Dem
47
GOP
53
Good news! Nothing happened yesterday that threatens to disrupt the world order and, perhaps, lay the groundwork for World War III. So, today's a normal Saturday, content-wise.
If you are still working on the headline theme, we will tell you that there are actually a few albums with the title Chastity. The one we intended is by Cher. There are also several albums with the title Meltdown. The one we intended is by Pitbull.
R.S. in San Mateo, CA, asks: A little over a month ago, you wrote:
And be cautious about reaching firm conclusions when it comes to Congress. The members—especially Republicans, but also many Democrats—do not benefit from challenging Trump openly. So, if and when they resist him, it will be mostly behind the scenes. Wait and see how many Trump-backed bills they actually pass. Wait and see if they actually allow Tulsi Gabbard to become DNI. Wait and see if they push back if and when he tries to do something truly outrageous. We are not saying that Congress won't roll over—it might. But we are saying that it's far too early to tell, and that we think they'll likely show more spine than seems to be the case right now.What say you now?
(V) & (Z) answer: We get some version of this question almost every day, one that boils down to: "Are you ready to admit that Donald Trump has completely destroyed the American political system, and democracy with it?"
Those who, for whatever reason, want us to write that are going to be disappointed. First of all, we've already seen that there are at least some limits to what Trump can do, or will try to do. To take a recent example, he wrote his executive order on the cryptocurrency reserve in a very limited way, knowing that anything broader was likely to get struck down. He, and his Republican colleagues in Congress, are having enormous difficulty figuring out a budget. Matt Gaetz is not the Attorney General of the United States. If Trump's power was truly dictatorial, the U.S. would have a massive crypto reserve based primarily on the $TRUMP coin, his preferred budget would already be in place, and Gaetz would be AG.
Second, we, and in particular (Z), are students of history. So, we know that—to take one example—that in the North there were near-constant editorials, and speeches, and public declarations during the Civil War that the war was surely lost, and the fighting should be ended immediately. And we all know how that turned out. We understand that it's not easy to sit back and watch things unfold in such a troubling fashion. But it is far, far, far too early to reach conclusions about how this story is going to end.
Third, and finally, if we do write a "democracy is lost" item, it will be on our final day of publication. We are people who analyze politics, not chroniclers of an absolutist overthrow of the U.S. government. Should Trump actually manage to set aside the Constitution and make himself some sort of dictator, then there are no more politics, and therefore there will no longer be a purpose for our site.
R.D.D.in Nantucket, MA, asks: I'm having a disconnect on why business leaders are so mute right now, as well as more conservative members of Congress. After all, the one thing the markets hate is instability. Everything that Donald Trump is doing is causing chaos, yet no one seems to want to try to tamp down on his excesses. I would think that senators who aren't up for re-election in 2 years, as well as billionaires who want to protect their investments, would be at least quietly trying to rein Trump in. Even Elon Musk must have at least some interest in some restraint. After all, a 20% drop in the market would absolutely swamp any tax cut that Trump might be offering for these people. What am I missing?
(V) & (Z) answer: If they are quietly trying to rein Trump in then, by definition, you (and we) would not know about it. Anyone who challenges Trump right now, in any sort of public way, risks him taking aggressive counter-measures, whether that's backing a primary opponent, or launching some sort of investigation, or blocking some sort of merger. Those are not desirable outcomes, so delicacy and subtlety are the obvious choices right now.
Once there are actual consequences, then some of these folks might choose to get more aggressive. For example, if Trump actually tries to withdraw from NATO. Or if the U.S. defaults on its debt. Or if he ignores a Supreme Court ruling. Or if the stock market drops precipitously. But until there are serious consequences, they can continue to tell themselves that the gentle approach might just work, and so that is the approach they will take.
A.M. in Brookhaven, PA, asks: When discussing this week's presidential address to Congress you wrote that Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) "gets it" by skipping in-person attendance. Would it potentially make sense for the Democratic caucus to skip the next dog and pony show en masse? Potentially, they could spend the time raising money for a charitable cause, such as St. Jude's Hospital, that would make the Republicans look really bad if they criticized it.
(V) & (Z) answer: Note that we did not write that it is our opinion that she "gets it." We wrote that some readers might see things that way. We did not share our opinion, one way or the other.
As to a mass boycott, here is the problem. Traditionally, the seats on one side are reserved for Democratic attendees and the seats on the other side are reserved for Republicans. If the Democrats just don't show up, however, then their seats will just be taken by Republicans. So, if you are envisioning the visual of a half-empty chamber, that would not happen.
To get the best of both worlds, the thing to do would be to have some Democrats doing a fundraiser, or some other sort of counter-programming. Then, the Democrats in the gallery could get up, as a group, at some problematic point in the speech, march out, and explain to reporters that they decided it was better to join their colleagues at the fundraiser/other event.
If the visual of a half-empty gallery is not a concern, then the Democrats could just go all-in on some sort of alternative event, without the theater.
A.H. inEspoo, Finland, asks: Could it be that Donald Trump is trying to manipulate the stock markets with this tariff circus? Not necessarily succeeding, but trying?
(V) & (Z) answer: It is certainly possible. He is largely illiquid, having tied up most of his holdings in real estate and other such investments. But he probably knows a few people who could profit from some de facto insider trading. For example, he knows very well a gentleman who is currently managing billions in investments for the Saudi government.
Note that we have absolutely no evidence for this, we say only that it's possible. At the same time, note that if you asked the same question about Joe Biden, we'd say it's impossible. So, while there is no evidence, our answer is certainly informed by the type of person Trump has shown himself to be, as well as his failure to enunciate a clear explanation for the choices he is making.
D.G. in Fairfax, VA, asks: If the tariffs are going to cause prices to rise in the U.S. and are unlikely to have the desired effect of increasing domestic production, why are other countries going to implement their own tariffs in retaliation?
(V) & (Z) answer: For purposes of illustration, consider a tariff on automobiles. If the U.S. imposes one, and Canada does not, then Canadian-made cars become more expensive in the U.S., and fewer of them are sold. Meanwhile, American cars remain just as competitive (price-wise) as they always were in Canada, so they continue to sell at the same level. That means that the Canadian car-making industry ends up losing, and losing pretty big, which affects anyone whose livelihood depends on that industry. If Canada imposes a counter-tariff on American cars, however, then it levels things out again, by encouraging Canadians to buy Canadian cars, which are now more competitive on price than American cars. It is true that Canadian consumers might pay more than they otherwise would have, or might have fewer attractive purchase options, but at least the pain is spread out fairly widely, rather than just hitting one industry.
In other words, tariffs always benefit some people/industries at the expense of other people/industries. And when there is a trade war, the governments try to set rates in such a way that it minimizes the pain for their country and maximizes the pain for the other country. For example, Canada might know that it can produce more than enough potatoes to accommodate domestic needs, so it might hit American potatoes extra hard. This kind of threading-the-needle is doable when the people managing the tariffs know what they are doing, and have a clear strategic vision. It does not work when tariffs are applied in flamethrower style, the way that Donald Trump is doing.
There's also a PR angle here. A country that is hit with tariffs, and meekly submits, looks weak. That's not a great message to send to the other nations of the world, nor to the voters within the country.
K.C. in West Islip, NY, asks: You wrote that The Convicted Felon's (TCF's) understanding of tariffs would get him a D- on an Econ 101 midterm. Aside from knowing how to spell the word tariff, or a generous curve, I'm curious what you think would prevent him from actually getting the F.
(V) & (Z) answer: He at least knows what a tariff is, even if he has virtually no idea how they work. That would be enough for most professors to throw him a couple of points.
M.N. in Klamath Falls, OR, asks: Elon Musk's role in the federal government is... unclear. He's either the head of DOGE or he isn't. If he isn't, but is acting on behalf of Trump without having been properly processed, sworn in, etc., is there any possibility of personal liability for what he's doing? I'd love to see someone take him down $100 or $200... billion.
(V) & (Z) answer: The Trump administration is keeping things fuzzy, so that he somehow has the protections afforded to both a federal worker and to a private citizen. Maybe that will work. But maybe Musk & Co. will come to regret it, because a lack of clarity about his status could potentially mean that he does not enjoy the protections afforded to EITHER type of employee.
There are actually a few things he should be worried about. The first is that he could face criminal prosecutions. Of course, he is depending on Trump's protection there, but what if Trump turns against Musk? Or what if one or more state AGs decides to prosecute, under state laws governing data privacy? Similarly, Musk could also face a mountain of civil torts. Trump can't pardon a civil action, and if the cases are found to have merit, they could get very expensive very fast. Even a centi-billionaire might be hard-pressed to pay off a class-action judgment if the class has, say, 2 million people in it.
As to someone taking Musk down by "$100 or $200... billion," someone has already done that, and it is... Donald Trump. The day Trump was elected, Tesla stock shot up. Since then, it has been slipping. Yesterday, Forbes crunched the numbers and found that Musk has lost $121 billion since his peak net worth back in November of last year. Keep in mind that most of his wealth is in Tesla stock, and that the share value does not reflect the fundamentals of the company (to the point that some have called it the world's most expensive meme stock). It's not impossible that by the time Trump leaves office, Musk's net worth drops another $100-$200 billion. He's never going to go hungry, but we'd say the odds are pretty high that he will lose his status as the world's richest man well before Trump's term is over.
T.M. in Rockville, MD, asks: It seems to me that Elon Musk is the most popular member of Donald Trump's inner circle (other than Trump himself) with the base. What is the probability that between Congress and the state legislatures, the Republicans could pass a constitutional amendment allowing Musk to run for President in 2028 and, if elected, to serve?
(V) & (Z) answer: Zero. Such an amendment would have to be approved by two-thirds of each chamber of Congress and three-quarters of the state legislatures. Musk has nowhere near that kind of popularity, and the Republicans have nowhere near that kind of control.
C.A. in St. Louis, MO, asks: After my mother's death, we promptly reported her passing to the Social Security Administration (SSA). What happens when deaths are not reported? Is there a mechanism in the agency to discover these omissions? Do payments get clawed back?
(V) & (Z) answer: Let's start with your final question, since it's the easiest. When a person dies, the SSA does indeed claw back any money that should not have been paid (and that happens with everyone, since money is paid in advance). If the money's not there to claw back, the government goes after the estate, and potentially the administrators/executors of the estate.
As to reporting, there are many Americans who make a point of contacting the SSA and telling them that their relative has passed. However, that duty is also assigned to a particular profession; for every decedent they deal with, they have to fill out this form, known as SSA-721, advising the government of the death. In case readers would care to guess what profession is legally required to perform this duty, we'll put it at the bottom of the page. It's probably not the profession you would first guess.
Generally speaking, between the voluntary and professional reporters, SSA gets wind of most deaths. As an added insurance policy, the Administration contacts anyone over the age of 90 who is not using Medicare to make sure they are still alive. The assumption is that living nonagenarians probably need healthcare at least some of the time.
C.F. in Waltham, MA, asks: We know Donald Trump is a failure at pretty much everything except being a showman. Whatever he touches gets destroyed and we can see that happening in real time. Performing for his base, public deportations with as much cruelty as possible, etc., is what he is doing. However, for the first time, I'm seeing signs explaining people's rights if ICE shows up. Do you think his showmanship makes is harder for ICE to deport people? Do you see any way he will be able to deport people at rates higher than Joe Biden or Barack Obama? If he doesn't, do you think MAGA will ever catch on to this fact (or care)?
(V) & (Z) answer: There is no question that Trump's showmanship has made life harder for ICE, since it's put people on alert, both in terms of their specific legal rights, and in terms of keeping a lookout for agents. And this applies not only to undocumented people, but to allies who might aid them.
However, that's not the end of the story. It is possible to get ICE numbers up in several ways. First, by throwing more resources at the problem, generally in the form of more agents. Second, by being more "flexible" about abiding by federal law. Third, by choosing targets that previous administrations would not pursue, whether schools/churches (which would be politically unpopular) or farms/slaughterhouses/restaurants (which would make business owners unhappy).
N.S. in Portland, OR, asks: With many of the top Department of Justice lawyers having been fired or having quit, does the DoJ have quality lawyers left to defend against the many lawsuits filed against the new administration? In some of the early cases, the lawyers couldn't answer basic questions the judges asked of them. Maybe it wasn't their fault because no one knew the answers, but it seems like it portends that they will not be able to put up strong defenses. Thoughts?
(V) & (Z) answer: This is a real problem, and one of many examples of the Trump administration not thinking about (or not caring about) the long-term consequences of its actions. Good lawyers tend to have strong ethics, usually due to their personal codes/values, but also because it's hard to get reputable jobs and/or to keep your bar card if you get caught doing shady things. The lawyers who are willing to cut corners and bend rules tend to be bad lawyers. And while there are many things that bad lawyers can do for Trump, like fire people or cook up dubious legal briefs, eventually the rubber meets the road and someone has to go before an actual judge. And judges, on the whole, know very well what shady and/or incompetent lawyers look like, and have very little tolerance for them.
T.M. in Incline Village, NV, asks: You've written a couple times now that in the evolving new world order, Russia would get to dominate Europe. Don't you think the E.U. (whose population and economy dwarf that of Russia) would have something to say about it?
(V) & (Z) answer: Yes. We are not describing what would actually happen, but the addled vision that Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin have for what they think/hope would happen. Not only would Putin not actually be able to control Europe, but it's also quite clear that Canada and Mexico have no interest in being part of the United States' sphere of influence. Similarly, we doubt that India, South Korea and Japan are much interested in taking marching orders from Xi Jinping.
S.K. in Los Angeles, CA, asks: In your answer: to O.Z.H. in Dubai, you suggested that Donald Trump's unwillingness to accept the correct start date of the start of hostilities in Ukraine could be a sign of dementia. While I certainly wouldn't argue that his mental faculties are not diminished, is there a period of time you could point to when Trump would have admitted he's wrong? I suspect this "test" doesn't work up against a weapons-grade narcissist.
(V) & (Z) answer: Back before Trump felt invincible, he would sometimes admit to being wrong about something. The grab 'em by the pu**y incident is a particularly memorable example, but there are others.
That said, the issue with Volodymyr Zelenskyy was not that Trump was wrong, or even that he refused to admit he was wrong. It's that he kept insisting he was right, and pressing the (trivial) matter. Most people, even if they don't want to admit they are wrong, would just drop it, knowing they are probably making themselves look foolish. That it was so very important to Trump that he be "right" is the potential warning sign of cognitive decline.
C.K. in Rochester, NY, asks: I keep reading that The Washington Post is bowing down to TCF, but I'm a subscriber who looks at the WAPO headlines way more than I should for my mental health. Marc Thiessen aside, all I see is doom and gloom due to what TCF is doing—in the headlines and in the editorials. What am I missing?
(V) & (Z) answer: The decline of the Post, which everyone is expecting, will be a slow process in some ways, as some people quit or are pushed out, and others replace them.
That said, the first ways in which the change will be manifest won't be especially apparent to someone who is not in the newsroom. As we have written many times, the primary way in which bias is manifested is NOT in how stories are covered. It's in which stories are chosen, and which ones are ignored. If the Post is dropping the ball on certain kinds of stories that would make Donald Trump unhappy, it would take a while for that to be obvious.
At the moment, as you may have noticed, we are still linking to Post items. We are very careful before doing so, but they're still producing quality material, at least some of the time. We will see if we eventually have to re-visit that choice in upcoming months.
It is also possible, though not likely, that Jeff Bezos is more talk than action, and that all of this nonsense is really just about posturing for Trump, and that the actual changes will not be so dramatic.
G.L. in Oviedo, FL, asks: What is the economic cost of renaming the Gulf of Mexico?
(V) & (Z) answer: We will start this answer with a brief anecdote. There is a room that (Z) has taught a number of classes in. And this room clearly used to be used for some sort of geography courses. So, there are a whole bunch of maps mounted to the walls. And the big one on the back wall, which was constantly in (Z)'s line of sight while lecturing, featured the nations of Persia, Burma and Siam, among others. In other words, it was at least 75 years old. Not because the map was there for historical purposes, but because replacing big maps is expensive and difficult.
Presumably, the point here is obvious: whenever there is a geography "update," it tends to take a good, long time for the world to catch up. We assume that is going to be doubly true in this case, since everyone has to assume that the "Gulf of America" will only last as long as Republican control of the White House does, and that in 4 years, or maybe 8, any Gulf of America maps, signage, etc. will be out of date.
However, if you want to assume that every government and every school and every book publisher, etc. gets right on the ball, then the cost of the changeover has been estimated at $1 billion. About half of that would be for many thousands of new highway signs, about a quarter of it would be for updates to maritime charts and navigation systems, and most of the rest would be for updates to government maps, to textbooks, to signage and letterhead of private businesses, and to travel guides.
M.B. in Singapore, asks: It seems clear to me that Donald Trump and virtually all Republican politicians are acting in a way that they no longer care about elections. What is the reason for this? Is the fix already in? Why should I feel comfortable that the midterms will be free and fair in 2026? Please talk me off the ledge.
(V) & (Z) answer: We dispute your premise. Trump might not care too much about elections anymore, since he's not going to face the voters again. But the folks who do have to get themselves reelected are already showing early signs of getting antsy. For example, if a Republican senator knows he's now senator-for-life, why flee town halls when angry constituents show up? In fact, why hold town halls at all?
In any event, here is the fundamental dynamic to keep in mind. At one end of the process is the start of the political cycle, when people announce runs for office, get endorsements, raise funds, etc. That gets going around May of the year before the election. At the other end of the process is the election itself (and, in the case of presidents, the meeting of the Electoral College and the certification of the results by Congress). All of this happens in or after November of the actual election year.
If Trump or anyone else tries to set aside the process at the beginning (say, in May of next year, or May of 2027), then that leaves something like 18 months for lawsuits, mass protests, tax boycotts, and all sorts of other blowback. If Trump or someone else tries to set aside the process at the ending (say, after Election Day), you would have a bunch of duly elected people, backed by the law, who would not only be able to go to court and win, but would be able to get the pretenders to their seats arrested and imprisoned. If Trump or someone else tries to set aside the process in the middle, then they get some mix of the two sets of headaches.
And all of this is before we consider the fact that elections are not run by the federal government. Do you imagine that California, for example, is going to suspend elections because Trump says so?
Certainly, there is some risk that the elections will not be 100% free and fair. But that risk comes from the exact same sources as the last 5-10 elections: voter ID laws, limited polling places, disqualification of ballots on technicalities, and other tricks designed to suppress Democratic votes.
A.J.C. in Williamsburg, VA, asks: I just watched this video about auditing the 2024 election, from electiontruthalliance.org. This group is crunching data and they say the results are suspicious. Can you look at their work and tell me if there's anything to this? I trust your judgment about data and history. Do you think I'm reading too much dystopian fiction?
K.G. in Atlanta, GA, asks: I saw this... crackpot theory? Or theory with possible merit? What are the odds that Elon Musk's staff hacked the tallying computers in critical swing states?
(V) & (Z) answer: You can't be 100% sure, but it is very unlikely. The only swing state where the Republicans controlled the election process (governor and state SoS) is Georgia, and SoS Brad Raffensperger demonstrated in 2020 that he is an honest person.
There are a lot of checks on the process. It is very doubtful that Musk or anyone else could have hacked all the county results in all the states, which would have required thousands of different acts of hacking on many different types of systems. And if he hacked the state totals, the counties would have noticed that their numbers were wrong in the final published result and screamed.
If the overall trend nationally were toward the Democrats and then magically Donald Trump pulled off wins in seven swing states, it would have looked fishy. But the trend in virtually every county and state was toward the Republicans, so the result seems plausible. Many polls showed Black and Latino voters going for Trump in unprecedented numbers. Also, the fact that Kamala Harris got 6 million fewer votes nationally than Biden in 2020 couldn't have been due to hacking 7 SoS offices, since she underperformed Biden in virtually every state, not just the swing states. There is too much evidence showing that not enough people liked Harris to ascribe Trump's win to hacking. There were a lot of factors that went into Harris' loss (which is different from Trump's win), but it is exceeding unlikely that hacking played any role.
J.M in Goshen, IN, asks: I can kinda wrap my head around why people vote third-party—not liking the other candidates, etc. But why RUN as a third party candidate? You spend money and time, and a lot of it, to get what? Not a single electoral vote? It seems almost selfish, since they take votes from the candidate they'd rather see win. Maybe there's something I'm missing.
(V) & (Z) answer: We will start by pointing out that a third-party run doesn't necessarily require a lot of money or time. And to the extent it does, it's often the money or time of other people. In any case, here are some reasons that people mount third-party bids for office:
- To Publicize a Cause: If you believe in support for working families, then running as the candidate of the Working Families Party is a way to get some attention for that. If you think marijuana should be legal, you can do a better job of getting that message out there as the candidate of the Libertarian Party than as some random stoner standing on a street corner.
- To Keep their Party on the Ballot: There are some states that grant automatic ballot access to a party in the next election (or the next several elections) if that party crosses a certain threshold in the current election (often 5%). So, if a person thinks that their third party's message is worthy and/or they think their third party might one day be a real player in their city/state/country, they might run to try to make sure they maintain the third party's ballot access.
- To Hurt/Influence a Major Party: The most prominent third-party candidates don't see it as a bad thing that they are taking votes from the candidate they would prefer. They see it as a punishment for that candidate and their party, for not sufficiently moving in the direction that the third party would have them move. For example, Jill Stein's whole shtick was that the Democrats needed to move further left, and if they did not do so, then she would make them pay.
There are very few historical examples, if any, of major parties actually moving toward the fringes in order to pick up those third-party votes in the next election. However, some third-party candidates still insist that it will happen. Others say they think it will happen, but may be lying. For example, we don't think Jill Stein was really trying to pull the Democrats leftward, since she was the Green Party candidate, and yet spent all of her time talking about what a swell fella Vlad Putin is, and none of her time talking about, you know, the environment.- To Gain Leverage: This is a somewhat rare scenario, but a person might run as a third-party candidate (or an independent) in hopes of gaining some meaningful chunk of support, which they hope they can then trade to a major-party candidate in exchange for some specific concession. The textbook example here is RFK Jr., who offered his backing to both Kamala Harris AND Donald Trump based on which of them would give him the juiciest piece of pork. Harris said "no, thanks" and Trump said, "How does HHS Secretary sound?"
- To Gain Attention: Some third-party candidates want to feel important, and getting t-shirts with your name printed on them, and interviews with second- and third- tier media outlets, and 1% of the vote in polls, scratches that itch for some people. In the last presidential election, Cornel West, who has been a publicity whore for decades, seemed to be in this general category.
- To Make Money: Quite a few third-party candidates have some book (or books) they are trying to sell, or some other product they are trying to move. A third-party campaign not only puts them in touch with potential customers right now, but allows them to develop a contact list for future product sales. For example, we guarantee you that anyone who gave their e-mail address at a Marianne Williamson rally is still getting solicitations for mystical rocks or scented candles or whatever other woo she's selling these days.
This is not an exhaustive list, but it covers most of the main motivations.
A.L. in Highland Park, NJ, asks: I confess to finding your attitude towards Arab Americans who withheld their vote for the Democrats somewhat condescending. While I disagree with their assessment that there would be no difference for the Palestinian people no matter who was elected, I can understand the apathy brought on by decades of crushing disappointment. My question is: Are you going to subject the Ukrainian/Polish/Lithuanian/Estonian/etc.-Americans who care deeply about defeating Putin and yet voted for Trump to the same scorn? Here is a story from The Guardian, I suspect more will surface as the week goes on. A shift of a few points towards Harris from this group would have swung the election, as they are more numerous and are concentrated in the strategically important corridor you have labeled "Pierogi Alley."
Look, I am not that naive, having grown up in Chicago during the 70's and 80's I know that questions of race and ethnicity can matter much more than geopolitics. It wouldn't surprise me if Trump's betrayal of Ukraine barely causes a shrug of the shoulders from large sections of this community, as many could never ever vote for Harris. In high school, I avidly read the great Mike Royko who frequently and hilariously pointed out the hypocrisy of vocal Dan Rostenkowski (D, chairman of Ways and Means) supporters suddenly rethinking their party affiliation when the Democrats nominated Harold Washington for mayor.(V) & (Z) answer: First, we are going to say that while we know that Chicagoans of a certain age have fond memories of Mike Royko, he was an asshole. He trafficked in stereotypes of all sorts—class, race, gender, nationality, religion. He was a raging homophobe. And in the last decade of his life, he was a reactionary. The fight between him and Richard J. Daley had no good guys, only two bad guys. And the reason that Royko annoys us is that there are definitely fans of his in the media today who have taken his behavior as license to also act like an asshole. Jason Whitlock leaps to mind, as one example.
Moving along, the folks in Dearborn (and other Muslim-heavy communities in Michigan) not only supported Trump because of the Palestine issue, they made an enormous amount of noise about it. They held media events, sat for interviews, aired commercials, etc. When they got pushback, in the form of "Even if you blame Kamala Harris for the actions of Joe Biden, and even if you think Joe Biden is bad, Donald Trump is worse," they wagged their fingers and said, "Nuh, uh." If you're going to put yourself out there like that, and you're going to be so vocal about it, you need to be ready for some blowback if and when you are proven wrong. And we would say that the first mention of Trump Tower Gaza was ironclad proof of wrongness.
We do not recall any Ukrainian groups making such a spectacle of themselves. Certainly, if such groups did exist, we did not see any coverage of them, and did not write about them. That said, we are very likely to do a few "buyer's remorse" pieces this year, and we might well include Ukrainian Americans in those.
L.P. in Dallas, TX, asks: With so much rage pulsing throughout the U.S., do you think that if the Democrats ran a decent candidate in the two open Florida U.S. House seats, they could pick up one or both of them?
(V) & (Z) answer: In special elections, anything is possible. However, as many of our readers have pointed out, the Democrats aren't doing much to stoke voters' rage right now, much less channel it into something useful. Further, probably due to the fact that the two districts are very red (R+19 in FL-01 and R+14 in FL-06), the Republicans ended up with two candidates who have won elections before, while the Democrats ended up with an athletic trainer and a teacher, neither of whom has won anything. So, if you're a Democrat, don't get your hopes up.
S.S. in Washington, DC, asks: I've seen a few pieces on Rep. Elise Stefanik's (R-NY) nomination to be Ambassador to the United Nations not moving forward because Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) has such a narrow majority. While her seat won't be filled for some time, the two Florida seats will be filled on April 1. What do you think the chances are that Stefanik's nomination moves only after those replacements are made? Not a LOT more cushion for Johnson, but about the best he's going to get, absent other developments.
(V) & (Z) answer: We would say they are close to 100%. As you point out, once the two Florida seats are filled, that's about as good as it's going to get for a pretty long time. If Johnson still wants Stefanik's vote after that, then she really needs to withdraw from consideration, and let someone else go and represent the U.S. at the U.N.
M.D. in San Tan Valley, AZ, asks: I was pretty optimistic when I read that congresswoman Lucy McBath (D-GA) is throwing her hat in the ring to run for governor of Georgia. So, my two simple questions are these: Does McBath have a fighting chance to win in 2026? And wouldn't it make more sense for Stacey Abrams to avoid becoming a potential three-time governor nominee loser and instead run for McBath's seat in Congress instead? Abrams is only 51 years old and could take another shot at being governor in the future.
(V) & (Z) answer: Sure, McBath has a fighting chance. She knows how to win elections, the seat will be open because Gov. Brian Kemp (R-GA) is term-limited, and there's a decent chance it will be a Democratic wave election. Georgia hasn't sent a Democrat to the governor's mansion in more than 20 years, but both of its senators are Democrats, so clearly it's possible for Democrats to win statewide. It would help McBath, of course, if the Republican nominee is someone who is really crazypants. For example, Rep. Marge Greene (R-GA) has talked about jumping in.
Only Stacey Abrams knows what makes sense for Stacey Abrams. That said, she's tried to jump right to the top of the ladder two times and failed, so if she asked us, we'd probably advocate for the M.D. in San Tan Valley plan. The district is very blue (D+10), and Abrams' fame would probably scare away any competition, so she would likely have a pretty easy path to a seat in the House. Then, she could bide her time for a few terms, and decide if she'd like to take a shot at the governorship, or maybe a U.S. Senate seat, when the time is right.
J.C. in Arlington, VA, asks: On Real Clear Politics, I see a poll that says "Hobbs (D) 37, McCain (R) 36," and can't figure out which McCain is running. Your blurb on the governor's race doesn't mention a McCain and I can't find a decent online source. Can you enlighten me?
(V) & (Z) answer: No McCain is running, as yet. Because pollsters need to do something during the down times of the election cycle, so as to keep their people working and their name out there, they often poll hypothetical matchups, so as to give a sense of which candidates would get off to the strongest start. The McCain being polled for here is John Sidney "Jack" McCain IV, who is a U.S. Navy veteran, like his old man.
J.E. in Boone, NC, asks: The term "dictator" is used pretty profusely these days, especially when comparing Donald Trump to Adolf Hitler, or talking about Vladimir Putin, Nicolás Maduro, Kim Jung-Un, etc. As students of history and long-time political watchers, what would you say is the best definition of a dictator, and who are the actual dictators in today's world?
(V) & (Z) answer: A dictator is a person, or a cabal, who exercises political power with few restraints. The term also carries the connotation of having acquired power by force, or by unethical or illegal means. So, while some would say there is no functional difference between, say, the King of Saudi Arabia and Kim Jong-Un, and that they are both dictators, others would say that the King's power is rooted in Saudi law and tradition, and so is not actually dictatorial, even though it is very nearly absolute.
N.S. in Portland, OR, asks: Ronald Reagan famously wanted to reduce federal spending (but didn't). One of the things I don't see mentioned much is that he actually doubled the budget for the for the Office of the President between 1981 and 1989. For Donald Trump, in the 4 years he was in office, it more than doubled. So, cutting waste and fraud obviously doesn't apply to the president (big surprise). Do you know if the Trump numbers include the costs of his trips to his resorts (including Secret Service costs)? Are there any numbers for his first few weeks in office? I heard that his Super Bowl trip alone cost $20 million, although I'm not sure I completely believe that number. His 2018 trip supposedly cost $7 million. Is there a site that tracks these costs?
(V) & (Z) answer: You can go to govinfo.gov, and search for "Executive Office of the President." That will give you the budget for, in effect, operating the White House. It does not include the Secret Service, which is a different budget, or presidential transportation, which is a different different budget, or a bunch of other things.
In other words, even if the Trump administration is reporting the numbers honestly (no guarantee), it's very difficult to actually figure out how much he's costing the country because the costs are split across many agencies, and because it's not always easy to know exactly how much to assign to him (or to any one particular thing he might do). The Super Bowl trip is a good example. Air Force One costs $3,000/minute to operate, so it's easy enough to figure out that just the plane flight cost about $1 million. And there were about 200 Secret Service agents at the game. Since total travel time was around 5 hours, and since Trump was at the game for about 3 hours, it's not too hard to figure out that the government had to pay for 1,600 hours of Secret Service labor, which costs around $100,000.
Thereafter, though, things get dodgy. How many hours of Secret Service time were spent preparing the venue? How many hours of Secret Service time were spent after he left? How many agents had to spend one or more nights in New Orleans, and what did their hotel rooms cost? How many man hours were spent planning the trip? Several hundred local police officers also helped provide security for Trump; how much of that cost did the federal government bear?
In short, while it's not terribly likely the price tag was $20 million, it was certainly in the seven figures. But even someone with access to perfect information would have a tough time putting an exact figure because there are so many moving parts, and because there are many judgment calls.
C.P. in Fairport, NY, asks: Would you direct me to a website that maintains an up-to-date list of corporations that contributed to Donald Trump's 2024 reelection campaign and/or his 2025 inauguration, or since then have kowtowed to him, please?
(V) & (Z) answer: The best list we've seen, one that is both thorough and is backed with citations, is the one maintained by Public Citizen.
T.W. in Norfolk, England, UK, asks: As a Brit, I have my own low impression of former PM Liz Truss: I met her personally in 2010 and came away characterizing her as being about as much use as a limp lettuce leaf. It always amuses me that the "head of lettuce" comparison has made it to commentary on U.S. politics in such a way as to be instantly understood. Truly, she is the joke that keeps on giving.
Anyway, other political commentators, like politicalbetting.com, a site that's also on my daily reading list, have surmised that the U.S. economy is going to go as far south under TCF's policies as if he'd made Liz Truss Secretary of the Treasury or Chair of the Federal Reserve. And that got me wondering: If TCF wanted to, could he appoint a foreigner such as Truss (I mean, he's mad enough to try, and she's mad enough to accept!) to either of those roles or are they reserved only to citizens of the U.S.?(V) & (Z) answer: There are no limits on service as a Cabinet secretary, as long as the person can secure confirmation from the U.S. Senate. No non-citizen has ever served (even though they could), but 26 people who were born as citizens of other countries have done so. The only limit on such folks is that they cannot succeed to the presidency, as they are not natural-born citizens.
S.C. in Mountain View, CA, asks: Donald Trump fired the Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and plans to replace him with Dan Caine, someone who would presumably be more loyal to Trump than to the Constitution. Trump fired the Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) the same day. (Some news reports say she was fired by Trump's Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, but according to 10 U.S. Code 8033, the CNO serves at the pleasure of the President, so while Hegseth may have relayed the decision and may even have requested the decision the responsibility for the decision is Trump's.)
How far down can Trump replace military careerists with people who will follow his orders if he, for example, declares martial law in order to prevent the 2028, or even the 2026, elections?(V) & (Z) answer: Trump is allowed to remove the occupant of any specific position or command. For example, he can remove the current leader of the Africa Command, or the Special Operations Command, or the Air Education and Training Command or the Army Financial Management Command, or the Judge Advocate General of the Navy, etc.
Trump cannot expel anyone from the armed forces without cause (his justification for expelling trans soldiers, which may or may not hold up in court, is that they are not capable of adhering to the expectations for active-duty personnel). In addition, while he can remove the holder of any specific position or command, he cannot replace them without Senate consent.
A.M. in Bradford, England, UK, asks: There was frequent talk during the last administration about whether Joe Biden should pack the Supreme Court and eliminate the filibuster in order to do so. Why is this something that people only expect Democrats to do? What is to stop Republicans eliminating the filibuster and attempting to pack the Court themselves?
(V) & (Z) answer: It is certainly within the realm of possibility. However, there are two things that make it unlikely. The first is that the Republicans would have to get rid of the filibuster, or else do a carve-out that would invite aggressive Democratic carve-outs the next time the blue team runs the show. On the whole, the Republicans rely on the filibuster more than the Democrats, and would be leery to see it compromised or eliminated.
Second, if the Republicans set the precedent that when you're in power, you get to monkey around with the Supreme Court, then they get to deal with the political fallout of that choice, while handing the Democrats an engraved invitation to make whatever changes they want the next time the blue team is in control. They could pack the Court even more, or set a term limit or do something else that would shift control of the Supreme Court back in a lefty direction. Since the Republicans already have a firm grip on the Court, and are likely to maintain that grip for decades, they are not too keen on doing anything that would lay the groundwork for the Democrats to seize control back in 4 or 8 years.
M.R. in Studio City, CA, asks: Separate and apart from the heinous threats politicians and their families get from extremists who don't like how they vote, I'm wondering about the day-to-day, lasting impact on a family from someone ostensibly wanting to serve their country.
For example: RFK Jr. made his big political play. His wife, Cheryl Hines, has gone along with it, but I wonder at what cost. I have heard, anecdotally, that her acting career is over. Not only because of her alleged complicity with RFK (whether you agree with his politics or not) but because one can not now separate her personally from any part she hopes to play in the future. She carries too much baggage, just as Susan Sarandon does on the other end of the political spectrum.
So, has the cost to someone's family become too great for anyone considering running for politics? Are we losing great public servants because of it? And, if so, how can we fix this?(V) & (Z) answer: It has always been the case that if someone runs for office, particularly high office, their family gets to come along for the ride, whether they want to or not. That not only means much greater exposure (and, thus, much less privacy), but it often also means moving cities, changing schools, changing jobs, etc. It also reduces the possibility of working at all for some family members, while making certain jobs impossible for others.
This is the nature of the beast, and always has been. Heck, in the 19th century, a number of presidents' children died because of the unhealthy conditions in Washington, D.C. when it was an actual swamp. Undoubtedly, some promising politicians decided not to enter the arena at all, or cut their careers short, because of the negative impact on their families. There's not really anything that can be done about it.
J.K., former resident of Scheveningen, NL, now in Portland, OR, asks: I would love to read (V)'s take on the German 5% rule, given that he lives in the Netherlands and has decades of experience with their 0.667% rule, which results in 15 parties currently being represented in the Parliament and makes it pretty much impossible to form a majority government with fewer than 4 parties. Not to mention that the Dutch nearest equivalent to the AfD has the largest faction.
(V) answers: The 5% rule is fine, but the German system is totally crazy due to the fact that everyone has two votes, making it enormously complex. A straight proportional representation with a 5% threshold would have resulted in five parties in the Dutch parliament after the 2023 elections: PVV (48 seats), GL/PvDA (32), VVD (31), NSC (26), D66 (13). This would have resulted in a cabinet with GL/PvDA + VVD and one of the other two (NSC or D66), depending on the negotiations. This would have made more sense and more able to get things done. At least the adults would have been in charge.
A.P. in Kitchener, ON, Canada, asks: I acknowledge that it is too soon to assess the long-term impact of Donald Trump's first month in office on America and the world. We have not even reached his first 100 days, the traditional time frame to measure the start of a presidency.
That said, what do you think has been the best and worst first 100 days of a Presidential term? Where do you think Trump's start this term ends up ranking?(V) & (Z) answer: We are going to list three types of "good starts" and three types of "bad starts." On the whole, we don't think we can quite do rankings, because it would involve comparing such different things.
Three Types of Good Starts
- Hit the Ground Running: This is the Frankin D. Roosevelt model that every president now tries to emulate. You're elected, you claim a mandate (sometimes reasonably, sometimes less so), and you try to implement a bunch of your agenda through legislation and executive orders. Roosevelt did very well, indeed. Ronald Reagan got off to a good start, even according to the left-leaning analysts of his era. Joe Biden had a pretty good start, too.
- Crisis Management: Sometimes, presidents begin with a rather big problem they have to deal with, and so can't necessarily focus on their overall agenda. Harry S. Truman had to finish off the European portion of World War II, and managed to do so. If you give him a little bonus time, he managed to wrap up the entire war in 124 days. Barack Obama confronted an economic meltdown, and did a pretty good job of stabilizing the economy.
- A Steady Hand: These circumstances are not likely to exist again, although given what happened in 2020, you never know. When George Washington took office, the federal government was brand new, and its stability and legitimacy were in question. He kept things going during that crucial early period. When Thomas Jefferson took office, it came after an election that was in doubt until days before the inauguration, and had to be decided by the House. There was talk of a coup by supporters of the other claimant, Aaron Burr, who might well have been backed by the supporters of John Adams, who did not much like giving up power voluntarily. That Jefferson managed to keep the situation from descending into open violence is an important accomplishment.
Three Types of Bad Starts
- Bad Luck: Sometimes, in poker, you draw a lousy hand. And that happens in politics, too. William Henry Harrison was pretty old, and in pretty shaky health, when he took office, and he died during his first 100 days. Abraham Lincoln, during his first 100 days in office, saw the nation descend into a civil war.
- Tough Choices: There are also cases where a new president drew a tough hand, had to make a tough choice, and perhaps made the wrong one. John F. Kennedy, in his first 100 days, unwisely gave the go-ahead to the Bay of Pigs invasion. Gerald R. Ford, in his first 100 days, pardoned Richard Nixon. Kennedy recovered, politically. Ford, not so much.
- Drunken Boxer: Many presidents take office and try to get off to a good start. However, they generally do so with the benefit of planning, and knowing what is likely to pass muster, legally and politically. Donald Trump, by contrast, has used what might be called the drunken boxer approach, throwing punches in all directions, with relatively little in the way of rhyme or reason, little concern for the law, and, by all indications, little concern for the welfare of America and its people. There is no precedent for this, and the Trump story is still being written, so we cannot be certain it will turn out badly. But we really can't conceive of a way that it turns out well.
If you absolutely made us choose, we would agree that Trump is on track for the worst first 100 days of any president. But again, that means you're comparing his awful diplomacy, lack of ethics, mass firings, etc. with things like the outbreak of the most deadly conflict in American history, or the pardoning of Richard Nixon, or keeling over and dying 32 days in. Definitely apples and oranges and pineapples and kumquats—hard to compare.
K.L. in Kenmore, WA, asks: With the 250th anniversary of the Battles of Lexington and Concord coming up (April 18-19, 2025), I'm looking for your recommendation for a good historical account. What would be good books about the battle itself and/or the proximate historical context as the American Revolution began?
(V) & (Z) answer: Take a look at George C. Daughan's Lexington and Concord: The Battle Heard Round the World (2018). It's well written, it's a manageable length (368 pages), it covers the military situation effectively, and it puts the battle(s) in the larger context of the Revolution. In putting forth his argument (that the war was primarily fought over economic concerns), Daughan necessarily reviews the other main school of thought (that the war was primarily about political and philosophical concerns).
G.B. in Collin County, TX, asks: I've been rereading Guns of the South (something about South African white supremacists intervening to tear the United States apart seemed timely), and it has me thinking about how the actual Robert E. Lee thought about the cause for which he fought. In the book, leading men against Black Union soldiers and seeing pockets of Black resistance after the war serve to convince Lee that slavery cannot last forever. Once he reads a history book from the real timeline and discovers that the defense of slavery has caused the future to take a dim view of the Confederate project, he is emboldened to push for a gradual abolition of the peculiar institution on becoming president of the CSA.
Setting aside the particulars about time travel and such, how possible was that kind of personal evolution? What did Lee think of slavery personally? How did he see the Confederate cause for which he fought? If the Confederacy had become an independent country, how long would slavery have continued?(V) & (Z) answer: Harry Turtledove is not a Southern apologist, but instead a guy who tries to write compelling historical fiction. That said, the notion that Lee had doubts about slavery, or was open to bringing an end to the institution, is not rooted in the evidence, and is largely a byproduct of Lost Cause thinking about the war, which elevated Lee to demigod status.
In reality, Lee never questioned the propriety of slavery, was more than happy to utilize slave labor, and had a reputation for being unusually harsh with the lash in order to maintain "discipline." When he went to war, he did it primarily to protect his home state from an invader (as he saw it), but keeping the slave system from which he and his family had profited was also a motivation.
Lee did warm up to using Black troops as the Confederacy's circumstances evolved and became more desperate. So, it's possible that if he was presented with irrefutable evidence that the "peculiar institution" could not last much longer, he might have accepted that and adapted in some way. With that said, ALL slaveowners knew that it could not last forever, and they mostly just hoped it would not fall to pieces during their lifetimes.
Had American slavery survived the Civil War, it might have continued for another couple of generations, but it's hard to see how it could survive past World War I.
C.A.G. in Athens, GA, asks: I recently taught my fifth graders about World War II. I told them it was good that Japan surrendered after "Fat Man" was dropped on Nagasaki, as we had no more atomic bombs in our arsenal. However, based on some other things I have read, I'm not sure this is true. Did the U.S. have any other bombs left?
On a related note, I keep reading that Japan had invaded Manchuria to gain resources for its growing country. Wasn't Manchuria just part of China? If so, why don't we just say Japan invaded China?
Lastly, what reason did Russia have for declaring war on Japan?(V) & (Z) answer: On the day that Harry S. Truman took office, the U.S. had three nuclear bombs. Gadget was the one used for testing purposes in Los Alamos, NM. And Fat Man and Little Boy where the ones dropped on Japan.
The limiting factor was purifying the radioactive material needed for the bombs, as the tools used for doing so were very primitive. On the day that Japan surrendered, the U.S. had nearly enough raw material for a fourth bomb, and could have built another within a few weeks. But it did not have an actual, finished bomb.
The term "Manchuria," which is largely not used today, was promulgated by Japan to give the impression that the region they were taking over was a largely independent region with strong ties to Japan. The closest modern equivalent is Russia referring to Ukraine (a country) as "the Ukraine" (a region of Russia). "Manchuria" was not, and is not, used by the Chinese.
And the official reason that Joseph Stalin declared war on Japan is that he had promised the U.S. and the U.K. that he would do so, so as to hasten the Japanese surrender. However, the real reason is that declaring war on Japan (which happened just days before the end of World War II) put the U.S.S.R. in a stronger position when it came to making territorial claims in Asia.
K.R. in Austin, TX, asks: When Adolf Hitler was in power, and while rising to power, he had a significant amount of support from German people.
My impression is that not many people said they ever supported him in the years following World War II. Is this impression correct? If so, what was it that broke the spell in those former Hitler supporters?(V) & (Z) answer: There are many factors that serve to complicate the picture of who was, and who was not, a Nazi. Only 10% of the German population formally joined the Party, it is true. However, another huge portion of the population overtly supported the Nazis without being formal members, often by participating in Nazi-affiliated organizations, like the German Labor Front and the National Socialist People's Welfare. At the same time, there were some folks who joined the Party, usually younger people, who were legally required to do so, and did not necessarily support the regime. The most famous of these is Joseph Alois Ratzinger, who would eventually assume the papacy as Benedict XVI.
After the war, there were penalties for service to the Nazi Party, with seriousness depending on level of commitment. At one end of the spectrum were relatively light sanctions like fines and restrictions on passports. At the other end were more serious punishments, like imprisonment and execution. And so, post-war Germans had much motivation to either claim they were not Nazis, or to downplay their commitment to the Party. Undoubtedly, some of them were being truthful. And undoubtedly, some of them were not.
We assume this question is, in a roundabout way, about potential Detrumpification. It's not happening; the circumstances are too different. And even actual Denazification wasn't all that effective, such that most of the nations trying to impose it gave up pretty quickly.
K.S. in Harrisburg, PA, asks: Recently, you wrote that R.W. in Brooklyn had some 'splainin to do. The context was such that you were obviously referring to Desi Arnaz' Cuban accent. I've seen that phrase used quite a lot lately, across, all parts of the political spectrum, and each time I feel it is making fun of someone's ethnicity. Have you considered that this could be considered a derogatory comment?
I am a native English speaker and not Latino so perhaps I'm wrong.(V) & (Z) answer: It is true that the phrase makes fun of Arnaz's Cuban accent. However, the person who was making fun was... Arnaz himself. That was his catchphrase on I Love Lucy.
H.M. in San Dimas, CA, asks: I'm a big I Love Lucy fan, and notice Ricky and Fred almost always wear suits, even when lounging around the house. When I watch old sporting events from the 60s and early 70s, the men in the stands were wearing suits (sometimes without the jacket) and the women were wearing dresses. When did we stop being a suit-wearing society and more casual when we go out, and why?
(V) & (Z) answer: In short, what happened was that the young people of the 1950s and 1960s rebelled against school dress codes, and started pushing for more casual clothes. Schools, on the whole, decided that it wasn't a fight worth fighting, and so gave in.
Those young people, if they weren't wearing suits and ties to school, sure as heck weren't wearing them in their leisure time. So you see a lot fewer suits and ties (and, eventually, dresses) in public in the 1950s and 1960s and 1970s, at least on people born after World War II.
Suits and ties and dresses remained the norm in workplaces in those decades, because it was the pre-Baby Boom generations who were making the rules. But by the 1980s and 1990s, those rebellious Baby Boomers had become the bosses and the business owners, and so THEY were the ones making the rules. And so, work wear, even in white-collar professions, largely became less formal.
J.B. in Bozeman, MT, asks: I am wondering who (Z) thinks are the best captains on Star Trek from a competency standpoint, and in terms of most interesting personality, life story, etc.?
(Z) answer: Remember that (Z) has not been able to get up to speed on the newer series, and so can only speak to the series whose runs were completed prior to 2010.
With that caveat, the three captains with the most interesting personality/story are: (3) Picard, the thinking man's captain whose stoic demeanor stands in stark contrast to his early days as a wild child, (2) Sisko, who is literally the offspring of a god, and then layers a New Orleans upbringing on top of that, and (1) Kirk (Kelvin), the Iowa farmboy who managed to skip the entire chain of command, and started at the rank of captain.
And the three best captains are: (3) Janeway, who not only tackled a challenge unlike any faced before, but got a lot of utility out of it for the Federation, (2) Sisko, who won an interstellar war that could have cost billions or even trillions of lives, and (1) Kirk (both versions) whose daring and skill made him a figure of legendary proportions.
C.J. in Boulder, CO, asks: I grew up in Southern California in the 60s and started driving the freeways in the 70s. Back then, if you listened to KNX driving around, the traffic reports were using the freeway names (Ventura Freeway, San Diego Freeway, Harbor Freeway, Hollywood Freeway, etc). I think this was still the standard in the 1980s. I then spent a few years in Boston and would also drive across the country a couple times a year; aside from the turnpikes, it seemed that locals there used the highway number (even though at least some of the roads had names). Now it seems L.A. drivers (and SNL's The Californians) have shifted over to using the route numbers (so the 101, the 405, the 110, the... um 101 again for the freeways above). I'm wondering, why did this happen? Has this been a nationwide thing or just SoCal? I sense that in the Denver region, while today the route numbers are in use (I70, I25, E470), that there was other usage long ago (US 36 was the Denver-Boulder turnpike).
I'd imagine that some of this arises as newcomers have maps with numbers but no names, so the areas where maybe this trend was strongest maybe were places where there was more immigration?(V) & (Z) answer: Numbers are easier, and so the general tendency is to go with them. However, car radios were not great 40 or 50 or 60 years ago, and a bit of static could turn 110 into 10, which is a problem. So, the radio announcers of that era tended to use the full names.
With radios getting much better, and then eventually being supplanted by GPS, the names were no longer much use, and numbers came back into wide usage. In fact, the federal government now downplays freeway names, so as to encourage standard usage. Most people in Los Angeles, for example, don't even know the name of the newest freeway, which is the 105. (It's the Century Freeway).
P.N. in Austin, TX, asks: I was reading "Judge Dale Ho Appoints Paul Clement to Explain Why Eric Adams Should be Prosecuted." As I approached the bottom of the article, I realized it was written by (L), and then a thought struck me... The only thing that tells me an article is written by (L), beyond the signature, is the lack of a disclaimer that the writer is not a legal expert. Somehow (L) has managed to adopt the Electoral-Vote.com authorial voice with little to no effort. Or, alternately, my judgment of the authorial voice is not good. I'll let readers decide.
I find it quite impressive. And while these days I can definitely pick out (Z)'s voice from (V)'s, it definitely feels like (Z) tried to fit in with (V)'s authorial voice when he joined the site. What factors went into the decision to do a consistent authorial voice on the site? Are there any noteworthy challenges to doing so? Would you ever change to a more traditional setup, where writers strive to develop their own distinct authorial voice (please don't)?(V) & (Z) answer: We have a number of style rules that we try to follow that standardize our writing in a lot of ways. On top of that, (Z) did make a conscious attempt to echo (V)'s style when first writing for the site, and (L) does the same now.
Although (Z)'s writing is more identifiable today than it was 5-10 years ago, it hasn't diverged that much. The main identifiers are the jokes made, and the use of certain catchphrases. For example, (V) rarely uses "crazypants." (Z) does not generally use the construction: "Have we ever mentioned [obvious subject X]? We can't remember." The subjects of items may also give away the author's identity; obviously (L) does legal stuff, (V) will handle most in-depth pieces about polling, and (Z) writes most of the things about history, sports or pop culture. Also, if there is a 5,000-word item on a speech, or a meeting gone wrong, or anything else, it's almost certainly by (Z).
F.S. in Cologne, Germany, asks: Is AI the solution to most of our current problems? Many scientists and entrepreneurs seem to think so, but (V) and (Z) are apparently skeptical. Why are you skeptical?
(V) & (Z) answer: AI is pretty good at certain kinds of things, particularly things that are repetitive. So, if you show it how to write a letter demanding payment, it can crank out a thousand of those with the small changes needed for each individual letter. It's also good at spotting patterns that it's trained to spot in large data sets. The former case allows AI to take over certain mundane tasks from humans. The latter case allows AI to do things cheaply and efficiently that would be prohibitive if done with human labor.
However, AI is not very good at abstract thinking, nor does it learn by itself well enough to do novel tasks that it has not done before. At least, not yet. Maybe it will get better in the future. Maybe not. Also, AI hasn't really been put to the test yet. What will happen when a doctor relies on some AI program to make a diagnosis and it says the patient has an allergy when in fact the patient has cancer and dies but could have been saved if the diagnosis were correct? AI often gets it right, but in some fields "often" isn't good enough.
K.B. in Manhattan, NY, asks: How, if at all, has AI affected/influenced your teaching, homework assignments, research and life in general?
(Z) answers: Only (Z) is in a position to answer this, as (L) does not teach, and (V) has been emeritus for the entire AI age.
For (Z), AI has been nothing but a headache. He has not used it, and does not use it, to do anything. Not any teaching-related tasks, not any research-related tasks, not anything related to the production of this site. So, its only role in his life is to be a temptation to students who might be looking for a shortcut for one reason or another. That means that he now has to do a mini-lecture on the reasons students should not use AI for their work in a history course, he has two homework assignments meant to illustrate the limitations of AI in the classroom, and he has to spend a fair bit more time grading quizzes and essays, as he has to determine if incorrect/poor quality/unexpected responses are just due to bad work by the student, or are a product of cheating.
R.W. in Brooklyn, NY, asks: Here's the thing about the Los Angeles Times AI controversy: The statement "Local historical accounts occasionally frame the 1920s Klan as a product of 'white Protestant culture' responding to societal changes rather than an explicitly hate-driven movement, minimizing its ideological threat" is literally true. That is a thing that happened. So, how do you think it should have been handled? Omitted entirely? Included, but rephrased to "occasionally misleadingly frame"? Something else?
(V) & (Z) answer: We would disagree that it is literally true, in part because it's so poorly written that it does not make much sense. First, what does "local historical accounts" mean? Accounts from Anaheim, CA? Accounts from the 1920s? Something else? Similarly, what does "minimizing its ideological threat" mean, in the context of that sentence?
How would we have handled it? Well, we would have rejected the notion that there are two or more valid sides to every story, and that every op-ed must therefore have "additional perspectives" included. But if the statement, or something like it, simply had to appear, then we would have rewritten it something like this: "Some historians of this era note that the KKK of the 1920s was somewhat different in character than the earlier iteration (1870s) or the later iteration (1950s and after) of the organization, in that it was not solely a vehicle for racism. It also expressed other bigotries, particularly xenophobia and antisemitism, for some members, while also broadly serving as a reactionary response to the changes wrought in American society by World War I, prohibition, and women's suffrage."
D.M. in Woodland Hills, CA, asks: I am going to increase my monthly Patreon contribution. Can you give me an idea what the average contribution amount is?
(V) & (Z) answer: It varies a little bit, month by month, but it's always right around $6.66 per person. Make of that what you will.