Dem
51
Ties
3
GOP
46
We didn't get to do non-political questions last week, so we'll do them this week, instead.
If you're still working on the headline theme, we'll tell you that we regret there was no good way to fit "Ahab" into a headline.
J.B. in Bend, OR, asks: (Z) wrote: "There is no question that a person cannot be a 'great' president (top 10%) unless they happen to come into office in circumstances that allow for that."
That prompted this question, which focuses on the other side of the greatness coin: What president(s) faced circumstances that gave them the opportunity to be "great" but they flunked that chance?
My nominee is George W. Bush after 9/11. The world was almost entirely sympathetic to the U.S. and against the concept of terrorism. I think Bush could have used that moment to create a universal and lasting international opposition to terrorism—in all of its incarnations—similar to international law against piracy and genocide. Yes, all nations already condemn terrorism committed against them, but they turn away when it helps their agenda. I think Bush could have created an atmosphere of complete intolerance and quite possibly effective international action or ongoing enforcement body.
The 9/11 attack was a galvanizing moment like the ones that led to the creation of the League of Nations, the United Nations and the Bretton Woods agreements. Perhaps there was no way to achieve international cooperation at the level of those institutions, but the world was clearly and forcefully on our side. He could have pushed forcefully with little resistance, yet he squandered it all, not on the invasion of Afghanistan, but on the invasion of Iraq.
Even if you disagree with me about Bush, the question stands: What president was given the opportunity to be "great" but flunked it?(Z) answers: I suppose you can argue that the two presidents who botched the antebellum era—Franklin Pierce, James Buchanan—had a chance to be great, and dropped the ball. That said, the U.S. probably needed the Civil War to actually make the change, in terms of ending slavery.
Similarly, you can argue that Andrew Johnson, who botched Reconstruction, blew his chance. But the deeply entrenched racism in American and Southern society almost certainly meant that even Abraham Lincoln couldn't have done a whole lot there.
Grover Cleveland and William McKinley presumably had the opportunity to do what Theodore Roosevelt did, and to confront the ills of the Gilded Age head on. But Cleveland was too conservative, and McKinley died prematurely.
Herbert Hoover got the first crack at the Great Depression. But he was also too conservative to have done better, and also, it was probably necessary for people to see how bad things could get before the New Deal could happen. Oh, and when I use "conservative" in describing Cleveland and Hoover here, I don't exactly mean "politically conservative" (though they were both that, as well). I mean, "conservative in their sense of the limits of government power."
Richard Nixon had an opportunity to build on the successes of the 1960s, and to reverse some of the failures (Vietnam), and did so for a while, before he was done in by his corrupt nature.
George W. Bush is a very good answer.
Donald Trump was a political outsider, and someone elected on a promise to "shake things up." He could have done some interesting and/or positive stuff. Obviously, that didn't happen.
If I were to narrow it down to, say, a top three, I'd probably go with Buchanan, Nixon and Bush.
J.M. in Silver Spring, MD, asks: C.A. in Raymond wrote:
Abraham Lincoln, for instance, is at the top. He unquestionably had political skill, but would he be considered Best President Ever if he had not overseen the Confederate War for Independence?Who uses the term "Confederate War for Independence"? I asked Google that question and it suggested "White Southerners and Confederate sympathizers." That sounds about right to me. I am surprised you didn't comment in your answer. What do you think of that term?
(Z) answers: It is indeed a Southern apologist/neo-Confederate term for the war. However, I do not think any of our readers are neo-Confederates. I took that comment as a reference to my answer about names for the war, and whether or not I like the use of "Slaveholders' Rebellion" as a descriptor.
D.F. in Norcross, GA, asks: Since you addressed the timeline of when the Secret Service became tasked with protection of the POTUS, perhaps you can address how (and why) that task was given to that agency in the first place?
Given the original mission of the U.S.S.S. to combat counterfeiters, it seems a little odd that a division of the Treasury Department be handed that job instead of, say, the Departments of Justice or War (as the latter was known at the time), no?(Z) answers: Until the early-to-mid-twentieth century, law enforcement was seen as a "local" issue, and thus not the province of the federal government. And so, in 1901, the only investigative/police force the federal government really had, other than the U.S. Marshals Service, was the Secret Service. That, of course, is because they were originally the investigative/police force tasked with security over a job (creating currency) that is exclusively the province of the federal government.
M.G. in Boulder, CO, asks: I've been reading about Judah Benjamin, the AG, then Secretary of War, then Secretary of State, of the Confederacy. I hadn't seen the administrative side of the Confederate war effort before. One historian said that the South was doomed from the beginning by two words: "states' rights." I have always thought of this in connection with slavery. In the broader context, the idea seems to be that people thought first of their state (as when Robert E. Lee said he could not fight against his native country, he meant Virginia), not of the Confederacy, and prioritized the needs of the state above those of the new nation.
Is "states' rights" generally thought of in this broader way by Civil War historians? If so, how else did this doctrine affect the war's outcome?(Z) answers: Late in the war, Jefferson Davis remarked: "If the Confederacy fails, there should be written on its tombstone: 'Died of a theory.'" There are many sites that will tell you that he was referring to white supremacy, but that is absolutely not correct. He was referring to states' rights. And if anyone should know how states' rights undermined the Confederacy, it's Jefferson Davis.
The problem was that the Southern states, by and large, saw themselves as returning to the pre-Constitution model of a nation—essentially, a federation of loosely connected, semi-autonomous nations. And so, the various states and their leaders were often not eager to contribute to "Team CSA." They were resistant when it came to sharing resources, like uniforms and bullets. They were resistant when it came to paying taxes to the Confederate government. They were resistant to meeting their draft quotas. They were sometimes even resistant to having their troops used in battles where some other state was being defended.
The biggest thorn in Davis' side was Zebulon Vance, who was actively serving in the Confederate Army when he was elected governor of North Carolina in 1862. Vance ran on a platform of, more or less, "I am an advocate for North Carolina, and only North Carolina," and won in a landslide. As governor, he tended to hoard the resources of the relatively wealthy Tar Heel State, such that sometimes extremely well supplied North Carolina soldiers would be serving next to soldiers from some other state whose clothes were threadbare and whose rations were meager. Vance was also a militant advocate of civil liberties (only for white people, of course), such that when Davis threatened to jail disloyal Southerners, Vance warned he'd recall all of North Carolina's soldiers back home, and would use them to resist the Confederate government. As a result, North Carolina was the only Confederate state NOT to suspend habeas corpus at any time during the war.
P.R. in Arvada, CO, asks: Recently I was in Pennsylvania visiting family. They have a cemetery bordering their property and so we usually end up looking at some of the more interesting headstones. One in particular stands out, as it is made from two halves of metal fused together. My question is about the inscription on the back: "SERVED HIS COUNTRY, LOST HIS HEALTH, AND GOT NO PENSION. GONE HOME TO REST FOR EVER."
Most of us are familiar with the concept that nobody loves a veteran more than a politician... until it is time to do something for them. How widespread was this after the Civil War, though, and is it likely that this is an original headstone, or something that was placed there later with this added?(Z) answers: The federal government was eventually very generous with pensions, such that by the mid-1890s, about 25% of the entire federal budget was going to Civil War veterans (Union only, of course).
Depending on the year we're talking about, a person had to prove that they were a veteran, or they had to prove that they were a veteran with a service-related disability. In Yoder's time, it was the latter. He certainly did apply for a pension (twice), though the records are not clear as to why he was turned down. He may not have been disabled (or may not have been significantly disabled). It might also have hurt him that he was a prominent Democratic politician, while the people making the decision were Republicans.
It is very unlikely that the headstone shown in the picture is original, as it simply does not show the wear that happens after 150 or so years. Plus, in the picture on the right, you can see the temporary marker that cemeteries put in place while a headstone is pending. It is very much in the style of a Civil War-era headstone, however, and it's likely that it's a remake of the original headstone. Alternatively, it was made by someone who knew well: (1) the style of Civil War-era headstones, and (2) the personality of Samuel Yoder.
L.M.S. in Harbin, China, asks: Have you ever posed historical questions to AI and gotten a ridiculous (counterfactual) answer?
(Z) answers: I do not use AI, except when I need a demonstration of how bad AI is at historical practice, or when I need to check and see if a student's answer/essay likely came from AI. So, I don't have as many examples as you might think.
That said, my policy is that if a student cheats once, on any assignment, they get a zero for that assignment, and an advisory referral to the Office of Academic Integrity. And if they cheat a second time, on any assignment, they get an F for the course and a disciplinary referral to the Office of Academic Integrity. A few years ago, I asked a question on a quiz: "What notable Californian, who smoked five packs of cigarettes a day, moved to the state because he thought it would improve the health of his lungs?" The correct answer is "Walt Disney," but a student who had already been caught cheating once before nonetheless continued to use AI, and so dutifully gave the "correct" answer, as per ChatGPT: Winston Churchill.
Other than the fact that Churchill smoked cigars and not cigarettes, and that he never moved to or lived in California, and that he did not complain of lung problems, the answer's a bullseye. Oh, and it was also strike two, and an F in the course for that student.
C.L.C. in San Mateo, CA, asks: I lost another text-based site to JavaScript. For security, I disable all scripting and plugins, including JavaScript. Why do text-based sites require JavaScript?
I am happy that you and Political Wire do not require JavaScript. Please never require JavaScript.(V) answers: Javascript is a programming language. If a website contains some Javascript, the program embedded on that website is loaded onto the user's computer and executed there. Often that is done to perform some interactive activity on the user computer. Although we don't require Javascript, we do use it and if you disable it, certain features don't work. When you mouse over a state, a pop-up box with the latest polling average appears (and in presidential years, the results of previous elections appear). Making that work requires tracking where the mouse is and based on where it is, popping up one box or another. This cannot be done remotely. The program tracking mouse movement has to run locally. If you disable Javascript, the popups don't work.
Many websites that are interactive or dynamic use Javascript to make the interaction work. Even a text-based website might use Javascript to be dynamic—for example, a website that has the real-time value of the Dow Jones index or some sports scores on top of the page would need Javascript to keep fetching and displaying the current value every few seconds.
Why Javascript and not C? Because Javascript is type-safe and all major browsers have a Javascript interpreter built in, so no extensions are needed to run Javascript programs.
M.N. in Madison, WI, asks: I hate to be a downer, but I can't help wondering what the odds are that Dolly Parton's song in the time capsule is still readable in 2045, 30 years after being put there. Most media isn't stable over that time span and, if it's stored digitally, you have to wonder if it would if the interfaces would still be available on computers by then.
What do you think? Will Dolly's song make it to its 2045 reveal?(Z) answers: On more than one occasion, I have written that the modern-day equivalent of the Pony Express is the Zip Drive. When those came out, in 1993, they were a revelation. You could fit an enormous amount of data on a single cartridge (initially, 100 MB, which was a huge increase over the 1.44 MB that floppy disks held).
For a period of about 18 months (which is also around the same length of time the Pony Express was in business), I used Zip disks constantly (I worked at a newspaper, and it was a great way to transport layouts/images to the service bureaus and to the plant that printed the newspaper). Then, in late 1994/early 1995, CD burners became widely available at an affordable price. A CD held 600+ MB, and rendered Zip disks largely obsolete. Iomega stopped making Zip disks/Zip drives entirely in 2003.
So, that's a technology that basically died almost 30 years ago, and officially died 23 years ago. And yet, if I go on eBay right now, I can buy both Zip disks and Zip drives. Though the technology is long-obsolete, it's not entirely gone, and won't be for at least another 10-20 years.
If you want to go back even further, even though the Zip drive rendered floppy disks obsolete, you can still buy a floppy disk drive if you happen to need one.
I don't know how Parton's last song was stored, exactly. But whatever the medium, I am confident you will be still be able to buy the necessary device in 2045. It may be used, it may be old tech, but it will still be available. I suspect also that Parton and her team anticipated this problem, and took steps to address it. For example, they may have put the song on an iPhone/iPod/iPad, and put a charger in the capsule with the device. Or, they may have included an analog, reel-to-reel tape copy of the song, just in case. The biggest danger is not being unable to find a player. The biggest danger is the medium decaying and being unreadable, especially if it is magnetic tape.
R.M. in Gresham, OR, asks: It was a fairly accepted comment that the wonder and joy of Dolly Parton was that she was the one thing all Americans could agree on and enjoy. With her having moved on to her next adventure, is there anything else out there that can be viewed this same way? Is there anything that we all like now? I mean, I even know people who don't like chocolate.
We miss you, Dolly—thank you for blessing us with your presence and a life well lived.(Z) answers: I am going to limit myself to people, because once we start to consider movies (The Princess Bride seems to be pretty universally loved) or products (just about everyone seems to like M&M's), the question gets very, very big.
There is a pollster, I think UMass Amherst, that polled "approval ratings" for 30 notable Americans a couple of years ago. Parton's net approval was +65, which was 51 points higher than anyone else surveyed (Barack Obama was in second place, with +14, and Volodymyr Zelenskyy was in third, with +12). So, Parton certainly was kind of a unicorn, as far as public figures go.
There are many different fields of endeavor that occasionally produce someone like this. For example, John Lewis was awfully popular before he died. And so were Willie Mays and Muhammad Ali. But I don't quite see anyone in the world of politics right now, or of sports, who is quite like them. Michael Jordan is very famous, and very admired, but I don't think he's actually beloved, because he's kind of a jerk.
The closest living parallel to Parton I can think of is... Mel Brooks. He's made a lot of films that mean a lot to a lot of people, and he's been present in the culture for more than half a century. He's a charming and self-effacing fellow and, like Parton, I have a pretty good idea of what his politics are, but he hasn't exactly been outspoken about it. Runner-up choice, and someone who also matches the description I just gave: Sir Paul McCartney.
C.S. in Philadelphia, PA, asks: When is a team considered "cursed"? I started following baseball, and specifically the Mets, as a nine-year-old in 1987, one year after they won the World Series. Their new spring training home was an hour from ours in South Florida.
In 2007, I interviewed in Philadelphia, and the Phillies swept the Mets. A couple weeks later, after I accepted the position, the Mets were again swept by the Phillies, all part of the Mets' late season collapse. The Phillies would win the World Series in 2008, my first full year in Philly.
40 years of drugs, lost potential, injuries, bad contracts, and near misses, are the Mets cursed? If yes, is it the "Curse of C.S"?(Z) answers: A team usually has to go an unusually long time (3-4 generations) without winning a title, and often without coming especially close. I must say, I don't think the Mets are particularly close to being "cursed," as yet. They have won two World Series, and they've appeared five times, including twice in the last 25 years. That does not compare with the records of futility put up by the Red Sox and the Cubs for all those years (85+ years, in both cases).
The baseball team that can most claim a curse right now, I think, is the San Diego Padres. They've only been to the World Series twice in their 57-year history, with the more recent of those coming nearly 30 years ago, and they got steamrolled both times. Every time Padres fans have reason for hope, it is dashed, as a key player gets injured, or a big-time signing doesn't pay off, etc.
If we expand it to all of the Big Four sports leagues, the team that is most cursed is probably the Los Angeles Clippers. They've been around for 56 years, and haven't even made the conference finals, much less the NBA Finals. So, that means they not only have failed to win a title, they've never even come close. And given the penalties handed down this week because the team got caught cheating, that fact is unlikely to change in the 2020s, or the 2030s. So, they are likely to reach the 75-year mark without having so much as sniffed a title.
Probably just a coincidence that the two most cursed teams in sports are, or were, San Diego-based teams. Oh, and the former San Diego Chargers, now the Los Angeles Chargers, have never won a title, either.
R.H.D. in Webster, NY, asks: With college football underway, who do you think wins the National Championship? Can the B1G (Big Ten) make it four in a row?
Also, what do you think about the new rule the major conferences imposed that bans anyone who made it to an NFL roster from returning to college if their pro dreams didn't work out?(Z) answers: My pick is Oregon. I know Ohio State is the favorite, but I don't like rooting for Ohio State, and the preseason #1 team rarely goes wire-to-wire. If I am right, that would indeed be four in a row for the B1G.
The line between college football and pro football has become blurry, and this business of jumping back and forth makes it blurrier still. That is to the detriment of college football, I think. I would suggest that it is instructive that the guy who is fighting hardest for former pros to be able to return to college is Lane Kiffin, who is the sleaziest bastard in college football (which is really saying something).
T.M. in Incline Village, NV, asks: I am in a fantasy football league with some friends, but I don't really follow American football (just in the league for the camaraderie). My plan is to field the nicest team possible, so I was wondering if you could recommend some players and teams known for being particularly charitable, kind and generous to their teammates and fans, etc. Thanks for any help.
(Z) answers: Well, you can start with the list of Walter Payton NFL Man of the Year winners, and Alan Page Community Award winners. These are the awards given out for community service by, respectively, the NFL and the NFL Players' Association. That said, a lot of the winners are defensive players, which won't be much use unless your league uses IDPs (most don't).
Here are some other players, by (standard) fantasy position who have very good reputations as nice/community-minded guys:
- Quarterback: Matthew Stafford, Josh Allen, Justin Herbert, Dak Prescott, Patrick Mahomes
- Running Back: Nick Chubb, Saquon Barkley, Christian McCaffrey
- Wide Receiver: Cooper Kupp, Justin Jefferson, Terry McLaurin
- Tight End: Travis Kelce, Taysom Hill, Zach Ertz
- Kicker: Younghoe Koo, Brandon Aubrey
A.A. in Branchport, NY, asks: I grew up playing the board game APBA baseball. It taught me a lot about the game.
Have you any favorite sports board game?(Z) answers: (A) is the board-game expert, but isn't a sports person, so this one falls to me. I never really played any sports tabletop board games, except for carom golf, which I was once very good at. I would count fantasy sports as a de facto board game, however, and I've done plenty of that. In fact, my fantasy football draft will take place just a couple of hours after this post goes live. I think video games probably count, or semi-count, as well. My favorite sports video game, among the many I have played, is Baseball Stars, a Japanese game released for the NES in 1989, and notable as the first game to allow you to save your stats. I still play it on a regular basis, courtesy of an emulator.
A.R. in Arlington, VA, asks: I know you are a big fan of Quentin Tarantino movies, but aren't a big fan of historical fiction. I am a huge Tarantino fan, as well. I was watching Once Upon a Time in Hollywood last week, for the first time in several years. What do you think about the historical fiction of Rick Dalton and Cliff Booth effectively saving Sharon Tate's life? I know he took some liberties with history in Inglourious Basterds, but the general outcome was accurate. My father, who landed on Omaha Beach, would have loved the ending of that movie.
(Z) answers: Inglourious Basterds, Django Unchained and Once Upon a Time in Hollywood are supposedly a Tarantino "revenge" trilogy, where people who are wronged by history get to make things "right." I got the bit in the first two, I didn't really get it in the third, especially since the Bear Jew and Django had agency in avenging the wrongs done to them and their people, while Tate did not. For that reason, and several others, I did not much care for Once Upon a Time in Hollywood.
K.H. in Maryville, TN, asks: Who or what is this Angel company putting out movies? I've never heard of them. They pop up in my Facebook feed often. We did go see Young Washington and I thought it was "ok." And tickets were only 5 dollars, which was nice. Now they're advertising The Brink of War, about Reagan and Gorbachev and the Reykjavik Summit.
Also, I get a weird vibe from their advertising. I can't explain it...(Z) answers: Angel Studios is, by and large, putting out Hallmark-Channel-style movies, except with a more heaping helping of patriotism/conservative values and/or a lot more Jesus. They are one of several production companies that has decided that MAGA/evangelical viewers are underserved, and who have decided to fill in the gap. They often employ performers who are outspokenly right-wing, and whose mainstream careers have come to an end, either because they were canceled (their explanation) or because they weren't that good to begin with and they really only had one role that they performed well (also a plausible explanation). This list includes Kevin Sorbo, Jim Caviezel, Scott Baio, Dean Cain and Gina Carano. These movies get terrible reviews from critics, and abysmal ratings on IMDB/Rotten Tomatoes. However, they have a built-in audience, and so as long as the budgets remain modest, the films are profitable.
Note that just because an actor appears in a film from Angel Studios (or one of the other right-wing film producers), it does not necessarily mean they are MAGA. Some of them are, particularly if they show up in film after film from the right-wing studios. However, others are just people who are not established, and who have to take any gig they can get. Further, like most film companies, Angel Studios sometimes bids on the distribution rights to films that are already completed, and that are being screened at festivals and showcases. For example, Mary-Louise Parker, Ben Kingsley and Andy Serkis did not know Young Washington was an Angel film when they signed up for it, because Angel Studios did not buy the distribution rights until after the film was in the can.
K.E. in Newport, RI, asks: I don't like to attack people as individuals for what they look like, but I think attacking general fashion trends is fair game. Why do so many Gen Z people dress like they are trying to be extras in a 1983 music video? High-waisted jeans, broccoli top hair, porn mustaches, mullets and thick plastic glasses make people look like they want to be honorary members of the Palin family.
There seems to be a trend of dressing down this decade and I have resisted it.(Z) answers: Young people use fashion to rebel against society in general, and their parents in particular. That usually means doing something that is the polar opposite of what the previous generation did. And what happens, if you keep doing opposites like this, is that you land on what young people were doing 3-4 generations ago.
D.M. in Alameda, CA, asks: Why would you include a poll from this firm on our beloved website, and then the change the color of the state on your map:
New Firm: Wedgewood Polls appeared on the political scene in early 2026, operating with minimal transparency and informal contact details.
Methodology Concerns: Political analysts and observers on platforms like Reddit and X (formerly Twitter) have frequently criticized the firm's data as erratic, outlying, or "wildly off" compared to established aggregate polling.
Suspected Bias/Skepticism: Because of sudden data drops in prominent races (such as in Wisconsin, Texas, and Iowa) that often contrast sharply with mainstream or university-backed pollsters, political observers treat Wedgewood's numbers with extreme caution, noting traits typical of unvetted or opaque.(V) answers: Deciding which pollsters to use is a tricky business. The polling industry is bifurcated. Some pollsters work for any media company that will hire them to run a poll. They try to do accurate work and the true results are published. SurveyUSA, Mason-Dixon and the small colleges are in this category. Other pollsters are actually campaign consultants who also do polling as one of their client services. They often poll a district or state, run an ad campaign, and poll again to see if it worked. Their actual polls are as accurate as they can be, because the candidate wants to know if the ad worked. But the numbers they publish may or may not relate to what they actually measured. The published numbers are intended to push whatever narrative they think will best help their client.
Our general approach is to use all pollsters except campaign consultants. Usually they are not shy about announcing on their home page things like: "We helped elect 14 Republicans (or Democrats)" because they want to attract new business. Then we know what business they are in.
We are more open to startups in the polling business than are some of the people who rate pollsters on their track record. Random-digit dialing does not work anymore due to response rates of less than 5%. Pollsters are trying to figure out how to deal with that. We don't want to inadvertently ban a new pollster who might have figured out how to do this, so our default position is "everyone except campaign consultants." Hopefully our averaging of recent polls cancels out house biases.
As far as we can tell, Wedgewood is not a campaign consultant. Also, In Iowa, they have senatorial candidate Ashley Hinson (R) up 50-48, but also gubernatorial candidate Rob Sand (D) ahead 51-46. They also have the Democrats leading in Ohio for both Senate (48-44) and governor (47-46). We don't smell anything fishy here.
L.C. in Temple, TX, asks: With the elections so close and more polls being released it might be helpful to regularly list the quality of the polling organizations when displaying their results.
(Z) answers: Rating pollsters, in any sort of systematic way, is a task that is beyond our capacity as a very small operation. And even if we had the resources, it's pretty squishy, since you're almost always dealing with small sample sizes.
If a poll is included in our sample, that is a rating of sorts, since it means we've deemed the poll to be nonpartisan. Beyond that, as (V) notes above, we rely on the inclusion of numerous polls to balance out any outliers or other problems.
S.P. in Harrisburg, PA, asks: Assuming Donald Trump does not run for a third term, the White House is totally open in 2028. I like the series on prospective Democratic candidates, but why are you not running a series on prospective Republican candidates?
(Z) answers: We are going to, but first we have to finish the Democrats.
S.S.L. in Battle Creek, MI, asks: Congratulations! I hoped beyond hope you had a new dog friend, but didn't want to assume. Why the reluctance to leave him in the dark during the Great Fusebox Incident of 2026?
(Z) answers: Thank you kindly!
Tuco still has a little bit of separation anxiety, and does not like the dark. If I left him alone in a dark apartment for 3 hours, he would freak out, would tear up everything he could possibly get his teeth on, and would bark his head off, thus aggravating the neighbors.