Friday Mailbag!

Questions. Answered.

Every Friday I take questions from “So What?” readers. It’s my favorite time of the week.

Before we get to it, I wanted to do a little self-promotion. My book — “Power Players: Sports, Politics and the American Presidency” is out on Tuesday. It looks at the sports our presidents played, loved and watched — and what it tells us about who they are and how they governed.

It’s a project that’s long been on my mind but became reality during the long years of the pandemic. I am immensely proud of it — and hope you enjoy reading it as much as I enjoyed writing it.

You can preorder “Power Players” here.

Ok, self promotion over. Let’s get to your questions.

Q: I am a Democrat. I despise most Republicans because they are so arrogant and judgmental, racist bullies. Biden is too old to run again, and I feel angry that he's not stepping aside. What would be Gavin Newsom's chance of winning if he ran against Trump?

A: Thanks for your honesty!

A race between Newsom and Trump would, almost certainly, be a referendum on Trump. He would be better known and better defined than Newsom. I think that would probably be a good thing for Democrats because, as 2020 proved, a majority of the country does not support Trump.

That said, Trump lost pretty narrowly — in terms of votes in swing states — in 2020. Which means he absolutely could win again in 2024. But, that’s true whether or not Biden or Newsom or anyone else runs.

By the way, I think Newsom would NOT be the favorite in an open seat race for the Democratic nomination. I think the top tier would likely be Pete Buttigieg and Kamala Harris. Newsom would be Tier 1A or Tier 2.

Q: What’s more likely in 2024? Biden vs Trump or DeSantis vs Newsom (sure seems like he is getting ready to run if Biden doesn’t)?

A: I think Biden-Trump is still WAY more likely than any other combination.

I would be STUNNED at this point if Biden didn’t run — although his repeated delays will continue to raise questions unless and until he formally announces. But, I just think he’s (mostly) made up his mind.

And, Trump is not only running but, as I continue to write and believe, the very likely Republican nominee. I know the race is in its early stages but I just see Trump with lots and lots of advantages in the 2024 primary contest that no one else has.

Maybe the more interesting question is this: What’s more likely to happen — Biden isn’t the Democratic nominee or Trump isn’t the Republican nominee?

Which is a GOOD question. And I went around and around with it in my mind. I think it’s still more likely that Trump isn’t the Republican nominee because he has a real-ish fight for the nomination whereas if Biden runs, he wins the nomination in a walk.

But, I could be convinced otherwise…

Q: How is Trump going to attack Tim Scott? It seems he's going to have to be a little careful with this one; it could back fire on him, but then again nothing else has so far. Your thoughts?

A: I don’t think he will — at least at the start. Because, as you point out, there’s nothing to be gained from attacking Scott since he is a) nowhere in polling and not a serious threat just yet and b) the first black Republican elected to the Senate since 1979.

Looking back at that paragraph, what I should have written is that Trump shouldn’t attack Scott. Which isn’t the same thing as Trump won’t attack Scott.

From a purely political perspective, it makes no sense for Trump to go after Scott. But, the former president does all sorts of stuff he shouldn’t do. So….

Q: Has there been any proposals to change the electoral college from a winner-takes-all to a percentile system to match the portion of votes each candidates receive in the state? This to me would seem to be a fair compromise to making every state important while giving smaller states a little boost (as originally intended). Or does pure politics dissuade both parties who are skeptical that this will benefit them?

A: Well, it’s certainly a popular idea. In 2022, Pew did a poll where more than 60% of people favored getting rid of the electoral college in favor of a national popular vote.

The issue? The Electoral College is in the Constitution. And amending the Constitution is really, really hard. You would need a 2/3rds vote in both Houses of Congress followed by 3/4ths of the states ratifying it. That’s a VERY big lift in this polarized political environment.

There are still efforts out there to get rid of the electoral college. But none have taken off.

Q: Is there a path back from the increasing polarization in the country? While Trump did not create it, he was the first to seize on the political opportunity that the national polarization represented and has certainly purposefully accelerated it. And, now many of his Republican would-be successors are charting the same path, stoking culture wars and purposely trying to accentuate the polarization divide. Is there a path back from this and, if so, is anyone trying to lead the nation on it? Thanks, Chris!

A: So I think the best way to to think of American politics is as a swinging pendulum. Right now the pendulum is VERY much on the side of heightened polarization and partisanship. There are lots of reasons for that — closed party primaries, redistricting etc. — but it’s just the current reality.

History suggests it will not always be the case. That there will come a time when the pendulum swings back more toward cooperation and bipartisanship. But, looking at our current environment, I struggle to see how we get back to that sort of era.

Right now, all of the political incentives are pointed toward partisanship. The most pointed partisans are the people who win primaries and who become stars in Washington. Until that incentive structure changes, nothing else will change.

Q: After Democrats won on the issue of abortion in 2022 and in Wisconsin this year that issue was major in the state's Supreme Court race, why do you think the GOP keeps hurting themselves electorally with the issue? Are they stubborn to the polls and results that are happening? Finally, do you think it will be an issue for them if Trump is the nominee since it seems right now he's unwilling to go as far as a national ban?

A: I think there is a segment of the Republican base that cares DEEPLY about the issue of abortion. It is, in their mind, the only issue that matters. And they have been hugely energized by the Supreme Court ruling overturning Roe v Wade.

To appease that segment of the base, GOP legislators in states where Republicans control all levers of state government are falling all over themselves to institute bans on abortion. (To be clear: Many of these legislators deeply believe in the cause as well.)

The problem for the GOP is that making abortion illegal is simply not a majority position in this country. Not even close. And rulings like the one coming out of Texas banning the use of mifepristone are even LESS popular with the public.

So Republicans find themselves caught between a base that can’t get enough of bans on abortion and a general electorate who does not support them. The result? Situations like Wisconsin where Republican candidates in swing states are punished for the party’s current stance on abortion.

Q: How big a disaster has the Tennessee expulsion been to the GOP?

Do you think Ron DeSantis war with Disney has boomeranged on him with Disney's latest maneuvering? Feels like it was a big part of his stump speech, only now it looks like he got outfoxed. (outmoused?)

A: The Tennessee expulsion never made ANY sense. If you want to punish members for abusing the state House floor then censure them or reprimand them in some other way. The idea that what the Tennessee Three did was grounds for expulsion was always, well, dumb.

Then there’s the fact that it was pointless. Both of the members who were removed from office are now back. So, Tennessee Republicans managed to create a massive national hubbub for, well, nothing.

On DeSantis vs Disney, I have a slightly different take. I am pretty sure the average Republican is not following every jot and tittle of the story — or Disney’s latest maneuvering. They know the broad strokes: DeSantis took on a woke company. (Yes, I know it is much more complicated and nuanced than that. Just saying that’s what the average Republican sees/knows.) And that is — still — a winner for him in my mind.

Q: With recent rumblings about a potential Joe Manchin White House bid, it got me thinking. Manchin, a Democrat, represents West Virginia, a solid red state.

I have never understood how there are so many cases of split results in statewide elections, particularly in non-competitive presidential states. Montana, Kansas, Kentucky, and Louisiana are projected for the GOP nominee by the networks about 30 seconds after the polls close. Yet, they’re represented by Democrats in the Senate (Jon Tester) and have Democratic Governors (Laura Kelly in KS, Andy Beshear in KY and John Bel Edwards in LA). Phil Scott, a moderate Republican is the Governor of as-blue-as-it-gets Vermont.

What is it that makes Kentucky for example, completely out of play for a Democratic Presidential Candidate, but very competitive and winnable for a Governor Race? How can the situation be so dramatically different between various statewide races when you (theoretically) have the same block of voters participating?

A: GREAT question!

Generally speaking, running for state office —like governor — is less of a purely partisan race than running for federal office (like House or Senate).

The reason is simple: A governor doesn’t take orders — or necessarily even interact with — his or her party in Washington. They can be totally independent. A Democratic governor — like Laura Kelly — doesn’t have to answer for what Nancy Pelosi says or does. She can be entirely her own person. And do her job without any input from the national wing of the party.

Same goes for Phil Scott. He can totally distance himself from the national party — and Donald Trump. And voters a) believe it and b) judge him on his own merits.

That VERY rarely happens when someone is running for federal office. They are going to serve in Washington and have to answer for everything the national party says and does.

Manchin is a bit of a one-off since he was a popular secretary of state and governor in West Virginia before he was in the Senate. So people knew him and felt comfortable that he wasn’t some tool of Washington Democrats.

Q: Do you think CNN editorials are too left? Did you consider yourself to be mostly moderate when you were at CNN? Where do you consider yourself to be since you left CNN?

A: I think CNN op-ed are labeled as such — and have viewpoints from both sides of the partisan aisle. That’s my experience at least.

I have always considered myself someone who doesn’t take sides but tries to base my analysis in what works (and doesn’t) work for the politics of a certain situation.

That became harder during Donald Trump’s presidency because he so aggressively went after CNN as being some sort of leftist organization. But I will tell you honestly I never saw any of that at CNN. I was always allowed to write what I thought — with no interruption or hand-on-the-tiller sort of stuff.

I am a free agent these days. I still am writing what I think and believe. I am just a little freer to pick topics and range a bit more widely.

Q: How long do you think it will take to get the toxic culture of Dan Snyder out of the Commanders? What do you think needs to happen? Obviously win, but do they need to do anything else?

A: It will take some time. I can’t imagine the coaching staff will be there much longer — maybe through this year but that’s it. It takes a while — 3-4 years — to totally clean house and institute an entirely new way of doing business.

That said, I can tell you that the mood around the DMV today is absolute jubilation that the Commanders have been sold. People HATED Dan Snyder and him being gone feels like a new day for lots of people — whether the team gets good now or in a few years. For lots of people, getting rid of Snyder is the real victory. (Also, read this from Barry Svrluga.)