Saturday Q&A

We set a record today for the number of questions and answers in the gallimaufry category. We have no idea what that means.

Current Events

M.V. in Kitchener, ON, Canada, asks: You wrote, of Donald Trump: "But when a jury rules that he actually raped someone..."

Isn't the suit that Trump defamed E. Jean Carroll, not that he raped her? You guys are usually pretty precise and accurate. Maybe I am missing something.

(V) & (Z) answer: Initially, it was just a defamation suit. However, New York State passed a law that allowed victims of sexual assault to file civil claims outside the usual 5-year window set by the statute of limitations. So, Carroll amended her complaint to include the act itself in addition to the defamation.

---

J.F.S. in Alexandria, VA, asks: If Jean Carroll prevails in her current case against TFG, can the concerned authorities then indict him for the rape charge?

(V) & (Z) answer: No. The New York law that (temporarily) put aside the statute of limitations (see above) allows only for civil complaints outside the 5-year window, not criminal complaints. This is undoubtedly because a plaintiff might well reach the "preponderance of evidence" standard even after many years have passed, but it would be nearly impossible to reach the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard required for a criminal conviction.

---

R.D. in Philadelphia, PA, asks: If E. Jean Carroll wins her case against Trump, what are the consequences for Trump? I know this is a civil trial and not a criminal trial but what type of consequence is Trump facing?

(V) & (Z) answer: Carroll has asked for unspecified financial damages and a retraction of the social media postings that she says were defamatory.

---

M.S. in Missouri City, TX, asks: In discussing the possible reasons why Tucker Carlson was sacked, you wrote that "Fox just paid out a big chunk of change." I know you meant this metaphorically, and that Fox certainly hasn't cut a check to Dominion yet. But it got me wondering: With a settlement this huge, when will Fox be expected to pay up? Will the court allow them to delay and delay and try to weasel out of it? (As Trump will try to do if he loses any of his pending civil suits.) And will the payment likely come in the form of cash, or Fox common stock, or U.S. Treasury Bonds, or what?

(V) & (Z) answer: The payment will be in cash and, per the terms of the settlement agreement, is supposed to be paid before the end of Q2 (in other words, by July 1). If Fox tries any shenanigans, they could be hit with penalties. Further, there is some motivation for them to put this in the past as quickly as is possible. And finally, a fair bit of the settlement will be covered by insurance, and the dragging of feet is not a great look for an insurance company.

---

G.W. in Oxnard, CA, asks: Any chance Tucker Carlson was fired by Fox "News" because he plans to run for political office? Perhaps for president?

(V) & (Z) answer: We are not clear if you mean that Fox got wind of his political plans and was upset, or if you mean that Carlson and Fox cooked this up together. In either case, we don't see it. Fox would generally be delighted by the publicity that would come from one of their own running for Senate, president, etc. And if Fox and Carlson were in cahoots on this plan, it does little good for his public image for him to be unceremoniously fired. Far better would be a mutually announced, mutually agreed upon, leave of absence (even if both parties didn't expect him to return from that leave).

---

B.R.J. in San Diego, CA, asks: In your piece following the "parting of ways" between Fox News and Carlson you stated that the latter, like his erstwhile inspiration Rush Limbaugh, didn't believe most of what he espoused publicly. Not that I ever cared to find out more about the deceased Missourian, but what is/was your source for making the statement that Limbaugh was publicly peddling ideas with which he privately disagreed? In the small handful of times I was subjected to his radio ranting, he seemed quite all-in to me.

(V) & (Z) answer: We have no doubt that both Limbaugh and Carlson were/are right-leaning. However, in his books (especially the early ones), Limbaugh was frank about two things: (1) that he was playing a character on radio, and (2) that when he was prepping his shows, his first thought was not "What do I think about this subject?" but instead "What approach to this subject will make for the best radio program?"

---

S.C. in Mountain View, CA, asks: In "McCarthy Is Bringing a Knife to an Artillery Bombardment," you wrote that one option President Biden has if the debt limit isn't raised is to ignore the limit and if "the Republicans want to file suit and conspire with Clarence Thomas and Sam Alito to crash the economy, they can feel free to do so."

My question is, would they have standing? Would anyone? How would they (or anyone) be hurt by the Executive branch continuing to issue checks? And if the Court granted them standing and found in their favor, what could they do if Biden channeled Andrew Jackson and ignored the ruling (other than an impeachment, which would fail in the Senate)?

(V) & (Z) answer: You are entirely in agreement with our point: Biden holds all the cards here. Republicans and Democrats both have lawyers that are very good at "finding" standing. So, the GOP might come up with something, although whether it would stick is another matter. Then, even if the Republicans got the case before the Supreme Court, the wording of the Fourteenth Amendment could not be clearer, and the text of the Constitution trumps bills passed by Congress (such as the one creating the debt ceiling in the first place). Finally, even if SCOTUS ruled against Biden (or his successor, depending on how long this takes), then the answer might well be: "I am not going to crash the economy of the U.S. and the world because John Roberts says I have to do so."

---

W.R. in Tyson's Corner, VA, asks: In your item about the passage of the debt-ceiling bill (H.R. 2811), you wrote: "...the bill eked out a narrow win, 217-215, made possible only by the fact that a couple of Democrats were absent yesterday."

According to Congress.gov, the two absent Democrats were Scott Peters (CA-50) and Bonnie Kelly Coleman (NJ-12). If they had been present to vote no, the vote would have been 217-217, and the bill would have failed (there are no tie-breakers in the House, unlike in the Senate). Any idea why these two Democratic Congresspeople were absent?

Did the House Democratic leadership not foresee that they needed every single possible Democratic vote against this bill? Did they not do everything they could to get Peters and Kelly Coleman to vote?

As a side note, Republican Congressman Mike Kelly (PA-16) was also absent from the vote. If he had been present, any insight into how he would have voted? Would he have been the Republicans' 218th "yea" vote?

(V) & (Z) answer: In a body of 435 people, many of whom have chronic health problems, many of whom have families, many of whom live far from Washington, there are almost always a few absences each day. Put it this way: If each member missed just three "in session" days per year, then the average day would have eight absences.

It is unlikely that House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) just forgot to whip every vote and to make sure all hands were on deck. Either he concluded it wasn't important enough to defeat a bill that's never going to become law anyhow, or, more likely, he concluded that McCarthy granted "permission" to the GOP "nay" voters to do so without consequences, and that if McCarthy needed one more vote, he would have just withdrawn that permission and done what he needed to whip that additional vote.

As to Kelly, he's a debt ceiling hawk, and has often bragged (see here, here, and here for examples) about voting against raising the limit. On the other hand, he's also a budget hawk, and might be open to trading $1.5 trillion in debt ceiling for negative $4.5 trillion in Democratic spending. Who knows?

---

J.L. in Tualatin, OR, asks: I wasn't familiar with the Virginia army base previously named for General Lee, but I have to wonder...how do the residents of Fort Lee, NJ, feel about all this?

(V) & (Z) answer: Presumably they are fine with it, as their town is named in honor of Lee's father, "Light-Horse Harry" Lee, who was a Revolutionary War hero. In other words, dad was a traitor too, but the good kind, not the bad kind like his son.

---

G.A. in Berkeley, CA, asks: Why are Americans so fascinated with British royalty, including their banal marriages, deaths, and family fights? Why fixated on the approaching coronation of Chuck III, even though he has already been doing the king thing for months?

A cleric will dump on the poor fellow some "holy oil"—appropriately from the Middle East, where oil and religion often mix—but can he really be crowned monarch of the United Kingdom if Scotland refuses to send to London the Stone of Scone (or is it the Scone of Stone, in tribute to British culinary achievements)? It all smacks of the primitive hazing of a new tribal leader.

We had some disagreements with the British monarchy a while ago. And, undeniably, most of our later leaders have left something to be desired. But do Americans today want the "royals" back?

(V) & (Z) answer: Americans do not want the royals back. However, this is a country where shows like Keeping up with the Kardashians, Vanderpump Rules, The Real Housewives of [half a dozen different cities], Chrisley Knows Best and a dozen others have drawn great ratings by allowing people to indulge their voyeuristic interest in seeing how the beautiful people live. The British royal family is the ultimate reality TV show. Or the ultimate soap opera, if you prefer.

Politics

K.C. in Saint Augustine, DeSantisWorld*, asks: What's your opinion regarding the rationale for the recent "leaks" that claimed VP Harris was a bungler, didn't share her toys, and was mean to her mother?

Why would President Biden or his administration remove his historic VP and risk alienating groups key to his reelection? She's done nothing (Agnew-ian? Burr-istic?) to justify a change.

Although it's fun to play the What If? game with a different VP choice, or any time in history--What if Alexander the Great commanded the Confederate Army and had access to Light Sabers and Jewish Space Lasers?--why shoot that space laser in your foot and shift the focus from the Republican freakery?

Am I wrong? Without knowing the question, my wife would say "yes."

(* - trademark and legislation pending)

(V) & (Z) answer: By all indications, Biden wants Harris to remain as his running mate, and is planning to proceed along those lines. While it is an interesting intellectual exercise to consider the possibility of changing horses midstream, the fact is that, since World War II, only one president (Gerald Ford) has dumped his VP for some other running mate. That includes presidents for whom the VP was a pretty clear liability, like George H.W. Bush and Dan Quayle.

This being the case, one has to assume that the negative information about Harris did not come from Biden's camp. One possibility is a political opponent of the administration who was looking to embarrass Biden. A second possibility is someone with a score to settle, like a disaffected Harris staffer. And a third possibility is someone who would like to see Harris cashiered in hopes of creating an opportunity for themselves.

We have absolutely no information about any of these three possibilities. However, we can point out that if Harris was dumped from the ticket, it would almost certainly be for another Black woman. Further, one of the people in contention the first time out was Susan Rice. And finally, Rice suddenly left the administration this week, shortly after Biden announced his intention to run with Harris again.

---

C.S. in Easton, CT, asks: With Joe Biden having just announced his run for a second term, I can't help but wonder why Democrats seem to have no choice but to support him. Couldn't another contender put out a statement saying that while they have been and remain a strong supporter of Joe Biden, they sense that there's an appetite for a different option (i.e., younger, fresher, however they chose to define their differences). The candidate could make it clear that they would fully support Biden if he were to win the nomination, but in the meantime their bid would give Democrats a choice.

(V) & (Z) answer: None of the folks who ran in 2020 were able to knock Biden off, and that's without him being an incumbent. It's nearly inconceivable that any of them (Sens. Amy Klobuchar, DFL-MN and Elizabeth Warren, D-MA; Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg, etc.) could do it in 2024. And the up and coming "fresh faces," like Govs. Gavin Newsom (D-CA) and Gretchen Whitmer (D-MI) don't particularly want to damage their brands by losing badly and by not being a team player when Democratic voters want unity.

Also, do not discount the very real fear that many Democrats, including many Democratic officeholders, have that if a Republican wins this presidential election, it will be the last presidential election. By all indications, all of the viable contenders for the Democratic nomination have concluded there is something bigger here than themselves, and that now is not the time for an internecine struggle.

---

S.L. in Irwin, PA, asks: I recently heard about a new Biden policy set to go into effect in May about penalizing homeowners with high credit scores to subsidize high risk borrowers with lower credit scores. When doing some more digging, I could only find articles from right-wing media outlets such as Fox News and The New York Post. Are centrist and left leaning outlets trying to bury this story? It does not seem like good policy on its surface. Curious to your thoughts if there is more to this story than the limited reporting from one side of the aisle.

(V) & (Z) answer: Yes, there is more to this story. The problem is that it's not really news, unless an outlet is searching for "dirt" on the Biden administration, as it's really just a somewhat abstruse bit of bureaucratic tinkering.

The fees in question here are set by the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA), which is an independent regulatory agency, and thus does not answer to the president. A president can ask them to do things, just like a president can ask the Federal Reserve to do things, but FHFA is under no obligation to honor such requests. Further, there's no evidence that Biden had anything to do with the changes, or that he even has an opinion about them.

What happened was that the FHFA retooled its pricing framework for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac mortgages. One impact of this retooling was that some people with good credit will pay more than they previously would have in up-front fees while some people with less-good credit will pay less. However, it's not as simple as "people with good credit are subsidizing people with less-good credit." Further, the new rules also affect expenses other than up-front fees, most obviously mortgage insurance, with the result that nearly everyone will pay less once all costs are considered. The whole thing is a little weedy, but if you want a more detailed breakdown, there's one here.

---

J.S. in London, England, UK, asks: I get that the GOP has weaponized cultural issues in terms of the red states, but I remember 1972 Democratic presidential nominee George McGovern being a senator from South Dakota. Given the structure of the Senate, which makes it almost impossible at the moment for the Democrats to anything close to a decent majority there, surely they need to have a pitch that appeals to people in at least the smaller red states, and make a big push for them—better broadband, a better deal for farmers, etc., all things that would fit in with the Democrat message generally. Viewed from the U.K. it looks like the Democrats have given up on these small states. Is this a fair view?

(V) & (Z) answer: We do not think it's a fair view.

The Democrats have delivered on some very clear bread-and-butter-type issues for rural America. For example, there is money for rural broadband in last year's infrastructure bill. And it is as plain as day that the economy as a whole does better under Democratic presidents than Republican presidents.

However, the issues that motivate red-state voters these days are not pocketbook issues. Broadly, they believe that their religion, their culture, their way of life, etc., are under attack, and they want politicians who will fight back with bans on trans people and "religious liberty" bills and the like. The Democrats can't go there without losing far more votes than they would gain.

---

M.H. in Salt Lake City, UT, asks: I know you've addressed this before, but now that more Republicans are officially entering the presidential candidacy race, this may be a good time to re-visit the question of how Republicans select their nominee.

If (big if) the Republican Party wants to win and suspects it can only do so with Trump not on the ticket, why doesn't it change its delegate system to a proportional, rather than a winner-take-all, system?

(V) & (Z) answer: Remember when Bernie Sanders voters were incensed in 2016 by some fairly passive things that the DNC did to help Hillary Clinton? And how some of those Sanders voters refused to vote Clinton and either stayed home on Election Day or voted for Jill Stein? And how, as a result, Donald Trump won the election by a nose?

If the RNC changed the delegate rules in any way (whether the plan was to hurt Trump or not), and then he lost the nomination, he would spend the entire campaign season carping about how he was screwed by the RINOs/deep state/establishment, and how his supporters shouldn't allow themselves to be hoodwinked. If even 5% of Trump's base sat the election out as a result of this (and we think 5% is way low compared to what would actually happen), then there is no way the Republicans could win the presidency, and the Party would also lose a bunch of winnable downballot races.

---

D.K. in Iowa City, IA, asks: Do you think it is possible that Donald Trump will be the Republican nominee in 2024 in spite of being prosecuted in two or three serious cases, that he would be defeated in a landslide, and that would mean the end of right-wing extremism in the U.S.?

(V) & (Z) answer: Could Trump be nominated despite multiple indictments? Certainly. Could that lead to a landslide loss? Yes. Will that end right-wing extremism? Unfortunately, that is highly improbable.

Politicians, on the whole, think tactically. That is why many Republican officeholders have clearly concluded that it's time for the Party to move on from Trump. Voters, on the whole, do not think tactically. They vote with their hearts. That is why the base is still with Trump. And if he loses, the base is unlikely to say "We need to rethink what we are doing, and shift our support to a sane candidate in 2028." No, they are likely to say "Trump got screwed again by the deep state." They might even say "The problem is that Trump wasn't extreme enough."

As a general rule, parties evolve pretty slowly over time, which means that the return of a more sane GOP could well be a decade or more away. Sometimes, a particularly gifted politician comes along and speeds up this process, but they are very rare, and we don't see how a "new Republican" candidate could even get nominated by the Party right now, much less elected.

---

A.B. in Denver, CO, asks: You often write things akin to what you wrote this week: "...approval ratings don't seem to mean what they once did, and it's pretty clear that some percentage of those "disapprove of Biden" folks are unhappy because he hasn't been progressive enough."

I realize the staff mathematician probably has a hand in writing these approval polls, but why don't they simply ask why each respondent disapproves in terms of lefty/rightyness, and report the results? Then we'd know when a given politician is actually in trouble or not, and from which group.

Seems obvious—so why don't they do this?

(V) & (Z) answer: You hit the nail on the head. Every time a respondent says "disapprove," the pollster should have a follow-up question like: (1) Is he too far left? (2) Is he too far right? (3) Is he incompetent? (4) Other.

They don't and we can't see any valid reason for not doing a follow-up. Why they don't is a mystery to us. It would explain a lot if it turned out that many of the disapproves are in category (2).

Civics

J.G. in Dallas, PA, asks: I've been reading this bit over and over again: "The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office."

If a judge is no longer exhibiting "good Behaviour," then their hold on the office has been discontinued. Does the Compensation clause still stand? Stated another way, does Congress have other powers at their disposal besides Impeachment? Can they simply put a "Stop Payment" on a Justice's paycheck? Or a Justice's accommodation and travel expenses? Or their clerks?

I can envision a pragmatist like Mitch McConnell saying something along the lines of, "Well, I definitely don't approve of the behaviour, but I certainly can't just hand Joe Biden a free Supreme Court nominee." Economically sanctioning Justices exhibiting problematic behavior could be the ideal way to persuade more ideal behavior.

(V) & (Z) answer: The way it's written, there has to be a finding of "not good behaviour" to take a justice's salary away. And the only current way to do that is impeachment and conviction.

The problem is that truly bad behavior needs to be disqualifying. If justices were economically sanctioned for misbehavior, the penalties would either be enough to cause them to consider resignation (and McConnell would never go for that) or they wouldn't be (in which case, what's the point?).

As long as we're bandying about schemes, however, what if there was a rule that if a majority of the Senate found a justice guilty of "bad behaviour," that justice would be required to wear scarlet-colored robes until the finding was lifted. If the goal is to shame them into keeping their noses clean, that could well be more effective than financial consequences:

---

J.A. in South Salem, NY, asks: The Republicans didn't play nice and allow a temporary replacement for Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) on the Senate Judiciary Committee. You implied she either had to resign from the Senate or somehow make it back for floor votes. Could she remain in the Senate but resign from the Judiciary Committee, and would Senate rules allow for her to be replaced on the committee by a Democratic senator? Obviously floor votes would continue to have a perilously thin margin, but is this a viable option for Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) to pursue, since the other options don't appear to be happening?

(V) & (Z) answer: Any new person added to the Judiciary Committee, even in the event of a resignation, has to be approved with enabling legislation. It is theoretically possible for Feinstein to resign just this one committee membership, but the Republicans are likely to frame that in the same way they framed the "temporary replacement" plan, as something out of order, unusual, etc. And that would give them cover to kill the move.

If you would like a parliamentary maneuvering scheme that might actually work, then if the size of the committee is expanded, it has to be reconstituted. The Democrats might be able to get one Republican vote for a new, expanded committee roster (with Feinstein being replaced, and one Democrat and one Republican being added) if they promised that Republican that he or she would be the new member of the Committee. That Republican would have to be open to voting for a change to filibuster rules, however, creating a carve-out for committee reorganizations. We doubt that such a Republican could be found, but it's not totally impossible.

---

M.W. in Ottawa, ON, Canada, asks: It seems ludicrous that the people of California (or indeed any other state) have their representation in the Senate cut in half due to the frailties of an individual human being. What would it take to elect a supernumerary senator in the 2026 election class who would be available to take votes in the event of the unavailability of either the senior or junior senator? They would also be the obvious person to fill a vacancy, and would have the legitimacy of having been democratically elected rather than appointed.

(V) & (Z) answer: This would take a Constitutional amendment. It would also create some very problematic incentives. Imagine if a state had a Democratic senator and a Republican supernumerary senator. Might the Republicans find a pretext for expelling that Democrat if they were certain the replacement would be a Republican? Or might some less-than-stable voter decide to assassinate that Democrat, particularly if control of the Senate was on the line? These things are certainly possible.

---

S.J. in Sacramento, CA, asks: Is managing political campaigns a possible career, rather than an occasional gig? What kind of work do campaign managers do in the off years?

(V) & (Z) answer: The moment that Election Day in year X is over, the campaign for year X+2 begins. So, there are always jobs for people to work on federal campaigns. There are also plenty of off-year campaigns, particularly for some governorships and mayoralties. A person can also work as a lobbyist or as a member of an activist group (those things are often one and the same). And quite often, particularly if their candidate wins a high-profile office, the campaign manager takes a job on that candidate's staff.

---

J.R.A. in St. Petersburg, FL, asks: This week, you kind of tangentially raised an interesting question: While in most states it is pretty clear-cut that U.S. Senator is a better seat than governor, is that really true of the sixth largest economy in the world?

It seems like the top three or four state's governors probably rank at least equally with that state's U.S. senators, to me, and maybe as in the case of California, above the senators. What say y'all?

(V) & (Z) answer: Well, for what it is worth, senators are just ahead of state governors in the United States order of precedence.

In the end, this is the classic question of "Would you rather be a smaller fish in a bigger pond or a bigger fish in a smaller pond?" The answer undoubtedly varies from politician to politician, but we would guess that the governors of roughly the 20 largest states have more influence than a senator, though we might want to remove a couple of the semi-weak Southern-state governorships (North Carolina, Tennessee) from that list.

---

R.C. in Des Moines, IA, asks: A local Democrat was sentenced to house arrest in Michigan recently for misconduct in office. Anecdotally, it seems like there are many more Republicans caught for misconduct, corruption or some other criminal malfeasance. I wonder if I hear about more Republicans because of my own confirmation bias, the famous liberal bias of the media, or is the Republican Party simply dirtier than the Democratic Party? Are you aware of any data on this?

(V) & (Z) answer: There are academic studies, of course, but most of them are behind very expensive paywalls.

That said, it's easy enough to count up the number of officeholders who have been convicted of crimes in, say, the last 60 years. And if you do that, you will find that at the state and local level, Democrats are considerably more likely to get busted for malfeasance. This is likely the byproduct of there being more opportunity for malfeasance where Democrats serve (e.g., large cities) as well as the existence of more robust systems of criminal justice.

At the federal level, on the other hand, Republicans are vastly more likely to get in trouble for malfeasance. Just looking at presidential administrations, there have been three Democratic staffers convicted of crimes since Harry S. Truman took office, with one of those convictions leading to prison time. In the same timeframe, there have been 113 Republicans convicted of crimes, with 39 of those visiting the crowbar hotel. This is likely the byproduct of an attitude that government is "the enemy" and so it is appropriate to cheat the system.

History

D.E. in San Diego, CA, asks: How many American politicians served first as vice president, and subsequently as president? Of those, how many had more than one term?

(V) & (Z) answer: There have been 15 vice presidents who eventually became presidents themselves. Breaking down the list:

• Four of them succeeded presidents who died in office, and then were reelected in their own right: T. Roosevelt, Coolidge, Truman, L. Johnson
  
  
• Four of them succeeded presidents who died in office, and then only served long enough to finish their predecessor's term: Tyler, Fillmore, A. Johnson, Arthur
  
  
• Three were elected in their own right to one term: Adams, Van Buren G.H.W. Bush
  
  
• One succeeded a president who resigned, and then only served long enough to finish their predecessor's term: Ford
  
  
• One was elected in their own right to two terms, and completed both: Jefferson
  
  
• One was elected in their own right to two terms, but did not complete the second term: Nixon
  
  
• One is still in office: Biden

This does not speak to Joe Biden's chances at reelection in any meaningful way, however. Since there have only been 46 presidencies, any particular pattern of service is going to be somewhere between "unusual" and "unique."

---

C.S. in Philadelphia, PA, asks: Can the staff historian provide any insight into the Pro-Union War Democrats during the Civil War? I found your answer last Saturday as the last time the U.S. was this divided was the 1850s concerning. Even as an original Never Trumper, the tribalism of trying to drop the Republican from my political registration is hard. I am curious if I can find any political/historical/spiritual connection between Never Trump Republicans and the War Democrats. How did they respond to the rhetoric coming from fellow Democrats leading up to the Civil War? Where did they stand on Lincoln's other domestic and foreign policies? Where did they go politically after the war? The Wikipedia page is surprisingly thin. Recommendations for any further reading?

(V) & (Z) answer: The parallel between War Democrats and Never Trump Republicans is salient. The War Democrats largely did not agree with the Republicans (and with the Lincoln administration in particular) on much of anything, but secession was a dealbreaker for them. So, they supported the war effort, though they consistently pressed for Lincoln to negotiate for peace, even if that meant slavery remaining intact.

After the war, some of them became Republicans, but most of them became Northern Democrats. Northern Democrats supported the white working class, proto-populism, small government and Jesus. That is to say, they became Trumpers, except with a strong sense of civic responsibility.

As to books, consider Lincoln and the Democrats: The Politics of Opposition in the Civil War by Mark E. Neely Jr. or The Cacophony of Politics: Northern Democrats and the American Civil War by J. Matthew Gallman. Both are good books by good historians (full disclosure: Z is friendly with both authors).

---

B.H. in Greenbelt, MD, asks: Why did the drafters of the Fourteenth Amendment feel the need to assure the validity of the public debt? What did they think might happen without that language?

(V) & (Z) answer: To start, it helps to read the complete text of that clause:

The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

During the Civil War, the U.S. government covered much of its expenditures by issuing war bonds, including some that did not reach full maturity for 20 years. The Confederacy also issued many bonds during the war. After the war, the U.S. government granted generous pensions to Union veterans, such that by the 1880s, fully one-quarter of the federal budget was being paid to Civil War veterans.

The fellows who wrote the Fourteenth Amendment feared that Southerners might one day regain control of the Congress and the White House, and might do any of the following things: (1) invalidate Union bonds, (2) cancel pensions for Union veterans, (3) start paying off Confederate bonds, and/or (4) award pensions to Confederate veterans.

Gallimaufry

D.E. in Austin, TX, asks: The story about Scotty Campbell's resignation that you linked to was from The Washington Post. Why do you link to a story behind a paywall when other outlets are available? It seems sub-optimal.

(V) & (Z) answer: We generally prefer non-paywalled sources, but sometimes the paywalled article is much better and/or more thorough. We're particularly willing to link to better-quality paywalled articles when the outlet has a soft paywall, as the Post does.

---

R.L. in Alameda, CA, asks: Last week, in response to S.V.E. in Renton, you wrote, "about a month ago, [(Z)] asked students to list the single-most distinctive characteristic of California speech, in their view."

As a Midwestern "immigrant" to California, I have to see this list. Here are a few items that pop into my mind.

1. Putting "the" in front of freeway numbers ("the 5" rather than I-5 or Interstate 5).
2. "Hella" as an exclamation. (It was hella rainy today).
3. The word "City" with an upper-case 'C' refers to San Francisco (and never, ever call San Francisco "Frisco"—that immediately tags you as an outsider).
4. Similarly, never, ever refer to our state as "Cali." That's another tell that you are from somewhere else.
5. Calling any part of the country east of the Rocky Mountains "back East" or the "East coast, even if you are talking about, say, Missouri. Conflating the Midwest, Southern states and the Atlantic seaboard is acceptable.

What did your students come up with?

(V) & (Z) answer: Here are the top five most common answers, from least to most common. There is obviously some overlap with your list:

1. Regional subculture slang (surfer slang, valley girl slang, Espangles, etc.)
2. Talking very fast ("Going to" becomes "gonna," "What's up" becomes "'sup," etc.)
3. Slang terms for 'cool" (bomb, sick, dope, dank, etc.)
4. Hella
5. Heavy use of the disfluency "like."

---

G.R. in Tarzana, CA, asks: Does UCLA allow non-UCLA students to audit a class on campus or take it pass/fail, and if so, what are the requirements and costs? One of the great things about attending a major university back in the day was that you could always just wander into a lecture hall and learn about things that interested you, regardless if it was germane to your studies. I assume with the high costs of colleges and the necessity of security, that is near impossible, unlike as presented on the sitcom Hank.

(V) & (Z) answer: If you want to take a class for credit, that is something the university handles, though it's sometimes possible to enroll in a regular class as an extension student (in other words, you don't have to be admitted to the university).

As to auditing, that's generally at the discretion of the professor. The only exception is if the room is full to the point of violating fire codes.

---

J.C. in Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia, asks: You said, "Students, particularly today, don't read, and it's difficult to hold them accountable if they don't." I am not saying I disagree with you, but I am both surprised and saddened. I was reading novels at 5. I always read everything assigned in school, and enjoyed it. As a high-school teacher, I regularly assign reading, and have a system that indicates if a student has read at least a modicum of what is assigned.

So: (1) do you have any statistics to back up the statement? And: (2) reading is super important for grasping information and retention thereof. What are we to do if our students "is no longer reading"?

(V) & (Z) answer: Undoubtedly there are studies, but (Z) does not need a study to prove what he and his colleagues have observed, time and again, over the past two decades: Most students will bend over backward to avoid heavy-duty reading assignments, and even those who do read often fail to absorb all that much.

(Z)'s solution is to avoid textbooks, and to put the emphasis primarily on short, interesting primary sources. It's possible to actually hold students accountable for short readings, and many of them will actually do the reading and remember it and think about it.

---

K.P. in Brooklyn, NY, asks: I recall you mentioning that you personally knew Ben Shapiro. Can you please elaborate on this? Was he as insufferable in real life as he appears to be in public? I recently heard him described on a podcast as "an assault on the frontal cortex." Please tell us.

(V) & (Z) answer: He was a columnist for the opinion section of The Daily Bruin at the same time that (Z) was running the computer network there. Shapiro only came into the offices for fairly brief periods of time, to either drop off his weekly column, or to discuss it with the editors. So, (Z) didn't have all that much interaction with him, but there was some. And even back then, Shapiro was an insufferable pri** with a chip on his shoulder the size of Montana. His columns were also obnoxious, and more than hinted at the bigotries that were to become major themes of his career in the media.

---

D.E. in Lancaster, PA, asks: First off, (Z), sorry to hear about the dental procedure and hope you are feeling better.

In the item on E. Jean Carroll, there was a line that seems to have wandered into the a paragraph and then got lost. I'm talking about "Apparently, the Trumps, did not do their research, because while the name Reid Hoffman could be Jewish, he's not." I'm assuming that the context for this line was edited out but that while you were highlighting the soon-to-be deleted text, you didn't drag the cursor far enough to include this last sentence. I do it all the time, especially when I find myself going into a sidebar to the main thrust of the paragraph only to realize that what was supposed to be an short aside has grown into a monstrous section of its own.

In the next item, about Asa Hutchinson, there is a line that is clearly meant to be a joke: "So, the former governor is the most plausible Republican whose name does not rhyme with 'Con.'" The problem is I don't know if I'm being particularly dense or if it got lost in translation. I can't think of any declared or possibly thinking about declaring candidate whose name rhymes with "con." Of course, most Republicans are consummate con artists, with the King being Herr Trump. Or perhaps you were referring to my fondest dream coming true that Trump, or hell, I'll even go for DeSantis, becomes a convicted felon?

(V) & (Z) answer: Thanks, it's much improved, if not 100%. There was an incident on Monday in which the corner of a shelf hit (Z) at just the right angle and badly damaged an incisor. The dentist put it back together long enough to make it through that day's classes, but it ultimately couldn't be saved. So it was extracted Thursday.

And when codeine is involved, sometimes the writing and the jokes get a little sloppy. As to the first question, normally the people that Republicans accuse of being puppetmasters are Jews (e.g. George Soros). As to the second, "Ron" and "Don" both rhyme with "con."

---

M.G. in Indianapolis, IN, asks: I been trying to figure out how to ask this question and I was reading Colin Powell's book where he states: "As President Reagan used to frequently observe, 'They say hard work never killed anyone, but why take a chance?'"

I was curious: Are (Z) and (V) working too hard? Too many hours?

(V) & (Z) answer: Late April and Early May are the most intense time of the year for academics (with early December being not far behind). Take that fact, and add in a few curveballs like a tooth extraction and a few other things, and we're spread thin right now. The decks will be much clearer in a couple of weeks.

---

T.J.R. in Metuchen, NJ, asks: Excuse me if you've answered this before, but how much mail do you get daily to each of your four e-mail addresses? Just curious...

(V) & (Z) answer: On a slow day? Maybe 150-200. On a heavy day? Around 1,000.

---

F.F. in London, UK, asks: Off the usual theme, but wondering if (Z) and (V) have followed the latest season of Picard, and whether you liked it.

(V) & (Z) answer: (V) isn't much of a Trekker, while (Z) has been too busy for TV. He's saving Picard for the summer, and will report back once he has time to watch. That said, he already knows that the U.S.S. Rosebud is Picard's childhood sled. At least, that's what he heard.

---

D.K. in Glenside, PA, asks: This has been gnawing at me for a while: what is it with (Z)'s devotion to the Packers? As a daily reader, I've gathered that he has most likely been a resident of Southern California (Angels, Disneyland, UCLA, etc, etc) his whole life. And as a Philly native and life-long resident (well, okay, Montgomery County, but I live on the other side of the street of the city line), I'm a "Four for Four," as we describe it here: Phillies, Sixers, Flyers, Iggles. And of course, now the Union as well. Us devoted fans cannot stand the cockroaches (i.e., local Cowboys fans) who suddenly appear when they beat us once, and then promptly disappear when they lose in the first round of the playoffs. Because, you know, their dad once shook Tom Landry's hand, or some silly reason like that. Or the Mets fans at the Park, ugh. So when someone roots for a team from another city, 1,000+ miles away, what gives?

Note also, I'll take a good ribbing as well as anyone, but Santa and snowballs, or J.D. Drew and batteries, is well beneath you. You can do better. But by all means, keep shaming the Bears and Lions—I don't have a dog in that fight, but enjoy the shade thrown their way.

(V) & (Z) answer: Three of (Z)'s teams are the local teams from where and when he grew up (Orange County). Those would be the Angels, the Lakers and the Kings (the Ducks did not exist until after he went away to college). However, in the 1980s, the two local NFL teams were both run by jacka** owners (Al Davis of the Raiders and Georgia Frontiere, respectively). Meanwhile, (Z)'s stepfather is from Wisconsin, and would regularly watch Packers games. So, (Z) picked up the habit. It did not hurt that the first season that (Z) seriously followed football was the one season where Don "The Magic Man" Majkowski played at an All-Pro level, which was then followed a year or two later by the advent of the Brett Favre era.

---

D.S. in Havertown, PA (But originally St. Paul, MN), asks: So, (Z), Aaron Rodgers finally heard from his Dark Lord that it was time to go to the New York Jets. After all, it worked out so well for the last Green Bay QB who did so. It must have taken a while for the cloven-hoofed one to decide, since Rodgers obviously sought his advice during his "darkness retreat," which was clearly a thinly veiled metaphor for Rodgers returning to the 8th Circle of Hell from whence he spawned (the 8th Circle, by the way, is the one reserved for fraudsters... looked that one up!). Which brings me to my question.

Now that the anti-vaxx Joe-Rogan-loving Brett-Favre-wannabe is leaving that perfectly named algae-filled cesspool called Green Bay, where the fans consume fried butter wrapped in bacon, a real thing there (ah, those health nuts in eastern Wisconsin), will you finally swear off your inexplicable Packer fandom and select a franchise that has a future? I don't expect you to look to that far superior squad several miles to the west (SKOL!!) nor the Division B squad to the south, but you have two perfectly suitable teams in Los Angeles. God knows they could use fans, since they couldn't fill a standard Wal-Mart parking lot for a game much less a stadium. You'll have plenty of elbow room!

Oh, and just one more time for the record. Good Riddance Mr. Rodgers! SKOL!!!

(V) & (Z) answer: So, the Vikings are a franchise with a future? Maybe wait until the team has won 4 Super Bowls, the way the Packers have, and then resubmit your application for consideration. Or 1 Super Bowl, for that matter.

There will be no shift in loyalties to one of the L.A. teams, but the odds are better than not that next week's Freudenfreude will have some nice things to say about the Chargers. Really.

---

D.T. in San Jose, CA, asks: Is there any sort of journalistic style guide that dictates how cringe-worthy the official name of something needs to be before it gets wrapped in "sarcastic" quotation marks?

For example, I notice that most news outlets will refer to the fascist wing of the Republican Party as the Freedom Caucus, rather than the "Freedom Caucus".

However, most journalists are less willing to play it straight when describing Jim Jordan's traveling circus. It almost always gets described as the Select Subcommittee on the "Weaponization of the Federal Government." The inclusion of quotation marks indicates the implied eye-roll that comes with that committee name.

Both cases seem like pretty egregious doublespeak. Why the discrepancy? Are there any official guidelines on how to report names without participating in propaganda? Or is it just up to the individual author?

(V) & (Z) answer: There's no style guide. In general, the quotes are used in that way when the journalist is trying to communicate the tone and tenor of the thing, even if it's not the official name/term.

We use that technique a little more liberally than a major newspaper was because our style is much more rooted in snark. It would be considered inappropriate for, say, The New York Times to describe the fellow who currently represents NY-03 as "George Santos (R-NY)."

---

S.K. in Sunnyvale, CA , asks: You wrote "[The staff mathematician] also will only eat cake on March 14, for some reason."

Did you mean that is the only day of the year on which he eats cake, or that on that day the only thing he eats is cake, to the exclusion of other foods, such as pie?

(V) & (Z) answer: Good question; we'll have to check with him. (Z) is reminded of a UPS store near his residence that has this storefront:

It's possible they just mean they offer notary services, paper shredding, and storage lockers. But it's also possible they have special lockers that will solve your "notary problem" while also getting rid of the evidence. Or, they might have a muscle-bound notary in the back who destroys lockers with their bare hands. Any of these is possible!

Reader Question of the Week

Here is the question we put before readers last week:

R.D.B. in Winsford, Cheshire, UK, asks: In the U.K. we've had a variety of PMs, good, bad and ugly. In the U.S. you've had your own share of good, bad and ugly presidents.

To my knowledge, only one person could legally have held both positions (Boris). But hypothetically, are there any past PMs who could/would make potentially good presidents or any presidents/nominees who could have been successful PMs?

Because we posted the Q&A very late last week, we don't think people had enough opportunity to give their thoughts. So, we're going to wait until next week to post answers.

At the same time, we're also going to add a new question, albeit one that will produce almost entirely visual results, so that it won't add much to the "reading time" next week to have two questions of the week. Here's the new question:

K.K. in St. Louis, MO, asks: That was a fun comparison of the photos of the Big Bopper and Jon Tester. May I suggest that you check out old photographs of heavyweight champion Jack Dempsey to see if they show a resemblance to a certain Florida politician?

That's not exactly a direct question to readers, so let us extend it: What politician is doppelgänger to some other notable person? You can send us pictures, or just names.

Submit your answers to either question (or both) here!

---

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 or share:

---The Votemaster and Zenger