Friday mailbag!

We are doing this.

Happy Friday!

We made it!

Thirty nine days until the election. Kamala Harris is at the border today. Donald Trump is meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. There are more polls being released than any person can keep track of.

What better way to sort through the week that was and look forward to the week to come than through your questions?

Before we get to them, let me take a minute to remind you that the Friday mailbag is a post 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!

Below I answered a whole bunch of questions. But, 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!

Let’s do this.

Q: With broadcast TV losing viewers, what do campaign pros view as the most effective distribution methods for ads?

A: Two things can be true at the same time.

1. Broadcast TV is dying

2. Broadcast TV still has lots of people who watch it — especially older people

Given #2, TV ads are still the main expense of a campaign and how most voters are reached. That is especially true of older (and reliable) voters. And much less true of younger people who really don’t watch much TV (if any) anymore.

But politics is a slow-moving business. Innovation, changes in consumption habits and the like tend to hit politics last. Consultants and candidates tend to do what they know and are most comfortable with — and right now that is TV ads.

Internet advertising, YouTube and social media are all on the rise. But none of them have passed the efficacy of TV ads just yet.

Those streams WILL cross. It’s a question of when — and how politics reacts.

Q: Can you give me your take on the electoral college? I have heard people complain about the electoral college my whole life; I used to roll my eyes. But now we might have 3 elections in the last 25 years where the winner of the popular vote loses the electoral college. I understand what the founding fathers were thinking when they created it. Some good reasons, some not so good. But I am not sure only a handful of states getting all the attention is best for democracy. What would a popular vote winner take all presidential campaign look like compared to what we have now?

A: I think we would be better off with a national popular vote, candidly. The electoral college is way too complicated and lots and lots of people don’t get it at all. It also ensures that a national campaign for president really only happens in 6-7 states — which is not the best way to get people excited about democracy.

I also take your point about a popular vote winner not winning the electoral college. It’s happened four times ever — and half of those times are in the last two decades (2000 and 2016). And there is a very real possibility that Kamala Harris wins the popular vote and loses the electoral college this time too.

Three elections in 24 years where the popular vote winner isn’t president? That suggests to me we have something wrong with the system of how we choose our presidents.

The problem, of course, is that the electoral college is written into the Constitution. And amending the Constitution is very, very hard. A reminder:

“An amendment may be proposed by a two-thirds vote of both Houses of Congress, or, if two-thirds of the States request one, by a convention called for that purpose. The amendment must then be ratified by three-fourths of the State legislatures, or three-fourths of conventions called in each State for ratification.”

I just don’t see two thirds of Congress voting to get rid of the electoral college. Republicans like it — especially if it delivers them three popular-vote-loser presidents in 24 years.

Q: So, Trump wins; Republicans control both houses of Congress. Do they push thru a Constitutional amendment revoking 2 term limit?