Part II: The International One

 Chuck, Well-done! 

I salute Sen. Majority Leader Schumer in his call for new elections in Israel. 

 I respond to those who object to interference in another nation's affairs by pointing to interference in past political affairs here by the same unprincipled man now heading Israel's government. The extremist nature of Netanyahu's coalition is temporarily overshadowed only by the necessities of active warfare, but the conduct of neither does honor to Israel.   They take their cues from us, or vice versa; we need to seek what's right from one of our closest allies to be true to ourselves.

There is also the fact that Schumer--to be plain-spoken about it, a classic New York Jewish politician--is the one to make the call. If friends can't call friends, who can they call? Schumer's loyalty to Israel over the years, through thick and thin, is unquestionable by anyone of any stripe. 

Is anyone in Israel listening?  I think the answer is 'Yes'.  For one thing, they know that President Biden, who is playing this very cagily, could have stopped Schumer from making the statement at this time. His response upon receiving prior notification appears to have been, "Go ahead.  Knock yourself out."  (Schumer taking that as permission...)

I have only one question:  To whom is this call addressed?  Did he miss the Benny Gantz visit?  Was he the only one who did (besides Biden, who dodged it)?  In my view, the intended recipients are Schumer's contacts among Likud, who are "ghosting" that call for now.  One more humanitarian disaster is still required. 

I heard the contours of the newly-proposed deal reported tonight.  These seem more reasonable for a partial hostage release and six-week ceasefire, with the threat of an (approved) Rafah offensive by Israel, accompanied by some (panic) evacuations of civilians hanging over the head if Hamas doesn't take it.  I think Hamas will do so, once the appropriate ratio of prison release is determined (somewhere around 20:1 has been empirically observed, so far, in deaths; that provides a rough estimate). 

If the Hamas counter-offer after temporary ceasefire is release of all hostages for permanent ceasefire, Israel should take it, even if the terms require relaxation of the current siege. (This Netanyahu government wouldn't take it, of course, either way.  Thus the Schumer ask.)  When and if Hamas violated the ceasefire again, Israel could continue the liquidation campaign, and they would have the hostage situation finally ended.  That is why Hamas will never release all the hostages they control.  

The outcome obtained by Israel so far is the middle result:  not the complete removal of the Hamas leadership, which was the stated war aim, but more than the minimal one of making Northern Gaza into a buffer zone, buying critical moments of time for their defense against future launched attacks from Gaza. Effectively, they have a siege around the remaining parts of Hamas-dominated Gaza, as long as the Rafah border with Egypt holds.   

My conclusion, and Schumer's, is that there is no way forward, no partners for enduring peace. Time to shake things up, politically.  What he really is looking forward to is a parliamentary coup, a change in authority, with Netanyahu out as PM, but it is slightly more diplomatic to ask for new elections, which if they occurred, would produce the desired result, but much too slowly.  (Schumer also called for changes in the West Bank and in Gaza.)  Gantz' message is that he would still need to liquidate Hamas if he were to lead the government.  

Ukraine Slava!

Winter in the plains of Ukraine is no time for heavy ground maneuvers.  There has been a season of hunkering down, while the Russian artillery and missiles faced less defensive interception or retaliatory strikes. That period has to end soon; the clock is ticking.  Speaker Mike Johnson is trying to find the formula to allow the foreign aid bill to get approval without doing anything.  Very laissez-faire! Doesn't quite get 'er done, though...

Europe is filling in, for the moment.  Even the rightists are seeing the light, as Hungary approves Sweden's joining NATO and Georgia Meloni's far-right Italian government is fully backing Ukraine's cause.

Immigration

If you think this belongs in the forthcoming domestic affairs post, I choose to differ.  Migration is a worldwide problem, and the global nature of the challenge is beginning to be felt more acutely on our southern border now--before, it seemed just a hemispheric problem (which it is, also).  I do think there is a hemispheric solution to the problem, one that requires active participation with Mexico for mutual benefit.  It would look like massive expansion of a US consulate in one of the northern Mexican cities, Monterrey, maybe. There is precedent for that kind of cooperation, but it's the kind of idea that doesn't get traction.  The only kind of workable solution moves the problem off our shore/border, but we pay for (cheaper) services in the chosen focus location.  

 

 

Viewing The Trumpian Menace from the Outside

Any sensible foreign government should have considered both of the two main outcomes of this election and what their national interest should require for each. If one outcome is particularly bad for their country, it only makes sense to do what they can to affect the outcome, only being careful that they not have it backfire and produce a contrary effect. 

For the most part, though, it neither makes sense to commit too much for the Biden win strategy, nor for a Trump one.  Best not to commit.  Thus the Taiwan's election led to a clear status quo outcome, Xi has pulled back a little from his aggressive posture, and the great democracy of Indonesia takes a more studied distance from the pro-Obama Widjojo days. Even Putin knew enough to say he preferred Biden because he is more predictable: unarguable, yet showing respect for the internationally-infamous Drumpfen unpredictability.  Japan, India and Korea seem more concerned with domestic affairs--well, why not?  So are we. 

That seems to be the strategy with regard to mitigating climate change, every nation doing its own thing, the combined effect being neither synergistic nor sufficient. I won't deny progress is being made, both in developing alternative energy sources and in raising awareness.  But the global temperature is progressing on the graph toward the upper-right corner, too, as is the graph of major serious weather events. . 

More elections coming all over, I hear.  In the U.K., the ruling Conservative party is in a position similar to Netanyahu's, with a serious parliamentary drubbing forthcoming when the election is finally called. In England's case, though, there's a statutory requirement that will make it happen this year. It will be interesting to see how the Labour party will change the path, seemingly irreversible, that is steadily moving London away from relevancy.  Argentina threw in its lot with a major shake-up in a Trumpian direction, but that is an extreme reaction with plenty of popular frustration behind it.  

The Summer Olympics

The Paris Olympics will be held this summer, after the Republican convention and before the Democratic one. I am hopeful they will provide a welcome distraction from the political wars. So far, I've heard too little about the preparations for them, either here or there.  I did hear a few sports (softball, baseball among them) are not being retained; I've heard each sport federation is making its own rules on transgendered, I've heard those Russians who haven't failed their drug tests will be competing under the Olympics flag, not their own. That's about it.  I haven't heard much about the USA teams in specific sports.

 I'm very idiosyncratic about this, both a strong supporter of the Olympic ideal and a fervent opponent of the way it is done with all the nationalism, which is contrary to that ideal.  It is possible to make the centralized sport federations able to conduct competition qualification, but the block to that is that the resources would have to be provided by nations, perhaps through the medium of the United Nations.    This will no doubt feature in my upcoming listing of my brilliant ideas so far not picked up by anyone....

The Oscars

A bit of a stretch, I admit, to consider the awards of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, basically a LA.-centered bunch, in the international affairs category.  There were several awards given outside of the US film center, once again--let us not forget the recent-year successes of "Parasite" and "Everything, Everywhere, All at Once"--but the liberal US coastal elite judgments were clearly present. As an electoral body, quite predictable. 

"American Fiction" winning the adapted screenplay suited the self-referential critical Zeitgeist, for sure. So did the award to local comeback hero Robert Downey, Jr. for his role as the McCarthy-ist foil to Oppenheimer, post-bomb.   Above all, note the John & Yoko-inspired animated short winner calling for "Peace Now" (Sean Lennon on the scene)--I preferred the French "Pachyderme", if one wants to go deeper. 

The award for documentary feature to "20 Days in Mariupol" showing the brutality of the war in Ukraine also showed that liberal sensibility, which now increasingly shows some awareness of the world beyond. (My point being that the show tells.)  There was also the Godzilla movie getting the award for effects, the Mayazaki film winning the animated feature, and the four awards to the itinerant sci-fi costume drama "Poor Things", the movie that finally showed what Yorgos Lanthimos could achieve. "Zone of Interest" dominated the foreign film lane, a bit of a ruse for the British production, but it was performed and filmed on location at Auschwitz in the original languages (German, Polish, Yiddish), which is a real credential to be foreign to us.  Finally, I mention "Anatomy of a Fall", the one that got away (likewise, I couldn't catch it at the cine.).

To close, we transition through the shocker highlight of the Oscars' Obit show, the face of Alexei Navalny.  With the eponymous documentary feature of the previous year an Oscars winner, they earned the right. 

Shocking but not surprising, Navalny's death was a challenge to the world, a pure expression of ruthlessness. Navalny will be taking the cherished position in that square of political martyrs that many cities in Russia now have. There are others that are due to have places in this pantheon. But not just yet, it seems:  Putin may have been faking mortal health symptoms.  He has no doubt told his doctors to keep him alive until he can clinch a victory in 2025, though he's not sure which President he has to defeat to do it.  When that doesn't happen, he will wither up and give out.

 

Overly-Delayed Reporting: I

 Part I:  Sports

Pardon my self-indulgence, but I will survey them starting from those in which I'm most interested at this moment.  What will be present is the level of passion in my recounting.

Basketball :  In the NBA, we head toward the real thing.  By that, I mean the playoffs--including even the gimmicky "Play-in" rounds, in which the teams with the 7th to 10th best regular-season records in each Conference have single-game matchups seeking to earn the #7 and #8 seeds in the full-scale best-of-7 playoff rounds.  Those spots--which would then face #2 and #1 in the first round--would not seem so prized, but two recent title winners with large fan bases, large payrolls, and big aspirations to return to the top--the Warriors and Lakers--are likely to occupy spots in those high-pressure Play-in games.  If they were to get through, they would pose a real threat to the teams seeded #1 and #2.  

As things stand now, those top spots are occupied by newcomers to the top echelon; their regular-season performances have been major surprises.  One of these surprises is the Minnesota TimberWolves:  their acquisition at the trade deadline a year ago of 7+-foot Rudy Gobert didn't seem to work out, but this year their Two-Towers-reminiscent frontline (with Karl Anthony Towns--KAT) has worked seamlessly with rising star Anthony Edwards ("Ant-man"), and they have the best road record in the league, itself a promising stat for the playoffs, regardless of whether they end up first in Conference.  The other surprise is the Oklahoma City Thunder, making a return to strength after a decade-long rebuild, starring emerging superstar Shai Gilgeous-Alexander ("SGA") and talented freshman stringbean center Chet Holmgren.*

The discussion so far doesn't even reach to the two most popular choices of analysts to win the West, who are currently sitting at #3 and #4.  The Denver Nuggets are the defending champions, and their combo of Jamal Murray, whose presence made the difference in getting the team over the top, and Nikola Jokic, likely to win his third MVP now and one of the most well-rounded players ever in the game, is unsurpassed in quality and now truly proven.  The LA Clippers, who should finish no worse than their current 4th, no matter how slack some of their regular-season games are, have without doubt the highest-ever quality assemblage of wing talent--Paul George, Kawhi Leonard, James Hardin, and Russell Westbrook, all future Hall-of-Famers--but will it fly?  That's unclear. 

Also unclear are the fates of potential magic combinations fitted together for this season in Dallas (Luka Doncic and Kyre Irving!) and Phoenix (Kevin Durant and Bradley Beal!)  The other two teams in the Conference mix are playoff unknowns like the current top two:  the New Orleans Pelicans overachieved, then they got Zion Williamson back (I just heard him described as "a tank that flies"); the Sacramento Kings have a pairing that has proven strong in Domantas Sabonis and DeAaron Fox, but their sometimes inconsistent play suggests playoff vulnerability.  Bottom Line:  Wide open, once someone can beat the Denver Nuggets. 

The Eastern Conference is different, but interesting in its own way.  There is a clear favorite, the Boston Celtics, who have reached the highest level with their own Jayson Tatum-Jaylen Brown combo but not won at that level.  This year they added two critical new pieces in point guard Jrue Holliday, who's a top man-to-man defender, and multi-talented big man Kristaps Porzingis.  As long as all four can be on the court together, they are unlikely to lose a series, so we'll see how long that lasts.

The team that looked mostly likely to challenge them, the Philadelphia 76ers, lost the big half of their key pair, Joel Embiid, to a knee injury.  He should be back for the playoffs, but whether he will have the dominant play and the great coordination with scoring point guard Tyrese Maxey seen earlier in the year (Embiid was the leading candidate for MVP then, the team right up there with Boston) is a question mark, as is the team's seeding for the playoffs.  So, the team we should expect to meet the Celtics in the Conference finals is the Milwaukee Bucks, a recent championship team that added the immense talents of Damian Lillard to those of superstar Giannis Antetokounmpo.  They haven't fully meshed yet, but that could still happen in this season's playoffs.  The Miami Heat and their Jimmy Butler-Bam Adebayo pairing is another proven winner:  they reached the Finals last year.  They will have to knock over a couple of favored squads on the road to make the Conference finals, but they can't be counted out.

Based on improved regular-season performance, either the Knicks or Cavaliers should reasonably hope to make the Eastern Conference semis, but if the 76ers can re-coalesce well, they'll likely grab one of the spots which currently have their name on them. Bottom Line:  I'll go with the chalk:  the healthy Celtics to cruise through the Conference playoffs and outlast whichever Western team survives their side.  

Closing my commentary on the NBA, I will say their marketing is doing just fine.  The "In-season tournament" thing they came up with this year was not as bad as I feared, the key success being their ability to schedule flexibly enough that competing teams' games counted for their regular-season standings (all but the championship game itself), and teams no longer in the tourney carried on more or less normally.  So, rather than detracting from the poor old regular season, they added some interest early in it.  Also, the league is prodding players and coaches to bring their stars out on court more consistently.  I think that particular one will end with more stars' time on court being severely and strategically rationed--more games played, less minutes per game.  Of course, the main thing is the playoffs themselves, and I think the outlook for that is awesome.  

TMB? Still more on basketball, as we must look at their feeder league, a/k/a college basketball. For my money, there is a clearly dominant player, Zach Edey of  Purdue.  At 7-foot-4 with skills, Edey is a giant among mortal hoopsters.  He is a future NBA presence, though success there is far from guaranteed. At present, the Boilermakers are the #1 ranked team, though positions in the top 10 have been very fluid this season.  Some of it is the inconsistency due to the rapid turnover of teams--besides the "one and done" single season for some extremely talented players, a key feature of recent seasons has been the transfer window, allowing players to move between colleges without having to lose a year, and permitting strong college teams to rebuild quickly--but there is also a broadening of the number of powerful teams, with an increased number of upsets by unranked teams.

My personal primary focus in college basketball in 2024, as it is most years, concerns the University of Kentucky Wildcats.  In the words of Elvis Costello, This Year's Model is quite attractive, with talent, skills, and a recently-discovered ability to play defense.  Coach John Calipari has done his usual masterful job harvesting top prospects from around the country who like that team's history of producing great pro basketball players.   (Quick quiz:  How many starring players in the NBA analysis above played for U of K?+)

Although the team's record is not that impressive at 19-8 (compared to something like 25-2 of Purdue or Connecticut), these Wildcats have shown they can defeat anyone on the right day.  They have all the elements to succeed and will win big on their best days, and they even have good free-throw shooting, which always becomes essential to proceed through the tournament. What an NCAA champion has to prove, though, is that they can survive and win somehow on their worst day--they've had a few shocking losses, too. 

If necessary, I could explain at length why I simply have had to be part of  what became Big Blue Nation, uncool and incorrect as that may seem.  But I think the current reality is sufficient justification for my support.

The NCAA tournament will be extremely difficult to handicap, and I'm not ready to do so.  I would say the team I've been most consistently impressed with is Tennessee, though they've had their bad games, too. I haven't yet gotten used to watching women's college basketball, though I recognize that there are incredibly talented athletes there.  Like men's, the women's college game is about organized defense and timely scoring to win close ones, with the coach's influence front and center.

Baseball:   I'm just as excited about the upcoming baseball season as I am about the current hoops one, it's just that I don't have so much to say about the present, which is spring training.  There's plenty of recent past, for which I 'll give some quick takes, and the future pennant races, which are far off at present. 

There are some teams clearly favored to make the playoffs, either as division winner or as wild card (there are now three of each in the playoffs for each league).   Having a bye in the first-round series, as the two division winners with the best records get, has not looked like an advantage against a hot team coming off a winning wild card series, anyway not as often as their regular season advantages would suggest.  The objective, then, is making the playoffs,  anywhere from 1-6 . After that, throwing the dice and winning two or three series beyond are the icing, sprinkles, and ornamental crown on the cake.Wild card expansion has opened up late-season excitement for a lot more teams than previously, so there is benefit.  As a remedy, though, I think they should give greater advantage to the home team in the Divisional Series, which should expand to seven games.

The LA Dodgers are the super team in the re-making, but I don't expect them to look that way early in the season, even with their massive lineup.  They signed the two top free agents, Japanese ballplayers Yoshinobu Yamamoto (best pitcher in the Japanese leagues the last couple of years) and the One and Only Shohei Ohtani.  Ohtani will not be pitching in 2024 but will have this season to exhibit his hitting without any limitations.  As we can look forward to his full-time return to pitching next year, along with that of Dodger stalwart pitchers Clayton Kershaw and Walker Buehler, it looks like 2025 could be their breakthrough.  Although they have had great regular-season success, the only year the Dodgers won the World Series title so far this century was the Covid-shortened season of 2020. 

In 2023, the Houston Astros and Atlanta Braves were the teams that were supposed to be the best in each league, but they were each knocked aside in short series, with the Texas Rangers and Arizona Diamondbacks the surprise World Series opponents.  Congratulations to the Rangers for finally getting the title for the first time since the hazy days of the Minnesota Twins and Washington Senators in the Sixties and beyond (literally, a long story).   

As a fan of the Cincinnati Reds (no title since 1990), I am highly enthused by my team's chances to break into the playoffs, which they almost succeeded in doing last year (being edged out in the last week for a wild card spot by the Diamondbacks and Cubs). With the kind of young talent the Reds have, though, making the playoffs this year is just one step up the ladder, without a ceiling in sight.  They made a number of moves in the offseason which shored up their depth, both in the field and on the mound, but they have not (yet) signed the veteran ace starter they will need to compete in the postseason in 2024.  There are some still available--yes, I'm a bit impatient.  Bottom Line:  Teams making the playoffs, from near-certain to wild-ass speculation--Braves, Astros, BlueJays, Rangers, Rays, Dodgers, Diamondbacks, Phillies, Reds, Mets, Yankees, Indians.  Sorry, Orioles, Padres, Cubs, Brewers, Bosox.

Football (a/k/a Soccer):  

It's fair to say that the 2024 season-ending race in the English Premier League should be as exciting as there has been in recent memory.  Yes, there was that incredible result in 2019 when Leicester won as a 100-1 shot, but this looks like three quality teams battering each other all the way to the finish. Manchester City, Arsenal, and Liverpool.  Like in the jousting tourney, if Lancelot, Tristram, and Gawain faced off in a three-way.   

City is the favorite, the world champion club team and defending champ as well, but they are not leading, and they have come up short on a couple of opportunities.  Liverpool is making a mad dash to win all the trophies before their beloved coach Jurgen Klopp moves on after this season.  And Arsenal's young, exciting team looks to exploit the opportunity to reach the top and save their coach's job. 

I see Liverpool having the opportunity to create some space in front of Manchester City by winning their game with them at home on March 10, then maintaining that lead to the end with a favorable schedule.  If they don't do that, perhaps Arsenal, which has the toughest schedule down the stretch and therefore would be least favored of the trio, will do Liverpool a favor on March 27 and make City lose points.  That's what Chelsea did in their games, twice. 

I can be fairly objective,  because my dog is not in this race, really.  Chelsea has suffered, mostly, since the Ukraine War took Russian oligarch owner Roman Abramovich away from his favorite toy. Since then, there has been comparable amounts of money spent under the new ownership, but without comparable success, and the fans are nervous at a second straight finish in the middle of the 20-team table, as they've come to expect a lot. Chelsea has played well at times, particularly against Manchester City, but has come up short against teams that in past years they would defeat.

There is a promising rebuilding effort under veteran coach Mauricio Pochettino around a variety of young players, but whether it will be given time to flourish is unclear, especially because there may be crippling penalties imposed soon for unwise spending in recent years. Bottom Line:  The F.A. Cup is the last chance before Chelsea does something silly like bringing Mourinho back, one last time, so they better win it!

In International soccer, Chelsea's not in it, and I haven't been watching yet.  I'm hoping to see a team other than Real Madrid in the final.  The big event internationally will be the competition in the Olympics in Paris in July.  I will comment more on the Olympics more generally as that event draws night. I am dearly anticipating the Olympics as a global break from political ugliness, which is what it was always meant to be. 

Tennis:  My interest in the tennis tours has a bimodal distribution (two humps).  The first was the opening of the new season and the emergence of the patterns of player performance that come in waves through the year, seen best through the Australian Open, nowadays a fair early test across the board.  The second is the summer, with the French, Wimbledon, and the US Open to climax the season. My takeaways from the early season are as follows:  1) The Aussie showed that  Novak Djokovic and Iga Swiatek's positions at the top of the rankings are not so secure.  2)   The herd is coming after them, a continuing flow of 18-21 year-olds on both tours armed with all-round games.  Jannik Sinner and Coco Gauff are examples, but not the only ones. 3) Titles, including Grand Slams, are going to be distributed more widely than the domination in recent years by the Big Three in men, or to the currently-reigning queen of the women's tour.  Bottom Line:  Carlos Alcaraz will need to win the US Open to take the top spot, but Djokovic will hold him off one more year.  Swiatek's consistency should keep her on top for the women though she can be outslugged. 

Football (the American kind):  I watched the Super Bowl fairly closely, though not the pregame or halftime shows. The 49ers brought a good game and had chances to win, so one has to credit the KC defense for holding them to field goals at two key moments late.  They gave Pat Mahomes the ball with a chance to win the game; it took overtime, but that is what happens. I think the Travis Kelce-Taylor Swift thing is good, clean fun.

Viewed from afar, the key game was the AFC Championship between Mahomes' Chiefs and the Baltimore Ravens, the top-seeded team in their conference.  I didn't watch it, though. 

I credit the NCAA football poobahs for recognizing the need to expand beyond four for their playoff next time around, as they evolve randomly toward intelligence.  Twelve teams is too many, though, unless they get rid of the odious conference championships, which will not happen.  The correct number is six, or seven, if you want to push it, as the NFL successfully did this year.

 If they had six this year, they wouldn't have had the scandalous results in which undefeated conference champion Florida State was denied a bid--apparently for the irrelevant reason that their quarterback would be injured.  Of course, the Seminoles promptly abandoned ship and were destroyed in their lesser bowl game against an angry, similarly-denied Ohio State.  Oh, some SEC team won again.    

 

*Speaking of talented stringbean rookies, Victor Wembanyama.  His team (the formerly powerful San Antonio Spurs) is going nowhere this season, but one must put him on one's radar for the future.

+ 6.  I easily could have fitted several others in without showing any bias whatsoever.

 

 

To Put it in Terms of D & D

 Donald Trump is Chaotic Evil.  Joe Biden is Lawful Good.  It's as simple as that, really, in our Presidential election this year.  Pick a side in the war.

But is that all there is?  No--there is a lot more involved.  Libertarians, for example, tend to be Chaotic Neutral.  Where do they go, especially those who really want to be more Good? Corporations, and most politicians, are either Lawful Neutral, or if they can be bought, Neutral Neutral.  Some are even Neutral Evil (e.g., Bernie Madoff).  

Nikki Haley's natural consistency is the Lawful Neutral, and her victory  loss in New Hampshire shows she has some appeal to them.  She has shown, however, that she has to preserve her claim to the affection of the Lawful Evil elements of her Party in order to have a chance to defeat the forces of Chaos. 

There's more, as we cover all permutations. Neutral Evil is barely if ever represented in public; it's like the Witch in Hansel and Gretel, or Donald Trump, if you mistakenly go into his dressing room--just don't go there.  Neutral Good may be the most numerous of all, in terms of the American electorate.  Not too interested in which team, not too much involved, but their intentions are benevolent in general. Biden, logically, should win the majority of these folks, and if he can get them to vote, he will win the election.

That's Fine, But What About Me?

There aren't many politicians, or even public figures, who are Chaotic Good, like the character I portray in politics.  Bernie Sanders and his 2016 Presidential campaign comes to mind, and I love him, but I was indulging the pragmatic, rather than maximalist, dimension of my activism too much at the time.  (He wasn't going to win, and his candidacy didn't help Hilary's in her mission to Stop Trump.) Besides, I had a job. 

My ideas at heart are about removing major facades of our political infrastructure for entirely new ones.  These could fairly be called radical, and I wear the label proudly if I am ever asked (which I am not--it's practically a slur, since 1980 anyway).  I could name a couple of musicians who exemplify the characteristics:  Bono, or maybe Bruce Springsteen.  John Lennon.  Among politicians, Jimmy Carter, though his devout Christianity is a little too conventional for me. Nelson Mandela, of course.

Now, is my philosophy rare?  Not at all, Haley, after all, correctly pointed out that the majority of Americans want an option other than Biden v. Trump.  That view is the diametric opposite of today's presumed general election, in other words a very Chaotic Good impulse.  That's the space she's trying to claim, and I respect that.  

As this episode plays out, I am looking for the secret that the Dungeon Master has hidden away.  The Vorpal Weapon that will finally penetrate the Bickhead's defenses (or Dickhead's befences), or alternatively, the Ring of Power that Trump covets.

 

The One and Only

 Spin Uncertainty Despite Certain Outcome

That's quantum mechanics for you.   Check for photo

The primary season will begin and end tomorrow.  The sudden irrelevance of that democratic--even overly democratic--institution came after a rising distrust of the whole partisan system.  R.I.P.?

It's a power game now, as the Trumpites have a real foothold in the government, despite the Democratic President. The stakes are huge:  China, Russia, and even North Korea and Iran are licking their chops at the end of American global leadership they have reason to anticipate. 

The crisis of immigration is just another case in which America--by which I mean, the Federal government of the US--shows the limits of its power.  It's a result of our lawless global political framework (using the term loosely) and the collapse of populous states.  There will be more of them.  

Within the government's limited realm, though, the executive power of the President has only risen since the days of Johnson, Nixon, and the like.  These Presidents may talk about the unlimited nature of Presidential power, but  not about themselves in that role.  Meanwhile, each has looked to expand powers. Congress' moves to limit Presidents fall short repeatedly.  We would be turning loose a monster. 

It's a shame that this New Hampshire Republican primary will be likely the only meaningful decision point before we effectively go into the general election. 

As least as far as the two major parties and the selection of the Presidential candidates.  A lot of interest will then go onto the possibility of third-party alternatives.  The only one that interests me is the one implied by Chris Christie's "failure" to endorse Nikki Haley*. I see him and Liz Cheney deciding to run and get on ballots, most importantly to get into debates (ones Trump would use that excuse to escape).  I'm not sure who gets "on top", though:  I'm thinking Liz, unless Chris goes for the Ozempic soon.  (I apologize for that one.)

RFKJR polling way better than he has any reason to do indicates the range of opportunity that lies out there. His numbers will surely go down, and I doubt he will end up qualifying for any debates, though a Libertarian endorsement could change that.  In the case of Cheney-Christie, though, a few percentage of Republicans, maybe a significant result in a couple of states, could mean the difference. 

Meanwhile, the Democrats

The Biden campaign has badly handled the question of the initial primary.  Now there will be undue attention to how an unauthorized write-in campaign does against a couple of throwaway candidates (Rep. Dean Phillip and the lovely Marianne Williamson).  And the fact that Independents are being furiously wooed (mostly by Democrats) to come out  to defeat the Party of Dickhead can only reduce Democratic turnout.  

The bottom line is that a candidate never wins by refusing to participate in the election. That is a general rule, for my money one that applies even in countries with elections that are truly fixed. And Trump above all knows that first you compete and then complain about the result being fixed. 

This does have a farcical recapitulation of 1968 feeling to me.  Incumbent LBJ withdrew after New Hampshire write-ins that year led Clean Gene McCarthy's quixotic antiwar campaign to finish behind incumbent President Lyndon Johnson by only a small margin.  The war situation is not the same, but there's simmering discontent in the Democratic tent, too.  Unimaginably, there is risk. 

The last third-party run to earn electoral votes electorally was in 1968, after a chaotic series of events.  The person gaining those states, which came short of throwing the election into the House but could well have done so, was George Wallace of Alabama.  (Ross Perot never won any, with a much higher percentage of votes.)  I could see Trump losing a Republican state like Utah, Montana or North Carolina due to a strong third-party run by an establishment Republican ticket running third-party, whether the electoral votes actually accrue to the Cheney-Christie team (Would they/could they then throw their votes to Biden?  Could be historic!) or, more likely, make possible a sneaky Biden win of a state or two not fully expected. 

Biden has made New Hampshire competitive, I daresay. The good news is that Trump's militant anti-Islamic bigotry is making that theoretical run to take Biden on in Michigan very unlikely for him.

*Nikki, nikki tekel upharsin - you have been measured, Nikki, and found wanting.

Nearly at the Precipice

(Not "At the Precipice of ...Anything.")

 

 

Entering 2024, it is clear that we are there, a massive rock formation of dizzying heights and great danger.  But is it below us, this precipitous drop, or is it above, the possibilities before us almost without limit if we can only....?

Here in the Roadrunner State, we can observe the birds scurrying around, trying to stay out of the heat and find safe pickings, while Wile E. Coyote lurks, threatening the worst. We are not at the cliff's edge yet; we know it's there, though.  

The bill being designed supposedly to feed the militaries of Ukraine, of Israel, of East Asia-not-China, has been stalled by the rising border crisis and policy dispute, inflamed by the wave of migrants currently coming in. This still-unnamed compromise bill is a contradiction within itself, Fortress America with regard to the rest of the world's pressure of migration, but paying out to involve ourselves further in foreign struggles and conflicts.  I hold little hope for its passage; meanwhile, what about the bills to fund the government, some of them expiring January 12? 

To take these cases one by one, briefly:  Ukraine must be reinforced and it will be, one way or another--remember Lend-Lease?  or buying on credit?  Aid to Israel has been delayed long enough and, when it comes, and it will, it should not contain lethal offensive weapons.  Call that an attached string if you want; they need to break off the Netanyahu endless offensive, him included.  "Don't change leader in the middle of a war?"  Ask #Neville Chamberlain~:  If the war is not working, change is indicated, and sooner is then better than later. 

Finally, East Asia-not-China:  The aid to Taiwan that must be given should not be a public matter.  Aid to the Philippines, absolutely.  Singapore, you know it.  Even Thailand, if it's not all poured down the maw of corruption. It goes without saying, direct support to Australia, Korea and Japan.  That is plenty.

So, President Biden declares an emergency and uses it to give Ukraine what it needs.  Trump did it to start exuding his Wall.  Sounds like it will be less-than-SOTA*, as our electronics seem behind Russia's hackers.

Election Cliff, Viewed from Afar

Again, because of our peculiar angles of the distant vista, it's hard to say whether it is a drop-off, or a mountain so tall its top is in the clouds.  Clearly there is a Valley that must be crossed--the dangers there are both known and unknown.  On the other side, it is clear the terrain is rugged, jagged rocks poking through the mist, but after that? 

One simple example for our current dilemma:  Is Nikki Haley a step up or a step down? In quality, we're talking about, for a potential Republican nominee.  No doubt she is less evil than Donald Trump; she doesn't present the threat of immediate authoritarian rule. We can probably survive a campaign of Nikki Haley vs. Anyone (probably not Biden, in that case) without going at each others' throats en masse. 

Now, though, that little bit of a chance, which required a) a surprise second place finish in Iowa; b) a narrow victory or loss vs. Trump in New Hampshire; and (most unlikely of them) c) defeating Trump in her home state of South Carolina, well, that chance seems gone forever.  

There is irony in her befuddled mind before answering that challenging question; she didn't just improvise a bunch of nonsense.  What went through her mind were the evasive answers she had given on the question in the past (of which the anonymous questioner was well aware) and how it had to be played for South Carolina.  Yes, still today, in the state of Tim Scott, South Carolina, where she will no doubt be smeared--after she fails to take second in Iowa or win New Hampshire.  Sorry, Nikki! I really wanted you to punch The Dickhead in his blowhole. .  

I'm pretty sure Donald will name his VP fairly early if things go well.  I'm expecting it to be Kristi Noem; he wants a pretty spokesperson while he deals with some of the consequences of his mischievous putsch. Nikki Haley should not be fooling anyone with her pretense of being a possible VP to Trump; she is not under consideration, and she especially would not be if she were successful in her primary challenges.  She would disavow the notion if it didn't potentially decrease her appeal for less-than-fully-committed Trump supporters. 

It's the Economy, And I Guess I'm Stupid

I certainly draw comfort from the confidence Wall Street is showing these days. Is it possible that they don't think that it will matter whether the Democrats or Republicans sweep the table of power in 2024?  I can't believe that, nor do I believe that they know, better than all others, who will win.  And please don't tell me they are comfortable with the chaos Trump's win would produce, or either that they know all will be fine, and he will be defeated through some means. 

Instead, we are seeing the shortest of short-term bets.  Next year will be good.   There will be time to withdraw risk assets before the SHTF.+

I am a stubbornly optimistic person by nature, and with regard to most specific issues.  I always believe there is a way--just ask me.   However, I don't feel so good, even about 2024's domestic economic success forecast.  It is true that we consumers spent like crazy this Christmas, so that would be a boost.  Also, the Fed is done raising, that is clear.  In driving terms, that means they released the pressure of their foot off the brake, which they had been applying steadily. The foot is still there, resting softly on top of the brake pedal, as the regenerative braking (we have the best, modern economists!) kicks in, providing natural slowing, storing energy for a revival, if needed.

My pessimism--or maybe I should just describe it as caution--derives from a weak global economy.  So far, our economy has done well despite the unusual outbreak of war involving European nations**, but there is vulnerability in supply chains which will be exploited at some point.  I see a spotty pattern of growth, with industries like cars, oil, and financials suffering, but some of the big infrastructure and military companies thriving.  The tech stock monsters which powered 2023's market recovery are just about overpriced, as eager competitors will seek to knock away market share, sacrificing profitability.

But What About That Upside? 

There is so much potential for us if we fail to screw it up.  World peace, an end to extreme poverty and inequality, enormous improvements in our quality and duration of life, exploration of the micro- and macro-universes in ways we can barely imagine.  Our pace of progress in human capability has been enormous over the last 300 years and seems in many ways only to be accelerating.

The conversion to renewable energy is moving apace.  I don't expect things like wind, hydrothermal, or the current generation of solar energy to be long-term solutions, but we won't have to go back to oil, even if its cost is reduced further through technological advancement.  Practical fusion is now less than 50 years away for the first time, and other opportunities will present themselves.  Energy is all around us to be harvested.

Somehow, we still seem to be able to produce enough food to feed 8 billion people, even if many live in food insecurity. This may turn out to be the Golden Age of Global Food, but developing more diverse and healthy sources of food locally will be more valuable to society, especially in dealing with the damage to ecosystems that will result from climate change continuing.  

In the long run, I believe there will be a significant change in our procreation and birthing.  It may become necessary, if bad chemicals in our environment endanger successful random mating of sperm and egg.  Then there is the trauma of birthing--there, I said it.  The rise of Caesarans , even if not needed for medical reasons, and the choice of so many young people to delay or forego having children, are clues that change is coming.  I'm not expert enough to predict its form, but it will be somewhere between today's forceps and Huxley's baby factories.  As for mating rituals, they are in constant evolution, but always tend toward the dysfunctional.  That actually might be something that will improve with AI's development.  

The big improvement that will be needed is more within our minds, though.  The animal brain portion we have is not designed to handle well modern stresses and frustrations.  I don't see those distractions decreasing, though; the difference must come from how we deal with them.  In this regard, the progressing legalization of cannabis (it's not just "weed", or "dope" anymore) is a positive sign of our developing capability to adapt our minds.  That underground smoldering burst into our society in the now-mythical Sixties, but it was too much, too soon.  That's not true anymore; many more of us now realize the needs most or all have to take actions specifically to curate their mental health, because we are feeling it ourselves--one perversely positive result of the Covid epidemic 

It starts this year, in 2024, with a definitive defeat of defeatism. Trumpism is a loser, that is clear. The challenge is to prove one's system and way of life better than the authoritarians'; going his way gives up the game. 

Footnotes

#UK PM, May, 1937-May, 1940.  I feel for his suffering descendants.  (Not Wilt? I hear he has many of them.)

*State of the Art.  Should be reduced to a FLA, if it isn't already.  (TLA's are so 2010's!)

+ Shit Hits The Fan.  Useful for any general global apocalypse, without hitting the censors, for now.

**Or extended Europe, if you will (in the FIFA view).

Election 2024: Final Preview

Congressional Elections -  Senate:  Those who foresee a difficult year for Democrats' chances to hold onto the majority in the Senate are correct. Not quite impossible but unlikely.  This is true in most Presidential political scenarios.   

As with the Presidential election, there are only a few states where the race should be close, and those are mostly Democratic-held.  West Virginia's seat was already lost before Joe Manchin decided not to run for re-election, and that brings the prospective count to 50-50, before considering the tough, but winnable re-election races.  The other shaky Democratic Senate vote, former Democrat Krysten Sinema's Arizona one, may end up being good news, as Sinema's running third in a three-way race, with Democratic Congressman Ruben Gallego now slightly favored to win it over Trumpist Kari Lake. .

Other holds may be more difficult.  Top of the list is Jon Tester in heavily Republican Montana, though he has successfully defended it in the past and will likely face an extremist. The same challenge, only in a larger, more expensive state, faces Sherrod Brown in Ohio, but he has the same strong record in statewide elections.  Tammy Baldwin has done well in the past in Wisconsin, but the state's electoral balance is narrow--she might be in danger if the Republicans nominate someone even a bit more moderate than their other senator, Ron Johnson.  Michigan's seat is now a toss-up since Debbie Stabenow decided not to run again, and it looks to be a battleground in the Presidential race, once again.  Jacky Rosen needs to defend her seat in Nevada, and that state's votes are always close. 

There are 10 or more seats on each side that seem very secure:  the likes of NY ,CA, WA, and the New England states for the Democrats; and several Midwest and South states for the Republicans.  There are several states in between--clear favorites but not slam-dunk landslides.  I'd include in that set PA, where Bob Casey should run well ahead of the Democratic Presidential nominee; a few Midwest states with strong Republican majorities but have challengers who could surprise (MO, NE, ND); Florida and Texas, which have controversial and unpopular Republican incumbents (Rick Scott and Ted Cruz) but definite Republican leans; and New Mexico and Maine, with reasonably strong Democratic tendencies and popular incumbents. 

I should mention New Jersey's Democratic Senator, Bob Menendez, who is facing a second criminal charge (along with his wife), one that looks devastatingly bad based on large chunks of presumed bribe money found in his house.  One more stress-inducer for Chris Van Hollen, the Democratic Senate campaign head.  He's certainly hoping Menendez will be successfully primaried, but it may not happen that way (dare I suggest Jersey folks have a high tolerance for corruption, especially for people of their party?), which would make the general election very risky.  If he's primaried out, it becomes a likely Democratic hold.

Incumbent Senators running for re-election do tend to win in most general elections, but Presidential landslides or very unpopular administrations can upset this.  We should not exclude that possibility, either that the Democrats hold on to their majority or even grow it if Trump fades, or that a big Republican night takes them to 53-55 seats from their current 49. 

Congressional Elections:  House - Despite the parties' efforts to make the House seats they hold as safe as possible, there are many unknowns about the House of Representatives and who may control it after 2024.   One manifestation of this is the great number of Representatives choosing not to run again, though that does not in itself indicate the winner, as they are numerous from both parties.  The majority of those seats thus opening up are deemed safe within party, but those are the type that could flip if the Presidential race tilts heavily to one side.

Meanwhile, there are a couple dozen that are held by Representatives from the party that was a minority in the last Presidential election (as projected with new Congressional boundaries).  This may prove to be an indicator of seats that will change hands; if so, this favors the Democrats to gain the (two? four? five?) seats they will need to gain on Election Day to gain control of the House. \

Redistricting--in this case, also known as gerrymandering--could play a role in how control of the House plays out, and at this point provides additional uncertainty.  The Supreme Court has given state legislatures somewhat of a free hand in rejiggering Congressional district boundaries for partisan advantage, and they are taking advantage of it, in North Carolina (to favor Republicans) and New York (to favor Democrats).  There are also a couple of states in the deep South where the courts have ruled that district boundaries must be changed to create one or two more majority-nonwhite districts.  The state legislatures are not aligned with that order, so far. As the deadlines approach, these issues will get resolved in the courts (basically, any change result will be challenged by the side perceiving disadvantage); some seats will change hands ultimately as a result, but again, that might net out to little to no advantage to either side vs. 2022. 

Congressional Control:   At this distance of 50,000 feet and 10+ months, the most likely outcome, barring the scenarios where Trump or Biden fades or drops out, is an unusual one, with control of both Houses changing, the Senate to Republicans and the House to Democrats.   

The former is a probability based on the numbers:  the Democrats have many seats at risk, and the Republicans few to none.  The Democrats will likely save many or most of them, but after losing Manchin's seat, they can afford no net loss.  

As for the House, I expect there will be strong turnout in 2024, which will tend to favor Democrats. I expect in particular a gain of five seats or so just from NY and CA.   That would be enough, but if the Democrats repeat the clear Presidential popular vote majority they had in 2020 (7 million votes), gerrymandering won't be enough to stop it, and the margin could be larger than the 222-213 result we saw in the last two Congressional elections.  

State Legislatures/Gubernatorial Races - I won't go too deep, but it's clear these electoral contests are only becoming more important in the general partisan context, particular as it relates to setting rules for Federal elections.  So more money than ever will be spent.  

A few general comments at this point:  Somewhat surprisingly, gubernatorial elections don't necessarily follow the pattern of Federal elections, especially not the Presidential outcomes.  There are plenty of blue state Republican governors, some red state Democratic ones, and swing state governors of both types.  And even independents can win statewide.  Gaps between contested governors' races vs. Presidential ones can be 10-15 percent. So those need to be viewed independently of the Presidential contest, the results of which are almost baked in for most states. 

There will be a serious effort by the Democratic party to try to take control of more state legislatures in 2024. The party's campaign committee created specifically to fund strategic races has low recognition and is chronically underfunded, but this year I think legislative races will get more assistance from above.  This will correct a glaring political strategic error the Democratic party has been committing since Obama's time. 

State races may produce an upstream effect on the Presidential race through special turnout efforts. Major voter registration efforts can make a difference.  Ballot measures are another difference-maker; Democrats will seek to have abortion and/or cannabis initiatives when possible, as those have tended to help them.  Mostly, though, these races turn on local issues like taxes, the local economic conditions and whether the government has been responsive to problems in that area, corruption and other scandals, health care and housing.

Updates/Corrections on the Previous Scenario-Based Posts - Three months have passed since the first one of those.  Apart from that, not so much changed, though I see a couple of things I must correct. 

Trump Collapse Scenario - Still looks quite possible to me.  The main thing we should look at is the "Standard Trump Trial Outcomes":  Trump's team has come up with a couple of delay tactics in the big trial, USA v. Dickhead (DC Court), and those ones may work, if the Supreme Court plays along.  The one about immunity is doomed to fail, while the 14th Amendment case occasioned by Colorado will also fail, but may take longer to decide, as the arguments are complex.  There is also a separate case being reviewed questioning whether the obstruction charge (used against very many Jan. 6 rioters) is valid to use in this case--seems also doubtful.  However, the March 4 trial date Jack Smith really wanted probably will end up back a month or two, but SCOTUS could potentially kill the whole deal. 

Also, I misread the 14th Amendment clause:  it doesn't say what is required to be applied to diqualify; the two-thirds Senate vote is actually what is required to remove the disqualification.  So what is required is very much under discussion, but I still see it only viable after conviction, though I would point out the language relates to serving in the office, not running for it!  So, it could be applied after the election, before the inauguration, if SCOTUS had the courage.  That would make Bush v. Gore a small-time decision.

Biden Weakened -  I would say the new charges against Hunter Biden hurt him but not his electoral chances.  The threat of impeachment doesn't do either; it does support the "do-nothing" argument against the House which Democrats will want to use, whether impeachment actually happens (still no effect; it would be laughed at in the Senate) or doesn't. 

The Crisis Scenario - In foreign affairs, a hell of a lot has happened in the last three months, between October 7 and Israel's response, trouble funding Ukraine's war with Russia, the border crisis driven by large crowds of migrants from all over, turmoil in control of the House and the new outrageous Christian nationalist Speaker holding the office second in succession, and so on.   I really don't see any of them having a significant effect on the Presidential or state races, except possibly some weakening for Democrats in Michigan.  In foreign policy, it would take an actual US war involvement, not a proxy one, and the Israel-Hamas War better be over well before November, or we won't be so friendly with Israel anymore.  Immigration will always be an issue, and it seems to work against Democrats at present, but claims our border has been massively overrun are made only by liars.

The real crisis is more likely to be internal.  It could still be stirred up in a serious way by extremists or foreign plants, too. One example: The 14th Amendment thing could cause major riots if Trump were successfully barred from the ballot in one or more states.

Trump Out - I foresaw the possibility of the Nikki Haley stock rising.  It looks likely to flower in New Hampshire, with a close outcome, but may wither in South Carolina and almost surely will do so on Super Tuesday.  So let's just hope for one of the other personal mishaps for him that I mentioned. 

Biden Out and Both Out (B&T) Out - Nothing has changed.  Biden made a comment which showed that the main reason he's in it is to stop Trump, so if for some reason Trump definitively leaves the race, Biden might do so, if it's feasible, and maybe if it's not.  

Status Quo Election--Part I, the Presidential Race - I don't see much of anything having changed, though that post is considerably more recent.  Polling continues to vibrate in a fairly narrow range nationwide, and there is little evidence either the public or the Biden campaign has engaged.  Subgroup tracking doesn't convince me of much of anything right now.  There is a lot of work to do, huge amounts of money will be spent to do it, and it will move few voters.  But maybe not so many need to be moved.  In this scenario Trump will provide rich and frequent evidence of his perfect lack of qualification, in a variety of venues, and most of it will not stick to him long.  

One correction:  New Hampshire does not have a Senate race in '24.  It will be close, regardless, but that might help the Republicans' chances to win that state slightly, as there will not be a Democratic Senator running for re-election down-ticket.   Again, though, that will only matter in an extremely close Electoral College outcome, essentially meaning a 50-50 split of the six larger swing states (PA, GA, AZ, NC, MI, and WI).

After the Bloodletting

I suspect Biden had a bold proposal to bring to the Middle East, but before he got there, the hospital explosion and the reaction to it  ruined all chances.  I can imagine what it was--something like a revitalized Palestine in the West Bank, with major humanitarian involvement on an international basis for Gaza.  As it was, he wasn't even able to meet with Palestine Authority head Mohammed Abbas.  It would have been great.  I'm sure that Israeli PM Netanyahu (I guess he still is--we'll see soon) made it clear to Biden that it's not time yet.   

It is not too soon, though, for a pause in the attacks for a release of hostages.   The airstrikes are for the targets they know about, and I imagine they will run out of those soon.  As for the ones they don't know about, they will need to occupy Gaza City and go house-to-house.   They will do so, even if the hostages are released.   I'd say a three-day pause would be enough. 

My thinking, when I heard of the hospital explosion and fire, was that, however the initial explosion came, there may have been something (weapons, explosives) underground that had triggered the huge fire that killed so many.   It would be just like Hamas to figure that under a hospital would be the very last place Israel would attack.  Maybe that's just rank speculation, and I don't encourage the thought, but I'm not convinced otherwise. 

Israel is right now not in a position to do anything more than apply its full effort to defeat of Hamas and release of hostages.  Netanyahu had a weak Cabinet before October 7, built around building more Israeli settlements in the West Bank and defeating the criminal case against Netanyahu.  That phase is over; the military technocrats who headed Israel's government before Netanyahu's latest capture of the Knesset have returned and are focused on that single priority.  Netanyahu very much deserves to lose his job, but he can stay for a long time unless his own party deserts him.  (Part of it has deserted in the past, but then Likud maintained its number of seats anyway.  Before October 7.)

We must prevent that the paranoid response takes over in the time after the Hamas War.  I think the security assistance Israel will need will be more of a direct defense and diplomatic support to Israel than through the nascent Israel-Saudi accord Biden was trying to facilitate. US support provides Israel the means to deal with Hamas, and with broken Gaza that they will be breaking once again. 

No doubt Israel knows what Gaza needs--pretty much everything, but with less crowding.  It would make sense to settle some peaceful Gazans in the West Bank alongside Palestinians living there already.  It is important not to create new refugee floods, as happened in Syria when we stayed out.  That's a point Egypt has been making quite clearly. 

Status Quo Ante '24: Part 1

Having reviewed in more depth all the alternative scenarios, we now come back to the one summarizing the current reality, the Null Scenario. Biden and Trump each running to the end of the line, gaining their nominations,  and on to the general election, with neither visibly yielding from roughly a half-share of the electorate in a primarily two-man race.  Trump goes through the brutal process described in the Standard Trump Trial Outcomes, but it's not enough to drive him from the race, or even noticeably change his support level.  So, there we are then--what happens? 

In this post we go over the BFD, the Presidential race; in a subsequent one, Congress and some state and local electoral battles. 

At the strategic level, a national election is about a single, dominant issue that drives the dialogue.  Normally, in a contest between an incumbent and a challenger, it's a barometer, a measure of the satisfaction level (or the pain level, if you prefer) with the performance of the incumbent's administration.  The Republicans would like it to be just that, and have confidence that the approval levels and "right track/wrong track" seen at present will continue to be unfavorable to Biden.  

There is one big difference, though--the challenger is a former President, with therefore a huge record of statements and actions that are not easily forgotten by the electorate. Biden's strategy is to make Trump that dominant issue, and he has the enthusiastic assist from the former President himself.  Repeatedly. 

To put his tone on an elevated level, at least here at the outset, Biden seeks to make the issue of the election the Defense of Democracy.  There are three reasons why that strategy will not take hold as much as it should: 

• One is that half of the people in the US don't even know or care what the nature of our (representative) democracy is; 
• The second is that, of those who do know, many recognize primarily a lack of democratic quality in many of  our processes to elect and govern; and
• The third is that many others of us who do know about our system are sworn opponents of Biden's continued administration (or, as they might put it, "Obama/Biden's continued administration"). 

 I think it's a worthwhile message for this early stage, but a bit confusing. 

I would think that ultimately, the Democratic theme will be something along the lines of  "Is That Really Who We Are?", referring to the man who would be the symbol of our nation to the world and of this era to history, if Donald Trump were, once again, re-elected President.  

As the fictional Cmdr. Scott said on Star Trek, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." The modern-day admonition to Americans might read: "Fool us once, January 6; fool us twice, WW3". 

About Presidential Debates

I considered leaving this section blank, to indicate my expectation that there will be no general election debates between Biden and Trump, but I suppose I should explain why I think that will be the case. 

Neither Biden or Trump will want a debate before a live, impartial audience.  Trump generally does not like to perform before any audience that isn't stuffed with his fans; Biden might be willing to show, despite appearing so old and all, but not with Trump.  He has no respect for him, and might be concerned he wouldn't be able to keep his temper, or his heartrate, under control.*

There would be strong pressure, then, for some kind of meeting of the two, possibly in studio, or before a handpicked, limited audience.  Maybe better with two adjacent soundproof booths, and studio mikes and earpieces.  Zoom would not be a good idea, frankly, but could be a last resort, if there were a way to do it without granting any advantages.  That would be the sticking point of any kind of debate negotiations, which are likely to happen unless both dismiss the idea from the start.  I think they would both like to taunt the other about it, though. 

If there were just one debate, or two, it would be so superficial, with all the Trump diversions and interruptions that he could manage. There might be some interesting variances in the views of foreign affairs that are interesting but not important in many voters' choices.  And that, and a lot of Trump's whining, would be that. 

Tactics and Forecasting 

Money--First, there will be a lot of it. The spending of one side will drive the spending of the other, both in quantity and directionally.  So, keep that in mind as you contribute (see below).  

There is also a lot at stake, though, and pockets are going to have to be deep.  The electronic deluge of election requests are expanding in depth, frequency, and displacement, even at this early stage. I have a couple of consumer-friendly suggestions for those receiving election advertisements below. 

The so-called Popular Vote--That is what would decide our Presidential election, if we really wanted to have our collective preference decide both our head of state and executive head of government (probably not an altogether good idea).   It's not happening anytime soon--maybe if Texas or Florida flips. 

We tend to think of the Democrats having a built-in edge in the raw national vote total, relative to Electoral College outcomes, due to the "excess votes" in states like New York and California. This perception is what prevents popular vote deciding our election.  It's not really true; if Democrats were to abandon, for example, all serious efforts in Florida (something defensible given the failure to provide credible statewide candidates),for example,  that might throw a million or two  "excess votes" to the Republicans.  Something like that happens in those two large Democratic states, as Republicans run but are not expected to win, and have been outgunned since 2000.  Trump's fortunate 2016 found the cracks in the Democratic Electoral College wall. 

Other Issues for the Campaign: The fact of the Republican House's complete inability to legislate is one that works for partisan Democrats, but it doesn't bother Republican voters much if they are seeking less Federal government.  At this point, Independents don't seem inclined to penalize one party more than the other for this ineffectiveness.  Abortion politics were big in 2022 and largely favored Democrats, but I don't see it working at an overall level; the follow-up condition of  reproductive healthcare by state is all over the place--so its effect will be varied.  Taxes, the deficit and debt level, and defending government benefits, will come up, but they aren't going to be important in moving independents within the current static legislative environment.  The economy could be, if inflation ignites again, or a deep recession develops, but that would be more the Biden Weakened scenario than this one.  

The Big Chunks, and Getting "Granular" 

The starting point to identify the winner in a closely-contested election, Trump vs. Adversary (as in 2016, 2020) is:  Who wins Pennsylvania?  If the Democrats can hold Pennsylvania, they have a clear advantage in the drive to reach 270.   If they can't win, that means that Biden's margins in the cities of Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, along with some edge in their suburbs, are not sufficient to overcome deficits in the rural and small towns in the rest of the state.  That would bode badly for the other swing states, each with its own mix of composite populations. 

Electorally, Pennsylvania is no picnic for the Democrats. It's very close, but more often the Democrats can win Pennsylvania in statewide elections, unlike, say neighboring Ohio, where the Republicans usually win, or New York, where the Democrats always do: Those states are also mixed, like PA, but not so balanced at that broad level.  Pennsylvania will have the re-election of popular Senator Bob Casey in 2024, the state government is headed by a popular governor, Josh Shapiro, and there will be other battles driving turnout there.  Biden has always claimed Pennsylvania roots, from one of those smaller cities (Scranton) that are themselves swing areas within the critical swing state. 

Pennsylvania is so important because it is the largest of the swing states, with 19 Electoral Votes.  Without it, Trump practically has to run the tossup states; with it, he only needs to split them with Biden to get into a photo-finish.  Current polling in PA (from Quinnipiac University's poll) confirms that, this far out, Biden and Trump are in a dead heat, well within the margin of error.  Self-declared independents prefer Trump by almost 10 points, and they are focused on the economy. 

The next most critical states are a threesome, all with long-term demographic trends favoring Democrats.  They are at different stages in their gradual shift over the fulcrum toward the left.  Arizona and Georgia have moved in parallel in Federal elections to elect Democratic Senators and narrowly vote Democratic in the Presidential as well (with contrary state government results), while North Carolina has remained just out of reach (except in 2008), though the state government elections show Democrats can win there. 

Democrats' Electoral College majorities before Arizona and Georgia became winnable depended on consistently winning the North Central states of Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin, generally by very narrow, vulnerable margins.  Michigan and Wisconsin tipped over to the Republicans in 2016; they have tipped back since, margins in the urban and suburban areas overcoming furious right-wing resistance from the states' rural areas.  Michigan should lean Democratic if the economy holds, but Wisconsin's furious struggle for partisan dominance is continuing on a number of fronts, both legal and extralegal.  Minnesota was very close in 2016, but recent elections indicate it now has a decent-sized  Democratic lean. 

The other tossup entities are not decisive in themselves but could make a difference in an extremely close outcome.  Nevada (6 Electoral Votes) is always close but has broken to the Democrats in Presidential elections; it will be a focus also due to an expected close Senate race.  Of New Hampshire (4 EV) we can say the same.  Then there are the two individual EV in Maine and Nebraska that tend to go against the statewide result, and their states uniquely allow Congressional district-level votes.  (I wanted to get New Mexico some attention through legislation following this approach, though I'm not getting any traction.) 

Getting to 270

The 2024 election will be the first with revised Electoral College numbers after the 2020 Census, changing the calculations slightly in the Republicans' direction.  Biden wins if he can get 270 or more Electoral Votes; if not, he will lose--Trump wins in the House of Representatives if no one gets to 270.  That would presumably be  due to some third-party Electoral Votes, something that hasn't happened since 1968.  Democrats start with a good lead among states considered "Safe" due to predictably large margins in the large states of California, New York, and Illinois, while the Safe states for Republican are smaller ones; they do close the gap, though, when one adds to their number their "Likely" big states--Ohio, Florida, and Texas. 

In a closely-contested Biden vs. Trump contest, I would give a slight edge to the Democrats in Pennsylvania and New Hampshire.  This would give Democrats an edge of 259-218 (review that map here), with the following ones seemingly Toss-ups at this distance:  Georgia, Arizona, North Carolina, Wisconsin, Nevada, and the two single EV of Maine and Nebraska.  In that situation, any one of the first three states I named would get the Democrats over the line, while winning just Wisconsin of those would leave them one tantalizing vote short (holding the Maine seat, winning the Nebraska one, or Nevada would then be enough). 

To summarize, Democrats have a narrow advantage, even in a close race.  As long as they win Pennsylvania. 

Consumer-Friendly Advice on Political Contributions

The 2024 election is guaranteed to be the most expensive in history; billions of dollars will be expended to try to move small numbers of people to vote, and to vote in the direction sought by the spenders.  Engaged citizens would seek to add their monetary contributions to provide more leverage to outcomes than just voting locally, but we should recognize that ours will pale in comparison to the huge sums being laid down in unlimited Political Action Committees, unless our efforts are strategically or tactically accurate. Here are a few thoughts: 

• There are only a couple dozen House seats constructed to be competitive, out of 435; the other 400+ were constructed to be anti-competitive.  Give no more than a token contribution to your local Representative, or to its challenger, if you prefer, unless yours is one of that handful. 
• The same is true of the Senate races, except for a few--we will identify both groups in a susbsequent post. 
• When they say your contribution will be matched, triple-matched, or 9-to-1 matched (I saw that on a Trump email), it's tempting to think that its effect will be magnified.  It's the opposite:  the matching money is already pledged. 
• Late-campaign contributions will be burnt on TV ads.  In this early stage, one would hope that money will go toward building an effective campaign organization at the grassroots level. Watch out, though, for appeals from campaigns that face hopeless odds, or to defeat primary opponents. 
• Finally, every mid-month or end-month there will be the appeals to meet certain targets by the campaigns' deadlines, especially the official ones for reporting contributions.  Ignore all these; campaigns' bragging about the level of donations will only stimulate their opponents to do more.  If anything, the emails after the deadlines revealing the shortfalls (there's a lot of those, too) might be more appropriate targets for consideration.  

Both Out (B. & T.)

The American people have indicated clearly, albeit only through polling, that a majority would prefer to see the leading candidate of each major party out of the race. That would open up the 2024 contest to a new generation of leaders and possibly some new ways of thinking, which is admittedly quite attractive. The question is how that could ever come about. 

Almost certainly it would have to start with former President Trump leaving the race, though that could be for a variety of reasons.  In the other direction, I don't think President Biden dropping out would be any kind of impediment to Trump's running or a reason to quit--he has a desire to get even that won't be satisfied in any way other than using the Federal government to get his revenge, and the targets of his vengeance are so many that removing one from his hit list would not change that. 

The key thing would be to get Trump out of the way soon.  Then Biden would have some opportunity to reflect and think that signal idea of the moment, "Why not someone else?" Once he announced his withdrawal under those circumstances, events would take their own chaotic course. If things happen so quickly that Biden could withdraw before the primaries, or if he announced his intention to complete his term and then step aside, a nominee could be determined by the convention delegates chosen, even if after the primaries.   

Biden could cite health reasons, and no one would really argue the point.  He could say he needed to help his son Hunter with his escalating legal problems, though I don't think he would. He could say he's fed up with Washington, dealing with Republican dinosaurs, even trying to please an ungrateful public, and again all those are plausible, but not his style. His would be more to say that he is relieved and ready to retire. 

I do think he would want to get out if the menace of Trump's return is lifted from us, but it would have to be in a form that is definitive, with regard to the 2024 election.  As I said in a previous post, there are many ways that can be accomplished.  

How to get him out, though?  I do believe the compounding effect of all these indictments and trials (and, presumably, some eventual convictions) will make him next to unelectable in November, 2024. ("next to" being the key words, when the Electoral College is involved) The key to turning things around is for Republicans to see this, just in time.  Nikki Haley has a chance to brand him as a loser we don't want around anymore; if she fails to do this, she deserves the suffering we will all experience. 

Another possibility is that he fatally shows weakness. I'm thinking physical weakness, but it could also be brazen cowardice.  Macho men all across the nation of all ethnicities see him as a kindred spirit, fallible but "strong".  Something like the visual equivalent of "pudding fingers" for Ron DeSantis could reveal the insecure weakling he is inside for all to see. 

Or he could just die. As discussed, sooner better than later. 

A 2024 Presidential Election without the Two Headliners

It would certainly be interesting.  The 2020 election focused on the binary choice in a narrow Presidential race, and we will discuss that scenario repeating itself in our next posts.  Without those two running, I would expect both that turnout would decrease and that third- and fourth-party percentages would rise (thinking RFKJR as Libertarian and Cornel Wes for the rejuvenated Greens).  

The Republicans would have more of a crisis, I think: post-Trumpism could take various forms.  Besides Haley and Ron DeSantis, there might be significant new contenders entering the race late.  I'm thinking specifically of Virginia's Governor Glenn Youngkin, who will be termed out in 2025, but I wouldn't be surprised to see some reptiles from Congress (there are none in the race now!), such as Ted Cruz (to raise his profile before having to defend his Senate seat when he finds out how few Republicans like him) or Josh Hawley.  Depending on the state and the timing of Trump's descent (a hole in the floor taking the place of the escalator), such new entrants might be too late for some primaries, but in a dynamic environment such as would develop in '24 under these circumstances, a late move could be decisive--for example, if there are a lot of delegates committed to a no-longer-active Trump candidacy who would then be up for grabs.  

As for the Democrats, if Biden dropped out the party might move quickly behind Kamala Harris, particularly if time were short (or the convention already past).  If there were time to mobilize a candidacy, though, she would be challenged--probably from the moderate wing, and one would expect that Gavin Newsom's loyalty to the Biden-Harris ticket (very laudable!) would end abruptly.  I don't see Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries throwing his hat in, as he is looking forward to a likely Speakership in the next Congress, or the one after.  As I suggested before, it might be the time that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez goes national for the first time, but only if she's confident that it would not be the last, regardless of outcome.   And why not, given the example of Joe Biden?  

The favorite in a general election under these circumstances would be the one whose nomination came about with the least internal damage to the party--the least chaotic, the least cantankerous.  There is big money waiting for the nominees, and they will fight hard to get at it.  The Democrats are historically more known for fighting with each other, but lately it has been quite different with the Republican party.  Once Trump is out of the way, though, you have to think they will come to a new, more authoritarian consensus (we don't call it "populist"), but one with some respect for laws now.  Maybe not recovering that famous certitude and consistency in talking points as quickly as November, 2024, though.  As for Congress, the starting point would still be the struggle to hold the Senate for the Democrats and the similar struggle of the Republicans to hold the House, dictated by the numbers.  This could change, however, if a landslide develops due to one party's mismanagement of this opportunity/crisis. 

I saw a panel discussing the Republican race yesterday:  the respected Republican pollster Kristen Soltis Anderson suggested the chances Trump could be defeated were 1 in 10.  I'd buy that estimate and add 5% that Trump involuntarily leaves.   Out of that 15%, I'd say at least half of the probability would then have Biden finding a reason to step aside.  

So this is a low-probability scenario, but undoubtedly the most fun.   Maybe the best, all-around for the US. 

Biden Out

 I will grant that President Biden does not seem to be running a strong re-election campaign at this "late" date a mere 13 1/2 months before the election.  There's plenty of time, really. 

There may be a question of whether Biden has plenty of time, though, if one is speaking of 5+ more years in the most difficult job in the world at age whatever.  It's a legitimate question, though the answer to that is clearly not to elect an unhealthy guy 3 years younger with illegitimate motives and behavior, so I don't see it resonating in the standard B v. T scenarios.  Biden has some difficulty with public speech, which I can confirm was present 50 years ago, but those who listen know that he can think and communicate clearly.  He walks like an 80-year-old in good health, nothing unusual these days.  

The noise from Democrats about his voluntarily withdrawing from the political battlefield, while Trump is still on it, is just that.  It's not their decision; someone would have to convince Biden that they would be better at defeating The Former Guy.  To put it on the other foot, like, if Nikki Haley showed Trump data that meant she would have a better chance than he to defeat Biden, then Trump would withdraw.  Right. /s

So, I'm really just talking about the various ways Biden would involuntarily leave the race.  

One that we cannot simply ignore is the possibility of a scandal affecting Joe Biden. Personally,  not his family members.  Biden is certainly a wealthy man, but he should be after 40-some years of public service at the highest levels and a restrained lifestyle.  (If you don't pay honest public servants adequately, you should expect corruption.)  There is the possibility of Biden choosing not to run for re-election and citing Hunter Biden's looming conviction(s) and possible jail time;  my response would be that there would have been some other reason even in that case.  I do not think it would be determinant of his decision, as he says it was with his other son Beau's cancer illness in relation to choosing not to run for President in 2016 as the sitting VP to Obama.*

So, we are really down to the sickness, death, and 25th Amendment part of the discussion. It's something real enough, but it is also a quantifiable, manageable risk.  It's really only a risk for the campaign and the election, as the Constitution is now very clear about succession.  But what happens, and when in the campaign it could happen, are critical to consider:  who here remembers Sen. Eagleton as VP candidate for George McGovern in 1972  until he dropped out, after the convention?  It was a political mess and hampered that quixotic campaign, but it is something that Biden can avoid. ++ 

Here is how I would approach it, if I were in the position that Joe Biden finds himself in:  He should make out a Political Will.  He should then give it privately to three largely disinterested senior officials--I would recommend Congressional Leaders Schumer and Jeffries, and former Speaker Nancy Pelosi.  In it, he should indicate what his preferred successor ticket would be should something happen to him.  It could be Kamala Harris and Pete Buttigieg, Kamala and throw it open for VP, just throw it open with some process indicated, whatever he wants.  Though it could be updated, the Will would remain secret, unless or until Biden was no longer able to serve.  Then it should become public.  In the meantime, those three would remain silent on the party leadership succession question but supporting Biden at all times, just as they do today. 

 Seems suspicious?  /s

The thing is, Biden is the elected representative of the people of the US until he's not.  Anyone who challenges that, under the circumstances, is basically an enabler of seditious conspiracy. So there's a pretty clear line.  Even most Republican office-holders will agree to that by now. 25th Amendment challenges to his authority are going to remain off-limits until there's extreme visible evidence. So, his point of view should matter; he's shown decent judgement, having been a better President than most (see below). 

If Biden were out, though, with Trump in the race, there would be madness without that Will. 

In the case after the nomination (assuming the Biden-Harris ticket is confirmed in the primary), Kamala would have to take the reins, though she would very likely be challenged.  In any case, she would have to announce, forthwith, her VP choice, and there would have to be some ratification process.  She would have no more than a matter of days.  Then, the campaign would have to advise each state how to modify the ticket on the ballot, if indeed they can change it.  Timing would be mission-critical, especially if the ensuing race is close. 

The case of his dropping out before the nomination is the one Democrats and Republican alike drool about, though I see the chances from now until then, considering all possibilities, to be less than 3%. Some kind of late train wreck, a 1968 scenario, as in RFK getting assassinated in California in June, just after the primary that was going to put him ahead.  Again:  The Will is the way to avoid that.  (Someone please tell them. :)

I saw a puff piece (no credits) with five pictures for that scenario:  Harris, CA Gov. Gavin Newsom, MI Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, Transportation Secretary Buttigieg, and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.  I think all those choices are accurate, even Ocasio-Cortez, who would have no chance to win, except in something like a five-sided race, but might well be the Bernie wing's choice.  But that's before the primaries, so even less likely.  It is however likely that the Democratic race could start shaping up that way, even soon after the 2024 election, as an initial framing of something that will go on for years.  Biden may leave the White House sooner, or later, but it's certain that, as a duck, he will be lame by late 2025.  Not the right kind of duck, for the world. 

Would Trump walk all over the replacement nominee, no matter whom?  I say no, not any of them.+++  These are smart people, capable, calm, rational, and they have plenty of warning, so they will be careful around him.  He's still not likely to win, though a third-party could easily come into play here and disrupt the scenario, especially if the Democratic replacement process is just a disaster. 

 The Will, again.  Maybe they have one--we wouldn't know, would we?

 

Biden as President, in 300 Words or Less

In his first 30 months as President, Biden has governed, or tried to govern, in line with his supporters in the 2020 election, a Democratic voting base that's somewhat left of center. Faced with the narrowest of Congressional margins, he accomplished legislation to move us in directions needed for our future (for infrastructure and renewable fuels).  As a longtime insider, he was able to get done more with such a fragmented legislature than Obama.  Still, he hasn't gotten either the current or previous Congress to move on immigration, or to do enough to secure Federal elections. 

In many public addresses and executive actions, Biden tried to protect us from the damage his opponents would cause us, often designed to handicap or cripple the capabilities of his administration.  (I'm thinking of the Supreme Court, Republican Congress, a former President.)

 He has performed well on foreign policy, a strong point, doing his best to re-establish ties with allies skeptical after Trump. The contrast in behavior with Trump is stark: Biden has acted with solemnity when he needed, silence when needed, and he stood up to Putin in a way that mattered. 

With regard to China, he has lowered the temperature despite many challenges; with Russia, he ended Trump’s appeasement when it became necessary with the Ukraine invasion; with India and some other Asian nations more than willing to let us stand with them, he has located and brought them in.

On the military side, he didn't get good execution when he decided to go forward with Trump's deal with the Taliban.**  After that, no major direct US military engagements.  We seem appropriately ready, involved, but at peace.  Even that is criticized. 

As for economics, while Presidents can’t do so much, Biden, like Obama, inherited a sick economy and got it back on its feet.

Yeah, gas prices suck--too bad. 

 (That last sentence not being part of the 300)

Footnotes

*Utah Senator Mitt Romney and Biden would have faced off in a better 2016 election, but Romney had expended his political capital fruitlessly challenging the incumbent President Obama, while Biden opted out, leaving the door open for Hillary Clinton.  Romney would have provided a much better opponent to Trump in the Republican primaries than John Kasich and Ted Cruz did.  Alas!

**If Trump were really such a good deal-maker, he would have traded better with the Talib:  Make Bagram Air Force Base US territory (like Guantanamo, really) and you get the rest of the country for your sick policies.  That would have provided a real deterrent and made for a better withdrawal. 

++  The reference I suggest is Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail, 1972, by Hunter S. Thompson.  If you haven't read it, it's a good ride. 

+++OK, maybe AOC, who would probably scream at him, he's so awful. That would hurt her, not him, as the standards are different for Democrats and their supporters.  As I see on comment threads, IOKIYAR.  (It's OK if You Are Republican.)