Saturday Q&A

We are generally not sure if the headline theme is easy or difficult. We thought this week's was probably easy, primarily because the hint was a pretty big one. However, it would appear we were wrong. So, here's a second, pretty juicy, hint: We really wanted to work the words "supper," "resort" and "rites" into headlines, but couldn't do it.

Current Events

D.G. in Fairfax, VA, asks: How would you compare Donald Trump's actions to seize and consolidate power versus Chancellor Palpatine's rise to power?

(V) & (Z) answer: We have had a few comments about our previous statements that Trump is not capable of implementing a fascist regime, and our more recent use of "Fascist Watch" in headlines, wondering if we are contradicting ourselves.

In fact, our position has not changed, excepting that Trump has gotten more overt in embracing the trappings of fascism in his second term, such that we are more willing to use the word "fascist" as a descriptor. However, while Trump has stumbled onto some pretty fascist behaviors, because that is what comes from his gut, we still don't believe he has the ability to impose an actual fascist government. He does not have the intelligence, the tactical skill, or the stomach for violence that is required.

Palpatine, by contrast, did not have these limitations.

---

D.K. in Madison, WI, asks: Why isn't the media covering #47's mental health? Shouldn't they be? Isn't it irresponsible that they are not? (Personally, I have no doubt that he is mentally ill.)

(V) & (Z) answer: We also have no doubt he suffers from some sort of mental dysfunction. However, the media have not examined him, and are not experts in mental health diagnoses. So, anything they wrote would be little better than idle speculation. Professional psychologists and psychiatrists have the expertise, but they also have not examined him, and are bound by a code of ethics that prohibits armchair diagnoses (this is known as the Goldwater Rule, and was added to the guidlines of the American Psychiatric Association after a lot of mental health professionals saw fit to opine whether or not Barry Goldwater was mentally sound).

And so, any piece on Donald Trump's mental health would either be the work of someone who does not know what they are talking about, or who cares nothing for professional ethics, or both. Most outlets do not want to be in the business of publishing such pieces.

The closest you will get is Mary Trump, who has not examined her uncle, but knows him well, and is a professional psychologist, and has suggested he is a sociopath. That got a lot of coverage when she first said it back in 2020.

---

D.F. in Norcross, GA, asks: After reading the item on NSA Mike Waltz being the first head to roll among the members of the Apricot Autocrat's administration v2.0, I couldn't help wonder something about his replacement.

Am I the only one seeing the (situational) irony that Marco Rubio, who had a well-known (and probably well-earned) reputation as one of the laziest members of the Senate when he was there, now has four different jobs in the administration?

(V) & (Z) answer: It's possible that Rubio is rolling up his sleeves and putting in the work because his current jobs are new, and more interesting, and entail more power than being one out of a hundred senators. It's also possible that his reputation for laziness was overblown.

However, our guess is that Rubio is still pretty... hands-off, let's say, and that for Trump that is a feature and not a bug. What the President really wants is a yes man who will not try to implement his own agenda, or create his own power base. That sure sounds like Rubio to us.

---

T.C. in Danby, NY, asks: You wrote: "That means that Rubio's portfolio now includes four jobs. In addition to being SoS and NSA, he is also director of USAID and Archivist of the United States."

Questions: (1) Does he get one salary or four...or what?; (1a) Which of these roles require actual participation?; (2) How often has multi-tasking like this occurred in the past, at least in the U.S.?; and (3) Historically and politically speaking, does aggregation of power in this way a precursor to anything else?

(V) & (Z) answer: By law, a federal employee only draws the highest of the salaries they are entitled to, even if they hold multiple positions. So, Rubio is pulling down $246,400 per annum, which is a bit of a pay raise from the $174,000 he was getting as a U.S. Senator.

Per our answer above, none of the roles require actual participation, assuming the president doesn't demand it. It would be a little odd to have a Secretary of State who doesn't work much, so we would guess that whatever hours Rubio puts in are mostly invested in that job. The NSA can be hands-off if the president doesn't want advice (and Trump probably doesn't). The director of USAID doesn't have much work to do if that agency is being ripped to shreds and shut down. And the Archivist of the United States doesn't do the day-to-day work, and so can certainly get by with "Whatever you say, Mr. President" if that is what the person in the White House wants.

This kind of multi-tasking is not too unusual. We pointed out in that item that Jared Kushner's portfolio, during Trump v1.0, also included multiple jobs. There have also been a few people who were NSA and Secretary of State at the same time, most obviously Henry Kissinger. Many years ago, when the government had fewer resources, it was somewhat common to give people more than one job. That includes James Monroe, who is the only person in American history to lead two Cabinet departments at the same time (he was both Secretary of State AND Secretary of War from September 27, 1814, to March 2, 1815).

And we would say this sort of aggregation of power is precursor to only one thing: getting fired. Holding multiple high-level posts gives a person an excellent chance to step on many, many toes, and also can encourage them to get a swelled head. That usually works out poorly, in the end.

---

L.S. in Greensboro, NC, asks: Here's something I don't understand. Aren't Donald Trump's withholdings of university funding a great opportunity for other countries? If, say, the UAE, Saudi Arabia, or China were to step in and replace all the U.S. Government funding for an elite university, they would get the prestige of being connected to that university and likely first dibs on the results from the research they are funding. Why wouldn't this make sense?

(V) & (Z) answer: If that is going to happen, it would be a long-term play, and one that would take many years to unfold. At the moment, the much more efficient course of action is to resist Trump through the legal system and to try to right the financial ship that way.

Even if U.S. government funding is cut off long-term, and the courts do not grant relief, we still think that the arrangement you propose is an unlikely one. When (Z) was in grad school, the Turkish government tried to make a generous donation to establish a chair in Armenian History. There was much suspicion, not without cause, that the real goal was to seat a scholar who would downplay or deny the Armenian genocide. So, the faculty was up in arms about the offer, and ultimately the money was rejected.

The point here is that universities and their faculties are very leery of appearing to be bought and paid for. It is much more likely that, if government funding WERE to dry up, they would just lean more on private, domestic funding sources, as well as donations.

What is happening though, is that multiple countries in Europe (and probably elsewhere) have created funds to lure the very best U.S. researchers to their country with good salaries and very large pots of money to hire people, buy equipment, etc. to continue their research unhindered by the government. There could well be takers who feel uncomfortable in the U.S. now for them, especially foreign-born researchers.

---

F.C in Nice, France, asks: You've recently written about Donald Trump's increasingly hostile stance toward American universities and scientific research—slashing federal research budgets, threatening elite institutions with funding cuts, and generally attacking the independence of academia.

I wanted to ask you something more personal: In light of a recent Nature survey showing that three out of four researchers in the U.S. are considering leaving the country due to these anti-science policies, I'm curious: Do you know colleagues in academia who are seriously thinking about emigrating, or who already have? What's your own view on this potential "brain drain"? Do you think the U.S. might actually lose a significant portion of its academic talent in the coming years if this trend continues?

And finally, on a lighter note: if (Z) had to leave the United States, where would he go... and why?

(V) & (Z) answer: Changing jobs in academia is no small feat, and takes multiple years, in addition to being very disruptive. It's an awful lot, particularly if one assumes that the problem is only going to last for a few years (or less, depending on the courts). On top of that, (Z) is in the humanities, while (V) is in The Netherlands. So, for all of these reasons, we know of no colleagues who have begun preparations to leave the United States.

On the other hand, this is exactly the kind of thing that causes people who were planning to retire anyhow to speed things up by a year or two or three. (Z) absolutely knows a few folks like that. And if it became clear that the trend was long-term, it certainly could lead to "brain drain."

And if (Z) was to leave, he would probably have Vancouver, Canada at #1 on his list. Seattle is one of his favorite American cities, and Vancouver is very much like Seattle. It would also be relatively non-disruptive, given that Vancouver is in the same time zone as Los Angeles, and English is spoken there.

When he was much younger, (V) was once offered the job of Chairman of the CS Dept. at Sydney Uni. He turned it down, If he were much younger now, he would at least consider it very strongly.

---

G.L. in Oviedo, FL, asks: I was at a protest on May 1, and there were two MAGA folks there counter-protesting, along with a few drivers who shouted at us. Most of us ignored them. However, do you think that soon, some MAGA types will turn to violence to try to enforce their views?

(V) & (Z) answer: Some MAGA types have already done so. But we assume you're asking whether MAGA-perpetrated violence will become at least somewhat widespread. And the answer is: We seriously doubt it. First, acts of violence tend to be done by groups (that is, herds) whose members egg each other on. But, outside of things like Charlottesville and 1/6, the MAGA types don't reach "herd" mass all that often. Second, it has been our experience—readers' mileage might vary—that MAGA folks, from their leader on down, are particularly likely to be cowards, and are rarely willing to back up their big, blustery words.

---

G.W. in Minneapolis, MN, asks: In furtherance of your item "Bezos Caves Again," what do you think the impact would be if a blue state or a purple state were to pass a law requiring retailers to break out how much of the price of each item is product and how much is tariff, so customers would see that the price increases were Donald Trump's fault?

(V) & (Z) answer: We think this would be challenged in court, and the case would drag on until well after Donald Trump left office, presumably rendering the matter moot.

We were going to run a comment from reader M.D. in Overland Park, KS, tomorrow, but since it's relevant here, we'll just summarize the gist right now. It would not be difficult, if one knows the amount of tariff paid on an object, to reverse-engineer how much the object actually cost the retailer, and thus how much their markup is. This is not going to be information that retailers will want to share, to say the least.

(Z) has a little bit of personal experience with this. His first job, outside of working for family, was at a drug store chain then called Sav-On (now subsumed by CVS). And they wanted employees (mainly managers) to be able to look at price tags and know what the item actually cost the store, so they could make decisions about whether to offer a replacement, and things like that. So, there was a code on every price label, wherein the letters in the word "CHARLESTON" represented the numbers 1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9. For example, an item might have a price of $3.99, but would have CHT (i.e., 1-2-7) in small letters underneath that, telling the manager (or other employee) that the actual cost to the store was $1.27. And so, even if a replacement was given free of charge, the store was still ahead. Anyhow, Sav-On made very clear at orientation that this code WAS NOT to be shared with anyone not employed by the store.

Politics

M.W. in Huntington, NY, asks: You wrote that "Young Democrats Are Going after Old Democrats," with DNC Vice Chair David Hogg leading the way. I'm curious as to your take on this for the midterms.

In much the same way that Trump's tariffs are a self-inflicted wound, I feel that this is a similar mistake when the Democrats should be presenting a united front. With so much ammunition against Trump, it seems like a no brainer to aim everything at Trump and his oligarchy, painting the Republican candidates as his lackeys and do-nothing representatives. Instead, this is going to cause noise and news cycles as to how even Democrats don't think they themselves can govern. Independents and Biden—Trump voters may decide they don't want to vote for the Democratic candidate and stay home altogether.

I understand that these will only be in very blue districts that don't have much of a chance to flip red, but I think it's a distraction and a bad look. (Though I tend to agree that new blood is needed. I'm torn.)

Thoughts?

(V) & (Z) answer: Republicans often have bitter primaries featuring people from different wings of the party, and we don't often see people talking about how the GOP really needs to put unity first and foremost.

Like any organization, a political party can get staid and stuck in its ways. And there is already plenty of feedback that the people who lead the Democratic Party are too old, out of touch, etc. So, Hogg is trying to change that the best way he knows how, with the tools at his disposal. At the same time, he's being a team player by limiting his activities to safe districts. The Republicans are not so inclined; they often unleash a MAGA nutter in purple districts or states (see Lake, Kari) and cost themselves winnable elections.

We also seriously doubt that a handful of hotly contested primaries in deep-blue districts will somehow: (1) linger to the general election and (2) spill over into non-deep-blue places. If someone in North Carolina says they just couldn't vote for a Democrat to represent their state in the U.S. Senate because that voter did not like what they heard going on in the primary in the D+33 NY-12, we are skeptical that person was ever a possible Democratic vote.

In short, we see no issue with what Hogg is doing.

---

T.W. in Pasadena, CA, asks: What is your current best advice for Democrats Abroad to take action to make a difference? I am in the U.S., but am connected to a Democrat Abroad that would like to better organize Democrats Abroad and possibly run some webinars in the summer/fall. She is looking for ideas of speakers that might help motivate/guide Democrats abroad on how they can best take action.

(V) & (Z) answer: Go to the Democrats Abroad website and click on the "GET INVOLVED" link in the menu on top of the page. Also, click on the "ABOUT US" menu item and then click on "Our Country Committees" to see what the relevant country committee is doing. Most of them have various projects you can volunteer for—for example, hosting speakers as a way to get Americans to show up and then get them registered to vote. Some of the chapters are very active, with many events. Others are less active, but someone there could ask the main DA group for advice on activating it. Almost all the DA country committees have an annual meeting members can go to meet other Democrats.

Democrats Abroad counts as a state for the Democratic Party, just like Puerto Rico, Guam, and the other territories. It gets to send representatives to the Democratic National Convention every 4 years. It also runs a primary election every cycle to elect those representatives.

---

G.K. in Mansfield Center, CT, asks: It annoys me to see news outlets, from the Times to the BBC, use the word "deal" to refer to political agreements between countries and other entities. In adopting Trump's usage, they are validating his view of everything as transactional and, to my mind, cheapening the discourse. It seems to me that not that long ago, the preferred word was "treaty," "accord," or something else. Am I correct in thinking this is a relatively new development? (As far as I can tell, when Electoral-Vote.com uses the word, it's in a more self-aware way, tongue in cheek.)

(V) & (Z) answer: First, "deal" has a long history in politics as a catch-all word for any agreement, program, initiative, etc. Think the Square Deal, the New Deal, etc.

Second, "treaty" has a pretty specific meaning, and the agreements Trump produces do not generally match that meaning. The same is basically true of "accord."

Third, the alternative words remaining if you take treaty/accord off the table for being inaccurate, are not great in number. Beyond "deal," there's "pact" and "agreement" and maybe "bargain," and not too many others before you run into words that are kind of correct, but aren't really appropriate, like "contract" or "covenant."

So, we are inclined to give those outlets that use "deal" a break.

---

M.B. in Singapore asks: Short of a constitutional amendment, is there any possible way the Alaska system of jungle primaries and ranked-choice voting could be expanded nationally through federal legislation? Could a law be passed with 50% of the House and a veto-proof majority of the Senate, or would this be struck down by SCOTUS? Is there any other pathway?

Our current primary system, in my mind, has been the single most destructive thing to democracy. Our current system gives a minority group of extremists a far disproportionate amount of power. Checks and balances have failed because Republicans have ceded, to Trump, the power afforded them by the Constitution out of fear of a primary challenger. After 240 years, things have fully evolved into a complete race to the bottom. Yes, gerrymandering also plays a big part in this but let's leave that for another day.

(V) & (Z) answer: Beginning with the caveat that this is never going to get through Congress as currently constituted, we can only think of one possibility outside an amendment. The federal government provides election-related funding. And it might work to use a carrot-and-stick approach wherein Congress adopts "optional" guidelines about how elections should be run, but says that only states that follow the guidelines get the money. This, in effect, was how Southern states were "encouraged" to integrate their transportation systems in the late 1960s.

---

D.O. in Sudbury, MA, asks: TCF is old. He's morbidly obese. He doesn't exercise. He only eats junk food. He is stressed. His erratic behavior suggests dementia. He is arguably the most hostile person alive, which is really the point: How can someone with these seven strikes against him still be alive? Do betting markets believe he will pass away this year?

(V) & (Z) answer: The most important thing is genes. And Trump's parents had many of the same demerits he has, health-wise, while also not having the benefit of modern medicine. They lived to be 93 (Fred Trump) and 88 (Mary Anne Trump).

Sportsbooks are taking bets on the chances that Trump finishes his current term. And the implied odds of those bets are that he has a 29% chance of not making it to the end. Of course, that includes not only the possibility of death, but also resignation, impeachment and conviction, and health problems that are not fatal but are enough to remove him from power.

---

K.T. in Oakdale, NY, asks: I feel like every 2 years, when upcoming elections are being discussed, it is the same commentary: "Democrats have a chance in the House, but the Senate map is looking unfavorable." I understand this is due to Senate elections being every 6 years, but when exactly is this map supposed to be favorable? When are the "vulnerable Republicans" up for reelection?

(V) & (Z) answer: There are three dynamics here, though two of them are related, so we're going to label them consistent with that:

• 1A. There is always some amount of political shifting going on that takes states in and out of the "competitive" column.
  
  
• 1B. The last 20 years has seen the final stages of the process by which the reddening of the Southern and Mountain states has sorted itself out, claiming the careers of the last few Democrats from "the old days" who were hanging on (Jon Tester, Joe Manchin. Sherrod Brown, etc.). There has been no parallel bluing of states, and so there have been relatively few cases of old-time GOP senators losing their seats in states that have become blue (maybe Arizona, but John McCain actually lost his seat to death, while Jeff Flake chose to retire voluntarily).
  
  
• 2. If a party faces a "tough map" in [YEAR X], it usually means they had an unexpectedly good year in [YEAR X-6].

Taken together, these things have made for several good maps in a row for the Republicans. But the pendulum is likely to swing in the other direction relatively soon. First, there aren't too many more Democratic-held seats ripe for the picking, outside MAYBE Maine and a couple of upper-Midwest states. On the other hand, there are plenty of Republican-held seats that could be in play soon, from Maine and Wisconsin to North Carolina, possibly Florida, possibly Texas, possibly Ohio, etc.

Also, the Republicans have had some good cycles recently, most obviously in 2024. But the time will come that they have to defend those seats, and then there will be talk that it's the GOP that has the tough map.

---

H.M. in San Dimas, CA, asks: By coincidence, I watched Jon Stewart's takedown of Donald Trump on Monday's Daily Show and immediately after read your piece on him as a potential presidential candidate. It occurred to me that Trump almost never goes after Stewart, and you'd think Stewart would be a big target. No talk of suing Comedy Central for their "unfair editing of tapes on The Daily Show," etc. Why do you think that is?

(V) & (Z) answer: Trump tends to respond to the things he sees himself, and we doubt he watches The Daily Show, given that it's left-leaning, that he has no sense of humor, and that it's on after his bedtime.

We also suspect that he has at least some awareness that if you get into a war of words with a comedic program, you're asking for trouble, because those people know how to make someone look like a buffoon, and it is literally their job to do so when the opportunity presents itself.

---

J.R. in Orlando, FL, asks: In your piece on Jon Stewart, you wrote that he is an "Israel-skeptical Jew." Can you please define this term?

(V) & (Z) answer: Sigh. We don't grasp the subtext of your question, though we do know two things: (1) anytime we write ANYTHING about Israel, we get angry e-mails complaining about fine-grained (some would say nitpicky) details, particularly how this word or that word was a terribly wrong choice, and (2) in this context, namely candidate profiles, we are not going to have a six-paragraph sidebar detailing Stewart's (or any other candidate's) views on Israel; a brief summation will have to do.

In any event, Stewart is Jewish. And, like many Jews, he supports the idea of a Jewish homeland, but does not support the current regime in Israel, nor the regime's approach to the Palestinians. That is what we mean by "Israel-skeptical Jew."

We will add one more point here. In English-language usage, a country's name is always a metonym for its government. When someone says "We don't like France's position on immigration," it could be referring to the French people in general, or the French government. And usually, it is the latter. So, "Israel-skeptical" is entirely correct shorthand for "critical of the government of Israel." We do not require any letters about how "Israel" is, or is not, equivalent to "Jews," because we never wrote or implied such a thing.

---

R.W. in Brooklyn, NY, asks: I assume you got from Wikipedia (which gives no citation for the claim) the information that Jon Stewart's parents were immigrants . Given his age (66), it seems far more likely that it was his grandparents who immigrated from Eastern Europe (as did mine). The always reliable (kidding!) ChatGPT agrees with me, noting that his maternal grandfather had a business in NYC. Other than Wiki, do you have any reason to think that Stewart is the child of immigrants? Thanks!

(V) & (Z) answer: We checked for verification, and found a couple of biographies, basically from organizations that were giving him awards, that repeated the claim. It is, of course, possible that they were getting their details from Wikipedia, though we'd tend to think Stewart would correct the error once he saw the bio. On top of that, his father was born in 1931. That is pretty much the sweet spot for the sequence of events that culminates in "It's 1936, and we see which way the winds are blowing, so we are going to take our 5-year-old son and leave Poland before it's too late."

Civics

W.S. in Pittsburgh, PA, asks: The actions of AG Pam Bondi and FBI Director Kash Patel seem to me to be unethical and perhaps illegal. Can they be disbarred once out of office?

(V) & (Z) answer: Yes. They can even be disbarred while in office, since their official position offers them no protection from professional sanctions. Disbarment proceedings against Bill Clinton began while he was still in office (though they did not conclude until shortly after he left the presidency).

However, disbarment is unlikely to have all that much effect on them. Their current positions do not require a law license or membership in the bar. And their future probably involves sitting on the boards of corporations and PACs, or acting as lobbyists, or becoming talking heads. None of those things require a law license or membership in the bar, either.

---

W.F. in Chambersburg, PA, asks: What is the liberal equivalent to the Heritage Foundation?

(V) & (Z) answer: The Center for American Progress was founded by Bill Clinton-era White House Chief of Staff John Podesta to fill this exact role, but it's 30 years younger (2003 vs. 1973), has less than half the budget ($40 million vs. $100 million), and has considerably less than half the reach.

---

C.A.G. in Athens, GA, asks: Why is the main right-wing party in Australia called the Liberal Party? Please, make it make sense.

(V) & (Z) answer: Because they are using "Liberal" in the classic sense. Originally, that term referred to someone who was anti-monarchial, and so was pro-free trade (and thus anti-mercantilism), pro-civil liberties (and thus anti-arbitrary use of power), pro-limited government, and anti-tax. The most direct descendants of classical liberals in the United States today are not the Democrats, but instead the Libertarians.

---

J.H. in Boston, MA, asks: Isn't the word spelled "labour" in Commonwealth English? Why does Australia have a Labor party?

(V) & (Z) answer: Australia, in its early days, attracted (white) migrants from all over the English-speaking world, including many Americans. So, when the Labor Party came into being in 1901, "Labour" and "Labor" were used interchangeably. About 20 years in, there was a push to standardize the spelling, and "Labor" won out, for reasons that are not entirely clear. It was probably an American-turned-Australian who made it happen; the most popular guess is that it was early power-broker King O'Malley, whose Irish roots caused him to have a particular dislike for British spellings.

History

G.N. in Albuquerque, NM, asks: I am wondering what you think of the OverSimplified History Youtube channel? I like their mostly cartoon videos and they appear to be generally accurate with the main facts, and as the channel title suggests, it's oversimplified. It also has a nice amount of snark, which makes it fun.

(V) & (Z) answer: Here's a dirty secret: Every lecture in every history course in every college in the United States (and, presumably, the world) is oversimplified history. There's only so much nuance and detail you can squeeze in there before it's too much, both in terms of time and students' ability to absorb the material. So, you have to oversimplify things a bit. Sometimes more than a bit.

So, the OverSimplified History channel is perfectly fine. The facts are correct, and they are not pushing some sort of bizarro agenda, like, say, Prager U. The main difference between them and one of (Z)'s lectures is that their delivery is more geared toward drama/entertainment. But not a LOT more; (Z) can do a bunch of impressions and accents and uses them when appropriate. For example, he does a pretty good simulation of Minnesota and Massachusetts senators arguing with Texas and Georgia senators over the Transcontinental Railroad.

---

L.O.-R., San Francisco, CA, asks: You wrote thet the first 100 days tradition might be "a small step toward the metric system." I've often wondered, has anyone ever created a metric calendar or a metric day?

(V) & (Z) answer: There are two problems here. The first is that people are VERY conservative about their calendars and timekeeping. The Gregorian Calendar was introduced in 1582, and it took well over 300 years before all of the Western nations were finally on board, despite the fact that all it really does is tweak how leap years are calculated. Yes, we know there was a Catholic vs. Protestant dimension, but still, 300 years. And other calendars are even more conservative than that.

The second problem is that the highest-profile attempt to create something like a metric calendar came during the French Revolution, when the revolutionaries divided the day into 10 hours, the hours into 100 minutes, and the minutes into 100 seconds. Each decimal second was 1/100,000th of a day (as opposed to standard seconds, which are 1/86,400th of a day). The revolutionaries also created a calendar that was made up of 12 months, each of them 30 days in length, with each of those divided into three 10-day weeks. That's not actually enough days, so there were also 5-6 extra days tagged on at the end, to keep things in sync with the sun. The calendar lasted for about 12 years, until Napoleon was crowned reverted back to the Gregorian calendar; "this was the work of a bunch of radical nutters who liked to cut people's heads off" has not, as chance would have it, inspired anyone to try a digital calendar again.

---

C.W. in Carlsbad, CA, asks: Was listening to a Van Jones interview this morning, and the three people he interviewed seemed to indicate that immigration was an issue that swayed their votes for TCF in 2024, mostly due to the pitch that somehow immigrants were taking their benefits. It got me thinking, since this is largely a contrived argument, have there been other times in our history where immigration "issues" have swayed elections, or at least influenced their outcome? And do they jibe with actual problems with immigrants or did they simply reflect a successful political narrative?

(V) & (Z) answer: There are more elections that were affected by immigration than elections that were not affected by immigration. The only thing that changes is which immigrants serve as the punching bag. Sometimes, it was Irish Catholics. Sometimes, it was Chinese immigrants. Sometimes, it was Eastern Europeans and Jews. Sometimes, it was (and is) Mexicans.

Almost always, the anti-immigrant politicians, who may or may not believe what they are saying (some do, some don't) are guilty of overlooking that correlation does not equal causation. That is to say that there are problems X, Y and Z, and those problems largely coincided with the arrival of immigrant group A, and so X, Y, and Z MUST BE the fault of immigrant group A. Invariably, that is either entirely untrue, or is a gross overgeneralization.

For example, the rise of manufacturing in New York City led to a dramatic increase in the demand for labor. Native-born Americans did not want crappy factory jobs (dangerous, low-paying, low-prestige), but dirt-poor Irish immigrants were willing to take them. And so, you had millions of Irishmen and Irishwomen moving into a city not set up to house millions of citizens. Consequently, there was much filth, and disease, and crime, and the like. And many xenophobes said that the problem was that Irish people are inherently filthy, and disease-ridden and criminal, as opposed to noticing that the issues were the result of overcrowding, and would have happened regardless of where the new residents came from.

---

M.F. in Des Moines, IA, asks: I've recently started reading Harry Turtledove's Southern Victory series for the second time (the previous occasion was more than 20 years ago). I generally enjoy alternate history in the way I enjoy Star Trek Mirror Universe episodes, seeing familiar figures and societies in the divergent context of the road not taken. So I'm generally happy to dispense quickly with the excuse of what incited the change in timeline so we can get on with dramatizing the USA and CSA on opposite sides of World War I and World War II.

Nonetheless, I can't rid myself of a historical question reading this brought up, than that I'm hoping you can answer. As you may know, Turtledove's inciting incident is that Robert E. Lee's famous cigar-wrapped orders are never found by the Union, and thus the battle of Antietam never happens and Lee runs amok in an invasion of the North. This deprives Lincoln of the opportunity to issue the Emancipation Proclamation, and eventually leads to the South winning by gaining formal recognition from Britain and France.

Did the real-world Southern attempts to gain European recognition ever actually have a chance, or was that just a Southern pipe dream and, now, a convenient plot device to set up Turtledove's narrative?

(V) & (Z) answer: Let's start with the Lost Orders. They did not help George McClellan all that much because he did not act on them until it was largely too late. Further, Lee was not in a position to conduct a long-lasting invasion of the North. So, Turtledove's alternate history comes up a bit short already, because the existence, or non-existence, of that cigar can didn't really change things all that much.

Beyond that, there were a couple of serious impediments to European recognition of the South. The first is that they would not grant recognition if they were persuaded that the Civil War was a war to end slavery. And Lincoln was keeping the British and the French apprised of his plans, meaning they knew he was going to commit as soon as he could. Had Antietam not happened, or had it ended in a loss, Lincoln would surely have used some other Union win to give him cover for issuing the Proclamation, maybe Iuka (2 days after Antietam) or Second Corinth (17 days after Antietam). The point is, the Europeans knew they were going to get what they wanted, and that it was just a matter of time. Maybe if Lincoln had delayed for a year, they would have reconsidered their positions, but he was never going to do that, and they were willing to be reasonably patient.

The second problem is that Jefferson Davis overplayed his hand. In 1862, he basically insisted that the U.K. and France recognize the Confederacy immediately or else he would withhold cotton from them for some lengthy amount of time. It was, if you will, a trade war. The British and the French were irritated enough that they started looking for other sources of cotton. They found what they were looking for in... Egypt, and quickly began shifting their supply chains to that nation. This proved to be effectively permanent; the price of Southern cotton dropped so much once they were no longerthe only game in town that Southern cotton producers were not able to get the same per-pound prices they were getting in the 1850s until... the 1970s. That is not a typo. It took 120 years. Oops.

The upshot is that European recognition was not very realistic. Lincoln knew that such recognition would almost certainly be fatal to the Union war effort, so he would have done whatever was needed to keep the British and the French neutral. Jeff's blunders just made Abe's life easier.

---

J.W. in West Chester, PA, asks: I'm looking for something to read. I have read books on Pea Ridge, Jackson's Valley Campaign, Seven Days, Gettysburg, Antietam, Chancellorsville, Fredericksburg, the Overland Campaign, Island Number Ten, Fort Fisher, New Bern, Fort Sumter, the New Mexico campaign, Shiloh, Chattanooga/Chickamauga, and Monacacy. What do you recommend next?

(V) & (Z) answer: (Z) can give you an answer, but he has access to someone who can give you a much better answer. So, here's Gary Gallagher, who is the foremost living expert on the military history of the Civil War, and who may well be the author of one or more of the books you've already read:

J.W. has hit most of the high spots in terms of battles and campaigns, but should look at A. Wilson Greene's two thick volumes on Petersburg and something on the final bloody phase of the 1864 Valley Campaign (maybe Jeffry D. Wert's classic overview), William Marvel on Appomattox, Albert Castel on Sherman's Atlanta campaign and John Hennessy on Second Bull Run.

I could go on... but those should keep J.W. busy for a while.

Thanks, Gary!

Fun Stuff

O.E., Greenville, SC, asks: I plan to visit L.A. someday, and I have some places I plan to visit that you may not have covered. What are your thoughts on The Magic Castle in Hollywood and the Lucas Museum of Narrative Art?

(V) & (Z) answer: The Magic Castle is great; just make sure you get your tickets in advance, because they are members-only at some times. As to the Lucas Museum, it looks promising, but it hasn't opened yet. They have projected 2023, and then 2025, and now it's 2026. Presumably they will make sure to get 'er done by the time the Olympics arrive in 2028, but how much before that, who knows.

---

M.R. in Santa Rosa, CA, asks: I'm planning a trip to Vegas, and I don't like casinos or gambling. Can (Z) recommend interesting attractions, exhibits, etc.?

(V) & (Z) answer: Starting with museums, Las Vegas has a few good ones. The Pinball Hall of Fame says it's a museum, but that's just for the tax break. It's actually an arcade where you can play lots of old and antique pinball machines. The Clark County Museum has the usual displays related to the history of Las Vegas/Clark County that you would expect; the really interesting part is that they've moved a bunch of old homes to a single street on the museum grounds, and then appointed them with the correct furniture, etc. So, you can see what an average home looked like, inside and out, in 1920, and in 1940, and in 1950. The Mob Museum is exactly what you think it is, and is very well done. The National Atomic Testing Museum is a little more serious, and is also very good, even if the Area 51 exhibit is a little silly. (Z) hasn't made it to The Punk Rock Museum yet, but hears good things.

If art is more to your taste, the Neon Museum is great, but try to get there around dusk (and only allocate an hour, as there's only so much neon to see). There's also Omega Mart, which is an interactive performative art piece. It's really hard to explain, but between the Omega Mart and the attached experiential amusement area, you can easily spend 8 hours there. You should look at the website. Also, depending on when you visit, the arts district has a monthly street fair called First Fridays. Parking is brutal, but the energy is very good.

In terms of shows, there is, of course, an embarrassment of riches. There are a half-dozen stand-up comics in residency, and then you can also catch really big comic stars on their swings through town, if you go at the right time. For example, Jerry Seinfeld does several gigs a year at Caesar's Palace. There are also the magicians, all of whom are at the top of their professions. Personally, (Z) recommends that if you're going to spend Vegas-show money, you get comedy AND magic for your hard-earned dollars. That means... Penn and Teller, who are in permanent residence at the Rio, and are very, very good. There are always big music acts in Vegas, too, although that's the top of the ladder, price-wise. For example, Eagles (the band DOES NOT use "the") at The Sphere can easily set you back $1,000 a ticket. That said, it's a great venue, and if you've always wanted to see that band (or Elton John, or The Who, or Paul McCartney, or whoever else is in town), maybe it's worth it. If you're looking for something cheaper, The Sphere shows documentaries during the day, and that's not too pricey—maybe $40. Another relatively cheap show option, if you like the Harry Potter books, is Potted Potter, where two guys reenact all seven books in 80 minutes. If you want really, really cheap, there's always KISS miniature golf.

As to food, Vegas has really leaned into celebrity chefs and restaurants with famous names. That said, there are still some excellent options. For breakfast, the best is probably Bouchon, where the prices are actually pretty good for a place that serves fancy French food. Alternatively, if you like kitsch value, then The Peppermill is about as "Sixties Vegas" as you can get—some readers will know it from its having been featured in the movie Swingers. For lunch, consider The Border Grill, which is a Mexican place that used to have locations in Los Angeles, but is now Vegas-only, or Lotus of Siam, which is often (and justly) called the best Thai restaurant in America. For dinner, if you really want to spend some coin, then maybe hit Peter Luger, which is the Vegas location of one of the most famous restaurants in New York. (Z) has heard that the New York location has gone downhill a bit, but he ate at the Vegas location on his last trip, and it was unbelievable. Oddly, it's in Caesar's and NOT in New York, New York. Another dinner option, if you're OK dropping some money, and a tasting menu is more your style, is Sparrow + Wolf. Alternatively, you can just wander around and pick something that looks interesting. You can't really go too wrong, as long as the restaurant does not feature a giant picture of Guy Fieri. Oh, and make sure you know the price before you sit down; (Z) and a friend once asked to be seated at an omakase place in Vdara, and missed the last seating by 5 minutes. It was clear, however, that even if being seated had worked out, the restaurant had no intention of mentioning that the per-person price is... $900.

---

F.S in Cologne, Germany, asks: You wrote: "Saturday Night Live debuted in the 1970s. Not only does it have an excellent case for top three of the decade, it has an excellent case for top three all time." So what are the 10 most influential TV shows in U.S. history? Is Saturday Night Live among the top three?

(V) & (Z) answer: Ok, here goes:

1. An American Family: The first true reality show, this 1970s PBS product was meant to show a year in the life of, well, an American family. By luck or design, however, they chose a family in a state of flux/crisis. And so, in addition to effectively inventing the reality genre, it gave some of the first televised exposure to both divorce and to someone coming out of the closet.
   
   
2. The Simpsons: Outside of SNL, there's no show that's had a greater impact on American comedy. With its seemingly infinite list of cameos and guest shots, it's also had a big impact on popular culture, and on American politics, even if it's got a lot less oomph than it once did.
   
   
3. The Cosby Show: Bill Cosby has been outed as a sleazeball, it is true. But in its time, his eponymous show did what even the Civil Rights Movement struggled to do, which was persuade older and more conservative Americans that a middle-class Black family is perfectly normal.
   
   
4. The Tonight Show: Of all the late-night shows, this one is the king, especially during the run when Johnny Carson served as host. Not only did he substantially define the zeitgeist, Carson was responsible for introducing the country to countless actors, comics, musicians, scientists and political figures.
   
   
5. Sesame Street: As we noted in the previous entry, Sesame Street was the very first teacher for millions of American kids, before they ever got to a formal school.
   
   
6. Mister Rogers' Neighborhood: Mister Rogers was the yin to Sesame Street's yang. While the latter taught kids how to think, the former taught them how to live, particularly in face of the challenges that young people confront in the modern world.
   
   
7. Meet the Press: We almost included 60 Minutes on the list, but we are persuaded that the longer-running Meet the Press, which is much more laser-focused on putting politicians under a microscope and (ideally) holding them accountable, is the more important program.
   
   
8. I Love Lucy: This show invented the sitcom and, arguably, invented modern TV programming. It was also, for its day, pretty feminist.
   
   
9. Saturday Night Live: No show has had a greater impact on American politics, in part due to the impersonations, and in part due to Weekend Update. It's fair to think that the show doomed at least one president (Gerald Ford), and maybe two (George H.W. Bush). And that says nothing of the wannabe presidents whose balloon was popped by the SNL skewers (like John McCain, who was wrecked by the show's devastating mockery of running mate Sarah Palin). On top of that, countless SNL characters, bits and catchphrases have become a part of American culture, while nearly every hit comedy movie of the last 50 years (and more than a few hit dramas) have starred at least one SNL alumnus.
   
   
10. Star Trek: Star Trek tops the list for two reasons. The first is representation; the regular cast featured a Black woman and an Asian man, and they were equal, and valuable, members of the crew, as opposed to servants or cooks or some other type of underling. Nichelle Nichols' work was important enough, in the context of the 1960s, that when she made plans to quit the show, no less than Martin Luther King Jr. talked her out of it, observing that she was one of the few positive Black role models on American TV, and the ONLY positive Black female role model.
    
    The second reason that the show checks it at #1 is that it inspired a sizable percentage of an entire generation of scientists. The folks who developed the cell phone, the 3-D printer and the modern personal computer, among many others, were inspired, at least in part, by things they saw on Star Trek. And then add to that all the other inventors, and astronomers, and physicists and scientists of other stripes who were lured into the world of STEM by the world of Trek.
    
    The many, many movies and sequels and spinoffs, each of them shaping American culture, are gravy.

---

A.J. in Baltimore, MD, asks: As with most animated characters, the characters in The Simpsons never age. The show has been running for almost 36 years, though, and since Homer and Marge don't age, this means that their birth years keep getting later and later, and they have gone from Boomers to Gen X to Millennials. This change is seen explicitly in flashbacks; where Season 2 had a flashback episode where Homer and Marge were clearly seniors in high school in the 1970s, Season 19 had a flashback episode where Homer and Marge were a young couple in the mid-1990s during the grunge era. Some fans complained about the latter episode, saying the episode changed the continuity of the series, but one could argue that is an inevitable circumstance of having a long-running show with characters who don't age. What are your thoughts? What is the best way for the show to deal with this problem?

(V) & (Z) answer: The show is using the only approach available, which is to make time and continuity extremely fungible. As we write this, there is an episode of M*A*S*H on TV, in which they show the unit experiencing an entire year over the course of a single episode. And the year they chose was 1951, because one of the recurring elements of the episode is that's year's famous baseball pennant race, culminating in the famous "The Giants win the pennant! The Giants win the pennant!" radio call. However, to incorporate that, the show had to commit terrible crimes against continuity, since Col. Sherman Potter appears throughout the episode, despite his first episode on the show establishing that he took command of the unit on September 19, 1952. Fans forgive M*A*S*H, however, in the name of poetic license. The Simpsons surely deserves the same consideration.

---

G.B. in Collin County, TX, asks: Why did professional wrestling matches become scripted events that everyone involved pretends are genuine when other combat sports like boxing or MMA have remained actual contests?

(V) & (Z) answer: Because formal wrestling, unlike other combat sports, is pretty complicated and pretty hard to understand if you don't have fairly substantial expertise. The problem gets even worse when watching on television. And so, the move to kayfabe (scripted matches) commenced in the early 20th century, and accelerated dramatically once America entered the TV era.

Gallimaufry

D.S. in Layton, UT, asks: When you began posting the times of the 50th correct answer to your weekly games, the 50th answers were being received a couple of nights after your Friday posts. These days, they seem to be within an hour.

Have your games gotten easier, or have your readers gotten more competitive?

(V) & (Z) answer: Probably some of both. That said, it's not going to be that way this week. As our intro comment implies, there have not been 50 correct responses yet.

---

F.F. in London, England, UK, asks: I asked some time ago whether you guys would organize the great historical content on your site in an accessible way. You had said it was somewhere on your list of priorities. Isn't AI a solution?

(V) & (Z) answer: Doubtful. AI is not great at novel tasks.

That said, we expect some movement on this front over the summer.

---

L.R. in Nancy, France, asks: I'd like to pose a question that has long left my husband and I perplexed. When does (Z) sleep? His posts usually appear at what must be 4 or 5 a.m. in California. Has he adopted the ways of his undergraduate students, burning the midnight oil way into the night? Or does he follow the habits of a medieval monk, rising well before dawn to illuminate his faithful readers? Or is it up to the dachshunds?

In any case, both of you should not hesitate to take all the time you need to rest!

(V) & (Z) answer: (Z) has been an extreme night owl for at least 35 years, dating back to his high school theater days. Not only did rehearsals and performances end at 10:00 p.m., but there's a fair bit of adrenaline in the system, so it's impossible to wind down by 11:00 p.m. or midnight. It helps that (Z) only needs 4 hours' sleep per night.

We appreciate your kind message about our taking the occasional unexpected day off. We don't like to do it, but sometimes it's the necessary play. The messages ran about 19-to-1 in favor of kind and supportive. The other 5% were in the same general universe as the individual who advised us, without irony, that we have a responsibility to give at least 48 hours' notice before skipping a day.

Reader Question of the Week: Vice Squad

Here is the question we put before readers two weeks ago:

J.G. in New York City, NY, asks: Before the Twelfth Amendment, the candidate with the second-most votes became vice president, regardless of his party, or his dislike of his opponent.

What if that amendment was never passed? Which resultant president/VP pairing would have been the best combination for America?

And here some of the answers we got in response:

E.S. In Providence, RI : Even though they apparently loathed each other, had George McClellan ended up as Abraham Lincoln's VP in 1864, I can't imagine he would have been worse than Andrew Johnson.

---

R.S.B. in Cathedral City, CA: Thomas E. Dewey would have been Franklin D. Roosevelt's VP in 1944, would have become president in early 1945, and would have been the incumbent in 1948. He would have only been 50 in 1952 and 54 in 1956, and since the passage of the Twenty-Second Amendment excluded the sitting president, he would have probably run at least in 1952. So, two superstars of the U.S. presidency, Harry S. Truman and Dwight D. Eisenhower, would probably never have been President.

Dewey was staunchly anti-communist so the Korean war probably would have still been fought, but I am not sure he would have fired Douglas MacArthur and may have dropped the bomb on China when Mao intervened in the conflict. He was also an honest and liberal Eastern Establishment Republican whose conservatism was fiscal and anti-socialist/communist. The entire anti-New Deal Republicanism that lead to Ronald Reagan would not have happened in the way it did.

---

C.S. in Waynesboro, PA: I'm gonna go with Eisenhower and Adlai Stevenson (1952). They were decent men who appeared to have only the best interests of the country at heart. It doesn't appear there was any outward hatred from one to the other, so they could have worked together.

However, the best thing for America about their hypothetical partnership is that it would have kept Richard Nixon out of the VP slot, and presumably out of the presidency, thus avoiding the damage to the nation that his administration inflicted.

---

T.M.M. in Odessa, MO: I would put forth Eisenhower-Stevenson as a good answer for the "team of rivals" pairing. At least from the distance of 70 years, there was not that much of a difference between what Eisenhower did and what Stevenson would have done if he had won, and Stevenson was certainly a high-caliber option to serve in the "minister without a portfolio" role that the VP has become.

---

P.F. in Seville, Spain: My answer would be John F. Kennedy as President and Nixon as VP (1960). First, they were of the same generation, both served admirably in World War II, and entered politics immediately after the war, so they had similar political outlooks. Second, both were students of foreign policy and considered foreign policy extremely important. Third, they shared the view that the Soviets were the biggest threat to the U.S., and that the Europeans could be great allies for us against the Soviets. Fourth, since Kennedy was a moderate Democrat and Nixon was fairly liberal for a Republican, they were pretty close on the political spectrum. Fifth, although Nixon was jealous of Kennedy's elite background, charm, and good looks, he had great respect for JFK and the two were actually quite friendly, which would have made a harmonious team. And finally, with JFK as president, he would have been in a position to save Nixon and the country from Nixon's worst excesses.

---

M.M. in San Diego, CA: Nixon and Hubert H. Humphrey (1968), provided Humphrey could have steered Nixon away from Henry Kissinger and escalating in Vietnam, or could have shamed Nixon into behaving honorably. But knowing what we know about Nixon, he likely wouldn't have allowed Humphrey within a mile of the White House.

---

J.M. in New York City, NY: Hats off to J.G. in NYC! A great Electoral-Vote.com question, indeed. I like the Ronald Reagan-Walter Mondale duo (1984). Fritz as VP would have leavened Gipper's folksy surface but flaky morals with a Minnesotan's true grit and deep empathy for the farmers, laborers, and many other constituents of the big-tent Democrats. Mondale's influence in the administration might have expanded St. Ronnie's rather narrow actual affinity for various segments of our society.

Runner-up: the Bill Clinton-Bob Dole ticket (1996). For all his brilliant intellect and gregarious manner, Slick Willy could have benefited—meaning we all would have—from a leadership partner possessed of less showmanship and more mettle.

---

J.B. in Bozeman, MT: Fascinating alternate history scenario! If the VP has power, perhaps Al Gore would have prevented George W. Bush (2000) from instigating our disastrous Middle East involvement and other neo-con impulses.

---

A.G. in Scranton, PA: President Barack Obama and Vice President/American Hero John McCain (2008). Vice President McCain could have lent some courage to the president to actually use those 60 Senate votes to secure democracy from the assault he knew was coming because of the racist assaults launched against him and his family by Republicans in two primaries. Further an Obama-McCain leadership team would have scared the living crap out of America's enemies after McCain had returned from Pakistan with Osama Bin Laden's ears for a necklace. Ah, remember when politics was fun and not that thing that is no longer even a whisker away from being used to murder people? I miss that.

---

C.B. in Highlands, NJ: My wife and I agree that the combination of Obama and McCain would have curbed the rise of TCF as well as all of the hatred and animosity that came with him. They genuinely liked each other. They were senators who worked well together in a true bipartisan fashion. Two men of integrity working together for what is best for the people... can you imagine?

---

E.W. in Silver Spring, MD: Step One: Pick your favorite president that didn't rely much on their VP. Step Two: You're done, because you can assume that the president would have done the same with his opponent.

Here is the question for next week:

M.W. in Ottawa, ON, Canada, asks: Politicians and journalists are fond of telling us that THIS ELECTION is the most important election of our lifetime. What would you say is the least important presidential election in the last hundred or so years, and why?

Submit your answers to comments@electoral-vote.com, preferably with subject line "Elections Have Consequences?"!

---

If you wish to contact us, please use one of these addresses. For the first two, please include your initials and city.

• questions@electoral-vote.com    For questions about politics, civics, history, etc. to be answered on a Saturday
• comments@electoral-vote.com   For "letters to the editor" for possible publication on a Sunday
• corrections@electoral-vote.com To tell us about typos or factual errors we should fix
• items@electoral-vote.com            For general suggestions, ideas, etc.

To download a poster about the site to hang up, please click here.

---

Email a link to a friend.

---The Votemaster and Zenger