Following on my recent endorsement, i'm just trying to help my candidate by offering these suggestions.
( If you're pressed for time and want to skip ahead to the advice itself, it's in Bold, large type, at the bottom.)
The upcoming debate Tuesday is Sen. Warren's last, best chance to give herself a decent outcome on Super Tuesday. She has suffered through a long period when she was either scorned or ignored; she was a good trendy pick for imminent demise for quite a while.
That turned around at the last debate, in Las Vegas last Wednesday. The occasion was the entry onto the debate stage (far right, from the view of the stage) of Mike Bloomberg. Warren shed her appeal for unity, just for the night, and attacked him viciously, and successfully, on a variety of topics. She was even ready with attacks for the lesser healthcare plans put forward by Buttigieg and Klobuchar, revenge for the attacks she suffered, back when hers was tied too close to Bernie's Medicare for All.
As has been the case throughout this ridiculously long pre-campaign, the attacker derives an immediate benefit; I would say that has been true even when the actual attacks were not thrust as effectively as Warren's were. It's a one-time lift, and it mostly has led toward mutual destruction in the long term. There was no mistaking the intention; she wanted to take Bloomberg out of the consideration set for as many as possible. Finally, a share of popular support she could win back!
She finally got some consideration in the post-debate discussion of winners and losers, and it was mostly positive. (A notable exception was the Queen of Snark herself, Maureen Dowd; as a connoisseuse of the genre, she was Not Impressed) The evidence of a lift, though, has been hard to detect. The timing of the last debate in the run-up to the Nevada caucuses was such that the majority of votes there had been cast early, and she had been polling poorly there previously. Worse for her developing some momentum in the days before the Mar. 3 vote bomb will be the South Carolina primary results this Saturday.
Here, though, is a glimmer of real hope that has gone unnoticed. The poll is by CBS News/YouGov, and it has an unusually large national sample: 6,495 likely Democratic primary voters. It was conducted Feb. 20-22, i.e. after the last debate. It is the only national poll on the RCP chart conducted after the debate. *
Long story short, Elizabeth Warren is in second place, narrowly ahead of Joe Biden (19% to 17%), with Bernie in first place at 28%. Bloomberg is at 13%, a bit of a dip for him.
I recommend reading the full report, which is well and clearly written. It doesn't have all the crosstabs of the Quinnipiac reports, but it reproduces the survey itself. The (online) sample may be a bit biased despite their weighting efforts, so massage the numbers a little if you must. The bottom line: Progressive Takeover is underway, due to the failure of the moderate wing to generate a single viable alternative, and there is complete alignment between her supporters and Bernie's.
Those who said Warren's problem was that she peaked too soon may have been way wrong: if she makes a successful move upward on Super Tuesday, there is still very much of a path all the way.
Strategy of the Debate Itself
Do not take the bait of the commentators, who are looking for you to bare claws against Bernie. Continue what you are doing: pounding Bloomberg silly. (Get some new material, though: everyone saw the lines you had last time.)
When the inevitable Stop Bernie? question comes, this should be your response:
"Stop Bernie--No! Bernie is my friend, I love his passion. I want him to join with us--then we will truly be unstoppable."
Just stick with that. Let Mayor Pete go after Bernie, for now. Your point of view is that you should be the one to lead the way forward, this time, and his digital machinery should be joined with yours. The more subtle point is that Bernie, alone, cannot win--which, whether or not it is true, is a concern many people share.
Additional Strategic Points
Build more endorsements from the other candidates: Steyer, Klobuchar (after Super Tuesday, or before, if she prefers), Booker. Accept the reality that supportive PAC's will do what they do. (such as Steyer's)
Kamala should be Kourted.
Warren already has Jay Inslee's, and Julian Castro's. She gets enough endorsements, she can return to the unity candidate line, which should work (for someone) as the field shrinks. She doesn't need to play the gender card anymore; now she's got her "meme", and the identification will stick. But it could earn her endorsements, and generating enthusiasm from women voters will be far more important in the general election than the few white men that might be pried loose by someone like Sanders.
Money Stuff
Looking at it "from a CFO perspective", Warren has to gamble on something resembling an inside straight: focusing media efforts and also paying bills, but not paying them for too much longer. She has to count on others' opposition to Bernie keeping him from a clear majority, but none of them emerging well beyond her support level. What happens after that will then all depend on how the next three weeks go. If they go well, money will be much less of a problem, as the field will surely be less crowded.
Spend the money in five states, but one must be California.
California is super-Tuesday-critical: I saw a poll last week which had no one, at all, over 15% besides Bernie. He could win a margin of +300 delegates just in one state, if he is not effectively challenged. After a result like that, nothing else will matter. Sanders' team is doing expert analysis at the Congressional district level; nothing less will be acceptable from yours. Spend money to target media well in the biggest of all states.
Picking the other four states--targets to win one or more, in Super Tuesday and in the week following--now that's real strategy. Warren has the advantage of choosing her terrain, and now she has some money, too. In terms of choices--She telegraphed that Washington (state) is one by going there straight from Nevada, which totally makes sense to me. I'd recommend Colorado (ST state), Massachusetts (go big--no choice), and Michigan (Mar. 10) as good choices. If she can show a good result in Michigan, that augurs well for her being The One who can Hold The Wall.+
The timing for the release of her (awesome!) Cannabis Legalization Plan fits well with these choices, too.
Her objective must be is to maintain a position, one not at the bottom, at each of the winnowing processes that will occur: from 6 to 5 to 4, from 4 to 3, and then, crucially, from 3 to 2. If she makes it to the final two, she will win.
Mrs. Warren as a Candidate
I have been crying out in the past weeks, as I really didn't understand why she was going down in the polls and in people's estimation of her chances. She is clearly the candidate who has done her homework the best, who has the best content in her policies (and the most), and who is articulate and sharp as a debater, who reaches out to others and who listens (a rare skill among politicians). Many have acknowledged she could be the best President of the lot, while still dismissing her chances.
My conclusion is that the perception of her "electability" suffered, because some don't feel she is "likable". There's a whole ugly history about this kind of stuff, and I have explained that I believe that I, at least, don't know what electability may be, and I doubt others' expertise as well. One thing that I do know is real is that some have a visceral, inexplicable (I know, because I've asked) distaste for her.
Here's my theory on this: she "comes across" (the very subjective, yet perceptive, way that people assess others at an intuitive level) as a schoolteacher. Which she was, before she was a professor. Not just any schoolteacher, though: she's that really good teacher, the one who can motivate you to do better than you thought possible. My theory is that the people who hate her instinctively did not like any of their teachers in school; she reminds them of those hated teachers, in the school they did not like attending. Let me know whether your interaction with others confirms this theory, or not. I know that support for her tends to correlate with education level.
My advice, based on this:
Don't try to educate; be sure to relate. You can do it.
* Disclosure: I am on the YouGov panel and did the survey.
+ A bit too Game of Thrones, maybe.
Sunday, February 23, 2020
Monday, February 03, 2020
Decision Time
Vote to Convict, Then Move to Censure
I didn't watch much of the so-called trial, but that was too much.
There was a huge amount of discourse, from the counsel of the defendant in particular, about whether the two articles approved in the House were "impeachable" offenses. Logically, that was completely erroneous: the House approved the articles, and the Representatives, not the Senators, decide what is impeachable and what is not. By definition, the House determined that "abuse of power" and "obstruction of Congress" are impeachable offenses.
I would argue that the Trump Impeachment* neither raised, nor lowered, the bar of what is impeachable; however, I would have preferred they include Bribery--specifically named in the constitution as grounds for impeachment, and very arguably an offense committed by Trump. That would've changed the more asinine of the Defense arguments to specifics of "the bribery statute in the US Code" instead. That would've more successfully focused the debate, such as it was, on the venality of Trump's behavior. This Year's Model was consistent with precedent and has specific similarity to the cases posed during the administrations of Nixon and Andrew Johnson.
The Senate trial should have been about a different question: What is the bar for removal from office of a President? For conviction? For this question, there really is no precedent in the affirmative, though Johnson's case, Bill Clinton's, and now this one will show historical precedents in the negative. Nixon's arguably presents an example of what would have resulted in conviction (or in an obligatory resignation, as Nixon's was, which functionally works out the same), but that doesn't help too much because of the huge difference in evidence which ultimately was available to Nixon's prosecution after nearly two years of investigations.
The proper way to view this question is one of risk management: How much risk do we face by allowing this impeached individual to remain in office? And how severe is the damage, if things go wrong?
The calculation is one which combines time remaining in the term (so should be most strict, in the differing case of lifetime appointments) along with assessment of the degree of damage, conditioned by the facts revealed in the case. In that regard, those Republicans who reverted to the argument against removal in an election year, one which appeared stupid on its face, had the germ of a correct idea. To give an extreme example, the last month of a lame duck Presidency would be a waste of effort for an impeachment-driven trial. That argument in this case might have had value if it were not for the direct threat Trump's admitted interference posed to the looming election; in this regard we have to credit Pelosi's judgment.
What's the risk that Trump is going to do something unthinkable and damaging to the Constitution of our democratic republic? (alternately, to our society/our humanity/our planet) It's quite high, as the recent fiasco-doppio of his rash decisions in the Middle East** prove. Not to mention appeasement of That Country Invading Ukraine. We have a new Trump Unilateral Israel Peace Plan much more likely to spur a violent result than to bring any more peace. I could go on--the risk is high, and compounded the longer we face it.
So, yeah, there are only arguments for removal, though the risk for acquittal at this moment is much less than it would be, say, in March, 2021+ . That one about "63 million votes" I find especially shaky.
Anyway, immediately after the vote to acquit Wednesday***, some intrepid Democratic Senator--Schumer would be the normal one, though I'd prefer someone like our Senator Tom Udall do it--should introduce a motion to censure the President. The denunciation should be a simple statement that enlisting a foreign government to attack our election in any way is not permissible behavior for a President, nor anyone with an official capacity in the US government. (Rudy Giuliani's crimes should already be covered elsewhere.) It should be wordsmithed to maximize the number of Republican Senators who could support it.
The second censure motion should address the recurrent problem of the disregard the Executive branch has proven to have of the Legislative one, particularly as regards the exclusive prerogative of Congress to control expenditures. The third should address Attorney General Barr's intentional efforts to mislead the public and Congress on the meaning of the Mueller Report before it was released.
That's enough--for now. Of course Trump will veto or ignore any censure motions, but they will be on the record, will provide guidance to those who come later, if not to the Dickhead, and should be approved without delay. At least the first one.
Endorsement for President (20/20 Preface)
I begin by saying, first, this is not a prediction but an expression of my own personal preference. Second, I have an impressively bad record of picking the person who is ultimately elected President. I would describe it as disastrous. Some examples:
One thing you may accurately conclude is that "electability" was often a factor in my past considerations given where I lie on the political spectrum. (Another is that I have been really inept at identifying electable candidates.) "Strongly liberal", as they often suggest as the leftmost option in online polls, is not so accurate; I would describe myself as closer to the feared and nowadays unused term "radical", in the sense of seeking fundamental changes. So, my choice each cycle tries to balance the political climate and my sense of possibilities. (Clark in 2004 was a particular example--I thought he was the perfect guy to deal with Bush's wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and his positions were not at all obnoxious. He just wasn't right for the times, politically, in the party--like Glenn was not just the Cat to catch the Rat Reagan, my theory in early '84.)
The Much Ballyhooed Endorsement
My preference for Elizabeth Warren relies on the belief that she is the best candidate to unify the Democratic party and maximize turnout of its supporters in the general election vs. Donald Trump. Among other characteristics, she is a person who is inclusive in her approach, a person who is open to ideas, and one with strong convictions and obvious passion and energy. In terms of her approach to policy, she goes to the root issues--corruption, inequality, injustice--and develops both the right maximal objectives and the short-term strategies to move toward them.
I have had a firm intention to avoid criticism of the other Democratic candidates here, as I may be passionately supporting them as the nominee later. I will go so far as to say that my personal preference is that our "viable" choices not be limited to what I would call the "old B-boys" (Biden, Bernie, and, yes, Bloomberg). The media seems to me to be prematurely fixated on the story that it is down to Biden vs. Bernie (unless Bloomberg can buy it).
In that regard, I agree with the choice of the New York Times to endorse Warren and Amy Klobuchar. Warren is the "not B-boy" progressive (leaving aside Tom Steyer), and Klobuchar is the "not B-boy" moderate (leaving aside Pete Buttigieg). If you believe that women can be a choice that is just as good, if not better, to oppose the Dickhead, then these are sound choices, depending on your degree of "aggression" (as Charles Barkley said the other night, reaching unsuccessfully for the word "progression"). For me, that's Warren, but, as you may see by the above, my second, third, and fourth choices are Klobuchar, Buttigieg (whom I suggest as the VP nominee, for almost any nominee), and Steyer (who I now recognize has added value to the campaign, apart from the mega-dollars he has spent in our general cause, as per Bloomberg).
New Mexico's primary is not until June 6; 95% of delegate numbers will have been determined by then. So, my vote is about 95% likely to be meaningless, in that someone will have won the nomination by then. That 5% that remains, though, could be significant in the big picture if no one has established a majority of delegates won.
*Trump I Impeachment, I mean. Hard to tell how Trump II Impeachment will go at this point.
+Don't even!
**To be clear, to evacuate our troops from NE Syria and to assassinate Qassem Soleimani. Somewhat fortunately, neither of the two has produced massive warfare and humanitarian catastrophe yet. Nor Trump's walking the talk of 'just walk away' in Idlib. I repeat, yet. (added 3/3/20)
***If you check back, the vote will be just a few days sooner than I thought; it will probably not be as good as the 47-53 I predicted, and the focus, instead of on whether there were 50 votes to convict, ended up being whether there would be witnesses allowed (and whether Mitt Romney would volunteer for a starring role in a chapter in the next volume of Profiles in Courage). So, while it basically went as I expected, there were surprises.
I didn't watch much of the so-called trial, but that was too much.
There was a huge amount of discourse, from the counsel of the defendant in particular, about whether the two articles approved in the House were "impeachable" offenses. Logically, that was completely erroneous: the House approved the articles, and the Representatives, not the Senators, decide what is impeachable and what is not. By definition, the House determined that "abuse of power" and "obstruction of Congress" are impeachable offenses.
I would argue that the Trump Impeachment* neither raised, nor lowered, the bar of what is impeachable; however, I would have preferred they include Bribery--specifically named in the constitution as grounds for impeachment, and very arguably an offense committed by Trump. That would've changed the more asinine of the Defense arguments to specifics of "the bribery statute in the US Code" instead. That would've more successfully focused the debate, such as it was, on the venality of Trump's behavior. This Year's Model was consistent with precedent and has specific similarity to the cases posed during the administrations of Nixon and Andrew Johnson.
The Senate trial should have been about a different question: What is the bar for removal from office of a President? For conviction? For this question, there really is no precedent in the affirmative, though Johnson's case, Bill Clinton's, and now this one will show historical precedents in the negative. Nixon's arguably presents an example of what would have resulted in conviction (or in an obligatory resignation, as Nixon's was, which functionally works out the same), but that doesn't help too much because of the huge difference in evidence which ultimately was available to Nixon's prosecution after nearly two years of investigations.
The proper way to view this question is one of risk management: How much risk do we face by allowing this impeached individual to remain in office? And how severe is the damage, if things go wrong?
The calculation is one which combines time remaining in the term (so should be most strict, in the differing case of lifetime appointments) along with assessment of the degree of damage, conditioned by the facts revealed in the case. In that regard, those Republicans who reverted to the argument against removal in an election year, one which appeared stupid on its face, had the germ of a correct idea. To give an extreme example, the last month of a lame duck Presidency would be a waste of effort for an impeachment-driven trial. That argument in this case might have had value if it were not for the direct threat Trump's admitted interference posed to the looming election; in this regard we have to credit Pelosi's judgment.
What's the risk that Trump is going to do something unthinkable and damaging to the Constitution of our democratic republic? (alternately, to our society/our humanity/our planet) It's quite high, as the recent fiasco-doppio of his rash decisions in the Middle East** prove. Not to mention appeasement of That Country Invading Ukraine. We have a new Trump Unilateral Israel Peace Plan much more likely to spur a violent result than to bring any more peace. I could go on--the risk is high, and compounded the longer we face it.
So, yeah, there are only arguments for removal, though the risk for acquittal at this moment is much less than it would be, say, in March, 2021+ . That one about "63 million votes" I find especially shaky.
Anyway, immediately after the vote to acquit Wednesday***, some intrepid Democratic Senator--Schumer would be the normal one, though I'd prefer someone like our Senator Tom Udall do it--should introduce a motion to censure the President. The denunciation should be a simple statement that enlisting a foreign government to attack our election in any way is not permissible behavior for a President, nor anyone with an official capacity in the US government. (Rudy Giuliani's crimes should already be covered elsewhere.) It should be wordsmithed to maximize the number of Republican Senators who could support it.
The second censure motion should address the recurrent problem of the disregard the Executive branch has proven to have of the Legislative one, particularly as regards the exclusive prerogative of Congress to control expenditures. The third should address Attorney General Barr's intentional efforts to mislead the public and Congress on the meaning of the Mueller Report before it was released.
That's enough--for now. Of course Trump will veto or ignore any censure motions, but they will be on the record, will provide guidance to those who come later, if not to the Dickhead, and should be approved without delay. At least the first one.
Endorsement for President (20/20 Preface)
I begin by saying, first, this is not a prediction but an expression of my own personal preference. Second, I have an impressively bad record of picking the person who is ultimately elected President. I would describe it as disastrous. Some examples:
- Hillary, 2016 -- OK, I'm in a lot of company, both good and bad;
- Gore, 2000 and 1988 -- In '88, Koch's endorsement killed him (and my hopes to repeal the Reagan Revolution);
- John Glenn, 1984;
- Wesley Clark, 2004.
- Tom Harkin, 1992 (?)
One thing you may accurately conclude is that "electability" was often a factor in my past considerations given where I lie on the political spectrum. (Another is that I have been really inept at identifying electable candidates.) "Strongly liberal", as they often suggest as the leftmost option in online polls, is not so accurate; I would describe myself as closer to the feared and nowadays unused term "radical", in the sense of seeking fundamental changes. So, my choice each cycle tries to balance the political climate and my sense of possibilities. (Clark in 2004 was a particular example--I thought he was the perfect guy to deal with Bush's wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and his positions were not at all obnoxious. He just wasn't right for the times, politically, in the party--like Glenn was not just the Cat to catch the Rat Reagan, my theory in early '84.)
The Much Ballyhooed Endorsement
My preference for Elizabeth Warren relies on the belief that she is the best candidate to unify the Democratic party and maximize turnout of its supporters in the general election vs. Donald Trump. Among other characteristics, she is a person who is inclusive in her approach, a person who is open to ideas, and one with strong convictions and obvious passion and energy. In terms of her approach to policy, she goes to the root issues--corruption, inequality, injustice--and develops both the right maximal objectives and the short-term strategies to move toward them.
I have had a firm intention to avoid criticism of the other Democratic candidates here, as I may be passionately supporting them as the nominee later. I will go so far as to say that my personal preference is that our "viable" choices not be limited to what I would call the "old B-boys" (Biden, Bernie, and, yes, Bloomberg). The media seems to me to be prematurely fixated on the story that it is down to Biden vs. Bernie (unless Bloomberg can buy it).
In that regard, I agree with the choice of the New York Times to endorse Warren and Amy Klobuchar. Warren is the "not B-boy" progressive (leaving aside Tom Steyer), and Klobuchar is the "not B-boy" moderate (leaving aside Pete Buttigieg). If you believe that women can be a choice that is just as good, if not better, to oppose the Dickhead, then these are sound choices, depending on your degree of "aggression" (as Charles Barkley said the other night, reaching unsuccessfully for the word "progression"). For me, that's Warren, but, as you may see by the above, my second, third, and fourth choices are Klobuchar, Buttigieg (whom I suggest as the VP nominee, for almost any nominee), and Steyer (who I now recognize has added value to the campaign, apart from the mega-dollars he has spent in our general cause, as per Bloomberg).
New Mexico's primary is not until June 6; 95% of delegate numbers will have been determined by then. So, my vote is about 95% likely to be meaningless, in that someone will have won the nomination by then. That 5% that remains, though, could be significant in the big picture if no one has established a majority of delegates won.
*Trump I Impeachment, I mean. Hard to tell how Trump II Impeachment will go at this point.
+Don't even!
**To be clear, to evacuate our troops from NE Syria and to assassinate Qassem Soleimani. Somewhat fortunately, neither of the two has produced massive warfare and humanitarian catastrophe yet. Nor Trump's walking the talk of 'just walk away' in Idlib. I repeat, yet. (added 3/3/20)
***If you check back, the vote will be just a few days sooner than I thought; it will probably not be as good as the 47-53 I predicted, and the focus, instead of on whether there were 50 votes to convict, ended up being whether there would be witnesses allowed (and whether Mitt Romney would volunteer for a starring role in a chapter in the next volume of Profiles in Courage). So, while it basically went as I expected, there were surprises.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
