Chris, I have been a free subscriber for awhile and took the plunge to paid. Love you writing. Narrator Voice: He did not, has made it into my family's daily conversation. My question, coming off of Hillary Clinton's appearance on The Tonight Show, is what is it that the progressive wing of the party thinks they are going to get by staying away from Biden? While I agree that her comment, essentially grow up, is not going to be the best way to bring that vote back and also shows, in part, why she lost in 2016, her other point is actually correct. If you stay away on principle you get Trump. Trump is going to be worse the second time than he was the first. If you are staying away because of the Israel-Hamas war and the awful treatment of innocent Palestinians by Israel, you get Trump who will be more compliant to Netanyahu's darker impulses. Biden, though old and certainly not perfect, is a fundamentally decent man who supports climate change principles, human rights, individual freedoms. I'm just perplexed that there is a liberal wing that would be willing to have four years of Trump just to snub Biden.
What are your thoughts on the effort in Nebraska by the GOP to change the voting rules so that Trump could potentially win all of that state's electoral votes, because under the current system they are afraid that Biden will win the congressional district that includes Democratic-leaning Omaha? The GOP already owns an overwhelming advantage because of the Electoral College system. Will they not stop until the world is completely rigged in their favor?
Chris, I know the ‘No Labels’ group didn’t make it. But a 2 party system only offers binary choices; If you say YES, I must say NO. How can a centrist, middle ground, reasonable group ever get traction? I think it may be a salvation but does anyone want that?
Chris, I like your writing and I feel like I’ve come to know you on a more “personal” level. Frankly, that’s why I’m going to keep your feet to the fire, as I believe that you are a man of integrity.
All of those caveats said, I believe that you have once again missed the point on polling and the *current* trends. We look to you for expertise on how to interpret the political climate and how these polls are “snapshots” of these moments in time, but I feel that you’ve been missing significant points, and I’ve been finding *much* more detailed analysis elsewhere. How do you respond to these thoughts?
First off, RECENT polling (ie this week and this month) have Biden up on Trump by 1% to 4%, and that’s SIXTEEN highly reliable polls, like NPR/Marist, Ipsos/Reuters, Morning Consult, Marquette, Quinnipiac, Economist/YouGov, and many more. Yet, to read your column, you’d think that Trump continues to lead, given your lack of coverage of *these* polls.
Secondly, the ONE poll that you choose to site, showing Trump leading in 6 of 7 swing states, is published by the Wall Street Journal. Did you look closely at the *details* of that poll?
A). In Nevada and Arizona, Latinos make up approximately 19% of the sampling, which is about right, but 97% of the interviews were in English! It’s a known fact that the older Spanish-speaking Latino community is overwhelmingly Democratic. The Univision poll identified that once you factored in Spanish speakers, the results were 62-26 Biden. That’s a MASSIVE swing-and-a-miss for WSJ!
B). Do we give high priority to a poll commissioned by a Republican-adjacent company, owned by a conservative partisan billionaire such as Rupert Murdoch? Have we already forgotten that Fox News knowingly lied to their viewers and it cost them over 3/4 of a billion dollars?
C). Lastly, did you factor in that Tony Fabrizio was one of the WSJ lead pollsters? He was the primary pollster for Trump 2020 and he just announced his return to the Trump 2024 campaign. In legal terms, that would lead me to believe that there’s at the very least the *appearance* of a “conflict of interest”.
You attribute a lot of significance to polls, but I’m thinking that you’re not researching these polls in enough detail that you’re walking away with the correct interpretation of them. Thoughts?
I was super excited to hear you mention on your YouTube live stream (Every Friday People!) that you have a podcast in the works. I am not sure what you envision your podcast looking like but I thought I would throw my suggestion into the ring. And yes, this idea is lightly based on the “old” Tony Kornheiser show (not that I don’t still love his show) where he would discuss more than golf, the Nats, ice cream and NFL betting lines. (I kid, I kid……kind of). Basically, I would love a 1-ish hour show that is broken into 4 blocks. It would start with the “open” block where you might discuss a couple of news items for 10-ish minutes, hitting on the days headlines and your thoughts on them. Then three 20-ish minute blocks discussing a topic from the weeks headlines in more depth. You could have a panel of “regular” co-hosts on the show to discuss each topic with or bring on a guest for each “block” who has written about or covered the topic in more depth. I am sure politics and sports would make up many of the blocks given your interests, but I would also love to see discussions of business, economics, the supreme court, foreign affairs, technology, the media, television, movies, music etc. Each show would then close with you reading listener emails. (Maybe there would even be a catchy email jingle) Anyway, I threw together an example of what I was thinking based on last week’s (March 25th – March 29th) news.
Monday
Open: March Madness, Shohei Ohtani, House passes spending bill, Trumps Truth Social stock deal
BLOCK A: Foreign Affairs - Terrorist Attacks in Moscow/Russia Ukraine war update
BLOCK B: Sports - March Madness results
BLOCK C: Politics - Ronna McDaniel Media controversy
Tuesday
OPEN: Baltimore Bridge Collapse, Boeing CEO steps down, Israel cancels diplomatic visits
BLOCK A: Breaking News - Baltimore Bridge Collapse in more depth
BLOCK B: Politics - Trump wins partial stay of fraud judgment, allowed to post $175 million
BLOCK C: Sports - Shohei Ohtani gambling scandal
Wednesday
OPEN: Baltimore Bridge updates, Trumps hush money trial to start April 15, RFK VP Pick, Sean Combs house raided
BLOCK B: Sports - MLB Season predictions/what to watch for
BLOCK C: Politics/Technology - Tick-Tok Ban?
Thursday
OPEN: Latest on Bridge collapse, Chris Christe says no to “No Labels”, RNC job interview Q: 2020 election stolen?
BLOCK A: Politics - Trumps Bible
BLOCK B: Sports - New NFL kickoff rule explained
BLOCK C: TV - Reviews of Steve Martin Documentary and Netflix’s 3 Body Problem
Friday
OPEN: SBF sentenced to 25 years, MLB opening day roundup, new MLB uniforms not performing well, Sweet 16 weekend ahead
BLOCK A: Politics - Truth Social stock deal and what it means for Trump
BLOCK B: Politics -Fundraising numbers for Trump v. Biden and Biden’s big NY fundraiser
BLOCK C: Movie Reviews - Godzilla x Kong, New Roadhouse release on streaming
No matter what you end up doing I will probably listen anyway, (maybe I shouldn’t be saying that…) but if you were to start doing this show, I know I would be a devoted listener.
I understand there is no Constitutional prohibition to a convicted felon’s election as President, but from a practical standpoint if Trump were to be elected and sentenced to prison, would his VP take over?
Also, do you find it ironic that Trump tries to portray himself as a “strongman” while also claiming to be a “victim” of the justice system?
I would like to understand why the Biden administration is so stubbornly unbending on their Gaza policy. Not only it is controversial to their voters, but it seems to be counter-productive as well.
I continue to be astonished at how little attention is given to the climate crisis by politicians of all persuasions. It's not like it's not having a direct impact, particularly for those seeking insurance in high risk areas. If insurance actuaries have a clear-headed idea of where we are heading, why don't politicians - or, for that matter, seemingly the general public?
I don't have any question about the so called Trump's Airport because it's never going to happen so why waste time discussing it. I,however have a question on Trump's increasingly violent rhetorics , Blood bath, end of Democracy when he loses in November etc. What do you think are the implications of these rhetorics when he loses in November. I know you had a post on Decency in politics sometimes ago. Also, what do you thithink about Trump trying to delegitimize our Judicial system because he's being held accountable for his crimes. I think these are the issues we should be talking about and not some Airport being named after a criminal.
If you were Joe Biden and you only had one item, program, issue or event you could use to either promote yourself or attack Donald Trump, what would it be?
Hi Chris! You wrote on Chris Crucial tonight, "The idea of a 3rd party, centrist ticket sounds appealing. But in the real-life world of politics, it just doesn’t work." Could you say more about it? To me (uneducated mind on real-life politics) not only does it sound appealing, it makes sense! Especially given the evolution of the R party and the current state of governing (or lack thereof). Will there ever be a time when having a viable 3rd party might work?
As long as we have the Electoral College system (with the House deciding if no one reaches 270), doesn't that preclude having a viable third party candidate? Three candidates splitting the electoral votes will inevitably lead to a Republican victory because of the makeup of the House. Thoughts??
Chris, I have been a free subscriber for awhile and took the plunge to paid. Love you writing. Narrator Voice: He did not, has made it into my family's daily conversation. My question, coming off of Hillary Clinton's appearance on The Tonight Show, is what is it that the progressive wing of the party thinks they are going to get by staying away from Biden? While I agree that her comment, essentially grow up, is not going to be the best way to bring that vote back and also shows, in part, why she lost in 2016, her other point is actually correct. If you stay away on principle you get Trump. Trump is going to be worse the second time than he was the first. If you are staying away because of the Israel-Hamas war and the awful treatment of innocent Palestinians by Israel, you get Trump who will be more compliant to Netanyahu's darker impulses. Biden, though old and certainly not perfect, is a fundamentally decent man who supports climate change principles, human rights, individual freedoms. I'm just perplexed that there is a liberal wing that would be willing to have four years of Trump just to snub Biden.
What are your thoughts on the effort in Nebraska by the GOP to change the voting rules so that Trump could potentially win all of that state's electoral votes, because under the current system they are afraid that Biden will win the congressional district that includes Democratic-leaning Omaha? The GOP already owns an overwhelming advantage because of the Electoral College system. Will they not stop until the world is completely rigged in their favor?
😧
Chris, I know the ‘No Labels’ group didn’t make it. But a 2 party system only offers binary choices; If you say YES, I must say NO. How can a centrist, middle ground, reasonable group ever get traction? I think it may be a salvation but does anyone want that?
Chris, I like your writing and I feel like I’ve come to know you on a more “personal” level. Frankly, that’s why I’m going to keep your feet to the fire, as I believe that you are a man of integrity.
All of those caveats said, I believe that you have once again missed the point on polling and the *current* trends. We look to you for expertise on how to interpret the political climate and how these polls are “snapshots” of these moments in time, but I feel that you’ve been missing significant points, and I’ve been finding *much* more detailed analysis elsewhere. How do you respond to these thoughts?
First off, RECENT polling (ie this week and this month) have Biden up on Trump by 1% to 4%, and that’s SIXTEEN highly reliable polls, like NPR/Marist, Ipsos/Reuters, Morning Consult, Marquette, Quinnipiac, Economist/YouGov, and many more. Yet, to read your column, you’d think that Trump continues to lead, given your lack of coverage of *these* polls.
Secondly, the ONE poll that you choose to site, showing Trump leading in 6 of 7 swing states, is published by the Wall Street Journal. Did you look closely at the *details* of that poll?
A). In Nevada and Arizona, Latinos make up approximately 19% of the sampling, which is about right, but 97% of the interviews were in English! It’s a known fact that the older Spanish-speaking Latino community is overwhelmingly Democratic. The Univision poll identified that once you factored in Spanish speakers, the results were 62-26 Biden. That’s a MASSIVE swing-and-a-miss for WSJ!
B). Do we give high priority to a poll commissioned by a Republican-adjacent company, owned by a conservative partisan billionaire such as Rupert Murdoch? Have we already forgotten that Fox News knowingly lied to their viewers and it cost them over 3/4 of a billion dollars?
C). Lastly, did you factor in that Tony Fabrizio was one of the WSJ lead pollsters? He was the primary pollster for Trump 2020 and he just announced his return to the Trump 2024 campaign. In legal terms, that would lead me to believe that there’s at the very least the *appearance* of a “conflict of interest”.
You attribute a lot of significance to polls, but I’m thinking that you’re not researching these polls in enough detail that you’re walking away with the correct interpretation of them. Thoughts?
Hello Chris
I was super excited to hear you mention on your YouTube live stream (Every Friday People!) that you have a podcast in the works. I am not sure what you envision your podcast looking like but I thought I would throw my suggestion into the ring. And yes, this idea is lightly based on the “old” Tony Kornheiser show (not that I don’t still love his show) where he would discuss more than golf, the Nats, ice cream and NFL betting lines. (I kid, I kid……kind of). Basically, I would love a 1-ish hour show that is broken into 4 blocks. It would start with the “open” block where you might discuss a couple of news items for 10-ish minutes, hitting on the days headlines and your thoughts on them. Then three 20-ish minute blocks discussing a topic from the weeks headlines in more depth. You could have a panel of “regular” co-hosts on the show to discuss each topic with or bring on a guest for each “block” who has written about or covered the topic in more depth. I am sure politics and sports would make up many of the blocks given your interests, but I would also love to see discussions of business, economics, the supreme court, foreign affairs, technology, the media, television, movies, music etc. Each show would then close with you reading listener emails. (Maybe there would even be a catchy email jingle) Anyway, I threw together an example of what I was thinking based on last week’s (March 25th – March 29th) news.
Monday
Open: March Madness, Shohei Ohtani, House passes spending bill, Trumps Truth Social stock deal
BLOCK A: Foreign Affairs - Terrorist Attacks in Moscow/Russia Ukraine war update
BLOCK B: Sports - March Madness results
BLOCK C: Politics - Ronna McDaniel Media controversy
Tuesday
OPEN: Baltimore Bridge Collapse, Boeing CEO steps down, Israel cancels diplomatic visits
BLOCK A: Breaking News - Baltimore Bridge Collapse in more depth
BLOCK B: Politics - Trump wins partial stay of fraud judgment, allowed to post $175 million
BLOCK C: Sports - Shohei Ohtani gambling scandal
Wednesday
OPEN: Baltimore Bridge updates, Trumps hush money trial to start April 15, RFK VP Pick, Sean Combs house raided
BLOCK A: Supreme Court - Mifepristone oral arguments summary
BLOCK B: Sports - MLB Season predictions/what to watch for
BLOCK C: Politics/Technology - Tick-Tok Ban?
Thursday
OPEN: Latest on Bridge collapse, Chris Christe says no to “No Labels”, RNC job interview Q: 2020 election stolen?
BLOCK A: Politics - Trumps Bible
BLOCK B: Sports - New NFL kickoff rule explained
BLOCK C: TV - Reviews of Steve Martin Documentary and Netflix’s 3 Body Problem
Friday
OPEN: SBF sentenced to 25 years, MLB opening day roundup, new MLB uniforms not performing well, Sweet 16 weekend ahead
BLOCK A: Politics - Truth Social stock deal and what it means for Trump
BLOCK B: Politics -Fundraising numbers for Trump v. Biden and Biden’s big NY fundraiser
BLOCK C: Movie Reviews - Godzilla x Kong, New Roadhouse release on streaming
No matter what you end up doing I will probably listen anyway, (maybe I shouldn’t be saying that…) but if you were to start doing this show, I know I would be a devoted listener.
I understand there is no Constitutional prohibition to a convicted felon’s election as President, but from a practical standpoint if Trump were to be elected and sentenced to prison, would his VP take over?
Also, do you find it ironic that Trump tries to portray himself as a “strongman” while also claiming to be a “victim” of the justice system?
Hi,
Congrats on the 20K mark :).
I would like to understand why the Biden administration is so stubbornly unbending on their Gaza policy. Not only it is controversial to their voters, but it seems to be counter-productive as well.
I continue to be astonished at how little attention is given to the climate crisis by politicians of all persuasions. It's not like it's not having a direct impact, particularly for those seeking insurance in high risk areas. If insurance actuaries have a clear-headed idea of where we are heading, why don't politicians - or, for that matter, seemingly the general public?
I don't have any question about the so called Trump's Airport because it's never going to happen so why waste time discussing it. I,however have a question on Trump's increasingly violent rhetorics , Blood bath, end of Democracy when he loses in November etc. What do you think are the implications of these rhetorics when he loses in November. I know you had a post on Decency in politics sometimes ago. Also, what do you thithink about Trump trying to delegitimize our Judicial system because he's being held accountable for his crimes. I think these are the issues we should be talking about and not some Airport being named after a criminal.
Could/would President Biden put a hold on arms shipments to Israel? If not the WCK attack, then what would it take?
If you were Joe Biden and you only had one item, program, issue or event you could use to either promote yourself or attack Donald Trump, what would it be?
Key question...., who will win the White House thanks to RFK Jr's participation ?
Hello- do you think there is ANY chance that Trump will choose Don Jr. as VP? (It would fit into the Trump psychopathy.)
Hi Chris! You wrote on Chris Crucial tonight, "The idea of a 3rd party, centrist ticket sounds appealing. But in the real-life world of politics, it just doesn’t work." Could you say more about it? To me (uneducated mind on real-life politics) not only does it sound appealing, it makes sense! Especially given the evolution of the R party and the current state of governing (or lack thereof). Will there ever be a time when having a viable 3rd party might work?
As long as we have the Electoral College system (with the House deciding if no one reaches 270), doesn't that preclude having a viable third party candidate? Three candidates splitting the electoral votes will inevitably lead to a Republican victory because of the makeup of the House. Thoughts??
Is the White House still using the name “Bidenomics”? I don’t recall seeing it lately.