pennsylvania with wins in Georgia and Arizona.


R.R. in Libertyville, IL, asks: What's your take on this statement from an NPR article: "In fact, Nevada has the lowest level of college attainment of the seven states—just 27% have college degrees, which tends to make for a less politically engaged population and one that is most likely to engage now, post-Labor Day and up to Election Day. In other words, you can probably throw out all the polls up until Labor Day in Nevada."

Should we reset Nevada? Put a stronger curve on "aging" previous polls? Is NPR full of it?

(V) & (Z) answer: NPR certainly could be right, in that non-college people are generally less engaged than college-educated people. That said, many non-college Nevadans are union members, and union members are often very engaged.

We tend to think that the real problem with Nevada right now is that it hasn't recovered from the pandemic. At least, the working people there don't think so (hence the mini-strike over Labor Day weekend). We're not sure that either the politicians or the pollsters have fully wrapped their minds around this.


H.W. in San Francisco, CA, asks: To me, the only real chance the Democrats have of retaining the Senate is to get Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) to caucus with them. She has already voted to convict Donald Trump, voted against Brett Kavanaugh and for many Democratic appointments and measures and has run successfully as an independent. With Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) being replaced in January with an even more conservative and less talented Republican leader, it would be the perfect time for her to switch and get whatever committee posts she wants if she is the 50th vote for the Democrats to run the Senate, assuming Tim Walz is VP and casts the deciding vote as Kamala Harris did earlier as VP. Why does no one seem to discuss this possibility?

(V) & (Z) answer: The reason nobody discusses this possibility is that Murkowski was in a position to extract a king's ransom by switching sides in both the 117th Congress (2021-23) and the 118th Congress (2023-25) and she made clear she was not interested. That said, she may vote with the Democrats on confirmation and other votes from time to time.


A.T. in Toronto, ON, Canada, asks: Looks like control of the Senate is a losing cause for Democrats in this election, while there may be a chance for the House. But what about the 2026 midterm election? Is there any chance that there are enough contested GOP seats in Senate to flip it back to Democrats in 2026?

(V) & (Z) answer: The 2026 map is not great for the Democrats. There are only two Republican seats that are potentially winnable, namely the ones in Maine and North Carolina. Meanwhile, the blue team has a few tough defenses, in Georgia, Virginia and Michigan. They really need to hold serve this year.

We think you are too quickly dismissing the chances of them doing that in 2024. Remember, congressional results tend to correlate with presidential results, so if Kamala Harris wins, she could pull the necessary number of Democrats across the finish line. A lot depends on Montana. The DSCC is well aware of this and has plenty of money. Before too long, every man, woman, and child in Montana will know that Tim Sheehy is from Minnesota and Sen. Jon Tester (D-MT) and his family have been farming in Montana for three generations. Nobody likes carpetbaggers. Besides, 90+ percent of incumbents win. It's not a done deal yet.


L.S. in Bellingham, WA, asks: I just finished reading your Senate summaries for this election year. As you noted, most of the races are not really competitive. In those cases, I was struck by how many times (11 out of 34) your comments on the underdog could be summed up as "Why even bother?" Here are those states: Hawaii, Minnesota, New York, Washington, Vermont, West Virginia, Indiana, Mississippi, Nebraska, North Dakota and Wyoming, This got me wondering: When is fielding a candidate, even in a race you know you cannot win, worth the time and effort?

(V) & (Z) answer: We may lay on the snark a bit heavy, but it's always worth the time and effort, as long as a party is not redirecting resources from winnable states to tilting-at-windmill states. First, a statewide campaign produces useful information for a political party, including a sense of where the state stands, politically, along with a list of donors/contacts. Second, if the majority party's candidate somehow gets in trouble—say, it's learned that they pursued underage girls while in their 30s—then the minority party wants to make sure they have someone there to seize the opportunity.


S.K. in Sunnyvale, CA, asks: You often refer to blunders made by a candidate or campaign as "unforced errors." For contrast, could you give an example or two of recent political forced errors?

(V) & (Z) answer: These concepts come to us from the world of tennis, where a forced error is caused by the actions of one's opponent, while an unforced error is entirely the responsibility of the player who makes the error. Think screwing up a tough-to-handle serve (forced) versus a double fault (unforced).

One good example of a recent forced error, we would say, is Donald Trump's announcement that he would vote against the Florida abortion amendment. He was backed into a corner by the folks who put the amendment on the ballot in the first place, and then by the folks who compelled him to take an actual position. And, as a result, he did damage to himself.


M.Z. in Southwest Harbor, ME, asks: A friend at work is insisting that EVs, because of battery production, cause more pollution than gas powered vehicles. The moderate amount of research I have done shows this to be false. Where might my friend be getting this from? When asked the answer is "Everybody knows."

(V) & (Z) answer: This is a common claim, generally made by global-warming denialists and folks who oppose green technologies. It's easy to find people making this assertion—primarily, but not exclusively, on right-wing sites. For a left-wing example, see this op-ed by actor Rowan Atkinson, who is a liberal and an environmentalist, but not necessarily a well-informed one.

Anyhow, because the rare-earth metals needed for EV batteries are difficult to mine, an EV fresh off the production line has a much bigger carbon footprint than a gasoline-powered vehicle fresh off the production line. However, the gasoline-powered vehicle pretty quickly catches up (about a year), because the production of EV electricity produces far less pollution than an internal combustion engine.

On top of this, the gap between EVs and gasoline-powered vehicles is getting bigger and bigger over time because: (1) the rare-earth mining is growing more efficient, (2) the use of the rare-earth metals is growing more efficient, (3) the production of electricity is growing more efficient, and (4) manufacturers are getting better at recycling EV batteries. Here is an accessible, but pretty thorough, report from the Union of Concerned Scientists that lays everything out.

Civics

E.M. in Johannesburg, South Africa, asks: Here in South Africa, we had our own momentous elections this year, which resulted in no clear majority, but a required a coalition of sorts. The ANC styled it as a Government of National Unity (mainly for mileage and political optics), and co-opted a number of minority parties along with the official opposition into the formation of a very healthy ruling majority in parliament. This is remarkable in that just a few years ago this would have been unthinkable for either of the two biggest parties. It is also almost unimaginable that the ANC, having now lost its outright majority, gave up the power so peacefully and orderly with not a shred of shenanigans or deceit. There was the odd rumble from one or two very minor and irrelevant parties, but it was on the whole a very remarkable series of events which has allowed Government to get stuck in immediately and get on with the job of fulfilling its civic duties to govern and deliver for the people.

My questions are twofold. First, is a government of national unity or reconciliation even a remote possibility in U.S. politics. Has such ever happened before, or is it virtually impossible in such polarized two-party politics? Second, once a state's vote tally is counted and it is either won or lost for a particular party, are the state representatives at the Electoral College obliged by state or federal law to cast those votes in favor of the winning party per the voter wishes? Do they have any discretion?

(V) & (Z) answer: A unity government is, obviously, much more plausible in a system where there are three or more parties with membership in the legislature. Having a national leader (e.g., a prime minister) drawn from the legislature also encourages this arrangement, since you can't have a leader without a working majority.

The U.S. has, in its past, had what might be called unity governments. When the Whigs were falling apart and the Republicans were rising in the 1850s, there were Congresses led by a coalition rather than a single party. During the Civil War, there was something of a Republicans-and-some-Democrats alliance, enough that when Abraham Lincoln ran in 1864, he did so (officially) as a member of the National Union Party. And in the latter part of the 19th century, fusions between a third-party and a major party were common (for example, the Populists and the Democrats).

All of this said, a unity government, or something like it, is not very likely today. There is no major party in the process of collapsing and being replaced by a different major party. There is no war. And fusion tickets have been outlawed in most states (with New York being the primary exception).

As to the electors, some states have laws that require them to follow the marching orders they got from voters, some states do not. These laws have never been tested in court, so it's not clear whether or not they are constitutional.


R.D. in Austin, TX, asks: Since I am a blind voter who obviously can't drive, I'm trying to find ways to help voters who are also lacking transport. I have my wife and can afford ride share, but others lack such options. I'm also wondering if there is a resource that helps disabled voters with mail-in ballots (the handwriting-match issue would be very problematic for someone like me if I voted in that manner). I have seen references to the website www.voteriders.org for those who need help with voter ID, is that a good source or would you recommend another?

(V) & (Z) answer: We know the National Federation of the Blind has some resources and some programs, but we're obviously not expert in this area. If readers who know better have additional things to add, please let us know at comments@electoral-vote.com and we will run the responses tomorrow.


F.S. in Cologne, Germany, asks: Why isn't the draft a violation of the Thirteenth Amendment? And did the draft during World War II have any positive consequences for the Civil Rights movement? After all, Black soldiers served during World War II, and perhaps many white people were convinced that Black people deserved equal civil rights because of that.

(V) & (Z) answer: The draft does not violate the Thirteenth Amendment because, in Arver v. United States (1918), the Supreme Court said it didn't. This was not an unreasonable position. First, the Constitution gives Congress the right to raise an army. Second, the fellows who wrote the Thirteenth Amendment were the same ones who instituted the United States' first draft. It is improbable that those men intended to get rid of the draft when they got rid of slavery. Third, there are many other countries that outlawed slavery but have (or had) a military draft. The majority opinion in Arver has a long list of them.

As to World War II and the Civil Rights movement, the service of Black soldiers certainly prepped some white Americans for the notion that Black Americans deserved greater equality. However, the primary dynamic was that Black men were promised greater equality if they served well in World War I, and then... didn't get it. Then, they were promised greater equality if they served well in World War I, and then... decided that if that was going to happen, they were going to have to see to it themselves.


R.D.T. in Fresno, CA, asks: The Electoral College used to meet on the Monday after the second Wednesday in December, following the presidential election. As far as I know, this schedule was followed for many years. In 2020, the electoral votes were cast on Monday, December 14.

However, the EC is meeting this time on Tuesday, December 17. I haven't been able to find out when, how or why this change was made. Since the president and vice president aren't elected until the electors meet, it seems this would warrant at least a brief mention somewhere, but if there's been one it's escaped me.

Can you tell me when, how and why this was changed?

(V) & (Z) answer: The when and how are easy. The meeting was pushed back by one day in the Electoral Count Reform and Presidential Transition Improvement Act of 2022, which became law on December 29, 2022.

The why is less clear, because nobody involved seems to have given an explicit reason for the change. The new law does impose a few extra hoops for state officials to jump through, so our best guess is that Congress gave the additional day to accommodate that. It might also have been the case that the members liked the idea of the election and the Electoral College vote both being held on the same day of the week.


J.C. in Knoxville, TN, asks: Would this photo expose me to a lawsuit?

It has a photo of Trump. At the top, in smallish type, it says 'people are saying that' and at the bottom, in much larger type, it says 'Trump raped my dog.'

(V) & (Z) answer: No. This is clearly satirical, and satire is not defamatory. You can thank pornographer Larry Flynt for that.

History

A.M. in Mexico City, Mexico, asks: After watching J.D. Vance flail around, I've been wondering: who do you think have been the best and the worst VP picks in history?

(V) & (Z) answer: The five best:

  1. Al Gore: To a large extent, Gore created the modern vice presidency, in terms of being an actual partner in governance rather than a guy who pops into the Senate a couple of times a year to break a tie.

  2. Joe Biden: At the same time that John McCain was botching his VP pick, Barack Obama defused some voters' concerns about the Democratic ticket by choosing an old, moderate, inoffensive white guy. And then, that inoffensive white guy went on to be an invaluable partner to Obama (especially in terms of liaising with Congress), and then president himself.

  3. Harry S. Truman: FDR didn't like him, and only met with him... one time during his brief term as VP. Nonetheless, he was ready to occupy the big chair, to the tune of being a Top 10 president in U.S. History.

  4. Theodore Roosevelt: William McKinley didn't particularly like him, either. However, he was also ready to occupy the big chair, to the tune of bring a Top 5 president in U.S. history.

  5. Lyndon B. Johnson: Like Truman and Roosevelt, he was ready for a promotion, and did well with it (the Vietnam quagmire excepted). Unlike Truman and Roosevelt, he may well have made the difference between a winning ticket and a losing ticket, thanks to bringing Texas into the Democratic column. So, he was a good pick on two different, and important, levels.

The five worst:

  1. Sarah Palin: John McCain probably wasn't going to win the Election of 2008. But once he picked Palin, and thus wrecked his reputation as a maverick and a man who did what he thought was right, "probably" became "definitely."

  2. Spiro Agnew: He probably wasn't quite as crooked as Richard Nixon, but he sure gave it the old college try. One of only two VPs to resign.

  3. Dick Cheney: Many Democrats are not feeling great that they are on the same team as Cheney right now. That may have to do with the fact that he was the neocon among neocons who engineered the endless wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, not to mention extensive corruption in domestic affairs.

  4. Aaron Burr: He precipitated a constitutional crisis when he refused to stand down after a tie in the Electoral College, despite the fact that everyone knew he was the VP candidate. He shot and killed Alexander Hamilton. And he may well have been a traitor who tried to sell the U.S. out to the Spanish.

  5. John C. Calhoun: You thought Donald Trump was bad? Ok, he was. But Calhoun was almost as bad, fomenting rebellion behind the scenes against the president he supposedly served (Andrew Jackson). As the icing on the cake, he and his wife led a gossipy plot (the Petticoat Affair) that forced the resignation of Jackson's entire cabinet. As the cherry on the icing, he was a white supremacist and slave owner.

F.L. in Allen, TX, asks: Although I have been sentenced to Texas (for all my sins), I am from Louisiana and have a healthy interest in its history—at least, for an engineer. A friend tipped me off about the Colfax massacre in Louisiana during Reconstruction. Colfax was named for Grant's Veep, Schuyler Colfax, in the newly formed Grant Parish. Up to 150 Black militiamen were killed over... voting rights.

I read the Wikipedia article on it, and it does give some details in terms of a timeline, but I was wondering if you could recommend a source that gets a bit more into the tall weeds. Thanks in advance.

(V) & (Z) answer: The best book is LeeAnna Keith's The Colfax Massacre: The Untold Story of Black Power, White Terror, and the Death of Reconstruction. However, it is a scholarly book, and some folks find those to be a bit too dry. If you want something a bit more accessible, then get Charles Lane's The Day Freedom Died: The Colfax Massacre, the Supreme Court, and the Betrayal of Reconstruction. Or, if you want the context for the massacre (but only a bit of discussion of the massacre itself) then get Eric Foner's A Short History of Reconstruction.


K.F. in Framingham, MA, asks: The new Reagan biopic is out and I have no interest in seeing it. I hear it received very bad reviews thus far, particularly because it apparently glosses over most of the bad stuff that his presidency wrought upon the nation. I was just a kid during his years in office and wasn't really following politics back then, so I don't remember a lot about him, aside from the occasional Oval Office address or the "tear down this wall" speech.

You may have addressed this before, but how does Reagan compare with Trump in terms of the impact he had on the public's consciousness when he first expressed presidential ambitions? You have mentioned how Trump's absurd political rise stemmed from stupid tabloid stuff and later as a fake TV show host. I get the impression that Reagan was at best a B-movie actor. Prior to his climb up the political ladder, did the American electorate really put much weight on his Hollywood legacy, thinking as an outsider he could shake things up?

(V) & (Z) answer: There's a bit in the movie Back to the Future when the primary antagonist, Marty McFly, tells the secondary antagonist, Doc Brown, that Ronald Reagan is the president in 1985. Since the scene is set in 1955, Brown is shocked, and guffaws at the notion.

That exchange is fun but, we think, gives the wrong impression. True, Ronald Reagan's career as an entertainer was fairly undistinguished, mush like Trump's career as an entertainer. However, Reagan had far more charisma than Trump and was a far better public speaker. Further, Reagan had a real résumé that was germane to a political career. He led the Screen Actors Guild. Then he became a veteran campaigner (for Barry Goldwater, among others). Then, of course, he became governor of California. Then, it was the presidency. And while Reagan wasn't the sharpest guy ever to be president, he was clever enough to surround himself with talented people.

In short, Reagan was a far more qualified and far more prepared presidential candidate than Trump ever was, and while some people saw the Gipper as a lightweight, most saw him as the legitimate political force that he was by the mid-1970s.

Gallimaufry

T.B. in Leon County, FL, asks: Taegan Goddard in Political Wire declared that the best two polling aggregators are Nate Silver and 538. I cannot imagine Electoral-Vote.com is not known to him, as your site is approximately the first site to do aggregating, back in the Dark Ages of 2004. Your methodology is thoughtful, straight forward and revealed, so why the snub?

(V) & (Z) answer: We don't regard ourselves as a polling aggregator, and neither does Taegan, presumably. Aggregators attempt to build and present a database of most or all of the polls conducted for a particular election cycle. We, on the other hand, present a numerical interpretation of a subset of carefully curated polls.


L.B. in Savannah, GA, asks: Pew Research is one of the most respected polling organizations in the country. I just got into a discussion with someone on Reddit because I said that they mainly conduct attitude polls in the political arena, and not straight Biden vs. Trump or Harris vs. Trump polls. The person then directed me to a Harris v. Trump poll on Pew's website, in an article about how enthusiastic voters are. This proved my point, that Pew mainly conducts meta-analysis, not head-to-head polls. This was confirmed when I checked FiveThirtyEight and noticed that Pew was not included on the list of pollsters they use for their aggregate.

So, my question to you is: Do you include Pew Research in your own algorithm, and if not, why not?

(V) & (Z) answer: We trust Pew but, as you note, they generally don't do horse-race head-to-head polls (except possibly incidentally when they run a poll about something else). They clearly do not regard horse-race polling as part of their core business. There is no link to polls on their home page. None of the aggregators we look at, including 538, Real Clear Polling, 270 to Win, etc. include Pew. Also, as far as we know, Pew never does state polls, which is what we care about. If they wanted to get into doing horse-race polling in individual states, we would use them, but they don't.


B.K. in Seattle, WA, asks: Regarding Indiana on your electoral map: Why do you keep showing it as "Lean R" based on an April poll? Unless you know something different, I suggest you update it. I highly doubt, based upon Indiana's history, that it will go Democratic.

(V) & (Z) answer: We have a method, which we do not hide. One byproduct of this method is that there will be some wonkiness in the map early on, particularly in states that are not polled all that regularly. That Indiana poll isn't even having an effect; the EVs are still in Trump's column. The most recent poll of Indiana was a Zogby poll in April showing Trump at 47% and Biden at 43%. We strongly suspect that Trump will win the Hoosier State by double digits, but we are waiting for an actual poll saying that.

If we started editing the map based on our gut feel, or what we know "must be true," then we might as well not use polling at all. If what you want is folks who crunch all the information in their heads, and then make their best guess as to what it all means, read Cook Political Report or Sabato's Crystal Ball.


R.L.D. in Sundance, WY, asks: I thought I read recently that you use the latest poll unless there were other polls in the 7 days prior, which would suggest that a cluster would be averaged out to color the map even if there were a gap of more than a week following, but today you said "We use an average of the last 7 days' worth of polls, or the latest poll, if there hasn't been one in the last 7 days" which suggests that after a week, only the last poll in the cluster would survive to color the map. Not that it matters a whole lot, I'm just curious as to which interpretation is correct.

(V) & (Z) answer: The more recent explanation was inaccurate. We always use the most recent poll, and if there are any polls within a week of that, we average those equally with the most recent one.

Today's Presidential Polls

Florida and Texas within shouting distance? If so, wow. But losing by 4-5 points is still losing. (Z)

State Kamala Harris Donald Trump Start End Pollster
California 60% 36% Sep 03 Sep 05 Emerson Coll.
Florida 45% 50% Sep 03 Sep 05 Emerson Coll.
Ohio 43% 53% Sep 03 Sep 05 Emerson Coll.
Texas 44% 49% Aug 20 Aug 29 YouGov
Texas 44% 49% Aug 23 Aug 31 U. of Texas
Texas 46% 50% Sep 03 Sep 05 Emerson Coll.

Click on a state name for a graph of its polling history.

Today's Senate Polls

Montana is looking not-so-good for the blue team. They would be very, very happy if they could replace it with Florida. The problem for the DSCC is that Florida is a very big and very expensive state to advertise in. Is it wise to pull money out of Ohio and Montana to gamble on Florida? We don't know. Maybe if Arizona, Nevada, Wisconsin, and Pennslyvania can take care of themselves, it might be. (Z)

State Democrat D % Republican R % Start End Pollster
California Adam Schiff 55% Steve Garvey 33% Sep 03 Sep 05 Emerson Coll.
Florida Debbie Mucarsel-Powell 36% Rick Scott* 44% Aug 23 Aug 31 U. of Texas
Florida Debbie Mucarsel-Powell 45% Rick Scott* 46% Sep 03 Sep 05 Emerson Coll.
Florida Debbie Mucarsel-Powell 45% Rick Scott* 46% Sep 03 Sep 05 Morning Consult
Ohio Sherrod Brown* 46% Bernie Moreno 44% Sep 03 Sep 05 Emerson Coll.
Texas Colin Allred 36% Ted Cruz* 44% Aug 23 Aug 31 U. of Texas
Texas Colin Allred 44% Ted Cruz* 48% Sep 03 Sep 05 Emerson Coll.

* Denotes incumbent


Previous | Next

Main page for smartphones

Main page for tablets and computers