Preview of the 2020 Democratic Caravan

 It has been more than a week since Election Day, so here's a line-by-line review of the most likely Democratic candidates, as ranked--reverse order of top 15-- by a Post staffer last weekend, with a little additional detail and my preliminary opinion.  I don't endorse the WP ranking, but it does have semblance of reality.

15.Delaney (John; Rep. MD) --Of all the the thousands of emails I received asking for money in
the midterm campaign (yes, one of those; I had plenty of Republican and Gun Nut ones writing me, too)
Delaneys' were the best among those who are running for President, full of carefully considered positiions.
More successful candidates will crib heavily from them. *

14.Avenatti (Michael, no known affiliations or honors) - I will say this about him: he can take things to
lows that Trump has not yet achieved (no, I don't want to give him more time)

13.Deval Patrick -- (ex-Gov. MA) I don't think he'll run. If he does, it may put Obama in a difficult position
whether to get behind him and get that out of the way, or wait and see if he gets traction..
That's why I think Obama will advise him not to run

12. HRC (2016 nominee) --neither the most likely to declare, nor most wealthy, nor best
choice among NY millionaires.

11.Klobuchar (Sen. MN) (dark horse if we want non-confrontational, serious)--She will be game.
Will voters respond? It will be a test of the "looks don't matter that much for women" political hypothesis.
Personally, I find that theory dubious, as they certainly matter for men candidates. Another theory is that
a non-confrontational, serious approach could be the best opponent for Trump. Maybe, but I'm
afraid it could be the perfect foil, something completely different.

10.Terry McAuliffe --former VA Gov. and DNC Chair. Could become a favorite of the Clintonesque
moderates, which would mean enough money to compete. Probably can't break the eggshells
around him.

9. Mike Bloomberg (one of the finalists, if he runs this time). I can live with him as the
nominee (and thus, implicitly, our next President), despite the bad optics. He was the best
NYC mayor since before John Lindsay. Maybe he and Drumpf can agree at a max spending number--
$5 billion per?

8. Beto   (no Gillum, Abrams) all, nothing, in between, or doesn't run are each about 25%.
I prefer candidates that win.

7. Sherrod Brown - I want to see what others see; I see the 2020 winner if we admit the possibility..

6. Kirsten - She will be a finalist in future elections. Probably not this time, as I see her as
being far less well-known than Kamala or Elizabeth Warren and not having much time to change it.

5. Corybooker - He may be a finalist in future elections--he has a good record but his brand
has suffered. Kamala Harris puts him in the shade, charisma-wise. (no pun or ill intent)

4.Biden - Not again? I was a big fan in the mid '70's. Honestly, I was. He has frequently disappointed.
Yes, he would make up for all that disappointment if he gave Trump a good thorough beating (as he
has sort-of threatened to do)--and I mean in the election, damnit!

3. Kamala - Right now, the betting favorite at predictit (though Bloomberg, Sherrod, Beto,
Hillary are not in the pool right now). I don't particularly see it; the goal is to win the election.
I can hear Trump now saying "Camel-la!"--like he said "'Gina!" (like "angina") Does that matter?
It shouldn't, but it does. . I will say that winning SC would put her into the finalists, though.

2.  Bernie - A finalist if he runs, but I think he won't.

1. Warren--Not the showdown I am looking for, Dickhead vs. Pocahontas. Although she has the
intellectual chops to destroy him, I think the reality would play out
stupid and sleazy--like Clinton vs. Trump was.

Honorable mentions: 1) Steve Bullock, 2) Jason Kander, 3) Pete Buttigieg,
4) Eric Garcetti, 5) Julián Castro, 6) Tim Ryan, 7) Tom Steyer, 8) John Hickenlooper,
9) Jeff Merkley, 10) Seth Moulton, 11) Martin O’Malley, 12) Eric Swalwell,
13) Jay Inslee, 14) Howard Schultz

These are all guys (I see no women in that list!) who The Post thinks is at least a possible candidate.  Quick hits:  1) MT - Gov., that counts for me; 2) see Beto; 3) the South Bend, IN mayor--many are impressed, perhaps too easily; 4) Mayor of Los Angeles--deserves some attention?  5) Julian Castro--I think he may be running for consideration as VP--I prefer Carmen Yulin Ruiz, the mayor of San Juan,  Puerto Rico. 6) anti-Pelosi Dem. Congressman from Ohio--I give him credit for courage, if not coherence; 7) Big-time billionaire financier of Dems. who wanted Trump impeached in 2018! Crazy.
9) Solid lefty Senator from Oregon, if that's what we think the winning ticket would be; 10)  (MA Rep.) see Tim Ryan; 11) Remember him?  I do. Moving on...12) Do not know who he may be; 13) Gov. WA--see Jeff Merkley; 14) Starbucks CEO If Bloomberg doesn't run, he might have a chance to break through.


Since the Post published this list, Richard Ojeda (WV State Senator, loser in 2018 Congressional race) has announced he plans to run.  I say, let him run as a Republican (he voted for Trump in 2016); somebody needs to do it.   I've seen the interviews and he is a potent distraction; a Trump spin-off
who makes a good impression.

*(In other categories, I would cite Carolyn Boudreaux--in a race still undeclared race, but probably
a loser--and Alan Graham's (just for their humor; and his pungent contextual commentary). Graham
lost big in a Democratic Congressional primary and--depending on his campaign fund's balance--

probably done for good.
What happens to that money, anyway? I heard Donald Trump has $100MM;
I would be glad to call it a day and he can keep it, as long as he promises never to run again.

Fall Forward, Spring Back (Pt. 2)

The number one question which will be answered by the midterms is our political system's 2018 response to its catastrophic fall forward on its face in 2016.  Will it be to lie prostrate and pathetic, or to spring back ? There is a third option,  for it to rise groggily to its feet and ready itself for the real conflict which lies ahead.

Not for nothing, I have decided to spend the one hour given back by this day--and what an exceptionally lovely fall day it was here today--and post some of my current thoughts within a strict, one-hour limit. I am five minutes into it now as I write. Of course, this has nothing to do with the time zone change here, for which the mnemonic is the inverse. 

My predictions for the election, defined as of the first day of the new Congress' session:
 229 for Dems in the House  (vs. 205), and
 48 Dem. senators (including Independents).

With senators, the prediction comes from looking at the individual races and how they are likely to turn out.  Right now, there is one very likely D-to-R (Heitkamp in ND) and five that are basically toss-ups  (AZ and NV that the Republicans are defending, and IN, MO, and FL that the Democrats are defending).  Viewed as a product of the function of the number of seats changing party hands, 1, 3, and 5 are very likely results for that; each of those is most likely to result in the Republican Senator number being 52.  Considering only those, if the Democrats lose ND they cannot win the Senate, looking only at those states.

The main wild card is if the Democrats can win one of North Dakota (Heitkamp defending), Tennessee (open seat with Corker's retirement) or Texas (the Beto O'Rourke phenomenon).  Any of those outcomes is a game-changer and suddenly makes the Senate contest both relevant and a top story.  There are going to be a whole lot of states we can expect the Democats to win and hold their Senate seats, in spite of 2016 Trump wins (OH, PA, MI, WI, MT, WV, and the special case of Bob Menendez defending in the Clinton state of NJ ).  These will not be news--though Ohio should be--unless the Democrat is defeated.

Otherwise, the top story will be the governors' races.  Leading the coverage will be those of Florida and Georgia, where history can be made in 2018.  First African-American governor(s) in the Deep South (i.e., excluding Virginia) since Reconstruction?   Gillum seems very likely in FL, while Stacey Abrams' bid to become Governor of Georgia (!!) is highly plausible but very possibly will be wrecked on the (il)logic of the state's political system.  It looks to me as though she may have a plurality on Tuesday, but having less than 50% of the votes it would go to a runoff, which may be harder for her to win.  (It may take quite a while to determine if that's so; if there needs to be a runoff)

There are a whole lot of other close governors' races through the night, allowing national coverage to fill with plenty of content.  Iowa is a particularly important one; so is Kansas, where a total Trumpite voter suppression creep (Kris Kobach) has the opportunity to continue a Kansan tradition of failed Republican governors.  New Mexico should return a Democrat to office; real control of the state government remains just beyond reach, but the win takes out of the statewide picture a prominent right-wing elected official (Steve Pearce, no relation to the World Series MVP).

The Upper Midwest will be a good story for the Democrats.  Illinois, Michigan, Pennsyvania will all go Democratic or remain comfortably Democratic.  Wisconsin has an exciting race to see if Scott Walker can be displaced.  Ohio is a nail-biter, and a win for Richard Cordray would have implications for the 2020 voter issues in that critical state.

My House estimate is based on one statistic:  the average, between realclearpolitics' number and fivethirtyeight's one, for the difference between parties in the generic Congressional preference poll.  Those are themselves averages of various poll results, weighted according to their judgment.

From the results of studies, there is a definite mathematical relationship between that gap and the expected pick-up of Congressional seats for the Democrats.  Five38 has a 5.8% gap being the estimate of what is required for the Dems to have 218 seats (pickup of 23), while a 12% gap is estimated for the Democrats to reach 250 (pickup of 55).  The relationship is largely linear, but with non-linearities at the top and bottom of the distribution, and around the 8-10% range, this last one when the numerical net advantages the Republicans achieved through redistricting fall apart and accelerate the increase.  My fit of that, and the data showing about 7.8% average, gives me an estimate of a 34-seat pickup for the Democrats, to 229.

Enough about that.  I am moved to write by the beauty of the fall day here.  It is to protect the quality of life, for my kids, theirs, my neighbors kids, etc.  The sense of the meaning of quality of life that these kinds of days bring allows me to make my choices.

Start Thinking About Tomorrow--It'll Soon Be Here:  I can not choose between electoral reforms and climate change defenses that I should make as my top issue for 2020  (and polls have asked me that question, though about the 2018 elections, several times; I switch between the two, and typically I'd have to write-in either one, as they don't include those among the suggested answers.  If they don't let me write in, I put "Education".)

Next I would put, but don't even mention it, "it's not a priority" in choosing a President, foreign policy: Withdrawing for the Paris Climate Change accords is one of the great scars on the record of the Trump Administration, an unthinkable act of stubborn ignorance which brings shame upon the country.  I give Trump credit for avoiding getting us in a stupid war--so far, but no credit at all for unilaterally withdrawing from the Iran Nuclear accord and sabotaging his European trading partners.  When Mattis leaves, and Kelly, and it is just Stephen Miller and John Bolton, I fear the worst.

It's not on the horizon in the pre-race discussion but watch out, as it could easily overshadow any other issue (and could save Trump's bippy if the economy stalls).

For the Democratic platform, I recommend a plank for Electoral College representation for Puerto Rico.  A constitutional amendment if that's what it takes.  DC Statehood, also (a plank); whether legislatively or the same amendment.  It should help focus Republican attention on the fact that they are going to lose Florida real quick, and Texas maybe, also, in the next few years.  You take away those two states' votes and the Republicans will no longer look on the Electoral College as their friend.  If you make Puerto Rico and D.C. more viable, in several ways, this being one of them, you strengthen the nation.

In terms of tactics for all these, these should be bipartisan in scope and an attempt made to negotiate with the Republicans and Trump.  In return, they can agree to whatever middle-class tax cut the 3-D President would sign, an infrastructure agreement, and a gradual change in some of the legal immigration trajectories, bringing some sense and thought into that effort.



I saw the bold CBS 60 Minutes' piece on the AR-15, the weapon of choice for mass killers throughout the country.  That's #3 for me:  If you can't advocate changes to help our environment,  support some meaningful changes to the electoral system, or propose something positive on reducing gun violence (even through mental illness treatment), I got no use for you, and I don't care what party you're in, or how you feel about "welfare" or "entitlement programs" or even women's liberation or affirmative action.   Those things come later, after you've passed the initial intelligence test.


P.S. 3-D President was originatlly (Dumb Duck Dubya).  The King Duck title has now been passed on  (around Obama) to Trump, making him Dickhead Duck Drumpf.