Dem
47
GOP
53
Next week is the last Saturday of the month, and thus all non-politics questions. If you have questions about movies, TV, literature, art, sports, food, games, science, history, etc., send them to questions@electoral-vote.com.
If you're still working on this week's headline theme, we'll give the hint that the answer appears in the previous paragraph.
M.M. on Bainbridge Island, WA, asks: Donald Trump has to be taken both seriously and literally. How confident are you that 2026 will be a free, fair, legitimate election? I'm not very; I believe Trump will try to interfere in some way, and it will go up to the Supreme Court, with negative results. I'm hoping to be reassured?
J.I. in San Francisco, CA, asks: Since Donald Trump has "floated" the idea of canceling elections, even though that isn't something he can do directly, what would happen if states didn't hold their elections in November for whatever reason (Republican states refusing and/or Democratic states under martial law)? Would it simply be that they wouldn't have any representatives and possibly missing a senator come Jan. 3, 2027, and that the rest of the representatives and senators would then get to run the show until 2029? Or could those states hold make-up elections at a later point in the term and then immediately send those folks to DC? Should Democratic states be working on some sort of break-glass-in-emergency procedure in place ahead of the election to officially send representatives and senators to DC should elections be unable to be held?
(Z) answers: Let's start by addressing the extreme scenario. California alone has a population of almost 40 million people. There are about 2.5 million active-duty/reserve soldiers and/or federal law enforcement officers. Even if Donald Trump were to deploy every bit of manpower available, it would be somewhere between "extremely difficult" and "impossible" for him to impose martial law when government forces are outnumbered 15-to-1. And then add in that he cannot exactly pull American forces out of every military post in the world, nor leave federal prisons unstaffed. Add in that many of the soldiers/law enforcement in question are Californians, and may not be keen on oppressing their home state. And add in that California is just one blue state, and there are at least 15 others with a combined population of 150 million people. What it adds up to is that martial law, as a way of preventing the midterm elections, is wholly impractical.
There are also a couple of other very big problems with trying to (illegally) prevent the elections from taking place. The first is that people like Gov. Gavin Newsom (D-CA) and JB Pritzker (D-IL) almost certainly are thinking about contingency plans. And even if they're not, they'll start thinking very fast if it becomes necessary. Think about how quickly the California legislature acted on the mid-term redistricting. Then think about how quickly they would act if, say, Trump tried to suspend elections and Newsom submitted a bill allowing for all Californians to vote online.
The other big problem is that the Constitution is, in effect, a contract. If the White House endeavors to create a new "clause" in the contract to suspend elections, but otherwise abides by the contract, then the Senate will flip, since there will be 22 seats currently held by Republicans that would be left vacant, as compared to 13 seats held by Democrats. (If you'd like the math, that would mean a 34 D/I to 31 R Senate). If the White House tries to bend and twist the contract, so that the Republican Senators get elected but not the Democrats, then the contract is void. Many citizens in blue states would, for example, stop paying their federal income taxes, since the document that makes those taxes legal is the same one that requires biennial elections for Congress.
What that means is that the only viable approach is to try to influence the elections around the margins, through various shenanigans that might net a House seat here, and a Senate seat there. Redistricting would be in this category. Making it harder to vote with voter ID rules, or limits on mail voting, or reduced availability of polling places would also be in this category. Of course, Republican-led states have been doing these things for years. The new entry to the list is sending ICE or other federal officials to polling places to try to keep Democratic-leaning voters from casting ballots.
The use of ICE or other goons is the single biggest thing to be worried about in 2026, in my view. The good news, such as it is, is that the administration has telegraphed its plans in such a clumsy fashion that counter-moves will be possible. Blue states and cities are already hard at work on promoting voting options that don't require going to polling places in person. The ACLU and other organizations are prepping their lawsuits, and you can bet they will have an army of lawyers across the nation ready to run to court at 8:00 a.m. on Election Day to ask for emergency injunctions. Also, trying to take away people's right to vote turns out to be an excellent way to get them to the polls.
S.C. in Mountain View, CA, asks: In "Can the Supreme Court Be Reined In?," (V) sets forth all the things a Democratic trifecta (White House, Senate, House of Representatives) could do via legislation, assuming that the Democrats are willing to at least create carve-outs in the filibuster. (V) also assumes that "a constitutional amendment is unrealistic in the current polarized climate."
My concern is that what one trifecta can do a different trifecta can undo, and at some point we'd be back with a judicial branch that was "more equal" than the other two. As for the "current polarized climate," given a Democratic trifecta, I could see Republicans at both the federal and state level willing to support a constitutional amendment that would prevent a Democratic President from committing all the abuses that the current occupant has and continues to commit.
So, in addition (since I believe in "both/and" as opposed to "either/or") to the legislative suggestions (V) makes, how would you word a constitutional amendment that would restore the status quo ante 2016 (including, among other things, that the president is not above the law and that independent commissions established by Congress are truly independent) and would be so clear that even the Roberts' Court couldn't work around it?(Z) answers: Sorry, but trying to come up with the proper wording of a constitutional amendment is well beyond our pay grade. That is the kind of thing that requires a veritable army of scholars and lawyers, and many weeks or months of discussion and revision.
I tend to agree that a constitutional amendment just might be possible. Even in highly partisan times, if both sides think the amendment will work to rein in the OTHER side, then agreement is plausible.
Beyond that, U.S. history is basically a series of "abuses" and "corrections." In short, some entity gains more power than it is supposed to have—could be the presidency, or the Supreme Court, or some minority faction, or political operatives, or big business, or more than one of the above. Then, public support for reform grows, and reform is implemented. At that point, the folks who desire more wealth and power than is their due look for ways around the new rules, and eventually they find them. Eventually, sentiment for even more reform emerges. Rinse and repeat. In the world of biology, they call this an evolutionary arms race.
I do not know what kinds of reform might be coming down the pike, but I do believe we are on the cusp of an "era of reform" portion of the cycle, possibly even a New Progressive Era. Also, while reform is tough to pull off, counter-reform tends to be even tougher. Do you know how much energy was expended on trying to get rid of the Pendleton Act, or the Social Security Act, or the Affordable Care Act? And yet, they are still here.
M.T. in St. Paul, MN (along with Minneapolis, the ICE capital of the U.S.), asks: I found your recent item, "Trump is Destroying the Future," interesting.
I received a Ph.D. in a science-related field, then chose to work with a state agency. But my work always involved interactions with the research community, primarily represented by universities. After reading your article, I did a Google search on what Americans think of science and stumbled across this piece by the Pew Research Center. While Democrats and Republicans are in general agreement, there appear to be differences. To me, the most noticeable difference was in the percentages of each party supporting universities and private companies. As you would expect, Republicans appear to hold less favorable views of Universities and more favorable views of private contributions to science.
I'll play devil's advocate with this question: Is there a reason why the U.S. should not shift more towards science and research being done through private companies rather than through universities? Note that I agree with what your piece says, so maybe another way of phrasing this question is: What are the pros and cons of relying more on private companies?(V) answers: Pro: Private companies can move fast and put a lot of resources into a project fast. If Pfizer really wants a vaccine for something right now, it can assign 100 people to it and tell them to start working tomorrow at 9 a.m. No university can come close to that.
Cons: To the CEO of a company, research is an expense whose benefits, if any, will show up much later. Most companies are not interested in putting a lot of money into a project that might fail and, if it succeeds, will only be useful years from now. A company that makes lithium batteries might be willing to assign some people the task of making them last 20% longer if the head of research thinks there is a good chance of success within a year. But the company probably won't put much money into a project that might result in a whole new kind of battery in 5-10 years, even if they get the patent on it. CEOs think one fiscal quarter is long term. Universities are not constrained by quarterly reports and what the stock market thinks.
Companies are generally loath to do research on anything far from the business they are already currently in. For example, all the hype around AI now is due to 40 years of research at universities. Now that it is close to being useful, companies are jumping in. But 20, 30, 40 years ago, very few companies were interested in AI. Too speculative. Also, AT&T had no interest in doing research on packet switching and the Internet until a bunch of universities had built a working model and had been using it for years to show that it worked.
The secret of how DNA worked wasn't discovered by a drug company, but by two guys at Cambridge University who were curious about how it worked. Insulin was discovered not at a drug company, but at the University of Toronto. The computer was invented not at IBM but at the University of Pennsylvania. There is a long list of things invented at universities because companies didn't see that research as useful in the short term.
S.S.L. in Battle Creek, MI, asks: I stereotype local law enforcement as on the side of Trump/ICE. Is that what we're seeing in Minneapolis?
(Z) answers: While it is generally true that law enforcement tends to side with other law enforcement, it is most certainly not the case in this instance. We will be talking about that in detail on Tuesday.
B.B. in Dothan, AL, asks: An observation/question I've asked a couple of times now, regarding our society's response to the ongoing rise of fascism in the country, is: Where are the protest songs? In the Vietnam era, they were all over the radio and most of the top 100. Today? Nada. I would think that, if people were really upset about what's going on (e.g., U.S. citizens being kidnapped in broad daylight by masked, non-uniformed people and deported to foreign prisons) they would be seeking music to express those sentiments.
(Z) answers: I will give you three things to consider, and you can do with them what you will. First, we tend to look at the protest songs of the 1960s through a distorted lens. Do you know the only song directly inspired by the Vietnam War to go to #1 on the U.S. singles charts? That would be "Ballad of the Green Berets," a PRO-war song by Staff Sgt. Barry Sadler. The point is that while songs like "Fortunate Son" and "For What It's Worth" loom large in historical memory, in the moment they were predominantly the music of a small (but vocal) minority.
Second, the music business is much more balkanized today than it was in the 1960s. There are many fewer musical acts who can hope to break through beyond their narrow fanbase. And the ones who might be able to do so, like Taylor Swift and Beyoncé, would be taking pretty serious financial and personal risks if they recorded, say, an anti-Trump song.
Third, there ARE protest songs today. However, it is probable they are in genres that you aren't following. Folk music has been the music of protest for many centuries, and there are many folk musicians today who are carrying on the tradition. In particular, we have highlighted the work of Jesse Welles on this site several times. The other genre where you'll find plenty of protest songs today is hip-hop, with artists like Bad Bunny and Childish Gambino particularly standing out.
K.R. in Austin, TX, asks: Of course Donald Trump has no trouble telling outright lies. Still, do you know if there's any truth to what the White House posted on Facebook today?
(Z) answers: We are going to start this answer with two notes. The first is that we did no research before choosing this question, and so don't know for sure how the answer will turn out. The second is that RCP is not a terribly reliable aggregator, and has been known to leave polls unfriendly to Republicans out of its database. So, we're already starting with a questionable source.
We do not know exactly what methodology that the White House used, if any, for basis of its comparison. However, today is January 24, 2026. RCP's average for Donald Trump is presently 42.6% approve, 54.7% disapprove, putting him 12.1 points underwater. On January 22, 2014 (in other words, the nearly equivalent day in Barack Obama's second term), Obama was at 44.6% approve, 50.4% disapprove, putting him 5.8 points underwater. On January 26, 2006 (in other words, the nearly equivalent day in George W. Bush's second term), Bush was at 42.9% approve, 53.3% disapprove, putting him 10.4 points underwater.
In order to get these numbers, we have to rely on the Wayback Machine, since RCP's database no longer goes back that far. That is why we're not using January 24 for Obama and Bush, because Wayback did not index those days. It is possible that if someone had another source for the historical data, and/or they massaged the numbers a bit based on exactly what date is being used for basis of comparison, Trump 2026 might have a slight lead over Bush 2006. It is very implausible that one could make the numbers for Trump 2026 better than the ones for Obama 2014. In fact, across about 300 second-term polls, Obama only recorded double-digit disapproval 13 times, and usually that was -10 or -11. Trump has recorded double-digit disapproval 14 times just this month. And while Obama's worst number was -15 (which happened twice), Trump's current month already includes a -15, a -16, a -17, three -18s and two -19s.
In short, "We're going to use the most Trump-friendly source possible to show that he might be a shade more popular than a president who cratered in his second year and left office with the lowest approval ratings to be recorded, and then we're going to lie and claim Trump's more popular than the Black guy he hates."
M.H. in Salt Lake City, UT, asks: In which countries (planets, even?) did Donald Trump end eight wars?
(Z) answers: Here are the eight conflicts he is referring to:
- Armenia and Azerbaijan
- Democratic Republic of Congo and Rwanda
- Iran and Israel
- India and Pakistan
- Cambodia and Thailand
- Israel and Hamas
- Ethiopia and Egypt
- Serbia and Kosovo
There is so much spin going on here, readers should probably take a Dramamine right now. To wit:
- Some of these (e.g., #3, #7) deploy a very loose definition of "war"
- Some of these (e.g., #7, #8) were from his first term
- Some of these (e.g., #1, #4) had little or no involvement from the Trump administration
- Some of these (e.g., #2, #5), the war continued after Trump's involvement
- Some of these (e.g., #6, #8), the peace is very, very fragile
Trump's strongest claim as "peacemaker" is Israel and Hamas. His second strongest claim is probably Iran and Israel. If readers are unpersuaded that those efforts are Nobel Prize-worthy, then the other six do not improve the case.
K.M. in St. Louis, MO, asks: How much do you think the Mercator projection contributes to Trump's obsession with Greenland?
(Z) answers: Just to make sure everyone is on the same page, maps that use the Mercator projection make landmasses near the poles appear larger than they actually are.
I doubt that Trump is influenced by the Mercator projection of Greenland, per se. What he cares about is an island or other landmass large enough to be a "monument" to him and his presidency. Any island that is noticeable on a map would be good enough, I think—Cuba or Madagascar would do just as well as Greenland, for his purposes. On the other hand, he would not be interested in, say, St. Kitts and Nevis or Cabo Verde.
D.R. in Yellow Springs, OH, asks: As I write this, it looks like Donald Trump is finally backing off his attempts to take over Greenland. And I'm pretty sure the rest of NATO would fiercely resist any attempt to take over Canada. But Trump posed with a map of the Western Hemisphere that also included a U.S. flag over Venezuela. This makes me wonder: Why hasn't he made an attempt at taking over Venezuela and making it into a territory, like Puerto Rico is?
I'm not suggesting that this is a good idea. But it would achieve Trump's ambition for territorial expansion. So why do you suppose he isn't doing it?(Z) answers: Puerto Rico became a part of the U.S. almost 130 years ago, when the world was still in the era of imperialism, and had much more tolerance for those sorts of things. If Trump tried to annex Venezuela today, the international blowback would be massive, and not dissimilar to what would happen if he tried to grab Greenland.
Further, there may be many people in Venezuela who are happy to see Nicolás Maduro gone, and who are pleased to have some help from the U.S. However, very few of these people are interested in being U.S. colonial subjects. Not only do the people of South America know a thing or two about the downsides of colonialism, they also saw what happens when a place like Puerto Rico gets smacked by a hurricane.
Finally, there are roughly 50% of Americans who oppose pretty much everything Trump does, and who certainly would not approve of such neo-imperialism. There is some segment of the remainder (particularly Libertarians and Libertarian-leaning folks like Sen. Rand Paul, R-KY, and Rep. Thomas Massie, R-KY) who are isolationist and don't want the U.S. expanding its international footprint. And finally, Trump's base elected him, in significant part, because he promised to keep the brown people out of the country. How do you think they would react if he added 28 million+ brown people to the country's population overnight?
In short, trying to turn Venezuela into an American colony would be several orders of magnitude stupider than trying to acquire Greenland. And THAT is really saying something.
D.H. in Portland, OR, asks: Although I am opposed to and aghast over the U.S.'s invasion of Venezuela, I was amazed at the U.S. military's ability to drop in and shock and awe their way to capturing the head of a sovereign nation and then leave. My question, and I am not advocating this, just asking: Is there any nation in the world that could pull off this kind of thing against the United States?
(Z) answers: It would not be easy. In the U.S., the president is protected by the Secret Service, the U.S. military, and numerous physical barriers. Outside the U.S., the president is protected by the Secret Service, some U.S. military, and the security service/military of whatever country they are visiting. And, in general, the president's staff avoids visits to places where the local security forces won't be reliable.
Although it's not proven, there is much credible suspicion that someone inside the Maduro administration betrayed him and was working with the U.S. Having a mole inside the White House, probably a high-ranking Secret Service official, would be essential to an attempt at abducting the U.S. president. Any country who did it would also have to have a top-notch intelligence service, and some top-notch Black Ops troops. That country would probably also have to lure the president to a site where security is extra-difficult, like when Donald Trump met Kim Jong-Un in Singapore.
There are a few nations that would at least have a chance to grab a U.S. president. China, certainly, and Russia. Maybe Israel, since Mossad is very good at what they do, and is very experienced with this general type of operation. Possibly some of the European powers, like the U.K. or Germany. Of course, any country that pulled it off, or even tried to pull it off, would effectively be declaring war against the U.S., and none of those nations are interested in that outcome.
M.C. in Waitsburg, WA, asks: When is it time to leave the U.S.? I am a white citizen, child of an 80-year-old white immigrant who has been in the U.S. legally for over 50 years. I am not currently a target, but may well end up a target in the future. Most of my family was killed in the Holocaust, save a few who left Europe early. I don't want to overreact and blow up my life in vain, but I also don't want to wait too long and wish I had left. How do we know when it's time to leave? Are there specific indicators that we should be looking for?
(Z) answers: Keep in mind that moving to a new country comes with its own set of risks, like being targeted by local criminals, struggling to adapt to the climate, needing time to integrate into the health care system, and maybe even things like getting used to the local rules and customs that govern the driving of vehicles.
So, it's not enough to think about the risks of staying in the U.S., you have to think about exactly how big the gap is between those risks and the risks of moving somewhere else. I seriously doubt that calculation makes sense for you. The Trump administration has certainly unleashed its inner fascist, but the odds of any one person out of a population of 340 million being targeted are still pretty low. And they get lower if that any one person is older, white and female. The White House vastly prefers younger, brown, and male, because those are the people who scare MAGA voters.
Your implied Holocaust comparison is actually salient. The reason that worked for Hitler is that Jews were a small, but visible population that he could target. He was more than happy to target other populations, and sometimes did (e.g., the Roma), but after taking preliminary steps toward going after Catholics, he backed off because he realized that was biting off more than he could chew.
Jews, of course, are still a small, but visible population. And given how many times they have been targeted by demagogic leaders, we're not ruling out the possibility it could happen in the U.S. in the year 2026. But we think it unlikely, because Jews aren't what make MAGA angry and, besides, this administration has clearly decided that Jews are more useful in other ways (most obviously, as an excuse for going after universities).
P.B. in Chicago, IL, asks: We all know that most/all major cities in U.S. are blue. What are the largest red cities? How do they rank in population among all cities? How red are they and why are they red?
(Z) answers: This is not as easy a question to answer as you might think, as there are a lot of independent voters out there, and they pivot back and forth between elections. So, there are big cities that tend to vote Republican, but there aren't too many big cities that are 50%+ registered Republicans. In other words, this list represents our judgment, and others might produce a slightly different list:
City Population Rank in U.S. How red? Fort Worth, TX 956,709 13 Very Oklahoma City, OK 694,800 21 Very Fresno, CA 545,567 33 Slightly Mesa, AZ 512,498 36 Moderately Virginia Beach, VA 455,618 42 Slightly Bakersfield, CA 410,647 47 Moderately Lexington, KY 322,570 56 Slightly Henderson, NV 317,610 59 Slightly Plano, TX 285,494 73 Very Chandler, AZ 275,987 76 Moderately
The largest city with a Republican mayor, at the moment, is #9 Dallas. However, Dallas is clearly a blue city, and six of the seven mayors before the current one were members of the blue team.
Generally speaking, red cities fit in one of two categories. Either they are the "seat" of an area that is predominantly red and rural, or they are wealthy suburbs of larger, blue cities.
J.C. in Lockport, IL, asks: Let me preface by saying I'm not talking about any specific president here. If any president were to die peacefully in their sleep, and the administration wanted to keep it a secret, how long could they feasibly do so before the general public found out? I'm assuming that under normal circumstances we'd find out very quickly, but if staff/the administration really wanted to keep it under wraps for some reason, how long would they be able to keep the public from finding out?
(Z) answers: I am going to imagine writing a TV show or a movie script where the plot is driven by a scheme like this, and the president's staff is tasked with keeping the truth hidden for as long as is possible.
If the subterfuge is going to be extended beyond a few days, or maybe a week, it would first be necessary to come up with a story that explains why the president must remain "in seclusion." For example, "the president has contracted a very serious case of [SOME DISEASE THAT IS DANGEROUS, CONTAGIOUS, AND HARD TO RECOVER FROM], and has been ordered to remain in bed until a full recovery takes place." We are not physicians, and don't know what the ideal lie would be here, but maybe something like respiratory syncytial virus. The administration could claim that to avoid spreading the disease, contact has been limited to only a small number of medical professionals.
One could imagine a lie like this working for, what, maybe a month? Eventually, there would be questions about why the president was unable to conduct business via phone/teleconference. And if the explanation was "He's just too sick," then the questions would be about why the president did not temporarily hand over power to the VP, under the terms of the Twenty-Fifth Amendment. In particular, everyone would be asking, "If the President is too sick to handle a Zoom session, what's going to happen if there's a nuclear attack against the U.S.?"
Note that such a conspiracy of silence would likely include a pretty large number of people, all of whom would be guilty of numerous felonies. There would be a huge risk of one of them blowing the whistle, either because they do not approve of the whole arrangement, or they are trying to protect their own hides, or they have an agenda and want there to be a change in leadership.
It's hard to see this working for much more than a month. I am, of course, aware of the movie Dave, where this basic deception is extended by having a lookalike pose as the president for an extended period. But that's a Hollywood movie, and it's implausible that a lookalike could get away with it in the real world.
C.J. in Boulder, CO, asks: Say Donald Trump is somehow sidelined. Just how different might a Vance administration look, were it to take over during Trump's term?
(Z) answers: I do not think it would look very different at all. First, presidents who take over for predecessors who died almost invariably say, "I have a duty to carry on the agenda of [DEAD PREDECESSOR]." Second, J.D. Vance appears to be a man almost entirely bereft of imagination, and almost entirely beholden to doing whatever he thinks will keep him in the circles of power. Though he probably would tone down SOME of the crazy, like threatening to invade Greenland.
M.C. in Calgary, AB, Canada, asks: What are the actions that you think Donald Trump would get impeached for if the Democrats take the House?
(Z) answers: I do not think the Democrats want to impeach Trump, because they know that will fire up his base. It is fairly clear their plan is to impeach someone else in the administration, like AG Pam Bondi. That will signal to the Democratic base that "something is being done" and it won't fire up the MAGA base nearly as much.
If they do impeach Trump, it will have to look organic. In other words, "Trump just did [BAD THING X], and we simply can't ignore it." If that is the case, then it will be something he does in 2027 or 2028 (or January 2029), and so we cannot identify it right now.
If we are wrong, and the Democrats take over the House on Jan. 3, 2027, and then impeach Trump for some existing bad act, the likely candidate is one or more of the various grifts, like Qatar Force One. The grifts may not be the worst things he's done, but it's the easiest legal case to make, since the Constitution is very clear about emoluments. The other possibility is the ICE stuff, because that is just so unpopular.
J.M. in Silver Spring, MD, asks: You mentioned that the Federal Court of the Eastern District of Virginia is basically advertising a vacancy for the U.S. Attorney for that district. I had seen this mentioned elsewhere too. So, what prevents Donald Trump and Pam Bondi from simply firing whomever they hire?
(Z) answers: The relevant statute says that if an appointment as acting U.S. Attorney expires, as Lindsey Halligan's has, "the district court for such district may appoint a United States attorney to serve until the vacancy is filled." It does not say "until the vacancy is filled, or the person is fired by the president." In other words, the statue says that the judges' appointee gets to keep the job until Trump manages to get a nominee through the U.S. Senate.
B.M. in Chico, CA, asks: I wonder if, given his stances on other matters, Donald Trump might argue that he could withdraw a presidential pardon as a form of leverage over those he pardoned. For example, enlisting former Binance CEO Changpeng Zhao to bring $TRUMP up by 50%, and suddenly discovering that his pardon was illegitimately signed by an autopen (therefore void, in Trump's view) should Zhao fail to comply. What might that argument look like legally and should the folks who got pardons from Trump be worried?
(L) answers: If a pardon has been completed—meaning it has been delivered—it's generally understood to be irrevocable, especially for a past offense. But this has never been litigated in court and the question becomes more complicated for preemptive pardons, or pardons given before someone has been prosecuted for past conduct that a subsequent, independent Department of Justice may pursue charges for.
In that case, a court will have to decide if the pardon was legitimately given. If so, it's difficult to see a legal rationale for allowing even the same president to revoke it, since that would negate the broad presidential power to confer a pardon in the first place. But if anyone might try it, it would be Donald Trump and, once again, we're in uncharted legal territory.
J.H. in Boston, MA, asks: Is Alaska one of those states where you have to resign your current office to run for higher office? If Mary Peltola, congresswoman at large of Alaska, runs for the U.S. Senate, will she have to give up her House seat, even if she loses?
(Z) answers: There are only five resign-to-run states: Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii and Texas, Each of them has slightly different rules about the circumstances under which a person would be required to resign. For example, in Hawaii, you have to resign any political office you might hold in order to run for any other office. In Georgia, you have to resign a state office the moment you are nominated for a federal office, but it's legal to run for a federal office while you hold a different federal office.
Obviously, Alaska is not on the list. Even if it was, it would not matter, however, as Peltola is not currently in office. She lost her reelection bid in 2024 to Rep. Nick Begich III (R).
F.S. in Cologne, Germany asks: You have noted that Henry Kissinger was not eligible to be president, since he was not a natural-born citizen. Would Henry Kissinger have become president if he had been eligable? Which other people would have become president if they had been natural-born citizens?
(Z) answers: Henry Kissinger would not have been elected president. First, any particular "type" of president gets elected once per generation at most, and Richard Nixon was that generation's brilliant-at-foreign-policy-but-sleazy-as-hell president. Second, Kissinger was Jewish, and that would have been a non-starter in the 1960s and 1970s. Third, Kissinger was an egghead, and a LOT of Americans hate obvious eggheads.
Since people who are banned from running for president don't even take the preliminary steps toward making a bid, there is no way to be certain which foreign-born people might have gotten the top job, if the opportunity had been there. However, here are four fairly reasonable guesses:
- Albert Gallatin: The Swiss-born Gallatin served brilliantly as Secretary of the Treasury, at a time when American voters placed great value on competence and ability to manage the economy.
- Carl Schurz: Born in Germany, Schurz was a war hero and a general, in an era where six different Civil War generals served as president. He was a skilled political operative, and so served as a Cabinet secretary (Interior). He also had the enthusiastic support of the German-American community, then a key Republican bloc.
- Bob Hope: We put the British-born Hope here because his skill set is eerily similar to that of Ronald Reagan: telegenic, charming, knew how to deliver a joke.
- Arnold Schwarzenegger: While the Austrian was serving as governor of California, the notion of amending the Constitution to get rid of the "native-born" requirement was discussed somewhat frequently (the news that Schwarzenegger had been elected president was also a joke line in the film Demolition Man, made well before Schwarzenegger became governor). It is at least possible that Arnold might have mounted a serious presidential bid right after leaving the governorship. He would have no chance in today's GOP.
Yep, that's four white guys. We see no plausible non-white-guy answer. The closest is probably Madeleine Albright, but we cannot make the case that a diminutive, soft-spoken woman who preferred to work behind the scenes could mount a viable presidential campaign.
M.M. in Plano, TX , asks: I recently saw a commentary that made a claim that I found astounding, that Alexander Hamilton's mother was Jewish; that he had a Hebrew education in early life (including a bar mitzvah); and that he could recite The Ten Commandments, by heart, in Hebrew.
Does (Z) find any validity to this? Or is it all nonsense?(Z) answers: There are certain "identities" that had to be hidden in past centuries, usually for obvious reasons, and that historians are left to try to uncover, as best they can. In the West, the two identities where this is most common are gay and Jewish.
The easy part of your question is the last part. Hamilton grew up in an area with a large Jewish population, had a Jewish teacher, and most certainly did know the Ten Commandments in Hebrew.
The rest is very... aggressive speculation. Hamilton's mother's second husband was named Johann Michael Levien. It is possible that Levien is a variant of the Sephardic name Levine, and that he was Jewish. In turn, it is possible that Levien conveyed that Judaism to Hamilton's mother. And, in turn, it is possible that Hamilton's mother conveyed that Judaism to her son.
That is a lot of "it is possibles," however. And it would also have to be true that Levien's Jewishness was hidden enough that his mother-in-law didn't know about it, because she never would have approved the marriage if she did. As to Alexander himself, he hated his stepfather, and he never publicly identified as Jewish, although he DID express great admiration for members of that community.
Add it all up, and the general consensus is that Hamilton had fairly close ties to the Jewish community, particularly during his formative years, that there's a possibility, but not a probability, that his stepfather and maybe his mother were Jewish, and... that's about the end of it. If you would like to read the most notable book arguing that Hamilton actually WAS Jewish, at least as a kid, then you want The Jewish World of Alexander Hamilton by Andrew Porwancher. But again, this is not the mainstream view.
F.L. in Allen, TX, asks: This past week marks the 45th anniversary of the Iranian hostage crisis (or the end thereof). Hours after the release, and ever since, my conservative acquaintances (and some liberals) insisted it was because the Ayatollah knew that Reagan wouldn't hesitate to bomb Iran back to the stone age (Oo! Upgrade!)
I was not politically savvy at the time (being at the tender age of 19), but this just didn't quite past the smell test. And my feeling towards Nancy's husband was the same as to The Convicted Felon—he was a snake-oil salesman. To start, although Reagan did do a mighty military buildup (including the risible "Star Wars"), his only military actions, as far as I can remember, were Grenada and Libya—they barely qualified as skirmishes. Over time, I concluded that it was Carter, working quietly behind the scenes with diplomacy. So, two questions: (1) Do you think I have the right of it? (If so, I find it grating that Carter did all the donkey work and Bonzo got all the credit); and (2) Why did the Iranians wait until minutes after the Gipper was sworn in? Or was that just a coincidence?(Z) answers: The Iran Hostage Crisis was ended with the Algiers Accords, on which the Carter administration did all of the heavy lifting. So, the answer to your first question is: "Yes, Carter did the work and Reagan got the credit."
Second, there is no chance whatsoever that the timing of the release was coincidental, as the Iranian government was, and is, very politically savvy, and was well aware that the timing would send a message. The truth of the situation is disputed, and may never be fully known. But the less scandalous possibility is that the Iranians wanted to make nice with the new leader of the most powerful country in the world. And the more scandalous possibility is that there was a quid pro quo, and Reagan's people had told the Iranians that releasing the hostages the moment St. Ronnie became president would be rewarded with arms sales. For the record, the sales of arms to Iran began around 6 months after Reagan's inauguration.
P.R. in Arvada, CO, asks: Every now and then I see something on YouTube about earthquakes around the globe and predictions for when they are going to happen. Usually, these videos are focused on the eastern Pacific around Japan and Russia. At the moment, there is some reporting of earthquake swarms and other signs in California. This got me wondering, do you have earthquake preparedness plans? When I lived in Houston, they would have reminders every year to make sure your hurricane plan was up to date, and you had what you needed. Is there something similar for you in L.A.?
(Z) answers: Among the four of us, I have spent the most time living with California's propensity for earthquakes. When I was in elementary school, we did all sorts of drills and other such preparatory activities. And I was pretty close to the epicenter of two fairly major quakes: the 1987 Whittier Narrows earthquake and the 1994 Northridge earthquake.
My experience has suggested to me that earthquake preparedness, like the cliché of boiling water when a woman goes into labor, is basically just safety theater. It's useful to keep a level head when a quake hits, and to know what kinds of places are safest (e.g., a doorway). But beyond that, most earthquake preparedness imagines a result where you survived, but your home/workplace did not, and the stores did not, and the infrastructure did not, and the roads out of town did not. It could happen, but it's a pretty narrow set of results, and far less likely to happen with a highly centralized earthquake, as opposed to a hurricane that hammers hundreds of miles of land.
If there was an earthquake at this instant, my "backup supplies" would be the bottles of water and the various medical stuff (aspirin, bandages) I keep in my car, as a general-purpose insurance policy (mostly a hedge against the risk of breaking down in the desert). This is probably the smartest thing, for those who have a car, as your car is generally going to be somewhere closeby, and has a good chance of surviving even if the building you are in becomes unsafe.