Welcome back to The Best & The Brightest. I hope you have a merry Christmas if that’s what you’re celebrating next week.

🎧 Programming note: It was constitutional law week on Somebody’s Gotta Win, where I was joined by CNN anchor and 14th Amendment expert John Avlon to discuss the Colorado Supreme Court decision to ban Trump from the ballot, his likely appeal, why John agrees with the ruling, and which surprising U.S. Supreme Court justices might vote against the former president. (It would certainly open Pandora’s box, since the “insurrection amendment” could also disqualify a number of members of Congress…) Plus, earlier in the week, don’t miss my conversation with CBS’s chief election correspondent Bob Costa on the state of the race. (Subscribe here and here.)

In tonight’s email, I write about how the fragile male ego is affecting the presidential race as we barrel toward Iowa. Plus, fresh reporting on the escalating pressure campaign to force Chris Christie out ahead of New Hampshire, where Nikki Haley is suddenly looking like a viable threat to Trump. And the latest murmurs surrounding the Joe Manchin-No Labels fever dream, which appears, once again, to be gaining steam.

But first, here’s Abby with the latest from Capitol Hill…

• In California’s jungle primary system, it is a big deal for a Republican to be in the general election hunt, but that does not necessarily mean the G.O.P. has a serious shot at the seat. It’s hard to see how California could be competitive: The last time Republicans were viable statewide was back in the Schwarzenegger era.

  But some Democrats would probably be delighted to see Garvey make it to the general. The thought of Schiff and Porter, two powerhouse Democratic fundraisers, spending tens of millions of dollars against each other is enough to make some strategists’ heads explode at a time when Senate Democrats are scrounging for every dime to defend their many vulnerable positions on the map (Ohio, Montana, Michigan, etcetera). On the other hand, as one House Democratic operative put it, two statewide Democratic get-out-the-vote operations could certainly help the party’s House candidates.

• Garvey, the 1974 National League MVP, has long been expected to run for office and brings far more name recognition to a statewide campaign than the average Republican. And Garvey wasn’t just any old baseball player. He was the face of the Dodgers in the ’70s—such a beloved figure among fans (particularly women) and the press that his fame instigated a locker room scuffle with a teammate, and Girl Scouts picketed Dodger Stadium when he departed for San Diego. But Garvey didn’t announce his bid until October—i.e., very late—which means we don’t yet have a sense of how much money he’s raising or how professional a campaign he is running.

• Meanwhile, this new poll caps off a strong 2023 for Schiff. Thanks in part to his censure by House Republicans for leading investigations into Donald Trump, Schiff has benefitted from a bonanza of progressive fundraising. The Angeleno is also joined at the hip with the state’s most powerful Democrat: Nancy Pelosi. The former speaker cut a $100,000 check to an independent expenditure backing Schiff—an unusual member-to-member show of support. Moreover, Schiff joined Pelosi in a convertible in last June’s San Francisco pride parade.

• While the poll could indicate trouble for Porter, she’s also got lots to spend once the campaign gears up ahead of the state’s March primary. Lee, meanwhile, has struggled in the money race but is a respected politician in her own right. But it’s risky to put too much stock in online polls like this one, and most of the other surveys conducted on this race—and at this early stage, some strategists argue against putting much stock in any polls.

Naturally, this has sparked feverish conversation in Republican circles: What if Christie, who is getting walloped in Iowa, were to drop out before New Hampshire? Would his supporters flock to Haley, making her the first Republican to truly compete with Trump in a primary since 2016?

The pressure on Christie is now escalating, even among his most ardent backers, especially since it’s hard to see his path forward. Some supported him because they saw him as a strong, reliable foil to Trump in hand-to-hand combat, but Trump snubbed the debates. “A lot of donors are trying to figure out how to get him out of the race,” said one top donor and Christie supporter. “It’s like an intervention for a drug addict.”

Christie’s inner circle hasn’t yet had the talk with the candidate, according to this donor, but will likely do so soon. And the writing is on the wall: Ken Langone—a major Christie backer in 2016, who now supports Haley—reached out in September to urge Christie to step aside, according to two sources with knowledge of the conversation. “Have you ever heard of the male ego?” the anonymous donor continued. “Why not [drop out] now and look like a great statesman?”

Christie’s camp denies he had that conversation with Langone. “I’m not going to comment on something that has not happened at this point,” said Christie advisor Mike DuHaime. “Even if you consolidate all of the non-Trump vote right now in most of those states, you only get to… a tie with Donald Trump. To beat Donald Trump, you have to take on Donald Trump, and at this point [Haley] has been unwilling to take him on.”

The idea must certainly be swirling in Christie’s head, given the number of times it’s been raised by voters and reporters on the trail. Reformed Trump alumnae Alyssa Farah and Sarah Matthews both tweeted yesterday that Christie needed to drop out and endorse Haley. And the drum beat in the media is only going to grow louder amid the dawning recognition that DeSantis, too, might be toast after Iowa.

Alas, as in 2016, time is running out for any meaningful consolidation of the not-Trump field. Republican operatives worry that, should the Florida governor drop out after Iowa, DeSantis supporters would primarily migrate to Trump. Meanwhile, Christie actually appears to be turning up the heat on Haley, saying she’s an unreliable warrior against Trump, potentially dividing the Never Trump constituency. “Chris is smart,” Sununu told me. “I believe his goal of ensuring Trump isn’t the nominee will guide him in helping consolidate the Republican Party.”

Perhaps, but Christie appears reluctant to bow out without getting the fight he wanted, and has suggested to voters that he resents being asked to afford Haley the sort of deference that neither Jeb Bush nor Marco Rubio gave him in 2016, when he placed second in New Hampshire. But that myopic view misreads history—after all, not doing something for others because it wasn’t given to you is egomaniacal, especially if the empirical takeaway is that the Republicans should have consolidated around a non-Trump candidate far sooner. “He’s of course entitled to stay in the race,” said Vikram Mansharamani, a New Hampshire Senate candidate in 2022 and Haley supporter. “But Governor Christie should be careful that his actions don’t lead to a Trump presidency.”

Ever since No Labels started talking to its megadonors about running a third-party candidate to thwart a Trump-Biden rematch, Manchin has been bandied about as the platonic ideal. His contrarian, nonpartisan single-mindedness gave credence to Nancy Jacobson and Mark Penn’s entity, whose donors include the likes of Steve Schwarzman and Harlan Crow. But No Labels’ $70 million campaign to get on the ballot in all 50 states has been ho-hum thus far: they’ve made it on 12, and will be active in 15 others by the end of the year. They expect to reach 34 in 2024, and the candidates themselves will have to get on the final 16. Manchin, an attention magnet, has seemed to revel in the theater of a putative presidential pursuit. (Indeed, he sounded very much like a candidate when he joined a No Labels call with donors, leaked to me in June, in which he extolled the importance of “putting the country first” and lamented politicians who are too “selfish” to see beyond the two-party system.)

Nonetheless, it seems everyone in town views No Labels as a self-indulgent, for-profit spoilsport operation, one destined to facilitate precisely what it stands to oppose: another Trump presidency. Allies of the White House, the Lincoln Project, Third Way, and other groups have all pointed fingers at Jacobson and Penn, and are cooking up ways to scare off potential candidates. “We are going to come at you with every gun we can possibly find,” said a speaker on a strategy call with these parties, according to Semafor.

These antagonists are skeptical of No Labels’ strategy, which seems to overlook the popular belief that Biden could win over soft Republicans who hate Trump. (Recent polling shows that’s likely wishful thinking, even for Biden.) Regardless, No Labels is now telling supporters that they believe their hypothetical Republican-Democrat ticket can win Florida and Texas—even if there’s no way they could win New York or California if the ticket was swapped. They’re also telling supporters that if Republicans end up coalescing around Haley, a rising possibility, they’ll back down.

None of this has stopped Manchin’s hustle. His daughter, Heather Bresch, a former pharmaceutical C.E.O. who was infamously ensnared in the EpiPen price-gouging controversy, has been raising cash for her dad through a dark money non-profit 501(c)4 called Americans Together. (Where do they think of these clever names?) A major donor solicited by Bresch told me that, in the past month, she claims to have raised as much as $30 million to help her father when he runs on the No Labels ticket. (Earlier this summer, it was reported that the Manchins were attempting to raise $100 million for moderate causes.)

“For Joe Manchin and Heather Manchin, flying around America and acting like he’s going to be the next president of the United States is exactly what they want right now,” said a source close to them. “For any serious legislator of Joe Manchin’s stature—his ego wants to be talked about being a president of the United States, so they’re going to string you along for as long as possible.” A spokesperson for Americans Together declined to comment.

No Labels has told supporters the organization could try to recruit Haley, if she were to lose the nomination, but everyone knows she’ll be looking to 2028 if this cycle doesn’t work out for her. So while Manchin may have annoyed No Labels, the reality is that they are unlikely to top him. The group has an apparent talent-recruitment issue, which isn’t surprising since most politicians don’t want to be remembered like Ross Perot (let alone Ralph Nader or Jill Stein). And former governors Larry Hogan or Jon Huntsman, or even former congressman Will Hurd, just aren’t cutting it in terms of exciting donors. “The whole problem with No Labels is: who is going to risk running on that ticket?” said another person with knowledge of their efforts. “And can they get a high enough quality individual to do that? That has always been the thing.”

Clancy said they’re not worried about this speculation, and the group expects that political, military and even business icons will come out of the woodwork ready to be on the ticket after the reality of a Trump-Biden rematch dawns on them. But even if that happens, this forthcoming candidate will have to quickly raise a war chest that competes with the billion dollar operations behind Trump and Biden. No Labels can only get the candidate on the ballot; the fundraising after that is dependent on the candidates. And Manchin’s $30 million in a 501(c)4 that could possibly be transferred to a super PAC for a campaign that would kick off after Super Tuesday isn’t going to cut it. Honestly, this whole thing just sounds like Aaron Sorkin fan fiction. Buckle up for 2024.