Main page    Feb. 15

Senate map
Previous | Next | Senate races | Menu

New polls:  
Dem pickups: (None)
GOP pickups: (None)

Saturday Q&A

We could use some more fun questions, as we've worked our way through much of the backlog. We are only doing a few a week right now, but there are a couple of upcoming weeks where it will be all non-politics questions. Send them to questions@electoral-vote.com.

And we knew this week's headline theme would be tough. Here's an additional hint: Think of a scoreless tennis match.

Current Events

M.S. in Chicago, IL, asks: If Donald Trump ignores court orders and Congress does nothing, and if feckless Republicans in Congress rubber stamp his demands when it comes to legislation and the budget, how does this make him different than a dictator by another name? To me, it sounds like he may as well be Augustus Caesar, holding the titles of a republic that is anything but. Am I wrong?

(V) & (Z) answer: We will make two observations. First, we aren't even a full month until Trump v2.0 and there is no way to know how things will play out. He moves fast, but every other entity (courts, Congress, state governments) moves slowly. Unpleasant as it may be, patience is called for.

Second, there was no set date by which Augustus Caesar had to put up or shut up. That is what made it possible for him to pretend to be a democratic ruler, when he was really an autocrat—the "subtle" approach made the change in government more palatable to the people of Rome. In the case of Trump, by contrast, he has to show his hand on or before January 20, 2029. Also the people can register their opinion of the president on Nov. 3, 2026. Augustus didn't have midterms. This makes things many orders of magnitude trickier.


R.L.D. in Sundance, WY, asks: It seems to me that the whole GOP is dedicated to making sure Donald Trump gets to do whatever he wants to do, consequences be damned. This includes purporting to repeal a constitutional amendment by executive fiat. So, my question is, when Trump inevitably decides to repeal the Twenty-Second Amendment so that he can run for a third term, who has the authority to stop him? And related to that, is there any reason to think that the people in such position would actually be inclined to stop him?

(V) & (Z) answer: We get some variant of this question multiple times a week. So, we will answer it now, and then we are done with it for a long time.

First, we must encourage people not to spend their time and energy worrying about things that are multiple years in the future, and that are currently beyond your control. Worrying, at this point, does no good, and at the same time is actively harmful to your mental health.

Second, you assume too quickly that this is a "done deal." We aren't even a month into Trump v2.0, he's already shown there are some things he's leery to try, and he's already gotten massive blowback in terms of lawsuits. And lawsuits are the quickest response; we don't yet know exactly what the courts, or the state governments, or even the Republicans in Congress will actually do, long-term. Further, he could be dead, or too ill, to serve another term, even if he was so inclined.

Third, consistent with the answer above, presidential elections don't take place over a single day, or a single week, or a single month. Trump would have to make his intentions clear LONG before Election Day. That means plenty of time for mass resistance. Oh, and he would also alienate some huge percentage of voters with his monarchial intentions. Not good for someone who wins elections by the skin of his teeth.

Fourth, elections are administered by states. Blue and purple states would refuse to put Trump on their ballots, by virtue of his being ineligible under the Twenty-Second Amendment. The Supreme Court would eventually weigh in, and they have historically been unwilling to take a sledgehammer to the Constitution just to serve Trump's needs. We are well aware of the decision that the president is (largely) above the law. However, Chief Justice John Roberts, as stupid and naive as this was, believed he was handing down legal wisdom for the ages, not a specifically pro-Trump ruling.

Fifth, and finally, if the Twenty-Second Amendment was declared in abeyance, then Barack Obama would be eligible to run again. Now that Jimmy Carter is dead, Obama is the most popular politician in America. And he'd probably jump in, out of a sense of duty, if nothing else. Do you think Trump could handle being defeated directly by Obama? We don't.


R.C. in Iowa City, IA, asks: Does the executive branch have the authority to fire any of the hundreds of thousands of federal workers it's currently firing (or, in some cases, buying out, assuming that's actually done)? My understanding is that only department or agency heads are political appointees, and can be fired at will, while everyone else is protected by civil service legislation dating back to the Pendleton Act of 1883. That doesn't mean these workers can never be fired, but a worker can only be fired: (1) for cause and (2) following a specific process, neither of which is the case with the present firings. Or do the same protections not apply to civil servants during a probationary period, which is why those workers are being fired first?

(V) & (Z) answer: This is an example of the phenomenon we described above, wherein Trump is leery of pushing his luck too far.

The easiest kind of federal employees to get rid of, en masse, are people willing to quit voluntarily, and people who are probationary, and thus do not enjoy much (or any) security of employment. Political appointees are also easy to get rid of, but there aren't that many of them, as a percentage of the federal workforce.

If Co-Presidents Musk and Trump want to reduce the workforce even further, they are going to have to: (1) shut down whole agencies or departments, or (2) fire a bunch of people who DO have security of employment or (3) reclassify a whole bunch of people as Schedule F employees (i.e., political appointees) and thus subject to dismissal without cause. All three of these routes are going to be met with lawsuits, and those lawsuits will take a long time to sort out. Thus far, Musk has been pursuing option #1, but he and Trump have basically been unwilling to pursue #2 and #3.


S.S. in San Luis Obispo, CA, asks: Why are we only seeing DOGE and the administration being challenged with civil lawsuits? Are there no state AGs working to identify criminal offenses that would lead to actual arrests and jail time, particularly for DOGEys?

(V) & (Z) answer: We would guess that there are AGs thinking along those lines. However, keep two things in mind: (1) civil suits are much easier to win than criminal suits, and (2) prosecutors who file criminal lawsuits do not lay their cards on the table until they absolutely have to. So, if criminal lawsuits happen, you probably won't hear anything about them until they are actually filed.


B.P. in La Habra, CA, asks: You've used the term "DOGEy" a few times, such as in a list of items in an XO that included this: "A DOGEy (i.e., political commissar) will be appointed to oversee each agency."

My brain wants to pronounce it with a hard "G" sound, so that it sounds exactly like "dogie," the runted or orphaned calves being serenaded in the classic cowboy ballad "Git Along, Little Dogies." Then my brain rebels and wants to pronounce it with a soft "G" sound, since DOGE is (universally?) pronounced with a soft "G" sound, and it is clear that you are coining a jocular term for staff members of DOGE. Then my brain expands to possibilities, like you might be going for that Frenchified "ZH" sound that Americans use for the second "G" in "garage." Or you might even be pronouncing it to sound like "douchey" as a private joke and editorial comment.

What is the your intent? I can live with any of them, but I'll probably keep crooning the song softly to myself with a hard "G" whenever I read the term.

(V) & (Z) answer: It is clearly a "clever" reference to Dogecoin, and so is properly pronounced "DOHJ," just like the ducal title in many Italian city states.

That said, we embrace whatever pronunciation happens to suit our needs at any particular time.


J.W. in West Chester, PA, asks: If everyone agrees that we need to rein in government spending, then why are lawmakers, especially Democrats, against DOGE looking for ways to save money? I know a billion here and a few hundred million there are peanuts in the overall debt, but making progress is better than no progress. I would think both sides would welcome a review and suggestions on where we can cut spending.

(V) & (Z) answer: First, it's not that simple. You may go too far in assuming that everyone agrees we need to rein in government spending. And even if there is broad agreement, any money in the federal budget is there because someone (or many someones) wanted it there. So, those someones are going to be unhappy if you take the money away.

Second, even if you assume that some sort of forensic analysis of the budget, with an eye toward cutting spending, is called for, DOGE is about the worst option to do it. Elon Musk might know about some things, but he clearly has no understanding of how the federal government works. He's made that clear, having made numerous extremely big, and extremely ignorant, errors (look for our write-up of yet another example on Monday or Tuesday of next week). To explain by way of analogy, if you decide you would like to get in better shape, then there would be some wisdom in talking to a doctor, or a personal trainer, or a nutritionist. On the other hand, you would not talk to a car salesman, presumably.

Third, and finally, it is clear that DOGE isn't really about cutting spending. If it was, it would be focusing on the things where the government spends most of its money, namely the military and social welfare programs. Instead, DOGE is mostly focused on gutting certain federal agencies, which won't actually save much money, but which WILL make it harder to investigate shady corporate behavior, say by SpaceX or World Liberty Financial. One of the plans is to cut 9,000 jobs from the IRS. Figure out who benefits from that and it might give you a clue what's going on here.


D.P. in Oakland, CA, asks: So, a 38-year-old U.S. Attorney, a rock-ribbed Republican conservative, making around $200,000 per year, and six other similar individuals resign on principle, whereas 53 Republican U.S. Senators, aged 40-92, making around the same amount, simply grit their teeth and violate every principle that presumably led their younger selves to their careers in the first place. It would seem that their future career prospects are more or less equal. The threat of retribution or humiliation is more or less the same. What makes them behave differently? Would the future Danielle Sassoon, age 92, have made a different calculation?

(V) & (Z) answer: We are not the slightest bit interested in defending the actions of spineless, mealy-mouthed members of the U.S. Senate. That said, you are comparing apples and oranges.

Sometime soon, Sassoon will have a new job, probably at a white shoe law firm, and probably paying two or three times as much as she was earning in the employ of Uncle Sam. If she so desires, she can even do a similar kind of work (though probably from the opposite podium in the courtroom). Meanwhile, if she had stayed in her government post, she would have been at serious risk of sanctions, up to and including disbarment.

By contrast, being a United States Senator not only comes with a handsome salary, but also with influence, and notoriety, and some possibility of being someone of historic significance. There are only 100 of those jobs, and there's no job that is particularly comparable (except being in the Cabinet, perhaps). Also, almost no matter how shady the behavior, there is little chance of a senator getting in any sort of trouble (unless, of course, you are from New Jersey). We actually have an item on this subject planned for this week.


D.E. in Ashburn, VA, asks: You wrote persuasively that going forward, "other countries may refuse to share intelligence with DNI Tulsi Gabbard." But couldn't she do a lot of damage with intelligence that is already in the files? If she is indeed a Russian asset-in-the-making (and I don't think Hillary Clinton would have made that assertion with no foundation at all), would our nation's intelligence arms be able to keep her from sharing sensitive information with Putin and other adversaries? She was my greatest fear among all of Trump's cabinet nominees, and my fear is now reality.

(V) & (Z) answer: She certainly could do a lot of damage, even without benefit of new information from other nations. We suspect that the actual intelligence pros will try to keep as much information from her as they can. We also would not be surprised if they feed her some false information, to see if Vladimir Putin suddenly "knows" that (false) thing next week.


D.V. in O'Fallon, IL, asks: As the longest-serving leader in Senate history, I've been surprised that Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) has not had more influence when it comes to the confirmation votes on Trump's nominees. On the vote for Pete Hegseth, McConnell's "no" vote was one of only three Republicans and on Tulsi Gabbard's and RFK Jr.'s votes, McConnell was the lone dissenting Republican. How do you explain this? Are all of the other Republicans that afraid of Trump or do they really think Hegseth and Gabbard are qualified?

(V) & (Z) answer: The other Republicans certainly are afraid of Trump. It is our guess that many of them (the ones who do not support Trumpism, at least) recognize that some entity will have to make a stand against him someday. They are probably hoping that it will be the courts, or the state governments, so they can remain above the fray. But if Congress has to stand up to him, it's going to be easier to do so on legislation, where "responsibility" can be diffused. It's one thing if a cabinet pick is derailed by three senators; it's another thing if a budget bill or some other legislation is derailed by some unhappy House Republicans AND some GOP senators AND a Democratic filibuster.

As to McConnell, it must be the case that either: (1) he no longer has much political capital, as a backbencher, or (2) he chose not to spend his political capital. We would guess it's #1. He no longer has influence over committee appointments, he no longer is responsible for fundraising, and he'll probably be out of the Senate in 2 years. There's no particular need for a member to stick their neck out, on his command, anymore.


R.K. in Mill Valley, CA, asks: You wrote about Mitch McConnell being a backbencher and going out with a whimper. It would certainly seem that way. Yet the point about "history was already going to view [McConnell] harshly"—can you elaborate a bit as to why?

While admittedly no fan of his, it feels hard to argue with his ability to have manipulated a system for his "beliefs." I use that in quotes because it's rather hollow. Yet if one were feeling extremely charitable, if he felt the country was on the wrong track, he pulled every string and lever to lurch the country rightward. As such, by a single measure of impact, his was extremely high. Not positive impact if viewed through my lens, and maybe many lenses of the readership here, but no less impactful. And as a majority leader, given good and bad can be subjective, impact would seem to be what you could most be judged on. There are tangible reasons why everyone on the left loathed the man.

(V) & (Z) answer: First, exercising enormous influence over Congress makes a person important in their time in power, it does not tend to make them an important or admirable historical figure. When was the last time you heard about, say, Joseph Gurney Cannon, except as an example of a powerful Speaker of the House? Can anyone even name an important piece of legislation that, but for Cannon, would not exist today?

Second, to the extent that McConnell achieved anything, it was predominantly done by trampling on the norms of democratic government, and abusing the soft spots within the system. This does not take great skill or insight, it just takes a lack of ethics. Compare to Lyndon B. Johnson, who not only got important legislation through Congress (both as majority leader and as president), but did so by playing within the rules. Yes, Johnson's behavior was icky, but it did not break the rules of the game, as it was played in his time.

Third, whatever McConnell was trying to do, he lost control of the situation. It was foreseeable that the Kentuckian's lawless approach would help pave the way for a populist demagogue. And if McConnell did not see it coming, that's on him. Dr. Frankenstein may have been a brilliant scientist, but it's outcomes that matter, not theories.


J.J.P. in Rochester Hills, MI, asks: Will Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s appointment affect the work that goes into the development and distribution of the yearly flu vaccine?

(V) & (Z) answer: That is currently unknowable. Kennedy could theoretically use his power to block approval of new vaccines, or to reverse approvals already granted for older vaccines. There would be lawsuits, but he could certainly try it. It is also extremely probable he will put an end to any government program that is designed to advertise vaccination and to encourage people to get vaxxed.

That said, the flu vaccine is developed by private pharmaceutical companies, and is administered primarily by private healthcare providers (including drug stores). For example, as chance would have it, (Z) just yesterday received Flulaval (GlaxoSmithKline), courtesy of a technician at Walgreen's. For those folks who are determined to be vaccinated, it will be pretty hard for Kennedy to stop them.

What Kennedy could do though is declare that states that require vaccinations for kids to go to school won't get any more federal funds from HHs. Trump could add the rest of the government as well. In the end, John Roberts & Co. would have to decide, but who knows what they would do?


B.J.L. in Ann Arbor, MI, asks: Seems like with the egg crisis, we should be looking for ways to address bird flu and other diseases of laying chickens. That gets to my time in Delft, when we were always looking for eggs in the refrigerated section, only to find them never refrigerated at all. Apparently, chickens in Europe are vaxxed for salmonella and the egg-washing process in the U.S. is more harsh and makes the residual egg more permeable to bacteria. Why not allow individual egg farmers to vax their chickens, based on the notion that it's healthier? Does RFK Jr. have an opinion on this?

I imagine the Whole Foods chicken farmers would be all over this. Like feeding the mayonnaise to the tuna.

(V) & (Z) answer: American livestock, including chickens, is already vaccinated. Sometimes over-vaccinated. Just yesterday, the USDA approved a new vaccine meant to combat avian flu.

And, as that last sentence implies, RFK Jr.'s opinion on chicken vaccines matters not one damn bit. That's the purview of the Department of Agriculture, not Health and Human Services.


M.S. in Houston, TX, asks: I have a friend who's Jewish (and getting old, like me), who has always been broadly pro-Israeli, but he's of an old-style Socialist/Zionist bent and absolutely loathes PM Benjamin Netanyahu and the extreme right wing that has mostly taken over the country. His ancestors have been in the U.S. for well over a century, but he also has family now living in Israel, visits there regularly, and usually has a much better grasp of the general attitudes of the Israeli public than I do. And he says, from what he's being told these days by his relatives and other contacts there, that Nethanyahu is increasingly unpopular within the IDF at all levels, privates to generals.

My friend believes that if the right-wing faction now in control attempts the genocidal policy that Donald Trump is pushing, and that Nethanyahu publicly supports, there is an excellent chance of a "limited coup" by the Israeli military, with the support of the non-right-wing part of the Knesset, and that Netanyahu and his cabinet could be arrested and forcibly removed from power.

I can't say I would object to such a development, given the likely alternative, but it seems like wishful thinking to me. What's your take on all this?

(V) & (Z) answer: As we have noted many times, we are not the slightest bit expert in Israeli politics or Israeli civics. However, we can say that, in general, if a government maneuvers things such that change can only be achieved through extralegal means, then people will eventually turn to extralegal means to achieve change. Further, the commencement of an outright program of ethnic cleansing is exactly the kind of thing that can push a nation's citizenry over the edge.


J.L.M. in Bremerton, WA (for now), asks: The context of my question is that I was born in northern Ireland, grew up in Canada, have lived in the U.S. for the past 20 years, and am in the process of moving to Portugal. I have a lot of interest in settler colonialism and post-colonial impacts as a result. I believe the disintegration of the British Empire after World War II made way for American power and influence. My big worry about America's collapse (or diminuition on the global stage, at least) is: Who or what will fill the void? In your view, who is the most likely player to inherit America's global influence? How badly will this affect Europe and Canada?

(V) & (Z) answer: It's an obvious answer, but we see no reason to doubt it: China.

China is the world's second-mightiest economic and military power, and is eagerly looking to seize the initiative in areas where American influence recedes. And, to a greater or lesser extent, every step forward by the Chinese government means less power for the United States, and greater investment of resources just to maintain the status quo. To take one example, a less-constrained China would mean that Japan would be at greater risk of hostile action. So, both Japan and the U.S. would have to invest even more resources to keep that nation safe, which would mean spending more money and manpower in order to just hold the line.


C.F. in Waltham, MA, asks: MSNBC has not changed their honest political reporting and opinions very much. They seem to have the same people reporting all the terrible things Trump and the Republicans are doing. I'm very confused as to why they do not seem to be the #1 target of Trump's administration or even slightly cowed by it (other than Morning Joe). Am I missing something? Is there something they have on Trump? Is Trump being strategic here (not likely) in trying to not bring attention to them as the last major media place still doing their job?

(V) & (Z) answer: The Trump administration's leverage comes, primarily, from its ability to slow down or cancel corporate mergers. MSNBC is about to be spun off by NBCUniversal, and the staff at MSNBC don't particularly care about which mergers are, or are not, approved. NBCUniversal might care, though it does not currently have merger plans (at least, no plans that are publicly known). And it's not too easy for the suits to impose a Trump-friendly editorial policy, especially since Rachel Maddow would pitch a fit, on air, every single week.

Meanwhile, if Trump threatened to hurt NBCUniversal (again, not easy, since there's no merger to scotch), the suits could say that MSNBC is a black sheep, which is why they are trying to offload the channel.

Politics

D.H. in Portland, OR, asks: Much of the subtext of the anti-DEI push of the Trump administration is that the only people competent enough to run things are straight white males. Democrats do not, of course, believe this, but I believe will select a straight, white male as their candidate in 2028 due to the results of 2016 and 2024. Am I mistaken in this or is it still too many weeks (lifetimes) away?

(V) & (Z) answer: We haven't the faintest idea what will happen. We are soon going to commence our rundown of potential Democratic candidates but, as you note, the presidential cycle is many lifetimes away.

The one thing we will say is this: There is still a tendency for people, particularly in the media, to conceive of the process as being centrally controlled, the way it was in the era of smoke-filled rooms. It is not centrally controlled anymore, it's controlled by primary voters, particularly the primary voters in the first dozen or so states to take their turn in winter and spring of 2028.

When pundits say things like "How could the Democrats have been so foolish as to choose an elderly man as their candidate in 2020?" or "Why did the Democrats go with a baggage-ridden woman candidate in 2016?" it drives us nuts, because it implies some sort of gross tactical error. In fact, the Democrats chose those candidates because millions of rank-and-file Democratic voters (admittedly, a non-representative sample of the overall party) decided they liked those candidates best.

So, if a large percentage of Democratic primary voters in the early states decide "it's gotta be a white guy," then it will probably be a white guy. But there's no way to know what the mindset of Democratic primary voters will be in 3 years. Also, the mix of candidates matters. If three more-or-less equally popular white men end up as the finalists by Jan. 2028 along with one person who is not in that category, the Democrats who want a white man could split their votes and the other one could end up with the most delegates and probably the nomination. The fact that Democratic primaries are never winner-take-all mitigates this to some extent though. Still, the person with the most delegates is going to have the edge in the end.


S.O.F. in New York City, NY, asks: Why have the Democrats, and aligned media, backed off of the "Donald Trump is in steep cognitive decline" narrative? This seems like complete political malfeasance. All of the things he's pushing right now—Greenland, Canada, Panama Canal, Gaza, etc., etc.—could be spun as mounting evidence that Trump is suffering from severe mental illness. We watch every election cycle how the right can make an issue out of nothing (e.g. Hunter Biden's Laptop!, But her e-mails!!!), this seems like a layup for Democrats. What gives?

(V) & (Z) answer: You don't win elections 22 months before Election Day, and if you exploit your lines of attack too much, people might start tuning them out.

The reason that this basically works for the Republicans is that the right-wing outlets like Fox need "outrage" to fill their airwaves, 24/7, and their audience has a nearly unlimited tolerance for hearing the same basic story over and over and over.


B.B. in Anchorage, AK, asks: Once again, I see multiple former very-high-level people (in this case, Secretaries of the Treasury) warning of impending disaster. My question: These folks have spent their lives in PR mode. Do they not understand how ineffective the "X bigwigs predict doom" headline is? Isn't there a better way to make the point?

(V) & (Z) answer: We are reminded of the old quote from (supposedly) Winston Churchill: "It has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."

If there is a better alternative, we have no doubt that the bigwigs would be delighted to hear it. As it is, they try to get some meaningful group of people (say, four former Treasury secretaries, as opposed to one), and that gets some attention, and so at least everyone who follows the news is apprised of their views. They probably also do what they can to twist some arms behind the scenes, but the obstacles, when it came to a Tulsi Gabbard or an RFK Jr., were so great that it's hard to imagine anything that might have overcome them.


D.E. in Lancaster, PA, asks: Your item on New Mexico's upcoming gubernatorial election reminded me of a question I've long wanted to ask: Why is New Mexico blue, or a bluer shade of purple? Yes, its northern neighbor, Colorado, is blue, but Colorado has a substantial urban city in Denver, along with a lot of liberal transplants to its scenic locations. Its neighbor to the east is Red Texas, from which much whackadoodle far-right madness generates. Its neighbor to the west is Arizona, which is a purplish shade of red and which also births its fair share of crazy MAGA types.

I love reading rankings of states. On lists that list good achievements, New Mexico is at the bottom and on lists with not desirable outcomes, it comes out in the upper portion. In fact, I noticed with these lists, that New Mexico is usually in the pact with the Deep Red Confederate States, like Mississippi, Louisiana and Alabama, which seems incongruous with it being blue. Don't get me wrong; I think New Mexico is a lovely state that lives up to its nickname, but there has to be a reason it trends like its most infamous shade of crystal meth.

(V) & (Z) answer: There are two primary reasons that New Mexico is blue. The first is also the reason that it shows up at the bottom of the "bad" lists; it's home to a large, historically disadvantaged population. In the case of the Southern states, that is Black people, and in the case of New Mexico, it's Native Americans. However, both populaces skew heavily Democratic. New Mexico also has many Latinos, who also skew Democratic (unless they are Cuban, which New Mexico's Latinos are not).

Second, despite your assumptions to the contrary, New Mexico is actually quite urbanized. About three-quarters of the population lives in either Albuquerque or Santa Fe (or those cities' suburbs).

If you take a whole bunch of urban residents, and then a rural population (the Natives, predominantly) that skews Democratic, you have a recipe for a blue state.


D.D. in Carversville, PA, asks: In "Haaland Jumps in on New Mexico Governor's Race," you wrote: "Meanwhile, the New Mexico Democratic bench is not all that deep, so her entry into the race might clear the field for the Democratic primary." Given the choices on the Republican side, I would guess that bench isn't too deep either. It got me to thinking: Which states, in your opinion, currently have the most shallow bench on BOTH sides, and which have the deepest bench on both sides? Might this be a proxy for the least political states and the most political states?

(V) & (Z) answer: We hate to be obvious, and boring, but the depth of the "benches" is largely related to the size of the state, as well as to how purple it is.

We would say that the state with the shallowest benches is probably Alaska. There are only two statewide elected offices (governor and lieutenant governor), plus the two senators, plus one representative. All of those offices are occupied by Republicans right now. So, if one of the offices comes vacant, than the GOP has only four choices for people who are currently in office and have won statewide election. Meanwhile, the Democratic bench in that state is basically one person deep: Mary Peltola.

The state with the deepest benches is probably North Carolina. There, the Democrats control five state offices, including the two biggies (governor and lieutenant governor), while the Republicans also control five state offices. The senators are both Republicans, and the House delegation is 10 R, 4 D. This means there are plenty of prominent members of each party who are currently in office. Further, because of term limits and other turnover, there are some pretty prominent people who are not currently in office, like former governor Roy Cooper (D).


R.T. in Arlington, TX, asks: I never thought I would write in because of a Freudenfreude item, but here it goes:

Did the USC Annenberg survey include cross tabs related to gender identity representation, etc.? I would like to know if, and by how much, are gay/lesbian characters and biracial couples overrepresented in movies and television compared to their numbers in the general population. My wife and I stay annoyed at new shows, where such characters are outed in the first couple of episodes when their relationship status has nothing to do with the story arc. You could argue that it having nothing to do with the story is "the point," but then I would expect the atypical couples to be in proportion with the general population, when they seem overrepresented. Note that my question does not extend to trans or non-binary representation, which still leans toward caricature. Disability representation is a hard nut to crack because of the diversity within that subgroup.

I bring this up mostly because of its political effect as an element of culture wars. Conservative-leaning people have to shop from the same entertainment media pool as everyone else, so confronting uncomfortable situations in that environment feeds the narrative that the media is biased—that "they" are out to destroy "our" lifestyle, and ruin "our kids".

(V) & (Z) answer: The USC Annenberg survey does not track gender identity. Since it's an ongoing survey (similar to a tracking poll), that decision was made nearly 20 years ago, in 2007. Maybe they did not think that information would be useful or important. Maybe they did not feel they could collect it, and remain accurate, since many movie characters' sexuality is not addressed, or is only hinted at.

However, GLAAD has been happy to fill in the gap. Their latest, which covers 2023, is here. They don't try to count the total number of LGBTQ characters, which would be nearly impossible, but they do find that 27.3% of major-studio films had at least one LGBTQ character. Around 8% of Americans identify as LGBTQ. Since most films have far more than 3-4 characters, we can infer that LGBTQ characters are actually underrepresented in American films. It is true that some films in that 27.3% will have many LGBTQ characters, but it's also true that some sizable number of them will have one or two LGBTQ characters and 50 non-LGBTQ characters.

Civics

J.P. in Sedro Woolley, WA, asks: Our society has many centers of hard and soft power, including the three federal branches, state government, Wall Street, Hollywood, social media, academia, military brass, etc. As Donald Trump and Elon Musk co-opt our national government, I was wondering what you thought the most important other centers of power were, and how we can strengthen them against rising authoritarianism. I feel that if we can keep democratic and civil ideals alive and thriving, Trump and his white Christian nationalist cronies will fail, even if it takes a long time.

(V) & (Z) answer: We think that you've given a pretty good list of the power centers that really matter, excepting that you did not include the press. In general, our guess is that the most important will be the courts, independent press/media, and Congress, in that order. In specific situations, a particular power center's importance may be dramatically magnified, like the military brass in case of questionable invasions, or Wall Street in the case of tariffs.

We agree that an engaged, vocal population makes life much tougher for the Co-Presidents. So, folks should stay informed, and be available to educate (in a non-preachy way) friends, family and colleagues who are less knowledgeable. Stay in touch with your elected officials, telling them what you want them to do, and expressing approval when they do it. Invest your money and/or time in volunteering for organizations that are fighting the good fight (more below). And count the days to Nov. 3, 2026.


K.F.K. in Cle Elum, WA, asks: Recently, I attended a telephone town hall with Rep. Kim Schrier (D-WA) and her guest, state AG Nick Brown. While she encouraged us to make noise, it was clear to me that both she and Mr. Brown felt that, at least at this time, the courts had the most power to stop our current train wreck of governance. To that end, are there organizations that you, or your lawyer readers could recommend where my donation would be directed to helping offset the cost of lawsuits?

(V) & (Z) answer: We will give you the two most obvious answers: The ACLU and the NAACP. We will hopefully hear from readers who have additional suggestions at comments@electoral-vote.com; if we do, we'll run those messages tomorrow.


R.E. in Birmingham, AL, asks: It seems to me that the filibuster survives (at least so far) because the current majority knows it is also the future minority, sooner or later. There doesn't seem to be a shred of that kind of thinking when it comes to TCF vastly increasing the power of the presidency, though. I get why he doesn't think that way: His solipsism prevents it. Is every other Republican who isn't ready to retire from politics so afraid of him that they're willing to roll the dice on all that new power belonging to a President Newsom or Buttigieg or whomever?

(V) & (Z) answer: As we note in other places, don't be sure you know yet exactly what congressional Republicans will do. Yes, some of them are True Believers, and many of them have proven spineless. However, it is possible they are biding their time for now. It's also possible that, eventually, Musk and Trump will go too far, and force them to take action.

That said, even if they don't intend or expect to oppose Trump, they make themselves feel better by telling themselves that Democrats simply aren't as willing to abuse power as Trump is (and as other Republicans are). That may be true. Certainly it has been in the last few decades (or more). However, it may also be the case that a Democrat runs, and wins, in 2028 on a message along the lines of "let's see what a monarchial presidency looks like in the hands of someone who is liberal... and competent."


M.S. in Alexandria, VA, asks: You often mention that the POTUS has very little control over the price of gas at the pump. However, as I understand it, the Clean Air Act mandates less volatile, more expensive "summer gasoline" be sold from June to September. Given the current administration's disregard for the law and the environment, it is easy to imagine a well-timed "No more summer gas" announcement that results in lower gas prices and a quick and easy (short-term) win. I'm sure the economics are more complicated than that, though. My question is, if the administration were to simply stop enforcing the Clean Air Act, how likely would oil companies and refineries be to actually violate the law and sell cheaper "winter gasoline" all year? Could they be charged or fined by a future administration for violations during this one?

(V) & (Z) answer: This scheme is certainly possible, but there are a few hurdles. First, as you point out, a petroleum company that broke the law could be subject to future legal action or sanctions once Donald Trump is no longer in power. Second, the extra costs of summer gasoline are passed on to consumers, so participation in such a scheme would not benefit the petroleum producers. Third, a lot of states have "summer gasoline" laws that would still be in effect.


R.H.D. in Webster, NY, asks: Curious to ask about how the election would have turned out using the CD method for the entire country.

We know that Maine and Nebraska allocate their electors by congressional district. But would you know how the rest of the states voted in the 2024 election based on this formula?

On a side note, I was able to figure out the outcomes of recent elections using this method. An interesting tidbit is that had this been used in 2012, Mitt Romney would have defeated Barack Obama.

(V) & (Z) answer: The Nebraska Examiner crunched the numbers, and found that if the Nebraska system had been used nationwide, Donald Trump would have won a slightly narrower victory, 291 EVs to 247 (as opposed to the actual result of 312-226).

And the 2012 election would indeed have gone to Romney, 282-255, if the CD system was in use nationwide. It's the only election in the last half century that would have flipped under the different system.


D.C. in Sparta, NJ, asks: I am an elected member of my town council. I came into the position with an open mind, knowing I had much to learn before I could be an effective leader. I did learn a lot, and one thing that stood out was just how difficult it is. My experiences led me to re-read a book I haven't picked up since college, Plato's Republic. In many ways, I think Socrates got it right: We need a system of government that consistently leads to putting good, smart people in positions to make good, smart decisions. How do we do that? That, I suppose, is the hard part.

Humans have been governing themselves for thousands of years, yet we still seem to be so bad at it. In your view, why is governing so hard?

(V) & (Z) answer: Not to be glib, but there's a reason that politics is often referred to as "herding cats." It is very, very hard to get a bunch of politicians, or a bunch of voters, pulling in the same direction.

Making things worse, once you think you have it figured out, the rules change. Or the circumstances do. Think, for example, of Herbert Hoover, who was ideally suited to be president in 1929, and yet entirely unsuited to be president in 1932.


B.J. in Arlington, MA, asks: I have no objection to the penny going away; I've been thinking it was obsolete since the 1980s.

What I don't understand is why the cost to the U.S. Treasury of a specific denomination of coin is relevant. The U.S. Mint does not make and sell regular coins with a goal of being a profitable business. They produce coins to enable commerce. The value of a penny is not in its metal, it is in all the transactions it takes part of. So who cares if it costs 3.2 cents to make? Comparing "1 cent" to "3.2 cents" in that way is a categorical error.

Pennies should go away because they are not worth the hassle of using them. Nickels too, probably.

(V) & (Z) answer: First, you assume too much when you assume that the Mint is not trying to be profitable. In particular, all the commemorative quarters and dollars are designed to be collected, because if someone takes those coins out of circulation, the Mint makes money. This is called seigniorage. For example, the 50 state quarters program earned the U.S. Mint over $6 billion in profit.

Second, the Mint undoubtedly has a duty to create a medium of exchange in order to facilitate commerce. But the more cheaply they can do that, the more federal money that can go to other expenses. For illustrative purposes, imagine the U.S. needs $1 million in new coins every year to keep the economy moving. Well, if those $1 million in coins are all quarters, then it costs the mint $600,000 to produce them. If those $1 million in coins are all pennies, then it costs the mint $3.4 million.

In reality, the coinage is mixed, and the U.S. needs way more than $1 million in coins each year. But the bottom line remains: the more the mint can get away with higher-denomination coins, the more cheaply it can accommodate the needs of the U.S. economy.


D.H. in Portland, OR, asks: The Wikipedia entry for Denazification calls it: "An Allied initiative to rid German and Austrian society, culture, press, economy, judiciary, and politics of the Nazi ideology following the Second World War."

You probably see where this is going: Is there any process in which the U.S. can help facilitate such a process here once January 20, 2029, has rolled around?

(V) & (Z) answer: Not so much. To start with, post-World War II Germans were citizens of a fallen government, with relatively little claim on civil rights. Further, many of them were open to trying to make amends for the crimes their nation had committed. By contrast, MAGA Americans have vast civil rights protections, starting with the First Amendment. And few of them are open to trying to make amends.

Also, don't overstate the success of Denazification. A lot of former Nazis were allowed to resume their lives with an apology and a slap on the wrist. Some of them certainly weren't as denazified as they pretended to be.


T.B. in Nowata, OK, asks: With all the developments regarding media, how long do you think PBS will survive? It has been on the Republican butcher block for years, will Trump XO it out this year (month?), even though it is partially funded by Congress? All those "woke" shows such as PBS News Hour, Sesame Street and Kennedy Center specials will be gone. It is truly distressing that PBS, a major source of news, information and entertainment for many of us could be so near extinction.

(V) & (Z) answer: PBS is funded by donations, corporate sponsorships, state and local governments, and the federal government (through the Corporation for Public Broadcasting).

If the federal funding were to be eliminated, PBS would survive; there would just have to be some belt-tightening. And it's actually pretty easy to imagine what that belt-tightening would look like. A fair number of PBS' most popular shows are dirt-cheap to produce (Antiques Roadshow, PBS NewsHour, etc.). Others have been off the air for years, and exist solely in already-paid-for reruns (Mister Rogers' Neighborhood, The Joy of Painting, etc.). So, the programming that would disappear would be the documentaries made by people not named Ken Burns (who attracts massive corporate support).

History

M.D. in San Tan Valley, VA, asks: In light of the recent Super Bowl festivities, we know that four teams have never appeared in the big game and many have been there yet never won. In a question last week, you said that 29 states have not birthed a president. So, to piggyback on my football reference, how many of those 29 states produced a presidential candidate that didn't win in the general election?

(V) & (Z) answer: What we are going to do here is provide, in our judgment, the strongest "presidential" claim for each of the 50 states. In the event that a state has more than one claimant, we'll go with the earliest, chronologically. Candidates in parentheses did not receive any electoral votes for president:

State Person Notes
Alabama George Wallace Residence of the 1968 American Independent presidential candidate
Alaska (Sarah Palin) Residence of the 2008 Republican vice-presidential candidate
Arizona Barry Goldwater Birthplace and residence of the 1964 Republican presidential candidate
Arkansas Bill Clinton Birthplace and residence of the 42nd president
California Herbert Hoover Residence of the 31st president
Colorado (Gary Hart) Residence of 1984 and 1988 Democratic presidential hopeful
Connecticut George W. Bush Birthplace of the 43rd president
Delaware Joe Biden Residence of the 46th president
Florida Donald Trump Residence of the 47th president at time of election
Georgia Jimmy Carter Birthplace and residence of the 39th president
Hawaii Barack Obama Birthplace of the 44th president
Idaho (William Borah) Residence of 1936 Republican presidential hopeful
Illinois Abraham Lincoln Residence of the 16th president
Indiana Benjamin Harrison Residence of the 23rd president
Iowa Herbert Hoover Birthplace of the 31st president
Kansas Dwight D. Eisenhower Residence of the 34th president
Kentucky Abraham Lincoln Birthplace of the 16th president
Louisiana Zachary Taylor Residence of the 12th president at time of election
Maine James G. Blaine Residence of the 1884 Republican presidential candidate
Maryland (Spiro Agnew) Birthplace and residence of the 39th vice president
Massachusetts John Adams Birthplace and residence of the 2nd president
Michigan Gerald Ford Residence of the 38th president
Minnesota Hubert Humphrey Residence of the 1968 Democratic presidential candidate
Mississippi (Jefferson Davis) Residence of the president of the Confederacy
Missouri Harry S. Truman Birthplace and residence of the 33rd president
Montana (Burton K. Wheeler) Residence of the 1924 Progressive Party vice-presidential candidate
Nebraska Gerald Ford Birthplace of the 38th president
Nevada (Francis G. Newlands) Residence of 1904 Democratic presidential hopeful
New Hampshire Franklin Pierce Birthplace and residence of the 14th president
New Jersey Grover Cleveland Birthplace of the 22nd and 24th president
New Mexico (Gary Johnson) Residence of the 2012 and 2016 Libertarian presidential candidate
New York Martin Van Buren Birthplace and residence of the 9th president
North Carolina James K. Polk Birthplace of the 11th president
North Dakota (Doug Burgum) Birthplace and residence of 2024 Republican presidential hopeful
Ohio Ulysses S. Grant Birthplace of the 18th president
Oklahoma (Don Nickles) Birthplace and residence of 1996 Republican presidential hopeful
Oregon (Jeff Merkley) Birthplace and residence of 2020 Democratic presidential hopeful
Pennsylvania James Buchanan Birthplace and residence of the 15th president
Rhode Island (Lincoln Chafee) Birthplace and residence of 2016 Democratic presidential hopeful
South Carolina Andrew Jackson Birthplace of the 7th president (according to Jackson himself)
South Dakota George McGovern Birthplace and residence of the 1972 Democratic presidential candidate
Tennessee Andrew Jackson Residence of the 7th president
Texas Lyndon B. Johnson Birthplace and residence of the 36th president
Utah Mitt Romney Residence of the 2012 Republican presidential candidate
Vermont Chester A. Arthur Birthplace of the 21st president
Virginia George Washington Birthplace and residence of the 1st president
Washington (Jay Inslee) Birthplace and residence of 2020 Democratic presidential hopeful
West Virginia John W. Davis Birthplace and residence 1924 Democratic presidential candidate
Wisconsin Robert M. La Follette Residence of the 1924 Progressive Party presidential candidate
Wyoming (Alan Simpson) Residence of 1988 Republican presidential hopeful


B.C. in Youngstown, OH, asks: What role did tariffs play in causing the Great Depression of the 1930s?

(V) & (Z) answer: They played very little role in causing the Depression. However, the notorious Hawley-Smoot tariff of 1930, adopted in an effort to prop up the U.S. economy, served to make the Depression much worse by cutting off cheaper imports and also undercutting foreign markets for U.S. goods.


H.M. in Hannover, Germany, asks: How would you compare the current president's actions with Richard Nixon's misdeeds (which would have gotten him impeached and convicted, had he not resigned)?

(V) & (Z) answer: The events of the last week alone, particularly the corrupt quid pro quo with Eric Adams, would have been enough to bring Nixon down. For Trump, it's just another week.


J.H. in Boston, MA, asks: Regarding city street names, one peculiarity of Boston street names that I've noticed, and that I thought you might be able to weigh in on, is the prevalence of Mt. Vernon streets. There is a Mt. Vernon St. in Beacon Hill, Dorchester, South Boston (I think technically this one in Columbia Point may have once been contiguous with the one in Dorchester and so maybe don't count it twice?), Charlestown, Brighton, West Roxbury. And in neighboring municipalities part of Boston metro, we have a Mt. Vernon St in Cambridge, Newton, Somerville, Dedham, Winchester, Braintree, Quincy, and Arlington. And a Vernon street in Brookline.

That's 15 in the Boston metro area. Additionally, according to Wikipedia, there are 28 towns named Mt. Vernon across the U.S. What is going on here? What is with Mt. Vernon? I know it is the name of George Washington's estate in Virginia, but why are so many streets named after it? I know that Boston loves its revolutionary history and revolutionary heroes, but I think there are more Harvard streets than there are Washington streets, and our local hero of choice is Paul Revere, not Washington. And even if you love Washington, naming everything after his Virginia estate rather than the man himself seems like a long shot to me. Why are there so many Mount Vernons in Boston (and elsewhere)?

(V) & (Z) answer: Broadly speaking, four things are going on. First, pretty much every city went with "Washington Street" early on, and bestowed that on a major thoroughfare. That meant there could only be one Washington St. (or Washington Ave. or Washington Blvd.). By contrast, it's plausible to re-use a name for numerous smaller streets.

Second, if the goal is to honor Washington, and "Washington" is already taken, there aren't too many alternatives whose intent is obvious. "George Blvd."? Presidential Way? "Rotten Teeth Place?" Nobody is going to be confused by a "Mt. Vernon" reference.

Third, "Mt. Vernon" offered something of a two-fer. The Vernon in question is Edward Vernon, a fairly prominent British military officer of the eighteenth century. Some city planners might have wanted to honor both men.

Fourth, and finally, "Mt. Vernon" was used for marketing. If a residential area was being developed, and in particular if the residences there were in Greek Revival style (like Mt. Vernon itself), then "Mt. Vernon Street" was pretty good branding.

Fun Stuff

G.B. in Collin County, TX, asks: Why is it that American football doesn't have a minor league like baseball and basketball do? If there were an official feeder system for aspiring NFL players to earn a living playing the sport, I think a lot of the last decade's turmoil over whether "amateur" college athletes can seek to profit from their craft could have been avoided.

(V) & (Z) answer: The NFL and CFL use colleges to be their developmental league. This means the pros don't have to spend money on development, and the colleges get lots of good PR (which drives donations), so the arrangement is mutually beneficial (or mutually parasitic, perhaps).

Basketball was, and to some extent still is, the same way. However, about 10 years ago, it became clear that there was a class of players who were not yet good enough to play in the NBA, but were unable/unwilling to pretend to be students for 1-4 years. So, the NBA created the G League. That said, nearly all top-tier NBA players travel the college-to-NBA pipeline (and the exceptions are not G Leaguers, but players who came over from Europe).

It is improbable that there will be a non-college developmental league for would-be NFL players anytime soon. The current arrangement is still quite amenable to both sides. Meanwhile, there are enough talented basketball players to plausibly fill NBA rosters (about 450 players) and G League rosters (about 300 more). On the other hand, football rosters are three or four times larger, and trying to fill all the NFL rosters (around 1,700 players), plus some sort of developmental league, plus keep college football going, would be difficult.


S.S. in Carmel, IN, asks: I gather from various posts and some headline themes that at least one of you or both are baseball fans. I've been a Cubs fan my entire life and was lucky enough to be at the World Series clinching game against the Dodgers in 2016. It's been incredibly frustrating in the years since, as the new ownership seems to have proven to be just as cheap as the previous ownership, while teams like the aforementioned Dodgers seem to be buying their way to World Series wins just like the Yankees did under George Steinbrenner. Would you like to see a real salary cap in MLB, as exists in the NFL? Do you think it would even be possible, given the power of the players' union?

(V) & (Z) answer: (Z) is the baseball fan, and would be strongly opposed to a salary cap in baseball. That would serve to transfer money from labor to ownership, and would have no real impact on competitiveness. The NFL has a a salary cap, and yet some teams—the Steelers, the 49ers, the Packers, etc.—are consistently competitive, while other teams—the Browns, the Jets, the Bears—rarely are. The same is true of the NBA, where a team like the Lakers is nearly always in the conversation, while a team like the Knicks almost never is. Clearly, a salary cap is not a panacea.

In any event, a salary cap is never going to happen in baseball. The majority of revenues in the NFL and NBA, particularly the NFL, are from national sources (like national TV contracts) and are split equally. That makes it plausible for every team to sustain a relatively equal amount of spending. By contrast, the majority of revenues in MLB come from local sources (like ticket sales and local TV contracts). So, some teams make WAY more than others. If there was a salary cap, some teams (e.g., the A's, the Rays) would struggle to spend at that level, while others (e.g., the Dodgers, the Yankees) would end up banking the better part of a billion dollars every year.


A.G. in Plano, TX, asks: Looking over the 50-plus-year history that the current iteration The Price is Right has been on CBS, what is your favorite pricing game of all time, and why is it "Punch-A-Bunch"?

(V) & (Z) answer: (V) has lived outside the U.S. for nearly all of the show's run, so only (Z) is in a position to answer this. And while he hasn't watched much of the Drew Carey version, he saw many, many hours of the Bob Barker version. His favorite game is "Cliff Hangers" (the one with the mountain climber and the yodeling), followed by "Plinko" and then "Punch-A-Bunch."


S.S.L. in Battle Creek, MI, asks: Cheers, Frasier, both, or other? And while we're at it, coffee, tea, both, or other? Mostly just hoping (Z) doesn't put mustard in his drinks...

(Z) answers: As with the above answer, (V) is not in a position to comment on American TV of the last 40 years. However, and maybe this will not be a popular answer, Cheers is a considerably better show than Frasier. Frasier relies on unbelievably gifted actors, giving incredible performances, to paper over mediocre writing. Note that (Z) likes the show, but an awful lot of the episodes are farces that are hard to swallow and that have relatively little rewatch value. Note that (Z) also very much likes The Golden Girls, which is another show where top-flight acting compensates for writing that was often pretty mediocre. In particular, while The Golden Girls had some great one-liners, way too many episodes had plots that were silly, and that don't really make any sense.

And (Z) mostly just drinks water, but if choosing between coffee and tea, the choice is tea, preferably iced. Next on the list, after water, is Gatorade. None are fortified with mustard.

(V) answers: For me, it would be: (1) orange juice, (2) tea and (3) coffee (but only in the morning if I need to be alert).

Gallimaufry

E.A. in Los Alamos, NM, asks: Since you started posting the questions for the Saturday mailbag in advance, I have noticed a very unusual trend. Among all of the questions that you plan to later post answers to, there is one answer without a question. Are you inviting your readers to play a round of Jeopardy!, or have you tasked the staff mathematician with editing and posting the questions?

(V) & (Z) answer: Per a reader suggestion, that is exactly what's going on, though the analogy we used was actually Carnac the Magnificent, from the Johnny Carson version of The Tonight Show.


S.B. in North Liberty, IA, asks: I have noticed that you don't use the Oxford comma. Obviously there are (by definition) two schools of thought on that. What is your reasoning for not using it? I'm legitimately curious since I was always taught to use it.

(V) & (Z) answer: Actually, we do use the Oxford comma, if we believe it is important to making the sentence clear and comprehensible.

Failing that, we omit it. In general, we follow AP style. And the overriding rule of AP style is to favor the option that takes up less space. Obviously, AP style was developed for newspapers, where space is at a premium.

Reader Question of the Week: Cult-ure Shock

Here is the question we put before readers last week:

J.K. in Auckland, NZ: I'm an American expat living in New Zealand. I've been here, with my family, (wife and daughter) for nearly two decades.

My parents are in their late seventies and eighties. It's unlikely they'll be around much longer. They're at the age and health, that if I don't see them soon, I'll likely be attending a funeral. So I booked a trip back in October last year and will spend a week in February with them while they're still with us.

I haven't had much contact with them since I moved to New Zealand. The last time I saw them in person was before the pandemic and it was for only a day or two. That was particularly challenging for me, as most conversations tended to start with, "let me tell you about Obama." While my parents have always been Republicans, and I've always leaned more liberal, we always shared a fair amount of common ground. That has changed in the years as my parents have embraced MAGA and some of the worst traits that align with it.

I am hoping to hear from your readers on how I can survive being around my parents for a week.

And here some of the answers we got in response:

D.S. in Layton, UT: Last year I lost one of my dearest friends, someone with whom I have nothing but fond memories of the times we spent together. We met the year the Beatles released Abbey Road and Neil Armstrong walked on the moon. He was very conservative (a Reagan Republican; Trump was a bridge too far) and I was equally far to the left—yet we never quarreled beyond Beatles-Stones type things.

We followed the example of best friends Jimmy Stewart and Henry Fonda—both of whom were regular speakers at the Republican and Democratic conventions, respectively.

When asked how people with such different political philosophies could be such close friends, Henry Fonda responded "When we talk, we don't talk about politics."

Living in a world of 24-hour news and right-wing radio it is not as easy, but it can be done. And it is worth the effort.


D.L.-O. in North Canaan, CT: I have thankfully never been in the position with family that you're in right now. However, I have been in some similar situations with friends and colleagues on occasion. My advice is to de-escalate from the moment after you give you parents both a big huge hug and say "I love you." At that point, maybe after you unpack and sit down together, you can face the situation head-on in a calm manner. I suggest saying something like "Mom and Dad, I'm aware that our political beliefs are very much at odds with each other. But I want us to have a loving and enjoyable family reunion during this visit. Having a peaceful and loving visit is the most important thing to me. So I'm asking that we mutually decide that for the duration we can agree to disagree but not argue or open ourselves up to discussing politics and bringing discomfort and conflict into our time together."

Your wording will be different, but you get the idea...


M.B. in Ward, CO: I find that it's not hard to find common ground with Trumpistas. Start out with dislike for Jeff Bezos, and you could end up agreeing with them about how awful the American oligarchs are. Trumpies don't like lefty elites. After all, who does? Start out talking about things you agree on, and the discussion can be civil and maybe even productive. Trumpies don't like moderate Republicans. So start with Mitch McConnell rather than Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-CO). A debate about tax cuts vs. deficit reduction could be more civilized and fruitful than one about Elon Musk. It's amazing how much common ground there is under our feet. When I love a Trumpista, I find that the effort to find that common ground is worth it, and often worthwhile. This is not to say that there won't be bumps in the road. But we're all Americans, and we really are more similar than we often realize.


R.P. in Kāneʻohe, HI: My wife and I both dearly loved her father, who sadly passed away a couple of years ago due to cancer. Although we often visited, and spent much cherished time together, the stark contrast between his political views (right-wing, Trump supporter, etc.) and those of my wife and I (Obama is, in our view, the best President of our lifetimes) was always in the background. Sometimes my wife would get especially frustrated with some of the things her father said or did. In particular, when he expressed a reluctance to getting vaccinated during the COVID-19 pandemic, it drove my wife (a PhD biologist) absolutely nuts—mostly because of how much she truly loved him and wanted him to be safe. One of the best pieces of advice my wife received during this time was from her sister (whose political affinities align closely with ours, and similarly dearly loved their father in spite of the political divide). She said to my wife, "Sometimes you just have to let the people you love be wrong."

I don't know whether this will help J.K. in Auckland survive a visit with Trumpy parents, but I have personally found it to be an extremely effective mantra to float in the back of my mind in order to keep my blood pressure down whenever I'm around people who I care about, whose views are not only different from mine, but often deeply flawed (based on logic, evidence, etc.). It allows me to transition festering frustration into something more along he lines of sympathy and compassion.


R.E. in San Dimas, CA: I understand and sympathize with what you're going through. My mother was also a Republican and a Trump supporter. She baffled me because Trump represents everything that she despised. She left this world last summer. We said goodbye on good terms but without the explanation I always wanted, which is "Why do you support someone who doesn't represent what you value most?" I know she loved me, and in the end, that's all that matters.

My suggestion on how to handle it is just enjoy being with them with the time you have left. Try to have fun and positive outings. Allow them to enjoy their grandchild, and let your daughter have the opportunity to see your parents in their true personality by trying to do some of the things that you may have enjoyed with them. Do not fall into any pointless discussion because there is no reason or justification they can formulate to explain what they believe. If your parents can't resist bringing up the subject, then just let them know how it makes you feel and that it is not the way you want to remember them. Hopefully that will stop anymore discussion on the subject.


C.W. in Visalia, CA: The best advice that I can give to anyone who has to deal with MAGA family members is to be polite, but not take the bait. Don't bring up politics or anything that hints of our culture wars. Try silence when asked about these things. I literally sat for a minute in silence when a close MAGA relative asked about a topic that I did not wish to discuss. It was awkward, but my offramp from this the topic was accepted. If your MAGA folks persist, find a reason to leave the room and cut short your stay. You have a right to your sanity. Don't try to appeal to their sense of decency or sympathy for your feelings. They will just gaslight you and claim to be the victims.


J.K. in Saint Paul, MN: Some suggestions for surviving the visit (will depend on how active they are, the weather, and what's available, and what you/they like and habits, etc.):


J.E. in San Jose, CA: I am channeling my therapist here. Figure out what you need and work backward to get that. For me, for example, if I knew that I would not have the emotional ability to act in a way I was proud of, I would avoid the situation. But the relationship I have with my parents makes that easier: They live 8 miles from me, and I might see them once a year. It's their loss, and I am not going to make it mine.

Ultimately, only you know the answer to your question because everyone has their own relationship (or lack of) with their parents. Having said that, I hope you'll be able to clearly identify what it is YOU need by visiting THEM and then to feel empowered to take the action YOU need to take to get it.

It's not about changing other people. It's about having your needs met, even if it means staying in a hotel or staying home.


B.K.J. in San Diego, CA: I offer three suggestions:

  1. Compassion: Their differences aside, they are the human beings who brought you into the world and brought you up.
  2. Selective hearing, or passive listening: Employ simple responses like "Can't take THAT walk with you."
  3. When 1 and 2 are ebbing, leave the room for a bit, and blow off a little steam before returning.

Good Luck. It's not entirely their fault that media has congealed here to bring them nonstop sources of narrowness and anger (though it's probably their choice to listen).


M.S. in Newton, MA: As someone in the opposite situation (small "c" conservative with radically left relatives), we consciously choose not to discuss politics. However, if politics do creep into a conversation, there is enough mutual love to have a civil conversation up to a point, and then make a mutual decision to shift conversation off of politics into areas like family history, funny stories, discussions of beloved deceased relatives, etc.

I can't speak for you, but both of my parents have passed, and I would give anything to have a few minutes with them, even if they were aggravating argument minutes. Cherish the time you have left with them, and put aside any differences you might have. They're still your parents and I'm sure they love you. Make what might be the last time you see them count for something positive and appreciate that who you are today is in some way because of how they raised you. Even if it doesn't go perfectly, you'll know you did your best to make that visit good, and hopefully you'll be at peace when their time here on Earth ends.


E.T.C in Kapolei, HI: Well before making arrangements for the visit, get your parents to agree that the topic of "politics" is off the table for the entire visit, for their sakes and yours. Before you arrive, create a list of safe topics for discussion and bone up on them. Best wishes for a great visit!


M.M. in San Diego, CA: Ask your parents to reminisce. Ask about what was going on with them when they were adolescents and young adults. What society was like. What was the biggest news story or scandal of the day. Ask about first jobs, their favorite possessions and clothes. Get to know who they were, what their circumstances were like and what the country was like when they were young. It will be a remarkable journey.


A.S. in Renton, WA: First, expect to be exhausted.

Second, brush up on de-escalation techniques.

Third, consider telling them up-front that you are not willing to talk—or listen—about politics during your visit. They will push this boundary, of course. Enforce it by saying, "I love you AND I don't want to hear about politics." Or simply don't respond, and instead distract. Or fade from the room and return a few minutes later. Or suddenly announce that you urgently need to use the restroom. Or yawn, apologize, and plead jet lag. A fire without fuel stops burning. If they constantly have political TV or radio running, plead sensory overload. "Mom, I'd like to talk to you right now, but it's so hard for me to think with the TV on. I need your help. Could we turn it way down, or play one of your favorite musicians instead?"

Mainly though, focus on the past:

Understand that, starting with the Industrial Revolution, elderly people have been living in a different world than the one in which they gained competence. This can lead them to feel frustrated and devalued. Reminding them of their competent past—especially the parts you value—may be a good way to divert them from the grievance and outrage of their news bubble.


T.B. in Winston-Salem, NC: If I were in a similar situation, I would be on the lookout for an excuse to cancel this trip.


D.W. in Phoenix, AZ: Perhaps Valium or Paxil... to start with, and Ativan for sleepless nights wondering how not to trigger blind rage and hateful words from the people that created, nurtured and are still your parents but now not guaranteed to respect your rational ideas and choices.

If the lighter regimens are insufficient, then moving to the heavy hitters like Haldol might provide the zombie-esque affect necessary to smile and nod while your parents opine on the wisdom of giving 20-year-olds access to all data in our economy, including the ability to alter code, pissing off every other nation in the world, threatening retribution to any criticism of felon 47, making black and brown skin probable cause for criminality, taxation deigned by and for billionaires and of course complicity from every republican in these and other insults to the American way of life and making our bright future and the arc of justice unlikely.

Oh, and check for drug interactions and allergies before starting systemic medications; perhaps start with THC gummies... pretty safe.

Good luck!


K.F. in Berea, KY: You're fu**ed.

Here is the question for next week:

M.R. in Atlanta, GA, asks: I was talking to an old friend (actually Sra. Wilson, my 9th grade Spanish teacher... I'm in my 50s and we're still close!). We were commiserating about the state of the country, and started talking about how to clean up the mess we've got now. So the question: Which president from history would be the best choice to walk in and put the federal government back on track?

Submit your answers to comments@electoral-vote.com, preferably with subject line "Old Sheriff in Town"!


Previous | Next

Main page for smartphones