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."

September 6, 2016--Enthusiastic About Hillary

I've been doing my quadrennial survey of political yard signs and bumper stickers. A methodology admittedly not Rasmussen or Quinnipiac level, but I did get the winners right the last two cycles. Pretty much including their percentages, which were the same as the yard sign and bumper sticker ratios.

So what do I see trending?

Thus far I've noticed just one Trump yard sign and two or three stickers. No signs yet for Hillary though I have seen four "Hillary for America"stickers affixed to car bumpers. Two on one car, which presents a tallying problem. Maybe I'll check in about what to do with the Real Clear Politics folks.

Over coffee, I've been hearing more enthusiasm for Trump than for Clinton. Though admittedly, this too is a small sample. The "enthusiasm" for Trump, however, has been waning the more he campaigns and runs off at the mouth.

One Trump friend said the other morning, while gesturing dismissively, "I can't stand him but I'm voting for him. Things needs to be shaken up. I don't want to talk about it."

A Hillary supporter, also gesturing dismissively, said, "I can't stand her but she's not Trump and it's time for a woman to be elected."

"So you are not even a little enthusiastic?"

"Maybe I am. She's the most qualified person ever to run for president. Minimally, more so than any recent candidates."

"On paper at least."

"Look at her resumé. All the important jobs she's had. First Lady, senator, Secretary of State . . ."

"All true and impressive--though it was by marriage that she became First Lady--but what did she accomplish in any of those roles? Having those jobs is impressive, very, but what did she achieve?"

"More than anything else that's what she achieved."

"I'm not following you."

"That she got those jobs by election or nomination. That's what she achieved."

"I'll grant you that just securing these assignments is impressive, but that's not the kind of accomplishments I'm asking about."

"Now I'm not following you."

"While she was Secretary of State did things get better in the Middle East--Libya, Syria, ISIS? With Russia? With China? That's what I want to know."

"Well, as I said, I'm enthusiastic."

Listening to this, someone sitting at the diner's counter summed up what I've been hearing--"One's a bigot and the other's a liar. You choose. Me? I'm voting Libertarian."

Confused about what to make of this, I called a feminist friend back in New York City who has been enthusiastic about Hillary Clinton since at least 2008.

She's still enthusiastic--sort of--and has no doubts about the timeliness of Hillary's campaign to crack through the highest and hopefully last glass ceiling.

"Do you have any ambivalences about her?" I asked.

"Not really," she said.

"Not even about the emails and the way in which the Clinton Foundation operated during the time she was secretary of state?"

Not really," she said then added sounding half-hearted, "They all do it."

"And that makes it OK with you?"

"More or less. But, look, more than anything else," unable even to speak his name, added, "she's not him."

"Can I run by you a couple of concerns I have about her to see what you have to say? I want to do this because I intend to vote for her but not without reservations."

"Sure."

"First about her health since if she is elected when inaugurated she'll be 69."

"These days 69 is young."

"To be president? Look at the toll it's taken on the much-younger Obama."

"Women are stronger then men and live longer."

"Actuarially that's true, but did you read the two-page report about her health that her internist wrote last year?"

"Did you read his?"

"I did. It was a complete joke and a fraud, but at the moment we're talking about Hillary."

"I didn't read it."

"If I told you it said, quoting from the two-pager, that she had blood clots in 1998, 2009, and more seriously 2012 when she had a 'transverse sinus venous thrombosis in her brain,' what would you say?"

"That she's over it."

"What if I told you, quoting the New York Times, that Bill Clinton said that the symptoms 'required six months of very serious work to get over'?"

"I'd say move on."

"And that she takes Coumadin to reduce the chances of stroking?"

"As I told you I'm voting for her enthusiastically."