Jun.08
electoral-vote.com
https://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2025/Info/banners.html
Dem 47
image description
   
GOP 53
image description

Sunday Q&A

As a reminder, we had to push this to today due to issues we were having yesterday.

And if you're still working on the headline theme, we'll tell you that if there had been one more item, the headline would likely have been "Straight, No Chaser," which is a song by Marquis Hill.

Current Events

H.S. in Lake Forest, CA, asks: I am wondering about the Elon Musk tweet practically accusing Donald Trump of being a pedophile. It seems this can go to ways: (1) Musk has proof, which spells major trouble for Trump or (2) Musk does not have proof, exposing him to a very expensive defamation lawsuit. How do you see this playing out?

(V) & (Z) answer: We would break it down differently. What Musk said is demonstrably true, based on information that is already public. Trump was friends with Epstein, and there are photos of them together, and plane manifests that show Trump traveling on Epstein's dime, etc.

The part that cannot currently be proven (or disproven) is the part about Trump being a pedophile. However, Musk never actually said that, he only vaguely implied it. This leaves three possibilities, as we see it: (1) Musk knows, or strongly suspects, that it's not true, and so he chose his words carefully in order to communicate the notion but in a non-actionable way; (2) Musk thinks it's true, but doesn't have the goods to prove it, and so he chose his words carefully in order to communicate the notion but in a non-actionable way; (3) Musk knows, or strongly suspects, that it IS true, but is keeping the evidence in his back pocket for potential future deployment.

We think these three possibilities are all roughly equally likely. But without knowing which one it is, it's impossible to say what will happen next.


C.S. in Guelph, ON, Canada, asks: Is it possible to determine if Qatari students will still be allowed to attend Harvard? After all, daddy's plane must be worth something.

(V) & (Z) answer: It is a near impossibility that the attempts to bar foreign students from enrolling at Harvard will stand up. But if they somehow do, the first thing the Trump administration will do is assert its right to grant exceptions. The next thing it will do is grant those exceptions to Princess Elisabeth of Belgium, and then to a bunch of Qataris, Saudis, and other "friends" of the administration.


M.M. in San Diego, CA, asks: Columbia University was first on Donald Trump's hit list, which baffled everyone—why Columbia, specifically? Could it be Columbia's elite journalism program that drew the crosshairs?

(V) & (Z) answer: That could be a small part of it, but it's mostly that: (1) The administration wanted to target very elite universities in blue states, which is why nearly every school that's been targeted so far is an Ivy League school (and the main exception to that is Northwestern, which is in Chicago), and (2) Because of the pretense that this is about fighting antisemitism, the administration needed schools that had particularly bad flare-ups during the Gaza protests, and Columbia certainly did.


R.R. in Lancaster, PA, asks: I understand that for some random for-profit university, or even a small regional school, not having or losing accreditation would be disastrous for the message it sends potential students and the employers of those students, but would a well-established world-class institution like Columbia really see the value of its degrees or the interest in students attending suffer from a wannabe dictator meddling in academic affairs in this way (even if he could)? I guess my question boils down to: What are the objective, intrinsic or legal ramifications of losing accreditation?

(V) & (Z) answer: Columbia is not going to lose its accreditation. This is even more certain than Harvard's continued ability to enroll foreign students.

That said, we will tell you what the two main problems would be if that school, or any other well-established school, WERE to have its accreditation pulled. First, the school's students would no longer be eligible for most forms of federal financial aid. Second, students who graduated from the school while it had no accreditation would be unable to land some jobs. Undoubtedly, most or all private business concerns would waive any "your degree must be accredited" requirement they might have for Columbia grads who completed their degrees during the non-accredited period. However, for many governmental or quasi-governmental positions, that requirement is enshrined in law or in policy, and cannot be waived without the law or policy being formally amended. Some state and/or municipal governments might change their laws/policies, but probably not red states/cities, and certainly not the federal government while Donald Trump is in charge.


D.G. in Fairfax, VA, asks: Is it really plausible for the Senate Parliamentarian to have enough time read through the entire budget bill, while the people actually voting on it don't have enough time?

(V) & (Z) answer: Well, yes. First, if we're talking the version of the "big, beautiful bill" that passed the House, then the Parliamentarian will have multiple weeks to review the bill, whereas the members of the House had less than a day. Second, the Parliamentarian has a staff, and they can always divide up the labor, with each of them reviewing, say, a 100-page chunk. Third, the Democrats (or any other interested group) can specifically direct the Parliamentarian's attention to questionable portions, and ask for a review.


R.K. in Fort Myers, FL, asks: The media is reporting that the budget bill would make the Trump tax cuts "permanent." What do they mean (since it certainly doesn't mean forever)? What stops the next administration from changing the tax laws?

(V) & (Z) answer: It is never, ever possible for a Congress to make anything "permanent." Anything passed by the 119th Congress can be reversed by the 120th Congress, or the 121st Congress, or the 122nd, the 123rd, etc.

That said, we can explain to you what is going on here. To survive a Byrd Bath, and thus to be eligible to pass the Senate via reconciliation, a bill cannot increase the deficit beyond 10 years. For the 2017 budget bill, the Republicans knew full well that their tax cuts would do that, so they specifically set those tax cuts to sunset in 2025 (i.e., after 8 years), hoping that they would eventually be in a position to extend them.

This time, there is no sunset provision, as House Republicans are arguing that the renewal is budget-neutral. The basis of this argument is that the federal budget ALREADY reflects the effect of the tax cuts, which means that extending them does not actually change anything. If so, then extending the tax cuts does not, in and of itself, increase the deficit—the increase is due to the 2017 law, not the 2025 law. Time will tell if Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough buys that.

In short, when someone writes that the 2017 tax cuts were not permanent, and the proposed 2025 tax cuts ARE permanent, what they really mean is that the 2017 tax cuts had a specified expiration date, while the 2025 tax cuts do not.


S.E. in New York City, NY, asks: In "Another Vicious Antisemitic Attack," you say of Stephen Miller that "he's reportedly an observant Jew." I'm curious about sources for such report, as this is the first time I'm hearing him so described. Also, if "observant" is at all a paraphrase, I'm curious what you think it means.

(V) & (Z) answer: It means very different things to different people, regardless of what religious tradition we are talking about. There is a wide range of observance between different folks who consider themselves to be observant Jews or observant Catholics or observant Buddhists, etc. Unless it is over-the-top obvious (for example, we are comfortable saying that Leo XIV is an observant Catholic), we don't describe someone as observant unless they have described themselves as observant.

In any event, Jean Guerrero, who wrote Hatemonger: Stephen Miller, Donald Trump, and the White Nationalist Agenda, the only book specifically on Miller to be published thus far, says that Miller regards himself as observant. It is known that he belonged to a reform congregation in California, and that he now belongs to a conservative congregation in the Washington, DC, area. He also had a rabbi as the officiant at his wedding. Beyond that, we have no specifics. He does seem kind of like a "high holidays and that's enough for me" kind of guy, but that's just a gut feel.


E.A.K. in San Francisco, CA, asks: This week, you wrote: "Donald Trump wants a Nobel Peace Prize so badly he can taste it." And you've made comments to this effect before.

Is it really within the realm of possibility that the Nobel committee would award this honor to this vile creature who has done so much damage to humanity?

(V) & (Z) answer: It is nearly impossible that he will win a Nobel, because the people who make those decisions hate what he represents, and because they consider an entire body of work, not just one particular accomplishment. For example, a warmonger who happens to do good things for the environment is still a warmonger.

We can only think of two ways Trump might get a Nobel, and they are both long, long, long, longshots. The first is if he plays a central role in reunifying North and South Korea, and the second is if he plays a central role in implementing a two-state solution in Israel.

Do not interpret this as an endorsement (or a critique) of a particular approach to those problem areas. However, if Trump did pull off either of those two specific feats, it would clearly be in service of trying to find a lasting peace. Further, and this is the key, both would clearly be dramatic paradigm shifts. There have been negotiations, and armistices, and ceasefires in those two places before, and yet tensions have not abated. So, it would not be enough for him to push those situations in the general direction of peace. He would have to come up with something very new and different that hadn't already been done before.

Since very skilled politicians and diplomats have been trying to reunite the Koreas, and to implement a two-state solution in Israel, for 70+ years, and haven't come close to pulling it off, it's a safe prediction that Trump won't be able to pull it off, either, assuming he even tries.


R.C. in Des Moines, IA, asks: It appears Ukraine delivered a stunning and very effective attack on Russia's bomber fleet over the weekend. There have been reports that they accomplished this by hiding drones in mobile dwellings inside Russia for a long period before deployment. Why would Ukraine reveal how this was done? Doesn't that make it more difficult to use this tactic again?

(V) & (Z) answer: Well, it's probably not a secret to the Russian military at this point, so the Ukrainians aren't really giving much away, we'd guess.

More importantly, we have often thought that if a terrorist—domestic or foreign—really wanted to wreck the U.S., what they would do is poison the water supply of one mid-sized city. Can you imagine the effect that would have? Tens of millions, maybe hundreds of millions, of people would be terrified to use the water in their residences. There would be riots as people fought over bottled water, there would be serious health consequences as people chose dehydration over poisoning, there would be scapegoating ("I blame the Haitians!"), there would be economic chaos, etc., and the effects might well last for years.

What does this have to do with Ukraine? Well, if Ukraine puts the idea out there that every shed, every semi truck, every vacant apartment, every farmhouse, etc., might just be hiding a drone that is going to come to kill some Russian citizens, that could create mass panic, and would be a huge blow to morale. It is certainly worth a try, especially if Volodymyr Zelenskyy & Co. already think their secret is out anyhow.

Politics

J.L.K. in Los Angeles, CA, asks: It seems, perhaps to an even more exaggerated degree than in his previous administration, that Donald Trump is determined to appoint only the least-qualified people possible to each position. But it's entirely possible this is a reporting bias, as we're focused on only the worst examples (since they're so numerous, and extreme). Can you think of any examples of high-level positions where Trump appointed the most-qualified person for the role? Or, in a pinch, someone at least adequately qualified?

(V) & (Z) answer: Trump is not/did not search for the most unqualified people, per se. This time around, in particular, he searched for the people most likely to do his bidding without complaint (since he got burned several times during Trump v1.0 by people who had at least some integrity). It just so happens that people like that tend to be grossly unqualified. Not helping things is that, because Trump has not spent his career in government, and he HAS spent it consuming fawning media, his "talent pool" tends to be Fox personalities, podcasters, political donors, family members and general a**-kissers.

That said, there are at a few high-ranking members of the Trump administration who are at least reasonably qualified. Marco Rubio was a below-average Secretary of State candidate, but by virtue of his service on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, he at least clears the bar for "reasonably qualified." Similarly, the Secretary of the Treasury is usually a longtime Wall Street insider, so Scott Bessent is not especially different from any other nominee for that position. Labor usually goes to someone who has worked in union management, or in state-level labor-bureau jobs, neither of which Lori Chavez-DeRemer has done. However, labor issues were her focus while she was in the House, and she's about as worker-friendly a pick as you could hope for in a Trump administration. Interior usually goes to a politician from west of the Mississippi, and Doug Burgum fits the description and has a reasonable amount of executive experience.

The real problem is that some of the people who are unqualified are wildly unqualified. It's not unusual to have a candidate whose résumé is a little light, or whose résumé is good but who has some sort of strike against them (a scandal, some sort of lawbreaking, a fib in their paperwork, a conflict of interest, etc.). But people like Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, AG Pam Bondi and HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy aren't just "a little problematic." None of them belong within a country mile of the departments they lead. If you made a list of the 10 worst Cabinet nominations in history, Trump v2.0 might well claim half the list. In particular, Hegseth has a very strong case as the most unqualified Cabinet nominee the United States has ever seen.

And note, this week we will have a piece about someone who, while not a Cabinet-level officer, has been chosen for a job that they have absolutely no business being appointed to.


R.M.S. in Lebanon, CT, asks: My aunt and uncle haven't spoken to my uncle's sister and her husband in over 5 years because they keep pushing QAnon theories on them at family gatherings when asked not to. I can't say I can blame them, because life is too short to waste time with people who make you unhappy, even if they're related.

Whatever happened to the QAnon movement? I haven't heard much in the way from it lately. I am surprised so many people still believe in it. What do you think it will take to finally bury it?

(V) & (Z) answer: There are four dynamics here, we would say. First, the person or collective behind QAnon went silent for several years, thus cutting off the fuel to the fire for a while. Second, QAnon was pretty central to the events of 1/6, and so became somewhat toxic for a period of time. Third, QAnon sort of splintered, such that the ideas lived on, but now they are propagated across multiple platforms, like Truth Social, Parler and Gab. Fourth, the media tends to cover things when they are new and exciting and somewhat scandalous, but not when they are old hat. So, a reduced-but-still-existent QAnon in 2025 isn't going to get a fraction of the coverage that a new-and-shocking QAnon got 5-10 years ago, which means you aren't likely to hear much about QAnon's lunacy these days unless you frequent places like Truth Social, Parler and Gab.

And QAnon will never, ever go away, it will only evolve into something with a different name. People in general, and Americans in particular, are prone to various forms of conspiratorial thinking. And some subset of both the general populace and the American public, really indulge that tendency. The Anti-Masonic Party, just to take one example, was effectively the QAnon of its day, and it was founded just shy of 200 years ago.


J.J. in Johnstown, PA, asks: I've been reading a lot lately about how Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) seems to be leaning further and further away from Trump. She looks to be in the process of doing a reverse Manchin/Sinema. Is there a world where she decides control of the Senate after the midterms? If the blue team can hold all of their seats and peel off Maine, North Carolina and one of Montana or Ohio (hopefully Jon Tester and Sherrod Brown attempt a comeback), that would set her up as the key to controlling the Senate. Do you think she's positioning herself and am I just wishcasting those Democratic Senate gains?

(V) & (Z) answer: If there's any Republican senator who might do it, it's her. She's not particularly a Democrat, but she's REALLY not a Republican, as the party currently exists. She's from a state that uses ranked-choice voting, and she'd probably be able to cobble together enough first- and second-choice votes from Democrats, independents, and modern Republicans to win reelection. She'd be able to get a king's ransom from the Democrats, if she was actually the decider when it came to control of the upper chamber. Oh, and in your scenario, Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) would already have been defeated, which might send a message to Murkowski about the continued viability of the "moderate Republican" lane.

And yes, the situation in which Murkowski faces this choice is certainly plausible. It's not easy to unseat incumbent senators, but if voters are angry with the people in power, anything is possible. Also note that Sen. Joni Ernst (R-IA) is doing everything possible to screw up her reelection bid, so Iowa should be on the list of potential Democratic flips.

Civics

P.F. in Fairbanks, AK, asks: I grew up with a daily newspaper in the house and the local (albeit Chicago) news on TV literally 10 times a day, from 5:00 in the morning until 10:30 at night. Granted, the newspaper was a subscription, but it was also pretty comprehensive for being a suburban publication. As news sites expanded to the internet when I was in college, I grew accustomed to finding all the news I wanted (I could even tailor-make my world by choosing only the news I agreed with!) and getting it for free.

As a (relatively) functioning adult, I know that news is a business. I know it relies on revenues and has a bottom line. But I cannot help but delete my long-tenured apps as the ad-counts and subscription walls pop up, and fill their vacant space with something free-er, but noticeably more bogged down with banners and pop-up ads.

My dilemma has become the same with news as it is with streaming services—there is no way I could possibly subscribe to all of the news I read and stay within a reasonable monthly budget, especially if I'm still going to be interrupted with ads and access content that could be found elsewhere.

As perusers and diffusers of the news yourselves, what is your philosophy on subscribing to news services? Should news junkies feel guilt for avoiding subscriptions, dodging paywalls, and patronizing a patchwork of pro-bono media instead?

(V) & (Z) answer: This is not particularly profound, but every site that provides information of any sort (that includes us) has made its choices about what it's doing, why it's doing it, what kind of money is needed to keep the doors open, and what the best way is to get that money. If sites have made choices that don't work for their potential consumers, then that's too bad for those sites.

For our part, our choices are driven entirely by bang-for-the-buck. If a site is cheap or free, and it has useful information sometimes, we'll peruse it. If the site has a somewhat higher cost, we'll pay up if we use it often enough, as long as it is still reasonable.

What we won't do is pay for a subscription that we will almost never use. It's not worth the cost or the associated hassles to subscribe to a mid-sized newspaper for the benefit of one article every three months. Similarly, we're not going to pay prices clearly meant to be borne by a corporation/government agency for a site that would be useful/interesting, but not useful/interesting enough to justify the outlay (looking at you, Politico Pro).


A.P. in Kitchener, ON, Canada, asks: You wrote: "Don't get us started on White's 'Twinkie defense,' which is probably the most misunderstood bit of American jurisprudence outside of the McDonald's coffee case."

I will take the bait, please explain why both of these cases are misunderstood?

(V) & (Z) answer: Both of these are often held out as outrageous examples of a "broken" legal system, and neither of them actually are, or are even close to being so.

The McDonald's coffee case involved Stella Liebeck, who was awarded $200,000 in compensatory damages and $2.7 million in punitive damages after being burned by McDonald's coffee that spilled in her lap. Obviously, nearly $3 million seems like a lot of money for a "little" burn. But it was not a "little" burn; Liebeck was badly injured, and had a whole lot of pain and a whole bunch of surgical procedures. In addition, she tried to just get money for medical expenses, and McDonald's stonewalled her. And finally, McDonald's in general—and the franchise that sold Liebeck the coffee in particular—had been warned multiple times that they were dispensing coffee at temperatures that were unsafe, and were violating of health and safety laws.

Oh, and in the end, a judge set aside the punitive damages and ordered a new trial. Liebeck eventually reached a confidential settlement with McDonald's that was reportedly for less than $500,000, and that largely went to cover her medical expenses.

As to Dan White, his (successful) defense was based on the notion that he was not mentally well on the day he shot and killed Harvey Milk and George Moscone. And, as a small part of the case, White's attorneys pointed out that while he was normally a health nut, he consumed at least a dozen Twinkies on the day of the shooting, so clearly something was off. Put another way, the Twinkies were one symptom (among several presented at trial) of his mental dysfunction; they were not in any way put forward as the cause of his dysfunction.

Still, a reporter covering the trial—who maybe wasn't paying attention, or maybe wanted to make a splash, or maybe thought he was being clever—wrote a piece about the "Twinkie defense." And to this day, there are many people and many written/online sources that will tell you that Dan White avoided a murder conviction by blaming Twinkies for his actions.


J.R. in Orlando, FL, asks: My grandfather was in the Navy. Unfortunately, he passed away during COVID. I do not know much about his service, other than the fact my dad was born in Charleston, lived in Spain, and eventually settled in Fort Walton Beach, FL, due to my grandfather's various duty stations. I asked my father if he knew anything about what ships my grandfather served on or anything else about his service, and all he could tell me was he served on a submarine at one point. Is there any way I can find out information on my grandfather's service and, in particular, what vessels he served on?

(V) & (Z) answer: Next of kin can get copies of DD 214s, personnel files, and other documents; instructions on how to do so are here. Note, however, that a large fire in 1972 wiped out almost 20 million documents, so if your grandfather's service was before then, it's hit-and-miss.

History

J.E. in San Jose, CA, asks: On Friday, in reference to M*A*S*H, you wrote: "At the same time, the show lasted a long time (12 seasons) and was on at a pretty momentous time in U.S. history."

When would you say was the last time U.S. history was not momentous? And does "not momentous" mean "boring"? "Inconsequential?" Something else?

(V) & (Z) answer: When we said "momentous," we were specifically thinking of social change. And by that definition, the last decade that was not especially momentous is the 1950s. A lot of seeds were planted in that decade, by the Civil Rights movement, by other ethnic empowerment movements, by women who wanted to get out of the house, etc., but those seeds did not bear substantial fruit until the 1960s, such that the social and cultural milieu of 1950 was not all that different from that of 1959.

For the last decade that wasn't especially momentous in any way, let's propose this hypothetical test: You take (Z) or some other U.S. historian and put them in a time machine and drop them in either the first year of the last year of [DECADE X]. The test subject cannot ask questions of people, and cannot look at newspapers or other publications that would give away the date. They know what decade they are in, but they have to figure out whether it is the first year or the last year of that decade, based solely on observing the population and the way in which people interact with one another, the buildings, the way the language is spoken. the tools in use, etc. What would be the most recent decade in which it would be nearly impossible to say "Ah! This must be 1XX9 and not 1XX0!" or "This must be 1XX0 and not 1XX9!"

We would say the most recent decade in which the first and last years would be nearly indistinguishable would be the 1840s.


M.J. in Birmingham, AL, asks: I've been so overcome with schadenfreude from watching Elon Musk take a minigun to his foot over the last few days that it's hard for me to do anything but grin. However, deep down beneath all the layers of joy at the spectacle of Musk's recent self-destructive tirades, I think I detect a hint of curiosity within myself. Has anyone else in the world of American politics ever amassed so much power and then thrown it all away through hubris and lack of self-awareness? I'm just in awe at Musk's ability to bite the hand that feeds him and identify ways to lose the confidence (and accompanying money) of so many, and I'd appreciate it if you could provide a few names of people who might be able to compete with him for the title of The Most Self-Destructive Politico. Personally, my first thought was Joseph McCarthy, but at least he got to keep his Senate seat until his (early and possibly alcoholism-related) death.

(V) & (Z) answer: We'll give you half a dozen names, in chronological order:


R.E. in San Dimas, CA, asks: Donald Trump has run for president at least three or four times. Who has run for the office the most?

(V) & (Z) answer: It is a little bit difficult to count with precision, since a person can "explore" a run, or hint at a run, and then decide they're not going to pursue it.

Limiting ourselves to substantive presidential bids, the champions are probably William Jennings Bryan and Henry Clay. Bryan was a serious contender for the Democratic nomination for four straight elections, and was the party's nominee in three of those. Clay was a serious contender at least four times, and maybe more (it's harder to judge before the existence of nominating conventions). He was his party's nominee twice, and earned electoral votes a third time, in a presidential election that had four "non-partisan" candidates (1824).

If we include candidates who were just running to send a message, or to get attention, or for a joke, and who had no expectation of winning most/all of the times they jumped in, there are a bunch of folks who ran at least 5 times. That list includes Harold Stassen and Jack Fellure (9 runs each), Lyndon LaRouche and Pat Paulsen (8 runs each), Earl Dodge and Norman Thomas (6 runs each) and Eugene V. Debs and Eugene McCarthy (5 runs each).


M.H.B. in Alexandria, VA, asks: What do you think would have happened if, instead of going to war, Lincoln had told the South, "OK, good luck, godspeed. We will free all our slaves, and will never send back escaped slaves."

The South believed in "King Cotton" but had nothing else, except "honor." The whole house of cards was built on free labor. Would the slave states have eventually come back, and made a bargain?

(V) & (Z) answer: First, Lincoln couldn't let the Confederacy go. Democracy rests on the understanding that "sometimes our side wins, sometimes our side loses, and on those occasions where our side loses, we accept the outcome and try again next time." If the Confederacy can quit because they don't like a presidential result, then it's only a matter of time until some other state or group of states makes the same choice.

That said, if the South had gone its own way—regardless of the circumstances—it would never have come back to the U.S., hat in hand, seeking readmission. The Southern states have shown many, many times (including with the recent choices to reject Obamacare money) that they would rather be "right" and suffer than be "wrong" and prosper.


M.G. in Boulder, CO , asks: Eighty-one years ago Friday, 1,465 Americans died. I'm finding that a lot of people have only a vague idea of what D-Day meant. What do you consider essential knowledge about this formerly celebrated day?

(V) & (Z) answer: We presume that most Americans, and most people, are aware it was a massive military invasion that allowed the Allies to establish positions in Northern France, and thus to squeeze Germany from the west (with Russia doing do from the east), leading to the complete collapse of the Hitler regime in a little less than a year.

We will add three important things to know, beyond this, that are undoubtedly less familiar to most people. First, while the invasion was about winning World War II, it was also about the Cold War, which everyone in political and military leadership knew was coming. They recognized that the Soviets were going to continue to occupy pretty much any territory they re-conquered, and so it was important for the other Allied nations to re-conquer France and as much of Germany as was possible, so as to keep that territory from falling under Russian control.

Second, the Americans and the British get pretty much all the credit, but there was a significant troop presence from many nations on that day, most obviously Canada, Australia and the Free French. We have probably mentioned this before, but the most famous person to participate in D-Day, beyond people who are famous for their military careers, was probably the Canadian actor James Doohan, who lost the middle finger on his right hand during the invasion. When he was cast in Star Trek 20 years later, he took great pains to hide that hand (in pockets, by holding a clipboard or other tool, by standing behind a chair, etc.). So, in a small way, every episode of Star Trek contains a reminder of D-Day, and of the coalitions of nations that made it happen.

Third, because we know how things turned out, there is a tendency to assume that OF COURSE that is how they were going to turn out. Not so much, particularly in this case. Indeed, the invasion of northern France was so risky that Supreme Allied Commander wrote out an apology (and de facto resignation) to be sent out in the event the maneuver was a failure:

Our landings in the Cherbourg-Havre area have failed to gain a satisfactory foothold and I have withdrawn the troops. My decision to attack at this time and place was based upon the best information available. The troops, the air, and the Navy did all that bravery and devotion to duty could do. If any blame or fault attaches to the attempt, it is mine alone.

This is reminiscent of the speech that was written for Richard Nixon to deliver in the event the Apollo 11 astronauts could not return from the moon.

Fun Stuff

J.B. in Bend, OR, asks: You asked readers to suggest the most famous shouted movie lines, and that got me thinking of what the most famous whispered movie lines might be. I could only think of one: "Rosebud," whispered by Charles Foster Kane as he died, in Citizen Kane.

(V) & (Z) answer: Whether or not something belongs on such a list is sometimes in the eye of the beholder. Well, the ear of the beholder. However, here are a dozen famous instances of lines that, at least in our view, qualify:

  1. "I see dead people." — Hayley Joel Osment in The Sixth Sense
  2. "I'm gonna make him an offer he can't refuse." (and nearly every other line delivered by Vito Corleone) — Marlon Brando in The Godfather
  3. "Only the penitent man shall pass..." — Sean Connery in Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade
  4. "I... don't... bargain." — Tommy Lee Jones in The Fugitive
  5. "You see, this is my life! Nothing else! Just us, and the cameras, and those wonderful people out there in the dark!" — Gloria Swanson in Sunset Boulevard
  6. "My precious..." (and nearly every other line delivered by Gollum) — Andy Serkis in The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers
  7. "If you build it, he will come." — Anonymous actor playing the voice in Ray Kinsella's head in Field of Dreams
  8. "There is... another... Sky... walker." — Frank Oz in Star Wars, Episode VI: Return of the Jedi
  9. "Great! Scott!" — Christopher Lloyd in Back to the Future
  10. "I Killed Mufasa." — Jeremy Irons in The Lion King
  11. "Show me the way..." — Jimmy Stewart in It's a Wonderful Life
  12. Unknown — Scarlett Johansson to Bill Murray in Lost in Translation

If readers have additional answers, send them to comments@electoral-vote.com and we'll run them next week.


S.B. in North Liberty, IA, asks: What are the 10 greatest World Series games of all time? This is something I have spent way too much time thinking about and would love to hear (Z)'s list.

(V) & (Z) answer: In chronological order:


P.R. in Arvada, CO, asks: So, the other slow burn romance came to a conclusion this week, and Aaron Rodgers finally said yes to the mighty Steelers.

Thoughts? Predictions? Over under on how many times the offensive line collapses before he is out injured for the rest of the season?

(V) & (Z) answer: The Steelers dumped a quarterback, in Russell Wilson, who hasn't been good in about 6 years, for a quarterback, in Aaron Rodgers, who hasn't been good in about 4 years. That team is going to do its usual thing, and go 9-8 and then lose in the first round of the playoffs. Meanwhile, the over/under on the number of weeks until Rodgers is blaming someone else for his failings is 2½.

We don't foresee him getting hurt due to a poor offensive line, however. Aaron Rogers places far too much value on Aaron Rodgers to let that happen—he'll throw the ball away prematurely, if he has to. Brett Favre was doing the same thing for his last 4-5 years.

Gallimaufry

A.S. in Bedford, MA, asks: My company hires college student interns during the summer, and I'm usually assigned to mentor at least one. My role is to give career advice and answer questions. Two years in a row now, my student has been extremely proactive about their career, beyond anything I ever did (e.g., asking me who to get grad school recommendation letters from... as a rising sophomore). It made me wonder: My impression of Gen Z is that world events and access to so much information (and AI) has made them cynical beyond their years. In your teaching though, do you see the opposite effect as well, where they use the copious information available to them to try to optimize their lives and careers beyond what previous generations could do? Or are all these generalizations just looking for patterns that aren't there?

(V) & (Z) answer: Well, as you surely know, you're not exactly getting a representative slice, since it's a small sample size, and anyone who goes out and lands an internship as a sophomore is, at the very least, above-average on the motivation spectrum.

There is little question that, when it comes to college (and grad school) admissions, things are as fiercely competitive as they have ever been. This certainly leads to some students doing a lot of hustling, and trying to use available resources to improve themselves, and maybe embracing a little bit of cynicism. However, the primary dynamic, as far as we can tell, is students learning how to use all these tools to create shortcuts that allow them to cope with their many and varied responsibilities. We wouldn't quite call this "personal development," but it's understandable and it's acceptable as long as there's no dishonesty involved.


P.D.F. in Salt Lake City, UT, asks: Thank you for your piece on Loretta Swit. It was terrific to be reminded of her work helping advance American TV culturally (insofar as that's possible). But, as I read it, I couldn't help but think, "Uh-oh, they're going to say 'she passed.'" And you did. Why? Why not say she died? What is it about Americans, even the smart ones, that often makes them unable to stay away from euphemism when it comes to death? Maybe this was just a slip. You did, after all, say that President Carter had died. But not Loretta Swit. What gives?

(V) & (Z) answer: Usually, "died" is used in headlines, because it is short, and "passed away" is used in body text, because it's a bit more gentle. We would have put "died" in that headline, except that the headline was also crafted to fit the headline theme, and the song we chose didn't have "died" or "passed" in its title.


M.A. in Colorado Springs, CO, asks: Your recent wrap-up of the 20th anniversary trivia from a year ago made me wonder how you keep track of all of the items you are working on and the ones hanging around on the back burner, especially in terms of priority.

(V) & (Z) answer: For stuff that is more on the front burner, mostly bookmarks and the bookmark manager. For example, (Z)'s current collection of links, which are stored in a file called "upcoming_EV," includes folders called "fugate," "budget," "judges," "pardons," "gov_candidates," "biden_cancer_dementia," "trump_sports," "shadow_cabinet," "pride_month" and "dem_plans," among others. Each of those contains at least three or four links that will form the basis of an item. Some of those items will appear this week. Some of them will get pushed back because of time/length constraints or because there is other, more pressing news. For example, "trump_sports" has been sitting on deck, as it were, for 5 weeks, and is not likely to make it into the batter's box this week.

For stuff that is on the back burner, mostly e-mail mailboxes. There are SOME things on the back burner that we use links/bookmark manager to track, and there are SOME things that are imminent that are being tracked using mailboxes (usually stuff that includes a lot of reader-driven content, like the upcoming pieces on genocide/terrorism and on Joe Biden, which means there is both a link collection AND a mailbox for Biden). But generally, it's links for stuff that's coming up soon, mailboxes (and sometimes notes) for stuff that's in the future.


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