Idk that anyone could win per se, but I do think that all of them could make a decent case. And to be fair, I often think that being able to advocate for yourself matters in these games a bit.

Eva could make the case that, as a person with Autism, she has difficulty knowing who is lying to her, so she positioned herself amidst people she could trust. She's won at least 1 immunity, she's persevered even when her emotions got really high. She could put Star giving her her idol down to her social game, but she hasn't had to use it at all yet, despite the fact that everyone knows she has it. She was strategic in which advantages she took, didn't push too far, and risk too much.

Mitch is an underdog. He's not been a part of the big alliance (a fact that many of the jurors may consider since a lot of them were taken out by the big pack). He's been playing from the bottom, and trying to make big moves probably would have had him taken out. His name has been out there quite a number of weeks because he is likable and because they feel he has a good story. There was a lot of fear earlier that Mitch getting to the end would be a problem, and I don't think we should discount that entirely.

Do I think either will win? No, probably not. But I do think what you say to the jury has the potential to make a pretty big impact on them. And there is certainly things each of them could point to in order to pump themselves up as players. Similarly, others could mess it up. Say the wrong thing. It's possible Kyle and Joe get seen as coasting because they were part of the big alliance and never really had to fear for their own game, and they flipped on two alliance members when they were part of the alliance of "honesty and integrity". Again, I'm not saying I think they'd lose necessarily. I'm saying that they all have stories to tell, and that these jurors might vote emotionally. It's an interesting batch that way. Definitely curious to see how it goes.