No Sunday letters this week. (Z) is a little under the weather, and needs to rest and recover, or it will put the weekday posts at risk. SOTU+MAHA+RINOs Monday, and of course, Epstein.

Supreme Court Excises Trump's Tariffs

It's kinda sad when America celebrates with relief what should be the unremarkable act of the United States Supreme Court upholding the Constitution. And yet, here we are.

Yesterday, in a 6-3 decision, the Court struck down Donald Trump's indiscriminate tariffs, which he unilaterally imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, held "based on two words separated by 16 others in IEEPA—'regulate' and 'importation'—the President asserts the independent power to impose tariffs on imports from any country, of any product, at any rate, for any amount of time. Those words cannot bear such weight."

Art. I, Sec. 8 of the Constitution gives Congress the "power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises." The Court notes that the power to tax is an extraordinary one and cites Alexander Hamilton, who said that it is "the most important of the authorities proposed to be conferred upon the Union." And in case there was any doubt, the Court makes clear that a tariff "is a tax levied on imported goods and services."

Trump claimed that in enacting IEEPA, Congress meant to include tariffs among the tools a president could use to address emergencies involving foreign affairs. Trump had declared a national emergency under IEEPA based on two claims: (1) a drug influx from Canada, Mexico and China had created a public health crisis; and (2) trade deficits had harmed American manufacturing and "undermined critical supply chains." He used this declaration to impose tariffs on most Canadian, Mexican and Chinese imports and—to address the trade deficit—he also imposed duties "on all imports from all trading partners." The Court noted that the tariffs have been "modified" multiple times since they were first imposed and detailed the President's wild fluctuations in the rates and application of the tariffs.

The opinion states that the power of the purse is a "core congressional power" and one that cannot be delegated without clear and unambiguous language. And that language cannot be found in IEEPA. While the president has many tools under IEEPA to deal with the supposed emergency he declared, levying tariffs is not one of them. Note that the Court didn't examine Trump's emergency claims or whether tariffs are an appropriate response to those claims. The Court held only that Congress did not authorize a president to levy taxes through this particular statute. Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh, in his dissent, however, helpfully reminded Trump that there are other statutes that allow him to impose tariffs, though those have strict limitations on duration and application.

It is interesting that Roberts takes pains to point out the expansive reach of Trump's claimed authority. "The president's assertion here of broad statutory power over the national economy is extravagant by any measure. And as the government admits—indeed boasts—the economic and political consequences of the IEEPA tariffs are astonishing." He concludes, "We are therefore skeptical that in IEEPA—and IEEPA alone—Congress hid a delegation of its birth-right power to tax within the quotidian power to 'regulate.'" So, for Roberts, there is a red line that even Republican presidents can't cross.

Importantly, the part of the opinion where Roberts tried to shore up the Court's hostility to Congress' delegation of authority to the executive branch failed to garner a majority of the Court. That means the holding of this case is NOT based on the so-called "major questions doctrine." Roberts used this section of the ruling to compare Trump's use of tariffs to Joe Biden's cancellation of student loan debt, which the Court nullified, as well as the Court's decision striking down OSHA's requirement that certain employees be vaccinated against COVID. He couches these decisions as "major questions" cases, which is that squishy term that, like "obscenity," the Court knows it when it sees it, especially if "it" took place under a Democratic administration. The only justices to join that part of the opinion are Associate Justices Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett (and Gorsuch penned his own concurrence in defense of the major questions doctrine and criticized the female justices, all of whom suggested either narrowing the doctrine or not applying it). In Associate Justice Elena Kagan's concurrence, which was joined by Associate Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson, she noted that the major questions doctrine is irrelevant here because ordinary rules of statutory interpretation are enough to support the result.

Everyone knew that Trump had misused the statute and violated the Constitution. The question was how far this Court would go in toting Trump's water. They've done their job here, but don't be fooled into thinking they won't keep expanding presidential powers when they can find a justification. They will likely overturn a nearly 100-year old precedent, Humphrey's executor, to sanction Trump's firing of members of independent boards, and will also finish off the Voting Rights Act just in this term. They've already let the President dismantle USAID and the Department of Education, cancel grants and usurp other Congressional powers. And even here, the Court notes that Trump has other laws available to him to impose tariffs.

And it's no mistake that the Court didn't address what happens to the money that's already been collected, which they allowed to happen many months ago by issuing a stay on the shadow docket of the lower court's preliminary injunction. No doubt they'll let that issue languish in the court system until long after Trump has left office. Then the next guy or gal, probably a Democrat, will be left having to clean up the mess, along with so many others Trump leaves behind.

In the end, the easiest way to make sense of this Court's jurisprudence is to recognize that the folks with the deciding votes (Roberts and Barrett, in particular) are devoted Reagan Republicans. That means they hate the same things that St. Ronnie hated—Congress, the federal bureaucracy, regulation, attempts to redress racial discrimination, the welfare state, etc. But they are extremely pro-business, just like the Gipper was, so messing around with the Fed and/or imposing tariffs willy-nilly are both a bridge too far.

Trump responded to his defeat like a petulant child. He said that the Trump-appointed justices who voted with the majority (Gorsuch, Barrett) are disloyal and their families should be ashamed of them. He also decreed that the Court has been "corrupted" by foreign influences. Rep. Jared Moskowitz (D-FL), who sits on the House Judiciary Committee, promptly, and quite correctly, responded to this on eX-Twitter: "As a member of the Judiciary Committee, if the President has evidence of foreign influence or intervention into our Supreme Court, he should release that immediately." We wish that reporters would decide, collectively, to hold the administration accountable for one of these wild claims, and to ask about it at every single press availability for weeks or months. We are going to be disappointed on this wish, of course.

Trump has many other tariff authorities he can use, and he's already used one of them. During yesterday's temper tantrum, he announced that he was imposing 10% tariffs worldwide, under the terms of Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. During this morning's temper tantrum, he upped that to 15%. The problem here, for the administration, is that anything beyond 150 days has to be approved by Congress. That said, Trump can also take Section 301 of the same act, Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, and Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930 for a spin, if and when the time comes.

The point here is that Trump's trade war is definitely not over. By exploiting (and often distorting) existing law to the extreme, and then by tying future tariffs (not to mention the tariff rebates) up in court, he might be able to keep this going for the rest of his term. And given that he, or someone in his inner circle, thinks that tariffs are manna from heaven, we see no reason to think he won't try it.

That means that the real issue here isn't so much the courts or the White House, it's Congress. Politically, it seems clear that Republicans are doing a secret happy dance that the tariffs were struck down. They are extremely unpopular and have driven down sales and harmed businesses. The port of Los Angeles is seeing the lowest traffic in decades, and other ports have also seen steep declines. Congress has the power to kill some tariffs (e.g., the brand-new 15% tariff levied this morning), and it could rewrite existing law to remove the undergirding of potential future tariffs.

Because the tariffs are so ill-advised, economically and politically, and because many Republican members of Congress are fiscal conservatives AND are worried about keeping their jobs, and because Trump gets lame duckier by the day (especially once primary season comes and goes), it is not impossible that the legislature will find its backbone. Yesterday, Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) said that the administration and Congress would "determine the best path forward" on tariffs. That is Johnson-speak for, "The president will call me and tell me what to think, and at that point I will know what my opinion is." But while the Speaker is completely subservient to the President, that's not true of every member of his caucus. Rep. Don Bacon (R-NE), who is retiring, wants to rein in the tariffs, and said he will vote accordingly. Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY), who is already a Trump nemesis, hates tariffs, since he is a Libertarian cosplaying as a Republican. Those two, plus the Democrats, plus one more vote, and anti-tariff maneuvers can gain a majority. That is enough to yank Trump's authority under Section 122. Can such maneuvers gain a veto-proof majority, in both chambers? Maybe.

Our guess is that the Republicans in Congress let Trump have his 150 days, by which point the primaries will be over, and THEN will decide what kind of war they want to have. The more defectors there are, the harder it is for Trump to focus on any one of them. And again, once the threat of finding a primary opponent is moot, Trump has few weapons with which to punish apostates. It could get very interesting. (L & Z)

Saturday Q&A

We are going to hold the Question of the Week answers until next week, for two reasons. First, this post would get overly long with them, since we had to write up the tariff decision. Second, the answers we've got so far—about which presidents are disliked, and in which foreign countries—skew very heavily toward just one president. We'd like to hear from additional readers, particularly foreign readers, at comments@electoral-vote.com. We recognize that heroes tend to linger longer in the memory than villains, so "Actually, there aren't any good answers, at least not for [COUNTRY X]" is a useful data point, too.

Next Saturday is all non-politics questions. If you have questions about film, TV, music, art, food, history, books, science, sports, etc., send 'em to questions@electoral-vote.com.

And if you are working on this week's headline theme, we'll say that there's a character in The Matrix who would get it instantly. Or is he several characters? Several hundred? Several thousand?

Current Events

J.B. in Bend, OR, asks: On Friday, you wrote "To start with, there is some really, really brutal stuff about Trump in the latest tranche of documents." However, you didn't provide any details. Can you at least provide a link to the source of your statement so we can follow-up on our own?

(Z) answers: Take a look at this document and this document for some of the specific claims against Trump. Take a look at page 7 (note at the bottom) of this document, which does not name Trump, but does speak to the vile things Epstein was doing, along with those in his inner circle. Then remember that millions of documents are still being withheld, by a DoJ that is presumably trying to protect Trump. What terrible things might be in THOSE documents?

---

G.S. in New Plymouth, TKI, New Zealand , asks: You wondered whether Jeffrey Epstein had kompromat on Donald Trump. And you've previously speculated that Vladimir Putin has kompromat on Trump. And there's loads of speculation that Epstein may have worked for Russia. Do you think these might all be related? Epstein has the kompromat, Putin used it against Trump. And now the Epstein is dead (during Trump's first term and in a federal prison), Putin can no longer access the kompromat, which explains how Trump is able to be a bit bolder in pushing back?

(Z) answers: I have no knowledge that any of these things are true, of course. But I don't think anything you write here is outside the realm of possibility. If Putin did/does have kompromat on Trump, and the FSB did not collect it themselves, then Epstein is as likely a source as any.

The part of your speculation I doubt the most is that Putin lost access to this hypothetical kompromat when Epstein died. If anyone knows that sometimes people die "unexpectedly," it's Vladimir Putin. He would surely have required a copy of whatever it was, in exchange for whatever boons he might have granted Epstein. If we further grant your supposition that whatever dirt Putin has is no longer as effective, the more probable answer is not that Putin doesn't have the dirt anymore, but that he's seen that the Epstein files revelations, no matter how bad, haven't yet harmed Trump all that much. So, another shovelful of dirt for the pile might not do much.

---

D.R. in Toledo, OH, asks: With Trump's history of filing frivolous lawsuits over the smallest things, like suing The Wall Street Journal over reporting on the Trump/Epstein birthday card, why hasn't Trump sued all the outlets reporting on far more serious allegations of sexual crimes linked to him? Is it because of the risk of discovery during the litigation process?

(Z) answers: I think discovery is a big part of it. I think an even bigger part of it is that, despite some claims to the contrary, Trump is not an adherent of the philosophy that there's no such thing as bad publicity. If he were to file even ONE such lawsuit, then he'd been inviting an endless number of headlines reminding people about his connections to Epstein. And there would be no good way out of it for him, because if he dropped the suit, it would be seen as a de facto admission that the reporting from the targeted outlet (most likely The New York Times) has merit.

---

C.J. in Boulder, CO, asks: So, with all the fallout from the redacted Epstein files, the question is, what was going on in the Biden Department of Justice? Were they preparing some massive indictments? Were investigators told not to look into it, that innocent people would be smeared? Was there a belief that the crimes of Epstein-adjacent people were not ones that could lead to convictions? It just seems kind of amazing that all the drama we are seeing would not have been producing some kind of reaction in some circles in the DoJ under Biden.

(Z) answers: First, Jeffrey Epstein died in 2019.

Second, Ghislaine Maxwell was convicted in 2021, and spent some of the years thereafter appealing her conviction. This is relevant for two reasons. First, while her case was in the process of being adjudicated, many of the records were unsealed. That is not an insurmountable barrier, but it's not a trivial one, either. Second, it meant that as of 2021, the two people most responsible for Epstein's crimes were either dead and/or brought to justice.

Third, it is true that the Merrick Garland-led Department of Justice could have gone after other people who were implicated. There are two people who loom particularly large, based on what is known of the Epstein files. The first is Les Wexler. We cannot know Garland's thinking, but he may have concluded that it was going to be hard to secure a conviction, or that it was not worthwhile to spend thousands of man hours and tens of millions of dollars going after an octogenarian with shaky health, who will soon be going the way of all men, anyhow.

The second person who looms large is, of course, Trump. I take the view, as I wrote on Friday, that there is enough evidence to convict, between the publicly released files, and other known behaviors on the part of the would-be defendant. However, it is clear that Garland was extremely reluctant to go after members of the Trump administration, because he felt the optics would be "the Democrats have weaponized the DoJ against their political enemies." The then-AG wanted to restore normalcy and dispassion to his department. Joe Biden took the same basic view, which is why he did not, and would not, order the DoJ to pursue the matter, if Garland did not choose to do it of his own volition.

I think it is fair to say, with the benefit of hindsight, that Garland was overcautious and was too concerned about appearances. "The Democrats have weaponized the DoJ" is not great, but "Rich and powerful people are allowed to get away with crimes, particularly if they held political office" is even worse. I do not believe the semi-conspiratorial claim that Biden and/or Garland were trying to protect prominent Democrats, like Bill Clinton.

---

M.B. in Cleveland, OH, asks: You displayed a table showing the rulings in favor of and against the Trump administration, noting that his overall average was 0.075. Beyond the overall total, however, the table showed that 280 of the 411 cases, almost 70%, were heard by judges appointed by Democratic presidents. Why is this percentage so lopsided? Is it judge shopping, or is the federal judiciary highly skewed toward Democratic appointees, or something else?

(Z) answers: When you see totals for the number of judges on the federal bench, those totals include both jurists who are fully active, and those who have taken senior status. The latter group are semi-retired, and while most of them do still hear cases, they have a much-reduced workload.

At the moment, for 12 of the last 17 years, the U.S. has had a Democratic president. That means that roughly 70.6% of the youngest and most active judges will be Democratic appointees. Random chance, venue-shopping, and the fact that the left-learning Ninth Circuit hears a LOT of cases are all part of the equation, too, but I think the substantial Democratic control of the White House is the simplest and most substantial reason.

---

M.M. in San Diego, CA, asks: If Samuel Alito does call it quits, who are the top five likely nominees for his seat? Will the administration try to put a nutter on the bench first, and when that nomination goes nowhere, try someone who appears more acceptable by comparison, like a Brett Kavanaugh clone?

(Z) answers: The consensus frontrunner is Andrew Oldham, who is young (late 40s), looks the part (very important to Trump), and has been writing opinions that are basically Trump-Supreme-Court-Justice auditions. The dark horse is Emil Bove, who used to be Trump's personal lawyer (shades of the shady Abe Fortas, who had been Lyndon B. Johnson's personal lawyer), is also young (mid-40s), and who has also been writing "audition" opinions.

If it is not one of those two, Trump could go with just about any of the far-right, politics-before-law judges out there: Trevor McFadden, Aileen Cannon, Neomi Rao, James Ho, Matthew Kacsmaryk, Reed O'Connor, etc. Trump also prides himself in being unorthodox, so he might go off the board and pick someone who is not a judge now, or who has never been a judge. Could he take a shot with, say, Alina Habba? Maybe.

We have written many times that there's no evidence that Trump plays 3-D chess. I very seriously doubt, therefore, that he will put up an unpalatable nominee so as to grease the skids for a different, slightly-less-unpalatable nominee. If he gets another SCOTUS seat, he'll go with the person he wants, and then see what happens.

---

J.L. in Chapel Hill, NC , asks: Regarding the questions about whether the Democrats will cave when the DHS shutdown starts to hurt (e.g., TSA runs out of money), why couldn't they offer to pass a bill funding everything in DHS except ICE "while they continue to negotiate"?

(Z) answers: This would be virtually unenforceable, even with an administration that honors the Impoundment Control Act of 1974, which the Trump administration does not. If you give DHS a pile of money, how do you prove that Kristi Noem is spending that exact money on ICE, as opposed to using BBB or other funds? And even if you can prove it, how long does it take to get the matter before a judge, secure a ruling, go through the appeals process, etc.? If the Democrats agreed to this, they would be throwing away all their leverage.

Politics

R.J. in Chicago, IL, asks: You've talked before about the possibility of Trump's political decline happening by "death of a thousand needles." We're seeing that play out in real time. To extend the metaphor, do you think we might be approaching a point where he's "called wolf" so many times that even parts of his own base start tuning him out?

(Z) answers: I think there are three groups of voters. The first still takes whatever he says as gospel. This week, after Trump falsely claimed that he had been "completely exonerated," I saw plenty of people on social media, and on various right-wing platforms, parroting those exact words.

The second group is still basically behind Trump, but tends to tune out most of his blather. This is the group that says, "Take Trump seriously, not literally."

The third group, which is the largest, rolls its eyes at everything Trump says, and does not buy any of it. He could assert that the sky is blue, the clouds are white, puppies are cute, and the Green Bay Packers are the finest franchise in the NFL, and they wouldn't buy any of it, despite it being 100% true.

I think there is considerable evidence that some voters who were in group two are now migrating to group three.

---

L.W. in Edina, MN, asks: I would love to see the Democrats take the White House in 2028 and then embark upon a period of payback before we get around to healing. Who says payback is just for Republicans? Who is the "retribution candidate" on the Democrat side? It doesn't even have to be a presumed candidate; I'm just looking for a list of Democrats ready to give the right a taste of its own medicine.

(Z) answers: The obvious answer is Gov. Gavin Newsom (D-CA). I do not believe he is a "brawler" by nature, but he's politically astute, and he's shown a strong willingness to give the base what it wants.

Among other potential frontrunners, Gov. J.B. Pritzker (D-IL) has also shown a strong willingness to give the base what it wants. I think he is much more a natural at muscling people around than Newsom is. This is somewhat necessary in Illinois politics, which is pretty rough-and-tumble.

Three others who are not frontrunners right now, but are certainly being bandied about as possible candidates: (1) Rahm Emanuel, who is not only from Illinois but is from Chicago (where politics is a combat sport), and is definitely a guy willing to get down and dirty; (2) Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), who has decreed openly that the Democrats need to "support brawlers who fight" and (3) Sen. Mark Kelly (D-AZ), who is ex-military and who appears to have zero tolerance for bull**it.

---

J.J. in Johnstown, PA, asks: You've written a few times about the calculus that would need to happen for the Democrats to take control of the Senate: Hold all their seats and pick up 4 seats by way of some combination of Maine, North Carolina, Ohio, Alaska, Texas, etc. as unlikely as that may be, and land at 51 seats.

As a Pennsylvanian who is pretty well dialed into politics, I'm curious about your thoughts on a wildcard that may be in play: Sen. John Fetterman (D?-PA). It is increasingly likely that Fetterman will not be on the general election ballot as a Democrat when he is up for re-election in 2028. He constantly does and says things that baffle and infuriate the base that he courted when he first ran. Former Representative Conor Lamb (D-PA) has been touring the commonwealth for the past year speaking to the grassroots and is continuing to do so (he'll be here at a petition signing event in 2 weeks). While he hasn't stated it publicly, his intentions are clear: He is going to primary Fetterman and will most likely win (this is why closed primaries are good; join the team or you don't get to pick our captain).

So, assuming Fetterman doesn't hate the job (I think he does), and wants to continue serving, he'd have to run as a Republican. My question to you is: If the Democrats get to 51 seats, how likely do you think it is that Fetterman jumps ship? Surely John Thune would offer him the sun, Antares nebula, and the moons of Nibia if it meant keeping the chamber and possibly Supreme Court seats.

(Z) answers: It is true that Pennsylvania was home to, perhaps, the most famous senatorial party-switcher of them all (Arlen Specter, who went from Democrat, to Republican, then back to Democrat). However, while Fetterman might be out of alignment with his party on some high-profile issues, he is still way more a Democrat than a Republican. I don't think he's a candidate to flip parties; he clearly just wants to finish his term and be done with Washington.

---

S.O.F. in New York City, NY, asks: Thank you for pointing out the importance of what state Rep. James Talarico (D-TX) and Sen. Jon Ossoff (D-GA) demonstrated this week. Your observation that these Democrats are "... meeting people where they are" is spot on. I would extend this further to "...meeting people where they are, not where you insist they be."

Now, can you come up with an "ism," a pseudo-factional name (e.g. Berniecrats, MAGA), or some other designator for this approach? Not that I think this kind of decimation of our political process is constructive, but it seems to be a requirement for the media to take you seriously these days.

(Z) answers: Well, the term that would customarily be used these days, in this circumstance, is "centrism."

If you want us to coin a new term, how about "romanism"? That would be based on the old aphorism, "When it Rome, do as the Romans do."

Alternatively, there is a political movement of the 20th century whose defining characteristics were: (1) focusing on problems that affected a large number of Americans, (2) developing practical solutions, and (3) rallying support for those solutions with language and with arguments that people could understand and accept. That group was the Progressive Movement. So, you could describe the Ossoff/Talarico approach as "progressivism," and that would be historically accurate. It is only somewhat recently that the term took on connotations of "far left," and many Democrats have been wanting to reclaim "progressive" and "liberal" as positive words for years, anyhow, so...

---

J.E. in San Jose, CA, asks: It seems many Americans are in favor of fracking but not data centers, despite both causing comparable amounts of damage. Can you explain the difference? Is my premise wrong?

(Z) answers: About 45% of Americans support fracking. When it comes to AI data centers, something like 50% of Americans like the idea, but that drops into the high 30s when you start talking about putting the data centers in residential neighborhoods (it drops even lower when you start talking about putting the data centers in the respondent's neighborhood).

And there you have the difference between the two. They're both eco-unfriendly. However, fracking largely happens in the middle of nowhere, and does not impose additional costs on most people. AI data centers need to be reasonably close to where the people are, and in addition to their environmental costs, they affect electricity costs (already) and property values (eventually). Also, a successful fracking operation isn't going to put too many suburbanites out of a job. A successful AI operation definitely could.

Civics

J.L. in Los Angeles, CA, asks: You wrote that if the Supreme Court issues its ruling in Louisiana v. Callais in March, then it could effectively kill what's left of the Voting Rights Act and allow a dozen Southern states to immediately redraw their district maps "...to eliminate one or more majority-Black districts in their states, all of which are occupied by Democrats." If the decision doesn't come out until June, then it will be too late for Republican shenanigans in 2026 (although, sadly, not 2028).

Considering that there are still three liberal justices sitting on the High Court, could the three of them withhold their final rulings for a few more months, effectively creating the delay until June and "salvaging" the 2026 election? Or does the Chief Justice get to say something like, "I need your final ruling by [a certain date] or else the Court will assume you are an abstention"?

(Z) answers: The only thing the Supreme Court is required to do is issue a majority opinion. Anything else—concurrences, dissents, etc.—is just extra credit. And so, there are no formal rules governing the production of concurrences, dissents, etc.; it's all a matter of professional courtesy.

About a century ago, Chief Justice William Howard Taft often became aggravated with Associate Justice James Clark McReynolds because McReynolds would leave Washington for some reason (usually a hunting trip) without handing in a dissent or a concurrence, leading to a delay in issuing the majority opinion. Because the delay was ultimately a week (or less), Taft accepted it, and just got irritated. If McReynolds had left town for 3 months, on the other hand, then Taft would have told him to pound sand and would not have waited.

So, the liberals might buy a week or two, if they wanted to push the boundaries of professional courtesy. Beyond that, Roberts would figure out what was going on, and would also be mindful that he doesn't want to set a precedent that justices can engage in a version of a filibuster. So, he would pretty quickly give them a deadline, and would issue the opinion without their dissents if they did not meet the deadline.

---

Q.F. in Seattle, WA, asks: Don't pardons have to be specific? You are pardoned for this crime, for instance. What are the rules to prevent blanket pardons (everything you did for this time period or for this job are pardoned)? Asking for a hopeful future.

(Z) answers: Pardons do not have to be specific. Gerald Ford issued a blanket pardon to Richard Nixon. Joe Biden issued a bunch of blanket pardons to members of his family.

However, pardons can only apply to past acts, not future ones. They also do not apply to civil claims, only criminal. And, of course, they only apply to federal charges, not state-level charges.

---

K.H. in Scotch Plains, NJ, asks: It seems like older social media sites like Facebook, Twitter and Instagram have been more scrutinized, but what do you think TikTok's effect has been on America? I feel it's done a lot of damage and done just as much with promoting misinformation.

(Z) answers: TikTok has supplanted Google, among Americans under 30, as the number one place they go to for information. Obviously, TikTok videos are short, which makes them easy to digest. However, this also wrecks attention spans, and there is some evidence that it weakens cognitive function. Further, if a video is short, it's not going to have nuance, which means simplistic and often extreme viewpoints are favored. The algorithm makes it fairly easy for far-right content creators to gain traction, so simplistic and often extreme far-right viewpoints get wide circulation. And, of course, there's the possibility that the Chinese government (through the Chinese corporation ByteDance) is using the platform for its own ends, either collecting information about Americans, or trying to influence American public opinion, or both.

In short, I agree entirely with your opinion.

History

F.S. in Cologne, Germany, asks: Would Alexander Hamilton, Huey Long, Joseph P. Kennedy Jr., Bobby Kennedy Sr. and Martin Luther King Jr. have become U.S. president if they hadn't died prematurely?

(Z) answers: Alexander Hamilton: No. He was a Federalist, a party that spoke to the concerns of a (smaller and smaller) minority of the voting public. The only people who could get elected as a Federalist were George Washington (who never formally joined the party, but was aligned with them philosophically) and John Adams, who rode Washington's coattails. Hamilton's proclivity for stepping on people's toes, and his having been born out of wedlock, would also have been serious liabilities for him.

Huey Long: No. He was too extreme. His prime coincided with the Roosevelt-Truman dynasty. And Americans did not elect Southerners as president in that era (Truman was a Southerner, yes, but he first got the job via succession, not election, as is also the case with Lyndon Johnson).

Joseph P. Kennedy Jr.: Probably. He had his brother's looks and charisma, and was likewise a war hero. And he, instead of Jack, would have had the backing of Joe Sr.'s money and political connections.

Bobby Kennedy Sr.: Probably. He entered the 1968 primaries too late, and likely would not have been his party's nominee that year. And in 1972, Richard Nixon was unbeatable. But RFK would still have been plenty young enough to run in 1976 (50 years old), and could have offered up a "return to Camelot" as a curative for the ills of the Nixon years.

Martin Luther King Jr.: No. The experiences of Jesse Jackson and Barack Obama, both of them targets of all sorts of racism, make clear that the U.S. was not ready for a Black president until the 2000s (and even then, it took a generational talent to pull it off). King died at 39, but his autopsy showed that he had the heart of an 80-year-old. There is no chance he would have lived until the time when a Black candidate was possible. He wouldn't even have lived until the 1980s, when Jackson ran.

Further, while King's candidacy would have roused Black voters to action like no other person could, it would also have roused white racists to action like no other person could. And there are far more racists who are infrequent voters than there are Black people who are infrequent voters.

---

R.M. in Pensacola, FL, asks: I'm too young to remember politics in the 1980s (I was 1 during the election of 1984), but I'm curious as to the actual election chances of Jesse Jackson during his runs for president in 1984 and 1988.

Yes, he had some scandals (which certainly seem quaint by today's standards), but was there a realistic path to him obtaining the Democratic nomination in either year? If he was able to obtain it in either year, did he have a chance to win the entire thing, or was the Reagan/Bush juggernaut too much to overcome?

(Z) answers: Here are the states whose primaries/caucuses Jackson won in 1984: Kentucky, Louisiana, North Dakota and South Carolina. And here are the states whose primaries/caucuses Jackson won in 1988: Alabama, Alaska, Delaware, Georgia, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, South Carolina and a split of Texas.

There are two kinds of states that appear here. The first is very small states, which aren't going to power anyone to their party's nomination, because they just don't have enough delegates. The second is states with sizable Black populations. Those states are very helpful to have, as a starting point (see Biden, Joe—2020 presidential campaign), but there aren't enough of them to nominate a president all by themselves. You have to expand your base beyond Black voters, and Jackson largely didn't.

Jackson managed to get some momentum, particularly in 1984, because some of the most-of-the-Democratic-voters-are-Black states, most obviously South Carolina, go early in the process. But I don't think he was ever a serious threat to claim the nomination. Meanwhile, the Reagan/Bush juggernaut was very successful at leveraging racism against Walter Mondale ("welfare queens") and Michael Dukakis (Willie Horton). We checked with the staff ethnographer, and she confirms that both of those men are white. Do you think that these tactics might have worked even better against a candidate who was Black?

---

C.C. in Houston, TX, asks: Just What the World Needs--Another Blogger: You wrote: [George W.] Bush allowed things to happen on his watch that very definitely laid the ground for Trumpism."

What are you referring to?

(Z) answers: First, Bush and his underlings weaponized the DoJ in general, and the Attorney Generalship in particular, once Alberto Gonzales was on the job. Second, Bush led the U.S. into wars on questionable pretexts, at least partly in service of things other than the best interests of the United States (most obviously, for oil). Third, Bush stepped on the toes of allies many times. Fourth, Bush gave serious power to far-right activists, whose loyalty is to the Bible (as they understand it) and not the Constitution. Fifth, Bush weaponized LGBTQ-phobia to win elections. Sixth, Bush's underlings often abused their powers to punish perceived enemies (e.g., Valerie Plame).

Richard Nixon was not Donald Trump. But there's a clear through-line from the abuses of the Nixon administration, to the abuses of the Reagan/Bush I administrations, to the abuses of the Bush II administration, to the extreme abuses of the Trump administration.

Note that if you had the greater complexity afforded by a flow chart, or a proper essay, you could also include the Lyndon B. Johnson and Bill Clinton administrations in that discussion, but in a secondary position. The folks who created the great majority of the template for Trumpism are Nixon, Reagan and the Bushes.

Gallimaufry

R.P. in San Diego, CA, asks: I was very much looking forward to the release of this year's Presidential Historian Survey, which is regularly conducted by C-SPAN, but I was saddened to see they are not releasing it this year, saying "with a former president returning to office, conducting the survey now would turn it from historical analysis to punditry." I strongly suspect it has to do with someone with a highly fragile ego coming in at the 4th worst president ranking in 2021, and the folks behind the polling effort fearing retribution.

What says you, Electoral-Vote.com?

(Z) answers: I think it is a near-certainty you are correct. C-SPAN does not get funding from the federal government, but it does rely on the feds for certain concessions, like access to the cameras that are in the House and Senate chambers. If the administration gets angry, and orders Mike Johnson and Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) to cut off access, Johnson will definitely do it, and Thune probably will.

It is just not worth it for the channel to put its entire operation at risk, especially since an updated poll would not be particularly revelatory. In every major "presidential rankings" poll that's included Trump (five of them so far), he's ranked in the 40s (41, 42, 43, 44 and 45, as chance would have it). That's not going to change, and sometime soon, some other entity will do a rankings poll that confirms that. Siena, for example, usually does one in midterm years, which means they're due this year.

---

D.E. in Lancaster, PA, asks: Just an observation—the list of contributors to the site in order of appearance spells out a secret word, possibly the name of your secret organization: VeneZueLA. That has to be a clue, but what does it mean?

(Z) answers: You're on the right track, but you've got the wrong word. We'll give you six English-language words that use all four letters: valorize, vajazzle, vitalize, vocalize, overzeal and vuvuzela.

It's up to you to figure out which is the correct one.

---

J.M. in Silver Spring, MD, asks: So, I notice that (Z) writes three of the five daily pages and answers the vast bulk of the questions on Saturday. Is (V) "semi-retiring"? Is it just that (Z), being younger, has more time and energy for E-V?

(Z) answers: Well, (V) has been emeritus (retired from teaching duties) for several years.

That said, the regular week is close to an even split, since some (V) items get moved to other days. The two weekend posts were my idea, and so are my responsibility to shepherd.

---

Previous report         Next report

---

If you wish to contact us, please use one of these addresses. For the first two, please include your initials and city.

• questions@electoral-vote.com    For questions about politics, civics, history, etc. to be answered on a Saturday
• comments@electoral-vote.com   For "letters to the editor" for possible publication on a Sunday
• corrections@electoral-vote.com To tell us about typos or factual errors we should fix
• items@electoral-vote.com            For general suggestions, ideas, etc.

To download a poster about the site to hang up, please click here.

---

Email a link to a friend.

---The Votemaster and Zenger