PurpleAmerica Cable Pundit Grades

It's Time to Call Out Who Gives the Best Views on Cable News.

How we get the news and who delivers it really colors how we feel about it. It really does make a difference. Some just spew random party dogma while others offer objective analysis. Others try so hard to insert themselves into the stories to the frustration of the viewers. You have a wide array of intelligence, expertise and political perspecitves. In any event, they’re there on TV for a reason.

It occurred to us at PurpleAmerica that 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. To the extent it is possible, we watched as much cable news during the week of 8/20-8/27 on as many various networks as plausible, but the analysis doesn’t restrict itself to just this period; pundits were graded for historical commentary as well.

• This does NOT rate the reporters providing the stories but also appear in studio occassionally. They have an entirely different job than pundit, although they’re 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; Get them off TV NOW

Anyone on Fox: We are just going to pre-emptively give everyone involved on that shitstorm called the Fox News network an “F” right now. There is no such thing as a pundit on Fox that deserves a passing grade. Period.

Mia Love (F). Nuts. She’s f**king nuts. Inarticulate, doesn’t seem very bright. Most of what she says is absurd.

Chris Cillizza (F). If People Magazine or Us Weekly had a “Ten Best Dressed Politicians” edition, Cillizza is your guy. For anything substantive, don’t even bother.

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

D: Below Average, Consider Other Options

Kasie Hunt (D-). Utterly worthless. Often starts sentences with “I think” when she has never demonstrated an authority for why others should listen. As my law school professor and former judge would often say, “I don’t care what you think, I care what you know. If you’re not giving me what you know, you’re wasting my time.”

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

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.

Bakari Sellers (D). Predictable, smug and offers nothing but condescension. Will contradict himself often in the name of pushing the Dem party line.

Carl Bernstein (D). Clinging to his Watergate legacy until he dies. Simply not relevant today.

John Dean (D): Ditto.

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). Would be an F too if not for the fact he’s actually quite watchable talking about it.

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.

Cornell Belcher (D+). Blowhard who offers nothing positive to the conversation.

Jonathan Capehart (D+). So often completely off the mark, especially regarding the groups of people he claims to represent. When you can’t accurately reflect those people’s opinions of whom you profess to speak for, what good are you as a pundit? Just a liberal mouthpiece in a nice suit.

Jen Psaki (D+). There should be a rule about press secretaries coming from and then going back to cable networks. So unabashedly partisan, what’s the point of listening to anything coming out of her mouth? She’s the Democrat Kayleigh McEnany, and if you think I’m unfair on this, McEnany got an F as part of the Fox News grades. Psaki is just better at doing the exact same thing.

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.

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.

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.

Harry Enten (C-) 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 to boot, which is horrible for “the stats guy.”

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).

Rick Wilson (C). Was much more relevant as a never Trump guy in 2016 and 2020. Has kind of lost his footing since then, but that may change as we enter the Presidential cycle. Has a tendency to be more narrow focused, angry and crotchety than he needs to be. Treats appearances like those calling into Jim Rome’s old radio show, where the point is to bludgeon the listener with a series of extremely pointed talking points.

Steve Schmidt (C). See Rick Wilson, just moreso.

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.

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.

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.¹

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

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.

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

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

Alyssa Farrah Griffin (C). 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 than an objective critic. Has a huge ceiling though if she can moderate her political judgment. It would be a shame if she turned into Kayleigh McEnany 2.0.

Elise Jordan (C). Typical pundit. Rarely offers much of value. Follows the crowd on the show. Would rate lower but doesn’t really do anything detrimental either.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

John Heileman (C+). You know that guy who wants to brag that he’s got the best Fantaty Football team, and how he got so and so as a steal in the 4th Round and how he can trade that third QB for a top of the line RB come November? Yeah, that’s Heileman. He has substantive things to say, he’s just incapable of doing it without snark, boasting or hyperbole. And what’s with the performative love of Wu Tang Clan? Shkreli-ish.

David Chalian (C+). Spends way too much time on demographics and hypotheticals. Needs to focus on the actual FACTS. Where are votes coming from? What votes are outstanding? etc. Tell me less about incomplete exit polls and assumptions based on polling and just focus on what the numbers are.

Audie Cornish (C+). 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.

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.²

B: Above Average; Steady Performers

Scott Jennings (B-). 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 far too often sticks to his job of carrying the GOPs water, even if it’s clearly foul. Would like him more if he were more critical of the GOP when it is obvious and justified.

Tim Miller (B-). Miller has made a name for himself putting together various online content for The Bulwark. He’s much better at that (I would give him an A for “Not My Party” alone) but as an in studio pundit he is kind of mediocre. I don’t think the pundit format of constraining interviews suits him very well; he’s just too lively and personable to sit still and seems overeager and anxious. When he does remain calm, he seems stiff trying to overcompensate. Also can be sarcastic and snarky which works great on this videos but not so much as an in house pundit. Now, if you were to give him a 5 minute segment where he made a viral TikTok video of the day, watch out—that would be must see viewing.

Margaret Hoover (B-). Can often provide some nice conversation to fill time but as a pundit not very assertive in an opinion or issue; maybe its because she often appears with her husband (see John Avlon) and it throws off the timing. 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.

Mike Fanone (B-). Former Capitol Hill officer who has parlayed the events into a pundit career. Can often give interesting insight into police, procedures and weapons. Not bad, and has some room to improve.

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.

George Conway (B). Has parlayed being an anti-Trumper married to Trump’s mouthpiece into being an onscreen legal expert describing the legal process of Trump’s multiple indictments. He’s been doing a solid job of it too, and has been far more dispassionate about Trump lately than he was when Trump was in office.

Daniel Dale (B). CNN’s factchecker. Since Trump left office there has been less use of him, but they 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.³ 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.

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. ⁴

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.

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

Anne Applebaum (B+). 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.

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.

John Avlon (B+). Yeah, he’s a little smarmy and over-focused on his brand with his wife (the forementioned Margaret Hoover), but he works in the area pundits should represent, the sane middle, and focuses on compromises and dealmaking of governance. Plays the “both sides” card a little too often, especially in situations where its only one side doing it. Nonetheless, cable news could use more Avlons.

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

David Gergen (B+). Was the standard for network pundits for a long time. Smart, understands the roles of government and how to effectively govern better than anyone ever.⁵ The perfect DC insider. Has slowed with age. Will be sorely missed when he no longer appears.

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.

Natasha Bertrand (B+). A sound National Security reporter, she’s bounced around networks some. She’s very good. Has a tendency to talk really fast trying to convey as much information as possible into a very short segment. ⁶

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

Frank Luntz (B+) Liberals knock him for hedging too conservative in his onscreeen interviews, but in truth every time he is on screen you can learn some valuable insights if you listen to him. Has the ability to say things honestly that liberals just don’t want to hear.

A: Excellent; Call them First

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.

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.

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.

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.

Larry Sabato (A-). Great guest, sound political expertise. Has to lose half a point though based on how easy it is to confuse him with the “My Pillow” guy.⁷

Steve Kornacki (A-). Very good with the magic wall but if there is a knock, its that he’s spread too thin and kind of all over the place. He just always seems so overwhelmed. MSNBC, clone this guy now. Give him some help please. An intern. A robot. A trained gorilla. Anything.

David Frum (A). Everytime he’s on I listen intently. He usually has well thought out opinions and great, precise detail. The further he’s drifted away from the neo-conservatism of 20 years ago, the better he’s gotten. Mea culpas can often be enlightening, and it has worked greatly to Frum’s benefit.

Catherine Rampell (A). Provides excellent economic analysis and how that fits into the bigger picture of politics. That’s not easy to do and she makes it look like a snap.

Charles Cook (A). There’s a reason he’s the dean and pundit emeritus of polling. Whenever he speaks, listen.

Charlie Sykes (A). Sykes has positioned himself to be the Mercutio of current American politics, calling out a “plague on both your houses.” However, he is at his best when he’s dressing down Trump and calling out GOP B.S., better at pointing out Trump’s stupidity and hypocrisy than anyone else on cable news.

A+ The Head of the Class

Tom Nichols (A+). Everything I just said about Charlie Sykes but Nichols adds another dimension as a National Security Analyst as well. 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.

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. I wish they would showcase him more.

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. 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 since the beginning of the year, I suppose it’s only right I give myself a self-assessment. In that, here goes:

PurpleAmerica (B). Issues and perspectives are 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!⁸

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.

Like what you are seeing here at PurpleAmerica? Share and Comment. Let your friends and family know! Repost on Twitter and Threads. Forward us topics you’d like us to discuss! It’s an open community here.

Footnotes and Fun Stuff

1. I anticipate this is where Adam Kinzinger will be 5-10 years from now.

2. Was watching him last week and saw him perfectly encapsulate an issue. I mean, he hit the nail right on the head. That was the first time in a long time I saw the old John King.

3. In actuality, I object to this line of thinking. There should be more conservatives in the Democratic Party and more liberals in the GOP. This would be a benefit to both parties as they would moderate some. However, that statement is true to the way Kinzinger views it, which is why I kept it.

4. Anytime he mentions “The Soul of America,” drink.

5. The next closest I would say is Former Reagan and HW Bush Chief of Staff and Secretary of State James Baker III.

6. Watching Bertrand, I often find myself saying “Just BREATHE a second.”

7. BTW- Larry is in on that joke. He’s well aware of how people confuse him for his doppelganger.

8. OK OK OK. I know. I hate this kind of self-promotion too. But if Jake Tapper can pimp his book on CNN for months on end, I can put in a quick note to subscribe on my page.