August 31, 2020--Dukakis Redux

The Republican convention behind him, Trump immediately took to the road.

First stop, all in one day, New Hampshire then Louisiana and Texas hit hard last week by Hurricane Laura. This was not going to be his Katrina.

Then, he announced, that on Tuesday, tomorrow, he plans to visit Kenosha, Wisconsin where Jacob Blake was shot in the back seven times by local police. 

God knows what he'll say and do while there.

Next, he'll probably make his way to Portland, Oregon, where over the weekend a Trump supporter was shot and killed during a confrontation between far-left and far-right demonstrators. Trump's visit will likely be inflammatory.

All the while where was Joe Biden and what was he up to as Tump was making these telegenic stops?

In his basement, delivering a speech remotely to the American Legion convention.

Oh yes, he also announced he'll resume in-person campaigning after Labor Day.

After Labor Day? What's wrong with today? What was wrong with last week?

Does he want to be president? Is he aware of what his absence from the campaign trail suggests about his 77 year-old stamina? 

Trust me, nothing good.

This reminds me of Michael Dukakis's ill-fated 1988 run for the presidency. His opponent was the not-very-popular or charismatic George H.W. Bush, Ronald Reagan's vice president. 

For a while Dukakis's's strategy seemed to be working. A few months before Election Day he built a 17-point lead in the polls. And so, what did he do? Sat on his lead while he effectively stopped campaigning, he said, so he could concentrate on his day job--governor of Massachusetts. And I assume, practice his inaugural speech. 

But every once in a while Dukakis did get out to participate in a campaign stunt. The best known of these was his ride in a military issue 68-ton M1-A1 Abrams Tank. 

Pictures of the diminutive governor with his head barely visible above the armor plate made H.W. by comparison look like a super hero. And from the minute pictures of this began to circulate, Dukakis's poll numbers began to plummet and a few months later George H.W. Bush was the one measuring drapes for the Oval Office.

(Of course it didn't help that Republicans played the race card when  they circulated pictures of the very black menacing murderer, Willie Horton, who Governor Dukakis ordered released on weekend furlough and while free committed armed robbery and rape.)

Unless Biden gets mobilized, a few weeks from now I suspect that he and Trump will be in a statistical dead-heat and who knows where things will wind up. 

February 18, 2020--The Final Seven

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

November 20, 2018--Jack's Take

"I know, you think I've been ignoring you"--that had occurred to me--"Well, I have been. Since Election Day." Jack was on the line. 

"How," Jack said. "did Obama put it after the 2010 midterms? That he and the Democrats took a 'shellacking'? Well, that just happened to us. Republicans in general and Trump and his people specifically. As he put it, it was as if he was on the ballot. Which is true. He made the election all about him and try as he might to spin what happened as a big win it was a disaster."

"I agree with this but frankly I'm surprised you are feeling this way. You prided yourself for having been the first person in town to put out Trump lawn signs. And the first person I know who very early on--when he seemed like a joke--to have predicted that not only would Trump win the nomination but also that he would win the election."

"Well let me then be the first Trump person you know to predict that if he runs for reelection (and that is not a certainty) he will lose. Except for two things."

"What pray tell are those?"

"Number one, if you guys nominate Bernie or, number two, you nominate Warren. Two losers. Even a weakened Trump would easily beat either one of them. They're going to win Pennsylvania or Ohio or Michigan or Florida or Wisconsin? States that the ultimate winner needs to carry? Get real. This is not going to happen with a candidate who will be almost 80 in 2020, who's from Brooklyn originally and now from Vermont, a socialist no less? Or a Harvard professor who's from Massachusetts? From my perspective it should only happen."

"I don't entirely disagree with you," I said, "The Dems this time around were really smart about who they ran for Congress. Military veterans, some in the right places who are social conservatives, a few deficit hawks, some who go to church regularly, and others who support the Second Amendment. Up in Maine one of the Democrats running for the House--and who won, Jared Golden--ran a whole bunch of commercials that included video of him on a rifle range."

"Yeah, they ran a lot of Republicans who pretended to be Democrats."

"Not true," I said, "the people I am talking about are mainly Democratic moderates and they appealed to a lot of people who in the past were called 'Reagan Democrats' because for decades they had voted the straight Democratic ticket but switched to vote for Reagan after the Democrats began to run candidates who were too elitist, too liberal, too out of touch with average people. Like Michael Dukakis."

I continued, "But what about the Mueller investigation? What happens if he issues a report that exposes all sorts of criminal activity carried out by Trump and his family?"

"That would be the best thing that could happen to us."

"What?" I was incredulous, "It's only 10:30 in the morning but have you been drinking?"

"No, and I'm taking my meds." He chuckled, sounding like the old swaggering Jack.

"I'm glad to hear that, but deal with the issue--what will happen when Mueller exposes all sorts of crimes--big ones--backed up with  emails and recordings of cell phone calls and the corroborating testimony of Michael Cohen, Paul Manafort, and a half dozen others? I fail to see how that could that be good news from your perspective."

"Look, it's obvious that all Republican in Congress and the right-wing media are terrified that if they say anything critical of Trump--forget negative--he will support people when they are up for reelection to go after them in primaries. No matter what he does a core of Republicans, maybe half of them, will stick with him and vote as he tells them to vote. Even, remember, if he kills someone on Fifth Avenue. In other words, Trump would primary anyone who says a critical thing about him. At least that's what has them shaking in their boots." He paused to hear my reaction.

"I need to run in a few minutes so could you speed this up?"

"You're back in New York, the Big Satan, for a couple of days and already you're in a rush."

"Well, I am. I happen to have a doctor's appointment."

"Nothing too serious, I hope."

"I'll let you know the next time we talk. But, please, finish your thought about Mueller."

"Simple--his report will give these quivering Republicans political cover."

"I think I see where you're heading with this."

"If Mueller provides conclusive evidence of high crimes and misdemeanors, Republicans will begin to back away from Trump, claiming their behavior--behavior they look forward to displaying since softening up their rhetoric is the only way to save themselves. They will say, 'What are we supposed to do with this mountain of evidence? Ignore it?' They have no choice but to back away from Trump while absolving themselves of blame. They might even fool enough people to win some primaries, rescuing themselves because by 'reluctantly' (put that in quotes) accepting what Mueller reports they will be able to pretend that they were reluctant Trump supporters all along. It will remove what wind is left in Trump's sails. It will be like hiding behind Mueller's skirt. This is why the ever-slippery Lindsay Graham is sounding as if he is uncoupling himself from Trump. He'll soon be on the lookout to find someone new to cuddle up to."

"I can see all of this happening. But why, from your perspective, is this good news? With your boy, Trump being brought down?"

"Here's the dirty little secret." Jack lowered his voice as if not wanting to be overheard. "Because Trump is being exposed as a loser. His whole thing has been to present himself as a winner. Remember during the campaign he kept saying, 'There will be so much winning you'll get tired of winning?'"

"I remember that."

"Well, after Election Day and the Mueller report he won't be able to get away with saying that anymore. Seeing nearly 40 Republican seats in the House flip to Democrats doesn't look like winning. Especially to Republicans in Congress who care only about their version of winning--getting reelected. Wait and see what will happen to Republican senators up for reelection in 2020 if they stay rafted up with Trump."

"But you already have him either not running in two years or if he does defeated by a Dem other than Sanders or Warren. So you have me totally confused about what you think or would like to see happen. Not what Republicans in general or members of Congress are up to. Let me put it to you directly--do you want Trump to be reelected or defeated? Or maybe just disappear?"

Half ignoring me, Jack said, "After last Tuesday there's blood in the water and everyone in Congress knows that. The Mueller report will just be the clincher. But crucial nonetheless since the Republicans can use it to justify their own independence from Trump and will not need to depend on riding his coat tales."

"But," Jack continued, still hushed, "Here's the secret--Trump will lose even to Elizabeth Warren."

"What?" It's that bad for him? I thought you said she or Bernie would lose? Now I'm totally confused."

"To tell you the truth I was trying to make myself feel better. I wasn't thinking things through. I was trying to begin to reconcile myself to a very unpleasant situation. The prospect of Warren or Sanders in the White House."

"But, remember me and my lawn signs," Jack said, "In the prediction business I have a pretty good track record. Though next time around things won't turn out so good."

"Again, what are you predicting? We're on the phone but I can feel you smiling. Like you're playing with me. And now I have to go, without enough time to be able to figure out what you're saying about your own position."

"Good luck with the doctor," he said, laughing and hanging up.

May 15, 2017--The Democrats' Bench

Mike Pence is not the only one who goes to sleep at night dreaming about becoming president. Dozens of Democrats are doing the same thing.

In Pence's case, obviously, he's thinking impeachment and resignation. Nixon redux.

In the case of the Democrats, they're thinking about the 2020 primaries.

Most preposterous are Hillary Clinton, who is thinking the third time around might be the charm; Joe Biden, who has been running for president for almost as long as the legendary Harold Stassen; and Bernie Sanders, who more than anything else has come to love the sound of cheering crowds and his own voice.

Preposterous because in 2020, in the aggregate, these three will be 230 years old.

My guess is that Al Gore and John Kerry are stirring about and probably--if he's still alive--Michael Dukakis.

Enough with the jokes. Let's get serious and see who is really in contention.

Other than Bernie and Joe, everyone agrees that Elizabeth Warren is the clear frontrunner. I can see that though it is hard to imagine an east coast liberal Democrat Harvard professor winning the general election. But it's a long way off and Trump is already looking so vulnerable that even she could win.

Then again, if Trump manages to make it through four years, decides to seek a second term, and we're deep in a war with North Korea, Trump could be reelected because of the natural inclination not to want to change leaders when the country's at war. On the other hand, tell that to Lyndon Johnson.

So, the Democratic nomination is a valuable political asset and thus we have a large field of potentials already circling while denying any interest. Except, again, poor old Joe Biden who has all but announced he's running.

If Elizabeth Warren and the three septuagenarians are the top tier, the second tier includes--

New Jersey senator Cory Booker; New York governor Andrew Cuomo; Minnesota senator Al Franken; newly-minted California senator Kamala Harris; two-term Washington governor, Jay Inslee; former Virginia senator and 2016 Veep candidate, Tim Kaine; current Virginia governor Terry McAuliffe; Connecticut senator Chris Murphy; Ohio senator Sharrod Brown; and New York senator Kirstin Gillibrand.

Longer shots include--

Steve Bullock, governor of Montana; Eric Garcetti, mayor of Los Angeles; Colorado governor John Hickenlooper; Minnesota's other senator Amy Klobuchar; New Orleans mayor Mitch Landrieu, Representative Seth Moulton from Massachusetts; Oregon senator Jeff Merkley; and Martin O'Malley, former governor of Maryland and 2016 Democratic primary candidate (remember him?).

Much more interesting are four corporate types who haven't ever run for anything--

Mark Cuban, popularly known as a regular on the reality TV show, Shark Tank; Howard Schultz, founder of Starbucks (best know for caffeinating America and much of the rest of the world); Sheryl Sandberg (Facebook COO best known for teaching women how to "lean in"); and her boss Mark Zuckerberg (best known for not owning a suit).

There you have it--the Democrat's bench. There are others. This is just the off-the-top-of-my-head list.

One thing most have in common, and it's a potential problem--no one knows who most of these folks are or even recognizes their names. Probably the best known is Mark Cuban. If true, doesn't that tell us something?

On the other hand, in 2007 who ever heard of Barack Obama?