December 30, 2020--Georgia On My Mind

Next Tuesday is Election Day again in Georgia. For just two races. 

Both senatorial seats are up for grabs and who wins or loses is uncommonly consequential. The majority leadership of the Senate is the actual big prize.

If the Republicans win just one of the seats they will retain control of the Senate and Mitch McConnell will continue as Majority Leader.

If the Democrats manage to win both they will take control and Chuck Schumer will replace Mitch.

Pundits see each race to be a tossup but with the GOP candidates perhaps likely to win the two.

But if my arithmetic is correct, the Democrats can still take control, even if they lose one seat.

Here's how--

If a sitting GOP senator decides that he or she is no longer a Republican and, like Bernie Sanders and Angus King, switches parties, becoming an Independent and, again like Sanders and King, who are Independents, caucuses as they do with the Democrats.

The Senate would then be deadlocked at 50-50 wth vice president Kamala Harris casting all tie-breaking votes. Including who will serve as Minority Leader.

A long-shot? Yes. But there is a plausible way for this to happen--Mitt Romney becomes the third Independent-Democrat.

Our politics has become unpredictable and stranger things have already happened, starting with the implausible Trump becoming president.

So stay tuned. 

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 9, 2020--Bernie: Likable Enough?

Famously, in 2008, during the run up to the Democratic primary in New Hampshire, at the debate that featured Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, when the moderator asked Clinton whether she had the personal appeal to defeat her opponent, before she could answer, Obama interjected, "You're likable enough, Hillary."

The audience moaned and during the next few days Obama was widely criticized for his insensitivity and, as some claimed, his sexism. For interrupting her, for discussing her personality rather than her ideas and qualifications. They next thing, some speculated, he'd be talking about her clothes.

It was more than implied that he would not have behaved this way if he had been debating a male opponent.

Ultimately and ironically the bottom line was that Hillary lost the nomination because, among other things, the postmortems found, many potential voters didn't vote for her because they found her not to be likable. 

It could be that this time around Elizabeth Warren suffered the same fate. She too may have lost because many felt she too was not likable enough.

Sexism was again surely an issue. To smooth some of her rough edges she should have appeared on Saturday Night Live earlier in the primary season and done a little campaigning with her burrito-snatching dog, Bailey.

There is president for that. Remeember, Bill Clinton appeared on the Arsenio Hall Show and, donning shades, played a little sax. Even the dour Richard Nixon tried to demonstrate he had a sense of humor (he didn't) and showed up on Laugh-In, where he called for them to "Sock it to me." He was that desperate.

Speaking about likability, how likable is Bernie Sanders? 

To his followers, likability doesn't begin to characterize their fervor.  But to many, including voters who he has to appeal to now to defeat Joe Biden, his anger and grumpiness are turnoffs. After Trump they are looking for someone who can win but also calm things down.

Perhaps because of the absence of likability Bernie's mien is becoming aggravating and his numbers in the polls are sliding. Sexism for him is. not an issue.

Biden is clearly not a policy machine equalling Warren or Sanders, but an increasing number of Democrats are finding him . . . likable. Someone with whom they would like to have coffee or a beer.

This may not be the best way to pick a president, but there you are.

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 5, 2020--The Youth Vote

Interviewed last night on the Rachel Maddow Show, Bernie Sanders spoke with pride about how his political "movement" was attracting increasing numbers of young voters.

When Rachel pointed out that this is untrue, he blanched and insisted that it is. She pressed him, noting the evidence does not support that conclusion.

He disagreed, saying he "believes" it to be true. 

It was as if he said, if the facts aren't corroboratable, turn to believes to make your case.

Here, from USA Today are the facts. They support Rachel Maddow:

Exit polls for five southern states that Biden won – Alabama, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee and Virginia – found that young voters did not show up at the polls in the numbers they did in 2016.

• In Alabama, only 7% of the voters were in the 17-29 range compared to 14% in 2016. Sanders won six of every 10 of those voters Tuesday compared to four of 10 in 2016.
• In North Carolina, 13% of Tuesday’s electorate were young voters, compared to 16% four years ago. Of those, 57% went for Sanders in 2020 compared to 69% in 2016.
• In South Carolina, young voters made up 11% of the electorate Tuesday compared to 15% in 2016. Sanders won 43% of those voters Tuesday compared to 54% four years ago.

• n Alabama, only 7% of the voters were in the 17-29 range compared to 14% in 2016. Sanders won six of every 10 of those voters Tuesday compared to four of 10 in 2016.
• In North Carolina, 13% of Tuesday’s electorate were young voters, compared to 16% four years ago. Of those, 57% went for Sanders in 2020 compared to 69% in 2016.
• In South Carolina, young voters made up 11% of the electorate Tuesday compared to 15% in 2016. Sanders won 43% of those voters Tuesday compared to 54% four years ago.

Anecdotally, it does appear that many college-age students turn out for Sanders' rallies, but this is never quantified. How many register to vote and then actually do is. And as one can see from the actual Super Tuesday vote, Rachel Maddow had it right.

I am reminded of 19-year-old James Kunen's Strawberry Statement: Notes of A College Revolutionary, a 1970 book about the student protests that roiled Columbia University's campus in 1968.

It was serious business but had another side to it that Kunen also wrote about--the "revolution" was a great place to meet girls.

Is it too cynical of me to point this out?

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. 

March 2, 2020--Bernie's Ceiling?

After each debate and primary, political pundits make lists of "winners and losers." 

The Washington Post, New York Times, and the cable news channels publish theirs even before all votes are counted and all the crosstalk and shouting subsides.

Saturday evening Biden was declared the winner of the South Carolina primary by all the networks literally seconds after the polls closed. How well he did was that obvious. There was only one winner, and quite a victory it was. Biden by a KO with Bernie the sole loser. Sanders got just 20 percent of the vote while Joe received a resounding 48 percent.

Actually, though Sanders lost in a landslide, the biggest loser of the night might have been his self-proclaimed "movement."

The Sanders' movement, Bernie reminds us many times a day, consists of millions of modest folks contributing on average about $18 to his campaign and they are said to be augmented by millions more who have volunteered to work on his campaign. 

I am certain that most of what he reports is accurate (at least the money-raising part of it is verifiable and the amount raised and the number contributing is truly remarkable), but my sense of something that claims to be a political movement needs to attract more than a fifth of the vote.  

We'll know better tomorrow when the results of the 14 Super Tuesday primaries are tallied, but at the moment I am wondering about the power of Bernie's juggernaut, including how many young people have actually turned out to support him, how many first-time voters he calls forth, and how well organized his volunteers are.

During the past year, in poll after poll, Trump consistently has been shown to be supported by 40 to 42 percent of those surveyed. I can't recall one poll where he dipped lower than 40 percent or was preferred by more than 42 percent.

Some who study these matters say this is his ceiling. Joe Scarborough calls him a "42 percent candidate."

If the ceiling metaphor works for Trump it likely works for the Democratic candidates. Warren appears unable to rise above 10 percent, Klobuchar 5 percent, Buttigieg 15 percent, and until Saturday, Biden's ceiling was about 20 percent.

Again, we will see how this heuristic works on Super Tuesday. It already appears that Sanders will do extremely well in California and that might scramble this analysis. Then again if this occurs but the other 13 primaries stay true to form (even with Mayor Pete out of the race) it may mean that California is an outlier.

One thing that seems likely is that as a result of the vote counts Tuesday night the Democratic race will be scrambled. The most likely outcome is that by the end of the day we will have a two-person race--Biden versus Sanders. Then we would learn if there is in fact a robust Bernie movement or revolution. My current sense of things is that it is considerably less than represented. Most voters appear to want calm and healing not confrontation and uncertainty.

And then there are the huge egos. That could keep everyone in the race until the convention in Milwaukee.

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 18, 2020--The Final Seven

If the remaining seven Democratic candidates for the presidential nomination want to win, they need to make some midcourse corrections.

Amy Klobuchar needs to make a 30 minute speech in which she tells us who she is and why she is running for the highest office in the land. It needs to be what she would do as president beyond working with Congress to get bills passed. At the moment she is making a better case for herself to continue in the Senate than move into the Oval Office.

Elizabeth Warren is the most puzzling of the candidates. Just weeks ago ago she was the front runner and now she is struggling to hang on to fourth place. She needs to figure out how to make herself more likable by showing her human side. Her problem is not that she is pushing Medicare for All and lacks a plausible plan for how to pay for it (this is true for Bernie as well and he is doing fine) but rather that in spite of all her energy, effort, and brilliance she has been turning voters off and her numbers have shown it. 

Tom Steyer has been creeping up. With Biden losing support among African Americans, a surprising number have been turning to him. Many who know the inclinations of voters of color see him to be a practical alternative to the former Vice President. But if he wants to continue to rise he too needs to make a major speech about who he is and why he has such a political fire in his belly. At the moment, he is a more effective critic of Trump than an advocate for himself.

Mayor Pete may be the smartest of the candidates but that very smartness at times makes him sound programmed and robotic.

And then of course there is his on-going problem with voters of color. He needs to take that on directly. Think the speech Obama delivered in 2008 about race and his relationship with his former pastor, the black nationalist, the Reverend Jeremiah Wright. 

Then there is Joe Biden. Those counting him out shouldn't do so prematurely. In most national polls he is still in second place. Just 5 or so points behind Sanders. Though he has lost some African-American support, a plurality still say they plan to vote for him. Strong showings in Nevada and South Carolina would put him back in the thick of things.

But he needs some reinvention. He needs to show he has a pulse and the best way to do that is in yet another speech. This one has to put Hunter Biden back in the middle of the narrative. This time not in a conspiratorial one concocted by Trump and Fox News.

Do you remember how back in 1988 Michael Dukakis, the Democratic nominee was leading Vice President George H.W. Bush by double digits until the the race card was played? During one of the presidential debates he was asked how he would feel about the death penalty (he was opposed to it) if his wife Kitty was raped and murdered. Rather than showing any emotion he spoke with sociological detachment and that did him in.

Biden needs to learn from that. Thus far, when asked about what his son was up to in Ukraine, he has spoken about it dispassionately. This makes it feel as if there are things to hide, that he is trying to finesse the situation, or that he is too over the hill and lacks the energy to take on what will await him if he manages to win the nomination and the general election. Someone this passive and seemingly unwilling to defend his family appears to be too weak for the race and ultimately the presidency. He doesn't feel as if he's ready to be commander in chief.

He too needs to make a speech or grant an interview to Sixty Minutes in which he demonstrates he has the capacity to fight and win with appropriate passion. 

More than anything else Sanders has to buy a half hour of TV time to address the voting public about just one topic--he needs to tell us what he means when he calls himself a "democratic socialist."

I suspect that fewer than 10 percent of the electorate know. But we do know that if he is the nominee Trump and his Fox supporters will turn Sanders into a cartoon. They have already begun to do so. It is essential for Bernie to get ahead of this and address it directly. It is at the center of his political philosophy but he has yet to make a clear case for why he embraces socialism and why it would be good for America. 

Finally, there is the case of the complicated Mike Bloomberg. If he wasn't  compromised in regard to some of his attitudes about race and gender, after decades of philanthropy and public service in support of women's rights and racial justice he would likely win the nomination and even the presidency.

But there is Stop and Frisk, redlining, and too many examples of misogyny.

Thus far he has fumbled his explanations and apologies. He needs to do better, much better. He too needs to address this directly, forcefully, and convincingly in another speech similar to Obama's on race. He also needs to be ready to deal with this during Wednesday's debate.

If the final seven were to do this, we would have a nominee who could win since three or four are viable.

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 12, 2020--A Squeaker

For those concerned about Bernie Sanders' ability to defeat Trump in November, for those who are concerned that Bernie seems unstoppable on the road to the nomination, the results yesterday in New Hampshire should be a bit of a relief.

Bernie, in a state next door to his Vermont, managed to squeak by Peter Buttigieg by a scant 1.3 percentage points. A
state Sanders carried four years ago by 20 points.

And, if you combine Amy Klobuchar's votes with Mayor Pete's (44 percent) and contrast them to the total the socialists Bernie and Elizabeth Warren garnered (35 percent), Bernie looks even more vulnerable.

So moderation was the story of the night. Not Bernie's victory.

What is yet to unfold will be very interesting.

February 7, 2020--Calm Down

Calm down everybody. As maddening as the situation is in Iowa, by Tuesday at the latest everyone will be talking about how Pete Buttigieg did in New Hampshire (very well) and how poorly Biden faired (very poorly).

The good news is that November is nine months from now and matters are in our hands. It has been and still is all about voting. 

February 6, 2020--Enough Already

Before they do more harm to themselves, the Democrats need to get to where they're going. And fast.

By this I mean to their final two. 

After all the polling, debates, and now Iowa, it is becoming obvious that among current strivers for the nomination only two are viable--Bernie Sanders and Mike Bloomberg.

They are making powerful and effective cases for their ideas and electability. And they are the only two who have all the money needed to run a 21st century campaign. No one else comes even close.

Pete Guttigieg is clearly attractive, has some money, but with essentially no support in the African-American community doesn't have much of a chance to be nominated much less win in November. Bernie also has his own version of this problem. As, in fact, does Bloomberg (recall Stop and Frisk).

I do not understand why Warren's support has been shrinking for nearly two months--perhaps because of her Medicare For All ideas and their cost. Bernie has this problem as well and then some but for some reason is getting away with it. Probably sexism has something to do with that.

On the other hand, I think I know why Biden is turning out not to be viable. Mainly because he feels like a fragile old man whose time has come and gone. In addition, recall, the other times he ran for president. Though he was far from old, he was an unsuccessful candidate, securing 0.5 percent of the votes in Iowa and New Hampshire and never rising above 5 percent in the polls. When he aspires for the presidency there is clearly something about him that deters voters.

All the other candidates are mired in or close to one-digit territory. Amy Klobuchar is the one exception, now hovering in the 10 percent range.

In other words, the Democratic candidates are either flawed or politically weak. All the more reason to clear the field and let the final two hone their messages, get out of the business of self-destructive bickering, and compete meaningfully with each other. An on-going crowded field is not helping.

As to ultimate electability, can a 78 year-old Jewish socialist who wants to eliminate private health care insurance win a national election? 

Then, assuming by some version of a miracle Bloomberg can win the nomination (the process is rigged to undermine an outsider's chances to do so), can another 77 year-old New York Jew who is fervent about protecting a woman's right to choose, can he win in enough blue-collar swing states to achieve a majority in the Electoral College?

Bernie versus Bloomberg could turn out to be a great contest with clear and stark ideological differences separating them--can Bernie, the representative of the anti-capitalist ninety-nine percent defeat one of the most successful capitalists in American history (whose most profitable product is financial software) with enough wealth to place him in the top one-tenth of one percent?

I know my friends who are eager supporters of Mayor Pete or Elizabeth Warren will not welcome this ultra-practical suggestion. But we're in a dog fight with Trump, who is very good at this, while  also busy shooting ourselves in the foot.

February 3, 2020--Vetting Bernie

Elizabeth Warren has been put through the ringer ever since she revealed details about how she was proposing to pay for her version of Medicare for All.

As she should have been. As all the leading candidates should have been. We need to know if they are offering pie in the sky or policies that make sense and are affordable.

This sort of scrutiny comes with the territory when running for president. Especially when taxpayers assess the highlights of a candidates' domestic agenda that would cost us tens of trillions in additional taxes or increased debt.

Warren was second or third in the national polls when she showed voters her numbers; but since getting into the budgetary weeds about her plans she has slipped. She's now locked in fourth place as her numbers continue to slide.

The main political beneficiary of her descent is the other most progressive candidate--Bernie Sanders. Depending on the poll, he has moved solidly into second or even first place. Tied with or ahead of Biden.

In spite of his rise Bernie has not been seriously vetted. He got this far on a pass. It might be good to wonder why.

For example, according to Steve Rattner, though Warren disclosed her health plan would cost tens of trillions of dollars more than currently being spent on Medicare, the additional cost to taxpayers for Sanders' Medicare for All proposal over ten years, rarely discussed, could be as much as twice that.  ($30-40 trillion versus her $20.5 trillion).

Looking at the cost of some of their other plans Bernie's continue to be much more expensive--

For the Green New Deal, Warren would spend $3.0 trillion more than we currently budget for environmental  programs whereas Sanders' additional spending would reach $16.3 trillion. More than five times as much.

For free college tuition, Warren budgets $610 billion while Bernie would spend less--"only" $480 billion.

To eliminate student debt, Warren would allocate $640 billion, while Sanders would increase the budget by $1.6 trillion. Four times as much.

When asked to explain how they would pay for these and other programs they both talk about instituting wealth taxes. When one looks at the numbers, however, Warren's increased taxes on the very rich would yield $3.75 trillion while Bernie's would net just a little more--$4.35 trillion.

In both cases additional trillions would be required to make their proposals revenue neutral. Good luck with that.

We all know that if any of these programs could be approved by Congress their cost would be added to the federal debt. The same place where Trump's trillions in tax cuts for the mega-rich fester.

If we want to defeat Tump at the polls in November we had better do some of own vetting before Trump and his henchmen do it for us.

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.

January 2, 2020--Jack: Impeachment

"I can't believe you guys stepped in it."

"Make it quick Jack, I only have a few minutes for you." 

This was not true, I had time on my hands as I usually do during the holiday season, but I was in no mood to get involved with him. I'd rather be staring at the ceiling. 

"I'm talking about impeachment. Especially what your Dems are up to."

"Going after Trump, that's what we're up to. And I say, it's about time."

"So he's got you snookered too. I love that." I could hear him chuckling. 

"I repeat--I only have a few minutes for you."

"I'll bet you never heard of this one." I stifled myself, not responding, and so Jack continued, "She fell right into his trap. Trump's" He paused, trying to engage me. I continued to hold my tongue, "How did this whole impeachment thing get started?"

"Enlighten me." I didn't know where he was going with this.

"By Trump ordering the release of the written transcript of his conversation with the newly-elected president of Ukraine. The so-called extortion or bribery conversation where he told Zelensky he would release the authorized military assistance money to Ukraine if they agreed to dig up dirt about the Bidens."

"Of course I know about that. It was pretty stupid for your boy to try to get away with that."

"At the time a lot of media people and liberals were also gleeful, thinking he gave them the smoking gun up front. With Nixon the smoking gun was at the end of the impeachment process with Trump it was up front. Your people thought he shot himself in the foot and off they raced to get impeachment going. You remember, I'm sure, that Nancy didn't want to go there. She was worried that like with Clinton if Trump got impeached by only the Democrats his favorables would go up. It would help him get reelected. But when he released the transcript Pelosi couldn't continue to duck going for impeachment. She had no choice but to unleash Schiff."

"So far, we agree."

"Good. Now let's look at this from where the situation is going rather than where it is--stalled in the House because Nancy doesn't want to send the articles of impeachment to Mitch in the Senate until she has rules in place to call witnesses and examine subpoenaed documents. Mitch is happy about her slowing the process down because as soon as he gets back from New Years he'll start to claim the Dems are engaged in a coverup. They know Trump is not going to be voted out of office. That the Democrats are engaged in a witch hunt. Blah, blah. You've heard all this before. But best of all Nancy is playing right into his hands. She's been smart up to this point but very soon her political strategy is going to come crashing down."

I said, "About this we disagree. Mitch is going to have to allow a few witnesses since if he doesn't it will look like what it is--that he and his senators are engaged in a coordinated coverup. Can you imagine what Bolton and Rudy have to say as witnesses? They may turn out to be the real smoking guns."

"Some of this could happen," Jack said, "but it won't matter. Whatever the Dems come up with--witnesses, emails, stuff like that--Trump is not getting kicked out of office. He's going to be found not guilty and ten minutes after that vote he'll embark on a 10-city Exoneration Tour, boasting there was no collusion, no bribery, no obstruction. Then he'll get the Clinton bump."

"What a nightmare," I said under me breath.

"If you see things unfolding that way--and I'm sure you do," he chuckled again, "it's obvious Trump is behind the whole thing. He's the only one smart enough to come up with this scenario and sucker the Democrats into moving against him. He wanted to be impeached. He engineered the whole thing. And now he'll expose Nancy's failed strategy and take Biden down at the same time. Sort of like a trick shot in pool. Two for one. And that will leave the Democrats with Bernie as their candidate. A trifecta for our president."

My head was throbbing. Was I ever sorry I answered the phone. I swore that next time . . .

September 24, 2019--Get Ready For Warren

The latest poll numbers from Iowa are good news for Elizabeth Warren and her growing number of supporters.

The headline from the latest Des Moines Register/CNN poll is that Warren is now two points ahead of Biden--22 to 20 percent. Sanders is at 11 percent, and no other candidate is in double digits. 

Warren's numbers have been soaring and Bernie's and Kamala Harris's (now at 6 percent) have been declining. Until recently Biden has been in the lead in Iowa but for the first time his numbers are slipping and he is trailing.

There are still about five months until the caucuses and things likely will change, but more and more potential voters are saying they are getting locked into their choices so the trends we are seeing could continue.

More important numbers from the poll are related to the uniqueness of the Iowa caucuses. On the day they are set to occur, caucusers in attendance are allowed to switch from their first choice of candidates, if he or she fails to reach the "viability threshold," to their second or third choice. Since in a crowded field no one is likely to gain a winning majority on the first ballot candidates who have the most second and third place supporters have a distinct advantage. 

The Register poll shows Warren with by far the most fallback support. 71 percent say she is either their first, second, or third choice, a number much higher than for any other candidate.

So, unless something seriously unexpected happens, Warren could win in Iowa and as a result have momentum going forward, especially for taking on Biden and Sanders in New Hampshire, next up in the primary season. And winning the first two primaries would help her in South Carolina where coming in second (after Biden) could be considered a form of victory. It would be the first state where she will be challenged to demonstrate she can do well among African-American voters. This is very much an open question and critical to her ultimate viability in the general election.

These first three primaries are the traditional package. What is new is that on Super Tuesday, March 3rd, a week after South Carolina's primary, for the first time, California will join 13 other states on this most delegate-rich of days. Previously, the Golden State held its primary so late in the process that, with notable exceptions, it did not have much impact on who was nominated. 

But with Warren likely to prevail in California, it will be of great political benefit for her to rake in most of California's delegates and to be anointed by the progressive media. 

The morning after Super Tuesday the race for the nomination could in effect be over.

At the moment, with all sorts of caveats, Warren appears to be the Democrat to beat. And she could turn out to be a powerful opponent for Trump. First, it is obvious he does not do well when with smart and assertive women. Warren is nothing if not that. As a consequence, desperate, we can expect to see barrages of misogyny from him. Then she could be the one best able to get under his skin during the debates and provoke him to self destruct.

Here's the worry--as she moves into the lead in the polls (in Iowa and beyond) her record and campaign promises will undergo ramped-up scrutiny. Her greatest vulnerabilities will be exposed and picked at. For example, she will be pushed to show how she proposes to raise the many trillions required to pay for even a small number of the initiatives she has promised to deliver--Medicare for All and the implications for private health care first and foremost. Increasing taxes on the wealthy (not likely to happen) would not begin to pay for all she has promised. 

She needs to begin now to clean this up. She needs to begin the transition from insurgent to an insurgent frontrunner. As smart as she is I expect she's already on it.