Dem
47
GOP
53
Because we don't want to overwhelm readers, we are going to limit it to 20 questions (well, 21 questions, but 20 answers), all of them in the general areas of "current events" and/or "politics."
As a reminder, next Saturday is the last Saturday of the month, so it will be all NON-politics questions. That is to say, questions about history, TV, film, food, books, art, music, science, etc., but no politics. We can always use more questions of this sort, so if you have them, please send them along to comments@electoral-vote.com, ideally with the subject line "Fun question."
If you are still working on the headline theme for this week, we'll note that while we doubt Sarah Palin could figure it out, we suspect Donald Trump probably could. After all, he's a New Yorker who likes Golf, and who fancies himself to be quite a Playboy and a Hustler.
K.B. in Hartford, CT, asks: Although hoping that Epsteingate finally brings down Clementine Caligula is sort of like trusting Lucy to hold the football for Charlie Brown, what if it does? While a President Vance would probably be less chaotic (because almost anything would be less chaotic), from a policy standpoint would things be different? Would Vance be an improvement, or just fascism in a more respectable dress?
(V) & (Z) answer: J.D. Vance cares about power for power's sake. So, he would undoubtedly continue any policies that he thinks will serve that end.
However, Vance is unlikely to stick with the bizarro tariffs and trade wars. Also, Vance does not command the MAGA base the way Donald Trump does, and would have far less ability to get Congress to do things it does not want to do. So, we think you would find Vance to be an improvement, at least in some ways.
R.M.S. in Lebanon, CT, asks: Not surprisingly, Donald Trump sued The Wall Street Journal and Rupert Murdoch for publishing his alleged letter to Jeffrey Epstein. He claims the letter is fraudulent and is a form of defamation.
It is not unheard of for U.S. press outlets to be duped by fraudulent tips. The most famous instance of this I can think of was 21 years ago, when CBS News published false documents and aired an incorrect story just before the 2004 election, claiming George W. Bush received preferential treatment to avoid a deployment to Vietnam.
What would the WSJ do to authenticate this letter, and is there any chance its lawyers would allow them to publish it with vetting it?(V) & (Z) answer: Undoubtedly, the lawyers vetted the letter. That said, it is very difficult for a public figure, like Donald Trump, to succeed in a defamation case. He would have to prove that he was (financially) damaged and that the newspaper's staff either knew the document was a fake, or else that they would have known but for being reckless in their regard for the truth.
The WSJ staff undoubtedly saw the whole book/binder of letters that was apparently compiled for Jeffrey Epstein's 50th birthday, and believed that the Trump letter was an organic part of the whole (the age of the paper, the binding, whatever, was consistent with the rest of the book). They certainly know what Trump's signature looks like, and the letter was presumably handwritten, so they could make that comparison, too. They also know that Trump and Epstein were very friendly in 2003. Oh, and while the newspaper apparently hasn't revealed their source, they know where they got their information from, and they must have considered that source to be reliable. Add it up, and they certainly had plenty of reason to believe the document is real.
S.W. in New York City, NY, asks: I wonder: Is Ghislaine Maxwell safe in prison? She has to know so much about Epstein's acquaintances and activities—I wouldn't be surprised if she "committed suicide" someday in prison. Would she be placed in some sort of protected custody now?
(V) & (Z) answer: Maxwell is certainly a very interesting X-factor here. If there's actual dirt on Trump, she knows what it is, and she knows where to look for it. Assuming she has that kind of information, she would love to trade her silence for a presidential pardon (she is currently serving 20 years at FCI Tallahassee).
Her problem is that any pardon would throw a tanker truck's worth of fuel onto the conspiratorial fire. On the other hand, her "suicide" would do the same thing, so she's probably safe, and does not need to be in protective custody. It would appear that the only viable option for both her and for Trump—again, assuming she has the goods—is a pardon conferred after the 2026 midterm elections.
D.S. in Lancaster, PA, asks: If the Epstein files point to Trump or other Republicans, why wouldn't Joe Biden have released/leaked the files?
J.H. in Boston, MA, asks: Democrats like Rep. Ted Lieu (D-CA), House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) and Sen. Jon Ossoff (D-GA) yelling about the Epstein list are like the dog chasing the car. What will they do if they catch it? If they spend enough time campaigning on this issue, and then win, then one day they will have to answer for why they haven't released the list. For that matter, why didn't Biden release the list when the Dems were in power? Isn't this a dangerous issue to campaign on, as you may find yourself in the exact predicament that Trump is in now?
(V) & (Z) answer: We do not discount the possibility that there are one or more prominent Democrats who might be implicated by their associations with Jeffrey Epstein, and that Joe Biden and his administration preferred to keep the documents under wraps for that reason.
However, we think the likelier reason that the Biden administration did not take action here is... there was really no reason for it. Epstein died in 2019, while Donald Trump was president, and Ghislaine Maxwell was successfully prosecuted in 2021. The Democratic base is not obsessed with Epstein, and Biden never committed to releasing the information (and didn't make any comment at all, in fact). Further, if Donald Trump or any other Republicans are implicated in the materials, it would have been seen as an effort by the Biden administration to smear Trump (or the other Republicans), and the right-wing media and MAGA base would have blown a gasket.
It's entirely possible the Biden administration gave no thought to the matter. But even if they did, the choice not to release the material can certainly be justified in non-corrupt ways.
Oh, and there is no risk to members of Congress campaigning on "release the files." It's ultimately not their decision; all they can do is vote (over and over and over, if necessary) in support of a resolution calling on the White House to release them. Lieu, Jeffries and Ossoff will be happy to cast those votes as often as they need to, and if a resolution does not pass, or if it does pass and is ignored, then it's not their fault.
The calculus is a little different if a Democratic presidential candidate campaigns on such a promise, but only a little different. If the files implicate no Democrats, or if they implicate only Democrats who are nearly three generations in the past (e.g., Bill Clinton), or if they implicate nobody at all, there's no real downside for President Beshear or President Newsom or President Whitmer. If there's no clearly identifiable "client list," that person can say "Well, we released what's there. Anyone who feels they were misled should talk to the person or persons who misled them, because we can't release documents that don't exist."
D.H. in Boulder, CO, asks: Let's agree to the obvious, Epstein was a monster and a criminal. And he had others willing to hang out with him, play along with him, or even swim in his cesspool of a lifestyle. Would I like any guilty parties to be brought to justice? Sure, and by the way, I'm OK with the notion that suicide in your cell is some form of justice. That said, from my liberal perspective I've always been willing to just accept it at that. But what I don't get is why this is tearing the MAGA movement apart. All MAGAs are Trump supporters, Trump hung out with Epstein, why do they want to potentially expose him as one of those pedophile liberals? Don't get me wrong, I love the show and hope it goes on for a long time. I just don't understand it. Any insight?
(V) & (Z) answer: They don't want to expose Trump; they think that the documents will implicate a large number of prominent Democrats.
S.M. in Pratt, KS, asks: One of the things that has kept me going is the thought that Trump would eventually run out of people willing to throw away all their dignity, their integrity and their legacy to serve him. I keep thinking that these people know that history is going to judge them harshly. And yet, there seems to be no end of folks lining up to take part in this administration.
Has it always been like this, and we just don't remember most of these people because their legacy was destroyed? Or is this something new? Has the creation of the right wing echosphere made it so that they will not suffer any consequences for their illegal, unethical, or immoral acts?(V) & (Z) answer: Plenty of people have suffered consequences, like all the lawyers who participated in schemes to steal the 2020 election, and have now lost their law licenses, while also facing criminal charges.
That said, the sycophants convince themselves that they won't be the ones who get caught, or that if they are they will be let off the hook by the Supreme Court and/or a presidential pardon. Some of them likely also tell themselves that, even if they do end up paying a price, it's worth it.
There are limits, at least for some people, and those limits were on display on just one occasion: after 1/6. Quite a few Trumpers, like Kayleigh McEnany and Hope Hicks, not to mention Trump enablers like Mitch McConnell and Kevin McCarthy, jumped ship when they thought the spell was broken and that Trump had become permanently toxic. They eventually jumped back on board when he rose from the ashes, like a phoenix with a combover. Still, if something happens to wreck Trump again (say, it's proven he had sexual relationships with underage girls), you'll see a bunch of defections again. And this time, they might stick.
J.S. in Durham, NC, asks: I cannot even read the news any more. And I am able only to skim your blog posts. All of the news hurts my head. And makes me want to cry and crawl into a hole. (Except the recipes. I like the recipes.) I understand that I need to resist this urge and do whatever I can and make my voice heard.
One thing I have been wondering about for some time now, is whether we are now a fascist nation? I usually stay away from these words because using them only increases division and halts any conversation in its tracks. However, for my own thought processes and understanding, I find it helpful to be able to name things.(V) & (Z) answer: Donald Trump is a leader with very fascist tendencies, who would love to become a latter-day Mussolini, with all the power and the hero-worship that entails. He is surrounded by enablers like Stephen Miller, who are willing to aid Il Douchey in achieving that goal.
There are some serious obstacles to making that a reality, however. One of those is that the United States is very large, and the larger a nation is, the harder it is to impose one's will with violence.
A second is that Trump, in the end, does not have the spine to do what needs to be done. Adolf Hitler, for example, consolidated his power by ordering that all of his rivals for power be murdered by Hitler's personal police force/bodyguard, on the Night of the Long Knives. Do you really think Trump has the fortitude to order ICE or the Secret Service to kill the Joint Chiefs of Staff? And even if he does, do you think there is any force under Trump's command who would follow that order?
A third is that the United States has a deeply entrenched tradition of federalism, one that predates the Constitution. The states can serve, and many are serving, as a bulwark against Trump's most fascist tendencies. Broadly speaking, the nations that have fallen under the leadership of fascists do not have this federalist tradition.
In short, the U.S. currently has a leader who has fascist tendencies, and who is getting away with some tricks from the fascist playbook (e.g., silencing media critics), but who has not succeeded in imposing anything close to a full-blown fascist regime, and who is unlikely to be able to do so. We would say "pseudo-fascist" is probably the best descriptor available.
K.B. in Nashville, TN, asks: My thought is that if many of the items in the BBB do not take effect until 2026, who's to say that a "blue wave," which I hope will happen, won't reverse many of its provisions in the new Congress of 2026?
(V) & (Z) answer: The problem is that any bill passed by a Democratic-led Congress would still have to be signed into law by Donald Trump. He's not going to sign a bill undoing part or all of his "signature" accomplishment, and there's no way the Democrats win enough seats in 2026 to be able to override a Trump veto.
E.C.W. in New Orleans, LA, asks: I think reasonable people would agree that there is a significant portion of the electorate that votes primarily on the perceived strength of the economy. Personally, I think it's ignorant and selfish to vote that way, but c'est la vie.
Now, despite making decisions that are objectively terrible for the economy, (an unprovoked global trade war, mass firings, mass deportations, hostility toward allies, corruption, instability, and massive cuts to education, research, and development to name but a few) the DOW and DJT's approval are, more or less, stable in the low 40s. How can this possibly be the case? I understand that there is some market manipulation going on, and economic perception is heavily influenced by partisanship now, but still... there has to be limits right?(V) & (Z) answer: First, the effects of Trump's policies have not manifest in any meaningful way. Wall Street has made TACO its mantra, and is behaving as if all Trump economic proclamations are just vaporware. And even if the Wall Streeters are wrong, it takes a while for things to ripple throughout the supply chains. Think of how disruptive the pandemic was, and then think how long it took for things to really get screwed up.
Second, Trump's approval is not, in fact, steady. It certainly looks to be trending downward. We have a piece that is coming up this week that will cover this in detail.
W.R. in Henderson, NC, asks: Sometimes the tariff discussions with China involve its export of rare earths to the U.S. in sufficient quantities. I understood Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelenskyy offered to export rare earths to the U.S. in hopes of securing additional military hardware/ammunitions, etc. If what I read was accurate, why hasn't the Trump administration followed up? It would appear this would push China to be more cooperative, would supply more rare earths to U.S. manufacturers (who seem to have trouble acquiring the quantities they need), and get Ukraine the much needed additional military hardware/ammunitions it needs.
(V) & (Z) answer: Ukraine's rare-earth reserves are not proven; they are hypothesized based on surveys conducted by the Soviet government. That's right, the Soviet government, which tells you how long ago those surveys were conducted (and how primitive the surveying equipment was). Some promising deposits of gold, silver, copper, diamonds, or rare earths pan out, others prove to be much ado about nothing.
And even if the Ukraine's rare earths prove to be legit, the timeline for building a viable extractive industry there is measured in... decades. The most optimistic estimates are about 15 years. So, this is not a short-term, or even medium-term, solution to the United States' needs.
M.N. in Lake Ann, MI, asks: I woke up Friday morning to my local NPR station announcing that the House had passed the recession bill, and that the funding has been pulled from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. And... to a fundraising request, which was repeated often throughout the day.
Now, I do support my local NPR station, as well as the local-ish PBS station, and I have no problem with that as a general funding model. However, my dilemma is this: Is it better to go ahead and give more as and when I am able, or to stay with my current level of funding and run the risk of the station going off the air? My understanding is that there will be some lobbying for some potentially limited funding to be added back in the next budget bill, though at this point anything even remotely not MAGA propaganda is probably not going to be funded, and a "budget bill" isn't likely to happen anytime soon. I can't agree with the anti-public broadcasting crowd that NPR and PBS are completely leftist, though I can admit that it may seem like that to someone who consumes a steady diet of Fox or worse, and it isn't my opinion that counts here.
If the NPR and PBS stations immediately make up the lost funding with donations and underwriting or whatever, then won't that prove that the CPB wasn't needed at all, like was being argued in Congress? Shouldn't there be actual consequences for pulling these stunts? Many of the other cuts are designed to happen after the midterms, so this one may be the only one to hit in the near term, and even MAGA kids might watch PBS on occasion. However, I don't want my local stations to go off the air for lack of funds, either. Mine has already changed programming to rely less on the big bucks shows and are running the less expensive ones, or ones produced in house. What is a good supporter of public broadcasting to do?(V) & (Z) answer: We would suggest you continue your current level of support, or maybe bump your support up a little (maybe 10%).
What is going to happen is that some NPR/PBS outlets will adapt and survive, and others will fail. Eventually, the Democrats will have the trifecta again, and will restore some/most/all of the lost funding. You want to be sure that the outlets you patronize are around when that support kicks back in. The management of NPR/PBS will never, ever, ever learn the "lesson" that they do not need government support, and will lobby very hard for that funding to be reinstated once it's not a waste of time to do so.
Truth be told, what's likely is that NPR/PBS outlets serving red areas (e.g., rural communities) will fail, and those serving blue areas (e.g., cities) will survive. And so, it will be yet another MAGA policy initiative that falls most heavily on MAGA voters.
G.B. in Collin County, TX, asks: Why did PBS and NPR end up being two distinct brands with somewhat different focuses as broadcasters (with NPR affiliates being much more focused on journalism than their television counterparts)? I understand that the American public broadcasting system was set up to avoid becoming a single behemoth like the BBC, but that extending to different branding between different media doesn't seem necessary, in my view.
(V) & (Z) answer: We can only speculate, but we'd bet there are two dynamics that were important here. First, when the Corporation for Public Broadcasting was first established (1967), there were many more radio stations than there were TV stations (indeed, PBS was often the "fourth" option for viewers, after the local ABC, CBS and NBC affiliates, assuming a community even had all three). This is a circumstance that pushes the radio programmers to have more "niche" programming, and television programmers to have more broadly accessible programming.
Second, when people listen to the radio, they are usually in their cars or at work, and they do not give their full attention to the programming. So, most of the content has to be information-driven, and broken up into small-ish chunks. If you stop at 7-11 for coffee, or you take a call at your desk, and then you start listening to the NPR broadcast again, you might not know who this banker from Nepal is or why they are talking, but you can pick things up again when the next segment, with the djembe player from Ghana, begins in 5 minutes. On the other hand, if it's an hourlong dramatic presentation, and you fail to learn who Bob Smith the baker is, and why he's important, then you've probably lost any hope of following along until the program is over at the top of the hour. So, dramatic programming does not work so well on the radio, at least not today.
By contrast, most people who are watching TV expect to be passively entertained for 30 or 60 or 90 minutes, and many of them want an "escape" from real life. So, that lends itself to different kinds of programming, while also (potentially) arguing against too much news/current affairs programming.
A.A. in South Orange, NJ, asks: Can you please explain why the rescission bill was not subject to the filibuster? I read multiple articles that mention this measure "required only 51 votes to pass the Senate," but do not spell out why.
(V) & (Z) answer: The best-known carve-out, when it comes to the filibuster, is reconciliation bills. The second-best-known is approval of judges. However, there are about 90 other carve-outs, and one of those is rescission bills.
The Impoundment Control Act of 1974 was passed after a confrontation with Richard Nixon, wherein he tried to kill certain programs by simply refusing to spend the money that Congress had allocated for them (i.e., "impoundment"). Congress wanted to reassert itself, ideally while avoiding a knock-down, drag-out fight with the President. Further, there were some members of Congress who actually liked the program killings that Nixon was trying to execute.
For both of these reasons, the legislation that settled the dispute said that only Congress can cancel funding it has appropriated, but that it can do so with an unfilibusterable bare majority of votes in the Senate. In other words, this was a way to persuade both Nixon and the budget hawks that the legislation had actual teeth, and that clawbacks wouldn't always just get tied up in filibusters.
D.B. in Oak Beach, NY, asks: Elon Musk turns to you and asks, "What five issues can our America Party candidates run on to win elections?" What do you tell him?
(V) & (Z) answer: Those issues do not exist, Elon.
Yes, there are many people who complain about the two-party system, but relatively few of them will actually back that with their votes. Further, the various groups of people who ARE willing to buck the two parties care about very different things. For example, the Libertarians want lower taxes. The Democratic socialists want a much more robust social safety net. These things are in conflict.
So, while you can say "The American political system is broken!" and get a lot of "Huzzahs!", you'll get fewer actual supporters than you think. And then, once you start staking out actual positions on issues, you will alienate a bunch of people who were at least willing to stick around long enough to hear what you have to say.
If there was some political position that appealed to disaffected voters, and that came with no political downsides, one major political party or both would already have adopted that position.
G.L. in Oviedo, FL, asks: What are the chances that voters, who are voting on U.S. Senate races, will decide that they no longer like Donald Trump or what he has done and will decide that they need to blunt the effects of the GOP by electing Democrats as U.S. Senators in 2026?
(V) & (Z) answer: The chances are not very high, at least not yet, because the Democrats would have to hold all their seats, plus take the two doable-but-tough seats in Maine and North Carolina, and then find TWO MORE seats to flip (Texas? Iowa? Ohio?).
This said, the elections do not happen in a vacuum, and the results do correlate, at least to an extent. So, the odds of the Democrats flipping the Senate are not zero. And if Trumpism really takes a bite out of the country in the next 12 months, they could get considerably better than "not zero."
M.P. in Westbrook, ME, asks: You often mention getting Gov. Janet Mills (D-ME) to run against Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) this year and it is pretty clear she would cause the most "concern" for the sitting senator. But Mills will turn 78 this year and would be 79 when sworn in. Sure, she could then live out the rest of her life in the Senate with two, or even three, terms, but there's a good chance she decides to retire and enjoy life with her family in Maine instead. If that happens, who do you think would be the second-best choice for Democrats to recruit? Bonus question, do you think there is a chance a Trumpy independent could get into the race and have enough effect to help a Democratic candidate?
(V) & (Z) answer: Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont are fairly similar, and those three states tend to like their Senate candidates to be: (1) governors, and/or (2) members of the House of Representatives, and/or (3) members of leadership in the state legislature.
Mills would be the "governor." If she declines to run, we presume that next up would be one or both of Maine's two representatives: Chellie Pingree (D) or Jared Golden (D). They have both taken a pass on the Senate race, but if Mills decides against it, they could easily change their minds. We'd guess Golden is more likely to get in, because he constantly has to worry about getting reelected in his R+4 district, while Pingree's D+11 district is a job-for-life, if that's what she wants. Should both of the representatives decide they like their current jobs, then we would guess the next candidates up would be state Senate President Mattie Daughtry (D) or Speaker of the Maine House Ryan Fecteau (D).
Note that three non-Mills Democrats have already declared, but they are unknowns, and would be serious underdogs against any of the five people named in the previous paragraph.
S.O.F. in New York City, NY, asks: I've been following all the New Yorkers bickering over the mayoral race. I haven't heard anyone evaluate the role of turn out in the primary. Can you take a stab at explaining what that means for the general election? From what I understand, the race was fairly low turnout on the Democratic side.
(V) & (Z) answer: That is not the case. In the Democratic primary, there were 1,071,659 votes cast, and Zohran Mamdani ended up with 573,123 of those.
Back in 2021, there were 942,031 votes cast in the Democratic primary, of which 404,513 went to eventual nominee Eric Adams. In 2017, there were 437,517 votes cast in the Democratic primary, of which 326,361 went to eventual nominee Bill de Blasio. And in 2013, there were 691,801 votes cast in the Democratic primary, of which 282,344 went to eventual nominee Bill de Blasio.
The outlier here is 2017, since de Blasio was an incumbent and his victory was seen as inevitable. The 2013 and 2017 elections also did not have ranked choice voting, which seems to have driven down turnout, and certainly reduced the number of votes the eventual winner ended up with.
In any event, this year's primary saw an increase in turnout of about 14% over 2021, despite the fact that the population of New York City declined by about 4% over that same timeframe. This suggests there was a lot of interest in the primary, and a lot of support for Mamdani, who personally received about 76% of the total of 753,801 votes that it took for Adams to win the 2021 general election.
S.S. in Lucerne, Switzerland, asks: I have a question regarding your analysis on the potential Texas dummymander. You write that the federal requirement for roughly similar population in each district makes a successful gerrymander difficult and pushes an aggressive gerrymander into dummymander territory. That makes a lot of sense, and with any other administration, I'd have no question to ask. But with the current officeholders, what makes you think that they won't ignore the federal requirements and just hope the lawsuits take too much time to resolve before the election?
(V) & (Z) answer: If Texas tries to redraw its maps, the matter WILL end up in court. Questions like "Was this an illegal racial gerrymander?" or "Is this now an illegal racial gerrymander?" are subjective, and can take time to adjudicate.
The question of "Does this district have the correct number of people, as required by federal law?", by contrast, is basically objective, and a gross violation of the rules could be adjudicated in 2 minutes.
If the goal is to drag this out long enough so that there is not time to come up with new maps before the 2026 election, the Republicans will need to put tricky questions before the courts, not questions that are easy-as-pie to answer.
C.Z. in Sacramento, CA, asks: How can we best express our outrage over the cancellation of Stephen Colbert by Hair Furor?
(V) & (Z) answer: If you are a Paramount+ (formerly CBS All Access) subscriber, you can cancel your subscription, and tell them why you are doing so. You can also support Colbert in whatever his next project is. Beyond that, we can't think of too much.