Friday Mailbag!

Here we go

Happy Friday!

We made it!

I am teaching my class at Georgetown this afternoon. Subject: Polling. Pretty easy one! 😂😂😂

Before I do that though, I answered a whole bunch of questions from the “So What” community below — including several on polling!

If I didn’t get to yours, never fear! Tune into my weekly Friday livestream over at my YouTube channel. It’s at 1 pm eastern — and I will spend an hour (or so) answering questions there too!

The Friday mailbag is one of a handful of posts every week that are exclusively for paid subscribers. If you are a free subscriber, you’ll be able to read some of it. But why not enjoy the whole thing! Become a paid subscriber today!

Let’s do this.

Q: I am still confused why you feel Vance did so well during the debate when he told so many lies and made so many spins.

A: This is a great place to start.

Debates are performances. (By the way, so are campaigns.) The goal is to make yourself as appealing as possible to someone who hasn’t made their mind up about whether or not to vote for you.

You may not like this. You may want debates to be a dry recitation of facts — and the winner to be the person who made more factually correct statements.

But, that is not how undecided voters watch them. They watch them for how a person looks. How he or she sounds. Do they seem confident and up to the job they are running for? Do they sound knowledgeable and competent?

On those measures, Vance was clearly better than Tim Walz.

Now, of course facts matter. And Vance told a few whoppers — like that Trump “peacefully” handed over power after the 2020 election. Sure he did! After he had tried to foment an insurrection!

But, the onus for pointing out those factual inaccuracies is on the other candidate! And Walz didn’t do enough of that. There were a slew of missed opportunities to either correct Vance or hit Vance on things he had said in the past — most notably on Vance’s ridiculous comments about Springfield, Ohio.

I get that plenty of people who read this newsletter — especially on the left — will disagree with almost everything I just wrote. But I try to live in the “what actually moves people” rather than “what I wish moved people.” That’s not meant to be snarky, by the way. Just honest.

Q: Chris, I would like your opinion on this: In the VP debate, Vance kept referring to "Kamala Harris' economy, or immigration, or anything else." Wouldn't it have been effective to ask Vance if he was going to be responsible for EVERYTHING Trump would do if they were elected. Ask if Vance was indeed going to "veto" any decision that Trump would put into effect. It just bothers me that Harris is getting 100% of the blame for everything the Biden administration has done. ( I don't see Pence getting the blame for hardly anything in the Trump reign)

A: Yes! This is what I mean about missed opportunities by Walz. There was SO much to go at Vance on — his past criticisms of Trump, his ownership of all of Trump’s policies and pronouncements, his comments on Springfield and on childless cat ladies…

There was SO much there — and Walz barely scratched the surface!

Q: Two questions. First, if Trump loses, who do you see as the top possibilities for the GOP nomination in 2028? Second, if Harris loses, who do you see is the top Democratic possibilities for president in 2028? Yes I know, last thing you wanna be thinking about right now. But you said any questions!

A: I like looking ahead. I am pretty sick of this election!

Republicans: Trump (yes, again), Don Jr., Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, Ron DeSantis (yes, again), Arkansas Sen. Tom Cotton, Missouri Sen. Josh Hawley, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, Arkansas Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders, Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp, Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin (Not a complete list!)

Democrats: California Gov. Gavin Newsom, Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro, Pete Buttigieg, Maryland Gov. Wes Moore, Georgia Sen. Raphael Warnock, Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar, Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear (Not a complete list!)

Q: Will the mainstream media grab onto the Smith filing and keep it in front of the public for the next four weeks or will it try to memory hole, whitewash or otherwise invalidate the indictment? By the way the indictment is not an October surprise. The timing of it was in fact created by the delay tactics and the immunity ruling of the Supreme Court, and there is no Department of Justice internal regulation, which forbids it coming out at this time. The wheels of Justice may turn slowly, but when they turn, they turn.