There aren't so many positive Donald Trump stories out there, which means we don't have so many positive Trump items, particularly in the top slot. Today is the exception, however, as we're leading with this: On Wednesday, Trump made it easier for severely disabled veterans to have their student loans canceled. It is hard to believe anyone could oppose such a thing but, guess what, Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos did. She believes that everyone should do things the way she did them, namely by having your servants pull you up by your bootstraps. Obviously the President ignored her, to his credit.

Trump's political calculation here is transparent; everyone (and particularly his base) supports veterans, particularly disabled ones, while few voters seem to punish politicians for spending lots and lots of money. So, it was a no-brainer, on that level. What's more interesting, we think, is the extent to which this story has gotten buried, even on right-wing sites. Take a look at the "top stories" on Fox News, The Hill, and Politico, roughly 24 hours after Trump announced his decision:

Is there really any question that Fox News, more than anything else, is the anti-Democrats channel (with pro-Republicans taking a secondary role)? In any case, all three outlets had a story about Trump's decision, but the only one where it got any attention at all is Politico, where it was nonetheless drowned out by Trump's "joke" about giving himself the Medal of Honor, the president's "chopper talk," and a possible Joe Walsh challenge.

Or, let's look at this a different way. Which one of these positive things did Trump do in the last month or so:

Declared the first-ever national park in Hawaii? Made it easier for critically ill patients to receive organ donations? Named a submarine for famed computer scientist Adm. Grace Hopper? Guaranteed retired postal workers' pensions through at least the year 2050? Granted a pardon to Ricky Jackson, who was wrongfully imprisoned for 39 years? Lent his support to making Susan B. Anthony's birthday a national holiday?

The answer is number two, but we're guessing that most readers were entirely unaware of this story, because it too quickly disappeared into the ether, on all outlets (right, center, and left). In fact, Fox didn't even bother to cover it.

The point here is not that Trump doesn't get a fair shake. No, the point is that he has run a reality-star presidency, in which he creates all sorts of conflict and all sorts of silly distractions so that people don't pay too much attention to his scandals or to his lack of substantive accomplishments (more on this below). And that strategy is working, at least to an extent, but the price of that is that most of the positive things he does also get eaten up by the maelstrom. (Z)

Speaking of distractions, this whole Greenland thing, including Donald Trump's cancellation of his visit to Denmark, is still making a lot of headlines. In part, that is because the President may have damaged the United States' relationship with one of its best allies, and with the EU in general, for no real reason (see here for a good story on that point). In part, however, it is because the whole thing doesn't quite add up. Consider, for example, this tweet from the New York Times' Maggie Haberman:

Unanswered question: What's the real reason Trump didn't want to go to Denmark that he's blaming on the Greenland thing? — Maggie Haberman (@maggieNYT) August 21, 2019

Haberman is one of the best in the business, knows her stuff, and is not given to idle speculation. So, if she thinks this does not smell quite right, she's probably correct.

The theory that is currently circulating is this: shortly after Trump was scheduled to visit Denmark, Barack Obama is scheduled to make a visit (about two weeks later). Obama is wildly popular in Europe, Trump isn't, and the President may have been afraid of photos of his visit being compared to photos of Obama's visit (shades of the inaugural crowd size "debate"). The White House will never admit it if this guess is correct, but if it is, it tells us two things: (1) Trump is not likely to reschedule the trip anytime soon, and (2) despite his public posturing, he knows in his heart that he's widely unpopular.

Meanwhile, there is a somewhat similar story involving a one-time member of the Trump administration, namely former U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley. On Wednesday, she sent out this tweet in response to "speculation" that she would replace Mike Pence on the GOP's 2020 ticket:

Enough of the false rumors. Vice President Pence has been a dear friend of mine for years. He has been a loyal and trustworthy VP to the President. He has my complete support. pic.twitter.com/waPyQjC8Eb — Nikki Haley (@NikkiHaley) August 21, 2019

The odd thing here is that there has been no such speculation, at least not recently. Such an item would be right in our wheelhouse, so if that story was floating around out there, we'd know it. One possibility is that Haley knows that such a story is coming, because she was asked for comment, and she wanted to get out ahead of it. Another is that she lives in a bubble, and she confuses the occasional person asking her this question with a wide-ranging national dialog. The conspiratorial interpretation, however, is that she was actually trying to create a dialog, and that by tweeting that out, she planted a seed in Donald Trump's mind. Again, we'll never know for sure if this was her scheme, but she was pretty good at handling Trump while she was part of his administration, and she's a shrewd political operator, so a shiv in the back of Mike Pence is certainly possible.

In any event, as several observers have noted recently, there are basically no grown-ups left in the White House. The John Kellys and Rex Tillersons and Jim Mattises are all gone, and folks like Stephen Miller, Ivanka Trump, Mick Mulvaney, and Larry Kudlow are running the show. So, one should expect a lot more hard-to-explain wackiness in the next year, particularly if the polls continue to look bad for Trump (see below) and a bunker mentality really sets in. (Z)

Speaking of former White House employees, a couple of them announced new gigs this week, along with a non-White House but very prominent former officeholder.

Let's start with the latter individual, namely Paul Ryan. When he was Speaker of the House, he consistently railed against Washington, and how much he hated it there, and how he really preferred to spend his time back home in Wisconsin, with his family. Well, it would seem that the pull of the swamp, along with those sweet six-figure lobbyist salaries, was too strong, because he and his family are moving to a Maryland house that is D.C.-adjacent. He hasn't said exactly what he plans to do, but it's not too likely he's moved back in order to save the whales.

And then there is former White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders. It's actually somewhat hard to tell that she's "former," since her replacement, Stephanie Grisham, has yet to hold a single press conference. In any event, it used to be Sanders' job to sell Donald Trump's agenda from the White House. Now, it will be her job to sell Donald Trump's agenda from a nice air-conditioned TV studio. Yep, in a development that is roughly as predictable as the Cleveland Browns missing the playoffs, Sanders has signed up for a stint with Fox News. That could put her in direct competition with her dad's show, Huckabee, which is the Trinity Broadcasting Network's version of the Tonight Show, except that nobody seems to have told the Huckabee staff that late-night shows generally have...well, funny jokes (if you want to see a cringe-worthy segment that makes you long for the return of Chevy Chase, Magic Johnson, or Pat Sajak, click here).

Finally, Sanders' predecessor, Sean Spicer, also has a new gig (at least for a few weeks). He's going to be appearing on ABC's hit program Dancing with the Stars. Given how personally unpopular he is, and given that his herky-jerky style of press conferences did not speak to a reservoir of underlying grace and athleticism, he probably won't last long. But no matter how long he lingers, his selection has already infuriated many people, who either point out that: (1) He spent years lying to the American people, which is not something that should earn him "celebrity" status, and (2) He was so abusive to the ABC News staff, his selection is an insult to them.

The upshot is that association with Donald Trump apparently does not make someone unemployable, no matter how much they toted his water while working for (or with) him. So, the members of the administration presumably do have a future, though that will change for any of them who, you know, go to prison. (Z)

Former presidential candidate and Colorado governor John Hickenlooper has now done what he should have done all along (and what he might have been planning for all along), namely launch a campaign for the state's U.S. Senate seat. He made it official with a brief video, featuring the candidate playing pool, that was posted to YouTube early Thursday morning.

Sen. Cory Gardner (R-CO) was already in deep trouble, and now that he's got a heavyweight opponent, his trouble is even deeper. His problem is that there aren't enough Trump fanatics in Colorado to carry him to victory, but there are too many Trump fanatics for him to just ignore them. He hasn't walked both sides of that street very successfully, if that's even possible, and polls have him as a double-digit underdog to Hickenlooper. It's not impossible that, facing a grueling and likely to be unsuccessful reelection campaign, Gardner throws in the towel.

Whatever Gardner does, the Democrats are undoubtedly putting this seat in the bank, even if they won't admit that publicly. Assuming they're right, and the seat is theirs, then they will need to net two additional Senate seats plus the White House, or else they will need to net three additional seats, in order to make Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) into Minority Leader Mitch McConnell. As a reminder, the only incumbent Democrat in serious trouble is Sen. Doug Jones (D-AL), who may nonetheless be saved by a second Roy Moore run. Meanwhile, Sens. Martha McSally (R-AZ) and Susan Collins (R-ME) are in serious danger, while the GOP-held seats in Georgia, Kansas, Iowa, Kentucky, North Carolina, and Texas could possibly end up in play, depending on how things unfold. In short, what seemed a virtual impossibility six months ago—namely, the Democrats retaking control of the Senate—is now definitely within the realm of possibility. (Z)

Last week, we had state-level polls that suggest that Donald Trump is in some trouble in Texas and North Carolina, regardless of whom the Democrats nominate. This week, there are state-level polls from three Western states, namely Colorado (Emerson), Nevada (Gravis), and Arizona OH Predictive Insights, and they're not much better for him:

CO NV AZ Democratic Candidate Dem. Trump Dem. Trump Dem. Trump Joe Biden 55% 45% 49% 43% 45% 43% Bernie Sanders 55% 45% 47% 44% 34% 44% Elizabeth Warren 53% 46% 46% 47% 43% 44% Kamala Harris 51% 48% 45% 45% 36% 45% Pete Buttigieg 55% 45% 42% 46% 38% 43%

Some observations:

In every single state-level poll of the last three weeks, Joe Biden is ahead of Trump, and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) is either ahead of him, or is nipping at his heels, while Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) is ahead in all but Arizona. That means that all three of the Democratic frontrunners would give the President all he can handle.





On that same point, Trump needed nearly every toss-up state to go his way in 2016, and all of them did, with the exception of New Hampshire, and possibly Nevada (depending on your definition of "toss-up"). It's certainly looking like Trump's best case scenario is to be in the same situation, except with roughly twice as many toss-up states. It does not take a degree in advanced mathematics to know that while winning 6 of 7 coin flips is very possible, winning 11 or 12 out of 14 is much, much harder.





The relative polling strength of the Democratic candidates doesn't particularly correlate with policy positions (since both centrists and lefties are doing well), but it does correlate with name recognition. That implies, as we've noted before, that there is some room for less-famous candidates to pick up ground.





Arizona is a must-win for Trump and for the GOP's hopes of retaining the Senate, and it certainly looks like it's slipping away from them. This is a good time to be in the business of selling advertising in the Grand Canyon State, because both parties are going to dump boatloads of money there.

Add it up, and Team Trump is going to have to pick the states it tries to defend very carefully, because there simply isn't time and money for them to defend every state where he's in danger. And this, of course, assumes that nothing serious and adverse happens in the next 12 months, like a recession. (Z)

Rachel Bitecofer is a political scientist whose election model generated extremely accurate results in 2018. Put another way, she predicted almost exactly how big the blue wave would be in the House, and which Republican seats the wave would claim. In view of this, her prediction for 2020 is of much interest to politics-watchers. And she has news that will gladden Democrats' hearts: She thinks that as many as nine GOP-held seats in Texas are in play. That's a fair bit higher than the 5-6 seats that most folks have in play.

Bitecofer's prediction is based on two significant assumptions. The first, which has also been put forward by other psephologists (like CNN's Harry Enten) is that the blue team's real growth opportunity in the Lone Star State is with suburban women and college-educated folks, and not Latinos. The second, which forms the basis of her model, is that Democrats are so angry right now (Bitecofer's term is "negative partisanship") that they will be particularly enthusiastic voters in 2020, even more so than Trump's base. There is some external support for this; the most recent Fox poll, for example, reported that 57% of voters are "extremely interested" in the 2020 election. That's a huge number this far out. In fact, it's a higher number than we usually see even when an election is very near.

Needless to say, it's a long time until the election, and Bitecofer will surely change her ratings in one direction or the other in the next 14 months. However, if she's got the right of it, then it's very bad news for the red team. Texas' current House delegation includes 23 Republicans and 13 Democrats. If, say, 6 of Bitecofer's 9 in-play seats flip, that puts the blue team in the majority. And in an election like that, it would be very tough for Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) to hold on, or for Donald Trump to win the state. Needless to say, if Cornyn loses his seat, and Trump loses those 38 electoral votes, it will be nearly impossible for the GOP to hold the Senate or for Trump to win reelection. So, the Republicans really better hope that Bitecofer is wrong about 2020. (Z)

Former Rhode Island senator and governor Lincoln Chafee is like Jason Voorhees or Freddy Krueger: Just when you're sure he's done for, he comes back to life so we can have another sequel. During his time in the Senate, he was a Republican. For most of his time as governor, he was an Independent. During his quixotic presidential run in 2016, he was a Democrat. And now, he's thinking seriously about a second presidential run, this time as...you guessed it...a Libertarian.

Chafee claims that the Libertarian Party is really a natural fit for him, given his conservative views on fiscal issues and liberal views on social issues. It is curious, however, that it took him 66 years to figure that out. If he did somehow end up as the Libertarian standard-bearer, it's hard to see him making much of a dent in the race, given his chameleon-like political career. In fact, he would probably underperform the 2016 Libertarian candidate, Gary Johnson. Chafee would probably be wisest to conserve his energy and spend his time prepping for his inevitable 2024 Green Party presidential run. (Z)

We moved this back a day, primarily because we also moved Monday's Q&A to Tuesday.

You have mentioned several times that a vote from a "reluctant, hold your nose, vote for the lesser of two evils" voter counts the same as one from an enthusiastic supporter. And on its face, you're right. But isn't an enthusiastic voter more valuable, in that they donate money, bring others to the polls, knock on doors, or in some way get more people to vote? So, if Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren or Kamala Harris win the nomination, wouldn't they have more enthusiastic support than Joe Biden? Wasn't this part of Hillary Clinton's problem? K.A., Takoma Park, MD

You're right that an enthusiastic voter is more valuable than a non-enthusiastic one, for the reasons you list. The problem that you are overlooking is that, generally speaking, whatever it is that generates that enthusiasm also triggers a strong, negative counter-response. Consider, for example, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), who has a larger and more devoted base, perhaps, than any other member of the House. If she were to run for president (when she's eligible), those folks would be a valuable source of money, volunteer labor, etc. However, it is unlikely she would win a national election in the current climate, because right-wing types like Rush Limbaugh and Ben Shapiro and Sean Hannity loathe her with a white-hot passion, and would get all sorts of anti-Ocasio Cortez folks to vote for/donate to/work for her opponent.

And that, in short, was Hillary Clinton's problem. She actually did have a pretty fanatical base of support—recall that in 2008, it was she who was in the Bernie Sanders role, and it was her supporters who said they would not vote for any other candidate. However, she also "inspired" a historically large and vicious anti-Clinton movement, and that is what doomed her.

The optimal situation is to excite a large number of people, and to alienate a considerably smaller number of people, as Ronald Reagan did in 1984 or Franklin D. Roosevelt did in 1932. But, failing that, then you want to get your base just enthusiastic enough to vote/donate, without stepping too hard on the toes of the opposition. That would be the model Joe Biden is generally pursuing. This is not to say he has zero highly enthusiastic supporters, because that is not the case, but among recent major presidential candidates, his profile is unusual in terms of how few people really love him and how few really hate him. That profile might not get it done in some years, but in a year when many voters have an "anyone but Trump" mindset, it's a pretty good position to be in.

What's the history of the two-letter state abbreviations? It seems like there are too many states to squeeze them properly into just two characters, especially around the outsized letter M (MA, MD, ME, MI, MN, MO, MS, MT). Why not 3 or 4? Even Australia, with only 6 states and two territories, uses 2-3 letters. D.C., San Francisco, CA

Americans have been using various abbreviations for the U.S. states for at least two centuries, in part because human beings naturally try to expend as little energy on communication as is possible, and in part because in the 1800s, quills were expensive and a pain in the rear end to keep re-inking. The USPS (then known as the U.S. Post Office Department) did not like the use of abbreviations for a very long time, for fear of mistakes being made, but they were unable to change their customers' habits.

State abbreviations were both standardized, and embraced by the USPS, in the early 1960s, when the ZIP code system was introduced. The reason: There needed to be enough room on the envelope to write the ZIP code, and shortening state names was the best way to create the extra space. Oh, and before a bunch of folks e-mail, let us say that it is correct to capitalize all of the letters in ZIP, because it's an acronym for "Zone Improvement Plan."

Since the state abbreviations were standardized in 1963, only one of them had to be changed, and it's not one that starts with an 'M'. Can you guess which it was? We'll put the answer below; and we'll give you one more hint: The change was necessitated because of (some) mail sent to Canada.

On August 20, the President admitted that a recession could result from his China trade war, but defended it based on the need to combat China's predatory trade behavior. The admission was that there might, possibly, be a recession for two months. The standard definition of a recession is two successive quarters (six months total) of declining GDP. How worried should we be that the President of the United States is ignorant of the meaning of the term "recession"? Have I missed some news reports or has the media failed to note the President's lack of economic knowledge in this case? S.Z., New Haven, CT

You have not missed any coverage, as far as we know. We would suggest there are two reasons for the lack of commentary. The first is that there are multiple possible definitions of "recession," yours is just the most common and well known. So, it's not quite as much of a slam dunk error as, say, Trump talking about the time that George Washington invaded a bunch of airports. The second is that everyone who is paying attention knows that Trump is almost wholly ignorant of macroeconomics, and will forever remain ignorant, because he believes the knowledge of microeconomics he gained during his business career is all he needs. At this point, pointing this out is kind of beating a dead horse.

I'm surprised that you had nothing to say today about Trump re-tweeting that Israelis love him like the King of Israel or the Second Coming of God (which I doubt most Israelis are hoping for) and calling himself "the Chosen One." Did you think these things were insignificant? J.E.T., New York, NY

For a while now much of your content has been quoting the tweets of a poseur who happens to hold public office. Why? You are sharing his messages. You are spending a lot of mental capacity and website real estate breaking down his thoughts and their meaning. There is so much more going on in the world than the nonsensical ranting of a madman. Please consider focusing on how the admin has damaged the rule of law, weakened our national security, trampled the Constitution, endangered American citizens at home and abroad, packed the courts with Trumpist judges, and are rolling back protections on consumers, the environment, and minorities. J.S., McLean, VA

Normally, when we put two questions together, they are kinda similar. In this case, they are essentially opposites, but we put them together because they speak to the same basic issue.

To start, the quantity of nonsense that Trump produces, both on Twitter and in his face-to-face meetings with the press, is enormous. And we definitely don't like to play along as he tries to create a distraction, or as he blows off steam, or as he further rends the fabric of American political discourse. If we never had to write another item about something stupid or offensive he said, or if we never had to incorporate another one of his tweets into our items, we would be delighted.

Unfortunately for us, and everyone else, that is not realistic. This is a President for whom Twitter is his bully pulpit, and for whom bloviating and "look over there!" is often a substitute for actual governance. Further, whether he intends it or not, his words and his shenanigans have a real-world impact. For all of these reasons, we can't simply ignore the nonsense, even if we would like to.

What we try our best to do, admittedly imperfectly, is focus on the things that seem particularly instructive or particularly likely to be impactful, especially if we feel we have some useful observation(s) to add. Indeed, (Z) started an item about "the chosen one" comment that began: "What do Jesus, Harry Potter, and Donald Trump have in common?" However, we ultimately decided that there was nothing particularly important about that statement, and nothing that we could add beyond "He crazy!" and maybe "Has someone put the Imperius curse upon Trump?" And so, the item was dropped.

It's probably true that we've had more items recently that talk about Trump's outrageous verbiage and behavior. That is because, in our view, he has grown a fair bit more unhinged in the last month or two or three. Perhaps that's because there is nobody in the White House constraining him anymore. Or maybe this is just his 2020 campaign gearing up. Or possibly, we're right that he's in some sort of cognitive decline, and that process is speeding up. Could be all of the above, or could be something else entirely. But things definitely seem different.

As to the list of issues that correspondent No. 2 proposes that we should talk about, we think we do a pretty fair job of also incorporating those things.

One last thing that fits here, as well as anywhere else. We get a fair number of e-mails expressing regret that we seem to get so many complaints from readers. Please note that we include the complaints and criticisms in the Q&A feature because they give us something useful to talk about, and provide us (and hopefully the readers) some food for thought. We actually get considerably more positive e-mails, but there is no point in including them here, because it would just be gratuitous and self-congratulatory.

As a lifelong Democrat, I remember when Bill Clinton and Al Gore teamed up. I was thrilled because that felt like it was the first time I'd had my first AND second presidential choice on the same ticket, and that it would be unbeatable. Turns out it was (with an assist from Ross Perot). I feel the same way about a Biden-Warren ticket; talk about a two-headed monster. What odds would you put on that happening? How often has one party matched its top two candidates on the same ticket? How successful has that been when it happens? R.R., Memphis, TN

Biden-Warren is certainly a distinct possibility, since that would balance the ticket in a lot of useful ways. That said, the DNC might be worried about having two candidates north of 70, especially since the third person in the line of succession (Nancy Pelosi) will be north of 80 by the time 2020 rolls around. If Biden is indeed the nominee, then there's probably about a 10-15% chance he taps Warren as his running mate. However, if you're placing a bet, the smart bet is Stacey Abrams. She balances the ticket in a lot of useful ways, she would get the young people and progressives excited, and she's not AARP-eligible.

With the caveat that "top two candidates" is not an entirely objective measure, we will say that it is not especially common for a party's two best candidates to team up. Indeed, outside of Clinton-Gore, we would argue that it's only happened once in the last half-century. And that, of course, was the 2008 ticket of John McCain and Sarah Palin. Just kidding! The real example is Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, though you could possibly make a case for Jimmy Carter and Walter Mondale, or John Kerry and John Edwards. If we extend our window to the last century, we would say that only adds one more duo, John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson. Because it's subjective, others may have a different opinion, but we think it's pretty clear it doesn't happen too often. Unless you are impressed with the dazzling political acumen of Dan Quayle, Spiro Agnew, or Joe Lieberman, that is.

Why does Trump use the @realDonaldTrump Twitter account instead of the @POTUS account? G.W., Oxnard, CA

That's an easy one: Because he loves to see his own name, and he hates anything associated with Barack Obama. When he made the choice to stick with @realDonaldTrump, he also thought he would have more power to exclude people he doesn't like, since it's his personal account. However, the courts told him "no," given that he uses it for official business.

As a side benefit, any followers he picks up while in the White House, he can take with him into his post-politics life. Undoubtedly, he will use that to his advantage, whether it is to sell product, or to try to influence a jury pool.

ZIP code answer: Nebraska had to be changed from NB to NE because a lot of mail meant for Nebraska was getting incorrectly routed to New Brunswick. Although note that while civilians use 'NE' these days, the military and some courts still use 'NB' for Nebraska.

If you have a question about politics, civics, history, etc. you would like us to answer, click here for submission instructions and previous Q & A's. If you spot any typos or other errors on the site that we should fix, please let us know at corrections@electoral-vote.com.