I have since gotten one email about it from a woman! There could be more, I suppose—hard to be sure when people use screen names—but there’s at least one. As I told her, I think some of the gap is about women being less willing to admit to the affinity.
Sure. As a lifelong conservative my mind is boggled by my friends/family who are willing to vote Trump simply because he has an (R) by his name. I think for a lot of people like me if Vance was the nominee (or Mike Pence, for that matter) we’d be fine voting Republican.
Of the cohort you've met that fit this category, would you say that these men are more educated and actively follow the news? I doubt the stereotypical MAGA man could parse the differences between Trump and Vance, but I imagine an educated/well-read man who falls in this category can make the difference...and I wonder if they will choose not to support Trump in 2024, but would support Vance in 2028....thus, I could see their impact in the long run, but maybe not so much for this election; but I'd be curious to see after election day how this cohorts' perceived nonvote impacted the election.
Overall, great analysis -- I'm in the NYC area, and I definitely know educated men who do hate Vance's economics and rhetoric, but identify with the other parts.
Yes, definitely well-educated (bachelor degree+), but I'd say more mixed on following the news. They tend to be people who read more sophisticated sources, though, so what they are taking in would generally be more informative, deeper dives, etc., which I think matters in terms of the parsing you have in mind.
You are definitely on to something but i would say it extends beyond Vance - Tulsi Gabbard, Ramaswamy, RFK Jr, that broaden the appeal of the Trump ticket. Vance to my mind was the perfect pick for a 78 year old Trump. Frankly I believe the left right rubric doesn’t fit what’s happening right now; it’s more Regime or Anti-Regime at this stage and all the cross overs and endorsements exemplify that theme for both sides.
Ah, that's interesting. So you--or people you know?--would vote for these people who are endorsing Trump but not Trump himself? What's the distinguishing factor other than age?
I believe Trump’s lasting legacy will be seen, through the wisdom of time, that he dismantled the elite duopoly. He’s a wrecking ball and the poison the system needed to reform. He has demolished the GOP. I wouldn’t even say this was his intention it’s just evolved this way and the momentum has attracted more like forces to recognize all the corruption. He’s an egomaniac, though not at all an evil person. He’s obsessed with winning and perhaps the most competitive person the world has ever seen. He’s a rare, rare human that can withstand an insane amount of vitriol and pressure to reach a goal. The USA needs to reassert itself, I can’t think of anyone better to attempt that. Our elites have been utterly captured by a global governance model that is eroding the prosperity of sovereign countries in service of a global elite class.
I think his astounding flip-flops on so many core positions, all taken in an effort to please Trump, would disqualify him as a serious candidate for anyone who takes their own political positions seriously.
You'd think so, but ... I'm not so sure. His current strategy of simply saying, "Yeah, I did change my mind, because I realized I was wrong," seems to be pretty effective. Now, there are theoretically limits to how many times you can do that, but also prior rounds can be forgotten.
It is effective with Trump supporters who, obviously, are willing to look past dozens of things much more damning then a change in political position. If your target audience is voters who do not support Trump, I don't think that strategy flies.
Thanks for your continued thoughtfulness. Thinking believers are important. I have recognized that we cannot lump voters for a particular candidate into one category. For me, of all those on the spectrum, Mike Pence has shown the greatest character. I just now thought about writing him in. Previously I thought about Nikki Haley. She showed strong character in SC and was never a real Trump supporter. My option is to do the unthinkable. Not vote for either. All that said, your theory is valid. I am sure some will slip to that approach. A VP can influence his boss. Mike was not very successful with Donald, however.
Yeah, I think it would have to be a very different veep relationship for Vance to really steer the ship. I don’t think Trump is very steerable, though who knows—not being able to run again might change things for him.
Thanks Bonnie. The Living God is able to change anyone who turns to Him. With God, nothing is impossible. Mr, Trump has not yet shown any ability to be steered. Thanks for you recent comments regarding covenant. Did you follow the Oct 12 gathering in DC? I was there. Jesus' blood is the seal of an eternal covenant which God is faithful to keep and give us grace to respond, even when we don't want to. One think lacked in DC that day was a prayer of blessing for all those who serve in Federal government. They only expressed public criticism of democrats without being that explicit. Yet Life flowed.
Dang, you described me perfectly here. And I thought I WAS sort of unique! It's interesting that you're acquainted with others in this exact situation, as I'm not aware of it describing anyone else I know personally.
I've to this day never voted for a Democrat or realistically even come close, but I voted against Trump in every primary and voted third-party both times he was on the top of the ticket. This election season, every time I've thought I could hold my nose and let the man have my vote, Trump does something new to repel me.
But meanwhile, Vance, born within a year of me, is the first time I've seen someone in politics and thought, "that could be me." Right down to the "Magic: The Gathering" hobby in high school. And the man is clearly interested in ideas and explored many of the same esoteric corners of the right that I did in my youth, in search of identifying what has gone wrong with both Western civilization and the conservative movement in general.
Vance is the first time I feel "represented" by a politician in any sense of that word, and it's a strange feeling. And so when people crap all over him, there's a part of me that thinks, "This is also exactly what they would do if I ever tried to enter politics."
But there's another part that gets the criticism. He's not that good a politician, at least not yet. And he does seem to be holding onto a certain bitterness, and maybe even to have a weak sense of identity. I agree with the direction of Richard Hanania's assessment, that being forced to defend Trump is poisonous to the soul, and I hope the Republican Party can find a way to heal when his influence is gone. While both Vance and I recognized that something had gone very wrong in the conservative movement, Vance had it right the first time: Trump is the epitome of things going wrong with conservatism, not any sort of corrective to the errors of the past. He has made the Stupid Party stupider.
So in other words, it's probably third-party again for me at the top of the ticket, but I'm still cautiously optimistic that Vance is someone I'll be able to support in the future.
I don’t know if you’ll find this weird or somehow reassuring, but you are not the first in this group to say exactly this to me: “And so when people crap all over him, there's a part of me that thinks, ‘This is also exactly what they would do if I ever tried to enter politics.’l
Oh my you articulate some of my own thoughts—I’m older, a grandparent, lifelong liberal democrat but am attracted to Vance’s pro family policies. I would vote for Usha in a heartbeat!
As a married, millennial, church-going (full time preaching minister), Vance and I (I’m one year younger) have had completely opposite trajectories and he terrifies me. His Christian nationalist ties (Catholic integralism) and willingness to not only lie, but put people at risk (hatian community and hurricane disinformation) are alarming. Also, his willingness to espouse far right political ideals such that are found in Hungary under Viktor Orban and in the writings of Patrick Deneen, Adrian Vermeule, and Curtis Yarvin concerns me immensely.
The guy we saw in the debate is completely different from the guy espousing authoritarian ideals on far right podcasts. I don’t trust him. My entire childhood and early college years were spent in an environment loaded with conspiracism and party tribalism. Vance oozes that with a calm sophistry that parades as sophistication, but barely hides his charlatanism and clear desire for power. He would not be my first (2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th ad infinitum) choice for a theology conversation partner.
I did. You seem to be utterly terrified by the idea that the state or public sphere might in any way reflect Christianity or Christian values, despite allegedly being a “Christian” minister.
There’s a reason why young people looking for meaning (like Vance) either end up evangelical or Catholic. Because they actually believe in something, and you don’t.
Brenton here is just using his “as a Christian” shtick to regurgitate MSNBC talking points. I think it’s more than fair for me to say as much, but it’s your website.
Ok, I’m glad you know me and my faith through the above post.
But, let me share a little about myself. I have a bachelors in biblical studies, mdiv, was all but thesis for a masters in New Testament, but switched to a masters in systematic theology. I also teach college courses in Bible, theology, and ministry as well as having been in ministry for almost 20 years. My concern comes from my deep knowledge of church history and the destruction western Christian exceptionalism has wrought in human communities across the globe. The same exceptionalism many folks that JD Vance associates with espouse. MSNBC hasn’t covered 1/4 of what I wrote above. My theology and commitment to Christ is why I take issue with Vance. And, my hope would be that I emulate the self-sacrificial nature of Christ, which Vance’s repeated fabrications for political gain and to the detriment/harm of real human communities is not the example that Jesus has called us to show in our daily lives. It is the opposite and exemplifies the ways of those sought to trap and murder Jesus. If we want our politicians to be Christian then they actually need to demonstrate christlikeness, and, that’s not Trump or Vance.
If you were opposed to Trump in any meaningful way it'd be a little weird to vote for the guy who has compromised every principle he has ever espoused in order to swear fealty to him. In the ways that Vance is appealing, he is not unique. Compassionate conservatism was a meme for a solid decade not long ago. Republicans have been espousing vaguely pro family rhetoric whilst doing nothing to help families for a very long time. These voters you speak of might exist but they are very dumb if they do.
I’m not one of these voters, to be clear, but I don’t think it’s this simple. The fertility situation (both the birth rates and the policy climate) is not what it was in the Bush years, and the GOP had much more loyalty to at least the rhetoric of small government and self reliance back then. As for the vote itself, it’s very common in a 2-party system for people to vote for candidates they significantly oppose. Voting for this ticket to make a VP Vance the heir apparent to a disliked Trump is not what I would do, but it doesn’t strike me as wildly different from voting for Harris to redirect the GOP away from a disliked Trump. Both are longer-term tactical choices of very questionable merit.
Well, that's a third, different calculation than the two I mentioned. The Harris vote I described is motivated by the future of the GOP. The Harris vote you're describing is motivated by worries about democracy. These often coincide in the same voter, but they are different.
Isn’t that a distinction without distinction, though? Concerns about the Republican Party’s unquestioning fidelity to Trump instead of conservative values overlaps with concerns about our democratic institutions and his past actions that show he is willing to transgress those boundaries. I don’t think they’re different categories.
I have voted third-party since 2016 now, but before that I was a Democrat. I like Vance because I affirmatively like his anti-business, anti-war, and anti-free trade positions. I’m a Catholic and I think outside of the ASP, Vance, Hawley, and Rubio are the closest thing we have to actual Christian politics in this country. So while I never have and never will vote for Trump, I will enthusiastically vote for and probably donate to Vance when he takes over the top of the ticket.
Also, while a bunch of other commenters here seem to regard Trump as Hitler 2.0, I dislike Trump because he’s not competent and not a moral person. He has no real principles - as demonstrated by the recent selling out of the pro-life movement. But I don’t begrudge anyone who supports him, because he is (as Vance has said) right to point out that our politics are fundamentally broken, the “norms” are a one way ratchet, and most allegedly “conservative” leaders hate the people they represent (this self-evident fact is part of why I was a Democrat). I wish Vance didn’t have to accommodate Trump, but I understand the calculation. Trump is destroyer, but he’s potentially a gateway to a permanent political realignment. If it works, I think it has the potential to transform our national politics after Trump leaves the national stage.
Yes! I am one of these voters for JD but a millennial female of color. I am Christian also. This is a real phenomenon that most of the mainstream media is pushing aside. I watched Mark Halperin’s Morning Meeting/2 Way on YouTube and there were a couple people that also said the same, voting for Trump specifically so they could vote for JD. Of course, the hosts just brushed it aside saying “VPs don’t move the needle at all and don’t make a difference” but my gut said they were being way too hasty making that assumption when I’m saying it and so are these other random people.
I’m so glad you were actually published on MSNBC of all places. A broken clock is wrong twice a day I guess.
I also think JD’s charisma, intelligence and articulateness is secretly very well-known in the Democrat party, and they feel uneasy going up against him. Like or hate his policies, there’s no way someone as brilliant and talented as Obama is blind to what the Republicans have in JD. That’s why they keep coming out with all the “weird” rhetoric. In truth, he’s a very threatening candidate to them specifically Pete Buttigieg, who could be a contender for the 2028 presidential nominee, up against Vance, in my opinion.
Thank you for commenting! That's interesting about Halperin -- maybe I'll have to watch. Actually, you've just reminded me I intended to add this tweet to my draft and forgot and am now kicking myself: https://x.com/FrankLuntz/status/1849681892343415220 I came across it after writing but before publishing, and it's the only other mention I've seen.
As for MSNBC, I just happen to know a good editor there. He's trying to mix things up!
"You see, in my observation, typical never-Trump maybe-Vance voters are married, churchgoing, white-collar, millennial men with kids." only men?
So far! Unless you have some info for me …
no, but I can't stop thinking about this for some reason and I'd love to have a conversation sometime.... but not nov 9 haha
I have since gotten one email about it from a woman! There could be more, I suppose—hard to be sure when people use screen names—but there’s at least one. As I told her, I think some of the gap is about women being less willing to admit to the affinity.
Good take. I’d even consider myself one of these, though I gag when I think how Vance so easily coddles up to Trump now as his VP candidate.
Ooh, thank you! If I were to write on this elsewhere, would you consider commenting on the record?
Sure. As a lifelong conservative my mind is boggled by my friends/family who are willing to vote Trump simply because he has an (R) by his name. I think for a lot of people like me if Vance was the nominee (or Mike Pence, for that matter) we’d be fine voting Republican.
Just emailed about this
I responded. Thanks, Bonnie.
Of the cohort you've met that fit this category, would you say that these men are more educated and actively follow the news? I doubt the stereotypical MAGA man could parse the differences between Trump and Vance, but I imagine an educated/well-read man who falls in this category can make the difference...and I wonder if they will choose not to support Trump in 2024, but would support Vance in 2028....thus, I could see their impact in the long run, but maybe not so much for this election; but I'd be curious to see after election day how this cohorts' perceived nonvote impacted the election.
Overall, great analysis -- I'm in the NYC area, and I definitely know educated men who do hate Vance's economics and rhetoric, but identify with the other parts.
Yes, definitely well-educated (bachelor degree+), but I'd say more mixed on following the news. They tend to be people who read more sophisticated sources, though, so what they are taking in would generally be more informative, deeper dives, etc., which I think matters in terms of the parsing you have in mind.
You are definitely on to something but i would say it extends beyond Vance - Tulsi Gabbard, Ramaswamy, RFK Jr, that broaden the appeal of the Trump ticket. Vance to my mind was the perfect pick for a 78 year old Trump. Frankly I believe the left right rubric doesn’t fit what’s happening right now; it’s more Regime or Anti-Regime at this stage and all the cross overs and endorsements exemplify that theme for both sides.
Ah, that's interesting. So you--or people you know?--would vote for these people who are endorsing Trump but not Trump himself? What's the distinguishing factor other than age?
I believe Trump’s lasting legacy will be seen, through the wisdom of time, that he dismantled the elite duopoly. He’s a wrecking ball and the poison the system needed to reform. He has demolished the GOP. I wouldn’t even say this was his intention it’s just evolved this way and the momentum has attracted more like forces to recognize all the corruption. He’s an egomaniac, though not at all an evil person. He’s obsessed with winning and perhaps the most competitive person the world has ever seen. He’s a rare, rare human that can withstand an insane amount of vitriol and pressure to reach a goal. The USA needs to reassert itself, I can’t think of anyone better to attempt that. Our elites have been utterly captured by a global governance model that is eroding the prosperity of sovereign countries in service of a global elite class.
Maybe give Andrew Sullivan a call?
I think his astounding flip-flops on so many core positions, all taken in an effort to please Trump, would disqualify him as a serious candidate for anyone who takes their own political positions seriously.
You'd think so, but ... I'm not so sure. His current strategy of simply saying, "Yeah, I did change my mind, because I realized I was wrong," seems to be pretty effective. Now, there are theoretically limits to how many times you can do that, but also prior rounds can be forgotten.
It is effective with Trump supporters who, obviously, are willing to look past dozens of things much more damning then a change in political position. If your target audience is voters who do not support Trump, I don't think that strategy flies.
Thanks for your continued thoughtfulness. Thinking believers are important. I have recognized that we cannot lump voters for a particular candidate into one category. For me, of all those on the spectrum, Mike Pence has shown the greatest character. I just now thought about writing him in. Previously I thought about Nikki Haley. She showed strong character in SC and was never a real Trump supporter. My option is to do the unthinkable. Not vote for either. All that said, your theory is valid. I am sure some will slip to that approach. A VP can influence his boss. Mike was not very successful with Donald, however.
Yeah, I think it would have to be a very different veep relationship for Vance to really steer the ship. I don’t think Trump is very steerable, though who knows—not being able to run again might change things for him.
Thanks Bonnie. The Living God is able to change anyone who turns to Him. With God, nothing is impossible. Mr, Trump has not yet shown any ability to be steered. Thanks for you recent comments regarding covenant. Did you follow the Oct 12 gathering in DC? I was there. Jesus' blood is the seal of an eternal covenant which God is faithful to keep and give us grace to respond, even when we don't want to. One think lacked in DC that day was a prayer of blessing for all those who serve in Federal government. They only expressed public criticism of democrats without being that explicit. Yet Life flowed.
Dang, you described me perfectly here. And I thought I WAS sort of unique! It's interesting that you're acquainted with others in this exact situation, as I'm not aware of it describing anyone else I know personally.
I've to this day never voted for a Democrat or realistically even come close, but I voted against Trump in every primary and voted third-party both times he was on the top of the ticket. This election season, every time I've thought I could hold my nose and let the man have my vote, Trump does something new to repel me.
But meanwhile, Vance, born within a year of me, is the first time I've seen someone in politics and thought, "that could be me." Right down to the "Magic: The Gathering" hobby in high school. And the man is clearly interested in ideas and explored many of the same esoteric corners of the right that I did in my youth, in search of identifying what has gone wrong with both Western civilization and the conservative movement in general.
Vance is the first time I feel "represented" by a politician in any sense of that word, and it's a strange feeling. And so when people crap all over him, there's a part of me that thinks, "This is also exactly what they would do if I ever tried to enter politics."
But there's another part that gets the criticism. He's not that good a politician, at least not yet. And he does seem to be holding onto a certain bitterness, and maybe even to have a weak sense of identity. I agree with the direction of Richard Hanania's assessment, that being forced to defend Trump is poisonous to the soul, and I hope the Republican Party can find a way to heal when his influence is gone. While both Vance and I recognized that something had gone very wrong in the conservative movement, Vance had it right the first time: Trump is the epitome of things going wrong with conservatism, not any sort of corrective to the errors of the past. He has made the Stupid Party stupider.
So in other words, it's probably third-party again for me at the top of the ticket, but I'm still cautiously optimistic that Vance is someone I'll be able to support in the future.
I don’t know if you’ll find this weird or somehow reassuring, but you are not the first in this group to say exactly this to me: “And so when people crap all over him, there's a part of me that thinks, ‘This is also exactly what they would do if I ever tried to enter politics.’l
Just sent you an email to follow up on this
Oh my you articulate some of my own thoughts—I’m older, a grandparent, lifelong liberal democrat but am attracted to Vance’s pro family policies. I would vote for Usha in a heartbeat!
As a married, millennial, church-going (full time preaching minister), Vance and I (I’m one year younger) have had completely opposite trajectories and he terrifies me. His Christian nationalist ties (Catholic integralism) and willingness to not only lie, but put people at risk (hatian community and hurricane disinformation) are alarming. Also, his willingness to espouse far right political ideals such that are found in Hungary under Viktor Orban and in the writings of Patrick Deneen, Adrian Vermeule, and Curtis Yarvin concerns me immensely.
The guy we saw in the debate is completely different from the guy espousing authoritarian ideals on far right podcasts. I don’t trust him. My entire childhood and early college years were spent in an environment loaded with conspiracism and party tribalism. Vance oozes that with a calm sophistry that parades as sophistication, but barely hides his charlatanism and clear desire for power. He would not be my first (2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th ad infinitum) choice for a theology conversation partner.
> “I’m a Christian minister, but god forbid any aspect of our politics or society have anything to do with Christianity.”
Enjoy irrelevance
Ummmm, read my comment again and tell me if that is what I said?
I did. You seem to be utterly terrified by the idea that the state or public sphere might in any way reflect Christianity or Christian values, despite allegedly being a “Christian” minister.
There’s a reason why young people looking for meaning (like Vance) either end up evangelical or Catholic. Because they actually believe in something, and you don’t.
Don’t make me have to moderate, folks :)
Brenton here is just using his “as a Christian” shtick to regurgitate MSNBC talking points. I think it’s more than fair for me to say as much, but it’s your website.
Ok, I’m glad you know me and my faith through the above post.
But, let me share a little about myself. I have a bachelors in biblical studies, mdiv, was all but thesis for a masters in New Testament, but switched to a masters in systematic theology. I also teach college courses in Bible, theology, and ministry as well as having been in ministry for almost 20 years. My concern comes from my deep knowledge of church history and the destruction western Christian exceptionalism has wrought in human communities across the globe. The same exceptionalism many folks that JD Vance associates with espouse. MSNBC hasn’t covered 1/4 of what I wrote above. My theology and commitment to Christ is why I take issue with Vance. And, my hope would be that I emulate the self-sacrificial nature of Christ, which Vance’s repeated fabrications for political gain and to the detriment/harm of real human communities is not the example that Jesus has called us to show in our daily lives. It is the opposite and exemplifies the ways of those sought to trap and murder Jesus. If we want our politicians to be Christian then they actually need to demonstrate christlikeness, and, that’s not Trump or Vance.
If you were opposed to Trump in any meaningful way it'd be a little weird to vote for the guy who has compromised every principle he has ever espoused in order to swear fealty to him. In the ways that Vance is appealing, he is not unique. Compassionate conservatism was a meme for a solid decade not long ago. Republicans have been espousing vaguely pro family rhetoric whilst doing nothing to help families for a very long time. These voters you speak of might exist but they are very dumb if they do.
I’m not one of these voters, to be clear, but I don’t think it’s this simple. The fertility situation (both the birth rates and the policy climate) is not what it was in the Bush years, and the GOP had much more loyalty to at least the rhetoric of small government and self reliance back then. As for the vote itself, it’s very common in a 2-party system for people to vote for candidates they significantly oppose. Voting for this ticket to make a VP Vance the heir apparent to a disliked Trump is not what I would do, but it doesn’t strike me as wildly different from voting for Harris to redirect the GOP away from a disliked Trump. Both are longer-term tactical choices of very questionable merit.
I’m unsure how they’re both questionable? Trump is an immediate existential threat to democracy and Kamala Harris is not.
Well, that's a third, different calculation than the two I mentioned. The Harris vote I described is motivated by the future of the GOP. The Harris vote you're describing is motivated by worries about democracy. These often coincide in the same voter, but they are different.
Isn’t that a distinction without distinction, though? Concerns about the Republican Party’s unquestioning fidelity to Trump instead of conservative values overlaps with concerns about our democratic institutions and his past actions that show he is willing to transgress those boundaries. I don’t think they’re different categories.
I have voted third-party since 2016 now, but before that I was a Democrat. I like Vance because I affirmatively like his anti-business, anti-war, and anti-free trade positions. I’m a Catholic and I think outside of the ASP, Vance, Hawley, and Rubio are the closest thing we have to actual Christian politics in this country. So while I never have and never will vote for Trump, I will enthusiastically vote for and probably donate to Vance when he takes over the top of the ticket.
Also, while a bunch of other commenters here seem to regard Trump as Hitler 2.0, I dislike Trump because he’s not competent and not a moral person. He has no real principles - as demonstrated by the recent selling out of the pro-life movement. But I don’t begrudge anyone who supports him, because he is (as Vance has said) right to point out that our politics are fundamentally broken, the “norms” are a one way ratchet, and most allegedly “conservative” leaders hate the people they represent (this self-evident fact is part of why I was a Democrat). I wish Vance didn’t have to accommodate Trump, but I understand the calculation. Trump is destroyer, but he’s potentially a gateway to a permanent political realignment. If it works, I think it has the potential to transform our national politics after Trump leaves the national stage.
How did you find me? And there are others?
Emailed you in hopes that you might elaborate on this a little!
Yes! I am one of these voters for JD but a millennial female of color. I am Christian also. This is a real phenomenon that most of the mainstream media is pushing aside. I watched Mark Halperin’s Morning Meeting/2 Way on YouTube and there were a couple people that also said the same, voting for Trump specifically so they could vote for JD. Of course, the hosts just brushed it aside saying “VPs don’t move the needle at all and don’t make a difference” but my gut said they were being way too hasty making that assumption when I’m saying it and so are these other random people.
I’m so glad you were actually published on MSNBC of all places. A broken clock is wrong twice a day I guess.
I also think JD’s charisma, intelligence and articulateness is secretly very well-known in the Democrat party, and they feel uneasy going up against him. Like or hate his policies, there’s no way someone as brilliant and talented as Obama is blind to what the Republicans have in JD. That’s why they keep coming out with all the “weird” rhetoric. In truth, he’s a very threatening candidate to them specifically Pete Buttigieg, who could be a contender for the 2028 presidential nominee, up against Vance, in my opinion.
Thank you for commenting! That's interesting about Halperin -- maybe I'll have to watch. Actually, you've just reminded me I intended to add this tweet to my draft and forgot and am now kicking myself: https://x.com/FrankLuntz/status/1849681892343415220 I came across it after writing but before publishing, and it's the only other mention I've seen.
As for MSNBC, I just happen to know a good editor there. He's trying to mix things up!