September 1, 2020--Biden Spotting

A welcome change of plans--Biden is not waiting until after Labor Day to begin in-person campaigning. 

Here he is Monday, arriving in Pittsburg for a talk at Carnegie Mellon's Advanced Robotics for Manufacturing Institute. 

Trump, in the meantime, is trying to bully his way into an invitation to visit Kenosha. The governor and mayor have thus far asked him not to come.

Biden's comments, by the way, were excellent. Just what he should be doing every day.

July 21, 2020--A Mandate for Biden

More than 100 days before Election Day we were nonetheless talking about making sure we got back to the city in time to vote. 

I quipped, "The Boy Scout in me makes me want to be prepared."

Bill said"You live in New York City, no?"

"We do," Rona said. 

"That means you don't have to vote," he said.

"We don't have to vote?" After years of our talking about politics I was more than a little surprised to hear him say that. 

"Dems always win in New York. Even a ham sandwich would be elected if it was a Democratic one," Bill said, "So your vote doesn't count. Biden doesn't need it. He'll get the usual 80 percent of New York's votes and 100 percent of the Electoral College vote so you can stay in Maine through Thanksgiving. No rush to leave."

I knew he was being playful but ignored that. There isn't anything about the upcoming election that I think is amusing. So I said, "You're right. He'll carry New York easily but my vote, every vote this time around is essential because Biden needs a mandate."

"Go on."

"For a number of reasons."

"I'm listening."

"First, a close result will likely encourage Trump to take a page from the 2000 election playbook when Bush and Gore essentially tied in Florida and the issue was decided by the Supreme Court. They wound up giving Bush the presidency. We can expect Trump to do something similar. So a big vote for Biden, including in New York and California where Dems do almost as well, will discourage vote challenges, including appeals to the Supreme Court."

"Fair point," Bill said. 

"More important," I said, "an electoral mandate for Biden, say with him receiving more than 55 percent of the national popular vote, would make it unlikely that Trump could get away with ignoring the vote altogether and refuse to vacate the White House on Inauguration Day."

Bill said, "About this I'm skeptical. If Trump is in any way serious about ignoring the will of the people I'm not sure how the vote totals would deter him."

"I'm not sure either," I sighed, "but I think it's urgent for us to do anything and everything we can to help Biden. Including to actually take office after receiving a mandate. With all the New York votes he can muster. Thus, we're returning to the city no later than mid October. And a couple of weeks later, voting."

Bill smiled.

May 7, 2020--Michelle Obama For Veep

For well over a year, fending off concern from friends about my political mental health, I have been talking about a dream ticket to run against Trump--Michelle Obama is drafted to run against Trump and wins in a historic landslide.

Now there is talk about another less dramatic and more realistic dream ticket that could also win in a walk--Biden (for president) and Michelle Obama (for VEEP).

Here is what "The Hill" had to say about this yesterday afternoon--

A Biden-Obama ticket would have a high probability of winning the White House, very possibly by an epic landslide, and winning control of the Senate as well as the House. 

A Biden-Obama victory would represent the historical greatness of the Democratic Party, would decisively change all three branches of government, and would powerfully change the course of American and world history.

Here's how I would frame the deal--privately, Biden tells Obama he would serve for three years and then resign from office, allowing her to become president and get well situated for a run of her own in 2024.

Michelle Obama continues to be America's most admired woman and also I am sure has a deep interest in restoring the Obama legacy. 

I am sane enough to know this is improbable, but desperate times require bold action. More unusual things have happened.

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 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 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."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

December 5, 2019--Wither Kamala Harris

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

None of this is good news for Harris.

What happened?

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

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

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

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

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

November 20, 2019--The Bidens: It's Spine Time

I'm deep into following the House of Representatives' impeachment hearings. 

One thing that is clear is that more and more of those called to testify are feeling the need to amend their testimony. Including some yesterday. This is all to the good. It gets us closer to the truth and coming clean is good for the soul. It also is good for keeping one from being prosecuted for perjury.

Shouldn't Joe and Hunter Biden be thinking about doing a version of this?

If they have nothing to hide, if everything was above board about Hunter's well-paid work for Burisma, the Ukrainian gas company, to clear the suspicions, wouldn't it be smart to ask to testify? I mean politically smart.

Just ask to show up and answer the questions, including those of Devin Nunes, the ranking member who has embraced every conceivable conspiracy theory.

Swatting him aside would put the lie to this line of paranoia and assure father Joe a clear path to the Democratic nomination. It would also be good for the soul.

And, if he and his son are not telling the whole truth, it would also get that on the record so Democratic voters can move on.

September 30, 2019--Ukraine Fall Out

We should stay focused on the House of Representatives' move toward the impeachment of Donald Trump. That is obviously the most important and promising news of the last two, three years.

But also of consequence is the effect it will have on the 2020 election. Concern that it could tip things in Trump's direction was the primary reason Nancy Pelosi was so reluctant to proceed. She remembered how Bill Clinton's approval rating went up while his impeachment unfolded.

So what should we expect?

Unlike Trump, Clinton was in his second term and the economy was booming. Not as currently primarily for wealthy people. So, I am not expecting to see Trump's number rise. In fact, in just the one week since Ukraine Gate was exposed they appear to be plummeting.

Expect then to see Trump take a political hit. Enough, perhaps, to upend his reelection chances.

What then about the Democrats?

I am anticipating that as we get deeper into all that was going on between Ukrainian officials and oligarchs and Trump, his children Giuliani, Paul Manafort (remember him?), and many others there will be much more fall out. Ukraine, after all, is primarily a place known as a money laundry.

Fairly or not, therefore, expect to see Joe Biden driven from the race.

Again, fairly or not expect to see his son Hunter Biden dragged deeper into the mess. Does anyone believe that if his last name wasn't Biden he would have been invited to serve on the board of Burma Holdings, a Ukrainian natural gas producer?

He served on that board from 2014 to 2019, which happens to be among the same years that his father was Barack Obama's Vice President. That didn't hurt his employment prospects.

We know that Trump will hammer away at this. Who could expect him not too. It is teed up for him.

And so Joe Biden will have to leave the race because Democratic voters really do care about draining the swamp. And to make the case that Trump made the swap swampier, Biden needs to not be our nominee. He is already being characterized as part of the problem. By Democratic activists. And as a result he has little chance of being nominated. 

By remaining in the race he will only further sully his reputation.

The main political beneficiary? That's easy--Elizabeth Warren.

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.

September 23, 2019--Jack's Coffee On Rona

"I got to admit I never read the Constitution cover to cover."

"Well, you should," I said to Jack. "If you want to pretend to be a true conservative you should have it memorized. Conservatives are always boasting how they follow it religiously and wave it around like it was Mao's Red Book, but of course ignore it when it's convenient for them to do so. Like how now they  are ignoring the Congress's Constitutional power to provide oversight of the president and his administration. To hold him and them accountable for their actions."

"You're reading my mind," Jack said, sounding sober, "It's the so-called oversight function I want to talk about."

"This I have to hear," Rona muttered. We were at the Bristol Diner again having breakfast when Jack showed up. 

"The Constitution may call for this, but the way I look at things your people, though they are squealing like stuck pigs claiming Trump is not cooperating, actually prefer it this way so they can score some cheap political points by beating up on him for not going along with their call for copies of memos and emails and telephone records and the testimony of witnesses like former White House counsel, whatever his name is."

"McGahn."

"That's him."

"And your point other than to criticize the Democrats in the House who want to provide that legitimate oversight is . . .?"

"That they are coming off looking like wimps and crybabies."

"So, what would you have them do after admitting you haven't read the Constitution and don't know why our Founders built Congressional oversight and checks and balances into our system?"

"To make sure our presidents don't become tyrants."

"Very good, Jack," I said, "I'm impressed. That's basically right. We had just fought a war of independence against England which was ruled by what our colonial leaders saw to be a corrupt monarch. George III. They didn't want to see the United States go down a similar path. It was more complicated than that but you got the essence of it. So what's your problem?"

"It's really your problem. I'm trying to help you guys out."

"That'll be the day," Rona said, not looking up.

Without missing a beat, Jack said, "No really. Though we disagree about pretty much everything, I enjoy arguing back and forth with both of you guys. It keeps me sharp."

"That should only be," Rona said.

"If you want to have a useful conversation about this," I said, "you need to get your facts right. Then we can exchange views. But without agreeing about some facts we can't do that."

"Let's try that," Jack said, "I'm in that kind of mood this morning. Not for us to rag on each other but to see if we can find some common ground. Because to tell you the truth I don't like what Trump seems to have done with the president of the Ukraine. To blackmail him to get dirt on Biden and his son. Look, I want to see Biden lose but not by having foreign governments involved in our elections. That's my view and should be for all conservatives who believe in democracy."

"I can't believe my ears," Rona said, looking up.

"So," Jack said to the two of us, "I know why you're upset about the Ukraine, but isn't the oversight business among Democrats in the House mainly political posturing?"

"I'm glad we can at least agree about Ukraine," I said, "The oversight function, as I said, is more complicated but at least equally outrageous and dangerous."

"Why dangerous?"

"Because Trump by refusing to cooperate with Congress when they try to apply checks and balances is in fact attacking the Constitution itself. Our government itself. If you look at the actual Constitution, Congress, really the House of Representatives, is given the preeminent role in our three-part governmental system, which as you know, in addition to Congress, is the executive branch (the president and his administration) and the federal courts. But by refusing to cooperate with Congress's legitimate oversight function Trump is wanting to make the executive branch preeminent. To in effect do away with Congress to gather more power to himself. To be fair, and I know I'm rattling on, previous presidents have done various things to weaken the hands of Congress and even the courts. Roosevelt, for example, wanted to pack the Supreme Court to get it to rule in favor of his New Deal programs. Happily for the sake of checks and balances, that didn't work out. Quite a few Democrats, members of his own party, opposed Roosevelt. Which should be a lesson for today's Republicans as Trump's threat to our system is so total and serious."

"I need to think about this," Jack said. "I must admit that some of what you're saying rings true and is disturbing. But don't get your hopes up," he added quickly, "I'm still a Trumpian, but I need to think about this because I don't want to see our democracy undermined. I have to admit that there are signs that this is happening. I don't want us to get involved in another civil war. That we don't need.

Rona said, "I may be hallucinating but I'm paying for your coffee this morning."

September 19, 2019--Bernie for All

In a desperate effort to keep up with Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, slipping to single digits in some polls, just announced a $2.5 trillion (with a T) program of Housing for All.

Presumably, this is where folks would live while getting Medicare for All or College for All or Food for All or Sex for All. 

Not to be outdone, Julian Castro, with a nod in Joe Biden's direction, proposed a program of Depends for All.

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.

August 21, 2019--Biden's Women

I'm trying. Trying to get enthusiastic about supporting Joe Biden. But he doesn't make it easy.

It's not just that he's a gaff machine. Most can be written off as a version of charming. Biden being Biden. Like the other day when he mixed up Burlington Vermont and Burlington Iowa.  

Though even with that, benign as it is, and though the contest for the nomination is not "Jeopardy," it also leaves the lingering concern that these kinds of mixups are not just innocent slips of the tongue but are symptoms of, OK I'll say it, old age. He is 76 and at that not a young 76. 

More concerning is the kind of thing he said the other day at a gathering in Iowa of mainly minority voters when talking off the cuff about the academic potential of at-risk children. He said that "Poor kids are just as bright and just as talented as white kids." 

What is one to make of that? This is more than a slip of the tongue. 

But according to Monday's CNN/SSRS poll it didn't put a dent in black voters' support for him. His numbers in fact have risen since June, especially among white women, particularly older white women. They love Biden and appear to be wiling to stick with him almost no matter what.

I am not saying they are like the Trump people who would stand by him even if he shot someone on Fifth Avenue. Actually, maybe even more would vote for him if he did. Biden's supporters appear to be quite locked in. It seems as if they will remain committed to him almost no matter what.

Some of this increasing support for Biden is the result of women coming to his defense as they see him attacked by the other leading candidates. Especially, counterintuitively, the female candidates. 

(See the results of the CNN poll which show Biden increasing his lead over his closest rivals--now up by 15 percent over Sanders and 14 percent over Warren, while Kamala Harris has the support of just 5 percent of potential Democratic voters.)

The response to Harris is the clearest example of women coming to Biden's rescue  She challenged, some said attacked, some say disrespectfully took on Biden, Barack Obama's vice President, during the first debate. Her poll numbers blipped up for a day or two as did her campaign contributions, but since that time they have trended downward. Recently they have been plummeting.

Perhaps because as they thought about it, potential Democratic voters perceived her to be more angry than passionately engaged with the issues. 

Some of this may be the result of gender bias--what behavior is considered to be appropriate for a woman when confronting a man--some of it may be Harris's hard-charging style, but some of it is Democrats who want to win in 2020 seeing in Biden the candidate most able to defeat Trump. Still the overarching concern of most Democratic voters no matter their demographics and ideology. And thus his people are quick to protect him.

In a political environment where the conventional wisdom does not apply, some of the familiar realities still pertain--especially about race and gender. We are by no means a post racial society nor are men and women running for public office regarded equally. 

It is ironic that much of this is being played out through Joe Biden's candidacy, considering his history when it comes to women and minorities is far from without blemish.

August 12, 2019--Jack: Women

Jack was waiting for us at the Bristol Diner. It was not as if we had an appointment to meet. In fact, I had been avoiding his texts and phone messages. I was trying to spend less time and energy thinking about, talking about Trump. There would be plenty of time for that, I thought, after Labor Day. It would still be more than a year until the election. Plenty of time for political talk. Yes, I had relapsed into Trump Fatigue. 

We were tempted to ignore Jack's patting on the banquette, signally he was holding two places for us. I whispered to Rona, "Maybe let's go to Crissy's. I'm not in the mood for Jack."

"I know what you're thinking," he said with a smile, "I promise not to keep you more than half an hour. Come, sit with me for a while."

And so reluctantly we shuffled over to him and slid into the booth.

"I'll just have coffee," I said to Sarah, "We can't stay very long today." Rona said the same.

Without so much as a hello Jack launched into his latest rant.

"I know you and your people care only about who can beat Trump. You're putting aside your concerns about where candidates stand on health care or immigration. You're whole focus is denying him a second term."

"That pretty much sums it up," I said, "Almost everyone I know is thinking about the election that way. There will be time for debates about policy after a Democrat is elected. I agree with Tom Friedman about that. He warns, if we want a revolution and Trump wins we will have a revolution not of our liking when, for example, he gets to appoint two more Supreme Court justices like Kavanaugh and Gorsuch."

"Though one thing," Jack said, "does show up on the screen with a lot of you guys."

"This I'm interested in hearing,"I said.

"With six women seeking the nomination, many of you this time around not only want to nominate a woman, but unlike with Hillary who turned out to be a terrible candidate, you want to elect one. Most realistic, considering the poll numbers, only two have a real chance of being nominated, with winning another story. Forget Gillibrand and Klobuchar. The only two who have a chance are Warren and Kamala Harris. At the moment they're the only ones close to Biden in the polls."

"That could be true," Rona said, "But I continue to wonder if America is open to having a woman as president. They tell pollsters that they are but I'm skeptical. Among other things by what he says and how he behaves Trump sanctions not only racism and white supremacy but also sexism. And in so doing exposes how extensive it still is."

Rona continued, "Even Trump's female supporters--and there are more of them than any liberal would like to acknowledge--can in their own way be quite sexist. Why else did so many of them vote for him rather than for the first woman to be the nominee of a major party? And don't tell me it was because Hillary was such an ineffective candidate or won the popular vote. The country's just not ready for a female president. Though with Biden unravelling because of gaffs, there could be a woman next in line."

I was surprised that both Rona and I were so easily drawn into political talk. Our fatigue was clearly not that deep seated.

"Let me give you an example," Jack said, "of why I too don't think you can elect a woman.

"I'm listening."

"So there was this terrible shooting in El Paso. And what happened? Joe Biden, Cory Booker, and that mayor from South Bend whose name I can never remember all gave major speeches about it. Booker even gave his from the pulpit of the church in South Carolina where there had been another massacre four years ago. Where a white guy targeted black people and where Obama spoke and sang 'Amazing Grace.'"

Jack paused and peered at us. "I see you're not getting it."

"Getting what?" I asked.

"What's missing from this picture?"

"Enlighten me."

"Women."

"Women?"

"Yes, Democrat women candidates."

"They spoke out," Rona said, "Among other things they accused Trump of being a racist and, even more seriously, a white supremacist. Which he is. I think you're splitting hairs. I felt they were very forceful. Very effective."

"But none of the women gave a speech. A big picture, presidential-style speech, one in which they put all the pieces together. About the history of racism in this country, about how various ethnic groups have been treated. They missed the opportunity that most of the leading male candidates--Sanders excepted--seized. To show how they would act if president and incidents of this kind occurred. As they surely will. These men not only made speeches of this kind but they also showed how they would behave as mourner-in-chief."

"I hate to agree with you," Rona said, "But, thinking about it now, I must admit the women may have missed an opportunity. My guess is that they didn't want to be stereotyped as emotional women by making a speech of this kind. That they didn't want to be perceived as being soft in a situation that calls for toughness."

"It calls for both," Jack said. "For sure it's a tricky line to straddle when a woman wants to show she can be both compassionate and tough-minded. Look at how Hillary got all tangled up in whether or not to vote for the war with Iraq. She eventually voted for it in large part to show she had cajones."

"Along with most other Democratic senators," I said, "Half of whom were thinking about running for president, she botched this and paid the price."

"So this wasn't so bad after all," Jack said.

"What wasn't?" I asked.

"Spending a little quality time with me." He laughed. "When was the last time we agreed about anything?"

Rona said, "I'm not sure we're agreeing now."

"Let's order some food," I said. "Sarah."