Dem
47
GOP
53
By the standards of the Trump presidency, it was actually a somewhat light news week. That makes for a much more diverse Q&A, since the questions are not dominated by one or two particular subjects.
And for anyone still working on this week's headline theme, we'll say that, like Richard I of England, the magicians Siegfried and Roy would do well with this theme, if they weren't dead.
We're working through a bit of technical trouble with e-mail, and don't want to wait until too late to post this. So, the last set of London recommendations will run next week.
A.L in Valencia, Spain, asks: Inquiring minds want to know where the USS George H.W. Bush is, and whether or when she will be engaged in the Iran conflict?
P.S. I learned about this ship thanks to your item. And I found it very surprising for a ship to be named after a living former president, so few years after he left the presidency.(Z) answers: The George H.W. Bush is currently in the Arabian Sea, providing support for the Iran War. There are websites that track ship locations, both military and civilian. However, the U.S. Navy blocks GPS information for its ships while they are deployed, for obvious reasons. So, if you look up the ship on one of the trackers, it will only tell you that George H.W. Bush left its home port of Norfolk 133 days ago, on an easterly heading.
And they waived the usual "the honoree has to be dead" rule because: (1) Bush was a war hero, and (2) he was nearing his final voyage, as it were, and, at 85 years of age, was unlikely to bring shame to the name George H.W. Bush by turning out to be a sexual predator or something like that. Also, the ship was christened nearly 20 years after his presidency ended, so the two events weren't really THAT close in proximity to each other.
D.G. in Fairfax, VA, asks: In general, I would not think that taking cautious measures with the president's safety would be news, but this Donald Trump plane switch seems to be making a lot of headlines. I recall Bush Jr. showing up in secret to his war (Thanksgiving dinner in Iran, maybe?). Is there something about Trump's actions and travel that made this a more newsworthy story?
(Z) answers: Just about all modern presidents have been compelled, at one point or another, to resort to some sort of subterfuge in the name of security. Sometimes, that means body doubles. Sometimes, that means decoy presidential planes. Sometimes, that means traveling in secret, and not announcing the trip until the plane has already reached its destination (or has already departed).
The reason this is a story is that Trump (partly) created the problem by using a plane that was not up to snuff, security-wise. And rather than concede that (or keep his mouth shut), he told obvious lies about what happened. When you do that, it is guaranteed to multiply interest and scrutiny tenfold. That, in turn, led to the discovery that White House staffers and reporters were callously used as decoys without their consent.
G.K. in Los Angeles, CA, asks: If a president boards a catering truck, does it become Catering Truck One?
(Z) answers: I believe it becomes Fare Force One. Though if it's a catering helicopter, I think it becomes Cuisine One.
R.R. in Mount Kisco, NY, asks: Regarding "A Kennedy Center Snow Job": The addition of the words "Restored and Renovated by President Donald J. Trump" supposedly would not directly violate the court order requiring removal of the previous attempt to add Trump's name. The New York Times article on this new maneuvering notes that the Federal law governing the Kennedy Center says "no additional memorials or plaques in the nature of memorials shall be designated or installed in the public areas." The proposed new Trump wording may not be a "memorial" to a deceased person, but does appear to "memorialize" what Trump has claimed to do, so is that enough to be in violation of this law?
(Z) answers: Earlier this week, I took some photographs at the Los Angeles Central Library, which is the crown jewel of the system, for a project I am working on. Most of the library's numerous wings and galleries, not to mention its signature rotunda, were paid for by donors. And you know who the (main) donors were, because there are plaques listing their names, in each case.
This is how high-profile public entities—libraries, museums, performance venues, etc.—balance the books. Congress knew this very well when it passed the legislation creating the Kennedy Center. And so, while that legislation spells out that John F. Kennedy is to be the only person honored in the name of the venue, it also allows for the names of benefactors to be posted on or within the venue. What the board is clearly trying to do is make Trump into a "benefactor," so that a judge is not in a position to (once again) order his name be removed.
D.E. in Lancaster, PA, asks: You clearly had the same level of exasperated disgust as I did at the latest Trump shenanigans at the Kennedy Center.
First, a semantics question. The verbiage states that the Kennedy Center is "Restored and Renovated by President Donald J Trump," but has it been? The Board also voted on shutting the Kennedy Center down for the next 2 years so they can remodel, but as the wording stands it claims Trump has done this. Why can't the judge simply rule once the renovations are done in 2028, they can put that verbiage up but not before?
Second, and most importantly, how much is all of this costing the American taxpayers? Has anyone tracked how much money we are throwing down the toilet for his vanity projects, the failed lawsuits (that are just personal vendettas), or just plain old waste, fraud and abuse?(Z) answers: There is nothing in the legislation that defines the meaning of the word "renovation." Decisions like that were left up to the Board of Directors. Clearly, Congress did not envision that the Board would be populated by pliant lackeys of a sitting president.
As to the question of the financial costs that Donald Trump is imposing on the American people, that is nearly impossible to answer, for a number of reasons. First, it's hard to separate normal costs from extra costs. For example, the Department of Justice has to pay its lawyers regardless of what work they are doing, and the information needed to separate "legitimate work" from "Trump vendetta work" is not publicly available. Second, the extent to which some expenses are justifiable vs. wasteful is often a political question. Many people would say the extra money spent on the Iran War is a waste. Some would disagree.
It's more plausible to focus on one area, particularly one where there is no "automatic" spending. And so, when it comes to the specific question of the East Wing, the Arc de Trump and all the other monuments he's trying to build in his own honor, the current price tag is estimated at $900 million. That will undoubtedly go up, if Trump is able to move forward.
K.E. in Newport, RI, asks: Former special counsel Jack Smith testified to Congress a few months ago about his inquiry into Donald Trump's conduct after the 2020 election and the unauthorized storage of classified documents at Mar-a-Lago. The Republicans on the committee, who never can pass up a chance to engage in political posturing, accused Smith of violating the Speech and Debate Clause and lying in court to obtain subpoenas of congressional phone records.
What do you think of Smith's testimony, (L)? Do you think he defended his conduct well? Why hasn't the Trump Department of Justice prosecuted Smith if he broke the law in his inquiry?(L) answers: There are a couple of things going on. Smith testified before the House Judiciary Committee in January, and Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) later accused him of lying to the committee when he testified (truthfully) that the members' phone records did not contain any content. Jordan referred Smith to the DOJ, but nothing has come of that referral. Jordan was confusing the phone records with a later subpoena to the National Archives, in which text messages between certain legislators and the White House were turned over. But Smith was not asked about that subpoena.
Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) has now requested that Smith testify before his committee to discuss those text messages and Smith accepted. The hearing is set for September 22. The speech and debate clause is a red herring here. That clause protects members "for any speech or debate in either house." An exception is for felonies, which is what Trump and his co-conspirators were being investigated for. Incidentally, the issues around the speech and debate clause were fully litigated at the time. For instance, Rep. Scott Perry (R-PA) challenged the subpoena for his cell phone records on those grounds. The court found that the majority of the records were not protected by the speech and debate clause and, instead, involved plots to overturn the 2020 election.
Smith took full advantage of the House public hearing to remind the public about Trump's crimes. I imagine he'll do the same during his Senate testimony. And you can bet the Todd Blanche DOJ has been working hard trying to find something to pin on Smith and have clearly come up empty thus far.
R.H.D. in Webster, NY, asks: Do you think it's possible that some of the Wisconsin Democrats were freaked out so much by what happened in the Michigan Democratic Senate primary that they decided to play it safe and vote for moderate David Crowley over Progressive Francesca Hong in their gubernatorial primary?
(Z) answers: I think that when many hundreds of thousands of people vote, you can find just about any plausible "logic pattern" among at least some of those voters.
However, if the Michigan primary had a meaningful impact, it was almost certainly that it roused moderate Wisconsinites to make sure to get to the polls, for fear of being saddled with a problematic candidate. I very seriously doubt that it caused a meaningful number of people who were planning to vote for Francesca Hong to suddenly switch to David Crowley.
R.L. in Alameda, CA, asks: Can you offer a little more context on "Today in Stupid Stunts, Part II: White, Freedom Think They've Backed WNBA into a Corner"? Are there any trans women in the WNBA? The NCAA? Any high school prospects who have a shot?
I bet the number is zero. Is their entire argument the fantasy that I think it is?(Z) answers: Yes, the argument is the fantasy you think it is.
The NCAA's rules strictly limit participation in women's sports competitions. You must have been assigned female at birth, and you cannot have begun hormone replacement therapy. Such individuals are allowed to practice with the team/athletes that match their gender identity, but they are not allowed to compete. So, there are no trans women participating in NCAA sports competitions, nor are there any trans female high school prospects coming down the pike. If you would like to see the NCAA's rules for yourself, they are here. One implication of this is that the "trans girls could steal scholarships from non-trans girls" argument is nonsense. As someone who went to a high-profile Division I school, I can assure you they do not give out scholarships to practice-team-only players.
There is one trans athlete in WNBA history, but that individual most certainly does not confirm the right-wing narrative. The athlete in question is Layshia Clarendon, who was assigned female at birth, and came out as non-binary during their playing career. They were the first WNBA player to identify as non-binary, and were also the first WNBA player to have top surgery while active.
J.G. in Inver Grove Heights, MN, asks: I think your item about trans athletes Royce White and Enes Kanter Freedom raises an interesting question you didn't address. Are trans athletes Royce White and Enes Kanter Freedom now the first two people who identify as female to have played in an NBA game? Or does the fact that they didn't announce that they identify as female until after their NBA careers were over mean that trans athletes Royce White and Enes Kanter Freedom don't qualify?
This is obviously an important question: Should they go down in history as NBA trailblazers?(Z) answers: Glenn Burke is regarded as the first gay MLB player. He was not out during his playing days, but did come out after his retirement. There has never been an openly gay active MLB player.
Following from this, it stands to reason that Freedom and White should be regarded as the first female NBA players—or, at least, the first NBA players to identify as female. Now, they might claim they did not identify as female during their playing days. If so, they would need to have a pretty good explanation as to how they came to this realization so late in life, since the vast majority of trans people develop an awareness of their identity before turning 10, and something like 98% figure it out before they turn 21. It would be very unusual for a 35-year-old man (White) and a 34-year-old man (Freedom) to both figure it out in the same week. And if the pair do not have a compelling explanation for their late awakening, some people may begin to suspect they are not actually trans at all, and are just doing all of this as a cynical political ploy.
R.N. in Redmond, WA, asks: I'm very dismayed at the very large number of texts I receive asking for political donations. I've been getting several a day since last December. I've never made a monetary donation to any politician or PAC. Yet somehow, the Democratic donor machine has determined that I'm a good bet for contributing. I have been receiving asks from (D) politicians, activists, candidates, PACs, left leaning issue-oriented organizations like Sierra Club, liberal NGOs, niche charities and left-leaning persons like singer Carole King (!).
I always send a STOP but somehow the message doesn't get through. I'm sure I've responded to James Carville, Sen. Mark Kelly (D-AZ) and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) multiple times, but they keep sending. Years ago, I was on the (R) donor list because I was stupid enough to attend a GOP "social" at the invitation of a friend, but I never gave anything. They figured it out and stopped contacting me.
Is there any way to prevent my name and phone number from passing back and forth on the (D) donor lists forever?(Z) answers: You do not have a lot of great options.
There is some value in replying "STOP," as that will at least cut down on the number of messages. However, it will not end them entirely, not by a long shot. Political parties are clever enough to rotate between many phone numbers, such that even if you tell (202) 863-8000 to STOP, it's still open season for (202) 224-2447. Those are, incidentally, the actual phone numbers for the DNC and the DSCC. Private business concerns are largely forbidden from engaging in such trickery, but political parties are much less constrained. Perhaps that has something to do with the fact that politicians pass laws and business concerns do not.
You can also set up filtering rules that will redirect a lot of messages so you don't see them. For example, you could tell your phone to automatically dump every message that has Ted+Cruz, or that has Senate+Majority. Some phones have fairly robust tools for doing this; you can also use third-party apps like Sifter.
And there are some people who just change phone numbers every few years, so as to give themselves a fresh start. If you do this, you can easily keep your old number for some period of time until you're sure that you've properly redirected the phone callers and texters you actually want to hear from.
R.M.S. in Lebanon, CT, asks: I read this week that the DNC is still deeply in debt and the current chairman, Ken Martin, is not very popular with the members.
As someone who lives in Los Angeles, (Z) must know there are many wealthy celebrities in Hollywood and elsewhere in the country who support the Democratic Party and want it to improve.
Why hasn't the Party ever turned to celebrities to lead them? This seems like a role tailor-made for a popular performer. Most of them have lots of connections to the wealthy, they usually have experience dealing with the press, and they can use their fame to attract volunteers.(Z) answers: This would be a disaster.
First, if someone has that level of fame, they presumably are not looking to make a career change to a job that is full-time-plus. Sure, there is the occasional Clint Eastwood, who was willing to suspend his movie career for 2 years to be mayor of Carmel. But most A-listers are not down for that. George Clooney, for example, would rather be making movies and vodka than running the Democratic Party. Steven Spielberg would rather be making movies and spending time with his very large family. And so forth.
Further, the chair of the DNC is a professional political operative who needs to be able to do many things well. They have to fundraise, yes, but they also have to oversee the party's messaging, they have to interface with the state committees, they have to organize primaries and caucuses, they have to put out fires, and they have to do all sorts of other things. It's not a job for amateurs.
Even if we just focus on the fundraising, it is true that a Ben Affleck or a Tom Hanks could do a pretty good job of shaking down their celebrity friends. But they already do that, on a very part-time basis, primarily by hosting fundraisers. There is no reason to believe they'd be good at shaking down the other entities that provide funding, like labor unions, corporations, billionaire entrepreneurs, etc.
A.S. in Bedford, MA, asks: My understanding of AIPAC is that it is funded by wealthy (and not so wealthy) American individuals who want their politicians to support Israel. I dislike it, as I dislike all PACs, but the caricature of it being evil strikes me as antisemitic in a "Jews pulling the marionette strings" kind of way.
Do people have the same rhetoric/anger around anti-abortion and other PACs and are the sizes/influence of these various PACs in the same league? Also, what's to stop people who support Israel from just donating directly to pro-Israel candidates?(Z) answers: As someone who follows politics closely, I would guess that the sleaziest PACs in the land are the various Trump-affiliated PACs (e.g., Save America), the various Koch-affiliated PACs (e.g. Americans for Prosperity) and AIPAC.
However, the hatred for the Trump-affiliated PACs is subsumed in the hatred for Trump himself. Meanwhile, the Kochs (one of them still alive) are/were very good at flying under the radar, such that even most political junkies could not name one of their (many) PACs. That leaves AIPAC as the de facto avatar for the many, many people like you who hate PACs in general.
There is probably some antisemitism embedded in the venom directed at AIPAC. But I think it's mostly that they're the most visible example of a much-loathed phenomenon.
And certainly, people can donate directly to pro-Israel candidates. But they can donate more to AIPAC, plus they tend to think that the folks at AIPAC, being professional operatives, know the most effective way to spend the cash.
R.W. in Bensenville, IL, asks: What would you say are the top races we should watch on election night? That is, the ones that will likely be leading indicators of how the rest of the night will go? Is there anywhere that would provide election night results in this style, focusing on these key indicator races?
(Z) answers: We usually put together a post, which we are already working on, that lays this out. And then, we use that post on election night to shape the running commentary we write while the results are coming in. So, the site you want is... Electoral-Vote.com. Tell them (Z) sent you.
V.F. in Chouppes, France, asks: Why doesn't the U.S. have absurd candidates like Britain's Count Binface? We have plenty of political satire, but nothing that truly holds a serious candidate's feet to the fire in the way the Brits do.
(Z) answers: The U.S. does have absurd candidates, but it's generally hard for them to gain any traction. Part of the reason is that Americans are pretty well trained to vote for the two major parties, since there is little chance for a non-major party candidate to win. And part of the reason is that, in most places, it's hard for a novelty candidate to get on the general election ballot, since most states either require someone to be the official nominee of a party that already has ballot access, or else they impose somewhat onerous requirements in terms of signatures that must be gathered and/or fees that must be paid.
If you want an example of what happens when it's easy to get on the ballot, however, look no further than the 2003 and 2021 California gubernatorial recall elections. In both cases, there were nearly 200 candidates on the ballot, including washed-up actors, retired politicians, pornographers, comedians, former athletes, people famous for being famous, etc.
Also, the Brits seem to have a particularly well-developed affinity for the absurd. There is a reason that Monty Python came from Britain and not the U.S.
S.B. in Granby, MA, asks: Suppose the Senate ends up looking something like this: 49 Republicans, 48 Democrats and 3 independents who all caucus with the Democrats. Who then becomes the majority leader?
(Z) answers: Presumably Chuck Schumer. If not him, some other Democrat.
If we are talking about the Speaker of the House of Representatives, then that person needs the votes of 50% of the House plus one. And if the majority is narrow, and if a few independents went rogue, then it could be a problem for a would-be speaker. That said, it's not likely, because those rogue independents would not get committee assignments if they chose not to fall in line with their caucus/conference.
When it comes to majority/minority leaders, in both chambers, a person needs only a majority of the votes of their own caucus/conference. So, in the scenario here, it would only take 26 Democratic votes to choose a majority leader, and it would not matter how the independents voted, as long as they remain members of the Democratic caucus.
S.H. in Salem, OR, asks: The Constitution requires that the Senate provide advice and consent for Cabinet and other appointed officials. Is there any reason why the Senate, if it changes hands to the Democrats, could not rescind its consent and thereby remove a Todd Blanche, Robert Kennedy Jr. or a Pete Hegseth?
(Z) answers: Yes, there is a reason. The Constitution contains no provision for rescinding consent. And there's absolutely no precedent for it, so if a Democratic-controlled Senate tried it, then Trump would sue, and he would win. His argument, which would be entirely correct, would be: "The mechanism for removing a sitting Cabinet officer is impeachment and conviction, and that is the only option available."
B.J. in Arlington, MA, asks: I saw a random Facebook post this week saying that the term "Civil War" is an inappropriate description for what happened in the U.S. in the 1860s, because it does not clearly label the cause or instigators of the war, and that "Slaveholders' Rebellion" would be more accurate.
Does (Z) have an opinion to share?(Z) answers: The Civil War has been known by many names over the years, including the War Between the States, the War of the Rebellion, the War of Northern Aggression, the Brothers' War and the War for Southern Independence.
If it was up to me, I would not favor a switch to "Slaveholders' Rebellion." That implies that the war was driven by a smallish number of Southern elites, and comports with the Lost Cause framing of Confederate soldiers as people who did not care about slavery, and were merely fighting to protect their homes/honor/families/whatever. This is a gross misrepresentation; even non-slaveowning white Southerners benefited enormously from the institution and were definitely willing to fight to keep it. They should not be let off the hook with a name that assigns responsibility to a small fraction of the Southern populace.
J.I. in San Francisco, CA , asks: Why is the Secret Service named that way, when they aren't all that secret for much of what they do? Doesn't that name just give conspiracy-minded folks a ready-made reason to distrust the government?
(Z) answers: Because their original task was not to protect the president, it was to combat counterfeiters, usually through undercover work. They assumed responsibility for presidential security more than 30 years after their founding.
S.C. in Mountain View, CA, asks: When I first got seriously involved in politics (around 1986), someone much older and (I assumed) much wiser than I told me he thought senators made better presidents than governors, because senators generally get some foreign policy experience as part of their jobs while governors generally do not, and foreign policy is a very significant part of a President's job.
I took this as gospel but now that I am older (and maybe even wiser) myself, I'd like to know what the experts think. Where do the people who rank the presidents come down on this issue, based on their rankings?(Z) answers: The most recent major ranking of the presidents was conducted by the American Political Science Association (APSA) in 2024. That poll aligns pretty well with the current consensus; downgrading the once-highly-ranked Ronald Reagan, Woodrow Wilson and Andrew Jackson, and elevating some previously denigrated presidents like Harry S. Truman and Ulysses S. Grant.
For purposes of this answer, I will focus on their top quartile, which includes all the presidents deemed by APSA to be "near great" and "great" (sorry, Ulysses, you're not quite there yet). Here is that list, along with the significant public offices each of them held:
Rank President St. Legislature St. Governor U.S. House U.S. Senate VPOTUS Cabinet Sec. General 1 Abraham Lincoln * * 2 Franklin D. Roosevelt * * 3 George Washington * * 4 Theodore Roosevelt * * * 5 Thomas Jefferson * * * 6 Harry S. Truman * * 7 Barack Obama * * 8 Dwight D. Eisenhower * 9 Lyndon B. Johnson * * * 10 John F. Kennedy * * 11 James Madison * * 12 Bill Clinton * Totals 5 4 4 4 4 2 2
We did a more detailed version of this same exercise several years back, and the conclusion was basically the same: Some sort of useful experience is important, but there's no clear-cut "best" path to being a good president.
However, what you probably can say, based on this table, is that being a governor was the more useful experience in the 19th and early 20th centuries, when foreign policy was a smaller part of the presidential portfolio. And being a Senator is the more useful experience today, when foreign policy (and, for that matter, trying to wrangle Congress) are much bigger parts of the presidential portfolio.
M.H. in Council Grove, KS, asks: I was born in the Reagan era. I think that during my lifetime there have never been two good presidents in a row, for the economy or for the U.S. in general. What sequence of a few presidents in a row do you think was best for the country?
(Z) answers: Look at the table above, and it is virtually indisputable that the best run in American history was FDR-Truman-Eisenhower-Kennedy-Johnson. Five in a row in the top quartile.
The Washington-Adams-Jefferson-Madison-Monroe run was pretty good, too—Adams and Monroe are just barely outside the top quartile these days. The Cleveland-McKinley-T. Roosevelt run would be in contention, as well, if you could somehow swap Cleveland's (largely successful) first term with his (largely disastrous) second term.
Unfortunately for Lincoln, who is almost always ranked the greatest president in U.S. history, he was bookended by three of the worst in Pierce/Buchanan on one side and A. Johnson on the other.
M.C. in Glasgow, Scotland (where our subway is lovely but modest), asks: J.M. in Arvada wrote, of the London Underground:
First and foremost, use the Tube. I've seen some Americans who have concerns about it (thinking of it like the New York City Subway)...When I visited Midtown Manhattan recently, and planned to use the 1 Train to go visit a friend nearer the Upper West Side, they most eagerly counter-proposed a plan that did not involve my using the subway by myself as a new user. I've visited Manhattan before but, for travel within the borough, I had always walked.
I have gotten on fine with the subway systems in London, Paris, Boston and DC. Well, sometimes they can be rather crowded, but it works out in the end. Apart from my being vaguely aware to watch out for "express" trains that skip stops, is the New York City subway really in a category of its own? Ought I be fearing it, and why?(Z) answers: I have very little experience with New York City public transit. Not "none," but very little. However, I have vast experience with Los Angeles public transit. And I suspect that, in terms of the user experience, they are very similar.
To start with, there is no question that you are less likely to suffer injury, including catastrophic injury, on public transit than you are driving/riding in a car. And during the day, public transit may be kind of crowded, but you probably don't have to worry too much about the other passengers.
At night, the calculus changes a bit. There are a lot of homeless people on public transit, and that makes some riders uncomfortable. Some of those homeless people are high, or are coming down off a high, or are mentally imbalanced, or are otherwise potentially dangerous. Some of them give off signs of being potential sexual predators, like allowing their gaze to linger for far too long on women's chests. The situation tends to be worse on subways and other light rail than on buses, because buses have a clear gatekeeper (i.e., the driver), whereas that is not always the case with the alternatives.
What it amounts to is this: In Los Angeles, at least, I was never concerned about riding on public transit, given my gender, my size and my strength. However, if I was a woman, and it was at night, and the only option available was subway/light rail, I would have thought long and hard about calling an Uber or a Lyft or finding some other option.
J.B. in Bend, OR, asks: You wrote: "Baseball has the largest number of political conservatives among the four major sports..." Do you have any idea as to why that is? It can't be because there are so few Black baseball players (who tend to be liberal), since hockey has to have even fewer Black athletes.
(Z) answers: To start, note that the majority of athletes, like the majority of Americans, are not especially dialed-in when it comes to politics.
In any case, the NBA is predominantly Black, and Black Americans are predominantly centrist/center-left. Either way, not Republican/conservative. The NFL is substantially Black (about 55%), while another big chunk (15% or so) is multiracial. There is also a sizable Asian contingent, mostly Samoan-Americans, which leans left. The NHL is very white, it is true, but many of the white players are Canadian, and Canadians (even white, male Canadians) skew more liberal than Americans do.
Major League Baseball has relatively few Black players these days (about 7%) and very few Canadians (less than 1%). It has a lot of native-born white players, and young men in America skew conservative. This is particularly true of young men who are not educated, and baseballers are the least educated of the athletes who play the four major sports. This is primarily because there is a much more viable non-college route to the pros for baseball players (i.e., the minor leagues) than there is for players in the other three major sports leagues. Nearly all NFL players went to college for 3 years or more, most NBA players went for at least a year, and most NHL players went for anywhere from 1-4 years.
In addition, MLB has a sizable number of Latino players (about 30%). Latinos, particularly those born outside the United States, tend to be socially conservative, and many of them are also fiscally conservative.
D.N. In Silver Spring, MD, asks: You wrote "...if we write something like 'historians have reached a consensus that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone,' we will get multiple dozens of e-mails pushing back, and advancing various 'alternate' theories."
Has anyone ever sent you an email advancing an "alternate" theory on who wrote William Shakespeare's plays? And if you publish this question, do you think anyone is likely to do so?(Z) answers: I do not recall receiving such a letter. I searched our e-mail archives for messages containing the obvious names (Edward de Vere, Francis Bacon, Christopher Marlowe, etc.), and didn't find any matches.
I am not great at predicting what kinds of e-mails we will get, but I would guess that Shakespeare authorship debates are much more fringy than JFK assassination debates. At very least, with JFK, people began raising questions right away. With Shakespeare, nobody expressed serious doubts about his authorship until multiple centuries after he died.