2nd Annual Pundit Grades

We Reassess the Cable and News Pundits in the Election Year

PurpleAmerica has always looked at not just who delivers the news, but also who are the paid commentary pundits that provide insight and analysis to the newscasts and shows. They’re important because it’s their color commentary that usually provides us with what we take away from the conversation and where the general sentiment on a story resides. If they’re right, we feel we have a sense of the zeitgeist. If they’re wrong, we often roll our eyes, call the person a shill and wonder why they are so off the mark.

These talking heads rarely ever get rated for what they bring to cable television news. The ever eager citizen journalist critics that we are here took it upon ourselves to take up the task. There were conditions on who we rated.

• We did not have the capacity to watch or analyze every show these people appear on, or cater to every network equally. As a result, this is far from scientific, but is subjective based on our review and historically coming across pundits on the network shows. Unlike last year, we also included some popular podcast purveyors as well.

• This does NOT try to rate the reporters providing the stories (though there are some in there) but also appear in studio occassionally. They have an entirely different job than pundit, although their jobs sometimes results in them giving commentary, whether on a panel or as a pundit generally. Note there are different attributes between being a good reporter and being a good pundit.

• We know we are missing some. We’re trying, there’s just a lot of people these networks have on contract, in our opinion way too many. Nonetheless, we’ve tried to be as inclusive as we can. If you note any we missed, please feel free to post in the comments and we’ll do our best to rate them

As a general rule, to be a good pundit you have to add an independent knowledge base to the conversation; you have to be an expert in something. You just can’t be speaking with no authority on a subject and bullshitting your way through everything, a problem many op-ed writers have. Likewise, you have to consider the facts and follow where they go; you can’t just spout partisan talking points and be a charlatan. Lastly, you have to be articulate and memorable; if you talk poorly or what you say is forgettable, there is no point in having you on television.

The Pundit Grades

So without further ado, by grades starting with lowest first:

F: Fails; Ignore Them at All Costs

Most Anyone on Fox: For the second year in a row, we are just going to pre-emptively give everyone involved on that shitstorm called the Fox News network an “F” right now. Other than a few mentioned further below, there is no such thing as a pundit on Fox that deserves a passing grade. Period.

Kelleyanne Conway (F). As if to double down on the “Fox News” comment above, Trump’s mouthpiece. ‘Nuff said.

Mia Love (F). I’ve never had more WTF moments than in the few opportunities I’ve had in the past year to see Love talking. Wow.

Joe Rogan (F). A shithead with a podcast.

Chris Cillizza (F). Cillizza has moved from cable to substack and posting political insights online. It’s still hollow garbage. If People Magazine or Us Weekly had a “Ten Best Dressed Politicians” edition, Cillizza is your guy. Everything he says is more gossip fodder than it is grounded in fact. For anything substantive, don’t even bother.

Krystal Ball (F). Inconsistent and all over the place. Just loony.

D: Below Average, Consider Other Options

Karen Finney (D-). Suffers from Paul Begala syndrome, simply incapable of saying anything that isn’t purely partisan. She’s not even good at delivering the partisan talking points without being smug.

Jennifer Rubin (D-). So alarmist about everything it’s hard to take seriously some times. I used to like her a lot but now I can’t stand to read or listen to her.

S.E. Cupp (D-). I genuinely have no idea why she is on television. Her opinions are about as worthy as the random person at Wal Mart, and we don’t get the level of arrogance with those at Wal Mart. The only thing I can think of is that maybe she has a good agent. Not to mention, there’s nothing more pretentious than making people refer to you by initials.

Al Sharpton (D-). Incapable of talking about any issue without viewing it through the prism of race and loves to pivot stories to make himself look more important than he is. Everytime he speaks, the conversation goes down a rabbit hole.

Reihan Salaam (D). Very intelligent, but such a right wing toadie that everything he says can be taken with a grain of salt. Lacks integrity.

Lulu Garcia-Navarro (D). The same as for Reihan Salaam, but as a left wing toadie.

Bakari Sellers (D). Predictable, smug and offers little but condescension. Will contradict himself often in the name of pushing the Dem party line. Why even have him on?

Donny Deutsch (D). Everything wrong about American politics today; too much focus on the marketing and appeal and not enough about the actual policy or governance. This is the kind of hollowness that led to Trump in the first place. Deutsch is not a policy guy, and his very presence is just to talk about political style (this is why we gave Chris Cillizza an F, but Deutsch is just better at it).

Steve Schmidt (D). See Rick Wilson, just moreso. Gains points for actually being right that someone needed to contest Biden during the Primaries. Loses points for pushing Dean Phillips into the race and managing his nowhere campaign.

Gloria Borger (D) Seems further and further behind the curve with every passing day. Like Wolf Blitzer, just seems old, confused and genuinely proud to state loudly (thinking its profound) whatever everyone else sees as obvious.

Kasie Hunt (D+). She’s moved up the ladder (barely) in the election year. She’s better as a host than as a pundit, which can be tedious at times. ¹ Still, while most of the stuff she says is useless, she does offer the useful nugget of info from time to time.

Jonathan Capehart (D+). So often completely off the mark. Just a liberal mouthpiece in a nice suit.

George Will (D+). [In Will’s voice] An erudite afficianado of all things bowtie and Ernst Lawrence Thayer, when the modern rural Piedmont poet Oliver Anthony chronicled the indifferent disconnect between the poor populist masses and the GOP ruling elite, Mr. Will was an exemplar of the kind of personality to whom Mr. Anthony was categorically referring. This purveyor of Edmund Burke-ian tripe launches Goddard like missiles at liberal buffoonery without the least bit cognition he is making Trump’s reptilian persuasions for him.

Katty Kay (D+). BBC reporter often on Morning Joe. As a Brit, not sure why she really has any place on a morning show talking about American politics. Cheery, just needless.

Harry Enten (D+) Erratic and odd. Seems to have Wolf Blitzer Syndrome where you have a propensity to yell at everyone and to the camera. The stats he tends to showcase aren’t very useful (or significant) to boot, which is horrible for “the stats guy.”

C: Average; Keep Them On the Phone List as Fill-Ins

Paul Begala (C-). Has his moments but generally won’t say anything non-partisan or that isn’t a dig at the adverse party. Spends so much time talking hypotheticals and poltical plays that loses sight of the big picture.

E.J. Dionne (C-). The epitome of the elitist, smug liberal op-ed writer that there are too much of on television.

Miles Taylor (C-). Kind of milking his anti-Trumpism for all it’s worth. He’s not bad, but doesn’t offer more than what he’s already said years ago.

Kirsten Powers (C-) Typical op-ed writer who never demonstrates a reason why they should be included on television (or have a column to begin with).

Ben Shapiro (C-). Right wing commentator who can sometimes make some good points, though he often talks over the people he’s talking with. Talks way too fast and is far too dismissive to counterarguments but occassionally can have good dialogues. I don’t agree with much, but he does what he does well. Would rate higher if not for the fact some of the things he can say and argue are just disingenuous GOP pablum. Had a hard time placing him since he’s both very good at what he does, and very, very, very bad.

Rick Wilson (C-). Was much more relevant as a never Trump guy in 2016 and 2020. Has a tendency to be more narrow focused, angry and crotchety than he needs to be. Most of what comes out of his mouth is fueled animosity. He doesn’t offer considered opinion, he offers rants and hate raging.

Scott Jennings (C-). Usually the Conservative voice on a panel, he would mark higher if he wasn’t such a toadie for Republicans. He’s good. Can be actually fantastic at times. But as we get further and further into the election season is such a Republican mouthpiece he joins the ranks of Kayleigh McEnany, Jeffrey Lord and Lou Dobbs as partisan shills without a shred of dignity or objectivity. Seems to have developed amnesia about how hard he pushed the Biden age issue, now that Biden is out and Trump is the oldest candidate in American history. It’s morphed into some Dem faux-coup argument, which is laughable, worthy of derision.

Ana Navarro (C). Can be fun and lively, but mostly now just a member of the koffee klatsch on the View. Usually put on as a conservative voice, but not much of a conservative anymore.

Norm Ornstein. (C). Meh.

David Jolly (C). Former Florida Republican who left the party when Trump took over. Reiterates a pretty standard Anti-Trump pol line nowadays. Nothing surprising here.

Ruy Teixeira (C). I say this as a guy who tends to agree with Teixeira on many issues, that when he is on TV, he just comes across as boring. Much better as a read than a presence.

Mary Katherine Ham (C). Run of the mill partisan pundit.

Matt K. Lewis (C) Run of the mill partisan pundit.

Hilary Rosen (C). Run of the mill partisan pundit.

Elise Jordan (C). Doesn’t offer much substantive. Can talk sometimes like she’s yelling.

Kathleen Parker (C). Typical op-ed writer who fails to demonstrate why her opinion should matter.

William Kristol (C). As an editor of the Bulwark now, taking over for Charlie Sykes, he’s an OK critic of Donald Trump. Unfortuantely, he’s so much of a Republican that he often is tepid in those criticisms and he’s not particularly biting while describing what he admits is a potential American electoral armageddon. Sykes made the A list here last year based on his appearances and Morning Shots newsletter. The quality of that newsletter has dropped overnight.

Mike Barnacle (C). Often just agrees with whatever was last said. Takes up space.

Jessica Tarlov (C). When I have come across Tarlov on occassion, I’ve been consistently impressed. Unfortunately, it’s usually when she’s swatting down some ridiculous commentary on FOX which is akin to an adult playing baseball with 5 year olds.

Ari Fleischer (C+). Run of the mill partisan pundit. A little more articulate than most. If you want someone on a panel to take a pro-Trump position and make it sound even slightly palatable, Fleischer is your guy.

Nia-Malika Henderson (C+). Pleasant, but agreeable to a fault, rarely says anything of value and steers clear often of anything controversial. An example of a “swim with the flow” pundit.

Frank Luntz (C+) Has become more of a partisan mouthpiece as we enter the election year. Nonetheless, has the ability to say things honestly that liberals just don’t want to hear. Can be hackish in his defense of the GOP.

Claire McCaskill (C+). Same as Jennifer Granholm but relies on partisanship far more often.

Matt Yglesias (C+). Smart and I love the issues he tends to bring up, since they are important to public policy and tend to get overlooked. Its just that what he says today, he may go back a year from now and be like, “Hmm… I was wrong.” No knock on re-evaluating your opinions, its a good thing. But before being so assertive in commentary, it’s good to consider those counterarguments before being definitive about them.

Doris Kearns Goodwin (C+). Historian who seems to provide less and less that she hasn’t already iterated 100 times before. Not sure she has a place in the Biden era. That may change with the Harris era.

Ron Brownstein (C+). Can say some very intelligent things and be very “inside baseball”, but unfortunately is often forgettable a few minutes later.

Bret Stevens (C+). Smart but bland. Doesn’t offer much memorable.

John Heileman (C+). The frat guy who fits in but basically says nothing of interest or inspiring for you to think. Reiterates the conventional wisdom.

David Chalian (C+). There’s certainly a place for him, but spends way too much time discussing the electoral conventional wisdom and then discussing hypotheticals. This is not news nor punditry, it’s akin to someone saying “What if?” all the time and just fills air. He can be so much more than that.

John King (C+). When the “Magic Wall” first appeared he was the “king” of it. Now, when watching him on election night he’s slow and offers little, often being redundant and too narrowly focused. On other panel shows, he just seems off and outdated. He’s usually paired with Wolf Blitzer, which really doesn’t help. Still, occassionally distills issues to their core which is a plus. I like his interviews with people in swing states, even if they are cliched discussions and stereotypical.

Laura Coates (C+). Has spent most of the last year as host of her own show but is now somewhat back to being a pundit. I always thought she was better as a legal pundit than a host so it’s good to see her back in this role.

B: Above Average; Steady Performers

Audie Cornish (B-). Great as a radio and podcast personality (what a fantastic voice!), has a tendency to lean on habits more conducive to those media. Repeatedly asking rhetorical questions as a TV pundit is not usually what you want to do. So unemotional, I would love to see her raise her voice just once.

David Urban (B-). On CNN often as the standard Republican. Much more jovial, with a lot more give and take with the other panelists than other GOP shills. Willing to accept some Dem points and offers some valid counterpoints. Does a good job of presenting the GOP argument but doesn’t go down a pro-MAGA rabbit hole often, in fact, dismisses some of their worst memes, as any good pundit should.

Jamie Gangel (B-). Relatively quiet on some panels, not knowing when to interject. When she does, she usually has really good points and a compelling narrative.

George Conway (B-). Has parlayed being an anti-Trumper formerly married to Trump’s mouthpiece into being an onscreen legal expert describing the legal process of Trump’s multiple indictments. I always liked listening to him when he was on but he had a tendency to be wrong a lot, mostly because he was providing sound objective thinking without critically understanding Trump and right wing justices don’t seem to care about objectivity.

Sarah Isgur (B-). Not bad. From the few occassions I’ve seen her she did a fairly decent job. Should branch out more.

Caitlin Flanagan (B-). Oh Caitlyn. Sometimes I see myself nodding and laughing along and other times I’m like “WTF is she talking about?”

Eugene Robinson (B-). Friendly and fun in the morning, offers little outside the typical partisan bantering on Morning Joe. Still, can command a conversation from time to time with some intuitive thoughts. Compared to the hosts of the relative snarkapalooza Morning Joe has become, is a somewhat relaxing reprieve and breath of fresh air by comparison.

Michael Steele (B-). Gives the impression always that he REALLY wants to be liked. Otherwise, fills the same roles as Robinson and Barnacle.

Jennifer Granholm (B-). Better when she talks about governance rather than politics. Has the tendency to just rely on partisan tropes.

Margaret Hoover (B). Can often provide some nice conversation to fill time but as a pundit can be hit or miss. She is MUCH better as a host on her own on PBS’s Firing Line, where her attributes and qualities are given a chance to shine. I’d be interested in seeing her host a show on one of the cable networks.

Alyssa Farrah Griffin (B). Former Trump Communications Director turned Anti-Trump pundit. Looks the part and can add some interesting thoughts. Most of the time way too transparent in political preferences and more of a shill (seemed to be always in the tank for Nikki Haley) than an objective critic. Still, provided sound judgments, hard discussions and was a good counterbalance to left wing talking points.

Daniel Dale (B). CNN’s factchecker. CNN should use him more. He’s just as effective as calling out Democrat mistruths as Trump’s. If there is a knock, its that he can get mired down in minutiae sometimes, but then again, that goes with the job.

Adam Kinzinger (B). Kinzinger is too sane to be Republican, and too conservative to be Democrat. In other words, he’s the kind of former politician networks love to throw on as “the rational one.” “See, they’re both way too partisan and we have [name here] to prove it!” Kinzinger is comfortable in that position. He’s just not as great as a communicator as he could be. If he improves on that end, he can be very good for a long time.

Tim Miller (B). Since the changes at the Bulwark, he’s been kind of corralled into podcasts. He took over the Bulwark Podcast from Charlie Sykes and has been…OK. I just think Miller was so much better doing lively things like his “Not My Party” pieces. As good as he can be sometimes on podcasts, it just feels a little constraining for him. If he can find the right vehicle or format to display his talents and personality, there’s no telling what he might be able to do. Maybe open up the podcast format to a more interactive in-person discussion similar to Howard Stern or Bill Maher’s Club Random instead of the zoom call sets he usually does. Just thinking out loud here.

Kara Swisher (B). When she talks about tech companies and the tech industry, there is nobody better. She gets SV better than any other writer out there. When she starts to venture more into political areas, she can seem out of her depth from time to time.

David Frum (B). Regular anti-Trump pundit with smart articulate things to say. He’s just become a little more inconsistent in the last year on how to acccomplish that per se.

James Carville (B+). Crotchety as all hell nowadays. Still as partisan as ever but it’s great when he goes after Democratic stupidity. There’s a difference too between someone like Carville, who is almost comedic and indirect in his delivery, and Rick Wilson who is often just mean spirited and very direct in it.

Jon Meacham (B+). Love his elocution and his delivery. Historian who was better during the Trump years. Since he now works with Biden, is on less, but tends to reiterate the same themes which have gotten a little stale.

Bill Weir (B+). CNN’s environmental reporter. Often covers fascinating stories impacted by climate change and weather related tragedies. It’s kind of a niche angle, I can’t name another who does it, but whenever he is on, it’s usually a story worth listening to, not only for the unique substance but also for the change of pace.

Kristen Solis Anderson (B+). Cheery and delightful. Her presence does more to lighten a panel than anything she typically says, even though what she usually has to say is quite worthwhile. She’s very good at softening the edges of the extremes on the same panel, which isn’t always easy. Really gets what voters are thinking and how to discuss those items.

Tim Alberta (B+). Alberta has a real knack for describing in objective ways the right wing views, particularly MAGA, without it devolving into senseless hackery or derision. He really gets the right wing mindset, empathizes with it and pities where it has gone politically. Anytime he writes something or is on TV, its worth listening to him. The only real knock I have on him is that he isn’t on more often.

Richard Haass (B+). Great to listen to whenever major foreign affairs issues surface.

Timothy Naftali (B+). Has a great knack for putting modern events into a historical context.

Jonathan V. Last (B+). Not particularly more engaging or delivers facts better, but I find myself agreeing with him more often than any other commentator. And listening to his podcasts, he makes for a very good host and deliberative voice; he regularly sets up softballs that others clobber out of the park. His Triad newsletter is must-have reading.

Ezra Klein (B+). Extremely intelligent and often provides valuable insight into culture and politics. Often the smartest on the screen and wants everyone to know it. Where I have issues is where he “explains” things in a way that is conveyed as fact but is actually an opinion pushing his position. I can listen to him all day, disagree with him often, but he is good at what he does.

Mike Hertling (B+) Another great national security expert, usually focused on the War in Ukraine. CNN tends to use him to bounce the host’s commentary off of; they should let Herling just describe what is going on and take it from the military perspective. Have used him less which is disappointing.

Barry McCaffrey (B+). Former military who often has great insights into the Ukraine War. Sadly, isn’t used as often as he should be.

A: Excellent; Call them First

David Ignatius (A-). Often very good on foreign affairs issues, was the first to really call out Joe Biden and the way the Democrats were hiding his age related issues, and that Biden needed to be replaced.

John Miller (A-). CNN’s law enforcement, security and intelligence analyst. Good objective perspectives on policing, security, cyberpolicy and the typical government process. Few can make bureaucracy interesting, and Miller does it every time.

Scott Galloway (A-). Love his views, love how passionate he is about the issues he cares about. Can dominate a conversation.

James Clapper (A-) A great national security expert with an outstanding delivery. Authoritative. The single best pundit on national intelligence issues out there.

Steve Kornacki (A-). Great when he has time but is often overworked and can get stretched thin.

Amy Walter (A) Walter is a great conversationalist and knows her facts inside and out. Networks should feature her more.

David Axelrod (A). Listening to Axelrod on election nights is gold. He gives solid commentary, great electoral insight and his tone and demeanor is always welcome over the hyperbolic attitudes of so many others on cable news.

Tom Nichols (A). Really, he demonstrates everything that good commentary and punditry requires; has solid issue expertise, is articulate and can present complex matters in an easily digestible way; not to mention he has a fun personality that keeps the conversations entertaining. At his best throwing cold water on liberal overoptimism.

Larry Sabato (A). Great guest, sound political expertise. Larry is as cool as they come.

Catherine Rampell (A). Still an excellent economic pundit and analyst on cable and always provides insightful thoughts on the state of the economy.

Charles Cook (A). There’s a reason he’s the dean and pundit emeritus of polling. Whenever he speaks, listen to what he says. Unfortunately, doesn’t make appearances as often as I would like (love).

A+ The Head of the Class

Anne Applebaum (A+). Often talks about Ukraine and Eastern Europe and brings a cultural and historical perspective to those concerns. Always stop and listen when she is on. Her new book “Authoritism, Inc.” is a must read for our age.

Sarah Longwell (A+). Every time I see Longwell, I listen because she is so blunt and honest, what she says usually comes to pass. It’s like dumping a bucket of cold water on any hopes one way or another. Nobody captures the cognitive dissonance of Republican voters quite like Longwell does, and she sounds exasperated about it constantly. Since Kamala Harris became the candidate you can hear in her voice the excitement and energy the change in race makes, and has really given her an opportunity to shine. Extremely bright and insightful.

Van Jones (A+). Van Jones is everything a pundit should be. Smart, articulate, thoughtful, reasoned, polite and diplomatic, complimentary, nuanced and has a principled, moral core. Watching him emotionally breakdown after Biden’s debate performance showed not just true depth of feeling, but he delivered an honest accounting and smart objective summary that shows how valuable he is in this role. Easily one of the best.

Elie Honig (A+). CNN’s legal analyst, and bar none, the best legal analyst on television. Covers it all, inside and out. Rarely misstates or is erroneous on often very complex legal issues, including the many times CNN highlights him for the Trump cases. Extremely watchable.

Steven Rattner (A+) You can learn more about the state of affairs in the United States listening to Steven Rattner in 5 minutes than any other 8 hours spent on news in a day.

PurpleAmerica’s Final Word on the Subject

As a purveyor of political punditry the past two years, I suppose it’s only right I give myself a self-assessment. In that, here goes:

PurpleAmerica (B). Issues and perspectives are still very good but writing can improve and is constantly editing out grammatical typoes after publishing. Has a tendency to overuse the same tired cliches as well. Still, a great start with a very high ceiling— the sky is the limit. This is one substack that you don’t want to miss and should subscribe today!

So how did I do? Any I missed that you feel deserve to be considered? Any I graded to harshly/not harshly enough? Feel free to post your thoughts on pundits (including on myself) down in the comments.

1. Has the habit of often starting sentences as a pundit with “I think…” As my law school professor beat out of me, “Don’t tell me what you think, tell me what you KNOW!!!!”