September 10, 2019--Jack: Elizabeth Warren

A quivering Jack slid into the banquette next to me.

"You seem all excited this morning."

"Why shouldn't I be," he said to me. Rona had her head buried in the Times.

"Because the hurricane didn't strike Alabama?"

"I can't believe people are still talking about that," Jack said, "What's the big deal?"

"It shows Trump as either geographically challenged or unhinged."

"Could be both," I added with a snicker.

"Or maybe as you wrote," he turned to face me squarely, "That he's trying to nudge Alabamans to replace their Democratic senator with a Republican."

"A sexual predator no less."

Ignoring that, he said, "Look, I only have a minute. Let me get to what I want to talk with you about."

"What's got you all excited?"

"The latest CBS poll. I read about it this morning and raced right over to see you."

"I didn't see it yet," I said, "Enlighten me."

"It has Poca . . . I mean Elizabeth Warren in the lead. About one point ahead of Biden. But still in the lead."

"I thought you were ignoring polls," from behind the paper, Rona said, "It's too early blah, blah, blah. The polls don't capture Trump's people accurately, blah, blah, blah."

"This one's a little different," Jack said, "It tallies . . ."

"To save you time, let's agree that you're now interested in polls because they contain news you like."

"I'll acknowledge that," he said, smiling, "But let me tell you what this one shows."

"Go on," Rona sounded weary.

"It projects the delegate count. How delegates to the Democratic convention will vote for the various candidates. It shows Warren with slight leads over Biden and Bernie. What's interesting is that Biden's and Sanders's numbers are holding steady while Warren is picking up delegates from other candidates' supporters. Candidates like Kamala Harris and Beto O'Rourke who are slipping further and further behind."

"This whole thing feels bogus to me," I said, "As far as I know no one yet knows who the delegates are going to be. So how can they be polled?"

Jack didn't respond, so I asked, "What else do you have on your mind? There must be more than this flimsy material."

"I'll admit this polling business is a little technical for me, but you have to agree that Warren is doing better and better."

"It does look like that. But why this sudden interest in Warren? I assume she's not one of your favorites."

"It means if she somehow holds on and wins the nomination get ready for four more years of The Donald."

"My recurrent nightmare," Rona said, still using the paper as a scrim.

"Don't be so gleeful," I said, "Polls still show Biden with pretty good leads. Of likely voters not fictitious delegates. In fact, in the early primary states--Iowa and South Carolina among others--Biden appears to be increasing his lead. And they show him trouncing Trump."

Jack said, "But if Warren wins the nomination Trump gets reelected. After Hillary do you think this country's ready for a woman?"

"I do," I said, "And polls, again polls, show that."

"But this woman? Warren wants Medicare for all, the end of private health insurance, student loan forgiveness--a trillion dollar item--free college--another trillion--open borders, including free food stamps and health insurance for even illegal immigrants. And more trillions, I think it adds up to three trillion, for climate change. I could go on. If she wins the nomination I can hear Trump saying, 'Thank you, thank you. There is a God,'"

"Be careful what you wish for," Rona had folded and put down the paper. "She was supposed to get killed when she first ran for the Senate in Massachusetts but won overwhelmingly. And now we're seeing her rising in the polls and doing very well when it comes to raising money for her campaign."

"Speaking of that," Jack said with a toothy grin, "Also in that paper of yours, on the front page," he tapped it where it lay on the table, "there's a story about how though she says she rejects the practice of going after wealthy donors she has been doing that for years and as a result has tens of million stashed away in her campaign war chest. What a hypocrite. I can't wait until the Republicans and the media get their hands on that."

"Funny, about that," I said, "I come to a totally different conclusion."

"I'm all ears."

"It shows me she's pragmatic. Not just an ideological policy wonk. She's in it to win it. That she's willingly to do what she has to do to gather the resources she needs to prevail. Even if it makes her vulnerable to the charge that she's 'just another politician.'"

"Like you're socialist friends you live in dreamland. I live in the real world where things are not so clear."

"And I live in a world," I said, "where Trump's approval ratings are slipping below 40 percent."

Jack had slid out of the booth and, without a goodbye, headed for the door.

May 30, 2019--The Democratic Horse Race

Wanting to maintain some distance from the horse race that will determine who will be nominated to run against Trump in 2020, to keep from obsessing, I have been allowing myself to check the poll numbers, almost a year and a half before the election, just once a month.

Actually I take a peek more often than that. I confess to every two weeks. All right, sometimes weekly.

Real Clear Politics (RCP) is where I turn as they list and aggregate all the major polls. Five or six at a time for the presidential nomination.

Checking yesterday, RCP had Biden leading comfortably with 33-35%, Sanders at 15-17%, Warren doing well at 8-10%, Harris next at 6-8%, Buttigieg at 5-7%, and among the other perhaps credible candidates, O'Rourke struggling at just 4-5%.

Finding this interesting on a number of levels I checked with some friends to see what they might have to say about the state of the race.

Some took note of Warren's numbers. She, they said, is the nomination processes' Energizer Bunny. Campaigning tirelessly and coming up with plans for new social programs almost every day. It appears, friends say, that she is appealing to enough of Bernie's people to both bring him down and propel her forward. 

Some were surprised by Harris' and Beto's anemic numbers. Both are among the most successful fund raisers but that isn't appearing to attract voters. As a result they are languishing in single-digit land.

And then there is Mayor Pete who just a few weeks ago was all the rage. When Biden announced, Buttigieg was solidly in third place with support from up to15 percent of potential Democratic voters. He, too, appeared to be able to attract all the money his campaign could responsibly spend.

When I asked why they thought the Mayor had slipped far in the polls, I heard some surprising thoughts. 

"Because he's gay," one friend said. A friend who happens to be gay. 

"It surprises me that you would say that," I said.

"Let me restate it. It's not because he's gay but because he's running as a gay candidate."

"I'm confused," I said, "Say a little more."

"It's not as if he's running for president and happens to be gay but it's because he is giving the impression that he's running because he is a gay person for what happens to be the presidency of the United States.  

"It seems that when he launched his campaign he was wonderfully comfortable to include his husband in campaign events and interviews. Just like Biden and the others feature their spouses at their rallies. That seemed to be working well. He was all over the media and solidly in third place in the polls. But then everything about Mayor Pete, encouraged and often initiated by him, seemed to be about his gayness. And his numbers began to shrink.

"Note how this was very different from Obama's approach. He made an effort to make his blackness incidental. The last thing he wanted the race to be about was race. And, of course, he won."

"I get what you're saying," I said, "I get the distinction."

"Check it out with the other people you're calling." Which I did.

A few noted that his slide in the polls began at about the same time Time magazine featured the mayor and his husband on its cover.

"This," another friend pointed out, "was also when it became clear that much of Buttigieg's money was coming from gay activists. I'm not sure this is working politically. I hate the idea but it could be hurting him in the polls."

"What about Beto?" I asked.

A friend said, "He's too kooky even for the Democrats."

March 15, 2019--BETO: Born to Run

Here's my quick initial impression of BETO O'Rourke's long anticipated announcement that he is running for president--

I begin with a confession:

I want to fall in love with this guy. I want to be convinced that he can beat Trump in 2020. I want to believe he has the chops as well as the obvious buzz and charisma. I want to find he's not just sizzle. That there is also steak.

I've been hoping to see these qualities in Kamala Harris, but she thus far seems more surface than substance. And as of now I see it as unlikely that she can successfully take on and unseat Trump. That is all I care about. Defeating Trump.

Then there is the Democrats' Hamlet--Joe Biden. 

To run, or not to run. That is the question. 

This soliloquy is not working. His tease of a dance makes it look as if he, at 76, doesn't have the energy or stamina to take on the rigors of a national campaign. This public coyness, this flirtation is already wearing thin. He feels out of gas even though he hasn't really started!

Bernie or Warren could win the nomination but would struggle to find a strategy to challenge Trump in the general. He's already half figured out how to get under their skin. And wouldn't he relish running against a socialist. He'd make that equivalent to competing with a terrorist who snuck into the United States across the Mexican border in a cargo container.

So then, what about BETO?

Get out your copy of Vanity Fair magazine. By an amazing coincidence the latest issue, with him on the cover, dropped just a day before he announced. What remarkable timing. As I said, amazing.

Take a close look at the photos. How surprising is it that they were taken by glamorizing celebrity photographer Annie Leibowitz and that the subtitle of the accompanying article is, "Man, I'm Just Born To Be In It."

This notion of his natural right to run laid out in VF with Annie's perfect pictures is too bicoastal. It doesn't sound like Rust Belt. It would be better to have been written about in some Wisconsin magazine, if any still exist.

In sum, BETO's problem appears to be a certain tone deafness. It's as if he can't wait to get into the spotlight and out of El Paso.  

He has time to get it right, but in the meantime I need to figure out how to fall in love with Kamala.

February 13, 2019--Trump: Size Maters

A dozen years ago a friend bought an apartment in one of Trump's glittering New York City residential towers. 

The first time we visited the concierge stationed at the gold lamé reception desk directed us to apartment 8C. 

In the elevator we struggled with what button to push to get us there. Struggled because there were no buttons for 1 through 8. Just one for 8 and others for higher floors.

"Don't worry about it," Rona said, "Just press 8 and we'll see what happens. Worst case scenario we'll go back down to the lobby and ask them how to get to the lower floors. I mean in a situation where many floors seem to be missing. If you live on 7, for example, what do you do?"

I shrugged and pressed 8. Silently, the doors slid shut. Then, almost instantly a bell pinged, the elevator glided to a smooth stop, and the doors opened. Tentatively, we got out and searched from door to door in the dimly lit hall before finding 8C.

Once inside the apartment, still wondering how we got to 8 so quickly, while getting the grand tour, I looked out the window toward East 62nd Street and noticed we weren't all that high up. In fact, it looked as if we were on the first or, at most, the second floor. One or two levels above the lobby entrance.

After settling in with a drink, I asked my friend about being on the eighth floor while it seemed that we in fact were at most on the second.

Smiling, he said, "That's Donald Trump for you. Always exaggerating, always hustling. He's brilliant at that. You pay a lot more for being on the eighth floor than the second."

I recalled that yesterday when reading about Trump's rally in El Paso.

About 30 minutes into it, he said he was being challenged by "a young man who's got very little going for himself except he's got a great first name." He was referring to Beto O'Rourke who was leading a counter rally and is thinking about running for president. 

Trump said, "So we have, let's say, 35,000 people tonight. He has 200 people, 300 people. Not too good," Trump claimed, "That may be the end of his presidential bid."

Trump as we know is not that good at estimating crowd size. Or, referencing Marco Rubio, dealing with size in general. Recall how Trump claimed, still contends that his inauguration had the largest crowd in history, even though the Mall in Washington was more than half empty. And about what Rubio implied about the size of Trump's hands, the less said the better.

The El Paso County Coliseum where Trump had his rally holds 6,500 and was full. In addition the El Paso fire department estimated that another 5,000 who couldn't get in watched on big screen TVs. 

O'Rourke's rally, which was a half mile away was outdoors, occurred at the same time as Trump's, and, the police estimated, attracted up to 10,000. In other words, at least as many as Trump's.

I suspect Beto will join the race (among other things he needs a job) and though I think he has little chance of winning the nomination, political rockstar that he is, he sure can draw a crowd. At least in his hometown.

   

February 12, 2019--The One Person Who Can Defeat Trump

I spent much of the weekend agitating about the 2020 election. 

Two more aspirants formally announced that they are seeking the Democratic nomination. Neither was unexpected--Senators Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar. The latter without hat or gloves declared her candidacy in a blinding snowstorm. That image more than what she said proclaimed I'm ready to run no matter the obstacles. 

And then, waiting in the wings was Beto O'Rourke who held a counter-rally in El Paso last night at the same time as Trump's.

With respect for these three who joined at least seven others and after that perhaps there will be ten more candidates, none make me feel they can beat Trump, assuming by Election Day he's not deposed or imprisoned. Though like other popular candidates such as Ron Reynolds from Texas, I wouldn't be surprised if Trump, running from Sing Sing, wouldn't manage to find a way to win. Such is the fervor of his dead-ender 35 percent. 

There is, though, at least one heavyweight already in the ring, Kamala Harris, who might find a path to 270 electoral votes, and one more-- the ever-coy Joe Biden, who, if he wasn't 100 years-old, could be nominated and win. 


But the passion among Democrats and Independents is tipped to the progressive, youthful wing of the party. What else explains the excitement about Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez? Or, for that matter, Beto. The good news, at only 29, AOC is constitutionally too young to serve as president. Otherwise, heaven help us, infatuated Dems might suicidally nominate her.


There is though a solution to our search for a winning candidate who also, to quote a popular TV commercial, knows a thing or two. Also, how to go high and low.

Michelle Obama.

I know, she says no way. But I say, let's get to work drafting her. Let's get a petition drive going with a target of at least 10 million signatures. That could attract her attention.

On a personal note, she has seen the Obama legacy largely obliterated from changes in the Affordable Care Act to the abandonment of the nuclear treaty with Iran. She has also seen devastating attacks on the environment (remember the Paris Agreement?) and as a Harvard Law School graduate has witnessed equally ferocious challenges to the rule of law itself. And don't overlook what she must feel about Trump and the birther business.

Her book, Becoming, has thus far sold nearly three million hard-cover copies (an all-time record for a First Lady memoir) and all polls show her by far to be the most admired American woman (she is most admired by 15% of the population, three times higher than number two, Oprah), who if she ran would sign up in a second to be her media advisor and spokesperson. 

(Also helping, husband Barack is most admired by 19% while Trump languishes at 13%.)

If Michelle would agree to run all Democratic money would flow to her and she could early next year begin to measure the Oval Office for new drapes. (Anything but gold.)

The one concern--complacency.  Look what happened to Hillary as she waited around for the coronation that never happened. But Michelle is smarter than that and appears to actually like people.

January 22, 2019--Democrats: How's It Looking So Far?

How's the 2020 campaign shaping up for you now that five or six of the 35 Democratic candidates who will eventually join the race are announced, sort of announced, are out and about in Iowa, or haunting CNN and MSNBC?

I just listened to Senator Kirsten Gillibrand who was being interviewed by Jake Tapper. He popped the Roger Mudd question--the one in which Mudd asked candidate Teddy Kennedy, "Why do you want to be president?" Kennedy's stumbling response ended his candidacy on the spot. 

Gillibrand said, she's a mother of young children and wants all children in America to have the same opportunities as hers. So she's the Mommy Candidate.

Earlier in the week Chuck Todd asked former HUD secretary Julián Castro the same question. He said he wanted all Americans to have the same opportunities he had. He has children and wants the same for them. So he's the Daddy Candidate.

Beto O'Rourke is on some sort of Jack-Kerouac stream-of-consciousness road trip from which he occasionally sends out videos. One was while he was having his teeth cleaned. Another where he said he's doing this to "clear my head." Explitives included. I guess he's the Existential Candidate. 

Let's see, who else? Ohio Senator Sherrod Brown got a new, very kempt-looking haircut. His signature tousled mop some consultant must've convinced him didn't look presidential. Senatorial? Fine. But Oval Office? Not so much, especially considering the hair mess currently occupying it. So he's looking lean and all moussed up.

Three candidates last week who are on the Senate Judiciary Committee--Amy Klobuchar, Cory Booker, and Kamala Harris--had opportunities to demonstrate gravitas when questioning Attorney General designee Robert Barr during his confirmation hearing.

Each had prepared written questions and mumbled them, not able to look up from their papers and pretty much all failed to make eye contact. So he came off feeling more presidential than they.

Then poor Bernie Sanders is under pressure not to run--he had his turn, some are saying, and should turn his supporters over to 69 year-old Elizabeth Warren, who wasn't impressive last week while trying to look comfortable away from the Harvard Faculty Club when out in Iowa hanging with "ordinary" Americans. 

Bernie was forced to be in Vermont for three days of confrontational meetings last week about how his campaign is apparently riddled with sexual abuse. That should finish him off especially since, oblivious, he seemed to be hearing about this for the first time.

I don't know about you but thus far I am not impressed. 

Am I missing something? Does 100 year-old Joe Biden feel like our best option? Or will this gaggle of undistinguished candidates encourage John Kerry, Al Gore, and Hillary to jump into the race? That way there could be a subset of geriatric candidates while Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) and her gang of Furies (too young to run) bop around the Capital in search of Mitch McConnell. I know he's looking forward to hosting them. At the moment, though, he's hiding from them and Trump.

November 8, 2018--A Note To Some of My Liberal Friends

I have been hearing from a number of friends that they are disappointed with the results of the midterm election.

That though Democrats regained control of the House and all that that will allow, Stacey Abrams lost the governor's race in Georgia and in Florida not only did Andrew Gillum not win the governorship but also incumbent Democrat senator Bill Nelson failed to be reelected  But to many of my friends, equally disappointing, Beto O'Rourke in Texas failed to unseat Ted Cruz.

Certainly it would have been wonderful if they had come through and thus I share their disappointment. But it concerns me that as a result some friends are disappointed with the overall results.

"I'm spoiled," one friend said, "I'm greedy and want to win everything."

I get it but is the best way to think about the results? 

It would have been exhilarating if they had won, but electoral politics is not about generating exhilaration. It is about electing people who share our values, have the ability to set needed agendas, win, and then (the hard part) are skillful enough to carry them out.

When I heard about this unhappiness I attempted to push back, saying we have to keep our eyes on the prize. In this case the prize is not only diminishing Trump (this week's election has already begun to do that) but to thwart the worst of his plans and (even more important) reduce his 2020 reelection chances.

And now with Jeff Sessions fired and who knows what else Trump will do in a panic to save himself, Democrats controlling the House is even more of an imperative and very good news.

I argue to my friends that politics is the art of the possible, not the perfect, and to be effective one needs to be able to compromise, set longterm goals, be strategic-minded, persist, and accept the reality that almost everything we contribute to accomplishing not only takes too much time to achieve but, even when we do, will never be fully satisfying. It is often frustrating. It's the grinding nature of the process.

My late friend Flash put it this way. He used to say when we saw this tendency among the people with whom we were working (most were progressives), "Though understandable and based on good intentions, when seeking to bring about change it is imperative to avoid the tendency to be satisfied only with the perfect solution. Unfortunately, since we never can achieve that we run the risk of winding up frustrated and ultimately powerless. Feeling pure may make us feel good about ourselves," he would add, "but if we are seeking to make as much a positive difference as possible, being satisfied only with the ideal we run the danger of rendering ourselves ineffectual."

In some circumstances this could feel as if he was calling for compromising in advance (it can have elements of that) but I continue to think at its heart it is true.

Thus, with all the disappointments, Tuesday's election may turn out to be historic. 

Trump had us on the road to an American version of autocracy. If he (yes he) had maintained control of the House, one more essential check built into our constitutional system would have been blunted and an even more emboldened Trump would have felt empowered to chip away at an accelerated pace at the protections thankfully hardwired into our constitutional system.

That we voted successfully to resist this is the headline from Tuesday, not that Beto and the others lost. In fact, looked at it another way he and they might be thought of as actually having won. 

Frequently, in a process that takes years to culminate, blazing trails and coming close is not only essential--it is often the most difficult part--but also can include elements of exhilaration.

The implications and complexity of this are worth more thought. 

November 7, 2018--The Economy, Stupid

Briefly since I was up all night listening to the election results--

First, I did pretty well with my predictions. 

Beto O'Rourke did lose by about three points (which for a Democrat in Texas is remarkable) and one would think that would end any talk about his president possibilities in two years, but last night on MSNBC there was chat about his running and in this morning's New York Times speculation about his potential candidacy.

Then, by far the biggest headline from the evening's results was the Democrats winning control of the House of Representatives. By a somewhat bigger margin than predicted by most. Adam Schiff, who will become chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, essentially announced that in January there will be wide-ranging investigations of Trump and his minions, including demands that they have access to his tax returns. 

The takeover of the House by Democrats will also assure that Mueller's eventual report will see the light of day. Even if Trump fires everyone associated with the investigation Schiff and his colleagues will have the power to subpoena it and make it public. 

And, one bonus from Schiff's ascension, is that we won't have to pay attention anymore to the departing chairman, Trump funky Devin Nunes.

On the Democratic side there did not appear to be any stars waiting for 2020 to be born. Perhaps Gavin Newsome, who will become California's governor might turn out to be credible. I know nothing about him (all talk about California presidential candidates have thus far centered around Senator Kamala Harris), but as my father would point out if he were still around--he has "presidential hair."

Finally (and then back to bed) though James Carville's insight when it comes to national elections is that it's always the economy, stupid, that was not true last night. It was about healthcare, healthcare, healthcare and immigration, immigration, immigration. And, yes, concern about Trump's abhorrent behavior. A full 30 percent said to vote against him was a major reason why they turned out.

Thinking about going forward, it will be important to see how many white women and young people voted, for whom, and by what numbers. Because by 10:00 am today the 2020 election moves to center stage.