Friday mailbag!
Questions, answered.
Every Friday, I answer any and all question you ask. Before we get to that I want to remind you that now is a very good time to officially subscribe to this newsletter — whether in free or paid form!
Alright, let’s get to the questions! (Soundtrack for today’s chat is “Buhloone Mindstate” by De La Soul.)
Q: Whenever something about or by Trump comes out there is the usual reaction that "Trump Supporters" will be reved-up. Why is important when GOP is 24% of electorate?? More important are the thoughts of the 44% of Independents. Trump will not win with 100% of 24%...Uncle Joe will not win with 100% of the 27% of Dems. When will we hear more about the thoughts of the 44%????
A: Well, a few things.
If we are talking about a primary, the fact that Trump had a dedicated — and unshakeable — bloc of voters matters. Bigly. If you look at most polling on the primary race right now, Trump is in the low to mid 40s. Which is a strong position to be in.
So, in a primary setting, the hardcore MAGA types absolutely matter.
I agree with you that in a general election we need to focus less on the hardvbore bases of the two parties and more on independents. (I would take issue with the idea that 44% of people are actually independents, btw. I think lots of those people are hidden partisans who, in the context of a presidential general election, will always choose the same party.)
Fun fact: Trump won independents by 6 points over Hillary Clinton in 2016. He lost them by 13 points to Biden in 2020.
Q: How much money did CNN+ lose?
A: This same guy asks the same question every chat so mind as well answer it so he goes away. Congrats, troll!
I have NO ideas how much money CNN+ lost. I personally lost a show that was going to run on +, which is a major bummer for me. I thought — and think — CNN+ was a good idea. It didn’t work. Ok.
Also, while we’re at it — I still root hard for CNN. It was a great place to work and many of my friends are still there. Not ever going to hear a negative word about the network from me.
Q: Marjorie Taylor Greene called for a "national divorce". The concept is simply impossible--there are"red regions" within overall blue states; there are "blue cities" within red states. So, what's the solution to the seemingly growing enmity between Democrats and Republicans?
A: First off, you’re right that the whole “national divorce” thing is utterly ridiculous and unworkable. I suspect MTG knows that but still pushes it because it’s a good way to raise money from the GOP base.
As for what we CAN do, I am at a little bit of a loss. I think in an ideal world, we would have a politics that rewards cooperation and bipartisan solutions. But, we are so far from that right now that it’s hard to imagine what it would even look like.
More broadly, it would be good to find a way to remind every Member of Congress that we have a WHOLE lot more in common — as humans — than we have differences. That happened, to some extent, after 9/11 but I would never wish such a tragedy on this country again.
Short of a cataclysm like that, however, I don’t know how we get back to seeing each other as people rather than as enemies to be destroyed.
Q: If you were to bet now, who do you think would be the Republican nominee for President in 2024 and who would you bet will win the Presidential election in 2024?
A: I think, as of right now, Donald Trump is the most likely Republican presidential nominee. Until someone beats him, he’s the champ. And I still don’t see how anyone beats him — or how he drops out of the race even if he does lose.
I still think Biden has a narrow edge in a rematch against Trump — largely because of that stat I cited above: Biden won independents by 13 points in 2020. I can’t see how Trump’s standing among that critical voting group has improved in any meaningful way between then and now.
Now. A cratering economy — or super-high inflation — could absolutely change that dynamic. If voters are sick of the status quo or think “normal” politics has failed them, then trump is absolutely a viable candidate. It’s how he won in 2016, after all.
Q: If you could toss probability aside, wave your magic wand and hand-pick your ideal 2024 GOP Presidential Nominee, who would it be? Why?
A: I think either Nikki Haley or South Carolina Sen. Tim Scott would be the best nominee for Republicans in 2024.
I think that for a few reasons:
Either Haley or Scott would give Republicans the best chance to win in November 2024.
The Republican party badly needs an image makeover. It is currently seen as a party dominated by white males. Whites are a declining section of the electorate — and have been for decades now — and women make up a majority of voters (and have for a while now). Republicans needs to find ways into other demographic groups — and I think Scott and Haley could help with that effort
Do I think either WILL win? No. I think the race is likely to be a two-way race between Trump and Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis. I think Haley has a better chance than Scott — due in large part to the fact that she is in the race and building a national campaign and he’s not — but both have a bit of a long shot feel to them.
Q: I'm wondering what you make of all the coverage of Ron DeSantis being socially awkward and whether it has any merit on his chances. I'm someone who is socially awkward and struggles in social situations and idk it makes me a little uncomfortable seeing it.
A: I think it is ABSOLUTELY a storyline to watch. There have been enough reports now that DeSantis is awkward and halting in social settings that I think there must be some truth in it.
Remember this: The early voting states (Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina) in the 2024 Republican primary process are all retail states. Meaning that they require a candidate to go out and meet lots (and lots) of voters in person — as opposed to run millions of dollars of TV ads to introduce yourself to the electorate.
If that glad-handing and baby-kissing doesn’t come somewhat normally to you — as it apparently does not to DeSantis — that can matter.
Trump, weirdly, is pretty good at it — leaning on his celebrity status to interact with people in those early states. And, if he senses any weakness (as he does very well) he will go after DeSantis as a wooden robot.
Q: Are there any of these moderate, third-party startups (no labels, forward, etc) considering endorsing major-party candidate when they are tolerable, and third candidates only when necessary? Are any of them pushing for election reform to end the two-party stranglehold?
A: Good question!
I think these third party groups say all the right stuff but the truth is this: If as third party group doesn’t recruit a third party candidate what, exactly, is the point of a third party group? Right?
My guess is that no matter who the two national parties nominate, the 3rd party groups will do their damndest to have a nominee of their own too. It’s just the business they are in!
I agree with others who have said a real third party needs to start running locally and showing its party works rather than just throwing up a presidential candidate every four years, whining about not getting to debate and then hoping for 2 percent of the popular vote.
RE: National Divorce a la Mad Madge "Dude Looks Like A Lady" Greene and Delusional Don
While on the surface the suggestion by Mad Madge seems crazy, we need look only to Ireland during two eras to see the reality of a National Divorce:
1. Civil War. From June 1922 to May 1923, there was a conflict that followed the Irish War of Independence and accompanied the establishment of the Irish Free State, an entity independent from the United Kingdom but within the British Empire. In that conflict the established government had to deal with a guerilla war in the western counties.
Afterwards, the casualties for both sides, both combatants and civilians was between 2,500 and 3,500 in less than a year.
2. The Troubles. The religious/economic conflict in British-held Northern Ireland between the Catholics and Protestants that lasted about 30 years, from the late 1960s to 1998. It has been described as an "irregular or low-level war".
Although the Troubles mostly took place in Northern Ireland, at times violence spilled over into parts of the Republic of Ireland, England, and mainland Europe between supporters of the two factions.
3,500 persons were killed, of which 52% is estimated to be civilians.
Mad Madge and Delusional Don wouldn't care if such atrocities were committed on their behalf even with a factor of 10x the amount of the two Irish Civil Wars, since neither would put themselves in harm's way and their side's dead could be revered by Southern Traitors of the Confederacy.