Friday mailbag!

Question time.

Happy Friday. I hope your 4th of July was as good as mine. I played golf with my family, set off some fireworks and reorganized our charging cables.

Two of those things were fun. I’ll leave it up to your imagination to guess which two.

President Joe Biden is set to sit down for the most important interview of his long political career today as he tries to save his flailing presidency.

The interview with ABC’s George Stephanopoulos is set to air at 8 pm eastern tonight. You can watch it here.

Count me as skeptical that even a “good” interview fixes what ails Joe Biden. I think — as I have written — that he faces an unfixable problem: Voters thought he was too old and not up to the job before last week’s debate. His performance solidified that view.

But what is abundantly clear is that if Biden is bad — fumbling, out of it, repeatedly misspeaks etc. — then this interview will absolutely mark the beginning of the end for him.

Obviously given the moment, you all had LOTS of questions for me this week. (More than 130!) Let’s get to them! (I am also answering even more questions in a livestream on my YouTube channel at 1 pm eastern today. Check it out!)

One quick note before I do that: The Friday mailbag is one of a handful of pieces each week that I put behind the paywall. So, if you are not a paid subscriber, you won’t be able to see all of it. Which means you should become a paid subscriber today! It’s $6 a month or $60 for the year.

Q: Who might Kamala pick for VP?

A: So, we’re already here, huh?!

I do think that there is a better than 50-50 chance that Biden is forced off the ballot. I think I would say like a 70-75% chance at this very second.

And I ALSO think that Harris would be the favorite to be the replacement nominee — again pegging that chance at around 70-75%.

Assuming BOTH of those things happen, who could/should Harris choose as VP? I think it’s a no-brainer given what we know about the electoral playing field: A swing-state governor.

Tops on that list, I would think, would be Gretchen Whitmer, the governor of Michigan. I think it would be historic — the first time two women have headlined a national presidential ticket — and likely deliver Michigan to Harris. I also think Whitmer is very talented and would benefit from a national spotlight being shined on her.

I also think Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro would be in that mix. He’s only been governor for two years but he is clearly a rising star for the party. And he is the governor of the state that Democrats (and maybe Republicans) most need to win the White House.

I don’t think Pete Buttigieg would be the pick — that might be too much history for Americans: The first black woman president and first gay vice president. (I think you can rarely go wrong betting against the built-in prejudices of the electorate.)

I’d also remind you: The VP pick, traditionally, matters WAY less than you might think. People vote for the top of the ticket.

Q: I like the Kamala VP question because that is where I'm at. I think there is first going to be debate or discussion as to is she the best candidate to win. Lots of people want some kind of open process where Dem voters get to choose our candidate. Is this realistic?

A: A few things are true about Harris that I think make her the clear favorite to be the nominee, which, I will note, is different than being the BEST candidate to win the White House this fall:

1. She is the sitting VP. That matters. It makes for an easier transition. And this transition is going to be chaotic — if it happens.

2. She’s a black woman. In a party in which African Americans and women are two key constituencies, the repercussions of passing over Harris (especially because she is the VP!) would be very, very serious (and not good).

Now, I said above that I give her a 70-75% chance of being the nominee if Biden steps aside. Which means there is a 25-30% chance someone else is the nominee!

I actually think — and this is an anti-conventional wisdom view — that Democrats could actually benefit from the attention and excitement that an open convention nominating process would create. (I am going to flesh out that argument in a post this weekend or early next week.)

Is that realistic? Sure! Again, I think the powers-that-be want certainty as soon as possible. But they don’t always get what they want!

Q: You often say that you do not think that the dire predictions about what could happen in a second Trump administration will actually take place, because of the strength of our public institutions and the free press. Do you still believe that to be true after Monday's Supreme Court ruling on presidential immunity?