Aug.23
electoral-vote.com
https://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2025/Info/banners.html
Dem 47
image description
   
GOP 53
image description

Saturday Q&A

Aaaaand we're back (on the weekend shift, that is).

If you are still trying to work out the headline theme, we'll note that having a Johnson would make things a far bit easier.

Next week is politics-free questions weekend. If you have questions about film, art, literature, history, sports, geography, games, etc., please send them to questions@electoral-vote.com.

Current Events

T.R. in Vancouver, BC, Canada, asks: You recently wrote that "Language is one facet of intelligence, and [Donald] Trump is the lowest-intelligence president in [the last century or so], at least in this particular domain." It's hard to argue with that. But is he the dumbest president ever, in terms of overall intelligence? To make it more interesting, who would you rank as the five stupidest presidents?

(V) & (Z) answer: This is a very difficult question to answer. At the outset, we have to note that "intelligence" is a word that covers many things, and that most people are stronger in some of those things than in others.

As to Trump, there are certainly some serious debits against him when it comes to assessing his brainpower. First, as we already noted, he is very poor when it comes to language, both written and verbal. Second, he is a profoundly ignorant man, one who doesn't even know enough to know what he doesn't know. That means he says stupid and ill-informed things because it doesn't even occur to him that he might be embarrassingly wrong. Third, and this is related to the second, is that he is utterly incurious. If you asked us to pick one clue that a person is intelligent, that clue would be "They are always eager to learn more about whatever subjects that pique their interest." Trump has no interest in knowing or learning more about ANY subject, as far as we can tell.

With that said, before we declare Trump to be a dolt and then move on with our lives, there are several things that give us pause. First, he is clearly very good at manipulating people (some of them, at least), in various ways. The term "emotional intelligence" has been used to refer to people who are particularly skilled in interpersonal relationships. We don't actually think that Trump is emotionally intelligent, since that term basically implies "empathetic," and he is almost entirely lacking in empathy. But whatever it is that he has that allows him to influence people so powerfully might plausibly exist within some domain of intelligence.

Second, Trump's language skills were never GREAT. Nobody would ever have confused him with Noam Chomsky or William Safire. However, 30-40 years ago, they were considerably stronger. That suggests that at least some of what reads as "dumb" is actually dementia or some other form of mental decline.

Third, it strikes us as very probable that Trump has some sort of learning disability that was never properly diagnosed, much less addressed. He was a schoolboy in the 1950s, when there was considerably less awareness of, or concern for, learning disabilities. Further, even if such an issue had been identified, it is likely that he and his parents would have seen such a diagnosis as an insult and/or a sign of weakness, and would have resisted it. And if part of his issue is that he is, say, dyslexic, then that's not the same thing as "dumb."

For these reasons, we just aren't willing to call Trump the dumbest president ever. However, the presidents' club is pretty small, and is heavily populated with a lot of way-above-average folks. So, we are pretty comfortable putting him in the bottom five, since even if you assume and correct for things like a learning disability, he's still not well-above-average in intelligence, as most presidents have been.

The other candidates for the bottom five, in chronological order:


D.E. in Lancaster, PA, asks: There is probably not an answer to this question, as it is more existential than fact based, but the news that the New York appeals court thew out the monetary fine for Trump's felonies, I have to ask: Why does this man always escape legal retribution scot-free?

(V) & (Z) answer: Trump (and, before that, his father) figured out long ago that the law tends to give people the benefit of the doubt. And if you make sure to operate largely in gray areas, and you're willing to throw a lot of money at an army of attorneys, and you're willing to explore every possible gray area, and you're willing to pursue every appeal, you'll probably eventually find a judge who concurs that you aren't guilty/liable enough to throw the book at you.

Trump has also had a lot of luck in this area. Most obviously, if he hadn't managed to get himself reelected as president, he would be facing a world of hurt in numerous federal courts. He also got very lucky to draw his own, corrupt appointee in Aileen Cannon in two different cases, the two that would have been most likely to reach resolution before his second election.

All of this said, he's still someone who's been found guilty of fraud, who's been declared to be guilty of sexual assault by a New York court, and who's a 34-times convicted felon.


M.L. in Milton, DE, asks: I was wondering if you might be able to discuss the implications of Obergefell being overturned, with the Respect for Marriage Act (RFMA) having been passed in 2022. My belief is that were Obergefell to be overturned, the RFMA would take over allowing our same-sex marriage, and many more like ours, to still be recognized federally, in all states (since it was performed in a state that recognizes same-sex marriage), but that not all states would have to issue same-sex marriage licenses if they had a law/constitutional amendment prohibiting it. Am I correct?

THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION TO THIS MATTER!

(V) & (Z) answer: In the short term, you are correct. Obergefell said that states cannot forbid same-sex marriages, as that violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. If the decision is overturned, then states would still be allowed to grant marriage licenses to gay couples, and undoubtedly the blue states (and some of the others) would continue doing so. Further, RFMA would remain the law of the land, such that even if Alabama stopped granting marriage licenses to gay couples, the state would have to recognize marriage licenses issued in, say, Illinois.

In the longer term, there are concerning things to watch for. It is probable that some Republicans would push for RFMA to be repealed, or would try to find a way to get it before the Supreme Court so the Court could strike it down. Further, Alabama might be forced to recognize Illinois marriages, but it could try to reverse the gay marriages that were performed within Alabama itself, putting those folks into legal limbo. One can also imagine pushback against some of the things that come along with marriage, such as tax advantages, inheritance rights, the right to make medical decisions for incapacitated spouses.


J.V. in Seattle, WA, asks: Vladimir Putin is under warrant for arrest by the International Criminal Court. Why wasn't he subject to arrest when he stepped on the ground in Alaska?

(V) & (Z) answer: The United States declined to ratify the Rome Statute in 2002, and so is not bound to honor the decisions of the Court.


M.M. on Bainbridge Island, WA, asks: Is anyone suing The Convicted Felon (TCF) to prevent him from desecrating the White House with a huge ballroom? Do you know of any citizen-led efforts to stop it that I might contribute to? What do you think is the likelihood that it will actually get built? I pray nightly that it won't.

(V) & (Z) answer: We are unaware of such lawsuits, but that is probably because it's hard to sue until he actually does something. Claiming he is going to build a new ballroom is not, in and of itself, actionable.

Once he breaks ground, or otherwise moves forward, we expect lawsuits from at least two angles. First, there is a process that must be observed in order to make changes to the White House. Congress has to sign off, and so does the National Park Service (specifically, the National Capital Planning Commission). If that does not happen, then some entity with standing will sue. Second, there are laws about transparency. So, OpenSecrets and other such organizations would undoubtedly file suit seeking to learn where the money is coming from.


C.A.R. in San Diego, CA, asks: You wrote: "Incidentally, this is a case where [Donald] Trump is not only misrepresenting the truth, but it's 100% clear he knows it. During his press conference, he said that 'murders in 2023 reached the highest rate probably ever.' That spike, the exception to the overall trend, was almost certainly caused by the pandemic."

Since the lion's share of pandemic issues were reasonably well managed by the end of 2021, why do you feel the 2023 murder spike is pandemic-related?

(V) & (Z) answer: Crime is usually a trailing factor. So, the pandemic causes various disruptions, like inflation, loss of employment, healthcare bills, etc. Eventually, some people are left without savings, or a home, or a job, or all of the above. Then, out of anger or desperation, some of them turn to crime.


J.M. in Arvada, CO, asks: You mentioned, in your writeup about Trump targeting UCLA, that he has or will target other schools. Is there anywhere to track the universities that have been targeted? I'm curious about my alma mater, Washington, given that they also have a large amount of research grants. Though I'm not sure why you didn't list them among the elite athletic schools. ;)

(V) & (Z) answer: In fairness to Husky Nation, Washington's last national championship in football was nearly 40 years more recent than UCLA's (1991 vs. 1954).

Anyhow, there are several sites tracking the funding cuts to universities. We like this one the best. It says the hit to UW so far is about $40 million.


J.R. in Auburn, CA, asks: I was really intrigued by the concept of Blue States using their economic power to gain back some of the political power they've lost by not sinking to the low level of Republican politics. The strategy amounts to a new Civil War, but one without secession, the only Civil War now possible given the current geography of the red and blue states. I'd love to see Democrats put more thought into the concept, but I have some initial questions. First, are there any legal impediments to groups of states forming coalitions designed to reduce the political power of opposing coalitions? Second, is the Interstate Commerce Clause of the Constitution relevant to the implementation of this concept?

(V) & (Z) answer: With only a few exceptions, there are no rules or laws against states forming coalitions designed to maximize their power at the expense of other states. Perhaps the most obvious example is the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, but others include the U.S. Climate Alliance (24 states, all of them blue or purple, along with Puerto Rico and Guam) and the Confluence of States (which promotes nature tourism to Western states).

The Interstate Commerce Clause stops states from trying to regulate, or profit from, commerce in OTHER states. States are free to do whatever they want, pretty much, when it comes to commerce within their own states. So, it's fair game to raise fuel taxes (and if that hurts Texas, with its Big Oil, then so be it). And it's fair game to decline to do business with other states. Mississippi does not have an inalienable right to purchase California products, or to book California state employees in its hotel rooms, etc.

Politics

M.M. in San Diego, CA, asks: What's the likelihood that a class action lawsuit will be brought against ICE for arresting U.S. citizens with compensation for the expenses and lost income stemming from their false arrests?

(V) & (Z) answer: Very high, we would say. First, a lot of people have been harmed. Second, the government has deep pockets. Third, whether such a suit is successful or not, just filing it still makes an important statement.

The tricky questions are: (1) Can the victims get certified as a class? We would guess yes, especially since that is apparently becoming a common workaround to the recent Supreme Court decision about judges' power to make nationwide rulings; and (2) Will the plaintiffs win? They definitely could, since both officers and the government can be held liable for certain abuses of police power (in fact, we assume that all the mask-wearing by ICE officers is to try to make it harder to identify individuals to sue).


R.T. in Arlington, TX, asks: I'm submitting this as a question and not a comment because I trust that the Electoral-Vote.com staff thought long and hard before suggesting a path for the Democratic Party to focus on "positive immigration." How can such an approach be politically beneficial without being dog-whistle racist? If I assume that the persuadable voters are generally right-center or center, then the positive imagery and story-telling would have to lean into white-looking immigrants to be politically effective. You might get away with showing south Asian people as well, but emphasizing anyone else is not going to get your target voters on-side.

(V) & (Z) answer: We must dispute your premise. It's the brown-skinned immigrants, particularly the ones from Mexico and Central America, who are wielded like a cudgel by Donald Trump and other Republicans. So, any attempt to counter that with positivity would necessarily mean focusing, at least in part, on those folks. That might mean individual stories, or it might mean pointing out all the benefits they bring to American society.


J.L. in Los Angeles, CA, asks: My Republican friend and co-author said the following on Friday: "Say what you want about Trump, but imagine how much worse everything would be if Kamala had gotten elected!"

Leaving aside any assumptions of his-mind-is-already-made-up and a general conservative cognitive dissonance, let's assume for a moment that my Floridian friend is open minded to a reasoned, intelligent answer. If Kamala Harris had gotten elected, objectively (if that's even possible with a conjectural question), what might be better in America right now—7 months into her first term—and what may have been worse?

(V) & (Z) answer: Perhaps, when your friend makes such broad, and seemingly ridiculous, assertions, you should require some explanation, along with some evidence.

If we assume that Kamala Harris was elected, but nothing else was different, then there would be very little change in terms of domestic policy. She'd never get anything through a Republican-controlled Congress (except maybe the budget). And while we are in the era of "presidenting through executive orders," there aren't many XOs that Harris might issue that weren't already issued by Joe Biden.

In terms of foreign policy, we don't see how Harris could have changed the situation in Gaza in a meaningful way. She would surely have given more support to Ukraine than Trump has, but it wouldn't have been enough to bring the war to an end. So, we assume that situation would be about the same, too.

On the economic front, we believe, and we consistently write, that presidents can't do a lot to make the economy better, but they can do things to make it worse. Donald Trump has done just about everything possible to send things off the rails—on-again, off-again trade wars; high tariffs; threats against the fed chair; a budget likely to trigger inflation and to heighten the wealth gap—and thus far things are sailing along. We don't believe Harris (or any president) could make things better, and we can't imagine her doing 10% of the things Trump has done to potentially make things worse. So, we assume that, 7 months in, the Harris economy would be about the same as the Trump economy. Note that there are already early warning signs for the Trump economy, such that there will very likely be a divergence between the Trump economy and the hypothetical Harris economy once we are 10-14 months in. But at the moment, the Trump economy and the hypothetical Harris economy look to be pretty similar to us.

On the border, the Biden administration was already having pretty good success at reducing the flow of undocumented people. That surely would have continued under Harris. She would not have gotten the number of crossings down as much as Trump has, but she also wouldn't have engaged in the cruelty and the abuses of power that Trump has. Some would say that those downsides are worth it to "secure" the border. We disagree.

Meanwhile, the various other fascist, or fascist-adjacent, abuses of the Trump administration would not have happened under Harris. She would not have populated the Justice Department with loyal lackeys, some of whom are so problematic that even the Republican Senate is leery. She would not have appointed a probable Russian asset as DNI, nor an unqualified drunkard as Secretary of Defense, nor a nutjob conspiracist as FBI Director. She would not have invaded Los Angeles and Washington, DC. She would not have taken a free jet from the Qatari royal family. She would not be planning to rebuild part of the White House as a monument to her glory. She would not be arbitrarily firing thousands and thousands of federal employees in the name of "efficiency."

In short, many things would be the same, but a Harris presidency would come without the bad stuff that hasn't manifest fully yet, but probably will in the next 6-24 months. In other words, this answer would likely be a fair bit different if you asked the question in January 2027 as opposed to now. In particular, we are absolutely confident that, eventually, Trump WILL derail the economy.

How would a Harris presidency be worse? Well, as we outline, we don't see that she actually could have done all that much, good or bad, under the circumstances (Republican Congress, two intractable armed conflicts, following another Democratic president, etc.). However, Republicans hate it when Democrats are in power, and they hate it even more when that Democrat is brown and/or a woman. So, the amount of racist and sexist rhetoric would undoubtedly be way up right now if Harris was in the Oval Office. That's a real downer, from where we sit.


F.P. in Palos Verdes Estates, CA, asks: In your opinion, which was the greater lapse of judgment, in terms of long term harmful effects on the country and our democracy: (1) Ruth Bader Ginsburg's decision not to retire during Obama's presidency, thus giving Trump a third Supreme Court nomination late in his first term, or (2) Joe Biden's decision to run for reelection and not to drop out until late, thus depriving the Democrats from a chance to choose their best candidate, while also not allowing the eventual candidate (Kamala Harris) a chance to have a full election cycle and virtually handing the election to Donald Trump?

(V) & (Z) answer: Easy: Ginsburg. First of all, Supreme Court justices last 25-40 years these days, while a presidential term is only 4 years. Second, despite a lot of people assuming otherwise, we believe no Democrat could have won in 2024, regardless of the circumstances of their nomination. In that year, and in a clear backlash to the pandemic and its effects, 100% of developed nations that had an election saw their ruling party lose vote share. Not 75%, not 90%, not 97%—100%. If you click on the link, you'll see that Kamala Harris actually performed better, usually far better, than nearly any of the other ruling-party candidates. And if you believe no Democrat could have won, then Biden's choices ultimately weren't that impactful.


J.R.A. in St. Petersburg, FL, asks: You mentioned Kamala Harris, and how the money she raised and spent wasn't enough to get her past Donald Trump. How much of that money is left in her bank accounts, and is she legally permitted to donate it to California House candidates? Will she?

(V) & (Z) answer: At this point in the cycle, campaign committees and PACs only have to submit FEC paperwork once a year, so the latest figures are from the end of 2024. At that time, the Harris campaign still had $1,822,802 in the bank. However, she also has a PAC called the Harris Victory Fund. She could not coordinate with the PAC during the campaign, but she can now. And while she's not raising money for her campaign anymore (for obvious reasons), she is still raising money for the PAC. The Harris Victory Fund had $4,836,764 on hand as of December of last year, and probably has more money now.

It is legal for Harris to use money from either source to support House candidates in California, or anywhere else, subject to federal campaign limits.


L.S. in Black Mountain, NC, asks: You wrote: "You know who actually reads the political literature they get in the mail? Politics wonks, who already know how they are voting. It was TV commercials that were the real driver of voting patterns, but those don't work so well anymore, since so many people don't watch linear TV. Maybe a targeted online campaign will work, but they're hard to execute."

This touches on something I've been wondering for a while: What do political campaigns spend all those contributed dollars on now, if expensive TV advertising no longer offers bang for the buck? So much time and energy is spent on fundraising... where does it all go?

(V) & (Z) answer: Campaigns still spend money on TV advertising. Just because it's not as effective as it once was doesn't mean it's totally useless. Plus, you know the saying about how old habits die hard.

Other major expenditures include other kinds of advertising (especially online), salary/office space/other costs for consultants and other campaign staff, travel, polling, and get-out-the-vote/voter registration operations.


R.J. in Chicago, IL, asks: My lefty friends and I worry about Fox and its right-wing echo chamber. We know we've got our own "intellectual sphere" on the left, which we think is more evidence-based. But if you set that aside, is the polarization just as strong both ways? Do folks on each side see the other with the same mix of fear and hostility? And, most importantly, how do you get people on the non-evidence-based side to actually look at the evidence?

PS. "42" is a perfectly acceptable answer.

(V) & (Z) answer: We'll offer up a few observations, and you can do with them as you see fit.

First, there is little question that Democrats are less susceptible to the kind of propaganda that you see on a Fox or a Newsmax than Republicans are. There are two reasons for that, in our view. The first of those is that the current Democratic coalition is made up of different groups who have, for various reasons, learned to be critical of, and to interrogate, information. For example, the Democrats are now the party of the majority of college-educated people, and the foremost thing that college teaches is critical thinking. The Democrats are also the party of the majority of Black people, who have learned to be skeptical of authority, for obvious reasons. The Democrats are the party of the majority of American Jews. Judaism is, hands-down, the religion that is most inclined towards rational inquiry and critical analysis. Heck, the Talmud is just a bunch of rabbis arguing with each other.

The second reason that Fox-style propaganda works better on Republicans is that the Republican Party is the one that appeals to fear (and, with it, anger). Think about the last half-century-plus of Republican messaging. McCarthyism and the various red-scare stuff were about fear. The Muslim travel bans were about fear. The hordes of brown-skinned MS-13 gangsters were/are about fear. Even the anti-trans stuff is about fear. There's actually a pretty developed political science literature that says that in two-party systems, there's always one party that leans into fear and anger much more than the other. In the modern-day U.S., that party happens to be the GOP (there have been times, in the past, where it was the Democrats, of course).

That leads into the third part of your question. We have no doubt that there are very strong negative emotions on both sides of America's political divide, but we don't think it's the same set of negative emotions on each side. Per the previous paragraph, we think that fear and anger are the predominant negative emotions on the Republican side. On the Democratic side, we cannot think of a single policy position that is clearly fear-driven. There is certainly anger on that side of the aisle, but our sense is that the other predominant emotions are something like disdain and annoyance.

And now, let's double back to the second part of your question. About 40 years ago, a couple of political scientists created a method called NOMINATE (nominal three-step estimation) to try to measure polarization in the United States. They later developed a couple of other methods, most obviously DW-NOMINATE (dynamic, weighted NOMINATE). You can click on the link for the (somewhat weedy) details of how the method works, but the consistent conclusion (and the two originators have since handed the project off to other political scientists) is that both parties have moved toward the margins (and thus, away from the center) in the last few decades, but that the Republicans have moved in a more extreme fashion than the Democrats have.

As to the final part of the question, to the extent that you can get people to look at the evidence (no easy task), it involves moving slowly and gently, and trying not to directly confront them, their beliefs, or their identity.

And, finally: 42.


T.W. in Toronto, ON, Canada, asks: You wrote: "But the reality is that when some random Democrat yells 'Defund the police,' Republicans pick that up and make that person the face of the Democratic Party. It simply doesn't work the other way. There is no way the Democrats can make Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) the face of the Republican Party. It isn't doable."

My question is: Why? Why can't Democrats make a Republican with fringe opinions the face of the Republican Party, but Republicans can make a Democrat with fringe opinions the face of the Democratic Party?

(V) & (Z) answer: We think there are three main reasons. First, as we discuss in the previous answer, the Democratic coalition includes a lot more skeptics. Second, the Republicans are a smaller-tent party, and have much more disciplined, much more centralized messaging. The RNC sends a list of "talking points" to Republican officeholders and media members each week, to keep everyone on the same page. Third, the Republicans benefit from a partisan media apparatus—cable channels, radio shows, podcasts, politics "conferences"—that the Democrats have not been able to replicate (and likely will never be able to replicate).

Civics

F.S. in Cologne, Germany, asks: Does the president have the authority to unilaterally declare martial law in the U.S.? Or does Congress have the authority to declare martial law in the U.S.? What does the Constitution say about this issue?

(V) & (Z) answer: The Constitution only addresses this issue by implication. Article I, Sec. 9 of the Constitution reads: "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it." Suspension of habeas corpus is very similar to imposing martial law, and more broadly, the passage suggests that extreme need allows for extreme measures.

At the federal level, for most of U.S. history, the president's power to impose martial law, and the circumstances under which the president may do so, has been laid out in the Insurrection Act of 1807. There was superseding legislation for a couple of decades in the 1990s and 2000s, but it's been repealed. And if Congress can designate the power to declare martial law, then it necessarily means that they too could make such a declaration, though that's never happened. In addition, most state constitutions grant the governor the power to impose martial law within the state.

Martial law has been imposed, by either a governor or a president, roughly 70 times in U.S. history. Invariably, both the timeframe and the geographical area have been limited. The circumstances under which such declarations took place included foreign invasions, domestic uprisings/insurrections, labor disputes, natural disasters, and attempts to combat crime. Far and away the most common of those, accounting for roughly half of all impositions of martial law in American history, is... labor disputes. Those have led to declarations of martial law on roughly 30 occasions.


A.T. in Elkton, MD, asks: What's to stop states from banning/redefining campaign contributions? States are in charge of their elections, of course. For example, what if Connecticut banned corporations and citizens from donating to presidential campaigns, and whatever groups that do ads, and then prosecuting anyone within its own courts?

This is really more of a thought experiment than anything very serious, but I'm just curious your thoughts!

(V) & (Z) answer: States are free to pass pretty much any laws they want covering contributions to candidates for state office. If you would like to see the rules in various states, a rundown for the 2025-26 cycle is here.

Contributions to candidates for federal office, and to PACs, are both covered by federal law. And state law cannot override federal law.


B.B. in St. Louis, MO, asks: You noted that the President is bringing grief to the owner of Trump Burger. Does that mean that the makers of the card game Top Trumps may be next?

(V) & (Z) answer: We know your question is tongue-in-cheek, but we think the answer will be of interest.

If Trump were to attempt to take action against Top Trumps, he would lose, probably on summary judgment. In contrast to the Trump burger guy, Top Trumps is in no way attempting to associate with him, or to suggest his endorsement of their product. Their lawyers would also point out that "trump" has a well-established, gaming-related meaning, and has had that meaning since long before Trump was born (a company called Top Bidens or Top Obamas or Top Reagans would have a harder time here). Finally, the lawyers would also point out that the Top Trumps name was adopted long before Trump's political career (2008), and that its origin was very clearly a play on the name of Top Trumps' parent company, which is Winning Moves International. Get it? Top Trumps... Winning Moves?


L.R.H. in Oakland, CA, asks: Could you recommend a book or website that explains the different types and levels of United States courts and how they function?

(L) answers: Presumably you're asking about both the state and federal court systems, which each handles different types of cases.

Much like the federal government has limited powers, while the states have general police powers, federal courts can only handle certain types of cases, while state courts are courts of general jurisdiction. To bring a case in federal court, you have to show the court you belong there by showing it's based on federal law or a significant federal question, or that the parties are from different states. State courts, on the other hand, can handle cases that involve federal law, so long as it's not the exclusive province of the federal court (e.g., patent cases).

As far as the different levels, federal courts are divided into district courts (lowest level), then courts of appeal that encompass a particular region, and then the Supreme Court. The district courts typically include multiple counties. For instance, the Central District of California includes the counties of Los Angeles, Riverside, San Bernardino, Ventura and San Luis Obispo. State courts are generally divided into Superior Courts (lowest level) which are run by counties (or the equivalent), then state courts of appeal, and the state Supreme Court. New York, of course, is quirky—they call their lowest state court the Supreme Court, while the highest is the Court of Appeals.

The best resource for how the courts function is actually their websites. So, in Oakland, for example, it's the Alameda county courts; for federal courts, it's the Northern District of California.


S.T. in Asbury Park, NJ, asks: You wrote:

However, one longer-term possibility, once Trump is out of office, is that his use and abuse of the District will create serious momentum for statehood. This is something that probably should already have happened anyhow, and increased sympathy for the residents there can only help that cause. It is true that statehood bills are filibusterable, and that is exactly what the Republicans would try to do, knowing full well that D.C. statehood would mean two more Democratic senators. However, it takes only 51 votes, or 50 plus the tiebreaker, to create a(nother) carve-out. And if there's any carve-out that carries a relatively low risk of payback, this surely would have to be it. What would the Republicans do the next time they had the trifecta, use their newfound power to make Mar-a-Lago a state? There just aren't that many potential states out there.

Why could Wyoming not split into the states of East Wyoming and West Wyoming? Presumably, the voters/legislators of a very conservative state like Wyoming could be convinced to vote for it, 51 GOP Senators would agree and if need be, they could throw in a billion or two of funding to build a new capital of West Wyoming in Jackson. Obviously, the next Democratic Senate could create the states of North and South California, and so on.

(V) & (Z) answer: Anything is possible, of course. However, many people take their identities as a resident of [STATE X] seriously, and would not be happy to see that interfered with. Also, both political parties tend to be somewhat leery of doing anything that would start a de facto arms race like the one you suggest. There is much justification for granting statehood to D.C., and possibly to Puerto Rico. There is little to no justification, except pure political gain, for splitting up Wyoming.


K.L. in Chicago, IL, asks: What date is the latest for J.D. Vance to be elevated to President, but not be able to run for two full terms (afterward)?

(V) & (Z) answer: 11:59:59 a.m. on January 20, 2027.

History

W.L. in Mol, Belgium, asks: The post of attorney general has always been seen as the most independent of the Cabinet-level positions in the U.S. government. Of course, the AG is nominated by the president and can be fired by the president. As such, his/her political stances will probably closely align to those of the president. But while they're AG, they are supposed to work independent of the daily politics. Until Pam Bondi came along...

So my, twofold question: (1) Are there other AGs where this was a major problem? I know of the Robert Kennedy case, but I was wondering if there were others (and if these were at the same level of being problematic), and (2) For the Robert Kennedy case, is this still seen as a blemish on the legacy of John F. Kennedy? And if not, why have historians "forgiven" him?

(V) & (Z) answer: We're going to start with the Bobby Kennedy part of the question. It is true that he and his brother were close confidants and allies, and that Bobby was a key political adviser to John. But when it came to his work as AG, Bobby was not a hatchet man for the administration, and he performed the job well, particularly as regarding crackdowns on organized crime and on anti-civil-rights activities. There is no real need for historians to "forgive" RFK Sr. because he was well-regarded in his time. Let us not forget that after serving as AG, he was elected as a U.S. Senator, and then was a serious candidate for president.

There are a small number of AGs before Bondi who did dirty work on behalf of the presidents who appointed them. The dirtiest five, in chronological order:

  1. A. Mitchell Palmer (Woodrow Wilson): Palmer cracked down on people he deemed to be "disloyal," tossing them in jail on charges that were often spurious. Somehow, some way, the lion's share of his targets were either Black or Jewish. It's an open question exactly how much Palmer was doing Wilson's bidding. The President was certainly no fan of Black people, while his views on Jews were... complicated, but he was also incapacitated with a stroke through most of Palmer's tenure.

  2. Henry M. Daugherty (Warren Harding): Unlike the others on this list, Daugherty did not directly engage in sleazy activity. His "crime" was looking the other way while everyone else engaged in sleazy activity.

  3. John Mitchell (Richard Nixon): Mitchell's the only one on this list who ended up in prison. He was probably the one who sabotaged the Vietnam War peace talks (albeit before being named AG). He also authorized violence against antiwar protesters, wiretaps of the phones of "enemies" of the administration, and detentions of "unfriendly" individuals without benefit of charges. But his real claim to ignominy is that he was the main planner of the Watergate break-in.

  4. Bill Barr (George H.W. Bush; Donald Trump): Barr buried the Iran-Contra scandal fallout for Bush, then returned decades later to bury the Mueller Report and other "problems" for Trump. Winston Wolf, meet Bill Barr.

  5. Alberto Gonzales (George W. Bush): Gonzales fired U.S. attorneys who refused to prosecute enemies of the administration, engaged in warrantless surveillance, and oversaw the torture of alleged terrorists.

G.W. in Oxnard, CA, asks: The question of the week about World War II memorials got me wondering: Are memorials an ongoing thing? There have been many tragedies, atrocities, and wars in the years since World War II. The Korean War got a few memorials, and the Vietnam War got a few memorials, but there have been so many less known tragedies, atrocities, and wars. Do the Vietnamese have memorials to the American occupation? Do the Afghans have memorials to the American occupation? Will there be memorials to the Ukraine war? Will there be memorials for the October 7th attack? Will there be memorials to the Gaza War? I'm getting too specific in my examples. My question is more general about whether memorializing tragedies, atrocities, and wars is an ongoing thing.

(V) & (Z) answer: We do not foresee a time that people will NOT cope with tragedy and loss, in part, by constructing memorials to those who were lost. Heck, that's what tombstones are for, and people have been creating those for millennia.

Modern memorials to war/tragedy tend not to be statues/temples in the Greco-Roman style, because those are generally seen as a bit passé, and maybe a bit too celebratory. The National Vietnam Veterans Memorial (the one that's a long, black wall) seems, in particular, to have encouraged monumentalists around the country (and maybe around the world) to think outside the box. Most people are familiar, for example, with the National 9/11 Memorial in New York, which is an inverted fountain that pours into the footprint of one of the World Trade Center buildings, with the names of the dead inscribed on black tablets around the rim. Or the Oklahoma City Bombing Memorial, which is made up of a reflecting pool and a grassy area with 168 chairs that light up at night, and that are each inscribed with the name of one of the victims.

We are using American examples, because those are the ones most familiar to readers. However, there absolutely are (or will be) monuments to conflicts and tragedies in other nations. That said, in some cases (Russia being the obvious one), tastes do tend toward a more neoclassical style, as opposed to something more modern/abstract.


D.C. in Myersville, MD, asks: You wrote: "Try to come up with any leader with absolute, or near-absolute, power who did not end up pilfering tens of millions, or hundreds of millions, or billions of dollars, eventually. Vladimir Putin, Bashar al-Assad, the Shah of Iran, Francisco Franco, Saddam Hussein, the Castro brothers, Papa and Baby Doc, Pol Pot, Idi Amin—they all do it."

Adolf Hitler is conspicuously absent from that list, which surprised me at first, but I think I know why he's missing: He had no need to plunder the State because he was the State. He and the State died together. He was all-in. He had no plan B.

I think it would be very interesting to hear the resident historian's thoughts on why Hitler was left out.

(V) & (Z) answer: That is exactly why we did not include Hitler. It's a little complicated with him, and lists like that do not lend themselves to explanatory clauses. Anyhow, in a fascist system, the people and the government are ostensibly one cohesive machine, and the leader is the central cog of that machine. So, at least in theory, Hitler would have claimed ownership not only of the resources of the German government, but also of the possessions of the German people.

In practice, he had the German government provide for all of his needs and all of his whims, from cars to fancy castles. We suspect that he also squirreled away some money somewhere, just in case, though we don't know of any proof of that. And maybe he was so certain in his chances of success, he didn't bother with such contingencies.


A.H. in Newberg, OR, asks: I woke up in the middle of the night with strange question that just won't go away. During World War II, many high-level German National Socialist officials reportedly stashed their wealth/ill-gotten gains in Swiss banks. What happened to the loot? Were the Allies able to retrieve the money, were the "owners" allowed to retrieve it, is it still moldering in some dusty vault at UBS or HSBC? Probably totally irrelevant, but inquiring minds want to know.

(V) & (Z) answer: A major selling point for Swiss banks, for centuries, was "Our nation is neutral and is a part of no alliances, and we answer to nobody. So, we are able to keep the secrets of anybody." They were reluctant to give up that secrecy, but eventually the Swiss government insisted (under threat of international sanctions), and about $5 billion in stolen assets, mostly from Holocaust victims, was reclaimed. Much of that went to central banks in the nations affected by the Holocaust, while about a third of it was distributed among about 450,000 Holocaust survivors.

It would not be much of a surprise to learn that there are still unclaimed Nazi assets hidden away in one Swiss bank or another. However, those assets have not been discovered by any outside group (such as the World Jewish Congress, which played a key role in uncovering the funds that have been returned), and the banks themselves are not eager to volunteer information.


A.L. in Montreal, QC, Canada, asks: I've been making my way through Robert Caro's series of books on Lyndon B. Johnson. One thing that has been particularly striking is how dishonest the voting process used to be! We're talking about the literal changing of votes by elected officials and the explicit buying of votes. In contrast, today's voter suppression and gerrymandering shenanigans seem positively boy-scout-like. (Not that I am condoning bad behavior; it just seems rather mild in comparison). You've written multiple times that it's very difficult for someone to steal an election, and I believe you (both because I believe your arguments and because I need to for my sanity). But how did this evolution happen? Was it a gradual change in norms and safeguards, or did something happen that led to major reforms?

(V) & (Z) answer: First, let us make sure our position on stealing elections is 100% clear. It's absolutely possible to steal, or at least to make an attempt to steal, an election through pre-Election Day shenanigans, whether it's gerrymandering or Voter ID laws or reduced numbers of polling places in Black neighborhoods. And through Election Day shenanigans, too, like sending people to polling places to intimidate voters. What's nearly impossible today is to steal an election AFTER ballots have been cast.

There are at least two major reasons that things are different today, in that way, than they were in LBJ's time. First, LBJ lived at the end of the era of political machines. In the places that had them, there was a certain tolerance for (or resignation about) dirty tricks when it came to voting. The death of the machines meant that the tolerance faded AND that the infrastructure of cheaters was gone.

The second reason things are different today is that electronic/computerized votes are a lot harder to fake than votes recorded only on paper. There are also anti-fraud measures taken today (like requiring voters to give their address) that were not in place 75 years ago.

Gallimaufry

O.Z.H. in Dubai, UAE, asks: It was interesting to read what you perceive to be the most prestigious universities in the world. You mentioned Harvard and Oxbridge to be the top of the top, and then you said that Yale, Tsinghua, U. Toronto, are maybe a quarter- or half-step behind. I have never heard of Tsinghua and I always thought that McGill was the most prestigious school in Canada. Also, you don't think that Princeton, Stanford and MIT are right there alongside Yale as being a half-step behind?

(V) & (Z) answer: We did not want the list to be too long or to be entirely U.S.-centric, so we skipped a number of U.S. schools that surely fit the description—the ones you listed, as well as Caltech, Duke, Columbia, Chicago and a few others. As to the foreign universities, there is a well-known bias that if two universities are basically equal, a person will have a higher opinion of the one that is geographically closer to them. In other words, a University of Arizona diploma is more of a selling point in Phoenix than it is in Boston. To avoid that, we just consulted three or four lists of "the world's top universities," published in various nations, and based our answer on those.


N.A. in Asheboro, NC, asks: Here's a question for (V). I'm guessing, based upon the decades you've lived and worked in the Netherlands, that you speak decent Dutch. You have, however, mentioned that VU offers some amount of instruction in English, and I have the impression that many (most?) Europeans speak that language very well. So my question is: If you had to estimate what percentage of your day to day interactions are conducted in English vs. Dutch, where would you put the numbers, and in what contexts is one or the other language more likely?

(V) answers: I'm fine with nouns and verbs, but not so good on adjectives because their endings change depending on the grammatical gender of the following noun. The word for donkey (ezel) is masculine, for example, but the word for horse (paard) is neutral, so "a young donkey" is "een jonge ezel," but "a young horse" is "een jong paard," irrespective of the sex of the animal. If a computer scientist had designed the language there would have been a regular BNF grammar without all this pointless garbage.

How much people speak English here often depends on their work environment. At my university, all courses in the faculty of science have been in English for more than 10 years and English is the working language for most meetings. Dutch is used for official documents, though. At a law firm that had only Dutch clients, that would be very different. I have met a number of families where their little kids are fluent in four languages. For example, at a meeting I once met a Dutch woman who is married to a man from Portugal, so the kids always speak Dutch and Portuguese with the respective parent. They live in Brussels, which is a French-speaking city, so the kids speak French with the neighboring kids. And the kids go to an English-language school. I know multiple examples of quadrilingualism.

I speak Dutch at home and English with my kids and grandkids, and at the university, so the percentage depends on my location. When I was at work for 8-10 hours a day, it was probably at least 80% English over the course of the day, now much less unless I am doing something with a grandkid, then it is mostly English. With Dutch friends, it is usually Dutch, but with non-Dutch friends, it is usually English.


K.F. in Berea, KY, asks: This Thursday, for the first time I've noticed, it was a posting authored solely by (V). How often does it happen that one of you completes a whole posting on their own? I guess the bigger question is: How do you divide the workload? I know (V) is especially strong in the data/poll analysis and (Z) is strong in the historical analysis and comparison load. Some insight into how the sausage is made would be awesome.

(V) & (Z) answer: Sorry, but you just haven't been paying close attention. In general, and for many years, the Monday and Thursday postings are written by (V). (Z) writes the other three weekday postings, and handles most of the weekend postings. (L) usually contributes an item for Wednesday's post, and more than that if events dictate it.

Sometimes, if something is clearly in one of our wheelhouses, the non-wheelhouse person(s) will specifically hand it off. And some items are signed by two of us; that usually means that (V) or (L) started the item, and (Z) added additional material later, based on late-breaking news, or on additional thoughts he had.


C.S.L. in Fairbanks, AK, asks: My guess is that your fairly frequent unscheduled down days are a result of continual attempts by conservative computer nerds to hack your site, which sometimes succeed... and take some time to overcome. Is my assumption correct?

(V) & (Z) answer: We don't actually have THAT many unscheduled down days, especially for an operation where we publish 7 days a week, and 90%+ of the words are written by just two people.

In any event, we are unaware of any occasion where we have been directly targeted by hostiles, conservative or otherwise, nerdy or otherwise. There have been a couple of times that our web host went down, and THAT might have been the result of a DDoS attack or some other form of cyber-violence, but we weren't the target in those cases.

When we miss a day's posting unexpectedly, it pretty much always means something went wrong on (Z)'s end. By virtue of living in Amsterdam, if something serious goes wrong for (V), there is still time to compensate. (Z), on the other hand, usually begins work 5-6 hours before the blog goes live. So, if something goes wrong, there isn't a lot of room to maneuver. (And no, starting much earlier than that is not an option, in most cases).

Los Angeles is basically a desert. It rarely rains except in the winter, but when it does rain, the power often goes out, which means the Internet goes out which means (Z) can't get online to post anything. This has happened a number of times. In Amsterdam, the power is always on, rain or shine. Also, the telecommunications infrastructure is almost entirely underground and is not affected by storms (no downed telephone poles), so (V) never gets blocked for weather-related reasons.

A few times, (Z) has had some sort of technical issue, including twice being left without a functioning keyboard. More commonly, it is some sort of health-related issue. There have been a couple of ER trips that kept postings from happening, for example. Last weekend was somewhat less dramatic, however—(Z)'s medications were adjusted AND he had to wrap up his vaccinations before school starts AND he had some restaurant food that might have been problematic. Something in there caused some rather severe nausea, to the point it was difficult to sit up.


D.C. in Brentwood, CA, asks: For those who have been reading all your words for a long time, we know why you cycle between all the historical scandal prefixes/suffixes, as a response to questions about always defaulting to "-gate." My question is (unintentionally a bit ironically): Do you now get questions asking why you're "inconsistent" with how you label current scandals?

(V) & (Z) answer: We have gotten no such e-mails, as far as we know. We think it would be pretty hard to discern some sort of meaning or agenda behind our choices, since we basically just rotate between the seven or eight famous ones that function in that way (-pot Dome, -Mobilier, -YZ Affair, -BSCAM, -Contra, etc.) and that work grammatically with whatever word is being portmanteaued. For example, we didn't think Epsteinkey Ring or Epstein Ring really worked, so we didn't use it.


K.H. in Albuquerque, NM, asks: You gave a hat tip to S.C.-M. in Scottsdale for bringing Paul Krugman's blog post to your attention. I've been following Krugman, especially since he decamped from the Grey Lady, but haven't bothered referring any of his Substack items to you for fear of spamming your inbox when you're already aware of him.

I now realize that your time is precious and you can't be omniscient with your research in the Substack wilderness. I was wondering which, if any, of the top political Substacks you regularly follow? Conveniently, Substack lists its top political forums at https://substack.com/top/us-politics. For your consideration, here are the top 10:

  1. The Free Press - Bari Weiss
  2. The Bulwark
  3. Letters from an American - Heather Cox Richardson
  4. Meidas+ - MeidasTouch Network
  5. The Contrarian
  6. Zeteo - Mehdi Hasan
  7. The Borowitz Report - Andy Borowitz
  8. Paul Krugman
  9. Racket News - Matt Taibbi
  10. Robert Reich

Should we readers be keeping an eye out on these channels for you? Any guidance as to when it would be helpful to send in an article that we think is important or useful?

(V) & (Z) answer: The answer to your specific question is that we do not follow most of those Substacks, so we appreciate any heads up.

The broader answer is that even if we follow a particular site or source, we don't always see everything, and so might miss something of interest. And even if we see everything, having a reader or readers suggest something might cause us to say "Hm. That item I decided not to write about... maybe I should reconsider."

In short, we are grateful to have ANY heads-up that readers might send to items@electoral-vote.com.


This item appeared on www.electoral-vote.com. Read it Monday through Friday for political and election news, Saturday for answers to reader's questions, and Sunday for letters from readers.

www.electoral-vote.com                     State polls                     All Senate candidates