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 19, 2020--Newbie Bloomberg

Among many people I know, mainly older friends, I am sensing a building enthusiasm for the candidacy of Mike Bloomberg.

They are in general high-information folks who are well aware of Stop and Frisk, redlining, and his too frequent misoginy. They were antiwar protesters in their youth and have been politically active in progressive causes in many ways through the years.

Thus, they are reluctant to be quoted but are quickly coming to support Bloomberg.

Not because they feel he will be a great president, not because they believe he will unify the country or inspire the young but because they feel he is the only one who can defeat Sanders, who they see to be unelectable, and because he is electable and thus has the best chance to save us from four more years of Trump.

So, I did some calling around and almost everyone I spoke with reported feeling optimistic for the first time in what feels to them like forever.

One told me, as a life-long feminist and Democratic activist, she is embarrassed to tell her friends how she is inclining. She also said, as with Trump in 2016, people like her if surveyed will not acknowledge they is planning to vote for someone so flawed. And vote with growing enthusiasm and hope.

So we'll see how tonight goes at the Democratic debate. If Bloomberg is able to deal with the wave of criticism that will inevitably come his way we may see the election transformed.

Minimally, it will not be boring.

February 18, 2020--The Final Seven

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

February 17, 2020--Buying the Election

As Mike Bloomberg rises in the polls to perhaps second place behind Sanders, his opponents, none more than Bernie, accuse him of trying to "buy the election." 

Bloomberg is worth $62 billion, is America's 6th richest person, and has said he will spend at least $2.0 billion of this fortune on his campaign for the presidency  

Anyone who watches TV or has a smart phone no matter where in America they live can get a sense of what $2.0 billion buys you--endless ads approved and paid for by Bloomberg, a mammoth social media blitz, and a flood of Bloomberg-generated memes to chew on.

In addition, it buys you a well-paid team of operatives to carry out your ground game.

And ultimately, it may help get you the presidency.

It is true on one important level (having virtually limitless money available to fund a campaign for the presidency) that money may help "buy" Bloomberg the election.

I placed quotation marks around "buy" because there are additional ways to think about the purchasing power of money in elections. 

A glaring example--Bernie Sanders also is trying to mobilize a fortune's worth of money to help him win the presidency.

Not his money, but yours and mine. Taxpayers' money. The key word to how this works is "mobilize," which is different than "spend."

No one asked us to approve this money, Bernie just appropriated it and plans to use it to pay for all the social programs he is promising.

Thirty to $50 trillion worth (trillion), with a whopping $30 of it for his Medicare for All plan. 

This is money we and our children and grandchildren will need during the next 25 years to fund our Social Security and whatever government-funded health care plan we will be required to live with.

Bernie's programs, of course, will not actually be paid for. Assuming Congress approves them (unlikely) their cost will get assigned to our compounding national debt. Like Bush's prescription drug plan and Trump's tax cuts for the wealthy.

There is, though, a significant difference between what Bloomberg is spending and Sanders is mobilizing--Bloomberg's money is his; Bernie's is ours.

February 14, 2020-Trump's Week

Last week was Trump's best ever.

First, with the almost unanimous vote of Republican senators he was found "not guilty" of committing high crimes and misdemeanors.

He immediately took off on an exoneration tour to bask in the regard of his most fervent followers. The crowds at his rallies were standing room only.

The stock market, his favorite economic barometer, reached record levels.

Also last week there was the jobs report. 225,000 new jobs were created, 65,000 more than expected. He took credit for this (though he doesn't deserve it--what we are experiencing is the ongoing extension of the Obama recovery) and used the good news to underscore how we are beneficiaries of the "best economy in history." (Also, not true).

And he delivered a politically effective State of the Union address, almost sounding like a normal president.

Even his approval ratings (perpetually stuck in the low 40s) crept up a bit. Just a bit.

Gullible (or craven) Republican senators such as Susan Collins claimed that impeachment would chasten him. As a result, they said he will change, become more "presidential."


We see already how that is working out. 

Also during the week it appeared that Joe Biden's campaign was collapsing. So Trump could see that his blackmailing Ukraine was working out.

Just as everything seemed to be going his way, three days ago, the credible Quinnipiac Poll published a spate of findings that was full of bad news for Trump.

From all the good news Tump was expecting a bump up in his favorabilities. As Bill Clinton did. Perhaps in a poll or two he would enter 50 percent land. 

But the opposite happened.

Of the Q Poll results the one that must have been most frustrating to him were the numbers from the head-to-head comparisons between him and each of his main rivals.

He "lost" to each of them. A few, widely--

Bloomberg topped Trump by 51 to 42 percent.  

Sanders beat Trump by 8 points, 51 to 43. 

Biden won 50 to 43.  

Klobuchar prevailed by 49 to 43 percent.

Warren led by 4 points, 48 to 44 percent. 

And Buttigieg won narrowly, 47 to 43 percent.

These numbers I am certain will shift when the results of the New Hampshire primary are factored in--Klobuchar, for example, will pick up at least a percent or two and Warren will continue to slip. None of this is good news for Trump. It shows the deep desire of people to see him voted out of office.

So, it's time for us to emerge from our fear and malaise and get on with our efforts to build on this. We're just at the beginning of the process. Our very country is at stake. 

February 6, 2020--Enough Already

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

By this I mean to their final two. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

March 9, 2019--Saturday's Rats

This past week saw heated competition for Saturday's Rat. Who among Trump's closest people tried to push their way to the top of the gangplank in a panic to get off his sinking ship? 

First there was House Minority Leader, Kevin McCarthy, whose anti-Semitic trope last November claimed that Jewish money provided by George Soros, Mike Bloomberg, and Tom Steyer was being deployed to "buy" the midterm elections. He tweeted this anti-Semitic canard and then a day later deleted it--

"We cannot allow Soros, Steyer, and Bloomberg to BUY this election! Get out and vote Republican November 6th"

McCarthy had been on a campaign to cultivate Trump in the hope that he would allow the California congressman to ascend to and keep the House leadership seat abandoned by Paul Ryan.

But McCarthy could take only so much. Especially after seeing the disastrous results of the midterm election and then sensing Republican members of Congress acting friskier and friskier, wavering somewhat in their blind devotion to Trump.

Fearing for his own fate, McCarthy screwed up what little courage he has to squeak out a statement that though he agreed that Trump has the authority to declare a national emergency wouldn't it be better not to do so. 

Trump smacked him and as with the Jewish-money allegation he quickly backed off. No profile of courage here.

So McCarthy was a contender, but there were other Republicans who showed a bit more independence. Senator Rand Paul, for instance. He led the effort in the Senate to reject Trump's emergency declaration, speaking more forcefully and not willing to back off even if it meant no more visits to Mar-a-Lago. 

Paul sounded genuine and it was clear that establishing a few degrees of separation from Trump is perhaps a good strategy for him if he intends one more run at the presidency. 

Here is a little of what Paul said--

"I think he’s wrong, not on policy, but in seeking to expand the powers of the presidency beyond their constitutional limits.”

Moving quickly down the list of aspirants, there are a couple of others scrambling for the title--Mat Drudge in the Drudge Report declared Trump "swamped" after the Cohen testimony and the collapsed summit with Kim Jong-un; and Trump fave, Lou Dobbs who excoriated the president for his failed immigration and economic policies. He said Trump and the White House, "have lost their way."

Runner up though in the rat race is Ty Cobb. Not a household name, he was among Trump's first small group of lawyers hired to deal with the Mueller investigation. He is one of Washington's most esteemed attorneys and some wondered why he would want to sully himself by association with the likes of Trump. 

A fair question but one with an easy answer--even the most reprehensible individuals are entitled to strong legal representation. 

But Cobb, after leaving Trump, seeking to reestablish his reputation among the Washington establishment, in an interview with ABC News, felt the need to clarify why he agreed to be involved with Trump.

Among other things he said-- 

Mueller is an "American hero" and the probe he is leading is not a "witch hunt." He rejected the president's repeated characterizations of the Russia investigation and the man leading it.

This week's Saturday Rat, though, is Matt Whitaker. 

Remember him? Trump appointed Whitaker acting Attorney General after he finally tortured Jeff Sessions enough that he quit. At the time, as Whitaker was so obviously unqualified, it was thought that he got the job because he publicly boasted that he, like Michael Cohen and others, would "take a bullet" for Mr. Trump. This led Trump to assume he would take the initiative to fire Mueller.

That even a dunderhead such as Whitaker refused to do, but he may have perjured himself when he testified before the House Judiciary Committee.

The Wall Street Journal reported--

"The House Judiciary Committee believes it has evidence that President Trump asked Matthew Whitaker, at the time the acting attorney general, whether Manhattan U.S. attorney Geoffrey Berman could regain control of his office’s investigation into Mr. Trump’s former lawyer and his real-estate business, according to people familiar with the matter."

After the next Attorney General, Robert Barr, was confirmed and took office, Whitaker was given a no-show job at the DOJ. But after just a few weeks, under cover of darkness, like Omarosa, he departed. No one seems to know where he is and what he might be up to.

My favorite speculation, which I am attempting to promulgate is that he is in a safe house somewhere, spilling what he knows to Mueller's investigators in the hope they will grant him immunity from prosecution for lying to Congress. 

Wouldn't it be confirming if he could provide corroborating evidence that Trump did in fact try to get him to assign a Trump-friendly U.S. attorney who would back off from investigating Trump and his family's nefarious business dealings in New York City?

Therefore, though there are other strong contenders, Matt Whitaker is this week's Rat!

June 22, 2106--Who's Afraid of the NRA?

Who's afraid of the NRA? Pretty much every Republican member of Congress--House and Senate--and a smattering of craven Democrats.

And what are they afraid of? Simple--they fear that if they vote for even modest restrictions on assault weapons the NRA will "primary" them--run and fund someone against them who hews slavishly to the NRA line.

Why is the NRA threat so powerful that almost all Republicans in lock step will resist any piece of legislation that the leadership of the NRA perceives to be against its own self interest? Not the legislator's, not the nation's, not even the vast majority of NRA members.

This is less clear since between 70 and 80 percent of NRA members actually support stronger background checks and restrictions on assault weapons and ammunition magazines that hold up to 100 rounds of ammunition. Ideal weapon systems to commit mass murder as in Orlando 10 days ago.

One would think that if an incumbent voted for some modest limitations, such as the ones voted down by the Senate this week, it would please the vast majority of his or her constituents.

Thus, I remain puzzled. It seems like an easy choice--vote to restrict, even forbid the sale of weapons to anyone on the no-fly and terrorist watch lists and easily get reelected.

But, among others, Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell, robotically following the NRA-GOP talking points, when urging senators to vote against four modest pieces of legislation that would restrict the sale of weapons to potential terrorists, said that to approve any bill would be tantamount to voting to deal with symptoms and not the cause. The cause in this case fighting ISIS since the Fort Hood, San Bernardino, and Orlando shooters all said they committed mass murder in support of the Islamic State.

This would be like McConnell saying we shouldn't treat the symptoms of cancer but should focus solely on its cure. Ignoring the obvious--do both, as we do, at the same time.

The NRA funds various PAC groups and the campaigns of individual members of Congress as a way to assure its agenda continues to have congressional protection--the unrestricted sale of all forms of weapon systems. Even to criminals and possible terrorists. Their perverse logic--if even these common sense restrictions were enacted into law they will be followed immediately by Democrats and President Obama moving to eliminate the Second Amendment.

Of course this is preposterous. But there you have it.

I have one suggestion--former New York City mayor Mike Bloomberg has spent tens of millions of dollars to support gun control legislation. Thus far this has been ineffective. Why not a change of strategy--offer to fund on a two-for-one basis any money deployed by the NRA leadership to stop all forms of anti-gun legislation and to fund primary opponents of members of Congress who are targeted (pardon the metaphor) during primary season?

The NRA itself plus organizations and individuals that fund efforts to defeat gun control legislation and candidates who vote in favor of these restrictions spend about $37 million a year. Bloomberg, whose net worth is $44.6 billion, could easily come up with $75 million annually until sensible legislation is approved and signed into law.

Hillary Clinton was right--"Enough."

Wayne LaPierre, NRA Executive Vice President

September 11, 2014--The Poor Door

I am beginning to feel badly for New York City real estate developers. You know, the ones who build condo towers that they squeeze into the cityscape that rise 50, 75, 100 stories. Where third-floor apartments start at $10 million and top prices soar even higher than the triplex penthouses. It is not unheard of for some Russian oligarch or Persian Gulf gazillionaire to plop down $75, $90 million for a pad of their dreams that they inhabit at the most a few weeks a year.

The new mayor of New York City (who replaced Mike Bloomberg who is worth $33 billion), Bill de Blasio, a self-proclaimed man of the people, in now insisting that to get city approval to add a few more stories beyond the allowable limits, as part of the deal, builders have to agree to add some "affordable housing" units to the otherwise gilded towers.

As you might imagine, these real estate moguls are not happy about this. They fear that someone willing to shell out tens of millions for an apartment will not be eager to share an elevator with the unwashed. Much less the in-house gym, pool, game rooms, spa, or concierge services.

So what to do?

One project that hit the news a few weeks ago is at 62nd Street on Riverside Boulevard, a tony address facing the Hudson River where there will be 33 floors of condos with bargain basement  prices beginning at about $5 million and ranging up to only $25 million

They figured out how to handle the problem--build separate entrances, elevators, and facilities for those lucky enough to win the affordable-housing lottery. (That's indeed how buyers earning less than $50,000 a year will be selected--their names will be drawn from a hat).

Liberals in the city--most of whom are themselves affluent and living in their own upper-middle-class enclaves--are outraged, calling this plan separate but unequal and have labeled the alternate entrance a "poor door."

Under pressure, the developer agreed to spiff up the entrance with marble veneer, tasteful furnishing and appointments, and chandeliers.

Others have figured out even cleverer ways to protect their high-end clients from, well, the rest of us.

Reported in the New York Times a few days ago are plans for a new loft building in one of the city's highest-rent downtown districts--Soho.

The ten lofts there will go for $8.7 to 25 million, averaging about $3,200 a square foot.  But that's not the news. These days that's chump change.

The real news is about the ten underground parking spaces.

On a first-come-first-serve basis each will sell for a cool million. To be fair, they will be generously proportioned, about 200 square feet, so there is little danger of getting too many of those annoying dings in your doors.

But here's the real news--at a million each, depending on the actual size of the parking spaces, the square foot cost is much more than for the apartments--ranging from $5,000 to $6,666.

More news--you don't actually own the parking space. Rather, for your million, you'll get only a 99-year lease.

That shouldn't be a problem for most of us except, perhaps, for my 106 year-old mother. What would she do with her old Buick?