Friday mailbag!

Answering your questions.

(A mailbox/ Image created by Dall E)

Sorry for the lateness of the mailbag — I did a panel on the future of journalism at Georgetown today! Cool stuff!

Let’s get to it.

Q: Why did Biden negotiate with McCarthy instead of having Jeffries and the House Democrats do so? Did Biden "need" to do this? Did McCarthy "demand" it? Wouldn't there have been an advantage to Biden to have Jefferies do the "heavy lifting" and then show up for the photos? This might have been an opportunity for Jefferies to show that he could one day lead the party. I don't understand why things played out as it did.

A: Well, Republicans control the House so once McCarthy was able to get a debt ceiling package passed, Biden had to deal with him.

Jeffries, while powerful in the House, was immaterial to the process — at least until a deal was cut. Presumably whatever Biden negotiated, Democrats in the House would go along with. Which is exactly what wound up happening.

Q: Do you think the debt ceiling debate matters for the Republican base in terms of the 2024 Republican primary and also do you think they are watching it closely as political junkies?

A: If we had defaulted then maybe the debt ceiling would have been a potential issue in the primary.

But, with a deal being in place, I don’t think it matters at all. Donald Trump opposed it. So did DeSantis. Which makes sense. When you are a candidate, you have no need to make compromises. You can say you want it all — and would have gotten it all if only you had been in power. (If you were actually in power you would be forced to compromise, of course.)

And, given that the debt ceiling won’t be hit again until after the 2024 election, I think it’s the last we’ve heard of it on the campaign trail.

BTW: I think only uber political junkies were even paying attention during the negotiations. I think for most people it was background noise — at most.

Q: This is a touchy topic but…

The Senator Feinstein issue is the third time in the last 3 years that someone not wanting to step down has had real consequences for the Democrats (RBG and Biden are the other two). Given how polarized Washington is at this point, do you think this will force party leadership to take a more forceful look at encouraging retirements in the future? While older Senators and their ability to do work has been an issue for a while, it seems like Washington is a less forgiving place than it was even 10 years ago.

A: Well, the fundamental problem is that you can’t FORCE someone to retire if they don’t want to.

Everything I have heard about Feinstein is that when she was up in 2018 she wouldn’t even hear of the idea that it might be time to retire. If she was that resolute, then what are you supposed to do?

That said, I DO agree with you. We’ve seen over the past few years how important leaving at the right time can be for the good (or detriment) of your party. Democrats now sort of need Feinstein to stay — even in her significantly-reduced state — because they are afraid of losing the ability to confirm judges for the next 18 months.

It’s a terrible situation all around, and I think Feinstein is the biggest victim of all. Of course, she could have retired in 2018 and avoided all of this unpleasantness…

Q: Two-part question on 2024: If Trump is the nominee, for Veep does he go traditional conservative in the mold of a Scott or Haley, or do you think he'd be willing to try an MTG or someone else on the far right of spectrum?

At what point do you think we'll see candidates start to drop out, and do you think there will be a prisoner's dilemma like in 2016 where everyone thinks they can beat Trump and no one will quit until it's too late?

A: Two GREAT questions!

On the first, I genuinely don’t know. What Trump SHOULD do is pick someone like Haley or Scott, who could, in theory, broaden the ticket and court independents that have left Trump in droves since 2016.

But, he doesn’t always — or even often — do what he SHOULD do. So could I see him picking someone like MTG? Sure. Because, at the end of the day, I think he sort of just does whatever he wants.

I think your other question is critical to deciding whether Trump is the nominee or not. If this plays out like most other nomination fights, it will be clear by mid January (or early February at the latest) who has an actual chance at being the nominee and who, well, doesn’t.

The problem is that no candidate — especially after running your heart out for months — wants to be the one to drop out, even if it’s clear that that time has come.

So, all of the candidates — or at least all of the candidates not named Trump — agree that the best/only way to beat him is to narrow the alternatives down and do it quickly. They just all think they should be the last one standing.

Q: What is the process for changing the President’s term from 2 till 3 terms? I guess it has never happened, but if Trump gets back into the WH (hopefully not) he might well try and have his term extended.

A: Well, it’s in the Constitution — 22nd Amendment. To amend the Constitution, you either need 2/3rds of the Congress to back it or 2/3rds of the state legislature via Constitutional conventions. (That’s Article V.)

There’s a 0% chance that 2/3rds of either Congress or state conventions would agree to grant Trump a 3rd term.

Could Trump just, well, stay in office? I mean, I guess? But it would definitely cause a Constitutional crisis that Congress would likely have to step in and solve.

Q: Do you think a factor in Biden's decision to rerun was his assessment that VP Harris has been a disappointment and couldn't beat Trump or DeSantis? It seemed to me Biden's 2020 comment about "transitional figure" was a clear signal he intended his VP to run in 2024.

A: I wish I knew! I DO think that Biden believes, at least at present, that he is the only one in the party who has the experience and know-how to beat Trump.

Now that is different from saying that he is disappointed in Harris. I think her adjustment to the vice presidency has been rocky, for sure. But I think Biden is invested in trying to build her up over the course of this campaign. Just look at how prominently she was featured in his announcement video.

Q: It appears to me that apart from his MAGA base, the group most hoping Donald Trump is alive, healthy, and free in 2024 are the Democrats. If Trump should be removed from being able to run, all those running against him on the Republican side would have a clear field against each other. Is the belief there is a good chance Trump won't be able to run in 2024 the major motivating factor for candidates to enter the race? It appears against a viable Trump none have much of a chance

A: GREAT minds thinks alike! I literally just wrote on this yesterday!

And, yes, I think a big piece of the number of candidates getting into the field is the belief that Trump will be felled — either by legal issues (more likely) or health ones (less likely).

There’s no doubt in my mind that Trump is the weakest of the major candidates that Republicans could nominate — mostly because he is totally known and, at least among independents, not well-liked.

Q: If the 2024 election came down to Biden vs DeSantis, do you feel there will be as many anti DeSantis votes as there would have been anti Trump? This will not be an election of who we want, it will be about who we don't want.

A: Not even close. I think Democrats — especially the base and those on Twitter — vastly overestimate the amount that a) DeSantis is known and b) he is disliked. I don’t think his numbers are amazing but, like, Trump’s numbers in a general election are absolutely dismal.

I think DeSantis would, clearly, be a better general election candidate — in terms of his ability to appeal to a broader swath of the electorate — than Trump. Is it possible that at the end of this primary process DeSantis will be so banged up that he is unelectable or at least as damaged as Trump? I suppose so but I am skeptical.

Q: Since you're a fellow soccer nerd, do you see a way for promotion and relegation to be part of any pro sport in the US? I know, it's all about the owners and their money. But last weekend's "Richest Game in Sports" is such a great spectacle. And everything gets so much more interesting knowing that your small-town team could rise to the top level if they win, and even the big guys could get demoted if they are terrible. Sorry Oakland, off to Triple-A for you!

A: It would be AMAZING but I don’t see it happening — mostly because American sports don’t have the depth in terms of teams that English soccer does.

I mean, we have the minor leagues in baseball but those teams are, generally speaking, affiliated with major league teams. Which would make the whole relegation process weird. (What if the A’s AAA affiliate won their league? Would they be promoted while the A’s major league roster would be relegated?)

Same goes for the NBA which does have the G League — but those teams are affiliated with NBA teams too.

I suppose we could have the USFL and XFL champs be promoted while the two worst NFL teams were relegated…that might be interesting.

Q: Who wins the NBA championship?

Nuggets in 5.