March 30, 2020--TRUMP Care

It is obvious that Trump hates everything associated with Barack Obama. Especially Obamacare.

Not because Trump has problems with what's included in the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare's actual name)--I am certain he has no clue about what's in it. But the one thing he does know is that it will always be thought of as Obamacare. 

Ironically, Republicans who hoped it would turn out to be a disaster mockingly labeled it "Obamacare" so the public would forever associate it with Obama's legacy.

Well, they will turn out to be right--the millions covered by Obamacare will always think of it as connected with Obama, the compassionate president who willed it into being.

On the subject of social and political policies named for people, think about the postwar Marshall Plan, named for Truman's secretary of state, George Marshall; think about the Fulbright Fellowship program named for its lead congressional sponsor, Arkansas senator William Fulbright; think about the Nixon Doctrine which articulated a strategy to contain the Soviet Union in Eastern Europe. And of course there is the granddaddy of all doctrines, the Monroe Doctrine, named for president James Monroe, who sought to limit European involvement in the Americas. 

And then there is the aforementioned Obamacare. Different than the generic Medicare and Medicaid. Both could have been named for President Lyndon Johnson--Johnson Care--who was able to get them approved by a reluctant Congress.

On the other hand, in New York City alone there are numerous buildings named for Trump--TRUMP Tower, TRUMP Parc, and TRUMP Plaza. I could go on. And on. 

On all of these properties in huge gilded letters, visible from miles away, we can see the TRUMP name blazoned on the facades. 

(An interesting sidebar--residents of many of these properties have successfully petitioned to have the TRUMP name removed.)

Further, Trump gets malicious pleasure coming up with nasty nicknames for those he opposes or dislikes.

So, among many others, we have Sleepy Joe Biden, Howdy Doody for Pete Buttigieg, and Pocahontas for Elizabeth Warren.

The latest nasty name is the "China Virus." Excoriated for this as racist, Trump has sort of backed off. But he knows his base loves this sort of xenophobia.

But before moving on, I have a suggestion--let's name the COVID-19 virus the TRUMP Virus. 

He's so obsessed with himself that he might actually like this.

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 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 12, 2020--A Squeaker

For those concerned about Bernie Sanders' ability to defeat Trump in November, for those who are concerned that Bernie seems unstoppable on the road to the nomination, the results yesterday in New Hampshire should be a bit of a relief.

Bernie, in a state next door to his Vermont, managed to squeak by Peter Buttigieg by a scant 1.3 percentage points. A
state Sanders carried four years ago by 20 points.

And, if you combine Amy Klobuchar's votes with Mayor Pete's (44 percent) and contrast them to the total the socialists Bernie and Elizabeth Warren garnered (35 percent), Bernie looks even more vulnerable.

So moderation was the story of the night. Not Bernie's victory.

What is yet to unfold will be very interesting.

February 7, 2020--Calm Down

Calm down everybody. As maddening as the situation is in Iowa, by Tuesday at the latest everyone will be talking about how Pete Buttigieg did in New Hampshire (very well) and how poorly Biden faired (very poorly).

The good news is that November is nine months from now and matters are in our hands. It has been and still is all about voting. 

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.

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."

June 13, 2019--Trump Slump

We've been in Maine more than five weeks and I have spent about five minutes watching Morning Joe. 

Not each day, but five minutes totally. And for at least half that time I wasn't paying attention.

This is me who back in the city was about addicted to Joe Scarborough's early morning show and Nicole Wallace's on MSNBC later in the day.

My rationalization for tuning out is that the 2020 election is more than 17 months away and I do not want to peak too soon in my effort to help dispose of Trump.

But though I may be pooping out, or, as I prefer to think about it, pausing, Trump at 73 is tirelessly racing around the country appearing at pep rallies and spending hours each day tweeting up storms of noxious abuse that he hurls against his opponents. Mainly recently, Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden. 

Forgotten for the moment is that the week before there were others who bedeviled Trump and as a result were mocked by him--remember Robert Mueller and Bette Midler among others? Yes, "Boogie-Woogie Bugle Boy" Bette Milder, who he called from the beaches of Normandy, on D Day, a "washed-up psycho."

And that's sort of the point--he sends out such a continuous stream of political gas that he creates a new norm, and unless one is careful it is easy to get sucked into it or want to retreat to the sidelines.

So I am finding, not just anecdotally, that many people are seeking distractions. Even Trump people. His rallies are less well attended and somewhat less rapturous. But just as I expect Democrats to return to the fold, or minimally resume following the campaign, I expect most of Trump's people will as well. So I don't see much of an edge there.

Conventional wisdom (which with Trump has not always been that wise) suggests that in national elections people do not start paying attention until the Labor Day before Election Day. And in the current case, if this holds true, we're talking about two Labor Days from now. The one this year and another in September 2020.

Yes, the Democratic nomination process kicks into high gear in 13 days when there is the first debate, spread over two days, among the 20 or 75 candidates seeking the nomination. (Another debate will follow in July so by August I'm afraid that hardly anyone will be paying attention to the Democrats.)

Party activists, though, will track what is happening as the debates are viewed as elimination rounds where those who languish in one-percent land at the end of June will begin to drop out. New York City mayor, Bill de Blasio, for example.

And, yes, on the other side of the equation the debate is an opportunity for someone or two to emerge from the pack. Elizabeth Warren or Pete Buttigieg, for example, who recently have been doing well in the polls. In Iowa at least. 

Many Dems seem to be looking for an alternative to oldsters Sanders and Biden, both of whom are looking as if they are readier to move into a care facility than the White House. Though 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue is the ultimate care facility. The president even has his own in-house physician and emergency room.

In spite of what I've just said, I suspect for some time I won't be tuning in to "Morning Joe." Except, perhaps, for a couple of days later in the month just before and after the first debate. 

Though it appears that Joe himself these days hardly ever turns up for his own show.

May 30, 2019--The Democratic Horse Race

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"What about Beto?" I asked.

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

April 16, 2019--Mayor Pete

It has been quipped than when it comes to supporting presidential candidates Democrats fall in love while Republicans fall in line.

I worry that the current surge in enthusiasm for Democratic candidate, South Bend mayor Pete Buttigieg, might be an example of this.

People in the progressive media on Monday were gaga about Mayor Pete's Sunday announcement speech (delayed at least two hours since his people wisely realized that viewers were tuned into another historic event--Tiger Woods' victory at the Masters and would not switch away to watch Buttigieg's declaration).

It was a good speech and well delivered but should we already be advising him about what curtains to order for the Oval Office?

I'd recommend being a little careful about getting ahead of things, not allowing infatuation to get in the way of cold calculation. That calculation has all to do with Democrats nominating the person who has the best chance to defeat Trump. For me, this time around, all I am obsessed about is voting Trump out of office. I'll worry about policy issues after that gets taken care of.

The mayor is obviously very smart and, if true that he wrote his announcement speech, that too is impressive. I like the idea that he is beginning his run for the nomination by introducing himself to voters before burying us in dozens of policy papers about everything from the climate to education to animal rights.

And I very much like his idea that this is not just about winning in 2020 but about "wining the era." It is time for his generation to take responsibility for the fate of our system and our role in global affairs. The current generation of leaders made a mess and new ideas and youthful energy are essential if we are to have a chance to rescue ourselves.

There is enough time between now and the Iowa caucuses (which I think he has a good chance of winning) to take the time to roll things out thoughtfully. He should take advantage of the current enthusiasm, but be careful not to become overexposed and thereby flame out, relegated to political flavor-of-the-month status. We've seen that before.

But we have to be equally careful to scrutinize his capacity to win and, of course, consider what kind of president he would make if elected.

I am concerned that though in many ways his youth (he is "only" 37) is an asset to many it might also be viewed as a liability.

How assuring is it to imagine Buttigieg seated at the head of the conference table in the Situation Room when a major crisis is underway? Say, North Korea launching missiles that may or may not be headed toward Japan? Or California?

He might benefit politically that a majority of Americans may fear that Trump might stumble into this kind of crisis, but does Mayor Pete pass the commander-in-chief test or the three-o'clock-in-the-morning telephone call test?

Further there is the gravitas challenge. How does he do on that one? Again, better than Trump. But better than all other Democratic candidates?

Also, as a Democrat, to be elected it is imperative that he is able to appeal to a wide coalition of voters, especially people of color. It did not appear that there were many African Americans at his Sunday announcement rally. Being practical, we would be wise to pay attention to this.

Finally, how does Buttigieg stack up when it comes to these electability concerns when compared to, say, Biden? Biden, who has all sorts of his own problems might still do better.

Bottom line--feeling enthusiastic, we also need to be smart about how we think our way though this. He may turn out to be the real deal (I think he in fact will) but it is way to soon to consider consummating our relationship.