CHRIS CRUCIAL: Fact checkers vs Donald Trump 🤓

PLUS: A VP pick this week???

Welcome to Chris Crucial. Check out my mission statement on why you should invest in me. It’s $6 a month/$60 for the year to become a paid subscriber! Do it today!👇

1. Facts vs Trump

Thursday’s debate is rightly cast as a showdown between Donald Trump and Joe Biden.

But it may be another matchup — between Trump and objective facts — that winds up being most crucial to the outcome.

In one corner is Trump, a politician who had made untruth — or “alternative facts” — central to his political brand.

To wit: The Washington Post found that Trump said more than 30,000 false or misleading things during his four years in office. What’s more, the longer Trump was in office, the more lying he did. Here’s WaPo on that:

Trump averaged about six claims a day in his first year as president, 16 claims day in his second year, 22 claims day in this third year — and 39 claims a day in his final year.

Put another way, it took him 27 months to reach 10,000 claims and an additional 14 months to reach 20,000. He then exceeded the 30,000 mark less than five months later.

And, unlike past presidents, Trump is not shamed when caught in a lie. Instead, he proudly champions the fact as proof (or something) that the media is fake and only he is telling the “truth.”

Remember that Trump told a crowd in 2018: “Stick with us. Don’t believe the crap you see from these people, the fake news. … What you’re seeing and what you’re reading is not what’s happening.”

In the other corner are the fact checkers. And there are LOADS of them. The New York Times alone is dedicating 29 people to fact-checking the debate. 29!!! Other news organizations are deploying the full extent of their reporting resources to do the same.

CNN, interestingly, isn’t promising live fact-checking by the anchors. This, from the New York Times, gets to that point:

The role of a moderator is often in dispute, and David Chalian, CNN’s political director, said that Thursday’s live debate “is not the ideal arena for live fact-checking.” Instead, Ms. Bash and Mr. Tapper would focus on “facilitating the debate between these candidates, not being a participant in that debate,” he said, noting that CNN analysts would assess the veracity of the candidates’ comments immediately after the telecast.

This will make some (many?) people unhappy. They would prefer that, if and when Trump says something false, the entire debate stops unless and until he admits he isn’t telling the truth.

Which, I get.

The problem, of course, is that Trump will NEVER admit that what he is saying is false. If the moderators stopped the entire debate, say, to make the point that Trump’s claim that the 2020 election was stolen is without any factual basis, he would never, ever concede the point.

At which point, the moderators and the network would be forced into a choice: Move on or just keep trying to force Trump to say something he will never, ever say.

It’s not easy. At all.

Then there’s this: For all the fact-checking resources being thrown at this debate, will any of it matter? Certainly not to the pro Trump crowd who a) doesn’t look at the New York Times (or any other mainstream media news site) and b) even if they did would dismiss the fact-checking as some sort of “Deep State” conspiracy aimed at keeping Trump from power.

On the other end of the spectrum are the people who read the Times religiously. And already know that what Trump is saying — about the 2020 election, about Mexico providing 28,000 soldiers to guard the border free of charge, about the greatness of the economy when he was president — is false.

Which leaves the few people who are legitimately undecided in this race. And, not to generalize too much, but these people tend to be very low information voters. They almost certainly will watch only pieces of the debate (if any at all) and you can be nearly certain they won’t stick around afterward to watch CNN’s post-debate fact checking or the fact-checking happening on the live blogs of the Times or the Washington Post.

Thinking too much about all of this makes me, well, depressed. Because if we can’t agree that objective facts exist, how can we have a conversation with someone else — much less a presidential debate?

2. Trump’s VP pick timing

Donald Trump is floating the idea that not only might he already know who his vice presidential pick will be but also that he might well announce it before the debate on Thursday.

Asked over the weekend whether his vice presidential pick will be in attendance at the Atlanta debate, Trump responded: “They’ll be there. I think we have a lot of people coming.”

And then there’s this from NBC News today:

There have been high-level discussions in recent days within the Trump campaign about moving that timeline up and making a splash sooner, according to these sources, who requested anonymity to speak frankly.

The sources also cautioned that the timing is not yet final, and the decision could still happen closer to the convention.

And THIS from Trump senior adviser Chris LaCivita this morning:

Look. I am on record as saying we should ignore what Trump says in response to either the identity or the timing of his VP. He will generally say anything is possible and anyone could be picked.

Does that mean, well, anything? I don’t really think so.

I think Trump wants to announce his VP pick somewhere close to (or at) the Republican National Convention in the middle of next month. But, could he change that plan? Of course! That’s who he is.

The only way I could see Trump announcing his VP pick this week is if he has a disastrous performance at the debate on Thursday — and he and his team feel like they need to change the conversation quickly.

But such a move would mean that Trump has definitely made up his mind about the pick. And, honestly, I would be very surprised if he has. Because he’s the sort of guy who loves to call last-minute audibles.

Remember this from the 2016 VP selection process:

In conversations late into the evening, Mr. Trump repeatedly hesitated over selecting Mr. Pence, according to people briefed on the tense deliberations, who insisted on anonymity to describe the confidential talks. Even as his emissaries reassured Mr. Pence, Mr. Trump fielded a last-ditch appeal from Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey, another finalist, who once again pressed his own case.

Zebras don’t change their stripes. At least not this zebra.

3. The most expensive House primary ever

George Latimer, left, and Rep. Jamaal Bowman

No matter what happens tonight, the New York 16th district Democratic primary between Rep. Jamaal Bowman and Westchester County Executive George Latimer has already made history: It is the most expensive House primary EVER.

The price tag is hovering around $25 million when you include the spending by the two candidates as well as the MANY outside groups who have weighed in.

The race is functionally a referendum on Bowman, an ultra-liberal, second term member who aligns himself with the so-called “Squad” in Congress.

Bowman drew negative national headlines last year when he pulled a fire alarm in the Capitol complex just before a major vote on funding the government. Bowman said he pulled the alarm accidentally; “I was trying to get to a door,” he said. “I thought the alarm would open the door, and I pulled the fire alarm to open the door by accident.”

Which, uh, what?

The race hasn’t primarily been about the fire alarm incident, however. Instead it’s revolved around Bowman’s outspoken criticism of the Israel government in the wake of the October 7, 2023 Hamas attacks. Bowman has called the Israeli invasion of Gaza a genocide.

Latimer has staunchly defended Israel’s right to defend itself and has benefited from massive spending — more than $14 million — from the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee.

Most neutral observers give Latimer the edge but in a small turnout race the result could well be unpredictable. Either way, the district will stay in Democratic hands this fall.

Polls close at 9 pm eastern. You can follow the results here.

NOTABLE QUOTABLE

“This issue has been politicized, has been polarized over time. But I think when we understand that this is a public health issue, we have the opportunity to take it out of the realm of politics and put it into the realm of public health.” — U.S. Surgeon General Vivek Murthy, declaring a public health emergency on gun violence

ONE GOOD CHART

The New York Times unveiled its 2024 polling tracker on Tuesday, showing the race between Donald Trump and Joe Biden knotted at 46%.

SONG OF THE DAY

It’s been 20 years since Sufjan Stevens released his “Seven Swans” album. And now it’s being reissued! Here’s “The Dress Looks Nice on You.”

Thanks for reading! This nightly newsletter brings you ALL of what you need to know from the world of politics. Think of it as a daily cheat sheet! If you want to get it in your email inbox every night at 7:30 pm, become a subscriber today!