March 12, 2020--18-to 44-Year-Old Voters

For decades I have been deeply disappointed while waiting for young people to show up to vote. 

This time around it looks as if a majority will again sit out the election. Even with the inspiring Bernie Sanders in the race the number of youngish people not voting is increasing.

I don't get it. The future belongs to them and all they need to do to shape policies that would improve their lives is reach out and take charge. The sooner the better many feel. I do. We have made a mess of the world and if young people want a better life it's in their hands to bring that about.

It won't be easy. Not everyone will welcome them, not everyone is eager to stand aside and let them take the lead. But if they do not, if they leave it to old men, things are likely to continue to deteriorate.

From the Washington Post look at the numbers from this week's series of primaries--

Sanders’s campaign has argued that he can win in the general election because of his appeal to young people. But that hasn’t been true in the early contests. On Tuesday he again fared poorly, including with young voters

Voters aged 18 to 44 were 40 percent of the vote in Mississippi in 2016, but just 32 percent on Tuesday. 

In Missouri, they were 41 percent in 2016 and 32 percent on Tuesday. 

In Michigan, youth turnout was the reason Bernie pulled an upset in 2016, but 18-to-44-year-olds’ share of the vote dropped from 45 percent then to 38 percent earlier this week. 

For years I've attempted to understand this. Without success. So I turned to guest blogger Sharon, who wrote--

On why young people don't turn out? I heard one say they go to Bernie’s rallies to post pictures on Instagram and to say they were there.

I guess voting doesn’t give them the same cred. 

In 2016 I overheard kids in Denver saying they would vote for the marijuana initiative on the ballot but would not vote for president.

Sadly, this sounds about right. 

March 6, 2020--Elizabeth Warren

Elizabeth Warren's announcement yesterday that she is no longer a candidate for the Democratic nomination for the presidency was a class act. 

There was just the right combination of self-insight, a vision for the future, and understandable emotion.

Unlike her colleague candidates, she did not rush to endorse Joe Biden or, for that mater, Bernie Sanders. She indicated she needs to give it some thought. Who to back for the presidency deserves that.

In he meantime, Biden and Bernie Sanders are pursuing her, seeking her support. 

I have a suggestion--Joe Biden should see if she is interested in being his running mate if, which now seems likely, he defeats Bernie and becomes the nominee. And that he and she consider announcing it even this week which would help him win the Michigan primary next week. If he were to win that most savvy political observers feel it would in effect win him the nomination. It would suggest that over the next few weeks Biden would run the Midwest primary table.

And wouldn't Warren be an excellent running mate and, ultimately, vice president.

Biden was a deeply involved vice president to Barak Obama and from that experience would likely be an excellent president to partner with. He could, in effect, mentor her, assisting her get ready, while burnishing her resumé, to run again for the presidency four years hence. 

In the meantime, Warren would help draw progressives, women especially, to support him.

With Joe already 77 it feels likely that he would opt to be a one-term president. 

So this scenario for each of them could be politically advantages and responsible. It would also help breech the divide within the Democratic Party between progressives and moderates. Breeching divides will be Biden's agenda for the remained of the campaign and, if he succeeds, his presidency.

March 4, 2020--Money Can't Buy You Love

The Washington Post headline this morning had it right--Biden "Romps." 

If I'm coherent enough after staying up all night to gather the results from Super Tuesday, am I right to say that the only state outstanding is California, which Sanders is likely to win? Fairly narrowly at that after losing much of his lead there to a post-South Carolina revivified Joe Biden.

Biden won big in Texas, didn't he? Yes Texas.

When all is tallied, it may look as if Biden will emerge with more actual Super Tuesday delegates than Bernie. Am I right in what I wrote Monday that Bernie's movement is not a juggernaut, not an overwhelming movement but a more conventional candidacy where he has trouble getting more than 25-30 percent of the vote? That his candidacy has a ceiling, and not  a very high one at that?

But Sanders will live to fight many days. Many. Basically saying the same thing over and over until we all collapse from boredom, exhausted by his angry one-note rant. 

Voters, it seems, want to feel good and optimistic and Bernie makes everyone as grumpy as he is. Don't we all have at least one blustering uncle like that who we hope not to get stuck sitting next to on Thanksgiving?

Isn't the biggest loser from yesterday Elisabeth Warren who came in third in Massachusetts? Third in her home state!

Actually, the biggest loser was the half-a-billion-dollar candidate Mike Bloomberg who discovered that money can't buy you love, only American Samoa. 

February 28, 2020--Go, Mike, Go

Mike Bloomberg says he entered the race for the Democratic nomination because Joe Biden was faltering and it looked as if Bernie, a self-declared socialist, anathema to an uber-capitalist such as Bloomberg, was likely to become the nominee. 

So he wrote a check to himself for a billion dollars to spend on a media campaign in support of his own candidacy. As of today, he has not secured a single delegate and sits at 10-15 percent in the polls.

His bet is to go all in on Super Tuesday, March 2nd, three days from now, hoping he will prevail in enough of the 14 states that will be holding primaries to begin to block Sanders' path to the nomination.

This is unlikely to happen. Actually, from where Bloomberg currently stands with voters it is virtually certain he will come in second or even third in a few of the smaller states. To make matters worse, he is doing poorly in delegate-rich big states such as California and Texas.

The situation in the Lone Star State exemplifies Bloomberg's problem.

The latest polling from Texas is instructive. 

It has Biden and Sanders tied at 24 percent. Bloomberg is in third place with 17 percent and Warren is next at 14 percent. Buttigieg sits at 10 percent and Klobuchar languishes at just 4 percent.

But here's the most interesting part--in Texas, if Bloomberg was not in the race, Biden would have a comfortable 31 to 25 point lead over Sanders. Without Bloomberg in the race Warren would pick up 3 points, rising to 17 percent; Mayor Pete would add 1 point and Klobuchar 3.

Here's the irony and the way forward--

Bloomberg entered the race, he says, to keep Sanders from winning the Democratic nomination. But it appears that by joining the contest he is bringing Biden down and clearing a path to the nomination for Bernie. 

A prime example of unintended consequences.

The solution, though, is clear--Bloomberg should drop out of the race Saturday night after Biden wins the South Carolina primary by as much as 20 percentage points. 

That would resuscitate Joe's campaign and perhaps begin the process, with a revived and reenergized Biden leading the way, in denying Sanders the nomination.

Perhaps.

February 26, 2020--Fidel & Bernie

With less than a week to go before the crucial Super Tuesday primaries where 40 percent of the Democratic delegates will be up for grabs,  Bernie Sanders, who has been running for president for many years is finally being vetted by his opponents and the media.

For example, until last weekend during a 60 Minutes interview, he had not been pressed about the cost to taxpayers of his ambitious social programs, including how he would pay for them. 

He fumbled around in his response and it was clear he didn't have those numbers readily at hand. He finally said Medicare for All would cost $30 trillion but when asked what about other programs such as free college tuition and forgiving student debt, testily he said--"Well, I can't--you know, I can't rattle off to you every nickel and every dime." 

Nickels and dimes?

This was an irresponsible version of an answer for programs that would cost Americans many trillions more.

When a few months ago Elizabeth Warren was pressed to reveal the cost of her healthcare program, also Medicare for All, when she released a detailed budget, with costs also running into tens of trillions and no meaningful plan for how to play for them, she was rightfully excoriated and her poll numbers--she had been in first place--began to slip. To a point where she is no longer realistically viable. 

Sanders, just a few days ago, for the first time, was asked about his comments some years back that appeared to show support for Fidel Castro's agenda and spoke about how the first thing Fidel did in 1959 when he took power was institute an island-wide literacy program. Not a word about the brutal side of Castro's rule. Bernie came off sounding as if he was an apologist for the communist presidente.

Rather than saying his views about Castro were expressed some years ago, that they have "evolved," and he no longer has such a favorable opinion of Fidel--though that would be a fib--a day or two later he doubled-down in another interview while his advisors shrugged, claiming this was just an example of Bernie being Bernie. Unlike traditional politicians he is not a hypocrite and is "consistent" in his views. (Some would say rigid.)

Though there is something attractive about a presidential candidate being a truth teller, doesn't Sanders recognize that this time around it's all about winning and that some prevaricating is a small price to pay if it contributes to ridding us of Trump?

Also lurking, waiting to be exposed and mocked are his favorable views of the Sandinistas and Soviets. Apparently while on his honeymoon trip to Moscow he came away a fervent admirer of the chandeliers in the Moscow subway and by implication the USSR system.

This positive assessment of Castro and the Soviets may cost him the election because by giving Fidel a pass, it is hard to see Sanders carrying Florida and in a close Electoral College election it could again come down to Florida, Florida, Florida.

Sanders is making it too easy for Trump to caricature him.

If you think I am being unfair to Sanders by demagoguing Castro, back in my college days I helped establish a Fair Play for Cuba chapter in New York City, met Castro and Che Guevara, and read Jean-Paul Sartre's On Cuba cover-to-cover three times!

This is not about Cuba but Sanders' candidacy.

I got over my infatuation with the Cuban Revolution before I turned 25. Bernie at 78, not so much.

Fidel Castro in New York 1959

February 24, 2020--Jack: Trump's Head Fake

"At the risk of losing your appetite, for a moment make believe you're Trump."

Jack has the ability, though limited, to be playful. So I went along with him, thinking maybe this was one of those times. He hadn't called in a few weeks and I must admit, in a limited way, I missed hearing from him. 

"Proceed."

"Go back in time to maybe three years ago when Trump turned most of his attention to his reelection campaign."

"If you want to be historically correct," I said, "he began to think about his reelection the day after he was inaugurated. Maybe even right after taking the oath of office."

"Whatever," Jack said, "I imagine the first thing on his mind was to think about which Democrats would be running and who he wanted to run against. By then anyone paying attention could come up with a list of the 25 or so Democrats who were thinking about it or already running. That started even earlier than the Inauguration but on  Election Day right after the results were known and Trump was declared the winner."

"I agree with that. It's never too soon to be ambitious."

"So, again, make believe you're Trump and are psyching out the opposition. Thinking about who it might be easiest to defeat."

"You want me to come up with that? Who I think Trump wanted to run against?"

"Correct," Jack said, "I think it's a pretty easy one."

I thought for a few moments while he went to get another cup of coffee.

"OK. Of the major candidates, excluding people like Colorado senator Michael Bennet or Maryland congressman John Delaney, who had no chance whatsoever to win, easiest for Trump to beat--in his own mind--is, was Bernie the socialist."

"Exactly. I knew you were a smart boy."

"Get on with it," I said, "I don't have all day."

"So Trump zeros in on Bernie and thinks about how he can help bring about his nomination."

"That too is an easy one. Call Putin and tell him to get his boys to begin undermining Sanders' campaign."

"Wrong," Jack said, "He calls who the president of Ukraine was at that time and asks him to dig for dirt about Joe Biden, who back then everyone thought was going to be the nominee and the strongest Democrat. All the early polls had Biden with a wide lead. Including over Trump."

"I'm confused," I said, "You asked me to imagine what Trump was thinking and doing three or more years ago, but he didn't talk with the Ukraine president, Zelensky, until July 2019. Seven or eight months ago."

"You're so naive. If you want to be a convincing Trump you have to think outside the box and come up with stuff that no one yet is thinking about. For example, I'm sure Trump called the previous Ukrainian president, the one before Zelensky, and asked him to work on bringing down Biden. That president was such a crook that I'm sure he didn't require too much bribing."

"Please continue. This is going to take forever."

"It works. With Trump tweeting and making fun of Biden and whatever Fox News and the Ukrainians came up with, Biden's numbers began to come down and it looked like he wasn't going to be a real threat to Trump. But again, we began with me asking who you thought would be easiest to beat. The one Trump wanted to run against."

"Again, it feels as if we're going around in circles. Can you speed this up?"

"So most of the election coverage on cable news was devoted to Biden and his son, including the impeachment business, you remember that--the impeachment?"

I said, "It feels like that was ten years ago."

"There was very little about 'Crazy Bernie.' It was all about Biden and Trump. But what's really on Trump's mind is Bernie. The one he wants to run against, feeling he'd be the easiest to beat. All Trump would have to do is talk about his heart attack and how he's a communist."

"If I agree with any of this, I still don't know what Trump did to help Bernie win."

"For one thing he got his friends the Russians to do what they could to help Bernie get the nomination. We just learned about that late last week."

"True."

"Tell me what you make of that."

"What's the 'that'? I can't wait to hear the latest conspiracy theory."

"Why did Sanders sit on this information for at least month? For the first time a few days ago he disclosed he was briefed about the Russians helping with his campaign."

"I think I know what you're implying. So out with it."

"Maybe Bernie was happy getting the Russians' help."

"Inconceivable."

"So tell me why he didn't make it public immediately. And if you in your Trump impersonation wanted the Russians to do their thing to help Bernie, wouldn't you wink at your best friend Putin to arrange for that help for Bernie?"

I confessed, "My head is spinning."

"And so," Jack asked, "where do things stand now with the Democrats?"

"Meaning?"

"Who looks now like he has the clearest shot at the nomination?"

"After Nevada, likely Bernie."

"Just what you, if you were like Trump, would have wanted and would have done to help make it happen." He paused to catch his breath. He was all excited. 

"Like a head fake Trump made it look as if it was about Biden while in reality it was about Bernie. Trump helped bring Biden down and by doing so opened a lane for Bernie to secure the Democratic nomination. It was a Trump twofer."

Exhausted, I said, "Here's my final word--this could turn out for Trump to be a case of being careful about what you wish for. I think Bernie is going to turn out to be a formidable general election candidate. Maybe the strongest Democrat.  Which means he may be the best one positioned to defeat Trump."

Jack moaned, "I'll have to think about that."

February 19, 2020--Newbie Bloomberg

Among many people I know, mainly older friends, I am sensing a building enthusiasm for the candidacy of Mike Bloomberg.

They are in general high-information folks who are well aware of Stop and Frisk, redlining, and his too frequent misoginy. They were antiwar protesters in their youth and have been politically active in progressive causes in many ways through the years.

Thus, they are reluctant to be quoted but are quickly coming to support Bloomberg.

Not because they feel he will be a great president, not because they believe he will unify the country or inspire the young but because they feel he is the only one who can defeat Sanders, who they see to be unelectable, and because he is electable and thus has the best chance to save us from four more years of Trump.

So, I did some calling around and almost everyone I spoke with reported feeling optimistic for the first time in what feels to them like forever.

One told me, as a life-long feminist and Democratic activist, she is embarrassed to tell her friends how she is inclining. She also said, as with Trump in 2016, people like her if surveyed will not acknowledge they is planning to vote for someone so flawed. And vote with growing enthusiasm and hope.

So we'll see how tonight goes at the Democratic debate. If Bloomberg is able to deal with the wave of criticism that will inevitably come his way we may see the election transformed.

Minimally, it will not be boring.

February 17, 2020--Buying the Election

As Mike Bloomberg rises in the polls to perhaps second place behind Sanders, his opponents, none more than Bernie, accuse him of trying to "buy the election." 

Bloomberg is worth $62 billion, is America's 6th richest person, and has said he will spend at least $2.0 billion of this fortune on his campaign for the presidency  

Anyone who watches TV or has a smart phone no matter where in America they live can get a sense of what $2.0 billion buys you--endless ads approved and paid for by Bloomberg, a mammoth social media blitz, and a flood of Bloomberg-generated memes to chew on.

In addition, it buys you a well-paid team of operatives to carry out your ground game.

And ultimately, it may help get you the presidency.

It is true on one important level (having virtually limitless money available to fund a campaign for the presidency) that money may help "buy" Bloomberg the election.

I placed quotation marks around "buy" because there are additional ways to think about the purchasing power of money in elections. 

A glaring example--Bernie Sanders also is trying to mobilize a fortune's worth of money to help him win the presidency.

Not his money, but yours and mine. Taxpayers' money. The key word to how this works is "mobilize," which is different than "spend."

No one asked us to approve this money, Bernie just appropriated it and plans to use it to pay for all the social programs he is promising.

Thirty to $50 trillion worth (trillion), with a whopping $30 of it for his Medicare for All plan. 

This is money we and our children and grandchildren will need during the next 25 years to fund our Social Security and whatever government-funded health care plan we will be required to live with.

Bernie's programs, of course, will not actually be paid for. Assuming Congress approves them (unlikely) their cost will get assigned to our compounding national debt. Like Bush's prescription drug plan and Trump's tax cuts for the wealthy.

There is, though, a significant difference between what Bloomberg is spending and Sanders is mobilizing--Bloomberg's money is his; Bernie's is ours.

February 14, 2020-Trump's Week

Last week was Trump's best ever.

First, with the almost unanimous vote of Republican senators he was found "not guilty" of committing high crimes and misdemeanors.

He immediately took off on an exoneration tour to bask in the regard of his most fervent followers. The crowds at his rallies were standing room only.

The stock market, his favorite economic barometer, reached record levels.

Also last week there was the jobs report. 225,000 new jobs were created, 65,000 more than expected. He took credit for this (though he doesn't deserve it--what we are experiencing is the ongoing extension of the Obama recovery) and used the good news to underscore how we are beneficiaries of the "best economy in history." (Also, not true).

And he delivered a politically effective State of the Union address, almost sounding like a normal president.

Even his approval ratings (perpetually stuck in the low 40s) crept up a bit. Just a bit.

Gullible (or craven) Republican senators such as Susan Collins claimed that impeachment would chasten him. As a result, they said he will change, become more "presidential."


We see already how that is working out. 

Also during the week it appeared that Joe Biden's campaign was collapsing. So Trump could see that his blackmailing Ukraine was working out.

Just as everything seemed to be going his way, three days ago, the credible Quinnipiac Poll published a spate of findings that was full of bad news for Trump.

From all the good news Tump was expecting a bump up in his favorabilities. As Bill Clinton did. Perhaps in a poll or two he would enter 50 percent land. 

But the opposite happened.

Of the Q Poll results the one that must have been most frustrating to him were the numbers from the head-to-head comparisons between him and each of his main rivals.

He "lost" to each of them. A few, widely--

Bloomberg topped Trump by 51 to 42 percent.  

Sanders beat Trump by 8 points, 51 to 43. 

Biden won 50 to 43.  

Klobuchar prevailed by 49 to 43 percent.

Warren led by 4 points, 48 to 44 percent. 

And Buttigieg won narrowly, 47 to 43 percent.

These numbers I am certain will shift when the results of the New Hampshire primary are factored in--Klobuchar, for example, will pick up at least a percent or two and Warren will continue to slip. None of this is good news for Trump. It shows the deep desire of people to see him voted out of office.

So, it's time for us to emerge from our fear and malaise and get on with our efforts to build on this. We're just at the beginning of the process. Our very country is at stake. 

January 3, 2020--Nominee Bernie? President Bernie?

The just released report on how much Democratic candidates took in during the last quarter of 2019 confirms that Bernie Sanders is a prodigious money-raising machine. 

In addition to the $34.5 million he netted (considerably more than his closest rivals--Buttigieg's $24.7 million and Joe Biden's $22.7) Bernie noted that since launching his campaign for the 2020 nomination, more than five million individuals contributed to his campaign.

This coupled with his nearly one million volunteers, shows him to be a political force to reckon with.

In effect, he will ultimately net about as much money to deploy on the election as multi, multi billionaire Mike Bloomberg has allocated.

His true power as a candidate will be on full display on Super Tuesday, March 3rd, when 15 state caucuses and primaries will select about 40 percent of the delegates needed to secure the nomination. Bernie appears to be poised to do exceptionally well. 

Like it or not, it may be time to predict that Sanders has a clearer path to the nomination than Elizabeth Warren, Pete Buttigieg, or even Joe Biden.

This assumes that Warren continues to falter and most of her potential voters shift to Sanders and that Mayor Pete also slips back and a majority of his supporters find their reluctant way to Biden. 

This would leave Sanders and Biden standing and since there look to be more progressive Democrats than so-called moderates among the electorate, I can see Sanders securing the nomination if a brokered nomination process can be avoided.

Having said this I might as well go further out on the limb and suggest that if Bernie wins the nomination he could as well win the general election. After we hear testimony from Bolton and Giuliani, all bets on Trump are off.

December 5, 2019--Wither Kamala Harris

A friend asked me to repost this, thinking there were a few insights that might have been overlooked when it first appeared in July--

It began so auspiciously. Kamala Harris's campaign for the Democratic nomination. 

20,000 turned out in Oakland for her announcement ceremony. Millions in cash and pledges poured in with promises of more to come. Hollywood gazillionaires have deep pockets.

Then there was The Debate. She took frontrunner Joe Biden down in a preemptive strike by attacking him face-to-face on the most vaunted part of his legacy--his record of support for civil rights. 

Harris knew that Biden's core constituents are African Americans, especially African-American women, and unless she could attract some to support her candidacy it was doomed. So she went after him. Almost calling him a racist by saying she didn't think he was a racist. She just let that hang in the air. And it seemed to work.

For a week after the debate things were looking good for her. No matter that she slammed Biden for his position on court-ordered school bussing, which though designed to reduce segregation all evidence shows was a disaster for blacks as well as whites. Schools were no more integrated and neighborhoods were shredded by White Flight though some individuals such as bussed second-grader Kamala, by her account, benefited.

Harris's poll numbers rose five to 10 points while Biden's plummeted by similar amounts.

But then something seemingly surprising happened--her campaign appeared to stall. She began to slip in the polls and contributions to her campaign went from flow to trickle. 

And on Monday of this week an NBC/Wall Street Journal poll showed Harris slipping to fourth place in head-to-head competition with Trump, trailing still frontrunner Biden (who led Trump by nine points) by eight points, trailing second-place Sanders by six points, and third place Warren by five.

Well within the margin of error, unlike the other three who did well in the poll, Harris led Trump by just one percentage point.

None of this is good news for Harris.

What happened?

I suspect over time underlying race and gender issues are coming into fuller play.

Too many Democratic voters were turned off by the overly-aggressive way in which Harris raked Biden over the coals. She was perceived to be more angry than assertive. It was too much a beatdown than a disagreement about ideas and policies. And too many women as well as men, white as well as black, think of this as you will, felt she was acting in an emasculating manner. Instead of confronting his political history she was attacking his manhood.

Biden came away from the confrontation looking like a punished child.

As I did, on YouTube replay the confrontation to see if she crossed some of these tripwire lines. 

We should probably be beyond these kinds of reactions in our public discourse. But sadly we aren't and it may be costing Kamala Harris a potential path to the nomination. We are not yet that enlightened to be OK with a black women taking down a 70-plus year-old white man. We still have a long way to go.

December 4, 2019--From Hillary

Within a hour of Kamala Harris ending her candidacy for the Democratic presidential nomination, a campaign that got off to such a brilliant and promising start, Hillary Clinton, who knows a thing or two about having one's presidential aspirations thwarted, tweeted--

To all the candidates, staff, and volunteers who have worked their hearts out for presidential campaigns that have ended—remember that fighting for what you believe in is always worth it.

If this generous Hillary had shown up in 2016, we would be living in a very different, more hopeful America.

I know she is desperate to come up with a way to get into the race, but . . .