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.

February 9, 2016--The "Establishment"

During last Thursday's debate, Bernie Sanders accused Hillary Clinton of being part of the Establishment.

He said--

"Secretary Clinton does represent the Establishment. I represent, I hope, ordinary Americans, and by the way--who are not all that enamored with the Establishment."

In response, Hillary Clinton said--

"Well look, I've got to jump in here because, honestly, Senator Sanders is the only person who I think would characterize me, a woman running to be the first woman president, as exemplifying the Establishment. And I've got to tell you that it is really quite amusing to me."

It may be amusing to her, but if Hillary Clinton isn't a part of the Establishment, I don't know who is.

Let me count the ways--

Wife of the former governor of Arkansas, former First Lady of the United States, former U.S. senator from New York, presidential candidate finalist in 2008, Secretary of State and then as a former Secretary able to command $250,000-a-pop speaker fees from the likes of Goldman Sachs, someone who with her husband has accumulated assets of more than $200 million after being "broke" when they left the White House, someone who received advances for books in excess of $5.0 million each, a principal in the Clinton Global Initiative, mother of a daughter-of-little-accomplishment who is able to garner highly-paid no-show jobs at McKinsey and Company and NBC ($600,000 a year!), and mother of a daughter who on her own commands speaker fees of $65,000.

(As and aside, someone needs to explain Chelsea's career to me, including that $65K.)

Hillary Clinton is not a member of the Establishment?

Not a member, she claimed the other night, ignoring all of this, because by definition she is not part of the Establishment because she is a woman. A woman running, audaciously I assume she would say, to become the first "woman president."

It appears this is working less and less well.

A female college student interviewed by MSNBC right after the debate visibly cringed when asked if Clinton's claim resonated with her.

She said, "That's irrelevant to me. What I care about is if she or anyone else would make a good president. In that regard, her being a woman doesn't mean much to me." She paused, took a visible deep breath and added, "Her feminism doesn't represent my feminism."

Nor apparently did it mean much to young voters in Iowa where Sanders led Clinton by 85 to 15 percent among people between the ages of 17 and 24. Fully half of them young women. We'll see what happens later today in NH.

Hillary Clinton's default position whenever challenged or feeling threatened is to blame, as she did in the past, the "right-wing conspiracy" or, more commonly now, that this is because she is a woman.

Not to be outdone, husband, white knight Bill has been all over New Hampshire this week coming to his wife's rescue, including to claim that Sanders' alleged attacks on Hillary are sexist. Talk about chutzpa. Bill Clinton in the Oval Office wrote the book on that.

In addition, Bernie Sanders himself is a comfortable member of the Establishment.

He is almost as much a career politician as Marco Rubio. By the numbers more so. His political career stretches back 35 years when in 1981, at age 39, he was elected mayor of Burlington. After being reelected three times, in 1990, he ran successfully for the House of Representatives, and then, in 2006, was elected to the U.S. Senate.

Sanders has been comfortably ensconced in Congress for 26 years. Including, during the past year, when he has been as much a no-show at his day job as Rubio and Ted Cruz.

That to me feels very Establishment.

Though I am more and more liking what he has to say about the "rigged" economy and am inclining to vote for him, let's not forget who he really is and how he has, at taxpayer expense, made his way in the world.

February 2, 2016--A Win Is A Win

After last night's results, I should drop out of the prognostication business.

Though I got Hillary right--she squeaked by by about a half a percent--I totally missed what was happening among Republicans.

Ted Cruz came in first?

Marco Rubio a very close third, almost leaving Trump in his dust?

What does this say about Iowa voters who had half-a-year to think about what to do?

How did Cruz sell himself as an alternative to the "system" when he and his wife are embedded parts of it? Princeton, Harvard, Goldman Sachs, the U.S. Senate? Bankrolled by billionaires?

Was it all about religion in a state that is made up of 60 percent evangelicals?

Maybe Iowa, as it has been in the past, is a niche electorate and that things will become more predictable and understandable in New Hampshire and beyond.

I have to do a lot of recalibrating.

It's hard to think that Cruz will win in NH or many places beyond.

And I am consoling myself by remembering that the last two GOP Iowa caucuses were won by Mike Huckabee and Rick Santorum.

A couple of things may be clear--

Trump will not win the nomination. Half of what he's about is his self-proclaimed winning. These results undermine that.

Cruz also will not win the nomination. I am certain the phones were ringing all last night from the Koch Brothers and Sheldon from Las Vegas, coalescing at last around a so-called "establishment candidate. One they can support and own--

Marco Rubio will be offered that deal as he has shown in the past that he is comfortable being supported by billionaires (car-dealer Norman Braham in his case) and has no problem answering his phone when they call and doing their bidding.

For Hillary, though messy, a win is a win and she should go on fairly easily to secure the nomination after losing to Sanders in NH.

By next week at this time, in addition to Huckabee and Santorum, it will be the end of the road for Carson and Carly and Christie and poor Jeb! And . . .

Here I go again, still prognosticating. I have to get over this addiction.

January 26, 2016--Waiting For Bloomberg

All of a sudden there's a flurry of interest in Michael Bloomberg. About the evidence that he is exploring the possibility of running for the presidency as a third-party candidate.

Self-financed, of course. He's worth $37.2 billion. A real billionaire in comparison to Donald TRUMP. Like everything else, TRUMP exaggerates his wealth, but Forbes reports he's worth only maybe $4.0 billion with most of it tied up in real estate.

Though real money, he is a piker by Bloomberg standards. But that's half the political point.

With a real New Yorker running, it would dilute the charge that TRUMP is about New York values (actually, he is). Not noted is the fact that Bloomberg was born and raised in Boston, which I suppose is better than having been born and raised in Canada.

If opposition candidates want to rail against a possible American oligarchy, which we sort of already have, Bloomberg will take most of the heat, clearing that lane for TRUMP. And what with The Mike's Jewishness, another lane would also be cleared since probably half of TRUMP's untutored critics think that if he's from New York he must be Jewish. Or, almost as disqualifying, is a nonbeliever.

To blunt that and appeal to evangelicals, this past Sunday The Donald very publicly went to church in Iowa to show that he's really a Christian. This reminded coreligionists that, as a semi-teetotaler, it is in church where he drinks "the only wine" he imbibes. Also, that it is during Communion that he takes "my little cracker." In TRUMP World it doesn't matter that evangelicals don't participate in the Eucharist. It's all about the show.

As usual when it comes to religious matters, TRUMP has church practices all mixed up. But Teflon-candidate that he is, it probably doesn't matter.

But he did leave two $50 dollar bills in the collection basket.

No wonder TRUMP is relishing the thought that Bloomberg might get into the race. This because if he did, enough Hillary supporters would likely migrate to the former New York mayor and thus make it less likely that, if nominated, she would be elected. And since Bloomberg as a third-party candidate would have almost no chance of winning . . .  Fill in the blank.

But there are many moving pieces as Bloomberg ponders how various combinations and permutations would play out. It would depend on who's in and who's out.

I've been hearing from liberal friends who are excited about the Bloomberg possibilities. For the most part they are lukewarm Hillary supporters. Progressives, not socialists, who feel that neither Hillary nor Sanders, for that matter, would make good or effective presidents.

Here's what I wrote back to one--

I think he'd run only if Bernie looks like he's going to get the nomination. The last thing a billionaire wants is a socialist as Prez! But I don't think Bloomberg would run if Hillary looks as if she's winning (I am using the conditional tense since if B is to run he'd have to decide to do so by early March). She has already proven herself as a pal to Wall Street. 

If it's Hillary v. TRUMP and Bloomy gets in that would assure T's election since Bloomberg would likely take more voters from Hillary than T. I don't think Bloomberg prefers TRUMP to Hillary. Quite the opposite. So I see him maybe running only if Sanders and TRUMP are on route to the nominations. If Bernie manages to win big in Iowa and NH it might for Hillary be the beginning of 2008 all over again. Though Hillary's firewall is southern blacks and middle-age white women. That's why she's cynically been wrapping herself so tightly in the mantle of Barack Obama. And of course there are Demi Lovato and Chelsea.

In fact, having lived in NYC during the Bloomberg years, I'm not so fond of him. He cared primarily about Manhattan and the real estate community's interests. I guess he'd be better than most of the current candidates, but he is still more a friend to Wall Street than I'd be comfortable with. If TRUMP would be "a traitor to his class" (which I think is possible) he could be interesting and unpredictable. Just like his campaign thus far. 

Maybe we need a real jolt. Would Bernie provide one? As much as I'd like to thing so, as a socialist, would Congress allow him to govern as a socialist? There's no way Congress, for ex, would go along with Medicare-for-all. That's may be a great idea but a congressional non-starter. Ditto for his taxation proposals.

January 22, 2016--Blizzard Warning

The weather bureau has issued a blizzard warning for winter storm Jonas. It is predicted that by the time it ends on Saturday there will be a record accumulation of ice and snow in our nation's capital.

On the other hand, the storm might have been more aptly named Donald, for Donald you-know-who.

I say this because the most recent tracking polls, especially CNN's from last night, have him with a large, expanding lead in Iowa.

TRUMP 37%
Cruz 26%

Rubio 14%
Carson 6%

Even leftwing pundits are saying if TRUMP wins in Iowa, and then more certainly a week later in New Hampshire where he retains a 20 point lead, the nomination battle will in effect be over.

Or perhaps the storm should be named Bernie because the same poll shows him with big leads over Hillary in Iowa (51% to 43%) and New Hampshire (60% to 33%).

Talk about climate change.

January 21, 2016--TRUMP and the Palins

Sarah Palin is back and everyone is having fun with her. Or making fun of her.

Not just because her son, Track, two days ago was arrested for domestic violence and on the same day her Dancing-With-Stars daughter, Bristol Sheeran, gave birth to a second out-of-wedlock baby.

It was because she bounced up on stage in Ames, Iowa on Tuesday to give a semi-coherent speech in support of Donald TRUMP's candidacy.

Seeing her again, still looking hot, I was reminded just how much I miss Sarah and her wonderfully-named dog-patch brood. Other children of Sarah and Todd ("First Dude") are Willow Bianca Faye, Trig Paxon Van, and Piper Indy Grace. The latter named for the Indy 500.

If politics these days is about entertainment as much as policy, she's the perfect reality-show complement to The Donald.

And on the political front, she may help tip the Iowa caucuses to TRUMP, which in turn would lubricate his path to the ultimate nomination.

Pretty much all the liberals I know are chortling about the TRUMP-Palin roadshow. The jokes are flying, very much including in The New Yorker's "Borowitz Report." A humorous column that appears on-line.

The one the other day was, "Palin Endorsement Widens Trump's Lead Among Idiots," with the snarky title telling it like a lot of us think it is.

But is it?

There must be an increasing number of idiots out there among the electorate because even before the Palin encomium, TRUMP's lead among almost all demographic groups was widening. Most interestingly, according to Tuesday's New York Times, with evangelicals.

They seem to be feeling that God will take care of TRUMP's personal indiscretions (three marriages and who knows what else) but are saying that among the candidates he is most likely to bring about needed, radical change.

To my Manhattan friends this is just more evidence that there are a whole lot of idiots out there. I feel compelled to mention these friends also believe anyone who is religiously devout is by definition an idiot.

But, I wonder, are TRUMP's and Palin's supporters idiots because they are idiots or idiots because they don't agree with us?

Those of us who think of ourselves as liberals should be the first to be feeling good about widespread political participation. Haven't we traditionally been in the forefront of advocating the expansion and protection of voting rights? But, for idiots too? That's a push. But, to be consistent  . . .

Look, I've been having a lot of fun at various candidates' expense, very much including TRUMP's, but those of us who would prefer to see Bernie or Hillary elected or Jeb Bush, Joe Biden or George Pataki, in addition to enjoying the fun and scribbling of the likes of Andy Borowitz, we also had better be working hard to elect the candidates we support or we will wake up literally a year from today with Donald and Melania TRUMP in residence in the White House and Sarah Palin nominated to be Secretary of Defense.

October 29 2015--Marco, Jeb, and The Donald

We know poor Marco Rubio hates his Senate job and, though he can't stand being there, wants another Washington job. If he gets it, maybe he'll hate that one too. This is not a good way to talk about one's resumé and employment history.

So much for the rest of us though he claims wanting to be president is not about him but about us.

Poor Jeb Bush was expecting to be inaugurated even before being nominated or elected. The presidency is the family business, after all, and in these kinds of royal successions are more anointments than elections.

He's already talking about how he is likely to hate the job because of all the partisan bickering and gridlock in Washington.

So, he told us the other day, that if this is the way things are, he "has other cool things to do" and might just take a petulant hike.

Now we're hearing from poor Donald TRUMP, as the polls in Iowa show him slipping into second place behind Ben Carson (Ben Carson!), that he needs the voters' help.

Specifically, he pled with Iowans to "help [him] out." He whimpered, "Let me win." And promised that if they do he'll do so many "wonderful things" for them that will make them "very happy."

If they keep this up, the two whining Floridians will doom their chances. And good chances they have because if Carson and TRUMP fizzle (and they likely will) Rubio or Bush might become the front runner and nominee. And whomever that is would have a pretty good chance of being elected.

TRUMP in second place in Iowa has to do more than pop in for a few big rallies and entertaining speeches that are more standup comedy shtick than political barnburners. Folks in the Hawkeye State expect their candidates to show up in their living rooms and stay overnight in Motel 6.

This is not The Donald. He doesn't do living rooms and motels.

And he will quickly lose his appeal if he appears, as he just did, to be either wounded or reduced in stature.

Half of what he has going for him is his superhero image, descending from the sky like, forgive me, a god, and offering to take care of everyone and everything--the Chinese, Putin, immigrants, jobs, the failing infrastructure.

He has to be the opposite of needing to be taken care of. He's about enabling people to believe he will fix things, make everything work, and bring about universal happiness.

That has been his appeal. To be self-deprecating and vulnerable goes against this image and will make him appear to be more like Ben Carson than Superman.

July 20, 2015--Great Scott!

Great Scott? Scott Walker the legendary governor of Wisconsin who managed to get voters in the Badger State to keep him in office in spite of fierce and well-financed attempts by unions and other progressives to recall him because of his political glee at, to quote Hillary Clinton, "stomping on working people," particularly unionized state workers. Everyone, that is, but the police and firefighters whose support he did not want to jeopardize.

He gave one impressive speech a few months ago at the annual show-and-tell meeting of the conservative action committee, CPAC, and that propelled him into the lead among the other 15 to 16 Republican candidates. But since that time, because he dawdled about getting into the race officially, Jeb Bush, Donald Trump, and perhaps Ben Carson jumped into the lead in the polls and the big GOP money began to drift elsewhere.

So his formal announcement last week that he's running was awaited with considerable interest since some pundits feel that his blue-collar, evangelical roots and lack of formal education are assets in this discombobulated time and that he, or Marco Rubio, might be the two best Republican candidates to do well against Hillary. Since by their age and grayless hair if not their ideas and ideology they claim they are from the next political generation.

Walker's announcement was noteworthy for a least three reasons--the first and most predictable and boring was that in his 40 minute speech he ticked off literally every conservative Republican talking point from his call for the repeal of Obamacare to tax cuts for the affluent to prime the trickle-down pump to opposing the deal with Iran (even before it was struck or read) to opposing same-sex marriage and abortion.

Second, in this era where only he and Ben Carson speak without teleprompters or notes, he droned on in his jeans and tieless shirt not making any gaffs (he is prone to them) nor stumbling for words. This gave what he had to say a tincture of authenticity.

But, third, and most interesting, he began by saying, and repeating that he is an American and loves being an American. As if he is running against a Kenyon president who hates America but loves it enough to want to overthrow the Constitution by invading Texas and after that turning the USA into a socialist dictatorship.

Stories about veterans he knew when growing up were laced as a motif throughout his remarks. First, he told of an old fellow who served in both world wars. And subsequently a neighborhood Vietnam vet who taught little Scott about liberty and patriotism and love of country.

Virtually wrapped in the flag they both fought to defend, Walker did not say anything about why, so inspired by these two remarkable veterans, he himself never showed up at the recruiting office or why he decided not to serve. He and The Donald and Jeb and Marco share that gap in their resumés.

He also didn't mention that, though anti-governement by choice and nature, he has never had a job other than as a taxpayer-supported government official. Beginning from when he was just twenty-two. So, ironically, he has been on a public payroll of one sort or another for more than any other candidate. For fully 26 of his 48 years.

Considering his lack of foreign policy experience, in March, when he was an all-but-declared candidate, at an event in Phoenix he was pressed to explain what qualifies him to serve as commander in chief.

By a friendly interlocutor he was asked--

"Does the prospect of being commander in chief daunt you?"

Before reminding you what he said at that time, earlier in March, at the CPAC gathering, on the same subject, he said he was prepared because he had stared down union workers and their supporters. He said that, "If I can take on 100,000 protestors, I can do the same across the world." He was referring to ISIS, claiming he could do the same thing to them he did to drivers license bureau workers, tax collectors, building inspectors, and such.

This did not go down well so a few days later in Phoenix, in regard to the commander-in-chief question, he was better prepared--

"That's an appropriate question," he acknowledged, "As a kid, I was in Scouts. And one of the things I'm proudest of when I was in Scouts is I earned the rank of Eagle."

That did not seem to qualify him to hawkish voters so last week, to emphasize his social conservatism, and change the subject, he criticized Boy Scouts of American for voting unanimously to allow gay men to be Scoutmasters. Though when confronted about that he again backtracked.

Clearly, going forward he needs to get his act together or the Iowa caucuses, where he needs to come in in the top tier, may be the first and last stop for him. I feel certain that the Koch Brothers are watching closely and if they haven't already, will soon be moving on.