Matt’s Marvelous Mailbag seeks to provide marginally adequate answers to much better questions about politics, economics, social life, theology, or any potpourri you see fit to have answered. Send questions to mailbag.bereans@gmail.com.  

Well, I do hope everybody had a most blessed and excellent Thanksgiving and is ready for a nice, long Christmas season. Associates of mine will know that I happen to be a Christmas junkie; my personal enjoyment of the season extends far beyond what most would consider reasonable, but doggone if I don’t gain some grand measure of joy from it all. What can I say? Christmas is just magical for me.

Q: Daniel asks: “I know one Dem representative declining to support isn’t too big, but does this show signs that impeachment could be running out of steam, even after all the Schiff hearings?”

A: Interesting that you frame it this way because I actually think that’s a big part of what is going to be challenging for Democrats through this whole process. Three words: Time, time, time.

“Mr. Mailman, that’s just one word repeated three words.” Ok, yes, but it underscores what the big problem for Democrats is. This whole process is just interminable. Essentially since the day Trump got into office, we have been hearing about calls for impeachment, the end of the beginning, the walls closing in, the bombshells blowing up, on and on and on it goes. Look, regardless of the merits, the Democrats have protracted this process out far too long. They have got to paint or get off the ladder at some point.

This is the same problem that Democrats have with their primaries right now and what Republicans had problems with in their primaries back in 2016. When you let these processes go on for this long, you start to destroy any notion of novelty. Oh boy, another hearing happened, hope I didn’t miss anything important. Oh goody, Michael Bloomberg entered the race; that’s important…I think…maybe….I don’t actually care any more. The true blood leftists will love this endless outrage against the President (rightly directed or not), but I hesitate to think undecideds really enjoy this at all.

Q: Daniel also asks: “Favorite Thanksgiving dishes?”

A: Well, I have to apologize Daniel; I missed Thanksgiving for this question, but I’ll give them anyway since they kind of overlap with my favorite Christmas ones anyway.

For me, you can never go wrong with side dishes based around a core of green bean casserole, mashed potatoes, and stuffing. Build your side dish collection around that, and all will be well. Now, as for the main dish, I know there can be some controversy over the ham/turkey divide, but I can do just fine with either. If forced to pick, I am dispositionally a ham guy (yes, you may interpret that however you see fit). Dessert? Just give me a pecan pie and let me be. There really is no superior finish to a Thanksgiving meal than pecan pie. You can do alright with pumpkin pie or maybe a good dessert bread, but pecan pie is where it’s really at.

Q: Daniel finally asks: “Mayor Pete is polling well in Iowa and NH, but trails far behind in single digits nationally, which is reflected in Nevada and SC polling? Is something off here or are those states just good for him? Even so, could good finishes in the first two boost him later on? Also, do you see any significant impact coming from the newer entries to the field?”

A: I’ll be honest; at this point, I think Biden has it. I wasn’t so sure that he was going to last this long, but everyone who rises to challenge his spot keeps falling, so it looks like he’s got the staying power. Granted, we still haven’t even had the first elections yet, but I really think he’s going to ride this thing out. Bloomberg will make things interesting, but I really don’t see him getting up there. Biden has the moderate lane, and I don’t think Bloomberg really has the firepower to butt in there. Money doesn’t solve all your political problems as it turns out.

Q: Jonathan asks: “Do you have any thoughts on the more recent unpopularity of the Electoral College, and the implications if the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact reaches a majority of electoral votes and goes into effect?”

A: Indeed I do. I should say at the outset that I know good conservatives who love the electoral college and good conservatives who really don’t like the electoral college, so this isn’t necessarily just a left/right issue. Personally, I am pro-electoral college for a couple of reasons.

1. It’s how we’ve been doing elections for 200+ years, and it hasn’t doomed us yet. This isn’t the only reason, but I think there’s something to be said for tradition. This is how our country has always done Presidential elections, and I don’t think there’s a pressing need to fix it. The main reason people get worked up over this is often because their candidate lost the electoral college despite winning the popular vote. Were the situation to be reversed, I suspect we would hear nary a peep from those same people. Heck, we might hear some rather eloquent defenses of the system. Regardless, agreeing to play by the rules of the game and then getting worked up when you lose based on those rules seems rather cheap to me.
2. In a way, the electoral college seems to be one of the last bastions of federalism we have. Under the original provisions, the Senate was supposed to be elected by state legislatures as a counter-balance to the more national House. That design is intentional. One chamber is supposed to be more national, and one is more federal in nature (insert long comments about balance of the force and the importance of local politics and whatnot…) The Presidency is kind of a mixture; people vote, but states ultimately send the electors. With the federal nature of the Senate having been stripped away, I see the electoral college as even more important in preserving that federal nature.
3. Finally, the electoral college affords some protection to places other than big cities. One very bizarre complaint I often hear about the electoral college is that you could win with just a small handful of states. The curiosity of this complaint stems from two facts. (A) The combinations people offer up tend to be very odd and unrealistic mixtures. Theoretically possible? Yes. Likely to happen? No. (B) Suppose we take this logic, anyway. I can make the problem even worse with a national popular vote. You could win with just a couple big cities, never mind about states. Once again, it’s unlikely to happen, but the critique makes no sense. The simple fact is that the electoral college realistically offers better protection to the “little guys” in our system than a popular vote.

A Final Reflection:

A far less philosophical one today, but I just gotta say that I think this is the first year I have been satisfied with the College Football Playoff selections. You have four different conference champions with clear claims to the top spot, and really no one else who could pose a legitimate threat to those claims. What remains to be seen at this point is whether the CFP can continue this in years to come. Some of this was aided by the impressively convenient manner in which the bowl games resolved themselves, but I certainly hope that we can see good selections like this in the years to come. I could fuss about Ohio State not being #1, but hey…after Saturday, I’m just glad to have beaten Wisconsin.