• Strongly Dem (42)
  • Likely Dem (3)
  • Barely Dem (2)
  • Exactly tied (0)
  • Barely GOP (1)
  • Likely GOP (3)
  • Strongly GOP (49)
  • No Senate race
This date in 2022 2018 2014
New polls:  
Dem pickups : (None)
GOP pickups : (None)
Political Wire logo Democrats Plot Strategy in Shutdown Fight
Early Traders Had Speedy Profit on Trump Coin 
Courts May Be the Last Bulwark Against Trump
Kremlin Wont Confirm or Deny a Trump-Putin Call
Trumps Revenge Tour Isnt Slowing Down
Trumps Legal Fight with X Is Officially Over
TODAY'S HEADLINES (click to jump there; use your browser's "Back" button to return here)
      •  Saturday Q&A
      •  Reader Question of the Week: Rally 'round the Flag

Saturday Q&A

It takes a while for all readers to adapt to changes in the site, so we'll note again that we're now posting the questions on Friday night, the answers on Saturday morning. That is, with one exception, where we post the answer and not the question, just for those who want to try to guess.

If you are working on the weekly headline theme, we'll tell you that you should be thinking about people. Some very stand-up people.

Current Events

D.H. in Boulder, CO, asks: I've had so many questions in my head as to what's going on during the first weeks of this presidency, that I can't even formulate a targeted question because it leaves so much on the table. This question may not make it into the Saturday Q&A lineup, but it's what I've distilled it down to: WHY?

(V) & (Z) answer: You asked us a three-letter question, and we will give you a three-letter answer: E-G-O. If you really have to boil it down, everything Donald Trump has done so far is about ego. He has unleashed a tidal wave of executive orders and other stuff so that Fox and other right-wing media will flatter him by talking about what a great job he's doing. He has taken actions designed to punish those who displease him, because he is very thin-skinned and cannot tolerate even the smallest insult. He has proposed multiple wild, imperialist schemes, with an eye toward making sure his name figures prominently in the history books.

Note that most presidents have a pretty big ego. However, Trump is next level, even compared to his 44 predecessors. The only president whose ego rivals #47 is... #45.



J.W.H. in Somerville, NJ, asks: It occurs to me that the best way to fight what Elon Musk is doing is not through direct action, but rather to seek to create discord between he and Trump.

What do you think about everyone starting to post, tweet, write to papers, take out ads, etc. talking about how Elon Musk is really in charge? Refer to him as "the real president," "the power behind the (weak) throne", etc. Give him credit for all of Donald Trump's "wins." Trump's ego can't handle not getting credit for everything, so might that actually hasten the time where there's a showdown between them, and perhaps slow what they are doing in the meanwhile?

(V) & (Z) answer: Given the enormous size, and yet eggshell-like delicacy, of Donald Trump's ego, there's a fair bit of merit in that thought.



F.I. in Philadelphia, PA, asks: What will happen when Donald Trump is inevitably dealt a major blow by the courts and he decides to defy the rule of law anyway? Are there any guardrails left for when this happens? I can't imagine a single scenario where Congress (or the military) would hold him accountable. Once Trump starts openly and proudly begins breaking federal law, I don't see anything preventing America from becoming an authoritarian nation.

(V) & (Z) answer: We wish we could give you a more precise answer, but we cannot, because it very much depends on which court order he might defy. For example, if he summarily reduces social security payments to "balance" the budget, then voters in all 50 states and DC will scream bloody murder. The members of Congress need those votes, and would most certainly be compelled to do something. Alternatively, if he decides he can "federalize" local police forces, the state and local governments can say, "no, thanks," as long as the courts are on their side. Or, if he sticks with the "no birthright citizenship" thing, even after losing in court, the federal bureaucracy could say, "sorry, Mr. President, perhaps you can break the law, but we can't, so we're going to issue birth certificates and Social Security cards consistent with the rules laid out in the Fourteenth Amendment."

And note, Trump has never actually shown he has the spine to ignore court orders, so don't necessarily assume that he will all of a sudden find that within himself. Especially since he knows that if you start ignoring court orders you don't like, you also undermine the court orders you DO like. Imagine, for example, blue states saying "Well, apparently we don't have to follow SCOTUS rulings anymore, so all guns are now outlawed for non-national guard soldiers" or "Well, guess we will deploy a fleet of mobile abortion clinics, since the Dobbs decision is now moot."



D.A. in Minneapolis, MN, asks: Does Donald Trump write his own Posts on his unpopular social media platform, or are staffers doing it for him? Does he have an Editor? Is everyone in his inner circle afraid to tell him that randomly capitalizing certain Nouns in the middle of Sentences went out of fashion centuries ago in American English? Does he think he's a founding father writing the Constitution? Should he throw in an Eszett from time to time to really complete the style? I just don't get it.

(V) & (Z) answer: Let us first note, in the interest of fairness, that odd capitalization and grammar can be the sign of someone with a distinct style and flair (e.g., bell hooks, e.e. cummings, Thomas Jefferson). Or it can be the sign of someone who never mastered basic grammar. We know which one it is that WE think is going on here, but we must nonetheless point out all the possible interpretations.

And some of Trump's tweets are written by him, some are written by his staff (who have learned to mimic his style). Generally speaking, if a tweet is sent late at night or over the weekend, and/or if it's extra-unhinged, it's from the Dear Leader.



C.A. in Tucker, GA, asks: This was the top headline in The New York Times on Thursday afternoon: "Trump's Gaza Plan Has Many Pitfalls, Hamas Among the Biggest." The subhead: "President Trump's proposal to 'own' Gaza and transfer its population elsewhere has stirred condemnation and sarcasm, but it is an opening bid and could disrupt a tired diplomatic paradigm."

Why does the Times keep sane-washing Trump, including his plans for ethnic cleansing? What on earth is going on at that newspaper?

(V) & (Z) answer: Headlines and subheads are written by copy editors, who are trained to keep them as neutral as is possible. And that headline and sub were for a piece that struggled with the same question we struggle with every day: There's gotta be SOME logical plan here, right? RIGHT? He doesn't REALLY want to ethnically cleanse Gaza, right? RIGHT?

So, we do understand how the Times ends up with pieces like this one (though this particular one isn't very good), and with headlines and subheads like these. That said, the paper's tendencies towards sanewashing and bothsidesism are obvious enough, and problematic enough, that it's hurting the Times' reputation. It should say something to the leadership that the New York Times pitchbot has nearly 200,000 followers on BlueSky.



D.D. in Hollywood, FL, asks: With Donald Trump acting more like a land developer than a president, it's not hard to see that every property he owns around the world could be a target for terrorists. Is it possible or even legal for him to use our military to protect his privately owned and branded properties? Any guesses on how much this will cost us?

(V) & (Z) answer: Since this really hasn't come up before, there's no specific law on the books to prohibit it. Nor is there anyone who seems likely, right now, to try to stop Trump. Any entity that might be so inclined has many and varied larger fish to fry.

So, if Trump were to decide that his properties were terrorist targets, he probably could send federal assets to serve as security. For foreign properties, he could probably use the military. For domestic properties, he would probably have to use the U.S. Marshals Service, or something else non-military.



J.B. in Rogers, AR, asks: Maybe I'm missing something, but since when does Trump care about the well-being of Muslims? He went from barring them from entering the country to growing a humanitarian heart? How do Republicans square that circle?

(V) & (Z) answer: He does not care about the well-being of Muslims, and nobody, not even Republicans, seriously believes him when he says that relocating the Palestinians would be an act of charity. It's just "polite" verbiage he has to issue forth with, to make the whole thing look legitimate, not unlike when people who are staunchly anti-gun-control offer up "thoughts and prayers" after the latest school shooting.



C.F. in Waltham, MA, asks: When I heard what Donald Trump wanted to do with the Gaza strip, the immediate thought was that we were doing that all over our cities and calling it gentrification. Without going into the morality of that, do you think that is what Trump thinks he will do over there?

(V) & (Z) answer: Well, gentrification does not forcibly remove poor and/or minority people from their homes. It CAN make it hard for them to remain there, long term (due to increasing rents), and it definitely means that when poor and/or minority people leave, due to relocating elsewhere or to death, they tend to be replaced by people who are not poor and/or are not minority. That's certainly several steps below an ethnic cleansing.

As to Trump, he does not care one damn bit about the people of Gaza, and we are sure he has spent zero psychic or mental energy trying to frame things in his mind, so as to make a "New Trail of Tears" OK. If you really want to know what his thought process is, we would guess that as someone who is both a real-estate developer and a former casino owner, he is envisioning Gaza as a new Las Vegas. You know, worthless desert land turned into an oasis of gambling and recreation? And keep in mind that Trump tried for decades to build a Vegas casino, but he was too sleazy to get approval, even by Vegas standards. Building a new Vegas would certainly show them who's boss.

Of course, the Las Vegas area did not have 1.8 million people already living there when Bugsy Siegel, et al., began to develop it.



M.P. in Arvada, CO, asks: Of the ethnic cleansing in Gaza and the associated reaction of progressive voters, you wrote: "Everyone reading this knows that there was a small but vocal segment of the voting population—mostly progressives and Muslim-Americans—who held Joe Biden responsible for committing genocide in Gaza, and who voted for Donald Trump because Trump would somehow be better for those folks."

I'd like to know more about your feelings on this subject. It seems to me that there weren't many progressives that actually voted for Trump in reaction to the situation in Gaza. Instead, they sat the election out and refused to vote for Harris because she "supported genocide," and they tried to teach the Democratic Party a lesson (similar to the Bernie no-show voters in 2016). In my opinion, all they got in return for their "attempted lesson" both in 2016 and 2024 is a president who is way, way worse for their purported causes. However, many refuse to see their responsibility and instead blame the Democratic Party. I think this is an interesting and under-reported trend, and I'm curious about your stance.

(V) & (Z) answer: We don't think we've done a particularly good job of hiding our frustration with such folks.

We are both academics, and so are trained to follow the evidence. And the evidence is overwhelming: "Protest" votes do not teach the Democrats a lesson, other than "we need to hew even closer to the center." Meanwhile, if one views both parties as evils, then those protest votes help elect the greater of two evils.

If people want to vote based on emotion, then that is their right. But for them to assert that their actions are purely rational, and are in service of some positive long-term outcome, flies in the face of all evidence, recent and otherwise, and is ultimately very dishonest. And that is before we point out that, in ostensible service of making a statement in support of the Gazans, these folks are making clear they are comfortable with whatever price will be paid by, among others, trans Americans, disaster victims in blue states, immigrants, the environment, etc.



D.H. in Portland, OR, asks: Would there be any reason that Germany, Japan, India, the U.K, France, Italy, and Brazil (the top ten GDP besides U.S., China, and Canada) would impose tariffs against the U.S. in a show of support for the countries that Trump is starting a trade war with, and in a pushback against the Trump administration's relentless bullying?

(V) & (Z) answer: We very much doubt that these nations would do so in response to a trade war against, say, Canada and Mexico. We think they would seriously consider economic sanctions of some sort, however, if Donald Trump were to take some action that is generally harmful to the nations of the world, like withdrawing from NATO or trying to take over Gaza.



R.M.S. in Lebanon, CT, asks: I agree with you that Elon Musk and his assistant are almost certainly breaking several federal laws. Even so, isn't this argument basically moot? One of my biggest fears about a second Trump presidency would that he would turn the executive branch into an organized crime hub. He has a Supreme Court ruling granting him criminal immunity and he has pardon power. In fact, I would argue this is already happening with the pardon of all the 1/6 convicts. Couldn't he just order all of his administration to commit federal crimes on his behalf and then pardon them? Even if Musk or his associates get arrested for selling confidential data or shutting off treasury payments, he could simply pardon them.

(V) & (Z) answer: This is definitely a problem. A big part of the reason Musk and his underlings are doing whatever they damn well please is that they know the DoJ will look the other way, and also that they will likely receive blanket pardons on Trump's last day in office.

However, we think they are also playing with fire. It is not just the federal government that has privacy laws, the states have them, too. And we would be very surprised, indeed, if some blue state AGs are not thinking, right now, about how to charge Musk & Co. with violations of state laws regarding data privacy. It may take a while for a Dana Nessel (MI) or a Rob Bonta (CA) or a Letitia James (NY) to make a move, since they are going to make sure their case is strong (as opposed to Trump's preference for going off half-cocked) and since specific evidence will be hard to acquire. However, one of these days, Musk and his crew might find themselves facing one or more state-level indictments. And those, of course, would be beyond Trump's power to pardon.

Also, Trump is 78 and has a stressful job and an unhealthy diet. It is possible that he might eat his final hamberder before Jan. 20, 2029. We doubt that a President Vance would want to start his administration with a very unpopular move, like a pardoning the unpopular Musk.



P.L. in Denver, CO, asks: Some have suggested that you might want to get a new bank account since Elon Musk has your info. Others have suggested making some moves with your money to protect it (move it to another country). What are your thoughts?

(V) & (Z) answer: Our instinct is that this is not useful, since: (1) if the government really wants to know your information, they'll find it, and (2) a mass movement against the assets of private citizens would result in mass hysteria and mass resistance. That said, we are always open to hear from readers who know better than we do at comments@electoral-vote.com.



L.E. in Santa Barbara, CA, asks: During my employed life, I had extensive background in higher education finances and personnel, as well as extensive interfacing with systems development and programming for related systems. Thus, my concern about Elon Musk and his merry band of hackers has amped up my anxiety 100-fold. Installing all new hardware, purging and finding all the nefarious code, and potentially having to rewrite the software from scratch will take years (decades?)—and we still may not be sure that it is safe.

Related to that, though, is all of the federal agencies' websites. Am I being too paranoid when I now worry about going to a CDC or NIH or IRS or [fill in the federal agency name] website and having malicious code triggered on my computer?

Also, what's to keep Marko Elez and any of Musk's other fanboy hackers from selling the information they now have to the highest bidder? This seems worse than my data being out on the dark web or ransomware attacks of UnitedHealth that compromised my personal information.

This horrific breach of our government's systems is deeply concerning on so many fronts.

(V) & (Z) answer: We don't think you need to be worried about going to government sites. It's pretty hard for malware or other such software to find its way onto your computer unless you do something foolish like download an application and install it. Especially since, the first time someone was infected, there would be news coverage across the nation: "IRS website is sneaking malware onto citizens' computers."

As to fixing the damage that has been done, and as to the risk that the information will he sold to the highest bidder, however, we think you are right on target.



D.G.H. in Barnegat, NJ, asks: If Elon Musk or one of his DOGE employees actually changes the Treasury's payment system, there is a risk they make a mistake. Would then the Treasury be at risk of failing to send payments, sending payments to the wrong person, or some other problem?

(V) & (Z) answer: This is certainly possible. We suspect it would be hard to know if the non-payments were deliberate or accidental, but from a legal and political standpoint, that probably wouldn't matter.



B.C. in Youngstown, OH, asks: What do you think would happen if Elon Musk or his Muskrats either intentionally or accidentally stopped all Social Security payments?

(V) & (Z) answer: Trouble for the Trump administration. The reason that Republican members of Congress are so pliant, on the whole, is that they are scared witless that Trump will turn voters against them. Well, stopping Social Security payments would definitely turn voters against them, and so the members would respond... badly. Indeed, this might give them cover to take serious action against Trump, like impeaching and removing him, since even most Republican members don't really like him.



E.S. in Maine, NY, asks: Elon Musk's extreme hate for USAID seems strange to me. One thought occurs: What role did USAID play in apartheid-era South Africa?

(V) & (Z) answer: You're following a very reasonable line of thinking here. The Comprehensive Anti-Apartheid Act of 1986 gave USAID workers the funding and the power to go into impoverished South African communities in order to render aid (South American government be damned). And so, USAID played a pretty significant role in fueling the rising resistance that would result in the fall of apartheid 8 years later.



D.E. in Lancaster, PA, asks: I was going to ask which of the two, Donald Trump or Elon Musk, is the most evil but realized that's probably an unfair question. Let's go instead with which of the two is most likely to cause serious damage to our country, our democracy and/or our economy?

(V) & (Z) answer: Donald Trump is like the horseman in "The Legend of Sleepy Hollow." His head is big and orange. No wait, that's not the parallel we meant to draw. We meant that his power has a very strict limit. Just as the horseman's power comes to an end, once you cross the covered bridge, Trump's power comes to an end on January 20, 2029.

Musk's power, on the other hand, comes from his great wealth, which most certainly will not expire on January 20, 2029. Further, he's clearly smarter than Trump, and is more ruthless. He might even be more unhinged. Add it up, and we will say that Musk is more likely to cause serious damage.



D.G. in Fairfax, VA, asks: I've heard that a sizable portion of the opposition to vaccinations comes about because of the people never having experienced an unvaccinated world. Without firsthand knowledge of just how bad, say, polio can be, humans are going to underestimate it, focusing on the significantly minor risks of a vaccine instead.

Would you consider the MAGA takeover of our government that is currently underway to be similar? There are few Americans left who lived when there was a Nazi army to fight against. I suspect Americans will be unable to truly comprehend just how fragile our democracy is, until it's too late and our brown-skinned neighbors are forced to wear Yellow Moons on their shirts.

(V) & (Z) answer: Undoubtedly, some portion of the anti-vaxx movement is because people have forgotten how bad polio, smallpox, measles, etc. can be. However, we think that the main thing driving it is actually that parents don't want to blame themselves when little Timmy is "different" (i.e., autistic), and some sizable percentage of the country has decided that vaccines will be the culprit instead. Once you embrace the notion that "I don't care what the evidence says, I am sure that vaccines made Timmy autistic," then you've opened the door to all sorts of anti-vaxx and anti-science quackery.

And sure, not having experienced World War II, and thus not having the fear of god put into them by experiencing real fascism, there probably is a laxness that we would not have seen 40 years ago. That said, even after Hitler's downfall, there was some segment of the American populace who thought he was on to something. Further, while it is true that many Americans right now are not scared witless, plenty of them are. Every anti-democratic thing that Donald Trump and his underlings do gets ten times the attention (maybe twenty or thirty times the attention) that Adolf Hitler/Benito Mussolini got when they rose to dictatorial power. That makes authoritarianism much harder to get away with.



R.C. in Des Moines, IA, asks: Is there something Senate Democrats could be doing, like Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-AL) did in holding up the confirmation of hundreds of generals? If so, then why aren't they using that trick to hold up the confirmation of unqualified clowns like Pete Hegseth, Tulsi Gabbard, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and election-deniers like Pam Bondi and Kash Patel?

(V) & (Z) answer: The trick that Tuberville used was to withhold unanimous consent for every single nominee for promotion. With unanimous consent, things that no member really objects to (like making Maj. Jones into Lt. Col. Jones) can be handled in a few minutes. Without unanimous consent, then the Senate has to go through the whole, formal rigamarole, which takes about 8 hours.

Democrats have been using this maneuver with some of the Cabinet nominees, but it really doesn't have much impact when we're only talking a handful of people. At most, their confirmations will be delayed by a week. The reason Tuberville's maneuver was so "effective" is that it involved hundreds of promotions. To work through all of those, using normal order, would have taken months and months of the Senate's time. And while then-Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) could have picked a few key posts (say, Commandant of the Marine Corps) and JUST moved those, he did not want to set the precedent that any member could hold up most or all of the promotions at any time, and pay no real price. Schumer wanted Tuberville to have full responsibility for all the various ways in which his maneuver made the military less effective.



J.C. in Northbrook, IL, asks: When Tommy Tuberville used Senate rules to block all military promotions as his protest against soldiers who were permitted to travel for abortion care, he was roundly condemned. Now Sen. Brian Schatz (D-HI) is blocking all State Department appointments to protest Donald Trump's and Elon Musk's attempts to close down USAID. Is there a genuine way to distinguish the two senators' actions? Both claim to be acting on principle. Can we somehow support Schatz's use of his minority-party maneuvers while still condemning Tuberville's use of the same tactics?

(V) & (Z) answer: There is a distinction, we would say. Tuberville might not have liked the abortion policy, but it was entirely legal, and was also the prerogative of the executive branch, not the legislature. On the other hand, the shutdown of USAID is illegal, and an infringement on the prerogatives of the legislative branch (which funded the program). That means that legislators (e.g., Schatz) have some justification for using whatever tools they have at their disposal to bring the executive branch into line. So, they are using both parliamentary maneuvers, as well as lawsuits.

Politics

A.G. in Scranton, PA, asks: Do you foresee Donald Trump ordering the states to return the statues of Confederates to their former places?

(V) & (Z) answer: Trump cannot order states to do things they do not wish to do. Plus, many of the statues have now been destroyed.

However, might Trump order that military bases change their names back to the old ones that honored Confederates? Yes, he might do that. This is a very easy prediction for us to make, since the administration is already considering changing Fort Liberty back to Fort Bragg.



G.L. in Oviedo, FL, asks: One outcome of the 2024 elections seems to be that DEI programs were rejected by the electorate—or, at least, that seems to be what some in the current administration want us to believe.

Some minority groups seemed to vote that way, so I wonder if, on the average, they feel that DEI programs have made people wonder if they are really qualified for their positions?

Furthermore, the right wing has argued that affirmative action is discriminatory, as it favors some groups over others. However the right wing's position also seems discriminatory, as they seem to be saying that white males should be favored as applicants. To counter such arguments, I wonder if there is evidence that drawing from a larger pool of applicants produces better qualified people, on the average?

(V) & (Z) answer: If the United States had twenty viable parties, and one was the DEI Party, and another was the Green Party, and a third was the Lower Taxes Party, and a fourth was the End Abortion Now Party, you might be able to infer the electorate's policy preferences (to some extent) from election results. But the U.S. has a two-party system, where each party necessarily becomes avatar for a long list of policy preferences. You cannot really reach conclusions about any one policy from the election returns, except perhaps when the policy was the bedrock of the party's platform (e.g., Donald Trump and anti-immigration in 2016).

Of course, it is possible to poll people for their views on particular issues. Some polls suggest that Americans support DEI programs by a 2-to-1 margin. Others say sentiment is about equally divided. Regardless of which poll you believe, it's evident that there has not been a widespread rejection of DEI programs. And we very seriously doubt that minority voters who voted for Trump did so primarily because they feel demeaned by DEI programs.

As to a wider pool of applicants, basic math tells us that will produce better hiring outcomes. There has been much study of DEI, in particular, and the findings are that businesses benefit from such programs (see here and here for two examples).



P.L. in Los Angeles, CA, asks: Can you indulge in a what-if scenario: What if Donald Trump had won in 2016 as a Democrat? How would the Democratic Party and American politics have evolved differently from then to present day? In part, I am curious about your thoughts on Democrats' relationship to demagoguery vs. that of Republicans.

(V) & (Z) answer: We would say your what-if scenario does not hold water, because Democrats aren't buying what someone like Donald Trump is selling. Recall, for example, that Kanye West tried to run as a Democrat and got nowhere, which is why he eventually turned independent. Similarly, Stephen A. Smith is a nominal Democrat and is also a windbag who says whatever comes into his head and who pals around with Fox entertainers (most obviously Sean Hannity). A recent poll of would-be Democratic presidential candidates threw him in, and Smith polled at... 2% (and that is surely just name recognition). By contrast, from the very outset in 2015, even when the pundits and the political establishment were pooh-poohing him, Trump was polling in the 20s.

But if we grant your supposition, the closest person to Trump among recent Democratic officeholders is New York City Mayor Eric Adams. He's got some demagogic tendencies, though he's more corrupt than anything else. And once the truth began to come out about him, Democrats fled in droves, and now he's polling in the single digits.



M.S. in New York City, NY, asks: How hard would it be for the Democrats to rebranded and change their name to the Democracy Party?

One small move could make a big change in how they're perceived. And invite change within.

(V) & (Z) answer: It wouldn't be too hard, and it's not at all unprecedented. There are plenty of examples of major parties changing their names, either temporarily, or permanently, as an exercise in branding. Most notably, the Democratic-Republicans permanently became the Democrats in the 1820s, while the Republicans temporarily became the National Union Party in 1864. A permanent, or a temporary, name change could work well for the blue team.



P.M. in Woodbury, MN, asks: Why are Democrats so bad at messaging compared to Republicans?

(V) & (Z) answer: This is not always the case. Consider 2008, when Barack Obama's messaging was considerably better than John McCain's.

That said, the Republican base is more homogeneous than the Democratic base. Further, many Republicans are not educated, or are religious fundamentalists, or both. That means that Republican voters are, on the whole, more likely to be comfortable seeing the world in simplistic, black and white terms. That lends itself to simplistic, black and white messaging, like "immigrants bad" or "DEI bad" or "Make America Great Again." It also helps that this messaging is then propagated by a very effective right-wing media machine, which includes cable channels, websites and podcasts. The left-leaning media establishment is not remotely comparable in terms of its reach or its effectiveness.

Also, the Democrats are loose coalition of different interest groups, each of one has some particular focus, such as climate change, racism, abortion, social justice, LGBTQ+ rights, women's rights, etc. A message about, say, racism, doesn't work wonders on people whose first, second, and third priority is abortion or climate change. It is hard to find a message that all Democrats will rally around. The Republican Party is much more homogeneous. so "Immigrants: bad" addresses nearly all their voters.



C.F. in Waltham, MA, asks: There are two schools of thought about Republican voters. One is that they will only listen to the church of Republicans, and even if horrible things come to pass, they will only believe in their Trump God and the Republican disciples (legislators) that pay fealty to him. The other is that they have real issues they care about, like spending federal money on overseas wars and grocery prices, so they will change their votes if prices go up too much or Donald Trump starts a war. Maybe even losing more hospitals and schools to maximize their pain in rural areas might change their vote.

What do you think is the reality? Given that Trump still has positive approval ratings, is it because he hasn't done enough to shake them? Or is it because Republicans in general now only have brains that can accept reality from right-wing circles and Trump?

(V) & (Z) answer: This is not an all-or-none proposition. Some Trump voters are at the "cult" end of the spectrum. Anything he does, no matter how foolish or how ineffective, they will celebrate as some great triumph. Other Trump voters are at the "we voted for him because we guessed he'd be best for us" end of the spectrum, and are most certainly open to changing their minds if proven wrong. Still others are somewhere in between. Still others simply disliked Hillary Clinton and Kamala Harris and might have voted for almost any centrist straight white Christian man.



J.M. in Sewickley, PA, asks: Haven't the Democrats found anybody in Maine or Alaska to primary Sens. Susan Collins (R-ME) and Lisa Murkowski (R-AK)?

There must be some crazy Trumper who is willing to get serious money support from... some super PAC (set up by and funded by the DNCC) to run against them.

It's just baffling how they keep getting re-elected when people are so polarized these days.

(V) & (Z) answer: These are rather different situations. Starting with Murkowski, Alaska's top-four system makes primary ratfu**ing a waste of time and money. No matter what, she will advance to the general, and will eventually outpoll the right-wing challenger in the instant runoff. Even when Alaska did not have its current system, and even when a right-wing Republican did manage to primary her, she STILL got reelected as a write-in (that was in 2010). In short, there's nothing the Democrats can do here except try to find and run the best candidate they can.

As to Maine, ratfu**ing is at least somewhat more plausible. However, you can't beat someone with no one, and there aren't too many available Republicans who could challenge Collins from the right and actually make her sweat. Paul LePage is the obvious one, but he's twice taken a long look at it, and decided it was a waste of his time. So, the blue team just drowned its own candidate, Sara Gideon, in cash. It obviously didn't work, but learning from the mistakes of that election, plus demographic change in Maine, plus Collins having a bit more baggage this time around, plus the possibility that 2026 will be a backlash election could make things very interesting when the Senator tries to keep her job.



R.L. in Alameda, CA, asks: I'm surprised that Sen Bill Cassidy (R-LA) is running scared of being primaried. Louisiana has a jungle primary similar to California's, in which the top two candidates, regardless of party, move on to the general election. MAGA would have to place candidates in the top 2 positions of the primary in order to push Cassidy out. This seems unlikely. So what's he scared of?

(V) & (Z) answer: Louisiana changed its election system last year. It now has partisan primaries like nearly all other states. This means that if Cassidy voted against any of Trump's nominees, he would have been primaried by someone Trumpier, fuled by tens of millions of Musky dollars. Given a choice between picking what was best for himself personally or what was best for the country, he chose the former. This behavior has a name, although we can't think of the word right now. We're pretty sure it is not "courage."



K.R. in Austin, TX, asks: I watched this press conference where Democratic senators spoke out against Elon Musk's access to the Treasury system. The first few senators say the right words, but their delivery doesn't match the sense of urgency of their words. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) in the fourth speaker, and she's the first one who actually speaks with a sense of urgency.

Do you agree? If so, how can people get elected to be senator, and especially the Senate Democratic leader, with such flat speaking skills? It feels like they either don't believe what they're saying, they're so scared of saying the wrong thing that they have to read their script exactly, or they haven't even read these statements over once before stepping in front of the camera.

(V) & (Z) answer: This tells you that, in contrast to generations past, public speaking is not the most important skill for an aspiring politician. It might not even be Top 10. Certainly, being able to network, being able to handle interviews on- and off-camera, being able to generate publicity through social media and other channels, and being able to raise funds are all vastly more important to the modern politician than being an effective stump speaker.

If you look at the really excellent speech-givers of the last 30 or 40 years, they all have a background in some other profession where effective public speaking is important. Warren is an academic who has undoubtedly delivered thousands of lectures. The same is true of Barack Obama and Bill Clinton. Ronald Reagan, of course, was an actor and a labor leader and a corporate spokesman.

By contrast, although he's got a law degree, Chuck Schumer (D-NY) never practiced law, and instead went right into politics. He started at the local level, where retail politics (knocking on doors, etc.) is the most important thing. And he worked his way up from there, using that to build an effective political network. When he made the move from New York politics to federal politics, he himself explains that he "set about making friends on Wall Street, tapping the city's top law firms and securities houses for campaign donations." Note that, by contrast, he most certainly did not sign up for Toastmasters International, or for an improv class.

Civics

A.G. in Scranton, PA, asks: If the country ever returns to some semblance of...well, not being run by the worst possible people who could possibly run a country, is there a possibility our money could be printed with some form of wear-resistant braille so our citizens with visual impairments can tell a $1 from a $5 bill?

Like, tiny metallic beads printed within the bill itself, like the blue stripe thing.

I know, way late on that idea, but some people still use cash, right? It couldn't hurt. I know we hate doing nice things to allow people their basic dignities in America, but maybe we could find some way to spin the idea like it really pisses off trans people or something to get conservative people on board with the idea.

(V) & (Z) answer: This is not likely to happen, for two reasons. First, the exact numbers are debated, but depending on whom you ask, either the majority of Americans who are blind, or the vast majority of Americans who are blind, cannot read Braille. Second, the Treasury already offers an alternative solution that works for everyone, free-of-charge: currency readers that are about the size of a box of matches, and that will tell the user what size bill they are holding.



J.P. in Montreal, Quebec, asks: For your foreign readers, could you please explain how the federal government of the U.S. can issue directives regarding congestion pricing in New York City, water usage in California. or participation in team sports by transgender athletes? Are these not within the jurisdiction of individual States? In Canada, jurisdictional powers are separated between the federal government and the provinces, and neither can validly impinge upon the other's jurisdiction. In the U.S., can the federal government pass laws or issue directives on any topic whatsoever and supersede local governments?

(V) & (Z) answer: Yes, the federal government can pass laws that supersede local governments. This is the implication of the Tenth Amendment, and has since been sustained by a great deal of court precedent, not to mention a little fracas between the slave and non-slave states in the 1860s.

However, Donald Trump's executive orders only apply to the executive branch of the federal government, not to the other branches, and not to state and municipal governments. What he does, most of the time, is claim some very broad change, though when you look at the details, it's not nearly so broad. For example, the "no trans girls playing girls sports" XO is actually a directive about how federal agencies should interpret the gender equity law known as Title IX. The Biden administration said that trans people are covered by Title IX, whereas the Trump administration just decreed they are not. This means that the Trump administration can withhold federal funding from schools who allow trans girls/women to play women's sports. On the other hand, Trump can do nothing about the Olympics, or professional sports, or any endeavor where federal funding is not in play.



B.T. in Houston, TX, asks: After reading your response to the question on the initial reaction to the felon-in-chief's eventual passing, I was curious about your opinion on an event that will occur roughly 2 weeks later. Will any living presidents attend 45's funeral? I certainly understand that if he dies in office, President Vance would attend. But I have a hard time seeing Vance win election on his own if 47 exits office upright. I also have my doubts that any of his living predecessors would choose to be there voluntarily. What are your thoughts?

(V) & (Z) answer: We don't think they will want to attend, and some of them might not want to seem to be OK with what he represents. Our best guess is that some of them will screw a smile on and attend out of a sense of duty, while others will develop a sudden case of the Trumpy-four-hour flu.



S.K. in Sunnyvale, CA, asks: How are multi-thousand-page bills even written?

(V) & (Z) answer: First, a lot of boilerplate that appears in all bills, or in all bills of a certain type (for example, budget bills always contain the verbiage that is known as the Hyde Amendment, and that prohibits federal money from being used for abortions). Then, they often toss in a bunch of smaller bills that have been put forth by members, so as to make for a big, fat, omnibus bill. Then, they might also toss in some verbiage that is "helpfully" suggested by lobbyists. Then they throw in the actual legislation that needs to be passed.

History

M.B. in Ward, CO, asks: I believe negative ads are used by the "major party" candidates to deliberately decrease turnout. At the same time that Coke and Pepsi avoid negative ads generally because they suppress sales, major party candidates bombard us with negative ads for the same reason—they want lower turnout. It's easier to maintain the duopoly known as the Two Party System when 27% of the electorate is a plurality. My question to you gentlefolk is: Have American political campaigns always featured negative advertising? And if not, when did this practice come into being or really kick in?

(V) & (Z) answer: In America's first real presidential election, in 1796, the Democratic-Republicans claimed that John Adams was a monarchist who wanted to overthrow the democracy and seat himself on the throne as King John (because that regnal name worked out so well in England), while Federalists claimed that Thomas Jefferson was a radical and an atheist who wanted to outlaw Christianity and burn every Bible in the country.

In other words, negative campaigns have been around for all of American history.

That said, not every campaign is negative. When things are actually pretty good, the opposition has to convince voters that things are bad, and so tends to go negative. However, when things are pretty bad, the opposition can appeal to people's sense of hope, and can run a positive campaign. Think of Franklin D. Roosevelt promising a "New Deal" for America, and using the theme song "Happy Days Are Here Again" in 1932, for example.



J.F. in East Allen Township, PA, asks: James Buchanan is generally considered the worst U.S. president. I know it is hard to view history from a distance when you're living in it, but I figure you folks would be the best at having a chance at doing so. I mean, I know what I think, but I'm also a Pennsylvanian and let me tell you, we'd REALLY like to shake that "sent the worst guy to the presidency, ever" stink. So I'm biased. I also know the general feeling in the lefty circles I tend to be in, but again—looking for an expert view of things, from your lofty ivory towers as it were.

If you do think Trump is safely the worst U.S. President at this point, what would you say put him over the top? How far along? Again I know the most obvious answer to me, but curious what you folks think.

(V) & (Z) answer: James Buchanan was the living embodiment of the Dunning-Kruger effect. He flattered himself that he was a second coming of George Washington, and that with his wise leadership, he could bring an end to the strife that was tearing the nation apart. He was wrong, of course, and stupid and arrogant to think so, and his efforts served only to pour fuel on the fire. That said, he inherited a powder keg that was sure to explode, sooner or later. All he did was maybe speed up the process a bit.

Most of the harm that will result from the Trump presidency, by contrast, was either unnecessary or at least partly avoidable, and was substantially the work of Trump himself. On the occasion of both of his inaugurations, Trump inherited a country that was in pretty good shape, not one that was on the brink of disaster. He nonetheless did massive harm to American institutions, to the norms of democratic government, and to many individual Americans. In the latter group are some hundreds of thousands of people who are not around to complain, because they died due to his actively harmful pandemic leadership.

And that, we think, is the event that secured last place in the presidential rankings for Trump. Until he botched the pandemic, he was probably a garden variety corrupt/incompetent politician, not too far different from a Warren Harding or an Andrew Johnson. Of course, after it was clear he had botched the pandemic, Trump then got himself impeached for corruptly trying to blackmail Volodymyr Zelenskyy, then led a coup attempt on 1/6, and then got himself impeached again. And then there's his second term, which still has 98.5% of its run to go, and is off to a start that does not bode well for Trump's chances of escaping the basement.

As we have written a few times, we can at least conceive of ways in which the passage of 50-100 years might possibly rehabilitate the reputation of some of the currently-in-the-doghouse presidents of the last 75 years, like Richard Nixon or Jimmy Carter. That is not to say it's likely, but it's at least possible. We cannot see how Trump can move out of the bottom spot, unless: (1) his second term takes a dramatic, and unexpected turn for the better or (2) someone even worse than him comes along.



J.M in Goshen, IN, asks: Gotta say, it's surreal that Pete Buttigieg, a guy not only from my state but from a town 40 minutes from where I live, might be running for president.

But that got me thinking: Have there ever been any presidents from Indiana before? And with only 45 presidents, AT LEAST five states must've not had a president from them. So which state has the most presidents, and which ones have none?

(V) & (Z) answer: (Z), if he so desired, could get in his car and be in front of Kamala Harris' house in under 5 minutes. Yes, it is a little surreal.

There is one president who claimed Indiana as his home state, namely Benjamin Harrison. His grandfather, William Henry Harrison, spent much of his career in the Indiana Territory, but was regarded as a resident of Virginia.

The state that has produced the most presidents is Virginia, with 8, followed by Ohio, with 7.

There are 29 states that have not birthed a president: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.

If you count states of residence, that list gets a little shorter, depending on your standards. For example, Donald Trump, though a New Yorker for most of his life, was a resident of Florida during the 2024 campaign. Dwight D. Eisenhower, though born in Texas, spent much of his childhood in Kansas. Andrew Jackson, though (probably) born in North Carolina, lived much of his adult life in Tennessee. The same holds for Andrew Johnson. So, a few states get knocked off the above list, depending on how liberally you interpret the phrase "president's home state."



B.M. in St Augustine, FL, asks: In your answer to the question about Americans with the most power for the longest period of time, you mention George H.W. Bush as a near-miss. I know he was VP for 8 years and president for 4 more, but my memory of his presidency was that is what relatively uneventful. Can you elaborate on why he was selected as a near-miss?

(V) & (Z) answer: We put Ronald Reagan on the list because he led the United States when it was effectively the world's only remaining nuclear superpower, inasmuch as the U.S.S.R. was well on its way to collapsing by the end of his term. Bush led the United States when it was officially the world's only remaining nuclear superpower, the U.S.S.R. collapsing while he was in office. On top of that, he led the coalition that invaded and defeated Iraq and was, for a short period, more popular among the voting public than Reagan had ever been. In the end, we think the cult-like devotion that Reagan inspired among his followers gave The Gipper more power than Bush ever really had. However, it's close enough that if Reagan is on the list, Bush is a near miss.



D.H. in Boulder, CO, asks: You have had some questions and comments about a potential Trump library. It got me thinking about presidential libraries in general. I often hear them referred to as places of scholarly interest where historians can go to dig through the archives and find important information that contributes to the historical record. Is that actually true? Has (Z) done any of his historical research at a presidential library?

(V) & (Z) answer: Yes, it is true. That said, there is relatively little "digging," at least on the part of the researcher. The collections at presidential libraries are carefully organized and indexed by a staff of professional librarians. If a scholar is there to do research, he or she walks up to the desk and asks for the finding guide, which breaks down the entire collection in a manner similar to the index of a book. Then, if that scholar is writing a book on, say, Anwar Sadat, they might discover via the finding guide at the Nixon Library, that boxes BB-8929, HG-2332 and JP-7365 contain correspondence between Sadat and Nixon, and so would request that those boxes be brought out to the reading room. Alternatively, the scholar might know from citations in papers or books that they need box RK-2789, and so might jump straight to asking for it, without needing the finding guide.

(Z) has done research at presidential libraries, but not for himself. His work does not require that particular sort of evidence, but when he was in grad school, there would often be messages to the grad students' listserv, offering to pay grad students to go to one of the three local libraries with serious presidential collections (the Reagan Library and Nixon Library, of course, along with the Huntington Library in Pasadena, which has a bunch of Abraham Lincoln stuff) and to search for something or transcribe something. If a historian in, say, Michigan only needs one or two documents, and they know exactly which ones they want, then it's way cheaper to pay a poor grad student $250 than to travel to California and back.



D.A. in Cincinnati, OH, asks: Which Black historical figures would you like to see more people know? While most people can cite the more famous figures, like Martin Luther King Jr., or Thurgood Marshall, I'm guessing there are a whole host of people that deserve more recognition.

(V) & (Z) answer: We'll give you five answers, in chronological order (links are to their Wikipedia pages):

  • James Forten: He was The United States' first Black tycoon, making his money in shipbuilding, trade and real estate. And he used his funds to bankroll antislavery advocates and causes. Most famously, he paid the bills for William Lloyd Garrison, who could get way with much more extreme rhetoric than any Black man could. Forten also helped knock the legs out from under colonization as an equitable solution to the problem of slavery, correctly arguing that the plan was both unrealistic and racist.

  • William Harvey Carney: He is the first Black person to earn the Medal of Honor, for his actions at the famous Battle of Fort Wagner on July 18, 1863.

  • Ida B. Wells: She's the most famous of the five we chose, but for those who don't know her, she went into the lion's den (the segregated South) in the 1890s and 1900s and did investigative journalism that proved that the victims of lynchings (almost invariably Black men) had NOT committed crimes against white womanhood, and instead were generally the most economically successful Black members of their communities.

  • John Dolphin: Most people have heard of Motown founder Berry Gordy Jr. of Detroit. Dolphin was Los Angeles' answer to Gordy. He ran a successful record label, record store, and radio station from the late 1940s until he was murdered in 1958. Not only did he aid the careers of many important Black artists, in genres including jazz, rhythm and blues, and rock and roll, he also opened the eyes and ears of many white people to Black music. He was also leader of civil rights activism in Los Angeles.

  • Mae Jemison: We thought we should include at least one living person. Jemison has an unbelievable résumé as a scholar, physician, technological innovator and activist, but she's undoubtedly best known as the first Black woman to travel to outer space, having done so on the space shuttle Endeavour in 1992. The many readers who are Star Trek fans may also know that Jemison was inspired in her choice of career by Nichelle Nichols (Lt. Uhura on the original series), and that she herself appeared in a guest role on an episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation (specifically, "Second Chances," where second-in-command William T. Riker turns out to have been split into two identical copies of himself).

We wanted a wide range here in terms of chronology and in terms of contributions.



R.C. in Des Moines, IA, asks: A lot of people these days want history education to emphasize that the U.S. ended slavery. While that is true, it took a war that killed 620,000 Americans to accomplish. Of the United States' peer countries, how many of them ended chattel slavery only after a civil war? I can't think of any, but I did not major in history.

(V) & (Z) answer: First, note that the 620,000 figure is out of date, and that scholars today put the figure at something more like 800,000.

Second, when part of a nation rebels against another part of that nation, and fails to achieve independence, then it's usually called a civil war. However, when part of a nation rebels against another part of that nation, and succeeds in gaining independence, it's usually called a war of independence or a revolution. We cannot think of any nations that ended slavery by virtue of a civil war. However, Haiti and many of the nations of Latin America ended slavery by virtue of a war of independence.



M.A. in Montreal, Quebec, Canada, asks: The more I learn about history, the more I appreciate how peaceful our time truly is.

Some years ago, while reading The Conquest of Gaul by Julius Caesar—where he openly mentions genocide and slavery in his campaign for popular support in Rome—I realized that violence like ISIS's and expansionism like Russia's used to be the historical norm, whereas we now treat them as anomalies.

I'd be curious to know if (Z) has an explanation for this relative global stability, and how that foundation might be threatened—particularly with regard to potential shifts in U.S. foreign policy under the current administration.

(V) & (Z) answer: There are two generally accepted explanations, and (Z) sees no reason to look askance at either of them.

The first is that the years from 1776 to 1919 largely brought an end to the age of absolute monarchies, and with them an end to tolerance for imperialism. So, wars of territorial conquest, of which there were many in world history, are largely verboten today.

The second is that the world's economy is so intertwined that the costs of going to war are just too great, particularly when it comes to one industrialized nation facing off against another industrialized nation. There used to be lots of wars between large and wealthy countries, but not so much anymore.

Fun Stuff

F.S. in Cologne, Germany, asks: What are the 10 most influential novels in U.S. culture before 1900?

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

  • The Legend of Sleepy Hollow (1820): One of the first great American works of fiction, and definitely the first to find an audience beyond America's borders. It played a role in the development of a distinctly American artistic consciousness, and also had a none-too-small impact on the identity of New Yorkers.

  • The Last of the Mohicans (1826): This runaway success helped implant some generally positive ideas in the minds of Americans, like the importance of rugged individualism. It also helped implant some less positive ideas, like the notion of the "noble savage."

  • Moby-Dick (1851): Not only did Herman Melville's magnum opus help initiate a new era in literary realism, it also gave us what might be literature's most famous metaphor.

  • Uncle Tom's Cabin (1852): We chose not to rank this list, but if we had, this would clearly be #1. Few Americans were abolitionist, but by the time of the Civil War, many of them were anti-slavery, and this book had more to do with that than any other written work. As Abraham Lincoln himself said, on meeting author Harriet Beecher Stowe: "So you're the little woman who wrote the book that started this great war."

  • Little Women (1868): You can have female protagonists? And they can be interesting, and not stereotypes? Who knew? Louisa May Alcott did and, after this book came out, so did her readers.

  • Mark, the Match Boy (1869): The first of the famous Horatio Alger books, which popularized the notion that America is a nation where one can go from rags to riches.

  • The Gilded Age: A Tale of Today (1873): The book not only launched the career of Mark Twain, it also gave the name to its historical era, and also put corrupt politicians under the microscope in a big way. For the next 40 years, presidents would run for office based on the promise that they would "clean things up." Some were more successful than others.

  • Adventures of Huckleberry Finn (1884): Ernest Hemingway said: "All modern American literature comes from one book by Mark Twain called Huckleberry Finn... All American writing comes from that. There was nothing before. There has been nothing as good since." The book also had a profound impact on American language and idiom, while also opening at least a few eyes to the problems of American racism.

  • The Red Badge of Courage (1895): Maybe war is not such a good and exciting thing after all. Stephen Crane's book is the starting point for a thread that runs through works like All Quiet on the Western Front and Catch-22, and that reached full flower with the literature, art, poetry and music of the Vietnam War era.

  • The Awakening (1899): It's not as well known today, but Kate Chopin's book is arguably the first feminist (or, at least, proto-feminist) novel, as it critiques the restrictive gender roles of Victorian society. The heightening gender consciousness that it both benefited from and encouraged would power the suffrage movement to great heights, culminating in universal women's suffrage a little over 20 years after the book was first released.


I.K. in Portland, OR, asks: I just spent the holidays visiting some friends in Mexico (which I travel to from time to time). One thing I notice is that street names in Mexico are often names of famous scientists, authors, foreign places and other categories (including popular politicians, both local and international).

For example, yesterday I saw the following street names: Mark Twain, Bernard Shaw, Albert Einstein, Jules Verne, Alejandro Dumas, Andres Maria Ampere, Miguel Faraday, Alexandra Volta, Guillermo Marconi, Blas Pascal, René Descartes, Beniamin Franklin, Ptolomeo, Cronos, Aristóteles, Hipócrates, Nicolás Copérnico, Arquimedes, Lincoln, 5 de Mayo, Socrates, Oberon, Titania, Europa, Mercurio. Venus, Tierra, Marte, Júpiter, Urano, Cometas, Halley, Aries, Leo, Libra, Piscis, Sagitario, Tauro. There are more.

However I realize that I can't think of similar names in the U.S. We seem to be hung up on street names of politicians (Washington, Lincoln, etc.) or people who influenced politics (Martin Luther King Jr, Cesar Chavez, etc.). Why is that? I mean, the U.S. is famous for science and math. Is the only reason we rarely acknowledge these people because it is politicians or housing developers who typically pick street names in the U.S.?

I would love it if we had more street names similar those in other countries? How can we make this happen?

(V) & (Z) answer: The primary reason for the less-than-creative street names in America is that, for most of U.S. history, city planners/developers preferred very functional names most of the time. That is why there are lots of numbered streets (Second Street is the most common street name in America, in fact). There are/were lots of street names based on the general purpose of that street (Market Street, Gold Street, State Street, etc.). And there were lots of street names that indicated the roadway's ultimate terminus (Baltimore Street, Beach Boulevard, etc.). When Americans of the 19th and early-to-mid-20th centuries did name streets after people, it was usually political or military figures, because anything else (say, an artist) was seen as trite.

In general, street names are controlled by municipal or county governments. Those folks can certainly he petitioned for a name change, which is how we have a bunch of MLK Jr. and Chavez streets today. Los Angeles also has a bunch of streets named for notable locals (Wilshire Blvd., Pico Blvd.), prominent entertainers (George Burns Blvd., Vin Scully Way), and heroes of local demographic groups (James M. Wood Blvd., after a notable labor leader; General Kosciuszko Way, after Polish military figure Thaddeus Kosciuszko). There is also a major street named after Barack Obama. In short, if you'd like to see fewer Second Streets, and more creative street names, time to get to work on your local council members, or your local county supervisors (or whatever the equivalent offices are in your community).



M.P in Leasburg, MO, asks: I have yet to travel to either Los Angeles or the Netherlands. Curious to know what the best time of year is to travel to each; looking specifically for the time or times when the least number of tourists tend to be there. Also, what are the top five best-kept secrets in each location? You can assume a wide variety of interests as we both have many. Not a fan of over-attended tourist traps.

(Z) answers: In Los Angeles, even the bad weather is generally pretty good, as compared to other places. That said, it gets pretty hot in August and September, and if there are going to be heavy rains, they usually come a few days at a time in January or February. So, the best time to visit is probably between March and early July, though October through mid-November is pretty good, too.

As to best-kept secrets, there are a lot of possibilities, and one might argue how secret or not secret some of these things are. However:

  1. The Autry Museum: It's the best museum in town, and is a good mix of history, art, and other things, so there's stuff there to accommodate many different interests. It's also in Griffith Park, so you can easily go from there to the L.A. Zoo, the Transportation Museum, the Griffith Observatory, the park's nature trails, or Dodger Stadium.

  2. The Self-Realization Fellowship: It's hard to describe until you visit (and note that you need a reservation), but imagine The Beatles' "Tomorrow Never Knows," and you start to get the idea.

  3. L.A. Conservancy Walking Tours: They'll show you the best of Los Angeles architecture in 3-hour chunks. The Art Deco and the Broadway Historic Theatre and Commercial District tours are probably the two best.

  4. The Last Bookstore: If you like used books or vinyl, this is the best place in the city. Its upper promenade is also given over to a bunch of funky boutiques.

  5. The Museum of Death and The Museum of Jurassic Technology: If you like your museums weird, then these are the museums to visit (and they are close enough to each other to drive between them or to take a bus trip). The focus of the former museum is presumably self-evident. As to the latter, it's very hard to describe. If Sherlock Holmes and P.T. Barnum were to partner in putting together a museum reflecting their many and varied Victorian-era interests, it would look something like the Museum of Jurassic Technology.

(V) answers: In the summer, the weather is good and walking through Amsterdam or bicycling around the countryside is lovely. Trouble is, the place is flooded with tourists and prices are high.

In the fall, prices are lower but it is often stormy and rainy.

Winter is low season; it starts to get dark at 4 p.m. and there is almost no sun. But prices are the cheapest.

In the spring, things get brighter and the weather is mixed.

If what you want to do is be outside, walk around the canals, and cycle through the countryside, spring is probably best. If you want to spend all your time indoors in the many museums, winter is best and cheapest, but avoid the pre-Christmas period.

And for hidden gems:

  1. Rembrandt's House: It's where the artist lived and worked. It is not exactly hidden, but not so well known.

  2. The Houseboat Museum: It shows what life on an Amsterdam houseboat is like.

  3. The Frisian Islands: They are lovely in the spring and summer.

  4. Zaanse Schaans: It has several working windmills you can go into and climb around to see how they work.

  5. Giethoorn: A lovely little village few tourists know about, and it has no cars.
Gallimaufry

J.J. in Johnstown, PA, asks: I've noticed lately, let's say after 12:01 p.m. in January 20th, that the language in your posts has gotten a little coarser, like using colorful metaphors as Spock would say, and less professorial. I may be in the minority (OR MAYBE NOT, WHO KNOWS!?) but this is a welcome change. I'd have to go back and check but I think these were items written by (Z). Was this a conscious change or have TCF's antics moved so fast that your patience has already eroded? Again, this is not a complaint.

Also, I feel for you when taking the pups out to the potty in bad weather. My (late) Baxter liked to take his sweet time when it was below freezing outside. Part of me thinks it was because he was half-Husky. The other 99% of me thinks it's because he was an a**hole.

(V) & (Z) answer: The coarser writing comes from going with what our instinct tells us, as writers. It was not conscious.

That said, we noticed the trend, too. And the choice not to reverse it was definitely conscious.



K.H. in Albuquerque, NM, asks: As they say, you're not paranoid if they're really out to get you. So many of my contacts in government have disappeared into Signal, so there is genuine fear of retribution for statements made online. If Co-President Elon Musk decides that Electoral-Vote.com should be blocked for promulgating incorrect thoughts, how can we reconnect on an alternative channel? VPN to a server in Utrecht? At least (V) can safely broadcast from the Netherlands.

(V) & (Z) answer: We think we're a little too small to be of interest to the Co-Presidents. But if they did try to shut us down, you have two people, one who is technically proficient and very good at getting around various barriers, and another who is VERY technically proficient and who lives in a foreign country. So, we'll figure it out.



D.W. in Fremont, CA, asks: Donald Trump is suing CBS for 10 billion dollars due to the 60 Minutes interview with Kamala Harris. He is also threatening to revoke CBS's license to broadcast. Isn't this a violation of the freedom of the press guaranteed by the Constitution? If he can go after CBS because he does not like the content of one of their programs, can he also go after Electoral-Vote.com, Randy Rainbow, and others, who are critical of him? What are your concerns in this matter?

(V) & (Z) answer: It is absolutely a violation of freedom of the press, and is shameful.

As we note above, we doubt he'll go after us. We're too small to be on his radar and, further, there's nothing he values that he can get from us. If he DOES try it, however, we would be something of a nightmare for him (as would be Randy Rainbow). Why? Because we are not planning a billion-dollar merger, so he can't abuse his powers to hurt us. Meanwhile, we (like Randy) are snarky, and good at public speaking, and we'd be happy to appear all over the place to talk about his censorship, and to make him the butt of jokes. Plus, we'd be David to his Goliath. In short, lots of bad PR for him, and no real upside.

Reader Question of the Week: Rally 'round the Flag

Here is the question we put before readers last week:

J.S. in Germantown. OH, asks: If you could hang a flag from any source (i.e., TV, movies, history) as a subtle sign of resistance to the Trump administration, what would it be and why?

And here some of the answers we got in response:

R.A. in Chesterfield, MO: A Trump flag, but upside down, to indicate a state of distress or emergency. (Take that, Mrs. Alito.)

A MAGA flag, upside down



J.D. in Greensboro, NC: We have the Free France flag flying on our deck. The Elon Musk salute just proved that we are occupied by anti-Democratic forces. It will remain there for 4 years—or less, considering what could happen during this time.

Tricolor flag with a Catholic
cross on it



J.M. in Silver Spring, MD: Here's a flag used by the resistance to an autocrat:

Babylon 5 flag

They eventually won!

BTW, when "W" was president, I was so bothered by his lies and abuses that I called him "President Clark." Now I long for a president as honest and sensible as "W."



A.F. in Boston, MA: The Nottinghamshire flag, as it is already a symbol of resistance to tyranny:

A green flag with a red cross
and a silhouette of Robin Hood firing a bow and arrow



A.F. in Boston, MA: All that dystopian young adult fiction is coming back to me. My vote is for the Mockingjay from The Hunger Games:

Katniss Everdeen waves
the Mockingjay flag

While the books and movies absolutely have (lots of) flaws, the parallels between an autocratic central government that cares not a whit for people who are not supporters, cruelty for cruelty's sake, and an opposition that can be just as manipulative are not lost on this cynical Millennial.



M.L. in Simpsonville, SC: We already fly the Canadian flag:

Canadian maple leaf flag



C.W. in Visalia, CA: The flag that best represents me and my values is the flag of California. I have a California flag decal on my car and I had a large flag on the wall of my classroom when I taught social science. I still have an American flag because I believe in what it once stood for and I am not willing to give it up, but the California Republic remains my by best hope for protecting our rights.

California grizzly bear flag



R.P. in Salem, VA:

Marine Corps flag, with
rainbow running along the bottom



C.t. in Cape Coral, FL: The Conch Republic, a symbol of resistance to Federal overreach:

A conch on a sun,
the year 1826, and some stars



R.F. In Reedsport, OR: The Doug Flag:

Blue, white and green
horizontal stripes with a pine tree silhouette overlaid

This is the flag of the mythical nation of Cascadia (Oregon, Washington and British Columbia). Cascadia is not necessarily about independence from the larger countries, but more about the attitude and lifestyles of the people who live here.



S.C. in Farmington Hills, MI: Originally created by fiber artist India Tresselt following the 2016 election the "This Is Not Normal" flag is a symbol of protest and resistance against actions or policies that are perceived as abnormal or unacceptable. It serves as a visual reminder that certain actions or behaviors should not be accepted as the new norm and that it is important to speak out against them:

The phrase 'This
is not normal' repeated over and over, in a spiral pattern



B.C. in Phoenix, AZ: I'd like somebody in Florida to sneak this banner up onto the flagpole at Mar-a-Lago:

Nazi flag from 'Inglourious Basterds'



D.D. in Longmont, CO:

Picture of Earth on both
sides; one side says 'AFRICA - CRADLE OF HUMANITY THE REST OF US ARE IMMIGRANTS, REFUGEES SLAVES. OR THEIR DESCENDANTS'
and the other says 'TAKE CARE OF OUR HOME AND ALL WHO LIVE HERE'



T.L. in West Orange, NJ: Were a flag-hanger of any sort, I'd probably be flying the flag of Star Wars' Rebel Alliance right about now:

White background,
two black stripes, red Rebel Alliance logo overlaid



F.H. in Ithaca, NY (as well as Busselton, Western Australia): For me personally, there is only one obvious choice:

A green flag with a yellow
kangaroo wearing boxing gloves



B.B. in St. Louis, MO: When choosing a flag to fly as a sign of resistance, I suggest the one proposed by Mark Twain showing his opposition to potential U.S. involvement in the Philippines:

Red and black stripes,
large skull and crossbones in place of the star field

"...we can have just our usual flag, with the white stripes painted black and the stars replaced with the skull and cross-bones."



A.J. in Buffalo, NY: We currently own a Pride flag so I've given thought to what flag we would fly if things became too dicey. I decided the flag of the United Federation of Planets from Star Trek would represent everything I wanted to stand for such as diversity, inclusiveness, and optimism for a better future:

Blue flag, circular map of
the stars encircled by olive branches. A clear takeoff on the UN flag.



D.E. in Lancaster, PA: At first I thought of the United Federation of Planets or the flag of Wakanda, but that's first Trump administration. The second one deserves the symbol from V For Vendetta, a film that depicts a fascist regime that uses immigrants, homosexuals and Muslims as scapegoats for an excuse to destroy liberty and justice and the one person, V, who stands up to that regime.

Black flag, one red
stripe running horizontally along the center, two stripes running vertically left of center, creating something like 
a H.



A.S. in Lenora Hills, CA: The flag of the United States of America. I've long been bothered that the far right has co-opted the flag as a symbol of conservativism/fascism/psuedo-patriotism. The flag belongs to us all, let's take it back.

I'd also suggest adding a tagline. I like "Liberty and justice for all."

Standard U.S. flag,
but with 'Liberty and Justice for All' at the bottom.

Here is the question for next week:

J.K. in Auckland, NZ: I'm an American expat living in New Zealand. I've been here, with my family, (wife and daughter) for nearly two decades.

My parents are in their late seventies and eighties. It's unlikely they'll be around much longer. They're at the age and health, that if I don't see them soon, I'll likely be attending a funeral. So I booked a trip back in October last year and will spend a week in February with them while they're still with us.

I haven't had much contact with them since I moved to New Zealand. The last time I saw them in person was before the pandemic and it was for only a day or two. That was particularly challenging for me, as most conversations tended to start with, "let me tell you about Obama." While my parents have always been Republicans, and I've always leaned more liberal, we always shared a fair amount of common ground. That has changed in the years as my parents have embraced MAGA and some of the worst traits that align with it.

I am hoping to hear from your readers on how I can survive being around my parents for a week.

Submit your answers to comments@electoral-vote.com, preferably with subject line "Cult-ure Shock"!


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

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


Email a link to a friend.

---The Votemaster and Zenger
Feb07 MuskWatch: Pushing All the Wrong Buttons?
Feb07 Pam Bondi: Bill Barr, the Sequel
Feb07 Donald Trump: He Was Nailed to the Cross for Me
Feb07 I Read the News Today, Oh Boy: Rock Fish
Feb07 This Week in Schadenfreude: Don't Mess with... Black Churches
Feb07 This Week in Freudenfreude: Tryin' to Get Up That Great Big Hill of Hope
Feb06 Are Democrats Falling Into Musk's Trap?
Feb06 Has Musk Violated (M)any Laws?
Feb06 Musk Might Save Ukraine
Feb06 Will Trump Be the New McKinley?
Feb06 All Eyes Are on the Federal Courts Now
Feb06 A Trip Through Trump Country
Feb06 Democratic AGs Warn Government Workers about the Buyout
Feb06 The Turtle in Winter
Feb06 Few Politicians Are Popular
Feb05 Genocide Joe? Meet Ethnic Cleansing Don
Feb05 Today's Crazypants Roundup
Feb05 Path Is Clear for Trump Cabinet Picks
Feb05 There's No Business Like Show Business... Apparently
Feb05 The Empire State Strikes Back?
Feb04 Musk Is King
Feb04 The Trade Wars Have... Been Paused
Feb04 Only the Best People, Part I: The Den of Thieves
Feb04 Only the Best People, Part II: This Is Your Government
Feb03 Musk Has a New Role: Impounder-in-Chief
Feb03 The Co-Presidents Are Shutting Down USAID
Feb03 The Trade Wars Have Begun, Part II
Feb03 Trump Has Near-Record Low Approval for New Term
Feb03 Ken Martin Wins the DNC Election
Feb03 Mayor Pete --> Secretary Pete --> Senator Pete (?)
Feb03 Republicans Are Still Fighting with Each Other over the Budget
Feb03 Maybe Congress Should Get the Blame for the Mid-Air Collision
Feb03 Rubio's First Task: Talking Panama out of the Canal
Feb03 New York Doctor Indicted for Prescribing Mifepristone for Louisiana Teen
Feb02 The Trade Wars Have Begun
Feb02 Sunday Mailbag
Feb01 Saturday Q&A
Feb01 Reader Question of the Week: Name That Dune
Jan31 Donald Trump Kills 67 People
Jan31 Confirmation Hearings: Trump May Not be Able to Ram Gabbard, Kennedy Through
Jan31 Trumponomics: A Heaping Pile of Bull... Well, You Know
Jan31 Today in Fawning Obeisance: Meta Appears to Have Abandoned All Pretense of Balance
Jan31 I Read the News Today, Oh Boy: Little Lion Man
Jan31 This Week in Schadenfreude: Boebert Tries to Be a Hawk, Ends Up as a Goat
Jan31 This Week in Freudenfreude: Fires, Meet Water Bearer
Jan30 Kennedy Is Heard
Jan30 How Hegseth Was Confirmed
Jan30 Trump Declares War--On Congress
Jan30 How Is It Going with the Price of Eggs?
Jan30 Trump Floods the Zone