What Is To Be Done?

Kamala Harris' Presidential campaign, and that of President Biden before her, focused their energy on the cause of defending democracy.  Millions of potential voters turned away.  That, and the betrayal of RFKJr made the difference in a close general election in 2024. 

Democratic post-mortems, of which there have been way too many, proposing a variety of solutions, seem to agree that the problem was the lack of a substantial alternative to that being proposed by the Trump candidacy, that moronic, lying, hateful, fearmongering proposition backed by a narrow plurality, just short of a majority, of those who chose to vote.  And it's true, our democracy, as it is practiced today, is barely defensible.  Defending this status quo proved to be a loser. 

The answer to Democrats' lack of a credible alternative is not an economic one, really.  The US economy was not so bad in 2024, or in 2016.  In both cases, the Democratic-led administration had made real progress, with its limited real means to control the economy, in digging the country out of deep holes created during the Republican-led administrations of W Bush and Trump I.  It didn't win the election for them. 

There is talk of the Democrats developing some kind of vision of Abundance as a policy to campaign upon.  That's pretty much just apple pie thinking--yes, we would all like to be wealthy, but promising that is only going to backfire in the long run, as the realization sets in that it isn't happening.  The failure of that promise of super-abundance is pretty much happening in real time to Trump's promises of MAGA.  Frankly, the US already has abundance, and the likelihood that it will flourish ever more doesn't look so good as global commerce fades, climate change hampers us, global competition rises around us, and AI eliminates jobs all over.  Just ask the young about the prospects. 

Yes, the economic failure that is coming at us rapidly will likely cause a reversal in the political fortunes for the Republicans, whose hold on government is strong, but electorally very thin, and getting thinner week by week.  That would just be another swing of the pendulum, though, and will not bring us any closer to a more successful, stable polity that we can believe in. 

Bernie Sanders was right when he said, recently, that the US is a "pseudo-democracy".  The fact of the matter is that the policies of this Federal government are not popular ones. I would accept that there are times when the collective judgment of our elected representatives should override the popular whims of the moment and pursue wise policies to benefit all of us, but that is not at all the case now.  The authoritarian, destructive policies being pursued incompetently now are harmful to most, but excessively beneficial to a few who control the power. This is not democracy; it is barely a constitutional republic. 

The Reinvention of Democracy is the Vision We Need

The reforms I suggest below are generally non-partisan (not bipartisan), and some will tend to weaken the Democratic party's power relative to what it controls today; however, because it will work to remove built-in obstacles to people's will, we can expect the Trumpist Republican cult would oppose them fiercely.  I am limiting myself to changes that can be accomplished without constitutional amendment, as that is out of the question in today's political environment, or any that we can foresee in the near future.  Once the people are back in control, though, I would think that we could consider it possible to utilize the Founders' other channel to change the constitution, a new convention, without preset limits.   

Number one of these obstacles to democracy is the obscene level of expenditure for political campaigns now.  There has been an exponential escalation of the costs in the past twenty years, and now it is on a scale where only the rich and well-funded lobbyists can participate meaningfully.  For the others, massive efforts are required, but as we saw in 2024, not sufficient.  For Federal elections, the only choices are accepting the implicit bribery of huge donations, constant fundraising, or, increasingly, self-funding by multi-millionaires.  2024 saw Trump's winning campaign funded by hundred of millions of dollars of support from Elon Musk, who's been rewarded by getting a free hand to steal the nation's personal data and re-jiggering any regulations that get in the way of his profit-making.  For the Democrats looking forward to 2028, their best chance may be billionaire J.B. Pritzker, whon I could support if and only if he agrees:  Ending unlimited campaign spending is the start of returning democracy to our electoral process. 

I realize that in the odious Citizens United case some ten years ago the Supreme Court ruled that political spending fell in the category of free speech protected by the constitution, but the lines that were drawn between true campaign-support funding and parallel "nonprofit" organizations' theoretically separate activity have been blurred, then practically eliminated entirely.  "Dark money" contributions have eliminated any accountability for political contributors, and guardrails to prevent foreign interference or produce any limitations on direct contributions have had workarounds making them ineffective.

Congress does have the responsibility of setting the dates and broad outlines of federal elections, a prerogative they need to exercise.  My principal recommendations are to re-energize the moribund Federal Elections Committee, give it increased powers to monitor campaign activity, levying fines proportionate to the danage violations cause to elections--and remove all partisan appointments to it.  Congress should emulate some parliamentary democracies and declare a period of some 60 days immediately prior to the elections in which political activity should be closely regulated.  Restore "Equal Time" provisions for free media, penalize factual inaccuracy (also known as "lies"), and limit direct campaign spending by individual campaigns to some ratio to population (I'd suggest 10 cents per person, at current dollar valuations.)  

I don't have much to complain about the actual methods of voters' registering their choices, or about the counting of the votes; these are controlled within states and localities, and there is something to be said about their being decentralized, and thus not subject to centralized or hacked manipulations.  I do believe that the ongoing debates about voter suppression and voter fraud are totally unnecessary:  Congress should authorize the issuance of tamper-proof Voter ID's to every citizen of age, equipped with 21st-century digital technology and easily transferable between precincts, counties, or states as people move their residence.  Issued universally without charge to the individual, for the first ID at least.  Coming of age would then bring this privilege of citizenry, reinforcing the special, though universal, benefit of suffrage.  I do not believe the issuance of this credential to be a difficult challenge for this nation to achieve, either in terms of the cost or the technology. 

The Electoral College is an ongoing irritant and distorter of the popular will.  In past elections, it transformed close popular votes into electoral vote landslides; now it evidences a much greater problem, reversing the outcome itself with greater frequency, something which undermines the whole prospect of the democratic choice of our top leader tremendously.  It is something fundamental to the original constitutional framework, though, and could never be changed to mere popular vote plurality without a radical set of amendments.*  

What is not at all in the constitution is the "winner-take-all" electoral slate, in which the candidate with the plurality of votes wins all the electoral votes of the state, something in effect in every state except Maine and Nebraska. It is something that developed in the 19th century as states competed to have their votes count more than others, another escalation that distorted popular will.  Now, because of it, 40 states or more have all their electoral votes virtually  put up on the board before the election even starts.  The entire presidential election is focused on a few states, with the resulting effects on policy subtle but clear.  All serious contenders for the Presidency have to focus on the needs of Pennsylvania, above all others, with a few others like Georgia, Arizona, Michigan, and Wisconsin getting secondary attention, and the rest--nothing.

I would recommend that a compact of Congress prohibit winner-take-all, combined with enabling provisions. The Maine/Nebraska approach gives two electoral votes to the statewide winner, and the other electoral votes are determined by the candidate winning the individual House districts.  It's a good remedy, and one that would show no favor, if accompanying the measure is a resolution ending gerrymandering:  congressional district boundaries would be determined by nonpartisan analysis considering natural and significant man-made boundaries, trying to build around intact communities and metropolitan areas. 

The political parties' power of over elections, another "feature" which the US Constitution's authors opposed, needs to be reduced, and the narrowing of the field of practical candidates to the two parties' nominees, chosen through primaries which, though intended originally to give power to the voters, has resulted in recent times to intensify partisan division to dangerous levels.  The introduction of ranked-choice voting and instant runoff would address this problem.  In this, voters would be able to indicate the preference, in ranked order, for most or all of the candidates on the ballot (or write-in);  if no candidate gets a majority, then the votes of the lowest candidate, in first-choice votes, would be immediately allocated to the remaining candidates by the voters' second choice, and so on until someone achieves a majority.  It could be used for any and all elections of officials--even the Presidential one, which might head off the prospect of the constitution's infamous resolution method for outcomes without an absolute Electoral majority (voting by the House, with each state getting one vote).

The provision has settled in a few states' elections, but it is not clearly understood by most of the electorate--I would suggest that it is because opposing it is one thing both parties can agree to put aside.  It clearly gives greater opportunity to third parties and independent candidates. Most importantly, it would lead to the end of the discouraging prospect of having to choose between the "less-evil" of two, which so many decry in so many elections these days, with the winning candidate being truly chosen (to some extent) by a majority of voters. 

The final recommendation I'd suggest for now would be to extend the right of representation to all US citizens, through granting statehood to  1) District of Columbia, 2) Puerto Rico,  3) US Territories and expatriates.  Three new constituencies, and if possible, mandating voting rights to those citizens disenfranchised for whatever reason. 

Why should the Democratic party advocate this set of reforms, which as I say seem somewhat limiting to their partisan interests? Because they are necessary for our nation, because they embody the party's name and purpose, and because they will be politically efficacious. This platform for reinvigorated democracy would seem to be something broadly popular, difficult in the extreme to oppose without denying the fundamental principle that the political will of the electorate should not be suppressed or distorted beyond recognition. 

 

*The Popular vote initiative--to mandate that all electoral votes would be allocated to the national popular vote winner--is stalled well short of its needed objective of having 270 electoral votes' worth of states supporting it, and I see no chance of that being reached.  Even if it were, it would not eliminate the partisan firestorm that would occur if a candidate (let's say, Trump) would have 270+ electoral votes from the states under the current system, but the victory denied because of lack of a popular vote plurality. I can just see the rebellion that would result, and the chaos following when the Supreme Court throws out the popular vote-driven result.    

 For the title, I borrowed from Vladimir...Lenin, that is, and from 19th-century Russian idealist Nikolay Chernyshevsky, from whom Lenin borrowed it in his turn.

After Fol-de-Rol, Predictions

Talkin' Baseball

The impetus for this post at this moment is the imminent start of baseball's World Series.  It's the Yankees and the Dodgers, what I've been fearing and dreading.  For years, and decades, really, but this year this particular rivalry for the championship has raised its head once more.  

This is the matchup that has occurred most often in World Series history, which is basically to say that the Dodgers are the team the Yankees have faced most often.  The Yankees have a large edge in their Series showdowns, but the Dodgers have had a couple of memorable wins (1963, 1955) 

The Yankees' rise goes back to acquiring Babe Ruth in 1919; the Dodgers' to breaking the color line with Jackie Robinson and adding Roy Campanella in the early Fifties, . Neither team has spent much time away from the top of the standings since then.  

In my career as a Reds fan, they are both among the teams which I hated, and envied, most often. After my initial negative impressions of them formed, it was their habit of buying the most expensive players which irritated me, as it made my small-market team's chances ever more difficult. 

With the Yankees, their 4-1 defeat of the Reds in the '61 Series imprinted resistance to their inevitability, without my even being aware of it; it was something I became aware of and resented soon after its occurrence as I first experienced the outside world. We did get our revenge against them in 1976, a 4-0 Series sweep, the Big Red Machine's finest achievement. 

The Dodgers had their history with the Yankees in the Sixties, with my reluctant support--the greatness of Koufax and Drysdale was undeniable, and they proved it against the perennials, the Bronx Bombers, in that '63 Series. But their re-emergence in the late Seventies as rivals to the Reds was what turned me against them for all time.  Particularly as long as they had Tommy Lasorda as manager. 

It surprised me to discover that this, the most frequent World Series rivalry, has not come up since 1981, (Don't get me started on that year's improvised playoffs, something which burns me still....), not even by accident.  More like it's been an accident it didn't occur sooner.  It's been a welcome respite.  My aversion has even faded a bit in its intensity, though I still root against both teams in all games, on principle. .

Beyond doubt, this is the ideal World Series matchup.  The #1 team in each league, the two top TV markets, Ohtani vs. Judge, as well as Mookie Betts vs. Juan Soto, Freddie Freeman vs. Giancarlo Stanton.  Six probable future Hall of Fame hitters. The network "got lucky" when the Mets won game 5, ensuring that the Series would start on Friday, instead of Tuesday (if both teams in the Series won in 5 games or less).  

Starting pitching is, somewhat surprisingly, a weak spot for both, though the Yankees do boast a top one in Gerrit Cole and a hot one in Clarke Schmidt.  If Ohtani, Betts, and Freeman (followed by Teoscar Hernandez and Max Muncy) are clicking, though, it will not matter who the Yankees send out there.  On the other side, though, the depleted Dodger rotation will give way quickly to their deep and strong bullpen, as they show the Yankee slugging stars frequent changes of pitchers ("different looks"). I expect a couple of slugfests, a couple of pitching duels (maybe not the ones expected), and a couple of blowouts.    

Election Commentary

I have no need to wait for more data to form opinion of my expectations; more poll data will serve for nothing.  The Biden Weakened scenario gave way to Biden Out, but that morphed almost immediately, due to the expert salvage operation by Kamala Harris and the Democratic Party, to get back to Status Quo by the convention.  There was an Inflection Point, indeed, as Harris' improvement trend flattened out.  And there it has stayed, despite everything (Harris destroying Trump in the debate, Trump's meandering but threatening nonsense, and more).  The 48-46 national polling advantage I cited for Harris at the beginning of the month has not really moved, despite a number of polls all over the place. 

The largest uncertainty at this point is about the mysterious uncounted Trump voter from the 2016 and 2020 polls, compared to results in elections, if he is still out there, uncounted.  Or, perhaps overly accounted for. Nate Silver had a piece in his paid Substack, and then one in the Times, showing the frequency table of  different combinations of winner, by state, resulting from his simulations, using correlations and certain other elements of his own secret sauce (but only showing the 20 or so most frequent of the 128 permutations).  His conclusion was like one that James Carville has mentioned, that the most likely outcomes are ones where one candidate or the other wins all, or almost all, of the swing states.  What he has discovered is that the error term, that 1%, plus or minus, on the Trump voter error estimate (which comes in the adjustment from registered voter to likely voter, usually done by respondents' past history of voting, when available) makes all the difference in the outcomes, along with the correlations between swing states, seemingly very high. I take this to mean that he has no clue on the big picture, but his detailed analysis proved useful to me: 

That projection sequence, from poll preference to popular vote to state outcomes, remains very central to any possible prediction based on data.  If we look at the intangibles, and the tangible adjustments we need to make in order to come up with a final estimate, we find those to be largely in the favor of the Harris-Walz campaign.  Things like ground game, money, increasingly caustic media criticism of Trump's performance, along with grudging acceptance that, yes, Harris can answer questions--all day long, if she has to--though she is not going to deviate from her victory plan of retaining all Biden's supporters and adding what she can of disaffected Republicans.  

Both campaigns are running what I would call limited tactical upside strategies. Harris is not going to articulate anything dramatic that could change the dynamics--it's too late anyway, now.  Trump is not going to appeal to moderates and independents not already leaning his way--he can't.

The question of turnout is central now; the drive to get that 1% that could make the difference in these close state races.  It also bears on the close Senate races, many of which in the same swing states closely  contested for the Presidency, and indirectly bears on the critical outcome of the contest for control of the House. In this regard, the effort by the Harris campaign to do a big event in Houston is relevant:  while the GOTV effort may not be fully realized in NY and CA (apart from the districts with the close races), the underdog effort to try and break through statewide in TX (and in FL, wait and see) will pad the popular vote margin in a similar way to 2020.  

Predictions

I start with an estimate for the national popular vote:  Harris-Walz 82 million vs. Trump-Vance 77 million. This out of 165 million total votes.* The percentages corresponding are Harris 49.7%, Trump 46.7%.  So, a bit more improvement for the Democrats than Republicans from the present poll averages as we scale up to the full 100% of voters (with 3.6% others).  By applying the adjustments to the national average by state that I reviewed in my post "Inflection Point", this then plays out to the following outcomes by state (mean estimates of Democrats' margin, with 80% MOE), with state-level adjustments and brief comments; 

 North Carolina  (-2)  +/- 2%:  1 pt to Democrats for the reverse coattails because of a miserable R Governor candidate;

Georgia (-0.5) +/- 2%:   1 pt to Republicans for Democrats' turnout being not quite as amazing this time;

Nevada (0) +/- 3%:  The largest uncertainty, but the least important for the EC;

Arizona (+0.5) +/- 2%:  I'm going against the consensus with an adjustment for the strong Senate candidate and the abortion referendum. 

Pennsylvania (+1) +/- 2% : 1 pt Adjustment for the focused turnout I expect from the Democrats. 

Wisconsin (+1.5) +/- 2% : 1 pt Adjustment for Walz-adjacent effect!

Michigan (+2) +/- 1% : Democrats should never lose Michigan, except by neglect, and that is not the case here. 

If we start with the standard 226D - 219R, the count without the swing states and with the 1 CD vote from NE and ME switching from their statewide winners, these point estimates result as 281 Harris, 251 Trump, with the 6 EV in Nevada TBD.  So that makes the final margin (prior to some potential actual fol-de-rol in the event) either 36 or 24 electoral votes. Slightly reduced from the 2020 Biden margin, more like that of Jimmy Carter in 1976 vs. Gerald Ford, which I think is appropriate in multiple ways. 

Senate

We have to accept as starting point that the Democrats will lose the seat in WV and that Tester's chances in MT against a 15-20 point gap in the Presidential race are slim.  That takes us to 51R, 49D, prior to any other seats changing hands.  The most likely ones after that are WI (Tammy Baldwin) and OH (Sherrod Brown), though I would give each better than 50% chance of surviving.  A little lower than that are others like the slim Democratic pickup chances (FL, NE, but especially Allred defeating Cruz in TX) and those for which the Republicans had hopes (NV--Rosen, MI--open seat, PA--Casey). My mean estimate would be a little worse than 49-51, but as we are limited to integers I will stick with that. Hopes will then turn to Lisa Murkowski of Alaska (Independent, now caucusing with the Republicans), especially if Harris wins.

House

I give credit to those pundits who do the research at the district level and report back, though I do not necessarily agree with their broad approach in their ratings.  Beyond the 13 or so "Toss-up" seats, all of which are truly likely to flip, there are the "Tilt' seats, which are shown siding with the incumbent in almost all cases.  This is the pundits' conservatism in calling for defeat of an incumbent or a change of party control.  When we consider those just a little tilted to one side as also highly vulnerable, there are 32 seats at high risk, 18 Republican and 14 Democrat, with the Republicans leading 204-199 in seats rated Safe, Likely, or "Lean" (going by Nathan Gonzales here, though his is very similar to those such as Cook Political Report.  Lean means the pundit has a clear idea who is ahead, though they are a little insecure about it.)

 That means the Democrats would need to win 19 of these 32 jump balls, or 60% of them, to take control of the House.  The means to take them presents itself in just a few states, and the Democrats are focused on them, almost as much as they are on the Presidential swing states (some--in AZ, for example, and PA--are the same, some are in less-urban areas of NY and CA, and a couple are in Iowa).

I believe the Democrats will succeed in gaining control of the House, picking up 5-8 seats.  A gain of 8 would bring the Democrats back to 222-213, the inverse of the Republicans' in 2022, and the same as the Democrats won in 2020.  The reversal of control of both the House and the Senate in the same election, in different directions, such as I am predicting, would be a first in US history.  Perhaps that is why the pundits are so reluctant to go there. 

Baseball

I think this will be regarded as one of the great World Series of days (post-DH).  One reason it might not be is because it may be just the first of a series of such Series, which may surpass this one (as with Dodgers-Yankees in the Fifties). Another is if one team dominates, but I don't expect that to happen.  Instead I expect it to be seven games, or if not that, six.  I reluctantly predict Yankees (or the Crank-biters, as we colloquially call them) to win in 7.  

As for the NBA, which began its regular season this week, the big question is whether the Boston Celtics can repeat.  There is a lot of parity in both conferences, if we exclude the fact that the Celtics seem a notch better, a bit more complete, as long as their quadrilateral (in order of importance, Tatum, Brown, Holiday, and Porzingis) remains intact.  We'll see, around Christmas, if that is the case.

*The comparable numbers from 2020:  Biden 81-74 million over Trump with total votes of 160 million, a margin of 51-47%.

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. 

My Joe Biden Story

(January, 2022) - This might be the time for me to give my personal recommendation for our President, as he is surely beset by misfortune and insufficient support in these days.

My one and only in-person encounter with our 46th President came in the late winter of 1974 (so long ago!), when young Joe Biden was in his first term as Senator from Delaware, having won his seat in an upset and then lost his wife and young daughter in a tragic auto accident in the previous 18 months.  

I had the great honor of being one of two persons representing the Commonwealth of Virginia in a program jointly sponsored by the W. Randolph Hearst Foundation and the U.S. Senate, the U.S. Senate Youth Program.  It consisted of travel to D.C., fine hotel (the Mayflower) and dining, privileged tours of all the great edifices of our Republic (my favorite is the Library of Congress, though the Supreme Court is indeed most impressive), but, most of all, it featured private audiences with the high and mighty of the day--usually a speech, including a lot of content about that official's role, and some Q and A with the attendees--did I mention we were all high school seniors? My one real obligation, besides behaving myself, was appearing for a photo op with Virginia's Senators, who were undoubtedly the worst duo in the nation at the time (Harry Byrd and William Scott). 

Great care was taken in the selection of speakers, who all showed impressive consideration in taking their  scheduled event, and mostly showed some enthusiasm about the civic educational function the whole thing represented.   One more thing they showed was courage:  we were a keen, well-informed bunch and far from passive in this highly-charged moment of history. 

For the Watergate scandal was at a peak then:  Nixon's resignation was only months away, and he was basically hunkered down in his bunker.  Still, we were granted access to Vice President Gerald Ford and other officials of Cabinet or near-Cabinet rank (not Kissinger, though), along with Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart.  In particular, though, a host of Senators came before us, one at a time. 

Not too many of them that I can remember were Republicans.  Chuck Percy (IL) I know was one. They didn't want to speculate about the looming question of impeaching Nixon.  Two of the old-timers of the moment I remember in particular were Jennings Randolph (WV), an expert on the history of the Senate, and former VP and then-Senator Hubert Humphrey, an impressive wind-up speechifier if ever there was one.  We also saw the other Senator from Minnesota, young Walter Mondale, who I remember being somewhat flustered by our frank questions. 

If I'm not mistaken, Senator Edward Kennedy had to cancel on us, but we had a substitute, Senator Biden.

May, 2022:  We were taken aback, somewhat. Here was this young upstart--recently widowed, with his own children deceased in an auto accident, winner by the narrowest of margins in a huge upset.  We knew nothing and expected little.

 (By 'we', I mean the vibe of our group, the selected prospective student leaders. At least we cared enough to fill out the application.) 

But he was the one whose appearance before us gained the most approval.  His frankness, his urgency--who knew how long he would serve?  He certainly had no reason to think it would be decades--and his empathy, they came across to us, who had expectations, desires, curiosity. 

The circumstance, of Biden replacing the no-longer-electable Teddy, caused me to see an indirect connection to Biden as a Latter-Day Kennedy, which I have clung to, against all others, ever since. Anyway, among my many outrageous pronouncements during that fall, my freshman year of college (now post-Nixon), one was the advocacy of the notion of Biden as future President.  (He, then, like AOC now, was not old enough.)

My friends, it must be said, looked at me askance:  they were skeptical of the bona fides of any Democrat, no matter how seemingly progressive (I think Fred Harris was popular in our circle in early 1976 there, before Carter caught on), and Biden would not put his toe in the Presidential water at all for another decade or more.

They were certainly right in their skepticism in the years that followed, and I could not explain it away.  He disappointed me, so many times.  His sponsorship on the dastardly Crime Bill was a concession to the crime panic of the time (and we seem to have that one building again now, too!).  I found his sponsorship of the much-despised Bankruptcy Bill in the early aughts more defensible:  after all, he was the senator from Delaware.  If the rest of the country wanted to use bankruptcy as its curtain covering the cost of massive numbers of health-related family financial failures, it was his duty to make sure it was a fair bill, one preventing excessive exploitation of its lenient provisions. (Note:  student loans the exception--why?)  

I was not a supporter in his previous runs; as I recall it, I was for Al Gore in '88 (until Ed Koch's endorsement killed him), and Biden's speech plagiarism fiasco in that campaign is now legendary, and now seems so quaintly distant. The years passed, and he became less relevant until Obama picked him out for VP in 2008 (somewhat parallel to Biden's choosing failed competitor Kamala Harris).  

Still, there is fulfillment, for me, after all these years.  And for Joe Biden.  His destiny was present, essential, but indiscernible.  Now we know what it was, all along. 

5X5: #1--Since We Been Gone

Thinking about The New Life

A comment line I had today with another at the site of Political Wire, an ongoing, lively discussion of the latest political news.

(mi5scents)Likely changes from this--1. a greater re-evaluation of having so much manufacturing in China--including medical items and pharmaceuticals, 2. a greater willingness to accept tighter border controls and 3. a greater appreciate among many of the importance of a strong public health system and those who work in it. In Europe, Italians are likely to long remember the EU's response to their request for help, and not in a good way. Bottom line--it isn't likely to advance globalism.

• • −

  

  
  
  
  

  chinshihtang  mi5cents • 2 hours agoUpvote for your thought piece, and I agree with 1. and 3. As for 2., though, border controls don't mean shite to a virus. I'm serious.
  Here's my shot: Big changes to airlines, which will have to change their Coach seating patterns (thankfully so, though it will cost us more), and to food production/consumption, which will become more local. Cruise lines will downsize their ships or disappear, with those monstrous boats re-purposed for something. Many people will fear to join in large gatherings for a long time, which will have some subtle effects (another blow to the rock music industry--rent those boats for "cruises to nowhere"?).

  
  

  What I'm praying for is that global capitalism will be replaced by global community as civilization's guiding force.

As a retired statistician, there's a lot I could bore you with regarding my study of the curves, but I will summarize and say that the second derivative of the number of new cases is a good leading indicator for the key statistic, which is the change over time (first derivative) of the net number of cases (active minus cured). 

The number of deaths follows from that, subject to adjustment for the quality of life-saving healthcare and the comprehensiveness of testing.  Based on that, and my assessment of the quality of the US' response to date, I estimated a few days ago that the number of deaths due to the coronavirus in the US for 2020 will be 80,000.  I'd call that a "good job" for Trump--a 3 on a scale of 5.   Or on a scale of 20,000 to 5 million.  So, yeah, a lot at stake.

One piece of good news (for me):  New Mexico seems to lead the nation in tests per capita to date, and our Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham is suddenly emerging as a potential VP nominee for Joe Biden.  I endorse the idea wholeheartedly; in fact she is my first choice, given that Pete Buttigieg seems to be out of the running.  She has stayed well ahead of the curve in terms of her communication and the clarity of her executive orders.

Trump's administration defines the curve, for better or worse. Mitch's point that it (Trump/Mitch/Congress/whatever) got distracted by the meteoric news cycle of the impeachment and critical Democratic primaries has some merit*.  That is no kind of excuse, though, not for an individual, and certainly not for a Federal government.  That is kind of the problem, though--the effort has been 'federated" way too much.  Granted, I wouldn't want Trump making life-and-death decisions for others, given his ethics, but this is a real good example of how bad states' rights thinking is in critical, national policy-making.

That is no criticism of the governors themselves.  As I have already suggested, there have been true standouts.  If this pandemic had just hit the US so hard a month sooner, we'd probably be seeing Draft Andrew Cuomo sweeping Super Tuesday (in the guise of "Undecided")--once again, for better or worse.  If we were a tree, we'd be looking pretty thin at the top, though our trunk be solid.


I aim to follow up with four more posts this week on possible divertissements, notwithstanding.


*I have elaborated somewhat to improve his argument, which failed miserably.  Hope remains alive to eliminate directly all possibility of Mitch pulling off a Netanyahu.

Super Tuesday Special Edition

So much has changed so quickly that I have to make a few comments prior to the election returns this evening (and beyond).

There is an unusually high degree of uncertainty, due to the mix of three new elements:

• The arrival (finally!) of Mike Bloomberg on voters' ballots--the great, pure test of the effect of saturation TV advertising;  
• The effect of another real-world 21st-century experiment: using multiple endorsements and perceived momentum in achieving real electoral results without traditional grassroots organization (the Biden campaign); 
• The changing fluid dynamics from the rapid, simultaneous withdrawal of significant candidates in a race that remains multi-lateral.  

Apart from having real significance for the outcome of this momentous general election coming this November, today's results will provide fabulous grist for political scientists.   There is little experience on true multi-sided contests.  Much as the big picture, along with the tendency of US first-past-the-post election systems, would suggest we should expect convergence to a two-person showdown, right now there are still four contenders who can draw significant numbers of delegates today, and the variations of support evidenced for each lead to some very interesting contests to watch tonight. 

A Note on Methods

Somewhat amazingly, two polling outfits have been able to file results in each of the 14 Super Tuesday states, conducted entirely after Saturday's surprisingly-strong Biden victory there. So these reflect his sudden resurgence.  Even more impressively, in one of the two (Data for Progress), many of the states' polling seems to have been done on Monday, with some knowledge that Buttigieg and Klobuchar were dropping out. 

So, for my own analysis, I have allocated the percentages shown for Buttigieg and Klobuchar (and Steyer, when applicable) as:  40% to Biden, 20% to Sanders, 20% to Bloomberg, and 20% to Warren.  There are reasonable arguments as to how much of their previous supporters would move in the direction of their endorsement and how much to their previous second- or third-choice, if they were not Biden; this is supposed to be a simple compromise approach to estimate that unknown.  

The other adjustment is the "gross-up" to 100% (actually 98 or 99%, to give Tulsi her due) of these results.  The polls vary in the extent to which the sum of all the candidates' shares are less than 100%--the ones with 95-98% accounted for clearly used more pressing methods to get respondents to choose than the ones with 85-90% allocated.  I personally prefer the latter, as many of those "borderline don't know" people don't actually vote. 

Five Major Outcomes to Watch For Tonight

0. Delegates Won 

This is the most important one, but I expect the results will not be clear enough to report with confidence tonight, despite what will be very earnest efforts by the news networks.  The main reason will be the uncertainty about which candidates will achieve the binary 0/1 outcomes on the 15% vote threshold, for the statewide and congressional-district level delegates, and the leverage those will have on the calculations.  We can see (from prior coverage efforts) that the networks will try to use partial returns toward the objective of being able to call (to something like 95% likelihood) at least some of those outcomes, but there will be many, many delegate decisions remaining outstanding by breakfast tomorrow. 

1. How Strong the Biden Surge?  

 This primary campaign has had a "Flavor of the Month" characteristic for a long time.  Remember the surges for Kamala, Beto, Julian, Pete, Amy, Warren (last fall), Gabbard, Booker?  (OK, I guess not Booker)  Generally they have resulted from spotlighted media exposure driven by news stories or attacks they made.  Most of them didn't last, and the attackers usually suffered in the end.   Is Biden the flavor of this month, or will his momentum fade, due to our fickleness or some unusually huge gaffe (there will still be many small ones, I can guarantee). 

There are two aspects to the force of the surge we will be able to measure:  1) the rate of increase for Biden in states where he was not even viable prior to SC (Ex. CA, MN, CO); 2) The degree to which his support consolidates to produce big wins in states where he was already strong (NC, OK, AL, VA)--will these match up to the degree of his wipeout win in SC? 

Key test:  1)  Does Biden's % in CA exceed 25%; 2) Does his % in NC exceed 40%?

As for whether the Biden Surge is merely this month's flavor (great as this month/week was to have as his), or something that will either endure or grow stronger, that will have to wait. 

2. Who Wins More States, Biden or Bernie? 

In terms of clear indications from the current polls, eight states have clear indicated "winners"--plurality of the popular vote.  I'd say they range from 80% probability to 95%, so probably one of these will be wrong.  

For Biden:  NC, VA, OK, AR, AL;   For Bernie:  VT, CO, CA. 

The six others present a variety of close races, which will draw a whole lot of the attention.  They don't matter much for the delegate numbers, because of proportionality, but still: 

Bernie/Biden showdowns: TN (Biden favored--turnout may be adversely affected by tornadoes overnight in Nashville, yet another uncertainty), MN (Bernie favored--see #3 below), and, most significantly, TX.  

Three-way races:  UT (Bloomberg and Biden narrowly ahead of Bernie); ME (probably Bloomberg's best chance for a state today; he's slightly leading Bernie and Biden); MA (Bernie/Biden/Warren).  MA could be a close four-way race, as the poll from the other outfit (Swayable, which conducted their polls Sunday and Monday) actually had Bloomberg ahead of Warren.  A fourth-place finish in her home state might actually convince her to withdraw, which would create another ripple in the force fields later this week.   

My only prediction:  Biden 7 states, Bernie 6, Bloomberg 1. 

3. How transferable is endorsement support? 

Buttigieg's endorsement may be more meaningful to Biden in the long run than Klobuchar's, but the value of Amy's endorsement will have a very clear measure in MN.  Before last weekend, Klobuchar and Bernie were in a close race, with support around 30%, with Biden in the also-rans, well below the 15% threshold.   Though Bernie should be expected to finish first, how close Biden gets to him will make a meaningful difference in delegates.  It might also give an indication if, down the road sometime, Warren bows out and either endorses Sanders directly or implicitly. 

Key test:  Does Biden's number reach 30%?   

4. Is Bloomberg a real threat to Biden's dominance among moderates? 

Put another way, what is Bloomberg's ceiling, when he dominates voter contact through his ads?  It's more complicated than just a Biden/Bloomberg showdown anywhere, as Sanders and Warren also competed in all the states Bloomberg has saturated.  He was planting the seed, which might have flowered if Biden had not rallied, but Joe's still there.  The best ways to measure the relative strength of Biden and Bloomberg will be in states where they have both polled relatively well--AR,  UT, and ME--and those where Biden was weak, but coming on strong--CO, CA. 

Personally, I expect the strength of Biden's surge may falter in weeks to come.  Bloomberg may feel the same way, but if he does not do well enough today, he may feel the urge to fall in behind Joe.  It may also take a week or two to re-calculate his ROI for his first half-billion of expenditure.  

Key test:  In how many of those five states--AR, UT, ME, CO, CA--does Bloomberg edge Biden?  

5. Can Warren survive?   Is she still "viable"? 

Trends are clearly not in her favor, as conventional wisdom settles on the inevitability of a 'B-geezer' battle (Bernie/Biden, or if not that,  Bernie/Bloomberg); she gets no attention and not much respect for her First Four finishes in the First Four--none of which were better than third (IA; one was fifth).  Her long-run strategy of building organizations in many states ran afoul of the whiplash of the early primary/caucus results and associated news stories, with the result that her ceiling for results in Super Tuesday states are uniformly on the low side.   The only positive is that the withdrawal of Buttigieg, Klobuchar, and Steyer will give her a few extra percent, which may make the difference as to whether she reaches 15% or not in a number of states.   This result is important also for the other candidates' ultimate delegate results:  how many ways will the pies be divided? 

Key test:  In how many states will Warren reach 15% statewide?  

Should be safely above:  VT, MA, CO.  Likely below:  AL, NC.  Can't tell--projects right around 15%: VA, UT, TN, OK, MN, ME, AR, and most importantly, TX and CA. 

Her plan is to continue on, regardless, but embarrassment in MA or in her birth state of OK might change her mind.   I would say that if she reaches 15% in seven of these, and including both TX and CA, she should stay in, though I don't know if she will see it that way.  The true shape of the delegate race is not likely to be clear for a couple of weeks yet, and her share of delegates (probably will end up being 5-10% of the total) may be important, or meaningless, in the big picture. 

Watching the results from Texas and Massachusetts will answer many of these questions.  I would also cite--apart from the obviously important, but slow-moving CA results--the extent of Biden's win in NC.  If it is comparable to the one he had in the other Carolina, it suggests a strong argument for his eventual nomination:  if Biden can bring in NC for Democrats, it would be very good news for the Electoral College race. 

 

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:

• 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 (?)

The one exception has been Barack Obama. So, I write this in spite of my fear that my endorsement  may be like Ed Koch's proverbial kiss of death.  I hope not.

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.

20/20 Vision: SXSW

The title does not lead to a a clear-eyed review of country music--its degradation, its vast untapped talent, its isolated shining stars of independence.  Instead, it's a misleading reference to the classic photo framing the progressives' dilemma in 2020: Tom Steyer, coming over to Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders after the debate. 

 Steyer, by Sanders/Warren.
   S by S/W.   Sorry!

I would insist on the inclusion of Steyer in the picture.  He represents a potent force (TV ads) which will be available to the winner of the Sanders/Warren competition for leadership of the progressive movement for the campaign.  His look of awkward recognition provides the clearest evidence possible of the tone of the interaction Warren and Sanders had.  Now, CNN has provided us a covert audio tape which discloses the content:  They accused each other of calling them* a liar.

The subject of the debate question, the meeting our progressive leaders had just after the 2018 election, had been reported publicly at the time. Afterward, I anxiously awaited the gracious announcement by one that they* would not be running (with or without implicit, or explicit, endorsement of the other).  Such announcement was not forthcoming, and since then both have made their current intentions known.

First, no one is or was lying.  Sanders did not say "a woman cannot be elected President".  And Warren did disagree with what he said.  It is now quite obvious almost precisely what was said.

The topic, of course, was The Movement:  Who is going to lead it in 2020?  Warren made an appeal for it to be her.  She passed on a draft movement and stood down in 2016 and let Bernie run.  Now, it is her turn.  We join in progress:

Warren: Anyway, you're not getting any younger, Bernie...
Sanders:  Now, now.  You're hardly a spring chicken yourself, Elizabeth.
 (I'm guessing that, rather than "Liz")Besides, this Trump is no one for a lady to run against.  Look at what he did to Hillary Clinton.  I don't want to see you go through that.  Let me take him on.
W (agitated):  Wait, you told me last time "Stay back"**  Are you telling me I can't win?
S:  No!  He would rip you open.
 (The actual source of the misunderstanding.  Bernie was not saying "No" to the question, but to the idea of her running against Trump.  The horror!) 
W:  I'll tell you what:  let's both run, and whoever can't win, endorses the other.
S:  You're on. 

And that's where we stood--until last weekend.  Elizabeth Warren needed to take action, as she was bleeding support on the left to Sanders and on the right to Buttigieg.  Warren is conflating the progressives' need for a champion in these primaries with the need to demonstrate that a woman can indeed be President--in the only way it can be proven, by doing it.  The strategy may work.

Neither she nor Bernie stood in critical condition as the voters begin to weigh in for real. Their combined vote in polling always tops Biden's, but rarely do they lead him individually.  The need for them to settle the dispute, definitively, is great, but it's not going to happen soon.  It will make it tougher if they end up taking both the top spots in either Iowa or New Hampshire (the latter seems particularly likely to me).   The Super Tuesday combined delegate haul for the two competing may top Biden's, but he'd be the leader in the count, and the effort to stop him early will have failed. The betting consensus seems to be more that Sanders will survive, or thrive, in IA and NH and Warren will finish third or fourth, and not the opposite, though I'm not buying it or betting on it.

Getting to the meat of the matter, though, the question remains:  who should be the progressive champion to face down Biden (or his successor in the moderate lane, if he implodes), and, what is to some degree the same question, who (between Sanders and Warren, or Steyer for that matter) is the progressive who can best face down Trump and win big in 2020?

I can answer it from my personal point of view, but I think a fair way to examine it is on the crucial distinction in their approach.  Sanders is the thought leader of the Movement, while Warren's approach is to apply the principles of the Movement in the most practical way to the challenges we face. Sanders continually broadens and makes deeper the reach of what he aims to achieve (in the last debate, though it went unnoticed, he called to "rebuild the United Nations"--a huge, idealistic, unpopular, and even somewhat arrogant challenge for the next President), while Warren tends to glom onto her original set of planned reforms the most popular formulations others develop.  I would suggest that US history has many examples of committed idealists who governed pragmatically (Lincoln, FDR, JFK/LBJ), while the closest I can think of as governing movement leaders were Reagan and Teddy Roosevelt.  Both are possible routes to the White House (though TR succeeded in after McKinley's assassination, then won re-election).

The objective data from head-to-head polling (vs. Trump) suggests Sanders polls slightly better than Warren (or Buttigieg), about equal to how Biden does, both nationally and in most in-state polls. We've been advised, though, that these polls do not predict outcomes well so far away from the election.   The objective data favoring Warren is more subtle and comes when the second choice among candidates is considered.  She seems to have recognized this, and is positioning herself as the best chance to unify the party for the general election.  Her previous endorsement from Jay Inslee and the more recent ones from Julian Castro and Ayanna Presley support that line of argument.  Sanders' script which started this mess went at this perceived Warren strength, suggesting her (first-choice) support was limited to educated elites and did not include other segments of the base.  That was the first shot which set off this important side battle.

As for Steyer, his chances to replace both Sanders and Warren as leader of the Movement are long and will depend on their being unable to resolve their dilemma, and the chances of both being buried as a result, so a late move after IA and NH.  More likely, he will be able to put his immense resources behind the winner of the face-off.


* Non-gendered single person subject and object pronouns. 
** I heard Bernie say in the debate, "Stay back", though the transcript says, "I stayed back".  I don't see as how he stayed back--she did. 

POLOG--July 5, 2019

(Sorry for the blogging hiatus--I've been traveling for the last month, and I'm still deciding whether to post travel notes here or forbear.   I should be able to pick up the pace of new posts now.)

So, the big rally went off OK; the military resisted that impulse to 'AnwarSadat' him, and Trump resisted the impulse to go 'full Mussolini' and whip his crowd into a frenzy.  Congress surely will not do anything to end the rule by arbitrary Executive Whim, so it falls to us to vote him out. Maybe there's still the possibility that this can be resolved fairly through the electoral process.  There may need to be some civil disobedience in the meantime, though;, such as if Trump imposes a citizenship rider on the census by Executive Order.

I was traveling the nights of the June debates, so I didn't see them (and haven't YouTubed them yet).  It seems the major outcomes--Biden and Sanders down, Warren up, Harris tackling Biden on racial grounds, most of the rest crowded out--were predictable, but still, it will be the transformation of  results from among the many theoretical storylines that will become the history of this truly critical race.

My preferred candidate--the one I seek to answer when the email pseudo-polls ask me who I would like to see as the nominee--Sherrod Brown, that is, well, he's not running.  So, I am holding off completely on making a firm endorsement.  (OK, I did go "all-in" on Elizabeth Warren, back before she took off in the polls, but I am pulling back some of my winnings for the next round of betting.)

One point on which I am very firm is that the VP nominee should be Pete Buttigieg.  If not him, then Stacey Abrams.  It is time to make that clear signal that things are changing, and posing Buttigieg or Abrams against Mike Pence would make for a devastating contrast.  That said, I don't think Mayor Pete can or should win the nomination this year, though he has already established himself as a formidable nationally appealing young statesman. I'm endorsing him for 2028 (or maybe 2036) right now.

The Big Issue of this election is The Past vs. The Future.  Or, it should be.  That is why my preferences lean away from Biden and Sanders (though it must be said I can easily get behind a scenario in which either wins).   As for Warren, who's just a little younger, she has the look of someone whose time has come, though it is also arguable that it should have been 2016. Anyhow, i think Sanders will ultimately give way to her candidacy this time, as it is the movement that is the priority for him.  Or so he says.

My take on the big post-debate Harris emergence is that people have perceived she does indeed have the mental toughness to take on Chief Twit.  That alone takes her from a contender to a leading contender. *

So, Warren-Buttigieg.  Or Harris-Buttigieg.  Or Biden-Abrams.

You heard it (them) here.  Also postulated in the "Train Democrats" series of emails, among other ticket combinations.. What the heck is that 'group'--some kind of AI Machine Learning bot?  If so, it should be savvy enough to have a better name than that and disguise itself just a little:  even just switching the words, "Democrats Train"  would be a big improvement. Or "Democratic Train", which is almost inspiring.

* I would tend to agree with Trump, who wants Biden to run, that her actual argument of attack was not really so strong:  Biden's position on busing way back then was, indeed, centrist, though it does him little honor.  And Harris was fortunate; some have bitter memories of their experiences.  

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.