Dem
47
GOP
53
And normal order has finally resumed.
If you are still working on the headline theme, we will suggest you pay very close attention to the fact that it is in both Mathematics AND History, category-wise.
C.A.G. in Athens, GA, asks: As you have pointed out numerous times, healthcare insurance prices are likely go up significantly for many Americans in January. But how does that impact those of us who have already decided on and signed up for healthcare at a particular price? For example, I am a teacher in Georgia, and we have already chosen our state health benefit plan (SHBP) insurance package for 2026. The deadline for making changes has passed. (The plans were priced similarly to last year's plans.) How will the loss of subsidies affect us?
(Z) answers: Normally, organizations sign contracts with insurance providers, and the price is locked in for 6 months or, more commonly, a year. So, it is likely that you will be shielded from any impact until January of 2027. Or, put another way, right after next year's election. This was by design.
If the insurer IS somehow able to raise prices before the year is out, then the question is how your employer would handle that. In many cases, they are bound to provide insurance by the union contract, and any increase in price is the employer's problem. In other cases, the employer would pass some or all of the additional costs onto the employees. That is not likely to happen to you as a member of a large organization, presumably in the public sector.
T.M.M. in Odessa, MO, asks: In many states, only half of the state Senate is up each cycle. Is this true for Indiana? If so, what was the breakdown of the Republicans up in 2026 as opposed to the Republicans up in 2028, when it came to the vote on redistricting? I would think that it is easier to defy Trump if it will be over two years (May 2028) for him to take his revenge, but do the numbers back this up?
(Z) answers: Yes, it is true for Indiana. The Senators serve 4-year terms, and half of them are up each two-year cycle.
Among Republicans up in 2026, 12 voted "Yea" and 10 voted "Nay."
Among Republicans up in 2028, 6 voted "Yea" and 11 voted "Nay."
It is possible that a few 2026 candidates who might otherwise have been "Nays" switched to "Yea" to save themselves, though the effect wasn't very large, if it existed at all. It is also worth noting that if the goal was merely to kill the legislation, as many as 6 of the up-in-2026 "Nay" voters could have been given "permission" to vote "Yea," or they could ALL have voted "Present," and the bill would have failed. Clearly some/most/all of those 10 wanted to make a statement, or felt it was more politic to oppose the legislation than to support it, or both.
C.R. in Pittsburgh, PA, asks: How can Mike Lindell run for governor? Isn't he bankrupt? Doesn't he owe millions of dollars to two election software designers? If people are stupid enough to donate money to a gubernatorial campaign for him, shouldn't the money go to his debts? I seriously thought we were done hearing about his antics after he was in tears before a U.S. District Court judge in April of this year, crying, "I'm in ruins."
(Z) answers: Liquidity is not a requirement for any elected office in the land (though it IS a requirement to get a security clearance).
When you donate money to a candidate, you are not giving the money directly to them. Instead, you are giving it to a corporation that has been created for purposes of the election. In this case, the name of the corporation will be something like Lindell for Governor 2026.
It is against the law for a candidate to use that money for their own personal needs (indeed, this is what got Richard Nixon into hot water, leading to the famous "Checkers" speech). That is not to say that the exceedingly unethical Lindell won't try it. However, he's also exceedingly stupid and careless, so if he does try it, he'll probably get caught.
It is more likely that the way he will monetize his candidacy is by turning every campaign stop into an opportunity to hawk MyPillow stuff, and his looney-tunes books and DVDS, and his streaming TV channel.
V.G. in New York City, NY, asks: In the Miami mayoral election, turnout was only around 20%. Is that normal? Given that many of Trump's voters are "low propensity" voters, doesn't that weaken the claim that this was another indicator of what might happen in November of 2026?
(Z) answers: This is normal (and, actually, this year was a bit above average). It therefore does not weaken the claim that the election is an early indicator for November 2026. Something was clearly different this year (and keep reading).
J.H. in Boston, MA, asks: You have noted several times that Miami hasn't had a Democratic mayor since the 1990s, and I looked up the current mayor Francis Suarez (son of Xavier Suarez, whom you namecheck as only having been elected because of fraud in 1997). And he won his 2017 election by a blowout landslide 85/5 margin.
How on earth is this possible? It is a fundamental axiom of my understanding of politics that we are not divided into red states and blue states, but rather into red rural country, and dense blue cities. Liberals cluster in cities. Or maybe living in a city with diverse neighbors makes people more liberal? Or both?
Even the reddest state has liberal cities, and even the bluest state has conservative rural communities, leading to the xkcd observation "there are more Trump voters in California than Texas, more Biden voters in Texas than New York, etc.".
Florida used to be a swing state, and even today it still turns in statewide margins under 10 points. How on earth is just the dense urban center of Miami out here electing its mayors 85/5 for Republicans? Make it make sense.(Z) answers: First, as we have noted, the mayoralty of Miami is largely symbolic, something like a head of state, except at the municipal level. The city is actually run by the City Manager, which is why the Manager's salary is something like five times that of the mayor.
As a consequence of this, while Miami is indeed purple-blue, most residents don't actually care that much about who is mayor. The exception to that is the Cuban population, which for decades has made a point of showing up to elect a Cuban to "their" office. Since 1996, every mayor of Miami has been Cuban—that includes three Republicans (one who served non-consecutive terms), one Republican-leaning independent, and one Democrat.
There weren't any reliable exit polls of the election, at least not that we've seen. However, the number of voters who turned out this year (37,244) is higher than the number who turned out in 2017 (24,642) or 2021 (24,652). Further, the number of voters who cast a Republican ballot in this election (15,099) is considerably lower than the total for 2017 (21,856) or 2021 (21,485).
So, even in the absence of exit polls, at least one of these things must be true: (1) Democrats were more motivated to show up than they normally are; (2) Cuban voters were less motivated to show up than THEY normally are; (3) Some Cuban voters (or other people) who normally vote Republican flipped to Democratic this time. None of these things would be good news for the GOP heading into 2026.
D.R. in Phoenix, AZ, asks: What spectacularly bad timing by the corrupt FIFA organization to schedule the World Cup in the United States in 2026. Sort of rhymes with the Berlin Olympics in 1936, no? How is an administration with such profound hatred of immigrants going to pull off what is by definition a global festival where all are welcome? But all aren't welcome. Especially after the D.C. National Guard shootings, some significant portion of the country just does not want any foreigners here, and they're pretty damn rude about it. So how is this gonna work?
(Z) answers: Certainly, Trump wants to use this opportunity to grandstand. We know, because he's already used it in that way.
That said, FIFA is not exactly bringing a knife to a gunfight here. As the Trump Peace Prize, or whatever they are calling it, shows, FIFA knows how to handle leaders like Trump. He's particularly easy to keep fat, dumb and happy, since two-thirds of those were already taken care of before FIFA ever showed up.
Beyond that, it's not actually the U.S. that is hosting the World Cup, it's North America. If Trump plays his cards too aggressively, FIFA will threaten to move matches to Canada or Mexico (which Trump would obviously HATE). If he does not back down, then FIFA will follow through. They could even move some matches to, say, Estádio do Maracanã in Brazil. Ticket sales certainly won't be a problem, even with just a few days' notice.
P.F. in Fairbanks, AK, asks: As I gazed upon Donald Trump wearing his FIFA Peace Prize like a white stain on a blue dress, I wondered to myself...
You said that baseball has, generally, the most conservative players politically. I know FIFA is a global organization but can you speak to whether FIFA's players and fans—even if only in the United States—have a general political leaning?(Z) answers: Generally speaking, sports only have political leanings when they appeal substantially to a particular cultural, socioeconomic or regional constituency. NASCAR leans conservative because it's mostly a Southern sport. The NBA leans liberal because its players and fanbase are disproportionately Black and/or urban. MLB leans conservative because its fans skew pretty old, and its players are drawn substantially from the South, the Midwest and from rural areas. Oh, and baseball players are also the least educated athletes, among the major sports.
Football, both the gridiron type and the association type, draw from so many different parts of the population that their fanbase and their player base pretty much mirror the general population. That said, in the U.S. at least, most association football fans are either Latino or are very cosmopolitan. So, if we limit ourselves solely to American fans of association football, the lean is probably a little bit lefty.
R.P. in Northfield, IL, asks: OK, about that inaugural FIFA "peace prize." A couple of questions: (1) Do we think that Trump himself told FIFA he wanted "a little something, or did Trump's people tell FIFA officials that they had to come up with something in the way of kissing up? Both explanations are highly plausible in my opinion; (2) Do you think that this prize would put more pressure on the Nobel Prize people to figure they better come through, too? I am hoping they don't work that way.
(Z) answers: It is doubtful that Trump told FIFA, either directly or indirectly, that he wanted something. If he did do that, he'd make it clear he wanted something with cash value, not a decoration for his mantel. We strongly suspect they acted of their own volition. We also strongly suspect that they were inspired by Sen. Rick Scott (R-FL), who gave Trump a similarly invented-out-of-thin-air trophy, the NRSC Champion for Freedom Award, a few years ago. The Champion for Freedom Award has not been bestowed again since Trump got it in 2021, and surely the FIFA Peace Prize will suffer the same fate.
I cannot imagine that this award will have any effect on the Nobel committee, except maybe to make them snicker a bit. Trump can potentially make life more difficult for FIFA as they try to stage their most important event. What can he possibly do to the Norwegian Nobel Committee, or even to the nation of Norway? They simply have no need to kiss up to him.
D.S. in Oakton, VA, asks: What is the usual method for naming federal buildings (structures built using tax dollars, on federal land, owned and operated by the federal government, occupied by federal workers)? I would think that GAO and/or Congress would be involved. If any President could just willy-nilly sign an XO re-naming "The Trump Vietnam War Memorial" or "Donald J. Trump's Memorial to Abraham Lincoln, The Second Tallest President after 45/47," what—other than modesty—might keep someone from naming everything after themselves? You can call a turd a rose, but it still smells like sh**.
(Z) answers: We actually don't think it's modesty that stops most high-ranking people from trying a stunt like this. We think it's more like embarrassment. While Trump has been naming buildings (and other things) after himself for decades, that was a marketing thing. It's very different when a name is bestowed as a mark of honor and respect. If someone needs to name a government building, or some other monumental structure, after themselves, it pretty much blares two messages: (1) I am desperate for love and approval, and (2) I have to bestow love and approval upon myself, because nobody else will give it to me.
In any case, the privilege of bestowing official names, from lakes to mountains to Cabinet departments to post offices, belongs solely to Congress. Via executive order, Trump can force executive branch mapmakers to use "Gulf of America." He can require that executive branch documents call it the Department of War. He can insist that executive branch employees to refer to it the Trump Institute of Peace. Heck, he can order the entire executive bureaucracy, for the rest of his term, to refer to the 46th president ONLY as "Joe Poopoohead."
However, none of these actions actually results in a legal name change. It's still legally the Gulf of Mexico, the Department of Defense, and the U.S. Institute for Peace. He's still legally Joe Biden. Just like the Headless Horseman and that bridge, Trump's XOs have a lot of power up to a pretty clear limit, and then beyond that limit they have no power at all.
S.K. in Bethesda, MD, asks: Honestly not sure there's any reason you would be able to find the answer to this, but I've been wondering for weeks and can't figure out a way to get an answer. The debris from the East Wing of the White House was dumped in the middle of the public golf course in East Potomac Park, also known locally as Hains Point. I happen to ride my bike past the site pretty much every day. For the period of the demolition, they closed the Point to car traffic (bikes, pedestrians and golfers could still get in) while the dump trucks were operating. They eventually reopened it, but now have a U.S. Park Police car stationed there every night, parked in the middle of the golf course apparently guarding the mound of debris.
Why would they do this? Are they worried people would flock there for souvenirs? I mean, maybe I could see someone marketing debris from the East Wing like they used to market debris from the Berlin Wall, but it seems like a stretch, and an odd allocation of resources (I ride by it every night on my way home from work and they are sitting there every night). I know—it's only tangentially a political question, but it is just another of the many strange things going on around D.C. (don't get me started on the Kennedy Center for the PERFORMING ARTS being used for a soccer tournament/political rally).(Z) answers: One possibility is souvenir-hunters, as you suggest. Another is that something toxic, like asbestos, was used in the construction, and there would be liability/health-and-safety issues if the material was left unattended.
However, the likeliest explanation is that if unfriendlies were freely able to examine the debris, they might be able to learn something about how the still-standing portions of the building are kept safe and secure.
P.K. in Arlington Heights, IL, asks: Can you explain this to me like I'm 5 years old: Nearly every advanced country in the world has universal health care, and has had so for decades. The United States does not, and its citizens have to fight tooth and nail for its elected officials to reduce the high cost of care and medication. Why? Why do our representatives fight something perceived as a basic human right in most countries? What do they gain?
(Z) answers: Culturally, Americans are suspicious of centralized government, and tend to have an unusually warm view of capitalism and public enterprise. This is not true of ALL Americans, of course, but certainly the majority. It is considerably less true in, say, European nations.
To a greater or lesser extent, the move to socialized medicine was a product of the world wars, particularly World War II. Leadership of the European (and many Asian) nations said something like, "We've got a lot of hurt people, soldier and civilian, and we have to take care of them all." Most obviously, this was the genesis of the U.K.'s National Health Service, which began operation in 1948.
Because the world wars were not fought in the U.S., and because the U.S. was a late arrival to both "parties," there were considerably fewer Americans left physically wrecked once the dust settled. Meanwhile, to a lot of Americans, socialism and communism are one and the same, and so socialized medicine is therefore communism. And, to those same Americans, capitalism is the bestest system ever. So, instead of using the historical moment to pursue universalized health care, like so many European nations did, the U.S. instead gravitated toward a capitalist system, wherein healthcare is provided by employers and managed by private corporations.
Various politicians (mostly right-wingers), and various corporate interests, who have benefited in various ways from making a bugaboo of socialism and a utopia of capitalism, have encouraged "privatized healthcare is better" thinking, and continue to encourage "privatized healthcare is better" thinking to this day.
E.S. in Providence, RI , asks: What do you think would help the Democrats more on November 3, 2026: Donald Trump as president, or (for whatever reason) J.D. Vance as president? As much as many of us await the end of the Trump presidency, would a President Vance inspire a higher GOP turnout in the midterms?
(Z) answers: Trump. By all indications, MAGA voters are going to be unenthused if his name is not on the ballot, regardless of who is actually in the White House. There is no way that J.D. Vance would light a fire under them if Trump himself can't do it.
On the other hand, by all indications, there is going to be a massive push-back-against-Trump turnout for the Democrats. That phenomenon might well be less powerful if Trump was no longer in office, and Vance was running the show.
L.M. in New York City, NY, asks: I can't figure out why people always talk about "Blue Texas." Texas has not elected any Democratic candidates to statewide office since 1994 (and they weren't big roles). I have read that Texas isn't a red state—it's a non-voting state, but if you don't vote, it doesn't matter! It's a red state and that's not changing. Georgia has less of its population in cities (60%) than Texas (80%), and yet it still doesn't make a difference. There have been Democratic candidates that seemed to meet many of your criteria for matching the electorate in the last ten years—with odious opponents!—and they still lost. I think Blue Texas is such a pipe dream for the Democrats, and I believe they are wasting their time and money in that state. What signs do you see that imply a shifting electorate or an electorate that will finally get off their butts and actually vote?
(Z) answers: Between 1990 and 2018, the state of Arizona elected one Democratic governor, and zero Democratic Senators. Put another way, Democrats laid claim to 6 years of a combined 84 years of officeholding.
Since 2018, Arizona has elected three Democratic senators, one Democratic governor, and no Republicans to either of those offices.
The point is that when things change, they can change fast. And the same demographics that drove Arizona into the purple-blue column—growing Latino population, migration from blue states, expanding tech sector—are also in play in Texas.
If the Democrats can win one major election in Texas, it could prove to be a watershed. First, many Texas voters who have been backing Republicans would get actual experience with how a Democrat does the job of governor or senator, and some of those voters might like what they see. Second, if your party had lost every statewide election for more than 30 years, would you be highly motivated to donate money, knock on doors, do phonebanking, actually get to the polls, etc.? For some Democrats the answer would be "Yes, we must always fight on!" But for many others, the answer is surely "No, what's the point?" Once a Democrat actually wins, though, it will be proof of concept, and subsequent Democratic candidates can expect much more robust support from the base.
One last thing: If the Democrats can actually turn Texas blue, it will make it effectively impossible for the current Republican coalition to win presidential elections. So even if the Lone Star State seems like a longshot, it's worth the attention from a strategic perspective, because the potential rewards are so substantial.
K.C. in West Islip, NY, asks: Given the recent shifts in the Texas U.S. Senate race, I have two questions. First, does anyone truly believe Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-TX) would win statewide in Texas?
Second, I first heard about state Rep. James Talarico (D) when I read an article that Joe Rogan was propping him up as presidential material. Given that one could legitimately argue Rogan played a big role in getting younger males to cast their votes for Trump, would it be fair to suggest that he could do the same for Talarico? Texas always seems to be the pipe dream that Democrats grab onto every single election, only to be predictably let down come Election Day, but I've looked closely at Talarico's stances and biography and he seems to be the right candidate to take on the Republicans. With a boost from a guy who was once all rah-rah Trump. would Talarico stand a chance or is Texas going to remain a pipe dream?(Z) answers: Undoubtedly, some people believe she can win, including Crockett herself. Neither (V) nor I are among that group, however. An outspoken left-wing populist might be viable in Texas, but that's not what Crockett is. Also, one cannot ignore the fact that there's still a LOT of racism in this country.
Talarico most certainly does have a chance. If he flips some MAGA influencers like Rogan, that will help a lot. It would also help a lot if he ends up facing Ken Paxton, who is either a little weaker or a lot weaker than Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX), depending on who you ask. The likelihood that 2026 will see a blue wave (or, really, an anti-Trump wave) will help. And, as we've already written, religious-plus-lefty seems like a very good fit for Texas, especially since Talarico is actually religious, whereas his possible opponent Paxton is a notorious violator of pretty much every one of the Ten Commandments.
D.M. in Alameda, CA, asks: Do you think that Dan Osborn (I) has even a fighting chance in the Nebraska U.S. Senate race? His margins were 53.4/46.6 against Deb Fischer in 2024 with the pedo-in-chief on the ballot. Sure, it's a harder hill to climb than TX, but perhaps still doable.
(Z) answers: Yes, he has a fighting chance. More than a fighting chance, in fact. Nebraska seems to be trending slightly more toward the center. Osborn is a bona fide left-wing populist, and he'll be up against a plutocrat who never had to work a day in his life. The stump speech practically writes itself. And the same anti-Trump wave that is likely to help the Democrats in Texas will also help Osborn in Nebraska.
That said, you don't have to take our word for it. There have been two polls of Osborn vs. Sen. Pete Ricketts (R-NE), and one of them had Osborn up 47%-46%, while the other had Ricketts up 47%-46%. That is a statistical dead heat.
R.C. In Des Moines, IA, asks: When someone like Alina Habba goes to be a special advisor to a government official like Pam Bondi, does that position come with a salary and, if so, how is it funded? And are there limits on the number of such positions?
(Z) answers: It comes with a salary, with only rare exceptions. You can see the latest list of what everyone who works in the White House is earning right here. The odds are good, given that Habba is pretty prominent and that she's a lawyer, she'll pull down something like $175,000 a year.
The money for these salaries comes from the budget for the Executive Office of the President. It is obviously possible to exhaust that budget, so there is some upper limit on how many people can be hired. But that upper limit is not set by law at some specific number of staffers. And if a president had a legitimate need for more staff than the budget will allow (say, a war gets underway), then Congress would likely increase the appropriation.
D.W. in Phoenix, AZ, asks: The presidential pardon (or governor's pardon) is a criminal pardon. Could the pardon be used as if not proof of guilt then the implication of in a subsequent civil trial seeking monetary relief for damages?
(Z) answers: There is a famous Supreme Court case from 1915, Burdick v. United States, which was triggered when The New York Tribune ran some stories about jewel smuggling into the United States, and the Woodrow Wilson administration wanted to know the paper's sources. So, Wilson pardoned editor George Burdick for any crimes he may have committed in printing privileged information, so that Burdick could then be forced to testify in a civil trial, and could not plead the Fifth when asked about his sources. Burdick tried the refuse the pardon, and in Burdick, the Supreme Court said that he was within his rights.
In the dictum for the case (the discussion of why the court made its ruling), Associate Justice Joseph McKenna included a basically offhand remark that part of the problem with forcing a pardon upon someone is that a pardon carries "an imputation of guilt and acceptance of a confession of it." That fragment of a sentence is the entire corpus of Supreme Court jurisprudence on this particular question. And remember, that was just from the discussion of the court's reasoning, it was not a part of the actual ruling, since the "meaning" of a pardon was not the actual question before the Court.
What this means is that there is no firm answer to your question, because it's barely been addressed by the courts. So, we can't know for sure until there's a much clearer precedent in place. That said, there are a couple of lower-court rulings that suggest that even acceptance of a pardon (much less mere issuance) does not imply guilt. Further, if and when this DOES come before a court, one thing judges try to do is game out the most extreme possibilities (and, thus, the potential for abuse). What if, for example, Donald Trump were to grant Elon Musk a pardon for anything that happened during his time with DOGE, and were also to sneak in there that he's pardoning Musk for stealing $50 billion from the Trump Organization? Then, imagine Trump turns around and sues Musk for the $50 billion, arguing that Musk has already admitted to his guilt. That would clearly be an abuse, and possibilities like that suggest that once SCOTUS does take on this question, it will decide that granting or accepting a pardon does not mean the person is guilty.
A.G. in Scranton, PA, asks: What will stop the Supreme Court from simply accepting the redistricting plans of red states as not being illegally gerrymandered and rejecting the redistricting plans of the blue states as being illegally gerrymandered?
(Z) answers: Well, they do seem to still have SOME concern about their reputation, since they know full well that the Supreme Court's power comes from its moral authority, not its power to actually enforce its rulings.
That said, if worst comes to worst, what if Gov. Gavin Newsom (D-CA) says, "Thank you for your very interesting opinion, Mr. Roberts. It was fascinating reading. My parrot liked it, too! However, the Constitution gives control of elections to the states, and our map was duly approved by California voters. So, we'll be using our map. Have a nice day!"
Then what? The only branch that can refuse to seat representatives is the legislature. A Democratic controlled-legislature is not going to refuse, and if a Republican-controlled legislature refuses, you'd have an instant full-blown constitutional crisis.
The point here is that the Supreme Court has been pushing its luck for years. And if it pushes its luck too far, it might not like what happens next.
J.M. in Norco, CA, asks: The most powerful person in the world has threatened again to cancel a network's broadcast license. My question: Just how much longer do you believe such a threat will even matter? Broadcast just sounds so "last century" at this point, and "channel number" is a term my grandchildren have never heard.
(Z) answers: We've written about this before, but it's not much of a threat, really. The government only controls the electromagnetic spectrum, and can only flex its muscles there. If, say, ABC's broadcast license is yanked, they are not going to close up shop and go home. They'll just use one of the alternate means of delivering their signal. At worst, they'll lose some relatively small percentage of the public who still use an antenna.
N.O'D. in Chicago, IL, asks: In an effort to hear thoughtful political opinions different from my own, I've been listening to the RealClearPolitics podcast every so often. One idea all of the panelists take as a given is that schools are teaching their students to hate the United States. I find this very disturbing! How can it be true? Say it ain't so, (Z)! How pervasive is this idea on the right? Lastly, can you or fellow Electoral-Vote.com readers please recommend a more responsible center-right podcast or website?
(Z) answers: I have never had much regard for RealClearPolitics, which presents itself as centrist, but which is actually pretty right-wing. Their aggregated headlines are 90%+ pro-right-wing. They sometimes omit polls that look bad for Republican candidates from their database. And while I have not listened to their podcasts, what you write here does nothing to challenge my view of that outlet.
The view that schools in general, history courses in particular, are anti-American indoctrination centers is indeed a very pervasive idea on the right. It is also nonsense. Undoubtedly, there are a few rah-rah right wingers out there who try to instill patriotism into their students. And undoubtedly, there are a few U.S.-critical leftists out there who try to convert students into recruits for the Weather Underground or whatever. But both of those groups are in the small minority, particularly at the college level.
Most of us, and this includes me, do not care one bit how their students feel about the United States. They can love it, they can hate it, they can be in between and it does not matter in the slightest. What most of us care about is that, whatever the students' perspective is, it comes from a more informed place AFTER they leave our classes than it did BEFORE they enrolled. I often say something like: "My hope is that, a couple of years from now, you'll watch a historical movie, or you'll visit a history museum, or you'll see a statue of a historical figure, and you'll be able to think critically about what you're seeing, and you'll be able to understand it just a little bit better than all the other people who are around you."
It is true that, at the college level, much of the material students hear is stuff they did not hear in their earlier history courses. It is also true that the new material often skews dark and/or negative. That is because elementary, junior high and high school courses tend to accentuate the positives, which means it's the negatives that tend to be the gaps in students' knowledge. When I talk about Triangle Shirtwaist, or lynching, or Wounded Knee, or Hoovervilles, or Japanese internment, the goal is not to make anyone hate the U.S., it's to round out the story. And it should be noted that these things are intermixed with triumphant moments, among them the passage of the Nineteenth Amendment, the development of jazz/blues/rock and roll, the Battle of Midway, the GI Bill, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, etc.
None of us at Electoral-Vote.com actually listen to much in the way of political podcasts, because some of us don't listen to podcasts at all, while others of us listen to podcasts as a respite from politics. But if readers have suggestions for center-right podcasts/websites, sent them to comments@electoral-vote.com, and we'll run them tomorrow. We will, of course, note the obvious, namely that The Bulwark provides reasonable analysis from a center-right perspective, and also has a podcast component.
F.S. in Cologne, Germany, asks: You wrote: "[Chief Justice Roger] Taney['s reputation] is primarily wrecked by one very bad decision, a decision that just so happened to pave the way for the Civil War." So could SCOTUS have decided the Dred Scott Case in a way that wouldn't have paved the way for the Civil War? Which other possibilities did SCOTUS have when they decided this case, and what would have been the consequences of these different possibilities?
(Z) answers: As a sidebar, do you know why it's called the Dred Scott decision, when nearly every other Supreme Court decision is known in the form [X] v. [Y]? It's because Roger Taney misspelled the name of John Sanford in his decision, as John Sandford. So, Dred Scott v. Sanford isn't quite correct because that's not how the decision was entered into the record. And Dred Scott v. Sandford isn't quite correct because that isn't how Sanford's name was spelled. Calling it "The Dred Scott Decision" gets around that problem.
Anyhow, Taney's decision had two parts. The first part said, in so many words, "This is an invalid lawsuit because Black people have no right to file lawsuits in American courts." The second part said, in so many words, "But since we're here anyhow, we'll just note that Congress has no power to limit slavery anywhere. [Mic drop]."
Taney most certainly had the option to stick with the first part, and forego the second part. In that event, the case would have been utterly unremarkable, and would now be long forgotten. The Civil War would certainly have happened anyhow, but Taney and his band of racist rogues would not bear part of the responsibility for it.
If Taney had not blundered in the manner he did, it is possible the war would have begun 4 or 8 years later. Taney's decision came down in 1857 and propelled the Free Soiler Abraham Lincoln to the presidency in 1860, thus causing the Lower South to secede in late 1860 and early 1861. Maybe, but for the decision, a Free Soiler would not have been elected president until 1864 or 1868. On the other hand, the nation was pretty frayed by 1857, and 3½ years is a long time, so maybe things would have unfolded pretty much as they did, even without Dred Scott.
S.S. in West Hollywood, CA, asks: I have a question after watching Ken Burns The American Revolution. Why is the date the Declaration of Independence was adopted, July 4, 1776, considered the birthdate of America? We were still British subjects and the country was very much divided over the question if that should change or not. We were also 13 individual colonies without a clear agreement if that would or should change. We weren't actually a nation until the Constitution was ratified on June 21, 1788. And it was May 29, 1790, when the last of the 13 colonies signed on. Shouldn't we be celebrating one of those dates as the birthdate of America? How does this compare to the birthdates of other countries? Is there an accepted norm for this?
(Z) answers: Let's start this answer with... the Civil War. Every single source you can find will tell you the Civil War ended on April 9, 1865. The Confederate government had actually already collapsed before that, and there were still numerous Confederate armies in the field after that. However, April 9 is the day that Lee surrendered the Army of Northern Virginia to Ulysses S. Grant. People at the time felt that development was the fatal blow to the Confederacy, and so they used that as the "end of war" date. And it's been used ever since.
As to the Revolution, your history is a little rusty. The United States became an independent nation right around the time it told Britain to shove off, stopped paying taxes, formed a government and raised a rebel army. Even if you want to argue that nationhood was not realized until the British gave up, well, their final surrender was on October 19, 1781, and the Treaty of Paris was concluded on September 3, 1783. Certainly, the U.S. was a nation at that point. The Constitution, which took effect in 1788, was the second governing document, following the Articles of Confederation, which were in effect for about 12 years.
There are many events that might plausibly be called the "breaking point" at which point the relationship could not be repaired. The Battles of Lexington and Concord in 1775. Massachusetts' declaration of independence shortly thereafter. The commencement of the Second Continental Congress on May 10, 1775. July 4, 1776 is not actually all that important; it's just the day the document was read aloud in public. The signatures were actually largely added on July 2. However, July 4, 1776, is written in BIG letters right at the top, so people (including Thomas Jefferson and the other authors) quickly adopted July 4 as the "key" day, and it's been that way ever since.
And here are the dates on which 10 other major world celebrate their birthdays, and why:
Nation Date Reason The United Kingdom May 1, 1707 Acts of Union France July 14, 1789 Storming of the Bastille Germany October 3, 1990 Reunification of East and West Germany Italy March 17, 1861 Unification of Italy Israel May 14, 1948 Proclamation of the State of Israel Saudi Arabia September 23, 1932 Unification of the Kingdoms of Nejd and Hejaz into the Kingdom of Saud Japan February 11, 660 B.C. Ascension of the (legendary) first emperor of Japan, Emperor Jimmu China October 1, 1949 Founding of the People's Republic of China by Mao Zedong Mexico September 16, 1810 Commencement of the revolution against Spain Egypt July 23, 1952 Overthrow of the monarchy and founding of the Egyptian Republic
In short, in all nations, it's sort of a "gut feel" thing based on some day that seems particularly notable.
K.G. in Atlanta, GA, asks: I recently visited the Mel Fisher Maritime Museum in Key West. He was the richest treasure hunter ever, with the final haul around $450 million. Took him and his crew 16 years, but by 1985 he retrieved roughly half of the gold, silver, copper, and emeralds from the Spanish galleon Atocha, which sunk in a hurricane in 1622.
My question is about a claim made in a museum video, that if the treasure had safely returned to Spain, the U.S. would now be a Spanish colony. True?(Z) answers: Certainly not. That makes for compelling material for a video presentation, but Spain's fundamental problem was that she overextended herself, such that she could not hold on to her New World colonies. All those ships and soldiers you need to run your empire are REALLY expensive! One ship full of gold was not going to change that dynamic, no matter how much gold it was.
A.M. in Brookhaven, PA, asks: (V) mentioned that his Ph.D. thesis related to the temperature of the sun but did not mention anything about his conclusions. In brief layman's terms, why is the sun's corona so much hotter than the photosphere?
S.C. in Mountain View, CA, asks: Okay, I'll bite. Why is the solar corona so hot (2M Kelvin) when the photosphere, which is much closer to the core of the sun, is only 5000° Kelvin?
(V) answers: Very roughly, the speed of sound depends on pressure, temperature, and other factors and decreases as you go out from the core, although it is complicated in a plasma (ionized gas). The theory is that the waves of hot plasma coming out of the core (now called Alfven waves) are subsonic in the photosphere, but when they get to the corona, they become supersonic, through no fault of their own. This causes them to become turbulent and they dump energy there. This energy dump heats the corona. My data were consistent with this theory. As an aside, the theory (and the field of magnetohydrodynamics) was devised by the Swedish physicist Hannes Alfven, who won the Nobel prize for this work. My advisor worked closely with Alfven and I knew him. In physics, you can never "prove" a theory. All you can do is show that lots of experiments are consistent with the theory and show its predictions can be observed. Alfven naturally liked my observations of the sun using the 150' solar telescope on Mt. Wilson because they were consistent with his theory.
Alfven wasn't the only Nobel Prize winner I have talked to or seen. There were five Nobel Prize winners in my Department, but I didn't know them personally as I did Alfven, although I attended their lectures occasionally. They were Luis Alvarez, Owen Chamberlain, Donald Glaser, Emilio Segre and Charles Townes. I talked to Nobel Laureate Richard Feynman at a party at Bob Leighton's house once. Leighton actually wrote The Feynman Lectures. He offered me a job as a postdoc at Caltech but I turned him down. Leighton was brilliant and should have won a Nobel Prize but he made contributions to so many areas of physics it is hard to find one that really changed physics. At MIT, I took classes from Henry Kendall and Paul Samuelson, who later won Nobel Prizes in physics and economics, respectively.
R.H.D. in Webster, NY, asks: Do you think that since Notre Dame got snubbed from the College Football Playoff, they will finally join a conference for ALL of their sports? Or will they stubbornly stay independent for football?
(Z) answers: They will remain independent, as they acquire too much money and prestige from that arrangement to give it up.
Notre Dame actually has an agreement in place with the people who run the college football playoffs that says that if the school finishes ranked in the Top 12, as it did this year, it automatically gets a playoff berth. The problem is that the agreement does not take effect until... next year [sound of trombone slide]. Still, this is a problem that is going to solve itself, without Notre Dame needing to change the way it does business.
L.T. in Washington, DC, asks: I know politics moves at the speed of a bullet, but maybe it would be better for your sanity to move to a MWF-only schedule? You guys put in a ton of work and while I'd go into T-TH withdrawal each week, I think it would be worth it if I knew you were not killing yourselves to keep people like me informed.
(Z) answers: We appreciate all the kind people who wrote in with messages like this one. We are less appreciative of the person who wrote in to complain about how lazy we are.
In general, neither of us particularly likes to be idle, and so all those days off would not be as enjoyable or relaxing as you might think. We only run into trouble when professional commitments and blog needs really get intense, and THEN there's an X-factor on top of that, usually health issues or tech problems.
That said, being overwhelmed with work can certainly lay the groundwork for health issues. In fact, that is pretty much what happened last week. And we strongly suspect that readers would be happier with the occasional, regularly scheduled day off, as opposed to a random, unexpected day off (or weekend off). So, we're going to try to find a way to do better on that front.
K.H. in Maryville, TN, asks: Is your quotations key wearing out yet? (I alternate between wanting to laugh or cry at the necessity of you even having to use it to describe our government...)
(Z) answers: I hope people understand that we (mostly) do that not to be cute or funny, but to be as accurate as we can. It simply does not feel right to call Linda McMahon the Secretary of Education, or Robert Kennedy Jr. the Secretary of Health, because those two don't give a damn, respectively, about Education or Health. And we simply will not refer to the cable channel as anything but Fox or Fox "News," because they are most certainly not a news outlet, as they have themselves admitted, under penalty of perjury, in open court. To use the name without the quotations is to help them with their dishonest branding, and we are not interested in doing so.